Sitting of 18 May 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Poor Removal Act Amendment; Copyhold Commission; Turnpike Acts Continu-
1052
ance; Loan Societies; Stock in Trade Exemption; Highway Rates.
2° Westminster and part of Middlesex Sewers.
Reported.— Juvenile Offenders; Transference of Lands (Scotland); Heritable Securities for Debt {Scotland); Burgage Tenure (Scotland); Crown Charters (Scotland); Cemeteries Clauses.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other hon. Members, from several places, For Regulating the Qualification of Chemists and Druggists.—By Mr. G. Hope, from Southampton, and from the Parish of Saint Olave, Southwark, in favour of the Health of Towns Dill.—By Mr. Beckett, from Leeds, for Alteration of the Health of Towns Bill; and against the Highways Bill.—By Sir De L. Evans and other hon. Members, from several places, in favour of the Medical Registration and Medical Law Amendment Bill.—By the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from Persons assembling for Public Worship in Haley Hill Chapel, in Northowram, near Halifax, for the Suppression of Promiscuous Intercourse.—By Mr. Gill, from the Corporation of the Guardians of the Poor of the Town of Plymouth, respecting the Punishment of Vagrants, &c. (Ireland) Bill.—By Lord E. Bruce, from Marlborough, for Alteration of the Law of Settlement.

THE DERBY DAY—ADJOURNMENT.
LORD G. BENTINCK, who had on the Paper a notice of Motion, "That the House at its rising do adjourn till Thursday," then rose and said, Sir, for more than half a century the Derby day has been a recognised holiday.
MR. HUMEspoke to order. The notice of the noble Lord stood No. 18 on the Piper, and there was no reason why the Derby should have preference in the House over everything else.
MR. SPEAKER: It is usual to take early in the evening Motions respecting the adjournment of the House.
MR. HUMEwished to know whether there was any Standing Order ["Chair, chair!"] entitling any hon. Member at any time to interrupt the business of the House by a Motion respecting its adjournment at its rising.
MR. SPEAKER: The practice has always been to take these Motions for the adjournment of the House early in the evening, for the convenience of hon. Members, because they cannot otherwise tell on what day the House will sit, and might not know for what days to fix Motions.
House at its rising to adjourn till Thursday.

LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND—DEATH OF THE EARL OF BESBOROUGH.
MR. HUMEasked whether the Government had made arrangements for filling up the vacant office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? It was important that it should be known as soon as possible what was intended to be done with regard to that office.
Lord J. RUSSELL, who evidently spoke under deep emotion, said: Perhaps the House will permit me, in answering that question, to express the grief which we, and the Sovereign we have the honour to serve, have felt at the melancholy loss the country has sustained, in the death of a nobleman, whose intimate knowledge of Ireland, whose clear judgment, whose conciliatory qualities were so well adapted to soften animosities which have long been the bane of that country, and to point the way to her future improvement. Sir, having said these few words with respect to the calamity that has occurred, I will tell the hon. Member who has asked this question, that Her Majesty's Ministers have thought it their duty to advise Her Majesty immediately to fill up the office of Lord Lieutenant, which has thus become vacant. Whatever may be the opinion of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the general nature of that office, with respect to the policy of maintaining it for any length of time as part of the Government in the United Kingdom, we are clearly and unanimously of opinion that the present circumstances of Ireland do not admit of such a change of authority as would be necessarily affected by the legislative measures which would have to be introduced on a change in the mode in which the Government of Ireland is administered. We have, therefore, thought it absolutely necessary to advise Her Majesty to fill up the office of Lord Lieutenant. I do not intend, during the present Session of Parliament, to introduce any measure by which an alteration may be made in the constitution of that authority. We have felt, in coming to this determination upon our own responsibility, that it was absolutely necessary for the present Government of Ireland.

MR. MOTT.
Mr. FERRAND, seeing the hon. Member for Bolton in his place, begged to give him notice that on Friday he (Mr. Ferrand) would put a question to him relating to the positive contradiction given on the previous evening by the Home Secretary to the solemn declaration made in that House by the late Home Secretary, who had said that Mr. Mott had been dismissed from his office of assistant poor-law commissioner for conduct with which the hon. Member for Bolton was acquainted, that hon. Member having stated on the
1054
28th of Jannary last that he understood that declaration to be sufficient to clear his character as a Member of the House and with his constituents, from the charge brought against him by Mr. Mott.
Dr. BOWRINGwould rather the hon. Member would put his question at once, instead of postponing it to Friday.
Mr. FERRANDwould then ask whether the hon. Member was prepared, after the positive contradiction of the late Home Secretary's solemn declaration, to take any further steps for the purpose of clearing his own character and the character of his constituents from the charge made against them?
Dr. BOWRINGdid not know in what manner his character was involved in anything that had taken place. He would just recall the circumstances to the recollection of the House. He (Dr. Bowring) had had great reason to complain, and so had his constituents, of certain statements made by Mr. Mott, respecting the state of Bolton; he (Dr. Bowring) did complain both publicly and privately; but when he found that Mr. Mott was no longer connected with the Poor Law Commissioners, that he had ceased to be an assistant commissioner, and that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester (Sir J. Graham), on one occasion had stated that he (Dr. Bowring) was acquainted with the circumstances under which Mr. Mott was no longer employed as assistant commissioner, he (Dr. Bowring) took for granted that this was a recognition by the right hon. Baronet that he was not satisfied with the statement made by Mr. Mott respecting the state of Bolton. He (Dr. Bowring) accepted that as a testimony to his veracity; his constituents were very well satisfied with the general results; and further than that he had really no explanation to give.
SIR G. GREYbelieved the hon. Member (Mr. Ferrand) had assumed that he gave on the previous evening a solemn contradiction of the previous solemn declaration of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham). He (Sir G. Grey) was not aware of the declaration to which the hon. Member referred; but what he (Sir G. Grey) had stated was, that he had been informed by the Poor Law Commissioners that the terms used in the notice of a question put upon the Paper by the hon. Member (Mr. Ferrand) for the previous night were not correct; that Mr. Mott was not dismissed for misconduct, but that he was

1055
the commissioner who, under the terms of the Act of Parliament, retired.
SIR J. GRAHAMhoped he might be allowed to confirm the precise accuracy of the statements made by the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House. In 1844 there were ten assistant poor-law commissioners; by an Act of Parliament then passed the number was to be reduced to nine. It was necessary for the Commissioners to select one of the ten to retire; and they selected Mr. Mott. He was not dismissed, in the sense in which the hon. Member used that word as a punishment for any offence; but in making a selection with a view to the relative merits of the then ten assistant commissioners, the circumstance to which the hon. Member (Dr. Bowring) had alluded was considered by the Commissioners, and by himself (Sir J. Graham). On the whole he was not satisfied with the report which Mr. Mott made with reference to the state of Bolton, and that circumstance did weigh in the selection they made of Mr. Mott, by which he ceased to be an assistant commissioner.

SIR C. NAPIER.
ADMIRAL BOWLESrose to ask the Secretary of the Admiralty whether the hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone was appointed to command the experimental squadron this year? and if so, after the very strong language in which he had so publicly expressed his disapprobation of the ships constructed by Sir W. Symonds, he was considered by the Board of Admiralty likely to be an impartial judge on so important an occasion?
ADMIRAL DUNDASanswered, that Sir C. Napier had been so appointed, and that the Admiralty were perfectly certain that he would do his duty, as he always had done.

THE USE OF FLOUR IN CALICOES.
MR. FERRANDrose to put a question of which he had given notice. As it was calculated that 183,120,000 lbs. weight of the best flour was annually used merely for the purpose of dressing the warps for weaving, besides an immense quantity for the purpose of daubing cottons with flour paste to defraud the public, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of flour for such purposes? Very strong opinions had been expressed on the subject by the working population; and
1056
having received the calculations on which he proceeded from a person practically acquainted with the subject, he had every reason to consider them as perfectly correct.
LORD J. RUSSELLreplied, that he would not bring in a Bill for any such purpose.

COMBINATIONS AT SHEFFIELD.
MR. T. DUNCOMBErose to call the attention of the House to a petition of several inhabitants of Sheffield as to the conduct of Mr. Overend. This gentleman was a medical man in great and extensive practice at Sheffield; and he hoped, for the sake of his patients, that his prescriptions were better than his law. Whenever this gentleman was called on, in his capacity of magistrate, to adjudicate between employers and employed, it might be by accident, but it was found that he invariably gave his opinion in favour of employers. The working men of Sheffield were extremely attached to what were called trade unions. Mr. Overend took a very different view from them on this subject; and whenever a case of that kind arose, Mr. Overend was always sent for. It happened in the present case that a sword manufacturer and three of his men had a dispute as to the employment of two persons named Poole and Allen. Mr. Newfold admitted that the men conducted themselves with civility, though that gentleman had used some warm expressions on the occasion. Mr. Overend, the magistrate, was sent for to adjudicate. Though other business was going on before the other justices, this gentleman, who was celebrated for his knowledge of the law bearing on those combinations, said, immediately on taking his place, "We'll go on with your case now." When the case concluded, he sentenced the men to three months' imprisonment and hard labour. On an appeal, however, the conviction was set aside. Now, everybody was liable to error; but the fact as regarded Mr. Overend was, that most of his convictions had been quashed. The first design of the artificers was to memoralize the Secretary of State to have him dismissed; but it was afterwards thought better to call the attention of the public to the subject in the present form. They had no complaint against any of the magistrates but Mr. Overend. They did not believe his judgments were impartial, and they prayed the House to protect them from his decisions in future. The

1057
best remedy for their complaints was to appoint a stipendiary magistrate for Sheffield, as in all the other large manufacturing towns, and to send there a man removed from all local and trade prejudice. Such was the practice with regard to Liverpool and Manchester; and he thought Sheffield, where there had been and were combinations on both sides, masters and workmen, should be governed by the same rule. If those men had been poor and unfriended, they would have had to suffer this injustice. As it was, he believed it had cost them 50 l. to have this appeal, which had fortunately relieved them. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a return of convictions in Sheffield, specifying the date and names of the convicting magistrates, the nature of the sentences, &c, in such case.
SIR G. GREYhad no objection to the Motion of the hon. Member; but he could not help regretting that he had thought proper to accompany it with some observations on the character of the gentleman in question which might not be quite justifiable, for he felt bound to state that the representations which had been made to him differed very widely from those of the hon. Member with respect to the town of Sheffield. He hoped, however, that the opinions he expressed in the House on the subject of trades' unions would go forth on his behalf to the people of that town; for though any person might become a member of those unions, he became liable to the law if he attempted to intimidate others, or to combine with the members of them for illegal purposes. He was assured that a fearful system of intimidation existed in Sheffield, under which the magistrates were obliged to act in circumstances of great difficulty and much peril; and he felt hound to state that no official statement had been addressed to him, or any communication made respecting Mr. Over-end, except in terms of commendation of his character and ability. He was aware, in this particular instance, that the conviction had been quashed; but he was assured that Mr. Overend acted under the best legal advice on the occasion, and took the greatest pains in forming his opinion, and he knew that as soon as notice had been given of the hon. Member's intention to bring this subject before the House, several petitions and memorials were presented in consequence—one very numerously signed by most of the inhabitants. He thought it but right and just that these
1058
memorials should also be laid before the House, and would therefore offer no opposition to the Motion for producing them.
MR. E. B. DENISONsaid, he knew Mr. Overend, and could safely say he was a very useful and honourable man, who had an exceedingly onerous duty to perform, and performed it ably and fairly. The town of Sheffield was afflicted with a system of combination which brought the employer and employed into a state of constant variance. With respect to the Motion of his hon. Friend opposite, he would, in justice to Mr. Overend, ask the leave of the House to append to his Motion the memorials which had been presented from Sheffield. The hon. Member had been somewhat wrongly informed with respect to Mr. Overend, for he stated that all his convictions had taken place single-handed, or at least conveyed that impression to the House. The fact was, however, that every one of them had been given in company with other magistrates.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERvindicated the character and conduct of Mr. Overend, and declared him to be a gentleman who had devoted himself to his duty under great difficulties, and had made the most meritorious exertions to discharge it.
MR. J. S. WORTLEYsaid, Mr. Overend was one of the most eminent men of his profession in the north of England, and was one of the ablest, best, most conscientious, and most efficient magistrates. Mr. Overend was called upon to act as a magistrate not engaged in trade. The Act under which the convictions took place excluded persons connected with trade from acting in a judicial capacity. One conviction was actually quashed because the colleague of Mr. Overend was a merchant exporting scissors, and therefore disqualified as a magistrate under the Act. Everyone of the convictions quashed had been so on the ground of informality. In such cases it was not the magistrate who was at fault. Mr. Overend had received addreses from all the public bodies in Sheffield of any consequence, including the mayor and corporation, the Master Cutler and the corporation of Cutlers, the clergy, and from 2,000 of the most respectable inhabitants —a fact which showed the high appreciation in which his merits as a magistrate were held in that town. He had no intention of entering into details connected with this subject; but, if he were to do so, he could present a picture of the state of

1059
things in Sheffield which was actually frightful, and which would be sufficient to shake the opinion of even the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Duncombe) himself. It would be enough to say, that a peculiar class of offences had reached such a height there—he alluded to the destruction of property by gunpowder—that it was found necessary by the right hon. Gentleman behind him (Sir J. Graham), when Home Secretary, to introduce a specific measure for suppressing the practice. He held in his hand a placard which had been issued on the morning following one of these offences, offering a reward of l,000 l. for the detection of the offender; but it produced no effect: it was found impossible to obtain any evidence respecting it. In such circumstances it required a man of vigour and courage to dare to act as a magistrate on such occasions; and Mr. Overend was a man of courage, and, at the same time, a man of moderation. He hoped the hon. Member for Finsbury would repeat the advice which he had given the workmen tonight elsewhere; for he had great influence with the people of Sheffield, and such advice coming from him would do great good. He held in his hand a placard in which that hon. Member's name was mentioned as president of a trades' union society; and the hon. Member could hardly conceive the countenance which his name gave to such a society. He assured the House that the consequence of the state of things which existed in Sheffield between masters and workmen was deplorable in the extreme. He knew a case where a gentleman of extensive capital intended setting up an establishment in Sheffield for the manufacture of engines for railroads; but, from the terrible state of society which he found existing there, he actually left the town and settled elsewhere. It would be doing a great service, therefore, to the workmen, if the hon. Member for Finsbury would use his influence with them, to show them that such conduct as he had referred to was doing not only a great injury to the town, but to the trade by which they lived, and to themselves and families.
MR. HENLEYknew nothing of the merits of the case, nor any of the parties engaged in it, but could not forbear saying, he was surprised at the course taken by Government upon it. The hon. Member for Finsbury made a short speech, but a very strong one, in which he cast out very serious imputations against a gentleman holding a commission of the peace. He
1060
(Mr. Henley) should have thought that a court of law would have been the proper place to investigate this charge, or, if that were too tedious or too distant, that the parties should have applied to the Crown, to which the magistrates constitutionally were wont to look, and to which the people turned for redress in cases of magisterial misconduct. That course was not taken; and when the case was brought before the House, the Secretary of State said there was no wrong done, as far as he knew, and at the same time submitted to a Motion for a list of convictions in Sheffield, which might, after all, only prove that several breaches of a very intricate and difficult Act of Parliament had been committed by the magistrate. There was no conviction so clear that a man might not be found to pick a hole in it; but the Government in this case sat quietly down, and gave the magistrate no protection whatever. This course was a direct premium to tempt persons to make that House the judge in matters with which, according to his opinion, the House had nothing at all to do.
MR. H. G. WARDremarked, that the hon. Member (Mr. Henley) had somewhat misrepresented the facts of the case; for, although it was true that the hon. Member for Finsbury had made some strong statements respecting Mr. Overend, on the other hand an almost unanimous testimony had been borne in his favour. As one of the Members for Sheffield, he (Mr. Ward) had risen to say that he entirely concurred in many of the observations which had fallen from Gentlemen on both sides of the House. The fact was, that the question of trades' unions was one of the most difficult that the Government or the magistracy could deal with. He knew that in Sheffield there existed a strong feeling on both sides, and that there were faults on both sides. If ever there was a case in which it was the duty of a magistrate to show exemplary patience and freedom from prepossession on either side, it was a case in which trades' unions were concerned. He had risked his seat in his attempts to bring home to the working classes of Sheffield the injury which they did to themselves by the height to which they carried their trades' union proceedings. He admitted that there were cases in which trades' unions were essential to the working classes; but when they overstepped the limits of moderation, and attempted to carry their resolutions, not by moral force,

