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

FLOUR.

Mr. FERRAND desired to ask the First Lord of the Trea-
sury, as it was calculated that 183,120,000 lbs. weight cf the
best flour was annually used merely for the purpose of dres-
sing the warps for weaving, besides an immense quantity for
the purpose of daubing cottons with flour paste, to defraud the
public. whether it was his intention to bring in a Bill to pro-
hibit the use of flour for such purposes ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he begged to assure the Hon.
Gentleman that he had no such intention.

EDUCATION.
Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE moved that an humble
address be presented to her Majesty, that she will be graci-
ously pleased to give Cirections, that there be laid before this
House, by the Committee of Council on Education, within
twenty-one days next after the commencement of every Ses-
sion of Parliament, the following returns, made up to the let
day of the month in which such returns are so presented :
Of every school, alphabetically arranged, to which Govern.
ment aid has been voted in the preceding financial year, dis-
tinguishing Church of England from British and Dissenting
Schools, showing the amount advanced in each case, and
specifying whether given for building, repairs. furniture, books,
field gardens, or workshops, or for salaries or pensions of
schoolmasters, schoolmistresses, pupil teachers, er sill endiary
monitors; of the name, profession, date of appointment, amount
of salary, allowance, and travelling expenses of each inspector;
of every school making application for aid, distinguishing the
applications granted from the applications refused, and the
grounds of such refusal : and, in all school-building cases in
which the application has been sucees.ful, showing the sum
which, according to a certified estimate or other reasonabie
calculat ion, would have to be provided by voluntary subscription.
He considered teat the Government measure conferred a vast
amount of too much patronage upon the executive. He also
was of opinion that the salaries of these inspectors was exceed-
ingly high.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he should not have any ob-
jection to the return, but the Hon. Gentleman was quite mis-
taken if they were to have seventy inspectors in that House.
elr. T. DUNCOM BE would call the attention of the House
to the petition of the inhabitants of the borough of Sheffield
(presented May 13), complaining of the Magisterial conduct
of Wilson Overend, Esq. He moved for a copy of the con-
victions which had taken place before him, and a re-
turn also of those which had afterwards been quashe I.
It appeared that Mr. Overend was a gentleman in very exten-
sive medical practice, but he hoped that his physic was better
than his law. He was generally called in where there was any
disagreement between the employers and the employed, but. it
was very singular that he never sided with the emplcyed. The
trades in the town of Sheffield were attached to trades unions,
but the magistrates not taking the same view of the benefits of
such a system as the tradesmen themselves, they accordingly
set their faces against them. However, most of his convictions
were quashed. The first feelings of the inhabitants was to have
Mr. Overend dismissed, but they afterwards considered that the
course which they ought to adopt was the one which he now
was pursuing; and by these returns they would see
how much justice was done to the character of Mr. Ove-
rend. He believed that the administration of justice
on the part of this gentleman was very much open to challenge.
The Government ought to appoint in these districts stipendiary
magistrates, who would be far removed from local and trade
prejudices. There was no objection made to the other magis-
trates, and certainty it was very singular that such a number of
convictions obtained before Mr. Overend should subsequently be
quashed. It was prima facice evidence that there was some-
thing wrong in the matter. It was quite proper for trades-
men to combine if their masters combined ; but he considered
that when a combination existed for the purposes of intimida-
tion, the guilty party ought to be punished.
Sir GEORGE GREY said he had no abjection to the re-
turn, but he was bound to say that rio communication, save in
praise of Mr. Overend, had reached the Crown. He under-
stood, however, that a fearful state of intimidation and corn •
bination existed in the town of Sheffield. He would be glad if
the opinions expressed by the Hon. Gentleman respecting in-
timidation were generally adopted by the parties whom he re-
presented upon the present occasion,
Mr. B. DENISON said that he knew Mr. Overend, and
could bear ample testimony to his character as a most upright
and humane gentleman. He should inform the House that Mr.
Overend was the only active magistrate in the town. Others
e
dition,
for copies of the me-
morial sent to the Crown from the Town of Sheffield this
frobmeg a
leave
to distance,
move,a and
in certainlya
Haootnr woulde indgave valuable assistance.
upon
subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he
was bound to bear testimony to the character of Mr. Overend,
which he always understood as most unexceptionable.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said that he knew Mr. Over-
end, and there was not a more upright or more conscientious
gentleman in the kingdom. All the convictions which hart
been quashed were so by reason of some informality, as parties
