The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-26 00:00:00

POOR-LAW.

The order of the day for the further consideration 01
the Poor-law Amendment Bill was then read.

Sir J. GRAHAM proposed certain verbal alterations
in several clauses, which were agreed to.
Captain PECHELL moved the omission of clause 11,
which placed parish apprentices under the control of the
Poor-law Commissioners. Ile considered the vk hole
clause was totally inapplicable to the sea service. The
clause was not only looked upon as an interference by
boards of guardians, but by the mercantile service.
Sir JA MES GRAHAM said that the clause had
been fully considered and discussed on a former occa-
Aion, and he could not, therefore, consent to its omis-
sion. The clause was not intended to apply to merchant
seamen apprentices. It was intended to introduce a
Seamens Service Amendment Act, which would con-

tain a clause that would altogether supersede this clause,
so that the Gallant Officer need not entertain any ap-
prehension of the interference of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners.• He hoped the House would adhere to the
opinion of the Committee, and not allow- the clause to
be admitted.

Mr. WAKLEY considered the clause about the best
in the Bill. It was inserted, he was coovinced, from
teelings of humanity, and all he was afraid of was; that
it did not go far enough. 'The clause was a most ame-
liorating clause, and one for which Ministers ought to
receive the commendation of that side of the House, and
not their opposition. He trusted the House would re-
:ain the clause, under the conviction that something
more would be done for a class of persons who were the
Most ill used in the empire.
Captain PEC HELL then withdrew his amendment
without a division. The Gallant Member then pro-
posed a proviso to the effect that the Act should not apply
to poor persons bound to the sea service, -or interfere
with the Merchant Seamens Act.
Sir J. GRAHAM would consent to the proviso as far
as it related to the non-interference with the Merchant
Seamens Act.
The proviso, as amended, was then agreed to.
Sir J. GRAHAM then proposed- certain verbal
amendments in clause 26. The words in that clause
were so wide, that they might lead to abuse. The altera-
don he proposed had met with the sanction of his lion.
Friend the Member for Norfolk.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
Mr. WAKLEY should like to see the clause in print
before he decided on it, and asked when the Bill would
be read a third time ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Bill would be read a third
time to-morrow ; but if there should be any doubt on the
matter, he was ready to lay the clause on the table in
order that it should be printed and in the hands of Hon.
Members before it passed. The clause had-the full con-
currence of the Hon. Member for Norfolk.
Mr. WAKLEY implicitly believed that the Right.
Hon. Gentleman fully intended to give effect to the
clause, but he was not sure that, as altered, it would be
sufficient for the purpose. If the Right lion. Gentleman
would assure him of that fact, he would not say another
word on the matter.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the clause, as worded by the
Hon. Member for Norfolk, would have been wholly in-
verative, and for that reason alone he had altered it.
He suggested
.that, perhaps, it would be better he should
have the clause printed to-night, and placed in the hands
if Hon. Members, and any objections to it might be
urged to-morrow.
The words were then inserted pro forma, and agreed
to the clause to be passed to-morrow.
Mr. HAWES then moved the addition of a clause
regulating the power of the Commissioners with respect
to the payment of disputed accounts. As there was
some difficulty in wording the clause, the Hon. Member,
after some conversation, withdrew it, in order to move
it in an amended form on the third reading.
Captain PECHELL then moved the insertion of the
following clause :—" Provided always, that when the
relief of the poor has been hitherto administered in any
parish or parishes by guardians or directors appointed
under a local Act; and not -by overseers of the poor, if
such parish or parishes according to the last enumeration
of the population, published by authority of Parliament,
contain more than 20,000 persons, it shall not be lawful
to include such parish or parishes in any such district
for the 'audit of accounts ; and in every such parish or
parishes, provided such parish or parishes have not at
present auditors elected under the provisions of an Act
passed in the second year of the reign of King William
the Fourth,- intituled, 'An Act fur the better re-
gulation of Vestries, and the appointment of Au-
ditors of Accounts in certain parishes of England and
Wales,' the ratepayers -thereof shall, within forty days
after the passing of the Act, prect ed to elect in vestry
some one person who shall thenceforward act as sole-
auditor of all accounts whatsoever of any guardians or
directors, vestrymen, or other officers or.boards having
any control over any part of the parochial expenditure
of such parish or parishes relating to the poor, and they
shall fix a salary to be paid to such auditor out of the
poor-rate of such parish or parishes, and such auditor
shall continue in office until. he be dismissed by the
guardians or directors ; and every auditor so appointed
shall exercise and fulfil, with regard to all the accounts
of such parish or parishes, all rights, powers, and duties
to be exercised-and fulfilled by auditors to be appointed
under the authority of this Act ; provided also, that
the accounts of such parish or parishes shall be audited
once, at least, in every six months (that is to say), after
the 25th day of March and the 20th day of September,
in every year, after due notice given in the manner
hereinbefore provided."

