begged to ask, whether it were a fact, that after the issuing of the proclamation, the crew of her Majesty's ship the Pique had been paid in light sovereigns, thereby causing a great loss to the men.

having seen the statement made in the papers, had directed the necessary inquiries to be made, and there was not the slightest foundation for the report. The Admiralty had directed a letter to be written to the railway company where it was said the light gold was tendered, and the reply was, that there was no truth in the statement—that the men generally ten.- dered five-pound notes, and that there was some little difficulty in getting change.

wished to ask another question. It was currently reported in naval circles, that the present commander-in chief in the Mediterranean had issued an order which had been much complained of by the squadron at Malta— to curtail the leave of the ships' companies to go on shore, which had been enjoyed by them under the former commander-in-chief. He wished to know whether the hon. and gallant Officer was aware that such an order had been issued?

said, he knew of no such order as refusing leave to the ships' companies, nor had he heard of any complaints from the fleet. By a paper which had been lately placed in his hands, he learned that some restraint had been placed on the crews, in consequence of the vessels preparing for sea, and one of the orders bore on that point to a certain extent. It was, however, only against the indiscriminate permission to go ashore that the order had been issued.

said, that a question had been put the other evening from the opposite side of the House respecting the registration of electors in England. He now begged to state that it was the opinion of Government that it would not be expedient to interfere with the progress of registration in the present year, under the present law. But at the same time, he might state to the House, that before the close of the Session, it was his intention, on the part of Government, to ask for leave to introduce a Registration bill, with the view, not of passing it this Session, but of merely laying it on the Table of the House, so that it might be proceeded with in the commencement of the next Session, and be passed, if agreed to, before the 20th of June, the day on which it must become law to be of effect next year.

said, he supposed that after what had been said the other evening the House was not to expect an Irish registration measure, until the English bill had been disposed of.

said, that Government was not prepared to introduce any measure as to Irish registration this Session.

As there was no other opportunity, he must now call the attention of the House to the state of the gold coinage, and to the proclamation issued by her Majesty's Government, by which that coinage had been affected. He was about to do it perfectly in order, and in conformity, he believed, with the strict rules of the House, by stating it as the ground of his objection to the reading of the Order of the Day, that whilst such a question was agitating the public mind, without any explanation from the Government, it was not proper that any other business should be proceeded with. He was exceedingly glad that there appeared to be no intention on the part of the Government to offer any objections to his taking this course; for, of all things, he should most deprecate a squabble about forms in a matter which ought to be discussed as much as possible without party feeling. He had no desire on the present occasion merely to criminate the Government, though it would certainly be his duty, in conformity with his opinion on this subject, to state his disapproval of the conduct which they had pursued, and to state the grounds on which he deemed that conduct improper. He hoped the House would bear with him patiently, as this was a matter of deep moment to the whole community, and, above all, to the poorest classes in the community. He heard the other day, when the hon. Member for Essex talked about the poor not being willing to take gold, that it caused a laugh, as if the idea of a poor man receiving or refusing gold could not be entertained without ridicule. The fact was, that the gold coin was required for all the small daily and weekly payments of the country above 20s., these payments being habitually made in gold. In this metropolis a vast proportion of the working classes received more than 20s. of weekly wages on Saturday in gold. Wages even of 10s. were paid in gold. The matter affected chiefly the working classes and the retail traders. The payments of the rich were made chiefly in bank notes, and by checks on the banker, credit in a great measure superseding with them the use of gold. But upon those engaged in petty retail business the weight, in great part of such a change as this fell. Now, he thought it necessary to state very distinctly what it was he complained of in the conduct of the Government, what was the nature of the proclamation, and what, as it struck him, were its effects. On the 3rd of June her Majesty's Government, without any previous notice, preparing the public mind, issued a proclamation, warning the public, that there was a great quantity of light gold in circulation, calling on the officers of the Government to enforce the law with respect to clipping and defacing the coin, and calling on her Majesty's subjects, generally, to do the same. There was no statement made in that proclamation of what was the law of cutting and defacing bad coin. It was vaguely referred to small retail traders of this metropolis, to a man with a tripe shop in Whitechapel, or to a baker in Tothil-street, to consider what the law was. When the House came to consider what the law was, they would find it was one which might lead them into very serious errors; which would make them, and not the counterfeiters of money, the sufferers—and it would appear questionable, whether the proclamation did not recommend a rather improper course to be taken. The proclamation was general and directed against the whole gold coin of the country. It was since understood that it applied specifically to the coin of the reign of George 3rd and George 4th. The effect, however, was to discredit the whole gold coinage of those reigns. Nobody could, after that proclamation, safely take those coins, as they had been taken for twenty-five years, merely by number, on the supposition that the impression was proof, not only of the fineness, but also of the weight. Every one was reduced to the necessity of taking them by weight. The effect must be that gold coin would be paid in in large sums to the Bank of England and to the Government officers authorised to receive it. It would drive the whole of that money out of circuculation, and, in fact, the proclamation amounted to a calling-in of the gold coinage of the reigns of George 3rd and George 4th. As that was done because the coin was depreciated, the loss of the depreciation would fall on those who were holders of the coin on the 3rd of June, when the proclamation was issued. Those persons were, as he had said, chiefly the poorer retail tradesmen, and a great many of the working classes. Now, in the first place, it appeared to him, upon every general principle, utterly improper that this loss should fall on the accidental holders of the coin. What was the cause of the deficiency of weight? They had heard a great many stories of plugging and sweating, and other processes by which the coin had been worn down. But he believed, the general opinion among all persons of authority on the subject was, that at present, though there had been some frauds on the gold coin, the principal deficiency was occasioned by wear and tear during twenty-five years circulation. It was monstrous, that such a loss should fall upon the accidental holder. Was it the fault of the accidental holder on the 3rd of June, that the coin had been reduced in twenty-five years of wearing? How could they know of the mischief that had been going on for that twenty-five years. They had committed no fault in the matter, and there was no justice in making the punishment fall on them? What was the good of it? Compare the infliction of this loss with other penalties. Whom would it deter? Would it deter the persons who played tricks with the coin—who plugged and deteriorated it—would they be deterred by the loss of the accidental holder? The persons who played those tricks with the coin always took care to get it as soon as possible out of their possession, and they were certain not to be injured. The person who damaged the coin would get rid of it at once, to prevent discovery. Therefore, the loss would fall almost entirely on the innocent, and it could have no good effect in deterring people from the commission of the offence. It was a loss very heavy to be borne by the individuals who held the deteriorated coin, while the amount would have been little felt if it had been suffered to fall on the public. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them, that the average depreciation was 3d. in the sovereign, or about one-and-a-half per cent. It appeared, that there were about 6,000,000 of deteriorated sovereigns in the country, and the loss on them at one-and-a-half per cent, amounted to 90,000l. —a sum which he would not wish to see squandered away—but a sum very light for this country to pay for so great an object, as that of avoiding any doubt about the goodness of the coin of the realm. After all, this question was not to be argued as a matter of strict right between the public and individuals. The Government could not turn round upon individuals and tell them, "You have no law on your side, and we will take the utmost advantage we can against you." The custom of talking of the Government as one individual, and the whole community as another, did not justify the enforcement of the extreme rights of the former against the latter. The present was a question of policy. It was a question as to the party upon whom the loss might most conveniently fall; and he said, upon every ground of justice and expediency, it ought to be borne by the Government, as the representative of the public, and not on the individual holders of the coin. In impugning the plan adopted by the Government, he would not hesitate to state the course which he thought ought to have been adopted. In the first place, he wished to impress on the House that he was not condemning the course which the Government had taken upon any new-fangled notions of his own, but in accordance with every precedent at every period of our history, and every principle which had been laid down by the first Ministers of the Crown in this country, who had been always anxious to spare the public loss attendant upon renewals of the coinage. He ventured to say, that he could prove this distinctly from the course pursued by Parliament with respect to every re-coinage which had taken place since the Revolution. In every period of our history, a distinction had been made by Government between the loss occasioned by reasonable wear, and that caused by other means. The Government in every case, since the time of Elizabeth, and he believed since Henry 8th, specially exempted from loss those who held coin that was depreciated by reasonable wear. The 19th of Henry 7th, made this distinction between loss from reasonable wear, and that caused by clipping or otherwise diminishing the coin. The 29th of Elizabeth likewise enacted, that an abatement should be made for reasonable wear, and the amount was determined which was considered likely to be produced by reasonable wear. Various subsequent proclamations, down to the time of William 3rd, were issued on the same principle. There was a curious instance of the allowance for reasonable wear, contrasted with the course pursued by the Government on the present occasion. He found in the very last case, in which reasonable wear had been defined, and it was exactly the amount of depreciation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had lately stated to have taken place. The royal proclamation of the 12th of April, 1776, issued at the time of the re-coinage of the gold currency, ordered gold coins to be current, though diminished by reasonable wear; and the amount allowed for reasonable wear was 1 l-10th per cent, or something near the present depreciation. The 14th of George 3rd, passed about the same time, made the same distinction in favour of deficiency from reasonable wear. He must say, that when her Majesty's Government issued orders to the officers of the revenue to cut and deface every sovereign and half sovereign which they might find light, they made their officers incur some peril; for, if they made any mistake in the weight, they would have had to pay the holders of such coin for the loss. A law, passed in 1832, enacted when gold or silver coin was tendered, which was suspected to have been diminished otherwise than by reasonable wear, the person to whom it was tendered, might cut, break, or otherwise deface it; but if the piece of coin so treated were found afterwards of due weight, the person cutting or defacing it was to receive it at the rate which it had been coined for. This enactment might have thrown the loss of coin, only diminished by reasonable wear, upon those who ventured to cut or deface them. But what was much more important, and what he wanted to point out to the House, from the whole history of the coinage of this country since the Revolution was, that in all cases where the old coinage was called in, and fresh coinage issued, that the deficiency had been borne by the public, and not by the individual holders. He had not found any precedent of a contrary nature, and he ventured to say that those which he could produce were perfectly decisive as to the principle which had been acted upon by the different Governments since the Revolution. We had, since that period, had three great re-coinages in this country. The first was in the time of William 3rd, in 1696, and in reference to that he would read an extract from Lord Liverpool's work on the coinage, which was allowed to be a work of standard authority. The hon. Gentleman read the extract, in which Lord Liverpool said that the Government bore all the loss of that transaction. He had never been able to obtain an account of the loss incurred by the deficiency of the old silver coinage, and the charges of the Mint for re-coinage, but that deficiency was enormous. The nation was then in the utmost distress and confusion, and the people were willing that any amount should be paid out of the public purse to relieve them from the difficulties and embarrassments which they were suffering in ordinary commercial intercourse. Such was the statement. Now, he readily agreed that the precedent of William 3rd was not one to be copied. At that time the Mint was ill-managed; and the business was not well done in spite of all the care of the Government. There was no doubt that while the old coinage was being called in, the practice of clipping went on, and the public was grossly cheated. But on account of the losses which the public thus sustained, did the Government of this country, on the next occasion of re-coinage, say that the whole loss should fall on the innocent holders of coin? The next great re-coinage was in 1774. What the deficiency on that occasion was, Lord Liverpool said would appear from the book of the Treasury. It was impossible to get at those books, excepting, perhaps, by moving that they should be printed for the use of Members, which would be rather expensive. The plan adopted by the Government on that occasion would be best seen from certain resolutions adopted by the House of Commons, to which be begged leave to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were as follows:—

"That the said guineas, half guineas, and quarter guineas, be called in by degrees: and that it is proper to proceed therein as fast as the occasions of circulation will allow, and as the officers of the Mint are able to re-coin the same. That, for the purpose of calling in the said guineas, half guineas, and quarter guineas, it is proper that certain days be appointed, after which they shall not be allowed in payment, or to pass, except only to the collectors and receivers of the public revenues, or to such persons as shall be appointed by his Majesty to receive and exchange the same; and that certain other days be appointed, after which they be not allowed to pass in any payment whatsoever, or to be exchanged in manner before-mentioned. That all such guineas half guineas, and quarter guineas, be re-coined according to the established standard Of the Mint, both as to weight and fineness."

These were the specific provisions for calling in the old coin and re-coining it. And upon whom was the loss to fall? The 9th resolution was as follows: —

"That the public bear the loss arising from the deficiency and re-coinage of the said guineas, half guineas, and quarter guineas, provided such deficiency does not exceed the rates settled by the order of the commissioners of his Majesty'a Treasury, of the 23rd of July last, and provided they be offered in payment to the receivers or collectors of the public revenue, or are brought to such person or persons as shall be authorised to receive and exchange the same, within the times to be appointed according to the foregoing resolutions."

There was thus a specific undertaking by the Government of the country, that it should bear the whole loss of the re-coinage. He had not been able to make out the amount, and Lord Liverpool said he could not ascertain how much it was. But he found in Macpherson's "Annals of Commerce," that in the estimates for 1774 there was a sum of charged for making good the deficiency of the coinage, and that was separate from all expense of the re-coinage. It was the deficiency occasioned by the light weight of the guineas. In 1777 he found a further sum of 105,000l. for deficiency and for re-coinage; so that supposing the two sums to represent the whole expense, it would be 151,000l. The next great instance of re-coinage was that of silver in 1816. There was no gold coinage at that time, for a very sufficient reason, that there was no gold to re-coin. In the year 1816 the silver coinage was more depreciated than was ever known before. The Government determined to call it all in and re-coin it. Did they adopt the views of the present Government, that the holders should bear the loss? They did no such thing. It was provided that the loss should fall on the public funds of the country. The amount of silver coin called in on that occasion was 2,500,000l. It was stated by Lord Liverpool, in his speech on the subject, that the depreciation on that coinage was no less than 30 per cent. The sixpence was, in most cases, not worth more than 3½d. Taking the deficiency at 30 per cent., the loss on 2,500,000l. was 750,000l. That loss was borne by the public in 1816. He had now the advantage of speaking to a Conservative Government who venerated the wisdom of the past, and the principles laid down by former Tory Mi- nisters. He could not, therefore, do better than read to them the principle on which Lord Liverpool said the Government proceeded on that occasion. In his speech to the House of Lords in May, 1816, he said:—

"With regard to indemnity, he felt disposed to propose, and he was sure the House would feel disposed to adopt, the most liberal principles. Their Lordships were aware that when a new coinage was issued in other countries and the old currency called in, the Government received the deteriorated money from the holders of it by weight, and not by tale; so that the public incurred the loss that accrued from the wearing or clipping of it when in circulation. It became the Government and Legislature of this country to be more liberal."

This was before the Reform Bill. Well, what did he propose?—

"He proposed, therefore, that all the silver Which could be considered as legal tender, by having the proper marks, should be received at its current value when called in."

The same principle was laid down by another great authority, who might have been consulted before the late proclamation was so rashly issued—he meant Lord Maryborough, who, as Mr. Wellesley Pole, introduced the subject to the House of Commons in May, 1816, and said:—

"The public had for a very long series of years been left Without any regular supply of silver coinage; the consequence was, that the coin of the realm, by wearing and the various accidents to which time infallibly renders the precious metals liable, must be very much reduced in its value; and yet the people had no alternative but to receive it in circulation. It Would, therefore, be an extreme hardship to allow them to suffer for What might be called the fault of Government. He should therefore feel it his duty to propose the exchange of all the coin of the realm in circulation, however reduced it might be in weight."

