The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-02 00:00:00

TEE SUN., LONDON', FRIDAY, APRIL 2. 1841.

THE POOR-LAW.

There is a reaction 'of clamour against which we
should be carefully guarded. Unjust and violent at-
tacks tend to indiscriminate defence ; and the prejudice
which finds every fault in a system is followed by the
partiality which finds all faultless. The averments and
counter-averments are thus enormity on the one hand,
and perfection on the other. A clamour despicable and
powerless in its direct effect does a serious mischief, if it
make the friends of the thing assailed the champions of
its defects as well as its merits.

We think, we see a tendency to this error on the
part of some of our public men with whom we most ge-
nerally agree.
If there had been no clamour against the New
Poor-law, and if Mt. Wakley had not attacked it with
every extravagance of misrepresentation, we cannot but
think that the rule under which medical men are not
authorized to order any change in the diet of sick pau-
pers, wou►d have been differently considered by a
House of Commons.

The Commissioners say—
" Such a power would be equivalent to the power of
giving relief, which the law has vested generally in the
guardianF, and which it is not competent to a medical
officer to exercise. A medical officer can only recom-
mend or advise the guardians (or relieving officer) to
give certain articles of diet to a pauper patient, and the
guardians (or their relieving officer) will exercise their
discretion upon their own responsibility, whether they
will or not adopt such recommendation or advice."
But is it always certain that the state of the patient
will allow of waiting for the board day, or the hoard
hour ? In one case it appears that a pauper with a
sinking pulse had not the necessary stimulants, because
the board had forbidden the use of them without a
special order. Other boards have prohibited any in-
crease of the allowance of meat and beer. Now, every
one knows that the diet of a patient is perhaps the
most important part of his treatment, and the board of
guardians is no more competent to decide or% the fit-
ness of it, against the opinion of the surgeon, than it
is to cancel or alter the prescriptions.
But the Commissioners say, and Mr. Grote repeats
the argument, that to give the medical men the power
of directing the diet would be to give them the power
of rad'. Well, and when the Fick pauper is under
the hands of the surgeon the business of medical re-
,lief includes the management of the relief of the ordi-
nary wants. It is preposterous to call in a medical
man to prescribe for a pauper, and to tell him, " Un-
derstand that you have nothing to do with this sick
man's stomach, except to put physic in it. His sto-
naacb, with regard to nutchrent, is under the'exc!usive
authority and management of the board, which leaves
you free to throw in jalap, calomel, rhubarb, castor
oil, &c., at discretion, but reserves to itself a judgment
on the expediency of supplying it with beef or mutton,
wine or beer, and any advice you may have to offer as
to these perilous things must wait their judgment on
board day."

It is said that the board of guardians are not likely
to deny what is humane and proper, and in this we
agrLe ; but can the patient always wait for their deci-
sion, or for application to a Magistrate, without suffer-
ing, and is it not as unlikely that medical officers wil
order what is unnecessary as that boards will refuse
what is necessary. The jr.edical man who directs a
more stimulating diet than the case requires mistreats
his patient, and hazards his character for skill. Tne
patients whom he would favour would become the evi-
dence against him, their state betraying his fault, and
his dismissal and discredit would be the consequence.
Lord Howick remarks, truly no doubt, that it is
incredible

" That bodies of gentlemen, acting as boards of guar-
dians would come to a vote to reuse to pauper pAti,,nts
that medical relief which was ordered by a medical man
in whom they confided.--( Hoar.)
But if the medical man can be confided in he may
be trusted with the direction of the diet of sick paupers,
or if he cannot be confided in he ought not to have been
appointed, and he ought to be dismissed.

