proposed the following Clauses:—

"And be it enacted that it shall be lawful for the Guardians of the Poor to give a higher rate of out-door relief than that now given, at their discretion, to aged people above sixty years of age, who have paid their poor-rates."

"And be it enacted that in the event of a married couple or a single man or woman possessing a cottage under the value of 5l. annual value, and having paid their poor-rates, and being no longer able to work, they be eligible for out-door relief at the discretion of the Guardians."

The hon. and Gallant Officer said, that in submitting these Clauses he was anxious to encourage industry and thrifty habits amongst the poor, for the consciousness that they would hereafter be paid an increased amount of an allowance for having paid their poor-rates for a certain time would stimulate them to those exertions which, if they did not keep them from the necessity of seeking parochial relief, would, at least, better their condition when they became chargeable to the parish. Surely, it would be worse than cruelty to turn away the destitute owners of a cottage and say to them, "You must first go and sell your cottage, and when you have parted with it we will relieve you." To prevent any such power being vested in the Board of Guardians was the object of the second Clause, but he had no objection to its being modelled in any manner which the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary might think proper. All he cared for was the admission of its principle. He should like to see the very name of "workhouse" abolished, and this, he thought, would greatly tend to that result.

was disposed to pay the greatest attention to every suggestion of the hon. and gallant Officer, to whom it was in the highest degree creditable to be thus engaged in endeavouring to promote the welfare of his country in time of peace when the exercise of the bravery and skill which had so distinguished him in time of war was no longer required. The hon. and gallant Officer must excuse him for expressing his belief that the object he had in view would not be gained by the adoption of the Clauses which he proposed. With respect to the first Clause, he must say that it would be superfluous legislation, as the Guardians already possessed the discretionary power referred to in the first part of it. They were already empowered to relieve such parties as the Clause referred to to the extent which the peculiar circumstances might call for; and that power being already the law of the land, it was not necessary to enact it. With regard to that portion of the first Clause which empowered Guardians to give a somewhat higher allowance to those paupers who had at one time regularly paid the poor-rate, he must say that the recognition of such a principle would lead to results which he was sure the hon. and gallant Officer did not intend, for a sort of premium of this kind for the payment of the poor-rates would involve a penalty on those who had not paid them. The recognition of the principle would of course lead to inquiries as to the regularity of payment of rates, and that would tend to a career of injustice, the consequence of which would fall on those whom it was the object of the Bill to relieve. In framing the second part of the first Clause, the hon. and gallant Officer seemed to forget that many parties who paid their poor-rates were almost as closely on the verge of poverty as they who received parochial relief, and the distinction between the amount of relief to be given to each would be unfair, as being founded on a very erroneous test in very many cases. On these grounds he must oppose the first Clause. With respect to the second Clause (continued the right hon. Baronet), I have on more than one occasion in this Session adverted to the principle on which it is founded. That principle is, that the Guardians have power to say to destitute applicants for parochial relief, "You have a small cottage and a few chairs and a table, and a few other articles of furniture,—go and dispose of them in the first instance before we can assist you" — that is not the law. [Sir C. Napier: I am glad to hear it.] The law is—that the destitution of the applicant for relief is the test to be applied in each case, and where that is proved the Guardians are bound to give relief without reference to the fact that the applicant is possessed of a small cottage or not. Even this test of destitution may be applied to able-bodied paupers, and relief be given to them, each case being decided with reference to its own peculiar circumstances. But I repeat it, that relief cannot be refused by the Guardians on the ground that the party seeking it is the owner of a small cottage if in any other respect he be destitute.

expressed his readiness to divide in favour of the hon. and gallant Officer's second Clause. He had himself been an eye-witness to cases in which the test of the possession of a cottage had been made a ground for refusing relief. This was not done in any underhand or evasive manner. It was the bold assertion of a principle, believed to be recognized by the Legislature, and carried out by the Board of Guardians. The applicants were plainly and simply informed, "We have no power to relieve you—you are the owner of a cottage and some furniture; first sell your cottage and spend the money in your support, and then, if you should continue in want, we will relieve you, but the law will not allow us to relieve you while you possess this properly;" and there was no doubt that the construction thus put upon the Act was an honest one, though now, after the statement of the right hon. Baronet should have gone forth to the country, the Act would be differently interpreted, Pains ought to be taken by the Government to inform the Boards of Guardians, and other parties having to do with the relief of the poor, what was the real state of the law on the subject of relief, for most assuredly vast numbers had put on that part of the law, the construction now for the first time repudiated by the right hon. Baronet.

said, that the Poor Law never had been, and probably never would be administered in the humane spirit with which the right hon. Baronet had referred to it. He (Lord Ashley) had come down to the House that morning to vote for the Clauses of his hon. and gallant Friend, but, after the statement of the right hon. Baronet, from which it appeared that what his hon. and gallant Friend proposed was already the law of the land, he would recommend him not to press his Resolutions to a division.

said, that if the interpretation put upon the law by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary was correct—and there could, he presumed, be no doubt on the subject—the whole principle on which the law had hitherto been administered was changed. So that, in effect, it would be equivalent to a change in the law itself. Under these circumstances he would withdraw his first Clause, but would divide on the second.

hoped that the hon. and gallant Officer would not press his second Clause, which, if inserted in the Bill would lead to bad consequences. A man might claim relief, and say he had a cottage for which he paid less than 5l. a-year, and yet that cottage might perhaps be worth 150l.

begged to tender his thanks to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary for his explanation as to the interpretation of the Clause authorizing immediate relief to the destitute. The misinformation which existed as to the correct state of the law pressed very heavily in its consequences on large classes of the poor, and on none of them with greater severity than on the handloom weavers; for such was the general impression as to the conditions on which alone parochial relief could be obtained, that many of them parted with their little stock of furniture, their beds, and finally their looms, in order to qualify themselves for obtaining that relief. That misconstruction of the Act was now, he was glad to find, at an end, by the explanation of the right hon. Baronet, and he hoped that statement would go forth to the country. It could not obtain too great a publicity.

hoped he might not be misunderstood as to the point of relief in cases of destitution. When he said that the Boards of Guardians would not be justified in withholding relief from the destitute applicants on the ground that they were in possession of a cottage, he was not of course to be understood to mean that if a party came permanently on the parish for relief, and remained in possession of a cottage from which he derived 5l. ayear, the Guardians would not have a right to inquire under what circumstances he held it, and whether its produce might not be made available for his relief. But that was a totally different case from that of an applicant for relief in sudden destitution. In such case, whether the destitution was brought on by illness, or inability to work, or by having to attend and support a family in illness, the Guardians were bound to administer immediate relief, according to the exigency of the case. It would not be in that case any fair answer on the part of the Guardians to say, that the applicant was the owner of a cottage, with some furniture, and must first dispose of those. In cases of sudden destitution the law said, that relief must be given, and if death should ensue from the want of such relief after it was demanded, there was no doubt whatever that the relieving officer, or other party whose duty it was to have given relief, would be rendered criminally responsible.

said, that if his hon. and gallant Friend divided on his second Clause, he would most certainly vote with him, if it were only to put an end to all doubt on the subject; but of this he thought there could be no fear after the explanation of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He could state many instances of the general misapprehension of the law on the point. He had been applying to the Poor Law Commissioners at Somerset-house for three years on the part of the handloom weavers, but without effect. He begged to thank the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary for the explanation he had given, and for the spirit in which he was disposed to have the Poor Law administered. He would recommend the right hon. Baronet to ride the Poor Law Commissioners with a curb, and not with a snaffle.

