The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-17 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The House of Commons was last night occupied
with a discussion upon a motion of Mr. Walter, to the
eff,:ct that the inquiry before the Poor-law Committee
should conclude with the cases which he had adduced.
Mr. Walter, it may be recollected, has opposed the
whole principle of the new law, as well as the institu-
_ _

tion of the new machinery. The statement of his
chief and foremost witness, the Rev. Mr. SocLett,
was. to the effect that the new law has been brought
into operation too quickly, and has pressed heavily on
labourers with large families ; but that the condition of
the aged had improved under its operation. Several
other witnesses of Mr. Walter say that the Act has
produced general evil ; but the majority in weight of
his witnesses go no farther than Mr. Soekett ; whilst
several whom Mr. Walter has called, speak as generally
in favour of the new law. The following evidence is
given by a witness whom Mr. Walter called :

" You have said that it wzu constantly the interest of
the single labourer (under the old law) to threaten the pa-
rish with marriage ; was it not very natural that the man
who so threatened the parish should induce the girl to con-
sent upon such promising terms ?—That was one of the
modes.

" Wits there not, also, the certainty that the woman
had that if he failed in the fulfillment of the promise of
marriage, she would receive relief from the parish ; would
not that be an inducement ?—Yes.
" And if she had one bastard, was she not better off if
she had two ?—Yes ; I have paid a girl that had four, and
it was an income for her.

" Then do the Committee understand you that the old
system operated as a premium to married people on legi-
timate children, and to unmarried women that it offered a
premium on illegitimate children ?—No doubt.
" Both these premiums are now withdrawn under the
new law ?—Yes.

" Do you think that conducive to the morals of society
or not ?—lt has made a beneficial change, no doubt.
" Mr. CHICHESTER—You have had a thorough know-
ledge of the working of the system under the Gilbert Act ?
—Yes.

6 And you have had a thorough knowledge of the work-
ing of the system under the present law ?—Yes, in the
workhouse. . _

" Have you any statement to make of any alteration
that you conceive necessary for its better working ?-1
have no observation to make upon the subject, for I do think
that it works as well as could possibly be expected.
" You thoroughly understand the Act ; you thoroughly
understand the instructions of the Commissioners ; you
carried them out, and you will not make any suggestion as
to any alteration ?—I should not, indeed I cannot myself :
the only thing whore the new Bill has the superiority over
the Gilbert Act is, the Gilbert Aot gave an individual all
the power that this new Act does, but the difEeulty was to
find 4 m that had nerve enough to enter into it.
" Do You uoriPg,itis thqt the guardians should have more
liberty of action than they 114 VP !it pro§Pg!---It 11'0.114 be
monstrously dangerous.
" Why ?—I have always seen that if you were to put
the 13CIWOV into the hands of the guardians, in any shoe,
you would find that in six months time it would he as 1344
as the old Bill ; that was the ruination of the old Bill ; or
else there was every thing under the old Bill as under the
new ; in my opinion it is a most dangerous thing to put
the power into their hands.
" 'Then you think the present system of keeping the
accounts, the present system of managing by a board, under
the instructions of the commissioners, and under the con-
trolling power of the commissioners, to whom, if you have
any occasion to doubt what you are to do in any particu-
lar MO, you can make an immediate application to the
board for advice, and it will be afforded, is a better system
than the other? Most decidedly ; if you gave a discre-
tionary power, you would have to alter it twelve months."
—Evidence of Mr. William Harrison.
.It would be impracticable to found any organic
change upon the evidence which Mr. Walter has ad-
duced, even if that evidence were unanswered by the
other evidence which has arisen in the course of the in-