1061
but by influence bordering on threats, which were always followed (although they could not be traced) by acts of violence, they inflicted an injury on the, working classes generally which it was impossible to estimate. When times of bad trade came, the workmen felt this themselves. One of their resolutions, for instance, was, that no employer of labour should be allowed to make choice of his own workmen, and that no workman should be allowed to choose his own employer. When trade was good, they might be able to carry this into effect, but not when trade was bad. He held in his hand an advertisement which had lately been issued by the table-knife grinders of Sheffield, announcing their resolution to abandon this rule in consequence of the present state of trade. He said here, as he had said in Sheffield, that the practice of any system of force or intimidation was destructive of all proper subordination, and fraught with ruin to the trade of the town. He knew the case to which the right hon. and learned Member (Mr. Wortley) had referred, in which a man intended to invest a large capital in the establishment of a new branch of trade in Sheffield, but was compelled to abandon the idea owing to the spirit of combination which prevailed. He believed that nothing but a bitter lesson would bring the workmen to their senses on this subject, and show them the evil which their conduct was calculated to inflict upon themselves. That there were faults on the part of the masters as well as of the men he freely admitted; and he only hoped that both parties would follow out the principle which had been so properly inculcated by the hon. Member for Finsbury, that neither of them had a right to interfere in anything except by moral influence.
MR. PARKERconcurred in lamenting the injury done to trade by the disturbed state of the relations between the employers and the employed, and in expressing a hope that a better feeling would soon prevail.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEassured the House that the sentiments he had uttered that night with respect to trades' unions, and the conduct of the workmen towards their employers, he invariably inculcated in their presence. The very placard which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Wortley) had exhibited to the House, related, he believed, to the National Association of United Trades, which was no doubt a concentration of trades' unions, acting by
1062
means of a central committee, but the object of which was to create a good understanding between workmen and their employers, and to obviate the necessity of strikes; so that if the object of the right hon. Gentleman was to put down strikes, he could not do better than to encourage that association. So far as he was concerned, that association should never have recourse to any such mischievous practices as the right hon. Gentleman had described. He must say that it was not quite right to prejudice the case which he had brought under the notice of the Honse by referring to the explosions and other diabolical outrages which had occurred in Sheffield. The three men to whom he had referred were totally unconnected with proceedings of that sort. He begged to say also that if the House wanted to put down secret conspiracies and dangerous combinations among workmen, they should endeavour to give them confidence in the impartial administration of the law. The very difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to, of finding magistrates to act in Sheffield, showed the necessity of appointing a stipendiary magistrate for that town. There should, in fact, be a stipendiary magistrate in every town with a population above a certain amount, say 8,000 or 10,000.
Motion agreed to.

RAILROAD BILLS IN THE PRESENT SESSION.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthen rose to move the appointment of a Select Committee—
"To consider whether it is expedient that any measures should be adopted for suspending further proceedings in all or any of the Railroad Bills in the present Session, and for enabling the parties, under certain conditions, to proceed with the same in a future Session of Parliament; and also, whether it is advisable that any future provisions should be made in the Standing Orders of this House relative to Bills for the construction of Railroads; and to report their opinion thereupon to the House from time to time."
He apprehended there would be no opposition to this resolution. He had been in communication with various parties connected with the railway interest on the subject, and found that they had no objection to the proposal, and therefore he did not think it necessary for him to trouble the House with any statement in moving its adoption. It would be observed that he had worded the resolution in very general terms. With respect to the first point, namely, as to suspending further proceed-

1063
ings on Railway Bills in the present Session, his own view was that a permissive power only should be given to parties to suspend proceedings at a certain stage, and to proceed with the same in a future Session; but he had not thought it necessary to limit the reference to the Committee to this point, but had left it quite general. With reference to the second point, as to whether it were advisable that any further provisions should be made in the Standing Orders relative to the Railway Bills, he thought it right that some further securities should be taken to provide that none but bonâ fide concerns should be admitted to the chance of obtaining Parliamentary powers. He thought it no less for the advantage of railways than of the public that some further regulations should, be made on this subject. He begged, therefore, to move the resolution of which he had given notice.
MR. HODGSON HINDEsaid, he was not prepared to give the acquiescence which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to expect would be so generally accorded to the Motion; but, before he noticed his objections to the Motion itself, he had to complain of the short notice which had been given to the House on a subject of so much importance. In the case of a Motion which affected capital, proposed to be invested in railways to the extent of 100,000,000 l., he thought that an interval of one or two days should have been allowed to hon. Members to prepare an Amendment, if they thought proper. He approached the subject under great disadvantage; but he had so strong a feeling on it that he did not think he should be doing his duty if he did not move an Amendment, and take the sense of the House upon it. The right hon. Gentleman said he had brought forward the Motion after consultation with several gentlemen deeply interested in railroads. He believed he knew who those gentlemen were; he believed they were three gentlemen largely connected with railways, whose names were on this Committee, and, as their interest obviously was to have as many new schemes strangled as possible, he could easily understand how they should have so readily approved of this Motion. To consult them on the subject was like consulting the wolves as to what was good for the sheep. If the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to prevent the undue expenditure of capital on railroads within a certain period, he could have no difficulty
1064
in acceding to his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had said that his own view was, that it should only be made permissive to railway companies who were soliciting Bills to suspend their proceedings till another Session; but that he did not think it right to limit his reference to that. But why not? If he had so limited it, perhaps the hon. Gentlemen referred to would not so willingly have acceded to the Motion. He had no objection to the latter part of the Motion which referred to Standing Orders, but he proposed that the first branch of the Motion should be omitted, for the purpose of substituting the following words:—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether it be expedient that any restrictions should be imposed on the construction of Railways which may be authorized in the present Session, so as to prevent the absorption at one time of an inconvenient amount of capital in these undertakings."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to say, that, as the hon. Member appeared to have the same object in view that he himself had, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
Amendment withdrawn. Motion agreed to. Committee nominated.

POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL— ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The Order of the Day for the resumption of the Adjourned Debate on this Bill having been read,
MR. CHRISTIEsaid, that he mainly approved of the principle of the Poor Law Amendment Act, and concurred in the opinions expressed last night with so much force and clearness by the hon. and learned Member for Bath. He was also thoroughly convinced of the necessity of a Central Commission with large discretionary powers, for the purpose of aiding, guiding, and controlling, local authorities. Entertaining these opinions, the only fault which he found with the Bill, referred to the clause —which had been stated to be an afterthought—which rendered the provisions of the measure temporary. Notwithstanding the strong assertions of the hon. Member for Knaresborough yesterday, he believed that the New Poor Law—a measure so salutary and at the same time so obnoxious to prejudice—was supported by the favourable opinion of the great bulk of the educated classes, and, indeed, he might say, by the great bulk of the people generally,

1065
and that they were desirous that it should be placed by Parliament above the disadvantage which was inseparable from a law renewed for only five years. The hon. Member for Knaresborough said that the law had failed—that it had crumbled to pieces—and that all parties admitted it had proved to be a miserable failure; but he had listened in vain for any proof in support of the hon. Member's assertions. The only matter which the hon. Member referred to as supporting his broad and sweeping assertion, were the proceedings before the Andover Committee, to which he (Mr. Christie) would presently advert. The course which the hon. and learned Member for Dorsetshire pursued last night, whilst professing to be friendly to the principle of the Poor Law Amendment Act, had infinitely surprised him, and rendered it necessary that he should endeavour briefly to explain what were the advantages to be derived from the Bill now before the House. The experience of the past had shown that security was needed for the correct administration of the law. Now, the Bill, in three different ways, produced important additional security for the correct administration of the law. The first of those additional securities was the direct responsibility in Parliament to which all officers employed in the administration of the Poor Law would, under the operation of the Bill, be subjected. They would be present in that House to be questioned and to answer for themselves, and would be fixed with direct responsibility for the answers which they might give. Then four Cabinet Ministers were to be associated with the President of the Commission proposed to be appointed under this Bill—a circumstance which must secure, as he presumed it was intended, the great additional advantage to the public of Cabinet deliberations upon every important exercise of the discretionary power with which the Commissioners should be invested. In the third case, the new footing in which the Commission was to be placed, by its officers being removable on every change of Government, though it was received by some persons as likely to endanger the stability of the law, appeared to him to furnish an important additional security in this way—that the administrators of Poor Law affairs would take every step they adopted with the full knowledge that their conduct would be canvassed thereafter, perhaps almost immediately by their successors, and, it might be, by their political
1066
opponents; and, on every change of Government, the persons who undertook to administer the Poor Law would by their mere acceptance of office, imply that they intended to maintain the fundamental principle of the law. The Bill made a slight change in the titles of some of the officers at present employed in the administration of the law, which appeared to him likely to have an important effect. The assistant poor-law commissioners were henceforth to be called inspectors. The Secretary for the Home Department yesterday enumerated some of the disadvantages under which the Poor Law Commissioners were placed by the present constitution of the Commission; and, upon the whole, he concurred in the view which the right hon. Baronet took of that subject. There was one disadvantage, however, under which the Commission was placed, to which the right hon. Baronet did not advert. The Central Commission, as was stated by the hon. Member for Bath, had been made responsible for every abuse and defect in the local administration of the law throughout the country. The effect of the change would be to place the Central Commission and their officers in a more proper and just relation towards the local administrators of the law by making it clear to the public that they were something external to the local administration diffused throughout the country. It would now be understood, that the Central Commission and their officers were appointed for the purpose of watching the local authorities, and compelling them to perform their duty; and the Commission would be looked upon merely as controllers. The hon. Member for Knaresborough, in the course of his speech, complained of the principles of the Act of 1834, and of the mode in which those principles had been carried into effect; and he spoke of the law as an utter failure. He agreed with the author of an anonymous pamphlet, published within the last two days, and which he thought might, without, fear of mistake, be attributed to one of the Poor Law Commissioners, that in the present state of public feeling-brought about, he was aware, by the important inquiry of last Session into the case of the Andover Union—it was desirable to ascertain the precise meaning of the declaration that the New Poor Law had been proved to be an utter failure. It was important to ascertain whether the Act of 1834 was impolitic and impracticable in itself, or whether it was a good law, and

1067
had failed only through the fault of its administrators, local and central; in other words, it was necessary that the distinction between the law and its administration should he placed clearly before the public. The points into which the Committee on the Andover Union inquired and reported, were all points bearing upon the administration of the law, as distinguished from the law itself, The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department said that he had read the report of the Andover Committee without finding a word in it affecting the principle of the law, or the expediency of a central Commission. All the points inquired into by the Committee, as he before stated, involved the local administration of the law. The master and matron of the workhouse were unfit for their offices, and, consequently, the workhouse was ill-regulated. Large discretionary powers were improperly left to the relieving officer, and the result was the infliction of hardship on the poor. The accounts were disgracefully kept, and the system of relief administered by the guardians was intended to defeat one of the chief objects of the Act. They applied the workhouse test so harshly, that labourers were afraid to enter the workhouse, and were glad to accept any wages, however insufficient, which were offered them. Upon these abuses the Committee reported in terms of strong condemnation. Then the Committee inquired into the conduct of an assistant commissioner in conducting an investigation connected with the union—into the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners in dismissing Mr. Parker and Mr. Day; and upon these questions the Committee came to a decision, and reported it. He would take that opportunity of complimenting the hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakenham), and the noble Chairman of the Committee (Lord Courtenay), for the talent and impartiality exhibited by them throughout the inquiry. All these were points affecting the administration of the law, not the law itself. Various incidental questions also arose before the Committee, which they found themselves obliged further to investigate, as a matter of justice to individuals. Those questions had reference also to the mode in which the Commissioners had conducted their business, which was in many respects illegal, and altogether irregular and injurious; and especially they had reference to an arrangement of the business of the department, by which Mr. Chadwick was excluded from all recognised participation in it; thus de-
1068
priving the public of the advantage of his abilities, and of his great and various economical knowledge. Further questions were raised: of the existence of great distrust of the Commissioners by their subordinate officers—an imputation on them of discouraging their officers in detecting abuses—a charge made by Mr. Chadwick, on the authority of three late assistant commissioners, not one of whom had come forward to contradict his statement; also some instances of injustice by the Commissioners towards their subordinates—and a charge against them of withholding a return twice ordered by the House of Lords. Upon all these charges a great deal of evidence was taken, and public opinion was much affected by it. But all these questions, like the previous ones, concerned the administration of the law, not the law itself. And he considered he was justified, on a review of the whole of the subjects brought before the Committee, in saying that the hon. Member for Knaresborough was not entitled to refer to the report of that Committee as confirmatory of his assertion that the New Poor Law Act had proved an utter failure. The Andover Committee reported towards the close of the last Session of Parliament, when the present Government had very recently come into office. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, during the greater part of the inquiry, was new to his present office, and much time elapsed before the report and evidence were delivered to the Members—not, indeed, until within a month of the meeting of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman then instituted some inquiries, the result of which was the letter of the Commissioners which had just been laid on the Table of the House. The Commissioners were still in office when Parliament met for the present Session; but within a few days of its meeting, the noble Lord, adopting an unusual course for a Government, but a course which the state of public opinion demanded, did, in moving the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the Law of Settlement, make a statement to the House of the intentions of the Government as to the reconstruction of the Poor Law Commission. One effect of that statement was, that the hon. Member for Montrose, who had a notice on the Paper for an Address for the removal of the Poor Law Commissioners, was so satisfied with the noble Lord's declaration, that he said he should not make that Motion. Entertaining as he did a

1069
very strong opinion as to the conduct of the Commissioners, he was not prepared to gay, under all the circumstances, and as the Commission was then about to expire, that the Government did not exercise a wise discretion. But that statement of the noble Lord led the House and the public to believe that in the reconstruction of the Commission, the present Commissioners would cease to be Members of the Board. Under these circumstances, and considering that the Government were still obliged to depend on them, he was not surprised that the noble Lord had refused, when asked the other night, to pledge himself not to reappoint the present Commissioners. That was an unreasonable request; and he ventured to say that the noble Lord's refusal would give the public no concern. He could not wholly approve of the course taken by the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), in calling on the Poor Law Commissioners to give an account of the way in which the business of their office had been conducted. Their proceedings had been impugned by Mr. Chadwick, in the paper addressed by him, in 1841, to Mr. Lewis, and afterwards in his evidence before the Andover Union Committee. Mr. Chadwick and the Commissioners were at issue on various matters of fact. The Poor Law Commissioners would naturally make the statement that was most favourable to their own view; and he would take it on himself to say that the letter of the Poor Law Commissioners contained several misstatements; and yet that letter, unchecked by any counter-statement from Mr. Chadwick, had been submitted by the right hon. Gentleman to the law officers of the Crown. The letter contained several statements that were calculated to mislead. It was proved before the Andover Union Committee, that individual Poor Law Commissioners had at different times exercised all the powers which the Act of Parliament had entrusted to the Board of Commissioners, without having obtained that delegation of power which by the Act ought to have taken place. The Commissioners had not thought it right to give the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, although had they done so he could not suppose that this mode of procedure would not have been condemned by them. It was stated, as the reason for refusing it, that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown was never published by the Commissioners; but in a report on the state of relief in the parishes of St. Pancras and Marylebone,
1070
they voluntarily produced the opinion of the law officers of the Crown upon a case submitted to them. But the Commissioners had made some comments, and given their opinion upon some parts of that opinion of the law officers, by which an imperfect insight into its nature might be obtained; and he thought it would be better that the public should be put in possession of the whole opinion at once. He inferred from the letter of the Commissioners, that the law officers had given their opinion that the letters written by the Commissioners ought to be recorded in conformity with the Act of Parliament. The Commissioners said, that the letters which they had not entered on the minutes were, like all others, recorded; but he (Mr. Christie) asserted that all their letters were not recorded, for they were in the habit of writing letters of instruction to assistant commissioners which were marked "private," and which were neither entered on the minutes nor recorded. No copies were kept. Again he inferred, from the letter of the Commissioners, that the law officers had expressed the opinion that the Poor Law Commissioners had no power to decide separately without reference to the Board. But he asserted that they had been in the habit of deciding separately, without reference to the Board, all sorts of business entrusted to the Poor Law Commissioners. Before the meeting of Parliament an anonymous pamphlet had been published; and since he had had the benefit of seeing the official explanation of the Commissioners, he had no hesitation in ascribing that pamphlet to the same quarter. It was a digest of the evidence on the Andover inquiry, with introductory remarks, by a barrister; and it was impossible to read it without feeling assured it proceeded from the same quarter as the letter. The very words were in many instances almost identical. He had as little hesitation in saying that this digest, as it was called, was a most disgraceful garble, and that the introductory remarks, professed to be written by a barrister, were full of mistakes. The hon. Member read an extract from the digest relating to the dismissal of Mr. Parker, observing that the force of garbling could no further go. The gentlemen who composed the Andover Committee had a right to complain of the conduct of the Commissioners in putting forth anonymous statements reflecting upon the motives which had actuated them in the inquiry. They had chosen to say that a majority of

