The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-20 00:00:00

MORNING EDITION

mirsioners sitting in Somerset House, or against the Gece
uernment of the day. Therefore he would say that there
was far greater security under the present than under the
former law. He did not say that they had perfect seaway
—he did not tell them that such cases as were adverted to
that night did not occur, or might not occur again ; he
oubted whether they could have a law that would gave
that security—but he did say that it was not in consequence
of the present law that such cases bad occu.red. The
Hon. Gentleman complained that there were rules issued
by the Commissioners under which they might prevent
cert Ain articles of food being given by the guardians, and
asked what would Gentlemen say if they were not allowed
to feed the i • hounds as they chose ? Now it was to he
considered that in rder to gave certain articles of food the
guardians were not to put their bands into their own
pockets, but the taxes which were levied on the poor and
labouring classes should be increased. If there could be
any means adopted by which labour ought at all to be re-
stricted, let them, if it was necessa-y, and if they tended
to the welfare of the whole community—let them make
such restrictions, but let those who make tteat take care
that they do not enhance tl e food of the labourer, and thereby
create a necessity for higher wages, in order to enable
him t t live and thus ir.flict a serious injury on the labourer.
What they ought to do was to to sure to the labourer far
`rages and fair field for his industry and exertions, and if
fay did that be did not doubt but that on such a stage the
English labourer would be well provided for.—(Ch% e a.)
But they should trke care that by a Poor-law system they
did not intercept the labourer's wages. They should t ,ke
care that the labourer was not paid partly by wages and
partly by Puor-law relief—dee he was not remunerated
by recei%ing wages only during one part of the year, and
by being forced during the other part to go to a put:lnc
Board to receive money; nod it, as the Hon. Gentleman
proporef, the labourer were forced to go to that public
Board to receive charitable reli f, and that Beard be autho-
rized to i .quire into his charaster for prudence or impr ft-
deuce, not on the question as to whetter he should be
engaged its a la'sourer to receive wages, but as to whether
be should participate in a public charity, then he (Lord
John Russ:ll) would contend that such a state of things
would be degrading to the character of the labourer,
would make him dependent, and would lower his
feelings by forcing him, instead of entering into
a fair contract for wages in re tors for labour, go as a men-
dicant to a public board for charity, which might be re.
fthei or granted accordiflg to caprice. The Hor. Gen-
tlemar supposed thet the conduct of such a beard would
be fair; he (Lord John Russell) doubted if it would be so.
A farmer might, out of ca; rice, say--" I do net like that
man.” A country gentleman might say—" I suspect that
fellow snared a hare last week."—(Cheers.) And thus
every man would undergo that scrutiny as to whether or
not he should be permitted to receive this charity. It
would indeed degrade the labourer into a state of vil-
leinage.—(Cheers.) That was his opinion, and he would
not shrink from the expression of it. The test of destitu-
tion was liable to none of those evils. The Hen. Gentle-
man had given instances of the repugnance of the poor to
go into the workhouse. He admitted that repugnance,
and he thought the poor were ill advised. It was for the in-
terest of tire poor to say—" Here we are, willing to work for
fair wog ss ; if you will not give us that, thee we ask to be
admitted to t e house, an I to be furnished with f,od and
shelte If that plan were adopted, he though' that the
prospect of employment-at fair wages would be much more
likely to be realised.—(Cheers.) But, instead of that, it
bad been attempted to instil into the minds of the poor,
that any, e%ea the lowest wages, were better than the
workhouse. The workhouse had been described as a
prison by those who arrogated to themselves the titles of
the benefactors of iii, poor, but who seer,', in fact, their
worst enemies.—(liud cheers.) He was sorry he
bad been again led into the defence of the general princi-
ple of the B.P. But he had been led to do so by the mo-
tion of the Hon. Gentleman for dividing tee B:11 into two
parts, and whatever might be asserted as to the effsct of he
Bill, in prot 'cting property, or as to its operation in low-
ering or ra'sing wages, Le would assert that t, e great
merits of its pri reitsle was that it led to the raising of the
character and isnproving the coneitien and the weil.being
of the poor, and that, if persisted in, it would raise to the
highest pitch of former times the independence of the Eng-
lish labourers.—( Loud cheers.)
