The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-05 00:00:00

THE BANK CHARTER BILL.

On the reading of the Order of the Day for the third read-
ing of the Bank Charter Bill,
Lord WO RSLEY presented a petition against the Bill.
Mr. WODEHOUSE then rose to move the amendment of
which he had given notice, to the effect " that no tender in the
payment of money made in the silver coin of this realm, of any
sum exceeding the turn of 251. at any one time, shall be re-
Bnted in law or allowed to be a legal tender, within Great
ritain or Ireland, for more than according to its value by
weight, after the rate of ss. 2d. for each ounce of silver ;
and no person to whom such tender shall be made
shall be any ways bound thereby, or obliged to receive the
same in payment, in any other manner than as aforesaid, any
14w, statute, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding." The
Hon. Member, having read several long extracts in support of
his views form the evidence taken betare the Bullion Com-
mittee, proceeded to say that the measure was dangerous in
the extreme. He was upheld in his views upon this subject
by no less an authority than Mr. Herries. He was at a
loss to find upon what grounds the Hon. Member for Halifax
(Mr. C. Wood) and the Right Hon. Member for Portsmouth
( Mr. Baring) had given such a strong and energetic patronage
to this measure. They had both addressed the House in
laudatory terms of the Right Honourable Baronet's (Sir Ro-
bert Peel's) Bill, but neither of them had informed the
House of the precise reasons which justified their approval of
it. It was well to talk, as those Hon. Members and Mr. Jones
Loyd did, of approaches to perfection in their monetary system,
but in his (Mr. Wodehouse's) opinion, it would be much more
satisfactory to the country to prove that such approaches had
been made. In the whole of his (Mr. Wodehouse's) experi-
ence, he had never read such a farago of nonsense as that
which had been published upon this subject by Mr. Jones Loyd.
Sir R. PEEL said the clause was not in conformity with
the notice of the Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. WODEHOUSE said it was not.
Sir R. PEEL thought that a great part of the speech of the
Hon. Gentleman ought to have been addressed against the third
reading of the Bill. The clause would have been a very
good one if by the present law the legal tender in
silver was now above 251. ; but by the present law the legal
tender of silver was limited to 405. If they permitted 251. to
be a legal tender in silver, they would of course depreciate the
standard of value of silver. It was impossible for him, there-
fore, to accede to the proposition of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. HUME opposed the clause, as its effect would be to
depreciate the standard of value of silver. He should always
oppose the establishment of a double standard.
Mr. MUNTZ believed that if the clause were adopted, it
would not attain the object the Honourable Gentleman
had in view. Ho would take that opportunity of correcting
a misapprehension which had occurred with respect to what he
had said on a former occasion. Ile was represented to have
said that he advocated a depreciation in the currency. He had
never done this ; for he bad always believed that the depre-
ciation of the currency was one of the greatest frauds ever
committed on the public.
In answer to a question from Sir W. JAMES,
Sir It. PEEL said, that some new gold mines had recently
been discovered in Siberia.

Mr. P. M. STEWART thought the discovery would place

the Right Hon. Baronet's measure on a surer foundation than
it was before.

Sir W. JAMES explained.
Mr. WODEHOUSE in reply said, he had proposed this
clause in consequence of a conversation which ho had had only
two days ;t7u with Lord Ashburton. He would, however,
withdraw the motion, as the sense of the House appeared to
be against it.
The clause was then w ithdrawn.

Mr. TURNER then moved the following amendment at the
end of clause 9: —" And with a view to prevent loss to the
working classes, that from and after the passing of this Act,
the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, at
their bank or branch banks of issue, shall take, as of the
value of twenty shillings all sovereigns, and as of the value of
ten shillings all half sovereigns, tendered to them, which
equally balance in the scales, notwithstanding the same may
not turn the balance; and that any lots arising to the said
Governor and Company of the Bank of England from
the taking of such sovereigns or half sovereigns, shall
be deducted from the profit arising to the public
from any increase of the issues of the Governor and Company
of the Bank of England, before such profit be paid over to the
public. In line one, of clause 14, to expunge the words
" Provided always ;" and to insert at the end of line 11, of
clause 14 Provided always, that all special circumstance!
arising out of such contract or agreement be ex-
plained to such Commissioners of Stamps and
Taxes by one of the contracting parties to such
contract or agreement ; and that the said Commissioners of
Stamps and Taxes shall have power to take such special cir-
cumstances into their consideration in adjusting the average
under such contract or agreement." He proposed these amend-
ments in consequence of the loss which the public had sustained
in consequence of light sovereigns.
Sir It. PEEL said the amendment had nothing whatever to
do with the measure which had no reference to the coinage.
Mr. HUM E said the public had suffered severely by the
light sovereigns, and the Government should take some step to
prevent a recurrence of such a public injury and inconvenience.
He thought the. e hat been a great want of attention to the
public welfare in suffering the matter to lie so long neglected.
Mr. C. WOOD said he apprehended that at the present
moment there was very little inconvenience from light
gold. Whatever extent the evil might have gone to
some time back, it was a satisfaction to know that
it existed but to a very slight degree at the
present moment. The great point, however, now was for the
Government to take such measures as would, for the future,
effectually prevent any depreciation of the previous
metals. This was most material, and ought to be most scru-
pulously attended to by the Ministry:
The amendment then was, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. TURNER then moved to introduce into clause 11 the
words " that all special circumstances arising out of such con-
tract or agreement to be explained to such Commissioners of
Stamps and Taxes by one of the contracting parties to such
contract or agreement ; and that the said Commissioners of
Stamps and Taxes shall have power to take such special cir-
cumstances into their consideration in adjusting the average
under such contract or agreement." In 1841 the Bank of
England requested the firm in question to issue its Bank of
England's notes. The consequence of that was, that this bank
did use the Bank of England notes, together with its own, and
so put a quantity of its own notes out of circulation. The
effect was, that whereas the circulation of that bank was
72,0001. fin 1841, it fell to 51,0001. in 1842, to 30,000/. in
1843, and to 25,000!. in 1844. He thought this bank had a
claim for protection, and it was with a view to do justice he
proposed his resolution.
Sir R. PEEL thought it would be highly inexpedient to
give to the Commissioners the power of allowing certain banks
under peculiar circumstances to become banks of issue. He
did not think the special case made out in favour of the Bank
in question. There had been a full discussion of the principle
in the Committee, and he did not think the House would
consent to so great an alteration as the Hon. Gentleman pro-
posed to be made on the third reading.
Mr. TURNER then withdrew his clause.
The amendment was withdrawn.
Several verbal amendments were then agreed to, and the
Bill was read a third time.

