The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-05-13 00:00:00

fniptriat Varlittintitt.

HOUSE OF LORDS—MoNDAY

1.11,1,
Earl Da GREY announced that IVIr. Biddulph had been
dismissed from the magistracy of Ireland.
The Marquis of NORMAN BY condemned the delay which
had taken place, and moved for the correspondence which
had taken place upon the subject of Mr. Biddulph's removal,
together with the dates of that correspondence.
Earl DR (IRBY said that the moment the subject was
brought under his notice, he had caused the necessary steps
to be taken. He had no objection to the production of the
correspondence.
The Marquis of NORMANDY then proceeded to put a ques-
tion to the Marquis of Londonderry, respecting certain
charges which he had made upon a former evening against
the magistrates of Sunderland. The noble marquis had
charged them with having used their power as magistrates for
the furtherance of party purposes, by refusing licenses for
public-houses to all conservative applicants, and he now read
resolutions agreed to by the magistrates denying the charge,
and he, therefore, called upon the noble marquis to say whe-
ther he would have the candour to withdraw a charge, the
making of which proved him to be unfitted to hold the office
to which he had recently been appointed, that of lord-
lieutenant of the county of Durham.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY examined the documents
read by the Marquis of Normanby, and denied that they
were sufficiently explicit to justify his withdrawing the
charge. He commented on the personality with which the
noble marquis had attacked him, and looked upon that attack
as an assault upon the government through so humble an
individual as himself. He could not help attributing this
attack upon him to the fact, that he was the only individual
who had raised the standard against the influence and domi-
nation of whiggery in the county of Durham.
The Duke of WELLINGTON defended the appointment of
the Marquis of Londonderry to the lord-lieutenancy of the
county of Durham as one of the most proper that could
have been made.

The motion was then agreed to, and their lordships ad-
journed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY

Mr. Rommel( moved the resumption of the adjourned de-
bate on the motion for the appointment of a committee of
privileges for the purpose of inquiring into certain alleged
compromises which had been entered into respecting some
election petitions.
Major BERESFORD hoped that the house would agree to
the appointment of the committee, and that the inquiry would
be a searching one. It was true, as was said by the hen.
!member for Bath, that " rumours were abroad," and those
rumours went the length of saying that members were re-
turned to that house without a proper qualification, and that
their conduct in the house was sometimes governed by private
ill feeling rather than by feelings of patriotism.
Mr. WYNN thought the hon. member for Bath ought to
bring forward a specific charge in each particular case, and
then each case might be inquired into upon its own merits
alone.

Mr. WARD said, that after what had already taken place
lipon this subject, the house was bound to grant the inquiry.
fie had no party feeling to gratify, his only object being to
see a system destroyed which was itself destroying the mo-
rality of the country.
Sir R. Nous said, that this could not be considered as
a party question, inasmuch as an equal number of gentlemen
on each side of the house were implicated. Still, he could
not understand how Mr. Roebuck was to proceed. Did he
intend that the parties should criminate themselves, or did
he mean to obtain the evidence of informers ? The latter
would be the practice of the Old Bailey. He would suppose,
however, that some hon. members of the house were examined
before the committee, and that they refused to answer—what
would be the result ? They could not be compelled to an-
swer ; and believing, therefore, that the appointment of the
committee could lead to no beneficial termination, he would
oppose the motion.
The house was about to divide, when

