The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, JULY 21, 1842.

for the mitigation of penalties, where it should
appear that the article substituted was not of
the nature precisely required by the Bill, and
that there had been no fraudulent intention. The

provision, as it stood, was very severe. The clause
provided the forfeiture of the package,. and in-
flicted a penalty of 51. for every . quarter of
such substituted article: He proposed to introduce
some words into that clause to provide for the case of
parties who had erred without any fradulent inten-
tion. This was the form he proposed to give the Bill
in Committee ; and he begged to recommend it now
to the consideration of the House, being fully con-
vinced that the apprehensions entertained with regard
to it were groundless.
• Col. RUSHBROOKE opposed the Bill, as one
which would injuriously affect the interests which he
had the honour to represent. He opposed similar
Measures in the years 1836 and 1837, on the
ground that they would open the door to
extensive fraud, and he felt bound, in consistency, to
oppose the present Bill. The Hon. and Gallant Co-
lonel concluded by moving that the Bill be read a
third time that day three months.
Mr. TROTTER said, that in 1837 a Bill was in-
troduced by Mr. Robinson, the Member for Wor-
cester, which was precisely similar to that under dis-
cussion. That Bill was then opposed by the then Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade, and on the division the
ayes were 43, and the noes 108. He had the authority of
the two predecessors of the President of the Board of
Trade for- saying, that a Bill which proposed to sub-
stitute flour er biscuit for any given quantity
of wheat, would open the door to extensive
frauds. He did not look at this in an agricultural
point of view ; he threw that out of the question.
The question with him was, whether there could be
that guard thrown around it as would benefit trade, and
he felt bound to say that his belief was there could not.
Mr. G. PALMER said he did not agree with the
Hon. Gentleman in saying he did not consider this an
agricultural question. This Bill was a step towards
free trade, which he had always . opposed. He
felt it to be his duty to support the
amendment. He thought this Bill would tend to
throw the population out of employment. Another
consequence of it would be to increase the poor-rates.
The balance of trade would go against this country
if the Bill were passed. if the Bill passed, every
ounce of biscuit and flour put on board ship, whether
for the use of the ship, or for exportation to foreign
countries, or for any other purpose, would be regu-
hrly entered for exportation; certificates would be
furnished to the parties exporting it, for the purpose
of clearing a proportionate quantity of wheat from
duty ; these certificates they would sell to the mil-
lers or corn dealers, in the same way as the sugar
bakers sold their certificates to the retail growers in
1829. No good flour would be put into bond ; people
would as soon think of bonding ice in an oven.
People would clear the best quality of corn, and
Would substitute, as far as they could, the worst they
could get. Notwithstanding the sorrow he experi-
enced at opposing any measure which originated with
the Right Hon. Baronet, he should feel it his duty to
resist this measure to the utmost extent. He was im-
pelled to this step by nothing but a sense of duty to
himself and his country.
Mr. HUTT said he thought the Hon. Member had
not perused the evidence on this subject with that
docility of spirit by which true philosophy could alone
be obtained. He was very much surprised to hear the
Hon. Member state that, after having been connected
for a long series of years with the commercial and
shipping interests, he must give his opposition to this
' measure. From the commercial and shipping interests
he believed the measure now submitted to the House
had received the most cordial support. Differing as
they did upon every other topic of civil and commer-
cial policy, they all agreed as to the advantage to be
derived from this measure. The measure was by no
means novel in its principle ; it was already in opera..
tion in Belgium, France, and many other countries.,He
believed the measure would widen the channels of
our commerce, and give to our indnstrious population
a source of employment which, through our prohibi-
tory laws, had been entirely engrossed by foreign
nations.

Mr. G. PALMER explained, amidst loud cries of
" Divide, divide."
Lord PALMERSTON rose amid cries of " Ques-
tion, question." He had listened to the objections
made to the Bill, and he believed them to have been
fully answered by the statements of the Hon. Gentle-
man opposite. The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated
that this measure would open a new source of com-
merce, of a permanent nature, to the country. He
admitted that it would do so, and he hailed the state-
ment as a good omen, coming from the quarter which
it did.

