The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-22 00:00:00

PRE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 22, 1847.

Cine
for a central board. Well, they had tried such
a control with regard to the poor-law for
the last thirteen years, and it had failed ;
but still, if they were to establish a central
control for the protection of the rich rate-payer, why
should not the poor have a judge to see that his rulers
and superiors did him justice. He did not believe there
would be any difficulty in establishing such a law. He
was not afraid of the boards of guardians, but if the
Noble Lord feared them, why. did he not reconstruct
them ? The Noble Lord last night spoke of the Act of
Elizabeth, and pointed out to them the manner in which
that Act was abused, but in framing the Bill of 1834,
what did the Noble Lord do with the magistrates who
had abused it ? Why, he placed them over the board of
guardians, thus rewarding them for their misconduct
instead of visiting them with condemnation. But really
and truly the constitutions of these boards of guardians
ought to be reformed. Their election at this moment
was a perfect farce. Instead, however, of reforming the
system, the existing commission was to be abolished, but
all the defects and evils of the system remained. Under
such circumstances the public have great reason to com-
plain of this Bill. The public expectation would be
disappointed by it. No charge was to be made
in the new poor-law, and he very much feared that
great and serious would be the disappointment of the
people in that respect. All the evils with regard to out-
door relief were to he continued, and no honest, indus-
trious man in time of reed could procure relief eithout
walking several miles for it. The present law in all
respects was inconsistent with the principle of the Act
of Elizabeth, and especially inconsistent with regard
to the able-bodied poor. Upon this branch of
the subject they had heard much from the
Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, but the lion. and
Learned Gentleman directed his attention only to the
idler. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman forgot the
honest and deserving workman, who had lived and whose
only offence was that he could not procure work. Was
he to be punished for the misdeeds of the idler? Under
the operation of the Act of Elizabeth, relief was ad.
ministered to him without demur by the parish authori-
ties, but under the new poor- law he had to walk many
miles to get before a board of guardians, and then,
perhaps, he would be refused relief, without being
allowed an interview with the board.—(Hear, hear.)
The Act of Elizabeth was one of the noblest statutes
that ever was passed by the Legislature ; it gave secu- I
rity to the property of the country, and it provided—
very justly, in his opinion—that it was the duty of pro-
perty to protect and provide for the poor. The mainte-
nance of the poor, in fact, was one of the conditions upon
which property was held. In a state of savage life all
property was in common, but one of the first processes
of civilisation and the establishment of private property
was to impose on it the maintaining, or, at least, the
duty of assisting in maintaining the poor, who were
willing to work and had no
.property of their
own. That principle was acknowledged by the
statute of Queen Elizabeth, but by the Act of
1834, it was almost abrogated. Ho firmly believed
that the conduct the Government nas pursuing in this
case was most unfortunate—he said unfortunate, because
he scarcely knew any other word he could more appro-
priately apply to it, and he felt strongly convinced that
it would be attended with the most disastrous conse-
quences to the Government. But what was a far
greater evil, and perhaps of far greater moment to the
country, it would be most fallacious in its results and
consequences with regard to the poor. Throughout the
country, a feeling had arisen that this House was hostile
to the interests of the poor ; and yet those who warned
the House of this, were told by the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath that he could point the finger
to individuals who, while they advocated the
rights of the poor with regard to the poor-laws,
were hypocritical in their sympathy for the
poor because they did not support an extension of the
franchise. Now in his opinion nothing could be more
conducive to elevate the character of the people of this
country, or more calculated to increase security to the
property and institutions of the kingdom, than that the
labouring population of the country should be repre-
sented in that House. He always found that the labour-
ing man gave the most independent votes, because he
was not surrounded by circumstances that controlled his
opinions, as those which influenced the conduct of those
who held a higher position in society. He was, therefore,
the more anxious to extend the franchise to them, and so
far as he was concerned the remark of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Bath was not applicable to him.
Now the labouring population and middle classes were
opposed to the new poor-law, and if Government would
take his advice, they would repeal it and return to the
good old principles of the statute of Elizabeth, rather
than pass this Bill. Under the present system the
workhouse was a gaol. It was true. the working man
might leave it, but for what ? Why to starve ; for the
whole design of the workhouse system was to force the
poor to abandon it, instead of provide them with ac-
commodation, and the result was the poor man was
separated from his wife, and allowed to hold no
conversation with her, though both should be on
the verge of death. (Hear, hear.) Nay, in
cases where the poor man and his wife, seeking
relief in the workhouse, were placed in the same apart-
ment they were under the abominable new poor-law
system precluded under very heavy penalties from hold-
ing conversation together. No wonder, then, that the
industrious population were so much averse to—and no
wonder that they should have viewed this Bill, which
could only insure the most riged operation of the law,
without relaxing its bad features—with additional alarm.
Will the Noble Lord say what he thinks the conduct of
the Commissioners should be with respect to those cases
to which be (Mr. Wakley) had alluded in the Bromley
Union and in the Margate Union, The Noble Lord
must be aware that, under the Poor-law Act, it is pro-
vided that old and infirm persons might
receive relief if they obtained a certificate,
signed by the magistrates to that effect.
Mr. Waddington, a respectable medical practitioner,
granted a certificate to a person of the name of Sotheran,
an order was granted for his relief, and relief was ac-
cordingly given. On the following week, however, the
board refused to administer the relief. The old man
applied again to the magistrates, and they told him that
they could do nothing else in the matter, and that he
must sue the board.(Hear, hear.) A letter was writ-
ten to the Secretary of State upon the subject. The an-
swer returned was, that the letter was sent to the
Poor-law Commissioners and the Secretary of State
could not interfere in the matter. Would the Noble
Lord say how he expected his scheme to work in such a
case as this. Would the magistrate's order be the go-
verning power over the Government? He thought the
present measure a most unconstitutional and dangerous
one to the country. He objected also to the measure
on the ground of the enormous amount of patronage
which it would place in the hands of the Government.
