The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-23 00:00:00

and which was contrary to the opinion of the Chairman,
and of those most conversant with the practice of the
House.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had always un-
derstood that a Bill could not go through Committee
without the blanks being filled up. Practically he did
not see that there would be much difference in the plan
proposed.
After a few words from Mr GOULBURN and Mr
FIELDEN,
Mr GROTE said he understood the questien to be
put, " That the words 46 stand part of the Bill," to
which an amendment had been moved by the Hon.
Member for Leicester (Mr Easthope) to the effect that
the words 43 should be substituted for 46. To that
question he proposed to address himself. He trusted
that neither the Noble Lord nor the House would be
induced to accede to any proposition to shorten the
time below five years. He was quite as sensible as the
Hon. Member for Oldham that they were now dealing
' with a question of very great importance to the wel-
fare of a large portion of the community, and not only
one of great importance burof considerable excitement ;
and he must say, that to him that excitement was an
additional reason why they ought not to reduce this
period to the short time proposed by the amendment.
He could not wonder that gentlemen who, like the Hon.
Member for Oldham (Mr. Fielden) and the Hon.
Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) disapproved alto-
gether of the working of the Bill, and conceived it to
be injurious to the welfare of the people, should be dis-
posed to restrict the duration of the authority of the
Commissioners to two years, or one year, or even a
shorter period. But he should be much surprised if
this should turn out to be the opinion of gentlemen in
that House who had not come to that conclusion, who
had not made up their minds that the law was injurious,
but considered it to work well, and in a wholesome man-
ner, as he (Mr. Grote) believed, or, at least, not in such
a manner as should induce them to condemn it at once,
a conclusion which appeared to him would be incon-
sistent with a shorter term than five years. What
was implied in fixing a period of five years ? It was not
like creating an irrevocable lease of property
which they could not enter upon until the ex-
piration of five years. They would still have the
power to interpose it they saw good cause to put an end
to the Commission. He conceived that this Commis-
sion was naturally, and by the necessity of the case,
determinaEle at the will of Parliament. Gentlemen
appeared to forget the annual vote for the salaries of
the Commissioners in the Estimates, and that it was
competent for the House, by a single vote on that occa-
sion, thus to put au end to this Commission without the
concurrence of the other House of Parliament. He
confessed it did not appear to him necessary to fix any
specific period for the termination of the Commission,
but as the House had determined that some experience
should be had, and some period fixed, at the expiration
of which the House pledged itself to take the whole
subject of the Poor-laws into consideration, and to de-
termine whether the change required any, and what,
modifications, he did say it was not consistent with the
proper and legitimate working of the law to reduce that
period lower than five years ; and for this reason, they
would weaken the law if they gave to the Commis-
sion the appearance of an expiring and moribund body.
If they were to continue the Commission at all, they
ought to continue it for such time as would be sufficient
to give the Commissioners the power necessary to dis•
charge their serious and important duties, and not by
frequent interposition to give them the appearance of
being distrusted by Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) A
great deal had been said by many gentlemen in the
House respecting what they termed the arbitrary and
despotic power of the Commissioners, and it had been
insisted upon, as a prominent reason why the House
ought to confine this power to a period as short as one
or two years. Ho (Mr. Grote) denied that the power
of the Commissioners deserved this character. Taeir
power was large, because their duties were onerous aad
comprehensive ; bet the question on which the House
ought t) decide was, whether this power was more then
sufficient—than the discharge of the duties imposed
upon the Commissioners rendered necessary.—( Heer,
hear.) When gentlemen talked of at bitrary power be
(Mr. Grote) understood them to mean something sub-
jected to no legal or definite limits, but to
e het extent did powers of this nature coincide
with that of the Poor-I,tw Commissioners ? Every
particle of power the Commissioners enjoyed was
derived from the Act of 1834, and one or two sub-
ssqeent Acts. Every one of these Acts was subject
to t:ic legal revision of the Court of Queen's Bench,
by the easiest and most accessible process known to the
law ; and not only that but every rule and order of tie
Poor-law Commissioners was liable to be disallowed by
the Queen's Counsel. And not only was there this
lege! security, but, what was of great importance, there
was the moral restraint under which the Commissioners
exercised their power. All their acts were public,
formal, aed open t) criticism, which, to say the least of
it, was severe, if not acrimonious. Every act of the
Poor-law Commissioners was subject to the severest
scrutiny, and liable to bring them in collision with
persona in influential stations, and to create them ene-
mies in all quarters ; and moreover in case of any impu-
tation of mistake or misconduct, there was no authority
in the State that could so little hope for countenance
or sympathy in anything like party influence or party
feeling. Now, if gentlemen would discard these exprer-
sae—, ....1 erre,. ,hots minds to the real facts of the
can they would see that this power eta nor ea.,.
