The Express.
London, England, 1847-05-18 00:00:00

TRANSPORTATION.

.....
Mr. EWART asked whether any change was contem-
plated with reference to the punishment of transportation ?
Mr. HAWES said that a discussion on the subject was
about to take place, in the course of which government
would explain their intentions respecting transportation.
POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. FERRAND rose, in conformity with his notice, to
ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the private
defence of the poor-law commissioners to the charges brought
against them before the Andover union committee (entitled.
' Letters addressed by the Poor-Law Commissioners to the
Secretary of State, respecting the transaction of the bunting
of the communion, &c., &c., &c." embellished with the royal
anon, and " printed by W. Cloves and Sons Stamford
street, for her Majesty's stationery office,")
Majesty's
been printed
and circulated with the sanction of her Mojesty's govern-
ment? If printed and circulated with the sanction of her
Majesty's government, whether he intends the expense to be
defrayed out of the public purse If printed and circulated
at the public exp.mse, so hether he will lay upon the table of
the house a statement of the expense ? The hon. gentleman
said that this puerile defence of the poordaw commissioner.
contained the moat audacious falsehoods.—as he c oul prove.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the
hon. gentlemau erroneous in terming the defence of the
commissioners a private defence, seeing that it consisted in
replies made by the commissioners to a variety of questions
officially put to them by her Majesty's Secretary of State
for the Home Department. It was quite tree that the de-
fence had been printed and published in the way stated by
the hon. member. That had been done. certainly. without
the previous sanction of government. (Hoer, hear.) But
then it had been the practice of the commissioners, ever since
the establishment of the board, to print their reports in a
form morn commodious than that of the ponderous blue-
books, and they had only adhered. to this practice in the pre-
sent insane. He did not, however, approve of the publics,
the of the document without the previous consent of the
government, and he should provent the recurrence of such
a proceeding. As to the expense being paid by the public,
he thought it quite right that the public should pay for the
production of what was essentially a public document. The
amount of expense was under 101., and he was ready to Me-
nial the items.

RELIEF COMMITTEES (IRELAND).
Mr. P. SCROPE wished to know whether the right hon.
the Secretary for Ireland was prepared to lay on the table a
statement of the operations which had taken place in Iretarsi
ander the Temporary Relief Act. That act became law on
the 26th of February las', and since that time, it appeared it
had remained a deal letter throughent a very large portion
of Ireland, to the loss of a great many hundred lives. It
was stated, on good authority, that in the union of Bantry,
the relief committee had not yet begun to work. The deaths
in that district from want, were computed to be about 1,000
a week, so that at least 13,000 lives must have been lost sines
the passing of the act. (Fleur, hear.) The question was,
who was to blame ? The Irish local papers, in which he
found these statements, 'latent d the government, and
laid all the blame on the relief committees. He found
it stated in the Cork Reporter, that the relief com-
mittee of Bantry had not as yet completed these
preliminaries. That committee consisted of 12 mem-
bers. In October last he found that two volunteers had
gone through the lieu of the destitute in a week, and yet
in six we eke these 12 committeemen bad made no P
(Hear, hear.) He would read an extract from rr=
written by a g ntleman in Bantry, which would shew the
amount of destitution in that place, and the necessity there
wee for strenuous exertion. It appeared that there had
been dug there two lame pits for the reception of such per-
sons as should have died of starvation. In one 250 bodies
had been thrown, without coffins; and in the other 6.53.
The pita were opposite Lord Berehaven's gate, and that
noble lord, on whole estates these deaths had taken plea,
originally sulaseribed 295. a month to the senp depdt, but
withdrew it on finding that the amount of his subscription
had been published. (Hear, hear.) Never since that time
had he been seen outside the locked gate of his de-
mesne. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Scoops) had some time
since moved for • return of the state of the Bantry
workhouse, and the accousta of it were certainly frightleL
The medicslinepector sent down by the government fogad
the patients In a wretched state, crowded five and six in a
bed, without a nurse or any other attendants to give them a
drop of water. That was the district in which the relief
committee had not for six weeks distributed one farthing's
worth of food. (Hear, hear.) It was a most serious matter
for inquiry, and he trusted that the right hon. the Secretary
f a Ireland would not neglect it. If the parties to whom he
had alluded had been guilty of wilful delay, there would set
be mach injustice in attributing to them the mime Mantel
murder. (Hear.) Ile had heard of fo d riots is five soar
des in Ireland, hut he did not much ender at it, if thendief
stainutitteos acted generally in the way he had describe&
Mr. LABOUCHERE regretted that the hon. ammber
for Stroud ..a4 not strictly confined himself to the gaseies
which he had given nodes. (Hear, bear.) It wee led)y
Mr, be thought, to arks a speech Imes a variety et topics
and making heavy champs against as abseat individual.
(Hear, bear.) With regard tow sent lewd whom name
had been mentioned by the boa. mamba he Strad, he
meld cely say that he had had permed saeruisatioa with
that noble lord, and. fram the intemeM -be leek is the state
M his raiehbourbood and his gee distader be, (Hr.
Lahouchere) should be very musk imam* tai Wet that
be had acted with inhumanity. (Naar, bee.) Wlkklar
gird to the hon. member's Tandem be had tan abbe Om
there we now in the p imessisa if Br 1/11111161101114 ra
second report of the relief sommimissiess, abbh. Mestbst
with the appendix, would famish the Imam with the meet
ample information as to the workiat if the act. It was In
the hands of the printer, and wadi be pretested in a few
days. In the meantime, he was eseb&d that none of the
fault of delay rested with Sir San Burgoyne or his
brother ono- tunes. (Hear, bear.) They had met

with great obstacles, the most. important efe
whleh wee
the reluctance of relief committees to administer the
act. (Heir, hear.) These difficulties had also been greatly
aggravated by the indbposition of the people to accept of re-
lief in food instead of work on the roads. They (the
people) had Iren induced to believe that by resisting the
new system, they would force the goeamment to reveries
the old ; but he trusted that the firm menner in whisk the
Irish gov.rnment had acted would uadeestm them, sod that
soon a better spirit would prevaiL He Ousted that whet be
had said would supply the place of seen lentkeeed state-
ment until the production of the report.
Mr. SHAW deprecated the conduct of the boa. member
for S•roud in making, on the Guth of an unauthorised news.
paper report, charges whist the Irish Relief Committee,
and also metes% the noble lord whose name he hadi
mentioned. He did not believe there was in the
mantes a man more anxious to do his duty se a
country untlentan then Lord Berebaven.
Mr. B. OSBORNE suggested that the hon. member far
Stroud might, weber, be seeking to revive a wailing pops.
I why among hie constituents, by attacks which were always
PM to be popular in that house. (A laugh.) He believed
the feet to b., that the Relief Act was in itself a failure, sad
that no exertiona of the committees could make it otherwise
Sir J. WALSH begged to ark the noble member fee
Stroud whether he had communicated with Lord Berehaven

