The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY M_OftNING, SULit 2 , 144,

to an action for libel ? (An Hon. Member—" Yes.")
Then what was the use of the publication ? There
never was so absurd a proposition as that of limiting the
perusal-of' the evidence. As he should not be able,
perhaps, to obtain another day,,he gave notice that, on
going into Committee of Ways and Means, he should ask
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go one step further
Lord STANLEY said, with regard to. the conse-
quences which would follow the publication of the
evidence; by the Honourable Member himself, he
had better take legal advice. This restriction of
the evidence to Honourable Members themielves arose,
as his Right Honourable Friend had stated, from the
grievous injustice that woul I be felt gilder certain cir-
cumstances if the House of C.6iiimous were by authority
made ,the medium of circulating public libels. The Hon.
Gentleman must, recollect the embarrassing case which oc-
curred some yearsa,go from the publication, by the House,
of what was considered a libel. He apprehended that
the newspapers would not be affected in any way, be-
cause, they were liable for what they published under any
circumstances. The House of Commons reserved to itself
the right of publication for the use of its Members, in or-
der to guide them in forming their opinions, but for that
purpose it was not necessary to publish generally any
matters reflecting on private individuals..
Sir C. NAPIER said the Noble Lord had declined
giving his Hon. Friend any legal opinion. He wished
to ask whether the Solicitor-General would refuse to
do so?
• The SOLICITOR GENERAL—Certainly not.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that the House was mono-
polising the property of newspapers.
The conversation then dropped.
HORSE SLAUGHTERING BILL.
On the order of the day for the. house going into Com-
mittee on this Bi'l,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE objected to the Bill that it gave
too much additional pOwer to the police.
Mr. COWPER defended the Bill, which was
called for by the accounts made public last year
of the cruelties practised in the knackers' yards.
All that the Bill proposed to do was, to give justices in
quarter sessions a power of cancelling licenses, where
cruelty was carried on in knackers'_ yards. He believed
that it was a common practice, where horses were
stolen, and the party had information where they were,
to break the horses' legs, in order that they might state
that they came there in that condition. He proposed
therefore to give the police the power of inspecting these
yards. He hoped, therefore, that the Honourable Gen-
tleman would allow the Bill to pass through its present

stage.

Mr. B. ESCOTT disbelieved many of the statements
that had been made to the Hon. Member, because he
could not see why people should be guilty of the acts of
cruelty that bad been alluded to ; but supposing they
were true nnder the present law parties could be
punished. He hoped the Hon. Member Would wait to
see whether it was intended to go on with the Bill or not.
• Mr. MACKINNON thought the Hon. Member for
Winchester was labouring under a mistake. The report
of the Commissioners would not interfere with this Bill.
His Honourable Friend the Member for Hertford was
deserving of great credit, • for the manner in
which he had braved public ridicule in bring-
ing forward this Bill, which was supported
by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals. Many of the Hon. Member for Finsbury's
constituents belonged to that Society, and he would find
it better to have their support than to curry favour with
the keepers ofknackers' yards. lithe Hon. Memberwas fond
of sausages' he might run the risk of having horse-
sausages. He could corroborate all that had been stated
with regard to the cruelties practiced in knackers' yards.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that if the Hon. Member
thought he was a better judge of the interests of his
eonstituents than himself, he had better offer his
services to them—(A laugh)---but as long as they did
him the honour to entrust their interests in his hands,
he must be permitted to judge for himself. It was ad-
mitted at last that this Bill was an emanation from the
Society for the Suppression of Cruelty to Ani-
inals, and on that ground ' he' objected 'to it
—(Hear.) There were many of those societies
in this town which employed themselves in meddling
with everybody's business but their own—(Cheers and
lauFhter)—and it would- be better if they attended to
their own business.—(A laugh.) The Bill contained
several vexatious provisions, and the Hon. Gentleman who
had, on the advice of his Right Hon. Friend kept postpon-
ing his motion on Prison Discipline until it was a perfect
farce of him to ask for a Committee, could not do
better than recommend his Hon. Friend to follow his ad-
vice, and postpone his Bill. Policenien were to
have power to enter yards, and to ascertain if
horses and cattle had a sufficient quantity of nutritious
food and water, and if they had not, they might order it
for them, and charge the owner double. By the inter-
pretation clause it appeared that cattle meant oxen,
pigs, or goats. Fancy. a policeman being empowered
to ascertain if one's pigs or one's goats had a sufficient
quantity of food.
Mr. COWPER--The Bill does not apply to cattle in-
tended for human food.
Mr. DUNCOMBE—Why, his Hon. Friend had talked
of horse sausages which he might get in
Marylebone, but which were not made in Fins-
bur7. This was a piece of pettifogging, vexatious
legislation like the Lap Dog Committee, and he should
move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave
to sit again when the Committee's reports should be
presented.
Mr. COWPER said that would be postponing the
Bill altogether. His Hon. Friend had said that this Bill
had emanated from the Society for the Protection of
Animals.' They had certainly discovered the ineffi-
'ciency of the present law. He did not think it looked
well for his Hon. Friend to say that they had no busi-
ness to meddle with things which did not belong to them.
Why his Hon. Friend was in the habit himself of med-
dling from morning till night with matters which did
not concern' him.—(Cheers and laughter.) This might
be put on the ground of public principle in that House,
and persons might subscribe, to buy estates for his Hon.
Friend, for meddling wish matters which did not con-
cern him.—(Laughter.) But he thought that other per-
sons might be treated' With the same indulgence as
the Hon. Gentleman in that House. The interference
of the Society, on the whole, was beneficial, and the ob-
ject of the present Bill was to mitigate the sum of mi-
sery. He trusted his Hon. Friend would not divide.
Mr. :.DUNCOMBE said he would move that the
Chairman should leave the chair.
Mr. COWPER doubted whether his Hon. Friend could
make that motion.
Mr. B. ESCOTT suggested that the Hon. Member
should move to refer the matter to the Dog Committee.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
• Against it
Majority against the motion —93
On clause 2 being proposed,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE objected to the clause. At present
the knackers had a perpetual license, liable to be
withdrawn only in case of misconduct. 'lt was now pro-
posed to make the license annual. He objected to this,
as an interference with vested rights.
Mr. COWPER said, by the 26th of George 111.,
provision was made for granting licenses ;• but the
Hon. Member could hardly speak of vested rights, since
the lieense could not be retained if the law were violated.
ESCOTT said it was a waste of time to discuss
the Bill, when so many, and such important measures
were on the paper' and waiting for discussion.
Mr. CO WPER did not think it any waste of time to
discuss the measure. The delay, if any, had been oc-
casioned by Hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of
the House.
Mr. ESCOTT would resist this, and all such kind of
attempts at legislation.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he saw no reason why a
Member of Parliament should not oppose or support a
a Bill if he thought proper. The Bill bad been cciin-
pletely emasculated, and the projectors of it would not
give a farthing for it as it now stood. It was a perfect
waste of time to discuss such a measure, and more than
a waste of time when the immense amount of important
public business yet to be transacted was considered.
The Poor-law Amendment Bill had been postponed
from day to day, to give time for discussion on knackers'
yards.—(Laughter.)
The clause, as amended, was then allowed to stand
part of the Bill.
. Clause 3 was then agreed to.
Several amendments upon clause 4 Were agreed to.
Upon the motion that the clause, as amended, do pass,
Mr. ESCOTT again protested against the waste of
time which this useless Bill occasioned. He also objected
to the clause as unnecessarily severe.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 5 being proposed,'
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he would be glad to know
whether this clause had the sanction of the Right Hon.
Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department ? The
clause provided that an inspector "might go into a
knacker's yard, in order to see if the horses therein had,
sufficient nutritious tOod.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought the clause ought to remain
in the Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved that the clause be
omitted.
Mr. E. DENISON supported the clause.
Mr. CURTEIS thought the police ought to be em-
powered to shoot the horses, rather than to see, that they
had lood.
Mr. COWPER said he would not press the clause.
The clause' was then withdrawn.
On clause 6 being Proposed,
Mi. T. DUNCOMBE objected to the power being
given to the police to, demand the inspection of the books
of the owner of a licensed yard.
After a short conversation, that part of the clause
was omitted.—The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 were agreed to.
On clause 9 being proposed,
Mr. ESCOTT opposed the clause, as too stringent,
which imposed a penalty -of DM., one moiety of which
i
was to go to the nformer. The- lion.' Member moved.
as an amendment, that the moiety of the penalty should
not 'go to the informer, but that the whole should go to
the parish. .
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
Ayes

