The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-27 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 26.
POOR.LAW COMMISSION (IRELAND.)
On the motion of the Earl of GLENGALL, Mr.
Pcdder was again called to the Bar.
By the Earl of GLENGALL—I have read the
are printed
evidence as taken by the short-hand writer. There
some mistakes in it 1 wish to correct. '
The witness then corrected them by repeating his cvi.
deuce. We Could not learn their effect, but understood
them to relate to his evidence respecting Mr. Butler.
The witness was then desired to withdraw.
Mr. Earle vrai then called in and sworn.
Examine,' by the Earl of GLENG ALL—Was Com-
mhsioner of Pocr.laws in Ireland. Was in Dublin in Fe-
bruary 1839. Received instructions from Lord Morpe
that persons to be selected for the situation of returning-
officers i
should be impartial men, if such could be found,
already connected Pith country office;. The selection
was not to be confined to them ; but they were to te pre-
ferred, whenever they were men not connected with party
politics. Did not recollect that in the unions cf Cashel
and Clonmel, in the county of Tipperary, the high con-
stables, Mr. Farnell and Mr. Maunsell, applied for the
-office and were rejected.
Did not recollect the particulars
.of the correspondence which took place relative •to the
appointment of Mr. Butler. He should have no recol-
lection whatever 01 the transaction, if it were not that he

EVE'NING EDITION

' saw a minute signed wi h his initials, on the back of a
letter from Mr. Farnell; but he had now no recollection
whether a httzr was written in conformity with that mi-
nute. Mr. Stanley was justified in departing from the
instructions of witness, if there was any thing in them
erroneous, or not consistent with the fact. Oa the
18th of Febrtry witness was absent from the office,
and he supposes that the apparent irregularity was
occasioned by his absence. There was nothing extraor-
dinary in a letter written one day not being despatched till
the next. Stich a delay was not uncommon in public or
private offices.—(A laugh.) From his experience of
public offices, he should say, that it was " good luck"
when a letter dated one day was despatched the next.--
(Hear and a laugh.) To say the truth, he had never
thought it a matter of any importance in what terms such
letters were written, when the Commissioners had deter-
mined upon the appointment of the person recommended
by the Assistant-Commissioner. He should think any
deviation from truth improper, and an adherence to truth
on all occasions important; but there never appeared to
him anything in the circumstances of this case with which
it was necessary or worth white to charge his memory.
He merely performed the very humble dnty of directing
Ilia clerk to writ., the answers. He would not consider
it an improper liberty for any of his brother Commis-
sioners to make alterations in the draft of a letter written
by him on the business of the office, if he happened to be
out of the way at the time, and the alteration was required
by a regard for truth and accuracy. He was in no respect
superior to the other Assistant. Commissioners, although,
in the absenco. of Mr. Nicholls, he was generally looked
up to by the others for advice, in consequence cf his being
bitter acquainted than most of them ail the opinions and
vi:es of that eentleman.

To Lord FITZGERALD—It taa3 quite possible th t
witness Should have alterel his minute for the draft of a
letter upon such a case as this, and not remember after-
wards that he had done so. He did not think the altera-
tion was o' any importance.

To Lord GL ENG AL L—Did recollect having some
conversation with Mr. Phelan on the subject of Mr.
Butler's appointment; but knew of nothing which could
give him implicit confidence in the affidavit of Butler
that Mr. Phelan took any more active part in promoting
the appointment than merely writing the letter which ap-
peared in the returns before the House.
To the Marquis of NORMANBY When Mr.
Nicholls was in Dublin, witness had nothing to do with
matters like that now under the consideration of the
House, ar,d complaints might be made of the conduct of
Mr. Butler and other officers without his bearing anything
whatever about them. In the month of February, 1839,
the business of the Irish branch of the Poor-law Com-
mission was excessive, and beyond the means of the office
to discharge with perfect adequacy. More duty was
done in that month, in that office, than be had ever known
to be done in a public office in the same time during the
experience of his whole life.
To Lord FITZGER ALD—In several unions, wit-
ness and Mr. Phelan conjointly had recommended indi-
viduals who were not county officers, to fill the situation of
returning officer!. They never passed over the county
officers unless they found them to be stupid men or par-
tisans. The stupid men gave more trouble, and caused
more confusion and annoyance than the partisans. Witness
believes that he did inquire of Mr. Phelan whether Mil
Butler was a person of strong party feelings, and that the
answer was that he was not. Witness had now reason to
believe that Phelan was so.
To the Earl of GLENGALL —Mr. Stanley bad a
perfect right to make any alteration in the draft of the
letter, in accordance with the facts required.
To Lord MONTEAGLE—Practically, be believed the
recommendation of the Assistant Commissioner and theap-
pointment of the returning-officer were practically one.
Previous to his appointment to the Irish Commission he
had been engaged under the English Poor-law Commis.
sion, in several counties of England. Had been pre-
viously private secretary to Lord Stanley.
To the Earl of GLENGALL—He could see no mo-
tive for the variation in the letter sent to Mr. Fennell
from his draft. It was very important that, the returnirg-
officer shoeld he an impartial man, so as to give satisfaction
to all parties in the election of guardians.
To the Marquis of NORMANBY—It was a matter of
the greatest difficulty to find men in the unions of
Clonmel and Cashel, who were not party-men. Those
who applied were generally men who leaned to the party
of the Government. Mr. Nicholls and the Assistant.
Commissioners congratulated themselves over and over
again, that the Government did not interfere in the ap-
pointment of rcturnirg officers or in the election of the
guardians.
To Lord REDESDALE—BeIieved that the Corn.
missianers did their duty in appointing Mr. Butler upon
the recommendations which they received from Messrs.
Hawley and Hancock, and from the Assistant-Commia-
sioner, Mr. Phelan.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw, and on the
motion of the Marquis of Normanby, was excised from
further attendance.

