Sitting of 19 July 1842

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER. Hon. William Edward Fritz-malice, for the County of Bucks.
BILLS, Public.—1°. Game Certificates (Ireland).
2°. Customs Acts Amendment; Stamp Duties Assimilation; Stamp Duties; Assessed Taxes; Exchequer Preparation.
Reported.—Prisons; Election Petitions Trial.
Private.— 2°. Manchester, Birmingham, and Bolton Police.
3°. and passed:—Coward's Divorce; Mersey Conservancy.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Burroughes, from the South Devon Medical Association, South Shields, Council of the Provincial Medical Association, and Eastern Branch of the Medical Association, for Medical Reform. —From the Grand Jury of the Queen's County, against placing Medical Charities under the control of the Poor-law Commissioners.—From Dunoon and Biggar, for ameliorating the condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).— From Debtors in the Drogheda Marshalsea, for Amendment of the law affecting Insolvent Debtors in Ireland.—By Sir It. Inglis, from the Windsor and Eton Church Union, for Extension.—By Lord Ashley, from North Mimms, for limiting the hours of Labour a young People in Factories.—From the Louth and Stockton Mechanics Institutions, for Relief from Rates and Taxes. —Front Strabane Poor-law Union, for Amendment of the Poor Relief(Ireland) Act—From Tortington, Climping, and Ford, Bury, Little Hampton, Clapham, Patching, Broadwater, Amberley, and Battle Unions, against the Poor-law,Amendments Bill.—From Cottenham, for compelling Master Manufacturers out the Wages of their Labourers, to make provision for them in sickness, old age, or when out of Employment.

SURRENDER. OF EXPATRIATED CRIMINALS.
Sir R. Ingliswished to know from the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, what evidence satisfied, or ought to satisfy, our colonial Government in Canada, as to the accuracy of any sate meat made with respect to the alleged conviction of criminals claimed to be given up to the United States. Whether any certificate from the British Consul in the United States, as to the conviction of the erson claimed, was necessary in order to

323
his being given up? And whether it was intended, in any treaty with the United States, to insist on the principle that any individual on touching the soil of England became consequently free? The Government had in case of the Creole acted on that principle, and upheld it in a manner that entitled them to general admiration. He wished to know whether it was intended that that principle should enter into any general arrangement or regulation between this country and the United States?
Lord Stanleysaid, though the hon. Baronet had given him notice that he would ask a question, still he was not aware of what the precise nature of that question would be. As regarded the last question, the lion. Baronet must perceive that it was a subject of so much delicacy, and particularly in the present position of the proceedings between this country and the United States, where a very strong feeling prevailed on the point, that he must decline giving an answer. As to the first question, which related to the giving up of individuals who, having taken refuge in Canada, were claimed by the United States, that did not depend on the terms of any treaty. There was a law in Canada by which the Governor, with the advice of his Council, was authorized to surrender them. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes) had moved for a copy of that act, which would be laid on the Table. He believed that in these cases the Executive must be satisfied that the demand was regularly made by the constituted authorities, and it must be stated on oath that the individual had been residing in the United States, to justify his being given up.

AMENDMENT OF THE POOR. LAW.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, in moving the Order of the Day, for the House resolving itself into a committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill, the House would permit him to call their attention to the position of the Bill, and to the course which Government intended to pursue with reference to it. After long and mature discussion, the House had assented to the adoption of the first clause—that clause which continued the commission for five years; and to which he, on the part of the Government, attached very great importance. The four next clauses, which related to the number of assistant-commissioners to be employed,
324
which limited the powers of the commission as to the issue of general rules, which regulated the time of the operation of rules and orders in cases of emergency, and which provided for the transmission of the commissioners' rules, it was intended to proceed with. But it was not the intention of her Majesty's Government in the present Session to press the following clause, which related to the abolition of the Gilbert Unions, nor that which had reference to the formation of districts for the purposes of education. After the promise which he had made to the House, that he would not press for their consent to the whole measure at so late a period of the Session, and when so many Members had left and were leaving town, he did not think it proper to proceed further. He, however, gave the House the most positive assurance on the part of her Majesty's Government, that they would reconsider the various enactments and details contained in the Bill, and at a very early period in the next Session of Parliament they would bring forward a measure on this subject, modified and improved in such a manner as further consideration and inquiry might suggest, and with such new provisions as anxious deliberation might point out to be necessary. There were, however, two or three clauses in this Bill, which, from the urgency of the matters to which they related, it would be necessary to press on the consideration of the House. One of those was the 23rd clause, which related to the power of the guardians in reference to the casual poor received into the workhouse. At the present moment the workhouse in these cases was used as a sort of hostelry, or house of call, where the casual poor were lodged for one or two nights, and received one or two meals, and a practice had arisen amongst the people thus relieved of destroying the furniture, breaking the windows, and even of destroying their own clothes. This practice rendered it necessary either to supply them with new clothing, or to detain them longer in the workhouse. To remedy this evil, the 23rd clause enacted that this offence should be deemed a misdemeanour, under the 5th George 4th, c. 83. There were other clauses which it would be necessary to consider One related to the right of ex officio guardians to act as magistrates within the limits of the union with which they were connected. There were three or four other

