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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(Continued from our First Page.)

consider seriously the claims of humanity and justice. He would
vote for the resolutions.
Lord SANDON 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 bad not been 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 thg 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-
denapatory 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 new to
state why he could not vote for the resolution of the Hon.
Member 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 hint,
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 no, 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 inwhich 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 Any hope of causing the Act to be repealed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 Env-
land—those who never yet had applied fovelief, 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
asking for a reconstruction of the Act, for when the working-
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-
tion 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 Coramissieners themselves.—( Hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM explained.
Colonel WOOD (Brecon) said from his own experience be
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
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-
iluenced, and softened, he could safely say, the Bill was work-
ing well for the poor, and for the rate-payers, and would in
the o,:d effect incalculable good to the country.—( Divide. )
Mr. OROTHERTON (amidst loud cries of " Divide,"
and great uproar) strong
said he had a conflict in
his own unind as to the vote he should give. He
had hitherto invariably opposed the neer 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 Se felt that the Bill could never be
worked in the manufacturis;3 districts. But now, when he
found that eighty-five per cent. (as voted by the Home Se.
cretary) of the poor had been rei:seved 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 somowhat 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 mii:l 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 ; 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 be had thought
proper to use it. For five months they had been
discussing every conceivable subject, and new when an adjourned
debate tots asked for on a Bill the most important to the in-
terests of the people that could possibly be brought forward.
they .were areatened with the withdrawal of the measure if
their wish for onother 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 disscussion alone—was asked for, they were
met by threats. He thoOeht such conduct unbecoming in the
Government, and most disies:tiectful 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. hat 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
certain's, persevere in supporting the motion for adjournment.
Mr. P. .11O1tTHWICK likewise complained of the tone
and manner the Noble Lord, as totally unworthy of him.—
( Laughter.) If.? 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 lB
219
Against it
sUajority
On our return to the gallery, we found
Mr. FERRAND addressing the House. He said, that un-
less the Governusent 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. Member 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.
Mr. 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. BORTHWICK 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 been
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. BORTHWICK explained, amidst great laughter, and
~cries of " Spoke, spoke."
FERRAND said that he was induced to move the ad-
journnissnt, at the request of an Hon. Member, who said he
wished to speak. and that his speech would occupy at least an
hour.—(Las.:ehter, and cries of " Name, name.")
Sir ROBEIi 1r PEEL said that the Hon. Gentleman might
have his opportunity to. morrow, as the discussion would come
on at half-past four o'cloek...s( Hear, and laughter.)
After a few words from Mr. f:OCHRANE in explanation—
The House divided on the main question, when the numbers
were—
For going into Committee 199
For Mr. Borthwick's amendment l9
Majority for going into Committees... =l,BO
The House then went into Committe, pro forma, and i:emes
diately resumed ; the Bill to be further considered in Cons.
mitwe to-morrow (this day. )
The Prisons ( Scotland) Bill was read a third time and passed.
GAMING DISCONTINUANCE BILL.
Lord PALMERSTON moved the second reading of the
taming Discontinuance Bill.
Mr. CHRISTIE opposed it, and moved its postponement.
Sir R. PEEL thought the Bill should be read a second time.
After a few words from Mr. Duncombe, Lord Palmerston,
and Sir R. Peel,
The House divided on the question of adjournment, when
there appeared--
For the postponement
,Against it
Majority 5l
The Bill was ,:ben read a second time, and ordered to be eons-
mitted on Wednesday Peat
The other orders of thy were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at a Quartei past Two o'clock.

- 20 1

THE LIGHTNING.—(From a Correspondent.)—As
Mr. Edward Johnson, of 14, Stebonheath-terrace, Lime-
house, was sitting up in bed reading, where he has been con-
fined through illness more than two months, he was struck
by lightnio C, on Monday night, which dashed the papers from
him, and entei-.!ug his fingers ran up his arms to his neck and
down his breast, Ncliere the lightning seemed to be fixed, itne:
burning with great hat for nearly half an hour; his hands
were violently stunned, and Jiis whole frame much shaken.
lie describes the shock as similar to that felt by dipping the
lingers into the electrified water at the Adelaide Gallery, but
much more violent. On Wednesday morning he was much
-.Uttar,
1545, when the Venetian Senate was compelled
'l!fry public exigencies to lay a general tax on the city, tho
\ c left ted painter, Titian, was the only person exempted
..41-Wni impost—a noble homage to genius, which attests at
~?b* e liberality and the wisdom 9f the Government.
..•: _
•
--Smv

1 s