The Sun.
London, England, 1834-05-15 00:00:00

POOR LAWS,

Colonel E VANS presented petitions from the pa-
rishes of St. George the Martyr, St. Clement's
Danes, St. Mary-le-Strand, and other places, against
the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill.

Upon the motion that the order of the day for the
house resolving itself into a committee upon the Poor
Laws' Amendment Bill be now read, _ _ _

Mr. E WART rose, and suggested that the bill
should be postponed, as we understood.
Lord ALTHORP said, that it was the un-
derstanding, at the commencement of the ses-
sion, that orders should not have precedence on
Wednesday ; but on the present occasion, owing to
the importance of the subject, he hoped that the house
would not insist upon his abiding by that rule. ( Hear. )
Mr. SHA WE wished to know, if this bill should
not be disposed of before Friday week, when the Irish
Tithes Bill should be brought on ?
Lord ALTHORP could not give any positive
answer, as it depended upon circumstances.
Upon the order of the day being read,
Mr. GOD SON rose to move an instruction to the
committee, which would have the effect of greatly
diminishing their labours. Hon. members would re-
collect that, by the present act, the old laws were re-
pealed and new laws made, and the duties of the
central board defined. He thought that a limitation
should be put to the time during which these cen-
tral boards were to act for a certain number of
years, to be stated by the committee. This could
be much better effected if it was divided into two or
three bills. He could illustrate the differences that
would arise from such a complicated measure by re-
ference to the Reform Bill, to the principles of which
they were so much attached. The doing away with the
old boroughs, and the formation of new ones, ought to
have been in the separate bills, and that relative to the
registration of freeholders in another, so that when
the house came to revise the present system of re-
gistration, it would not be said that they were amend-
ing the Reform Bill. The acts introduced by
the right hon. baronet, the member for Tamworth,
were a further illustration of his (Mr. G's) proposition.
The right hon. baronet had one act relative to offences
against the person, another relative to malicious
trespasses, and so on ; and when it was necessary to
amend any one part, it could be done without incon-
venience. When he ( Mr. G.) considered the
inhabitants of 14,000 parishes and a revenue of
7,000,000/. a year were to be dealt with by one
part of the bill—when he considered that a change
was to be effected in the old laws, when he considered
that new laws were to be enacted, and that a change
was to be effected in the laws relative to vagrants,
the mode of administering parochial relief and emi-
gration, and all this in one act, he thought the
house should give the matter its serious •consi-
deration. Hon. gentlemen who were accustomed to
attend to parochial affairs, would find, by a reference
to the fourth volume of the poor laws, that there were
480 Acts of Parliament, and 1,800 cases thereon, which
were proposed to be repealed, amended, or altered by this
board. When men were made justices of the peace who
might make deputy justices ( Cries of " No, no")—he
would maintain it was so—not only were there to be
three or nine persons appointed to be justices, but
those might themselves make 999 others, a power
which the King himself did not possess, surely that
was not a circumstance to be lightly noticed.
By the 13th clause, rules and regulations might be
made, and the justices to be appointed might them-
selves afterwards make, in truth, Acts of Parliament,
a power which no branch of the legislature had of
doing.
The SPEAKER rose to order. The simple ques-
tion, he apprehended, was, whether or not the
house ought to divide upon the measure now before
the house being divided into two acts of parliament.
The arguments which the hon. gentleman had been
urging, and very forcibly, he must be aware, could
not be answered on his present motion, and no doubt
he would therefore reserve them for a future period.
Mr. GOD SON said that he would show in a mo-
ment, that the measure gave powers which were totally
at variance with the idea of their all being embraced
in one Act of Parliament. (Cries of " Hear, hear.")
In one part of it powers were given of a more
kingly, judicial, and legislative nature, than either
the King, parliament, or any other court now pos-
sessed, and that was a reason why that part of it
should be embodied in one act. He was not arguing
whether this was good or bad, but simply whether
such extensive powers should not be confined to one
act. Another reason was that the three persons to be
appointed justices, and who were to have the power of
appointing deputy justices, were moreover to sit with
closed doors. ( Hear, hear.) They were themselves
to be the judges and themselves to be the acusing par-
ties, because they were to have the power of calling any
persons before them they pleased. If it was right that
three persons should have that power, the question
ought to be discussed upon a separate bill. It ought
also to be on a separate bill because the power ought
to be limited.

Lord ALTHORP thought it extremely un-
fair towards the promoters of this bill that these
arguments should be urged at this stage of the

proceeding. He hoped the hon. member would re-
serve them, because it was impossible they could be
answered at present.
Mr. GODSON thought from the observations of
the noble lord, that his (Mr. Godson's) arguments
were considered by the noble lord to be unanswerable
( Oh, and Hear) ; but that was an additional reason in
favour of his oppostion.
The SPEAKER said the hon. and learned member
did not seem to comprehend the meaning of the noble
lord's observations. (Hear, hear, hear.) If he (the
Speaker) understood the meaning of the hon. member's
motion,it was that the committee should have the power,
if they so thought fit, to divide the bill into more
bills than one. When the bill went into com-
mittee, the hon. member could urge his reasons
why there should be more bills than one made
out of that one. At present all that the hon.
and learned member could do, was to address him-
self to the motion, that was, to the instruction to the
committee.

Mr. GOD SON bowed to the observations that had
fallen from the Chair; and said if he had to move his
amendment without argument he would submit ; but if
he were permitted, he could adduce arguments in
support of his position. The two parts were of them-
selves sufficiently important to be embodied in two
bills, and, therefore, he begged leave to move
his amendment, as an instruction to the committee.
Col. WOOD, in seconding the amendment, said
he would say a few words, in order to show the pro-
priety of his doing so. On the second reading of the
bill, the honourable baronet, the member for
Westminster ( Sir Francis Burdett) had sug-
gested the propriety of dividing the bill, and
several other members had also expressed the same
opinion. He had not then offered any opinion upon
it, nor did he oppose it, because he did not then see how
ministers who had come forward in so bold a man-
ner, and upon a matter of such great importance,
and of such difficulty, meant to act in regard to it.
The first part of the bill composed an entirely new ad-
ministration of the poor laws, and made a board with
unlimited powers ; to that he could not agree, for al-
though he should like to see a board established
to fix one uniform system, according to the existing
poor laws throughout the country, he could not con-
sent to give them any greater powers. The next part
altered the existing law of settlement ; that, in many
parts of the country would be highly objectionable,
but more particularly in the manufacturing districts.
It would be much better to introduce amendments
with regard to settlement. He was satisfied that if
the mothers were compelled to support their illegiti-
mate children, it would be necessary, of course,
to establish schools of industry throughout the
country for foundlings. ( Laughter.) Now, with
regard to vagrants, it would appear that some
of the strangest notions were introduced by the
report of the commissioners. Mr. Chet wynd,
in 1824, recommended the total abolition of the
system of passing vagrants, but very much against his
wish a clause to the contrary was introduced into the
bill then passed. That clause, however, could be re-
pealed, and the evil thus met at once. Without
troubling the house further, he would merely say that,
in his opinion, it would be advisable to have sepa-
rate bills for defining the power of the boards :
for regulating the law of settlement, for amending the
laws of bastardy, and for rectifying the Vagrant Act.
He should therefore second the motion.

Lord ALTHORP said it was perfectly true that
the bill comprised many important subjects, but if they
were connected, it was no reason why they should not
be considered in one bill. The cases cited by the hon.
member for Kidderminster were not analogous to the
present, as they did not depend upon one another
as in the case of the bill then before the house.
Should it be divided, it was possible one of the bills
might pass, the other might not (Hear, hear),
and the one that passed would be consequently totally
inoperative. The proposition of the hon. and gallant
seconder differed from that of the hon. member for
Kidderminster, as he proposed to divide it into four ;
but this he thought still more inapplicable, and there-
fore he should feel it his duty to oppose the motion.
Colonel EVANS contended that there was a
strong analogy between the Reform Bill and the
present one. He hoped that it would be arranged,
that parliament would settle the boundaries of pa-
rishes, and not leave it to the commissioners. The
noble lord had not favoured the house with any argu-
ments against the proposition, but expressed his dis-
like to being called upon to answer such arguments.
(Cries of ,‘ No, no.")
Lord G. SOMERSET was of opinion that the
bill should be divided into two parts. There were 46
clauses which might be called the commissioners'
clauses, and these should be put in one statute.
( Hear, hear.) The other clauses comprised such a
multiplicity of subjects, that he did not well know
how they could be all put into one act.
Mr. F. LEWIS said a few words which were
inaudible. We understood him to say it was proposed
to control the committee.

The SPEAKER said that the amendment was not
a mandate to the committee. It was only an instruc-
tion giving them a power which they could not other-
wise possess, leaving them, however, at liberty to de-
cide as they pleased.
Mr. F. LEWIS wished the bill should not go to
the committee with their hands bound to " a foregone
conclusion." Was all to be taken together, or was a
new bill to be introduced for the appointment of the
board ?

Mr. GODSON explained.
Mr. LEWIS could not agree to the motion.
Sir R. PEEL did not see how any inconvenience
could arise from conceding the proposition. For his
own part he wished the committee to have the power,
for he could easily conceive that it would be found
desirable to have the whole of one bill and that of
another in a separate bill. (Hear, hear.)
Sir M. W. RIDLEY wished to see the measure
unmutilated, and therefore would oppose the amend-
ment.

Mr. EWART hoped the noble lord would not con-
cede the amendment.

Lord J. RUSSELL opposed the amendment.
Mr. HARDY contended that the evil which in this
matter pressed most upon the country was a vicious
system of relief. Now upon that point it was highly
desirable that some amendment should be effected as
soon as possible. He suggested, therefore, that it
would be better to agree to the amendment.

