The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-25 00:00:00

G 0 ODWO OD 12 A CES.—( This Day.)

[BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.
VO HANDICAP PLATE.

Miss Julia
Fravola
Apollo
Seventeen ran.
DRAWING-ROOM STAKES•

Buccaneer

Trovatore
£lOO HANDICAP PLATE.

Comforter
Restes
St. Clarence 3
Six ran.
GOODWOOD STAKES.

Wallace
Satellite
Scventegn ran.
GOODWOOD DERBY.
Northern Light 1
Rattlebone scratched last night for all engagements here.

Riseber was scratched at 12.55.

NIPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(THIS DAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at ten minutes after 12
o'clock,

CORONERS' BILL.
On the. motion of Sir G. Lis the order for the second
reading of this bill was discharged, and the bill was with-
drawn.

GUNPOWDER, &c., BILL.
On the motion for going into committee en this bill,
Mr. LIDDELL asked the Home Secretary, who had
charge of the bill, whether it would be practicable to post-
pone it until the manufacturers, whose interests its provi-
sions materially affected, had time to consider the different
clauses.

Sir G. LEWIS said that any further postponement
would be equivalent to abandoning the bill this session,
considering this was the last day on which the Lords would
receive bills from the house. He had been in communica-
tion with those persons who wen- interested in this branch
of manufacture, and had modified the bill in accordance
with the views they had expressed. The bill had been
reprinted some days, but it had been kept in order to
meet the wishes of the trade. If the house would consent
to pass the clauses, he would on the bringing up of the report
introduce alterations, in order to render this bill suitable to
the willies of the parties chiefly interested.
The house then went into committee, and clause 1 with
soma amendments was agreed to. The remaining clauses
were also agreed to, and the house resumed.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION, &c., BILL.
On the order of the day for going into committee on this
bill,

Sir G, LEWIS said at the late stage of the session of
Parliament, and with a view to prevent further objection
to the bill, he would withdraw clauses 6,7, 8,9, and 11,
which referred to the management of the chapter property,
and also clauses 17 to 19.

Mr. SELWYN inquired of the right hon. baronet if he
would consent to withdraw clause 36.
Sir G. LEWIS answered in the affirmative.

Lord J. MANNERS said that on both sides of the house
great dissatisfaction was expressed with respect to the
management of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and he
strongly objected to conferring on that irresponsible body
more extensive powers than even they already possessed, or
giving them perpetuity. He hoped the right hon. baronet
would also withdraw clauses 5; 15, and 16, which proposed
to transfer eventually to the commission sitting in White-
hall, the sole management of the episcopal and
capital or propirty of the country. If his suggestions were
not acceded to he would feel himself called upon to offer
every possible impediment to the progress of this measure.
(Elear, hear.)
Alderman COPELAND objected to the commission on
the ground of the expense of its management, which re-
quired a cost of £171,000 in distributing a fund of
£8,110,000.

Mr E. JAMES said that, notwithstanding the tempta-
tion of Government to pass one bill this session—(laughter)
—he hoped they would not proceed with the present mea-
sure. To show the mismanagement of the Commission he
referred to the parish of St. Pancras, where the greatest
spiritual destitution prevailed. Tie ecclesiastical commis-
sion had been appealed to by the rector for assistance to-
wards building a church, and they advanced £3O towards
the purchase of ground, which they afterwards sold for
£46,000 to the railway company. If this bill pissed that
large amount would go into a common fund, and would be
lost to the parish.

Mr. AYATON considered they should go into committee,
as the means best calculated to remove the evils complained
of with regard to the commission.
After a few words from Mr. Mows RAY and Mr. RIDLEY,
Mr. WALPOLE strongly advocated the house going
into committee, and supported the bill in its general
object, as being based on the report of a select committee.
The house then went into committee, and clauses 1 to 4
were agreed to.
On clause 5,

Sir G. LE WIS said that the noble lord opposite (Lord
J. Manners) said it was not his intention to force it on the
committee. He would state its nature, and then leave it
to the house to decide whether they would reject or re-
tain it. By that clause it was enacted that, on the
voidance of any see, the ecclesiastical commission in
possession of the estates of the late bishop should
produce a larger income than that fixed by law, end
they might make arrangements to reduce it to that amount.
He hoped the committee would agree to the clause, but it
was not essential to the bill.