325
clauses containing matters of regulation, which, with the permission of the House, he meant to carry through. But those clauses which had reference to the abolition of the Gilbert Unions, to the formation of district unions for the purposes of education, and to an improved system of auditing the accounts, inasmuch as these clauses required a great deal of consideration, and considering the late period of the Session, it would, he felt, be inexpedient to urge them on. He should, at the proper time, state to the House the nature of those clauses which he wished to press on their consideration, and which he hoped the House would be disposed to adopt. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford) had given notice of his intention to move an instruction on going into committee. He doubted whether it was competent to the hon. Member, consistently with the forms of the House, to move such an instruction, because it involved the repeal of one or two of the enactments of the Irish Poor-law Bill. That bill provided, by a distinct regulation, that no relief, under any circumstances, should be given to the poor in Ireland out of the workhouse. The hon. Member wished to repeal that provision, and to introduce a provision giving a power to the guardians to grant relief out of the workhouse. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think that it was from any want of attention to the subject on the part of her Majesty's Government, if they declined to accede to that proposition and were determined to resist it. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fielding) had also a notice of motion for instruction to the committee. He should not make any observation on it, because he felt that it would be inconsistent with his duty to enter into a discussion on abstract points. Alf, however, the hon. Member should persist in his motion, he hoped the House would support him in opposing it.
Order of the Day read.
Mr. S. Crawford:Would take that opportunity to protest against the powers granted to the Poor Law commissioners in Ireland. As that point was connected with the Poor Law system in this country, he respectfully claimed the attention of the House while he adverted to the subject. He knew that there was an unwillingness in the House to listen to Irish questions; but this question of the Irish Poor-law had an interest also for England, and therefore he trusted that they
326
would not refuse bestowing their attention on it. He wished, in the first place, to point out the essential difference which existed between the English and the Irish Poor-law. The difference consisted in this,—that the English Poor-law, though it. did not positively allow out-door relief, vet left to the commissioners a discretionary power to grant it; but the Irish Poor-law did not give power to the Irish commissioners to give any relief whatsoever out of the doors of the workhouse. Neither guardians, nor overseers, nor magistrates, could afford the smallest portion of out-door relief to any poor person in Ireland. He wished that powers should ire Sven to the commissioners to enable them to afford out-door relief in Ireland where circumstances rendered it necessary, in places where workhouses were not yet built, or where they were insufficient for the number of the poor. Surely these circumstance ought to be taken into consideration on renewing the bill. In Cork the guardians some time ago applied to the commissioners to know whether, according to the law, they might grant outdoor relief? The answer was, that the claw gave them no such authority. The guardians then demanded whether, if an assessment were made specially for that purpose, they might be permitted to administer the funds thus collected? The commissioners stated that they would not allow any guardian under the Poor-law to administer any out-door relief. The Poor-law commissioners, in their last report for England, admitted that the poor cook! not be relieved within doors; and did not the same impossibility exist in Ireland? In that country the amount of distress was appalling. In Belfast there w ere numbers of men out of employ, and food was wanted for many hundreds of the starving people. This state of things existed in that part of Ireland where distress had hitherto been least felt. Similar accounts had been received from the towns of Newton Ard and Bangor. In the west of Ireland the amount of suffering was enormous. Such being the case, was it not his duty to endeavour toe prevail on them in some degree to relax the severity of the law? Another objection to the workhouse was the mortality that prevailed among the paupers, which was not denied by the commissioners. In all workhouses where children where admitted the mortality was very

327
great, owing to the entire want of proper attention and treatment for them. In the south of Ireland the greatest distress existed among the labouring classes, caused by the extortion of oppressive rents and the iniquitous conduct of the landlords. It was of importance, therefore, that there should be an effectual Poor-law for Ireland, and that the poor should feel there was some consideration for them with the Parliament and the Government. The character of the English and Irish Poor-laws was the same; they were distinguished by the same harsh and oppressive features. The object of the English Poor-law was to destroy the right of the poor man to relief, the object of the Irish law was to give the semblance of relief without the reality. The income of England was 166,000,000 l., which was derived from the labouring poor; and surely, it was just, that out of this enormous sum, a sufficient provision should be supplied to protect them from starvation. One shilling in the pound on that sum would raise 8,300,000 l., a greater sum than the poor-rates reached. It was not prudent to refuse out-door relief in England under existing circumstances, and he maintained, that if it was not just in England, it was not just in Ireland. He saw no reason why the commissioners should not have a discretionary power to give out-door relief, and he should, therefore, move:—
"That it be an instruction to the committee that they have power to make provision that the commissioners may order relief to be administered to the poor in Ireland, on the terms of the out-door labour test."
The House divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 113: Majority 102.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Muntz, G. F.

Aldam, W.

Napier, Sir C.

Bryan, G.

Pechell, Capt.

Callaghan, D.

Scholefield, J.

Colvile, C. R.

TELLERS.

Duncombe, T.

Crawford, W. S.

Johnson, Gen.

Fielden, J.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Barnard, E. G.

A'Court, Capt.

Barrington, Visct.

Allix, J. P.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Arkwright, G.

Bateson, R.

Bailey, J.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Baillie, H. J.

Broadley, H.

Balfour, J. M.

Brocklehurst. J.

328

Brotherton, J.

Kemble, H.

Buckley, E.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Burroughes, H. N.

Lambton, H.

Busfeild, W.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Chelsea, Visct.

Lefroy, A.

Childers, J. W.

Legh, G. C.

Clive, E. B.

Lemon, Sir C.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Lincoln, Earl of

Compton, H. C.

Lindsay, H. H.

Cripps, W.

Litton, E.

Denison, E. B.

Mackenzie, T.

Dennistoun, J.

McGeachy, F. A.

Douglas, Sir H.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Duffield, T.

Masterman, J.

Easthope, Sir J.

Meynell, Capt.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Mitchell, T. A.

Eliot, Lord

Norreys, Lord

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Northland, Visct.

Feilden, W.

Packe, C. W.

Flower, Sir J.

Paget, Col.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Pakington, J. S.

Forbes, W.

Palmer, G.

Fuller, A. E.

Palmerston, Visct

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Philips, M.

Gordon, Lord F.

Praed, W. T.

Goring, C.

Pulsford, R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Repton, G. W. J.

Graham, rt.hn. Sir J.

Rolleston, Col.

Greene, T.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Gregory, W. H.

Sheppard, T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Standish, C.

Grogan, E.

Stanley, Lord

Hamilton, W. J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Stuart, H.

Harcourt, G. G.

Sturt, H. C.

Hayes, Sir E.

Taylor, T. E.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Henley, J. W.

Trollope, Sir J.

Hill, Lord M.

Trotter, J.

Hodgson, F.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hodgson, R.

Wall, C. B.

Hogg, J. W.

Wawn, J. T.

Hope, hon. C.

Wilshere, W.

Howick, Visct.

Wodehouse, E.

Hughes, W. B.

Wood, Col.

Hutt, W.

Wood, Col. T.

Jackson, J. D.

Wrightson, W. B.

