The Express.
London, England, 1847-05-19 00:00:00

JOURNED DEBATE.

The order of the day having been read,
Mr. CHRISTIE had moved the adjournment of the
debate on the previous night, not with any view to delay the
decision of the house, but warmly approving of the principles
o
f the act of 1834, and believing in the absolute neterity et
a censral commission, with large discretionary pump, It
aid, guide, and control the parochial authorities, eel to
ceive a uniform adherence to those principles, coraliel with
the power of adaptation to the extra:Am
circumstances and time ;he was desirous of expreuhig his
concurrence in the objects of the present measure. The only
clause to which he objected was that which made the opera
Lion of the measure temporary, for notwithstanding what
the hon. member for Knaresborough had said, he thought the
time had arrived when the poor-law should be placed above
the disadvantage of that suspicion which he feared would
attach to it if the bill was merely to be understood u a re-
newal of the existing law for five years. Peat experience
showed that additional securities were required for the
correct administrvtion of the law. For this the present

bill provided in three ways—first, by the - direct
responsibility in parliament to which the officers employed
in that administration would be subjected ; secondly, in the
essociation of four cabinet ministers with the president, to be
appointed under the act, by which he presumed cabinet de-
liberations on every important exercise of the discretionary
powers of the commission would be ensured; and, thirdly,
to the removal of the chief officer of the commission with
every change of government. He also thought the change
in the title of the assistant-commissioners to inspectors
would be beneficial in placing the central commission in •
more fitting relation to the local administrators of the law,
and in making it apparent that there wu efficient
and constant control over those who were entrusted
with the duty of carrying out the law. The
honourable member for Knaresborough bad said that
the New Poor Low had failed and crumbled to pieces,
but had adduced no proof of his assertion. The hon. mem-
ber had coupled the principles of the act of 1834 with the
mode in which those principles had been administered. The
inquiry before the Andover committee, upon which the hon.
member had relied, was confined to points connected with
the administration of the law as distinct from the law itself.

He thought, theestore, the hon. member for Ksaresborongh
was not entitled to refer to the report of the Andover com-
mittee as a proof that the poor-law was a failure. The right
bon. gentleman (the Home Secretary), had made certain in-
quiries, to which a reply bad been given by the poor-law
commissioners. When parliament met, they were still in
office, bet the noble lord at the bead of the govern-
ment took an early opportunity of stating what would
be the provisions of a bill for the reconstruction of
the poor-law. Considering the conduct of the poor.
law commisaioners as exhibited in the report of the Andover
committee, and considering also that the commission was
about to expire in the present year, he (Mr. CVistie) was
not prepared to say but that the government, in the coarse
they were about to pursue, were exercising a wipe discretion.
Tbo tight hon. gentleman the bottle secretary, in applying
to the commissioners to give him an account of the mode in
which they conducted their business, di t not appear to him
(Mr. Christie) to take the course best calculated to elicit in-
, formation. Mr. Chadwick, the secretary, and the commis-
sinners, were at issue as to the mode n which that busi-
ness was conducted, and the commissioners, in drawing
up their statement, would naturally make eut their
own case most favourably to themselves. They had been
charged by Mr. Chadwick with keeping no regular minutes,
and diliensing with the secretary as a recording officer.
They stated in answer that in the earlier years of the com-
mission, the secretary generally attended at the board and
occasionally made rough minutes of what passed. There was,
therefore, no *variable practice either as to his attendance or
his taking minutes. He (Mr. Christie) took on himself to
say that at that time, between 1834 and 1839, the wintery
regularly attended and entered the minutes in the book.
The commissioners took rough memoranda of certain pro-
ceedings which they authenticated with their names, and
the secretary took notes of others, so that there were
materials for entering full minutes in the book.
This statement, therefore, will calculated to mis-
lead. It appeared also that the commissioners often
issued orders, not only without the signature of more than
one commissioner, but without any signature at all.
An Host. Mennen here moved that the house be counted,
but 40 members were found to be present, and
Mr. CHRISTIE resumed. The right hon. gentleman
the Home Secretary had declined to give publicity to as
opinion which had been Riven by the law officers of the
crown, but a letter of the Poor-law Commissioners bad been
published. in which they gave their opinion of the opinion of
the law .officers, and it appeared by that, that opinion was
adverse to the conduct of the commlssioamin It WY to be
inferred that all these letters had net beefs that
many letters string private Warden te the Amletsst
Commissioners hod not ham ressrded; on bat of
them, and that tingle comminlosioshad boanerthe haft of
deciding on important tpaisams, without references to the
board. He bad no hesitation in saying that the poor-law
commissioners were the authors of the digest whisk had
been referred to. That digest was assissotally prided,
and the introductory remarks oeutethed -neketate-
11111111d11. It had been extensively othealated in ma yand
no ISO add dealt that the psalm to its mow atlas were
the peaky essomfisionere themselves. The lea. member
than &laded to the eanititatien of the Aadear oostmitiee,
eat matended that that committee was most impartial in its
esubset. The anageot resolution smammussey of the
poor-law conseakehmess was soppeati by members who
wen not likely to bilto nanisadly preasedliesegarithe corn.
skarn. as delwase of the assaimismen Mr. Chadwick
He
et us a wrewebrad sad mmedtal siesetery.
He wearals to &Niue Oat Kr. Callao& arse gospered
fully tojasiNf lawn sash& on the rallectlems east upon
him. (lime. hem) Before he ISINWhii, he wished to my
one word respessing himself. When he aft beef fee.
ward his melba with respect to Mr. Porker, he hadast the
slightest idea of what was afterwards revealed. He hod
al ways bass a warm supporter of the primipios of the New
Poor-law ,• and, when opposition* It hossam • cr
amongst the constituencies of the comb y, ha pari2ted y a
pamphlet, while yet an undergraduate of Cambridge, do.
fending the prinviples of the act, and the expediency of
haying a central authority. If the ODUUthlittetl meat tow

