The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-21 00:00:00

to more effectually removing the evils of the present sys-
t,m, with "L adee-g- t, the tower of the Minister, or
zi tie would come when the. pea plc
viroele t inn titalt r into spelt own hanils.--(Cheers )
Mr. P. SCROPE said it had been remarked by other
Members who had previously spoken, besides those who
had just sat down, that this discussion bad brought
forth three or four different subjects, each of them
differing from the other. First, there was the question
of the Bill before the House ; secondly, the question
which was raised by the amendment of the Hon. gent.:
ber for Knaresborough, as to the merits or demerits ot
the Poor-law Amendment Act of 1834 ; and, thirdlir
there was the question of the merits and personal con-
duct of the Poor-law Commissioners themselves.„
(Hear, hear.) He agreed with the Hon. Gentleman w,o_
last spoke as to the difficulty he had pointed out in !ay
existing system, such as the inefficient remuneratio:
given to the chaplain and medical officer of parisheu;
and the distinction that was made between the refire
instruction of the pauper and the criminal; butetshos;
were matters for after consideration. The real
for them now to consider was, whether the present
law Commission was good; but before considering tte;
point, he must first ascertain what washeno
principle of the Act of 1844.-0104 e the
The principle of the Poor-law Amendment Alt was
asserted
removal of local abuses, and to that principle he
huoit„
at the time the measure was introduced. tte ,the°r was
however, that to abolish the commission aLtoge'" aQ one
not the way to get rid of local abuses. Thai *-c-- d
put down
reason of the unpopularity which the coninussion
met with, for in consequence of their seekingpo
vosition
speculation, favouritism, and jobbing, a str°llgAfi, great
was excited against them. Another reason o
unpopularity, was the prepossession against
which bad
sive workhouse test to the able-bodied poor,
ifS
not the effect, as was anticipated, of raising the
of the labourer. The poor-law was the very worse.e,
the exclu-
the allowance system. The latter applied no tests,._L",
former applied the labour tests, and tended to Dl3l*
back the pauper to the condition of a labouring mil'
There was a confusion in the mind of some Upon tolideol
two very different systems. He always disaPPW
the allowance system. At the same time tittle there it
much to be said against the union workhouses...be
might be too much to say with the Hon. lew_ Of
for Knaresborough to call them gaols, but the defenreefor
these same rt ceptaeles, by the Learned iden3,,,bego to
Bath, was very bumble, when all that he eOO3 „'lttes
show that they were not gaols was, that tbe
could walk out when they pleased. Mit it' .10t reason
mitten, with a recent author, that there Wee h-teore
difficult to express. Why. every decent mant_e33,l;
every decent woman, felt they ought not to house Wall
On the motion of an HON. MEMBER, the •Re,°-",,," bees
counted, but there was a sufficient number of rae-
present. fiery Ott
Mr. P. SrROPE continued—He thought i'ag"„' cub:
must be left to the Central Commission. .•1.-,„41 but
give his support to the measure before the neu;i to
he tut, ted that by amendments yet to be intr?dAg °owed
Bill would be carried out in the manner he 'l'
out. had
fdl
Sir W. JOLLIFFE said that, after whatleft
from the lion. Member for Stroud, there was littleber bsd
for him, although he thought that the Hon. Me stn thfre
alto ether seemed to mistake what bad fallehrto shirt
Hon. Member for Oxfordshire. He aPPegre' goer.
that that Hon. Member objected to a central
__DO
Now the Hon. Gentleman had advocated the °T.7O be
for a central board of control. He regretted,..a
could not coincide in all the opinions advanced see-
0' by the
Noble Lord who had sat as chairman on the:_or.lan'
Union Committee. He had to defend the
Commissioners in dismissing the Assistant toy
sinners, and he alleged that they were
course; because Mr. Parker, one of these assierews
.1(150 dol;
conducted the inquiry into the practices at An, poor,`
very partial manner. No wonder that Mr. Par:;orlaff
have exhibited something like partiality. Th districs
Commissioners had sent him down to his own ,obiotae•
make these inquiries, and they it was who werLowiedge
and not Mr. Parker. The Noble Lord did OA' t Appel
at
that the proceedings against Mr. Parker
mil
on the part of thecommtssioners irregular e ere.:
he (Sir W. Jolliffe) thought they were more yr...aolud
trary, he thought that they had been also they
altogether at variance' with the Act under Whl'"o, the
full
rat: J 3-111 es
had been constituted. He felt in as
Hon. Member for Oxfordshire the defects of t in order
at present proposed, and be trusted that,__4lo
to make it what it was intended to be, cousir
had ever
provements would be introduced into it.
-.e out this
endeavoured, as an ex officio guardian, to cagyie always
law in a humane and lenient manner; but he,pl.-
of the
found that there were inherent evils in itself°
not be overcome. One of the greateste ~adreiseioo
law as et present administered workhousesne for the
of the able-bodied poor into the
I ritY
order or regn-e
House might rest assured that no . as Old
could be observed in these establishments as Yong
class was admitted. Ihisich could
•Baronet
Sir JOHN WALSH regretted that the fion
O had felt it necessary to advert to the proceedings ,b 9
Andover Union, as 'that inquiry had already occuplee
greater portion of last Tuesday's dikussion. 'He (Sir °
Walsh), as one of the Memners of that House
was obliged to give his attendance during these silk",
days, deemed it right that he should state a few Of Lt".l
reasons which had led him to a conclusion somewil,
different from that arrived at by a majority of the otee
ing ; and in the first place, it should be remelt::
bered, that the Poor-law Commissioners were
brauinganie.d
ibtefsohroeulda
bem orsetmesmevbeerreedatnhdat
asstrittingeewrifelfe:_rs
themselves
nelveosbnuonxpioopuus
ofth larp;eiwtesrhouthlde beeefuelmthiessriereninerk"'''. rreoaf
that the Committee
was comprised of a great nnio",e--,eth
Hon. Gentlemen well acquainted with these inclultnee
and in particular there was one Hon. and 141rwho
Member who acted as the advocate of Mr.Parkeriaeu„,is.
