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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, MAY q 2, 1847.

he would bring forward the measure on Monday, the
3lst n he :Yt.,u1,1 state to the House the course
pursue wikh ;.,•sp,eet ;() tie
H\ I !,R+ ).ND BILLS.— ADJOURNED DEBATE.
M.. I i B mov. d that the unier ut the day fur the
adj x.,ed deoutp theieupon be dischaig.d. The Com-
mittee had m-t, azAi from the progress which they had
made, he thought it wou!cl render unnecessary any further
debate upon the subject.
The order was accordingly di!,,charged.
PRISONS BILL.
Lord MAHON rushed te know when the Prisons BA
would be brought before the House ?
Sir GEORGE GREY proposed to proceed with the
Bill on Thursday. the 3d of June.
ENCUMBERED E.,TATES (IRELAND) BILL.
Sir F. TUESIGER foled the Nob!e Lord when it
was propoird to proceed with this Bill?
1.... rd JOHN RUSSELL said that he had promised
the It corder of Dublin that he would give ample notice
before that Bill %% as proceeded with. He also took that
opportunity of stating that he would proceed with the
miscellaneous estimates on Friday next.
POOR--LAW COMMISSION.

Mr. FERRAND to know if the estimates of
the Poor-law Commission would be taken on that
evening.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the estimates would
not be proceeded with before further progress was made
with the Prisln,' Bill.
INTERMENT IN TOWNS.
Mr. MACKINNON wished to ask the Noble Lord if'
I intended to proceed with this Bill:during the present

seseion?
Lord MORPETH said that be saw no prospect of
passing the Bill during the present session.
Mr. MACKINNON would like to know if he saw any
prospect of passing the Bill next session,—(Laughter.)
Lord MORPETH said that he was very confident of
being able to pass the Bill next session.
USE OF SUGAR IN DISTILLERIES.
Mr. BARKLY asked the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer what are the additional facilities which he intends
to give for the use of sugar in distilleries, and whe-
ther it is his intention to prop4e during the present
session, so much of the Act of the 6th George IV.,
c. 60, as forbids all attempt to distil in combina-
tion with grain, or checks use of sugar in ex-
isting distilleries, more especially of the 4th
clause of that Act, which prohibits distillation at the
same time from sugar and grain; the 45th clause, which
requires six days' notice to be given by the distiller of
his intention to use sugar; and the 46th clause, which
requires an interval cf one month between distilling
grain and sugar, or sugar sad grain separately.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he had stated on a former occasion that he did not
intend to bring forward any measure to prohibit the
use of grain in distilleries. He could only give the same
answer to the Hon. Gentleman as he gave to the lion.
Gentleman (the Member foteblontrose) a few evenings
ago, that he would give every facility, for the use of sugar,
that was cf nsistent with the existing laws. The chair-
man of' the Board of Excise had also got instructions to
the same effect, and to give every facility for that purpose.
He thought that be had a paramount duty to keep up
the revenue.—(Cheers.) To the latter part of the ques-
tien of the Hon. Gentleman he begged to say that he had
no in:ention whatever to repeal any part of the Act
whtch had been passed for legalising the distillation
from sugar. With respect to the Hon. Gentleman's ob-
servation, that one m ,nth was necessary before distil-
lation from grain could be resumed after distillation from
grain hid been used, he begged to observe that; it was
quite a mistake; tor, in reality only six days' notice Nimbi
necessary before the work could be resumed. In fact
Rowe and Co., of Dublin, and Messrs. Litman, of Rat-
cliffe Highway, were now working upon that system.
He therefore thought that any interference with the
excise was unnecessary.
Captain BARCLAY explained that he did not wish
to throw the slightest blame upon the Government, fur
he aid not inculpate them in the least for allowing dis-
tillation from grain.
ACTION OF THE POOR-LAW.
Mr. FERRAND said that a handbill had been cirete
lated in Sheffield, stating that a person named John
Darwin, who he understood bad formerly been in highly
respectable circumstances, had lately died in the work-
house, aid that his hod/had been cut up into quarters,
and sold. It was further stated that the mutilated mem-
bers had, five weeks afterwards, been taken to St. George's
burial ground in a coffin and interred. The question
which he wished to ask was whether any information re-
specting the circumstance had been communicated to the
Government ?
Sir GEORGE GREY said he had never heard of the
handbill till the lion. Gentleman had given notice of
his question. There was no reason for supposing that
any such occurrence had happened there, and he did
not think that the reports were sufficiently authenticated
to warrant further notice of it.
THE PAUPER DISFRANCHISED.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN asked the Solicitor-
General for Ireland whether the fact of having received
relief under the Poor law Act since the registering, dis-
franchises the voter; and in the event of his reply in the
negative, to ask whether it be the intention of her Ma-
jesty's Government to bring in a •Bill on this subject
during the present session.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for Ireland said the
question involved great difficulty; for Committees on
special cases had differed from each other invariably,
and came to contradictory conclusions. It appeared
that in England, after the passing of the Reform Bill,
any person receiving relief within a year of the county
registration was not entitled to be registered. But in
Ireland the feet of receiving relief did not disfranchise
the county voter. The I•ame.law affected the burghs.
The CHANCELLOR LOAN OF £300,000.
ry eldaonffdo:rh
bee
yE voteXw Ca
y 0E3,070011 siaoirdt bh ee
Reliefal
Commission,Alar ch 1 ast,
a3o,nnetxhhtee.
would move a similar vote its the House on Foarnid,
security of the rates, and he now gave notice that
Mr. HUMS hoped at the same time the
Right Hon.
Gentleman would give an account of the manner in
which the other sum had been expended.
SEDUCTION AND PROSTITUTION BILL.
Mr. SPOONER, in reply to a questien, said there
were only seven names opposed to the Bill. He did not
know whether these seven gentlemen were necessarily
seven wise men; but he begged distinctly to sae
that he would proceed with the first reading
of the Bill at the earliest opportunity, without con-
sideration of the convenience of these Lion. Gentlemen,
Ile had presented a petition from a woman who was
committed for what was called an illegal offence.
Sir G. GREY said—A case had been brought to the
Home office in reference to the matter to which the
lion. Gentleman alluded, but there was nothing
to convict the magistrate concerned in he matter
of anything like illegAlity in tis conviction in question.