were not. permitted to interfere that were interested, and it
was the association with other magistrates which rendered the
proceeding informal. Since this late attack upon his public
character, Mr. Overend had received numerous letters from
various public bodies, bearing witness to the propriety of his
conduct. The state of the town of Sheffield was well known
to be in a most fearful state, and required the exercise
of the utmost fortitude on the part of those
who administered the law. A law hat been passed
upon the subject a short time since, and the consequence of the
state of things existing in Sheffield was most deplorable. He
would, therefore, entreat the Hon. Member to use his influence
with the persons belonging to the different trades unions in that
town, to alter their course of conduct, which would if perse-
vered in lead to the utter destruction of the trade in that town.
Mr. HENLEY thought that if the magistrates had acted
wrongly, the Court of Law was the proper place to set such
conduct right, and if the interference of a Court of Law was
not advisable, then he thought that the Crown was to be
called upon to exercise its high functions. He thought that if
the proposed motioc were to be agreed to, it would be setting a
premium, for persons asking this House to decide as judge
and jury in all matters that might be brought before it.
Mr. WARD entirely concurred in many of the observations
which had fallen from the Hon. Member opposite. He Be-
lieved that these unions were the most difficult thing which a
magistrate had to deal with ; and if ever there was a case in
which it was necessary to show exemplary patience and free-
dom from prepossession in opinion, it was the question of the
trades' unions as at present existing in Sheffield. There was
no doubt that some of those unions were beneficial to the par-
ties, and were deserving of support ; but when they came to
carry resolutions among themselves to obtain their ends, not
by moral force or by moral influence, but by some-
thing bordering upon threats, and always followed by
acts of violence, he thought that such conduct inflicted
an injury upon the working classes such as was almost impos-
sible to estimate, and these effects were felt most of all in
periods of depression. He had known several persons who
were prepared to invest their capital in the establishment of
manufactories in that town, but who had, in consequence of
the state of the town, felt it their duty to give up the inten-
tion of doing so. He was sure that there might be faults upon
both sides, but he sincerely hoped that a little time would
bring both parties into some amicable arrangements; but he
felt assured that no party had a right to interfere by the
influence of threats and violence, whieh were sure to be visited
at last by the strong arm of the law.
Mr. PARKER concurred in the opinion expressed by the
Hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. S. Wortley) and the
Hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward) as to the injurious
effects upon the trade of the town of Sheffield by the improper
conduct of some of these unions.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that it was for the purpose of
promoting a good understanding between the masters and men
that he was induced to connect himself with the cause of the
workmen to the extent which he had done. He had no oppo-
sition to offer to the motion of the Hon. Member.
The motion was then agreed to.
DUTIES ON COPPER ORE.
Mr. MUNTZ postponed his motion fora Select Committee
to inquire into the operations of the law regulating the existing
duties on copper ore until Ist of June next.
FEES IN COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY.
Mr. B. ESCOTT moved that the following Members be ap-
pointed a Select Committee to inquire into the fees of the
Courts of Law and Equity—Mr. Watson, Sir J. Graham, The
Attorney General, The Solicitor General, Sir F. Thesiger,
Stuart Wortley, Mr. Rornilly, Mr. Walpole, Mr. B. Escott,
Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hume, Sir
J. Hammer, and Mr. Ewart.
Motion agreed to.
COMMITTEE ON RAILWAY BILLS.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved for a
Select Committee to consider whether it is expedient that any
measures should be adopted for suspending further proceedings
in ail or any of the Railroad Bills in the present session, and
for enablieg the parties, under certain conditions, to proceed
with the same in a future session of Parliament; also, whether
it is advisable that any future provision should be made in the
standing orders of this House relative to Bills for the construe
tion of Railroads, and to report their opinion thereupon to the
House from time to time. He would also move that the Com-
mittee consist of the following lion. Members :—The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, Sir J. Graham, 11r. Hume, Mr. Hud-
son, Sir G. Clerk, Mr. Charles Russell, Mr. Baring, Mr.
Strutt, Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Ellice, and Mr. John Abel Smith.
The motion had been worded in a very general manner, so as to
remove as much as possible any opposition to the measure.
There were several important points to be referred to the
Committee, one of them was the important question with
respect to the payment of the deposits by existing companies
out of the funds of the company, which was clearly an evasion
of the standing orders. Another important point was that of
permitting the sale of one company to another, immediately
upon having obtained their Act, and before having constructed

