The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-13 00:00:00

a the
;fran-
-1 that
many
tot to

Noble
cil,
expee'
atifying
that he
rapidly'
rogru';;
one
Ord with
Certfi'
Vere
ThOtir; '
'peCt
;SePte,A'
f OW'
begm
,r)
Foreigil

rseno?!ol3
11P"

of this

se-(001'
Lad
ill :p
t p

rouse VJ,

•
3s fryotOr''
us ._,l-'loo,oe
;a „i •15
f fr'•
rs e2'ef 04t
er.thf:'
nd
the au ;
. ;;;Pet'
0 Celr'
h f tbs-
o t:i
91
with tb:
to_ knoi. 0;4
00,-:1,.., 07'
Ire= ati,A
irrY

to
ssesco.
•sti
Ic 111
that Vie.
be.
101
the Apt
that t"

ifon•
11 b°fbre
• ce
to et'n

....5.„....—......
Vltle the Commission for a short time, as he considerA it
; be almost impossible then to pass the Bill within the
P'e litnitLd. Since then a fortnight had elapsed; t.:l 2
Imission would expire on the 31st of July, the week alter
ti;lt A they tLuld only have to-night this week to consider
th' 'ebbir,..e9t, ai•d next week after the Bill -hould have passed
Ilr°4- •-•ommittee, they would have one night to
. receive the
tittort, ar,4
another night for the third reading, and tlia.t .
ii.op°4„iving ell time to the House of Lords to consider this
khey°Z-- 11,',-vure. If the Commission were allowed t o be in
asiid t`e greatest confusion would result. Many unions
Ands •;I'l,sn'il•e• He 'knew of one instance—the parishes of St.
The ; '''shorn and St. George the Martyr would separate.
the Kill Bill would require alteration; as it was at present
tinue the Commission. It would have to be
tOoanttsylsrtilabenidet t:a‘sis tBile.i
l°'to Renew te Commission.' It would be
.Im-
° carry the Bill thrhough in time. lie knew not what
thrmigh ti•aajnrity might effect, but they ought not to pass it
Peon '9 that time-, and he felt assured they would have the
answe:fddficulty in doing so. If he receivr d no satisfactory
SPealte Tie the Rioht Hon. Baronet he should move that the
S.,
.ir:o leave the Chair that day three montlis.—(A laugh.)
the is
"4ES GRAHAINI compassionatsd the situation of
ned;Ctaker if the Hon. Gentleman's motion should be car-
t' giv and if an thing could induce hini ( Sir James GT.aham)
hoz
tehtseassurance'required, it would be to free
. the Speaker
1/44,enienlfheeuvenience of remaining in his chair for the next
-',ll. Q°•""'s•—( Cheers,) He was happy to perceive that the
best evil!ntleaan was alve to the extreme inconvenience and
eors Which must arise from the sudden lapsing of the
4e ti I°n•—( Hear, hear.) He could not, however, give
the R'n' Gentleman the assurance lie asked for. He hoped
esty 40;4' would acquit him of having occasioned any unneces-
t: ;1;1;e i He had pressed forward the question on every op-
iwelirz".ll that had offered. For four nights there had been a
Corn I.earY discussion. One of the clauses had passed through
and as the House had on all ozcasions sanc.t.ioned
It I.' 'Y la,rge majorities, he felt
. bound to go on with it.
leel',l be ms duty to proceed with the. measure till he had
speetdeindlY ascertained what was the opinion of the House re-
Itttekg ,it• He had endeavoured to urge on the House. the
!nee. ',,ntsger to the poor of the country from the discontinu-
sq°44%4l,,e.Po9r-law Commission. He thought a short Con-
'Ds ..e„:"111 for only one year, would but brand the Commis-
liltha? the want of the eonfidence of thethat
'Nil -'ll woOld encourage factious opposition to it ; he there.
stib.4.Ped the House would proceed at once to discuss the
4td • He 4d stated his sincere and earnest desire to pro-
kip, w'itil the
Bill, but it would be for the House to deter -
IPpsobw4ether the course he had proposed met with their
bat:99 "or not,
:hiltii;•4 BERNAL said he should offer no apology for any
:uB,4'',9.tclestliah-jeth:teeirrapiu.gbhlticoffer to this measure, and he would re-
Via °se Hon Gentlemen who might have voted on it
pledges and. private convictions, that
bbdit got be such a thing as factious support. He though.t
by ,thtsat the Government should think themselves just-
ilnlß th'is`t!e defects of the old Act of Elizabeth, in confirm-
,'ss vit,l9sPipium in inzperio. He connected the Poor-
rels ~ ii,l the Corn-laws, and he trusted the House would
:tplYCla'„"e Government the necessity of re-considerit g the bas-
l4eys,4es.'rh tone of the Under- Seci e'asy for the Colonies,
Ilift'tithv was that ot unmitigated hostility to the Poor-laws.
111,..lintti j,‘L'ilett the excitement subsided,. anot.her, gentleman to
,'T, he hadd refer, stated, that, on the subj.ec., of the Poor-
4:'Wt s,just t?it changed his
.opinion. He said he thought it
tr°4l3eto, that a Commission should take upon itself the
I,44try ~,,nt of the poor throughout all England, that a discre-
LwotifF,'Yer ought to be vested in the local at; thorities, that
th 7.., if
Waitlik,.e.t.,o.lee such a law as the old Poor-law would have
k Qk till'au been duly administered. Now, who did they
4,ta hoi everson who used that language ? It was a gentle-
star ngsa high post in the present Government, the Under-
,slr it), State for the Home Department. .
'iel; I. • SUTTON had no hesitation in repeating the wort
4. .5 h_ a
jl'eli, t
oo
made use of. But there were parts of his speec
0 eau; HOn• Gentleman did not Quote. No one was more
'A "'need than he of the great and mischievous abuses
ktd t'oeodthered
'With re.
,a change in the old law. necessary.
lOp44,eltiorit'orl`. ew Poor-law, he wished to entertain any
v ~ object • ansehoration of the harsher clauses of that law.
Lt 4 Pip agoing into Committee was to revise the clauses
,viiiiiiii'i'latb,
ia.nd to introduce: such clauses as the House might
i.t thatg to.insert ; and he did not consider that in consent-
iwseli .the Howe should go into Committee, he rendered
‘le, e to the•eharges which the Hon. Gentleman had
1011°°•eztatrair JOHNSON Said' he would put ,it to the Right
~,t9 isto"et whether it was possible on the present occasion
1.•"145 ail the details of the measure ? He thought it
)•ts . tleither creditable to the Government, nor satisfac-
ktwsestn•e etiontfy, that the Bill should be passed in the pre-
or siori.
lithillsett RUSSELL said he had interfered as little as pos-
Lt ProL. these discussions, thinking that he would best assist
Intoess of the measure by leaving it in the hands of the
%1 sZent• But on the last occasion when he spoke on
thne,.. t • he stated that he thought the best
rt to 5-4esti be to go into Committee on the Bill,
),1"1.14 c'hsider the first four or five clauses, to which
.the
estl4;, ber for Durham had alluded, and then to consider
‘7,,Svkii,,tnere would be time and opportunity for discussing all
4;ltt, ?"s clauses in detail. Those clauses embraced many
Ibit 'l,4cleding the Gilbert Unions, the School Districts, and
(It(t,sta.., Clauses, on which, meat differences of opinion pre-
-I?kktfr..4e thought that when the Government had gone into
bee and and disposed of the earlier clauses upon which the
Os, as pretty well agreed, the Government should listen
?,easy
which might be made as to there net
Titstilhe to go into the whole question. The greatest op-
toi,llthe Bill admitted that an immediate cessation of the
lilts:l°n, would he attended with great inconvenience.
v tIe„,;.,STIJART WORTLEY said the first clause to
ti... the Led was, that which related to the continuance
p'tito• Commission. If they passed the first clause,
Ositittt the Commission for five years, it would not then be
iLlltt power to retrace their steps.—(Hear, hear.) The
i'sls" s"°"-• Baronet thought, that if the teen of the Com-
as..
%s /.'all not extended to five years, and if the proposition
eV". Member for Finsbury were adopted, it would tend
VLt 14,,- !the. Commissioners before the country, and render