Jermyn, Earl

TELLERS.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Jones, Capt.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

On the question, that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,
Mr. J. Fieldenrose to move resolutions of which he had given notice, and he hoped the House would see it reasonable to postpone the consideration of the bill before the House, until his propositions were fully answered. He found, by looking to the report of the commissioners of inquiry, dated 20th of February, 1834, that the commissioners had announced that they anticipated that the effect of such a law as was subsequently passed, and had now been in force nearly eight years, would be

329
to cause a rise of wages, an increase of content of the labouring people, and a diminution of crime; and he thought it would be in the recollection of every one, who was in 1834 a Member of that House, and of a large part of the country, that Lord Althorp, on bringing in the Poor-law of that year, had stated his firm belief and confidence, that in a very short time after the relief then afforded to able-bodied labourers, according to the number of their families, was wholly withdrawn, the wages of those men would rise to such an extent as to give them an equivalent; that was, that they would receive, in a short time after parish assistance should be discontinued, as much in wages as they had been accustomed to receive in wages and relief put together. The words of Lord Althorp were:—
"He thought no man could doubt but that the change in the system would be advantageous to the labourers themselves. It was possible it might appear to some hon. Gentlemen, that the agricultural labourer having at present an addition from the parochial funds to the amount of wages paid by his employer (that addition being regulated according to the number of his family), the effect of taking away that assistance would make it impossible for him to maintain himself and family. He (Lord Althorp) did not think such would be the case, for he believed, nay, he felt confident, that as the labourer regarded the parochial assistance now added to the wages he received from his employer, as making the total wages to which he was entitled for his industry, a very short time would elapse after the removal of that assistance before wages would rise to an equivalent amount; and as soon as that was the case, the situation in which the labourer would be placed would be infinitely preferable to that in which he at present stood."
The noble Lord was supposed to be so thoroughly conversant with all matters connected with agricultural pursuits and rural economy, that many Gentlemen were inclined at that time to defer to his judgment, and he believed, that if it had not been for the manner in which Lord Althorp urged the passage of that measure, and the unqualified manner in which he prophecied its success, it would never have passed that House. He had selected the words of the commissioners who recommended the law to the Government, and the words of the Minister who brought it before Parliament, both parties concurring in the statement that such a law would lead to certain specific effects. No
330
man could deny, that if it did raise wages, increase content, and diminish crime, it would be a good measure; but his opinion was, and always had been, that it could have no such effect, but an effect exactly the opposite. The law bad been in force nearly eight years, and from every thing he had heard, and read, and seen of its operation, he was convinced that wages had not risen, but relief had been withdrawn, that discontent amongst the labouring people had much increased instead of having diminished, and need we do more than read the charges to grand juries, delivered by judges and by chairmen of quarter sessions, and examine the yearly statistical details, to be convinced that crime had increased also, instead of having diminished? If his belief were correct, then the act had wholly failed, and it was idle, nay, wicked, to proceed with a bill for its continuance and extension; if, on the other hand, he was in error, he should like a Member of the Government, to get up in his place and tell him so. He should like the right hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary, or the Prime Minister himself to rise in his place and say whether or not he conscientiously believed that the effects promised by the commissioners had been realised, and that the rise in wages anticipated by Lord Althorp, had really and practically taken place. If neither of those right hon. Baronets could do so, he thought they were bound to delay the measure now before the House, until an inquiry could be made into the matter. The hon. Member concluded by moving the following resolutions:—
"That a 'rise of wages,' and 'increased content of the labourers and diminution of crime,' were two of the specific effects which the report of the commission, dated the 20th day of February, 1834, stated would follow the application of their principle of administering relief to the indigent by the agency of a Central Board of Control. That this bill be proceeded with no further, until it be ascertained by inquiry of this House, that there have been, since the Pool-law Amendment Act came into operation, a rise of the wages of labour, increased contentment among the labouring people, and a diminution of crime; and also, that if a rise in the rate of wages have taken place, it has been to such an extent as to give the able-bodied labouring man, with a wife and family, an equivalent for the parochial assistance afforded to him before the passing of that act. That it is desirable that such inquiry should be satisfactory and

331
conclusive, and that it should command the confidence of the country, and that, therefore, none but labourers and employers be examined."
General Johnsonseconded the motion. He denied that the New Poor-law had had the effect of raising the rate of wages, and those Gentlemen who entertained a different opinion on this point were bound to agree to the proposal for inquiry. If the Poor-law commission had been continued for one year only, an investigation could very properly have been instituted at the commencement of next Session. But the important clause, and worst clause of the bill, continuing the commission for six years, had been passed, and he thought it a proof that the law was bad when it was necessary to invest this commission with unconstitutional authority. He hoped that some inquiry would now take place before the beginning of the next Session into the working of the law altogether. He believed that the expenditure for the poor had increased under its operation in many parts of the country, and that the labourers were worse off, being more in the hands of their employers. As for the assistant-commissioners, he believed they were of no use, but only an expense to the country.
Mr. Grimsditchagreed with the hon. Member in thinking that the worst part of the bill had passed—namely, that part which continued the commission for six years; but he did not see, as the House was now placed, how any alteration could be made at the present stage of the bill in the term agreed to. He was strongly of opinion that the continuing the commission for six years was most unwise on the part of the Government; and he was quite sure that it would have a tendency to shake that public confidence which was reposed in the Government prior to the discussion of the present bill. Still, as he thought it impossible to enter into an inquiry at this period of the Session, he would advise the hon. Member for Oldham not to press his motion to a division. Recollecting that the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had promised to bring in a bill at the commencement of next Session for the purpose of meeting such objections to the present law as he conceived worthy of consideration, he trusted that the House would not neglect that opportunity of mitigating the severity of those provisions which emanated from the
332
commissioners at Somerset-house. There was no doubt that the unions in every part of the country were of a most inconvenient size; and the commission, with its centralizing power, had created universal disgust and caused the Government itself to be distrusted.
Mr. Aglionbywas of opinion that no practical good would result from the present motion, and should regret to see it pressed to a division. His objection to the first clause, continuing the commission for so long a period, remained as strong as ever, and lie thought it unwise toe fix the duration of the commission without previously deciding what jurisdiction it should possess. But what would be the result of coming to a division on the present motion? He assumed that the hon. Member for Oldham desired that the commission should be destroyed at once. He could not agree in such a proposition; for, in order to avoid confusion in the country, and distress to the poor themselves, he would have the commission continued for a time; and he should have been well satisfied if the Government had brought in a bill, at that late period of the Session, to continue the commission for one year, leaving it to Parliament to deliberate fully on the whole subject, at the earliest period next Session, and to come to that conclusion which the justice of the case demanded. He thought it high time that there should be a calm and deliberate inquiry, by a committee of the House, to ascertain how the Poor-law had operated, and, taking it as a whole, he believed it would be found to have acted beneficially for the poor themselves. He hoped the present motion would not be pressed to a division, and he should be happy to give the hon. Member for Oldham his support in endeavouring to limit the duration of the commission, on the bringing up of the report, or on the third reading.
Mr. Escortconcurred in many of the statements made by the hon. Member for Oldham; but he put it to him whether, after the House had twice decided to prolong the duration of the commission, it would not now be better to see what practicable amendments could be made in the bill. He suggested to the hon. Member to reserve the opposition he now offered to this measure, until his proposition respecting out-door relief came under the consideration of the House. If that motion shield be carried, on bringing up the re-