On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. HUME rose, and said he regretted that the Right
Hon. Baronet had not rendered his measure complete by re-
pealing the legal tender clause.
Sir R. PEEL said he thought there was a sufficient reason
for not repealing the legal tender clause, by the inevitable dis-
turbance which it would produce in existing arrangements.
The Bill was then passed.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion hat the House go into Committee on this Bill,
Mr. F. FRENCH pot questions regarding the administra-
tion of the Irish poor-law, which
Sir J. GRA H AM, on the ground of their vagueness and his
unpreparedness, refused to answer.
Mr. COCHRANE moved, " That the new poor-law, though
improved by the proposed amendments, is still opposed to the
ancient constitution of this realm, and inadequate to the neces-
sities of the people." He very much regretted that the Right
Hon. Baronet had brought the amendments forward at se late
a period of the session. It was a measure which especially con-
cerned the lower classes, whose condition had of late so much
forced itself upon the consideration of Parliament. The pre-
sent poor-law was contrary to the ancient constitution of this
realm. The departure of the recent poor-laws from those
which formerly existed, was admitted by Lord Althorp in his
admirable speech on the introduction of the new poor-law.
That Noble Lord was in favour of out-door relief. Then how
came it that the practical operation of the present poor-law was
so harsh in its operation, and so contrary to the spirit of the
43d of Elizabeth? 11r. Pitt said the evils of the poor-law
were not in accordance with the spirit of the constitution; but
he coincided with Blackstone, who in his " Commentaries"
thus wrote A plan was formed in the reign of Queen Eli-
zabeth, more humane and beneficial than even feeding and
clothing of millions, by affording them the means, with proper
industry, to feed and clothe themselves. And the farther any
subsequent plans for maintaining the poor have departed from
this institution, the more impracticable and even pernicious
their visionary attempts have proved." And Mr. Canning con-
demned any precipitate course in altering the poor-laws in any
way not in accordance with the spirit in which it was instituted.
Every poor-law should have two objects in view—to relieve
the poor, without insulting their feelings and treating poverty
us a crime, and to make the poor thankful for the benefits
conferred by themode of its administration. He deprecated the
present system of cooping up the poor in workhouses, and the
classification that prevailed there, so much against the feelings
of human nature, and so destructive of the finer and tenderer
feelings of humanity. The bread they ate there was that of
bitterness, and the garments they were clothed in were the
garments of shame. Under the new poor-law, crime had won-
derfully increased, as had been seen from the Parliamentary
returns, which he would quote to the House. In 1836 the
amount of convictions in England was 14,700. In 1837,
when the new poor-law came into operation, 17,000; in
1838, 17,000; in 1839, 18,000; in 1840, 20,000; in 1841,
nearly 21,000; and in 1842, nearly 23,000 ; thus
showing a fearful increase of crime since the year 1836.
The cost of the support of the poor was eight millions in 1835,
and it was very little less now. This did not include interest of
sums borrowed for the erection of workhouses. The Act of
Elizabeth was based on the principle that, if a labouring man,
who was willing to work, should be thrown out of work, it was
the fault of the country. The present law, however, pro-
ceeded on the principle of throwing the labourer on his own
resources. The labourers were that class on which the pros-
perity of a nation depended. When the wages of the labourer
of the country were high, that country was sure to be pros.
perous. lie believed that a great portion of the distress which
existed in this country was owing to the great use of machinery
in our manufacturing districts. The consequence was
that an enormous amount of pauperism was thrown
on to the land. —( Hear, hear.) The manufacturers
benefited by the distress of the country, because they could
then command labour and reduce wages. He, for one, be-
lieved that our greatness amongst nations was not upheld by
the development of our manufacturing system. But even if it
were, lie thought that system ought not to be allowed to be
upheld at the expense of the happiness of the people. He
rather thought it ought to be sacrificed, if it were necessary to
do so, to secure the happiness of the people of the country.
The report of 1834, on this subject, stated that the poor were
idle, improvident, and vicious. He thought the refutation of
this was to be found in the results of the allotment system
wherever it had been established. In order to benefit the poor
of this country, it was essential that the machinery
employed in manufactures should be taxed for the
relief of the poor, and that the allotment system should be
generally established. He thought that our system of poor-
laws ought to be placed on the same footing as that which was
established by the Act of Elizabeth. No system of poor-laws
would be successful, unless it was founded on the Catholic
spirit which characterised the carrying out of the Act of Eli-
zabeth. The people of Scotland were• decidedly hostile to a
measure such as that of her Majesty's Government. By that
measure, the poor of the country were treated as a different
kind of beings to the other classes of society. The poor
had the same feelings and the same sympathies which they in
that House had, and it was a disgrace to those who would
attempt to treat them otherwise than as beings having the
same feelings and sympathies as themselves. He concluded by
placing the motion of which he had given notice in the hands of
the Speaker.
The SI'EAKER said there were only two amendments that
could be made on the motion that the order of the day be read,
namely, either to move another order of the day, or to move
that the other orders of the day be read.
Mr. COCHRANE was understood to move that the other
orders of the day be read.
Colonel SIBTHORP, in seconding the motion, said that he
agreed with everything that had fallen from his Hen. Friend.
He looked upon the present poor-law as brutal and uncon-
stitutional. The returns from all parts of the country showed
that there was a great increase of crime, which would not be
checked until the poor were placed in the enjoyment of those
rational amusements to which they were entitled as much as
the highest noble in the land. He would not occupy the
House in going over the same ground as his Hon. Friend. But
if the Bill went into Committee he would move an amendment
for the purpose of abolishing the Commission.
Sir JOHN GUEST made a few observations in reply to
Mr. Cochrane, but in a tone nearly inaudible. He asserted
that manufacturers were rated to the poor-rate, and he himself
paid one thousand pounds a quarter. lie disclaimed the charge
of avarice to which those were liable who maintained the corn-
laws for their own advantage.
Mr. BORTHWICK then moved an amendment, to the
effect that the Act of 4 and 5 William IV., commonly called
the new poor-law, was unconstitutional in principle, and
oppressive in operation, and that it is therefore expedient that
the said Act should be taken into consideration with a view,
not to its partial amendment, but entire reconstruction. He
wished the present oppressive and unjust law should be repealed,
and that in its stead should be enacted a wise, just, benevo-
lent, and catholic measure. The reproach of having departed
from the wise law of the 43d of Elizabeth lay with the late Go-
vernment and its supporters, who were placed on the very pin-
nacle of political economy. (He read a long extract from a
pamphlet by Lord Brougham, in which the Noble Lord ridi-
culed and condemned the project of Mr. Pitt, toenact a Bill by
which every poor man should be made comfortable in his own
home. The Noble Lord called this a frantic proposition. But
he (Mr. B.) considered such a proposition as consonant with
all the principles of English law, and immemorial usage. The
Noble and Learned Lord declared that the advisers of Eliza-
beth in preparing that Act (the 43d), were wholly ignorant of
all sound principles of legislation, and that they had laid the
foundation for extensive misery and pauperism, and the utter
extinction of every feeling of humanity from the breasts of the
poorer classes. He (Mr. Borthwick) could not agree with
the Noble Lord that Lord Bacon and the distinguished
philosophers and statesmen who advised that great Queen,
were ignorant of political philosophy, of morality, or religion.
The Noble Lord had said that the old law gave rise to agrarian
disturbances. But had there been no such disturbances since
the Bill was passed in 1834? Those disturbances were at least
as frequent and as terrible since that period, as they had been
before. The Bill had proved utterly inefficient for every ob-
ject which it was intended to effect. Rates had in many in-
stances been greatly increased, but without giving adequate
relief to the poor, or producing their content. He thought the
powers of the Commissioners were unconstitutional, and
placed the poor out of the pale of the Consti-
tution, leaving to the Commissioners an irresponsible
power over their liberties, and, in some instances, even over
their lives. If a man, who had lived for sixty years in honour-
able toil, dwelling in the cottage which he had inherited from
his father, happened to be a month or two unemployed, Lord
Brougham's humane Act directed, before he could even claim
the scanty allowance of the workhouse—just enough to keep
body and soul together—he must first sell the dwelling of his
fathers.—(Hear, hear.) The Act said to the rogue and the