Mr. ROEBUCK would go into the general ques-
tion, with respect to this Bill, at length.—(Cries of
" Hear, hear," and " Oh, oh.") He believed that
the propositions of the Right Hon. Gentleman were
unanswerable, and he was surprised at the opposition
to them. The Hon. 'Members who opposed the Govern-
ment plan, . stated that in doing so they did not
care for the agriculturists. Such was not the fact.
The truth was that they thought only of them and
their own interests. One Hon. Member had stated
that the Right Hon. Gentleman was not following
the footsteps of his predecessors. He (Mr. R.)
admitted that he was not, and what was the reason
of that ? Why, the present Government were ground
down by necessity to do what they were doing ; and
he had no hesitation in saying that the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of the Government, seeing the
necessity of such a course, would remove many more
restrictions on the importation of corn, were it not
for the phalanx behind him. With respect to the
proposition itself and the opposition to it, he must say
that he considered them a disgrace to both parties.
It was nothing more than a trick to cajole the starving
millions.—(Cries of " Oh.") He (Mr. R.) knew
that cry, and he also knew the corner from whence
it came. He could even name those who sat there—
(Hear, hear)—and this he would say, that if those
who advocated the interests of the starving population
of this country were to be interrupted in that way,
he would show—and he called upon that side of the
House to support him in it—that they were not to be
put down by a parcel of popinjays in the corner.—
' (Laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear.") If such a
course were to be pursued, he would take care that
the names of those who interrupted tbe business of
the House should be made public.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman would have said, if he
dared to say it with the phalanx,behind him, "Let the
manufactures of this country be exchanged for the
corn of the world, and then we shall establishahealthy
and permanent system of trade." That the Govern-
ment had not done so, was only another proof of their
weakness ; they knew the right and they approved of
it, and yet they did the wrong. The Bill said that
warehoused wheat was to be exported duty free upon
substituting another grain for it. What could be the
objection to that ? The opposition which had been
offered to this Bill appeared to him to be most vexa-
tious; they were not actuated by a desire to procure
food for the people ; their's' was a petty, pitiful, per-
sonal, pocket interest. He firmly believed, in his
heart, that nothing more pitiful, nothing more per-
sonal, nothing more mean, was ever met with than
this opposition.—(Cheers.)
Sir T. D. ACLAND said the motto of the English
landed gentleman was not, never had been, and never
would be to starve the people by raising rents ; and if
the Hon. Member opposite, who had made such a very
inopportune speech, would take but a minute, but a mo-
ment, to consider, he would think so to.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME said, whatever might be the motto or the
intention of the English landlord, the result would be
such as had been expressed by his Hon. Friend. He
believed the measure was a good one, and he hoped it
would pass. There ought not to be a voice raised against
this measure.
Colonel SIBTHORP would not waste the time of the
House by replying to the Hon. Member for Bath, and
the Hon. Member for Montrose. They were too con-
temptible.—(Laughter.) The grapes were sour. If
those Hon. Gentlemen had some of the acres which were
in the hands of the landed gentry, the treatment of the
manufacturers and labourers would be much worse than
it was now.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided—
For the second reading ll6
Against it l9
Majority in favour of the second. reading --97
The Bill was then read a second time.
DRAINAGE REGULATIONS BILL.
On our return to the gallery, we found _
Sir JAMES GRAHAM requesting the Hon. Member
for Devonport (Mr. Tuffnell) to postpone the further
progress of the Buildings Regulation Bill until the com-
mencement of the next session, when the Bill could be
brought. forward in conjunction with the Drainage Bill,
under the responsibility of the Government. If the Hon.
Gentleman consented to postpone the Bill, he (Sir J.
Graham) believed, that so far from retarding the Bill, it
would materially advance it. If the Hon. Gentlemen
consented to the postponement of the Bill, he (Sir J.
Graham) would do all in his power to advance it the next
session of Parliament.
Mr. BERNAL said, that before the Hon. Member re-
plied to the proposition, he wished to call the attention
of the House to that part of the Bill which gave the
power to town councils to fix certain fees. They all
knew that in town councils great difference of opinion
existed, and under the provisions of this Bill power
would be given to town councils to do very unpleasant
and injurious acts towards political opponents.
Mr. T. EGERTON agreed with the Hon. Gentleman
that this part of the Bill was objectionable. The ap-
pointment of surveyors by
the councils would led to
great inconvenience.
Mr. TUFFNELL said, that after what had been stated
by the Right Hon. Baronet, he had no other course to
pursue but to postpone the Committee on the Bill, but
still he thought it was a little hard on the parties in-
terested, as this Bill was brought in with the object of
legislating for the poor in large towns. If the Right
Hon. Baronet would take it up, he (Mr. Tuffnell) would
be most happy to leave the Bill in his hands, as it would
then have a better chance of success, and he should,
therefore, move that the Bill be connuitteti that they three
months.

Mr. BROTHERTON expressed his regret that this
Bill should not pass this session.
Mr. COWPER expressed his regret that the'House
was about to close its sitting without having passed any
measure for relieving the deplorable state in which vast
portions of the poor were placed in large towns. This
question had been before the House fur two years, and
had been amply discussed in the House of Lords. The
necessity of the measure had been proved beyond the
shadow of a doubt, and yet the Right Hon. Baronet
said they must wait for a Report.
Dr. BOWRING hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would
consult the various town councils of large towns on the
subject, before he introduced another Bill.
After a few words from Mr. R. YORKE and Mr. T.

