The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-04 00:00:00

rious attention of her Majesty's Government during the
recess, and he then stated to the House the general
views of the Government, and the intentions which they
entertained, and that the Government, after full consi-
deration, had come to the determination not to propose
to Parliament a continuation of the Poor-law Commis-
sion ; but that it was the intention of Government to
submit to Parliament a measure involving a great
change in those by whom the poor-law was hereafter to
be administered. It was for this purpose that he now
sought leave to introduce this Bill. The Go-
vernment, looking back to 1834, to the expe-
rience which they have subsequently acquired,
being of opinion, that the reasons which, in 1834, led to
the administration of the poor laws, should remain, to a
great extent, tit least, in full force, they felt that the
governing principle of the measure could not be fully
dispensed with—(Hear, hear)—as withcut some central
authority they could not guard against the evils which
grew up under the old system, and which, when laid
before the House, were universally condemned, and
therefore, no one would wish to see a recurrence of
the state of things which existed under the former law.
"---(Cheers.) Therefore, the Government thought it
would be unwise to return to a local system, undirected
and uncontrolled, although, at the same time, then
thought that the same rule could not be applied
throughout the whole country in an unvarying manner—
(Hear, hear)—but, at the same tine, they thought
there must be some general authority invested with
power to take into account the different districts of the
country, and the varying circumstances which may arise
from time to time. They felt it right, therefore, to re-
tain the treatment adopted in 1834, with some central
authority. In 1834, when an extensive change was made
in the system of the poor-law, it was thought desirable
that the persons in whose hands those discretionary
powers should be placed should be unconnected with the
Executive, removed from the Government and from
those popular and political influences, which must ope-
rate upon all men who take a part in the political con-
flicts of the day ; but that, separated from the Execu-
tive Government, they should exercise their functions, and
discharge the trust reposed in them, apart from all those
political influences and excitements to which he had re-
ferred; but this plan had not been successful, and he
could not now controvert the answer that was given to
this objection to their being more intimately connected
with the legislature. Not being intimately connected
with the Legislature, led first of all to an imperfect re-
sponsibility, whereas, if the Commissioners, or some of
them, had been Members of the House, they could have
been easily called upon by the House to answer any
charges which might be made against them, and at the
same time they would have an opportunity of being de-
fended, and of having an impartial hearing in the House
of Commons. He thought, therefore, that the
administration of the poor-law bad been defec-
tive in this respect. He would not, however, stop
to defend the Commissioners, or to say whether they
had used all the discretion they should have used, or
whether they had generally performed their duties in a
satisfactory manner; but at the same time he could not
avoid saying, that they had laboured under great dis-
advantages is not having been able to make their own
defence. A responsible Minister of the Crown, who had
charges made against him, was able to make his de-
fence; the Poor-law Commissioners were not in such a
position. Here was an instance of this:—A question
was asked of the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment, who knowing himself, p chaps, nothing of the
circumstances, states so, but pledged himself to make
an inquiry, and to state the result to the House on a
future day; and, after some delay, he fulfils his promise,
but still with an imperfect knowledge of the subject
which would be obviated by the plan proposed in this Bill.
The principle of the measure was the maintenance of a
general superintendence and authority, subject to direct
and immediate responsibility. The provisions of the
Bill were that the powers of the present Poor-law Com-
missioners should cease. The Crown was then em-
powered to appoint Commissioners for the adminis-
tration of the poor-law on the plan of the Board of
Control for India. It was intended that one of the
members should be called the president, who would be a
responsible person, immediately charged with the su-
perintendence of the law, but to be assisted by Members
of the Government, who should he ex-officio members,
namely the President of the Council, the Lord Privy
Seal, one of the principal Secretaries of State, and
Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was intended that two
secretaries should be appointed by the board, and that
the president and one of the secretaries should be eligible
to a seat in Parliament—not that both should sit
together, but that the board should be represented
either by the president or one of the secretaries.
The powers of the present Poor-law Commission
would be transferred to this board. With re-
gard to making general rules, the Bill provided
that all rules were to be submitted to the Secretary of
State for the Home Department, 40 days before they
were intended to come into operation ; if he approved
of them, they would then take effect, but they would
be subject Co be removed into the Queen's Bench,
by ce; tiorari, and were then liable to be repealed. It
was first thought that it would be more advisable to
make these rules as orders in Council, but on considera-
tion it was thought better that they should be signed
by the President and two Cabinet Ministers, and there-
fore they would be signally subject to inves-
tigation if they should be brought into the
Queen's Bench by certiorari. Every act
of the Board must be transacted by two members of the
board—either by the president and one of the secretaries
or by two of the members. Now a report was annually
made ; under this Bill a report would also be
made every year, addressed to the Crown, and
laid in the ordinary course before Parliament.