kih"' -4,'"i a• He (Mr. Wortley) could not come to any
-l'ehl) -uaion. He thought the House had already pro-
-1,14) be so decided an opinion upon that point, that it
.would
kth tast4ng any slur or stigma on the Commissioners
I,L, 0„.!Y were only continued for one year.. He
.thought.
.
Zell ti;" would do right, considering the peculiar position in
st'l;'ilhereVe...,cre placed, to adopt the suggestion of the Hon.
kt:". were
Finsbury, and continue the Commission till next
r letsi ::tl'e meantime the Bill could be considered, and
c°4l J!it.'4 vatiousprovisions could be discussed.—( Hear.)
tts4:l„e'st 13td 41,5;-ELL said that the Hon. Gentleman certainly
tt.'n'aee '7,1 if he supposed he was not in favour of the
%Ittlr RAPES
„
slihn'' decide ~..'.4 said, that if the opinion of the majority was
"%,,.-Pat'v 0 question, there was an end to the utility of a
Iv 1
wase; aS:enibly. ( Hear, hear.) If the sense of the
tiletoltars,ihtl-eiae,our-o.f—the continuance of the
_Commission for
,4_s asked Other clauses might be considered in detail. All
mi, I,4laetol ' '''as, that the House should proceed with
Ilt LS eG ",lts of the measure with as much haste
Vbial 4'lltent with due deliberation.—( Hear, hear. )
:Nit y the any any intention of. forcing the Bill upon the
'titsill'ita 6trPngth of a majority ; but, on the other hand,
.
tte4tetnet,l,, that if they sanctioned the principle that a nu- ,
t Ltit'f"4- eb*truct anlaority, they would be establishing a
Zlpth.‘sted °t:: overruling by a despotic power the popular will.
,74,14114 ..:.81 the 'resent opposition would subside before the
h'itte,,-, 7 iitaann-1 If parties were dissatisfied with the con-
-44i„"4, Qth.s9e Commission, after the changes that might be
4e1,,,1nf ,IY tvnilld take the sense of the House on the third
ittei'lltlt ,i.": till. The Government were prepared to abide
ktiith 41h-t;fe.° discussion ; and all they asked was, that no
ire. '"ction should be offered to the progress of the
14. r.
ikel°l4 COMBE suid that he did not mean to offer any
lip 0 • .
NI. t ha PPosition to the Rill. But he still felt that they
Wsk4,ldersti,,W Baincient time to bestow upon the measure that
%it " lis -4 which it deserved. He had not said that there
stst4.4. very great inconvenience felt if the Commissio.n were
Rto'lliptOut he had said that if the were determined on
1/4t4Piret" Commission it would not-be advisahle to allow
'fitl,Pillt.
IN'ge }3;p"rtKE thought it Would be impossible to proceed
kttess'intnW;th any satisfaction to the country during the
Nu, A kg,
ttit t he. -1. Could not consent to the consideration of this
It `1 ing Post
reti 4 re vi . Ported. He could not
.un. derstand those who
Ittt*,vi it f_sion of the Poor-law Bill inviting the Government
111'"set.,ur another year. He was most anxious to see the
ist P. LA Lied.
le Wis Ws ,
11,411,4 Yes'. )N thought it would be better
. to pass the law
e
;tll., to kr,' and consider the proposed Bill next session.
'lltt 111 Iv '''sw whether the bight Hon. Baronet would pass
Siti'l!(lijiiirels,,t the first clause, as such a pledge would info-
f7l th 4 A NI Lawson's) vote?
iNs,t,t ii brasS GRAHAM said he hoped the House would
ttlisticttee wt very inconvenient on the point of going into
with pc' give an account of the conduct of the Govern-
IN to h "Peet to a certain cia.use. He should be most
sttl,wots,,ave the sup Port of the Hun. Gentleman, but he
i)thrtslifelnre the lion. Gentleman's vote by giving the pledge
fable hon. • He (Sir James Graham) concurred with his
LNI pipe Friend and the Noble Lord opposite, that it was
1114 e ei 'tient that they should as soon as possible pass the
or di 4uses in the Bill seriatim. The opinion of the House
tikt°rpiiisZrtained in a very short time, on the Hon. Mem-
ik.ll4,, ne."*Y's motion as to whether the Commission should
1174 • tifzirlears or a shorter period.
4t''t sottiLlt (I,4LEY said he must confess that if he wished to
Ltlilyte %eminent unpopular, it would be by recommending
0 1.,. km ey were row adopting. He thought it was un-
-0+11,4 th unbecoming in them to go into Committee ona
S'‘,,,i Of iillt.on the 12th of July, knowing, as they did, that
st
ttblVti , etr supporters were pledged to the country again.
,"1119, vtai T:,) T intention of the Right Hon. Baronet evi-
itt4,.'44,%.; get the uile clauses passed, and then abandon the
klti: Oft -I,` the Biell and pass a short Bill. He hoped the
~;ilt: ,e Hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State
),";4tri.til-! r)epartment would be better received in Cam-
t tint h''• efoliki be in the House.
Commthe Hon. Gentleman
ibtl4l, •lq,le pto-,..eeorontinuance of the mission for five years,
(it:teotinr n. it at present possessed, he would. be acting
441 i qtt, bY with the declarations he had made at his election.
illt 4stri4Mdley) would move as an amendment that it be
Illel'lster Ou'ia to the Committee to give the Commissioners
Llrtat:stll4l3lnaking rules and regulations for the conduct a
ItoZt,ix.E,
401%7 hot, in rt.was understood to say that the Hon. Mem-
vrt 4; lit A }};?sent of order, move such an instruction.
I.4tt ',lto 'ITHCOTE thought it would be better to pass a
4 t lei, continue the Commission for a year. The next
till to Not b
ltd add , e a Severe one, and the Poor-law was caleu-
-6 CO to th_
ii,Aptt. relief." Pressure of the distress by the refusal of
e to L4Pto
111, ttse wh.-;_HELL thought lie need offer no apology for
lilttit, Ah h!cn he feltduty to pursue with regard to the
61. tht4ttOttio ight Hon. Baronet himself was, in a great in ea-
-1 1-10,• ti!ble for the delay which had taken place. The
413,4tet°,,ris,7ronet had quoted a letter, obtained by surrept2-:
ki‘t4 s,„ tittion°r the purpose of showing that one man in.the
Nh ga =lit, favourable to the Poor-law Commission.
Ilt ,;ge-",Pel him to read to the House letters from so
tkalt."°Olen:_'"ms and unions that the discussion they would
,? CPCr,uPY the whole week.
Ost, 4ern) d'NELL said that no one could blame
tiNititttlat4itnt for not having brought on this Bill before
itiletleitdrit w°fasgreat importance had beer, discussed. But he_.
tltaroit'toutterly impossible, at this late period olfi
tli:tv, , ctiou-ssu'eass all the various clauses of this Bill in a
it hlittbj.o. ..
hi instance, the school districts was quite
twtktti)lll4t4ttheitistrido7ne would suggest the necessity of postpo ring
, and bringing it on early next session, when
ho,,rto:lelso,,, seYoflkeussed• He did not mean to give his into
t ....- . rowingo any
obstacle in the way of the 1,111,
ttictluot,tts- Zanveletinn that it s better for the interests of the '
th!.tht flog Biii to next year.
tty "ton; .'u eoncurred in the opinion expressed by the
tp; th„,f„Pestn„bt!etnals who had just sat down as to the pro-
t4‘qem titi n10,1:4'111 the Bill. He (Lord Sandon) thought
Vid itlY !ekisi-47 ought to have another year's trial before per-
-114 troTtl,.. a'lng on the subject after which Government
k,,Sa. ,Ntlntr-e a Bill Which would h'ave a more beneficial effect
likt• "' Qptis at large.
titthee 11Alkl •
1t,,,, er 10 to the a said he rose for the purpose of giving two
liNs3 NI the • °ate. The first was that nothing could be
tl:ttv% toe r. . intention of 0 a,. slll ued 1 her Majesty's Government than
sc. "are 1' Y. When the attendance womild be thinned.
ci,Slhig', -Prelakth, e obstacles which existed to` the progress of
ihi able f uLy next Tuesday was the pc riod when he
t,4,4..er,tien itrtihnieprotrota.inircoecweeildvntioith the Bill ;, but it was not
''''r su'ellh.er 114aJestY's Government to press forward a
in consequ pace of the ad,

