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

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

ifor a central beard. Well, they had tried such
i a control with regard to the poor-law for
, the last thirteen years, and it had failed ;
but still, if they were to establish a central
control for the protection of the rich rate-payer, why
should net the poor have a judge to see that his rulers
and superiors did him justice. He did not believe there
would be any difficulty in establishing such a law. He
was not afraid of the boards of guardians, but if the
Noble Lord feared them, why. did he not reconstruct
them ? The Noble Lord last night spoke of the Act of
Elizabeth, and pointed out to them the manner in which
that Act was abused, but in framing the Bill of 1834,
what did the Noble Lord do with the magistrates who
had abused it ? Why, he placed them over the board of
guardians, thus rewarding them for their misconduct
instead of visiting them with condemnation. But really
and truly the constitutions of these boards of guardians
ought to ba reformed. Their election at this moment
was a perfect farce. Instead, however, of reforming the
system, the existing commission was to be abolished, but
all the defects and evils of the system remained. Under
such circumstances the public have great reason to com-
plain of this Bill. The public expectation would be
disappointed by it. No charge was to be made
in the new poor-law, sod be very much feared that
great and serious would be the disappointment of the
people in that respect. All the evils with regard to out-
door relief were to be continued, and no honest, indus-
trious man in time of reed could procure relief without
walking several miles for it. The present law in all
respects was inconsistent with the principle of the Act
of Elizabeth, and especially inconsistent with regard
to the able-bodied pour. Upon this branch of
the subject they had heard much from the
Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, but the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman directed his attention only to the
idler. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman forgot the
honest and deserving workman, who had lived and whose
only offence was that he could not procure work. Was
he to be punished for the misdeeds of the idler? Under
the operation of the Act of Elizabeth, relief was ad-
ministered to him without demur by the parish authori-
tiei, but under the new poor-law he had to walk many
miles to get before a board of guardians, and then,
perhaps, he would be refused relief, without being
allowed an interview with the board.—(Hear, hear.)
The Act of Elizabeth was one of the noblest statutes
that ever was passed by the Legislature ; it gave secu-
rity to the property of the country, and it provided—
very justly, in his opinion—that it was the duty of pro-
perty to protect and provide for die poor. The mainte-
nance of the poor, in tact, was-one of the conditions upon
which property was held. In a state of savage life all
property was in common, but one of the first processes
of civilisation and the establishment of private property
was to impose on it the maintaining, or, at least, the
duty of assisting in maintaining the poor, who were
willing to work and had no property of their
own. That principle was acknowledged by the
statute of Queen Elizabeth, but by the Act of
1834, it was almost abrogated. He firmly believed
that the conduct the Government was pursuing in this
case was most unfortunate--he said unfortunate, because
he scarcely knew any other word he could more appro-
priately apply to it, and he felt strongly convinced that
it would be attended with the most disastrous conse-
quences to the Government. But what was a far
greater evil, and perhaps of far greater moment to the
country, it would be most fallacious in its results and
consequences with regard to the poor. Throughout the
country, a feeling had arisen that this House was hostile
to the interests of the poor ; and yet those who warned
the House of this, were told by the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath that he could point the finger
to individuals who, while they advocated .the
rights of the poor with regard to the poor-laws,
were hypocritical in their sympathy for the
poor because they did not support an extension of the
franchise. Now in his opinion nothing cauld be more
conducive to elevate the character of the people of this
country, or more calculated to increase security to the
property and institutions of the kingdom, than that the
labouring population of the country should be repre-
sented in that House. He always found that the labour-
ing man gave the most independent votes, because he
was not surrounded by circumstances that controlled his
opinions, as those which influenced the conduct of those
who held a higher position in society. He was, therefore,
the more anxious to extend the franchise to them, and so
far as he was concerned the remark of the Hon. and,
Learned Member fur Bath was not applicable to. him.,
Now the labouring population and middle classes were
opposed to the new poor-law, and if Government would
take his advice. they would repeal it and return to the
good old principles of the statute of Elizabeth,. rather
than pass this Bill. Under the present system the
workhouse was a gaol. It was true. the working man
might leave it, but for what ? Why to starve ; for the
whole des;gn of the workhouse system was to force the
poor to abandon it, instead of provide them with ac-
commodation, and the result was the poor man was
separated from his wife, and allowed to hold no
conversation with her, though both should be on
the verge of death. (flear, hear.) Nay, in
cases where the poor man and his wife, seeking
relief in the workhouse, were placed in the same apart-
ment they were under tha abominable new poor-law
system precluded under very heavy penalties from hold-
ing conversation together. No wonder, then, that the
industrious population were so much averse to—and no
wonder that they should have viewed this Bill, which
could only insure the most riged operation of the law,
without relaxing its bad features—with additional alarm.
Will the Noble Lord say what he thinks the conduct of
the Commissioners should be with respect to those cases
to which he (Mr. Wakley) had alluded in the Bromley
Union and in the Margato Union, The Noble Lord
must be aware that, under the Poor-law Act, it is pro-
vided that old and infirm persons might
receive relief if they obtained a certificate,
signed by the magistrates to that effect.
Mr. Waddington, a respectable medical practitioner,
granted a certificate to a person of the name of Sotheran,
as order was granted for his relief, and relief was ac-
cordinaly given. On the following week, however, the
board refused to administer the relief. The old man
applied again to the magistrates, and they told him that
they could do nothing else in the matter, and that he
must sue the board.—(Hear, hear.) A letter was writ-
ten to the Secretary of State upon the subject. The an-
swer returned was, that the letter was sent to the
Poor-law Commission=rs and the Secretary of State
could not interfere in the matter. Would the Noble
Lord say how he expected his scheme to work in such a
case as this. Would the magistrate's order be the go-
verning power over the Government? He thought the
present measure a most unconstitutional and dangerous
one to the country. He objected also to the measure
on the ground of the enormous amount of patronage
which it would place in the hands of the Government,
There was no less that 5,000 persons already holding
office under the Poor- law Commissioners. Believing as
he did that the present was a most impolitic arrange-
ment and most disastrous to the poor, he should feel it
his duty to oppose the Bill in its present stage, and
should vote most cordially for the motion of the Hon.
Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand), and upon
every future stage of the Bill, if there should be a
division, he should give his vote against the
further progress of the Bill.—(Loud Chen-s.)
Mr. VILLIERS felt bound to say that in the course
of the four speeches which had been made, nothing had
been proposed, nor anything agreed upon. The Hon.
speakers seemed to differ in t very point, except one, that
was t:iseontent with the commissioners, The Hon.
Member for Evesham (Mr. P. Borthwick) thought that
the old local system was perfection itself, and ho
had the utmost confidence in the conduct of the
working-etas,ce. He only wondered that since the Hon.
Member had been in tho House he had never brought
himself to give his vote in favour of increasing their
power. The Hon Member also condemned in the
strongest language the conduct of the commissioners.
The Hen. Member for Sotnersetshire was a very inte-
resting character in this debate. That Hon. Gentleman
came forward and stated that the power and authority of
the central power should be confirmed and strengthened.
The Hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. B. Escott) op
posed altogether the existence of the board of commis..
sioners, and thought that the local systems were con•
ducted in the best and wisest manner, and he referred to
several places in which the local boards had acted with
great niscretion. There was one thing which the Hon.
Member complained of strikingly in contrast with
the statements of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.
That Hon. Gentleman complained of the paupers,
getting fat, and living in a state of ease and plenty,
while the poor out of the workhouse were miserably
clad and ill-fed. The Hon. Member for Finsbury also
spoke highly of the conduct of local. authorities. In a
speech delivered in the year 1839, the Honourable
Member complained very strongly, however, of the
conduct of these local boards. The Honourable
Member talked very loudly about the good old times of
Elizabeth. He (Mr. Villiers) did not wish to make any
rash assertion of ignorance with respect to any Hon.
Member, but he certainly thought that those Hon.
Members who talked so loudly of those palmy days of
Elizabeth, were not aware of the harsh and tyrannical
nature of the laws of that period. He saw in all those
diversities of opinion, and the absence of any suggestions
from Hon. Members on the subject—a most cogent argu-
ment for some central system of management for the pour.
He thought that there had been a sort of field open to
those persons who were willing to believe that the rich
were always ready to oppress the poor. And he thought
that the popularity so easily obtained would at once
fall to the ground when all tl ose extravagant charges
brought forward by some Hon. Members were met by a
firm awl convincing disproof. He should most certainly
support the measure. Whether it was the best measure
that could be suggested, he could not then stop to
discuss. Ho thought that the central powers
ought to be armed with more authority ; and
he thought that, by the present measure, that
power would be conferred on that board, and
thus respect would be gained for its authority, and
power which it did not now possess. As it existed
before, an attack on the Commission formed an easy
ranoeolawfdaftuloiltl ftyal
em
assuredpeobpyn anyla
rtiht
that the
person wishing to obtain for him-
self The
m epee
souprl
ee ofw this country were
produced great and beneficial results taso themselves
and
d
made against
convincedTh e
everym ore
one
ee
wouldsubj ec t
the country at I
The central consi-
deredhweatshatthestatements
Lord Aslttr the central authority were un-
aord had a great many abuses
tfwooeuernoedredarect,tt,heantdime
the h rpdefined what these duties
commissioners were appointed.
The first thing they had to-do
to
oas tor..,ratbveolish the system
with several
of
of allowances; the next wat
several other
the power of giving out-door rat,
duties of a different and arduous nature.
had been admitted that the greatest Success had
then, it
tended their labours, what ground Was there litfhadoorogtahhtet-
accusations made against them. One_party
that the workhouse system could be carried
•o
over the country. Another party said that no
t
one at all should be put into the workhouse.
The Honourable Member for Winchester, and
the U. illethW fa Fi4bury sAid 53) 84t1 that every

