The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-05-25 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY

Several members having addressed the house on the
Poor Law Bill, _

Lord JOHN RUSSELL called upon the house to consider
the state of the law before the Poor Law Amendment Act
was passed, and the abuses it was intended to reform, and
also to reflect how far that law was liable not only to the
charge of corrupting the labourer, and of destroying pro-
perty, but also to the very objections urged against the
Poor Law Amendment Act itself. He then referred to
the report of the Andover Union Committee, and re-
minded the house that on a former occasion he had stated
that if a. vote of censure upon the Poor Law Commis-
sioners should be proposed, in conformity with the reso-
lutions of that report, he should feel it to be his duty to
resist it. -It had not been thought prudent to propose any
such vote of censure, and therefore without entering fur-
ther into the subject-matter of that report, he would
merely say, that having general confidence in the
honour, integrity, and attainments a
ttainments of the present board
of Poor Law Commissioners, he was ready to consider
that they had acted with discretion requiring. the resig-
nation of their two Assistant Commissioners, Mr. Parker
and Mr. Day. It had been proved, in the Poor Law
Board there was such a division of opinion,ftvechpao wish to
set the Assistant Commissioners against
Commissioners, that it was almost impossible thateareoLauw
'ion should not occur among them. On that point, if
could believe Mr. Chadwick to be right, he must admite
that it was the duty of both the late and of the present
Government to dismiss all the Poor Law Commissioners.
It had been said that there was a wish on the part of the
Poor Law Commissioners to conceal the abuses of the
law under which they acted, and a resistance to check the
abuses brought under their notice by their • Assistant
Commissioners. • Now, he had read through the evidence
taken by the Andover Committee, and had found no proof,
nor anything like proof, of such an assertion. He then
adverted to the speech of Mr. Ferranti, but dismissed it
very laconically, with the remark that his observations as
to the eifecpof the existing law were so extravagant and
tuifonndolir that it was quite unnecessary to give any reply
to them. He then came to the question, whether the
{clan contained in the present bill deserved the sanction of

the house ; and that question led to another—" Shall•we
have any central control at all, or shall we let the present
board expire and leave each union to administer the Poor
Law of Queen Elizabeth, and the Poor Law Act of 1834,
according to their individual will and pleasure ?" Now
there was a general admission from all quarters of the
house, that there ought to be a central control to prevent,
on the one hand, the oppression of the paupers, and on
the other, those abuses of the law which, though appa-
rently friendly, were really inimical to the paupers. It
being agreed, then, that there should be some central con-
trol, it was necessary to consider next what kind of con-
trol it should be. As it had become necessary that the
Secretary of State should be cognizant of all the proceed-
ings of the machinery which he directed, it might be as
well to consider whether it might not be adviseable that
some of the Poor Law Commissioners should be in Par-
liament to defend their own doings.
Mr. DISRAELI observed, that a fallacious assumption
ran through the speeches of all the supporters of this bill.
Every speaker said that a central control was necessary,
and then inferred that that central control must be a me-
tropolitan control. Now he had never challenged the
propriety of exercising a control over the parochial autho-
rities; but he thought that that control had better be
vested in the supreme authority in each county than in the
hands of a minister residing in the metropolis. He there-
fore, wished the house, in dividing, to recollect that not
one principle of the Poor Law was now at stake, and that
the question was simply one between county and metro-
politan control. He then proceeded, as a member of the
Andover Committee, to vindicate the resolutions to which
he had agreed from the sarcasms of Lord J. Russell. He
had heard Mr: Chadwick, the secretary of the Poor Law
Commission, denounced by Sir F. Lewis, himself an ex-
Poor Law Commissioner and the father of an existing
Poor Law Commissioner, as one of the most dangerous
and unscrupulous individuals with whom he had ever been
brought into contact ; and he had heard the same gentle-
man described by Lord J. Russell as the cause of all the
mischief which the Poor Law had suffered ; and he there-
fore wished to know whether Mr. Chadwick still remained
the secretary of that commission ? If he did so remain,
perhaps the noble lord would inform the house whether
Mr. Chadwick was the depository of some mighty secret
of state which made it incumbent upon the Government
to retain him in office ? Turning from Mr. Chadwick, he
next proceeded to vindicate the moderate and not intem-
perate amendment which he had proposed in the commit-
tee to this effect,—that the proceedings of the Poor Law
Commissioners were irregular and arbitrary ; that they
were not in accordance with the statute which gave them
existence; and that they were calculated to shake public
confidence in the administration of the Poor Law. He
had no occasion to bring any other evidence of the truth
mprulment than theb;"
of -tion in that a

.ne
posed by the Government : for if confidence were not,
shaken in the administration of the Poor Law, why had
this bill been introduced to change the constitution of the
Commission. He then adverted to the gross injustice
with which Mr. Day had been treated by the Poor Law
Commissioners • and after exposing the sophistry with
which Lord John Russell bad endeavoured to palliate
that injustice, concluded by saying that he should vote
against this bill because it was calculated to perpetuate
that metropolitan central control which had already in-
flicted great mischief and excited great discontent among
various classes of our countrymen.

Mr. P. BORTHWICK then proposed the adjournment of
the debate.

Lord J. RUSSELL hoped that the debate would finish
that evening.
Mr. FERRAND observed, that that was quite out of the
question, after the very extraordinary speech made by his
lordship, to which Mr. Wakley and other members in-
tended to reply. He then called upon Lord John Russell
to explain what he meant by saying that he (Mr. Ferrand)
had made " unfounded" statements too extravagant to
require a reply.
Mr. C. VILLIERS observed, that when Mr. Ferrand as-
serted that " the Poor Law Commissioners had sent down
agents to buy up the people in the agricultural districts
and to sell them as slaves in the manufacturing districts,"
and when he said that " the masters of workhouses were
murdering children," he had uttered unfounded assertions.