Crd GIORGE-BE&TINCK said—He Wished to
,hserve, wi;tl reteret.ce to the m.,tion for a vote of
300.000/ for the rel of works in Ireland, that he hoped
the Government wi:ulti be able to tell the country how it
oeuurred, thin, the number of persons ooployed in
lawi on the relief w,rks was reduced from 700,000 to
244,000.
Mr. LABOUCHERE explained that it could not be
..xpeeted that at present there should be a great
number of persons erepl,:yed in the relief works in Ireland.
As soon as the new system could be carried out, their
euiploy ment would cease. It was no fault of the Govern-
ment that the system of public works had not been dis
continued a long time ago.
Mr STAFFORD O'BRIEN said that he considered
that the present was a fitting opportunity to complain
that the second question which he asked had not been
answered, he wished to call the attention of her Ma-
jesty's Government to that question, and inquire whether
it was their intention to bring in any Bill upon the
subject.
Tne CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
the Government had determined to take the matter into
consideration.
DISTURBANCES IN PORTUGAL.

Mr. HUME wished to ask a question of considerable
importance. It was rumoured that her Majesty's
Government had so far interfered with the
affairs of Portugal as to send out a deputation
there to make certain arrrangements under the
superintendence of ColonellWilde. He wished to know
what powers or directions were given to this officer, as
to any interference with the belligerents, and whether
such a course would not cause a danger of this
country being involved in a war. It had been stated
also that the British officers had been treated with in-
suit, and the nation thus subjected to degradation. He
wished to know whether the Noble Lord was prepared
to lay upon the table any papers or instructions given
with reference to this subject.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that at present the Govern-
ment were not prepared to lay upon the table the papers
sought for until the proper time came. They would then
be placed before the House.
Mr. HUME then gave notice that immediately after
the holidays he should bring the subject under the con-
sideration of the House, in order that no uncertainty
might rest upon a matter of so much importance.
POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION ACT.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this
Bill,
Mr. BORTHWICK rose, but was for some time in-
audible, in consequence of the uproar prevailing in the
House. The Hon. Gentleman said, as he had main-
tuißed a consistent course since the period he had en-
tered that House, it became incumbent on him to ex-
press the opinion he entertained, that the Bill was only
an amendment of a previous Act, which embodied prin-
cipl,s of the most unconstitutional character, and he
felt obliged, therefore, however painful it might be to
him, to record his vote that the Bill should be read a
second time that day six months. The Ministers, in the
course of the present debate, had not shown much inte-
rest In the pre,ent, question. On the last night of the
debate he saw on one bench the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber tor bath auuu,lly ,en.,sing. On a bench behind the
ct:aira.t.litthl4e7o:lo:l'll tilt
M-4•ist'.rial
stretettcu the Hop. 2%:einort at, bench the re lay
the !wail of the Ordnance,
and
the Gus ernsGeot ; vi,hile the R;ght Hon. Gen-
tit:ber4nthe I :owe ::,:t:tad,
Ise the aulguwAt, of the polet—
i,yatre.intostehde
caennottrhee,raslqi
f to
1,, Since. the ioveiy are sleeping
real
Go sleep th At with them."

—(Laughter.) Hon. and Learnt d Member for
Bath had attacked the Honourable Member for
Kearesborough in a very pers'mal man-
ner, and had insisted that his opinions or
sentiments were entitled to no consideration, but it
should be recollected that that Hon. Member represent-
ing the feelings of the. great body of the people. He was
