ner; but by this Act no direction was given to the Commissioners as to the manner in which they should give publicity to such of their rules as were to have the force of law; it was left to their will and pleasure and discretion. They had the power to publish their rules by the 18th section of the Act, but so far were they from being desirous to promulgate their laws, that they had, if not by a general, at least by a special order, desired that the proceedings at the meetings of the boards of guardians should be strictly secret. They had proceeded with large professions of their anxiety for the public good, with hypocritical pretences of being desirous to elevate the condition and to improve the character of the labourers, and yet at every step they proceeded with a degree of secrecy which was unknown in every other tribunal save that of the inquisition. Nor was this all; for a fragment of one of their special orders was to be found in an excellent pamphlet, called "Practical Remarks on the Severities of the New Poor-law," by Mr. Nicholls-not the dictator of that name, but an elected guardian of the Bourne Union. That gentleman gave, in his pamphlet, an extract of a letter from the notorious Mr. Chadwick, addressed to the clerk to the board of guardians of the Bourne Union, dated July 20, 1837. It was to this effect :

That "individual members of the visiting committee, or other guardians, are not empowered, as such, to visit the workhouse or ndividual inmates, without the previous leave

of the board."

So that, instead of throwing open the doors of these prisons, not to the inmates of them, but to visitors, there was a strict order from Somerset-house to prevent in dividual guardians from entering them, except by permission of the board. There was another point, also, in which he thought that the country had a right to complain of the conduct of those dictators, and in which they executed the law in a manner not intended by those who were its authors. When a late most eminent writer, then a Member of the other House of Parliament, Mr. Cobbett, proposed, on the original discussion of this measure, that a clause should be introduced, declaring it to be illegal to separate men and their wives in the workhouse, it was said by the noble Lord who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and now a Member of their Lordships' House, that

such a clause was unnecessary, inasmuch as such a separation was not intended by the bill. And he spoke not from memory for at the time he was absent from this country, and had seceded from their Lordships' House, to which he had returned with feelings of regret-he spoke not, he said, from memory, but from records which were familiar to their Lordships, and which were generally authentic. He found from those reports, that when a noble Friend of his brought up a petition from Stoke Regis, and expressed his apprehension that such a separation of man and wife would soon take place in every workhouse, the noble and learned Lord who then occupied the Woolsack, said, that it was quite impossible, and that the wildest imagination had never dreamt of such a thing. What was his horror and astonishment, when having recently found his way into a house of not very reputable character, and not very distant from the chamber in which they were then assembled, he heard a Minister of the Crown declare, that such a regulation was absolutely necessary, that it had always been intended, and that there was not one word to be said against it. He was aware that their Lordships were now arrived at the end of the present Session. It was impossible for Ministers to say what might happen in the next Session, or even before its commencement. For himself, he took no part in those discussions which were considered of a party nature. But some persons might speculate on such an event as a change in the Administration. Advice might, in such a case, be given to dissolve the Parliament; and he knew that by the dissolution of Parliament, the powers of the Poor-law Commissioners would be dissolved too. Now, for the sake of argument, he would assume, that the exercise of those powers had been beneficial and advantageous to the country, instead of being most injurious and most oppressive, and he would ask their Lordships what practical inconvenience could arise from the cessation of those powers? The whole surface of England had been carved out into unions at the mere caprice and discretion of these dictators. When a proposal had been made as to the expediency of introducing the operation of the New Poor-law Act into Manchester, the answer from the authorities was, that it could not be done without the assistance of the military and a large body of the police.

pernicious Act were persevered in, he should have remained silent, and allowed the evil to take its course. He could entertain no doubt that the new Poor-law, if not repealed by Parliament, would be repealed by the people, but he deprecated the convulsions which would be occasioned by such a repeal. Those convulsions would be of a most tremendous nature, and such as no military or police force could prevent. Whatever might happen, it would be a source of great satisfaction to him to reflect that he had frequently, although ineffectually, warned their Lordships of the danger which they were incurring. He should persevere whether he were supported by few or many, or even without any support, in the discharge of what he felt to be his duty to the people of this country. He trusted that the people would, by such means only as were consistent with law and order, oppose this Act, which violated not only all laws, but trampled under foot the dearest and most sacred rights. To use the words of a noble Friend, whose memory he venerated, and whose loss he deplored, (he meant Lord Eldon), he would say, if Parliament would not do its duty, the people must do theirs. Upon all occasions he felt as strongly upon the subject of this Act, as if he were likely to come within the operation of its cruel and merciless provisions, and to be subject to its injury, its injustice, and its oppression. He had always recommended the people earnestly and fervently to seek the removal of this oppression by all legal and constitutional means, and having thus discharged this duty, to leave the result to Providence, which at its own season and in the fulness of time would judge between the oppresser and the oppressed. He had limited his remarks, as he promised to do in the outset, to the appointment of the dictators of Somerset House, without bringing forward his reasons against the principle of the Poor-law Amendment Act. The House would have to decide on the fate of the measure now before them. He should attach no importance to any amendment which might be proposed to it, because, in his opinion, no amendment was practicable of a bill founded on principles so unjust and so subversive of the rights of the people, and which would be passed, if passed at all, by a Parliament in which the people were not represented. The noble Earl concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time that day three months.

