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

of his family admitted into the workhouse was refused. He
knew that the notion prevailed that the only way to prevent
relief being improperly adminietered was to make destitution
the test of relief. But what further test did they require than
to show that a man was in a state of distress to this amount
that all he could earn was insufficient for the supp ,rt of his
family? He thought that there ought to be a discretion al-
lowed, and that when a person was shown to be unable
to support his family he ought to be assisted in doing so.
He had trespassed longer upon their Lordships' attention than
he had originally intended, but it ea; a subject on which be
felt must anxious that all doubt and mite epreeentation should
be fully cleared up. He had never disguised either in that
House or elsewhere that he had supported the Poor Law
Amendment Bill when it was in that House. He had never
disguised his opinion that the evils of the old Poor-law, par-
ticularly in the south of England, were enormous, and that it
was necessary that the old system should be superseded by
some wise and comprehensive, and at the same time
stringent law. They had now had four years' experience
of the working of that law, and he thought that it was
the duty of those whose experience enabled them to point
out the defects in the operation of this law to come tor-
ward and give the Commissioners appointed to Administer
this Act an opportunity of showing what were its defects, and
not only the Commissioners, but Parliament, in order that
whatever defects were ascertained to exist might be remedied.
Under these circumstances he begged to move for the
production of the following papers :—Copy of the cor-
respondence between the Guardians of the Bourne Poor
Union and General Johnson in February, 1838, relative'
to the statement made by that officer at a public meeting
at the Crown and Anchor Tavern ; also copy of a letter
from the Secretary of the Poor Law Commissioners to the
Rev. G. S. Bull, reepecting certain passages contained in a
speech delivered by him at a public meeting at Bradford, in
the month of February last, together with the answer to such
letter, if any has been received ; also copy of correspondence
between Earl Stanhope and the Poor Law Commissioners in
the month of January last, respecting a statement of the cases
of several poor persons who had suffered under the Poor Law
Amendment Act; also copy of a letter to the Pcor Law Com-
missioners from the minister, overseers, and ratepayers of
Shalbourne, in the county of Berks, respecting relief to large
families, by the admission of a part of such families to the
Hungerford Union Poor-house, together with their answer
thereto, dated the 3d of March, 1838; and also copy of any
correspondence which may have taken place between the Poor
Law Commissioners and any person whatever respecting the
insufficiency of the dietary in the Bridgewater Union Poor-
house, or in consequence of any alleged improper conduct
upon the part of eke guardians or surgeon of the union in the
treatment of the poor thereof.
Viscount MELBOURNE rose, and said that the Noble
Lord had delivered a sort of half-and-half speech—(A laugh)
—a speech, in short, of different aspects—sometimes looking
one way, and sometimes another—sometimes to the north,
and sometimes to the south—sometimes pouring out censure,
and sometimes offering praise. But with respect to the im-
portant measure under discussion on the present occasion it
was not his intention to go into any discussion of the great
question of the Poor-law which laud already been so often
discussed at such length on former occasions ; neither was it
his intention to go into any discussion of the statements refer-
red to by the Noble Lord, nor to attempt any refutation of
the arguments raised upon them. His opinion was that the
matter was generally argued, as mostly happened in the case
of all measures of improvement, without reference to the
state of things that existed before. It was argued as if the
state of things already existing before the Poor Law Act was
altogether perfect, and that nothing but happiness existed be-
fore the passing of this Act. In fact, it seemed as if there
was nothing disagreeable to be complained of under the
working of the old law. It appeared that great objection
was found at present to the deportment of the overseers, and
it was said that their manner was not the most agreeable, as
if the overseers under the old system were the most agree-
able persons that could be. Now, if any inquiry had been
instituted into the former system it would be found that it was
a system under which a thousand times greater cruelty was
exercised than anything that existed under this Act. His
Noble Friend had stated that, upon the whole, no case had
been made out against the Commissioners. He admitted,
too, that no case had been made out against the law they
administered, though in some instances it might not have been
prudently administered. The Noble Lord stated that violent
language had been made use of upon the introduction of the
law into certain-districts. That great dissatisfaction and ex-
citement prevailed ; and that language of the most violent and
exciting character was administered to this excitement. The
Noble Lord quoted some of the language, and asked why had
not the parties using it been prosecuted. But with respect
to reedering those individuals amenable to Courts of Justice,
there might be considerable doubt as to the wisdom of such a
course. Of late years there had been much discussion with
respect to the wisdom of prosecutions of this nature, and he
certainly did not think that there was any great encourage-
ment to undertake them. The great difficulty was, that when
a Government put a person on his trial for a violation of the
law of libel they were themselves put as much on their trial as
the party whom they accused. The feeling originally excited
by the libel was passed away before the time of trial, and by
the ingenious arguments of Counsel, the words made use of
might not appear to bear as strong an interpretation as had
been originally applied to them. lie could also collect, from
his own experience, as well as from observation, how prone
every person was to palliate and excuse language, however in-
temperate, however violent, or however inflammatory, if made
use of by a partisan, or in support of those political opinions
which such individual so judging was accustomed to espouse.
There was generally a strong feeling excited by those prose-
cutions, and those who brought them forward did not always
find themselves as energetically supported as they might ex-
pect, even by those who originally joined in recommending
them. His Noble Friend had stated that the Commissioners
should not introduce the Bill into districts during the pre-
valence of the excitement. Whether the course pursued was
the most prudent or not he (Lord Melbourne) Is ould not stop
to inquire. But in other cases the excitement yielded, and
when the Commissioners explained the Act, and pointed out
its beneficial tendencies, the prejudices previously existing gave
way, and peace and tranquillity succeeded to the violence and
prejudice which at first prevailed. Why should it not be ex-
pected that the same would have taken place amongst the
people in the West Riding of Yorkshire, whom the Noble
Lord described as being so intelligent? His Noble Friend
had said that it was a bungling piece of legislation of the Act
of Parliament of the Session before last, which made the
clerk of the Poor-law Union necessarily the general register
of the Union. But if that was a piece of bungling legisla-
tion, which he by no means thought it to be, yet it came from
the other side of the House, and was introduced on the sug-
gestion of Lord Ellenborough. That Act had been intro-
duced previous to the excitement respecting the Poor-law, end
at a period when there was every prospect that the whole
country would be formed into unions in a very short time. It
was felt then that there was every reason to suppose that this
measure would be carried into effect in a short time, and that
persons would be found throughout the country eepable of
filling those situations with efficiency. With respect to the
correspondence moved for, he (Lord Melbourne) had no ob-
jection to its production. When his Noble Friend got the
papers he would be able to see the real nature of the Bridge•
water case. This case, he believed, originated in a dispute
between the Board of Guardians and the medical men of the
Bridgewater Union. With respect to the other case men-
tioned, he must own that he could not come to the same conch',
sion as his Noble Friend with respect to the conduct of the
Commissioners. That case appeared to him to involve the
entire principle of the Bill. It involved to a great extent the
question of out-door relief and the question of making up the
wages of the labourer out of the poor-rate. The ease was
this. The guardians complained that an able-bodied man
with a large family asked relief, and that he was told that he
could not get relief outside the workhouse, and that he then
came with all his family into the workhouse, and in consequence
became an expence to the workhouse for 4 longer period of
time than he would have been if a part of his family had been
originally admitted. It was put to the Commissioners on the
ground of economy. After a few further remarks in vindica-
tion of the Commissioners, the Noble Lord concluded by stating
that hegavehis consent to the motion of the Noble Lord,

