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

CULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS.

Lord INGESTRE presented a petition from the
owners and occupiers of land in the county of Stafford,
stating that the security of tenure was the exception and
not the rule, and praying that the Government would
introduce a measure to secure compensation to tenants
for their agricultural improvements.
NAVIGATION-LAWS.

The NOBLE LORD also presented a petition from 4,000
seamen, belonging to ships out of the port of London,
expressing their regret that an intention was expressed
of interfering with the navigation-laws, which would
have the effect of throwing them out of employment,
and giving their bread to foreign sailors. They prayed,
therefore, that the navigation-laws should not be inter-
fered with. The Noble Lord moved that the petition
be referred to the Navigation Committee.
MEDICAL REGISTRATION BILL.

Mr. V. SMITH presented a petition from the stir.
geons of Shrewsbury in favour of the Medical Registra.
tion Bill.

ROMAN CATHOLICS.

Sir R. 11. INGLIS presented a petitition from a place
in Bedfordshire against any further concessions to the
Roman Catholics.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE FOR THE that he had reduced the staff in proportion as he had
HOLIDAYS. reduced the amount of relief.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said—Sir, as it was under- The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex-
stood last night that the debate on the Poor-law Amend- plained. The 300,0001. were not for public works. He
had in the month of March proposed that 300,000/.
ment Bill would be finished in the course of to-night, I should be advanced as a loan, on the security of the
beg now to move that this House, on its rising, shall ad- rates—he did this in order that that mode of relief
journ until Friday next. might be substituted for public works. His Noble
The motion was agreed to. Friend might be assured that the moment the public
THE BANKRUPT AND INSOLVENT LAWS. works cauld be discontinued the expenses of the staff
Mr. BOUVERIE wished to ask a question of the employed would be at an end ; and they might at any
Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the time have been prevented, if it could have been proved
Home Department. Last session he had charge of a that the resident gentry would take upon themselves
Bill which proposed to apply a remedy to some of the the duties performed by the staff, and thus aid the Go-
serious evils which manypersons in this country wore now vernment.
suffering from someof the defects in the bankrupt and insol- Mr. HENLEY wished to know whether there would
vent laws, but he withdrew the Bill on the understanding be any objection to state how many of the persons re-
that the Government would introduce a Bill in the course ceiving a portion of the 17,0001. a week might be
of this session for a similar purpose. He understood electors ?
that such a Bill bad been introduced into the other The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied,
House of Parliament, and he therefore wished to ask his that be did not quite understand the purport of the Hon.
Right Hon. Friend what state the Bill was in, and Gentleman's question. 'Many of the sta were officers
whether there was a reasonable prospect that that Bill, sent over from this country. The overseers of works
or some other for a similar purpose, could be passed should cease to be employed as soon as the works them-
into a law during the present session? selves could be discontinued. As to whether that class
Sir G. GREY said that since last session this subject of persons were Parliamentary electors or not, he really
had been under the consideration of the Lord Chancel- didrr nfot know—they were persons recommended by the