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, JULY 5, 1644.

idler—" Look to the state this old man is brought to. Do you
wish to come to the same state? " But the rogue
would say—" No, I prefer crime, which may lead only
to a gaol, and that is far better than a workhouse."
That humane and constitutional law, so much eulogised by Lord
Brougham, gave the Commissioners a power •f raising money
without the consent of Parliament, which was beyond any pre-
rogative po isessed by the Crown. He would not go into a de-
tail of what he considered to be the causes of distress, which so
alarmingly prevailed since this law was passed in 1834. Th•
Act, instead of amending the administration of the old Act, was,
in reality, an Act to punish the idle and unindustrious, with
this misfortune, that it included the industrious poor in the
same category. He conclud. dby thanking the House for the
indulgence it had extended towards him.
Mr. FEHR AND seconded the amendment, but without
speaking upon it.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that after the speeches which had
been made it was expedient that he should address a few ob-
servations to the House upon the important subject then under
ifs consideration. And he would begin by frankly stating that
if, atter hearing all that had been said, and after duly consider-
ing much that had been written, he could come to
the conclusion that the existing law was hostile
in principle to the interests of the poor, no consideration upon
earth should induce him to oppose the motion for its re-con-
struction. Rut his experience told him, that the poor-law as
amended in the year 1843, had been useful to the working
classes ; and although, doubtless, it was, like every
other law, capable from time to time of modification,
still he frankly confessed that his judgment approved the
general results which had been produced by it. After taking
a very long historical review of the various poor-laws, front
their earliest origin to the last great amendment in 1834, the
Right Hon. Baronet contended that that amended Act was
identical in all its essential,provisions with the enactment of
Elizabeth, of which there was, in the present day,
so much talk, but which was, in fact, so little
understood by those who made a sort of stalking-
horse of it. Now, the Act of 1834, had been denounced as
unconstitutional by the Hon. Members for Bridport and
Evesham ; but it had not been stated by either of them what
was to be its substitute. Neither to the Act of Elizabeth, of
George the Ist, or any other Act were they to go back. Ne
substitute whatever was offered to them—nothing tangible
suggested ; but it was said, that in the matter of out-door relief
the present law was essentially different from that of Elizabeth.
This he (Sir J. Graham) denied. In the Act of 1834, there
was no denial of out-door relief.—( A loud " Hear, hear,"
from Mr. Ferrand.) He ( Sir J. Graham) was stating the
fact—the fact and the law. There was no provision in that
Act directing a denial of out-door relief. No less than one
million five hundred thousand persons in England
and Wales had, during the s ear 1842, received re-
lief, and a very considerable number of these person=
had received such relief in their own houses. Such was the
fact, and therefore the assertion that the law specially forbade
out-door relief at once fell to the ground. He lamented, with
every Hon. Gentlemen who heard him, that so large a pro-
portion of the population of England and Wales should have
required relief; but he rejoiced, as an Englishman, to think
that he lived in a country whose laws were so considerate and
humane as not only to provide this relief, but to authorise, to
direct, and absolutely to require its administration.—( Hear.
The Hon. Member who had just sat down said the honest,
industrious roor, should be provided for by the State. But
much depended in what sense the term " poor was used ;
if by " poor" he meant the honest, industrious labourer, who
was unable to obtain employment, then he entirely agreed with
him ; hut care should be taken that idleness should not be en-
couraged. The law in Scotland did not recognise the
claim of any able-bodied pauper to relief ; and such
had been the law there since the time of Charles the
Second. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridport
had in his speech alluded to the distress which prevailed in the
manufacturing districts. It was true great distress had
existed there, and great distress still existed there, but it should
be recollected that the population was very dense in these parts.
and unfortunately as population increased poverty became pro-
portionately more prevalent. The only way of properly and
efficiently meeting this evil was by multiplying the means of
productive industry.—( Hear, from the Opposition.) Heknew
what the Hon. Members on the ether sideof the House meant
by crying" Hear," but notwithstanding he asserted the principle
though they might differ as to the means of applying it. He
was willing to admit that any restrictive interference with
manufactures and machinery would be the greatest blow the
country could receive. He would not say that the present
law was perfect. It might require many amendments—it did
require some, but he felt satisfied that in the present state of
the country nothing could be more unwise than by a summary
resolution of this sort, to annul the only law in the statute-book
providing for the maintenance of the poor. Such a course
would be, he firmly believed, an impolitic and fatal course ;
and he hoped the House would take the more humane and
benevolent course—to revise the statute, and introduce the re-
quisite amendments.

