The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 21, 1847.

specified. He thought it most desirable that when this
measure was brought under discussion in the House,
that the House should have been prepared to deal
with it on a wider and more extended scale.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose and said—Mr.
Speaker, Sir, it has been very justly said that in the
Course of this debate, not one question alone, but three
questions, have been under discussion ; and those three
questions have been mixed with various others, of which
it is hardly possible to take any sufficient notice, and
much less to settle, in the course of this debate. Yet,
Sir, I cannot avoid, before I proceed immediately to
speak to the question of the second reading of this Bill.
adverting in some degree to the important questions no
doubt connected with it, and on which some Honour •
able Members have already spoken at considerable
length—I mean especially the question of the poor-
law amendment itself, and the question of the
administration of that law under the Poor-law Com-
missioners, as brought to light by the voluminous
evidence given before the Andover Committee. Now,
Sir, with respect to the poor-law amendment itself, let
Gentlemen consider what was the nature of that
kind
of
administration which the poor-law amendment is
intended to supersede ; how far it was liable not only to
the objection of abuse, and of corrupting the labourer
of the country, and of destroying his property, but like-
wise to some of the very objections brought against the
present system. We were told that here was an arbi-
trary power given to a single commissioner—a power at
variance with the constitution—that any three men
should have a power to make laws which should regu-
late the laws and conditions on which relief should be
given to the pauper population of this country. Will
You have again this state of poor-law administra-
tion--(Hear, hear)—because I am not without
apprehension that unless this House is determined to
persevere in the present system in its plan and objects,
we may, in a few years, find ourselves again falling into
the system of vicious legislation.—(Cheers.) Sir, it un-
fortunately happened that the price of provisions rose
toward the end of last century to be extremely high, far
above any period that had been marked for severity
previously, and there was a great difficulty on the part
Of the labourers in being able to provide for the sub-
sistence of themselves and their families out of the wages
which they received. What was the course adopted
A certain number of justices assembled together, and
reside a new law on this subject. They made a law, in
total disregard of the law of Elizabeth—they
Made a law that the labouring man receiving
wages should have a certain amount paid out of the
Poor-rate, which was to be measured by the price of
the quartern loaf, and the food on which he was ex-
pected to live ; and reference was also had to the num-
ber of his family, and the mode in which they were to
subsist. Now it was quite evident that the poor-law of
Elizabeth never contemplated such a measur. The Act
Of Elizabeth provided for the poor children who were
left:destitute and unprotected; as for the able-bodied la-
bourers who might be idl- and out of work, it set them
toh work and, as the condition of their work, provided
at they should be paid out of the rates to be raised in
ther parish or district. Such was the principle of the
Learned
of Elizabeth, as read in the House by the Lion. and
rarned Member for Bath, on the last day of the de-
:to ; but the plan of giving an addition to the
meths,
and giving that addition eut of the district
ars, giving it also without providing employment,
with a plan was at total variance with the letter and
rah the spirit of the Act of Elizabeth, and yet, Sir,
nature
gentlemen who complained of the unconstitutional
the first
of
'eture of this power should be aware that that change
in the law was made solely by resolutions adopted at a
justices.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Sir,
ler,i) first meeting of this kind was held in the
were of Berks, and afterwards similar meetings
re held in the various counties in the kingdom, but
,T,Lwe'hich no other rule than their own was discussed.
decision was perfectly arbitrary. There is no
doubt that the new law was adopted with the view of
benefiting the people. They thought it was desirable
trss this law in order to enable the people to have
tior
They beyond their wages on which to subsist.
Y did not allow the ordinary rules of society to
ave t •
hen. sufficient weight, by which wages would un-
doubtedly in time have been raised ; they interfere with
ra'et of Elizabeth with a benevolent intention, but in
oti
_►miner totally arbitrary, and solely regulated by their
1,."n view of public expediency and public safety.
het to whom
the om are those magistrates responsible ? Sir,
Chancellor would not dismiss them from the coin-
henel°n of the peace because they had acted from the
the relent intention of providing for the labourers of
them;
in the exercise of the power entrusted to
wi..oula to
dismiss them from the commission of the peace
ey not, therefore, be just towards them, acting as
had. from a mistaken sense of duty. But are those
o„lTelssioners of whom we are now speaking ? They
oat he dismissed to day, or at any hour, at the pleasure
tartnosCrown, represented by the Right Hon. the Secre-
wh-Y tt, State. If the Secretary of State defends them
notescafeY do wrong, if their rules and regulations wore
to this
and the clming to the laws as decided by this House
pervisioother House of Parliament, being under the su-
n of the Secretary of State, they were also liable
invests
wit
seconhel check and control; thus they were not
existed that power and that authority which
, before the amended But It was f amended Poor-law Bill was enacted.
was a dust 'and that although the legislative enactment
that an. testt'innne—although it was made with a berievo-
iZPeops,and a desire to elevate the condition of
'll sled to gross abuses. These abuses have
been • tested
, n illustrate great length, and they have
continued :
wneltoing ki de" bY an evidence of the most over•
I need scarcely
abuses advert to the various points
in this report, or to the mode in which those
the Fre known to spring up; to the manner in which
vestries had abused their power ; to the manner in
which the labourer was reduce to the lowest possibe
wages, and was dismissed in certain cases by the far-
mers for a day or a day and a half, and thrown upon the
rates. The intention was good, but the effect was not
SO. The Act of Elizabeth w,.s intended to raise the
pauper class to the condition of independent labourers,
while the effect of this enactment was to reduce the inde-
pendent labourer to the condition of a pauper.—
( Hear.) The wholecountry was overspread with labourers
receiving support, and a portion of their assistance
from the poors-rate, depending on the vestry for elee-
mosynary aid; depending on the individual caprice of
the members of those vestries, who took their own dis-
likes against particular labourers, and regulated accord-
ing to those feelings of spite, the relief which ought to
have been given according to the law. But, Sir, when
the Government of Lord Grey attempted to reform
th,ese abuses, it was observed that they could not do so
Lttput encountering, and encountering not for a period
noting which the Bill was passing through Parliament,
eir one year or two years, but for many years, the
moat formidable opposition, and every kind of it. If I may
sad
183,tatnbextract from Lord Althorp's speech in the year
which House will see what he proposed in the Bill
Adraleistra
-e brought forward in the name of the Grey
was to ts hoe (The Noble Lord read the extract which
at 'lie effect °P the eet that, the effect of the Bill would be to
the Powallowance system; to deprive the magistracy of
er Of out-door relief; to give a larger discre-
bsiag in Y Power to the Poor-law Commissioners; and to
to
and re , a good state and condition the system of laws
guiatiou for
What were the • pauper relief.) Now, Sir, observe
was the e interests, what were the prejudices, what
Power he proposed to run counter to? His first
aleasure
eves was to stop the system of allowance. What
lab the
effect of that system? To degrade the
ourer
le,a
also, yet although this was a great evil, it was doubt-
%nee
bae system of indulgence which had the appear-
nefiting the labourer, and therefore could not
thing he. said was that the Bill wasyintende'd to deprive
Magistrates of the power of ordering outdoor ref.
Ct
Why, although the whole body of the magistracyreslaid
thata:a power which they beneficially exercised, yet
as not the case with the whole body of the magis-
Ir_ae,y.
There were many who cherished this power,
..._1111,4 who left not the pauper to receive relief from those
mwr were their own neighbours. These were popular
gistrates, to whom the improvident labourer travelled
Ps five or ten miles out of his parish in order to
get an order to the overseer for outdoor relief.
The alteration which was made in the constitution of
parochial vestries gave great offence to those who were
interested in their abuses. In many instances it was
found that the greatest evils existed which the measure
was calculated to remove. In the parochial vestries
the pareses who had the ordering of the relief,
in a great proportion of cases, contracted for
the same--(Hear, hear)—and made a profit on
the transaction.—(Hear, hear.) They increased their
own funds out of the rates of the parish, and then when
the change was proposed, those and the assistants who
were under them expressed themselves shocked at the
cruelty and impiety of the new law, and the oppression
to which it subjected the poor.—(Hear, hear.) It was
therefore necessary, under such a state of things, to give
large discretionary powers to the commissioners. This
W.. 45 absolutely necessary ; as-the difficulty, as well as
Ia impropriety of acting on a uniform system was
clearly
apparent. The measure had to be adapted to the
ictircurnstauces of the various districts into vvhich
as to be brought into operation, and
hencevr it was considered right to constitute a
central
These power with large discretionary authority.
They h commissioners have been much attacked
ave,been styled three kings, tyrants, and other terms
founded in truth
equally oeprohrious. Sir,so far from these charges being
entitled to suchd—ide
truth--so t
hf far
epithets,
from t theean t era t
sboei
farng
from this, theyeboernsmililoiwasnio,
everyeff thing in their power to give
fair and impartial effect to the law which they were
called on to administe In one or two instances, there
may have been some rreasonfor calling the discretion of
the commissioners in question, and I regret that it was
80, though it is easy to conceive how much of th
tion arose from e opposi-
tion those who clung to the abuses of the old
la
R', and who, in declaimed
tyranny
a_ , consequence, ab eit the
and oppression of the new. It was a
great quest' •
We ton in proposing the law of 1834, as to
whose hands the administration
entrusted, andafter
of the measure should be
43,f: board of much consideration the constitution
the principle ocommissioners was finally adopted. To
ment thews I the board the leading parties iu Parlia-
ment
been tal!ereed, though in late years great objection
coriduced.4liito the mode in which its affairs has been
resolutions es ar, hear.) We have heard of certain
dover Union, the Committee on the affairs of the An-
made to this House, of
the report which that Committee
report was preseueste. It was suggested at the time the
should be presented, that the resolutions of the Com-
mittee
of censure agreed to by the House, and that a mo-
tion
f should be passed on the Poor-law Com-
missioners,reports T.
.sounded on the allegation on that
This, however was not done, and I do
not think it ,
Should have was advisable. Had it been proposed I
that felt it my duty to oppose it. Ido not by
mean to
with justify what may have taken place in con-
nexionorami f* may tne Andover union. The resolutions of
lie-
wronhave been right or may have been
but with regard to
or thethe Committee or the conduct
Poor-lawcompet"`"ss, Commissioners, I do not think it was
11l them to form an opinion of the circum-

