The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-25 00:00:00

Po3r-law Board did was simply to linos to those
parishes rules and regulations for tho relief of the poor,
reserving at the same time that power over the local
officers which was necessary to their very indepen-
dence, but not venturing to break throu*.h the c•oastita
tion established under those local acts. If th 3 Poor-law
Board was to exempt places under local Acts from their
rules and regulations, under what pretence could that
Beard be maintained at all for toe supervision of the
boards of guardians? For the reasons he hail stated he
trusted the House would not assent to the motion of the
Nehle Lord, seeing that the Noble Lord had made out
no case in support of it.
air G. PECHELL said the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman
(Sir J. Trollope) had attempted to throw doubts
Upon the statements of the Noble Lord, and had read
letters from certain discontented persons, whom he
called the" parish," and then he said the parishes in
question were demanded to be relieved from the control
of the vestry. But the Right Hon. Gentleman had
failed to show anything like discontent among the in-
habitants of those parishes with the existing mode of
Government. The conduct pursued by the
.Right
Honourable Gentleman in reference to this question
Was The Right Hon. Gentleman had re-
Plied to the Noble Lord just as if the Noble Lord had
made the motion before the House for party purposes.
Nothing could be more unfair than that, for the Noble Lord,
I.la (Sir George Pechell) and those with whom they acted,
had been for a length of time pressing upon different
Governments to give boards of guardians that control
over their expenditure which they ought to hive; and
be contended that from 1837 to March, 1852, with one
exception, no motion had been made in that House in
regard to the management of the poor under local Acts,
With a view merely to embarrass the Government fur the
time being. Ho warned the Right lion. Barone t that if
theelystem of interference with towns under the opera-
tion of local Acts was continued, it would cause such an
amount of remonstrance, that sooner or latter redress
would be inevitable. It was within his own knowledge
that in the parish of Alveratoke, although it had been
shown by the Poor-law Inspectors themselves that it
was exceedingly well managed, the Poor-law Beard had
inflicted on that pariah such rules and regulations that it
required a lawyer and a special pleader to understand
them. Having called the attention of the House to the
various reports on the subject, he trusted that the motion
of the Noble Lord would he successful, and he would
only propose to add to it such words as would exempt
from the operation of the Commnsioners those parishes
Which were incorporated by the 22d Geo. 111., c. 33. He
trusted that, at least, he should receive such an amount
of support from Hon. Members as would induce the
Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stay the
hands of the Poor-law Commissioners with respect to
these incorporated parishes.
Mr. BAINES said that, as he believed the amendment
of the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone to be
substantially that the House should now declare that
henceforth the jurisdiction of the Poor-law Commis.
stoners should not extend to any parish which was un-
der the management of a board of guardians formed
Under a local Act, he should feel it his duty to oppose
the motion. There could be no doubt whatever but that
to the general Poor-law Amendment Act the Legisla-
ture intended that the powers of the Poor-law Commis-
°loners should extend to parishes governed by local
.A.cls. These powers consisted in the general regulation
of paid management of workhouses, and in the appointment
"` Paid officers for the better relief of the poor, the
board at the same time possessing the power of direct-
ing the tenure by which such officers should hold
their office, and upon every occasion upon which the
Poor-law Bill had been before Parliament these
Petra had been preserved to the Commissioners.
""systear, hear.) In order to preserve uniformity in
the management of workhouses, as well as for the se-
curity of the officers, it was absolutely necessary that
Such powers should exist. But at the same time there
well nothing in these powers which could be considered
°PPosed to the boards of guardians; on the contrary,
be had considered during the whole of the time that he
had held office, that his duties were rather to co-ope-
rate with than to controul the boards of guardians. In
many instances, however, he had found that the com-
plaints of the poor-law officers had originated in mere
party feuds, or in an attempt to reduce the salaries of
le officers below the amount which he thought requisite
to •order to seeure efficiency. He behaved that he had
on several occasions prevented by his interference many
Worthy men from losing their situations in consequence
of these attempts on the part of boards of guardians.
Daring the time he had held office, he had never inter-
fered in parishes under local acts, unless at the desire cf
the guardians themselves, or in cases where he had
reason to believe, upon clear and satisfactory evidence,
that there were abuses in the management of the
Parish, to which it was his duty to apply such re.
Tedy as the law afforded him the means of doing.
the Member for Brighton threw out against hi m what
:) deemed a personal imputation. He read to the
I,House a list of places with which, he said, the House
had not interfered so as to abolish their local control,
and he laid speoial stress on the word " Hull." Now
What were the facts? He had not been two years in
(Ade when he was informed that the administration of
the Poor-law was essentially defective in Hull; that two
„e4ha had taken place there owing to the want of pro-
;;e,r precaution. Notwithstanding the representations
'jell were made and urged upon him, he declared his
tbtitiention of putting in force the consolidated workhouse
st and persbvered in that intention—and what was
.e
Cot.Bequence? Why, that all parties now agreed
ot it was the best thing which could have happened
for.ethem.--(Hear, hear.) It his adnitnistvation lied not
iZbooehonest, he had no claim to recommend him.—
eee., .rs-) The second ground on which he rested his
There to the telotien of his Noble Friend was this.
geeswere in England 375 parishes, whose affairs
..7_t regulated by directors, under local Acts. The
coat Majority of these parishes had been long and
i'cug. ago under the regulation of the Poor law
'onward. A very small number still regulated their
LI affairs. In a great many cases this had been done
ulPon the petition of the guardians themselves. In other
c w:es Parliament had interfered because grave abuses
What would
under the notice of the Poor-law Board.