The -Earl of RA DN 0 R thought that they might as well
give up the whole principle :on which the• Bill was framed as
depart from the principle on which the Commissioners acted
in the case of the Hungerford Union. He thought if that
point was conceded they might as well abandon the Bill alto-
gether. In one union that he could mention, the Dumber of
paupers the winter before last Iris 1,20 'while, severe as last
winter was the number did not excited 61. The same result wai
shown in another case. The winter before the new Poiir Law
came into operation there were in this union t4Of.t paupers, but
last wintor the numbers did not exceed do. With this expe-
rience, therefore, of the operation of the measure he did llot
hope that his Noble Friend would think twice before ho de..
cided finally against the propriety of enforcing these rules.
The Noble Earl the other night complained that the new
Poor-law had tended to increase the amount of crime, but
this was not the fact, as the returns which he held in his
hand would show. For the most part the parties by whom
crime was committed were not paupers, hnd the returns to
which he referred would show that the state of crime in the
country could have no reference whatever to the working of the
new Poor-laws.
The Earl of WINCHIL SE A was convinced, from his
knowledge of the poor, that no parents would be found
who would allow their children to go into the worlabouse
unless under circumstances of dire necessity, and, he there-
fore, hoped that in any alterations which ;,tight be made a dis-
cretionary power to afford out-door relief would be given to the
Guardians. _ _

--Lora FALKLAND fully participated in the feeling that
the Noble Earl ( Stanhope) had not made out a case against
the new Poor-laws, and he thought if their Lordships were to
do away with the Finciple Wi which they were carried into
effbo, by the Commissioners that they might as well get rid of
the laws themselves altogether.
Earl STANHOPE did not think that PArlimile.nt had a
right to pass such an Act, but in the lino of conduct he pur-
sued he was accountable n@itlor to that House, nor to any
Nlernber of it, hilt (ally to God and his conscience. It was
irrip-atod against him that he had circulated statinntiil4 which
he had received fro.n his correspondent, to his friend Mr.
Oastler, and that Mr, Oanlev Laiing mentioned them at a
they found their way into the newspapers,
tie denied that he had made any complaints against OA/ nonts
by whom the law was carried into onerrtio4 the contrary,
his charge was azjiy,t sy.e.ite.A itself, and not against
thattt vibtA omiod"ii into effect—that the system was
jireauctive of injury and injustice to the poor. His Not;le 11,14
Learned Friend opposite was an advocate for t1..0 ‘.bolition of
negro slavery, and therefore lie ask- him whether he
did net 44averx • lust's as 'objectionable ever-where,
even 'where the ‘master was kind and indulg-ent as wbon hq
litts'the 've'7 oßosite and ill-treated IP sliee 1; \laa
; S •