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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 28, 1842.

f. 8,11.. JAMES GRAHAM said he would ran. to what
,t7)s.Place, and give an answer to-morrow. His belief was
MLar, he did decline the interview.
.„. THE CASE OF NELSON lIAGGETT.
-gint% HAWES said that, with reference to the to of
Nelson Haggett,Tespecting whom he had addressed the
Noble, Lord, he wished to know if the Noble Lord had
° PY objection to lay the correspondence on the subject be-
re The House, together with a copy of the Colonial Act
which the surrender of Nelson Haggett took place ?
there could
14°1'd STANLEY said he did not apprehend that
be any objection.
, CUSTOMS ACT—THE TARIFF.
LABOUCHERE wished- to know whether the
Tara; Hon. Baronet could state to the House when the
Bill and the Report of the Customs Acts would be
--v
fight up,
N. -PEEL said he should very much like to bring
ern in at once, but he could not say when, owing to the
hee°r-law Bill. It was of importance that the Bill should
eatant to the House of Lords. The House generally sat
advanced period of the night, and he thought that
Full attention could he given at that time ; and he thought
t ,_ p
would be better to proceed with the consideration of the
sliTJeet after twelve o'lock than n other time. Bering the the state ofc the publicat buasin y ess, he hoped the
usual
n. Mcustomember (Mr. Brotherton) would forbear from his
and throw no difficulty in the way of the
m
Pkteedl* u gs.
,„ After a few words from Mr. BROTHERTON, which
id not reach us,
r• MILNER GIBSON submitted to the Right Hon.
tae°net, whether it would not be the better course to
elite -
the Customs Bill first, as he would thus ensure the
;Fpassing without delay. Besides, it was most di▪
s-
itr:eeable for Hon. Members, when discussing the Poor-
‘ Bill to be told that by giving a dispassionate
c‘ full discussion to that Bill, they were impeding the
rrn°gTateuses„of another. Their arguments were thus in
would ,k` kept in, duresse—under a sort of pressure. He
weret:ore ask, whether it was not desirable to take
frail
le,_ustotas Bill first. He did not make this suggestion
"oStility to the New Poor-law. He was by no means
rigVjed to that measure ; at the same time, he thought it
Bastellow every facility for a full and dispassionate
B.n of it.
r PEEL said that when he had spoken of the
'neat on Friday night, he was under an engage-
the tint to the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to bring on
busi-„riberY Bill to-morrow in preference to any other
the -es'''. He had understood from the Noble Lord that
,e 4; should go on with the Bribery Bill to-morrow pro
or,' a; and take the discussion at some future day—either
~4Tlllriday or Monday next. Under those ci▪
r-
lk st:nees• he would propose, whatever might
sho,t,ir; , Progress of the Poor-law Bill, that they
then loom with the completed Tariff to-morrow, and
gn on with the Poor-law Bill afterwards. If thereh
ire ~IU ''hiection to this course, they would begin with
.tagriff to-morrow at half-past four o'clock.
air, r.-1.! few words from Mr. T. DUNCOMBE and
IIEiV.,„OI-TCHERE, the conversation dropped.
-ACE OF PARTIES BEFORE THE COM-
Itr PROMISE COMMITTEE.
ki11;14,,h ,SivCOTT wished to know from the Hon. Member
hether in the future proceedings before the
Ivlllllln'ttee of which be was Chairman, all persons,
ri_ !'ther
gat Members of that House or not, would have a
Ss °I being present during the examination of wit-
Atrl.Yho made charges against them ?
11')EBUCK said that the mode of proceeding
..13Y the Committee was that if anything fell
was 'Attness touching another party, communication
asks to him of what had been said, and he was
tioa: if he wished to make any statement in explana-
the b • That was considered by the Committee to be
And 71,t mode of conducting a very invidious inquiry.
cttii),ke House, having entrusted them with such in-
at h° hoped that it would also trust to their dm-
'. as to the presence of parties.
the BRIBERY BILL.
s 13 - • RUSSELL gave notice that he would move
vivriber/ Bill, pro forma, to-morrow.
illstrikln-EIL gave notice that he would abandon the
wiiief;4ton to the Committee upon the Bribery Bill, of
1_
had given notice.
TRIAL OF ELECTION PETITIONS.
si,,ltil;swer to a question from Lord MAHON,
PEELsaid that he would move on Thursday, the
Diu July, for leave to bring in a Bill to continue the
or the regulation of the trial of election petitions.
si„ POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
debate'AMES GRAHAM moved the resumption of the
It, on the Poor-law Amendment Bill.
of ttt; lIELDEN then rose to oppose the committal
ta4i
ne e Bill, but, in consequence of the noise oc-
he d by . Members leaving the House, and
tt14,,,, tone in which the Hon. Member spoke, it was
NS"v t
inVOSSible to catch a single sentence. We, how-
hi t A understood him to say, that he gave the measure
determinedi, opposition, because ho was convinced the
Itil P'e become disgusted with the Bill. He. entered
.0 .‘oo,,4elous details, showing the harsh working of the
lii:2!).use test, and other provisions of the e Poor-law Act.
gas Right lion. Baronet had said, that if the country
go~.generally opposed to the Poor-law Bill, there
titions pre-
k„.'g have been more than a few .e ons
qigtii`ed against it ; that there had been petit
again signatures only amounting to 25,000 presented
tiuftst the measure. Now he (Mr. Fielden) must say that
4"ztie.,,ltad been more than a few petitions presented
iat'4 the Bill. The Hon. Gentleman here. entered.
tarp (.letail of the number of petitions, with their siglia-
ag:il;whieli were presented to the House this session
111`'w t
„the Poor-law Bill, but he spoke in such a
13-1, ,lid e,„ as to bo quite inaudible in the gallery.
br's'lit.4,i" think the Right Hon. Baronet had fairly re-
-24 if tti,:,\v,hat was the object of the statute of Elizabeth.
