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

derailed by all parties except the Ministers. He did not
believe that it was possible that under this the poor could
obtain justice from that House. The measure was one
of the most unfortunate propositions that could have
been made to that assembly. The poor-law was to have
diminished crime, to decrease the expenditure falling
upon the parish, and remove many of the existing evils,
and he asked the House had it accomplished any one of
those objects? The facts when ascertained show that
seven-eighths of the relief is administered out of doors.
The Act of 1834 has entirely failed. Had the details
bow existing been foreseen in that year as the effects of
the Bill then proposed, all England to a man, would
have risen against it. Yet all these details were to be
sanctioned by the Bill now on the table. Why, in the
old days of the Tory and Whig, and the unreformed
Parliament, they would never have tolerated such a Bill.
This Bill proposed that the president of the poor-law
board should have a seat in that House as well as the
secretary. Under this regulation, the solicitor, clerk,
and other officers of a board of guardians would
do all in their power to obtain political power,
khd the effect of that would be, that attention
'ould be withdrawn from their legitimate function—
that of relieving the poor, and directed to purposes alto-
gether extraneous. It was said that the law worked re-
markably well, but the fact was that the law was made
a dead letter, and then it was expected that it worked
remarkably well. In the Andover Union the
poor were literally starved.--CCries of " Hear, hear.")
had been proved that the children had been in the
habit of running away with and eating the potato-peel
'thrown to the hogs, and, in one instance, a poor woman
had to carry the corpse of her child under her arm,
through the town of Andover, to the church-yard. He
was sorry to hear that the Noble Lord had stated that
he was prepared to defend the conduct of that Poor-law
_iommission in that House, for if there was ono thing
which was more odious thau another to men, and which
they were more anxious to avoid, it was the Poor law
Commission. The conduct of that body was in.
defensible ; and yet there were many gentle-
Men in that House who, to the misery and mor-
tification of the poor, were prepared to uphold it.
If the Government should decide against a liberal allow-
ance what would be their position—would they be able
to stand against the cry made ngaiest them. And let
them take the converse of the propositions. Why, then,
they would have all those poor-law guardians against
them who were anxious to grind down the poor. Why
should there not be a poor-law court, with a man of
high character presiding over it, and a public advocate
Maintained to plead the cause of oppressed poverty ?
The present system was working badly for the inter( sts
Of the people, and was dividing the rich from the poor.
The unfortunates who had to apply for relief, owing to
the enormous extent of the union, had often to travel
forty and fifty miles before they could obtain it.--
(Hear, hear.) No attempt in the present Bill was
made to 'remedy this defect and contract the pre-
sent gigantic size of the unions.—(Hear, hear.)
Re objected to the workhouse test, in the manner in
which it was carried out ; he was of opinion that every
destitute person in the kingdom had a right to relief.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member then referred to some
• documents, and said that it was not too late to do right.
The Government could abandon the present Bill with a
good grace, in a much better manner than they aban-
doned the Railway Bill, for in that case the public re-
quired some such measure. He bad conversed with
practical men, and they were all unanimous in the con-
demnation of this Bill, and quoted the opinions of se-
veral, to show that it was a dangerous Bill, and that it
would sooner or later end in a revolution, and that no
Monarchy would ever be able to bold office long while
it was in operation. Believing that the measure was an
unjust and an impolitic one, and that it would operate
most injuriously, he would move that it be read a third
time that day three months.
Mr. FIELDEN, who was very inaudible, was understood
to say that he could not support a Ministry who would
introduce such a Bill, and he should, therefore, vote with
the Hon. Member for Finsbury.
Mr. FERRAND said that there was not a statement
made by Lord Althorp when the law was first brought
forward but had been violated by the Poor-law Commis-
goners. When the reports of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners were made, on which the new poor-law was
founded, he asserted that a considerable portion of the
evidence in favour of the 43d of Elizabeth was suppressed.
Who, he would ask, were they who defended the Poor-
law Commissioners in that House? The Member for
Wolverhampton, and the Noble Lord, the Member fur
London, defended the Poor-law Commissioners ; but
there was a circumstance which detracted very much
from that defence, which was, that both the Noble Lord
and the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, were related
to one of the Commissioners. The late Secretary for
the Home Department also defended them, but he did
not attach much weight to his defence, as the Hon.
Member for Dorchester had denied all acquaintance with
the transactions of the Commissioners at the
time they occurred, and now he said that he
Was cognizant of them, and approved of them.
The Right Hon. Baronet also said in the course of his
speech, that the Hon. Member for Weymouth had made
an ample apology to him, in reference to certain state-
ments. Now he (Mr. Ferrand) wished the Right Hon.
Baronet would act in a similar manner towards him, and
apologise for the many erroneous statements which he
bad made with regard to him. He had not, however,
acted in that honourable and gentlemenly manner,
but said, " I had appealed to Caesar, and to Caesar I
should go." (Laughter.) Now, the Right Hon.
Baronet stated on the 28th of January last, that in six
weeks from that time the trial should take place; but
it was now the 24th of June, and nothing had been
done yet. He had, however, received a notice. a short
time ago from his solicitor, that Lord Denman had inti-
mated that the trial could not come on before December
or February next. Such, therefore, was the position in
Which he now stood, and all be could do was to
complain of the postponing and procrastination which
had taken place. The Noble Lord at the head of the
Government stated on a former occasion that he (Mr.
Ferrand) had made statements to the House which were
utterly unfounded. Now, he denied having done so, and
he was prepared to stand by anything he had said.
What statement had he ever made that had been refuted?
When he called upon the Noble Lord at the time he
made such an assertion to name one, he could not do it
till he was prompted by the Hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Wolverhampton. He then attempted, parrot-
like, to repeat the words again, but he could not do it.
He at length, however, said that he (Mr. Ferrand) had
stated that the Poor-law Commissioners delighted in
murdering children. Now be (Mr. Ferrand) denied that
he had ever said any such thing. He never said so; and
be now called upon the Government to tell the House it
that was the way in which they ought to have acted.
Re would ask them if they were now going to pass such
a law without giving some guarantee that the aged and
infirm of this country would be protected from the
cruelties which had been hitherto practised upon them.
Re would ask the Noble Lord if he was aware that there
were tens of thousands of the aged and infirm who were
convicted of no crime, but who, from the distress in
which they were involved, were obliged to. sell off all the
little furniture they had, and seek a refuge in the union
workhouse, and that, consequently, their property, their
comfort, their hopes, and their liberty, were all affected
by the present law. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
the Member for Bath, who had attacked him with so
much asperity when the question was last under
discussion, said that he was willing to interfere
with regard to the aged and infirm ; but he
(Mr. Ferrand) wanted the Government to interpose.
Why if the people were to combine together against the
law they would overturn the Government in a week,
but there was no redress for the poor, and if he stood
up to defend them he was met with a secret document
which, if it had been _ true, would have prevented him