neither a h)pocrite nor hunter for popularity, for his
clients were not those who returned Members to Par •
liament, but the poor. It was their opinion that the
Hon. Member for Knaresborough sought to obtain.
"No, let the candied tongue lull absurd pomp,
Or crook the pregnant binges of the knee,
Where thrift may follow fawning."
These were not those who opposed such theasure as

the present. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman the
' Member for Bath referred at some length to the works
of Grotius, Putfenciorf, Vattel, and other authorities,
and stated that he believed in his conscience that his
(Mr. Borthw;ek's) Hon. Friend the Member for Knares-
bo:ugh did not know whether Grotius lived in
the reign of George 111., or during the reign
of the Emperor Adrian—(Loud laughter)---which
was, in his (Mr. Borthwick's) estimation, a most im-
p pro r and uncalled for observation, for one Member of
the Howe to make to another. He knew that the Hon.
and Learned Member for Bath was familiar with the
43d of Elizabeth—that he might have got knowledge of
Grotius—that he might have read every line of Puffen-
dorf—and that he had read the work tee which he made so
much reference, namely, Mrs. Trollope's novel, " Jessie
Phillips ;" but how did these authorities affect the ques-
tion before the House ? Did it not stand as it did
hefore ? And did not the Hon. Member for Bath stand
accus.sl of having spoken on subjects which were not
before the House ? The Hon. and Learned Member for
Bath told them that the law of Elizabeth was one in
fact with the law of 1834, and the Noble Loid at the
head of the Government told them that the law of 1834
was simply passed to correct the mischiefs which had
occurred in 1795 ; or, as he phrased it, the evils which
had prevailed towards the end of the last century.
The Noble Lord had stated that the magistrates had
at that period decided that no diffe7ence was
to be made between unexpected misfortune and deli-
berate immorality. Now this was plainly unconstitu-
tional, and if that be true it was equally plain that the
same proceeding was unconstitutional wherever it might
be practised ; and if it was unconstitutional, therefore,
in the magistrate, it was equally plan that it was tin-
constitutional in the authorities at Somerset House. The
Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to prove from a sup-
posed case between two labourers, one industrious and
the other depraved, in order to show that a magistrate
would be plated either in a position of difficulty or would
be compelled to commit great injustice, by committing
the steady with the unsteady man to the workhouse.
The law of Elizabeth took good care not only
that the poor should have relief, but that in
respect of work being provided, that they should
have that with a good and comfortable lodging.
The Noble Lord seemed to him to adopt a fallacy which
seemed very general, namely, that the description of the
Bill of 1844 was a central control over a heal adminis-
tration. Now his objection to the law was, that it took•
the unalienable rights of the poor from them, and re-
moved them from out of the pale of the constitution. A
man might render himself liable to the law from the
moment, from an unforeseen calamity, he had been
s'ripped of his independence. The labourer of England
possessed a lower nobility of spirit than the aristocracy
of England—they might say what they liked to the con-
trary ; but so it was. The Bill before the House did not
touch the'principle of 1834, which left the power of the
Bill in the hands of the Poor-law Commissioners,he must
however admit, that the machinery introduced into the
present Bill was a great improvement upon the former
system. When the Bill went into Committee, he was
determined to move that three should be inserted instead
of five years, for he believed that in three years the
country would discover that it was wrong in principle