stances under which they had acted. From the experi-
ence we have had of the proceedings of those gentlemen,
I cannot allow the resolution of the Committee to take
away my confidence in them. Having general faith in
their character, abilities, and integrity, I cannot suppose
that they have acted in the affairs of this union without
duo consideration.—(Hear, hear.) Meanwhile, with
regard to the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners, I
think that what has fallen from the Hon. Baronet the
Member for Radnorshire is extremely true. I do
not think the House of Parliament would
give to the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners a
freehold of these offices, and remove them from all con-
trol of
.the head commissioners. With the ordinary
officers of the Government departments, absolute power
was given, though it was seldom used, to the heads of
the several departments to effect any removal they might
deem necessary. If a clerk under me was incompetent,
and if his retention was not for the benefit of the public,
I should feel it my duty to remove him; and I cannot
conceive that the different offices can be satisfactorily
filled unless such powers are placed in the hands of the
different departments. It is said that the Andover
Committee intimated that there was no ground for
the removal of Mr. Day or Mr. Parker; so that I
must say, I cannot say that such a Committee had any
such experience of the conduct or proceedings of the
gentlemen in question as to give a just and correct opi-
nion.—(Hear.) But it is further stated that Mr. Chad-
wick has said that there was a division between him and
the whole of the Poor-law Commissioners, because they
were desirous of correcting abuses, and would not en-
courage and promote any Assistant Commissioners who
br-nght any errors or mal-practices before them. But
let us look for the proof of this. When Ido so, I find
them meagre in the extreme. Mr. Parker says that he
complained of the state of the workhouse accounts in
1843, and had done so on several occasions since. To
this it was mentioned to him, at the time he first named
it, that a Bill was about to be introduced on the sub ect,
and that he had better refrain from doing any thing till
he saw the result. The Bill was given up at the end of
that session, and again introduced the session fol-
lowing. And because this has been so,
it is stated by Mr. Parker that the Poor-
law Commissioners had set their faces against him.
How, on anything so meagre could they make a founda-
tion for such a charge?—(Hear, hear.) But I must say,
if this were so, if the Poor-law Commissioners had set
their faces against correcting abuses, it was not fair for
the secretary, or an assistant-commissioner, like Mr.
Parker, to go on countenancing such a state of things.
They ought either to have resigned at once, or to have
complained to the Secretary of State, instead of con-
tinuing to act under commissioners who were not doing
their duty.—(llear, hear.) 1 think it was a great dere-
liction in them not to have brought the question under
the notice of the Secretary of State, if they thought
the head commissioners were incapable to the task.
There is no department, be it what it may, that will be
able to stand if those who are appointed,to administer it,
instead of acting under the direction of their superiors
are continually making their complaints—(Hear, hear)—
and instead of performing the orders of their superiors,
are undermining, and contriving,—(Hear, hear)—and
plotting against those commissioners who are placed
over them. No department can, under such a state of
things, be expected to act efficiently and beneficial to
the interest of the public.—(Hear, hear.) It is
that kind of House, which we know, upon the
highest authority, will not be able to stand. I
think that while these charges is made, and made very
loudly, there has not been any sufficient proof of it, and,
therefore. the Poor-law Commissioners are, in my mind,
acquitted of this, the only grave charge brought
against them—that with respect to the making of
the law, their ideas of it may have been
different from that of the Secretary, they may have con-
ducted their business in a way which some gentlemen
may think—and which all Secretaries of State thought—
in conformity with the law ; while there was no doubt
that with respect to certain individual cases, such, for
instance, as the case of the Andover Union, they com-
mitted faults of a want of discretion—that several of
their decisions with respect to the Andover Union were
not guided by sound judgment—that with respect to
some other particular cases they may have failed in
hitting the regular rule, and that their conduct was not
altogether such as might be considered the wisest. All
these I consider however as very minor charges ; I con-
sider them as very inferior in importance, in considera-
tion of the duties which I have shown were so difficult,
and which excited so much odium ; and they are such
as I think they should not be arraigned upon.—(Hear,
hear.) lam told that, with respect to the working of
the law, that although there may have been complaints in
particular instances, yet that the general working of the
law has been more satisfactory during the last two years,
and during the present year, and I can answer for it
more especially since my Hon. Friend has been the Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department. I can say
that, considering the number of the unions, amounting
to 590, the complaints have been remarkably few; and
the guardians in general say that they are satisfied with
having to receive the orders of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners, and that they would rather have some rule to
guide them, than be left to act entirely according to
their own discretion in the administration of the law.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member who opposed the
second reading of this Bill, and who moved that it should
be read a second time that day six months, made various
accusations both against the law and against the corn-
missioners;
they were, however, accusations so extrava-
gant,
going so far beyond anything that he could prove,
so completely resting upon assertion, that I do not feel it
necessary to give a reply to those accusations.—(Hear,
hear.) I have taken notice of what I think
is a serious charge, viz., that of endeavouring
to suppress inquiry; with respect to these other matters
such as conveying paupers to Manchester, and exposing
them to misery and starvation,—such charges as those,
necessarytttl eotyua though,
,ewphs
torioc hpleien,t
properly
enter
eye r
the
ifnouton
thirddthe ce
speaking„
m, ahseecslht reoneenl aryl
them.—(Cheers.)
under
udNeovsteni not think
sometfil
oitsirns
nik(omli
yt
dis-
cussion this evening, viz., whether the plan proposed in
the present Bill is such as to deserve so far the sanction
of the House as to allow this Bill to be read a second
time—(Hear, hear)—and here we must first ask the
qusstion whether there should be any central control—
should we have any central control at all, should we
allow the Poor law Commissioners to expose and leave
the law to be administered by the unions and the board
of guardians, and in those unions leave each board of
guardians to exercise its own discretion ss to the mode
of administering t'se Poor-law of Elizabeth and the
Poor-Jaw Amendment of 1830. The result of the dis-
cussions its this House, shows that there should
be some central control. I think such a
system desirable, both in order to prevent
the oppression of the poor, and likewise to prevent the
occurrence of that which seemingly favourable to the
poor is most injurious to the independent labourer of
t tis country. I feel convinced that in many instances
the boards of guardians might administer the law in a
manner which might be culled more harsh and strict
than they would if they were amenable to some central
body, and that central body one that had to answer for
their conduct before this House. Now, suppose with
respect to the Andover union, or any other union —sup-
pose some gentlemen had discovered that there were
great abuses in the Andover union, this House might
probably appoint a Committee to inquire into the abuses
of that union, you might find in the course of the in-
quiry that the master of the workhouse had misused his
power, and had acted in a manner totally at variance
with the trust reposed in him, and the report of the
Committee would no doubt be that such workhouse
master! should be dismissed, and that the poor-
law guardians had acted very negligently in not
dismissing him before.—(Hear, hear.) There might
be perhaps three or four of such cases in the course of
the year, but I think there would be very few persons
disposed to give their time to such Committees, in which
I do not know how many thousand questions were to be
asked—we were told to-night by an lion. Member how
many it was—and sit for 60 days for the purpose of in-
terrogating these matters, and perhaps in the next year
have five or six similar cases to inquire into, and re-
commence an inquiry of the same length and end with a
similar result. Those are not objects that would induce
Hon. Members to devote their time, tlles*: there were a
whole system involved, and some general system in
question. We should not find that Committees of this
House would enter into the details of the management of
every union, and declare its opinion of the competency
or incompetency of each board of guardians
who were at the end of the year to go out
of office, and when some other persons should
be elected to fill up their places as guardians,
to that particular union. The house must be con-
vinced that such a system would not be any security to
persons suffering hardships under the operation of the
poor-law. Would it prevent abuses ? I feel convinced
that it would not. In some parts I feel convinced the
law would be administered with greater security and
harshness, in others " allowance system" would spring
up again—(Hear, hear)—in lieu of wages. That system
would be disguised by every sort of excuses when there
was no assistant commissioners or inspectors over those
unions. These abuses would gain renewed strength,
and in a few years we should find ourselves in a no better
position than in the year 1830 when that system of
indulgence and liberality ended in rural insurrection,
and setting fire to farm houses during those times and
in those administrations which are now appealed to as
the good old systems.—(Cheers.) I come then to
this conclusion—that there should be some central
control, and that is the conclusion in which
I have heard Hon. Members in this House, who are
adverse to the Poor-laws, and still more so to the Poor-
law Commissioners, concur. Well, then, what should be
the kind of control ? The Hon. Member for Radnorshire
said that he remembered when Lord Althorp brought
in the Bill, his saying that he thought it desirable to re-
move the Poor-law Con.missionera from all party or po-
heal connexion, and make them a body separate, as
it were, from the influence of party and politics. I be
love I knew what induced him to take that view; I
know, from communications which I have had with him,
that his original intention was to propose that the Se-
cretary of State should form a part of the Poor-law
Commission, and that he should have the superintend-
ence. And along with the other commissioners should
have the direction of the Poor-laws. I stated my views
on the subject to Lord Althorp and I succeeded
in persuading Lord Althorp to abandon any plan placing
the Secretary of State in the Commission. 1 had hoped
that the removal from party struggle, that the choice,
in every instance, of the Poor-law Commissioners, solely
with a reference to their fitness and adapta-
tion for the office, and without any regard to their
party and political attachments or their political
party, would, I had hoped, have prevented the
administration of the poor-law being brought, as
an exciting topic of debate before this House.
But, in that respect, I own I have been disappointed.
The acts of the Poor-law Commissioners have been
brought into that House ; the Secretary of State for the
Home Department has been obliged to defend them ;
and if the House had not supported him in that
defeice, but disapproved all that he bed supported

