The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-08 00:00:00

CHURCH-RATES.

A NOBLE LORD presented petitions in favour of Church-
rates from Farningliam and other places.
Lord WYN FORD presented similar petitions from
several parishes in Suffolk and Kent, to the last of which
statement was au:excd as to the respectability of the peti-
tioners.

Lord HOLLAND said that it was ungsual and inex-
pedie-lt that ann2sed statements u that nature should In
Ate shed to petit ions.

After a short conversation, in which Lord Wynford
Lord Kenyon, and Lord Holland, took tart, the petitioe
was laid on the tittle.
-Lord BP,OU GHAM presented a petition frail.
Seuth Holdernesse, in Yorkshire, against Church-rates.
He considered it to be his duty to present the peti-
tion, elthowe'h he disagreed with the prayer of it.
The Nohle Lord also presented a petition from the
Deers of Cashel, comnleinicg of the statements set forth in
a ?etition to their Ladvhiies, to the effect that this livings of
Cashel produced 7,0001. a year, and that there were oril
two cerates to per Form the duties who had sal tries of 1501.
a-year each, whereas the fact was that the seven perishes in
Cashel only produced 1,3001. a-year. The Noble Lord
eoneludel by presenting a large num!ver of petitions
litist C'• el:-rates, and in favour of the plan for their
.'posed by Government, from Cambrideesbire,
kshire, Seath Hews. Sheffield, and Essex.
ROYAL MINT BILL.
On the neition of Viscount DU NC AN N ON, the Royal
Mint Mil was real i'l third time, and passed.
Lord STRANG FORD presented pstitions in Lsoar cf
Church-rates, from several perishes in Kent.
POOR LAWS.
The Bishop of EXETER said he had a :umber o'
petitions to present against the extension of the Poor-
Ilw Act to the No:th of England. These pc do f.
cane fro:n the northern part of the kingdom, where there
131.1 never been any great teal-adieinistratioo of the old law.
'nes petitioners complained that sonic of the provisiens
were of an unneeessarily cruel ellaracter, and those
who would not call them so, would nsvertheless egret-
that it would not have been necessary to make an
dflege in the old law, if it had been everywhere admi-
iisterc,l as it was in the north. Some of these prti•
liens pr iyed for the total repeal- of the law. Will:
this he did not concur. Others did not no so far, and
he would allude to the effects of the Poor Law complained
of by the petitioners. One of she petitiocs was iron:
Bradfird, nod was signe I by two thrusand per sous,
who complained cf the arbitrary power given' to
the Commissioners as to the diet to be even tr
those who obtained relief,. IN hich was of a nature which
Christian men should not offer to Christians ; they also
compla'ned of the separation of man and wife. Another
of the petitions was from Kendal, in Westmoreland,
which 4V.:3 also signed by two thouemd persons, cud
was to the same effect ; and he hal another also to the sane
effect from North Priory. The two last petitions went to e
greater event than these, as thy prayed for a repeal cf the
Pe:,r Law :V.t. Oae of these was from Bolton-le-Moor,
and was signed by 8,400 persons, nmongst whom were
many respecteble persons, at the head of whom was th,
Reverend Mr. Stein, than whom there was not a more
excellent Pastor.—(Hear.) He (the Bishop of Exeter`
did not, however, agree with those petitions, for he though:
that the evils of the Act were capable of being remedied; but
there were many portions of the Act to which he objected
—for instance, the work-house system, which amounted
to incarceret ion for life in many instances.—( Hear.)
'rho, classification of the inmates of the workhouses was else
eery oppressive. The husband was not only separated
from his wife, hut they were separated from their children,
end had the consciousness that their mother could no!
overlook their education at that period of their life
when her care was most valuable ; far a mother could no;
see her child in the workhouse whilst it was above seven
and below sixteen years of age. The able-bodied women
an.l girls below zixteen and above seven were kept separate,
and were never permitted to be with each other. Ms
was not all. He was quite sure, and he said so with en-
tire sincerity, that he had no doubt whatever as to the
humane intentions of the Commissioners—he only com-
plained of their judgment, of what he considered as al-
most the necessary consequence of enormous power, namely,
an abuse of that power. There was a class for whom he
must say be did not look with the same anxiety to their
protection, namely, the able-bodied workmen, at all times
and under all circumstances. He admitted that in many
districts, and particularly the agricultural districts, it was
absolutely necessary to impose very strong restraints upon
the temptation to idleness afforded by the facility of relief
given to able-bodied men who might be temporarily out of
employment. For these he would not say much ; but stir.
he thought some consideration ought to be allowed. But
he would conic to another class of persons, who seemed to
he very hardly dealt with by this Act, a class upon whom
he thought that the Act ought not to be suffered to ope-
rate—he meant the manufacturing classes of the people.
He would say with confidence, that there were very few
individuals of this class who would prefer to live upon
parish relief rather than upon means obtained by their
own industry.—( Hear.) It was not probable, nor even pos-
sible, for a parish to give to the manufacturing poor that
extent of relief which would amount to a temptation to
idleness on their part. This was a class that deserved par-
ticular consideration—a consideration which, he must say,
they had not received. It might be said of the agricultural
poor, that the able-bodied men could always find work. As
a general proposition there was much truth in this, and for
this reason, that even though the work might not be very
profitable in itself, still the increase of agricultural produce
was always a gain, and no danger could result from an ex-
cess of agricultural employment. But could they say the
same with regard to manufacturing employment ? Was it
desirable, if it were possible, to force the manufacturing
labourer, who was thrown out of work for want of employ-
ment, to a still further production of labour? He appre-
hended that such a course would only aggravate the mis-
chief, and increase the misery it was intended to relieve.
There was, however, one class of agricultural labourers who
were hardly dealt with by this Act, he meant those persons
,-. who might by accident be in a great degr'e disabled from
emiative\etat. The most industrious of all labourers might
by sage **lint be deprived of a limb, and have thus cut
off at once one-half of his wages. How would such a person
be dealt with?' Suppose a man at the age of 33, with a
m rous family, should lose his arm or his leg,
wifesind a nu i
..,,,..._
-ises-etelssksesin • e o something, and possibly not a little, to-
--‘..- ftria -.; ,O . tenance of his family ; but he could not do
- <
44 4,