Lord DLTNCANNON presented a petition from Ti-
verton, praying for certain alterations of the Poor-laws.
Their Lordships then adjourned at Seven o'Clock.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, MAzes 26.
POOR-LAWS.

(Continued from our Second Edition of last night.)
Mr. WAKLE Y thought that if the proposition of his
Hon. Friend was contrary to the rules of the House, then
he would be wrong to persevere in it, but if it were
merely contrary to the practice of the House he would be
right to persevere in it, because the more frequent the
practice of the House was violated the better it would be
for the public.
The CH A IRMAN was very sorry to hear %that had
just fallen from the Honourable Men-,bcr. He ought
to be well aware that unless attention was paid to
certain rules and regulations—( Hear, hear, from Mr.
Wakley)—their proceedings must ine%itably become a
scene of confusion,—( Loud cheers.) If he were asked if
there were any rules for the government of Committees, ho
would reply that there were none, but such as could
be gathered from the Journals and printed proceed-
ings of the House ; but that there were rules for the go-
vernment cf Committees could not be doubted, which
rules were to be gathered from the experience of attentive
Members, who had been in the habit of attending those
Committees; and so long as he had had the honour of
filling that char he had !lever heard a doubt expressed that
there were regulations on the subject, nor had such regu-
lations ever in the slightest deg.-cc been questioned.
Mr. FIEL DEN—There is no rule then.—( Loud cries
of " Chair, chair, orde-, order.") Am Ito be allowed to
address the Home or not? if not, steal I go down to my
constituents at Oldham and tell them that I am net to be
allowed to do so ? 1 was sent here as a representa-
tive of that borough, every man of which objects to this
law; there is not one but what is indisposed to the law;
so much so, that not one of them would carry a votirg
paper fur guardians ; they could not rven get the bum-
bailiff to carry a voting paper for guardians.
Lord J. RUSSELL rose to order. The Hon. Gen-
tleman was out cf order in discussing the question.--
( Cheers.) The rule of the House had been stated by the
Chairman, and it was not of the least importance whether
the rule of the House appeared printed with the regula-
tions of the Standing Orders, or whether it was a rule de-
duced from the constant practice of the House ; in either
case it was equally binding ; and the Hun. Gentleman
had no right therefore to bring forward the amend-
ment of which he had given notice, or to proceed
with the discussion on which he had attempted to enter.
The Hon. Gentleman endeavoured to create a prejudice
against the House, by saying that he would have to go and
tell his constituents that be was not allowed to Le heard
on that occasion. The Hon. Member was perfectly at
liberty at any day that he thought proper to mote for
leave to bring in a Bill totally
i different from the Mole
the House. If he succeeded n carrying that Bill, and
the HoUse of Lords agreed with him, the Poor-law
Amendment Act would be totally repealed. The Hon.
Gerdeman's constituents ahocld be informed that the Hon.
Gentleman would hare a perfect and fair opportunity,
whenever he pleased, upon a regular day, and upon regu-
lar notice, of bringing forward that question. But the
Hon. Gentleman had no right to set aside all the rules of
the House, and to proceede in a course which he ought to
know was irregular ; and then, because he was prevented
from oohing at defiance all the rules of the House, and
throwing the whole of the discussion into confusion, to tell
his constituents that which was not true ;
namely, that he
had not had an opportunity of addressing the House on
that subject.
Mr. FIELDEN said a few words in explanation. We
understood the Hon. Member to say that he bad intended
to state his reasons for altering the rule of the House.
Mr. WYNN said the Hon. Member was not at li-
berty to assign reasons at that time for altering the rule of
The
Committee House. The rule in such cases was stringent.
Committee of the whole House was no lest subject to the
orders of the House than a Select Committee.
Mr. FIE LDEN then withdrew his amendment, and

Clause 2 was agreed to.
On clause 3 being proposed,
amendment of con-.
a few moments, while bo submitted an
Mr. H. HINDE begged the attention of the House for
that II rib
eNtVA clauseK L Eb
eYproosstep
sidetable importance to this clause.
intendedotaoorder.geflet,omovee
;notion had priority to any amend-
-, replied in the affirmative, and
apprehended that his
°A;roceeded. He believed from what
went of this clause.
The CHAIR
not to interfere with the parishes whic h
Mr. WAKLEY
' the Noble Lord bad said the other night it was his inter,-
had understood the language of the Noble
tion bona fide
were under tbo government of Local Acts. He believed
that effect, and certainly it had been so under-
stood out of doors, and he had been one of those who said
the statement of the Noble Lord would give satisfaction.
Since that time clause 3 had
been examined by various
local authorities connected • with parishes which were
under systems of kcal government, and in several of these
parishes a fear existed that the Poor-law Commissioners
Lthoerdiltoouse
would be enabled to interfere with their government, i
not under this clause, at least under the Pocr-law Amend
n.ent Act itself. A great number of these parishes had
not only Lad great apprehensions on the subject, but had
been put to considerable expense in consequence of legal
proceedings having been instituted against them by tho
Commissioners. Now be was anxious to learn from the
Noble Lord whether the local boards were still to exercise
the powers they had exercised, or whether the powers of
the Poor. law Act were to be strained against them. He
was the more anxious for this statement on account of the
contradictory opinions of the Courts of Law. He did not
know what kg.-. 1 gentlemen called contradictory, but when
tine: things were opposite, he ( Mr. Wakley) called them
contradictory, and thus it was with the opinions of the
Courts of Law. Legal proceedings had been instituted
against the perish of Sr. Pancras with respect to the
government of that parish, which ended in the go-
vernment of the parish under the Local Act being
confirmed ; but proceedings were instituted against
other parishes, and it appeared that the law was laid down
in thi; manner—that althouph the Commissioners could
not interfere where the guardians were elected in a single
parish under a local Act, yet if the parish became united
with other parishes,
and a union was formed, then the Com-
missioners could interpose their authority. There were

