The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-25 00:00:00

His Hon. Friend told them that persons above sixty
years of age were invariably relieved out of the work-
house. How small then would be the accommodation to
be provided it this clause were agreed to.—(Hear, hear.)
They knew very well that soldiers and their wives lived
together in the same apartment, and therefore he
thought there was not the slightest pretence for resisting
this modifi,:ation of one of the severities of the law.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he believed the Poor -law
Commissioners had endeavoured to embody the rule
proposed by this clause; but, from the difficulties men-
tioned by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for the West
Riding, it had not been fully carried out. If, however,
it was thought desirable to introduce the matter into
this Bill, he should have no objection to agree to the
clause, provided words were introduced into it to place
the discretion of putting it in force in the hands of the
guardians.
Mr. WAKLEY said the Hon. Gentleman the Member
for the West Riding had given them the declaration of
the chairman of the board, and that afforded the House
a most decisive evidence of the impolicy of adopting the
suggestion of the Noble Lord. He did earnestly entreat
the Government to agree to this clause without altera-
tion, for he firmly believed that many of the aged poor
had absolutely died of starvation, rather than go into
the workhouse to be separated.
Mr. HENLEY agreed in the view taken of this clause
by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford.
Captain PECHELL did not see any difficulty at all in
carrying out the arrangement proposed by the clause.
Dr. BO WRING thought that it would not be right to
leave this subject in the discretion of the boards of
guardians. It was a point upon which the Legislature
ought to decide.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK hoped that the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government would not object to the clause
as it stood.
Lord J. RUSSELL felt it his duty to propose his
amendment.
Mr. BANKES would be glad to see the Noble Lord
leave the whole question of the poor•law in the discretion
of the boards of guardians.
Mr. ETWALL supported the clause as it originally
stood.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when there
appeared—
For the original clause 7O
For the amendment 55
Majority in favour of the clause as
originally proposed —ls
On the motion that the clause be read a third time,

Sir J. PAKINGTON opposed the clause; he did not
anticipate anything but contusion from the operation of
the clause.

Mr. ELLICE supported the clause.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he wished to insert the
words he had proposed, in the clause, in the same sense
in which the existing rules of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners were interpreted. One of the provisions in the
poor-law was to the effect that as it might be
desirable, in some instances, to depart from the rules
laid down for the government of workhouses with re-
spect to married couples, they should be at liberty to
have a sleeping apartment set apart for them specially,
and separate from the other paupers.—(Hear.) He,
therefore, did not wish to throw upon the board of guar-
dians the odious task of making a selection as they
were empowered to make such an order themselves, and to
place it on their minutes, and to send it to the Poor-law
Commissioners for confirmation. He wished to take
away this necessity, but if the clause was to be agreed
to without such a limitation as the one he had
proposed, he was not certain that it would have
the humane effect which those who voted in the
majority seemed to suppose. The Honourable
Gentleman the Member for the West Riding
had stated that the system would become most inconve-
nient where a number of persons were admitted. Then
the guardians were empowered to say they would relieve
them out of the workhouse ; but he was not sure that
that was desirable in every: case. Married Per-
sons, of seventy years of age, without friends
or relations might, for instance, find themselves
more comfortable in a workhouse than out of it—
(Hear, hear)—but when they were admitted those mar-
ried persons might demand a separate apartment. This,
he was afraid, would be the effect of the clause as it
stood ; but he did not think it would be desirable to
take another division upon the clause, in order to amend
it as he had in the first instance pointed out.
Mr. S. WORTLEY did not see the difficulty which
the Noble Lord pointed out,
ias these aged married per-
sons might be either taken into the house, or have relief
afforded to them out of it.

Lord GEORGE BENTINCK explained that what he
said was that married soldiers slept with their wives in
the barracks. If there was any indecency in the work-
house with which the Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Pakington)
was connected, it must arise from the bad management of
the Hon. Baronet and his colleaguesin their directions ;
he had known instances in which four or five married
couples slept together in one room, in a barrack, and he
never found that they were guilty of any indecency, or
that they violated the rules of decorum.—(Laughter.)
The clause was then read a third time.
On the motion of ➢ir. ETWALL, the following
clause Has agreed to:—That all meetings of boards of
guardians be opened to the ratepayers of their respec-
tive unions.

Sir GEORGE GREY said he had no objection to the
insertion of the clause.