We wdl not argue that there might not possibly be
some me of beet and mutton, wine, and beer, on the
side of indull,enee, but would there be so much harm
done by the waste of a few pounds at the year's end as
by excitir', the public feeling against the administration
of the law? The saving of the credit of the Poor-law
system is deserving of care, and we see it sometimes
sacrificed to the pedantry of rules with what we deem
the worst sort of extravagance.
In such an aJministiation as that of the Poor-laws,
errors, faults, must occur, and it is wiser frankly to ac-
knowledge and correct them than to pretend to an im-
possible perfection.

have only served to prove the necessity of a controlling
authority. The indictment has been laid against the
Central Commszion, and the evidence has been against
the boards of guardians. Mr. Wakley has produced
examples and imagined cases to show that the guar-
dians are not to be trusted, and he has concluded with
invectives against the superintending power instituted
to control the very errors he has instanced.
We sincerely believe that the great majority of the
guardians throughout the country do their duty inteli-
gently and conscientiously ; but, whether they so do
their duty or not, the control of the Board is requisite
—on the one hand to correct error, or, on the other, to
remove the personal responsibility of a duty necessarily
often of an ungracious or an unpopular character, in
which cases the Central Board is the shield of the lo-
cal administration. To abolish the Central Board
would be to pluck out the heart of the Poor-
law system, and we therefore look upon the ap-
pointed term of the Commission not as implying any
question of its permanence, but as an expedient for
kreping it responsible and mindful of its responsibility,
the periods for the renewal of the Commission serving
as periods for the review of its administration.—Eta-
miner

as here, to be regarded rather in the favourable mast,
of approximation to a conciliatory understanding finally
than otherwise. No precise reasons are assigned as
the foundation for the general impression, and there-
fore, except conjecturally, or by reasoning from probable
events and plausible appearances, we ate left entirely
in the dark as to the actual position in which mat-
ters remained at the latest date. We may, however,
be justified, perhaps, in assuming a certain nge-
e
tive line of action, on the part of the British minister
in Washington at least, which would tend to prolong
discussion i
and procrastinate the decisive issue, to which
strict and immediate compliance with the positive n•
structions undentood to hays been transmitted for his
guidance by Lord Palmerston, must inevitably have
hurrTei the question of war or peace. We apprehend, for
instance, that Mr. Fox may have been prevailed upon,
or have found it prudent, to withhold the formal demand
for the instant and unconditional release of 1114Leol, the
refusal of which must necessarily have been followed
by a teque,t for his passports and the termination
of his miiaion. But, although not to embarrass the ad-
ministration of General Harrison but just installed
into office, with the instant pressure of a point so mo-
mentous, Mr. Fox may have consented to waive for a time
the presentation of the official and peremptory note, which,
once made, became irrevocable, yet there can be no
doubt that extra officially and privately he must have com-
municated to Mr. Daniel Webster, the new Foreign Se-
crztary of the Union, not substantially only, but literally,
the contents of his instrucians, however absolute they
might be. This would account for the f. equeney of Ca
binct Councils at Washington, in which doubtless the quo:-
tion in all its phases was anxiously deliberated.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, AARlli 1.

. _
The Eall of SHAFTESBURY took his se.it on the Wool-
sack at Five o'Clock.

Messengcrs from the Commons .brought up the Jewish
Bill, the Chelsea, &c., Poor Bill, and several Kcal

The Bishop of WINCHESTER presented a petition
from Farnham in Surrey, against Idolatrous Worship in
in India; from Ham in Sure', in favour of Church Even-
sion ; and from Westminaer in favour of the tolls being
takes off the Metropolitan Bridges.
Lard EL LENBOROUGH presented two petitions to
the same effect.

Lard MONTEAGLE presented a petition from Cole-
raine on the subject Gf Church patronage iu Scotland.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented peti-
tions from tnc Ger.eral Assembly of the Church of Scot-
land and others against Sunday travelling on railway?.
The Noble Marquis gave notice that on Monday next he
should present upwards of 100 petitions on the subject.
Lord FITZGERA LD presented a petition from the
clergy, gentry, and lanfled propr:etors of the county of
Galway, complaining of the Grand Jury Cers Bill.
SUNDAY TRADING.

The Marquis of NORMANBY said that in conse
quence of what had passed last Session in the Home, and
the representation that had since been made to him,
it was his intention shortly after Easter to move
for a Select Committee to inquire into the Sunday trading
on duals.