1071
that Committee was composed of anti-poor-law members. That statement was untrue. Eight out of the fifteen members were friends to the Poor Law. The Commissioners further said, that the enemies of the law and the personal friends of Mr. Parker were banded together in hatred against the Commissioners. Why, eight members of the Committee had been nominated at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Andover, and seven at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cavan. The series of resolutions declaring the insufficiency of the reasons alleged by the Poor Law Commissioners for dismissing Mr. Parker, were prepared and submitted to the Committee by the noble Lord its chairman (Lord Courtenay). He took it for granted that the publication proceeded from the Poor Law Commissioners; and he wished to call the attention of the House, and of the public, to one statement which it contained with regard to Mr. Chadwick: "A discontented Secretary attempts to counterwork his official superiors, and they guard themselves against what they deem to be his injudicious and imprudent acts, by so arranging the details of their office business as to retain in their own hands all the controlling power." The hon. Gentleman also read another extract, stating that "an ambitious, conceited, or wrongheaded subordinate" had endeavoured to gain his own objects. He (Mr. Christie) considered that the Poor Law Commissioners ought to take the very earliest opportunity of disavowing—if they could do so—any participation in this publication, which cast such reflections upon their Secretary. With regard to the conduct of the Commissioners towards Mr. Chadwick, he was able, though he was not authorized, to say that Mr. Chadwick had the strongest desire for a full and most minute investigation of the conduct of the Commissioners towards him, and of his conduct to them. He (Mr. Christie) thanked the House for the patience with which they had listened to his observations." After the statement which had been made at an early period of the Session, with reference to the Poor Law Commissioners, by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he had thought it right to abstain from making any Motion in that House with regard to the conduct of the Commissioners; but considering the part he had taken in the inquiry before the Andover Committee, he had deemed it his duty to avail himself of this opportunity of separating the conduct of the Poor Law
1072
Commissioners from the administration of the Poor Law, and of showing that the law ought not to suffer in consequence of the proceedings of the Commissioners. He might be allowed to observe that the prominent position he had occupied during the course of the investigation before the Andover Committee, with reference to the Poor Law Commissioners, came upon him, in a great measure, by surprise. When he first brought forward in that House the Motion for an inquiry into the conduct of the Commissioners towards Mr. Parker, he had not the slightest idea that such extensive and deep-seated abuses existed as were proved during the Andover inquiry. If he had been aware of the existence of such a state of things, he might have considered the expediency of bringing forward that Motion. He had always been a warm friend of the principles of the Poor Law Amendment Act; and when opposition to that measure became a party cry with the constituencies of the country in the year 1837, he published a pamphlet defending the principles of the law and the expediency of a central Commission, in answer to the attacks which were made upon it by the hon. Member for Cambridge, who was afterwards Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, and who came forward last year as the champion of the Poor Law Commissioners. He must repeat, also, the statement he made when he brought forward his' Motion for the Andover inquiry—that he was acquainted with two of the Poor Law Commissioners who were most affected by the evidence given before the Andover Committee—Sir E. Head and Mr. Lewis; he had always previously entertained the greatest confidence in their abilities, and in their judicious administration of the law; and he could therefore deny that he had been actuated by any feelings of personal hostility towards them in moving for the appointment of the Committee. He willingly turned from the contemplation of the past to indulge the anticipation of a happier future with regard to the administration of the Poor Law; and he believed that the Bill now before the House would afford securities, which past events had shown were much needed, for the effectual administration of that law. He would ever feel satisfaction that he had been the instrument of exposing the injustice which laborious public servants had experienced from those from whom they deserved very different treatment; and he believed, when the ex-

1073
citement caused by the Andover inquiry had subsided, it would be admitted by all parties that that investigation had been productive of very great benefits in preventing the maladministration of the Poor Law.
MR. ETWALLdid not concur in the statement made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down as to the feeling entertained in the country with reference to the present Poor Law; for he knew that, in many parts of England, and in the agricultural districts especially, there was a very strong feeling against that law. He must confess that he saw no necessity for maintaining a Board in London to regulate the administration of the Poor Law; and he was not aware that any benefits had resulted from the present Commission which might lead the House to be enamoured of the system of centralization. On the contrary, he thought there were many objections to such a system. He might, however, be asked, "How can you recommend and advocate the local administration of the Poor Law after the irregularities and mismanagement which were shown to exist in the Andover Union? He begged distinctly to make the Andover Union an exception; but he believed that in general the boards of guardians were as desirous to administer the Poor Law humanely, as the Andover board of guardians had seemed determined to administer it with severity and oppression. He wished the House and the country clearly to understand, however, that the guardians elected by the ratepayers of the town of Andover had uniformly stood up for the rights of the paupers, and that they had endeavoured, so far as was in their power, to alleviate the severity of the law; but he regretted to say, that their attempts to effect this object had been thwarted by the decided opposition of the rev. chairman of the board and by the country guardians. He did not think there was any great improvement in the constitution of the Board proposed by this Bill, beyond the direct responsibility of one of the Board, who was to have a seat in that House, and who might be called upon to afford information and explanations as to the administration of the law. It was proposed that the business of the Poor Law Commissioners should in future be transacted by a President and two Secretaries. If it was considered necessary to have a board at all, he would rather see the whole responsibility borne by the President, who was to be a Member of that
1074
House, than by the Cabinet. He had hoped that the Government would have brought forward some proposal for ameliorating the severity and correcting the irregularities of the law, before they made any alteration with regard to the Central Board. He was satisfied that there was something so rotten in the present Poor Law, that, however it might be carried out—whether by a Board in London, or by local authorities—it never could be administered satisfactorily to those who were engaged in its administration, or for the benefit of those for whose relief it was intended. He might take this opportunity of observing that, at the commencement of the Session, he had given notice of his intention to bring the evidence taken before the Andover Committee under the consideration of the House; but partly in consequence of the time which had been occupied in discussing measures designed to relieve the lamentable distress of the Irish people, and partly because he thought it fair to give the Government an opportunity of laying before the House and the country the alterations they proposed to make in the Poor Law, he had hitherto deferred bringing the subject forward. He was anxious to call the attention of the House to a point which he considered of great importance. In 1834, when the Poor Law Amendment Bill was introduced into that House by the late Lord Althorp, the noble Lord stated that a very short time would elapse before the wages of the agricultural labourer would rise to the point at which they would be necessary for his subsistence. In that respect the law had lamentably failed; and there never was a more striking evidence of that failure than at the present moment, when wages had not risen in the same ratio with the increase in the price of bread. He hoped that the farmers would take this subject into consideration, and that before the labourers were too much reduced, they would make a proper and judicious advance in the wages of agricultural labourers. The hon. and learned Member for Bath had stated last night that one of the objections to the old Poor Law was, that, when relief was refused to the idle and able-bodied poor, it led to incendiarism. He begged to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the riots which took place in 1831 were not produced by the old Law, and had nothing to do with it, but were

1075
solely the result of a low rate of wages, which rendered it impossible for the agricultural labourers to support themselves and families. The hon. Member for Weymouth had expressed his gratification that the title of the assistant poor-law commissioners was changed by this Bill. He could not see that any advantage would result from that alteration; the title would merely be changed to that of inspectors, but the duties of the officers would remain nearly the same as at present. It was proposed by this Bill to appoint twelve instead of nine inspectors; but he thought an increase of three only in the number would be utterly inadequate to carry out a proper system of inspection. A statement was laid before the Andover Committee with reference to the visits of assistant commissioners to unions, to which he would beg to call the attention of the House. That statement showed that from October 1, 1844, to September 30, 1845, the total number of unions was 463; and that out of this number 398 were visited by assistant commissioners, and 65 were not visited at all. A summary of the visits of the Commissioners, embracing a period of three years, from 1842 to 1845, was also presented to the Committee; and it appeared from this document that during one whole year 252 unions were not visited by any assistant commissioner; that during two years of the three 48 unions were unvisited; and that five unions were not visited at all during the whole three years. He considered that Mr. Parker had too large a number of unions under his superintendence for any man properly to inspect. Taking the same years which he had previously mentioned, he found that during one year Mr. Parker never visited 57 of the unions in his district; during two years 26 unions were not visited, and in the course of three years five unions were not visited. Nevertheless, he was certain that, with regard to the West of England, those unions which were the more seldom visited by the assistant commissioners were better managed, and the way in which relief was administered to the poor in them was more satisfactory to the ratepayers and to the poor. Considering the extensive districts to which the assistant commissioners were appointed, he thought they ought to have made a representation, and many did, of the impossibility, on their part, of making a regular supervision of their districts; and great blame was to be attached to the
1076
Commissioners for not devising arrangements for regular, and, at least, annual visits to the several unions. The most efficient inspection, however, would, after all, consist in making the proceedings of the boards of guardians public. In confirmation of this view, he might here quote the opinion of the Duke of Wellington, as stated to the Andover Committee by Mr. Chadwick. When that gentleman waited on the Duke of Wellington in reference to the 4th section of the Poor Act, he pointed out that there might be many things in the administration of the law by the Commissioners, the knowledge of which by the public might not be attended with particular convenience; but the noble Duke asked, "What can be said or done about my parish which I, as a parishioner, should be shut out from knowing?" For these reasons he (Mr. Etwall) advocated publicity in reference to the proceedings of the boards of guardians; and if they were made public, those boards would never dare to decide on a poor man's case until they had first heard the poor man's story. He felt bound, after what had been stated, to mention some of the circumstances which took place before the Andover Committee. The noble Chairman proposed the following resolution:—
"That, on the whole, the preponderance of the evidence leads the Committee to believe that Mr. Parker conducted the second inquiry under difficult circumstances with ability, and a desire to do justice to the parties implicated."
Now, being strongly impressed with the manner in which that inquiry was conducted, he (Mr. Etwall) could not suffer that resolution to be passed; and, consequently, he moved the following Amendment:—
"That, on the whole, the preponderance of the evidence leads the Committee to believe that Mr. Parker did not conduct the inquiry with that strict impartiality which ought to characterize the conduct of the presiding officer at such an in vestigation."
That Amendment was carried by a majority of one vote. On its being then put as the main question, the hon. Baronet opposite did not vote, and the numbers were consequently equal. The noble Chairman gave the casting vote, which naturally went in favour of his own resolution; but he (Mr. Etwall) said that, practically, his resolution was carried, to the effect that Mr. Parker did not conduct the inquiry with strict impartiality. It had been observed, that the poor felt great objection to the regulations of the Commissioners, because they were the rules of three indi-

1077
viduals, and were not embodied in an Act of Parliament. He admitted the truth of this observation to a certain extent, but he could not go the whole length of it. He could not go so far as to agree in the opinion that before the present Bill passed, it was desirable that those rules and regulations should become the law of the land, for he thought it extremely desirable that they should be completely blotted out; and, if there must be a Board in London, he trusted that one of their first acts would be to frame other regulations. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department said last month that it never was intended that there should be strict uniformity by this law. Then he (Mr. Etwall) had always been labouring under error, for he thought that one of the greatest advantages proposed to be derived from this Poor Law was the establishment of uniformity throughout the whole of England; although uniformity had not been carried out. Taking, for instance, the labour test, which was the result of one of the most important rules made by the Commissioners, he found that the labour test was strictly and cruelly enforced in the south and west of England, though it was not dared to be put in force in the great towns and places in the north of England. Could the law, then, be essentially good in itself, when that uniformity which the great supporters of the law considered to be its essence could not be enforced? The hon. Member for Weymouth had so fully gone into the case with respect to the Commissioners, that little remained for him to say on the subject. By the evidence taken before the Andover Committee, he found that a case was drawn up by the Commissioners, and that the opinions of the late Attorney and Solicitor General and Mr. Tomlinson were taken on it. He would prove that that case, so drawn up for a legal opinion, was erroneous. It did not state the facts as to the manner in which the business was conducted at Somerset House. The fourth section of the Act enacted—
"That the said Commissioners shall make a record of their proceedings, in which shall be entered in writing a reference to every letter received, whence, its date, the date of its reception, and the subject to which it relates, and a minute of every letter written, or order given, by the Commissioners, whether in answer to such letters received or otherwise, with the date of the same, and a minute of the opinion of each of the members of the Board of Commissioners, in case they should finally differ in opinion upon any order to be given, or other proceeding of the Board."
1078
Was this part of the law carried out by the Commissioners? No! They were daily acting in flagrant opposition to it. They were sending letters to their assistant commissioners, giving suggestions and orders relative to the unions, and to many other most important points—letters which he held to be official communications— without complying with the directions of the law as to the keeping of a proper record of them. He would now read to the House extracts from the case drawn up by the Commissioners for a legal opinion. The case stated, that
—"every letter received is opened by a clerk specially charged with the duty, and is at the same time stamped with a stamp, showing the date of its receipt, and is immediately numbered in a consecutive order from the first to the last day of the year, and a note is made in a book of every letter so received, in the order of the number affixed to it. The book in which these numbers are consecutively entered secures a knowledge of every letter that enters the office, and is adopted for this purpose, and with a view to official convenience in other respects.
"If a letter be received from any assistant commissioner, it is entered on a sheet With the same headings as those described."
And the case then went on to refer to communications relating to particular parishes or unions. Now, it was proved by evidence before the Andover Committee, that there were many letters written which were never thus entered. There were the letters in Mr. Day's case, signed by Mr. Nicholls on behalf of his colleagues, which, it could not be denied, were official, because, the correspondence having by some means been published, Mr. Lumley thereupon wrote to Mr. Day, stating that the Commissioners were surprised that he had suffered this correspondence, which was of an official nature, to be published in the newspapers. Then, with regard to another letter, there was no proper record made of it; but merely an allusion to it on a piece of rough paper, which was pasted in the book. He had spoken in strong terms relative to the mode in which Mr. Parker conducted the Andover inquiry; but, considering the evidence before the Andover Committee, he had no hesitation in saying that he thought the manner in which Mr. Parker was treated by the Commissioners, was anything but becoming the character which the Poor Law Commissioners of England ought to maintain. And the way in which Mr. Day was tempted to send in his resignation was perhaps even worse. If a proper record had been kept of these letters, there would

1079
not have been so many versions of the reasons for which Mr. Parker was dismissed; nor would the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) have fallen into the error of stating that Mr. Day was dismissed on account of the reduction of the establishment, while the reason alleged by the Commissioners for wishing him to resign was the state of his health. There was a letter written by Mr. Lewis to Mr. Day, directing him to what district to apply his superintendence; that was unquestionably an official Act, but there was no record of it. The hon. Member for Weymouth had stated how many days Mr. Nichols transacted the business at Somerset House alone; these individual Acts were decidedly in violation of the law. In 1834, when this law was introduced, and when there were many objections made to the great powers which were proposed to be given to the Commissioners, Lord Althorp said—
"I shall be most happy, indeed it is my intention, to take away all immunities from the Commissioners which are not essentially necessary; not to give them any, unless they are acting in a corporate capacity."
Now the Commissioners seemed to have entirely forgotten that they were to act in a corporate capacity; and instead of their acting individually being the exception to the rule, their acting collectively and in a corporate capacity was the exception. He opposed this law from a deep and conscientious conviction, that it was neither beneficial to the industrious labourer nor advantageous to the ratepayer; and he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, thinking that there was no necessity for a Central Board to administer the Poor Law.
VISCOUNT COURTENAYdid not intend, nor should he feel justified in following either of his hon. Friends who had just spoken, in detail through the statements they had addressed to the House. Still, as he had the honour of being chairman of the Committee, respecting the report of which so much had been said during the course of this discussion, he might be permitted to offer a few observations to the House. He did so for two objects: first, he was anxious, as he had not an opportunity as chairman of expressing his opinion but by his vote on many of the resolutions that were adopted, and he was anxious now to state how far he agreed and how far he disagreed with those resolutions; secondly, he was desirous to have an opportunity, however briefly, of stating
1080
his views on that which was perhaps the more immediate subject of discussion, he meant the Bill now before the House. It was his misfortune not entirely to agree with any of the views which were represented, so to say, by the different members of that Committee. He had the honour of submitting to that Committee a certain body of resolutions, which underwent a discussion which he was bound to say was carried on with a degree of personal kindness to himself, for which he should be sorry to omit that or any other opportunity of expressing his acknowledgments. The result of that protracted investigation and discussion was, that a certain body of resolutions were agreed upon and presented to the House, addressing themselves respectively to three subjects of inquiry: first, the administration of the law in the Andover Union; secondly, the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners in reference to the investigation in the Andover Union, and also the circumstances under which they called upon Mr. Parker to resign; and, thirdly, as to the subject included within the jurisdiction of the Committee at a subsequent period, namely, the case of Mr. Day. He thought the evidence before the Committee showed—and he felt himself unable to avoid coming to the conclusion from the evidence stated before them—that there had been great mismanagement in the board of guardians on what was submitted to their investigation; and he could not avoid coming to the conclusion that the administration of the law had been marked upon the part of the guardians of the Andover Union by very unnecessary harshness. He felt bound to say, as had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Weymouth, that that investigation, protracted as it was, unnecessary as were, perhaps, some of the topics on which the inquiry rested, on the whole was useful by pointing public attention to that which he considered the unduly harsh mode of administering the law. The next head of the inquiry was the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners, with respect to Mr. Parker, and the circumstances under which they called upon him to resign. He was not asking, nor would this be the time to re-open the case of Mr. Parker, or to inquire whether or not the Commissioners were justified, in the course they had pursued with regard to Mr. Parker. His own impression was— he stated it frankly, and did not shrink from doing so before the Committee—his own impression was, that no evidence was

