The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-19 00:00:00

their line. He thought that some check should be put to
such a course of proceeding. He begged, therefore, to mc ve
the appointment of the Commi,tee to inquire into these
s.uhi,cts.

_ .
Mr. H. HINDE thou.ht that an interval of a day at lea t
should have been allowed, in order to allow Hon. ill?Enbers to
move some amendment, if they thought proper. He thought
it his duty to move an amendment on this motion, and would
take the sense of the House upon it. There was no doubt it
was to the interest of the old companies to strangle as
mach as possible all new companies.—( Hear, hear. )
To place chairmen of old compar ies upon this Committee,
and ask their opinion upon this subject, was like con-
suiting the wolves as to what was best for the sheep.
He would now read to the House the amendment which it was
his intention to make upon the original motion. With part of
that motion, he found no fault whatever, but ho proposed that,
from and after the words " future sessions of Parliament," there
should be inserted instead, " that the Select Committee do in-
quire whether it be expedient that restrictions shall be imposed
on railway Bills, passed in the present session, so as to prevent
the absorption of an undue amount of capital in those under-
takings."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that his object was na to prescribe to the Committee the course
they should pursue. The Committee would still report to the
House their opinion upon the Bills submitted to them, so that
the lion. Gentleman's amendment would not, in fact, amend
in any degree the difficulty which he endeavoured to meet.
Mr. LUNDE did not at all object to the names on the Com-
mittee, and rather than divide the House, he should withdraw
his amendment.

The CIL.. NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
since he had come to the House he found that Mr. Baring
could not serve, in consequence of absence from town. He
proposed, therefore, to substitute Lord Seymour's name in
room of Mr. Baring's. He also proposed to substitute Mr.
Paulson in room of Mr. John Abel Smith, who had got leave
from the House.

The amendment was then withdrawn, and the original
motion agreed to.

THE ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate
on the poor-laws,
Mr. CHRISTIE said, that having given a great deal of
attention to this subject, he was anxious to address a very few
observations to the House upon it, and the result of all his
observation was that a central Board of Commissioners, in-
vested with large discretionary powers, was absolutely
necessary. Ile could not agree with the objections
which had been urged against the Poor-law Bill,
that it was a cruel and obnoxious law, and the measure
he believed had been supported, and it was still
supported by the intelligent of all classes in the country. All
that was now wanted was, to place its machinery above sus-
picion ; and instead of having these removals every five years
to have a well digested and permanent measure. The Hon.
Member for Knaresborough had, instead of making out a case,
exhibited to the House a melancholy failure. He (Mr. Christie)
had listened in vain to hear in the speech of the Hon. Gentle-
man a corroboration of his assertion that the Act was crumbling
to pieces. The only proof that he could have alleged of the
failure of the measure was in the case of the Andover union,
but to that he (Mr. Christie) would come presently. He
would now leave the Hon. Gentleman and refer to what had
fallen from the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorsetshire
(Mr. Bankes)— who also opposed the Bill. He (Mr. Christie's)
answer to the statements put forward by that Gentleman was,
that the present Bill would afford several important addi-
tional securities for the better administration of the law. There
were three ways in which this was proposed to be done,
first, by a direct responsibility to Parliament of a minister who
would be ready at any time that a question was put to him to
afford the House and country every explanation. The second
was, that with this president of the Poor-law Board, who
should be assisted by four Cabinet Ministers, the House would
be guaranteed Cabinet deliberations in all important matters
regarding the administration of the law, or the exercise of the
discretionary powers to be conferred on its officers. The third
security was the new footing on which the Commissioners
would be planed with regard to the officers under them. The
Commissioners hitherto had been responsible for all the local
abuses which had arisen under the operation of the law ; but
the arrangements now would be to make the local officers res-
ponsible for the local administration, leaving to
the Commissioners a paramount and a central control.
