the hon. Member says that the poor of Eng-flicting accusations against the Central land are relieved on the condition of their Board? They disprove each other. Somegoing into places of confinement which he times it is said that you ought not to insist designated as gaols, without having even on vigorous conditions. that the workthe advantages of gaols. Now, what are house test ought not to be enforced in all the facts? So far from the people being cases; and then, when it is stated that a generally relieved in workhouses, I can large portion of the poor are relieved out state this fact, that for the last three years of doors, the answer is, that there is too 15 per cent of the poor alone have been much laxity. Again, sometimes it is said relieved in workhouses, the remaining 85 that there are too many Commissioners. per cent having been relieved out of the The hon. Member for Montrose was one of workhouses. The number of poor relieved those who were most urgent in 1839 in in workhouses throughout England and pressing on the Government the reduction Wales cannot have exceeded an average of of the number of assistant commissioners. 185,000, while the persons relieved out of Yielding to such representations, I rather workhouses have exceeded 1,000,000 an- | think that the number of Commissioners nually. And when hon. Members talk of was reduced somewhat too low. And that the hardships suffered by the poor in this again is now complained of. How conflictcountry, I must say that a more un-ing these statements! Sometimes it is said founded accusation was never brought by Englishmen against their country; I say there is not in the civilized world an example of so noble an effort made in a Christian spirit, in vindication of a great Christian virtue, as the effort made by the people of this country, by charity and by public funds, to maintain the poor. I might, in enumerating the advantages of the change made in the Poor Law, mention that of the great and striking diminution effected in the expense, compared with the expense prior to the Act of 1834. The maintenance of the poor ought now to cost 8,000,000l. in proportion to the in-cult branch of political science. We have crease of the population. The poor, as I have already said, are more satisfactorily relieved than they were prior to 1834; but, whereas, at the same rate, the expense would now be 8,000,0007., the object is effected by an annual outlay of 5,000,000l. Why, what a sum is 5,000,0007.!

the letters of the authorities are too short and peremptory; at others, that they are too prolix and abound too much in reasoning. In short, for the purpose of attacking this unhappy Commission, the most opposite arguments are adduced-arguments that utterly disprove and contradict each other. It is also said that a central control is, after all, an inefficient control, conducted by men ignorant of their duty. Now I speak in the presence of many hon. Members, who, like myself, are members of the Committee who are sitting to consider the law of settlement-the most diffi

brought before us most intelligent witnesses from all parts of England-those who have been suggested by various Members as being best acquainted with the subject. Now, whatever may be our differences of opinion, as stated so graphically by Last the hon. Member for Liskeard, who presides over our labours, at least we are agreed, I think, on one point-that the best and most enlightend witnesses who have been examined by us are four assistant commissioners, whose names, for the purpose of giving them their due honour, I will mention-Messrs. Tufnell, Gulson, Pigot, and Hall. And I defy any one engaged in an investigation like that of the Committee, to receive more assistance from the intelligence, the information, the suggestive faculties, and quickness of apprehension in matters of difficulty from witnesses, than we have received from those gentlemen. And now a few words with respect to the Commission itself. I may be permitted to state the facts of the part I have taken with regard to that Commission. When I succeeded to the

year, when the distress was not so great as this year, there were relieved 2,000,000 of our fellow-countrymen-that is to say, one-eighth of the whole population of England and Wales received relief. I have already said that it is most erroneous to assert that a large portion-the larger portion-of these are not relieved at their own homes. But just contemplate that sum of 5,000,000l.! It is as much as in years of peace this country raises for its naval defence; as much (as was well observed by the noble Lord) as is paid to the income tax. I repeat, there is no such example in any nation, ancient or modern, of such a sum so raised, given so unhesitatingly, and the administration of which is so far from being degrading to those who receive it. Then, again, Sir, what are the con