and approved—if they had condemned all that he thought
worthy of praise, it is obvious he would have been as
much committed as if he had been himself the real of-
fender. The fact, however, has indeed been that in every
instance, whatever Government has been in power this
House has supported generally the defence which the Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department has made
in reply to motions implying censure on the Poor-law
Commissioners. Therefore, you have not had a total
removal from the affairs of Government, or from the
Ministerial interest, that connexion with the Poor-law
Commissioners which was originally supposed to be ne-
cessary. We have had certainly freedom from party
squabbles, but from the year 1834 to 1847, with
some few exceptions, with the leaders of party in this or
the other House of Parliament, the Poor-law has not
been made a political question out of doors. But the
question then arises whether, as it has been necessary
for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to
become aware of all that the Poor-law Commissioners had
to do, is it not batter that the person who has
guided that machinery, who has directed and dictated
its decision, should not be a member of this or the other
House of Parliament, and should he here ready to de-
fend his own acts and conduct, instead of having them
to the defence of an imperfect explanation. I admit that
in so doing you do connect the poor-law more directly, and
I will not deny that evils may not arise in that particular.
But let us see where we have arrived ; we have arrived
at the point that there shall be some kind of central con•
trol, and we have arrived at the point that experi.
ence has shown that no control vested in persons
debarred from being Members of this House, is a con-
trol which does not prevent the Government of the day
from being in a great degree responsible for its actions,
but does prevent full inquiry and discussion in this
House, which it is so desirable should be gone into. For
these reasons we are about to try that which we now
propose. You see I have stated two plans, the one re-
quiring a defence on the part of the Secretary
of State for the Home Department, and the
other a direct representative of the Poor-law
Commissioners in this House, and in principle
the two plans are identical. They are both connected
with the poor-law administration and with Government
—both liable to all the objections of being calculated to
excite party opposition, and, by that means, get party
and Government support to that which Members of this
House might otherwise see reason to object to.—(Hear,
hear.) I confess, however, that, notwithstanding these
points—being persuaded that you must make some cen-
tral control—being persuaded that the system upon
which we have gone since 1834 has been greatly and
seriously defective, and that defect has been injuaious
both to the Government and Poor-law Commis-
sioners—that the Government have suffered from that
which they did not originate—that the Poor-law
Commissioners have suffered for acts of which the whole
history was not gone into by this House ; seeing such
has been the case there remains no alternative but to
connect the poor-law administration with a department
of the Government. I come then to the further ques-
tion, whether we ought to connect it with an existing
department ? I own I think the Secretary of State for
the Home Department has, with the powers of Secretary
of State, the various businesses that have been imposed
upon him by Acts passed within the last few years—the
attention he must give to all the other business of the
Cabinet, both foreign and domestic—the attention he
must give to all the business of this House—he has suffi-
cient, if not more than sufficient, to absorb the whole of
his time and attention without connecting him specially
and solely with the administration of the Poor-law. If
that be the case, we must have another secretary, or
another board. I confess I have no great reverence for
one plan or the other, but I do not think the plan we
have proposed, if liable to the objections that were
stated against it by the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire,
in the course of this evening. He said there will be
Members of the Cabinet, who will not be able to pay
all the attention to the business that is required, in
order tojorm proper opinions upon points connected with
the poor-law ; but still being members of the board,
they would feel themselves bound to defend particular
decisions. I do not think the plan is open to
that objection. It is in fact only adopting the
plan used, with regard to other departments of
the Government. It is in some instances found
inefficient to secure responsibility to have a
a secretary or president to devote his attention to one
particular department, and carry on the business of that
department with the assistance and counsel, if necessary,
of the other Members of the Administration. The
Board of Trade, for instance, has a president, and has
various colleagues connected with him. There is only
one person, however, responsible as the President of the
Committee of Privy Council upon the affairs of trade ;
and with reference to all minor points of detail, either
the president or vice-president acts, without reference to
the Cabinet ; but if there is a question of considerable
importance, all the Members of the Privy Council take
part in it. It is not very different with regard to the
administration of the affairs of India—with reference
to the Secretaries of State, and so on—but as
I said before, that is a matter, rather of
detail—a matter rather to be considered in Committee,
than matter to be discussed on the second reading of
the Bill. The real principle of the administration that
we propose is, that there should be a head—that there
should be a president, who should be responsible for the
administration of the poor-law—that that head should
have a seat in Parliament—that he should be called upon
in Parliament to give any explanation upon all points
connected with the poor-law administration.—(Hear,
hear.) I quite admit that it exposes Government to
odium and obloquy that Government was not formerly
exposed to. I admit that it was far easier for the Go-
vernment, when every parish depository decided upon
every question of relief that came before them, and when
all cases of abuse and hardship or cruelty occurred,
all the indignation of the pubiic was thrown upon
and directed against the particular vestry, and no part of
it fell upon the Government of the day. But we have
attempted to make a great social change in the adminis-
tration of the poor-law ;we having attempted in 1834 to
reform those abuses which had sprung up by a depar-
ture from the statute of Elizabeth, of 1796. I think
that this reform cannot be carried out or completely
effected, unless you have a central control responsible
to Parliament. I believe in that manner you may get
the machinery to work more truly than it did in the
beginning ; you may get it to work so truly, that the
cases of complaint brought before this House would be
few, and that the answers to those complaints would take
up but a little part of the time of the House in debate.
What I wish to see is, the Act of Elizabeth, conferring
relief should be carried into effect in all its spirit, and in
a manner which is conformable with the state of our
institutions of the present day. The exact words of
Elizabeth are not exactly applicable to the present time,
because if you were to set the poor to work in manu-
factures, they would either be competing with those who
have independent labourers earning wages, or their work
would be insufficient and useless. But the workhouse
system is in accordance with the spirit of the Act of
Elizabeth naturally applied—where relief is wanted,
relief would be given. That the relief should be large
and liberally given, in conformity with the spirit of that
Act. I believe it is necessary for the maintenance of
the forming of society of this country, and therefore it is
that I do not think that the expenditure which now
exceeds the whole sum raised by the property and in-
come tax of the country—l do not think that expendi-
ture ought in amount to be complained of, if the source of
administration were that which it ought to be.—(Hear.)
Admitting that it is an experiment—admitting that it is
a change in the present law—admitting that as there
were certain defects in the law of 1834, which no one
could then see, there may also be similar defects in this
measure of 1847 ; admitting all this, still I think that it
is, under present circumstances, the most expedient
course you can adopt, and in a path beset with difficul-
ties, the only one that can be recommended to Parlia-
ment, and 1 therefore pray the House to assent to the
second reading of the Bill.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. B. DISRAELI regretted the lateness of the
evening, but hoped that lie would be able to compress
the few observations he wished to make on this measure,
so as to finish before the arrival of the midnight hour.—
(Hear, hear.) Although he thought the Noble Lord was
of
wi
bu-
siness asserted,
na
a great authority on subjects of that character, he could
d
tsaosf,od(nthi
hie,e,atnor,
not assent to some of the propositions which he laid
feltt
b
d,
country
t persuaded,h eLi
nhear.)contrary,mu s
It
ht
occasional
be ww thateai
was very
r thebroughtplausiblyv e ry
generalb
truef
before
r t mi gh
e P athatr
in doing so there might be a cetr.irai,inosi.tti:frinfusoon.
factious sentiments, but without the interferencenc
Par-
liament these measures of a special character must al-
ways prove a failure, and the situation in which they
at present found themselves proved the accuracy of that
position. Throughout the entire argument of the Noble
Lord, and of all those who agreed with him, this falla-
cious assumption pervaded all their speeches. They
said that central control was necessary, and the Noble
Lord assured them that that control must be a
metropolitan control.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
There was no middle state —no halting-place,
between the most obscure parish in the kingdom and
Somerset House.—(Hear, hear.) For his own part, he
never for a moment challenged the right of control over
the parochial administration of the law, and he thought
it would be wrong to agitate that question; but if it was
not considered right to leave this parochial authority to
itself, it did not follow that metropolitan control was
the most eligible mode by which the abuses which re-
sulted from it could be remedied. The laws of charity
must be local in their administration, as the feeling it-
self was prompted and kept alive by local residence.—
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, however, said there
was no difference between the control of a parish and
the control of a Minister of State, and however inju-
rious it might be to bring the parochial administration
before Parliament, that there was no middle course for
them to adopt. He (Mr. Disraeli) begged the House to
consider that central control did not involve metropolitan
control.—(Hear, hear.)—and he did not see why a cen-
tral control should not bo deposited with every county.
At any rate, he did not see why it should be set-
tled in London. The advocates of the measure
admitted the evil of largo unions, and yet
the basis of the present system was a union
comprising all the unions of the country.—(llear,
hear.) Let them look for a moment at the scheme of
control now before them. The Noble Lord proposes to
bring the central control into Parliament. Well, then,
suppose a labourer felt aggrieved in a remote parish,
and that he did not get redress from the poor-law
guardians, what was the next step? The case was
brought before Parliament; and who, he would ask,
was responsible for that? Why, her Majesty's Mi-
nisters. It was very well for the Noble Lord to
say that party feeling had never yet crept into the dis-
cussions on this subject. But he apprehended that time
might arise and circumstances might occur when the
great principles involved in this question would degene-
rate into a party struggle.—(Hear, hear.). Withregard
to the Bill ilea', he did not find fault with it, because of
the increase of patronage it gave to the Crown; for he
maintained that the amount of taxation, and the reduc
tion of priyi4eges, hail always in this country borne