This, be It observed, was said when the reduction Was far greater than l½ per cent. Mr. Wellesley Pole added:—

"But while, on the one hand, he was anxious to preserve the public from so heavy a loss, he was, On the other, equally desirous that Individuals, particularly those of the poorer classes, should suffer as little as possible. It was, he feared, however, quite impossible to prevent many persons from sustaining a loss from the calling in of the old coin; all that Government could do was to make the burden as light as possible."

Thus at that time every man who had a shilling with any mark upon it of having come from the Mint, might present it to persons who were appointed in thousands through the country for the purpose, and receive a perfectly new coin in return. Possibly her Majesty's Government might make out that all this told against him. They might say that the operation of Lord Liverpool in 1816 was an example to deter rather than a precedent to be followed; that it was proper to adopt an entirely new course, instead of following the example of the Tory Government of that time. He would only say, that to the principle of that Government the objection was fifteen times as strong then as it was now, because the deficiency as then fifteen times as great. It might be said that the Government of 1816 did not pursue the same course with respect to the gold coinage. It should be remembered that upon the first issue of the present sovereigns and half-sovereigns, there were no sovereigns to call in. The coinage of gold at that time could not be drawn into a precedent. It was not are-coinage, but an entirely new coinage. There was no old gold to be sent in. The whole amount of gold in the country, in 1816, was about half a million. A report of the House of Lords of that time, states there was in the Bank about50,000,000 in notes and silver, leaving gold out of consideration as being of so little importance. The fact was, therefore, that no allowance was made for gold, because there was no gold to make allowance for. He said that in condemning the course of the Government he would point out that which he thought ought to have been taken. He thought they ought to have adopted, as nearly as possible, the course pursued by former Governments with respect to re-coinage. He knew the objection which would be made—that if Government said they would call in the coin on a certain day, receiving by tale and not by weight, good sovereigns and light ones indiscriminately, all the fraudulent practices of cutting, clipping, and sweating, would come into full operation. But might not the Government have avoided this by taking some time about the measure, and by proceeding without making what they were doing public? Granted that the depreciation of the coin was an evil, and that the Government was bound to put a stop to it, the evil did not require to be stopped in a moment. It was not an evil until it became generally known. What made the depreciation now so intolerable was the Government declaring that the coin was light. This alarmed everybody, and gave rise to the utter discredit of the gold coin at the present moment. Suppose the Government had said to the Bank of England, "Whenever you receive a light sovereign—a sovereign not depreciated by more than 1½per cent., take it, and we will give you a good sovereign for it." The light gold would have been gradually got in, and the whole loss to the Government would have been about 90,000l., as he said before. It might have taken two or three years to get in the old coinage in this way. Sovereigns depreciated more than 1½per cent. might be refused. The public would thus learn that a very small quantity of the gold coinage was below weight, and fraudulent persons would find that they would gain nothing by deteriorating the coin below the amount he had stated. It would be said that some time hence the same thing would be to do over again, for the same frauds would be practised with this new coin. He really believed that the Government of this country, if they took pains, might adopt some mechanical precautions which would prevent abrasion of the coin, at least to the extent now complained of. But, granting that the process which he had described would have to be repeated ten or twenty years hence, would not the payment of 90,000l. every ten or twenty years be a small evil in comparison of the evil of discrediting the whole gold coin of the country? It might be that many hon. Gentlemen would not go along with him in saying, that the whole loss in cases of this kind ought to be borne by the Government—they might not agree with him as to the propriety of following the precedents of former times, in calling-in the gold coinage and issuing new coin in its place, the Government bearing the loss. However, he came now to the measure taken by the Government—he came to the mode and circumstances under which the proclamation had been issued, and he asked the House whether there ever was a measure of such importance taken with so little precaution? Why, the Government seemed to have issued the proclamation as one of the most ordinary things in the world, about which it was not necessary to communicate with anybody. There was not a word of explanation to Parliament or to the country, but, without notice, the whole gold coin of the country was discredited. People were all at once sent to weighing the sovereigns before they could take them, and without a word of explanation from the Government. He knew that a measure of this kind made the public more cautious about taking money. What greater evil could there be than rendering the whole of the public cautious about money. What was the advantage of coined money? Confidence, and the facility of exchange which flowed from it. This excessive caution did away with the very advantages of coined money. It was driving men to the use of gold and silver bars. Look at the multiplication of doubts and uncertainties to which the distrust of the coin led in commercial transactions. Consider the loss of time and the inconvenience which it caused to the industrious classes. If this extreme caution continued, we should be driven to some of the practices which prevailed in the middle ages, and Gentlemen who had to receive money would have to go about, as the Jews did of old, with scales in their breasts, and pull them out every time that sovereigns were offered in payment. People were not sensible of these evils, having experienced nothing of the kind for the last twenty-five years. For twenty-five years such a thing as weighing sovereigns in the ordinary course of business had been hardly known, and the people had either forgotten or never knew the enormous evils occasioned by it. One of the things which gave him most alarm was the expression of an opinion in some quarters that the only remedy for the great evil of a light gold coinage was the return of the "good old one-pound notes." It was thought by some that that would place the currency on a sound footing. For his part, he dreaded nothing so much as the restoration of the one-pound notes; and he thought that Parliament should not, without extreme deliberation, come to such a remedy as that. Let them, he said, look to the precautions that had been taken in 1776. The matter had been going on for two or three years before it was finally determined. In 1773 an act was passed; in the next year it was mentioned in the King's Speech. There were debates on the subject. For two successive years there were debates in Parliament on the same matter; so that the public mind was perfectly prepared for a change in the gold coinage. In 1816, too, when the matter was before Parliament, it was found that everything was prepared before anything was done. Let them, he said, mark the precautions that had been taken at that time. The old coin was not rashly called in, but the public was perfectly prepared, first, by the debates that took place on the measure previous to its adoption; and next, what was still better, on the change occurring, by a good silver coinage being ready to be issued. Mr. Wellesley Pole, in the speech to which he had before referred, showed that every precaution had been taken—he declared that nothing had been done with the old coinage until the new was ready—that no proclamation was issued until then, and even went so far as to apologise for the delay that had taken place, showing that Government was obliged, for the purpose of having this new coinage to come to Parliament for an act to enable them to issue it; otherwise Mr. Wellesley Pole said, that the new coinage would have been ready. He was himself old enough to recollect what had then happened with regard to the coinage, and that then every one received a new shilling for the old one he delivered in. No loss was then sustained by the public. And now, he asked, what had the present Government done? They had no new coinage to supply the place of the old; they had no preparatory measures adopted. They had not even adopted proper precautions to meet the wants of individuals; they had no certain places fixed, where parties might deliver in the old coinage and get new coinage in its place, supposing that the individuals were to bear the loss. Supposing it to be right that the individual should bear the loss, still he ought to have a new coinage in place of the old. How was the difficulty now created to be met, but by substituting a new coinage for the old? What had the Government been doing? Nothing in order to provide a substitute for the old coinage, except publishing a recent proclamation for the issue of half-farthings. That was the new coinage of the Government. The Government seemed to know the wants of the people. Knowing the diminution of the circulation; knowing how moderate were their means, and how impoverished their circumstances, a proclamation was issued for a coinage which would enable them to make very little payments. But then there was another proclamation, stating that certain sums of money would be changed—though only very large sums. The Chancellor of the Exchequer never ventured to suppose that there could be a man who had only a sovereign, or half a sovereign. No, he could not believe there was such a thing, and therefore he took the precaution that the holders of fifty sovereigns might, at a stated place in the Bank, find persons ready to buy his fifty sovereigns from him. But for any sum below that there were no means of having it changed. He was quite astonished at the very cavalier way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated this matter when the subject was before mentioned to him; for then it seemed to occur very suddenly to him, and as if for the first time in his life, that a man might have at his command a less sum than fifty sovereigns; and then the right hon. Gentleman said he would try whether he could not discover some method for taking smaller sums. Gentlemen opposite had put their heads together, and they actually devised a plan by which a man having twenty sovereigns could now go to the Bank and have them changed. But there was another matter, in which the carelessness of the Government was still more extraordinary, and much more culpable. If the holder of light coin was to be at the entire loss, then it should have been only the legitimate and the actual loss that ought to have been imposed upon him. It was the duty of a wise Government to take care, when they issued such an alarming proclamation— one that announced that the sovereigns and half-sovereigns then in circulation were light—at least to have told the people the average amount of the depreciation. If the right hon. Gentleman had said in his proclamation what he said to the hon. Member for Malton last week—that the average deficiency was 1 and 1½per cent.—how many poor persons would have been saved from being cheated of their fair earnings. It was the part of the Government to have done this. The Government told the public that the coin was depreciated, but not how much—and what was the consequence? The week before last, the poor man was left completely at the mercy of the shopkeepers. It was almost incredible the amount of fraud committed— all of which was caused by the carelessness of the Government. The fraud was in truth quite frightful. He had heard in Pimlico of several instances in which the wages of women—ten shillings a week—a shilling Was stopped; and in the wages of men— a sovereign a week—2s. were stopped— that was 10 per cent. out of the earnings of the poor. What must it have been When houses in town stopped 6d.out of every sovereign! There was hardly a shopkeeper who did not stop twice the amount that he ought to have deducted. In many cases shopkeepers made a merit of only stopping 3d. out of every sovereign, which was about three times the amount that ought to be taken. To show them the way, the intricate way in which the fraud was carried on, he should mention that which had been told to him since he came into the House. An employer sent to the Bank for money; he got sovereigns for the purpose of paying his men with them; the workmen took the sovereigns, which were Weighed at the Bank, and could have been So proved by the person who brought them, as being full weight: and yet the tradesmen to whom they were brought all refused to take them except with the deduction of 6d. There was, in truth, no knowing the extent to which this fraud had been carried. Now, what ought the Government to have done when they came out at once upon the public to tell them that the coin Was depreciated? They Ought to have said, "We mean that you should bear the loss, but the loss is only to such an amount, and if any one seeks to make you suffer a greater, he is attempting to cheat you." The Government did hot do this. They only told the public in vague terms that the coin was depreciated and then they left to the mercy of the fraudulent the poorest persons in the community, who happened to be the holders. The losses incurred and the frauds that had taken place, he said, were to be attributed to the carelessness of the Government. It was mentioned very generally out of doors, that all the time that the Bank was refusing to take light sovereigns it Was issuing light sovereigns. It was said, that people going to the Bank and paying Fight sovereigns, a deduction was made: that a man receiving sovereigns in One part of the Bank and going to make at payment With the same sovereigns to another part of the Bank, they were declared to be light, and rejected. In many cases, too, it Was mentioned, that when the Bank paid sovereigns, it frequently happened, afterwards, when they were weighed, that they were found wanting. It had, too, been mentioned that it was the Bank that had urged the Government to adopt this plan with respect to the coinage. It was, he thought, really too bad that a public body while it refused bad money with one hand should be issuing bad money with the other. He thought it right to bring this matter formally before the House, because a very great loss had been inflicted on the country, and he might well ask what period was chosen by the Government for inflicting upon the country the mischief of a discredited currency? It was a period of the most unexampled distress—a period when, from other causes, trade and commerce were never so much paralysed—when the labourer could obtain little employment and less remuneration —a period of much greater affliction than was known of in the history of their country. He should have thought that the course of a wise Government, knowing the unavoilable pressure which there was upon the public from other causes, would have been to be exceedingly cautious, and not to do anything that could add a further burden to that which weighed the public down. They might assuredly have waited, and they ought to have adopted every precaution, in order that the blow might fall as lightly as possible upon the public. He knew not to what cause to attribute this carelessness in the Government. He knew that the right hon. Baronet was regarded as the father of the acts of the Government; but yet he did not know that they were to fix the blame of this on him. There was, to be sure, his right hon. Friend the Master of the Mint; but then that Gentleman was very usefully employed in the public service as Vice-President of the Board of Trade; and he supposed the Atlantean double duties were more than his Herculean shoulders were able to bear. He supposed that the zeal of his right hon. Friend in the one department did not permit him to have any leisure for the other. As Vice-President of the Board of Trade, his right hon. Friend had the tariff to concoct —he had to meet deputations, and to get rid of them—-and then he had to come down to that House, and to defend every article in the tariff, which Gentlemen might be assured was no light task, because he had to prove to those sitting on the Opposition benches that what he proposed to do would be a great advantage to the consumer; and then he had to turn to those on the Ministerial benches and to convince them that those reductions he was proposing to make would occasion no reduction at all. Under all these circumstances, he said, that such was the mischief occasioned by his right hon. Friend being so much engaged, that he wished to God he had let the burden of the tariff be shared by others; because, he ventured to say, wonderful and admirable as the tariff was, that there was inflicted more harm upon the poor people by the loss on the coinage, in one fortnight, than the tariff would make up to them in the course of a whole year. He assured the Government that his object was not merely to incriminate them for what had occurred; he had another object in view; because he should be most satisfied if they could come forward and explain the reasons (that which they had not yet done) for this sudden and unexpected act. He might be allowed to remind Gentlemen and the public, that this was not a time, when a Government would take the high course of following out their own ideas, of doing that which might involve the best interests and deal out injury to the great classes of the community, without their vouchsafing to give to the public the grounds for the course they had taken, and that they had deemed it proper to adopt. The working classes were not, at at the present moment, in a humour to be trifled with in this manner. They were intelligent; they were in some degree suspicious of the manner in which their rights were dealt with; and it would not be sufficient to tell them merely that what was done was the simple act of authority. Never was there a period when a full explanation on the part of the Government could be made to the good sense of the community with a greater certainty of producing a good effect. If the Government would show that there was no trifling, and no careless interference with the interests of the public—if the Government could show that its acts were taken with a view to the welfare of the community— then they might be sure that the people, whatever were their sufferings, would be content, since they were convinced that a wise and just course had been pursued. If the right hon. Gentlemen could give a satisfactory explanation, which he hoped he could do—if the right hon. Gentleman could show that, the conduct of the Government was wise, and founded on sound principles—if he could show that the Government had consulted the best interests of the public—if the right hon. Gentleman could show that what he himself had done was proper—and if the right hon. Gentleman could show that he was unjust when he charged him with a want of precaution, there was no one who should more sincerely rejoice in this than himself; and he thought that he was doing the Government great service when he enabled the right hon. Gentleman to give such an explanation. If, on the contrary, the Government should fail in making out a defence, then he maintained he was doing a good service to that House by showing that, however poor or however helpless people might be who suffered from the conduct of the Government, there were those in that House who felt a sympathy for their sufferings, and who would not permit them to be ill-treated without seeking at least to procure for them redress.

