The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-13 00:00:00

the overseers and the churchwardens. In nine cases
out of ten the churchwardens would have nothing to
do with it, and the overseers no assets. He quite
agreed that when there was an intention, an attempt
n iirectly, to resist the operation of the Poor•law Act,
that it ought to be prevented. But he though the
Bill went considerably beyond that.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had endeavoured to see
whether a clause could not be framed to exclude from
the Bill those cases (which were all he meant to ex-
clude) in which the relief of the poor had been con-
ducted• under a local Act only, and not according to the
prok is?ons of the Poor-law Amendment Act. But he
found, it very difficult to effect that object without in.
curring the risk of its being extended further than was
intended, and enabling parties to defeat the Bill. He
certainly must oppose the clause of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, which went to provide that whenever there was
a local Act, which had anything to do with the collection
of rates, that then the Act should not operate ; thereby
excluding many cases in which it was most desirable
that the Act should meet the difficulties which were
interposed to the working of the original Act. In-
stances often occurred in which Guardians appointed
under the Poor-law Act had been left without funds,
and had advanced from their private resources and on
their own credit the requisite money. Was such a sys-
tem to be allowed ? .
The House divided, and the numbers were—
For the clause
Against it
45

Majority against it
Mr. HAWES and Mr. DUNCOMBE presented pe
ions against the passing of the Bill.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he objected to it, and
eclared that of all the breaches of faith ever per-
petrated by a Government, the refusing to agree
to that clause was the most unjustifiable.—(Hear,
hear.) parish of St. Andrew's Holborn,
had paid 3,0001. for a local Act, which would he now
waste paper. Toe Noble Lord had several times
stated, that; the Bill would not affect parishes under
local Acts.—( Hear, hear). It had evidently been the
intention of those who had charge of the Bill to perpe-
trate this trick on those parishes, and he again entreated
the Noble Lord to withdraw from such an unfair pro-
ceeding.—(Hear, hear). If not, he should divide the
House against the passing, of the Bill, and moreover
divide upon repeated adjournments.
Mr. DARBY would divide against the passing of
the Bill, but not on repeated adjournments.
Mr. HUME considered it was a direct breach of
faith on the part of the Government, to persist in re-
jecting that clause.—(Hear, hear). He had concurred
in supporting the original Act, but could not justify the
Noble Lord in thus pushing forward a Bill
giving such extraordinary powers at the end of
a Session, and in part against repeated declarations
of his own.—( Hear, hear.) He should certainly divide
against the Bill, though he would not join in throwing
further impediments in the way of the Bill, as they
could do no more than record their decided protest against
it, and against the unfair advantage which had been taken
of the public respecting it.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said, if he had ever declared that
he would agree to any clause providing that the Bill
should not affect parishes under local Acts, and had now
opposed it, he should certainly have been guilty of a
breach of faith ; but he had never said any such thing.
His intention was that the Bill should not introduce the
Poor-law Amendment Act into parishes governed by
local Acts, nor did he believe that the operation of the
Bill would have that effect ; still that declaration did
not bind him to assent to any words it might suit any
Hon. Member to propose. The Bill was intended to
get rid of difficulties at present existing in the way of
applying funds for the relief of the poor. It was
admitted generally that such an object was desir-
able. But the clause suggested by the Hoe. Member
for Finsbury would have greatly neutralized this desir-
able operation of the Bill.
Mr. HAWES thought it unfair that to meet difficul-
ties in a few special cases, and cases now in course of
adjudication by the Courts of Law, a general measure of
this kind should be so determinately persisted in. With
regard to:the parish of Lambeth (supposed to have origi-
nally given rise to the Bill), he was instructed to state,
that the funds for the relief of the poor had never been
withheld. He opposed the Bill, because it violated the
original understanding, that the guardians should be
under the control of the rate-payers : and if the Bill
passed, let it be distinctly understood that the guardians
would be under no such control. Nothing could more
tend to disgust the friends of the Liberal cause than
such a measure.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord HOWICK said it was a mistake to suppose
that Bill would alter the position of the parish of St.
Andrew's Holborn, which was now liable to form part
of an Union. It never could have been intended that
the Bill should apply to no parish wherein there was a
local Act affecting merely the assessment of the rates.