the appellation of arbitrary and despotic. If the
power of the Poor-law Commissioners was arbitrary,what
was that of Justices of the Peace, who derived their
power from one hundred Acts which were construed
in their favour in the most liberal manner in the
Courts of law ?—(Hear, hear.) The House would re-
member that the power of subordinate legislation
which the Hon. Member for Oldham said imparted to
the law its unconstitutional character, must be lodged
somewhere, and if they distrusted the Commissioners,
it must be given to Justices of the Peace, to guar-
dians, or to the Secretary of State. That power was,
he contended, requisite for carrying on the law. It
existed under the old system, and he put it to Hon.
Gentlemen whether they had not at the present mo-
ment vastly increased the security for the avoidance of
abuse, and the furtherance of the real and true intent
of the promoters of the law. He did say that the
House would not do justice to its own intention if they
did not continue the law under circumstances favour-
able to its working, and if they consented to reduce
the time of duration of the Commission to any period
shorter than five years. If they should acquiesce in a
shorter time the effect would be that they would pars-
lize the authority of the Commissioners for good pur-
poses mucis:mare than for evil purposes.—(Hear, hear.)
If they created in the public mind the belief that these
Commissioners had not the confidence of Parliament,
but were distrusted and discountenanced, their autho-
rity would thenceforward be neglected and it would be
thought by their opponents that they had only to run
the duration of their resistance against the life of the
Commission to contend successfully. He said therefore
that by shortening the Commission, they would deprive
the Commissioners of that just authority without which
it would be impossible for them to discharge their duty
with satisfaction or advantage. He thought this reason
was the best possible reason why the Hon. Member
for Oldham should vote for the amendment, but at the
same time that it was the best possible reason why it
should be resisted by those who wished to support the
law in its present efficiency.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HODGSON HINDE said he was greatly
surprised at the speech of the Honourable Mem-
ber (Mr. Grote), from which he inferred that the
Honourable Member had never read the Act of
Parliament by which the Commission was created,
and that he had had no practical experience of the
working of the Poor-laws. The Hon. Member denied
that the power of the Commissioners was arbitrary, since
their rules might be set aside by the Queen in Council,
but the Commissioners had found the way to set aside
the orders of the Queen in Council altogether, by
making orders which did not come under the name of
general rules.—( Hear, hear.) He did not stand there
to dispute whether the power possessed by Justices of
the Peace was arbitrary or not, but could not the Hon.
Gentleman draw a distinction between arbitrary power
in administering the law, and arbitrary power in making
it ? There were doubtless many evils under the
old system, but if a person violated the law,
he might have been called to account for it.
He believed that if on the second reading the House had
not laboured under the delusion that if tLey rejected the
present measure they should necessarily return to the old
one, the result of the division would be very different from
whnt it had been. He should conclude with these re-
marks, which had been drawn from him by the extraordi-
nary speech of the Hon. Member for London.
