The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING-, MARCH 18, 1842

• Mr. Davis) did not think it their duty to interfere at all
with the opium trade ;, but Sir George Robinson rather
.encouraged the trade, yet no. part of his conduct received
any reprobation. At length a different aspect of affairs
took place. In January, 1839, Capt.' Elliot learnt that
the Chinese Government intended to enforce a prohibi-
tion ; under this state of things Capt. Elliot ordered all
the ships in the harbour at Canton then engaged in the
opium trade, to sail away. Capt. Elliot certainly
did not anticipate the violent act that was soon
after put in force by Mr. Ctnunissioner Lin, nor
had he any right to anticipate such a proceedirg,
He knew that there was no law then existing in China
by which those vessels could be seized. He (Sir J.
Staunton) thought, therefore, that Captain Elliot could
not be blamed for not having forseen such conduct, here-
tofore unseen or unthought of in civilized countries.
Captain Elliot did, however, as a gallant officer,
when the time came, give every. support in his power
to his countrymen in China, and in order to bring about
an arrangement with the Chinese Government, he gave
them a certain pledge, which, having given, he (Sir G.
Staunton) thought-he was bound to perform. The real
nature of the transaction of the 6,000,000 dollars re-
ceived from China would be understood from the papers
which, her Majesty's Government had laid upon
the table. In rue of these WAS given at once
the nature and character of the convention ; it
stated that the money was received in diminution of the
just claim of her Majesty's Government.—(Hear,
hear.) He (Sir George Staunton) thought this money
was exactly a grant or instalment of the claim
which her Majesty's Government had upon the
Imperial Government. With this also the declara-
tion of the Chinese themselves agretd. He could
not, therefore, see the slightest reason, why the
money should not be paid ,to those just claim-
ants who sought for compensation for the opium
they had given up at the request of Captain Elliot.
He thought the character of this country was at stake;
and, admitting its superior condition in China, this was
not the moment when the British Government should do
anything calculated to shake the opinion entertained of
its integrity. The losses sustained by British merchants
in Canton were of a serious and extensive nature. He
would therefore feel much pleasure in seconding the
motion.

Sir GEORGE LARPENT said, that circumstanced
as he was, he could not content himself with giving a
silent vote upon the question. His Hun. Friend, the
Member for Sandwich had spoken of the manner in
which her Majesty's subjects in China had been
treated ; and detailed at considerable length the manner
and circumstances under which they were ordered to
deliver up the opium in their possession. The merchants,
both British and foreign, were in a state of duress in
Canton. When they were called upon to give up their
property, they relied upon the good faith of the Bri-
tish Government ; and whether Captain Elliot had
authority or not, they delivered up the opium
under peculiar circumstances, and he conceived that
it was the imperative duty of the present Government
to see that the large sum of money which had been
received should be allocated to the service and benefit of
those British merchants who had been sufferers in, the
distressing affair. The present Government Were
equally bound as the late Government to pre-
serve the good faith and honour of the country.
He trusted and hoped that as the British merchants who
had been sufferers in Canton had received an assurance
from the late Government, that they would get even part
of the money which had been received ; and as the honour
of this country was at stake, he conceived the British
Parliament were called upon to settle the matter by allo-
cating at all events an instalment of that money to those
who had lost their property in Canton.

Sir CHARLES NAPIER said, after what had fallen
from his Hon. Friend, he would not trespass very long
upon the attention of the House, but he could not but
offer a few observations upon the subject. lle did
not blame Captain Elliot for giving the offer, being, as
he was, in a state of starvation ; but the merchants had
no right to obey the order of Captain Elliot, nor had he,
being a prisoner, any right to give the order. Whatever
should be given to the opium dealers he hoped would not
be at the expense of the British officers and sailors serv-
ing in. China.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, if
he could not agree with his Hon. Friend on this motion,
it was because he did not believe the honour of the
country was pledged to paythe opium dealers out of the
money received from the Chinese Government. The
Hon. Gentleman in his speech said that the honour of
the country was pledged to compensate the opium
dealers, but he did not say that.they were to be paid out
o f the fund now at the disposal of the Crown. That, however,
was the question. (The Right Hon. Gentleman then went on
to read extracts from speeches made by himself relative to the
origin of the war in China.) It was for the House to consider
whether out of the money received for the ransom of a certain
city in China it was their duty to satisfy certain claims, which
it was the object of this motion to confirm. At the time of
Captain Elliot's offer, the British merchants were in fear of
their lives and property; being in this situation of danger,
Captain Elliot, with feelini,s which do him honour—(Hear]--
went, at the risk of his own life, into the situation in which
they were, and surrendered himself up to the probability of
captivity and danger. Under these circumstances, Capt. Elliot
gave them a pledge which the Hon. Gentleman said the Govern-
ment, was obliged to abide by. In this he (the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer) could not agree ; and in making that
statement he thought he also expressed the opinions of the
late Government, or if he did not, on what ground was it that
when certain bills drawn by Captain Eliiot, were presented at
the Treasury, they wel-e not paid but protested? The sum we
received from China did not come at the end of ho;-
tilities, by way of compensati n for injuries receive 1, but it was
received during the carr3ing on of the war for the ransoming
of a certain city in China, and certainly could not be made
available to satisfy the claims of the opium merchants He
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought, then, no man could
say that there was anything like a breach of faith on the part
of the British Government, who had made. no pledge to pay
the claims till the termination of the war. Upon these grounds
he did not think it expedient to accede to the motion of his
Hon. Fr:end. The motion was couched in terms too, which,
if he were disposed to cavil at terms, he should object to as not
properly expressing the facts f the case. There was another
question also connected with the case which the House would
have to consider • it was whether they could depend upon the
assessed value Of the opium. He had seen in some of the
papers that certa'n merchants had valued their opium at
1,200 dollars a chest, and that others had valued theirs at 500
dollars a chest. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
thought that before allowing any compensation whatever, even
if it were admitted that compensation was due, that it should
be clearly and distinctly ascertained what was at the time of
the seizure the precise value of opium. These were the views
which he entertained on the question, and as such were his
opinions, he could not give his support to the proposition of his
lion. Friend.—(Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON was not prepared to say that anY
pledge had been given by her Majesty's late Government to
obtain the money for the relief of British merchants in
Canton. Undoubtedly the pledge given was precisely as was
stated by the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer), but though there was no positive pledge given,
her Majesty's present Government would be acting judiciously
and wisely, in his ( Lord Palmerston's) opinion, by yielding to
the motion of the Hon. Member (Mr. Lindsay.) The money
was of course to be paid into the Consolidated Funds ; this
.was a sum of money recovered from China, and certainly it
seemed to him there was a wide distinction between advancing
money out of the funds of this country to the relief of British
merchants in Canton, and allocating money which was ob-
tained in that country to the relief of those parties who had
claims upon the Government in consequence of the sufferings
and the losses they had endured. fie hoped her Majesty's
Government would therefore apply it in that way, as it would
have the effect of relieving a great deal of distress.
Mr. M. PHILIPS did not rise for the purpose of advocat-
ing the rights of British merchant; in Canton, in consequence
of any-interest he had with that country; but he thought it
extremely inexpedient at this moment that injuries should be
inflicted upon those merchants while means were in the power
of the Government and Parliament of this country to relieve
these injuries, particularly when it was recollected that they
were caused by an anxiety on the part of British merchants
in that country to vindicate the Government of this country.
He contended that the property which had been given up was
not given up with the jurisdiction of the Chinese Goveri ment,
but it was in fact paid as a kind of ransom for the lives of Bri-
tish subjects which were in jeopardy. He wished, therefore,
for the honour of the British Government and the British em-
,iire, that the motion of the Hon. Member for Sandwich would
be acceded to, and that good faith would be kept with those
who had suffered those losses, rel3ing upon the honour of
England.

