Mr. Grote thought that the clause did not bear the construction put on it by the hon. Baronet. It did not appear to him, however, that in cases of unions of parishes there was sufficient provision made for ensuring that the proportionate expenses of building the workhouse should be fairly assessed.

the Commissioners the power of imposing | contribute to the building of a general a tax to whatever extent they pleased on workhouse. any parish, without the consent of the rate-payers and the owners of property within the parish. In his opinion, the present clause completely annulled the provision in the 19th clause, restricting the amount of money which the Commissioners were empowered to raise to 50l. from each parish, and might have the effect of altering the value of every estate in the kingdom, by making the inhabitants of a well-managed parish united to a pauperized parish pay for the erection of workhouses for which they themselves had no need. He should, therefore, propose that the Commissioners should have the power of taxing any parish without the consent of the majority of the rate-payers and owners of property.

Lord Althorp understood the objection of the hon. Gentleman to the clause was, that it gave the Commissioners the power of taxing parishes to any extent. The ground for the assumption was, that the Commissioners had the power of building workhouses in any parishes they pleased. The Commissioners had no such power; they merely were enabled to direct the forming unions of parishes, and they had merely the power of recommending the erection of workhouses; the parish, however, could refuse. The amount of expenditure that the Commissioners could order was comparatively small. The hon. Baronet seemed to think that parishes with small rates would object to contribute towards building workhouses. He (Lord Althorp) did not anticipate that that would be the case; he thought, that it was more likely, that parishes paying large rates would object to pay their proportion to funds for building workhouses. If the Commissioners were to have the power of building workhouses the objection of the hon. Baronet would be of some weight; but, although this was recommended in the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, his Majesty's Government would not consent to give them such power.

Sir Thomas Freemantle said, that it appeared to him that there was some ground for the objection of the hon. Baronet, but not to the extent that he supposed. As the Bill stood, the Commissioners would have the power of calling upon parishes to give up workhouses that were now adequate to their wants, and to

Mr. Thomas Attwood said, that he should support the proposition of the hon. Baronet because it tended to render the Bill absurd, although it was sufficiently absurd already. He objected to the Bill in every possible form, and thought it wrong in its object, wrong in its details, and wrong in its principles. The noble Lord had nine large volumes on the subject of the Poor Laws which no human being had ever read through, or indeed through any one of them. The noble Lord said, that his Bill was founded on the evidence contained in those volumes. This assertion reminded him of the story of a negro who had been sent by his master to count the pebbles on the shore, and who in a short time returned to his master and said, that there were 21,000,000,000. His master charged him with telling a falsehood, but the negro replied, "Go, master, and count them, and you will find I am correct." So it was with the noble Lord, who said that his Bill was founded on the facts contained in the evidence annexed to the Report, and told Members to go and read it. But he could tell the noble Lord that there was not a man in that House who could get through those volumes. The whole Bill was founded on the assumption of arbitrary power, and would, if carried, rob the poorer classes in the most shameful manner, indeed as much as was done by the Act by which a return was ordered to cash payments. Why did the noble Lord attempt to force such a Bill down the throats of the people? For his part he had never heard of any grievances growing out of the Poor-laws. The amount of the poor-rates paid at present was not greater than it was forty years ago, if they took into consideration the increase of population. At present the poor-rates of Birmingham amounted to nearly 40,000l. But the Bill of 1819 robbed the people of Birmingham of 4,000,000l. a-year. The noble Lord could not expect to live much longer. He (Mr. Attwood) therefore wished the

noble Lord had, for the sake of his reputa- | workhouse system altogether.

tion, ended his political career before he brought forward this absurd Bill.

Lord Althorp was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman objected to every part of the Bill when he said, that he had never heard of any defects in the Poorlaws.

