Commons Sitting of 15 July 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Highways (No. 2).—Read a second time:—Slave Trade (Portugal).—Read a third time:—Soap Duties Drawback; and Indemnity.
Petitions presented. By Mr. W. Roche, from Limerick, in favour of the Corporations (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. Hawes, from Lambeth, against the Poor-law Commission Continuance and Collection of Rates Bill.—By the Solicitor-General, from Falmouth, for a Uniform Penny Postage.

LONDON POLICE.—RIDERS TO BILLS.
Mr. F. Maule Mr. F. Maule moved the third reading of the London City Police Bill, and brought up some clauses to be added, by way of rider, to the Bill.
On the last clause being brought up,
Sir G. Clerk,said, that as this was the last of the numerous clauses which had been added by way of rider to this bill, he must protest against this unparalleled mode of legislation. He thought if the journals of the House were searched from the earliest period, no instance could be found of clauses, to the number of thirty or forty, many of them penal, being added to a bill in this its last stage. It was true that these clauses were merely a transcript of clauses which had been introduced into the Metropolitan Police Bill, but still this was a most irregular mode of proceeding, and one which, if not guarded might be drawn into a very inconvenient
332
precedent. The better course would have been to have adopted the mode of proceeding followed with regard to the local small debts courts' bills, which were all withdrawn, and new bills introduced containing all the clauses and provisions approved of by the select committee on the General County Courts Bill. In the same manner in this case, the more regular course would have been that this bill should have been withdrawn, and the corporation of the city of London directed to bring in a new bill, embodying all these clauses, instead of their having now been hurried through all the three stages at once. He repeated, that he did not object to those clauses being brought up, because they were mere transcripts, as he had already said, of the clauses of the Metropolitan Police Bill, but he thought it would be necessary that the Speaker should make an entry on the journals, stating the peculiar grounds on which this course had been adopted, in order that it might not be drawn into ail inconvenient precedent.
Mr. F. Maulegave the hon. Baronet full credit for a laudable desire to maintain regularity, but he thought the hon. Baronet, if he really was so anxious about the matter, might before this course was taken, have suggested that the bill should be withdrawn, and a new bill introduced. The hon. Baronet would, perhaps, remember that the object of these clauses was to establish uniformity in the police regulations both in the city of London and the east and west ends of the town, and that clauses identically the same as those now proposed had been fully discussed in committee on the Metropolitan Police Bill. He was sorry if the proceeding had been at all inconvenient to the House, but he did not think it would be worth while to make an entry on the journals, as had been suggested.
Mr. Humewould be glad to know if what had now been done was contrary to the rules of the House, because, if not, these was no necessity for any entry on the journals? He apprehended that it was only on extraordinary occasions that such a course as the present was taken, and then only at the discretion of the House.
Sir G. Clerkwas only afraid this proceeding might be drawn into a precedent, and therefore he had thought it necessary that a note should be appended to the journals, stating the circumstances of these

333
clauses being mere transcripts of the clauses in the Metropolitan Police Bill, and introduced for the sake of establishing uniformity.
Mr. Humesaid, the only course was for the hon. Baronet to move a resolution to that effect. If the House had a discretion in these cases, he did not see there were any grounds to find fault.
Clauses added.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. Patteson Mr. Patteson moved an amendment to the effect of giving to the mayor, aldermen, and commons, in common council assembled, power of suspending the chief commissioner if they thought fit, that power being confined by the clause, as it stood, to the Court of Lord Mayor and Aldermen.
Sir J. Grahamadmitted, that the subject to which the Hon. Member adverted was an important one, but observed, that it had been fully considered and discussed in the committee up stairs. The committee agreed that popular influence should have its effect in the appointment of a commissioner, and therefore left the power of nomination in the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council; but with respect to dismissal, they thought that that power should either remain in the Crown, or be placed in the hands of the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen. The committee finally agree, though by a small majority certainly, to confer the power of dismissal on the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, and they arrived at this conclusion because they were aware that the commissioner would have unpopular duties to discharge, and that, therefore, it would be unfair to render the retention of office contingent on the will of a popular body such as the Common Council. He concurred in this view, and had heard nothing to induce him to alter the opinion which he had formed.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that, without very strong reasons for it, he could not consent to alter the proposition which the committee had adopted. It was no doubt right that the Common Council should have a voice in the selection of the commissioners, but he at the same time thought they would not be a fit body to discuss the question of removal. He felt it to be his duty, therefore, to abide by the recommendation which the committee had given.
Mr. Williamssaid; the citizens of Lon-
334
don had been most unjustly treated by the course pursued with respect to this bill, for they had been led to believe, that they were exempted from the harsh and tyrannical provisions of the Metropolitan Police Bill, whereas the city Police was now placed precisely on the footing of the Metropolitan Police. It was most anomalous that one party should be allowed to appoint and another to dismiss an officer of so much importance. He trusted the power of dismissal would be virtually, ere long, placed in the Crown. If the noble Lord would prove, that the Court of Aldermen was not one of the most corrupt Courts that ever existed, then he would agree to the course proposed by the noble Lord. At present he would support the motion of his hon. Friend.
Mr. F. Mauledenied, that the City had been unfairly dealt with by the present Act. He trusted, after all the consideration the subject had undergone, that his hon. Friend would not press his amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
Original question again put.
Mr. Mackinnon Mr. Mackinnon moved as an amendment to the clause, disqualifying the City Police Commissioner from sitting in Parliament, that the following words be inserted in the seventh clause, at the end of the words, "House of Commons," "for the city of London, or for any city or borough within the metropolitan district." He considered that the clause, as it at present stood, must have been inserted in the bill by mistake. It was perfectly anomalous to insert a clause of general disqualification into a private bill—it was copied from the Metropolitan Police Bill, which was a general bill, and therefore was properly introduced there, but could not be with propriety introduced into a private bill. The Police Commissioners, under that Act, were appointed by the Crown, and were removable by the Crown, and therefore they were properly disqualified from sitting in Parliament. But, in this case, the individual was appointed by the City of London, and was removable only by an address of the City of London. He had heard that this clause had been intended against one individual, but, as he generally voted in opposition to that individual, he could not be supposed to have any private feeling on the question, but he objected to the clause as it stood, on principle. His amendment would prevent the individual

335
from sitting for any of the metropolitan districts, including the borough of Southwark, because it might be supposed, from his official situation, such an individual might have undue influence in those districts. It was a complete anomaly, and if the right hon. Gentleman could show him any instance of a general disqualification being introduced into a private bill, he would withdraw his amendment; otherwise, he should press it, and take the sense of the House on the subject, as it might establish an inconvenient and dangerous precedent.
Mr. Williamsseconded the amendment. He did not see why the Commissioner should be prohibited from sitting in Parliament any more than the Recorder, the Common Sergeant, or the Lord Mayor. The citizens of London wished to put the police force under a gentleman with whom they had been connected for many years, and in whom they had great confidence—that Gentleman was the hon. Member for Southwark, and his belief was, that this clause was directed against that hon. Member. He, therefore, opposed the clause.
Mr. F. Maulecould not agree to any alteration in the clause. The hon. Member who had last spoken had placed him in rather a delicate position by the insinuation he had made, but he could positively state that this clause had been introduced without reference to any person. The committee to whom this bill had been referred, had looked to the Act of the 10th George the 4th, which regulated the police of Westminster, and it was found in that bill there was a clause excluding the commissioners from Parliament. It was but right that the citizens of London should have the whole time of the Commissioner, considering the salary they would pay him.
Mr. Humewould not say, that it did, but he thought it looked very like as if the clause was intended to apply to the hon. Member for Southwark. He doubted very much whether it would be fair to persevere in this motion. If the Commissioner was not to be allowed to sit in that House, he did not see why the Recorder of London should.
Sir J. Grahamcould not assent to the proposition that the office in question would be entirely in the gift of the people. The appointment was to be given with the approval, and to be held during the
336
pleasure, of the Crown. The Sovereign was to have the absolute power of removal. His principal reason, however, for supporting the clause, was the immense patronage which would be annexed to the office, and the way in which it might be exercised for electioneering purposes. Another reason why the office should constitute a disqualification for sitting in that House was, that the importance of the situation, and the amount of salary attached to it, gave the public a right to require, on the part of the individual who filled it, an entire devotion of his time and attention. Therefore, on all these grounds, the influence of the Crown, the patronage annexed to the office, and the magnitude of its duties, he thought the clause ought to pass.
Mr. D'Israelisaid, the argument of the right hon. Baronet would go to disfranchise policemen as voters, and might be used as an argument against every officer of the State sitting in that House. The Secretary of State had multifarious duties to perform, was well paid, and the country was entitled to the whole of his time. This question would involve the discussion of a principle which had never yet been settled, the propriety of official functionaries having seats in the House. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that the acceptance of office ought not to disqualify from a seat in Parliament.
Mr. Villiersagreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. There was no general principle on this subject laid down at all, and the argument of the right hon. Baronet would apply to a great many cases. To Lords-lieutenant and county magistrates for instance. No body of men possessed more important patronage than Lords-lieutenant, and yet they had seats in that House; two-thirds of the Members were county magistrates, who possessed the important power of granting or withholding licences; and he felt convinced that more votes were obtained from the fear of having licences withheld, or from the hope of having them granted, than from any other cause. If the argument was of any force, it applied to county magistrates. As far as he understood the reason for these disqualifications, it was from dread of the influence of the Crown; that did not apply in the present instance. The Corporation would take care not to appoint an unfit person, and the electors would see that the Member attended to

