The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-28 00:00:00

PROMISE COMMITTEE.

that speech had ever been delivered, for he did not believe
that the aristocracy could remain in possession of their
estates, and the people remain destitute and without
bread. It was alleged that the present law was identical
with that of Elizabeth ; he contended that it was not, as
_ .

tho poor man had not the same appeal, if he were refused
relief, as he had under the old law. Then he applied to
the churchwardens and overseers for relief, and, it refused,

appealed to a, Magistrate, who gave an order for relie.4
which the officers were bound to obey. But now he was

told' to appear before the Board of Guardians
on the following Wednesday or Friday, and. having
stated his case was ordered to withdraw. Both the

public and the press were excluded from the Board, and
the poor man was afterwards told that his case had
been decided against him. Let them look at the diffe-
rent position of the poor in this country under the two
laws. Unde,the one the poor man had a ready means of
obtaining relief. If there was a refusal in the first in-
stance he had a means of referring immediately to a dis-
interested authority ; but under the other the poor man
must in the first instance apply to the relieving officer ;
he must, in the second place, have often to travel many

miles before he could make his destitution known.. The

parties appealed to were rate-payers, and might, there-
fore, be interested in the decision they might come to,
but against that decision there was no appeal. Ile
could not consider that a just system, or one calculated to

make the millions of this-country contented wih the con-
duct of that House. They denied the poor the be-
nefit of the law, but they gave them a Commission.
Nothing was more gratifying to him than to see pro-
vision made for the education of the children of the poor.

Why did he say this ? Because he believed the edu-
cation of the working classes would very soon over-
throw the, present state of things.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) Why should he deny that such were his
opinions ? The course taken with respect to the poor
was calculated to engender nothing but strife. He ad-
mitted that the alterations 41 the present Bill with
regard to the right of voting were good, as well as the
education of children, but there. was much in
the measure he felt bound 'to condemn. In-
stead of legislating for the poor as they would for
their own estates, they delegated an authority to three
Commissioners, hitherto unknown to the Constitution of
England. To them was delegated the power of making
rules, which were to have all the force of Acts made by
the three branches of the Constitution. Such an autho-

