The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONIJON, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1841.

• address to his constituents, and he would give the House
his opinion upon the Poor-law. He said if the Poor-laiv
Bill required any amendments, he would be ready to
consider them. He was decidedly of opinion that every
security should be given that it should be administered
with tenderness to the poor. If such security did not
exist, he was desirous that it should be provided.—
(Hear, hear.) There was one thing which struck him
in the taunt cast out by Hon. Members on the other
side, namely, that the discussion would show the country
what the opinion of Hon. Members was. Now, when
the division was approaching last night, he saw several
Hon Members who left the House without voting; and
he would give a list of them, in order that their consti-
tuents might know what their sentiments were.—
(Cheers and laughter.) There were the two Hon. Mem-
bers for Manchester, who departed previously to the
division. The Hon. Member for Leeds and the Hon.
Member for Salford did the same. The Hon. Member
for Stockport also did it.—(" No,-no," from Mr. Cobden.)
Although they charged his side of the House with having
made use of this question for the purpose of exciting the
people to carrying their election, he would ask the Hon.
Member for Halifax if his party had never brought for-
ward subjects to excite the passions of the people ? He
(Mr. Ferrand) had seen a chimney-sweeper with chains
about his legs representing a negro slave.—(Laughter.)
He had seen a scavenger dressed up as a Bishop—
(Laughter)—and during the excitement of the Reform
Bill, when some extra steam was required to make the
people of this country believe the assertions of
,t he
Whigs, it was asserted in the City of Westminster, "that
a fairer head than Adelaide's had fallen on the block."
In the borough of Leeds, during the excitement of the
'Reform Bill, there was carried in a procession, (and
he begged to call the attention of the Hon.
Member for Manchester to this) a flag, on which
was painted, the King wearing petticoats an the Queen
in breeches—(Loud laughter)—and an axe was stuck
in the King's neck ; moreover, he had heard that the
son of the late Member for Leeds, who sat on his side of
the House during the late Session, proposed three groans
for the Queen, and if so. he was the worthy son of a
worthy sire. His (Mr. Ferrand's) opinion of this New
Poor-law was, that it was unconstitutional in the highest
degree, and that it did not afford adequate relief to the
poor to which they were entitled by the constitution of
the country.—(Hear, hear.) It also to a great extent
dried up the sources of private charity, and gave an ex-
cuse to Hon. Members of that House as well as the
people of the country, not to relieve the poor in the
manner in which they were called on to do. He had
received that day a letter from Captain Morris, R.N.,
who was a stranger to him, but who had communicated
his feelings to him on the subject, which he (Mr. Fer-
rand) would communicate to the House. Ile (Captain
Morris) suggested the necessity of having a clause
introduced into the Bill, giving a right to a
pauper for some years resident in a parish
,not his own, to receive the relief that
would be afforded by his own parish. Captain Morris
instanced several cases to prove the necessity for such
a clause, one of which was that of a man in the Brid-
port Union, who had brought up eight children without
parochial assistance, except one instance fourteen years
ago, when he had broken his leg, but when he appeared
before the Board of Guardians at Bridport he was refused
relief, and was obliged to travel sixty-six miles to his
parish, although he had formerly received assistance at
Charmouth, where he lived. In another Union he
mentioned that it was a usual thing for persons from
sixty to eighty years of age, to have to travel in winter
a distance of seven, eight, or nine miles to the Board of
Guardians, and then to stand out of doors in the wet and
cold until their turn came, for they were let in one by
one ; after all not receiving more than sixpence or a
shilling, and that from a Board of Guardians frequently
composed entirely of manufacturers. He (Mr. Ferrand)
himself identified the New Poor-law with the factory
system. He belieied that the labourers in Yorkshire,
being so reduced by death and disease, the cotton spinners
in Lancashire found it impossible to carry on their con-
cerns with those they possessed, and that this Poor-law
originated in a deep-laid scheme between the cotton-
spinners of Lancashire and the Poor-law Commissioners
themselves.—(Oh, oh.) He would give his evidence di-
rectly, for he had asserted nothing that he could not
prove. When the Member for Manchester, in language
that must have struck deep into the hearts of every man
of feeling within those walls, described the misery and dis-
tress of his constituents, he had called to his recol-
lection the description of the " rich man," possessed of
the world's goods, clothed in purple and fine linen, and
faring sumptuously every day. He refused to the poor
the crumbs that fell from his table, and came to the
House and charged the landed proprietors of England
with being the cause of the distress of these poor
wretches. Only two years ago a public dinner was given
at Manchester by the cotton spinners, and to give cclat
to it they invited the Honourable Member for Cork (Mr.
O'Connell), who told them that " the rich man's
venison was sweetened by the widow's tear, and his
claret dyed with the orphan's blood." At that meeting
they said their possessions were sufficient to purchase
all the landed estates in England. If so, he (Mr. F.)
thought that "property had its duties as well as its rights."
Had their (the manufacturers') property performed its
duties ? Had they, while sending through the country
those agitators and lecturers who were paid their salaries
by the amount of their foul calumny against the land-
lords of England—bad they, instead of setting the land-
lords and farmers and tenants against each other, desired
these men to inquire into every district where a no-
bleman or landed proprietor had estates what was
their conduct to their distressed poor —it would
have been found to hold out an example
which if they were honest and wise they would have fol-
lowed.—(Hear, hear) But they excited the people to
no effect throughout the country, and then came back
and charged the landed proprietors with being the cause
of the distress. The manufacturers had made their im
mense fortunes by the sweat of the poor man's brow.
The Member for Stockport stated that the Corn-laws
were baptized in blood ; he (Mr. F.) told him that every
farthing he possessed was baptized in the sweat of the
factory slave. And when they had glutted the market
they cast the poor wretches off to die, " unpitied and
forlorn;" and when they petitioned the men who had ac-
quired their wealth in a few years through their exer-
tions to hold out the hand of charity to them,
they were refused, while those who refused them
came down to that House to deceive them by
throwing the blame on the landed proprietors of Eng-
land. The Hon. Member then quoted the authority of
Mr. Marshall, Dr. Kay, and Mr. Oastler, on the desti-
tute condition of the poor in manufacturing towns, and
its effect upon the health of the population, and pro-
ceeded :—He must again repeat that the Hon. Members
for Manchester and Salford, and especially for Bolton.
had expressed the kindest feelings of sympathy for the
poor, but he (Mr. F.) did not want their sympathy, nor
did the working classes ; but if the Hon. Members had
subscribed 1,000/. for their relief, their sympathy would
have been of some use. But they did not attempt this.
Gentlemen conneeted with the factories would allow their
labourers to pawn their day clothes to get their night
clothes, and their night clothes to get again their day
clothes, and told them of their distress without telling
them that they had done any thing to relieve it.—(Hear,
hear.) He should have thought them honest if they had
shown that they had subscribed until they would be ruined
if they subscribed more ; but they did not say
this, nor did he tell them what he believed to be true,
that they had not subscribed a farthing.—(Oh, oh.)
The Hon. Member for Stockport asserted that the land-
lords had compelled their surplus population to go into
the manufacturing districts. He (Mr. F.) found in the
Report of the Poor-law Commissioners for 1835 a letter
on the subject, written by E. Ashton, Esq., near Bol-
ton, a gentleman who belonged to a class that made
great professions of philanthropy—(Oh, oh)—in _which
he said, that of the leading features of the new Poor-
law Bill he most cordially approved, while in some of
its details he feared it would be found practically de-
fective. Full employment in every department was
never more easily found than then, since all
the mills were in the most active employment.
