HC Deb 06 March 1837 vol 36 cc1280-4

On the question, that the House do resolve itself into Committee on the affairs of Canada,

Mr. Walter

said, that it was only out of deference to the recommendations of several hon. Gentlemen that he had given way on a late occasion, and withdrawn the list of names of Gentlemen whom he had proposed should form the Committee on the Poor-laws. That selection would, he had hoped, have proved satisfactory to the country—a result which, he must confess, he did not augur of the constitution of the present Committee. It had been his intention, that every interest should be fully represented; but on the Committee as it now stood, there was not a single Member who was personally connected with the manufactures of the country. He felt that he had somewhat too hastily yielded on that occasion to the force of the external pressure on not going to a division on the question. He must contend that the Committee was unduly constituted; for while seventeen Members of it were opposed to his (Mr. Walter's) views, only four supported him. The Chairman of the Committee he held in the highest esteem and respect, but in case of indisposition or absence, the Chair might fall to some other Gentleman who might be influenced by strong prejudices in favour of the working of the Poor-law Bill. If, as he understood, there were any Gentleman on that Committee who had been employed on the Poor-law Commission, he thought such a person was a very improper judge in this inquiry. Another Member of the Committee had, as he had heard, acted as chairman of a board against whose conduct he had received complaints. Now, all he asked was, to have these influences counterbalanced in some degree by the introduction of Gentlemen holding opinions coinciding with his own; in short, he asked the House to make the Committee impartial. His proposal of adding six Gentlemen to the Committee would still leave the proportion of seventeen to ten. With respect to the statement that he had in any way acquiesced in the appointment of this Committee, he begged to say, that it was totally erroneous and unfounded. He hoped, such as had felt well disposed towards his original motion, would now support his present attempt to obtain what he conceived would be a fair and impartial Committee. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that Major Beauclerk, Mr. Sergeant Goulburn, Mr. Freshfield, Mr. G. F. Young, Mr. Thomas Attwood, and Mr. Hindley be added to the Committee on Poor-laws.

Mr. Hume

could not perceive why a question like that of the operation of the amended Poor-law ought to be made a party question; nor why, in this instance, the general rule should be departed from. He wished the noble Lord had, in the first instance, conceded to the hon. Member for Berkshire the Committee as he had desired it. If the noble Lord had done so, all pretence would have been taken away from the hon. Member for his inability to prove the cases which he had set up in that House. He repeated that he saw no reason why, in this instance, the general rule should be departed from.

Mr. Villiers

had never spoken to any one on the subject of the Committee since it had been appointed. He was not a country squire, nor a party man, nor did he pretend to be more humane than another; but when he heard of the subject that was to be submitted for inquiry, he was prepared to go into that inquiry with the intention of discovering if the Bill had worked efficiently. He did not desire to be on that Committee—he had not solicited to be put on it; but having been appointed, he certainly was most anxious to discharge his duty fairly and impartially.

Major Beauclerk

could not possibly serve on the Committee upon the question of the Poor-law. All, he believed, had a bias one way or another; and, it must be said, with respect to the present Committee, the bias of the majority was certainly in favour of the Poor-law. It would, he considered, have been much better if the Committee were more half-and-half on the question respecting which their opinion was to be delivered.

Mr. Cressett Pelham

hoped, as the hon. Member for Middlesex was named upon the Committee, he would act upon it, and give to the question the benefit of his labours. He might be allowed to say, that there were times at which the services of the hon. Member were called for, and when he was not as active as he might be.

Mr. Goulburn

had come down the other night prepared, if there had been a division, to support the noble Lord with his vote. A great object, he thought, in the selection of the Committee would have been that its opinion, when delivered, should produce a due impression upon the public. Unless persons were persuaded, that there was a fair representation of sentiments and feelings in the Committee, its general opinion, when delivered, could not carry great weight with the country. If the hon. Member for Berkshire perse- vered in making such an alteration in the names of the Committee, he should certainly have his support, in order to secure the admission on the Committee of persons whose opinions were known not to be quite so favourable to the amended Poor-law.

Mr. Baines

was connected with a large manufacturing district, which had expressed a very strong feeling adverse to the new Poor-laws, and it had happened that he voted against the passing of that measure. So far the objection of the hon. Gentleman did not apply with much force to him. He certainly considered that the Committee was fairly constituted, and that they were acting upon principles which would be satisfactory to that House and the country.

