less open to such a charge, which had
originated either in stupidity or malice, he
could not tell which. He had been
twenty-five years in the commission of the
peace, and had done everything in his
power to discountenance drunkenness,
and to promote temperance.
The very
circumstance of the fever of temperance
now going about the country, got up as
it had been, and containing in itself an
acknowledgment of a frightful degree of
drunkenness and inebriety, justified the
severest censure that could be passed on
the conduct of the Roman Catholic priest-
hood. That body had had, time out of
mind, the care of the lower orders of
Ireland, and the superintendence of their
actions, and would suffer no one else to
interfere in them. Yet here was a prac-

ships must see, that although they might | deprecating the return of the Irish people provide for the termination of two lives, to sobriety; but he had done no such they could not accomplish the object thing. There was not a man in Ireland completely, because whatever the number of lives that were included, still contingencies might arise by which those lives might cease to exist. The other point upon which the illustrious Duke had observed, was the different provision in the act of 1830. There certainly was a departure in the present bill from the scheme of that act. A provision contained in the former act had been omitted in the present bill, because the illustrious persons, who, by that act were appointed regents in a possible event, were both females. It was considered by Parliament, that the marriage of females was fraught with more danger than that of males; and by that act a provision was made with respect to the marriage of those illustrious persons. That did not apply in the present case. By a provision in this bill, the regent was not to leave this country; and it was not in the nature of things that a husband should be so little sui juris as to be incapable of exercising the responsible functions that had devolved upon him as regent; and it was not to be supposed that power would be exercised over him. Inasmuch as he had generally adopted the scheme of the act of 1830, but in particu-dual; he said he had done good, and he lar instances had departed from it, he had thought it right to mention to their Lordships the reason that had induced him so to act. These were the two points to which the illustrious Duke had alluded. The opinion of the illustrious Duke was entitled to the greatest respect from their Lordships, and would receive it from him (the Lord Chancellor); but he trusted that the remarks he had made, would reconcile the illustrious Duke to the provisions of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

tical acknowledgment of drunkenness and immorality made by multitudes assembling together for that purpose, thereby stamping on the Roman Catholic clergy the truth of all the charges he had brought against them. Another misrepresentation was, that he had disparaged the rev. Mr. Mathew. He had said nothing whatever in disparagement of that indivi

repeated it. He hoped that the exertions of Mr. Mathew might produce good effects; but he had said that it was not for the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland to mix himself up in that view of the question.

The Marquess of Normanby said, it was, no doubt, very natural for the noble Marquess, to take an opportunity of qualifying, rather than of retracting, the expressions he had formerly used. Subject dropped.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Tuesday, July 21, 1840.
MINUTES.] Bills. Read a first time :-Infant Felons.-

Read a second time:-Postage; Bank (Ireland); Turn-
pike Acts Continuance (Ireland).-Read a third time :—
Imprisonment for Debt (Ireland).

TEMPERANCE (IRELAND).] The Marquess of Westmeath wished to remove some misrepresentations which had been made with regard to a question which he put to the noble Marquess opposite the other night respecting the temperance Petitions presented. By Mr. Fielden, General Johnstone, movement in Ireland. He had stated that he thought it would have been better if the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland had expressed his gratitude for certain signs of a return to temperance amongst the Irish people, not in his official, but personal

and Sir B. Hall, from Todmordon, Huddersfield, Marylebone, and a considerable number of places, against the New Poor-law, and against the Poor-law Commission Bill.

POOR LAW COMMISSION.] Lord J. Russell moved, that the Poor-law Commission Bill be read a third time.

General Johnson denied, that the saving so much talked of had any existence, except in the speeches of those who spoke of them, and eventually it would be found that the expenses would be increased. With respect to the Poor Law Commissioners, he would say, that they had ample time to carry out the law, and were no longer required. The act itself was so opposed to the feelings of the people, that it would be impossible to work it without the aid of the new rural police. He would support the amendment.

amendment that the bill be read a third | servants; whereas at present, the demand time that day three months. This com- for them as servants was greater than the mission had been appointed six years age of those in the schools could supply. ago for the purpose of establishing an uni- He would admit that some relaxation of form system of Poor-law in the various the workhouse test might be desirable in unions into which the kingdom was to be some cases, and if that were done, the divided. Those unions had been pretty law would work most beneficially for the generally established, but if they had not country. been universally so in the kingdom, the system was now so well understood that the machinery of the commissioners was no longer necessary. He perceived, however, that though the Poor-law Commissioners was intended at first to be only temporary, yet that it was contemplated to have a body something in the nature of a Poorlaw commission permanently at Somersethouse, in order to carry out more generally and strictly the favourite project of establishing a workhouse test throughout the country. He had no objection, whatever, to have that test applied to the idle and the dissolute, but he should ever protest against its application to the honest but unfortunate poor. He did earnestly hope that early in the next Session Government would bring in a bill for the total abolition of the commission, and for the relaxation of the workhouse test, and thus set the minds of the people at rest upon the matter, and get rid of that general discontent and dissatisfaction which prevailed with respect to it. The hon. Member concluded by submitting his amendment to the House.