Lord J. MANNERS opposed the clause, the effect of
which, he contended, would be to induce bishops to
abstain from making improvements in order to
avoid the imputation of having been iu receipt of more than
they should have possessed, wile, on the other hand, they
might be subjected to another imputation, that of having
been negligent of the interests of their successors. The
noble lord concluded by moving the omission of the clause.
After some discussion,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he was not 'at present aware
how the law stood, but ho considered that a clause of this
description was necessary to enable the commission
to deal with the changes that might take place
in the property of a see. He thought it most
desirable that the commission should possess such power,
for the property of a bishopric might be largely increased
in value by the discovery of a mine or other circumstances,
and, on the contrary, it might be reduced in value. He
thought the clause was too stringent in its character, and
proposed the substitution of words leaving it to the discre-
tion of the commission to interfere in regard to the pro-
perty 'of a see, instead of being compelled to do so.
After some further conversation, the amendment for the
omission of the clause was negatived, and an amendment
embodying the suggestion of Lord J. Russell was agreed to.
Some other clauses were also agreed to.
On clause 15,
Mr. RIDLEY moved the following amendment :
" Page 6, line 27, after Chapter,' leave out and the Ec-
clesiastical Commissioners may advance out of the common
fund,' and insert, ' and it shall be lawful for the Governors
of Queen Anne's Bounty to advance.' "
Some discussion ensued, in which Lord J. Manners, Mr.
Mowbray, Lord H. Vane, and other hon. members took
part.

Sir G. LEWIS defended the clause. He considered that if
the house were of opinion that bishops had no right to re-
ceive money for permanent improvements they should re-
ject the clause, bat not otherwise.
The amendment was ultimately withdrawn.
Some verbal amendments were introduced, and the
clause as amended was adopted.
On clause 16,
Lord J. MANNERS repeated what he had previously
stated, that the effect of this as well as some other clauses
which had been agreed to, would be to place the manage-
ment of the whole of the Church property in the hands of
the Ecclesiastical Commission. •It had been said that the
commission did not desire to have the management of the
estates of bishops, and, if that were the case, the elause
which gave the commission the power was unnecessary.
He strongly opposed the clause, and moved its omission.
Mr. FREELAND entirely concurred with the noble lord
(Lord J. Manners), and hoped he would press his amend-
ment to a division, as he considered the clause had a most
objectionable tendency to centralisation.
Sir G. LEWIS explained that the clause was merely per-
missive, and gave the power to the commission to undertake
the management of the estate of a bishop when the prelate
was not disposed to do so. As regarded the bishops, if he
were correctly informed, the clause was not disagreeable to
them, so that the noble lord was " Hibernior ipsis Hiber-
nicis," or more prelatical than the prelates themselves.
After a few words from Mr. Mowbray, Mr. Walter, Mr.
Briscoe, Mr. George, Mr. Deedes, and Lord J. Manners,
Mr. CAYLEY invited an expression of opinion from Sir
James Graham, who had formerly dissented from the view
now taken by the advocates of the clause.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was not responsible for the
clause ; but, looking at the course of legislation
which the house had adopted, and considering
that the clause made it entirely optional' with the
prelacy to retain or resign the management of the estates,
and also that by the resigning that management they would
be lett to the efficient discharge of these spiritual duties,
he would, at the risk of being charged with inconsis-
tency, vote for the clause.
The committee then divided on the motion that the
clause stand part of the bill—

Ayes. 159
Noes
41
Majority..,.... —llB
The clause was accordingly agreed to.
On clause 20,
Mr. AYRTON proposed an amendment, providing that
any surplus funds arising from the metropolis should be
applied to meeting the spiritual wants of the metropolis,
instead of being applied to other parts of the country.
On a division the numbers were—
For the amendment
42
Against it ......................... . 138
Majority
The amendment was lost, and the clause was agreed to.
The Chairman reported progress, and the house resumed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1858) AMENDMENT

THE REV. JAMES BONWELL'S CASE.

COURT OF ARCHES (THIS DAY.)
(Before Dr. Lushington.)
THE BISHOP OF LONDON V. BONWELL.

This case was resumed this morning. Sir J. Harding
and Dr. Tristram appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Best, of
the Oxford Circuit, instructed by Mr. Sorrell, of Mark-

Lane, appeared for Mr. Bonwell.