333
port, he believed the commission would be inoperative for evil, and more operative for good than before.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that, believing the hon. Member for Oldham to be actuated by the most humane motives, he did not think it consistent with his duty to remain altogether silent on the present question. The hon. Member had asked him, whether he really believed the New Poor-law had had a beneficial operation with regard to the wages of the working classes? He concurred with the hon. Member's Colleague, who said that it had rendered the workman more dependent on his employer. It had done so; and had thereby, particularly in agricultural districts, rendered him independent of the overseers. He was quite satisfied that the effect of this measure generally had been, in the rural districts, to emancipate the working classes from confinement in the workhouses. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Cockermouth, he must say, that the powers to be exercised by the commission were those with which it was invested by the very act to which the hon. Member for Oldham had referred, and which was introduced by Lord Althorp. The only question for the House to determine now was, whether there should be a commission or not? The hon. Member for Cockermouth said, he wished to have a calm and deliberate inquiry on the subject. There had been several inquiries, but he was afraid that they were not altogether calm and deliberate. There had been long inquiries, and he had served on three committees, and there had been reports, respecting the working of the law, laid on the Table. It was not inquiry that was wanted; and the Members of that House were as competent as any persons to judge of the practicable operation of this measure. He thought, upon the whole, that the new law, at least in the rural districts, had operated moat favourably, both on the rate of wages and the condition of the labourers.
House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question: — Ayes 125; Noes 8 Majority 117.

List of the NOES.

Cobden, R.

Williams, W.

Crawford, W. S.

Yorke, H. R

D'Israeli, B.

Duncombe, T.

TELLERS.

Holland, R.

Johnson, Gen.

Pechell, Capt.

Fielden, J.

House in committee.
On clause 2, professional persons, not being assistant-commissioners may be appointed to make special inquiries, as assistant-commissioners,
Mr. T. Buncombesaid, he thought it would be advisable to allow those persons who might be summoned before those new tribunals, to appear by their counsel, agents, or attornies, and he should, therefore move a proviso to that effect.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, the hon. Gentleman had given him no notice of his intention to make this motion, and the hurried consideration which he could give to it made it somewhat difficult for him to pronounce an opinion upon it. The provision at the end of the clause was intended to remedy that which was complained of as a serious evil. If he remembered rightly, an inquiry had been instituted in the northern part of the county of Devon, by the assistant Poor-law commissioners, which did not give satisfaction. With regard also to the Sevenoaks workhouse, the conduct of an assistant Poor-law commissioner was impugned, and the inquiry which was conducted by other assistant Poor-law commissioners was much commented on, and dissatisfaction was expressed in that case. The clause, as it stood, was to remedy that evil, by allowing the Poor-law commissioners to send down persons competent to conduct the inquiry, conversant with the taking of evidence, and who were not interested in the case, or aware of the bygone circumstances. The power of those special delegations was limited to thirty days, and the check upon it was in the Secretary of State, and the object of the clause being what he had stated, he must say, that as he was at present advised, he saw no objection to the proviso moved by the hon. Gentleman. He thought it quite possible, that the investigation would be more fair, complete, and satisfactory, if the parties interested in the result were allowed to appear by their agent or attorney, but then the costs should be borne by the parties requiring such assistance, and not be thrown on the poor-rates.
Mr. Darbysaid, the proviso of the hon. Gentleman applied only to the persons who were to be specially appointed under the said clause, and not to the commissioners or assistant-commissioners, but he thought the protection ought to extend to all.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, he should certainly

335
object to all parties at all times being allowed to appear by their counsel or agents before the commissioners, or assistant Poor-law commissioners. The power should only be given in cases of special investigation.
Mr. Aglionbythought the inquiries had better always be open, as this would tend to produce more of public confidence in them; and it would be, in his opinion, exceedingly injurious to allow the assistant-commissioners or their representatives to close the doors at their pleasure.
Mr. Escottcordially concurred in deprecating any secret inquiries into the operation of the Poor-law; and his opinion was, that the power of making them so at pleasure would produced great suspicion and dissatisfactton. There was, however, another and a far more important point, which did not seem to have been borne in mind during this discussion —and that was the authority from which the appointment of these special commissioners of inquiry was to emanate. Here, in fact, lay the whole matter. It was opposed to every principle of common sense, as it was palpably at variance with the plainest dictates of justice, that parties whose conduct was complained of should virtually conduct the inquiry. Yet, was not this really the case here? For would not the inquiries in effect and in truth be into the operation of the Poor-law, under the administration of the central commissioners, who themselves were to have the selection (it should seem) of those by whom the inquiries were conducted? Really, this appeared one of those cases in which argument was useless, and simple reason was conclusive. He felt warmly on this point, from a sincere conviction, that had this been otherwise, there would have been far less of odium cast upon the commissioners themselves, and far less of injury to the poor; and not less firm was his persuasion, that if now altered in this respect, the law would work with more of public confidence, and infinitely less of public mischief.
Sir J. Grahamacknowledged, that this argument would be conclusive, were it contemplated that these inquiries should embrace the general administration of the central commissioners; but the clause referred only to local abuses charged against the assistant-commissioners, and as to which the central commissioners required special means of information,
Viscount Sandonsaid, that though technically and strictly his right hon. Friend might here be correct, yet the commissioners themselves did not consider it in the same light, and practically the inquiries of assistant-commissioners were always conducted with an evident anxiety to avoid any imputation on the Poor-law, as if the conduct of individuals necessarily involved the policy of the law. The point invariably pressed by these authorities most strenuously was, that the persons calling for the inquiry were not only opposed, but unfairly opposed, to the act; and all their energies were bent towards neutralizing the evidence adduced in sun port of the complaint. Now, if the inquiries were conducted by Gentlemen sent from the Home Secretary, there would be no anxiety and effort to make out a " case" for the New Poor-law; but the sole desire would be to elicit the truth satisfactorily and impartially. Had this been the case in the Bridgewater inquiry, there would not have been such cause for public discontent. Nothing was more important in regard to public feeling towards the law than this question.
Mr. R. Yorkeobserved, that the conduct of the commissioners themselves would, in these cases, be the subject of inquiry; it was the same as setting a thief to sit in judgment upon his own accomplice.
Mr. Aglionbywould leave it to the commissioners to judge whether there ought to be an inquiry or not, but he thought the Secretary of State ought to appoint those by whom the inquiry was to be carried on. If the supreme power in these matters were vested in the Secretary of State, such an arrangement would, he thought, have the effect of greatly lessening the jealousy which would otherwise be felt. The danger was, that the public would be too apt to regard the whole as an ex parte proceeding—it would be impossible, he thought, to keep people from apprehending that the commissioners would lean towards the assistant commissioners with too favourable a bias. An appointment by the Secretary of State of those who were to conduct inquiries would not at all lessen the power of the commissioners, and would greatly tend to inspire the minds of the people with confidence in the whole system.
Sir Grahamsaid, that the original enactment gave to the commissioner su-

