The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-25 00:00:00

under which they had dismissed him. He thought the
ve,try of St. Pancras would have been justified if they
had refused to give information to the Poor-law Board;
but in point of feet they had not refused, for no request
had been directly made to them. What took place was
this—that on the 11th of March, when the Right Hon.
Baronet opp site was in office, a letter was received from
his office intimating that the Board would not allow the
vestry to dismiss the master without carrying the CaOt
by mandamus to the Court of Queen's Bench; but if the
vestry had any charge to make against the master,
the Board was ready to listen and to report upon
it. That was the only manner in which intormation
was requested, and surely that could not be called a
direct request. He hoped the motion which he
now brought forward would not be resisted by the
Government. He would have made it though his politi-
cal friends had been in power, though he confessed with
far less hope than now, when the Treasury bench was
occupied by Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, on
every occasion when the Poor-law Bill was brought be-
fore the House, bad voted against it. In 1834, when the
Bill was first introduced; in 1839, in 1840, in 1841, in 1842,
and again in 1841, which was the last time this Bill was
brought before the House, the same opposition was given
to it. In 1841 the present Chancellor of the Exchequer
opposed the Bill on the ground that it terminated the old
parochial constitution of the country, and outraged the
manners of the people for a mere sordid consideration.
In 1847 the present Judge-Advocate objected to the
power that was granted by the Bill to the Poor-law
Board. The President of the Board of Trade also be-
came actually impassioned in opposition to the Bill. fle
declared that the poor would regard the powers that
were given to the Poor-law Commissioners as a hard-
ship, and that some day the system would end in
way that they would all be sorry to see. The Noble
Lord the President of the Board of Works used
similar language. Tho Chancellor of the Exchequer
again
Ctphroeer
pupiotsopys, pt
iorteeinsoseed b
President
Commissioners;
;nft
tahe
nio.ds
colleagues, powers
lelae pt
more
ouooetrrh::al
and
a n wereanwdpoßorpot
paa
nor
Board
evesteddth
concurred in
perhaps,
ei
r g going
rit
thehi
gn
into Committee on the Bill, because there was not a
single clause which he approved of. It was possible
they might now have all received a sew light on the sub-
ject; and if their conversion was sincere he would treat
it with every respect; bat i; was only a few nights eg°
he had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer declare
that ho had taken office with the intention of carrying
out the principles which he advocated in oppoeitione
(Hear, hear.) If so, ho did not see how he could sup-
port the poor-law in its integrity; for these reasons, thee'
he hoped that the Government would accede to his te°'
don For MI part, he had other objections to the poor
law. He believed that under its operations the poor
were frequently exposed to great cruelty end oppression
—that the system of medical relief was defective, and
did not attain its object—that the poor often suffered
from the enormous size of the unions—end that the,
aged poor were treated unnecessary harshness and
rigour. He must, therefore, press the motion which he
had proposed.
Sir. B. HALL seconded the motion.
Sir JOHN TROLLOPE said that the present ;Bill
was only for a continuance of the powers which the
Commissioners of the Poor-law Board already pos-
sessed for another year, and therefore he thought it was
very inconvenient that the whole management of the
poor, should he discussed by any Hon. Gentleman
raising a question of this kind. He did not think the
law eas so uncertain as the Noble Lord bad
supposed, for there were several decisions of the courts
of law which established the right of the Poor-law
Board to interfere in parishes which were governed by
local Acts. It was true that a ease had arisen in the
parish of St. Pancras, to which the Noble Lord had re-
ferred, respecting the right to dismiss the master of the
union, and that question was still in dependence. News
if the Noble Lord should succeed in his present model),
there would b. 5 an end of the question; but, then, on the
other hand, there would be an end to all uniformitY of
law with regard to the relief of the poor; there world
be one mode of relief to the Lord); and another mode
of relief to the south of Oxford-street.---Lgefah,;
hear.) The Noble Lord supposes that all
parishes having local Acts were anxious to
fy
shake °
the control of the Commissioners, but it happened that
the very first deputation be had the honour to receive
after accepting office from a metropolitan parish, asking
for advice how they might relieve themselves for the
operation of a local Act. It was plain, therefore, that
,
parishes were not so unanimous on this subject
four t"..
Noble Lord supposed. It was true there were
petitions in favour of the Noble Lord's motion; but frota
whom did these petitions come? Not from the rate-
payers, but from the vestrymen—the parochial dignita-
ries who did not like to be controlled by the Poor-law
Commissioners. And if the Noble Lord's motion Were
carried, it would exempt about one-eighth of the popula-
tion, and one-ninth .of the poor-law expenditure from
supervision of the Commissioners, and give rise to s"
the abases which the Act of 1843 had put an end t°'
It must not be supposed that these abuses existed only
in rural districts—there were also malversions in towns'
and expenditure for eating and drinking which used t°
be greatly complained of. He found that even the ves-
trymen of St. Mary lebane did not give entire satisfac-
tion; for only the other week a successful opposiVolle
had been raised to the further continuance in 0"361
of last year's vestrymen. As a resident for sereers,
years in that parish, he could himself bear wiTho
to the dissatisfaction that was generally felt on tt
point; and he held in his hand a letter from
gentleman who had long been resident physician is
the workhouse, complaining of several defects—among
others, that the workhouse, which could only
sinprop
accommodate 1,500, was sometimes forced to Con
from 1,900 te 2,200; that there was no proper classifica-
tionto
of the inmates; that the boys' school was elose,,
the men's ward, and the girls' school to the woene,te
ward, and that communication took place between the
children and the adults, to the manifest injury of las
former; that the atmosphere of the establishment Vint,
prejudicial to infant life, so that about seventy ids of
died annually in the establishment; while the number
inmates under medical treatment averaged 600, or ae°"t
one-third of the whole. He (Sir J. TrolloPe) wrge
state that in 1843 a lengthened inquiry took place before
two medical gentlemen as to_tee rate of mortality in
~.t,
Marylebono workhouse, and they made a report wutch
el.
