The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-20 00:00:00

POOR-LAWS.

Sir J. GRAHAM'siT4Thal;eft;te moving the Order
of the Day for going into Committee upon the Poor-law
Amendment Bill, the House would perhaps permit him
to call its attention to the present position of the Bill.
The House had consented to the first clause, which con-
tinued the Commission for five years, to which he at-
tached the greatest importance. The four next clauses
regulated the number of Assistant Poor-law Commis-
sioners, limited the power of the Commissioners in re-
spect to the issuing of rules and regulations, the time of
operation of the rules and orders which should be
issued in cases of urgency, and defined some matters
of Cinliparative unimportance with regard to the
form in which notices should be served. It was not his
intention at that period of the the session to press on the
House the clauses which followed the first live clauses,
or those which referred to the Gilbert Unions—(Hear,
hear, from Captain Pechell)—or the formation of dis-
tricts ; but during the recess the Government would
consider the whole subject, and at the commencement of
next session would bring forward a measure on the sub-
ject, containing all the details in the present Bill, and such
modifications and amendments as th ey might find necessary.
There were, however, two or three clauses in the Bill,
which, from the urgenCy of the matters they contained,
he was anxious to press immediately on the consideration
of the House. The first of these would be found in the
23d clause. It related to the power given to the guar.
diaos with respect to the casual poor received into
the workhouses. At the present moment a practice had
arisen of using the workhouse as a sort of hostelry or
house of call for a night's lodging ; and a practice pre-
vailed among the parties so admitted, not only of
destroying the furniture of the workhouse, NA
of destroying their own clothes, so as to ren-
der it necessary that new clots should be provided
for them at the cost of the union. in order that they
might be detained for a longer period than would other-
wise have been the case, The 23d clause would rpnder
such conclAct a misdemeanour, and would give the Board.
of Guardians the power of exacting for a night's lodg-
ing a task of twenty-four hours. There were
also two or three other clauses, which he wished
might receive the immediate sanction of the House ;
one of them removed any doubts as to whether a Magis-
trate, who was not an ex officio guardian, might act us a
Magistrate within the union, There were three or four
other clauses of minor importance, relative to the regu-
lation of the workhouses, which, with • the per-
rhission of the House, he should be anxious to con-
sider in Committee. But the matters to which he
wished 'principally to call their attention, were those'
which related to the continuance, for the present,
of the Gilbert Unions, to the formation of district unions
for the purposes of education, anti to the improvements
in the system of internal regulation in the workhouses.
He did not wish to press the clauses which re-
lated to these subjects in the present state of the
House and at that advanced period of the
session. He saw the Honourable Member for Roch-
dale (Mr. Sharman Crawford) in his place, and he
found that that lion. Member had given notice of an
instruction on going into Committee. But he (Sir J.
Graham) doubted whether that instruction could be
moved consistently with the forms of the Ilouse, for it
was neither more nor less than an instruction to repeal
one of , the principal enactments of the Irish Poor-law
Bill. That Bill proceeded on the distinct declaration
that no relief should under any circumstances be
administered in Ireland out of the workhouse. The lien.
Member sought to repeal that provision ; but he (Sir J.
Graham) hoped that he would not press his motion after
the statements made that evening ; and at all events he
would not accede to such a proposition. He did not
even think that that was a proper opportunity for
discussing such a subject. Again, with res.: ect to an
intimation, of which the Hon. Member for Oldham had
given notice, he begged to say that he thought it would
not be consistent with his duty to enter into discussion
on the subject to which it related, which was one of a
purely abstract nature. He hoped the Hon. Gentleman
would not press his motion, and thereby create unneces-
sary delay in the passing of those provisions of the Poor-
law Bill, to which he had already referred.
The Order of the Day having been read for going into
Committee on the Bill,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to take that opportunity
of stating, in the name of his Hon. Friend, the Member for
'Westminster, relative to what had taken place the other
night on -the Municipal Corporations Bill, that his Hon.
Friend had received an explanation from the Attorney-
General with which his Hon. Friend was perfectly
satisfied.
Captain PECHELL presented two petitions from
unions ie. Sussex, against a repeal of the Act incorporating
the Gilbert Unions.
Mr. FIELDEN objected to the course intended to be
pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet, with regard to the
Poor-law Bill. The Right Hon. Baronet was giving up
that part of the Bill which was most objectionable. All
the mitigatory-clauses were to be abandoned, but the
Commission was to be continued for six years. His ad-
vice to the Right Hon. Baronet was to abandon the Bill
altogether. He (Mr. Fielden) could see no use at all in the
Commissioners, and he hoped that the Commission
would expire on the 31st of this month.
IRISH POOR.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, in rising to propose
the instruction of which he had given notice. regretted
exceedingly to hear the announcement of the Right Hon.
Baronet. The Irish Poor-law was intimately connected
with the subject before the House, but the
Irish Poor-law differed most essentially from
the English Poor-law in one respect. The
English Poor-law did not prohibit out-of-door re-
lief, but left in the power of the Commissioners to cegu-
late it. The Irish Poor-law gave no power even to the
Commissioners of ordering out-door relief. Neither
Guardians, nor Magistrates, nor Commissioners had the
power of ordering out-of-door relief. In many parts
of Ireland there were no workhouses, in ninny parts
the workhouses were incapable of accommodating all
those entitled to relief, and under existing eimum-
stances, w hen so many of the Irish poor were .in a state
of utter destitution, it was absolutely necessary that
either the Commissioners, or some other persons, should
have the power of ordering out-door relief. An appli-
cation had been made by the Cork guardians to the
Commissioners, for liberty to order out door relief, but
the Commissioners had answered that they themselves
had not the power of ordering out-door relief.
Some relaxation of the law was absolutely necessary.
He nad received several letters from different parts, stat-
ing that the people were thrown out of employment, and
were in a state of starvation. In the west of Ireland
the distress was so great that the people said if they did
not have food they must take it by force. Was it not his
duty to try to relax the laws which so oppressed the people?
The Commissioners did not deny the prevalence of
mortality among the children in the workhouses,
but they stated that great mortality existed like-
wise among the peasantry. That, however, was
no answer to the case. The mortality resulted from
the way in which the children were managed.
They were given .in charge to paupers who
had no interest in taking care of them—to
whom it was a trouble to take care of them,
and the consequence was, that it was impos-
sible the attention and care requisite to prolong the
lives of those poor children could be paid to them.
The Poor-law Act, as at present constituted in Ireland,
was a delusion. A 'good poor-law ought to make the
landlords responsible for the condition of the poor, but
this poor-law did not do so. It rather did evil than otherwise
since it produced an immediate desire in the landlords
to expel the poor from their estates ; it might therefore
be said to have increased the distress of the country
rather than alleviated it. He thought it would not be
inconsistent with the Bill to.grant to the Irish Commis-
sioners the power which he contended that they
ought to possess.
The Douse then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against the motion —lOl
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