in replying to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, had to ask for the indulgence of the House, though he thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman, in bringing this question forward when it was not intended as the immediate topic of the evening, had adopted a course which, if generally followed, would be found most inconvenient. They would be hearing speeches on the Order of the Day, having no reference to what was the business they had met to discuss, and must only cause that business to be postponed to an indefinite period. He promised to confine himself to the subject which the hon. and learned Gentleman had discussed, — and not to delay the House one moment longer than was necessary to reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman had complained of the measures taken to withdraw from circulation a portion of the gold coin which was not of the current value. The House ought to bear in mind what was the the state of the law on this subject. The principle laid down by the law was, that when gold coin was reduced under a certain weight, it was to be no longer a legal tender—no person could be compelled to take it—and the person who so took it, could not compel another to take it at the value of the coin current of the country. It followed, therefore, that when there was a considerable portion of the geld coin deficient in weight, it was not a legal ten- der in payment—it might be refused; and it could not be an advantage either to the poor or the rich, to have such a circulating medium amongst them. On the contrary, it must be injurious to every one connected with land, trade, or manufactures. He was quite ready to admit the inconvenience, and when he stated the inconvenience, he did not undervalue the inconvenience which every measure that might be adopted with regard to the current coin of the realm must occasion. It was impossible for human ingenuity to devise a plan by which these changes, as to the coinage, must not press more or less upon society, and necessarily it must do so most on the lowest orders in society, because they were the most easily deceived by those disposed to make a profit of their ignorance. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them of the evils that had followed from the proclamation with respect to the depreciated coinage; but let them see what would have been the consequence if some measure were not taken to resist the progress of this depreciation. He was quite ready to admit, that it would be far more for the advantage of every interest in society if the public were more frequently warned, from time to time, as to what was the exact state of the coinage. He took some blame to himself, that when he was in the Home Office he had not communicated to the public, by proclamation, the provision of the law in this respect. He thought it unfortunate at a subsequent period, when a quantity of light coinage was in circulation, that some measure to the same effect had not been taken. But then it was said, that this was not the particular moment at which the proclamation ought to have been issued. It was very possible that the moment of distress was not that at which the evil of the depreciated coin, they could best apply the remedy so as to produce the least inconvenience; but then, if they admitted that it would be more advisable that the public should from time to time be reminded that coin under a certain weight was not a legal tender, then they must admit, that for a longer period to allow the evil to grow greater and more intolerable, was not the mode which the Government could best adopt to save the people from loss and inconveoience. The evil and the pressure of the evil must be always in the proportion that the light coin bore to the whole coin in circulation. If they were to allow the light coin to circulate, the evil would considerably increase, and the quantity of light coin would be considerably magnified. When the circulation of the coin was healthy, there was but little temptation to use fraudulent means with respect to it; for then the light coin could be easily detected; but when a considerable portion of the coin became light, nothing could be more easy than to reduce the weight of the good coin, and make a profit by the deterioration. Under these circumstances it was necessary for the Government to take the earliest possible measure to withdraw the light coin from circulation. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained that no measures had been taken to let the public know, before the proclamation was issued, that a large portion of the gold coin was under the weight required by law. He said, that it was a matter neither known to Parliament or the public. He believed there was no man engaged in any branch of the public service who was not aware that a portion of the gold coin was of diminished weight. It had been brought distinctly before the committee on the banks of issue. The country banks complained that there was a refusal on the part of the Bank of England to take the light coin from them, and that it exposed them to considerable risk. If that coin were not to be taken in discharge of their obligations—if it were not a legal tender, it followed, that the banks were exposed to a considerable risk, and might lead to consequences which would affect all connected with the country banks. This had been stated distinctly before the committee on the banks of issue. The Bank had made repeated communications to the Government of this growing evil; and when he entered into office he had had repeated communications, not merely from the Bank of England, but he could truly affirm, that communications had been made to the Government by banks in the country, of the greatest respectability, and the most conversant with the monetary system, all complaining of the evils which this light coinage was inflicting upon the trade and the interests of the community. The evil was generally complained of. As far as the Bank was concerned, the law had been strictly adhered to. It had neither issued nor received sovereigns, except they were of full weight. Some branches of the revenue acted in the same manner. Though there might not be a general weighing of the coin, yet the conduct of the public departments was well known to every private banker. There was the constant indication that no coin would be received below the weight authorised by law. Under these circumstances his right hon. Friend had judged it right that measures should be taken to withdraw the light coin from circulation, and it was the more necessary to do this because he must beg the House to observe that the measure was one that could not be taken at every moment. The hon. Gentleman said, why not defer it for a longer period? The evil, he said, would be but the more aggravated by the addition which the intervening period would give to the amount of depreciated gold coinage. He found that the quantity of gold was increasing in the country; that the period was one when the light coin could be withdrawn with the least possible inconvenience. This might be done now; but the next year, or the year after next, the exchanges might take a different turn. The evil was now great; but if not checked, it would grow with an aggravated velocity. When he saw this, it was his duty to take measures of security, and not to permit the evil to proceed until it could not be borne any longer. These were the reasons why the present measure was adopted; but then the hon. and learned Gentleman said, in doing this, that the measure adopted was entirely at variance with former precedents. The hon. and learned Gentleman had gone through a number of precedents from a very early period, and said that he thought the present Government would at least have followed those precedents, from its veneration and respect for those who had set them. Now he must say that the hon. and learned Gentleman had selected his precedents with peculiar infelicity. So far as these precedents bore upon the conduct of the present Government, they were directly of the opposite tendency to what the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed. He did not mean to go so far back as Henry 7th. He meant to content himself with going to the precedents set in modern times. First, he took the precedent set of the silver coinage in 1816. The hon. and learned Gentleman's precedent was exclusively confined to the silver coinage. The hon. and learned Gentleman had re- ferred to what was done in 1816, when Lord Liverpool and Mr. Wellesley Pole were First Lord of the Treasury and Master of the Mint. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that an arrangement had then been made for a distribution throughout the country, for the purpose of giving new coin instead of the old coin. Then, the arrangement was made that the public should bear no loss. Now he had to call to recollection that the principle on which the gold and silver coinage was established was totally distinct. The silver was a mere "token." The Government had a large profit on it, by the seignorage, and it would be most urgent that it should not exchange the old tokens, on which it had made a profit, for the new. He next came to the period of 1773 and following years. He could tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that the course then pursued was, in effect, though not in terms, that now adopted. It was noticed in a proclamation that the coin was under a certain weight; what was its Mint price, and what the deductions to the public? The coinage called in was taken at 3l. 17s.10½d., instead of at a lower rate, which the gold might only produce in the market. The effect of the proclamation was to divide the loss between the holder of the coin and the public, and to make each proportion bear the loss. In 1773 and the following year that principle was laid down and acted upon. Now he thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman must see from the account itself that when the amount of this changing of the coinage was set down at 157,000l., that of the whole loss the largest proportion must have fallen upon the holders of the coin. When they calculated what was the mere expense of re-coining, they must see that but little remained as an equivalent for the diminution of the weight. The difference between the cases of the year 1775 and the present time was this, that at the former period the deterioration in the coinage was universal. It was not a partial, but a general deterioration, and it was to avoid placing ourselves in the situation in which we then stood—a situation which the hon. Gentleman who had read Lord Liverpool's treatise upon the subject, must be well aware was one pregnant with evil, and it was for this purpose that it was determined to withdraw that portion of the coin which was below the proper value from the circulation of the country. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the mode in which Government had dealt with the question was a most objectionable one. He complained of the proclamation as having given a too hasty and abrupt notice to the public, and as taking it by surprise. He should be glad—for no man less wished to surprise the public than he did—he should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would tell him how he could give a notice which would not take the public by surprise. If he had whispered to the hon. Gentleman in confidence that there was a large portion of ' the current coin of the realm extremely light, and if he had added an injunction not to mention the fact to any body, he very much doubted, despite the high opinion which he entertained of the discretion of the hon. gentleman, whether the whole matter would not be published the next day in the newspapers and proclaimed at Cha-ring-cross, coupled with an intimation of all the evils which a light currency would tend to produce, and, in addition, a hint that he should have lost the confidence of the public for not having taken effectual means for remedying the progress of the evil. The best way was to deal openly and straight-forwardly. They could not make confidential communications to individuals as to the state of the coinage, which, if it were allowed to go on, would fall heavily on that very class which he was most anxious to protect; for if there was one class which suffered more from the coin of the realm being depreciated, than any other, it was that involving the humbler orders of the community. That class was at present suffering under pressure it was true, a pressure which could only be justified by saying that it necessarily took place in consequence of the dishonesty of certain persons, and by arguing that the light coinage, was an evil which, if permitted to go on, would get beyond all the remedies which the Government could apply to it. But the hon. Gentleman had stated that he had a plan by which the object could be effected in a better manner than it had been by the plan of the Government. His method, as he understood it, was this, that to all the towns throughout the country a large amount of gold should be sent down, with an announcement that on certain days, or up to a certain time, light sovereigns would be exchanged for those of the genuine weight. Now, what would be the effect of this? It would impose on the public a most enormous charge, which would operate in its reflux upon the class now principally suffering, by imposing on them a heavy amount of taxation, in order to provide for that loss which would ensue, if, when a portion of the coinage only was light, arrangements should be made for exchanging the whole. He had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the Bank should have been directed to take sovereigns of a certain weight as if they were genuine legal tenders. This was to be confidential. But if the Bank did so, he feared there were certain gentlemen in the city of London who were skilful enough in the mode of reducing the coin to the value at which the Bank was to accept it, to render it pretty certain that were such a plan adopted, they would have to exchange many new sovereigns, because they had undergone the operation—an operation which, he could tell the hon. Gentleman, was much more skilfully and easily performed now than in former times. The progress which had been made in chemistry and mechanical science could be brought to bear against, as well as in favour, of the public interests, and not only would every sovereign be exchanged for new, but the new issue would as speedily be reduced and returned, so that the cost falling on the public would be actually indefinite. That was the reason why he should object to the plan of the hon. Gentleman, and he could not but think that had he adopted that plan, be should have had objections urged against it more strong than any which had been alleged against that of the Government. He sincerely regretted that persons had taken the opportunity of imposing on the public in this matter—he regretted that there were persons who had not been contented with asking for a reduction on light sovereigns, but had absolutely refused to take sovereigns of the legal weight without making a deduction from the amount. Such a course was at variance with the law, and it was advisable that the public should know that those who did refuse the current coin of the realm, of legal weight, rendered themselves amenable to the law, and liable to imprisonment. This was a piece of information which he was happy to have the opportunity of stating in the House, because, as far as regarded that part of the evil, he hoped that his statement would put an end to it. With respect to the other portion of the evil, arrangements were on foot to enable those who held light coin, in all cases to obtain the full value; and from all he had heard, he had reason to believe that the evil had considerably subsided, and that the public, understanding the real value of the coin which they held, were generally receiving the amount of the Mint price for defective coin. He did not believe that it would be necessary for him to proceed more at length in answer to the objections of the hon. Gentleman. He was quite aware that under whatever arrangements a withdrawal of light coin could be effected, that withdrawal must be attended with cases of individual evil; but he was bound to balance against that evil the individual injury which would ensue if the proportion of light coin were permitted to accumulate, and the evils which it would produce, not only in respect to that class which was at this moment principally suffering, but the injury which such an accumulation would produce to the general trading and commercial interests of the country. Believing, therefore, that by interposing at this moment—at a moment which, from circumstances which he had already stated, was a peculiarly fit time for the withdrawal of the light coin—he had not hesitated in recommending and adopting the measure now before the public, convinced that whatever its pressure might be, the Government had taken all pains to render it as light as possible; that it was a measure of precaution against those greater dangers which Government could not only not overlook, but which it was their bounden duty to prevent. It was on these grounds that the measure in question had been adopted and promulgated to the public; and he had no doubt that after the first pressure had passed away—a pressure the existence of which he deeply deplored—there would be a general feeling that the withdrawal, accompanied as it must be by clear intimations in future from time to time of the state of the law upon the subject, thereby calling the attention of the public to the necessity of weighing coins, he had no doubt, he repeated, that they should experience the benefits of the change, and that they would get rid of that load which pressed so heavily upon the monetary interests of the country.

thought that, under the circumstances, his hon. Friend was quite justified in adopting the course which was open to him of calling the attention of the public to the subject; for, had he adopted another course, he would have been obliged to wait for a committee of supply, or the subject must have been postponed until the object in debating it had passed away. But what was the amount of the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?— what was complained of? If his hon. Friend had undervalued the evils of a light currency—if he had undervalued the importance of a change when it became needful in the currency—if he had said that it was not expedient for the Government to step in and prevent the proportion of light gold from increasing—if his hon. Friend had made any of these assertions, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would have been appropriate; but it was in reality a speech addressed against observations which had never been made to the House. His hon. Friend never under-valued the object of Government—he never said that Government should not interfere. What he did say was this— that the measure having come into operation without notice having been given, and without due provision having been made for' exchanging the coin, that these circumstances proved defects in the plan which had not marked any similar plan of former years; and that, therefore, the Government was chargeable with indolence and carelessness in adopting the plan which they had selected. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the precedents quoted by his hon. Friend were not in point, and that the greater number of these precedents had reference to the silver coin. As respected the latter assertion—granted. Take the case of 1774 and the subsequent years, what were the resolutions of the House?—what was the course adopted by the Government? Was it similar to the course which had lately been taken? It was said that the difference between the cases was, that in the former instance the whole of the gold coinage was deteriorated, but at present only a portion of it was depreciated. He could see no distinction in principle between the two cases, because by discrediting the whole coinage, they created to all practical purposes the evil which then existed, and they were about to take some means to remedy it. In the year 1774 the subject was a matter of discussion in Parliament, resolutions were voted, and a bill was founded on these resolutions. The whole matter came under consideration, and the result was, that it was determined that the loss should be borne by the public. In addition to that, it was described by Lord Liverpool in his treatise as a fundamental principle, that when a change of this sort was necessary, it should be effected at the public expense, and not at the expense of the individuals holding the light coin. It was not their fault that the coin was under weight.—there could be no justice in punishing the last holder. Gold coinage was a great instrument of exchange, and why was the last holder to pay the penalty for all the tear and wear which it had received through a long circulation? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had denied that the House had recognised the expediency of Government sustaining the loss when light sovereigns came to be exchanged. The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that in the 7th resolution, passed in 1774, it was stated:—

"That, for the purpose of calling in the said guineas, half guineas, and quarter guineas, it is proper that certain days be appointed, after which they shall not be allowed in payment, or to pass, except only to the collectors and receivers of the public revenues, or to such persons as shall be appointed by his Majesty to receive and exchange the same; and that certain other days be appointed, after which they be not allowed to pass in any payment whatsoever, or to be exchanged in manner before-mentioned."

