The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-25 00:00:00

1 thin tLe Commissioncia report it. But, Sir, I find the misre-
i presentation not confined to Oldham; for in the same return
the Commissioners state the expenditure on the poor in
Todmorden and Walsden to be 434/. 7s. ; and according
to the return that is made to me by tho overseer,
the sum so expended is only 4031. I have no means of put-
ting the whole return to this test ; but in these two instances
I find the Commissioners make a serious misrepresentation of
the amount expended on the poor in places not yet under their
control ; and 1 ask if this even is not a ground for inquiry
into their doings? lam certain that I have not been deceived
by the overseers. But I find in the report of the Commis-
sioners another return which, on the face of it, raises a strong
conviction in my mind that it is false. Li 1835 they state the
total expenditure fur the township of Oldham to be 4„568/.,
and the total sum levied in rates 3,747/ ; leaving a deficiency
in the amount of rates levied of 811/, under what they state
to have been expended. And in 1836 they state the total
expenditure at 3,8A1. 151., and the total sum levied at
3,351/, 4s. ; fhowing a deficiency of 535/. 11s. under the sum
stated to have been expended. Thus, according to this, the
good people of Oldham ran into debt to the amount of
1,359/. I Is. in two years, which I am sure they would not do.
The Hon. Member concluded by calling on the House to ac-
cede to the full inquiry.
The question being put,
Lord J. RUSSELL rose to move an amendment. In the
first place, he begged to thank the Hon. Gentleman, the se-
conder of the motion, for explaining to the House its real
object.—( Hear, hear.) Ile thanked the Hon. Gentleman for
explaining that the real object of the motion was the repeal
of the Poor-law Amendment Act.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Gentleman had told them that that Act was defective from
beginning to end, and that it was now sufficiently obvious
that, be the circumstances whatever they might, the Act was
totally and completely incapable of being carried into full ope-
ration ; and therefore he, for one, demanded its repeal.--
( Hear.) This declaration, no doubt, was sufficiently candid,
but the Hon. Member's conduct would have been much more
so, if, instead of bringing forward a motion of this descrip-
tion, he had moved at once for leave to bring inn Bill to re-
peal the Poor-law Amendment Act.—( Hear, hear.) He
( Lord John Russell) expected, indeed, that that would be
the real object of the motion, although the Honourable
Member for Berkshire did not openly say so, and it was with
that view that he (Lord John Russell) gave notice of the
amendment which it was then his intention to move.—( Hear,
hear.) The Honourable Member for Berkshire had stated
that the amendment was produced with a view to screen
the Poor-law Commissioners ; he said, " The Government are
interested persons in this matter, and it is no wonder that they
' should wish to screen their agents from inquiry." By way of
answer to that assertion he would read the words of the amend-
ment he meant to propose, and the House would then see whe-
ther the object or effect of that amendment could be to screen
anything that had been done from a full and fair inquiry.
