ABSTRACT
THECommissionersappointedundertheprovisions ofthePoorLawAmendmentActwereprohibited fromsittinginparliament,andhadbeenunconnected withpartypolitics.Thisseparationfrompolitical influencewould,itwasbelieved,rendertheiraction moreindependent,andlessliabletopopularorlocal bias;buttheresultshowed,thatalthoughthese qualitiesmightaboundinaCommissionsoconstituted, therewerecountervailingcircumstanceswhichrendered thepolicyofsuchanarrangementdoubtful,the Commissionbeingtherebydeprivedofthemeansof defendingitselfintheonlyplacewheredefencewould beeffective.Publicfeelingandpublicprejudice,local orgeneral,wererepresentedandfoundsupportersin parliament,wheretherewasnoPoorLawfunctionary toexplainortorefute;andchargesmadethere,
however exaggerated or groundless, spread through the country, and were received as undoubted facts, raising distrust and jealousy of the Commission, weakening its influence and impeding its action. It was denounced as being anomalous, tyrannical, irresponsible, and as exercising a power not recognised by the English constitution. This feeling prevailed within the House of Commons perhaps even more strongly than it did elsewhere, for every other department had its representative there, who might at once be questioned and called to account for whatever occurred; whereas the Poor Law Commissioners were beyond the reach of such questioning, and could only be called upon circuitously through the medium of the home secretary, or by the more tedious process of moving for papers.