1-, law were so similar to the present one, it
‘Tithoilt"e recollected its provisions were carried out
reason the aid of a Commission. He did not see any
genera "V3* the great powers confided to the Commis-
ezat be entrusted to them. Why should they
:essea that control to them which ought not to be, pods-
Dc,-11'ee a„nY but those who had immediate superm-en
? The Hon. Member concluded by sup-
), a'r amendment.e„.
a.aTZ (SON rose amid loud cries of " Divide," and
i'rlY heard from the impatience of the House for
'")a•l„\''s"M. He said he had felt some surprise that the
,the ~„-ncl Learned Member for Bath should have called
'ttl°Th'Pelition to thi Poor-law mere vulgar prejudice and
4uttr4e,„4hon•—(Divide, divide.) He contended that local
W'lf)ealn, were the best authorities to have the disposal
The ~tunds for the management of the poor.
'euse then divided, and the numbers were—
Por the amendment
Against it 156
fllht Ix Majority -119
Chair use then went into Committee, Mr GREENE in
On :lit'
11,4 use 1 being proposed,
o .bal,,4ll)ls.in',.:AtiLEY said his object in rising was to obtain.
.qat te▪ nement of this clause until they had determined
t e provisions of the Bill should be ; and he could
eetve a more rational propositir, or one wtheh
hi, pore readily to receive the sanction of the House.
1;111 1g4.,115e proposed the continuation of the Commission
j'eat. -"Land the end of the then next Session of Parlia-
"tetea ,"any of the Members of that House had ob-
:loo,rs'e the powers already exercised by the C?mmis-
,,,erits being incompatible with the Constitution,.
toof to their institutions, and pregnant with mis-
-17141 the Poor. But the Bill which he held in his
cNr'hie conceived hrrePosed to confer On them still greater powers,
nothing more preposterous than to de-
t,lieo-te the continuing the Commission for six years,
o "nsureviously determining what those powers were
Bearinggtte.Y had to execute. He was not desirous of
ri,
factious opposition to the Bill, but he was
o'llellinfs.°t giving it a strenuous, determined, and un-
iived t °Pposition, consistently with the obligations he
°l4eo teiteletY, and with his duty as a Member of that
11qinr,.1, -Li.; therefore thought the Government was
,°,,er'apt unreasonably by the pause, unjustly by the
t' rnost irrationally by the public, in making a
in 144 aeu
of this kind. There were thirty-seven no-
4arstillienclynents on the Paper, many of them involv-
h-the r erabons of the highest character, and striking
ex:rt'et..of those powers. which. the Commissioners
tte„lsed, and which, if carried, would leave it a
71,tatiu-need indifference whether the Commission were
thJeeted, het' not. But if those amendments were
le, 44 ~ saw that nothing could be more disastrous
th'r‘caile `11::'0 the polyp- of an. unnecessary Commission
hc‘' (lett, Continued for six years longer. After
si AOs initiation the House had just come., to, his
h'tiun ; ere slight indeed that it would adopt his propo-
,rio,hut .
q 1,.. it 4' notwithstanding. that, he felt compelled to
b°'`lnal '`)"lvard, because he thought the House was
vt';e ~41t which would injure itself. It was treating
.'34'te with hostility,and setting at defiance all their
s. .
brPeto„, believed the object of the measure was to
-.)00 tt.
tt u 'le Poor-law Oommission. They never
pr°l. Phold
asthe interests of the
.aristocracy so effec-
Perty
~"en they upheld the rights of the masses.
tfe;'nnte 'e "id not be secured while the millions were
Med, and while they were under the influence of
gs herd •
tlh Dern,. Clang on a desire for revenge. The law did
t};:r,a the poor to exercise their talents and in-
k Y wer invest manner ; when they became destitute.
e,,terty, eae„ttnniured in gaol on account of their
I„,'lte/tt, yet it was expected that they should be
`ii‘u.trenentalll.(l ;yet
respect the aristocracy. The Go-
f the co %as periling every institution of the kingdom
Reformed
urse it was pursuing towards the poor. The
Learned Member for Bath was a Radical
I)Pert ' a aliPPOrter of Universal Suffrage, and yet he
*kg the ed this
fr. law when he well knew that this very law_
gge pa ;.at that would be repealed by a Universal Suf-
11°1 1.44:1ent He (Mr. Wakley)
.was astonished at
'tit lie°Osiste
t 1) m'as hi, . neY• lie would ask the Right Hon. Baronet
CCtl e" centitilla intention to get the House to consent to
clause nee or the Commission, and to four or five
pr„tste and then to abandon the rest of the Bill?
thltted the continuance
against such a proceeding. If they con-
-111. y :,i.ontinuance of the Commission, it was their
l‘st,bof"ilZ into the subject, if they sat there until
Ct underst• December. It would be a breach of the
tiding which had been come to the other
410 s. 1•
~ie°h.leeted to the destruction of the Gilbert
14 too bm °ld system had been destroyed because it
of the,,and the Gilbert Unions were to be destroyed
4zbeti__lvere too good. The principle of the Act
1,14 in desi,„„::!T beneficial one, notwithstanding it had
tkti.7r!iks In, a speech in 1834, delivered in another
ue
oC deitouncedle;
11;h, dispeesaci!!rsed one. In that speech hospitals, infirm-
c.herital.ile institutions of all sorts, had
Gentiere, as Injurious to society. As the Right
tt 41'416
the
man had, to a certain extent, adopted one of
s of that speech, he wished to ask whether
ats,r'ua the remain
gat rx:es,twitathoeg
aad ',series, and der ? Did he consider hospitals,
_charitable institutions as nuisances,
eotil3ijeerct of the Government to get rid of a
4)481111111Y and b The Government ought to speak
s.a(f• out, and de 1° dIY
on the subject. They ought to
Itth let the
ir‘e are openly what their opinions were,
RN!): weekivre°ll::. Penly enter into strife with them.
NA.the Poor taliefl'a Possession of their estates, and
ghat
positioultetlyme of necessity; let them under-
Occupied. lie regretted that