There was no less that 5,000 persons already holding
office under the Poor-law Commissioners. Believing as
he did that the present was a most impolitic arrange-
ment and most disastrous to the poor, he should feel it
his duty to oppose the Bill in its present stage, and
should vote most cordially for the motion of the Hon.
Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Fernand), and upon
every future stage of the Bill, if there should be a
division, he should give his vote against the
further progress of the Biil.—(Loud Cheers.)
Mr. VILLIERS felt bound to say that iu the course
of the four speeches which had been made, nothing bad
been proposed, nor anything agreed upon. The Hon.
speakers seemed to differ in every point, except one, that
was discontent with the commissioners. The Hon.
Member for Evesham (Mr. P. Borthwick) thought that
the old local system was perfection itself, and he
,had the utmost confidence in the conduct of the
working-classes. He only wondered that since the Hon.
Member had been in the House he had never brought
himself to give his vote in favour of increasing their
power. The Hon. Member also condemned in the
strongest language the conduct of the commissioners.
The Hon. Member for Sotnersetshire was a very inte-
resting character in this debate. That Hon. Gentleman
came forward and stated that the power and authority of
the central power should be confirmed and strengthened.
The Hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. B. Escott) op
posed altogether the existence of the board of commis-
sioners, and thought that the local systems were con-
ducted in the best and wisest manner, and he referred to
several places in which the local boards had acted with
great discretion. There was one thing which the Hon.
Member complained of strikingly in contrast with
the statements of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.
That Hon. Gentleman complained of the paupers,
getting fat, and living in a state of ease and plenty,
while the poor out of the workhouse were miserably
clad and ill-fed. The Hon. Member for Finsbury also
spoke highly of the conduct of local authorities. In a
speech delivered in the year 1839, the Honourable
Member complained very strongly, however, of the
conduct of these local boards. The Honourable
Member talked very loudly about the good old times of
Elizabeth. He (Mr. Villiers) did not wish to make any
rash assertion of ignorance with respect to any Hon.
Member, but he certainly thought that those lion.
Members who talked so loudly of those palmy days of
Elizabeth, were not aware of the harsh and tyrannical
nature of the laws of that period. He saw in all those
diversities of opinion, and the absence of any suggestions
from Hon. Members on the subject—a most cogent argu-
ment for some central system of management for the poor.
Ho thought that there had been a sort of field open to
those persons who were willing to believe that the rich
were always ready to oppress the poor. And he thought
that the popularity so easily obtained would at once
fall to the ground when all ti one extravagant charges
brought forward by some Hon. Members were met by a
firm and convincing disproof. He should most certainly
support the measure. Whether it was the best measure
that could be suggested, he could not then stop to
discuss. He thought that the central powers
ought to be armed with more authority ; and
he thought that, by the present measure, that
power would be conferred on that board, and
thus respect would be gained for its authority, and
power which it did not now possess. As it existed
before. an attack on the Commission formed an easy
rood to fame by any person wishing to obtain for him-
selfnow fully
a little
assuredpopu Ia rit
thaty.
the T `The
measure people o
wasth iosnceo
whichuntry' were
had
produced great and beneficial results to themselves and
the more cone.'
statements mad© the country at large. The more the subject was consi-
dereda Teed every one would be that the
founded. The cenfralestt)otahredcentral authority were un-
to correct, and Lord Althor had a great many abuses
defined what these duties
sere at the time the comitiswsiaosnters were appointed.
t!bolish the system
The first thing they had to do
I -door other
gistrates of
of,h eallowances;
pews:
o f thegiving
nextou t
duties of a different and arduous nature.
had been admitted that the greatest success Ledn'aitt
tended their labours, what ground was there for the
accusations made against them. One party thought
hat the work house system could be carried out
over the country. Another party said that no
one at all should be put into the workhouse.
The Honourable Member for Winchester, and
the Hon. Member for Finsbury said so, and that every

one should receive relief who applied for it. (Mr. B. Es t-
cott said he never said
.so. The Hon. Member said so, but

what he meant was another thing.—(Laughter.) He
(Mr. Villiers) maintained that a test was necessary,
otherwise the indolent and the profligate would be put
upon the rates. He thought that the internal disorgan-
isation at Somerset-house, however discreditable it might
appear to the parties who were mixed up in it, was not
accurately judged. He believed that Mr. Althorp,
who appointed the commissioners in the first
instance, appointed discreet men. He appointed Mr.
Lewis, Mr. Lefevre, and Mr. Nicol, and it was not till
Mr. Chadwick introduced a different mode of adminis-
tering the law from what they had sanctioned that con-
fusion arose which led to his dismissal. And he (Mr.Vil-
liers) did not hesitate to say that ever since that time he
had exerted himself to the utmost to discredit the system
and to bring odium upon it. If the charge of having
neglected their duty could be maintained against
the commissioners it was a grievous charge,
but he denied that these charges were ever
proved before the House, and the Law Officers of the
Crown had fully acquitted them of the imputations. The
case of the Andover workhouse had been frequently re-
ferred to in the debate, and all the abuses exposed in
that workhouse had been generally attributed to the
commissioners • but he maintained that nothing was
more unjust. With respect to all those disgraceful
proceedings, there was not one tittle of evidence
to show that the Commissioners were charge.
able with them. It was to the total disregard
by which the Andover Board of Guardians of
the rules laid down for their regulation, that all these
abuses owe their origin. He appealed to the Committee
who had inquired into the case of that workhouse, and
who were the most hostile Committee of inquiry that
ever sat in that House, whether the statement which he
now made was not perfectly correct. When the Noble
Lord, therefore said that he had no confidence in the re-
sults of that Committee, he only said what the
justice of the case demanded. What did that
Committee, that Select Committee do, when they
commenced their labours? They threw open their
doors to the public. And gave permission to the public
press to be present at the proceedings. Now, if a report
of the Committee was considered necessary, the proper
course would have been to have taken an official report
of all that had taken place. Instead of that, however, a
garbled and partial report was allowed to be published
to the world, which left it to out of the power of the
public to form a correct judgment of the case. This
matter was brought before the Committee, and a desire
was expressed that they should report the proceedings
to the House, de die in diem, but they would not hear of
such a thing, and continued to permit the press to pursue
the course they had commenced. Such was the conduct
of this Select Committee.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WARLEY said the evidence was reported to the
House and printed.