prsee,us to making these charms?
Mr. P. SCROPE mid he had not. (How, hear.) He trmted
time the off-et or hi. statement would bo to produce a satia-
faevry explanation from Lord Benham.
Mr. S O'BRIEN said that in the district with which he
was aoqusin•ed in Clare, food riots had token place, and the
people had destroyed the soup kitchens. He was amino
blame could be attached to the committee. The fact was that
the people s'towed the greatest possible repugname to the
altered mode of relief.
CAPTAIN WARNER.
Lord INOESTRE said that in consequence of the obser-
vations which had fallen from the hoc, end gallant member

fee Liverpool oa a farther evening respecting Captain War-
ads and noterttltstandieg that gauntgauntMembees
thataej Was inventions were unworthy *. hither
noticeimoyfethehouse, he should take leave to reontrodeee the
subject on an early day. (A laugh.)
RULES AND ORDERS UNDER THE POOR-LAW.
Mr. FERRAND begged, putonaut to notice, to ask the
hen. and teamed Attorney-Oeuend the following questions
By what authority parliament is invested with the right to
&lovas to any person, or bode of persons, the power of
mokuitt rules sad orders which shall be so binding and
authoritative upon the people of England and Wales as an
act of parliament? If pariitmeet as not thus authorised,
by what statute can the people of Englaed and Wales be
forced to obey, as law, the rules and orders of the poor-law
commissioners? If there be no statute, have not all persons
committed to prison • for dis •boying the rules end orders of
the poor-law commissioners, been illegally deprived of their
liberty ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL apprehended that perils-
! ment had an int erent right to delegate such &whinny as
was pointed at by the hon member's first question. The
point occurred in courts of law when the judges regulated
the practide under the tither ty of 'Utak,. The same
power was exercised by the ects a-tical comet itiotare, who
promulgated their whim s and r the au•hurity of an set of
parliament With regent to the second question, the peple
were forced to obey the law by the P. or-law statute. The
third quo stiun answered itself, becaua power to commit was
given by the statute, and therefore the committals had not
taken place illegally. (A !seek )
MR. MO TT.
Mr. FERRAND asked the right hon. the Secretary for
the Home Department whether the appointment of Mr.
Mott to the effi:e of district auditor received the sanction of
the poor-law cominiesioners after he hat been dismissed from
the office of assistant poor-low commisoioner ? Whether the
poor-law commissioner,' allowed hint to hold the office of
district auditor at the time t at he was part proprietor of the
Haydock Lodge lunatic asylum, or alter the commissiouers
in lunacy declared, in their report on the state of the
Haeduck Lodge lunatic asylum. Ord Mr. Mott had failed to
full! a positive and solemn ph dgo • bich he bad given to
the justices of Lancashire, and that ho appeared quite un-
worthy of the trust, and became most negligent and remiss
in the discharge of his fanctio •a? Whether they have
allowed him to hold the office of district -sedate( of
Lancashire, while. living in the 1-le of Man, out of the
way of his creditors • alter he was seized a sheriff's
officer, when on his road: to audit the union accounts ; during
the time he was a prisoner in Lancaster Cottle, and after a
public advents onent appeared in the Times news-
paper, warning the public no. to ply him money be longing
to the proprietor* of the Halal ex Lodge Lunatic Asylum ?
Whether he has again absiodueed the diecharee of his duties
and left England, although bidding the office of district
auditor ?
Sir G. GREY said he believed that the hon. member had
not quite correctly stated the facts in his notice. Mr. Mott
had not been dismissed from the 'Aloe of assistant commis-
sioner, but left on a general reduction in his department. In
a letter which he (Sir Cl. Grey) hod received from the com-
missioners it w is stated that the district auditors were
sleeted by the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the diTerent
unions. Mr, Mo t had been commuoi e'er of the district, and
no diaqualleation existing against him, his 1131110 was sent
in as candidate for the office of auditor 'along with 37 others.
Having the majority of votes he woe appointed. The set
of parliament did not require in express terms stay sonction
of the poor law commissioners with regard to the audit. in, ex-
cept as regarded the power of dismioel. The commissioners
had not refused their sanction to Mr. Mott's appointment,
because it did not appear to them that hie connexion with
Heydock Lodge constituted any ground of unfitness. As to
the third question, the eommissiomers had within seven days
received from Mr. Mott en of ciel letter, dated Manchester,
and they 'whey, d him still to 1)P raiding in that place.
POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL.
Sir G. GREY moved the order of the day for the second
reading of the Poor-law Administration Bill.
Mr. FERRAND rose to move as an amendment that the
bill be read a second time that day six menthe. He was pre-
pared to prove that the poor-law had been a curse to the
country, and a total failure in legislation. S.I far from the go-
vernment being able to carry Rout, all its provisionshad crum-
bled into dust. What had been their conduct towards the poor ?
that night it wan his intention to *how! (Hear, bear). it
wee his intention to show to the house what were the origi-
nal intentions with which the existing poor-law was brought
forward—what had been the result of its operation then--
what would be the effect of the remedy now propcsed—he
would then prove that parliament had constitutloually no
power to psss such a law, and lastly that the poor of this
country had a sacred and inalienable right to relief. The
Poor-law Amendment Bill was 'imported on its introduction
by men who ware pre-determined to annihilate all poor-laws
in thin country, to equalise wages Li the manufacturing dis-
tricts, and to punish p.overty as a crime. Lord Brouottem
proposed the bill, bat before he did so he got a pledoe from
1,111 political p .rales that whichever should he in power
nothing should induce them to repeal the set. The chief
authority consulted by the froinien of the bill was Mr.
Malthus. On the authority of Mr. Malthus, and the
information furnished by the assistant-commissioners
appointed under the commission for inquiry into the opera-
tion of the act of El;zabeth, and who well knew the wishes
of the government, and what was expected from them, the
commissioners in Loadon drew up the dark document on
ehich the new poor-law was based—a document so
disgraceful, so scandalous, and BO wicked in its suggestions,
that the government of tne day in that house, and the
Duke of Wellington in the other denied its existence, and it
was not until a friend of his produced it that the Secretary of
State admitted that he had a faint tee I Ilection of it. 1 hat
document recommended that the poot-law comrnistiouers
should have the power to reduce bat not to enlarge tee
amount of relief given; that out-door relief should be
gradually ab ilished; that it sh nt!d bas first changed from
money to kind, and then mimed in quantity, and that, con-
current with this, a reduction in the II it t of the in-door pour
should be made. lie regretted to sar th 4 that document
bore the signatures of the Bishops of London and Chester, '
and other high rrtoorinies. Lord Althorp in that house
pledged hinuelf that some of the moat cruel enactments of
the hill should never be enforced ; in fact, that 0.1 did not
exist in the measure, though they hod been ranee acted op .n.
This bill, which was passed, notwithrandmg 5,500,000
people petitioned against it, he had now shown ;
and if he required further proof, he haO it in the
speeches of Earl Fitswilliam and other who supported
it, was brought forward and carried with the intention of
abolishing poor-laws altogether. Mr. Ferrand next re'errd
to the correspondent* of certain e Oren menufacturera (tlr.
Ashworth and Mr. Gregg) with Mr. Chadwick, the secretary
to the commi.sion, in 1834 red 1835, to show that
this measure was part of a disgraceful scheme of the
employers to rob the employed of their fair wages.
It was well knowa that the law had been faced
into operation by the beyonets of the military and the cut-
lames of the metropolitan police, who had been
sent' down into the country specially for that duty.
It was well knownthat blood had been shed in the attempt
to enforce this law, which all admitted now to have been a
failure. Whot had been the operation of the Act? They
had attempted to enforce uniformity of practice. They
had established an in-door labour te-t, and refused outdoor
relief. They had built beanies which they called work-
houses, and in these beanie. they had confinod the poor like
felons, separating husband from wife, parents from children,
sending the children miles away, and not even informing
the parents of their death. They had reduced the diet to it
scale even lower than that given in our gaols—the diet-tables
had been drawn up by a man who had made a large fortune !
by Ginning (which meant starving) the poor in the neigh- ,
hourhoud of London. They had compelled the poor to wear
the dress of felons, and refused to alluw them to leave their
prison even to attend divine worship on the S today. They
bad sold the inmates of the workhouses to the factory
masters; and the men whom they had appointed as masters
of these workhouses were mmtly disch treed soldiers, sergeants
of dragoons, by whom the pour had been oppressed, plan-
deed, and murdered. He used the word advioally, for it
had been declared by may coroners' juries that pour per-
sons had died in the workhouses from ill-treatment end
want of food. He (Mr. Femnd) had seen the bodies I
of persons who had been starred to death under
this poor-law, and he had attended a coroner's in-
quest where the jury had returned a verdict of wilful
murder against a relieving-officer, and the coroner told them
it was their duty to do so, but the man set up as his defence
the printed instructions of the Poor-law Commissioners, and
set them at defiance. By thole instructions he was wet
allowed to go one yard out of his parish to relieve any one,
and this poor woman resided only ten yards out of the
parish on the other side of a brook. In 1814, the govern-
ment came down to the house and asked for more stringent
powers, and auditors went appointed. Ho had moved for I
returns which would show, when they were laid on the
table, the manner in which those auditora had conducted
themselves. He had now by every post letters whisk
showed their arbitrary °ended. He had a letter from
the Poor-law Commissioners to the guardians of the Dudley
union reprimanding them fur treating the inmates of the
workhouse to roast beef and plum podding on Christmas
day. In 1815 the hen. member for Finsbury (Mr. Waklev)
came down to the house and modes startling statement with
regard to the poor in the Andover union—that they we so
completely starved that they were living on carrion and
fighting for the putrid flesh on the bones which they were
ordered to grind—ot least this would not be disputed. Now
they were io the year 1847, and where were the poor-law com-
missioners who had been guilty of this conduct ? It was raid
they were to be dismissed frem their offices, but still they
were dakmded and jastilled. It could not he because they
were innocent, for the public indignation could not have
been so roused unless they were eo guilty. Nut only were the!
commissioners destroyed but the uniformity of, practice was
to be given up. The nght hon. gentleman tte Home Seeretary I
said that there was not to be uniformity of practice, but at
was to vary according to the circumstances of the country.
This then was to boa varying hi•l,• bat could it he expected
that the affections and feelings a the people all over Eng-
land would vary with the provisions of this bill ? He called
on the right hon. gentleman to exp sin how it was to vary
according to circumstances, when there was such tyranny
and oppression. Let the law be defiued, that the people
might know what it mart. He had read the private defence
of the Poor-law Comatissionen, but it was an ex parte state-
ment They boasted that during thirteen years of pane-
cation of the poor th sy had saved a =Oben a year; but of
how much of at had the poer been robbed ? They may have
saved some of the rates in the math of Eeglead, but what
had they saved in the north? Tuns had been
rebellion in Weise, outbreaks' in the north, incendisrism in
the south; child-murder had increased ; coroners' jerk's re-
taraieg verdicts of murder against guardians, thereat/1 of
the rural police, an increase of 10,000 prisoners ; enlarged
gaols, and new ones beat ; the sneions in the north held
rya ry az weeks instead of twelve, winter assizes, and Mr.
Justice Coleridge had • made a statement that crime had
greatly increased ; and there were cent rel berracas at Binning-
NM hi order that the troops might be transmitted with facility
all over the country. What had produced all this but the

