The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-14 00:00:00

were stretched on a bed of sickness. What. •other effect
could follow such treatment ? It appeared also that in
the same union the aged and infirm had only 15Oz. of
animal ft od in the week ; 15oz. wen alowed to the aged
and infirm, while to the healthy and able-bodied, with
strong and vigorous stomachs, only 4oz. were allowed.
Under such circumstances, he would ask, what
was to be done with the Poor-law Commis-
sioners ? He believed that in their private
capacity they were ail estimable men, but this was a
case of gross injustice, and perpetrated, too, against a
class of individuals who were least able to defend them-
selves. It was quite clear that the Commissioners of
Somerset House were useless—were worse than useless.
That Commission was a monstrous grievance engrafted
on the constitution. He did not wish, however, to con-
fine the administration of the poor-law to local bodies ;
a central governing body was necessary, but how it
should he constituted he was not prepared to say. He
called, however, upon the Noble Lord to fix his attention
upon the subject., and lay down such a system of manage-
ment as would be best adapted to meet the demands of
the country and the wants of the poor. He therefore
entreated the Hon. Member for Montrose to persist in
his motion, and to take a division of the House. to show
the Poor-law Commissioners the feeling of the House on
this subject.
Captain PECHELL said that it had been his inten-
tion to propose a postponement of this question—
(Hear, hear)— and he saw no reason to alter the course
he had marked out. It was impossible to conceive the'
horrors and iniquities which were detailed before the
Committee. although a great part of them were detailed
in the public press. The case was one which called for
serious consideration, and though he did not wish to im-
pede the measure, he thought that it would be better to
postpone it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
see any good to be effected by the postponement of the
.liscussion, it would be merely putting off a difficulty to
a future day.

Mr. HENLEY said that after the statement which
had been made by the Hon. Member opposite (Mr.
Wakley), he thought that he ought to move for a return
of the diet tables. He did not see that any practical good
oould result from delay, and he thought it would be ad-
visable to grant the money, as it was merely a temporary
measure. He, therefore, should vote against the mo-
tion of the Hon. Member for Montrose.

Mr. HEINLE said that he only wished a part of this
grant to be kept back. He did not object to the system
of poor-laws, but merely to their administration, and he
would therefore withdraw the motion be had math., as he
lid not wish to be thought willing to offer any- obstruc-
tion to the 'sm.,.

Sir DE LACY EVANS said that he thought some
further opportunity of discus.mg the measure ought to
be afforded this session, but it would be advisable that
the present vote should be alio ed.
After a few words from Captain PECHELL and Mr.
FERG ITSOY,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM made some observations in
explanation which did not reach the gallery.
Mr. WAKLEY said that he saw no other course but
to give way as his Hon. Friend had done. He corn-
olained of the position in which medical gentlemen were
placed under the New Poar-law, and considered they
•mght to be made more independent. As it was, medi-
•al officers in connexion with poor-law unions were in
a for worse position than those employed in infirmaries
and dispensaries, where they had the power of regulat •
ing regimen as they thought compatible with the state
.f the patients. This was not so under the poor-law
guardians, for the medical officers were continually in-
terferred with in this respect, and liable to rebuke and
dismissal. He thought it was a matter which ought to
be taken up by the Government.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM acid it was impossible the
Government who had just come into office could have
considered the details of the question, and he would
therefore be excused in occupying the House briefly in
-xplanation. The subject of medical relief was indeed
an important matter, and should not be lost sight of in
the adminivration of the New Poor-law. A Committee
had sat on the question of medical relief some time ago,
presided over by Lord Ashley, and the result
was the issuing of a general order
.by the Poor-
law Commissioners, which ended in placing the medical
officers in as independent a position as he could desire.
He did not go the length of the Hon. Member (Mr.
IVakley), as to the perfect independence of medical
4ficers, but thought it was necessary they should be
under a certain degree of control. Though the con-
trolling power of the Poor-law Act was much objected
to, he must say that, were it removed, matters would
be ranch worse than they were at present.—(Hear.)
1-f3 did not see how they could improve upon the present
arrangement. He, for one, did not think it proper that
low rates should be paid to medical officers, but that a
fair and liberal remuneration should be afforded. Their
object was not to fix the rate too low on the one hand,
and to guard against an undue liberality on the other.
Mr. HENLEY said there was an item of 30,0001. for
schoolmasters and schoolmistresses engaged in the edu-
cation of the destitute poor in connexion with the poor-
law unions. He wished to know how it was applied ?
He was satisfied that a strong feeling was entertained
throughout the country on the cutting down of salaries
of the medical officers, and much blame was in conse-
quence thrown on the Poor-law Commissioners. The
local authorities under the poor-law were not to blame
for that.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM explained that the school-
masters and schoolmistresses would remain as they were
now, subject to the control of the Commissioners. An
increase in the salaries of the schoolmasters had been
proposed in the hope of getting more efficient persons
for 'those situations.
The vote was then agreed to.
On the question being put that 15,324/. be voted to
defray the expenses of the factory inspectors,
Mr. HINDLEY said the House ought to be put in
possession of the details of this estimate.
Mr. HUME objected to the vote altogether. It
seemed rather strange that while with one hand they
were removing, with the other they were imposint re.
strictions on manufactures. He confessed he could not
see why a manufacturer could not erect a building
without calling in the assistance of a medical officer.
Tho vote was agreed to. _ _ _ _ . _

