The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-18 00:00:00

t * •
he
ed

.
e-a_erd JOHN RUSSELL—Do you take the opposi-
now ? It is open to you at a future stage.
I3ANKES considered it best to take the discus-
-0,1 now, because he did not find any one clause in the
tee ".of which he could approve, and perhaps it was then
best course to shorten the discussion. The Noble
r
d had admitted that he thought these persons not
th_raPetent or qualified to fill these offices, and yet up to
W
Present time this subject had not been brought for-
jd, It was now brought under the notice of the
bethought
at a most inconvenient period of the session.
Iv! thought that the delay which had taken place
h..” most unwarrantable. An important enquiry
„zit taken place into the conduct of these officers
t}iia
bet, although a very strong report had been made to
to mise no Member of the Committee had ever yet
me forward to state his opinion distinctly as to what
$O use
place, or to bring it under the notice of the
Ow. He found no improvement in the Bill. Think-
sesß that a much better mode of carrying the end into
oovnect could be devised at much less expense to the
Tit,iintrY, therefore he objected to the whole Bill.
ts e Poor-law Commission was first of all created for a
hltnPorary purpose, limited to a period of five years ;
't no one could look at this Bill without seeing that the
r,r4esent Bill proposed to make that Commission in a diffe-
lit form permanent. The Bill, besides, added very
pc:selY to the patronage of the Government. They pro-
e, sad to form a board on the principle of the Board of
.nntrol. The Board of Control was formed under very
'7illiar circumstances, and, undoubtedly on the
Wuule, the system had worked well. But it
ap-
plied question whether the system that
th to the distant Ilindoo, was applicable to
hodePeasantry of this country. On a firmer occasion he
observed that the system, which was then so much
efri°sed, was, in reality, the system of Sir Matthew
th-Le, which was, that the local authorities should have
e administration of the affairs, subject to a control
ttl'uell less limited than that which was now interposed.
," vesting vast discretionary powers in the local guar-
tansns; with • ,
et an appeal in regard to some points to the
glstrates of the county, at quarter se-sions, with an
PPeal always from thence up to the Home-office, they
tbe establishing a better system, than by trusting
he administration of the law to a set of meddling men
London. Under these circumstances, he thought it
mlh better to delay any legislation upon the subject
a ture session of Parliament, and he should, fore,there-
move th t the Bill be recommitted that day three
,e
`uenths, a
Captain PECHELL had never shrunk from express
Pooris decided opposition to the manner in which the
laws had lately been administered, but still he
could not consent to the amendment of his Hon. Friend
Zresite, The Noble Lord at the head of the
t3ernment, had told them that if this
gel, could be disposed of to night, the
fell,
of
Towns Bill might be brought on to. morrow,
en, now he would tell the Noble Lord how he could
facilitatezo the committal of the Bill to-night. Let the
ble Lord give the House a pledge that the appoint
manta
under this Bill should be such that they should
0t• hereafter have to complain of the conduct of several
elle existing authorities. On no one occasion had the
tiaerfdLz-law Commissioners ever visited a board of
ardiana,
and altogether there could be no question
t the poor-law affairs of this country had been sadly
efficient and
He thought, therefore, that none but
evelent and practical men ought to be appointed
:Qr this Bill, and as 250 Members of this
et;euee had expressed their opinion of the in-
h `"Petency of some of the existing authorities,
be trusted a pledge would be given that they should
oft hold office under any future new arrangement. One
I. thesee Poor-law Commissioners had set himself up es
th?Lndidate for one of the 'Welch counties, no doubt in
-I._"°Pe of getting an appointment under the Bill should