Sir Henry Willoughby said, there were not less than 220 parishes in which from one-fifth to one-twentieth of the population were said in the Report of the Commissioners to be out of employment during part of the year. Now he wished to know whether they could establish a workhouse system in parishes of this kind? He could mention one parish in which there were 100 out of work in summer and 120 in winter. Now were all those men who could not always procure work to be forced into workhouses? There were some parishes in which the single men would be quite sufficient to do all the work of the parish. The consequence in such parishes must be to send all the men with families into the workhouse, or else compel them to accept of very reduced wages. If the system in the workhouse was too stringent men would feel reluctance to enter it, and the effect would be to minimize wages in such a parish. It was well known that persons who once entered a workhouse seldom left it. He was checkmated for ever after. He was surprised to hear any man say, that this was a constitutional measure, and consistent with the Poor-laws of this country. The fact was, that the word "workhouse" did not once occur in the 43rd of Elizabeth. He would be quite satisfied if it could be shown to him that by a system of workhouses work could be procured for the redundant population.

Mr. Tower said, he was surprised to hear the member for Birmingham say, that there were no complaints of the Poor-laws. This might be true of manufacturing districts, for they did not press so heavily upon the manufacturing as upon the agricultural interest, the former paying in the proportion of only one to twenty-two or twenty-five. He would oppose the Amendment because it tended to smother the Commissioners with two great a variety of work, and thus to impair their efficacy.

Mr. Wolryche Whitmore expressed his surprise at the objection taken by his hon. friend (Sir Henry Willoughby) to the

Amendment of the hon. Baronet were carried, it would prevent many parishes in union from contributing their quota to the relief of the poor. It was a mistake to suppose that the Bill gave the Commissioners a power to erect a general system of workhouses all over the country.

Mr. Robert Palmer did not understand that the Bill gave the power to erect workhouses without the consent of the majority of the rate-payers of a parish. He wished to know from the noble Lord what it was the Bill proposed to do in that respect?

Lord Althorp was glad that the hon. member for Berkshire had given him the opportunity of stating, that the Bill did not give the power to build workhouses without the consent of the majority of the rate-payers of the parish. The Commissioners had the power to suggest to the parish the erection of a workhouse, but the erection was not to take place without the consent of the rate-payers, not even in unions of parishes. The Bill did not involve the necessity of giving no relief out of the workhouse, or of erecting workhouses throughout the country, without the consent of the majority of the owners of property. The question whether the workhouse system might not be better applied was different thing; but it would be absurd to suppose that the Bill meant to sanction a general system of workhouses throughout the country. The power of giving relief out of doors would still remain as before. The only difference would be, that the Magistrates would not have the same power as formerly to award relief, that power resting with the guardians of the poor.

Mr. Benett contended, that the parish would have no effectual control over the erection of workhouses unless the clause were worded "and" with the consent, instead of "or" with the consent of the guardians of the poor. He had the strongest objection to a general workhouse system, and on that ground he would support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.

Lord Althorp said, that it had been stated by the hon. member for Wiltshire that country gentlemen would, under this Bill, no longer be guardians of the poor in their respective parishes. If his hon. friend would look more closely into the Act, he would find that the fact was decidedly the reverse, for one Magistrate in

each district would be a guardian of the | would just read to the House a few extracts poor. from the Report of Mr. Stuart, one of the Mr. Hodges looked upon the mea- Assistant-Commissioners, with regard to sure as one for giving aid to the sick and employment to the ablebodied poor. Now, in this clause the Commissioners were directed to inquire into the expenses incurred for three previous years in the parishes about to be united for the support of the poor, and thereupon to strike an average for the whole. It appeared to him, that they should, in inquiring into such expense, make an analytical division of it, showing how much had been incurred for the support of the aged and impotent, and how much for the support of the able-bodied poor in each parish. It was for the ablebodied paupers that those work houses were intended, and it was according to the expense that had been incurred in each separate parish for the support of that class of paupers that parishes, when united, should be rated towards the expense of erecting those workhouses. Unless an analysis were made of the mode in which the expenses connected with the support of the poor for the three previous years had been incurred much injustice might be done, for in some parishes little or none might have been laid out in the support of able-bodied poor, while, owing to law expenses and other accidental causes, the outlay in other respects might have been considerable. With regard to this incorporation of parishes for the erection of workhouses, it had been tried already in Suffolk for a period of fifty years, and instead of lessening it had increased the expenditure for the poor in the parishes that had adopted it. He thought-Ayes 12; Noes 113; Majority 101. the principle erroneous and mischievous. Mr. Poulett Scrope agreed with the hon. member for Kent in the objections

