The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-23 00:00:00

sioners

might be afforded for investigating the whole
merits of the case, and making due inquiry,
so that a proper measure might be prepared, ac-
ceptable to
large.—(Hear.) He maintained that no Minister cf the
Crown had ever shown a greater respect for public
opinion than the 'Right Hon. Baronet. He cordially
supported this proposition, and as he before stated, if
the bright Hon. Baronet did not defend himself, he,
(Mr. Wakley) would be compelled to do so.
Mr. RICE was quite satisfied that, however the speech
of the Hon. Member for Finsbury might be cheered, the
Right Hon. Baronet was too straightforward and indepen -
dent to accept his version of the matter. —(Hear.) He
believed the consideration of the question to be postponed
till the Corn-laws were brought under their consideration ;
and when the two questions, which appeared to him in
some measure connected with each other, were brought
forward, he hoped the Corn-laws would have precedence.
He regretted the Right Mon. Baronet had postponed
the consideration of the question ; but he was not
one of those who would join in any factious opposi-
tion to the course which the Right Honourable Baronet,
in the exercise of his discretion as to the time which
might be proper for bringing forward the question, had
adopted ; but knowing 'that the Right Honoarable
Baronet had taken part in all the discussions
which had lately taken place on the subject, and that
he was in possession of a vast deal of information
connected with the working of those laws, he
thought it almost impossible that he should not have
made up his mind. Considering the position in which
the Right-Hon. Baronet was placed, and seeing that the
responsibility of postponing those measures rested with
himself and his Government, he could only regret that
he had decided upon that course. He certainly did not
mean to be a party to any face;loas typosition to the pro-
position of the Right Hon. Baeoaet,
Sir R. PEEL said, that if he had apprehended there
would have been any discussion on the second reading of
the Bill, he would have taken care that his Right Hon.
Friend would not have chosen so early a day,
after the first reading, to propose the second stage. Ile
thought that there was a general understanding that the
Bill would pass as a matter of course. It would
certainly be ungrateful, if he did not acknowledge
the obligations he was under to the Hon. Gentleman
who came forward voluntarily in his behalf—(Hear, hear,
and laughter)—but he conlessed he was more obliged
to the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr, Rice) than
to the Hon. Member on that (the Ministerial)
side who undertook his defence. The Hon. Gentleman
thought that the Peor-law and the Corn-law ought to be
conjointly considered and settled. He (Sir R. Peel)
asked whether it would be possible for a Government to
do justice to the Poor-law without having an opportunity
of considering the local and general bearings of
that measure ? Would it be possible, placed in
the situation in which the Government at pre-
sent was, without availing themselves of the informa-
tion which the employineet of Commissioners would enable
them to procure, to consult, the public mind on the
subject within a week of their acceptance of office?
lie (Sir Robert Peel) was afraid he could not
accept the vindication of his conduct, which the
lion. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had voice-
teered in his behalf.—(Hear, hear.) As for the conti-
nuance of the Poor-law for the period of six months, he
proposed it on the principle that he did not think it
just, with the intentions which he had avowed on the part
of the Government not to transact any business which the
public service might require during the present sitting of
the House, to call for a definite opinion of the
House as to the period for which the Commission might
endure beyond that period which was absolutely
necessary for the consideration of the subject.
He did not propose the period of six months as meaning
,
to imply a reflection on the determination the House had
come to last year, when the subject was brought
under its consideration ; Out he proposed that period in
conformity to the principle on which he had alteettay
acted, namely, that it was not desirable to call
the house to the discussion of important matters of a per-
manent and extensive bearing. daring the present Ses-
sion. It was in conformity with that principle that he
proposed the period of six months, reserving to him-
self and the Government to make what extension of
that period they might deem necessary for the public
interest when Parliament again met. This much he
thought it necessary to declare that there might be no
misunderstanding on the subject.
Mr. C. WOOD had risen at the same time with his
Hon. Friend the Member from ,)over, to elicit from the
Right Hon. Bart. what heti just fallen from him, for
he felt that the defence of the Hon, Member for
Finsbury, both 1-..:sterday and to-day, of the conduct of
the Right Non. Baronet, was of such a nature that he
:
roust bq glad of an opportunity of altogether repo-
diat.fng it. (Cheers.) He represented that there
tiad been a total change of opinion in Ireland
upon the subject of the Poor-laws, in consequence of
the change of Ministry. That was a statement totally
without foundation. However, expressions had been
used even in that House which showed that there
was some doubt as to the permanent nature
of the Poor-law Bill. That was an utter inistake. It
was a permanent measure, and the Bill new in progress
was merely for the purpose of continuing the Commission,
although the attempts at amendment, whim must be futile,
would naturally lead to the mistrelee.- It was important
that it should be cleaf,y, understood that any
alteration to be propoe„nd by
that Bill would I the present. Gevernment in
nc entirely in accordance with the
maintenance `..r its principle, and that the interpretation
put upon "c.neir present course by the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, and which was received with cheers by those
who had advocated an extensive alteration, if hot a re-
peal, of that Bill, was wholly erroneous.
