27 MARCH 1841, Page 10

POSTSCRIPT.

On the 2d clause, Mr. FIELDEN moved a verbal alteration, which, he avowed, would have the effect of repealing the Poor-law Amendment Act. The Chairman, however, interposed : it was manifestly irregu- lar, he said, to attempt to repeal the Act in a bill which professed to continue a Commission empowered by that Act. A desultory conver- sation followed ; in the course of which Mr. WARLEY said that the practice of the House " was nothing to him." He recognized the va- lidity of printed rules ; but as to " the practice of the House," the more it was deviated from the better. Mr. FIELDER was obstinate ; and be- ing interrupted by cries of " order," he threatened to tell his consti- tuents that he was not allowed to be heard. At length, however, he- withdrew his amendment; giving notice that he should move it as an instruction to the Committee on Monday. On the ad clause, Mr. WAKLEY said that Lord John Russell had pro- mised that local acts should not be interfered with : but it had been laid. down in the courts of law, that though the Commissioners could not in- terfere with parishes under local acts while those parishes rernairied single, yet they could bring them within their power by incorporating them in Unions. That question ought to be settled by the bill ; and Mr. Wakley moved, to postpone the clause. Lord Jona RUSSELL said that the clause only declared that the present bill should authorize no further interference with local acts than was already competent to the Com- missioners under the general act. He had no great respect for these local acts, and should object to a general clause exempting from the operation of the bill all parishes in which they prevailed. Sir ROBERT PEEL would not uphold every local act ; but he disliked the mode in which the Commissioners were enabled to acquire power over any parish by uniting it with others, when singly it was beyond their juris- diction. The House ought to have more information respecting the- actual interference of the Commissioners with local acts. He recom- mended the postponement of the clause ; and it was postponed ac- cordingly.

On the 4th clause, defining what were general or particular orders, Mr. HODGSON BINDE moved an amendment to prevent the Commissioner& from issuing any rule, order, or regulation, Ste. Mr. Hinde instanced the separation of married couples and the dietaries ordered by the Commissioners, as cases in which they had abused their power to issue- rules. Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the amendment, as 'being entirely sub- versive of the present system. Mr. Hinde and Lord John Russell, and all the speakers who followed them in rather a long discussion, turned the question upon the merits of the general measure, and upon the use- which the Commissioners had made of their discretionary powers; with an occasional reference to special cases of alleged hardship. The only remarkable point was the following distinct declaration by Sir ROBERT PEEL, giving the Commissioners a new lease of existence- " What I wish to see is, that the authority of the Poor-law Commissioners- should be established, not merely as a superintending authority over the Board of Guardians, but also as a tribunal to which the poor man may appeal with full confidence that his interests will be protected. After all the evidence I have heard with respect to Boards of Guardians, I do not think it safe, with reference to the interests of humanity, to abolish the control of the Commis- sioners."

On a division, the amendment was rejected, by 225 to 75.

Other amendments were disposed of amid great confusion. Lord GRANVILLE SOAIERSET'S, requiring the signature of two Commissioners. andthe counter-signature of the Secretary of State to general orders, was agreed to.

In the earlier part of the evening, Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL asked Lord John Russell what he meant to do when Mr. Darby intioduced. his amendment for giving out-door relief to able-bodied poor, by pro- viding them with work ? Lord JOHN said that he should oppose it.

Lord Jona RUSSELL announced that the English Registration Bill would not again be brought on until the House had decided upon the- Irish Bill.

Mr. Fox MAULE brought in a bill to take the census three weeks. earlier than usual, in order to avoid interference with the Quarter- sessions ; and another bill to regulate the employment of young per- sons in factories.

The House of Lords continued the investigation into the conduct of the Irish Poor-law Commission. Mr. Pedder was again examined. He exhibited bills which he held of Mr. Butler, for three, six, nine, eighteen, and thirty-six months. Mr. Erie, formerly an Assistant Poor- law Commissioner in Dublin, was next examined. His evidence did. not add much to what was stated by former witnesses. He seemed. to attach less importance to the irregularities than many persons have done. With respect to the imputation of political motives in the selec- tion of Returning-officers, he mentioned one or two important facts : he- said, that with few exceptions, all the applications for such places came from persons of one side only—ninety-nine out of a hundred entertained. the same political opinions as the Government ; and he averred that Government had never interfered to direct the choice of Returning- officers : the recommendation of the local Assistant-Commissioners watt considered almost tantamount to an appointment.

Viscount MELBOURNE stated, in answer to Viscount Sulaaioncaso, that. there was every prospect that negotiations with France, for a more li- beral commercial intercourse with this country, would be renewed.