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

y' 3u~

St4i-

ell
1 ,% JJ
cred
se

`the

t (Viets;
pu
y 01 ,cf-
-10,16 e' tile
toidcr at'
•11-
,f till -;10.•
il,it . of
1(0°14:
C.4l'"

• ,
LK:t-'II,P
Ilis • '1 0 • .'li
6W
tligt' t
it
1 1
l'ct"
ill Irt:li Jet
Ifitt

',teal() CO

.~~

the
tti b
Commission fee a short time, as he considered it
i e almost impossible then to pass the Bill within the
Cotnttle liited. Since thn rtight ha elased the
nextru 'Fe tnlon would expire on a thfeo .3 tsnt of July, thep week; after
the ' they would only have to-night this week to consider
thro, subject, and next week after the Bill should have passed
ercuigh Committee, they would have one night to receive the
17ort, and another night for the aird reading, and that
irolttiout giving any time to the House of Lords to consider this,
itele),°'tant measure. If the Commission were allowed t o be in
ss,„\i'ire the greatest confusion would result. Many unions
Amite dissolve. He knew of one instance—the parishes of St.
The v. Holborn and St. George the Martyr would separate.
tee irs *tit Bill 'would require alteration; as it was at present
elititleitittl,as to continue the Commission. It would have to be
pe„,b, 'A Bill to Renew the Commission." It would be im-
selt° Carry the Bill through in time. He knew not what
the,tyseee majority might effect., but they ought not to pass it
grease in that time and he felt assured they would have the
Bislt difficulty in 'doing so. If he received no satisfactory
we" ,frome the Right Hon. Baronet he should move that the
seer do leave the Chair that day three months.—( A laugh.)
th„ `er JAI‘IES GRAHAM compassiinated the situation of
eie-ti'l'Peaker if the Hon. Gentleman's motion should be car-
° • and if anything could induce him ( Sir James Graham)
Rive t.
fr he assurance required, it would be to free the Speaker
flat" the inconvenience of remaining in his chair for the next
ei,ree monteCheers,) He
thesews happy to perceive that the
gre4l.„t'°- Fotleman was alive to xtreme inconvenience and
teen evil which must arise from the sudden lapsing of the
the Hear, hear.) He could not, however,. give
the ii°e• Gentleman the assurance lie asked -for. He hoped
tars ~eta would acquit him of having occasioned any unneces-
"e'aY• hadpressed forward the question on every or-
e .ortunit
teeii y that had offered. For four nights there had been a
Cee,4treary discussion. One of the clauses had passed through
thelinittee; and as the House had on all occasions sanctioned
111 It by large majorities, he felt bound to go on with it.
deeiwdoeuld be his duty to proceed with the measure till he had
I diY ascertained what was the opinion of the House Pectins"re-
extreme He had endeavoured to urge on the House the
ante 0r chooser to the poor of the country from the discontinu.
tem Poor-law Commission. He thought a short Con-
1-a4ee Bill for only one year, would but brand the Commis-
,ee,, with the want of the eonfidence of the Hou e, that
Bill would encourage factious opposition to it ; he there.
stib'. Gees' the House would proceed at once to discuss the
coed with
had stated his sincere and earnest desire to pro-
tin, the Bill, but it would be for the House to deter-
appr()bwatiaieotnh.eror titt.course he had proposed met with their
rs,i,ltoPit in BERNAL said he should offer no apology for any
kind 41,e he might offer to this measure, and he would
re-
against °se Hon. Gentlemen who might have voted on it
there their public pledges and private convictions, that
it harTieht be" such a thing as factious support. He thought
4cl b that the Government should think themselves justi-
tee defects of the old Act bf Elizabeth, in continu-
lses.
ith imperiurn in imperio. He connected the Poor-
presl the Corn-laws. and he trusted the House would
tares °,n the Government the necessity of re-consideri g the bas-
etWee`auses. The tone of the Under-Secte'asy fur the Colonies,
I e rilouth, was that of unmitigated hostility to the Poor-laws.
eh„i lit when the excitement subsided, another gentleman to
law, ne he would refer stated, that, on the subject of the Poor-
te,,t'le had nut chang'ed his opinion. He seed he thought it
este tiniest that a Commission should take upon itself the.
tiena,eeeent of the poor throughout all England, that.a. discre-
lie e Y Power ought to be vested in the local authorities, that
lisend like to see such a law as the old Poor-law would have
think 'f 't had been duly administered. Now, who .did they
sear, havq.' the person who used that language? It was a gentle-
secret:ring a high post in the present Government, the Under-
/4s. A,Y of, State for the Home Department.
which C. SUTTON had no hesitation in repeating the words
whieh had made use of. But there were parts of his speech
fully'cotue. Hon. Gentleman did not quote. No one was more
