The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON', TUESDAY_ EVENING, MAY 18, 1847.

•
abandon the resolution which it had passed at a former TRANSPORTATION.
period of the session...__ The. object of that.tesolutionwas_ _. Mr. EWART asked the Hon. Gentleman the Secre-
to draw the attention of the Committees to a matter of tary for the Colonies whether Government had any in-
very great finportarice. it was true there bad been some tnation of revising the pr,,sent system of transportation,
inconvenience resulting from the operation of this rose- with a view to all !, in the lays.?
lution, but then the business of the House 55as io make t Mr. HA WES said tot. ~t.tbject, would shortly come
good and perfect laws. If every resolution were to be set under discussion in that House, when his Noble Friend
aside, on the ground of delay, the House would find that the First Lord of the Treasury would be prepared to
none of its salutary resolutions would be attended to. state fully what his intentions were.
And it would be found that some of the companies, CORN RETURNS,
which were exceedingly alive to everything affect- Mr. P. MILES said, in the early part of the session
ing their interests, would postpone sending in their finan- he moved for certain corn returns in continuation of
cial returns, in order to make out a case of grievance, those which had been annually laid before the House for
such as that complained of in the first instance. In fact many years past. It was, however, communicated to
it had been stated that the delay of completing some of him, that an addition he had made to the return would
the reports had arisen from some of the companies not cause a delay in making the return, and he intimated to
having sent in their returns. lie should most certainly the corn• inspector that he would not press for that part
oppose the resolution. of the return. Still, the return was not forthcoming,
After a few words from Mr. SHAW, wit! he therefore wished to adt the Hon. Gentleman
Mr. EDWARD ELLICE, jun., thought that a part (the Vice-President of tilt- IlLird of Trade) whether
of the difficulty might be obviated if an understanding the return would shortly be laid upon the table of the
were come to between the Chairman of Select Committees House ?
and the Chairman of the Commissioners of Railways. Mr. MILNER GIBSON said the order was made
Mr. FITZROY said that the feeling of those who upon the Treasury, and not upon the Board of Trade ;
were opposed to his motion might be got over if he in- but, nevertheless, he would make inquiry into the cause
serted the words " Committees now sitting." His im- of the delay.
pression was that his motion was necessary, and as he
had heard no objection to it to warrant him to withdraw
it, he would press it to a division.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when the
numbers were—.
For the motion
Against it
Majority
POLICE BILLS.
Mr. GREENE said it would be in the recollection of
the House that a short time ago the Police Clauses Con-
solidation B*l was referred to a Select Committee. Since
then several Police Bills bad been referred to Committees,
and ha wished to know from Government whether those
Committees ought to proceed with their labours till the
report of the Select Committee on the Police Clauses
Consolidation Bill was before the House.
Sir G. GREY thought that it was exceedingly de-
sirous—that such a suggestion was valuable, and it was
desirable that the Committee should be instituted.

POOR LAWS.
On the order of the day being read for the second
reading of the Poor-law Administration Bill,
Mr. FERRAND asked the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer whether the private defence of the Poor-law
Commissioners to the charges brought against them
before the Andover Union Committee (intitled, " Let-
ters addressed by the Poor-law Commissioners to the
Secretary of State, respecting the transaction of the
business of the Commission, &c., &c., &c.," embellished
with the Royal Arms, and " printed by W. Clowes
and Sons, Stamford-street, for her Majesty's Stationery
Office)," has been printed and circulated with the sanc-
tion of her Majesty's Government ;—if printed and cir-
culated with the sanction of her Majesty's Government,
whether he intends the expense to be defrayed out of
the public purse ;--if printed and circulated at the pub-
lic expense, whether he will lay upon the table of the
House a statement of the expense ? The defence, the
Hon. Member asserted, contained most unjust calumnies
and flagrant untruths, and had not only been circulated
amongst Members of that House, but had been for-
warded to different tradesmen throughout the country.
He held in his hand, for instance, a copy which had been
sent to a tradesman in Oxford-street.

Mr. GREENE brought up several reports, the titles
of which, owing to the confusion and talk in the House,
were inaudible.
HEALTH OF TOWNS BILL.
Lord DUNCAN gave notice that upon the motion
for going into Committee on the Health of Towns Bill,
he should move that it was inexpedient to proceed with
the further consideration of that measure until full con-
sideration had been given to the unequal pressure of
the window-tax on the dwellings of the poor.
CONSUMPTION OF FLOUR IN COTTON
WORKS.
Mr. FERRAND gave notice that to-morrow he
should ask a question of the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government upon a most important subject ; it
appeared that 183,120,000 pounds weight of best
flour were used for the purpose of dressing
warps to be woven into cloth ; and, also,
in daubing cotton with flour paste, with the intention of
defrauding the public. The question which he wished
to put was, whether it was the intention of the Govern-
ment to bring in a Bill to prevent the use of flour to such
purposes?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said.
with regard to the first question, the Poor-law Commis-
sioners were called upon by his Right Hon. Friend the
Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a
defence in answer to certain inquiries which he had
caused to be instituted into their proceedings, and the
Commissioners made what the Hnn. Gentleman called a
private defence, which was comprised in certain letters
which were laid upon the table of the House. He did
not think, therefore, that the defence could be strictly
called a private one. It was certainly true that the let-
ters had been published and circulated by the Commis-
sioners, and it had been done by the consent of the Go-
vernment. With regard to the second question, he cer-
tainly thout'ht the expense ought to be defrayed out of
the public funds, because, in publishing the correspon-
dence, the Commissioners had only to act in conformity
with their usual practice in such matters.
POOR LAW IRELAND.