EVENING EDITION

proceedings pending at this moment on the subject ; and
he, therefore, hoped the noble Lord would net object to
postpone this clause for the purpose of introducing another
of s- similar deacription ; and also a declaratory clause, in.
parishes that they were to be secured
tinsating to all these
in their system c,f Leal government, and that the Poor-
law Commissiaters had not power to interfere with the
local Act-. If the Noble Lord had heard from the Core-
missieeers, cr others, that the power they derived under
the Poor-law Amendment Act was sufficient to introduce
the Commissioners into parishes under local government,
cf what use was this clause ? The Hon. Gentleman then
read the clause, and said that its words partook of the sub-
tlety which c:istine,uished every thing that came from Se-
merset-house. belioved the Noble Lord was deceived
by the words of this clause. The Hon. Member then
moved that clause 3 be postponed.
Sit FREDERICK POLLOCK rose to make some
observations relative to a (rife which came under his own
observatiov. It related to the parish of St. Pancras, re •
sfeetirg wild), the Court of Queen's Bench decided the
n the district in which there was a local act, it wet not
proper for the Poor-law Commissioners to introduce a
board cf esardiase under an amendmeet of the Act as
distieettialied from the guardians under the Local act.
Thus, it was that the parish of Sr. Pancras escaped from
the Commissioners. If the Noblo Lord bona fide intended
that the Poor-law Commissioners should not hive the
poise: of repealirg Acts of Parliament, he must do so by
d;fferent language from Chit used in claeac 3. 11f,, there-
f re, joined with the Hon. Member for Finsbury, in de-
siring tl o postponement of the clause.
Sic A. DA LR YMPLE said the elect of the clause
would be to Owe the large parishes at present under
Local acts in the power of the Commissioners, and at any
time they might bring them within the provisions of the
present Mi.
After a few words fr im Sir S. CANNING,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL understood that parties had
complained that unee- the present Bill local Acts Wei e
more intefereil with than under the Poor-law Amendment
Act. Therefore, to put an end to the alarm that existed
on that point in the public mind, he had proposed to intro-
duce a clause to say, that so far as that Act was concerned,
no further interfererca than was at present authorised by
law should take place. That was what was intended by
the climes,. There did not appear to him to be the
slightest ambiguity in the clause. He certe:nly could not
agree with the proposition of the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber fur Huntingdon to introduce a declaratory clause on the
subject, because if places under local Acts were to be alto-
gether exempted from the operation of the law it would be
attended with great inconvenience.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said it could not be denied that
the power proposed to be granted to the Commissioners
over perishes governed by local Acts was of a very un-
satisfactory nature; because the Commissioners m:ght
evade the law by including two or three parishes and form-
ing a union, and so set aside the exemption of a parish
governed by a local Act. The parties interested, there-
fore, could not feel any security. Although the Commis-
sioners could not attack a parish so situated individually,
they might include it with two or three othres, and thereby
deprive it of its exemption. He should strongly ad-
vise the Noble Lori, and he did not offer the sug-
gestion fer the purpose of delay, to postpone the
clause, wader the conviction that he could not on
that night satisfactorily legislate upon the subject. '
He would strongly recommend the Noble Lord to post-
pone this elnuee, in order that the House might be fur-
nished with information as to what extent parishes having
local Acts had been included in the operation of the Poor-
law Act. It would also be a fair question to be considered,
whether a parish having 20,000 or 30,000 inhabitants, and
having a local Act, should be exempted from the operation
of the Poor-leer Act.—(Hear, hear). But at present the
House was in such want of information upon the subject,
that he thought the better way would be to have theclauso
postponed.--( Hear, hear.)
Mr. EDWARD ELLICE, in illustration of what the
Right Hoe. Baronet had mentioned, instanced the city he
represeneed (Coventry). That city was governed by a
local Act, and ties affairs of the poor had been very satis-
factorily administered under it. He hoped that some little
time would be taken to consider the clause.--( Hear, hear.)
Mr. LEADER said the House must fool satisfied that
after the spseech of the Right Hon: Baronet the Noble
Lord would be compelled to give way, and postpone the
clause.—(" Ilea-, hear," and " Oh, oh")—for they all
knew that in fact the Government existed only upon the
forbearance of the Right Hon. Baronet—(Cheers)—and
whenever ke chose to make any suggestion the Govern-
ment were obiigod .to submit to it.—(Continued cheers.)
When the Right Hon. Baronet proposed that the Com-
mission should be continued for five years only instead of
tea, the Noble Lewd was obliged to give way.—( Hear,
bears) In Weatteitester there was a very strong feeling
reapeeting eleie clause. No complaint had been made of
the parishes csbieit were governed under local Acts in
Westminster, and 83 there was great ambiguity or dis-
honesty in the clause, tkere ought to be a deolaratory
clause reapossiag parishes that were governed by lccal
Acts.