He was well aware that it was of the highest importance to
ascertain what was the precise meaning of the assertions that
had been made last night by the Hon. Member fur Knares-
borough, that the Peor-law Amendment Act had proved to be
an utter failure. Then it was important to ascertain whether
the Act of 1844 was impolitic, or whether it had been a good
law, although doomed to failure from the evil administration of
it by its Ministers, local aud central. The point on which the
Andover Committee inquired, were those points bearing almost
entirely upon the administration of the poor-law, as distinct
from the law itself. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secre-
tary for the Home Department, stated yesterday that he had
attentively read the report of the Andover Committee from the
beginning, and he did not find one word in that report affecting
the principle of the measure. The first series of points to
which the Andover Union Committee had directed their at-
tention, were those bearing on local abuses and defects in the
administration. The Andover workhouse was ill-regulated
and filthy, and the practices of the inmates were necessarily
disgusting. The local authority there had very extended
powers, which lie exercised with the utmost severity, thus in-
flicting the utmost hardship on the poor. The harsh
mode in which the law was administered defeated
one of the purposes for which workhouses were originated.
The workhouses wore considered a terror instead of a relief.—
( Hear.) The labourers near Andover were, therefore, left
at the mercy of their employers, for rather than meet the
horrors of the workhouse, they accepted any wages that were
nfrLeted them. The Committee, afterwards inquired into the con-
duct of the Poor-law Commissioners, and a series of resolutions
were passed, expressive of the Committee's disapprobation of
their conduct. Then they came to the question of the dismissal of
the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners, resolutions of a still
stranger character were passed upon their conduct in this par-
ticular, and of their being brought forward by the
Right Honourable Gentleman, the Member for Dorchester.
The conduct of an Assistant Commissioner, Mr. Carter, while
sitting on an inquiry—the conduct of the Commissioners on
inquiries—their conduct in dismissing Mr. Carter, were clue.-
(ions all aff cling the administration of the law. The Com-
mittee of the House had entered upon these questi,,, h•oanse
they felt it necessary, having begun to pursue inquiries which
were incidental. They found that some of the conduct of the
Commissioners was illegal, some irregular ; and their conduct
in removing Mr. Chadwick from the bus'ness of the Commis-
sion was not to he approved. These Commissioners exle
biter' distrust in their subordinates, and injustice to
inane of their servants. On these points evidence
had been taken at length, and occupied public oeiniost for a
long time. Ail these questions affected the Administration
and the adnsinistrators of the law ; arid having now referred to
all these points, he thought he might say to 'he Hon. Member
that he was not at liberty to refer to the report of the Andover
Committee in support of his opinion—that the new poor-law
had been a failure. That report was made at the close of last
session. The present Ministers had but recently Liken office.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department,
not being in office, not having been in office during
the greater part of the sittings of the Committee,
could not have been expected to have made intimate inquiry
into some of the matters referred to in the report. lie did,
however, institute an inquiry, and the result was already on the
table. The present session began with the Commissioners still
sitting. But in answer to a question by the Hon. Member for
llontrose, the Noble Lord at thebead of the Government made
a statement which gave the public to understand, that with the
re-construction of the Poor-law Commission, the present Com-
missioners would cease this session. He would not say
that the Government in thus proccedinsr, had not
acted with a wise discretion ; but he must say that
the Home Secretary hail not taken the best method to elicit
the truth. Mr. Chadwick impugned the conduct of the Com-
missioners so early as the year 1842, a copy of which document
appeared in the appendix to the report of the Commissioners.
The Commissioners appeared to have conducted their business
in a most extraordinary way. Mr. Chadwick made most mar-
vellous revelations before the Commissioners. The Commis-
sioners denied these, and they and Air. Chadwick joined issue
on :Totters of fact. (The Hon. Gentleman then read at
some length extracts from the evidence which has
already appeared in the public prints to show
the irregularity of the proceedings of the Commissioners, c:,•
pecially in the matter of the Minute-book, which appeared, by
conflicting statements, to have been kept in a very irre-
gular way from the year 1834 to the year 1839.) It appeared
likewise from page 3 of the report, that, in the case of orders,
these had been issued sometimes with the signature of only one
Commissioner, sometimes with the signature of not one Com-
missioner at all.