And in the 9th resolution it was stated:—

"That the public should bear the loss arising from the deficiency and re-coinage of the said guineas, half-guineas, and quarter-guineas," &c.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had stated that silver coins were merely tokens, and that a great distinction existed between silver and gold coinage, because Government made a profit by the re-coinage of the latter. He could not see the distinction. If the re-coinage of silver yielded Government a profit, and if the gold yielded no profit, why were individuals to pay for the lightness? There was no ground on which the course adopted by the Government could be justified. At former periods, when a necessity for similar changes existed, the Government called in the aid of distinguished men, and asked their advice upon the subject. In the reign of William 3rd, Locke, Halley, and Newton, were consulted. Locke, it was true, stated it to be his opinion, that the individual should bear the loss; but Parliament acted against this opinion, and decided that the public should bear the loss. Therefore, although he must give up the opinion of Locke, he had in his favour that of Parliament recorded against it. In 1774, Sir Joseph Bankes was consulted. Now, gold coin was called in without any previous inquiry being made into the causes of the deficiency in the weight—the whole of the gold coinage was discredited, and not one remedial measure did the Government adopt. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consulted eminent men — if he had come to his conclusions on their authority—if it was admitted, that a deficiency existed—if he had told the House the mode in which he proposed to remedy it—if he had done all that, they would also have done all in their power not only to remedy the existing deficiency, but to prevent the recurrence of such a circumstance. But the right hon. Gentleman had jerked forth a proclamation, unaccompanied by any sort of precaution—he had placed the poor man in a situation of great difficulty, and made him who could the worst afford bear the loss? What right had Government to throw on the last holders the burden of keeping up the gold coin in its original state? In the time of King William, it was thought requisite to impose a new tax for this purpose. A house duty was laid on, which was to endure for seven years, in order to provide for the expenses of the re-coinage and, therefore, his hon. Friend was right in stating that all precedent was in favour of the public bearing the loss; and all precedent, too, was in favour of the course, that whenever the alteration did take place, that it should be accompanied by some measures for facilitating the exchange, and for preventing the re-occurrence of a similar deficiency. He might easily suppose, that improvements might take place in the art of coining, and that by chemical and scientific means the chances of abrasion might be diminished. At the time of the re-coinage in 1774, the opinions of Bolton and others were taken, and Lord Stanhope proposed certain plans. In the year 1842, with all the recent improvements in mechanical science at our hand, no means were inquired into or suggested either for the exchange of the gold, or for preventing the recurrence of similar circumstances. His hon. Friend had done quite right in bringing the matter before the House, and the conduct of the Government was deserving, as he believed, of much animadversion. He thought, that a committee should be appointed to inquire and to discharge that duty, which the Government had so grossly neglected.

wished shortly to state his opinion upon the subject under the notice of the House. He believed, with the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the present time was a fitting one for taking steps with respect to the gold currency, and he believed, that the flow of gold into this country placed it in the power of the right hon. Gentleman, without causing any very serious public danger to withdraw from circulation the light sovereigns. Nay, he believed, that the right hon. Gentleman could not justify himself, were he to delay longer in adopting some measure for the purpose. Having said so much, he might state that he considered his hon. Friend fully justified in bringing a subject of such importance before the House. It was a great advantage to the public that there should be some discussion in the House upon the point, not only as it might prevent them from being so much misled as they had been, but in order that the Government should have an opportunity of stating the grounds on which it had acted. As far as he understood the matter, he concurred in that view which held that the loss had been fairly divided betwixt the holders of coin and the revenue. The loss had been divided between the parties who held the coin and the revenue, and that was the course, as he believed, which was the fairest in itself, and the least open to inconvenience. If they were to admit to exchange light coin in all cases, the result would be a heavy charge on the public revenue, and a gain to those who deteriorated the coin. He must say, also, he did not think the change could be effected without becoming known to the public, and he was sure, that on this point his hon. Friend relied too much on the secrecy of officials, and had not sufficient confidence in the intelligence of the public. He might state, moreover, that it was absolutely necessary on many occasions for the Government to give notice to the whole public at once, and in doing so, they must sometimes run the risk of not having their preparations entirely perfect; though he was not prepared to say, that on the present occasion some arrangements might not have been made by which the inconvenience attending the present measure might have been rendered lighter.

said, the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had stated, as he always did, the facts and the law of the case most correctly, but the right hon. Gentleman forgot, that in a country like this, the prosperity of which was based upon commerce, there was something else to consider beyond the strict letter of the law —there was expediency. When the right hon. Gentleman stated that it was well known that the Bank for some time past refused to accept light gold, did he not recollect that not a private banker in the country would dare to refuse tenders of sovereigns, whether of or below the standard weight? The right hon. Gentleman was right, no doubt, in attempting to check the progress of the evil of deteriorated coinage, but the public were not prepared for the proclamation. Did the right hon. Gentleman know that within the last eight days the pressure on certain classes in the country had been quite intolerable—that the channels of business had been choked up—that trade had been paralyzed by the impossibility of passing gold coin, whether legal or illegal—and that dishonest people had availed themselves of the opportunity to impose on the public? When the first notice was given, it was intimated at the Bank that sovereigns, in numbers amounting to fifty, would be received and exchanged. He then drew the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the subject upon a question asked by an hon Member. A large class of the people were not likely to have such sums as fifty sovereigns to take to the Bank, and what were they to do At present the Bank took sums amounting to twenty sovereigns. But even that did not meet the evil. People who were paid perhaps 1l, or 1l. 5s., or ll. 10s. per week, could not carry a balance in their pocket to weigh all they received. He was sure there was no hon. Member who had not experienced the inconvenience caused by the late proclamation, and what must that inconvenience amount to with working men, and to retail dealers in the country? The speech of his hon. Friend, and the reply from the right hon. Gentleman, applied to the question whether it was good policy to keep up the gold coinage, because, if that coinage was exposed to the deterioration which it had already encountered, what was to prevent it from undergoing a similar depreciation in a fortnight after its re-issue? What was to prevent them from finding themselves in a similar dilemma again? He ventured to say, that if the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had consulted his friends in the city, they would have advised him not to have proceeded as he had done.

Nothing is more discouraging in the performance of a public duty than to question the propriety of acts which can be traced to no motive but a zeal for the public service. I do not think the Government make any idle boast when they claim credit for having the courage to take steps to prevent the gradual deterioration of the gold coinage. If the evil were allowed to go on increasing, it is impossible to say what the consequences might be. It is impossible that such a step as that determined on should be taken without causing a good deal of individual suffering, and that such cases of hardship should not be urged as a conclusive reason for the postponement of a remedy. Every hour of delay, however, must aggravate the evil, and increase the ultimate suffering. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last seems to "think that suddenly, and without any previous communication, her Majesty's Government had determined on issuing this proclamation. No Gentleman on this side of the House, the hon. Gentleman complains, was aware of the intentions of her Majesty's Government. That is perfectly true; and such a measure is of a nature that no private intimation should be given of it. When the community is likely to suffer from partial disclosures as to the course meant to be taken, I am persuaded that the intention of the Government and the nature of the change should be promulgated at the same moment. So far from thinking the abstinence of the Government in communicating their intentions to bankers holding Conservative opinions, and thus enabling their friends to prepare for the change, or what would be equally unfair in authorising certain ex officio paragraphs in newspapers as to the supposed intentions of the Government, I think such an omission the highest compliment which could be paid to her Majesty's Ministers. But has not public attention been called to the subject? Were bankers not aware of the depreciation of the gold currency, and did they make no communications to the Government on the subject? On the 20th of January the bankers of London wrote to the Treasury to this effect:—

"We feel it our duty to represent to your Lordships the great inconvenience which arises from the light gold coin in circulation, and we beg to suggest that power should be granted to the Bank to cut such sovereigns as are under proper weight, and that arrangements should be made for issuing them in accordance with the Mint price of 3l. 17s. 10½d. per ounce.

This letter was signed by Barnett &Co., Masterman &Co., Loyd &Co., Prescott, Grote, &Co., and several other leading banking firms. So sensible, then, were those gentlemen of the evil of continuing light coin in circulation, that they wrote to the Government in the terms I have stated, anticipating, of course, the danger which must arise, if no remedy were applied. But it is contended by the hon. Member who originated the discussion, that in consequence of the general suffering and distress, this change ought to be postponed to another period. I think, on the contrary, that we cannot select a more favourable opportunity than that presented by the present state of the exchanges, and the influx of gold, which gives peculiar facility for such an operation. There is an authority on this subject, to whom every committee on banking affairs, and every Government, is deeply indebted—I mean Mr. Horsley Palmer. That stated in a communication which has been placed in my hands:—

"It is necessary for those connected with the management and use of the currency, to press upon her Majesty's Government, through Sir R. Peel, the great and growing evil we are all sustaining from the depreciation of the gold coinage. I believe that the Bank of England has done everything in its power, by constant and frequent representations upon the subject, both to the late and present Ministers. The evil has been admitted, but no remedy whatever has been suggested by the Government to the present day. The prominent points are as follow.—' 1. The effect upon the foreign exchanges, which, in the event of an unfavourable course again existing, will either be exhibited in an advance from 1½per cent. on the price of standard gold above our Mint price, judging from the character of the present depreciation, or by draining every sovereign from the vaults of the Bank, the consequence of which you can estimate as well as me. 2. The present abstraction from circulation of a very considerable amount of currency, consisting of the surplus light gold that the bankers in London and the country are unable to pass through the Bank of England, or in payment to the receivers of the revenue. If an arrangement be made for such sovereigns being received upon good terms for account of the Mint, bank-notes would immediately issue to the extent of the receipts, and so far increase the money circulation of the kingdom. 3. The last, and which may, per. haps, be considered the most important objection in a public point of view, is the great inconvenience to which the public are subject from this depreciation.' Having thus briefly referred to the evils that exist, it seems to me that a very prompt and easy remedy may be afforded, if Sir Robert Peel can be induced to adopt it—viz., to apply to Parliament, as one of his first measures after Christmas, to authorise the Bank to clip all sovereigns presented, which power was formerly possessed in the case of guineas, and at the same time, to sanction the receipt of such light coin for account of the Mint at the standard price of 3l. 17s.l0½d.per oz."

Although we might have avoided much clamour by postponing again the present measure, we thought at this time we were peculiarly called on to take immediate steps for fixing definitely the value of the gold coinage. I need, however, say no more on this point, after what has been in so fair and manly a spirit stated by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose practical knowledge of such subjects is indisputable, and who admitted that representations had been often made to him while in office, that nothing but the peculiar position in which he was placed, prevented him from dealing with the evil, and that he approved generally of the measures we had taken, though he objected to some of the details, as not calculated to effect the object we intended. That is the testimony of one than whom there cannot be a more competent judge. I do hope that the hon. Member for Liskeard is himself convinced that this evil is one which can only be aggravated by delay until it ultimately becomes too great to be stayed by any efforts which the Government can make. I am quite aware of the sufferings of the people, and the impoverished state of trade; but these constitute no justification for postponing to another year the appli- cation of an obvious remedy to a gross abuse in the state of our coinage. I have now disposed of one part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The other, and the main ground which the hon. Member took was, that the public treasury (and I think there was some confusion in the authorities of the lion. Gentleman on this point), and not individuals ought to bear the burdens of this charge. Now, I wholly differ from that position. I believe that the great safeguard against a lavish expenditure on this subject, is the Treasury and not the House of Commons. And the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baring) confirms my view, for he says we have divided the loss with perfect fairness, and that there is no cause of just complaint, that the Treasury has not taken the whole burden on itself. The Treasury does bear the whole expense of the difference in value of the gold contained in a sovereign, when it is given out to be coined, and its value when it is converted into coin, but the hon. Member maintains on great authorities that the Treasury should also bear the expenses of wear and tear. I differ from him entirely. I do not think that in Queen Elizabeth's time the Treasury bore any such charge. I do not apprehend that the treasury of any foreign country bears such a charge. When the silver coinage was re-coined in King William's time, Mr. Locke (as stated by the hon. Member for Lambeth) was consulted. True, he was consulted, but his opinion was not followed. Here is the history of the transaction, as given by Lord Liverpool:—

"In the re-coinage of the silver coin in the reign of William 3rd., Mr. Locke was of opinion that the old silver coin should be received according to their intrinsic value, by weight. The House of Commons, however, being of a contrary opinion to Mr. Locke, consented to pay the loss arising from the defects of the silver coinage, and ordered the public receivers to take the clipped money as payment. The consequence was that this regulation acted as an encouragement to the further clipping of the coin, and gave the clippers all the advantage they could desire, as they were now sure of a market for clipped money, whatever the defect of its weight might be. So that what had been held, and hitherto escaped, underwent the same fate. The historians who give an account of this transaction, think it not improbable that more coin was clipped under this general license than there had been before. I have never been able to obtain an account of the charge incurred for compensating the deficiency of these silver coins. This compensation, as well as the charges of the mint for recognizing these deficient coins, was enormous. Such was the state of distress (and this observation is not inapplicable at present), and even confusion, that the people were ready to pay anything out of the public purse, in order to relieve themselves from the difficulties to which their private concerns were exposed.

Such was the result at that time, and, depend upon it, similar consequences will follow if you adopt the same course now. If you will act, not suddenly, by issuing a proclamation, but whispering about that the Government contemplate taking some such step, and that the public should compensate each individual holder for the deficiency of the coin—I tell you the effect of your delay and liberality will be, that every clipper would immediately apply himself to clipping the gold coin; and the present extent to which clipping and debasement has gone will afford no test at all of the depreciation that may follow. The moment it is known that —refusing to act with rashness and precipitancy, but permitting it to creep out in authorized paragraphs in newspapers, or by taking steps with regard to the receivers of the revenue which would apprize the public that the Government were about to adopt measures on the subject— the moment it is known that, not content with sustaining the loss of the variance between the amount of the gold when issued and the amount at which it can now be taken by law, you will sanction some other estimate of loss which the possessor of light coin may hereafter prefer—if you act upon that principle, do not suppose that it is the poor man who happens to hold gold coin depreciated by wear who will chiefly reap the advantage, for there is not one who fraudently debases the coin who will not claim the advantage in an infinitely greater degree than the poor casual possessor. I hope this House has a higher regard for the interests of economy than to sanction such a profligate loss which such a course of proceeding must necessarily involve. I trust I have now proved that the great bankers of this metropolis were fully sensible of this evil, and that the Government did not lightly and capriciously act in taking some effectual remedy. I trust I have also satisfied the He use that it would be the reverse of prudence for the Treasury to undertake to bear the loss which individuals might sustain. And I hope I have also, with my right hon. Friend, proved that there was no medium between a sudden and straight forward proclamation announcing the intention of the Government, and resorting to an indirect mode of intimating it, which must always give one class of individuals an unfair advantage over others. With respect to the proceeding of the hon. and learned Gentleman, although I did not consider it right—involving, as it did, an attack on the Government—to avail myself of any technical grounds to prevent its being brought forward, I must own I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has set an example which will be most inconvenient if lightly followed. I make no complaint in the individual case; the importance of the question, and the extent of loss sustained by individuals, may have justified him; but when he mentioned that the Government had appropriated to itself so many days, I must say I have exercised that privilege, when pressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite who had motions to bring forward, in a manner which hardly justifies his remark: and I can only say, if this practice of introducing a motion, making a speech, and leading to a debate, on the ground that an order of the day which he supports ought not to be read—if this practice be followed, it will supersede all our regulations, and very serious inconvenience to the public business must inevitably result.

was duly sensible of the indulgence of the House in allowing him to have made his statement; and he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that nobody else should be allowed to do what he had done. He had never contemplated a private intimation such as that supposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, he hardly knew how the right hon. Gentleman drew this inference from his speech; for though he complained of the want of information as to the expense in 1774 and 1816, he never pretended that the announcement as to the coinage was not of a public nature. He had suggested two plans; first, that if the agency of the Bank were employed, the compensation for the deficiency should be limited to 1½per cent.; but supposing that they should not determine on that course, ample means existed for providing an exchange according to real value.