tyranny of the Poor law Commissioners? And the poverty I
and distress of the isometry were greater than they bad been
ahem the French revolution. These were a few of the pricer
they had paid for this law. How long did they think the
emetry would submit to it The people were sufficiently
awake on this point to make it a great question at the next
election. He had made a statement of all these facts and he
challenged any one to deny them, and if they could not
could it be said that this law was not &Were ? Now what Max
the remedwhich was proposed as a peace oaring to the
Why
people ? the same unoonatitational powers were con-
tinued under a different form. By the lint clause the power
of the poor-law coeasidalionere was transferred to four cabinet
ministers, and by the sixth clause two commissioners were
to carry into execution the powers which were vested in
them all. By the eleventh clause powers were given to
summon and examine witnesses upon oath and enforce
the production of books, &c. He asked the right
honourable gentleman the Home Secretary if ho was
going to sanction the same tyranny which.had been carried
on for thirteen years • would he sign orders- for the sepa-
ration of husband and wife and the eale of children to the
manufacturers? Übe was, he (Mr. Ferrand) would mit what
right he had to do so ? Then they were to throw some of
the responsibility on her Majesty, fir, by the 20th clause,
any new riles made by the commissioners might be disal-
lowed by her Majesty, with the advice of her privy oonneil.
But who were the privy council ? They were, in fact, the
ministers who were to advise her. Then they were to ap-
point inspectors with the same uneonditutional powers that
the poor-law commissioners possessed now, and for conduct-
ing any special inquiry the commissioners might appoint
tome person who must either be a doctor of medicine, a bar-
rister, a member of the college of surgeons, an architect, or a
surveyor, such special inquiries not to test longer than 30 days.
(" Hear, hear," from Mr. R sehuck.) Tho hon. member
for Bali cried "hear, hear," Did he mean to be an ins lector
himself? Heaven grant that he (Mr. Ferrand) might never
come under his inspection. Was he to be an assistant poor-
law colurnissioner,er perhaps president, for there sys no know-
ing what he might come to: From this tyvannaatolrhom were
toe poor to appeal ? To the government ? They were their
oppressors. To that house ? Why the government of the
day must be backed by a majority there. Were they to appeal
to their sovereign ? Why any appeal they made to the
crown must pass through the home Secretary, and though
he did not say that the present seeratary would do so, yet
there might ba home secretaries who, liae the List, would
keep back a memorial. But they could appeal to the common
law and the British ocestitution. Although the hon. end
learned gentleman the Attorom-General had answered his
questions this evening apparently very readily; yet he would
prove that that house and parliament had sus power to pax
such a law, and if they did it was null and void. (" Hem,"
from Mr. Roebuck.) Locke had laid it down " That the
legislature were to make laws not legislators." Blackstone
had stated that when the legislature and the executive were
combined there was an end of public liberty. Lord Coke laid
it down that it appeared by the books that there were cases
in which the common law controlled acts of parliament, and
they might be declared void when their enactments were
against common right, repugnant to reason, and impossible to
be performed. Magna Charts said "That none of the comes-
sloes gained were to be revoked, and if any such law was
obtained it was to be void." Lord Eldon, when on his deieh-
bed, said, " That the poor-law was an unconstitutional
law, but it was sure to peas, for anything would
miss anything now a days ; that there was no power in
the legislature to par such a bill or to enforce it, It mat-
ters came to that pass there most be a national convention.
It was a moat infamous law, and that if parliament did not
do their duly with respect to it, the people would do theirs;
hut nothing could be done till the country was ready for it."
The country was now ready, and if that bill wax passed,
they would compel a repeal of it. Lord Wynford
and laird Abinger had expressed themselves strongly
against the bill. Thera were authorities enough,
he should think, to make the hon. and learned gentleman
(the Attorney-General) doubt ax to the decision to which he
had come. It was the duty of parliament to setthis question
at rest. The working population believed that there was no
such power in that house. Let the point be argued before
the judges in the Court of Queen's Bench, and it would be
seen whether they could not decide that there
was no power to enforce obedience to such rules.
If the poor had a right to relief, he asked her Majesty's
government how they could refase to admit that right except
an oases where parties had degraded themselves. The hon.
member then quoted passages from John Locke and Arch.
Ile.cua Paley, to show that the right to relief was Mallen.
able. Judge Blackstone &aid no man was so indieent or
wretched, but that he might demand to re supplied with all
the necessaries of life by the more opulent. Judge Hale
said," The set of Elizabeth has reduced charity to a system,
and ititergoven it with our very constitution.' Even Lord
Brougham had admitted, when the new poor-law bill was
being carried through the House of Lords, the right of the
poor against the parson grounded on the same principle.
If, then, the poor had this right, they could not claim front
them any act of vassalage or deprive them of their liberty, as
the condition of extending relief. Ile would even go further,
and say that if they retused relief the poor had a right
to take it. Would the right hon. gentleman, the home
secretary, dispute that proposition ? As the right hon. gen-
tleman was silent, he (Mr. Ferrand) might assume his
acquiescence. (Laughter.) [The hon. member then quoted
a passage from Lord Bacou, to the effect that where man's
necessity made an act compulsory it could not be felony to
commit it ; in allusion to which Judge Blackstone said that
wield not be the case ix England, where the poor-law of,
Elisabeth suffered no one to be in destitution.) The Poor-
law Commissioners themselves hid taken the same view ;

