quisite that some change should be made. | House; and, if there had, it is probable he The reason of the change now proposed, would have opposed it, because he told us however, had never been given by the Go- that the Poor Law Amendment Act convernment; for they denied that it was oc- tained no new principle, but was merely casioned by the conduct of the Commis- an adaptation of the old law to altered sioners; and he defied them to show that circumstances; and, that so far from there was any other reason for the change, having been concocted by a party of moexcept it were to give seats in Parliament dern political economists, who were deto two additional officers of their appoint- termined to abolish Poor Laws altogether, ment. If they introduced the amendments it was the same as the scheme proposed he had suggested, however, he believed by Sir Matthew Hale. I have therefore the that the Poor Law would work well, and be support of the hon. and learned Gentleman no longer unpopular. Under these circum- to the principle of the Act of 1834. The stances, although not agreeing in many of hon. Member for Knaresborough, I must the points which had been brought before say, entirely misrepresented the intentions the House by the hon. Member for Knares- of the authors of this Bill. He has quoted borough, he still felt it to be his duty to large extracts to show that their object vote with him in opposing the second read-was to abolish all Poor Laws; but if he ing of this Bill.

SIR G. GREY: I confess that after hearing the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House, differing as it did in all its parts from the speech of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, I was rather surprised to hear him conclude by saying that he should vote with that hon. Member. The speech of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Bankes), as well as the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, has disposed of so many of the objections of the hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill, that it will save me the trouble of replying to them. I shall only notice, therefore, a small portion of his speech.. The whole speech of the hon. Member for Knaresborough was directed against the amended Poor Law of 1834, which he described as a complete departure from the original Poor Law of the 43rd Elizabeth, and as a new and tyrannical law. He asserted that the object of the original promoters of the measure was to get rid of Poor Laws altogether. The hon. Member told us (though where he got his information I do not know) that it was the result of compact between the leaders of the two political parties in this House, that whoever should be in power the New Poor Law should never be disturbed; and maintained that it was a law which was unfit to be on the Statute-book. With respect to the principle or details of the present Bill, he never once adverted to them; but, on the principle of opposition to the existing law, he was opposed to the further progress of this Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and said truly, that no alteration of the principle of the Bill of 1834 was proposed in the Bill before the

had read the speeches throughout he would have found that the responsible advisers of the Crown disavowed the intentions which have been imputed to them. For instance, Lord Althorp, in introducing the Poor Law Bill of 1834

"Such was the doctrine of political economy. But as long as we were accessible, not only to the feelings of religion, but to the dictates of humanity, we must be convinced that the support of those who were really helpless, and really unable to provide for themselves, was not only justifiable, but a sacred duty imposed on those who had the ability to assist the distressed. It was, therefore, to the abuses of the system of Poor Laws, not to tion of those laws, not to their principle—that he objected."

the system itself-it was to the bad administra

Such was the language of Lord Althorp, in moving the Bill of 1834. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand), will not again assert that it was the design of the authors of that Bill to deprive the poor of the right to relief under a good system of Poor Laws. Their real design was that which they avowed, and which I believe they have in a great measure accomplished, namely, to cure the abuses which had crept into the administration of the Poor Law prior to 1834; abuses which have been truly described as not more injurious to property itself than to

not now to consider whether the law of 1834 should be repealed. To the repeal of that Bill the hon. and learned Gentleman would himself object. He began by saying, that he did think that a central authority was essential; but I do not exactly understand what the nature of that control is which he considers essential. In moving for leave to bring in the Bill now before the House, I stated that the Government felt that the reasons which in 1834 led Government to propose to Parliament to establish a body with a central power, remain in full force. But the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bankes) says that he objects to vesting such powers in Commissioners, and that whatever alterations or regulations they may wish to propose in the administration of the Poor Law, should have the sanction of Parliament. Now, I wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman really means that the Commissioners should be obliged in every instance where they may find it necessary, to adapt the general regulations under the Poor Law to the peculiar circumstances of particular localities? we shall be obliged to introduce a Bill to enable them to do so. Or does the