cE ajAofo tithDeiENxE7wEicim spoke Mr.
After a few words from Sir G. LAREENT and the CHAN-
n a very low tone, was under-
stood to say that it was of no consequence from whom the Go-
ren ment received the money they did get, and he certainly
thought it should be applied to indemnify the parties. He was
sure no Hon. Member, whose desire was to do justice, could
lay his hand upon his heart and say that the expenses of the
war should be settled before these parties were compensated.
Mr. J. A. SMITH said, if he were to collect anything from
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was, that unless sufficient
money was received from the Chinese Government, not oc.ly to
compensate the merchants but to pay the cost of the expedition,
the cost of the expedition should be paid by the Government
before the claims of the merchants were satisfied. He must
say that he heard that announcement with very great regret ;
he believed it was the first time that a country ever admitted
that she undertook an expedition for the purpose of gain. He
could not sit down without expressing his regret at the terms
made use of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer relative to the
assumed value of the opium. He (Mr. A. Smith)believed that
the character of the opium merchants were of the highest order,
and that they had courted every inquiry ; he was sorry, there-
fore, that the Right Hon. Gentleman had made us:: of the
terms in which he indulged.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER briefly ex•
plained.

Mr. J. A. SMITH replied.
Mr. WYNNE said he possessed no information upon the
matter, except what he had received from the papei s beim* the
House. From them he should not consider the claims to be
strictly legal, but still such as in point of equity were entitled
to the consideration of the House. With respect to the money
which had been paid by Captain Elliot under; the convention,
in his opyiion Captain Elliot acted as the representative of
the British Government ; and if he made any agreement, or
anypledge, he thought they would be suchas the country would
be bound to abide by. He admitted the claims of the British
navy, and he thought that something should be allowed to them
in the shape of salvage. The question as to the remainder then
was, whether it should be Applied to the expenses of the expe-
dition, or to the sufferers. This appeared to him to be rather
a question of time than a question of right; and he did feel
disposed to think that some advance should have been made to
the- losers ; he thought it should not appear that the compen-
sation had been unnecessarily delayed. He had rather that this
motion were not pressed to a division, but that it should be left
to the further consideration of the House.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, in speaking on this subjeet,
his dt sire was not only to do' justice to the merchants,
but also to those whose interests were too often neglected
in discussions in this House—the people of this country.
He hoped there was now in the House a considerable majority
who had no interest in the opium trade, or the claims for the
losses in that trade, and who he was quite sure would form
their judgment upon the matter upon perfectly unbiassed prin-
ciples. The question was this—whether it was right and
proper, that having got a certain sum of money on account
of the ransom of this city, that that money should be ap-
plied to the redress of losses sustained by certain British
merchants ? The principle upon which the war was undertaken
was according to the only official statements which had been
made, and these were made by the Noble Lord opposite, who,
when asked what were the objects of the war, distinctly said
that there were two objects, first to claim reparation for the
injuries offered to her Britannic Majesty's subjects by the

Chinese Government; and secondly, to obtain compensation
ft.r the losses sustained by their property having been taken
under the direction ( f the Chinese ,Government.—(Heaf
hear.) If the British merchants had a right to
compensation ? why not have the whole of the money
voted to them ? If that money was obtained for compensation
for losses sustained by British merchants, why not give the
whole 150,0001., or 2,000,0001., the price of the opium ? if
it was right to appropriate the whole of it to that purpose, why
not do so ? If it was a strict claim of equity and justice it cer-
tainly was as incumbent upon Parliament to vote the entire
2,000,0001. to the indemnification of the British merchants
who sustained losses in China, and then trust to the chance of
raising it from the Chinese Government. If they failed,
though he did not believe there was a possibility of failure,
then the loss would be of course sustained by the British Go-
vernment. It was said that Captain Elliot had pledged the
British Government to the application of the money to the
relief of the distress of the British merchants in China, but it
should be recollected that the late Government, by whom
Captain Elliot had been appointed ai.d sent to China' had
never recognised him—they actually refused to honour his bills,
and rejectod them—upon the whole, he
his duty, not having the slightest personal interest in the mat-
ter, to decline in the most positive terms to give his consent to
the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. (Sir R. Peel) felt it
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, who spoke in a very low tone of
voice, and was 'very inaudible throughout, was understood to
say, that if the claims were allowed they ought to go to the full
extent of the loss. Many of the ebjections of the Right Hon.
Baronet applied with considerable force, but he thought
these were equitable, and ought to be taken
into the considera ion of the Herne. One objec-
tion of the Right Hon. Gentleman was, that the value of
the opium could not be rice: tamed until the termination of the
war; but still, if the Government felt disposed, he (Lo-d J
Russell) thought there w.is sufficient grounds for investigation.
If the Hon. Member who brought forward this motion could
obtain a pledge from her Majesty's Government to that effect,
he (Lord J. Russell) would advise him not to press the motion
on the House ; but if he should do so, he should certainly feel
it to be his duty to support him.
Mr. LINDSAY, in reply, said, that he was much indebted
to the Noble Lord for the view he bad taken of the subject;
and if her Majesty's Government would take the matter into
their consideration, he would not_ press his motion to a division.
Sir R. PEEL said, that his Hon. Friend must exercise his
own discretion altogether. They had directed inquiries to be
made as to the value of the opium, but he could give no pro-
mise to the Hon. Gentleman. He must, therefore, decide
himself whether he would take the sense of the House on
the subject.
Mr. LINDSAY intimated his intention of dividing the
House, and strangers were ordered to withdraw; and the
House divided—
For the motion
Against it B7
. .

Majority against the motion
LUNATIC ASYLUMS.

