The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-09 00:00:00

sioners who, in his opinion, had performed their duties
with the greatest ability, yet was desirous that greater
powers should be entrusted to the Boards of Guardians.
He was inclined to pay great deference to the opinions
of the Honourable Members for East Sussex, for Norfolk,
and for Aylesbury, who had all paid the greatest attention
to the subject of the Poor-law, but he could not alto-
gether agree with his Hon. Friend on this subject.
It appeared to him this clause was likely to produce a
greater degree o fli.ssatisfaction than it would remedy, and,
therefore, he should opp ise it.
Sir ROBERT PRICE said the great evil of the old
system was out. door relief ; and under that system more
frauds had been committed, and the industrious classes had
been defrauded more of their just rights than under any
other system in existence. The Hon. Member for East
Sussex was endeavouring by a side wind to break down
the present system, which he would say was of more im-
portance to the landed interests than any other system that
had been established during the time he had been in Par-
liament. He would be ashamed of himself if he supported
the new Poor-law merely because the landed interest were
benefited, but he believed it had done good to the poor
themselves, and had tended to raise their character ;
and he trusted the House would adhere to the principles
on which the New Poor-law Act bad been established. If
Hon. Members endeavoured, by a side wind, to break
down one principle one day, and on another day to break
down another principle, the day would not be far distant
when those who were so eager to give their support to
those attempts would deeply lament the course they had
pursued. He would strongly urge the House not to con-
sent to the clause proposed by the Hon. Member for
Sussex. He hoped the case of the widows would receive
every consideration during the next Session of Parliament,
but do not let the House open all the evils of the out-door
system in a Bill introduced merely for the purpose of re-
newing or extending the Poor-law Commissioners for
another year.
Mr. BURR OUG HE S explained. He did not advocate
a return to the old system ; he complained of the law be-
cause it was an ex postfacto one.
Mr. WAKLE Y said there might be much logic, but
there certainly was very little humanity in the speech which
the Hon. Baronet the Member for Bedfordshire had just
favoured the House.—(Cries of " Oh, ob," and" Order.")
That must he the opinion of the House.—(Cries of " No,
no.") The Hon. Baronet said let the case of the widows
stand over for another year ; let them starve in the mean-
time, but take their case into consideration next year. He
( Mr. W.) thought it would be far more humane to take
that subject into consideration immediately, and give those
a home who had no shelter—who had no raiment, clothing—
who were in a state of starvation, food. Why, fifty years
ago it would not have been credited that the proud and
boasting aristocracy of England—that the landed gentry
of England could be engaged in such a discussion as then
engaged the House, which was one of a character to lower
that House in the eyes of the people, to deprive that assembly
of any esteem on the part of the people of this coun •
try. The Hon. Gentleman had stated that the landed interest
had derived great benefit from the Bill; he thought they
had, and the public thought so too, and the poor knew it.
—( Hear, hear.) But was that a reason for the Bill being
continued to the detriment of the poor?—( Hear, hear.)
Did the gentry of England wish to put their feet upon
the necks of the poor, saying that their position was
comfortable enough, and that they cared not for them?
Was that the decree they wished to send forth to the Eng-
glish nation? He trusted that the House would make some
provision for the necessitous. The Hon. Member for
Hereford trusted that the House would not break down
the great principles of the Poor-law Amendment Act. He
had often heard that statement, but he had never heard
• defined what the great principles of that Bill were. Was
it that all relief should be withheld under all circumstances
• from the able-bodied labourer?
LordJOHN RUSSELL—No.

Mr. WA KL E Y—The Noble Lord says, certainly not.
If such were the intention, all he could say was, it had
not been acted upon by the Commissioners, because re
lief had not only been given in the form of clothing, but
money, to the able-bodied labourer. He was sure
it would not be admitted that the great principle of the
Bill was that of starving the poor. In the present
case, what was it they were discussing ? The Hon. Mem-
ber for Sussex was for supporting the hole and corner
clause. An Hon. Member on the other side of the House
had said that the clause did not go far enough : upon that
Hon. Member's suggestion the clause was altered, and he
was the first to vote against it in its improved form ; and
he ( Mr. Wakley) had heard it stated that that Hon.
Member had said that he had proposed its alteration in
order to get it thrown out. What happened? Why, after
the House had amended the clause, after he and some •
others had been disappointed in the result, he moved that
the Chairman should report progress ; and for doing so
he was represented in the Times newspaper as having
moved to report progress in order to get rid of the ques-
tion, thus imputing to him that he had caused a clause to be
lost after it had been carried.—( Hear.) In point of fact,
as everybody knew, the clause was lost, and it was
in consequence of the annoyance he felt, and in the hope
that he should have an opportunity of bringing the subject
forward, that he moved that the Chairman should report
progress. What did he find in the Times the next day ?
Hon. Members knew that upon divisions the names of the
ayes and the noes were taken down, but in the Times the
noes were set down as the ayes, and the ayes as the noes,
making it appear that he had voted just contrary to the
manner in which he did. If that was done intentionally it
was most unfair, but if it was done unintentionally, he
was sure that he had only to mention it to have it set
right. He thought the poor of the country had a right to
relief without being compelled to go into a gaol, which he
considered the Union workhouses to be. If the Noble
Lord intended to give the Commissioners a perpetuity in
their office—if he did not intend any relaxation should take
place, then he was acting rightly ; but if he intended that
any relaxation should take place, he thought he was
bound to accede to the relaxation that was proposed.