He should not enter into the details of the present mea-
sure, but there was one point to which he wished to
direct the attention of the House, namely, that the
number of the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners being
dmimAhoGto.in: epfohieocee:ps
tenvmstoletseti
h.
should
Government
eecendn
0, insufficient, it was the intention of the Govern-
ment to
oiruFini
tsvelnetdhEhdrhcni
aontßrretbthuememeßlaafdtesodaAhtnehrigeotni
the
ungslhi
n)aaoan, tvNfbdtci
Ihrft:otiaeioiaghobsslbrought number
entlsgecoßhofiat
ftßill—(A
carried
the
hnteool oy—eddnrmedeutairuwhhrA cotseaewhhu,
that
determined
Tsevoadeel
uein,inaa.
nl—tntdyud)t
hodetgiiee(tefehihoHba,
that
eso)nrapt
he—uettttoopnoandhrtfteirsueebhga,
pltußerhdnohactnataile;
tr.
llomaallott rkhhnwhaeat
Rees.)s-
D
constructionol
d
o r.
aowf his no
CommissionerswComm
perhaps, more immediately connected with the bringing
in of the measure, he could assure the Right Hon. the
Horne Secretary, that this measure would be viewed
with disapprobation. He trusted that the Right Hon.
Baronet would take this into his consideration, for if he
allowed the present system to continue, he would hare
an universal rising against it. But he would ask also,
did he mean to allow the district auditors to continue in
office? He hoped the Government did not so intend. If
a Committee were appointed in this matter he would
prove that things had been done by their means
greater far, and more infamous, than the doings
of the New Poor-law Commissioners themselves. But
let them see what it was that the Right Hon. Baronet
proposed ? He rejoiced to hear from the Right Hon.
that the poor, when they wished to have a re-
dress for their grievances, had only to apply to the
Queen—the mother of the British nation.—(Laughter.)
But he understood from the Right Hon. Baronet that
this Bill delegated all power over the poor of this
country to those Commissioners. The Noble Lord and
the Government might rest assured that he and
.his col-
leagues would not sleep on a bed of roses during the
period of their being in office and passing this Bill. He
gave fair warning that in a fortnight, when the Noble
Lord brought in his Bill, he should distinctly and perti-
naciously oppose it.—(Laughter.)
Mr. MILES said that he was exceedingly glad to hear
that the Right Hon. Baronet opposite had determined
that the Poor-law Commissioners should henceforth be
partly composed of Cabinet Ministers, and under these
circumstances, he did not think that the Hon. Member
for Kneresborough had exercised his usual judgment in
opposing this Bill. But considering that we have already
a Committee sitting on the poor-law, he should earnestly
recommend the Hon. Baronet to put no number to the
inspectors, but leave their limitation to the Counsel.
Thanking the Government for the Bill, he would again
beg to draw their attention to the suggestions which he
had offered.

Sir WALTER JAMES said, as they were amending
the law, they should not be too hard on the Poor-law
Commissioners, who, whatever might have been their
faults, believed that they were acting conscientiously.
He believed, to make any poor-law efficient, there should
he an efficient inspection. He also considered that the
Government had acted wisely in instituting the Assistant
Poor-law Commissioners, for he believed that if they
looked to the discussions which had taken place in that
House, they would find that those wha had treated the
poor well were persona of this class, namely, those paid
by the country. He, therefore, would support the mea-
sure of the Right Hon. Baronet.
Mr. HUME was pleased that the Government had
taken the course which they had done, yet he must say
that they had not taken the best course. It was an-
nounced that a change must take place—the country
called for it ; but it all arose from the maladministra-
tion of the law. He hoped this might not be said of the
new Commission. He trusted that no one of the present
Commissioners would be constituted President of the
new Board. He had nothing to say against those gen-
tlemen personally, but they would impart to the new
administration much odium, and excite great complaint.
Mr. HENLEY doubted much as to the constitution
of the proposed Board, consisting so much of Members
of the present Government. Any inquiry or question
would become a Government question. He was
afraid that the proposal was the old poor-law
under a new face. They had not a whit more power to
correct abuses. In the system about to expire, there
was no responsibility anywhere, and all inquiries there-
fore have come to nothing. What were they now pro-
posing ? Why to put the administration of the law into
the hands of the Legislators. The Legislators and the
executive being identical, it was not likely that they
would look with the same impartiality on a law of their
own making. He wished to see some more direct
responsibility. Another fault was, that whatever nega
tive power given to the Commissioners to say this or
that should not be done, was one-sided, and would not
work well. He reserved his further remarks to the
time when the Bill came before the House.
Lord HARRY VANE said he agreed with the Hon.
Gentleman opposite, in thinking that large discretion
must be reposed in those who superintended the admi-
nistration of the law. He did not agree with the Hon.
Member for Knaresborough in thinking that the size of
the unions ought to be at all affected by the present Bill.
That was a subject which had come fully before the
Committee on the law of settlement, and would best be
subjected to consideration together with that law. He
differed from the Hon. Member for Montrose. He
thought that as there was to be a Pre-ident of the Board,
a Member of Parliament, that concentration of responsi-
bility was attained by the proposed arrangement.