Mr. WA KLE Y said that he had listened with great
astonishment to the speech of the Hon. Member for Lon-
don, and he hoped that Hon. Member would not be
classed by the Noble Lord among the mischievous dema.
gogues for London.—(A laugh.) At pre3ent he did not
himself know where to class the Hon. Member ; but he
would repeat that he had been astonished at the speech he
had made. The Hon. Gentleman was an advocate for
the continuance of the Commission for five years. But
had the Hon. Gentleman adduced any argument to show
that it could operate beneficially for
the country? There
had been some abstract reasons adduced; but where wore
the particular inns' ra,ions to show that the Commissionto show
worked well during the last four or five years, or fire
that it was likely to work well for the next
established
3ears? When the Commission had been
it was understood that the law was to establish
a new order of things, and some new functions of an
ex-
tea ,rdinary character and peculiar nature were designed
since 1834; and they were now in the years 1841 without
hiving obtained the results they anticipated._ The Com-
existeL
to being it into execution, The law had Leen . co
mission had been created for the purpose of cror.ting
uni-
at,rifdthtleie4r,i_e_
fon,ity in the working of the Poor-law. Tie dec_isions
of the Mnistrates were so various, so chequered and
diversified, so repugnant to common
eiplei of humanity—those were
that the Poor. Commissioners were to he created fur
the purpose of producing throughout the land a uniform
working and a uniform syst,nn. Now where were the
quell rule ? No. They were still, in his belief, as far
general rules applicable to all unions? Was there one
odno c sense
es
from baying one general rule applicable to the Poor.law
established as when the Commission had been first intro-

duced. But the Commissioners bad been to work ; they
bad done something—plenty of mischief as he had heard.
But they bad incorporated into unions 13,000 parishes.
How many more were there still to be incorporated ?
Only 700. Let them try that fact by the rule of three.
If in six years the Commissioners had been enabled to in-
corporate 13,000 parishes would it take them five years
more to incorporate 700? Why, they might have al-
ready incorporated many of the remaining unions.
They would certainly meet with obstacles in some
quarters. All the unions in the metropolis were not
yet incorporated, thanks to the mischievous demagogues,
in some of its parishes.—( Hear, hear.) Things were
getting into a pretty pass in that House on the subject of
the Poor-laws. He had often regretted that there was
not some place in the House in which Members who were
not connected with any of the great leading parties could
locate themselves, and seat themselves occasionally as
neutrals. He had often felt great inconvenience and an-
noyance under the present state of things. He had -no
desire to associate on that (the Ministerial) side of the
House with Noble Lords, and it appeared Noble Lords
bad no desire to associate with him.—( A laugh.) But
he could assure Noble Lords that whatever contemptuous
feeling they might entertain towards him—however much
they might doubt the truth of his statements—however
much they might presume to question what he had ad-
vanced in that House—however much they might be in-
clined to treat him with contempt, he could assure them
without ill-humour that he could return the complil
ment ; and if he wanted to establish a character with the
people of this country, he could assure them he would never
apply to them for a recommendation of his worthiness.
He thought it most unfair in Noble Lords to cast out in
their observations any insinuations against the veracity of
a person who in point of family distinction was their infe-
rior. But when the people had thought fit to
send a man to that House who had obtained his
seat neither by corruption nor family intrigue—and it was
not the man that was treated with disrespect, for he
scorned such a supposition—but it was treating those who
bad sent him there with disrespect, to use unfounded in-
sinuations ; and such a circumstance showed clearly that
those who made such insinuations had yet to learn what
was true liberty, or what were the just claims of the
people.—( Hear, hear.) If his family had been so costly
to the nation as the families of some men—(Hear, hear)
—if he had weight in that House—in consequence of the
weight of public metal in his pocket—then he might be
treated with more respect; but be should say it was not
proper—it was not just—it was not consistent—it was not
manly to throw out insinuations against an individual who
had been the architect, who had been the framer of his
own reputation and fortunes.—( Hear, hear.) It was by
labour, by constant and zealous labour, that he had ac-
quired the honour and distinction of a seat in that House,
and he hoped that while he was there he would be tried by
the majority of the House, by his conduct in the House,
and that if he did nought unworthy of his position, nor make
any stat_ement that was untrue, he would receive a suffi-
cient reward is the consciousness that he had discharged
his duty. What statement had he made that bad been re-
futed? But the Noble Lord asked whether his statements
had been substantiated ? They had, however, been suffi-
ciently substantiated by the fact that they had still
remained contradicted. There were parties enough which
would have felt it their interest to contradict him if he had
stated anything that had been untrue. It was necessary,
for him to say that he had made no statement for the pur-
pose of obtaining a miserable and grovelling popularity.