Mlle], need than he of the great and mischievous abuses
lard;,rendered a change in the old law necessary. With re.
Thedifir the New Poor-law; he. • vrislied to entertain any
The ob,timt or amelioration-harsher clauses of that
et the.&ct of goinginto Committee was to reeise the clauses
be erin!'ill, and ter introdiese Witeh 'chines is 'the • Mouse might'
ise thmg to insert ; and he did not conside at in consent-
lienielftrhe House' •bould go into Committee, he rendered
tame. he
tuthe charges which' the' Hon. Gentleman had
lion. eta' JOHNSON said he would put it to the Right
to go Baronet whether. it was 'possible on the present occasion
into all
ethe details 'of the- measure • 'He 'thought it'
tortyot:rdeesionne.ither creditable to the Government, nor satisfac-
tent s! the country, that the Bill should be passed in the pre-
sible
,sf• RUSSELL said he had interfered as little as post-
the with these discussions, thinking that ha would best assist
Ceele)imligress of the measure by leaving it in the hands of the
the ttleilt• But on the last occasion when he spoke on
esti; sUbject he stated that he thought the best ,
tiler would • be to go into Committee on the Bill, ,
hot: to consider the first four or five clauses, to which the
‘'llethAhrnber for Durham had alluded, and then to consider
,_er there would be time and opportunity for discussing all
4tije4rions clauses in detail. Those clauses embraced mail},
4including the Gilbert Unions, the School Districts, and
.°ther clauses, on which, meat differences of opinion pre.
etn He thought that when the Government had gone into.
404teittee and disposed of the earlier clauses upon which the
ta was pretty well agreed, the Government should listen
46" riepresentations which might be made as to there net
I)°,:stlitte to go into the whole question. The greatest op.
Cse°,ll`!ef the Bill admitted that an immediate cessation of the
, would he attended with great inconvenience.
(IP*. STUART WORTLEY said the first clause to
if•neettled was,' that which related to the continuance
!osj,,,ge Commssion. If they passed the first clause,
'4lqt:utile the Commission for five years, it would not then be
Right u' Power to retrace their steps.--( Hear, hear.) The
titlisel, 400. Baronet thought, that if the term of the Corn-
t'f tii"°,.evas not extended to five years, and if the prof osition
to clon. Member. fiir Finsbury were adopted, it would tend
.thetVntklltheeplisotnissioners
,before the country, and render
4,,,f He (Mr. IN oytley) could not come to any
h'4l7ita"-"" ePS,,,i, He thought the House had already pro.
,--°I.-lic,,uufeepled an opinion upon that point, that it would
trittkel,seeteeestileg any slur or stigma on the Commissioners
e",effseesler,e2aenie only,:cOntinued for one year. He thought
itllotiuld:dh right; ceinsidering the peculiar position in
L'etnela weeitopareed, to adopt the sugg, stion of the Hon.
-`"sitint.and continue the Commission till next
ne Finsbury.e't,ke.as,..44l,file meantime the Bill could be considered, and
Lor44lll,,tesrarious provisions could be discussed.—( Hear.)
de':,,OELL eaid that the Hon. Gentleman certainly
t-gOftrataleiin if he supposed he was not in faeour.of the
le et rebel3f 'te Commission fur five years.
e..41tt0 d 'd that if the opinion of the majority was
citireee-etvide a ;aid,
there was an end to the utility of a
sembly.--( Hear, hear. ) If the sense of the
▪ 'w favour of the continuance of the Commission for
the'other clauses might be considered in detail. All
est,
was, that the House should proceed with
Oki _ eleta of the measure with as much haste
t o
fli.,i-Wnastent with due deliberation.—( Hear, hear.)
ilsolesirimed any intention of forcing the Bill upon the
70,.heoitf ihe strength of a majerity o. n the other hand.,
'p
eerie
',le, that if they sanctioned the principle that. a. ini-
eesee-,:got obstruct a majority, they would be establishing a
tie; foe overruling by a despotic power the popular will.
t'ilen-`ed that the present opposition would subside before the
te'ittetee: °I reason. If parties were dissatisfied with the con-
t'.'ete'e °! the Commission, after the changes that might be
thdlr "f
tothe ey would take the sense of the House on the third
, Bill. The Government were prepared to abide
'4.44 of free discussion ; and all they asked was, that no
toes 4,, obstruction should be offered to the progress of the
• lINCONIBE suid that he did not mean to offer any
;„71riet"s °PPosition to the Mill. But he still felt that they
innficient time to bestow upon the measure that
t'llltt Cum which it deserved. He had not said that there
• ta,:.,verY great inconvenience felt if the Commission were
lttest,;".eo ; but he had said that if they were determined on
-ttaeieipTegethe Commission it would not'be advisable to allow
Ph v
tee. th • ORKE thought it would be impossible to proceed
