of relief, sometimes even by acts of violence, they will oblige the Government to resort to the old system of roadmaking. I trust the firm manner in which the Irish Government is checking violence, and showing that they will not be coerced by these ebullitions of popular violence to resort to a system which, though justifiable as a temporary system, would not be justifiable as a permanent system, will serve to disabuse those people of the delusion under which they are labouring; that a better spirit will prevail, and the measure be carried into effect, so as to afford relief to the really destitute, without involving the abuses to which the roadmaking system was exposed. But, as the most ample information will be contained in the forthcoming report of the Relief Board on the whole subject, I trust my hon. Friend will be satisfied with my referring him to that report, rather than going into any matters of detail on the present occasion. MR. SHAW said, he rose to deprecate the attacks the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Poulett Scrope) was in the constant habit of making upon the landlords and gentry of Ireland, and particularly the attack he had made that night, upon no other authority than that of anonymous publications and newspaper paragraphs. Lord Berehaven, whom the hon. Member (Mr. Poulett Scrope) in total ignorance of facts, and in the absence of authentic information, accused of little less than wilful murder, because he was among those whom the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Poulett Scrope) chose to say were systematically neglecting the distressed poor in their neighbourhoods; Lord Berehaven, he would undertake to assert, was a man of as humane and benevolent a disposition as was to be found in any country. He was a constant resident in Ireland, in a very remote district beyond Bantry, where he was incessantly employed in improving the condition and administering to the wants of the people. If, as the hon. Gentleman represented, it was attempted by relief committees to extort subscriptions by the threat of publishing lists of names, then he thought Lord Berehaven, or any other gentleman, evinced a proper manliness by refusing to yield such threats; but he did not mean, and he was sure Lord Berehaven would not so act, that the poor should be losers on that account, but that only each person should be allowed to give in the way he considered most conducive to the advantage of the poor. It was very easy for the hon. Gen tleman (Mr. P. Scrope) to talk in that House of administering the Temporary Relief Act in Ireland; but in practice it was extremely difficult. He believed that, generally speaking, the relief committees were exerting themselves to the utmost to execute the Act; but he had frequent communications, and these not from the worst parts of Ireland, representing the extreme difficulties they had to contend with; and the people were not only as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) had stated, discontented with the particular relief provided by the Act, but the applications were so numerous, so almost universal among the labouring and poorer classes for relief of some sort, to which they now considered they were entitled by law, that you must either give to them all indiscriminately, or (as members of the relief committees wrote to him) have, in each union, on an average, about 25,000 cases weekly to investigate. How, under these circumstances, the Act was to be administered, he was unable to conjecture. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Scrope) had disclaimed that night any intention to use his position as a Member of that House for the purpose of maligning the resident landlords and gentry of Ireland; but the hon. Gentleman must permit him, on behalf of that body, to say that the hon. Gentleman was in the constant habit of abusing his privilege as a Member of that House, by applying language there to the resident gentry of Ireland which he would not venture to do out of that House. MR. B. OSBORNE thought the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin might have let the charge pass in silence. The hon. Member for the University ought to have taken into consideration that this sort of attack was excessively popular just now with some constituencies; and that if the hon. Member for Stroud found his popularity on the wane, he was not to be blamed if he joined in the cry of "mad dog" against people whom he knew very little about. He quite agreed in the remarks which had been made concerning the ability and exertions of Sir J. Burgoyne; but he believed that his (Mr. Osborne's) anticipations were about to be realized, and that the Act would prove a failure. He had that very morning received a letter from one of the poor-law guardians of Clonmel, which showed that it had broken down, and stated that the poor people were assembled for twelve hours to receive relief, and that all did not get tickets, though they stood for that time DELEGATED AUTHORITY. under a pouring torrent of rain. He thought if the hon. Member for Stroud would vo- MR. FERRAND rose to put the followlunteer a journey into Ireland, and act as ing questions:-By what authority Para member of a committee at a soup-liament is invested with the right to dekitchen, he would hesitate when he came legate to any person, or body of persons, back how he gave his opinions as to the the power of making rules and orders difficulties of working the measure, or car-which shall be as binding and authoritative rying the law into effect. SIR J. WALSH wished to ask the hon. Member for Stroud before the debate came on, if, when he had brought forward such charges against the character of Lord Berehaven, he had taken the precaution of giving notice to the noble Lord, in order that he might meet them? 66 MR. P. SCROPE said, he had not done so. The general charge had been made before, and no names were given. When general charges were made it was said, Oh, that is unfair to make such vague accusations;" and when names were given it was said, "You should not mention names. He had, however, given the noble Lord an opportunity of rebutting those charges; and he (Mr. Scrope) was happy he had done so, by stating them in the fairest way he could to the House and the public. MR. STAFFORD O'BRIEN observed, that the hon. Gentleman seemed to think, whatever charge he brought forward, if he named the individual, he was fully justified. The state of the case in the county of Clare was this: that the relief committee opened their soup-kitchens, made out lists, and began to administer relief; but the people rushed upon the soup-kitchens and broke the boilers; whoever was to blame for this, it was certainly not the committee. He (Mr. O'Brien) could confirm what had been stated by the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, that there did exist a repugnance in the one system for the other. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Scrope) thought that the system of unproductive works should go on, let him say so at once; but if the hon. Gentleman objected to the continuance of that system, and at the same time blamed the relief committees when they were unable to administer relief because the boilers were broken, he put it to the hon. Gentleman if that was fair? He wished the hon. Member would turn his attention to the subject practically, instead of theoretically; that he would go over to Ireland and see the working of the system; or, what would be better, purchase an estate in Ireland, and then he would be better able to speak upon it. upon the people of England and Wales as an Act of Parliament? If Parliament is not thus authorized, by what statute can the people of England and Wales be forced to obey as law the rules and orders of the Poor Law Commissioners? If there be no statute, have not all persons committed to prison for disobeying the rules and orders of the Poor Law Commissioners been illegally deprived of their liberty? The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he would answer the hon. Gentleman as briefly as possible. With respect to the first ment had an inherent authority to delequestion, he apprehended that Parliagate to any person or body of persons the right of making rules and orders which should be as binding on the people of England as an Act of Parliament. All the rules of the Courts of Law were founded on this principle; and the Parliament having those rules, they had, in consequence, all given to the Judges the power to make the force and effect of statutes. All the schemes of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were founded in a similar way; and by the powers of the House the Commissioners could issue their scheme, as it was called, which should have the force of an Act of Parliament. If it were necessary, he could give numerous examples of a similar kind; but he conceived that these were quite enough to show that Parliament had such power. With respect to the second question, his answer was, that Parliament was thus authorized; and that the people of England could be forced to obey the rules and orders of the Poor Law Commissioners by the statute which expressly gives them that power. His answer to the third question was, that because there was that statute, no person committed to prison for disobeying those rules and orders had been illegally deprived of liberty. DISMISSAL OF MR. MOTT. MR. FERRAND put the following questions to the Secretary of State for the Home Department:- Whether the appointment of Mr. Mott to the office of district auditor received the sanction of the Poor Law Commissioners after he had been dismissed from the office of assistant 21 order, with the profession, age, and residence of each, was forwarded to each of the electors. Mr. Mott's name appeared in this list as late Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, now Superintendent of Haydock Lodge Asylum.' The position of Mr. Mott was therefore made known to the electors. From the 37 candidates, two were selected as having received the largest number of votes. These were Mr. Gardiner, Clerk of the Manchester Union, and Mr. Mott. According to the provisions of the order of the Commissioners, these two names were again forwarded to the Gardiner, 10; for Mr. Mott, 14. Mr. Mott, thereof guardians, when the numbers were-for Mr. fore, being legally qualified, was elected, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances, by the majority of the chairman and vice-chairmen of the following unions, which constitute the district, viz. Altrincham, Ashton-under-Line, Bolton, Bury, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Chorlton, Congleton, Glossop, Haslingden, Hayfield, Leigh, Macclesfield, Man poor-law commissioner? Whether the Poor Law Commissioners allowed him to hold the office of district auditor at the time that he was part proprietor of the Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum, or after the Commissioners in Lunacy declared, in their report on the state of the Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum, that Mr. Mott had failed to fulfil a positive and solemn pledge which he had given to the justices of Lancashire; and that he appeared quite un-chairmen and vice-chairmen of the several boards worthy of the trust, and became most negligent and remiss in the discharge of his functions? Whether they have allowed him to hold the office of district auditor of Lancashire, whilst living in the Isle of Man, out of the way of his creditors; after he was seized by a sheriff's officer, when on his road to audit the union accounts; dur-chester, Rochdale, Salford, and Stockport. The ing the time he was a prisoner in Lancaster Castle; and after a public advertisment appeared in The Times newspaper warning the public not to pay him money belonging to the proprietors of the Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum? Whether he has again abandoned the discharge of his duties, and left England, although holding the office of district auditor?" SIR G. GREY: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman in the order of his questions. With respect to the first