The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-09 00:00:00

a, the centralization of authority. Ile knew well the
:Noble Lord had always acted on different principles.
Fe (Mr. D'lsraoli) believed the liberties of this coon
I: y were mainly dependent on the great dominion of
principle and duty. He thought the tendency of mo-
dern legislation was unfavourable for this great end.
It was for this reason he opposed the pauper legislation
of the present Government ; he thought it was founded
on principles peculiarly adverse to the cbarseter and
siplrit of the nation ; he thought they bad originally
founded it upon mere financial considerations, and he
believed that in this point of view it had utterly failed.
Ile thought it had produced an immense mass of liti-
gatioa, and he believed that, more even than the
tarbulent spirit of party politics, it was the pri-
mary and secret cause of popular outbreaks.—( Hear.)
Believing that they should consult the character of the
+people in per circumstances when legislating for that
ease, he felt bound to move that the Bible be read a
second time that day six months.
Mr. IVAKLEY in seconding the motion, begged
leave to express his surprise that the Noble Lord, the
Secretary for the Colonies, should have proposed to
the House a Bill of such vast importance without ex-
plaining to them fully and efficiently the grounds upon
which the proposition was made.—( Hear, hear.) 'file
Bill proposed by the Noble Lord consisted of two dis-
tinct portions—the first part was to continue the Com-
mission for ten years, and the second portion was a
provisior framed for the purpose of giving to the Coos-
missioriers such powers as they thought they might re-
quire.—( Hear, hear.) The House was perfeely in
the dark as to the principles upon which the Bill was
first proposed. When the Bill was originally proposed
by Lord Althorn, he believed it was seconded by his
lion. Friend, the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, (Mr.
Hume) and he said he believed the very object and
principle of the Bill was to make a distinction between
vice and profligacy among the poorer population, and
those who were reduced to a state of destitution front
misfortune. It that were the principle of the
Bill who was there who would dare to condemn it?
If such were its principle, who would dare to
soy that it was obnoxious to the spirit
of .Englishmen—who would dare to say that it could
iiijure either the rate payer or the pauper? But his
lion. Friend was not allowed to remain long in his
error. Even that night, when the discussion arose on
tl:e introduction of the Bill, he was undeceived, for
then the Noble Lord, with that manliness and noble
spirit which always characterized him, even when he
w.s in error—he then unhesitatingly avowed what was
the principle of the law ; and what was that principle ?
—a principle which had been openly avowed, in
the British House of Commons by the first Minister
of the Queen is that House—avowed unblushingly is
the great empire of England, boasting of its army and
navy—of its military and maritime power, and of its
mercantile and commercial resources. He begged the
attention of his lion. Friend to the declaration, be-
cause it was calculated to remove from the public
lased everything in the shape of delusion and miseon-
ception. The Noble Lord said he differed much from
his Honourable and Learned Friend the Member for
Teienrnouth, who thought a distinction ought to be
made in favour of merit. He (Lord J. Russell) thought it
most unwarrantable that any Board should pretend to
say who was meritorious. All the public could do in the
shape of relief was to adhere to the wise and good pro-
vision of the Act of Elizabeth, that no poor person
should be allowed to starve.—(Cheers.) Those chests
came from the Liberal side of the House.—(Cheers
and a laugh from the Toni •s.) He that morning con-
suited " Johnson's Dictionary," for the mean-
leg of the word " liberal," and he found it explained
as meaning " magnanimous, generous, and the opposite
to parsimonioes."—(Cheers and laughter from the
Tories.) But what could be more parsimonious than
this Bill ? Its object was that the poor should not
starve—that they should be shut up in prisons—that
they should receive the least possible quantity of food
sufficient to sustain life—that they should be flogged
once a fortnight, and that they should be clothed in a
dress bearing the stamp of degradation, only that they
should not be allowed to starve.—( Hear, hear.) He
had never been a party man—(Hear, and a laugh)—
he hid never fastened himself to the wheels of faction.—
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Faction had ever been
the curse of this country.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
He had never tied himself to support any Ministry,
whatever their professions might be. Bat he would
say this, that if Ministers expected the support of the
public, they must not ask the House to assent to such
a Bill as this.—( Hear, hear.) In the name of the poor
and the working people of England, he was obliged on
this occasion to make an earnest appeal to the great
Conservative party.—(Cheers on the Tory, and laugh-
ter on the Ministerial side.) He prayed to God that
that great party %voted now come forward in its strength
on behalf of the working men of England. The landed
;aristocracy of the country were the natural leaders o
itsa people.—(Oh, oh, responded to by cheers.) So
continued the Hon. Gentleman, there was again a'
cLer and a simper on the Liberal side.—(A laugh.)