Mr. Robinson

said, that the simple question was, whether the Committee was so constituted as to inspire the country with confidence in their decision. He had stated on a former evening, and he thought it his duty to state now, that he had rather there were no Committee at all than one constituted as the present. If he had any weight with the noble Lord, he would entreat him to place the additional names proposed upon the Committee, if it were for no other purpose than to avoid the imputation that the Members now on the Committee had a bias to one side of the question.

The Speaker

observed, that the general rule was to have fifteen Members nominated on a Committee. In this case, it was specially moved to have the Committee enlarged to twenty-one Members. Before any new names were added to that Committee, then, that resolution must be disposed of by the House. The point of form was, in his opinion, against the Amendment.

Lord John Russell

thought the hon. Member for Berkshire had subjected himself to that difficulty in point of form, and he, therefore, felt it a great relief in not having to object to particular names, which might perhaps be considered personally offensive. He thought the hon. Member for Berkshire also, was either too early or too late with his motion. There had been a regular notice-day on which the motion might have been brought on, had the hon. Member thought proper; but he had put off his motion till the Committee had actually sat, and he now interrupted the regular proceedings of the House. The hon. Member, having delayed for so long a time, ought to have waited until he had a case against the Committee to show that they had not acted fairly. The hon. Member might have objected when the Committee was named—he might have had them called over name by name, as had been done with such force and effect some years since by Mr. Tierney upon the nomination of a Committee of Finance. The hon. Member ought to have done this, or he ought to have waited until he had a case to bring against the Committee. Notwithstanding what had been said of the Committee, he thought it very fairly represented the feeling in that House. This was not a party question; persons who supported the new Poor-law did so from no party attachment, but because they thought it was calculated to be beneficial to the country. If, then, he excepted persons from the Committee merely because they preferred the new Poor-law, he thought he should have formed a very unfair Committee. If they divided on the question of repealing that Act, and very few divided in favour of the repeal, was he to take one-half of a Committee from the few in favour of repeal, and the other half from the vast majority against it? If he did so, he thought he would be forming a very unfair Committee as representing the whole House. He was perfectly willing, now that the Committee had commenced its sittings, to withdraw his own name from the list, and allow the hon. Member for Berkshire to substitute any one of the Gentlemen whose names he had just mentioned in his room; further than this he could not go.

Mr. T. Duncombe

observed, that if the new Poor-law were so excellent, and if, as they were told, the more inquiry the subject received, the more the country would be satisfied with it, then in that case what objection could there be to the six or seven names proposed? He was certain, that the greatest injury would result from any attempt at smothering the inquiry.

The House divided on the original motion, that the Order of the Day be read: —Ayes 152; Noes 124: Majority 28.

