The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-21 00:00:00

THE SON. LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, MAY 21, 1847.

tion of his Hon. Friend, and resolve itself into a Com-
mittee of the whole Hoetie for the purpose of considering
the important subject brought forward by his Hon.
Friend.
Mr. BARCLAY thought that the House ought to
enter promptly into the redress of the grievance com-
plained of by the Hon. Member. The indirect result
of this question was far more important than it
at first appeared. The present Excise regulations required
an immense outlay of capital, and the consequence was
that the trade of distillation was in this country confined
to a very few persons, and by means of this monopoly
the prices of the article were kept up very considerably.
He thought the first proposition of the Hon. Gentleman
was very reasonable, and that the second was based on
perfectly sound principles. Now he believed, if they
allowed British spirits to be rectified in bond, they would
lay the foundation of a considerable export trade in that
article.

Mr. MOFFAT replied. He had heard nothing from
the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the slightest weight
against his motion, and he hoped his opposition would
be considered equally unsatisfactory by the public. The
principal ground of the opposition of the Right Hon.
Gentliiman was, that the revenue would lose it his Bill
became law ; but he (Mr. Moffatt) did not think that
any such result would follow.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 5l
Against it
Majority against the motion
BRITISH SPIRITS. . _

Mr. MOFFATT moved that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the whole House, with a view to
adopt a Bill to permit British spirits to be rectified in
bond for exportation, and to permit rectified spirits and
compounds to be warehoused for exportation.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the objection to this Bill was that it would
ultimately be impossible to rectify spirits at all, for
if the duty was only to be charged after the spirits
left the premises of the rectifiers, the Excise would
not have the slightest check for levying the
duty on the spirits in the country. The Hon. Gentleman
said that his Bill was founded on the Bill of an Hon.
Friend of his, who some years ago was Secretary to the
Treasury ; but that Bill had not been proceeded with
from that time to this. Experiments had been made
as to whether it was possible to ascertain the different
state of spirits while they were in the hands of the recti-
fier. If they succeeded he should have no objection,
but at present he did not apprehend any such result.
The adoption of the Bill would result in a loss to the
Exchequer, and he should, therefore, have to raise the
duty to supply the deficiency, which the state of the
country would not permit him to do.
Mr. HUME said, at the present time large quanti-
ties of spirits imported from Holland were exported to
the Colonies, in preference to a better and more
desirable spirit which could be exported from Scotland
if this measure were adopted. He was surprised that
more of his free-trade friends did not support the last
motion. He was at all times ready to support the Mi-
nistry when they were acting rightly, but in oppos-
ing this proposal they were stultifying their
former votes upon free trade.—(Hear, hear.)
He thought the best way to remove the difficulty would
be for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on
the subject.
Mr. FORBES said that, if he understood the case
rightly, it appeared that a great portion of the trade of
this country found its way into the hands of the Dutch
distillers. He really hoped that those Hon. Members
who were in favour of the British distillers, and those
who were in favour of free trade, would give their support
to the motion of the Hon. Member. _

vv
Mr. BARCLAY thought so much weight ought not
to be attached by the Government to the objections of
the Excise. If those objections were always to be
raised as a barrier against fiscal improvement, the effects
might be most disastrous to the best interests of the
country.
Mr. MOFFATT replied. _ _ _

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no
division took place.
CASE OF MR. DILLON.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved for copies of the follow-
ing papers respecting Mr. John Dillon's claim for prise
money out of the proceeds of the smuggler brig Peru:—
Statements of George F. Young, G. Punic, and Fergus
O'Connor, Esqs., as to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
agreement in Mr. John Dillon's case. The decision of
Admiral Sir E. Codrington on said agreement ; and the
opinions of Admirals Sir C. Martin, Sir R. Stopford,
and the late Sir P. C. Durham thereon, and the
legal opinions of Justice Sir 11. Maule and the
late Sir William Follett thereon ; also the affidavit
of Mr. William Burt, then chief boatman of the
Coast Guard station at Milk Cove, county Cork, with
reference to the Peru ; and likewise the affidavit of
clearance from the Custom-house of New York by
Mr. James Hitchcox, master of the Peru, and the
manifests of the cargo of the said brig, and the affidavits
of Mr. Patrick Monaghan thereon ; also for a return
of the quantity of tobacco seized in the Peru, and the
amount paid to Mr. Henry Masters, Custom-house
officer at Kinsale, as prize-money, on account of
such seizure ; and, lastly, for a copy of the
letter addressed to the Lords of the Treasury by
Mr. John Dlilon, dated the 20th day of March, 1847,
The Hon. Member went into the particulars, which have
already been several times before the House, and con-
tended that Mr. Dillon had been badly used in regard to
this matter. It was said that he was not the actual
captor of the brig in question, or directly engaged in the
business ; but to that he would reply, that it was gene-
rally admitted, if it could be shown a party was in any
way a party to such a capture he was fairly entitled to
his share of the prize-money. That Mr. Dillon
had been so engaged had been satisfactorily
proved by high authorities. The Hon. Member
then referred to several naval and legal authorities, to
show that the claimant was fully entitled to his proper
share of prize-money. He had no intention to follow
this out, but the officer was exceedingly desirous that his
character should be cleared of the charge of cowardice
under which he now laboured, and that he should receive
some remuneration fur his loss of pay and character.
He trusted, therefore, that the Government would take
the matter into their consideration, as the petitioner, he
believed, had expended much money and time too, and
was, he believed, in very reduced circumstances.
Mr. PARKER said that on the part of the First
Lord of the Tresury, he had to say that the papers
were now in so different a shape that it was impossible to
render them as they were desired. The original papers
had been returned to the memorialists. Lord Spencer,
through the medium of Sir Edward Codrington, had
already decided the question, and he could not consent
to have it re-opened. The question had been decided
over and over again. All that were really public and
official papers the Treasury were ready to produce, but
those that were copies of private documents returned to
Mr. Dillon himself they must decline.
Mr. WAKLEY said that he could not help thinking
but that Mr. Dillon was an injured man; at one time his
request was refused because be was charged with
cowardice, but when that is challenged and found to be
inaccurate, then they went upon another tack. Why,
then, was the question of cowardice raised, unless it was
intended to be relied upon—it was unbecoming the
Minister of the Crown, or the conduct of a great de-
partment, to act in such a petty manner. Now, he would
ask the Hon. Gentleman was he prepared to refer the
question to a Select Committee if he refused; he was
quite confident that he did so, because he did not feel
thoroughly impressed with the justice of his case.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he had not any objection to grant the returns
moved.