These were the words of the amendment, " That a Select
Committee be appointed to inquire into the administration of
the relief of the poor under the orders and regulations issued
by the Commissioners appointed under the provisions of the
Poor-law Amendment Act."—( Hear, hear.) Now these words
he conceived, were sufficiently comprehensive to admit of an
inquiry into the whole of what had been done under the new
law, and would enable the Committee to convince itself even
to the minutest particular, of the manner in which that new law
had been carried into operation.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It
might inquire into the establishment of unions, into the pro-
priety of having the administration of relief confined to work-
houses, into the manner in which the relief had actually been
administered in those houses, into the dietary established under
tho directions of the Commissioners, into the restrictions im-
posed upon the inmates of the workhouses, into the character
and extent of the medical attention and relief afforded to
them (upon which the Hon. Member for Finsbury had ex-
pressed so much anxiety for an inquiry); and further, it could
inquire as to whether the Poor-law Commissioners had been
too expensive in their proceedings under the provisions of the
Act, whether it were fit that it should be applied generally to
the whole country, or whether it would be beneficial that it
should be confined to certain districts only in which the
abuses of the old poor-law system were aggravated and noto-
rious-_( Hear, hear)—and, finally, it mig,sht inquire whether
it were expedient to carry the new law into effect in the north,
in the counties of Westmoreland and Cumberland, or in the
manufacturing districts to which the Hon. Gentleman, the
seconder of the motion, belonged.—( Hear, hear.) He asked
the House, then, whether, when he proposed such an inquiry,
it could be possibly stated that he had it in view to screen the
Commissioners ?--( Cheers.) The Hon. Member who made
this motion, and who accused the Commissioners of wishing
to hide their proceedings—of being persons well paid and
anxious to secure their salaries--was himself a sort of repre-
sentative of an enormous union, and ho had endeavoured to
make out a case against the new law, which no doubt they
would see admirably reported to-morrow—( Hear, hear,
laughter and cheers)—with a number of statements of

fact—statements of evidence—which he ( Lord John Rus-
sell) must own he very indistinctly heard, and which, if
he had heard, he must also own it would at that momont have
been out of his power to reply to ; and he would 'tell the

- -
House why. Whenever any complaints had been made either
to him (Lord John Russell) or to the Poor Law Commission-
ers, he or they directed an immediate inquiry to be made, to
ascertain the correctness of the representations made to them,
and in every instance it was required that the Guardians of
the Union to which the complaint related should return an
immediate answer to the inquiries made of them. But when
the Poor Law Commissioners saw that the Hon. Member for
Berkshire was about to bring forward a proposition in the
house, theylnquired of him whether he had any particular
statements of fact to make, because if he had they would be
ready to institute an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining
what the statements were on the other side. The Hun.
Member for Berkshire declined to give the Poor Law Corn-
missioners any information upon the subject. He ( Lord
(John Russell) hoped the House would be satisfied if he
did not make an answer at that moment to many of
the complaints which the Hon. Member for Berkshire

had brought forward from clergymen and gentlemen living in
different parts of the country, with many of which he (Lord
John Russell) was wholly unacquainted. Having stated thus
much With regard to the particulars that the Hon. Member
for Berkshire had gone into, he would advert a little to the
general statement made by the Hon. Member by whom the
motion was seconded, and whom, he feared, he must lead flints
the peaceful valley in which, like Rasselas, he had so long re-
, sided.—( Laughter and cheers.) lie was obliged to state to
the Hon. Member, when he brought him out of that happy
valley, that there was, before the Poor-law Amendment
Act passed, a state of great poverty, misery, and crime
is many districts of the country, owing to the abuse
of the old law, and he would read to him some pas-
sages from a petition presented to that House by a re-
lative of his ( Lord John Russell's) who at that time was
one of the Members for the county of Bedford._(Hear,
hear.) It was a petition from the Magistrates and gentry
of Redburnstoke, in the county of Bedford, complain-
ing of the operation of the old poor-law system, and
stating at great length the evils that had resulted from it.
The Poor-rate, they stated, had been rapidly increasing for
the last ten years, and amounted at that time to nino shil-
lings an acre, whilst poverty and pauperism were daily be-
coming greater and more widely spread. Hence evils of the
worst complexion arose as well to the landholders as to the
paupers ; heavy rates were imposed upon the one—idleness,
insubordination, and crime increased with the other. The
petitioners concluded by observing, that the system, if allowed
to continue, would affect the whole body of agricultural labour-
ers, and produce a state of universal and inveterate"idleness
wholly incompatible with the due cultivation of the soil. That
was the state of things that existed in 18:29, and it was impos-
sible not to see that if such a system were allowed to go on,
those idlers who would not labour on farms, but were em-
ployed by day on the roads and at night resorted to poaching,
would in the end establish a system of terror, by which the-
overseers and farmers would be prevented from checking
their career, and thus, whilst the morals and industrious
habits of the labouring classes were destroyed on the one hand,
the value of the property of the country was impaired on the
other.—( Hear, hear.) He confined his illustrations at that
moment mere particularly to the county of Bedford, be-
cause it happened that he was better acquainted with it than
any other; and he had heard farmers in the county say,
with regard to labourers out of employment, " We could very
well give them employment ; but they are men of such bad
habits and character, that if we were to let them into our farm-
yards, they would be sure to rob us." This was the state of
the agricultural labourers in many parishes in England prior to
the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Act—a state most
unnatural in this country, because the disposition of English
labourers was to work, and work hard, to earn an honest and
independent livelihood.—( Hear, hear.) It-was nothing but the
vicious system which the Hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fiel-
den) wished to restore, that had induced the naturally indus-
trious labourers of England to abandon their former course of
good husbandry, and to adopt the idle and profligate habits
which had latterly disgraced so large a portion of them.—
( Hear.) He sincerely hoped that the resistance which the Hon.
