prejudice which might stand in the way of the practical operation of the bill, he begged leave to state that there was no intention whatever, on the part of her Majesty's Government, of proposing any change in the Irish Poor-law. Mr. Wakley said, that if the House was desirous that the discussion should take place on Friday, he had no wish to disturb the arrangement. But, assuredly, if there was to be an alteration of the law, it was extremely desirable that those hon. Members who had watched its operation, and who were anxious to effect in it very material changes, should have an opportunity of addressing the House, and admonishing the right hon. Baronet upon the subject of those changes, in order that he and his Colleagues might not be in the position of saying, at the opening of the next Session of Parliament, that they were unacquainted with the feelings and desires of the House on this important question. Hence the very great expediency of affording opportunity to hon. Members who entertained strong opinions upon the question of declaring their sentiments, and putting the Government in possession of the changes they were desirous of effecting. He never had expected that he should be called upon to vote for the continuance of the Poor-law Commission. He thought it the most unconstitutional authority the law had ever created in this country. His opinion on that subject remained entirely unchanged. The experience of every day, the conviction of every hour, assured him that a more unconstitutional authority, or one more dangerous to the well-being of the community, could not exist. The right hon. Baronet proposed to prolong that commission for six months beyond the period prescribed by law, and that proposition he (Mr. Wakley) cordially supported, because a more rational proposition, a proposition more imperatively called for by the circumstances of the case, could not, he conceived, be submitted for the consideration of that House; and if the right hon. Baronet did not defend his own character as connected with that proposition, he should feel himself compelled to endeavour to defend it for him, in order that, by so doing, he might establish a defence for his own conduct, in reference to the course pursued by the right hon. Baronet, which had been made the subject of attack. Under what circumstances had the right hon. Baronet made that proposition? VOL. LIX. {id} Third They were too fresh in his memory to forget them. In 1834 the Poor-law Amendmendment Bill was enacted, and established the Poor-law Commission for five years. In 1839 the noble Lord, then the Member for Stroud, moved the prolongation of the commission for one year, and it was prolonged accordingly. Well, what was done in the last Session of Parliament? That party which professed so much deference and respect for the people, placing themselves in direct opposition to the public will, persisted in bringing forward a measure to continue the commission for ten years, thus doubling the period for which it was first established. Scouted and detested by the people for the manner in which they treated this question, they still, and in defiance of the loudly-expressed opinion of the people against it, persisted in their preposterous scheme. What did the right hon. Baronet, as leader of the Opposition? Deeming ten years too long a period for the continuance of the commission, he proposed that it should be reduced to five. "I think," said the right hon. Baronet, “that it is both wise and discreet, that you should bring such a body before Parliament oftener than you propose, and that Parliament should have an opportunity of discussing their acts." Another proposition was made for continuing the commission for two years, but that was lost on a division by a large majority. The right hon. Baronet was, therefore, pledged to the continuance of the commission for five years. A change of Administration takes place, and the right hon. Baronet becomes first Minister of the Crown. Might he not, so circumstanced, have come down to the House and said, that having, as leader of the Opposition, proposed the continuance of the Poorlaw Commission for five years, he felt himself pledged in honour and consistency to maintain that proposition? The right hon. Baronet, however, did not so; but in deference to public opinion, and in deference to the loudly expressed voice of the people, he came to the House, not to propose the continuance of the commission for five years longer, but merely for six months, for the purpose of affording him an opportunity of investigating all the circumstances of the case, and making that inquiry which the importance of the subject demanded, with the view of bringing the question forward in such a shape as 2 A certain, that these notices could have no practical result. Sir Robert Peel: Sir, I have already suggested that it would be more conve to render it acceptable to the House, and agreeable to the public at large. He asserted, that no Minister of the Crown, whatever his political opinions might be, had ever shown greater deference or re-nient to take any discussion in reference spect for public opinion than the right to the Poor-laws, when the bill gets into hon. Baronet had upon this subject. He committee, and I can only now say, therefore cordially supported the right hon. that if I had anticipated that there would Baronet's proposition, and if the right hon. be a discussion on the second reading, I Baronet did not defend his own conduct in would have taken care that my right hon. reference to it, he should feel himself Friend should not have chosen so early a obliged to defend it for him. day after its introduction for the second reading. I thought there was a general understanding, that the bill should pass this stage, as a matter of course, and that whatever discussion was deemed necessary should take place when the bill got into committee. Sir, it would be