gave very great offence to the Marylebone dignitar"oo
The Right Hon. Baronet then • read a communicatt.,o
from Dr. Boyd, now connected with a pauper lunatic
asylum at Wells, and who formerly held a medical tP3';
pointment under the Marylebone vestry, showing the
hard lot of the little girls brought up in the Maryle
workhouse, after they lett that establishment
to go to service among the small tradespeople
and shopkeepers in the parish, who eapectei
them to do the work of experienced servants, th
eentig
eaere
it was not at all suited to their years or station. -
was no reproach on the character of either of the t
medical gentlemen whose communications he had ties •
Since dissolving their connexion with the Marylebone
vestry they bad both been appointed to the management of
pauper lunatic asylums, and he thought their evideoc0
was unimpeachable. He contended that the parishes of
Marylebone and St. Pancras—the former with a popula-
tion of 200,000 and the latter 160,000—were much too
large to admit of the wants of the poor being properly
attended to by local boards. The Marylebone vestry'
was occasionally termed the Marylebone Parliament,
from the circumstance of its being
sometimes converted
into an arena for the discussion of the wrongs of Poland
and of Hungary, and each questions as the window-tax;
ot their own poor. But he did
did not neglect the relief
parishes there and perhaps they had a right so to act, provided they
say that in those great pa ere were many and
grievous faults of management which it was in the power
of the local boards to remedy. For instance, the parish of
Marylebone had not followed the example of many other
metropolitan parishes, and removed their pauper children
out of the precincts of the workhouse. He was sure
that no man who understood the management of a work-
house ,
would say it was right to keep 400 children within
the walls of such an establishment.—(Hear hear.)
All
that they had done in Marylebone was to remove some
sixty or seventy of the children to a sea-bathing esta-
blishment at Margate. On the other hand, the parish of
St. George, Hanover-square, among others that might
good local manegement, be
named, and than which there was no better examPle of
to a healthy, dry, airy spot at Chelsea, where they were
out of the way ot contamination, and where everything
he tomu6s esdu4b
subject
ht tal rl
all
children
the
was done fur their proper • But not so
o
had removed their pauper children
accommodation.
with that great metropolitan parish, Marylebone.
It
might re-
ceive from the admixture of classes. He might cite
name
an-
ther care. On the 22d of April last a motion was
e_.
ithcoinuttahmetnwaatlilcsnoftheiyts own work
in the Queen's Bench for a mandamus against the vet"
trymen of Sr. Mary's, Islington, to compel them, under
the provisions of their own local act, to make a rateun for
the relief of the poor. The Learned Counsel who made
,
the application said the object to be attained
was "to command the defendants to cause a vestry
meeting to be assembled, as by adjournment from
the meeting of the vestry on Easter Tuesday lust. At
that time a meeting was held for the purpose of ascer-
taining what was the sum necessary to be raised for the
relief of the poor in the present year. On that day the
vestry had assembled under the local act which was in
force in the parish, and an estimate of the money that
would be required for the maintenance of the poor for
-
the year was duly presented, but the rate to raise the
money was not at that moment agreed to, because, by
the local act, other machinery was to be put in motion
before tho rate was actually made. The local act was
the sth George IV., c. 125, which repealed several other
acts passed for a similar purpose. The facts of the case
declaring the sum required to be
were these :—On Easter Tuesday last there was a
meeting, after due notice given, and an estimate was
000/, as in
'relief of the poor amounted to 22,000 Ls
i im-
nstead
d.apdfroAeors fetmnht2oee9tdi en was made 18
thats() thisan d
estimate 27 , 0001. ,
be received and adopted, and entered on the minutes-
It was obit cted that if it was adopted all further
discussion would be precluded, and therefore it
was moved that it should only be entered on the mi-
nutes. This was done. An amendment then moved,
that the sum necessary for the relief of the poor was one
Penny. The motion was seconded, but was ultimately
withdrawn; but in the end the meeting negatived the
proposed estimate. The poor were, therefore, left with-
out should
be
provision, except through the means of what some
rich and charitable individuals among the parishioners
had advanced. The object of this application was to
compel the defendeuts, under the i prov.sions of their own,.
local Act, to complete what had been begun, and not
only to enter the estimate on the minutes, but to adopt
the estimate and to make a rate." Now, what did the
court do in this case? The court granted the applica-
tion, and, on the suggestion of Mr. Pashley, the coansoe;
who made the application, that the matter was one
writ
prr,e; ;•:, the court order, d that the wr:o
-
should ;11', once, instead of there being rule _
as,
show cause. So that the Court of Queen's Bench h tt,
tog ran'
absolutely to overrule the law of the land
the
a
relief under the circumstances, nor, all $ll