Mr. FOX WAULE thought there was some misun-
derstanding with regard to the powers of the Commis-
sioners in raapem of local Acts. In the parish of St.
Pancras, for inatazace, the Commissioners had the power
of superintending the regulation of the workhouse, but
they could not by law interfere with the electoral consti-
tution of the board of guardians under the local Acts.
That was precisely the position in which the Poor-law
Commissieeers stood.
Lord SANDON hoped that the Noble Lord would allow
those parishes that had local Acts to totain their power of
self-government. The borough of Liverpool, from which
he had promoted a petition that evening, was governed by
a local Act to the satisfaction of the rate payers, and the
teeeivers of relief.
- Lord LIOWICK did not rise to object to the postpone-
ment of the clause, for he thought it desirable that it
should bo postponed, as he conceived it required some
amendment. He had no objection to deprive the Poor-
law Commissioners of the power of altering tho or-
ganizetiou of 'cell boards of guardians, but he was
anxious that whatever alterations were proposed they
should not be carried so far as to deprive the Commissioners
of the power, and authority which he considered indispensa-
ble, of superintending and controlling the manner in which
relief was administered by those local boards of guardians,
however constituted, and whether existing under Local
Acts or the Poor-law Amendment Act. It was of great
importance that the Commissioners should have that gene-
ral power of auperintanding the administration of the Poor-
law. So far from agreeing with the Hon. Member for
Coventry (Mr. Ellice) that the Poor-law was well adrei-
ristered under local Acts in large towns, he (Lord H.)
feared that tins contrary was the case. In those plat-es the
principal inhabitants veers not in the habit of looking after
those matters so much as they ought, and, in consequence,
the concerns of the poor fell into the hands of persons who
were liable to no responsioility, and hence many abuses
originated. Some of the newspapers were in the habit of
directing attacks against the Poor-law—in many instances
those attacks were, nodoubt, made indiscriminately. How-
ever, with respect to Coventry, it was lately stated in one
of those journals that abuses to a frightful extent were pre-
vailing in the workhouse there. So much for what the
Hon. Member for Coventry stated.—(A laugh.) The
statement of the newspapers teas, in all probability, without
foundatian. But the reel fact ought to bo made out, and
it was of irnpatt toce that the-co should be some central
auihori y wle:ch would inquire into the existence
or non-existence of abuses when thus alleged
us hawing taken place. On a lain occasien
a nturib:r if Improper females were sent out to Aus-
tralia, agreeably to a decision which the Local Board
of M irtieborse hel come to. It was the casting vote of
the Ch;Curnie which decided the question is that ease.
Nelhb g could be more improper in his ( Lord Hoe ick's)
(pinion, thee sending out those females to that colony.
That and many other cases would, Ise thought, go far to
Prove tha•t• ',lacy should be careful in amending the clause
at prase )t wider considerat ion.
destroy ATTORNEY. GENERAL said that they would
coalroyret'al efficiency of the Bill if they prevented the
'as iouere havieg the powers eei tend the ad-
minim ation of the Poar-la in largeto up.
Sir B. HALL sa0„0:: that Paristlza•
eon, tarnaissati.lo etl; se exactly effect
site'OsllsildnbCof tothlcr
svaeratalapeoC,. of the clause
in the pose
enjoyed under the pre-
vious Act. Ha concurred in ta
ought to be postponed.
hoped, opinion that the clause
t erafore, the metre-
peleal parishes would ne exempted trona the operation of
the Bill.
Lord JO [IN RUSSELL said with regard to what had
been s'a!ed rf.lqrc,ing puttit g the House in possession of
a s!a!ernent of the nurnbcr of paii;hes under local Acts,
he ars:se:ed at once that there was such an account, and
that it would be eoevonient to have it laid upon the table
of the House. It ecntainel an account of 364 paii•hes
under general Acts, and of cloven
lundery eseoparaite
.local
Acts. He did not think the
.Poor- at
which m
they 'le
coulders
would endeavour to do that inhaectly
be no objection
not do otherwise, and there could therefore
ore should
to its lying forbidden by the Act. Ho, there}war,.
) He
not objet: to poatisone the clause.—( Hear,
Lord the. 1.
agreed in all that had been statel by the Net.
Member for N. rtliurnbcrlanc!.
Mr. WA KL E Y said lie hoped the Nob'e Lord would
also not object to a rt turn, stating on what grow leell:es e.
. proceedings hat Lean commenced against parish2s, in
order that the expense might be avoi led in future.
Captain PECHE LL thought the House should 8.80
be informed of the numbers of parishes incorporated under
Gilbert's Act. There sere "SS eith a population of
two neilliens. The Noble Lord shoole bis head, but there
wereteeese,ooo under the local Acts and G.lbert's Act,
and eleven millions uneer the raics and regulations of
the Poor-law Commissioner-.
Mr. HAWES thought the came favour ought to be
shown to large parishes, such as Lambeth, as to those ac-
cidentally in possession cf lees Ac'':. I..stieo should be
done to all, and he ther(f re put in a claim for them.
Mr. HODGSON LUNDE thought the Hon Gentle-
man should carry out his principle of exemption further,
and join these who weredesirous of exempting the parishes
altogether from the power of the Commieeionsra.
Sir DE LACY EVANS thought the case brought
forward by the Noble Lord (Lord Howlett) was but
slight ground co
.which to found a charge of miggovero-
went against • , ;meshes and to call for more stringent sur-
veillance.
Mr. GROTE said the Hon. Gentleman had misunder-
stood the Noble Lord ( Lord Howick) who had
merely
said that cases such as he had cited, shewed the necessity
of exercising the same authority in large as well as small
parishes.
After a few words Teem Si: A. DA LRYM PI. E,
Mr. MUNTZ said he cool I not why the Commis-
sioners should interfere its the largo towns any mute tin's
they did with Municipal Corporatioes.
The motion for postponen,eA was then eel-jet!.
On claw 4,
Mr. HODGSON HINDE, moved that the word
"every " should be left out, and "no " substituted. (The
Itlfyse rattedlif time eoustru •ofthe words "rule, order,
e__gu ction
TV 11° ) lle thought they were bound to go
. ore' into the rules and ofC
regulations
the
, • than the' had done at present. It was not right
to • ' over the pocr to three
•- Le":-de) t With according individuals to,
ere eearei . • • to their pleasure. With
#, .j to the aged and infirm married and
e4as'/' r men
' aer etat4l
•