Teo &tnt commercial body and the manufacturers
called for a repeal of the Corn-laws. They asked, it
was true, for a reduction of the price of bread, but they
wed knew that wages must always be relative.—(Great
cheering on the Conservative benches, and some marks
of di s ant from a few Members round the lion. Gen-
stem tn.) He knew that opinion might not be aereeable
to all—he saw that it del not please the Hon. and
Learned Nleniber for Dublin, but he was surprised
that the truth should make that Honourable Mem-
ber groan.—(Continued laughter.) The manufacturers
will knew that wages must he relative—that they must
be relative to the a'nount of food in the market, and to
the amount of the demand for labour.—(Renewed
cheers.) lie would make his appeal to the Conserva-
tive party. The Liberal party, on that subject, were
attached to the Noble Lord—they gave their confi-
dence to the Noble Lord ; and they had some reason
for confiding in him, for the Noble Lord never deceived
them, and he would boldly tell them in that case that
his object was to prevent the poor from starving. The
Poor-law Commissioners published a Report in De-
cember last. The Noble Lord, with that candour and
condescension which every now and then actuated
Ministers, wrote to them an obliging and kind note,
telling them that their period of office had nearly ex-
pired—(he did not see the note, he only guessed the
purport of' it)—anal that the time for the Commission
was nearly out ; and the Noble Lord asked them if
they could not write a Report, showing that they ought
to receive their salaries for ten years more. Let them
exert their ingenuity, they were told, to the utmost—
let them see what they might effect in the way of illus-
tration. These gentlemen did set to work, and a
number of hands were employed, many of them selected,
not because they were remarkable for their humanity,
but for their cleverness. The ingenuity of these parties
having been exercised, a Report was concocted and pre-
sented to the Noble Lord, who slid he thought a c ise
had been made out. On that case a Bill was framed,
and sent to Ministers. The Bill was framed in Somer-
set House, and the Noble Lord, with all humility, pre-
sented it to Parliament. The Report of the Commis-
sioners, in the first instance, showed that, of course, no-
thing could be so effectual for the due administration of
the law as the continuance of their own labours, and
that they might, therefore, be continued in office for
ten years more, or, in fact, for ever. They stated that
the Bill would relieve them from all the embarrassments
of the present system ; that it would enable them to
encompass every Board of Guardians, and to accom-
plish the objects of the Legislature. That was done in
a country which boasts of its freedom, sagacity, and
foresight ; but had it any parallel on record? Had they
ever before heard that public men were to make a Re-
port with reference to their own conduct, and showing
that they ought to continue in receipt of their salaries ?
And yet that had been done in the present case ; and
the Report, so framed, had been presented to the
Noble Lord. One of the points most characteristic of
the Report was a complaint that paupers who received
relief did not display a spirit of gratitude. He believed
that Hon. Members knew well how paupers were con-
fined in the union workhouses—how they were fed,and
how they were treated. And was it not, he would ask,
marvellous that, human nature, under the circumstances,
should show no gratitude ? No, the paupers Were so
s'nseless and thoughtless as to be ungrateful. But he
(Mr.Wakley) denied that their gratitude was called
for—he denied that it ought to be expected of
them ; and he would say more—that those who
did expect gratitude from them did not prove
themselves qualified to carry out the Poor-law.
Were they poor slaves? Had they lost every right as
Englishman because they were poor? and was that the
doctrine to be maintained in a Christian land ?
(Cheers.) Because they were poor were they to sa-
crifice every right they possessed as independent men ?
