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

-ee-law Board did was simply to issue to those
Parishes rules and regulations for the relief of the poor,
reserving at the same time that power over the local
Offioers which was necessary to their very indepere
deuce, but not venturing to break through the censtitu-
time established under those local acts. It the Poor-law
Board,__ 'was to exempt places under local Acts from these
5,,1es and regulations, under what pretence could that
maard be maintained at all for the supervision of the
boards of guardians? For the reasons he had stated he
'basted the House would not assent to the motion of the
Noble Lord, seeing that the Noble Lord had made out
Ile' case in support of it.
a, Sir G. PECHELL said the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman (Sir J. Trollope) had attempted to throw doubts
Vert the statements of the Noble Lord, and had road
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 o
'Government. The conduct pursued by the Right
honourable Gentleman in reference to this question
'was monstrous. The Right Hon. Gentleman had re-
Plied to the Noble Lord just as if the Noble Lord bad
Made the motion before the House for party purposes.
Nothing could be more unfair than that, for the Noble Lord,
110 (Sir George Pechell) and those with whom they acted,
bad been for a length of time pressing upon different
Governments to give boards of guardians that control
over their expenditure which they ought to have; and
lie 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 for the
time beiug. He warned the Right Hon. Baronet that if
!.143 &ester& of interference with towns under the opera-
tion of local Acts was continued, it would C 41130 such an
amount of remonstrance, that sooner or latter redress
Would be inevitable. It was within his own knowledge
;own
in the parish of Alverstoke, although it had been
;own by the Poor-law Inspectors themselves that it
exceedingly well managed, the Poor-law Board had
lan sued on that parish 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, be trusted that the motion
of the Noble Lord would be successful, and be would
only propose to add to it such words as would exempt
evrTirhth"peration of the Commissioners those parishes
c 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
tbirese ds of the Poor-law Commissioners with respect to
.incorporated parishes.
of the
BAINES said that, as he believed the amendment
"` the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone to be
t'
141hstan tally that the souse should now declare that
henceforth the jurisdictn of the Poor-lap Commis.
*loners 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
Ig the general
There could be no doubt whatever but that
general Poor-law Amendment Act the Legisla-
ture that the powers of the Poor-law Commis-
:rners should extend to perishes governed by local
ell- These powers consisted in the general regulation
and management of workhouses, and in the appointment
Gt Paid officers for the better relief of the poor, the
ard at the same time possessing the power of direct-
luk the tenure by which such officers should hold
pit °face, and upon every occasion upon which the
_ a w Bill had been before Parliament these
Po seers had been preserved to the Commissioners.
the hear.) In order to preserve uniformity in
°were, abagement of workhouses, as well as for the se-
-8....tey of the officers, it was absolutely necessary that
e_''',l Powers should exist. But at the same time there
teas nothing in these powers which could be considered
ss oPPosed t
he lead ° the boards of guardians; on the contrary,
had
hop considered during the whole of the time th et he
eake • °face, that his duties were rather to co-ope-
__ nth than to controul the boards of guardians. In
Mit?▪ Pt instatces, however, he had found that the com-
port!,of the Poor-law officers had originated in mere
Parts reuds, or in an attempt to reduce the salaries of
'ee officers below the amount which he thought requisite
ma order to secure efficiency. He believed that he had
_le several occasions prevented by his interference man
Worthy men from losing their situations in consequencey
Pebthese attempts on the part of boards of guardians.
aring the time he bad held office, he had never inter-
-I!red in parishes under local acts, unless at the desire of
the guardians themselves, or in cases where he had
?aeon to believe, upon clear and satisfactory evidence,
tthat there were abuses in the management of the
_ariebs to which it was his duty to apply such re-
-11,731 as the law afforded him the means of doing.
h Member for Brighton threw out against him what
I e-teemed a personal imputation. He read to the
'deemed
a list of places with which, he said, the House
sot interfered so as to abolish their local control,
vs_ he laid special stress on the word " Hull." Now
01;4et Were the facts? Ho had not been two years in
th-1 When he was informed that the administration of
pepoor-law was essentially defective in Hull; that two
nis had taken place there owing to the want of pro-
precauti
nice, eh. Notwithstanding the representations
inteo „were made and urged upon him, he declared his
Ives note of putting in force the consolidated workhouse
the and persevered in that intention—and what was
fatsirseqeence? Why, that all parties now agreed
rtb was the best thing which could have happened
nee_ (uear, hear.) If his administration had not
honest, he had no claim to recommend him.—
.1.8.) The second ground on which he rested his
,Poettion to the motion of his Noble Friend was this.
weliraertereevere in England 375 parishes, whose affairs
retie _goola.ted bfy directors, under local Acts. The
opal: y o these parishes had been long and
litzd4go under the regulation of the Poor law
_ _As very
small number still regulated their
11,,"a.u.11.1x . In a great many cases this had been done
ce-"u petitton of the guardians themselves. In other
rterliament had interfered because grave. abuses
1-
Th.. 111 Drought tinder the notice of the Poor-law Board.
snat 'would be the effect then of adopting this resole-
aorteese, That
to e a at it be an instruction to the Committee to
the
provision for exempting from the jurisdiction of
th Poor-law Commission an
Poor whereof parish, the management
or hereof is regulated by a board of directors
poerVians, under a local Act or local Acts of Pa,rtia-
fete" It would be not only to protect parishes from
Iso -re inteulerence; but it would be to undo all that has
eu, doae
hist . and throw upon ration , these parishes the sole adoei-
-44,011 -of the paor-laste—Mear, hear.) Another
1,08:„$) Why it was impossible he could support this pro-
ne" rt Was this:—If these parishes governed by local
;1.'4 Were to be exe pte ,he should be glad to know on
hat grounds Parliamentra
could maintain a jurisdiction
is iher boards of guardians?
the The highest noblemen
of 'end acted as chairmen in the sittings of the boards
oeeatulaerocilitens. The Duke of Richmond, the Right Hon.
