successful Machiavelian calumnies-of the that their conduct was not in accordance Commissioners' own Secretary." The with the statute under which they were consequence is, that Mr. Chadwick re-appointed to act. It is only necessary to mains the Secretary of the Poor Law indicate the grounds on which that part of Commissioners to this moment. Now, I the resolution was proposed. I found by am quite willing to admit that Mr. Chad- that statute that the Commissioners were wick is a man of ability. His productions bound to keep a record of their proceedare of great public use. His work upon ings. I found it was their duty to put on the sanitary state of the country we all record every letter they received, and every recognise the value of; but the most cu- answer they sent. They were bound, rious thing is that the only place where also, to enter a variety of details on their he appears to have been least industrious minutes in regard to the business of the was in his own office the secret re- board. The evidence laid daily before the cesses of his own cabinet. Let us re- Committee proved that they had not kept member, when we are called upon to deli- a record of those proceedings, that they berate upon this subject, the circumstances had not transacted their business in acunder which the Committee acted. When cordance with the terms of the statute, but charges are made against the Andover that a single individual, sitting in his priUnion Committee, I am bound to remind vate room, had assumed to act as the the House of the circumstances under board, and had given it out that the board which we deliberated, and the circum- had been duly convoked, whereas he was stances to which the Prime Minister re- merely scribbling memoranda at his own ferred as those under which he brought desk. Was I not then justified in proposforward this measure. The hon. Membering the second part of the resolution? for Petersfield has put a copy of the re- What was the third part? That their solution into my hand, which was passed conduct was such as to shake public confiby the Committee. I should not have dence in the administration of the Poor referred to this circumstance if the noble Law. Is it necessary for me to bring any Lord had not made a personal reference evidence upon that point? Here is my evito myself. I will mention the terms of dence-here is the present Bill of Her Mathe resolution which I myself moved in jesty's Government. Is it not brought forthe Committee :ward, as the language of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government would lead us to infer, in consequence of the Andover Committee? Is it so? If their conduct has not been such as to shake public confidence, why change the mode of administration?-why make the confession made by the noble Lord early in the Session, and repeated to-night? The resolution which the Committee agreed to then was not an intemperate but a moderate resolution, founded upon facts, adopted upon weighing the evidence, and after summing up the result of our deliberations. No man could read the evidence or proceedings without arriving at the same opinion; as is proved by the fact that no one has, but by loose assertion, challenged the accuracy of those conclusions and the justice of that result. I ought to say one word of one gentleman. Why, I would say as to that one individual, that I believe he has no Friend in the House except myself; and no man ever had his name brought forward in so unnecessary and wanton a manner. The noble Lord has misunderstood the position in which that Gentleman was placed. Before I was Member for Shrewsbury, I had the honour of knowing “Resolved―That the proceedings of the Poor Law Commissioners towards Mr. Parker and Mr. Day were irregular and arbitrary, not in accordance with the statute under which they acted, and calculated to shake public confidence in the administration of the law." That was the resolution I proposed, and it was carried by a large majority. It has been said, that the resolution was brought forward without sufficient thought, and carried under feelings of excitement. I do not think it necessary for me to defend the first proposition, "that the proceedings were irregular and arbitrary.' The irregularity refers to a point of fact, and the arbitrary character of those proceedings depends upon the judgment of the country. But it is a remarkable truth that not any one Gentleman who has spoken upon the subject has contended that the proceedings were not irregular and arbitrary. Taking the case of Mr. Day particularly, they thought the proceedings arbitrary. But the noble Lord, our chairman, for whose opinion I have great deference, and for whose opinion the Committee justly had every respect, could not agree to this part of the resolution Mr. Day. I knew him as a gentleman gret and condolence. I shall state in one who was an excellent scholar, and who had word the ground on which I shall give my no fault but that of being a Whig. The vote. If I look to this Bill merely for the noble Lord seemed to speak as if an as- purpose of comparing the plan it proposes sistant commissioner was to look on his with the present system, I am not disposed appointment as only giving him an oppor- to say it is not an improvement. It may tunity of summer travel for the benefit of or it may not be so. I give the Gohis country, and as if he was not to be sur- vernment credit for having fully weighed prised if his services were no longer re- the subject, with a view to improvement. quired. The noble Lord did not seem to In a vicious system this may be an imthink an assistant poor-law commissioner provement. For that reason, I might myshould hold office de bene merito. [Lord self be inclined to vote for the second readJ. RUSSELL: I said he had not a freehold ing. I am, also, disinclined to vote against in his office.] No, nor a Prime Minister a measure brought