-,,zulgit pr,

NOrra, ,or

all so that much most be done by others, or else the family
must starve. Under the old law such a man would receive,
perhaps, sometimes an excessive allowance, but often no
more than the feelings of every humane man would say was
due from the charity of his country to a person under such
circumstances. But what would be the case under the new
Act ? This man, with his wife and children, must all go to
the workhouse.---(" No, no," from Lord Hatherton.) He
would rejoice to be shown that he was wrong in his concep-
tion of what were the provisions of the Act. His concep-
tion was, that no out-door relief would be given to any
person who laboured for the maintenance of himself and
family. If he were right, this would be the effect of it.
The man thus sent to the workhouse would be separated
from his wife and children, and would not be permitted to
have any intercourse with them. He asked whether this
was a correct statement or not ? He hoped it was not cor-
rect ; but if it were a correct statement, he asked those
whom he saw around him, whether there was one among
them, who, if he had foreseen such a result, would have con-
curred in passing this clause ? He did say, that if the law
empowered these Commissioners to separate man and wife at
such a period of life, parent and child, it was a law that was
disgraceful to a Christian Legislature to have passed, and
they ought to take the first opportunity to amend it. There
was another subject of which the petitioners complained,
namely, the diet. The Commissioners thought it their
duty, and he concurred in thinking it their duty, to take
care that the condition of persons in workhouses should not
be better than that of able-bodied labourers who supported
themselves by their own labour. But he thought that they
carried their plans on this head a little farther than was ne-
cessary. He had received a letter from a Clergyman who
spoke with great regret of the existence of a workhouse in
his parish for the union in which it was placed. He stated
the diet to be fourteen ounces of bread, a pint and a half
of gruel—three pints of oatmeal being employed in the sup-
port of between thirty and forty persons—two ounces of
cheese, and three-quarters of a pound of potatoes. This
was an accurate copy from the diet-paper of the Commis-
sioners. He thought this a very hard allowance indeed.
He had in his possession a piece of the cheese, two ounces,
but he would not hurt the feelings of the House by exhi-
biting it ; but this was the oely solid food which an able-
bodied man received, exclusive of bread, in the course of
24 hours, and this twice a-week. He must make a few
remarks on other points of the effects of the Poor-laws—
he meant that part which prevented the inmates of the
workhouse from attending divine worship in their parish
Church. He knew that the Commissioners had given di-
rections for the appointment of chaplains to workhouses.
As a conciliatory measure he thought a that wise and humane
proceeding ; but they ought not to exclude the poor from
partaking of their common worship in that Church to which
they were attached and which they contemplated with re-
verence and affection. This country was, he believed,
pre-eminent for its piety and for its religion. What were
the advantages of that religion to the poor man who was
under the operation of the amended Poor-law Act? Let
them look at the poor man placed within the walls of the
workhouse when he heard the church-bells upon the Sun-
day : did he hear them, as he was wont to hear them,
summoning him to join in that which was the best secs ice
in which he could be engaged? No ; the sounds of those
bells came to him as the knell of that imprisonment to
which he was condemned. The poor man went to hid cha-
pel, or to the room in the workhouse that might be appro-
priated for divine service ; and had he there any of those
ennobling associations which he was wont to feel in his pa-
rish church ? Did he feel that which was a great and .a
righteous, and, be (the Bishop of Exeter) would say, that
proper pride which a Christian ought to feel, that in the
Church at least he was on an equality with the highest
and the proudest in the world ?—( Hear, hear.) No ; but
the pa nun felt that he was excluded from the commu-
nity of prayer with all those classes in society that were
above his own destitute condition. This was, in his opinion,
a most iejerions plan to be pursued- both as regarded the
rich and the poor. It was of adeantage that both should
meet together to hear the word of truth ; and there was
nowhere that, in his opinion, they could meet together with
so much advantage to both as in the house of their com-
mon God. He was sure that it often must. have occurred
to many whom he then addressed "that when they !melted
down from their cushioaed and canopied galleries upon the
poor below them, and that they saw there some wretched
Lazarus kneeling to his God, he was quite sure that every
one of them :Must have felt and thought thus to himself :
—" There knels a m who, hew. ver are &red, and hoe-
ever fir below me, but who is with me an equal object of
the tendcr mercies of God, it may be will hereafter stand
in different relatien to that which we now both occupy."
It was impossilde but that such 'affections as these must
have had tl:e best eff-c:s hpon their Lordships'. minds. He_
implared or them, then, to put an end to that dang,rous
system which weu:d excel de the paupers from the Church.
Commissioners, he asserted, hiul no right to say to the
poor man" you shall not go to Church on the Sunday." 11,
