§ Mr. T. Duncombedid not think his hon. Friend (Mr. Stewart) had much reason to congratulate himself on the explicitness of the answer which he had just received from the right hon. Baronet. He wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, on a subject which, unlike the previous one, had not been included in the Speech from the Throne. The House would remember that the Poor-law Commission would cease and determine in July next, and that her Majesty's Government had announced their intention of not introducing any measure to that House, either to continue the Commission, or for the amendment of the Poor-law, until after Easter. Now, such being the case, he hoped her Majesty's Ministers would reconsider their decision on the subject, and bear in mind the extreme inconvenience that must arise from the adoption of such a course as they had announced. One of two things was evidently about to happen. [Cries of "Order."] He was perfectly in order; there was a question before the House. What he wished to do was, to point out the inconvenience that was likely to arise from the course which the Government proposed to pursue with regard to this subject—a 726 course that was considered extremely inconvenient and unsatisfactory by the public at large. One of two things was evidently about to happen—either, if the bill was not to be brought in until after Easter, the country would not have sufficient time to consider the provisions of this new Poor-law Act, or the present Government were about to pursue the course that had been pursued during the last two or three years, and they were about to introduce a short bill for the purpose of continuing the commission for another year, and thereby to blink the question of the Poor-law Amendment Act in a manner which would, no doubt, be very convenient to a great number of Members who sat behind Ministers, and also to her Majesty's Government themselves, after the pledges given at the late general election on that subject. Now, what he wished to ask the Government and the right hon. Gentleman to do was, to introduce their bill on this subject, on which the House ought, of course, to have full time for consideration—to introduce that bill before Easter, so that it might lie upon the Table; and further, he should ask them not to proceed with the bill until after Easter, so that the country might, in the meantime, be prepared to consider the provisions and alterations of the Government before the House met again after the Easter recess. He wished also to ask the right hon. Baronet whether in his proposed amendment of the Poor-law he intended to interfere with the Gilbert corporations, or in any way with local acts?
§ Sir J. Grahambegged to assure the hon. Gentleman, that in the course which the Government intended to pursue with regard to the introduction of the Poor Law Continuance Bill they would not lose sight of what appeared to them to be the public interest. They had already brought before the House a measure relating to the laws regulating the trade in corn—a measure on which they had had the assurance of his right hon. Friend that the necessity for their coming to a decision was most urgent. Pending the discussion of that measure, it would be useless to introduce any subject so important as that of the continuance of the Poor-law Commission. His right hon. Friend had also announced, that as soon as the forms of the House would allow, by there being a sufficient number of votes in supply to raise the question in the Committee of Ways and 727 Means as to the financial arrangements of the country, he would with the least possible delay bring under the consideration of the House the financial measures which the Government intended to submit to Parliament. He did not imagine that the discussions that must arise on those propositions could fail to occupy a considerable time, and he thought, therefore, that there was every prospect of their time being fully occupied till the Easter recess. The hon. Member, however, appeared to anticipate that the measure which the Government proposed to introduce after the Easter recess would be in effect a short bill to continue the Poor-law commission for one year, and so to blink the general question of the Poor-laws. Now, he was in a situation to satisfy that hon. Gentleman by a direct assurance that the Government had no such intention,—that it was their intention to bring forward a measure which should not only continue the Poor-law Commission for a time considerably longer than one year, but that in that bill it was also intended to introduce such modifications of the existing law as they, after a full consideration, should think it expedient to submit to Parliament. He could, therefore, give a direct assurance to the hon. Gentleman that the measure which they proposed to introduce would be in itself a full and complete measure. He would further state to the hon. Gentleman, that immediately after the Easter recess it would be his duty to lay the Bill on the table of the House. To do so before the recess he thought would be inexpedient. The hon. Gentleman advised him to lay the Bill on the table before the Easter recess, in order, in fact, that it might be canvassed and made the subject of adverse observation during the recess, without explanations of it, on the other hand, being given. That advice he was not prepared to follow, but immediately after the recess he would lay on the table a full and complete measure. That measure he would be prepared to detail at the right time, and, at the same time, to give the fullest explanation of the intentions of Government with regard to the whole subject.
§ Mr. T. Duncombesaid, the right hon. Baronet had not answered his question as to whether the proposed bill would interfere with the Gilbert incorporations or local acts?
§ Sir J. Grahamhad purposely abstained from answering that which was a question of detail. He declined to enter into such explanations at all, until he should be prepared to state the whole measure.
§ Mr. T. Duncombehad only wished for explanations upon a question which had been put to the noble Lord (J. Russell) during the last session of Parliament, and answered most explicitly by him.