forward by Her Mahas no freehold in his office; but he is jesty's Ministers, because I am generally not dismissed without reason assigned. All inclined to give my support to the present that Mr. Day ever complained of was, that Ministers of the Crown. But is not this, he was dismissed without reason assigned, in truth, a Bill intended to perpetuate and that he was dismissed not in a public that system of metropolitan control, which or in an official manner. Mr. Day was a I believe to be so fatal-which has been country gentleman, a county magistrate, characterized by such maladministration living on a moderate estate, though with a-which has created so much discontent large family. He published a pamphlet throughout the country? It would perbefore a reform of the Poor Laws was con-petuate, by reconstructing, that system templated by the Government. He re- which I reprobate; and for that reason I feel it to be my duty to support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. MR. BORTHWICK then moved the adjournment of the debate. LORD J. RUSSELL had hoped that after three nights' debate, the House might have finished the discussion that night. formed his own parish upon the principle of the Act of Elizabeth. It became a model parish. He described it so admirably that, having no influence, having no single friend in public life, having no Parliamentary support, but publishing a pamphlet - which seems the last desperate effort a man can make, for every one who publishes a pamphlet must do so with the MR. FERRAND could not imagine consciousness that no man will ever read how the noble Lord could expect the it he was recommended to the Govern- House to follow the course he proment of the day, which to its own credit posed after his extraordinary speech. It was then looking out for men of abilities might be the wish of Her Majesty's Gowho, to use the fashionable phrase, could vernment to put a stop to the debate. "carry out" the measure. His pam-["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen might phlet was read, and the country gentle- might cry "Oh, oh;" he heard them from man sent for. On his appointment he the benches behind Her Majesty's Minisbroke up his establishment; he became a ters; but he thought it his duty to have most zealous officer; and in consequence the question fully discussed; and he, for of his abilities he was sent to that part of one, would throw every impediment in the the United Kingdom which was stated to way. The noble Lord had alleged that be incapable of reform, namely, South many of the statements he made on MonWales. He reformed South Wales, and day were unfounded, and more particularly became consequently unpopular. In the as to the labourers from the south going course of his labours he broke his leg. into the manufacturing districts. He was three months confined to his house; noble Lord was, he considered, bound in and when he wrote stating, that notwith-honour to show that his statements were standing a compound fracture, he was willing to discharge his duties as before, he received a letter recommending him, as a friend, to send in his resignation! That is the history of Mr. Day, who, I must remind the House, brought us credentials from all the boards of guardians with which he had been connected, expressing their re The unfounded, instead of making a sweeping charge; and he asked the noble Lord now, as a Member of that House, to stand up in his place and that instant tell him what statement he had made which was unfounded? He would tell the right hon. Gentlemen opposite that his character was as dear to him as their characters were to them, and he thought he had a right to | had declared in his speech that masters of require the noble Lord to say in what way workhouses had murdered children. Such he had made any charges that were unfounded. MR. VILLIERS said, he would tell the hon. Member some unfounded charges he had made. One was, that the Poor Law Commissioners had made an arrangement by which it was said that they had bought men in the agricultural districts, and sold them in the manufacturing districts. That was one unfounded statement. Another was that the Poor Law Commissioners had put masters into workhouses who had murdered children. These were two of those statements, and there were many others of a similar character; and when the hon. Member talked of its being impossible to answer him, he thought he need not take the trouble to deny such statements as these. LORD J. RUSSELL said, the statements which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had just alluded to were part of the statements made by the hon. Member for Knaresborough which he had considered to be unfounded statements. His belief was that the Poor Law Commissioners, knowing that there were labourers in some of the agricultural counties who received very low wages-not more than 7s. a week, for themselves and their familiesand knowing that, at that time, very much larger wages were given, both to adults and to children, in the manufacturing towns, they thought it would be a benefit to the agricultural labourers that they should be informed of what were the wages in the manufacturing towns, and for that purpose they were informed, and they gave labourers the option of going there; and then the hon. Member for Knaresborough said they had been bought and sold, and treated like slaves, and turned out of the agricultural districts. When the hon. Member said he (Lord J. Russell) had attacked his character, he assured him that he had made no attack upon his character, and it was for the hon. Member to make what statements he pleased; but when he made statements so marked with passion and exaggeration as that the Poor Law Commissioners were such monsters that they took pleasure in the murdering of children, he did not think he went too far when he said that such statements were