The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-16 00:00:00

kenny would persevere in his motion. He believed that
in nine cases out of ten neithi Barrister nor Doctor was
necessary, but that any perso n could go and demand the
money that eras due to him. If he did not receive an
answer as to the necessity c f employing Proctors, he
should certainly move that the Chairman do report
progress.
Mr. WAKLEY hoped the Right Hon. the Judge of
the Admiralty Court would state Ids views on the subject.
He could have no objection, as -.the money clauses were
postponed.
Sir S. LUSHINGTON said •that a candidate for prac-
tice in Doctors' Commons must -take a degree in Oxford
or Cambridge, must then enter Arches' Court, and then
may enter Doctors' Commons; they must have studied
civil law, for it was according to it, not the common law,
that the proceedings were conducted. He should not have
any objection to the admission of any barrister into that
Court, but there were about twenty-eight gentlemen now
practising in it who would be much injured, if all other
barristers who were totally ignorant of the precedents and
pleadings, the which differed altogether from common law,
while the former would be unable to push themselves into
any other court.
Mr. HUME said, however there was v. monopoly which
should be ended as soon as possible.
Mr. PRYME said, the monopoly was an advantage,
for it secured competent practitioners in the Court.
Mr. SHIE L complained that Catholics, not being able
to take a degree in Oxford or Cambridge, could not prac-
tice in the Arches or Admiralty Court.
Mr. H UM E would insist upon admitting any barrister-
at-law into the Ecclesiastical or Admiralty Courts.
Sir S. LUSHINGTON objected to the proposition.
An intimate knowledge of public law, which was only to
be learned at the Court of Admiralty, was necessary to
qualify a person to practice at that Court. This know-
ledge was now scarce amongst us. He was afraid that we
could not compete with foreign ccuntries since the death
of Lord Stowell. If the King's Advocate were ignorant
as a public jurist, this country would, to his own cer-
tain knowledge, have been involved in war through a vio-
lation of the laws of nations.
Mr. HUME pressed his amendment.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For tue clause
For the amendment 2B
Majority

The clause was then- agreed to, as were clauses up to 20.
Clause 21, after a desultory conversation, was agreed to.
The remaining clauses, with some verbal amendments,
were likewise agreed to, the House resumed, the Chairman
reported progress, and the Report was ordered to be taken
into consideration to-morrow.
POOR LAWS.

On the Order of the day for the second reading of the
Poor Law Amendment Act Continuation Lill,
Mr. GRIMSDITCH opposed the second reading of
this Bill, which he hoped the Noble Lord would not press
during the present Session of Parliament. The worst an-
ticipations had been realized as to the unconstitutional powers
of the Commissioners. He knew of no grievance that pressed
so heavily on the people of England as that imposed on
them by the manner in which the Poor Law Amendment
Act had been carried out. He believed the Commissioners
to be most henourable men, but they were deficient in
practical knowledge. The Assistant Commissioners were
many of them barristers of short standing, who had not suf-
ficient experience of the social system to enable them to
understand the feelings of the people of this country on
the subject. The Act had been passed on the express
understanding that the powers of the Commissioners
should cease at the end of five years, or of the Session of
Parliament then next ensuing. He thought five years
ample time to have formed the whole country into unions,
and he believed that before the Poor Law Com-
mission expired, which would be at the end of next
Session, the whole of the country would have been
formed into unions. The Noble Lord had been asked
early in the Session what were his intentions
respecting this law; and he had stated that he should
bring in a Bill not only to continue the Commission, but
to remedy the defects in the working of the present sys-
tem. It was therefore with great surprise that at the
close of the Session he found this Bill brought forward,
more especially when, taken in connexion with another
Bill which now stood for a second reading—the Collection
of Rates' Bill, that Bill proposed to create a new
officer—the reviser of rates. It threw all the power into
the hands of the Commissioners. The Guardians had the
power of making and of levying the rates, and of recover-
ing them by means of distress. This showed an intention
on the part of the Government of perpetuating the powers
of the Commisssioners.—( Hear, hear.) He trusted
that, under the particular circumstances of the case, consi-
dering the strong feeling existing in the country against
this Bill, the Government would not press it during the
present Session. There were prosecutions pending on
account of the alleged infractions of this law. The
Attorney-General was going down to Chester to conduct
these prosecutions. Where was the necessity for haste?
The Poor-Law Bill would continue until the end of the
next Session, and they would have the whole of that time
to mature and bring forward a plan for remedying the pre-
sent evils. If it were necessary to have a controlling con-
tral power, why not appoint another Secretary of State for
the purpose, as was the case when the appointment of Co-
lonial Secretary was made? He felt a strong objection to
this Bill, and should move that it be read a second time
that day three months,
Mr. DARB Y should not oppose the second reading,
because be wished to introduce certain amendments. The
Noble Lord had stated his intention of introducing in the
Collections of Rates Bill certain clauses repealing the
bastardy clauses of the Poor-law Bill. Those clauses had
not yet been printed, and no one had any opportunity of
judging of them. The present Bill would continue the
power of the Commissioners for three years more, and as
the Noble Lord had stated before Easter that he had a
measure prepared, he might have introduced it before the
15th July. Should his amendment be rejected, he should
divide against the third reading of the Bill ; but he hoped
the Noble Lord would give due notice of going into Com-
mittee, in order to have the subject fairly discussed.
Colonel SIBTHO RP considered that there never had
been so gross an imposition practised as in passing the
New Poor-law. The papers were teeming with corn-
ptaints of the cruelty of this law, and the exoenses of
the Commissioners were enormous. He believed that
men more unworthy of confidence than her Majesty's
Ministers did nut exist.—( Laughter.) The Noble Lord
had not dared to bring in this Bill when Members were
present who were interested in the discussion, but he
had smuggled it in, and if any Member would move the
repeal of the accursed law—( Laughter)—he would sup-
port him. He should, before the close of the Session, move
for a Committee to investigate the expenses of these Com-
missioners.
Sir J. GUEST objected to that part of the Bill which
authorised the separation of man and wife, and which had
produced a strong feeling against the Bill.
Mr. T. EGERTON thought the Bill might be suited
to the south of England, but would not succeed in the ma-
nufacturing districts. He bore testimony to the urbanity
of the Assistant Commissioners in Cheshire, but it had been
found exceedingly difficult in that county to get persons
to take upon themselves the office of Guardians.
Mr. P. HOWARD believed that few Acts had been
attended with mote beneficial effects in the North than the
Poor-law Bill, which he believed was attributable to the
knowledge displayed by the Poor-law Commissioners.
That law had had the effect of greatly lowering the rates
(Hear, hear)—and he believed had done a great deal of
good.
Sir W. JAMES said, if the Hon. Member for Maccles-
field put this question to a division, he should vote with him.
He regretted that the Noble Lord had not brought forward
the measure at an earlier period of the Session, when there
were more Members in town.