vanced period of the session, Cse attendance would be thinned.
In that eas.,, the torso of the Commission being extended, it
would be the duty of iii.nself and his colle:ques, at the
earliest period possible in the neat se,sion to bring forward a
measure in detail, containing all the amendments which their
present experience and the experience of the interval of the
next winter might. dictate.—( Hear, hear.) For the spirit of
those amendments he referred his Noble Friend, the Membor
for Liverpool, to site course which had lately been pursued by
the Commissioners relative to the rAief of the poor, as well as
to the enactments themselves. Now, the second assurance
which he considered it necessary' to give was as an equally
important point. He could not, consistently with his duty,
consent to shorten the period for which it was proposed to ex-
tend the Codimission.—( Hear, hear.) He had on former oc-
casions stated that he was convinced that the renewal for a short
term, anything like an annual term, would be inconsistent with
the authority, and being inconsistent with the authority would
be fatal to the effisierscy of this measure.—(Hear, hear.)
From the present circumstances of the country—circumstances
which they all deeply deplored—the Commissioners in entering
upon the discharge of their duties would have to encounter
peculiar difficulties. It was necessary, therefore, that they
should be armed with full authority, and their authority would
certainly be incomplete if, after having had five years' ex-
perience of the manner in which they had performed
their functions, they should either limit to a short
period the duration of the Commission, or curtail
the authority of the Commissioners.—(Hear.) He was
most anxious that the question of the duration of the Commis..
sion should at once be disposed of. The matter was now fairly
before the House. He thought they should then go into Com-
mittee, and if the Government were out-voted on that point it
would clear the ground for proceeding further with the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. VERNON, the House went
into Committee on the Bill, Mr. GREENE in the Chair.
On clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD rose to propose the amend-
ment of which he had given notice. He hoped that her Ma-
jesty's Government would not imagine he was actuated by any
factious motives in proposing his amendment. The powers
possessed by the Commissioners were of an arbitrary character,
and therefore he was of opinion that this clause should not be
passed for any prolonged period. He would refer to the clauses
in the Bill whi.:h conferred this power on the Commissioners.
The Honourable Gentleman then referred to the different
clauses which conferred the power of which he complained.
He objected to those clauses which placed irrespon-
sible powers in the hands of the Commissioners.
He considered the conduct of the Commissioners improper in
the extreme ; and it was not until he had brought the subject
before the House that they relaxed their regulations. He
did not defend the old system, but he thought when Commis-
sioners were appointed to carry out a new system, it was not
right that such cruelty should be exercised as had taken place.
Looking at the Act of Elizabeth, he found that relief was
provided for the maimed and the impotent. He would ask
whether such provisions were made under the Commission ?
The powers conferred on the Commi.4sioners were utterly incon-
sistent with the principles of the Constitution, and such as no
Legislature ought to confer on any individuals. The Hon.
Gentleman concluded by moving that the blank be filled up
with " 1843" instead of " 1847." . . .