for, and recently the Noble Lord had introduced atoßbill
theeiedicseoomnmtin'ttee. Ttheir employment must cease with
into the House of Lords, which was intended discontinuance of
carried
eripeudblic works,oras soon as the
referred to a Select Committee. He could not expresse new system couldu into effect. It was no fault.
any opinion as to the period when it might be expected of the Government that the persons thus employed in
in that House. Ireland had not been discontinued before now. The
STOCK-IN-TRADE EXEMPTION BILL. necessity for employing them had been forced upon the
Sir R. H. INGLIS said he wished to ask another Government by the extreme difficulty that had been
question in relation to another important Bill which experienced in inducing the relief committees to exert
stood No. 24 on the orders of the day for that night. It themselves.
was the Stock-in-Trade Exemption Bill. He wished to Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN said that he considered
know whether the Right Hon. Baronet could not make that the present was a fitting opportunity to complain
such arrangement with his colleagues as to allow this that the second question which he asked had not been
Bill to come on at such an hour on some day that a answered, he wished to call the attention of her Ma-
fair discussion might be taken upon it. jesty's Government to that question, and inquire whether
Sir GEORGE GREY was not aware that it was in- it was their intention to bring in any
tended to offer any opposition to this Bill, but at all subject. Bill upon the
events, if they did not get down to the Bill till a late The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
hour, he should postpone it. the Government had determined to take the matter into
Sir R. H. INGLIS wished to know what the Right consideration.
Hon. Baronet considered a late hour. DISTURBANCES IN PORTUGAL.
Sir GEORGE GREY—After twelve o'clock. Mr. HUME wished to ask a question of einsiderabl.•
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS BILL. importance. It was rumoured that her Majesty's
Mr. GEORGE BANKES wished to ask the Right Government had so far interfered with the
Hon. Gentleman the Vice-Z resident of the Board of affairs of Portugal as
.to send out a deputation
Trade whether he intended to proceed with this Bill, there to make certain arrrangements under the
and if he did, when? superintendence of Colonelffilde. He wished to know
Mr. T. M. GIBBON—Not till after the holidays. what powers or directions were given to this officer, as
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that after the Ist of to any interference with the belligerlenths,ada f thistei
and whether
June orders of the day should have precedence of usuocuhntrya chccourseinwvooluvledd niont
acaau.saer.
a dangert
notices of motions upon Thursday.
OFFICE FOR PUBLIC RECORDS. also that the British officers had been treated with in.
Mr. M. MILNES wished to know whether anything suit' and the nation thus subjeNeetroesbdloetro degradation. He
Lord.- was prepared
had been done towards the erection of an office for the wtoislhayedutpooknntohtev
twahhieethaenr thuea
withy
Lord
RUSSELL tto t
ph
ai sred saidt subject.olal3 instructions given
reception of the public records ?
said that the subject was under the
Sir G. GREY
that at present the Govern-
consideration of the Government.
knc.w ts hen the Eccle- sou ht for until the r.i er title .
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS BILL. ment were not pre y upon the table the papers
Mr. E. DENISON nished to
p p Lame. They would then
siastical Commissioners Bill would be again brought I be placed before the House.
before the House? Mr. HUME then gave notice that immediately after
Lord JOH itU-SSELL was Understood to say that the holidays he should bring the subject under the con-
N