rity was never conferred since the time of Henry VIII.,
when, " to the eternal disgrace of Parliament, to use
the v. ords of Blackstone, his proclamations were made
to have the force of law. And it was to the eternal
disgrace of the Parliament of 1834, that they delegated
a similar authority to the Commissioners of Somerset
House—the power of making such rules and regulations
as they might think proper. Ile believed that the original
promoters of the New Poor-law Bill never foresaw the
extent of the powers they were about to confer on the
Poor-law Commissioners, or that they would have been
placed so completely above the law. The plea held out
in support of the law was, that it would improve the con-
dition of the poor, and raise the wages of labour. Now, had
it so raised the wages oflabour?—(An Hon. Member here
said it had raised wages.) He (Mr. W.) respectfully
denied-it. it had not raised wages, as was proved by
the present state of the manufacturing districts ; and
further. he believed that the law never could raise wages.
The object of the measure was to drive the people
from ever seeking relief in the workhouses. And he
a ould ask the gentlemen of England whether such a
system was likely to give contentment to the working
classes ? He was persuaded that it was not ; and
he deeply regretted that such a law had ever received
the sanction of the Legislature.. Before he sat down he
should wish to say a few words as to the orders which
the Commissioners had issued respecting medical relief.
—(Oh; No.) Well, if it were disagreeable to go into:that
part of the subject, he would postpone it for the present
—(Hear, ;hear)—and content himself with moving the
postponement of clause 1. ..
Sir JAMES GRAHAM had listened to the lion.
Gentleman with great attention, as he assays did, and
with some amusement ; but he had not been able to com-
prehend what were the Hon. Gentleman's opinions on
some topics which were of primary importance.—(Hear,
hear.)., Ile agreed with the. Hon. Member in the just
eulogy which he passed upon the English people ; but he
coJd not reconcile the Honourable Gentleman's de-
claration of his admiration of the institutions of
this country, with the approbation which he ex-
pressed of the education clauses of the Bill. which
he admired (he said) most of all, because they would
have a tendency to overthrow the existing order of
things. How could the lion. Member reconcile that
avowal with his other declaration of contentment with a
mixed government, and a love of the monarchy?—
(Hear.) The lion. Gentleman had spoken of the " tru-
culent supporters of the present Government." But
did he not include in that accusation the Right Hon.
Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the
Hon. Member for Lambeth„ and many Radicals of the
of the first water. The Hon. Gentleman said he would.
throw every impediment in the way of the measure, if
he saw a disposition on the part of the Government to
carry only the first five clauses, and so continue the
Commission without any modification . for six years.
Now he could assure the Hon. Gentleman and the
House that it was the sincere wish of the Government
to carry if possible the whole Bill unimpaired—(Hear,
hear)—and he could further assure them that with the
siu-4.1e exception of the clause interfering with the Gil-
bert unions, every one of the clauses in this Bill was a
mitigation of the former Act.—(Hear, hear, hear.) But
what would VS the state of the poor, if the Hon. Gentle-
man succeeded in putting an end to the Commission
Throughout the winter there would be no appeal against
the stringent order against out-door relief. That was at
present as much the law of the land, though only a
general order of the Commission, as it' passed by Parlia-
ment ; the forty days were passed which were necessary
to give the Secretary of State a rescinding power, and
the only dispensing power now was with the Queen in
Council. With regard to what had been said about the
speech of Lord Brougham, he had not adopted the whole
of that speech, he had selected particu'ar passages ; he
believed that Lord Brougham had committed the usual
error of political economists, and had pushed some prin-
ciples too far, indeed to an unsafe extent. He (Sir J.
Graham) did not object to compulsory relief to the poor,
in the shape of a rate ; he contended for all the great
principles of the Act of Elizabeth. He said more, he
would contend that by right, the able-bodied man was, if
destitute, entitled to relief ; but then his claim was con-
ditional, and the test was a task of work. The aged,
the sick, and the infirm, were entitled to unconditional
relief, but to the able-bodied man relief was conditional.
That principle was recognized by the Act of Elizabeth.
The Hon. Member was wrong in saying, that by the Act
of Elizabeth an appeal was given to the person refused
relief. An appeal to the Magistrates was given. but it
wa-A to the rate-payer who might believe that a rate
was improperly levied. The appeal for relief to the
Magistrate was first given by a statute of William HI,
more than 140 years after the date of Elizabeth. The
workhouse test, which was supposed to be first introduced
by the Act of 1834, was equally to be found on the
statute book of the 9th Geo. 1., where it stood as plainly
as any declaration of the Legislature could stand. The
9th of Geo. I. continued the law of the land till 1796,
which was a period of great distress, when some relaxa—
tion took place, and a provision was made, no longer
confining the administration of relief to the inmates of
the workhouse. The Poor-law Act of 1832 repealed
' the Act of 1796, but not the Act of George - the
First, and if they now succeeded in putting an
end to the Commission, the 9th of George the First,
which forbad out-door relief, would still stand on the
statute book, and the prohibition of out-door relief would
remain the statute law of the land. He therefore con-
tended that in the present state of the law it was most
' expedient they should begin with that which was the
key:stone of the Poor-law, namely, whether the adminis-
tration of the law in workhouses should come under the
revision and control of some central authority. The
Hon. Gentleman had said that the strongest feelings
prevailed in large communities against the operation of
this measure. The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of
her Majesty's Government had, however, stated to the
House a remarkable fact, that only 100 petitions had
been presented, signed by 13,000 persons, against the
Bill. lie (Sir J. Graham) would draw the attention of
the House to a communication which he had had on this
matter. A short time since a vestry meeting of St.
George's Southwark was called to consider the Poor-
law Bill now before the House. That parish con-
tained 40,000 -inhabitants, and yet how many were
present on this exciting topic? Two churchwardens,
two overseers, one vestry-clerk, one. sexton, one parish-
clerk, two poor-rate collectors. One beadle, two reporters,
Mr. Boxer, and another gentleman, who came there to
speak, and seven other persons (including the writer of
the communication), making in all 21 persons, and that
in a parish having a population of 40,000 ! A few pa-
rishioners dropped in afterwards ; but Mr. Boxer ad-
dressed the assembly on the enormities o 1 the present
'system, and concluded by moving the adoption of a red-
tion against it to both Houses of Parliament—the one to
the House of Lords to be entrusted to Earl Stanhope.
and that to the House of Commons to the Members for
the borough. The writer moved as an amendment that
as the population of the parish amounted to 40,000, and
there were present less than 30, persons, it appeared evi-
dent that. the parishioners were satisfied to leave the
measure in the hands of the Legislature. Thirteen
hands were held up for the original motion, and that
number forming the majority; the motion was carried.
On one of the overseers asking out of what fund the ex-
pense of engrossing the petition, &e. would be defrayed,
it was resolved that it should lcle taken from the church-
rate, because the auditor of the poor-rate would not pass
such a charge upon the poor-rate.—(Hear, hear.)
The lion, Gentleman said the wages of labour had not
been raised in consequence of the Poor-law. He per-
ceived that declaration excited the zeal of the Hon.
Member for Montrose, who very justly said that the law
was one which would promote the interests of the work-
ing classes. The continuance of the Commission was
the key-stone of the entire measure, and he had no hesi-
tation in stating, that if the first five clauses were struck
out, the Bill would be rendered less than useless, and
would throw the measure-for the relief of the poor into
a mass of confusion, which would be an extreme cruelty
to the labouring classes. He would not make any pro-
fessions, but having given deep consideration to the de-
plorable condition of the poor, he would say that he was
never more convinced of the necessity. of passing this
measure on account of the distress which prevailed.—
(Hear, hear.) He was desirous that they should pro-
ceed in the order of the clauses in the Bill ; because if
the' first one were passed, the others were only modi-
fications of the existing law, to which, if the House
would fairly and dispassionately apply itself, he was sa-
flailed that it would come to the conviction that they
would tend to promote the relief of the poor, and to mi-
tigate the distress of the working classes, who ought
now more particularly to be the objects of their care.
Mr. E. BULLER said that he would not have risen,
were it not that- certain points had not been alluded to
during the debtite on this question. It was usual to look
upon the statute of the 43d of Elizabeth, as the first upon

Mr. ESCOTT wished to know from the Hon. Member
for Bath, whether in the future proceedings before the
Committee of which he was Chairman, all persons,
whether Members of that House or not, would have a
right of being present during the examination of wit-
nesses who made charges against them ?
Mr. ROEBUCK said that the mode of proceeding
adopted by the Committee was that if anything fell
from a witness touching another party, communication
was made .to him of what had been said, and he was
asked if he wished to make any statement in explana-
tion. That was considered by the Committee to be
the best mode of conducting a very invidious inquiry.
And the House, having entrusted them with such in-
quiry, he hoped that it would also trust to their dis-
cretion us to the presence of parties.
BRIBERY BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice that he would move
the Bribery Bill, pro forma, to-morrow.
Mr. SHEIL gave notice that he would abandon the
instruction to the Committee upon the Bribery Bill, of
which he had given notice.
TRIAL OF ELECTION PETITIONS.