1081
laid before them which showed that the Poor Law Commissioners were justified in the course they took with respect to Mr. Parker. He thought that Mr. Parker's superintendence of the Andover Union was marked by an absence of that attention and vigilance which, he thought, if they had been bestowed, might have prevented many of the evils that had resulted; but he also thought that neither that nor any portion of Mr. Parker's conduct, with respect to the investigation that was brought before the Committee, justified in his mind the Poor Law Commissioners either as to the manner or the tone in which that dismissal was expressed. He had the honour to suggest a resolution which was afterwards carried, blaming the Poor Law Commissioners for the conduct pursued in reference to that case, and to the dismissal of Mr. Parker. He was bound, in justice to Mr. Parker, to say, and he should not shrink from saying it, that although in some instances his superintendence might be defective, there was strong evidence given of the laboriousness—of the unwearied perseverance—with which Mr. Parker had devoted himself to very important duties in connexion with the Commission in a former position as Secretary, and as to his efficiency on other occasions as an assistant commissioner. The third subject of inquiry—the case of Mr. Day—it might be right to touch upon, because the conduct of the Commissioners in reference to their assistant commissioners had formed a prominent subject in this discussion. And he must declare, that while out of this Andover inquiry, few, if any, of the persons who brought forward charges came wholly free from blame, he thought that the individual, to whom least, if any, blame attached, was Mr. Day. He was bound to say that, upon the evidence adduced before the Committee, there did not appear to him any justification whatever of Mr. Day's dismissal. It was painful to him to express this opinion, having had for many years the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with two of the Members of the Commission, and having been brought into communication with the third, Mr. Nichols, under circumstances which conveyed a deep impression of his ability, and zeal, and judgment, when he was engaged in the introduction of the Poor Law into Ireland; but justice required that the opinion should be stated. There were also one or two resolutions with respect to which he (Lord Courtenay) was anxious to say a
1082
few words. The 6th Resolution, with regard to the union books, had been already alluded to:—
"That the Committee have been informed of a strong representation made by Mr. Parker to the Poor Law Commissioners shortly after he joined the district, including Andover, of the disgraceful state of the accounts and the workhouses in many of the unions of the district, and of special representations made by him as to the accounts in the West Farle and Wycombe unions, which seem to have received no attention whatever from the Poor Law Commissioners."
These matters were but incidentally alluded to, and were not subjects upon which the Committee were called upon to report; and, with regard to the Wycombe Union, he felt obliged to dissent from this resolution, because he did not see evidence which justified the Committee in pronouncing that opinion. Least of all could he concur with it when it went on:—
"And these are not the only circumstances disclosed in the evidence which have led the Committee to the conviction that the Poor Law Commissioners have not given that encouragement to their assistant commissioners in the detection and removal of abuses which would have been the best security for the zealous services of their subordinate officers."
To that resolution he should be unwilling to be considered as giving his assent. Neither did he assent to the last resolution but one:—
"That, on a review of the conduct of the Commissioners with respect to the Andover inquiries, and towards Mr. Parker and Mr. Day, the Committee are of opinion that their conduct has been irregular and arbitrary, not in accordance with the statute under which they exercise their functions, and such as to shake public confidence in their administration of the law."
He differed from that resolution, first, because though he believed the Commissioners' proceedings to be, in some respects, irregular and arbitrary, there was no evidence before him which brought him to the conviction that they were at variance with the provisions of the statute; and, looking to the difficult circumstances in which they were placed, the extent of their duties, the way in which, in some instances at least, as shown in this inquiry, they had been thwarted by the guardians with whom they had to act, he was not prepared to take so strong a step as to pass such a censure as this upon the Commissioners. He felt it rather consonant to his own sense of what was right to express an opinion upon individual acts, either arbitrary or irregular; and he dissented from so general and unqualified a censure. With regard to the Bill before the House, he thought it gave

1083
reason to hope that the future administration of the law would be conducted under a greater responsibility, and with more of regularity than had been the case heretofore. That part which provided for a more direct Parliamentary responsibility appeared to him likely to be beneficial; as well also as the substitution of inspectors, to be sent to particular districts when occasion might require, in place of the assistant commissioners. He should support the Bill, in the belief that the alterations it introduced would supply a more efficient guarantee for the due and regular administration of the law. Much of this discussion had turned upon the general principles of the law. He should not have given his assent if he saw reason to anticipate a departure from the sound and prudent arrangement which, while abstaining from imposing a harsh and unbending series of rules and regulations sanctioned by Parliament, would at the same time secure that degree of uniformity which was essential to the just administration of the law. He should oppose the Bill if he thought the Government contemplated any material alteration in principles. He believed that the principles of this law, impeded as they might have been in some instances by tad local administration, and carried out in others with excessive rigour, were upon the whole sound and safe, and that we should be materially prejudicing the prosperity of the country were we to take a step backwards, and to shrink from carrying it out, gently, but still steadily and firmly.
CAPTAIN PECHELLthought, that after the speech of the noble Lord who had so ably presided over the Andover Committee, the House would be surprised at the delay which had occurred in the introduction of a measure for altering the law. But the Government would not admit that they had been influenced by the results of that inquiry. Were they satisfied, then, with the mode in which the Poor Law Commissioners had exercised their functions? Did they hold that the Commissioners had conducted their business as a public board in accordance with the Act of Parliament? It had been proved that the Secretary was often relegated to the attic, while the whole business of the Commission was transacted by one Commissioner. Were such considerations not likely to have acted on the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government? But when the House was told that the exposé made on
1084
the Andover inquiry was not one of the reasons which operated on the Government, then they could only ask what it was that could have induced the Government to dispossess the Commissioners of their powers, and appoint others with still greater powers, which might be exercised in a political sense with very great advantage to the Government, though not to other parties? The powers of the new Commissioners might be misused, as the powers of the old Commissioners had been. The question which had been raised was, what had the Commissioners done as a board? The Secretary of the Commission had described their conduct; and of the Secretary he must say, that gentleman had conducted his business most ably and efficiently. Having in the first instance been placed on the Commission of Inquiry into the Poor Laws, Mr. Chadwick arranged the machinery of the Commission, and was afterwards appointed Secretary; when the Commissioners transferred him to the garret, where he was employed in drawing out statistical statements. Much had been said of the definition of a board by Johnson and others; but they found instances in which one Commissioner only was present, while another Commissioner was running about from one room to another; and the sanction of the one, giving authority to an order of "the Board," was obtained out of sight and hearing of the other. One of the Commissioners had remarked, that Mr. Chadwick's views of a board were most extraordinary, as appeared from a statement of Mr. Parker's. Another Commissioner observed, that a board was an analogical term, a quorum of persons appointed to act in a particular matter. It seemed as if they thought that when sitting separately, pasting scraps of Minutes in the Minute-book, and calling these orders of the Board, they were doing their duty according to the Act of Parliament. He knew not if the noble Lord, in bringing in this Bill for the annihilation of the Poor Law Commissioners, would disclose the precise considerations which had acted on his mind; but as no reason was stated, it could only be conjectured that the noble Lord had seen a letter which it might be supposed the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department had intercepted, and which purported to be an answer to a question from a foreign country, a communication to a gentleman in China. The writer said —"We have in England a set of people who are called ' boards;'" and he went on

1085
to remark of a board, that "the harder and thicker it is the better; but if it splits it is done for." It was a common expression in this country that a man was "boarded and done for;" and it was said that circumstanced as England was, there were so many boards that the poor were often "done for." He hoped that under this Bill Commissioners would he appointed to carry out the law in the spirit in which it was framed, and in order that there might not be a repetition of those disgraceful occurrences, the existence of which had been proved before the Andover Committee. It was extraordinary that, notwithstanding all that had been said at several times against the bone-crushing system, the Poor Law Commissioners had continued it for several years, pretending all the while they knew nothing about it. It never was intended that paupers should be subjected to such labour as a test before they received relief. Another sufficient cause for the proposed change in the administration of the Poor Law was, that the Commissioners used a restricted dietary not in conformity with the rules in the printed annual report of the Commissioners; and that dietary was still further diminished by the peculations and dishonesty of the master. The conduct of the Commissioners towards Mr. Parker and Mr. Day, who had so faithfully and efficiently served the public was most improper. Mr. Day, in reference to the treatment he had received, had thus expressed himself—
"It's a very good world we live in,
To spend or to lend or to give in;
But to beg or to borrow, or look for your own,
It's the very worst world that ever was known."
He was very desirous of a change of the present law, but he felt himself in a difficulty. If he voted against the second reading, it would be said that he left the gentlemen of Somerset House untouched; and if the Bill passed, they were to be prevented making any observations or charge in reference to the administration of the Poor Law without being considered as against the Government. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had suggested that one of the advantages of passing this Bill would be, that they would have men in both Houses of Parliament to discuss what amendments of the law would be necessary. He only hoped that they would have such amendments of the law as would prevent the recurrence of many of those practices which the Poor Law Commissioners had tolerated. The hon.
1086
and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) had stated that the Commissioners had been influenced by that great public organ, The Times newspaper; that they had quailed before that journal; and he blamed them for doing so. He did not think they had quailed before The Times, when they tolerated bone-crushing and many other practices which had been complained of. He was very desirous to carry out the view of the Andover Committee with respect to the Poor Law Commissioners having lost the confidence of the country; and he was also anxious, if possible, to do away with a central control; but if they were to have a central control, the Government could not do greater harm than by holding out threats that they were going to centralize the whole kingdom and abolish all local Acts, including the unfortunate corporations under the Gilbert Act, which had survived, and he hoped would continue to survive, the Poor Law Commissioners. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by declaring his intention of opposing the second reading of the Bill.
MR. MANNERS SUTTONsaid, that three subjects, each of them of great importance, but still each distinct from the other, had been brought under the consideration of the House in the course of the present discussion. In the first place, the hon. Member for Knaresborough, in moving that this Bill be read a second time that day six months, addressed himself mainly, if not entirely, to the merits of the law of 1834; the same question had also been touched upon by several subsequent speakers; but inasmuch as it was not intended by this Bill to alter that law, he did not think it necessary to enter into that part of the question. His hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes) next applied himself to the question which was more particularly the subject of discussion, namely, the Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government. That hon. Member had stated the objections which he entertained to the Bill, and then expressed his intention of concurring in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, although dissenting from the grounds upon which that Amendment was based. Subsequently to these two speakers, a third subject had been brought under the consideration of the House—one almost equally important with the others to which he had adverted, but still he must take leave to say, perfectly distinct— he meant the conduct of the Poor Law

1087
Board; and to that subject, with the permission of the House, he wished in the first instance to address himself. His noble Friend the Member for Devonshire (Lord Courtenay), who acted as chairman of the Andover Committee, had arranged the subjects into which that Committee was appointed to inquire, under three heads; and in that course he should follow the noble Lord. Before doing so, however, he begged to remind the House, that he could not concur in the report of the majority of that Committee; that was to say, he did not concur in that part of it which referred to the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners, though he concurred in many other parts of it; and here he begged to be allowed to express his satisfaction at having learned very early in the present Session of Parliament that his humble opinion in this matter was strengthened by the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government. He was justified in saying this both by the acts of Government, and by some observations which fell from the noble Lord at the head of the Government on a former occasion, because, if the Government had concurred in the resolutions of the Andover Committee, they would never have felt it to be consistent with their duty either to themselves, the Committee, or the public, to retain men in their service whom they believed to be guilty of the conduct imputed to them by that Committee. He begged also to be allowed to express his regret, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had not taken occasion, in his speech on the previous night, to explain to the House the views entertained by Her Majesty's Government. He regretted it the more because, if the right hon. Gentleman had explained the views of Government, it might have relieved him from the necessity of intruding upon the House. He felt convinced, however, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would, before the conclusion of the debate, redeem his pledge and state his views to the House. He begged now to follow the noble Lord the Member for Devonshire (Lord Courtenay). That noble Lord had stated, and stated truly, that the first point to which the Committee directed their inquiry was, the administration of the law in the Andover union. His noble Friend had also stated with great force, although very shortly, the evils which were brought before the consideration of the Committee in the evidence submitted to them; and had
1088
very correctly acquainted the House with the opinion which the Committee entertained on that subject. He thought he might say that that opinion was unanimous; he was not aware of one dissentient voice; but although he was perfectly prepared to concur in the conclusions at which his noble Friend had arrived on this point, he was not prepared to concur in some of the inferences and deductions which he believed had been drawn from it by some members of the Committee, as well as by some of the public—that was to say, that while he perfectly admitted that great mal-administration did exist in the Andover union—that there was a laxity of administration, joined with severity, which inflicted great hardship on the poor—he was not prepared to saddle the responsibility of those things on the Poor Law Commissioners. He admitted that their functions were extensive, and their powers great; but, as had been rightly stated in an earlier part of the evening, their powers and functions were more of an inspective than an executive character, as respected the administration of the Poor Law in the different districts of the country. He admitted that, whenever an abuse was brought to their knowledge, and they neglected or refused to inquire into it, they ought to be held responsible for it; but if, when sitting in Somerset House, they should be blinded or misled by the laches of the assistant commissioners, or by any other means, and their ignorance did not arise from their own negligence, he held that they were not justly responsible for any evils, wherever they existed. Now, this was clearly shown to be the case in the Andover Committee. He held that that evidence clearly established, that the guardians and the assistant poor-law commissioners were responsible. For what was the evidence received on this point? It was this: that in the month of February preceding the investigation, the assistant poor-law commissioner (Mr. Parker), upon a personal visit to Andover, reported that all was going on favourably. It was true, that on a division, the insertion of this particular report was excluded from the resolution of the Committee; but still it remained in the evidence; and, as an appeal had been made to the evidence by several Members of that House, he begged to be allowed to appeal to the evidence also, and to say that that report completely exonerated the Poor Law Commissioners from any blame of the maladministration at Andover. His