unfounded. MR. FERRAND, in explanation, observed, that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had said, that he (Mr. Ferrand) 66 an expression had never come from his lips. The noble Lord had stated, that he (Mr. Ferrand) had said that it was the Poor Law Commissioners who had murdered children. [Lord J. RUSSELL: I said delighted in the murder of children.] He begged pardon. The noble Lord had charged him with saying that the Poor Law Commissioners murdered children— that was the expression which came from the noble Lord's lips. ["No, no!"] Well, 'delighted in the murder of children.' That expression had never come from his lips. He could tell the noble Lord what he did say. He had said that certain cotton spinners in Lancashire had been in correspondence with the Poor Law Commissioners, which he had read, and in which it was proposed that agricultural labourers in the south should be sent down to the manufacturing districts, there to be "absorbed" that was the word used. He had repeated that statement on Monday night; and he could—and if the noble Lord desired it, he would-produce a Parliamentary document that would prove the fact. Debate adjourned. THE PASSENGERS' ACT AMENDMENT BILL. House in Committee on the Passengers' Act Amendment Bill. LORD G. BENTINCK said, that he had been requested by the shipping interest of Liverpool to propose some Amendments, the nature of which he would briefly explain to the Committee. The first Amendment was rendered necessary by a difference which prevailed in the mode of registering tonnage in Great Britain and America. A vessel registered at 800 tons here would be registered at only 610 tons in the United States; and, therefore, if she were to carry out passengers in proportion to her British-rendered tonnage, she would be liable to fine, and, it might be, to confiscation, according to the laws of America. The object of the first Amendment, therefore, was to assimilate the principle of registering in both countries. By his second Amendment, he proposed that fourteen feet should be allowed for each passenger, instead of ten feet, proposed by the Bill. By the American law, a child of fourteen years of age was counted as one passenger; but the Bill before the Committee proposed that two children of that age should count House resumed, and adjourned at Two o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, May 21, 1847. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1o Lincoln's Inn Rating; Se- for one passenger. That was hardly fair; and his third Amendment proposed that two children of eight years old should count as a passenger. His fourth Amendment provided that emigrant vessels should be surveyed by Government officers, and not be allowed to sail unless they were declared seaworthy. Another Amendment made it imperative upon the owners of vessels to provide convenient ladders to enable passengers to pass to and from the hold. The last Amendment would provide, that, if a ship chartered to carry emigrants should be lost, the charterers should return to each passenger his passage money, or secure him a passage in another seaworthy ship, and also such further sum, not exceeding 5l., as would be compensation for loss of time. The clause was not according to the maritime code, by which, when the ship was wrecked, the sailors lost their wages. But the case of passengers and crew was wholly different. He could understand the policy of making the crew partly responsible for the safety of the ship; but the passengers could do nothing to prevent a disaster. The noble Lord then moved the several Amendments. MR. HAWES hoped the noble Lord would not press a portion of his Amend PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Henry Berkeley, from Bristol, for Alteration of the Law of the Registration of Voters. By Mr. C. Howard, from the Counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland, for Alteration of the Law respecting Church Leases.-By Sir R. H. Inglis, from Leigh, against the Roman Catholic Bill.-By Mr. Bowes and Viscount Ingestre, from Owners and Occupiers of Land in the Counties of Durham and Stafford, in favour of the Agricultural Tenant-Right Bill- By Sir R. H. Inglis, from several places, for Regulating the Qualification of Chemists and Druggists.-By Mr. Ferrand, from John Dawson, of Moreton Banks, Bingley, for Inquiry respecting Mary Dawson.-By Mr. W. Wynn, from Llangynog, against the proposed Plan of Education. LAW OF MARRIAGE-ANSWER TO LORD MARCUS HILL appeared at the bar, and said: Mr. Speaker, in obedience to the commands of this hon. House, I have had the honour of presenting to Her Majesty the Address of this hon. House, to which Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to give this most gracious An swer: "I have received your Address relating to the Law of Marriage. My consideration shall be given to the subject to which your Address re ments; the Americans were rather hostile to emigration; but, on this side the water, he did not think it advisable to throw any additional obstacles in the way of it; he opposed the first Amendment, because it would restrict unnecessarily the number of passengers. As to the Amendment refer-fers." ring to the survey of ships to ascertain their seaworthiness, the object was better and BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY. more practically secured by the clause it- MR. BOUVERIE: Last Session he had self. With respect to the last and princi- charge of a very important Bill relating to pal Amendment of the noble Lord, he ap- the law of bankruptcy and insolvency, the proved of it, and would not offer it any object of which was to remedy some of opposition. It was the intention of the the evils of the present law which were Government, in the next Session of Par-loudly complained of by the trading comliament, to introduce a consolidated Act munity. He withdrew that Bill on the on this subject; and he, therefore, hoped understanding that the Government conthat under the circumstances the noble templated introducing some measure on Lord would consent to let the Bill proceed the subject during this Session of Parlianow, and take the discussion on the clausement, and he understood that a Bill for which he had proposed when the report was brought up. LORD G. BENTINCK would give way on the minor Amendments, but when the report was brought up he would again move the clause with respect to the survey. In the then state of the House he would not press it. Bill went through Committee. To be reported. the amendment of the law had been introduced in the other House. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) at what stage that Bill had arrived, and whether there was any reasonable prospect that it would receive the sanction of Parliament during the present Session? SIR G. GREY replied that, in accordance with the intention he had expressed on the part of the Government during the last Session, the subject to which the hon. I could point out to him. Beyond this he Member referred had received the attentive (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could consideration of the Lord Chancellor; and a Bill had been introduced by that noble and learned Lord in the other House, which he (Sir G. Grey) understood was to be referred to a Select Committee immediately after the Whitsuntide holidays. DISTILLING FROM SUGAR. MR. BARKLY reminded the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had stated to the hon. Member for Inverness-shire that it was the intention of the Excise to give all possible facilities for the use of sugar in distilleries. He understood, however, that it was not in the power of the Excise to afford such facilities as distillers required. By the present law, a period of six weeks must elapse from the discontinuance of distilling from grain to the commencement of distilling from sugar. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer-" What are the additional facilities which he intends to give for the use of sugar in distilleries, and whether it is his intention to propose during the present Session the repeal of so much of the Act of 6 Geo. IV., c. 80, as forbids all attempts to distil sugar in combination with grain, or checks the use of sugar in existing distilleries, more especially of the 44th Clause of that Act, which prohibits distillation at the same time from sugar and grain; the 45th Clause, which requires six days' notice to be given by the distiller of his intention to use sugar; and the 46th Clause, which requires an interval of one month between distilling grain and sugar, or sugar and grain separately." The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER observed, that the hon. Gentleman was correct in stating that he had said, on a former evening, that it was not the intention of the Government to bring in any measure for prohibiting the use of grain in distilleries. He could only give the same answer to the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman which he had before given to a question on the same subject from the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). What he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) undertook to do was to give every facility consistent with the existing law for the use of sugar in distillation. The Chairman of the Board of Excise had stated to a deputation from the distillers, who had waited upon him on this subject, that he would be happy to afford them any facilities consistent with the law which they not go, because, in the present state of the expenditure of the country, he felt it his paramount duty to keep up the revenue. He might state, in reply to the questions which the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Barkly) had placed upon the Notice Paper, that it was not his intention to propose to repeal any portion of the Act of Parliament which forbade distillation from sugar in combination with grain. The hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken in the statement he had made with regard to the period which was required to elapse between the use of grain and sugar in distilleries. All that was necessary was that such an interval should elapse between distillation from sugar and grain as should allow the wort made from the one to be cleared off the premises before distillation from the other was commenced. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that under the existing law the permission to distil from sugar was perfectly nugatory. He could assure the hon. Gentleman this was not the case, for there were three large distilleries in Dublin, Glasgow, and London, where distillation from sugar was now extensively carried on. THE IRISH FRANCHISE. MR. STAFFORD O'BRIEN asked the Solicitor General for Ireland, whether the fact of having received relief under the Poor Law Act since the registering disfranchised the voter ? MR. MONAHAN observed, that nothing was more difficult to answer than questions respecting electoral qualifications, as, formerly, Committees in that House-not being bound by precedent-gave the most conflicting decisions on the same points. Before the passing of the English Reform Act, some doubt existed as to whether persons receiving relief were disfranchised as electors in England; but he rather thought that if a man retained a bona fide freehold he was not disfranchised from voting because of receiving relief. In the English Reform Act, a distinction was taken between county and borough voters in this respect, for that Act expressly enacted, that no person should be entitled to register as a voter in a city or borough who should have received relief within twelve months previously to the registration; while there was no such enactment in the Act with respect to counties. In regard to Ireland, it had never been de |