With respect to the kind of popularity which men might
be desirous of acquiring, there would be a difference of opi-
nion. For his part he wished to obtain popularity by
stating what was true, and by duly discharging his duties
in the House. He had no desire to obtain any other kind
of popularity ; and he was sure he would receive a sufficient
ohs ck in the House if he were to make the attempt. The
statements he had made that night had an immediate bear-
ing on the continuan:e of the Commission, and had been
alluded to by various Members. What were the intentions
of the Commissioner.? Did they wish that the poor should be
benafited or that the poor should be coerced ? Did they wish
that the guardians should be checked in the exercise of their
powers and that a uniform system should be introduced? The
results of their operations inspired him with doubts on
these subjects. When a statement of any particular kind
was made in that House he invariably observed that a dozen
eatlemen started up and said there could be no such
thing, as in all the cases that bad come under their con,i-
der a ion there was nothing but kindness and liberality in
the working of the law. The Hon. Member for Shef-
field would have given them to understand from his speech
of that evening that there was nothing but uniformity in
the system. But he (Mr. Waklay) held in his hand the
last amended rules for workhouses, which were dated in
August last; and in those rules he found an especial re-
ference made t> the power of the medical officers and the
treatment of the sick. The Honourable Member fur
Sii.ffield had stated that ' the medical officer had
the power for the week of ordering anything
he please 1, The 17th rule, however, said—" That
the p eipers of the respective sexes would be
dieted with the food and in the manner described in the
di, tiry tables hereto annexed, and in no other manner."
Teat was the 17th rule. The proviso to it was as
follows :—" Provided, however, the medical officer may
direct in writing such diet for any individual pauper he
may think necessary ; and the master shall report such
directim to the board of guardians, who will sanction or
disallow them at their discretion." If, then, the medical
officer recommended wine, meat, and other such nourish-
ment to tis patients, the master of the workhouse could
not comply with his injunctions. Mr. Johnson, the go-
vernor of the Bastford Union, had stated in evidence he
had given, that the board of guardians had made
a rule that no wine, beer, ale, or stimulants, should
be given without the sanction of the board. That was
in the books of the guardians, and it was only in compliance
with the order of the Commissioners themselves. These
regulations might not have been followed in certain in-
stances. The truth was that there was nothing but dis-
order instead of uniformity in the present operation of the
law ; and surely that was no ground for continuing the
pew,- J tit fAIC comreieeioners for five years more. Under
the circumstances it was their duty to make the duration
of the Commissioners as short as possible, and to take the
duty cf further legislating on the matter upon themselves,
and not leave it in the hands of three irresponsible agents
whose past conduct he contended had given nothing but
dissatisfaction to the people.
Mr. HAWES said, as he had originally given his
support to the Bill in its introduction into the House, and
as he bad closely watched the operation of the mea-
sure, he would not be induced by any fear of unpo-
pularity to swerve from the opinion he had formed,
and which bad daily gained additional strength in his
mind. He was bound to say, notwithstanding what had
fallen from the Hon. Member for Finsbury, that he
closely subscribed to the speeches of the Noble Lord, the
Member for Northumberland, the Noble Lord, the Secre-
tary for the Colonies, and the Hon. Member for London.
The many evils of the old system should not be forgotten.
