The Sun.
London, England, 1841-10-02 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1841.

DISTRESS:

Mr. GIBSON presented a petition from Manchester
complaining of the present distressed condition of the
country, and praying the House for relief.
COMMISSIONS IN THE NAVY.

On the Order of the day for the bringing up the
report of the Exchequer Bills Funding Bill being read,
Lord INGESTRIE said he had intended moving for
a Return of all the Commissions (with the names at-
tached) signed-by the Board of Admiralty, since the
4th day of June last, up to the issuing of the patent of
the present Board of Admiralty, distinguishing those
Commissions signed after the 30th day of August ;1 also,
Return of the Ships put in commission during the
same period, making the like distinction, and of the
probable date of each ship being ready for service ;
but if the Secretary to the Admiralty had any objection
to grant.it, ho would not press the motion.
Mr. S. HERBERT said it was nut usual to grant such
returns, and it 'Might create an inconvenient precedent.
Lord INGESTRE would not press his motion.—Mo-
tion withdrawn.
, .
EXCHEQUER BILLS FUNDING BILL.
The RePOrt on the Thichequer Bills Funding Bill was
then 'bronght,up,• 'and the Bill was ordered to be read a
third time to-morrow. •
EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL.

The 'Report on the Exchequer Bills Bill, with the ap-
propriation clause, was brought up, and the Bill was
ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
POOR-LAW COMMISSION.

On the Order of the Day for the third reading of the
Poor-law Commission Bill being moved,
Mr. FIELDEN rose to snake the motion of which he
had given notice, but the Hon. Gentleman spoke in so
low a tone, that it was perfectly impossible to hear him.
We understood the Honourable Gentlemen to say
he believed that, as the persevtrance of the late
Administration in continuing the Poor-law was the
cause of their, downfal, • so would it also be
the rock on which the present Government
would split if they continued their resolution to carry
it out. The Hon. Gentleman quoted the opinion of Sir
J. Scarlet; (now Lord Abinger) and other lawyers as to
the unconstitutional power of the Commissioners. It
was in his (Mr. F's.), opinion, a tyrannical power,
unsuited to the tastes of the people, and he would
never consent to it.- He could not understand how such
an unconstitutional authority should be sanctioned by
the Constitution of England. The Conservatives ought
not to forget the great exertions they made on the late
elections, and that they owed much of their strength to
the feelings of the people against the new law ; and
he wondered that so much disregard was exhibited to
theircomplaints on the subject by the present Government.
The Hon. Member proceeded to state the number of
petitions in favour of the amendment of the law, and the
number of those presented against it, to show the
degree of public support which the measure had
received. He believed the local boards, being
better acquainted with the actual state of the poor,
were far better qualified to administer relief to them
than any central authority could possibly be. If the
owners of property had discharged their duty there
would have been no necessity for this law. The people
were not to blame, nor were the old laws to blame
for it, but the owners of property. He knew it
was said that the poor of this country were idle, and that
they had no one but themselves to blame.for heir dis-
tress. He rebutted the charge. It was a libel on the
character of our countrymen. The labourers of this