their line. He thought that some check should be put to
such a course of proceeding. He begged, therefore, to mcve
the appointment of the Committee to inquire into these
subjects. _ _ _

111 r. Fi. HINDE thou.'ht that an interval of a day at leant
should have been allowed, in order to allow Hon. Members 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
much as possible all new companies.—( Hear, hear. )
To place chairmen of old comparies upon this Committee,
and ask their opinion upon this subject, was like con-
sultin!! 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 he proposed that,
from and after the words " fivure sessions of Parliament," there
should he 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 ns.t 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 Hon. Gentleman's amendment would not, in fact, amend
in any degree the difficulty which he endeavoured to meet.
Mr. HINDE did not at all object to the names on the Com-
mittee, and rather than divide the House, he should withdraw
his amendment.

The CHANCELLOR 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.
Pattison 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. He 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 wa.s,
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 placed with regard to the officers under them. The
Commissioners hitherto had been responsible for all the local
abuses which had arisen under the operasion 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.
Pla 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 for Knares-
borough, that the Poo:-law Amendment Act had ?roved 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 cud central. The point on which the
Andover Committee inquired, were those points bearing a!most
entirely upon the administration of the poor-law, as distinct
from the law itself. The Right Hon. Gentleman she 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 he 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 were 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
offered 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 ques-
tions all aff icting the administration of the law. The Com-
mittee of the House had entered upon these questions because
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 business of the Commis-
sion was not to be approved. These Commissioners exht-
bited distrust in their subordinates, and injustice to
many of their servants. On these points evidence
had been taken at length, and occupied public opinion for a
long time. All these questions affected the Administration
and the administrators of the law ; and having now referred to
all these points, he thought he might say to the 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 taken 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. He 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
Montrose, the Noble Lord at the head 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 proceeding, had not
acted with a wise discretion ; but he must say that
the Home Secretary had 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 husieess
in a most extraordinary way. Mr. Chadwick made most mar-
vellous revelations before the Commissioners. The Commis-
sioners denied these, and they and Mr. Chadwick joined issue
on matters of fact. ( The lion. Gentleman then read at
some length extracts from the evidence which has
already appeared in the public prints to show
the irregularity of she proceedings of the Commissioners, es-
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 ease of orders,
these had been issued sometimes with the signature of only one
Commissioner sometimes with the signature of net one Com-
missioner at all.
At his 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 wa, not usual to produce the opinions of the
' law officers of the Crown - but an opinion of the Attorney....xe
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 thern..,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 Commissioners 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 themselves.—(Bear, hear. )
The 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.
But 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 r ecasion, 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 conduct of the Commissioners, relative to Mr.
Parker, he did net foresee the facts which would come to light
before the Andover Committee. He denied that he had ever
been influenced by hostility to the Commissioners even before
lie had a seat in that House. While yet an
undergraduate of Cambridge, he had written a pamphlet in its
defence, he would conclude by observing that he thought the
present measure involved an excellent principle.
Mr. ETWALL said t:eat he did not see the reason or tlae
necessity of a central board resident in London. Thelaw
was most objectionable, and in the west of England was most
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. He did not see the advantage to be gained by
the public, in respect to the proposes! alterations. It ap-
peared to him that they were beginning tolegislateupoian this
all-important question, and that he would say was
wrong direction. There was
that so
it
could
whole system that it was impossible
alvantageou,l y. Although there were
law, many Members
iii
favour of the poor were
yet he a bold man who would
rise in that House and say that the law had succeeded. The
Hon. Member for Bath conceived that the burning of hayricks