Mr. STUART WORTLEY thought it was possible to
frame the present poor-law in conformity with the altered state
of society in which they now lived, and should therefore resist
a motion for the total repeal of the law. He would not say,
in the words of the Hon. Member for Evesham, that the
present poor-law was unconstitutional ; but he was willing
to admit that it was unsound, and if the Hon. Member for
Evesham would so far alter his resolutions, he would support
him. The Hen. Member quoted from several documents to
show that the unions had been formed without any regard
whatever to the population—sometimes they were too large,
and sometimes too small ; by the former, poor men were
obliged to perform long journeys to a workhouse for relief—by
the latter, the taxes on the rate-payers were made oppressive
almost beyond endurance. He quoted from the report of Sir
John Walsham in proof of what he stated, as to the desirable-
ness of having unions of a moderate size. After some further
observations, the Hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, that
if the alteration he suggested were adopted, he would vote
for the resolution of the Hon. Member for Evesham.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he owned that the speech of the
Hon. Member who had just sat down, very much surprised
him. He could very well understand the resolutions of the
Hon. Member for Evesham. It was plain and straightforward,
but he very much apprehended that the declarations of the
Hon. Member for Yorkshire were not in accordance with his
professions on the hustings and elsewhere. The complaint of
the Hon. Gentleman was, that the union workhouses were too
large, and this, he must confess, appeared to him (Lord J
Russell) a very extraordinary complaint. He thought the
Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, had answered
much that had fallen from the Honourable Member for
Evesham respecting this law. Hon. Gentlemen, in speaking
of this law in public, were very fond of indulging in vague as-
sertions. They described the law as oppressive and unconsti-
tutional. They talked about the unchristian system of sepa-
rating husband and wife. Now, it so happened, that there
was no such provision in the law ; but in the next place, he
would inform those Hon. Gentlemen, that in large workhouses
it was necessary, for mere decency, to adopt such a system. But
was this a new system ? No, it had been in existence long
before the new poor-law came into operation. The
Honourable Member for Evesham, in speaking of
this law, talked as though we had been living in a per-
fect state of happiness from the time of Elizabeth down
to the pasing of the new poor-law, and he wondered
that the Government of Lord Grey, and Lord Brougham in
particular, should have endeavoured to have disturbed that
which, for three hundred years, had been the cause of so
much happiness. No doubt it was a very wise law for the
time in which it was passed, but it was not intended that it
should remain unaltered through every change in society. The
Hon. Gentleman talked very much about its having been con-
ceived in a Catholic spirit ; but he (Lord John Russell)
thought tkat every law which was passed in the reign of Eliza-
beth was conceived in a Protestant spirit. But had this
law produced the happiness which Hon. Gentlemen opposite
talked so much about? He thought that a refe-
rence to history would show that it had not.
In the reign of William and Mary, and Queen Anue, great
complaints were made as to the operation of the new poor-law,
and frequent applications were made to Parliament for its
reform. In the year 1796 passed that law which the Hon.
Gentleman had so much commended, but which he (Lord
J. Russell) thought contained a great many evils. Did that
law meet with general approbation ? So far was this from being
the case, that immediately on the termination of the war, Com-
mittees of Inquiry were appointed on the subject. Various
alterations were proposed, but the evils complained of grew
greater and greater ; and in 1830 that law, which
had produced tumults and disorder in the country, was
repealed. It was found necessary, in consequence of
the state of the country, that a change should be made in
the law, and Lord Grey's Government undertook to effect
that change. It was very easy for persons to go about saying
that by this measure the poor of the country had been deprived
of the charity to which they were entitled. The fact was
otherwise. It was a degradation to the people to be obliged
to live on parish allowance instead of wages, for it reduced
them to a state of slavery, and any law which would have the
effect of placing them again in a state of indepen-
dent labour, was likely to prove in the end a
blessing to the country. That the law was difficult of operation
no one could deny. The object of the law was to give a
stimulus to labour—to get rid, if possible, of a system of allow-
ance and wages combined, and to give relief in cases of desti-
tution. He thought this was a sound principle, and he would
be sorry to see it departed from, for if they were to do so, it
would be only to bring back the many evils which existed prior
to 1830. He was sorry to find that so important a
measure as this had been delayed to so late a period
of the session. From what he had heard, he could not but
wonder that gentlemen should be found to pledge themselves
against a law, of the provisions of which they appeared to be
quite ignorant. He was glad, however, to find that the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State intended to persevere
wiih this measure. and he should give his cordial support to it.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY explained.
Sir W. JAMES opposed the measure, as one not founded
upon the principles of justice and morality. The Bishop of
Llandaff had told him that the workhouse system under this
Bill never would answer the purpose intended. But it was
said that it was wrong to agitate upon this subject, because
such agitation tended to make the poor discontented and mise •
rabic. But he could not agree with that argument, for he
was convinced that under the present law the wretchedness of
the people was rapidly increasing, and would go on unless the
Legislature returned to the old law. He knew that there were
many abuses in the old law which required correction. It
would be better to leave the poor entirely to the assistance of
private charity, than to lead them to look for such relief as the
present law
othreomee—aidst repeated cries of
(m
Cries of " Divide.")
Captain
" Divide," said he knew how difficult it was to obtain a hear-
ing in so impatient a House. But he would remind the Right
Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, that he had promised,
in the earlier stages of the Bill, that he would give every gen-
tlemangive an opportunity of stating his opinions in the present
stage.—(" Go on.") He was willing to' admit that the Bill
was greatly modified.
Still it retained many clauses which
he considered objectionable in the extreme—( Hear, hear)—
and, above all, he should feel it his duty to support every
proposition for getting rid of the authority of the Commis-
sioners.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") These gentlemen interfered
in the most vexatious way with the local management of the
parishes under their control. That interference extended even
to the apprenticing of the parish children.--( Hear, hear. )
And they were now attempting to control those parishes which
were already so well managed under Hobhouse's Act.--( Hear. )
He would recommend the Government to look at the discon-
tent which this measure occasioned throughout the country,
and the great unpopularity, and many election defeats, which it
occasioned to the late Governtnent. He would support the pro-
position of the Hon. Member for Evesham.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. S. CRA WFORD (who also was received with loud
cries of " Divide,") said that on so important an occasion he
had a right to claim the attention of the House.—( Hear, hear,
and Go on.) He would support the resolution of the lion.
Member for Evesham, and he hoped that the Hon. Gentleman
would resist any attempts to induce him to alter the terms of
it.—( Hear.) Those Commissioners possessed the most
unconstitutional powers, rendering altogether null and unavail-
ing the functions of the elective bodies—the boards of guar-
dians.—( Hear, hear.) The great principle of this Bill was to
terrify the poor man, by the horror of the workhouse, from
seeking relief until he was in the very last stage of destitution.
—( Hear, hear.) In the Tenth Report of the Irish Poor-law
Commissioners, it was stated that the law was going on most
satisfactorily. But what was the proof the: report gave of
this ? Why, that great numbers of people in the last stage of
destitution came to the workhouse so reduced by want, that
they died soon after their admission. That was the satisfactory
working of the law in Ireland ! People kept out of the work-
house as long as they could, and until famine overcame their
horrors. Was this fair treatment of the working.-classes? Was
it not most cruel and inhuman ?—( Cheers.) 'Under this law
in England, a new system of giving tickets had grown up, by