Nothing could be more preposterous than to make distinc-
tions between a man married on the 13th of August, 1833,
and the 15th August, in the same year. —( Hear, hear.)
Destitution in all cases should be the test.—( Hear, hear.)
No matter when they were married, relief ought to be
administered, and if they adopted any other rule they would
fall into the most grievous errors.—( Hear, hear.) He was
convinced that it would be quite safe to entrust the control
in this respect to the Guardians who were elected by the
ratepayers, who had the means of ascertaining whether
destitution was brought on by improvidence or not. He
shuuld be glad to hear from the Noble Lord whether it was
his intention to relax the Bill with reference to out-door
relief. If the Noble Lord would at once express his deter-
mination the country would know what course to take.
Lord HO WICK said it was obvious that very few of
those who supported the motion did so on the ground that
the proposal itself was a good one. It was supported by
the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and by the
Noble Lord the Member for Monmouthshire, as a part of
that which they required, and as a concession to that
deluded feeling which now existed on this subject. The
question was whether they were to recur to the old practice
of giving relief in aid of wages.—( Cries of " No, no," and
" Hear, hear.") That was really and substantially the
principle on which they were called on to decide. He
( Lord Howick) certainly had voted with the Honourable
Member for Finsbury, thinking that the change, if made
at all, ought to be universal, but he had afterwards,
with very great satisfaction, voted for rejecting the clause
altogether. The Hon. Member for Finsbury had taxed
his Hon. Friend behind him with inhumanity.
Mr. WA KLE Y—No, I did net. I spoke of his speech.
I said it was not remarkable for humanity.
Lord H 0 WICK said it was utterly a mistake to
suppose that true humanity consisted in looking at
sufferings among particular classes. The true huma-
nity in legislation consisted in taking that course
which on the whole, and in the long run, would pro-
duce the least suffering, and the greatest benefit to the
country at large.—( Hear, hear.) It was mistaken hu-
manity which endeavoured to aid the wages of labourers
by the poor rates—it was a principle which operated most
ruinously to the interests of the labouring classes.—( Hear,
hear.) And he must say the House had been painfully
affected by the manner in which the Hon. Member for
Finsbury had thought fit to tax with inhumanity, and the
most sordid and disgusting motives in their conduct on this
subject, the whole gentry of England.—( Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member had said that they would not allow the
Boards of Guardians even to give their own money in such
eases—but the fact was, that the Boards of Guardians did
not give only their own money—( Hear, hear)—they gave
the money not only of the better farmers and gentry, but
of the industrious classes in the lower ranks of life—many
of them, only by their virtuous struggles, enabled to keep
their own heads above distress—( Hear, hear)—and ex-
posed to great privations and difficulties.—( Hear, hear.)
Tim gentry of England had never shown themselves
'niggardly of what was their own money really. It
had always been found throughout the country that
they were ready to come forward with their own private
means,—to relieve distress, which by legislation could not
be so beneficially relieved as by the benevolence of indi-
viduals.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member had in-
sinuated that the support which this measure had received
from the Board of Guardians was owing to selfish motives,
and to relieve themselves from the rates. But he ( Lord
Howick) would ask any gentlemen who had really looked
to the operation of the measure, and was acquainted with
the demoralized and unhappy condition of the peasantry of
this country, previously to the year 1834, whether he did
not, in his conscience, believe that the real ground on
which that Act was passed, was not the pecuniary benefit
of the rate-payers, but the advantage of those for whom
the rates were levied, and the destruction of that cruel
oppression under which the poorer classes laboured, by the
vicious system formerly in operation?—( Hear, hear.)
These objects, and not the pecuniary saving, were
the main reasons for adhering to the principle
of the Att. The Honourable Member for Finsbury
had said—." What was the principle of the Act ?
was it that no relief should be given to able-
bodied poor ?" Undoubtedly not, the real principle, the
only principle of the Poor-law Amendment Act was, to
give relief in cases of destitution, bnt to confine relief
exclusively to those cases.—( Hear, hear,) In justice to
the rate payers and to the recipients of the rates they
should take care, that the money should in no cases be re,
ceived except by the really destitute, and his objection to
this clause was, that it would necessarily lead to the evasion
of this principle.—( Hear, hear, hear). Let them look at
the Reports of the Commissioners and Assistant Commis.
sioners previous to the passing of the New Poor-law Act,
and they would find it would be utterly impossible to apply
the principle of the Honourable Member without leading
to abuse. The principle of the Honourable Member was,
that although a man might be strong and healthy, and in
full employment, yet he was entitled to relief in addition
to his wages ; but experience had shown that it would be
utterly impossible to institute such a scrutiny as to prevent
the greatest abuses, and that if adopted it would take from
the labourer one great motive to industry and economy,
by creating a belief that there was no practical difference
in the results between the frugal and industrious labourer
and one of an opposite character. —( Hear, hear.) Therefore
the greatest pains tlad been taken to prevent relief being
given in aid of wages. When a man was really destitute
he was taken altogether upon the resoerces of the Union
and provided with the necessaries of life, but not in such a
manner us to act as an inducement to him to throw himself