The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-22 00:00:00

BTNGLEY POOR-HOUSE.

Mr. FERRAND rose, pursuant to —notice, to put four
questions to the Right Honourable Baronet the First Lord of
the Treasury relative to the present state of the Bingley Work.
house. He wished to put these questions because in the year
1842 the Right Hon. Baronet used a Poor Law Commission
report relative to this establishment as a weapon of
attack upon him, and with the aid of which the
Right Honourable Baronet held him up to the indignation of
the House and the whole country. The House would re-
member that in the year 1839 the old Poor-law ceased to be
enforced in the town of Bingley, and at that time the work-
house was only large enough to hold twelve inmates. When
the Poor-law commissioners, however, took upon them-
selves the control of the whole parish, fifty-nine persons were
placed in this building. On a former occasion he stated
this fact to the House, but he was met by the Right Hon.
Baronet with the report of Sir John Waltham, throwing dis-
credit upon this statement. It was only necessary for him to
state now, that since that time, the Bingley poor-house had not
been visited by a Poor.law Commissioner, and the inmates,
instead of decreasing, had increased to 70. Now, under
these circumstances, he wished to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet, firstly, whether the Government possessed the power
of rescuing from the tyranny of the Poor. law Commissioners
seventy poor persons who were now confined in the Bingley
workhouse, a building only capable of accommodating twelve
individaals; secondly, whether the. Government had power
to compel the Poor-law Commissioners immediately to
visit the establishment and afford some relief to the inmates,
amongst whom the fever had broken out; thirdly,
whether the Poor-law Commissioners had visited the work-
house since 1832? and, fourthly, whether the Right Hon.
Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury would now re-
tract his unfounded charge against the rate-payers of the
parish of Bingley, that they were privy to the confinement of
fifty-nine individuals in their workhouse ?
Sir It. PEEL said the House was aware that all.corntaunL.
nations between the Government and the Poor-law Commis-
iliOaen VW* not OM:* his control, hat the control of his Right

Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home
Department ; but, as one of the Honourable Gentle-
man's questions was connected with himself, though it related to
something which passed in that House some four
years ago, it would be perhaps convenient that
he should answer the whole of the ques-
tions. The first was, whether Government had bad
the power of rescuing seventy individuals from the tyranny of
the Poor-law Commissioners? Now, his answer to this
question was, that he apprehended the Poor-law Com-
missioners had the power of restricting the number of per-
'one to be 'admitted into a workhouse under their
.control.
With respect to the power of the Poor-law Commissioners of
retaining a number of persons in the poor-house below thet.e
number of those at present remaining there, he had taken the
necessary steps to ascertain how the case
.stood,. and his
Ight
limomn.edFiartieenlyd
uhpaodndirtehcetedretheeeipnteceosfsatrhyean.qc;nrimes
utt,oi:baetsi:migiagdeeos...f
the Right Honourable Gentleman, contaanin h
(tiiroensssedto
to Mr.
he had
tahlleudesd4reatsrlyettetor had been ad
into
the
state dim eeting him to institute an.. inquiry
t_
state of the workhouse of that union, to ascertain whe her
the number was greater than it had been under the old poor-
law, and whether there was any fever at that time in the
workhouse ; if so, to report to what extent it prevailed, and
also the names of the paupers who were afflicted with it, and
whether the removal of any of them was advisable, and of
what number, and to state the result of the whole
of these inquiries. Of course the House would
see that it was impossible to have any connexion
with such a breach of duty as that which the Hon. Member
had charged. Of course, if they had felt it necessary,
they would have communicated it to the House. He
must further sa
y, that her Majesty's Government had
directed an especial inquiry to be made, and had desired
the medical officers to make any suggestions for its
improvement that they might think necessary. With respect
to the second question, as to whether her Majesty's Government
had the power to interfere with the Poor-law Commissioners,
and whether they were inclined to exercise it, be thought the
House would give her Majesty's Government credit on this
charge for every disposition to control the officials under
their direction and ; that whenever any deficiency oc-
curred, they would take the requisite steps for
correcting the evils by whatever parties it might
be committed. Now, with respect to the third question, as to
whether her Majesty's Government possessed the power to
compel the Poor-law Commissioners' assistant to visit the
poorhouse of this union, and whether he had done
so since June, 1842, he (Sir Robert Peel) had to say
that as soon as the Hon. Member had addressed his inquiries
to her Majesty's Government, his Right Hon. Friend the
Secretary for the Home Department had directed the
Poor-law Commissioners to state what had occurred in
connexion with the report of their assistant. It appeared
on this report, that Mr. Clements was in the. district for
several months, in fact, until be was removed into Ireland.
It appeared by that gentleman's report, that he was present
at a meeting of the Board of Guardians on the 17th of May,
1843—that he was there again on the 18th of May, 1844,
and that a party, who attended on behalf of the board of
guardians alluded to this very circumstance. Mr. Clements
was there again on the 13th October, 1844, when he attended
the board of guardians, at which the condition of the poor-
house was particularly brought under discussion. On the 28th
of June, 1845, the attention of Mr. Clements was especially
called to the fact to which the Hon. Member bad alluded, be-
cause the Poor-law Commissioners have the power of de-
creasing the number of paupers. and his attention was directed
to ascertain what the number then really was. He stated, in
reply to the letter, that he had been in communication with the
board of guardians on this subject, and that they thought
that it had better be postponed for the present.
It should be borne in mini that the union in question, was not
one of those which was deprived of the power of giving out-
door relief ; and, therefore, as the Poor-law authorities then
had the power to give out-door relief, there would be no occa-
sion to crowd the workhouse. No doubt it was to be lamented
that the Assistant Poor-law Ganmissioner had limited his
visits to one of the workhouses in question, and that he had not
visited them both more frequently ; but upon receiving the
communication of the Hon. Member he (Sir R. Peel) had re-
quested that steps might be taken by Mr. Austin, the
Poor-law Commissioner, to ascertain the actual state of
the facts ; and when that gentleman had made his report
he (Sir R. Peel) would take care that it should be laid upon
the table of the House ; and a report should also be made of
every step that had been taken to afford the necessary relief
in that union. Now, with regard to the last question
put by the Honourable Gentleman, which applied to
himself personally, he begged to say that he never said
that any Hon. Member had acted dishonourably at the time
stated, namely, four years ago. Now, the proposition then
made was that the Poor-law Commission should
be abolished; but he then said that it would not be
prudent to do so, as the administration of
the law would then be confined to a few local autho-
rities, not responsible to the Government. He also stated at
the same time the substance of the report of Sir John Wal-
sham on the state of this union, and that report confirmed
him in his opinion that it would not be prudent to abolish the
Poor-law Commission. Well, then, the Hon. Member said
that tt-at report was altogether unfounded.
Mr. FERRA ND—Not altogether.
Sir R. PEEL—The Hon. Member said that the Secretary
of State should institute an inquiry on the allegation of the
Poor-law Commissioners, and that the question itself equally de-
manded an investigation. On that observation a Select Committee
was appointed, to which Committee was referred the report of
Sir John Walshara with respect to that union. The Com-
mittee having made a full inquiry, presented a report,
which was to the following effect :—" No attempt
has been made to impugn the general accuracy
with one or two trifling exceptions, of any details of Sir John
Walsham's report. The accuracy of Sir John Wal-
sham's report is fully borne oat by evidence."—(Hear, hear.)
That was the report made by the Committee. The jus-
tice of that result was questioned, and another proceeding, call-
ing in question the accuracy of Sir John Walsham's report to
the Commissioners, was proposed, but the report stating that
Sir J. Walsham's allegations were justified by the evidence,
was affirmed by several Members of the House of Commons,
amongst whom were Mr. Childers, Mr. Pakington, Sir C.
Napier, Sir J. Trollope, and others. There were three Mem-
bers of that Committee who proposed a report of a different
tendency, and amongst them was the Hon. Member himself.
That report was laid on the table of the House, affirming the
general accuracy of Sir J. Walsham, and three years ago, in the
succeeding sessions—or it was now nearly three years and a half
ago—the lion. Gentleman referred to that report, and
asked him (Sir R. Peel) if he was prepared to retract certain
unfounded charges ? He said that he was not—that he had
made no charges which were unfounded, but had merely relied
on Sir J. Walsham's report. If he had made any statement of
an obnoxious character, or under any mistake, he should have
great pleasure in correcting it, and he would say so now, not-
withstanding the lapse of time which had occurred, if he felt
that he had done any injustice to the guardians or ratepayers of
the union. But seeing the report of the- Committee, with
respect to the truth of Sir J. Walsham's allegations, and hear-
ing the speech of the Gallant Commodore, he did not feel that
he had said one unjust word with respect to the guardians and
ratepayers of the union, and he was not prepared to retract
what he had said four years since, in June, 1842.
Mr. FERRAND said that the Right Hon. Baronet had
charged him and the ratepayers with being the cause of the
state of the poor-house. It was the Poor-law Commissioners
who sent these people into the poor-house, and who had the
control and management of it. He could say that, under the
old law, the average of persons in that poor-house was rnly
twelve, but, under the existing law, fifty-nine were crammed
into it.
Sir R. PEEL said that it was a most inconvenient course to
refer to what took place four years since. The Hon. Member
was the chairman of the board of guardians, and had declined
to give effect to the law.—( Laughter.) There was no obliga-
tion on the board of guardians to place all these persons in the
workhouse, because they had the power of administering out-
door relief. Were not representations made to the Commis-
sioners that it was troublesome that the ratepayer should be
to ed to build a better union to give more suitable accommo-
dation.