337
their interests. He should therefore vote against the clause.
Mr. Hawessupported the clause, and was anxious, that all questions relating to the police should be discussed without party or political feeling. He objected for several reasons to the Commissioner having a seat in that House: the Secretary of State was the head of the department, and responsible for the conduct of the police. It might happen, that a discussion might take place, and a difference of opinion be manifested between the Secretary of State and the commissioner, and the police would not then be able to look up to one head alone for orders. He would have the appointment of the men, and his patronage would consequently be just as great whatever borough he represented. The police were intended to act as arbiters between different parties, and therefore it was important they should not exhibit party feelings. He utterly disclaimed any individual feeling on the subject, having always supported this clause.
Mr. Harveysaid, that he should not permit the accidental reference which had been made to him by his hon. Friend, the Member for Coventry, to induce him to withhold the expression of his opinion upon the clause of the bill then under discussion. In the course of the remarks which had been made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in opposition to the motion of the hon. Member for London (Mr. Patteson) to the effect that the dismissal of the commissioners should be vested in the Common Council assembled, the Under Secretary laid great stress upon the circumstance, that the clause had received the sanction of a committee, and though it was intimated, that the clause itself was only carried by a majority of one, an hon. Member on the other side of the House attached as much importance to that vote as had her Majesty's Ministers to the vote which they had recently obtained on a majority of two. A motion like that which was carried in the committee had been made in the Common Council, in consequence of a report current at the time, that the commissioner would not be qualified to sit in that House, and out of the whole number but four persons were found to support it, while the other clause to which he had alluded had been carried by a majority of
338
one. So much for the high respect which the Under Secretary of State was disposed to pay to the majority of the Common Council. It appeared to him, that that House was singularly unacquainted with the law affecting their own privileges. He doubted if hon. Members were aware of what constituted disqualification, and what ineligibility merely. He had observed, that great stress had been laid by the right hon. Baronet opposite upon this being an appointment under the Crown, because it was an office from which the party might be dismissed at the pleasure of the Crown. But it was not so; the law had made a difference in that respect. Under the statute of Anne, where there was a new office of profit under the Crown, the party must also be dismissible at the pleasure of the Crown, in order to bring it within the statute; but the party was not disqualified from sitting in that House if appointed under the same tenure as proposed in this clause, that was to say, being dismissible on account of misconduct or other reasonable cause. That was precisely the same cause for which a judge might he dismissed or a minister impeached. But it did not disqualify a person appointed to a new office of profit under the Crown, from a seat in that House, if he held it as long as he conducted himself well. Besides, this was not an office under the Crown; it was an office to which the Common Council alone should appoint. It was true, as stated by the right hon. Baronet, that the Crown could exercise a veto upon that appointment, but it had nothing to do with the appointment, nor, when made, could the Crown dismiss the party appointed, except upon some obvious cause of evident misconduct. The House was, therefore, going to establish a precedent of interfering with appointments vested in the people. If that was to be a principle which they were to carry out by legislative means, why, let it be a general principle. Although he repudiated the narrow impression that this law had a personal origin, yet it was unfortunate that it was open to this suspicion. Was there the same zealous anxiety for the integrity of that House and its Members running through all their legislation? Look at the bill which was standing for the fiat of that House, giving to the judge of an ecclesiastical court a salary of 4,000 1.,—a bill which had been brought in by the

339
Government, and which would have already passed that House, but for the vigilance of his hon. Friend near him. Why was not the same anxiety evinced for the integrity of the House in other bills, and in that in particular, as was so directly recorded against the city of London in this. It was very well to disclaim all personal intention in this instance, but the course which was adopted certainly exposed the parties to an inference of that description. The House should not, it was said, qualify the holder of the office in question for a seat in that House, because he would have constant and numerous duties to perform. Might not the same be said of the judge of the Court of Admiralty, who was to receive a salary of 4,000 1. and sit in that House to represent the people and support her Majesty's Government? Under the Municipal Corporations Bill, all corporations had the power of establishing a commissioner or superintendent of police of some kind. Had they put this disqualification clause into that bill? He did not know if the hon. Member for Liverpool were present, but if he were he should wish to ask him, if the police force of the town of Liverpool was not greater than that of the city of London, and whether the commissioner at the head of that force was disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons? He would tell the slumbering legislators of that House, that there was no clause in the Municipal Corporation Bill disqualifying even those who were police constables; whereas, by this clause, if any police constable should be found to vote at an election for the city of London, he would be subjected to a penalty of 100 1. Why this vigilance to disqualify the citizens of London? Was it that Gentlemen fancied that the constituent bodies of the county were indifferent to the parties upon whom their choice should fall? If persons were to be excluded from that House, on the ground of having other occupations to attend to, he would just ask the House to look at many of its own Members to whom the same objection would apply—lawyers, for instance, who were occupied in the courts all day, and all the evening in their chambers. He objected to the amendment of the hon. Member, because it conceded too much, and because he thought it would be better to have no disqualification at all. The hon. Member for Lambeth thought it undesirable that the com-
340
missioner of police under this bill should sit in that House, inasmuch as he would have to arbitrate between conflicting interests. Now, he (Mr. Harvey) conceived it would have been very desirable if the commissioner of police had been in that House the other evening, when an imputation had been cast upon him by the hon. Member for Oldham; or on another recent occasion, when the House might have had his opinion as to the propriety of transferring the police from London to the scene of struggle in Birmingham. Another objection he had to this disqualification was, that they destroyed one of the few recompenses left in the hands of the people for consistent services. He was one of those who thought that there should be no disqualification, save that which the public mind imposed. Let the constituent bodies judge of the individual's pretensions. If his time were so occupied, as obviously to prevent the performance of his duties as representative of the people, that would be a sound reason why the constituency should not elect him. The discretion must be vested somewhere, and, in his opinion, it ought to be vested in the people.
Sir Robert Peel—Sir, I should be quite ashamed if I felt it necessary to disclaim any influence of a personal nature. I am sure that the proposition is made solely in reference to the general consideration of public benefit, and it is therefore scarcely necessary for me to disclaim any feeling of personal hostility in the course which I may think proper to pursue. I do not know what are the hon. Gentleman's chances of succeeding to this office, and I can only hope that the authorities who shall have the nomination of those officers may be afforded a fair opportunity of selecting those who have the best pretensions to discharge the duties efficiently. If I understood the hon. Gentleman, he said, those persons only were excluded from seats in Parliament, who held offices during pleasure. Why, the judges were not allowed to sit in Parliament, and they hold their offices independent of the Crown. In the reign of George 2nd, the Scotch judges were deprived of their eligibility to sit in Parliament—not upon the ground of their tenure of office, but upon the same ground that our criminal judges were rendered ineligible—because it was thought that it would be better if those who filled the judicial seat as civil

