The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-18 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, JUN

Control. The Board of Control was formed under very
peculiar circumstances, and, undoubtedly on the
whole, the system had worked well. Bat it.
was a question whether the system that ap-
plied to the distant }Endo°, was applicable to
the peasantry of this country. On a former occasion he
had observed that the system, which was then so much
opposed, was, in reality, the system of Sir Matthew
Hale, which was, that the local authorities should ha%e
the administration of the affairs, subject to a control
much less limited than that which was now interposed.
By vesting vast discretionary powers in the local guar-
dians, with an appeal in regard to some points to the
magistrates of the county, at quarter sessions, with an
appeal always from thence up to the Home-office, they
would be establishing a better system, than by trusting
the administration of the law to a set of meddling men
in London. Under these circumstances, he thought it
much better to delay any legislation upon the subject
till a future session of Parliament, and he should, there-
fore, move that the Bill be recommitted that day three
months.
Captain PECHELL had never shrunk from express •
ing his decided opposition to the manner in which the
poor-laws had lately been administered, but still he
could not consent to the amendment of his Hon. Friend
opposite. The Noble Lord at the head of the
Government, had told them that if this
Bill could be disposed of to night, the
Health of Towns Bill might be brought on to-morrow, '
Well, now he would tell the Noble Lord how be could
facilitate the committal of the Bill to-night. Let the
Noble Lord give the House a pledge that the appoint-
ments under this Bill should be such that they should
not hereafter have to complain of the conduct of several
of the existing authorities. On no one occasion had the
chief Poor-law Commissioners ever visited a board of
guardians, and altogether there could be no question
that the poor-law affairs of this country had been sadly
mismanaged. He thought, therefore, that none but
efficient and practical men ought to be appointed
under this Bill, and as 250 Members of this
House bad expressed their opinion of the in-
competency of some cf the existing authoritics,
he trusted a pledge would be given that they should
not bold office under any future new arrangement. One
of these Poor-law Commissioners had set himself up as
a candidate for one of the Welch counties, no doubt in
the hope of getting an appointment under the Bill should
be be returned as a Member of that House ; and he
thought that circumstance rendered it the more urgent
that the House have the privilege he asked for.—(Hear,
hear.) They were now called upon to make arrange-
ments by this Bill for the administration of the poor•
laws during the next five years ; but he was inclined to
agree with the lion. Gentleman the Member for Dorset-
shire, that such a change would be introduced into the
constitution of that House by the result of the ensuing
elections, that the Bill would stand a good chance of
being considerably modified in the next Parliament, and
he, tberefore, hoped such arrangements would be made in
the progress of this Bill through Committee as to meet
the views of the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire, with
respect to limiting the duration of the Bill to a less
time than five years.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MILES said that nothing which took place since
the last discussion had altered his mind, and he regretted
the course which his lion. Friend had taken in raising
the discussion, on the present occasion. He would take
that opportunity of defending Mr. Chadwick, whom he
believed was most honest, upright, and sincere, and he
had received a letter from Mr. Chadwick requesting him
to lay such papers before the House as would fully ex-
culpate him from the charges which were made against
him by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government.
The following was the passage in the Noble Lord's
speech to which exception had been taken.
The SPEAKER sa d that the Hon. Member could
not read extracts from the speeches of another Member
delivered durnag the present session.
Mr. MILES begged pardon of the House, and then
went on to read a defence of Mr. Chadwick's, in which
he said that he never heard of any complaints against
him until the speech to which he objected was delivered.
His opposition was to some proceedings which would be
calculated to injure the commission or the law, and to
details rather than to men.—(Hear.) Mr. Chadwick also
wrote a letter to Mr. Nicholls, demanding to know
whether he had offered any improper opposition, or
whether he had ever reason to suspect him of caballing
in the public service, either from personal or private
motives ? To all these questions Mr. Nicholl wrote a
very strong letter in favour of Mr. Chadwick, denying
the truth of all these charges, and praising him for the
services; which he had rendered to the commissioners.—
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Miles) thought it his duty to
bring forward this case at the very earliest moment, and
he trusted that the House would pardon him for so
doing.---(Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that after what had
been stated, he thought it might be permitted him to
state what he thought of the conduct of Mr. Chadwick.