Mr. Ashworth went on to state that there was at the
time a scarcity of labour in the district, and he ex-
pressed a wish that labourers should be removed from
one district to another in order to equalize the demand
for employment, and in order to put and end to the pos-
sibility of the men turning out when there was any
grievance of which they complained. Again, Mr. R.
H. Gregg, in a letter to the Poor-law Commissioners,
complained of the difficulty of obtaining labourers in the
north of England unless at extravagant prices, and he
also recommended the removal of labourers from dis-
trict to district, so that the object of these men was to
drive the poor from their homes in order to pin them
down in factory-mills. The fact was that the unhappy
labourers were bought and sold by the Poor-law Com-
missioners and the cotton spinners of Lancashire. It
would be the duty of the Right Hon. Baronet at the
head of the Government, who had shown such a sym-
pathy N, ith the poor in a recent case of destitution and
of death, to extend his care during the next six months
from the dead to the living. Responsibility would be
withdrawn during the next six months from the Com-
missioners to the Right Hon. Baronet—(Hear, hear, and
laughter)—and he hoped the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman would duly discharge his trust. The Right
Honourablen,te:dlolht
teeaoouha
smrrsfßsietes
veahaelacdeinesrpieod, ourn:uispoaptneteumhpdc.t, in a speech he had recently
se
apHptodwhnrure
hooedol
r delivered, v
duty
operativeaehheueeGra prosperity
erdttoeng,
ir,tejoe,
eutat:eriptiut
tuu:hsmuaesne.
:botoaeyirtwursiodt.elihsd,
htf
)e
m recommended.lbi eer wished
those
Let words,tmhaen
if they could, remove the present distress with their own
al
the
tbi;feaeeymor
ll:haaltesakhsrsi asenflmgrwi
ondhmdoooou:nn ewott
ourselves
ho‘yua,
owe their
oshetfi thosehltovtehueii
the
enormous wealth; and if one of them could lay down his
head upon his pillow without saying he had done his
duty he envied him not.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
He would vote for the instruction then before the House,
as he had voted for the instruction of last night, although
he did not think they had been opportunely brought
forward. The existing system was decidedly objection-
able ; and the landed proprietors were alone bearing
those burdens to which the manufacturers should contri-
bute tneir share.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM rose and said, that he:could
assure the House that before he had been informed by
the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, who had just sat
down, he was painfully aware of the responsibility which
attached itself to him upon the present occasion; but he
could assure that Hon. Member that no eagerness of
manner and no warmth of declamation could
scare him from endeavouring faithfully to discharge
his public duty ; and in the consciousness of that duty
he should not be lead to abandon a measure, the import-
ance of which he felt so deeply ; and' although the sub-
ject might require due consideration, and although the
law might he susceptible of amendment, yet to the prin-
ciple of the, measure he for one felt that he was conscien-
tiously pledged—(Hear)—and from that principle he
could not recede.—(Hear.) Having stated this much, he
hoped that the House would permit him to add, that by
the measure whit!' he had that night brought under dis-

I cussion, .he did not ask any Member of that House to
pledge hiinself to the maintenance of the Poor-law Act
in its integrity.—(Hear, hear.) As lie had said last
night, he would carefully reserve
,the discussion of all
the details of the measure, nay, even the decision
of, its principle, urftil the next Session of Parlia-
ment ; and all that he now asked the House to do was
to pass a measure for the continuance of the Commission
without whose superintendence during the next six months the
management of the law would be involved in inextricable diffi-
culty. He only asked for the interval, in order to enable the
Government to consider the shape in which they would pre-
sent the Bill to Parliament, with such amendments as they
might consider necessary early in the next Session..—(Hear. )
Now, in the first place, he should observe, in reference to what
had fallen from the Honourable Member for Knares.
borough,/ that what they were that night discussing, whether
the Poor-law Commission should be continued for the next six
months, the statement which he had brought under the consi-
deration of the House afforded a proof if they had been accu.
rately detailed—and he was sure the Right Hon. Gentleman
believed them to be well-founded—of great mismanagement
among the local authorities. They did not tend to show the
necessity of abolishing the Commission ; on, the contrary, they
went very far to show the danger of leaving the local manage-
ment uncontrolled, and they appeared to him ( Sir J. Graham)
to furnish a strong and striking argument in favour of the ne-
cessity of some such superintending authority as that of the
Commissioners, whose econtinuance in office he proposed by
the Bill then before the House. Passing from . the Hon.
Member for Knaresborough, he would next turn to the
Honourable Gentleman who had brought forward the
motion then under discussion. He should observe,
that it was quite unnecessary upon the part of the Hon. Gen-
tleman to vindicate the purity of his motives, or the kindness
and the generosity which prompted him to bring forward his
amendment. He ( Sir J. Graham) had always thought the
the characteristics of the Hon. Gentleman's conduct, both here
and in his native country, were sincerity of purpose and honesty
of intention. The Hon. Gentleman need not, therefore, have
offered any vindication of the course he was pursuing. But
without any offence to the Hon. Member, he (Sir J. Graham)
would call the attention of the House to this remarkable fact,
that the Hon. Mover of an instruction which would bear more
immediately upon England and Wales, was a gentleman not a
resident in this country, who could have no adequate experience
of the working of the system he sought to interrupt, and who
also, by an odd coincidence, was not practically conversant
with the English system of Poor-laws. It so happened that
the Hon. Member represented one of the few places in Eng-
land, namely, Rochdale, to which the presemt system had not
been extended. The Hon. Member had said that to prove a
case there was nothing like resting upon facts, and the state-
ment of particular cases. Now he (Sir J. Graham) ad-
mitted that when any one rested upon facts, there
was nothing like adducing particular instances. But
the Hon. Gentleman, from the very circumstance of his
having no personal knowledge of the matter, and his consti-
tuents having no experience upon the subject, did bring for-
ward a string of cases, presented, as it appeared to him ( Sir
J. Graham), in a most suspicious form, not resting
_upon his
personal authority, or coming from parties who, he could be
assured as their representative in the House of Commons,
were well informed. They were ex parte statements, and
being ex parte statements they could not be tested by inquiry,
and until a facility of inquiry had been given, such statements
were more likely to mislead a popular assembly upon
,a ques-
tion of that kind than any other course which could be
devised. The instruction was moved last night upon a secondary
portion of that great question, and in an accidental manner;
but the instruction moved that evening went to the very
essence of the measure itself. What were the two questions
which these instructions dcalt with? The power of extending
Unions, which was a preliminary step to bringing the Act
into operation ; and the second instruction touched upon the
power vested in the Commissioners, of refusing relief out of
the workhouse, which was the very essence of the Bill. If last
night he had been unwilling to follow the Hon. Member for York
in his instruction, because he wished to leave the main question
untouched till a future discussion, he was sure the House
would at once see that it would that night be impossible fot
him, without a dereliction of his duty, and without a depar-
ture from that reserve which his position imposed upon him—
it would be impossible for him to follow the Honourable
Member in the discussion with which.he had entered. But
he might be allowed to observe, that without giving any
pledge whatever on the part of the Executive Government
as to the course which they might hereafter deem it their
duty to take, he only asked upon that occasion for the con-
tinuance of the controlling power vested in the Commission.