the real interests of the poor, which the law was intended to promote. The hon. Gentleman had also stated that the Act of 1834 had been productive of innumerable evils. He said, that before the House passed that law the poor of this country were a loyal, obedient, peaceful and wellconditioned body of people; that there was no want, no riots, as in 1835-no rickburnings, no agricultural labourers with 8s. a week; and, but for that law, there would have been none of the working classes now suffering the punishment of transportation for those riotous proceedings which it was found necessary to put down by the strong arm of the law. The hon. Gentleman has been accused of ignorance in the course of this debate; and I must say that, judging from his speech, he does seem to have taken a very cursory and superficial view of the subject, and that his reading seems to have been principally directed to the ephemeral pamphlets of the day; and that he has not, in fact, fully looked back to the real state of the law on which he professed to speak. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the multiplication of gaols and gaol deliveries as the effects of the law of 1834. I hon. Gentleman ask for absolute uniformithought it was admitted that the enlargement of our gaols and the increased number of gaol deliveries were two manifest improvements, and that every one rejoiced that attention had been called to those subjects. Surely the hon. Gentleman will not say that, because, by the enlargement and improvement of our prisons, they have been made more healthy and better adapted to an efficient system of penal discipline, and by the increase of gaol deliveries justice is more speedily administered, any subject of complaint exists, or any injury is done to the poor. But the hon. Gentleman would pull down our prisons, as well as repeal the Poor Law, and believes that by restoring the old Poor Law he would empty the gaols and produce a happy and contented people. Now, I need not refer to the state of things which took place under the old Poor Law; they must still be fresh in the recollection of the House. No one who knows anything of the subject can doubt that the effect was to confound the industrious and the idle, to pauperize and demoralise the people, and to reduce them to a state of dependence. The object of the Bill of 1834 was to correct these evils. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bankes), has truly stated, that we have

ty? In introducing this Bill, I said that there should be a central control; and on that point the hon. Gentleman concurred with me. Now, I thought that the great advantage to be derived from this central control was, that the persons in whom that control would be vested, would have discretionary powers to enable them, in cases which might arise from time to time, to alter the general rules, in order to suit the exigencies of particular localities. The hon. Gentleman, on the other hand, thinks that whenever any suspension or limitation of the general rules is required, a Minister of the Crown should come down to Parliament and propose a Bill applicable to some particular union or a variety of unions.` I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, when he has some further opportunity, or that some hon. Gentleman who concurs in his opinion, will inform the House by what means, or by what machinery, he proposes to effect his plan. But the hon. Gentleman told us that his great opposition to this Bill is founded upon the amount of new patronage which it will create; and although he professed a desire to confine himself to the subject, his patriotism led him to speak of the Sanitary Bill and the Prisons Bill, both which measures he denounced as schemes merely for increasing

the power of the Crown by creating new | not have the power of making laws. The patronage. Now, I wish to know how this hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded to Bill will create any new patronage? It does not propose to give employment to any more Commissioners than are at present actually employed under the Government; and, in fact, in a pecuniary point of view, the expense of those Commissioners will be less under this Bill than they are at present. The hon. Gentleman talked a good deal about the Sanitary Bill; but I will, at present, refrain from replying to his arguments on that Bill, because that question is not now under the consideration of the House. I will, however, ask whether the hon. Gentleman wishes the people to continue in filth and fever, rather than see some new officers appointed who will superintend measures essential for promoting the health of towns? The hon. Gentleman has also spoken of the Prisons Bill, and the number of inspectorships to be created under it; but he is not aware that there will be a substitute of one officer for another, and that the proposed Commissioner will take the place of a superintendent of convicts, whose office was prospectively abolished by an Act of last year. The hon. Gentleman said that he thought the Constitution was in danger, in consequence of the proposal of this Bill to have two placemen in the House; but I will remind the hon. Gentleman that, within the last few years, five or six placemen have been excluded from Parliament, so that the contemplated increase of placemen in the House cannot be quite so dangerous to the Constitution as he imagined. Not many years ago there was one Lord of the Admiralty struck off the list, and the Lieutenant General of the Ordnance. The office of Paymaster of the Forces now combined those offices formerly held by three distinct indviduals-namely, the Paymaster General of the Navy, the Treasurer of the Navy, and the Treasurer of the Ordnance. The office of Judge of the Admiralty Court has also been abolished. I want, then, to see how far the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me. He agrees with me in supporting the Act of 1834; he agrees with me that we ought to have a central authority; he also agrees with me that that central authority ought to be represented in this House. I am perfectly astonished that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not support the Bill, in place of joining with the hon. Member for Knaresborough in opposing it. But the hon. and learned Gentleman says that the central authority should