Member for Oldham (Mr. Fielden) threatened them with in his
happy valley would turn out to he of a no more formidable cha-
racter than that which they had already encountered.__( Hear.)
With respect to the Union which comprehended the very district
of which he had just read an account, there was a report of
the Poor-law Commissioners not yet published, but which
would soon be delivered, showing the condition of that district
at the commencement of the present year. He begged to
quote a passage from it :—" The Board of Guardians of the
Ampthill Union represent to us," say the Commissioners,
" that a reduction in the Poor-rates has been effected to the
extent of 45 per cent. ; and this not by depriving the aged
and infirm or helpless widow of any comfort, but rather, as
can readily be proved, by conferring upon them many impor-
tant benefits, and in truth increased- allowances ; while on the
other hand the habitual sturdy able-bodied paupers' habits of
idleness have been put to the test by the offer of a well regu-
lated workhouse, where a comfortable maintenance is pro-
vided." He (1:ortl J. Russell) was ready, as he had already
stated, to submit to any inquiry on the subject; he was ready
to appoint a Select Committee to investigate the matter, but
he must at the same time declare his own conviction that thew
never was a greater blessing conferred tip 9 the great mass of
the people (If gny pqntvx Orin that ehange of an old and
ftWitte4 Viteitt, which redtwing very considerable expellees on
the one hand, enabled the farmers and cultivators of the sail to
envie), 'lmo money in productive laltonr 1 whilst on the other it
enabled the_ lahonrer to return to his ancient habits of inde-
pendent industry, and induced him to look at present and for
Ow future to his character as the source of his profitable em-
ployment and well-being, and deterred him from continuing to
be the degraded dependent on parish labour and parish pay.
--( Cheers.) Although the Hon. Member for Berkshire had
undertaken to bring the subject of the Poor-law Amendment
Act under the consideration of the House, it was, ueyertheiess,
obvious that ho had hardly paid that attention to its operation,
even in his ovm clistrigt4 vthiall ai gentleman incredulous of the

well-working of the Bill ought, above all others, to have paid.
There were, nevertheless, instances of gentlemen whose im-
pressions or prejudices against the Bill had vanished when
they came to acquaint themselves with the mode in which it
operated. In the last Report of the Poor -law Commissioners
there was a particular instance of this. A- gentleman
named Grant, who had been of opinion that this Act was
of a most oppressive and tyrannical character, and that
under its provisions the sick, the aged, and t: c infirm,
would be severely ill-treated, happened by accident to
be elected a guardian, and thus to have a full oppor-
tunity of seeing what the operation of the Act really
was. Accordingly, having been some time in his office
of guardian, he wrote a very long letter of detail to
the Commissioners, stating that be had carefully watched
the operation of the Act; that he was convinced of its bene-
ficial effects; and that, so far from acting with severity or
hardship upon the aged, infirm, or rich, it placed them in a
situation infinitely- b...tter than any that they had ever previ-
ously enjoyed. —Hear, hear. ) lie did not in ,an to say that
the Hon. Member for Berkshire would have been convinced
in the same manner, but it would, at all events, have been
quite as becoming in him if, previous to bringing forward a
motion of this deser:ption—a motion, the real object of which
was to repeal the new Poor-!aw system—he had attended with
something like interest or case to the working of that new
system in his own neighbourhood.—( Hear, hear.) Was it
possible that a gentleman who set himself up as an opponent
to the new Poor-law system—who set himself up as the great
advocate of the poor—could see persons in his own district,
within a few miles of his own residence, transacting business
relating to the poor, blindly persuaded that they were re-
lieving and doing good to the poor—was it- possible that he
could see them pursuing this mistaken course, and not at-
tend the meetings—not to declaim against the Act as a
vicious Act, and to give himself the airs of a great Lcgis_
lator—( Hear, hear, and- laughter)—but to interpose oh the
part of the poor, and to prevent their being treated in the
manner he had described. ( Hear, hear.) As he had already
stated, lie could not on that occasion attempt to follow the
Hon. Member through all the various cases he had brought
forward. He would, however, read a few extracts from some
of the various addresses he had received upon the subject.