Mr. F. BARING said that he hoped justice would be
done ; and denied that there was any indisposition on
the part of the Government, to which he had the ho.
nour to belong, to render Mr. Dillon, or any one else,
all that justice or propriety demanded.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD thanked the Right
Hon. Gentleman for the courtesy which he had mani-
fested towards him, upon the present occasion ; he of
course, should remain satisfied with the concession which
had been made to him, but the impression must still
remain upon his mind that Mr. Dillon had been hardly
treated. He would, therefore, withdraw his motion.
NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. HAWES moved for leave to bring in a Bill en-
titled, " An Act to render permanent certain parts of
an Act of the fifth and sixth years of her present Ma-
jesty, for amending the constitution of the Government
of Newfoundland, and to declare that the rest of the
said Act shall thenceforward cease to be in force."
Mr. HUME desired to know whether there were any
other colonies included in the Bill ?
Mr. HAWES said that the object of the Bill was to
restore the ancient constitution with some few ex-
ceptions.
ADMIRALTY COURT AT THE CAPE OF
GOOD HOPE.

Captain PECHELL moved for returns of all fees pay-
able in the several Vice-Admiralty Courts at the Cape
of Good Hope and St. Helena, with a return of all offi-
cers and persons holding appointments in the said Courts,
with the nature of the duty performed, and the amount of
salary received by each, and, if paid by fees, the annual
amount received by each since the Ist day of January,
1842 ; of the registrar's copy of the marshal's certificate
of breaking up of the hull and of the sale of the cargo
of the slave vessel Diana, condemned in the Vice-Admi-
ralty Court at the Cape of Good t lope, and transmitted
by the agents for the captors to the Treasury on the 11th
day of September, 1846. By this return they would see
that of 113 vessels captured for being engaged in the
slave trade, the captors of 74 of them did not receive
one single sixpence for their gallantry. He was deter-
mined to see, if he had health and strength, to the
bottom of all these matters, no matter how high
the parties were, who were concerned. These fees were
most excessive and it was a great hardship upon those
who spent their lives cruising about in these unhealthy
situations to be thus defrauded. The judge of the ad-
miralty court at the Cape of Good Hope said that he had
no cognisance of any other party save that of her Ma-
jesty. They were all aware of what Lord Cochrane said
of admiralty courts. He feared, however, that since his
time another reformation would be exceedingly desirable
as far as the Cape of Good Hope was concerned.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion, and begged permis-
sion to add St. Helena and the Australian colonies to the
return; because he had been informed that matters were
just as bad in those quarters. Those courts were under
no control; they might do as they liked, and if any sub-
ject ever deserved inquiry the present was that one.
Mr. WARD said that there could be no sort of objec-
tion to the return, and from a specimen of a bill which
he had seen, there were other courts which were nearer
home which also appeared to have the capability of
making out a smart hill. If his Hon. Friend could sug-
est any new method for the organiztion of these
he would be happy to attend to them.
COMMITTEE ON FEES.
courts,

The CdA.NekiLLOR, of the Eiji-1E41.3ER moved
to add Lord Seymour and Mr. Pattison to the Com-
mittee on Fees in Courts of Law and Equity.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. BORTIINVICK moved the preparation and pro-
duction of accounts of the quantities of British sheep and
lambs' wool, and woollen yarn, exported from the
United Kingdom in the year 1846 ; specifying the coun-
iimies to which they were sent. Of the quantities of wool
of the Alpaca and Llama tribe imported into the United
Kingdom in the year 1846 ; and of the quantities re-
exported during the same period, and the countries to
which they were sent. Of the quantity of mohair (or
goats' wool) imported into the United Kingdom in the
year 1846 ; and of the quantity re- exported during the
same period, and the countries to which they were sent.
Of the quantities and declared value of British woollen
manufactures exported from the United Kingdom in the
year 1846 ; specifying the countries to which they were
sent (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, N 0.341, of
session 1846).

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he had no objection to the return moved for.
Agreed to.

ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the motion for the order of the day for the ad-
journed debate on the second reading of the Poor-laws
Administration Bill,

Sir GEORGE GREY, in reply to a question from
Mr. B. Escott, said that no doubt that illegal proceed-
in s had taken place in some parts of the country, but as
3 et no personal violence h,d been committed, and thought
it unfair to charge the disturbances that had taken place
from the high price of corn to the conduct of the poor-
law guardians.