thbe returned as a Member of that House ; and he
bat that circumstance rendered it the more urgent
lit'at the House have the privilege he asked for.—( Hear,
enear.) They were now called upon to make arrange-
ents by this Bill for the administration of the poor •
.„.we during the next five years ; but he was inclined to
ree with the lion. Gentleman the Member for Dorset-
ire the
e that such a change would be introduced into
Justitution of that House- by the result of the ensuing
actions, that the Bill would stand a good chance of
he Ihfng considerably modified in the next Parliament, and
; therefore, hoped such arrangements would be made in
th. Progress of this Bill through Committee as to meet
re-e views of the lion. Member for Dorsetshire, with
Cvect to limiting the duration of the Bill to a less
uete than five years.—(ficar, hear.)
tb!4,r. MILES said that nothing which took place since
th; 'ast discussion had altered his mind, and he regretted
course which his lion. Friend had taken in raising
thediscussion, on the present occasion. He would take
bteat r.' opportunity of defending Mr. Chadwick, whom he
ieved was most honest, upright, and sincere, and he
itireceived a letter from Mr. Chadwick requesting him
! ay such papers before the House as would fully ex-
hl pate him from the charges which were made against
Tee °Y the Noble Lord at the head of the Government.
following was the passage in the Noble Lord's
'• eeh to which exception had been taken.
beTt he SPEAKIeIt sa d that the lion. Member could
read extracts from the speeches of another Member
delivered during the present session.
1% MILES begged pardon of the House, and then
bente: on to read a defence of Mr. Chadwick's, in which
4,Baid that he never heard of any complaints against
lit until the speech to which he objected was delivered.
eztiB position was to some proceedings which viand be
eeieetelated to injure the commission or the law, to
111,-'llB rather than to men.—(Hear.) Mr. Chadwick also
whOete a letter to Mr. Nicholls, demanding to know
viether he had offered any improper opposition, or
in
the
he had ever reason to suspect him of caballing
henot`it: Public service, either from personal or private
ey ? To all these questions Mr. Nieholl wrote a
te_Y stronee„ letter in favour of Mr. Chadwick, denying
a;crutft of all these charges, an praising him for the
ilea es: which he had rendered to the comiriissioners.—
briiiarehear.) He (*air. Miles) thought it his duty to
be tg '°rwatd this case at the very earliest moment, and
doinrusted that the House would pardon him for so
Lordg(Rear, hear.)
bee JOHN RUSSELL said, that after what had
,taLl stated, he thought it might be permitted him to
teat' what he thought of the conduct of Mr. Chadwick.
, tee a high opinion of his abilities, and he considered
otit reports upon the poor-law were most valuable,
ne did object to his conduct as secretary to the corn-
eef,sioners whom he was appointed to serve; and he
ZZered his opinion from an attentive perusal of the
,!ilee, and particularly of the evidence of Mr. Chad-
°k himself. He certainly did admit, that on several
iTetvarsions Mr. Chadwick objected to certain measures,
upon consideration of his opinion, he (Lord John
---ssen) approved and decided in Mr. Chadwick's favour.
le (Hear, hear.) But Mr. Chadwick, in his evidence, did
ten— People to imagine that the commissioners did
.not
thoselentiously discharge their duty in examining into
/let; suggestions which might by offered to their
eee'te,e_e who wilfully shut their eyes to the
th "lueration of clauses, and who wilfully neglected
en-eoikr,duty, The Noble Lord then referred. to Mr. Chad-
eh evidence, and said that if these were. Mr.
Chadwick's opinions, he ought to have resigned his
ilep• ere• He was very sorry that such shouid be his
i 4 ession, but it was adored from a perussl of his own
tveln'a.e:
jet:.
of Mr.
would, in this place, again take an eppor-
iei::"Y of expressing his high opinion of the abilities and
Mr. Chadwick. lie would not enter into