[Here the Noble Lord read passages from two reports made
from Biggleswade union, the Wickham union, the Royston
union and several others, in which it was stated that the poor-
rates had been reduced from 40 to 50 per cent., whilst the
moral and physical condition of the poor was materially and
strikingly improved.] He need not, he thought, quote any
more extracts from these addresses. (Hear, hear.) Indeed
the only difficulty in the case, if be felt at all justified in de-
taining the House at as great length as the Honoarable
Member for Berkshire or the Honourable Gentleman who
seconded the motion, would be to conspress within any mode-
rate compass the voluminous mass of evidence with which he
was furnished from persons of all classes—persons of the
highest rank filling the situation of chairman to these
unions, and persons of the humblest rank, labourers
aware of the benefits they derived from the operation, and
clergymen acting officially upon the boards of many
of the unions, all ' tending in the strong.. at manner to
show the great advantages that had resulted from
the measure.—(Hear.) Not pretending to go at any length
into the details with which he had been supplied, he would
just state generally what appeared to have been the decrease
in the poor-rates within the last two or three years. In 1834
it appeared that the total amount expended for the relief of the
poor was 6,300,0001. ; in 1 835 it was 5,500,000/. ; in 1836 it
was 4,700,0001. The total expenditure for the three years,
therefore, was 16,500,0001. Had the expenditure continued
the same as in 1834 the total expense would have been
18,900,0001., so that the total saving up to March, 1836, would
be 2,400,000/.—(Cheers.) The Commissioners added that
although the amount expended for the year ending March,
1837, could not yet be ascertained, it was nevertheless cer-
tain that a further diminution had taken place. On compar-
ing the expenditure of fifty-nine Unions for the quarters
ending Christmas, 1835, and Christmas, 1836, it was found
that for the first of these periods the expenditure amounted
to 88,9491:, whilst for the last it amounted only to 74,0581. ;
showing a diminution of 17 per cent. It might, therefore,
not unreasonably be expected that the expenditure for the
relief of the poor would not exceed 4,000,000/. for the
year ending March, 1837, instead of 6,300,000/., its amount
in 1834. One remarkable test of the beneficial operation of
the new system had been lately afforded. During the preva-
lence of the influenza, which unfortunately had occasioned so
many deaths in all parts of the kingdom, it was generally found
in the workhouses that the care taken of the poor, and the me-
dical relief afforded to them, had made the mortality consider-
ably less than could have been expected.—( Hear, hear.)
Colonel A'Court stated, with respect to the medical relief
given in HaMpshire and Wiltshire, " Since the prevalence of
the influenza in my district I have used every exertion perso-
nally to visit the several unions in it, and I have already attended
two-thirds of the Boards of Guardians. I am, therefore,
enabled from authority to assure you, that in no aiilgle instance
have I heard of the slightest complaint, or neglect, or insuffi-
ciency of attendance on the poor on the part of the medical
gentlemen, who, though worne down with fatigue, appear to me
to have performed their arduous duties in the most praise.
