COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 10 March 1857)

§ SIR GEORGE PECHELL
objected to entrusting to the Poor Law Board the power of adding these extra-parochial places to the adjoining parishes for poor law purposes at their will and pleasure. How was this Poor Law Board composed, and of whom did it consist? From a document that came to his hand the other day it consisted of Mr. Bouverie, the Chairman, and Lord Courtnay, the Secretary, and as according to Mr. Chadwick the Secretary was nobody, the Board really consisted of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. During Mr. Baines's administration of the Poor Law Board not a single case of complaint remained unredressed—and the whole country acknowledged the change from the 2180 tyranny of the former system to the justice which characterized the law as administered by that right hon. Gentleman. But a change of Government took place—the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was appointed as President of the Board, and from the time he entered upon the office he had been disputing with almost every board of guardians in the country. At Preston he insisted upon the guardians building a workhouse at a cost of some £40,000, and on their refusing, on the ground that there was no necessity for incurring the expense, the Board sent down an inspector, who got up a memorial which he induced between thirty and forty guardians (most of them ex officio) to sign in favour of the objects which the Poor Law Board only wished to carry out. Of course the workhouse was not erected, and in the next Session the case would be brought under the notice of Parliament. Then the right hon. Gentleman had a difference with the guardians of St. Thomas's, Exeter, in reference to the appointment of a relieving officer, and he could mention many other instances where the Poor Law Board had created dissatisfaction by attempting to coerce the guardians. During the administration of Mr. Baines there was none of this inquisitorial interference, and if he and the right hon. Gentleman were returned to Parliament at the next general election, he should require the right hon. Gentleman to give a satisfactory explanation of his conduct.

§ MR. BARROW
said, by the first clause the Bill would not come into operation till the 31st December next, and in the meantime the poor in the extra-parochial places would be chargeable on the common fund. There was, therefore, no necessity for proceeding with the Bill then, and in the present state of the House he hoped it would be postponed until the new Parliament met.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
accounted for the small number of Members present by saying, that all the Gentlemen who were materially interested in this question had given their assent to the provisions of the Bill. He denied that the Poor Law Board was, as had been asserted by the gallant Admiral (Admiral Pechell), in a chronic state of hostility with boards of guardians, and asserted that, on the contrary, with most boards of guardians it worked with the most cordial co-operation and in the best possible spirit.

§ MR. MALINS
reminded the Committee that he had on the previous day presented 2181 a petition against this Bill from a person interested in this question, and pressed the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed with the measure, unless he was quite certain that the absence of Members did not arise from a belief, which he (Mr. Malins) had himself entertained, that it was to be postponed until the meeting of the new Parliament.

§ SIR H. WILLOUGHBY
trusted that the noble Lord would not allow the Bill to be proceeded with at present.

§ SIR GEORGE PECHELL
reiterated his objections to the Bill, and moved that the Chairman Report Progress.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
trusted his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw his Motion. The Bill was of very limited range, and was designed to remedy an admitted evil, and had the assent of most persons conversant with the subjects to which it related. It was fixed for last night, and so far from there being any surprise it was specially fixed for to-night.

§ MR. BARROW
was desirous of amending the law, but still thought this Bill would require some discussion, and it ought to be postponed.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
said, the Bill was intended to remedy a great grievance. In these extra-parochial places the poor had no means of obtaining relief as they had in parishes. But he was met by objections to the details of the Bill.