It was proposed that the bill should be committed on the 28th of May, but the debate was exceedingly violent and was continued by adjournment to the 31st. It is difficult to describe the scene which took place, on the motion for going into committee on the bill. The confusion then, and indeed during the whole night, surpassed anything one could have expected in such a deliberative assembly. The alarms of the Irish peers as to the effects of the measure exceeded all bounds, and they were joined by several English peers who are supporters of the English Poor Law. On the resumption of the debate on the 31st however, and after a further discussion for eight hours, the house resolved by 107 to 41 to support the principle of the bill, as embodied in the _41st clause_. This clause provided that relief to the destitute might be administered in the workhouses, at the discretion of the boards of guardians, subject to the condition—in the first place of a preference being given to the aged and infirm poor, and to destitute children; and in the second place to persons residing in the union before those not so resident, when there is not sufficient accommodation for all the destitute. These latter provisions were introduced at the instance of the Duke of Wellington, in order to meet the objections and mitigate the hostility of the opponents of the bill, as was also the provision in the _44th clause_ charging the cost of relief to the several electoral divisions, instead of to the unions at large, as it before stood. These changes were arranged between the duke and myself, with the approval of government, previous to the second reading. [Sidenote: The bill read a third time.] The bill was considered in committee on the 7th, 21st, 22nd, and 26th of June, and was read a third time on the 6th of July. On the 11th I find it recorded in my journal—“The bill is now clear of the lords, altered and in some respects improved, although the localisation of the charge upon the electoral divisions approximates too nearly to settlement to be quite satisfactory. I wish this had been left as it at first stood; but so long as no right to relief, and no power of removal are given, we shall I trust be able to avoid the infliction of actual settlement.”[83] ----- [83]