Mr. Slaney contrasted the state of the poor in our workhouses in former times with what it was at present. Instead of that indiscriminate admixture of poverty and vice which formerly prevailed, they now had that classification which tended so much to improve the condition of the inmates. He also contended that the condition of the poor generally was improved that those incendiary fires which prevailed so extensively in agricultural districts some years ago had now all ceased-a proof of the improved moral condition of the labouring classes. The New Poor Law had also saved three millions a year to the country. But, large as that saving was, he would not defend it on that ground, if he did not find it in other respects beneficial to the public. He would refer as an illustration of the improved system in workhouse unions to the Norwood schools. Formerly the system with respect to the conduct of the children in those schools was so bad, that few per

Mr. L. Hodges would not now oppose the third reading of the bill, but he hoped that the country would no longer be saddled with the expense of Poor Law Commissioners, which could not now be necessary.

Mr. Buck thought it was most injurious to the principle which the Government sought to establish, to have the settlement of this question delayed from time to time. He hoped that Government would bring in a bill for the purpose of settling it early

in the next session.

Mr. W. Williams contended, that nothing had yet been shown to prove that the Poor Law Commissioners ought to be continued. There was, he maintained, no necessity for this bill now, for the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had promised to introduce a bill on the subject early in the next session.

Mr. Ward did not think that the present was the proper period for discussing the merits of the bill; but, without intending to go into those details, he must observe that the Poor Laws had effected a very considerable saving to the country.

Mr. Darby would not oppose the third reading; but though he wished much that the question were settled, he was rather glad than otherwise that the bill which the noble Lord had introduced this Session, and subsequently withdrawn, had not come into a law, as it would have made things infinitely worse than they were before.

Mr. Wakley would vote against the

expect in future they would pay more attention to the interference of this House by means of a committee than they had done in time past. If, indeed, the report of the committee were to be considered fruitless in every respect, then he thought that he and his hon. Friends were fully justified in taking their present course, and that they were doing nothing that was unparliamentary in opposing entirely the renewal of the powers of the commissioners, for the only ground for these powers being renewed was this-that they were intrusted to the commissioners to be exercised under the supervision of this House, and yet it was now shown that no interference on the part of this House would be recognized by the commissioners.

him for some time the report of the committee that was appointed to consider this subject. And he must remind the House, that that committee was appointed on the nomination of the noble Lord himself, to satisfy the people that all the complaints they had made should be enquired into and redressed. And yet from the moment the report was laid on the table in 1838 to the present time, not a single step had been taken to carry into effect one of the recommendations of that committee. The noble Lord might say, perhaps, that many of those recommendations were such as he could not propose in a bill for prolonging the powers of the commissioners; but then there were others which required no act to carry them into effect, but only the simple interposition of the noble Lord in Lord J. Russell said, that with regard requesting the commissioners to exercise to the observations of the hon. Gentleman the powers vested in them in the way ex- who had just spoken, they seemed to show pressed by this House. This was the that he had given much valuable time and real question before the House. They attention to the history of the Poor-law were not opposing this bill from hatred of Amendment Act, and the proceedings the Poor-law Act, but because they con- connected with it, in the various Sessions sidered the Poor-law Commissioners had of Parliament. Now, the hon. Member placed themselves in direct opposition to for Macclesfield, in speaking of the history the House of Commons by their delay and of the Poor-law Amendment Act, said it refusal to adopt the recommendations was only a temporary act, and the powers which were expressed in the report of a of the commissioners were only temporary. committee appointed by the House. He But the intention of those who introduced thought, then, that those with whom he the measure was, that the commissioners acted on this occasion were perfectly justi- were to be a permanent body; and it was fied in calling on the noble Lord to say only because the experiment was new, and whether those practical alterations were might lead to very important consequences, to be carried into effect by the com-that five years were taken as the time for missioners, if they consented to the pro- the duration of the power of the comlongation of their powers. The House missioners, so that Parliament might again were not to say they abandoned their su-have the opportunity of considering the perintendence of the proceedings of the subject. The hon. Member for Greenwich commissioners; but he would remind had asked why he had not proposed to them, that the recommendations of the follow the recommendations of the comcommittee were of a very important nature mittee. The fact was, that most of them and yet the resolutions of the commis- were recommendations as to the mode of sioners were in many parts directly op-administering the law by the commisposed to the report of the committee. The question the House had now to decide was this-whether they were prepared to support the report of their own committee, or the resolutions of the commissioners in opposition to it. If they supported the commissioners, then he maintained that practically they gave up altogether all control and interference on the part of this House; for if they showed the commissioners that notwithstanding the report of a committee they were to go on exercising their powers without paying attention to such recommendations, they could not