Mr. VILLIERS was bound to believe the Hon. Gentle-
man's statement, but he had been led to believe that
there was a disinclination on the part of the Committee,
to have the evidence adduced before them reported to
the House. The press, as he had stated, were allowed
to be present ; charges of a personal nature were made
against individuals, and reports, conveying them, went
forth to the public, without the House being
informed of the course the Committee were
adopting. If the Committee was an open one,
when the House had intended it to be
select, a report to that effect should have been made to
the House. There was a difference between Select and
Secret Committees, although the Hon. Gentleman for
Shrewsbury seemed to entertain a different opinion. In
a Select Committee more Members of the House might
be present, but Members of the House might be excluded
from a Secret Committee-room ; but if the Members of
either chose to throw open their doors, they were bound
to come to the House and state what they had done. It
was usual when Committees allowed their proceedings
to be made public, that they should make reports to the
House at the same time. When Hon. Members saw the
evidence, as published by the House, they could scarcely
believe that they were the same witnesses whose evidence
had appeared in the newspapers.—(hear.) It was true
the newspapers could not give verbatim reports. They
could only eive condensed and partial reports, coettining
as much information as they expected would be interest-
ing to the public. He (Mr. Villiers) had heard the Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Finsbury (Nile Duncombe)
state that he regretted he had not been able to attend the
Andover Committee as he could have wished, as he
would not have consented to the Committee being open
when personal charges were being made against persons,
unless it was understood that the evidence should be
reported to the House or that the parties calum-
niated should be present ; he only mentioned
this to show the animus which existed in the
minds of those who constituted the Committee.
He could not help wondering at the absence of the Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Weymouth (Mr. Christie)
last night and that evening who had been so loud in his
demands for the dismissa of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners. He (Mr. Villiers) did not think that he ex-
amined the witnesses who were called before the Com-
mittee in a becoming manner, and many Members of
the House had spoken of the improper way in which
he examined the witnesses, who were his seniors in
years, if not in everything else. And yet the Hon.
Gentleman took great honour to himself for his conduct
as a member of the Committee. He did not scruple to
inquire into the private affairs of witnesses and of the
Assistant-Commissioners who had been formerly em-
ployed under the Poor-law Commissioners, and the
room was constantly cleared in consequence of the impro-
priety of his conduct, and constant excitement was kept up
during the investigation from the way in which the
witnesses conducted themselves under his examination.
When the witnesses were treated thus, was it any won-
der that they could scarcely trust what they stated.
They were under the influence of fear, and everything
was done to make them appear ridiculous. Thus, men
who might have come forward and furnished valuable
evidence, dreaded to do so, from the treatment which
they would meet with at the hands of the Committee.
The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Shrewsbury asked
last night, with great triumph, how it happened that the
secretary to the Commission, who was denounced by the
Committee as an unscrupulous servant, was not dis-
missed ; but if Mr. Chadwick had been dismissed, how
much time would have elapsed before there would have
been another inquiry, another Andover, another Somerset-
house inquiry into the reason of his dismissal. When he
and other witnesses were treated as culprits, how could
they expect that the Poor-law Commissioners would dis-
miss them. Was he not right in stating that there was
a strong feeling in the Committee against the commis-
sioners. He (Mr. Villiers) stated distinctly that no
blame attached to the Poor-law Commissioners with
respect to the Andover union. Then a most extraordi-
nary resolution was passed by the Committee with re-
spect to the dismissal of Mr. Parker. The Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Shrewsbury succeeded in passing
a resolution with respect to Mr. Parker. but they all
knew that he was labouring under excitement during
the whole session, and that he, in consequence, was not
able to give that attention to the subject of the Andover
inquiry which it merited.
Mr DISRAELI said he was also a member of a rail-
way Committee.
Mr. VILLIERS' knew that his time was fully occu-
pied ; that he was in much excitement at the time the
Committee sat —(Laughter)---his mind, no doubt, was
occupied with other things.—(Laughter.) In a moment
of excitement, however, he obtained the passing of a re-
solution, expressive of the opinion of the Committee, that
they had not acted acording to the Statute, and that they
( jot
mr .
raViislaliioe
nr se)r
sr e
fp:.7ea t
we dh
at
th atto
onko
pbllatieme e
conducted their task in an arbitrary manner ; yet ,he
inatttachehedAntdootvheer
union, for it appeared that Mr. Parker reported that the
union was going on favourably—(Hear, hear)—and
they were bound to trust to their servants. He really
was ignorant of the fact until it was pr...mulgated by the
lion. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge ; " and let
the House recollect that a report to this effect was made
by Mr. Parker to the Commissioners, at the very time
the proceedings in the Andover union case were going
on. He was startled at the statement—so much so that
he went up to the library the same evening the state-
ment was made, and searched out that passage in the
proceedings of the Committee. But he met
with something more startling, and which
he thought would equally astonish the House.
he found that that very fact was brought forward before
the Committee in the shape of a resolution.—(Cheers.)
They were called upon to furnish important information
to the House with respect to the conduct of the com-
missioners and assistant commissioners towards that
union, anti he found that one of the Committee proposed
the insertion of a clause in the report to the effect that
Mr. Parker had reported that the union was going on
favourably—(Cheers)—but would the House believe that
that fact was rejected by the Committee?—(Hear.) The
fact was reconsidered in the proceedings of the Commit-
tee, which were to be found in the library, where every
Hon. Member :might see that that important fact was
struck out by a majority of two. - The Members for An-
dover and Shrewsbury who were men of honour, ought
not to have lent themselves to concealing so important a
fact as this, when it was their duty to have acted without
prejudice either one way or other. The Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Andover (Mr. Etwall) stated that he
proposed a reso!ution in the Committee, that Mr. Par-
ker had conducted the inquiry with great par-
tiality, and that opinion was adopted by the
Committee; but he (Mr. Villiers) was at loss to
know why it did not appear in their proceedings.