Lord GRENV,,ILLE SOMERSET then rose to ask leave
to briag in a Bill to provide for the more effectual inspection of
houses licensed by the Magistrates in Quarter Sessions for the
reception of insane persons in England and Wales. After de-
tailing the inotiveA which induced him to bring that measure
before the House, he said he did not intend to include the metro-
politan districts in the proposition he was about to make. He had
taken some pains to ascertain whether the system of visitation
in the country was effectual, and though he did not derive
much satisfactory information from the returns which
had besn laid on the tsble of the House, yet he was able to
state that the visits of the Magistrates, according to the pre-
sent system, were very irregular, and the whole responsibility
was entrusted to the mercy of the superintes dents. He did
not wish to insinuate anything against the proprietors of li-
censed houses, for he was bound to say that he had seen as
much humanity and kindness evinced by them as could be
possibly evinced by himself or any of those Hon. Gentlemen
whom he addressed.—(Hear, hear.) He made no charge
whatever against the proprietors or against the superintendents
of those houses, but he was exceedinly anxious to see a regular
system of inspection carried out. He thought it would be
most desirable that some of the Commissioners acting
in London should be amongst those selected to in-
spect those houses throughout the country from time
to time. What he proposed to do was, to have two bar-
risters to inspect those houses, and instead of having the
Commissioners allowed to practise at their profession, as they
now were, that there should be Commissioners appointed who
should be required to dedicate the whole of their time to their
duties in London, and the other duties they would have to per-
form in the country, and that they should each be required,
once at least in every four months, to visit every licensed house
in the ccuntry. At those visits he proposed that their atten-
tion should be paid to the parts which more particularly de-
manded investigation, and more especially the part as to the
fitness of the inmates to occupy a place in a madhouse. What
he proposed was, that instead of visiting every 14 days
for three visits, the third visit should be left out, and that
after two visits, with an interval of 14 days between them, the
patient should be let out as soon as the Commissioners thought fit.
Barristers should also be appointed in the country houses, to
examine every path nt previous to his admission. He be-
lieved these r egulatioos would have very many beneficial results ,
they would tend first to prevent persons being improperly kept
in the asylum, and they would prevent persons being impro-
perly admitted. He had considered it desirable to adopt some
measure more stringent than those at present in force to
prevent the admission of improper persons into the asylums ;
but he entertain: el the opinion now, that though there were a
few cases where parties wished to send their relatives improperly
to a lunatic asylum, yet, as he believed there were very few in-
stances of that sort, and as he should be sorry to add anythires
to the present expenses of the establishment, it was with
some regret, therefore, that he had come to the conclu-
sion, that the certificates should be left as they now
were, without any adepional signatures being required.
It seemed to him that he should gain very little also by laying
down any rule as to therank and standing of medical gentlemen
who should alone have the power of granting certificates. Fie
did not now attempt to regulate the management of those insane
Persons who were confined in the single houses of private indi-
viduals. They were left to the cam of persons over whom
there was no supervision, and no doubt they suffered much
more than other insane persons—( Hear, hear)—and he should
therefore feel much pleasure in introducing some measure on
that subject ; but he remembered, that on a previous occasion,
after a due consideration of the subject, it was thought inadvis-
ab!e to attempt to interfere with the management of those un-
fortunate persons who were confined in private Louses. (The
Noble Lord here lowered his voice so much as to be
quite inaudible for some time ) Neither did he attempt to
interfere with the" public as) furns—by them he meant Bedlam,
St. Luke's, and the other establishments of that kind; he be-
lieved they were generally conducted very well. —(llear. )
In proposing this measure, lie did not do all that he could du,
or all that could be done ; but he did think what he proposed
mould be accompanied with very beneficial results, and would
lead to a broader and more comprehensive legislation on the
rtshe
et ')
vv plan,
a in becauseore
perfect
subject. He should wish to see the plan proposed by the Noble
Lord (Lyndhurst) in the other House discussed previous to
forming an amalgamation (as we understood) with his (Lord
Ua
stieemv believed
might
tt
be
,froeffme
catecdo.m
combi-
nation Son
lie
did not think it was nseessary to trouble the House any fuither
iol
on the subject. He had before admitted that he did not think
the measure went so far as he could wish, but still it would be
a great step towards perfect legislation.
Air. W A KLEY commenced by thanking the Noble Lord
who had just sat down for having turned his attention to this
subject, but he did not think the measure he proposed was suf-
ficiently comprehensive. He would beg to draw the attention
of the House to the different syst• ms of managing insane per •
sons adop ed in England, Ireland, and Scotland. In Scotland
there was one system, in Ireland there was another, and in Eng-
land there were several, but the whole of them were very detec-
tive. The proposal of the Noble Lord was b icily this :—'l hat
there should be appointed two Commissioners to visit the li-
censed houses out of the metropolitan district. Now, what
was a lunatic asylum? It was an hospital appointed to receive
patients afflicted with the woe. t of diseases; and what did the
Noble Lord propose to do? actually to appoint two barristers,
two legal men, to superintend the medical condition of the in-
mates of these asylums. He was sure the Noble Lord did not
mean any slight upon the medical profession, but this certainly
did look very like it. Did the Noble Lord know that the
recovery of these patients depended entirely upon the
treatment they received? The Noble Lord said that he
did not propose to meddle with the public asylums. He
(Mr. Wakley 1 thought the Noble Lord's measure was not suf-
ficiently comprehensive. He did, therefore, pray the Noble
Lord to postpone the second reading of his Bill till seine futur
date, and in the meantime he would undertake to lay reports
of ail the lunatic asylums before the House; he would also
thoroughly maize the reports of the Commissioners, and he
thought he should not be doing his duty if he did not assist
Government to appoint a Commission fully to inquire into
every circumstance connected with the management and con-
duct of these asylums. In his visitation plan the Noble Lord's
measure wa also defective. But he (Mr. W.) would not now
detain the House, as he meant to introduce the subject in all
its details after the Easter recess, until which time he hoped
the Noble Lord would postpone his motion fur the second
reading of the Bid. _

Mr.—HAWES also wished for postponement, for it was al-
visable, and indeed necessary, to introduce a more comprehen-
sive measure. Even the efficiency of the
.keepers and the
salaries of the Commissioners required a great deal of con••
siderat ion.

Lord ASHLEY had no objection that the Hen. Member
for Finsbury should direct his vigorous attacks against the
Metropolitan Commission. Certainly he (Lord Ashley)
could wish that the measure hadgone further—(Hear)---but
still great benelitAvould be effected by the Bill of his Nold:! Friend
in the very defective system that now prevailed in the manage-
ment of lunatic asylums in the provinces, particularly in visita-
tion, whereby the Commissioners could carry out the object of
the Act, and prevent persons who had been discharged trom a
London asylum from being incarcerated in a country lunatic
establishment, for the Bill would establish a perfect record of
peerf:nyoefrycoml:tolen
every such house. He thought also a controlling suggestive
visiting commission would be much better than a medical one.
In the first place, the House could not introduce an uniform
curative process into all country establishments. It would be
impossible for them to irsist upon the introduction of the non-
bthaiteneoesittency
system,wofueldr the
eve enxopenrisgeht to impose it, would be so great,
coercivethat
the
House
be-
cause many of the private lunatic houses were con-
secnaspeitla‘l,a,s j and they
were screwed down to the lowest amount of ducted by persons
remu-
neration for the inmates they took in.—(Hear, hear. )
Further the House had not yet sufficient experience of the
of sanity or
.insanity as a medical man.
non-coercive system, though he (Lord Ashley) would admit
to get medical men in the country than
that very great good had been derived from it. As to the sup-
riority of medical men in deciding the question of sanity, be ;,ad
just as good
aB reasonjuutdigt
et
was
of
think
theinm 1 cp,
rtrhee aseetansacye
barristers, while a knowledge of the law was most
important to a Commissioner; therefore he thought
it better that the Commissioners should he lawyers, with
content themselves
power to call in a doctor when they wanted him.
The law was to be applicable to a whole country ; and in many.
ynntrueststtankoet only
him as they found him.
of the present twHhieitnhl
ayel-nlpueedoepdletdo medical dtihs
etrar i
greatacnt s,
prac-
tice with regard to lunatics. In some places the facilities
of incarceration being very great, and in others madmen
were to be found walking about in all eirections.—(A laugh.)
He was glad that he had heard the objections that had been
made to the Bill, as they had cinced him they were not
of extraordinary force. They Convinced bins they were not
of extraordinary force. 'lhey would also have the effect of
directing public attention to the subject, and that would
strengthen the hand of those who Would have tbeadministra-
lion of the law.
Mr. C. W. WYNN was much disposed fo agree with the
views of the Hon. member for Lambeth, with resject to
the Bill; but it ought to go much further. Ile supported the
Bill on general grounds, as it was now more than thirty years
since the Legislature bad passed the law empowering counties
to join in the management of lunatics, and the state of the law
was now imperfect.
Lord G. SOMERSET replied. Tt
-e proposed the Bill, in
hopes it. would lead to something further. It especially pro-
vided that the legal gentleman conducting the inquiry should
be accompanied by a medical gentleman, without whose
concurrence he could not act. For the informa-
tion of the Honourable Member for Finsbury, he
intended to take the second reading before Easter;
he
should proceed with it a short time after Easter, and he would
take care that all interested in the discussion should have due
notice of it. lie was anxious the Bill should pass as speedily
as povsible.
After a few words from 111' B. 'HAWES in explanation,
leave was given to bring in the Bill,