Mr. FERR AND seconded the motion. The Poor-laws had
roused the opposition of all parties throughout the north of
England, as vs as proved by the petition he had presen'ed to the
House, signed by 4,0i;0 persons. The Honourable Member then
read a Report of Mr. Mott, in which he stated that relief was
given in the Keightley Unton in aid of wages. He (Mr. Fer-
rand) was there to say that such was not the case. Mr. Mott
said that rents were paid to an alarming extent, but he (Mr.
Ferrand) had the evidence of Sir John Walsham himself,
who said that no such thing had taken place. He
(Mr. Ferrand) knew that rents were not paid by
the Board of Guardians in Keightley. Mr. lllott said
the paupers insolently claimed relief as a right, but
he (Mr. Ferrand) denied that such was the case; the reci-
pients of relief had expressed the deepest gratitude for the
assistance rendered them. This was an untruth on the part of
Mr. Mott, and a calumny on the poor in the parish. He went
on to say that no efforts had been made to supply the paupers
with work, but he (Mi. Ferrand) was there to deny that such
was the fact. He went on to say that the education of the
children was neglected. This was untrue. He (Mr. Ferrand)
knew that Mr. Mott had never set a foot in the workhouse
since he had been a guardian. Mr. Mott knew nothing of the
Keightley Union. He then went on to say that the disputes
'in the Board of Guardians had been caused by the Magistrates
of the town. This he (Mr. Ferrand) deniel, for the Magis-
trates never interfered at all except in their ex officio character.
The Magistrates only consulted the interests cf the poor in
taking the course they did. Mr. Mott said that Bingley work-
house was in the middle of the town. Such was not the
case, for it was outside the town, and was open on one
side to a park of sixty acres in extent, and on
the other to a garden of two acres in extent. He (Mr. Fer-
rand) was there to say that a case of fever had not occurred in
that workhouse since its formation. lie then said that the
living were often associated with the dead. This had never
occurred but once, and then it was with the consent of the
parties in the room. An old man had died, aged 82, and, in a
few days after, another old man died, and the governor of the
workhouse came to take the body away, and the inmates of the
room said they would rather he remained there, as they had
been friends together, and they did not wish to be parted till
the last. That was the only time that the living had ever
companioned the dead. He hoped that in future, the Right
Hon. Baronet would have something better to go upon than
the scandalous reports which had been laid on the table. He
(Mr. Ferrand) believed that these men had been sent down to
get up these things to be used against him (Mr. Ferrand).
He had the greatest pleasure in seconding the motion of the
Hon. Member for Rochdale.
Mr. AGLIONBY hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would
consent to the Commission being continued for one year instead of
five. This was not an ordinary case of the continuance of t Com-
mission. The state of the public business was such that it was
impossible duly to consider the importance of extending the
period. He thought the clauses relating to the extension of
the Commission should have followed the other clauses of this
Bill.—( Hear, hear.) It was morally certain from what had
passed that evening, that the Government tiouid not go on with
the: Bill during the present session. The Bill, so far as its
details were concerned, was at an end. Under all circum-
stances, he thought it would be unwise to confer large and un-
known powers upon the Commissioners, leaving the details to
be settled next year. He had never joined in the outcry against
the New Poor-law, but he thought it would be well for all
classes that they should confine the extension of the Commis-
sion to a single year, and he would vote most cordially for its
continuance for that period.--(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HARDY said his former opposition to the New Poor-
law had been founded on the belief that it was passed for the
benefit of the rate-payers, and not for that of the poor. He
still objeeted to it on the same ground. All his experience in
his own district tended to strengthen the objections which he
entertained to the measure. The great evil of the system was
the refusal of temporary out-door relief. Under the old law, if
a weaver came from a distant part of the country, and did not
receive sufficient to maintain his family, he could obtain
through the overseers temporary relief; under the new law,
all such temporary aid was refused. The poor Nene in fact
entirely at the mercy of the body of the Commissioners, who
knew nothing of their circumstances. Entertaining these ob-
jections to the law, he should support the motion if the Hon.
Member for Rochdale.