RAILWAY FINANCE.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER gave
notice that, to morrow, he should move for the appoint-
ment of a Select Committee, to inquire into the finan-
cial position of the various railways in the country,
and the various points touched upon in the debate of
this evening, with relation to railways.
QUARANTINE LAWS.
Dr BOWRING wished to ask a question of the Right
Hon. Gentleman below him, the Vice-President of the
Board of Trade. It was reported that a considerable
change was to take place with regard to the quarantine
laws. He wished, therefore, to know if any new regu •
lations were contemplated, and what they were.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that, with regard to
vessels from Egypt and Syria, they were to be put under
the same regulations as were applicable to vessels from
Turkey, and they were to be admitted under free pra-
tique, provided they had clean bills of health, and were
not laden with susceptible articles. There were further
regulations under consideration.
bBERINGTON'S KNAPSACK AND-GIRDLE.

Mr. P. SCROPE desired to ask the Secretary for
Ireland, whether he was prepared to lay upon the
table of the House any statement as to the progress of
the system of relief in Ireland under the Temporary
Relief Act ? He also wished to know, whether there
was any compulsory power to compel the Relief Com-
mittee to do their duty, and in cases where they would
not do so, to discharge them and appoint fresh officers?
The Honourable Member adverted to a charge made
against Lord Berehaven, that there had been groat
destitution on his estate, and that he only subscribed
twenty shillings a month, and that he subsequently
w.thdrew that relief altogether, confining himself for
ten month:: to the inside of his demesne, the gates of
which were stri, tly locked.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that there would be a
report laid upon the table of the House which would
give his Hon. Friend all the information he desired, he
was anxious to say that it was no fault of Sir John Bur-
goyne that a great many evils had occurred, it was quite
true there was great indisposition on the part of many
Relief Commissioners to aid the Government, and the
people themselves desired to return to the ancient system
of road begging. In conclusion he would only say that
from his knowledge of Lord Berehaven, he would not
believe that he had bsen guilty of such inhumanity as
that stated by the Hon. Member. That Noble Lord had
expressed to him such a concern for the poor in his
neighbourhood, that he could not come to any other
eonclusion.
Mr. SHAW said that he was quite sure that Lord
Berehaven could perfectly clear himself of such a charge.
And on the part of the Irish proprietors, he would say
that the Member for Stroud took advantage in that
House to say things which he could not jnstify out of it.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said that it was rather hard to
blame the Hon. Member for Stroud for his observations
on the Irish landlords, for such a course was so popular,
that it was not to be wondered at.
WARNER'S EXPERIMENT.
Lord INGESTRE said, with reference to an answer
from a Member of the Government respecting Captain
Warner's invention, he would say that he himself was
a witness of the late experiment, and he wholly disagreed
in the unfavourable opinion which was given of it.
NEW POOR-LAW BILL.
Mr. FERRAND, on the order of the day for the second
reading of the New Poor Law Bill being read, asked
the Law Officers of the Crown, by what authority Par-
liament is invested with the right to delegate to any
person, or body of persons, the power of snaking rules
and orders which shall be as binding and authoritative
upon the people of England and Wales as an Act of
Parliament ? If Parliament is not thus authorised, by
what statute can the people of England and Wales be
treed to obey, as law, the rules and orders of the Poor-
law Commissioners ? If there be no statute, have not
all persons committed to prison for disobeying the rules
and orders of the Poor-law Commissioners been illegally
hadT he
an
ATTORNEYit-tGo
deprived of their liberty?
Ed
elEglat
tAe Li ts s
pa iodw
ethr atot Parliament
or persons in such a manner as should be binding upon
the people. He mentioned courts of law, and other
tribunals, as instances where this power had been
exercised.
Sir JOHN WALSH desired to ask the Member for
Stroud whether he had communicated with Lard Bore-
haven relative to the charge he brought against him.
Mr. P. SCROPE replied that he had not, and that it
was objected to mention anonymous cases. He would
be quite happy if Lord Berehaven was enabled through
his means to justify himself, for the present was not the
first time such charges had been made.
THE MOTT CASE.

Mr. WAKLEY wished to ask the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Secretary at 'War, what steps have bee',
taken to investigate the merits of the knapsack and
girdle invented by Mr. Berington.
Mr. FOX MAULE recollected that the subject was
brought under the consideration of the House when the
army estimates were brought in last year, but he did
not recollect that he had said anything which could
induce the Hen. Gentleman to suppose that he
would subject the knapsack to any inquiry. He himself,
however, had looked at the knapsack, and he had no he-
sitation in saying that he did not think it deserved
the encomiums which had been passed upon it.
It was considered most inconvenient, and in the next
place was thirteen ounces heavier than the knapsack at
present in use, which was eight pounds in weight (as
we understood). (" Hear," from Mr. Waklcy.) He had
therefore not thought it advisable to advise the use of
the knapsack of Mr. Berington.
RIOTS AT TAUNTON.
Mr. B. ESCOTT wished to ask a question of the
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of state for
the Home Department, which had reference
to the preservation of the peace of the country.
He perceived by the newspapers of this morning that
considerable public violence had taken place in the west
of England, particularly in Taunton, in consequence of the
dealers in corn affixing what prices they chose to their
commodities; he therefore wished to know whether the
Right Hon. Gentleman was able to state whether the
reports were founded in truth or not; whether there
was reason to fear that the alarm which prevailed
in the west of England would extend itself to
other parts ; and whether he bad received any
information on the subject, which, consistently with his
duty, he thought proper to lay on the table of the
House? _ _ _

Sir G. GREY said he hail received information from
the civil authorities of Exeter, stating that disturbances
had taken place on Friday and Saturday in the west of
Cornwall and Exeter, and in one or two other places in
consequence of the high price of provisions ; but al-
though he had seen accounts in the news-
papers of disturbances which had taken place
from this cause in Taunton, he had
not received any official information on the subject ; but
in consequence of the prompt measures taken by the
local authorities, order had been restored in those
parts of the country to which he had referred, and he
hoped there was no cause for alarm.—(Cheers.)
FOREIGN IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES.
Mr. NEWDEGATE wished to know from the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of
Trade, when the returns he had moved for with respect
to the export and import duties imposed by foreign
countries, would be furnished?
Mr. M. GIBSON regretted that so much delay had
taken place in the furnishing of the returns which the
Hon. Gentleman had moved for. He feared, however,
that the Hon. Gentleman did not estimate the labour re-
quisite for completing such a return, or the one he had
moved for, as the most detailed information was neces-
sary to render them complete. The Custom-house had
furnished their portion of the return from time to time,
but lie hoped, in the course of a few days, that they would
be furnished to the Board of Trade, when they would be
laid before the House. No unneccessary delay should
take place.