wcslmaeoeblaufronnebu. t
yrrney
ohrl,i ed—r
onh,
,(11,eteCue,pm,t e
hteehune:, dri
which the farmers were enabled to reduce the wages of their
'etc. chno)oetu mr
ateBb backre br
°yeo mu
wsa.ot
ml haene ado; ap)nr (el ylsupport
atihri mhn gy-
and riot, as was the case in the latter part of the reign of
Henry the Eighth, and down to the time when the present law
was passed.—( Hear, hear.) He entreated the House to look
to the condition of the working-classes at this moment, and to
consider seriously the claims of humanity and justice. He would
vote for the resolutions. pndo(
ogruit
bieeemtdichruo:f sr to
from
e tdho
en e w feoarl
tthh eo
fp
toho
er
Lord SAN DON would not trespass long on the House.—
(Cheers.) He was glad to hear the workhouse test disclaimed.
—( Cheers.) That was not the language which was used in the
early debates upon this question.--( Hear, hear.) Much had
been said about the inflammatory language used out of
doors ; but if it had not b sen for the efforts which had been
made to expose the growing evils of the system, there would
have been no amelioration of the law, however slight.
( Hear, hear.) He could not admit that the test of extreme
destitution was fit to be applied in a country like this.—( Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord then read an extract from the report
of the Commissioners of Poor-law Inquiry in Scotland, con-
demnatory of the workhouse and extreme destitution
tests. His Right Hon. Friend told the House the evils of the
old law, and went through a catalogue of those evils ;
but he omitted to state the fact, that all those evils were repro-
duced under the new law.--( Hear, hear.) He wished now to
state why he could not vote for the resolution of the Hon.
alember for Evesham, or the motion of the Hon. Member for
Bridport ; because he was not prepared all at once to make a
total change in the existing system.
Mr. WAKLEY thanked the Noble Lord for his speech,
which was characterised by a consistency in strong contrast
to the inconsistency of many Hon. Gentlemen around him,
who obtained their seats on the ground of their opposition to
the Bill. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the
Home Department, had been consistent in supporting this Bill,
but he had supported it under very different faces.—( Hear, and
a laugh.) If the destitution test were to be given up, why
were the houses of torture to be kept up ?—(Cheers. )
In justice to the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman opposite
( Colonel Wood), who expressed his dissent at the expression,
he must admit that in the union in which he resided, the work-
house was not a house of torture.—( Hear, hear.) The avowed
object of the Bill was, in the course of time, to get rid of poor-
laws altogether. Did the Right Hon. Gentleman still adhere
to that opinion ? Any hope of causing, the Act to be repealed
was futile. He (Mr. Wakley) was quite sure that no spon-
taneous act of that. House would do away with it. The leaders
of both parties were in favour of it. They lauded each other as
practical men—but he ( Mr. Wakley) was convinced they
really knew not the state of the country—they knew not what
they were doing. Apply to the independent labourers of Eng-
! land—those who never yet had applied for relief, but upon
whom calamity might come to-morrow—and not one
out of a hundred would be found to sanction or to support
it. He begged to say he put little faith in those
gentlemen who were specially forward on this occasion in
I asking for a reconstruction of the Act, for when the work ing-
classes asked them for their fair portion of power, in order that
good laws might be made, those very gentlemen were amongst
the first to treat their claim with coldness and with scorn. As
to the poor-law itself, he begged to say that its poison was cir-
culating through the whole social system, and as he ever would
tell the truth, he must tell it now, though with pain, that the
elected guardians were becoming harsher in their administra-
sion than the ex-officio guardians and the Poor-law Commis-
sioners themselves.—( Hear, hear.) It was a fact within his
own knowledge, that in several instances where the elected
guardians had refused relief, it had only been obtained by the
intercession of the ex-officio guardians, or by the direct inter-
ference of the Poor-law Commissioners themselves.—( Hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM explained.
Colonel WOOD ( Brecon) said from his own experience he
could assert that the guardians, especially the ex-officio guar-
dians, were anxious to administer the law fairly and justly
between the two parties, the rate-payers and the recipients ;
and whenever there was a slight inclination in the scale, it
was in favour, as it ought to be, of the latter class. The fact
I was that public opinion had greatly underated the operation of
the law.—( Hear, hear.) In the first instance it most cer-
tainly was administered with too high a hand, and in too