It was said they had no gratitude, but he would ask by
what right did they receive relief? By a right conferred
on them by Act of Parliament,—a right precisely the
same as that by which the richest man in that House
held his lands. He denied that they should be called
oa to show their gratitude for that relief. The Poor-
law Commissioners had referred to the Committee of
Inquiry before the Commission was established,
and they rely that that Committee made out a case
for the amendment of the law. It was far from him to
say that the Administration of the 4311 Elizabeth, had
been in every instance just and discreet. The admi-
nistration of that law had been in a variety of circum-
stances in the highest degree objectionable, not only
as regards
.the poor, but as regards the rate-payers.
But while he admitted that, he was not called on to
support the proposition for its amendment.
How was it that while it was stated on all
hands that the poor rates had increased, no reference
bad been made to the increase of property and
population ? neither did they take into account that
they had expended 300,000/. or 400,000/. per annum
on a single Commission, and 100,000/ a year on a
single lady. When by their new laws they had exas-
perated the millions of England, and when they had
raised up a spirit that made the nation tremble, it was
then said that they were a restless and ungovernable
people. He would now show the House what had been
the amount of the poor-rates, for the twenty years pre-
vious to 1835. Ile thought they would show the

House a new view altogether of the question ; and it
would indicate to the House, that if the commercial
wealth of the country increased, that there ought to be
an increase of the amount of relief bestowed on the
poor. For the five years ending March the 25th
1814, to 1819, the expenditure for the Poor-rate
was 6,288,000/. ; from 1819 to 1824, it was
6,431,000/. ; from 1824 to 1829, 6,157,000/. ; and
from 1829 to 1834, it was 6,754,000/. ; and taking the
average of the first and last ten years, from 1814 to
1824, the annual expenditure averaged 6,356,000/. ;
from 18?4 to 1834,', 6,455,0001., showing in the ten
years before the Poor-law Amendment Act came into
operation an increase of 9,500/. The increase the
House would see was 1 per cent. in ten years. Now
in what ratio did population increase ? Why in the
ratio of 16 per cent. In what manner did wealthin-
crease, judging of that from the amount paid for legacy
duty ? Why from 1815 to 1825 the amount was
319,363,000/. ; from 1825 to 1835 it was 382,577,0001.,
being an increase of 6:3.214/. in ten years, or at the rate
6,000,000/. a year. The increase of the property was
at the rate of 6,000,000/. a year, and tie increase of the
poor-rate was 95,0001. a year ; and yet an outcry had
been raised that the poor-rate would soon absorb the
whole property of the country.—( Hear, hear.) Now
what was the operation of the Poor-law Amendment
Act, and what were its effects on the feelings of the peo-
ple ? That law came before that House under the
sanction of a Liberal Administration, it was proposed
by a Liberal Ministry, and it showed how cautious
they ought to he in the use of terms, far he felt no hesi-
tation in declaring that no Tury Administration would
have proposed such a law, and that if they had, they
would never have enacted it into a law. In 1818, a
proposition was made in that House to give a right of
plural voting to rate-payers. By an Act, called
Sturges Bourne's Act, the rate-payers, who were rated
at 1.50/. a year, were entitled to give six votes in parish
elections. What was the proposition under the Poor-
law Amendment Act? Did the Noble Lord by this
Bill now before the House propose to modify that sys-
tem of rating ? How did he reconcile the manner in
which the right of voting was exercised in parishes in
this country with the manner in which he proposed that
should be exercised by the Bill for the Registration of
Voters in Ireland ? He (Mr. Wakley) could not
understand the degree of liberality which appeared in
the one case, when everything that was illiberal was so
prominently displayed in the other. Under Sturges
Bourne's Act,passed in 1818, an occupier who was rated
at 150/. a-year was entitled to give six votes. What
was done by the Poor-law Amendment Act ? That
right of voting from occupiers was transferred to non-
resident owners, and under the existing laws, the non-
resident owner could give by proxy six votes for the
, very property which only enabled the occupier to give
three votes. Was this just? Was it a specimen of
liberality ? Was it the kind of franchise which ought
to be awarded to them by a Reform Government ? If
it were, the sooner that Government was changed the
better would it be for the interest of the people.—
( Hear, hear, from Col. Sibthorp.) The public were
labouring under a delusion with reference to the cha-
racter of the Government, and the sooner that delusion
was dispelled, the better would it be for the country.—
(Hear, hear.) Indeed, the Bill of the Noble Lord did
propose in some measure to modify the right to vote by
proxy. Why, under the existing law he (Mr. XV akley)
knew an individual who, in one parish, put in sixteen
hundred votes by proxy. The Noble Lord proposed
that in future a man should only give twenty-four proxy
votes. What effect has this system of proxy voting, and
this system of voting with regard to owners? What effect
had it upon the mass of the rate-payers ? Why, they were
virtually disfranchised ; they felt it, they knew it, and they
were indignant at the effect of the law upon their interests.