A S

• women, the Poor-law Commissioners had not at first car-
ried out their system of separation, but they had subse-
quently taken away all discretion from the board of
guardians on the subject, and had carried out the system
of separorion to a cruel extent, insisting upon the separa-
tion except under special circumstance., of which the Com-
naissiohers alone were to judge. He also objected to the
separation of children from their parents, who were their
natural guardians; there was also an unmet tsary strict-
ness observed in prohibiting the inmates of workhouses
from h ,ving interviews with their friends and relatives.
He thought it extremely harsh to lay down down a rule
such as that laid down by the Commissioners with regard
to diet—that the diet of the pauper should never exceed
in qvaptity or quality that of the able-bodied labourer.
There ought to be a great discretion left to the guardians
on all these subjects. He could not give his confidence to
the Commissioners, because he observed on their part con-
stant endeavours to extend their powers. They had at-
tempted by their orders to set aside even some of the pro-
ai'ions of the Poor-law Act itself, particularly those giving
to the guardians the power of affording out-door relief.
The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the omission
of the word "every" from the clause, and substituting the
word " no."
Lord J. RUSSELL said that it appeared to him that
the tendency of the Hon. Member's motim would be to
confine the authority of the Commissioners to the forma-
tion of unions, while he would take away from them all
control over their proceedings. There c )uld be no doubt
of 0 e abuses of the old system when the guardians had
bre i left to their own discretion. The House a 3 well as
the country having become sensible. of those abuses, it was
thought alvisable t ) form a Commus on, which would im-
prove the system of management, while they firmed the
parishes into unions. 1-12 thought that the measure then
adopted had hitherto succeeded. He would not undertake
to justify every act of the Commissioners, but he thought
that in gonerel their conduct ba'l proceeded on wise and
just principles, and was neither inhuman nor tyrannical.—
( Hear, hear.) That was the course, be repeated, which
the House had already adopted, and they had no other
choice left them unless they allowed the guardians to take
theii own course, and to follow their own will and discre-
tion. He had no doubt but that many boards of
guardians would in that case go on steadily, acting on
enlightened views; but he was equally persuadei that
many others would, fur the sake of gratifying popular
feeling, return to the abuses of the old system, a bile there
would be no power which could correct that evil. As it
appeared to him that the motion of the Hon. Gentleman
would have that tendency, ho certainly could not think it
would he wise on the part of the House to adopt it. Let
them look to the conduct of the Commissioners which had
been pronounced to be so harsh and oppressive. Ha found
that in the quarter ending in Lady-day, 1840, the number
of paupers who had received in-door relief in England
alone was 134,000, and in England and Wale?, 143,356 ;
while the number who had received out-door relief
amounted to 747,000.—(Hear.) The number of able-
bodied persons alone who had received such relief was
93,134. He thought that these facts did not prove any
undue severity on the part of the Commissioners. The
Noble Lord then concluded by expressing his determina-
tion to oppose the amendment.
Mr. HODGSON HINDE expressed his conviction
that the House itself should lay down the rules for the re-
gulation of the union?, and not leave the framing of them
to the Commissioners.

Mr. WARD said that he would be a very mistaken
friend of the poor who would hold out to them a cer-
tain prospect of ease and comfort in a workhouse, no
matter what their previous conduct might be. The work-
ing men should be taught above all things to look to them •
selves and their own exertions. He believed, therefore,
that the discussions which had taken place in that. House
might be attended with an injurious effect, inasmuch as
they would create false expectations in the minds of many
of the poorer classes. With regard to the conduct of the
Commissioners, he thought that in very difficult circum-
stances they had acted on the whole wisely and humanely.
They had, no doubt, committed mistakes. but he was per
suaded that there were fe Net than might have been ex-
pected in their position. He did not think the dietary
tables were so very meagre as stated by the Hon. Mem-
ber; there were six dietary tables faun which the guar-
dians might choose, and when ke found that the cost of
a man, his wife, and four children was 11e. 3id., and
took into consideration the wages obtained by an agricul-
tural labourer, he did not think the system deserved the
censure of the Hon. Member.

Sir H. FLEET WOOD said the Magistrates of the
county and boards of guardians generally complained of the
dictation of the Commissioner,.