Mr. Best stated to the court that he was a barrister and
not a doctor, but under the Act of Parliament under which

the present proceedings took place, the judge had power to
alter the practice of the court.

Sir J. Harding said he had no notice of this application
until the sitting of the court, and he must object to it.
There was no precedent for it.

The Court decided in favour of Mr. Best's application.
Sir J. Harding proceeded to call attention to the evi-
dence, which he considered completely proved his case.
Great scandal had been caused by Mr. Bonwell's conduct,
and the Court was left without any apology, defence, or
explanation, quoad the scandal, in reference to which Mr.
Bonwell appeared to be utterly insensible and indifferent.
The defendant had wanted for neither time nor opportu-
nity for defence. The coroner's inquest on the child was

held in Sept. last, and in the following month the bishop
gave notice of his intention to issue a commission. On the
6th of February, the commission reported, on the 3d of May
the articles were issued, on the 223 of May there was an
appearance, and on the 13th of June the articles were
admitted after opposition. From the articles the defend-
ant had had the fullest opportunity of knowing the
charges against him, and he had certainly shown him.
self to be a person of considerable ability, and pre-
sence of mind, but he had cross-examined the witnesses
merely on the fringe of the case, without touching the
damning parts of it. Many of the most important witnesses
he did not cross-examine at all—many of the least important
were cross-examined on the least important point. There
was nothing in his cross-examination beyond a general
denial of the charge, and an assertion that the whole
case had been concocted against him for the purpose
of extorting money, for some of the witnesses had been
asked how much money they had received for coming
forward to give evidence. As far as the prosecution was
concerned, no witnesses had been kept back, and the main
facts remained entirely untouched. At first the association
between Mr. Bonwell and Miss Yorath was of the most open
character, butmore lately it had been conducted with what
in the old matrimonial courts was known by the barbarous
term " clandestinit3 ." He should press very strongly upon
the court the fact that Mr. Bonwell had stated to
Mr. Lewis Yora,h that he was engaged to his
sister Elizabeth, but that he had not commu-
nicated it to the family, as he considered that his
position as a clergyman was a sufficient guarantee
of his good faith. He (Sir J. Harding) had known many
cases in which Anglican clergymen had been guilty of in-
continence, but he had never known a case until the present
in which a clergyman had made his position in the Church
the groundwork of his crime. His position in the Church
was his great weapon, and was constantly put forward. He
contended that the whole of the preliminary part of the case
bad been proved materially and substantially, and quite
sufficiently for all practical purposes. With regard to that
part of the case relating to London, he contended that
the evidence of Mrs. Glennie, taken in connection with
that of Mrs. Bonwell's pupils, Mrs. Gunn, and others,
conclusively established Mr. Bonwell's guilt. Even if
Mr. Bonwell were innocent his conduct was an absolute
pollution, in consequence of the scandal which it had
caused. He regretted to say that, upon the grounds stated,
he would have to ask the Court to pass a sentence of depri-
vation, for this case had been promoted by the bishop
of the diocese in support of tLe discipline of the Church,
and not out of private malice, and the bishop would cer-
tainly have failed in his duty if he had not taken these
proceedings, and asked for this severe sentence. The
learned counsel cited many cases in which sentences of de-
privation had been pronounced for far less offences.
Mr. Best then proceeded to address the court on behalf of
Mr. Bonwell. He said that to his client the issue was almost
as important as one of life and death. He contended, upon
the case of Homer and Jones, that adultery committed out
of the diocese could not be taken as adultery committed
within it. Pr ceeding to an analysis of the evidence,
he pointed out discrepancies as to Mr. Bonwell's
conduct both at Newport and Margate. Coming to Lon-
don he urged that Miss Yorath, having taken Ler lodgings
in the name of Harvey, did not affect Mr. Bonwell, but
we.s her own act. The most material charge was that
which had reference to Thornhill-orescent, and the
principal witness was Mrs. Green, whose evidence
had been positively denied by Mr. Beefy, who engaged
her. With regard to the prosecution, he contended that
they ought to have put Miss Yorath in the witness-box.
They knew perfectly well where to find her, and her evidence
would have been conclusive on the point. It had
not been attempted to show that it was Miss Yorath
who went to the vestry room, or the school room—for aught
they knew it might have been Mrs. Bonwell herself who
went into the school-room. He complained that the cheap
press had treated Mr. Bonwell unfairly, having called Mr.
Bonwell a poisoner and a murderer, stating that he ought
to have been handcuffed and taken off to prison immediately.
While Dr. Smethurst was lying in prison, one paper called
for his release, while it held up Mr. Bonwell to reprobation.
He contended that the evidence was not sufficient to justify
Mr. Bonwell's conviction.