and tyrannous in its operation.
Mr. MILES—The 13111 was merely for the purpose of
changing the nature of the Commission, and he was as-
tonished, after the speech of the Noble Lord, that such a
Bill should be introduced, for it was nothing else but

a most elaborate defence of that Co—mmission,
both from their own acts, and the charges

of Mr. Chadwick, who was secretary to it.—(Hear.)
It was his intention, after the assertion made by the
Noble Lord last night that he was not particular to the
form in which this matter should be regulated, to give
him his support upon the second reading of the Bill.
The poor had an ingdienable right to relief, but if he
reasoned by analogy from the law of Elizabeth, be would
see that the able-bodied had only a right to relief in a
certain way. They should have a test of destitution
still more strong than the one they had ; for he must
say that the present test was slipping littl by little from
under their fingers. The Noble Lord made another
observation that if the power was left with the board of
guardians they would act with more severity than the
Poor-law Commissioners, and he begged, as far as his

knowledge went, to contradict it, for whenever any
interference of the board of guardians bad taken
place, it was always to induce the Commissioners to take
a somewhat more merciful view of the particular case
submitted to them, than the law seemed to warrant. If
the case were referred to the quarter sessions, the poor
would be still less likely to receive a lenient considera-
tion, as the quarter sessions was a place, in most cases,
influenced by party, and made a place of declaiming and

debate. - -
Mr. B. ESCOTT said that he had heard no reason
adduced in that House to prove the superiority of this
new system over the old one, and therefore he should
vote against it. The Noble Lord bad admitted, in his
speech of the previous evening, that this Commission was
an experiment liable to many grave and serious objec-
tions. Under the new system, all the officers, down to
the pettiest officer in every union, would be under the
control of the Government, and that was not the least
of the very grave objections which could be urged
against it. Had the Hon. Member read the report which
the Poor-law Commissioners had decreed to be laid on
the table of the House on the very day on which the de-
bate upon the second reading of this Bi 1 was first taker:,
and if he had, would not its contents furnish a very suf-
ficient reason for not giving his vote in favour of the
measure? That report had stated, that in spite of all
the distress which existed in the country, the commis-
sioners had been enabled to keep up their rules and re-
gulations tolerably well. He thought that the feelings
of the commissioners, instead of being those of gratifi-
cation, ou;ht to be of bitter shame for their past conduct.
The only defence which could be brought forward
in defence of the introduction of this system, was the
absolute incapacity of the present system, and the
present commissioners. The Noble Lord was not a
man to bring forward this measure without some very
strong and cogent reason of the kind. He defied any
Hon. Member to show that the present poor-law had
ever been beneficially administered without some partial
disregard of the orders of the commissioners. This,

howe'Ver, did not help him to vote for the new measure
until some reason was adduced which could show him that
the new Commission would be productive of any betterre•
sults. It was a long time after the passing of the law of
I 834,,that the Poor- law Commissioners had the courage to
issue rules and regulations respecting the out-door relief
to the able-bodied poor. They did not do so till forced
by the Right lion. Gentleman the Home Secretary.