HENLEY said that the law was in operation for
fourteen or fifteen years. The attention of the Poor-
law Commissioners had been directed within the last
few days to communications that had been received on
the subject, and he trusted that they would take the
means necessary in reference to the subject. He
thought they should not make a violent change in this
law to which a majority of the people still adhered, from
an approval of its principle, namely, local administra-
tion and central control. The question of due local ad-
ministration depended upon the weakness or the strength
of a Government, when Government was strong it
might snap its fingers at poor-law officers, and when
there was a %eak Government, this most important law,
the operation of which was so beneficial to the country,
would be endangered. He did not wish to enter into the
abstract question whether or not Parliament had power
to delegate its authority on the subject in question.
The authorities that had been advanced on this matter
were not at all analogous to the matter, and the defini-
tions that were given of what was understood to be unjust
cases of distress, weze most contradictory, as Hen.
Gentlemen would perceive by a reference to
the report of the Commissioners of 1839, 1841, and 1844.
With respect to the medical treatment of the poor, the
Commissioners said, in their report, and he would read
that report to the House.—(The Hon. Member then read
an extract from the report of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners;)—from which it appeared that the parishes were
in the habit of paying small salaries to the medical prac-
titioners, leaving them to make up their incomes from
other sources. The Hon. Member then read an order
of the Commissioners, recommending that the charge
and salaries of the medical advisers should be left open
to competition, but expressly providing that the charges
made under that order should not exceed the expenses
under the previous system. Now, bad it not been for
the humanity of the medical men themselves, the con-
sequences to the poor would have been disastrous in the
extreme. In the parish in which he resided the salary
formerly paid to the doctor was 10/. per annum ; under
the present system it was reduced to 2/. 17s. 6d. per
annum.—(Hear, hear.) And in the union in which
that parish was situated the Commissioners had reduced
the amount from 300/. to 290 L, being a reduction of the
paltry sum of 10/. Now, it was evident that the poor
must suffer under such a distressing state of things.
Then, with respect to workhouses, he must say that he
felt great astonishment at the statement of the Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment, in answer to the speech of the Hon. Member for
Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes), that the inspectors of prisons
had the same power in the regulation of the diet of the
prisoners as the Poor-law Commissioners had in regulating
the diet of the poor in the workhouses, such state-
ments should not be made in that House without, at all
events, his (Mr. Henley) endeavouring to show that
such was not the case. There were express regulations
by an Act of Parliament, the 4th Geo. IV., cap. 64,
fixing the minimum of the allowance to prisoners.
The amounts fixed by that Act have never been re-
duced : they might have been increased. That Act
also made adequate provision for the spiritual wants of
the prisoners, and the appointment of chaplains.
Sir G. GREY was understood to say that in the
speech which the Hon. Member had alluded to he had
merely intended to meet the arguments of the Hon.
Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand)—that the
Commissioners had exceeded their powers in regulating
the dietary of workhouses.
Mr. HENLEY should proceed in his course of argu-
ment, and endeavour to contrast the careful provisions
of the Act he had referred to, with the reckless conduct
of the Commissioners in the course which they had pur-
sued towards the poor in the institutions of this country.
The Hon. Member then proceeded to read the clause of
the Act of 4 Geo. IV. c. 64, regulating the appointment
of chaplains, and fixing their duties, and contrasted
with that clause the order of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners on the subject. By the one, two sermons on
Sundays were to be preached to the prisoners, but by
the latter, only one to the paupers. He was not required
to catechise the children, or to instruct the inmates,
as by the Act of Geo. IV., and a miserable stipend was
paid to the clergyman for the performance of his duties.
By the operations of this Act, the unfortunate girl who
was delivered of a child in the workhouse, was treated
worse than the destitute girl out of the workhouse, who
had taken away the life of her child, for which offence, a
merciful jury found her guilty of the comparatively mild
crime of concealing the birth of her child. And when
these two girls should meet again in their native villages
what would be the result of the treatment they had each
undergone? but to impress upon their minds, and the
minds of all who were acquainted with the subject, the fact
that those who had committed crime obtain better treat-
ment than those who were guilty of no crime, except their
poverty. Now could the House believe that had the Poor-
law Commissioners made the same provision for the pauper
as Parliament made for the criminal, could they have
witnessed so much disease and misery as had recently
been found in many of tho workhouses throughout the
country?—(Hear, hear.)
An HoN. ME:USER here moved that the House be
counted.

The galleries were accordingly cleared, but there being
more than 40 Members present,
Mr. HENLEY proceeded to say that he had shown—
at least he had endeavoured to show—that the adminis-
tration of the law ought not to be taken out of the hand
of the Legislature. Now he was particular that in making
any revision of the present system, they should not in-
crease the difficulties of parties seeking relief, and he,
therefore, regretted the more to see that this Bill did
not take from the Commissioners any of those powers
which they had indecorously exercised, both as regarded
the law and the people. It relieved them of some of
the formulas which had brought them into so much dis-
credit, but it did not take from them the real powers
exercised by them formerly. It was intended by this
Bill to associate three or four Cabinet Ministers with
the Commissioners ; and what, let him ask, would be
the result of that step ? Why, what chance would a
party have of making an application in that
House, for the redress of a grievance, committed
under the law, against four Cabinet Ministers, who
would constitute a third of the whole Cabinet. Would
not every question of that sort have to be fought tooth
and nail as a Government question, and then how could
these Cabinet Ministers give their attention to the
working of the commission. It was foolish to suppose
that they could, and the result would be that there would
be one or two men as now, conducting the entire business
of the commission. Still, however, every question of
grievance would be fought as if these Cabinet Ministers
vast
aea
sect
to
mtaekn
political
a part
iue
Governmenttnhe ce miatter,
question.awtoteur a
d gdv e
Look
u to o
otckhoe again
i oa
net wo
uld
e.
There were thousands employed throughout the country
under the poor-law, and in times of a severe con-
tGe tveedr
ra
electionent t.
refrain itfrom would be
exercising am s t t
shimpossible
coin sufficient
over
them. Besides, ho thought they already
number of Government officers in the House, but it was
not so much on that account that he objected to this Bill
as the mixing up of Cabinet Ministers with a board whose
duties were merely connected with matters of petty de-
tail, such as the election of guardians, examining of ac-
counts, and appointment of officers; all of which would
have to be made Cabinet questions. He had now gone
at greater length into the various matters connected with
the Bill than he had originally contemplated; and in
conclusion he implored the House not to continue a sys-
tem which left the poor of this country in the state they
were in at present—he implored the House to take from
the agitator and the demagogue the powerful wea-
pon which he now possessed, and which he
did not scruple to wield when he told the
discontented poor, that Parliament legislated for them in
one mode, and for the rich in another. Hitherto the
people of the country had looked up to the Crown as the
redresser of grievances. When they felt that there had
been a maladministration of the law, they appealed to
the Minister ; but if the Crown were made the adminis-
trator of the law, to whom would they have to appeal.
He warned the House, then, not to be two precipitant
in passing this Bill, but to direct their serious attention
to more effectually removing the evils of the present sys-
tem, without adding to the power of the Minister, or
he was afraid the time would come when the people
would take the matter into their own hands.—(Cheers.)
Mr. P. SCROPE said it had been remarked by other
Members who had previously spoken, besides those who
had just sat down, that this discussion had brought
forth three or four different subjects, each of them
differing from the other. First, there was the question
of the Bill before the House ; secondly, the question
which was raised by the amendment of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Knaresborough, as to the merits or demerits of
the Poor-law Amendment Act of 1834 ; and, thirdly,
there was the question of the merits and personal con-
duct of the Poor-law Commissioners themselves.—
(Hear, hear.) He agreed with the Hon. Gentleman who
last spoke as to the difficulty he had pointed out in the
existing system, such as the inefficient remuneration
given to the chaplain and medical officer of parishes,
and the distinction that was made between the religious
instruction of the pauper and the criminal; but these
were matters for after consideration. The real question
for them now to consider was, whether the present Poor.
law Commission was good; but before considering that
point, he must first ascertain what was the
principle of the Act of 1844.—(Hear, hear.)
The principle of the Poor-law Amendment Act was the
removal of local abuses, and to that principle he asserted
at the time the measure was introduced, s He thou;ht,