fur they said, " To punish even depredation apparently
committed R 4 the only resource against want is repugnant to
the common sense of mankind." Now he thought the
hones had a right to require from her Majesty's
g nernment a statement whether they intended to enforce the
new poor-Our on the system which it had been acted upon
far the list: thirteen years, with the view of even'ually abo-
lintiog poor-lawn altogether, or whether they inte atoll to
revert tea the principles of the 43rd of Elizabeth?
(Hear, hear.) Let it be recollected what Ireland would be.
come for want of a poor-law. Even the hon. member fur
Beth, supporter as he was of the new poor-law, had admitted
that in coder to sere Ireland they must carry out tberejhe
principle of the 43r1 of Elis aheth. (Hear, hear, from Mr.
it'teback.) Seeing the late Secretary of State fur tee Home
Department in his place, he could not help saying that he had
within the lest two days received a letter which showed that
amongst all the accounts of disgraceful conduct in the
Eoigli-h union., there was nothing to surpass the Longrown
union, of which the right hon. b,rooet, Sir James Graham,
of Netherby Park, was chairman. (Laughter.) This
letter was written [as we understood] by the Rev. Jelin
Metighan, rector of Newcastle, which was in the hometown
union. Amongst other Chien the writer said there had been
grog mismanagement in the hengtown union, and gross ne-
gligence on the pert of the poor-law eommissieners, and
there had been many things of a character too much resem-
bling the atrocities of Andover. The hon. member then
i I
referred to the defence of the pour-taw commissioners n
reference to his own case, which he said was full of I
the mat audacious untruths, referring to the nem'ier of
inmates in the Bins/fey union at different periods in support I
of this assertion. Now, in condo-ion, he would ask the go-
vernment whether they could doubt that if they were to at-
tempt to enforce the new p -or law against the rich aid the
middle sieves of society, there would be a rebellion within a
week ? There was not, on the face of the earth, prevents to
the estalei-hment of the new poor low, a more los al, faithtul,
obedient, indireri sus c'ess of persons than the poor of Eng-
land. They had now borne Leis tyranny f r thirteen yearn
and he asked how much longer they were tor be subjected to
it? There was not the same generous confidence now be-
tween the poor and the rich as there was before the lam was
inoculated wiih the accursed principles of Malthus. They
had no right to expect obedience from the poor noires they
extended to them equal right., equal lime, and equal
liberty ; and the day might come when they would have
reason to regret their oppremioe. The hen. member con-
cluded by moving "that the bill be read a second time this
day six months.'
Mr. ROEBUCK said it was very esay to preach about
inalienable rights, the 43rd of Elizabeth, and the tyranny of
the:eew poor law, without at all uneentatiding the subject ;
and although the hon. member for Knaresborough had des-
canted on this subject before the house for two bourn, he (Mr.
Roebuck) was prepare] to prove that he had never read,
and was in tonal ignorance of, the 43rd of Elisabeth. He
wuuld prove, first, the hon. gentleman. better nee ; woroaly.
that the 43rd of Elizabeth had not been departed front, and
that what was called the new pour-law was a reaction towards
the act passed in the reign of Elizabeth. Now the 43rd of
Elizabeth was a result of the consequences that followed,
from the pulling down of the religious boluses. Tnow houses
had been in the habit of maintaining a certain number of
poor; in other words, a certain number of poor had been
accustomed to come to the doers of the convents and moms
Write to obtain the means of introistence. Afier the Refine
matron, a number of "sturdy begone" to use the language
of acts of parliament, wandered snout the country, and it
was upon teat &mown that the 43e1 of Elsa abeth was parried.
He bald in his band that act, the see mil chapter of
which, after appointing certain pen ins to administer
relief, provided, as the moans of affording it, for the
"setting to work " all children whose parents were unable
to maintain them, and also fez the "'eying to wore" all
per-one, married or unmarried, who bad no means of main-
taining theensoolvel.
Mr. %PARLEY Not " setting tra work" in gents.
Mr. ROEBUCK said he would meet that observa-
tion. lle was now about to maintain the right. of the i dus-
trious poor as against the lazy poor. (Hear, hear.) Pre-
vious lethal passing of the new poor-law the lazy poor braved
the local authorities, They demanded relief (rem the pew
farmer, and if he refused it, his stocks were burnt, his
ploughs cut in pieets, bin horses indium!. Now what wan
done under these circumstances? A *umber of reinshes
were united, as it were, into one; the hail administrative
authority was placed at a distance from the lazy pow, and a
central authority was established in London, to which an
appeal might be made. There were great advanteges con-
nected with this chance. He recollected r Wang in his
youthful deys a poem called, " Ttt • Country Jestice," con-
taining a description of a dispute between two contending
p iriehes respecting the settlement of a pear woman
wi h child. This woman lay in while the dispute
was still proceeding. Now, the moment a maul same-
rill was established at Somerset H itaw, the newt anal-
low and insigeifiatet politician pointed his finger in the three
tyrants. The objection was, in feet, an objection td co °Ni-
trated responsibility—to a central authority nemonnible alike
thatto hien% and to public opinion, end but fir that port of I
the system not a word of objection, he believed, would have
been urged against the new poor-law. He would show that
what was blameable in the conduct of the poor-law commis-
sion had been done in contravention of the law, and in
obedience to the try raised out of doors,—that cry of
which the how. member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakl.l) wse
one of the loudest and ablest supporters. The paneip'e
of the poor-law was, that the man who was unable
to maintain himself should be maintained by the
state. It was for that principle that he (biz Roebuck) had