tilllco debate raised by the Hon. Member for DorsetAire ;
t„,question was decided on !he second reading of the
h,!" after four nights' discussion, an he iliereeffe did
viwuhhPiiccehhthhaj twhoeuilidouse would then go tint Committee, bi
be quite ready to defend any clauses
sir might be objected to.—(Hear, hear.)
to JAMES GRAHAM said that he would be sorry
Whit anYihing painful to the feelings of any one ; but
Chadwick, he admitted and valued the high abilities of Mr.
eWiek, he must say that he had some errors.
,%;thought, therefore, that the continuance of Mr. Chad -
e
ad in connexion with the commission would not be
vantageous to the public, while at the same time he
Onside rd
that he should have an appointment in some
eeaer ;
tee important branch of the public senice that would
?hoe employment to his superior abilities and prevent
e public- from being deprived of them. When the
gill went into Committee he would be happy to tiscuss
!!ti details, and he would suggest to the lion. Member
waa propriety of withdrawing his motion.
Lord COURTENAY could not agree with the Noble
Lord (Russell) that the evidence of Mr. Chadwick before
the Andover Committee showed a desire to undermine
the power of the Poor law Commissioners. The result
of that inquiry was, in his mind, and in that, he be-
lieved, of the whole Committee, an impression that ,4r.
Chadwick had acted with great ability and zeal, and
that his exertions were directed to a fair and higher ad
ministration of the law. On the reperusal of that evi-
dence this morning, there was nothing in Mr. Chad-
€lek'a evidence or conduct which appeared to him (Lord
ourtenay) to afford the least ground for the charge of
unfairness, or of a desire to undermine the power of the
e
'lrarnissioners. He thought it necessary, in justice to
'tr. Chadwick, to say thus much in his defence.
fordCHRISTIE was quite certain that the Noble
Wourd at the head of the Government would be the last to
=unjustly towards any individual, still he thought
the,Chadwick was harshly dealt with. Ile thought that
efe mputation made against him required a great deal
hit evidence to substantiate. When he heard the
influencelieio Secretary stating that Mr. Chadwick was
eeisd by feelings of disappointment, and that the
ki_upderstanding between him and the Poor -law Com-
th_lieloners were influenced by these feelings, he thought
he wanted
were circumstances which, to some extent,
he :led these feelings. In consequence of the reports
joie the
as an assistant commissioner, he was invited to
Of e board, and was intrusted with the drawing up
fortillleport in which the Poor-law Amendment Bill was
epek:de Lord Brougham, on the 31st of July, 1834,
Qkeellin the most favourable terms of that report, for its
litr ce of composition, its lucid arrangement, and its
tiltingter of reasoning, He thought, therefore, that
whe g the subsequent proceedings into account,
hi n two . . .
gentlemen were appointed commissioners over
litllet,hat some allowance should be made if he did labour
iiurprisfeelings of disappointment. He was very much
qrah ed, however, that the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J.
ose, aril) should continue him as secretary, when by his
hetwZnhis.sion, he was aware that the.misunderstanding
'river nu and the Poor-law Commissioners extended
fere,: Period of five years. He would say a word in re-
euetlt
)ee to himself. -Allusion had been made to his con-
se,sasaire of the members of the Andover. Committee..
as to se eged that he put a question to Sir F. Lewis
elsperi: vete affairs. Now, that statement was un-
tied enter hat gentleman had misunderstood his question,
into that personal explanation upon that
nderete d•
or n mg. The statements of the lion. Member
ereduiit Wolverhampton were not to be received with perfect
led ef ti;e_ es that lion. Gentleman was the brother of
'ed to use who were implicated in the accusation that
ma%the..„. formation of that Committee.
enure vILLIERS said be was not surprised at the
td a..e taken by
.4"fil9d the Hon. Member who had just
(4. 411 he recollected his conduct with