1089
noble Friend had then proceeded to notice the conduct of the Commissioners with respect to Mr. Parker and Mr. Day. Now, he did not stand there as the advocate of the Poor Law Commissioners; he stood there to defend them against imputations and accusations which he believed to be ill-founded; but he was perfectly prepared to admit when he thought them wrong; and he thought there was not a more imperative duty which a public man was called upon to discharge—however high his position might be, as in the case of the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), or the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey), or however humble, as in his own case— than to defend against accusations which he himself conscientiously believed to be unfounded, any public officer with whom he might have been officially connected. He said, then, distinctly, that in respect to the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners in that inquiry, he thought there was one point on which they had shown indiscretion; but he did not concur in the resolution of the Committee. He differed from the opinion of the Committee, because he thought the granting of the adjournment of the inquiry by Mr. Parker unnecessary; but, being granted, he thought the overruling of it by the Commissioners, indiscreet. With respect to the manner in which Mr. Parker had conducted the inquiry, he maintained that the evidence submitted to the Andover Committee distinctly showed that he conducted it with very great partiality. He would not trouble the House with an analysis of the evidence on this point; but he would remind them that there was not merely the general impression on the minds of the witnesses, but particular cases were mentioned which were not disproved, in which great partiality was shown. Visitors who had dropped in to see the sight— men of respectable station, clergymen with cure of souls, and others—stated most strongly that great partiality had been shown by Mr. Parker. He now came to the case of Mr. Day; and he at once admitted that the case against Mr. Parker was stronger than the case against Mr. Day. He took the two cases, however, conjointly, because his justification of the Commissioners rested on the same principle, though on somewhat different grounds. In considering this point, he begged to advert for a moment to the position in which the assistant commissioners stood to the Poor Law Commissioners. The Poor Law
1090
Commissioners were responsible, and had been held really responsible, for the conduct of their subordinates. In imposing that responsibility, Parliament deliberately voted them both the power of appointment and removal; and it would not be fair to make a man responsible for his subordinates, unless he had that power. He felt justified in repeating the assertion he had already made, that the Committee had not resolved that the Commissioners were not justified in the removal of Mr. Parker. Mr. Parker's conduct in the second inquiry was one of the reasons which induced the Commissioners to remove him from his office; but it was not their only reason. The Andover Committee picked out only two of the reasons which the Commissioners had for removing Mr. Parker; and they summed up by saying that the time and manner of his dssmissal had been productive of great hardship to him. The Poor Law Commissioners were unanimous in censuring Mr. Parker's conduct. They were examined separately, but they all came to a similar conclusion, though in some respects upon different grounds, namely, that Mr. Parker had lost their confidence, and that it was not expedient to continue him longer in his office. There were, in his opinion, sufficient grounds for the loss of confidence; but whether there were or not, it was unjustifiable to impute corrupt motives to public officers unless the imputation could be sustained by proof. Mr. Parker distinctly stated the Commissioners required his resignation only for the purpose of throwing upon him the odium to which they themselves were justly obnoxious; not a tittle of evidence was given in support of that imputation. The case of Mr. Day differed from that of Mr. Parker in this—that the Commissioners attributed no improper conduct to Mr. Day. The cause of calling on Mr. Day for his resignation was this—it was discovered, in the course of an inquiry into the disturbances in Wales, that the Poor Law in Mr. Day's district had been badly administered, and therefore the Commissioners felt it necessary to remove him, although they bore testimony to his ability and integrity. What then was there in the time and manner of the removal of Mr. Parker and Mr. Day to justify complaint? They were removed precisely at the period when the necessity for taking that step became apparent in order to ensure a more efficient administration of the law in their respective districts. Other

1091
charges were made against the Commissioners, to which he would advert only for the purpose of showing the animus which suggested them; for, as any one who would read the evidence must perceive, they were totally unsustained by proof. One of these charges was that the Commissioners discouraged their subordinate officers. Mr. Chadwick came forward and said that Mr. Lewis had discouraged him, because, when he presented a report about Bolton in 1840, Mr. Lewis did not adopt the suggestion Mr. Chadwick made. On Mr. Chadwick being cross-examined, it turned out that he never offered any suggestions to Mr. Lewis beyond what might be held to be contained in his report; and he said that all he meant was, that Mr. Lewis's manner was very discouraging. It was fortunate that the Commissioners did not act upon the recommendation contained in Mr. Chadwick's report, which was this, that in 1842, when Bolton was visited with severe distress, the Commissioners should at once have stopped the system of outdoor allowances, which had been uniformly adopted in that town in all seasons of distress. If that had been done, it was impossible to doubt that an outcry would have been raised, not against Mr. Chadwick, for it would not have been his act, but against the Commissioners. And the very persons who now blamed the Commissioners for not having adopted Mr. Chadwick's suggestion, would have been the first to declaim upon the cruelty of their proceedings. The Commissioners were stated to have discouraged other of their subordinate officers; and the hon. Member for Weymouth said that no evidence had been offered in disproof of those statements; but surely the onus probandi lay upon the party who made the charge. Mr. Chadwick, however, offered no proof in support of his charge; it rested entirely on his ipse dixit. As Mr. Mott's case had not been brought forward in the debate, he did not feel it necessary to advert to it; and all he would say of that of Mr. Jenkin Jones, which had been referred to, was that strict justice had been observed in the treatment of that gentleman. There was only one other point relating to the conduct of the Commissioners to which he would allude, and that was the mode in which they kept their record. It was a point on which high legal opinions were divided; and laymen like the Commissioners might surely be excused for having followed a, practice which two law officers of the Crown had deliberately
1092
decided to be in accordance with the law. With respect to the Bill before the House, it appeared to him that his hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire raised the real objection to it when he referred to the objection in the public mind to an Act "which combined in one board legislative with executive functions. That, he frankly admitted, constituted the great difficulty in dealing with the question. If his hon. Friend could point out any mode by which the two functions could be separated, he would gladly concur in its adoption; but the remedy which his hon. Friend proposed was worse than the disease. His hon. Friend's proposition was, that all the orders which might be deemed expedient, should at once be enacted. The answer to that proposition was, first, that the law was not generally applied; and, secondly, that it was not generally applicable. A rule suitable to the southern parts of the country could not be acted upon in the northern parts. Another and a more important objection was, that if the legislative and executive functions were disjoined, it would be impossible to deal with cases in which, at a moment's notice, it was necessary to modify the rules. That objection could be obviated only by giving the Commissioners the power of reversing an Act of Parliament; and there was little difference between that and the power of making rules to have the effect of one. The proposed alteration in the form of the Commission was a great improvement. As to the objection which had been raised to placemen having seats in the House, he was not apprehensive that the power of the Crown would ever become predominant in the House of Commons. It would be of advantage to the public, and productive of convenience to the Commissioners themselves, that they should be brought into closer connexion with the Houses of Parliament. They would thus become more directly responsible to Parliament, and more conversant with the feelings of Members of the Legislature.
Debate adjourned to Thursday.

SUPPLIES—THE CHURCH.
The Order of the Day for the reception of the Report of the Committee of Supply, on the 16th Resolution (relating to the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commission), read. On the question that the resolution be read a second time,
MR. W. WILLIAMSopposed the Motion, on the ground that the amount voted

1093
for the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commission (3,450 l.) being for the benefit of the Church, ought not to be paid out of the public purse.
LORD J. RUSSELLhad already, in Committee of Supply, stated his reasons for supporting the vote, and he had nothing to add on the present occasion.
MR. BROTHERTONhoped his hon. Friend would not divide; because if he did, he must as a matter of principle divide with him; and he really did not like thus splitting straws when the amount was so small, and the question was in so equivocal a state. If the public were thus paying 3,000 l. for the Ecclesiastical Commission, might not the Church turn round and say they paid 36,000 l. for registering births, deaths, and marriages—a measure adopted for the benefit of Dissenters? He liked to divide on a great principle, not on a small sum like this, and under such circumstances.
The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 8: Majority 68.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Antrobus, E.

Hudson, G.

Arkwright, G.

James, Sir W. C.

Bailey, J. Jun.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Bankes, G.

Langston, J. H.

Bannerman, A.

Lockhart, A. E.

Barrington, Visct.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Bellew, R. M.

Maitland, T.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Martin, C. W.

Burroughes, H. N.

Masterman, J.

Carew, W. H. P.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Milnes, R. M.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Morpeth, Visct.

Christie, W, D.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Neville, R.

Courtenay, Lord

O'Conor Don

Denison, W. J.

Parker, J.

Dick, Q.

Perfect, R.

Dickinson, F. H.

Price, Sir R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Rice, E. R.

Dundas, Adm.

Russell, Lord J.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Russell, Lord C. J. F.

Fellowes, E.

Rutherford, A.

Finch, G.

Seymer, H. C.

Floyer, J.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Fox, C. R.

Sheridan, R. B.

Gore, hon. R.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Spooner, R.

Greene, T.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Hall, Sir B.

Trotter, J.

Hallyburton, Ld. J. F. G.

Ward, H. G.

Hamilton, W. J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Hastie, A.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Hawes, B.

Wyse, T.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Yorke, H. R.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Henley, J. W.

TELLERS.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Hill, Lord M.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Tufnell, H.

1094

List of the NOES.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Trelawny, J. S.

Bowring, Dr.

Wawn, J. T.

Escott, B.

Etwall, R.

TELLERS.

Evans, W.

Williams, W.

Gisborne, T.

Brotherton, J.

Report received. Resolutions agreed to.
House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Towns Improvement Clauses; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland); Turnpike Roads (Ireland).
2a County Buildings; Drainage of Lands.
3a and passed:—Poor Relief (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Brougham, from Macclesfield, in favour of the Factories Bill; and from several Dissenting Congregations in London, against the proposed Government Plan of Education.— By the Earl of Wicklow, from Guardians of the Londonderry Union, that the Poor Removal (England and Scotland) Bill may, with certain Modifications, be extended to Ireland.

THE ARMY SERVICE BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the recommitment of the Bill being read,
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into such Committee."
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYsaid, he hoped he might be permitted to occupy a small portion of their Lordships' time on this most important military measure; and he craved with confidence their indulgent permission, because the noble Earl who introduced the measure had done him the honour in his unavoidable absence to animadvert upon and answer some points in his former address; and although he was sensible of that noble Earl's condescension, yet he thought the speech of a noble Earl (the Earl of Cardigan) on the same evening, and who was present on the last occasion, would have been far higher game for the noble Lord to have grappled with, inasmuch as it was a far better speech than his, and the noble Lord's antagonist would have been before him. However, as the speech of the noble Earl deserved every respect on his part, and as still further a most unexpected, and he must candidly say rather complicated, speech of his illustrious friend the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) had been delivered in that House since he presumed to raise his voice against this Bill, he now ventured to address their Lordships. The noble Earl had said, that he (the Marquess of Londonderry) considered the Bill as apart from the measures adopted in former years, whereas it was the continuation of a course of policy long pursued. He certainly to that pleaded guilty, and admitted that he had argued the Bill on the limited service alone. He did not refer to or go into all the improvements of our military interior details for twenty-five years, which the noble Earl had no more to do with than the child unborn. But he denied that he had asserted it was great presumption for Her Majesty's Government, who had not seen any service, and as civilians, to take up the subject of improvement of the Army. But he did say, that in their alterations they should be fortified by, and should have received, the advice of general officers of high service, rank, and talent in the Army. For that reason he had moved, as Mr. Yorke did in 1806, for the opinions of such general officers. The noble Earl was certainly right in stating that the Government could command such; but if he had received them, and they were favourable to his plan, would he not have produced them? The noble Earl, however, gave his answer to his own observations,

1021
for would he deny that if he had not at the last squeezed out the military opinion and vote at least of the Duke of Wellington, he would never have carried his Bill? And did not their Lordships (as the country and Army he was sure would admit) agree with him that without that great professional vote, which greatly neutralized every other military opinion, the Bill would have been lost? The drift of his (the Marquess of Londonderry's) argument, according to the noble Earl's opinion, was, that there should be no interference with the present system, but to let well alone, at least as to the introduction of limited service; but undoubtedly he did not mean to disapprove of any wise regulations and improvements the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and the Government might think proper to recommend. But he wanted the sentiments of the Army authorities on these monstrous innovations. He desired to have the opinions of our illustrious field-marshals, the heads of the Army, and general officers; knowing that if the Army was consulted, the very large majority, ay nine-tenths, would he against this new plan. The noble Lord, then, with much eloquence, seemed to have admitted the prowess of our arms under our invincible leader, and then he launched into a most eloquent harangue as to the deeds of his predecessors for twenty-five or thirty years, and told them of regimental savings-banks—the change as to corporal punishment—the powers of general courts-martial restricted—imprisonment substituted for the lash—comforts for the soldier's condition in barracks—health of troops on their colonial service, and supply of provisions—great encouragement for good soldiers under Mr. Sidney Herbert's Bill of 1843—regimental schools, &c. The practical effects of all these improvements the noble Earl most forcibly and most eloquently enumerated. But what had they to do with the actual measure of limited service, which had been tried over and over again, and had always failed? and the noble Lord did not, in all this beautiful statement, touch the question before the House. It really was like a quack doctor, who was called in by chance, and gave a little white powder, and then launched into all the benefits of the remedy, and took credit for the scientific system of years previously pursued by the regularly bred faculty. The noble Earl then entered into some not very complimentary observations to commanding officers of regiments, on which, differing with him in
1022
toto, he was not inclined to say all he thought. He stated that the indirect effect of the ten years' enlistment system on the commanding officers would be highly beneficial; for, when they knew, at the end of ten years, the soldier had the power, if he thought fit, to leave his regiment, they would study much more than they now did the comfort and welfare of the soldiers, and endeavour to make them more happy in their ranks. With great respect to the noble Earl, he would tell him, as an old commanding officer, that he never was more mistaken in his life, both as to the conduct and character of the majority of commanding officers of Her Majesty's Army. Then, concluding his speech, the noble Lord called on their Lordships to adopt the Limited Service Bill, without saying one single word as to its effects on the discipline, or the feelings, the jealousies, the injustice, between the old soldiers and the new, which it entailed on the Army. He now came to a much more extraordinary matter, and attended by more important consequences, than the noble Earl's able and long oration to their Lordships. Had his noble and illustrious Friend given his opinion, or rather intimated his vote, at an early stage, it was more than probable that his great devotion and respect for his illustrious Commander would have enforced his silence. With the greatest possible attention he had read over and over again that speech, and he could only say, as an old soldier, that he cordially embraced what he understood to be the sentiments of the speech; but he deplored the vote. To presume to characterize that speech was not his province. He must leave it in the hands of the noble and learned Lord, and the able leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. But he thought he could confidently assert, that the noble Earl opposite could not be very well satisfied with the speech, though he might hug himself most lovingly as to the vote; while he (the Marquess of Londonderry), on his part, deplored the vote, and was satisfied that the Army should construe the opinions in that now celebrated speech as they thought proper. He might, however, now be permitted to observe upon the construction of that speech, and that of the right hon. Secretary at War, both advocating this same Bill now before their Lordships. He thought the Secretary at War followed up his opinions by saying—"What an excellent rural force these men of ten years would make hereafter, by acting when they

1023
received their reserved pensions, if necessary, behind walls and houses." Possibly the right hon. Gentleman was thinking of a French invasion, and conveying these his new experimental levies hereafter over the border. But to return to the Bill, and nothing but the Bill—his objections to it were in a few words, and so strong in his mind, that no Amendment, he thought, could avert the evil. It was injurious to discipline. They placed two men alongside each other in the same rank and service in a totally different position. The old men might be termed the Sepoys of the Army; the limited men the experimental levies. There was evident prejudice to the old soldier. There was a mere chance or surmise if by re-enlistment after ten years they would get the old soldiers to remain or not. They might lose a large number of them at a moment the Army's service might be most required. They gave to the new soldier a right of discharge when he had voluntarily enlisted under the present Mutiny Act, which should alone be held and exercised by the commanding officer and Commander-in-Chief. As to arguing dissatisfaction of the men and desertions from the unlimited service, it was clear from returns on the Table they did not exist. In seven years there were only 2,000 for limited service, and in the same period 22,000 unlimited. Much more might be said. It was understood that in the event of the Duke's support, there would be an increase of pensions to the present Army; but he yet feared that Her Majesty's Government had no intention whatever of raising the pensions. It had been argued by the promoters of the measure that they would obtain a better description of men. Where were they to come from? Did they want them morally or physically better? Look at the Household Brigade, the finest troops in Europe. Compare those men with any others, where would be found a better description? This idea, therefore, was a perfect fallacy. He could not help, however, remarking, that even in this measure the noble Duke admitted, that though he was willing to give it a trial, yet that it was an experiment. They knew, as a matter of history now, that they had been and were blessed with a Government of "all the talents." He thought that they were now about to be again blessed with one of "all the experiments." They had experiments in Irish Poor Laws, in finance, in railways, and, last and worst of all, in Army ser-
1024
vices—worst, because it was an old experiment that had over and over again failed. But, if this measure was to be carried, he could not help bitterly lamenting, and all the Army, who opposed the measure, would deplore, that it had been so unfairly treated, and so strangely, if not cunningly, carried. In the House of Commons it was always introduced very late in the evening, if not towards the morning; at no time were there more than 140 Members in the House, and they were mostly Government placemen, and the division was not above forty or fifty strong. The Bill was then sent up to their Lordships; and he could not but with all due respect remark, that in spite of the noble Duke's vote assisting the Government, the Bill was carried at the second reading by a very small majority; constituted of the votes of a certain light political section, who came to the rescue of the Government, although not one of them was pleased, any more than their great political head, to give the House any reasons which, he owned, he had expected from it; and also by the aid of certain prelates—the right rev. the Bishop of St. Asaph, the right rev. the Bishop of Worcester, the right rev. the Bishop of Salisbury; and, he lamented personally to add, the Lord Bishop of Durham. To these rev. personages then, and to the section he had adverted to, let it be observed, the Army owed this revolution. He hoped the right rev. Prelates would even now give them the opinion of their military friends whom they met after their vote upon this measure; for it was quite clear they must have been advised and directed by them, as he was sure none of the right rev. Bench would stand up in their places and admit they knew anything, or ever did know anything, of a soldier, of his discipline in camp, quarters, or in the field, or of his feelings as to the service in which he was engaged. The noble Marquess concluded by moving to leave out "now," and insert "this day six months."
The EARL of CARDIGANconfessed that it was very painful to him to offer any opposition to a Bill connected with the Army which had received the support of the noble Duke; and he would have felt greater pain were it not that he recollected the very qualified support which the noble Duke gave to it in his speech. One of the avowed objects was to enlist into the Army a superior class of recruits, and yet the noble Duke did not consider that such would be its result; whilst the other object