M-. FIELDEN rose to exl.ress his utter abhorrence of
the principles laid down by the Noble Lord, who would
be judged by the people for what he had said that night.
Lord GI ANVILLE SOMERSET disapproved of the
powers given to the Peor-law Commissioners, and of many
c.auscs in the B 11, but he could not vote for the d,vi-
sion of it, because he thought that such disision would
have the effect of preventing any amendment If that
rn were mode, the Noble Lord, lensing carried his
Bill for continuing tae Pocr law Commissioners, might
say, after two or three nights' discussion on the amend-
monts, that the attempt was hopeless to carry the Bill
during the pressent Session, and thus the carrying of those
amendments, which all were anxious to introduce into the
present system, might be endangered.
Colonel SIBTHORP said he had high authority
for says g the e was great joy over one sinner that re-
pented, and this be applied to the Hon. Member fir Fins-
bury ( Mr. Wakley), who now regretted that he had sup-
ported he R form Bi 1. A more dangerous and destruc-
tive measure than that was never passed. With respect Other
present Bill, let Hon. Members read the causes which the
Noble Lord called amendments. He knew what Dr. Johnson
dofioe I an amendmsnt to be, but he hal rover before
known what was meant by an amended Act of Parliament.
He was opposed to all CO:11M13310119, but especially to this
one, bee %use it was impossible that the Commissioners
sitting in Somerset Huse could know how this law ope-
rated throughout the kingdom. He bcreye lit was most
partial and unjust in its operati rn. Ha would ask the
N ,ble Lord wh, ther they could spend too much time on
lases iga i ins of so much importance. How much time
was wasted in that disuse on matters of mere party inte-
rest, and yet here was a measure affecting the interests of
thousands, and time was refused for its consideration and
discussion. R serving himself f,r a future occasion, he
should now only say, that at (vests stsgs, and on every
occasion, this 8,11 should have his most strenuous opposi-
tion.--( H. a-, hear. )

Sir H. VERNE Y supported the Commission, and said
tbst since thee law came into operation, the rages of the
peer had considerably inerea ed. i
Mr. WAKLEY said alit as his motion did not appear
to meet with the sanction of the House, he would not
troui le the House to divide upon it, especially a; there was
another motion to be brought forward which Lai tie same
object.
Mr. TOWNLEY PARKER rose to move that the
House s'loulsl resolve itself into Committee on the Biil
that day six 11100.117. The Hon. Gentleman said he would
oppose the Bill in every sta4e, bereving th..t it would be
Yo.'n'y pernicious to the interests of the country. By the
10th clause he found that there vrat an intention on the
part of the Poor-law Commiseioners to direct that certain
Biyaels of Manageme it slt,uld be appointed far divers
purposes., and he could not help concluding that the object
was to frame B ,arda whicie consisting (7f fewer persons,
should be mere S'YE ervient and pliant than the guardians.
He confessed that ho was alarmed at the ambitious spi. it
manifested by the Commissioners wherever the:: power
could be made to extend. He had real a statement in a
pub'ic journal, which, from p ivate info motion, he be.
lieved to he tree, illustrating the spir t. The statement was
that at Barnstop'e, after a public meeting h&d for the free
expression of public opinion, th y had the audacity to send
down an A sietant Cornm'ssioner, who summoned before
him a gentlemai, a Maeistriit e who had taken part in that
meeting, and examineerhi,n as to the language which he
had uned on the occasion in reference to this subj;ct.
The name of the Commissioner was Giibert, th-t of the
Magistrate White. He mentioned this to give the Under.
Secretary of State, who .e at e itien he perceived was drawn
to the s'ateme it, an opportunity of denial or explana ion
The lion. Me.nbcr then went on t i refer to the 38:h and
30th cLu ea, by whi h ha sail power was conferred upon
the Currarinioners to titer ti e number of Gu,rdians, if
they_ thourzht it desirable to do so, is a particular parish.
ki
strongly obj!ctel to such a provision. Tie Poor-law
Commissioners had represented the system as produtiag
great e'x'"'arnY, a diminuti oa (.f P auP ev and an im-
provement in the moral
character of 'the people.