Mr. FERRAND desired to ask the Secretary
of State for the Home Department whether the
appointment of Mr. Mott to the office of district
auditor received the sanction of the Poor-law
Commissioners after he had been dismissed from
the office of Assistant Poor-law Commissioner ? 'Whe-
ther the Poor-law Commissioners allowed him to hold
the office of district auditor at the time that he was part
proprietor of the Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum, or
after the Commissioners in Lunacy declared, in their
report on the state of the Haydock Lodge Lunatic
Asylum, that Mr. Mott had failed to fulfil a positive
and solemn pledge which he had given to the justices of
Lancashire, and that he appeared quite unworthy of
the trust, and became most negligent and remiss in the
discharge of his functions? Whether they have al.
lowed him to hold the office of district auditor of Lanca-
shire, whilst living is the Isle of Man, out of the way of
his creditors; after he was seized by a sheriff's officer,
when on his road to audit the union accounts; during
the time he was a prisoner in Lancaster Castle; and
after a public advertisement appeared in the Times
iLhuendaitsicchargeof
newspaper, warning the public not to pay him money
Asylum?his Wd
uht
ieetsh, e
nhdol
ehfta su
nagg
nnd a baalnt
hdooungehd
belonging to the proprietors of the llaydoek Lodge
holding the office of district auditor?
been a 7
etoandhiodladtetsheforsittruhaetisoint u
arteifoenr,r efdr
otma .
Sir G. GREY said Mr. Mott bad not been dismissed,
nor
Thereh
had
dhadhe bee:
whom two had been selected. At the election made by
the guardians there had been ten votes for Mr Gardiner
and fourteen for Mr. Mott. The Act of Parliament did
not, require the sanction of the Poor-law Commissioners
to the election ; nor was it considered that his manage-
ment of the Haydock lodge Lunatic Asylum was a legal
disqualification to his holding the office. That part of
the question which referred to the justices having de
dared him unworthy of his tru t was not correct ; and
further, the Poor-law Commissioners had no official in-
formation of the allegations in the third part of the
question ; and with regard to the fourth, the Poor-law
Commissioners had received letters from Mr. Mott,

upon official business, from Manchester, dated the 7th
May, where they believed him to be at present re-
siding.

POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL.

The Order of the Day for the second reading of the
Poor-law Administration Bill being read,
Mr. BANKES presented a petition from a union in
Dorsetshire, complaining of the conduct of the auditor
for neglect of duty, and that they had received no re-
dress from the Poor-law Commissioners.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. FERRAND said he was thankful to his Right
Hon. Friend, the Attorney-General, for the manly man-
ner in which he had answered his question. Notwith-
standing, however, the high respect ‘‘ hick he enter-
tained for the legal knowledge of his Learned Friend,
he would be enabled to produce much higher authority
to bear out his own view of the case. He could not but
express his astonishment at the declaration made by
the Right Honourable Baronet, the Secretary for the
Home Department, that Mr. Mott had not been dismissed
particularly when it had been stated by the Right
lion. Baronet who had preceded the Home Secretary in
that office, had declared that he had been dismissed, and
that the Hon. Member for Bolton knew the cause why
he had been removed. He would leave that between
them ; but he could not but observe that something
wrong had been said to one or the other of them. He
was ready to admit that the Right Hon. Baronet had
said what he believed to be true. At the close of last
session the present Secretary for the Home Department
had give a pledge that a Committee would be appointed
in the present session to inquire into the poor-laws.
Sir GEORGE GREY denied that he had given any
such pledge.
Mr. FERRAND said there could be no doubt that he
had been so reported in all the papers. The Noble Lord
the First Lord of the Treasury, had also declared that
he was prepared to defend the conduct of the Poor•law
Commissioners. He would that night have an opportu-
nity of doing it. lie hoped he would do so, and prove
that the new prior law had obtained for the people the
blessings which were held out would follow in its train—
that it had been a blessing, and not a curse. He, at all

whenever any thing was said against the Poor-law Com-
missioners, the Noble Lord rose with great chivalry and
defended them ; and when the late Secretary of State
for the Home Department (Sir J. Graham) began to be
;itti; .:,-rieezeable with respect to the law, the
Lord got up and protested against any alteration in
law, and his sentiments were loudly cheered. " Unit, -
mity of practice" was, no doubt, a grand principle ; but
it was one which had been tested and had been found
fallacious. Now he (11r. Ferrand) had seen the
bodies of persons who had been starved to death
by this law. He once attended a jury, who
felt desirous to return a verdict of " wilful murder "
against the relieving officer, and the coroner agreed with
them, because it was well known to them that the man
had refused to afford the woman who had died relief ;
but when the man was taxed with this, he drew the
printed instructions of the Poor-law Commissioners from
his pocket and threw them on the table, and in the most
insulting manner snapped his fingers at the jury.
Sir GEORGE GREY—What was the nature of those
instructions?