He would also point out to the House, that under the law as
it now stood, no power whatever was placed in the hands of
the Commissioners to touch the Gilbert Union Acts, without
the consent of the Guardians of the district. Then, again,
with respect to the Local Acts ; there was no direct power
vested in the Commissioners of superceding these Acts. He
admitted that indirectly some interference (lid take place.
But he should add, that he would give no pledge whatever
upon the part of the Executive Government, which would go to
demonstrate a want of confidence in the Commissioners, or which
eouldraise aprejudice against the principle of the measure which
it would be their duty to consider, and to bring under the notice
of the House next Session. He did conceive that such a pledge,
extracted under the pressure of present opposition, would
seriously prejudice the ,due consideration of the measure. He
would give no such pledge ; and he did say, that the question
at the present time, and under the present circumstances, was
a question of confidence. If they believed that the Commis-
sioners, controlled by the Executive, would act so imprudently
as not to merit their confidence for the very short time which
would intervene before the measure would be reconsidered
upon the responsibility of the Executive, then, he said, let them
not deal with the law in the shape of an instruction, but let
them refuse the passing of the Bill. But, if they placed that
limited confidence in the Government andathe Commissioners,
then, he said, let them deal with the law itself, but let them re-
ject all instructions, and pass the measure before the
House.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He knew not whether it would
not be inexpedient that he should call the attention of the House,
and through the House that of the country, to one or two re-
markable circumstances which ought not to be overlooked.
First of all, with regard to the Commissioners; the Commis-
sioners had yielded to public opinion, and had yielded, as he
( Sir J. Graham) thought, most judiciously, and quite in ac-
cordance with the spirit of the original enactment, as he under-
stood it, in its capability of being adapted to peculiar circum-
stances. He said that tha Commissioners had within the I,st
six weeks marked their sense of the pressure of public opinion,
and had taken a step which he most highly approved of. Com-
plaints had been made that the Commissioners had been evad-
ing the original enactments of the law, by multiplying special
orders to an immense extent, and thus evading the provisions
of the Act, which required that general orders should be sub-
mitted to the Secretary of State. Now within the last six
weeks the Commissioners had collected all their special orders
relating to out-door relief into one general order, which
had been submitted to the consideration of the Secretary
of State, and which had, therefore, been brought under
the consideration of the Executive.—(-Hear, hear.) In
that order they had yielded to public opinion by relaxing the
regulation, prohibiting out of door i elle' in several moat im-
portant particulars. Out of door relief might now be given,
first, in all cases of sudden and urgent necessity. Second, in
cases of illness or of accident. '1 hird, in cases in which it
might be required to pay the expenses attending the burial of
any member of the family of the applicant. Fourth, to widows
with legitimate children, who were incapable of earning a live •
lihood ; so that widows with legitimate children could receive
relief without limit as to the period of their widowhood. Fifth,
to the families of persons confined in gaols or other places of
sale custody. And sixth, to the wives and children of soldiers
and sailors in her Majesty's service. These were most im-
portant relaxations, and the whole subject of out-door relief
was thus brought under the control of the Executive, as by the
16th clause of the Act any general rule of the Commissioners
might be altered by an Order in Council. He thought
that this was ample security to the public against the
law being administered with harshness.—(Hear, hear.)
Without meaning at all to reflect on the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough, he could not but express his regret at hearing
language used which would have the effect, although it had not
the intention, of exciting angry feelings in the manufacturing in-
terest against the agricultural.—(Hear.) Ile would frankly
admit that one of the main sources of the prosperity of the
country was the manufacturing interest.—((sheers.) As an
instance of the manner in which the Commissioners exercised
their powers, he would mention the case of the Irish hand-loom
weavers who had no settlement. The law empowei ed the
Commissioners to send them back to Ireland, if they received
a single farthing of rel ef. Now, what had they done ? They
had actually sent down an assistant Commissioner to Manches-
ter, with directions to use his authority with the Board
of Guardians to have relief given to the Irish hand-
loom weavers, not in the workhouse, but out of doors,
and that no attempt should be made to remove them.
He felt it his duty to remove.any false impressions which might
have gone abroad as to these matters, and he hoped that would
plead his excuse for having slightly deviated from the line
which he laid down last night not to enter into discussion on
the subject. He did not, however, think it his duty to go
further. As he had resisted the amendment of the Hon.
Member for York last evening, so he should on the present
occasion resist the amendment of the Hon. Member for
Rochdale, and he trusted the House would not refuse to give
him the limited confidence he asked.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. M. PHILIPS would not have troubled the House had
it not been for the personal nature of the speech of the Hon.
Member for Knaresborough. If bold declamation constituted
argument, then had the Hon. Member made a very argumen-
tative speech. He would not allude to what had fallen from
that Hon. Gentleman with respect to the manufacturers with
any angry feelings. He (Mr. M. P.) had never exhibited
any angry feeling in that House, and he ti usted he never
should be tempted to follow the example of the Hon. Gentle.
man in that respect, but he felt it his duty to reply briefly to
the charges which he telt the Hon. Member had most unjusti-
fiably brought against the manufacturing interest.—(Cheers.)
Ile Hon. Member seemed to think that a manufacturer must
be a man without feeling, one who sought his own aggrandize-
ment, regardless of every consideration. If those were the
opinions of the Hon Gentleman he (Mr. Farrand) had lived
in the neighbourhood of manufacturers for a number of years
without estimating them truly. Ide did nob mean to contend
that the manufacturers had no defects, but when he heard
them charged with a dereliction of duty to their la-
bourers, when he heard it stated they had no
sympathy for the poor, he must characterise such
assertions as a libel upon their characters, which was riot
borne out by facts. He did not know what the amount ex-
pended for the relief of the poor in Manchester was at present,
but he knew that the rate levied for the year ending March 95,
1841, was double the amount of the rate levied for the year
ending 25th March, 1840. Now, that did not look as if the
manufacturers were anxious to escape from their share of the
charge for the relief of the poor. He would also, as a proof
of the disposition of the manufacturers, relate what he per.
sonally knew to be a fact. He knew one manufacturer who
never worked short time, until his losses had exceeded the
amount of 10,0001. a year. Many other manufacturers adopted
the same system, some of them placing the scale at 7,C001. a
year, and that before they began even to work short time ;
and he could assure the House that none of them turned their
labourers out' of emplyment, until their losses were so great
that bankruptcy must be the inevitable consequence of their
continuing to work at a loss. The manufacturers were not
backward in relieving the distresses of the labouring population
last year. A sum amounting to between 3,0001. and 4,0001.
had been subscribed in an incredibly short space of time, and
had been expended in a manner reflecting the highest credit (Ai
those who had the management of the subscription, sod pro-
ductive of the greatest benefit to the objects for whose use it
had been collected, and who, but for such timely assist-
ance, must have disposed of their bedding, their furniture,
and, in many instances, of their clothes. The Honourable
Member had alluded personally to him ( Mr. Mark Phillips)
He had been advisedly absent from the division last evening on
the motions relating to the separation of man and wife, because
as that system had been adopted in Manchester, before the
union had been framed, he did not wish to condemn the
practice ; and also because, having serious doubts as to the
practicability of carrying out the clause, he did not wish
hastily to commit himself on the subject. With respect to the
general measure, he had never shrunk from avowing his opinion
that in its general operation, the Poor-law Bill had been pro-
ductive of great benefit—(Cheers)—more particularly in the
agricultural districts, where he had greater opportunities of
studying its operation. He would not offer the Right Hon.