They said, "Of what use is it for us to interfere in the
elections ? we are absolutely deprived of the right of
voting by the plurality of votes which are given by rich
men, and by the voting of non-occupiers." Under these
circumstances they were absolutely indifferent to the
election of guardians, and they felt no interest in the
matter. He (Mr. Wakley) could tell the House that
in consequence of the operation of the law, and by re-
flecting upon these things, they were becoming dissatis-
fied at heart with their proceedings. They had no re-
spect for the Legislature of the country ; and lie would
ask whether this was a feeling which Conservatives were
desirous of seeing extended through the land ? The
public, said the Hon. Gentleman, the public are be-
coming detached from the Parliament of the kingdom—
they feel no interest in your proceedings ; they tell
me that it is useless to present a petition to
this House—that they do present a petition now
and then, but when it is presented not a word
is allowed to be spoken upon it, and that, in fact,
the whole proceedings of this House are adverse to po-
pular rights, adverse to popular interests, and adverse to
popular feeling. Now, if the principles he had condemned
were not obnoxious, if he did not feel them to be ob-
noxious, yet if the people as a body were opposed to
them, he might endeavour to express their feelings as he
understood them to exist. But when he found these
principles were really obnoxious, when he entertained
no doubt of their being hostile to the public interest, he
should be entirely wanting in his duty to his consti-
tuents if he did not take the part he was now taking
with reference to the Poor-laws. I say, said Mr.
Wakley, it is a cold-blooded mercenary Act,—l say it is
an Act based on fierce and savage prinuiples,—l say it
is an Act calculated to lead to the misery and torture of
the deserving poor of this country, and, more than this, I
say, it is an Act calculated to excite the muscle and
bone of England to resist the authority of Parliament. I
do not hesitate to predict that if you proceed with this
law, and try to carry it out, you will produce in
this country a feeling of indignation which nothing but
force will be able to resist. Are you prepared for this ?
Is it your desire? Sir, I do not believe that it is. It
is my firm conviction that this House has legislated on
this subject thoughtlessly, and without due reflection—
that it has been instigated to legislation by statements
put forth by the Poor-law Commission, based, in e
great measure, on fallacy—containing statistical tables
now known to be untrue, and which deceived this
House, and led it into false conclusioes with regard
to the result. Now, the poor labouring man, who has
toiled thirty or forty years, and, at the end of every
day, has had scarcely bread sufficient to maintain him-
self and children, prostrates himself on his knees be-
fore you. He appeals to your humanity, to your reli-
gion, and to your love of justice, and asks you, in the
name of God,to retrace your steps, and to act no longer on
a law which is so savage in its nature. He states that after
having laboered well, and endeavoured to keep his
family from the workhouse—that having done his duty
by his neighbour, and violated no law, he is unable to
maintain his children, and implores you in the name of
Heaven to look upon him with feelings of compassion,
and not let him become the vic'im of the mercenary
wretches who desire to make his poverty the ground
of infliction of punishment. I have witnessed cases
calculated to break the heart—l have witnessed the
furrowed cheeks of men who have attained the age of
seventy years acting us Jurors, whose furrows were
filed with the tears of sorro,v and grief at the desti-
tution of the fallen creatures. They ask of mo
" What is Parliament about ? what do they desire?
Do they wish the people to be murdered ?" I say,
No—Parliament is deceived—it is the desire of Par-
liament to do justice to the people. But still, Sir, I
I am not believed, because against my assertion there
is the operation of the New Law. They hear the one, but
are co:npelled to obey and to reflect upon the other.