addresed the House in support of a Clause which went to abolish the Poor Law Commission, giving to the several Boards of Guardians constituted and appointed for the management of each separate union or union workhouse the full power, management, and control, without any inter- ference, power, or control of the aforesaid Board of Commissioners. At first there were three Commissioners. These were afterwards raised to four. At first there were nine Assistant Poor Law Commissioners, and the Act said there should be "nine and no more." But by some hocus pocus trick they were raised to twenty-one, and now they were to be reduced back again to their former number. If nine were found sufficient, why raise it to twenty-one? It was, he supposed, to let the law be administered by the Assistant Commissioners rather than the local Magistrates. The whole system was based on the principle of centralization, which had the effect of setting man against man, and of making it necessary to protect the poor man in some instances against his natural protector. A very considerable expense, amounting to about half a million, had been incurred by Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners; and he contended that the people were not at all improved in their condition by the working of the whole plan. In his opinion, the best thing that could be done would be to put an end to the whole system. Dismiss the Commissioners, and Assistant Commissioners, and go back to the ancient jurisdiction of the Magistrates.

said, that the principle of the hon. and gallant Member's Clauses had been already under discussion in that House, which had declined to adopt it. The hon. and gallant Member had complained of the increase of expense attendant on the appointment of Commissioners and Assistant-Commissioners. He (Sir J. Graham) was not disposed to try the efficiency of any plan by its cost; but if he were to try the New Poor Law system by that test, it would be found that by an expense of about 50,000l. a saving had been made of about 2,000,000l. annually. His hon. and gallant Friend had complained of the great power of the Commissioners, but it was on that power that the whole system was based. If that were taken away the whole superstructure would be destroyed. Great as the power was at first, it had since been considerably enlarged in the control which they now, by recent enactments exercised over the appointment and removal of paid officers, and in other respects. One thing he would admit. It was this, — that the Commissioners had written too much, and in a harshness of spirit which was to be regretted. He had said this when out of office, and he now repeated it in office. He had used his influence to correct that harshness, and not without success; and now he was engaged in carrying out the system cordially and with a disposition to soften down any little asperities which might have arisen in its early working. He would not deny that some of the first acts of the Commissioners were arbitrary, but they perhaps arose much more from the nature of the duties imposed by law on the Commissioners than from the feelings of those engaged in carrying it out. The very novelty of the system was calculated to lead to errors which experience had since tended to correct, better than any individual influence could have done. In the discharge of their important functions, it would of course be necessary that those whose duty it was to carry out the New Poor Law should have the confidence of that House; but even that, important as it was, would not avail if the proceedings of the Commissioners were not brought, under the inspection of the public. That desirable aid to the system was now fully complete, and it was seen that the Commissioners and all parties connected with them in office were constantly and unremittingly engaged in attention to the wants of the destitute poor. The duties were discharged not only with alacrity but with an honest zeal in their performance which merited praise. Under such circumstances he must say nothing could be more injurious to that department of the public service than suddenly and at such a period of the Session to strike a blow at the root of the system, which was what the hon. and gallant Member called on the House to do, and what he felt called upon to resist.

hoped that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lincoln would not press his Clauses. He fully agreed with him that in the commencement of the New Poor Law there had been many errors, and blame was to be attributed somewhere. One cause of some of the errors was, perhaps, the very didactic manner in which some of the Commissioners laid down the law on some points. Owing to this, some of their decisions as to the law were not, well understood, and she consequence was, that up to this time there were strange discrepancies as to the meaning of some clauses and sections of the Law. However, many of them would be removed by the effect of this Bill. He had heard with satisfaction the explanation of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on one important point, the administering of out-door relief to the destitute poor. The explanation of his right hon. Friend would set all doubt on that point at rest for the future. He admitted, that great ignorance prevailed on many other parts of the law, and what he would venture to suggest to his right hon. Friend opposite, would be, that with the aid of the law officers of the Crown there should be prepared a plain and clear statement as to the meaning of the most important clauses of the Bill. When the law became thus better understood, it would be much more easily administered.

would support the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Lincoln. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that the Poor Law Commissioners had the confidence of Parliament. He (Mr. Spooner) asked if they had the confidence of the people, undoubtedly not; and never would have while the law remained as it was, and while the administration of that law was left so completely to their discretion. The fact was, that too much power was given to the Commissioners; they had the power of making, altering, or repealing Acts of Parliament at their pleasure. Such power vested in three or four individuals was unconstitutional, and became more objectionable from the manner in which it was administered. He had the authority of the greatest statesman whom this country had produced—he meant that of William Pitt—for saying, that all the difficulties we experienced in administering relief to the poor arose from our departure from the pure spirit of the Act of Elizabeth. He would not stand there to palliate the many deviations which we had made from that Act, but he would, in the name of the poor of the country, conjure the House to come back again to the spirit of that law, by which every man who could work had work provided for him; but who, if unable to work, had his wants immediately attended to. How great was the contrast with our present system! Admission to our detested workhouses was the only way in which the honest pauper, willing and able to work—could obtain relief. His only crime being that he could find no one willing and able to employ him; he, to obtain relief, was obliged to sacrifice the company of his wife and children—must resign his cottage and leave his family to the care of strangers. What was it which could induce any man to make this sacrifice—what but the alternative of that, starvation, the latter of which many unhappy men had preferred? Allusion had been made to the ignorance of those who administered relief to the poor, of the law which they administered; but that was to be attributed to the fact that the instruction which they received ran before the law. It was Commissioners law, not the law of the land. He hoped that the hint which had been dropped by an hon. Member, as to drawing up a statement of what really was the state of the law, would be taken up by the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, as nothing was more really wanted than a clear statement of what the law really was upon some of its most important points. If the ignorance which existed upon the subject was ignorance of statutory enactments it would be inexcusable; but when it was found to exist only upon resolutions and orders issued by the Poor Law Commissioners, the matter was very different. If the feeling which he entertained as to that Board was a strong one hitherto, it had become much more so since he had heard the declaration of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), who had stated that the Poor Law Commissioners had the power of interfering with Local Acts. Such a circumstance made him still more strenuous in his desire to see the Commission abolished. The local administration of the Poor Law in Birmingham had now subsisted for a long time, carried on by a large body of Guardians elected under a local Act, who had always evinced an earnest desire to admiminister effective relief to the poor with an anxious attention to the interest of the smallest ratepayer. To do this in the midst of a dense population, liable to be suddenly thrown out of work by unavoidable fluctuations in trade, with a very narrow line of separation between the last payer, and the first receivers, requires sound discretion, grounded upon local knowledge; a knowledge none but local Guardians can possess, a discretion which none but they who possess that knowledge are competent to exercise. If the Commissioners interfered, upon that now declared power, with the Local Acts, he felt bound to warn them of the consequences, as they would inevitably paralyse the zeal of the Guardians, and destroy the confidence of the poor. Having stated his opinion upon the general principle of the law, he begged to announce his inten- tion of supporting the Motion of the gallant Member for Lincoln.

had expected the very best results from the operation of the New Poor Law Act, but those expectations had not been altogether realised. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J, Graham) had stated, that great mitigations had taken place, but it appeared that the real mitigations were not those which had taken place in the enactments of the law, but in the temper with which it was administered. The Poor Law Commissioners in interpreting the law in 1839 did so just in the same way as did the Secretary of State for the Home Department in 1844. The real question was, whether or not the care of the poor was an object of national concernment, and if so, whether or not it were to be intrusted to irresponsible bodies scattered over the country, or to one Board subjected to the control of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and responsible for the proper discharge of its duties. The law could not be unconstitutional, as it was the law of Parliament. The rules which had been framed under it were all published, and were therefore open to inspection and scrutiny if such be sought. The administration of the law was most popular, if even it was granted that the law itself was harsh and unconstitutional. There might have been a little less writing, a little less attention to details; but the law itself and its administration were, he thought, very well adapted to their purpose. He would oppose the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln.

saw very clearly indeed the difficulties which must result from acceding to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln. He saw many functions which the Poor Law Commissioners might be beneficially called upon to discharge, and among them that of controlling the Boards of Guardians. He objected to the notion which had for some time past prevailed, that this Commission was to be permanent, and had he held a seat in Parliament when the New Poor Law Bill was passed he would not have given his vote for the formation of a body of that kind. The proposition, however, for abolishing this Commission, was, as matters stood, almost impracticable; and, therefore, though he felt very strongly the objections to the constitution of the Commission, he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion of the hon: and gallant Member for Lincoln.

