The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-23 00:00:00

PRICE 5d

prescribed by law. He ,thought a more rational pi'oPo-
sition could not be made by any Minister under the pe-
culiar circumstances of the case ; and if the Right HOL'.
Baronet would not defend his conduct as revrded thepre-
sent measure, he (Mr. W.) would be reluctantly' compelled
in vindicating his own conduct, which had been attacked,
to defend that of the Right Hon. Baronet.—(Hear, and a
laugh.) What was the history of the present. enactment?
In 1834 the Poor-lawßill was passed, and by it the power
of the Poor-law Commissioners was continued for five
Years. In 1839 a Bill was introduced by the Noble Lord
the then Member for Stroud, to prolong the power of the
Commissioners for one year ; and it was in the last
Session of Parliament that the party, ,which had
on all occasions professed so much sympathy for
the poor, had dared to beard public. opininn by
bringing in a Bill to continue their pavers
for ten years; and in consequence of their being scow`ed
by the public—being despised by the public—for the
manner in which they had acted as regarded
that meastire, they now found fault with those
who complained of their conduet. • A more pre-
' posterons proposition was never made, and it was
made in opposition to the loudly-expressed opinion of the
people of that country. .What was, then, the conduct of
the Right Hon. Baronet ? He being then the leader of
the Opposition, and having no object to attain, proposed
that the term should be only five years ; that he thought
ten years too long ; and that it was wise to bring the
conduct of the body repeatedly under the consideration
of Parliament, in order that their Acts might be re-
vised and re-canvassed. Another proposition was
inane to reduce the time to two years, but that was nega-
tived by a large majority, and consequently the Right
Hon. Baronet and the House were pledged in some degree
to support a propoSition for 'continuing them for five
years. But a change of Ministry having taken-place
the Right Honoprithle Baronet, in deference to public
•• -
-eyiaiSii, out orra'pe'ef to the sentiments ,of the people,
.merely asked for a Bill to continue the Commis-
sioners for six months, in order that time
might be afforded for investigating the whole
merits of the case, and making due inquiry,
so that a proper measure might be prepared, ac-
ceptable to the House and agreeable to the public at
large.—(Hear.) He maintained that no Minister of the
Crown had ever shown a greater respect for public
opi7:ion than the Right Hon. Baronet. He cordially j
supported this proposition, and as he before stated, if
the Right Hon. Baronet did not defend himself, he,
(Mr. Wakley) would be compelled to do so.
Mr. RICE was quite satisfied that, however the speech
of the Hon. Member for Finsbury might be cheered, the
Right Hon. Baronet was too straightforward and indepen-
dent to accept his version of the matter.—(Hear.) He
believed the consideration of the question to be postponed
till the Corn-laws were brought under their consideration ;
and when the two questions, which appeared to him in
some measure connected with each other, were brought
forward, he hoped the Corn-laws would have precedence.
He regretted the Right Mon. Baronet had postponed
the consideration of the question ; but he was not
one of those who would join in any factious opposi-
tion to the course which the Right Honourable Baronet,
in the exercise of his discretion as to the time which
might be proper for bringing forward the question, had
adopted ; but knowing that the Right Honourable
Baronet had taken part in all the discussions
which had lately taken place on the subject, and that
lie was in possession of a vast deal of information
connected with the working of those laws, he
thought it almost impossible that he should not have
made up his mind. Considering the position in. which
the Right Hon. Baronet was'placed, and seeing that the
responsibility of postponing those measures rested with
himself and his Government, he could only regret that
he had decided upon that course. He certainly did not
mean to be a party to any factious opposition to the pro-
position of the Rignt Hon. Baronet.
Sir R. PEEL said, that if he 'had apprehended there
would have been any discussion on the second reading of
the Bill, he would have taken care that his Right Hon.
Friend would not have chosen so early a day,
after the first reading, to propose the second stage. lie
thought that there was a general understanding that the
Bill would pass as a matter of course. It would
certainly be ungrateful, if he did not acknowledge
the obligations he was under to the Hon. Gentleman
who came forward voluntarily in his behalf—(Hear, hear,
and laughter)—but he confessed he was more obliged
to the lion. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rice) than
to the Hon. Member on that (the Ministerial)
side who undertook his defence. The Hon. Gentleman
thought that the Poor-law and the Corn-law ought to be
conjointly considered and settled. He (Sir R. Peel)
asked whether it would be possible for a government to
do justice to the Poor-law without having an opportunity
of considering the local and general bearings of
that measure ? Would it be possible, placed in
the situation in which the Government at pre-
sent was, without availing themselves of the informa-
tion which the et:riphament of Commissioners would enable
theri:ta procure, to consult the public mind on the
subject within a week of their acceptance of offige?
He (Sir Robert Peel) was afraid he could not
accept the vindication of his conduct, which the
Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had volun-
teered in his behalf.—(Hear, hear.) As for the conti-
nuance of the Poor-law for the period of six months, he
proposed it on the principle that he did not think it
just, with the intentions which he had avowed on the part
of the Government not to transact any business which the
public service might require during the present sitting of,
the House, to call for a definite opinion of the
House as to the period for which the Commission might
endure beyond that period which was absolutely
necessary for the consideration of the subject.
Ile did not propose the period of six months as meaning
to imply a reflection on the determination the House had
come to last year, when the subject was brought
under its consideration ; but he proposed that period in
conformity to the principle on which be bad already
acted, namely, that it was not desirable to call
the House to the discussion of important matters of a per-
manent and extensive bearing during the present Ses-
sion. It was in conformity with that principle that lie
proposed the period of six months, reserving to him-
self and the Government to make what extension of
that period they might deem necessary for the public
interest when Parliament again met. This much he
thought it necessary to declare that there might be no
misunderstanding on the subject.
Mr. C. WOO]) had risen at the same time with his
Hon. Friend the Member from Dover, to elicit from the
Right Hon. Bart. what had just fallen from him, for
he felt that the defence of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, both yesterday and to-day, of the conduct of
the Right Hon. Baronet, was of such a nature that he
must be glad of an opportunity of altogether repu-
diating it. (Cheers.) He represented that there
had been a total change of opinion in Ireland
upon the subject of the Poor-laws, in consequence of
the change of Ministry. That was a statement totally
without foundation. However, expressions bad been
used even in that House which showed that there
was some doubt as to the permanent nature
of the Poor-law Bill. That was an utter mistake. It
was a permanent measure, and the Bill now in progress
was merely for the purpose of continuing the Commission,
although the attempts at amendment, which must be futile,
would naturally lead to the mistake. It was important
it should be clearly understood that any
alterat,;." n to be proposed by the present Government in
that Bill wt.;.:ld be entirely in accordance with the
maintenance of its inrinciple, and that the interpretation
..r
put upon their present co,. se by the Non. Member for
Finsbury, and which was received with cheers by those
who who had advoeated an extensive alteration, f not a re-
peal, of that Bill, was wholly erroneous.
Mr. F. SHAW wria not aware that any goeral im-
pression existed in Ireland that the present Govet. iment
had any intention of altering the principle of the imt a
sure. ffe hoped it was not so, for nothing
‘vould do so much harm. lie believed that the Poor-
law, as it was now working in Ireland, would prove of
the utmost benefit to the poor, at the least possible charge
to the other classes.