341
or criminal judges, should not appear upon the hustings, to appeal to the political feelings of the people as political partisans. It was held, therefore, that the public interest would be benefited by preventing those who held such offices from sitting in Parliament. In my opinion, it would not conduce to the public benefit, or to the more efficient discharge of the duties which belong to the office of the commissioner, to have such commissioner known as a political partisan. It may be very well to have political partisans in this House, but when such an important duty is to be intrusted to a person, when he is to have the command of 500 men, and when we are aware how far the efficient discharge of his duty may depend upon the impression which the public may form as to his impartiality, I say that, under these circumstances, it is better such an individual should not have a seat in Parliament. It was, therefore, because we were of opinion that the duties which attached to that office would be discharged with more satisfaction to the public by a person who was not a political partisan, that I advocate such a provision, and not with any personal view. But the exception proposed with respect to the city of London, goes against the hon. Member's argument, for the citizens of London ought to be best qualified to judge of the efficiency or capability of the individual who held that office, to be a Member of this House; and if there may be allowed a power to exclude them from representing the city of London, why not a power to exclude them from other places as well? The hon. Gentleman had said, that the superintendent of the Liverpool police is subject to no such provision? Why not? Because the duties of the superintendent of police in Liverpool are totally incompatible with his holding a seat in Parliament; and if the superintendent of the Liverpool police held a seat in this House, and attended to the discharge of his political duties in this House, I have no doubt the people of Liverpool would soon say to him, "You are a political partisan—you devote so much of your attention to politics, that it is impossible you can remain longer at the head of our police force." But in London the case is different from that of Liverpool: there is no physical impossibility here, and it is on that account that, in order to provide for the more satisfactory fulfilment of the duties, such a provision has been
342
thought necessary. I put it to the hon. Gentleman whether he can be of opinion that the public would be satisfied if the commissioner of police were to appear in the character of a candidate for a seat in Parliament, addressing himself to the passions and feelings of the people, flattering one party, and abusing the other, which would be fair enough in a political candidate, and still having the command of 500 men? Would, I ask, those who were abused by that individual, place the same confidence in his impartial discharge of his duties as those in whose favour he declared himself? Is it not contrary to the dictates of common sense that they could have the same confidence in him? But now look to the position of such an individual with respect to the other two commissioners. I venture to say, his relation to the others would be perfectly changed, that they would be subordinate officers to the commissioner who might have a seat in Parliament, who would undertake to answer questions connected with the police force, and who would, from that position become totally paramount. Suppose the commissioner who held a seat in Parliament should be a clever debater, who took every opportunity of attacking the Secretary of State. Suppose that whenever he spoke upon the police, he turned into ridicule the views of the Secretary of State with respect to that body, and called them narrow and confined. Supposing that the Secretary of State was unable to engage with that gentleman in debate, and found himself unsuccessful, what would be the consequence? Would the commissioner feel his authority lowered? The Secretary of State would say, this man is constantly attacking me, but I cannot remove him, as people would say it was on account of his popularity; and thus in what relation would he stand to the others? Persons will always place most reliance upon such a person in consequence of his not being a political partisan, and, therefore, I had great pleasure in bringing over a gentleman from the sister country. I placed him purposely in the office, and, as I expected, he was fully successful in gaining the public confidence. If the person at the head of the police be a political partisan, it is quite impossible he should have as much of the public confidence as if he were not such a partisan. Such an exclusion would also prevent unseemly con-

343
filets between the Secretary of State and the commissioner who might have a seat in this House on the grounds of discipline and subordination. I am opposed to it, and whilst I say that, I do not mean that such a commissioner should abandon his political opinions, but that he should not put them ostensibly forward as a partisan. The right hon. Baronet concluded by again disclaiming any personal feeling in the vote which he was about to give.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite, it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House by entering into a discussion of the question then before them. Thus much, however, he might say, that if the appointment of commissioner rested with the Secretary of State, he should not by any means recommend the appointment of a Member of that House. He was sorry that it should become necessary to exclude them by an Act of Parliament. He regretted that it should in any case become necessary to narrow the choice of the people, for he would much rather leave motions of this sort to the special circumstances of each individual case. Being of opinion, however, that, in such a case as the present, there ought to be such a provision, he should support the clause.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Mackinnon be inserted:—Ayes 32; Noes 108—Majority 76.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Pechell, Captain

Bowes, J.

Polhill, F.

Bridgeman, H.

Power, J.

Brotherton, J.

Pryme, G.

Bryan, G.

Redington, T. N.

D'Israeli, B.

Salwey, Colonel

Duke, Sir J.

Sheil, R. L.

Fielden, J.

Turner, E.

Harvey, D. W.

Vigors, N. A.

Heathcoat, J.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Hector, C. J.

Wakley, T.

Hindley, C.

Walker, R.

Humphery, J.

Williams, W.

Kemble, H.

Wood, Sir M.

Morris, D.

O'Brien, W. S.

TELLERS.

Parker, R. T.

Hume, J.

Pattison, J.

Mackinnon, J.

List of the NOES.

Ainsworth, P.

Baines, E.

Alsager, Captain

Baring, F. T.

Archdall, M.

Barnard, E. G.

Bagge, W.

Blackstone, W. S.

344

Blair, J.

Hutt, W.

Blake, W. J.

Hutton, R.

Brownrigg, S.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Buck, L. W.

Irving, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Jones, Captain

Burroughes, H. N.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Byng, G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Marshall, W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Cole, Viscount

Morpeth Viscount

Colquhoun, J. C.

Muskett, G. A.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Nagle, Sir R.

Darby, G.

Packe, C. W.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Palmer, G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Palmerston, Viscount

Duff, J.

Parker, J.

Eaton, R. J.

Parker, M.

Egerton, W. T.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Egerton, Sir P.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Elliot, hn. J. E.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Ellis, J.

Philips, M.

Estcourt, T.

Pigot, D. R.

Evans, W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Fector, J. M.

Rice, E. R.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Richards, R.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Forester, hon. G.

Russell, Lord

Freshfield, J. W.

Rutherford, rt. hn. A.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Sheppard, T.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Smith, J. A.

Grant, F. W.

Smith, A.

Greenaway, C.

Smith, R. V.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Somerset, Lord G.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Grimsditch, T.

Spry, Sir M. T.

Hale, R. B.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Halford, H.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Hall, Sir B.

Steuart, R.

Harcourt, G. G.

Stewart, J.

Hawes, B.

Strutt, E.

Hawkins, J. H.

Surrey, Earl of

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Thomson, rt. hn. C.P.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Thornely, T.

Hodges, T. L.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hodgson, R.

Williams, W. A.

Hogg, J. W.

Worsley, Lord

Hope, hon. C.

Wrightson, W. B.

Hope, H. T.

Hoskins, K.

TELLERS.

Howard, F.

Maule, F.

Hurt, F.

Wood, C.

Bill passed.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (IRELAND)
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved the third reading of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.
Sir R. Inglisrose to object to the measure, to which he felt bound to offer his most strenuous resistance. His opposition to it was not produced, either in its extent or character, by the resistance which had been shown to the several amendments which had been proposed for the improve-