office of Home Secretary, in 1841, I found one single Commissioner, acting under the authority delegated to him, exercising the powers of the entire Commission in England and Wales. I confess I thought the Poor Law Commission had sustained a serious loss from the alteration in its composition which had just preceded my accession to office. I was sorry that Sir Frankland Lewis had resigned; and I will not conceal that, in my opinion, the succession of his son had inadequately supplied his place. With respect to the resignation of Mr. Le-jected. My impression was, that the infevre, I will not say in your presence, Sir, all I felt on that subject; but I admit I did not think any one could be found adequately to supply his place. My prepossession was, that the change of Mr. Lewis for Sir F. Lewis was not a change for the better. I knew Sir F. Lewis; I did not know his son. Under those circumstances I thought it prudent not to seek the acquaintance of Mr. Lewis; I thought it better to watch his conduct, and to communicate with him only officially, without having any personal acquaintance with him. So matters went on for three months. I have said that my prepossessions were not favourable; but I am bound to add, that with all my experience of the public service, I never saw the public business transacted with more punctuality, with more fidelity, and with more discretion, than the business of the Poor Law Office was transacted by Mr. Lewis during the difficult year of 1842, unaided by any assistance. Forming that opinion, I rejoiced in the opportunity of becoming acquainted with Mr. Lewis, and of uniting official with personal intercourse with him. I acted with him for five years, and having had every day better opportunities of becoming acquainted with his integrity, with his remarkable ability, with his high honour and trustworthiness, I became his intimate friend, and, under every circumstance, I shall be ready to defend him and proud to acknowledge that intimate acquaintance. Sir, it is unworthy of a great assembly like this to pick small holes in the proceedings of public men, and to dwell on any minute errors they may discover in the discharge of public business so arduous. The ablest men, under similar circumstances, must commit errors; and I will even say, it is better that with pure motives they should occasionally commit some errors, rather than that business should stand still for want of decision. We know that prompt decision does sometimes lead to error; and I admit

that in some of the mistakes which the Commissioners have committed I participated. Indeed, I do not hesitate to admit that some of the things for which they have been most blamed were known to me before they became responsible for them. With respect to Mr. Parker, I was, during the progress of the Andover inquiry, residing in the north, and became acquainted with the proceedings through the medium of the newspapers to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton has ob

quiry was not conducted in a manner conducive to the public good. I wrote to the Commissioners; I advised them not abruptly to close the inquiry, to conduct it to an end as soon as possible; and I told them that the conduct of the gentleman who conducted it was a secondary question, and that when the inquiry was closed, then would be the time for considering the merits and demerits of Mr. Parker. The Commissioners acted upon my advice, and, upon a review of all the facts, they thought it desirable that Mr. Parker should retire. And now a few words more as to the composition of the Commission. The retirement of Mr. Lefevre took place just at the period when the Government of Lord Melbourne were going out; and in the peculiar circumstances of the moment they did not think it expedient to fill up the office. I felt it a point of honour that the appointment I made should be an appointment free from favour and affection. I selected a gentleman whom I had never seen; but looking at the reports of the assistant poor law commissioners, I regarded the labours of Sir Edmund Head as, upon the whole, best entitling him to receive that reward. So far from making a political appointment, that gentleman happened to be, I believe, opposed in politics to the Government of which I was a member; but that did not prevent me from recommending him to my Sovereign to fill the office of Poor Law Commissioner. And, again, the official and private intercourse of five years has convinced me that Sir Edmund Head is well worthy of the confidence of the Government he serves. So much, Sir, with respect to the past composition of the Commission. But there has been a blot. The appointment I have last referred to was made early in the Government of Sir R. Peel, and the vice from that time to the present, in the composition of the Commissioner, has been, that Mr. Chadwick was disappointed because he was not ap