howPver, that to v-boli,ill the commissi,n altorether w 93
not the way to get rid of 'weal abuses. That was one
reason of the unpopularity which the commission had
met with, for in cinsequence of their seeking to put down
speculation, favouritism, and j obbing, a strong opposition

was excited against them. Another reason of the great
unpopularity, was the prepossession against the exclu-
sive workhouse test t) the able-bodied poor, which had
not the effect, as was anticipated, of raising the wages
of the labourer. The poor-law was the very worse of
the allowance system. The latter applied no tests, the
former applied the labour tests, and tended to bring
back the pauper to the condition of a labouring man.
There was a confusion in the mind of some upon these
two very different systems. He always disapproved of
the allowance system. At the same time time there was
much to be said against the union workhouses. It
might be too much to say with the Hon. Member
for Knaresborough to call them gaols, but the defence of
these same receptacles, by the Learned Member for
Bath, was very humble, when all that he could say to
show that they were not gaols was, that the inmates
could walk out when they pleased. But it must be ad-
mitted, with a recent author, that there was a reason
difficult to express. Why. every decent man, much more
every decent woman, felt they ought not to be there.
On the motion of an Hox. MEMBER, the House was
counted, but there was a sufficient number of Members
present.
Mr. P. SCROPE continued—He thought very much
must be left to the Central Commission. He would
give his support to the measure before the House, but
he trusted that by amendments yet to be introduced the
Bill would be carried out in the manner he had pointed
out.

Sir W. JOLLIFFE said that, after what had fallen
from the llon. Member for Stroud, there was little left
for him, although he thought that the Hon. Member had
altogether seemed to mistake what had fallen from the
Hon. Member for Oxfordshire. He appeared to think
that that Hon. Member objected to a central control.
Now the Hon. Gentleman had advocated the necessity
for a central board of control. He regretted that he
could not coincide in all the opinions advanced by the
Noble Lord who had sat as chairman on the Andover
Union Committee. He had to defend the Poor-law
Commissioners in dismissing the Assistant-Commis-
sioners, and he alleged that they were justified in that
course; because Mr. Parker, one of these assistants, had
conducted the inquiry into the practices at Andover in a
very partial manner. No wonder that Mr. Parker should
have exhibited something like partiality. The Poor-law
Commissioners had sent him down to his own district to
make these inquiries, and they it was who were to blame.
and not Mr. Parker. The Noble Lord did acknowledge
that the proceedings against Mr. Parker might appear
on the part of thecommissioners irregular and arbitrary,
he (Sir W. Jolliffe) thought they were more than arbi-
trary, he thought that they bad been also illegal, and
altogether at variance with the Act under which they
had been constituted. He felt in as full force as the
Hon. Member for Oxfordshire the defects of the Bill as
at present proposed, and he trusted that in order
to make it what it was intended to be, considerable im-
provements would be introduced into it. He bad ever
endeavoured, as an ex officio guardian, to carry out this
law in a humane and lenient manner; but he had always
found that there were inherent evils in itself which could
not be overcome. One of the greatest evils of the
law as at present administered was the admission
of the able-bodied poor into the workhouses for the
House might rest assured that no order or regularity
could be observed in these establishments as long as this
class was admit'ed.

Sir JOHN WALSH regretted that the Hen. Baronet
had felt it necessary to advert to the proceedings of the
Andover Union, as that inquiry had already occupied the
greater portion of last Tuesday's discussion. He (Sir J.
Walsh), as one of the Members of that House who
was obliged to give his attendance during these sixty
days, deemed it r;ght that he should state a few of the
reasons which had led him to a conclusion somewhat
different from that arrived at by a majority of the meet-
ing ; and in the first place, it should be remem-
bered, that the Poor-law Commissioners were ar-
raigned before a most severe and stringent tri-
bunal. It should be remembered that as the wielders
of an obnoxious power the commissioners were
themselves unpopular; it should be further remembered
that the Committee was comprised of a great number of
lion. Gentlemen well acquainted with these inquiries,
and in particular there was one lion. and Learned
Member who acted as the advocate of Mr.Farker, and who
took throughout a • mrse, the most hostile to the commis-
sioners. He would say that it was impossible for any pub-
lic men to submit to a more severe ordeal than they were
subjected to during the whole investigation. It
was; also to be recollected that the commissioners
were also subjected to the suggestions and the in-
formation which a person thoroughly acquainted
with their every act, who had been admitted
into the most intimate confidence of the commissioners,
who was familiar with the whole course of their conduct,
and who was, I must say, most unserupulous—(Cheers)
—inasmuch as he was prepared to make use of any in-
formation which he received in the strictest confidence,
however private. No passing expression •of opinion
on any subject, however confidential, that Mr. Parker
was not ready to bring forward before the Committee in
violation, as he (Sir J. Walsh) must say, of all those
importance
to which he did think it was of the utmost
to the public service, as well as the security of private
society, ought to be kept up.—(Cheers.) The fact was
perfectly admitted that great evils existed in the union
workhouse, but those were not attributable to the com-
missioners. But the main question was the treatment
which the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners received
at their hands—and here he might remark that the
Assistant Poor-law Commissionership was not an office
of that permanent character which some gentlemen
suppo,ed it to be, it was always understood
to be rather of a temporary character, and therefore
dismissals and changes ought to have been suffered, and
were so, without either complaint or remonstrance. If
they all admitted the power of a central authority, they
should all admit the perfect right to check and control
their subordinates. With regard to the case of Mr. Day,
he must say that that gentleman appeared before the
Committee with every advantage upon his side ;
he had been led to suppose, through
some misunderstanding, that he had been dis-
placed to make way or some other officer, which
as soon as it was explained to him, he at once admitted
his error. Mr. Day was a most excellent person, and a
man of very considerable talent, but he rendered himself
very unpopular while discharging the duties of a Poor-
law Commissioner, in a very critical period, namely,
during the Rebecca riots ; and it was, therefore, a matter
of great importance that he should be removed. In his
opinion, they acted with regard to Mr. Day perfectly in
accordance with the nature of the discretion imposed on
the commissioners, who embraced the capability of the
person who was employed. With respect to Mr. Par-
ker, it does not appear a very strange circumstance that
a resoluti▪
on should be carried that he had not conducted
the inqui▪
ry at Andover with impartiality, and then
that a cry should be made at the treatment which he had
received. That would be removing all the discretionary
power, which ought to rest in the hands of the commis-
sioners. And now, with regard to the Bill itself, he must
say that, although always a friend to the new poor-law,
it was with great difficulty that he gave his adhesion to
it. The Ministry would be very assailable from the
modification which it was intended to introduce, but lie
should not carry his opposition so far as to object to the
second reading.