337
preme power in the administration of the Poor-law. The commissioners were certainly removable by the Executive Government, but that formed the only check upon their conduct. Now, the assistant-commissioners were the servants of the commission, and they should not look up to any other power; it was, therefore, that he desired to keep the enactment as it now stood. He would suppose that, in a particular case, persons were delegated by the Executive Government to carry out a certain inquiry against the wish of the commissioners, and he would further suppose that their report proved unfavourable to the assistant-commissioners, it would then be necessary to alter the whole of the act; for, however adverse the report might be, no assistant-commissioner could be removed without the authority of the commission; he hoped, therefore, the House would pause, before they touched a clause which so materially affected the moving power of the whole measure. If the commissioners were fit for the office to which they were appointed, he thought that they ought to be treated with a liberal confidence; if they were not entitled to confidence they ought to be removed. The object of the bill was, that the Executive Government should not be responsible for carrying out the act, but merely responsible for the appointment or removal of the commissioners themselves.
Mr. Aglionbydid not want to interfere with the supreme power of the commissioners; all he desired was, that investigations should be placed above all suspicion.
Mr. B. Woodthought, that some powers ought to be given to the guardians, for the purpose of enabling them to promote inquiries into the conduct of assistant-commissioners.
Mr. Darbyfelt satisfied, that if the appointment of persons to institute investigations were left to the Secretary of State, he would consult the wishes of the commissioners in each instance, and they would, after all, possess the patronage. He considered the present clause a great improvement.
Sir R. Peeldoubted not that his hon. Friend was actuated by conscientious motives, but the course which he took afforded but small encouragement to any Ministry to introduce relaxations of the law. His right hon. Friend had proposed, that other
338
persons than the assistant-commissioners should be appointed to make special inquiries, upon which the hon. Gentleman rose and said, he would rather have no clause at all than one of that nature. Such was the encouragement which the Government had to make concessions, that sundry amendments were proposed, which were inconsistent with the principle of the bill. The proviso proposed, that persons should be appointed to make inquiries who had no connexion with the commission. In the first place, whenever they saw fit, or were required by the Secretary of State, the commissioners were to appoint such persons to conduct the inquiry. The authority of the commissioners was supreme over that of the assistant-commissioners, and being called upon to exercise it they would proceed to nominate a doctor of medicine, or a surveyor, or a barrister, persons having professional qualifications for the performance of the services required of them. The authority rested, then, with the commissioners, but the Secretary of State for the Home Department must give his sanction; he had a veto, as his noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool had expressed it. His hon. Friend had spoken of the invidiousness of the Secretary of State appointing special commissioners; but there was no doubt that such appointments would be the subject of communication between the Secretary of State and the Poor-law commissioners. It would certainly not be wise to get up two conflicting authorities; the Secretary of State and the commissioners ought to act in harmony. It appeared to him that the clause as it stood was good, because it gave a security against abuse; and he hoped the House would affirm the proposition as originally made by his right hon. Friend, in deference to what, he thought, was the general feeling of the House and of those who were opposed to the bill, He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would abandon his proposition, and not take a course which would tend to discourage relaxations of the law in reference to those matters which had come under consideration.
The committee divided on the question, that the clause stand part of the bill:— Ayes 59; Noes 9: Majority 50.

List of the NOES.

Brocklehurst, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Buckley, E,

Fielder, J.

339

Johnson, Gen.

Williams, W.

O'Brien,

TELLERS.

Richards, R,

Grimsditch, T.

Scholefield, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 to 22 inclusive, postponed.
On clause 23, that " guardians, &c., may set occasional poor to work."
Mr. R. Yorkeproposed, that the words in the clause " subject always to the powers of the Poor-law commissioners," should be omitted from the clause.
Mr. S. Crawford said,that he objected to the whole of the clause under the consideration of the House. It was a most tyrannical clause, and vested in the guardians powers, which they ought not to possess. If a man went even for one night into the bunion workhouse, he was obliged to allow his hair to he cut off close to his head. Such a case had happened. So strong was his objection to the tyrannical powers vested in the guardians by this clause, that he was determined toe take the sense of the House on the subject.
The committee divided on the question, that the clause stand part of the bill;Ayes 84; Noes 8: Majority 76.

List of the NOES.

Broadwood, H.

Scholefield, J.

Brother ton, J.

Williams, W.

Hodgson, F.

Johnson, Gen.

TELLERS.

Pechell, Capt.

Crawford, S.

Richards, ft.

Fielden, J.