He said that it was rather out of consideration to him
that the commissioners advised him to resign; and if he
intended to bring his case before the House, or before
the public, he was ill advised that he did not insist on
the commissioners recording their votes against him. But
he sent in his resignation. There was another case. He
did not allude to it further than to show that he (Mr. Vil-
liers) was cognizant of it, he referred to the other assistant-
commissioner who was dismissed. He recollected that
at an early part of last session the Right Hon. Member
for Dorchester (Sir James Graham) referred to it in the
House. He understood the Right Hon. Baronet to say,
that he had been dismissed on his recommendation. He
might be mistaken—he might have misunderstood him,
but he would say, that if the Home Secretary recom-
mended his dismissal, any blame attaching to it could
not apply to the commissioners of the Poor-law. What
he said, then, was, that in the report made by the An-
dover committee tbere was not a word against the
New Poor-law Act itself, and all, upon conside-
ration of the evidence, must agree that no blame
attached to the commissioners. Why, the Noble
Chairman of that Committee, whom all had agreed to
laud for his upright and honourable conduct during the
sittings of that Committee, when he came to vote that
to be truth which was not truth, and that to be fact
which was not fact, refused, and would not vote for the
resolutions. The Noble Lord might have said—these
resolutions are Lot a guide to me ; I will judge the
case upon its merits, and my
conclusion shall be accord-
ing to my ind lendent judgment. lie thought he had
now shown the necessity of havieg some of the Commis-
sioners Members of that House ; that the Central Cora-
mission had fulfilled its
place ; that the people were re-

conciled to the new poor-law, and the centralised admi-
nistration of it, and were convinced now that the central
control which those possessed who superintended the
working of the law, was precisely that which was desir-
able, and which they could not consent should be want •
ing. When he said that he spoke from the experience
and knowledge which he had gained from the evidence
of different witnesses examined before a Committee on
which he had been now for three months. In that Com-
mittee, where witnesses of every shade of opinion had
been examined, not a single word had been heard, not a
single breath had been used against the Commissioners.
All seemed to approve of the commission, all seemed to
favour it, and all seemed to agree that much mischief
had been produced by the great outcry which had been
raised against it on occasion of the House intermeddling
with the proceedings of it ; and that the first great
amount of mischief was done when the numbar of com-
missioners was reduced from 18 to 9 in the session of
1841. The measure, which was now before the House,
proposed to give more power, and increased strength
to that centralised administration of the new Poor-
law which had existed now for thirteen years, with great
benefit to the country. As for the Commissioners
themselves, he did not deny that they had committed
errors ; but that they had been corrupt, that they had
been callous, that they had been inhumane in the ad-
ministration of the law, or that they had done anything
but such as the House might suppose any Commissioners
liable to do, he did most positively deny. He would,
when the time came, give the measure his cordial

support.
Lord JOHN MANNERS said the Member for
Somereetshire (Mr. Bankes) said that night, that if Hon.
Members had restricted themselves to the subject which
was actually- before the House, the debate would, in one
or two nights, have been certainly terminated ; but he
(Lord John Manners) must say, if such had been the
case, the debate would have ended, and the arguments
for the Bill before the Rouse would have been recorded
nil; for throughout the discussion for the several nights
through which it had run, they had heard of the abuses
of the poor- law affecting the objects of charity,
till it became disgusting, they had been led, throughout
the proceedings of the Andover Committee, the charges
up fn the Commissioners, and the language of the
Hon. Member for Knaresborough—almost everything
but the Bill itself, and on the Bill itself, he had heard
scarcely a single sentence. The lion. Member who had
just resumed his seat, had devoted, in the course of his
long speech, just two sentences to the measure that
stood for a second reading •, but those two sentences, to
which he would hereafter allude more fully, formed the
greatest condemnation of the Bill which he could have
uttered. Reference had been made to the poor-law,
and as to that, he did think it did not afford that relief
to the industrious classes which they were entitled to
receive. He thought, that considering the facilities
which were offered in the gaols for the instruction,
and information, and improvement of the inmates,
and comparing those that were afforded, in the
workhouses to the objects of charity, the state of the
latter in that respect, as compared with the former, was
a disgrace to a Christian country. He did think
that the medical advice supplied to the poor was very
insufficient, and placed on a footing that was very in-
ferior. He spoke from experience, for he had been one
of those who had sat with Lord Ashley, and the strong
and universally prevailing impression which was deep
in his own mind was that the provision for medical ad-
vice was very insufficient. He thought that the accusa-
tions against the administrators of the law were well-
founded. He might quote from a report by the chaplain
of Uxbridge gaol to show what he had been saying.
That no doubt stated 'that the day set apart by her
Majesty for humiliation was kept most strictly—that
ninety-eight prisoners bad petitioned the governor
that the principal portion of their meals might
be kept from them during the day. Now, what
must be the di-cipline which bore such fruit as that?
Very much superior to that pursued in the workhouses
And, therefore, he recognised the propriety of the
parallel drawn by the Honourable Member for North-
amptonshire, between the workhouse and the gaol.
Well then, he would pass from the consideration of this
general theme, and he would come to that which had oc-
cupied the attention of the House for the greater
portion of the debate, namely, the conduct of
the Poor-law Commissioners. The lion. Gen-
tleman rested his defence of this Bill upon the
defence of the Poor-law Commissioners ; and he must
congratulate them on having so able, so eloquent, and
so determined an advocate ; but, like many too eager
advocates, he proved rather too much, for if they had
been so correct in every act of theirs—if they
had violated no law, and if they acted up to
the letter and spirit of the Act of Parliament,
and if they had done full and ample justice, if, in short,
they have been the " faultless monsters which they
have been represented to be, then the English people
and the English House of Commons must be
the most unjust, the most indiscriminate, and the most
unfair legislative body, that the world ever saw.—
(Cheers.) The only charge brought against the Com-
missioners, he said, was a violation of the statue; but
soon after he devoted a considerable portion of time in
order to prove that the treatment of Mr. Day and Mr.