took throughout a course, the most hostile to theeo°3l-0.
sinners. He would say that it was impossibleforanY Note
lie men to submit to a more severe ordeal theit they ,s
subjected to during the whole investirti,oi!.ooeiri
was, also to be recollected that the coinntle.st in,
were also subjected to the suggestions and. tilti:ntee
formation which a person thoroughly aeclualioeil
with their every act, who had been OM
into the most intimate confidence of the codnissiol!te_[l.:
who was familiar with the whole coutse of their colle'_,u,
and who was, I must-say, most unscrupulous7-(Ch
—inasmuch ns he was prepared to mike use of anY'ne,
formatien which he received in the strictest confidFeioo
however private. No pas Sing expresiiion .of °Pinker
en any subject, however confidential, that Mr. Per
was not ready to bring lorward before the Comraittee
violation. as he (Sir J. Walsh) must say, Of- all th°_,
rules which he did think it was of the utmost importanG;
to the Wine service, as well as the security of prilt.t,
society, ought to be kept up.—(Cheers.) The fact V':
per ectly admitted that great evils existed in the unto_P.
workhouse, but those were not attributable to the eoe!ii
missioners. But the main question was the treatulocia
which the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners receiv,
at their hands—and here he might remark that ,1100
Assistant Poor law Commissions was not an elli„0
of that permanent character which some gentleo3-a
suppo-ed it to be, it was always underetf, °ft,
to be rather of a temporary character, and thereW'd
dismissals and changes ought to have been suffered, tine
were so, without either complaint or remonstraneeeh;lg
they all admitted tile power of a central authority,
should all admit the perfect right to check and Conte,,
their subordinates. With regard to the case of r• he
he must say that that gentlemanappeared b fore t
Committee with every adv e
side ;
he had been led to
upon his,brough
some misunderstanding, thato hesepposes been dir
placed to make way for
er which
as soon as it was explained some other offtc
_:tted
to him, he at once stall"
his error.
Mr. Day was a most person' an'
excellent kiwei
man of very considerable talent, but be rendered
very unpopular while cl. h • d •
Ise arging theduties
of a Ft)(3l-
- Commis • wolf,
Commissioner, in a very critical period, 0 otter
during the Rebecca riotsand it h f re• a 035 •
;
of great importance that he should be removed• in
opinion, they acted with regard to Mr. Day perfeetli
accordance with the nature of the discretion irupolef
the
the commissioners, who embraced the capabilitY ° par-
person who was employed. With respect to Ur.
that
ker, it does not appear a very strange circtunstanc? !D.:a
a resolution should be carried that he had not contiluTien
the inquiry at Andover with impartiality. ella,
el'haa
that a cry should be made at the treatment which n 0
received. That would be removing all the discrettibo
power, which ought to rest in the hands of the co
lAA,
stoners. And now, with regard to the Bill itself, he °,3„,,,
say that, although always a friend;to the new pooreu'e,
it was with great difficulty that he gave his adhesion:s-
it. The Ministry would be very assailable from thme
modification which it was intended to introduce, but
t 1
should not carry his opposition so far as to object to
second reading.
Mr. FLOYER said that he considered it was ratl'edt
painful and humiliating, that after a period of thirteen
years, since the passing of the Poor-law amendollin-p
and after the numberless Committees which had 58" the
stair-, that the result of their labours should be tae
removal of the Act of last session, end „sale
present Bill, which did not, by any means, grgiril 0.
with the real or fundamental part of the quesOnf
Th .re was a provision that should enable Members in
this b eird to s:t in the House. He thought thas e•
some pints of vie w, that that was a beneficial arrsilhe
ment, but there were also many objt ctions to it. .O
Right Hon. Baronet had, however, stated his views
hector:,
clearly upon the'subject, that he thought that t
lance was, upee the whole, in favour of the propo4_o
In leoking through the Bill, he thought that there
ra
the only provisions of any real importance in the
sure. It was true that a central authority naustkevo
maintained as long as the Act of 1834 wais. the
in op The eration in all the unions to which ele
ord, r of the commissioners applied. relief
bodied pauper was disentWeri from r,,ceiving ari/ right
except i;1 the workhouse. The measure inig',t wider-
in some paints, btu it certainly was one of very often and
able pres'ure upon the p or man, arid it would "I which
that last weight to the difficulties of the poor man of
would ruin and sink him. 'there was another
tpar'ino
the power of the Poor law Commissioners, nanio:gerhe
power of making regulations for the workhousecetnery,
Right Honourable Baronet 'he Horne S &ge-
lled alluded to that the other night, sou. out
pared it to the power of the visiting niagistratses
wised.
how was the power of visiting magistrates_ jipin by
They must go in accordance with the rules laid 00 1,0
rules bee
the Acts of Parliament. In this measure the
absolute and undivided authority to pass such
_:ed its
he did think that the House would have well occupied
time in framing these regulations instead of
many other measures, whose importance was nothing of
when us' ere
comparison to it. In the year 1836, fficers 11-
guardians were formed,auditors among other ot _
appointed they continued to be in office shoo
.elou
f their
/era-
bat a subsequent regulation altered the mod
se I
election. Considerable abuses had since, d tbe
'n ao
instances which he could mention, crept
performances of some of these officers was bydower@
in conformity with the Act under which their ow