Mr. FLOYER said that he considered it was rather
painful and humiliating, that after a period of thirteen
years, since the passing of the Poor-law amendment,
and after the numberless Committees which had sat up
stairs, that the result of their labours should be the
removal of the Act of last session, and the
present Bill, which did not, by any means, grapple
with the real or fundamental part of the question.
There was a provision that should enable Members of
this board to sit in the House. He thought that in
some points of view, that that was a beneficial arrange-
ment, but there were also many objections to it. The
Right Hon. Baronet had, however, stated his views so
clearly upon the subject, that he thought that the ba-
lance was, upon the whole, in favour of the proprietor.
In looking through the Bill, ha thought that there were
the only provisions of any real importance in the mea-
sure. It was true that a central authority must be
maintained as long as the Act of 1834 was kept
in operation in all the unions to which the
order of the commissioners applied. The able
bodied pauper was disentitled from receiving any relief
except in the workhouse. The measure might bo right
in some points, but it certainly was one of very consider-
able pressure upon the poor man, and it would often add
that last weight to the difficulties of the poor man which
would ruin and sink him. There was another part of
the power of the Poor law Commissioners, namely, the
power of making regulations for the workhouses. The
Right Honourable Baronet the Home Secretary,
had alluded to that the other night, and com-
pared it to the power of the visiting magistrates. But
how was the power of visiting magistrates exercised.
They must go in accordance with the rules laid down by
the Acts of Parliament. In this measure the Court had
absolute and undivided authority to pass such rules, and
he did think that the House would have well occupied its
time in framing these regulations instead of discussing
many other measures, whose importance was nothing in
comparison to it. In the. year 1836, when boards of
guardians were formed,audto rs among other officers were
appointed they continued tobe in office about 10 years.
bnt a subsequent regulation altered the mode of their
election. Considerable abuses had since, in several
instances which he could mention, crept in, and the
performances of some of these officers was by no means
in conformity with the Act under which their duties were
specified. He thought it most desirable that when this
measure was brought under discussion in the House,
that the House should have been prepared to deal
with it on a wider and more extended scale.
Lard JOHN RUSSELL then rose and said—Mr.
Speaker, Sir, it has been very justly said that in the
course of this debate, not one question alone, but three
questions, have been under discussion ; and those three
questions have been mixed with various others, of which
it is hardly possible to take any sufficient notice, and
much less to settle, in the course of this debate. Yet,
Sir, I cannot avoid, before I proceed immediately to
speak to the question of the second reading of this Bill,
adverting in some degree to the important Questions no
doubt connected with it, and on which some Honour
able Members hare already
spoken at considerable
length—l
mean especially the question of the poor•
law amendment itself, and the question of the
administration of that law under the q
Poor-law Com-
missioners, as brought to light by the voluminous
evidence given before the Andover Committee. Now,
Sir, with respect to the poor-law amendment itself, let
Hon. Gentlemen consider what was the nature of that
kind of administration which the poor. law amendment is
intended to supersede ; bow far it was liable not only to
the objection of abuse, and of corrupting the labourer
of the country, and of destroying his property, bat like-
wise to some of the very objections brought against the
present system. We were told that here was an arbi-
miry power given to a sin, en le cutn;ssioner—a power at
variance with the constitution—that any three men
should have a power to make laws which should regu-
Iste the laws and conditions on which relief should be
given to the pauper population of this country. Will