List of the AYES.
Acheson, Viscount. Baines, Edward
Aglionby, H. A. Barclay, D.
Alston, Rowland Barnard. E. G.
Anson, Sir George Bentinck, Lord W.
Berkeley, hon. F. Long, W.
Berkeley, hon. C. Lynch, A. H.
Bernal, R. Mackenzie, S.
Bewes, T. Maher, John
Biddulph, Robert Mangles, J.
Bish, Thomas Marjoribanks, S.
Brady, D. C. Marshall, Wm.
Brodie, W. B. Marsland, H.
Browne, R. D. Methuen, Paul
Byng, George Molesworth, Sir W.
Callaghan, D. Morpeth, Viscount
Campbell, Sir J. Mosley, Sir O.
Cartwright, W. R. Murray, rt. hon. J.
Cayley, E. S. Nagle, Sir R.
Chalmers, P. North, F.
Chichester, I. P. B. O'Brien, W. S.
Churchill, Lord C. O'Connell, J.
Clay, W. O'Connell, M. J.
Codrington, Sir E. O'Connell, Morgan
Colborne, N. W. R. Oliphant, Lawrence
Collier, J. Ord, W. H.
Crawford, W. Oswald, James
Crawley, S. Paget, Frederick
Denison, John Parker, John
Dillwyn, L. W. Parrott, Jasper
Donkin, Sir R. Pechell, Captain R.
Dundas, J. C. Pendarves, E. W.
Ebrington, Viscount Philips, G. R.
Ellice, E. Ponsonby, J.
Elphinstone, H. Potter, R.
Estcourt, Thos. Poulter, J. S.
Ewart, W. Power, James
Fazakerley, J. N. Price, Sir Robert, bt.
Fergus, J. Pryme, George
Ferguson, Sir R. Pusey, P.
Ferguson, Robert Rice, rt. hon. T. S.
Fergusson, R. C. Rickford, W.
Fitzgibbon, hon. B. Roche, William
Finn, W. F. Russell, Lord J.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Ruthven, E.
Fitzsimon, C. Sanford, E. A.
Fort, J. Scott, Sir E. D.
Gisborne, T. Scrope, G. P.
Goring, H. D. Seymour, Lord
Grey, Sir G. Smith, Robert V.
Gully, John Smith, B.
Harcourt, G. G. Stanley, Edw. J.
Hastie, A. Stanley, W. O.
Hawes, B. Strickland, Sir G.
Hawkins, J. H. Strutt, Edward
Hay, Sir And. Leith Stuart, V.
Heathcote, John Surrey, Lord
Hobhouse, Sir J. C. Tancred, H. W.
Holland, E. Thomson, C. P.
Howick, Viscount Thomson, Paul B.
Hume, J. Thornley, Thomas
Hutt, Wm. Tracey, C. H.
James, William Trelawney, Sir W.
Jephson, C. D. O. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Johnstone, J. J. H. Tulk, C. A.
Labouchere, H. Tynte, C. J. K.
Lambton, Hedworth Verney, Sir H., Bt.
Langton, Wm. Gore Vernon, Granv. H.
Lefevre, C. S. Vivian, J. H.
Lennox, Lord G. Wall, C. B.
Leveson, Lord Wallace, R.
Loch, J. Warburton, H.
Ward, Hen. George Wood, C.
Wemyss, Captain Wrightson, W. Battie
Weyland, Major Wrottesley, Sir J., Bt.
Wigney, Isaac N.
Wilbraham, G. TELLERS.
Williams, W. A. Maule, hon. F.
Williams, Sir J. Steuart, R.
List of the NOES.
Ainsworth, P. Hardinge, Sir H.
Alsager, Captain Harvey, D. W.
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Hawkes, T.
Archdall, M. Herries, rt. hon. J. C.
Ashley, Lord Hindley, C.
Baillie, H. D. Hodges, T. L.
Bainbridge, E. T. Hotham, Lord
Baring, F. Humphery, John
Beckett, Sir J. Jones, Wilson
Bell, M. Jones, Theobald
Blackburne, J. Irton, Samuel
Blackstone, W. S. Kerrison, Sir Edw.
Blunt, Sir C. R. Lawson, Andrew
Bolling, Wm. Leader, J. T.
Bonham, R. Francis Lefroy, rt. hon. T.
Brocklehurst, J. Lincoln, Earl of
Brotherton, J. Lister, E. C.
Brownrigg, S. Lowther, J. H.
Bruce, C. L. C. Mackinnon, W. A.
Buller, Sir J. B. Yarde Mahon, Viscount
Canning, hon. C. Marsland, T.
Canning, Sir S. Maunsell, T. P.
Chandos, Marq. of Meynell, Capt.
Chaplin, Col. Miller, Wm. Henry
Chapman, Aaron Mordaunt, Sir J., Bt.
Chisholm, A. Palmer, Robert
Clerk, Sir G., Bt Palmer, George
Clive, hon. R. H. Parker, M.
Compton, H. C. Patten, J. Wilson.
Conolly, E. M. Pelham, John C.
Crawford, W. S. Pigot, Robert
Crewe, Sir G., Bt. Polhill, Frederick
Dalbiac, Sir C. Pollington, Visct.
Darlington, Earl of Powell, Colonel
Dick, Quintin Price, S. G.
Duncombe, W. Price, Richard
Eaton, R. J. Rae, Sir Wm., Bt.
Egerton, Lord Fran. Robinson, G. R.
Etwall, R. Roebuck, J. A.
Fancourt, Major Rushbrooke, Col.
Fector, John Minet Ruthven, E.
Feilden, W. Sandon, Viscount
Fielden, J. Scholefield, Joshua
Finch, George Shaw, F.
Follett, Sir W. Sheppard, T.
Forester, hon. G. Shirley, E. J.
Fremantle, Sir T. W. Sinclair, Sir George
Freshfield, James W. Smith, A.
Gaskell, James Milnes Smyth, Sir H., Bt.
Gladstone, Wm. E. Somerset, Lord G.
Gordon, W. Stanley, Edward
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Thomas, Colonel
Grimston, hon. E. H. Thompson, Colonel
Guest, J. Trevor, hon. G.
Hale, R. B. Vere, Sir C. B.
Halse, James Vesey, hon. T.
Hamilton, Lord C. Wakley, T.
Harcourt, G. S. Walpole, Lord
Wason, R. Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.
Whalley, Sir S. Young, J.
Whitmore, Thomas C. Young, Sir W.
Wilbraham, B. TELLERS.
Williams, W. Duncombe, T.
Wodehouse, E. Walter, John