The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-25 00:00:00

POOR-LAWS.

In answer to a question from Mr. HALFORD
which was inaudible.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said his object was to
prevent the Commissioners from making the wards too
sniadl. For the sake of convenience a certain size was
required to constitute a ward.
Sir R. PEEL inquired what was proposed with re-
spect to large manufacturing parishes at present go-
verned by Local Acts. He understood it was the in-
tention to continue the operation of the law, and that
the Commissioners should not have the power to inter-
ere, but as the Bill stood at present this was doubtful,
and the Poor-law Commissioners having attempted to
bring cei t tin parishes under these regulations it was
desirable that the point should be cleared up.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he understood that
it was not competent for the Poor-law Commissioners
to place parishes goveme 1 by Local Acts under a board
of guardians constituted by the Poor•law Act, and the
consequence was that many large parishes were not
under the directions of the Commissioners, so far as
the boards of guardians were concerned.

Sir R. PEEL said that the Act took away from the
Commissioners all power of dissolving unions without
the content of the majority of the board of guardians,
but it did not deprive them of the power of adding
to unions without the consent of the guardians. Now,
as one of the great causes of complaint against the law
was the s.ze of the unions, he thought it would be very
satisfactory to have a provision introduced into the
preventiag the Commissioners from adding to
unions without the conseat uf a majority of the guardians.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was afraid it woul I be
hardly practicable to introdurie such a provision, inas-
much us some of the unions at present were so exces-
sively small, that it would be absolutely necessary they
should be enlarged.
Mr. HALIiORD gave notice of an amendment
which he intended to propose on the thirty-eighth
clause, in the shape of a proviso that in assign-
ing the number of guardians to the wards of
each union the Commissioners should have regard t • the
aggregate amount of rates paid by such wards towards
the relief of the poor.
COPYHOLD TENURES BILL.
. . .

Mr. AGLIONBY wished toknowiromthe Hon.
Member for Weymouth, whether in the Committee of
the whole House on the Copyhold Bill he intended to
propose any increase of salary to the Commissioners.
Mr. G. W. HOPE said the Hon. Gentleman must
be aware that the Commissioners for Tithe Cumposi-
fon were the Commissioners appointed under the Copy-
hold Bill. By th_^ Bill as agreed to originally no
increase of salary was proposed. His (Mr. G. W.
Hope's) view of the subject, however, had been
that there ought to be an increase. On consulting
with the Government, however, they had expressed
it as their opinion that the original proviso ought tore-
main. Under these circumst inces he should not propose
any increase of salary. Indeed, he doubted whither
it would be competent for any Member to do so with-
out having previously obtained the consent of her
Majesty.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought when additional and
onerous duties were imposed on individuals, a propor-
tionate increase ought to tike place in the sa!aries—
(Cheers)—and he should certainly take the opinion
of the House on the subject.
DRAINAGE BILL.

Lord G. SOMERSET wished to know whether it
was intended to proceed with the Drainage Bill this

evening.

M. HANDLEY merely meant to move that it be
be committed proforma.
Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY would oppose it in
every stage unless the amendment, of which he had
given notice, were introduced.
COPYRIGHT DESIGNS BILL.
Mr. E. TENNENT presented several petitions in
favour of the Copyright Designs Bill.
Mr. G. W. WOOD and Mr. M‘LEAN presented
petitions to the same effe t.
Sir It. PEEL presented petitions from Dumbarton-
shire and from Surrey to the same effect.
Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL and Mr. ;lOUS-
TON also presented petitions to the same effect.
Mr. LOCKHART presented fourteen petitions
front Glasgow, in favour of the Bill.
Mr. LABOUC HERE wished to throw ouc a sug-
gestion to the Hon. Gentleman who had intro duced
this Bill. From communications which the kbonour-
able Gentleman had made with the .Board
of Trade, he (Mr. Labouchere) had pets e'ved
that it was his intention to propose a number of a Itera-
tions in the Bill as it stood in its printed form b
More
the Committee. He woull suggest to hint wir.,:ther
it woul.l not be better and save even his own. time
that the Bill should be considered in Committee t.SI the
form in which it was intended to stand. He could
assure him that he did not offer this suggestion.. from
any desire to prevent the Bill from being' fairly
discussed—he had no such ir.tention. But from
all the experience which he had in the coeditor. of
Bills in that House, he was satisfied that much time
would be saved by the House having the Bill IN, Yore
them in the state as nearly as possible in w hie')
the Honourable Member desired it to pat
shat
t
(Hear, hear.) At the same time, if the Hon our.
ble Gentleman' believed that by not adopting. this
suggestion, he would besepromote the object wh id he
had in view, he (Mr. Labouchere) would offer
no opposition. - The Hon. Member would act u 1 ton Ls
Own discretion.
Mr. E. TENNENT said, in answer to tl to
gestion of the Hon. Gentleman, he begged to :lay