THE BISIVP OF JERUSALEM.
Dr. BOWRING begged to postpone till after Easter the
motion of which he had given notice for the correspondence
respecting the establishment of an English Bishop at Jerusalem.
Motion withdrawn.
GILBERT UNIONS.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented two petitions, praying
that the Gilbert Unions might he exempted from the opera-
tion of the Poor-law Amendment Act.

Mr. S. WORTLEY presented several petitions to the
same effect from places in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose, pursuant to notice, to move for
" a Select Committee to inquire into the administration of re-
lief to the poor in parishes incorporated under Gilbert's Act,
or subject to the provisions of any Local Act , and to report
whether it would be expedient or just to repeal those Acts for
the purpose of substituting in lieu thereceethe Poor-law Amend-
ment Act." He felt that the proposition sv;.:.
ich he begged to
submit to the House was of so reasonable a naaZe, that he
need not occupy for any length of time the attentios: of the
Hon. Gentlemen in convincing them of its justice. In ens.:3-
veuring to give effect to the petitions presented that
night by the lion. Member for the We .t Riding of Yorkshire
(31r. S. Wortley), as well as those presented by himself
(Mr. I'. Duncombe), end several other petitions presented
by various Hon. Members, in favour of the present motion,
he might, perhaps, be allowed to remind the House of the
state of the question at the tune the new Poor law Amendment
Act was passed in 1834.—(Loud cries of " Hea-,
hear.") When Lord Althorp introduced that Bill to the
House, great apprehensions were felt that those parishes subject
to Local Acts and the Gilbert Incorporations would be affec,ed
by the measure. The then Hon. Member for Marylebone in-
quired of that Noble Lord whether the proposed measure would
isterfere with those Local Acts. Lord Althorp, in reply,
stated that the Conimissioners would not interfere with those
part bee which were well regulated, and that he hoped that they
would follow the example of such parishes. The Noble Lord
fuefillsd the wish which he had expressed on that occasion to
the letter, for in the 32nd clause of the New Poor -law
Amendment Act, it was stated that no dissolution of, or altera-
tion in those parishes should take place unless two-thirds of the
majority of the guardians should require such alteration or dis-
solution. There was a guarantee, a compact entered into by Par-
liament with regard to those parishes and incorporations under
Local Acts. if that clause had not been insisted on, if that provi-
sion hat not been made, Hon. Gentlemen were well aware that
there would have been such an opposition to the Poor-law
Amendment Act as would have rendered it very difficult for
the Government to pass that measure. The Poor-law Com-
missioners had induced, after that, several of those incorpora-
tions to dissolve their unions; nevertheless, there still re-
mained a great number, in which the guardians felt persuaded
of the superiority el their system to that of the Poor-law
Amendment Act for administering relief to the poor. The
two last measures introduced to the House, for the pur-
pose of amending the Poor-law, proposed to give power
to the Poor-law Commissioners to dissolve those Gil-
bert corporporasions w:thout the consent of the guardians.
On this subject he (Mr. D.) some time ago put a question to
the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, but the Right Hon.
Gentleman thought fit to I-err:tin silent on the point. If the
object with respect to those incorporated parishes of the mea-
sures for amending the Poor• law were carried out, a gross
breach of faith with those Incorporation would be committed.
That was one reason why the House should consent to the in-
quiry. There was another reason. When the Committee on
the Poor-law was sitting up stairs, in the year 1838, he (Mr.
D.) moved, in consequence of the aspersions thrown out
against Mr. Gilbert's incorporations by the Commissioners,
that it be an instruction to the Committee to inquire into the
accuracy of a p rtion of the report of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners, which had reference to the vicious system
said to prevail in the incorporations formed unici
Gilbert's Act, and report thereon to the liouse.—( Hear.)
Among other charges brought in their Report, by the Com-
missioners against the guardians, was one to the effect that
the guardians received various sums of money, varying from
51. to so high as 20/. for their services. He (Mr. I).) denied
that they received one shilling. In moving that that instruc-
tion to which he had alluded should be given to the Committee,
he had pointed out the necessity of the inquiry not being con-
fined to the assistants of the Commissioners, but that practical
men of unprejudiced minds should be examined. The Chair-
man of the Committee concurred in what he (Mr. D.) there
stated as being necessary, and yet what had been done?
Though he had had a great number of witnesses to
disprove the statements of .the Commissioners, not oise of
them was examined, and the Report was drawn up without
hearing any of them. Now, with respect to the objections
entertained towards the Gilbert Unions, he (Mr. D.) was au-
thorised to state, on the part of the guardians, that if, at a fair
inquiry before a Committee, it was proved to them that their
system was inferior to that going to be introduced by the
Poor-law Amendwent Act, they would immediately consent
to the dissolution of those incorporations. Could anything be
fair than that? The lion. Gentleman then read a letter from
the Rev. Mr. Bathurst, who was connected with those incor-
porations, calling for such an inquiry, and then went on to
ask if the advocates of the system proposed by the
Poor-law Amendment Act feared this inquiry. Did they fear
a comparison with those incorporations? He was sure it would
be found that more economy and advantage in every point of
view would result from the operation of the system pre-
vailing in the incorporations than from that of any other.
He felt sure that the House would grant him an inquiry and
hear those parties before it adopted a Bill of pains and penal-
tics.--( Hear, hear. )
Captain PECH ELL rose to second the motion. The Hon.
Member who had just sat down had shown the exact position in
which the Gilbert Unions stood with respect to the present
Poor-laws. He believed that if the evidence which had been
given before the Committee in 1838 had been duly weighed they
would never have heard of a proposal to subject those unions to
the power of the Poor-law Commissioners. The inquiry was asked
on the most reasonable grounds. Cisarges of the grossest kind
had been made against the guardians of these incorporations,
and as the re were three milbons of the population of this coun-
try who were subject to their influence, it was of the greatest
importance that they should be rebutted. The guardians had
bee naccused of peculation, of ignorance, and of prejudice. They
demanded inquiry into these charges. Mr. Hawley stated that
the conduct of the guardians was marked by extreme partiality,
and that many of them were unable to write. Now he could
state, from his own knowledge, that in the county of Sussex
there were nineteen guardians, who represented property of the
yearly value of 14,00 e/. lie thought that was a sufficient an-
swer to the charge. It was stated that they afforded a mis-