Sir C. NAPIER said although a young Member, he must
say he thought the Hon. Member for Knaresborough was
irregular in referring to the Report upon the Keightley union,
before that Report had been laid on the table. The Hon.
and Gallant Member then entered into a defence of the Reports
of Mr. Mott, and Sir John Walsh= connected with the
Keightley union. The Honourable Member for Knares-
borough made accusations without proof, and instead
of waiting for a reply, walked out of the House, and he
dared say would return by and bye, and say that his: ;cha ges
had never been replied to, but that they were all a "set of
humbugs." He thought the term " humbug " was much
more applicable to the Hon. Gentleman himself.
Mr. LIDDELL said he should give his support to the
motion of the Hon. MemLer for Rochdale, hoping the Govern-
ment would be able in the next session to introduce a measure
which would be more satisfactory than that which was under
discussion. If they could bring in a law more in accordance
with the spirit prevailing in different localities, he should
have no objection to vote for the continuance of the
Commission. He could not see why they should adhere
so rigi,lly to the system of dividing the whole country
into unions, especially when there were localities in which
the management of the poor had been conducted in a perfectly
satisfactory manner. As long as he saw a desire in the Com-
missioners to carry on every thing by their own square and rule
manner, regardless of local feelings, he should refuse them his
support. He believed a different course was quite possible.
The new system differed entirely from the old one in the appli-
cation of a workhouse test before relief was afforded, a distinc-
tion that always ought to be borne in mind.
Mr. HAWES met the objection of the Hon. Member to the
workhouse test, by asking what they meant to substitute for it?
They had never yet heard any clear or well defined system
from the declaimers against the present plan. He contended
that there never was a period whenthe wants, and wishes, and
interests of the poor, were more consulted by public men than
at the present time. 'I he present )lan was far superior to that
adopted in Scotland. He also pointed out, that under the old
system it was never worth white to found political attacks upon
it ; hut this system was extensively adopted now, as they had
got responsible public officers. A% to the Bill before the
House, having passed the continuation of the Bill, he *did not
see that his Hon. Friend could offer any opposition, as all the
remaining clauses went to mitigate the evils of the Bill.
Hitherto he had not seen any relaxation in the system of ad-
ministration under the Bill since the Right Hon. Gentleman
came into office. He should give the Bill his support if the
Right Hon. Baronet pressed it on.
Mr. PETER BORTHWICK did not impute to the Hon.
Member for Lambeth any charge of cruelty when he imputed
to him, and those who acted with him, the Bill that was
now upon the table of the House. He accused the Bill of k
carrying cruelty in its bosom. In the borough which he
had the honour to represent, whilst tie condition of the poor
was grievously deteriorated, the poor-rates had increased
threefold; and he must therefore deny the assertion that the
measure was one either of humanity or economy. The Bill
ought to be framed with a regard to the wants and the
necessities of every class of her Majesty's subjects,
and of every district in her majesty's dominions.
The question before the House was whaler the Commission
was to be continued for five years or for ore only. The Hon.
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hawes) was in favour of continuing
the Commission for five years, and leaving it to Parliament to
determine next year what the powers should be. Could any.
thing be more monstrous ?—( Hear.) For his part he would
not consent to the continuance of the Commission for one hour,
because he thought it monstrous that the poor should be the
only part of the community entirely at the merry of a despotic
power.—(Hear.) He was not bound by any pledges to his con-
stituents on this question, for they contented themselves with
informing him of their objections to the existing system, and
leaving it to him to judge of the merits of any measure which
the new Government might propose. But even if the opinions
of his constituents were opposed to his he never could give his
vote for the continuance of so unconstitutional and oppres-
sive a system.—(Hear, hear.) He wished it at the
same time to be distinctly understood that his accu-
.sation was not made against the gentlemen who at pre-
sent held the Commission, but against the Commission it-
self. 'raking for granted that the Bill before the House was
the best that her Majesty's Government could devise, after a
consideration of nine months, coedit it be expected that the
House would be able, within little more than nine hours, to
judge of its merits, in all its multifariois details?—(Hear.)
But the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) said that all
the alterations made from the former Bill were mitigations and
ameliorations. But was the suppression of the Gilbert Unions
en amelioration ?—( Hear, hear)—and were they to agree to its
enactment for fire years without examining it in all its parts?
He ‘vould take every opportunity of expressing his disapproval
of it, by his vote in that House.
Mr. C. WOOD thought that the opposition to the Bill was
made by gentlemen who were ignorant of its principles and its
operation. No petitions against the workhouse test had been
presented Lworn those unions in which it had been enforced.
( Hear.) 'I be petitions came from the mansfacturing districts,
nut one of which had been subjected to is. He contended,
from his experience of the union of Colne' that the condition
of the poor had been greatly improved, that the medical at-
tendance was far better than it had ever been before, and he
could see no reason why its beneficial effeets should rut be ex-
tended to every other district in the kimdom. Tke work-
house test, if properly applied, was a sound est of the efaciency
of the Poor-law, and he thought the Cornnission ought to be
allowed to continue to prevent a lax, athniotratiott of thatteest.

