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

Poor-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
°Moors which was necessary to their very indepen-
dence, bat not venturing to break throueh the c mstitu
taco established under those local cots. Lth ) Poor-law
Board was to exempt places under loud Acta from these
rules and regulation, under what pretence °odd that
Beard be maintained at all for the supervision of the
boards of guardians? For the reasons he had steted ho
trusted the House would not assent to the motion of the
Noble Lord, seeing that the Noble Lord had made out
to case in support of it.
Sir G. PECHELL said the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman (Sir J. Trollope) had attempted to throw doubts
Von 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 monstrous. 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,
'he (Sir George Pechell) and those with whom they acted,
had been fora length of time pressing upon different
Governments to give boards of guardians that control
over their expenditure which they ought to heve; 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 for the
time being. He warned the Right Hon. Baronet that if
the system 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 Alverstoke, although it had been
shown by the Poor-law Inspectors themselves that it
was exceedingly well managed, the Poor-law Board had
inflicted 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, he trusted that the motion
of the Noble Lord would be successful, and he would
only propose to add to it such words as would exempt
from the operation of the Commissioners those parishes
which were incorporated by the 22d Geo. 111., 0. 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.
siemens should nut 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
in the general Poor-law Amendment Act the Legisla-
ture intended that the powers of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners should extend to parishes governed by local
Acts. These powers consisted in the general regulation
and management of workhouses, and in the appointment
Paid officers for the better relief of the poor, the
eard 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
Powers had been preserved to the Commissioners.
--(Hear, hear.) In order to preserve uniformity in
the management of workhouses, as well as for the se-
-eurity of the officers, it was absolutely necessary that
such powers should exist. But at the same time there
was nothing in these powers which could be considered
bas °Wised to the boards of guardians; on the contrary,
edad considered during the whole of the time that ho
held office, that his duties were rather to co-ope-
rate with than to controul the boards of guardians. In
ma•
ny instances, however, ho 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
the officers below the amount which he thought requisite
in order to secure efficiency. He believed that he had
On several occasions prevented by his interference many
Worthy men from losing their situationsdsinofconsequencse
of these attempts on the part of boar
-During the time he had held office, he had negyeurardi iatnr:
fered in parishes under local acts, unless at the desire of
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-
niedy as the law afforded him the means of doing.
he for Brighton threw out against him what
ae deemed a personal imputation. He read to the
Rouse f 4 list of places with which, he said, the House
had not interfered so as to abolish their local control,
and he laid special stress on the word "Hull." Now
What were the facts? Ho had not been two years in
Office when he was informed that the administration of
theA poor-law was essentially defective in Hull; that two
'Leath, had taken place there owing to the want of pro-
Per precaution. Notwithstanding the representations
Tote
ch were made and urged upon him, ho declared his
uti°ll of putting in force the consolidated workhouse
rules,
.;1 and persevered in that intention—and what was
e c.onsequence? Why, that all parties now agreed
mat tt was the best thing which could have happened
fts_orathem.—(Elear, hear.) Ie his administration had not
~"reehu honest, he had no claim to recommend him.—
Z,e__elle_rs-) The second-ground on which he rested his
ten Won to the motion of his Noble Friend was this.
There were in England 375 parishes, whose affairs
tvereeraet regulated by directors, under local Acts. The
lon majority of these parishes had been long and
Bot ~ago under the regulation of the Poor law
• ru A very small number still regulated their
neon
affairs. In a great many CleOS this had been done
_ucPs n the petition of the guardians themselves. In other
;reef; Parliament had interfered because grave abuses
r brought under the notice of the Poor-law Board.
ticbat would be the effect then of adopting this resolu-
e "That it be an instruction to the Committee to
r-
e'ia, Prevision for exempting from the jurisdiction of
Foor-law Commission any parish, the management
r the poor whereof is regulated by a board of directors
Orrt;t4clians, under a local Act or local Acts of Parlia-
It would be not only to protect parishes from
e futuree jute rference; but it would be to undo all that has
re
eittn done,atte and throw upon these parishes the sole admi-
ot the poor-law.—(Hear, hear.) Another
.s_cianta why it was impossible ho could support this pro-
.7i!tlo cts n was this:—lf these parishes governed by local
;tWere to be exempte 1, he should be glad to know on
ilt grounds Parliament could maintain a jurisdiction
in s other hoards of guardians? The highest noblemen
of guardians,
land acted as chairmen in the sittings of the boards
✓el.flardians. The Duke of Richmond, the Right Hon.