Noes
Majority
.. —46
The clause was then agreed to with a few verbal
amendments.
The other clauses were then agreed to as was also
the preamble, and the report was ordered to be received
on Friday next.
APPEAL IN CRIMIN.AL CASES BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Sir J. GRAHAM said they could not agree to the
second reading of the Bill without affirming its princi-
ple, which the Government did not wish. to bind them-
selves to do in the absence of the Attorney-General, and
without further consideration. He was, however, pre-
pared, on the part of his colleagues and himself, to pledge
them to the consideration of the .measure -in the next
session. He trusted, therefore, the lion. Member would
postpone the second reading till another session.

'Mr. KELLY acceded to the suggestion of the Right ►
Hon. Gentleman, and withdrew the Bill. He trusted,
however, in the next session, that the Bill would be
unanimously agreed to.—The Bill was then withdrawn.
POOR-LAWS.
_ _

On the question for the further consideration of the
report on the Poor-law Amendment Bill being put,
Colonel SIBTHORP deprecated the subject being
brought on at the present moment, as many Members had
left the House, under the supposition that the Bill of the
Hon. Member for CaMbridge would have occupied some
considerable time. , '
On the questioh being Put,
Mr. P. BORTHWICK thanked the Right Hon.
Secretary of State, for ,the ameliorations he had intro-
duced into the Bill. He hoped, in the same spirit in
which he had received the amendments proposed by
others, he would adopt the propositions he (Mr.' Borth-
wick) was about to submit. Though they were four in
number—they were nearly identical in principle. The
two principal points
.were that no separation should
take place between the huaband and wife, and paivent
and children, when they were reduced to want, not by
vice but misfortune. Ile condemned such separation a 3
immoral and impolitic, and though many boards of
guardians were kind awl. Christian in their actions and
feelings, was it to be endured in a Christian country
that they could only be humane by a breach
of the law ?—(Cries of " Hear.") Such separation
was a violation of the rights of the poor. He used the
words advisedly, for he contended that 'the poor man
had rights as well as the rich one.—(Hear, hear.) The
great vice of the whole system of the poor-laws was, that
instead of affording casual relief to casual distress, it
converted that charity intoa curse, by its being changed
into a continual and permanent cause of depression. He
traced the ruinous and demoralising effect on the poor
man of being compelled to enter the poor-house in which
he was subjected to these inflictions, and stated that it
was in a spirit of conciliation to the poor that he submittec
his present propositions. He .considered that the poor-
law, like every system of law applied to the body politic,
ought to operate like medicine in the natural body.. In
the natural body medicine was no other than the intro-
ducing one disease less ephemeral and less dangerous
than the one they were trying to get rid of, and the
poor-law was no other in the body politic than trying to
get rid of one evil by a smaller one. In a Christian
country like this there ought to be no need of a poor-
law at all, and he believed if the Right Hon. Gentleman
went on in the' system upon which he had proceeded
during the present session, by and bye not only would
this poor-law disappear from the statute book, but that
they would yet see a state or things in England under
which there would be no, need of a poor-law whatever.
There must always be 'poor amongst them : that they
had on the highest authority. But in a Christian coun-
try, the alms of God's people, collected at God's altar,
ought to be enough for God's poor. With respect to the
clauses which he should submit, he did not think the
Right Hon., Gentleman could. say the purpose of
them was not a good one. If there was any difference
between himself and the Right Hon. Gentleman, it was
this, that he sought to obtain that end by the machinery,
of the Poor-law Commission, while he (Mr. Borthwick)
sought it by a law placed on the 'statute book, in order
to secure that to the poor man as a right, which the Right
Hon. Gentleman himself would not refuse as a bounty.
The object of the third clause was to provide that
children should not be separated from their mothers
where the, children were tinder seven years.of age' and
that children. under thirteen years of age 'should have
free access to their mothers at all convenient times. He
could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman that great prac-
tical evils had arisenonder the present law. The other
clause to which he' should refer was that of providing
temporary relief to the able-bodied poor, under certain
circumstances. This had been a subject of complaint
ever since the law came into operation. The law prohi-
bited the board of guardians from giving out-door
relief ; the consequence was that the able-bodied labourer
was forced to go into the workhouse, and he was thereby
ruined for ever.—(Hear, hear.) He saw by the Times
newspaper that a petition was agreed to at a meeting of
the board of guardians of Ipswich, praying the House
would give power to order out-door relief to the able-
bodied poor when labouring under temporary infirmity.
The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following
clauses :
" And be it enacted, that when any two persons,
being husband and wife, both of whom shall be above.
the age of sixty years, shall be received into any work-
house, in pursuance of the provisions of the said recited
Act, or of this Act, such two persons shall not be com-
pelled to live separate and apart from each other in such
workhouse ; and to this end suitable and decent accom-
modation shall be provided in every workhouse for each
man and his wife so of the 'ages aforesaid, anything in
the said recited Act, or in the rules or regulations for
the government of any workhouse, to the contrary not-
withstanding.
" And be it enacted, that when any two persons, being
husband and wife, both of whom shall be under the age
of sixty years, and either of whom shall, from infirmity
of mind or body,' require the attendance or assistance of
the other of them, then and in such case two such per-
sons shall have and be entitled to the benefit or privi-
lege of the provision hereinbefore contained; in regard
to persons being husband and wife above the age of
sixty years, anything in the said recited Act, or any
rule or order to the contrary notwithstanding.
" And be it enacted, that if any poor and industrious
person shall, by temporary infirmity or insufficiency of