They issued ene then, restricting the relief of the able-
bodit d poor to the house alone. It was, however, soon
found out that this would not act, and they were obliged
to issue a second rule, providing that out door relief to
the able bodied, under particular circumstances. From
time to time orders of one kind or another have been
issued, but in no instance have they been generally acted
on. There were whole unions that have con •
ducted the relief of the poor, without any
reference whatever to the dicta of the
commissioners. A great deal had been said about the
' workhouse test, but he submitted that it had been a
failure. The object of it, it was said, was to distinguish
the industrious man from the idle vagabond; but had it
done so ? No, but rather its practical effect was to
drive the industrious and honest pauper from the work-
house from the dread of incarceration, and being half-
starved; while the idle vagabond went into the House,
and filled his belly at the expense of the rate payers.
He cared for nothing so long as his stomach was tilled.
He declared therefore that the boasted test had
completely failed ; and 30 far from the present
measure satisfying the just expectations of the country,
he was persuaded that it would prove most delusive in
its character. The country would not consider it an
improvement. lie considered that the acts of the Poor-
law Commissioners were illegal, because, although the
Queen, Lords, and Commons might pass acts binding
public
inuebi
tlitfic i.
Poor-law
xo
uuKnl dtLry}fi;Byn heidl
l might denied that they could delegate to
others their power of doing so.
sathidietthat however bad the pre-
vious
presenthave ebeen,ne a
nh e a
ggr fearedaea t theio aggravation
of the evil. Under the present peculiar circumstances
of the country he thought it was singularly
unfortunate that the Government should have placed
°r
it-
belt in this position, but it was still mote unfortunate f
the reopie to find no relief from the grievances under
which they had been suffering, under the operation of
this former law. He thought this the more unfortunate
as the Government had commanded the respect and
esteem of the House, and of the country, by the intro-
duction of the poor-law measure with respect to Ireland.
They had certainly earned his esteem for their conduct,
and the,. therefore, Ithe more regretted, indeed, it
was excee:ingly painful to him to complain of the
manner in which this Bill had been framed.
_ _

He did expect that some measure of relief would have
been introduced calculated to mitigate the inconvenience
under which the people suffered by this law. He
was wholly disappointed, and therefore his regret was
great. He was extremely gratified to find the Noble
Lord so full of confidence, but he (Mr. Wakley) had
always remarked that the Noble Lord was never so bold
as when he 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 on the last
night, because he answered himself by anticipation.—
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Wakley) heard the Noble Lord
of 1834, 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 be (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
d executive power and functions.—(Hear, hear.)
What could be more dangerous ? how would it work ?
Why, every board of guardians in the kingdom would be
political agents, and instruments set to work by design-
ing people, to accomplish some sinister object. What
then was to become ot 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
jealous
the effect of this mea-
sure ? Were the Ministry 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.-r(Lnughter
in which Lard John Russell and Sir George Gray

/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.—
(Laughtf-r.) What were the questions that would be
most commonly asked, and which the Poor law Corn•
missioners would have to determine ? lie (Mr. Wekley)
did not think the subject bad engaged the attention of
the Government. lie thought that the Noble
Lord had 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 w:s
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 appear to be
displeased with their conduct. Did he mean to hold it
out as an example to his colleagues, the new commis-
sioners? If he did, the country would not be satisfied,
and the House would probable see the spectacle of s
dissolution in July, a meeting in Octcber, 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, 15346,
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, ineat-vudding in lieu of bread and
cheese. The Board of Guardians request that you will
sanction this arrangement.—l hare, &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
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
tbis request were themselves the rate-payers, and would,
therefore, be obliged to be ,r the expence.—(Hear,
hear.) The board of guardians addressed another
letter to the Poor-law Commissioners, dated the Bth

February. He trusted that Hon. 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)—and 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 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 resolution
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 might be estimated at 50/. 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 bad
practical experience of its working. But the
Poor-law Commissioners were determined that

they should not have that praetical 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 be liberally given, he was delighted to hear
this, but he would like to know what they would do with
such guardians as those of the poor-law union. When
they began to administer the law they would find the
difficulties insurmountable.—([fear, hear.) 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 adulated only of 5
of meat to an able-bodied man, and three ounces to au
able bodied woman in the same time. This was on