Ati:lttesls!!ll,:th any satisfaction to the country during the
tce bAr•
b . BY could not consent to the consideration of this
4.k4ted eing rostivaied. He could not undentaod those who
se re, a revision of the Poor-law Bill inviting the Government
14e3ti"' it for another year. He was most anxious to see the
f 4slasettled,
k(7 ," SON thought it would be better to pass the law
the Ili }'ear, and and consider the proposed Bill nextsems.soiuon_d.
passHe
enee w,.,nOA• whether the Right Hon. Baronet
li„'Lieout the first clause, as such a pledge wou:d
j Lawson's) vote ?
thetit'lES G RA HANI said lie hoped the House would
-vote was very inconvenieut on the point of going ieto
ittee t •
1, w 0 give an account of the conduct of the Govern-
respect to a certain clause,. He should be most
c'ole no, Lave the support of the ion. Gentleman, bet
_he
Itdee,all'einture the Hon. Gentleman's vote by giving the pledge
ued• He (Sir James Graham) concurred with his
fi kills ,"o• Friend and the Noble Lord opposite, that it was
t'st fi,telliedient that they should as soon as possible pass the
0141 t clauses in the Bill seriatim. The opinion of the House
7.f „e.kstertained in a very short time, on the Hon. Mem-
'44,'nsbury's motion as to whether the Commission should
Iljr."ufive years or a shorter perio.l.
Iketh`le I\II)LEY said he must confess that if he wished to
! tee, Government unpopular, it would be by recommending
'e they were now adopting. He thought it was un-
e.,4l 1°,4 unbecornin in them to go into Committee on a
.leat), :stoat on the' 12th of Julym, knowing, as they did, that
de their supporters were pledged to the count' y against
et!, , ha, ) 'l he intention of the Right Hon. Baronet evi-
'Pea weas,to Set the five clauses passed, and then abandon the
i•titsle4"er of the Bill and pass a short Bill. He hoped the
brie he the Hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State
than°me Department %you'd be better received in Cam-
'etset
ter the
k would be in the House. If the Hon. Gentleman
tee the continuance of the Commission for five years,.
tie°osistelo)?vers. it at Present. possessed, he wouldbelaeltiionng
kri ith the declarations he had made athis e ee.t .
th totenidley) would move as an amendment that. be
the petit traction to the Comn.ittee to give the Commissioners
;1114ri°11f., making rules and regulations for the conduct of
e Sp"
cenid FAKER was understood to say that the Hon. Mem-
J In, ion paint of order, move such an instruction.
„est to, eIEATHCOTE thought it would be better to pass a
Ate t() cont.
qi inuethe
se Commission for a year. The next
ea to4adtig(tht be a vere one, and the Poor-law was calcu-
Le%t to thepressure of.the distress by the refusal of
relief. P pE •
, °HELL thought he need offer no apology for
T wnie
p gilt
he fe it his y to pursue ith regard the
ter, he
io non.lt Ban etc t himself was,w in a great to
ineal-
ght enable for the delay which had taken place. The,t
us Inpo,laronet had quoted a letter, obtained by surriney:
137atet tj'al for the purpose of showing that one man . h
tags would (81 was favourable to the Poor-law Commission.
• 4Y doe Compel him to read to the House letters (ruin so
!Int towns and unions that the discussion they would
tOle. (rl occupy the whole week.
toeepc°NNELL said that no one could blame
roc; nMent for not having brought on this Bill before
ti:4lesede!'s °t. great importance had been discussed. But he
its
fi'n'e was.
now utterly impossible, at this late period of
ratnie,to discuss all the various clan es of this BO in all
th4ew suO,t,'",• For instance, the school districts was quite
it 1141 ttilisetse•
s,ille would suggest the necessity of postponing
dils'caunsededbringlregell'tdorni
th'tl4,le4 be fully oeatrnywannextto
sgei:e his vote
, festrrPose of throwing any obstacle in the way of the Bill,
"et to conviction that it was better for the interests of the
Rio"rie the •
et, r e Bill to next year.
'Rbt DON concurred in the oPnion expressed by the
n• ON
hat .7 of man who had just sat down as to the pro.
the postponing the Bill. He (Lord Sandon) thought
e'4n or-laee
!ti). keislati '
ought to have another year's trial before per-
en lresodeo og on the subject, after which Government
fl.ie m Gutty a Bill which would have a more beneficial effect
tttisr
ances litt
_larige..
toq:IA,l.l said he rose for the purpose of. giving
_two
to tiler fro the House. The first nes that nothing could be
Itiress the°,3the intention of her Majesty's Government than
lA, was kw ill Unduly, when the attendance would be thinned.
e till. are a the obstacles which existed to the progress of
tloetele be j'robably next Tuesday was the period when he
ieteritroe further to proceed with the Bill ; but it was not
'Mere otPtt. °f importance Government to press forward a
'4Ol when, in consequence of the ad-