Bart. the slightest opposition. He felt that this ought not to
be made a party question ; he bad himself been attacked on
the subject at the last election. He then stood up to bear his
testimony to the good effects of the law, and he was not
to be driven from his purpose by idle declamation.

From his knowledge of the workings of the law,he thought it
might require some alterations. fhe 'Right Hon. Baronet
hid pointed out soveral most important relaxations, and which
would, no doubt, meet with general approval. He thought it
important that these modifications should be introduced into
the new law, because the law, as it vs as now administered,
was not, in tact, the law of 1834, but that law modified by the
orders of the Commissioners. Now, he was desirous of seeing
those modifications introduced into the new law, in order
that persons might see what the law really was, arid he thought
the time of the House could not be more profitably , employed
than in reconsidering the Bill.
. _

Mr. WAKLEY understood that the Executive Government

adhered to the principle of the existing law.—( Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Baronet, with a candour which did him credit,
admitted that, such was the fact ; and it therefore appeared
that the Whig aristocracy and the Tory aristocracy were
pledged to the existing law. The Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth, when, on the 16th of the month, he
had made a statement to the House that it was his intention to
propose a "sill for continuing the Commission for six months,
had given no indication of his intention of maintaining the
existing law. He (Mr. Wakley) had put a construction on
that conduct which circumstances had not justified. He
had been deceived, and the causes were simple and
clear. Although the Right Honourable Baronet had ac-
ceded to the principle of the Bill in the last Session,
yet he had then proposed to continue the Commission for five
years instead of ten, as proposed by the Noble Lord; he natu-
rally thought that as the Right Hon. Baronet had not proposed
this Session to continue the Commission for five years, he had
yielded to the expression of public opiniois against the law, and
when he saw that the Right Hen. Baronet the Member for
Kent and the Noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan •
caster, both of whom were opposed to several most important
provisions of that law, were Members of the Cabinet, he
thought such a supposition not unnatural, notwithstanding the
presence in the Cabinet of the Right Hon. Baronet the Alem-
Der for Dorchester and the Noble Lord the Member for North
Lancashire, both of whom were Members of the Goverment
which had originally introduced th 3 measure. The Attorney
and Solicitor-General had neither of them ever uttered one
word in favour of the present law ; therefore he felt that he
was justified in forming the opinion he had done. lie had ex-
pecttd that a different course of conduct would have been
pursued ; he had been deceived, but the deception he had
laboured under would be useful to him because it would
enable him to understand the position which he, as an inde-
-I,endent Member, occupied, and the course which the people
ought to pursue. If the Hon. Member for Rochdale pressed his
motiontoadivision, he should divide with hint. He had felt that
the motion of the Hon. Member for York last evening was so
imperfect, that he could not vote for it, for he doubted if it
could be carried into effect. He, however, entirely differed
with the Hon. Member for Rochdale as to the propriety of
pressing every motion to a division, and thus forcing Members
to express an opinion, for he really thought that Members
ought to have an opportunity of investigating before they were
called on to decide. He had frequently left the House with-
out voting, because he really had not known on which side he
ought to decide.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Hawes.) The
Hon. Member for Lambeth said " Hear, hear." Now, if he

(Mr. Wakley) possessed the sagacity of the lion. Member foi
Lambeth—the acuteness of conception of that Hon. Member—
he might, perhaps, without difficulty he able to determine at

once upoii the most abstruse subjects.—( Hear, hear. )
He (Mr. Wakley), however, was not so highly gifted, and
he was sorry for it.—( Loud cheering and laughter. )
He understood the principles of the law to be this—that it
took from the rate-payers of England the power to administer
their own funds, and placed it in the Commissioners of Somer-
set-house.—( Hear, hear.) That was the principle of the law,
and he did not think that human ingenuity could devise a
worse one. But the Member for Bath hit on something
worse. He (Mr. W.) .regretted he was not present, though
he could not regret he had not submitted his proposition to the
House.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. W.) could not conceive
anything worse than that the interests of the people should be
placed at the mercy of a Secretary of State.—( Hear, hear. )
The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) would understand
that he was not referring to him.—( Hear, hear.) He was
only referring to the principle of such a proposition ; and of all
men in the world who could make such a proposition, he
thought the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath would be the
last, because when he advocated the case of the Canadians, he
told them what he experienced from the Secretary of State,
and the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire must
bear the fact in recollection. He (Mr. Roebuck) said he cou:d
get nothing butinjustice—nothing but insult from the Secretary
of State, and that he had been spurned from the door. Could
the Hon. and Learned Ger.t. suppose that more courtesy would be
shown by the Secretary for the Home Department than by
the Secretary for the Colonies ? or that lie would be more
humane or more ready to lend his ear to the complaints which
would be made to him? However cruel the decision of a Home
Secretary may be, he would be sure to find a majority of his
colleagues to agree with him. He now came to the discretionary
power of the Commissioners—to the leading principle of the law.
There were two subsidiary accompaniments to the law, by the
first of which the poor were deprived of the application for re-
lief, and by the next were tortured while in receipt of that re-
lief. These were the principles that were carried into effect by
the Commissioners. He should like the House to understand
the question. The nobility and the middle classes had a law
for their protection. They had the Judges of the land to ad-
minister the law. But what was done with regard to the poor ?
Did they receive protection? They had by this law outlawed
the poor. He defied any Member to say the poor had any
law for their protection, as under the law of Elizabeth.—
( Hear, hear.) That law gave the poor a right to
relief.—( Cheers.) The House ought not to forget the
origin of that law. They should not forget that the poor
before that law had religious houses and monasteries to sup-
port them ; and that the monks were ever ready to extend
the hand of charity and benevolence to the suffering poor.--
( Hear, hear.) But when the change in ecclesiastical pro.
perty took place, then that noble Act of Elizabeth, the
brightest of her reign, came into operation—( Hear, hear)
—and it gave the poor the same right to relief as the Noble
had to his property under the law.—(Cheers.) What was
the case now ? The poor were placed under the tyranny of
Somerset-house, and had not the power to administer their
own funds. Thank God ! he was not in the House when
that law was enacted. He would ask Hon. Gentlemen who
supported this law how they would like to be placed in a
similar position with regard to their own property.--
( Hear, hear.) How would they like to be obliged
o go to a Government authority, and be in doubt
as to how they would be received—whether with kindness or
otherwise ? ' He (Mr. W.l said the poor had a right to the
protection of the law, though the two aristocratic parties said
the poor should be deprived of that protection. Was that
Conservatism? Was that the way to maintain the institu.

tions of the country? Was that the way to uphold the mo-
narchy and render more secure the property of the country?—
(Hear, hear.) He said such was an unwise course—that it
was pregnant with danger, and could not be persevered in
with impunity. He declared, if it was resolved to abide by
that law, that in his opinion the face of the country would he
stained with blood. He was intimate with the feeling of the
poor on the subject, and he knew their sentiments, and that
they considered it an impious law—an Anti-Christian law—
( Hear)—and had its origin in selfishness—the vilest feeling
of the human mind. The Right Hon. Baronet said the Commis-
sioners had relaxed several rules *with regard to out-door relief;
but may not the local guardians of the poor find many other
rules which may be relaxed, if they had the power of doing it?