In answer to a question from Lord MAIION,
Sir R. PEEL said that he would move on Thursday, the
14th of July, for leave to bring in a Bill to continue the
Bill for the regulation of the trial of election petitions.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved the resumption of the
debate on the Poor-law Amendment Bill. 1
Mr. FIELDEN then rose to oppose the committal
of the Bill, but, in consequence of the noise oc-
casioued by Members leaving the House, and
the low tone in which the Hon. Member spoke, it was
almost impossible to catch a single sentence. We, how-
ever, understood him to say, -that he gave the measure
his determined opposition, because he was convinced the
people had become disgusted with the Bill. He entered
into various details, showing the harsh working of the
workhouse test, and other provisions of the Poor-law Act.
The Right Hon. Baronet had said, that if the country
was generally opposed to the Poor-law Bill, there
would have been more than a few petitions pre-
sented against it ; that there had been petitions
with signatures only amounting to 25,000 presented
against the measure. Now he (Mi:lFielden) must say that
there had been more than a few petitions presented
against the Bill. The Hon. Gentleman here entered
into a detail of the number of petitions, with their signa-
tures, which were presented to the Ilouse this session
against the Poor-law Bill, but he spoke in such a
low tone as to be quite inaudible in the gallery.
He did not think the Right Hon. Baronet had fairly re-
presented what was the object of the statute of Elizabeth.
but if that law were so similar to the present one, it
should be recollected its provisions were carried out
without the aid of a Commission. He did not see any
reason why the great powers confided to the Commis-
sioners should be entrusted to them. Why should they
delegate that control to them which ought not to be pos-
sessed by any but those who had immediate superintend-
ence over them ? The Hon. Member concluded by sup-
porting the amendment.
Mr. LAWSON rose amid loud cries of " Divide," and
was scarcely heard from the impatience of the House for
the division. He said he had felt some surprise that the
Hon. and Learned Member for Bath should have called
the opposition to the Poor-law mere vulgar prejudice and
declamation.—(Divide, divide.) He contended that local
guardians were the best authorities to have the disposal
of local funds for the management of the poor.
The House then divided, and the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it 156
Majority -119
The House then went into Committee, Mr GREENE,iII
the Chair.
On clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. WAKLEY said his object in rising was to obtain
a postponement of this clause until they had determined
what the provisions of the Bill should be ; and he could
not conceive a more rational proposition, or one which
ought more readily to receive the sanction of the House.
This clause proposed the continuation of the Commission
till 1847, and the end of the then next Session of Parlia-
ment. Many of the Members of that House had ob-
jected to the powers already exercised. by the Commis-
sioners as being incompatible with the Constitution,
dangerous to their institutions, and pregnant with mis-
chief to the poor. But the Bill which he held in his
hand proposed to confer on them still greater powers,
and he conceived nothing more preposterous than to de-
terminine the continuing the Commission for six years,
without previously determining what those powers were
whirls they had to execute. lie-was net desirous of
offering any factious opposition to the Bill, but he was
desirous of giving it a strenuous, determined, and un-
flinching opposition, consistently with the obligations he
owed to society, and with his duty as a Member of that
House. He, therefore, thought the Government was
acting most unreasonably by the House, unjustly by the
poor, and most irrationally by the public, in making a
proposition of this kind. There wire thirty-seven no-
tices of amendments on the Paper, many of them involv-
ing considerations of the highest character, and striking
at the root of those powers whicbt the Commissioners
now exercised, and which, if carped, would leave it a
matter of indifference whether the Commission NV ere
continued or not. But if those! amendments were
rejected, he saw that nothing could be more disastrous
than that the power of an unnecessary Commission
should be continued for six years longer. After,
the determination the House had just come to, his
hopes were slight indeed that it would adopt his propo •
sition ; but notwithstanding that, he felt compelled to
bring it forward, because he thought the House was
doing that which would injure itself. It was treating
the people with hostility, and setting at defiance all their I
wishes. lie believed the object of the measure was to
perptnate the Poor-law Commission. They never
could uphold the interests of the aristocracy so effec-
tually
as when they upheld the rights of the masses.
Property could not be secured while the millions were
discontented, and while they were under the influence of
feelings bordering on a desire for revenge. The law did
not permit the poor to exercise their talents and in-
dustry in the best manner ; when they became destitute
they were immured in gaol on account of their
poverty, and yet it was expected that they should be
content, and should respect the aristocracy. The Go-
vernment was periling every institution of the kingdom
by the course it was pursuing towards the poor. The
lion. and Learned Member for Bath was a Radical
Reformer, a supporter of Universal Suffrage, and yet, he
supported this law when he well knew that this very law
was the first that would be repealed by a Universal Suf.-
frageyarliament. He (Mr. Wakley) was astonished at
such Inconsistency. He would ask the Right Hon. Baronet
if it was his intention to get the House to consent to
• the continuance of the Commission, and to four or five
other clauses, and then to abandon the rest of the Bill?
He protested against such a proceeding. If they con-
sented to the continuance of the Commission, it was their
duty to go fully into the subject, if they sat there until
the 31st of December. It would be a breach of the
tacit understanding which had been come to the other
evening. ye objected to the destruction of the Gilbert
Unions. The old system had been destroyed because it
was too bad, and the Gilbert Unions were to be destroyed
because they were too good. The principle of the Act
of Elizabeth wasa beneficial one, notwithstanding it had
been designated in a speech in 1834, delivered in another
place, as an accursed one. In that s.peech hospitals, infirm-
aries, dispensaries, charitable institutions of all sorts, had
been denounced as injurious to society. As the Right
Hon. Gentleman had, to a certain extent, adopted one of
t oughtt is an ce es,
the principles of that speech, he wished to ask whether
he adopted the remainder ? Did he consider hospitals,
dispensaries, and charitable institutionsverriraen
a s
o speak
arid was it the object of the Government to get rid of a
Poor-law altogether ? The G 9
out manfully and boldly on the subject. They ought to
speak out, and declare openly what their opinions were,
and let the people openly enter into strife with them.
If they would remain in possession of their estates, and
give the poor relief in time of necessity, let themmendtheari
, stand what poeition tbey occupied. lie regretted

THE SUN,, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, TUNE 28, 1842.