vanced period of the session, the attendance would be thinned.
In that case, the term of the Commission being extended, it
would be the duty of himself and his colleagues, at the
earliest period possible in the next session 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 Member
for Liverpool, to the course which had lately been pursued by
the Commissioners relative to the relief of the poor, as well as
to the enactments themselves. Now, the second assurance
which he considered it necessary to give was as so equally
important point. He could not, consistently with his duty,
eonsent to shorten the period for which it was proposed to ex-
tend the Commission.—( 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 effiziency 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
c3rtainly 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 he 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.
Afteer a few words from Mr. 'VERNON, the House went
into Committee on the Bill, Mr. G►ixxxs in the Chair.
On clause I 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 Commissioners 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."
FERRAND seconded the motion. The Poor-laws had
roused the opposition of all parties throughout the north of
Eng'aisel, aswas proved by the petition he had presen ed to the
House, signed by 4,oW•persons. The Honourable Member then
read a Report of Mr. Mott, in which he stated that relief was
given in the Keightley Unton ire 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. Mott 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 tile deepest gratitude for the
assistance rendered them. This was an untru. h on the Fart of
Mr. Mott, and a calumny on the poor in the parish. He went
on to say that no efforts had been made tosupply the paupers
with work, but he (Mr. Ferrand) was there to deny that such
was the fact. lie went on to say that the education of the
children was neglected.: This was untrue. He (Mk. Feriand)
knew 'that Mr. Mott had never set a foiit workhouse
since he had' been'i guardian. Mr. Mott ikneik 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. Th a he, (Mr. Ferranti) denied, for, the Magis-
trates never interfered at all except in their ex officio eltai aeter.
The Magistrates only consulted the interests .f the poor in
taking the course they did. Mr. Mott said that tiingley work-
house was in the middle of the town. Stull 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 is formation. He then sai 1 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
roods- 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. Ferranti) 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 thesCorstini,sion being continued for one year instead of
.five. This 'Was hot an 'ordinary case of the continuance of a 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 eatensit n 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 could not go on with
the: Bill during the present session. The Bill, so far as its
&task 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 sear. 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
sill objected 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 carte from a distant part of the country, and did not
receive sufficient to maintain his family, he could obtain
through the overseers temporary is lief; under the new law,
all such temporary aid was refused. The poor were 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 of 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,
lefore 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 Walsham 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 charges
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. Member 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 aiihere
so rigi ly to the system of dividing the whole county
into unions, especially when there were localties in which
the management of the poor had been conducted in a perfectly
satisfactory manner. As long as he saw a desire in the Corn-
missionees 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-
cati in of a workhouse test before relief was afforded, a distinc-
tion that alwata ought to be 'borne in mind. •
Mr. HAWES met the objection of the Hun. 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 when the wants, and wishes, and
interests of the poor, were more consulted by public men then
at the present time. *I he present plan was far superior to that
adopted in Scotland. He also pointed out, that under the old
system it was never worth whi'e to found political attacks upon
it ; but this system was extensively adopted now, as they had
got responsible public officers. As to the Bill before the
House, having passed the continuation of the Biil, he did not
see that his Hon. Friend could offer any opposition, as all the
remaking clauses. went to mitigate the evils of the Bill.
Hitherto he had not teen 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 BORTH WICK 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 accuse d the Bill of
carrying cruelty in its bosom. In the . borough, wh ch he
had the honour to represent, whilst the 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 whether the Commission
was to be continued for five years or for one 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 slimed be. Could any.
thing be more monstrous ?-e( 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 mercy 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 lie never could give his
vote for the continuance of so unconstitu'ional and oppress
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. 'faking fur granted that the Bill before the House was
the best that her Majesty's Government could devise, after a
consideration of nine months, could it be expected that the
House would be able, within little more than nine hours, to
judge of its merits, in all its multifarious details ?—(Hear.)
But the Right lion. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) said that all
the alterations made from the former Bill were mitigations and
ameliorations. But was the suppres•ion of the Gilbert Unions
I an amelioration ?—( Hear, hear)—and were they to agree to its
enactinent for fit e years without examining it in all its parts?
' He would 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
op • •
eration No petitions against the workhouse test had been
presented from those unions in which it had been enforced.
( Hear.) The petitions came from the manufacturing districts,
not one of which had been subjected to it. 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 effects should riot be ex-
tended to every other district in the kingdom. The work-
howe test, if properly applied, was a sound test of the efficiency
of the Poor-law, and he thought the Conimission ought to be
allowed to continue to prevent a lax administration of that test.