Dr. Lushington said the case was one of grew' import-
ance, and he should take time to consider his judgment.

MPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
CENSUS BILL.
'This bill passed through committee.
CENSUS (ENGLAND) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
QUEEN'S PRISON BILL.
Lord WODEHOUSE moved the second reading of this
bill.

The motion was agreed to.
The Labourers' Cottages (Scotland) Bill was Lead a
third time and passed.
The Coast of Africa, &c., Act Amendment Bill was
struck out.
OFFENCES WITHIN HER MAJESTY'S POSSES-
SIONS ABROAD BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR explained that the object
of the bill was to make persons amenable to punishment in
any part of her Majesty's dominions for acts of violence
committed in the colonies.
After some conversation the bill was read a second time.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion that this bill should be read a third time,
Lord BROUGHAM objected. An amendment had been
proposed which did away with an important provision in the
act of 1855, by which it became necessary that none of those
friendly societies should have its affairs wound up without
the consent of five-sixths of the members, and in accordance
with the rules of the society.
After some conversation the bill was read a third time

and passed.
HERRING FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
NUISANCES REMOVAL AND DISEASES PRE-
VENTION BILL.
This bill passed through committee, as did also Oxford
University Bill.
BURIAL GROUNDS (IRELAND) ACT AMEND-
MENT BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed, as were also
the Isle of Man Harbour Bill and the Dominica Hurricane
Loan Bill.
FELONY AND MISDEMEANORS BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM, in moving the second reading of
this bill, said the object of the bill was to assimilate the pro
cedure in criminal cases to what the practice was in civil
cases, so that the counsel for the prisoner as well as the
counsel for the prosecution might have an opportunity of
summing up the evidence. At present in some cases counsel
abstained from calling witness es for the prisoner, by which
his defence might be injured, his counsel fearing the effect
of a reply from the counsel for the prosecution. Such a
practice might lead to a failure of justice, which he thought
the bill he was proposing would i emedy. He then quoted
the report of the Law Commissioners in favour of the prin •
ciplo he was proceeding upon, and concluded by moving
the second reading of the bill.
Lord WENSLEYDALE objected to the bill, on the
ground that the case in civil and criminal proceedings was
entirely different, seeing that there was no means of anti-
cipating precisely in civil cases what the witnesses would
say. The introduction of the plan proposed by his noble
and learned friend would lead to a great and unnecessary
consumption of time in displays of evidence on the part of
the prisoner. His opinion being adverse to the bill, he
moved that the bill be read a second time that day six

months.
Lord CHELMSFORD said he could not understand
upon what principle a second reading should be refused to
the bill, because when they had admitted the propriety of
counsel appearing on behalf of a prisoner, they thereby put
counsel on the same footing in criminal as well as in civil
cases, and he could not see how they could deny counsel
for the prisoner the same advantage as in civil cases.
The consumption of time should not be considered. The
question was, should they give the proposed right to the
counsel for the prisoner or not. Now, under those cir-
cumstances, what objection could there be that in criminal
as in civil cases, where the defendant's counsel called
witnesses, such counsel should have the right of reply.
Under what possible pretence could they refuse such a
right to the prisoner ? As far as ho could gather, his noble
and learned friend's objection to the right of defendant's
counsel to sum up the evidence on the ground that it would
occupy much "time," was not sufficient reason for oppo-
sing the bill. But, at all events, there would be more jus-
tice done by the course which the measure proposed, both
to the prosecution and the prisoner ; and if it were consi-
dered right that such a course should be pursued in civil
cases, why should it not, upon the same reasoning, be
thought so in criminal cases. (Hear.)
The Earl of CARNARVON thought there was much
• force in the observations and objections of his noble and
learned friend (Lord Wensleydale).
The IORP CRANCELLOR said there were • cases