Lord PALMERSTON was surprised that her Majesty's Go-
vernment had not expressed its opinion upon a subject of
such importance. For his own part he could not support
the motion. Election petitions were investigated at the ex-
pense of the parties, and there was no breach of the privileges
of the house if they chose to suspend the proceedings whenever
they thought proper. If a committee were appointed to in-
quire into cases of bribery, with a view to such a bill as that
formerly proposed by Lord J. Rnssell, there might be a stop
put to that wholesale system of bribery which had exerted
itself to such a shameful extent during the last general elec-
tion. However reluctant he might be to vote for the adoption
of the ballot, he would do so should Government refuse its
assistance to a proper remedy.
Sir R. PEEL said that even though the Government should
refuse its assent to any particular measure which might be
proposed to remedy the evil, the noble lord would hardly be
justified on that account in voting for the ballot, which he
virtually admitted was bad in principle. He would himself
oppose the ballot, because he thought it would lead to an
increase of bribery. With respect to the motion of Mr.
Roebuck, he thought it too indefinite to be acceded to. There
could be no doubt but that such compromises had taken
place, and that, in fact, the practice of making them was of
old existence, and had not hitherto been thought to involve
the parties in criminality. A great deal of course, depended
upon the circumstances of each case ; and Mr. Roebuck
should have made his charges in a more definite shape ; in
which cue, if they involved a breach of the priviliges of the
house, it would be for its own honour bound to enter upon
the inquiry.
Lord J. RUSSELL was of opinion that Mr. Roebuck should
have introduced a hill upon the subject similar to the one he
had himself introduced last year, and which was sent up to
the House of Lords. If the government would give him its
support he would again frame such a measure, and he had no
doubt of its effecting the object. He would prefer, however,
that Sir R. Peel would himself introduce such a measure on
his own responsibility.
Sir R. PEEL said that the noble lord had more time than
he bad to frame such a measure ; in doing which, however,
be would be happy to lend him every assistance in his power.
Mr. HUME hoped Mr. Roebuck's motion would be acceded
to, with a view to the thorough investigation of the system.
Mr. LINDSAY supported the motion for inquiry; as did
also Mr. MUNTZ and Mr. PLUNIPTD.E.
Lord STANLEY took precisely the same view of the motion
as that taken by Sir lt. Peel, and said the allegations in the
motion of Mr. Roebuck were too vague and uncertain to be
acted upon. He would go any just lengths to punish bribery,
and put a stop to it, but he thought that this object would be
better effected by an act of parliament than by a committee
of inquiry.
M. gsTim 'Omitted that the -charges were not sufficiently
distinct, but be hoped they might not on th.t account be de-
prived of the opportunity of getting at facts upon which to
found some effective measure calculated to meet the assent
of both houses of parliament.

Mr. Rozaucic said his object was not to make personal at-
tacks, but to brand the system. He would, however, make
his motion distinct and specific, and would, to-morrow move
for a bill of indemnity for all witnesses to be examined, with-
out which his committee would be useless. That bill might
receive the sanction of both houses within the week, and
then they could go properly to work.
A proposition to exempt Lewes from the inquiry led to
some discussion, but the proposition was ultimately aban-
doned.

Mr. ROEBUCK altered his motion so as to meet the objec-
tion of Sir It. Peel, and it was then agreed to without a di-
_,_.

The report of the income tax bill committee was then
brought up.
Mr. B. Wool) moved a clause to the effect that a man pos-
sessed of landed property, and who was also in business,
might be allowed to deduct his losses by trade from his in-
come by his land, and that he should only be called upon to
pa the tax upon the balance.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed;the clause
as ealetdated to open a wide door to fraud.
After some discussion the clause was negatived by a ma-
jority of 110 to 66.

Mr. GILL moved several clauses with a view to capitalise
all incomes not derived from landed or funded property, and
to charge five per cent, on such capital, as the groundwork
of the income-tax. On a division the clauses were lost by a
majority of 183 to 36.

Sir R. INi:it's drew attention to his former suggestion,
that the first £l5O of income should in all cases be exempted
from the tax.

Sir R. PEEL said that he would take a future opportunity
of showing the right hon. baronet that, if he agreed to his
motion, it would abstract so large a portion of the revenue
to be derived from the tax that it would not be safe to adopt
it.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed, and to be read
a third time on Friday. _

The house then prOceeded to the other orders ofithe day

HOUSE OF LORDS.-TUESDAY

Lord BROUGHAM moved the second reailing of his bill
for the prevention of bribery, by giving power to committees
to give indemnity to witnesses examined before them. On
the understanding that the discussion should be taken on
the motion for going into committee, the bill was read a
second time.

Lord FFOItD of Chudleigh withdrew his motion re-
specting Catholic soldiers in India, after which their lord-
ships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY.
Mr. P. How Ann moved a new writ for the borough of
Nottingham, in the room of Sir G. Larpent, who had ac-
cepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
Itotoucx submitted to the house that the allegations
which he had made, and into which an inquiry was to be
ans.tituted, were sufficient to warrant the suspension of the