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 hed not been productive 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 nut the public from knowing."—( Hear, hear.)
In the Select Committee appointed to enquire into the Andover
union, he moved an amendment to the rff,,ct 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 compe
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 o
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 drawn 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, hear.) 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. Ile 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 lion. 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 reasot.s 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 befote 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 liberty
of stating to the House what the general impression was that
he derived from the evidence taken before the Committee ; he
felt himself unable to avoid coming to the conclusion that there
had heen gross mismanagement in the board of guardians, and
that the administration of the law was marked by an unusua'
degree of harshness at Andover, and that owing to the genera
regularity which prevailed, the inmates of the establishmen
were kept in a wretched and lamentable state, That invest iga.
too had been so far attended with good results, that public a-•.
tention had been directed to the subject. On some of then.
resolutions he had h. lc' different opinions from some o
his friends, as he del also on the second series
of these resolutions, namely, on the conduct of she Poor-last
Commissioners themselves. Their conduct had been severely
censured in the matter of Mr. Parker, hut he did nut knoe
that the y deserved all the censure which had been accorded ti
them on the subject. Certainly, as far as Mr. Parker's appear-
ance before the committee went, he ( viscount Court. nay) did
not think that it was characterised by either vigilance or atten-
tion. While stating this he must at the same time state it,
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. Ile
fully agreed with his Hon. Friend who had spoken that evening,
that the Bill before the House would be so far superior to the
former Bill, that it would have a direct Parliamentary respon-
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 poor-law to the present day. The Noble Lord.
indeed, said as much as that the present Bill was not founded
r 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 4 which they bad had of these proceedings, they were told
that that inquiry formed no reason for the present measure.
What, then, was the reashn? 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 table 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
wl.ich had operated on his mind, but perhaps he had not seen a
letter which had come 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. He
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
bones 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. He trusted that no such conduct would be pur-
sued by 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-
dation for any place under the Government. Similar was the
case of Mr. Day. two cases the most flagrant that could be
instanced. He was anxious for a change. But what were
they to get by this change? If he should not vote for th,
second reading of the Bill, it might be said that he would
thereby leave the Commissioners out, but those who said so
had no: heard the few words which he in.lint to address to the
House. He hoped if the Government passed this Bill, as
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-
fere he hoped, in the words of the Hon. and Learned Gentle
man the Member for Bath, that the new board 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. lie would, therefore, support the amendment of
the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Knaresborough.
Mr. M. SUTTON said, as the measure 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. Geri-
, tleman the Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Banks) was the
only Member who bad 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 for 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 f id 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. He regretted.
therefore, that the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) did not
express the views of the Government more fully than he did
when he addressed the House last night, because it would have
relieved him from intruding upon the House; the
the Noble Lord would state his views on the subject before
there was great
conclusion of the debate. He admitted that
on the part o
but he
want of good conduct and cruelty to the
the Poor-law Commissioners • but then,P°r
borne in mind, that that 'body partook but if they
inspecting than of any other character;were
made evident,
iitnorsehounlfd
an
surely were not
neglected to amend evilsducwt
they were guilty of misconduct,
respect to Andover, he
of laches.—(llear. ) Then t
h
gtheorne
teguilty of misconduct if their as.stist'ant commissioners were guilty
enter-
tained the opinion that_ the Guardianshibchuatretrheesypo, risible for all that
) as sometime before the inquiry took
had taken place—(
fa-
vourably.—lle Commissioners, but he could not defend all
place, Mr. Parkdeird-rineoeptarorhteedsittahtaettethseayuntihoant
hweasstgooodin
Commissioners had done. He did not say that
but he thought it wrs the duty of
they were free from blame,_ _
tdheefern de
Poor-law
s.w Poor-law
to defend those public men with whom
every man
they had been connected in apublic carcsacker, was that he hadity.—(Hear, hear.)
Parker One of the allegations against Mr.
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 report that there was not sufficient reasons for the
dismissal of Mr. Parker and Mr. Day, hut 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
Hon. Gentleman. The general accusation against Mr Parker
was, that he had lost their confidence,
and, therefore,
i s_
upon
eihe s
him, in
Ut order ds ,
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 riot, they had no right to impute cor-
rupt motives,in imut
eion.:scepi
cast
sAsntretktrhehgerey?h,
a:
blameod urrl
edioalemt
frome proved.etoa
their r
gentlemaneos
woNl
dnuoi
ttssie t•hoi
nnwo
uchlt tadlie r'Adss.
at s
dismiss
hiseda' as
et;
the
b against
C 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, thatl none of the Poor-
law Commissioners, or, indeed, anybodyde se, imputed to him
intentional neglect. Their whole ground of objection to Mr.
ulendinhimthe
thtahteywhfoi
unequal to the task; and
discharge of a very diffi-
cult Day duty,wasthey, therefore, thought
it not safe
or expedient to coutide the care of that district,
to which he had been
appointed, any longer. And, therefore, the discharge
of a very painful discretion, they • considered it right to require
his resignation. One of the charges brought against the Com-