question, I may premise, that though the matter occurred before I held the office I now occupy, I have been informed that it was not the fact that Mr. Mott was dismissed from the office of assistant poor-law commissioner; but that he ceased to hold that office in consequence of the reduction of the number of assistant commissioners. With regard to Mr. Mott's election as district auditor, the circumstances are explained in the following extract from a letter addressed to the Under Secretary of State (Sir W. Somerville) by the Poor Law Commissioners, in consequence of a communication sent from the Home Office immediately after the discussion which took place in this House on the subject at the end of last Session: "By the 32nd section of 7 and 8 Victoria, c. 101, the district auditors are to be elected by the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the different unions comprised in the district. No disqualification which would attach to Mr. Mott is laid Act of Parliament does not require, in express terms, any sanction of the Poor Law Commissioners; and with regard to the auditor, as well as other officers, their power of sanction is a consequence only of their power of dismissal for unfitness. The Commissioners did not refuse to sanction Mr. Mott's appointment. It did not appear to them that the fact of his being superintendent of Haydock Lodge Asylum constituted such an unfitness' as was contemplated by the statute as the ground of dismissal, and consequent disqualification for office; and unless they took this view could not venture to set aside the decision arrived and were prepared ultimately to act upon it, they at by the electors under the statute.” With respect to the second question, I can only state that the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not quite correctly quoted in his question; but substantially that report does aver, that Mr. Mott had proved himself unworthy of the trust reposed in him at Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum; but the Commissioners did not think that his conduct constituted such unfitness in terms of the statute as to justify them in dismissing him from the office of auditor, to which he had been elected by the chairman and vice-chairman of the union, so long as the duties of it were regularly discharged. With regard to the third question, I am informed that the Commissioners have received no official or authentic information of the allegations of the hon. Gentleman respecting the conduct of Mr. Mott, and they have no reason to suppose that he is not discharging the duties of his office as auditor with propriety. With respect to the fourth question, as to whether Mr. Mott has again abandoned the discharge of his duties and left England, I have to state that the Poor Law down in the Act. The circumstances of Mr. Mott's election were as follows:-On the 4th of September, 1845, Mr. Twisleton, then the assistant commissioner of the district, issued an advertisement inviting condidates for the auditorship to transmit their names to him. Thirtyseven persons announced themselves as candi- Commissioners have within the last week dates; a printed list of whom, in alphabetical or ten days received an official letter from him, dated "Manchester, the 7th of May,' connected with the discharge of his duty as auditor, and that they believe him to be there now. POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL. Order of the Day read. Motion made for the Second Reading of the Poor Law Administration Bill. MR. FERRAND rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The hon. Member said: I have to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) for the manly and straightforward manner in which he replied to my question; but, however high an opinion I may have of the hon. and learned Gentleman's legal attainments, I believe I shall be able to bring before the House far higher legal authorities than his to bear out the positions I intend to take. I must say I was never more astonished in my life than to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department say, that Mr. Mott was not dismissed from his office of assistant poor-law commissioner. Why, Sir, when the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department was defending himself against certain statements which I made, he asserted that Mr. Mott was dismissed from his office, and that the hon. and learned Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring) knew the reason why. I leave the two right hon. Gentlemen to settle the question between them. All I know is, that somebody has stated that which is not true. It is not for me to decide which of them it is. I may only say that I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) fully believes the statement he has made to be true; and, therefore, I find no fault with him for making it. I now proceed to the question of the Poor Law; and here let me remind the House, that at the end of last Session of Parliament the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department gave a distinct pledge to the House and the country, that when Parliament should again meet, a Committee should be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the whole proceedings and conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners. [Sir G. GREY: No.] Most distinctly did the right hon. Gentleman make this statement to the House at the time when the Andover Union report was laid on the Table, and in reply to a question from me. [Sir G. GREY: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken.] If the right hon. Gentleman denies that this is the case, of course I must believe him. I can only say that he was reported to have said so in all the public papers, and that remarks and comments were made upon it at the time. But in the present Session the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury, with that boldness of spirit for which he is conspicuous, has declared that he is prepared to justify the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners, and is, I understand, to defend the