said, that this change should have been so effected as to fall as lightly as possible on individuals. At present the chief sufferers were the middle and working classes. Government ought to have sent into every town in England (as to Scotland and Ireland the step was unnecessary, as paper was the general medium) a public officer for the purpose of exchanging sovereigns under-weight at a certain charge. 6d., 8d., 9d, and 1s,, were now paid indifferently. An hon. Member near him had a friend who at a railway was obliged to give a shilling for change of a sovereign before he was allowed to proceed to town. He heard, on good authority, that a gentleman wished to get 500l. in silver from a bank in the city, which, on application to the Bank of England was refused. Such was the effect of this question, as to the value of gold. The right hon. Gentleman's fears as to a further depreciation of the gold currency proved too much, for it showed that a gold currency was not the most desirable. There was one inconvenience, which was deposed to before the Bank committee of which he was a member, which ought to be looked to, and that was, that though a certain number of sovereigns were in the gross the legal weight, eight or nine of them were a grain too much or too little. He did not see why the Bank should not have a compensation for the loss which was sustained on gold out of the issue of paper, on which it had a profit. So far from complaining of the proclamation, he thought there ought to be a proclamation once a year. This would keep our monetary system in proper order—an advantage to every man, high or low.

rose to oppose the motion. When the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had made his proposition to the Legislature that the commission should be continued for five years, he confessed he had been surprised, and had thought that it would have been more candid and more manly in the right hon. Baronet to have at once announced that it was his intention the commission and the bill should be continued indefinitely, and rendered perpetual. There was no room now to mistake the right hon. Baronet's intentions, and he could not avoid expressing his strong objections to this insidious mode of attempting to render the commission a constant burden on the country. There had been two reports of the expenses incidental to this commission laid on the Table, one in 1840 and 1841, another in 1841 and 1842. Still the House was in considerable doubt as to the actual expense of the central commission at Somerset House, which he deprecated as arbitrary, despotic, and wholly useless. The total expense of the new system had, with little variation, gone on continually increasing, notwithstanding the pledges given to the contrary at the first introduction of this highly objectionable plan of providing for the wants of the poor. In the year 1834 the total expense was 628l. only; in 1835, it suddenly rose to 25,832l.; in 1836, to 39,340l.; in 1837, to 53,176l.; in 1838, it fell to 51,521l.; in 1839, to 47,712l.; in 1840, it was reduced to 41,834l.; and it might be fair in argument to assume that if the two last years' expenses did not exceed that of 1841, the lowest of the later years, the whole affair had created an expense to the country of 641,396l. The commission was not now necessary in order to instruct the guardians and lay down rules for their conduct. The rules and orders had been sufficiently numerous to apply to all cases. When the new exercise and field manœuvres had been introduced in the army, an establishment was formed for teaching soldiers in London; and certain officers and soldiers were sent up to be instructed and drilled, who, when perfectly acquainted with the system, returned to their quarters, and taught the several regiments and detachments of the whole army throughout the kingdom. But as soon as their business was concluded the central establishment was broken up, and the whole expense saved to the nation. So it should be with respect to these central and other commissioners, who had already cost the country enough, and whose services could well be spared. As he saw it was clearly the intention of Government to entail the system upon this already-burdened country for an indefinite period, he should, to give effect, as far as lay in his power, to the general expression of dissatisfaction throughout the country, oppose their going into committee upon the bill, and move, as an amendment, that the Speaker leave the Chair, and the House resolve itself into committee upon the bill that day three months.

seconded the motion. His dislike to the Poor-law Amendment Bill had increased with its age. The more he saw of it the more inveterate was his hatred to this cruel and inhuman system. Nor were his original objections to it decreased by finding that the offspring of the Whigs had been taken up and fostered by the Tory party upon coming into power. This singular but notorious fact had a tendency to throw discredit upon the conduct and actions of Governments generally, as well as upon their assurances. The Whigs had rendered themselves sufficiently execrable in the eyes of the nation by its introduction, to have warned their successors against its adoption. The hon. and gallant Colonel had made special and individual reference to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. He knew the gallant Colonel was sincere in his opposition to this bill; but he must not consider that he could make a scape-goat of the right hon. Baronet— that right hon. Gentleman exhibited no inconsistency in his advocacy of the bill; the hon. and gallant Colonel, therefore, must not speak of the measure as the bill of the right hon. Baronet, when it was, in fact, the measure of the great Tory party— of that party which, when out of power, was almost unanimously loud and vociferous in its condemnation of the bill. Now there were exceptions certainly, the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was an exception. That right hon. Gentleman had always been the consistent advocate of the Poor-law Act. There was then no inconsistency about that right hon. Baronet, and the same remark applied, in a still stronger degree, to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, who had been a member of the Government of Lord Grey, with whom the act originated. That right hon. Baronet was one of the parties by whom the original bill was brought forward and defended, and he had always been its consistent advocate, and he now introduced the measure as a Member of the present Government. The bill was now, in fact, the measure of the Tory party and of the Tory Government, and it was most unfair to single out the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) as the only author of the bill, and as its only foster father in that House. But how would that Tory party, who had been so loud in their denunciations of the existing Poor-law when in opposition, stand with the people of the country—when they were now found to be the advocates of a measure equally obnoxious and detestable, and equally destructive of all the principles of self-government in the country, in reference to the administration of a Poor-law, as that which had been the subject of their condemnation? He entertained the same objections to the principle of this Poor-law as he had ever done; and his animosity was in no degree abated because it was brought forward by the Tory party. The question now before the House was as to whether the Speaker should leave the Chair; but the hon. and gallant Colonel had raised an incidental discussion upon that motion. He did not complain of that, for he was one of those who thought it most desirable that every possible obstacle should be thrown in the way of the progress of the bill, and of the discussion of its detail; and he went so far as to hold, that those who were like him decidedly hostile to its principles and were cognisant of its highly objectionable and unconstitutional nature, should undergo some perils and incur some responsibility before they permitted it to go further. He regretted much the vote to which the House came on Friday last! and he was sorry that he had not been able to remain in the House to state his opinions and record his vote against the second reading of the bill. He believed that this Poor-law was sowing the seeds of revolution in this country; and that a measure fraught with greater danger to the institutions of the country had never been devised or discussed. They were passing in this measure a coercive bill against all the labouring poor of England —and in his mind there was something truly startling and alarming in the vote by which the House had confirmed the second reading. There was something in that vote which lie, for one, could not comprehend, and by which they had decided by a majority of five to one, or nearly so, in favour of the bill. The electors at least knew it to be a most tyrannical, unconstitutional, and in every way a most detestable measure—still he found that they had returned to that House men who supported it in all its tyranny. There was in this something to him quite incomprehensible—something which he confessed he could not understand. How was it? Was there such a thing as a secret compact and alliance entered into between the voter and the representative against the poor? Was it the understanding that the poor should be oppressed as a matter of economy, and to save the pockets of the middle classes who were the voters? He could not but feel that there must be at least something like an implied compact of this nature, or else how could he account for the votes given in that House by those who should represent the opinions and feelings of their constituents? Hon. Gentlemen must think that they were serving the interest of the voters at the expense of the poorer classes, or they would not vote as they had done in reference to a measure of this character. The result of such a course, at the present moment especially, could not but be dangerous to the peace of the country. Were they prepared, in the present state of the country—the people starving from one end of it to the other—to say that the poor man should be coerced because he was poor? Was that the announcement they made to the poor of this country? And if so, had they considered what would be the effect of such an announcement at this time, when the distress was almost unequalled, extending to every district and to every class of labourers? He asserted that this measure was an outrage upon the public feeling of the country. They had created under this law a new institution and a new power unknown to the constitution of this country. They had given a power to the commissioners sitting at Somerset House which Parliament did not possess. And for what purpose? Not to protect the poor, but to coerce them and to grind them down to the dust. Now what was the invariable conduct of those Poor-law commissioners whenever a charge was made against any board of guardians or any of their officers? Did they protect the poor? No, their whole machinery was put in motion to protect their inculpated officer. Seeing, then, how the Poor-law commissioners have acted, I, for one, the hon. Member proceeded, am not for continuing them one day. My conviction is, they ought not to be continued one hour. Their powers determine on the 31st of July; and if I could I would prolong the discussion on this measure until after that day. If I could devise any plan or had physical strength to do it, nothing should deter me from pressing division after division until after the 31st of July, in order to get rid of that abominable institution. I speak not of the persons who compose that commission. I make no attack against them as men; I speak only of the institution itself, and to that I give my most determined and decided condemnation. We have statements from every part of the country as to the working of the Poor-law commission; but what have we of a satisfactory nature! Have you petitioners praying that the commission may be continued? and if you have, what are the allegations in the petition in support of the prayer? I have seen no such petition this Session; but I hear on all hands that there is no necessity for the continuance of the commission if you would enact a good Poor-law. That I assert. Now, if you can legislate for your own property, for your own private and individual interests, for all the great powers in this country, and all the interests of the people, why cannot you legislate for the poor, and why put the poor in commission? You put the poor without the pale of the law, for you are giving them up to be tortured at the leisure of the paid commission of Somerset-house. Yes, I say tortured; because the object of some was to hold out the workhouse as an instrument of torture to prevent them from applying for relief. There might be a benevolent object behind; for I heard it repeatedly stated in this House that the first object of the law was to raise the wages of the working man. But has your law done it? Has it not in that respect totally failed? A poor hungry man would not have a long time for considering: his children crying for food—his wife in a state of destitution. He must take one of the two. He must choose between low wages or go to gaol. But then the commissioners inform us they have a discretionary power, and that they can regulate their orders to suit the locality, and the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, the other night discovered that that was the thing they were called upon to do. Why, I always understood you had a central commission to have an uniformity of system of practice? But; "No," said the right, hon. Baronet, "we have discovered that it is better to have a diversity of prac- tice, and that commissioners should issue their orders according to the unions in which their labours are to be employed." It was said that the primary object of the law was to raise wages, and to throw the burden on the rate-payers if they did not give good wages. What had the commissioners done on that subject? We find the dietary lowered when wages are low-and raised when wages are high. Now, if the Poor-law commissioners had known their duty to their country—if they had been competent to discharge the great duties laid upon them, they would have adopted a directly contrary rule—they would have caused a liberal diet to be given when the people were starved on a low diet by low wages, and the contrary when wages were high, and men ought to be provident. In the city of London, where the wages vary from 8s. to 40s. a-week, what has been the dietary? I will begin with bread, and I will take Cirencester as the type of a rural union:—

In London	bread	112 oz.
Cirencester	bread	98 oz.
London	beef or mutton	21 oz.
Cirencester	bacon	5 oz.
London	vegetables	2lbs.
Cirencester	potatoes	6 lbs.
London	soup	4 pints
Cirencester	soup	2 pints
London	cheese	14 oz.
Cirencester	cheese	7 oz.
London	milk porridge	10¼pints
Cirencester	gruel	7pints
London	suet pudding	16 oz.
Cirencester	none, and no equivalent
London	beer	11 pints
Cirencester	none, and no equivalent

Tea, sugar, butter, and various other articles, allowed in London—in the country unions nothing of the kind. Now, do you consider that that commission has discharged its duty to the public, and the obligation imposed on it by this House, in causing such a variation as that? But what do the commissioners themselves say? Now, remark what I have to say with reference to their dietaries. What do the commissioners allege in their last report? They say—

"The administration of the Poor-law, as it existed immediately before the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Act, was characterized by its causeless diversity; different systems of management were often followed in parishes whose circumstances were perfectly similar, and which were even in the same neighbourhood. It was mainly for the purpose of extinguishing these causeless diversities that the administration of the Poor-laws was placed by Parliament under the control of a central authority."

To be sure—to establish uniformity. Uniformity with regard to diet—twenty-one ounces of meat in one place and five in another! And observe the extremely low dietary system for starvation pursued in that union in the neighbourhood of which wages were so low that a man could hardly subsist on them. Is that the way to raise wages? I ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department if he can vindicate this? I ask the House if they can say one word in favour of this? And where does this come from? From the commission at Somerset House—that commission which you are now proceeding to renew for five or six years—in fact with the view of its becoming perpetual: for that is the object the Government have in view. I believe that will not be denied. I believe that the right hon. Baronet will not deny that that is the object of the Government. But then the report goes on to say—

"But while Parliament placed the control of the Poor-laws in a central authority for the purpose of preventing diversities of management where circumstances are similar, it gave to that central authority a discretionary power which enabled it to establish a diversity of management where the circumstances are different."

Why, we admit the difference of circumstances; but is their continuation of it a sound one? Is that the policy which this House is prepared to pursue with reference to the Poor-law? Are you prepared to say to the guardians, "Take care you don't make the dietary in the workhouse better than it is in the cottage." So that if the people are starving in one place, you are determined they shall starve in the other. Is that the system the Government of this country is prepared to pursue? But if not, it is what the commissioners are doing. I charge them with it. I have here their documents, records, and reports, and I say nothing can be more clear to the mind of any man to whom it is submitted. Is that, then, I ask, what you are prepared to do? If not, why renew the powers of that act after they have so abused it? Why give them powers so opposed to the principles of justice? A low diet when there are low wages! Good God! was ever anything more monstrous? Was ever anything so absurd? We are told some- times by the advocates of this measure, that the great primary object, the political object of it, was to raise wages, and make the labourer of England an independent man. Rare independence this! The independence of seven pints of gruel, and five ounces of animal food where wages are low, and where they are three times as high, three times as much! But what is the allegation of the commissioners? I am now reading what is the whole pith and marrow of the question with respect to their appointment.

"If a uniform system of Poor-law management were applicable to the entire country, or if the exceptions which must be made to that uniform system could be laid down with precision, there would be no need of a discretionary power in any subordinate authority,"—