Mr.
v i.Gotisosr spoke in favour of the issue of the writ.
Attu was of opinion that, under the circumstances,
the writ sbi,ould not be issued.
Sir R. ritim a •
house
havin were i said it would be somewhat inconsistent if the
after
Immediately to issue a writ for a new election,
g so recently determined that an inquiry should
0 the circumstances connected with the last
etalekcteipolna. lace
nit
Sir R. I.NGLIS coil
ing the writ. ld see no sufficient grounds for suspend-
Mr. WYNN was of a
suggestion thrown out by lir. vi, , ,
different oninion but approved of a
committee should be instrc; ood, to the effect
that the
ham first. d to take the case of Notting-
After some discussion, Mr, p u
his motion to a division. • ovrard declined to press
Mr. RognucK then gave notice that he woulde introduce
a bill to indemnify witnesses examined before the committee. RUSSELL gave notice, thhilaittoon Friday he
Lord J .
Prevent bribery at
would move fur leave to bring in a
.. ring
elemr
cti
it
o.ns.EDINGTON moved for leave to b n a bill to
' i
prevent Sudbury from sending members to Parliamenthenceforth. I
hon. gentleman entered into a
detail of
The
the transactions at the last election, which he contended
established so fully the corrupt character of the constituency
to render it unfit to retain the pri,;,e
of that borough as
of sending representatives to the House of Commons. -
nded the motion.
Sir J. GLADltzomoicseccorosn,
tended that only one class of voters
Col. Ri; were at all tainted with bribery.
in Sudbury, the weave
The motion was then agreed to.
On the order of the day
being
read for the house resolving
.
into committee upon the new tariff,
Sir B. PEEL then rose to move the order of the day for the
He
Customs' Acts.
had at least enabled
committee on the regretted the delay in
but it
the consideration of the
tariff;
parties affected to make such representations as they deemed
necessary for the protection of their interests. Those repre-
sentations, when reasonable, had received the attention of
•
government, however small the political influence of the par-
ties urging them : where representations had been made
without reason, no political influence had prevailed with the
government to give way to them. The great objects of him-
self and his colleagues had been to abolish Prohibition, by
on raw
reducing prohibitory duties; and to reduce the duties
By these
materials, and on materials partly manufactured. . , .n
means he hoped to diminish the general expense of livin, 1
' le would
this country; not, indeed, that any individual erne
be so cheapened as to afford any great relief, but that, on the
aggregate of consumption, the relief would be considerable ;
and therefore it was that the government bad made its redtic-
tions on a great variety of articles, so as to give to almost
every one of those classes which might inevitably suffer from
one or more of the reductions, a compensation upon others.
For instance, the reduction of the duty on various kinds of
seed might, by letting in a supply from abroad, impair the
profits of particular dealers ; but the benefit thereby con-
ferred upon agriculture in general would be an important
one. Again, in respect of furniture-woods, the high duties
had greatly discouraged the industry of cabinet-makers here,