worthy arid exemplary manner." As a further test of the ma-
nagement of the poor in the workhouses, they sent a circular
letter to the twelve unions in East Kent, the workhouses of
which together contained 2,200 inmates, one-half being aged
and infirm, the other halt' principally children, inquiring
what had been the mortality from the influenza. The
return made to that circular letter showed that only seven
paupers had died of that malady.--( Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Ile must say a few words with respect to the treatment in the
workhouses so far as regarded the able-bodied. It seemed to
he imagined by those who complained of the operation of the
Poor-law Bill that there ought to be provided in every work-
house the means by which every working man with his wife
and family might be supported with the same comfort as a man
in full employment. He thought this opinion was formed up-
on a false notion of the nature of the relief that ought to be
given. It was not pretended by the authors of that Bill that
when men who were able to work were found in the workhouses
they were to be 'treated in exactly the same manner as they
would enjoy themselves in their own separate cottages ; or
(as it was assumed) that they were to be kept upon better
(bet, be better sheltered, and better clad, and enjoy more com-
forts and more liberty than the independent labourer. This
would be holding forth to the independent labourer a motive
to be idle. It would be saying to him--" If you labour you
will live hardly, and your wife and family will be ill-supported
by your earnings ; but if you choose to be idle and to come
into the workhouse, you shall there be better fed, sheltered,
clothed, and provided for."—( Hear, hear.) The intention
of the Legislature •in establishing the workhouse sys-
tem could only be to say to the able-bodied labourer, " It
is your duty, it is your interest, to seek for work if it
is to be found ; and if work is riot to be found,
then, so far as saving you from destitution so far as
furnishing you with sufficient food and medical attendance
goes, we will provide for you ; but we do not pretend to
make your existence in the same degree comfortable as the
existence of an independent workman." The tendency
of the system adopted by the Legislature was not, ho ima-
gined, to have a vast number of able-bodied labourers kept
idle in the workhouses or in the " bastiles," as the Hon. Mem-
ber called them.—(Laughter.)—The object of the system he
conceived to be to make all men seek for work. Formerly it
was a great advantage to a poor man to have a wife and family,
because it gave him an additional claim on the parish; but
now, if a man wished to support a wife and family, in order
to do so with comfort he must seek for work, and not go
into the workhouse. That in fact had been the result of the
new system ; for in one of. the most pauperised districts,
where the or.law Commissioners had carried the law
most completely into effect, he meant East Kent, the result
showed this to be the case. In East Kent, out of 160,000
inhabitants, 55 had been the maximum of able-bodied la-
bourers in the workhouse at the same time. But it was
said that it was cruel to force the disabled and infirm into
the workhouse. This, he admitted, was a matter into
which a committee might very properly ingi ire; that was
to say, they might make inquiry with regard to the conduct
which the Commissioners had pursued. Ho, however, be-
lieved that if any such inquiry were made, it would be
found . that the conduct of the Commissioners had been emi-
nently prudent and cautious upon this point. To those who
said that the effect of the new law had been to send all the
disabled and infirm into the workhouse he had a most com-
plete answer to give. He could refer to returns which had
been received from eighty-eight unions, showing that the
number of in-door paupers was 8,850, while the number of
out-door paupers was 54,417. In these eighty-eight unions
nine-tenths of the disabled and infirm received out-door relief.
This was the working of that cruel system which was repre-
sented as making every person who was disabled and infirm,
whatever might be his age, go into the workhouse. A ques-
tion had been raised with regard to the kind of relief afforded
in the workhouse. , Upon this point he had several testimonies
which he would mention to the House. In the return from
the Eastry Union it was stated that the amount of annual
payments by the twenty-six parishes in 4.11 e union for the year
ending Christmas, 1836, for illegitimate children was fully
300/. ; whereas there was not now a single instance of pay..