Mr. GOULBUCiN said if the committee should
find it desirable to divide the bill it could very easily
direct its Chairman to apply to the house upon the
subject. (Hear, hear.) He therefore submitted that
the better way would be to withdraw the amendment.
(Hear, hear. )
The amendment was withdrawn, and the question
was again put that the Speaker should leave the Chair.
Mr. ROBINSON rose to move an amendment.
He considered the bill upon which they were then
called to go into committee the most import ant mea-
sure,
the,eaxt house.cepting only the
consideredß form
Reform Bill,t
the large
rgeintroducedmajo
into ..
rity which-had voted for the second reading of the bill
was no proof that the measure itself was approved of,
but that the house felt legislation was necessary upon
the subject, and therefore gave every earnest of its de-
sire to deal with the difficulty. ( Hear, hear.) Indeed
he was confirmed in. that view by the fact that no hon.
member who had taken part in the discussion had ex-
pressed a desire to see the bill in its present shape
l
d
bOOO
rr
heewe
wished
snnrhl
oopebpodlorestt
importance
t lordni
poc
rne
es
oscontainedexpressed
measure
a ss
measures inu
re
d tehb eh
e inmi
nb
tsgi
hlel
aal,
himself
bohutnoot
cuet
sl
hiepee.
adopted. He gave the noble lord and his colleagues
s
f
full credit for being actuated by the best intentions as
com-
plained of the breathless haste with which the noble
a ss
effecte Nor
d ;
could he attribute that haste altogether to feeling as
tthat what was going on out of doors made it desirable
that no time should be lost. It was certainly true that
the public attention was beginning to be much di-
rected to this measure, and, from what had already
occurred, he could very well suppose that the supporters
of the measure would soon talk of public clamour, and
of its overbearing the reason of the legislature. He,
however, thought that of all subjects this was the one
upon which the public feeling and judgment ought to
be the most consulted, and he did hope that time would
yet be-allowed, or the mischief might be incalculable.
He lamented beyond his power of expression that this
bill had ever been introduced. ( Hear, hear.) It
came to this, that, after all the boast there had been of
prosperity, they must adopt a legitimatised, systematic,
and permanent state of pauperism. He would not
then go into the general details of the measure, but,
speaking of its leading provisions, he would say it was
the most unconstitutional, the most despotic, and the
most mischievous bill he had ever yet heard of.
( Hear, hear.) It gave to three men, to be called
commissioners, such powers as had hardly ever been
dreamed of—further, it enabled those commissioners to
delegate those powers to such persons as they pleased,
and again, these persons were all to be irresponsible.
This measure took from the people the right they had
ever possessed of managing their own parochial af-
fairs, and actually authorised the commissioners to ex
-

ercise that right without limitation, and to tax the
people. Further than that, these commissioners were •
to have the power of establishing workhouses all over
the country. These were only some of the provisions
of the bill, and the government seemed so anxious to
carry it through that they never once thought it ne-
cessary to consider whether or not it would work,
Let them remember how many attempts had been
made to amend the law, and what had been their fate. .•
This bill could not be called an amendment. (Hear.)
It was an entirely new system, and therefore it was I
wrong to call it a Poor Law Amendment Bill. What
did those very commissioners who recommended this
ltmalnl\vavi
oveeohwodvenuneselstlsl
rtdhat
that
rwbne;aorooetufutnuoshsntcil
ruhdel ndecteehhei law?
abounded
been
se
measures
buneevcrn le:
(Thestate
"hlothnoureraspbleectmteombt
short extract from the report of the Poor Law Corn- ,
missioners, to the effect that the history of the poor
whole
foa got
lrhrei
aseeltuaot
hegtfheirhota
hntde wouldei
veryi
if•
inquiry
house
(r 1 snueoni than Doubtless
yetoften
ult
b so
hot
lopiecnrshos bdi
considerunsuccessful,ecaadeaeiproduced
effect totally contrary to that which was designed.)
to this measure if it should be passed. He feared-9 ..'
well
member
re altera-
tions aa-
the cause of the prevalence of poverty had
pdietßnesoeetaotasplhrbi
rdeolleieafsescihev,aa
causes
mischiefsbeas t
which aroseas till
pgrfror
eodamut
produced
ear
dmmpaiols
1-e, !id mri
poverty.
.i ni
was s rf at
tethi obe nemofga
gaf ruteinh:eit
~:r
trates, theptedieirmetooverseers, and the rate payers in gene:
rhadem of
vo :di, d
wit h
y impossiblegasdnihvoeoinnustgol
dwt;ehthtrehkestaiesoi
that
cucolsvomearsmvr
throughout
ssei
commissioners the administration
m e e
lv
it •
and to prevent poverty, the cause of poverty not beinfi
would
any u betterld ere
e success?te
on
oTr t
oh There was
expense. but
uoongen e way for theq
they pursued it he trembled for the consequences'
One
was, that it treated poverty as a crime that it adopte t
a system of coercion, of pains and penalties, agalX
pauperism. (An hon. member said " No.") W,lly•--e
commissioners themselves stated that the regulations
and the diet of the workhouses should be such that no,
man would go to them from choice. Now he concurred
in thinking that if a man did seek a workhouse fron
choice he ought to be made to suffer punish men t when
he got there ; and, therefore, upon that point he had
no quarrel with the commissioners ; but what he coT:
plamed of was that those who did not seek a work-
house, house, and were willing to work, were to be treated in
just the same manner as culprits. Such was the amount
of labour in the country in excess over the demand ~
that there must be a great number of persons driven
to the necessity of applying for relief, and therefore, ~
under this system, of being coerced. [The honourable .
member read a letter from the West Riding of York-
shire, stating that the demand for labour in the mow
factories had for the last two or three months been
extremely slack, and that even worse times were
feared.] He quoted that letter to show how careful
the house ought to be before it gave its sanction to
any 'llan authorising the formation of permanent work- .
houses sufficient to meet 'the wants of all times in a
country like this, when the demand for labour was
subject to such great fluctuations. He meant not to
cast any imputation upon the legislature ' • but he would
ask, had not inmany cl the measures which it had adopted
produced injury to the poor? He had no sympathy
with the trades' unions; he cordially wished to see an,
end put to those bodies ; but he could not confound
with them those labourers who were reduced to po-
verty by no act of their own. Had not the legislator°
by its measures produced distress ? Had not the en-
closure acts caused paupers in the agricultural..
dis-
tricts, also the destruction of small farms, and the I_
equality of taxation ? The wages of labour was to
longer a matter of bargain, but the employer gas,e',he
the employed just what he pleased. Such `vas
they
-in
jnagsttieoethpeasesxcaemsseoafsalarbeoumr
a. k i
nThen a
ullio3
eivrci este!:
crime ? Surely, if pauperism was to be made a . had
the legislature ought to be able to show that it,...n:,,,,
taken some measure to relieve the labourer con-
the h con-
the necessity of falling into it. NOW
lltuo
poor had been adopted, and he should
tended, that not one measure of relief
a h out-
many which had a different effect. {The f
able member then referred to the report 0.0 i
Committee in 1814, of which he said the noble I
the
the member for Devonshire was chairman, on
~tnel's
poor laws, and read an extract stating that them atiLs..
to labour were two, the one arising in pure and
".'e
nourable feelings, and the other in coercion ; the
The
was free labour, and the other was slave labour. ."1 •
one produced contentment, happiness, and gelle/
good ; the other discontent, demoralization, and and
sery]. He contended that the bill now propOSeu /
would establish slave labour. To the labourer 0° 1.
cause for emulation was held out ; but he was told
dtltieo
he should be coerced the moment chalice or the design
of others deprived him of employment. He was on'
vinced there was not at the present period of the ses- ~
sion sufficient time to deliberate on the details of the.
bill, and therefore he was the more anxious that los '
,
resolutions should be adopted. There were Innn) r;'
clauses of the bill to which he was opposed, but the rat:.
were none which more excited his horror and indir _ ii
tion than that which proposed an alteration i .1.!1".
,1
bastardy laws. (Hear, hear.) It was a clause the _.pl
could not but be repugnant to the feelings of e:' ve 1
'and throwing the burden on the victim . ' ~
offspring, tghethme
maintenance
el (3 his .t;
he trusted that he
he never could consent, and
ld firmly 1
hat house who wou
relievingrat i onal man,th seduceri ts ebje
object
from i e
not be the only person in t
d to the resolutions
resist it. ( Hear.) With regard
he would only saY
he had then to submit to the house,
der-
his seduction. ( Hear, hear.) To such a principlled
stood intention of legislating upon the poorto o pos°
hoped the noble lord before proceeding
how e t.c
them would take the trouble of considering
wilt/
could do so consistently with the opinions he, •
that as they in no wise interfered withthenowlauwns,
be
ready expressed upon the subject under
resolutions : a
law commissioners . _
1. That the report of the poor
.ondition or. 1"
fords conclusive evidence of the deplorable c .
T.
,y dery
The hon. member concluded by moving the
large portion of the working population, hit.,ni
munity, And ,
mental to the interests of all classes of the corns
and in., ,
especially injurious to the honest, well-dispo et'
dustrious poor.
long
al remedy to
2. That, in order to apply an effectiu
affecting the well-
existing and complicated evd.s, so deep Y
d t of a just and en-
being of society, it is the bounden. tot- to enact new laws,
lightened legislature, when proposalg
suppression of idleneo
with extraordinary powers, for the folloWing '
which have operated or contributed to pr
and .___, aliell
widely-spread pauperism, demoralization, . ert.wv_ state
to the habits and feelings of a nation othervvlB3 "1!..A bi
blew"'
of unexampled wealth and improvement, and
Divine Providence with the greatest abundance. ..,,,Los,
and vice, cautiously and deliberately tolookodinotcoo tahesteaatteise:f
lot
ahnbed3.e.
eitryTiconohugurrtpatt:ghoeims,
ebimprovenyt
tsohefett here f o r e will, by all possible f the
iiellindustry,° moral
naaotnifddhsetonhceei afirlceicmaolnoed::aiiitpi oi
o::fifitiheiestoi
burdens which press upon. the productive classes 'od 011,
culiar severity, in order to restore that harmony, g°,,,a, cal,
and respect for the constituted authorities, which' al' .
render the nation prosperous and happy. and es-,
Sir S. WHALLE Y seconded the motion,
to
, )
pressed an opinion that no step ought to bc.7 '
with regard to the poor laws until the next. seese,laior,
The amendment having
Lord ALTHORP sari that the question
esthtley should 5,f,-,
had to decide upon was, not
_ whetherresolutions, amounting, Pi
been put from.otnn
thne hood
firm or negative a series of
truismsreso .!
( Hear, hear), bn
point of fact, to absolute
bill. Now,
committee upon a
tice for going into a
house that, by negativity'
would beg to remind the ativi°
sed, they would not be neg ,or
the motion just pr
- ePehether such resolutions moult' ,
the question as 'to w . that the,,
, but simply asserting t wee
would not be advisable,
momentgoing into conno'lte
preferred at the present As to l',„
the bill before them. (Hear, hear.)don."'
whether they should pass those resolutions upon a no-
tice
upon
on the sub'..
It was evidently desired that no measure
pre measure
ses
ject of poor laws should pass during the I):;measur°
sion, but that in the next session some etroeyer,
it_c4..
object of the motion, there could be scacelY a
should be brought forward. He begged, "me to a n'f•
remind the house that they had already c° rmeiplen
liberate resolution that a measure, the P should be
which should be like the present measure,
(so,
(140,;
brought forward during the present sesvl. tistific`a t
no. ) He would contend he was perfecti, i Hear.,,
saying it had been so resolved by the house' f`ar.
ltd
hear.) But it was necessary forhhaitm to scentgeonl
had tif all events been decided,t
the 11°111a 11:t
house s t
even though the bill before .
principle ho
be founded on the precise ,
prove to edien.9 to
to most hon. members might seem exp ,
_use
~
maintained it was now the duty of the "to ae,,
allow it to go into committee, and there
the subject of poor laws should be isnotmroduee.-; 0 t
tide whether any and what clauses should be
an
When that was done, the house would have 'll the,
opportunity of expressing their opinions '11)„,%t obi
expediency of the measure, and should its Pregf:ttee,.l,.. ,
jectionable portions not be removed in cornrateet P..
would be perfectly competent in them to re) , -