that speech had ever been deliveitch he did not believe
that the aristocraq Weld remain in possession of their
estates, tiSid the people remain destitute and without
k'eael. It was alleged that the present law svas itretitresi
with that of Elizabeth ; he conten4ett WA it was not, as
( the poor man had not the, t'eSie appeal, if he were refused
relief, as he ttdti. &icier the old law. Then he applied to
the chttiselikvardens and overseers for relief, and, if refused,
appealed to a Magistrate, who gave an crdor for relief,
which the officers were bound to obey. But now he was
told to appear before the Board of Guardians
on the following Wednesday or Friday, and having
stated his case was ordered to withdraw. Both the
public and the press were excluded from the Board, and
the poor man was afterwards told that his • case had
been decided against him. Let them look at the diffe-
rent position of the poor in this country under the two
laws. Uncles the one the poor man had a ready means of
obtaining relief. If there was a refusal in the first in-
stance he bad a means of referring immediately to a dis-
interested authority ; but under the other the poor man
must in the first instance apply to the relieving officer ;
he must, in the second place, have often to travel many
miles before he could make his destitution known. The
parties appealed to were rate-payers, and might, there-
fore, be interested in the decision they might come to,
but against that decision there was no appeal. He
could not consider that a just system, or one calculated to
make the millions of this country contented wih the con-
duct of that House. They denied the poor the be.-
' nefit of the law, but they gave them a Commission.
Nothing was more gratifying to him than to see pro-
vision made for the education of the children of the poor.
Why did he say this ? Because he believed the edu-
cation of the working classes would very soon over-
throw the present state of things.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) Why should ho deny that such were-his
opinions ? The course taken with respect to the poor
was calculated to engender nothing but strife. He ad-
mitted that the alterations in the present Bill with
regard to the right of voting were good, as well as the
education of children, but there was much in
the measure he felt bound to condemn. In-
stead of legislating for the poor as they would for
their own estates, they delegated an authority to three
Commissioners, hitherto unknown to the Constitution of
England. To them was delegated the power of making
rules, which were to have all the force of Acts made by
the three branches of the Constitution. Such an autho-
rity was never conferred since the time of Henry VIII.,
when, " to the eternal disgrace of Parliament," to use
the words of Blackstone, his proclamations were made
to have the force of law. And it was to the eternal
disgrace of the Parliament of 1834, that they delegated
a similar authority to the Commissioners of Somerset
House—the power of making such rules and regulations
as they might think proper. lie believed that the original
promoters of the New Poor-law Bill never foresaw the
extent of the powers they were about to confer on the
Poor-law Commissioners, or that they would have been
placed so completely above the law. The plea held out
in support of the law was, that it would improve the con-
dition of the poor, and rise the wages of labour. Now, had
it so raised the wages of labour?—(An Hon. Member here
said it had raised wages.) He (Mr. W.) respectfully
denied it. It had not raised wages, as was proved by
the present state of the manufacturing districts ; and
further. he believed that the law never could raise wages.
The object of the measure was to drive the people
from ever seeking relief in the workhouses. And he
would ask the gentlemen of England whether such a
system was likely to give contentment to the working
classes ? He was persuaded. that it was not ; and
he deeply regretted that such a law had ever received
the sanction of the Legislature. Before he sat down he
should wish to say a few words as to the orders which
the Commissioners had issued respecting medical relief.
—(Oh; No.) Well, if it were disagreeable to go into:that
part of the subject, he would postpone it for the present
—(Hear, shear)—and content himself with moving the
postponement of clause 1.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM had listened to the Hon.
Gentleman with great attention, as he always did, and
with some amusement ; but he had not been able to com-
prehend what were the Hon. Gentleman's opinions on
some topics which were of primary importance.—(Hear,
hear.) He agreed with the lion. Member in the just
eulogy which he passed upon the English people ; but he
could not reconcile the Honourable Gentleman's de-
claration of his admiration of the institutions of
this country, with the approbation which he ex-
pressed of the education clauses of the Bill, which
he admired (he said) most of all, because they would
have a tendency to overthrow the existing order of
things. How could the lion. Member reconcile that
avowal with his other declaration of contentment with a
mixed government, and a love of the monarchy?—
(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had spoken of the " tru-
culent supporters of the present Government." But
did he not include in that accusation the Right Hon.
Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the
Hon. Member for Lambeth„ and many Radicals of the
of the first water. The Hon. Gentleman said he would
throw every impediment in the way of the measure, if
he saw a disposition on the part of the Government to
carry only the first five clauses, and so continue the
Commission without any modification for six years.
Now he could assure the Hon. Gen-leman and the
House that it was the sincere wish of the Government
to carry if possible the whole Bill unimpaired—(Hear,
hear)—and he could further assure them that with the
single exception of the clause interfering with the Gil-
bert unions, every one of the clauses in this Bill was a
mitigation of the former Act.—(Hear, hear, hear.) But
what would be the state of the poor, if the Hon. Gentle-
man succeeded in putting an end to the Commission ?
Throughout the winter there would be no appeal against
the stringent order against out-door relief. That was at
present as much the law of the land, though only a
general order of the Commission, as if passed by Parlia-
ment ; the forty days were passed which were necessary
to give the Secretary of State a rescinding power, and
the only dispensing power now was with the Queen in
Council. With regard to what had been said about the
speech of Lord Brougham, he had not adopted the whole
of that speech, ho had selected particular passages ; he
believed that Lord Brougham had committed the usual
error of political economists, and had pushed some prin-
ciples too far, indeed to an unsafe extent. He (Sir J.
Graham) did not object to compulsory relief to the poor,
in the shape of a rate ; he contended for all the great
principles of the Act of Elizabeth. He said more, he
would contend that by right, the able-bodied man was, if
destitute, entitled to relief ; but then his claim was con-
ditional, and the test was a task of work. The aged,
the sick, and the infirm, were entitled to unconditional
relief, but to the able-bodied man relief was conditional.
That principle was recognized by the Act of Elizabeth.
The Hon. Member was wrong in saying, that by the Act
of Elizabeth an appeal was given to the person refused
relief. An appeal to the Magistrates was given, but it
was to the rate-payer who might believe that a rate
was improperly levied. The appeal for relief to the
Magistrate was first given by a statute of William HI,
more than 140 years after the date of Elizabeth. The
workhouse test, which was supposed to be first introduced
by the Act of 1834, was equally to be found on the
statute book of the 9th Geo. 1., where it stood as plainly
as any declaration of the Legislature could stand. The
9th of Geo. I. continued the law of the land till 1796,
which was a period of great distress, when some relaxa-
tion took place, and a provision was made, no longer
confining the administration of relief to the inmates of
the workhouse. The Poor-law Act of 1832 repealed
the Act. of 1796, but not the Act of George the
First, and if they now succeeded in putting an
end to the Commission, the 9th of George the First,
which forbad out-door relief, would still stand on the
statute book, and the prohibition of out-door relief would
remain the statute law of the land. He therefore con-
tended that in the present state of the law it was most
expedient they should begin with that which was the
key-stone of the Poor-law, namely, whether the adminis-
tration of the law in workhouses should come under the
revision and control of some central authority. The
Hon. Gentleman had said that the strongest feelings
prevailed in large communities against the operation of
this measure. The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of
her Majesty's Government had, however, stated to the
House a remarkable fact, that only 100 petitions had
been presented, signed by 13,000 persons, against the
Bill. He (Sir J. Graham) would draw the attention of
the House to a communication which he had had on this
matter. A short time since a vestry meeting of St.
George's Southwark was called to consider the Poor-
law Bill now before the House. That parish con-
tained 40,000 inhabitants, and yet how many were
present on this exciting topic? Two churchwardens,
two overseers, one vestry-clerk, one sexton, one parish-
clerk, two poor-rate collectors. one beadle, two reporters,
Mr. Boxer, and another gentleman, who came there to
speak, and seven other persons (including the writer of
the communication), making in all 21 persons, and that
in a parish having a population of 40,000 ! A few pa-
rishioners dropped in afterwards ; but Mr. Boxer ad-
dressed the assembly on the enorniities of the present
system, and concluded by moving the adoption of a peti-
tion against it to both Houses of Parliament—the one to
the House of Lords to be entrusted to Earl Stanhope,
and that to the House of Commons to the Members for
the borough. The writer moved as an amendment that
as the population of the parish amounted to 40,000, and
there were present less than 30 persons, it appeared evi-
dent that the parishioners were satisfied to leave the
measure in the hands of the Legislature. Thirteen
hands were held up for the original motion, and that
number forming the majority, the motion was carried.
On one of the overseers asking out of what fund the ex-
pense of engrossing the petition, &c. would be defrayed,
it was resolved that it should be taken from the church-
rate, because the auditor of the poor-rato would not pass
such a charge upon the poor-rate.--(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman said the wages of labour had not
been raised in consequence of the Poor-law. He per-
ceived that declaration excited the zeal of the Hon.
Member for Montrose, who very justly said that the law
was one which would promote the interests of the work-
ing classes. The continuance of the Commission was
the key-stone of the entire measure, and he had no hesi-
tetion in stating, that if the first five clauses were struck
out, the Bill would be rendered less than useless, and
would throw the measure for the relief of the poor into
a mass of confusion, which would be an extreme cruelty
to the labouring classes. He would not make any pro.
fessions, but having given deep consideration to the de-
plorable condition of the poor, he would say that he was
never more convinced of the necessity of passing this
measure on account of the distress. which prevailed.—
(Hear, hear.) lie was desirous that they should pro-
ceed in the order of the clauses in the Bill ; because if
the first one were passed, the others were only modi-
fications of the existing law, to which, if the House
would fairly and dispassionately apply itself, he was sa-
tisfied that it would come to the conviction that they
would tend to promote the relief of the poor, and to mi-
tigate the distress of the working classes, who ought
now more particularly to be the objects of their care.
Mr. E. BULLER said that he would not have risen,
were it not that certain points had not been alluded to
during the debate on this question. It was usual to look
upon the statute of the 43d of Elizabeth, as the first upon

