The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-03-30 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY

The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from the clergy
and inhabitants of Sheffield, praying that Parliament would
secure the Christians of Syria from the oppressions to which
they have heretofore been subject. In order to bring them-
selves under the protection of the European consuls, these
Christians were obliged to Declare that they were members
of the church of Rome. He thought the present a favourable
opportunity for the Government to inter fere in their favour.
Lord ME LI3OURNE replied that this subject had not escaped
the attention of the Government, and exertions were making

to secure for all Christians and Jews the same protection
which the French Government had procured for the Roman
Catholics in that portion of the Turkish dominions.
In reply to a question from Lord STRANGFORD as to the
state of the negociations beween Great Britain and F►ance,
respecting the commercial relations of both countries,
Lord MELBOURNE said that those negociations had been
in progress up to within the last few months, when they were
disturbed by the misunderstanding now happily at an end ;
but there was every reason to hope that they would be
speedily renewed, and that a plan would be laid down for a
free interchange of productions to the great benefit of both
countries. _ .

The East India Rum Bill passed through committee, and
the report was ordered to be received on Monday.
Mr. Earle, recently in the office of the poor-law commis-
sioners in Ireland, was then examined touching the falsifica-
tion of the returns from the Clonmel union, after which their
lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY

In reply to a question from Sir R. PEEL,
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was his intention to postpone the
further consideration of the registration of voters (England)
bill until the bill for the registration of voters in Ireland
should have been discussed.
The house having gone into committee on the poor law
amendment bill, Mr. FIELDEN moved an amendment to the
second clause, the effect of which, if carried, would be to re-
peal the poor law act altogether. It was insisted by Lord J.
Russell and Mr. Bernal that, according to the rules of the
house, such an amendment could not be put.
Mr. C. W. WYNN said that an instruction to the com-
mittee might have been moved to that effect before the house
had gone into committee.
Mr. FIELDEN said he should, on a future evening, adopt
that course.

Mr. WAKLEY moved that the third clause should be post-
poned, as being ambiguous. The clatise was that which
exempted from the operation of the act all parishes governed
by local acts. _ . . . .

Lord J. RUSSELL was of opinion that there was no am-
biguity in the clause.
Sir R. PEEL thought differently, and anxious as he was to
avoid delay, he thought the clause must be postponed.
Lord HowicK commented on the necessity of not depriv-
ing the commissioners of the power they now possessed of
checking the abuses in parishes governed by local acts.
Sir B. H ALL contended that there was no ambiguity in the
clause, which left the powers of the commissioners precisely
where they were. That, however, was what the great metro-
politan parishes were opposed to
The clause was postponed

On the fourth efause being moved, Mr. H. HINDE moved
an amendment, the object of which was to limit the power of
the commissioners to issue orders for the purpose of control-
ing the guardians.
It was contended by Lord J. RUSSELL and Mr. WARD
that it was necessary to give large powers to the commission-
ers, for it was impossible that parliament could legislate so
as to facet all possible contingencies.
General JOHNSON said that the law was most hateful and
detestable that had ever baen enacted in England, and he did
hope, therefore, that the amendment would be persevered
in, as it might form some protection for the poor.
Lord G. SOMERSET said he had no doubt a vast portion of
the unpopularity of the new poor law was to be attributed to
the eternal scribbling of the commissioners, laying down in
all their documents, the most arbitrary principles, and be-
traying in all their reports, a degree of presumption offensive
to the feelings of the people.
Lord J. RUSSELL defended the poor-law commissioners,
and said that because the noble lord (Lord G. Somerset)
usually stated his views clearly and very strongly. he would
be as much justified in attributing arrogance to the noble
lord as the noble lord was justified in attributing it to the
commissioners.

Lo.rd SANDON said it was a degree of arrogance for the
poor-law commissioners to set down every one opposed to
them as wrong, and to seek to run down any individual who
might be hardy enough to question their authority. The
poor-law commissioners, in one of their reports, stated that
their principal duty was to restrict expenditure, and to this
duty they strictly adhered, for he believed not a single in-
stance could be adduced in which they had ever called a
board of guardians to account for niggardness, which he be-
lieved ought to be aernuch, or more, their duty than that of
restriction. He belived they were amiable men, but they
were the slaves of a theory, which led them to carry out
the law in its most rigorous manner, and to sacrifice not only
their own feelings, but the comforts of all those placed under
their control.

Sir H. VERNEY contended the country was deeply indebted
to the poor-law commissioners.

Mr. .G. KNIGHT said he should like to see the power of
the commissioners so far abridged as to prevent their inter-
ference except in cases of great necessity.

Mr. WAKLEY again drew attention to the unwarrantable
read
and a enter
paperm
o been
re
fr
fullyoobtained.from
isnotom e
this
persons
i luo subject
j s shouldc
o fact that in many unions medical men are not allowed to pre-
scribe stimulating diet, however necessary, until the assent of
Monday, thezord
lio guardianshowever,w i c slic la 1r l havete
connected
with the Basford union, denying any interference such as
had been attributed to the board of guardians with the me-
- ical officer of that union.
Mr. II AMILTON said the real question before the house
is to whether they would give arbitrary, and he might
J, unheard of powers to the commissioners.
Col. ROLLESTON stated that medical officer of the Bei.-
ford union had said on several occasions on oath, and once in
e rssect. o n
the presence of the board of guardians, that an order was
given that he should not order any stimulating diet without
leave of the board.
Mr. C. WOOD said this was a matter which should not be
allowed to drop, for here was the most extraordinary con-
tradiction that could be conceived.
Sir R. PEEL asked, even if this statement could not be
proved, whether it could be considered safe for the interests
of humanity to leave such power in the hands of the guar-
dians, uncontrolled by the commissioners. From all his
knowledge of boards of guardians he should say that it would
not be safe to do so.
After some further discussion, the amendment was nega-
tived by a majority of 225 to 75, and the clause was agreed to,
after which the chairman reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again on Monday.

was as ,