( ii
for

to p
the ,
Yea;

7

Porear.) Upon the resolutions of the lion. member
Worcester he would not now express any opinion.
conceiving as he did, to have been proposed at
a most inopportune and inconvenient moment. Their
object, it was evident, was to retard the consideration
of the till ; and such being the case, be hoped the
house would be of opinion that he acted wisely, in the
first place, in abstaining from all comment upon them;
and, in the second place, in calling upon the house to
join with him in opposing their adoption.
Major BEAUCLERK supported the amendment,
on the ground that it was his duty to support every
'notion likely to retard the passing of the bill.
The house then divided—
For the original motion 135
For the amendment ll
Majority —l2l
On our re-admission to the Gallery, we found
Mr. HALC OMB addressing the house. We un-
derstood the hon. member to say, that he had sought
t!veral opportunities to express his opinions upon the
but as yet without success. He was now ready
to proceed, but should it be the wish of the house at
ance to enter upon the committee, he would defer it if
the noble lord ( Althorp) would promise upon some
particular clause of the bill--he would say on the
clause which proposed the appointment of a Board of
Control—to give him the opportunity of stating his
etkeetions to the principle on which the measure was
founded.
Lord ALTHORP could not, of course, interfere
With any view the hon. and learned gentleman took of
,"
40 subject, and the hon. gentleman must, therefore,
exercise his own discretion.
The house then resolved itself into a committee on
the bill.
Lord ALTHORP said, that before the first clause
WaS proceeded with he was desirous of saying a few
wseh in explanation -of some important alterations
to-m,tch he intended to propose as regarded the powers
tZ.Eranted to the commissioners. While his Ma-
-1 's government determined to propose the ahem-
t.'s which he intended to submit, they at the same
litte felt that they were in no degree impairing the
efficiency of the central board, which it was essential
:t mild be maintained full and complete. As the bill
Present stood, it gave to the commissioners all the
rni,e immunities that belonged to the judges of the
b'. This part of the bill it was intended to alter
„Y giving to, the commissioners no other privileges
has an exemption from liability to civil actions, leav--
41g them subject to criminal prosecutions or other pro-
ceeding, as in the case of an other class of magis-
trates. He also intended to deprive them of power to
" in any cases that were cognizable before two ma-
gistrates. As the bill at present stood, it provided that
all rules and regulations framed by the commissioners
should be laid annually before Parliament. To pre-
vent any misapprehension on this point he meant to
Propose that all such rules should, as soon as they
came in force, be laid before the house, although they
alight have previously received the sanction of the Privy
E•ouncii. This certainly would not 'take much prac-
l.albecause difference, the house could at any
ire. address the King to alter any of the rules that
in ht eem requisite. Another alteration he
wirted propose was in that clause of the bill
sitseu sal that after the Ist of June, 1835, no
poor tever should be made out of the
ruur fund to any person in employment. This
s..4Pu be considered as too strict, and might be
pred with great inconvenience occasionally in po-
-41...a1l Parishes or districts. It was his intention,
rk,v'cre, so to alter this clause as to give the corn-
lief;°ners a discretionary power to afford outdoor re-
th on therepresentation of the overseers of the district
coat the case was one of great necessity, and that the
ration would have the power to suspend the ope-
we"r°4 of the law in certain extreme occasions. These
s:_t_ll.e only material alterations that he meant to
ve7P"st, although there were, perhaps, some other
dorri amendments which he might offer-to the house
.ftg the progress of the bill through the committee.
o e first clause, which goes to appoint the commis-
progers under the bill, was then read, andthe Chairman
stalesing that the blanks be filled up, and the clause
ti,FPart of the bill,
°l. TORRE NS was not opposed to the principle
trill Which the present measure was founded, namely,
arrest the progress of pauperism, which, if not
otifk,elY checked, would soon absorb the whole rental
the country. It would in effect go to establish an
ttlk,rarian law of the worst description, not by raising
rlower classes to the level of the higher, bid
Oe by re-
ing the high to the level of the low. On this ground
re e aPproved of the principle of the bill, but in other
it:Pects he objected to it as a measure too stringent in
iterations. He should propose to leave out the
oft after the word " appointed" in the eighth line
I,ez clause and insert the words " not exceeding
Ras 'teal.'" 'y
this it would be seen that his object
poin o limit the duration of the commissioners' apt
ti ent to five years, instead of its being perpetual
Lordlause at present stood.
pe,i;i ALTHORP did not at all think that the pr?-
the n of.the hon. and gallant gentleman would in
de , east affect the principle of the bill, of which, in-
the hon. and gallant member had expressed his
I,ll.)rehation
,• but it was very unusual in acts of legis-
/,•',°,1 to make such limitations as the words proposed
-,")
for inserted would lead to. There could be no ne-
such a precaution, because Parliament could
t()!'nY time make such alterations in the bill, either as
il4la duration or otherwise, as it might deem proper or
taessary. He could not, therefore, see the advan-
e4 adopting this proposition. He hoped, how-
that the the proposition of the hon. and gallant
feelin"'r would be discussed without reference to party
/flight% and he hoped that all other amendments that
spirit, e Pre.Posed would be dealt with in the same
Seienanci with a desire only to make the measure as
rests t and beneficial as possible for the general inte-
sho„, of the country. (Hear, hear.) If at any time it
no h.,` be the feeling of the country, although he by
Okeearls anticipate that such would be the case, to
(efa'sh the commissioners altogether, there could be no
olet,e4,ltY in doing so ; and there could therefore be no
thei-rs'on for partial or temporary legislation respecting
L aPpoinrment.
the 31'd S A ND ON thought it would be equally for
coo 4nprovement of the bill and the advantage of the
-',,t1., to adopt some such amendment as that now
rr°,rsed, and he would therefore press on the noble
deje,at.hat some limited time should be provided for the
in ei F'n of the powers granted to these commissioners
to a e'r appointment. He should himself be disposed
deeitZdrie extended term than five years ; but he vvas
13,1 apinion that there should be some limit.
to pass LL ER said that the house was about
the sa,,a most unconstitutional measure, something of
Yea,. 'le character with the Irish Coercion Bill of last
opposfip,o,; and, as the character of both bills was equally
e to the spiritofthe constitution, the rece-
nt laid
.p
followeddown on passing the Coercion Bill should be
dtlration on te
present occasion, namely, limiting the
the measure. The. house should consider
,01.eti.ossrm. ous power. which this bill conferred upon the
,4Jini loners. He for one was 'pd to ranting
Powers to any set of men. T Jo lienose a .1g a • lokok t ,te enormous patronage the bill would
create. li
Therea
to 4 the appointment of nine locomotive commissioners,
kegether with secretary, clerks, and other officials to
q' the machine at work, and all to be paid. Another
the he wished to observe upon was, that although
Poiliet°Tinissioners would not have the power to sp-
out ththe overseers of the different parishes through_
disit; country, yet they would have the power to
e s the them. On these grounds he would wish to
a - N)pointment of those commissioners limited to
wisheAat'on of four years. Another reason why
.he
tolvii.,s4,,tlifaotr a limited. rather than an indefinite period
whenn if after a time it should be found that the
could do without any such measure as this,
te sea good. vestry system might be established, and
tSirvices of all those commissioners and clerks
4,41,111'0 dispensed with, those officers would,
.doubt-
to. seeking. for compensation if there was no limit
period of their appointment.
ql:4lr. C. FE RG USSON said that if the measure
be found to be of a highly unconstitutional nature
tiiitttthe clauses should have assed through the corn-
Qad Some provision mighty hen be adopted at the
lioes'3‘,lirnit the
.duration o the bill ; but the proposi-
ey rio suggestions now thrown out appeared to be
seenlr4ealis satisfactory, for no two hon. members
41exilecid to agree as to the term of limitation that
was undue named. The bill, as it at present stood,
such ec,llNbtedly unconstitutional. (Hear, hear.) No
wasit Probili, ever before had existence in this country as
shoed to be established by the present bill.
;,r,!).ceedirth.r'tit, however, in the present stage of the
'ore fit vote for any limitation, but should wait for
kr
• ti A /<,f,opportunity.
th'rtant ''-OMB thought that it was exceedingly
I,e rneas. at this stage to determine whether or not
h'e oi,s_ure should be permanent or temporary, when
',;l)wers j. considered how entirely unconstitutional the
bltsio,,e'rere that it was proposed to give to the com-
'l the , or rather to his Majesty's Government.
Wblh present
t bill they would have the control over
ch th.os annually, in addition to six millions over
eY. had control already, making together a

sum nearly equal to half the expenditure of the coun-
try. This was a great temptation to any set of minis-
ters. His only objection to stating five years as the
limited period was that that would imply that the ap-
pointment was to "last for five years. He would rather
reserve to parliament the power to limit at any time
the period. He tyolild not go the lenth of saying
that no commissioners ought to be appoir,ted, hut he
would certainly limit their powers. Havinn, said so
much, he would content himself with declaring his
intention of opposing only the 13th section of the
present clause.
Colonel TORRE NS should withdraw his amend-
ment for the present, with a view to re-propose it at a
subsequent stage in the committee. '
Sir S. WHALLE Y proposed that the duration of
the commissioners' appointment should be limited to
one session of parliament.
After a few observations from an HON. MEMBER
(whose name we could not learn), and who was wholly
inaudible,