events, could prove it had failed in conferring any such
advantages, and that it was a complete failure,
and had crumbled into pieces. The people of this
country had been acelietomed to boast that they
were never cane,: aeon so (Icy
was not passed by both branches of the Legislature,
but notwithstanding, they had been obliged, now for
thirteen 3 ears, to obey the orders of the Poor-law Com-
missioners, as the law of the land. A Committee of that
House had been appointed to inquire into the operation
of that law, and after having sat for four months, they
came to the decision that the Poor-law Commissioners
had acted in a most arbitrary manner towards the As-
sistant Poor-law Commissioners. He thought it was
not sufficient that the Poor law Commissioners should
be dismissed, but that the law should be repealed. When
the law was first broached it was supported by men
whose object was to do away with poor-laws altogether,
and to punish poverty as a crime. The person who
first brought it forward was Lord Brougham, who, be-
fore he introduced it obtained a pledge from both the
political parties that they would not repeal what-
ever might be the extent of the opposition raised
against it. He would ask, who had been selected
to guide the Bill ? No other than Mr. Malthus, a
man whose opinions on the subject was odious
to the country.—(An Hon. Member said he was dead.)
Well, then, he left his legacy behind him. lie was Lord
Brougham's guide in this measure. He who had de-
clared that he who was not provided with necessaries by
his parents, had no right to food ; that no place had
been provided for him at Nature's feast, and that he
had no right to be there. Lord Brougham defended
this gentleman, and stated that he had been
greatly misrepresented, and that he was a most humane
and amiable man. A Commission was then appointed
to inquire into the old poor-law, and evidence taken
by Assistant Poor-law Commissioners, who knew what
was required of them, and did what they were
ordered, as obedient servants. Then came forth the re-
port, that " dark document," which was so bad and
wicked, that the Duke of Wellington denied its existence.
It was opposed by a friend of his, now on a bed of sick-
ness (Mr. Walter), whose services would last for cen-
turies, when the Hogg Baronetcy would be buried in
oblivion.—(Partial murmurs.) That document had been
signed by two of the bishops of their church, the Bishops
of London and Chester. Lord Althorp introduced the
Bill into that House, which gave power to the Poor-
law Commissioners to limit the amount of food,
but not to increase it, and also to lower se ages. In the
correspondence of Messrs. Ashworth and Gregg, it
appeared that the guardians, in a case of a strike for
wages, were authorised to refuse relief if they knew the
parties could earn wages upon which they could earn
a subsistence. As soon as the New Poor-law Bill
passed, the Poor-law Commissioners employed persons
as .Assistant-Commissioners, whom they sent to the
agricultural districts to induce the people to
leave their homes, assuring them that if they
did so, they should have abundant employment
in the manufacturing districts. They placarded
places with tables of wages, which they never
did, and it was never intended that they should
receive. One of the bleakest things they did
was to send lir. Kay down to Suffolk and Norfolk to
induce the labourers to go to Manchester, where they
sent them ticketed and labelled, like beasts to the slaugh-
ter. But, as his Right Hon. and Learned Friend (the
Attorney-General) seemed to smile, he thought it his
duty to reiterate what he had said : the labourers sent
to Manchester were actually ticketed, packed in boats,
and without any places to go to, turned adrift, in the
streets of Manchester in the middle of the night. But
they should now hear Dr. Kay's own description of this
town three years before. In describing it, he said that
the inhabitants had ceased to have a pride in the ap-
pearance of their houses. They spent their lives in
squalid wretchedness—their domestic economy was
neglected—their houses were ill furnished and ill
rentilated their food meagre, and not nutri-
tious, and they frequently fell victims to drink.
Such was the description of Manchester, when the inha-
bitants of the southern districts of England were to be
absorbed into the workshops of the manufacturers. He
would detail to the House the cruelties inflicted upon
those agricultural labourers. Not content with calling
in the military, the Government sent down the Metro-
politan Police, and there, with drawn cutlasses they
sought to enforce those tyrannical laws. They
sold up thousands of the poor people. Immense
buildings were erected in the county as modern
bastiles, where they were immured in cells, not
allowed to go a place of worship, their diet
tables were worse than those of felons, they were com-
pelled to wear a felon's dress, and they branded their
clothes with the name of " the union workhouse" upon it,
,heir furniture was sold, husbands were separated from
their wives, and children stolen from their parents at the
point of the bayonet. The union workhouses were
cleared, and its inmates sold to the manufacturers.
He held in his hand as application of one of the manu-
facturers for these poor people to the guardians of the
poor of the Llangollen Union, dated only twelve
months since, in which the applicant stated that he
had employment in his mills for twenty or thirty
females, and also a number of boys, and stating that if
there were any in the union fit for such employment,
oue of the firm would come over to the union and bring
those unfortunate creatures to the factory districts. And
who were the parties who were chosen to look over those
unfortunate creatures? Why, it was a well-known fact
that if the Government could offer the office, a non-com-
missioned officer of the cavalry, whose previous occupa-
tion might be supposed to have inured him to wretched-
ness or made his heart callous, was the person whose
services they were most glad to obtain. These unions
were formed so large that the poor had to travel to the
board of guardians ten, twenty, and even thirty miles, in
oatrhdpi
seo,rotrht manoo
order to obtain their paltry pittance. Such was tile
distance they had to travel that it often occupied three
whole days in going and returning from the union. He
held in his hand a letter from a clergyman. in which he
tufsh,
milesGirht,
neoai
al
d sr
atevreene.
rd):ewtnithynmahee Atare:::nadi
sanction
blood-stained.
:cni
tet
dni keoosuknnniumemoietw no
bhfpe
law—forterNi
:ovspe
rehier)aovs
Poor
-e
leddeahiiNcoeviadf
Commissionerstl
wti
atrerso treatment.—(Hear,
trlmrtr iheebsonl
est.eb— (l
effectsoas
oonldifid sources
enhaor
had
poor obwtahihnoa
have
ev ao
intraveln sixpence.umb numbers
aean
died t
been shed, and that too at the point of the bayonet, in
the endeavours of the Government to enforce the cruelties
of that law. his would read to 4he House the solemn
pledges made by Lord Brougham when he pleaded in
the House of Lords for the second reading of this ini-
quitous Bill. (The Hon. Member thent'proceeded to
pulse to property, and destroy_
read an extract from the speech of the Noble Lord, in
which he stated that that measure would elevate the
icneness
country,
character of the people of this give a new im-
bed (continued the Hon.
Member) these pledges and
and- vice.) How
promises been realised ? The people had been robbed
and plundered under the operatio of that law for
upwards of thirteen years. Was it to be supposed
now that the curtain was allowed to descend quietly over
those scenes of horror, of blood, and of cruelty ? If
the GovernMent was prepared to take up on itself the
responsibility of all these accumulated cruelties, ;,hey
certainly possessed more courage and bravery than he
had ever given them credit for p •
ossessmg. Before the
passing of this law the people were promised good
wages ; neat, good, and comfortable houses. But what
was the result, as appeared by the statements of the
Hon. Member for Manchester some time since? He said
that the people of Manchester were some of there
living upon Id. per day ; that they were in the
habit of eating dead horses, and so poverty-
striken were great masses of the people, that they
were in the habit of pawnin-
g, their day clothes in the
evening in order to obtain their bed clothes from the
pawnbroker's to cover them at night. He had thought
it his duty to move some time since for a return of the
mode in which the poor had been disposed of ; teed
although that return had been ordered, still not the
slightest notice had been taken of that order, and the
reason given for it was that ao possible account coeeld
be obtained, and no return had been made from that day
to this. In the year 1843 the poor-law had been in
operation nine years. Now, what was the effect
of this law upon the morals, the condition, end
the habits of the people ? That law' which had been
pledged to produce such beneficial results ? He begged t, )
read to the House a statement, made by ono of the pro -
sent Cabinet Ministers. Lord Howick, when a ldeinh-ow
of this House, stated that in Sunderland the poor-razes•
had risen to 18s. in the pound. (The lion. Member th en
proceeded to read at considerable length an extract from,
a speech of Lord Howie's.) What a contrast (co n-
tinued the Hon. Member) did that statement present to
the fair pledges and promises made by Lord Brougham,
and others, when the measure was introduced. BA
would, therefore, convict the Government of having
been false prophets out of the mouth of one of the
members of their own Cabinet. He would also read to
the House a statement made by Lord Brougham in the
year 1843, nine years after the passing of the Act,
in order to show to the House in what manner
the operation of the law had borne out
the pledges and promises of its supportc;rs.
The lion. Gentleman then read an extract from t
Times of 1843, stating that a great number of the pool
of Stourbridge were subsisting upon turnips alone, ane
that the farmers in the neighbourhood had had five se
six tons a week stolen; but they were in such a deplor-
able state that the persons could not find it in thesis
hearts to prosecute them. He held in his hand an
account of proceedings which took place in the same ycsat
at the Brentford Sessions, before the magistrates of t ht
county of Middlesex. A poor man was brought u
before them in the prison dress, and branded in the way
lie had mentioned. The magistrates, and five or :six
of
all spoke with indignation the
were present,mane let
in which the poor were treated under the sanction of the
Poor-law Commissioners, and one of them, Mr. Armstroiag
stated that the country was coming back to the times"
of feudal slavery, and ho was glad to find that the
members of the Bench were unanimous in deprecating
the conduct which the Commissioners purs' aeci
towards the poor. He also had a number of extrr icts
which he had culled from country newspapers during the
years 1842 and 1843, which gave an account of the
manlier in which large numbers of persons were sent ti
prison for merely disobeying the orders of the Pt ear-
law Commissioners, but he would not take up the I ime
of the House by reading them, beyond stating that bey
had especial reference to Sussex, Hampshire, Es Kee,
Kent, Surrey, and London, and also with respect to the
Andover,
Redbridge, and Sevenoaks Unions. The trt sat-
ment of the poor in the Blything Union so exaspera Led
the working classes in that vicinity that they were ton
their way to the union (which was protected by pol ice)
with pickaxes in their hands, when they were met b ,3s
clergyman, who said, addressing one, " Honest ma ii!"
" Honest !" He replied, the law won't allow us tc be
honest ; when we come poor we are treated like felo as."
He, however, dissuaded them from their purpose. q 'his
occurred as far back as in 1842. And her Majes t v's
Government said, after all that had occurred, that tiw
law worked well, and they sceened the Poor-law C .ont-
missioners against public inquiry and public indigna Lion,
and aided and assisted theta iu oppressing the poor . ifctr

