The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-27 00:00:00

in India, and numerous petitions had been presented i
to the Supreme Court on the subject. He then read a
letter from the Bishop of ,Nladras. complaining of the delay, and
as we understood, recommending the abolition of the pilgrim tax.
Fur four years after the passing these instructions nothing wes
dune. On the 221 of February, 1837, another resolution was
passed, in which the Directors called for further information,
and said that the general consideration of the subject would be
resumed as soon as that information was obtained.
The Bishep of CHESTER presented a petition to
the same effect, in which he entirely concurred. The Right
Reverend Prelate observed when the pilgrims in India
saw the idolatrous worship protected by theßritish Govern-
ment, thee would naturally conclude that all the efforts made
by this country to disseminate Christianity among them were
not made in sincerity.—( Hear. )
The Bishop of LONDON also supported the prayer of
these petitions.
After a few words from Lord GLICNELG and the Archbishop
of CANTERBURY, the petitions were ordered to lie on the table.
NEW POOR LAW.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE rose to move fur copies of corres-
pondence between the Commissioners of the Poor-law and
sundry persons on the subject of some alleged mismanagement
in the administration of the law, and of particular cases of
grievance said to have occurred in different parts of the
country; and he must say, that the whole question of the
Poor Law Amendment Bill and its administration was in as
unsatisfactory a state as could well be imagined. It had been
)n (secretion four years, and during that time it had been ap-
plauded on all sides, by the Members both of the House of
Commons and the House of Lords, and by almost the whole
of the press of the country—( Hear, hear)—both the country
press and the London press ; and one singular thing was that,
up to the present moment, there had not been one real case of
grievance established.—( Hear, hear.) He was one of those
who was not entirely satisfied with the law now that he saw it
in operation. Personally, and with regard to his own im-
mediate neighbourhood, he knew nothing, because there no
alteration had taken place ; and he took it for granted that the
old Poor-law was not so administered as to be attended with
any of its evils. The Commissioners appeared to entertain
the same opinion with respect to Lancashire, for the system
had not been introduced there. However, he might un-
odoubtedly before long be required to act in the capacity of
Guardian, and before he was called upon to act in that capacity
the should like to have the twitter cleared up, and to see who- '
ther the accusations brought against the measure, and the
Commissioners. were founded in truth. The first case men-
. tinned by the Noble and Learned Lord opposite was the case
of the Bourne Union and General Johnson, and he must say
that that was a most extraordinary case. It was a most extra-
. ordinary thing that Gen. Johnson should have thought proper
to take facts on mere hearsay, and not to institute anything like
a sufficient investigation before lie ventured to lay before the
public the attacks which he made on the Bourne Union. He be-
lieved that Gen. Johnson was not only a member of the Quarter
Sessions, and therefore connected with the neighbourhood, but
was a Member of Parliament for a place in Lancashire; and,
when he had made assertions in this town, at the Crown and
Anchor, which must have directly referred to the Bourne Union,
of which he was an ex officio Guardian, and when he had been
celled upon to give an explanation of those assertions he (Lord
Wharncliffe) must say that his refusal was most extraordinary.
He was sorry to say that another case, which had been men-
tioned by his Noble and Learned Friend ( Lord Brougham,)
was still stronger ; it occurred in the West Riding of York-
shire, where great agitation had prevailed on this subject.
The inhabitants of that district were accustomed to inquiry__
they wore accustomed to unite and organiee'in opposition to
what they thought wrong and in favour of what they consi-
dered right ; and they were easily excited- on any subject
which appealed to their feelings. Under these circumstances
various persons had certainly produced considerable impres-
sion on the minds of the inhabitants of that part of the coun-
try, and had used language at meetings which appeared to him
to be so strong as to require some notice on the part of the
Government ; it was not for him to say 'to what extent
that language had proceeded, but if seditious language had
ever been used, it had been used on those occasions, and
he held it to be the duty of the Government to interfere
for the suppression of such violence, and to vindicate the law.
One of the persoas to whom he had alluded he was sorry to
say was a clergyman—he meant Mr. Bull—who had taken a
part in these transactions which appeared to him most unjus-
tifiable. He had made two attacks upon the system of the
Commissioners at two public meetings, one of which was at-
tended by many thousand persons; and he stated first of all
many circumstances which had occurred at Nottingham, and
made a charge of cruelty towards the persona in that work-
house. Now what was the fact? On inquiry it was quite
clear that if those persons in the workhouse at Nottingham had
been maltreated at all it must have been under the old Poor-
law and not the new. That being cleared up, he would
proceed to the next charge. At a public meeting held at Brad-
ford Mr. Bull produced a letter, which he stated to be a circular
from the Commissioners, and told a story of great cruelty being
used towards a woman. [Tice Noble Lord here read an ex.
tract from the speech of Mr. Bull.] A boy also stated at the
same meeting that, in a workhouse, a young woman had been
stripped and flogged upon her back like a soldier. That was
told at a meeting of several thousands ; the cripple, it ap-
peared, was produced, and it must be confessed that the state-
ment was calculated to excite the horror of all who heard it.