345
ment of this bill. He would not hesitate to say that, even if those amendments had been passed, his hostility to the bill would still remain unchanged. The only argument which had been used in favour of this measure with any plausibility was that derived from the fact that similar measures had been passed for Scotland and England. But that was no argument in his mind, for the working of that measure in England showed how dangerous it would be to extend a similar measure to Ireland. He believed that in England the measure had produced no good. The passing of this bill would be neither more nor less than the annihilation of all the existing Irish corporations. The present corporation of Dublin could not exist within six months after the passing of this bill. He believed, that her Majesty's Government had brought forward this bill, not in obedience to any principle of consistency, but to gratify the wishes of a certain number of their supporters—men who were not ashamed to be considered anti-Protestant in their views, but who, on the contrary, considered it to be a distinction that they were so. The expectations formed from this measure would prove delusive, for he believed that the measure would turn out to be nothing more than a hollow truce. He had witnessed the mischief that had been produced by former concessions. He had, consistently, opposed those concessions, and the result convinced him that he was right in doing so. Therefore, seeing the mischief that this bill was likely to produce, he should now move that the bill be read a third time that day three months.
Mr. Plumptreseconded the amendment.
Mr. O'Connellwould detain the House only a very few minutes. If the bill had been an extension, as it should have been, the people of Ireland would have been reproached with receiving a boon, and yet remaining unsatisfied. He wished those who were inclined to make that statement would recollect the fact, that none of the measures of reform given to Ireland had been placed on an equal footing with those for England and Scotland. What the Irish demanded, was equality; and why should they be content without it? No measure of relief short of English franchise and privileges would satisfy them. They would always continue their efforts to raise their position to the Eng-
346
lish standard. Nothing could be so absurd as this species of legislation, which conceded a part, and withheld the rest of their rights. What the Parliament gave conferred on the people the power of obtaining the rest, and compelled them by agitation to keep up the public excitement until they accomplished their object. If the House wished to put an end to that state of things, let it at once concede the same measure of liberty the people of England possessed. With the bill, as it now stood, he was discontented. It should have been founded and carried into effect at once on the principle of the English franchise, whereas for the first three years they were restricted to a different and higher qualification. Under the Irish Reform Bill, only one-fourth per cent. of the full grown males possessed the franchise, while in England the proportion was 20 per cent. Could the Irish people be content with such a state of things? They could not, and ought not. Without equality of representation and privileges, the union was a fraud and a deception. Profitable it might be to one party, but not binding on the other. He protested against the bill as it stood; but if it came down to that House from another place, with a franchise still more restricted in one iota, he would appeal to both countries against the bill—to the Reformers of England when they should have recovered their senses and given up the Chartists, and to the people of Ireland, where agitation was always consistent with perfect obedience to the law.
Mr. Darbysaid, when he first sat in that House, the principle of municipal corporations for Ireland was conceded by the Conservatives both of that and the other House of Parliament; and the only anxiety was, that the qualification should be a bonâ fide one. This bill, however, was unamended for any substantial purpose, and he should vote against it.
Colonel Percevalhad voted for the second reading of the bill, in the hope that the Government would adopt a 10 l. rating; but in that respect it was even less regardful of the interests of the Protestants of Ireland than the measure of last year; in fact, at the end of three years, there would be no rating at all. He should have preferred, that corporations should have been abolished altogether, and he should vote against the bill.
The House divided on the original question: Ayes 97; Noes 21: Majority 76.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

O'Brien, W. S.

Aglionby, H. A.

O'Connell, D.

Baines, E.

Palmerston, Ld. Visc.

Baring, F. T.

Parker, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Barry, G. S.

Pechell, Captain

Bernal, R.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Bowes, J.

Philips, M.

Bridgeman, H.

Pigot, D. R.

Briscoe, J. I.

Power, J.

Brotherton, J.

Price, Sir R.

Bryan, G.

Pryme, G.

Callaghan, D.

Pryse, P.

Cave, R. O.

Redington, T. N.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Rice, E. R.

Clive, E. B.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Roche, W.

D'Eyncourt, right hon. C. T.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Russell, Lord John

Divett, E.

Russell, Lord

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Duke, Sir J.

Salwey, Colonel

Evans, W.

Scholefield, J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Sheil, R. L.

Finch, F.

Smith, B.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Smith, R. V.

Gisborne, T.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Greenaway, C.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Stewart, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Stock, Dr.

Hall, Sir B.

Strutt, E.

Hawes, B.

Surrey, Earl of

Heathcoat, J.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Hindley, C.

Thornely, T.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Turner, E.

Hodges, T. L.

Vigors, N. A.

Hoskins, K.

Wakley, T.

Howard, F. J.

Walker, R.

Howick, Lord Visct.

Ward, H. G.

Hume, J.

White, H.

Hutton, R.

Williams, W.

Lemon, Sir C.

Williams, W. A.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Wood, C.

Macleod, R.

Wood, Sir M.

Marshall, W.

Worsley, Lord

Maule, hon. F.

Yates, J. A.

Morpeth, Lord Visct.

Morris, D.

TELLERS.

Muskett, G. A.

Stanley, E. J,

Nagle, Sir R.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Fector, J. M.

Archdall, M.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Bagge, W.

Grimsditch, T.

Blackstone, W. S.

Henniker, Lord

Burroughes, H. N.

Jones, Captain

Cole, Lord Viscount

Kemble, H.

Cooper, E. J.

Palmer, G.

Egerton, Sir P.

Parker, R. T.

Ellis, J.

Perceval, Colonel

348

Perceval, hon. G. J.

TELLERS.

Plumptre, J. P.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Polhill, F.

Darby, G.

Bill read a third time and passed.

ADMIRALTY COURT.
The House went into Committee on the Admiralty Court Bill.
On the first clause,
Mr. Humeobjected to the increase of salary which was proposed to be given by this bill to the Judge of the Admiralty Court. He did not think that either the duties which this learned functionary was called on to perform nor the present state of the revenue warranted this increase of salary which was proposed to be given by this clause. He thought it would be very desirable to know, whether any increased duties were to be thrown upon the Judge of the Admiralty Court by this bill, for he certainly saw no reason for coming forward, under the present circumstances of the country, to propose this increase of salary.
Lord John Russellthought, that the hon. Member had not paid sufficient attention to this measure. The object of the bill was to alter the principle on which the Judge of the Admiralty Court had hitherto been paid, and instead of the payment by fees to pay the Judge, a fixed and permanent salary. During the time of war, owing to the increase of fees, the emoluments of this office had amounted to between eight and nine thousand a-year, whilst in time of peace the salary was under four thousand a-year. He thought that it was very objectionable that a person filling an office of this kind should receive a salary liable to so much variation in its amount, and that was a reason why it was thought much better to fix it. In making this provision, however, the hon. Gentleman would perceive, that the amount of salary had been fixed considerably lower than what the Judge was in the habit of receiving in time of war.
Mr. Humedid not see the necessity of providing for time of war, for whenever such a time arrived, which he trusted would be far distant, it would then be early enough to provide for an increase of salary. They had an assurance from her Majesty at the commencement of the Session, that there was every prospect of the continuance of peace in Europe, and he certainly did not see the reason for providing for such a remote contingency.