ungrateful tion I am under to the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury, who has come forward so voluntarily in my defencebut at the same time I must confess, that Mr. Rice thought that the right hon. Baronet was too straight-forward to accept the version of his conduct which had been just supplied by the hon. Member for Finsbury. He was one of those hon. Members who could not disconnect the Poor-law from the Corn-laws, and when-in me if I did not acknowlege the obligaever they were to be considered, he hoped that the latter would have precedence; because he believed that the opinions of many hon. Members in that House would be considerably influenced upon the ques-I am more obliged to the hon. Gentleman, tion of the Poor-law, by the situation in the Member for Dover, than to the hon. which the Legislature might think proper Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury, for finally to settle that of the Corn-laws. He the defence which he has made for me. sincerely regretted that the consideration The hon. Gentleman, the Member for of the question of the Corn-laws was to Dover says, the thinks the Poor-laws and be postponed until next year. He should the Corn-laws, should be settled together, certainly refuse to join in any factious and that immediately on accepting office, opposition to the course which the right I should have brought forward a bill on hon. Baronet, in the exercise of the discre- the subject of the Corn-laws, and subtion and responsibility which were vested mitted to the consideration of the House in him, deemed it necessary to pursue in all the modifications intended to be made that respect; but knowing that the right by the Government in the Poor-laws. Hə hon. Baronet possessed the most extensive wishes that both measures should be coninformation upon the subject, and that he jointly considered, but I appeal to the had taken a prominent part in the discus- House whether it would be possible for sions which had arisen on it from time to the Government to do justice to the Poortime, he could not conceive it possible or laws, without having an opportunity of probable that the right hon. Baronet had considering the local operation and genera not yet made up his mind upon the sub- bearings of those laws. Would it, I ask ject. Considering, however, the position be possible for any Gentleman placed in which the right hon. Baronet now occu- the situations which we now fill, and who pied, with a large majority, had, by a intend to consider the general operation recent appeal to the country, to support of the Poor-laws, with a view to suggest him, and responsible for the postponement modifications in them consistently with the of this question, he would not, while he principles of the Poor-law Act, especially could not but regret the postponement, under our peculiar circumstances, to inoffer any further objection to it. As re- troduce any measure on the subject at garded the Poor-law question, he thought present? Would it, I ask, be possible the right hon. Baronet, since he was not for us, without availing ourselves of prepared to state what course he consi-the information to be procured from dered to be best, ought not to invite any the commissioners, who are employed to partial discussion, or any discussion, until he was prepared to allow the House to go into the whole question for the purpose of its final settlement. It was morally obtain information, to bring forward an important measure of this kind, and I will only ask hon. Gentlemen whether it would have been doing justice, or would man opposite. Yesterday the inconvenience of the interpretation which the hon. Member for Finsbury had chosen to put upon the conduct of the right hon. Baronet was felt on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and he had also felt sure that the defence of that conduct which the hon. Member for Finsbury had given on the present occasion, was one which the right hon. Baronet would feel it his bounden duty to repudiate. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that the statement of the change of feeling which had been understood to have been produced in Ireland, on the subject of the Poor-law, in conse calculated to throw some doubt as to whether it was not necessary now to introduce a new bill to continue the Poorlaw Bill itself. That was an error, all that was necessary being, that a bill should be introduced to continue the commission. The Poor-law itself was one permanently in action, and it was not now necessary to introduce a bill to con be likely to conciliate the public mind, if within a week of our coming into office we had produced, not only a bill on the Cornlaws, but also one on the Poor-laws? I acknowledge the obligation I am under to the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury, for the observations which he has made, although I disavow their intent. But, however this may be, I think that a more powerful justification of the course pursued by the Government could not have emanated from either side of the House. But, at the same time, I am afraid that I cannot, in common fairness, accept the hon. Gentleman's vindication of my conduct, even though that vindica-quence of the change of Administration, tion has been voluntarily offered, and be- was totally and altogether unfounded, and cause, in proposing the continuance of the he had no doubt it was so. But expressions Poor-laws in reference to the commis-had been used in that House that were sioners for six months, I do so on the principle which I have avowed, namely, that it is not the intention of the Government, during the present sitting of the House, to transact any business which the public service does not require, or which would call for a definite opinion as to the period for which this commission ought to endure beyond the period which is absolutely necessary for the conside-tinue it. The mistake had