The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-25 00:00:00

Gentleman attributed the consequences all to the opera-
tion of the law. The law l—why it arose from that
shame with which society had chosen to brand the
woman who had yielded at a moment of temptation, and
she refused under these circumstances to reveal the true
circumstances of the case. This was a case which the
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wakley) quoted, to show the ill
consequences that followed the bastardy clauses,
which he said led to murders and great mise-
ries. But he (Mr. Roebuck) asked whether
it was the law that led to child murder in
any single instance. Was it not the shame with which
society branded the crime ? The woman that was care-
less, that was insensible to shame; was just the person
who would go into the house and make use of it.—(Mr.
Walilev here intimated that the food was inferior.)
Ile (Mr. Roebuck) did not know any class in the country
who were subject to worse diet than the agricultural
labourers of Dorsetahire. He pledged his word and his
authority on that against the word of the Hon. Gentle-
man opposite. But the Hon. Member for Knaresborough
seemed to have been startled at the word absorb. He
seemed to have all sorts of fancies stirred by the word.
Now what was the meaning of it ? Why, in some of
the counties of England labourers were found not earn-
ing half sufficient to sustain life, and as in such a county,
such as Lancashire, their might be a demand for labour,
the guardians were at the expense of having the poor
people removed to a sphere where they might earn 20s.
or 30s. a week. That was what was meant by absorb-
ing ; but the Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the
guardians must have swallowed the poor people.—
(Loughter.) The Hon. Member for Knaresborough,

however, indulged in portraying an aged courple-of
three score years and ten," who had gone into the
workhouse, and were separated ; nor only so; but that
on being detected talking to each other, were incar-
cerated for it as an offence. Now if this was not
mere declamation. The lion. Gentleman ought to have
traced out the case, and to have had it investigated be-
fore the country. But he feared that the Honourable
Member was too much accustomed to indulge in
declamation, perambulating an inflammable part
of the country, perhaps with a view to rising
upon the backs of the people to a high place in the Hosse
of Commons. But, the last time he (Mr. Roebuck) heard
of him, he understood the people of England were about
to be rid of him—(Laughter)—that he was going to
Dublin.—(Laughter,) Well, he must say to the Right
Hon. Gentleman that, in the estimation of the sound-

thinking people of this country, careless declamation,
wild expressions, and infuriated boisterousness, were
proofs either of insufficiency of intellect, or a want of
the love of truth.—(Cheers.)
Mr. FERRAND wished to explain. merely in refer-
ence to what had fallen from the Learned and Hon.
Member, as to the right the surgeon had to b 3 paid out
of the poor-rates, that the payment was so small that
gentlemen could not attend to the cases. He then
quoted from evidence taken before a Committee on the
Poor-law, in 1834, when Mr. Guthrie said that the
salary was so insignificant, that no person qualified to
have the trust could attend to the sick, and any one who
did attend them, did it merely to keep out an interloper.

