OBJECTIONS TO THE NEV POOR-LAWS BILL.

THE Government.meastire for the amendment of the Poor-laws, when brought forward by Lord A T.THORP, appeared to receive al- most universal approbation ; especially from those Members who, like Mr. I'OULETT SCROPE and Mr. SLANEY, had devoted much time and attention to this most difficult subject. It cannot be denied that the remedies prescribed for the intolerable evils of the existing system are of a searching and comprehensive nature; very different from the timid, milk-and-water schemes which Sir JAMES SCARLETT and other ignorant speculatists concocted in their closets. It would have been strange if considerable opposi- tion had not been made to a measure of this description. The burden of the Poor-rates has been too severely felt, and the vice

and idleness generated by the bad administration of the laws re- gulating parochial affairs have been too conspicuous, not to have given rise to a vast number of plans for their amendment. Of course the suggestions of the Commissioners, which Ministers have for the most part adopted, clash against the preconceived no- tions of many of those who have advertised their own nostrums to the world. This of itself is sufficient to account for much of the opposition manifested to the Government plan, by men who have no corrupt interest in thwarting it. But what a host of ene- mies of a different character are sure to spring up in all quarters, where the allowance system, the practice of jobbing in parochial contracts, of building tenements to let to paupers, and other ini- quities, have flourished in baneful luxuriance ! With the patrons of and gainers by these profligate courses, there is no sense in arguing ; but we have a few observations to make on the objec- tions to the new bill which have been urged in quarters deserving of attention.

The establishment of the Central Board is strongly disapproved of both by the Courier and the Tim's. The former of these journals can see no necessity whatever for such an institution.

" If (says the Courier) the tribunal vested win, the disposal of the parish affairs he rightly constituted—that is, if it be formed of those to whom the pro- perty of the parish belongs, and who have a permanent interest in its prosperity —it must surely be better fitted to decide a-. ,o the proper method of managing the poor than any set of gentlemen resident in London or anywhere else. Such authorities must he anxious, from a regard to their own interests, to keep the parochial burdens as low as possible;and it would be quite as reasonable to suppose that a Central Board should be able to instruct them in the best method of managing their estates, or of conducting their respective businesses, as that it should be able to tell them how they may best prevent the undue increase of the pour or provide for their want."

But we have a right to assume that the members of the Central Board will be men possessed el' a common share of discretion' and as it is not mad:: imperative upon them to introduce the sand rules and regulations into every parish throughout England at - Wales, so sue may fairly conclude, that, in well-conducted parishi they will be satisfied to leave well alone. It was distinctly state. by Lord ALTHORP, that in parishes where the burdens were low, and the poor well managed, the Central Board would not interfere to alter the mode of management: on the contrary, the methods in use in such parishes will be taken as guides for remodelling the expensive and corrupt systems of management prevalent in others. In fact, the Commissioners drew the rules which they recommend for general adoption, from the observation of their actual working in some well-es uducted parishes. Unless we are prepared to dis- believe the evidence published in the Report, we shall be compelled to admit that the reconnnendations of the Commissioners have stood the only true test—they have been tried, and worked well. But then, the parishes are few where the poor are well managed, and the burden of supporting them is light. There is evidence enough in the Repast to prove, that " those to whom the property of the parish belongs, and who have a permanent interest in its prosperity,- are too often so blind as not to see their real interest, or so deficient in energy as not to act in accordance with it, when opposed by the more active silo:let:I:ars, jobbars, and others, who have a direct personal profit misspending the money of their neighbours. It would not tharcfn•a, in all cages, be a sufficient remedy for the vices of the existing, system, to give the owners in- stead of the occupiers of land and houses a preponderating vote in the vestries ; which is what the Courier, we presume, means when he speaks of rightly constituting the tribunal vested with the disposal of parish affairs. Extraneous force must therefore be applied. The bill, it must be remembered, gives the owners as well as the occupiers of land the right of voting upon any question which permanently abets their property. Tints, part of the objection urged by the Conri•!r falls to the ground. It is urged that the statute law of England and Seotlard with respect to the poor is exactly similar ; that the diffareneo in the two countries is not one of principle, but of athninistratio3 only ; and that in Scotland abuses are rare. But what are achnitted to be the great abuses of the English mode of administering the Poor- laws ? Is not the allowance system the priacipal one? Who have been the patrons and promoters of this system ? Why, tile very men to whom the Courier would emmuit the task of reforming it —the men of property, the Magistracy of the several counties. The fact that under their superintendence abuses have not been checked, but promoted, is of itself sufficient to set us against in- , trusting then: with additional power, in the hope that they have gained wi,alien, and the requisite courage also, to put their newly- acquired theories into practice. That the Poor-laws are well ad- ministered in Scotland, is no proof that measures of unusual vigour are not necessary to put an end to their bad administration ieEngland. This is to be the first and principal, almost the sole duty, of the Central Board.

The following objection to the proposed plan is shrewdly put. eg The in-tant a Central Board and a uniform system of management is es- tablished, that instant will the interests of the poor be consolidated, and Go- vernment will be responsible for every grievance, whether real or ieriginaty, they may setter. If they are harshly treated in workhouse:, or in any ether way, the parish authorities will excuse themselves by allegiag that they acted conformably to the orders of the Central Board, countersigned by the Secretary of State. -Instead, therefore, of a petty quarrel between the authorities in a particular parish and its poor, we shalt have every now and then tire Govern- ment brought into collision with all the poor of the kingdom. In our appre- hension, it is impossible to exaggerate the mischief and danger of such a state of things."