Clause to stand part of the bill.
The rest of the clauses were rejected or agreed to with amendments.
Mr. Darbymoved the bringing up of a clause prohibiting the Poor-law commissioners. from interfering with local Poor-law administration, except with the consent of two-thirds of the board of guardians under the local act.
Clause brought cup, and read a first time. On the motion that it be read a second time,
Sir J. Grahamopposed the motion. Government bad determined, considering the state of public business, and the advanced period of the. Session, to introduce no provisions which would have the effect of introducing any important alterations into the spirit of the bill. The clause of his hon. Friend, however, was quite at variance with the existing law, and it was a mistake to suppose that the original
340
intention of the Poor-law Act was not that its provisions should be general. Through the operation of the proposed clause, upwards of 1,200,000 persons would he withdrawn from what he considered the salutary control of the Poor-law commissions.
Captain Pechellsupported the clause. He deprecated interference with boards under local acts, and referred to previous debates, with the view of proving that the House had affirmed this principle of noninterference.
Mr. T. Duncombethought that if Government objected to giving independent powers to local boards, that they should repeal their local acts altogether. Government, however, had no right, according to the original understanding, to sweep away these local acts, which were in many instances obtained at a great expense. He should strenuously support the clause.
The House divided on the question that the clause be read a second time:—Ayes, 42; Noes, 91: Majority, 49.

List of the AYES.

Adam, W.

Halford, H

Archdall, Capt.

Henley, J. W.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Hervey, Lord A.

Beckett, W.

Hodgson, R.

Borthwick, P.

Hornby, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Johnson, Gen.

Buckley, E.

Langston, J. H.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Masterman, J.

Burroughes, H. N.

Morris, D.

Chute, W. L. W.

Newry, Visct.

Colvile, C. R.

Richards, R.

Crawford, W. S.

Rolleston, Col.

Denison, E. B.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Dodd, G.

Scholefield, J.

Buncombe, T.

Sibthorp, Col.

Escott, B.

Taylor, J, A.

Farnham, E. B.

Tufnell,

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Wodehouse, E.

Fuller, A. E.

Yorke, H. R.

Gill, T.

Goring, C.

TELLERS.

Grimsditch, T.

Darby, G.

Grimston, Visct.

Pechell, Capt.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

A'Court, Capt.

Childers, J. W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Clayton, R. R.

Antrobus, E

Clive, hon. R. H.

Balfour, J. M.

Colborne, hn. W.N.R.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Courtenay, Lord

Blackburne, J. L

Cripps, W,

Bolder, H. G.

Darner, hon. Col.

Bramston, T. W.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Brotherton, J.

Dugdale, W. S.

Bruce, Lord E.

Duncan, G.

341

Elliot, Lord

Northland, Visct.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Packe, C. W.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Pakington, J. S.

Forbes, W.

Patten, J. W.

Forster, M.

Pemberton, T.

Gaskell, J. M.

Philips, M.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Praed, W. T.

Goulbourn, rt. hn. H.

Pringle, A.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Rice, E. R.

Hale, R. B.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Hamilton, W. J.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Rundle, J.

Herbert, hon. S.

Russell, J. D. W

Hobhouse, rt. hn Sir J.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Howard, P.

Sheppard, T.

Hughes, W. B.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hume, J.

Stanley, Lord

Hutt, W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Stuart, H.

Jones, Capt.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Tancred, H. W.

Lambton, H.

Thorneley, T.

Legh, G. C.

Tollemache, J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Trollope, Sir J.

Lockhart, W.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Mackenzie, T.

Vesey, hon. T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Waddington, H. S.

M'Geachy, F A.

Ward, H. G.

March, Earl of

Wawn, J. T.

Morgan, O.

Wood, B.

Neville, R.

Wood, G. W,

Newport, Visct.

Young, J.

Nicholl, right hon. J.

TELLERS.

Norreys, Lord

Clerk, Sir G.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Baring, H

House resumed. Bill to be reported.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA.
House in Committee on the Louth Australia Bill.
Mr. Humeexpressed his strong disapprobation of the manner in which the colony had been governed from the time of Lord Glenelg downwards. He accused Colonel Gawler of extravagance, and the Colonial Ministers of mismanagement and carelessness. They had all acted wrongly, and yet none of them would bear the responsibility of their misdoings. The colony had been involved in the greatest distress, and its credit had altogether gone. Money had not been borrowed when it might have been lent with safety, and now a loan had been asked for and granted at a time and in a manner the most unsuitable, unfair, and inexpedient. What he proposed was, that the colony should still be held liable for the money which had been given to it; and he would, therefore, move that the clause relieving it from its liabilities be omitted.
Lord Stanleysaid, that it was no part of his duty to defend the conduct of those
342
who had preceded him in office, and to whom the mismanagement of the colony must be attributed, but he could not go the length to which the hon. Gentleman had gone, either in his attack upon Lord J. Russell the other night, or upon Lord Glenelg to-night. He thought the mismanagement of the colony was to be attributed, not to one Colonial Minister or to another, but to the House of Commons and to Parliament. But the question now really was, how could that mismanagement be altered, and its evil consequences to some extent remedied? As to Colonel Gawler, he confessed that he had not exactly pursued the course which he should have recommended. His conduct had perhaps fairly exposed him to the charge of extravagance; but that very conduct, that free expenditure of money, had canned his popularity in the colony. But yet it certainly was one of the evils against which they had now to contend. With respect to the omission of the clause as proposed by the hon. Member, he did not think it would answer the purpose for which it was intended. He believed that to make them colony liable in case of any surplus revenue accruing at a future period would be a mode of proceeding calculated to extinguish the energies of the colonists.
The committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the bill. Ayes,;73 Noes, 10; Majority, 63.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Capt.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Ainsworth, P.

Fuller, A. E.

Baldwin, B.

Gaskell, J. M.

Bankes, G

Gill, T.

Baring, hon. W, B.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Bateson, R.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Blackburne, J. I.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Bolder, H. G.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Brimstone, T. W.

Grimsditch, T.

Broadley, H.

Grogan, E.

Brice, Lord E.

Hamilton, W. J.

Buckley, E.

Hensley, J. W.

Cardwell,

Herbert, hon. S.

Cavendish, hon. G. H

Hodgson, R.

Chute, W. L. W.

Hornby, J.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hughes, W. B.

Colvile, C. R.

Hussey, T.

Crimps, W.

Hutt, W.

Darner, hon. Col.

Jermyn, Earl

Denison, E. B.

Jones, Capt.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Dugdale, W. S.

Leg, G. C.

Duncombe, T.

Lincoln, Earl of

Eliot, Lord

Lockhart, W.

Farnham, E. B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

March, Earl of

343

Masterman, J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Neville, R.