contended on behalf of the Irish poor though in doing ac,
be had stood amen alone. But the right to relief did not
mean relief toile given to a man whethet idle as inthastsious.
That indeed, was the ban. member for linareshorough's
mese of the right torched', but it was not the notion either
of the law or of common sense. In the ease of the man who
was travelling about, it was necessary to have a test of his
honesty and industy ; and the law established poorhouse
relief. The member for litaresboroueh talked of " the
inalienable right to relief." " loaliee.able right !"—what
did he mean ? He quoted Puffendorf—an author whom he
(Mr. Roebuck) would stake his life the hon. member had
never read. (Laughter.) He talked of Vitt.. l—whode
works he bad never opened—of Grotius, of whom he would
venture to say the hon. member could not tell whether he
lived in the time of George 111., Charles 11., QOOOO
Elios-
beth, or the Emperor Adrian. (Laught.r.) These learned
writer, he talked about as if he knew something more of
them than their names. He talked, too, of Coke and of
Blackstone—though it was evident that I e scarcely knew
which was which, and certainly did not know which pre.
ceded the ether. (Renewed laughter.) It was riredlessto
say that be (Mr. Roebuck) thought little of the boo. mem.
ber's authority in matters of learning ; he thought almost,*
little of it as be thought of his authority on maters often,
mon sense. It was mot long azo that the hon. member pet,
liahed a pamphlet, and in it be talked of " the edict of
Nantes, which was the consequence el the master,
of St. Bartholomew." (Shout.' of laughter.) That
" •

