The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-07 00:00:00

UNIVERSITIES ADMISSION BILL.

Mr. C. BULLER, seeing the hon. member for
Lanchashire in his place, wished to ask if he proposed
proceeding with the Universities Admission Bill on
Monday next ?
Mr. WOOD would be guided entirely by the conve-
nience of the house. If it was desirable that the bill
should pass during the present session, he thought the
best course would be to read it a second time without
discussion, leaving that for.a future stage. •
In reply to a question from Mr. RUTH VEN,
Mr. LITTLETON stated that no report from the
commissioners of inquiry into municipal corporations
had been then presented, nor could he say when it
would be.
POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT BILL.

On the order of the day being read for the further
consideration of this bill in committee,
Mr. COBBETT rose and said that before the
Speaker left the chair he wished to suggest to the
noble lord whether he rniant not be induced to insti-
tute some inquiry into tie cause of the increase of
pauperism throughout th-, country. In his opinion it
was the duty of the house, before they proceeded to
pass such a measure as that upon which they were
about to go into committee, to inquire into what were
the causes which made such a bill at all necessary. It
was more especially the r'uty of the house to do this
as the committee themselves said that if they found
that the poor rates were increased or even stationary it
would not be desirable to make any alterations at all.
The poor law committee had said that Kothing was
to be done if the poor rates were progressive, and it
was clear that those rates had increased during the
last year on an average throughout the kingdom of
four per cent. According to the rules laid down in
the directions to be given to the commissioners, the
house ought not to proceed any further with this bill
without ascertaining the cause of the increase of pau-
perism. This was the way in which men proceeded
in other cases to ascertain the causes of an evil before
they attempted to apply the remedy, and the only
reason why they did not pursue the same course in the
present
in thesentca fasewee. T
was, thathe es
htheehe alwaysouse proceededdaredno a
lookttosif
the
case the
poor had committed some crime, as if the magistrates
had been guilty of some fault, or as if the law were in
fault ; but the fact was the house, and the house
alone, was in fault ( Hear, hear) ; and the house
therefore was afraid to look the case manfully in the
face. The condition of the poor had been getting
worse for years. Fifty years ago, in the parish of
Breade, in Sussex, there was only one cottage in all
the parish that did not belong to the labourers
themselves, and now there were but two cottages in
the parish that were owned by the labouring poor.
The case was the same throughout all the kingdom of
England and Wales. Forty years ago, he knew that
in one parish there was not one labourer that did not
brew his own beer, and now there was not in the same
parish one labourer that did. Such was the deterio-
rated condition of the poor. The agricultural com-
mittee had reported to the house, that a want of em-
ployment was one of the great causes of the immense
increase of poor rates, and the same committee had
reported that the land was not as productive as it might
be, for want of sufficient labour being bestowed upon
it. He wanted the house to explain how this could
be—how land could be badly cultivated for want of
labour, whilst the country was full of labourers wanting
employment. How could this be ? Why, it was a
proof that the country was badly governed. The next
time that it was moved that the Speaker should leave
the chair upon this bill, he should make a motion that,
before the house proceeded further with this bill, a
select committee should be appointed to inquire into
the causes of the great increase of the amount of the
poor rates in England and Wales.
On the question that the Speaker leave the chair,
Mr. CL AY rose, and, as far as he could be heard
in the gallery, we understood him to ask the noble
lord ( Althorp) whether it was not his intention to
admit of appeals against the decisions of the poor law
commissioners being moved by writ of certiorari into
the King's Bench.
Lord ALT HO RP was understood to answer in the
negative.
Sir J. SC ARLETT conceived that the noble lord,
by such a resolution, was about to establish an abso-
lute tyranny on the part of the commissioners. These
officers would not be responsible for any of their con-
duct under the bill ; no action could be brought
against them ; there would be no tribunal to try the
case or to correct anything they might do. He for
one did not think that the people of England were
at the present time at all disposed to submit to
such a power, either in the poor law commis-
sioners or in that house itself. If the com-
missioners were to be obliged to make their orders
legal, who was to judge of their legality, unless it
were some of the superior law courts ? This would be
the only remedy. An action must be brought, in
order to ascertain whether the orders of the commis-