you have again this state of poor-law administra-
tion—(Hear, hear)—because I am not without
apprehension that unless this House is determined to
persevere in the present system in its plan and objects,
we may, in a few years, find ourselves again falling into
the system of vicious legislation.—(Cheers.) Sir, it un-
fortunately happened that the price of provisions rose
toward the end of last century to be extremely high, far
above any period that had been marked for severity
previously, and there was a great difficulty on the part
of the labourers in being able to provide for the sub-
sistence of themselves and their families out of the wages
which they received. Whet was the course adopted ?
A certain number of justices assembled together, and
made a new law on this subject. They made a law, in
total disregard of the law of Elizabeth—they
made a law that the labouring man receiving
wages should have a certain amount paid out of the
poor-rate, which was to be measured by the price of
the quartern loaf, and the food on which he was ex-
pected to live ; and reference was also bad to the num-
ber of his family, and the mode in which they were to
subsist. Now it was quite evident that the poor-law of
Elizabeth never contemplated such a measur. The Act
of Elizabeth provided for the poor children who were
left:destitute and unprotected; as for the able-bodied la-
bourers who might be idle and out of work, it set them
to work and, as the condition of their work, provided
that they should be paid out of the rates to be raised in
the parish or district. Such was the principle of the
law of Elizabeth, as read in the House by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Bath, on the last day of the de-
bate ; but the plan of giving an addition to the
wages, and giving that addition out of the district
rates, giving it also without providing employment,
such a plan was at total variance with the letter and
with the spirit of the Act of Elizabeth, and yet, Sir,
those gentlemen who complained of the unconstitutional
nature of this power should be aware that that change
in the law was made solely by resolutions adopted at a
meeting of justices.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Sir,
the first meeting of this kind was held in the
county of Berks, and afterwards similar meetings
were held in the various counties in the kingdom, but
in which no other rule than their own was discussed.
Their decision was perfectly arbitrary. There is no
doubt that the new law was adopted with the view of
benefiting the people. They thought it was desirable
to pass this law in order to enable the people to have
something beyond their wages on which to subsist.
They did not allow the ordinary rules of society to
have their sufficient weight, by which wages would un-
doubtedly in time have been raised ; they interfere with
the Act of Elizabeth with a benevolent intention, but in
a manner totally arbitrary, and solely regulated by their
own view of public expediency and public safety.
Yet to whom are those magistrates responsible ? Sir,
the Chancellor would not dismiss them from the com-
mission of the peace because they had acted from the
benevolent intention of providing for the labourers of
the country in the exercise of the power entrusted to
them; to dismiss them from the commission of the peace
would not, therefore, be just towards them, acting as
they had from a mistaken sense of duty. But are those
commissioners of whom we are now speaking ? They
can be dismissed to day, or at any hour, at the pleasure
of the Crown, represented by the Right Hon. the Secre-
tary of State. If the Secretary of State defends them
when they do wrong, if their rules and regulations were
not conforming to the laws as decided by this House
and the other House of Parliament, being under the su-
pervision of the Secretary of State, they were also liable
' to this second check and control; thus they were not
invested with that power and that authority which
existed before the amended Poor-law Bill was enacted.
But it was found, that although the legislative enactment
was a just one—although it was made with a benevo-
lent intention, and a desire to elevate the condition of
the people—it led to gross abuses. These abuses have
been stated at great length, and they have
been illustrated by an evidence of the most over-
whelming kind, from the reports of the Commissioners
of Enquiry. I need scarcely advert to the various points
contained in this report, or to the mode in which those
abuses were known to spring up; to the manner in which
the vestries had abused their power ; to the manner in
which the labourer was reduced to the lowest possible
wages, and was dismissed in certain cases by the far-
mers for a day or a day and a half, and thrown upon the
rates. The intention was good, but the effect was not
so. The Act of Elizabeth was intended to raise the
pauper class to the condition of independent labourers,
while the effect of this enactment was to reduce the inde-
pendent labourer to the condition of a pauper.—
( Rear.) The wholecountry was overspread with labourers
receiving support, and a portion of their assistance
from the poors-rate, depending on the vestry for elee-
mosynary aid; depending on the individual caprice of
the members of those vestries, who took their own dis-
likes against particular labourers, and regulated accord-
ing to those feelings of spite, the relief which ought to
have been given according to the law. But, Sir, when
the Government of Lord Grey attempted to reform
these abuses, it was observed that they could not do so
without encountering, and encountering not for a period
during which the Bill was passing through Parliament,
not for one year or two years, but for many years, the
most formidable opposition, and every kind of it. If I may
read an extract from Lord Althorp's speech in the year
1834, the House will see what he proposed in the Bill
which he brought forward in the name of the Grey
Administration. (The Noble Lord read the extract which
was to the effect that, the effect of the Bill would be to
stop the allowance system; to deprive the magistracy of
the power of out-door relief; to give a larger discre-