349
The reasons just stated by the noble Lord did not satisfy him, and he certainly should continue his opposition to this proposal.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the hon. Gentleman seemed to have mistaken the principle on which this increase was demanded. They were not asking the House to vote a war salary to the Judge of the Admiralty, but they asked the House, now at a time of peace, to vote such a salary as would form a mean between what the Judge received in time of war and what he received in time of peace. He did not think that this Judge ought to be in such a position that his emoluments should be high at one time and low at another, but his salary ought to be equal at all times and regularly paid. A few years ago an alteration was made in Ireland, and the salary of the judge of the Prerogative Court in that country was fixed at 3,000 l. a-year, and this was not thought to be more than a fair proportion, in reference to the emoluments of a man in first-rate practice at the civil bar. Now, he certainly thought, that 4,000 l. a-year in England, was not more in proportion to the larger emoluments of the English bar than 3,000 l. was in Ireland. When it was considered, that the person appointed to this office should be able to determine questions of great importance not to this country alone, but to every civilized country throughout the world, and that the effect of his decisions was to reach distant countries, he thought that it would indeed be a most miserable economy which would not enable them to secure the best services for a situation of such eminence and importance.
Mr. Williamsobserved, that no advance of salary had been made to Lord Stowell, to Sir Christopher Robinson, or to Sir John Nicholl; and the country was not in a better state now than formerly to give an increased salary. He had been told, that the judge of the Admiralty Court had sat only twenty-four days during the last year; but if the number of days had been double, the present salary was quite sufficient. He objected to the increase because the country was not in a condition to make it.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, Lord Stowell had had the benefit of his war income for sonic years. If the hon. Member who spoke last would refer to the evidence before the committee of 1833, he would find, that
350
the number of days the judge of the Admiralty Court sat was no criterion of the duty he performed. A salary of 4,000 l. for a time of war as well as peace was not too much.
Mr. Humedid not like that the Liberal party should be reproached with having increased the salary of this office when filled by one of their friends, after Sir John Nichol, and his predecessors had received only the lower salary. If the increase was fit to be made, it ought to have been made when preceding judges were in office; but he thought it a most unfit time to acid to the salary, when a judge had little or no duty to perform. If the learned judge had a duty to perform at the Privy Council, he would rather give him a salary of 1,000 l. for that. As it was, it appeared a partial and improper proceeding.
Mr. C. Woodhad omitted to mention, that by this bill there was a considerable increase of business thrown on the Admiralty Court, by the extension of its jurisdiction.
The Solicitor-generalregretted, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny should have suggested that this increase had been made because the present judge of the Admiralty Court was one of their party. The hon. Member must, he thought, feel satisfied that no case more imperiously called for an increase of salary. The hon. Member said, there was at present very little business in that court; but it was most important to have there at all times a judge competent to do the business that was to be clone, and to get such a person he must be taken from a class of the highest professional eminence. It was a miserable economy to run the risk of not being being able to procure the services of men of the first eminence. Was it prudent or consistent with sound policy to make it the interest of the judge, who had to adjudicate questions not of meum and tuum, but which might plunge Europe in war, to decide in a case of capture something that might lead to hostilities?
Sir R. Inglisagreed with the Solicitor-general, that it was important to have a judge of the highest eminence, as his decisions might influence the great question of peace or war. Those who recollected the decisions of our Court of Admiralty in the time of the Orders in Council would be aware how materially those decisions affected our foreign relations.
Mr. Wakleywas really much obliged to Government for not proposing a higher salary than 4,000 l. a-year. Had the sum been 8,000 l. instead of 4,000 l. he had no doubt it would have been easily granted, for the extravagance of the House was without limit. He protested against adding to the burdens of the people, by an unnecessary increase of at least one-fourth in the salary of this judge.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, he found, that in point of form it would be impossible to go on with this clause, as a preliminary resolution would be required.
Clause postponed.
On the 17th clause,
Mr. Humeproposed, as an amendment, the insertion of certain words, which would give to all barristers indiscriminately the power of practising in the High Court of Admiralty. At present the practice in that court was monopolised by the doctors of civil law.
Mr. Wakleysupported the amendment. Perhaps the learned judge of the court, as the money clauses of the bill were postponed, would favour the Committee with his opinion as to the propriety of opening the court.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that as he was thus personally called on, he had no hesitation in declaring, that though it might not be inexpedient in principle to rescind prospectively the rule which excluded from the court all advocates who were not doctors in civil law, still in practice it would be productive of considerable injury to the present advocates in that court to let in upon them suddenly a new class of competitors who had not acquired the same qualifications or undergone the same long and laborious ordeal with themselves. The advocates in the High Court of Admiralty must have acquired their degrees of doctor in civil law in a strictly regular way, for if the degree were obtained by any grace or favour, it was not sufficient to admit the person so obtaining it to practise as an advocate in that court.
Mr. Sheilsupported the amendment. Catholics and other Dissenters were at present disqualified from acting in this court, because they could not obtain the necessary degrees in the English Universities.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that there was one other consideration to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee.
352
The High Court of Admiralty was the only school of public law in this country, and he was afraid, that since the death of Lord Stowell, we had not been at all able to vie with the professors of public law in other nations. Any measure, then, which tended to diminish the emoluments of that portion of the profession, which devoted itself to the study of public law, must also impair its character for learning and talent. And let not that be considered as a matter of slight importance, for the King's Advocate was consulted daily on matters of public law, and any mistakes on such points might involve the country in war.
The Committee divided on the amendment:—Ayes 28; Noes 69: Majoity 41.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Power, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Salwey, Colonel

Brotherton, J.

Scholefield, J.

Collins, W.

Sheil, R. L.

Dashwood, G. H.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Duke, Sir J.

Turner, E.

Easthope, J.

Turner, W.

Fenton, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Finch, F.

Warburton, H.

Gisborne, T.

White, A.

Hall, Sir B.

Williams, W.

Harvey, D. W.

Yates, J. A.

Hawes, B.

Hutton, R.

TELLERS.

Lushington, C.

Hume, J.

Pechell, Captain

Wakley, T.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Howard, P. H.

Ainsworth, P.

Howard, Sir R.

Alsager, Captain

Howick, Viscount

Baring, F. T.

Hurt, F.

Barry, G. S.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Blake, W.

James, Sir W. C.

Bryan, G.

Kemble, H.

Buck, L, W.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Clive, E. B.

Loch, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Lowther, hon. Colonel

Dalmeny, Lord

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Darby, G.

Macleod, R.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Marshall, W.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Maule, hon. F.

Evans, W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Packe, C. W.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Palmer, G.

Freshfield, J. W.

Parker, J.

Gordon, R.

Parker, R. T.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Greenaway, C.

Pendarves, hn. W.W.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Pigot, D. R.

Grimsditch, T.

Plumptre, J. P.

Harcourt, G. G.

Pryme, G.

Heathcoat, J.

Rice, E. R.

Hoskins, K.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

353

Rich, H.

Thomson, rt. hn. C.P.

Russell, Lord J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Walker, R.

Scrope, G. P.

Williams, W. A.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Wilshere, W.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Wood, Sir M.

Stuart, R.

Worsley, Lord

Stewart, J.

TELLERS

Strutt, E.

Wood, C.

Surrey, Earl of

Solicitor-general, the

Remaining clauses agreed to.

CONTINUANCE OF THE POOR-LAW COMMISSION.
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved the second reading of the Poor-Law Commission Continuance Bill.
Mr. Grimsditchsaid, he had strong objections to the measure. The predictions which had been made in that House as to the manner in which the Poor-law Amendment Act would be carried out, had been fully realized. It was not his object, at the present moment, to animadvert upon the gentlemen to whom the duty of conducting and carrying out that measure had been confided; he believed them to be most respectable and honourable men, but this much he must say of them, that they, or at all events those who acted under them, did not possess, in his opinion, sufficient practical knowledge. The host of sub-commissioners which had been sent out through the country was composed principally of barristers-at-law, of very short standing at the bar, who had not had any experience of the social feelings and habits of the people of the country. But he objected to the present bill as unnecessary. The unconstitutional powers vested in the Commissioners, it was provided by the Poor-law Amendment Act, were to continue fur five years, and until the end of the then next Session of Parliament. Now, surely five years was ample time to try and ascertain the working of the measure. The measure had, with one or two exceptions, he believed, been carried into effect throughout the kingdom, and within the term the commission would now continue—namely, until the end of the next Session—an ample opportunity would be afforded fully to try the experiment. But with respect to this bill. At the commencement of the present Session, and frequently during its progress, questions had been put to the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) as to his intentions with respect to this law, and early in the Session, the noble Lord stated his intention to bring in a bill, not
354
only to continue the powers of the existing Commissioners, but also to remedy a number of defects which it was allowed existed in the carrying out of the new system. It, therefore, was with very great surprise to him (Mr. Grimsditch) that it was only within the last few weeks that the bill, together with five other measures connected also with the question, made its appearance before the House, and it was evident that the powers of the Commissioners were not to cease even at the time fixed by the bill of the noble Lord, than which a more objectionable and oppressive measure had scarcely ever been brought forward. One of the bills brought in created a new office—that of reviser of rates—it gave the commissioners power over all books, papers, and documents, belonging to the unions; it enabled the guardians to make and levy rates, to recover them by distress and sale; the right of appeal was taken away in certain cases; all these provisions served to show him that there was a determination on the part of the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department, to perpetuate the unconstitutional powers at present possessed by the commissioners, to a much longer period than the noble Lord professed. He, however, trusted that, looking to the strong feeling existing throughout the country, with reference to the extraordinary powers of the commissioners, her Majesty's Ministers would pause. It was notorious, that the present bill was brought in in the face of state prosecutions arising out of a resistance to this very law, in the north of England; it was notorious, that her Majesty's Attorney-general was proceeding both to Chester and to Liverpool to try persons for resisting this law. And where, he begged to ask, was the necessity for the present bill. It would be much better to postpone this bill, and in the mean time, the Government might take such active measures as would enable them to mature those amendments which were necessary in the existing law. To any further continuance of the powers held by the commissioners at Somerset-house, and those under them, he entertained strong objections, arising from the evil effects which had been produced throughout the country. If it was actually necessary to have a controlling power, in order to carry out with effect this law, it would be better to leave it to a Secretary of State, as in that case there would be a