missioners, was that of discouraging the subordinate officers.
This statement was made by Mr. Chadwick, who said that his
suggestions had not been attended to by Mr. Lewis. But it
was found, on the cross-examination of Mr. Chadwick, that no
suggestions had been offered at all, that he had only hinted
at
at
certain improvements, which it was a very happy thing th
%ir. Lewis did not attend to. With respect to this pr.esent
Bill, he quite agreed with its provisions; the only objection to
it was, that it jeined in one board the executive along with
the
legislative authority. This was a great difficulty,but it co
not be avoided. The proposal of the Honourable
Member, that all the orders which it would
deemed expedient to make, should be collected into
me statute, and enacted, would lead to endless confusion, its
the law which would be adopted for the northern portion of
England would by no means suit the southern. Besides, how
would they deal with the ease where it would be necessary, at
moment's notice, to modify the law, instances of which
would be constantly recurring; in such a case they would give
power of reversion to an Act of Parliament, which
a far more objectionable power than that granted by the 13i11.
The alteration by which Commissioners had seats in that
[louse,
was also a great improvement. He would conclude by
stating his resolution to support the measure.
Mr. HENLEY moved the adjournment of the debate.
would be
Lord JOHN RUSSELL objected to an adjournment, and.
hoped the lion. Members meant seriously to discuss the
measure.
melkalnet
. seriouslyk' to
ERllANDdsisaeidustshattheitqwnasestiboen thatcause he movedhisHon.
tFht!eec
ad-
journment, and he did trust that the Noble Lord would sh
respect to the feelings of the House and the country in
floral, and not press the further discussion of the question.
There were five or six gentlemen whom he knew were anzi°"
to address the House.
with
e
Mr.
arrangement HENLEY
of
h
said t e
Noble h e would
Lord,dbe verybut the yhad hn
s orr to interferee been
in to
t"
and be Was cla
House since twelve o'clock in the morning,
unable to go on at that late hour of the night.
The debate was then adjourned.
On the question being SUPPLY.imtfovheinging
the Committee of Supply
Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the vote fortP
expense of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, because
the
thought that expenditure ought to be defrayed ont
revenues of the Church, and not out of the public exchequer..
Lord J. RUSSELL said the vote was deliberately agreed t°
in Committee after a lengthened discussion, and he had nothing
thedef r reporty ng the on
n
further to add to what he had already stated on the subject.
Mr. BROTHERTON said be should be compelled, nignt
erinciple, to vote for his Hon. Friend the Member for Coventry!
if he divided the House on the vote, but he really mustoltet
to their spliting straws in this way. It was unworthy al a
great principle.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the vote
MajorityHoos e
resumed,
ufma veodu,r
and
dthtehveo te
report '''''''
r7o3d to
Against it - 63 he
was
The
brought up on Thursday.
Messengers So
from
At
the
EL
nFROMrd
broughtTHE downLORDS.
the p
00 r
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
s
l‘lEfr
other
(Ireland) Bill, with the Lords' amendments, and several
public and private Bills, and prayed the assent of the Calln°ll6
to the several Bills.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the Bill, as amended' fre
printed and taken into consideration on the 31st of MO; ?its
did not think that it would be possible to have the ameneledo
Whitsunti
printed and considered by the House till after the
holidays.
The motion was then agreed to. Bill,
The reports on the Transference of Lands (Scotland) e
the Heritable Securities for Debt (Scotland) Bill, the were
Tenure (Scotland) Bill, and the Crown Charters 13ill, w
received, and the Bills were ordered to be read a third tiro
e "
Thursday next.
POOR REMOVAL ACT REPEAL BILL.aI
Mr. BANKES brought in the Poor Removal Acßead
,
Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to b
second time on Friday next. A the
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock.

RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS'
BRISTOL, MAY IS. , ~, a 4
STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are -oe"tA
).51--4--Dpi.-ttoN, Noretshr,
British,li.lls.
;is.-Great Western, Quarters 314 p.-Ditto, Fifths, „,,j_
),-Ditto, New. 2 :tic, p.-Midland, 1141A-Ditto, Nevrl,.7,
3{l.
-teNnsei7nc,as
hire, 1 p.-York and Newcastle, New, 4p.
MANCHESTER, MAY 18. nr
STOCK EXCHAN'OE.-The sales are-Ambergate, sou,
_a
'am, and Boston, 1 7-16 dig.-Birkenhead, Lancashire,
s_P„
lisle
pan.
_....d
sßoerrtwh i cskt,a tfiord,
'heshire, 2-Birmingham and Dudley, 4% p.---Biacknrt;
;litheroe, &c., Preferentials, 3'i p.-East Lancesbir° 'and
B. and P.), New (scrip), 3-16 dis.-Fleetwood, Preston,
and
West Riding, IA, dis.-Manchester, Buxton, Matlock, area
,/1 Midland, c. tbs.-Manchester and Leeds, 321. no_
(late Extension), !.4 dis.-Manchester, Sheffield, and 0....
colnshire, 84-Manchester and Southampton, 295*.Ai5.--
16vov
North Staffordshire, 11,6 p.-North-Western, er
1 13- sr
Oldham Alliance, 5-16 c. dis.-South-Eastern and Fre.
No. 3, 1 dis.-Ditto, No. 4, 5-16-York and Newcastle,
ference, 21,i.
LEEDS, MAY 18. .
• NTOtting-.
STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are-Anwergawe, ~
Ditto,
ham, and Boston, 30s. n. dis.-East Lancashire, 2 dis.
_East
and
New, 2 die.-Ditto, New (scrip), 3s. 6d. disyo 1 cl-
West Yorkshire, 40s. dis.-Great Northern, 3 s. dis* 1u d
dersfield and Manchester, par (guar. full int.)--Leeds an
Dewsbury, Extensions Scrip (green), 20s. dis.-Ditto, New
Extensions Scrip (pink), 14s. dis.-Leeds and Tk, 61,t
hin
dis.-Ditto, Preference, 2s. dis.-Leeds, Wakefield, and Mid
land, 20s. dis.-Malton and Dritald Junction, 20s. dis.--"
Manchester and Leeds, 321. Shares (late Extensions), 75.
dis.-Ditto, West Riding Union, 3s. 6d. dis.-Manchester,
Buxton, Matlock, and Midland, 10s. n. dis.-Newcastle and
Berwick, New, 1% p.-North British, Thirds, 255. p.-Ditto,
Quarters (late Carlisle Branch), 14s. n. p.-Ditto, Extension
(scrip), 2s. p.-North-Western, 435. dis.-Wharfdale Junc-
tion, 275. dis.
HULL, MAY 18.
STOCK EXCHANOIL-The sales are-Ambergate, Notting'
ham, and Boston, 235.-Manchester and Leeds (West Riding
Union), ls. 6d. p.-Newcastle and Berwick, 31s. NT th
British, Extension (scrip), .. 9s. 3d.-Ditto. Thirds (scrip), 46§.
North-Western, 41s. dis.-Shropshire Union, 395. 6d. db.