Zelitlenaan the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as
thas a host of other distinguished persons, took part
tri
e administration of the law in their respective
;_ et.N die-
and if they did not find it a humiliation to put
4L! force the consolidated rules, he did not see how
see gentlemen of St. Pancras or Marylebone could
complain.—(-Eloar, hear')
Captain PECHELL assured the Right Hon. Gentle-
that he he did not mean any imputation whatever, and
it he laid stress ;Ton the word Hull, it was merely to
attract his attention, he being Member for that town.
.ttes on the contrary, had endeavoured to pay him the
'Ugliest compliment, and his regret wes that he had not
remained longer in office.
Mr. L xsLETT thanked the Noble lewd for having;n• ougat the subject under the notice of the House. He had some experience of the working of the poor law,
and he considered 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 expa ss considerable regret at the
the Iniation of the Noble Lord the Tearnner in which
bone had been received. It appeared to himrfoiur Alblaatr ytlbee-
Public had a right to understand on what
in complained of took place. thisthelpeease
Chichester, which he represented, the Poor-law Board
interfered; he did not object, nor was the conduct of the
Board complained of. The guardians of Chicheste:haatd.
carried on their business without any complaints
lebs
so;
seever being urged against them. As this he
did not know on what principle interference had taken
PlP.ce. Ho wanted to know why, when parishes were
still exempME willingly t, Chichester should have been excluded. ••
Mr. HU
bore testimony to the ability
!Led fairness which characterised the administration of
✓e
Right Hon. Gentleman, of which there never had been
'o3' complaint. With
b n regard to the pariah of Maryle-
ere,e,el he admitted their, affairs were not in. that state he
-411 u wish therm to be; abuses had crept in, and abuses
took adong time to correct. With regardto. St. Patt-
er.", he understood the Poor-law board had
Ammtearjfoertetd
v:fith the
the. k -alPloyment. of their own servants.
blio servants employe
coeel..,e,pt guardians of the parish had come to the
ttrgon that one of the u
Inis4lhad inter-
as unworthy of holding office, and be was dis-
sect;f the general board sitting in London
feed end .
sengecefluthdat
tutte . applied for a mandamus to compel his re-i i
contrary to common
was, he considered,
throushou Calculated to excite discontent and
the
Housealarm
would all: the country. He hoped, therefore,
.tc)
and that
the Itight 11 this instruction to be agreed
eePting 'ti. en- Gentleman would introduce a clause, ex-
until a izalvote, 'Perishes from the powers of the board
Sir j, vi;„,'„JtY of the ratepayers required it.
sto
-ne. of St';‘)/eLLOPE said neither in the case of Alver-
"ad the ra "eras, of, Mary lebone, or of Chichester
signedhy43h,i7rs been
signed by him; they had been
Sir B,
4APlrieSi eeessor in office.
goer-law Bill
lion reminded the House that when the
of the Ro was last to be renewed the greatest por-
vernalent,han
ednit..tnat
Members who now sat upon the Go-
a propositin c:1433 not only spoke but voted in favour of
Itle believe Moved that thi Was
the board should cease and determine.
the present Judge-AdvoCate who
Months. e Bill be read a second
that th
day three
Would not he, therefore, had hoped that this amendment
ofdhe st. pave been opposed. The board of guardians
cars. Thilneras union desired to dismiss one of their
"Thaere-I:Lie, general board said they might pay their
obtain -`" tatty should not dismiss them without first
the 'Fog their consent; and the board now petitioned
gone
term poor be excluded from the operation of the ge-
Goveroitre-law. The Strand Union was an instanc3 of
tibia and
dl:4 control not having prevented the most hor-
ia any Ogusting occurrences which could take place
ust the bod
Pu he establishment. With regard to Maryle-
het of on 3'was
stamped as a political body by the
in this e of the Members of the Government. It was
bone theY was no returning officer in Maryle-
. returning officer was the churchwarden; there
re two oh •
itth urenward ,
ens• one was elected by the vestry,
mcello:her by the Crown. Lord Portman succeeded Lord
ete °p, and continued in the office under several Admi-
_en. ations; but the moment the Noble Lord, the pre-
' t.Conuninioner of Works, found there was 5 Yaugn°37'