she snhject, but it was founded on a previous statutepat
ted in the same reign—the l4th of Elizabeth, chap. 5;
which was passed for the pnuishment of vagabonds and
sturdy beggars, who were to be previously whipped till
they were bloody, and to have the gristle of the right ear
bored with a red- hot iron, an inch round. It was upon
that statute that the 43d of Elizabeth was founded. L
they were to refuse all out-door relief, and to compel
every one applying for relief to reside in the wrolthouse,
such a course of proceeding would be perfectly consistent
with the provisions of the 43d Elizabeth. The statute
authorising the giving of out-door relief was not passed
until the 3d of William and Mary, and that statute gave

no appeal to the Justices. In the-7th of George I. was
passed the stringent statute, refusing out-door ralief; that
was modified by the 22d George 111, and still further by
the 55th Geo. 111., which gave the Magistrates the power
of ordering out-door relief to the extent of 3s. per week
for each person, and which had done all the mischief
that the Poor-law Amendment Act was required to re-
medy. He agreed in all that had been said in praise of
the working classes ; but if ever there was a law calcu-
lated to ruin their character, and to break down their
habits of industry, it was the Act of the 55th Geo, 111.
If he were asked if every one had an inherent and inde-
feasable right to be maintained on the spot where lie was
born, he (Mr. E. Buller) would reply, that he knew of
no grounds on which such a right
_could be sustained ;
but if he were asked if the poor of this country had a
, right to be relieved, he would say yes ; because, by law,
they had been deprived of a natural right. Every poor
person had a natural right to ask alms of his neighbour ;
of that right the law had deprived him, and, therefore, the
law was bound to afford him relief. All the ancient sta-

totes bore out this view of the subject ; they all con.
tained enactments for the suppression of mendicancy
coupled with a provision for the relief of the poor ; bu
that claim was quite satisfied by the tender of residence
and relief in the workhouse, and any other mode of re-
lief was not a matter of right but of indulgence. He
should be very glad to see that indulgence extended to
the old, the infirm, and the sick, but to the able-bodied
some test must be applied ; and, on the whole, he
thought the workhouse test better than the labour test.
Mr. BENETT considered that the poor had an inde-
feasible right to relief, and that right rested on the same
authority as the common law of the land—namely, im-
memorial usage. No man denied the right of the poor
man to relief. The 43d of Elizabeth did not give the
poor man relief, unless he worked for it. But they also
could give him money relief, if it were necessary, out
of doors. He opposed this Bill, because he thought it
was necessary to take the power of relieving the poor
out of the hands of the Board of Guardians. The
Commissioners in London only acted upon certain gene-
ral rules, and he had seen those rules inflict great hard-
ship on the poor. When the poor matt, with a large
family, got into the workhouSe, how was it possible foi
him to get out again ? Here was a case of hardship. llc
had seen such cases himself. With respect to raising
wages by this law, it was absurd ; wages were regulated
according to the price of food. He wanted to see those
who were willing to work have some means to fall back
upon.—(Hear, hear.) He was anxious that the law
should be in some way fixed, that the guardians should
have the power of Judging of the amount of relief to
be afforded.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The guar-
dians, in certain districts, were certainly severe;
but that was no rule. He was in doubt as to whether
there should be a Commission in London or not, but
certainly he had no hesitation in saying it ought not te
be maintained for five years ; for if maintained, it ought
to be only for a short time. With this feeling, but with
an anxious desire to do his duty to the country, he
would not give his assent to the Commission being
continued for five years.
Mr. RICE said the old Poor-law was grossly
abused, and the only- remedy was the new Poor-law.
With respect to the continuance of the Commission it
was a question as to whether they should revert
back to the abuses of the old system, or have itt
remedy continued. He believed that nothing had mon
benefited the poor than the Central Board of Control
He hoped the time was now come when they should
consider the details of this measure, and he should be
glad in removing any provisions which were considered
harsh. When they came to the third clause he should
ask the Right Hon. Baronet whether it would have the
same effect as a similar clause they agreed to in the last
Parliament.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said that in the course
of this debate, they had heard more discursive matter
than the subject warranted. The main question was
whether the Commission should be" continued or not.
Withoutany disposition to be captious or troublesome to
the Government, he conceived that nothing could be
more reasonable than the proposition of the Hon. Mem
ber for Finsbury. He thought the question of the con-
tinuance of the Commission for five years ought to be
postponed. The Right Hon. Baronet said that it went
to limit the powers of the Commission. He (Mr. S.
Wortley) did not think se. His objection was to the as-
sertion of the principle that it was necessary to continue
this Commission for the term of five years. With all
his dissatisfaction at the principle of legislation upon this
subject, he could not help expressing his satisfaction at
the altered tone of those who supported the provisions of
this Bill.—(Hear, hear, head.) He did not mean to say
that they had changed their opinions, but they had found
that there was a strong public feeling on the subject,
and therefore they had moderated their tone. The
Hon. Gentleman concluded by stating that he would
vote for the continuance of the Commission for the
whole period.
Capt. PECHELL thought he had no other course to
pursue but to aid in putting, an end to the Commission
altogether, and he should therefore vote for the motion of
the lion. Mumber forFinsbury. If the Local Acts in towns
and the Gilbert Unions were to be continue 1, he might
be inclined to allow the Commission to continue for an-
other year, but no longer.
After a few words from Sir J. GRAHAM, .
Mr. CARI)WELL opposed the motion of the Hot .
Member for Finsbury.
Mr. DARBY sate that there was nothing he objected
to more than continuing the Bill from year to year. The
wisest plan, in his opinion, was, that the Government
should bring forward a measure of a permanent character
which would give the House an opportunity of consider-
ing the whole question in Committee. lie thought it
was comparatively unimportant whether the Commission
were continued for three years or five years ; but the
Commission should be continued for some definite
period, so that the entire subject might come from time
to time under the revision of Parliament.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE was astonished to find that
the Government had opposed the motion of his Hon.
Colleague (Mr. Wakley). The proposal of his Hon.
Colleague was merely that the consideration of the
clause continuing the powers of the Commissioners
should be postponed until the other provisions of the Act
had been discussed, and until it had been ascertained
what were the duties which the Commissioners would
have to exercise. There was at least one member of the
Cabinet .who should not oppose the motion then before
the House—he-meant the Right Hon. Baronet the Pay-
master of the Forces (Sir C. Knatchbull), who, when a
Bill similar to the present, had been introduced last year
by the late Government, expressed his dissent from many
of its main provisions. (The Hon. Gentleman here read
some extracts from the speech of Sir E. Knatchbull, in
proof of this statement.) It would seem, however, that
the Right Hon. Baronet had since changed his opinions,
for lie (Mr. Duneombe) found his name, with that of the
Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, on the
back of the Bill.—(A laugh.) The Right Hon. Baronet
had, no doubt, the best and most conscientious reasons for
the opinions which lei now entertained ; but it would
still be satisfactory to the House, to the country, and to
the county of Kent, to be made acquainted with the
grounds upon which the Right Hon. Gentleman had
altered his sentiments.—(A laugh.)
Sir E. KNATCHBULL was sorry that he must dis-
appoint the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury,
in his expectations that he (Sir E. Knatchbull) wount
vote for the amendment. The Hon. Gentleman com-
menced by saying that he would only occupy the House
by an explanation, for the purpose of setting himself
right, but he departed from that intention, for the purpose
of making a personal attack upon him, very much
it seemed to the Hon. Gentleman's own satisfaction,
and with some amusement to the House. He (Sir E.
Knatchbull) did last year move a similar amendment to
the one now before the House ; but he then found the
sense of the House so much against him, that he with-
drew the motion. He had not the same reasons now
that actuated hiM oh that occasion. The present Bill
was completely mitigated in all that was objectionable in
the former measure ; and the Commissioners, who had
(to use the mildest term) acted in a very indiscreet min-
tier at first, had recently taken a more judicious course ;
and the powers given in this Bill were sufficiently
limited.—(Hear, and a laugh.) Besides, the object of
those who supported the amendment now, was to defeat
the Bill altogether, and that alone would be sufficient to
justify him in voting against it.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE. said, that if the first clause
were altogether rejected it would nut defeat the Bill, for
the law could be better carried into effect by guardians
properly elected than by the Commissioners.—(Hear.)
Sir E. KNATCHIIULL repeated that his proposition
of lust year was made under very different circum-
stances, which warranted him in supporting the present'
measure.
Mr. P. HOWARD (who rose amidst laughter and
cries of " Divide") said that the explanation of the Right
sHaotinsf.yGehiiimtlemaaantoopp
theosite(Sir E. Kaatclibull) did not
consistency of the course which
the Right Hon. Gentleman was taking. The Right
Hon. Gentleman had voted last year against the con-
tinuance of the Commission, and no subsequent altera-
tion of the measure could remove that objection. if he
(Mr.
he
Baronet would nt
ho
et
laugh and loud cries of
Member for Kent.—(A
tHe o
twhaimitaer d
course
s oo
fv o
thet ed
Right
hi
ta u laugh)—on
" Divide.") He believed that the control ex-
ercised by the "Commissioaers, and their inter-
ference with the local managers of the poor,
operated much more often in favour of the poor than
against them.—(Divide, divide.) It was well renown
that to the time of Henry the Eighth there were no
Poor-laws, and the poor were maintained out of the
Patrimony of the Church. lint when the property of
the Church was seized upon the poor were deprived of
that one-third which the canon law appropriated for
their relief.—(Great impatience, and cries of " Divide.")
The Poor-law of Elizabeth was passed to provide fur the,.
poor who had been deprived of their former source of
subsistence, and in their distress had become too strong '
f,,r the law. Ile had supported the present measure,.
and he was satisfied that a mangled discussion of it
from year to ?-ear would only serve to give continual
theans of aottation to the fiteious.—(flear, hear.)
Ile would only conclude by saying that he could not see
any force in the argument of the Hon. Member for Brigh-
ton. The clause did not attack the Gilberts' Unions; when
it came to the clause affecting those unions the Hon.
Gentleman might state his arguments against it.—(Loud
cries of " Divide.")
Mr. WAKLEY replied.- After a debate of four
hutirs lqe had net hestsl a single reason against has pro-