moot of illegitimate children. The amount of poor-rates col-
lected in the same 26 parishes, for the year ending 25th March,
1835, was 16,9601. The amount collected in the same 26
parishes in the year ending 24th December, 1836, was 8 965/. :
The poor in the union workhouse arc amply provided for:
their diet is wholesome, substantial, at the same time fully
sufficient. Their cleanliness is a matter of great considera-
tion ; they receive the utmost attention, when needing it,
from the very able medical gentleman who superintends the
medical department. Their clothing is suitable ; their moral
and religious improvement duly attended to ; and their gene-
ral comforts most indubitably exceed by far what they could
possibly enjoy ersewhere. The children of both sexes are
reared and trained in a manner far surpassing those of indepen-
dent labourers, generally being well attended to, having both
schoolmaster and schoolmistress, aed a-re properly instructed.
both morally and religiously 50 t thus imbibing habits the re.
verse of what would most probably have possessed them, had
they lean sat large." And now with respect to another point,
naniely, the savings of the labourer. Under the old system it
was not the interest of the labourer to save money. It lie did
so, he was generally told that lie could not receive relief from
tarp parish. The consequence was, that lie spent his money, and
then lie entitled himself to out-door relief, which out-door
relief was a great object of desire to him. Since the pass-
ing of the new Poor-law Act, however, a much greater
disposition of saving hail been manifested among the la-
bourers. He would take the liberty of reading an extract
from a letter which had been received from a gentleman
with whose name MctuLovii were well acquainted, and
whose authority he considered was of more weight than
thqt (If. the Honourable Member for Berkshire. It was from
a letter written by the well-known Poor-law Reformer, Mr,
\Vhateley, of Cookham.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He said:--
`r At Cookham they have called for a rate of ad. in the pound,

instead of one (as it used to be) at 2s. 6d.; and when the
snow was five and six feet deep I contrived to walk to the
tvings' Batik at Maidenhead (though I was mare than three
hours in performing the journey of three wiles). heing the
bearer of 101. 13s. to.deposit there against the ex gen .ies 0,.
the next winter. This sum was contributed by the po, rest o
the poor, and collected in pence. Had it been sues td t
any one of these depositors a few years ago that they migit
contrive to save a penny, the suggeeion would hay' been con.
sidered an insult ; now it would be equally insulting to s spec;
that their contributions could at all inconvenience them-... 3
.ch
is the change of feeling."—" I do," said the Noble Lord,
"very humbly and respectfully recommend to the lion. Men be
for Berkshire the example of Mr. Whateley.—(Cheers. ) I
am sure if he would attend to his own Union, and go a little
more frequently to the Board of Guardians—if he would ad-
vise his labourers to lay by money—and if two or three
years hence he should be sine to come down to the
!louse and say that he had done as much good as Mr.
\Vhateley, I think he hill dt sei ve the thanks of this
House for his praiseworthy exertior.s."—( Cries of "Hear and
cheers.) The Noble Lord said he would read but one
more extract, and that was from a communication received
from a gentleman who had only tee ntly become acquainted
with the workings of the Poor-law Act. It was from Mr.
Woolley, a gentleman of great skill as a land surveyor, at d
who had been appointed an assistant Tithe Commissioner
The statement of th:s gentleman was contained in a letter to
Mr. Gulson :—" I wanted to talk with you on the almost
magical effect I find produced by the new Poor-laws in the
south. There I had seen the evil in its rioting; ;' I saw
no chance but ruin or change—prompt, effectual, decided,
radical change; I began to fear the thing had been pushed
too far, the remedy too- long deferred ; but I am perfectly
delighted to find that I was mistaken. The change has been
made, and the effect is more than any one cou!d have hoped.
I have in my professional engagement as assistant Tithe Commis.