Dr. BALDWIN could not consent to give to the
Crown such powers as were conferred by the present
bill to nominate commissioners, who were to have such
extensive control over the whole country.
Sir E. WILMOT objected to the word " three" in
the clause. He wished to know from the noble lord if
there was any objection that certain persons should be
appointed ex officio commissioners under the bill. He
would name, for instance, the Lord Chancellor, the
First Lord of the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. He should not propose any amendment,
but would suggest that the Board of Commissioners
might be constituted something after the manner of
the Board of Control.

Lord ALTHORP said that the addition proposed
to be made to the commissioners was more nominal
than real. It was well known that although several
of the Commissioners of the Board of Control were
Officers of State, yet they never took any part in the
business of that department, and were not at all re-
sponsible for any of its duties. In fact, they never at-
tended the board. The hon. baronet was not one of
those, certainly, who had stigmatised the present bill
as an unconstitutional measure, and therefore it could
not be objected to him that he had proposed to give
unconstitutional powers to some of his Majesty's minis-
ters. He ( Lord A.), however, did not think that it
would be at all eligible to appoint as commissioners
persons who could not attend, and it was clear that the
persons named by the hon. baronet could not possibly
do so. This very proposition had been under the con-
sideration of the Cabinet, but it was not looked upon
as a good measure, nor deemed advisable to be adopted.
Mr. HAL C OMB begged to ask who were to be
answerable to the country for the due execution of
those powers with which the commissioners were to be
intrusted ? Who were to be responsible for them ?
He could see no responsible parties at all. He trusted,
before proceeding further, that the sense of the house
would be taken upon this point.
L—ord ALTH OR P had no hesitation in saying that
he considered the 'Winners of the Crown responsible.
If complaints were made against the Commissioners,
and Parliament should find that they abused their
powers, Ministers would be responsible to Parliament,
and bound to see that such abuses were not suffered to.
continue. The Commissioners would be responsible
to Parliament at least to this extent, that they could
not receive their salaries if that house thought proper
to refuse them. It was not right, therefore, to say
that the power to be vested in this board was an irre-
sponsible one. He did not think there was any person
in the house who seriously thought that it was the
wish of Government to vest irresponsible power in
these Commissioners or in any other body, or that the
increase of Ministerial patronage entered into their
contemplation in proposing the measure.
Mr. RG U S SON opposed the amendment.

Mr. BULL ER entertained no suspicion that pa-
tronage was the object of Government. He only ob-
served that the measure was necessarily productive of
extensive patronage, of which another Government
might be disposed to avail itself, though he did not
think the present would do so.
Lord ALTHO RP explained.
Col. E VANS objected to the bill altogether, first,
because it was most unconstitutional, and he could not
but express his surprise that a reformed House of Com-
mons should attempt to carry such a tyrannical bill as
this by acclamation. He begged to remind the noble
lord and his majority—for the noble lord might have a
majority on anything he pleased to propose—but he must
remind him that in the debate on the second reading
every speaker, without a single exception, denounced
this board of commissioners as a most execrable thing.
He said the other night that the bill was calculated to
insure, by means of patronage, the duration of the
ministry longer than they could otherwise continue in
office. He would mention one sentence in the
report of the poor law commissioners to show what
amount of patronage would be created, for they said
that the powers proposed to be vested in the board
were now exercised by no less than 15,000 officers.
Now the whole of these were to be removeable at the
pleasure of the commissioners or of the lords of the
Treasury. If this was not patronage, and extensive
patronage too, he did not know what was. It was ob-
jected to this board that it would be creating an impe-
rium in imperio, and certainly no such thing ever ex-
isted if this bill would not create it. Something not
unlike this was proposed by Mr. Fox for administering
the affairs of India. He proposed for that purpose the
appointment of a board of commissioners consist-
ing of seven persons. It created a great sensation
throughout the country at the time, and was, he be-
lieved, the principal means of overthrowing his Go-
vernment. This bill would give still greater powers,
and more extensive patronage. Nothing like it was
ever before proposed. It gave all the powers of Par-
liament, and of King, Lords, and Commons, to three
commissioners. Before agreeing to this, they should
at least know who these commissioners were to be,
whether they were men of rank and station and high
character; but they had no information upon this
point. The noble lord ( Althorp) told them he did
not himself know who they were to be. They were
to be vested by this bill with the power of raising taxes,
of making laws for the regulation of all parishes, of
directing the expenditure of money, of acting as le-
gislators, judges, and prosecutors. So monstrous a
proposal, so utterly absurd and unconstitutional, was
never before heard of. (he member for London and
the member for the Tower Hamlets took airs on them-
selves, and supported the bill, as they said, in con-
formity with the wishes of their constituents, not con-
sidering, as they said, that in so acting they were doing
everything unconstitutional. He had the satisfaction
of thinking that he also was acting in conformity with
the wishes and the interests of his constituents in op-
posing this bill. He told some deputations which
waited upon him that he would not support it. Even
if he thought he was acting against the wishes of his
constituents he would not support such a measure,
feeling that he could not do so consistently with his
principles. He had no hesitation in saying, that the
House of Commons disgraced itself by supporting the
second reading of such a bill. It contained no less
than forty-six clauses, the whole of which were totally
foreign to the poor laws. The hon. and gallant mem-
ber concluded by proposing an amendment, the effect
of which would be to vest in the Crown a power of
appointing persons of the legal profession to assist the
Attorney and Solicitor-General in carrying into effect
the provisions of the bill.

The amendment being put,
Mr. W. WHITMORE felt most desirous to see
the measure carried into effect. He could not well
understand what hon. members meant when they said
it was unconstitutional to establish such a board as that
proposed. It was a change certainly, but it was not
therefore unconstitutional. Were not these commis-
sioners likely to be more accountable to that house and
to the country for their conduct than the body by
whom the poor laws were at present administered?
was it no security that any regulations they might
propose must, before they could be acted upon, be first
submitted to a Secretary of State—that their conduct
might become the subject of inquiry before Parliament
_that the eyes of the whole country would be con-
stantly and anxiously fixed on their proceedings ? If
any abuse should be attempted by them government
would not fail at once to interfere and put it down.
But suppose the government to neglect this, was it to
be supposedkhat the house
eewouunlednaetftelete
neglect its
hdeutfyel?t
Not considering. such
a ear
trustedno
wish
thatto
e i t li m
tlo then
gthey would m
durationof th crier power,ethat t and
blotdhe
laiwns.consequence
poor
of whichth hade
maladministration l ongdisfigu r disfigured country
the
Mr. GODSON was glad that he savv
lion. member conic forward and boldlyavea last
wtthatonhee
did not consider this bill as unconstitutional, that such
ua
nßc
oonasrd ti t aust
othat proposedThehon. w ales e nine tehr ers% t.
hy ro a ns
pn
ei cka
el n or
last
said it was a change, and nothing more. He should
like to know what remedy was provided hi case these
commissioners neglected an inquiry. He understood
the noble lord to say they might be indicted if they
did wrong. He had no objection to this. No stronger
power could be exercised over them. He could not
but express his surprise at hearing it asserted that a

Board with such powers as this bill provided was not
unconstitutional. By the 13th clltise the2,--14-14 th
power of making laws. It they
name of orders, but were, in
delegated to three persons the whole power or King.,
Lords, and Commons. Was not this .uncontituticr.p.l?
Not only were they to mate laws, but to sit ia close
court as judges to deteinnine whether their laws were
obeyed or not. Suppose an individual guilty of con-
tempt, these commissioners were also to be the accus-
ing party before two justices. They would, therefore,
be law-makers, judges, and prosecutors at the same
time ; yet gentlemen said this was not uncolstitu-
tional. Considering this measure as one by which
the constitution was suspended, he thought it ought to
be limited in duration. _ _

Lord ALTH 0 RP said the hon. and learned gentle-
man must have misuhderstood what fell from him. In
what part of the bill did the hon. and learned gentle-
man find that the commissioners were at the same time
to make laws and to sit in judgment upon them ? By
clause 86 of the bill it was provided that all the penal-
ties under it were to be levied by two justices. In no
one instance had the central board to act as justices.
They had the power to make rules, but not laws.
They were to act as justices of the peace for the exe-
cution of the poor laws, and there was a particular
clause which limited their power as justices to this.
Notwithstanding what had been said by hon. gentle-
men, he was prepared to maintain that the measure was
not unconstitutional. There were some acts of par-
liament, and many local acts, which conferred as great
powers as this bill did. He was first attacked for the
extent of power conferred, and now he was attacked
for proposing to reduce it. The hon. gentleman had
made an attack for diminishing the powers of the com-
missioners, but if those powers had been left complete
there would be still greater complaints. If the power
of punishing for contempt were left to the commis..
sioners, the hon. gentleman, and hon. gentlemen ge-
nerally, on the opposite side of the house would de-
claim loudly against that part of the measure.
Sir S. WHALLE Y maintained that the commis-
sioners had a double power even as regarded the sub-
ject of punishment. In the first place they had the
power of removing the assistant overseers, and, in the
second place, by another clause, namely, the 40th,
they could remove the masters of workhouses. He
begged to ask the noble lord whether that was not
clearly and distinctly vesting in the commissioners a
double power of punishment ? He would object to
that part of the clause which appointed three commis-
sioners, unless the noble lord by some alteration as to
their powers removed his objections.
Lord G. SOMERSET was extremely desirous to
know whether it was the intention of the hon. and
gallant member for Westminster to press his amend-
ment to a division ? If such were the hon. and gal-
lant member's intention it would not be necessary for
him to detain the house with more than one or two
words.