(hear, hear.) In consequence of that charge the Poor Law
Commissioners wrote a letter, conceived in the most proper
terms, asking for the name of the place and of the woman who
had been fogged ; but—it was scarcely possible to believe
it—( Hear, hear, hear)---Mr. Bull, a Clergyman of the Church
of England, thought himself justified in refusing to give the
least information that could lead to an investigation of the
truth. He did not even answer the letter, but he published
one in a newspaper—not addressed to the Commissioners, but to
the editor; and that letter was one of a most curious descrip.
tion. The Noble Lord then proceeded to read the letter re-
ferred to, and in which Mr. Bull charged the Poor Law
Commissioners with having usurped the prerogatives of the
Crown and the privileges of Parliament, and stating that he
was prepared to prove that a cripple, whose case he had
brought forward, was no fictitious person, and that he would
be prepared to specify the case, provided the Poor Law
Commissioners would give security that they would pro-
vide this individual with a single loaf per week for the
next seven years. With respect to the alleged usurpation
of powers, he ( Lord Wharncliffe) did not think that they
had usurped any powers, nor exercised any but those which
had been conferred on them by Parliament. Mr. Bull
must have known the meaning of the words he used,
and he certainly was surprised that a gentleman of education
should have applied such a term as usurpation to power and
authority that had been conferred by law. The next case he
should mention was one in which his Noble Friend was con-
cerned, and in which he regretted that his Noble Friend had,
as we understood, followed a similar course. The Poor-law
Commissioners wrote to his Noble Friend for an explanation
of some language which he had made use of. They did
not ask his Noble Friend for an explanation of any
thing that he had said in that House in the presence of
his Peers, but they did ask him to explain language which he
had made use of elsewhere. The Noble Lord here read the
letter of the Commissioners, addressed, as we underssood, to
Earl Stanhope, and requesting his Lordship to put them in
possession of the authority on which he made the statements
contained in a certain epeech of his, and also the reply of his
Lordship to this communication, in which the Noble Lord
stated that, with respect to their inquiry, lie would feel bound
not to mention the name of any private individual front shorn
lie received information, without his previous permission.
Ile further stated, that the statements could be proved by
competent witnesses upon oath ; but he declined to bring
those persons forward for reasons similar to those stated by
Mr. Bull.—( Hear.) Now he (Lord Wharncliffe) complained
of Mr. Bull not alone for what he bad done; but likewise for
the example which be had set. Their Lordships would con-
cur with him, that when any person came forward to attack
persons in official situations—when charges were brought
forward against such persons, calculated to prejudice their
public conduct—the individual, whoever he might be, who
brought forward such charges, was bound to state the grounds
on which those charges rested. He thought that the sooner
the matter of such charges was sited the better. If the
stories of cruelty and oppression which had been told were
true, they would at once be able to come to the conclusion
that there must be something in the Act of Parliament under
which they could be inflicted. Tho House of Commons had
appointed a Committee to inquire into the operation of this
Act, but he believed that Committee had done no more than
make a report of the evidence. The whole question was com-
prised within a very small compass. Were those stories of
neglect true or were they false? It appeared to him that
the first thing that ought to be inquired into was whether
those statements were true or whether they were false. He
would now proceed to mention other cases in which he did
not think the woikingof the Poor-law was altogether satisfac-
tory. The first cases to which he should allue were those
of the Bridgewater Union. A certain gentleman, named
Bowen, had written a pamphlet, and had published
several letters on the subject in the Times newspaper. He
(Lord Wharncliffe) must, however, say that he appeared to
him to have made out too good a case for himself. In his
published statements he showed too great an extent of mal-
administration—he showed too much, and over-proved his
Case. as was generally the case with enthusiasts who, when
they had a case to make out, generally went beyond the mark,
and by doing so threw suspicion over their entire case. The
Commissioners had ordered an inquiry, and when the result of
that inquiry should be made known they would be best able to
form a judgment ; but from what was stated, if those state-
eiente proved to be well founded, it would appear that with
respect to the Bridgewater Union there was a good deal of
blame to be attached to the conduct pursued by it. When
these papers should be produced he should think it his duty
to move their Lordships for a Committee to lecielre into all
those transactions to which they referred. The next case to
which ho should call the attention of their Lordships was the
eaga Pr perish in the county of Berke, naseel,v, illt!oWilet
in the ustion of Hungestord."l.fils was a casit, that was by
no means free from blame. It appears that a case occurred
in this Union in which an able-bodied lebourer, with sown
children applied to the parish for relief under these cir-
epastaneei :—This individual bad seven children, the eldest
only thirteen years old. There was none of the Wally, eAe
cept the father, able to earn Inythin,7 taw4Td4 die support of
this fv;4111, and his earnlim amounted to eight shillings a
week, a sum which was quite insufficient for the support of a
man and his wife and seven elii!dren.—( Hear. hear.'
applied to the worlsbottp t; relizve or. the liippoit'of some
yophser children, but the' Guardiani refused to do so,
st.ating thaf they had ko piiwer.' The Guardians then wrote
it) ow- (AniFnissioners, st.atiez e,nd i'4rgiv4 young td-
males of the family might be taken Into the workhouse, so as
to enable the remainder of the family to live by the earnings
of the father, But this the Commissioners refused to comply
with, stating that it would be a grant in hid of wages. it aps
ioted; lthen,llilat the reldest of this intl ividuat. to have Vart