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

Idler—" Look to the state this old man is brought to. Do you
wish to come to the same state? " But the rogue
would
prefer crime, which may lead only
to a g
That humane and constitutional law, so much eulogised by Lord
saaoyl—, (
a‘ n No,d thlat is far better than a workhouse."
Brougham, gave the Commissioners a power of raising money
without the consent of Parliament, which was beyond any pre-
rogative possessed 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. The
Act, instead of amending the administration of the old Act, was,
in reality, an Act to punish the idle and unindastrions, with
this misfortune, that it included the industrious poor in the
nine category. He concluded by thanking the House for the
indulgence it had extended towards him.
Mr. FERRAND 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
its consideration. And he would begin by frankly stating that
if, after 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. But 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, from
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 Its 34, 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 )ear 1842, received re-
lief, and a very considerable number of these persons
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 poor, 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 ; but 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 mere 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 other side of the House meant
by crying" Hear," but notwithstanding be 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 finally 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 Hon. 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 Waltham 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 snrprised
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
passing 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?
showiie that it had not.
which Hon. Gentlemen opposite
thought that a refe-
rtaelukceed
to so
In the reign of William and Mary, and Queen Anne, great
complaints were made as to the operation of the new poor-law,
about
historymh would
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 ? Se 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 proposes!, but the evils complained of grew
greater • and greater; and in 1830 that law, which
bad 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 pariahs 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 se 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
will this measure. and he should give his cordial support to it.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY explained.
Sir W. J AMES oppo.ed the measure, as one not founded
upon the principles of justice and morality. The Bishop of
Llaxidaff 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 mix
rable. 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 lax 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 profe,sed to give them.—( Cries of " Divide.")
Captain PECHELL, who roee amidst repeated cries of
" 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.
tleman 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.
sooners.—( 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. )
Ho would recommend the Government to look at the cliseon_
tent which this measure occasioned throughout the country,
and the great unpopularity, and many election defeats, which it
occasioned to the late Government. Ile would support the pre-
position or tfiu hon. Afeiiiber fOr Evesham.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. S. CRAWFORD (who also was received with load
cries of " Divide,") said that on so important an occasion he
had a right to claim the ettentiell of the qfplll-0---u Oiteer,
lor"r ~e1:1;44„,q4'd support' tdtltehat.testhne4tHonni h
Gentlemanletubexeon.
and ha hope
would resist any ad t
etopoi toinufiet to atter the terms of
it.—( Hear.) Those Commissioners possessed the most
unconstitutional Powers, rendering altogether null and unavail-
leg the•functiens of the elective bodies—the boards of per-
clians.—(HeMo bear, )• The gre4t 'l,6o6oeofl3ill'was'to;
terrify the poor man, by the horror of the workhouse, from
peeking relief until he was in the very last stage of destitution.
—( Hear, hear.) In the Tenth Report of the Irish Poor-law
ce3mmissioners, it was stated that the law was going ou digit
satisfactorily, fnit whet. was the OFnof, the.
the last stage or
destitution cane to the workhouse so 'educed by went, that
they died soon ertee their admission. That was the satisfactory
working of the law in Ireland I People kept out of the see-t-
-houre as long as they eosins ...es --"

the Right Hon. Baronet's measure on a our tie 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 h e had had only
two days ago with Lord Ashburton, He would, however,
withdraw the motion, as the sense of the House appeared to
be against it.
The clause was then withdrawn.
Mr. TURNER then moved the following emendieient at the
end of clause 9:—" And with a view to, prevent 1013 to the
working dessert, that from and after the passing of this Aet,
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 tiae 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 loss 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 ever 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 circumsta-nces
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 R. PEEL said the amendment had nothing whatever to
do with the measure which had no reference to the coinage.
Mr. HUME said the public had suffered severely by the
tight sovereigns, and the Government should take some step to
prevent a recurrence of such a public injury and inconvenience.
He thought there had been a great want of attention to the
;subtle. welfare in suffering the matter to lie so long neglected.
;irr, C. WOOD said he apprehended that at the present
moment there was very little inconvenience from light
gold. isnatever 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
coutract or agreement ; and that the said Commissioners of
Stamps and 'faxes 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 deputation of that bank was
72,000/. in 1841, it fell to 51,000/. in 1842, to 30,0001. in
1843, and to 25,0001. in 1844. He thought this bank had a
claim for protection, and it was with a view* to do justice be
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 riot 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 It. 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 that the House go into Committee on this Bill,
Mr. F. FRENCH pitt questions regarding the administra-
tion of the Irish poor-law, which
Sir J. GAAHAM, on the ground of their vagueness and his
unpreparedness, refused to answer.
Mr. COCH RAN E 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
434 of Elizabeth? Mr. 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, mere 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 the mode 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. asi the garments they were clothed in were the
garments of Mane. Under the new poor-law, crime had won-
' derfutly 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 11140, 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-
periiy 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, he 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
Treasure, 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 SPEAKER 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 SIB'tHORP, in seconding the motion, said that he
agreed with everything that had fallen from his Hon. 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 enjayment of those
rational amusements to which they were entitled as much as
the highest noble in the land. He would riot occupy the
House in going over the same ground as his Hon. Friend. But
if the 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.
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 presentoppressive 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 Brouehara, 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
pc/grey classes, He ( Mr. Borthwick) could not agree with
the soble 4urd that lord Bacon and the distinguished
philesophers and statesmen who 4sleiaorl that great Otteen,
were ;gears nt of political philosephy, of morality, qr re igloo:
The Noble Lord hod raid that the old leaf giaa roe to agrarian
disturbances. But bad there been no such disturbances Since
149 Bill was Rased in 1834 ? Those disturbances were at least
.
fssloent aria as terrible oincp that period. as they had been
hefore. The Bill heciproped uttetly ihsfhcient fqr every
jeet ebich it was intended to effrct. Rafea lied in GAO' in:
gageis been greatly increased; bit without giving adequate
relic to the poor, orprofineing their content. He thought the
powers of the Commissioners were tinconstitntional, and
placed the poor out of the pale of the f.%oosti:
nation, leaving to the Commissioners an irrflivilstlole
ipos'er over' their liberties, and, in some' instance, even over
theirlivp. whp past tiyo4 for ssty mil in honggr-
able toil, thriling in the cottage which he had inherited tom
father, happened to be a einnth es WA anensployeds Lord
Act dirvetfid, before he unit d even claim