*Qua art the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as
Rot:th 3 a host of other distinguished persons,
. took part
administration of the law in their respective die-
ip an
d if they did not find it a humiliation to
put
tit "'roe the consolidated rules, he did not see how
0010-Ee_htletnen of St. Pancras or Marylebone could
ca a--(Hear, hear,)
p_tain PECHELL assured the Right Hon. Gentle-
hu„l,ll he did not mean any imputation whatever, and
$e cot
stress upon the word Hull, it was merely to
es;tr t his attention, he being Member for that town.
••':e On the contrery, had endeavoured to pay him the
41ghest ccrmplieeareht,`and his regret was that he had not
remained long
Mr. LASLETTltoleffianeek.ed the Noble Lord for having
brought the' subject
under the notice of the House. He
had some experience ofthe working of the poor law,
lied he considered that some
Itecessarr.amendment in the law was
Mr, J. A. SMITH believed that Tie poor-law had
effected great improvements; but at same time he
moat express considerable regret atuthetme same
in which
her for Maryle-
Ple Motion of the Noble Lord the
°°llo had been received. It appeared
_r_moothlat the
ithip e this
Public hart a right to understand on whatie
&terferetice complained of took place.
r boater, which he represented, the Poor-lae cAsee of
11.7rtered;' he did not object, nor was the conduwct of the. ell complained of. The guardians of Chichester had
worried on their business without any complaints what-
direr being urged against them. As this was so, he
Ida not know on what principle interference had taken
atil'tee He
wanted to know why,
_when parishes were
lepeA„etont, Chichester should have been excluded.
%lull:ell:WE willingly bore testimony to the ability
tilli'renesa which characterised the administration ee
litelly ;tut Hon. Gentleman, of which there never had been
hope "°mPlaint• With regard to the parish of Maryle-
ee. k_
.•
*oak he admitted their affairs were not inint,haantdstaahtenshees
took Wish them to be; abuses had. crept
eras, iie-eg time to correct.
•-p law board had interfered
Wttli the, understood the Poor-law With regard to
S tP an-
°l the b:l33PloYment of their own servants.. A majority
racluoioaerd of guardians of the parish hadcomemeptlooythede
thee, that one of the public servants
anis was it
• sed; nworthy of holding office,
L
London had inter-
ered matte general board sitting in and he was dis-
ttnionahaPPlied fora mandamus to compeloe
his re-minmstoiii
aense ontiata.w, 58, he considered, contrary to co
the"gttellt tralerdated to excite discontent and
h Haioaursr:
riouid allow
tievcountry. He hoped, therefore, t
ight 1400,, instruction to be agreed to, send tlet.
tesraug' these "eotleman would introduce a clause,
17rilpiajorityPollitahhes from the powers of the board
' TROLL "e ratepayers required it.
tadtituhnsof pet_ p OPE said neither in the case of Alver-
ai the orde 'mortis, of Marylebone, or of Chichester
St by its rs been signed by him; they had been
13:p.r,,Predecessor in office.
;:_oor-law reminded the House that when the
"O of " leas last to be renewed the greatest por-
ettepr4rol33eletebylth'esegernbers who now sat upon the Go-
leta Position th not only spoke but voted in favour of
moben, at the board should cease and determine.
ved believes it w
that the the the present Judge-Advocate who
Zuttis_ lie Bill be read a second time that day three
or°4ld hot e, therefore, had hoped that this amendment
0 the st. I,oe been opposed. The board of guardians
ofkers, /tiler's union desired to dismiss one of their
0h leers, bolue general board said they might ply their
the go • they should not dismiss them without first
%use
ttheir consent; and the board now petitioned
clerai Poar.lo be excluded from the operation of the ge-
ererneeenr e The Strand Union -was an inatune,l of
bble and „ control not having prevented the most hor-
"Y Pahl fasting occurrences which could take place
eel the c establishment. With regard to Meryl°.
is of one body was stamped as- a political body by the
4110 this ,e°f the Members of the Government. It was
th 'ye-there was no returning officer in Maryle-
_ e returning officer was the churchwarden; there
kthe Othe°r behurchvvardens; ones was elected by the vestry,
es,y(*, he Crown. Lord Pirtlel
i eucc, ded Lord
Ilistratt oil (> continued in it, t;,` :1 ider
%tit ns; but the mo 'donatni3,- oble Lord, the pre-
-I°ller of Work,, foundthere was a vacancy,

Poor-]g,