she snbject, but it was founded on tt previdus statute pas-
ted in the same reign—the 14eh, of Elizabeth,; chap. 5,
which 14,ttt pA,akd the ptiiiighinefit of .teigliimids.end
sturdy beggars, who were to be previously whipped till
they were bloody, and to have the gristle of theright ear
bored with a red. hot iron, an inch round. It was upon
' that statute that the 43d of Elizabeth was founded. If
they were to refuse all out-door relief, and to compel
every one applyittg for relief to reside in the wrokhouse,
such a course of proceedingwottld be perfectly consistent
with the provisions of the 43d Elizabeth. The statute
authorising the giving or out-door relief was not passed
until the 3d of William and Mary, and that statute gave
no appeal to the Justices. In the 7th of George I. was
passed the stringent statute, refusing out-door relief; that
was modified by the 22d George 111, and still further by
the 55th Geo. 111., which gave the Magistrates the power
of ordering out-door relief to the extent of 3s. per week
for each person, and which had done all the mischief
that the Poor-law Amendment Act was required to re-
medy. He agreed in all that had been said in praise of
the working classes ; but if ever there was a law calcu-
lated to ruin their character, and to break down their
habits of industry, it was the Act of the 55th Gen. HI.
If he were asked if every one had an inherent and inde-
feasable right to be maintained on the spot where he was
born, he (Mr. E. Buller) would reply, that he knew of
no grounds on which such a right could be sustained ;
but if he were asked if the poor of this country had a
right to be relieved, he would say yes ; because, by law,
they had been deprived of a natural right. Every poor
person had a natural right to ask alms of his neighbour ;
of that right the law had deprived him, and, therefore, the
law was bound to afford him relief. All the ancient sta-
tutes bore out this view of the subject ; they all con-
tained enactments for the suppression of mendicancy,
coupled with a provision for the relief of the poor ; but
that claim was quite satisfied by the tender of residence
and relief in the workhouse, and any other mode of re-
lief
was not a matter of right but cf indulgence. Ho
should be very glad to see that indulgence extended to
the old, the infirm, and the sick, but to the able-bodied
some test must be applied • and, on the whole, he
thought the workhouse test better than the labour test.
Mr. BENETT considered. that the poor had an inde-
feasible right to relief, and that right rested on the same
authority as the common law of the land— namely, im-
memorial usage. No man denied the right of the poor
man to relief. The 43d of Elizabeth did not give the
poor man relief, unless he worked for it. But they also
could give him money relief, if it were necessary, out
of doors. He opposed this Bill, because he thought it
was necessary to take the power of relieving the poor
out of the hands of the Board of Guardians. The
Commissioners in London only acted upon certain gene-
ral rules, and he had seen those rules inflict great hard-
ship on the poor. When the poor man, with a large
family, got into the workhouse, how was it possible for
him to get out again ? Hero was a case of hardship. He
had seen such cases himself. With respect to raising
wages by this law, it was absurd ; wages were regulated
according to the price of food. He wanted to see those
who were willing to work have some means to fall back
upon.—(Hear, hear.) He was anxious that the law
should be in some way fixed, that the guardians should
have the power of Judging of the amount of relief to
be afforded.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The guar-
dians, in certain districts, were certainly severe;
but that was no rule. He was in doubt as to whethep
there should be a Commission in London or not, but
certainly he had no hesitation' in saying it ought not to
be maintained for five years ; ter if maintained, it ought
to be only for a short time. With this feeling, but with
an anxious desire to do his duty to the country, he
would not give his assent to the Commission being
continued for five years.
Mr. RICE said the old Poor.law was grossly
abused, and the only remedy wets the new Poor-law.
With respect to the continuance of the Commission it
was a question as to whether they should revert
back to the abuses of the old system, or have its
remedeecontinued. He believed that nothing had more
benefited the poor than the Central Board of Control.
He hoped the time was now come when they should
consider the details of this measure, and he should be
glad in removing any provisions which were considered
harsh. When they came to the third clause he should
ask the Right Hon. Baronet whether it would have the
same effect as a similar clause they agreed to in the last
Parliament..
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said that in the course
of this debate, they had heard more discursive matter
than the subject warranted. The main question was
whether the Commission should be continued or not.
Without any disposition to be captious or troublesome to
the Government, he conceived that nothing could be
more reasonable than the proposition of the Hon. Mem
ber for Finsbury. He thought the question of the con-
tinuance of the Commission for five years ought to be
postponed. The Right Hon. Baronet said that it went.
to limit the powers of the Commission. He (Mr. S.
Wortley) did not think se. His objection was to the as-
sertion of the principle that it was necessary to continue
this Commission for the term of five years. With all
his dissatisfaction at the principle of legislation upon this
subject, he could not help expressing his satisfaction at
the altered tone of those who supported the provisions of
this Bill.—(Hear, hear, head.) He did not mean to say
that they had changed their opinions, but they had found
that there was a strong public feeling on the subject,
and therefore they had moderated their tone. The
Hon. Gentleman concluded by stating that he would
vote for the continuance of the Commission for the
whole period.
Capt. PECHELL thought he had no other course to
pursue but to aid in putting an end to the Commission
altogether, and be should therefore vote for the motion of
the Hon. Member for Finsbury. If the Local Acts in towns
and the Gilbert Unions were to be continued, he might
be inclined to allow the Commission to continue for an-
other year, but no longer.
After a few words from Sir J. GRAHAM, •
Mr. CARDWELL opposed the motion of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury.
Mr. DARBY said that there was nothing he objected
to more than continuing the Bill from year to year. The
wisest plan, in his opinion, was, that the Government
should bring forward a measure of a permanent character
which would give the House an opportunity of consider-
ing the whole question in Committee. He thought it
was comparatively unimportant whether the Commission
were continued for three years or five years ; hut the
Commission should be continued for some definite
period, so that the entire subject might come from time
to time under the revision of Parliament.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE was astonished to find that
the Government had opposed the motion of his Hon.
Colleague (Mr. Wakley). The. proposal of his Hon.
Colleague was merely that the consideration of the
clause continuing the powers of the Commissioners
should be postponed until the other provisions of the Act
had been discussed, and until it had been ascertained
what were the duties which the Commissioners would
have to exercise. There was at least ono member of the
Cabinet who should not oppose the motion then before
the House—he meant the Right Hon. Baronet the Pay-
master of the Forces (Sir C. Knatchbull), who, when a
Bill similar to the present, had been introduced last year
by the late Government, expressed his dissent from many
of its main provisions. (The Hon. Gentleman here read
some extracts from the speech of Sir E. Knatchbull, in
proof of this statement.) It would seem, however, that
the Right Hon. Baronet had since changed his opinions,
for he (Mr. Duncombe) found his name, with that of the
Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, on the
back of the Bill.—(A laugh.) The Right Hon. Baronet
had, no doubt, the best and most conscientious reasons for
the opinions which he now entertained ; but it would
still be satisfactory to the House, to the country, and to
the county of Kent, to be made acquainted with the
grounds upon which the Right Hon. Gentleman had
altered his sentiments.—(A laugh.)
Sir E. KNATCHBULL was sorry that he must dis-
appoint the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury,
in his expectations that he (Sir E. Knatchbull) would
vote for the amendment. The Hon. Gentlerrian com-
menced by saying that ho would only occupy the House
by an explanation, for the purpose of setting himself
right, but he departed from that intention, for the purpose
of making a personal attack upon him, very much
it seemed to the Hon. Gentleman's own satisfaction,
and with some amusement to the House. He (Sir E.
Knatchbull) did last year move a similar amendment to
the one now before the House ; but ho then found the
sense of the House so much against him; that he with-
drew the motion. He had not the same reasons now
that actuated him on that occasion. The present Bill
was completely mitigated in all that was objectionable in
the former measure ; and the Commissioners, who had
(to use the mildest term) acted in a very indiscreet men-
ner at first, had recently
.taken a more judicious course ;
and the powers given in this Bill were sufficiently
limited.—(bear, and a laugh.) Besides, the object of
those who supported the amendment now, was to defeat
the Bill altogether, and that alone would be sufficient to
justify him in voting against it.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said, that if the first clause
were altogether rejected it would not defeat the Bill, for
the law could be better carried into effect by guardians
properly elected than by 'the Commissioners.—(Hear.)
Sir E. KNATCHBULL repeated that his proposition
of last year was made tinder very different circum-
stances, which warranted him in supporting the present
measure.