The substitution of Boards of Guardians for Overseers was a
vast improvement in the administration of the law; but even
those boards ought not to be left to themselves. There was an
absolute necessity for control boing exercised by some body,
such as the Commission, ever them. With respect to the con-
tinuance of the Commission, he could not agree to the shorten-
ing the period to less than five years, and even at the close of
that period he believed that there would be as great a necessity
for the conti,luairze of the Commission as there new was.
Under the old law a good administration existed no doubt in
some localities, while in the neighbourhood of those localitie,
there was a very bad administration ; and it was
by the Commission that a uniformly good adminis-
tration was introduced throughout the country. With
respect to what had been said as to the passing of all the clauses
of the Bill on the present occasion, as far as his opinion went he
must say he had no objection to the passing of all the clauses of
the Bill.

Lord SAND ON said that if he looked on the powers of the
Commissioners in the same light as the Hon. Gentleman who
had just sat down, he too would be for the continuance of the
Commission. If those powers were to be confined to super•
vision and reporting, without the Commissioners making laws,
taking on themselves the power of deciding how the law should
apply to one locality and how to another, thus drawing distinc-
tions between different parts of the country, if such powers as
these were not in the hands of the Commissioners, he would
have no objection to the existence of a Central Board. To pre-
vent abuses of the powers of the Commissioners, it was neces-
sary to limit their duration. He certainly objected to the con-
tinuance of this Commission for five years, and he would there-
fore vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale.