employment, be unable to maintain himself or herself, or
his or her family, then upon complaint thereof by such,
person to any justice of the peace residing in or near
the place of residence of such person, it shall be lawful
for such justice to inquire into the truth of such infir-
mity or insufficiency of employment, and to certify the
same in writing under his hand to the guardians of the
union in which such poor people shall so reside; and
upon receipt of such certificate, the said guardians shall
immediately order sufficient relief for such poor person,
and his or her family, nut of such workhouse, during the
time of such temporary infirmity or insufficiency of em
ployment, anything in the said recited Act, or any rule
'or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding.
" And be it enacted, that when children, being under
seven years of age, shall be received into any workhouse
in pursuance of the provisions of the said recited Act and
of this Act, such children shall not be separated from
their mothers being inmates of the same workhouse, and
tilt to all children, being under thirteen years of age,
free access shall be afforded for their mothers being in
the same workhouse, at all convenient times."
The first clause was brought up, and read a first time.
On the motion that it be read a second time,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that, unless, he had been
compelled by an overpowering sense of public duty to
resist the motion of the Hon. Gentleman,_ his natural
feelings would have prompted him to support it. The
Hon. Gentleman had not brought forward any new
argument in favour 'of his motion; indeed, it was scarcely
possible for him to do so, the subject had been already
so much discussed. The Hon. Gentleman said that he
hoped the time was approaching when the poor-law
would no longer be necessary. He (Sir 'James
Graham) confeased that he did not take such a sanguine
*view of the state of society ; he was afraid that the poor
were increasing and multiplying, and that the necessity
of supporting them would become more and more neces-
sary. But that was a vain speculation. In looking back
to the history "of the country, he found that provision
for the poor was made by Act of Parliament three cen-
turies ago ; and, looking back through that period, he
could not find a trace of the precise enactments which
had been embodied in the four clauses submitted to the
consideration of the House by the Hon. Gentleman..
With regard to the first clause, the board of guardians
had the power of giving out-door relief to persons over
sixty years of age in their own houses. It was said that
that depended upon the caprice of the Commissioners,
and that there was no certainty in the laW ; but there
was a general order orethe subject, which was sanctioned
by the Secretary of State, and this had the force of law.
The Poor-law Commissioners could not rescind at their
pleasure such an order..., They must receive the
sanction of the Secretary •of State. There was
also an order, under 'certain circumstances, by
which 'separate apartments were to be given to them.
There was also an order, which provided that children
under seven years of age should not be removed from
their mothers, and that after that period they must have
access to them at all convenient hours. Therefore, with
regard to those portions of the Hon. Gentleman's mo-
tion, there was no necessity for the introduction of any
new clauses into the Bill to effect those purposes. With
regard to the giving of out-door relief the clause which'
the lions Gentleman proposed on that subject struck at
the root of the entirolaw. If it were agreed to, there
was not a single abuse which existed under the old law
which would not be revived by it.—(Hear, hear.) He
must say that he thought the power of granting out-
door relief-was much more safely intrusted to a board' of
guardians who were chosen by the ratepayers ; and he
did not think that the control of the Commissioners was
superfluous. He begged to remind the House of what he
had often said before, • that the duty of the Commis-
sioners was by no means a one-sided'orle. It was their
sacred duty, by all means in their power, by their
influence, by their, advice, and by inspection, to see
that the interests of the poor were not neglected.
On-the whole,- he was satisfied that the. Commissioners
had not neglected their duty. With regard to the re-
ference made by the Hon. Gentleman. to. Ipswich, lie
begged to state to the House that that very place af-
forded an excellent illustration of what the effects of per-
mitting out-door relief would be. In that union 425
persons were relieved in the union workhouse, and
2,281 were relieved • out of door. Those who were
maintained in the House cost 531/., while those who
received out-door relief cost 1.,9401.—(Hear, hear.) If
the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman were agreed to,
it woldd subvert every thing which was established under
the 'ail', and unless the. House was prepared to incur the
responsibility of producing such serious effects, he hoped
they would not sanction this clause.
Lord JOHN MANNERS said • that everything which
the Right Hon. Gentleman bad urged against the motion
of his Hon. Friend, could be turned with equal effect
against the remarks of the Right Hon. Gentleman him-
self ; for if the cases alluded to had been provided for
by orders of the Commissioners, where was the harm of
making them the law of the land ? The Right Hon.
Gentleman said that what his Hon. Friend wished should
be the law of the land, was already practised under the
orders of the Commissioners. If that were so, where
was the disadvantage of its becoming part of the statute
law ?—(Hear, hear.) The. Right Hon. Gentleman then
adverted to the history of the poor-law, and said that
during three centuries no provisions similar to those, in-
troduced by his Hon. Friend could be found. ,He,
thought the Right Hon. Gentleman was the last person
in the world who should refer to the history of their
legislation on the subject, for he would -not
find there the principle of centralisation, which
was the great feature of the present' law.
He maintained that they must legislate according to the
wants of the people. They must not say that, because
the principle had never before been acted upen,-it Should
not be now. The question was, would they legislate in
accordance with the acknowledged feelings of the people

of this country? The outworks of this extraordirtary
system were already giving way. He asked this COm-
inittee to perfect that which had already been begun, by
supporting the resolutions of his Hon. Friend, and thus
rendering this session a session for which the poor would
ever be grateful.