Colonel EVANS did not mean to persevere in his
amendment.

Lord G. SOMERSET felt, therefore, that it was
necessary for him to detain the house with a few ob-
servations. He should like to know precisely and de-
finitely the powers that were to be vested in the com-
missioners. Though a judicial power should be with-
held from them, still, as it seemed to him, they were
possessed of powers perfectly tyrannical. Being parties
m the matter, they had the power of repealing laws and
putting into execution others, which savoured more of
legislative authority than any other power he had ever
heard of. He had frequently heard of the tyranny of Go-
vernments, and he knew that in some cases it had been
productive of beneficial results ; but it was for the
first time that he heard the principle of tyranny used
as an argument for a measure in the House of Com-
mons. ( Hear, hear.) He confessed that the report
of the commissioners on the poor laws was drawn up
with much care and research, and that they had exerted
themselves to obtain extensive information ; but at the
same time that he made this avowal, he felt bound also
to state his opinion that the commissioners seemed to
have a pre-determined disposition to grant enormous
powers to the central board, and to overthrow that
mode of relief which had been for so many years esta-
blished throughout the country. Now, when he saw
this disposition on the part of persons interested in the
bill, he felt necessarily the more anxious to be informed
of what was to be the extent of the power of the com-
missioners. He could not consent to any measure that
would delegate to them important portions of the le-
gislature. He firmly believed that not only the poor,
but even the rate-payers themselves, would be affected
and injured by the passing of the proposed measure.
For these reasons, he could not but feel extremely
jealous as to the powers about to be vested in the com-
missioners. When the house was called upon to pass
a measure, they should set what were the salaries and
powers they were about to confer on the persons the
bill involved.

Lord ALTHORP—The power of the commis-
sioners would not be by any means so great as the
noble lord and other hon. members thought it would
be. Their power would be limited, since they would
be compelled to act according to the provisions of the
loth clause of the bill, viz., to a great extent as justices
of the peace in the administration of the laws for the
relief of the poor. It was provided at the end of the
clause that they could not convict contrary to the pro-
visions of this act. Since that was the case they
would not, therefore, have the power of acting as
judges in cases in which they might be looked upon in
the light of parties concerned. He thought that their
having the power of removal from office of agents em-
ployed under them ought not to be looked upon,
taking the matter in a constitutional point of view, as
vesting in them a power of punishment. There were
many persons, according to the constitution even, who
possessed a similar power.
Sir S. WHAL L E Y—But such persons did not
possess at the same time the power of appointment.
Lord A L THORP—The persons he alluded to did
possess at the same time the power of removal and of
appointment also. He admitted that the measure gave
to the commissioners great discretionary powers, but
he really could not see how these powers could be de-
signated with any truth tyrannical. They would be
subject to the control of the House of Commons, and
it was the first time in his life that he heard anything
denominated despotism which was subject to that con-
trol. A despotism of such a description must neces-
sarily be extremely limited. The noble lord asked a
question respecting the salaries of the commissioners.
His answer was, that, whatever were to be the salaries,
they would be voted annually in committee of supply.
(Hear, hear.) Such a suggestion had been adopted
in order to give that house more control over the
commissioners in making rigid inquiries as to
their conduct than it could otherwise have pos-
sessed. When the vote for their salaries was moved
for, the house would have an annual opportunity of in-
vestigating their conduct.
Col. E VANS—Are the commissioners to have the
power of suspending acts of Parliament, and making
of themselves new regulations which would refer to the
whole country ?
Lord ALTHORP—The commissioners were to
have the power of making rules which would apply to
every parish for which they were made, unless the said
rules should be objected to by the Privy Council
within forty days after they were drawn up. With
regard to the suspension of acts of parliament, their
power would only extend to the suspension of local acts.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG said, that it clearly appeared
to him that they were called upon to legislate univer-
sally, not upon general facts, but upon facts which
existed only partially, and in a few counties. It would
be very well if counties or parishes of the latter
description were made to comply with the provisions
of the proposed act. He had a petition from the
place he bad the honour of representing, 'signed by
27,000 of the inhabitants. They did not object to the
principle of the measure, but they objected to some of
its details, and more especially to the provisions about
allowance, since they considered it unjust that such a
provision should be extended to the county of Nor-
thumberland, in which the system of allowances had
never before existed. Unless Government gave him
some assurance that the measure should be limited in its
operation, he should offer his most strenuous opposi-
tion to giving the commissioners such enormous powers
as were contemplated by the proposed bill.
Mr. C. PE RG U S SON said that the bill had his
opposition until he knew whether the powers about to
be conferred were temporary or permanent. By the
tsoe ctohned
commissioners.clause
Theyr of a
dinflict ccoouurlto f justicepunishment
s •
sgi ven
f.
'tocnort contempt, tonermacipt
ahnyadn
tdchoayntestetghu provisiontwl
yert
were
wase
irresponsibleabandoned
was
rendered' fo rb theiry t
e
infinitely less objectionable. He was ready to consent
to the appointment of a board of commissioners, since
the clause to which he had so much objected was to
be mitigated.

Colonel
E VANS then withdrew his amendment.
Mr. BROTHERTON was called upon to move
his amendment, but the hon. member, as was under-
stood, consented to withdraw it.
Mr. SLANE Y acknowledged the abuses of the
present poor laws, and he believed that they were

I pretty generally acknowledged. Government ha•l
I been call: -1 zi pfi to introduce a measure to remedy,
those aba I 1n hen 'they resolved upon briiiging in
such a niea_,:u•~ l m. mombers ought to give them
some credit, not listen to public clamour, but fairly
consider the measure, and quietly and judiciously point
out its defects. With respect to its defects, the hon.
and gallant member for Westminster thought that the
powers vested in the commissioners might be used for
unconstitutional purposes. The evils that were to be
remedied were great, and to remove them was it not
necessary that large powers should be vested some-
where? It was an error to suppose that the powers
' about to be granted to the commissioners were so ex-
tensive as to enable them, if they so wished, to do away
with the existing laws. Those powers were intended
to enable them to make regulations as to those laws,
so as to preient the abuses that had crept in even
against those very laws. He could himself, if he
wished to take up the time of the house, give instances
of abuse upon abuse that had crept in in the very teeth
of the law. If the commissioners were to have the
power of laying down written rules as to how the
money should be disposed of, according to Act of Par-
liament, he would ask whether their having such
power would be called tyranny ? The powers of the
Commissioners were to have only reference to the re-
lief of the poor, and to the following up of certain acts
of Parliament which directed how that relief should
be given. They should not look upon the measure as
one of harshness and rigour, but as one that would be
beneficial even to the very persons the hon. and gal-
lant member thought it would be injurious to.
The question as to filling up the blank with the
word " three" was then carried.

On putting that part of the clause which related to
the powers of the commissioners,
Mr. ESTCOURT, as he really did not understand
what the power of the commissioners was to be, should
propose as an amendment that all the words after the
word "act" down to the word "contain" should be left
out.

Lord AL THORP could not see for what useful
purpose it was proposed to leave out the words alluded
to. He would agree to the suggestion if he thought
it was of any importance.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that it had not been
precisely specified what were the powers the commis-
s►oners were to have with regard to Acts of Parlia-
ment. Were they to have the power of repealing
some, or were they to have no power except as far as
regarded those Acts which related to the poor laws?
Was the central board to superintend the regulating of
the poor laws?
Lord ALTHORP—The commissioners were to
have no other power by the act except as far as re-
garded the laws for relieving the poor. According to
the construction of this act, they would have the
power of framing rules to prevent the contravention
of it.

Lord G. SOMERSET—That is not a precise an-
swer. The question was, whether their power would
extend to the other poor laws?
Lord ALTHORP—Their power will extend to
them so far as their being justices of the peace.
Colonel EVANS—By the 13th clause all the
ponders granted by the other clauses of the measure
will be vested in the commissioners.

Mr. C. FE RGUSSON thought it better, before
they went into any further discussion, to dispose of
the amendment before the house. He wished to know
whether the hon. and learned member for the Univer-
sity of Oxford wished to press his amendment to a di-
vision?

Mr. WILK S considered that there could be no ad-
vantage in continuing the words proposed to be
omitted.

Lord A LTHORP, in the answer he bad already
made, stated that he could not at present see the im-
portance of leaving out the words alluded to. He
wished to be allowed time to see whether they were
important or not.
Mr. E STCOURT then consented to withdraw his
amendment.

Mr. JE RVIS had an amendment which, if carried,
would be, in his opinion, an improvement to the clause.
He objected to the words which were about to be
read, that the Crown should have the power of remov-
ing the commissioners at will. He considered that
those persons should be responsible to that house alone.
A sword held by a cobweb would be continually sus-
pended above their heads if they were to be removable
at the will and pleasure of the Executive. The
amendment be would move would be to the effect that
the commissioners should not be removable so long as
they conducted themselves properly, and in a manner
satisfactory to that house.
Lord ALTH 0R P thought it essential that the
power of removal should be vested in the Crown.
The hon. and gallant officer objected that t-e, commis-
sioners were not sufficiently liable to be removed ; and
now it was contended that they might be too easily
removed. He thought it absolutely necessary that the
commissioners should be removable at the pleasure of
the Crown. He did not suppose that the hon. gentle-
man imagined that the government wished for any
power over the commissioners, or desired to exercise
an improper influence over them. The power of re-
moval, as proposed in the bill, gave a greater check to
parliament and the country over them. If they were
placed in the same situation as the judges, it would be
requisite to have an address from both houses of par-
liament before they could be removed; but as it stood,
the address or opinion of either house of parliament
would be sufficient, as no minister would, under such
circumstances, refute to remove the commissioner.