ee.
Lord so full of confidence, but he (Mr. Wakley) had
al eays remarked that the Noble Lord was never so bold
as when be was wrong.—(Laughter.) He always ob-
served that he adhered with extraordinary pertinacity
to his opinions when he was in error—(Continued laugh-
ter)—but that when he was right he entertained con-
siderable doubts. He was, therefore, greatly gratified
that the Noble Lord had made such a speech oil the last
night, because he answered himself by anticipation.—
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Wakley) heard the Noble Lord
of 1864, speaking against the Noble Lord of 1847,
and ,he preferred the Noble Lord of the former period.
—(" Hear," and laughter.) The Noble Lord felt
very strongly on the subject of a Minister of the Crown
being a Poor-law Commissioner, and in 1834 he (as him-
self informed the House last night) prevailed upon Lord
Holland not to introduce the clause authorising such an
office into the Bill. Last night the House had seen the
Noble Lord (probably influenced by some sinister advice)
make such a proposition. A proposition more unfortu-
nate was never submitted to the House ; it was one of
the most unconstitutional which could be well conceived.
What was it ? To give to a commissioner a legislative
and executive power and functions.—(Hear, hear.)
What could be more dangerous ? how would it work ?
Why, eVeiy board of guardians in the kingdom would be
political agents, and instruments set to work by design-
ingNv people, to accomplish some sinister object. . ha
then was to becomeot the poor ? Nothing more unhappy
could be conceived by any monster politician. tie was
sure that it did not originate with the Noble Lord
but he was sorry that he had not assigned his reasons
for the change which had been induced. Now what did
the Noble Lord expect would be the effect of this mea-
sure ? Were the Ministry jealous of the reputation
of the Poor-law Commissioners ?—(Laughter.) Surely
it was impossible that they could be envious of their
peculiar popularity.—(Continued laughter.) Did the
Right Hon. the Secretary for the Home Department
expect that he was to rejoice in the name of Poor-law
Commissioner.—(Roars of laughter.) He (Mr. Wakely)
should certainly call him by no other name.—(Laughter
in which Lord John Russell and Sir George Grey
joined.) He should, certainly, on all questions relating
to this subject, address the Right Hon. Gentleman as the
Poor-law Commissioner sitting at the Home Office.—
(Laughter.) What were the questions that would be
most commonly asked, and which the Poor-law Com-
missioners would have to determine ? He (Mr. Wakley)
did not think the subject had engaged the attention of
the Government. He thought that the Noble
Lord bad adopted, in 1847, the suggestions
which were repulsive to his mind in 1834.
Were Ministers aware of the questions they would have
to determine? It would not do to shelve matters by
saying, "we have referred them to the Poor-law Com-
missioners." That system was at an end. The com-
missioners of that time sat in Somerset House, and were
not under the control of the Secretary of State. The
Commissioners of this Bill sat in the House, and was
bound to answer all inquiries. The comissionerers of
that time could be the scape-goats of the Government
no longer; they were already sent into the wilderness
with not only their own sins, but the sins of the Govern-
ment to bear. But the Noble Lord, if he could read his
speech of the other night aright, did not appeartob.e
hold
out with their conduct. Did he mean to
out as an example to Isis colleagues, the new commis-
sioners? If he did, the country would not be satisfied,
and the House would probable see the spectacle of
is
dissolution in July, a meeting in October, and a new
Government in the February following. What ques-
tions did they suppose they would be asked? They
would be asked whether such and such changes of diet
should take place at such and such unions, and questions
of' a similar description. He would quote on spe-
cimen, for, in a matter of fact, one example was
as good as a hundred, from a return laid upon the table
of the House. In January, 1846, this letter was ad-
dressed to the Poor-law Commissioners by the clerk of
the Bromley Union,—" Gentlemen,—l am directed by
the Board of Guardians to inform you that they have
agreed to resolutions at a meeting held yesterday to
make the following alteration in the dietary of the
union workhouse:—on the Wednesdays and Saturdays,
for dinner, a pint and a half of soup and four ounces of
bread, in lieu of seven ounces of bread, and on Thurs-
days, for children, meat-puddieg in lieu of bread and
cheese. The Board of Guardians request that you will
sanction this arrangement.—l have, &c." A copy from
the medical officer of the union was subjoined. The
first letter received by the union on the subject, and not
a very prompt letter either, for while that of the poor-
law guardians was dated 17th January the reply was
dated on the 31st. The letter said, "I am directed by the
Poor-law Commissioners to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter dated the 17th. instant, respecting the pro-
wled alteration in the dietary in use in the Bromley
workhouse. The Poor-law Commissioners request to be
informed of the special reasons, if any, which led the
board of guardians to entertain the proposition for alter-
ing the existing dietary." The Member for Tavistock
says, " Hear, hear," as if this trifling request were to
furnish matter for graver deliberation. The Hon.
Member should recollect that the persons who preferred
this request were themselves the rate-payers, and would,
therefore, be obliged to heir the expence.—(Hear,
hear.) The board of guardians addressed another
letter to the Poor-law Commissioners, dated the Bth
February. Ho trusted that lion. Members would give
him their attention, it could well be done in that thin
House. There were questions that would be continually
asked of the Members of the Government, and he (Mr.
Wakley) would certainly invite persons to make these
applications.—(Laughter.) He would be ready on
every occasion to bring them forward—(Continued
laughter)—anti it was just possible that, under such cir-
cumstances, they might bring on a crisis. The letter
said, " Gentlemen,—l am directed by the board of guar-
dians to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the
31st ult., requesting to be informed of the special reasons,
if any, which led the poor-law guardians to entertain
the proposition for altering the dietary in use in the
workhouse. The board of guardians desire me to state
that the proposal to alter the dietary was made in the first
instance by a member of the board, who gave his reasons
for the alteration. A committee was appointed to con-
sider the proposal. The committee's report was sub-
mitted to the board, negatived by them, and the re solution
to alter the dietary as at first proposed was confirmed."
There were two paragraphs annexed. One of these
stated that all the expenses which would arise from the
substitution of soup for bread twice a week
for dinner m; ;ht be estimated at 501. per
annum, taking the average of a hundred inmates.
This sum the Committee were prepared to defray them-
selves, because they felt that they would not be justified
in placing it upon the rate-payers until they had had
practical experience of its working. But the
Poor-law Commissioners were determined that
th -y should not have that practical experience.
Would it be believed that in this union it only took
501. 6s. 4d. for the maintenance of 140 persons ?
On the 12th of February, 1846, a communication
was received from Mr. Chadwick ; this intimated
that a change was inexpedient, unless its relaxation
was sanctioned by a medical practitioner.—(Hear, hear.)
But it was said that the new Board would not act in this
manner. He (Mr. Wakley) was glad to hear the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government last night state that
relief would he Lb erally given, he was delighted to hear
this, but he would lake to know what they would do with
such guar lions as those of the poor-law union. When
they began to administ": the law they would find the
difficulties insurenounta.lola.—(l.lear, hoar.) He did not
think they would be able to give effect to it, and he must
say it was a course which he never expected the English
Government to pursue. As he had already observed,
the directors of the -Bromley union admitted cnly of 5 oz
of meat to an able-bodied man, and three ounces to an
able hedied woman in the same time. This was on
Sunday, while on other days they were only allowed
7 oe. of bread and I cz. of cheese for dinner. %You'd the
new board maintain such a dietary as this ? Yet this
was one in which the Poor-law Commissioners refused
to allow the least increase. He would now contrast the
dietary of this union with that given to criminals in the
Reuse of Correction. In the Bremley Union on Sun-
day the allowance for an able bodied man was, of meat,
5 oz., and for an able-bodied woman 3 oz. ; of bread a
man 6 oz., a woman 5 oz. ; of gruel or milk porridge
for supper, 1 pints. Oa Fridays and Tuesdays the
allowance was, of suet pudding, for a male 16 oz , and
for a female 10 oz. The supper on those days was 6 oz.
of bread and a pint of gruel or porridge. After Sunday
there was no meat, and on the other days which had
not been mentioned the dinner was but 7 oz. of
bread and one of cheese. Now, compare this with the
diet of the criminals in the House of Correction, of
which. however, he did not complain, as he held every
man or woman, whether confined in a prison or a work-
house, ought to have sufficient food to keep them in a
state of health. For breakfast, on Monday, the criminal
allowance was, of cocoa, one pint, and bread, 6 oz.;
there was here no distinction made between men and
women. It was disgraceful to make such a distinction,
and doubly disgraceful as had been done by the commis
sioners, to make no addition to the woman who had an
infant suckling at her breast. Of meat, the criminal had
6 oz. On Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, he had each
day also 6 oz.; or meat four days in the week. This was
the allowance of the criminal, while the poor
woman who had broken no law was left to starve
on 3 oz. of meat in a week.—(Hear, hear.) Was
the Noble Lord aware of these facts ? And if so,
it was impossible that he could be contented with
this state of things. If he has his Poor law Commis-
sioners seated in that House, these questions must be
forced on their_xautNtvention, and their explanations would
be required.
the safety of the he(Mr. Wakley) tithed, was it for
countryiere that such subjects should be
continually mooted there
?.
He knew where the balance
of an evil would be found. It be in the board of
would rule guardians, and they the Government. a
id thati The
poor, being weak, would go
to the wall,
being
the case, what would be the feelings poor of this
country. It was his opinion that such of
suehhe a feeling of
135 to
uenedanger the
in-
dignation would arise amongst them,
institutions of the country.—(Hear.
vin,ed, too, that a more unconstitutional w.eacsounre-
could not be brought forward.
Vag this sys-
tem of centralization to go on increasing, at
every step they toek, the power and influence of
the Government. The Noble Lord at the head of the
Government must he aware that the power of the Poor.
law Commissioners with regard to the dismissal of
officers, such as clerks of the board of guardians, masters
of workhouses, school-masters, matrons, and others, was
immense; and did the Noble Lord think the country was
ignorant of all this? lie was astonished that the Noble
Lord, who was an advocate for a free constitution, who
bad always expressed himself jealous of increasing the
powers of the Crown, should bring forward such a mea-
sure as this. The Miele Lord might be convinced that
the existing Government would not abuse the powers it
would give them. But was the Noble Lord prepared to
trust them with another Government? The Noble Lord
ought to look forward and to guard against futile() Go-
vermtollts Ll,vi!lg it in their power to increase their in-
fl .enee threuteliout the country. The Noble. Lord, in
hie speech last night, completely failed to show the ne-
t:awry for this izieutite. The Noble Ltd. was
• -