Mr. FERRAND said he had not got a copy of them,
but they were to the effect, that the man was not to go a
yard out of his parish for the purpose of dispensing re-
lief. The woman lived on the other side of a brook,
about ten yards out of the parish, but she had often re-
ceived relief from the same officer ; he, however, was
only in the habit of visiting that part of his dis-
trict once a week. Then the auditors had caused
the greatest dissatisfaction to the board of guardians,
Every post brought him letters setting forth the
evils which the auditors caused. Tho relieving
officer of Dudley had brought an action against the
guardians of the poor, for treating the inmates of
the union to " plum-pudding" on Christmas-day. In
1845, the Hon Gentleman the Member for Finsbury
(Mr. Wakley) same down to the House, and made a
horrible and startling statement, that it was currently
reported that the poor in the Andover Union Work-
house were so starved, that they were living on carrion,
and fighting for the possession of the bones which they
were employed in grinding for the purpose of manure. Ho
now came to 1847—and where, he asked—where were the
Poor-law Commissioners who had caused all this cruelty
and misery ? The Government said that they were to
be dismissed from their offices, but the Government
were still prepared (in a state of despair) to defend
them. Why did they do so ? Was it because
they believed that the charges which had been made
against them were untrue ? Could they deny the
state of things which existed in the Andover Union, or
the statements which he had made that night, could they
believe that the voice of the people throughout the
country would have been raised against them if they had
not been guilty of all that had been imputed to them ?
What did the Right Hon. Baronet say in introducing
clip present Bill ? Did he say that they must adopt
" uniformity of practice ? " No ; that the operation of
of the measure must vary with the circumstances of the
district of the country to which it was applied. Was
uniformity of practice " still to be the principle of the
measure ?