a proportion to the decrease of patronage.—(Hear.)
But he objected to it, and objected most earnestly, to
that which still further made the parochial constitution
of this country the Parliamentary ccnstitution. The
moment that they had a Poor-law Minister in that House
—the moment that parochial affairs were brought into
that House—all that time which was at present devoted to
railways—all the time which was devoted to private busi-
ness—would be otherwise consumed, and none left for
those purposes when they had converted the Members
into a parochial—(Loud cries of " Time, time.") The
Hon. Member said the quarter was not yet exhausted.—
(Ironical cheers.) There was one other topic which he
wished much to avoid ; it had nothing to do with this
question. Why it was introduced into the discussion
was no matter of his ; but it was enough that no one in
the course of the debate had avoided mention of the An-
dover Union Committee.— (Hear.) He was a member
of that Committee, and he wished to make one remark
upon the subject. The Noble Lord himself, with
the ability which distinguished him, referred to the
members of the Andover Committee. That Committee
lasted for a considerable time—he believed for a space
of nearly four months. It represented every section of
opinion in regard to the law itself. But he was hound
to say that various as that opinion was, and strong as
was their conviction, he believed that every member was
satisfied—impressed with the deep conviction that the
result of that investigation was beneficial to the public.
But the Noble Lord said he would not listen to those
accusations when he found an officer had so forgotten
his duty, that an officer was so chargeable with derelic-
tion that in an underhand manner he should be
discovered creating a factitious public opinion
against his chiefs—he would not hear anything
that made against the Poor-law Commissioners.
He (Mr. Disraeli) thought, and he admitted there was a
great deal of truth in what the Noble Lord said on that
head. But could they then believe that such a man as
Mr. Chadwick was still at the board of the poor-law?—
(Loud and ironical cheers.) Though the Noble Lord
(John Russell) nodded his head as insinuating that to be
the case, he yet could not believe it.—(Renewed cheers.)
He ha i heard a gentleman who had been a Poor-law
Commissioner, and had a great distaste for family honours,
himself the father of a head Commissioner—( i fear and
laughter)—say, that Mr. Chadwick was a dangerous
person—a most dangerous person to the Poor-law Com-
missioners.—(Ironical cheers.) Having heard Mr. Chad-
wick denounced by one of the Commissioners—(Hear
and laughter)—by the father of a head Commissioner—
(Increased laugh ter)—Sir Frankland Lewis ; having
heard him denounced by the Noble Lord, but for whom
they might not have had the Andover Union Committee
or this Bill, he could not believe that he was still at the
board.—(Great cheering and laughter.) What state
secret was he the depositary of that he was still there ?
(Renewed ironical cheers.) If the Noble Lord had con-
descended to leave his red box, and gone to the green
table with a few plain men like himself, and there, with
pen and paper, taken close notes of evidence, he might
have come to &different conclusion. He had heard that
gentleman make statements which he received as evidence.
But they had heard that gentleman characterised as
poisoning the fountains of all truth. If a different spec-
tacle had been presented that night, and if he had seen
the Noble Lord rise that night and say that he would
take upon himself the disgrace and the odium of one who,
to the extent of his abilities, had served him—if he had
done so, although at the moment of dissolution, and on
the eve of a general election, he (Mr. Disraeli) would
have admired the Noble Lord that night as one who
would not desert an old servant at the moment of attack.