Mr. CRAVEN BERKELY wished to ask the Hon. Member
for Athlone whether the accusation he made a few evenings
ago against Sir Charles Taylor be true, for if so the Secretary
of State ought not to permit him to continue any longer in
the commission of the peace. If it was not true, he considered
that the Hon. Member who made such a statement was un-
I worthy to have a seat in that House. He wished, therefore,
to know what further steps the Hon. Gentleman had taken in
reference to the subject.
Mr. S. COLLETT said that he had taken no further steps
in the matter. That he had taken measures for the purpose
of lodging in the hands of the Secretary for the Home Depar-
ment copies of the affidavits made before the clerk of the
peace ; and he begged to state that he was desirous to have
the fullest inve:tigation into all the circumstances.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he would avail himself of
that, the first opportunity of stating to the House what the
documents were that were sent to him on Tuesday last. He
had considered the documents, and he had found them to be
extra judicial. If false, therefore, no indictment for perjury
could be be tried upon them, and though they were clearly slan-
derous, no civil action could be instituted upon them. If the
documents were false no remedy could be obtained against the
parties who—to use the expression of the Hon. Gentleman—
had got up the affidavits, or the parties who had sworn them.
On the other hand, if they were true, it could not for a mo-
ment be doubted that acrimmal information might be obtained
against Sir Charles Taylor in the Court of Queen's Bench, and
that was the fit tribunal before which inquiry should be con-
ducted. It was not necessary for the Hon. Gentleman to be
phreortheutectio,naaadet
igng
ts
ht ed
es e h iar lafv,
tbs tp
rhoes
ehimself
rmci ghhatr,i
eisf
Taylor.. MrCOLLETy form COLLETT said
the ready to have the affidavits
an drawn up inht Hon. Baronet pleased.
In answer to a question from Mr.PA I‘. ClllAililes
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that immediately her i
Gevernment was informed that it was likely thattestY's
Padsgiven a would visit this country, a direct assurance.wa rah'`n
that-distingnished Prince, that, if he did visit this
country,to
her Majesty's Government would treat him with all dure-
spent.
Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR wished to know from a
Member of the Government, whether that very enormous
statue of the Duke of Wellington was to be placed upon the
top of the archway on Constitution-hill? He considered that
it would disfigure the town very much, and it had been dis-
covered it was much too large for the arch, and that it was not
strong enough to bear it.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the state of facts as to
whether the equestrian statue of the Duke of Wellington
should be placed upon the arch, he believed to be simply this.
was
s c n
Before the subscribers to this very magnificent compliment
had made their ;p
omrme
nu: i
oc af t
ti ohn b madei to
o
his late Majesty
suwbhscerthetrion,isr:
t ahe"
objection to having the statues
being paid, he would have any
.(Joh lar
n
he and the Noble
placed upon the arch. A similar intimation was made to her
present Majesty, and both
l built un a distinct
understanding that it was to be so played Hetconsequen h.
Russell), then at the head of the Government, g
answer. The statue wasavers simi
self, that a better site might have been
exeidstehd
pc. r
o
v
i
o d
e
bd
o.
ug(
h,H
te
a
ir
m.
..)
A great difference of opinion had originally
ehad poe
proper place for the erection of the statue, a
as to the
proper place for the erection of the statue, and ho had pro-
pose
Service Clubs, or near the Horse Guards, should
d that a site between the Athenseurn andldthbee
allotted
by the Government for its erection, but it had at last been
decided that it should be placed upon the arch at Constitution..
hill. The great body of the subscribers had subscribed to the
statute under the impression that it should be placed on that
arch; and as permission had been given by her Majesty's pre-
decessor and her Majesty for the erection of the statue there,
the subscribers had acquired a right to have the statue orected
on the arch. He certainly would not advise her Majesty to
withdraw the consent that had been given.
Mr. BAILEY suggested that the statue should, at all events,
be placed in a proper position on the arch.
Sir WALTER JAMES made some observations with re-
spect to the placing of the statue, and stated that it was the
wish of her Majesty that it should be placed over the arch
before Buckingham Palace.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM did not wish to prolong the dis-
cus,ion; but, seeing the Hon. Member for prolong the dis-
cussion; but, seeing the Hon. Member for Maldon in the
House, he wished to explain. On behalf of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners, he was instructed to express their regret that
their solicitor, or or any other officer, should have in any way
transoasselthe.rules of the House. He hoped that this ex-
planation would be deemed satisfactory. .
Mr. E. DENISON would have wished for a more detailed '