?coition. His motion was a bona fide one, made upon
?rinciple ; was the House prepared to sanction the en-
furanee of the Commission for five years, before they
had defined the powers that were to be entrusted
to it ?—(Hear.) The House might decide against
him, but the country would be with him. There
were forty amendments before the House, and there
might be forty more ; and was it acting fairly to the
country to give so long a period to the Commission, in
the most perfect ignorance as to the powers that might
ue bestowed on it ? Had there been a reason shown

against his proposal ? Had any intimation been given
that the Government intended to support a single amend-
:nent of which notice had been given ? All, therefore,
.vho had given notice of amendments, or intended to do
so, should support him.—(Hear, hear.) If they did not
they would stultify themselves ; the Government could
turn round on them and say that they ought not

co have voted for the continuance of the Commission if

they disapproved of it, and in ignorance of what its func-
ions ought to be. He felt confident that if the people
had more power in that House, they would use it to pro-
cure a repeal of the Poor-law. Under these circum-
'Lances he was under the necessity of troubling the
House to go to a division.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Souse divided. The numbers were—

For Mr. Wakley's motion 74
Against it 206
=ll.lajority against the motion -132
The clause was then agreed to.
On the second clause being read,
Mr. B. WOOD rose to move an amendment. It ap-
leared to him that the Assistant Commissioners were