thought, that as the Poor Law Act was now in complete operation, the functions of the Poor Law Commissioners had been discharged and ought to cease. One Commissioner was sufficient for transacting all the business now before that board, and a reduction of that kind ought at least to be effected.

would ask whether there was not in the working of the Poor Law a tendency to discourage rather then encoursge voluntary charity, and to raise an opinion that it was on the whole more injurious than the principle of out-door relief? He felt very strongly that if it was contemplated that the wants of the poor were to be altogether left to the Poor Law, that law was totally unfit for supplying them. He was of opinion, and more so from the increase of population and its tendency to centralize itself, that a Poor Law could never be successful unless assisted by a large amount of private charily. So far as he had seen the operation of local acts in the borough which he represented, he approved of them; yet he could not shut his eyes to the enormous inconvenience that would arise from the abolition of the Poor Law Commission; and upon the whole, he thought that the Motion of the hon. Member for Lincoln ought not to be acceded to.

was surprised to hear from a Liberal Member on that side of the House that irresponsible Boards of Guardians were not to be trusted with the administration of the Poor Law. If abuses arose would not the rate-payers have power to remove them? The Poor Law Act never would have passed the House if it had been contemplated that the Board of Commissioners was to be perpetual; yet they were now from year to year allowing statutes to be passed for the purpose of giving a pretext to effect that perpetuity. Sir J. Scarlett had said, that the Parliament were delegating to a separate body an absolute power over the greater portion of their domestic economy. Sanctioned by that authority, and by that of Lord Lyndhurst, he was justified in supporting the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln.

would take leave to state, very briefly to the House the grounds upon which he had decided to support this Motion. Its effect would be to abolish the entire system of the law of 1834. He wished to see that consummation; and not blind to the hazards attending its achievement by this particular means, he still saw greater, much greater evils, connected with the continuance of the present system. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) had, in his praise and defence of the Commission, admitted, that when called into existence by the Act of 1834 it had at first advanced with the feeble and uncertain step of infancy. It had staggered, stumbled—he did not say it had fallen—but it had babbled with a sad loquacity, and its babblings had not been understood by the public, if indeed they were comprehended by itself. But the hon. Member for Lambeth was not discreet in his praises. He laid at the feet of of this Commission the very devotion of a lover's homage. The hon, Gentleman in his Commission could see no faults—nay, like Waller and his mistresses what in any other man would be a blemish and defect, the hon. Gentleman found in a Poor Law Commission to be the most exquisite beauty, but the very beauties for which the Commission had thus been praised were, to his mind, grounds of his distaste and disapprobation. The hon. Gentleman had brought to his mind a smart epigram, written by a gentleman of the time of Louis Quatorze, upon some praises bestowed by a rival upon one of the court beanties. It was something as follows;—

"Quelle flatterie importune

Comparer Iris au Soleil!

Il est commun, elle est commune;

C'est tout ce qu'ils ont de pareil."

Really the very qualities for which the hon. Gentleman admired the Commission were those which recommended it the most strongly to his dislike. It was the creature at once, and the exponent of a piinciple—a philosophy—which could not be engrafted upon the British Constitution without the most fatal consequencs. The hon. and Gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Pechell) had quoted high authorities; he would, without disrespect to those authorities, quote a yet higher, he would quote a name which must ever live amongst the brightest and most enduring glories of this country. The name of one who had reached the highest honours through a life every step in which was marked by honour to himself and by benefit to his country—he meant the late Lord Eldon. That illustrious man, as they were informed by an able and valuable record of his life, just published, expressed himself on the night on which the Bill of 1834 was to be discussed in the House of Lords to this effect—he quoted from memory—"That the evils which I foresee in this new treatment of the poor and helpless may never fall upon the country I fervently pray. It is to be discussed to-night; but to their assembly mine honour be not thou united." That the evils which Lord Eldon had foreseen had fallen upon the country he thought had been proved by the unhappy experience of years; but whatever might be their opinion of that, the evils, if they existed at all, were from their nature permanent, enduring, and ever crescent; and to prevent their continuance and growth he would vote, notwithstanding its hazards and difficulties, for the motion of his hon. and gallant Friend.

gave full weight to the objections that had been taken to the specific Motion of the gallant Member for Lincoln. No hon. Member felt more grateful to the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) than he did for the alterations which had been effected in the Poor Law; but he felt that these alterations were worthy of a better enactment than that to which they belonged, and which was a mere dedication of powers to this Commission. In announcing his intention to vote with the gallant Member for Lincoln, he felt himself bound to state his objection that the period within which the Poor Law Commission should be abolished, ought not to be so short as was proposed in his Motion.

moved the insertion of the following Clause:—

"And be it enacted, that the Commissioners do and shall order Boards of Guardians to take measures for allowing all paupers, not being members of the Church of England, to attend their respective places of worship, when within reasonable distance, at all reasonable times."

said, that he was willing to give every attention to the subject. He thought that all facilities ought to be given to the inmates of workhouses not members of the Church of England, for attending their respective places of worship. Every instruction would be given to the Poor Law Commissioners for effecting that purpose, and he hoped that as such was the case the noble Lord would not insist upon pressing his Motion.

said, that the present Clause was free from the objections which subsisted to a similar Clause moved on the preceding evening, and he hoped that the noble Lord would press it.

bore testimony to the efficacy of the principle, which he had seen carried into practice with the greatest advantage though not without difficulties in doing so.

contended, that without the most strenuous efforts on the part of the Poor Law Commissioners to restrain Board of Guardians, the existing evil would not be removed. He hoped that his noble Friend would press his Motion.

hoped that the noble Lord would not press his Motion after the explanation of the right hon. Baronet.

consented to withdraw his Motion.

moved the following Clause:—

"Provided always, and be it further enacted, that whenever it shall appear to the Board of any district school that the space within such school is more than sufficient for the accommodation of poor children within the district for which such school shall have been built, it shall and may be lawful for such board, subject to the approval of the Poor Law Commissioners, to make order for the admission of so many other children residing in the same district as shall seem expedient to such Board; and the weekly provision for the maintenance and education of such children shall be fixed by the Board at such rate as shall in their judgment be amply sufficient to cover every expense on account of such children."

in 1831, strongly recommended such an arrangement. The right hon. Member for Perth (Mr. F. Maule), and others, had concurred in the sentiments of the right hon. Baronet upon that occasion. He was prepared to defend his Motion upon two grounds first, because there was danger if it was not adopted that a premium would be given to poverty; and, secondly, because he believed that such an arrangement as was thereby proposed, would tend to prevent pauper children from feeling the stigma attached to their situation, by being educated as a separate class. The Bishop of London had in 1831 stated, that it was not desirable to make the education of the poor more different from that of the rich than their situation demanded. He (Mr. S. O'Brien) had no authority for saying so, but after what he had just quoted, he had no doubt that the Clause which he now proposed would meet with the approbation of that right rev. Prelate. The House would observe that the consent of the Poor Law Commissioners and of the Board of Guardians was requisite before the Clause could be made operative. With these two provisions, with the restriction to a radius of seven and a-half miles, and considering that the means of education were so notoriously disproportioned to the wants of the people, he could not conceive that any danger could accrue from admitting this Clause into the Act. The effect of his Motion would be, to add to the amount of education and to approximate so much the nearer to a general system thereof.