—(Cheers.) But the Noble Lord was willing to benefit
by the services of a man whom he denounced. Yes, the
Noble Lord required a scape- goat and a iCtiln ; and, he
said, I am obliged to make a Secretary of State with two
secretaries, on account of the underhand proceed-
ings of the secretary or the Poor-law Commis-
sioners. Yet that man remained at that moment secre-

tary at the Poor-law Commissioners' board--(Cheers.)
He knew him but by his works—his works on the sana-
tory state of the country, and in treating of that subject,
the only places he appears to have passed were his own
office and the secret recesses of the Cabinet. '['he
House should remember that that Committee was called
under very peculiar circumstances. As regarded this
Bill, it was to be considered only as a Bill for the re-
construction of central control, to which they all agreed.
Let the House not forget the peculiar circumstances
under which this Bill was brought forward. When
these charges were made against the members of the
Andover Committee, he felt bound to remind the House
of the circumstances under which that Committee
laboured. His Hon. Friend the Member for Peter-
borough had put into his hand a resolution which was
adopted with the joint approbation of the Committee,
and which, as it was very brief, he would take the liberty
of reading to the House. The Noble Lerd the chair-
man of that Committee had stated to him personally the
reason why he had voted against that resolution, namely
that he could not agree in the latter part. The resolu-
tion stated that the conduct of the Commissioners
Messrs. Parker and Day was not in accordance with the
statute under which they exercised their function's, and
was such as was calculated to shake public con-
fidence in the administration of the law. That
resolution was agreed to by a large majority.
As to their conduct being irregular and arbitrary, which
referred to a matter of fact. Now, of those Gentlemen
who had spoken that evening, not one pretended that
their proceedings was not irregular. Whether they were
arbitrary, was a matter for the consideration of the
Committee, who decided that they were. The Noble
Lord, to whom he had referred, agreed, in his opinion.
with the Committee on that point, but stated he could
not do so with respect to that part of the resolution
which asserted that they had not acted in conformity
with the statute. Ilut by that statute they were bound to
keep records, and the evidence brought before the
Committee proved that they had not kept any records,
but that a person in his private room conducted the
whole business, who, in fact, was only scribbling his own
memoranda.—(llear, hear.) To show that public con-
fidence was shaken by the administration of the Com-
missioners, was it necessary for him to bring any evi-
dence on that subject. That resolution was not, he
asserted, an intemperate, but on the contrary, a mode-
rate resolution, founded upon fact, after duly
weighing the evidence before the Committee. No
one entering upon that inquiry could help arriv-
ing at the same conclusion to which the Com-
mittee had arrived, and no one except by loose
assertion had challenged that conclusion, or challenged
that resolution. He would now say a few words with
respect to an individual because he had no friend in that
House except himself. That gentleman's name had
been brought forward in a most unnecessary and wanton
manner. He was not going to support Mr. Day because
he happened to be an intimate
certainly knew him as a man of attainments and a good
scholar, and he knew nothing against him without it
acquaintance of his. He
was that he was a widower.—(Laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—What I said was that he had
not a freehold.
Mr. DISRAELI—Why, the Prime Minister had not
a freehold, but they had no means of removing him
without telling him the reason. The Noble Lord said
himself that no man ought to be dismissed unless he
conducted his business in such a manner as was unsatis-
factory to his employers. Why Mr. Day was, dismissed
without any reason being assigned, and that not even
in an official manner. The manner in which Mr. Day
was appointed was as follows:—He had not a public
friend in the world, but he published a pamphlet before
the reform of the old law was contemplated, and he
reformed his own parish on the principle of the 43d of
Elizabeth, he described the reforms which he effected
in that pamphlet. Having no public friend, it was the
last effort of a desperate man; for every one who ever
wrote a pamphlet must admit that no one ever read it.
In 1831, when the Government introduced their plan,
they were looking out for clever men, who, to use the
fashionable language of that House, could carry out their
system, a Noble Lord, resident in the county to which
Mr. Day belonged, said there is a distinguished country
magistrate who reformed his own parish see to him, he has
written a pamphlet. The pamphlet was sent to the
Minister, who read it. Mr. Day was sent for, was
offered the post, which he accepted, and he became a
zealous officer.—(Hear, hear.) He was sent to that
part of the kingdom which was declared wholly and the
most incapable of reform, South Wales.—(Hear, hear.)
He did reform it. Was it any wonder, however, that he
should have become unpopular ? In his labours, how-
ever, he broke his leg, and when he had recovered, he
wrote a noto, to say that he was still prepared
to resume his labours. In reply to that communica-
tion, he received a letter, marked private, which
merelyPhobnreeiwvnacamslvi :d'utso system
supporte n
tt
;v al) su
t
advised him as a friend to send in his resignation, Now
in all this there was a great deal of hardship and arbi-
trary conduct. Mr. Day bad broken up his establish-
mentwhere, on a moderate income, he
in his county,
supported a large family. He zealously conducted the
duties of his office, accomplished what was admitted to
be a most difficult task, and received a compound frac-
ture in the service of Cr,
but o
wvhr
Mr.ne Government,
De
anwyt , a
brought
hsi
wroyeun:ehu
inthagn
trobtthl
hardly
these s7rheee ri'
ea credentials
possible,taoi
facts.
would
tl
hslss d.t
g 3.
confidence in him. He (Mr.
reward, after all.—(Hear,
diahnesarw.)hichMbr.o Dhaady
been
triets expressingenalit
might
systemh t n their
t ob fe eoninit condo-
lencerimo IBill itself, looking at it
forfr o accusedmh mwe
ivttoeohfr
byhoui
binnoopt, oiavepdnrudwl aoi
otherwise,
an improvement.—(Hear,
npgr oayse
hmee nd ea—o(nll
this
broughtA u
du now,
iwnni
,onctt
comparison
psohp.an
ornriseeseXogdni
aotrwnod
theiristwith,ahtliyu thttheablaaepll
Disraeli) cAoniutlddmnisgoohttroefafrrriatinmaifsgrohmttnhmoatten;
give the Government the advantages of believing that
ear,
hear.)
tlseot hs
Bill as one meant to perpetuate the system
sine
ric
metropoli-
tanoos control,
and
iNeVhhihchadhe
brought
the
ee o fatal,r
n of
eo countrypernici-
ous,
which bad been complained of, he would vote for the
amendment of the lion. Member for Knaresborough.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK moved the adjournment of the
debate.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he hoped they would
finish the debate that night.
Mr. FERRARI) said, that after the speech which had