On the motion that the Speaker leave the Chair to go
into Committee on this Bill,
Mr. FIELDEN rose to move that a " rise of
wanes," and " increased content of the labourers and
diminution of crime, were two of the specific effects
which the Report of the Commission, dated the 20th day
of February 1834, stated would follow the application of
gtralrltieafrdtQof CheontrinAlli;
their principle of adminaistceieinn
gent
by
yhe tbilleinaisgteenrey(tohie. present Earl Spencer) who
brought the Poor-law Amendment Bill into this House,
on asking leave to do so, on the 19th day of April, 1834,
said as follows, namely, "He thought no man could
doubt but that the change in the system would be advan •
tageous to the labourers themselves. It was pos-

sible it might appear to some Honotirable Gentlemen,
that the agriculturaLlabourer, having at present an ad-
dition from the parochial funds to the amount of
wages paid by his employer (that addition being regu-
lated according to the number of his family), the
effect of taking away that assistance would make
it impossible for him to maintain himself and tinnily.
lie (Lord Althorp) did not think such would be the case,
for he believed, nay he felt confident, that, as the labourer
regarded the parochial assistance now added to
the wages he received from his employer as making
the total wages to which he was entitled for his
industry, a very short time would elapse, after the re-
moval of that assistance, before wages would rise to an
equivalent amount; and, as soon as that was the case, the
situation in which the labourer would be placed would
be infinitely preferable to that in which he at present
stood :" that this Bill be proceeded with no further until it
be ascertained by inquiry of this House, that there has been,
since the Poor-law Amendment Act came into opera-
tion, a rise of the wares of labour, incrk ased contentment
among the labouring people, and a dimunition of crime ;
and also that if a rise in the rate of wages has taken
place, it has been to such an extent as to give the able-
bodied labouring man with a wife and family an equivalent
for the periodical assistance afforded to him before the
passing of that Act ; that it is desirable that such inquiry
should be satisfactory and conclusive, and that it should
command theconlidence of the country ; and that, therefore,
none but labourers and employers be examined. (The Hon.
Member in making this motion, spoke in so low a tone
of voice as to be wholly inaudible for a long time.) He
objected under any circumstances to the continuance of
the powers of the Commissioners fur so long a period as
the Government proposed.
General JOHNSON seconded the motion. He was
sorry to find that the Government were determined on
persevering with the most objectionable clause in the
Bill, that which had for its object the continuance of the
unconstitutional powers of the Commissioners for six

