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

whole of his salary. Did they think that the poor
would not brood over such cases—in their club-rooms, at
their meetings, and in their shops ? He wished to have
some pledge from the Government that the children of
the poor would not be treated in the same way as at
present, as it was now the practice to send children to
the manufacturers, whenever they applied for them—a
manufacturer was, for instance, in the habit of saying,
" Send me the number you have, their ages, sex, health,
and I will send a person to look at them ;" and he
would, ne doubt, send an overlooker, who " took stock."
They were, no doubt, taken to be " absorbed," for
that was the term in the factories—children
who had been reared in the . open fields,
and villages were taken from the union workhouses, to
be destroyed in the manufacturing districts. But the
Government, in the face of the opposition of the people,
were prepared to carry the Bill by a large majority. He
wished to know how the Noble Lord, and the other
Members of the Government could meet the people at
the ensuing election, if they passed this Bill without
modifying any of the provisions of the old law. After
saying that the Ten Hours' Bill had been carried by the
agitation of the people, and that he had abstained
from taking a part in an extensive agitation, which
was proposed for the Whitsuntide holidays, on the
ground that it would not be respectful to the
Government, some of whom supported a Ten
Hours' Bill, he proceeded to say that he
believed no man, with the exception of the Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Finsbury; possessed more of the
confidence of the people than he did, and yet, notwith-
standing all he had urged against the poor-law, no alto-
rateen was to be made in it, and the only notice taken of
his statements by the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government was, that the statements, which he had
brought forward were unfounded. He repeated this ob-
servation of the Noble Lord to the 2,000 or 3,000 who
comprised the meeting at the Crown and Anchor, and on
his calling upon them to say whether the statement was
true or false, they all held up their hands in the affirma-
tive. That House, however, did not represent
the people ; the Reform j3ill deprived them of
the franchise, and when the present freemen expired,
instead of sending one hundred and twenty Members to
that House they would not solid one ; and when they
bowed and scraped to them upon the hustings, they
would recollect that, at the close of the session a ques-
tion of the most vital importance to an immense mass of
the people was brought before them, and that they re-
fused to redress the grievances of which they had com-
plained during the last 20 years—that the poor had still
to walk forty miles to obtain relief, as the unions were
still of an outrageous size ; that the pay to medical men
for attending them when ill was at a rate which a man
would not pay for the treatment of his dogs ; that the
aged and infirm were still driven into the workhouse when
they sought relief ; and that their furniture was stolen
from them, for he held that the compulsory sale of a poor
man's furniture before he could receive relief from his
union was nothing more than a theft, and that men were
separated from their wives, and children from their
parents. How could they meet the electors and non-
electors? But did they think that a Parliament elected
on the universal suffrage principle would pass such a
measure as the one they were now discussing? The
burden of the song of the Poor-law Commissioners to
the rate-payers was " We have saved your money ;" but
the Hon. Member for Finsbury had shown that the very
converse had taken place. They saved it by starving
the poor to death, a fact which was recorded in the ver-
dicts of coroner's inquests, and if the verdicts of juries
were to be set at nought, they had better be given up,
and the expense avoided, but they had proved that the
poor had been murdered by this law.
Sir JOHN CAM HOBHOUSE—By the order of the
Commissioners?
Mr. FERRAND—By the order of the Commissioners.
He would give a case. He attended a coroner's inquest
in his neighbourhood upon a woman who was starved to
death. He was present when the jury returned from
viewing the body, and in reply to the coroner, they
stated that the deceased was a mere "bag of bones."
The child of the dead mother could hardly give her
evidence from the state of distress in which she
had been plunged. She said she had gone to
the relieving-officer, and that he had refused to
afford her and her mother any assistance. The man
who was present admitted that this was so, and in the
most insulting manner he put his hand into the pocket of
his sporting jacket, and producing a paper said," This is
my authority." It stated that he should not pass out of
the boundary of his parish ; and this poor woman did not
live more than twelve yards on the other
side of the brook which terminated its boundary.
The verdict was that the woman was starved to death,
and he said that she was murdered. She had committed
no offence, and yet because she lived a few yards from
the boundary line, she was allowed to die from want of
food. How long was this to continue ? How long was
this crying evil to continue ? If he used violent lan-
guage, the treatment of which the poor had complained
was also violent ; and he, for one, would never be a
party to the oppression of the poor, and then expect
them to be loyal. Had not the poor cause to pray for a
revolution whilst this treatment was inflicted upon them?
Any change must be for the better for them. This
was the state of England, and he trusted that it would
be suffered no longer. Year by year it was growing
worse, and he warned them to take care, for unless they
redressed their grievances then they would have to redress
them after going through the horrors of a revolution.
