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

'as anxious to prevent interference with the Local Act
of Birmingham he was therefore a Reformer. He
begged pardon for having trespassed so long on the at
tention of the House, but he had felt it his duty to take
the earliest opportunity ofistating his views on this:sub-
ject.
Mr. HAWES regretted that the Hoe. Member for
Birmingham had fallen into the old exaggerations in
reference to the administration of the poor-law. It had
been said that the old law had been greatly mitigated,
but he thought that the real mitigation which they were
to expect from it would arise from- the temper and spirit
is which the law would be carried out. In the speech
cf the Hon. Metither who had just spoken there was a
singular abstinence front reference to facts. The Poor-
law Commissioners in 1839, in addressing the Govern-
ment, had interpreted the law just in the same way as
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had in-
terpreted it in the observations which he had recently
made to the House. If the workhouse were dreaded by
the poor, it was the fault of the guardians, and not of
the law. It was made so by interpretation and ex-
aggeration, and not by the administrators of the law. In
Scotland the relief of the poor cost as much as eight
shillings a head for the whole population. The law.had
b?en called arbitrary and unconstitutional; but_ he could
loot conceive how that could be the case when the powers
of the. Commissioners were all conferred by Parliament.
Ile hoped these discussions would have the effect of im-
yressing en boards of guardians the necessity of carrying
out this law in the best possible manner. He did not
concur in the opinion that any harshness had been mani-
fested by the Commissioners;
Sir J. GRAHAM said, in the early stages of the law
the Commissioners had delegated too often the power of
writing to one who expressed his opinions in an abstract
planner, and somewhat too harshly.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said that, though he did not wish
to seo the Commission abolished at once, yet he could
sot help saying that a body appointed for limited pur-
poses was now too often regarded as a permanent insti-
tution of the country. He believed Parliament had
haver contemplated more than that they should be a
means of carrying the new system into effect.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS invited Hon. Members to look
Pt the wording of the local Acts, where there was no
controlling power. There .11a,1 never been any com-
plaMts respecting the improper working of those Acts.
Why, then, should they doubt that the Poor-law Amend-
ment Act might be carried out in a satisfactory manner
ithout any Commissioners to superintend its working?
What was the expense attendant upon this Commission?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and
his two secretaries cost the.country 26,000/. ; the Co-
lonial Secretary and his two under-secretaries cost it
24,000 L ; but the cost of this Commission amounted to
sloro than both these sums, namely, 33,0004
Mr. MILNES asked those who had paid attention tothe
working of this Commission whether it had not striven
rather to discourage than to promote the exercise of vo-
bintary charity ? (Hear, hear.) He believed the prin-
ciple of the poor-law would never be favourably received
is this country, unless it were felt that it was but the
minimum of what the State thought it right that the poor
should obtain from their richer fellow-subjects.
Captain PECHELL said the continuance of the
Commission was defended on the ground that they had
other duties devolved on them besides the administra-
tion of the poor-law ; but, in his judgment, hat defence

is very unsatisfactory. Such additional duties formed
no ground for continuing the Poor-law Commission.
He was in favour of the abolition of the Board of Com-
nlissioners, because he thought the law could be more
satisfactorily carried out without their interference.
Mr. BORTHWICK said the praise bestowed by the
Fight Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State on the
Commission all seemed to rest on its having counteracted
the principles which gave it birth.
Mr. NEWDIGATE said ho should vote with the
Ilon. and Gallant ()dicer ; but, considering the period
too short within which it was proposed to abolish- the
Commission, if the-motion were carried, he should him-
erlf, afterwards propose its elongation.
Colonel SIBTHORP said he had every respect for the
resent members of- her Majesty's Government. They
Is ere the best Administration which had ever existed since
he had sat in that House. They were, no doubt, honour-
s hie men, and sensible men—they were sometimes much
t,,o,sensible for. himself:—(Hear, hear.) But he must
t'ppose their measures when he disapproved of them,
and he certainly felt it his duty to do so in the present
instance.
The Hot me then divided, wheii there appeared—
Per the clause
Against it...
Majority....._ ty.....
_

Yr. VERNON proposed that the following
clause, which was read a first and second time, and
u-reed to, be added to the Bill. To insert after

cl tuse 55, ,-Al;ifbeit;n;:cted,iiitt if board of
guardians of any parish or union make application to
the said Commissioners, to direct, the appointment of a
pniil collector of the poor-rates in such parish or union,
or in any parish or parishes of such union, it shall be 1
lawful for the said Commissioners, by order under their
bands and seal, to direct the said board of guardians to
aipoint such a collector ; and the said Commissioners
shall have the same powers with respect to
inch collectors as are given to them by the said first
Tecited Act with respect to paid officers, or of
any persons other than the board of guardians of such
parish or union to appoint any such collector, and (ei-
eept when otherwise directed by the said Commis-
sioners) all appointments under such powers shall cease."
The Earl of ARUNDEL moved the following clause:-
41 And be it enacted, that the Commissioners do and
;gall order boards of guardians to take measures for
slowing all paupers, not being members of the Church
of... England, to attend their respective places of worship,
*hen within reasonable distance, at all reasonable times."
Sir J. GRAHAM felt that every facility ought to
bc. given to Roman Catholics in workhouses to attend
their respective places of worship, and he should be wil-
ling to attend to any representations which might be
made upon the subject. Instructions had been given by
the Poor-law Commissioners to secure the object sought
by the Noble Lord, and he hoped that under these cir-
ictunstances the clause would not, be pressed.
Mr. ESC.OI"I' hoped the Noble Lord would press the
clause.