CNAGSET.-L,li:l-Ueyi
STOCK IN:..XECH"A are-Easternll'YNE, AY
Counties.lB.
11:a(leNs
dis.-North British, Quarters, 15s. p.-Ditto, Extension, 35' P'
EDINBURGH, MAY 17.
STOCK EXCHANGIt.-The sales are Aberdeen, 251.
1715'
61.-Airdrie and Bath ate,3l. 145.-Arbroath and Forte,
271. 155.-Ditto, Halves, 151.-Ayr and Galloway, 14193. 6d;
-Caledonian, 244-Ditto, New 1/. 195.-Caledonian anu
Dumbartonshire, V. 145.-Clydesdale Junction, 42/. 105.--
Deeside, 3/. 55.-Dunblane, Doune, and Callender, 14 7s. 6d'
-Dundee and Arbroath, 421.-Ditto. New, No. 1, 301--
Ditto, New, No. 2, 301.-Ditto, No. 3,4/. 7s. 6d.-Dundee
and Perth, 301. ex new-Ditto, New, 111. cx new- East!rn
FIR!:
Counties, 194-Ditto, York Extension, bl. 55.-East of
21. 10s.-Edinburgli and Bathgate, 61. 10s.-Edinburgh
ter An
s,
Glasgow, 691.-Ditto, Halves, 22/. 55.-Ditto, Quar
171. 55.-Edinburgh, Leith, and Granton, 18L-Ditto,
Ditto,
Pre-
ference, 204 10s.-Edinburgh and Northern, 17/.--
New, 3/. 25.-Ditto, Newport, 71.-Ditto, ditto, New, 1/. 185.
6d.-Edinburgh and Perth (New Co.), 1/. 143.-Glasgow
Ind Ayrshire, 1184-Ditto, New Stock, 35/, 103.-Ditto,
Halves, No. 1, 81. 155.-Ditto, Halves, No. 2,6/. 35.-Gl3
gow•
Dumfries, and Carlisle, 54-Glasgow and Garnkirk,
Glasgow General Terminus, 12/. 55.-Glasgow and Greenock•
161.-Ditto, New, Sl. 153.-Ditto, Preference, 8/.--Glasgew•
Kilmarnock, and Ardrossan, 4/. 103.-Great North of Scot-
land, 24-Newcastle and 13erwick, 24/. 155.-North British,
304155.-Ditto, Halves, 14/. 2s. 6d.-Ditto, Thirds, 21. Bs.
6d.- Ditto, Quarters, 4/. 2s. 6d.-Ditto, New Quartert
(scrip), 15s. 9d.-Ditto, Fifths, 6/. 153.-Scottish Central,
23/. 7s. 6/1.-Scottish Grand Junction, 193.-Scottish Mid-
i And, 19/.-Stirling and Dunfermline, 3/. 5a.-Stirling and
Midland, 2/. 55.-'rishaw and Coltness, 49/. 55.-York and
Newcastle, 341. 10s.-Ditto, New, 14/. 10s.-Ditto Prefer.
cute, 6/. 10s.-Direct Bombay and Madras, 2s. 4.-East
Indian, 2s. 63.-Great North of India, 35.-Great Southern
of Madras,23 -Madras, Nvllere, and Arcot, 1... 6d.
NAY 17.

sroch: ExcHA 4:iles are—Ayr and Galloway'
x;96.—Caledonian, 23 ji—Clydesdale Junction, 421;2—Dundee
And Perth, Quarters, 565.—, East Indian, 2s. gd.—East
Lothian Central, 395. 6d.—Edinburgh and Perth (New Co.).
335.—(11asgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr, 1161.—llitto,
—Ditto, Halves, No. 2,6/. 4s.—Glasgow, Du„n"
tries, and Carlisle, 5/. 38.—Glaagow Harbour Junction, 26. ndi
an
, ,
—Kilmarnock and Ayr Direct, 12s. 6d.—Manchester
Southampton, 11s. 3d.—North British Thirds s"—llittor
New Quarters (scrip), 15s. Gd.—Scottish Central, 28%•

