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

. . .
undhr whieh they had dismissed him. Ho thought the
ve-stry of S'. Pancras would have been
,justified if they
had refused to give information to the Poor-law Board;
hut in point of tart they had not refused, for no request
bad heels directly made to ,hem. What took place was
this--teat ou the ti th of Much, when the Right Hee.
Bahenst opposite teas in (Zee, a letter was remised from
his effiro intimeting that the Board would not allow the
vestry to dismiss; the mister without carrying the case
by mandamus to the Court of Queen's Bench; but if the
vestry had any charge to make against the master,
the Board waa ready to listen and to report upon
it. That was the only manner in which information
was requested, and surely that could not be called
direct request. He hoped the motion which be
now brought forward would not be resisted by the
Government. He would have made it though his poll"-
cal friends had been in power, though he confessed with
far less hope than now, when the Treasury bench was
occupici by Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, on
every occasion when the Poor-law Bill was brought be-
fore the House, had heed against it. In 1834, when the
Bill was first introduced; in 1839, in 1840, in 1841, in 1842,
and again in 1847, which was the last time this Bill wee
brought before the House, the Lame opposition was ;siren
to it. In 1841 the present Chaney llor of the Exchequer,
opposed the BA on the ground that it terminated the old
parochial constitutioa of the country, end outraged the
manners of the people for a mere sordid consideration.
In 1847 the present Judge-Advocate objeoted to the
power that was gratthid by the Bill to the POor-!s%
Board. The President of the Board of Trade also be
came actually impassioned in opposition to the Bill. ost
dechared that the poor would regard the powers tbt
were given to the Poor-law ttomnsis,ioners AS a herd'
ship, and that-some day , the system would end in s
way that they would all be sorry to see. The Nob
Lord the President of the Board of Works need
;
similar languege. Th© Chancellor of the Etta:loll,e;
again opposed the powers that were vested.' in the
Commissioners; and, still more important perhaps, lee
present President of the Poor-law Board concurred ,1;
the opposition of his colleagnee, and opposed their gon:
into Committee on the Bill, because there wail n° -
single clause which he approved of. It was possible
they might now have all received a new light on the en!:
y
ject; and if their conversion was sincere he would V.
it with every respect; but it was only a few nights ego
he had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer &clef;
that be had taken office with the intention -of carriise
out the principles which he advocated in opposition
(Hear, hear.) If so, he did not see how he
could sue'
port the poor-law in its integrity; for these reasons, the,-
he hoped that the Government would accede to' Iris P3a-:
tion For his part, he had other objections to the Pe,`;
law. He believed that under its operations the Pr,d-
were frequently exposed to great cruelty and ehpren
—that the system of medical relief was defective, and
did not attain its object—that the poor often suffer%
from the enormous size of the unions—and that thd
aged poor were treated unnecessary harshness 0
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 post
sessed for another year, and therefore he thought it was
very inconvenient that the whole management of the
poor should be discussed by any Hon. Gentlem o
raising :a question of this kind. He did not think the
law was so uccertain as the Noble Lord bad
supposed, for there were several decisions of the court:
of law which established the right of the Poor-brW
Beard to interfere in parishes which were governed g
•
local Acts. It Was true that a case bad arisen in le,
parish of St. Pancras, to which the Noble Lord had be
ferred, respecting the right to dismiss the master Not
union, and that question was still in dependence.
if the Noble Lord should succeed in his present raoh
tbee
there would be an end of the question; but, then, on of
other hand, there would be an end to all uniformity ld
law with regard to the relief of the poor; there 10°de
be one mode of relief to the -north, and another
,atn°
of relief to the south of Oxford-street.--(6etila;
hear.) The Noble Lord supposes that "off
parishes having local Acts were anxious to sbaaasta
$
the control of the Commissioners, but it happenetahh:e
the very first deputation he had the honour to r'-eieg
after accepting office from a metropolitan parish, nehibe
for advice how they might relieve themselves for lot
operation of a local Act. It was plain, therefore, Ito
parishes were not so unanimous on this eubjeot as ar
Noble Lord supposed. It was true there were '°lo
petitions in favour of the Noble Lord's motion; but fr°.
.whom did these petitions come? Not from the Iltloa.
.payers, but from the vestrymen—the parochial diglo.
ries who did not like to be controlled by the PJor-
Commissioners. And if the Noble Lord's motion were
r
carried, it would exempt about one-eighth of the poOah6
tion and one-ninth of the poer-law expenditure from
supervision of the Commissioners, and give rise to
the abuses which the Act of 1843 had put an end
,76
It must not be supposed that these abuses existed ocly
_,
.
in rural districts—there were also malversions towns,
and'exeaditure for rating and drinking which us (ha.