General JOHNSTON said there never was a law
which had given so much dissatisfaction as the Poor-law
Amendment Act. He saw no reason why the whole of
the poor in England should be loft to the caprice of the
Commissioners at Somerset-house.
Lord G. SOMERSET could not vote for the amend-
ment cf his Hon. Friend ; he could not agree to abolish
the powers of the Commissioners unless some other con-
trolling power were established. At the same time he
felt bound to say that the unpopularity of the law was
owing to the manner in which they had carried it into
effect.—(Hear, hoar.) Their arrogance was too great ;
they had interfered too much in many things which ought
to have been out of their consideration. Still he did not
think their poser ought to be abrogated.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL believed there never had
been appointments made by the Government with more
anxious care than those of the Poor-law Commissioners.
—(Hear, hear.) Oae of them, it was well known, was
of opposite principles to himself ; another had been secre-
tary to a Noble Lord, whom he did not then see in his
place ; and the third was not of any very marked political
principles.—( Hear, hear). He had seen nothing in their
conduct which had ever made him regret the appointment
of these gentlemen.—( Cheers.) He believed they were
all well acquainted with the practical working and details
of the measure, and they had adopted the very wisest and
most judicious principles for carrying the provisions of
of the law into effect. With respect to the charge of
arrogance, he really did not think that they had hid them-
selves open to any such imputation. They had cer-
tainly a very disagreeable duty to discharge ; and where
the great objects of the Act were to reform abuses and
to reduce useless and extravagant expenditure, it
could not be pleasant to the parties whose power was
about to be taken away from them to have the law strictly
and impartially administered.—( Hear, hear.) It was sup-
posed by some persons that these gentlemen were actuated
by the most harsh and tyrannical feelings, and that they
felt a reluctance to make any concessions to the unfortu-
nate paupers who were placed under their control ; but if
Hon. Members would look at the Reports which had been
laid upon the table of the House, in which they pointed out
the important duties they had to perform, and the improve.
ments that had taken place in the moral and intellectual
condition of the people, they would find that they bad most
conscieratiously and honestly discharged one of the highest
and most important duties that had ever been conferred
upon any body of men, and that, instead of being subjected
to odium and abuse, they were deserving the admiration and
respect of that House and the country.—(Loud cheers.)
Lord SAND ON did not think the Hon. Members on
his side of the House should be prevented from question-
ing the mode in which the Poor-law was administered by
these geatlemen. Ho thought the observations of his
Noble Fr:end (Lord G. Somerset) were fully borne out
by the fact, and he believed there was no instance in which
any party who conscientiously opposed the Poor-taw
Ameraloseat Bill had not been run down and assailed by
the Poor-law Commissioners.—( Hear, hear.) He would
remind the Noble Lord (J. Russell) that the sole function
of the Commissioners was not to reduce and limit expen-
diture—they were bound to see that the wants of the poor
were attended to, but there was uo case of the kind on
record.—( near, hear.) Whenever a cha-ge of cruel'y or
oppression was brought against an officer intrusted with
the administration of the Poor-law, the Commissioner
who was sent down always appeared as the protector of
the offending party. He believed these gentlemen were
too much the slaves of a certain theory, which induced
them to throw overboard and sacrifice their private I ,el-
- and the comforts of the poor. He admitted that a
large discretionary power should be placed in the hands
of the Commissioners, but he thought there ought to be
some restrictions imposed upon them. Ile should, there-
fore, oppose the emendmeat of his Hon. Friend.
Sir H. VERNEY could assure his Noble Friend that
there were many instances in which the Commissioners
had interfered fir the purpose of promoting the comforts
of tae poor.—( Hear, hear.) He could assure the House
that they had done a great deal of good in the district
with which he was connect,:cl, and that they had discharged
the duty with which they were entrusted faithfully and
zealously.
Mr. LIALFORD, although he had never taken part
inp otohe a
r-
lzogvl agitation that had
Bill,
af e
ltit
histakendu t
yp
to
oce v
owtiet with regard
against
it,to and,
tnidre,
a actingnm n
d amendment t theof his
smiei
lion.
Friend.principle, be
nishould t supportobjecotfio theobjection
to
ptheetutiilnlgwtahs:hpeoswyestreomf wthhiec L
Commissioners,ee ng
adpwtehden it per_
s
originally understood that they were only to be used as
auxiliaries in establishing the provisions of
the Act, and
e
ebiliment of a central
.sh He di I not think threwas
ntheecaesstotybef.adristheoeateitoto,
authoritytoeinn7-
1 teeere between the poor and their natural protectors the
rich.
Mr. GALL Y KNIGHT wished to take an pEy ortthee_
et
bad it u
nity of statieg in reply to what had been mentioned
.by Member opposite (Mr. Wakley) relative to the
t,Bhe ai
.rs tf,otioi ) of o thatrdlolnti,on,ne
ofthe gsr
ho (Nlr.
oGaliliyanK3
of igthhta) on
union, whop
was not a friend of the PJor-law,
dthat the circumstances
should ha l shown
bmade
a them-
selvesdel
il" 0-
connected with that casecowniermeisfsciounneresd,
rocniaatim,gistauppmreedheenni
e
gen of the order of tits
he would be otter satisfied if
He confessed, howescr, that
Fn
deliseiritobu7gthh it-ittl;)ero[Cc°rmaniloiti:nric°orss
the poor, with respect to outdoor relief and otherwise.
ti‘h,healteigbisrliadtgivecd.
the characters of the powers of the Commissions s were some.
Mr. SLANE Y rose to defend .
unmerited attack upon them. The
I • private
Poor-law Commissioners from what he
N ocobnweeir:oerdd tooppbeosiatrer
( Lord Sandon) had given all due praise to t tear
these gentlemen in their public station.
characters, but he cast much obloquy onlitoh(eAcir.arsa,ciatenrcyl
the
enteroriddeerds
and
dt trheegualagteiodnspooofr
twheeregreatly
Commissioners,benefited
whoseby
duties were of a most difficult nature, and were performed
by them to the beat of their power, and with advantage to
the poor. He ksilted that They did not merit the eenstin:
cast upon them.
. WA h i, f Y submitted to the House t':at
it nppearrd io him to be eccupie I in discnising
a matter that was not befi re them. The business of the
House was to discuss the clauses of the Bill—( Hear,
hear)—and not to discuss the private and personal charac-
ters of the Commissioners.—( Hear, hear.) He never
heard, since he had been in that House, any individual,
whatever might be his feelings with regard to the Peer-
law, throw out any imputation whatever against the eha-
rear rs of the Comrtiasioners, or of any servant of the Com-
miraioners. tic was sure, whatever might be the feelings
of any individuals in that House, they would re-
frain from any attacks of that kind, seeing that
tCaec parties were not in the House to defend them-
, selves,. For his owe part he knew of uo circumstance