harsh a spirit, but public opinion had had its legitimate in-
fluence, and would continue to have it ; and thus directed, in-
fluenced, and softened, he could safely say, the Bill was work-
ing well for the poor, and for the rate-payers, and would in
the end effect incalculable good to the country.—( Divide. )
Mr. BROTHER TON (amidst loud cries of " Divide,"
and great uproar) said he had a strong conflict in
his own mind as to the vote he should give. He
had hitherto invariably opposed the new poor-law.
He thought it began at the wrong end. He ob-
jected to such large powers being given to a body of
Commissioners. He disliked the enormous size of the unions
and the workhouses, and he felt that the Bill could never be
worked in the manufacturing districts. But now, when he
found that eighty-five per cent. (as sated by the Home Se-,
cretary) of the poor had been relieved out of the workhouse,
and when he heard the statements as to the mild way in
which the law was now administered, compared with what
had been the custom, his views were somewhat altered,
and he was now disposed to support the motion for the
Speaker leaving the chair, in order that, by getting the
Bill into Committee, they might render it a more mild and
merciful measure still. The great thing, after all, that
the people wanted was not so much a poor-law as plenty
of employment, good wages, and cheap food l and, if they had
only commenced with these things, they would have found the
enactment of a sound poor-law a very easy task indeed.—
( Divide, divide. )
Mr. FERRAND (amid loud cries of " Divide' divide,"
" Go on, go on") moved the adjournment of the debate.—
( No, no.)
Sir R. PEEL trusted the Hon. Gentleman would make his
observations at once. The Government was not compelled to
bring in this Bill, but had rather done so to meet the views
of those who desired a mitigation of the law. The measure
did not go the length that some of these Hon. Gentlemen
wished, but in no one point did it render the law more
stringent—in many it mitigated it—and yet those who most
asked for it were now trying to impede its progress. If such
were the case, then all that the Government could do would
be to withdraw the Bill.—(Loud cheering )
Lord JOHN MANNERS strongly protested against
the language of the Right Honourable Gentleman
(Sir Robert Peel) and was surprised he had thought
proper to use it. For five months they had been
discussing every conceivable subject, and now when an adjourned
debate was asked for on a Bill the most important to the in-
terests of the people that could possibly be brought forward,
they were threatened with the withdrawal of the measure if
their wish for another debate was persisted in. The Govern-
ment itself had brought forward the Bill at the beginning of
the session, and for their own convenience had adjourned it
from time to time till the present period ; and now, when fair
discussion—and fair discussion alone—was asked for, they were
met by threats. He thought such conduct unbecoming in the
Government, and most disrespectful to the House and country.
Mr. B. ESCOTT strongly urged an adjournment of the
debate, that the Bill might be thoroughly discussed.
Lord STANLEY said that discussion of the Bill was just
what the Government wanted. Bat the fact was, that Hon.
Gentlemen had been discussing general principles all the
evening, and not the Bill; which ought, properly and strictly,
to be the subject of the deliberation of the House. If the
measure was to be lost, it would be from a superfluity of talk-
ing.—(Laughter.) If Hon. Members would consent to legis-
late without talking, whether they should legislate or not—
( Hear, hear, and laughter)—an advance might be made, and
a good practical measure, might be devised in mitigation of
the existing system and of great value to the
community at large.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
Mr. B. COCHRANE complained of the tone adopted by
the Noble Lord (Stanley). The Noble Lord said they were
not prepared to introduce a Bill, but he believed his Hon.
Friend the Member for Evesham was willing to bring in a Bill
on the subject.—( Roars of laughter.) Why was not the Bill
brought forward at an earlier period of the session ? He should
certainly persevere in supporting the motion for adjournment.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK likewise complained of the tone
and manner of the Noble Lord, as totally unworthy of him.—
( Laughter.) He admitted the talents of the Noble Lord, but
did not relish the mode in which they were on this occasion
directed.—( Renewed laughter.) The Government had broken
faith with the House on this subject. These amendments
should have been introduced at an earlier period of the session,
and at an earlier period of this evening. It was of the utmost
importance that the new poor-law should have a full discus-
sion, and he did not think it had already received that discus-
sion.

