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

which they could proceed to disfranchise the c aunty?
There was a' machinery far disfranchising heroughs—
hut that machinery would not do for counties. low•
ever good, therefore, the amendment might be, it had
not been well considered with reference to the powers of
the Act upon the House. If the Honourable Gentlemen
would insist on having cot n-ies inserted it would be ne-
cessary to have other machinery. It le quired a differ-
ent machinery for counties, and he quite agreed with
the Noble Lord that an amendment of such importance
ought not to have been brought forward in this manner
without notice. The machinery in existence was inade-
quate, and he would ask the Hon. Gentleman if, in case
corruption should be proved, he was prepared to disfran-
chise, say the Weat Riding, and thus leave a consider-
able part of England unrepresented? He did not disap-
prove of the principle of the amendment, but as the ma-
chinery of the Bill would not apply to counties he hoped
the Hon. Member would not press it.
L)rd 11, GROSVENOR said bribery was not un-
known in c unties; he would instance West Gloucester;
for a question was not long ego brought before the
Committee, whether a certain Noble Lord had not, by
the way be interfered in an election for that division,
committed a breach of privilege.—(llear.) He approved
of the amendment, and, if pressed, would vote for it.
Mr. WAKLEY said, after what had just, passed, if
the Right Hon. Gentleman could not adopt the amend-
went at once, the proper course to take would be to ad-
journ the debate. Teem must not be this invidious dis-
tinction between bouroughs and counties. The Right
Honourable Gentleman said counties were pure; well,
let them be kept pure by having something like his Hon.
Friend's amendment hanging over their heads. But he
did not agree in the opinion of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man. He believed as much or more corruption existed
in counties as in boroughs; and he firmly believed that
bribery in counties would soon be practised on a far
larger scale than ever before attseempgkreeda,t. H
because the
stake in the present instance was
move the adjournment of the debate—(No, no)—unless
the amendment were put.
After a few words from Mr. W. WILLIAMB in fa-
your of the amendment,
Alderman SIDNEY said he knew crom his own know-
ledge that in the West Riding it was matter of agree-
ment between the contending parties to give tickets of
refreshments, and also to pay the expenses of voters to
and from the nomination, and to and from the hust-
ings on the day of the poll. He knew also that in the
elections for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge
it was the practice to pay the poorer clergymen their
travelling expenses who came from a distance to vote,
and also their expenses at Oxford or Cambridge during
the poll. If the House agreed to the amendment he
should certainly move that the universities be also in-
cluded in the Bill.
Sir A. COCKBURN said there was only one reason
why he objected to the amendment, and it was that
stated by the Noble Lord near him with reference to
the time and stage at which it was proposed; otherwise
he concurred with the Hon. Member as to the propriety
of applying the princip'e to counties as well as to
towns. He believed treating prevailed to a considerable
extent at county elections; and he also believed that
other influences existed, which the sooner the attention
of the House was called to them the better. When he
found it admitted and avowed that a Noble Lord, a
member of the House of Peers, had entered into a cor-
rupt contract in direct violation of the privileges of that
House and of the rights of the people, and that his no-
minee to a seat in that House had been denied the privi-
lege of soliciting the suffrages of the electors in his own
county, it was lull time the attention of the House were
called to the subject. He fully concurred that the prin-
ciple of the Bill should be applied to counties as well as
boroughs, but he felt the danger of admitting any amend-
ment (which would give the Bill a now character) after it
had passed the Committee.
Mr. HORSMAN staid that there was nothing in the
Bill about disfranchisement. It only provided that when
corrupt practices existed the House might address her
Majesty to issue a commission of inquiry. He did not
see why counties should be excluded.
Mr. FLOYER said, he was as much opposed to cor-
rupt practices at elections as any one, but all the cases
referred to in this discussion had, with perhaps one ex-
ception, been cases of treating, which, though against
the strict letter of the law, were not attended with any
great demoralisation. He did not think the House
ought to depart from the usual course, by introducing a
clause at that stage with reference to treating, which
did not extend beyond giving a dinner to a poor elector
who had come a long way to vote. He should certainly
object to the extension of the Bill to counties.
Mr. HUDSON confirmed the statement of the Hon.