Mr. LLOYD contended that the responsibility of
the commissioners would be much greater by the adop-
tion of the mode suggested in the bill than by acting
on the principle laid down by his hon. friend. The
cases of the commissioners and the judges were not
analogous. It was enacted that the judges should
only be removable on the address of both houses of
parliament, because they were often called upon to
interfere between the prerogative on the one hand,
and the rights and privileges of the people on the
other. That was the only reason for taking away the
power of removal from the crown in this case. There
was no such reason in the case of the commissioners.
He thought it would be better as a means of security
that the bill should remain as it was.
Mr. JERVIS would not divide the house on the
amendment.

—iiieanlendment was then withdrawn.
The next part of the clause related to filling up
vacancies.

Mr. E STC 0 URT suggested that the remainder
of the clause be rejected, as he thought it would be
better to have a separate clause to allow the commis-
sioners to act, in case of vacancy, as if no vacancy had
occurred.
Lord AL THORP said a few words in reply which
were inaudible in the gallery.
The CHAIRMAN then put the question that the
clause be agreed to.
Mr. JERVIS felt it his duty to move that the
clause be rejected, as he felt that that was the best
mode of opposing the appointment of commissioners.
It was not his intention to object at length to the pro-
visions relative to the appointment of the Central
Board, nor would he follow the example of other hon.
members in designating the powers conferred on that
Board as tyrannical or despotic, nor in using other
harsh terms ;_ but he believed that none would deny
that a great degree of power was conferred upon it.
He objected altogether to the principle of centraliza-
tion. He had always been of opinion that those who
paid the rates should have a direct control in their ad-
ministration and distribution, but by this measure all
control would be taken from the ratepayers. (Cries
of "No, no.") Hon. gentlemen might say " No, no,"
but he contended such would be the effect in degree.
Although persons contributing to the rates would
have some ministerial control, they would have
no positive control, because the distribution of the
rates wouldbe subject to be controlled by the rules and
regulations issued by the Central Board. The fact was
that the rules relative to the distribution of the rates
would be framed by those who were unacquainted with
the local interests. It must be obvious that local cir-
cumstances must have an important influence on the
distribution of the rates. He need hardly say that unless
there was a paramount control in the central board it
would be totally unfit to effect the object in view. In his
opinion the principle of centralization was most harsh, and
would be most oppressive in its operation. It was a prin-
ciple adopted from other countries, and from which the
Government professed themselves anxious to depart in
other matters. On the one hand the house was called
upon to depart from this principle in framing local juris-
dictions by the establishment of local courts, and on the
other it was proposed to place the administration of the
poor laws under the control of a central board. The evils
of the poor laws had arisen from their mal-administration
under the direction of the magistracy, but he was satisfied
that a change might be brought about by altering the law,
instead of making such a sweeping change as was proposed.
He objected to the powers conferred on the central board ;
but before he went into his objections in detail he wished
to observe, with respect to the amendment which the noble
lord ( Althorp) proposed to introduce in the bill, that
although it seemed to remove some of the objections, the
measure, in his opinion, still remained liable to the most
serious objections. It had been very justly observed by

ne of the leading journals of the day that the persons who
would have to administer the bill would necessarily become
' irresponsible from having the power of the judges conferred
on them. It was proposed to take away from persons feel-
ing themselves aggrieved by the conduct of the commis-
sioners the power of recovering dathages. Instances might
occur in which persons might be illegally confined or sub-
jected to degradation and disgrace through the mal-admi-
nistration of the poor laws by the commissioners. The
noble lord proposed there should be no remedy by. civil
action, but that an individual feeling himself aggrieved
might proceed by indictment. Ile (Mr. Jervis) would
ask what would be the effect of such an enactment with
regard to a poor man ? He would have no opportu-
nity of vindicating his character unless by proceeding
byindictment, which would be attended with an enor-
mous expense to him, as it was to be recollected that the
cost of proceedings was to be thrown on the complainant.
When they were considering this part of the measure they
were bound to remember that persons placed in such situ-
ations might make an improper use of the powers intrusted
to them. What would be the situation of the poorer
classes under such a system ? It would operate as a vir-
tual denial of justice. The next objection he intended to
make was with respect to the general rules to be issued by
the commissioners. It had been stated, and he (Mr.
Jervis) thought properly stated, by the noble lord (Lord
Granville Somerset), that the commissioners had, by the
means of issuing their rules, the power of altering the laws
of the country. They had the power of making general
rules, notwithstanding the existence of local acts; and by
this means they would be constantly framed inconsistent
with the interests of particular districts. Again, these
rules were to come into operation before they were sub-
mitted to parliament. The noble lord should recollect
that objections were last year made to allowing the highest
legal authorities in the country to make rules and regula-
tions as to the practice of the courts of law without the
sanction of that house. So strongly did the noble
lord feel this that he proposed that the rules of
practice to be agreed upon by the judges when so-
lemnly assembled should not be valid until they had been
six weeks on the table of the house, by. which means
opportunity would be afforded to any member to
object to them who disapproved of them. Might not a
similar caution be used with respect to the general rules
to be framed by the commissioners? It might be said
that they would be laid before Parliament within a certain
time, but the evil in many cases would be inflicted before
it was possible to bring the matter before the house. If
the noble lord wished to meet the objections as to form, if
not those in substance, he must admit that the commis-
sioners should not have more power than was intrusted to
the judges of the land. There was another point with
respect to these commissioners to which he objected,
namely, that although they had no judicial functions to
discharge, they were to have the power to commit for con-
tempt of court. Such a power did not exist in any mi.-
nisterial authority in the country, and it would be most
objectionable to establish such a principle. The noble
lord said that he had security against the Improper exer-
cise of this power, at least to a coniderable extent,
namely, directing that before committal there should be a
summary conviction before two justices of the peace, and
that these ex officio judges should not act as justices of the
peace in such cases. This was, in his (Mr. Jervis's
opinion, a very imperfect security. He (Mr. Jervis
contended that no committal should take place without the
intervention of a jury. He then came to the general
powers conferred on the commissioners. He was anxious
to have a direct answer from the noble lord as to whether
or not the commissioners were to have the power
of repealing existing statutes relating to oor ?
It appeared to him that it was proposed to delegate to to the
commissioners authority which the House of Commons
had no power to give. It was proposed to confer on the
commissioners rot only-the power of framing rules which
were to have the force of laws, but also to repeal any act
of parliament, or any rule of common law, w hich had hitherto
been agreed to by the general consent of mankind. The only
check upon the power of the commissioners was the mere
fiat of the Secretary of State, who would not be respon-
sible for any of their rules. It appeared to him that dele-
gating the authority of the legislature in that way was
foreign to the constitution of the country. He protested
against adopting such a principle with regard to the poor
laws. The noble lord might just as well, when he pro-
posed the appointment of the commissioners, have recom-
mended that they should be appointed to make laws rela-
tive to the poor laws, only subject to the control of the
Secretary of State, as to have adopted the course which he
had. He ( Lord Althorp) might, on the same principle,
propose that the house should delegate its powers to the
commissioners for tithes, or any other matter, as an easy
mode of getting rid of the difficulties of legislation. The
objections to such a system were, in his mind, insuperable.
He objected to allowing the commissioners the power of
snaking rules and regulations. He also objected to the
nature of the offices to the holders of which this power was
to be delegated. If he understood the nature of the office,
the commissioners were merely ministerial officers, but
they were to have indemnities and securities which were
never granted to any officer of the state or the law.
The assistant commissioners also were to have the
same privileges and indemnities, and yet were not to be
appointed by any proper authority, but by the com-
missioners themselves, to whom such extensive powers
were to be delegated.' It ought to be remembered
that the same degree of indemnity that was to be
given to these Commissioners was not allowed to many
who had powers delegated to them not of a ministerial
nature ; for instance, in the case of the unpaid magistrates,
to whom the country was so much indebted, who were
constantly having actions brought against them. Again,
the police officers of the metropolis were not protected, but
were liable to actions for an improper administration of the
law, and actions of the kind were constantly being brought.
When they found that such a state of things existed with
regard to the Magistrates and other officers of justice, were
they not entitled to view with considerable jealousy the
protection extended to these Commissioners in the exercise
of the most extraordinary powers conferred upon them ?
Would the noble lord consent for a moment to propose a
measure to extend similar protection to all the unpaid
magistrates of the country ? Would he consent to invest
the magistrates with such powers and authority as those
which he proposed these ind.viduals should have ? He had
endeavoured to state as shortly as possible the grounds
upon which he objected to the clause. He objected, in
the first place, to it, because it took from the parties who
contributed to these rates the control in their adminis-
tration. He objected, secondly, because it gave enormous
and irresponsible authority to those Commissioners, which
was dangerous in practice and unconstitutional in its ex-
tent; and also because it took from the house all autho-
rity in the administration of the poor laws, and divested
it of all power of legislating on the subject.
Mr. EWART understood his hon. friend to object to
the principle of centralization, which he (Mr. Ewart) held
to be the very essence of the bill. His hon. friend ob-
jected either to the principle of centralization, or to the
scale by which it was proposed in the bill to be framed. If
the objections of his hon. and learned friend were confined
to the latter point, he (Mr. Ewart) thought that the ob-
jections applied to the machinery, and that the present was
not the time to discuss them. If the hon. and learned.
gentleman objected to the principle, he (Mr. Ewart) was
prepared at once to meet him on the point. The hon.
gentleman said that centralization was not indigenous, and
did not spring from this country, but originated in an-
other. If, however, the principle was worth anything, he
(Mr. Ewart) was of opinion that the observation of his
hon. friend (Mr. Jervis) was merely a local argument.
His hon. friend said that they were acting contrary to the
principle of centralization in establishing local courts, and
wished to act upon it in the administration of the poor
laws. It appeared to him, however, that this objection
had nothing to do with the matter in question. In one
case the principle of centralization might be necessary, and
in another local authority would be more advantageous.
The principle of centralization, however, was not new in
this country, for it was acted upon in the case of benefit
societies. General rules for the government of these so,
cieties emanated from a board, and he did not see why ge-
neral rules for the administration of poor laws in parishes
might not be adopted. Before he sat down he wished to
observe that he agreed with his hon. and gallant friend the
member for Bolton (Colonel Torrens) that it would be
better to limit the powers of the commissioners to a period
of three or four years, when, if the system worked well, it
would be easy to renew the powers. In conclusion, he stated
that he gave his cordial vote for the principle of the clause.
Mr. RICHARDS did not object to centralization as a
principle, but did not approve of its adoption in this case:
The people of England had been accustomed to the admi-
nistration of the poor laws for the two last centuries, and
he thought that they should still have a control in their
administration, for, generally speaking, although there
were undoubted instances of abuse, they were well admi-
nistered. He thought the noble lord (Althorp) had acted
injudiciously in not having the report of the commissioners
generally circulated throughout the country before he
brought forward the bill before the house. Under these
circumstances he should vote for the amendment.