Lord J. RUSSELL observed, that those were the state-
ments in Mr. Ferrand's speech which he called unfounded.
In using that phrase he meant no attack on Mr. Ferrand's
character. It was for that gentleman to make what
statements he pleased to the house; but when he made
statements so marked with passion, and asserted that the
Poor Law Commissioners were monsters who murdered
children, he (Lord J. Russell) was not using more than
the ordinary privilege of debate in designating such state-
ments as unfounded.

Mr. FERRAND declared, that he had never used either
of the expressions attributed to him by Lord J. Russell
and Mr. C. Villiers.

After some further Conversation the debate was again
adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY

In answer to Mr. Barclay, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER stated that it was not his intention to pro-
pose the repeal of such portions of the sugar in Distil-
lers Bill, as prohibited distillation at the same time from
sugar and grain. He was glad to be able to report that
three large distilleries, one in Glasgow, another in Dub-
lin, and a third in London, had commenced working from
sugar, which proved that there was not the practical dif-
ficulties existing, with respect to the change in the article
distilled from, or complying with the conditions of the
act, as had been suggested.

Sir G. GREY, in liiiswer to Mr. Ferrand, on the subject
of the alleged sale of the body of a deceased pauper at
Sheffield, stated that no representation had reached the
home office on the subject, or it would immediately have
been attended to, neither did he believe the statement
that any such report was current in the town in question.
Lord MORPETH, in answer to Mr. Mackinnon, replied
that he despaired of being enabled to bring in a bill on the
subject of intermural interments, in the present, but had
confident anticipation that he should be able to deal with
it in the next session of Parliament.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND, in answer to
Mr. Stafford O'Brien, expressed it as his opinion that the
county constituency of Ireland would no.; be disqualified
from exercising the elective franchise, by receiving relief
under the Poor-law Bill, and with respect to borough con-
stituencies, there was no provision on the subject made in.
the Reform Act, which no doubt arose from the circum-
stance that at the time that act passed there was no poor-
law for Ireland. The only analogous case was that of re-
ceiving support from charities, and that had been held as
not tending to disqualification.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated his in-
tention of proposing a further vote for the relief of Irish
distress, on Friday the 28th inst.
Mr. HUME gave notice of his intention, immediately
after the recess, of bringing the affairs of Portugal, as con-
nected with British interference in the Tagus, under the
notice of the house.

The adjourned debate on the Poor-law Administration
Bill was resumed by Mr. Borthwick, who was followed by
Mr. Miles, Mr. Escott, Mr. Wakley, Mr. Villiers Lord
J. Manners, and Sir J, Graham, when the house divided,
the second reading being carried by a majority of 176,
there appearing 218 in favour of, and 42 against the mo-
tion.

The Prosecution and Seduction Bill was read a first
time.

The report of the Passengers' Act Amendment Bill
originated some discussion, after which the house ad-
journed to Friday next, the 28th inst.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

EPSOM RACES.—TuEsnA'

The CRAVEN STAKES of 10 sous. each were won by
Mr. Mostyn's Crozier, (Kitchener,) beating Mr. Greville's
Spider, Mr. Worley's Wintonia, and five others.
The WOODCOTE STAKES Of 10 sovs. each, with 100
added, were won by Mr. B. Green's Flatcatcher, (E.
Edwards,) 1: eating Mr. Payne's Woodcraft, Mr. Neville's
Dover, and eleven others.
The MANOR STAKES of 5 sovs. each, with 40 added,
were won by Mr. R. J. Shafto's Captain Pepper, (Myers,)
beating Mr. Minor's Carissima Mr. Minor's Bretwalda,
and two others.

WEDNESDAY

The DERBY STAKES of 50 sovs. each, h ft, for three-year-
olds ; colts, Bst 71b ; fillies, Bst 21b ; the second horse
to receive 100 sovs. out of the stakes; the winner to
pay £lOO towards the police regulations of the course.
188 subs.

Mr. Pedley's Cossack, by Hetman Platoff (Templeman 1
Mr. Bouverie's War Eagle . W. Boyce 2
Lord Eglinton's Van Tromp (J. Marson 3
The following also started, but were not placed
Conyngham, Red Hart, Limestone, Mr. Martin, Halo,
Nottingham, Wanota, Oxonian, Planet, Crozier, Gabbier,
Signet, Clarendon, Resolution, Delorame, Montpensier,
Ahwal, Liberator, Chainbearer, The Questionable, Bing-
ham, Epirote, Bellerophon, Good Coin, The Admiral,
IVlirmillo, Pantomime, (Retort colt,) Christopher, and
Old Port.

The CAREW STAKES of 5 sovs. each, with 30 added,
were won by Mr. Goddard's Ibrahim Pasha, (Whitehouse,)
beating Mr. O'Brien's Conceit, and six others.
The POLESDON STAKES of 5 sous. each, with 30 added,
were won by Mr. Lynch's Lebanon, (W. Abdale,) beating
Mr. Drinkald's Mistress, Mr. Dawson's Bretwalda, and
another.

The BURGH STAKES of 5 sots. each, with 30 added,
were won by Lord Chesterfield's Mainbrace, beating Mr.
Theobald's Chemise, Mr. Hope's Bletsoe Lass, and four
others.