pointed to the vacant Commissionership. | over any branch of the public service, From that time to the present, Mr. Chad- may remove some of our apprehensions; wick never worked cordially with the Com- and it is only necessary to show that, for missioners. Fortunately he never was one the purposes of the Government, it is neof the Commission - he was Secretary, cessary to add to the number of placemen holding his office during the pleasure of in this House, and my scruples on this the Board; but he was no member of the head, I confess, are satisfied. I then turn Board; and an hon. Member, who repre- to the question, is it on the whole expedisented that Mr. Chadwick anxiously wish-ent that the responsibility of the Poor Law ed for the dissolution of the present Commissioners should be direct rather than Board, would, if he referred to the con- indirect? Great exception has been taken cluding passage of the 10th Clause of the to the power given them of making geneBill, find words that would give him com- ral rules. That delegation may be liable fort. They would satisfy, also, those who to objection in a constitutional point of objected to Mr. Chadwick. They were to view; but I do not see how you can disthis effect-that, after the passing of the pense with it. At all events, one of two Bill, all the officers of the Commission things must be done. If you attempt to shall cease to hold their present offices. enact seriatim and in minute detail all the I wish very shortly to notice one or two regulations for the government of the poor points, with reference to the Bill, which in all their varying circumstances, then have been urged as objections to it. In you must give a dispensing power to the the first place, I find that exception has Executive. Or, if you do not give a disbeen taken to any increase in the number pensing power to the Executive, you must of placemen in this House. I do not say delegate the power of making general that any increase in this House in the rules, subject to a prompt and direct renumber of persons holding offices, ought sponsibility to this House. You must not to be regarded with constitutional choose between these two courses; and I jealousy by the House of Commons. But am decidedly in favour of the last. It is it has been fairly stated by a right hon. not possible to escape from the necessity Gentleman on a former evening, that a of adopting one or other of them. The considerable diminution has taken place in application of the prohibitory order, with the number of placemen in this House. regard to out-door relief in the manufacThere has been one Lord of the Admiralty turing districts, is a most delicate operation less within the last ten years. The Lieuten when it is remembered that trade is brisk ant General of the Ordnance has been dis- and is suspended almost periodically by fits qualified from holding a seat in this House. and starts. There are only 100 unions out The office of Treasurer of the Ordnance of 600 to which this order has been ishas been abolished; and the Treasurership sued. From time to time, as circumof the Navy has been consolidated with the stances vary, it is issued; and from time to office of Paymaster of the Forces. The Judge time, as circumstances change again, it is of the Admiralty is no longer a Member of necessarily and rightly withdrawn. Then, this House; and it also happens accident- again, with regard to the dietary; consider ally that the Secretary to the Master of the circumstances of this country at the the Ordnance has not a seat in the present present time. A sudden infliction has renParliament. Altogether, there are six dered certain articles of food comparatively placemen who have no longer seats in this dear, and especially dear in certain neighHouse who used to sit here; and I think bourhoods. It has in consequence been only one new officer has been appointed indispensably necessary to vary the dietawith a seat in this House - the right ries in different unions. It would be imhon. Gentleman at the head of the Rail- possible to escape from the necessity of way Board (Mr. Strutt). Do I stop here? exercising a dispensing power in these I may be wrong; but I confess I think cases, if you do not vest in the responsible that the Reform Act has added so greatly body the power of making general rules to the democratic influence of this House, subject to rendering an account for every and has thrown so much new weight act to Parliament. As it appears to me, into the popular scale of the Constitution, at the present time, and up to this time, that some greater power may, without Government, with respect to the maintenmuch danger, be safely intrusted on the ance and administration of the Poor Law, other hand to the Crown. The ample and and of relief generally, has been intiefficient control exercised by this House mately connected even with the details of

French, F.
Fuller, A. E.
Gisborne, T.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Gladstone, Capt.
Gore, hon. R.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Granger, T. C.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Grosvenor, Lord R.
Hale, R. B.
Hallyburton, Ld. J. F. G.
Halsey, T. P.
Hamilton, W. J.
Hamilton, Lord C.
Hanmer, Sir J.
Harcourt, G. G.
Hatton, Capt. V.
Hay, Sir A. L.
Hayter, W. G.
Heathcoat, J.
Heneage, G. H. W.
Hervey, Lord A.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.
Hogg, Sir J. W.
Hollond, R.
Hope, Sir J.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Howard, hon. E. G. G.
Howard, P. H.
Hudson, G.
Hughes, W. B.
Hurst, R. H.
Ingestre, Visct.
Inglis, Sir R. H.
Jervis, Sir J.
Johnstone, Sir J.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Lambton, H.
Layard, Maj.
Legh, G. C.