He would, therefore, second the amendment proposed.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that one would suppose that
they were discussing the new poor-law, whereas they
were only discussing that portion of it which required
a certain number of gentlemen to form a commission
for the administration of those laws. By the present
system three gentlemen were appointed to carry the
Act into effect, and by this measure it was proposed to
substitute one acting commissioner, and certain nominal
commissioners, and the acting commissioner was to
have a seat, if he could get it, in that House. The only
change they were discussing was as to the formation of
the Board of Commissioners, and he asked what course
of discussion had been pursued by the Hon. Member
for Finsbury, and the Hon. Member for Knaresborough.
The Honourable Member for Finsbury had dragged into
discussion the principle of the whole law, and had entered
into the details and operation of that law which in its
integral state was not before the House. With regard
to the charge which had been brought against the com-
missioners, he did not think that there was any cause of
complaint against them for adhering too strictly to the
law itself, but for vacillation and for yielding too much
to the pressure from without, and to the observations of
the press. Charges had been brought against those
commissioners in that House when they had no oppor-
tunity of defending themselves ; and the most violent
attacks and strongest vituperation had been put into
operation against them. Under the new system these
charges would no longer be made, for.the answer would
be given on the instant. Those who read the accusation
would,' in the same paper, read the defence, and
anonymous slander would no longer be sent to
the press to be published, as the most instant
and immediate refutation would be given. He
not complain of these charges, for, standing as he did
in the midst of that circle, governing, as it did, by its
influence, the whole world—the slightest accusation,
even the utterance of the greatest slander upon this sub
ject, became so important, that they could not, and dared
not refuse to listen to it. lie would ask whether it was
becoming in a Member of that assembly—a Member of
the Commons of England—to assert that the people had
been murdered under this law, and to bring forward
cases which were not substantiated, which went forth to
the world and increased the cry which was already
going? A charge had been made against a gentleman
belonging to a generous profession—a surgeon—of an
offence which approached nearly to murder, and certainly
amounted to manslaughter. In the name of the Com-
mons of England, he demanded the name of the person
who had so conducted himself? By the law of England,
a person was required to give the relief that was
vreisqinoinrse.d b4faLl
tthheossetawtehmoenstouhgandthereee under
nlif
made
that its
a p r o-
per-
son had not administered that relief to a dying person
which the law compelled him to admhllster, why did not
oncethe Hon.tak Gentleman,oognsano e whoof s
ow
grossa was
h i m
e breach
law
Another statement equally strong had been de.
m
by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough; Theeair.
cumstances were flagrant, and the order of
the Poor-law Commissioners was stated to
have been brought forward in justification.
Even if she had gone to the wrong overseer, considering
that hunger did not kill except by slow process, there
was time for her to have gone to the right officer. But
the Hon. Gentleman charged with murder the high
officers of the Crown, a crme which was only less than
high treason. He would be amazed if shame, that feel-
ing of an ingenuous bosom, did not rise at the assertion
of such a calumny. He would take one of the cases
mentioned by the Hon. Gentleman. He told the House
that a woman near her accouchement had engaged a
lodging, a surgeon, and a nurse, but she was
deliveredings while alone. Wny, the very description
showed her to be no pauper. But the Honourable
Gentleman attributed
et h el
acwo
In_sewq uheyn ciets
arose the
mo p
tehr aa-t
Lion
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
trhue
circumstances of the case. This w ads
,atcaseh
oww itchne t
lel
Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
cwohniseehq u
he no c ebasotard clauses,
it rigs.
was
the belaw
that
child murder in
said le ( thatd
fl°tVolla°klviniudYr)dgetrhsoe.teand greatmise-
led
any single instance. Was it Roebuck) asked whether
The wo
not
namtheawt iwthaswehairceh_
society branded the crime ?
s just the person
less, that was insensible to shame,
wllheo(Nwierr. erior.) wwhaokwoulde
rgeo
intimatedthe house
that andth
the
make
was inferior.)
it.—(Mr.in
word of the Hon.eßosuebbjuecckt) dtoidwnoortske ndoiwetantyhacnlastshein athgericcouultnutrraYl
alaubtohuorreitrys oofallthoarsteatgshaiiares.t
the
ee pledged his word tend his
Gentle-
manseemed tto opposite. hv Be
übtetehne startled Member
e forwo Iriduaarbessobrbr."Pihe
seemed
htaotwashaveth
aell
msoeratseieg of faentcitets?stirvvrehdy b, yinthseemweoredf.
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.—
( Laughter.) The Hon. Member for Knaresborough,
however, indulged in portraying an aged courple of
'w‘
othrkreheouscseo,reanyd were separatedearsandten, ; nor only
"w hohadgone into the
on being detected talking to each other, so;we but
eitatchaart-
cerated for it as an offence. Now if this was not
mere declamation. The Hon. Gentleman ought to have
traced out the case, and to have had it investigated be-
fore the country. But be feared that the Honourable
Member was too much accustomed to indulge in
declamation, perambulating an inflammable part