Parker was not either arbitrary or unjust, however, after
what had fallen from the Honourable Member for
Shrewsbury, it would require a vast amount of
eloquence to prove that those gentlemen were not
treated with a great deal of injustice. The lion.
Member was most indignant at the conduct of the An-
dover Committee; there was nothing which it did nol
do; there was nothing which it said, or left unsaid,
which he did not call to his aid, and upon which he did
not comment. He urged that they did not submit the
resolution of the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury, on the
evidence taken by the House of Commons. Whose
fault was that? Which way did the Hon. Member him-
self vote upon that occasion?
Mr. VILLIERS —I never heard of it.
Lord J. MANNERS—WeII, the Hon. Gentleman
comes down here and impugns the conduct of those gen-
tlemen who devoted their time to the inquiry,
making the most violent charges against them.
The Hon. Gentleman not, however, content with im-
peacbing the conduct of the Andover Committee, objects
that the evidence on which those resolutions were
founded, was not worthy of credit, because, indeed, the
witnesses were so worried by the Members for Shrews•
bury and Finsbury, that they did not know either what
they were saying or what they were doing.—(Laughter.)
Let them just imagine a gentleman like Mr. Lewis so
incapable of answering the questions put to him, that be
said things which he did not intend to say.—(Laughter.)
And then, if that Mr. Chadwick was the Sinon which he
was represented to be in an anonymous pamphlet written
in defence of the commissioners, ever since he has been
in office, he must be retained in office, not because they
had the slightest confidence in him, but because he would
institute an inquiry which they considered and knew
they could not stand.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman
also said that the commissioners were suffering unde-
served odium, and. that the iniquities of the guardians
of the Andover Union were placed upon their
shoulders; but was there ever a more unfounded
statement. He defied him to bring forward
any resolution which would bear such a construction.
The president of the commission was to be superior to
the president of the board of Council—to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer and others. Could any one in his
senses doubt that the Lord President would sanction
whatever might be proposed by these high authorities,
in spite of all that might be said to the contrary. That
was the reason which principally induced him to
vote against this Bill. He did not see that the
condition of the poor would be at all amended
by this measure, and, therefore, he opposed it.—(Cries
of " Divide.")
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he was not at all sur-
prised at the impatience of the House upon this subject.
He had almost ventured to hope that he never should
again have found it necessary to trespass upon the in
dulgence of the House upon a Poor-law Bill ; but, con-
sidering the part it was his duty to take in the framing of
this poor-law, and considering also the obloquy which
he incurred in his endeavours to please, and considering
also the official bias which he was supposed to have
hitherto upon his mind in these discussions upon former
()mations, and considering the independent station which
he now occupied, he was glad to be able, calmly, dispas-
sionately, and deliberately, to review the policy of this
measure, and he trusted that he should be pardoned if he
ventured to address them shortly upon the subject under
discussion. Though he did not see the Hon. Member for
Finsbury in his place, he had great pleasure in agree-
ing with him in a sentiment which he uttered—viz., that
it was the duty of property in this country to maintain
the poor—(Hear)—and inasmuch as the poor were
not represented in that House, it certainly was one of
the most important, and certainly one of the most
bounden duties of the representatives of the people to
take care that their interests were properly attended to.
It was upon these grounds that he distinctly avowed
himself unchanged in his opinion that the Poor-law
Amendment Act was sound in principle, and in the
main, conducive to the interests of the industrious poor,
as contra-distinguished to the idle poor. Before they
consented to a great change in that measure, and they
were that night debating what was a change, it was of
importance to 'consider what was avowedly the principal
object of the Act of 1834; and therefore, he would
shortly allude to it. It had been said in the course of
that debate that the measure had signally failed. He
joined issue upon that statement, and he denied that the
measure had failed, and be asserted that the objects
contemplated by the framers of this Act had been accom-
plished. First of all it was the deliberately
considered intention of those who proposed this Bill,
that au union administration of relief should be substi-
tisted for a parochial system, and that system throughout
England and Wales, with hardly an exception, might
now be stated to be established. What was the second?
Whereas it was something estranged from the Act of
Elizabeth. It was intended to compel able-bodied per-
sons who could not find work for themselves, or were
unwilling to work, to labour at the cost of the parish
authorities under arrangements made by those autho-
prirtiinecsipleTthbeatobibjeceat
cobf tuhneioAncttboefrelsBb3o4uwidasbteoeasstsaebrltisbtehde
a workhouse, where work and food should be provided
for the able-bodied, as the test of destitution, in each
union of England ; that test was considered to be a
good one and it was now universally applied. What was
the next ? It was, that the parochial officers should
perform their duties in a prcper manner, and that the
paid officers should be strictly controlled and watched
These paid officers now throughout England administered
relief.
Again, with respect to medical attendance to
t—ewt
titsit
oimho mhenepaeht
pthi.praeieof
:reo
medical, whatever
relief
as might be be said with regard to the
merhet:ahtiandhorneihaybfatsteri
amn.e)ibnenetsidS
Contrastiti
onhscele sryteh ls
relief
oeAfmt
with
atoi
ttfobsfm,
bltehBed3i
Itc4healelutieprrfergtl
recollection
given
nlehe
ieepntrwi
present
time. given before the Act with
thriftiness
had crebpotarind,
obfuttho:e guardians,we realoidwithhe
sal ries 43! the medical officers Were me:rens:4 by the
Commissioners, shoving the neces*ity of a central
authority. There was anotlPAr imperfection with regard
to the parish accounts. There was formerly a single

day appointed in each year for the audit of their accounts
by the magistrates, and that audit was merely a matter
of form, and the grossest frauds crept in. The auditing
system was now placed under responsible parochial
officers. Provision had been made for the education of
children in the workhouse, where no such provision
before existed. The education of the children, as given
in the workhouses, was now better than that given in
ordinary schools, and better masters and mistresses
were taken from the normal schools. The old
system was vicious to the very core, and it
was of the last importance that the people of
this country should be freed from its operation.