prejudicial to the characters of the Commissioners, or
of any persons in their service, and he felt great plea.
sure in making that statement. With respect to what
had been stated by the Hon. Member for Nottirgham-
shire (Mr. Gaily Knight), he ( Mr. Wakley) begged
to remind the Hon. Member th,t that was an explana-
tion and not a refutation. The order alluded to did
exist, and the medical officers bad applied for six rue-
cessive weJlis to the Chairman, entreating him to have
the order rescinded. The Chairman acknowledged that
such was the fact. The order, however, was main-
tained. He l:ad it upon the authority of the medical
attendant in the parish of Paddington, that he
could not order wine or other aliments without
the sanction of the union. He also learned
from the same medical gentleman that the
aged poor under the old system used to receive ss. a week
each, and he (Mr. Wakley) made it his business to inquire
of some of those old persons what were the allowances
under the present system ; lie was informed is, 6d. a
week, a pound of beef, and a loaf of bread. He had also
asked Mr. Pnilpots if he ordered wine or other stimulants
to patients, did he believe that they would be gives ? Mr.
Philpots replied that he thought they %mild he given for
a short time, and then withdrawn, and that the patients
would be told they should go to the workhouse or forfeit
those allowances. Now he (Mr. Wakley) bad learned
from many of these old and miserable creatures that
they would sooner starve than go to the workhou-e.
The Hon. Gentleman concluded by stating that he
would li,ve several additional facts to lay hefure the
House en Monday next regarding the rules of the Com-
missioners. which he wou!d show were repugnant to
humane feeling and common sense, and by stating that the
speeches delivered in that House in opposition to the con-
tinuance of the law, would have no useful eff:ct com-
pared with that which would arise from Hon. Members re-
cording their votes on the journals of the House.
Lord HO WICK said that it was complained of the
other evening in the House that a rule was made in the
Bastford Union prohibiting, even in cases of emergency,
the medical officer from administering wine and other stimu-
lants to patients ; that in order to do so the medical officer
should refer fur permission to the board of guardians ; that
great delay arose in consequence, and that in one instance,
owing to that delay, death was produced. Now he held in
his hand resolutions come to by the whole board of guar-
dians of that union on the 23d of February last, den) ing
the existence of such an order. The Noble Lord then
read extracts from the resolutions referred to, and con-
tended that they proved how necessary it was to scrutiaize
and inquire into statements thus put forth. He thought it
due to the board of guardians of that union to make this
explanation.
Mr. HAMILTON thought the powers now entrusted
to the Commissioners ought only to be exercised by the
Legislature of the country. He did not suppose that any
Member would stand up and advocate a restoration of the
old Poor-law.—(Cheers.) He certainly would not, but
the untefuted statements which had been made to the
House ought to make them pause before entrusting unli-
naitoad powers to the Commissioners.

Colonel ROLLE STON characterized the document
read by the Noble Lord, the Member for Northumber-
land, as a most adroit attempt to get rid of the efiLets of
the statement he (Colonel R.) had made the other
cvcning That statement, however, was supported- by
the oaths of three individuals, and by the statement made
by the surgeon to him (Colonel R.) in the face of
the board of guardians, then and there assembled for
the purpose of investigating that very case ; and not ono
of the Guardians contradicted the statement of the sur-
geon. He (Colonel Rolleston) said it could not be so,
and one of the guardians said it was true, for one
of his own paupers had been refused nourishment on a
surgeon's order just previously. The statement was a
mere play upon words ; it was true no order had been
given, because the term order was applied exclusively to
what was written in the book, and the injunction the sur-
geon had received was a verbal one. He was glad the
subject had been brought forward, because he thought
that such things would not now again occur. He would,
however, advise his Hon. Friend not to stir more in the
matter, because this was not the only instance, and if that
course of contradiction were pursued he should feel it his
duty to bring those matters forward.