He bad a high opinion of his abilities, and he considered
that his reports upon the poor-law were most valuable,
but he did object to his conduct as secretary to the com-
missioners whom be was appointed to serve; and he
gathered his opinion from an attentive perusal of the
evidence, and particularly of the evidence of Mr. Chad-
wick himself. He certainly did admit, that on several
occasions Mr. Chadwick objected to certain measures,
and upon consideration of his opinion, he (Lord John
Russell) approved and decided in Mr. Chadwick's favour.
—(Hear, hear.) But Mr. Chadwick, in his evidence, did
lead people to imagine that the commissioners did not
conscientiously discharge their duty in examining into
the suggestions which might be offered to their
notice, who wilfully shut their eyes to the
consideration of clauses, and who wilfully neglected
their duty. The Noble Lord then referred to Mr. Chad-
wick's evidence, and said that if these were Mr.
Chadwick's opinions, he ought to have resigned his
office. He was very sorry that such should be his
impression, but it was adopted from a perusal of his own
evidence. He would, in this place, again take an oppor-
tunity of expressing his high opinion of the abilities and
integrity of Mr. Chadwick. He would not enter into
the debate raised by the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire ;
the question was decided on the second reading of the
Bill, after four nights' discussion, and he therefore did
hope that the House would then go into Committee, in
which he would be quite ready to defend any clauses
which might be objected to.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that he would be sorry
to say anything painful to the feelings of any one ; but
whilst he admitted and valued the high abilities of Mr.
Chadwick, he must say that he had some errors.
He thought, therefore, that the continuance of Mr. Chad-
wick in connexion with the commission would not be
advantageous to the public, while at the same time he
considered that he should have an appointment in some
other important branch of the public service that would
give employment to his superior abilities and prevent
the public from being deprived of them. When the
Bill went into Committee he would be happy to discuss
its details, and he would suggest to the Hon. Member
the propriety of withdrawing his motion.
Lord COURTENAY could not agree with the Noble
Lord (Russell) that the evidence of Mr. Chadwick before
the Andover Committee showed a desire to undermine
the power of the Poor law Commissioners. The result
of that inquiry was, in his mind, and in that, he be-
lieved, of the whole Committee, an impression that Mr.
Chadwick had acted with great ability and zeal, and
that his exertions were directed to a fair and higher ad-
ministration of the law. On the reperusal of that evi-
dence this morning, there was nothing in Mr. Chad-
wick's evidence or conduct which appeared to him (Lord
Courtenay) to afford the least ground for the charge of
unfairness, or of a desire to undermine the power of the
commissioners. He thought it necessary, in justice to
Mr. Chadwick, to say thus much in his defence.
Mr. CHRISTIE was quite certain that the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government would be the last to
act unjustly towards any individual, still he thought
Mr. Chadwick was harshly dealt with. He thought that
the imputation made against him required a great deal
of evidence to substantiate. When he heard the
late Home Secretary stating that Mr. Chadwick was
influenced by feelings of disappointment, and that the
misunderstanding between him and the Poor .law Com-
missioners were influenced by these feelings, he thought
that there were circumstances which, to some extent,
warranted these feelings. In consequence of the reports
he made as an assistant commissioner, be was invited to
join the board, and was intrusted with the drawing up
of a report in which the Poor-law Amendment Bill was
formed. Lord Brougham, on the 31st of July, 1834,
spoke in the most favourable terms of that report, for its
excellence of composition its lucid arrangement, and its
strength of reasoning, Fle thought, therefore, that
taking the subsequent proceedings into account,
when two gentlemen were appointed commissioners over
him that some allowance should be made if he did labour
under feelings of disappointment. He was very mucl
surprised, however, that the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J.
wo
ra-rl
ae
wt hclsautot
henmtxadhtpmeelriassmsntts
aoaii
otsot
domne
nhdre
siensurtes
xt at
en
nd
dine gd
Graham) should continue him as secretary, when by his
obwetnweaednmhisismiona,nhdethweasrao
over a period of five years. He would say a word in re-
ference to himself. Allusion had been made to his con-
duct, as one of the members of the Andover Committee.
ents of the Hon. Member
It was alleged that he put a question to Sir F. Lewis
pqwou
nae ss
t ti uho nna
aat rsnudteo.e
for Wolverhampton were not to be received with perfect
.hp:artdtai vtgl aiceint iet:t agl effhma
ai
Tart nsh.
phe
easrNdts
aoot DI;
ami
credulity, as that Hon. Gentleman was the brother of
misu in di :se
one of those who were implicated in the accusation that
led to the formation of that Committee.