At this moment an Hon. Member moved that the House be
counted, and the galleries were cleared, but as there were more
than 40 Members present,
Mr. CHRISTIE resumed. He said the opinion of the law
officers of the Crown had not been clearly stated to the public,
and they were, therefore, left to draw their own inference.
They stated that it was not usual to produce the opinions of the
law officers of the Crown ; but an opinicn of the Attorney.. Ge.
neral had been produced by the guardians of Pancras and Mary-
lebone. There was, however, he understood, some distinction
as it was not given in his capacity as one of the law officers of
the Crown. The commissioners were required to record all
their proceedings, but they had not done so. The commis•
sioners had stated that they had recorded all their letters, but
they had written letters marked " private," or intended to be
private, to their assistant-commissioners, of which no copies
had been kept.—(Hear, hear.) The commissioners also stated
that they had acted as a body, when it was notorious that
some of them had acted individually. The Honourable
Gentleman then referred to a letter written by the Poor-
law Commissioners with respect to the Andover Union. They
stated, in their defence, that the guardians of the union did
not require explanation on the points to which the report of
the Committee had reference, but the Commissioneis had the
evidence taken before the Committee transmitted to them as
soon as it was published, and as soon as it came into the pos-
session of the Committee, and they might therefore have come
before the Committee, and made any explanation they
thought proper. He considered that the annual reports, which
were presented to the House, should be printed in a small
form, in order that they might be•the more easily circulated—
not ex parte statements selected from the reports of the Com-
missioners' reports.—( Hear, hear.) Then the digest which
had been published of the evidence by the Barrister appointed
to make it, merely adopted, the words and sentiments of
the Poor-law Commissioners; and appeared as if it was
written by the Commissioners themselyes.—(Hear, hear.)
fhe introductory parts are full of mistatements—
( Hear, hear,) and, therefore, the digest was biased,
and could not be depended upon..—( Hear.) The Commis-
sioner stated that a majority of the committee consisted of
friends of Mr. Parker, and opponents of the Poor-law;
whereas, eight out of the fifteen were in favour of it. Eight
were nominated by the Hon. Gentleman who moved the appoint-
ment of the Committee ( Mr. Etwall), and seven by the Noble
Lord the Member for Cavan, the chairman of the Committee.
Hut there was another point to which he would wish to call the
attention of the House namely, to the statements relative to
Mr. Chadwick, who was termed " a discontented secretary."
Now he was anxious to say that Mr. Chadwick was most
anxious to subject his conduct to the strictest investigation.
He had abstained from making any mention relative to the
Poor-law Commissioners until the present t ceasion, in con-
sequence of the statements of the Noble Lord at the com-
mencement of the Session. He had always been a warm friend
of the Poor-law, and at the time he made his motion for an
inquiry into the condeet of the Commissioners, relative to Mr.
Parker, he did not foresee the facts which would come to light
before the Andover Committee. lie denied that he had ever
been influenced by hostility to the Commissioners even before
he had a scat in that House. While yet an
undergraduate of Cambridge, he load written a pamphlet in its
defence, he would conclude by observing that he thought the
present measure involved an excellent principle..
Mr. ETWALL said that he did not see the reason or the
necessity of a central board resident in London. The law
was most objectionable, and in the west of England was
sm
unpopular. He was at a loss to conceive why local boards
constituted as they now were, were not permitted to carry out
the poor-law. Ile did not see the advantage to be gained by a
in respect to the proposed alterations. It
they were beginning to legislate upon
this
said that lie would say was in the
—selling- so erroneous in the
eetolti be altered

the put...,
peared to hire than• • -
all-important questi„,
wrong direction. There was btro...-
whole system that it was impossible that ~
advantageously. 4lthough there were many Members
favour of thc.,, poor law, yat 1:e v.e.'a a bold men who would rise in that House and say that the law had-suececcletl. The of a al very paira Hon, Member ter Bath conceived that the Darning df ha -ricks his resignatioa, One of the charp.

in 1831 proceeded from the working of the law, but he was
mistaken ; it arose from the low rate of wages which existed.