Member for Stafford, with reference to the elections in
the West Riding. In all contested elections in that
division of the county, it was a regular thing for the
candidates to give 2s, 6d. and ss. tickets to their voters.
He should not vote at all on the Bill, but he thought the
universities ought to be included.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ••• ••• 109
•••
Against it ... ••• 71
Majority for the amendment --38
On the motion of Alderman SIDNEY the universi-
sides were also included in the Bill.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. STANFORD said before the Bill passed he
wished to state, in a few words, his opinions respecting
it. He conceived that no greater humbug could be per-
petrated than for the House to pass such a measure,
when Hon. Members themselves had the means in their
own hands of putting an end to them. There could be
no doubt that at any general election there was from a
million and a half to two millions of money paid in en-
couraging these corrupt practices, and he hoped the
electors themselves would take the matter into their own
hands, and by their just and reputable conduct spurn
the practice which had brought so much disrepute on
the constituencies of the country. It was clear that
the great object of gentlemen coming into that House
was either to enjoy the sweets of office, or to
live in hopes of tasting the honey. Any man who
acted upon principle, or spoke his sentiments honestly,
would be voted an ass.—(Laughter.) The clause which
the Noble Lord the Member for London admitted into
the Bill destroyed any merit that it had. The Bill
the
would not prevent corrupt practices at elections, and
only way to prevent corruption by the people was
by that House setting en example of purity to the
peop'e.
Mr. WAKLEY said he had heard many queer
speeemberches
wi in
a that
had llioaus st e ,s
abtu t d
ot hwant delivered bya
etehree
slit ohne
complained
.
had ever heard. The Hon. Gentleman had
that there was no purity at elections. Well,
surely, they
all
means knew that
ball the only way to prevent this evil was by
of the ot.—(Hear, hear.) The
p ballot would
at elec-
be a sure preventive against corrupt practices lions, provided they had large constituencies.—(Hear,
hear.) The Honourable Gentleman said that any man
that would express himself in an independent manner
in that House would be called an ass.—(A. laugh.)
Had the Honourable Genternan been speaking his own
sentiments?
Mr. STANFORD—Yes.
Mr. WAKLEY—Then what are you ?—(Laughter.)
He was told that the Honourable Gentleman had
pledged himself to form an intimate alliance with
the purer portion of the borough which be
represented.—(Laughter.) But the lion. Gentleman
had not redeemed the pledge.—(Laughter.) The Hon.
Gentleman was, however, to be excused, for he understood
the fault was not his own.—(Laughter.) Yet there
could be no great complaint of advances not having
been made from other parties to carry out the alliance,
after the character which the Hon. Gentleman had given
of himself. They had at that side of the House tested
the question of purity of election by bringing forward a
motion for the ballot. Well, would it be credited, on the
last occasion when the motion for the ballot was before
the House, the Hon. Member for Reading voted against
it?—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Stanford.) Well, how
were they to have purity of election without the ballot?
—(Hear, hear.) From the speech of the Hon. Gentle-
man he presumed he was taking leave of his political
friends and of that House.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr.
Stanford.) Wed, the Hon. Member had only himself
to blame for this, because he would not vote for the
ballot.

The Bill then passed.
POOR•LAW BOARD CONTINUANCE BILL.
Lord D. STUART, on the order of the day for going
into Committee on the Poor•law Board Continuance
Bill, moved that it be an instruction to the Committee

;hat they have power to make provision for amending
;he said Bill if they should so think fit. He considered
,he question they had to consider one of the utmost itn-
portence to a great portion e,f the public, for it was a
fact that at any rate wherever there were parishes go.
verned by local Acts a deep interest was felt in the
Motion which he had to submit; and he thought that
envyproifncipl which
whoever was in favour of the principle of local self
that
vernment should support that motion. Lie believed
the foundation of all the power, wt:alth, prosperity, and
h7cohn wonder
the world,
hanaddto contend. As freedom of this great country, and the
fortawa
was had
this made
principle England
re-
garded the present state of the law,
could establish three propositions—
fhe considered that he
led to litigation; secJndly,irst, that it certainly
that
inter-
preted by the Poor-law Board, the existing law, as
the intention of its origil 1 was not in harmony with
the system could not be 1 apromoters; and thirdly, that
benefi-
cial. Its uncertainty was .