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—BRUSHES, NEW INVENTION'''.
I LIE TRIPLE HAIR BRUSIL—One stroke of this is equal to
the effect of one penetrating, five small-toothed combs, '—
one even cut brush. The Double Anti-Pressure Nail Brush,
which does not divide the quick from the nail, no pressu!e
being required, and thoroughly cleans and polishes the nails!!
a tenth part of the time of any other method. The new Tooth"
pick Brush, which entirely enters between the interstices
of the closest teeth ; marks, No. 1, hard; No. 2, less bare,
No. 3, middling; No. 4, soft, at Is. each, or 10s. Perdtir
in hone; and 2s. each, or 21s. per dozen in ivory, _
warranted never to come out.—The medium Shaving _e_
between the usual badger hair and bristle brush, being gl,Tke,
lection of the strongest hair only from the badger skin;„
above articles are the inventions of Ross and Sons, and
imitating l
120, silotPhsegfew-isitlrebeet,pLroconekleodne,dad being protected, any °I"

1 - -
BIRTHS.
On Christmas-day last, at Sydney, New South Wales, the
wOnin,s,ttliee
wife
eh
wife of Wise() Ray, Esq., of a daughter,
ofofTopmecleZmayb,eEr slqa.s,t'o faat st.d.ney, New South
On the 26th of February lat, at Colesberg, Cape of Good
Hope, tho lady of J. Campbell, Esq., of a daughter.
On the 15th insf., at Fiuchley-road, St. John's-wood, rtfkb•
James Courtenay, of a son.
On the 15th inst., at llighbury-grange, Mrs. James F.
Scott, of a son.
On the 15th inst., Mrs. E. C. Dermer, of Albion-terrace.
Wandsworth-road, of a son.
On the 16th inst., at Blackheath-terrace, Mrs. John Brown'
of a son.
On the 16th inst., at Harrow-on-the-Hill, the wife of J. W.
Cunningham, Esq., of a son.
On the 16th inst., at Thames Ditton, the wife of Thomas
Edwards, Esq., of a son.
On the 16th inst., the lady of Ross Di Mangles, Esq.,
of a son.

MARRIED.
On the 19th of March, at the Cathedral, Calcutta, Georg :
' Charles Armstrong, Esq. 111. D., to Emma Mary, iburt
daughter of Robert Hand, Esq., of Great Cumberland-Place"
On the 15th inst., at With yham Church, Mr. Macrae, stlil.;
late
goon, Lewes, Sussex, to Emma Alice,
Mr. ,
stSmerford. eller
second daughter 01- tu
On the 15th Turner in.um at St. Dunstan's, Stepney, Mr. Flet
oMoor, of Ventnor, 'lsle of Wight, to Charlotte, daughter
the late Mr. Thomas Berresford, of Stepney-gre

lEB.
On the passage from India to England, Alethea, Wife of
Major Edward Bond, of her Majesty's 39th Regiment.
On the 13th of March last, at Agra, in the East Irldiess
Lieutenant Charles Robertson Ailiman, of the Hon.
India Company's 41st Regiment Bengal Infantry, aged 2153.
At Bloxham, near Banbury, Thomas Eagle, Esq., sg,ed
On the 15th inst., at Heigham, near Norwich, Capin
G. S. Croasdaile, of the 10th Regiment of the M. N.
On the 14th inst., in Myddelton-square, Henry a
youngest son of the late Peter Lee, Esq.
On the 15th inst., Thomas Marsh Elstob, R.N., late of her
Majesty's chip Dolphin, aged 19.
On the 16th inst., at Castelnau-villas, Barnes, Frances, t"
wile of Joseph Odling, Esq., aged 48.
On the 16th inst., at Nazing, Essex, Mr. James Hobbs, of
Broxourne, Ilerts, ged 60.
Oe,nb
Aptshi(eic.66(lic
t)hiintsotr.:a agedAlr4
. Charlesl Attwaters, of Queen-street•
ch

ed and Published by 51U1t.D0 01 412.
strand, Printer, at The Sun 0111ce N 0.113, Strand, in the Yroc7:
of the Savoy, in the Couuty o 4 2.1141.4.11e8ezi Wednesclity, )147
1847.