Iyhet would be the effect then of adopting this resolu-
tion-11 That it
make . . be an instruction to the Committee to
the _ provision for exempting from the jurisdiction of
‘.„ Poor-law Commission any pariah, the management
e`__ the poor whereof is reeulated by a board of directors
1-Iguardians, under a local Act or local Acts of Parlia-
ment?"fe.c It would be not only to protect parishes from
a rentercerence; but it would be to undo all that has.
beenni.e done,. and throw upon these parishes the sole adult-
coata's anon of the poor-law.—(Hear, hear.) Another
bo„,,°.rt why it was impossible he could support this pro-
', l,Liott was this:—If these parishes governed by local
VLS were to be exempted, he should be glad to know on
Oder other
grounds Parliament could maintain a jurisdiction
in other boards of guardians? The highest noblemen
Gethe land acted as chairmen in the sittings of the boards
ntluardia... The Duke of -Richmond, the Right Hon.
ernan the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as
tras a host of other distinguished persons, took part
iage administration of the law in their respective dis-
inu-`fe, and if they. did notefind it a humiliation to put
theforce the consolidated rules, he did not see how
gentlemen of" St. Pancras or Marylebone could
hear,)
Captain PECHELL assured the Right Hon. Gentle-
iftiteti that he did not mean any imputation whatever, and
he laid stress upon the word Hull, it was merely to
attract his attention, he being Member for that town.
°!e. On the contrary, had endeavoured to pay him the
highest compliment, and his regret was that he had not
remained longer in office.
Mr. L A.SLETT thanked the Noble Lord for having
brought the subject under the notice of the House. He
had
and he someconside experience of the working of the poor law,
Lc that some amendment in the law was
necessary.
Mr. J. A. SMITH believed that the poor-law had
effected great improvements; but at the same time he
Must express considerable regret at the manner in which
the monon of the oble Lor SipeMebIe-
m er for Al ary
bone had been receNived. Itppeared to him that the
eight to understand on what principle this
public had a
Interference complained of took place. In the case of
nor was
ot htecon Chichesterd u t(e t
hadth e
Chichester, Which he represented, the Poor-law Board
interfered; he did not object,
Board complained of. The guardians
carried on their basiness without any
t them. As thi complaints
what -
did
being urged egains- a was go, he
when parishes were
what principle interference had takes
'I not know on
ere
Is7;11,e• He wanted to know why,
-"it exempt, Chichester should beentheasvemonyto
excluded.
tthee a lity
Mr. HUME willingly bore ti
Uud fairness which characterised the administration of
ththe parish of Haryle-
t: Right Hon. Gentleman, of which there never had been
CoY complaint. With regard to
had crept in,
and abuses
, he admitted their affairs welte not in that state he
`ourd wish them to be; abuses h
ek
"mg time to correct. Wlthh
arredgahrclotoinSteartPeraend-
Z 4 ' me understood the poor-law
4th the employment of their own
o the board of guardians of the Part
employed
of
by that one the ser°•vshanht9a.cl cAomnelatjoortihtye
- ern was unworthyof holding office, o
had inter-
tinkled. a
public servaannt.s
be
Wits
dis.
compel his re-inett-
feted dthe general. board sitting In
Common
Union. applied for a mandamus to
neatense at
alarm
and
was. he considered, contrary to
throu calculated to excite discontent
thoot wouldthe Country. He hoped,
to, and that
the Right this instruction to be agreed a
clause, ox-
therefore, the House
nePtioi' tier' Gentleman would introduce board
of the
until a mai() c? Parishes from the powers
Sir J. TZT..rof the ratepayers required it.
1,8'.4°11e, of st, p'4CIPE said neither in the case
Chichester
the Ord pa
of Marylebone, or of
had been Signed era beeie signed by him; they of.Alver-
Sir 137tinta been
in office.
poor Bill reminded the House that when the
tion
s of th reatest per-
- "v Bill Wa Members be renewed the g
.ernmente Hon. who now sat upon the Go _
ae_ benches not only spoke but voted in favour of
rF He e
10i Bei:
eiodnitthwaat.sthethbeoard should cease. and determine.
moved tlaaLthe
present Judge-Advocate who
Bill be read a.
Months. second time that day three
would not jahe, therefore, had hoped that this amendment
of the Q, Pancras
been opposed. The board of guardians
()fan rancras union desired to dismiss one of their
officers but
s• The general board said they might p Ler their
obtaini they should not dismiss them without first
etitionecl
the 1„,,. ng their consent; and the board now p
the
Leal:sum to be excluded from the operation of ge-
Peor-law. The Strand Union was an instance of
vernmentcontrol h • prevented the most hor-
. not having rible dDg
ie n disgusting occurrences which could take place
eoY e Public establishment. With regard to Maryles
Ser
o,fthe hody was stamped as a political body by the
this one of the Members of the Government. It was
a
Mar le-
way—there was no returning officer in y
:Were; the returning officer was the churchwarden; there
tthere two churchwardens; one was elected by the vestry,or
lz.e other by the Crown. Lord Portman succeeded Lord
''':ecYon, and continued in the office under several A m -
Matrations; but the moment the Noble Lord, the pre-
sent
Commissi
oner of Works, found-there wags vaettlloYl