said, that nothing beyond the proceedings of that debate were necessary to convince him, had he no other proof of it, how intimately the question of the Poor Law was interwoven with the greatest subjects of national policy. To the number of leading topics which had already been touched upon, the hon. Member for Northampton had now added that of education. That hon. Member had, however, omitted to consider that the district schools provided for in the Bill were pauper boarding-schools, inasmuch as they were the collection in these district schools of pauper children drawn from the surrounding workhouses. It would, therefore, not be right on the part of the Commissioners, or of the district Board of Guardians, to consent to any expense for the building of larger schools than were necessary for the ordinary number of children contained in the surrounding workhouses. It would not be just to the ratepayers to expose them to greater expense than was requisite for the pauper population of their unions. He (Sir J. Graham) objected to the Clause, not only on these grounds, but because it held out expectations which it could not fulfil. It was an attempt to introduce a general scheme under cover of a local and particular enactmeni; for, as the plan of district schools was, by the Bill, confined to the metropolis and four or five other places, and affected only one class of the poor, such a Clause as that proposed would create the greatest disappointment, by creating hopes for the education of the poor generally throughout the kingdom. He did not attach so much authority to the opinion of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London as the hon. Member for Northampton, for he was not prepared absolutely to be bound by it; but he had no hesitation in saying, that that right rev. Prelate was opposed to the proposition of the hon. Member. It was admitted, that as far as was possible, the Bill sought to increase the means of education among the poor, especially where the largest numbers were congregated; but was this proposition adapted for such a purpose? He had a decided opinion that it was not. It would place an unjust assessment upon the rate-payers, and be most injurious to the existing schools of all kinds, supported by voluntary subscriptions, if it succeeded. Such a supposition, however, he regarded as delusive. The hon. Member had referred to what took place upon this subject in 1841; but the schools then under discussion were day schools and not boarding-schools. The whole scheme of the district schools was founded upon the understanding that provisions as well as education should be found for the children. On these grounds, he felt it to be his duty to oppose the Motion.

was astonished at hearing now the decided opinions of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) compared with what he had previously said upon the subject. The objection taken by the right hon. Baronet that the schools were to be boarding-schools, was not valid, as the Poor Law Commissioners had, by the Clause, the power of saying when day borders should be received, and when they should not. There was no compulsion under the Clause to receive children as boarders; though he was the last person who would say anything disrespectful of the Bishop of London, he felt bound to state it as his opinion that that right rev. Prelate saw in the Clause a more liberal system of education than he approved of. He (Mr. Hawes) would support the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton.

said, that he intended to support the views of his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham). On a previous occasion he had declared that he had a strong prepossession in favour of the Motion now before the House, as he thought it would give to parents generally the advantages of such an education, as they could not otherwise possess. If the question was one between ignorance and knowledge, between Christianity and infidelity, the Church could not he conceived, be much injured thereby. He found not only on the part of the Bishop of London, but of others also, an opinion that such an arrangement as that now proposed would rather check and impede voluntary efforts for the education of the people than encourage them, and that in- stead of increasing the sum of education it would very likely check it. The district schools ought to be constructed only of the size requisite for the accommodation of the pauper children, and it would not be right to charge the rate-payers for room beyond that which was required. He yielded his former opinions to the authority of those who were conversant with the subject, and would therefore oppose the Motion.

would not tax the right hon. Baronet with inconsistency, but thought that hon. Members had a right to be convinced by his previous arguments; for at present he had adduced none. He thought the principle of the Clause was excellent, as it went to convince the pauper children that they were not outcasts from society, and to encourage a general and high spirit of concession towards them among the children of the lower classes generally.

was of opinion that, under the circumstances, it was not of any use to divide the House upon this Clause.

begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade a question. It had been stated that difficulties had been created by the Dutch Government in the way of appointing Consuls in the ports of Java, to furnish certificates of origin to sugar-growers who shipped their produce to this country. He asked whether the fact were so, and whether any means had been devised for obviating the difficulty.

said, that persons resident in Java, not bearing the title of Consuls, had been authorized by Her Majesty to grant certificates of origin of sugars shipped from the ports of that island for England, and the persons thus selected were such as the Government could fully depend upon. He would take that opportunity of stating that a gentleman had been appointed to fill the situation of Consul at Manilla, who had formerly been Consul at Damascus, and who would receive a salary of 1,000l. a year, with an allowance for a clerk. The foreign commerce with Java was principally carried on at the ports of Batavia, Samarang, and Sourabaya. The name of the gentleman who would act at Batavia was Bonhose; Mr. M'Neil was to act at Samarang; and a gentleman named Fraser was to officiate in the capacity of certificate granter at Sourabaya. The amount of remuneration which these gentlemen would receive for performing their duties was not yet fixed; but he understood from the Foreign Office that 300l. a year would be the maximum allowance in each case.

begged to know whether the gentlemen in question were merely private merchants resident at the different ports, or whether they would be invested with any civil functions?

said, that the persons appointed to grant certificates of origin would not hold any consular appointment. Their duty would be confined to the mere inspection of sugar shipped for British ports. As to the question which related to their being engaged in mercantile affairs, his impression was, that Mr. Fraser was not in business, though he had been engaged in commerce, and that Mr. Bonhose and Mr. M'Neil were both merchants.

rose to propose the Amendment of which he had given notice. Before he submitted his Amendment, he wished to congratulate the House upon the great improvement which had taken place in the practice of Election Committees. He thought that if the proceedings of Election Committees constituted according to the present law were contrasted with those of former Committees, a very great improvement would be seen, and he believed that greater confidence was now felt in the decisions of such Committees. The four eminent Counsel who had been examined befor the Committee which had investigated this subject, had borne very satisfactory testimony to the improvement in the proceedings of these Committees. Those learned gentlemen had stated their belief that the imputations which had been thrown out against the Members of Election Committees were unfounded. He believed that the great security for the due administration of justice was the conviction, which existed on both sides of the House, that judicial functions were com- mitted to Members of these Committees, and that a most solemn obligation was violated if their decisions were not in accordance with the evidence adduced before them. He believed that nothing could more tend to raise that House in the estimation of the public than the evidence that this was the feeling which guided the decisions of Election Committees. The question he had now to bring under the consideration of the House was, whether there should be a reduction in the number of Members constituting Election Committees, and if so, what that reduction should be. The decision of the Committee which had investigated this subject, and which consisted of some of the most eminent Members of that House, had decided in favour of the reduction. The question then came before the Committee to what extent the reduction should be carried. On that point—as to whether future Committees should consist of five or three Members—the Committee were equally divided in opinion. Certainly, a majority of that Committee, five to four, were in favour of constituting Election Committees of three Members; but the noble Chairman of that Committee did not conceal his opinion that he wished the Committee to consist of five Members. He confessed that though he willingly bowed to the decision of the Committee in favour of a reduction, he would prefer that the number of Members on such Committees should be reduced to five rather than to three. He admitted there was great force in the argument as to the concentration of responsibility; and he would greatly prefer a Committee consisting of five Members to one of thirteen, on account of the additional responsibility which, in his opinion, was imposed by such a limitation of numbers. But, on the other hand, he thought it would be advisable that such Committees should consist of more than three Gentlemen; for Gentlemen might view the same facts in a very different point of view, and he thought it better to have the collective judgment of five Gentlemen brought to bear upon such a subject, than the judgment of three Members of that House. If the Committee consisted of three Members, and by any circumstance, one Member was prevented from attending, the other two Members might be divided in opinion; and unless provision were made to meet such a case, no decision could be come to. He was disposed to regard the opinions of the Committee which had investigated this subject with great deference, five Members of that Committee having voted against four in favour of Election Committees being composed of three Members, and he hoped it would not be supposed, that he was evincing any intentional disrespect towards that Committee, which had suggested some most important and valuable alterations in the law, in proposing that Election Committees should in future be composed of five Members. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving that in page 16, line 1, the blank be filled up with the word "four," in order that the Election Committee may be composed of five Members, including the Chairman.