was one of the proofs of the bon. member's elodiiiee,
And uow he came down there to Instruct than about
" inalienable rights." Why these " inalienable rights,"
were, as he himself admitted, emanatioos from the 43rd of
Elizabeth. Well, what was the 43rd of Elizabeth ? it we.
an act of parliament. And who was it told We hon. member
that an act of parliament would confer any rights which my
' other act of parliament could not take away ? coke, or
' Blackstone, Grotius, Paffendore or Vattcl, would my./
them have told him, if he had read them, that an act of
parliament conftrring any right was repealrble by another
meet parliament, and that if repealable the right cunt:wed
wit ant inalienable. (Haar, hear.) But what was the right
se eonferred ? It was the right to work. But mid the line,
member for Finsbury, " Not in a goal." Did the hon.
Member ever visit the co Cage of a poor mon—did he ever
ester one—did he ever employ a poor man—did he ever feed
4111, assist in feeding one ? If he did, he must know that the
peer man had a fee more miserable habitation out of the
workhouse than that which the law provided for him in it.
In his cottage there was no medical relief—little distillers'
—no warmth--little shelter. (Oh!) Yee—he (Mr. It *bark)
spoke knowingly on these :acts. It was his habit—slay after
day—week after week—moath after month—to go into the
habitations of the poor. He know a great nutuar of them
—he employed a great number of them; and when he heard
the member for Finsbury talk of " Bastiles "
Mr. WAKLEY—I did not give them that name.
Mr. ROEBUCK—Probably nit. That was your weldor
imagination. (Laughter.) The hon. member del not give
them that name! No—he was only the senile imitator,
not the inventor, of the name. But he called the poor-
house a " gaol." A gaol was a place from whence a=a
could not get out until he had undergone trial. A work.
house had no such restriction. (Hear, hear.) [Mr. Wakley;
Yen—trial for the offence of poverty.] They heard the
member for Finsbury. Now the state offered the poor lama
a tat, "Come into the peorhouse " was the invitation to
Man. "Oh ! but," says he, "I have a wife and lee
children ! " And then forthwith there issued from tho pea
of some sentimental novelist, three volumes oc:avo, t i point
oat to a sympathising public, in a tone of pathos, "see
horrors of separating husband and wife." Separating bur
heed and wife! L A him understand. Were nut soldiers
sad sailors separated from their wires ? (Hear, hear.) Yet
who ever wrote a book about them? There was the hoe.
member for Brighton (Capt. Pechell) behind him. Ile ma
a sailor. Suppose the whole crew of his ship (nssuming him
to be capable of coinandieg one) were to rise up and say to
him, just as be was about to sail, "Sir, I on married.'
Why, his answer would be, " Well, we don't have wives on
bead ship." (Laughter.) So he weal leave the wires on
shore. But no pathos would be evinced—no three volume
novels would be written about that. Parliamentary patriots
never would talk about it. Why, even let theta take the
cases of some members in their own house. Their dubs
there necessarily separated them from their families. Let
them take the gentlemen from Ireland, fur exa nplc. Who
ever had got up and said, " Pity this poor Irish member who
is deprived of all his happiness by your inhumanity in bring-
ing him here, and making him separate himself from hit
wife and children." (Laughter). Why, surely, the ism
who asked relief from the state must submit to the regale.
Moos of the state in affording that relief. The poorhouse test
was unpopular he well knew; it was especially unpipsdar
this year—being the seventh of this Imperial Parhumat
(A laugh.) No one was better aware, or hal more to guard
against the effects of suck unpopularity than himself, bat as
he began public life by speaking is favour of this systems)
would he now say, were they tee last wart; he spike within
those walls, that he did nut believe it was either unfair or
creel to separate by a test the industri ini poor min who re-
quired and was entitled to relief, from the meat, and who
would not take employment. At the same time Imbed
always made, and he mai stained that there always oeght to
he made, a distinction with respect to the old and Nibs.
And this brought him to the subject of the peer-law
commissioners, with respect to whom, ho was sorry to be
obliged to say that they had not, in his opinion, fulfilled
their duty by carrying out the law. The fact was, the min
utensil:mere had quelled at the outcry mode in ono leading
journal—he was not afraid to name it—the Times—s paper
of which the member fur Knaresborough was the en: re feint
echo—the almost imperceptible shadow. That member had
been pushed into that house, and egged up to that wide by
the Tames, and every word—every blow—every emphasis—
every parent iesis of hi. was but a bid imitation of Ws
Times' leading articles. The Times, had, in fain
been the great parent of all this oppostam, and it
had been enabled to carry. out its vie .s by the
feeling of the Poor law Come issioners, who had tether
beeuinclined to listen to the outcry than to carry out the
principles of the law as originally passed. Had they earned
out the law, they would have borne the people with then,
and the Times would not have succeed, il in overthrowiag
the commissioners as it had done. By constantly hammy-
ing at them it had made the camtnisameers iie that whirl
was contrary to the spirit of the law, and then it had taken
advantage of the it blunder. The commissioners had yielded,
not to an imperious n, ceielty, but t i a party en . proving
that inefficient men must have been put into the c imminise.
If the Law had been sternly administered, the poor
would have been ire flaky to it, for it was a law
passed for the protection of the industrious and hardeorkim
poor against the idle and vagabond poor. The latter elms
was a small party throughout the country, but they were a
noise, working party. They had an advocate in the member
for Knaresburough—thee had en advocate in the Times
and in popularity-hunters generally. They hail an a 'vacate,
also, in the hon. member for Finsbury, weo brought his
easplaced humanity to hear on this subject. What! semeithe
who worked teem noon to night, and sometimes teem sight
to noon, be bound by an inalienable right to msietain a tom
who worked not at all ? Born to nothing, he (Mr. Roebuck)
had by his own exertions obtained everything. Who shoat&
come to him and say, " Give to me because I have nothing?"
That was what the everting man asked. 11, said . - Has
am I, with a wife and children, working ten hours a day (be
Mr. Roebuck, supposed that would Le the time), tieing in a
house and paying poot'e-rates. Whet right hat Game
Thomas to take my earnings? George Thomas won't
work. I have known him a repeated inmate of the Toth-
house all his life. He has been there '2O time aat let,
and he will do nerhitig to support himself or hi. (entity."
But, mid the hon. memner for Finsbury, th it was an un-
common case. How were they to distinguish ? How were
they to dieting uish betwei n the .ndustrioua and deserving pow
and the idle vagabond who would not work ?
Mr. P. SCROPE. —Get him to work.
Mr. ROEBUCK (continuing).—Certeinly, get him to
work. But at what? At heating hemp? Where? In a shed?
" Oh," mid the member fur Finsbury, "anywhere but in a
beside." Why, it was not in a shed certainly that they
would have to work, but, on the contrary, in a well-clean*
and well-warmed habitation, out of which he might walk
any hour of the day, and which had about it some preteat
4.111% he elegance rather than otherwise. If it was in a shed
they &eked him to work—such a shed, for hatanee, tie tailed
in the Dorchester union—an doubt they would be asmitedoe
was the right hon. hart the member for that town, with that
port of turbulent, muddy rhetoric for which the member k
Knaresborough we. so famous. " Here'e i pretty g ," thll
hon. member would ray, in his own choice parliamentary
phraseulogy. (Liughter.) "Here's a place where the
wind and the rain come in, and in which paupers are best-
ing hemp, though you would not shelter your cattle in it."
Oh, but it was not in a shed that they were required to Ir
bone, but in a beautifully built house--such a one as he hed
passed at flee o'clock that morning, looking out from meg
the oaks of the New Forest, and commanding a proefo:so
the Solent "But that," said hon. members, "that is .a
gel. There they wear a prison deem" A prison dreil
Why, they were obliged to give them warm cloth*,
and it was more ee inomical ti order clothing
all of one sort. The real question, however, was, what was
to be done with the labouring poor of this veinal?
He did not make sorb a yell about the matte
on the hon. member fit Koarasborough, but in &yenta*/
for the honest and labouring prior of the country he yielded to
e ass
no mart in the house or out of it. He knew something
the ruling men of the cenntry, end in a body the bon. man'
bar for Knaresborough might take them mot beneficiellylst
a model ; they were very acute ; they were not vulgar M
their epithets, they were very careful in their staving*.
pear, hear.) The bare •nealb it fur Knareibermark aid
. objected to the New Poor-law, Let them hero, fats
avoid their own plan. He challenged the hon. memMr for
Knaresborough to bring forward his plan; he chitlings'
the boa, member for Finsbury to bring forwarle
hie plan. (Hear, hear.) There had been anew
talk about doMructives ; let the hon. gentlemen
for once In a way, be constructive,. Let them ttt
their hands at an act of parliament. Oh! what a gee
thing it would be to see en act of parliament by the hoe.
member for Knaresborongh ! (Laughter.)
.m e Cone.thirtiowsOk
a production! Every body 'MI ready to mu
sure, but no one had a remedy for the evils he de ouleaw.
In the committee the hen. member for Liskeard disenba
the other night, every member cried aneteetna upon the ME
of settlement, but when a remedy was sobeitel they all
sued
to loggerheads about as m any oontradictoty crotchets mdse.
were members. There Was the hon. member for Erebus--
iom of
a'totherlions
patriotthii:and
in his w
the
j remedy. He was another specimen of the Burt of thief.
another example of the principle,
"And facia wash la where angel fear hi treed" a.
otait—er, w,
i but uthni' nothing in g 'inith' theu d
way a
wrif
(Laughter.) The business now was to I. trials2t.
the poor. The hun, meaaber for Keene
and other pretensive p noes, raved eguieTt--:+t
hawse as enemies of the poor ; whereas be (tIF,
Roebuck) believed in hateimeeteees that it wee WO.
general and sincere desire of the house to do the best tki
could for the welfare kid happiness of the pour. (Keit'