Do Ministers know what poor people in this country
suffer ? Dana the Noble Lord know what is the nature
of physical toil ? 'rake a boy, the son of a labouring
man. At the age of 15, dragging his feet, and toiling:after
the plough ; at 21, aye, at an earlier age (for I do not
put the case at the worst) he fancies himself a man ;
he can mow, and reap, and plough, but the dawn of
every day tells him of misery and toil to be gone through
in order to obtain his bread. No luxuries, no comforts,
but a constant fight waged between his physical body
and food. The next day and the next it is the same,
and at the age of 60 he is broken down and palsied.
His body becomes weary, and his toil more oppressive
to him, as his energies decline. He passes the gate of
the poor-house, " There is my doom ;" and, in order
to make it more consolatory and gratifying to him, in
the exercise of your Christian humanity, a cemetery' is
attached to the back of it ; so that, after being located
in the dwelling, his eyes may be regaled by the view of
the sods which cover the unfortunate beings
who had gone before him.—(Hear.) Day after day
these reflections are operating upon his mind. At lest
he can no longer earn the value of his wages, and his
employer, acting on the principle of political economy,
say's—`` Well, my good man, I have lost by you the last
three weeks, and I can't lose by you any more. I have
given you Eis. a week (high wages in our neighbourhood)
and I can't employ you any longer. "I am very sorry,
Sir—l hope you will try me a little longer "—" No,"
the answer is, " I can't, indeed." He applies to the
geuardians for relief. The guardians in turn say—
" Come into the house." " Why, Gentlemen," he re-
plies, " I have a cottage and a wife and family, let me
remain out, and allow me 3s. or 4s. a-week.' The
reply is " No, we would be glad to do it, but the Com-
missioners acting under the law will not allow us.
The Commissioners sit in Somerset House, we can't
touch them, we can't reach them, we cannot control
nor influence them. We should be delighted to com-
passionate your situation, but we cannot. We have
no means of overruling their authority. We would
give it to you, but we cannot." His hopes are at an
end. The cloud of despair from that moment over-
shadows that man. He enters the gate of the work-
house, and feels at that moment that lie has entered the
portals of his tomb. Now, Gentlemen, is that Chris-
tian legislation ? Is it the legislation of an assembly
of men who really desire to see their fellow-countrymen
happy ? Can such, I ask, hear of the operation of a
law, of this nature, and yet vote for its continuance ?
The Noble Lord, Ministers, and men of wealth, whose
pursuits were entirely at variance with the feelings of
; r-law
practice Act,
as
a mthe poor, could have no knowledge of the condition of the
poor ; for, if they had, they would never support such a
Manyedicyal moo,
earsag°' he
(Mr.
Mr.
and he had
:Vwa kal
es y the Poor-law
was
opportunities in that capacity of witnessing what was

the condition of the poor in their dwellings. He saw
their miserable huts—their horrid hovels. He had seen
women who, when they were agonized by the pangs
of childbirth, had not the accommodation of the
Honourable Gentlemen's horses in their st s-
tales, or dogs in their kennels. That he had
witnessed a hundred and a hundred times ; at a
period when some little luxuries were required,
some comforts demanded, there would not be a single
thing at hand—a little cold water, or small beer, or dry
bread, being the only things which a Christian, under
such circumstances, could be afforded. Were Hon.
Gentlemen aware of those things ? But it was told him
(Mr. Wakley) by the politicsl economists, that that law
would raise the wages of the labourer. Well, they had
had it six years, and had it raised their wages ?—(Hear,
hear, and cheers from both sides of the House.) Oh,
then, there was a difference of opinion about it—there
were cheers from both sides of the House. Some gen.
tlemen thought that it had raised the wages, some con-
sidered it had not. Would they by the operation of
that law force wages up ? That was the question. Let
them for one moment remember the ticklish ground on
which they stood. They told the working people, the
object of that law was to raise wages. But, he would
ask, were wag :s raised ? He was informed they were
I not. It was his belief that they were not. He heard
from various parts of England that they were not.