'goners were legal; but by the bill the commissioners,
it seemed, were to be relieved from all responsibility.
The noble lord was about to establish an absolute ir-
responsible power, which no court of law could con-
trol.
The question was, did it become the House of
Commons to intrust such a power with any man or
body ofmen whatsoever. Unless the writ of certio-
rari
was allowed to exist as at common law, the first
part of the
amendment which he understood the noble
lord was to move to the bill would pass for nothing at
all. The noble lord was really about to establish a
perfect tyranny, unless he admitted of the control of
the Court of King's Bench, or of some control be-
sides that of submitting the orders of the commissioners
to the Secretary of State.
Lord AL THO RP said that it made no great
difference whether the legality of the orders to be
issued by the Commissioners were to be established
previously to their being carried into effect, or whether
they. were to be corrected subsequently by a writ of
certiorari. There were numerous Acts of Parliament
establishing separate jurisdictions, and by which the
writ of certiorari was taken away. The present he

(Pnicr 70.)

allowed was an anomalous case, and required cons -
deration.
Mr. CLAY--As the noble lord had said that tic
point of doing away with the certiorari required
further consideration, it would be premature in the
house to pursue the subject further at the preser.t
moment. He trusted, however, that the noble lord
would give the house timely notice of what he might
determine upon.
Mr. GROTE conceived that the orJers of Cpm-
missioners were not to be suspeetted whenever any-
body chose to call their legality into qlw;tirm. -
Sir R. PEEL trusted that the noble lord vuttld
pause and reflect well before he adopted the principle
that a legal tribunal was to investigate the regulations
of the commissioners before they were to be put into
execution. He imagined that the regulations would
combine matters of law and matters of policy. There
was a wide distinction between applying to a court of
law by the writ of certiorari and applying to the
Court of King's Bench for its sanction of a whole code
of regulations.
Mr. HA WES reminded the house that one great
object of the bill was to reduce the expense of liti-
gation.
Sir T. FREMANTLE thought that it was not
sufficient to give the power to the commissioners of
making laws without they had the right of applying
them.
The SPEAKER then left the chair.

On the 21st clause being put,
Sir H. WILL OUG HBY objected to the clause,
as he conceived that the powers it conveyed, when
added to those conferred by the 19th and 20th clause,
would enable the commissioners to alter the estates of
every man in England. The hon. baronet said that
he should move that, in line twenty-six, after the word
" same," the following words be inserted, " without
the consent of the majority of the owners of property
and ratepayers in vestry assembled has been previously
signified." This, of course, would only operate in
case there was a necessity for a workhouse. The ob-
jection of the clause, as it stood, was that a set of gen-

tlemen in London should be able to order the erection
of workhouses. He doubted the policy or necessity of
establishing workhouses throughout the country.
Lord A L THO RP understood the objection of the
hon. gentleman to the clause was that it gave the
commissioners the power of taxing parishes to any
extent. The ground for the assumption was, that the
commissioners had the power of building workhouses
in any parishes they pleased. The commissioners had
no such power they merely were enabled to direct
the forming unions of parishes, and they had merely
the power of recommending the erection of work-
houses ; the parish, however, could refuse. The
amount of expenditure that the commissioners could
order was comparatively small. The hon. baronet
seemed to think that parishes with small rates would
okect to contribute towards building workhouses. He
( Lord Althorp) did not anticipate that that would
be the case ; he thought that it was more likely
that parishes paying large rates would object to
pay their proportion to funds for building work-
houses. If the commissioners were to have the
power of building workhouses, the objection of the
hon. baronet would be of some weight ; but although
this was recommended in the report of the Poor Law
Commissioners, his Majesty's government would not
consent to give them such power.
After a few words from Sir H. WILLOUGHBY,

Sir T. FREMANTLE said that it appeared to
him that there was some ground for the objection of
the hon. baronet, but not to the extent that he sup-
posed. As the bill stood, the commissioners would
have the power of calling upon parishei to give up
workhouses adequate to thir wants, and to contribute
to-the building of a general workhouse.