eexonplsaisntaetnitonw.ithmtheetaioulrreGistoEorfNhtad;tnottuascmet.eaddeina afmewanonbesrertvhaattiownass,
The ATTORNEY -GENERAL
satwhen
do hewn
,w as interrupted
moved
t:b2,ya
tloud cries
rape
papers
sf 'o' Order,
n which otrbdee r,"
presentaud
Mr. HUNIE
discussion was founded be p.ut,in.
much
he
oSbOligLeldCtloTtOhße
I.GioEn.NGLeßnAtleLmanresufomredg,ivianngdhsiamid
ahne was
opl
mportunity of explanation. He defended Mr. Murray, the
Solicitor, from the charges that had been brought against him.
NIL% Murray was relieved from all responsibility and liability
with respect to the alteration in the contract of the South-
Eastern Railway Company, for having signed the new deed as
a trustee for other parties. He was a man of the highest
honour and integrity.
Mr. DENISON said it could hardly be necessary for him
to enter into any explanation when a gentieman who was mis.
informed on the subject bad thought proper to intrude his
opinions. He thought that the opinion of the Attorney-
General would be more than overbalanced by the confirmed
decision of four Members of that House, who were of opinion
that the opposition in the case of the South-Eastern Company
was ill advised. He had had. an interview with the Ecclesias-

tical Commissioners some time back, in which the report was
directed to be read for his special instruction, in which the
solicitor omitted a word on which the whole sense of the
sentence hinged. Was that conduct. consistent with the
character of a high-minded man ? He would ask the House
whether he was not justified on a former occasion in animad-
verting in the manner he had on the conduct of Mr. Murray.
Mr. HUME would withdraw the motion which he had
made.

Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN.

The SPEAKER called the attention of the House to the
following communication, which he had received from Mr.
William Smith O'Brien:— _

" Pr:son, House of Commons, May 21, 1846.
" Sir, —I take the liberty to call your attention to the follow-
ing correspondence between the Clerk of the House of Com-
mons and myself :
" Prison, House of Commons, May 20, 1846.

" Dear Sir,-1 beg to call your attention to standing order,
No. 4, page 13, and shall feel obliged if you will inform me
where I can find the appointment of a Committee of Selection
pursuant to that order, as I Lave in vain searched for it in the
votes of the Commons. . .

" It being my intention to cause the attention of the House
of Commons to be directed to this correspondence to-morrow,
may I request that you will send me an immediate and official
reply.
" I have the honour to be your obedient faithful servant,
" WILLIAM S. O'BRIEN."
" To John Henry Ley, Esq., Clerk of the House
of Commons."
" To this note I received the following answer :-
4, May 20, 1846.