• and induced importations of foreign furniture. He trusted
that the reduction of duty would establish an export trade
in that manufacture, and lead to the extensive use of ma-
hogany in some branches of ship-building to which it was pecu-
liarly applicable. Next, as to foreign ores ; for example, cop-
per. At present that metal was smelted abroad, and cop-
per could there be sold, and applied to the sheathing of
vessels and to other purposes, at rates much below those at
which the same objects could be executed in England, not-
withstanding our coal and our manufacturing advantages.
Spermaceti and other whale oils were important articles in
our manufactures, and it was now proposed to reduce the
duties upon them, because whale oil had been 100 per cent.
dearer in this country than in the United States, which had
manufactures extensively consuming this article and success-
fully competing with ours. He reminded the house of Mr.
Deacon flume's dictum, that this country having; plenty of
untaxed iron and plenty of untaxed coal, wanted only plenty
of untaxed wood to give ample employment to her industry;
and this was the principle on which government now pro-
posed the reduction in the duties on timber. He now came
to articles of foreign manufacture, on which it was contem-
plated so to reduce duties that they should in no case exceed
the maximum of 20 per cent. It was said that such a reduc-
tion, unless accompanied with a repeal of the corn laws, was
a great injustice to the British operative. But, in fact, there
had been, as the amount of duties in this very week evinced,
a very great reduction in the duties on grain. Salt provi-
sions, too, which had been hitherto under a total prohibition,
would, under the new system, be admitted at a duty of about
a penny a pound. So, as to live animals, about which he
trusted he should be able to make a fully satisfactory expla-
nation. So likewise as to fish, particularly the fish in which
the poor were most interested—namely, herrings. The Irish
peasant now paid 20s. per barrel; henceforth he would get
that barrel from Norway for 10s. ; or would procure her-
rings off his own coast, by means of that improved craft
which the reduced duty on timber would enable him to
obtain there. The duties were also to be reduced on the im-
portation of potatoes, rice, and hops ; on the last of which
articles the reduction of duty would be from £8 Ils. to
£4 10s. He trusted, therefore, that a full disposition had
been proved on the part of government to lower the prices
of those articles of food which are principally consumed by
the poor. He exposed the error commonly prevalent about
the comparative cheapness of living in the great manufactur-
ing towns of the continent, where, although food was indeed
produced cheaply, the workman had always to buy it dear,
by reason of the octroi duties payable at the gates of every
city. He then argued as to the straw-plait and other manu-
factures, that under the present extent of smuggling as in.
&Iced by high duties, there was in actual practice no pro-
tection at all. Now, he came to the great question touching
the importation of live cattle. He had been strongly pressed
to defer to the apprehensions entertained on this subject ;
but he believed it to be a groundless panic. Advertisements
had been published for supplying English towns through a
firm at Hamburgh with meat at 3d. a pound, and people had
been frightened by those offers into selling their cattle at a
sacrifice. If they had waited to inquire, they would have
found that no such firm existed at Hamburgh, and that meat
in that city itself was at 6d. a pound. He would not say
that there would be no reduction in the price of meat—there
would be some; and some there ought to be, for the price of
meat in England was now too high. The influx of cattle from
Scotland and Ireland by steam, within the last 15 years had
been immense; yet the price of meat had still gone on
increasing. All this, it must be remembered, went to
swell the navy estimates. The meat consumed by Green-
wich Hospital alone cost £4,000 more in 1841 than in 1835.
The chief objection made against the intended admission of
cattle was, that the duty was proposed to be uniform per
head, on the fat as well as the lean. Now, the admission of
the lean cattle was of course an advantage to the grazier,
whose business was to buy them for fatting ; and so far there
was a clear benefit to• one important class of agriculturists,
which benefit would be diminished if lean cattle of a large
size were made to bear a heavier duty than lean cattle of a
small size. But now as to the fat cattle. The great protec-
tion on fat cattle was not amount of duty, but the length and
roughness of the voyage : no fat ox could ever across the Bay
of Biscay. France, however, was nearer, and the agricul-
turists feared an influx from her shores. But France, for
many years, instead of exporting cattle, had, on the balance,
been importing them, and the price of all sorts of meat had
been rising throughout that country. He showed that the
danger was equally chimerical of importation from Belgium,
Holland, Germany, and the Prussian League. England bad
another security in the quality of her meat. So great was
its superiority, that he did not despair of seeing England an
exporter of that article. He was asked, why not impose the
duty by weight instead of per bead ; He would answer fairly
that he wished to have meat somewhat cheaper in London;
but still the increase of our population, and the scarcity of
continental stock, gave a complete security against any great
diminution of price. We are exporting horses even now ;
and he saw no reason why we should not hereafter export
other cattle likewise. On the whole, the fullest communica-
tion and consideration had strongly confirmed the govern-
ment in their intentions as to the duty upon cattle. He
would not revive the discussion on the corn question ; that
he considered decided by parliament ; but at the proper time
he was prepared to state the reasons why the government did
not consider the general principles of free trade (which they
fully admitted) as applicable to the present state of the su-
gar and timber questions. They had endeavoured to act in
the spirit of Mr. Huskisson, and to do as much general good,
with as little individual hardship, as possible. Even for in-
dividuals, they trusted the measure would provide compensa-
tion ; and they believed that for the people at large the bene-
fit would be extensive. He regretted that other nations had
not entered into their views, and he had reserved some sub-
jects for arrangement with them ; but let them take what
course they might, it would still be our interest to buy cheap
and sell dear. The day would come when those nations also
would see their interest; their perseverance in high duties
would be met by that inevitable corrective—the smuggler;
and the example of England, contrasted with that of states
pursuing opposite principles, could hardly fail of ultimate
effect, and of reciprocal benefit.
Mr. LABOUCHBRE said that the right hon. baronet had,
for the most part, addressed his observations to his own
friends rather than to his political opponents, no doubt justly
thinking that it was from the former that he was most likely
to meet the most serious objection. For his own part, he
approved of the proposition of the government, which was
consistent with the principles of those which the late govern-
ment would have proposed had they remained in office. He
must say, however, that the right hon. baronet had dealt with
the corn-laws in a very different spirit from that with which
he had dealt with the tariff; and without denying that there
was much that was valuable in the latter, he had no hesitation
in asserting that the measures of the late government would
have proved more beneficial, because of the bold ground which
they proposed to take with respect to the corn-laws and sugar
duties.