He denied that such
ting hich ~ t
that that w was the case. Admit•
,he fundament I princip'e
e
of the Bill, namely, tho
~,
or
it
could
nevh,oruste test, was in some
respects beneflei it,
ti:2n in liege and populous towns, ifebrought into op re-
objected to the it.-
terfereoce of the Commissioners in matterst Gwhich hal
always been considered parochial. Th
then proceeded to six ak of
, the arnbigeity , f the Blittlem.omen
he nas Interrupted by cries of ,s Q,,,,5,i0n,,
He when
would
recommend those Gent cram who cri.d o Q ir.cow,
to
leavi the House it C]ey did not approve of ,h., :ins of Sr.
pument he was taking. In 1839 and 1840 the Comraii_
'sh-s which , it a
stoners had sum e led in ti.,i jog 24 p ir. ._
pft, of that the opera ion of tie new law 713 LqinniZ toa
be looked upon wish distrust by etc people. In 1831 the
4,865,_60501:1378d98int
,thtehotov.t__
Commissi• nets lee i.ed a sum of
lowing year they levied a sure of ~:
that they
in; an execs, in the la ter year of, h 348,000/., and
ho stated that fact in order to • •
nal tailed in elleteieg the la-gc saving
in thHe e
hel
rates wh'e!) they ha I so confidently ante pated Poor d
-
in his hand the returns of the amount of poor-ntes levied
in v irious di•tricts for the last few }etre, and he found
that they had gone on increasing to an alarming extent.
Much of that might certai ly be attributed to the great
di-trees that exi:ted among the labouring classes, but he
famed that much of it al,o arose from mismanagement, and
the expeniise nature of the system under which tic new
law was administered. U. der these circumstances, be
thought the Biil must be considered extremely unpopular
throeghout the country, aid he begged to ask the Noble
Lord opposite how he c u!d iniu't the people by re-enact-
ing the provisions of so obnoxious a measure. He could
assure the Noble Lord that there was no one act of tie
present Administration whic) rende-cd them so unpopular
with the people of the country. He entreated Honourable
Members on his, and the other, side of the House, to
pause before they gave their assent to such a measure. He
did not anticipate any very laPge share f e support in the
motion with which he was about to conclude, but be felt it
his duty to persevere in that motion—namely, that the
Bill be committed that day six months.
• Mr. GRIMSDITCH seconded the`-amendment. He
feared the object of the Noble Lord was to render these
Conarn'siioners perpetual. He bel eyed there never was a
Bill which so fully justified the oppesi ion of the repre-
sentatites of the people in the House as the present. It
not only perpetuated the power of the Poor_law Com-
missioners, but it gave them a very extensive increase cf
these powers with an almost unlimited power of taxation.
—(Hear, hear.) He did not deny that a central control
was necessary in the first instance, but he contended that
having fulfilled these duties they were no longer neces-
!,arY► and ought to be discontinued. It appeared to him
that the great extent of the unions gave scope for op.
pression and cruelty of every description, and the ill-
treatment and deaths f
frequently took place in
which reque
these union work housesfully justified that assertion.
He always considered it of great value in any law, that
there should be uniforthe Poor-law Amendment m
i
t
y
in
the exercise of it. Now, in
whatever. In the county Act there was no uniformity
citinectea,
whio.mas
the UCiheshire) with which ho was
in Ittother4.-44.1.everal unionnsone union was not the law
ItiOnekeWer tooliffor6c the theyhvuae had the Commis-
tut/ While bother
. -- ,*".'
' -,;,-
-. 124 ji. 4:4
-4 ',,,.E 4raILLSLO:
...S.,
.--ir-
',

i I:''

unions no such order existed. The most intense feeling
of anxiety and discontent existed on the subject of the law
in the most densely populated districts. The way in
which the Pour-law was carried out, was, in his opinion.
scarcely justified by the enactment of that law. The Hon.