thought that House would desire, as far as they could, to amend a law which had done so much to redeem their character, and which had given substantial justice to them all. His opinion was, that the reduction in the number of Members of Election Committees to three would be most advisable, because in that case the general Committee of selection would be more deeply impressed with the importance of placing the most competent Members of that House upon such Committees. His own conviction was, that the best plan would be to follow the exact analogy of our Courts of Justice, and to constitute these tribunals of an equal number of Judges; at the same time, as he saw there was a strong feeling in favour of the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, he would not offer any objection to that proposal.

said, that some years ago he had considerable experience in proceedings before Election Committees, and he must say that there had undoubtedly been a great improvement in the constitution of such tribunals, which had now to a very great extent secured the confidence of the public. He was decidedly in favour of a reduction in the number of Members placed on these Committees, because he believed that such a course would entail increased responsibility on each individual Member. He thought, however, that it would be advisable first to try the experiment of a reduction from seven to five, instead of jumping at once from seven to three.

said, he thought the experiment of proposing that Election Com- mittees should consist of five Members was somewhat dangerous. The hon. Member for Liskeard had suggested that such Committees should be constituted of four Members; and he certainly thought that the decision of the majority of such a tribunal would be more satisfactory, than the decision of those Committees as at present constituted.

said, it was most inconvenient that tribunals of this nature should be broken up without arriving at a decision, especially as the proceedings involved great expense; and he would, therefore, propose at a future stage of this measure, that even if Election Committees should be reduced to one or two Members, they should still proceed with their investigation. He would propose that even if a Committee was by any circumstances reduced to one Member, he should still be enabled to prosecute the inquiry, with the consent of the parties interested.

moved the omission of the 12th Clause, relating to the placing out of parish apprentices. He objected to the controlling power which the Clause gave to the Poor Law Commissioners in selecting the trade and term of service of those apprentices. He also considered that the Clause was inapplicable to the merchant sea service, which in fact was properly regulated by the Merchant Seamen's Act. It could not be maintained that it would be proper to give to the Commissioners control over the merchant shipping; as to their power of visitation to see how the apprentices were treated, it would not be very easy to carry that into effect.

said, this subject had already been amply discussed. He certainly should think the Clause a very impolitic one, if it imposed any serious interference as regards binding apprentices to the merchant service, and he agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer that any visitorial power on the part of the Commissioners over the merchant service as to apprentices, would practically not be found a very easy duty to perform; but he could assure the hon. and gallant Officer, that however ambitious of power the Commissioners might be, this was not a power which they sought to exercise. But this Clause was not intended to interfere with merchant service apprentices; nor did he think it did so interfere. With reference, however, to the Merchant Seamen's Act, he might say, that it had been of great national advantage; for now some 25,000 boys were bound to the merchant service, whereas before the passing of that Act, there had not been more than from 3,000 to 4,000. He might state that his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty had a Bill now in progress in that House to amend and alter that Act: and, appended to it in the schedule, would be found a new form of indenture and the terms of service, regulating the duties of merchant seamen's apprentices. In point of fact, that Bill would supersede this Clause in the Poor Law Bill, so far as the merchant service was concerned; and therefore the hon. and gallant Officer might discharge from his mind all his objections to the Clause on that point. The only other objection of the hon. and gallant Officer was the control of the Commissioners over the discretion of the Local Boards as regarded parish apprentices in binding them to particular trades, and the term of their apprenticeship. In the main, the provisions of this Bill were regulations in favour of the young and unprotected, in those respects in which they were now unguarded; and he could not put his finger on any Clause in the Bill which more partook of that character than this; for, according to the law of Settlement, as it now stood, local Boards had a pecuniary interest on the part of those whom they represented, in transferring the burthen of the maintenance of destitute orphans, by binding them out to various trades, perhaps disagreeable and ill-suited to their strength and health; not only that, but they might pay a premium out of the parish purse, and by that premium many are induced to take these apprentices, without any regard to the interest of the children. If any transactions required supervision to control them, it was such as those he referred to; and he hoped, therefore, that the House would adhere to the decision of the Committee, and not allow the Clause to be expunged.

adhered to every declaration he had made in that House when this subject was before under discussion. In his opinion the Clause was dictated by a feeling of humanity, and was, he believed, one of the most valuable in the Bill. The children to whom it referred were the most unprotected part of the community. They had no parents, no guardians, no persons but the parish officers to look after them, and on a former occasion he had stated the manner in which the latter discharged their duty. He had stated, that in many parishes they were in the habit of seeing their children only once a-year, and, as the law now stood, the latter were furnished with no protection whatever. Did the hon. and gallant Officer consider that they ought to have no protection? But as the law now stood, if this Clause were omitted they would have none. His complaint was, that the Clause did not go far enough, because it grants the unhappy children already bound no protection. He hoped that the House and the Government would adhere to the Clause as it stood in the Bill. He regretted that the opposition to such a Clause should proceed from that (the Opposition) side of the House. Such opposition offered but poor encouragement from that (the Opposition) side, to a Minister to moderate the asperities of the Poor Law Bill. He trusted that the hon. and gallant Member would withdraw his opposition to the Clause. He (Mr. Wakley) trusted that something more would be done on the subject. He would take the point into consideration during the recess; and it was his hope that he should be successful in inducing Her Majesty's Government to adopt other measures with reference to this class of persons. He repealed what he had previously stated to that House, that there did not exist a more ill-used body of individuals than those to which the Clause especially referred.

proposed a Clause empowering Gilbert Unions and Parishes having Local Acts to elect their own Auditors. He would endeavour to put what observations he had to make in support of the Clause which he had prepared in as small a compass as possible. He thought it would only be consistent with what the right hon. Baronet had allowed the metropolitan parishes, who had adopted Hob-house's Act, to do, that he should accede to this Clause. They were allowed to appoint their own auditor. Why should not parishes under Gilbert's Act elect their auditors as they had done hitherto. No abuses nor mal-practices had been proved against the parish of Brighton, and he trusted that the right hon. Baronet would accede to his proposition; because, to vest the power of appointing auditors in the Commissioners was, in fact, to do away with their out-door relief, and to destroy the independence of that and other Gilbert Unions.