Stanley, Lord

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Stuart, H.

Patten, J. W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Philips, M.

Taylor, J. A.

Rashleigh, W.

Tollemache,

Rice, E. R.

Vesey, hon. T.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Ward, H. G.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Young, J.

Rundle, J.

TELLERS.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Pringle, A.

Russell, J. D. W.

Baring, H.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H, A.

Scholefield, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Thornely, T.

Brotherton, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Cobden, R.

Crawford, W. S.

TELLERS.

Gibson, T. M.

Hume, J.

Morris, D.

Wood, B.

Clause agreed to.
Bill passed through the committee.
House resumed. Report to be received.

CORONERS OF WARWICK.
Sir C. Douglasmoved the second reading of the Coroners, &c. (Warwick and Lancaster) Bill.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, unlesssome adjournment of the debate took place, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Debate adjourned.
House adjourned at two o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. public.—2a London Bridge Approaches Fund; Militia Ballots Suspension; Fisheries
316
Treaty Act Continuance; Slave Trade Treaties Continuance; Tnrnpike Acts Continuance; Districts Courts and Prisons.
Committed.—Drainage (Ireland); New South Wales.
Reported.—Lunacy.
3a and passed: —Charitable Pawn Offices (Ireland); Tithes Commutation.
Private.—1a Mersey Conservancy.
2aSouthwark Improvement (No. 2).
Reported.—Duke of Buckingham's Estate.
3a and passed:—Reading Cemetery; Liverpool and Manchester Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Brougham, and the Marquess of Londonderry, from Medical Associations of Glasgow, South Shields, Cornwall, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Taunton, and South Devon, against the contemplated Medical Reform without further Inquiry.—From Dissenters of Oxford, to substitute Declarations for Oaths. —From the Ulster Canal Company, in favour of the Drainage (Ireland) Bill; and from Tullamore, to exempt the Grand Canal Company from its Provisions.—By the Duke of Cleveland, from certain Persons to secure the better Religious Instructions of Catholics in the Army and Navy.—By the Earl of Galloway, from Kensington, Chelsea, City of London, and Miners of Hopton and Thornhill, in favour of the Mines and Collieries Bill. —By the Marquess of Londonderry, Lord Hatherton, the Duke of Hamilton, and the Earl of Scarborough, from Colliers of Hoehlin Moor, and Helmly Moor Pit, and of the Raiding colliery, parish of Polmont; from Colliers of Over Darer; from Colliers in the parishes of Amroth Bigelly and St. Isella; from Females in That's Iron Works; from Sir John Hope, and Colliers of the Earl of Elgin's Collieries, Fifeshire, against parts of the Mines and Collieries Bill.—From Devizes, for the Prevention of Bribery.—From the Clergy of the Archdeacons of Wells, for Alteration of the law for Rating Tithes, and for Church Extension.

MINES AND COLLIERIES.
The Duke of Hamiltonhaving presented two petitions from the women employed in certain mines and collieries in Stirlingshire, against the Mines and Collieries Bill, went on to say, that independently of all the considerations to which the petitioners referred, he leaked upon this bill as most objectionable in principle and detail. It trenched on that right which every man and woman ought to enjoy, of disposing of their labour in what way they thought proper. He had no doubt whatever of the humane intentions of the promoters of the bill, but he thought they were wholly mistaken in the practical way in which they proposed to carry out those intentions. It might be very well to desire to relieve a woman from the drudgery of labour in a colliery—though, by the way, the extent of that drudgery was greatly overrated; but what kind of substitute did they propose to give for this labour? None whatever. The poor females so employed did not desire to be relieved from it. It was sweet to them, because by it they were enabled to maintain themselves, or, perhaps, a parent or a child, or, perhaps, all three. Deprive them of that labour and they were made

317
miserable, as well as these dependent on them. On all these grounds he thought the bill most unjust in its principle, and most ruinous to those poor persons in its consequences.
Petition to lie upon the Table.

DRAINAGE (IRELAND).
Lord Wharncliffeon the Order of the Day for a committee on Drainage (Ireland) bill, moved that the House do resolve itself into committee.
The Earl of Glengallsaid, that he did not wish to throw any unnecessary obstacles in the way of this measure; but he must object to it as being too general in its nature. He thought, that whatever was done in Ireland in the matter of drainage, ought to have reference to the particular districts. He must also object, that the bill was brought forward at a period when so many noble Lords connected with Ireland were absent from Parliament. He hoped, that before they took any further steps they would institute some inquiry on the subject. No sane person, he thought, would be induced to put his property in the power of the commissioners in the manner which was proposed by the bill; but as he had every reason to believe, that it would prove as inoperative as Mr. M. O'Ferrall's bill on the same subject, had, he, perhaps, should be wasting their Lordships' time if he troubled them further on the subject. He should, therefore, merely move that the bill be referred to a select committee.
Lord Monteaglethought the Government had done themselves very great credit by bringing forward this bill, which was free from all party questions, and had for its object the developing the latest resources of Ireland. The referring the bill to a committee—which he did not suppose the noble Earl had moved with a view of defeating the measure—was wholly unnecessary, for if ever there was a subject which had been exhausted this was one; it had been constantly before the House since the year 1809. There could be no apprehension that the measure would be oppressive, for it required the assent of two-thirds of those who were interested before it could be put into operation; and if there was a disposition to act oppressively, there was a remedy in the bill itself sufficient to prevent oppression. He would suggest an amendment of the second clause, giving a conditional, not an
318
absolute, power to the Government to appoint commissioners.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that this was a bill which would not be tolerated for an instant in England. And as they heard so much of the inviolability of the union, would it not he most unwise to apply to property in Ireland a principle which they would never think of applying to property in England? He agreed with the noble Earl opposite, in thinking that the measure would be inoperative, but then that did not weaken the argument against the principle. It was true, that all the previous inquiries had demonstrated the necessity of drainage, but what had that to do with the confiscation of property, such as would take place if this bill passed into law? He would vote in favour of the motion of the noble Earl, in the hope that amendments would be made in the committee, which would render the bill less objectionable in many of its provisions.
The Earl of Wicklowthought, that if the object of the measure was desirable, namely, the drainage of the waste lands of Ireland, it was much better to have a general measure like that before the House, with the principle of which he concurred. Indeed, unless that principle were adopted, namely, of giving certain reasonable powers to the commissioners to carry the provisions out, the measure would be found impracticable. It would be useless to wait until those Irish proprietors whose estates required drainage applied for private bills, as unfortunately they did not display the same anxiety to improve their estates as the proprietors of this country. He should give his cordial support to the motion for going into committee.
The Marquess of Lansdownethought that every circumstance and fact that bad been stated in the course of this debate went to show the expediency of adopting this measure.
The Marquese of Londonderrywas of opinion that the grand juries of Ireland ought to be made better acquainted than they were with the scope and intent of this measure. The Government appeared to him to be over-legislating, in attempting, so unnecessarily, to press this and other measures through the House at so late a period of the Session.
The Earl of Charlevillewas anxious that this bill should be referred to a select committee, in order that many of its pro-