one should receive relief who applied for it. (Mr. B. Est-
cott said be never said so. The Hon. Member said so, but
what he meant was another thing.—(Laughter.) He
(Mr. Villiers) maintained that a test was necessary,
otherwise the indolent and the profligate would be put
upon the rates; He thought that the internal disorgan-
isati ,n at Somerset-house, however discreditable it might
appear to the parties who were mixed up in it, nas not
accurately judged. He believed that Mr. Althorp,
who appointed the commissioners in the first
instance, appointed discreet men. He appointed Mr.
Lewis, Mr. Lefevre, and Mr. Nicol, and it was not till
Mr. Chadwick introduced a different mode of adminis-
tering the law from what they had sanctioned that con-
fusion arose which led to his dismissal. And he (Nlr.Vil-
liers) did not hesitate to say that ever since that time he
had exerted himself to the utmost to discredit the system
and to bring odium upon it. If the charge of having
neglected their duty could be maintained against
the commissioners it was a grievous charge,.
but he denied that these charges were ever
proved before the House, and the Law Officers of the
Crown had fully acquitted them of the imputations. The
case of the Andover workhouse had been frequently re-
ferred to in the debate, and all the abuses exposed in
that workhouse had been generally attributed to the
commissioners ; but he maintained that nothing was
more unjust. With respect to all those disgraceful
proceedings, there was not one tittle of evidence
to show that the Commissioners were charge-
able with them. It was to the total disregard
by which the Andover Board of Guardians of
the rules laid down for their regulation, that all these
abuses owe their origin. He appealed to the Committee
who had inquired into the case of that workhouse, and
who were the most hostile Committee of inquiry that
ever sat in that House, whether the statement which he
now made was not perfectly correct. When the Noble
Lord, therefore said that he had no confidence in the re-
sults of that Committee, he only said what the
justice of the case demanded. What did that
Committee, that Select Committee do, when they
commenced their labours? They threw open their
doors to the public. And gave permission to the public
press to be present at the proceedings. Now, if a report
of the Committee was considered necessary, the proper
course would have been to have taken an official report
of all that had taken place. Instead of that, however, a
garbled and partial report was allowed to be published
to the world, which left it to out of the power of the
public to form a correct judgment of the case. This
matter was brought before the Committee, and a desire
was expressed that they should report the proceedings
to the House, de die in diem,-but they would not hear of
such a thing, and contim:ed to permit the press to pursue
the course they had commenced. Such was the conduct
of this Select Committee.—(Hear, hear.)

conciled to the new poor-law, and the centralised admi-
nistration of it, and were convinced now that the central
control which those possessed who superintended the
working of the law, was precisely that which was desir-
able, and which they could not consent should be want.
ing. When he said that he spoke from the experience
and knowledge which he had gained from the evidence
of different witnesses examined before a Committee on
which he had been now for three months. In that Com-
mittee, where witnesses of every shade of opinion had
been examined, not a single word had been heard, not a
single breath had been used against the Commissioners.
All seemed to approve of the commission, all seemed to
favour it, and all seemed to agree that much mischief
had been produced by the great outcry which had been
raised against it on occasion of the House intermeddling
with the proceedings of it ; and that the first great
amount of mischief was done when the number of com-
missioners was reduced from 18 to 9 in the se-sion of
1841. The measure, which was new before the House,
proposed to give more power, and increased strength
to that centralised administration of the new Poor-
law which had existed now for thirteen years, with great
benefit to the country. As for the Commissioners
themselves, he did not deny that they had committed
errors ; but that they had been corrupt, that they had
been callous, that they had been inhumane in the ad-
ministration of the law, or that they had done anything
but such as the House might suppose any Commissioners
liable to de, he did most positively deny. He would,
when the time came, give the measure his cordial
support.
Lord JOHN MANNERS said the Member for
Somersetshire (Mr. Bankes) said that night, that if Hon.
Members had restricted themselves to the subject which
was actually before the House, the debate would, in one
or two nights, have been certainly terminated ; but he
(Lord John Manners) must say, if such had been the
case, the debate would have ended, and the arguments
for the Bill before the House would have been recorded
nil ; for throughout the discussion for the several nights
through which it had run, they had heard of the abuses
of the poor- law affecting the objects of charity,
till it became disgusting, they had been led, throughout
the proceedings of the Andover Committee, the charges
upon the Commissioners, and the language of the
Hon. Member for Knaresborough—almost everything
but the Bill itself, and on the Bill itself, he had heard
scarcely a single sentence. The Hon. Member who had
just resumed his seat, had devoted, in the course of his
long speech, just two sentences to the measure that
stood for a second reading; but those two sentences, to
which he would hereafter allude more fully, formed the
- greatest condemnation of the Bill which be could have
uttered. Reference had been made to the poor-law,
and as to the, he did think it did not afford that relief
to the industrious classes which they were entitled to
receive. He thought, that considering the facilities
which were offered in the gaols for the instruction,
and information, and improvement of the iemates,
and comparing those that were afforded, in the
workhouses to the objects of charity, the state of the
latter in that respect, as compared with the former, was
a disgrace to a Christian country. He did think
that the medical advice supplied to the poor was very
insufficient, and placed en a tooting that was very in-
ferior. He spoke from experience, for he had been one
of those who had sat with Lord Ashley, and the strong
and universally prevailing impression which was deep
in his own mind was that the provision for medical ad-
vice was very insufficient. He thought that the accusa-
tions against the administrators of the law were well-
founded. He might quote from a report by the chaplain
of Uxbridge gaol to show what he had been saying.
That no doubt stated that the day set apart by her
Majesty for humiliation was kept most strictly—that
ninety-eight prisoners had petitioned the governor
that the principal portion of their meals might
be kept from them during the day. Now, what
must be the discipline which bore such fruit as that?
Very much superior to that pursued in' the workhouses
And, therefore, he recognised the propriety of the
parallel drawn by the Honourable Member for North-
amptonshire, between the workhouse and the gaol.
Well then, he would pass from the considsration of this
general theme, and he would come to that which had oc-
cupied the attention of the House for the greater
portion of the debate, namely, the conduct of
the Poor-law Commissioners. The Hon. Gen-
tleman rested his defence of this Bill upon the
defence of the Poor-law Commissioners ; and he must
coneratulate them on having so able, so eloquent, and
so determined an advocate ; but, like many too eager
advocates, he proved rather too much, for if they had
been so correct in every act of theirs—if they
had violated no law, and if they acted up to
the letter and spirit of the Act of Parliament,
and if they had done full and ample justice, if, in short,
they have been the " faultless monsters" which they
have been represented to be, then the English people
and the English House of Commons must be
the most unjust, the most indiscriminate, and the most
unfair legislative body, that the world ever saw.—
(Cheers.) The only charge brought against the Com-
missioners, he said, was a violation of the statue; but
soon after he devoted a considerable portion of time in
order to prove that the treatment of Mr. Day and Mr.
Parker was not either arbitrary or unjust, however, after
what had fallen from the _Honourable Member for
Shrewsbury, it would require a vast amount of
eloquence to prove that those gentlemen were not
treated with a great deal of injustice. The Hon.
Member was most indignant at the conduct of the An-
dover Ciinansittee; there was nothing which it did nol
do; there was nothing which it said, or left unsaid,
which he did not call to his aid, and upon which he did
not commt.nt. He urged that they did not submit the
, resolution of the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury, on the
evidence taken by the House of Commons. Whose
, fault was that? Which way did the Hon. Member him-
• self vote upon that occasion?
Mr. VILLIERS —I never heard of it. _ _