He could tell them that in one county—in Devonshire
—they were only 7s. or Bs. a-week. Was that raising
the wages ? Did they wish that the agricultural
labourers in that county should combine ? Tae mowing
season in Juno would soon arrive. Well, the farmer
would say to the labourer, " John, the grass is ripe for
cutting, you had better commence mowing in the mea-
dow below on Monday next." John answers, " Very
true, Sr,a I believe the grass is ripe, but we cannot touch
it on the old terms—we cannot take 2s. now—we must
get 7e. We have formed a little society—a union sort
of thing—(l,aug,hter)—and now we cannot put a
scythe to the grass unless you give us 7s. an acre ; in
three weeks the grass will be spoiled, but we cannot cut
it for less, for we are told that Parliament has passed a
law to raise our wages, and if we don't act thus we
will be csiminals ; we mutt save some money, but we
cannot save if we don't get it to save." Well, the
grass will be cut, and that difficulty got over. By
and by the wheat, the barley, and the oats will become
ripe and require cutting, the farmer says to the la
bower, " Come, John, begin the ricking." He replies,
" No, Sir, not on the old terms. Parliament has told
us that a law has been passed to raise our wages, and
we cannot work, then, on the old terms ; we would be
criminals if we did." Was it the desire of Gentlemen
possessing a great stake in the country to force men
into such combinations, and destroy all the friendly re-
lations that might exist between the employers and the
employed ? If that were not their desire, their course
was a most extraordinary one, for he could assure them
that it would necess wily produce that effect which he
mentioned. It was of no use to disguise the fact ; the
opinion entertained by the people was that it was Hon.
Gentlemen's object to deprive them of any relief either
in or out of the workhouse. They might be right or
they might be wrong i❑ that opinion ; but neverthe-
less it was their opinion. Now, if that were not the
object, what were their arrangements. Take, for ex-
ample, Kensington parish. How many relieving offi
cers were there in that parish, which possessed 25,000
inhabitants, and was 16 miles in circumference—that
parish bordered close upon tile Court arid upon the
Palace, and was under the noses of the Commissioners.
How many, then, were the relieving officers in that
parish ?—One. In S. Luke's parish there were
40,000 inhabitants, and lately the relieving officer had
indeed got an assistant. Good God ! did they mean
to tell him that it was possible to give the poor the
relief that they required under such a system ? It was
impossible, and the people knew it. What was the lan-
guage occasionally held to the poor when they applied
for relief ? What was the language addressed to
the wife of a poor man when she applied for relief ?
The officer said, " I'll hang you." He admitted it, and
by way of extenuation said that he used that language
in a joke. In Kensington what happened in the case
of Elizabeth Friars, whose name had been mentioned
that night. A woman was sitting on the floor, worn
out, exhausted, and with mortification in her

legs.—(Hear, hear.) A poor Irish girl had given

her shelter, and asked the union doctor to come and
see her—he went, and the girl was Edam :el at her being
informed that she would be subjected to three months
imprisonment for giving that shelter to the wretched
creature. The relieving officer came in, and the poor
woman was dying. The girl remarked that, the medi-
cal ;:entlemen had told her she should be imprisoned
for three months for giving shelter to the woman, and
what was his reply. " The doctor was right," said he.
These officers were to be sure reprimanded, but they
were not discharged from their situations. But the
Commissioners exercised a new function in that case.
After the constituted authorities had made an investi-
gation of the facts—after the jurors of the neigh-
bourhood had been sworn to inquire into the circum-
stances and returned a verdict, and pronounced accord-

ing to the facts. what did the Commissioners do

Why they sent down a gentlemen of their own, with
directions to try by every ingenuity to get rid of the
moral effect of the verdict which the Jury had pro-
nounced. In all such investigations the gates of
the workhouse were locked. The rate-payers
were not admitted—the reporters of the press
were not admitted. The Board did as they pleased.