319
visions might undergo alteration and emendation. Even if the result of such reference should be to delay the measure for a Session, he did not think the inconvenience could be nearly so great as if they passed it in an incomplete form.
Lord Cloncurrysupported the bill, on the ground that there were 3,000,000 of acres of wet and waste land in Ireland, which would be brought into cultivation under its operation.
Earl of Clancarty:My Lords, although I cannot agree with the noble Marquis (Lord Clanricarde) opposite, and other noble Lords who are utterly opposed to the bill, neither can I join in that unqualified approbation which my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Wicklow) has bestowed upon it. I concur in much that was said by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Mounteagle) both as to the necessity of some such measure, and the praiseworthy spirit in which her Majesty's Government have brought it forward; I give them the credit that is due for having given effect to the intentions of their predecessors in office by the adoption of a measure not their own, but of which they saw the utility. But while I give them credit for the motives with which they have brought this measure forward, I must express my regret that considering the very great powers with which it proposes to invest commissioners in interfering with private property, considering the very startling importance of several of the enactments' in the bill, which nothing short of a paramount necessity should justify, the noble I President of the Council in introducing' the bill this evening to your Lordships, has barely glanced at its provisions and stated no case, brought forward no evidence whatever to justify them. The power given by the bill to the proprietors of two-thirds of any land, to compel the proprietors of the remaining third to place the management of the whole in the hands of Government commissioners, and the extraordinary powers conferred upon these commissioners of borrowing and laying out money, and charging with the repayment both of principal and interest not alone the lands which they undertake to improve, but any other lands lying within a mile of such improvement—these powers may be necessary, but the noble Lord stated no case showing them to be so; and, to his argument in favour of the bill that it had been passed through the House
320
of Commons without a division, I cannot subscribe as any reason why your Lordships should not examine minutely into its provisions. So far from the apparent unanimity with which the bill has passed through the Commons being an evidence that it has been carefully considered, it appears to me to be an evidence of its having been very little looked into; for when in this House so much difference of opinion prevails respecting it, as the speeches that have been delivered this evening exhibit, it is scarcely reasonable to suppose that perfect unanimity should be found upon it in an assembly so much more numerous. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will enter upon the consideration of the details of the bill on its merits, without relying upon the consideration given to it in the other House of Parliament. Of the necessity of a Drainage bill, general in its operation, I am fully satisfied; the want of Drainage in Ireland is that which of all things strikes the visitor to that country most forcibly. Undoubtedly much is being done, but much is also, of necessity, left undone for the want of a body, which the commissioners created by this bill will supply, to act with authority as umpires in applotting the expences of improvements among the proprietors who are benefitted, and to see the proper outlay of the money and the management of the works to be done. I think that for all this the bill before your Lordships provides; but I think it also goes further than is necessary in interfering with the rights of property. Care, my Lords, should be taken, that we do not precipitate matters, even though the object in view be the improvement of the country. Commissioners armed with great powers are, no doubt, to a great extent necessary; but let us not lose sight of the fact, that Ireland is already overrun with commissioners; that the powers exercised by these bodies are always a deduction from the stewardship of others, and their appointment a new and permanent charge upon the country. Within the last ten years we have seen Ecclesiastical commissioners appointed to supersede the Archbishops and Bishops in the administration of the funds for the building and repairing of churches; we have seen commissioners of Education usurping the province of the parochial clergy in the superintendence and direction of the National Education; Poor-law commissioners have been

321
appointed to regulate the principle upon which the wealthier classes are henceforth to contribute to the relief of the destitute; and, until within the present year, a commission of stipendiary magistrates was rapidly growing up, that would eventually have altogether superseded the country gentlemen in their proper functions as the guardians of the peace and good order of the country, and of the rights of the poor. Further, a commission of public works has, in a great degree, superseded the grand juries in the superintendence of the thoroughfares, bridges, and public buildings, and in their control over the taxation of the several counties; and it is now proposed to invest commissioners with very extraordinary powers over private property. A modification of these powers it may he very necessary to give into their hands; but we must beware that we do not go too far in surrendering up the stewardship of those talents for which we have to be answerable, and to which we should apply ourselves without leaving too much upon others; we must take care that we do not in our eagerness for the improvement of the country, place every thing at the discretion of officers appointed by the Crown, as the Egyptians of old, though for a more pressing occasion, yielded up their cattle and their land, and eventually their persons, as the bondsmen of Pharaoh. As objections to the details of the bill may he better discussed in committee, I shall not, especially at this late hour, enter into the consideration of them at present. I will only say, that with respect to the 21st and 28th sections of the bill, I hope the noble Lord who has charge of it, will allow a very considerable alteration to be made in the former, and that the latter may be altogether omitted, as they involve a violation of the rights of private property which is quite unjustified by any necessity, and inconsistent alike with the interests and duty of the proprietory.
Lord Wharncliffedefended the bill, the objections to which he should prefer dealing with in committee. It was a bill which was generally called for, which had been exceedingly well considered, and which he was confident would have a beneficial influence on the country. He, therefore, objected to its being referred to a select committee.
The question that the bill be referred to a select committee
House in committee.
On the second clause, empowering the Board of Works to appoint two additional paid commissioners, if necessary, being put.
The Marquess of Clanricardemoved that the clause be expunged.
The Earl of Wicklowsupported the clause.
Their Lordships divided on the question, that the clause stand part of the bill:—Contents 30; Not-Contents 6 Majority 24.
Remaining clauses agreed to, with amendment.
House resumed. Report to be received on Monday.
House adjourned.