There is doubtless a good deal of truth in this. All the idle and the profligate will have a common feeling of hatred towards a

Government whose hand is seen to be raised against them. But it is an exaggeration to say that every now and then the Govern-

ment will be brought into collision with all the poor in the kingdom ; because one of the chief objects of the new bill is to provide comfortably for those who are unable, not unwilling, to provide for themselves. The condition of the labouring classes generally will be improved by the measure; and it is to be hoped that they will not be so besotted as to be unthankful to the Go- vernment which has been instrumental in their improvement. Granting, however; that a vast deal of odium will be thrown upon the Government, that is no argument for decrying their measure, if a good one. It is, on the contrary, an excellent reason for taking the work of amending the present system out of the hands of the resident gentry, to whom the Courier would confide it, and giving it to a body of men not so liable to the attacks of the incen- diary, or likely to be swayed by the fear of unpopularity in their immediate neighbourhood. Of two evils we suspect the bill gives us the least.

The Times objects to " the enormous powers given to the Com- missioners created by the bill." But are they not necessary ? and is it probable they will be abused?

The necessity of conferring very considerable discretionary power upon the Central Board, is, we think, obvious. Let any person charged with the reform of a single parish, where mismanage- ment, peculation, and jobbing, patronized and countenanced by the neighbouring Magistracy, has prevailed for years, enter the scene of his labours, and reflect fir a time on the amount of authority requisite to enable him to overcome the opposition which will beset him on all sides, from high and low, from the landlord, the farmer,. the pauper labourer, and the fraudulent overseer. Would he not demand authority, in the words of the bill,

" To make and issue all such rules, orders, and regulations for the manage- ment of the poor, for the government of workhouses, and the education of the children therein, and for the apprenticing the children of poor persons, and frit. the guidance and control of all guardians, vestries, and parish-officers, so far as relates to the management or relief of the poor, and the keeping, examining, auditing, and allowing of accounts, and making and entering into contracts in all matters relating to such management or relief, or to any expenditure for the relief of thepoor, and for carrying this act into execution m all other respects, as he shall think proper?"

Would he not demand the right of examining witnesses, papers, and accounts? If vested with less authority, he would be thwarted and laughed at ; and, if an honest and zealous agent in the work of improvement, he would give up his task at once. The mass of impurities to be removed is one of vast depth and thickness, and demands the application of unusual force.

The Times more especially denounces that part of the bill which relates to the establishment of workhouses; and quotes several passages to prove that the powers to be vested in the Commissioners of the Central Board are of a very extensive na- ture. All this is admitted ; but the questions to be answered are, Is it advisable that the present system of giving out-door relief should be abolished, if not altogether, yet as far as is practicable with a due regard to humanity? and if so, must not means be provided for giving in-door relief—in other words, must not addi- tional workhouses be had? If it be admitted that the main prin- ciple of the bill—that of abolishing the allowance system—is a good one, it is mere childishness to refuse the means of carrying that principle into practice. In its eagerness to denounce the new measure, and thereby gain a cheap popularity, the Times seems to forget the vices of the existing system. But, while we concur in its advice to Members of Parliament to read the Bill before they vote for it, we think that it would be well if our contemporary would refresh his own memory by a reperusal of the evidence upon which the Report of the Commissioners is founded. The members of the Central Board are, wisely as it appears to us, to be invested with the extraordinary powers indicated above ; and moreover, they are to have " all the protection and indemnity to which the judges of a superior court of record are by law entitled." The Times is very indignant at this also; but it after all amounts to little more than securing them from punish- ment when they fall into unintentional error. Men who must at once create personal enemies by the thousand, should be well protected, or they cannot execute their functions independently and advantageously to the public.

The securities against rash and ill-digested proceedings are con- siderable, if not sufficient. It is to be enacted that

" The Commissioners shall once in every year, at such time and in such form as any of his Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State shall direct, submit to the Principal Secretary of State requiring the same, a general report of their proceedings; and every such report shall be laid before both Houses of Parlia- ment within six weeks after the receipt of the same by such Principal Secretary of State, if Parliament be then sitting, or if Parliament be not sitting, then within six weeks after the next sitting thereof."

And it is also provided, that none of their general rules shall take effect until forty days after they have been laid before one of the Secretaries of State, and approved of by the Privy Council. Thus we have the two great checks of publicity and superintendence by the Government and by Parliament. Laws must be enforced by men ; and a certain degree of discretion must be conceded in the enforcement of them. At present, very ignorant men, in the capacities of Parish-officers and Magistrates, are intrusted with the administration of the Poor-laws. They are virtually irrespon- sible. They are not liable to be called upon periodically for an account of their proceedings. The Magistrates need fear nothing, however erroneous their decisions may be, provided they have the wit to keep their reasons for their decisions to themselves. Such

is the state of things as regards the administrators of the Poor- laws at present. In point of fact, the members of the Central Board, whose regulations are to be examined by the Government before they are put in execution, and who are to be regularly called upon once a year to give an account of their proceedings to Parliament, will possess less irresponsible authority than the Justices of the Peace and the Parish-officers, who have between them brought the agricultural districts of the country to what we see. Such being the fact, it appears absurd to affect such horror at the powers to be intrusted to the members of the Central Board.