Why should the discretionary power be taken away from those
who lived in the locality of the poor?—(Hear, hear.) He
was, therefore, against the continuance of the ct, though at
the same time of such importance did he consider the interests
of the poor, and so wound up were those interests with the
welfare of the nation, that he thought a Court of Appeal ought
to be established for the benefit of the poor. He considered
that a Court of Appeal ought to be established, and a man of
character appointed its Judge, and, having done this, that a
poor man's Advocate ought to be appointed. The Queen had
her Advocate, and her Attorney and Solicitor-General, and he
did not see why the poor should not also have their Advocates.
—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the Right Hon. the Home Secre-
tary would consider the subject. The poor at present were
under no law but that of the Commissioners, and he would
show they were unfit to be entrusted with that law. In page
29 of their Report for December, they say, " They consider
the receipt of public relief as the due of the poor man." But
surely if a law had been passed which entitled the poor to re-
lief, the Commissioners had no right to use such language.
Could men using such language be fit to execute the powers
entrusted to them?—(Hear, hear.) They must have
misunderstood the feeling of the House on the matter.
He now came to the subject of medical relief, and h found that
to the old times such relief was administerod to the poor in his
own parish. His neighbours, who knew his worth and wit -
nessed his deserts, administered to the unfortunate without ap-
plying tot the Commissioners—(Cheers)—and if they wished
for the happy days of Old England again, theywould resort to
the old mode of administering medical relief. ( The Hon. Gen-
tleman here read a letter from a gentleman regarding the
Baseworth Union, stating that the medical practitioner of that
union had to attend two districts, consisting of twelve different
parishes, and including a population of 12,410 persons, and
that in visiting his districts he had to pass through a parish of
3,000 persons, which had a medical gentleman of the highest
respectability.) Was it a fit state of things that the medical
attendant should have to go a distance of eight or nine miles in
cases of inflammation and fracture, where life or death was
consequent, on delay ? Could it be pretended that a suitable
remedy was not to be found for such a state of things ? The
Act produced the evil, and was no remedy to be found? There
were abuses, it Ilvas true, in the firmer system, but they could
be put an end to. The Right Hon. Baronet was aware that
the subject had been frequently investigated, and in the
Second Report of a Committee that inquired into the matter,
Sir Astley Cooper gave evidence (and whoever knewihim must
be aware of the value of his opinion) against the system of
tenders, and told him (Mr. Wakley), in private, that it was
nothing less than murder. He said a m.,re disastrous state of
things could not exist for the poor: The Right Hon. Baronet
was aware of the calculations that were made of the expense
per head. The Commissioners, in their Seventh Report, partly
agreed with what he (Mr. Wakley) thought would be
the proper remedy. He considered that all the re•
cipients of relief should be entered in a list, and
so much per case paid to the medical attendant.
What he took the liberty of proposing to the Government was,
that the medical orders should be made out, and placed in the
hands of certain persons in every parish—in the hands of the
clergyman, the churchwarden, the overseer, and the relieving
officer—and that a person, who was admitted by the authorities
to be entitled to medical relief, on making application for an
order, and receiving it, should be allowed to take it to any
practitioner whom he might desire to attend him. He would
thus have an opportunity of taking it to the practitioner who
lived nearest to his home, and in whom he could place the
most confidence, and that without the addition of a single
farthing of expense to the parish. Under the present system
it frequently happened that a poor person, who was afflicted
with sickness, had to send some miles before he could obtain
medical assistance. Such a system involved a sacrifice of human
suffer ing, and tended to ao-gravate the sufferings of the poor; and he
was convinced that if the House would only attend to the evil it
would not long be suffered to continue. A case had occusred
last week, where a medical man, not one attached to the union,
was sent for to visit the father of seven children. When he
arrived he found him suffering from a disease of the lungs,
with but faint hopes of recovery. On being asked why he
specimen e seven miles,
or Wakley)thousands.
had sent for the medical man in question and not the union
doctor, the patient replid that the former lived at a distance ,
ofH
and
wt H
that t heco
convinced
Na.
iddn
cdne rd)h motphoeins et yh instanceatto pt
ha ey a
Right,
aess soe
nr
a.. I:
Baronet would take the subject into his serious considera.ion.
He calculated that under his proposed alteration the expense
would be from 6s. 6d. to 93. a-head. Now, with respect to ,
the size of the unions. It had been stated by many Ho- ,
nourahle Members that where the unions were small the law ,
worked much better than where they were large—that
the poor man could make application for relief more easily,
and that the circumstances of each case were better known.
'I hen, with respect to the Guardians, did Hon. Gentlemen who
called themselves Reformers—for instance, did the Hon.
Member fur Lambeth—approve of the mode of election?
How were they elected? In the first place, there was no
public meeting. There was a quelling of popular spirit at
once. What was the system of voting? The poor occupant,
of premises who paid the rates gave one vote, whilst the absent
owner of the same property gave six. In one election one
man had put in 1,600 proxies. Under the old :aw every rate-
payer had a vole—he was speaking of the practice under the
Act of Elizabeth before the modern innovations.—(Laughter.)
It was an innovation when Sturges Bourne's Act passed that
House ; still the power of voting was restricted to the occu-
pant. This law, however, was a more scandalous innovation— ,

it was a greater infringement of the rights of the rate-payers.
Ii had been said that the medical arrangements were not per-
fected. What, he would ask, had been perfected? They had
an authority established for the purpose of securing uniformity,
it having been stated that the ancient practice was one of ex-
treme diversity; but he looked in vain for uniformity. He
had otters heard it stated that the first object of the
Bill was to increase the independence and raise the
wages of the labourer; because it was said that if they
could not get good wages, the poor would fall 'back
upon the workhouse. Of course the first inference
from such language was, that these workhouses would be very
excellent places, containing every thing to gratify the heart
and soul of the poor labouring man, and if the .Commissioners
had really provided good accommodation for the able 'bodied
man, who did not obtain fair remunerating wages, he would
have acknowledged that to be a benefit. He admitted that in
a locality where wages were high, the workhouse ought to
have no (harm for the labourer. By belonging to a club, ar
i by saving his money, he would avoid the necessity of ever ala-
i plying for relief. But the case was very different in a locality
where wages did not ext.( ed 6s. or 7s. a week. In such cases
it was most unjust not to provide satisfactory relief. On this
point he thought very grave charges might be brought against
the Commissioners. He begged the House to attend for a
moment to what was contained in two dietary tables in refe-
rence to the weekly allowance of fool. In the London Union
the weekly allowance of bread was 1120 z., in the Cirencester
98tiz. ; in the Landon Uni,,n each man had 21oz. of beef or
mutton ; in the Cirencester Union each man had soz. of
bacon. In London the vegetables for each man were 2ilbs. ;
in Cirencester bibs. of potatoes. In London soup four pints
a week ; in Cirencester two pints. In London 14oz. of
cheese; in Cirencester 7oz. In London 10i pints of milk-
porridge ; in Cirencester seven pints of gruel. In London 16oz.
of suet pudding ; in Cirencester none. In London
eleven pints of beer; in Cirencester not a drop. Was
that uniformity ?—( Hear, hear.) If it were, give him
London.—( A laugh.) Such a state of things was di-graceful
to those who administered the law. What did he find ap-
pended to the two dietary tables? At the bottom of the Ci-
' reneester table he found that infirm persons, and those above 70
years of age, were to be allowed one ounce of tea with milk,
seven ounces of sugar, and three and a half ounces of meat in-
stead of gruel, and twice a-week the men fourteen ounces, and
the women twelve ounces of pudding. Children under twelve
years of age were to be dieted at discretion; the sick at the
discretion of the medical man; the refractory were to be
allowed sixteen tiunces of bread arid water per diem. In the
London Union for supper one pint of gruel might he allowed.