Lord A. HERVEY seconded the clause. He did not
want to deprive the Commissioners of the powers which
they now possessed, but he hoped he would not be ac-
cused of factious opposition if he resisted the extension
of their power. The effect of the audit clause in the pre-
sent Bill was to deprive all populous parishes governed
by local. Acts from having the control of their own ac-
counts: This would entirely annihilate the independence
of those places which were governed by -local Acts.
There was nothing in the ..modo in which those places
under local Acts were governed to justify the Committee
in deprivingthena of the control over their accounts. He
knew this was the case in the place he had the honour of
representing. Be trusted that the Right Hon. Baronet
would alter his opinion on this subject while there was
yet time.—(Hear, hear.)

Sir J. GRAHAM said that he could scarcely regret
the renewal of this discussion, sinceit afforded them the
opportunity of listening to the excellent speech of his
Noble Friend. But he could not, after fully considering
the subject, agree to the proposition of the lion. and
Gallant Member, which was so well supported by his
noble colleague. Both the lion. Members for Brighton
referred to the excellent way in which the accounts of
the town of Brighton were managed. He was placed in

a cross fire between them, but it did so happen that he
had an account of a meeting, held in Brighton-on the
21st, in which, on Mr. Holfbrd, who had been auditor,
made a speech. He did not know to %%hat party Mr. Bol-
ford belonged; but that gentleman,in his speech, said that
there were a great many items in the accounts which
were unauthorised by law ; that the expenses of getting
up meetings and petitions were paid out of the rates
that on one occasion 501. had been raised to pay certain
expenses of going to Court—(Laughter)—and that he
knew hundreds and thousands had gone through their
hands for matters which he was certain were illegal.
It was not enough that the ratepayers should have the
power of appointing an auditor, the question was who
should have the power of dismissing him ? He hoped
the House would confirm the decision to which it had
already come, by a large majority.
Mr.:WILLIAMS regretted that the Hight Hon. Be.
ronet had expressed his intention to stand by the Bill U'
its present shape. The great objection to the Govern-
ment clause was, that it introduced an officer into.
parishes to be paid out of the rates, at the discretion of
the Poor-law Commissioners.