wherein the slimming up of evidence by counsel for the
prisoner might be essential to the due administration of
justice, and the question of " time," in such cases, ought
not, in his opinion, to be considered an objection to such a
course, particularly if it were regarded as calculated to elicit
truth and promote the ends of justice. (Hear, hear.) He
agreed with his noble and learned friend (Lord Brougham)
that the Scotch mode of proceeding was the most perfect.
There were, in his opinion, some imperfections in the bill,
which, should it pass, would certainly have a great effect
upon trials ; and he must say, although he was prepared to
give his vote for the second reading of the measure, that he
was not sorry that he was no longer Chief Justice of the
Court of Queen's Bench. It was, therefore, not without
some hesitation that he should give his vote for the second
reading of the bill.

Lord BROUGHAM thanked his noble and learned friend
on the woolsack for his vote, but he would rather have his
vote without his speech. (A laugh.)

The question, after a few words from Earl GRANVILLE,
was put, and their lordships dividld. The numbers were,
for the second reading—

Contents
Non-contents
Majority
The bill was then read a second time.
CROWN DEBTS AND JUDGMENTS BILL.

This bill, on the motion of Earl GILANVILLE, was read

a second time.

Their lordships then adjourned at five minutes to eight

o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 20 minutes aftef 12

o'clock.
POOR LAW BOARD CONTINUANCE BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.

On clause 1,

Mr. BAZLEY moved an amendment to the effect that
this bill should be continued for only 12 months. He said
that, in bringing forward this motion, he did not for a mo-
ment impugn the efficiency of the heads of the Poor Law
Board, nor their immediate predecessors, for both had done
much to administer the powers entrusted to them in a
manner that divested them of much that was disagreeable.
The act was peculiarly objectionable from its interfering
with the privileges of the House of Commons, which had
delegated the power, not only of levying rates, but
of nominating officers. But there was one power
more objectionable than another possessed by the
Poor Law Board, namely, the power to make regu-
lations which had the effect of law throughout
the kingdom. He complained also of the mode in which
the money collected for the poor was dealt with by the
guardians, who too frequently consulted their interests in-
stead of those which were entrusted to them. The manner
in which relief was administered was in some cases very de-
fective, particularly in regard to the Irish who were cruelly ex-
pelled from the country where they expended their strength
and energies. He repeated that there were constitutional
objections to the bill, and he thought it would be most de-
sirable to consider the matter carefully, in order that next
year they might be in a position to legislate in a satisfac-
tory manner on this important subject.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT said that he agreed in some of
the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Bazley), but he
objected to the limitation which he proposed. He did not
think it necessary to restrict the continuance of this bill to
one year in order to remedy the evils which were admitted,
for though its continuance were extended to five years the
Government could institute inquiries into the operation of
the system and bring forward measures for its improvement.
In any attempt to ameliorate the existing system, the
house would not only be willing but eager to legislate on
the matter. Ho thought that inquiries should be made
with regard to the different workhouses in the kingdom,
in order to ascertain if improvements could not be intro-
duced, and also whether a central board could be dispensed
with, to the benefit of the administration of the Poor Law.
If the committee, to whom this inquiry was confided, were
ofopinion that the board should be abolished, or that any
other alterations should be introduced, or made any report,
the house would then be in a position to legislate, but
he considered no advantage would result from