Mr. P. HOWARD (who rose amidst laughter and
cries of " Divide") said that the explanation of the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Knatchbull) did not
satisfy him as to the consistency of the course which
the Right Hon. Gentleman was taking. The Right
Hon. Gentleman had voted last year against the con-
tinuance of the Commission, and no subsequent altera-
tion of the measure could remove that objection. If he
(Mr. Howard) had so voted—(A laugh)—he would not
imitate the course of the Right lion. Baronet the
Member for Kent.—(A. laugh and loud , cries of
Divide.") He believed that the control ex-
ercised by the Commissiozers, and their inter-
ference with the local managers of the poor,
operated much more often in favour of the poor than
against them.—(Divide, divide.) It was well known
that to the time of Henry the Eighth there were no
Poor-laws, and the poor were maintained out of the
patrimony of the Church. But when the property of
the ChUrch was seized upon the poor were deprived of
that one-third which the canon law' appropriated for
their relief.—(Great impatience, and cries of " Divide.")
The Poor-law of Elizabeth was passed to provide for the
poor who had been deprived of their former source of
subsistence, and in their distress had become too strong
for the law. He had supported the present measure,
and he was satisfied that a mangled discussion of it
from year to year would only serve to give continual
means of agitation to the factious.—(Hear, hear.)
He would only conclude by saying that he could not see
any force in the argument of the Hon. Member for Brigh-
ton. The clause did not attack the Gilberts' Unions; when
it came to the clause affecting these unions the Hon.
Gentleman might state his arguments against it.—(Loud
cries of " Divide.")
Mr. WAKLEY replied. After a debate of four
hours he had not heard a single reason against his pro-