I rise to second the Motion of my hon. and gallant Colleague; and I can assure the House that it is with great reluctance that I venture to trespass upon their attention even for a few minutes when I recollect the immense length to which our sitting has been extended, and bow dry and uninteresting the subject upon which I am about to address them must be to most hon. Members. Sir, I give my cordial support to the proviso which my gallant Friend has proposed, not because I entirely concur in every part of it, but because its general effect will be to prevent the provisions of the auditing Clause of this Bill from applying to large towns under Local Acts. I object to all interference on the part of the Poor Law Commissioners with large and populous parishes well governed under the provisions of Local Acts. I am aware that they possess this power to a certain extent by the existing law; and I do not now propose to deprive them of the power which they already have, partly because I am most unwilling to throw any useless or unnecessary impediment in the progress of a Measure which I consider to be of so important and beneficial a nature, and for which I think the country is deeply indebted to Her Majesty's Government, and partly because I hope that the Poor Law Commissioners will exercise that power with great discretion, as I feel bound to say I think they have hitherto done, and that they will recollect the purpose for which that power was given to them. That the authors of the New Poor Law Bill never intended that power to be applied for the purpose of interfering with the mode of administering relief to the poor in large parishes under the provisions of Local Acts where no ground of complaint existed, I have the authority of Lord Althorp himself and of Sir Frederic Pollock for saying. Lord Althorp, in introducing the Bill in 1834, said, "he hoped the Commissioners would not interfere with the parishes that were well regulated. The only mode in which he trusted they would deal with such parishes would be to follow their example." Sir Frederic Pollock some years later said, "when the Poor Law Bill was passed, it was the general understanding that all Local Acts should not be interfered with, but should remain in due force." But, Sir, although for these reasons I do not seek now to deprive the Commissioners of their existing powers, I trust I shall not be considered as pursuing a course in the least unfair, or of a factious nature, when I express my intention to oppose any further extension of those powers. Sir, I know that in expressing my opinion as to the inexpediency of interfering with Local Acts, am liable to the imputation of being influenced by the local prejudices of my constituents; out this Bill itself admits the principle for which I contend by enacting that parishes under Local Acts containing a population of more than 20,000, shall not be included in a Poor Law Union or a school district. I am moreover supported in my opinion by persons whose judgment ought to have the greatest weight with the House and Her Majesty's Government, and whose opinion is not open to the same ground of suspicion; I refer particularly to Sir F. Pollock and the right hon. Baronet at the Head of Her Majesty's Government. There are also two very important judgments of the Court of Queen's Bench, which, as I am extremely anxious not unnecessarily to trespass upon the time of the House, I will not go into at length; but I will merely state the effect of those judgments. In the case of St. Pancras, the Court decided that the Poor Law Commissioners had not the power to alter the constitution of Boards of Guardians under Local Acts; but the practical effect of the decision of the Queen's Bench in the case of the Whitechapel Union was to deprive those Boards of the advantage which they had gained in the case of St. Pancras, by declaring that the Commissioners had the power of placing any parish under a Local Act in a Union. When the Poor Law Bill of the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, was under the consideration of the House in 1841, Sir F. Pollock alluded to these decisions of the Queen's Bench; but before I direct the attention of the House to the observations which he then made, I wish to anticipate an objection which may be taken with respect to them. The right hon. Baronet may say that they were made under totally different circumstances from the present, and in reference to a different subject, and that they are inapplicable to the audit districts. Sir, my answer to this object- tion is, that the only reason why they do not appear to have immediate reference to the Clause at present under discussion is, that the particular mode of interference then proposed is different from that which is now proposed. The proposal to include towns under Local Acts in audit districts was not then contemplated; and therefore of course the arguments then made use of could not have immediate reference to such a plan. But I contend that they were directed quite as much against the principle of interference as against the particular mode by which it was then sought to effect such interference. Now, Sir F. Pollock said, (speaking, let me remind the House, not as the representative of a town under a Local Act, but simply as a parishioner and a rate-payer). "After the decision in the case of St. Pancras, he left the court followed by a gentleman who said, 'as you don't like the Board of Guardians, we will put you into a Union.' Upon which he said, 'Sir, if you have any intention of doing that, I beg to tell you that your present remark will for ever prevent that, for in the Court of Queen's Bench, or in my place in Parliament, I will always be ready to state what I have said, and prevent you from doing indirectly what you cannot do directly.' He was a parishioner, and considered that if they were large enough to conduct their own affairs under a Board of Guardians, they did not want to be put into a union. He dared the party to do so." Now, Sir, I put it to the House whether these remarks do not apply with as much force to audit districts as to Poor Law Unions? I can only regret that Sir F. Pollock is not here; for I am sure he would have joined in the endeavour to prevent the Commissioners from obtaining a power by this Clause to do indirectly that which they cannot do directly, and that he would have expressed his opinion that if towns are large enough to conduct their own affairs under a Board of Guardians, they ought not to be placed in an audit district. In the same debate the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government, alluding to the decision of the Queen's Bench in the case of the Whitechapel Union, observed "In that way all the parishes now governed by Local Acts were placed under the arbitrary control of the New Poor Law Commissioners." After suggesting that the Clause under discussion should be delayed in order to ascertain the number and population of parishes under Local Acts, he proceeded to say "he thought it would be a fair question for the Committee to consider whether there ought or ought not to be any limitation as to the population of parishes; as, for example, where there were at present parishes containing a population of 20,000 or 30,000, governed by a Local Act, whether it would be wise for them to exempt such parishes? He had always thought that where there were immense masses of population well governed under Local Acts, it would not be found expedient to place them under the control of the Commissioners." I beg the House to observe, that the right hon. Gentleman did not confine his objection to placing these large parishes in Poor Law Unions, but generally under the control of the Commissioners. Sir, I adopt the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman; and because I think that where large masses of population are well governed under Local Acts, it is inexpedient to place them under the control of the Commissioners, I object to placing such large towns as that which I have the honor of representing in the audit districts. Sir, if the House is prepared to adopt the opinion of the authorities to which I have referred, the only questions for them to consider are first, whether the particular mode of importanee which were condemned in 1841; and secondly, whether the parishes under Local Acts are well governed. With respect to the first point, what is the effect of this Clause? Why, it entirely deprives the ratepayers and guardians of all control over the expenditure of their rates, and thus violates a most important principle,—a principle which should never be violated except under circumstances of urgent necessity. The Commissioners by this Bill are to have the same powers over the auditor as under the New Poor Law Bill, that is, they are to determine his qualification, specify his duties, decide upon his continuance in, or dismissal from office, and fix his salary. If the Poor Law Commissioners issue any order to the Board of Guardians with respect to the administration of relief to the poor, and a charge is inserted in the accounts of the Guardians, inconsistent with such order, the auditor will be compelled to strike out such a charge as an illegal one; and notwithstanding the immense powers which this auditor will have, I find by this Bill that if the town of Brighton, for instance, with a population of 50,000, should be hereafter joined to a Union where an auditor has already been appointed, as far perhaps as the present generation is concerned, neither the Guardians nor ratepayers will have any voice in his appointment. I think, then, that I am justified in saying that this Clause in conjunction with the powers which the Commissioners already possess will entirely destroy the independence of Local Boards. The only other question to be considered is, whether these parishes have been well governed? I cannot of course prove negatively that no corrupt application of parochial rates has ever been made in any parish. The onus probandi lies upon the right hon. Baronet; but I can say with respect to the town of Brighton, that no dissatisfaction exists on account of the manner in which the parish funds have been administered. The provisions of the Local Act are well adapted to secure the proper application of the parish funds; for by them all ratepayers may at any time have access to the accounts of the Directors and Guardians, those accounts must be brought before the vestry to be audited four times in the year, and at these quarterly meetings, any ratepayer has the right to object to any item before the accounts are audited: and even after they have been allowed and audited, he can appeal to Quarter Sessions. I believe that these provisions of the Local Act have answered the purpose for which they were enacted; for all parties in the town are perfectly satisfied. There is no complaint on the part of the pauper, as in the Poor Law Unions; and that the ratepayer is satisfied, I think, is sufficiently proved by the fact that there has not been a single appeal during a long series of years. In addition to what I have said, I have the statement of an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner himself. I will with the permission of the House read one short extract from the address of Mr. Hawley to the Brighton Board of Guardians a few years ago. After speaking in terms of high commendation of some of the rules of the Board, he concludes his address in these words;—

"And in other respects the existing amount of pauperism, as compared with the population, is highly satisfactory, and the progressive and striking diminution of the parochial expenditure observable in the accounts of the last three years speaks most favourably for the system of management that has been pursued. Finally, Gentlemen, your systematic mode of conducting parochial affairs, approaches in many respects so nearly to the system laid down by the Poor Law Commissioners, that the change proposed to be made in your present establishment can scarcely be considered as an innovation; in fact, with the exception of altering the number and constitution of your board, the same machinery under new appellations will continue to work as heretofore, in order, under the authority of a central controlling power, to complete the uniformity of system throughout the country, and secure its future duration."