that lobed been acteated by feelings oiliest/lily to the commis-
sits,he could say that, in two of tbata enamiesionen he had
entertained feelings of the greatest confident». He was not
surprised at the feelings which had been excited asregarded
himself; but he should ever reflect with satisfaction on the
muse which he had pursued • and he believed it would
hereafter be admitted by all parties that the inquiry which
had taken place had been attended with great benefit to the
*entry.
Mr. ETWALL said that, in the agricultural districts, •
feeling of opposition to the poor-law was gradually strength-
ening. He esw no necessity whatever (or a central board.
He believed that the Andover union formed an exception
to the rule aa regarded local government' and even
the guardians of that union bad always endeavoured to
administer the law beneficially, although they had been
thwarted in their efforts. The bawds of guardians, as now
selected, were at least as well qualified to carry out the
proper object of a poor-law as the Somerset-house commis-
sioners. If there must be a central board, be should wish to
see the whole responsibility borne by a president sitting in
that house. The present system was so rotten, that how-
ever carried on, it could neyer be satisfactory either to par-
liement or to the poor. The law had especially failed in
the agricultural districts in the West of England. The late
lasseHjsencer, in introducing the. Peoria", Bill, had pro-
phesied that the wages of the agricultural Labourer would rise
to a point sufficiently high to furnish him with the necema-
ries of life. In that respect the system had lamen-
tably failed. Ho could see no advantage in changing the
name "assistant commissioner" to " icspector"—(hear)—
nor did he anticipate that any great benefit would arise from
increasing the number of officers of that kind from 9 to 12.
During one whole year 251 unions had been unvisited by any
assistant commissioner. It was a curious fact, that those
unions which were best managed were the unions least
vi.itecl by the sub-commintionen. There could be no doubt
that they made too many regulations. The Home Secretary
said last night that one of the advantages of the law was
that it did not render imperative a strict uniformity. For
his own part, he thought just the contrary, and he much re-
gretted a uniform system had not been insisted on. With
respect, however, to the sub-commissioners, although be
thought they had ie many. cases mismanaged things, yet he
could not defend the way to which they had been dismissed.
Mr. Parker and Mr. Day were both, undoubtedly, ill-used
men. In conclusion, he would only add, that he opposed
the law simply because he believed it to be neither saran-
*geol.', to the rate receiver nor to the ratepayer; and as to
the amendment, be should give it his support, because he
believed a central board for the management ef the law nut
to be required.
Viscount COURTENAY, as chairmen of the Andover
Union committee, wished to state how fir he agreed or dis-
agreed with some of the resolutions it had passed. It was
his misfortune not entirely to have agreed with the view of
any party in the committee. He had submitted to the com-
mittee a body of resolutions, which were much discussed,
but not assented to. The general impression he had de-
rived from the evidence given before the committee
was that there was great mismanagement on the
part of the guardians—that their conduct had been
marked with great harshness and much irregularity.
Ho blamed Mr. Parker's conduct of the inquiry at Andover,
but thought his conduct was not such as at all justified the
commissioners in dismissing him, as they had done, the
more especially after the laborious and highly valuable ser-
vices Mr. Parker had rendered to the board on other occa
'ions. As to the dismissal of Mr. Day, he regarded it as
wholly unwarranted. He thought that the bill before the
house would effect greater regularity in the administrution
of the law, and impose greater responsibility on its admi-
nistrators.
Captain PECHELL condemned the great extension of
power and dignity which it was proposed to give to the new
commissioners. The power given to the present board had
been quite sufficiently misused ; and, go far from increasing
the powers of the commissioners, they ought to be diminished
and checked. He referred to the fact that, notwithstanding
the decided opinion expressed by the late Secretary of State
against the filthy practice of bone-crushing,the commissioners
had continued the practice for two or thr.e years afterwards,
pretending all the while that they. knew nothing about it.
He trusted that the new commissioners would set their
faces *mina any such practices, and against all the other
acts of misconduct which, under the fostering etas et the
present commissioners, the authorities in unions bra bein
guilty. of. The bon. and gallant member passed a high
eulogium upon Mr. Parker, whose dismissal he considered ea
act of great injustice and oppression towards a most valuable'
public servant. lie also characterised Mr. Day in very
eulogistic terms.
Mr. M. SUTTON mid that three subjects of great im-
portance had been brought under notice in .he course of this
discussion. The hon. member for Knaresborough had
turned his attention principally to the act of 1834, but as it
was not intended to alter that act, he should not further
allude to it. The hon. member for Dorsetabire had objected
to the present bill, but confined himself to seconding the
amendment ef the hon. member for Knareeborough. A
third subject bad been more fully discussed, end that was,
the conduct of the poor-law commissioners. To that point
he (Mr. Sutton) should confine himself. blush al-
lusion had been made to the Andover committee, and
he must here remind the boom that he had nist
concurred in the report of that committee. He was smiled
to find that his dissent had been since ratified by the oemsswa-
renal of her Majesty's government. if the govern***
agreed in that report they woulimot have felt it conaisent
with their duty to retain in effice men who had been guilty
of suck acts as in the report were imputed to the commis-
sioners. Here be might be allowed to express his regret that the
Secretary of State had not, on the previous evening, clearly
expressed the opinions held by her Majesty's government on
this subject. Much blame had been heaped on the
Poor-law commissioners for neglect of duty. If they
had neglected to remedy abuses brought under their
notice, then would he concur in censuring them, but
if abuses had been committed by their suborcinatee, and
without their knowledge, then he held that they were in no
degree responsible. In the case of the Andover Union, this
argument was distinctly applicable. In the first place, he
held that the board of guardians were to blame, not the
assistant commisioner, i!snet reporting their conduct ; but