e•-ta."'"--------..isso.d tb.i. to is the pomading desire of all parties in
. 'wake,,, mid he repudiated the statement that the. people
foe the opinion o ouse m untrue in itself,
11/4_41.*:. able to the people cad to the house. (Hear,
• ese member for Kmareaborough, in his two
" bool,Wl3bboaappie.. Ilan,
fano' tidy raged against the govenerneet, and
the house, and against the hon. member for Dorset-
road Whist the eight hon. member for Tamworth, and
Vi. everybody, as being disregardful of the poor, he,
' being their only true and genuine representative.
did he represent of the poor ? Their intellect? Car-
!!!? Thetre feehogs ? No. As • body they
the bonoarahle member —as a body, they were
iag reedy to have a distinction made between the
end the dishonest poor. The workhouse test might
so ba lerectioe, but let the hon. gentleman propose a
No.tei.eg could be so detrimental to the character of
obieglish peoole as their adoption of the wretched philo-
zarsVbe hon. member for Knarethorongh. The ken.
d member, in conclusion, expreseed 'Me hope that
memearaneent, in remodelling the l'oor-law Commission,
geali sot re. ippoint men whose went of steadfastness of
had teeth. manifested itself, but would select gen-
=lien . should be in every way above suspicion.
Ne. RANK ES said it was • pity the hun. and learned
NOW for BAlli, if he held the hon. nesgober for Kneen-
Well iii such Acorn, should tali.. , so much time in as-
Matz. 1 he real VlM** Vetoes the bowie was
the present comadessioners should be reappointed.
Iginieh.randi ,g the enlivened ill opinion into which these
✓aegas-e, h el talks, the utter want of confidence in them
lathe part of the country, the government, • which affected
sesipoistherity of vicars, seemed disposed to continue their
elites to then, o ith all the accession of dignity conferred
ars these Mike?, ine hiding seats in that house, a pried:etre,
raw, naively commeible with those constitutional prim.
41111,11 a which the noble lard oppos.te was, in theory, so
. • tampion: (Hear, hear) The grand impress of
riggegia gaverament appeared to be the creation of new
. . Eetef now and, then there was an immenae
. • l=b—a one patriotic prelude—l elbowed by same
' mail giving heaps of patronage to her Majesty's
gaaasers, aid no profit to her Majesty's au jecta ;
, slogees which he could otely suppose that the
• sibiske.l opoositc never himself read, or he would never
morn toeir in reelection. The noble lord, however, Who
yoga ',malady, would .!o well to wirchtho proceedings of
jaslmme ece adherent. m ere clos,ly. .131eare Swift, in his
Advise t, s Treats, pr .pounded ties rule. e Take care that
gultrify ea, in year own deportment, expend the whets of
ammesteres income, for that es what will do him much
.---- abaaeill 'how your ran and respect for his honor."
va
Bo the noble lord'a ancridatits, in framing
I. stair • er mu deportment*, took care each
be to expend the whole of his master'. sur-
Om /sae in e ew commiesioners and officers of all
seem Tne introduction of two new placemen upon
liaMisisteriei e ,chew a se a nest earruardinary cireum-
MGM in a reform-d hou c of ominous. Yet this intros
imalisi t, th • h ,age of the new commissioners, or of the
amopia-1, c entnissionere, was the only eelenteal change
is the Alen, except, indeed, that the checks
wilt& hei ro existed upon their conduct, nominally
mg kart, ter.elly were now to be removed altogether.
The Puke i of toe bind were excluded fr on that house, and
la thought th it they we• e at least at important penomeges
es the po r lax eatanaissionera If the latter wcro to have
mats in the house, let them make their laws in the house,
lad not in their secret council chambers. Let them have
AO elhe'ars: the hies circular letter was enact of parliament.
(Hear, hoer.) II e wanted to know why they had been
made to wait :coil e, Lae a period of the se salon for the pro-
ps:dna of the sacrament. (H. ar, hear.) He must refuse
hi consent to the second reading on conatitutiousl grounds.
The bi I c eull ~o no further unless government expressed
their intente ese to alter certain p stions of it which affected
vital principles. A change of system was necessary, but not
tech •e mile* as was now premien d. lie law uo change but
a propoeihou to give the moaner ies in Somerset II muse seats
in Parliatt•-at. On the grounds he had Sated ho must sup-
port the .racendenent of the hon. member for Knareshorough.
Sir G. GitCY said that the hon. mismb r for K mares-
borough 1,,d eleeouneed tie poor-tow of 1834 ax one not fit
to be on the statute-hook. but he had not stated a single ob-
jection to the resent bill. The hoe. member for Dorset
shire did not object to Its act of 1834, but stated, and truly,
that it was merely a mo ken adaptation of the principle laid
down by S r M. Hale. 'f he hon. member for Knaresborongte
had allege d that iu teeming the act of 1834,the then govern.
ment Mostly perverted and effaced the statute of Elisabeth,
but if he hod ea 1 the speeches of that time, he would find
that any intention to overturn the statute was elisavowed.
[The right ben. Larmeet read an extract from a speech of Lord
Althoru el. livered in 1634, to the effect that time alterations
intended referred to the adeein stratioa of *hetes and not.
to the pew eiple.] He hoped that after those opinions of
Lord Al harp, n . should bear no more of a design on the
part of the promoters of the law of 1434, to deprive the peer
of their r ght to relief. The real desigu of tne law was to
get rid "f the grins abuse, which had crept into the ad-
ministraion of po..r relief. (Hear, h ter.) The honour-
able member had also charged the law of 1931
with having produccel Lamm Table evils, and had
stated that before its introduction the people were
loyal, peocenhle, and root- nte I. What, had there been
no agreculeural ri its, no riek-burnings brier,: that time?
(Hear, near., No wages down to six or seven shillings a
week? Why, there wee: at this moment persons suffering
'andel a just sentence of transpiration for off.nce s committed
before tho low of 1834. (Hear, hear.) The hoe. member
had been accused of ignorance in the course of the debate,
and eatainly 'lsm his a, o ch it would seem that his reeding
on the subject matter had been confined to publications of
but small authority. He had enumerate d the enlargement
of the gook, lout the greater ta queney of gaol deliveries
ies as con-equenceo of the amended poor-tew, forgetting
the improremeets which both those measures h .d created
In both the h-alth and morals of the people. He (Sir O.
Grey) had th night that no one would haves been hardy
enough to ei,oute that enormens abuses existed at the time
of the chmege in the la., or to deny that the ob eel of that
law wile the-ir n.formation. He would now shortly advert to
the ebjectio le of the hon. mensh r for Donstshire. That
hon. mother remitted th et central control was necessary,
bat had not Boomed 'PIC house of what de 'creation of con-
trol he would have approved. In bringing in the bill, he
(Sir G. Grey) had stated that all the reasons which had led
to the fist estahliehtne ret of central control exieeted in fall
force at to e ore,. nt time. The hoe. member aomiteed that ;
bat he would give to the :pentane in whom this control was
vested no pow r to in eke the laws, lie would ink the hon.
member hew hi, principle was to be carried out ? If all the
rules of the root law c emmisionera we re to be made by art
of parl ament, hoar a odd he adept them to the ever-varying
circumst mac, of the poor? (Hear, hear.) He thought
there woe tenet, hew tit in gi,ing to the control authorities
powers reabling them to ear) the workiug of the law accord-
ing to eireemstene a. The hon. member w old only give to
the enmnissiemera power to propose laws to parliament. He
would ink the hors, member whether every suspension o
out-door Belief was to be the subjeit at a bill, with a minister
of the crn en proposing it to pal ham, or. (Hear, hear.) The
bon menther hoo also objected to the amount of patronage
which the bill would throw into the hands of the
government. This bi'd did not create any now
=gee It provided for twelve assistant nemonssioners
of nine ; but the chief otfice-e were only changed in
same, net increased in number. While complaining of go-
vents/en, pate,. sat, the hon. member had also alluded to
the Sanitary Bill, and seemed to wish that see should go on
with disiseee epreading au -I mertalitity increasing, rather
than that a hill should pas, leaving one or two places at the
disposal of woven:meet. The hon. member's objections to
the Pee or Bill were of a similar description. The hon.
member also ohj tied to the ince using number of placemen
in parliamect He should recollect that lot .ly four or five
places hal been aboliehel which were usually held by
members of perlitan nt. One herd of the Admiralty had
been 'truck off, and the Lieut.-Gmeral of the Ordnance ,•
beside* which. there were the Treasurer of the Navy
_and
the Judge of ace Admiralty. In feet, he could hardly
understand why the boo. member objected to the present
bill at aIL He achniitt d that the re must he central control,
and that the reormentatiee of that central control should
Lave a gear in that house. The points of differ once between
him end the government were so small, a.. d between hien
and the hem. member for Kaartshorough, that be (Sir 0.
Grey) wondered why the hon. meer.her did not support the
bill. (Hear, hear.) Ile had stated, on a former occasion,
the reasons or the government for pr..posiog the change.
They felt that the l'oor-law Commewloners had
had comparatively few opportunities of "certain-
lag the . opinions of the people. At the time
of their appoieltment it was held that they shield
keep completely al of, but experience had pre teed that that
mune was attended with inconverdencs. It was felt that it
would he to al.ll to hose one member of the commission in
the house a, noose r changes, as no man could be ea well vin-
dicated by another as he c mid vi dicate hinsaelf. Oa such
occasi ~ both for vieinieotion and em lan etion, a re-
spoceileh repose native was eanch better than a member
of the et.,Wlt not co:them:eel with the department.
He thought the Poor Law Commissioners had suffered much
and mot.: u..jostiy in pablie opinion, in c ins-queues of no
one of their own hody twine in parliament to give explana-
tions as to the working of the law when de-
manded. As he undentood the only hon. gentleman
who had spoleea in opposition to the bill admitted
the necessity of come central centred, and of that
eontroul booing represented in parliament, and the only
point of diffee ewe between him and the government was,
that there should tie Lit one pertain connected with the
commission is parliament, the secretary instead of the
presideet and secretary. Tnis, he apprehended, was ra-
ther a question to be discussed in committee than
upon the ate ,111 renling of the bill. The only
other ohjection to be eitpueed of was, that the bill had been
brought leeward at so Let, a period of the snidely. Now
although that was ratite: all naivereal complaint on the 17th
of May, if his hon. friend could look back to the mode in
which the last three months bad teen spent, he would find
that very little time had been lost in furthering the business
of the sesieion. He would ask the hoas gentlemen
whether, if the measure had been brought forward
at an carlecr period, it would have been possible
to give it that c maideratiois which it deserved, and as
he was now reminded, his noble friend (Lord J. Russell)
within two els) s of the commencement of the session had
folly explained to the house the principle upon which the
present bill would bo !minded, and surely from that time to
the preeent there hai hems ample tine to consider it. Hi
fully concurred wi:h the hon. and learned member for Bath,
in believing that. noewielletandinie what had been raid by
the hon. member 'or Kea, shorough as to the object and in-
tentions of parli amens i.e e. easing the measure of 1831. there
was a d. vire n.l the pert of every member of that house, as
well as e.f ee ro member of the government, to legislate in
this matter not enle with a due regard to juicier* and 'maitre
but vita a sincere sued earnest desire to do that which should
be than !I, nelicial to the p or; and it sow his opinion that
those ohject, wool a be moot eine:vette accomplished by an
adhelent e in all its made feature,* to the act of 1834. (Hear,
hear.) Ile called upon the house to give that character of