1025
was to make the Army more popular; but, considering the recent increase in the Army, and the readiness with which the ranks were filled, their Lordships would not suppose that the Army as it existed was an unpopular force. It must be remembered that the British Army, unlike other armies, was dispersed all over the world, and he could not see how the Bill could be carried out when the term of service expired; certainly, it could not be accomplished without great expense, and certainly not without great inconvenience. When the Bill was in force, the changes in colonies must be more frequent than at present; this would involve great expense, and it was the duty of Parliament to consider whether such an expenditure was proper or necessary. Was the battalion to which the men belonged to lose its term of colonial service? If so, it would create the greatest possible confusion; and if their places were to be filled by draughts from other regiments, it would destroy the esprit de corps. With regard to the pensions, there was no doubt that the addition of 2d. to the 6d. would be considered a been to the Army; and if the Government were anxious to make the Army still more popular than at present, they would give fair rewards for services, and enable the soldiers to settle down afterwards. He thought it desirable to tie the men down to good conduct by the interest they felt in their pensions. But if they dispersed a discontented military body over the country, they would find it formidable for mischief, and an assemblage formed from them would be more difficult to deal with than the ordinary population. He thought that all the advantages of the proposed plan, without its manifold disadvantages, might have been attained by effecting improvements in the condition of the soldier. At all events, if a limit were resolved upon, he thought the first period should be longer, say fourteen years, and the second shorter, say seven years. At the end of the first period the soldier would have arrived at a time of life which admirably adapted him for pursuing his profession; and were good encouragement offered, his belief was that in the majority of cases the soldier would re-enlist. As to the officers, the great majority were opposed to the Bill—he believed that, generally speaking, the officers looked upon it as a dangerous and visionary measure. He did not presume to think that his opinion would have the slightest weight with their Lordships. He was well aware that
1026
as a military man he had not seen much active service; and, after a period of thirty years of peace, few officers, comparatively speaking, could bring the experience which was gained in a time of war to bear upon such a question. But let the weight be what it might which was attached to his opinions, they were the honest opinions of a Member of their Lordships' House, and of one who had sincerely at heart the welfare of that profession to which he had the honour to belong.
EARL GREYsaid, that as he did not understand that the noble Marquess or the noble Earl who had addressed their Lordships in opposition to the Bill, intended to oppose it in a substantive manner, he would not occupy time in repeating arguments in reply which had already been addressed to their Lordships. Instead, therefore, of repeating any argument which had been previously used, he would mention one fact which had come to his knowledge since the measure had been discussed. There was now serving a gallant officer, who, in consequence of his good conduct as a private and a non-commissioned officer, had received a commission without purchase; and his opinion having been asked of the proposed measure, his answer was, "All that I can say is, I have been all my life in the Army, but I never enlisted for life; I was a seven years' man."
VISCOUNT COMBERMEREsaid, that this was only a solitary instance out of 82,000; and he disapproved of the Bill.
Amendment withdrawn,
House in Committee.
On Clause 1 being read.
The EARL of LUCAN The EARL of LUCAN moved, as an Amendment, that twelve years' service be substituted for ten years in the infantry, and fourteen years for twelve in the cavalry, artillery, or other ordnance corps. It might appear a small matter to propose an increase of two years to the period of service; but, in his opinion, it was of great importance. The last two years of a twelve years' service were the most valuable portion of the whole period. In making this proposition, he disclaimed on his part, and he thought he might do so on the part of the officers of the military profession generally, being actuated by any party spirit whatever. The principle of the Bill having been adopted by the House of Commons, and by their Lordships, all he now sought was to make the measure as little mischievous as possible. He entreated their Lordships, that while passing this

1027
Bill they would not deprive the country of the services of the old soldier, whose continuance in the Army was absolutely necessary to its very existence.
EARL GREYobserved, that those noble Lords who did him the honour to listen to the speech he delivered on moving the second reading of this Bill, would recollect that he declared it to be his wish that such a system should be introduced into the Army as should make the being discharged from the service considered not as a reward, but as a punishment. That was the main object and scope of the whole Bill. He wished it to be considered a reward of merit to be allowed to continue in the Army, rather than a punishment to be retained in it. This principle, he conceived, applied to the Amendment now proposed by the noble Earl. When a man had served for a period of ten years, and had not proved to be a good soldier, it was perfectly just that the commanding officer should have it in his power to say to such a man—"I will not allow you to continue with us. The bargain was for ten years. It is at an end; you may go and seek a livelihood somewhere else." This to a man who had only served ten years, while it was just, would not be severe, because it might be fairly presumed that he would then be in the prime of life, and capable of getting a livelihood in some other occupation. But it would be a very different thing if the period of service were to be prolonged, and the man were to be retained in the Army to a time of life when he would not be qualified to provide for himself in any other pursuit. If they were to adopt this measure at all, he did not see any advantage that was to be derived from the Amendment of the noble Earl. If they were to try the experiment of limited enlistment, let them try it fairly, as he believed it would be under this measure.
VISCOUNT COMBERMEREwas in favour of the Amendment. At the end of ten years a man might be turned adrift without good reason; and, if he had a wife and children, they would be looked upon as an encumbrance. What would become of a man in such circumstances as that, without a pension, and, in all probability, without any means of supporting himself?
The DUKE of WELLINGTONsaid: I shall confine myself to the Amendment of the noble Earl, because on a former occasion I stated my reasons for thinking that your Lordships might safely adopt the principles of this Bill, and that there is
1028
every reason to believe that you will retain the old soldiers in the Army under the Bill as it stands. I stated my reasons on that occasion, and I only revert to them now to state that they have not been at all shaken by what has passed during this debate. My opinion is, that the advantages held out to soldiers by the warrants issued by Her Majesty and the late Sovereign, which ensured good conduct as far as it can be ensured by law, and which give to the soldiers that which is best for them—the habits of good conduct—more especially by the warrant recently issued, securing to a man at the end of his twenty or twenty-one years' service, together with the good-service money which he may have received during the twenty or twenty-one years, a pension amounting altogether to 1s. a day —that these advantages do give us every reason to believe that the services of the old soldiers will be retained with their regiments; and that being the case, I think that that which it is most desirable to retain will be retained for Her Majesty's service. I sincerely wish that this new state of things in the Army may enable Her Majesty's Government and the officers in command to make a discharge from the Army considered a punishment. That is a most desirable object—and this feeling does exist in two or three regiments. It exists, I believe, in the troops which are immediately about Her Majesty's person. I wish to see the same object attained in all parts of the service; and the system proposed by this Bill does, I think, give a prospect that it may be attained. Then the noble Earl comes and says that it may be attained by twelve years as well as ten; and another noble Lord, a noble Friend of mine, has another curiosity of his own—by which he thinks the same object may be attained. My Lords, there may be many modes by which it may be accomplished; but this is the mode proposed by Her Majesty's Government, and adopted by the other House of Parliament, and therefore I recommend your Lordships to adhere to the mode proposed in the Bill now before you. I do not think the noble Lord has made out any case for his proposition; I beg your Lordships to keep that object steadily in your view, the object of retaining the old soldiers in your service during the whole time that they are capable of rendering service, that is, until they are forty years of age, and my opinion is that that may be attained as well with ten as twelve years. Make dismissal a serious punishment, and

1029
in the meantime retain the services of the old soldiers as long as you can. I confess that I do not understand exactly the meaning of the noble Earl when he speaks of the object to be attained by allowing commanding officers to get rid of bad soldiers at the end of their term of service; for they may be got rid of as easily at ten as at twelve years. But, my Lords, I do not want to get rid of the services of any men; and my opinion is for the adoption of the measure proposed by Her Majesty's Government, believing that in the allowance for good service, and in the pension of 1s. per day, the great object which I have stated will be attained, There is only one other point to which I will refer relating to the question at large, I mean the difficulty and inconvenience of providing for the relief of troops under the Bill as it stands; but I entreat your Lordships to remember, throughout the consideration of this question, that the law of this country has invariably enabled the Government to raise men for seven, fourteen, or twenty-one years' service; it has always been in the power of the Government to order an enlistment for any period; and the person filling the office which I have the honour to hold must have obeyed the order. Now, as to the inconvenience and difficulty attending the relief of troops, the Government is perfectly aware that it is bound to provide for the removal of all, and for the relief of troops at the proper period. In respect to climate, the noble Marquess appears to have forgotten that every regiment serving abroad has a depôt of men in this country, to fill up the places of those who are serving abroad; and it will, of course, be the business of the officers to take care that men are sent out regularly to fill up vacancies as they occur in the regiments abroad. Such an arrangement will undoubtedly entail expense, and the expense must be incurred; but if the service derives advantage from the system, for that expense the country will, in my opinion, be amply compensated. I see no reason, my Lords, for the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl. I do not think that the principles upon which the Bill rests have been at all shaken by this night's discussion; and I cannot, therefore, recommend your Lordships to adopt the Amendment.
LORD STANLEY: I have not the presumption to enter into discussion upon these points with the noble and gallant Duke; but he will forgive me for saying,
1030
that to a certain extent I think he has misunderstood the object and intention of the noble Earl who proposed the Amendment, and that he has also, in some degree, misapprehended the effect and principle of the Bill as it stands. The noble Duke has stated truly, that if this Bill had not been introduced, it would be competent for Her Majesty's Government to introduce, by their own authority, the provisions of this Bill; and that, my Lords, is one of the reasons why I say that we need not and ought not to be called upon to interfere with the authority of Parliament in a matter for which the ordinary powers of the Executive Government are sufficient. Therefore, I am not in the least alarmed by the announcement which the noble Earl opposite has thought proper to make, that on the adoption of the Amendment of the noble Earl he should not feel it his duty to proceed further with the measure; and it is not an announcement which will, I think, alarm the military portion of those whom I have the honour to address. But when the noble Duke goes oh to say that this Bill must be better than the present state of the law, because it is now competent to the Government to order the Commander-in-Chief to give directions for an enlistment for even a more limited period than the Bill proposes, I beg to remind your Lordships that that power of the Executive Government is not taken away by this Bill. This Bill does not prevent the enlistment for a shorter, but it does prevent the enlistment for a longer, period than ten years: it deprives the Government of the power of enlisting for fourteen or twenty-one years; but it does not deprive the Government of the power of doing that which the noble and gallant Duke would, I believe, condemn in common with every officer in the service and every Member of this House, of ordering an enlistment for a period shorter than ten years. It takes away the power of extending the enlistment, but it leaves the Government as competent to order an enlistment for seven years as they were previous to the passing of this Bill. The difficulty of dealing with this question would, I think, be greatly simplified, if we could be sure that we were all aiming at the same object. Now, my object is the same as that of the noble and gallant Duke, and of the noble Lords connected with the Army, who have opposed the Bill. We wish to retain the old soldiers in the Army at the expiration of their first period of service;

1031
but I am not quite sure that the object of the noble Earl opposite is the same. I rather incline to think that he is not so anxious to secure that object as he is to carry into effect his own favourite project of veteran battalions, and to induce the old soldiers to quit their regiments for the purpose of entering the veteran battalions. My noble and gallant Friend has also misunderstood, if he will allow me to say so, what my noble Friend said about the power of the officers to get rid of bad men in the Army. What my noble Friend said was, that he would not oppose the principle of limited enlistment, because it had this redeeming quality, that in a given period of time, whether ten or twelve years, at the expiration of that time it would give the commanding officer the power to get rid of bad men. But my noble Friend advanced that argument, not on the question whether the period should be ten years or twelve years, but as a ground upon which he modified his objection to a period of limited enlistment, by stating that among the disadvantages to which this principle was liable, it had this redeeming advantage, that it would enable the commanding officer at the expiration of his period of service to get rid of a bad man. But, my Lords, the single question before you is this—you may retain the old soldiers under a system of ten years' enlistment: is it less likely or is it more likely that you will retain them under a system of twelve? The noble Earl opposite talks of the great hardship we shall inflict upon a man by throwing him out of the service at the expiration of a period when he has become unfitted for anything else; and he says, see what an advantage you will give to a man by enabling him to return to civil life after the expiration of ten years, so that he will be able to turn himself to other pursuits. Now, my Lords, the whole difference that there is between the clause and the Amendment is a difference of two years—the difference between a man at the age of twenty-eight, and the same man at the age of thirty. But the real question after all is, when is the soldier the most likely to re-enlist? I do not say that there will be any very great difference between the two periods; but I do say that the difference will in all probability be in favour of the first period being twelve years, and the second being nine; rather than that the first period should be ten years, and the second eleven. And for this simple reason, that at the expiration
1032
of ten years a soldier feels he has not got half through the period of the lengthened service, he thinks that he shall probably get tired of it before it is concluded, and, therefore, that he had better take the opportunity to leave the service while he can get it. Whereas, a man that has served for twelve years will feel that he has served through more than half the period which entitled him to the retiring pension; and that he has a comparatively short period to serve for his second. I hope that the noble Earl, after what passed here the other night, and after what has passed in the other House, will not persevere in his announcement, that upon the period we now fix for the first period of service will depend the soldier's pension. The soldier is equally entitled to that pension by a service of twenty-one years, whether that service has been served in periods of twelve and nine years, or in periods of ten and eleven. If the noble Earl should persevere in that, I must say that the Army and the country will have a right to regard this decision as founded not upon principle, but upon political, if not personal, feeling. I trust, that whatever may be your Lordships' decision, the soldier's pension will not be made to depend upon it. If the noble Earl (the Earl of Lucan) persists in his Motion, I shall certainly vote for it, though I am far from undervaluing the opinion which has been expressed by the noble and gallant Duke, that under the present Bill you may expect the re-enlistment of old soldiers; but looking to this— and this point was not touched by the noble and gallant Duke at all—that if you can reckon on their re-enlistment for a period of eleven at the end of ten years, you may with much more confidence and certainty reckon on their re-enlistment for nine at the end of twelve years.
The Committee then divided on the Amendment:—Contents 38: Non-Contents 30; Majority 8.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Clarendon

Bedford

Devon

Norfolk

Fingall

Wellington

Fitzwilliam

MARQUESSES.

Grey

Anglesey

Shaftesbury

Headfort

Suffolk

Clanricarde

Verulam

EARLS.

Zetland

Auckland

Wicklow

Burlington

Galloway

Camperdown

VISCOUNT.

Chichester

Falkland

1033

BISHOPS.

Erskine

St. Asaph

Foley

Peterborough

Montfort

BARONS.

Monteagle of Brandon

Bruce

Mostyn

Byron

Strafford

Camoys

Leigh

Campbell

Churchill

Cottenham

Beaumont

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Ellenborough

Beaufort

Cleveland

VISCOUNT

Newcastle

Combermere

MARQUESS.

BARONS.

Downshire

Blaney

EARLS.

Bolton

Brooke and Warwick

Boston

Cardigan

Clancarty

Desart

Colchester

Hardwicke

Colville

Lucan

De Ros

Mountcashel

Kenyon

Ranfurley

Redesdale

Rosse

Sondes

Eglintoun

Southampton

Longford

Stanley

Romney

Forester

Paired off.

CONTENT.

NOT-CONTENT.