from ever after sitting in that House.. The 43d of
Elizabeth provided that labour should be found for the

indigent poor. If they did 80 now theya of
would
the co
ldhave a
robust labouring population. In his part
he found men begging for work, but they were refuseduntry
it, because they were told by the guardians that they
had applied to the Poor-law Commissioners to give
them the power of doing so, but that they had refused
to accede to their request. But in how many unions
were they compelled to refuse relief except within the
walls of the union workhouse. On the second reading
of the Bill the Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man the Member for Bath taunted him with being
desirous that the poor should lead a
life
idleness ; but no magistrate had committed more men
Mto
the treadmill for deserting their families than he
(r.
Ferrand) had. When it was shown that they were able
to work, and could have obtained it, he invariably sent
them to the treadmill. But when a man had sought
work, and could obtain none, he was compelled to part
with his furniture at one-twentieth part of its value, and
to enter the union, to subsist upon a diet which reduced
him to such a state of debility that lie was unable to
work when he procured it to do. Such an inveterate
dislike did the people entertain to the law, that he should
not be surprised if a revolution was the result. He at-
tended a meeting at the Crown and Anchor a few weeks
ago, at which a resolution was passed condemning the
present poor-law, and an amendment proposed by Mr.
Fergus O'Connor, to the effect that, in the opinion of the
working people, they would receive no redress either in
or out of Parliament unless the charter became the law
of the land, which was equivalent to universal
suffrage. There was a large number of persons, moving
in a higher walk of life, present, but, nevertheless, eight
of ten of those present, held up their hands in favour of
the amendment. What caused all this dissatisfaction ?
Twenty years ago they heard nothing about the charter,
but as the Reform Bill, for which the Whigs taught the
people to cry, " the Bill and nothing but the Bill," de-
prived the people of their franchise, they thought it
would be well to give them some compensation, and they
proposed the New Poor-law Bill ; but if the same feel-
ing of dissatisfaction continued, the Government would
find it a far from easy matter to preserve the peace of
the country. Year after year he had explained the
grievance to the House, but still them and their peti-
tions had been treated with silent contempt ; and the
same treatment which was pursued in the Andover
_ union, also prevailed in other unions throughout the
country. Why, it was only the other day that he was
shown over a poor-house, which was stated to be a
model—as a place in which the people were well fed
and well treated—but he found that the rules
of the Poor-law Commissioners were disre-
garded when the directors found the poor suffering
from them, and that they bad been complained of for
doing so ; and it appeared that a gentleman was sent
down by the Poor law Commissioners, who walked round
the house but never entered it. No sportsman in Great
Britain or Ireland would allow his dogs to be treated in
the_ same way as the poor were treated under this law.
Medical men, for instance, were paid fourpence for
attending a case. He asked the Hon. Member for
Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) if a medical man could properly
perform_ his duties for a fee of fourpence or sixpence ?
A medical man in his part of the country had
told him that he could save a man's life with
ease by giving him proper medicines, but that
11 he bad done so it would have cost him the