instead of two ounces of cheese; to the women, one-half pound
of sugar ; to the s-issia arid infirm such wine as the medical man
should direct. Then followed an instruction that roast beef
or veal should bu allowed at Easter and on Whitsunday--one
would imagine that provision was being made for an alderman
—(laughter)—and roast-beef and plum-pudding on Christmas
Day. In Kensington, the Guardians had been obliged to pay
56/.out of their own pockets. The Commissioners would not
allow the item. It was also stated that weights and measures
should be provided, and to it the paupers should have access
at all times, in order to satisfy themselves that they were sup-
plied with the proper allowance. Now, what was the effect of
such an unequal system ? The effect was to prevent the
honest labourer who was really distressed from applying for
relief. Why should not the House take upon itself the r;sponsi •
bility of settling the dietary table ? Let them determine for
themselves how the poor should be fed, and not sanction a system
so full of injustices There was another point to which he
begged to call the attention of the House. A practice existed
which he might as well notice, for the information of the
younger Members, of introducing, at the end of the session,
little Bills, merely for powdering or shaving a mouse, or some-
thing of that kind.—( Laughter.) Some discussion arose on
the subject, and if there were any objectionable point, it was
struck out, and sent tip to the Lords. When it returned from
the Lords, that very thing had been restored, and it passed in
its original shape. Now, there was a Bill of this kind passed
as the end of the Session of 1835 ; it did not receive the
Royal Assent until the 9th of September. It was a Bill au-
thorising the Commissioners to sell parish property. He re-
collected perfectly well that he understood it to relate to parish
workhouses, and to the ground on which they stood. What
had been done under that Bill? Why, all the small tene-
ments belonging to parishes, as well as the workhouses, had been
brought under the operation of the hammer. It appeared to be
the intention of the Commissioners that the poor should have no
place of dwelling except the workhouse, and these tenements were
to be razed from the grown I. The transfers of property, ac-
cording to their own acknowledgment, already amount to 3,900.
He thought it would turn out that a very large portion of the
property sold would be found to be of the latter description.
He believed that a vast amount of property consisting of tene-
ments, belonged to the poor. He would not say that there was
any trust—any written trust—but he had no doubt
that custom had created a trust, and that the
property belonged to the poor. Now, what had the
Commissioners said on the subject in their Report of
1839? Why, that a large amount of property, consisting for
the most part of small cottages and tenements, had been dis-
posed of, the greater part of which had been represented as
being dilapidated and ruinous. It appeared to him to be the
object of the Commissioners, that parishes should have the
property to be called parish property, that there should be no
tenements belonging to the parish, because, if there was, the
poor would make application to dwell in them, they being
anxious that all the paupers should be sent to the workhouse.
Supposing these tenements had been retained, and not sacri-
ficed, under the present law it appeared to him that
they might have been appropriated to useful purposes.
They were trying by their law to force the labourer into the
practice of virtue—toe Bill was, in fact, a measure of coercion
against the poor. Now, he would ask, did they not think
that they might, without inconvenience to themselves, bring
another principle in' o operation ? Did they not think that there
was ansither mode than coercion to improve the human mind ?
—( Hear, hear.) He would have Hon. Members weigh the
subject well, because he thought a little reflection would in-
duce them to adopt another line of policy.—( Hear, hear.) He
was of opinion that much of the profligacy and vice of the
people was owing to no rewards being given for good conduct.
—( Hear, hear.) Would it be costly for the parishes to ape
propriate those tenements that had been sold to deserving men
in their old age ? Would it not be more eratifying to see
them so placed there than to send them to gaols miles distant?
—( Hear, hear.) He was convinced, if they were to hold out
rewards to the labourer, they.would soon see a new race of
men in the different parishes of the country. He regretted
that the Executive Government had determined to adhere to
the principles of the existing law, principles which, he would
venture to say, were obnoxious to the best feelings of human
nature, and dangerous to the institutions of the country. In his
opinion there was no portion of the law that deserved commen-
dation, and if Hon. Members would only visit the cottages of
the poor instead of sitting at Boards of Guardians, in a very shot
period they would enter that House with widely-different views
with respect to the Poor-laws—( Hear, hear.) He was satis-
fied that Hon. Members were not aware of what was passing
in the minds of the labourers with regard to this odious statute.
He apologised to the House for having detained it so long. He
had thrown out statements which he trusted the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Dorchester would take into his set ious
consideration, as he was convinced the feelings of the poor were
growing more violent every day on the subject of the Poore
laws. When he stated that he did not speak as a visionary,
but from what he had actually seen, no Administration
would stand in this country who supported the Poor-laws, be-
cause the millions would not endure it.—(Hear, hear.) Look-
ing at the whole subject, he believed the difficulties connected
with them would be overcome if the House would go back
and legislate upon the just principles of
the statute of Eliza-
beth. They ought to approach the subject in a kindly and
Christian spirit, and ought not to be governed by a dogmatic
spirit.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The 'law had been intro-
duced by utilitarians, who, he had no doubt, would, if
allowed to grind the bones of the poor, and make them manure
if they thought it would enrich the land of the country.—
(Cries of " No, no.") Let them legislate in a proper spirit,
and he would venture to say that the greatest good would he
effected.

Mr. WARD would make no apology for addressing the
House after the extraordinary speech that had been addressed
to the House by the Hon. Member who had just sat down.
He was not one of those who was disposed to sit quietly under
the imputation of giving a vote from selfish motives, neither
was he disposed to abandon a measure which he thought a
good one, merely because the Hun. Member had chosen to state
that it originated in wickedness and fraud ; still less was he
inclined to adoptthe principles laid down by the Hon. Member,
who was as audacious in his statements as he was cowai dly in
his 'political acts.—( Hear, hear.) The speech of the Hon.
Member surprised him the more, because upon the former oc-
casion he told the House that he had arrived at the conclusion
that the measure was one of the deepest importance, and ought to
be discussed with calmness—(Hear, hear)—and yet he had
come down that night and accused those who tuppor. ed the
measure of doing so from selfish motives. He had als s told
them that they were prepared to grind the bones of the poor
if they thought that would enrich the land. Now what, he
would ask, were the accusations against the Bill which the
Hon. Member had substantiated? What was the first ground
of attack ? Why, the Hon. Member had told them, in the first
place, that the law was for the purpose of taking from the rate-
payers the managem,nt of their funds. It was for no such pur-
pose; it was to restore the true principles of the noble Act of
Elizabeth.---( Hear.) Had the Hon. Member never heard
under the old law of men and women dragging carts and violating
every human law, and indulging themselves in every species of
idleness, without a single motive to goad.conduct ? The Hon.
Member then said that the law put the poor out of the pale of
con,titutional rights. It did no such thing; but it established
a direct responsibility from the Poor-law Commissioners to the
Government, and from the Government to that House—there
was not a single violation of the law that could not, under its
provisions, be immediately brought before that House. The
Bill was admitted to be the best Bill that had passed since
the time of the Reform Bill, and he believed that its
provisions had been productive of great good in the country.