Sir, having, I trust, said enough to show that this Clause without the proviso of my hon. Colleague will interfere most seriously with the continuance of Local Acts; and that no ground has been made out to justify such interference, I will not any longer occupy the time of the House; but I will conclude by appealing to the right hon. Baronet to concede this point. I am convinced that this point may be conceded without abandoning any part of the principle of the Poor Law Act. I can assure the right hon. Baronet, that if I thought the concession which I ask for, would involve the abandonment of the general principle of the Bill, I would not ask him to make it: but believing as I do, that it will involve no such consequences, I trust that I shall not appeal to him in vain when I ask him to grant a boon which will be so gratefully accepted.

could hardly regret the renewal of this discussion, since it had afforded him the pleasure of hearing the speech of his noble Friend; and there was no appeal to which, if it were consistent with his duty, he would yield with move pleasure than one which had been made so ably, and in a manner so persuasive, as the appeal of the noble Lord. He could not, however, yield the point. The House had, by a great majority, decided on the Commissioners having the power of interference generally with these unions, and, if that interference was justifiable in any case, it was so as it appeared to him, in the appointment of auditors. It was true that parishes which had adopted Hobhouse's Act, had been exempted from the power of the Commissioners to appoint auditors, but Hobhouse's Act was not a local but a general Act; and if Brighton and other parishes under Gilbert's Act had liked to adopt that Act, they might have been exempted too. There were only four parishes in the metropolis which had adopted Hobhouse's Act; and he must say, they managed their accounts in a way more nearly perfect than any parish under a local Act with which he was acquainted. With respect to the case of Brighton—he held in his hand a report of a public meeting specially called in that town, to consider the propriety of petitioning the House of Commons against the audit Clauses, and in this he found recorded the speech of a Mr. Holford, who declared that he was an auditor of the accounts of the town. Mr. Holford said he should be sorry to see any auditor appointed under the Poor Law Commissioners do any injury to the poor; but he could not think for a moment that any injury would arise from the appointment of an auditor of that kind. He went on to say, it was obvious that they wanted an auditor; for he had seen the accounts for several years, and many items had been allowed for which there was no law. Expences of town meetings, clearly of a political character—expences of petitions, and addresses were among them. The high constable he had known (he said) charge more than 50l. "for clothing, and everything that was right to go to court with." There had been some hundreds of pounds (he said) paid out of the poor-rates, which he knew were illegal charges. Indeed, he could say, there were hundreds and thousands of pounds which went through their accounts which were illegal. This was the statement of an auditor of experience, respecting the mode in which the accounts of the parish of Brighton were administered; and he was of opinion that an auditor ought to be appointed. As he had said, he (Sir J. Graham) was confident that if any interference with these unions was expedient, that interference was the appointment of an independent auditor. The result would most certainly be to the advantage of the local rate payers. The question was not so much who should appoint, as who should dismiss. If the guardians had the power of dismissal, the auditors could not be independent of them. He hoped, therefore, the House would adhere to their former decision. Judging from the case of Brighton, they would evidently do right to extend the power of appointing auditors to places under local Acts.

was ready to admit that the right hon. Baronet had gone a good way in concession to places under Local Acts, and that he had conducted the discussions on this measure with great propriety, and given what he no doubt considered most sufficient reasons for all he wished to be done, but in the two instances of the appointment of auditors under Local Acts and in places under Hobhouse's Act, there had been a total failure of reasons for the conduct the right hon. Baronet had pursued. He felt very great regret that the right hon. Baronet had not consented to admit the Clause.

said, the proper mode, if the people of Brighton allowed their accounts to go wrong, was to let them be punished for it, but not to let the Government interfere. He feared a great deal from this interference, and he thought it would be far better that the Government should leave the appointment to the rate payers, who, as a natural principle, must take care of themselves.

felt indebted to the right hon. Baronet for the courtesy which he had shown in the course of the discussions on this Bill. As a Minister of the Crown he was bound to perform a certain duty; and it was not to be expected of him that he should go much beyond the line of his duty; it was satisfactory, however, to feel after all their labours that many concessions had been made by the Government. In the course of the discussions he had done all that depended on him to explain and enforce the views of his constituents, and he trusted that he had fairly represented them. He would now take leave of the right hon. Baronet and of his Bill; for, after what had occurred, it was desirable that the House should go through the Bill as speedily as possible.

said, that as a magistrate of Middlesex, he wished to say a few words on the Bill before the Speaker left the Chair. The principle of the Bill was not known in the administration of justice among the magistrates of England. It was to establish a court in which there was to be a chairman with a salary appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It was on account of the countenance which it gave to the principle of centralization that he felt an objection to the Bill. It enabled, he repeated, the Secretary of State for the Home Department not only to appoint a chairman, who had hitherto been appointed by the magistrates of Middlesex at large, but to award to that chairman a large pecuniary salary. The magistrates of Middlesex were about 200 in number. At a meeting of those magistrates the subject of this measure had been discussed; thirty-two had voted for it, and thirteen against it; but, how came those thirty-two magistrates to vote in favour of this measure? Because they were friends — boon companions of the chairman of the Middlesex Sessions It was not very likely that Gentlemen who were in constant communication with an individual, who sat with him at dinner every day, and had frequent intercourse with him, would oppose a measure which would give to that individual 1,000l. or 1,200l. a year. The right hon. Gentleman opposite wished to introduce a new system of prison discipline; and a sort of contract had been proposed, that if the Middlesex magistrates would devote so many thousand pounds to the purchase of a building to carry out that system, the Government would pay the Chairman of the Sesions from 800l. to 1,200l. a-year. A letter had been shown to him, from which it appeared that there was an understanding of this nature between the Government and the magistrates. He objected to the appointment of the Chairman being vested in the Crown; for the principle, if once adopted, might be carried out most extensively. Why, he would ask, did not the right hon. Baronet propose the appointment of another Judge in the Central Criminal Court? What would be the effect of this Bill? It would transfer the jurisdiction from the Westminster magistrates to the Justices at the Clerkenwell Sessions. He asked the House to consider what inconvenience would be occasioned by requiring prosecutors and witnesses to go from Westminster to Clerkenwell. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman propose the appointment of an additional judge at the Central Criminal Court, to whom this salary should be given. If the right hon. Baronet wished to oblige the Chairman of the Middlesex Sessions, he might give the appointment to that Gentleman, who was a barrister of long standing. Another objection he entertained to this Bill was, that it would exonerate the City of London from an enormous expense, which would be thrown upon the county of Middlesex. But he wished to point out another evil which would result from this Bill. If a Chairman was appointed by the Government he would be totally independent of the magistrates. Six or eight magistrates might sit with him, but the Chairman possessed only one vote. In consequence of his not being nominated by his brother magistrates they possessed no influence over him; he was as careless of their opinions as they were of his. The Chairman might, on a case before the Court, turn round and say to the magistrates near him, "I think the prisoner ought to have seven years' transportation." On the other hand, they might say, "No; we think six months' imprisonment would be a very adequate punishment." Let the House reflect upon the position in which the chairman—the judge—would, under such circumstances, be placed. If the Chairman was to be the judge, he ought to possess the power of passing sentence; but did he possess it? No; this power fisted with the magistrates sitting with him—a fluctuating body—six or eight of whom might come into court, while the same number might go out during the day, and the Chairman might find himself under the necessity of passing a sentence totally repugnant to his own feelings. On these grounds he thought it right to state his objections to the Bill.