ironical cheers)—but if the Right Hon. Baronet would
give. the ple lge he had asked, he (Mr. Ferrand) would
move for a Committee.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that although the Hon.
Gentleman was Chairman of a Board of Guardians, he
did not appear to be very conversant with the law, or he
would have known that the Secretary of State possessed
no power of dismissing an Assistant Poor-law Commis-
sioner. The Commissioners were the only parties who
possessed that power. He knew nothing of Mr. Mott
personally, but there could be no doubt how the Com-
missioners would act, if the Hon. Gentleman could
prove his allegations. He (Sir James Graham) would,
however state, with regard to one portion of Mr. Mott's
Report, that he (Sir James Graham) had himself the
original order issued by the Keightley Board of
Guardians, for enforcing the payment of 2i poor-rates
from a pauper.
Mr. FERRAND—I do not deny that.—(Load cries of
" Oh, oh." and ironical cheers.)
Mr. B. WOOD suggested that it was not right to mix
up these personal questions with the matters under dis-
cumin.
Mr. WAKLEY wished to know how long the
Keightley Union had been formed. He understood
it had been formed for four years. Now, if these
abuses had continued, and the Poor-law Commis-
sioner knew it, of what use were they, costing
the country, tts they did, 20,0001. a year? Was the
Hon. Baronet aware that such things. as had been al-
leged to have taken place at Keightley, had actually oc-
curred in this metropolis? Within the last six weeks,
he had held an inquest on the body of a child, that had
been in the same room with its parents five weeks after
it was dead. This took place in London, in one of the
unions. The father of the child had made application for
a coffin, but it was said that he could not get a coffin,
in consequence of circumstances which had taken
place in his family previously. From other sources he suc-
ceeded in getting a coffin; he then applied to the guar-
dians to have it buried, and he was asked if there were
any ornaments on the coffin, and his answer was yes ?
and they replied that the clergyman would not bury
without the usual fee. It could not, they said be buried
as a pauper, because there were ornaments on the coffin.
Ta'k of 'the Keightley union, things far more detestable
and odious took place in this metropolis under his own
observation. What happened after the Poor-law Bill
passed. Did they not refuse the tolling of the bell, and
further, did they not deny the use of a pall? These things
were altogether too detestable to comment upon. With
regard to that, he believed the Honourable Member was
justified in his charges, and he hoped he would 'move for
the Committee.
Mr. R. YORKI thought that the whole circum•
stances of the case ought to be investigated, and the
result laid before the House. He thought it most im-
portant to the integrity of that discussion that those
charges should be investigated, These statements were
made by a Member of Parliament fairly and upon his
own integrity, and therefore they ought in justice to be
investigated.
Colonel SIBTHORP made some observations which
were inaudible in the gallery.
Strangers'were then ordered to withdraw, and the Com-
mittee divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment 45
Against the amendment 228
Majority against the amendment —.183
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD then suggested that
the further discussion on the Bill should be adjourned.
Captain PEC HELL thought that it was then so late
that it would be unreasonable to continue the discussion.
He should, therefore, move that the Chairman should re-
port progress.
Mr. FERRAND wished to take that opportunity of
again alluding to the discussion between himself and the
Right Hon. Baronet. He again asserted that the charges
of Mr. Mott were a scandalous falsehood. He believed
that he should be able to prove that assertion if a Com-
mittee were granted him to inquire into the matter. He
should, first, however, require that a pledge should be
given, that Mr. Mott would be discharged from his situa-
tion if his statements were shown to be unfounded.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he had no objection to a
Committee of Inquiry ; but he could not pledge himself
as to the course which it might be thought necessary to
pursue with respect to Mr. Mott.
The question having then been put that the Chairman
should report progress, strangers were ordered to with-
draw, but no division took place, the motion for report-
ng progress being agreed to without a division.
CUSTOMS BILL.

not necessary ; besides, the expense incurred by them
vas very considerable, amounting to 20,0001. a-year.
Mar services, he thought, might be dispensed with.
There was another subject to which he would advert—
the subject of auditors. He considered there was a great
detect in the appointment of auditors, and in asking the
House to abolish the Assistant Commissioners he wished
to point out what he believed would be an improvement,
namely, the appointing those Assistant Commissioners
to act as auditors instead of Commissioners. Much

benefit would be derived from converting the Assistant
Commissioners into auditors, and to obtain that object ho
would move in lines 19 and 20 that the words "Assistant

Commissioners" be omitted, and that in line 21 the
words "other than Assistant Commisioners" be added.

Sir J. GRAHAM said he was justified in assuming,
after the division, by which a large majority had decided in
favour of the existence of the Commission, that the question
to be urged was whether the Central Commission having
been established, there should' be Assistant Commis-