The Government had been congratulated on the change
which was proposed to be made, and the substitution of in-
spectors. Now, he did not see any reason for any such con-
gratulation. He found the name was only changed, for the
office of inspector was precisely similar to that of the assistant
commissioner. Moreover, there was to be made an addition
of three to the number. He found there were to be no fewer
than twelve inspectors. Of all the unions with which he was
acquainted the Union of Stockport was the one which gave
the greatest satisfaction. He thought the visits of the assist-
ant commissioner had not been produLtive of any beneficial
result to the country. Complaints had also been made of the
bad and irregular mode in which the books were kept. The
accounts were, he believed, kept in a system of short-hand
which nobody but himself could understand. He concluded
that the proceedings of the Poor•law Commissioners ought to
be,thrown open to the public. The Duke of Wellington had
expressed it as his opinion that the boards should be thrown
open. He said " what is there said or done in my parish that
I should shut out the public from knce.ving."—( Hear, hear.
In the Select Committee appointed to enquire into the Andover
union, he moved an amendment to the efr, et that Mr. Parker
had not conducted the inquiry in a proper manner. That
amendment was defeated only by the casting vote
of the chairman, who of course gave his vote in
favour of the original resolution, which he proposed.
The Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home De-
partment, said last night that it was not intended to eompe
uniformity under this Act. He (Mr. Etwall) thought that
above all things, this was the object of the Bill. Even the la-
bour test which was enforced in the South and the West a
England, was not dared to be put in force in the north. What
then could be the value of such a law, as could not be dared to
be carried out equally over the country. With respect to the
conduct of the Commissioners, he begged to state that, in his
opinion, the case submitted by the Commissioners to the Law
officers of the Crown, was not correctly drown up, nor
founded upon accurate data. One portion of the case sub-
mitted was, that every letter received by the Commissioners was
entered in the books of the office. Now it was expressly
proved before the Committee, that some of the correspon-
dence had not been so entered.—(Hear, bear.) Numerous
letters were also written by Mr. Nichol, calling upon Mr. Par-
ker to resign ; of those letters, also, no records were kept.
Although he had spoken very strongly upon the mode in
which Mr. Parker conducted the inquiry at Andover, still he
thought that the conduct of the Commissioners towards that
gentleman had been most uncalled for and vindictive. His
Hon. Friend the Member for Weymouth had told them how
many days Mr. Nicoll had transacted the business of Somer-
set-house alone. It was he who had ordered the inquiry to be
made about the bones ; but then the House should know that
all these proceedings were in opposition to the Act. He had
to thank the House for the kind indulgence it had shown him,
and he could assure them that he supported the amendment of
his Hon. Friend because he conceived that there was no neces-
sity for a central board.

Viscount COURTENAY said that although he did not in-
tend to follow his Hon. Ft iends through the detailed statements
which they had addressed to the House, still as he had had the
honour of being chairman of the committee, the report of which
had been so much referred to that night, he trusted that he
might be permitted to address a few observations to the House.
He did so for two objects, first, that he was anxious, not having
had the opportunity as chairman of the Committee of doing so,
to express the reasons which influenced him in dissenting from
some of the resolutions to which they had arrived; and, se-
condly, because he was anxious to record his opinion on the
Bill then before the House. It was his misfortune not always
to agree with the members of the Andover union upon the
subjects before them, but he was proud and grateful to acknow
ledge that the discussions were carried on throughout in a spirit
of kindness and friendliness. A series of resolutions were proposed
having reference to three distinct subjects; these were the local
administration of the law in the workhouse itself, the conduct
of the Poor-law Commissioners, and the dismissal of Mr. Day
from his office of poor-law assistant. He would take the libert)
of stating to the House what the general impressio❑ was that
he derived from the evidence taken before the Committee ; he
felt himself unable to avoid coming to the conclusion that there
had teen gross mismanagement in the board of guardians, and
that the administration of the law was marked by an unusual
degree of harshness at Andover, and that owing to the genera
irregularity which prevailed, the inmates of the establishment
were kept in a wretched and lamentable state. That investiga-
tion had been so far attended with good results, that public at-
tention had been directed to the subject. On some of these
resolutions he had belt; different opinions from some ot
his friends, as he did also on the second series
of these resolutions, namely, on the conduct of the Poor-law
Commissioners themselves. Their conduct had been severely
censured in the matter of Mr. Parker, but he did not knots
that they deserved all the censure which had been accorded to
them on the subject. Certainly, as far as Mr. Parker's appear-
ance before the committee went, he (Viscount Courtcnay) did
not think that it was characterised by either vigilance or atten-
tion. While stating this he must at the same time state in
justice to Mr. Parker, that strong evidence was given of the
ability and perseverance he had exhibited while in his former
position of secretary to the Poor-law Commissioners. He
fully agreed with his Hon. Friend who had spoken that evening,
that the Bill before the House would he so far superior to the
former Bill, that it would have a direct Parliamentary respo,-
sibility in that House. He thought that that provisions which
provided inspectors rather than the old system of commission.