Mr. ROEBUCK explained:
Mr. HENLEY said the statement that had been made
by the Hon. Member for Bath was so much at variance
with the truth that he felt bound to say a few words.
The fact was, that the sum paid to the medical doctor,
was for medicine and attendance. He thought her
Majesty's Ministers were making important alterations
in the law.—(Hear, hear.) Why, since the alteration
of the law, any person who was acquainted with
the subject, must know that child-murder had increased,
and so great was the evil, that the Government were
obliged to come forward and make an alteration in the
law, giving the woman a remedy against the putative
father; but the law, even with this alteration, was found
to be wholly inoperative. He thought that the change
in the law left what was vice entirely untouched.
Captain PECHELL said he thought that they should
know who were to fill up the places which were to be
made vacant by this measure. But upon this
subject the Government was entirely silent. The
officers who wero to be dismissed, were to be
discarded without any reason being assigned. He could
not help expressing his sorrow that these poor-law offi-
cers, whose services had proved so valuable, should be
so unceremoniously, and so unjustly treated. This aas
particularly the case with respect to Mr. Chadwick and
Mr. Parker. It was said of the latter gentleman that he
was not fit for the public service. Was that conduct
that should be pursued towards a gentleman, through
whose means, in conjunction with the other gen-
tleman, most valuable information had been ob-
tained. lie hoped that the change would give
the country men perfectly efficient, and who would
be able to deal with parochial matters. If he voted
against this Bill, however, it was not upon the ground of
the dismissal of the poor-law officers, because he
thought, after the evidence brought berOre the Andover
Union Committee, that it would be impossible for any
Government to retain these gentlemen in office.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK said, if the Honourable
Member for Bath were correct in his accusation of
the Honourable Member for Knaresborough, that
Honourable Member was slaying the slain.
The Honourable Gentleman had said that complaints
were not made against the Poor-law Commissioners for
acting up to the strict letter of the law, but for allow-
ing themselves to be acted upon by other influences.
The present Bill was brought in to remedy that evil,
and he (Mr. Borthwick) thought that it would do so to
a certain extent. The present proposed Bill would be a
remedy in part, but he thought that it was neither so
deep nor so comprehensive a one as the House had a
right to expect upon this subject. The Bill did not at
all affect the question of the law of settlement or the
general tenor of the Bill itself, but merely referred to
an alteration in the administration of the existing
measure. lle thought that it was a question fairly to
be raised that this Bill did not go far enough in apply-
ing a remedy to the existing grievances. It was a great
evil that medical attendance in workhouses was
supplied by contract, and that in that contract was
included medicine. An Honourable Member had
stated that a medical officer had declined giving
proper remedies in a certain case, on the ground that if
he were to give medicine in every case he would run
through the whole of his property. If that fact were so
no one could doubt that the medical officer had been
guilty of a great crime, but how much more was to be
attributed to the law which permited, and in a certain
degree enforced, such harsh and inhuman measures. If
the union entered into a contract for medical attendance
and supplied the medicine itself, Mr. Borthwick) thought
that this enormous evil would be obviated. He, him-
self, could give an instance of the cruelties under this
law. In a country union, the name of which he would
not give unless required, a labourer had maintained him-
self all his life. He was married and had one .child.
The mother died, and the child was left with the
father, who was afterwards compelled to go
into the workhouse. The father fell ill in the
workhouse and the aunt applied for admission. She
was shifted from one person to another, until, at length,
she found the father dead and the child dying, the child
(who was nine years of age, never having been allowed
to see her father in his last moments). These were the
evils arising under this law, and he would only ask the
House whether it was safe to allow their imaginations
to be led away by the eloquence of the Honourable
Member for Bath in support of a law under which such
Acts as these could with safety be perpetrated, He, for
one, could not rest until a proper and salutary altera-
tion of the present law had taken place.
Mr. BANKES said that he thought it justice to dis-
cuss in that stage those clauses which he objected to in
this Bill.
Sir G. GREY said that they had not as yet been pro-
posed.--(Divide, divide.)
Mr. BANKES said that he thought that this
was the proper time. He should discuss the Bill,
instance,
as it stood, stating that it was not the
Bil l hhe
what
referred
to. He wished to know, in the first
were
the duties that he assigned to these Commissioners
which they proposed to elect, and whether the Govern-
ment thought that the present was a proper time of the
session to bring forward a motion of this importance.
He argued the great difference between the proposed
commissioners and the rresident of the Board of Con-
trol. In the one case the Government proposed to make
the official a legislator, in the other he was no legislator
—he made no laws. But this was the proposal by which
the Government proposed to remedy the evils complained
of. What he thought they ought to do was to increase
the power of the local authorities, and to throw the
responsibility on the president, then if error was found in
the working they would know where to throw the blame.
The Member for Bath was wrong, when he said the
question was, whether this was a better system than the
other ; that was not the question. It was whether they
could found a third system better than both. The Bill
had been near five months before the House. At the
last hour they brought up new clauses, which they were
to add as a rider to the Bill, and they
wouldwere about to
prevent him discussing
.these. He pport
the
this day
bring
tamendment—that thed
leave B
thebe read
Government third
In fact it was
for-
ward a better system in a new sessiorn.
the time of the
not, perhaps, worth the trouble o
House to fight about it, for tilieauwy
Government
Bill,rnm haveentm nighto,
after all, as in the case of the t
serious
ionuostwithoutintention
hop
topero thatceed
hwisith their
tnoenwlcvloauulsdesb. e
ace
cE
great, d e d
itmo ,
parno dv
ehmee fnetl t
in
no nt
the
ien ce
Bill. t shuaglt giteef swtiha
os
gi th
tw ot
hu lad? btehe
one,p res eanntd Billh ga so nf o essential
that am ethndemeoeunnt
torny tyvhaeseexnitsititlnegd
to a much better one, he would most certainly oppose
the present.—(Divide, divide.)
admCoinlistSelrißn'gritlhOelptiolorthlaowugwhatsthaant theunc
opnr es st
ietnutti
emnoadl eonoef
He always objected to the system of centralisation, on the.
ground that local government was infinitely better. The
present Bill proposed only to change two of thseaCoe mmmoidse-
sioners, and put in two fresh ones, just in th. e
same
as was adopted when he used to exhibit his humble
person in the country dance, where he was called upon,
" to change sides, down the middle, and back again.'
There was nothing good in the present Bill, and he
should certainly do his utmost to prevent its further pro-
gress. The Bill was a trickery Bill, a Government pa-
tronage
Bill, an ad eaptandum Bill, a Bill meant for the
hustings, and not to pass through the House ; it was a
Bill proposing to amend the former one, but making it
infinitely worse ; it was nothing more than a Govern-
ment shuffle, and he thought with the Hon. Member for
Dersetshire, that the country had better put up with the
present Bill than pass the proposed one for five years.
The new Parliament might perhaps be able to propose
some better Bill, but he did not know what sort of a
Parliament the new one might be ; the present was, if
he might be permitted to use the expression, " a very
dirty one," and he really had his fears that the next one
might be even still more " muddier."—(Laughter.) He
should give his most hearty vote in favour of the motion
for rejecting the Bill.
Sir G. GREY said that he had stated upon several oc-
casions the principle of the Bill, which was, that of esta-
blishing a general system of superintendence over the
country.