Mr. C. WOOD hoped the matter would not drop, for
a more extraordinary case of contradiction he never beard.
Now, how the fact stated in the resolution of the
Board, that the surgeon had ordered wine and meat
for others, which were supplied between Dec. 28, and Feb.
8, could be reconcilable with the existence of the rule al-
luded to, he could not imagine. These were facts, or they
were not. If true, those tacts could be ascertained; and
those facts proved what the practice was better than any
orders could do.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, supposing the surgeon
was chargeable with misstatements, supposing the guar-
dians were chargeable with misstatements, and that it was
impossible to get at the truth amidst this contradictory
evidence, was it safe to entrust the administration of the
Poor-laws to guardians alone ?—(Cheers.) He wished to
see the Commissioners continued as a tribunal to which the
poor man might appeal, as well as a power for regulating
the guardians, and he was convinced that at present to do
away with the Commissioners would not be consistent with
the interests of humanity.—(Loud cheers. )
Mr. W. DUNCOMBE said that the argument of the
Right Hon. Baronet went to perpetuate the Commission.
Now no similar cases of inhumanity had occurred in places
not undor the jurisdiction of the Commission. Petitions
from all parts of the country had been presented against
the Bill. There was no evidence that the Bill had ele-
vated the character of the labouring classes. It made po-
verty a crime, and embittered the feelings of the poor.—
(The Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst loud cries of
" Divide, divide.")
Mr. BLACKSTONE denied the necessity of having
Commissioners to superintend boards of guardians (which
had been contended for by the Right Hon. Baronet), and
contended that the guardians were more competent to ad-
minister the law than the Poor-law Commissioners.
Mr. FIELDEN said that bad the Commissioners exer-
cised their power in favour of the poor man, he could
have forgiven for a time the power with which they had
been invested ; but instead of being a board of appeal for
the poor man, as they ought to have teen, according to the
Right Hon. Baronet, they had unfairly exercised their
power to oppress the poor man. He did not blame the
Commissioners, but he blamed the House that passed the
law giving them power.
Mr. HODGSON HINDE replied. Those who wished
to give the Commissioners the power of legislation would
vote against the amendment he had proposed; those who
wished to deny them such a power would vote f,r it.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the amendment of
the Hon. Member would take away altogether from the
Commissioners the power of making any regulations.
The House then divided when the numbers were--
For the Amendment 75
Against the Amendment
Majority against the Amendment ... —l5O
_ _ „

Mr. RICE then -moved the following amendment on the
clause—" And be it enacted, that every rule, order, or
regulation of the Poor-law Commissioners which shall be
issued after the passing of this Aet, and which shall
apply to the amount or description of relief to be giien to
the poor, or to their management in any workhouse, shall
be deemed to be a general rule subject to all the provisions
relating to general rules contained in the Act first herein
recited ; and such rule, order, or regulation shall be ac-
companied by the minutes or instructions of the said Com-
missioners, issued in explanation of such order, and every
other rule, order, or regulation of the said Commissioners
shall be deemed a particular order, notwithstanding that such
rule, order, or regulation shall, at the time of issuing the
same, be addressed by the said Commissioners to more
unions than one, or to more parishes or places than one."
In agswer to a question from Lord G. SOMERSET,
Mrs RICE said, that he meant his clause should apply
to all orders for the relief of the poor both inside and out-
side the workhouse.

Sir Er KNATCLIBULL observed that it was a singu-
lar fact that although the Commissioners had been so
many years in office they had laid on the table only five
general rules.
In answer to a question from Mr.. G. PALMER,
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was true that few general
rules were laid upen the table of the House, or made by
the Poor-law Commissioners, and the Noble Lord pro-
ceeded to explain the reason why, but his observations, in
consequence of the great noise which prevailed in the
House, were not heard in the gallery. The clause pro-
posed was one to bring before Parliament all general rules
applicable to any class of casee. He thought his Hon.
Friend's clause would effect that object with more cer-
tainty. He did not think the amendment proposed mere
eefinite, but that it would give rise to confusion.
Mr. J. JONES said he wished the first part of his
Hon. Friend's clause had been more general. It was his
opinion that all rules made by the Poor-law Commis-
sioners shoul I be under the supervision of the Secretary of
State, and subject to the• control of the House._(Hear,
hear.) It appeared to him also that the second part of
the clause was contradictory to the first.
After some further discussion, which was quite inaudible,
the clause was withdrawn.
Lend G. SOMERSET then moved, at the end of the
clause, to add, " Provided always, no such general rule,
cyder, or regulation shall be of any effect, unless duly
signed by two at least of the said Commissioners, and
seclel by their common seal, and countersigned by ono of
her Majesty's princidal Secretaries of State.
After a short discussion tha clause, as amended, was
agreed to.

On clause 5 b&lig proposed, .
Lord G. SOMERSET moved, m.lmes 4 and 5, to omit
the words "so authorised, or," "so."
After a snort conversation the clauso was postponed.
Sir F. POLLOCK thought that after the alteration
in clause 4, the clause thca under discussion would have
an injurious tff 'et.
M. GOULBURN sugrrested that it would bo advis-
able t) alter this dant° after the alteration which had been
male in clauae 4.
Mr. FIELUEN said that at that late hour he thought
they ought not to proceed with the discussion. Ile
should, therefore, move that the Chairman do report
progress, and ask leave to sit again on Monday.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not object to accede to the
proposition of the Hon. Member, but he gave notice that
he should move that on Tuesday the consideration of the
Poor-law Bill should take precedence of notices of motion.
The House thon resumed.

T II biCENSUS.
foarnldea3v,:nt,io bring in a Bill to
iclOutld bgeivt.fea7n:en accord-
-
wins :it Brit,in and
population of ''rVeic..' ''.
100,
for
take the
Mr. F. MA TM, E rnovit,-,
amend 3 and 4 Vie., C.
,cli,o)
le.: iciitii:o
.f2eitialtirieol
:el irmof than
trimi t
inga
to the present law.—Leave was then
ctileceli'llisatuingsd;:lni reel°.
The HON. GENTLEMEN then moved fur leave to bring
children in a Bill for regulating the employment of child and
young persons in factories.
Leave was 51ven accordingly, and the Bills ware save.
rel'y brought ro, and read a first time.
Colonel SIBTHORP gave notice that on Monday he
should move fur returns of certain proceedings connected
with the 1100 Union.
Ttio House then adjourned, at Half-past Twelve, to
Monday next.