355
responsibility, while at present there was none. Feeling strongly that this bill ought not to pass into a law, in the present Session at all events, he should move, as an amendment, that it be read a third time this day three months.
Mr. Darbysaid, that though it was not his intention to oppose the second reading of the bill, he thought there was some justice in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield as to the course which had been pursued by the noble Lord opposite with respect to it. It had been truly stated, that the noble Lord said he would bring in a bill in the second week of May to effect certain amendments in the existing poor-laws, and now the House had arrived at the 15th of July. The noble Lord had not redeemed his promise, but had waited until many hon. Members interested in the subject had left town, and consequently the present measure would not receive that discussion which it called for and deserved. But though the bill to continue the Poor-law commission was now before the House, still those clauses of amendment, including the bastardy clauses, which the noble Lord promised to lay on the Table, were not forthcoming, and up to the present moment, nobody knew at what time they would be brought forward; still less did anybody know what provisions they would contain. The noble Lord had said, that the object of this bill was to continue the commission but for one year longer; but, on looking at the bill, he found it provided, that the commissioners "should hold their offices until the expiration of one year from the 14th of August, 1840, and until the end of the then next Session of Parliament." So that the bill proposed a continuance of nearly three years. He should not vote against the second reading of the bill, because that course might prevent him moving those amendments which he desired to see effected in the present laws. If the noble Lord refused those amendments when proposed in Committee, he should vote against the third reading, on the principle that he might then probably get an early opportunity next Session of pressing his amendments upon the House.
Colonel Sibthorphad great pleasure in supporting the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Grimsditch). The Poor-law Amendment Bill, it had been promised, would be a
356
boon to the poor of the country. It was no such thing; but, on the contrary, it had been now proved to be an imposition on the public. The whole of the news. papers—a means of information on which some reliance ought to be placed—teemed daily with complaints of the cruelty of the Poor-law Amendment Act. His hon. Friend who had just sat down had expressed his surprise that the noble Lord had delayed this bill until this late period of the Session; but his hon. Friend forgot that it was the practice of the Government to postpone all their measures until that late period when but few Members remained to resist their machinations. Let the House look at the expense to which this commission had put the country. He had not the whole returns, but he was sure, if he said it had cost 60,000 l. it would be the minimum. The returns up to 1836 spewed it had cost 38,000 l., and though the last return was incomplete, he was sure he understated the entire expense of this commission alone when he fixed it at 60,000 l. On the consideration of the Appropriation Bill, he should certainly move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the state and expense of the various commissions now in force in this country, and he pledged himself to prove before that Committee, a more gross statement of expenditure than ever had yet been laid before the public, and especially by a Government which came into office on the principle of economy. But they had lost the confidence of the country; that fact had been told them the other day, when the other House went up with the Address to the Queen, and he must say, that men more unworthy the confidence of the country never before existed. This bill was brought on at this late period of the Session, not with any regard to the feelings or wishes of the people, but because the Government knew they could carry it by numerical strength; the noble Lord was afraid to bring it forward early in the Session, and now sought to smuggle it through. He called upon hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had declared the Poor-law Amendment Bill to be oppressive, to withdraw from the Government and come to his side of the House in opposing this renewal. He should join the hon. Member, with great pleasure, in throwing out this bill, and although he was no Chartist—although he deprecated violent language

357
—yet, if any Gentleman would bring forward, in temperate language, a measure for the repeal of this accursed law, he should have his support.
Sir J. J. Guestwould oppose the second reading of the bill, inasmuch as the poorer classes of his constituents complained that the existing law was cruel and oppressive, especially in those provisions which permitted the separation of husband and wife, and the refusal to afford out-door relief. If, however, the bill went into Committee, he now gave notice that he should move clauses to amend the provisions of the existing law to which he alluded.
Mr. W. Tatton Egertonsaid, that having opposed the former bill in every stage, he felt bound now to say that subsequent experience had confirmed him in his opposition to its principles. A very strong feeling existed against the Poor Law Act, and much difficulty had had to be encountered in obtaining the attendance of guardians to carry its provisions into operation. He himself entertained a strong feeling against the act, and he thought there was also much reason to complain of the mode in which it had been carried into effect. In this part of the country rules and regulations had been sent down to them, and when it was attempted to moderate their severity, the commissioners had insisted on those regulations being observed in the most rigid manner. Those rules had been much complained of, and he would therefore press upon the noble Lord the propriety of withdrawing this bill for the present, and early in another session of introducing a new measure, into which some modifications of the present system might be introduced. If the amendment was pressed to a division, he should vote against the bill.
Mr. P. Howardsaid, few Acts had received the sanction of Parliament which, in his opinion, had been productive of more beneficial effects in the northern districts than the Poor Law Amendment Act. He could not help expressing his thanks for the great reduction in the rates which had taken place under the new system.
Sir W. Jamessaid, that if his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield pressed his amendment to a division, he should certainly vote with him, for he entertained many objections to the bill. He was not inclined to revert to the old system, but
358
he could not but regret that this bill had been introduced at so late a period of the session, that it was utterly impossible that any modifications could be made in the existing law.
Mr. Blackstonewould freely confess, although he should vote against this bill, that he was not prepared to vote fur the total repeal of the existing law. When the guardians had acted independently of the commissioners, the Poor Law Amendment Act had been beneficial; but when the guardians had submitted to the dictation of the commissioners, the worst results had followed. For himself he wished to see the guardians invested with a discretionary power of granting relief, and there were other alterations which he trusted would be made. He should support the amendment.
Mr. Buckbelieved, that the country was more indebted to her Majesty's Ministers for the Poor Law Amendment Act than for any other measure which they had brought forward. He acknowledged that he had at first looked with suspicion on that act, but having been the chairman of a board of guardians for a considerable period, he was now convinced from experience that the Poor Law Act had been of the greatest possible service to the country. There was one clause, however, to which he felt it his duty to call the attention of the Government, viz., the clause relating to the relief of the able-bodied poor. He thought it absolutely necessary, with reference to this part of the system, that a discretionary power should be vested in the guardians, and he was sorry to see any bill introduced at so late a period, that due consideration could not be given to this important subject, so as to enable them to effect some practical improvements. If the commissioners would allow a discretionary power to the guardians, he was sure the concession would be attended with very beneficial results.
Mr. T. Parkersaid, he would support the amendment which had been moved, as he objected strongly to be system which allowed no discretionary power to the guardians with respect to out-door relief. He objected also to the extensive powers vested in the commissioners. It might have been imagined that some modification of the extraordinary powers of the commissioners, which they exercised in a more extraordinary manner, would have been proposed; but he found by a

359
bill which had been introduced by the noble Lord that they were to be intrusted with still more extensive powers. The bill to which he alluded was the bill for the collection of rates, and in one of the clauses of that bill, by which the guardians, under the direction of the commissioners, were empowered to appoint collectors, it was provided, "that the powers given by the said act to the said commissioners for directing the execution by guardians of the laws for the relief of the poor, shall be deemed to extend, and shall extend, to the making, collecting, and distribution, of poor-rates, and to the custody thereof." [Lord J. Russell: it is intended to alter the clause.] He had a right to found his argument upon the bill as he found it, as he could not know what alterations might be proposed by the notble Lord. He had a right to allude to the clause as it stood in the bill, in order to expose this insidious attempt to extend the powers of the Poor Law authorities.
The Speakerbegged to intimate to the hon. Member that the House was not debating the Collection of Rates Bill at that time. The question was, that the Poor Law Commission Continuance Bill be read a second time.
Mr. T. Parkerwas aware that such was the fact, and he was only endeavouring to show that very extraordinary powers were to be granted to the commissioners by another bill. The words of the clause in the Collection of Rates Bill to which he had alluded were, that the powers of the commissioners should extend "to all monies, papers, goods, and chattels, applicable or relating in any way to the relief of the poor, as well as to the relief, maintenance, and removal, of the poor." The effect of that proviso would be, that not one single charity which had been established for the relief of the widow and the orphan would escape the control of the Poor Law Commissioners. That was one of the strongest objections which he had to the bill before the House, as the bill went to continue the powers of the commissioners, and although he stood alone he should vote against it.
Mr. Wakleysaid, it appeared to him very extraordinary that a bill of this kind, and of such vast importance, should have been introduced without one word of explanation. He could not comprehend how Ministers could propose such a bill without stating the grounds on which it
360
was introduced, and without explaining the reasons which, in their opinion, rendered such a measure necessary. The bill was intended to continue one of the most odious statutes that had ever been placed on record, and was to extend the powers of the Poor Law Commissioners for two years longer. Had the noble Lord's attention been directed to the complaints which had been made against the Poor Law Amendment Act? There was no part of the country from which complaints against the Poor Law Act had not been made, and those complaints had been directed against the system of out-door relief, the gigantic extent of the unions, the system of plural voting, and the consequences resulting from the plan of ex officio guardians. Society was torn to pieces by the operation of the new system, and instead of the hostility to the measure decreasing, his firm conviction was, that it was on the increase. Yet, notwithstanding that such was the case, here was a proposition brought forward for extending and continuing the powers of the commissioners, and yet Ministers had made no statement, offered no explanation, to show the necessity for the adoption of such a course. He trusted that the noble Lord would yield to the suggestions which had been offered, and that he would not proceed further with this bill, but wait till another Session, when a comprehensive measure could be introduced to remedy the defects of the existing laws. This bill was a piece of mere patch-work, and could not be satisfactory either to that House or to the country. The hon. Member for Devon had expressed himself pleased with the operation of the Poor Law Amendment Bill, but let the House appeal to the poor, and hear what they had to say on the subject. He wished the hon. Member could have heard some of the complaints which he had heard in Devon, where, notwithstanding all that was said about the bill raising the rate of wages, no such result had taken place, and where no allowance had been made for rent, or for the increase in the price of corn, although there might have been some allowance of sour cider. This bill ought not to have been brought forward without its having been shown that there was a paramount necessity for its introduction; and if the noble Lord offered no satisfactory explanation of the grounds on which he justified this proceeding, he