calling their own authority in this respect subordinate. Then, are we so ignorant, so utterly incapable of legislating for the poor of this country, that after the years and centuries of experience that we have had, we are not able to lay down some provision that should meet any variations that may occur in the administration of the Poor-law? Why, then, give up your functions at once. Let us acknowledge ourselves as imbecile, not capable to legislate for the English community. That is our object, and if we cannot do it, we ought to resign our seats in this assembly, and declare that we are utterly incompetent to legislate for those who sent us here. Having made that declaration to which I have alluded, the commissioners go on to say, that they do everything that is right in particular cases; so that in Somerset-house you are to have a body to suit their rules in conformity with the checkered and varied occurrences that arise in different localities; but persons living in those districts, knowing the poor, their merits and demerits, and competent to go into every question as to the Poor-law, are not allowed to exercise any discretionary power. That power is to be exercised alone by agents of the Government. I say, that there is something so utterly repugnant to common sense in this, that every one ought to rise at once against such tyrannical abuses. I do hope the House will return to its sense of duty with reference to the poor. I implore it to take into its consideration the language that has been addressed to it on this subject. But I am afraid it will be deaf to every voice that can be raised from one extremity of the kingdom to another. The poor are not so insensible to what is going on. They know the object of your law: they know that the object of it is to save the money of the rate-payer. Does any body deny it? You have raised a court of appeal in Somerset-house, where the poor man cannot go. You have raised a court of appeal for the board of guardians, but where is your court of appeal for the poor man? If the guardians refuse relief, to whom can he apply? The magistrates can give him none. Much as I condemned the conduct of the magistrates under the old law, I say, that the rate-payers were much better off then than they are now. In the first place, the poor man complains to the relieving officer, miles and miles distant from the board of guardians; then he is told, that he can have no relief, but he can go and see the board; he does see the board, and the representative of his parish says, "I believe it to be a deserving case, and I must vote for it;" and so he does, well knowing all the time that the majority will vote against him. Why is not the matter left really to the discretion of the guardians? I ask again, where is your appeal for the poor man? When any Member of the Government condescends to speak, I hope he will tell me where this appeal is? I ask it decidedly and distinctly. The guardians have their court of appeal. Where are the poor to go? The whole question is determined— by whom? By the rate-payers? No. There is not a single person to whom a poor pauper can apply for justice and redress. And this is the law, forsooth, which you substitute for the act of Elizabeth. This very law you Conservative Gentlemen condemned upon the hustings throughout England. Now you have your party in power, and among them a Whig Minister, who, with the concurrence and support of his Colleagues, brings forward a bill maintaining, upholding, and extending the principles which you professed to oppose. Do you expect that supporting this measure you will preserve your popularity with the people? Do you hope to have their greetings when next you meet them? I should like to hear those greetings. I do not think they will be at all musical to your ears. And they ought not to be. In consequence of bringing forward this New Poor-law, the Whigs became detested by the people, and justly so. They were deposed be- cause the moment they came into power they kicked away the ladder that had raised them. The masses of the people they immediately oppressed and injured. And now you are going to imitate their example. ["No, no."] Yes! You were glad enough to take advantage of their iniquities to get yourselves into place; you will not keep it long. Before this day twelve months, in consequence of what has happened in this House, there will be addresses from all parts of England, from all who have common sense or feeling, praying for the dissolution of the present Parliament. In the unions which the commissioners have formed, various are the complaints, numerous the allegations, as to the defective working of the system; and I ask the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, and his Colleagues, whether there are any provisions in this bill to meet the objections that have been started in so many quarters? The other night the right hon. Baronet alluded in very benevolent terms to the large extent of many of the unions, and to his proposal of local boards—of district commissioners. Why, what are their functions to be? It is a mere mockery. The right hon. Baronet may not have meant it so; but so it is. The functions of this boasted board are to consist in transmitting reports to the guardians, who are to send them to the commissioners; and what in the interval are the poor to do? Why, to starve! Why did not the right hon. Baronet propose that the guardians should have the power of dissolving the unions which were too extensive, and of dividing them into more convenient and more manageable districts? Is there any such clause in this bill? No. Nay, there is no such power given even to the commissioners. Notwithstanding that the right hon. Baronet knows well all that passed in the committee—although he knows the tortures which the poor have undergone from the Poor-law administration—he has made no suggestion as to vesting even in the commissioners the power of dividing unions, however unmanageable in size. Yet it is notorious that many of the existing unions are twelve, fourteen, sixteen, eighteen, twenty—nay, positively upwards of twenty miles in extent I If the right hon. Baronet be really desirous of mitigating the asperities of the law, why not give those powers which might be usefully and beneficially exercised. [The hon. Member quoted, at some length, petitions from Almondbury and Dept-ford, complaining of the disadvantages of large unions; and then continued.] Again, there is a similar petition from Kensington—from that enormous union, in which nothing but dissatisfaction has occurred since the establishment of it—a union, including Chelsea, Fulham, Hammersmith, nay, positively, Paddington. I suppose to give the poor paupers the pleasure of a stroll across the parks and the gardens. The commissioners have had, indeed, a great deal of correspondence with the guardians on the subject; they have been in a pretty deal of hot water together. No wonder. Chelsea, a vast district of itself, with some 40,000 inhabitants, was included in the union, and Chelsea was accordingly disquieted thereat, and in consequence of application made to the House, a new act was passed, enabling that parish to separate itself from the union, which it accordingly did; and now Kensington wishes to belong no longer to the union. But their high mightinesses the commissioners will not entertain the question; and I believe they would not permit Parliament to entertain it—at least, I am sure, that if they were to forbid our entertaining it, we should obey them. [The hon. Member quoted a petition from Kensington, complaining of the size of the union.] Now, we talk in this House a good deal of our desire to protect the liberties of the people, and of our regard for popular rights; and when the late Ministers, or at least their predecessors, the Ministry of Earl Grey, were in office, we were given to imagine, that never more was such a thing to be heard of in this country as the invasion of popular rights. But one of the very first things they did was, to deprive the ratepayers of the opportunity of applying their own funds to the relief of their own poor. [" Hear, hear."] Why, of course, the very name of reform became disgusting in the ears of the people, [" Hear, hear."] To be sure it did. It was not what they expected. They were completely deceived. They had been led to anticipate totally different results. Small blame to the people for that. They had a right to believe that the party which had made such strong declarations as to love of liberty and desire to protect popular rights, —were not wholly disentitled to credit. The people were certainly justified in trusting them, though they were soon cruelly deserted, deceived, and betrayed. But having been once betrayed, the people showed their sense by trusting them no more. I am afraid they have not shown equally good sense in trusting some other parties. It is to be hoped, however, that by-and-by they will try some others. Now, I wish to hear distinctly the ground on which the continuation of this commission is rested. I am anxious to have a decided, plain, unequivocal answer on that point, first, we were told that it was uniformity of practice that was desirable. Secondly, we were told that it was diversity of practice. Now, which of the two are we to believe in or to hope for? Which are we to have in the future? You have actually given power to the commissioners of repealing at their pleasure acts of Parliament. Good God! can anything be more monstrous than to give to these men the power of suspending acts of Parliament? Were a salutary discretion to be exercised by the guardians, and a salutary control over them by the ratepayers, the poor would have some chance of justice. It is a serious thing, and worthy of observation, that whenever juries sat upon the bodies of persons who have died from (imputed) neglect, these high and mighty potentates send down subsequently their own agents, put into action their own little engines of "inquiry," in order, if possible, to falsify the verdicts of juries, and to cast imputations on the character of men who have faithfully discharged their duty according to the obligation of their oaths, and by way of recompense are insulted with virtual insinuations of perjury from men whom they pay. And here I must say, that though I have no complaint at all to make against Sir Edmund Head, believing him to be a most estimable gentleman, I yet regret, that considering what was said as to medical relief, the inquiry that was instituted, the allegations that were made, the abuses that were proved, the gross defects known to exist—I do regret, that considering the great estimation in which Dr. Kay is held by the Government—I regret that he was not appointed to fill up the vacancy which Sir Edmund was selected to supply: it was the prayer of the profession (who have the highest opinion of Dr. Kay): and it would have really resulted most materially in benefit to the poor. Now, the right hon. Baronet knows very well the whole extent of the inquiry into medical relief. But what find we in the bill on the question? The committee recommended a diminution in the size of the unions. Is there anything in the bill on that subject? Not a word! Further, as to medical relief itself, let us see what sport can be made of acts of Parliament. There are some new orders to come into operation in March, containing of course some new points of improvement; the Only wonder is how dull the commissioners must have been to have required such a hammering at them, in order to make them appreciate the absurdity of the previous regulations; but let us remark the principle they here adopt — a perfectly novel, a somewhat startling one —one which I never heard of in any business, trade, or profession, and of which I doubt very much the wisdom or the propriety. It is well known that medical attendants have been much underpaid; at the rate in some cases of 1d. or of 2d., in others, at 3d. or 6d., in a few instances as high as 1s. 3d. per case! Everybody knows that under such a system the poor must grievously suffer. The commissioners have certainly abolished the contract system— that most objectionable, reprehensible, obnoxious system which Sir A. Cooper before our committee so signally denounced. But I will read one or two of the new regulations, and leave the House to judge how far they ought to be adopted. Let hon. Gentlemen judge how far they would like their dogs or horses to be under such a system. The House will hear how cases are dealt with of the utmost delicacy and of the greatest danger:—

RATES OF PAYMENT IN SURGICAL AND MIDWIFERY CASES.

"Art. 10. No salary of any district medical officer, or contract made by any board of guardians with a district medical officer, shall include the remuneration for the operations and services of the following classes performed by such medical officer in that capacity for any out-door pauper, but such operations and service shall be paid for by the board of guardians, according to the rules specified in this article:—

		£.	s.	d.
1.	Amputation of leg, arm, foot, or hand	5	0	0
2.	The operation for strangulated hernia	5	0	0
3.	The operation of trephining for fractured skull	5	0	0
4.	Treatment of compound fractures of the thigh	5	0	0

5.	Treatment of compound fractures or compound dislocations of the leg	5	0	0
6.	Treatment of simple fractures simple dislocations of the thigh or leg	3	0	0
7.	Treatment of dislocations or fractures of the arm	1	0	0

"The' above rates to include the payment for the supply of all kinds of apparatus and splints.

"Provided that in every such case the patient survives the operation not less than thirty-six hours, and that he has required and has received several attendances after the operation by the medical officer who has performed the same.

"Provided also, that except in cases of sudden accident immediately threatening life, no medical officer shall be entitled to receive such remuneration for any amputation or for the operation of trephining, unless he shall before performing such amputation or operation have obtained at his own cost the advice of some member of the Royal College of Surgeons of London, or some fellow or licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians of London, and shall produce to the board of guardians a certificate from such member of the Royal College of Surgeons, or such fellows or licentiate, stating that in his opinion it was right and proper that such amputation or operation should be then performed."

The House would observe, that these regulations contained a provision to the effect that the remuneration should not be payable to the medical officer if the patient did not survive the operation for a period of at least six and thirty hours. Now, if the injury were severe, and that the chances were against the patient's living, the medical officer might possibly come to the conclusion that the operation had better not be performed; for if the patient underwent the operation and lived for a period short of the thirty-six hours, his trouble would all have been incurred for nothing. Hon. Members might think all this extraordinary, but he would ask, was he not discharging his duty in calling the attention of the House to the probable effects of these regulations? Was he not discharging his duty in exposing the tendency of these rules, when the House was called upon to pass a bill for renewing the commission? One of the provisos, to which he should again call attention, appeared to him to involve a monstrous, a most cruel, and most wretched principle. It was in these words:—

"Provided also, that except in cases of sud-den accident immediately threatening life, no medical officer shall be entitled to receive such remuneration for any amputation, or for the operation of trephining, unless he shall, before performing such amputation or operation, have obtained, at his own cost, the advice of some member of the Royal College of Surgeons of London, or some fellow or licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians of London, and shall produce to the board of guardians a certificate from such member of the Royal College of Surgeons, or such fellow or licentiate, stating that in his opinion it was right and proper that such amputation or operation should be performed."

This he read from the last medical order issued by the commissioners. With respect to the amount of remuneration to the medical officers, it was admitted that that remuneration was insufficient, and he believed no one would contend that the public could expect to have the duties of medical practitioners well performed if they were inadequately rewarded. But now he came to the distinctions sought to be established between the several classes of cases. Why specify payments as to obvious and evident ailments, of which people in general could observe the symptoms, the progress, and the development, and be not altogether ignorant of the usual modes of treatment? Why were the commissioners full and explicit on one, and why so remarkably silent on another class of ailments? why enlarge so freely on that which was palpable, and take no notice of those diseases the attendance on which made so large a demand upon the time and the skill of the medical man? He really felt almost afraid, to describe in the. terms which he ought the tendencies of these regulations. Let the House only reflect for a moment on the number of chronic diseases to which the poor man was subject—diseases of the lungs and of the intestines; those were diseases which required twenty times more time, care, and skill, than any class of ailments which the commissioners so carefully specified. Those of which the public see nothing and understand nothing were swamped. Cases on which neglect or want of skill might produce the most serious effects were not made the subject of any special provisions, the commissioners confining themselves to fractures, wounds, and dislocations. To him it appeared that the people on the spot were the only persons who had any means of forming a judgment as to the manner in which medical officers discharged their duties; and for that reason he should say, that the matter ought to be left, as much as possible, in the hands of the boards of guardians, rather than be confided to the hands of the commissioners sitting at Somerset-house. He should not be afraid to trust the rate-payers with the management of that which so nearly concerned them. When the bill then before the House passed into a law, those who were concerned in passing it could no longer speak of the respect which they entertained for the people—a respect which they practically denied on every occasion. If they could confide in the common feelings of humanity, they might trust to the board of guardians; if not, they were bound to devise such legislative provisions as would meet the emergency; and if they were not able to devise those, they were unfit to hold their places in that House. If they could not frame such a law, they ought to renounce their functions at once. On these grounds he should support the amendment, in the earnest hope that the opposition which had been raised against the bill would have the effect of preventing the re-appointment of the commissioners.

would give his cordial support to the measure, for he considered that the continuance of the commission was essential to the working of the Poor-law. It must be obvious to every Member of that House, that the main question before them was, whether the continuance of the commission was essential to the sound principles upon which the Poor-law rested. He should support this bill, because he thought its effect would be to put an end to the system of indiscriminate relief which existed under the old law; and he should also support it because he believed, that in the discharge of their difficult duties, the commissioners had exercised the power entrusted to them in a manner that demanded the public gratitude, and he must say, that in the whole of their conduct he saw evidence of anxious and successful exertions to improve the condition and character of the poor of this country. Every one must admit, that the present was a vast improvement on the gross abuses of the old system, Much had been said of the dietary system under the new law, but hon. Members seemed to lose sight of the fact, that the main object of the present measure was to promote industry, to superinduce provident habits, and not to hold out any temptations to entering the workhouse—those were the objects in view, and those were objects which he was disposed to support; and he had that night heard nothing which could lead him to an opposite conclusion. The House must, of course, be quite aware, that the object was not to save the money of the rate-payers, but to restore that habitual independence which under the old system was passing rapidly away. An hon. Gentleman on the other side had said it was essential to the welfare of the poor, as well as due to the respectability of the medical profession, that medical officers should be adequately remunerated. In that he fully concurred, but he thought on the whole, that the House would agree with him when he said, that the existing system of medical relief was based upon sound principles, and though differing from several hon. Members in that House, and even from some of his own constituents, he still should give his cordial support to the measure.

admitted, that some of the abuses imputed to the old Poor-law were not without foundation. He thought it was the duty of all who, by property or otherwise, were connected with particular districts to reside within them, and to pay some attention to the administration of the Poor-law. When it was proposed to introduce the law in his part of the country, he protested against it, nor was he now prepared to vote for the harsher provisions of the bill, for he thought they could not fail to be productive of distress and dissatisfaction to the whole body of the community. With respect to the Poor-law commissioners, he was of the same opinion as a noble Lord (Lord G. Somerset), who had declared, that the present unpopularity of the Poor-laws was mainly attributable to the manner in which they were carried into effect under the orders of the commissioners, who seemed to consider themselves infallible, and judge any who ventured to differ from them as arrogant and presumptuous.