Mr. WAKLEY said the evidence was reported to the
House and printed.
Mr. VILLIERS was bound to believe the Hon. Gentle •
man's statement, but he had been led to believe that
there was a disinclination on the part of the Committee,
to have the evidence adduced before them repored to
the House. The press, as he had stated, were allowed
to be present ; charges of a personal nature were made
against individuals, and reports, conveying them, went
forth to the public, without the House being
informed of the course the Committee were
adopting. If the Committee was an open one,
when the House had intended it to be
select, a report to that effect should have been made to
the House. There was a difference between Select and
Secret Committees, although the Hon. Gentleman for
Shrewsbury seemed to entertain a different opinion. In
a Select Committee more Members of the House might
be present, but Members of the House might be excluded
from a Secret Committee-room ; but if the Members of
either chose to throw open their doors, they were bound
to come to the House and state what they had done. It
was usual when Committees allowed their proceedings
to be made public, that they should make reports to the
House at the same time. When Hon. Members saw the
evidence, as published by the House, they could scarcely
believe that they were the same witnesses whose evidence
had appeared in the newspapers.—(llear.) It was true
the newspapers could not give verbatim reports. They
could only give condensed and partial reports, coat lining
as much information as they expected would be interest-
ing to the public. He (Mr. Villiers) had heard the Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Finsbury (\ir. Duncolune)
state that he regretted he had not been able to attend the
Andover Committee as he could have wished, as he
would not have consented to the Committee being open
when personal charges were being made against persons,
unless it was understood that the evidence should be
reported to the House or that the parties calum-
niated should be present ; he only mentioned
this to show the animus which existed in the
minds of those who constituted the Committee.
He could not help wondering at the absence of the Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Weymouth (Mr. Christie)
last night and that evening who had been so loud in his
demands for the dismissal of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners. He (Mr. Villiers) did not think that he ex-
amined the witnesses who were called before the Com-
mittee in a becoming manner, and many Members of
the House had spoken of the improper way in which
he examined the witnesses, who were his seniors in
years,
,if not in everything, else. And yet the Hun.
Gentleman took great honour to himself for his conduct
as a member of the Committee. He did not scruple to
inquire into the private affairs of witnesses and of the
Assistant-Commissioners who had been formerly em-
ployed under the Poor-law Commissioners, and the
room was constantly cleared in consequence of the impro-
priety of his conduct, and constant excitement was kept up
during the investigation from the way in which the
witnesses conducted themselves under his examination.
When the witnesses were treated thus, was it any won-
der that they could scarcely trust what they stated.
They were under the influence of fear, and everything
was done to make 'them appear ridiculous. Thus, men
who might have come forward and furnished valuable
evidence, dreaded to do so, from the treatment which
they would meet with at the hands of the Committee.
The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Shrewsbury asked
last night, with great triumph, how it happened that the
secretary to the Commission, who was denounced by the
Committee as an unscrupulous servant, was not dis-
missed ; but if Mr. Chadwick had been dismissed, how
much time would have elapsed before there would have
been another inquiry, another Andover, another Somerset-
house inquiry into the reason of his dismissal. When he
and other witnesses were treated as culprits, how could
they expect that the Poor-law Commissioners would dis-
miss them. Was he not right in stating that there was
a strong feeling in the Committee against the commis-
sioners. He (Mr. Villiers) stated distinctly that no
blame attached to the Poor-law Commissioners with
respect to the Andover union. Then a most extraordi-
nary resolution was passed by the Committee with re-
spect to the dismissal of Mr. Parker.' The Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Shrewsbury succeeded in passing
a resolution with respect to Mr. Parker. but they all
knew that he was labouring under excitement during
the whole session, and that he, in consequence, was not
able to give that attention to the subject of the Andover
inquiry which it merited.
Mr DISRAELI said he was also a member of a rail-
way Committee.
Mr. VILLIERS knew that his time was fully occu-
pied ; that ho was in muc'i excitement at the time the
Committee sat-(Laughter)—his mind, no doubt, was
occupied with other things.--(Laughter.) In a moment
of excitement, however, he obtained the passing of a re-
solutien, expressive of the opinion of the Committee, that
they had not acted acording to the Statute, and that they
conducted their task in an arbitrary manner ; yet ;he
(Mr. Villiers) repeated that no blame attached to the
Commissioners f:r what took place in the Andover
union, for it appeared that Mr. Parker reported that the
union was going on favourably—(Hear, hear)--and
they were bound to trust to their servants. He really
was ignorant of the fact until it was pr,mulgated by the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge ; and let
the House recollect that a report to this effect was made
by Mr. Parker to the Commissioners, at the very time
the proceedings in the Andover union case were going
on. He was startled at the statement—so much so that
he went up to the library the same evening the state-
ment was made, and searched out that passage in the
proceedings of the Committee. But he met
with something more startling, and which
he thought would equally astonish the House.
he found that that very fact was brought forward before
the Committee in the shape of a resolution.—(Cheers.)
They were called upon to furnish important information
to the House with respect to the conduct of the com-
missioners and assistant commissioners towards that
union, and he found that one of the Committee proposed
the insertion of a clause in the report to the effect that
Mr. Parker had reported that the union was going on
favourably—(Cheers)—but would the House believe that
that fact was rejected by the Cummittee?—(Hear.) The
fact was reconsidered in the proceedings of the Commit-
tee, which were to be found in the library, where every
Hon. Member might see that that important fact was
struck out by a majority of two. The Members for An-
dover and Shrewsbury who were men of honour, ought
not to have lent themselves to concealing so important a
fact as this, when it was their duty to have acted without
prejudice either one way or other. The Hon. Gentlemen
the Member for Andover (Mr. Etwall) stated that he
proposed a resolution in the Committee, that Mr. Par-
ker had conducted the inquiry with great par-
tiality, and that opinion was adopted by the
Committee; bat he ( Mr. Villiers) was at loss to
know why it did not appear in their proceedings.
He said that it was rather out of conaideration to him
that the commissioners advised him to resign; and if he
intended to bring his case before the House, or before
the public, he was ill advised that he did not insist on
the commissioners recording their votes against him. But
he sent in his resignation. There was another case. He
did not allude to it further than to show that he (Mr. Vil-
hers)
was cognizant of it, he referred to the other assistant-
commissioner who was dismissed. He recollected that
at an early part of last session the Right Hon. Member
for Dorchester (Sir James Graham) referred to it in the
House. He understood the Right Hon. Baronet to say-,
that he had been dismissed on his recommendation. He
might be mistaken—he might have misunderstood him,
but he would say, that if the Home Secretary recom-
mended his dismissal, any blame attaching to it could
not apply to the commissioners of the Poor-law. What
he said, then, was, that in the report made by the An-
dover committee tl.ere was not a word against the
New Poor-law Act itself, and all, upon conside-
ration of the evidence, must agree that no blame
attached to the commissioners. Why, the Noble
Chairman of that Committee, whom all had agreed to
laud fur his upright and honourable conduct diving the
sittings of that Committee, when he came to vote that
rreessoolluutitioonnss.
to be truth which was not truth, and that to be fact
which was not fact, refused, and would not vote for the
arTehneotNoablgeuiLdeordtommigeh;t
Ihawverllsaid—thvse
case upon its merits,' and my conclusion shall be accord-
iiinogw tos
h independentmoinemthbeers
f necessity
that
uodfgmen havingt.
that
Commis-
sioners House the en I a Coin- ,
misliDu i its place P ; that the people were re.