chievous example to the guardians of other unions. Now,
these unions were subjected to the provisions of the New Poor-
law, as tar as was consistent with the operation of the Gilbert
Act, but they were not subject to the uncontrolled influence of
the Poor-law Commi sioners. Was it a mischievous example,
for the governor of the workhouse to make a distinction between
old persons, who had fallen into misfortune without any fault
on their own ',art, and other claimants for relief ? Was it
mischievous that the guardians should take into consideration
the conduct of the persons to be relieved? Was it mischievous
that the inmates of the workheuse should be permitted, under
the 22d of-Geo. 111., to attend church on Sunday to hear
divine service? Was it mischievous that they shouldbe fed
upon a different diet—that they should be allowed good and
wholesome beer, ?—( Hear, hear.) He had ro hesitation in
saying that he had advised the guardians to abide by certain
regulations, but by all means to resist a mandamus of the
Queen's Bench against beer.—( Laughter. ) It had been
alleged against the guardians that they had acted illegally in
selling goods to the poor.. If that charge were true, it was equal
to the truck system. Now what was the fact? lie had made
inquiry in Sussex, and found that one of the guardians was in
the habit of laying in a stock of fuel, and allowing the poor to
purchase it, during the winter, at half price.—( Hear, hear. )
Then it had been stated in evidence by Mr. Hawley, that the
guardians of these unions were in the habit of receiving sa'aries
of from 25/. to 35/. a year. Now it should be borne in mind
that, according to the late Act, a guardian might be fined Si. if
he did not attend in the course of the month, and that he would
thus, in case of non-attendance, be called on to pay 601. a-year.
He was convinced that, if the evidence was gone into before the
Committee the ch urge would be proved to be most unwarrantable.
No petitions had been presented against the Gilbert Unions,
and he had therefore reason to think that they had given
general satisfaction. He believed that if the Commissioners
were allowed to interfere with them the guardians in those
unions would resign, and. he responsibility of the conse-
quences would rest with the Government.
Sir J. GRAHAM said thatt here was nn motion so specious
as that which asked for a Parliamentary inquiry ; and it
frequently happened that it was a very convenient course for
Government itself to adopt, and if a sense of public duty would
allow him, it was one of those things which the Executive
Government could not object to in its own nature. Under the
cover of such a Committee it would be easy for the Executive
to propose a short Bill on the subject, and again pass over the
subject to the next session. But there was a great principle
involved—the relief of the poor of the country; and after the
announcement of her Majesty's Government to bring the
subject forward, he could not acquiesce in the motion
of the Hon. Gentleman. He had distinctly notified to the
House on the part of her Majesty's Government that on an
early day after Laster it would be his duty to submit a measure,
not only to continue the Poor-law Commission, but also to
make such alterations in the law for the relief of the poor as, in
their deliberate judgment and experience, they may be justi-
fied in bringing forward ; and that being the case, 'his sense of
duty compelled him to resist the temptation of entering into
discussion then. It would be unwise, in his opinion, to enter
upon the consideration of such an important subject then, and
he thought it would be only wasting the time of the House.
The Hon. Gentleman did not even think fit to confine him-
seat° the consideration of the subject as it stood at present, but
he went back to the discussion that took place at the latter end
of last Parliament. That was not the time to
enter into the discu sign of the question.—( Cheers. )
But at the same time there were some matters to which
he she old refer. The Hon. Gentleman who introduced the
motion, referred to the statement of a single individual, to show
that it was not the intention of the framers of' the Poor-law
Act to incorporate the Gilbert Unions under the general law ;
but he (Fir J. Graham) was aware that, in the first part of
the Bill, a direct provision was introduced for the purpose of
repealing the Giloert Unions, but subsequent alterations took
place, and though a direet repeal was avoided at that time, if
any person looked to the 15th clause of the Act as it now stood,
and also the 2d clause, and looking also to the interpretation
clause, and the opinion of the late Attorney-General, he
thought there could notbe a doubt that there was a virtual repeal.
The Hon. Gentleman also said that there were 3,000,000
persons living under the administration of the Gilbert
Unions, but what were the real facts ? Since the passing of the
Poor-law Act fifty-five of those Unions had agreed to come
under the operation of the general law—( Hear, hear)—and
those fifty-five Unions contained no less than 715 parishes •
and there was one remarkable circumstance connected with
them which was that at the passing of the Poor-law Act
those Gilbert Unions owed 39,0001., but since they came
under the operation of the law they paid up about 20,000/.,
or more than half the debt.—( Hear.) There were only twelve
Unions remaining under the operation of Gilbert's Act, and
they existed in only nine counties, and those 12 unions con-
tained 394 parishes, and a population of 156,000. These
unions owed a debt of 5,457/. at the passing of the Poor-law
Act, and they paid only 1,400/. out of that MM.—( Hean )
The Hon. Gentleman talked lightly of the geographical
defects under which these unions existed, but he could state
that in consequence of their scattered position many and great
inconveniences arose.—(Hear, hear.) There were other dis-
advantages rerulting from the mere incorporation of these
unions, one of which was that they refused to admit
the benefits of the Vaccination Act passed during last
session, the power of introducing which was placed in the
hands of the board of guardians. What he was
about to state on this subject was on the authority of Mr. Park,
a person who was well qualified to speak on the subject. He
stated, that in the first quarter of the operation of the Act, 608
persons died of small-pox ; in the second quarter, 252 ; in the
third quarter, ending October the 3d, 128; and in the fourth
quarter, ending the Ist of January, 1842, only 68. Tint was
the result of one year since the introduction of the vaccination
system ; but that most salutary system was not introduced into
the Gilbert Unions.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman had
talked of the excellent management of the Brighton Union, but
did not the Hon. Gentleman ever hear of 24/. being paid for
the purchase of a Court dress, to present an address to her
Majesty on the birth of the Princess Royal ?—(Laughter.)
Diet the Gallant Officer never hear of the Brighton lunches ?
_(Laughter.) Did he never hear of the charges for cigars?
Great laughter.) However, the right time to go into the
discussion of these matters would be when the Government
brought forward the measure.—(Hear, hear.) With respect
to the Gilbert Unions, whatever might be done, should be clone
on the resposibility of her Majesty's Ministers, and from that
responsibility he would pot shrink.—( Hear, hear.) He thought

