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

iNIPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Viscount Lawton's Estate, Llangollen and Corwen Rail-
way, and Farringdon Railway Bills were read a third time
and passed.

STORES FOR INDIA.

The Earl of ELLE NBOROUGH gave notice that on
an early day he should r.sk for certain information relative
to the transmission of between £30,000 and £40,000 worth

of perishable stores, equal to 15 years' supply, which had
been sent out to India.
THE LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAIL-

WAY.

The Earl of MALMESBURY regretted he was una-
voidably absent when the discussion on this bill occurred a
few evenings ago. This company was bound by Act of Par-
liament to make a double line of railway from Southampton
to Dorchester after the receipts should have reached a cer-
tain amount. The subject was one of the greatest import-
ance, because the late Duke of Wellington was of opinion
that a double line of rails would be of great importance
in case any offensive military operations took place. The
company had openly and unblushingly broken the engage •
ment entered into, and he trusted the Government would
see that the compact was fully carried out.
Earl GRANVILLE thought the noble lord had exag-
gerated the case. There was even doubt whether the re-
ceipts of the company had amounted to such a sum as to
oblige them to construct the double line from the points re-
ferred to. He would, however, take care that the subject
was brought under the attention of the Board of Trade.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was of the utmost
importance that railway companies should be compelled to
carry out all their provisions.
Lord WYNFORD said he merely wished this bill to be
postponed. He thought that the statement that the re-
ceipts had not come up to the amount stated was ridi-
culous, as the sum wanting to make up the amount did not
amount to a hundred pounds.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said the arrangement
with this company was of the nature stated. He did
not think it fair to say the company refused to
carry out the agreement, and in the •vent of the Board
of Trade being of opinion that the double line of rails ought
to be laid down, on tto intimation of that sort being sentr•to
the directors, he did not think they would object to carry
•ut the original agreement. It was true a requisition
had been sent to the directors, but to which no answer had
yet been returned. He did not think, until there was
positive proof that the sum agreed upon had been reached,
and that the company had refused to perform their part of
the contract, Parliament could interfere.
The subject then dropped.
BLEACHING AND DYEING WORKS BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill, which was
reported with an amendment.

LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT
(AMENDMENT) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
CENSUS BILL.
The house then went into committee on this 'sill.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH entered into a minute
examination of the bills on this subject for England and
Ireland. He objected to the clause providing for a religi-
on,' census which had been allowed to remain in the Irish
bill after being omitted from the English. The noble lord
also pointed out another imperfection in the machinery, by
which the amount of the population was ascertained; no
provision being made for ascertaining the effect of emi-
gration, which he was of opinion ought to be included in
the bill. He concluded by moving the omission of the re-
ligious clause from the census bill for Ireland.
Lord MONTEAGLE said he could not understand why
the clause touching the religious tenets of the population
had been expunged. He did not think that in asking for
such a statistical return, it could be construed into an
encroachment upon religious freedom. He was afraid it
was owing to other causes, namely, sectarian jealousy, that
the clause had been taken out of the bill.

After a few words from several noble lords, the amend-
ment was withdrawn.

The bill then passed through committee.
CENSUS (ENGLAND) BILL.
This bill passed through committee. •
QIEEN'S PRISON BILL.

Lord WODEHOUSE moved the second reading of this
bill.

The motion was agreed to.
The Labourers Cottages (Scotland) Bill was read a
third time and passed.
The Coast of Africa, &c., Act Amendment Bill was
Ana 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 BROUGIIAM 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 tho 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 witnes--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 s emedy. He then quoted
the report of the Law C3mmissioners in favour of the prin
ciple he was proooeding upon, and concluded by moving
the second reading of the bill.
Lord WENSLEYDALE objected to the bill, en 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 ball, because when they had admitted the propriety of
counsel appearing on behalf of a prison% 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 eould 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 he 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 LORD CHANCELLOR said there were cases
wherein the summing up of evidence by council for the
prisoner might be essential to the du 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 Sootch 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 divided. 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 GRANVILLE, wa;read
a amend time.

Their lordships then adjourned at giro riiinutoo to eight
o'clock,

HOUSE OF COMMONS. YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 20 minutes after 12
o'clock:

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' amendments to the following bills were con-
sidered and agreed to :--Hay Railway, Horsham and
Guildford Direct Railway, and Macclesfield Gas Bills.
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 bringforward 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. He 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 thebenefit 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 of 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 thebest
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
samo 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 &middle course that the bill
should be continued for threw years.

Lord FERMOX 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 AQQVSsay that there should be an enquiry.
Mr. A. OSBORNE said that there was already sufficient
information on this subject without the inquiry in question
being instituted, Re 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
640 -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 Doman 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 ono year, in illustration
of which he referred to some of the large families in Fins-
bury who had presented such petitions. He 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, bat 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 that he had delayed addressing
the house until ho 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 Lon. 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 i hrowing discredit on the central board if they agreed
to the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Bailey). 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 metropoliswith
those guardians who considered that the central authority
should be limited, and he saw the original missive which
emanated from the metropolis, 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.
Mr. E. JAMES said that the right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Villiers) had represented the Poor-law Board as a model ;
but if so, it was most unfortunate that it had been subjected

to an agitation against its authority, and that it was be-
lieved evils had arisen from its maladministration. The
right honourable gentleman (Mr. Villiers) had referred
to different inquiries that had taken place into
the administration of the Poor Law since the

appointment of the central board, but that only proved
that there had been evils under the system, and the opiniuns
expressed relative to the bill proved that these evils had not
been remedied, and therefore that there should be an
inquiry. It was strongly objected to the Poor-law Board
that it had the power of dismissing officers appointed
by local boards, or reinstating them when they had been
dismissed by the guardians. There were also complaints
in reference to the right of appeal and other matters, and
he thought there should be a specific promise that the com-
mittee in question should be appointed.
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 aci
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 nest 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
abolish the Central Board altogether. If the inquiry re.
sulted in a recommendation for alterations these could be
adopted, but he most strongly deprecated anything that
would tend to doing away with the Central Board.
After a few words from Mr. LOCKE,
Mr. UAZLEY th are w his amendment, and said he
would vote for the proposition of the hon. member (Mr.
Deedes).
After some further discussion, which Was frequently in-
-46 DiTide," ate committee divided OW
terrupted Pi cries of