sioners for the purpoSe of visiting the unions. It appeare
to him (Sir J. Graham) that it' they were to enter into
letails of different provisions, it would be better to adhere
to the subject under consideration. The Hon. Gentleman
.who had just sat down, had deviated from the question, whe-
ther there should be Assistant'Commissioners, into one of
:till more importance, if possible---the constitution of an
efficient system of auditing. He agreed with the Hon.
Member, that the system of auditing, as at present con-
stituted, was imperfect and deficient, but he thought the
Hon. Member ought to wait till they arrived at that part
of the Bill which referred to the appointment of officers,
when it would be open to him to make his proposal.
With respect to the necessity for Assistant Commis-
sioners, even the Hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S.
Crawford), who had opposed the second reading of the
dill, though adverse to the Central Commission, had yet
proposed that there should be itinerant Commissioners.
de (Sir J. Graham) hoped the inspection of the As-
sistant Commissioners would be more frequent ; and of
this he was certain, that if the Assistant Commissioners
were done away with, the Central Commission would
be of no use.
Colonel SIBTHORP said that it would be desirable
if all Commissions were done away with, and one great
:nducement with him to vote against the continuance of
the Assistant Commissioners was, that the Central Com-
mission would be cramped in consequence. He was sur-
prised to .hear the Hon. Member say that the present
13111 could be made in any degree palatable to the people
of this country. There was not a single line or word in
the Bill, from the preamble to the last clause, of which
be could approve. But the Right Hon. Baronet knew,
that with the support of the party opposite, which at
me time he tvould have spurned, he could carry the Bill,
and therefore he persevered in his Bill. He was opposed
to all Commissioners root and branch— (Laughter,—And
would propose that they should all be done away with.
Mr. FERItA.NI) said, that as there was a motion re-
specting the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners before the
House, he hoped the House would allow him to allude
o two Reports laid on the table of that House, bearing
lirectly on the union to which he belonged, and which
.were quoted by the Right Hon. Baronet in making a
direct and personal attack upon himself. Be had no he-
sitation in saying that the Report of Mr. Mott, respect-
ing the Keightley Union, was malicious and false, and
therefore whatever was done respecting the Assistant-
Commissioners he hoped Mr. Mott would not be con-
tinued in that office. Was the House aware who Mr.
Mott, who got up the scandalous and false report, was ?
—(Question, question.) He made charges against him
(Mr. Ferrand) and others connected with the Keightley
Union, and he had a right to inquire who he was. He
was formerly a contractor for maintaining the poor of
Lambeth, whom he farmed out in different parts of the
country. He stated in his evidence before the Poor-law
Commissioners that he contracted at 3s. 11d. per head,
and that by scouring the scales he saved half an ounce in
the weight for the rate-payers, which made a difference
it the (Old of the year of 300 stone. He stated "that
the man before him had contracted . for 4s. Bd. a head
and was ruined.' - How ruined ? By giving over-we4_ht
to be sure. lie gave half an ounce too much.—(Oh, oh.)
rhis was the Mr. Molt who had gone down to get up the
case against the Keightley Guardians, and he had a right
to inquire who this Mr. Mott was. (The Hon. Gentles
man then went on to quote further passages from Mr.
Niott's evidence before the Poor-law Commissioners,
from which it appeared that Mr. Mott had recommended
the allowance system, and relief in kind, in order that the
condition of the pauper might be reduced to that of the
ndependent labourer, in order to prevent the independ-
ent labourer degenerating into pauperism. Several parts
of this evidence were.received with -loud ironical cheers.)
He knew that the Report of Mr. Mott, with regard to the
Keightley Union, was false, and he knew that the Report
of SirJohnWalsham was false, and he should have letters
proving it to-morrow. Sir J. Walsh= had been sent down
to Keightley merely to get up a statement to meet
him (Mr. Ferrand). He asked if it was right, when it
was known that a Member of that House would make
statements relating to a point under discussion that As-
sistant Commissioners should be sent down to get up
statements to meet him in this way ? He asked the Right
Hon. Baronet if he did not know that Sir John Walsham
was about to proceed to the Keightley Union for the
purpose of getting up these statements? One of the
charges brought against the rate-payers of Bingley he
believed was false; he meant the charge that, in that
workhouse, persons had been placed to sleep in the same
bed with a corpse. He denied the charges brought
against the Magistrates by Mr. Mott, and he called upon
the Right Hon. Baronet to state if he had been cogni-
zant of Sir John Walsham having been sent down to the
Keightley Union to get up a statement in contradiction
to him (Mr. Ferrand).
Sir J. GRAHAM thought that he was called upon at
once to meet the statement of the Hon. Gentleman, who
had asked if he (Sir James Graham) was aware that Sir
Walsham had been sent down to the Keightley Union.
Lle (Sir J. Graham) had already stated to the House
Mr. Mott's reports as to the state of the Keightly work-
house. The Hon. Gentleman had made a great mistake
in what he had stated to the House the other evening.
The Hon. Gentleman, who was Chairman of the Keightley
Board of Guardians, had distinctly stated to the House
that an order had been issued by the Poor-law Commis-
sioners, prohibiting the giving out-door relief in that
union. In order that there might be no mistake about
it he would remind the Committee that the Honourable
Gentleman had attributed the crowded state of • the
Keightley workhouse to that circumstance. .-Now he
(Sir James Graham) unequivocally denied that any such
prohibitory order had been issued.—(Loud cheers.) He
did not wish to be personal, and he was about to make
an observation which perhaps the Hon. Gentleman might
not understand, but which would be very well understood
by any one of the six attorneys who had made such a
comfortable living out of the Keightley Union. The
Hon:Gentleman had shifted the issue. The real ques-
. don was not what was the character of Mr. Mott, but
what was the nature of the administration of relief in
the Keightley Union. Mr. Mott had made a Report, and
the lion. Gentleman had asserted that certain portions
of that Report were positively untrue. Now, as he (Sir
James Graham) could mot speak of his own personal
knowledge, he had suggested, seeing these different
statements, that Sir John Walsham, who was super-
intending the distribution of relief at 'Birmingham,
should be sent to Keightley to investigate and report.
He had made on a former occasion an offer to the Hon.
Gentleman, from which he would not now recede, and
that was, that if the llon Gentleman would move for a
Committee to inquire into the manner in which
relief had been administered in the Keightley Union,
he (Sir J. Graham) would second the motion. In order
that there might be no mistake as to the matters to be
investigated, he (Sir James Graham) would recapitulate
the charges, which were, that there were found in the
occupation of one small bedroom three married couples ;
that one woman had been confined in child-birth in a
room in which there were twenty individuals ; that a
miserable hovel was used as a school, and left in the
management of an old pauper ; that the intermixture of
sexes was permitted in the workhouse, males and females
sleeping in rooms opening into the same passage, and
adjoining each other ; the doors of the young women's
bed-rooms opening into the bed-rooms of the young men;
that the gaol and the workhouse were under the same
roof, the former being in the better repair of the two ;
and lastly, and on that point the Hon. Gentleman had
joined issue, (,nd that charge was the gravest and most
horrible charge of the whole, the master of the poor-
, house had told Sir John Walsham, when he had re-
marked on the crowded state of the house, that it was
not so much crowded as it was sometimes, for that
owing to the crowded state of the house he (the
master of the workhouse) had sometimes been
obliged to let the dead remain by the living until the
burial took place. (A general thrill of horror seemed to
pervade the blouse on hearing this unparalleled an-
nouncement.) On being questioned on the subject the
ria.ster admitted that a similar occurrence had taken
place at another workhouse in the neighbourhood. Now
the Hon. Gentleman joined issue on that fact ; • there
could be no mistake about the allegation, and if the
Hon. Gentleman chose to move for a Committee of In-
qffiry he (Sir J. Graham) would second it.—(Cheers.)
Mr. FERRAN') had denied Mr. Mott's charges, and
the Right Hon Baronet had not said one word about
those charges.—(Cries of" Oh, oh," and ironical cheers.)
He denied Mr. Mott's charges, and if the Right Hon.
Baronet would pledge himself to dismiss,Mr. Mott if his
Report should turn out untrue, he (Mr. Ferrand) would
move for a Committee. He had not denied what Sir
John Walshain had said—(Cries of Oh ! oh ! and loud

The House having resumed, the Report of the Cus.
toms Bill Was brought up, and the Bill ordered to be en.
grossed.
BRITISH POSSESSIONS ABROAD BILL.