If

which he had taken to this clause. passed in its present form, it would press with great hardness and severity upon those smaller parishes who at present had no workhouses at all, but who supported their poor at their own homes humanely and well. It would be extremely hard to compel those parishes, by uniting them to other and larger parishes, to contribute to the erection of workhouses that they did not want. The hon. member for Kent had referred to the failure that had attended the trial of this workhouse system in Suffolk, where it had existed for a long period. In corroboration of that opinion he

the incorporated hundreds in that county. The House would see what had been the effect of this incorporated workhouse system there, and they would also perceive that it had been tried exactly in the manner that this Bill proposed to introduce it all over the country. The hon. Member accordingly read a long passage from the Report, stating that the workhouse system had there failed, and that the workhouses had become prisons. The hon. Member contended, that this extract faithfully depicted what was the object, and what would be the consequences of the workhouse system as proposed to be established by this Bill. They would in fact become, as they had in Suffolk, prisons for the purpose of terrifying applicants from seeking for relief; and though such a cruel expedient might be resorted to, it would be seen that it had little chance of being attended with success. The hon. Member also read an extract from a letter of Mr. Becher, who had been described as a patron of workhouses, in which he stated, that the workhouse system as proposed under this Bill would be productive of great mischief. He (Mr. Scrope) could not support the Amendment, as it would take away altogether the power of uniting parishes, but he trusted that the noble Lord would introduce hereafter a modification of the clause so as to prevent the injustice of driving a large portion of the people into workhouses, which would be so many large prisons. The House divided on the Amendment

List of the AYES.
Fryer, R.
Godson, R.
Guise, Sir W.
Scholefield, J.
Tower, C. T.

Astley, Sir J.
Attwood, T.
Barnard, E. G.
Benett, J.
Brotherton, T.
Butler, Colonel
Faithfull, G.

TELLER.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Church. By the Earl of STRADBROKE, from a great Number of Places, against the Claims of the Dissenters.— By the Earl of VERULAM, from the Landowners and others of Hertford, against the Importation of Corn from Jersey and Guernsey.-By the Duke of SUTHERLAND, from one Place, against any Alteration in the Sale of Beer Act; and from another Place, for Relief to the Dissenters; from Staines; and by the Bishop of LONDON, from Tottenham, in favour of the Chimney Sweepers Regulation Bill. -By the Earl of GOSFORD, from Plymouth, for a Clause

in the Sabbath Observance Bill.-By the same, and Lord SUFFIELD, from two Places,-for the Better Observance

of the Sabbath.-By Earl FirZWILLIAM, from Balfour, for the Separation of Church and State.-By the Earl of

COVENTRY, from several Places, against the Admission of Dissenters to the Universities; and from several Places, against the Separation of Church and State.-By the same, Earl VERULAM, and the Earl of Gosono, from a Number of Places,--for Protection to the Established Church, and

against the Claims of the Dissenters.

HOUSE OF COMMON S,

Monday, June 9, 1834.

MINUTES.] Bills. Read a second time:-Weights and

Measures (Ireland); Lancaster Court of Common Pleas ;

Escheats; Settled Estates.-Read a third time:-Administration of Justice in Boroughs; Landed Securities (Ireland); Justices of the Peace. Petitions presented. By Sir GEORGE GREY, from two

Places, against the Poor Law Amendment Bill.-By Mr. JOHN MAXWELL, from Kirkintillock, for securing a part of Church room to those who pay for the building of

the Churches.-By Mr. COLQUHOUN, from Greenock, for Endowed Lecturerships in Towns where there are no Uni

Lord ARTHUR LENNOX, Sir THOMAS FREEMANTLE,
Mr. J. MAXWELL, and Mr. BONHAM CARTER, from
several Places,-against Drunkenness.-By Sir WILLIAM
FOLKES, Messrs. G. W. WoOD, HEATHCOTE, BETHEL,
HAWKES, WILSON PATTEN, and WALTER, from a
Number of Places,-against the Poor Law Amendment
Bill.