tionary power to the Poor-law Commissioners; and to
bring into a good state and condition the system of laws
and regulation for pauper relief.) Now, Sir, observe
what were the interests, what were the prejudices, what
was the power he proposed to run counter to? His first
measure was to stop the system of allowance. What
was the effect of that system? To degrade the
labourer, yet although this was a great evil, it was doubt-
less also a system of indulgence which had the appear-
ance of benefiting the labourer, and therefore could not
fail of being represented as an injury to him. The next
thing he said was that the Bill was intended to deprive
the magistrates of the power of ordering outdoor relief.
Why, although the whole body of the magistracy said
it was a power which they beneficially exercised, yet
that was not the case with the whole body of the magis-
tracy. There were many who cherished this power,
and who left not the pauper to receive relief from those
who were their own neighbours. These were popular
magistrates, to whom the improvident labourer travelled
five or ten miles out of his parish in order to
get an order to the overseer for outdoor relief.
The alteration which was made in the constitution of
parochial vestries gave great offence to those who were
interested in their abuses. In many instances it was
found that the greatest evils existed which the measure
was calculated to remove. In the parochial vestries
the parries who had the ordering of the relief,
in a great proportion of cases, contracted for
the same—(Hear, hear)—and made a profit on
the transaction.—(Hear, hear.) They increased their
own funds out of the rates of the parish, and then when
the change was proposed, those and the assistants who
were under them expressed themselves shocked at the
cruelty and impiety of the new law, and the oppression
to which it subjected the poor.—(Hear, hear.) It was
therefore necessary, under such a state of things, to give
large discretionary powers to the commissioners. This
was absolutely necessary ; as the difficulty, as well as
the impropriety of acting on a uniform system was
clearly apparent. The measure had to be adapted to the
circumstances of the various districts into which
it was to be brought into operation, and
hence it was considered right to constitute a
central power with largo discretionary authority.
' These commissioners have been much attacked
They havejieen styled three kings, tyrants, and other terms
equally opprobrious. Sir,so far from these charges being
founded in truth—so far from the commissioners being
entitled to such epithets, it can be shown, that so far
from this, they did every thing in their power to give
fair and impartial effect to the law which they were
called on to administer. In one or two instances, there
may have been some reason for calling the discretion of
the commissioners in question, and I regret that it WAS
so, though it is easy to conceive how much of the opposi-
tion arose from those who clung to the abuses of the old
law, and who, in consequence, declaimed absut the
tyranny and oppression of the new. It was a
great question in proposing the law of 1834, as to
whose hands the administration of the measure should be
entrusted, and after much consideration the constitution
of a board of commissioners was finally adopted. To
the principle of the board the leading parties in Parlia-
ment then agreed, though in late years great objection
has been taken to the mode in which its affairs has been
conducted.—(hear, hear.) We have heard of certain
resolutions of the Committee on the affairs of the An-
dover Union, and of the report which that Committee
made to this House. It was suggested at the time the
report was presented, that the resolutions of the Com-
mittee should be agreed to by the House, and that a mo-
tion of censure should be passed on the Poor-law Com-
missioners, founded on the allegation on that
report. This, however, was not done, and I do
not think it was advisable. Had it been proposed I
should have felt it my duty to oppose it. I do not by
that mean to justify what may have taken place in con-
nexion with the Andover union. The resolutions of
the Committee may have been right or may have been
wrong, but with regard to the Committee or the conduct
of the Poor-law Commissioners, I do not think it was
competent in them to form an opinion of the circum-
stances under which they had acted. From the experi-
ence we have had of the proceedings of those gentlemen,
I cannot allow the resolution of the Committee to take
away my confidence in them. Having general faith in
their character, abilities, and integrity, I cannot suppose
that they have acted in the affairs of this union without
due consideration.—(Hear, hear.) Meanwhile, with
regard to the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners, I
think that what has fallen from the Hon. Baronet the
Member for Radnorshire is extremely true. I do
not think the House of Parliament would
give to the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners a
freehold of these offices, and remove them from all con-
trol of the head commissioners. With the ordinary
officers of the Government departments, absolute power
was given, though it was seldom used, to the heads of
the several departments to effect any removal they might
deem necessary. If a clerk under me was incompetent,
and if his retention was not for the benefit of the public,
I should feel it my duty to remove him; and I cannot
conceive that the different offices can be satisfactorily
filled unless such powers are placed in the hands of the
different departments. It is said that the Andover
Committee intimated that there was no ground for
the removal of Mr. Day or Mr. Parker; so that I
must say, I cannot say that such a Committee had any
such experience of the conduct or proceedings of the
gentlemen in cpestion 113 to give a just and correct opi-
nion.---(Elear.) But it is further stated that Mr. Chad-
wick has said that there was it division between him end
the whole of the Puce law Commissioners, because they
were desirous of correcting abuses, and would not en-
courage and promote any Assistant Commissioners who
brought any errors or mal-practices before them. But