Mr. VILLIERS said he was not surprised at the
course taken by the Hon. Member who had just
addresed the House, as he recollected his conduct with
respect to Mr. Parker's case. He then stated what was
stated to him in confidence.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the Right Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton had expressed his regret on
.his question, and had made a most honourable retrac-
,

tion.
Mr. VILLIERS said the Hon. Member for Wolver-
hampton had asked Sir Franklin Lewis a most improper
question in reference to his son.
Mr. CHRISTIE—That is untrue.--(Order, order.)
Mr. VILLIERS said the. Hon. Member for Wolver-
hampton was the last person in the House who should
use that term.—(Order, order.)
The SPEAKER interposed, and
Mr. CHRIS TIE retracted the expression.
Mr. VILLIERS said that he thought the conduct of
the Hon. Gentleman was most improper, and having
explained himself he would not trespass further on the
House.
Mr. GRIMSDITCII said he felt bound to oppose the
Bill. He would waive all question of patronage, if he
could see his way clearly through the meshes of this
Bid. He would himself delegate power to the Secre-
-ory of State, and employ assistant commissioners to
superintend local districts, and make it imperative on
each of them to reside within his district, and visit the
various unions comprised in it. He wanted none of the
Chadwick's, the Lewis's or the Nieholl's—not one of
them. He admitted al. Chadwick's great abilities ;he

was an admirable writer ; but, like the Hon. Member
for Wolverhampton, he was too much of a theorist. The
Hor. Member concluded by expressing his determina-
tion to oppose the Bill.
Mr. SPOONER slid that although a great and in-
tense feeling existed out of doors upon this subject,
there was yet so little interest exhibited inside, that
the House could scarcely be kept, and, therefore, he
agreed with the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire, that the
termination of a session, and of a Parliament, was not
the best period to consider this Bill. According to the
present system, the poor labourer, who was no longer
enabled to support his family, was separated from his
wife and from his children, he was treated worse than
the convicted felons; there was less care taken of his
moral and physical being, and, therefore, he contended
that as the workhouse test had already proved so
defective, the present Bill was so much the more
defective, that it provided no remedy for this evil.
He thought that this question was too important
to be discussed with the limited number of Members,
who seemed disposed to attend to it, and although he
would not press the House to a division, he could not
think of sitting down without making these few obser-
vations upon the measure.
The motion was then withdrawn, and the House went
into Committee on the Bill.
On clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. GRIMSDITCH suggested that one officer should
be empowered to take the whole control of the work-
ing of this law. He should, therefore, propose to leave
out the words after " that," and add that her Majesty
" constitute and appoint a Member of the Privy Coun-
cil to carry out the administration of this law, to be
called the Secretary of State for the administration of
the Poor-law."
After some observations from Sir GEORGE GREY,
expressive of his disapproval of the alteration proposed
in the clause, the amendment was withdrawn.
The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses 2,
3,4, 5,6, 7, 8,9, 10, and 11.
On clause 12 being proposed,
Mr. HENLEY said the Committee were arming these
commissioners with great powers, and it was, therefore,
highly desirable that they should keep a record of their
proceedings, in order if there should happen to be any
wrong doing, the wrong-doer should be easily got at.
Now, it appeared to him that as this clause would throw
all the responsibility upon one person, the entire board
would be removed from all blame when blame was due.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the object of the
clause was to throw the responsibility of the proceedings
of the board upon the President.
Mr. BANKES said, if that were so, where was the use
of establishing a board of commissioners when the entire
responsibility was to rest in the President?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that Government had always
intended to throw the responsibility upon the President,
in the same way the President of the Board of Control
was responsible for the proceedings of the Government.
Mr. BANKES protested that it was not fair to place
the English peasant on the same footing as the distant
Hindoo.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The clause would
eventually be a delusion. He thought that the object of
the Government, in this Bill, was to whitewash
the commissioners, and by Act of Parliament
state what his duties really are ; if there
was to be a board at all, it was abso-
lutely necessary that it should be both an
efficient and responsible one. He thought that the cor-
poration ought to be compelled to keep the records.