Lord J. MANNERS—WeII, the Hon. Gentleman
comes down here and impugns the conduct of those gen-
tlemen who devoted their time to the inquiry,
making the most violent charges against them.
The Hon. Gentleman not, however, content with im-
peaching the conduct of the Andover Committee, objects
that the evidence on which those resoletions were
founded, was not worthy of credit, because, indeed, the
witnesses were so worried by the Members for Shrews
bury and Finsbury, that they did not know either what
they were saying or what they were doing.—(Laughter.)
Let them just imagine a gentleman like Mr. Lewis so
incapable of answering the questions put to him, that he
said things which he did not intend to say.—(Laughter.)
And then, if that Mr. Chadwick was the Sinon which he
was represented to be in an anonymous pamphlet written
in defence of the commissioners, ever since he has been
in office, he must be retained in office, not because they
had the slightest confidence in him, but because he would
institute an inquiry which they considered and knew
they could not stand.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman
also said that the commissioners were suffering uncle
served odium, and that the iniquities of the guardians
of the Andover Union were placed upon their
shoulders; but was there ever a more unfounded
statement. He defied him to bring forward
any resolution which would bear such a construction.
The president of the commission was to be superior to
the president of the board of Council—to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer and others. Could any one in his
senses doubt that the Lord President would sanction
whatever might be proposed by these high authorities,
in spite of all that might be said to the contrary. That
was the reason which principally induced him to
vote against this Bill. He did not see that the
condition of the poor would be at all amended
by this measure, and, therefore, he opposed it.—(Cries
of " Divine.")
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he was not at all sur-
prised at the impatience of the House upon this subject.
He had almost ventured to hope that he never should
again:have found it necessary. to trespass upon the in
dulgence of the House upon a Poor-law Bill ; but, con-
sidering the part it was his duty to take in the framing of
this poor-law, and considering also the obloquy which
he incurred in his endeavours to please, and considering
also the official bias which he was supposed to have
hitherto upon his mind in these discussions upon former
occa. ions, and considering the independent station which
he now occupied, he was glad to be able, calmly, dispas-
sionately, and deliberately, to review the policy of this
measure, and he trusted that he should be pardoned if he
ventured to address them shortly upon the subject under
discussion. Though he did not see the Hon. Member for
Finsbury in his place, he had great pleasure in agree-
ing with him in a sentiment which he uttered—viz., that
it was the duty of property in this country to maintain
the poor—(Hear)—and inasmuch as the poor were
not represented in that House, it. certainly was one of
the most important, and certainly one of the most
bounden duties of the representatives of the people to
take care that their interests were properly attended to.
It was upon these grounds that he distinctly avowed
himself unchanged in his opinion that the Poor-law
Amendment Act was sound in principle, and in the
main, conducive to the interests of the industrious poor,
as contrrndistinguished to the idle poor. Before they
consented to a great change in that measure, and they
were that night debating what was a change, it was of
importance to consider what was avowedly the principal
object of the Act of 1834, and therefore, he would
shortly allude to it. It had been said in the course of
that debate that the measure had signally failed. He
joined issue upon that statement, and he denied that the
measure had failed, and he asserted that the objects
contemplated by the framers of this Act" had been accom-
plished. First of all it was the deliberately
considered intention of those who proposed this Bill,
that an union administration of relief should be substi-
tutedwith 'hardly, an e
for a parochial system and that syxception,stem throughout
England and Wales,
now be stated to be established. What was the second?
Whereas it was something estranged from the Act of
Elizabeth. It was intended to compel able-bodied per-
sons who could not find work for themselves, or were
unwilling to work, to labour at the cost of the parish
authorities under arrangements made by those
1834 was to
autho-
rities.
The object of the Act ofmight
assert the
principle that in each union there should be established
a workhouse, where work and food should be provided
for the able-bodied as the test of destitution, in each
union of England;
that test was considered to be a
good one and it was now universally applied. What was
the next ? It was, that the parochial officers should
perform their duties in a prcper manner, and that the
paid officers should be strictly controlled and watched.
These paid officers now throughout England administered
relief. Again, with respect to medical attendance to
the poor, whatever might be said with rr gard to the
imperfections in the system of medical relief, he would
compare that medical relief with the relief given in 1834.
—(Hear, hear.) Contrast that with their recollection of
the medical relief as it was given before the Act with
what it had been since the Act of 1834 up to the present
time. Many abuses had et pt in, but those were owing
to the thriftiness of the board of guardians, and the
salaries o the medical officers were increased by the
Commissioners, shoving the necessity of a central
authority. There was another imperfection with regard
to the parish aceouuts. There was formerly a single

day appointed in each year for the audit of their accounts 1 pened that the number of placemen had been consider-
by the magistrates, and that audit was merely a matter ; ably diminished during the last few years. Reductions
of form, and the grossest frauds crept in. The auditing ' had been made in the number of placemen in the Boards
system was now placed under responsible parochial of Admiralty, Ordnance, and the Navy, while the only
officers. Provision had been made for the education of addition that had been made was that of his Hon. Friend
children in the workhouse, where no such provision the President of the Railway Board. It bad also been
before existed. The education of the children, as given objected to this Bill that great power was given to the
in the workhouses, was now better than that given in Poor-law Commissioners in the delegation of their au-
ordinary schools, and better masters and mistresses thority, but he did not see how that could be dispensed
were taken from the normal schools. The old with. One of two things must be done, either that the
system was vicious to the very core, and it House must enact some law for the general regulation of
was of the last importance that the people of all the unions throughout the country, or else that
this country should be freed from its operation. the Commissioners should have a power vested in
The Hon. Member for Finsbury has said that the pre- them to frame such regulations as might be re-
sent proposition will degrade the House to the level of quired to meet the circumstances of each union.
a parish vestry or a board of guardians. That they Of the two courses he was decidedly in favour of the
would be occupied day by day with questions relating to last. Now, was it possible to escape from the necessity
the quality of soup, or the quantity of gruel given to the of choosing the latter? No, it was not ; because the
poor ; a hether it shall be made of one article operations of these general rules must always vary with
in preference to another ; whether it contains too the fluctuations in the manieacturing industry of the
muchmilk or too much water—all the tales and country. When trade varied and slackened the appli-
matters of this kind. The bills, too, will be cation of the prohibitory order of out-door relief in 100
brought under the notice of the House, if the out of 600 of the unions of this country must be suspended,
present measure be agreed to. If the question—whether while from time to time, as circumstances ren-
this was the proper place to consider and discuss subjects dered it necessary, it must be stringently applied
was before them, he would deprecate as much as any again. Jest consider, at this moment the coun-
one the introduction of such topics, to the exclusion of try was suffering under an infliction which tendered
other important business. But these topics had been in certain articles of food comparatively dear, and it had
troduced into the House relating to the administration of been deemed necessary, with reference to particular
the iaw, they had been from time to time forced on counties, to alter the dietary in different unions, and,
the attention of the Government, and great difficulty had . therefore, the circumstances being so liable to change,
been experienced in the absence of those \N. ho were di- it was impossible to take away the power of making
rectly and immediately responsible for the carrying out general rules. It appeared to him that it had been ad-
of the law. Nothing was more inconvenient than that mitted, that at the present moment Government parti-
the Secretary of State, who was not directly concerned cipated, to a certain extent, in the administration of the
in the administration of the law, should be called to make poor-laws, but it had been connected with the adminis-
explanations on matters in which their information was tration of the law, without the power of command. It
indirectly obtained. They had had an illustration that had been responsible—indirectly responsible—for the
very night, in the question asked by the Hon. Member administration of the law without the supreme authority
for Knaresborough in respect to the dismissal of Mr. of regulation or control ; and he was satisfied that the
Mott. The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for time had arrived when that imperfection must be re.
the Home Department used the expression " dismissed." moved. The mode to accomplish that end, it
Now, in a technical sense, that was not so. Mr. Mott seemed to him, after much reflection upon the
had not been dismissed. As he stated before, a subject, was to adopt the plan proposed by the Govern-
reduction was proposed in the number of the Poor-law ment. Upon the whole, considering the analogy the
Commissioners. It was proposed to reduce the plan bears to the Board of Control and the Board of
number from ten to nine, and Mr. Mott was Trade, he was of opinion that the Bill brought forward
selected as the party who was to retire. He by the Government was an efficient proposal, and the
retired-therefore from the Commission, and was not dis- beet calculated to meet the necessities of the cases.
missed.—(liear, hear.) He said, therefore, that it was Without, therefore, at that late hour, wearying the
not right that the Secretary of State should be called on House with minute inquiries, or what would be the
to give explanations at second-hand, and in an unsatis- functions of the representatives of the new Board in
factory manner. It was of no use concealing the real that House, he would content himself with simply
state of the question. He maintained decidedly, from stating that he approved of the general principle of the
his past experience, considering the large powers which Bill, and he should without hesitation give it his most
were given to the Poor-law Commissioners, it was im• cordial support.—(Cheers.)
portant that they should be directly responsible for their The House then divided, when there appeared—
own acts, that the public and that House should be able For the second reading

to place their fingers on those who might do any wrong
in the administration of the law.—(Hear, hear.)... The

Noble Lord at the head of the Government has said that
it was a question formerly in the Cabinet of Earl Grey,
whether the responsibility should not be made direct.
Lord Althorp, a high authority on this question, was
strongly disposed to take the course now proposed, and
of which he (Sir J. Graham) entirely approved. Lord
Althorp consented to suspend his judgment in the
matter at the time, and it was agreed to make
the responsibility indirect instead of direct. Now, from
Otis (Sir James Graham's) judgment of the working of
the poor-law for the last ten years, and he was strongly
convinced that the responsibility should be direct, and
not indirect as before. Though it might do much to
incommode the Government, still the step, in his opi-
nion, was one of great importance and value.—(Hear,
hear.) He (Sir James Graham) further V%islar.d to ob-
serve, that the opinion of the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury appeared to be a different opinion now to what
it formerly was. If his (Sir James Graham's) me-
mcry served him right, he was convinced that the lion.
Gentleman's opinion hitherto on the subject till that
night, was, that the boards of guardians, or local au-
thorities, were always seeking to cut down the supplies
to the poor, and that the central authority had been re-
peatedly exercised in a salutary way to prevent this
taking place.—(Hear, hear.) This brought him
to the main question before the House, which
was, first, was the central authority necessary ;
and if so, had that authority been improperly
exercised ? If it had been improperly exercised then
the next question was, did the present measure supply
the commission? With the regard to the first point, he
thought it had been generally admitted, that central
power was required. It had been admitted by the Hon.
Member for Dorsetshire, in the course of the present
debate, and several other Hon. Members. But the Hen.
Member for Finsbury says that the • present system of
control has operated injuriously. That by the existing.
system of relief the poor have been confined in gaols, as
he terms them, instead of being visited at their own
homes. Now what was the Government's after course?
So far from the poor being generally relieved in the
workhouses, as he alleges, for the last three years but
fifteen per cent. of the poor of England and
Wales have been so relieved ; while eighty-five
per cent. have been relieved at their own dwellings.
In England and Wales last year but 185,000 were re-
lieved in the workhouse, while upwards of a million
were relieved without.—(Cheers.) Talk of the hard-
ships of the poor after this, why a more unfounded
charge was never brought against any party by any
body of Englishmen. In the whole civilised world no
country made such a noble effort as the people of Eng-
land to maintain the destitute by charity out of the
public funds. In proportion to the population of 1834,
the sum of eight millions was raised for the relief of
the poor, but now the poor were relieved in a superior
manner by five millions of money. And he begged to
call the attention of the House to the fact that during
last year, though there was not that distress which un-
fortunately now prevailed, two millions of their fellow-
countrymen received relief out of the parochial
rates. One-eighth of the whole population of England
and Wales were , thus relieved, and as he said
before of these, no less. than eighty-five per cent.
of them were relieved - out of the workhouse.