said, this Bill, which was one of great importance, had been introduced at a late period of the Session, without a single word of explanation. It appeared to him that Bill was not required by any parties connected either with the county of Middlesex or the City of London. He objected to the measure, in the first place, because it entailed a serious charge upon the public. He wished to know why the Chairman of the Middlesex Quarter Sessions should have a salary paid out of the public taxes any more than the Chairman of any other Sessions. If it was necessary that functionary should have a salary at all, why not pay him out of the county rates, rather than out of taxes levied from the people generally? It was proposed by this Bill, without the least necessity for such a measure being shown, to abolish the Quarter Sessions for the City of Westminster. Those Sessions had hitherto been held in the centre of the City of Westminster, but it was now proposed to transfer the business to Clerkenwell, and that change would entail the utmost inconvenience upon the people of Westminster. But one great objection to this measure arose from the peculiar relations subsisting between the county of Middlesex and the City of London. By an ancient arrangement, the City of London, for certain considerations, had undertaken to pay the cost of all prisoners committed to the prison of Newgate before trial. Why, then, should the county of Middlesex have entailed upon it the additional expense of keeping such prisoners? Had there ever been any difficulty in conducting the proceedings at the Central Criminal Court? By the 4th and 5th William IV., that court might hold its Sessions at least twelve times a-year. Those Sessions might be held every fortnight, if it was so ordered by the Queen in Council, or they might be made perpetual; and the authorities of the City of London had always shown a willingness that a gaol delivery should take place whenever circumstances rendered such a measure necessary. But would the judge to be appointed under this Bill possess an additional power of trying prisoners? No: he would have no power which he did not already possess as Chairman of the Court of Quarter Sessions. As he understood the Bill, the paid judge to be appointed under it would have to perform precisely the same duties which were now performed by the Chairman of the Court of Quarter Sessions. But he believed that this measure was proposed in connexion with a costly experiment, now in course of trial by the right hon. Home Secretary; and he held in his hand a correspondence that had taken place between the corporation of London, the magistrates of Middlesex, and the department of the right hon. Baronet, by which it was distinctly made a condition that the magistrates, in order to procure for a gentleman the appointment of judge with a salary, should consent to the entire alteration of the present system. When this proposal was made, the authorities of London made an offer to Sir J. Graham to enlarge their prisons. They asked, indeed, for permission to purchase the site of the old Fleet Prison, in order to carry out this object. The corporation were referred by Sir J. Graham to Major Jebb; and they were informed, that unless they were prepared to purchase ground to the extent of five acres they could not carry out the new system. He could not comprehend how such an extent of ground could be required for this purpose. The right hon. Home Secretary said, that this was necessary in order to carry out the separate system; but it appeared from the correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman and the Middlesex magistrates, that the object was to carry out the solitary system as applicable to prisoners before trial. He hoped, however, that the magistrates would never sanction such a course. He was quite aware that the opposition offered to this Bill by the hon. Member for Lymington (Mr. Mackinnon) and himself would be fruitless, unless it could be shown that the City of London had refused to grant greater facilities for the trial of criminals than were now afforded, this Bill was not justifiable.

said, no hon. Member of that House had more seriously castigated the Corporation of the City of London than the hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. W. Williams), and that hon. Member was well aware that the Grand Jury had made representations to the Corporation, complaining of the manner in which business was transacted in the Central Criminal Court, and of the accommodation afforded to prisoners in Newgate. His hon. Friend must know, that in the prison of Newgate, there was no classification; that the prisoners were huddled together in the most shameful manner; that they were crowded to such an extent that there were not beds for them to lie upon. Then what was the case with respect to the Westminster Bridewell? That immense gaol was nearly empty, and why? Because the magistrates for the City of Westminster were the only magistrates who had the power of committing to that gaol. But in the House of Correction there were sometimes 1,200 prisoners; and here there were no chance of classification. It appeared that in one year twelve warders were dismissed, ninety-three warders were punished, and 1,660 prisoners were punished for breaches of discipline resulting from the necessarily defective arrangements of the gaol, and the enormous number of prisoners confined there. He would put it to the House whether such a state of things ought to exist? Then, as to the New Prison—it scarcely afforded accommodation for one-half of the persons committed for trial. In that gaol, also, there was no classification; there was no arrangement of prisoners that could be at all satisfactory. He had no doubt it was well known to many hon. Members of that House that one of the modes of seporation practised in some prisons was to draw chalk lines upon the floors, and to forbid the prisoners to overstep them. Ought this state of things, he would ask, to continue? It appears, that at the Central Criminal Court, the cost of each trial was 2l. 10s., while at the Quarter Sessions the cost was only 20s.; so that by trials at the Quarter Sessions three-fifths of the expenses were saved. During the last year there were upwards of 1,000 committals to Newgate for thefts varying in amount from 2s. to 20s.; and in each of those cases the cost of prosecution was 2l. 10s. Some objection had been made to the payment of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions; but was it right, he would ask, that they should have an incompetent officer presiding in such a Court, and could they expect the services of a competent officer without payment? At the Easter Sessions, he believed the number of appeals at the Middlesex Sessions was ninety-three; and the last Sessions the number was eighty-seven, and many of them involved nice points of law. On one occasion it happened the Chairman could not attend, and he (Mr. Wakley) only wondered that the Chairman had attended half so often as he had, considering he was not paid. Well, what was to be done? The magistrates were obliged to go on, and they attempted to do so, but they got into a a horrid mess. They found it was impossible to proceed, and they postponed all the other appeals. He was informed also that there were about thirty traverse cases every Sessions. It was to be borne in mind that many of the appeals were from the decisions of police magistrates who were barristers; and were their decisions to be reviewed by persons who were almost wholly unacquainted with the law? The hon. and learned Member for Rochester (Mr. Bodkin) had authorised him to state that he would have given this Bill his most cordial and hearty support if he had been able to remain in town until the present time. He must add, that he had heard what were called the "evening sittings" of the Central Criminal Court spoken of as the greatest abomination in the neighbourhood in which it was held; and it was stated that the most abominable practices took place in the immediate vicinity of the Court during its sitting. He thanked the Government for introducing this Bill, and would give it his cordial support.

said, he considered this subject as so important that he should be very sorry if this Bill did not become law during the present Session. He thought he could show a good reason why the Chairman should be paid a salary out of the public purse, but that was matter of detail to be considered in Committee. The hon. Member for Lymington had alluded to something like a contract between the Government and the Middlesex Magistrates as to this Bill, and said that if the Bill passed, a particular individual would be appointed Chairman. He could only say that he had entirely kept aloof from any such contract. The necessity for this Bill had been long admitted, and the dispute for many years had been who should have the right of appointment. The Middlesex Magistrates contended that the Crown should pay this officer, but that the right of nomination should be with them. The late Government, did not object to pay the salary out of the public purse, but contended that the Government being responsible to the public should have the appointment. He did not wish to enter into topics that had been already discussed; but he might say that he had the highest possible respect for the unpaid magistracy of this country, and thought they had rendered most valuable services to the public; but he thought the hon. Member for Lymington—he must excuse him for saying so—had not served their cause or raised them in public estimation either by his statements or by his example. The hon. Gentleman said he had a strong opinion against the measure; but on account of his regard for a certain individual, he would vote for it. The hon. Member for Finsbury has referred to the crowded state of Newgate gaol, and said it was not creditable to the City of London. This measure would afford an easy and cheap remedy for the evil, by the more speedy administration of justice. At present the Magistrates had power to commit to the Central Criminal Court or the Middlesex Quartet Sessions, but sent the prisoners generally—not, he thought, improperly—to the Central Criminal Court, on account of the state of the Middlesex gaol, and hence the crowded state of Newgate. That was a large gaol, but was greatly crowded. The Westminster gaol was a larger one, and had but few prisoners in it, whilst, the Middlesex gaol was very small. But this measure remedied these evils; it opened the Westminster gaol to the relief of Newgate. It gave the Middlesex Magistrates no new power, but enabled them to exercise their discretion in a new mode, so that in cases not of a heinous character they could commit, to the Quarter Sessions, to be presided over by a barrister of no less than fifteen years standing, and as there was to be a gaol delivery every fortnight, there would be a saving to the county-rates. In every respect it was an improved arrangement, to which no objection could be taken but the bugbear of that word "centralization." He had heard no other argument against it. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury that the time had arrived when the evening sittings of the Central Criminal Court should be at an end. Whether they considered the position of the judge, jury, counsel, witnesses, those sittings were anything but conducive to the proper administration of justice. By lessening the amount of business at that Court the necessity for those evening sittings would be obviated. The hon. Member for Lymington had said that he (Sir J. Graham) had entered into a contract with the Magistrates on the subject of this Bill. Now, he must read to the House a letter which was sent by Mr. Phillips to Mr. Pownall on the 29th of June last, which would show that there was nothing of the kind. The letter was dated—

moved to leave out the words "out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland," for the purpose of introducing the words "the county rate."

said, if the Motion of the hon. Gentleman were agreed to it would defeat the whole Bill.

said he should be sorry to defeat the Bill, but he must persit in his Motion.