that the inquiry sought for was premature, and he for one I
would oppose the motion.—(Hear, hear.)
Capt. PECHELL, in explanation, said, that although those
abuses alluded to by the Right Hon. Baronet might have
existed, the people in vestry had put them down, and did not
want the control of the Poor-law Commissioners.
Mr. WAKLEY admitted that this was not a proper
time to enter into the general merits of the Poor-laws.
Nor was it necessary, for the purpose of his Honour-
able Friend. The simple question was, were the Local
Acts to remain in force, or if it were a wish for the parish-
ioners to retain them, was that wish to be respected?—
(Hear, hear.) lie did pot know what the intention
of the late Administration were, but he knew that they had
struck out some of ti-.e most monstrous clauses of this odious
law.—( Hear, hear.) Since the last measure was proposed
there had been a change of the Government, and he was one
of those who was not sorry to see it.—(Cheers and laughter.)
The members of the Government who had introduced the
Poor-law Amendment Act were not now in the House, and
he was gild to see that they were scared out of their own mea-
sure.—( Cheers and laughter.) He held in his hand a record of
th, opinions of the Noble Lord the Member for London, of the
Right lion. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government,
and of the attorney-General, who could not be supposed to hare
changed his op ,h ions because he had changed his seat in that
:
House. That Hint And Learned Gentleman said that when
the Poor law 13111 was passed, there was a general understand-
ing in the House that all Local Acts ,should remain uninter-
fered with, and that the parishes regulated by those Acts
should not be under the control of the Poor-law Commissioners.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said that it was ridiculous
to suppose that any such th'ng was contemplated. Now he
(Mr. W.) would not read the whole of the Right Hon. Ba-
ront's (Sir R. Peel's) speech, but the Right Hon. Baronet said
that when he found whose masses of the people wt 11-governed
under their Local Acts, he did not think it expedient to place
them under the control of the Commissioners. The I\Toble
Lord the Member for Liverpool expressed his hope on the same
occa'ion that those who were under Local Acts would not be
interfere wits . The Noble Lord, the Member for London, had
said that the purport of the clause at that time under discus-
sion was, that no further interference with the Local Acts should
occur than what had occurred already. Now, the Local Acts
had remained untouched since that time, and who were now
going to interfere with them ?—( Hear, hear.) Why
the present Administration. He had expected
that the severities of the law would be mitigated, and that the
guardians would obtain a greater control over their own funds.
—( Hear, hear.) He had expected that the change -would be
for the better, and lie had contributed to produce it.—(Great
laughter and cheers.) Yes, he had—(Renewed laughter)—
and he should have to go home to a bed of repentance.—
( Great Laughter.) What was going to be done ? All those
parishes were to be given up to the Commissioners.—( Hear.)
Did the Right Hon. Baronet think that the people would be
better satisfied with this under a Tory than under a Whig
Government? The understanding last se=sion was that these
Local Unions should not be touched by the Bill introduced into
the House last session. The Gilbert Unions were not to have
been broken up and destroyed under that Bill without the
consent of two-thirds of the guardians, but in the Bill of this
sesssion—

Sir JAMES GRAHAM—The Hon. Gentleman has not
seen the Bill.

Mr. WAKLEY knew he had not. The Right lion. Gen-
tleman had taker, precious good care that he should not see it.
He (Mr. Wakley) did not like these secret modes of proceed-
ing. The ancient and constitutional practice was to grant no
supplies until a redress of grievances had been granted, and it
was a most wholesome practice, for when Governments had got
the money they were apt to be very saucy. They were now in
the month of March. The Poor-law Bill was not to be intro-
duced until after Easter. The Poor-law Commission
would expire in July, and what time, he would ask, could
they have to consider the subject. The Right Ho-
nourable Baronet no doubt had had his Bill pre-
pared for a considerable time, and after all that bad taken
place in reference to the Poor-law Bill, he had thought that
that Bill would have been among the first which the Right
Hon. Baronet would hove laid on the table of the House ; and
after the objections which had been urged against any inter-
lerence with these local incorporations, and the intense anxiety I
entertained en the subject, he was sure that if the Right Hon.
Gentleman could have said that these Local Acts were not to be
interfered with, he would have been too glad to have said so.
'I here were the parishes of Marylebone, St. James's. Islington,
and St. Luke's, containing upwards of 60,000 inhabitants each,
all governed by Local Acts, and it was preposterous to call this
a free Government, if the government. of these parishes was to
be taken out of the hands of the rate-payers and conferred on
the Poor-law Commissioners. He called upon those
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had assisted so nobly in fight-
ing the battles of the people when the question of the Poor-
law was under consideration last session—(Cheers),--to main-
their principles now—(Cheers)—to redeem the pledges which
they had given—(L•aid cheers)—and to uphold their high
station.—(Continued cheers.) He regretted not to see that
energetic Gentleman, the Member for Knaresborough, in his
place.—( Loud Opposition cheers.) It was of no use for Hon.
Gentlemen to make spirited speeches, if they did not fight the
battle of the people, when the battle was to be fought. —( Loud
cheers ) He entreated the Right Hon. Gentleman to consider
the state of anxiety and suspense in which the inhabitants of
places under these Local Acts were placed, and to relieve
their anxiety by at once declaring what his intentions were in
regard to these local incorporations.
Mr. COLVILLE had listened with regret to the speech of
the Right Hon. Baronet, ;the Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment. They sought inquiry into the management of the
Gilbert Unions, but they wished that inquiry to be made by a
Committee of the House of Commons, and not by the Poor-
law Commissioners. On another point, also, he agreed with
the Right Hon. Baronet, namely, that the paupers of Brighton
were better fed under the Gilbert Act than under the new
Poor-law.—(" Ilear, hear," from Capt. Peehell. ) lie begged
to express his obligations to the Hon. Member who ha +
brought -forward this motion, for the able and gallant
manner in which he had defended the rights of the poor of
this country. He thought that the Right Hon. Baronet at
the head of the Home Department had not treated those inte-
rested in the preservation of the Gilbert Unions with that
courtesy which they deserved. He had been four times ap-
plied to to take the intentions of the Government in regard to
those unions, and he had thought it fit to maintain that dig-
nified silence which, although convenient to him, was death to
them. He considered that silence as most ominous. It was the
intention evidently of Government to keep them in ignorance
of their intentions in order to attack them unawares, and to de
stroy them. That was not a manly course to punue—
(Cheers)—and morever it was not a course he had expected
to have seen pursued by. a Conservative Government.—
(Loud Opposition cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet had
said on a former occasion that inquiry ought to precede le-
gistation, and acting on that principle he hoped if the Go-
vernment refused inquiry they would not legislate, and that
was all they wanted. He hoped the Hon. Member would
press his motion to a division. He could have wished that
he had added to it a motion for inquiry into the manner in
which the dissolution of those Gilbert Unions which had vo-
luntarily dissolved themselves load been brought about.
If such an
,inquiry were instituted, facts would be elicited of
such a nature as would astonish some Hon Gentlemen.
Mr. R. YORKE was afraid that the forthcoming measure
of the Government would not show a proper corrideration for
that large class of poor who were poor through the inevitable
force of circumstances, and not from any fault of their own.
He should support the motion.
Mr. LIDDELL said, he thought the Hon. Member for
South Derbyshire might have applied his concluding words to
his own speech, when he condemned the proposition of the Go-
vernment before he had heard it. He (Mr. Liddell) enter-
tained better hopes of the forthcoming measure of the Govern-
ment. He felt most strongly the argument that had been urged
by the Hon. Member for Finsbury. Phis was not so mach a
question of inquiry in that House, as it was a question of prin-
ciple, whether or not the guardians should have the manage-
ment of the poor. He had known, of his own knowledge,
much injustice inflicted on the poor under 'the present system.
—(Cheers from the Opposition.) Although he had
as yet been unsuccessful in his opposition, he would never
be found wanting in his plane in Parliament
to do justice to those to whom justice was due. lie would
therefore not refuse to give his vote with the Hon. Gentleman
opposire (Mr. Wakley), for this distinct reason, that a;though
it was easy to make an excuse in that House for declining to
vote, yet when he had given a pledge to the people of England,
please God he would never be found wanting.—( Cheers. )
Having endeavoured to explain the vote he intended to give,
he must say with some pain to himself, against the Secretary of
Sate for the Home Department, he would give all credit to
the Government for their intention in the proposed remedy to
be applied to the grievances particularly complained of. He
hoped the country would not be disappointed in that measure.
He should give his vote to the motion of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury.
Mr. HARDY said the Members who opposed the Poor-law
Bill had been appealed to by the Hon. Member for Finsbury,
and he (Mr. Hardy) would say that nothing could give so
much satisfaction to his mind as his opposition to that law.
He could not say if alteration had been needed in the South
of England, but it was found by those who had the management
of the relief of the poor in the northern counties that the con-
sequences which had been expected had followed the adoption
of this measure. 'I he object of a Poor-law was to relieve the
poor, and make them comfortable, and nothing could give
satisfaction unless they gave security to those who received
that relief. Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side had said
that many Hon. Members on his (Mr. Hardy's) aide of the
House, owed their seats to that measure. He (Mr Hardy)
believed that he would not have had the honour of addressing
that House then if he had not given a pledge of opposition to
that measure.—( Opposition cheers.) Not that he did so for
the purpose of obtaining his seat, for it was pretty well known
in 1834 what. were his principles on this question ; and he must
say that it would be a great relief to the minds of the poor in his
part of the world at least, if he supported the Gilbert unions in
opposition to the attempt to dissolve them. It would be a great
satisfaction to their minds, if the Right Hon. Baronet, the
Home Secretary, would give some intimation of the alteration
he intended to Introduce. lie remembered that when the Poor-
law Bill was put into shape, a resolution was passed that it
should be laid before the Court of Quarter Sessions at Easter
in 1834, in order that there might be an expression of public
opinion upon it, and that some of the provisions of
the Bill might be altered according to circumstances. Now it
would have been very desirable to have so. done with respect
to the measure proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet. By
this course an opportunity would have been given to various
partia to petition against the measure. He trusted that a
great alteration would be made in the law, but that that altera-
tion would not affect the power or authority for those who
were locally interested, if it was intended to make those altera-
tions, he wished their purport could be, known—(Hear, hear,
from the Hon. Members for Finsbury)—he trusted the alter-
ations would be such as would afford satisfaction, he should
say that nothing gave him more satisfaction ; than the reflec-
tion that he had supported the interests of those persons whom
he represented by always opposing the measure.
Mr. S. WORTLEY observed,' that his object in rising
to address the House was to profess very nearly his concurrence
with the Hon. Member who had just sat down ; but at the
same time, he (Mr. S. Wortley) was not disposed to cast that
severe censure upon her Majesty's Government which had
been cast upon them by Hon. Members, for having abstained
from making known all the details of the measure they in-
tended to propose, before the time had arrived when they
expected to be able to carry it into a law.—( Hear, hear, and
ironical cheers.) He doubted the expediency of explaining
the details of such measures, whilst the Government were so
circumstanced, in consequence of the pressure of other mea-
sures, they had no great chance of passing the measure to
which the motion referred. The Hon. Gentlemen concluded
by expressing his determination, without hesitation, of voting
for the motion.