The House then divided on the question of adjournment—
For the adjournment
Against it
Majority

On our return to the gallery, we found
Mr. FE RRA ND addressing the House. He said, that un-
less the Government redeemed the pledge they had given, that
this measure should be fully discussed, he should feel it his duty
to oppose, in every way possible, its going into Committee.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM wished to explain the course
which he had taken in respect to this Bill. In compliance
with the request of the Hon. Alember for Finsbury, he had
made a general statement of its enactments, at a time when he
had not even the draught in his possession. But after the de-
bate on the second reading, and now after seven hours' de-
bate, he could not think that the principle had not been fully
discussed. He thought that when 219 Members voted against
the adjournment, and only 18 gentlemen thought it necessary
that an adjournment should take place, it was not necessary to
adjourn.

111 r. DUNCOMBE bore full testimony to the correctness of
the Right Hon. Baronet's statement, and he believed that for
any delay in the measure the House and net the Right Hon.
Baronet, were to blame.
_ _

Mr. tiORTHNVICK would not move the adjournment him-
self, but, after what had fallen from the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for the Colonies, he would vote with any one who moved
it.—( Hear, and a laugh.) The Noble Lord disclaimed any
personal allusion to him (Mr. Borthwick), nor had he bean
personal in his observations.
Sir R. PEEL had so often seen the Hon. Gentleman take
a reasonable part, that he had no doubt he would do so on the
present occasion.—( Great laughter.)
Mr. BORTHNVICK explained, amidst great laughter, and
cries of " Spoke, spoke."
Mr. FERRAND said that he was induced to move the ad-
journment, at the request of an Hon. Member, who said he
wished to speak, and that his speech would occupy at least an
hour.—( Laughter, and cries of " Name, name.")
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the Hon. Gentleman might
have his opportunity to-morrow, as the discussion would come
on at half-past four o'clock.—( Hear, and laughter.)
After a few words from Mr. COCHRANE in explanation—
The House divided on the main question, when the numbers
were—

For going into Committee
For Mr. Borthwick's amendment ... ......... 19

Majority for going into Committeee... -180
The House then went into Committe, pro forma, and imme-
diately resumed ; the Bill to be further considered in Com-
mittee to-morrow (this day. )
The Prisons ( Scotland) Bill was read a third time and passed.

THE STATE TRIALS.

WRIT OF ERROR.
HOUSE OF LORDS, July 4.
THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.

This being the day fixed for the hearing of the great
appeal case, in the matter of the Queen v. Daniel
O'Connell and others, the entrance to the House of
Lords was crowded with persons interested in the case.
At ten o'clock the Lords present were the Lord Chan-
cellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham, Lord Camp-
bell, Lord Denman, Lord Auckland, Lord Redesdale,
Lord Glenelg, and Lord Camoys. The following Judges
were also present :—Sir Nicholas Tyndal, Lord Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas, Mr. Justice Patteson, Mr.
Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Coleridge, Mr. Justice
Coltman, Mr. Justice Maule, Baron Gurney, Baron Al-
derson, and Baron Parke.

The following are the names of the counsel engaged
for the Crown :—Sir William Follett, Attorney-General ;
Sir F. Thesiger, Solicitor-General ; Mr. T. B. C. Smith,
Attorney-General for Ireland ; Mr. H. Waddington,
Mr. Napier, and Mr. Smyly.
The following are the names of the defendants'
counsel :—Sir Thomas Wilde, Mr. M. D. Hi!l, Mr.
Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Sergeant F. S. Murphy, Mr. Charles
Crompton, Mr. David Leahy, Mr,.John William Smith,
Mr. J. S. Close, Mr. B. Peacock, and Sir Colman M.
O'Loghlen. Agents—Mr. P. Mahony, Mr. Ford, and
Mr. Cantwell.

Lord DENBIAN—I more that counsel be called.

Counsel having appeared at the bar,
The Loan CHANCELLOR (addressing Sir T. Wilde)
said—Sir Thomas Wilde, will you state what course you
intend to pursue with regard to this case.
Sir T. WILDE-1 appear for Daniel O'Connell.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Yes. Who appears with you?
Sir T. WILDE—I believe Mr. Peacock. But your
Lordships are aware that there are several defendants
in error, who have brought separate writs ; and there
are points applicable to some which do not apply to
others. With a view to the convenience of the House,
I would suggest to your Lordship that Mr. Peacock and
myself should appear for Mr. Daniel O'Connell, and
with regard to the other defendants, who have different
counsel, I would propose that Mr. Hill should be heard
for Mr. Steele, and Mr. Kelly for the other defendants.
Lord BROUGHAM—That is four counsel in all.

Sir T. WILDE—Yes ; and we have also, with a view
to the convenience of your Lordships, agreed that, upon
several points, we shall not each address your Lordships,
but there are others of such importance that each coun-
sel will address your Lordships upon thein. •
The LORD CHANCELLOR—When you come to the re-
ply, will you reply for all the defendants ?
Sir T. WILDE—No, my Lord. My Learned Friends,
Mr. Hill and Mr. Kelly, will also address your Lord-
ships.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Then we shall have three
replies ?
Sir T. WILDE—Yes.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—Then I would suggest a
circumstance material for your consideration, which is,
:hat the circuits are fixed fur Wednesday ; and if you do
not complete your argument 'before Wednesday, so as to
get the opinion of the Learned Judges before that time,
it will be impossible to finish during the present session.
Sir T. WILDE—We will bear in mind the importance
of getting the opinion of the Judges before that time ;
and with that view we will compress our argument ac,
much as possible, and as much as is consistent with
justice.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Having stated the actual
position of things, I must leave it to your own judg-
ment and consideration, to, take that course which you
think best.