New Poor Law itself. If that is the case, he has an opportunity of doing so to-night. I do trust that he will not shrink from the duty which he has undertaken to perform, and that he will do his best both to justify the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners, and to prove that the New Poor Law has yielded all the advantages which its promoters promised should flow from it, and bear a blessing instead of a curse to the country. I suspect the noble Lord will find it a difficult task to establish either of those points, for I think I am myself prepared to prove to-night that this law has failed to perform what its promoters promised-that, in fact, it has been a total failure, and that, so far from their having been able to carry it into effect, it has crumbled to pieces. The people of this country have long boasted that they were never called upon to obey any law except those passed by the three estates of the realm. But for thirteen years the poor and undefended masses of the country have been subject to the rule of three irresponsible men, who have had the power to make laws and enforce them where and as they thought proper, without being subject to any control either by Parliament or by Government. And after they have been acting in this manner for thirteen years, a Committee of this House having sat for four months inquiring into their conduct reported that towards the assistant commissioners they had acted with cruel injustice, and that their proceedings were unjust, arbitrary, and such as to shake public confidence in the law. If that was their conduct towards men who had friends in this House to defend them with talent and ability, how have they acted towards the poor and undefended in the secret corners of the land? To-night it is my intention to inform the House on this point, and in doing so I hope to be able to induce the House to believe that it is high time to repeal this law, as well as to dismiss the Poor Law Commissioners. I shall first bring under the notice of the House what were the intentions of the vidual, whose name has been mixed up with more unwitting deception, and also with more wilful in this Protestant country, and in these enlightmisrepresentation, than that of any man of science ened and liberal times? When I mention talent, learning, humanity, the strongest sense of public duty, the most amiable feelings in private life, the tenderest and most humane disposition which ever man was adorned with-when I speak of one, the ornament of the society in which he moves, the delight of his own family, and not less the admiration of those men of letters and of science amongst whem he shines the first and brightest— learned, and pious ministers whom the Church of when I speak of one of the most enlightened, England ever numbered amongst her sons, I am sure every one will apprehend that I cannot but refer to Mr. Malthus." That was the way in which Lord Brougham had in another place alluded to Mr. Malthus, after having quoted him largely in defence of his opinion on the New Poor Law. Well, a Commission was appointed to inquire into the operation of the 43rd of Elizabeth throughout the country; and assistant commissioners were sent into various parts of England for the purpose of obtaining evidence. Of course, the evidence so obtained was all of the strongest kind against the old Poor Law. The Commissioners knew the wishes and intentions of Government, and acted like good and obedient servants; and upon the information derived from those Commissioners, and from the writings of Mr. Malthus, the Commissioners appointed in London to receive the evidence and report upon it to Government, drew up what has been called "the dark document"-a document which, although the First Lord of the Treasury may smile at what I say -I hesitate not to describe as so disgraceful, so scandalous, nay, so wicked in its "I have reflected much on the subject of the suggestions, that the Government of the Poor Laws, and hope, therefore, that I shall be excused in venturing to suggest a mode of their day in this House, and the Duke of Welgradual abolition, to which I confess that at pre-lington in another place, thought it of sufsent I can see no material objection. As a previous step even to any considerable alteration in the present system, which would contract or stop the increase of the relief to be given, it appears to me that we are bound, in justice and honour, formally to disclaim the right of the poor to support." "A man who is born in a world already possessed, if he cannot get subsistence from his parents, on whom he has a just demand, and if the society do not want his labour, has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food, and in fact has no business to be where he is. At nature's mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him to be gone, and will quickly execute her own orders if he do not work upon the compassion of some of her guests." He also says ficient consequence to deny its existence; and it was not until an hon. Friend of mine (Mr. Walter), who now lies, I regret to say, on a bed of sickness, but whose services will be remembered after the baronetcy of Hogg has ceased to exist-I say Now hear what Lord Brougham said of his it was not until my hon. Friend produced friend Mr. Malthus when he in another place that document in this House that the then moved the second reading of the New Poor Secretary of State for the Home DepartLaw, and which speech he afterwards pub-ment (Sir J. Graham), who had previously lished-I know not whether at the expense denied its existence, said that he had some of Government, but at somebody's faint recollection of it. It is my duty to -and circulated it throughout the coun- bring under the notice of the House what try:was suggested in that dark document. The first recommendation was 66 expense Before quitting the subject of population, may I step aside for one moment, and do justice to a most learned, a most able, a most virtuous indi "The Commissioners shall have power to reduce allowances, but not to enlarge them." After |