suspected that to lay down any such rule was opposite to
the common lade of i:1,2 land. It certainly was opposed to
0:e statute which nude it penal upon every subject of this
realm who did not go to Church on the Sunday. Enormous
powers had undeebtedly been given to these Commisaieners ;
but there was a limitation to Ca .se powers ; they were to
do nothine; con•rary to the law of the land.—(Hear)
,Now
what the Commissioners proposed to do in this respect was
not in accordance with what the law required them to do,
but it was in violation of the law. He should then sit
down, expressing that which was his °an feelirg—his ar-
dent and his earnest wish—that large emendments should
be made in the Poor-law Act. The repeal of the Act he
did not wish for ; but still he desired to see Parliament de-
clare itself against those parts of the law which in practice
were oppressive—a law, in his opinion, that in many por-
tions of it was unchristian. He concluded by moving Out
the pethions be laid on the table.
Viscotint MELBOURNE—The Right Rev. Prelate
who has presented these petitions to the House has gone
at length into the amended Poor-law Bill—he has gone
into the details of the management and the administra-
tion of the Poor-law ; and, although I feel that such a
discussion is income:limit, and although this may not
be the proper occasion for that discussion, and that the
discussion itself cannot lead to any certain conclusion,
vet considering the expressions which the Right
'veren.l Prela'e has used—ennside.ring also the re-
tlections he has mule on the Cormoissioners—con-
sideeh.g thetmanner in which he has described the
operations.of the law—and considering the terms that he
has applied to it, that it is " oppressive" and " unchris-
tian"--considering, ton, the situation which I have the
honour to hold, I cannot, my Lords, permit the debate to
conclude without a few observations.—( Hear, hear.) I
am not here answerable for the opinions of any other Noble
Lord ; I cannot here give expression to the feelings or
opinions of any other Noble Lord ; but for myself I bg to
say, that I refuse my assent to the observations with which
the Right Rev. Prelate introduced his speech, and in which
he stated, that if your Lordships could have foreseen the
situation to which the country would be reduced by the
passing of this law, von would not. have given it your chn-
eurrence—that your Lordships never would have aided such
an enactment. My feeling respecting that law is the very
contrary to that expressed by the Right Rev. Prelate. I
consider that the measure has been successful far beyond
what could be at 'first anticipated from it.—(Hear, hear.)
I consider, my Lords, that it has had the effect of raising
the morals of the country ; and that it has been found
ever most beneficial for the unemployed labourer. It has,
my Lords, in my opinion, raised the condition of the labour-
ing classes of the people.—(lear, hear.) It has had an-
other, a higher and nobler, object, than that contemplated
by the Right Rev. Prelate. It has, too, had a great effect
in affording relief to the general taxation—it has lessened
the payments made by the country. I say, then, that the
success that has attended the measure is far beyond what
was expected when it first passed into a law.—( Hear.)
Your Lordships will recollect that it has happened with
this as upon many other subjects, that there were topics
connected with it which afforded room for eloquence ; that
there were points which afforded room for an appeal to the
feelings ; that these topics and points afford an opportunity
for powerfully exciting the passions. The power and the
opportunity the Right Rev. Prelate has taken advantage
of on the present occasion, and he has used it with no very
limited hand. Now, my Lords, it more often happen that
such appeals to the feelings and the passions can be used
againt reason, truth, and right than in support of them.
The benefits derivable from a•law are of a general nature
—these benefits are of a general character, they do not
furnish very apt topics for speaking to the feelings, they do
not afford so many opportunities for illustration, they cannot
bear a comparison with a specific case of peculiar hard-
ship under which some one or two may be suffering in con-
sequence of a general law.—( Hear.) But let me observe,
my Lords, that all the hardships we have now heard of
belong to the old law ; such hardships existed before the
statute now complained of ; they belong in no respect, nor
are they to be attributed to the law which your Lordships
passed in the late Session of Parliament. It is not for me,my
Lords, now to do more than point out generally the objec-
tions which the Right Rev. Prelate has stated to some of
the clauses of that Act. As to illegitimate children, he
stated that he made the same objections at the time that
the law passed ; and.the Right Rev. Prelate now states on
the subject, that his opinion respecting those clauses is not
only unaltered, but that it is confirmed. The Right Rev.
Prelate did not press that part, nor will I. Unfortunately,
I differ from the Right Rev. Prelate, and, with respect to
that part of the law, I have to tell him that it has been at-
tended with a success so great and so extraordinary that it
would have appeared to have been romantic—to have been
mere enthusiasm—if any one had prophesied such a result
when it was proposed. Then, next, as to the separation of
the sexes, that is another part which the Right Rev. Pre-
late has particularly attacked. All experience has proved
its advantages in all well-regulated workhouses; previous