Sir H. PEEL raid he must say he was not a little surprised
that, considering the Poor-law had been brought forward by
those who constituted the late Government, who looked on it
as essential to the best interests of the people, and who founded
a great deal of their fame: upon the introduction of this mea-
sure, there was only one of these Hon. Gentlemen present.—
( Hear, hear.) He pursued on this occasion no coarse from
what he always had pursued ; he never sought any popularity
by opposing the New Poor. law. He stated that he thought on
account of the mode in which the old Poor-law was adminis-
tered, of the gradual and rapid increase of evil under it, it was
for the advantage of the general interests, and above all of the
poor themselves, that some change should be effected in the
law. Ile was perfectly satisfied that it could rot be properly
administered if there were an opinion. that. Parliamsnt was in-
clined to abandon the subject.—( Hear, hear.') This was a
proposal for an inquiry, and it was said that 'there were
2,500,000 persons acting under the mode, into which an in-
quiry was now sought. He (Sir IL Peel) should have thought

that the House of Commons had sufficient information (in the
subject, to enable them to discuss the proposition of a new
Poor-law, without instituting an inquiry. There were 67 Gil-
bert unions; 55 of these had voluntarily
resigned their autho-
rity, and there were 12 remaining, dispersed over d.ffercnt parts-
of the country. His Right Hon. Friend intended to submit
proposition; en the subject of Local Acts and Gilbert Unions
Immediately after Easter, but the Hon. Gentleman proposed to
institute an imuiry. He certainly thought that the House of
Commons was in a proper condition to determine whether a
different system of law should apply to 12 Unions, from that
applied to every other Un on throughout the 'country. For
whatourpose was this inquiry moved ? The Gallant Officer _
sell it was for the purpose of enabling the Guardians to relieve
themselves from many chat gee brought against them. That
was perfectly indefinite. If they admitted one single Union to
be tried, they could not refuse another one an °ppm tunity a
vindicating itself ; thus the House would forsome months he oc-
cupied; the summer would come on ; the attendance of Members.
would become thin, and it would be neces,ary to pass a Poor-
law for another year. His Hon. Friend-the Member for
Bradford would wish to establish outdoor relief.
Mr. HARDY—In the north. .

Sir It. PEEL— The reference should be more specific
—( Mr Hardy then said "the rnaliufaJuring districts")..
—well, then, it would be necessary to define what
were the manufacturing districts (Much laughter)
and while the time .of the Committee was so consumed, a tem-
porary Act would be necessary; the Government would be re-
lieved, and the country would be left in a state of on ertainty.
It was said that. the House should be put in pos4ess•on of the
measure intended by Government, but really the House hail
ma;e little progress as yet with the measure before them,
In sixteen nights they had vane through but nine clauses of the
Corn-law Bill; and- in the conamerci.d and financial plans
they had made no iirogre=s. Let the House therefore get
through with one Bill at first, instead of having eighteen or
twelve Bills laid before it. As for himself, he retained all his
harmer opinions respecting the Poor-I.w ; but he considered
the House, without going into a Committee, could now decide
whether they would adopt the Gilbert union plan or the general
' Poor-law plan, or whether the country should be ruled at the
same time by the two systems ; therefore he would oppo ed
the Committee. His Hon. Friend intended at the earliest
possible period to bring forward a measure providing a remedy
for their just causes of complaint, and he trusted the House
would feel in a condition to decide on this point. If
the Poor-law ought to be altered, the House was
in a condition to say so—( Hear, hear)—but he did
deprecate as the very worst course the instituting a protracted
inquiry, which would increase the difficulties of those who had
the regnlation of the poor, and who had a very unpopular duty
to perform. Let them take a eourse of amendment if they
thought the law required amendment; let them cordially
support it if they theught it ought to be supported; but let
them not leave all in doubt as to what their intentions
were by an inquiry which cannot be satisfactorily concluded,
within a period that would allow them to legislate on the sub-
ject with advantage.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE replied. He had not heard any one
in the course of the discussion accuse either of the Right Hon.
Baronets with inconsistency on this subject. Both the Right
Hon. Baronets had been uniformly consistent in their support
'of the Poor-law Amendment Act, and therefore be (Mr. D.)
had never considered this as a party question. He bad taken
exactly the same view when the late Government was in office,
and divided the House against it, and he should do the same
that evening. It gave him infinite pleasure to find that
it was nut considered a party measure by Honourable
Gentlemen upposite, but that those who had pro-
claimed themselves as the friends of the poor, and
had raised Vie cry, " Down with the basiile!, "'lhnrik
with the tyrants of Somerset House," would now redeem their
pledges. He knew that the Secretary of State would say that
this measure was premature, and ask them to wait till they
saw his Hear.) This would be locking the door
after the horse was stolen ; they must wait till
the Poor-law Jommissioners had stolen their union charter,
and then lock their union chest. The Right Hon. Baronet
knew it was the intention of the Government to dissolve the
Gilbert corporations. The Right Hon. Baronet said there
were twelve Gilbert corporations wholly under a different sys-
tem, and were they to continue so, after so .large a number
had dissolved themselves? He contended that, vender the
faith of an Act of Parliament, they had a right to insist on.
continuing till the consent of two-thirds of the guardians was
obtained to their dissolution, and till they got it, they had no
right to interfere with their privileges. They avoided their
opposition at the time the Act was passed, and
now they could not reason with them. They came
down with them by force, an•l attempted to
deprive t::em of their Charter? Those who had dissolvedthetr7
selves would be too happy to revert to the Gilbert Unions. On
every principle of good faith and justice they ought not to
encourage the Right Hon. Baronet in proposing any law that.
would disfranchise the Gilbert corporations without giving:•
them a fair hearing.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ......
Against it