sioner been much in Sussex and the weald of Kent. I have seen
the effect on the poor-rates, the character of the population, the
improvement of the land—such a change 1 I have talked with all
sorts of persons, of all sorts of opinions on other subjects, and
have heard but one opinion on this—that the measure has
saved the country. I am sick of the pitiful cry attempted
to be raised against the measure, and especially at the sup-
posed inhumanity of it. Let any man see the straightforward
walk, the upright look of the labourer as contrasted with what
was before seen at every step in those counties. The sturdy
and idle nuisance has already become the useful, indus-
trious member of society. No man who hits not looked well
into human nature, and the practical weelting.of the wretched
system of pauperism, can form an idea how different is six-
pence earned by honest industry, and sixpence wrung from
the pay-table of a parish-officer. lam fully convinced that
the measure has doubled the value of property in many
parts of the kingdom. This is important;" but pounds, shit-
ling-s, -and pence, will not measure the value of the change
in character which is already visible, and which I am well
convinced will develope itself more and more." This was
from a practical man—a man accustomed to go over the coun-
try and converse with all sorts of persons in the pursuit of
his profession ; accustomed to see farmers and labourers, and,
therefore, well able to judge of the matter of which he
spoke. The Honourable Gentleman who seconded this
motion spoke of petitions that were about to be presented
on this subject, and, as far as he (Lord John Russell)
could learn, those petitions were coming from places
where the Poor. law had been introduced. —( Hear, hear. )
It was very easy for persons to go into those places and talk
of the tyranny of the Commissioners—to speak of the restric-
tions imposed on the rate-payers, and describe how they were
bound down by the harsh mandates of the Board ; but all this
was a gross misrepresentation of the Poor-law Act, the real
object of which was to establish self-government--a principle
found to be so useful in all matters of local concern. What
was the case formerly ? The idle labourer, complaining of else
overseer who refused him relief, went to some distant Magis-
trate and made out his false tale of distress. The Magistrate,
knowing nothing of the matter, made an order for relief,
norant of what the effect would be. But what was nog., the
case ? The Magistrate was now a member of the Board of
'Guardians ; he met his brother Guardians at the Board, where
they conferred together as to the actual facts of each ease ;
and where the pauper merited relief they granted it to him,
while the impostor was detected and turned adrift. Thus, mat-
ters were gone into by the Board with practical sense and
practical judgment. The consequence was, that a kind of local
government was established, actingcertainly under such general
rules and general directions as the intelligence and experience
of the Poor-law Commissioners had prescribed, but with re-
spect to details acting according to the judgment of the Magis-
trates, the country gentlemen, the farmers, and the rate-
payers connected with the district. This, in his opinion, was
a good, a wholesome, and a rational system. This was a
mode of local government by which he hoped that those
abuses which formerly prevailed would never again occur,
For his part he hoped he should never see the day when this
House would countenance a motion such as the Hon. Member
for Oldham, at the close of his speech, had hinted at—a mo-
tion for rapealing the Poor-law Bill.—( Loud cheers.) lie was
ready to admit that there were questions into which a Com-
mittee could very properly inquire. They could inquire whe-
ther the Commissioners had acted to the best of their judg.
ment. In this he was inclined to agree with the lion.
Member who had brought forward the motion. With re-
spect to one thing of which the lion. Member for Finsbury
spoke last year, namely, with respect to the mode of medical
tenders, and the pay for the attendance of medical officers,
he would make one observation. The intention of the Com-
missioners was (and it was a very right intention), that the
Boards of Guardians should not show any favouritism by
appointing particular persons, or by giving larger salaries
than were necessary to be given. He therefore considered the
best way of acting was, that the Boards should determine that
tenders should be made for medical attendance, at the same
time it should never be a rule that the lowest tender should be
accepted. It would, however, afford a means of forming a
notion of what tender might be accepted, having regard to
the qualification of the person. But he owned that he doubted
whether it would not be better for the guardians to determine
(if upon inquiry it were practicable) what degree of medical
relief should be given, and then to appoint a person to give
that amount of medical relief.—( Hear.) This was a point,
however, upon which the Poor-law Commissioners might be
right, they having investigated this subject from day to day,
and from week to week, with unceasing industry. They were
persons whose names were well known and deservedlly res-
pectel—Mr. Frankland Lewis, Mr. Lefevre, and Mr. Nicholls
_they were persons known for their knowledge, for. their in-
telligence, and he must say for their humanity.—( Cheering.)