'o the new Poor-law coming into operation such a regula-
tion was enforced.—( Hear, hear.) It was established
in the best-regulated workhouses in the metropolis ; and
it is obviously necessary for the right administration of a
workhouse.—(Hear.) And let it be observed that there
must have existed a power similar to the new
in the ancient law ; there must have existed that power
under which it was formerly done ; and all experience being
for it, it was naturally to be supposed that a regulation of
such absolute necessity should be continued for the well-
working of the new system.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
Rev. Prelate has stated also that there are parts of the
country—for instance, the manufacturing parts of the country
—in which the provisions of the Act cannot be so applied
as they are in the agricultural portions of the country. I
apprehend that there can be no greater mistake than to sup-
poze that the Act is not capable of being adapted to cir-
cumstances. I do not see, however, why the Commis-
sioners should have been vested with the powers that they
have,if they were not to make regulations suited to the pe-
culiar circumstances of particular parts of the country.—
(Hear.) And then as to out-door relief. I apprehend that
all the statements made by the Right Rev. Prelate are en-
tirely without foundation. The out-door relief is at the
discretion of the Guardians. A power is given to the Com-
missioners to state in what manner out-door relief is not
to be given. I apprehend there are only sixty unions
throughout the country thus situated. The Right Rev.
Prelate then stated that the paupers were prevented
from attending divine service on the Sunday. I can only
state what is my opinion upon this subject. As to the pro-
hibition to attend divine service in the parish Church—that
only applied to those workhouses in which arrangements
have been made for the performance of divine service
within the walls of the wcrkhouses. Where there is not
divine service within the walls of the workhouse, a regula-
tion is made for the inmates to attend at the parish Church.
I can only etate what is my feeling as one of the framers
of this Act. I only state at the same time what is the feel-
ing of the Commissioners, that they are anxious for every
opportunity to facilitate the attendance upon divine ser-
vice, and to use every inducement and persuasion to the
inmates of the workhouses to attend to the practices and
holy ordinances of religion. But then the question is this,
whether if you permit the inmates of the workhouse to at-
tend divine service in their parish Church, would they at-
tend it ?—(Hear.) Would it not be a pretext for indulg-
ing in other pursuit!, and if they leave the workhouse to at-
tend divine service, will they, instead of properly observ-
ing the Sabbath, not turn it rather to the purposes of de-
secration and pollution ?—( Hear.) This is a topic which
undoubtedly admits of a great deal of declamation ; but
I have no doubt of this, that the true interests of reli-
gion will, as far as they relate to persons so situated, be
rather promoted by the system recommended by the Com-
missioners. I believe it will be found so, not only as re-
gards the better arrangement of the workhouse itself, but
also to preserve order within the walls of the workhouse—
that having Divine Service performed there will have these
advantages even at the expense of what has been stated
in such strong terms by the Right Reverend Prelate. The
general importance of these considerations I do not deny ;
but even considerations of sanctity may often be over-
weighed by considerations of a greater weight ; and
seeing how men of practical experience have attached im-
portance to the system of having Divine Service per-
formed within the walls of the workhouse, as absolutely
necessary to preserve order there, I believe that plan
must be adhered to. I entirely concur in the senti-
ment expressed by the Right Reverend Prelate, that if
your Lordships find this Bill to be one which it is right
to maintain, if it be advantageous and beneficial in its
effects, your Lordships will not be persuaded by clamour,
nor influenced by any pressure from without, to alter
it.—( Hear, hear.) I cannot, my Lords, but express
the sorrow and regret I have felt—considering the com-
plete abieuce of political feeling and party animosity that
prevailed when this subject was debated in your Lordships'
I House—at the political, the party feeliegs which it has been
endeavoured to excite on this subject in certain districts of
the country. That it should have been so used at the
hustings 1 exceedingly regret, because I think that t!]e Bill
has been attended with the greatest advantage to the coun-
try.—( Hear, hear.) When, then, I say to your Lordships
that you ought not to be induced to alter or emend this
13:11 by reason of any clamour that they be excited aeainst
it, I agree with the Right Reverend Prelate in sayine, that
if you find it ought to he altered or amended you will also
do our duty in altering- and amending it, with the same
frankness, the same fearlessness, and the same impartiality
which is required from ou in the other point of view. As
this Bill is now undergoing (and especially the clan ies re-
ferred to) an accurate inquiry in another place, I cannot
al:me-feel certain that tl'a resultawilbe, that the Bill will be
found to hate operated advantageously to the conntry ;
and where it can be impreved, previ,ions will be introiteeed
, to insure that improyeinent.—f Hear, hear.)
Tee Duke of W ELlei NGTON—My Lords, I sop-