Majority against the motion --67
RURAL POLICE.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE postponed, till Tuesday next, his
motion for' Copies of all lettere and communications that have
passed between the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment., the Chief Constable or any Magistrate of the county of
Norfolk or city of Norwich, from October last to the present
time, relative to the conduct of the rural police of that county
in the apprehension of a man of the name of Smith, on a charge
of vagrancy."
MANUFACTURING DISTRESS.

Dr. BO WRING moved" for a Report made to the Home-
office, by a Committee appointed by the Conference lately
held at the Crown and Author, on the subject of manufactur-
ing distress."

Sir J. GRAHAM said that the document moved for was
sent to him by four gentlemen unknown to him, and con-
tained information which those individuals communicated wit
of their knowledge, but which had been given to themselves
by others.—( Hear, hear.) It appeared to him (Sir James
Grattam) that the document was of a private nature,
and partoott by no means of an official character, and to comply
with the motion would, therefore, in his mind, be establishing a
mast dangerous precedent.
The question was then put by the Speaker and the nvition
negativcd without a division.
Mr. AI. ATTWOOD moved " that an humble Address be
presented to her Majesty, praying that Ler Majesty will be
graciously pleased to direct her Majesty's Consuls, situated in
those foreign ports to which British coals are exported, to re-
port what quantities of such coals have been received in those
ports during the year 18.11 ; and to state, as far as they are
enabled to do so, the purposes to which such coals have been
applied."
After a few words from Sir R. PEEL, the motion was
agreed to.

CALEDONIAN CANAL.
Sir G CLERK moved "fora Select Committee to examine
the report of Capt. Sir W. E. Parry, R.N., on the Cale-
donian Canal ; and to repot t their observations and opinion
thereon to tl.e douse."

At the suggestion of Mr. ELLICE, the words " and the
reports of the year 1832 and 1840," after the word " Canal,"
were added to the motion, which r.as agreed to.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Half-past One &Clock.

. -
ANALYSIS OF THE BUDGET.
We to-day present to our readers the following analysis of
the new financial scheme propounded to the Legislature by Sir
Robert Peel on Fi iday night last. Those amongst them who
have not had sufficient leisure, or sufficient courage, to reed
through the long and elaborate statement of the Prime Minis-
ter, will be enabled by the perusal of this mialysis to compre-
hend the general features and statistics of the new Budget
without the least difficulty or embarrassment :
Tim BUDGET OF 1612-3.
DEBTOR. •

Estimated income ........... . ..... 48,350,006
E3timated expenditure...

Deficiency
Additional items of expenditure estimated at ..... 101,000

Tctal estimated deicicncy
Estimated losses of revenue arising from the
reduction of the duties on
1. Oil, ores, ikc. .C270,000
2. Coffee
3. Timber
4. Abolition of export duty on Bri-
tish n,alaufact•urc 5.....
5. Stage-coach duty .... 70,000

Total

£3,763,700

Gross total estimated deficiency, in round num-
berg, eay £3,780,000
CREDITOR.
Estimated income arising from the following new taxes.

viz• :-
1. The income tax.

Schedule A 1,600,000
B 150,000
C 646,0(X)
D 1,220,000
E 155,000

£3,771,000

Or, in round numbers, say
2. Equalization of the Irish stamp duties
3. Increase of Irish spirit duties ( Is. yer gallon ) 2b0,000
4. Duties on export of coal

Total estimated increase
Or, in round numbers, say 4,300,000
RECAPITULATION OF THE FOREGOING ITEMS.
Gross total estimated increase ?f income £4,300,000
Gross total estimated deficiency, including the
actual deficiency in the income of the year,
and the loss to the revenue from the re-
duction of duties, ke .....

3,780,000

Balance £520,000
So that the new financial scheme, if fully carried out, will,
according to Sir R. Peel's estimate, leave a surplus, a balance
of upwards of half a million sterling, to provide for any casual-
ties or contingencies that may arise. -

* In round numbers.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.
TA TTERSALL'S—YzsTakpAy.

The betting yesterday afternoon was flat in the extreme,
and, beyond the advance of Auckland to 16 to I, consequent
on the Warwick running, and a few inquiries after the Lord
of nolderness, presented nothing worth dwelling on. The
odds quoted against the other horses mentioned will be found
to agree very nearly with those reported at the commence-
ment of the week.

CHESTER CUP.
10 to 1 agst Mr. Kirby's Lanercost—taken
12 to 1 agst Lord Westminster's Marshal Soult—taken
20 to 1 agst Mr. Payne's Johnny—taken
DERRY.
50 to I agst Sir G. Ileathcote's lot
to I agst Col. Anson's Attila—takes
16 to 1 agst Lord Westminster's Auckland
20 to I agst Col. Peel's Chatham—taken
30 to 1 agst Lord Chesterfield's Dirce colt
30 to I agst Mr. Gregory's Defier
40 to 1 agst Mr. G. Clark's The Lord of Holderness •
40 to 1 agst Duke of Grafton's, Canadian
50 to 1 agst. Lord Chesterfield's Joanna colt
66 to 1 agst Lord Westminster's William de Fortibus—t.
OAKS.
20 to I agst. Mr. Etwall's Passion.
(RECEIVED 'l'll IS PAY.)
LEAMINGTON GRAND STEEPLE CHASE.
(TM URSDAY. )
Sweepstakes of 20 sous. each, with 100 added ; each, &e.
Hon. F. Craven's Gipse) (Hon. M. \ aliens) 1
Mr. J. 13. Phillipson ndMischicf 2
Mr. Maddoeks' Creole
Sir P. Mostyn'a Seventy-Four .................................... 4
Mr. G. Campbell nd Legacy.....
also started,nu__n. gbaurtoe_ were
, M.
in 0 not placedde Burgh
B lu ‘r,gohn: —bay;alprie.ernßiegottil..
'The foliming
bertson's Sultax, Mr. Dalrymple nd Memento, Mr. Moore's
atAinondn°,anaYhnn nadl'fitualcr't. l'ahr .111.1jei lo)ysnoefinsn' nd d J
race.i m -along