25 JUNE 1842, Page 12

POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY NIGHT.

In the House of Commons last right, the question of the Poor-law was reopened. The order of the day having been read, Mr. LAWSON moved, " That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the bill into two bills"; his object being, that the first five clauses of the bill should proceed, and that the House should be able to deal separately with the sixth clause, which extinguishes the Gilbert Unions. Sir JAMES GRAHAM censured this factious opposition to the passing of the bill. He reminded the House, that the persons living under the Gilbert Unions are only 250,000 ; while persons not living under the Gilbert Act, yet excluded from the operation of the general Poor- law by the existence of those unions, are 150,000 in number ; so that on account of 400,000 persons the extension of the Poor-law throughout England and Wales is to be indefinitely postponed 1 Dr. BOWRING had approved of the original organization of the Commission, and was fully alive to the abuses of the old system ; but he had seen the working of the new law in the borough which he represents, Bolton. He had brought before the House many cases of distress, disgraceful to the state of society in the country : an investigation had been ordered ; but the mode in which it had been conducted had given the greatest dissatis- faction. He should therefore resist the continuance of powers executed without discretion or humanity ; but he should not avail himself of the mere forms of the House to offer a factious opposition. After a short discussion, Mr. Lawsosr withdrew his motion.

Mr. THOMAS BUNCOMBE moved, as an amendment to the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, the following resolution- " That considering the distressed state of the commercial and industrious classes of this country, together with the advanced period of the session, and the present state of public business, coupled with the fact that the Poor-law Commission expires on the 31st of the ensuing month, it is the opinion of this House, that there is not now a sufficient time to enable Parliament to give that attention and deliberation to the important changes in the laws for the admi- nistration of relief to the poor which the measure introduced by her Majesty's Ministers imperatively demands; and that it would therefore be more ex- pedient that measures of a temporary character should be adopted to meet any inconvenience which the expiring provisions of existing laws for the relief of the poor may be deemed to require."

He observed, that there are sixty-two clauses in the bill, and there were between forty and fifty amendments standing in the Notice-paper. As to the state of public business, look at the measures before the House : there were seventeen orders of the day down for that night ; the measures to amend the law of Bankruptcy and the Ecclesiastical Courts, announced in the Queen's Speech, had not been produced ; the Registration-bills are to be thrown on the table and left there ; and Sir James Graham had the previous night introduced several new mea- sures. A petition had been presented from three millions of people which stated that thousands were dying from actual want. It would be impossible in the present session to make the bill the law of the land.

Mr. 'WALLACE seconded the motion.

A long debate followed. Sir JAMES GRAHAM allowed that the motion fairly raised an important question; but, admitting the distress—for there are 1,200,000 persons now receiving parochial relief—and referring to his experience of former periods of distress without the control similar to that exercised by the Commissioners, he deliberately said, that the emergency of the present moment could only be safely met by the continuance of the Poor-law Commission and its control over the admi- nistration of relief. To show the utility of the Commission, he mentioned that Sir Johh Walsham, the Assistant-Commissioner, on his with- drawal from Burnley, had received an expression of confidence from the Board of Guardians for his humanity and the judicious arrange- ments which he had suggested. Mr. Hume declared his conviction that Poor-laws and Corn-laws could not exist together ; and on that ground he found himself for the first time voting against the continuance of the Poor-law Act. To that Lord JOHN RUSSELL, who advocated going into Committee and discussing the details separately, replied, that no alteration of the Corn-laws, not even abolition of the duty, could make it advisable to have a bad system of poor-laws ; though be believed that without a corn-law the people wadd have more employment. Colonel WOOD (Brecon) remarked, that the number of persons receiving parochial relief in 1807 was 1,200,000, the same as at present ; but then the population was only 8,000,000, while now it is between 15,000,000 and 16,000,000; so that the number of paupers does not prove the country to be in a deterio- rating condition. Mr. FERRAND repeated his attacks on Mr. Mott, the Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, with a more vehement attack on Sir James Graham, who had warned him against exciting people to unlaw- ful acts in resistance to the Poor-law : such a warning as the right honourable Baronet had taken the liberty of addressing to him sounded oddly from the same lips which, when Sir James was a member of the Reform Ministry, urged the people to intimidate one branch of the Legislature. Mr. WAKLEY having urged the " right" of the people to relief, Mr. ROEBUCK delivered the best speech of the session on the principle of a poor-law,—which should secure relief for the destitute, foster industrious habits, and repress idle ones; and those objects he found to be attained by the present law. Sir ROBERT PEEL called to mind the length of time that the subject had been be- fore the House, and avowed his intention of steadily adhering to the course marked out Mr. Roebuck having charged him with for- bearing until lately from any positive declaration of his opinions, he recalled the most prominent occurrences connected with the subject since 1834, proving that his opinions had been uniformly and explicitly declared. He could no more drill the gentlemen of his own party into an implicit acquiescence in his views than Lord John Russell had been able to do. He examined the law of Elizabeth, and explained that that gave no right of relief to the poor unless earned by work ; and describ- ing the disgusting state in which the Seighley Poor-house had been dis- covered, he remarked that Mr. Ferrand, a Guardian of that Union, would have done more good by investigation in that quarter, than by "bab- bling about green fields " for the poor to loiter in. Mr. FERRAND said, that since the bill had come into operation, he had refused to take the slightest interest in carrying out the law. After a good deal more dis- cussion, Mr. Fletexsi moved the adjournment of the debate till Monday : and the motion wits rejected, by 297 to 29. But Sir CHARLES NAPIER having moved that the House do now adjourn, Sir ROBERT PEEL yielded ; and the debate was adjourned till Monday. The House also adjourned till that day, at twenty minutes pasttwo o'clock this morning.

In the House of Peers, Lord BELHAVEN asked whether Government contemplated a measure for the settlement of the Scottish Church ques- tion ; for otherwise the worst consequences must ensue ? The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that a measure had been proposed by Government ; but the parties to the negotiation in Scotland were not prepared to receive it, and no satisfactory conclusion had been arrived at. The Govern- ment had given, were giving, and would continue to give, their utmost attention to the subject, for the purpose of settling the question now under dispute, and with the view of laying a measure for the purpose before Parliament.