respect to Mr. Parker's case. He then stated what was
stated to him in confidence. _

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the Right Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton had expre3sed his regret on
this question, and had made a most honourable retrac-
tion.

Mr. VILLIERS said the Hon. Member for Wolver •
hampton had asked Sir Franklin Lewis a most improper
question in reference to his son.
Mr. C lIRISTIE—That is untrue.—(Order, order.)
Mr. VILLIERS said the Hon. Member for Wolver.
hampton was the last person in the House who should
use that term.—(Order, order.)
The SPEAKER interposed, and
Mr. CHRISTIE retracted the expression.
Mr. VILLIERS said that he thought the conduct of
the Hon. Gentleman was most improper, and having
explained himself ho would not trespass further on the
House.
Mr. GRIMSDITCH said he felt bound to oppose the
Bill. He would waive all question of patronage. if he
could see his way clearly through the meshes of this
Biil. He would himself delegate power to the Secre-
tary of State, and employ assistant commissioners to
superintend local districts, and make it imperative on
each of them to reside within his district, and visit the
various unions comprised in it. He wanted none of the
Chadwick's, the Lewis's or the Nicholl's—not one of
them. He admitted Mr. Chadwick's great abilities ; he
was an admirable writer ; but, like the Hon. Member
t r Wolverhampton, he was too much of a theorist. The
Hor. Member concluded by expressing his determina•
tion to oppose the Bill.
Mr. SPOONER said that although a great and in-
tense feeling existed out of doors upon this subject,
there was yet so little interest exhibited inside, that
the House could scarcely be kept, and, therefore, he
agreed with the Hon. Member for Doreetehire, that the
termination of a session, and of a Parliament, was not
the best period to consider this Bill. According to the
present system, the poor labourer, who was no longer
enabled to support his family, was separated from his
wife and from his children, he was treated worse than
the convicted felons; there was less care taken of his
moral and physical being, and, therefore, he contended
that as the workhouse test had already proved so
defective, the present Bill was so much the more
defective, that it provided no remedy for this evil.
He thought that this question was too important
to be discussed with the limited number of Members,
who seemed disposed to attend to it, and although he
would not press the House to a division, he could not
think of sitting down without making these few obser-
vatiens upon the measure.
The motion was then withdrawn, and the House went
into Committee on the Bill.
On clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. GRIMSDITCH suggested that one officer should
be empower, d to take the whole control of the work-
tng of this law. He should, therefore, propose to leave
out the words after " that," and add that her Majesty
" c•.nstitute and appoint a Member of the Privy Coun-
cil to carry out the administration of this law, to be
called the Secretary of State for the administration of
the Poor-law."
After some observations from Sir GEORGE GREY,
expressive of his disapproval of the alteration proposed
in the clause, the amendment was withdrawn.
The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses 2,
3,4, 5,6, 7, 8,9, 10, and 11.
On clan-c 12 being proposed,
Mr. HENLEY said the Committee were arming these
commissioners with great powers, and it was, therefore,
highly desirable that they should keep a record of their
proceedings, in order if there should happen to be any
wrong doing, the wrong-doer should be easily got at.
Now, it appeared to him that as this clause would throw
all the responsibility upon one person, the entire board
would be removed from all blame when blame was due.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the object of the
clause was to throw the responsibility of the proceedings
of the board upon the President.
Mr. BANKES said, if that were so, where was the use
of establishing a board of commissioners when the entire
responsibility was to rest in the President?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that Government had always
intended to throw the responsibility upon the President,
in the same way the President of the Board of Control
was responsible for the proceedings of the Government.
Mr. BANKES protested that it was not fair to place
the English peasant on the satne tooting as the distant
hiindoo.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The clause would
eventually be a delusion. He thought that the object of
the Government, in this Bill, was to whitewash
the commissioners, and by Act of Parliament
state what his duties really are ; if there
was to be a board at all, it was abso-
lutely necessary that it should be both an
efficient and responsible one. He thought that the cor-
poration ought to be compelled to keep the records.
Sir G. GREY did not see anything in the clause
which prevented the commissioners from keeping the
records of their office.
After a tew words from Mr. HANLEY and Sir G. GnEY,
Mr. REDHEAD YORKE said that he could not
conceive anything more obnoxious than the clause
would be as proposed by this Bill, and if the House
should decide on dividing upon the clause he should
certainly vote against the clause.
Mr. CHRISTIE thought that the commissioners
had kept a record according to the provisions of
the Act of Parliament, but he quite concurred in the
clause in the present Bill, proposing to repeal the clause
in the existing Act, now that the constitution of the
board would be entirely changed.
Mr. GRIMSDITCH thought that there was no ne-
cessity for retainine this clause in the Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GEie ERAL thought that the pro
vision made in the Bill for enforcing an annual report
to be laid upon the table of the House was a sufficient
guard that the proceedings would be public and known
to the House.
Mr. BANKES said that it appeared to be assumed that
the President of this Commission would be a Member of
that House, but there was no security for that. He
might not obtain a seat in the House, or it he did, he
micht not be able to keep it.
Mr. II ANLEY moved that all the words from " or,"
in line 26, down to the word " preceding," in line 30,
should be struck out.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it 65
Majerity —42
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 13.
Clauses 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, with a few verbal
alterations, were then agreed to.
Clause 20, after some observations from Mr. Henley.
Sir G. Grey, and others, was agreed to.
Clause 21 was agreed to.
Clauses 22, 23, and 24 were also agreed to.