arisen out of ration of the whole subject. Sir, I have not proposed the period of six months, meaning to imply any reflection on the determination to which the House came at my suggestion in the last Session; but I have proposed it in conformity to the principle on which I have already acted, namely, that it is not desirable to call the House to the discussion of important matters, of a permanent and extensive bearing during the present Session. It is in conformity with this principle that I have proposed the period of six months; but in making that proposition, I do so reserving to myself and the Government the power of making hereafter in the perpetual measure, alterations of an extended character, and such as we may deem essential for the public interest. Sir, I thought it right to make this statement, for while I do not undervalue the intentions of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury, or the ability of the defence which he has made for me, I am anxious, if possible, to prevent all misunderstanding or misconstruction on the subject. Mr. C. Wood did not rise to prolong the debate, but to express the great satisfaction with which he had heard what had just fallen from the right hon. Gentle the course that had been pursued with reference to proposed alterations in the Poor-law Act itself, and a mistaken notion that amendments having for their object the alteration of that act could be engrafted upon a bill which was only for the continuance of the Poor-law Commission for a given period. Such a notion was contrary to all Parliamentary practice, and to all Parliamentary forms, but, at the same time it evidently existed, and unless at once contradicted, was calculated to produce the impression, that the Poorlaw was not a permanent act. The measure now proposed by the right hon. Baronet and that measure were essentially different; and he hoped that it would be distinctly understood, that the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to the House only a temporary continuance of the Poorlaw Commission, and that the interpretation put upon his course by the hon. Member for Finsbury was erroneous. But that interpretation had been received with loud cheers by some of those sitting on the same side of the House as the hon. Member who advocated a very extensive alteration, if not a total repeal, of the Poor-law, which inclined him to think that the intepretation was likely to have been adopted by those hon. Members who | into the present bill, which was one merely so cheered. He hoped, therefore, that the for the continuance of the commission. measure which the right hon. Gentleman now proposed would be distinctly understood as leaving the principle of the Poorlaw untouched. Mr. Shaw had heard, with great satisfaction, the statement of the right hon. Baronet, as to this bill in connexion with Ireland, as he had not been before aware of the course which Government proposed to take with respect to it. With regard to the working of the Poor-law in Ireland, he would not say that the introduction of the measure there had been attended with circumstances of much difficulty, but he believed, at the same time, that it had been, on the whole, successful, and that if it were continued to be judiciously administered, and met with a fair and reasonable general support, it would be found to conduce in a great degree to the advantage of the public without the least injury to the interests of the poor. Lord J. Russell said, as this discussion had arisen, he would take the opportunity of observing, that the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman was, in his opinion, a perfectly fair one, and, in accordance with that which he had himself thought it his duty to propose. It was one thing to consider the whole provisions of the Poor-law with a view to introduce into them any alteration or modification which the House might think fit, but quite a a different one to continue the Poor-law commission for a limited period, if Parliament was not inclined at the time to enter into the discussion of the general question, When, in like manner, last Session, there was not time to consider the details of the Poor-law, he had suggested a continuance of the commission, though for a longer period than was now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. The particular time to which the commission should be continued was not of so much essential importance, the principle of temporary continuance being admitted, and he should certainly be very sorry to hear of any intention on the part of any hon. Member to propose an instruction to the committee for any alteration in the Poor-law itself. He was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for the University of Dublin, that he was of opinion, that on the whole, the working of the Poor-law in Ireland had been attended with success. He had never supposed Sir R. Peel thought, it must be well the law could be introduced there without understood that the present measure af- its being at first attended with a great deal forded no opportunity for opposing the of political excitement, and it appeared by principle of the Poor-law itself. The Poor-report, that such had been the case; but law itself was an act in permanent oper- he trusted, when the really beneficial ation. The present was a separate bill, effects of the Poor-law in that country to continue for a given period the Poor- were understood and felt, the political exlaw commission. If it would be any con-citement would gradually subside, that solation to the hon. Gentleman opposite he would at once state that he meant to oppose any amendments that might be brought forward in the discussion upon the present measure which would affect the principle or the operation of the Poorlaw itself. He had already said he would give hon. Gentlemen every opportunity of opposing the present measure, and he certainly could not prevent