Ile, therefore, should hesitate very much before he thought
that any opinion which men not so intelligent, and not so
qualified for the task, might form on this subject, was su-
perior., or even equal, to the opinion of those who'had for
a long time devoted their entire attention to it.__( Hear. )
At the same time there were matters (as he hail before said)
lit for inquiry before the Committee which he should have
the honour of proposing, and where he hoped the reasons,
the opinions, -and the authority of such men as Dr. Kennedy,
Colonel A'Court (as we understood), and others, would be
listened to with every attention. He was perfectly ready, for
one, and he was sure that they were perfectly ready on their
parts, to hare such an inquiry. "My conviction is (said the
Noble Lord) that the more this system is looked into, the
more it will be confirmed and strengthened in the opinion of
the Parliament and of the country.--( Cheers.) I foresee that
it will be so confirmed ; and I shall always consider it a mat-
ter of pride and satisfaction to me, that I ever had a part in
proposing such a measure.—( Cheers.) I beg to move, as an
amendment, that a Select Committee be appointed to inemire
into the administration of the relief of the poor under the
orders and regulations issued by the Commissioners ap-
pointed under the provisions of the Poor-law Amendment
Act."

The original motion and the amendment having been put by
the Speaker,
Colonel WOOD thought that the amendment of the Noble
Lord would give as extensive an inquiry as the Hon. Member
for Berkshire could require. He would therefore recommend
that Hon. Member to withdraw his motion and accept the
proposition of the Noble Lord. At, the same time, if the
lion. Member were determined to press his motion to a divi-
sion, he would vote for him.—(Laughter.)
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, that having presented several
petitions on this subject from all parts of the country, and
above all, from many of his constituents, who, from their
situation, were probably better able to give a sound opinion
on this subject than any other class of persons, he would
not, therefore, suffer them to be charged with endeavouring
to get up a senseless cry against this law ; if they did excite
an outcry, it was the cry of humanity against one of the
most heartless, selfish, and cruel measures that had ever
received the sanction of the Legislature.—(Hear.) The
Noble Le:d stated, what no one doubted, that the operation of
that Bill had been highly favourable to certain classes, inas-
much as the amount paid as poor-rates had been reduced front
six millions to four millions, and that it had doubled the value

of property.. (Cries of "No!" ) This statement no one
doubted who regarded the impression that this measure had
made on that House, and on other classes in the country simi.
larly circumstanced ; but the question was, had it operated

with equal advantage to other classes, namely, to the reci-
pients of the poor-rates ? If it should turn out during the
inquiry that the latter was the case, then would it be said
that it had been attended with no good ; but he feared that it
.... .

would prove that the sufferings of the poor had been aggra-
vated in attaining this advantage. It appeared that they had
reduced the income of the poor 33 per cent., and this redue..
tion had been chiefly from the receipts of the aged and infirm.
Such was the humanity of this boasted measure. He had that
day presented a petition from an important part of his constitu-
ents; not so much from the largeness of their numbers as,frorn
the situation they occupied—he meant the guardians of the poor
in the parish of St. George the Martyr. It must be known to
those Finn. Members who were in the habit of reading the
journals, that these gentlemen were amongst the most stre-
nuous opponents of the Bill, and had greatly exerted
themselves to prevent its being brought into ope-.
ration in their district. These opponents, then, of this law,
had been called upon by their fellow-parishioners- to superin-
tend the administration of the relief to the poor; and becatise
they who by the voice of those who chose them had been. de-
clared fully competent to perform the duties of their offwe as
guardians of the poor, had objected to adopt the enactments of
this oppressive measure, they were to be told by the Noble
Lord that they were joining in a pitiful and senseless cry. But
if the operation of this Bill had been such as had been de-
cribed by the Noble Lord, would not the result of the inquiry
prove beneficial, and tend to increase the beneficial working of
the measure ? He repeated, therefore, that in the mode in
which he had opposed inquiry the Noble Lord had displayed
more of the dexterity of the pleader than the candour befitting
a statesman. The Bill had been hurried through that House
with unexampled rapidity, and had undergone . leis discussion
than was bestowed upon a Turnpike-road Bill- He would'
venture to say that never had a measure, affecting the interest