Against it
Majority for the second reading

42
-176

It would be in vain for them. in the history of the
whole civilised world to match such an e ffort of humanity,
so effective and unsparingly directed, and without, at
the same time, degrading the characters of those who
received the relief.—(Cheers.) Now it had been said,
by the Hon. Member for Warwick, that the workhouse
test had proved unsuccessful; and it was said by others,
that they had too many assistant commissioners. In
1834, a wish was expressed to reduce the number, and
he (Sir James Graham) thought that a reduction would
take place. At another time it was stated, that the
❑umber was too low; and they were asked to increase
them. At one time the rules and regulations of the
commissioners were too stringent; at another time they
were too relaxed—objections being continually made.
But as he said before, the central control was very in-
effective, and it was on that account that he supported
rie proposed change. He put it to any Member 11,1 W
sitting on the Committee on the Law of Settleo..nt, as
to the great importance of the question, and the difficulty
of dealing with this branch of the poor-laws.—(l kar.)
They had had brought before them thy• most intellient
witnesses from all parts of England, men recommended
as the most likely to throw on this difficult subject.
,Whatever might be the diflieu fcit. L. the Committee
in coming to au unanimous agre,inent upon every point—
difficulty so graphically painted by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Liskeard—he was satisfied that he
xprsssed the opinion of the Committee on this
i,oint, and that of all the witnesses brought before
the Committee, the four most competent and able and in-
telligent witnesses were poor law assistants, whose
names he felt bound to mention. They were Mr.
cuffnell, Mr. Gulston, Mr. Bigot, and Mr. Hull.
Now, with respect to the commissioners them-
selves, he might be permitted to say very shortly
what «•ere the facts which had taken place with
espect to the commissioners when ho succeeded to office
in 1841. He found that at that time one single commis-
sioner exercised the power delegated by the Act through-
out the whole of England and Wales. He was forced
to confess that when Sir Frankland Lewis resigned office
he was exceedingly sorry, because he did not think that
his son could be qualified to succeed him. He would not
in the presence of the Speaker say how much he felt
when Mr. Lclevre resigned office, because, from his ad-
miration of that gentleman's high conduct and character,
he might, perhaps, be thought to exaggerate the pain
which that resignation had given. He did not know Sir
. .

The Bill was then read a second time.
COPYHOLD COMMISSION BILL.
The House then went into Committee on the Copy-
hold Commission Bill, and the several clauses were
agreed to.
TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
This Bill also went through Committee, and was or-
dered to be reported.
LOAN SOCIETIES BILL.
The clauses of this Bill were also agreed to in Com-
mittee, and the report ordered to be received.
RAILWAYS IRELAND (Not 2) BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER post-
poned till the 11th of June the second reading of this
Bill.
FISHERIES PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)
BILL.
On the motion of the CILaNCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, the second reading of this Bill was post-
poned tilt the 70 of June.
SEDUCTION AND PROSTITUTION SUPPRES-
SION BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the order of the day for resuming the debate on
this Bill,
Colonel SIBTHORP hoped the Hon. Member for
Birmingham would postpone, till a future period, the
further consideration of this Bill. He would suggest
that he should postpone it for two months.—(Laughter.)
Mr. SPOONER hoped the House would allow the Bill
to be read a first time to-night, and he would propose
that it should be read a second time on Wednesday., the
2d June, when the subject might be fully discussed.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL suggested to the Hon. Gen-
tleman the propriety of postponing the first reading till
Wednesday, the 2d June.
After a short conversation, in which Sir George Grey
took part,
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but no
division took place, and the Bill WhS read a first time,
and ordered to be read a second time on the 9th of
June.
LANDED PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS (IRE-
LAND) BILL.
On the the order of the day being read for going into
Committee. on this Bill,
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said, as the Government in-
tended tu inteoduce a Bill on this subject, he begged to
withdraw the above-mentionel Bill.
The Bill was withdrawn accordingly.
POOR REMOVAL AMENDMENT BILL.
On the order of the day being read for the 2d read-
ing of this Bill,
Mr. BANKES said he wished to postpone the second
reading until a day when a discussion could be taken on
the Bill, and trusted the Government would afford him
®n opportunity of doing so that day fortnight.
Mr. HUDSON said the greatest anxiety prevailed
in the country, with respect to the measure ; it was a
great blot upon their legislation, and he trusted that no
delay would take place in pas3ing.it into a law, in order
that the detects of the present law might be amended.
Sir G. GREY said the Hon. Gentleman had fixed the
second reading for a Government night, when the Bill
would not stand so much chance of receiving discussion
as on another day.
Mr. RICHARD YORKE suggested 'to the lion.

Frankland Lewis's son ; and he, therefore, thought that
the more prudent course would be not personally to court
his acquaintance, but to watch his conduct in his high
office, communicate with him officially, and form his opi-
nion by observing his performance of those duties ere
he admitted him to familiar acquaintanceship. So mat-
ers went on for some three months. His pre-
dispositions were not favourable to Mi. Lewis, but
it would be the height of injustice to that gentleman
did he not say, that in all his acquaintanceship he had
never seen or met a public man, so eminent for punc-
tuality and a happy power of overcoming by prompti-
tude the greatest difficulties. The able mariner in which
he sustained his previous character, by promptly meet-
ing the difficulties of the year 1842, decided his (Sir J.
Graham's) opinion. He was rejoiced to find that the
good opinion he had begun to entertain was well founded,
and from that period he termed an acquaintance with Mr.
Lewis, which he had no reason to regret. With that
gentleman he acted for five years, and the great efforts
he made, and the prudence and decision he evinced un-
der the most trying circumstances---efforts continued
from day to day—confirmed more and more the good
opinion he entertained of Mr. Lewis's qualities ; and
now, in every place, and under any circumstances, he
was prepared, from his knowledge of that gentleman's
;reat ability, and of his eminent straightforwardness,
to defend that gentleman against any charge which
[night be brought against him.—(Hear, hear.)
It was unworthy of a great aasembly like
that to dwell on small faults, where the person scruti-
nised had other qualities of far higher moment. Surely
it was far better that Mr. Lewis should be distinguished
by promptitude than by lassitude ; and he was ready to
take a portion of the blame upon himself in those matters
which had called forth the most determined expressions
of public disapprobation, for he was assured that nothing
had been issued by Mr. Lewis or the other commissioners
which had not received his previous inspection. When
Lord Melbourne left office, there was a vacancy in the
Poor-law Commission, and, upon the accession of his
Right Hon. Friend the Member for Tamwortb, he (Sir

Gentleman the 3d of June.
Mr. BA NKES fixed on Wednesday, the 9th of June,
which was accordingly appointed, for the second reading
of the Bill..
PASSENGERS ACT AMENDMENT.
On the bringing up of the Report,
Lord G. BENTINCK rose to move the amendment
which he hal intended to move last night. He
said he wished to give passengers the same security
which ,‘ as atforded under the regulations at Lloyd's to
dry and p:rishable goods. By the rules of Lloyd's, no
goods were entitled to be moved which were not carried
in stxond-crass vess. ls. They did not permit their sol-
diers to be carried in interior vessels, nor did
they allow their convicts to be carried out
in vessels which were not sea worthy. Now it
was unjust that the Irish .emigrant should not be
similarly protected. The lion. Member the Secretary
for the Colonies, considered that his measure which ca't
the respousibiiity upon the emigration agents. would
secure the chjeet, which ho (Lord G. Ben-nick) desired
to obt:iiii-I,4mely, the perfect sea-worthiness of vessels
carryiro;4 passeng rs. No inspection of the vessels
going out. was required, and unless some One raised a
doubt, there was no security at all, us tar as Bri,ish
ships all was right enough; for Lloyd's register c old
bit them whether they were sea worthy or not—but
they had no security for American vessels, which w (:re
built of the frailest materials, for they were all
constructed of tir, which would become perfectly
rotten in three or four years. (Bear, he,r.)
The Noble Lord then read a notice to shipowners from
Lloyd's, respecting the carriage of possengers, and said
he asked for Irish emigrants by foreign ships what the
House afforded them by English ships, arid he thought
the House would not deny him this request. It could
not be expected surely, that ships which could not be
trusted with dry and perishable goods or convicts should
continue to carry emigrants, and yet three f,.urihs were
carried by such ships. He begged to move the insertion
of the clause.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER quite
agreed with the object sought to be obtained by the
Noble Lord, but thought the subject had better be post-
poned till the third reading. Time should be given, at
least, for the consideration of the matter. his present.
impression was, that the clause had better now stand as
it did.
Mr. V. SMITH supported the Bill as it stood.