Mr. \VAKLEY thanked the Right Hoe. Baronet for
his ready acquiescence to this clause. The Right Hon.
Baronet had done more service to the poor by adopting
the clause, than he was probably aware of, and he (Mr.
Wakley) was sure it would be productive of great good.
After a few words from Mr. FERRAND and Mr.
HUME the clause was agreed to.
Mr. BANKES moved the insertion of a clause, pro-
viding that all the present rules and orders of the Poor-
law Commissioners should cease after the expiration of
six months, and the same or others adopted upon the re-
sponsibility of the new officers.
Sir G. GREY opposed this clause.
Mr. 11UME said he thought it was not right to inter-
fere with the operation of the new commissioners in the
manner proposed.
Alter a few words from Mr. SPOONER, who sup-
ported the clause,
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was the intention of the
new commissioners immediately to consolidate the exist-
ing orders and rules.
Mr. FERRAND said if that were so, they ought to
know who the new commissioners were. Some time
ought certainly to be named when they should become
responsible for the new rules and orders that might be
issued from the offices of the Poor-law Commissioners.

Mr. HINLEY thought, with the Hon. Member for
Birmingham, that the House should have some seourity
for the consolidation of these rules.

The gallery was then cleared, and the House divided
when there appeared—
For the clause 35
Against it 7l
Majority against it —36
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved the insertion of a clause
to the effect that the appointment of the President and
Secretary should be vested in the Crown, and the salary
mentioned in the Bill.

After a few words from Sir G. GREY,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it

Majority against it —39
Mr. WAKLEY moved an amendment limiting the
Bill to one year.

Colonel SIBTHORP hoped, if this amendment was
carried, that no salaries would be allowed these com-
missioners during that year.—(Laughter.) Too much
money had been spent already on the poor-law.
Sir GEORGF GREY reminded the House that this
amendment had already been before them and nega-
tived, and thought it was unnecessary to divide upon it
again.
After a few observations from Mr. HuME and Mr.
SPOONER,
Mr. DUNCOMBE begged to know what the salary
of the president was to be ?
The CHANCELLOR
forhat question
of the EXw Co
d turn ECiER
to-
morrow night, when the estimates for the Poor-law
Commissioners would come on with the first vote.
Urn_ up said,
the opportunity
Mr. BANKES said by that time the Bill would have
passed. It was, therefore, desirous that they should
know now what the salary will be.
After a few words from Mr. FERRAND,
Mr. lIUDSON said he would move the adjournment
of the House unless Government would disclose what
would be the probable expense of carrying out this Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Goverment would be
prepared to state to-day what the salaries would be, and
then would be the proper time to discuss them.
Lord Ingestre, Lord G. Bentinck, and Mr. T. Dun-
combo contended that the passing of the Bill ought to
be postponed till the salaries are disclosed.
Lord J. RUSSELL said there would be no increase
upon the expense of the present Commission.
The House then divided, when there appeared_.
For the motion
Against it 7l
Majority
........ 45
The Bill was then passed.
THREATENING LETTERS BILL.
This Bill was read a third time.
REMOVAL OF THE POOR.
Mr. BODKIN obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
ameed the Act 9 and 10 Vict., c. 66, for amending the
laws relating to the removal of the poor.
The Tithe Commutation Bill was read a third time
and passed.
Mr. MONAHAN obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
limit the time for taking the poll at elections of Members
to serve in Parliament for counties of cities, counties of
towns and boroughs in Ireland, and for the University
of
orders of the day were then disposed of,
Tiie Dublin.
and the
House adjourned at Half-past Two o'clock.

We are enabled to state, on the best authority,
that Lord John Russell, Mr. Patteson, Sir George
Larpent, Bart., and Baron Lionel Rothschild will seve-
rally stand for the representation of the city of London
at the ensuing election. As Mr. Masterman and Mr. Aid.
Johnson, late Lord Mayor, are to come forward in the
Conservative interest, we may expect a keen contest for
the first city in the word. Doubts are expressed whether
Baron Rothschild could take his seat, in the event of his
being returned. There can be no question that he could
vote in the election of a Speaker, as that ceremony takes
place before the oath is administered. Whether, as in
the case of Mr. Pease, the Quaker Member, the usual
oath would be dispensed with on Baron Rothschild's
being sworn, it is impossible to say. But there can be
no doubt that, should he be returned for the City, the
question of the Jewish disabilities will be brought for-
ward under circumstances which can hardly fail to pave
the way for their removal. The result of the coming
contest for the City will be looked forward to with great
interest.—Advertiser.