Mr. D'IsnAELI contended that the whits had no claim to

the paternity of the principles of free trade.
Mr. HUME said that he was told five-and-twenty years
ago that he would destroy the country if his free-trade prin-
ciples were acted upon, and yet those very principles were
now being carried out by Sir R. Peel. ITe was delighted to
find that free-trade principles were to be the order of the
day, and that the right hon. baronet was turning his majo-
rity in the house to so good an account as he seemed to be
doing in carrying his new tariff through Parliament.
Mr. GLADSTONE denied that the late Government could
fairly claim the paternity of those commercial changes; but
he thought it was a waste of the public time to be entering
into disquisitions of this kind instead of endeavouring to
carry out a measure which all parties believed to be beneficial.
Mr. E. B. ROCHE said, that, when be looked to the de-
tails of the tariff, he felt bound to say that he believed it
would be productive of great injury to Ireland.
Mr. G. PALMER disapproved of the new tariff, and said
that if he had stated on the hustings that these propositions
were to be brought forward, and that he would support them,
he would not have numbered 50 votes. He was opposed to
the abrogation of that system of protection under which this
country had acquired all its superiority. The hon. gentle-
man then complained that the Duke of Wellington and Sir
R. Peel had more than once disappointed the confidence
reposed in them by the country.
Colonel SIBTHORP contended that the speech of Sir R.
Peel was replete with ingenuity, subtlety, and fallacy.
Major VIVIAN moved for any additional details which
may have been supplied by Mr. Meek to the government,
relative to the importation of agricultural produce, salt pro-
visions, &c., or any passage or passages which may have been
suppressed.
Lord WORSLEY seconded the motion.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that there had been no suppression
of information, though the name of a gentleman had been
concealed at his own request, he having given information
as to the prices of provisions at Hamburg. He objected to
the motion, not only because no information was suppressed,
but also because it rested with the government to judge what
portion of such reports should be placed before parliament,
with a view to the public service.
Mr. M. Arrwoon supported the motion, because long ex-
perience had taught him that no reliance should be placed
upon mere abstracts of reports. The whole of the materials
upon which the government had formed its opinion should
be communicated to the house. He thought if butchers'
meat was now dear, the evil would remedy itself, as it had
done upon former occasions, without the adoption of any
such measures as the one now proposed.
Sir It. PEEL said, that with respect to this motion there
must have been a gross breach of confidence somewhere ;
but, at all events, every information contained in Mr. Meek's
report was fairly given, except a suggestion as to the mode
of making contracts, which it would not be for the service of
the public to communicate.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought it would be wrong to communi-
cate the name of the party giving the communication, but be
thought the statistical information ought not to be withheld,
nor ought Mr. Meek's inferences, drawn from the prices at
Hamburg. to be kept back.
Sir G. GREY supported the motion for the production of
the paper, and said its refusal would be a dangerous pre-
cedent, when that refusal was only supported by the asser-
tion that " we give you as much of it as we think useful for
you."
Lord STANLEY said the paper moved for was absolutely
valueless, for the whole of the information contained in it
was given. The only passages suppressed were the name of
a gentleman who did not wish it to be known, and a sugges-
tion as to the mode in which his own departmenk—the Victu-
alling-office—should be conducted. If this information were
to be given a most dangerous precedent would indeed be
given.
Mr. SHELL said it was a worse precedent to produce to the
house a document as perfect which was now admitted not to
be so. It was, to say the least of it, a suppressio vent, if not
an assertio falsi.
Mr. MUNTZ said he was inclined to think the document of
some value from seeing so many ministers anxious to pre-
vent its production.
Mr. W. CHRISTOPHER opposed the motion.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL supported the motion.
Mr. H. LAMBTON could not support a motion grounded
upon a gross breach of confidence. He thought the house
ought to know from whence the hon. member obtained his
information, or else to negative the motion.
Lord SANDON asked Dr. Bowring if the government had
printed his reports without suppressing any portion of them ?
Mr. MILES hoped that in order to satisfy the country the
government would lay the documents before the house, but in
reasons
saying this he had no doubt whatever that they had already
laid before the house every information they contained.
Mr. C. Woon said that in Dr. Bowring's reports parts had
bee
suppressed, but the fact of the suppression, with the
which led to it, had been communicated to the house.
of
After a few words from Mr. F. SHAW,
said that the party from whom he received
the only page
the document he possessed was in no way
connected with the e
government—was guilty of no breach of
confidence—and he believed it was obtained entirely through
the carelessness of
On a division, the motion
depart-
ments.
bysairmßaj.opriEt:Lofsa2idl9ht:),:::
one of the heads of the government
The house went into of Major Vivian was negatived
committee pro forma", after which
on
otWhe
Id proceed with the tariff on Fri-
day, and must postpone the third reading of the income tax
the introduction of his poor-law
bills until njt
GRAHAMaft er
postponedWhitsuntide.
erdonredsedr as of
teveninghed a
day,
,
amendment bill until five o'clock
after which the house proceeded to the