Mr. HAWES said, on the ground both of charity and
humanity, he should support the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite. No one could have read the reports which
preceded the establishment of the present system of
poor-laws, and the names appended to them,
without admiring the men by whom they were
compiled.—(Elear, bear.). Break down this law and
how would they secure an effectual administration of
relief to the poor? Where would they find a similar
security? It was nothing to get rid of the present se-
curity, unless they provided another equally good. The
resolutions were in fact the old system, and,if adopted,
it would be better at once to repeal the new poor-law,
and let the responsibility rest upon those who advocated
that old system.—(Hear, hear.) A great deal had been
said about the treatment of man and wife. . Was the
Hon. Gentleman acquainted with workhouses under the
old system? Would he venture to compare that system
with the new one?—(Hear, hear.) He appealed to
any one whether the workhouses existing previous to
1834 were not a disgrace to the country.—(" No.") The
great advantage of the present system was that there was
a responsible officer to administer relief.—(Hear, hear.)
If they wished for increased accommodation they must
be prepared to incur increased expences.—(Hear, hear.)
Gentlemen talked there by the hour of the necessity of
'giving more relief. He heard scarcely a word about
those poor ratepayers out of whose pockets relief must
come. That class must necessarily have an increased
expense thrown upon them if those resolutions were
earned. But he admitted that expense was a secondary
consideration. Still he maintained that some discipline
was necessary in workhouses ; without that, happiness
could not be secured under any system of poor-laws. It
was through the discipline now: maintained that they
had that order, and that cheerfulness and content—
;Ironical cries of " Hear, hear" froM Colonel Sib-
thorp)—which he had himself witnessed in work-
'houses.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman
had made a very powerful appeal ; but he asked, the
House to refer to the mass of information which from
time to time had been laid before the House, and to in-
quire whether the abuses of the present law could be
compared for a moment to those of the old one ?
(Hear, hear.) 'He knew no board of guardians which
was not prepared to listen to cases of peculiar hardship.
He hoped he ,would not be accused of a want of care
for the poor, because he voted against the re-establish-
ment of a system which had engendered such numerous
evils, in the place of that which new existed, and
which he Maintained was beneficiatto the country.
Mr. ESCOTI: did not deny that abuses
existed tinder the -old law '; but he would
no

be led by that circumstance to oppose
an amendment of this law. The simple question
_ was
whether the amendment proposed by the Hon. Gentle-
man, was an improvement on the present system. That
question had not been touched in the least by the Hon.
Member for Lambeth.—(Hear, hear.) They had heard
from the Right Han. Gentleman what were the cases in
which out-door relief might be granted ; but, unfortu-
nately, the power of granting relief was not acted upon.
The powers of the .board of guardians to grant relief
were checked by the prohibitory order of the Poor-law
Commissioners. To that order there were certain ex-
ceptions, which were explained by the Commissioners in
an explanatory letter.. He had asked his Right Hon.
'Friend a question on that subject, and had elicited from
him the answer that the board of guardians were, in all
cases, to judge what was or was not a case of urgent
necessity. But what was the fact? Why old persons
were forced into the house without having any power of
appeal. He had heard no arguments against the clause,
and he should certainly give it his support.
Sir C. NAPIER said he thought the question lay in a
nutshell. Where was the necessity for forcing a man
and his wife, 60 years of age, into the workhouse?—
(Hear, hear.) The expense of maintaining a man and
his wife in the house, was considerably more than that of
maintaining them out of the house ; and if the Right
lion. Baronet would consent to make it the law, that a
man and his wife, 60 years old,• should receive out door
relief, there would be no necessity for the Hon. Gentle-
man's clauses.—(Hear, hear.)-- He believed that that
principle was already acted upon in well regulated unions.
He protested against the cruelty of forcing two old people
into the union-house, and separating them. He hardly
though t that any gentleman would wish to see two old
people thus forced to leave their homes, and not after-
wards be permitted to see each other.—(Hear.) But if
that argument was good for the first clause, it was better
for the second. If it was cruel and abominable to separate
an old man and his wife, was it not still worse to sepa-
rate a man from his wife if she were ill? Why should she
be turned over to the care of a hired nurse, who might
be, perhaps, a woman of bad character,.instead of being
permitted to have her husband to attend her?—(Cheers.)
He asked the Right Hon. Baronet if he would make the
law such that out-door relief should be necessarily
granted in every case to persons of more than 60 years
of age, for, if •he would not, he should vote for the
clause.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DARBY objected to the wordin, of the clause.
What was • the meaning of suitable' ALA decent ac-
commotlation ? Different meanings would be attached
to the different words by different boards of guardians.
Then with regard to the second clause, who was to de-
termine when one person stood in need of the assistance
of another? Both clauses were indefinite. Then with
regard to the proposal to give magistrates the power in-
tended to be given them by this clause, he believed ma-
gistrates would be very unwilling to have those powers.
He objected to out-door relief, without any test--there
ought to be a labour test in conjunction with the work-
house test. lie should long since have proposed a clause
to enact a labour test, if he had not met with great op-
position on the part of the boards of guardians, Ile
never-wouldloonaent to giving relief to-able-bodied men,
without any test at all. The great hardship of the law
was, that able-bodied men out of work could not receive