been made by the Noble Lord, it was most unfair of him
to press the measure. The Hon. Member for Finsbury
was determined to answer it, and he, for his part, was
determined to offer every opposition to her Majesty's
Government, if they attempted so unconstitutionally to
press the second reading.—(Hear, and cries of" (h.")
And now, as to a question personal to himself, he desired
that the Noble Lord would explain what statements of his
were unfounded which he made on Monday last; he al-
luded especially to those statements which he had made
in reference to the manufacturing districts. Ile asked
the Noble Lord to stand up in his place and state what
was the statement he had made.
Mr. VILLIERS said he had stated that they took
peasants from the agricultural districts, and sold them
as slaves in the manufacturing districts. He said also,
that they murdered children in the workhouses. These
were two of bis misstatements, and the House need wait
no longer.
Lord JOHN EVE.SELL mid these two were state-

ments which he believed were unfounded, and did believe
them unfounded still. He made no attack on the
Honourable Gentleman's character. But when the
Gentleman's statements were so characterised
by passion, when he represented that the
Poor-law Commissioners delighted in the murder of
children—(Great laughter)—he was but justified in
saying they were unfounded.
Mr. FERRAND denied the statements attributed to
him. He did not say that the Commissioners delighted
in murdering children.—(Cries of " Divide.")
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, when
_ _ .

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, as some Hon. Members
wished still to speak, and if Hon. Members would not
postpone the debate over to morrow night, he would
consent to the debate being adjourned.
The debate was then adjourned.
HERRING FISHERY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
HERITABLE SECURITIES FOR DEBT (SCOT-

LAND)! BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
BURGAGE TENURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This Bill was also read a third time and passed.
CROWN CHARTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
PASSENGERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr. HAWES moved that the House go into Com-
mittee on this Bill. It was a very important measure,
and should be passed as soon as possible, as it was
mainly to protect passengers.
The House then went into Committee.

Upon Clause 1 being proposed,
Lord G. BENTINCK said that at the request of the
shipping interest of Liverpool, he would move several
amendments on the Bill, which it would, perhaps, be as
well that he should state at once to the Committee. In
the first clause he proposed to move—page 2,
line 15, after "tons," insert "having a space of
fourteen superficial feet to each person." Page 3,
line 7, after "hatchway," insert " provided with
ladders and protected by • a companion hatch
fitted with sliding top and side doors." Line 24, after
" ship," insert " having a space of fourteen superficial
feet." Page 4, line 10, leave out " fourteen," and insert
"eight." Line 16, leave out "in the said recited Act
mentioned," and insert "of one person to every four-
teen feet, including berths and personal luggage." After
clause 5, he proposed the insertion of clause C, the
object of which was, that the seaworthiness of the ship
should be ascertained by survey. And be it further
enacted, That to remove doubts as to the seaworthiness
of any vessel about to proceed with passengers, as afore-
said, the acting government emigration officer shall
cause such ship to be surveyed by two duly autho-
rised and responsible surveyors, and if it shall be
reported by those persons that such ship is not in
their opinion in a state of repair and efficiency
as would entitle such ship or vessel to be classed
in Lloyd's Registry of British and Foreign Shipping,
IE 1, such ship or vessel shall not be cleared out.
Then, after clause C he proposed to add a clause D,
providing that in the event of wreck or unseaworthiness,
the passengers were to have another conveyance pro-
vided for them or to be indemnified. The clause would
be as follows :—And be it enacted, that in case any ship
carrying passengers on any such voyage as in the said
recited Act is mentioned, shall be wrecked or otherwise
destroyed, and shall thereby or by any other cause what-
soever be prevented from landing her passengers at the
place they may have] respectively contracted to land ;
or in case such ship shall put into any port or place in a
damaged state, and shall not within a reasonable time be
intended
voyage to proceed with her passengers on her
voyage after having been first efficiently repaired, and in
all respects put into a sound and seaworthy condition,
then and in any of such cases they:sh.all be provided with
a passage by some other equally eligible vessel, to the
port or place at- which they respectively may have
originally contracted to land ; and in default thereof,
within a reasonable time, such passengers respectively
shall be entitled to recover by summary process, before
any two or more justices of the peace, in like manner as
in the said recited Act is provided in the cases of
moneys thereby made recoverable, all moneys
which shall have been paid by or on account of such pas-
sengers or any of them, for such passage, from the party
to whom the same may have been paid, as from the
owner, charterer, or master of such ship; and also such
further sum not exceeding 5/. in respect of each
such passage, as shall in the opinion of the jus-
tices who shall adjudicate on the complaint be
a reasonable conpensation for any loss or inconve •
nience occasioned to any such passenger, or his or
her family, by reason of the loss of such passage.
The last was the most important amendment. It was
to provide that in all cases where a ship was lost, the
owners should return the passage money, or provide
the passengers with another passage. This would in-
volve an additional expense of Is. 6d. per passenger for
insurance ; but he was quite sure, with such a guaran-
tee, the passengers would readily pay that charge.
Mr. HAWES objected to assimilate the measurement
of English ships with American, as that would have
the effect of putting impediments in the way of the
emigration now in progress from Ireland !gild:this coun-
try. Lie hoped, therefore, his Noble Friend would not
press his amendment. With regard to the survey pro-
posed by the Noble Lord, the present law provided for
that, as no ship could convey passengers without a cer-
tificate of her seaworthiness ; and this, he apprehended,
was a sufficient guarantee of security. Under these
circumstances, he hoped the House would see
that the amendments suggested were unnecessary.
He hoped the Noble Lord would allow the Bill to go
through Committee, and move again the clauses he
might feel it necessary to have inserted on the bringing
up of the report.
Lord G. BENTINCK said he could not give way on
the clauses referring to surveying. He would agree
that the Bill should go through Committee, and so much
of it be confirmed as did not bear upon the surveying,
and on the bringing up of the report, he would move his
clauses.