Lord BROUGHAM—There are but four days altogether,
but do not understand that the maximum should be ne-
cessarily the minimum.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—The Judges will probably
require a day to consider the arguments, so that prac-
tically you will only have three days.
Lord BROUGHAM—That is only if they are necessary.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL (for England)—l do not
understand ycur Lordships to determine that there shall
be three replies in this case.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—In strictness, each party is
entitled to a separate reply by counsel, and as there are,
I believe, nearly ten parties—
Lord BROUGHAM—Seven.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—Seven, is it? Well, as there
are seven parties, strictly speaking, seven counsel ought
to be heard, that is one for each.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for England) MS about
to interpose with some observation, when he was inter-
rupted by
Lord CAMPBELL—When there are several plaintiffs
in error, each has a right to be heard by himself and
his counsel. If that were not the case, injustice would
frequently be done. In strictness, each party has a right
to be heard by himself or his counsel. In the present
case I understand that it is proposed that some arrange-
ment should bo entered into with the view, if possible,
of saving time. The proposal, I believe, was that the
counsel for one party should not re-argue points which
had been already argued.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for England)—lt is 11
matter of indifference to me whether four or four-and-
twenty counsel are heard. I believe the ordinary rule is
that the Crown has the right of reply.
The Learned Gentleman was here interrupted in his
argument by the Lord Chancellor, who called Lora
I Brougham and Lord Campbell to the table, and a long
consultation followed between the Lord Chancellor, Lord
Denman, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and the Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL continued—lt iS usual in
cases of this nature for all the parties to join in one
writ of error. In the present case each party has sued
out a sep crate writ of error, and in consequence of their
pursuing this unusual course each party claims the
right of appearing by separate counsel.
Lord BaoucHAst—ln civil cases we always make par-
ties consolidate their appeals.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for England)—The course
which has been adopted in this case is most unusual.
Sir-T. WILDE—Your Lordships will perceive that in
this case there have been several different findings. One
party has been convicted of one offence, and another-
party of another, and the Attorney-General asks why
the parties did not join in one writ of error ? Simply,
because the errors assigned in one case differ from those
assigned in another. My Learned Friend says that the
parties wished to appear-by separate counsel. Possibly
that might be the case, and it would be unfair to deprive
a person of the right of appearing by the counsel in
whom he might place confidence.
Lord BROUGHAM—I would suggest, Sir Thomas
Wilde, that you should try to shorten the case as much as
possible, and I do this, not for the sake of the House, not
for the sake of the Crown, but for the sake of the plain-
tiffs in error. You have only five days, including Saturday,
and it is for your interest that the Judges should give
their opinion before they.go on circuit.
Sir T. WILDE—We must endeavour to take care of
our own interests. Each party has clearly a right to
appear by his own counsel, as he would have a right to
be heard himself if were present. The defendants,
severally, have been convicted ; they are severally suf-
fering the penalty of imprisonment, and they have seve-
rally the right to appear before your Lordships. If they
have not that right, the Attorney-General is too late now
in taking his objection.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for England)—l am not
objecting to the defendants appearing by as many coun-
sel as they may, think proper ; but holding the office
which I do, I think it right to draw your Lordships' at-
tention to the right to reply claimed for the plaintiffs in
error. I believe that, in strictness, the Crown is always
entitled to reply. At all events, there ought not to be
these replies en the other side, or the replies should be
conducted upon the principle which my Learned Friend
laid down, that two counsel should not reply on the same
points ; but I submit that they are not entitled to reply.
Lord CAMPBELL—I had occasion to hear that in a
writ of error for the Exchequer in a revenue case it was
ruled that the plaintiff in error was entitled to reply. In
Frost's case, in which I was Attorney-General, the
counsel for the prisoner replied, and each had a sepa-
rate reply.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—It is unnecessary to deter-
mine that point at present. As the case is now stated,
I understood Sir T. Wilde to say that no counsel will
• touch upon any points which have been argued by his
predecessor.
Sir T. WILDE—I would not wish to deprive Mr.
_O'Connell of the benefit of any points which may be
raised by other counsel ; but, without pledging myself
strictly to any arrangement of that nature, we will gene-
rally endeavour to abide by that rule.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—That separate counsel
shall confine themselves to separate points ?
Sir T. WlLDE—Precisely so.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—If the Attorney-General
has a right to reply on the whole case, we can consider
that point hereafter—at present we hate nothing to eo
with it.

Sir T. WILDE—My Lords, I appear for Daniel O'Con-
nell, who, in conjunction with other defendants has been
found guilty on an indictment, charging him with con-
spiracy. On that indictment he comes before your
Lordships in error, and various errors are assigned. I
will now state to your Lordships the objections which, as
far as I am concerned,l intend to urge against this convic-
tion. The present is an indictment for conspiracy, which
contained 11 counts. The first count charged, " that it
was the intent of the plaintiffs in error, to raise and '
create discontent and disaffection among her Majesty's
subjects, and to excite such subjects to hatred and con-
tempt of the Government and Constitution of the realm
as by law established, and to unlawful and seditious op-
position to the said Government and Constitution. To
stir up jealousies, hatred and between different
classes of her Majesty's subjects, and especially to pro-
mote amongst her Majesty's subjects in Ireland feelings
of and hostility towards and against her Majesty's
subjects in the other parts of the United Kingdom, and
especially in that part of the United Kingdom called
England. To excite discontent and disaffection
amongst divers of her Majesty's subjects serving
in her Majesty's army. So to cause and procure,
and aid and assist in causing and procuring, divers
subjects of her Majesty unlawfully, malicigusly,and sedi-
tiously to meet and assemble together in large numbers
at various times and at different places within Ireland,
for the unlawful and seditious purpose of obtaining, by
means of the intimidation to be thereby caused, and by
means of the exhibition and demonstration of great
physical force at such assemblies and meetings, changes
and alterations in the government, laws, and constitu-
tion of the realm by law established. To bring into
hatred and disrepute the courts by law established in
Ireland for the administration of justice, and to diminish
the confidence of her Majesty's subjects in Ireland in the
administration of the law therein, with the intent to in-
duce her Majesty's subjects to withdraw the adjudica-
tion of their differences with and claims upon
each other from the cognisance of the said courts