-The substitution of Boards of Guardians for Overseers was a
vast improvement in the adininistration of the law; but even
those boards ought not to be left to themselves. There was an
absolute necessity fur control being exercised by some body,
such as the Commission, over them. With respect to the con-
tinuance ot the Commission, he could hot agree to the shorten-
ing the period to less than live yea's, and even at the close o:
that period he believed that there would be as great a necessity
for the continuance of the Commission as there now was.
Under the old law a good adininistration existed no doubt in
some localities, chile in the neighbourhood of those localities
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 Mil on the present occasion, as far as his opinion went he
must say he had no objection to the passing of all the clauses ot
the Bill.

Lord SANDON 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 End how to another, thus drawing distinc-
tions between different parts of the country, if such piw•ers 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 i f this Commission for five years, a, d he would there-
fore vote fur the motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale.

Sir .1. GRAHAM said he was unwilting,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 f..r the Noble
Lord who had just sat down was such, and his regret so great
at the opposition which the Noble Lord bad 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 uoconstitu-
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 askedrespecting any irregularity in the
administration of the law, and if he was not able to an-
swer, he referred to the Cotnmissioners, 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 Union.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Mem-
ber f 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 r,nder 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 applioation.—(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
10,150,0(10 ; the number of persons relieved amounted to
1,290,000. In 1841, when the population was 15,900,000, the
number ► elieved 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 enat was a miss
take;; that ,was the law from the year 1779. .Anoti.er
Honourable Member had stated that they , must
travel two hundred miles to the Ceram! 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,
es they considered themselves bound to protect the rate-7
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
(Onion of the expediency of continuing the central control, and
he stated that i's 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 01 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.—( Hear, hear.)

.
Mr. FER RAND, in explanatiJn, said that the Hon. Member
for Hali 'as 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 Lelore the Committee was laid on the table and
compared with the Reports.
_ . . .

Air, 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. Ferranti) etas a member. He stated thlt upon the
authority of au 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 Hun.
Baronet the children were well a!tended to, and there was no
occasion for the Commissioners coming there, and exerc'sing
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 fur 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 Liverpo'sl. He be-
heved tha; the distress that existed in many parts of the comp.
try arose from the uncalled for interference of the Assistant
Commissioners. He should V erefore vote that the term of ex.
istence of their powers should be as short as possible.
Captain PEC H ELL 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-
misioners with the power to abolish the Gilbert Unions;
and, under those circumstances, he could not approve of the
continuance of the Commission.

Mr. AG LIONBY 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
ascerta'n 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 former occasion spoken against a similar proposal,
and amongst others the Honourable Member for Kent (Sir E.
Koatchbull) and the Honourable Member for East Sussex
(Mr. Darby). He thought that those gentlemen
were bound in consistency 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 fur 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-
e,ity 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 be 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 Comjn;ssion for five years which would not equally
apply to snaking 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-
miss'on 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 axplained.
Mr. MUNTZ considered it to be the duty of a Member to
do what bethought right; but, on this occasion, he went hand-
in-hand with his constituents, for they ail 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. He should support the
motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale. He protested against
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. DUNCOMBE taking an objection to the manner in
which the Chairman had put the motion.
Mr. G REENE 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 Members, 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 tie clause.
Ee protested against the number and expense of the
Assistant- CGmmissioners. They were a perfectly useless
body, involving an expense of more than 641,000/. He
thought they were perfectly justified in throwing every at-
stacle in the way of the Right Hon. Baronet and the Fill. , He
should take the sense cf the House on negativing the clause.
General JOHNSON said thit, previous to the Gallant
Member's rising, he had moved that the Chairman ref cart pro-
gress and obtain leave to sit again, ant he thought that that
question ought to be put first.
After a short discussion, in which Sir .1. GRAITAn and Ge-
neral JOHNSON took part,
The question that the CLairm n report progress was put
from the Chair, when
Lord WORSLEY said that after the speech of the Ho-
nourable and Gallant Member opposite "(Colonel Silthorp),
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 tiscussion the
House would be allowed to come to a decision that the clause
stand part of the Bill.