let us look for the proof of this. When Ido so, I fled
• them meagre in the extreme. Mr. Parker says that he
complained of the state of the workhouse accounts in
1843, and had done 50 on several occasions since. To
this it was mentioned to NM, at the time he first named
it, that a Bill was about to be futfrxhiced on the subject,
and that he had better refrain from ;king any thing till
he saw the result. The Bill was giveg up at the end of
that session, and again introduced the session fol-
lowing. And because this bias been so,
it is stated by Mr. Parker that the Poor-
e
law Commissioners had set their faces against him.
How, on anything so meagre could they make a founda-
tion for such a charge?—(Hear, hear.) But I rate.'t say,
if this were so, if the Poor-law Commissioners had set
their faces against correcting abuses, it was not fair fo;
the secretary, or an assistant-commissioner, like Mr.
Parker, to go on countenancing such a state of things.
They ought either to have resigned at once, or to have
complained to the Secretary of State, instead of con-
tinuing to act under commissioners who were not doing
their duty.—(Hear, hear.) 1 think it was a great Jere-
' liction in them not to have brought the question under
the n( tics of the Secretary of State, if they thought
tt e head commissioners were incapable to the task.
There is no department, be it what it may, that will be
able to stand if those who are appointed:to administer it,
instead of acting under the direction of their superiors
are continually making their complaints—(Hear, hear)—
and instead of performing the orders of their superiors,
are undermining, and contriving,—(Hear, hear)—and
plotting against those commissioners who are placed
over them. No department can, under such a state of
things, be expected to act efficiently and beneficial to
the interest of the public.—(Hear, hear.) It is
that kind of House, which we know, upon the
highest authority, will not be able to stand. I
think that while these charges is made, and made very
loudly, there has not been any sufficient proof of it, and,
therefore, the Poor-law Commissioners are, in my mind,
acquitted of this, the only grave charge brought
against them—that with respect to the making of
the law, their ideas of it may have been
different from that of the Secretary, they may have con-
ducted their business in a way which some gentlemen
may think—and which all Secretaries of State thought—
in conformity with the law ; while there was no doubt
that with respect to certain individual cases, such, for
instance, as the case of the Andover Union, they com-
mitted faults of a want of discretion—that several of
their decisions with respect to the Andover Union were
not guided by sound judgment—that with respect to
some other particular cases they may have failed in
hitting the regular rule, and that their conduct was not
altogether such as might be considered the wisest. All
these I consider however as very minor charges ; I con-
sider them as very inferior in importance, in considera-
tion of the duties which I have shown were so difficult.
and which excited so much odium ; and they are such
as I think they should not be arraigned upon.—(Hear.
hear.) lam told that, with respect to the working of
the law, that although there may have been complaints in
particular instances, yet that the general working of the
law has been more satisfactory during the last two years,
and during the present year, and I can answer for it
more especially since my Hon. Friend has been the Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department I can say
that, considering the number of the unions, amounting
to 590, the complaints have been remarkably few; and
the guardians in general say that they are satisfied with
having to receive the orders of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners, and that they would rather have some rule to
guide them, than be left to act entirely according to
their own discretion in the administration of the law.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member who opposed the
second reading of this Bill, and who moved that it should
be read a second time that day six months, made various
accusations both against the law and against the com-
missioners; they were, however, accusations so extrava-
gant, going so far beyond anything that be could prove,
so completely resting upon assertion, that I do not feel it
necessary to give a reply to those accusations.—(Hear,
hear.) I have taken notice of what I think
is a serious charge, viz., that of endeavouring
to suppress inquiry; with respect to these other matters
such as conveying paupers to Manchester, and exposing
them to misery and starvation,—such charges as those,
they are so little founded, that I really do not think it
necessary to enter into them.—(Cheers.) We some now
to that which is the third question under discussion,
though, properly speaking, the only question for dis-
cussion this evening, viz., whether the plan proposed in
the present Bill is such as to deserve so far the sanction
of the House as to allow this Bill to be read a second
time—(Hear, hear)—and here we must first ask the
question whether there should be any central control—
should we have any central control at all, should we
allow the Poor-law Commissioners to expose and leave
the law to be administered by the unions and the board
of guardians, and in those unions leave each board of
guardians to exercise its own discretion as to the mode
of administering the Poor-law of Elizabeth and the
Poor-law Amendment of 1830. The result of the dis-
cussions in this House, shows that there should
be some central control. I think such a
system desirable, both in order to prevent
the oppression of the poor, and likewise to prevent the
occurrence of that which seemingly favourable to the
poor is most injurious to the independent labourer of
this country. I feel convinced that in many instances
the boards of guardians might administer the law in a
manner which might be called more harsh and strict
than they would if they were amenable to some central
body, and that central body one that had to answer for
their conduct before this House. Now, suppose with
respect to the Andover union, or any other union—sup-
pose some gentlemen had discovered that there were
great abuses in the Andover union, this House might
probably appoint a Committee to inquire into the abuses
of that union, you might rind in the course of the in-
quiry that the master of the workhouse had misused his
power, and had acted in a manner totally at variance
with the trust reposed in him, and the report of the
Committee would no doubt be that such workhouse
master? should be dismissed, and that the poor- ,
law guardians had acted very negligently in not
dismissing him before.—(Hear, hear.) There might
be perhaps three or four of such cases in the course of ,
the year, but I think there would be very few persons
disposed to give their time to such Committees, in which
I do not know how many thousand questions were to be
asked—we were told to-night by an Hon. Member how
many it was—and sit for 60 days for the purpose of in-
terrogating these matters, and perhaps in the next year
have five or six similar cases to inquire into, and re-
commence an inquiry of the same length and end with a
similar result. Those are not objects that would induce
Hon. Members to devote their time, unless there were a
whole system involved, and some general system in
question. We should not find that Committees of this
House would enter into the details of the management of
every union, and declare its opinion of the competency
or incompetency of each board of guardians
who were at the end of the year to go out
of office, and when some other persons should
be elected to fill up their places as guardians,
to that particular union. The House must be con-
vinced that such a system would not be any security to
persons suffering hardships under the operation of the
poor-law. Would it prevent abuses ? I feel convinced
that it would not. In some parts I feel convinced the
law would be administered with greater security and
harshness, in others " allowance system" would spring
up again—(Hear, hear)—in lieu of wages. That system
would be disguised by every sort of excuses when there
was no assistant commissioners or inspectors over those
unions. These abuses would gain renewed strength,
and in a few years we should find ourselves in a no better
position than in the year 1830 when that system of
indulgence and liberality ended in rural insurrection,
and setting fire to farm-houses during those times and
in those administrations which are now appealed to as
the good old systems.—(Cheers.) I come then to
this conclusion—that there should be some central
control, and that is the conclusion in which
I have heard Hon. Members in this House, who are
adverse to the Poor-laws, and still more so to the Poor.
law Commissioners, concur. Well, then, what should be
the kind of control ? The Hon. Member for Radnorshire
said that he remembered when Lord Althorp brought
nthe Bill, his saying that he thought it desirable to re-
move the Poor-law Commissioners from all party or po-
Heal connexion, and make them a body separate, as
it were, from the influence of party and politics. I e
lieve I knew what induced him to take that view;
know, from communications which I have had with him,
that his original intention was to propose that the Se-
cretary of State should form a part of the Poor-law
Commission, and that he should have the superintend-
ence. And along with the other commissioners should
have the direction of the Poor-laws. I stated my views
on the subject to Lord Althorp and I succeeded
in persuading Lord Althorp to abandon any plan placing
the Secretary of State in the Commission. I had hoped
that the removal from party struggle, that the choice,
in every instance, of the Poor-law Commissioners, solely
with a reference to their fitness and adapta-
tion for the office, and without any regard to their
party and political attachments or their political
party, would, I had hoped, have prevented the
administration of the poor-law being brought, as
an exciting topic of debate before this House.
But, in that respect, I own I have been disappointed.
The acts of the Poor-law Commissioners have been
brought into that House • the Secretary of State for the
Home Department has been obliged to defend them ;
and if the House had not supported him in that
defence, but disapproved all that he had supported
and approved—if they had condemned all that he thought
worthy of praise, it is obvious he would have been as
much committed as if he bad been himself the real of-
fender. The fact, however, has indeed been that in every
instance, whatever Government has been in cower this
House has supported generally the defence which the Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department has made
in reply to motions implying censure on the Poor-law
Commissioners. Therefore, you have not had a total
removal from the affairs of Government, or from the
Ministerial interest, that connexion with the Poor law
Commissioners which was originally supposed to be ne-
cessary. We have had certainly freedom from party
squabbles, but from the year 1834 to
1847, with some few exceptions, with the leaders
of party
the other House of Parliament, Poor-law
_ has not
been made a political question out
hasof doors. But the
question then arises whether,
for the Secretary of State for' as
the it
_ b_een necessary
o9partment to
become aware of all that the Poor-lawH
me D
Commissioners had
to do, is it not better that the person who has
guided that machinery, who has directed and dictated
its decision, should not be a member of this or the other
House of Parliament, and should be here ready to de-
fend his own acts and conduct, instead of leaving them
to the defence of an imperfect explanation. I admit that
in so doing you do connect the poor-law more directly, and
I will not deny that evils may not arise in that particular.
But let us see where we have arrived ; we have arrived
at the point that there shall be some kind of central con
trol, and we have arrived at the point that ea pri
ence has shown that no control vested in persons
debarred from being Members of this House, is a con-
; trol which does not prevent the Government of the day