Mr. BAGGE would support the amendment of the Hon.
Member for Macclesfield. He did so not with any desire
to repeal the Poor-law Bill, but in order to give the
Guardians the power which he thought they ought to
have.

Mr. BUCK supported the second reading of the Bill.
He believed that the country was more indebted to her
Majesty's Ministers for passing the Poor-law Bill than
any other measure.

Mr. PARKER objected to the Bill, considering some
of its provisions arbitrary in the extreme.
Mr. WA KLE Y said it appeared most extraordinary
that a Bill of this nature should be proposed by her Ma-
jesty's Government without any explanatory state-
ment.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The Bill
was for the purpose of renewing one of the most
odious measures ever recorded. It was a Bill to extend for
two years the power of the Commissioners. On the
subject of this Bill society was torn almost to pieces, and
yet the present Bill was a proposal for renewing it for two
years, and that was to bo introduced by the Noble Lord
without a single statement to the House or any explana-
tion, showing the necessity of the measure, He trusted
the Noble Lord would yield to the opposition that had
been manifested against the measure, and would withdraw
the Bill for the present Session, in order that he might
bring in a more comprehensive measure in the next. The
present measure was a piece of patch-work legislation.
Mr. PA KINGTON would support the general
principle of the Poor-law Amendment Act, because he
believed it had done more to elevate the working classes
than any other measure.
Mr. ATT OOD implored the House not to pass the
Bill, for it was his firm belief that a more odious measure
in the eyes of the people of England never passed since
the Norman conquest than the Poor-law Bill. If Hon.
Members would go on with this Bill, and grind the faces
of the poor—if they would close the workhouses and
open bastiles to them, the most terrible resul:s would
follow.
Mr. FRESHFIELD said he should soon endeavour
to induce the House to modify the New Peor-law, espe-
cially the unmanly bastardy clauses, and restore them to
the character of the Elizabethan law. He hoped the
present question would not be pressed to a division.
Mr. T. D UNC_ 0_ NIBE supported the motion of the
Hon. Member for Langton. The Bill had a fraud on the
face of it. In proposing to continue the Poor-law Corn_
missioners for three }ears more, they were breaking faith
with the people of England. He was sure that the Bill
would be resisted, if passed, in the West Riding of York_
shire, and resisted successfully-.
Lord J. RUSSELL said his object in bringing in this
Bill was to allow of some discussion on other proposed
amendments in the course of the next Session. He had
been asked why he had not now proposed a general new
Bill? His answer was, that there would not be time to
discuss it. However, he (Lord J. Russell) had no objec-
tion now to shorten the period proposed in the Bill.—
(Hear, hear.) He was convinced that the Act had been
very beneficial to the country not so much in reducing the
rates as in the manner in which it had allowed the indus-
trious to be rewarded, and the idle to be detected. But
while the Act had been so beneficial, why were such ob-
i jections made to it? It was obvious that powers of this
kind were more liable to objection than the powers for-
merly placed in parish vestries, because nothing was known
of what formerly took place, and any thing which now could
be pointed out would tell to the disadvantage of the Com-
missioners, and must tend to throw unpopularity on the
Government. He thought there was no man who would
Gish to see the old system again established. He trusted
the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time,