Sir, I regret that hon. Gentlemen have considered it to be their duty to renew, upon the present occasion, a discussion which more properly belongs to the second reading of a bill; but as that discussion has been commenced, I should be sorry that it should terminate without my having an opportunity of expressing very briefly my opinion upon this question. The hon. Member for Finsbury has stated, and I think very justly, that Gentlemen ought not to throw the responsibility of this measure singly on that Minister by whom it was introduced, and there can be no doubt, that there has been a tendency upon the part of some hon. Gentlemen to make my right hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, peculiarly and personally responsible for this measure; but I say, that the responsibility does not singly and personally press upon him. This measure is the measure of her Majesty's Government—the measure of a Government concurring in opinion upon this subject, and believing that it is for the public interest—that it is for the permanent welfare of the industrious classes, and for the permanent welfare of the paupers of this country also—that this measure should remain in force; and, moreover, being of opinion, that there have not been any circumstances since the alteration of the law to show that it would be wise to dispense with the present Poor-law Act. My right hon. Friend was in office when this measure was proposed, but I was not in the Government then. I was opposed generally to that Government which introduced the measure, but I gave my support to its introduction from a deep sense of the gross evils which had been engendered by the old system of Poor-laws: and my opinion has been uniformly since that period the same—namely, that it is impossible to revert without danger to the old system. And when I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury, I thought that one might have easily inferred from it, that the New Poor-law had deprived the poor of some great advantages which they enjoyed under the old system; and that everything had been perfect under that system; that their situation was comfortable, that the superintendents over them were honest and vigilant, and that there were no abuses nor peculations. There are many Gentlemen in this Houss who have entered public life since the abuses of the old system were developed, who are apt to form their judgment of the alleged defects of the new system without being aware of the evils of the old one, and it is therefore absolutely necessary that they should be reminded of them. The argument of the hon. Member for Finsbury is this—that the poor were happy under the administration of the old law, and that you ought to place confidence in the people of England and in the rate-payers and the persons who are living in the various localities in which paupers are found, and that you may safely entrust the care and management of the poor to them. That is his argument. Now, it is absolutely necessary that I should state to the House some facts with regard to the treatment of the poor under the old system. What is the argument of the hon. Member for Finsbury? That the superintending authority of the Poor-law commissioners is not necessary, because we may trust to the local authorities, and to parties resident upon the spots where paupers are found. That is his argument. Well, but the old Poor-law trusted, and it operated in small districts under the guidance of parties who were cognizant of the condition of the poor; and how did they act? First of all, I will give a general account of workhouses under the old law, as furnished, not by the present Poor-law commissioners, but by such men as the Bishop of Chester, the Bishop of London, and others. I quote from a report of the commission of inquiry into the general operation of the old system in respect of workhouses:—

"Even the parishes which are somewhat more populous, those containing from 300 to 800 inhabitants, and which amount to 5,353, in the few cases in which they possessed an efficient management obtained at a disproportionate expense,—in such parishes, when overburdened with poor, we usually find the building called the workhouse occupied by 60 or 80 paupers, made up of a dozen or more neglected children (under the care, perhaps, of a pauper), about 20 or 30 able-bodied adult paupers of both sexes, and probably an equal number of aged and impotent persons, proper objects of relief. Amidst these the mothers of bastard children and prostitutes live without shame, and associate freely with the youth, who have also the examples and conversation of the frequent inmates of the county gaol, the poacher, the vagrant, the decayed beggar, and other characters of the worst description. To these may often be added a solitary blind person, one or two idiots, and not unfrequently are heard from among the rest the incessant ravings of some neglected lunatic. In such receptacles the sick poor are often immured."

Is not this a true account of the condition of workhouses in numerous instances in rural parishes? But you will say that is a general description, and that you want details? Well, Mr. Osler, in his communication, gives the following instances of the condition of workhouses in the vicinity of Falmouth:—

"Mabe-house, a ruinous hovel, utterly unfit for the residence of a human being; 2 men, 4 women, 3 children; of whom 4 receive 8s. 9d. weekly, and a man, his wife, and 3 children, have only shelter. A married couple occupy the same room with 2 women. Mylor:—8 men, 17 women, 7 children, who are placed in the different rooms, supporting themselves either by an allowance of money from the parish, or by their own labour. A barber who carries on business in the house has his pole hung out at the door. No governor or domestic authority of any description. (In such places when questions of the following tenor are put) — Why is no labour found for the able-bodied? Why are not the children placed under proper tuition? Why is not proper care taken of the lunatic?'—(the usual answers are):—' The parish is too poor to pay for a keeper. We cannot keep a schoolmaster for so few children. To provide a superintendent, to keep half a dozen or a dozen men at work, would be too heavy a charge, even if the superintendents of the whole of these various classes, and the management of the house is often found a pecuniary burden disproportionate heavy; and the parish officers attempt to diminish it by confiding the whole to one who is in reality, and sometimes avowedly, a pauper. Constantine-house: — 10 men, 19 women, 2 children; the governor has been dismissed for the sake of economy, and an infirm old pauper regulates the diet and keeps the accounts. All the rooms except the kitchen, close, dirty and offensive; the bedsteads are clumsy wooden ones; men's dormitory, their sitting-room very low, with windows too small for ventilation, excessively dirty and an abominable musty smell. The fish dinners are cooked here; house appeared cot to have been whitewashed from time immemorial. Two men slept in the women's rooms; but the new overseer expressed an intention to correct these evils,"

Well, these were local authorities superintending and cognizant of the state of the poor, knowing their habits and wants. What was the result of that local superintendance? Why, that in thousands of parishes these abuses existed. But you will say that this was the case in various small parishes, but not in larger ones. What is the fact with regard to the metropolis—the seat of intelligence? In 1833, no distant period, what facts were stated with regard to the operation of the old system in London? It is very easy to pass a panegyric upon the old system, but not so easy to justify it by facts. Now let us take the case of a large metropolitan parish. Mr. W. Lee, who held the office of master of the workhouse of St. Pancras, containing more than 1,000 inmates, says,

"It is a common remark among our paupers that they live better in the house than they ever lived before; and, looking to the cleanliness, the airiness, and roominess of the apart- ments, the goodness of the beds and the bedding, and the wholesomeness and quantity of the food, this is probably the case."

This, you see, was a liberal system, maintained at the expense of many who were perhaps scarcely able to support themselves. But what was the effect of the system in a social point of view?

"There were 300 children; if we get them places, they throw them up or misconduct themselves, so as to lose them and return to the workhouse as a matter of course, because they prefer the security and certainty of that mode of life to the slightest exercise of forbearance or diligence."

Here, then, were 300 children, supplied with means and opportunities to gain an honest livelihood, returning and throwing themselves upon the workhouse, in order that they may enjoy a life of indolence. But Mr. Lee continues—

"As little or no classification can take place, the younger soon acquire all the bad habits of the older, and become for the most part as vitiated; This is peculiarly the case with respect to young girls. We are obliged to have many prostitutes among our inmates; they decoy young girls with whom they have met in the house to leave it, and addict themselves to the same abandoned course."

What course was to be pursued? The characters of several of the inmates were so bad that it was imposssible to retain them in the house. The example which they set was so pernicious that the governors were obliged to get rid of them. And what was the result? They were sent to farmhouses. Mr. Hall, the overseer of St. Botolph, Aldgate, says:—

"We send our poor to farmhouses, paying 4s. 6d. per head per week for them; but it is the interest of the farmhouse keeper to give them so much liberty, on account of the consequent saving of provisions, that their residence is not one of restraint, nor their life one of hardship. It has been repeatedly said to me by paupers nominally confined in farmhouses that they got 2d. a day from the keepers of those houses to leave them for the day, by which means the keepers save their food for the day; and I have constantly seen persons, for, whom I knew we were paying to farmhouses, wandering about the streets, sometimes in a state of intoxication, and often I have had them come to my house in such a state and insist with much violence upon getting further relief."

You may call the statute of Elizabeth the charter of the poor if you like; you may say that it supports their claim as the first lien upon the landed estates of this country, if you please; but all these doctrines, if practically enforced, will end in their degradation and ruin. I ask, is it possible to read these descriptions of the miserable condition of the poor in small districts, and of the condition of those who in many cases were contributors to the poor-rates, and who supported themselves by honest industry, but were too proud to derive any support from those rates, and not admit that in 1834 the time was come when an alteration was necessary? My opinion is, that if you now abolish this commission, or prevent the commissioners from exercising any control over the poor: and, above all, if you pass that enactment which the hon. Gentleman advises, namely —again to confine the relief of the poor to small localities and districts, you have no guarantee that all the abuses which prevailed previous to the year 1834 will not return. We do not propose that this measure shall continue for five years with a fixed intention to make it permanent. What motive can we have for proposing the continuance of this law, except an honest and conscientious belief that it will be for the public good? It is not a political object that we have in view, it is not a short lived popularity that we seek; for if it were, would it not be easy to join the cry against the Poor-law, and propose some alterations of its main provisions? Would it not be possible, by some such course as that, to gain a temporary popularity? I say that the abuses of the old Poor-law were so great that the superintendence of the new authority ought to be continued. In my opinion it ought to be for five years, and I proposed that last year. I think it desirable, certainly, that the conduct of the commissioners should be subjected to Parliament; but I think that their authority ought not to be diminished or disparaged by making it shorter in duration than five years, for within that period it is not possible that we can dispense with the services of the Poor-law commissioners. I do not look upon the Poor-law commissioners as a check upon the benevolence of boards of guardians. I do not say that the commissioners should not act where there is a ground for appeal against a board of guardians. I do not say that theirs is not a proper tribunal to which to appeal. I believe that by means of this commission you conduct inquiries with regard to the poor most beneficially, and that without their aid many improvements could not be made which through their aid may be made. What has been the case with regard to the sanatory provisions made by the commissioners? Through their intervention I believe many benevolent plans have been adopted; and my opinion is, that they are actuated by benevolent feelings, although I know that it is difficult to reform and correct old and inveterate abuses without subjecting oneself to the charge of harshness or cruelty. But that is the hard condition attendant upon exertions to remove abuses in favour of which people may be prejudiced. Men must be prepared to expect imputations as to their being rigid and severe, and not influenced by those charitable motives by which, perhaps, others, taking more local views, may be actuated. But through the aid of that commission, in my opinion, you may be able to conduct the most important inquiries, and to effect the most extensive and important improvements. The hon. Member for Finsbury has said that all the medical profession had wished for the appointment of Dr. Kay. But why should they? He gave the greatest praise to Dr. Kay; but he said the medical profession were not satisfied. No; but they would have been satisfied if they could have had a Poor-law commissioner to their own mind. In that case they would have been right glad to assent to the appointment of commissioners. [Mr. Wakley: I want no commissioner at all.] The hon. Gentleman now finds out the mistake he had made. He said that if a medical practitioner had been placed in the commission the appointment would have been hailed with satisfaction; and now, because a medical commissioner is not appointed, he is for no commissioner at all. One other abuse to which this commission will present an obstacle and a check is that upon which you will find ample evidence in this volume (the report of the Commissioners of Inquiry). I mean the gross system of jobbing which existed under the old system, when a parish was committed to the superintendence of five or six tradesmen. 40 per cent, was then considered but a moderate profit upon articles supplied to the parish for the poor under that system. And it is shown in this book that when independent officers were sent from a distance into a parish to manage its affairs, there was a regular combination among the retail dealers of the place to effect the overthrow of such officers. Upon the very first appearance of any attempt at economy and saving of expense in the administration of the Poor-laws, a combination would he immediately formed against the officer who was independent enough to make the attempt, in order that he might be got rid of, and the old times restored of getting 40 or 50 per cent, upon articles supplied for the paupers. The evidence to that effect is quite conclusive; and if you choose again to commit the poor to the care of such persons, whose object it is to increase their profits in that way, upon the principle that the people of England may be safely trusted, you must also be prepared to see revived that practice of the local shopkeeper and dealer using his influence in the appointment of parochial officers suited to his purpose. Look again at the system of accounts. The existence of a superintending commission enforcing a rigid system of accounts operates as a security against profligate and corrupt expenditure. And I say again, with respect to medical superintendence, there is an increased security, as you will see more particularly if you compare the operation of the present law with the past, that the medical treatment of the poor will be conducted better under the general superintendence of a commission like that at Somerset House than if you leave it entirely to the local authorities. These are the grounds on which I support the bill; not merely as a check upon the benevolence of local guardians, but because I believe it will be for the present interest of paupers, and above all for the permanent improvement of their condition, do I think that this commission ought for a certain time to be continued; therefore I give my unhesitating, consistent, and cordial support to the bill of my right hon. Friend.

was not influenced by any factious motives in wishing to postpone the consideration of a measure of this important character for a few days. He felt as- sured that he was only performing his duty to the public and to the constituent body which he had the honour of representing in that House, in rising to move that the debate be adjourned until that day week. He very much regretted that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had not been able, in the reply which he had made to a speech which he had the honour of addressing to the House on Friday last, to adduce stronger grounds for supporting the second reading of the Poor-law Bill. The right hon. Baronet had based the whole of his arguments in favour of the measure on the ground that in an union in the north of England, the Keighley union, with which he was connected, there had been a gross maladministration of Poor-law relief. He challenged the right hon. Baronet to place his finger on a single instance in which the magistrates had deviated from the strict path of duty. Did he do so now? The right hon. Baronet had referred to a report made by an assistant Poor-law commissioner, Mr. Mott, a gentleman who was sent down to the north of England expressly for the purpose of getting up a case in favour of the bill and against the Keighley union. In that report charges of a very serious character had been made against himself, and an hon. relative of hiss sitting an the opposite side of the House. He alluded to the hon. Member for Bradford. Imputations had also been cast, upon four magistrates acting in conjunction with himself and the hon. Member for Bradford in the Keighley union. He hoped that no difference of opinion on other questions connected with politics would ever deter him from coming forward in defence of his brother magistrates, when their characters were calumniated by unjust aspersions. He should be wanting in those generous feelings which influenced every English gentleman if he did not defend them from the foul slander cast upon them. What was the charge which Mr. assistant commissioner Mott made against himself and the other magistrates of the Keighley union? If hon. Members opposite asserted that no charge was made, let them read the speech of the right hon. Baronet, and the report to which he referred. What, he would again ask, was the charge? Mr. assistant commissioner Mott had accused the magistrates of the Keighley union of having been guilty of corrupt practices, for the purpose of raising themselves in the opinion of the working classes. With the view of making themselves popular, they were charged with having fixed the amount of relief in the Keighley union at an extravagant scale. When the right hon. Baronet sat down, he rose and denied the accuracy of the statement. He was in his place this evening to say, that the whole of that report, from beginning to end, was a tissue of falsehoods. Under these circumstances had he not a right to demand the House of Commons to adjourn the debate on this measure until the magistrates and the board of guardians, who had been so foully maligned, had an opportunity of replying to that report, and refuting the calumnies it contained? He hoped that the report would be placed on the Table by to-morrow, in order that it might be sent down with a view of having a full investigation into the allegations which it contained. He held in his hand a letter from the clerk of the magistrates and board of guardians connected with the union in question, to which he wished to direct the attention of the House. The writer of the letter was a gentleman of great respectability, and the most implicit confidence might be placed in the statements which he made. He (the clerk to the magistrates) says,—

"I have read with astonishment the reply of the right lion. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department to your speech on the second reading of the Poor-law Bill, in the House of Commons, on Friday last."

said, that the hon. Member could not read a letter in which a reference was made to anything which had taken place during a debate in that House.