wannest, to the hw white lie held to be mmatiel to its
complete success and to the batman of the poor thismselme
With regard to the Andover oonmaisise, be would not
rein fsrtbu to that subject than to say that on looking at the
report of that committee be found sot one word of objet• ion
to the general prineiglo of the Poor-law Amendment Act.
Is 030elasion he embed wpm the house to gin the bill a
snood reedier._ _ _

-Cot EIBTRORP said, It the hen. member for Kamm-
borough be determined to take the acmes of the house against
t►e second reading he should support. hint.
On the Emotion of Mr. CHRISTIE, the debate was then
adjourned until to•morrow (this day).
Mr. WARLEY suggested that the Loan Discount Bill
should he taken to-morrow, and the debate on the poor law
adjourned till Thursday or Friday, especially as the country
had been taken somewhat by surprise in regard to the latter
Wu.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that though it was desirable that
the Loan Discount Bill should pass before the holidays, yet
as that measure was not opposed, and the object being merely
to continue the debate on the currency questi m, and as the
hen. member for Knereiborourth had moved an amendment
against the preamble of the l'oor-law Bill, he thought it
better, provided hon. gentlemen who hod motions fur te-
morrow would give it precedence, that that question should
be first decided. He could not admit that the public had
been taken by surprise in respect to this mevaure, for he
had explained fully what the general nature of the hill would
be in January last, and he i.id not think what had taken
place that evening would add much to the information they
previously had. (Hear, and a laugh).
' The adjourned debate on the Loan Discount Bill was
then fixed for Thursday next.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, Et; (SCOTLAND)

On the order for the committee of this bill being read
for the purpose of postponement,
Mr. IL DRUMMOND inquired when the house might
expect the discussion upon the bill would come on.
The LORD ADVOCATE would give the earliest infor-
mation to the hnn. member as to the time.

Mr. F. MAULE considered that such opposition was-
not founded on fair or just grounds. The existing system of
registration won most imperfect.
Mr. FORBES also spoke in opposition to the bill, and
Anted that the feeling against it was universal in Scotland.
The gallery was cleared fur a division, but none took plat*.
After a few words from Mr. C. BRUCZ,
Lord J. RUSSELL mid that the objection which bad
been made to the bill might be a valid one, and he should
like a discussion to be taken mit. The Irish Poor-law Bill
would probably return to this house by the 31st May, when
the discussion on the lords' amendments would be taken,
and he would then take the discussion on that bill tither on
that cloy or the following Monday.
Mr. F. MACKENZIE then withdrew his amendment.
The bill then passed through committee.
DRAINAGE OF LANDS (SCOTLAND).
The committee on this bill was postponed till Friday.
SEDUCTION AND PROSTITUTION BILL.

On the motion for the first reading of this bill,
Mr. C. BERKELEY objected to proceeding with the
bill at that late hour; and he should move that the house
do now adjourn.
Colonel Si tiTRORP, while giving credit to his hon.
friend for his motirn, suggested that he would best obtain
his object by inserting a clause in the Health of Towns'
. .

The house then divided—For the motion 7
Against it
Mr. T. DUNCO ABE then snored that the debate be ad-
journed.
The house divided—For the motion
Against it 5B-51
Colonel S(BTItORP thought that the bill would better
be placed in the hands of the government. He then moved
that it he read a first time this day six months.
Mr. NEWDEOATE thqught the best way to test the
principle of the bill would be to allow it to go into com-
mittee.

Sir G. GREY hoped the house would consent to this stage
of this bill, which did net involve even the principle of the
Mr. C. BERKELEY agreed that this subject, if it was to
be legislated on, should be taken up by the government. At
this hour of the night the discussion ought not t) he taken.
and ho should, therefore, more that this house do now
adjourn.
Mr. FORBES thought the bill ought to be allowed to pass
the first resiliog. The course adopted by the hon. gentleman
who bad just spoken was a most unusual one.
The house again divided—For toe adjournment 6
Against it ... 61-4.5
Mr. SPOONER then consented to postpone the further
consideration of the kill till Friday next.
LOAN SOCIETIES.

On the motionOTgh7li:BoM7tllY ILLE, leave was
given to bring in the following bills;—Bill to, continue an
' act to amend the laws relating to loan smiths ; bill to con-
tinue the exemption of inhabitants of parishes, townships,
and villages, (rum liability to be rated as such in respect of
stock ia trade, or other property, to the relief of the poor ;
bill to continue the copyright commission ; bill to continue
certain turnpike acts; bill to continue an act for authorising
the application of highway rates to turtpike roads.
The house adjourned at a quarter to two.