Mr. DARBY wished to, see the principle which the
Noble Lord advocated carried out to the full extent.
,Mr. P. HOWARD supported the clause.
Mr. V. SMITH would recommend his Noble Friend,
teter the assurance given by the Right Hon. Gentleman
(E-ir J. Graham), not to press the clause to a division.
,The clause was then withdrawn. _ _

_Mr. S. O'BRIEN then proposed the clause which he
postponed in the morning, namely, "Provided
.e ways, and be it further enacted, that whenever it shall
94-pear to the board of any district school that the space
w;ithin 'such school is more than sufficient for the worn-
ik-Klation of poor children within the district for which
stidi school shall 11,,we been built, it shall and may be
lawful for such board, subject to the approval of the
Cemmissioners, to make order for the admis-
sion of so, many other children residing, in the said dis-
ti,Pt as shall seem expedient to such' board ; and
th 3 weekly provision for the Maintenance and educa-
tion of such children shall be fixed by the board at such
rate as shall
.in their judgment be amply sufficient to
ce rer every expense on account of such children." He
OH riot think, if the Right Hon. Gentleman should con-
sect to the admission of this clause, that he could have
ca.ise to regret it.
-Sir J. GRAHAM thought this was not a proper time
to resume a discussion on the important question of the
vs ional education of the poor. He thought this sub-
had, during the discussions on this Bill in
the present session, been fully and sufficiently argued,
an yet at the end of a protracted discussion the Hon.
Gentleman again opened this question. If the clause of
WI Hon. Member for Northamptonshire were agreed
W. its would hold out expectations that education was to
br provided fur the poor children of the district beyond
the limited number to be educated in the union work-
b., uses. It would also have the effect of destrovinc, the
▪ ans of education for the children of the industrious

':curers, for their children would be withdrawn from
1)-3 schools in which they now received education. He
it to be his duty most firmly to oppose the clause.
. Mr. HAWES was surprised that the Right Hon. Gen-
iJinan so decidedly opposed the clause now, the prin-
ciple of which he countenanced on a former occasion.
IV, did not oppose the clause on the ground of expense.
Tiro Might Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government
Lid entertained views similar to those -which were em-
'bodied in the clause of the Honourable Member for
Isi..rtharnpion. _ . .

6ir R. PEEL said he intended to 'support the views of
bi 3 Right Hon. Friend. 'He confessed he was strongly
impressed originally in faVour of the clause. It ap-
pelred to him that it would be an advantage to give an
opmtunity to the parents of poor children to afford them
tb,, benefits of education when they could not otherwise

,Te :dye it. Ile could. not attach' much weight to the
.oNection of its being unfavourable to the Esta-
.blkhed Church, for he thought it was beneficial, on
OP whole, to the Church, that the principles of
• hgion should be inculcated into the children. On
.conmunication with others, however, he found that by
▪ Nit% the least facilitieS to education in district schools,
a 2); would be rather impeding the voluntary principle
for the purposes of education—that they would be more
to check individual efforts for education; than pro-
f.m,,to the sum total of it. He was therefore unwilling to
act on his own impressions and the views he expressed
in

Mr. VERNON SMITH said thit he did not think
—th,‘ Right lion. Gentleman could he charged with in-
j consistency if he found reason to alter his opinion, but
tb, Right Hon. Gentlenian
.had not attempted to argue
the question. Ile merely said that the Bishop of London
gin,l others bad induced him not to put the views he for-
. mcrly entertained into practice. lie thought the House
sv,:!ild du better to rely on the arguments which the
~,ht Hon. Gentleman used in 18.41, than on the reasons
*licit he had given ter not carrying those views into

et 'at.
Ur. CHILD) RS and Mr. 31. MILNEs supported the

cause.
Mr. T. EGERTON opposed the proposition for im-
. p,sing a. tax for the education of children other than
. p upers.
AIr...DARBY also opposed the clause as impracticable.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN replied, and after stating
th it, though unsuccessful, he could not regret the turn.
. the discussion had taken, withdrew the clause.
• Sir J. GRAHAM in moving the introduction of two
' clauses, one to enable guardians to enter schools and
asylums as visitors, and to record their opinion of what
• thy saw, and the other to remove technical difficulties,
sail that it might be convenient if he should state to the
Rouse the course he intended to pursue. After the two
• clauses he had now proposed were agreed to, he should
propose that the further consideration of the
• report should be postponed to a future hour of
the day, and that. SA soon as they had gone through
Cc inmittee on the Controverted Elections Bill, then
be should propose that the first business be to pro-
d with the further consideration of the Poor-law Bill
27,e clauses were then agreed to,