ported the Bill when it was in this House, and having
given that support to the Bill from being a witness to the
evils and being apprehensive of the consequences likely to
have attended the former system, I conceive it to be my
duty to come forward on this occasion, and to state that
this Bill has rurpaesed any expectation which I bed formed
of the benefits likely to result from it.—(Cheers ) The
my Lords, may require amendments in certain parts,
and it appears that his Majesty's Government have taken
measures to ascertain what points in the Bill require
amendment. I for oee am ready to pay the greatest
attention to the points which may be brought under the
consideration of this House. But I
must say that I ap-
prove of the measure so far as it has gone hitherto, and
as I have witnessed its operation.—(Cheers.) I do not
talk of what I have seen generally ; I talk of the details of
the management of the Bill, front haling witnessed that
management in different workhouses in different parts of the
country in which I have resided ; and I must say that it
has been practically beneficial, and particularly in cases
such as these. First of all, it has put the workmen and
the employer upon a true and friendly footing of con-
fidence.—(Chcers.) Then it has connected the man of
property, the man of the highest rank in his country, with
the lowest class, with the labouring class, by admitting them
to the Board of Guardians.—(Haar.) I can mention some
. Noble Lorde, who are ornaments to this House, and who
constantl, attend at the weekly meeting of the Guardians,
being elected Guardians by the parishes in the neighbour-
hood in which they reside,—( Hear, heer.) No Bill could
be attended with better results. My Noble Friend near
file is a member of the Board of Guardians in the county
in which he-resides, and in which county he is an instru-
ment of the greatest possible benefit. I say, my Lords,
that this Act of Parliament has produced those benefits,
and being convinced that it will effect still greater benefits,
and thinking so, I should be ashamed if I did not step for-
ward and avow at once my sentiments respecting it. I
avow at once that I supported the Bill at the time that his
M ,jeso Ministers proposed it—that I do not repent of
what I did on that occasion in so supporting it—(Cheers)
—but, on the contrary, that I rejoice in the pert I then
took, and I now congratulate his Majesty's Ministers on
its success.—( Loud cheers.)
Lord BROUGHAM observed, that honourable testi-
mony had just been given to the merits of the Bill that
had been attacked by the Right Rev. Prelate. The tes-
timony that had been given was indeed honourable, when
they considered what had fallen from the Noble Duke op-
posite ; it was not less honourable to the measure itself'
than it was creditable to the Noble Duke himself.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) He should not detain their Lord-
ships beyond a single moment—he should not make more
than a single remark upon the statements delivered by
the Right Rev. Prelate. He (Lord Brougham) admitted
that lie was not amongst the least sanguine when this mea-
sure had been brought forward as to the consequences to
be expected from it, and he, therefore, having entertained
such an opinion regarding it, must naturally now feel plea-
sure in concurring in the sentiments expressed regarding it
by the Noble Duke and his Noble Friend near hint. San-
guine, however, and large as his expectations had been con-
cerning the Bill, they had been supported by its results.
They had been surpassed, not merely as to the eco-
nomy produced by the measure—not merely in the savings
of the poors'-rates—not merely in the reduction of the
amount of the poors'-rates—a consideration which, how-
ever important in itself, yet was one that, in his opinion,
was the very last to be regarded ; but the measure had
surpassed his expectations in the desirable change it had
produced in the comforts, condition, and character of the
working classes of the community.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
As the Right Reverend Prelate had made a statement up-
on this subject, he (Lord Brougham) had a word or two to
add to it. The Right Reverend Prelate had undoubtedly
a right to express his opinion. On this or any other Act
of Parliament no man could object to the vehemence of
the language in which the Right Reverend Prelate might
choose to clothe his opinions ; but that which he had
no right to do, or if he at all assumed the right,
then that against which lie (Lord Brougham) warned
their Lordships, was the danger of supposing that, however
the Right Rev. Prelate might have qualified his opinions,
that however partially he disguised them—he did not say
this offensively—but without intending to be offensive to
the Right Rev. Prelate, he must observe, that in the dis-
tinction that he made, and in qualifying his disagreement
from the whole of the Bill, he sought to give them to under-
stand that he did not wish the measure to be repealed, but
was only hostile to portions of it. Now, notwithstanding all
this, he must say that the bight Rev. Prelate had assumed
that which he had no right to do, and he was to be treated
as an enemy to the measure—to all parts of the measure—
to the principle of the Bill—to all the details of the Bill—
and to the working and effects of the Bill.—(Hear.) Per-
haps the Right Rev. Prelate was more an enemy of the Bill
than he was himself aware of.—(Hear.) He had watched
c refully the whole statenv:nt made by the Right Rev. Pre-
late,
and he mast say that he had not heard any person, in