Mr. HUDSON concurred with the Noble Lord in the
desirableness of the survey.

On clause tcn,

Sir G. CLERIC thought there ought to be some scale
of boats adopted in the Bill for the security of passen-
gers. It mattered not whether they adopted the scale of
last year or the year previous, but some scale in propor-
tion to the passengers ought to be adopted in the Bill.
The clauses were agreed to, the Bill went through
Committee, and was ordered to be reported on Monday
week.
The House then resumed, the other orders of the day
were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Two
o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons,

THURSDAY, MAY 20.
CUSTOMS.

Acts read; Motion made, and Question put, " That this
House will resolve itself into a Committee on the said Acts,
for- the purpose of assimilating the warehousing privileges on
Colonial and British Spirits." The House divided:—

..._. _
MINORITY--AYES, 51.
Bailie, Col. Feilden, Sir W. Marton. G.
Baillie, II.:J. Forbes, William , MoleswOrth, Sir W.
Baillie, W. Fuller, A. E. Norreys, Sir D.
Baine, Walter Gordon, Admiral O'Connell, M. J.
darkly, Henry . Hallyburton, Lord Palmer, R.
Bennet, Philip Halsey, T. P. , • Pattison, James
Bentinck, Lord G. Hamilton, Lord C. Rashleigh, William
Blackstone, W. S. Hodgson, Richard Ross D. R.
Bouverie, E. P. Hope, Sir J. - Bandon, ViscOunt
Browne, R. D. Houldsworth, T. Sheppard, T.
Buck, L. W. Jolliffe, Six W. H. Trelawny, J. S.
Crawford,'W. S. Jones, Captain Turner, Edmund
Dennistoun, John Lockhart, A. E. Waklcy, Thomas
I)ivett, E. Lockhart, W. Watson, W. U.
Drummond, IL Mackenzie, W. F. Williams, W.
Duncan, George Macnamara, Major TELLERS.
Duncombe, Thomas M'Carthy, Alex. Moffatt, George
Ewart, William Manners, Lord J. Hume, Joseph

PROVINCIAL BANK OF IRELAND.
The twenty-second yearly general meeting of the proprie-
tors of the Provincial Bank of Ireland was held at twelve
o'clock yesterday, at the offices of the bank, 42, Old Broad-
street. Oliver Farrar, Esq., was called to the chair, on the
motion of Sir ➢loses Monteflore.
The advertisement convening the meeting having been
read,
The CHAIRMAN proposed the re-election of the four follow-
ing directors, who went out by annual rotation :—John Allis-
ton, Esq., James Farrer, Esq., John Petty bluspratt, Esq.,
and Alfred Thorp, Esq.
The motion was unanimously adopted.
The CHAIRMAN then said that the next duty he had to
perform was to call on the Secretary to read the report of the
directors upon the proceedings of the establishment during the
last awful and eventful year. He would enter into no state-
ment until that report should have been laid before them;
after that he would be happy to give any information that
might be required of him ; and he trusted that the report
would be satisfactory to the meeting.
The SECRETARY then read the following report
In submitting to this meeting the result of the business
of the bank for the year ending the 27th March last, the di-
rectors feel it to be necessary to notice the calamitous circum-
stances resulting from the failure of the potato crop of last
year, and the very great distress and suffering that has in
consequence existed and still prevails in Ireland; but while
a matter of such importance, affecting every interest in the
kingdom, and calculated, immediately or more remotely, to
exercise great influence on the welfare of the community,
cannot be passed over in silence, the sufferings of the Irish
people have occupied so great a share of attention and sym-
pathy in this country, and may be said to have beCosie so
painfully familiar to all, that it is not necessary on this occa-
sion to detain the proprietors by attempting to state any de•
tails, the leading features of which must be already so well
known.

"In their report to the last yearly general meeting, the
directors in referring to the distress that had existed in Ire-
land prior to that time, stated that they had felt it to be their
duty to contribute on the part of the bank, in aid of the local
subscriptions far promoting employment and providing food.
Urgent applications for pecuniary assistance in relieving the
destitute have since continued from time to time to be re-
ceived by the directors, with which they have not hesitated
to comply. The directors, however, have not made a general
subscription to any of those associations through which large
amounts have been contributed by the benevolent in this
country and elsewhere, it having been considered that through
the instrumentality of the bank's officers in Ireland, and the
local committees formed in the districts in which the several
branches are situated, the sums voted from the funds of the
bank could be more beneficially and economically applied.
" The directors cannot omit to notice that the necessity
which arose for large importations of grain, at a period when
apprehensions of scarcity and a consequent demand for it ex-
isted, in order to supply the wants of other European king-
doms, has led to greatly increased prices, which, combined
with other causes, has had a material effect upon the money-
market. To this the directors have for a considerable time
looked forward, and they have accordingly throughout the
whole of the past year exercised the utmost vigilance and
caution. The proprietors will readily understand that, in
consequence of the comparative cessation of exports from Ire-
land, and the large imports of food into that country, a great
change must necessarily have taken place in the current of
commercial and of banking business there, and to this change
it has, of course, become requisite from time to time to adapt
the regulations under which the business of this bank had
been previously conducted. This has required and has re-
ceived the daily and anxious attention of the directors, and it
has been their object to afford every reasonable facility to
those engaged in commercial and agricultural pursuits, but,
at the same time, to keep the operations of the bank within
prudent limits, and they are happy to say the results, up to
this time, have been satisfactory.
" The new branch opened at Carlow, in March, 1846, not
having received that support and encouragement which was
expected, the directors, towards the end of last year, re-
solved to withdraw it,- and the business has accordingly been
wound up, and the branch closed. _

" The -directors have now to call the attention of the pro-
prietors to the statement of account which they are enabled
to submit to the meeting.