Gentle nan here read extracts from the orders made by the
Poor-law Commissioners respecting the punishment
to be inflicted on paupers in workhouses, to show
that the power of the Commissioners was excessive; that,
in fact, in their orders, they adopted the language of Par-
liament. The Commissioners had, he contended, a power
which they knew not how to wield. They were wedded
to theories which were at variance with the feelings of the
people of the country, and they carried out those theories
in a way which, sooner or later, would disturb and destroy
the social system. They were introducing feelings be-
tween the aich and the poor which were calculated te
bring the greatest danger upon the sccixl system.
General JOHNSTN would support the amendment,
and he would state his reasons for so doing in a few words.
It was, in his mind, a very great error to put the thole of
the labouring classes out of the pale of the law, and put
them entirely in the hands of the Commissioners,
as the Poor-law Bill di4. It roust be allowed
on all hands that there never was a law which created more
dissension in the country than the law passed as the Poor-law
Amendment Act, If Hon. 'Members ished to entail upon
:hernselvee the deadly hatred of the working classes, they
could not possibly pursue a better step to attain such an
end than the passing of such a law, which, among the
classes to whom it applied, went by the came of the Rich
Man's Law against the Poor Man. He could see no use
in maintaining the Poor law Commissioners in authority ;
there ought at least to he some definite period fixed on
which their powers would cease. All that was wanting
was to conciliate the people ; but they never would be re-
conciled to that law as long as the. Commissioners in So-
merset House put them out of the pale of the law.
Mr. W. MIL ES could not but regret the time which
bad been wasted that evening—( Hear, hear)—yea wasted,
because it was well known that it was the opinion of a
large majority in that House that the principle of the pre-
sent Poor-laws should form the basis of any amended
Bill. He was indeed astonished at the conduct of his
Hon. Friends, for, if niacin motion were carried, they would
be shut out from making any change whatever, which
certainly was not their intention. Many Hon. Members
had esserted that the payment of wages out of the poor-
rate was confined to only a very few counties. He could as-
sure the House that the practice was common in
nearly every county, where it bore the name r f bread
money, town roll, cr any other. Hon. Members must re-
collect the sta.e of the agricultural population at the time
the Bill was passed. They appeared to be on the eve of
an outbreak. The disease was fearful, and it required
a somea hat caustic remedy ; yet the then House of Corn-
mons adopted as a principle the practice of the best
counties in the country-4inse counties in wh ch the
workhouse test was applied. Let them look at the state
of the poor now and what it was before 1834. Then the
able-bodied pauper obtained money relief, and spent his
days in idleness, and his nights in crime—the young were
without education, the old were huddled up with the rest.
What was now their condition ? How much improved ?
The House now stood in a much more fevoutable
position than in 1834. The principle of the law was now
well understood. Hon. Members were Letter able to
come to a mature deliberation upon what amendments
were necessary. The question was whether the test
of destitution was necessary or not, and if so, to whom
were they to leave its application ? Any one who recol-
lected the proceedings of Magistrates under the old sys-
tem must prefer Boards of Guardians, who, bt ing elected,
were generally the employers, and c msequently frequently
in a mtact with the poor. He preferred Boards of Guardiane,
but then he thought there was also a ncccssity for a central
coot eslling power to regulate, and if necessary, oppose
local feelings. He would instance the cases of Notting-
ham and Leicester, which, being visited with a derange-
ment of trade, and, consequently, severe suff,.ring and dis-
tress amongst the tradespeople, the Commissioners at once
interfered, and the pauper was relieved in the workhouse,
while the distressed workman received relief in necessaries
and money. Still, although arbitrary power might be ne-
cessary, he did not ti iok it was constinnional—( Hear,
he ar)—snd therefore he would limit its duration, and he
thought five years the probable term.—( Hear.) He had
been quite astonished to hear the speech of the
Hon. Member for Finsbury—it was a most extraordinary
one—one he thought mere fitted to the arena of the hust-
ings than the floor of that House.—( Hear, hear.) He
first made an appeal to the country gentlemen, then a
fi rce appeal to the passions of the people, and lastly, he
uttered threats of revolution if the House passed the Bill.
Now that was roze a fair way of discussing such an impor-
tant question.—( Hear, hear.) However, he thought the
gentlemen who were upon the Poor-law Committee had
reason to complain of the conduct of the Noble Lord. His
Bill appeared to be framed for the purpose of supporting
the power of the Commissioners_( Hear, hear)—but he
trusted he would yet yield to the wishes of that Commit-
tee, and support some of the clauses, notice of which had
been given, which would carry those wishes into effect.