'Mr. GROtE thought that the clause did not bear
the construction put upon it by the hon. baronet. It
did not appear to him, however, that in cases of unions
of parishes there was sufficient provision made for in-
suring that the proportionate expenses of building the
workhouse should be fairly assessed.
After a few words from Lord Althorp, Mr. Godson,
Sir H. Willoughby, and Mr. Handley,
Mr. T. ATT WOOD said that he should support
the proposition of the hon. baronet, because it tended
to render the bill absurd, although it was sufficiently
absurd already. He objected to the bill in every pos-
sible form, and. thought it wrong in its object, wrong in

its details, and wrong in its -principle;. The tale
lord had nine large volumes on the subject of the Poor
Laws which no human being had ever read through, or
indeed through any one of them. The noble lord
said that his bill was founded on the evidence
contained in those volumes. This assertion re-
minded him of the story of a negro who had been
set by his master to count the pebbles on the shore,
ald who in a short time returned to his master and
said that there were twenty-one thousand millions. His
master charged him with telling a falsehood, but the
ne4-ro replied, " Go, master, and count them, and you
will find lam correct." ( A laugh.) So it was with
the noble lord, who said that his bill was founded on
the facts contained in the evidence annexed to the
report, and told members to go and read it. But he
(Mr. Attwood) could tell the noble lord that there
was not a young man in that house who could get
through those volumes. The whole bill was founded
on arbitrary power, and would, if carried, rob the
poorer classes in the most shameful manner, indeed as
much as was done by the act by which a return was
ordered to cash payments. Why did the noble lord
attempt to force such a bill down the throats of the
people ? For his ( Mr. &ttwood's) part he had never
heard of any grievances growing out of the poor laws.

The amount- of the po-or rates- paid at present was

not greater than it was forty years ago, if they took
into consideration the increase of population. At pre-
sent the poor rates of Birmingham amounted to nearly
40,0001. But the bill of 1819 robbed the people of
Birmingham of 4,000,000/. a year. The noble lord
could not expect to live much longer. He ( Mr. A.)
therefore wished the noble lord had, for the sake of
his reputation, ended his political career before be
brought forward this absurd bill.
Lord A LTHOR P was not surprised that the hon.
gentleman objected to every part of the bill, when he
said he had never heard of any defects in the poor
laws.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said there were not less
than two hundred and twenty parishes in which from

one-fifth to one-twentieth of 6ae population were said
in the report of the commissioners to be out of ern-

ploymeni during part of the year. Now he wished to
know whether they could establish a workhouse sys-
tem in parishes of this kind. He could mention the
parish of Puheer (as we understood), in which there
were 100 out of work in summer and 120 in winter.
The same might be said of the parish of Battle. Now
were all those men who could not procure work to be
forced into workhouses? There were some parishes
in which the single men would be quite sufficient to
do all the work of the parish. The consequence in
such parishes must be to send all the men with families
into the workhouse, or else compel them to accept of
very reduced wages. If the system in the workhouse
was too stringent, men would feel reluctance to enter
it, and the effect would be to minimize wages in such
a parish. It was well known that persons who once
entered a workhouse seldom left it. They were check-
mated for ever after. He was surprised to hear his
hon. friend ( Mr. Whitmore) say that this was a con-
stitutional measure, and consistent with the poor laws
of this country. The fact was, the word workhouse
did not once occur in the 43d of Elizabeth. He would
be quite satisfied if it could be shown to him that by a
system of workhouses work could be procured for the
redundant population.
Mr. PEASE objected to the clause, as it seemed to
him to give the commissioners the power of crushing
as many as four or even five parishes, and changing
the guardians.
Mr. TOWER said he was surprised to hear the
member for Birmingham say that there were no com-
plaints of the poor laws. This might be true of
manufacturing districts, for they did not press so
heavily upon the manufacturing as upon the agricul-
tural interests, the former paying in the proportion of
only one to twenty-two or twenty-five. He would op-
pose the amendment because it tended to smother the
Commissioners with too great a variety of work, and
thus to impair their efficacy.
Mr. WHITMORE was convinced that the bill
would be productive of the greatest benefit. This was