ers, was another improvement on the old law. These modifi
cations would certainly tend to increase its value in the public
estimation, and secure a more efficient and equable administra-
tion of the law.

Captain PECHELL said, after such an inquiry of so much
importance, the country must be surprised that the Noble Lord
had not introduced a more complete measure for the adminis-
tration of the p.or-law to the present day. The Noble Lord.
indeed, said as much as that the present Bill was not founded
on the information which had been acquired by the late inves-
tigation. He was surprised, and he begged to ask a reason for
all this. Was the Noble Lord prepared to sanction the
proceedings of the Commissioners. Those proceedings were
well known to the country and the House. Yet, after the
expos] which they had had of these proceedings, they were told
that that inquiry formed no reason for the present measure.
What, then, was the reason? He begged their attention to
the evidence. When in the Committee, they were told the
Commissioners acted as a board—they were under the necessity
of asking what was a board. The secretary, a most able and
well-deserving gentleman, defined a board as a tab:e at which the
appointed functionaries sat in deliberation. The fact, however,
was that scarcely a single Commissioner ever sat at the board.
But this opinion of Mr. Chadwick, about the constitution of a
board, was found troublesome in the Commission. Now, he
did not know whether the Noble Lord would state the reason
which had operated on his mind, but perhaps he had not seen a
letter which had corns to his (Capt. Pechell's) hand. The
Gallant Gentleman read a letter from China on "Boards,'
which excited a good deal of merriment in the House. Hs
said he could show that the employment of the poor in grind.
ing bones, to which attention had been drawn in the year 1842,
was allowed to continue, without one effort, on the part of the
Commissioners, to do away with it. Instead of that, he held in
his hand a document from an Assistant Commissioner in the
West of England, written in 1844, proposing a new system of
practice. He said he did not care for mills, but he preferred
boxes and iron rammers with which to set the poor to grind
hones small enough to pass through a half-inch slit. It was
hard work, but it was necessary for paupers. Such was the
language of the subordinates of the Commissioners in 1844, when
it was expected that they would have put down the making of
bone manure. lie trusted that no such conduct would be pur-
sued.hy the new Commission. He might refer them to the
treatment received by Mr. Parker, as an instance, of the way
in which the Commissioners were wont to sacrifice the most
valuable servants. That Gentleman was sent down into the
county of Sussex as his ( Captain Pechell's) opponent, and was
there employed day by day to oppose. But he discharged his
duty most impartially, and here was he (Captain Pechell) to
state that he was dismissed from his office without a recommen-
dati .n for any place under the Goverc,ment. Similar was the
ease of Air. Day, two cares the most flagrant that could be
instanced. He was anxious for a change. 13ut what were
they to get by this change ? If he should not vote for the
second reading of the Bill, it might he said that he would
thereby leave the Commissioners out, but those who said so
had no!. heard the few words which he meant to address to the
House. He hoped if the Government passed this 13111, as he
believed they would, that they would fairly grapple with the
law, and that it would be materially amended. The Noble
Lord had intimated that the law required amendment ; there-
fore he hoped, in the words of the Hon. and Learned Gentle
man the Member for Bath, that the new beard would be free
from suspicion. He wished, in the words of the report of the
Committee on the Andover union, to express his opinion that
the Commissioners were not deserving of support, but they must
not imagine that they would entirely alter the Gilbert and
other unions which did not adopt the bad system of the new
poor law. He would, therefore, support the amendment of
the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Knaresborough.