The Report of the British Possessions Abroad Bill
was received, and the Bill ordered to be engrosssd.
The third reading of the Colonial Passengers Bill was
postponed till Friday next.
NEW SOUTH WALES BILL.

The House then went into Committee on the New
South Wales Bill.
The different clauses were agreed to, the Chairman
reported progress,•and the. House resumed.
RIVERS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the order of the day for the further consideration
of the Report on the Rivers (Ireland) Bill being moved,
Lord ELIOT, cn the suggestion of Mr. Reddington,
consented to postpone it until the Bill should be in the
hands of Members.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILT2

On the order of the day for the CommitteJ on this Bil
being read,
Lord EIdIOT moved that it be an instruction to the
Committee that this Bill be extended to Irelan].
Agreed to.
The Bill went through Committee, and several verbal
amendments were made in it. The House resumed, and
the Rei:ort was ordered to he brought up on Friday.
STOCK IN TRADE BILL.

The St3clc in Trade Bill was read a second time.
The other Orders of the Day were then dispoSed of
and the House adjourned at a Quarter past One O'Clock,

POLICE IN TEL LibENCE.
BOW-STREET.

A sturdy big beggarman, named sometimes Sullivan, and
sometimes Leary, well known about the neighbourhood of St.
Giles's and the Rookery as a most desperate character, was
charged with begging, and assaulting the officer in the execution
of his duty.
Police constable P 47 stated that he found the prisoner on
Saturday night drunk and begging in the Strand. He pro-
ceeded to take him into custody, when he struck witness seve-
ral times violently in the face, and kicked him so severely on
the legs that he had not been on duty since. Prisoner was
very violent, and it required four or five policemen to take him
to the station-house.

Policeman F 65 knew the prisoner to have been a street-
beggar for several years. He went home drunk almost every
night, and was well known to the police.
Tyrrel, the gaoler, said that the prisoner had been at that
Court a great number of times, and had been frequently con-
victed for fighting.
Prisoner declared, so help him God, that he " never hashed
no harms of nobody."
Alr. HALL said it was very evident that the prisoner was an
old beggar, and a very violent one. This course of things
must be put a stop to. He should commit him for three
months to the House of Correction.

Mrs. Sullivan, alias Mrs. Leary, the loving consort of the
above-mentioned gentleman, was shortly afterwards brought
up in custody of police-constable F 34, charged with walking
off with about 51b. of bacon from the shop of a respectable
tradesman in Drury-lane. Three other pieces of bacon, weigh-
ing about 21b. each, were also found upon her.
The case was fully proved against her, and Tyrrell stated that
she was well known, and had been previously convicted for the
same offence.

Thompson, F 39, added that he had frequently had the
prisoner in custody, and always on the charge of stealing bacon,
for which article she appeared to have a most decided penchant.
The prisoner said, "upon her cowl, she didn't mane to stale
the bacon at all, at all. She was very partial to bacon, and
sure wasn't she just going to pay for it when the gintleman
cotched hold of her, and gave her into custody?"
Mr. HALL was not to be gammoned by any such blarney, and
the prisoner was fully committed to take her trial.
A Row IN THE WORICUS AGAIN.—Our red-faced little
friend, the governor of St. Giles's workhouse, whom we have
been in the habit of calling Buckstone, but who
did us the honour some time ago to call at our office
and leave a card informing us that he is " Mr. R.
Buxey, Governor of St. Giles' and Bloomsbury workhouse,"
made his appearance at this Court again to-day, to prefer a
charge against a young man named Daniel Byrne, for riot and
assault, &c., in the workhouse. It was very evident from the
dignified air of pomposity about the worthy Governor, who
was followed by a train of pauper gentry in pauper attire, that
he considered the charge to be a very grave one, and one
which would redound much to his credit. Into the witness-
box he marched, with the dignity which the Governor of a
workhouse only can assume.
"This morning," said the Governor, "I deskivered that the
prisoner had been a cuttin a hole in the partition to get at the
gals, which I tuk him afore the hoverseer. In consekevence o'
that he sea he'll have my b y life, and then he goes and.
breaks 44 panes o' glass, wally 4/. lOs." Then in an authori-
tative tone-..." Come here, Mayo." Up walked poor Mayo, a
pauper, who swore that he saw the prisoner break two panes
of glass.
Police-constable F 119, was sent fur t.,the workhouse, and, on
going across the yard, he heard the prisoner call out to the
Governor, " Boliy, thee'st better get out o' the way, or I'll
punch thy head."
. Another witness heard the prisoner say he would do for the
Governor, if it was twenty years to come.
The prisoner, who was evidently labouring under consider-
able excitement, denied the charge of cutting a hole in the
partition. "As for the vinders," said he, " 1 done that ; and
I am sorry I didn't have my revenge on him, and I will have it
too. You persecutes me toe much, Mr. Bucksey. You can
get plenty witnesses to come and speak for you, but ,yon
won't let one come for me; and your witness 'll get somebeer
too, won't he, for false swearing?"
The prisoner's father said that he understood Mr. Buxey
persecuted his son very much. He wanted him once to speak
a falsity against some one els, in the house, and because he
would not do it he had been very much persecuted ever since.
Mr. HALL sentenced the prisoner to pay 4/. 10s. or be im-
prisoned two calendar months; also to find surety, himself in
101. and two sureties in 5/. each, to keep the peace towards Mr.
Buxey for three months.
As the prisoner was being removed he gently remarked to
Buxey, by way of a comforter, " I'm neither hanged nor
transported; but when I do come back—that's all."