Lord ALTHORP rose, but his opening observations,
being uttered in a very low tone of voice, were very indis-
tinctly heard in the gallery. In reference to the proposi-
tion of the hon. member, that the rules framed by the
commissioners should not come into operation until they
had received the sanction of the house, the noble lord was
understood to say that he thought the delay which would
be caused by adopting such a course would considerably
impair the efficiency of those regulations, though he ad-
mitted that it would not alter, in any material degree, the
general provisions of the bill. The same hon. member
had objected that he (Lord A.) had not gone far enough
in taking away the immunities proposed to be granted to
the commissioners. Now, those immunities had been
taken away entirely, except in eases of actions brought
against them when acting as a Board; for he believed
that persons acting in their official capacity as members of
a Board were not usually considered liable to actions
of 'the kind. That was the only case in which he ,
proposed that the commissioners should be indemnified
for their actions. The assistant commissioners were to
have no indemnity of the kind, but only such as was usu-
ally granted to justices of the peace. The hon. member
had alluded to the taking away from the commissioners the
power of committal for contempt ; but the hon. member
I;ad spoken of contempt in the usual sense of the word, in-

stead of the legal sense, which mot an obstruction offered
to the proceedings of the court, by refusing to give c,:-
deuce, &c. (Hear.) In the next place, the hon.-IL:ea.!) r
had objected to the power invested in the control board of
making rules. Now, it did appear to him (Lord Alt.!Jeri')
that such a provision was absolutely necessary. The ques-
tion for the house to decide was, whether they should con-
tinue the administration of the poor laws under the present
system of separate magistracies throughout the country,
each acting upon different principles and under differez.t
feelings, or whether they should bring the whole under Gee
uniform system? It appeared to him that it was most ee-
sirable that such a general principle should be adopted. It
was well known that in different parishes different arrange-
dmegrenetesaof success. had
sbneeeen.No
adopted,
oneand found to
egu
torworklatin couldwonhdifferebent
found to apply equally to all parishes. Under the present
state of the law the parishes in the south did not know
what regulations had been adopted, and with what success,
by the parishes in the north ; and the northern parishes
were equally ignorant of the arrangements of the southern
parishes. But if one board of commissioners were appointed
to overlook them all, it would be their duty to see that the
measures which had been found successful in one place
should be adopted in another ; and he thought that under
such an arrangement they had a better chance of arriving
gradually at a perfect administration of the poor laws than
by any other means that could be suggested. It was admit=
ted on all hands that the present state of the poor laws stood
in need of great change, and that the authorit..!-,s by "out
the laws were carried into effect should be also cia:nged 4
otherwise he could see no reason why the amended le:or
laws should not be equally evaded as the former ones. It
had been said by an hon. member that many measures for
the regulation of the poor laws had from time to tittle
been passed without any beneficial effect: Now it al)=
}:eared to him that the reason of that ill success atten-:
dant upon all previous enactments, vas the fact of there
being no superintending authority appointed to see to
;heir execution. (Hear, hear.) So convinced was he of
this, that lie should say even of the present iheasure that'
if it were not to be enforced by some such dulYilipointed!
authorities, it would prove equally nugatory as :Miner,
ones. He fully admitted that the word " centralizaties9'
was a new word in legislation, but hon. members should
not be afraid of it solely on that account. The question
was, whether it would be a good system to hafts one dnly-
appointed body as the seat of Government in these efraiil
or whether it was desirable to have different parochiet air=
thorities, all working upon different principles, and et**
sequently none of them acting with one common view or
understanding upon the matter ? Upon these considera-
tions he did hope that the committee would consent to the
establishment of the Central Board, and grant them such
powers as might seem necessary to carry the principles of
the bill into effect. -

Sir J. SCARLETTfuIIy admitted the advantage which
would result from the introduction of an uniformity of sys-
tem in the administration of the poor laws. He thought
it exceedingly desirable that such a system should be
adopted as far as was possible. He was of opinion alsto
that it would be advisable to appoint some Central
Board, for the purpose of watching over ths admi-
nistration of the laws throughout the country.—•
(Hear, hear, hear.) One of the great defects in the:
present administration of the poor laws, were the loci!',
feelings and prejudices which operated in different parts of
the country, and tended to multiply the diversity of ay/s-
-tems prevalent in the various localities. Under these
circumstances, therefore, it did appear that it would be id
vain to attempt the introduction of a more beneficial sys-
tem, as long as these local interests and powers existed.
He was inclined, therefore, to approve of the appoint-
ment of a local board to see to the execution of the law in
their several districts. But this was a very different thing'
to the proposal for investing those boards with legislativd
power. He founded his objection in this matter to the
provisions of the 19th clause, by the wording of which it
appeared that Parliament, having found itself incompetent
to frame a set of efficient rules and provisions upon the
subject, proposed at once to delegate their legislative func-
tions to a set of commissioners, with unlimited authority.
Ii that were to be passed into a law, it appeared to him
that these commissioners might, if it should seem fit to
them, repeal all or any of the laws already existing upon
the subject. This would be nothing more nor less than
creating an entirely new legislature, with power to
enact what it ple_sed, subject only to the approval of the
Crown. Now, when it was reflected that the admini,
stration of the poor laws was already so frequently the
subject of litigation and dispute at law, was it not too
much to intrust in the hands of such a body the framing
of all the laws relating to the subject? Tliere. were cers
tain acts of Parliament, having a local application only
iu certain townships and parishes. Were the commis-
sioners to have an unlimited power to repeal all these at
pleasure? Would it not be better at least that Parliament
should set out by establishing some general principles and
rules, and then appoint the, commissioners to see that these
principles were acted up ta? With such an extent of au-
thority he could see no objection to the existence of such a
board, which would at once relieve the magistrates of a
very unpleasant part of their duties, as well as the rate-
payer and all other parties concerned. He really thought
that the variety of evidence furnished by the report of the
Pow Laws Commissioners afforded sufficient data to admit
of some general principles being adopted by the house upon
the subject, instead of leaving it all to the discretion of
three gentlemen commissioners. ( Hear.) One of the
great inconveniences of the present system of poor laws
wa, the power of magistrates to compel the parochial
authorities to give relief, and he would propose that in all
parishes where there existed a local vestry the magistrates
should no longer have such power. The house would per-
haps allow him to state a C6SC in point, which occurred to a
friend of his, a Mr. Walks r, one of the most efficient ma-
gistrates in the county of Lancaster. That gentleman had
been appointed to the superintendence of a township, and
by his assiduous and judicious exertions had in a few years
reduced the poor rates from 1,745!. to 500/., without ex-
citing any feelings of discontent in any part of the com-
munity. One of the steps which he adopted upon enter-
ing on his official duties was to request the magistrates
would not use their authority to compel him to grant relief
after he had decided against so doing, which they, having full
confidence in his humanity, agreed to. It was certainly true
that there were cases in which much hardship had resulted
from the refusal of overseers to grant relief ; but he really
thought that, as a general principle, it was better that the local
authorities, having a knowledge of the parties and of the
merits of their claims, should be intrusted with the dis-
cretionary power of so doing. He knew one instance of a
pauper applying for relief to a gentleman, who was one of
the overseers of the parish, and who offered employment
on Isis own farm to the applicant, which, however, the
latter refused, and then went five miles off to a magistrate
and got a compulsory order for relief. No system of poor
laws could stand against that. (Hear, hear.) He would
not detain the committee longer than to repeat his deter-
mined hostility to the clause appointing the Board of Com-
missioners as it at present stood. It was but a new system
of legislation, and a species of despotism (Hear) which it
was his internal conviction the country would never be
brought to submit to. (Hear. )
Mr. PEASE supported the clause.
An Host. MEMBER, who spoke from under the gallery,
was also understood to support the clause.

Mr. SLANEY thoughilhe gradual system of improve-
ment which would be introduced by means of the Central
Board of Commissioners was the only possible plan to be
adopted.
Mr. BENETT spoke against the unlimited authority
proposed to be given to the commissioners.
Mr. HALCOMB rose amidst loud cries of " Oh, oh,"
and other tumultuous vociferations. The lion. and learned
member persisted in addressing the committee, but not
three consecutive words were heard in the gallery. At
length he was understood to say that he would wait till
hon. gentlemen at the bar had the kindness to give.him
their attention. He could assure them that he would not
sit down till he had had an opportunity of making himself
heard. (Renewed disturbance. )
Mr. HUGHES (as we understood) abruptly rose to
propose that the Chairman do report progress.
An Hon. MEMBER would most cord►ally second that
motion.