The Hen. Member for Finsbury has said that the pre-
sent proposition will degrade the House to the level of
a parish vestry or a board of guardians. That they
would be occupied day by day with questions relating to
the quality of soup, or the quantity of gruel given to the
poor ; whether it shall be made of one article
in preference to another ; whether it contains too
muchmilk or too much water—all the tales and
matters of this kind. The bills, too, will be
brought under the notice of the House, if the
present measure be agreed to. If the question— whether
this was the proper place to consider and discuss subjects
was before them, he would deprecate as much as any
one the introduction of such topics, to the exclusion of
other important business. But these topics had been in
trod uced into the House relating to the administration of
the law, they had been from time to time forced en
the attention of the Government, and great difficulty had
been experienced in the absence of those who were di-
rectly and immediately responsible for the carrying out
of the law. Nothing was more inconvenient than that
the Secretary of State, who was not directly concerned
in the administration of the law, should be called to make
explanations on matters in which their information was
indirectly obtained. They had had an illustration that
very night, in the question asked by the Hon. Member
for Knaresborough in respect to the dismissal of Mr.
Mott. The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for
the Horne Department used the expression " dismissed."
Now, in a technical sense, that was not so. Mr. Mott
had not been dismissed. As he stated before, a
reduction was proposed in the number of the Poor-law
Commissioners. It was proposed to reduce the
number from ten to nine, and Mr. Mott was
selected as the party who was to retire. He
retired therefore from the Commission, and was not dis-

missed.—(liear, hear.) He said, therefore, that it was
not right that the Secretary of state should be called on
to give explanations at second-hand, and in an unsatis-
factory manner. It was of no use concealing the real
state of the question. He maintained decidedly, from
his past experience, considering the large powers which
were given to the Poor-law Commissioners, it was im-
portant that they should be directly responsible for their
own acts, that the public and that House should be able
to place their fingers on those who might do any wrong
in the administration of the law.—(Hear, hear.) The
Noble Lord at the head of the Government has said that
it was a question formerly in the Cabinet of Earl Grey,
whether the responsibility should not be made direct.
Lord Althorp, a high authority on this question, was
strongly disposed to take the course now proposed, and
of which he (Sir J. Graham) entirely approved. Lord
Althorp consented to suspend his judgment in the
matter at the time, and it was aareed to make
the responsibility indirect instead of direct. Now, from
his (Sir James Graham's) judgment of the working of
the poor-law for the last ten years, and he was strongly
convinced that the responsibility should be direct, and
not indirect as berore. Though it might do much to
incommode the Government, still the step, in his opi-
nion, was one of great importance and value.—(Hear,
hear.) He (Sir James Graham) further wished to ob-
serve, that the opinion of the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury appeared to be a different opinion now to what
it formerly was. If his (Sir James Graham's) me-
mory served him right, he was convinced that the Hon.
Gentleman's opinion hitherto on the subject till that
night, was, that the boards of guardians, or local au-
thorities, were always seeking to cut down the supplies
to the poor, and that the central authority had been re-
peatedly exercised in a salutary way to prevent this
taking place.—(Hear, hear.) This brought him
to the main question before the House, which
was, first, was the central authority necessary ;
and if so, had that authority been improperly
exercised ? If it bad been improperly exercised then
the next question was, (lid the present measure supply
the commission? With the regard to the first point, he
thought it had been generally admitted, that central
power was required. It had been admitted by the Hon.
Member for Dorsetshire, in the course of the present
debate, and several other Hon. Members. But the Hon.
Member for Finsbury says that the present system of
control has operated injuriously. That by the existing
system of relief the poor have been confined in gaols, as
he terms them, instead of being visited at their own
homes. Now what was the Government's after course?
So far from the poor being generally relieved in the
workhouses, as he alleges, for the last three years but
fifteen per cent. of the poor of England and
Wales have been so relieved ; while eighty-five
per cent. have been relieved at their own dwellings.
In England and Wales last year but 185,000 were re-
lieved in the workhouse, while upwards of a million
were relieved without.—(Cheers.) Talk of the hard-
ships of the poor after this, why a more unfounded
charge was never brought against any party by any
body of Englishmen. In the whole civilised world no
country made such a noble effort as the people of Eng-
land to maintain the destitute by charity out of the
public funds. In proportion to the population of 1834,
the sum of eight millions was raised for the relief of
the poor, but now the poor were relieved in a superior
manner by five millions of money. And he begged to
call the attention of the House to the fact that during
last year, though there was not that distress which un-
fortunately now prevailed, two millions of their fellow-
countrymen received relief out of the parochial
rates. One-eighth of the whole population of England
and Wales were thus relieved, and as he said
before of these, no less than eighty-five per cent.
of them were relieved out of the workhouse.
It would be in vain for them in the history of the
whole civilised world to match such an effort of humanity,
so effective and unsparingly directed, and without, at
the same time, degrading the characters of those who
received the relief.—(Cheers.) Now it had been said,
by the Hon. Member for Warwick, that the workhouse
test had proved unsuccessful; and it was said by others,
that they had too many assistant commissioners. In
1844, a wish was expressed to reduce the number, and
he (Sir James Graham) thought that a reduction would
take place. At another time it was stated, that the
number was too low; and they were asked to increase
them. At one time the rules and regulations of the
commissioners were too stringent; at another time they
were too relaxed—objections being continually made.
But as he said before, the central control was very in-
effective, and it was on that account that he supported
the proposed change. He put it to any Member now
sitting on the Committee on the Law of Settlement, as
to the great importance of the question, and the difficulty
of dealing with this branch of the poor-laws.—( Hear.)
They had had brought before them the most intelligent
witnesses from all parts of England, men recommended
as the most likely to throw light on this difficult subject.