Mr. 1. SHAW was not aware that any general im-
pression existed in Ireland that the present Government
had any intention of altering the principle of the cen-
sure. He hoped it was not so, for nothing
would do so much harm. He believed that the Poor-
law, as it was now working in Ireland, would prove of
the utmost benefit to the poor, at the least possible charge
to the other classes.
Sir H. FLEETWOOD had always opposed the Bill,
and he wished the country should understand that the
party who had formerly disapproved of the Diu Were
still opposed to it.
Sir R. PEEL said that ann. Gentlemen seemed
to labour under a misapprehension, as there was no
opportunity of opposing the principle of the Poor-law.
The Bill for the continuance of the Poor-law Commission
was entirely distinct from the Poor-law Bill itself. All
that he (Sir R. Peel) was then anxious to do was to con-
tinue the Commission ; and, if it was any conso-
lation to Honourable Gentlemen, he could tell them
that he meant to oppose nothing. He could not, how-
ever, consent that an alteration in the Poor-law Bill
should be proposed upon the motion before the lionsie
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that the coarse
proposed by the Right Honourable Gentleman was a
perfectly fair one ; and was in complete accordance
with the course which he had himself taken on
more than one occasion. It was one thing. to take into
cocsidratiott the entire Poor-law Bill, with a view to
its adoption, or for the purpose of introducing into it
certain modifications, and it was st.nther thing
to propose the continuance of the Commission for a
limited period if Parliament were not at the time
prepared to take the subject into its conside-
ration. Last year there had not been time to
consider the details of the measure, Ile proposed
that the Commission should continned 'for eighteen
months, and the Right Honourable Baronet proposes
tm additional six mouths. That additional time
did not appear to him (Lord J. Russell) a nietter to
which any reasonable objection could be made, Re con-
fessed he had heard with great RatiAletion Oft 0,-
duration of the Right Honourable BeiesWels Oen had
been a supporter of the Irish Poop-lie * Rill, that he
did think upon the whole inat the working
of the Act in Ireland .
gad been attended with
success. For his (slLord
John Rueeeleb) part
he had never supposed that the law could illtVe been intro-
duced into Ireland 'without its being Code, s had .been
the case witt, other laws a matt*
ex citeire:ii, in certain district% 9:l*, found that his
ant.kipations had been in vettuln instances realised,
but he trusted that, 'when the beneficial effects of a
Poor-law were kit in Leland, political excitement
would itt h great measure subside, and that
the itne, would be turned to the purposes for
which it had been intended, Ile hotted that
it would, though after a lapse of time, bet-haps, con-
tribute to the amelioration -of tike inOral-and physical
condition of the Irish peeeple,-s-(liear, hear.)
FIELDINGOvito was almost inaudible in the
gallery from the low tone in which he spoke, was
understood to say that he objected to the
continuance of the powers of the Commissioners for
any period whatever. Their power was a despotism ;
and he greatly regretted to find that the Right Ho-
nourable Baronet was determined on introducing the
measure in the same shape in which it had been
originally brought fcrward by the Government of Earl
Grey. The present Poor-law was a coercion Bill for
England ; and he was determined to t!ivide the House
on the motion then befeu them-- (Hear, hear)—
and he wished it should be known who those Honour-
able Members were, who were resolved on defying the
opinion of the country.
Mr. ESCt)TT would support the motion before the
House. He did not think they had at this motnent
sufficient information to enable them fairly and
}e dbeidtte not r i
s
honestly to legislate on the subject.—(Hear, hear.)
It was the fault of the late House of Commons, which
then at
it: eiempdissolved when it ought to have beeii passing a law for
theri)futethempottrvrez a
totlililsonerurnatbryle.
Members opposite; but, after the speeches which he had
heard from the Noble Lord and the Hon. Member for Hali-
fax, he would ask how it had happened that precisely at the
moment when the Poor-law Commission was abandoned,
the Corn-law agit t,'
agia ton was commenced? They had seen
Honourable Members - • rising up night after night to com-
plain of the scarcity of corn and the dearness of bread,
caused by the laws which they (the Conserratives)
he:.)—thought necessary for the protection
of agriculture. That
Was only to direct attention
front the Poor-law. There 'was no scarcity of
bread at the - present moment, and under that
very law • which had been so much condemned ,