The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-09 00:00:00

stated that, " while it was said that all persons
in fiestitution had a right, in this country, to
claii n relief, wherever they might be, the parochial
authorities were enabled with impunity to violate
the provisions of the law; and it appeared that
the Poor Law Board could not cope with those
authorities, when they refused to administer the
relief which they were justly entitled to do."
Surely this fact afforded a sufficient basis for the
introduction of a new state of things. There is
no reader of the Press throughout the country
but must be continually shocked and indignant
at the recurrence of distress cases being cruelly
neglected. Often, indeed, the callous official has
refused admittance to the dying, and it has been
at the inquest on the unfortunate deceased that
the truth • has been elicited. Lord RAYNITAINI
said that in some cases starvation had resulted
from the parish authorities neglecting to afford
assistance in time. By the provisions of his mea-
sure the metropolis would be constituted into one
district for the purpose of relieving the casual poor,
and the Poor Law Board " would have the power
of compelling all Boards of Guardians, overseers,
and other officers, by a writ of mandamus to carry
into effect the provisions of the existing law."
" Thus," said the noble lord, " there would be a
certainty of proper relief to the poor, of whom at
present many would rather die in the streets than
avail themselves of the law as it at present stood."
One of the clauses provided that separate sleeping
accommodation should be given to each person, as
at present several of the wards were in a very dis-
graceful state. Also, another evil in the present
system was that admission only took place at certain
hours, and therefore the masters of workhouses
were enabled to refuse relief in several cases. This
he would rectify by arranging that all asylums for
the relief of poor persons should be open at all
hours day and night, and that every person alleging
destitution " should be ipso facto entitled to ad-
mission." Then, in order to prevent improper per-
sons taking advantage of the provisions of the bill,
he should propose that the authorities might, when
they considered it advisable, give to the parties
who sought relief a task of work not exceeding
eight hours.

These arrangements appear very satisfactory, and
if this measure had passed into law there would be
less suffering among a class that is unfitted to bear
it from many attendant circumstances, and there
would be less " complaining in the streets," which
surely would be a desirable consummation. But all
these suggestions to improve the condition of the
poor are always met by a torrent of remonstrance,
and a host of objections start up on all sides. One
would think, on hearing and perusing these countless
difficulties in the way of doing good, that it would
be better to give up the attempt altogether
in despair. Such is the inference that the wise
counsels of the astute in such matters leads us to
infer is their secret meaning. Lord MARNEY, in
" Sybil," in speaking of the inconvenient increase
of the poor, declared with satisfaction, that " he
built no cottages but destroy all I can," and this
principle seems to actuate many who legislate or
rather to refuse to legislate on workhouses. Such
as they are, they are too good for their occupants,
and it would be only encouraging vice and increas-
ing vagrancy to propose any remedial change.
According to the objections urged last night by
some who spoke after Lord RAYNHAM, it is impos-
sible to adopt a medium course ; either tramps and
robbers are to be encouraged, or else the
deserving poor must suffer. It is really
unworthy of sensible persons to persist
through prejudice in maintaining such a state of
things. As the Government will not do anything
themselves this session, they might at least have
had the grace to be a little more encouraging to
the private bills that some hon. members have
I proposed in desperation at the present sad state
of things in many quarters. But inaction must
be the order of the day, and the same fate at-
tended Lord RAYNHAM'S useful measure that
await all attempts to lighten the bondage of the
distressed needlewomen a few weeks ago. Then
all proposals were met with acorn and ridicule.
It would interfere with business, injure the pros-
pects of the employed, and produce countless evils.
Really these wise people talk as if it were
machines they were discussing, and not human
creatures with the same feelings as themselves.
Also oar legislators should remember that, besides
mercantile interests, Christian charity should in-
fluence such details. Only those who are actuated
by a spirit of fair play in their dealing with those
entrusted to their care will be enabled to render
a satisfactory account of their actions when, as
Miss MULOCH has forcibly expressed it, " the long
day of life, with all its labour, is over for eternity." ,

We are glad to see that, in spite of some opposi-
tion, the second reading of the Anchor and Chain
Cables Bill was carried last night by a decisive
majority. The common sense of the house at once
perceived the desirability of the suggested measures
and the efficient protection it offered to life at sea.
The great majority of shipowners, as we anticipated,
have expressed their approval of the bill, and con-
sequently the complaints of nadue interference
with trade were little heeded. The name of its
projector is a sufficient warrant that the bill is
n
a piece of superfluous and uncalled-for
nor an unnecessary trenching on the
ieegi:tshiaertion,
details of private business. There would be, said
Mr. LAIRD, no interference with trade. He pro-
posed that, after the Ist of January next, all vessels
registered should be required to have chains and
anchors which had been properly tested. He
deprecated the threatened opposition of the Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade, and assured the house
that he had reason to know that most of the ship-
owners of the country supported the measure. On
this point Mr. LAIRD may be allowed to speak with
some confidence, and it is therefore surprising to
find gentlemen reiterating the objection of injustice
to the trade. If the members of the trade do not
think so, Why should other parties object on their
behalf ? Mr. CAVE, the seconder, very justly said
that after a railway
as to the accident an inquiry was made
quality of the iron which had
been used, but that this protection was
impossible in the case of a loss at sea. What the
result of such an inquiry
give utphtehesirtaprtrleiyn
would be, could the dark
glvfaectintahyato,nloyf ttohoe ecahsaiiY
guess from n
waters
cables tested at Liverpool, 82 per cent. have been
found to be defective. It is idle, in the face of such
evidence as this, for Mr. LINDSAY to say that it is
the interest of shipowners to provide themselves
with good anchors, and for Mr. GIBSON to object,
on the ground of trouble
and difficulty. The h. rig ,
hon. gentleman also said scornfully
that this was
a bill for coasters ; as if the lives of the crewa of
coasters were of no importance. If the right hon,
gentleman will take the trouble to examine the
wreck chart and list of shipwrecks for any recent
year, he will find the number of disasters to the
trading vessels on our coasts to be by no means in-
significant, and it is no secret that they are gene-
rally very imperfectly fitted out. Sir JOHN
PAKINGTON, however, had another answer for the
President of the Board of Trade. ire reminded
him that in the terrible gale at Baluklava no less
than 3O transports were lost in consequence of
defective anchor§ end cables, whereas none of her