Sunday, while on other days they were only allowed
7 oz. of bread and 1 oz. of cheese for dinner. Would 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
House of Correction. In the Bromley 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. On 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 hero 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 Woo,
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 attention, and their explanations would
be required. r(ow he (Mr. 'Wakley) asked, was it for
the safety of the country that such subjects should be
continually mooted there ? He knew where the balance
of an evil would be found. It would be in the board of
guardians, and they would rule the Government. The
poor, being weak, would go to the wall, and that being
the case, what would be the feelings of the poor of this
country. It was his opinion that such a feeling of in-
dignation would arise amongst them, as to endanger the
institutions of the country.—(Hear.) He was con-
vinced, too, that a more unconstitutional measure
could not be brought forward. Was this sys-
tem of centralization to go on increasing, at
every step they took, the power and influence of
the Government. The Noble Lord at the head of_tke
Government must be award 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 Nob*. 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
had always expressed himself jealous of increasing the
powers of the Crown, should bring forward such a mea-
sure as this. The Noble 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 future Go.
vornments having it in their power to increase their
in-
fluencehsspe speech olausgthnoiugth tt,hceomlecopuntterlyy, The Noble Lord, in
failed to show the ne-
cessity
for this measure. The Noble Lord was
for a central beard. Well, they had tried such
a control with regard to the poor-law for
r
the last thirteen years, and it had failed ;
o if
fhe they were to establish a central
protection of the rich rate-payer, why
should not'
controlbut
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
st
still,
the poor have a judge to see that his rulers
for
, 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 rewardingthem for th •
gua eir misconduct
instead of visiting them with condemnation. But really
and truly the constitutions of these boards of guardians
ought to he 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, and he 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 need could procure relief without
walking several miles for it. The present law in all
respects was inconsistent with the principle of the —A-et
of Elizabeth, and especially inconsistent with regard
to the able-bodied poor. IT
—l3Oll 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 piri6h authori-

ties, but under the new poor•law he had o 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 the poor. The mainte-
nance of the poor, in fact, 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 bad no property of their
o,vn. That principle was acknowledged by the
statute of Queen Elizabeth, but by the Aet of
1834, it was almost abrogated. Ho 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-

q'ienecs to the Government. But what was
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 et uld 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 for 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 design 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. (Hear, 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 the 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 Margate 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,
an order was granted for his relief, and relief was ac-
cordinrzly 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 Commissioners 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. Ferrancl), 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 Cheers.)
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 every point, except one, that
was diseontent with the commissioners. The Hon.
Member for Evesham (Mr. P. Borthwick) thought that
the old local system was perfectio❑ itself, and he
had the utmost confidence in the conduct of the

workingeclassee. He only wondered that since the Hon.
Member had been in the House he had never brought
himself to give his vote in favour of iner.asing their
power. The Hon. Member also condemned is the
strongest language the conduct of the commissioners.
The Hon. Member for SomersetAire was a very inte-
resting character in this debate. Th.: t Hon. Gentleman
came forward and stated that the power and 'Authority of
the central power should he confirmed and strengthened.
The Hon. Member for Winchester (Air. 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 b cal 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 Ifon.
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-
mtnt for some central system of management for the poor.
Ho 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 and 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. He 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
road to fame by any person wishing to obtain for him-
self a little popularity. The people of this country were
now fully assured that the measure was one which had
produced great and beneficial results to themselves and
the country at large. The more the subject was consi-
dered the more convinced every one would be that the
statements made against the central authority were un-
founded. The central board bad a great many abuses
to correct, and Lord Althorp defined what these duties
were at the time the commissioners were appointed.
The first thing they had to do was to abolish the system
of allowances; the next was to deprive magistrates of
the power of giving out-door relief, with several other
duties of a different and arduous nature. If, then, it
had been admitted that the greatest success had at-
tended their labours, what ground was there for the
accusations made against them. One party thought
that the workhouse system could be carried out
over the country. Another party said that no
ono at all should be put into the workhouse.
The Honourable Member for Winchester, and
the Hon. Member for Finsbury said so, and that every
one should receive relief who applied for it. (Mr. B. Est-
cott said he 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-
isation at Somerset-house, however discreditable it might
appear to the parties who were mixed up in it, was 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 bad sanctioned that con-
fusion arose which led to his dismissal. And he (Mr.Vil-
liers) did not hesitate to say that ever since that time ho
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 be denitd that these charges were ever
proved before the House, and the Law Officers of the
Crown bad fully acquitted them of the imputations. The
case of the Andover workhouse had been frequently re-
ferred to in the debat-, 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
'o 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
oorain aced their labour6? They threw open their

doors to the public. And gave permission to the pubi
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 th it, 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 continued to permit the press to pursue
the course they had commenced. Such was the conduct
of this Select Committee.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. IVAKLEY said the evidence was reported to the