out-door relief. He had never seen any case of cruelty
or hardship to old people. He would defy any board of
guardians to carry the provisions of these clauses into
operation—they were too indefinite, and were conse•
quently impracticable. The Government proposition was
a great improvement on the existing law.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY thought the clauses were
intelligible, and if they waited until they could draw up
a clause without a flaw, they would never legislate at all.
He agreed with the Hon. Member for Sussex as to the
third clause. He 'thought it would: open a door to the
introduction of the evils of the old system, and he
should oppose it, as he did not wish to interfere with
the discretion of the guardians. With regard to the
first clause, he approved of it, as, although he admitted
that the orders of the Commissioners had in a great
measure carried out the objects of these clauses, yet he
would rather hive those objects secured by legislative
enactment.
Lord STANLEY said thatif these clauses were agreed
to, they would, as far as the poor-law was concerned,
frustrate the labours of the present session.—(Cheers.)
It had been admitted on all hands that the present Bill
made many advantageous alterations in the poor-law.
Butshould be deferred till another session, than purchase
the.mhee,t
tfhoer 0110, would rather that those advantages
price of these clauses.—(Loud cheers.) His
Hon. Friend who had just sat down had abandoned the
third clause.He had admitted that he did not think it right
to empower wsingle justice of the peace to overrule a
decision of a board of guardians, and he had also
admitted that if such power were conferred on a single
however, eivnet
or , n
justice it would re-introduce the abuses of the old poor-
law and revive that system which had nearly brought
the country to the verge of ruin. The first and second
clauses met with the support of his Hon. Friend. He
intentions
satisfiedof hs
Hon. that
Friend
however
the
Member for the West Riding, and however humane
(Lordhumane anley),
)1;e
might be the intentions of the. Honourable Member for
Evesham, a clause more cruelly bearing upon the old
people could not have been 'introduced. It was a com-
pulsory clause, and would bear upon the aged and infirm
poor with the greatest hardship. The law as it stood at
present invested a large discretion in the board of
guardians, the persons who, of all others, were most
cognizant of the peculiar circumstances of each particular
case. The board of guardians were not compelled to give
out-door relief to persons abovesixty years of age, be-
cause the law imposed no test upon them, but upon the
necessity of the parties. A man of sixty years of age
might be capable of doing a good day's work, while an-
other man of fifty might, from his infirmities, be a
proper subject to be taken into the workhouse, or to
be relieved out of the workhouse. His Hon. Friend,
and the Hon. Member for Eversham, wished to. deprive
the board of guardians of this discretion, and confine
their attentions solely to the age, without reference
to the state of health. The present law gave .tile
board of guardians a discretionary power of granting
out-door relief, if the parties were infirm ; and surely
that was a much aafer, a much better, and a much
more humane test, than the test of sixty years, which
was proposed by. the Honourable Gentleman.—(Hear,
from Mr. Borthwick.) The Insent law provided that the
board of guardians should have power to grant
out-door relief, without separation of parties-, in their
own homes, if they were in a state of bodily infirmity.
His. Hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding
wished that state of things only to apply to parties
above sixty years of age, whether they were infirm or
not ; and the }Lin. Member for Evesham said that, if they
were above sixty, and were relieved in the workhouse,
they were to have separate rooms. The princiVe sought
to be established IV the Hon. Gentleman existed already,
for, by the lirevisions of, the present law, a power existed
in the Board'of guardians to allow the infirm or aged
husband and wife to inhabit the same apartment in the
workhouse, only requiring the board-to report such case
to the. Poor-law Commissioners, and subject to the re-
strictions they might impose. What would be the con-
sequence of the clause? Why, the board of guardians
would have itnly to choose between the necessity of pro
viding aged andinfirm couples with separate apartments in
the workhouse, or refuse them admission altogether. They
would be compelled from want of the means of accom-
modation, to adopt the latter alternative, and thus these
poor people would be forced back into their hovels,
subject to all the privations and discomforts of the lowest
stage of poverty. The amendment, if carried, would
operate seriously
to the disadvantage of the poor and of
the rate-payers, and he called upon the House to re-
ject it.
Captain
• PECHELL supported the amendment. No..
thing could be harsher than the present mode of separa-
tion between husband and wife practised in the work-

houses.
Mr. DENISON regretted that he should feel himself
obliged to oppose every one of these resolutions.
Mr. BROTIIERTON did not think the clauses pro-
posed by the Hon. Member for Evesham could be carried
out. If he' thought , they could be, he certainly would
"support them. He thought, however, it would be im-
possible; WW1-Out-the -wishes of the HQ!). membeit,
cause, to do so, an enormous expense would be incurred
in providing separate apartments for the married in••

mates of the workhouses. He had often wished to see
the present law ameliorated; but he could never support
any proposiiion which was consonant with his, feelings,
but against his judgment.
Colonel ROLLESTON thought the boards of
guardians ought to have more power
,placed in their
hands with respect to-granting relief.
Mr. P. HOWARD thanked the Right Hon. Baronet
for his attemptS to ameliorate the existing law. He could
not support the motion of the Hon. Member for Eves-
him, as it would place paupers on a better footing than
those who were engaged in our fleets and armies. He
should, therefore, give his decided opposition to the re-
solutions, fox:, he believed that, if they were carried, they
would only hold out an inducement to persons to go into
the workhouse.
Mr. CURTEIS thought it was desirable that paupers
should be-allowed certain times for recreation.

Mr. BORTHWICK shortly replied. The question on
which they were about to divide was the first clause, and
that only. He wished that to be distinctly understood,
because he -felt convinced many Hon. Members would
vote lor that clause who would not vote for the third

clause.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause 32
Against it 95
Majority against the clause
In answer to a question from Mr. BORTHWICK on
the third clause,
Sir J. GRAHAM said guardians had the power,
under the 22d clause of the Poor-law Act, of ordering
out-door relief.