Mr. DARBY opposed the clause.
Mr. MUN'I'Z supported the clause. He did not know
any one who could be so safely intrusted with this-uitr
ter as the ratepayers themselves.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For Captain Pechell's clause
Against it 52
Majority against the clause —42
Captain . PECHELL admitted that, although the
Right Hon. Gentleman had not consented to all the
alterations proposed, he had conceded many of them.
He should offer no further opposition to this Bill, think-
ing it desirable that it should now pass through the
House as speedily as possible.
The Bill was then ordered to be engrossed, and read
a third time to-morrow.
The Joint Stock Companies Registration and- Regula-
tion Bill was brought ap for a third reading.
The Bill was read a third time and passed.
RAILWAYS BILL.
Mr. GLADSTONE moved the order of the day for
third reading of the Railways' Bill.
This Bill was also read a third time and passed, after
one verbal alteration.
The Earl of LINCOLN moved the third reading of
the Duchy of Cornwall Bill.—lt was read a third time
and passed. •
The Duchy of Cornwall Lands Bill was also read a
third time and pasied.
Sir J. GRAN AM moved the third reading of the Leo-
turers' and Parish Clerks' Bill.—lt was read and passed.
Sir G. CLERK moved the third reading of the Three'
and-a-Half per Cents. Bill. It also was read and invoice.
The Report on the Turnpike Trusts' Bill was broOght
up and received.
Sir J. GRAHAM mentioned some alterations Which
he had made in this Bill, the most important of which
were the obliteration of clauses 7,9, and 95 froth the
Bill ; also the power given to Turnpike Boards in eltmse
85. The alterations also gave the Commissioners in-,
creased powers over trusts: Also other alteration's ef
merely verbal nature. -
• Mr. COLLETT wished to knoW what interest was-to
be paid for the 25,0001. proposed to be raised by the 13111.
Sir J. GRAHAM replied, five guineas per cent.
Mr.. VIVIAN expressed his satisfaction at the. altera-
tions which had been effected in the Bill by the Right
Hon. Baronet.
The Bill was then recommitted, and passed through
Committee.
Mr. WILLIAMS called the attention of the House to
a petition which he had presented a short time tiOei
praying the House to place the cost of the maintenance
of a certain bridge in Carmarthenshire on the ce,ttnLY‘
rate.

Col. TREVOR did not think the prayer of the Pe'
tition ought to be granted. He would, however, bring
the subjEct under the consideration of the bench of we!
gistrates at quarter sessions in Carmarthunshire. a
After some further discussion, the clause was agree