One of the guardians said, if the boards of guardians had
more power, all the evils of the old system would instantly fol-
low. He said they would have a Mr. Wakley at every boird,
and they would soon have the union-house burned over their
heads. It was within his own knowledge, that in some parishes
the new law had acted most beneficially upon the habits, and
feelings, and situation of the working classes. Then as to
medical relief, he felt bound to believe the Hon. Member had
not read the Bill, for the 11 clause provided for every case of
sudden emergency that could possibly happen. Then as to the
dietary tables of the union. He would not defend the tables
of the London Unions. He wished they could afford to give
their poor beer and plum-pusldings, but so long as. the labourer
could not afford to feed himself upon such diet, it was impos-
sible that they should do so. It would be the worst principle
that could be laid down, that the rate-payers should maintain
the paupers in the workhouses in a greater degree of comfort,
and in a superior situation, than that of the labourer. He had
heard with much pleasure the manly statement made by the
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Deparment.
It did him much honour, and he had gone as far as a person in
his situation could. He highly approved of the course pro-
posed to be pursued by the Government, and would give them
tiis cordial support. Considering the manner in which the
Right Hon. Baronet had spoken out, and the manner in which
he had been attacked, he would have considered himself as un-
worthy of his seat in that House had he not come forward and
taken his share of the odium attempted to be thrown upon the
supporters of the law. Then with respect to what had fallen
from the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, he did not like to
say much, for the Hon. Gentleman was but a young Member,
but he would say that he admired and respected a man who,
backed his opinions by his votes, and did not meanly skulk out
of the House when the question was about to be tested by a
division. He would only say, further, that he disbelieved the t
all the humanity was confined to one elass, and the Honourable
Member would find as much distress 'and misery among the
underpaid agricultural labourers of Bucks and Wilts as amens,
any of the manufacturing districts in the country. He trusted
when the measure was brought forward in the next Session of
Parliament, both for the dignity of the House and the welfare
of the poor, the whole question would meet with that calm de-
liberation and good-temper that was due to one of such im-
mense magnitude and importance.
Mr. S. WORTLEY was most anxious to approach that
important subject with the utmost calmnness, for a clear and
calm examination into the whole question was absolutely ne-
cessary. The instruction which was moved last night, he
thought, opened up a great principle, and his opinion was that
it was more, for the dignity of the House, as well as for the
benefit of the question, that it should not be discussed by
piecemeal but as a aihole. But the instruction moved now,
that no more unions should be formed, at least until they knew
what the new system was to be, was in his opinion one that
could not in any way impede the proceedings of the Coin-
missioners, and to that he saw no objection, and if pressed to a

I division, he would have vo' ed for it had it stood alone. But
to that part of the instruction which went to forbid the Com-
missioners interfering to prevent out-door relief throughout
the winter, that would be an interference with the law which
he could not approve of, nor could he vote for it. He had
heard with much pleasure the speech of the Secretary for the
Honie.Department ; it proved to him that he would watch over
the working of the law in a spirit of humanity—( Hear, hear)—
and it was evident that he would give way to the fully ex-
pressed wishes of the country that the law should be amelio-
rated. He thought it was necessary in order that he should not be
misrepresented on either side, to state very shortly what his opi-
nions on that important subject were. He had at all times scrupu-
lously abstained from party topics when discussing that subject.
The Hon. Member for Halifax last night talked of the war-
cry made of the Poor-laws during the late election, but he
would ask, was there not another was-cry of "No Corn-laws,"
and " Cheap Bread ?" He believed the war-cry of "No Corn-
laws " and " Untaxed food'' was made by parties to support a
Government which had proposed a tax of Bs. on corn, and
which had brought forward measures, after having done nothing
for five yeas, which were calculated to produce the most bane-
ful effects upon the trade and commerce of the country.—
( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Liskeard had last
night, in a speech which he meant to be facetious, charged him
( Mr. S. Wortley) with having out of doors denounced the Poor-
laws, and when he had come into the House, sitting down quietly,
without offering any objections to the measure, lest he should
embarrass the present Government. He trusted he might be
allowed to state that he had never said anything rut of that
1-louse which he was not ready to maintain in his place in Par-
liament. He had not denounced the Three Devil 'Kings of So-
merset-house--he had said nothing of bastiles, but he had
pointed out certain defects in the law, which he concluded
should be altered, and which he would use his best efforts to
have amended.—( Hear, hear.) He could not say less upon
the matter, and he hoped the House would pardon him fur hav-
ing said so much. He would now say a word with regard to
the power of the Commissioners, and without going the length
of finding fault with the constitution of the board, he must be
allowed to say, that, notwithsundirig the control exercised
over it by the Secretary of State, the power entrusted to the
Commissioners was too extensive and almost unconstitutional.
It was a power which should not be entrusted to them one mo-
ment longer than could be avoided, and nothing would give
him greater gratification than to see them recurring to that great
principle of local self-government which was so intimately
bound up with the Constitution of the country.—(Hear, hear. )
That principle had been recognised in various States on the
Continent, and America, and no one could deny its
importance and value.—( Loud cheers.) Under these
circumstances he did not think they were bound
to confer these unconstitutional powers upon the Corn-
missionsrs one moment longer than was necessary. One
word now with regard to the manner in which the law was
administered by these gentlemen ; and one of the great ob-
jections that struck him was the great extent of the unions.—
( Loud cheers.) He would take the case of the parish of
Marylebone, which Lord Althorp, in that House, had sad
was'of such-an extent that it would be quite absurd to form it
into a union with any other parishes.—( Hear, hear:) The
Lord Chancellor, in the House of Lords, had also observed,
that unless the Commissioners were deranged, they would
never think of forming these large and populous parishes into
unions. Hon. Members knew that at the present moment
they were forming unions in the North; of England of vast
extent. There was Manchester, which in the last Report of
the Commissioners it was stated, was about to be formed into
a union. It contained a population of 140,000, and one
would suppose that it was so large as to be almost unmanage-
able if not divided. Instead of doing that, however, they had
added eleven townships, containing a imputation of '22,000, to
that of Manchester —(Loud cheers. ) He thought that in
taking such a step they were entirely mistaking the spirit and
intent of the Act of Parliament. The next point he should
refer to was the workhouse system, and he would merely
repeat what he had stated in his address, namely, that he did
not think the workhouse should be made an ingredient
in relief in all cases, but only in cases where persons
were unwilling to work, and who were thrown upon
the charity of the public. He must say, that when the suuject
was first discussed in that House, he understood that it was
not intended that,the Actahould be compulsatorily introduced in
every part of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Lord Abhorp had
said that it would nut be a past of the duty of the Commis-
sioners to include all the parishes of a county in unions—they
should have the power of forming unions where they deemed it
proper, but there was nothing in the Act which made the
formation of unions imperative.—( Hear, hear.) Now, in the
part of the country with which he was connected, there was no
single class of the population which desired the introduction
of the hill ; and, he thought, under such circumstances, they
were entitled to exemption. The only argument he had heard
in favour of the introduction of the measure was uniformity,
but although that might be a good plea in some cases, he
thought it extremely injudicious to effect so great a
change, and one so repulsive to the great bulk of a
population, upon such a pretence.—(Hear, hear.) There
was another subject on which he wished to offer a few
remarks. He meant the bastardy clause. If they looked to
the argument of the Commission of Inquiry, on which was
founded that part of the law, they would see it was wholly de-
void of meaning. The Commission stated that the bastardy
cases were a great source of hardship ; but that the object of
the law was not to punish but to prevent bastardy. Now,
that sounded a very plausible sentence ; but it they considered
it, they would find that when this Commission said the law
was not to punish, but to prevent that crime, it was saying
what had in fact no meaning at all. The argument of
the Commissioners on this head fell to the ground, and
was no support whatever to the provisions which they recom-
mended to be introduced into the Bill. His conviction was,
that the operation of that clause—not, perhaps, in the agri-
cultural districts with which he was not acquainted, and could
not, therefore, speak of them—but in the manufacturing dis-
tricts the operation of that clause was in the highest degree
pernicious. It was, in fact, considered to be a free charter
for the crime, which had greatly increased in consequence of
that clause. When the Legislature were dealing with that part
of the subject, it was but fair that they should consider the dif-
ference that existed between the states of society in
the manufacturing and agricultural districts. In the
latter, the young female was, in .some degree, fortified
against temptation, by reason of the secluded part of the coun-
try in which she resided. In the manufacturing districts, she
was thrown upon her own, conduct at a very early age. Those
were a few of the principal points on which he wished to make
known his opinions. In the course they were likely to adopt
respecting this Bill, he thought they ought, as had been well
expressed by an Hon. Member, take as their guide anxiety and
tenderness for the poor. As to the accusation of some Hon.