sideration of the House, in vier that no uncertainty
might rest upon a matter of set much importance.
POOR-LAW ADMINI STRATION ACT.
'On the order of the day for the second reading of this
Bin,

Mr. BORTHWICK rose, b at was for some time in-
audible, in consequence or the uproar prevailing in the
House. The Hon. Gentkites said, as he had mail*
tabled a consistent course sire e the period he had en-
tered that House, it became liecumbent on him to ex-
press the opinion he entertetineel, that the Bill was only
en amendment of a previous Act, Iviiich embodied prin-
ciples of the most uncons titutined character, and he
him,second
dt otirme ceotrhda
thisdavyo
sixte t
mh aott •
ht hs.e BTilialesianhoulidstebres,reinadthae
felt obliged, therefor; however painful it might be to
tt
se
courserestin ofui reenstencitudeestbiant ne:hadOn
notth shown
eia,t much iuniotor
ethpereps
the
de
bate he saw on one bench th a Hon. and LearnerlMem-
ber for Bath soundly reposing., On a bench behind the
chair, at one end of the Miraisiterial bench there lay
stretched the Hon. Member at the head of the Ordnance,
and at the other end proforiudly'reposecl another Mem-
ber of the Government ; while the Right Hon. Gen-.
tlenisn the Home Secretary sat in the centre, as if to
realise the language of the Irish poet—
" Since the lovely are sleeping
Go sleep thou with them.
—(Laughter.) The Hon. and Learned Member for
Bath bad attacked the Honourable Member for
Knaresborough in a very personal 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-
ed the feelings of the great body of the pe.ople. He was
neither a hypocrite 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
lion. Member for Knaresborough sought to obtain.
"No, let the candied tongue lull absurd pomp,
Or crook the pregnant hinges of the knee,
Where thrift may follow fawning."
These were not those who opposed such a measure as
the present. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman the
Member for Bath referred at some length to the works
of Grotius, Puffendorf, Vattel, and other authorities,
And stated that he believed in his conscience that his
(Mr. Borthwick's) Hon. Friend the Member for Knares-
borough 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-
proper and uncalled for observation, for one Member of
the House 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 bad read the work to 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
before ? And did not the Hon: Member for Bath stand
accused of having spoken on subjects which were not
before the House ? The Hon. and Learned Member for
Bath told them that the law of El;zabeth was one is
fact with the law of 1834, and the Noble Lord 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 eod of the last century.
The Noble Lord had stated that the magistrates had
at that period decided • that no difference was
to be ma-!e beta een unexpected misfortune and deli-
berate immorality. Now this was plainly unconstitu-
tioaal, and if that be true it was equally plain that the
same proceeding was unconstitutional wherever it might
be practise:l ; and if it was unconstitutional, therefore,
in the magistrate, it was equally pla'n that it was un-
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 placed either iri 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 contreleivei a local adminis-
tration. Now his objectien 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 thti constitution. A
man might render himself liable to the law from the
moment, from an unforeseen calamity. he had been
stripped of hisiretependence. 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 Iva's. The Bill before the House did not
touch the principle of 1834, which left the power of the
Bill in the hands of ills Poor-law Commissioners,he must
however admit, thet the machinery introduced into the
present BM was a o.t-at improvement upon the former
system. When the: Bill went into Committee, ho was
determined to move that three should be itiserted 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 Bill was merely for the purpose of
changing the nature of the Commission, and be 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 Commission,
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 inalienable right to relief, but if he
reasoned by analogy from the law of Elizabeth, he would
sec 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 little by little from
under their fingers. The Noble Lord made another
obser'vation that if the power was left with the board of
guardians they would act with more severity than the
Peor-law Commissioners, and he begged, as far as his
knowledge went, to contradict it, for whenever any
interference of the board of guardians had 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 lenienteonsidera-
tion, as the qnarter sessions was a place, in most cases,
influenced by party, and made a place of declaiming and
debate.
Mr. B. ESCOTT sad that he had heard no reason
adduced in that Hoe-c to prove the superiority of this
new system over the old one, and therefore he should •
rote aeainst it. The Noble Lard 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 iu 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 Pieir-law 'Commissioners bad 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 Bill was first taken,
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 np their rules and re-
gulations tolerably well. He thought that the feelings
of the commissioners, instead of being those of gratifi-
cation, ought 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 Lurd was not s
man to bring forward this measure without some very
strong and cagerit 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,
however, did riot help bin] to vote for the new measure
until some reason seeisadducid which coultishow him that
the new Come issien would be productive of any betterre-
sults. It was a long time atter the passing of the law of
1834„that the Poor- law Commissioners had the courage to
issue rules nod regulations tesprclin,,,7 the out-door relief
to the able-bodied poor. They did not do so till forced
by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.
They issued one then, restricting the relief of the able-
bodied 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
h
commissioners. A great deal had been said about the
a
workhouse test, but he submitted that it had
failure. The object of it, it was
said,
idle wass to distinguish
the industrious man from the vagabond; but bad it
done so ? No, but rather its practical effect was to
.'
drive the industrious and holiest pauper from the work
house from thebeing half-
starved; of incarceration, and
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 filled.
He declared therefore that the boasted test had
completely failed ; and so far from the present
measure satisfying the just expectations of the country,
be was persuaded that it would prove most delusive in
its character. The country would not consider it an
improvement. He considered that the of acts the Poor-
law Commissioners were illegal, bi'cause although the
Queen, Lords, and Commoes might pass acts bindin
on the country, he denied h g
t at they could delegate to
others their power of doing so.
Mr. W iet.!_Y said that however bad the pre-
vious Ponr-lAw Bill trilgl.t have been, be feared the
public woad find the pi-esnt one an aggravation
of the evil. Under the present peculiar circumstances
of the country he thought it was singularly
unfortunate that the Government should have placed it-
sell in this position, but it was still more unfortunate for
the People to find no relief from the grievances under
which they had been suffering, under the operation of
this former law. He h t .ought 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 he, therefore, ' the more regretted, indeed, it
was exceedingly 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 introdur,d calculated
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