he greatly itomplitined of. He found that even the:a
trymeil of • Stt'Marylebone did not give entire sad. rt""ti
tio
Lion; for only the other week a successful oPPeo face
had been raised to the further continuance in ct
of last year's vestrymen. As a resident for sraveo
years in that parish, he could himself bear erltubbat
to the dissatisfaction that was generally felt on 6
point e and ho held in his hand a letter from 10
geuthmau who had long been resident physic
the workhouse, complaining of several defects-10"a
otht rs, that the workhouse, which could only P"Petsia
aceenatecelate-1,-500,- was-- sometimes-- forced to coraoh
from 1,900 tot 2 200; that there was doproper clasetn
lion of the inmates; that the boys' school was eloss to
the men's ward, and the girls' school to the wornetbe
ward, and that communication took place betweenthe
children and the adults, to the manifest injury -ci
former; that, the atmosphere of the establishment, ;at
prejudicial to' infant life, so that about seventy int of
died annually in the establishment; while the number
inmates under medical treatment averaged 600, or shoat
one-third of - the whole. He (Sir J. Trollop ti7pre
state that in 1843 a lengthened inquiry took place be
the
two medical gentlemen as to the rate of mortality t 0 icb
Marylebone workhouse, and they made a report evea
gave very great offence to the Marylebone dignitari tioe
'lle Right Hen: Baronet then read a comaihniesatie
from Dr. Boyd, now' connected with a pauper In,p•
asylum at Wells, and who formerly held a medical the
pointment under the Marylebone vestry, showingbone
hard lot of the little girls brought up in the Marylh
Workhouse, after they ,- lett . that establishlhh,o
to go to service among the small
tradeePege hi
and shopkeepers in the parish, who elifeough
them to do the -work of experienced servants, There
it was not at' all Suited he- their years or statiov•
c tbe tw°
was no reproach on the character of either of read.
tied reit
medical gentlemen whose communications hhc-eteloone
Since dissolving their connexion with the mere
en„ of
vestry they had both been aointed to the snneanem
pauper lunatic asylums, and he thought their evidence
e of
was unimpeachable. He contended that the parishesuhr
Marylebone and St. Pancras—the former with a P°P
tion of 200.000 too and the latter 160,000—were much
large to-admit of the wants_of the .poor being properly
attended to by local boards. The Marylebone vestry
was occasionally termed the Marylebone Parliarnent,
,
from the oircumitance of its being sometimes converted
uoetions as the window-tars
and of Hungary, and such eh,
into an arena for the discuss.itothee.
ierfotwhen
, so to act, provided they
of their
there were many and
wporoonr.gsßofutPhoeladnid:
and perhaps they had ti
of management which it was in the pow"'
grievous faults F
• h of
of the local boards to remedy. or instance, the parts
saydid nt
host
tnieng neglect tehegrreealitefprosi
Mary Letione had not followed the example of many other
metropolitan parishes, and removed their pauper children
out- of the precincts of the workhouse. He was Ore
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.) PAI,
that they had done in Marylebone was to remove some
sixty or sehenty-of the children to a sea-bathing.eelsi
bliehmentateltergatee Oa the other hand, the parish o
St. George, Hanover-square, among others that might b 1
named,' and than which there was no better example
gnod local mansgement, had removed their pauper children
to a healthy, dry, airy spot at Chelsea, where they were
out of the way et contamination, and where everything
was done for their proper accommodation. But not he,
with that great metropolitan parish, Marylebone.
confined 400 children within the walls of its own work'
house, subject to all- the contamination they might re'
ceive from the admixture of classes. He might cite sin:
ther cate. On the 22d of April last a motion was made
_
in the Queen's Bench for a mandamus against the
trymen of Sr. Mary's, Islington, to compel them, under
the provisions of their own local act, to make a rate for
e object- toe attained
the application_._ said_ th- -b - - .
the relief of the poor. The Learned Counsel who made
~tho defendants to cause a vestry
waa '° to command
meeting to Tuesday last. At
of vestry on Easter
the meeting the
purpose o ascer-
ld for the f
be assembled, as by adjournment from
that time a meeting was he
year. On that day the
relief of the poor in the present
ge bled under the local act which was in
hesttY bad assembled destimate of
taining what was the sum necessary to be raised for rho
perish, an an the money that
nance of the poor for
s duly presented, but the rate to raise the
the year wit
was not at that moment agreed to, because, by
money
wfooruceldi
the local act, other machinery was to be put in motion
nbethreequired for the mainte
before the 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
were these :—On Easter Tuesday last there was
meeting, after due notice given, and an estimate was
duly presented, declaring the sum required to be im'
posed for the relief of the poor amounted-to 22,000/,
instead .of, 29,0001, as in 1850, and 27,000/., he in
1851. A motion was Entitle that this estimate should
be received and adopted, and entered on the minutes.
It was obi 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 erti'
notes. This was done. An amendment was then moved,
that the sum necessary for the relief of the poor was OW
penny. 'r6o motion was seconded, but was ultimately
withdrawn; but in the end the meeting negatived the
proposed estimate. The poor were, therefore, left Wi
out provision, except through the means of what some
rich and charitatle individuals among the parishiont re
had advanced. The object of this application was to
compsl the defendaote under the provisions of their ow"
local Act, to complete what had been begun, and not
t
only to enter the estimate on the minutes, but to adopt
the estimate and to make a rate." Now, what did tn°
court do in this case? The court granted the applies'
Lion, and, on the suggestion of Mr. Pashley, the cotteeaef
who made the application, that the matter was one (3
pressing necessity, the court ordered that the' writ
to
should issue at once, instead of there being a rniek.d
show cause. So that the Court of Queen's Bench h.: I
absolutely to overrule the law •of the.land glre
relies under the eiretiantwoo, Nov, 01 thud