They might punish, imprison, or torture, and the poor
man had ❑o redress. He was not permitted to go out
—how was he to look for work ? How was he to eb-

tain the assistance of his friend ? He was completely
at the mercy of his tyrants.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He
(Mr. Wakley) did not wish to say anything personally
offensive to any Member of that House, but he was
there to discharge an important duty. He had the
greatest opportunities of witnessing the operation of
this law, and he had only now stated the facts which
had come under his observation. The Commissioners
and the Noble Lord had sanctioned the punishment
of Lisney, by the guardians, who had been both his
accusers and his judge. Had the Noble Lord
bettered the condition of the poor people by this Bill ?
The Noble Lord had added to the offensive power of
the Commissioners over the guardians, which had been
exercised in so tyrannical a manner that the gentlemen
of England would not submit to the humiliations to
which they are subjected if it were not from a wish to
protect the poor.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member
for Maid6tone had moved that the Bill be read a second

time this day six months, and he (Mr. Wakley) in se-
conding it, took the liberty of recommending the Noble
Lord not to allow the question to be put to the House,
but to withdraw his measure at once—(Hear, hear)
—to make way for another Bill,to limit the Commission

to two years and reduce its power.—(Hear, hear.)
In such a Bill the Noble Lord would have an opportu-
nity of putting the Poor-law upon a rational
basis. In the present state of the administration of the
• Poor-law there was no uniformity. Every union had
its particular rules, and pretty rules they were. The
lion. Member then read an extract from the rules, in
which leave was given to the guardians to allow a sepa-
rate room, under peculiar circumstances, to aged and
decrepid people, on condition that they make a minute
of such permission on their books, with their reasons
for granting it—a copy of the resolution being trans-
mitted at the same time to the Commissioners, without
which it should be invalid. Such was the condescen•
skill of the Commissioners to the gentlemen of England
who acted as guardians.—( Hear, hear.) He had
shown by statistical details that the increase of the
Poor-rates before this Bill had borne no propor-
tion to the increase of the national wealth.—(Hear.)
Still the Commissioners said they had saved some
millions by the alteration in the law. The truth, how-
-7 ever, W6S that the Commissior ers, in order to produce
an appearance of saving, had struck out of the account
every charge which they could have excluded. They
omitted, for instance, the charges of Coroners; which
had formerly been paid out of the Poor-rate, and which
were now paid out of the county-rate. John Bull now
paid with his left hand what he formerly paid with his
' right. The reduction, therefore, was a deception. But
after all had they satisfied the rate-payers? Let them
ask the rate-payers what they wished for. Let the
rate-payers be appealed to by an honest system of voting,
and let them say whether they desire that saving at the
• expense of the comforts of the poor ; and what would
be their answer? Their answer would be that they
would rather perish, that they would rather go them-
selves without their meals than the industrious
and deserving man, worn out with age and
toil, should be deprived of these comforts essential
to him in his old age. They were opposed
to the Malthusian maxim of the Noble Lord, who said
that the object of the Poor-law was merely to prevent
the poor from starving. His Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Kilkenny said, on the other hand, that the olo-
ject of the law was to make a distinction between the
deserving and the undeserving, between the idle and the
industrious man, and he (Mr. Wakley) would go with
his Hon. Friend. He would support any law which
tt
hh
ee
lHa
wo
,n.wl‘hleehmhbee rs
al: r
wlhiai ltk ehnandyhhe
would lay that down as a principle. But he would ask
its
ecpoeurladt i shun p, peonrdt
°env'
when he heard the Noble Lord
propound the course
which the Commiisioners ought to follow to carry
into effect. The Hon. Member concluded by o
ing the amendment. s
e c uid ..t
Mr. G. KNIGHT said that notwithstanding the
statements of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, he should
congratulate the Noble Lord on the introduction of his
measure. The principle of the Bill was that of cen-
tralization, and he thought that without such a principle
the amended Poor-law could not be carried out. The
law, it was true, had become a subject for invective and
unmerited censure ; and he (Mr. G. Knight) was not
surprised at that, for with many such a course was po-
pular. It was always more pleasing to give than to re-
fuse, especially when we were dealing with other people's
money. It was unpleasant enough to bo held up
and announced as the enemy of the poor, but those
who heaped their censures on the advocates of
the measure, should remember what was the state
of things before the law was reformed. He would
beg of them to recollect that, under its influence, the