The account submitted Co the yearly general
meeting in May, 1846, showed the amount
of rest, on undivided profits, at March,
1846, to be £114,923 10 4
From which has been deducted the amount
of two half-yearly dividends paid to the
proprietors, viz.:—
At Midsummer, 1846, 4 per cent. £21,600
At Christmas, 1846, 4 per cent. 21,600
Together

43,200 0 0

Leaving a balance of £71,723 10 4
To which there has since been added the
amount of nett profits for the year ending
on the 27th, being the last Saturday of
March, 1847, after deducting property-tax
and all expenses, and providing for all bad
and doubtful debts

Making the rest, or amount of undivided
profits, at the 27th March, 1847.... £126,196 12
" In this state of the bank's affairs, and five years having
elapsed since the proprietors had any participation in the
reserved profits, which have during that time been gradu-
ally accumulating, the directors feel themselves justified in
appropriating a portion of the present reserve, and they have
therefore the satisfaction of announcing it to be their in-
tention to pay in July next a bonus of 1/. on each 1001.
share, and Bs. on each 10/. share of the capital stock of
the bank, in addition to the usual half-yearly dividend of
four per cent., which will make the sum to be then paid
21, on each 100/. share, and 16s. on each 101. share, for the half-
year ending at Midsummer next; and the directors purpose
also to pay the property-tax for the proprietors as heretofore.
(Signed) "ROBERT CAMPBELL, Chairman."
The Rev. FRANK HEWSON said he believed—and he was
sure it was also the belief of every other proprietor—that the
management of the bank during the last eventful year did
the greatest credit to their board of directors and to the other
officers of the establishment. He could state from his per-
sonal knowledge of Ireland, and from what he had read in
the newspapers, that no company could have exerted itself
more for the relief of distress than the Provincial Bank of
Ireland had done of late; and it was a most gratifying fact
that after a year of such an awful character the nett profits of
the bank should be greater than they had been during the
preceding year. He thought they were very much indebted
to the present board of directors for their successful efforts to
advance the prosperity of the bank ; and lie was sure that
the handsome manner in which they had come forward on
that occasion to propose a bonus must meet with the appro-
bation of every proprietor.—(Hear, hear.) Ile wished to
take that opportunity of putting a question to the chairman
with respect to the withdrawal of the branch at Curlew. It
had been stated last year that the branch at Lurgan had
been withdrawn ; but, as Lurgan was an insignificant place,
that statement had excited no surprise. Carlow, however,
' was a prosperous town, surrounded by a rich agricultural dis-
-1 trict ; and, although he felt the utmost confidence in their
board of directors, he wished to asked the chairman if he
could give any explanation with respect to the withdrawal
of the branch of their bank from that town?
The CHAIRMAN said that the directors had been led to
suppose that Carlow required further banking assistance, and
they had therefore established a branch there. But as they
found by experience that that assistance was not required,
and as it had never been their policy to intrude themselves
on a district of which the wants were already adequately
and satisfactorily supplied, they had thought proper to with-
draw their Carlow branch. Before that withdrawal had
taken place the branch had been established during the
greater part of a year, and its business had, towards the
latter end of the period, fallen off rather than increased.
The Rev. Mr. HEWSON said he thought that explanation
was quite satisfactory. He took it for granted that the Bank
of Ireland had ensured to itself the banking business of
Carlow during the period when it possessed a monopoly in
all towns so near Dublin, so that there was at present no
opening there for another bank. [The Chairman intimated
that that was the case.] He should not detain the meet-
ing further than to propose that "The report just read by
the secretary be adopted, and circulated among the pro-
prietors."
The motion, having been seconded, was put from the
chair and unanimously agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN said, he could not allow the meeting to
separate without addressing to them a very few words. In
the first place, he thought he should be acting with great
injustice to those officers of the bank to whom its prosperity
was in a great degree to be attributed, if he did not take that
opportunity of expressing his gratitude, and the gratitude,
he behaved, of all his colleagues, for the zealous and efficient
services of those gentlemen.—(Hear, hear.) He did not
wish on that occasion to particularise too many of them, and
he would therefore only refer to the services of the three
principal officers of the establishment,lllr. Murray, Mr. Raw-
lins, and Mr. llewat. He had no hesitation in saying that
he did not believe there was an establishment in the kingdom
which possessed more admirable officers than those three
gentlemen. The exertions of Mr. Murray were almost be-
yond belief; and the only fault the directors of the bank
found with him was his earnest anxiety to do with one head
and with one pair of hands the duties of several.—(Hear.)
Mr. Rawlins had been a member of the establishment ever
since its formation, and fur him every member of the board
of directors felt the utmost respect.; while his attention to
business had been to the proprietors of the highest import-
anoe.—(Hear.) Of Mr. Hewar, who sat beside him, he could '
wily say, as he was then present, that his business had very
greatly increased—that in indefatigable zeal and industry he
could not be surpassed, and that every day added to the
respect entertained for him by the directors. He had
also to state that to their local officers, in this trying year,
they owed much, and that those gentlemen had their most
cordial thanks. It could hardly have been expected that,
with so many branch establishments as they had, their
officers would have escaped the ravages of that fatal disease
which prevailed; throughout Ireland, and he was sorry to
have to state on that occasfon that Mr. Mackenzie, one
of their most useful and ,respected managers, had
lately fallen a sacrifice to fever. That gentleman was
a person whom they all esteemed; he had been in the
service of the bank since the year 1828; he had been
for some time an inspector, and then, at his own desire, had
been again appointed a manager in Waterford, where he
had been acting to the entire satisfaction of the directors, and
where he had unfortunately lately fallen a victim to the
fever which was raging throughout* Ireland. He had left a
widow and eight children, with the early expectation of a
ninth; and he (the Chairman) believed he need hardly say
that, the directors would consider it their duty to take Into
their consideration the situation of that family.—(Hear, hear.)
Leaving the melancholy topic, lie would next observe that it
might appear extraordinary that, in such a year as the pre- I
sent, the directors should propose that a bonus be given
ud t
l the proprietors. In the first place, however, he ho
ob-
serve that there was no year, be believed, in which a bonus
would be more acceptable.—(Hear, and laughter.) In the
next place, he should state that during the five years during
which the proprietors had patiently waited for a bonus, the
reserve fund, out of which it was to be paid, bad gone on gra-
dually increasing; and after the bonus was paid, the reserve
fund would amount to about 104,0001., whereas after a bonus
had last been paid the reserve fund had amounted to only
about 93,0001., or 11,0001. less. Ile had only further to ob-
serve, that it bad been their endeavour throughout the year
to give every accommodation in Ireland that could be fairly
expected from them. He had no hesitation in saying that
the amount of accommodation they had been able to give
during the year in Ireland had considerably exceeded that
which they had been able to give in other years. At the
same time he was sure that every gentleman must see that
when it became expedient and necessary for an establish-
ment like the Batik of England—the source of all money
transactions in the kingdom—to restrict the amount of its
accommodation to the public, it behovel all other establi,h-
ments, which must necessarily be guided by the movements
of the Bank of England, to follow to a certain extent the
cautious policy of that bank.—(Hear, hear.) It could.
therefore, have hardly been expected that the managers of
the Provincial Bank of Ireland should not have been iu some
' instances forced to place a check on what they considered
undue speculation.—(Hear, hear.) But they had earnestly
endeavoured to give, throughout Ireland, every accommo-
dation which they could afford consistently with a due
regard for the interests of the proprietors of the establish-
ment.---(Hear, hear.)
A PAerAlizoii said he believed that the exertions of the