Whatever might be the difficulty felt by the Committee
in coming to an unanimous agreement upon every point—
% difficulty so graphically painted by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Liskeard—he was satisfied that he
xpressed the opinion of the Committee on this
point, and that of all the witnesses brought before
the Committee, the four most competent and able and in-
telligent witnesses were poor-law assistants, whose
names he felt bound to mention. They were Mr.
Tuffnell, Mr. Gulston, Mr. Bigot, and Mr. Hall.
Now, with respect to the commissioners them-
selves, he might be permitted to say very shortly
what were the facts which had taken place with
respect to the commissioners when he succeeded to office
in 1841. He found that at that time one single commis-
sioner exercised the power delegated by the Act through.
out the whole of England and Wales. He was forced
to confess that when Sir Frankland Lewis resigned office
he was exceedingly sorry, because he did not think that
his son could be qualified to succeed him. He would not
in the presence of the Speaker say how much he felt
when Mr. Lefevre resigned office, because, from his ad-
miration of that gentleman's high conduct and character,
he might, perhaps, be thought to exaggerate the pain
which that resignation had given. He did not know Sir
Frankland Lewis's son ; and he, therefore, thought that
the more prudent course would be not personally to court
his acquaintance, but to watch his conduct in his high
office, communicate with him officially, and form his opi-
nion by observing his performance of those duties ere
ne admitted him to familiar acquaintanceship. So mat-
ters went on for some three months. His pre-
dispositions were not favourable to Mr. Lewis, but
it would be the height of injustice to that gentleman
did he not say, that in all his acquaintanceship he had
never seen or met a public man, so, eminent for punc-
tuality and a happy power of overcoming by prompti-
tude the greatest difficulties. The able manner in which
he sustainel his previous character, by promptly meet-
ing the difficulties of the year 1842, decided his (Sir J.
Graham's) opinion. He was rejoiced to find that the
good opinion he had begun to entertain was well founded,
and from that period he formed an acquaintance with Mr.
Lewis, which he had no reason to regret. With that
gentleman he acted for five years, and the great efforts
he made, and the prudence and decision he evinced un-
der the most trying circumstances—efforts continued
from day to day—confirmed more and more the good
opinion he entertained of Mr. Lewis's qualities ; and
now, in every place, and under any circumstances, lie
was prepared, from his knowledge of that gentleman's
;rest ability, and of his eminent straightforwardness,
to defend that gentleman against any charge which
might be brought against him.—(Hear, hear.)
It was unworthy of a great assembly like
that to dwell on small faults, where the person scruti-
nised had other qualities of far higher moment. Surely
it was far better that Mr. Lewis should be distinguished
by promptitude than by lassitude ; and he was ready to
take a portion of the blame upon himself in those matters
which had called forth the most determined expressions
of public disapprobation, for he was assured that nothing
had been issued by Mr. Lewis or the other commissioners
which had not received his previous inspection. When
Lord Melbourne left office, there was a vacancy in the
Poor-law Commission, and, upon .the accession of his
Right Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, he (Sir
J. Graham) filled up that vacancy by the
v
pointrnent of Sir E. Head, who, from
conduct, without regard to his political
then
for he was opposed ia politics feelings,re(3aPu
(.2 t
Go-
vernment, bad recommended himself
bto
ethbefatvcoouardebuclet
notice of the Government, and his worthy of
had proved that he was in every
By the appoint-
ay wo;thy the con-
fidence at first bestowed upon ki
ment of that gentleman to the o,ffibraetri.o; Pboeolire-vlaecwi Ctchma-t
_nissioner, he (Sir James
.oi,sideratile dissetisfacti n had' been given to
sThad icic, who, from that. !Iloaieilta hadnot
worked cordially with the Commissioners. With respect
to this Bill, it had been objected that it would increase
the number of placeinen in the House. Now, it so hap-

pened that the number of placemen had been consider-
ably diminished during the last few years. Reductions
had been made in the number of placemen in the Boards
of Admiralty, Ordnance, and the Navy, while the only
addition that had been made was that of his Hon. Friend

the President of the Railway Board. It bad also been
objected to this Bill that great power was given to the
Poor-law Commissioners in the delegation of their au-
thority, but he did not see how that could be dispensed
with. One of two things must be done, either that the
House must enact soma• law for the general regulation of
all the unions throughout the country, or else that
the Commissioners should have a power vested in
them to frame such regulations as might be re-
quired to meet the circumstances of each union.
Of the two courses he was decidedly in favour of the
last. Now, was it possible to escape from the necessity
of choosing the latter? No, it was not ; because the
operations of these general rules must always vary with
the fluctuations in the mantvacturing industry of the
country. When trade varied and slackened the appli-
cation of the prohibitory order of out-door relief in 100
out of 600 of the unions of this country must be suspended,

while from time to time, as circumstances ren-
dered it necessary, it must be stringently applied
again. Just consider, at this moment the coun-
try was suffering under an infliction which rfndered
certain articles of food comparatively dear, and it had
been deemed necessary, with reference to particular
counties, to alter the dietary in different unions, and,
therefore, the circumstances being so liable to change,
it was impossible to take away the power of making
general rules. It appeared to him that it had been ad-
mitted, that at the present moment Government parti-
cipated, to a certain extent, in the administration of the
poor-laws, but it had been connected with the admiuis-
tration of the law, without the power of command. It
had been responsible—indirectly responsible—for the
administration of the law without the supreme authority
of regulation or control ; and he was satisfied that the
time had arrived when that imperfection must be re-
moved. The mode to accomplish that end, it
seemed to him, after much reflection upon the
subject, was to adopt the plan proposed by the Govern-
ment. Upon the whole, considering the analogy the
plan bears to the Board of Control and the Board , f
Trade, he was of opinion that the Bill brought forward
by the Government was an efficient proposal, and the
beet calculated to meet the necessities of the cases.