Earl of Malmesbury

Lord Wrottesley

Lord Willoughby D'Eresby

Earl of Leicester

Earl of Tankerville

Marquess of Conyngham

Earl Charleville

Earl of Granville

Earl of Orkney

Earl Fitzhardinge

Lord De l'Isle

Lord Crewe

Earl Orford

Lord Sefton

Duke of Richmond

Earl of Yarborough

Earl of Winchilsea

Earl Ducie

Lord Templemore

Marquess of Lansdowne

Viscount Lake

Bishop of Durham

Marquess of Ailsa

Bishop of Lincoln

Earl of Munster

Viscount Clifden

Lord Wynford

Lord Denman

Lord Heytesbury

Lord H. de Walden

Earl of Somers

Bishop of Hereford

Earl Digby

Lord Kinnaird

Earl Stradbrooke

Viscount Melbourne

Viscount Canterbury

Lord Beauvale

Duke of Manchester

Lord Colborne

Earl of Sheffield

Lord Glenelg

Marquess of Exeter

Lord Lilford

Earl Delawarr

Marq. of Northampton

Viscount Strangford

Earl Waldegrave

Earl of Eldon

Lord Sudeley

Lord Ashburton

Earl of Rosebery

Marquess of Ailesbury

Bishop of Salisbury

Duke of Montrose

Earl of Ripon

Marq. of Winchester

Marquess Camden

Earl of Kinnoul

Earl Morley

Earl Leven

Earl Spencer

Viscount Beresford

Earl of Effingham

Lord Saltown

Lord Vivian

Earl of Lonsdale

Lord Hatherton

Viscount Sydney

Marq. of Westminster

Lord Walsingham

Lord Wharncliffe

LORD DE ROSthen moved the Amendment of which he had given notice:—
1034
"That any soldier, at any period within one year previous to the completion of the term of limited service for which he shall have been first engaged, or, in the case of every regiment under orders for service, other than in Great Britain and Ireland, within two years previous to such completion, being approved as a fit person, &c, may (at any time) be re-engaged for the further term of six years and seven years; and in like manner, within the like period, previous to the completion of such second engagement, for a further term of five years, whether in infantry, cavalry, or ordnance corps; such further term or terms to date from the expiration of the first or second period of service, as the case may be."
The noble Lord made a few observations in support of his Amendment, which were inaudible.
EARL GREYobserved, in reference to this Amendment, that it appeared to him there would he some advantage in not confining too closely the period within which a soldier might re-enlist in the Army. On the other hand, it had been pressed upon him that there would be considerable danger and much inconvenience in extending this period in the manner now proposed by the noble Lord. If, therefore, he (Lord De Ros) would limit the period to six months after the completion of the service, there would be no objection to an Amendment of this description.
LORD DE ROSwas understood to assent to this proposition.
LORD STANLEYapproved of the limitation, and suggested to the noble Earl (Earl Grey) the importance, in this case, of making some distinction between regiments on home and regiments on foreign service. If men belonging to a regiment ordered on foreign service sailed at a time which was within one year of the period when according to the terms of their enlistment they could claim their discharge, the result would be great expense to the country, and great mischief to the particular regiment, and he therefore put it to the noble Earl for his consideration, if it would not be advisable that power should be given to re-enlist the men in such a position previous to their sailing. The principle of re-enlistment would not be interfered with by such an arrangement; and in this way, it was indisputable, they might avoid the chance of losing the service of men in a foreign station. He suggested, as the noble Earl was determined not to extend the period for men in regiments on home service beyond six months, that in case of regiments ordered abroad the period should be twelve months, and that power be granted to re-enlist those soldiers whose

1035
term of service would expire within one or two years.
EARL GREYwould have no objection to adopt the suggestion made by the noble Lord. He thought, however, that the better way of obtaining the desired end would be to name no particular number of months, and to leave to soldiers under orders for foreign service the power to contract a new engagement.
Amendment agreed to.
On the Clause as amended being put,
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH moved an Amendment. As the Bill stood, soldiers out of England could only be re-enlisted by the same persons who had power to enlist men under the Mutiny Act; that Act prohibited general officers and regimental officers from enlisting men; but abroad there would be many occasions when no qualified civilian could be found, or when it might be extremely inconvenient to interpose a civilian between the soldiers and the officers, particularly in India. It would be better to adopt the words of the Mutiny Act, adding, any person "duly appointed by Her Majesty, by any warrant signed by the Secretary at War," to attest and enlist soldiers for Her Majesty's service.
EARL GREYhad no objection to the Amendment, which was inserted, and
The Clause was agreed to.
On Clause 4 being proposed,
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHproposed to insert after the 4th Clause the following provisos:—
"Provided further, and be it enacted, that if, at the expiration of such first or second term of limited service, or of such term of prolonged service, any soldier entitled to his discharge, being on any foreign station, shall not be willing to reengage or to continue in Her Majesty's service, or in the service of the East India Company, the commanding officer of the regiment in which he may be serving shall, as in the case of soldiers invalided, take the usual measures, with all convenient despatch, for the conveyance of such soldier to England, and on the arrival of such soldier in England he shall be finally discharged: provided always, that during such time as may elapse between the expiration of such terms of service as aforesaid, and his final discharge in England, such soldier shall remain subject to all the provisions of any Act which may be then in force for punishing mutiny and desertion, as fully as he may have been subject thereto before the expiration of such terms of service.
"Provided also, that if, at the expiration of any such first or second term of limited service, or of such term of prolonged service, any soldier being in any of Her Majesty's colonies shall claim his discharge, and shall signify to the governor of such colony, through the commanding officer of the regiment in which he may be serving, his de-
1036
sire to remain in such colony, it shall be lawful for such governor, if he shall think fit, with the consent of such commanding officer, to permit such soldier to remain therein; and thereupon such soldier shall be finally discharged, and shall not be entitled to claim to be conveyed to England at the public charge at any future period."
He said, his object was to take the time necessary for bringing home the soldier from a foreign station not out of his period of enlistment; but after that period had expired, and at the same time to keep the man under military discipline. In the West Indies and the Mediterranean stations there could be no difficulty in sending the man home at any time; but it was by no means so with regard to Australia, and more particularly the East Indies, and also to a certain extent in the case of regiments quartered in Canada. In order to insure a favourable passage, it was necessary that the soldier should not leave India before the 15th of November, or after the 15th of March. He would thus be sent from the distant stations so as to arrive in Calcutta by February, and reach England in July, though his time of service might not expire until the April following. In the case of Canada, also, there were certain periods of the year when the men could not be sent home, and he thought that in all these cases it was better that the loss of time should fall on the men than on the Government.
EARL GREYsaid, according to the term of his enlistment, a man would be discharged the day it terminated, at the place where his regiment happened to be at the time; and being so discharged, he would of course be conveyed home in the same manner as the men discharged as unfit for service. Soldiers engaged for ten years, must serve those ten years where they were wanted, and would continue to do duty with their regiment till the day of their discharge; if they accepted it, they would be conveyed home, unless they preferred settling in the country, which in some of the colonies might be the case. In those instances no inconvenience would arise. But a great inconvenience would be created by fixing by law a matter that should be regulated from time to time according to the necessities of the service; if they gave a right to the man to be conveyed home by the first convenient opportunity, they left it to the man to judge when that opportunity occurred: this might give rise to inconvenient differences between him and his officer. It would be better to let the law stand as it

1037
was; he believed the conduct of the Government of this country to the soldier would always be fair and satisfactory.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, his object and that of the noble Earl were the same. The noble Earl wished to retain the men till the end of their term of service, and admitted they wore to be sent home at the public charge. But the noble Earl confounded the position of the soldier who would be sent home under this Bill, with that of a soldier sent home under the present law. At present the man never ceased to be a soldier, and remained subject to martial law. A soldier discharged in India became immediately a free man; they could not prevent him from settling as a colonist, or even taking foreign service. The noble Earl did not know the danger of this in India; the colonization of India would be its separation; could they set free 200 or 300 soldiers in the city of Benares without danger? The noble Earl risked the creation of insurrection: he did not know the country for which he legislated; he entreated him to reconsider the subject maturely. He agreed that the time occupied by a man's return ought not to be taken out of his term of service; but he wished to give him a right by law to that which he was sure no Government would refuse; above all, he wished the noble Earl to consider the dangers that might arise from the colonization of India, from the insults that might he offered by the soldiers to the religion and prejudices of the natives of the country.
EARL GREYsaid, the number of soldiers discharged in India was exceedingly small. As he already stated that evening, it was not for all the colonies quite one per cent, and it was still less in India than elsewhere. The noble Earl must be well aware, that in India soldiers entitled to their discharge were all anxious to volunteer into other regiments, or into the East India Company's forces, to such an extent, that very serious complaints had ever been made by the East India Company at the large number of non-effective men that were thus allowed to remain in the service. He thought the provisions under the Bill as it stood were sufficient, and that it would be exceedingly dangerous to keep men under military law indefinitely, and at the same time give them a legal right of judging what would be the first convenient opportunity of sending them home.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, the noble Earl quite mistook the condition
1038
of soldiers in India, if he supposed that all were equally desirous of remaining there. The old Indian soldier certainly was in general anxious to remain; but it was different with the man who was but a short time in India, and was unaccustomed to the climate. It did not follow, because a man was ten years in the Army, that he might be more than half a year in India; and it should be borne in mind, that when this measure was in full operation, the number of men entitled to their discharge annually in India would be the eleventh or twelfth of the entire Army in the country. The number of men who would have to be marched down from the upper provinces every year to be sent home, would not be less than 700 or 800; and he would leave it to their Lordships to judge of the consequences of such a body passing through the country, and no longer subject to military control.
EARL GREYthought the absolute provision of the Act, by which the men might be detained two years above the term, would enable them to obviate any inconvenience. He hoped the noble Earl would not press his Amendment.
After a few words from LORD COMBERMERE in support of the Amendment.
LORD STANLEYthought, on a question of such importance he was justified in appealing to the noble Duke at the head of the Army, who was so well acquainted with India, for his opinion upon it. The object of all parties was the same. The question which thus had been brought under the notice of their Lordships amounted to this: were the troops which from time to time might be discharged in India, and in similar possessions of the British Crown, were they to be discharged, and at the moment of their discharge were they to be released from all military discipline or restraint? It appeared to him that, according to the Bill as it stood, they would not remain under military authority up to the time of their landing in this country: but, on the contrary, would be set free from all such restraints. He conceived, that until the discharged soldier could actually be landed in England, he ought to be continued on the strength of the Army, and he ought to receive pay and subsistence till he reached this country. The question before the House was one most important in its principle, and most important, also, in its probable consequences—so important that he begged the attention of the noble Duke to the subject: and he begged, in addition to

1039
what he had already said, to ask the noble Duke if he thought it would be safe to send soldiers home, and place them on board ship, without placing them under any military authority or control? It might he thought that the noble and gallant Duke had already given his sanction to this part of the Bill; but he could not bring himself to believe this till he heard it from the noble Duke himself.
EARL GREYsaid, before the noble Duke answered the question, he wished to make a single remark. The question put by the noble Lord was not one that was likely to arise in practice, because it should be recollected that by the 4th Clause it was provided that the commanding officer could direct the service of the soldier to be prolonged, after the term should expire, to a period not exceeding two years, which was quite long enough to enable the Government to have the men sent home.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONsaid, he thought it would be exceedingly inconvenient to discharge soldiers in India, and not leave them under the control of military commanders. He conceived it would be most necessary that they should remain under the control of their usual commanders until they reached their proper port of embarkation; and, above all things, he deprecated soldiers being sent home on board ship without being kept, and continued under the direction and control of their usual commanders, or, at least, under some military discipline. No doubt, the men when they quitted the Army ought to be sent home; but there would be great inconvenience in their being set free from military restraint until they reached this country.
The Clause was understood to be postponed.
Remaining clauses agreed to, as were the schedule and the preamble of the Bill.
House resumed.
The following Protest was entered on the Journals of the House against the Army Service Bill:—
DISSENTIENT—

1. Because an attempt to introduce limited service was first proposed in 1713. The system, or plan, lasted two years, and was abandoned from its total failure. It was tried, however, again in 1775, and continued to the end of the war, but was unsuccessful in its operations during the American war. In later periods—in 1806— it was resorted to in another form of periods of limited service; but signally and completely dis-
1040
appointed the expectations that were formed of the measure to obtain more recruits and a better class of men; and in the midst of the war in the Peninsula much inconvenience and disorder might have arisen but for the foresight and precaution of the Great Commander—the limited service men being then his best troops, who had served seven or eight years, and who had a right to their discharge; and had not very large bounties been given they might have been lost to the Army, and their loss would have been most fatal.

2. Because whilst it is most desirable to adopt every possible measure for improving the comforts, and the social and the moral conditions of our soldiers, it is highly injudicious and inexpedient to attempt experiments (which are avowed as such), and which experiments may tend to shake the good feelings now existing, and the discipline hitherto prevailing in the British Army, which never at any moment in history stood higher for its warlike achievements and admirable conduct.

3. Because while it is admitted from the very highest authority that the old soldiers of the British Army give to it all its perfection and matchless excellence, it is manifest that the present Army Service Bill presents a risk, and offers an occasion, of losing the very men, who, after their service of ten years, become the most valuable, and who still may be in the prime of life— from thirty to forty—for all purposes of hard fatigue and military service. It is therefore highly impolitic to hazard this experiment, and far more judicious to retain the present regulations, which allow all soldiers, under a most liberal plan, and with good characters, to receive their discharge by the recommendation of their officers and the decision of the Commander-in-Chief.

4. Because, as has been clearly and unanswerably shown, great inconvenience must result to our colonial service from the plan now proposed; and especially in the minutiae of every regimental arrangement. If men had six or eight months to serve, and were ordered out to India, that circumstance might occasion a degree of discontent among them. The Army in the East, as has been ably shown, presents many further obstructions to the eligibility of this measure; and it will be necessary when it shall be in full operation, and one-tenth annually of 72,000 men (our average force serving in the colonies) shall be entitled to discharge, and must be brought home, to make frequent reliefs of corps, at great difficulty and inconvenience.

"Finally, because the Government must either have a most extraordinary confidence in themselves, or expect an unlimited confidence from others, if they imagine that a measure of such magnitude, sanctioning changes so hazardous and on such fanciful theories, and, above all, against the opinions of nine-tenths of the British Army, can be carried into effect without stronger and more cogent reasons than have hitherto been advanced by them for these new experiments under their Army Service Bill in the British Army.
VANE LONDONDERRY.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Motion that this Bill be now read 3a.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that he did

1041
not rise for the purpose of raising any objection to proceeding with the Bill at the stage to which it had now attained; but he begged to draw their Lordships' attention to the effect which this measure was likely to have on the clergy of the Established Church of England in Ireland. He believed, that not merely their interest but their actual existence must depend on the alteration of this Bill. He would beg to state to their Lordships the substance of a letter which he had received from a clergyman of the diocese of Lismore, who had been for thirty years the incumbent of a parish in which the tithe rent-charge was 194 l. a year. That income was payable half-yearly, in May and November; and it was stated in the letter that the poor-rate in the electoral division under the temporary Act was 10 s. 10 d. for the half year. The consequence would be, that the rev. gentleman would, if such a rate was continued, be left without a single farthing of income to pay his curate, or for the support of his family. He believed that that was not a solitary instance of the hardship to which clergymen would be subjected. But their Lordships could not imagine what would be the operation of the Bill unless they ascertained the actual amount of charge upon each electoral division. He believed the operation of the measure would be such as their Lordships had no idea of. He thought it would be found to include everything that was most objectionable in the endowment of the Irish clergy, together with everything that was objectionable in the voluntary system. Not that he would have it supposed that he objected to the principle of endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy. He wished their Lordships had the wisdom to endow the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland. It was a measure most needed, and it was one which they must pass at last. The next point to which he would call their Lordships' attention was the necessity that they should see the consequences of the Bill before them, as well as of the temporary measure of relief, so far as regarded the elective franchise in Ireland. They should recollect, that the fact of receiving relief disfranchised the recipient. By the words of an Act still in force, it was declared that relief given to a militiaman should not disfranchise him, provided he at the time was engaged in actual service, thereby conveying the inference, or rather more than an inference, that if he had not been in actual service at the time of receiving
1042
relief he would have been disfranchised. By the Reform Act, also, it was provided that no person should be allowed to register as a voter who should have received relief at any time during the twelve months preceding registration. In considering that question, it should not be said that it was an interference with the privileges of the other House. He knew that it was; but in a matter like that, where the overlooking of the effects might cause the disfranchisement of the great body of electors in Ireland, it was necessary that it should be looked to. He had given notice that he would call the attention of Her Majesty's Ministers to the question; and he wished, through the medium of the publicity which the proceedings of that House received, to call the attention of the other House of Parliament to it. It was a matter which ought to be considered at once and decided on, especially on the eve of a general election. The third point to which he would direct their Lordships' attention was the fact that he did not think they had sufficiently considered the effects of the Bill upon the general peace and tranquillity of the country. They would legalize by it the collection of large assemblies of the people, that it would be impossible to disperse without the active aid of the constabulary. They should recollect that large bodies of distressed people assembled together were very indiscriminate in the object of their anger, and that the very persons who had been the instruments of relief, and the channels through which the munificence of Parliament had flowed to the Irish poor, had been, in many instances, objects of attack and ill usage. They should remember that in all cases of famine and riots arising from distress, in every part of the world, those riotings had led, not to the seizure merely of food for the suffering and destitute, but to the actual destruction of those provisions which had been stored for their necessities, through the infuriated ignorance of the sufferers themselves. The most undivided and unenviable responsibility of the measure, as it stood, rested upon Her Majesty's advisers. Had the Amendments proposed in that House been adopted and allowed to remain a part of the Bill, he thought it would have been much better; but in that case, if it had failed in its operation, the blame would have been thrown upon the Lords, and not upon the Government.
The EARL of WICKLOW, if he could