of ten months, thirteen months, fourteen months,
and eighteen months, and this was a state of things
existing, and this was the conduct pursued
by men in the receipt of public money to the amount of
.' •v
ell or fourteca sel as ear. -1-It:' C"la-
he se:„ to. i :l.e G were f,
attempt to enforce the powers of this pour-law, they
would have a rebellion in a week. They could not en-
force it against the rich, it was the poor alone whom
they could so oppress. They should become the pro•
tectors, instead of the oppressors of the poor, for there
did not exist a more loyal, a more patient, a more obe-
dient, a more industrious class upon the face of the globe.
And what they could have done to merit such treatment,
neither he nor any man could fathom. They had borne
their misery for thirteen years, let them depend
upon it the day of reckoning was at hand.
they had trampled upon them, they had deprived them
of their dearest rights, and they could not now appeal to
them with that generous confidence which they could
have done before they inoculated the laws of England
with the accursed principles of Malthus. They would
have no right to appeal to them for allegiance when they
refused them protection. He would conclude by moving
that the Bill be read that day six months.
Mr. WAKLEY seconded the motion.
Mr. ROEBUCK—The Hon. Gentleman might do
much mischief and effect little good. It was very easy to
talk about the 43d of Elizabeth, the tyranny of the Poor-
law Commissioners, and inalienable rights, without under-
standing anything of the three subjects. It was quite evi-
dent the Hon. Gentleman had never read the 43d of Eliza-
beth; he was quite ignorant of it, so much so that he would
lay anything that he had not ever opened the pages of
the Act that contained it. Nothing was so easy as to
rant about what one did not understand, and nothing so
easy to obtain popularity by a sham affectation of a de-
votedness to the cause of the people. Now he should
prove the ignorance of the Hon. Member. lie would
prove that the 43d of Elizabeth had not been departed
from. In the time of Elizabeth the convents were put
down ; the Act to which he alluded sprung from the
suppression of these religious houses, for they had been in
the habit of maintaining a certain number of poor around
them. They came to the door of the monastery, and
they received relief proportioned to their wants ; and
they might talk as they liked about the Reformation, and
"no Popery," and all that sort of thing—they might do
very well to he let off as cannon against one another
—but they could not controvert the fact of the immense
good which they conferred on the districts where they
were founded. However, after their suppression, a
number of sturdy beggars wandered over the country—
such are the words of the Act—and for these it was
necessary to provide. From hence sprung the 43d of
Elizabeth, which enacted that churchwardens should
be appointed, whose duty it would be to set to work
such children as had been deserted by their parents, all
also all such persons as were maimed or infirm, or who
had no means to support themselves. They heard a
great deal of the rights of the poor, but what he desired
was the rights of the industrious poor against the lazy
poor.h These latter braved the authorities of the parish,
cameintwoathe
frightenedv e stry,th eoyutdeomf ahnisdevcidtrseliehfoo, aanodsethief
pt they r
farmer
he refused, his stacks were fired, his cattle
were houghed,
and he himself stood in terror of his life. The local
authorities were totally unable to deal with this growing
mischief ; they said, let us unite a number of
parishes, and let us put the authority at a distance
from us. Let there be a central board in
London, to whom an appeal can be made. And now
what is the meaning of all this talk about inalienable
right? He remembered reading a poem in his boyhood,
" The Country Justice," he thought it was by Dyer, in
which these petty feuds were happily painted, for the
poet described a woman lying-in in a cart, while two
parishes were fighting almost which of them should re-
ceive and maintain her.—(Hear, hear.) The advantage
of this law then was the central authority—it was what
all desired; but as soon as three men are selected, as soon
as they enter Somerset-house they are marked out, and
there is not a trading politician who does not point his
finger at them in reproach ; and then the Hon. Member
comes forward and talks of the people of England, much
after the fashion of the three tailors in Tooley-street.
Depend upon it they would never have heard of these
evils were it not for the appointment of these three
Commissioners. With one or two exceptions, those who
spoke so loud about the poor-law were those who were
most opposed to giving political rights. Some test was
absolutely necessary in order to enable a distinction to
be made between the idle and the industrious poor.
This test was found in the poor house test, and
nothing was easier than to find persons who
were ready to find fault with this test, upon
all such popularity-hunting opponents of that
test he would put the stamp of canting hypocrites. It
was considered by the law that that man who was con-
tent to come to the poor-house and receive relief was a
man deserving of' relief. Now, a great deal had been
said about the inalienable rights of the poor to relief
conferred on them by the 43d of Elizabeth. The Hon.
Member had quoted from Coke and Blackstone, but it
was his (Mr. Roebuck's) opinion that the Hon. Member
did not know which of those great writers first wrote
upon the subject. Now, what was the meaning of in-
alienable rights? If they were defined, as the Hon.
Member said, by an Act of Parliament, then those
rights could be altered or removed by another Act, and
the Act abolishing those inalienable rights would be the
law of the land, as well as that which conferred this
inalienable right. The inalienable right spoken of was
a right to relief, but a relief to be given only by labour.
It was his habit day after day to go into the habitations
of his poorer countrymen, and it was his firm opinion
that there were thousands of the people of this country
worse clad, worse fed, and worse housed than those who
were taken under the protection of the pour-law, not-
withstanding the Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr.
Wakley) had ventured to call the poor-houses a den.
A poor man said that he was unable to support himself,
he came to the state exchequer, and was told that if he
came into the poor-house his wants would be provided for.
But then came in the pathos of the novelist and the poet,
who said what a hardship it was to separate the wife
from the husband and the children. Why, that was a
thing occurring every day in the life of the soldier and
the sailor, and even the experience of Irish Members
would add another chapter to the patriotic pathos of
novelists, for in most cases they were compelled to
leave their wives and children in Ireland, but no Hon.
Members were in the habit of standing up in that House
and in a burst of patriotic enthusiasm calling public
attention to their distressing situation.—(Laughter.)
He was quite aware that this workhouse test was a very
unpopular term, and then just at the close of the seventh
session of Parliament it was a very enticing subject to
lay hold of. He knew well the risk which attended the
course he was taking upon this subject, but as he had
commenced his political career so he intended to con-
tinue it in spite of all opposition to the contrary. It
was a matter of absolute necessity that a test should be
' provided for the able-bodied poor. Now, with respect
to the Poor-law Commissioners, he must say with
regret that they had not acted according to the law.
They had quailed before another power. The Times
newspaper was the great point of all the opposition to
this measure, and the Honourable Member for Knares-
borough was but a faint shadow, a sort of will o'-
the-wisp, of that journal—(Laughter)—and every
thump upon that red box, every parenthesis, every
accent in the speech of the Hon. Member was nothing
but a bad imitation of the Times newspaper. The arti-
cles of the Times newspaper were, however, written by
a gentleman conversant with the subject upon which he
wrote, and acute enough to see that the Commissioners
were not adapted to carry out the provisions of a good
and wholesome law. And this was the real cause of the
bad working of the measure—the Government had
chosen persons to carry out the measure who were unfit
for the task. Then the 43d of Elizabeth stated that
work should be provided for the able-bodied poor; but
it had been said that bones were given to the paupers to
crush. Now was there not in the different classes of
society many persons employed in trades and callings
which, if they were set to by the Commissioners, would
have raised such a storm as nothing could have crushed?
What was the trade of a nightman ?—(Laughter)—or
the type-founder, whose -life was destroyed by the small
the
painter, filings which entered into his system,—or
ainter, afflicted as he was with disease consequent
upon the pursuit of his calling,—or the collier,
working many fathoms under ground in about
two feet of space, in obtaining the coals
which made the cheerful Christmas fire ? What were all