He would give his cordial support to the motion fcr going
into Committee on the Bill.
Mr. BROTHERTON said his constituents were
unanimous in their opposition to the Bill. One reason
was that they conceived the introduction of it had
raised the rates in Salford—another was that it
was not suited to a manufacturing population. In
his opinion they were beginning at the wrong end. He
could not consent to throw the poor upon their own resources
while the landlsrds had a law for their own protection.
Let them repeal the Corn-laws, and then ho would give
his consent to do so. He was not disposed to take every
opportunity of bringing this law into disrepute. He knew
what had been the sitow.ion of the poor under the old law,
and that, some respects, there had been many
amendment But there was a great jealousy
amongst the people respecting the power of the
Commissioners.. It would tend greatly to recon-
cile the people to the law if tie guardians were
left to govern their own constituents, subject to the advice
of the Commissioner:, in many cases, in which that advice,
from the general knowledge of the Commissioners, would
be pract:cally useful. He did not know how far the
control of the Commissioners might be necessary in the
agricultural districts, but he knew that it was most bene-
ficial in the manufacturing districts. If the latter were to
be exempted from its operations he would not interfere. ,
If they were not Le would not oppose the motion.
Sir A. DALRYMPLE having voted against this Bill
on the second reading, he would not now vote against its
going into Committee. He would reserve to himself the
Dower of opposing its moat obnoxious provisions in its
future sages.
Mr. SLANE Y supported the motion, and contended
that the measure was necessary for the good of the poor
themselves. Under the old system the idlest man was the
best off, and the prcvldent and industrious ma's was kept in
the condition of a parish workman, let out on hire to the
highest bidder, and paid out of the poo -rates, as a c'oarity,
the wages to which he was honestly entitled, as the fair
re reed of his honest labour.

Sir CHARLES DOUGLAS, amidst loud cries of
" Divide, di i le," said that he had voted against the second
reading, end would oppose the present motion.—( D.vide.)
Seeing that foe House was not disposed to listen to him
he would bow to its wishes.—(Heas, hear.)
Mr. WAKLE Y si id that the Bill had taken no notice
of the reeommenda ions of the Committee. There was
nothisg in the B,il ti.e people cod I approve of. There
was nothing isi it which the House could entertain exeri,t
for the purpose cf reprobation. The Noble Lord hat some
annoyance from the dem.g,rgues of the metropolis, and
he hoped the Noble .Lord would suffer still incr.: if he
persisted in this B+ll.—(Hear, hear.) I the Noble Lord
meant by mischievous demagogues, the demagogues who
were Members of that House, he (Mr. Watley) would
not deny that the term "mischievous" was well applied,
for they had suppoq d the Noble Lord ever since they
had seats is it.—(Cheers and laughter). In this Bill it
was provided that there should Le no distinction Le:ween
the deserving and the undeserving. Nothing more was
required tha i that the person ciaiming rel:cf should be
destitute, and character was not to be taken into account.
Under the law of E'izsbetb, a distiec ion was made, until
the Magistrates interfered.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord himself had appeared in the character of a dema-
gogue, and said that if the working men had not enough
i f wages, they should throw themselves into the
workhouse • 500 of them had taken the advice, and
were now lo.lgcd in cells in which t-ey had leisure to
agitate upon their Lily in liEening to the advice of the
Noble De:nag gue.—( Cries i f " No, no," and " Yes,
yes.") He (Mr. Wa!tley) remembered some ercellect,
innocent, harmless, agricultural labourers, who havii.g re-
ceived notice that their wages were to be reduced irom
12-•,. to 7s. a-week, formed themselves into a union to re-
sist the reducti ;n, and not knowing that there was a law
inG egniceirtaeinbeiem—uaicl.awwhiwchhicwhaswapsaussnekdoionwenontosetqhueenActoorfnethye-
mutiny of the Nore—they bound therrase:ves by oath ; they
were tried at Dorchester and sentenced to transportation
happened on that oceall:
for seven years.