Mr. B. ESCOTT expressed his satisfaction at the de-
claration they had heard from the highest authority on
this subject in the House. He had often contested the
point at meetings of boards of guardians, but had gene-
rally been out-voted; he trusted, however, that guardians
would now interpret the Act according to its strict literal
meaning, and act upon their discretion in ordering out-
door relief in cases where it was obviously required.
The other clauses moved by the Hon. Member for
Evesham were then negatived without a division.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN then moved the following
addition to clause 20 :—" And be it enacted, that the
Commissioners do and shall take order for the due perl
formance of religious services in each of such work-
houses, and for that purpose• do and shall appoint fit
persons, being clergymen of the Church of England, to
act as chaplains in such workhouse; and fix the amount
to be paid to such chaplains respectively by way of salary
or allowance for their services (which amount, when so
paid, shall be paid out of the rates accordingly) : pro-
vided always, that no person who shall be so appointed
to be a chaplain for any workhouse shall act as such
chaplain, unless be be approved for that purpose by the
bishop of the diocese within which such workhouse is
situated." He said ho had for his proposal the sanction
of a noble colleague of the Right Hon. Baronet, the Lord
President of the Council, who, in another place, had
suggested that a provision of this kind should be added
to the present Bill ; an& he had, also, the authority of
the Poor-law Commissioners themselves. The change
introduced by the new poor-law was both a social
and religious one, as it took a large number
of the poor from those who were charged with their
spiritual care. Yet in the original Act there was no
mention of a chaplain, except incidentally, in an amend-
ment introduced in the House of Lords in the interpreta-
tion clause. Acting, however, on that mere mention of
such an officer, the Poor-law Commissioners had ap-
pointed several chaplains, and in 1839 they obtained the
assistance of a mandamus from the Court of Queen's
Bench to enable them to do so. In twenty-two union
workhouses in this Country Divine service was per-
formed gratuitously by clergymen of the Established
Church; but the act of performing Divine service was a
violation of the law. It appeared, from a return which-
had been made to the House, that there were, exclusive
of smaller towns, thirty-five towns whose population
varied from 109,000 to 4,000, whose aggregate popula-
tion was nearly 900,000, without chapels. In the whole
county of Cumberland there were but three chaplains;
in the North Riding of Yorkshire there was but one
and in the whole county of Durham, with its
population of 325,000, there was no chaplain at
all. At their Conservative dinners they drank the
Church, and it was boasted of as the church
of the poor. Before 1834 it might have been
the church of the poor, but it then ceased to be so. A
poet of another day had told them of
" Ears too delicate to hear of hell,"
and by a horrible parody these words might now be ap-
plied to the Church. They deprived the poor of rights
to which they had as good a title as they themselves had
to their estates
.; and if they persisted in this, they
would not be performing the part of Christians and
statesmen, but of tyrants and robbers. What case, he
asked, had been made out for depriving their poor of
such rights ? What right had they, in their power and
wealth, to make their morsel of bread in this world con-
tingent on their willingness to surrender all tidings of
another ? There were 135 workhouses without chapels,
and 20,000 paupers without religious instruction ; and he
asked what right had they to deprive the poor of the
holy offices of the Church ? Let them show their own
consistency—let them show their charity and their re-
spect for the poor, by their jealousy lest any misfortune
should separate them from the holy membership of the
Church. For the last ten years the poor had been deli-
vered over to practical atheism, which was worse than
atheism ; but he hoped there would that night be a tri-
umph over sordid parsimony and a cowardly compro-
mise of principle. He heard with great pain the decla-
ration of the Right Hon. Gentleman, that he felt himself
bound to oppose the introduction of this clause. He felt
that neither now nor hereafter would he regret it, if the
opinion of the House was declared to be at variance with
his own. He would now conclude, lie had spoken
strongly, because he had had to describe a bad and; a
dangerous state of things—a state of things unworthy bf
any men who called themselves Christians ; but be hoped
he had said nothing personally offensive. He warned the
House not to refuse to assent ,to a clause_so extremely
important as that which he had brought under their
serious attention. , I
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Hon. Gentleinan had ex-
pressed a hope that he had not used violent language on
that occasion. lie gave the lion. Gentleman full credit
for the purity of his motives, and the warmth of his feel-
ings ; but he thought the expressions which had fallen
from him were hardly justified.—(Hear, hear.) He did
not yield to the Hon. Gentleman in a desire to promote
the interests of the Church ; but he very much doubted
whether it would be promoted by an attempt to force
the particular form of worship which the Hon. Gentle-
man and himself were attached to in every workhouse
by the payment of a chaplain.—(Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Gentleman should bear in 'mind that this was not
a novelty proposed for the first time in 1834. The Gil-
bert Unions had been formed long antecedent to that
period ; and when those unions were formed there had
been no provision made for the appointment of chap-
lains. There were none appointed in those unions now.
Captain PECHELL—In some of them.
Sir .TAMES GRAHAM admitted that the Gallant
Officer was a high authority on the subject of Gilbert
Unions ; but he would admit that there was no provi-
sion made in them for the appointment of chaplains.—
(" Hear, hear," from Captain Pechell.) The Hon. Gen-
tleman had described Divine worship, when celebrated
in workhouses by clergymen, an illegal act. „,
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN—When the clergyman
is, not licensed.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM—SureIy it could not be
contended that the clergyman of the parish would not be
discharging his duty if he neglected to visit the poor in-
mates of the workhouse who were assembled together in
his parish.—(Cheers.) He considered it was the bounden
duty of the clergymen of the parish thus to attend to
them. If a chaplain were appointed, he must be licensed
by the Bishop, and, therefore, he could not be said to be
celebrating Divine service illegally ; and if he were not
licensed, then he would be, most probably, the clergy-
man of the parish, and he would not be acting illegally.
In England and Wales there were 537 unions. There
were no workhouses •in twenty-one of these unions,
in three the workhouses were very small, and of the
remaining 513 there were chaplains appointed in 411
under the discretionary power vested in the Poor-law
Commissioners, with salaries averaging nearly 501. a year
each, and yet the Hon. Gentleman alleged that they
were establishing Atheism by Act of Parliament.—
(Hear, hear.) While the rule remained in force for-
bidding the inmates of workhouses to leave its precincts
even on a Sunday, he agreed with the Hon. Gentleman
that they were incurring a fearful responsibility if' they
failed to provide for their spiritual consolation ; but,
since he had come into office, the Poor-law Commis-
sioners, acting in conjunction with himself, had issued
an order, empowering boards of guardians to permit the
inmates of the workhouse who were members
of the. Established Church to leave the work-
house on every Sunday, Christmas Day, and
Good Friday, for the purpose of attending
Divine worship at their . parish church, and
also to permit mothers to be accompanied by their chit-
dren.—(Hear, hear.) The board of guardians were also
empowered to permit such inmates of the workhouse as
were Dissenters to leave the workhouse on Sunday for
the purpose of attending Divine service in their respec-
tive places of worship, and in that instance, also, mo-
thers were permitted to be accompanied by their chil-
dren. He thought the motion of his Hon. Friend was
not sustained by facts. If they were to render the
appointment of a chaplain in every union compulsory,
they would be lighting up the flame, not of true religion,
but of religious discord.—(Cheers.) He repeated it, he
considered it was the duty of the clergyman of the reli-
gion favoured by the State to attend to the spiritual
wants of the inmates of the workhouse situated in his
parish. The Hon. Gentleman might call it a cowardly
compromise if he liked, but he certainly should shrink
from the responsibility of attempting to carry the propo-
sition of the Hon. Gentleman, although he bore as sin-
cere an attachment to the Church as the Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN explained. He had not
meant to say that the Right Hon. Gentleman was not
actuated by any feelings of attachment and respect
towards the Established Church.
Mr. LIDDELL said workhouse relief to the poor in
the northern counties was of very trifling extent, and
the aged and infirm were generally relieved in their own
houses. He had never heard of the want of spiritual
assistance in workhouses, of which the Hon. Member
complained so bitterly, and did not believe any such
want existed, at least in the county of Durham.
• Mr. M'GEACHY deplored the tone in which the Right
Hon. Baronet had treated the Established Church. lie
thought it was the duty of a State to provide spiritual
instruction for its Members. He earnestly hoped that
sbp?roPiter igoi6u
the House would assent to the proposition of his Hon.
se
Friend.
Mr. C. BULLER thought the Right Hon. Baronet
had shown himself a friend to the Church in taking the
course he had adopted with respect to this Motion.
Mr. S WORTLEY.objected to the forcing, on
unions the appointment of chaplains.
Mr. HENLEY thought the time had come when the
f,ssecuin-
r-
struction.
:Lein
ggtioslatthai;nionnhgalibitttaonitsuteorfferuenifoonr'i