country were the most industrious is the world. Having
had seven years' experince of the Commission, whether
the House were able to judge •of • it he did not
know, but the people of this country thought they
were able to do so, and their opinion was that
their acts were oppressive and unconstitutiot al.
The conduct of the Commissioners had been so arbi-
trary as to make the law much worse than it really was,
and obliged even the rate-payers to complain of it.
It appeared to him that the condition of the poor had
been gradually deteriorating under the operation of the
present law. It was no later than that morning that he
had received a letter from Manchester, stating the deaths
of two persons from actual starvation and the horror of
a workhouse. He thought these were cases requir-
ing immediate investigation. The Honourable Mem-
ber proceeded to read a comparative table of
returns from various parts of the country to
show that, under the present system, there had
been au increase of mortality ; but he spoke in
so low a tone that we could not catch a. sin-
gle statement with any degree of distinctness.
The Hon. Member concluded by moving that the Bill
be read a third time that day three montris.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD seconded the motion.
Sir C. DOUGLAS thought that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Oldham ought not, upon the third read-
ing of a Bill for the continuance; of the Commission, to
have entered into a general discussion on the subject of the
Poor-law. He understood that the Government would
hereafter bring the general question under the considera-
tion of the House; and he thought it would be factious
to oppose them upon the present occasion. He should
add, however, that he disapproved of many provisions
of the law, although he did not think that was an occa-
sion for urging his opinions.
Captain PECHELL was glad it was not necessary for
him to enter at length into the reasons for voting with
the Hon. Member for Oldham as well as against the
third reading of the Bill. He never made it a party
political question. He had more than one reason for
voting against the Bill. He conceived it gave the Right
Honourable Gentlemen opposite more power than
Was necessary. Hid Pullen-telt met in the month
of November there would be no occasion to renew the
power of the Commissioners.—(Hear, hear.) His next
reason for .voting against the Bill was that the Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary fur the Home Department
had stated that the Biil would not interfere with
the Unions under the Gilbert Acts, but he (Captain
Pechell) would undertake to say that the Poor-
law Commissioners were unceasing in issuing rules and
regulations to those unions. These rules eand regula-
tions prevented the poor people from going to Church on
Sundays, and made their confinement much worse than
those who were shut up in Chelsea, and other hos-
pitals.—(Hear.) The Commissioners had only left
those unions the power of getting out-door relief ; and
their rules and regulations gave dissatisfaction to the
guardians, the rate-payers, and the receivers of the
rate. He considered these strong grounds for limiting
the power of the Poor-law Commissioners.—(Hear,
hear.) They had not ventured to issue such rules and
regulations for the place which he had :the ho-
nour to represent, but they had tried •to impose
upon them a paid chaplain, whom they refused to pay.
Those unions were interfered with by the Poor-law Com-
missioners, and he considered it his duty to oppose the
continuance of the Bill. He considered these reasons
good and valid for opposing it, -and he would on every
occasion express his opinion against it whenever the mils-
ject was brought forward.
Mr. BORTHWICK begged leave to make a few on..
servations. He had been sent to that House unpledged,
and he thought it on that account the more incumbent
on him not to leave his vote unexplained. He did not
entirely concur with the Hon. Member for Oldham, be-
cause his objection did not lie against the administration
of the law, but struck at the root and first principle of the
Bill. It was stated that the object of the Bill was to
create in the minds of the labouring classes
the most important of all social virtues—inde-
pendence. But he considered that the effect of the
Bill was directly the contrary. The Bill proposed to
invest dependence with so many repulsive characters,
that the most miserable independence would be preferred
to it. But it made no distinction in the application
of the principle between the industrious. and high-minded
peasants and the idle and dissolute. On the contrary,
the law treated the man—who might be actuated in
his humble sphere by as noble an ambition as
that which the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth
I avowed a few evenings ago to be his governing
principle—as a criminal. He entreated the Govern-
ment not to pledge themselves to any party in
the House on this question, but to give it the
most cautious and solemn consideration. The next
principle in the law to whittle he objected was the
principle of centralisation—a principle which took
the management of the interests of the poor out of the
hands of the Magistrates and local authorities and
placed it in the hands of a Commission sitting in
the metropolis. The principle of centralisation was
liable to this further objection, that it invested
the Commissioners with unusual and Unconstitu-
tional power, thus creating an imperium in' iniperio.
The reason why he voted against the amendment of
the Hon. Member opposite was. that her Majesty's
Government had appealed to the • House for its
confidence, and had asked for a short time
to enable them to mature plans of a general nature.
He (Mr. Borthwick) gave the Government his fullest
confidence ; and on these grounds he should not offer
any opposition to the course which they had propOsed
to adopt.
Mr. C. WOOD was ready to admit that the decla-
ration which fell from the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Dorchester was, that he would adhere to
the general principles of the measure, and he felt that
those who had to administer till the next SeSsion of Par-
liament were entitled to such a declaration to enable
theM to carry on their duties in the manner they ought.
He thought
.it would' have been -eereedingly unreason-,
able to press for any further statomeni of the lani •of
the Government, so that they might
..be perfectly un-
fettered to consider. any amendments they might think