CASE OF DR. WILLIAMS.] Sir Edward Codrington presented a Petition from Dr. Williams, late a Surgeon in the Navy, complaining of having been dismissed from the Navy on certain allegations against him which were false, and the falsehood of which was since admitted by those who gave the Admiralty the information. He was dismissed, and, after repeated applications to the Admiralty in 1826, for a copy of the charges against him, was told, that they had been proved to the satisfaction of the Admiralty, who therefore struck him off the list. After repeated applications, he got the minutes of his case, and it was referred to the present Admiralty Solicitor, by whom the charge was said to be affirmed. He (Sir Edward Codrington) contended, that the dismissal by the Lords of the Admiralty was unconstitutional and illegal.

The

versities. By Mr. NICHOLL, from Glamorgan, for exempt-case of the petitioner involved a question

ing Lime from the payment of Toll.-By Sir ANDREW

AGNEW, from Almondbury, against any Individual in his
Majesty's Service being compelled to attend the Religious

Services of Roman Catholics Abroad; from Port Patrick,
for Regulating the Nomination of Ministers to Churches

(Scotland).-By Sir WILLIAM FOLKES, from several
Places, for a Clause in the Tithes Commutation Bill.-By

General ARBUTHNOT, from the Synod of Angus and
Mearne, against any Alteration in the Law of Patronage

in Scotland.-By Captain DUNLOP, from Renfrew, in

favour of the Sabbath Observance Bill.-By Mr. BLAKE, from Galway, for a Better System of Pilotage in the Bay

Tithes. By Mr. COLQUHOUN, and General ARBUTH

WILSON PATTEN, and NICHOLL, from several Places, -against the Universities' Admission Bill.-By Mr.

CUTLAR FERGUSSON, and Mr. COLQUHOUN, from in Scotland.—By Mr. E. ROMILLY, from Newport (Monmouth); and by Lord ARTHUR LENNOX, from Chichester, -against Church Rates, the Dissenters' Marriages Bill, and the Registry of Births Bill.-By Mr. COTES, from Welling

several Places, for a Better System of Church Patronage

of great constitutional importance. A man, without being confronted with his accusers had been dismissed from the navy. This unconstitutional power had been exerted by the Admiralty in more cases than one; and he had no hesitation in saying, that it was once in contemplation to have struck him (Sir Edward Cod

and Harbour of Galway; from the same, for a Canal be-rington) off the list, without affording him tween Galway and Loch Corrib; also against the Tithes the means of publicly defending himself. (Ireland) Bill; from three Places, for the Abolition of He asked, why the Admiralty did not do it? NOT, from several Places, for an Increase of Salary It was, because he should have brought to the Parochial Schoolmasters.-By Sir THOMAS FREE- the subject before the public through the MANTLE, Colonel LEITH HAY, Messrs. FINCH, HAWKES, medium of that House. It was not from a sense of justice that they refrained from making the attempt, to which they were urged by political feeling; but because they dared not to do it. The Admiralty in itself had no power to strike an officer from the list; it could only be done by the sign-manual of the Sovereign. The hon. and gallant Admiral referred to the two cases of Admiral Vernon in 1746, and of Sir Isaac Coffin in 1786, in which it was held by the twelve Judges, that it was illegal for the Board of Admiralty to strike officers off the list, and these two Who had been struck off were restored. There was another objection to the exercise of this power. For every three individuals who were struck off the list, the Admiralty

ton, for Relief to the Dissenters.-By Mr. RUMBOLT,

from Great Yarmouth, against the Merchant Seamen
paying Sixpence to Greenwich Hospital. By Mr. WILSON

PATTEN, from Ulverston, against the Claims of the Dis-
senters. By Lord ARTHUR LENNOX, Messrs. NEELD,
COTES, HAWKES, and FORSTER, from several Places,-for
Protection to the Church of England.-By Lord ARTHUR

LENNOX, Messrs. DASHWOOD, E. ROMILLY, and HODGSON,

from several Places,-against the Proposed Measure of Church Rates.-By Lord WILLIAM LENNOX, and Mr. CUNLIFFE LISTER, from several Places,-for putting the Retailers of Beer on a Footing with Licensed Victuallers. By Mr. E. ROMILLY, and Mr. PARKER, from Usk and Sheffield,—for amending the Sale of Beer Act.-By Mr. G. W. WOOD, Mr. COTES, and Mr. PARKER,

against any Alteration in the Sale of Beer Act.-By