to, as were the remaining clauses. red
The report v% as then received, and the Bill was or e
to beread a third time to-morrow.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MIDDLESEX).
Sir J. GRA HAM moved the committal of the Critat- •
nal Justice (Middlesex) Bill.
Mr. MACKINNON objected to the measure on the
ground that its provisions were altogether unknriwn- to
the law as it at present stood. He wholly objected te
the appointment of the chairman being -in the. Crow
because the principle, if admitted, might be apPht
throughout the country. He did not wish to detain tPe
House upon the question. but he had another objectien;'.
the City of London was exonerated from all e.. 1:
pense, and the rate was placed upon the county of
dlesex. Making the chairman independent of the othra
magistrates would produce great anomalies. He woe',
pay no regard to their opinion, and they would b
equally regardless of his. _if
Mr. WILLIAMS said this Bill entailed a heu'i
charge upon the public. Why should the Chairman u„
the Middlesex Quarter Sessions have a salary „„at,
more than the Chairman in any other county? .I'7
Westminster Sessions were to be abolished altogether;
and the business transferred to Clerkenwell ; the poe
of Westminster would thus be put to the greatest ine°l;
venience. The appointment of this new officer gave
new facilities for the trial of oft nders, as the chairtnam:
was bound by the Act under which the sessions of t?
Central Criminal Court was held, as much as the chat :;
man was under the old system. The whole objection;
purpose of the plan was to carry out the more genefP
adoption of the Right Hon. Baronet's plan of the serS:
rate system of imprisonment. He was aware that this
question would be supported by the Government. - The
Hon. and Gallant Member for Westminster, and
Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe).
attended, night after night, to oppose the. Bill, and hblic
gretted they were hot then present. A sense of Pune,
duty compelled him to oppose the Bill. If it Ore tide
cessary, the City of London, he believed, would be re,‘lle
to establish another court, or even two. There vajiiii
other objections which might be urged against the
pre
but from the appearance of the House he thought tli-
would trot be much use in going to a division. ' hcs
Mr. WAKLEY said that though two long spcee"i„
had been made on this subject, he had heard no facts
induce the House not to go into Committee. What were
nt
the facts ? It was notorious that the gaol of Newg;ie,
was in a most wretched condition, and that the bite
soners there were most inconveniently crowded, W ;;$
Middlesex Bridewell was nearly empty, and fer 00.
reason, that the magistrates of Middlesex could Po
send prisoners to it. Be had heard several comphlll,:e,
ma* by jurymen with regard to the time they were ",,
tamed at the Central Criminal Court. The cost of
casc4nAltart Court amounted on the average to- 21 laip
At the Sessions it was only it. That was a great r,
ference. The Hon. and Learned Member for Roclu-stei„
who practised at the Sessions: and at the Central Crib
nal Court, and Who had remained-in town for a weekca
t,is
account of it, had authorised him to say that it Was
intention to give the measure his support.
Mr. BROTHERTON thought that such a Bill ouglibt!
not to be introduced at such a late period of the nigh
He objected to the measure also because the chairing
was to be paid out of the public funds.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that no Member of the 1101
ought to be more desirous that the House should not
prolong its sittings than himself: But this Bill ivae
;5,15
important one, which he thought ought to be passed t,
session. With regard to the fund from which the eb,,el„o
man was to be paid, that was matter of detail, and n"'",„
they came to it, he thought he could show the lineic,
that he ought to be paid out of the public purse. -I" p
the appointment of any particular person, he would heeio
also from that subject ; but if the person was paid„,„.eul
of the public funds, the appointment of course liu"be
rest with the Government. The absurdity of tar
present system had been pointed out by the lion. gedf,
ber for Finsbury, and loudly called for a rove of
The Bill now introduced would prevent the Pe/
lie
Newgate from being so crowded, and the prisoners it
were committed for trial would be speedily tried.
would be a great saving to the county of Middleel;
The only objection againq the Bill which he heard, ne,
that bugbear word "centralisation." That was the ht
objection which he heard against the Bill. He thoilAti",
it was full time to prevent the evening sittings at,‘„tht
Central Criminal Court.—(Hear, hear.) The Pbe
Hon. Baronet then read a letter from the Midlle,hs-or
Magistrates, and concluded by saying he hopear •
would be permitted to go into Committee on then"'
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
On clause 1 being proposed, Ws3
Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the clause, *hie ha:
passed without further opposition, as were the 0t be
clauses of the Bill up to clause 9, which referred to
chairman's salary. Prty
Mr. BROTHERTON objected to the clause, and out
posed the following omission, as an amendmeut,
of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Reit° or
He moved that the salary be paid out of the cone
rates.
,„,ere
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, if' the amendment "oil!
carried, it would have the effect of defeating, the
altogether. If the salary were paid out of the el
rates, it would have the effect of making the 131
private one.
clew'
Mr. BROTHERTON said he did not wish to
the Bill ; but considered this provision so obno%
that he would divide the House upon it:
The House then divided, %lieu there appeared--
For the clause
• •
For the amendment 8
I‘.:ajority
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause
Clause 11 was emitted. were,
Clauses 12, 13, 14, and the remaining clans—repot'
agreed to, with a few verbal amendments, and the
was ordered to he received to-morrow. ddine'
The Marriages (Ireland) Bill was read a seenn, ,
and ordered to be committed on Monday. .
The Books and Engravings Bill was read a
time, and ordered to b committed te• morrow. „d
The Militia Pay Bill was la ad a se,_ond time, an
dered to be committed on ond•
bge)
9( u
The report of the GrandM Jury . Presentment
Bill was received.

ATTORNEYS' CLERKS. .11 for
Sir G. CLERK moved for leave to bring ill a Bill
t°
the relief of clerks to attorneys who have Oinittjesting
enrol their contracts; and fm'amending the Ito`
to the enrolment of such contracts; and to the di'a
of such clerks in certain cases.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill. A iy,S);
CUSTOMS ACCOUNTS (NEW SOUTH ~sUe"
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQU.D" t°
for Lave to bring in a Bill to dear up doubts ns,O,OS
regulation and audit of the acck.unts of the Ctqe j3ill.
ear South Wales.-=Leave was given to brill.: in
The House then adjourned, at Half-pest Twelve.

HOUSE OF Lc)Rps, July 25'•
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSV. tlit4
Lord REDESDALE moved, according to ro,tiec,auce
e standing order, u hich requires the De
five Peers on Committees on Prl,,"te