position. his motion was a bona fide one, made upon
principle ; was the House prepared to sanction the en-
durance of the Commission for five years, before they
had defined the powers that were to be entrusted
to it ?—(Hear.) The House might decide against
him, but the country would be with him. There
were forty amendments before the House, and there
might be forty more ; and was it acting fairly to the
country to give so long a period to the Commission, in
the most perfect ignorance as to the powers that might
be bestowed on it ? Had there been a reason shown
against his proposal ? Had any intimation been given
that the Government intended to support a single amend-
ment of which notice had been given ? All, therefore,
who had given notice of amendments, or intended to do
so, should support him.—(Hear, hear.) If they did not
they would stultify themselves ; the Government could
turn round on them and say that they ought not
to have voted for the continuance of the Commission if
they disapproved of it, and in ignorance of what its func-
tions ought to be. He felt confident that if the people
had more power in that House, they would use it to pro-
cure a repeal of the Poor-law. Under these circum-
stances he was under the necessity of troubling the
House to go to a division.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided. The numbers were—
For Mr. Wakley's motion
Against it

74
206

Majority against the motion -132
The clause was then agreed to.
On the second clause being read,

_
Mr. B. WOOD rose to move an amendment. It ap-
peared to him that the Assistant Commissioners were
not necessary ; besides, the expense incurred by them
was very cunsideratile, amounting to 20,0001. a-year.
Their services, he thought, might be dispensed with.
There was another subject to which he would advert—
the subject of auditors. He considered there was a great
defect in the appointment of auditors, and in asking the
House to abolish the Assistant Commissioners he wished
to point out what he believed would be an improvement,
namely, the appointing those Assistant Commissioners
to act as auditors instead of Commissioners. Much
benefit would be derived from converting the Assistant
Commissioners into auditors, and to obtain that object ha
would move in lines 19 and 20 that the words "Assistant
Commissioners" be omitted, and that in line 21 the
words "other than Assistant Commisioners" be added.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was justified in assuming,
after the division, by which a large majority had decided in
favour of the existence of the Commission, that the question
to be urged was whether the Central Commission having
been established, there should be Assistant Commis-
sioners for the purpose of visiting the unions. It appeared
to him (Sir J. Graham) that it they were to enter into
details of different provisions, it would be better to adhere
to the subject under consideration. The Hon. Gentleman
who had jtolt sat down, had deviated from the question, whe-
ther there should be Assistant:Commissioners, into one of
still more importance, if possible—the constitution of an
efficient system of auditing. He agreed with the Hon.
Member, that the system of auditing, as at present con-
stituted, was imperfect and deficient, but ho thought the
Hon. Member ought to wait till they arrived at that part
of the Bill which referred to the appointment of officers,
when it would be open to him to make his proposal.
With respect to the necessity for Assistant annmis-
sioners, even the Hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S.
Crawford), who had opposed the second reading of the
Bill, though adverse to the Central Commission, had yet
proposed that there should be itinerant Commissioners.
Ile (Sir J. Graham) hoped the inspection of the As-
sistant Commissioners would be more frequent ; and of
this he was certain, that if the Assistant Commissioners
were done away with, the Central Commission would
be of no use.