her husband, her son, ‘annd—h we
her Yb
that the way in which able-bo
treat .d if they took mesas t
dependent ?—(Chears.
anything but good to the county
Hoe I the Nobse Lord to be sincere'
but did the Noble Lord imagine that
happened in 1834. What had
one poor woman had had
jleoper transported. Was
labourers were to be
) These
thingse!ake themselves in-
dependent.—(Cheers.)
wool.' produce
-i,l(heers) He be-
mwenat
ihne had stated,
starvation could reason and reflect on the dee.ri:essotaftef of
labour? Could a man see his children in a states ofwi
wife and
tution around him, and calmly. reason with la's family
Could it be supposed fast he on
those doctrines ?
hecowt-toariftehoannsde, parnodposet whato whoi uld be his
family to tgoivgeouipn,ti°'ist He woull be separated from his family,
treatment there ?
employed in the most degrading'
attired in a gall dress,
eobwlheoLsoarwd thhiimnk atshat
pe occupation,rsnn living aonnd
chanty.
suchity ? treatment
The
Ikon.
lhi',enghlaisdhbeleanboruedreu
stigmatized
pi
Did the
th o sis
uthrietil
the guardians
Member for Somersetshire bad said that
were gehe:aPy the persons who
rcedwotoultdhesluabstmeitxtrieom
amongst
What was to prevent the guardians agreeing seven shil-
thsnisclves that they would not give more than sc
employed the labourers.
,i gs a week ; and if the labourers refused
upon what th
refused that they
would have nothing. But to fall back
Noble Lord cawed the test, but which was, in fact, the
torture.—(Loud cheers.) That was the proper word.
The torture or the wages would be the alternative offered
by the guardians, and a perfect torture it was to every able-
bodied man who desired to do his duty.—(Cheers.) If,
however, the House should rej,ct the motion of the Hon.
Member for Preston, be would go into Committee on the
Bid, and would concur as sincerely as any one in endea-
vouring to make it a good law ; and he implored all who
were hostile to the measure to take that course ; and if the
Noble Lord would lend a willing ear to those who had
seen the law in actual operation, he would consent to take
satisfaction,
a
power from the Commissioners, and to give more power to
the law and to the guardians. He did not doubt but that
they might eventually produce a law which would give
something
F nilikenT a
zt bRr
asoal
,ind althoughcrue
cruel,
believedyheetcou l
d uotthevotßeillfortothbee
of the Hon. Member for Preston, because he
motionunjust,Mr. y,
unnatural,
hoped that in Committee they might be able to modify
some of the most stringent clauses, more particularly that

they might reduce the duration of the Commission from five
3ears to two, and introduce several valuable amendments.
For these reasons, although he had vcted against the Se-
cond reading of the Bill, be could not support the motion
of the Hon. Member for Preston.
Mr. W. MILES explained.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided—

For Mr. T. Parker's motion 5l
Against it
Majority against the motion —l96
The House then went into Committee.-
On clause 1 being read,
Sir E. KNATCHBULL moved that this clause,
which defined she period during which the Conereisti
shall exercise their powers, should be postponed till the other
clauses have been considered. The lion. Member grounded
his motion gene-ally on the powers of the Commissioners
not being sufficiently defined. In the county of Devon a
Magistrate had been summoned to attend the Poor-law
Commissioners for the purpose of being examined
as to the language which he had used at a public:
meeting. Many pave charges had been adduced
against the Poor-law Commissioners. It was rig► t
that the House should know what were the powers
of the Commissioners, before they extended them to a
period of five years. The Noble Lord had displayed
great ingenuity on this point. He first proposed ten years,
but as soon as it was suggested on that side of the House
that five 3ears would be better, he altered his proposal to
five years. His Right Hon. Friend did not mention that
specific time as the best that could be adopted, but the
Noble Lord, with his usual tact, immediately complied.—
( Hear, hear.) On the whole, he thought it would be
much better to consider the whole of the claeses before
they declare l the period.
