The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-03-23 00:00:00

OF COMMONS

HOUK

lIIDAY

Mr. ENVART gave notice that he should move the appoint-
ment of a minister whose duty it should be to lay before par-
liament periodically returns as to the state of education.
The house, in committee, agreed to a resolution moved by
the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, for a vote of credit of
£155,000 for the relief of South Australia.

On the motion for the re-committment of the Poor Law
Amendment Bill, Mr. WAKLEY rose to move that the bill he
divided into two bills. He contended that unless this were
done the house would be dealing treacherously by the peo-
ple, for they were holding out by this bill the idea that the
commission was to terminate in fivesears, whereas he believed
the real intention was that it should be as perpetual as the
poor law itself. He characterised the bill as one to protect
the landed property of the kingdom at the expense of every
feeling that was estimable in our nature ; and said that the
new poor law was the most dangerously revolutionary mea-
sure that had ever been enacted. Instances of the heartless•.

ness of its operation came almost daily within his know-
ledge. Not the smallest distinction was made between the
old man who had maintained himself in respectability for
perhaps thirty years, paying rates the whole time, and the
idle spendthrift, who had neglected his wife and family, when,
both came to the workhouse. Was this the sort of legisla-
tion they had a right to expect from the reformed House of
Commons ? Yes ! a House of Commons reformed, but not
amended ! He declared most solemnly his belief that it
would be better for the country and better for the interests
if they had the old boroughmongers back again.
boroughmongers have proposed a law like
3ut the reformed house, because it represented
^f the people—not the people—presumed
to work out this enormous course
The hon. member concluded
-.L. in dividing the bill into two, he wished that
,e bill should be confined to the commission, and the other
ork altogether without the corn-
-ould give general satisfaction to

of the i
Would
this ?

a certain

towards the poor

ying tt

the people of .
Lord J. Rt

the truth of the pr(
measure, when the

at the hon. member had not given
the bill into two bills. He bad,

h, found fault with the result of

the great rx

pheciess of the opponents of that great

that the clauses giving members to

rig into t

s would have the effect of send-
roischievous demagogues, who would
ho, if raised to any ju-

litan dist

lELDEN ho.

to turn their courts into arenas
noble lord then contended that
the poor law was founded were
bourer, and to tend ultimately to

at every man in England would

spressed his abhorrence

Lord G. SOMERSETTopposed the amendment.
Colonel SIBTLI ORP supported the amendment

sio.ns, Mr. W

LEY said as the sense

........ ......„.„ ,
of the... house appeared to be against his proposition, he would
not divide the house.

The motion was consequently negatived.
Mr. T. PARKER then moved, as an amendment, that the
house should resolve itself into committee on the bill that

day six months

Mr. GRIMSDITCH seconded the motion, which was also
supported by General Johnson, and opposed by Mr. W.
Miles.

Mr. BROTHEItTOII said that his constituents had agreed
to a petition against this bill, and he quite agreed with them
that it was unsuited to the manufacturing districts. If, how-
ever, the corn laws were repealed, he .would be then content
to throw the people on their resources ; but he was unwilling
to do this while the landed interest had a law in existence for
their own protection.

Sir A. DALYMPLE said he had voted against the second
reading of the bill, believing it calculated to render the exist-
ing law more stringent on the poor. As, however, the noble
lord had given way on some points, and as the principle of
the bill was not in question on the.presen roeasion, he should
not support the amendment, hoping th ._
ments might be marl,.

ry great aulen

m the committee.
opposed the amendment.
observations from Sir C. DOUGLAS,
IiEY said that the bill was not fit to be amended
,
—that it had not enough of merit to render it worthwi while
enter upon its amendment. The noble lord (Lord J.
sell) had talked of the metropolitan boroughs sending mis-
chievous demagogues into that house, and the noble lord
was quite right, for he believed that the members for those
boroughs had invariably supported, or very nearly so, the
government of the noble lord.
Mr. FITZROY considered the bill to be unjust, cruel, and
unnatural ; but as it might be amended in committee, he
would oppose the amendment.
The house divided, and the amendment was negatived by
a majority of 247 to 51.
-inne ..house, then went into committee.
On
ttre first clause, which related to the extension of the

Mr. SLAN
After a fel,
Mr. WA K.