Parliament or out of Parliament, who had made a more
hostile attack upon this measure.—(Cheers.) The Right
Reverend Prelate was against the power of the Commis-
sioners, and he was against the mode in which the power
was exercised. As to the bastardy clauses, the Right
Reverend Prelate retained his opinions respecting them.
The Right Rev. Prelate said he had often disputed in
that House upon this subject, and he was sorry to see the
exaggeration in the expression of the sentiments of the
Right Rev. Prolate was increased and strengthened. The
Right Rev. Prelate was against the bastardy clauses ; and
then he was against the workhouse system, and everything
that had been done to carry into execution that part of the
plan. And then the Right Rev. Prelate, by the way of
leaving no doubt upon their minds as to his hostility to the
new Poor-law Act, declared that it was " unjust," that it
was "cruel," that it was "contrary to all principle," that it
was " oppressive, uncharitable, and unchristian."—(Hear,
hear.) He felt—as one of :the promoters of this mea-
sure whose sanguine expectations had been more than
realised—he felt rejoiced on this account ; but he also felt
great pleasure, under the grievous denunciation pronounced
by the Right Rev. Prelate, from the reflection that persons
holding the same rank and station with the Right Rev.
Prelate no longer appeared there to sustain his sentiments.
—(Hear, hear.) There were amongst them those who,
having heard the language applied to the measure by the
Right Rev. Prelate, quitted the House ; and, having
taken no part in the discussion, it was to be supposed
differed from the Right Rev. Prelate. Those Right Re-
verend Prelates had full and sufficient notice of the motion
that was to be before the House, and they no doubt had
heard the terms—the vehement, he would not say the ex-
asperating terms—applied to the measure ; but he might
say, without offence, the very strong terms in which that
measure was described. When he considered these things,
he thought he might comfort himself with the hope that
other Right Rev. Prelates did not entertain the same opi-
nions which one of their body had addressed to them that
night ; because he was perfectly confident that if they en-
tertained such opinions they would not have left their places
without joining in that which they would believe to be a just
denunciation.
Lord WYNFORD next addressed a few words to the
House. He spoke in so low a tone of voice as to be scarcely
intelligible in the gallery. He was understood to say that
he had opposed the Bill, and that since he had had the op
portunity of seeing its workings, be had reason to retract
the opinions he had formerly expressed as to the powers
conferred on the Commissioners. He was now of opi-
nion that such power should be conferred upon the
Commissioners. He could not attribute to the new
Poor Law all the benefits ascribed to it by his
Noble Friend. It had no doubt produced great good, but
he considered that the lowering of rates and other advan-
tages were promoted by the employment of the poor upon
railroads and other improvements. If means of employment
had not been found he did not think that the rate would
have been so much reduced.