Sir G. GREY did not see anything in the clause
which prevented the commissioners from keeping the
records of their office.
After a few words from Mr. HANLEY and Sir G. GREY,
Mr. REDHEAD YORKE said that he could not
conceive anything more obnoxious than the clause
would be as proposed by this Bill, and if the House
should decide on dividing upon the clause he should
certainly vote against the clause.
Mr. CHRISTIE thought that the commissioners
had kept a record according to the provisions of
the Act of Parliament, but he quite concurred in the
clause in the present Bill, proposing to repeal the clause
in the existing Act, now that the constitution of the
board would be entirely changed.
Mr. GRIMSDITCH thought that there was no ne-
cessity for retaining this clause in the Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that the pro-
vision made in the Bill for enforcing an annual report
to be laid upon the table of the House was a sufficient
guard that the proceedings would be public and known
to the House.
Mr; BANKES said that it appeared to be assumed that
the President of this Commission would be a Member of
that House, but there was no security for that. He
might not obtain a seat in the House, or if he did, he
migs not be Able to keep it.
Mr. HANLEY moVed that all the words from " or,"
in'.d4ie 26, dawn to. the word " preceding," in line 30,
should be struck out:
*trangers vyerg then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared-
-.
For the amendment
Against it 65
" 1, •- Majority —42
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 13.
Clauses 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, with a few verbal
alterations, were then agreed to.
Clause 20, after some observations from Mr. Henley.
Sir G. Grey, and others, was agreed to.
Clause 21 was agreed to.
Clauses 22, 23, and 24 were also agreed to.
On clause 25,
Mr. P. BORTHWICK proposed an amendment, that
the word " five" be omitted for the purpose of inserting
the word " three," which he conceived was a sufficiently
long period for the commissioners' term of office.
Colonel SIBTHORP proposed as a further amend-
ment, that the word " one" should be substituted, for no
commissioner so stigmatised would then act in an arbi-
trary manner, and Parliament would have an opportu-
nity of investigating their conduct every session.
Mr. GREENE said that it was not then competent for
the Hon. Member to propose the last amendment.
Sir G. GREY resisted the limitation, and considered
that the term of five years was quite short enough to
enable the company to acquire the experience necessary
to discharge the duties of their office efficiently.
Mr. SPOONER supported the amendment.
Mr. MUNTZ thought it a dangerous thing to extend
the period to five years, considering the late arbitrary
conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners.
After a few words from Mr. TATTON EGERTON,
Mr. HENLEY supported the amendment. He
thought three years' reign was long enough for them.
Sir GEORGE GREY said that assenting to the
term of five years did not preclude the House from
reviewing the system every year if it were so disposed.
Mr. BANKES supported the amendment.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK could not withdraw his
amendment, and would press it to a division, as the
extension which they had lately had of the administra-
tion of the Poor-law made it necessary to keep a more
vigilant eye on the proceedings of the commissioners.
Captain HARRIS said that this board was but a
mere renewal of the old one ; and he should, therefore,
vote for the short period.
Mr. HUDSON hoped the Goverment would give
way on this point, and meet what appeared to be the
general wish of the House.
The House then divided, when the numbers were,
For the amendment 43
Against it 76
Majority ... —33
The clause was then agreed to.
The other clauses were then agreed to.
The House resumed, and the report was ordered to
be brought up this day.
RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. HUDSON wished to know when Government
meant to take theßailways (Ireland) Bill. He suggested
that they should take the Irish Railways Bill instead
cf the general Railways Bill on Monday.
Sir G. GREY fixed this Bill for Monday also.
CORN, &c., IMPORTATION BILL.
This Bill went through Committee, and the report
was brought up and received.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS (No. 2) BILL.
The report on this Bill was brought up and agreed
to and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time
this day.
SAVINGS' BANKS ANNUITIES BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
POLICE CLAUSES BILL.
The report on this Bill was received.
ROYAL MARINE SERVICE BILL.
The report was brought up and received.
REPRESENTATIVE PEERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This Bill went through Committee, and the report was
brought up mid received.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock.

1,286