years more.
Mr. GRIMSDITCH agreed with the Hon. and Gallant
Member who had preceded him, that the most objection-
able clause in the Bill was that which continued the
powers of the Commissioners. He was sure that it was
most unwise of the Government to press such a clause,
and that the course they had taken on the subject would
tend to shake the confidence which the country had
hitherto reposed in them. But as the clause had been
already passed, he saw no use in now opposing the
motion for going into Committee.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that his objections to the
proposed duration of the powers of the Commissioners
remained as strong as ever. He thought it high time
some calm and deliberate inquiry should take place into
the working of the Poor-Jaw Act, and he thought that
the result of that inquiry would be to prove that the
working of it had been beneficial to the poor themselves.
He thought, however, that it was impossible to go into
the inquiry during the present session, and therefore he
could not support the motion. If the Hon. Member
would, however, on the bringing up of the Report, or on
the third reading. move for shortening the duration of
the Commission, he (Mr. Aglionby) would support him,
Mr. ESCOTT thought the Hon. Member fur Oldham
had better reserve bps opposition until his (Mr. Escott's)
motion on the subject of out,of-door relief should come
on. If that preposition should be cariigt the Commis-
sion would be found to he inoperative for evil cud pi: re
operative fin, good than it had ever been.
Mr. REDHEAD ygIIKE urged the Hon. Member
for Oldham not to press preposition to a division.
He trusted the Hon. Member wohld btot divide on this
point ; but under the extreme difficulties of the eountity,
if he did he felt bound to divide with him.
Sir J. GRAHAM in teas main agreed with the Hon.
Member for Oldham, that the effect of the pi sent mea-
sure was to make the workman dependent on his em-
ployer, The only question for the House now to deter-
mine was, whether there should be a Commission or
not. With respaet to intrirv, he did not consider it
necessary, inasmuch as they iDne iPpiriPP on
the subject. Inquiry was not wanted but wa
the House to decide. It was only out of respect to the
lit" Member that he had not remained silent, but he
"iid fiat ggiTP to the motion.
Captain 14FieitELL RAi4 that the friends of the peo-
ple were detertnitied to oppose the Bill to the best of
their power, until
.the Right Hon: atlltigMArt granted
the inquiry which they asked. He contended that tha
power granted to the Commissioners was too great to
intrust to them,
Strangers were then PraPred to withdraw, and the
House divided ; the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it 125
Majority —ll7
The House then resolved itself into Committee, Mr,
GREENE in the Chair.
Clause 1 passed through Committee.
On clause 2 being proposed, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE
proposed a proviso for allowing parties summoned before
the Poor-law Commissioners, to be heard by their agents
or counsel. _ _ _ _ _ _

Sir J. GRAHAM' said, as the Hon. Gentleman had
not given notice of his motion, he (Sir J, Graham) felt
somewhat diffident of expressing his own opinion, The
clause, as it now stood, was proposed for the purpose of
allowing the Poor-law Commissioners to send down a
person conversant with the law of evidence, and having
no connexion with the locality, to conduct an impartial
inquiry. As the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman
would lead to facilitate these inquiries, he (Sir
Graham) could see no objection to its adoption ; at the
same time, before giving a final opinion on the subject,
he should be glad if some further time could be allowed
him fur consideration., .