regarded as salutary or
Pancras, of which he illustrated in the ease of St.
his belief on the should have to speak; and as to
he might quote high other
points
which he had mentioned,
(minion that the authority. Sir Robert Peel was of
power of the Poor-law Board should
not extend to •
parishes d overt le by local Acts, and had
always thought that g
where there were immense masses
of population well governed under local Acts it would not
be found expedient to
place
them under the control of
the co •
airmosioners. He hoped Hon. Members would
agree with that opinion of Sir IL Peel's. Was it not, on
the face of it, much more likely that such parishes as
Mary lebone and St. Pancras would be well arid har-
moniously governed, if they were under the management
of the local authorities—men who, from their position iu
every parish, must know the wants, wishes, and require-
ments of the parishioners—than if governed by any me-
tropolitan board? Why, in these parishes which he had
cited, with their enormous and continually increasing
populations, the management of the workhouses was ad-
mirable; and this was where the officers were popularly
elected. He could not conceive that any poor-law board
or commission could be more fitted to manage these
affairs than the representatives chosen by the parish-
ioners, then whom he believed no more intelligent men
could be found. lie had mentioned, as a result of
the present uncertainty of the law, that it had s
given
rise to litigation in some well'hilOwu cases where the
local board of directors or guardians of
been brought into collision withthe the poor had
Commissioners.
There was the case of St. P
- arleras,
proper parochialn authorities, havi • i where the vestry, or
of the union, refused to reinstate him at the request of
the Commissioners, and eve
Commissioners tin 1 13,
as was
said, to afford the
exP itlllitl94 of the circumsittnees

under which they had dismissed him. He thought the
ve•try of Sr. Pancras would have been
,justified if they
had reused to give information to the Poor-law Boerd I
but an point of fact they had not refused, for no request
had been directly made to them What took piece was
this—that on the 11th of March, when the Eight lion.
Baronet opposite was in office, a letter was received from
his office intimating hat the Board would not allow the
vestry to dismiss the master without carrying the case
by mandamus to the C )urt of Queen's Bench; but if the
vestry had any charge to make against the master,
the Board was ready to listen and to report upon
it. That was the only manner in which information
was requested, and surely that could not be called a
direct request. He hoped the motion which he
now brought forward would not be resisted by the
Government. He would have made it though his politi-
cal friends had been in power, though he confessed with
far loss hope than now, when the Treasury bench was
occupied by Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, on
every occasion when the Poor-law Bill was brought be-
fore the House, had voted against is. Ia 1834, when the
Bill wasfirst introduced; inlB39,in 1840,in 1841, in 1542,
and again in 1847, which was the last time this Bill was
brought before the House, the same opposition was given
to it. In IS4I the present Chancellor of the Exchequer
opposed the Bill on the greued that it terminated the old
parochial constitution of the country, and outraged the
manners of the people for a mere sordid consideration.
In 1847 the present Judge-Advocate objected to the
power that vves grant d by the Bill to the Poor-'aw
Board. The President of the Board of Trade also be-
e Imo actually impassioned in opposition to the Bill. He
&clan d that the poor would regard the powers that
were given to the Poerdaw Commissioners as a hard-
ship, Red that some clay the system would end in
way that they would all be sorry to see. The Noble
Lard the President of the Board of Works used
similar language. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
again opposed the powers that were vest, d in the
Commissioners; and, still more important perhaps, the
present President of the Poor-law Board concurred in
the opposition of his colleagues, and opposed their going
into Committee on the Bill, because there was not el
single disuse which he approved of. It was possible
they might new have all received a new light on the subs
ject; and if their conversion was sincere he would treat
it with every respect; but it was only a few nights ago
he had heard the Chancellor of the 'Exchequer declare
that he had taken office with the intention of carrying
oat the principles which he advocated in opposition.—'
(Hear, hear.) If so, he did not see how he
could sue'
port the pour-law in its integrity; for these reasons, then,
he hoped that the Government would accede to his 1150°
tion For his part, he had other objections to the poor'
law. He believed that under its operations the poor
were frequently exposed to great cruelty and oppression
—that the system of medical relief was defective, and
did not attain its object—that the poor often suffered
from the enormous size of the unions—and that the,
aged poor were treated unnecessary harshness and
rigour. Ho must, therefore, press the motion which he
had proposed.