Sir J. GRAHAM explained, and the House divided;
the numbers were,
- For the .clause .
Against it .

- B2

Majority against the clause
The. CLIAIR3fAN then reported progress, and the
douse resumed, the report was ordered to be brought
up this day at twelve o'clock.,
The Other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at One o'clock. s

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

From the Votes and Proceedsngs of the Howe of Commons.)
TUESDAY, JULY 23.
MR. O'DRISCOLL.

Motion made, and Question put, " That an humble Address
be presented to her Majesty, praying, for the removal of Mr.
Alexander O'Driscoll from the Commission of the Peace:"
The House divided :
MINORITY—AYES, 59.
Aglionby H. A. Fox, Charles Richard Ponsonby, C. F. A. C
Ahiam, W. Gore, Robert Rawdon, J. D.
krchbold, Robert Hastie, A. Scott, Robert
Arundel, Lord Hawes, B. Shell, R. L.
Bannerrnan, A. Holland, Robert Shelbutne, Earl of
Bellew, R. M. Howard, P. H. Smith, J. Abel
Bowes, John Howard, Sir R. Smith, Vernon
Bowring, Dr. Hut:, W. - Somerville, Sir W.
Brothertou, J. APTaggartJ. Strutt, Edward
Byng, G. S. Mircalfe, HenryH Tancred, Henry W
Chapman, B. Mitchell,
T. A. Thornely, Thomas
Colborne W. Ridley Morris, David Villiers, Charles t
Collett,John Murphy, F. S.: Wakley, Thomas
Craig, W. Gibson Norreys, Sir D. J. Walker, R.
Dawson, Hon. T. V O'Connell. M. J. Wawn, John T.
Denison, W. J. O'Conor Don ' Wyse, Thomas
Duncan, George O'Ferrall R. More Yorke, R. H.
Duncombe, T. S. Ogle, S. C. H.
Dundas, Admiral Ord William TELLERS.
Esmonde,
Sir T. Pechell, Captain Ross, David R.
Forster, Matthew Plumridge, Captain Browne, R. D.

MAJORITY—NOES, 92.
A'Court, Captain Douglas, Sir C. Maclean, Don‘ld
Adderley, C. B. Douglas, J. D S. Masterman, John
Archdall, Captain Eaton, Richard.). Maxwell, J. P.
Arkwright, George Eliot, Lord Meynell, H.
Astell, William Farnham, E. B. Milnes, R. M.
Bankes, George Flower, Sir James Nicholl, J.
Baring, B. Forbes, Patten J. W
Barneby, J. Forman, I'. Seaton Peel. Sir -Robert
Barrington, Viscount Fremantle, Sir T. Peel, Jonathan
Raskerville, T. B. al Fuller, Augustns E. Pringle, A.
Bateson, Robert Gaskell, J. M. Rolleston, Colonel
Beckett, W. Gladstone, W. E. Round, John
Bentinck, Lord G. Gordon, Captain • Rous, Hon. Captain
Beresford, Major Goulburn, H. Rushbrooke,Colonet
Blacklaurne,J.lreland Graham, Sir James Sheppard, T.
Blackstone, W. Greene, T. Smith,Rt Hon. T. 8.0
Boldero, Henry G. Grogan, Edward Somerset, Lord G.
Bowles, Admiral Hamilton, J. Hans Sotheron, T. H.
tiroadley, H. Herbert, Sidney Sp ioner, Richard
Bruce, Lord Ernest Hodgson, Richard Stanley, Lord
Bruges, W. H. L. Hope, Charles Stuart. H.
Buckley, Edmund Hope, G. W. Sutton, Hon. H. M
Bunbury, Thomas Homby, John . Taylor, Edward
Chelsea, Viscount Hussey, Thomas Thesiger, F.
Clerk, Sir George Ingestre, Lord Tollemache, F. J.
Cockburn, Sir G. Jernayn, Earl . Trench, Sir F.
Colvile, Charles R. Jones, T. Trotter, John
Corry, Henry Kemble, Henry Wodehouse, Edmond
Cripps, W. Knatchbull, Sir E.
Darner, Hon. G. Lennox, Lord A. TELLERS,
Darby, George Lincoln, Farl of Young, John
Denison, E. Leckett Mackinnon," W. A. Baring, H.