Sir H. FLEETWOOD had always opposed the Bill,
and he wished the country should understand that the
party who had formerly disapproved of the Bill were
still opposed to it.
Sir R. PEEL said that Hon. Gentlemen seemed
to? labour under a misapprehension, as there was no
opportunity of opposi.ng the principle of the Poor-law.
The Bill for the continuance of the Poor-law Commission
was entirely distinct from the ipor-law Bill itself. All
tha: he (Sir R. Peel) mil then anxioes to do was to con-
tinuo Commission ; and, if it w any conso-
lation to nu2ourable Gentlemen, be could tell them
that he meant to oppose nothing. He cold not, how-
ever, consent that an alteration in the Poot-kw Bill
should be proposed upon the motion before the Hoes.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that the course
tiopOsed by the Right Honourable Gentleman was a
pelfeetlit fair one ; arid was in complete accordance
with the 64,Airse which he had himself taken on
more than one Mision.- It was one thing to take into
considration the enthe Poor-law Bill, with a view to
its adoption, or for the p`tirpose of introducing into it
certain modifications, and If was another thing
to pfopese the continuance of the Commission for a
limited period if Parliament were nct, at the time
prepared to take the subject into its conside-
ration. Last year there had not been lime to
consider the details of the measure. He proposed
that the Commission should cuittinued for eighteen
months, and the Right Honourable Ilerouet proposes
an additional six months. That additional time
did not appear to him (Lord J. Russell) a matter
the to
which any reasonable objection could be made. He e con-
fessed he had heard with great satisfaction
de-
claration of the Right Honourable Baroneti, that b
li who had
been a supporter of the Irish Poor-law n
did think upon the whole that the working
of the Act in Ireland had
with
success. For his (Lord
as had been
intro-
duced part
into Ireland without its being
matter
fur
lie had never supposed that the lawjo chbonemuel dandilheat,aligt'eSteehinie'des end
the case with other lawstasa.
Ile found that his
political
excitement in certain
abnuttichipeattilnunsstedhacl been tluretibeertabnelneifinesitnalucecfsecrtlaloisfedi,t,
Poor-law were inm.elarse.utd,
subside,
excitement
would that, when
%would in a greatfelt
the. law. WlOl
beenbe ttLinteenadedt.o He phuorppeodEes
that
which it had
lit would, though after a lapse of time, perhaps, con-
tribute to the amelioration of the moral and physical
condition of the Irish people.—(Hear, hear.)