into the bri-
that
--.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.----w 1,,
In the course of a conversation respern:snAY'
ment of Mr. Roebuck's committee to inquireti' the appoint-
ment
at the last election at Nottingham and oth
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE gave notice that he would move
each member appointed on the committee should declare
before the Speaker that be had not been concerned in bribery
during the last or any previous election.
Sir J. GRAHAM then brought forward his bill to continue
the poor law commission for a time to be limited, and for the
further amendment of the laws relating to the poor in Eng-

land. The right hon. baronet said it was proposed by the
bill that the poor law commission should be continued for
five years, and that the Gilbert unions should be wholly abo-
lished, and the management of the poor throughout the coun-
try placed altogether under the operation of the bill. The
principles of the Gilbert Act and the new poor law were so
directly adverse to each other, that it would be absurd to allow
both to continue in operation at the same time. There was
nothing in the working of the new poor law calculated to
lead to the impression that any doubt should exist as to its
utility, particularly when the alternative was a return to the
old system, with a revival of all the evils which had been so
justly complained of. The Gilbert Act recognised the prin-
ciple of giving relief to the able-bodied labourer, which was
wholly opposed to the principle of the new poor law, and
the scattered localities in which it prevailed operated as a
serious obstruction to the proper operation of the Poor Law
Amendment Act. Although the leading principle of the
Gilbert Act was to give relief to able-bodied labourers, yet
it was a mistake to suppose that such relief was prohibited
by the Poor Law Amendment Bill, for there were no less
than seven specific exceptions to the rule against the exten-
sion of such relief. The boards of guardians also could
give out-door relief without any intei ferance to the com-
missioners, and in point of fact out of upwards of a
million of persons who had received relief during the
last year, only 159,000 had been relieved in workhouses. It
was intended to limit the number of assistant commis-
sioners to nine, and the expense of relieving the casual poor
was to be charged to the unions and not to the parishes where
they were relieved. The district schools for the education of
the children of paupers were to have a circle of operation of
not more than fifteen miles, and were to be under the super-
intendence of the Privy Council. The bill also went to mo-
dify the law of settlement, so that sick poor might be re-
lieved where they were resident; and it increased the penal
enactments in cases of bastardy, so that the man upon whom
a child was affiliated, and who refused to pay, and had no
goods upon which execution might be levied, would be liable
to three months' imprisonment. There was also a provision
for lessening the distance which paupers might have to tra-
vel in large unions in order to obtain relief. The right hon.
baronet concluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill.
After a conversation, in which several hon. members took
a share,
Lord SANDON thought, that in large towns, some dis-
cre!ion ought to be vested in the local authorities. A dis-
cretion must be exercised by some party ; and he believed,
and experience had proved, that in large towns that discretion
could not be better exercised than by persons who, from the
possession of property and community of feeling, were in-
terested in the comfort and welfare of the people. Although
he (Lord Sandon) could not hope that they would be re-
lieved entirely from the control of the Poor Law Commis-
sioners in large towns, he hoped the power of the commis-
sioners would be in a great measure limited—that it would
be restrained to some general power of supervision and re-
porting ; and that the commissioners would not be allowed
to interfere with every measure taken by the boards of guar-
dians, and to counteract all their proceedings. He hoped
the power vested in the commissioners would be consider-
ably modified. He was inclined to grant the commissioners
as short a lease of power as possible; for such extraordinary
powers were vested in them, that the country would regard
with dissatisfaction any renewal of those powers, except for a
very short period.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said, he would take the sense of the
house against the second reading of the bill.
In reply to a question from Gneral JOHNSTONE,
Sir J. GRAHAM said, lie would move the second reading
on Monday week or on Friday fortnight.
After some further remarks from Mr. HARDY and others,
leave was given to bring in the bill ; which Sir J. Graham
accordingly introduced, and it was read a first time.
Mr. C. BULLER gave notice that he would to-morrow
present a petition from Henry Warburton, Esq., praying for
inquiry into the circumstances attending the last Bridport
election, and a compromise said to have been entered into
respecting it. He gave notice that ou Friday he would make
a motion in support of its prayer.
The house then adjourned. .