in no degree could the' chief commissioner be held respon-
sible for the abuses brought to light before the Andover
committee. In the conduct of the inquiry he thought that
the commissioners had not been wholly free from blame.
At the same time he must add, that he could
lot wholly agree with the report of the commit-
tee on this point. He thought that the inquiry had
not been conducted with impartiality. He next came to
that point which occupied most of the committee's time—he
meant the dismissal of Mr. Day. He thought that of Mr.
Parker much worse, but he should talus both together, to
save the time of the house. What was the position of an
assistant-commissioner ? They were held responsible fa
the acts of their subordinates. He held that that was un-
just, unless they were gel wen full power over those function-
aries The hon. member proceeded at considerable length,
to comment on the report of the Andover committee, espe-
cially as it effected Messrs. Parker and Day, and complained
that the resolution did not sustain the imputation of ill•
proper motives which had been indulged in with respect to
those officers. With regard to the bill before the house, ha
entirely approved of the reconstruction of the commission in
the way proposed. He thought great advantage would re-
sult from the c,onmissionen being brought more imme-
diately in connexion with parliament, and made acquainted
with what the house and the public required from them.
He should, therefore, support the second reading.
Mr. HENLEY moved the adjournment of the debate,
which,
After a few words from Lord J. RUSERLL and Mr. FER-
NAND, was agreed to, Thursday next being appointed for
resuming it.
LOAN DISCOUNT BILL.

Mr. NEWDEGATE ic4uired when the adjourned de-
bate on the Loan Divount Bdl would be taken.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER feared, as
it would be now impossible to pus that measure before
Whitsuntide, he must postpone it till after the holidays.

SUPPLY.

On the motion for bringing up report of the committee,
Colonel SIBTIIORP inquired whether there would be
any objection to furnish the returns he had give. notice to
move 6,r, of the amount expended oa the castle, grouuds,
and town of Windsor since 1830
. _

Lord J. RUSSELL said there was no objection to afford
the information required, though perhaps the terms of the
hon. and gallant member's motion would require some
alteration.

On the vote of 3.4001. for the Ecclesiastical Commission,
Mr. WILLIAMS complained of the vote annually called
for to keep up the ecclesiastical commission. He contended
that u that commission was appointed for church purpoees
the expense should be discharged out of the funds of the
church. He should take the sense of the house against the vote.
Lord J. RUSSELL supported the vote.
Mr. BROTH ERTON hoped his hon. friend would not
press a division, though, if he did, he must, on principle sup-
port his.
The house divided.—For the vote 76
Against it B-68
HIGHWAYS (REMUNERATION AND EXPENSE).
The house went into committee and pared resolution (or
providing these expenses.
The Poor-law (Ireland), and Landed Property (Ireland)
Bills, were brought down from the House of Lords, and, on
the motion of Lord J. Rt'SSELL were severally ordered to be
printed with the amendments made by the lords, and to be
taken into consideration on Monday the 31st inst.
The house adjourned, at half past 12 o'clock, till Thursday.