Colonel SIBTHORP expressed his entire disapproba-
tion of the Bill. He would be glad to know what would
be the number of Assistant-Commissioners,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had certainly wished
to extend the powers of the Commissioners to the period
of ten years. He had altered his proposal, because he
doubted whether the House would consent to it. lie
yielded to what he thought would be the sense of the
House on that subject.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to
the postponement of the first clause, he could not
see how it could be postponed if they were to
proceed with the other clauses of tie Bill. By those
clauses certain powers were given which would be wholly
futile, should the period be extended only to December
next. He could not see, therefore, how it was possible
for the House to accede to the proposal of the Hon.
Member.
Sir R. PEEL said he had sugge-ted five years, because
he thought it a reasonable time. Having mentioned that
period, the House would naturally elpect ;hit he would
adhere to it. He thought five years better than a shot tJr
period. He did not think that there would be any advan-
tage derived from frequent annual discussions on
this subject. In case of abuse on the part of
the Commissioners, it would be perfectly competent
to the House to inquire into the allegation. He eery
mach doubted, supposing the object were to get rid of thr
Commissioners, whether there was not a greater chance if
doing so by taking a period of five years than by takirg
two years, and constantly discussing the question, If he
should be convinced at the expiration of five 3ears that
there was no advantage in having a Central Board, he
should vote for its dissolution, but if after the lapse of that
period it should be found that the guardians were acting
on the principle mentioned by the Hon. Member
for Finsbury, who spoke of the guardians being the
employers of the poor, and saying, let us give 7s. a
week, and let us employ not the test but the torture, in
order to induce the poor to except lower wages," be
should doubt whether it was prudent to it e. mit the guar-
dians to act without any kind cf control. But while he
consented to the duration of this Commission for five years,
be must say that he wished the Commissioners in the ex-
pressions which they used would exercise a little more
caution.—( Hear. hear.) He thought that with the best
intentions the. e was occasionally a harshness which
might be avoided consistently with the maintain-
once of the law, and the avoidance of which
would rather fortify the power of the Commissioners. lie
would take as an illustration one single sentence from an
official circular issued by the Poor-law Commissioners.
It was from a circular of public documents and informa-
tions signed by the Poor-law Commissioners chit fly for the
use of members and cf permanent officers of boards of
guardians. This statement was that one principal object
of compulsory relief was the prevention of alms-giving.
Now he should abominate the Poor-law if he thought that
it would lead them from the duty of alms-gtving ;
that because the Peer-law was in existence, and a bettsr
system of administration prevailed, the wants of their
poorer neighbours were to be ne glected.—(Hear, hear.)
No such thing. In point cf fact the relief of the poor
after all mu,t mainly depend on the affluent, and there-
fore it was unwise in the Commissioners to issue a public
notice that the principal object of the compulsory relief
of destitution was the le eventinn of alms-giving. Its ob-
ject might, indeed, be the prevention of mendicancy.—
(Hear, hear.) But to extend the principle further was
to contravene the Divine law, which said—" Give alms
to the poor ; turn not your face from the poor man."
He only mentioned this as an illustration of the great ad-
vantage and wisdom of weighing expressions, and nut cr eat-
ing unnecessarily a feeling against the Poor-law. On the
whole Le did think that the.e had been in the public do-
cuments, which hasl been put forth, an incautious use of
expressions which were calculated to create prejudice,
and that the general toile and character of such documents
might be improved consistently with the prior iple of the
law.—( Hear, hear.) When he mentioned fr•.e ye arr, he
thought the Noll,. Lord had a right to infer that henould
give Lis support to a motion for extending their
posters to that period. It would be as conycnict.t to
give the Commissioners power to art for five years, and to
modify the clauses on account cf the duration of their
posters, as it would be to consider first their powers and
then their duration.

Colonel SIBTHORP did not sce any reason why the
Noble Lord should not answer the question he had put
to him,

Lord J. RUSSELL said it was his intentkn to reduce
the number of Assistant-Commissioners t) twelve.
Colonel SIBTHORP gave notice that he should re-
duce them to five.—( Great laughter.)
Af era few words from Air. HODGES, the clause was
postponed.