AMENDED RAILWAYS BILL
A BILL TO ATTACH CERTAIN CONDITIONS TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF FUTURE. RAILWAYS, AUTHORISED
OR TO BE AUTHORISED BY ANY ACT OF THE PRESENT
OR SUCCEEDING SESSIONS OF PARLIAMENT, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES IN RELATION TO RAILWAYS.
Note.—The clauses marked (A) and (B) were added by

the Committee.
1. Whereas it is expedient that the concession of
powers for the establishment of new lines of railway
should he subjected to such conditions as are hereinafter
contained for the benefit of the public; be it enacted by
the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the
advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,
and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled,
and by the authority of the same, that if at any time
after the end of twenty-one years from and after the
Ist day of January next after the passing of, any
Act of the present or of any future session of Parlia-
ment, for the construction of any new line of passenger
railway, whether such line be a trunk, branch, or junc-
tion line, and whether such' nelv line be constructed by
a new company incorporated for the purpose, or by any
existing company, the clear annual profits divisible
upon the subscribed and paideap capital stock of the said
railway, upon the average of the three then last pre-
ceding years, shall equal or exceed the rate of 101. for
every 1001. of such paid-up capital stock, it shall be law-
ful for the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Trea-
sury, upon giving to the said company three calendar
months' notice in writing of their intention so to do, to
revise the scale of tolls, fares, and charges, limited by
the Act or Acts relating to the said railway, and to
fix such new scale of tolls, fares, and charges,
applicable to such different classes and kinds of
passengers, goods, and other traffic on such railway, as
in the judgment of the said Lords Commissioners, as-
suming the same quantities and kinds of traffic to con;
tinue, shall be likely to reduce' the said divisible profits
to the said rate of 10/. in the 1001., and so from time
to time at the expiration of each succeeding period of
twenty-one years ; provided always, that no such re-
vised scale shall take effect, unless accompanied by a
guarantee, to subsist as long as any. such revised scale
of tolls, fares, and charges shall be in force, that the
said divisible profits, in case of any deficiency therein,
shall be made good to the said rate of 101. for every 100/.
of such capital stock ; provided also, that such revised
scale shall not be again revised or such guarantee with-
drawn, otherwise than with the consent of the company.
for the further period of twenty-one years.
2. That whatever may be the rate of divisible profits
in any such railway, it shall be lawful for the said Lords
Commissioners, if they shall think fit, at any time aftet
the expiration of the said term of twenty-one Tears, ti
purchase any such railway, with all its hereditaments,
stock, and appurtenances, in the name and on behalf of
her Majesty, upon giving to the said company three
calendar months' notice in writing of their intention,
and upon payment of a sum' equal to twenty-five
years' purchase of the said annual divisible profits,
estimated on the average of the three then
next preceding years ; provided always, that if
the average rate of profit • for the said three
years shall exceed the rate of 101 in the 1001., it shall
be taken at only 101. in the 100 tr for the purpose of cal-
culating thereon the amount of such purchase-money;
provided also, that if the average rate of profits for the
said three years shall be less than the rate of 101. in the
1001., it shall be lawful for the company, if they shall be
of opinion that the said rite of 25 years' purchase of the
said average profits is an adequate rate of purchase of
such railway, reference being. had to the prospects
thereof, to require that the rate- of purchase, instead of
being calculated upon such average rate of profit, shall
be taken at a valuation, to be determined, in case of dif-
ference, by arbitration.
3. (A.) That nothing herein contained shall be con-
strued to subject to the said option of revision or pur-
chase any railway made or authorised to be made by
any Act previous to the present session ; and that no
branch or extension of less than five miles in length of
any existing line of railway shall be taken to be a new
railway .within the provisions of this Act ; and that the
said option of purchase shall not be exercised as to any
branch or extension of any existing railway, without in-
cluding iu the purchase the existing railway • also in
case the company of proprietors of the same shall require
that the same be so included.
4. (B.) And whereas it is expedient that the policy of
calling into exercise the powers of revision or purchase
hereby reserved, or either of them, should in no manner
be prejudged by the provisions of this Act, and should
remain for the future -consideration of the Legislature,
upon grounds of general and national policy ; and
whereas it is not the intention of this Act, that under
the said powers of revision or purchase, if called into
use,*the public resources should be employed to sustain
an undue competition against any independent company
or companies ; be it enacted, that no such notice se-
hereinbefore mentioned, whether of revision 'or pur-
chase, shall be given, until provision shall have been
made by Parliament, by an Act or Acts to be passed in
that behalf, for authorising the guarantee or the levy of
the purchase money hereinbefore mentioned, as the case
may be, and for determining, subject to the conditions
hereinbefore mentioned, the manner in which the said
options or either of them 'shall be exercised ; provided
always, that before any application is made to Parliament
for the powers to exercise the said options or either of
them, three months' notice shall be given by the said
Lords Commissioners to the company or companies to be
affected thereby, of the intention so to apply.
5. That from and after the commencement of the pe-
riod of three years preceding the period at which the
option of ransom or purchase becomes available, full and
true accounts shall be kept of all sums of money re-
ceived' and paid on account of any railway within the
provisions hereinbefore contained (distinguishing, if the
said railway shall be a branch railway, or one worked in
common with other railways, the receipts, and giving an
estimate of the expenses, on account of the said railway
from those on account of the trunk line, or other rail-
ways) by the directors of the company to whom such
railway belongs or by whom the same may be worked,
and of the purposes and things for which such
sums of money shall have been received and paid ; and
every such railway company shall, once in every half-
year, cause a half-yearly account in abstract to be pre-
pared, showing the total receipt and expenditure On
account of the said railway, for the half year ending the
30th day of June and the 31st day of December, respec-
tively, or such other convenient days as shall in each
case be directed by the Lords of the said Committee, under
distict heads of receipt and expenditure, according tf.
such form as may be required by the Lords of the said
Committee, with a statement of the balance of such ac-
count, duly audited and certified under the hands of two
or more directors of the said railway company ; and shall
send a copy of the said account to the Lords of the said
Committee on or before the last days of August and Feb-
ruary respectively, or such other days as shall in each
case be directed by the Lords of the said Committee in
each year ; and it shall be lawful for the Lords of the
said Committee, if and when they shall think fit, to ap-
point any proper person or persons to inspect the ac-
counts and books of the said Company ; and it shall be
lawful for any person so authorised, at all reasonable
times upon producing his authority, to examine the
.books, accounts, vouchers, and other documents of the
company at the principal office or place of business of
the company, and to take copies or extracts therefrom.
. 6. Companies to provide one cheap train, each way,
daily. (This clause remains virtually unchanged, see
clause 25 of former Bill.) And with respect to all rail-
way companies subject to these obligations which shall
be open on or before the Ist day of November next,
these obligation: shall come into force on the said Ist
day of November ; and with respect to all other rail-
ways subject to this obligation, it shall come into force
on the day of opening of the railway, or the day after the
last day of the session in which the Act shall be passed,
by reason of which the company will become subject
thereunto, which shall tirst happen.
7. That if any railway company shall refuie or wilfully
neglect to comply with the provisions of this act as to
the said cheap trams, within 'a reasonable time, or shall
attempt to evade the operation of such order, such cora-