Sir J. GRAHAM said he was unwilling.to trespass on the
time of the House, as he could not forget that they were
now advanced to the fifth evening in the discussion
of this subject, and had made but little progress in
the present clause. Still his respect for the Noble
Lord who had just sat down was such, and his regret so great
at the opposition which the Noble Lord had thought it his
duty to give the measure, that he (Sir J. Graham) could not
remain silent after the Noble Lord's address to the House. He
could not understand how his Noble Friend, entertaining the
opinions that he did of the Commission, could consent to its
renewal for a single day. His Noble Friend adopted the
opinion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, that the discre.
tionary powers given to the Commissioners were unconstitu-
tutional. Now he ( Sir J. Graham) thought that no term was
less applicable to those powers than that of unconstitutional.
It was a mistake to suppose that the Commissioners were ir-
responsible for the power they exercised. The Minister of the
Crown was liable to be asked respecting any irregularity in the
administration of the law, and if he was not able to an-
swer, he referred to the Commissioners, who made a report
on the fact; and if that was not considered satisfactory, a
Committee of the House was appointed, as happened in the
case of the Keightley U nion.— ( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Mem-
ber for Knaresborough said he was there to assert and prove.
He was there to assert, he ( Sir J. G.) well knew.—( Hear.)
The House would remember the assertions then made by the
Hon. Gentleman, and the evidence taken before the Commit-
tee would show whether the statements of Mr. Mott and
Sir J. Walsham were unfounded or not.—( Hear, hear.) The
Noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, said the workhouse
test was universal. Now the application of that test was en-
tirely under the control of the Commissioners, and that
brought him to the advantage of vesting a discretionary power
of relief in the Board. What was said by the Hon. Member
for Halifax was perfectly true, that the universality of the law
would render it inapplicable in many cases where different cir-
cumstances required it to be variously applied. He had stated
that the number of persons who were receiving parochial relief
amounted to 1.300,000, but of them only 192,000 received in-
door relief.--(Hear, hear.) That showed the test was not
universal in its application.—( Hear, hear.) What was the
state of things under the old law? In 1803 the population
was 8,872,000, and the number of persons receiving relief
amounted to 1,040,000. In 1815 the population was
10,150,000; the number of persons relieved amounted to
1,290,000. In 1841, when the population was 15,900,000, the
number relieved amounted to 1,300,000. It had been stated
by the Hon. Member for Durham that the workhouse test had
only lately become the law of the land. But that was a mis-
take; that ens the law from the year 1779. Another
Honourable Member had stated that they must
travel two hundred miles to the Central Commission
to obtain relief. Now on the contrary there were
four sources from which relief might be obtained—the
Relieving Officers, the Board of Guardians, the Overseers,
and, in case of sickness, the resident Magistrate. Applica-
tion could be made to the Board of Guardians and then to
the Assistant Commissioners, and, if that was not sufficient,
to the Central Board itself. It was said that was an ineffi-
cient appeal which was made to the Assistant Commissioners,
as they considered themselves bound to protect the rate-
payers. He could only say if that was so they mistook their
duty, but he knew it was not the fact. The real ques-
tion was, whether the Commission was so com-
posed as to command the confidence of the House.
If their rules and regulations were, on the whole, satisfactory,
he did not think there could be any doubt that they ought to be
continued for five years. He confessed he had the strongest
opinion of the expediency of continuing the central control, and
he stated that its continuance for five years would be a mark of
the confidence of the House being placed in it, which was of the
utmost importance.--( Hear hear.) He trusted he would be
able to go on with 711 the clauses of the Bill, and no further
obstruction would be thrown in its way; but, on the whole, he
was of opinion that it would be impolitic to shorten the dura-
tion of the Commission for any term less than five years.
Lord SANDON explained. He did not say it was the
universal practice to refuse out-door relief, but he said that it,
appeared by last year's Report that the Commissioners were fa-
vourable to that. view.—(I-fear, hear.)
Mr. FERHAND, in explanation, said that tfie Hon. Member
for Halifax having made a charge of rather a personal nature
against him, he would only beg of the House to wait till the evi-
dence taken before the Committee was laid on the table and
compared with the Reports.
Sir. C. WOOD was not aware of having made any charges
against the Hon. Member, further than to say, that certain alle-
gations were proved to have taken place in the union of which
he (Mr. Ferrand) was a member. He stated that upon the
authority of an Hon. Gentleman near him, who told him that
the allegations made were proved generally.
_ _