Mr. THORNELY could not consent to the clause,
and considered the clause in the Bill, as it stood, would
secure all that was required.
Mr. LIDDELL supported the amendment.
Sir R. H. INGLIS hoped that the Noll° Lord would
not divide the House on the subject, but leave the
matter in the hands of the Government.
Lord INGESTRE suggested that Government
should take care of the education of those in charge of
emigrant ships, in order to decrease the chances of ship-
wrecks.
Several Members risitur, to speak, and Mr. Brother-
ton having made several 'ineffectual attempts to shorten
the &bate,
The HoN. MEmisEn at last nnovcd, that the debate
should be adjourned.
Lord G. BENoTfi NetCtin g his orni sdi doefr this
oar
imt
yo, das, adohopte w d
for the purpose
ever, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised that
K
the spirit' of his clauses should be carried out in
the Bill,
he should withdraw his motion.
The clauses were then withdrawn, and the report
agreed to.

J. Graham) filled up that vacancy by the ap-
pointment of Sir E. Head, who, from his previous
conduct, without regard to his political feelings,
for he was opposed in politics to the then Go-
vernment, had recommended himself to the favourable
notice of the Government, and his subsequent conduct
had proved that he was in every way worthy of the con-
fidence at first bestowed upon him. By the appoint-
ment of that gentleman to the office of Poor-law Com-
missioner, ho (Sir James Graham) believed that
eor.siderable dissatisfaction had been given to Mr.
Chadwick, who, from that moment, had not
worked cordially with the Commissioners. With respect
to this Bill, it had been objected that it wouid increase
the number of pluetnen tip the llouse. Now, it so hap-

RAILWAYS.
Mr. STRUTT obtained leave to bring in a Bill for
regulating the proceedings of the Commissioners of
Railways, and for amending the law relating to rail-
way s•
POLICE (SCOTLAND.)
The LORD ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring in
a Bill to amend an Act to enable burghs in Scotland to
establish a general system of police, and another Act
for providing for the appointment and election of ma-
gistrates and councillors for certain burghs and towns of
Scotland.
The Bills were subsequently brought in and read a
first time.
The remaining orders of the day were then disposed
of, and
The House adjourned at llalf-past One o'clock.

POISONING GAME.—A great quantity of game,
principally pheasants, has been destroyed in the preserves of
Lord Middleton, near this town, through the means 'of
poisoned grain, which had been strewn about the neigh-
bourhood of the plantations. Nearly a hundred dead birds
have been picked up ; and it is expected that more remain to
be discovered in the woods.—Xottingham Review.
FOOD RIOTS IN JERSEY.—Tile Jersey Correspondent
of Thursday has the following :—Thursday morning, half-
past five o'clock. lip to ten o'clock last night, many Per-
s-ma were loitering about the Royal-square and the streets
adjoining, but no appearance of disaffection was manifested.
During the night all has remained *Met. The extra guards,
however, have remained at their various posts, and
au till further orders. The authorities have Teftried to bill
the persons in custody charged with rioting.

FIRE AT SEA, AND LOSS OF
ELEVEN LIVES.
(From the Inverness Courier of Tuesday.)
Last night, between nine and ten o'clock, a party of
three seamen and one woman came into the town by the
Beauly Road, from Wick. Two of the former were in*
deplorable state—their arms being very severely burned -
—and the other having an arm broken and otherwise
injured. On being taken, temporarily, to the station-
house they gave the following story :—They were part of
the crew of the barque Swan of Baltimore (a vessel of
400 or 500 tuns burden), Captain Williamson, bound
irom Valparaiso to Leith with tallow and hides. The
crew, including the officers and stewardess, were fifteen
in number, and there were three single cabin
passengers.
Fourteen or fifteen days ago, when off the Western
Islands, the steward went down to the spirit-room
between twelve and one A.M., to draw off some rum for
portion of the watch below who were sick. While draw-
ing off the liquor, the candle which be carried fell upon
a quantity of dry oakum, which immediately took fire,
and before an alarm could be given the flame bad caught
the spirits. So rapid was the progress of the fi re that
scarcely nn effort could be made to check it before the
whole ship was in a blaze; while the thick smoke was r
powerful that, as is supposed, none of those who were'yl
bed succeeded in reaching deck. In the meantime t_ll°.
flames had shot up the shrouds and stays, firing these rr;
su"orond
and in endeavouring to cut them away the
were dreadfully scorched. The ship had two boats; am
in about • a couple of hours after the first toil ..1
the long-boat was get over the side. The stewarnewso
went into it, and the others were preparing to folios;
when the captain and the mate (whose name tv,ii„
Johnston), made an effort and got into the al, h. they
with the intention of saving the ship's palte";
had, however, either fallen through the burning nee" or
been suffocated by the smoke, for they were net aga
seen. Six seamen and the stewardess succeeded in gem
capable of little exertion, they managed to
ting into the hot, and though so much injured es t° r
the ship, the sea running at the time very high. The ship
had now burned to the water-edge, and though there was
another boat left, no hope can be entertained that 119'
were saved by it. The survivors had with them only sll_
or seven biscuits ; and after drifting about for two dor_
and nights, they were picked up about forty miles off tel
Butt of Lewis, by the Greenock of Port Glasgow, botuln
get clear 0
for Wick, at which port they were landed. Their nano° '
are Margaret and William Mackenzie, or *Milian°
sister and brothe; Zechariah Williams and
Along°
Macdonald; John John Smith; Joseph Ford, and Win. ..,1;111:.
stone. The three last-mentioned have been left in
their injuries being so severe as to unfit them forthvt...,
By this dreadful catastrophe eleven lives have bee tic
the captain, mate, second mate (an Irishman known ""-'A
as Timothy), and steward ; the three passengers, and
four of the crew. The seamen who have reetro
Inverness have been conveyed to the 14°11_-o.
Infirmary, where their wounds will be attendeu .th
They have lost their all, having escaped lie
scarcely any clothes upon them. In Wick
obtained some aid from the authorities,. es late_
as a certificate, which the rain destroyed. Thf whole,_
crew were Americans, though the parents of She
fro'
kenzies ;were originally from the Isle of SW,sw ;
which they had emigrated to St. John's, New Brun_A.
Macdonald's father also belonged to this neighbourhe'

RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS'
LIVERPOOL, MAY 21. manifested
&was. ExenANGE.-An improved feeling has de.
itself in our share market to-day, there being a better
mend than of late. It was publicly announced at the
Exchange that the directors of the Manchester and Le
the
the Manchester and Sheffield, the Great Western, and
Midland Counties had all announced their determination to,
stop all their works that were not indispensably Dec
and consequently not to press for calls. The sales area,O.
Ambergate, Nottingham, Boston, and Eastern Julit% vi.. •
Bs. 9d. dis.-Birmingham and Oxford, 6 p.-Ea't is. ,
shire New (scrip), 1,4 dis.--Leeds and Thirsk, Preference,doo
3andd. dNis.o-rthL.ilyveerapttrnl,,Cl6ossbi, aronidttoS,ouNthewporQt,ualtePrZplpves.--•
Manchester and Leeds, 321. Shares, % dis.-Ditto, - ~,cos
(late Liverpool and Bury), I,‘ dis.-Ditto. Fifths Oat!' :010,
Riding Union), % dis-Blanchester, Sheffield, and Lteareat
Eighths, 1/. lls. 3d. dis.-Ditto, Quarters Oete f0L....•
Grimsby and Sheffield), 24; dis.-Midland Stock, 1.,,t'11b,
Ditto, 40/. Shares. 214 p.-Ditto, New, 11,4 p.-North Dr' „ v .
New Quarters (scrip), 3s. 9d. p.-North Staffordshire,
..I_7l
p.-North-Western, 2 dis.-Shrewsbury and Chester St:
N.W M.), New, 1% p.-South-Eastern and Dover, WS
Ditto, No. 4, Thirds, Bs. 9d. dis.
MANCHESTER, MAY 21.
STOCK EXCIIANGE.-The sales are-Ambergate,
&c., bAs.
ham, and Boston, 114(2 dis.-Blackburn,Clitheroe, Ditto,
dis.-East Lancashire (late B. and P.), New, 214 is.-:. _,„,
New (scrip), 7s. dis.-Fleetwood, Preston. and West !iglinuts,
11/2 c. dis.-Huddersfield and Manchester RailweY and Bit-
-1 dis.-London and North-Western (Manchetstreanr
and Leeds,
,
mingham), Quarters (C), 4 15-16 p.--blar'hes °Fifths (late
Ditto,
32/. Shares ( late Extension), ii difi.- Oldham
A3Alldiaisn.c_e,w7L-la6rfddaiis.e
W. H. U.), 1,4 dis.-North Staffordshire,
• 1 7.16 p•-'Oldham
Ncottinj;
--(lSa°teutNhoir
LEEDS, MAY 21.
STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales ar
ham, and Boston, 31s. 3d. dis.-East Lancashire.
New (scrip),
4s. 6d. dis.-East and West Yorkshire, 38s. 9d. dis.-Gresit
-tohrlshasirtee,rnD;lnxcasdteis.r, and uoolet
Northern, l'A dis.-HUddersfield and Manchester, 10s. die:*
e-Ambergate, Notting-
Ditto, Thirds, 55. die:-Leeds and Bradford, 43% p.-Lcedi
and Thirsk, New, 514 dis.-Ditto, Preference, ss. dis.-Leeds,"
Wakefield, and Midland, 19s. dis.-London, Brighton, and
South Coast, 5114-London and Portsmouth, 200. dis.--
Maltoa and Driffield Junction, 11/2 dis.-Manchester And
Leeds (late Hud. and Sheff.), par-Ditto, 321. Shares (late
Extensions), 12s. 61. dis.-Ditto, West Riding Union, I 0
dis.-Manchester, Buxton, Matlock, and Midland, 12s. be'
dis.-Newcastle and Berwick, New, 1% s. p.-North British,
Ts
thaiffrelasr,da2hsisr.e,pl.-%Dni.tpto.,_Exxotretnhs.ion .wes(tseerrnitp2),
dliss:_6(lopy.--Nrt
stonoanha
Hitchin, 2s. 6d. p.
HULL, MAY 21.
STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are-Blackburn_
ti
are-Blackburn,
roe, &c,, Preference, % p.-Great Northern, 378.---Mencue°.
ter and Leeds (West Riding Union), /2 di3.-North Brish,
Extension (scrip), Is. 6d. p. .
SHEFFIELD, MAY 21.
STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are--Ambergate, Notting.:
ham, and Boston, 31s. dis.-Manchester and Leeds (We
°
Riding Union), 9s. dis. - Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln-
shire (Grimsby and Sheffield), 12/. 10s. Shares, 21c. dis.
4
Newcastle and Berwick, 4% p.-North-Western, 2
York and North Midland,Extension, 1514 p.
GLASGOW, MAY 20. Bath
STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are-Airdrie and
gate, 725. 6d. -Clydesdale Junction, 42/.-Dundee and erth,
3014-Ditto, Quarters, 525. 6d.-EdinburgP
h and Perth
(New Co.), 303-Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct,
IVA-Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr, 1161.-Glasgow end
Greenock, 17L-Ditto, Halves, 81h -Manchester and South-
ampton 10s. 6d.-North British, Thirds, 465.-Scottish Cen-
tral, 231/2.
--......................

such a promise for fruit for many meshTr s haesr et h haser is nottthis
i sb:eean.
tree, fro
son. Every kind of fruit i
THE PROSPECT FOR FRUIT.
apple and pear, is covered wtr . .
This is the case with cherries,
7e
gooseberry to the
wall-fruit of all
kinds, which
gooseberries, apricots, and with
the fruit is already well set.
injury from the frost.
h bloom, and on several kinds
seems to have escaped any serious
'sle'ltiteiid,ga,masnendsp,
promise
ilsvehictoh
mthiiksecuoupnft,r)yr
thi
trees, pear trees,
year. vi'ithin the last few days, the apple _„d
and 11Iorell, cherries have all burst into full blossom, a"
render even. orchard and garden fragrant and
Liverpool Times. se
s o
total famous,
fai lu r e o arel
alal
rtTBED
A tiAD BREAST OF SEVEN YEARS' STANDING -- ,
Dv llottowAy's PILLS AND OINTMENT.—Mrs. Davis, residing n,'"-T
;lie barracks at Cardiff, bad a bad breast, which, seven years AO 0,1
a bruise), commenced swelling, and ultimately five abscesses fortne,,:
discharging large quantities of humour, which no treatment coal..
cure. She was much debilitated in her health, indeed her constlia.
it,ieoligihsznuire,,t thoob,e.absreustiknigngiulopll.o,wrya-yi,saspt.illsßaymcihaolinieetnishebneesaruantinsfl'el
d w"
advised her to try them, which she did, and the result was t1ia.•,,,0
244,c ,ku Strand,vE a LToitisnEto3t
nine weeks her breast became as well as ever it was in her life. fob
he had of al Druggists, and at Professor Holloway's Establishnle°
;ENT.] -TELESCOPES, RACE AND oro
GLASSES.—SENT INTO TILE COUNTRY FREE UPON APPROB,"".Ss.--
eh:
course Glasses with extraordinary great powers; a
39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly. Newly-invented Opera and
14 jecct
can be distinctly-seen at the distance of from ten to twelve
;Meat
These valuable newly-invented Glasses may be termed conyai
~ tor
Telescopes for both eyes, and have now become gene. rho
carriage and out-door purposes. Achromatic Telescoocst ~
-, bru-
most powerful ever made, with Lenses of clear transpstrcn
_,.,.er
every or..
liancy which possess such great powers as to supersede
_, so
kind for the waistcoat pocket, shooting, military. and
se asida
purposes, Bze.; naval officers, sportsmen, tourists,
_c.,
___. and
visitors, should not be without one of those valuableckTe I,,!icasin;:ortlY
Glasses. Also, a curious very small Waistcoat ro s
att. the dis-
the size of a Walnut, to discern minute objetivoited spec-
minute %%la.
tance of from four to five miles.
ICewlY" effect vision,
before imP once
tacles. Immediately they are placed b .sis at
re-
that mist and dullness which appear before the e3eh
most aged el's,
is brought to its
moved, every object becomes clear and distinct' t e
fective sight becomes bright and brilliant,
land.,3
and all kinds or
youthful, natural, and original state. Invsibl CautioMessrs. S. and B. Solomons, Opticians, are not in. neigh-
inimodiate
nected with a person of the callus name in their
Acoustic Instruments, for relief of extreme deafn_ness_..ly
way
con.
bourhood.
York II ote 1 •
be had at 39, streetAlbernarle- ~
Piccadilly opposite the
To prevent mistakes, be cautious and observe, only t°

BIRTHS.
On the 19th inst.. at Torrington-square, the lady of R. B.
Grantham, Esq., of a daughter.
On the 19th inst., at Clapham New-park, the wife of f
Banbury, Esq., of a son.
On the 19th inst., Mrs. W. 11. Carlin, of Ludgate-street,
of a son.
On the 19th inst., at Larkhall-lane, Clapham, Mrs. JOl3O
G. Perkins, of a son.
On the 15th inst., at Iluntley Hall, near Cheadle, the 0116
of the Rev. George Mather, of a daughter.
On the 17th inst., at Beauchamp- square, Leamington, tbe

lady of S. Blyth, Esq., of a son. - -
On the 18th inst., at Yate Rectory, Gloucestershire, the
lady of the Rev. G. L. llarvey, of a son.
On the 18th inst., at Sutherland-street, Walworth, Mrs.
George Shadbolt, jun., of a daughter.
On the 19th inst., at Hanger-lane, Stamford-hill, Mrs. J.
Jerram, of a eon.

MARRIED.
On the 18th inst., at Ripley, L. Uppleby, Esq., of 'not"
ton House, Lincolnshire, to Eliza Roberta, daughter of the
'
late Rear-Admiral Sir Robert Barrie, K.C.B. and K.C.11.,
of Swarthdale, Lancashire.
On the 18th inst at Ripley, Yorkshire, Edward Boodle,
Esq.! of Lincoln's "Inn, barrister-at-law, to Julia, eldest
daughter of the late Rear-Admiral Sir Robert Barrie, K.C.8.1
and K. 11., of Swarthdale, Lancashire.
On the 18th inst., at Cowes, Isle of Wight, John Maskeirt
Esq., of Fenny Stratford, Bucks, to Julia Caroline, youngest
daughter of ]tear-Admiral Itatsey.
On the 18th inst., at St. Martin's, Canterbury, Capfltio
Henry Buckley Jenner wynyard, to Ann, youngest daughter
of the Rev. J. Townley, Vicar ot Steeple
.----"---.3lllnPstead'E"ex.

DIED. hiß
On the 15th ult., at Edinburgh, in the 49th year of
age, John Munro, Egg , second son of the late George
Munn
Esq., of Culrain, in the county of Ross.
On the 19th inst., Harriet Frances Hazel, youngest dragh"
ter of Mr. George Hazel, surgeon, London.
On the 2d inst., at Caen, in Normandy, Victorine, the wife
of Ludwig Rosenthal, Esq., of London.
On the 10th inst., at Dresden,
Mrs. Elizabeth Webster
'Rode, relict of the late C. J. F. Thode, Esq., aged 79.er,
On the 18th inst., at Brighton, the Rev. Robert Bit.
Vicar of St. John's, Kilkenny, aged 52.
On the 13th inst., at Canonbury-square, Islington, Willi4l:4
Moule, Esq., of Lloyd's.
„ s
London: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. •
Strand, Prhiter, at The Sun Ofilee, No. 112, Strand, in the Preduc,
of the savor, In MO Cona4y SAturdar, gai
Li VT.