sioners, and had been sedulously attended to by those gentlemen, and the greater part of them practically carried out. With regard especially to the most important part-that which related to medical relief-the commissioners had given the greatest attention to the subject, and had deavoured to carry into effect the recommendations of the committee. But there were other recommendations of the committee which required the sanction of that House-such as the extension of the powers of the commissioners to certain places that were not under their operation

continuance of the Poor Law Commis- | that he must either starve or go into the sioners even for a day. He was glad that work house. He regretted that this bill the noble Lord's bill had been withdrawn, should be passed at this period of the for he admitted that it would have effected Session, when it seemed highly dangerous no mitigation of the sufferings of the to reject it altogether, but he must say, he poor,

thought it was not giving fair play to the Sir C. Douglas would also support the public. The experiment had been tried amendment, because he was anxious 10 now for a long time, and he hoped that get rid of the Poor Law Commissioners. early in the next Session the noble Lord

Colonel Sibthorp denied that the New would make some material alteration, and Poor Law had been productive of any take away from the Poor-laws those op. good. He had ever protested against the pressive clauses which put an end to all bill as most injurious, oppressive, and de- good feelings, and to all possibility of grading to the poor man and the country. cultivating them by gentlemen in the He had daily instances before him on his country with respect to their poor neighown property of the bad effects of this bours. law. He had heard of a pledge on the Mr. W. Attwood said, that when the part of the Government thai a bill should noble Lord objected, on a former occasion, be introduced next session to settle this to postpone the third reading of this bill, question; but he owned that he had no he appeared to congratulate himself on the respect for such pledges, or those who almost unanimous concurrence of the made them. He would not trust any one House on this subject. The present disof them with a 51. note of the public cussion would show the noble Lord that money. He had no confidence in the the opinions of a great number of hon. present Government, for a more inactive, Members were not so favourable to the more weak, more ignorant set of men than Poor-law Amendment Act as he supposed, the present Ministers, he never knew. He and if the prolongation of the Act had earnestly hoped that the country would been proposed at an earlier period of the soon be rid of that most useless body. Session, he had great doubts whether the

Mr. F. Maule said, that the opinions of House would have sanctioned the contithe hon. and gallant Member had not nuance of the Act in its present stale. much influence in the House, and fortu- The arguments of his hon. Friend, the nately were not calculated to do much Member for Macclesfield appeared to him harm out of it. The only question they to be perfectly fair and just; because, had now to consider was, whether they when the powers of the commissioners were would renew the bill for one year, to pre- about to expire, did the noble Lord come vent things being thrown into confusion, down with a full and complele measure to until time should be afforded for consi-introduce into the Poor-law Act those imdering the question fully early in the next portant alterations, which, be believed it was Session.

acknowledged on all sides, were imperatively Sir F. Burdett said, he agreed entirely required? When the noble Lord submitted in the sentiments which had been ex. io this House a measure in a former Session pressed by the hon, and gallant Member for prolonging the Poor-law Act, it was unacfor Lincolo, as to the enormous powers companied by those alterations which he which were given to the Poor-law Com- thought from the feelings expressed in missioners. He thought the present ma. this House, he was justified in saying were chinery of the Poor-law system was not really necessary; nor was the measure necessary for the purpose, and that when brought forward at a time when the House the expense was taken into consideration, had a fair opportunity of discussing it. it would be found that it had not answered The House, however, consented to proin that respect. It had, too, created an long the powers of the commissioners for ill feeling that had never before existed in one year, but then it was only with the England between the labouring classes and express understanding that early in this their employers, between the rich and the Session a measure would be brought forpoor; that was one evil arising from it ward comprising the necessary alterations. which ought to be remedied. When it la 18,39 the noble Lord could not say he was considered that generally the poor was not prepared with the information man wanted only temporary relief, it was that was requisite for bringing forward hard to throw him into such a situation such a measure, because he had had before