- Mr. B. WOOD had given notice of an amendment
that not more than five Assistant Poor-law Commissioners
should continue in office after the 31st December: next,
and that no Assistant-Commissioners should continue in
office after the 31st Dee., 1843. It appeared that the
expenses of the Poor-law Commissioners, bad been,
in 1840, not less than 25,700/ , and the pre-
vious year they had been something more. Now,
their duty was to attend to the formation of unions,
and that object was almost accomplished, there bt ing
12,000 polishes formed into unions, and only 770 to be
formed. The population in these 770 parishes was' two
and of these one million belonged to the metro-
polis and other districts, which it was not intended to form
into unions. It appeared to him, therefore, that a less
number than twelve would be able to accomplish all that
remained to be done. 'The Hun. Member concluded by
moving the amendment.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the Assistant-Com-
missioners were exceedingly useful, in carrying out t e
general operation of the law. The Noble Lord made
some further observations, but he spoke in so low a tone
of voice, as to be very indistinctly heird in the Gallery.
We understood him to say that he would oppose the
amendment.

Mr. DARBY conceived that tl.e subject of complaint
was, that the Assistant-Commissioners did not %lilt some
of the Porr-law unions more than once in a year. He
thought that the Assi.tant-Commissioners were bound to
a more strict peifirmance of their duty.
Mr. GEORGE W. WOOD said that in the unions with
which he was acquainted, the Assistant-Commissioners
were not able to visit more than cnce in four or five
months. But then they were kept away by pressure of
busines elsewhere. Ho thought that it was sought to
carry the reduction too fir.

Lord G. SOMERSET had that eve:ing presented a
petition from a Board of Guardians, which stated that
they had not seen an Assistant-Commissioner for a long
time, and they got on very well. By the original Bill
the Secretary of S ate had power to appoint any nutnier
of Assistant-Como issioners. That ought not now to be ;
would the Nob'e Lord consent to name the maximum
number to be employed under the Biil. He would preLr
that security to voting for the amendment of the Hon.
Member,
Mr. R. PALMER did net sce how work could be cut
out kr so many Assistant-Commissioners. lic objec; ei to
the Board of Cominissiunt ra being a permanent body ; he
trusted that the Assistant-Commissioners would not also
become a permanent body.—(Hesr, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL ssii tie nurnier of Assistant-
Commi,sioners had been consider ably reduced already.
He would have no hesitation in fixing the number to be
employed in England. But tie system was now in lie-
lain', and he could not name the number which might be
wanted in that country.
Mr. HUME said, as the Government would have to
come every year to the House for a vote to pay the Assis-
tan:-Commi,sioncrs, he thought it be:ter to leave the
matter in the hands of the Government. If they did not
reduce the number quick enough, the House would have
it in its power to do it at any time.
Mr. SYDNEY HERBERT did not think it prudent
to fix the number of Assistant-Commissioners, nor did he
think it would be good policy to reduce them too sud-
denly.bebroughturtiodetrhte powerhenuticoef
pouf
btlhice
lie would not then vote for any arx.endment, but
would reserve himst If
until the bringing up of the Report,
when some moil
sion would be moandeto reduce the duration of the Commis-
Mr. B. WOOD and Sir
H. VERNET rose together, and
both persisted in addressing the Chairman, amidst laugl -
ter and cries for each.
Mr. H. HINDE rose ord."
I esmi the Chairman canto He had di:ti.let!y
Southwark. upon the Hon. Member LI-
Mr. BERNAL said he haler t
understood that Hon. Member tcoh airily done so, but he
Both Hon. Member; persisted ii7Etedviaived his right.
amidst loud er:e3 of Order and Chair." the House,
At last Sir H.
Verney gave way, and
Mr. B. WOOD said, after what he d a heard he would
not divide the Committee. Ile had thought that five
Assistant-Commissioners would now be enough, formed.because
few unions remained to be
Colonel SIBTHORP said that if the motion was
withdi awn, he would immediately move that the Chairman
report progress and ask leave to sit again.
After some discussion the amendment was put, when
Colonel SIBTHORP said he would certainly divide
the House upon it.—(Cries of " No, no.")
Mr. 13ERNAL—Does the Hon. Member propose any
amendment ?
Colonel SIBTHORP—No; I
_ object to any Assistant-
Commissioners at all.—(A laugh.)
Mr. BERNAL.—WiII you divide the House?