Sir. B. HALL seconded the motion.
Sir JOHN TROLLOPE said that the present
.Bill
Commissionerswa s only fir a
of continuancethe
Poor-law o
Board
w
already hi ch h tepos-
sessed for another year, and therefore he thouget it was
very inconvenient that the whole management of the
poor should bo discussed by any Hon. Gentleman
raising:a question of this kind. He did not think the
law was so uncertain as the Noble Lord had
supposed, for there were several decisions of the courts
of law which established the right of the Poor-law
Board to interfere in perishes which were governed by
local Acts. It was true that a case had arisen in the
parish of St. Pancras, to which the Noble Lord had re-
ferred, respecting the right to dismiss the master of the
union, and that question was still in dependence. NOW,
if the Noble Lord should succeed in his uresent mottos,
there would be an end of the question; but, then, on
he
other hand, there would be an end to all uniformity
would
law with regard to the relief of the poor; there w"de
be one mode of relief to the north, and another m° de
of relief to the south of Oxford-street.—(Fleet'
hear.) The Noble Lord supposes that all the
f
parishes having local Acts were anxious to shake °r
the control of the Commissioners, but it happened till'
the very first deputation he had the honour to receive
after accepting office from a metropolitan parish, asking
for advice how they might relieve themselves for the
operation of a local Act. It was plain, therefore, that
parishes were not so unanimous on this subject as tee
Noble Lord supposed. It was true there
were font
petitions in favour of the Noble Lord's motion; but from
whom did these petitions come? Not from the rate'
payers, but from the vestrymen—the parochial digni"l.
ries who did not like to be controlled by the Poor-10
Commissioners. And if the Noble Lord's motion were
carried, it would exempt about one-eighth of the poPula.
tion and one-ninth of the poor-law expenditure from the
u
supervision of the Commissioners, and give rise to all
the abuses which the Act of 1843 had put an end 10'
It must not be supposed that these abuses existed onll
in rural districts—there were also malversions in towntlt
and expenditure for eating and drinking which used to
be greatly complained of. He found that even the yes'
trymen of St. Marylebone did not give entire satisfec;
tion; for only the other week a successful oppositioe
had been raised to the further continuance in office
of last year's vestrymen. As a resident for several
years in (hat parish, he could himself bear wimsea,
t
to the dissatisfaction that was generally felt on tu
point; and he held in his hand a letter from
genth man who had long been resident physician Iv
the workhouse, complaining of several defects—am°g
othcrs, that the workhouse, which could only properlyaccommodate 1,500, wes sometimes forced to contain
.
from 1,900 to 2,200; that there was no proper classifica-
tion. of the inmates; that the boys' school was close t,o,
the men's ward, and the girls' school to the woluenh,
ward, and that communication took place between _
children and the adults, to the marifest injury of tea
former; ; that the atmosphere of the establishment `vas
prejudicial to infant life, so that about seven'y infests
died annually in the establishment; while the number f
°
inmates under medical treatment averaged 600, or al;
one-third of the whole. He (Sir J. Trollops) might
state that in 1843 a lengthened inquiry took place befe
,re
two medical gentlemen as to the rate of mortality ie r:!it
Marylebone workhouse, and they made a report wb!'..
gave very great offence to the Marylebone dignitartol
Ile Right Hon. Baronet then read a communicatw,"e
o from Dr. Boyd, new connected with a pauper lugl
asylum at Wills. and who formerly held a medical ale
pointment under the Marylebone vestry, showing,
_t,,e
hard lot of the little girls brought up in the Maryleet
workhouse, after they lett that establishment_
to go to service among the small tradeqeec7e7l
and shopkeepers in the parish, who elough
them to do the work of experienced servants,
t There
it was not at all suited to their years or station• t_e two
was no reproach on the character of either of
stud read,
medical gentlemen whose communications he
Since dissolving their connexion with the
Maer-ment of
vestry they had both been appointed to the menikee
evidence
their evt
pauper lunatic asylums, and he thought
of
was unimpeachable. He contended that the parishes
Marylebone and St. Pancras—the former with a popula-
tionto of 200.000 and the latter 160,000—were much
.°
large to admit of the wants of the poor being properly
attended to by local boards. The Marylebone vestry
was occasionally termed the Marylebone Parliament,conertec
hylebone
from the circumstance of its being
and of Hungary, and such.