Mr. EWART said he deemed this Bill a violation
of the original agreement, that the administrative power
alone should be with the Poor-law Commissioners—
the rating powers with the parishioners.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. A. liserEs, Mr. GRIMR-
DITCH, and Captain PECHELL,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the Bill
Against it
Majority —l9
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
BIRMINGHAM POLICE BILL.
On the Order of the Day being read for bringing up
the Report on this Bill,
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD said he should oppose the
Report being brought up. He and his Hon. Colleague
were determined to oppose the Bill in every stage. The
Hon. Gentleman took that occasion to deny the accu-
racy of the statement that Mr. Edmonds had ever re-
commended, or countenanced recourse to physical force.
He should move that the Report be received that day
three months.
Mr. ATTWOOD seconded the motion, and con-
firmed the statement of his Hon. Colleague with re-
gard to Mr. Edmonds. Oastler and Stephens had re•
commended the use of arms and physical force, but
Mr. Edmonds had been the first to denounce such
conduct, and had therefore been most unjustly and un-
justifiably attacked. The same might be said with
regard to Mr. Douglas and Mr. Muntz. As to this
Bill, he (Mr. Attwood) would tell the Noble Lord
that if he wished to try the experiment of intro-
ducing this system of police, he had better try it in
towns where men had not been educated and had not
been taught to judge and to think for themselves ; for
Birmingham was the very last place in England on
which political experiments should be tried. When he
(Mr. Att wood) spoke the truth he was told he was
" eccentric," and that there was " something singular "
about him.—(A laugh). He would therefore
endeavour to be more guarded in his lan-
guage, and make his food as suitable as pos-
sible for the tender stomachs of such politicians as the
Hon. Member for Woolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) who
was not in his place.—(Laughter.) He would endea-
vour to be as guarded as possible in all his remaaks,
but he must say the present Bill was based on a wrong
principle, and would produce a different effect from
that which the Noble Lord and her Majesty's Ministers
intended. If Government withdrew this Bill, and
brought forward the old Bill, a little satisfaction might
be produced.
Mr. FINCH thought that if the Noble Lord
abandoned that part of the Biil which nominated a Com-
missioner and placed the control of the police in the
Town Council, all opposition to the Bill would be with-
drawn. He wished to ask the Noble Lord whether it
was his intention to apply all the provisions of the 10th
of Geo. 4th to this Bill?
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was not intended to in-
troduce all the provisions of that Act into the present
Bill, but the police would not have the power of voting
for Members for the Borough.
Mr. HU ME thought it would be much better to take
away the Charter from Birmingham altogether than to
place an individual over the Town Council in the
degrading manner proposed by this Bill. He was sure
that the Noble Lord was anxious to maintain the peace
of Birmingham, but he was afraid that the present
measure was catcul ttad to effect great mischief.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Hon. Member for
Kilkenny had stated truly when he Raid that it was his
(Lord J. Russell's) wish to preserve the peace of the
town of Birmingham. All that he was anxious to do
'.vas to maintain it in the least objectionable manner.
Tile Metropolitan Police were not liked, the Police
under the first Bill he had introduced were not ap-
proved of, the military were not approved, and he
therefore thought the proposition of the present Bill was
likely to be least objectionable. He was quite sure,
notwithstanding the statements that had been made,
that if he had persevered in the first Bill he should have
been defeated.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared-
-38
For receiving- the Report
10
Against it ......................
... • • —2B
Majority .....................
The Report was then brought up.e
excluding police.
Mr. rfr.oEmLvLotliSngbfroorug:%em
brought up
oclfanparliament.
lice.
The Bill was then ordered to be engrossed, and to
be read a third time to-morrow at twelve o'clock.
The Report on the Tithe Commutation Act Amend.
meet Bill was received, and the Bill ordered to be read
a third time to-morrow at twelve o'clock.
WAYS AND MEANS.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
moved the reception of the Report of the Committee
of Ways and Means.
ajEaLsty, w
14
directionsCNivitNhat proper persons should be appointed
to examine forthwith, and report on, thenould mboevegdraacniouA3
graciously
rpela4ses,
e. t 0
give pray-
ing
M trha
her
the best means of
communication by sea between Dublin and London, in
connexion with Railways. This was a case in which the
order now made could not be 4rawn into a precedent.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
did not wish to throw any difficulty in the way of the
motion of the Hon. Member for Dublin, but he was