EGERTON, the motion was agreed to.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

On the bringing up of the Report on this Bill,
Mr. ESCOTT moved the insertion of the following ►
clause :—" That it-shall be lawful for all boards of guar-
dians of the poor in England and Wales to grant such'
relief as in their judgment shall be necessary to poor
persons at their own homes, any order, rule, or regula-
tion of the Poor-Jaw Commissioners notwithstanding."
He was neither a decided opponent, nor a decided sup •
porter of the Poor-law Amendment Act ; his object was
to amend the Act, with a view to the benefit of the poorer
classes of this country. He should, not speak as a par-
tisan ; he believed they were all desirous to improve the
condition of the rate-payer . and the recipient of parish
relief, and with that belief he should address himself to
the clause now before the House. There was one
important object which the Bill did not seem
to contemplate, and as it was proposed to
continue this Commission for five years without
the introduction of any remedial clauses, he conceived it
to be imperative on him to do his best to supply what
was wanting in that. Bill, and with that view he had
given notice of the motion which he had the honour now
to bring forward. He should, no doubt, be told that the
great objection to his clause would be that it was in
direct opposition to the principle of the Bill. He could
not see that. If the principle of the Bill was to encourage
the honest labourer and to discourage the idle vagabond,
to relieve the distresses of the pour, and at the same time
to save the money of the rate-payers, then he would
declare, once and for all, that he was for the principle of
the Bill. If the principle of the Bill was that the honest
distressed labourer and artisan should receive no relief
unless he entered the workhouse, then he would say,
once and for all, that he was opposed to the
principle of the Bill—(Hear, hear)—aud before they
separated, he should feel obliged to the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet if he would tell them what really was the principle
of the measure. He must dispute the rightfulness of
Parliament ever instituting the Poor-taw Commission ;
he should like to know in what author upon Parliamen-
tary influence, they would find the authority for insti-
tuting such a Commission, for delegating to three men
the power of making laws,' which power should be only
vested in the'tWo houses of Parliament and the Crown.
He should wish that the Noble Lurd the Member for