Sir G. GREY—I did not say so.
Mr. FERRAND—Then is it now to vary? But did the
Government think that men had not the same love for
their wives and children in one part of the county as
in another, that concessions were to be made in favour
,if the northern part of that ceunty, in consequence of the
violence which they had manifested towards the
rueasnre. He called upon them, therefore, to say
how the measure was to vary ? They had no
right to pass such a law ; and, what was more,
the people of this country would not tolerate a varying
law under which the greatest tyranny might be inflicted
upon them. In some parts of the county they said
that no relief was to be given except in the workhouse,
but he had heard a Secretary of State state that the
p ople might have relief out of the workhouse. There-
tore, he said, let them have a law clearly defined, in
order that the poor might know how they would be
affected, and what cruelties they might anticipate would
be practised upon them, instead of leaving the matter
in the hands of an irresponsible board. He had read
the defence which had• been made of the Poor-law Com-
missioners, but it did not deserve the name which had
been applied to it, as it was nothing more than an
exparfe statement: it amounted to this, that after
thirteen years of oppression of the poor they had been
enabled to save 1,000,0001. a year, of which the poor
had been robbed, in order that the commissioners might
be enabled to make this boast. They might have saved
the rates in the south of England, where incen-
diarism was rife, and in those districts from
which the poor had been driven, to the manu-
facturing districts, to equalise wages, or to
escape persecution by becoming inmates of the gaols,
but in the north of England the very converse had oc-
curred. The guardians of Wakefield, thinking that it
would be no use to petition the House on the subject of
the poor-law, as Parliament had delegated its powers to
three Commissioners, petitioned the board, and urged
that the Wakefield Union should be abolished, as it
had been productive of the greatest evil, as the poor-
rates had increased 10,3061. in three years.—(Hear.)
That was the way they diminished the expenditure.—
( Hear, hear.) We had also returns from the unions in
his part of the country, but it was sufficient to state that
they had increased, and were increasing.—(Hear.) Then
what was the other cost of this unconstitutional measure
during the last 13 years ? First, they had had the re-
bellion in Wales, fearful outbreaks in the north of Eng-
land, incendiarism rife in the south, and a fearful amount
of concealments of childbirth, in order that they might
escape the treatment which they could not fail to expe-
rience in the unions. They had had to establish rural
police in different parts of the country, to call out
10,000 pensioners, to have gaols enlarged and new ones
erected ; the sessions in the north of England were held
every seven weeks, instead of every twelre weeks, and
winter sessions were obliged to be held, which was rather
an unusual occurrence, and Mr. Justice Coleridge had
stated at the last York assizes that crime was rapidly in-
creasing over the whole country. Then they were going to
build barracks in Birmingham, in order that they might
be enabled to dispatch the military to any part at a short
notice in order to keep the people in a state of despotism.
Consideration had caused this? Why, the tyranny
practised upon the people by the Poor-law Commissioner,
for they had the people discontented in the north, in the
south, and east districts ; and the peace was only main-
tained by the presence of the military and police. Work-
houses had been erected under the protection of a mili-
tary guard, and they had greater distress in this
country than they bad had since the time of the French
Revolution. These were the penalties they were called
upon to pay. And how long did they think the people
would submit to this state of things? they were going to
let the Poor-law Commissioners " down easily," but did
they think that the people were not sufficiently
aware that this would be a great question at the
next general ection ? The Whigs had stood
pretty firmly to the declarations made by them at the
last general election. But what was the conduct of the
tate Government ? What was their conduct with Cam-
bridge when the poor-law was made the rallying cry,
and when they came to the House and betrayed them ?
Lie could name a borough where two candidates took it
in turns to do the pathetic on the new poor-law—one
.vas returned to the House, and continued his opposition
to the poor-law, and the other was rejected, but he sub-
sequently obtained a seat in that House, and now sup-
ported the law.—(hear, hear.) He challenged any one to
,ay that the law had not only proved a great failure, but a
bitter curse upon the country, and the remedy was the
same cruel and unconstitutional system under another
form. In the first clause four Cabinet Ministers were to
be pledged to maintain this law against all opposition ;
and in the sixth clause two commissioners and the
president were empowered to use any powers vested in
the whole body. By the eleventh they were empowered
to summon witnesses, and also to make rules, and to
alter them. But was the Right Hon. Baronet inclined
to sign an order to separate a man from his wife, and his
children from their parents? Was he going to sanction
all the tyranny which had been practised during the
past 13 years? If so, what right had he to do so ? A
poor man had as inalienable a right to relief as the
Right Hon. Baronet had to his own property. Lord
Brougham had admitted that this was so. Was he pre-
pared to test the measure upon those who were near and
dear to him ? If not, what right had he to inflict its
tortures upon the poor man ? And let him tell the
Right Hon. Baronet that a poor man was just as fond
of his wife and children as the Right Hon. Baronet was
of his. But what must be the position of a Cabi-
net Minister who was compelled to act thus towards
the poor man, for no other crime than that he was
poor and unable to obtain work. Then they threw the
responsibility upon her Majesty. By the 20th clause
the Queen, by the advice of the Privy Council, was em-
powered to alter the rules ; but the four Cabinet
Ministers were Members of the Privy Council. The
Ministers were, therefore, responsible. Then they were
to appoint inspectors. From that tyranny to whom
were they to appeal ? Their appeals might be kept
each from the Sovereign. He contended that the House
had no right to pass the present Bill. Locke, and a num-
ber of high authorities, were opposed to the principle
which was here contended for. LordWinford thought that
powers which were here given to the Poor-law Commis-
sioners were such as could not be exercised by even the
Sovereign. Lord Abinger had also strongly expressed
himself upon this question. It was their bounden duty
to set the present matter at rest. He would read a letter
which he had received from a working man. (The Hon.
Member here read the letter in question, which strongly
deprecated the working of the poor-law.) Cooke and
Blackston agreed with him on this subject. Judge
Haines was also of the opinion which he expressed, and
even Lord Brougham himself admitted this right
of the poor to relief. And they had no right
to impose upon them a vassalage. The Poor-
law Commissioners themselves said that the pre-
sent crime, which was the result of destitution,
was repugnant to the feelings of human nature. The
Hon. Member for Bath was constrained to state that
for Ireland it was necessary to go back to the 43d of
Elizabeth. As many Members of Parliament would,
no doubt, refer to the col duct
of the poor-law guardians,
he would not dwell upon their conduct. He would,
however, allude to the Long To (
wn union—llear, hear.)
The lion. Member deprecated the state of that union.
And these were the foundations on which reports were
used against him in 1842 for the purpose of crushing
him, reports to which he had not further alluded to
than to state that Sir John Walsingham, in his report
upon the same union, showed that 49 inmates were sleeping
in thirteen or fourteen beds, and when he laid similar
facts before the House, the Home Secretarhisybreast, , Sir James
Graham, turned up his ey
Thed report stated, that from
such things could occur.
the day the law was enforce , in 1838, to the time in
which it was made a resident poor law, commissioners
had never entered it. On hearing this, the late
terMi
said, high time for the Government to interfere, yet
what was the case ? When did they enter the House
again ? not for four years—not till May, 1846—not
until he himself came down to the House, and asked the
Government to insist that an Assistant Poor-law Com-
missioner should visit Bingley. Now, let them see what
were the next visits paid. They were made at intervals