House and printed.
Mr. VILLIERS was bound to believe the lion. 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 reported to
the House. The press, as he had stated, were allowed
to be present ; charges of a personal nmure 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 Lad 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. Jr
a Select Commit tee 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 uxual when Committees allowed their proceeding:-
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, containing
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 (Mr. Duncombe)
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 al b > 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 Hon.
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 be 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.
VILLIER3 knew that his time was fully occu-
pied ; that he was in muet 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-
solution, expr.ssive 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 goine on favourably—(Hear, bear)—and
they were bound to trust to their servant& He really
wai ignorant of the fact until it was pr, tnulgated by the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge ; and let
the Hou4o recollect that a report t. this etf,ct was made
by Mr. Parker to the Commissioners, at the very time
' the proceedings in the Andover union case were going
on. He aas startled at tho statement—so much so that

he went up to the library the same evening the state-
ment was made, and searched out that paNssge in the

proceedings of the Committee. But be met
with something more startling, and which
he thought would equally astonish the Meuse.
he found that that very fact was brought forward before
'he Committee in the shape of a resolution.—(Cheers.)

They were called upon to 'furnish important informatioti
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 Committee?—(Bear.) The
fact wa 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 lion. Gentleman
the Member for Andover (Mr. Etwall) stated that he
proposed a resotution in the Committee, that Mr. Par-

ker had conducted the inquiry with great par-
tiality, and that opinion was adopted by the
Committee; but he (NIL Villiers) was at loss to
know why it did not appear in their proceedings.
He said that it was rather out of consideration 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-
liers) was cognizant of it, he referred to the otherassistant-
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. lle understood the Right Hon. Baronet to s►y,
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 there was not a word aatinst the

New Poor-taw 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 for his upright and honourable conduct during the
sittings of that Committee, when he came to vote that
to be truth which was not truth, and that to be tact
which was not fact, refused, and would not vote for the
resolutions. The Noble Lord might have said—these
resolutions are not a guide to me ; I will judge the
case upon its merits, and my conclusion shall be accord-
ing to my independent judgment. He thought he had
now shown the necessity of having some of the Commis-
sioners Members of that House ; that the Central Com-
mission had fulfilled its place ; that the people were re-
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
.7.
ha
mittee, where witnesses of every shade of opinion
been examined, not a single word had been heard, not d
a
single breath had been used againstall Commissioners.seemed
All seemed to approve of the commission, a ed t
osm
favour it, and all seemed to agree that much mischief
had been produced by the great outcry which had been
of it ; and that the first great
raised against it on occasion of the House intermeddling
with the proceedings
amount of mischief was done when the number of com-
missioners was reduced from IS to 9 in the session of
1841. The measure, which was now 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
beenbee
been
icorrupt,iihuna atnhes tinthtehye has
bees ye
they anda d
ebrereonrsca;
libouuts:ltlhaat t tlti
ad-
ministration of the law, or that they had done anything
but such as the Howie might suppose
liable to do, lie dia moat ,s_,
. ei,.iy Comillissioners
p, Iti ,ely deny. 1..1, would,
when the time came, '
give the measure his cordial
support.
Lord JOHN MANNERS said the Member for
Someractshire (Mr. Bayles) 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 effecting the objects of