quiry.. Scarcely one of his witnesses has expressed a
wish to revert to the old law, whilst several of them
to whom the question has been put, even the most
fanatical opponents, disclaim any wish to revert to it.
None even of the pauperised labourers expressed such
a wish. Whilst it has been bruited abroad by the
Times that the paupers in the workhouse hare been
subjected to a " starvation dietary," it has been shown,
upon the evidence of Mr. Walter's own witnesses, that
the dietary is ample, as compared with the diet of a
considerable number orindustrious persons who main-
tain themselves. Whilst it has been bruited abroad by
the Times that the new Act has occasioned infan-
ticide, the evidence of the witnesses called by Mr.
Walter rebuts that inference, and shows that within
the districts referred to no infanticides have taken
place, and that the number of the births of bastard
children had diminished. A Coroner (Mr. Ellis),
one of Mr. Walter's witnesses, stated that since the
law has been in operation he had not had a single case.
Whilst the Times has been loud in declaring that the
law has been cruel in its operation on the aged and
deserving objects, the majority in number and weight
of Mr. Walter's own witnesses have rebutted that
false charge as well as others, which we shall take
occasion to show from the evidence which he ad-
duced. The allegation of Mr. Harvey and Mr.
Walter, as to the disadvantage of the opponents
of the law, that they had no organisation capable
of meeting the agents of the Commission, the Se-
cretary and the assistant Commissioners, is a mere
delusion ; for the opponents of the law on the
Committee have a local agent in every unscrupu-
lous man who has lost power by the operation of
the Act, whether Clergyman or Magistrate—in
every.attorney whose bills of costs have been reduced
by the Commissioners. Every beer-shop keeper whose
sale has been diminished, every petty shopkeeper and
parish jobber whose receipts from the parish have been
checked, every Coroner and constable whose costs have
been disallowed, and every shallow coxcomb who is
ambitious of the title of the poor man's friend (while
he is, in reality, every latouring man's enemy), is a
ready, zealous,, unpaid local agent to aid the oppo-
nents of the law ; and every one of the thousands of
indolent able-bodied paupers and impostors whose
allowances have been discontinued is a ready witness
to attest its cruelty. Beyond these every disappointed
medical candidate, or member of the Local Medical
Trades' Unions, is an agent and a witness ready to
the hands of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. Besides
these there are those for whom the Hon. Members
for Finsbury and Southwark have advertised. Not-
withstanding the loud talk of increasing conviction on
the part of the three or four Members of the Com-
mittee who remained of the same opinion still, very few
impartial persons will read the evidence of such of the
witnesses as have been called without being fully con-
vinced that the Committee is abandoned by them be-
cause their evidence failed them, and that they had no

hopes from such witnesses as they could call. Mr.
Villiers, by a single blow, developed and demolished
the hypocrisy of the Tory patriotism for the poor man.
We may observe that Mr. D. W. Harvey's speech
was, as usual, able, and was meant to be a mischievous
one ; and Sit' James Graham found an opportunity,
when the. Reporters were withdrawn, of speaking
against his friend Mr. Walter.—Morning Chronicle.
The discussion which took place in the House of
Commons last night, respecting the proceedings of the
Poor-law Committee, will be read with interest. The
speech of Mr. Walter, in particular, will be found to
deserve an attentive perusal, for the revelations it makes
concerning the very extraordinary manner in which the
Committee have thought it consistent with their duty
to exercise the functions with which the House in-
trusted them on their appointment. For ourselves, we
confess that we have perused these disclosures without
surprise, though not without pain and indignation. At
the very outset we saw and declared, that by reason of
the palpably unfair manner in which Lord John Rus-
sell nzuned the Committee, no satisfactory result could
possibly be hoped for from its labours. Almost every
page of the evidence taken before the Committee has
confirmed the view we originally took ; for we have
observed that the examination of witnesses hostile to
the Poor-law Act is invariably conducted, not after
the manner that was to be expected from gentlemen
filling the important and responsible station of legis-
lators, and whose only object should be to elicit the
truth, but in the worst style of an over-zealous and
not very mannerly advocate, who browbeats and bad-
gers (we had almost said bullies) every witness whose
testimony seems to militate in the least degree against
the ioterests of his client. No impartial man, who
will take the trouble of referring to the Reports of the
VAVTIaw Cooplittee, c4o fail to be Wocks, as we }}aye
been, with this glaring peculiarity in the manner of