The motion, however, was not taken further notice of,

and—

Mr. HALCOMB continued upon his legs, but was in-
audible for a considerable time. He wak sorry to trespass
upon the house (Hear), but as it was a most important
subject (Hear, hear), he had used his best endeavours to
offer his sentiments to the house (Hear, and laughter),
notwithstanding the indecorous interruption of hon. mem-
bers who came down to the house without having pre-
pared themselves with any information upon the subject
about which they proposed to legislate. (Hear, hear.)
He did hope that house would not persist in this sort of
conduct, else in justice to himself and other hon. members
who ventured to speak their sentiments he should feel
himself compelled to move an adjournment. (The hon.
member enumerated some instances where the parochial
expenditure of the poor had been considerably reduced of
late years by the exertions of the vestry.) lie thought
that a vestry appointed from those possessing property in
the parish, or consist►ng of those sanctioned by those men
sameeitdhaltonuod
of property, would, if the system were generally intro-
duced, work much general good (Disapprobation), and
obviate the necessity of the dangerous innovations contem-
hbpoylant.eedxmpber3me•
stbshienergpmr:eolsulirddtibslaoilpolkp.
roab(taltt'ihiloeenbhioolnif
cries of " Divide," and " Question.")
Mr. C. FERGUSSON admitted that extraordinary
powers were delegated to the commissioners ; but if the
legislative power was given them. There of
was a power
administration of • •
cat rying the act into execution, a power
no doubt that deserved to be watched, but there was no le-
gislative power. He (Mr. C. Fergusson) heard of many
objections to the bill ; but, strange to say, he heard no one
plan proposed to remedy the crying evils of which et ery
one complained. England was now in such a state that
she could not exist twelve months longer if some change
were not made. The local authorities were unequal to
combat the growing evil. Magistrates, landlords, ever-
seers, and all were intimidated ; everything grant d was
.htelmie"e•bililibld:r concluded

jttat,,. • • 1., .
C`.:.S:ty for the trial of same new scheme ; awl an un::,,r„,
practice of relief was the one proposed, and it destrved
entouragement, when the various systems .0 the c: r.;

"Rf

places faded. It was highly desirable that the Act o"
Elizabeth should be enforced, and the present bill only
went to correct the aberrations from that law. (Near. )
Sir J. SCARLETT consulted the bill, and said that

he found that the commissioners had the extraordinary

power of altering at pleasure any local Act of Parliament-.
(Cheers.)
Lord ALTHORP said that at present justices of the
peace were armed with similar power. (Hear, hear. )
The clause alluded to was the only one that gave such
power, and when they came to that in committee it
was time enough to examine it. (A laugh.) His right
hon. friend said that it was desirable to take away the
present power of magistrates. That was the object of the
bill.

Mr. HUGHES was opposed to the despotic power of
the board more than the board itself, badly as the board
was constituted, and indeed its very constitution was highly
objectionable. The board might consist of three commis-
sioners, or only one. (The hon. member quoted the
clause of the act, which was to the effect that in case of
death, or of removal, or resignation, it was lawful for the
government to appoint A successor or successors, and that
in the mean time the existing commissioner or commis-
sioners should be empowered to act and exercise the same
fluictions as if there were three.) The singular number,
commissioner, rntntioned in the act showed clearly that all
the tremendoils power of that board might be, at the plea-
sure of "iovernment, vested in one person. He would
strongly object to any board that was not amenable to par-
li'Ament. (Cheers. )
Lord ALTHORP quoted a counter clause of the bill,
and said that two commissioners at least should be ap-
pointed. (Hear, and a laugh. )
Colonel EVANS and Lord ALTHORP said a few words
Which were inaudible.

Sir S. WHALLEY moved that the Chairman report
progress amidst great confusion.
H. WILLOUGHBY said it was the unanimous
'opinion of all dispassionate witnesses, magistrates, over-
seers, farmers, and others, that the result of the present
act would be starvation to the poor. The admission of the
noble lord was enough to convince any one of the terrible
e'vils of the measure, when he admitted that the Board
would have nothing to do with individual relief. (Cheers.)
The great mistake seemed to be, that they did not carry
legislation far enough. They should not hand over to any
Board that power which the house should exercise. Im-
provements might be made in the bill ; but why should
the house abrogate its proper functions ? (Cheers.) The
evidence and the report were jumbled together, and the
apparent design of both was to show, what was already
evident, that the present system was bad, and the only re-
medy was the proposed bad Board. (Cheers.)
The house then divided on the motion of reporting pro-
gress. The numbers were—
For it
Against it
Majority 295
While strangers were excluded from the gallery, we
*were informed that the first clause, as amended, was
agreed to.
On being re-admitted to the gallery, we found the
Chairman putting the question that he should report pro-
gress and ask leave to sit again, which was agreed to, and
the house resumed.

. 312

CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS BILL.
The Capital Punishments Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed.

PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL.
Mr. EWART having moved that the prisoner's counsel
bill be read a second time,
Mr. WYNN objected to proceeding with a motion of
so much importance at so late an hour.
An How. MEMBER. (name unknown) moved as an
amendment that the bill be read a second time that day
three months.
After a short conversation the amendment was with-
drawn, on the understanding that the second reading should
come on on the 4th day of June.

BODIES OF CRIMINALS BILL.
On the motion of Mr. LITTLETON, the Bodies of
Criminals Bill was read. a second time, and committed for
the 4th of June.

„.._.
~
......-' ,
i 1 0 :”"
it 5,44..........,,,

DOMESTIC REGISTRATION BILL.
The Domestic Registration Bill was ordered to be read
a second time that day six months.
RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLIES BILL.
Mr. HARDY moved that the house should go into
committee on the Religious Assemblies Bill.
Mr. STANLEY said the bill had thus far proceeded
without attracting any attention. He thought, however,
that the bill should not be pressed at so late an hour, for it
went to make a great alteration in the law of the land. It
would, in fact, as he understood the bill, do away with all
restrictions as to licensed preachers.
An How. MEMBER (name unknown) contended that
the right hon. gentleman did not justly describe the bill.
At present any dissenter might, by paying half-a-crown,
get a license to preach, whereas a churchman could not
preach unless in a consecrated place. The bill, there-
fore, was not an innovation in principle, but went to
give the same advantage to churchmen which the dis-
senters possessed.
After a few words from Mr. BAINES,
Mr. HARDY said the object of the bill was simply to
make the church as tolerant to her own members as she
was to the dissenters. The hon. and learned member ex-
plained the bill to the same effect as he had done on the
second reading.
Mr. WYNN said that if the motion was for the second
reading the speech of the hon. and learned member would
have been very satisfactory, but the question then was as
to a committee. To do so, he thought, at such an hour
would be most unsatisfactory.
Mr. WARBURTON contended that the question as to
whether the church was in danger was so very microscopic
that the bill ought to be proceeded with. Churchmen at
least ought to be put on a footing with dissenters.
Mr. SHAW said that the hon. member for Bridport was
the first who had talked of the church being in danger.
(Hear, hear.) The question as to discipline, however,
was an important one, and ought not, he thought, to be
pressed at so late an hour.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG was understood to express a hope
that the bill would be allowed to pass that stage.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY moved that the bill be committed
this day six months.
The amendment having been put,
Mr. C. FERGUSSON should vote for going into com-
mittee.
Lord HOWICK said the grievance was one that ought
to be got rid of.
Mr. HEATHCOTE was anxious to have the progress
of the bill delayed, because he regarded it as an objection-
able measure. He did not desire to throw the bill out al-
together, but he thought that it should be delayed for a
week or a fortnight to enable them to know exactly what
its provisions were.
Mr. C. W. WYNN should not vote for the amendment
proposed by the hon. baronet (Sir M. W. Ridley), but he
did think they should have a further opportunity of dis-
cussing the bill before it proceeded further.
Mr. STANLEY considered the bill as intrenching on
the principles of the established church, and he there-
fore should vote against its going into committee.
Mr. AGLIONBY hoped they would allow it to pass
that stage, knowing they could have any discussion they
pleased on the bunging up of the report.
Mr. H. HUGHES supported the motion for going into
committee.
Mr. O'DWYER should oppose the amendment.
Mr. VIGORS denied that the bill would grant greater
privileges than the common law now gave.
Mr. STRICKLAND could see no just ground to refuse
the request for postponement.
Mr. RUTHVEN regarded the bill as wholly uncalled
for, and he should accordingly vote against its going into
committee. He had opposed the second reading.
Mr. PLU3IPTRE did not think any inconvenience
could arise from a brief delay.
Mr. SHELL would support the original motion.
Mr. PEASE could see no ground for refusing to go into
committee, knowing as he did that the measure was called
for out of doors.
Mr. F. LEWIS hoped the hon. and learned gentleman
(Mr. Hardy) would not press them to go into committee
at such an hour.
Mr. HARDY said that if they would insure him a day
for bringing the bill forward at an earlier hour he would
gladly comply with their request, but not otherwise.—
( Cries of " Divide, divide.")
The house accordingly divided. The numbers were—
For going into Committee
Against it
Majority 23
The house then went into committee.
The several clauses of the bill were then agreed to, and
the house having resumed, the report was brought up and
ordered to be received on Wednesday next.
Mr. POULTER brought in a bill to provide for the
better observance of the Sabbath.
Mr. W. BROUGHAM brought in a bill for the general
registration of births, marriages, and deaths, which was
read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on
Tuesday, the 27th.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, anti
the house adjourned at a quarter past three o'clock.

THE MUSICAL FESTIVAL.-Great prepa-
rations are being made in the interior of Westminster
Abbey for the approaching grand musical display, and
the saw and the hammer are to be heard from morning
to night. Already tiers of seats have been raised
along the side aisles of the. cathedral as high as the
windows, and every possible place where the eye or
the ear can obtain pleasure will. be made available.
Two additional entrances are being made for the oc-
casion; one is between the north transept and the
western extremity of the abbey, and the other is under
the south-west angle of the cloisters, and enters the
opposite side of the abbey. The entrance is by a
Mot of covered steps leading to one of the great
windows, from which a sufficient portion of the frame
work is removed to form a door-way.