Mr. M. SUTTON said, as the meaure did not propose any
material alteration in the law, he should not detain the House
with any observations with respect to it— in fact the Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Banks) was the
only Member who had applied himself to the subject legiti-
mately under discussion, namely, the Bill of the Government ;
and although he intended to support the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman the Member fir Knaresborough, he differed with
the Hon. Gentleman on the grounds for which he had brought
it forward. Subsequently a third subject had been introduced
before the attention of the House, which he admitted was equal
in importance to the others, namely, the conduct of the board
entrusted with the administration of the relief of the poor. It
was well known that he ( Mr. M. Sutton) did not concur in the
report of the Committee on the Andover inquiry, but especially
that report of it which had reference to the conduct of the
Poor-law Commissioners, and his opinion was strengthened by
the conduct of her Majesty'y Government, who rite not agree
in the report of that Committee; if they had agreed in the
report, they would not have felt it consistent with their duty
to have retained men any longer in office who had been guilty
of the conduct which was imputed to them. Ile
dregretted,idnot
therefore, that the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) rtehyn)
-a
he did
express the views of the Government more
relieved him from intruding upon t
when he addressed the House last nhigehii
o u becausese bu tt h wouldeb et i haysev
conclusion of the debate. He admitt
ed
• oor, on the part o
the Noble Lord would state his views oned tthie:ast'ubthjeetriteb,e.afosrgertehaet
the Poor-law Commissite_naetrs ;bod
want of good conduct and. cruelty
btouttLethPen, 'it should be
y partook more of an
if
evident, they
borne in mind, that h
neglected
ornadst:icstt,anbtutthey surely were. .not
inspecting
to than
amoefndanyevils other
which character;
w ere
mbaudte
of
imthisci commissioners were guilty
they were guilty
of lathes.—( Hear.) Then with respect to Andover, he enter-
tained the opinion that the Guardians are responsible for all that
guilty of misconduct
h
place—( Hear)—as sometime before the inquiry took
Parkerp reported that the union was going on fa-
olaaudereta,akbA
i
He did not hesitate to say that he stood there to
defend the Poor-law Commissioners, but he could not defend all
the Poor-law Commissioners had done. He did not say that
they were free from blame, but he thought it wrs the duty of
every man to defend those public men with whom
they had been connected in a public capacity.--(Hear, bear.)
One of the allegations against Mr. I"arker was that he bad
not conducted the inquiry properly, and he thought that the
way in which the inquiry was conducted had not been
conducted with impartiality. The Committee had not sum-
med up their relent that there was not sufficient reasons for the '
dismissal of 11 r. Parker and Mr. Day, but that the time
and the mode in which it was done inflicted great hardship,
and therefore he was justified in saying that the Committee '
had not adopted a resolution so sweeping as that stated by the
lion. Gentleman. The general ar,eusation against Mr Parker
was, that he hail lost their confidence, and, therefore,
it was not good or advantageous for the public that
that he should be retained. Now, in his opinion,
there were different grounds for that loss of confidence, but
whether there were or not, they had no right to impute cor-
rupt motives, unless they could be proved. Now what was the
ease against Mr. Parker ? That gentleman distinctly stated,
that the Commissioners had come to a resolution to dismiss
him, in order to cast the blame from their own shoulders upon
his ; but this statement he had been unable to prove. He
now came to the case of Mr. Day ; and the difference between
his case and that of Mr. Parker was, that none of the Poor-
law Commissioners, or, indeed, anybody else, imputed to him
intentional neglect. Their whole ground of objection to Mr.
Day was, that while in the discharge of a vet y diffi-
cult duty, they found hint unequal to the task; and
they, therefore, thought it not safe or expedient to
confide the care of that district, to which he had been
' i any longer. And, therefore, in the discharge
"'bon, they considered it T ight to require
brought against thY Com-

,-