361
should vote for the amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
Mr. Pakingtonsaid, the hon. Member for Finsbury had blamed the Government because they had offered no explanation on the introduction of this bill; but although it was not his duty to defend her Majesty's Ministers, yet he must observe, that as it was merely a bill to continue certain provisions of a former Act, it did not appear to him that any explanation was necessary. The hon. Member had also alluded, and in terms of censure, to the ex officio guardians; but in his opinion the ex officio guardians had contributed in a very high degree to the beneficial operation of the Poor Law Act. The size of the unions had also been objected to, and he was disposed to agree with the hon. Member that the unions were too large. The poor were bound to make application for relief in person, and for that reason the unions ought to be of moderate extent. He had risen, however, for the purpose of expressing his approbation of the Poor Law Amendment Act. He was aware that a great outcry had been raised against the measure, and that many persons had striven to excite strong feelings of hostility against it, and as he had been convinced from experience of its beneficial effects, he felt bound to say, that in his opinion, if there was one act to which posterity would look back with gratitude to the present Ministers, that Act was the Poor Law Amendment Act. An hon. Member opposite had spoken of the reduction of rates which had been effected, and no doubt such had been the effect of the bill; but it was not on that ground that he was favourable to the new Poor Law, but simply because he believed that they had tended more than any other enactment to elevate the moral character of the working classes, and to promote their real welfare and their best interests. The part of the measure in regard to which he entertained the strongest doubts was the bastardy clauses. He objected to the trial of bastardy cases before the Quarter Sessions, and he could not see why the corroborating evidence which was required should not be taken before the petty sessions, when all the disgusting parts of that evidence would be prevented from becoming public.
Mr. T. Attwoodhad no hesitation in saying, that a more odious measure than the Poor Law Amendment Act had never
362
passed that House. He had always believed that the object of this bill was to break down the labourer's wages to the Irish level. That effect would have been already produced but for the accident of the general construction of railways, which during the last five years had employed 400,000 labourers. When the construction of these railways was completed, those labourers would be thrown upon their hands, and he knew not how they would provide for them with the glaring defects of the existing monetary system. Hon. Members were as ignorant of this subject as he was of music, or of the cloisters of Oxford or Cambridge. He could assure them that they would find it impossible to persevere in the present system—compelling the people to pay a large sum of money for their bread, and to receive a small sum of money for their labour. Ground between these two iniquities, the people of England looked to the workhouse as their resource. But the workhouses were shut in their faces, and bastiles opened in their stead. This was an attempt in which they could not succeed. They might think him enthusiastic, but he thought them indiscreet. He implored of them not to harden their hearts, but to open their eyes to the distresses of a well-nigh infuriated people.
Mr. Freshfieldwould vote for the second reading of this bill, being desirous to go into Committee, with a view to restricting the term of its operation to a single year. He should have preferred instead of enacting the existing poor law, returning to the statute of Elizabeth, taking care not to permit abuse in its operations.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that there was a fraud on the face of this bill. It purported to be a renewal for a brief period, yet upon inspection of its contents, it turned out to contain a renewal of the provisions of the Poor Law Bill for three years from the 14th of August next. The most arbitrary powers had been conceded to the Poor Law Commissioners—powers which had been objected to by the whole people of England, and this bill proposed to commit a fraud on the people of England, and extend their powers for three years more. It was a modification, not an augmentation of these powers that the country expected. Was it proper, in the present state of the finances of the country, to entail upon us an expense of 70,000 l, per annum? He hoped that,

363
where local acts existed, the people never would consent to the introduction of this measure. He knew of 160 parishes in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and other parts of the north of England, which were included in the Gilbert incorporation, and were determined to resist any attempt to introduce it. The Poor Law Commissioners had recommended, that the Gilbert incorporation should be immediately put down, without affording them the opportunity of having their case stated in Parliament. Her Majesty's Ministers had exhibited their discretion in not attempting to interfere with this incorporation. If they attempted to do so, they would raise a nest of hornets about their ears. He had no doubt that the Government would be able to carry this bill, but when it was in Committee, he should certainly take the sense of the House upon the powers of the Commissioners being continued only for a single year. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not withdraw his opposition.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that when he introduced this bill to the House, it did not appear to him to require any explanation. He had stated, that his object was to enable Parliament to have a full opportunity of discussing any amendment which it might be proposed to introduce during the ensuing Session. If the next Session should happen to be very long, the powers of the commissioners would last to the end of the Session; if the Session, on the contrary, should happen to be a brief one, their powers would terminate with it. In reply to the remark of the hon. Member for Sussex, he had to observe that, considering the quantity of business which was before the House, it would have been almost impossible, during the present Session, to have secured such an attendance of Members as would have enabled them to go through all the different amendments in the present law, which hon. Members would have proposed for their consideration. The hon. Member for Finsbury had complained of the proposed duration of the powers of the commissioners. Now, he had thought that it was agreed upon all hands, that these powers should be conceded to the Commissioners for five years, and that Parliament should, at the expiration of that period, have an opportunity of considering whether they would continue them, But he had never contemplated that these powers should
364
cease at the expiration of five years. The term of continuance which the bill proposed having been objected to, he would have no objection to shorten the time. He thought it generally rather an objectionable course to make a bill last to the end of the next Session of Parliament. He thought it better to specify a fixed time; and was, therefore, ready to consent to the proposed alteration. His object was, to prevent the abrupt cessation of these powers, and allow full time for the discussion of any new measure. The principles of the Poor Law Amendment Act, which he looked upon for the most part as perpetual, did not come properly into discussion upon a bill of this kind; but if assailed at all, should be assailed by a proposition for their direct repeal. He was glad to hear several hon. Members, on both sides of the House, bearing testimony to the good effect of the Poor-law Amendment Act. He was convinced that that measure had been very beneficial to the country, and had been beneficial, not merely in reducing the amount of the rates, but also in rewarding the industrious, and correcting the idle. The hon. Member for Birmingham could hardly have given sufficient attention to the operation of the act, probably because his mind was quite filled with other matters, or he would not have spoken as he had done that evening. But it was obvious that the operation of the act was exposed to the remark which had been that night made upon it—namely, that if it were beneficial, why should it have caused so much objection and unpopularity? No doubt, an act of that description, administered as it was by those commissioners, to whom the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln was not very partial, was open to much more unpopularity than attended the old system, under the administration of the parish authorities. There might be abuses under the present act, but every case was magnified to a great degree, and the evidence by which it was supported was very much exaggerated, and brought to tell against the Commissioners and the Government; while under the old system, if in a small parish workhouse, the paupers were ill treated, or jobbing was carried on in the greatest possible degree, it was a mere local affair; it concerned only a few parish authorities, and it was the interest of no one to bring the case forward, either in the public prints or in Parliament, nor would he be listened to who did bring it