The sum of 1,755 L was voted to defray the salaries of
certain persons in Scotland connected with the land
revenues. _ _

On the question being put that 6,4641. be voted for
defraying the expenses of the household of the Lord-
Lieutenant of Ireland,
Mr. HUME said he intended to morrow to move that
the office of Lord-Lieutenant be abolished, and he
thought, therefore, this vote ought to be postponed.
It was agreed to.
On the item of 39,0001. for defraying the expenses of
the Secret Service Department,
Mr. HUME said it was exceedingly strange that this
item should be the same every year. He wished to have
an explanation on this head.
Mr. WAKLEY said the country was at peace, so was
that House—(Laughter)—and the Ministers were duly
instal!ed in office, without any chance of being ousted
for a long time, and he could not see bow so large a
sum could be required. The House and the country,
too, were entitled- to a fair explanation as to the pur-
poses for which this money was applied.—(Hear.)
The vote was then agreed to.
57,5681. was then agreed to for criminal prosecutions,
law charges, &c., in England.
On the item of-21,000/., for the charge of the Solicitor
and officers of her Majesty's Treasury,
Mr. WILLIAMS said that these expenses had been
already provided for in No. 1. The salary of the Soli-
citor of the Treasury in 1841 was 2,0001., but now it was
2,850/.; and the salaries of all his clerks had been doubled.
—(No, no.) The public documents proved the fact.
Now, he wanted to know what increased duties had de-
volved upon these individuals to justify an increase of
their salaries ?

Mr. CARD WELL explained that the Solicitor and his
clerks performed the duties of solicitor to no less than
thirteen public offices, and he thought that the House
would see that he and his clerks were by no means over-
paid.
Mr. WILLIANTS said the duties performed by the
Solicitor of the Treasury in 1841 were almost precisely
the same as those now performed by him. Other public
law officers were not treated nearly so liberal by the
Government.

Mr. F. BARING supported the vote, and contended
that the Solicitor to the Treasury was by no means over-
paid. With the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. flume)
he was of opinion that the present system of remune-
rating the Solicitor by a fixed and just salary, was a far
better mode than remunerating him by fees.—( Hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN explained the reason of the ap-
pointment of additional clerks to the Solicitor, viz., the
great saving of fees to legal practitioners thereby. He
did not believe that the Solicitor's salary,, or those of
his clerks, was at all too high.
Sir J. GRAHAM also supported the vote. The
salary which such an eminent man as Mr. Maule received
for his public services was wisely expended. There
had not been an increase in the salaries of all his clerks.
Mr. WILLIAMS would undertake to prove that there
had been an increase throughout the whole of the esta-
blishment.
_ _

Mr. HENLEY wished to know whether witnesses of
the Crown received payment for attendance in court
both from the Government and the Committees whence
they hail been summoned?
Mr. GOULBURN said he could not sumer the
Hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. EWART recommended the introduction of the
decimal system, now prevalent in,fother countries, with
regard to money.
Mr. HUME was convinced, after a careful investiga-
tion of the report on this subject, that we were better
as wo were.
Dr. BOWRING entertained a contrary opinion,
and anxiously looked forward to the day when the
decimal system should be introduced, not only with
regard to our coinage, but our weights, measures, &c.
The vote was eventually agreed to.
64,610/. for criminal prosecutions in Scotland was also
agreed to after, a little opposition on the part of Mr.
Williams, and 66,209/. for criminal prosecutions in
Ireland was agreed to.
239,000/., for prosecutions. removal, and subsistence
of convict*, &c., having been proposed,
Mr. HUME objected to this vote, unless the Govern-
ment had the complete control of the prisoners after
conviction.
__ _

Sir J. GRAHAM entered into explanations, and said
he held that the control of Government over prosecu-
tions was very necessary, a I.onsideration which weighed
with the late Government, end that the present vote con-
cerned the maintenance of prisoners convicted at the
assizes or the quarter sessions.
Mr. HENLEY thought that the word "maintenance"
was not sufficiently explained. As this grant was to be
made f• em the public fund, the public had a right to
know how it was applied.
Mr. HUME thought that if the public defrayed the
expense, the managemout of this system ought $0 be
Tested is the public