Sir B. HALL wished to make a few observations on the
present question. The Right Hon. Baronet had referred to
the Union of St. Pancras in a former debate, and used the
statements he then made as an argument for the continuance
of the Commissioners. The abuses, he stated, did exist, it was
true, but the Right Hon. Gentleman ought to be aware
that these abuses existed under an inefficient management.
In the parish he represented he could assure the Right Hon.
Baronet tho children were well attended to, and there was no
occasion for the Commissioners coming there, and exercising
their jurisdiction. He should vote against the continuance of
the Commission for five years.
Air. TROTTER, as a representative of West Surrey,
believed he was doing his duty to his constituents by voting for
the adoption of the first clause of the Bill. As to the time for
the continuance of the Commission, he had received no inti-
mation from his constituents as to their opinions, but for him-
self he thought it was bad to agitate the question from year
to year.
General JOHNSON considered the Commission objection-
able and he should therefore vote against Its continuance.
Mr. BUCK concurred with the opinions that had been ex-
pressed by the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool. He be-
lieved that the distress that existed in many parts of the coun-
try arose from the uncalled for interference of the Assistant
Commissioners. He should therefore vote that the term of ex.
istence of their powers should be as short as possible.
Captain PECHELL would strenously oppose the further ex-
istence of the Poor-law Commissioners, believing that their acts
were most unjust and uncalled for. The Hon. and Gallant
Member then proceeded to read various documents, for the
purpose of showing that the inhabitants of several districts
were dissatisfied with the conduct of the Commissioners.
He strongly disapproved of the principle of vesting the Com-
missioners with the power to abolish the Gilbert Unions;
and, under those circumstances, he could not approve of the
continuance of the Commission.

Mr. AGLIONBY felt the importance of the present discus-
sion; and he should, therefore, address a few words to the
House on the subject. He had already argued, and he re-
peated the argument, that it would not be advisable to continue
the powers of the Commissioners until they should
ascertain what those powers might be. But he
believed that those powers could not be defined this
session, and under those circumstances he could not vote for
ar. extension of the Commission for a period of five years. He
found that many of the supporters of the present Government
had on a forioer occasion spoken against a similar proposal,
and amongst others the Honourable Member for Kent (Sir E.
Koatehbult) and the Honourable Member for East Sussex
(Mr. Darby). He thought that those gentlemen
were bound in cor.sistency to give their votes in favour
of the amendment for limiting the authority of the Commis-
sioners to one year. Even the Right Honourable Baronet,
the present Secretary for the Home Department, had expressed
his disapproval of the principle of vesting the Commissioners
with an unlimited control over the local authorities. He wished
for his part that the whole question should be left open for the
discussion of Parliament in a future session ; and he could not
therefore approve of the principle of extending the Commission
for the next five years.
Mr. DARBY said that he had. on a former occasion, disap-
proved of the principle of extending the Commission, because
he felt that no opportunity would then have been afforded of
considering the various clauses of the Bill. But that opportu-
nity was now afforded, and the Bill might be discussed clause
by clause.
Mr. KEMBLE had not received any instructions from his
constituents on the subject; but if he had he considered it
would be his duty, as a Member of Parliament, to vote for what
he considered best for the community at large. He should vote
as he had voted last year. He had heard no argument for con-
tinuing the Commission for five years which would not equally
apply to making the Commission perpetual, and it would have
been more honest at once to propose its perpetuity. Believ-
ing the power of the Commission to be arbitrary and uncon-
stitutional, he should vote against the continuance of the Com-
mission for a longer period than one year, although he thought
it it would be better that the Commission should continue for
three years than for one.
Mr. TROTTER explained.

Mr. MUNTZ considered it to be the duty of a Member to
do what he thought right; but, on this occasion, he went hand-
in-hand with his constituents, for they all agreed in detesting
this unnatural and unconstitutional Bill. He could not under-
stand on what principle the Hon. Member for Surrey could
propose to continue the Commission for three years; he ought
to have proposed its abolition at once. lie should support the
motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale. He protestedagainst
this law altogether.
Mr. LAWSON objected to the application of the law to the
northern counties.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Commit-
tee divided, when there appeared—
For continuing the Commission for five years 164
For continuing it for one year 0n1y... ...... 92
Majority in favour of five years --72
On the gallery being re-opened, we found
Mr. T. DUN COM BE taking an objection to the manner in
which the Chairman had put the motion.
Mr. GREENE explained the manner in which he had put the
amendment.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the
printing of the words in italics was quite a modern practice,
for the convenience of Alembers, and were left blank in the
Bill itself.

On the question that the clause stand part of the Bill,
Colonel SIBTHORP stated his objection to the clause.
He protested against the number and expense of the
Assistant-Commissioners. They were a perfectly useless
body, involving an expense of more than 641,000/. He
thought they were perfectly justified in throwing every ob-
stacle in the way of the Right Hon. Baronet and the Bill. He
should take the sense cf the Ilouse on negativing the clause.
General JOHNSON said tint, previous to the Gallant
Member's rising, he had moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress and obtain leave to sit again, and he thought that that
question ought to be put first.
After a short discussion, in which Sir .1. Gamiest and Ge-
neral JOHNSON took part,
The question that the Chairman report progress was put
from the Chair, when
Lord WORSLEY said that after the speech of the Ho-
nourable and Gallant Member opposite (Colonel Sibthorp),
he felt it his duty to state that in their county (Lincoln)
their constituents took a different view from that taken by the
Gallant Colonel.
Colonel WOOD hoped that after to-night's discussion the
House would be allowed to come to a decision that the clause
stand part of the Bii.