Gentlemen respecting himself and others, of their taking up
that question to serve ant occasional purpose, it was an imputa •
tion that nothing they had done could justify.
Mr. I'ORKE rose amidst cries of " Question, question,"
" Divide, divide." He said he rose not for the purpose of
answering the Hon. Member for Yorkshire. He did not mean
to trespass on the House. He should wish to say, however, that,
touching the speech of the Hon. Member fur Yorkshire, he
had heard a portion of it to which he readily acceded. There
was a second portion of it to which he would say nothing. and
a third portion he had not exactly a facility of understanding.
But what he (fir. Yorke) wished to call attention to was this,
that since the meeting of Parliament statements had
been made to the House which were either true or
false. If the statements were true, they should be
instantly attended to ; if false, they should be instanly exposed
as such. He alluded to the statements concerning the vast
distress said to exist in the country—not that sort of distress
which was incidental, and he feared inevitable in every state,
but that sort of distress that in a peculiar degree formed en
epoch in human misery. If the statement were true, they
ought to relax those laws which under happier circumstances
might have a happier effect. So thinking he should give his
support to that clause which gave to Guardians on the Board
an opportunity of assisting the immediately pressing cases of
misery.
Colonel SIBTHORP begged to state, in answe to the Hon.
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ward), that he was happy to in-
form him that in the very parish in which he (Colonel Sib-
thorp) resided, and in several other parts of the county of
Lincoln, the independent labourer had such wages given him--
namely, from 12s. to Ifs. per week—that he could afford to
have meat oftener than on Christmas Day. If the Hon. Gen-
tleman would do hint (Colonel Sibtherp), though he differed
from hint in politics, the honour to visit him—( Laughter)—
he would show him the truth of what he had stated. With
respect to the immediate question before the House,
though he gave credit to the Right Honourable Gen •
tlaman the Secretary fur the Ho.s.e Department
for the course he adopted since the Govern-
went meant to adhere to the principle of the 1611, yet he
(Colonel Sibthorp) had ever opposed the Bill, and would con-
tinue to do so. lie was ever opposed to Commissions, and
he would continue his hostility to this.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For Mr. Crass ford's motion 49
Against it
Majority
—62
On the re•atimission of strangers we found
fir. SHARMAN CRAWFORD moving that it be an in-
struction to the Committee to inert a clause to the effect that
the Commissioners should not have the power of disallowing
out-door relief when granted by Boards of Guardians.
Mr. WAKLEY, who rose amidst loud cries of " Divide,"
said that the Hun. Member for Sheffield had attributed words
to hint which he did not use. The Hon. Member had also
' used language which might perhaps be allowed in the latitude
of debate, which he was by no means desirous to restrict, but
the lion. Member for Sheffield was the last person who had a
right to read hire a lecture upon cowardice in not voting as
boldly as he spoke—( Hear, hear)—for, at the commence-
ment of the Session, on the motion of the Honourable Mem-
ber for Rochdale, the Member for Sheffield was the first to
take a cowardly flight—( Hear, hear, and great. laughter.) If
the conversation which that honourable Member stated as
having taken place between him and a member of the Board of
Wiartitaris did actually take place—( Hear, hear, and laughter)
—it was incumbent on him (Mr. Ward) to give the name of
the guardian —( A laugh.) The Hon. Member reported the
guardian to have expressed the wish of the board to be that
they should have no responsibility, but should have the Com-
missioners to fall hack upon. What a valiant crew !—(Great
laughter.) For his own part he was willing to leave the mat-
ter as it was.—( Hear, hear.) But he would say, that if the
House wished the guardian' to do their duty, it would make
them responsible in penalties for the discharge of their duties
to the poor.—( Hear.)
Mr. WARD had not intended to use the words " political
cowardice" in an offensive or unparliamentary sense, and if he
was supposed to have done so, he could only express his deep
regret.—( Hear, hear.) He did not think he should be jus-
tified in giving the name of the guardian with whom he had
had the conversation alluded to by the Hon. Member opposite.
After a few words from fir. DARBY, the House divided,
when the numbers were—
For Mr. Crawford's m0ti0n.......
Against it ............................................... 146
114
Majority....
The Bill then went through Committee.
On the motion that the Bill be reported,
putportl,
Mi. FIEL DEN, who was inaudible, a
question, in an-
swer to which,
Clerk. the Exchequer Bills Bill,
eSoirnJI.,rGidRayA.HAM said that he would move the third read-
ing
On the motion of Sir G. Cl•
Funded Exchequer Bills Bill, were severally read a
firstan h
d t
time.el4
The House then adjourned at Half-past Eleven o'Clock.

HOOD, EsQ.—The October Number of
EDITED BY THOMAS
COLBURN'S NEW MONTHLY MAGAZINE.—
E contains the following interes, ing articles :
Thomas Hood, , •,
Colbarn's New Monthly Magazine and Runioria, edited by
—Memoir of the late Theodore Hook, Esq., with a striking
likeness—A fete-a- e e with the New Editor—A Sketch off
R by Thomas Hood, Esq.—Graduates and Under-
Graduatestt e
ite The Proctor's Note- ook, by the author of
No. I.—Phineas Quiddy ; or, Sheer erp o.a or,in
s.
In-
dustry, by fotin Poole, Esq., author of " Paul Pry." Chapter
VII. Sheer Industry prospers. A Digression for the Benefit
of Younger Sons. very Confi,'ential Communication.
Chapter VIII. Ingenuousness versus Cunning. Chapter IX.
A Touching Incident. Our Hero's disinterested Concern for
a " Maiden all Forlorn." A Magnificent Proposal Rejected.
Chapter X. The Reading of the Will. A Job's Comforter—
Fathers and Sons, Chapter XX., by Theodore Hook, Esq.—
A Tale of a Trumpet, by Thomas Hood, Esq. (concluded)—
A Visit to Gerbe, by the Ilon and Rev. Charles Bathurst—
The Country Town, by Mrs. Gore—A Reminiscence of an
Irish Squire—Foreign Sporting, by Nimrod—Memuirs of Ma-
dame Laffarge, written by Herself—Charles Chesterfield, the
Youth of Genius, by Mrs. Trollope—The Suicide's Burial.