Without, therefore, at that late hour, wearying the
House with minute inquiries, or what would be the
functions of the representatives of the new Board in
that House, he would content himself with simply
stating that he approved of the general principle of the
Bill, and he should without hesitation give it his most
cordial support.—(Cheers.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority for the second reading —176
The Bill was then read a second time.
COPYHOLD COMMISSION BILL.
The House then went into Committee on the Copy-
hold Commission Bill, and the several clauses were
agreed to.
TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
This Bill also went through Committee, and was or-
dered to be reported.
LOAN SOCIETIES BILL.
The clauses of this Bill were also agreed to in Com-
mittee, and the report ordered to be receive&
RAILWAYS IRELAND (No 2) BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER post-
poned till the 11th of June the second reading of this
Bill.
FISHERIES PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)
BILL.

On the motion of the Cif NCE LLOR of the EX
CHEQUER, the second reading of this Bill was post
poned till the 7th of June.
SEDUCTION AND PROSTITUTION SUPPRES
SION BILL.—ADJOURNED I)EI3ATE.
On the order of the day for resuming the debate of
this Bill,
Colonel SIBTHORP hoped the lion. Member for
Birmingham would postpone, till a future period, the
further consideration of this Bill. Be would suggest
that he should postpone it for two months.—(Laughter.)
Mr. SPOONER. hoped the House would allow the Bill
to be read a first time to-might, and he would propo3e
that it should be read a second time on Wednesday, the
2d June, when the subject might be fully discussed.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL suggested to the Hon. Gen-
tleman the propriety of postponing the first reading till
Wednesday, the 2d June.
After a short conversation, in which Sir George Grey
took part,
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but no
division took place, and the Bill was read a first time,
and ordered to. be read a second time on the 9th of
June.
LANDED PROPERTY
LAND) BI IMPROVEMENTS (IRE.
LL.
On the the order of the day being read for going into
Committee on' this Bill,
Mr. S. CRA.WFORD said, as the Government in-
tended to introduce a Bill on this subject, he begged to
withdraw the above-mentioned Bill.
The Bill was withdrawn accordingly.
POOR RE ,lOVAL AMENDMENT BILL.
On the order of the day being read for the 21 read-
ing of this Bill,
Mr. BANKES said be wished to postpone the second
reading until a day when a discussion c.,uld be taken on
the Bill, and trusted the Government would afford him
an opportunity of doing so that day fortnight.
Mr. HUDSON said the greatest anxiety prevailed
in the country, with respect to the measure ; it was a
great blot upon their legislation, and he trusted that no
delay would take place in passing it into a law, in or ier
that the detects of the present law might be amended.
Sir G. GREY said the Hon. Gentleman had fixed the
second reading for a Government night, when the Bill
would not stand so much chance of receiving discussion
as on another day.
Mr. RICHARD YORKE suggested to the Hon.
Gentleman the 3d of June.
Mr. BANKES fixed on Wednesday, the 9th of June,
which was accordingly appointed, for the second reading
of the Bill.
PASSENGERS ACT AMENDMENT.
On the bringing up of' the Report,
Lord G. BENTINCK rose to move the amendment
which he had intended to move last night. lle
said he wished to give passengers the same security
which was afforded under the regulations at Lloyd's to
dry and perishable goods. By the rules of Lloyd's, no
goods were entitled to be moved which were not carried
in second-class vessels. They did not permit their sol-
diers to be carried in inferior vessels, nor did
they allow their convicts to be carried out
in vessels which were not sea worthy. Now it
was unjust that the Irish emigrant should not be
similarly protected. The Hon. Member the Secretary
for the Colonies, considered that his measure which cast
the responsibility upon the emigration agents, would
secure the object, which he (Lord G. Bentinck) desired
to obtain—namely, the perfect sea-worthiness of vessels
carrying passengers. No inspection of the vessels
going out was required, and unless some one raised a
doubt, there was no security at all, as tar as British
ships all was right enough; for Lloyd's register could
tell them whether they were sea-worthy or not—but
they had no security for Amerionn vessels, which wet.,
built of the frailest materials, for they were al!
constructed of tir, which would become perfect])
rotten in three or four years. (Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord then read a notice to shipowners from
Lloyd's, respecting the carriage of pvssengers, and seid
ho asked for Irish emigrants by foreign ships what the
House afforded them by English ships, and he thought
the House would not deny him this request. It could
not be expected surely, that ships which could not be
trusted with dry and perishable goods or convicts should
continue to carry emigrants, and yet three fiurths were
carried by such ships. He begged to move the insertion
of the clause.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER quite
agreed with the object sought to be obtained by the
Noble Lord, but thought the subject had better be post-
poned till the third reading. Time should be given, at
least, for the consideration of the matter. His present
impression was, that the clause had better now stand as
it did.
Mr. V. SMITH supported the Bill as it stood.
Mr. THORNELY could not consent to the clause,
and considered the clause in the Bill, as it stood, would
secure all that was required.
Mr. LIDDELL supported the amendment. •
Sir R. H. INGLIS hoped that the Noble Lord would
not divide the House on the subject, but leave the
matter in the hands of the Government.
inG
Lord INGESTRE suggested that' Government
Lord
Should take care of the education of those
emigrantwr ck s. ships, in order to decrease. the chances of ship-
-1 ineffectual attempts
ton having made several
Several Members rising to speak, and I,,lrt.oßsrhoothrteern-
the debate,
shoTuhlde
be
Ho x.
Lord G. BENTINCK con.sidered this a mode adopted
n at last moved that the debate
h•s ma•orit as h
adjourned.
of the Exchequer bad promised that
ever, the Chancellor
for the purpese of getting rid of 1 J y, ,ho w•
should be carried out in the Bill,
i
w his motion.
he should wthdra
thenand the report
The clauses were withdrawn,
the spirit of his clauses
agreed to.

RAILWAYS.
Mr..STRIITT obtaied kayo to bring in a Bill for
regulating the proceedings of the Comnait3sioners of
Railway's, and for amending the law relating to rai'
way. s.