The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-16 00:00:00

POOR SUPERVISION BILL.

This Bill was read a third time and passed with some
amendments.

POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the third
reading of this Bill.

Lord BROUGHAM objected to the Bill being further
proceeded with this session, as, without its aid, the law
could be administered until next session; and during
the recess and next session they would have more time
to consider the new powers which this Bill
proposed. It was ssid that the salary of
the Poor-law Commissioner, who was to sit in Par
liament, was to be 2,0001. a year, but it ought
either to be increased, or reduced at the option of the
Government. Now such an officer ought to be placed
in a more independent position ; he certainly would
have no easy task to perform. He should, therefore,
propose that the Bill be read a third time this day six
months. He hoped that Mr. Chadwick mai Captain
Nichols, who were in fact the authors of the system,
would still be employed in the administration of the
law. They would be removed as a matter of
course, if this Bill were passtd without compensation.
This would be unfair to them and to others connected
with the Poor law Commission, as they had borne the
brunt of all the labours and odium of the offices which
they had held. No term that could be culled from time
English dictionary was spared upon them—they were
dictators," " hard-hearted, ' and cruel." Com-
mon charity was not even exercised towards them ; and
had the other commissioners stood as firm in the
administration of the law. and as heedless of
public clamour, as Mr. Chadwick and Captain Nicholls,
the law would have been better administered. He thought
it right to say this in their behalf, as he had induced
Captain Nicholls to give up an office worth 2,500/. a
year to take his present cffice ; and was he and Mr.
Chailesiek, who had collected the materials out of
which they had framed all the Poor-law Bills, to be left
penniless
The BISHOP of LONDON said the merit of the
poor-law ass mainly due to Mr. Chadwick, who pos-
sessed tl-e facility of making himself master of every
subject into which he entered. No doubt the differences
between the Commissioners and Mr. Chadwick arose
from his desire to carry out the law in all its integrity.
He had read the correspondence on both sides, and he be-
lieved this was the extent of his fault, and he thought that
he should not go unrewarded. It was understood that
Mr. Chadwick should take an active part in the admi-
nistration of the Poor-law, and it was but natural that
he should feel some dissatisfaction if, after a time, he
found that his influence was not that which he expected.
He would be an useful man to the public in particular
depar.ments—in connexion with sanatory retorm, for
instance. He had known Mr. Chadwick since the com-
mencement of the inquiry with respect to the Poor-law.
and he considered that he hould not go unrewarded.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said, as a member
of a board of guardians, and as one anxious to carry out
the law, he wished to bear testimony to the high cha-
racter of Mr. Chadwick. He considered that the whole-
sale dismissal of the Commissioners would be grossly
unjust.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said the poor law
was passed as a temporary measure, and the parties
employed under it could not but look forward to some
material alterations in it at a future period ; in fact, that
it might undergo an entire change; and yet the commis-
sioners and others took their respective offices on these
conditions. No expectation was held out that they
would receise retiring pet sions—but he did not deny
that they had that claim on the Government which
motit must always have. The Act merely anticipated
the termination of the commission by a few months,
when the employment of all connected with the com-
mission would cease. The Parliament had had the
power, during the whole time the commission had ex.
isted, either to increase or to reduce the salaries of all
the persons employed in connexion with the commis-
sion.—(Hear, hear.) The salaries were left out of the
Bill, and placed entirely under the control of the House
Commons.--(Hear, hear.) If any error had been
committed, with respect to the salaries fur the new
commissioners, it was that they were too low—(Hear,
hear)—but they might be altered hereafter. He be-
lieved all connected with the commission had discharged
their duty most conscientiously.
Earl WICKLOW considered that the salary of a
commissioner, „ho had a seat in Parliament, should
not be increased or decreased at the caprice of the Le
gislature—such a course was at variance with every
precedent.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, in 1831 the
salaries of the officers of State and others were reduced
by the Treasury.
Lord .',IONTEAGLE corroborated the statement of
his Noble Friend.
Earl GREY said the salary of the commissioner who
%you'd have a seat in Parliament, would be the same as
the President of. the Board of Trade.
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—
F the third readine-

~'jr the
For the amenclii.ent .
Majority
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
The following Bills were then read a second time :
Herring Fishery (Scotland) Bill—Post-office Bill—Na-
vigation (No. 2) Mussel Fisheries Bill (Scotland)—
Drainage of Lands (Ireland) Bill—Stock in Trade Ex-
omption all—Polling at Elections Bill—Joint Stock
Companies Bill.
The Compensation for Damages Bill (Ireland) passed
through Committee.
The following Bills were read a third time :—Ec-
clesiastical Jurisdiction Amendment Bill —Railways
(Ireland) Bill, No. 2—Fishery Piers and Harbours Bill
(Ireland)—Turnpike Roads (South Wales) Bill—Canada
Consolidated Revenue Fund Bill—Print Works Bill—
Shannon Navigation (Ireland) Bill—London Bridge
Railway Termini—General Enlargement Bill.
Their Lordships then adjourned.