" Dear Sir,—•ln answer to your note, delivered to me by
Mr. Mahony, I conaider it will be sufficient for me to say that
the Committee of Selection is appointed, and named by the
Standing Order No. 4, and that it was not considered neces-
sary at the beginning of the session to read that order, as has
sometimes been done, and for the House to make an order
that the Committee of Selection be appointed accordingly.
You will, therefore, not find any entry in the votes.
" Your obedient faithful servant,

" JOHN HENRY LEY.
" Mr. Ley's letter confirms my conviction that the Committee
of Selection was not appointed for the present session, in due
conformity to Standing Order No. 4, which is worded as
follows :

" That a Committee be appointed, at the commencement of
every session, consisting of the chairmen of the Select Com-
mittee of Standing Orders, and of the chairman of the Sub-
Committees on Petitions for Private Bills, of whom three shall
be a quorum ; and such Committee shall be denominated the
Committee of Selection.' _ _

" It is manifest from Mr. Ley's letter that there is no evi-
dence in the authentic records of the House of Commons that
Mr. Escourt, and the other gentlemen who have acted as a
' Committee of Selection,' have received due authority from the
House to act in that capacity during the present session.
Under these circumstances, all the proceedings which have led
to my imprisonment have been void and informal, ab initio.
I, therefore, respectfully claim my immediate discharge.
" I cannot conclude this letter without recording my solemn
protest against the conduct of the House of Commons in
having subjected me to imprisonment. Even if the Committee
of Selection had been duly nominated, I should still deny that
I have violated any law of the land, and should, therefore, re-
gard my imprisonment as contrary to the law and constitution
of these realms. _

" As I do not desire to throw upon you the responsibility of
expressing any opinion upon this case, except under the sanction
of the House of Commons, I do not expect an answer to this
letter, but respectfully request that you will do me the favour
to lay it before the House of Commons to-day at five o'clock,
and to invite the opinion of the House upon it.
" I have the honour to be,

" Your obedient faithful servant,
" WILLIAM S. O'BRIEN."

" To the Right Hon. the Speaker."
Mr. O'CONNELL moved, that this letter be printed and
circulated with the votes, with the view of being taken into
consideration to-morrow.—( Hear, hear.)
NEW ZEALAND.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER said, in the present state of
public business, he was afraid the resolutions of which he
had given notice, relative to the state of New Zealand, could
not receive that fair and patient consideration which they
were entitled to, and he should, therefore, with the permission
of the House, withdraw them for the present, reserving to
himself, however, the right of bringing them forward at a
future period.---(Hear, hear.) He should be glad, however,
if gentlemen in the meantime would give the House an asur-
ance that the present session should not be suffered to pass
over without some Bills or measures being introduced on the
subject.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL said the only assurance he could
give the Hon. Member was, that when he thought proper to
bring forward his motion again Ministers would do their best
to give full effect to, and ample opportunity for, the discussion
of this subject. The House must bear in mind all that passed
in the course of the last session, and the opinions and views
that were expressed upon that occasion. Government had
done their best to carry out those views and opinions, and had
appointed a gentleman to the government of the colony who
had previously distinguished himself in administering the
government of a colony. From the letters which had re-
cently been received from him it would appear that at the time
they were dispatched to this country they had only reached the
colony a few weeks before, but they contained sufficient infor-
mation, nevertheless, to slow that the opinion Government
had entertained of his ability had been entirely confirmed.
—( Hear, hear.) From a subsequent communication
which had been received from the colony, there were
strong reasons for believing that ere long the northern island
would be reduced to a state of subordination, and until they
heard further from the Governor he thought it would not be
prudent for Government to introduce any measure upon the
subject.—( Hear, hear.)
After 'a few words from Mr. HUME, the resolution was
postponed till a future day.
REAL PROPERTY COMMISSION.

Viscount EBRING TON was then proceeding to move an
address to her Majesty for the re-appointment of the Real
Property Commission, when
An HoN. MEMBER moved that the House be counted.

There being only twenty-seven Members present, the House
was adjourned till to-morrow.