the adoption •f the motion of the honourable
member (Mr. Bazley). He hoped that the right hon. mem-
ber (Sir G. Lewis) would accept the continuance of this bill
for five years, with the understanding that he would intro-
duce a measure on the subject next session, or that, at all
events, the Government would not offer any impediment to
any other hon. member who might be desirous of bringing
in a measure with a view to the improvement of the exist-
ing system.. He concluded by supporting the clause.
Mr. PIGOTT agreed with the last speaker, that the best
mode of dealing with the question would be the appoint-
ment of a committee of inquiry.
Mr. DEEDES considered that the continuance of the
bill only for the year would not be desirable, but at the
same time he thought five years was too long a period for
such continuance, as the latter might have the effect of
shelving any satisfactory settlement of the question for
some years. He suggested as a middle course that the bill
should be continued for three years.
Lord FERMOY said that unless the right hon. gentle-
man (Sir G. Lewis) gave a distinct pledge that there should
be a committee of inquiry next session he should support
the amendment. There was dissatisfaction with the work-
ing of the system, which was ascribed to the Central Board,
and it was necessity that there should be an enquiry.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said that there was already sufficient
information on this subject without the inquiry in question
being instituted. He alluded to the elaborate report as to
the working of the Board from 1854, and there was an ad-
mirable synopsis on this subject recently published, which
gave a full account of the working of the system since the
Poor Law Board was established. He denied that the
central board had given general dissatisfaction, for out of
610 Unions under 100 had petitioned against this board, of
which 40 were merely directed to modifications. These
petitions were chiefly got up in London, and were
of a sectarian character, arising from the admission
of Roman Catholic chaplains into workhouses. The
Poor Law Board had given security to the landed pro•
perty of this country by its admirable administration, against
the heads of which, no matter what party had been in
power, no complaint had been preferred. (Hear, hear.)
It had also effected a saving in the expenditure during the
last twenty years of £30,000,000, besides an additional sav-
ing in regard to litigation of no less than £150,000 a-year.
Mr. DUNCOMBE denied that there was any sectarian
feeling involved in the presentation of the petitions against
the continuance of this bill beyond one year, in illustration
of which he referred to some of the large families in Fins-
bury who had presented such petitions. Ho considered
that inquiry was necessary and should not be delayed.

Mr. DEEDES defended and eulogised the Poor Law
Board, and opposed the amendment.
Mr. ADDERLEY supported the clause, but advocated

an inquiry.

Sir W. MILES said he thought the time had arrived
when there should be a full and fairinquiry into the opera-
tion of the poor-law and the board. If that were conceded
he thought it would satisfy all parties, and he advocated
the continuance of a central authority.
Mr. VILLIERS said ithat he had delayed addressing
the house until he had an opportunity of hearing the:senti -
ments of hon. members on this subject. In the objections
that had been made against the lengthened continuance of
the bill, he had heard nothing whatever to alter his opinion
as to the efficiency of the Poor Law Board
and he adverted to various select committees
which had sat since the establishment of the board, in re-
ference to the administration of the poor law. Several
amendments had been made and most important results
realised by this central board. The objections to the board
came from those who considered that they no longer re-
quired the surveillance of the central authority, and
were desirous of restoring the local boards, by
having elective officers for the administration of the
Poor-law. All the improvements that had been effected
were through the agency of the Central Board, and at the
time when they assumed power there were numerous evils

which had arisen out of that system of local management
to which some hon. members were desirous to revert. At
the period to which he alluded some 12,000 or 14,000 parishes
were vieing with each other to escape from the burdens
of supporting their own poor, and were endeavouring to
impose these on other parishes. He did not shrink from
any inquiry, but he thought they would be most unneces-
sarily throwing discredit on the central board if they agreed
to the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Bazley). There
was nothing said in the press against the central board, and
until the 2d of June there was not a single petition presented
against it. These petitions originated in the metropolis with
those guardians who considered that the central authority
should be limited, and he saw the original missive which
emanated from the, etropolis, calling on the guardians for
their co-operation. Only about 60 unions out of 670 had
presented their petition, and not a single petition proceeded
from any representative of the poor or any ratepayers.
Under these circumstances he appealed to the committee to
reject the amendment.

Sir G. LEWIS defended the Central Board, and opposed
limiting the continuance of the bill, but consented to the
appointment of a committee of inquiry next session.

Col. W. PATTEN advocated the duration of the act
being limited to three years.
Sir J. SHELLEY bore his personal testimony to the
advantages which the poor-law board had conferred, but
considered that in the altered state of the country the pre-
sent staff of the poor-law board was unnecessary, and that
the inquiry should take place ne st session.
Mr. BRIGHT contended that the hon. member for Man-
chester (Mr. Bazley) did not wish to offer
.any side-blow to
local authority, and trusted that the committee would come
to a division.
Lord PALMERSTON could not concur in the pro-
position of. the hon. member (Mr. Deedes) for
'shortening the duration of the bill to
.three years.
Her Majesty's Government were quite prepared
next session to move for a committee of inquiry. It was
not necessary that the duration of the act should be reduced
in order to effect any alterations that might be deemed de-
sirable, unless it were contemplated by hon. members to
I abolish, the Central Board altogether, If the inquiry re-