Colonel SIBTHORP said that it would be desirable
if all Commissions were done away with, and one great
inducement with him to vote against the continuance of
the Assistant Commissioners was, that the Central Com-
mission would be cramped in consequence. He was sur-
prised to hear the Hon. Member say that the present
Bill could be made in any degree palatable to the people
of this country. There was not a single line or word in
the Bill, from the preamble to the last clause, of which
he could approve. But the Right Hon. Baronet knew,
that with the support of the party opposite, which at •
one time he would have spurned, he could carry the Bill,
and therefore he persevered in his Bill. He was opposed
to all Commissioners root and branch—(Laughter)—and
would propose that they should all be done away with.
Mr. FERRAND said, that as there was a motion re-
specting the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners before the
House, he hoped the- House would allow him to allude
to two Reports laid on the table of that House, bearing
directly on the union to which he belonged,. and which
were quoted by the Right Hon. Baronet in making a
direct and personal attack upon himself. Ile had no he-
sitation in saying that the Report of Mr. Mott, respect-
ing the Keightley Union, was malicious and false, and
therefore whatever was done respecting the Assistant-
Commissioners he hoped Mr. Mott would not .be con-
tinued in that office. Was the House aware who Mr.
Mott, who got up the scandalous and false report, was ?
—(Question, question.) He made charges against him
(Mr. Ferrand) and others connected with the Keightley
Union, and lie had a right to inquire who he was. He
was formerly a contractor for maintaining the poor of
Lambeth, whom he farmed out in different parts of the
country. He stated in his evidence before the Poor-law
Commissioners that he contracted at 3s. lid. per head,
and that by scouring the scales he saved half an ounce in
the weight for the rate-payers, which made a difference
at the end of the year of 300 stone. He stated "that
the man before him had contracted for 4s. Bd. a head
and was ruined: - How ruined ? By giving over-weight
to be sure. lie gave half an ounce too much.—(oh, oh.)
This was the Mr. Mott who had gone down to get up. the
case against the Keightley Guardians, and he had a right
to inquire who this Mr. Mott was. (The Hon. Gentle-
man then went on to quote further passages from Mr.
Motes evidence before the Poor-law Commissioners,
from which it appeared that Mr. Mott had recommended
the allowance system, and relief in kind, in order that the
condition of the pauper might be reduced to that of the
independent labourer, in order to prevent the independ-
ent labourer degenerating into pauperism. Several parts
of this evidence were received with loud ironical cheers.)
He knew that the Report of Mr. Mott, with regard to the
Keightley Union, was false, and he knew that the Report
of SirJohnWalsham was false, and he should have letters
proving it to-morrow. Sir J. Walsh= had been sent down
to Keightley merely to get up a statement to meet
him (Mr. Ferrand). He asked if it was right, when it
was known that a Member of that House would make
statements relating to a point under discussion that As-
sistant Commissioners should be sent down to get up
statements to meet him in this way ? He asked the Right
Hon. Baronet if he did not know that Sir John Walsham
was about to proceed to the lieightley Union for the
purpose of getting up these statements? One of the
charges brought against the rate-payers of Bingley he
believed was false; he meant the charge that, in that
workhouse, persons had been placed to sleep in the same
bed with a corpse. He denied the charges brought
against the Magistrates by Mr. Mott, and he called upon
the Right Hon. Baronet to state if he had been cogni-
zant of Sir John Walsham having been sent down to the
Keightley Union to get up a statement in contradiction
to him (Mr. Ferrand).