It should be remembered that in former times Mr. Can-
ning had declared that it was no fault of a Government if
it left the Poor-law untouched, from the extent and
complication of the evils which surrounded it ; and in the
year 1830, a Noble Lord, then Mr. Baring, said that he
saw no means whatever to cope with the demoralization
and difficulty in which the country was involved by the ex-
isting state of the Poor-laws. He did not hold economy to
be the best part of the present measure, because the most
important part in his opinion was that which established
some control over the operation of the law. The old
system was, in truth, in' many cases one of torture and
barbarity ; for under its sanction the old and the young,
the vicious and the virtuous, were huddled together with-
out order and classification. They could not return to
that law; but they were told at the same time they might
overturn the present one. He thought that many unjust
complaints had been made against the existieg system.
He would instance as a testimony to the nature of its work-
ing what bad happened in the Union of Richmond in Sur-
rey, which was paid by the guardians as a matter of course.
For eight weeks there were expenses for extra diet for
wine, brandy, arrow-root, sago, and isinglass, and that was
not a solitary instance. It was an everyday occurrence,
and he would appeal for the truth of that assertion to every
gentleman present who was a member of a board of guar-
dians.—(Cheers.) What had been the conduct of the
Hon. Member under the old law ? Had he ever raised
his voice as the friend of the poor against the abuses of the
old system ? He would justify the new law upon this
ground—that being administered by responsible officers,
identified with the Government of the day, the most inte-
rest was excited, and public observation drawn to the ad-
ministration of the law, which never had been, and never
could have been, attracted to it, while the administration
of it was scattered and divided among fourteen or fifteen
thousand independent bodies. He would defend the exist-
ence of the Commission on popular grounds—( Hear, bear)
—because this was the first time that the administration of
this enormous fund had been placed in the hands of res-
ponsible officers, and from that moment the administration
of that fund had become an object of close and vigilant
attention from the public, from which it had before been
wholly free.—(Cheers.) Under the old system, with
fourteen or fifteen thousand independent and irrespon-
sible bodies administering this enormous fund, there
could be no security for the public. Honourable Mem-
bers seemed to have forgotten the enormity of the
evil they had had to deal with. The Right Honour..
able Baronet, the Member for Tamsvorth, had shown
that as relief was increased distress increased Could
they forget the case of the parish of Chouseley, in Buck-
inghamshire, where the relief bad been administered in
such a manner that at length the rates exceeded the value
of the land ? and the consequence was that at length there
was no fund either for wages or relief; thelparish was left
uncultivated; in fact, there was no parish. This was not
a class question at all—it was a question of vital import.
ance to the whole country, for all were most deeply in-
terested in the well-being of the poor. ( Cheers.) He
thought the Hon. Member for Finsbury must have reck-
oned largely upon the credulity of his hearers when be
stated that lie had heard nothing but mere abstract de-
elamatien in the speech of the Hon. Member for London
—that there was nothing practical in it. What I was there
no proof of the practice! effects of the new law in the in-
creased attention which had everywhere been paid of late
to the improvement of the moral and physical condition
of the people —to their education,-- to the state of
their dwellings, and to those sanatory questions
which had never been discussed until the care of the poor
had been committed to public and responsible officers ?
The Reports of the Poor-law Commissioners showed that
under the new liw wages had risen, and greater attention
had
Leen paid to the moral and physical condition of the
poor than had been at any former period. Let Hon. Mern-
bers.le.ok at a neighbouring country, Scotland, where the
adrminstration of the Poor-laws was not under the super-
vision of some regulatirg power. He had gone over the
Sent ill capital in company with an intelligent and
inane physician, and he declared before God that
his life had he seen such a mass of miser; and distress,
.Let them not talk of the hardship of `iMe law in England,
it wes nothing compared with tie administration of the law
in Scotland—thererelic; was doled out in fractions, in some
mstane:s at the rate of a month. The poor there
weresinking tt rsugh neglect, and throughout the country
they were calling for some such superintendence as had
been eata Wished in England. With regard to medical officers,
by the 54th clause of the Poor-law Act, in all cases of I