On clause 25,
Mr. P. BORTHWICK proposed an amendment, that
the word " five" be omitted for the purpose of inserting
the word " three," which he conceived was a sufficiently
long period for the commissioners' term of office.
Colonel SIBTHORP proposed as a further amend-
ment, that the word "one" should be substituted, for no
commissioner so stigmatised would then act in an arbi-
trary manner, and earliatuent, would have an opportu-
nit) of investigating their conduct; every session.
Mr. GREENE said that it was not then competent for
the Hon. ;Winner to propose the last amendment.
Sir G. GREY resisted the limitation, arid considered
that, the term of five years was quite short enough to
enable the company to acquire the experience nee. ssary
to discharge the duties of their office efficiently.
Mr. SPOONER supported the amendment.
Mr. MUNTZ thought it a dangerous thing to extend
the period to five years, considering the late arbitrary
conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners.
After a few words from Mr. TATTON EGERTON,
Mr. HENLEY supported the amendment. He
thought three years' reign was long enough for them.
Sir GEORGE GREY said that assenting to the
term of five years did not preclude the House from
reviewing the system every year if it were so disposed.
Mr. BANKES suvported the amendment.

Mr. P. BORTH WICK could not withdraw his
amendment, and would press it to a division, as the
extension which they had lately had of the administra-
tion of the Poor law made it necessary to keep a more
vigilant eye on the proceedings of the commissioners.
Captain HARRIS said that this board was but a
mere renewal of the old one ; and he should, therefore,
vote for the short period.
Mr. HUDSON hoped the Goverment would give
way on this point, and meet what appeared to be the
general wish of the House.
The House then divided, when the numbers were,
For the amendment 43
Against it 76
Majority —33
The clause was then agreed to.
The other clauses were then agreed to.
The House resumed, and the report was ordered to
be brought up this day.
RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.

Mr. HUDSON wished to know when Government
meant to take the Railways (Ireland) Bill. lie suggested
that they should take the Irish Railways Bill instead
ci the general Railways Bill on Monday.
Sir G. GREY fixed this Bill for Monday also.
CORN, &c., IMPORTATION BILL.

This Bill went through Committee, and the report
was brought up and received.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS (No. 2) BILL.
The report on this Bill was brought up and agreed
to, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time
this day.
SAVINGS' BANKS ANNUITIES BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
POLICE CLAUSES BILL.
The report on this Bill was received.
ROYAL MARINE SERVICE BILL.
The report was brought up and received.
REPRESENTATIVE PEERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This Bill went through Committee, and the report was
brought up and received.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock.

Sir Robert Peel, Marquis and Marchioness of Nor-
manby, Lord Villiers, Marquis of Douro, Earl of liar-
rowby, Countess of Kinnoul, Lord Newport, Mr. Shar-
man Crawford, M.P., Lord Combermere and party,
Duke of Cleveland, and many others of the nobility and
gentry honoured the exhibition of the Bosjiemens at the
Egyptian Hall with their presence.
THE IMMEDIATE REPEAL OF THE CORN LAWS.—
The petition tram the Chamber of Commerce was pre-
sented in the House of Commons on Wednesday even-
ing, by Mr. Milner Gibson, and on Friday afternoon a
deputation from the Chamber, consisting of Messrs.
Thomas Huxley, Salis, Schwabe, Charles Pooley, and
John Ilrooks, had au interview with the Premier, to
urge the views embodied in the petition upon the con-
sideration of her Majesty's advisers.—Manchester
Courier.