365
forward. But when a case was to be made out against Commissioners, or against a Secretary of State, it then became a matter of great importance and paramount interest. He thought, that no one who looked into the reports of the commissioners, setting forth the operation of the old law, could say that such a system ought to continue. He trusted that the bill would then be allowed to be read a second time, and to be committed on Thursday next. The hon. Member for Droitwich, who had spoken favourably of the operation of the act in general, had complained of the proposed bastardy clause, and other clauses, not being in the hands of hon. Members; he had sent them to be printed, and expected they would have been ready a week ago. The purport of the bastardy clauses would be to transfer the power which was now exercised at the Quarter Sessions to the Petty Sessions, with such provisions as now existed with respect to the Quarter Sessions.
Mr. G. Palmeropposed the second reading, not with a view of returning to the evils of the old system of Poor-laws, but to prevent the introduction of that piecemeal system of legislation and infringement upon the rights of the people to which the Ministry resorted on every occasion. There was quite sufficient time before the operation of the present provisions would expire, to introduce such a measure as would put the Poor-law of this country upon a proper basis.
Mr. Hindleythought it intolerable that it should be left to the three kings at Somerset-house to determine what food should be given to the poor, and how they should be treated. He required no better proof of the effect of such a law than the dietary which had been issued by those three kings for the support of the poor. In a part of the country which he had lately visited, and where the New Poor-law was in operation, he found the price of land was from 3l. 10 s. to 5l. per statute acre. Now, he did say it was abominable, when landlords got such a price for their land, that the present system should be pursued towards the poor. In the last Session but one he had moved for returns to show the mortality in the workhouses under the new and old system of poor laws, but those returns had never been made. If he were acting for the purposes of agitation he could produce returns of his owns with re-
366
ference to this part of the question, which were very little in favour of the new law. But then it was said, although the poor were not happy, because they had no right to be happy, yet how virtuous and moral they were rendered by this law. This was so constantly said, that he almost persuaded himself that it had been proved; but what was the fact? Why, that taking the numbers of births of illegitimate children during three years previously and three years subsequently to the passing of the act, the latter exceeded the former by 12½ per cent. He had no objection to an improvement of the present law, but he thought the measure ought to be deferred till next Session, when there would be time to pay due attention to the subject, and to make such alteration in the existing law as Parliament might think advisable.
Mr. Fieldenwas understood to say that while the Poor-law had produced so much misery, it had wholly failed in producing what it was intended to effect—namely, an advance in the wages of the poor. He never heard the Poor-law praised except by Members of that House—who perhaps might have objects of their own to answer. It had been said, that the new Act had improved the condition of the labouring classes, but how could that be when their wages were in fact lowered? Did such a result justify the extending of these unwarrantable powers to the commissioners? If the act had worked as well as it had worked ill, he would never have consented to continue to any men such unconstitutional powers, and this measure should not pass without encountering all the opposition which it was in his power to give it.
Mr. M. Philipsthought the Poor-law Amendment Act, had conferred inestimable benefits upon that part of the country with which he was particularly acquainted, by keeping the labourers in constant and regular employment, and in a state of greater comfort, respectability, and happiness than they had previously known. He thought a fair trial ought to be given to the act, although he was ready to concur in any improvements upon the measure which at present, could only be regarded as an experiment.
The House divided on the original question.—Ayes 120; Noes 35;—Majority 85.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Aglionby, H. A.

Adam, Admiral

Ainsworth, P.

367

Baines, E.

Morpeth, Viscount

Baring, F. T.

Muskett, G. A.

Barrington, Viscount

O'Connell, M. J.

Barry, G. S.

Ossulston, Lord

Berkeley, hon. H.

Paget, F.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Pakington, J. S.

Bernal, R.

Palmerston, Viscount

Blake, W. J.

Parker, J.

Bowes, J.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Bridgeman, H.

Pechell, Captain

Briscoe, J. I.

Philips, M.

Broadley, H.

Pigot, D. R.

Buck, L. W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Ponsonby, G. F. A. C.

Burroughes, H. N.

Power, J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Pryme, G.

Darby, G.

Redington, T. N.

Divett, E.

Rice, E. R.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Rice, rt. hn. T. S.

Dundas, F.

Rich, H.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Roche, W.

Euston, Earl of

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Evans, G.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Evans, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Russell Lord C.

Filmer, Sir E.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Salway, Colonel

Freshfield, J. W.

Sandon, Viscount

Gisborne, T.

Scrope, G. P.

Gordon, R.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Seymour, Lord

Grant, F. W.

Sheppard, T.

Greenaway, C.

Smith, J. A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Smith, R. V.

Hastie, A.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Hawes, B.

Stewart, J.

Henniker, Lord

Stuart, Lord J.

Herbert, hon. S.

Stock, Dr.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Strutt, E.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Style, Sir C.

Hogg, J. W.

Surrey, Earl of

Hope, hon. C.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Hope, H. T.

Thornely, T.

Hoskins, K.

Townley, R. G.

Howard, P. H.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Howick, Viscount

Vigors, N. A.

Hume, J.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Hurt, F.

Warburton, H.

Hutt, W.

Wilshere, W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Wodehouse, E.

Irton, S.

Wood, C.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Wood, Sir M.

Langdale, hon. C.

Worsley, Lord

Lincoln, Earl of

Wyse, T.

Loch, J.

Yates, J. A.

Macaulay, T. B.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Macleod, R.

Marshall, W.

TELLERS.

Maule, hon. F.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Canning rt. hon. Sir S.

Archdall, M.

Collins, W.

Attwood, T.

D'Israeli, B.

Blackstone, W. S.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Brotherton, J.

Duncombe, T.

368

Fielden, J.

Palmer, G.

Finch, F.

Parker, R. T.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Guest, Sir J.

Sanderson, R.

Hall, Sir B.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Hawkes, T.

Scholefield, J.

Hector, C. J.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Hinde, J. H.

Turner, W.

Hindley, C.

Wakley, T.

Hodgson, R.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

James, Sir W. C.

Williams, W.

Kelly, F.

TELLERS.

Kemble, H.

Grimsditch, T.

Lowther, hon. Colonel

Egerton, W. T.

Bill read a second time.

CATHEDRAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL PREFERMENTS.
The House then went into Committee on the Cathedral and Ecclesiastical Preferments Bill, of which the first and second clauses were respectively passed without amendment.
On the third clause,
Sir R. Inglissaid, that he wished to add a proviso. It was to meet such a case as this:—A chapter, say the chapter of Canterbury, bad borrowed 25,000 l. from the treasurer of Queen Anne's Bounty. This debt is to be paid off, principal and interest, from the chapter funds. Those funds, if the number of prebendaries be complete, are divided amongst them; and each pays an equal sum, that is, receives less than he otherwise would in respect to this debt. The first recited bill provided, that the share of any prebendary who might die during the existence of the Ecclesiastical Commission should go to the general fund for augmenting, small benefices. But that corn-mission had expired; and since its expiration a prebendary had died. What shall be done with his share? If the present bill were not in question, the chapter would either divide his share among themselves, or, if they had a joint debt, would pay it to their creditor in part discharge of their obligation. The treasurer of Queen Anne's Bounty claims it not as a payment of the chapter debt, but as an instalment for other and distinct purposes. The object of his proviso is to allow the treasurer to receive the proceeds of a stall vacant under such circumstances as so much paid in liquidation of a debt. If it were otherwise, the treasurer would first take the chapter money, and then make the chapter pay interest upon it.
Lord J. Russellcould not consent to this proviso, which would have the effect

369
of placing the chapter generally in a better position than that in which they would have stood if the stall in question had been filled up.
Sir T. D. Aclandproposed that such a sum should be taken from the amount of the vacant stall as would have been paid as the proportion of the prebendary if the stall had been filled up.
Lord J. Russellassented to this proposition.
Mr. Aglionby Mr. Aglionby moved upon the 5th clause, that the commissioners should have power to continue leases, but not as the clause proposed, to extend them.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that he would prefer omitting the clause altogether.
Sir J. Grahamthought that there would be injustice to the clause as it stood; the condition of the lessees would be much damaged by it.
Mr. V. Smithsaid, that he could not admit the term of justice to be applied to the state of things supposed. A lessor had a right to grant or refuse a renewal of the lease, and it could not be said that there was injustice in his refusal.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that he withdrew the word injustice, but it would work a practical hardship.
Mr. Aglionbywas surprised at the doctrine of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton. For his own part, he would prefer the omission of the clause.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that this was the first instance in which the agency of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been recognized and introduced into these Suspension Bills. But the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth wished for the omission of the 5th clause, and as he also on a truly opposite ground wished it, he trusted that it would be removed from the bill.
Lord J. Russellassented. Clause struck out.
Report to be received on Wednesday.
House adjourned.