Lord Wynford said, that considering how much agitation prevailed throughout the country on the subject of this bill, and considering its great importance, he was sorry to see that it excited so little interest in the House as to be discussed by a number of Peers barely sufficient to form a jury. When the new Poor-law Act was first introduced, he had objected to the appointment of Commissiouers invested with such powers as that Act conferred upon them, because he considered it unsafe and unconstitutional to invest any men with powers so extensive. He thought, also, that it was most unwise to allow three gentlemen sitting at Somerset House, and knowing nothing whatever of the management of the poor, to control and direct the proceedings of country gentlemen, who from their station, habits, and experience, were much more competent to point out and carry into effect such amendments as might be from time to time required in the provisions of the Poorlaw, for the purpose of remedying present evils. He had never been blind to the abuses which existed under the old system of Poor-laws, and he should be sorry to see the ancient mode of administering the law again resorted to, but he could not approve of the alteration which had been made by the new Act. It was as absurd to appoint the three gentlemen at Somerset House to direct the administration of the Poor-laws as it would be to subject all the farmers in the kingdom to such laws and ordinances as might be devised by a committee composed of gentlemen taken from the Stock-Exchange. These were his opinions when he had had no experience of the operation of the new law, and everything that had taken place since had convinced him that his first impression was correct. He should, therefore, give his support to his noble Friend, and if they stood alone, the majority against them would not be very great. It was said that the effect of the new Poor-law had been to diminish the amount of the poor-rate; that might have been the case in some large parishes, but in small parishes he knew that the effect was directly the reverse, and that the expence had been considerably increased. But the expence was one of the very least of the considerations upon which the expediency of the measure depended. God forbid that he should purchase a reduction of expenditure by lowering the condition of the poorer classes!

He had been told, however, that wages had been raised in consequence of the new law. Could any noble Lord point out a place where wages had been raised from this cause? Did not every man know that wages, on the contrary, had been diminished? Then how had the poor been benefited by this measure, when it was universally acknowledged that it would be impossible to improve their moral condition without raising their wages? Unless that was done, no education could be given to the lower classes, for at present, at the earliest moment at which a child could earn only a few halfpence for the support of its parents, it was condemned thenceforward to severe labour, which not only deprived it of all opportunity of mental improvement, but weakened and destroyed its physical constitution. It was not without cause that the people of this country were discontented. If he only looked at the dissatisfaction now prevail ing in the country, without saying that concession should always be made to popular clamour, he should think there was sufficient ground for resisting the present bill. He was convinced that the dreadful laws now in force would never be changed while the gentlemen who now sat at Somerset House continued in office, and he was, therefore, anxious to put an end to their jurisdiction as speedily as possible. The Poor-law Commissioners had made a regulation that every man shall support his family out of his own wages. If crimes were committed in consequence of this absurd and iniquitous regulation, he (Lord Wynford) had no hesitation in saying that the greatest part of the guilt must lie at the door of those who drive the poor to such extremes. To support such a system as this was to legislate against nature; the attempt could not be made without mischief. There were many of the topics connected with this question, on which, had he not been present in the House since half-past three o'clock that day, he should be inclined to dilate. The poor had no representatives in the House of Commons; they had no hope but in their Lordships' justice, and he feared that that hope would be much blighted when they knew from the division that was about to take place, how very few of their Lordships thought it worth while to assist in the consideration of a question which affected at least three-fourths of the people of this country.

The Marquess of Lansdowne said, that

the benefits of the new Poor-law could not have been attained or perpetuated but by the existence of an authority central in its nature, capable of communicating with all parts of the country, and of introducing that degree of uniformity and similarity of principle, necessary to prevent such a law from becoming obnoxious to the inhabitants. It was from the conviction, that if the powers of the Commis sioners were withdrawn, unions would cease to be formed, and workhouses, which under the new system would be the sources of so many advantages to the poor, would cease to be built. That war between the labourer and his employer, and between parish and parish, carried on for the purpose of throwing the burden from one parish to another, would again disgrace the country and degrade the poor, while it crippled the exertions of the independent labourer. It was to avert these calamities, that this bill had been introduced, in the hope that being adopted by their Lordships, the system might be suffered to remain in operation, while an opportunity was afforded to their Lordships to consider whether any and what amendments might with propriety be introduced at some future opportunity. He was not prepared to admit with the noble and learned Lord opposite, that wages had in the least degree decreased in consequence of the enactment of the new Poor-law, but he was prepared to maintain, that its tendency had been decidedly to raise the wages of the independent labourer. He was persuaded, that opportunity had not yet been afforded for the full benefits of the law to be worked out, but it had had a marked and salutary influence in raising wages. In proof of this, he would state the very gratifying fact, that during the last year, when the price of provisions had been considerably above the usual rate, the number of the depositors in the savings'-bank had increased more than 50,000, and the amount of deposits had increased more than 1,800,000l. They had the testimony of Mr. Tidd Pratt, than whom no man was better acquainted with these subjects, that this increase had taken place in a greater degree in the rural districts, than any other part of the country. He asked their Lordships, whether, if the new Poorlaw had not had a salutary influence, an increase of the deposits to such an extent