Le Marchant, Sir D.
Lemon, Sir C.
Liddell, hon. H. T.

Sandon, Visct.
Scrope, G. P.
Seymer, H. K.
Seymour, Lord
Seymour, Sir H. B.
Sheil, rt, hon. R. L.
Shelburne, Earl of
Sheridan, R. B.
Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Smollett, A.

Somers, J. P.

Somerset, Lord G.
Somerville, Sir W. M.
Sotheron, T. H. S.
Stansfield, W. R. C.
Stanton, W. H.
Stuart, Lord J.
Stuart, H.
Strickland, Sir G.
Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Sutton, hon. H. M.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Moffatt, G.

Monahan, J. H.

Morpeth, Visct.

Morris, D.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Napier, Sir C.

Newry, Visct.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Norreys, Lord
Norreys, Sir D. J.
O'Brien, A. S.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Ord, W.

Turner, E.

Villiers, hon. C.
Vivian, J. H.
Walsh, Sir J. B.
Warburton, H.

Ward, H. G.
Williams, W.

Wilshere, W.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Wodehouse, E.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Wood, Col. T.

Wortley, hon. J. S.
Wrightson, W. B.
Wyse, T.

Atlantic, the same security as, under the conditions of Lloyd's Register, would be required for goods of a dry and perishable nature. If his previous demands on behalf of Ireland had been thought unreasonable, he hoped it would not be thought unreasonable if he desired that the Irish people should be put on the same footing with perishable goods. No goods were entitled to be insured unless shipped on board vessels classed A 1 at Lloyd's. Neither were convicts transported in ships of an inferior class. And when hundreds of thousands of the Irish peasantry were about to be conveyed across the Atlantic, it was but reasonable to require that they should be conveyed in vessels as seaworthy as those required for convicts. In regard to British ships, the emigration agents had required that condition to be fulfilled. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies concurred with him in desiring to see proper care taken of Irish emigrants, but thought the existing law would fulfil the object better than the proposed

Order of the Day read for the resump-clause. He took a totally different view; tion of the Adjourned Debate on the First Reading of the Seduction and Prostitution Suppression Bill.

COLONEL SIBTHORP acknowledged the sincerity of the motives of the promoter of the present Bill, but firmly believed that the measure was more likely to increase than to check the evil. Considering that it was now past twelve o'clock, and that the adjourned debate was likely to last a considerable time, he thought it would be advisable to adjourn till a future period the consideration of a Bill which, however laudable in its object, was certainly very novel in its nature. He should like to ask the Attorney General opposite, who was very competent to give an opinion on the powers of this Bill, whether it would carry into effect that which the hon. Member for Birmingham proposed? He thought it would be prudent for the hon. Member to postpone the further consideration of the Bill not for six months, but for two months. The latter period would be sufficient.

and so did all those who were practically acquainted with the shipping of this country. The hon. Gentleman stated that the emigration agents were made responsible for fulfilling the requirements of the new measure, as they were for fulfilling the requirements of the old Passengers' Actthe 5th and 6th Victoria, cap. 107. But there was no such provision in the Bill; and the clause in the 5th and 6th Victoria, cap. 107, was not sufficient for the purpose. By this clause, unless some one raised a doubt-and who was to raise a doubt ?-no inspection was required at all, and then all that was required was, that the collector and controller of the Customs, or an emigration agent, should be satisfied that such ship was seaworthy for the voyage for which she was intended. Now, what was the practice? As respected British ships, it was easy enough to secure that they should be seaworthy, because Lloyd's Register told whether they were so or not. But as regarded American ships, which were built of the frailest materials -namely, fir-they were not upon Lloyd's Register, and they could not be compelled to be upon the register. The practice, in Report of the Passengers' Act Amend- the case of the American ships, was for ment Bill brought up.

Bill read a first time.

PASSENGERS' ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Amendments agreed to.

LORD G. BENTINCK wished to propose a clause which should provide for Irish emigrants, when conveyed across the

their owners to get a certificate, which they could easily procure for a guinea or two from any shipwright, that they were in a seaworthy condition. He had before him a list of twenty-five ships, which, be