the Prisons Act, which gives a distinct
power to the visiting justices of making
rules and regulations for the government
of prisons, subject to the approbation of
the Secretary of State. Now, this power,
which the hon. Member for Knaresborough
has denounced as monstrous and uncon-
stitutional, which he has pledged all his
legal acumen and knowledge to prove-
this power was possessed by the hon. and
learned Gentleman (Mr. Bankes), as one
of the visiting justices of Dorchester gaol,
and was exercised by him on every occa-
sion, when the prison regulations were
under the consideration of the justices.
[Mr. BANKES here intimated his dissent.]
The hon. Member shakes his head; but
I assure him that such is the case. I
maintain that Parliament has the power
to delegate its authority for the purpose
of making rules and regulations, and
that, in the case of the Poor Law, it is
utterly impossible to dispense with such
a power without a code of such stringent
rules as would render it utterly impossible
to carry the law into effect. With refer-
ence to giving seats in Parliament to the
President and one of the Secretaries of the
proposed Board, I can only repeat what I
stated upon a former occasion, that when
the Act of 1834 was passed, His Majesty's
Government felt that the persons to be
entrusted with discretionary power to carry
this Act into effect should be kept aloof
from all party conflicts and popular in-
fluence. I stated, however, that expe-
rience had proved the inconvenience of this
arrangement, and that the removal of the
Poor Law Commissioners from the in-
fluence of popular opinion had a bad effect
upon them, as well as interfered with that
direct responsible discretion which in the
case of the Ministers of the Crown was
found so beneficial. I also stated that I
felt strongly that the law suffered from not
having a member of the Board in Parlia-
ment ready and able to answer any charges
with respect to its maladministration, and
to give, if not a satisfactory, at least a
full explanation of all their proceedings.
The Poor Law Commissioners have often
suffered much from not being able person-
ally to vindicate their conduct in Parlia-
ment; and therefore it is that Her Ma-
jesty's Government have proposed that
there should be an immediate personal re-
sponsibility in this House on the part of
those who are to administer the law. The

hon. Member for Dorsetshire has made | position of his hon. Friends to this Bill, as many objections to the measure; but what he considered a change in name of the does he propose to substitute for it? He persons concerned did not also constitute a has omitted to define what kind of super- change in the character of the former Bill; intendence it is which he would consider and instead of being a boon to the working more satisfactory than the system proposed classes, he believed it would only be the by the Bill. As he admits the principle, perpetuation of an injury to them. The however, his objection is surely one rather new Bill was one for the purpose of creafor the Committee than the second read- ting patronage; and it added to the public ing. There remains only one objection-expenditure, though both patronage and that this Bill is introduced so late in the expense had been denied. There was to Session. But it is really no very common be an individual called a President; but thing to hear the 17th of May spoken of there was no hint as to the amount of as being so late in the Session; and if the salary he was to have. Then there were hon. Member will consider how the last to be inspectors; but neither the number three months have been occupied-espe- nor the cost was stated: but he supposed cially with respect to the measures relat- that would be as the Government pleased, ing to Irelend-I think he will see how both as to pay and to number. He proimpossible it would have been to introduce tested against a Bill which gave a power the measure sooner with any chance of of centralization, and placed its working getting forward. But at the close of his in the hands of persons who had no local speech the hon. Member forgot his objec-knowledge of the situation, wants, or chartion about the lateness of the Session, for acter of the poor in the different districts. he called on us to withdraw this Bill, and The relief of the poor ought to be in the said there would be plenty of time to in- hands of the local authorities, who had the troduce a new one; so that the hon. best means of knowing the deserving and Member is not really of opinion that it is the undeserving. The poor would have too late. I would beg to remind him also, greater confidence in seeking relief, and that within two days of the opening of the those who supplied the funds for that reSession, my noble Friend at the head of lief would be better satisfied. If the hon. the Government stated fully what the new Member for Knaresborough-a Gentleman measure was intended to be, so that there who, without flattery, he believed had a has been ample time to consider its prin- better knowledge of the feelings and conciple. With respect to what has been said dition of the poor than any other Member as to the Andover Committee, it does not of that House-thought it his duty to diappear to me that the present is the proper vide on the question, he should vote with time to go into that subject; but at the same him. This was a Bill got up at the last time I do not find in the report of that Com- moment of the Session- -one of those ad mittee one word of objection to the principle captandum measures, such as the Health of the measure of 1834, nor do I find any- of Towns Bill-for the purpose of enabling thing there to justify what the hon. Member the right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say, for Knaresborough has said of it. In conclu- "See what a humane Government we are; sion, I have only to state my acquiescence see how anxious we are to help the poor. in the sentiments expressed by the hon. He did not believe sympathy for the conand learned Member for Bath, that there dition of the poor was the object of the is on the part both of the Government and Government in introducing this Bill. "Conthis House a wish to act with fairness and science makes cowards of us all," it was equity towards the poor, and a desire to true; but there were times when conscience promote that which is likely to be most fell asleep, and he thought most often on conducive to their interests-an object the Treasury benches. On these grounds which I think would be best attained by he doubted the honesty of the Government, an adherence to the measure of 1834. I and thought the Bill was pumped up to must, add, with reference to the Govern- create patronage, and to satisfy the longment pledging itself to exclude from office, ing expectancy of some of their friends. under the Bills, certain individuals, such a He opposed the Bill because it created new course would be highly improper, and one Commissioners; and he hated the very which no Government worthy of the con- name of Commissioners, unless they workfidence of the House would ever think of ed without pay; and because it was brought taking. in so late; for it was late, notwithstanding COLONEL SIBTHORP joined in the op- the remarks of the Home Secretary, in the