itill it became disgusting, they had been led, throughout
the proceedings of the Andover Committee, the charges
upon the Commissioners, and the language of the
bl itiot nt.h eMBe
iml
lbietree
ihf:r a Initin aorbes bt °bre() till e-h
ill—ali
tsemlr
itl e eivl
nedryt hi everythingheard
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 he could have
uttered. Reference had been made to the poor-law,
and as to that, 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 inmates,
and comparing those that were efforded, in the
workhouses to the objects of charity, the state of the
latter in that respect, as compared w ith the former, was
a disgrace t.o a Christian country. He did think
that the medial advice supplied to the poor was very
insufficient, and placed cn a. footing that was very in-
ferior. He spoke from experience, tor 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 petationd the governor
bethatk
theept
frompr portionincipthalemdurig n otfhethLry. meals, mightihet
must be the discipline which bore such fruit as tam?
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, be would pass from the consideration 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
congratulate 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 np 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 Committee; 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 comment. lie 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-
-1 self vote upon that occasion?
Mr. VILLIERS—I never heard of it.
Lord J. MANNERS--Well, 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 resolutions 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 be would
institute an inquiry which they considered and kne.,e
they could not stand.--(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentlen-,an
also said that the commissioners were suffering unde-
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 hoard 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 " Divide.")

Sir J. GRAHAM said that he was not at all sur-
prised at the impatience of the House upon this subject.
Ile had almost ventured to hope that he never ehovld
again
have found it necessary to trespass upon the in.
dutgence 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
be incurred in his eudeavonrs to please, and considering
also the official bias which he was supposed to have
hither to 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, arid he trusted that he should be pardoned if h e
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 agrce.
ing with him iu 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 contra-distinguished 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-
tuted for a parochial system, and that system throughout
England and Wales, with hardly an exception, ulight
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 wero
unwilling to work, to labour at the cost of the parish
authorities under arrangements made by those autho-
rities
he
i pleTthhea
to bile :at
coif tehnei
eAnctthoefrels.Sll3o4eald•asbteo
ed
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 he 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 proper manner, and that the
paid officers should be strictly controlled and watched.
These paid officers now throughout England edadaistert d
relief. Again, with respect to medical attendance to
the poor, whatever might be said witlT rt gard to the
imperfections in the system of medical relict, 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 crept in, but those were owing
to the thriftiness of the board of guardians, and
thet
Commissioners,ute
h
salaries of the medical officers were increased by
authority. There VMS an4iphera
was formerly a single
ty. sh owing the nr
imperfectionecessity of
with a
to the parish accounts. h ori
magistrates, and a
d the grossest frauds crept in. The auditing
day appointed
the
tauaclaist of tmerelyheir accounts
by
of form, an
system was now placed under responsible parochial
officers. Provision had been made for the education of
children in the workhouse, where no such provision
before existed. The education of the children, as given
in the workhouses, was now better than that given in
ordinary schools, and better masters and naistreeses
were taken from the normal schools. The old
system was vicious to the very
n
por tafrneceed that the
that t.
re
tchiteree peoplepeanrda oni tf.
twhaiss countrye shouldi m
be The Hon. Member for Finsbury has saidthe -
sn pen at
rpisrhopvoesbittri oyn
ora b
will degradeoard
othfegHnaorudsis:lnsto. the level
theyvei o
pf
would be occupied day by day with questions relating to
the quality of soup, or the quantity of gruel given to the
pour ; whether it shall be made of one article
in preference to another ; whether it contains too
mUchmilk or too much water—all the tales and
matters of this kind. The bills, too, will be
brought under the notice of the House, if the
present measure be agreed to. If the question—whether
twhai ss wb,ea.tso trhe e
tphreomp r ac
he weotuol
dconsidere ad e
daisscniuns se
much
subjects
one the introduction of such topics, to the exclusion of
other important business. But these topics had been in•
troduced into the House relating to OW administration of
the law, they had Leen from tune to time forced on
the attention of the Government, and great difficulty had
been experienced in theaii
forsceofthotislee
eßhoarryaieurgeout
of di-
rectlyimmediately
responsible
Vtl* more ineonvenieut than that
the
the
e laanw*
dSecretary of State, who was not directly concerned
in the administration of the law, should be called to make
explanations on matters in which their information was
indirectly obtained. They had had an illustration that
very night, in the question asked by the Hon. Member
for Knaresborough in respect to the dismissal of Mr.
Mott. The Right lion. Gentlemen, the Secretary for
I the florae Departmeat used the expressien " dismissed,"
Now, in A technical sense, that lila not go, Mr. Mott,