Lord COLCHESTER, who spoke in a very low tone,
was understood to say he approved of the measure gene-
rally, but thought that in some particulars in required
amendment.

Lord RADNOR was of opinion the measure had worked
admirably.
Lord H ATHERTON and the Bishop of Exeter rose
at the same time, but the Right Rev. Prelate having given
way, the Noble Lord proceeded to say that he would not
have troubled the House with any observations on the pre-
sent occasion if he had not desired to explain the cause of
his interruption of the Right Rev. Prelate in the course of
his speech. He understood the Right Rev. Prelate to
say that a man who had lost a limb having applied for re-
lief, it was insisted that he should go into the workhouse
with his wife and family. Conceiving that the Right Rev.
Prelate was stating a case which he believed had occurred,
he could not help signifying the doubts he felt on the sub-
ject ; he afterwards, however, discovered that the Right
R_•v. Prelate was putting only an imaginary case, rtn(
that such a circumstance as he had referred to speculatively
had really never happened. Indeed it would be extraordi-
nary to him if a case of the nature supposed by the Right
Rev. Prelate had occurred ; because if the man wanted a
limb he would come under the description of those who
were not able-bodied, and relief out of the workhouse was
denied to:rhe able-bodied only. As Chairman of a Board
of Guard ans in a mining district in the north, where acci-
dents were happening not 'infrequently', he was qualified
to speak as to the practice in this respect, and he begged
to say that relief out of the workhouse was not refused to
persons who were not able-bodied.
The Bishop of EXETER observed that his objection
was, that the Government seemed disposed, as formerly, to
marshal their forces under the cry of " The Bill, the whole
Bill, and nothing but. the Bill." He was glad to find that
the Nolile and Ciallunt Duke concurred with hint in think
ing that there were parts of the measure which required
amendment.

Lord BROUGHAM said the Right Rev. Prelate had
alluded to a period when the Government had marshalled
their forces under the cry of " The Bill, the whole Bill,
and nothing but the Bill ;" but the Right Rev. Prelate
appeared determined to exhibit the very converse of the
proposition ; he would marshal his forces under the cry Gf
" Not the Bill, none of the Bill, and anything but the
—( A laugh.)
The petitions presented by the Bishop of Exeter were
then laid on the table.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Anal, 7.
The SnAKErt took the Chair at the usual hour.
CORK AND PASSAGE RAILWAY.

Colonel THOMAS presented a petition from the ship-
owners of Cm-k, and one from the inhabitants of Cork,
against the Cork and Passage Railway Bill.
The LORD ADVOCATE presented petitions from
Leith against the Forth and Clyde Canal Bills.