them from discussing amendments having for their object alterations in the Poor-law; but he certainly could not permit any amendments of the Poor-law to be introduced Sir H. Fleetwood had no intention of prolonging the discussion, but, being one who had always opposed the new Poorlaw, and being still opposed to it, he also hoped it would be distinctly understood, that no hon. Member who gave his vote for the second reading of this bill for the continuance of the commission, would be understood as having agreed in the principle of the measure, which was to come on for discussion on Friday next, and to which many hon. Members were opposed. the law would be used for the purpose for which it was intended, and that ultimately so far from its being considered to have inflicted a wrong on the people of Ireland, it would be found to have been a great benefit to the physical condition of the poor, and to have advanced the general, moral, and political condition of Ireland. Mr. Fielden asked, why, when the effects of the Poor-law had been so baneful throughout the country the commission should be continued for another day? Did the House mean to decide that persons who resided on the spot where the poor required relief where not better judges of what ought to be done among the people than the commissioners ? Did the House mean to say that those who lived in the midst of the people did not know better what they wanted than those who were at a distance? He maintained that it was utterly impossible for this law to be carried out. The longer it was persevered in the greater would be the danger to life and property. He did not rise for the purpose of obstructing the second reading of the bill, but to tell the House that in a subsequent stage it was his intention to take a division on the question, and he should then afford an opportunity of ascertaining whether hon. Gentlemen opposite in changing their side had also changed their opinions. Hon. Gentlemen were sent to that House for the performance of their duty. He had always done what he believed was his duty, and sometimes that duty had been to him a painful one. But he could assure the House that he had never been actuated by a desire to obstruct any measure that was likely to lead to the good of the people. But to this Poorlaw he was entirely opposed. It was a measure, the spirit of which was lowering the wages of the labourer, and he fearlessly declared his conviction that it was one of the most mischievous acts that had ever passed any House of Commons that had ever sat in England. He repeated, that his only reason for not now opposing the present bill was, that he expected the opportunity of taking the sense of the House on a future occasion. Mr. Escott felt bound to state, in a few words, why he should not oppose the second reading of this bill. He could assure the noble Lord, who seemed to take this bill so much as a matter of course, that he felt that he did owe some apology and excuse to the country for the vote which he should give, for nine-tenths of the educated people of this country held a totally different view of the Poor-law from the noble Lord, the only excuse which he could offer for now giving his vote for the continuance of the commission was, that up to the present moment there was no sufficient information before the House, or the country on which Parliament could honestly and fairly legislate with regard to this important question. He had read within the last few days the annual report of the Poor-law commissioners, and he believed he did not exceed the bounds of the strictest truth when he said, that in that report there was no material evidence whatever to induce the House to make up their minds what the alterations in the measure should be. He had also been in the country, and from the inquiries he had made he knew that it was a matter of the greatest difficulty, in the conflicting statements that were made and the prejudiced views that were taken on the one side and the other on the subject, to obtain that information on which alone an unprejudiced and independent Member could make up his mind how he ought to vote. But whose fault was it that there was this want of information? It was certainly not the fault of the right hon. Baronet at the head of affairs. Nor certainly was it the fault of the present House of Commons. But it was the fault of the late House of Commons, or rather of those who dissolved that House, at the very time when they ought to have been deliberating and passing a law for the better provision for the poor of this country. He did not mean to say anything that would amount to an imputation on the motives of hon. Members; but when he had heard speeches from the noble Lord opposite, and the hon. Member for Halifax, in which they seemed to treat this subject as a trifle, he certainly did think that he ought to rise and say one word for the poor. He repeated, that he considered that he owed to himself some justification for the course which he was about to pursue. He wanted also to know this. How did it happen that precisely at the moment when the subject of the Poor-law Commission was last year thrown up and abandoned until the next year by the noble Lord opposite, he chose to commence the Government agitation on the subject of the Corn-laws? How was that? How was it that hon. Members opposite were now to be found night after night complaining of the scarcity of corn and the dearness of bread, and the starvation of the people, all of which evils they attributed to the laws for the protection of agriculture,-why was it? He would tell the House why. The agitation on the subject of the Corn-laws had been got up in order to draw the public attention from the more important question of the Poor-law. He denied that there was a scarcity of bread. At the present moment, under the very laws complained of, there was flowing into this country a supply of corn |