1043
believe the operation of the Bill would have the same effect as that produced by the Temporary Relief Act, would think it one of the most grievous calamities that had ever happened to the country. He regretted that the Amendments which he had proposed had not been adopted; but he believed there were sufficient safeguards in the Bill already to prevent those ruinous effects to the clergy which his noble Friend near him apprehended.
The EARL of LUCANmade a few observations which were inaudible.
The EARL of CLANCARTYsaid, there was this difference between the temporary and the permanent measure, that by the Temporary Relief Act relief was given in food only, whereas by the permanent Act relief was to be given out of the workhouse in money as well as food. There was, besides, under the temporary Act, a very valuable aid given to private benevolence, for those sums subscribed by voluntary contribution, and forwarded to the relief committees, were met by equal sums contributed from the national resources. Under the permanent Act, no such assistance would be given, so that noble Lords need not be so sanguine as to its operation. He had been greatly surprised to find, by a Bill which had been introduced into their Lordships' House, that a power of removing Irish paupers was to be given to England and Scotland, whilst no such power of removing English or Scotch paupers was to be given to Ireland. The measure appeared to be one calculated for the relief of English towns, not of Irish distress.
LORD BEAUMONTbelieved that the whole complaint made by the Irish clergy regarding the operation of the Bill upon their interests was, that they were to be rated upon the gross amount of their incomes, and not upon the net amount. If that wore the case—and he did not think they were under any other peculiar disadvantage—their position would be this: if the whole amount of the poor-rates for the year were 20 s. in the pound, the clergy would receive just nothing for themselves, the whole amount of their rent-charge being absorbed; but if the rates should amount to, say 25 s. in the pound, during the whole course of the year, the clergyman would be no worse off. But how stood the landlord? The tenant having power to deduct one-half the poundage of the rate from his rent, he would do so till the rate exceeded 40 s. in the pound; while the
1044
landlord could deduct from the tithe rent-charge no more than the 20 s., that being the whole rent-charge the landlord would actually remain liable for, and be out of pocket the remaining 5s. or 20 s. as the rate happened to be 25 s. or 40 s. in the pound. So that there was the advantage on the part of the clergy that they would receive nothing, whilst the landlord would receive nothing and be minus 5s. additional. In the present hopeless, helpless condition of Ireland, the clergy had nothing to complain of. With regard to the electoral franchise, whatever might be the result, and whether the whole of the Irish constituencies were, as his noble Friend anticipated, to be disfranchised or not by the operation of this measure, he hoped to heaven their Lordships would never adopt the principle of having a pauper constituency.
EARL GREYsaid, that that was the third time on which the Bill had been discussed; he would, therefore, not go into any of the questions which had been raised regarding it, further than to protest against the assertion of the noble Earl opposite, that any measure had been brought into that House with the object of relieving English towns at the expense of Ireland. Looking at the condition of Ireland only, and not looking to the state of any place in England, he was convinced of the necessity of the measure. The proposition had been made for Ireland only, and the necessity for something of the kind was so pressing that they should not shrink from its adoption. He would not go into the other questions that had been raised. As to the complaints of the clergy, they would point rather to the necessity for an amendment in the Church Temporalities Act, than to any alteration in the Bill before their Lordships. And as to the question of the franchise, he quite agreed with his noble Friend behind him in thinking that it would be an act of insanity to erect a pauper constituency. The other matters he was not in a situation to enter into. After the Bill had been read a third time, the Amendments might be discussed in their proper order; and he therefore trusted their Lordships would allow the third reading to take place.
The MARQUESS of HEADFORTsaid, that he had voted that the Bill be permanent, because he felt that some measure of the kind was essential in the present condition of Ireland; and because he was satisfied, after what had taken place, that

1045
a temporary measure would be comparatively useless. He deprecated the dependence on England which had hitherto taken place; but he felt that a great debt of gratitude was owing to England for the exertions which this country had made for the relief of Ireland. Even the repealer could hardly, after what had taken place, use the term "Saxon" as a word of reproach. He hoped all sects and classes would unite to carry out this measure in such a way as to show that Ireland was determined for the future to rely upon herself for the amelioration of the condition of the people of that country.
EARL FITZWILLIAMcould not agree with the anticipations of the noble Marquess as to the effect of this Bill; for he was convinced that its operation would be most disastrous to Ireland. Hardly two noble Lords, whether connected altogether with Ireland, or with that country and England, had expressed similar opinions as to the probable results of this measure. He did not agree with the opinion that the responsibility of this Bill was entirely to rest upon Government; but he felt that great responsibility rested on them for not Saving attended to the doubts of those connected with Ireland, and also with having listened with too willing an ear to the representations made to them elsewhere by the suggestors of such a measure; although he admitted they had introduced some improvements into it in that House which manifested some feeling of the danger they feared the country might be exposed to. He told the Government, that House, and the House of Commons, that Ireland could not be rescued from the abyss into which she had fallen, without the continued aid and assistance of England. He did not stand there to defend all the landlords of Ireland; for he felt that some had neglected the management of their estates, and had allowed the present disastrous state of things to grow up; but many of them had done much to improve the condition of the people. It was true, according to the Act of Elizabeth, that not the land alone should he chargeable with the support of the poor, but all property; therefore, he regretted that such a doctrine with respect to the landed gentry of Ireland should be so prominently put forward; but he believed this was done to such an extent, as it was flattering to the gentry of England. He was convinced that this Act could not be carried out for a twelvemonth; but if a new Par-
1046
liament assembled before Christmas, it would have to make most serious alterations in it, if not to repeal it.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEfelt how painful it was to differ from one for whom he entertained such feelings of regard as he did for his noble Friend who had just sat down. He thought that the large majorities by which that Bill had been carried, in both that and the other House, showed how general the feeling was in favour of it; and in addition to this, it had received the support of some of the highest authorities in the country. When such complaints were made against the adoption of out-door relief, noble Lords should recollect that in many parts of the west of Ireland, and more especially in Mayo and Galway, there were hardly any workhouses, and even in those the poor could not get relief. The danger did not arise from the out-door relief, but from the present state of Mayo. Those who had objected to this Bill had not pointed out how the present evils could be remedied. He did not believe that the Bill would be attended with any danger to Ireland, although for some years it would be a heavy burden on the land. In the fervent hope that it would relieve the condition of Ireland, he should give his cordial support to the measure.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELprotested against the Bill, because he was confident it would never work out the good effects which Her Majesty's Ministers anticipated. He was certain it would not, for any continuance of time, prevent the sufferings that the people of Ireland were now enduring; and that it would only end in producing greater evils than now existed in that country, and lead to the entire ruin of the farmers and ratepayers, whose welfare it nevertheless professed to protect. He warned their Lordships not to persevere with this measure; for if they hoped to carry it by compelling the people to give up their holdings, whether by arbitrary power or by legal means, they might depend upon it, that, however peaceable the people might be for a time, human nature would not endure oppression beyond a certain limit, and they might expect that ultimately the people would adopt a system very different from that of more passive resistance.
LORD ABINGERnext addressed the House; but the noble Lord was quite inaudible.
Bill read 3a.
LORD MONTEAGLE LORD MONTEAGLE moved the addition, by way of rider, of the following clause:—
"And whereas the payment out of the poor's rate of rents due, or which may at any time hereafter become due, from destitute persons receiving relief, under this Act or the herein-first-before recited Act, or the payment of wages or in aid of wages to such persons out of any monies which may be advanced, raised, or expended under any Act for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland, is an abuse which should be prohibited by law, and punished: be it further enacted, that it shall not be lawful to any board of guardians, or relieving officers, or any persons on their behalf, to pay to any destitute person receiving relief under this or the hereinbefore recited Act, any sum, or to pay for the account or advantage of such persons, any sum, out of monies advanced or levied for the relief of the destitute, in satisfaction of any rent for which destitute persons are or may be liable, or in aid of the wages of labour which such destitute person is receiving or entitled to receive; and that if, on the audit of the accounts of any union, it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the auditors that any relief shall have been given contrary to this enactment, any sum charged for such relief shall be struck out and disallowed from the said accounts, in the same manner as is now provided in respect to any other payment made contrary to law; provided always, that nothing herein contained shall prevent the relieving officer from giving provisional relief in cases of urgent necessity in lodging, until the next meeting of the guardians in the manner hereinbefore provided."
EARL GREY, while approving of the object of the clause, considered that, as it was framed, it would very much fetter the administration of the law; for, by the introduction of stringent terms to prevent abuse, a check would frequently be given to the granting of relief in cases in which it was proper to be granted.
Clause negatived.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved an Amendment on the 8th Clause, the object of which was to render it imperative on a child to support its parents in the same way as is provided in the English Poor Law.
EARL GREYthen moved an Amendment on Clause 10, regulating the circumstances under which persons holding more than a quarter of an acre of land should give it up on applying for relief, and rendering it imperative on landlords to accept the surrender of land in such cases.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHexpressed his belief that the provision for refusing relief to all parties who might hold more than a quarter of an acre of land, until they should have given up their holdings, could not be beneficially carried into effect during the present great emergency in Ireland. It might be advisable to insert
1048
such a provision in the Bill if Ireland were in a normal condition, or in a condition resembling that of this country; but considering the millions of persons who were at present in a state of absolute destitution in Ireland, it appeared to him that that provision would operate most harshly, and was calculated to drive great masses of the people to a state of desperation.
EARL GREYdeprecated discussion upon the Bill generally while a particular clause only was before the House; and expressed a hope that the clause, as amended, would be allowed to stand. He thought they could only lay down a general principle, and then leave to the discretion and judgment of those to whom they intrusted the administration of the law the management of the details. He was afraid, that if justice, in the opinion of their Lordships, was not likely to be done to the parties whose interests were at issue, by this clause, the only alternative open to them was to strike the clause out of the Bill. He had already stated, on a former evening, his objection to such a course as this; and, in the then state of the House, he believed it would not be advisable to take such a step.
The EARL of WICKLOWconsidered that the objections urged by the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) were purely imaginary.
After some conversation the Amendments were agreed to.
LORD REDESDALEthen moved the clause of which he had given notice:—
"And be it enacted, that from and after the passing of this Act it shall be lawful for the owner of any property rated to the relief of the poor at an annual value of not less than 20 1., to enter into an agreement with any person occupying the same by which the said tenant shall become alone liable for all the rates levied upon such property for the relief of the poor; and that, after having entered into such arrangement, it shall not be lawful for the said tenant to deduct from the rent agreed to be paid by him for such property any portion of the sums levied upon or paid by him on account of rates for the relief of the poor."
EARL GREYwas not now disposed to express any decided objection to the principle involved in this clause. Such a voluntary agreement as that proposed might in many cases in Ireland be desirable; but, under present circumstances, and after the Bill had progressed to this stage, the House of Commons would probably look with disfavour upon such a clause, and might consider that its introduction was an interference with their privileges. For tin's reason, and because, also, in a very short

1049
time the Bill would require reconsideration, when the principle now brought forward might be most appropriately discussed, he trusted the noble Lord would not press his Motion.
LORD MONTEAGLEexpressed a most decided conviction of the absolute necessity of such a clause as this to the good working of the measure. The only objection was that of the technical character referred to by the noble Earl; and though, if he believed that the introduction of this or of any similar clause would endanger the Bill, he should not give it his support, he should yet feel it his duty to vote for the Motion, should it be pressed by his noble Friend.
LORD CAMPBELLreminded their Lordships that they had gone through this Bill most laboriously, and entreated that they would now let it pass without creating any further disturbance. He did not question the importance of the principle, and he would say nothing now of the value of the suggestion; but, after the intimation given by the noble Earl, that the House of Commons might resist such an encroachment upon their privileges, he offered his humble but most earnest advice that the clause be withdrawn.
The EARL of WICKLOWlooked upon this as the most important clause proposed to be introduced since the Bill had been before their Lordships; but if the measure could in any way be endangered by their Lordships assenting to such an Amendment, he would only request the noble Lord to consent to its withdrawal. The remark made by the noble Earl, in reference to the privileges of the House of Commons, was decisive. The clause could not possibly come into operation, were it now agreed to, for two or three years; and within that time it was not impossible the Bill might be brought under the revision of Parliament.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, the noble Lord would recollect that when a previous Poor Law was under consideration, the Amendment introduced, while the Bill was in the House of Lords, by the Duke of Wellington, was consented to by the House of Commons, and that that assembly did not consider their privileges had been at all invaded, though the Amendment was moved under circumstances similar to the present.
LORD REDESDALEwould not press a division, if the Government feared that the Bill would be endangered, or that the privileges of the House of Commons were
1050
in any way interfered with by such a clause.
EARL GREYadmitted the precedent of 1838, quoted by the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle); but the noble Lord was aware that the Amendment had received the concurrence of the House of Commons, only after much difficulty, and a great deal of debating which had not been made public. He would not say that this clause would cause the rejection of the Bill; but its introduction would undoubtedly lead to this perplexity, that it would make the House of Commons the more unwilling to agree to other clauses introduced in their Lordships' House, and of a most important tendency.
Clause withdrawn.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved an Amendment to the 16th Clause, to enact that the highest ratepayers having been appointed ex-officio guardians, should, under certain circumstances, be permitted to delegate their authority to their qualified agents, even though such agents should not be among the highest ratepayers.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABINGER LORD ABINGER moved the insertion of a clause limiting the amount of the rate to be levied for the relief of the poor, upon the landlord or tenant, or both, to one-sixth of the net rent.
EARL GREYopposed it. It would declare that the rate for the relief of the most extreme case of destitution should in no case exceed 3s. 4d. in the pound.
Clause negatived.
The EARL of CLANCARTYasked if a measure for the suppression of vagrancy in Ireland would be brought before the House? They had imposed a great burden on property, and he thought they should enact with the present measure a Bill for checking vagrancy.
EARL GREYconcurred with the noble Earl that a Vagrancy Act should accompany a Poor Law; a Bill with this object had nearly passed its final stage in the House of Commons, he believed with the general consent of all parties; it would soon be before their Lordships, by whom he had no doubt it would be as generally supported.
Bill passed.—House adjourned.
The following Protest was entered on the Journals of the House against the Third Reading of the Irish Poor Bill:—
DISSENTIENT—
1. Because every law, giving to the destitute

1051
a claim to relief, must of necessity have a tendency to induce amongst the objects of its care, improvident habits; and this tendency is increased in more than an equal ratio, as the range of objects to which it applies is enlarged, and the nature of the relief extended.
2. Because the Irish people seem; either from natural constitution or from adventitious circumstances, peculiarly prone to such habits; and to them their present distress may, in my opinion, he mainly traced.
3. Because the tendency of this Bill, therefore, is, in its result, rather to increase than to diminish the probability of the recurrence of that distress.
4. Because it appears that there is in Ireland a great want of the machinery necessary for the proper administration of this law.
5. Because this Bill contemplates the necessity of giving out-door relief, and it has been proved by experience in England, that it is very difficult to resist the pressure which is at times brought to bear against the checks imposed by law for securing the wholesome administration of such relief; and because the experience of the working of the 9th and 10th Victoria, c. 107, in Ireland, proves it to be probable that the difficulty there will be still greater; and, if those checks are once broken through, the total absorption of the property of the country and the entire demoralisation of the people will be the necessary consequence.
6. Because this Bill, intended to effect a complete and lasting change in the habits and manners of the people of Ireland, avowedly an experiment, admitted by all to be a difficult, and characterized by some of its supporters as a doubtful and hazardous one, has been brought in and passed under the excitement of a grievous, accidental, and temporary calamity, which precludes its receiving that calm and dispassionate consideration which so important a measure demands.
7. Because it is notorious that the desire generally manifested for a Bill of this nature has had its origin in the inconvenience resulting from this accidental and temporary calamity, the consequent influx into England of destitute Irish families; and is suggested not so much by the hope that it will benefit the people of Ireland, as in the expectation—which I believe will turn Out to be quite fallacious—that it will prevent the recurrence of similar inconvenience.
8. Because, therefore, I consider this Bill in itself objectionable; not calculated to ameliorate the condition of the people of Ireland; incapable of being satisfactorily administered; likely to be destructive to property and dangerous to the independence of the poor in Ireland; introduced and passed at an unfit time and without due consideration; and, though called for by the people of England, called for on erroneous grounds.
RANDOR,
MONTEAGLE, of Brandon.
For the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th reasons,
FITZWILLIAM.