"salt
Lori so full of confidence, boa he (Mr. Wakley) had
wag a remarked that the Nob le Lord was never so bold
as w'Len he was wrong.—(la mghter.) He always ob-
sere ed that he adhered with. extraordinary pertinacity
to Ids 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
nigba because be answered himself by anticipation.—
(gear, hear.) He (Mr. Wakley) heard the Noble Lord
of 1004, speaking against flee 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 e. Poor-law Commissioner, and in 1834 he (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 influencedby some sinister advice)
make such a proposition. A proposition more unfortu-
nate was never submitted to the Hbuse ; it was one of
the most unconstitutional which could be well conceived.
What was it ? To give to a commissioner a legislative
and executive ower awl functions.—(Hear, hear.)
What could be more clangorous ? how would it work ?
Why, every board of guar diens in the kingdom would be
political agents, and insr ruments set to work by design-
ing people, to accomsAish some sinister object. What
then was to becomeo,' the poor ? Nothing more unhappy
could be conceived 'oy any monster politician. He was
sure that it dig, 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 die
the Noble Lord expect would be the effect of this mea-
sure ? Were the Ministry jealous of the reputation
of tb a Poor-law Commissioners 2—(Laughter.) Surely
it WP,I3 impossible that they could be envious of their
(peculiar popularity.—(Continued latighter.) Did the
Tight Hon. the Secretary for the Homo 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.—(Laughter
in which Lord John Russell and Sir George Grey
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.—
(ree.ughter.) What were the questions that would be
most commonly asked, and which the Poor-law Com
Thessioners would have to determine ? He (Mr. Wakley)
did noc think the subject had engaged the attention of
the Government. Ho 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 comiseionerers 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 eins 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 kis colleagues, the new commis-
sioners? If he did, the country would not be satisfied,
and the House would probable see the spectacle of e
dissolution in July, a meeting in October, 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, tor, in a matter of fact, one example was
as good as a hundred, from a return laid upon the ta'ule
of the House. In January, 1846, 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 cunces of bread, and on Thurs-
days, for children, meat-pudding in lieu of bread and
cheese. The Board of Guardians request that you will
sanction this arrangement.—l have, Sec." 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, " lam directed by the
Pooreaw Commissioners to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter dated the 17th instant, respecting the pro-
posed 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 Tavistocls
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
this request were themselves the rate-payers, and would,
therefore, be obliged to be it 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.) Ile 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 dietary 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 501. 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 had
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 Cf 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 Lb orally given, he was delighted to hear
this, but he would like to know what they would do with
such guardians as those of the pour-law union. When
they began to administer the law they would find the
difficulties insurmountable.—(Hear, 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 admitted only of 5 oe
of meat to an able-bodied man, and three ounces to an
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 even 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 here 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
clay 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.—(llear, hear.) Was
the Noble Lord aware of these facts ? And if so,
it was impossible tbat he could be contented with
this state of things. If he has his Poor law Commis-
siotiers seated inhtat House, these questions must be
foroed on theirattwe and their explanations would
il
be required. (Mr. Wakley) asked, was it for
the safety of the countrs that
l" such subjects should be
continually mooted ther'e
of an evil would be found.
It we
ould knew
where the balance
beo in the board of
guardians, and they would rule the
being weak, would go to the wall,
lvernment. The
poor,
and that being
the case, what would be the feelings of the poor ofethis
country. It was his opinion that such a feeling
in-
dignation wontd arise amongst-them, as to endangero the
institutions of the country.—(Hear.) He was con-
_ vin.eel, too, that a more unconstitutional measure I
could not be brought forward. Was this eye.
tern of centralizetion to go on increasing, at
every step they took, the pewer and influence of
the Government. The Noble Lord at the head of the
Government roust be aware 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, echool-masters, matrons, and others, was
jauneoset and did the Noble Lerd think the country was
ignor4nt of all this? Ile was astonished that the Noble
Lord, who was an advocate for a free constitution, who
had always expressed himself jealous of increasing the
povverz of the Crown, should bring forward such a Ilea'
sure as this. The Noble Lord might be convinced that
the ezi_s!4pritlitikent would not abuse the powers it
wpatNethe was the Noble Lord prepared to
trylgtlb t overnment? The Noble Lord
91144 ps -forseard 'eel to guard against future Go-
r u
beett.si:li)ss=hhioV_ttLittri
nptroyw.er
TtoheinNcroebalsee tLhoerird, n
iin-
itiit'Aet:leieit, letely failed to show the cc-
• *if: The Nob a Lord was
a s