Mr. DARBY said he would advise the Hon, Gentle-
man to accede to the proposition. Under the Poor-law
Amendment Act, parties had no power to be heard by
their agents before the Assistant Commissioners.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he could not consent that in
all cases parties dualld be heard.
Mr. BUCK complained that the Assistant Commis-
sioners had at present too much power.
Mr. B. WOOD did not see any objection to the ap-
pointment of special Assistant Commissioners. He
wished to know whether the Right lien. Gentleman
would do any thing with respect to the auditors ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said the state of the system of au-
diting was very unsatisfactory. He did not intend at
present to make any alteration in it. With respect to
inquiry by the Commissioners, he quite agreed that it
ought to be an open one.
Mr. AGLIONBY believed that even as an exception
to the usual mode of proceeding, a secret inquiry would
be a mischievous mode. Ile did not think that it would
be the ordinary practice, but even the power to make it
secret would be unadvisable.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said, his objection only ap-
plied to the inquiries before the new tribunal created by
the Bill.

ESCOTT condemned the inquiry being secret,
and suggested that parties should be allowed to appear
before it by counsel or attorney. He thought, however,
that if such a court was instituted at all, it certainly
ought not to be composed of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners. The Poor-law Commissioners for their own
sakes ought to be no parties to the appointment of the
tribunal. _ _ _

Sir JAMES GRAHAM thought, that if the Com-
missioners of Inquiry were authorised to inquire into
the conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners, the Poor-
law Commission would be rendered useless. He did not
intend that the Commissioners of Inquiry should exer•
cise any control over the Poor-law Commissioners, but
should merely inquire into cases of local mal-adminis•
tration.
Lord SANDON thought it would be a great benefit,
that in all complaints the inquiry should issue from the
Crown, and not from the Poor-law Commissioners.
Mr. R. YORKE said, though this inquiry would not
operate against the Commissioners, it would against the
Assistant Commissioners, and he thought that to be the
same thing.
After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY relative to
the appointment •of the Commissioners, and the power
which would be vested in their hands,
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Poor-law Commission
was indeed supreme, with the exception of one single
cheek—the eye of the Executive Government—which
was always upon its actions.
Mr. B. WOOD thought that the guardians themselves
should have the power of instituting initiatory inquiry if
they saw fit.
Mr. DARBY supported the clause.
Mr. GI:IMSDITCH hoped the proviso would be
withdrawn.
Sir ROBERT PEEL believed that his Hon. Friend
was actuated by conscientious motives, but his conduct
was but a small encouragement to a Ministry to intro-
duce any relaxation of the law. A clause was proposed
for appointing Commissions of Inquiry into any alleged
cases of malversation, and the Hon. Gentleman opposed
it. The Poor-law Commissioners now appointed an
' Assist ant• Poor-law Commissioner to conduct any inquiry
that might be necessary. The present proposition was
to give them the power of appointing Commissioners of
Inquiry, and at the same time to give the Secretary of
State for the Home Department a veto on that appoint-
ment. Thus, the Secretary of State would be responsible
for the appointment of the Commissioners of Inquiry
whose qualifications were stated in the Bill. He hoped
that no alteration would Le proposed in the clause—that
they would not make of the Commissioners and
the Secretary • of State two conflicting authori-
ties. If they constituted the Secretary of State,
a Court of Appeal, from the Oecision of the
Poor-law Commissioners, they would paralyse their
authority. He trusted the House would not tattipt a
course which would discourage the Government from
proposing any future relaxation in the Poor-laws.
After a few words from General Johnson, Mr. R.
Yorke, and Sir J. Graham, the Committee divided, when
there appeared—
For the proviso
Againstit 9
Majority in favour of the proviso
The clause was then agreed to.
On the next clause being proposed,
Mr. E; RICE suggested the propriety of all general
rules being embodied in the Commissioners' Report,
submitted to the Secretary of State and laid before
Parliament.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that at the present
moment no general, orders could be issued without the
sanction of the Secretary of State, and then they must
be laid before Parliament. That was the law at the
present moment, and the present clause laid considerable
limitations on the powers of the Commissioners as to
issuing special rules.
Mr. E. RICE explained.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that under this clause
the abuse of special orders would be rendered impossible.
Mr. DARBI said the clause would deprive the Com-
mioiopprs of the power of making a relaxation of a
general prier 014194 leave of the Secretary of State.
The clause was Olen 4grPecl
osred:,afsroamgreSeidr
to.
J, Graitam and. captain
•
being proposed,
P eAoc linf et elclrl,
aatuhsfeeelcvsl