these but as different species of that labour which was
the common lot of humanity, and by which man was to
obtain his livelihood. Yet what a cry had been raised
about the employment of the poor at Andover, while all
the great mass of the enjoyments of society in general
had been overlooked. Was it to be said for a moment
that the idle vagabond at the gate of the industrious man
should be entitled to say " Give me of your substance, for
you are rich ?" The industrious man would have a
right to say "I have a wife and children, I support
my family honestly; and why should John Thomas, the
idle vagabond,: be entitled to claim my hard-earned
money?" But how was this John Thomas, the idle
vagabond, to be distinguished from John Smith, the in-
dustrious man? Why, what more natural, than to give
him work? Then it had been said, they were set to
work in a shed, open to all the windows of heaven.
Not so. however, the buildings were well built and well
ventilated. Ah but, then, said the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, it was a gaol, and the dress was a prison
dress. Well, be it, or be it not, a prison dress, all he
could say was, that the dress, such as it was,f
the was
much better and much warmer than the dress o
honest man out of doors ; but because it
adrbursos.wn
Norogwrowyhectoleoouurldanbdeumniofrmroeeb,
etuhredu
ht awna st
oa'N have'pars isooaar
question depending upon the colour or cut of a coat.
For so
red and
the
this question
dress
really
uniform,was,then it would
for fthe colour
not
had
been be
nowe poor t hoef rEe aulgql
auneds nl, s
Let the
cwahl laetd
wasa p rtios obne ddroens se.
forl3 tuht
Hon. Members for Knaresborough and Finsbury bring
forward some measure upon the subject themselves.
Only fancy a Bill drawn up by the lion. Member for
Knaresborough. What would he (Mr. Roebuck) give to
see an Act for the poor drawn up by the Hon. Member
for Knareshorough. If that lion. Member would
kind enough (for there was no dionubhtieath)attohe
only be
some spark of kindly feeling
into
routesuch ah measure,im and hishe
Bill(Mr. Roebuck)
thebring had
out oruilnd
aunvdereyr,tafekwe
specimen of legislative confusion had arisen
minutes. A
lately in all the hurly burly of a dovbo'
Committee appointed
to inquire into the Law of Settlement.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK—The law of settlement has nothing
to do with the poor-law.
Mr. ROEBUCK—That was now one of the bad effects of
speaking on a subject upon which the person was unacquainted,
and showed the rashness with which
" Fools rushed in where angels dared to tread."
lie believed, in saying this, that he was speaking the senti-
ments of the people of this country. The rational part of the
people, and the rational part of the labouring population. agreed
wer
with him. He did not maintain the argum'nt that men
e
could equally entitled entitled to relief, whether honest or dishonest:
they told a man that he might obtain relief—
a t
heh
considered
nand it, whether able or unable to obtain work,
forwhon
h