The substance of the letter was to deny the assertions made by Mr. Mott in his report. The greatest care had been exercised in the distribution of parochial relief in the Keighley union. Every case had been inquired into before relief was afforded. The clerk flatly denied the truth of the allegations made in Mr. Mott's report of the Keighley union. There was an emphatic denial made by the clerk of the magistrates of that union to the allegations of Mr. assistant-commissioner Mott; and he (Mr. Ferrand) would ask the House, whether it was prepared to sanction the appointment of these Poor-law commissioners, and to invest them with power and authority to act throughout the country, when he was prepared to prove that an assistant Poor-law commissioner, a paid officer of the Government, had, for a special purpose, produced a report containing unfounded charges, with a view of misleading the House of Commons. He would ask whether, under these circumstances, he was not justified in asking for the delay of one week before proceeding with the bill, in order to give the magistrates and board of guardians connected with the Keighley union an opportunity of refuting the most gross report which had been made to the House? For the purpose of exposing the falsehoods contained in that report, he begged to move that the debate be adjourned until Monday week.

seconded the motion. He thought that the statement made by the hon. Member for Knaresborough was sufficient to justify the House in postponing the debate for the short period of a week. So strong was his hostility to the bill that he would take every opportunity of opposing its progress. If the bill was passed into a law, he would tell the House that they would have cause to regret the circumstance. There was not a parish in England which was not opposed to the Poor-law. The majority of the poor were also against it. He would assert that the Poor-law commissioners had never advanced the interests of the poor. He disbelieved the report altogether; and he further believed, that the object of it was an ardent desire to assimilate the wages of the labourer in the south to what they were in the north; and they had succeeded in doing so—still there was not a parish in the north but would take such measures as were in their power to obtain the entire repeal of the law. He had always voted for the total repeal of the bill—he was not one of the modifiers, of whom there were so many now in the House. He was afraid the right hon. Baronet would carry his proposition yet. Not one of his supporters, with the exception of the hon. Member for Droitwich (Mr. Pakington) and the noble Lord the Member for South Devon (Viscount Courtenay), had dared to get up in his place in support of the measure. There were Members in the House for Leeds, for the West Riding of Yorkshire, and from Lancashire—had they nothing to say for or against the bill? Nor would it be forgotten, that when the bill was introduced last year by the noble Lord the Member for London, a noble Lord opposite got up and presented a petition signed by 46,000 of the inhabitants of Manchester, praying that the New Poor-law might not continue in force for another day. Where was the noble Lord now? Why, the people of Manchester were unanimous in their detestation of the bill—there was none there in favour of the law but probably a few rich people, with the clerks, the relieving officers, and other persons who obtained their living under it. None others supported it, for every humane and upright man condemned the bill. He was of opinion that the hon. Member for Knaresborough had made out a good case for the postponement of the debate for a week, and he trusted, for the honour of the House, the motion would be agreed to. He doubted whether the House ought, under present circumstances, to take upon itself a question of such magnitude at all. After the charges which had been made by the hon. Member for Bath, some of which were admitted, he doubted whether the House had any right to enter upon the consideration of the bill. The House should be very cautious under the circumstances in which their election was stated to have taken place; but even the speed with which they proposed to proceed was enough to condemn them; the bill was only read a second time on Wednesday last, and on Monday they proposed to go into committee: the country would see what was the necessity for such a hurry in the proceeding upon a bill so all important to the people. It had been reported by several committees who had been sworn at the Table to make a true report of what came before them, that many Members had been returned by means of corrupt practices: other charges had been made and scarcely denied; therefore, he thought they had no authority to legislate upon the measure at all—at least, it would be much better were they to take another year for its consideration, and to see whether the people had such confidence in them as to allow them to discuss the bill without remonstrance. They had already passed the Corn-law, making the food of the people dear; but now they seemed determined to have the Poor-law also for the benefit of the manufacturers. It was not much for him to say so now, but he could not give his confidence to any Administration which could propose a measure so unconstitutional. Many thousands of people had been sent from the south into the northern districts, where they were now dying from want. What was to be done with them? At least, before they proceeded with that bill, surely it was their duty to make some inquiry as to what had become of them. As to the commission who had been sent down to make inquiries, he would only say, that although the work was degrading, they would get plenty of men to take it, when it was accompanied with the wages given to an assistant Poor-law commissioner. He was speaking of Dr. Kay, who was sent into the manufacturing districts for the purpose of making room there for thousands of the agricultural population; he assisted to take them to the districts which two or three years before he had condemned as the very hells of vice and sinks of iniquity. He had a perfect right to question and judge the acts of Dr.Kay now that he had become a public servant. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] They might well cry "Divide," and attempt to put him down, for he was speaking for those who were unrepresented in that House. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that he would continue to give all the opposition in his power to the bill in every one of its stages; if he could protract the discussions upon it till the 31st of July, he would do so. He had been saying that Dr. Kay had been sent into the north to make room for the surplus population of the southern counties. Dr. Kay suffered himself to be thus employed, and he recommended measures which tended to reduce the wages of the labouring classes. He had asked for the production of correspondence with reference to this matter, but it was refused. The Poor-law commissioners, however, afterwards published a garbled statement; and he now wished for the production of the correspondence to which he alluded, in order that the public might see whether those results had been produced which the commissioners intended to effect. The effect of the Poor-law was undoubtedly to lower the wages of the labouring classes. He never could forgive the framers of the measure for producing such an effect. He would ask hon. Members if they were not in a great measure indebted to the labouring classes for many of their enjoyments? Then, as to the question of the right of the poor to relief; either they had a right to it, or they had not. He would ask the right hon. Baronet if he had an absolute right to the property which he held? No man had an absolute right to property. The hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford frequently preached up the doctrine that property was subject to charges for the maintenance of the Church. He contended, also, that property was liable for the maintenance of the poor, when they were incapacitated for labour, or unable to procure employment. They would not provide the poor man with labour, and yet they denied him the right to relief. Could any thing be more inhuman than such conduct? He believed the Poor-law Amendment Act was considered as a stepping-stone to the ultimate and entire abolition of the system of affording relief. He would tell the House, however, that they were on the verge of a volcano, and he warned them to take his advice. He believed that they could not adopt any course more calculated to excite disaffection, and ultimately to produce revolt in this country, than the passing of this bill in its present form. That was his sincere opinion. He knew there were many poor persons who would absolutely prefer to die of want, rather than ask relief of the board of guardians. They had the best people in the world to govern, and yet this country was worse governed than any other. He thought the reasons assigned by the right hon. Baronet for prolonging the term of the commission, rested on no just grounds, but he would not detain the House by alluding to them particularly. He was surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite—the Conservatives—did not come boldly forward and tell the House what were the opinions of their constituents and of the poorer classes throughout the country with regard to the Poor-law. It was right that the House should have some information as to the sufferings of the poor. They were now asked to pass this bill, and to continue the Poor-law commissioners in office for five years longer, at a period when most extreme distress prevailed throughout the country to an unparalleled extent. He considered that this was a most dangerous experiment to make, and he was sure the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government had not given due consideration to this bill, or he would not have assented (to it. He thought it would be well if the right hon. Baronet took the same time to consider the Poor-law which he had devoted to the consideration of the Corn-law and other measures. He believed, if that right hon. Baronet carefully investigated the question, he would not support the continuance in office of the commissioners for a day longer. They ought to give the poor man a court of appeal against the decisions of hard-hearted guardians, who would allow neither work nor food. Let hon. Members tell the same tale to the Ministers and to the House which they had told on the hustings respecting this law; silence, under circumstances like the present, was unjustifiable. The subject ought to be fully discussed, and the House ought to adjourn for a week, to give the hon Member for Knaresborough an opportunity of making the inquiries he wished. The Poor-law guardians had endeavoured in vain to find work for the poor. Could the Poor-law commissioners find it? If they could not find it, they must give the poor food without the labour. By the operation of the New Poor-law greater distress had been brought upon the manufacturing districts than many hon. Members were disposed to allow. He would tell them again, that they were on the verge of a volcano, and that they had better refrain from going on with this bill.

felt called upon to say a few words to the House. The hon. Member for Knaresborough had alluded to counties, the feelings of the people of which he said he represented; but he could not allow the hon. Member to represent, or rather to misrepresent, him and his constituents. The hon. Member had referred to a petition, numerously signed, which had been presented to that House from Manchester, praying against the continuance of the Poor-law commission. He had met the deputation which had brought up that petition, and he must candidly confess, that he had gone away from that conference, believing that he was a better friend of the poor man than any of those who had brought up the deputation. The grounds of their objection to the New Poor-law were, that they thought the operation of the New Poor-law Bill was more expensive than the old system; that it was not desirable to have the workhouse test; and another grievance was, that the local Poor-law guardians had to consult the Poor-law commissioners. With regard to the latter objection, he should not go out of his way to please the vanity of individuals who thought their dignity lowered by having to consult with other parties relative to their duties. He pictured to himself a man elected a guardian in an agricultural district, and who might be called on to fulfil the duties of a guardian without any previons fitness for the office. So far from thinking it a degradation that he should have to consult with men of sense and humanity, as he had always found the Poor-law commissioners to be, he (Mr. M. Philips) should think he would find it a great relief to confer with honourable and well informed men, and treat them as his standing counsel in the case. Anxious to discharge his duty to those whose property had to support the poor, as well as to the poor, he should think it would be a guardian's anxiety always to ask for advice with reference to the mode of administering relief. There had been much bold assertion on the part of the hon. Member. He had stated, that owing to the operation of that New Poor-law Bill, wages had been brought down in the manufacturing districts. He was fully alive to the present unfortunate position of the manufacturing population; but he could not ascribe it to the same causes as those stated by the hon. Member for Oldham. He saw various other causes for it, which he wished he could induce the House to alter. But he could not hear assertions of that kind made without rising in his place as the representative of a large body of the people suffering from the distress, and stating that he could not concur in them. He very much regretted, that an opportunity should be sought for now to excite the feelings of the poor, who were labouring under a degree of oppression and suffering with an endurance which he could not sufficiently admire. He was not one of those who wished to goad the poor on against this system, which was intended for their relief; he would rather ask hon. Gentlemen to endeavour to legislate for their welfare, and not represent to them that the present system was one intended to drive them into taking a coarser food. He denied that any such intention existed on the part of the Government that first introduced the bill. If he could have thought for one moment that such was the object of Lord Althorp, he should have started away from the benches on his side of the House, and deserted a party deserving of the contempt of a Christian country and of civilised society. He did not believe that this was the feeling on the part of the poorer classes of the country; he thought they had a better opinion of the sympathy of all classes with them. The hon. Member had stated his disapprobation of the removal of individuals from the agricultural to the manufacturing districts; and had imputed much blame to Dr. Kay for recommending this in his pamphlet. But he must really point out to the hon. Member the condition of the country at the time that this pamphlet was Written. It was written in 1831 or 1832, and they knew that at that time the manufacturing districts were only recovering from the depression under which they had been previously labouring. They knew that there was then a most remarkable change throughout the manufacturing districts; that a very large quantity of machinery was called into operation, and without going into details, that prosperity manifested itself at that times and there was a demand for labour; and he Could not but express his astonishment, that if a demand for labour existed in one part of the country, there should be an impediment thrown in the way of the labourer in another part of the country to get to it from the want and dearth of employment in his district. When labour had been wanted in the manufacturing districts it had been chiefly supplied by the sister kingdom; and he could not see what possible difference it could make if that labour were supplied from the agricultural districts of this country, where the labourer could not obtain employment. He admitted, that a vast number of lrish were embodied amongst the manufacturing population, and he did not think it right, that when an Irish labourer had resided forty or fifty years in this country, when times of distress like the present arrived, he should not be in a position to receive relief in this country. He confessed he did not think it was pursuing either a proper or a Christian course, on the first moment of depression in trade, to say to those men Fall back on your parishes," and that they should make no attempt to support them. He felt that it was a duty on those who bad drawn benefit from their labour to attempt to support them. But did it not occur in other places that the redundancy of the population in one district was taken to supply the wants of another. Did it not occur in London, for instance? Did they not find there, too, that the population at intervals, indeed, almost periodically, overpassed the means of employment; but could you condemn individuals in London, where there was a demand for labour, giving employment to persons coming from the agricultural districts? He must say that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fielden) had spoken with much injustice of those whom he had the honour to represent, when he said there was not an honest man among the people of Manchester who did not reprobate the New Poor-law. He could not at all concur in this statement; he had had communications from Manchester to a different effect; and with respect to the board of guardians, from his own knowledge he could state that they acted with great cordiality in carrying the New Poor-law into operation. He had spent last winter among them, and he was confident that they were a most worthy and humane body of men, and that they would not suffer in any respect in comparison with any board of guardians in England.

wanted to call the attention of the House to the spirit and nature of their proceedings that evening. The object of the gallant Officer appeared to be to bring back the Poor-law to the point at which it stood before the passing of the Poor-Law Amendment Act. The hon. Member for Oldham had frankly stated that his object was to obstruct the passing of the bill now before the House until the 31st of July, the effect of which would be to throw the whole of the present arrangements for the Administration into a state of inextricable confusion. But he should pass by the consideration of both these objects, and proceed to notice the speech of the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand). The hon. Member had given as a reason for postponing the consideration of the bill for one week the ground that a certain part of the report of the assistant Poor-Jaw commissioner which he had read to the House on Friday last? was incorrect. The hon. Member, in the early part of the evening, had called for the production of that document. He at once acceded to the hon. Member's motion. Now, he would remind the House what were the circumstances under which he bad alluded to this document. The hon. Member had asked him, what reason there was to introduce the New Poor-law into the north of England, and why the rule with respect to out-door relief had been introduced into the Keighly Union. He had grounded his reply on a report which the assistant Poor-law commissioner Mr. Mott had made in the execution of his duty. But he need not delay the House with going into particulars; he had explained that it was in consequence of Mr. Mott's report that the regulation in question had been introduced; for that from that report it appeared that considerable deviations had been made by the guardians there from the provisions of the law, and that they believed that their proceedings in granting relief were subject to the control of the magistrates. The hon. Member had indulged in great laudations of the conduct and management of the Keighley Union. He thought that there must be some error in that; that at all events the hon. Member must have very different views of Poor-law management from him, and he thought fit to submit to the House his reasons for this conclusion. He now, in addition to the report of Mr. Mott of the 23rd of April, to which he then appealed, would refer to a report of Sir John Walsham, dated the 1st of June. The union of Keighley was in immediate contact with Burnley, and that part of the West Riding where there was great distress, and Sir J. Walsham having been sent down there on a special commission to inquire into the state of things there, he was also desired to go to Keighley and see whether what Mr. Mott had stated with regard to the state of that union was borne out by the facts. He would not read the report of Sir John Walsham, or any part of it; but he would content himself with stating, that if Sir John Walsham was not equally to be discredited, as the hon. Member stated Mr. Mott to be, then what the latter gentleman had stated could not be impugned. When his report was laid on the Table it would show that there Was as much mismanagement and carelessness in the conduct of the affairs of the Keighley Union previously to the report of Mr. Mott as disgraced the administration of any other Poor-law union in any part of the country. He should to-night move for the production of Sir John Walsham's report, and when that as well as Mr. Mott's report should be upon the Table the hon. Member for Knaresborough should move for a committe of inquiry into the manner in which the Poor-law had been administered in the Keighley Union; and as to the veracity of the Poor-law commissioners on that point, he promised him he should have a full, fair, and searching inquiry into this matter.

as the representative of a great constituency, and entertaining decided opinions on this question, would say, with every respect to his hon. Friend, that he could not conceive anything but injury could be derived to the cause he was advocating from a motion of this kind. He would, therefore, humbly press his hon. Friend to rest content with taking legitimate means of enforcing his own views, and not cause any unnecessary delay in the progress of this great measure.

said, that when he found in the bill a clause which would have the effect of abolishing the Gilbert unions, he felt that he was bound to oppose their an. nihilation, and he felt that his opposition was not a factious opposition. He must tell the House, that when the Conservatives expelled the Whigs from power, it was expected by the country that this law, the worst of all the evils that cursed it, would fall also; but in that hope the people had been painfully disappointed. He should vote for the adjournment, and if they were lucky enough to pass the bill over through another winter, the people would be able to remind their representatives of the promises which they made on the hustings.