questions
ss
o t o act, provided they
and perhaps they had a right into an arena for the discussion
toifontlasseosmswetrhtolenragessof
window-tax;Poland
did not neglect the relief of
ar its
grievous faults of management For hheeisr
of the local boards to remedy. instance,
the parish
and
say that in those great
of
Marylebone bad not followed the example of many other
p whitohwenr there la
° och it werevras m But
any he
in the power
metropolitan parishes, and removed their pauper children
out of the precincts of the workhouse. He was sure
that no man who understood the management of a work-
house would pay it was right to keep 400 children within
the walls of such an establishment.—(Hear, hear.) All
i o v
e r .
Bqe, among that they had done in Marylebone was to remove some
sixty or seventy of the children to a sea-bathin Ws;
sb Iti.sGlimeoerngtea,ta at
Margate.
Hanover-square, otherothhaenrds,tthhaet parish
might
be
named, and than which there was no better example of
good local mansgement,had removed their pauper children
to a healthy, dry, airy spot at Chelsea, where they were
out of the way or
contamination, and where everything
was done for their proper accommodation. But not so
with that great metropolitan parish, Marylebone. It
confined 400 children within the walls of its own work'
house, subject to all the contamination they might re"
ceiv fromcage.
on thethe admixture of classes. He might cite ano-
ther22d of April last a motion was made
in the Queen's Bench for a mandamus against the ves-
trymen of Sr. Mary's, Islington, to compel them, under
the provisions of their own local act, to make a rite for
the relief of the poor. The Learned Counsel who made
the application Paid the object to be attained
was "to command the defendants to cause a vestry
meeting to be assembled, as by !djournment from
t
the meeting of the vestry on Easter Tuesdaylast.
At
that time a meeting was held for , the
ascer-
taining what was the sunecessy
areayr. On that day the
vestry had assembled the
die local act which was in
to be raised fur the
sum purpose of
relief of the poor in th present
estimate of
the money that
red for the maintenance of the poor for
force in the parish, and an
would be required
'
the year was duly presented, but the rate to raise the
tulhoonley
ecas;as not at that moment agreed to, because, by
act, other machinery was to be put in motion
before the rate was actually made. The local act WAS
the sth George IV., c. 125, which repealed several other
acts passed for a similar purpose. The facts of the case
were these t—Ou Easter Tuesday last there was a
meeting, after due notice given, and an estimate was
duly presented, declaring the sum required to be im-
pos•d for the relief of the poor amounted to 22,0001.,
instead of 29,000/, as in 1850, and 27,000/ as in
1851. A motion way made that this estimate should
be received and adopted,
and entered on the minutes.
It was obj, cted that if
it was adopted all further
discussion would be precluded, and therefore it
was moved that it shwald only be entered on the gni'
flutes. This was done. An amendment was then moved,
that the sum necessary fur the relief of the poor was 0113
penny. The motion was seconded, but was ultimately
withdrawn; but in the, end the meeting negatived the
proposed estimate. The poor were, therefore, left wi 11"
put provision, except through the means of what sorao
rich and charitable individuals among the parishiontra
had advanced. The object of this application was to
compel the defendants, under the provisions of their own
local Act, to complete what had been begun, and not
only to enter the estimate on the minutes, but to adopt
the estimate and to make a rate," Now, what did the
court do in this case? The court granted the applica-
tion, and, on the suggestion of Mr. Pashley, the counsel,
who made the application, that the matter was one of
pressing necessity, the court ordered that the writ
should issue at once, instead of there being a rule to
show cause. So that the Court of Queen's Bench had
absolutely to overrule the law of the land to gieg'
relief under the circumetwoo, Nor, all that the