the
body and soul together—he must first sell the dwelling of his
lathers.—c Hear! hair. Thy Act said tY the rt?kra Rd thy

unui *amine overcame their
norrors. Was this fiiir treatment of the working -classes ? Was
it not most cruel and inhuman ?—(Cheers.) Under this law
iA Englawl4 uew qatera of givhig tickets had growu by

TIIE sr w, LOND X, FRIDAY P.VEN'IN'G JULY 6, 1f644,

which the farmers were enabled to roduee the wares of their
labourers.—(Cheers.) Something must be done for the poor
man. He mug either be supported from the ealth of the
country, or he mus' come back upon the land, and support him-
self by his independent labour.--( Hear, hear.) If something
were not done, the country would become a prey to anarchy
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
Tete for the resolutions.

Lord SANDON would tent 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 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 the the test of extreme
destitution was fit to be applied in a country like this.—( Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord then reed 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
eel law, and went through a catalogue of those evils ;
but he omitted to state the tact, 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.
slember for Evesham, or the motion of the Hon. Member tor
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, anti
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 dissere-, 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 douse would do away with it. The leaders
of both parties were in favour of it. They lauded each ether as
practical men—but he (Mr. Vv akley ) 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 fur 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
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 ersofficio 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.
diens, 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-
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 ne,y poor-law.
He thought it began at the wrons end. He ob-
jected to such large posers 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 hail been relieved out of the workhouse,
and when he heard the statement+ 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 tha: e things, they wouli have towel the
s and cheap food and. if they had
only commenced with
enactment of a sound poor-law a very easy teak indee4.—
wages.
( Divide. divide. )
Mr. FERRAND (amid loud cries of " Divide, divide,"
" Go on, go on") moved the adjournment of the debate.—
(Ne, 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 proteste I 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 new 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 dj •urned 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 threat.. 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. But the fact was. that Hon.
Gentlemen had been discussing general principles all the
evening, and not the Bill, which ought, properly and strietly,
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 he devised in mitigation of
the existing system and of great value to the
community a. large.—(Laud 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
likewise of
complained the session ?
of He
the should
tone
on the subject.—( Roars of laughter.) Why was not the Bill
broltr.
uighist forward
oar:
Tatiainwelacrlg
earlier period
certainle persevere in supporting the motion for adjournment.
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- I
sion.

The House then divided on the question of adjournment--
For the adjournment lB
Against it ...............
Majority
—2Ol
On our return to the gallery, we found
Mr. FERRAND 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. Number 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 .sle nbers 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 fur
any delay in the measure the House and net the Right lion.
Baronet, were to blame.
Mr. BORT HWICK would not move the adjournment him-
self, but, after what had fallen from the Noble Lerd the Secre-
tary for the Colonies, he would vote with any one who moved
it.—( Hear, and a laugh.) The Ndble Lord disclaimed an)
person it allusion to him ( Mr. Borthwick), nor had he been
personal in his observations.
Sir R. PEEL had so often seen the lion. Gentleman take
a reasonable part, that he had no doubt he would do so on the
present oe.cssion.—( Great laughter. )
Mr. BORT 11W1CK explained, amidst great laughter, and
cries of " Spoke, spoke."
Mr. FERRAND said that he was indu-ed 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 Hoe. 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 l9
Majority for going into Committeee —lBo
The House then went into Cornmitte, 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.
GAMING DISCONTINUANCE BILL.
Lord PALMERSTON moved the second reading of thg
Gaming Discontinuance Bill.
Mr. CHRISTIE opposed it, and moved its postponement.
Sir B. PEEL thought the Bill should be read a second time.
After a feWwords from Mr. Duncombe, Lord Palmerston,
and Sir R. Peel,
The House divided on the question of adjournni,nt, when
there appeared—.
Fear the postponement
Against it
Majority 5l
The Bill was then read a second tune, and ordered to he s•-9.
mitted on Wednesday neat.
The other orders nit. the ciay were then di-posed of, and the
House adjhurnid'at a'Quarter past Two o'clock.

THE LIGIITNING.—(From a Correspondent.)—As
Mr. Edward Johnson, of 14, §tebonh9ql teuac,C., •Livc,A;
home, was sitting uP 19 1)e11, MciiilUl'lol46 IW4j6eti.ciin.,
fined throltgit 414134 rovcetoo, tWQ
ho was ,trucktiOi'glitnini,, on 310,,,14.). ulghdashedt, which dashed the
him, and entering his fingers ran tin h;,.
his breast, who?,

trum
lii; neck and
great.heat fur nearly half am • . • ..:• ,
were vlOW,lltly At:Aimed, and his 21",rn •:
tlos,,rlii,-.+A s'nqck ••AntiLit- t 1,0
itlt•t viL•ctrilled water aL
much more violent. On Wednesday morning he was much
better,