Sir J. GRAHAM thought that he was called upon at
once to meet the statement of the Hon. Gentleman, who
had asked if he (Sir James Graham) was aware that Sir
J.. Walsham had been sent down to the Keightley Union.
He (Sir J. Graham) had already stated to the House
Mr. Mott's reports as to the state of the Keightly work-
house. The Hon. Gentleman had made a great mistake
in what he had stated to. the House the other evening.
The Hon. Gentleman, who was Chairman of the Keightley
Board of Guardians, had distinctly stated . to the House
that an order had been issued by the Poor-law Commis-
sioners, prohibiting the giving out-door relief in that
union. In order that there might be no mistake about
it he would remind the Ccmmittee that the Honourable
Gentleman had attributed the crowded state of the
Keightley workhouse to that circumstance. Now he
(Sir James Graham) unequivocally denied that any such
prohibitory order had been issued.—(Loud cheers.) He
did not wish to be personal, and he was about to make
an observation which perhaps the Hon. Gentleman might
not understand, but which would be very well understood
by any one of the six attorneys who had made such a
comfortable living out of the Keightley Union. The
Hon. Gentleman had shifted the issue. The real ques-
tion was not what was the character of Mr. Mott, but
what was the nature of the administration of relief in
the Keightley Union. Mr. Mott had made a Report, and
the Hon. Gentleman had asserted that certain portions
-
of that Report were positively untrue. Now, as he Sir
James Graham) could Not speak of his own personal
knowledge, he • had suggested, seeing these different
statements, that Sir John Walsham, who vas super-
intending the distribution of relief at Birmingham,
should be sent to Keightley to investigate and :report.
He had made on a former occasion 'an offer to the Hon.
Gentleman, from which he would not now recede, and
that was, that if the Hon. Gentleman would move for a
Committee to inquire into the manner in which
relief had been administered in the Keightley Union,
ho (Sir J. Graham) would second the motion. In order
that there might be no mistake as to the 'flatten to be
investigated, he (Sir James Graham) would recapitulate
the charges, which were, that there were found in the
occupation of one small bedroom three married couples ;
that one woman had been confined in child-birth in a
• room in which there were twenty individuals ; that a
miserable hovel was used as a school, and left in the
management of an old pauper ; that the intermixture of
sexes was permitted in the workhouse, males and females
sleeping in rooms opening into the same passage, and
adjoining each other ; the doors of the young women's
bed-rooms opening into the bed-rooms of the young men;
that the gaol and the workhouse were under the same
roof, the former being in the better repair of the two ;
and lastly, and on that point the Hon. Gentleman had
joined issue, and that charge wols the gravest and most
horrible charge of the whole, .the, master of the poor-
house had told Sir John WalSliena, when he had re-
marked on the crowded state of iove..house, that it was
not so much crowded as- it was:sometimes, for that
owing_ to the crowded stateii"f" the house he (the
master of the workhouse) ,liad Sometimes been
obliged
seemed
to let the dead remain by the living until the
burial took place. (A general thrill of horroreemed to
on that fact ; there
pervade the House on hearing this unparalleled an-
nouncement.) On. being .questioned on the subject the
master 'admitted that a similar occurrence had taken
nothe"vorklroin
tis:dinistshuee neighbourhood.
Now
could be no mistake about the allegation, and if the
placethe
lion. Gentleman chose. to Move for a Committee of In-
qniry he (Sir J. Graham) would second it.—(Cheers.)
Mr. FERRAND had denied Mr. Mows charges, and
the Right Hon Baronet had not said one word about
those charges.—(Cries of" Oh , oh," and ironical cheers.)
He denied' Mr. Mott's charges, and if the Right Hon.
Baronet would pledge himself to dismiss sir. Mott if bis
Report should turn out untrue, he (Mr. Ferrand) would
move for a Committee. He had not denied what Sir
' John Walsham had (Clio of Oh oh 1 and loud

ironical cheers)—but if the Right Hon. Baronet would
give the pledge he had asked, he (Mr. Ferrand) would
move for a Committee.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that although the lion.
Gentleman was Chairman of a Board of Guardians, he
did not appear to be very conversant with the law, or he
would have known that the Secretary of State possessed
no power of dismissing an Assistant Poor-law Commis-
sioner.. The Commissioners were the only parties who
possessed that power. 'He knew nothing of Mr. Mott
Personally, but there could be no doubt how the Com-
missioners would act, if the lion. Gentleman could
prove his allegations. He (Sir James Graham) would,
however state, with regard to one portion of Mr. Mott's
Report, that he (Sir James Graham) had himself the
original order issued by the Keightley Board of
Guardians, for enforcing the payment of 21. poor-rates
from a pauper.
.Mr. FERRAND—I do not deny that.—(Loud cries of
Oh, oh." and ironical cheers.)
Mr. B. WOOD suggested that it was not right to mix
up these personal questions with the matters under dis-
cussion.

Mr. WAKLEY wished to know how for_; the
Keightley Union had been formed. lle understood
it had been formed for four years. Now, if these
abuses had continued, and the Poorlaw Commis-
sioner knew it, of what use were they, costing.
the country, as they did, 20,000/. a year? Was the
Hon. Baronet aware that such things. as had been al-
leged to have taken place at Keightley, had actually oc-
curred in this metropolis? Within the last six weeks,
he had held an inquest on the body of a child, that had
been in the same room with its parents five weeks after
it was dead. This took place in London, in one of the
unions. The father of the child had made application for
a coffin, but it was said that he could not get a coffin,
in consequence of circumstances which had taken
place in his family previously. From other sources he suc-
ceeded in getting a coffin; he then applied to the guar-
dians to have it buried, and he was asked if there were
any ornaments on the coffin, and his answer was yes ?
and they replied that the clergyman would not bury
without the usual fee. It could not, they said be buried
as a pauper, because there were ornaments on the coffin.
Talk of the Keightley union, things far more detestable
and odious took place in this metropolis under his own
observation. What happened after the Poor-law Bill
passed. Did they not refuse the tolling of the bell, and
further, did they not deny the use of a pall? These things
were altogether too detestable to comment upon. With
regard to that, he believed the Honourable Member was
justified in his charges, and he hoped he would move for
the Committee. _ _

Mr. R. YORKE thought that the whole circum•
stances of the case ought to be investigated, and the
result laid before the House. He thought it most im-
portant to the integrity of that discussion that those
charges should be investigated, These statements were
made by a Member of Parliament fairly and upon his
own integrity, and therefore they ought in justice to be
investigated.
Colonel SIBTHORP made some observations which
were inaudible in the gallery.
Strangers'were then ordered to withdraw, and the Com-
mittee divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment 45
Against the amendment 228
Majority against the amendment —lB3
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD then suggested that
the further discussion on the Bill should be adjourned.
Captain PECHELL thought that it was then so late
that it would be unreasonable to continue the discussion.
He should, therefore, move that the Chairman should re-
port progress.
Mr. FERBAND wished to take that opportunity of
again alluding to the discussion between himself and the
Right Hon. Baronet. He again asserted that the charges
of Mr. Mott were a scandalous falsehood. He believed
that he should be able to prove that assertion if a Com-
mittee were granted him to inquire into the matter. He
should, first, however, require that a pledge should be
given, that Mr. Mott would be discharged from his situa-
tion if his statements were shown to be unfounded.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he had no objection to a
Committee of Inquiry ; but he could not pledge himself
as to the course which it might be thought necessary to
pursue with respect to Mr. Mott.
The question having then been put that the Chairman
should report progress, strangers were ordered to with-
draw, but no division took place, the motion for report-
ing progress being agreed to without a division.
CUSTOMS BILL.

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

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

The House then went into Committee on the New
South Wales Bill.

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