London were present, that he might ask him what was the
authority upon which such a Commission had been insti-
tuted. The Commission having been institut. d, they must
acknowledge it, but still he could not see, nor could he
ever ascertain upon what authority such a Commis-
sion was established ; this being the case he thought they
should pause before they continued that Commission for
five years. He had heard in that House that the pro-
hibitory order could not be enforced in the manufac-
turing districts, but that the agricultural districts re-
ceived all the benefit from it, their rates were lowered,
and labiur was cheap. He (Mr. 'Escott) spoke only
with regard to the agricultural districts, and he could
say upon his own knowledge, that the prohibitory order
had been productive of the greatest mischief, both to the
rate-payers and the industrious poor. The prohibitory
order was this : they told an able-bodied man that be-
cause he was able-boOied he should receive no relief
unless he entered the house. He (Mr. Escott) had seen
the effect of this order ; it was that the able-bodied did
not continue able-bodied long. That was the effect
upon the industrious poor; whilst the idle dis-
honest vagabond went into the house, and fat-
tened upon his idleness. Umder the prohibitory
order not only were the best punished, and the worst
indulged, but that which they fondly thought would be
the means of raising wages, had turned out to be the
means of reducing them to a dreadful extent. Labour
was abundant, and rather than enter the workhouse,
and leave his wife and little ones to the hard hand of
fate, the honest poor consented to work for trifling
wages. In all the parishes in Somersetshire the rates
were raised under the operation of the New Poor-law,
although the poor were suffering extreme destitution.
And how were they raised ? A man and his wife, and
five or six children, threw themselves into the house, and
it cost the parish, five and twenty shillings a-week
to maintain them. If the poor man had
received 2s. 6d. a week out of the workhouse, the parish
would have avoided paying the difference. The object
of this clause was to provide for this case. He knew
there were some objections to the adoption of such a
clause, but he asked the Secretary of State to consider
which evil would be the least. Was it better to give a
family half-a-crown a week to save the necessity of their
going into the house, or was it better to adhere rigidly
to one uniform principle of political economy? Heimight
be told that the clause which he proposed was a mischie-
vous interference with the power of the Commissioners,
:and would diminish the power of doing good. He did
not believe that it would have that effect. If he thought
the useful authority of the Commissioners was
likely to be injured he would not have pro-
posed the clause ; but, in point of fact, it referred
to a matter over which the Commissioners had no au-
thority, namely, the prohibitory order.—(Hear, hear.)
The Legislature had, in the 15th section of the original,-
expressly provided that the Commissioners should have
no power of granting out-door relief.—(Hear, hear.)
Now, he was aware that there were environs where none
of the evils which he had described existed ; but how
were they avoided ? By acting expressly in opposition
to the law.—(Hear, hear.) The objeet of his clause was'
to enable that to be done by law, which at present was
done against the law. He had met with a Chairman of
a Board of Guardians, who had boasted to him that
he paid no attention whatever to the Assistant Com-
missioner. In some uni.ins, the guardians gave
out-door relief by covert means, by granting a
loan of two or three pounds, which they did not expect
to be repaid.--(Hear, hear.) Why should they not re-
move the necessity for such a practice ? He had fre •
quently been told by Hon. Members that if he had seen
the operation of the law in their part of the country he
would change his opinions.—(Hear, hear.) He believed
that in particular districts the law was wisely and hu-
manely administered, but in such cases it was because
benevolent and exemplary individuals made up tor the
defects of the law itself.—(flear, hear.) He believed
that if the House passed a third Act, repealing all the.
statutes which had been passed since the statute of
Elizabeth, and leaving the law as it then stood, they
would confer a greater benefit upon the country than by
legislating during the whole of the nes t session on this
subject. With respect to the continuance of the
Commission he did not agree with those who
thought that it was intended to make the Com
mission perpetual. He had one ground for holding
that opinion, which he thought would satisfy all who
considered it. When the Bill was introduced in the
House of Lords the Duke of Wellington said, one of the
objects of the Bill then before the House was to bring the
law back to the hands .if the Magistrate, and replace it
in the hands of those of the overseer, according to the
old system ; when they had got back to the old system
no one would be more glad than himself to see the plan
abandoned. He believed that when the Duke of Wel-
lington uttered those words he had in his eye a
return to the old parochial system.—(Hear, hear.)
He should take the sense of the House upon the ques-
tion, and, in making that statement, he begged to say
he had never pressed forward a question to a division
which he did not think fin' the good of the public in
general.
Sir J. GRAHAM considered that the course pursued.
by the Hon. Member entitled his suggestions to the con-
sideration of the House. He felt how interminable the
discussions on the present,subject were, but he must say
that the proposition of the Hon. Member was not only
inconsistent with the present Bill, but that which was
introduced in 1834. It was at variance with the work-
house system altogether, and the laws that had been in
existence for the last century, and would place the relief
of the poor under the statute of Elizabeth alone. He was
of opinion that, if the House agreed to the proposition of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, it would nullify and
render void the Act of 1834, and he was quite satisfied
that this would create inextricable confusion.—(Hear.)
Mr. FIELDEN supported the clause as proposed by
the Hon. Member for Winchester. He denied that the
guardians had the power of affording out-door relief. He
always considered that the Poor. law was founded on in-
justice, and ought io be blotted out of the statute-book.
Mr. WARD would endeavour to remove the law from
the statute-book if he thought it was unjust, but he did
not think so. With respect to the poor man's wages, if
the man had but 7s. or Bs. a week where he ought to have
125., the man had his remedy against the farmer by
throwing his family into the workhouse,
,as by that
course he increased the amount of the poor-rates upon
the farmer. Therefore, the effect of the new Poor-law
Bill was to increase wages. In the Union of Ware, in
Hertfordshire, 20 labourers employed in the gravel
pits received wages out of the poor-rates before this Bill
passed, while, since its enactment, the number wits only 17.
Mr. O'CONNELL would vote with the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman if he went to a division, because it
extended the principle, or rather the practice, of out-
door relief. The principle of out-door relief was ad-
mitted by the Right Hon. Baronet, as he said that nine-
tenths of the poor received out-door relief at the present
time.—(Hear.) The working of the Poor-law in Ireland
was exceedingly dangerous. The two workhouses in
in Dublin were full, and a person could not be admitted
without an inmato going abroad. He should support the
Hon. Gentleman, as the workhouses were full, while the
number of mendicants had not decreased.
Mr. iIARDY supported the motion.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought the guardians might very
well be trusted to exercise a discretion in administering
out-door relief ; he should therefore vote fur the motion
of the Hon. Gentleman opposite.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL opposed the motion.
Mr. H. KEMBLE was of opinion that the Poor law
Amendment Act required some alterations, at the same
time he thought that the object which the Hon. Member
had in view was attained under the present law. He
hoped the Hon. Member would not press his motion to a
division, for if he did, he (Mr. Kemble) should be com-
pelled to leave, or to skulk out of the House, because he
would not pledge himself to the opinion that the guar-
dians were not capable of exercising a discretion in ad-
ministering relief.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD trusted the Hon. Member would
divide the House upon his motion. Hon. Members
might skulk if they pleased, but ho should vote for :l .
motion of the Hon. Member opposite.
Mr. HUME apprevi.id of tatAtij of ate sc.:ed.—l:,
the Hon. Mover of the motion, at the same time he