The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-18 00:00:00

events, could prove it had failed in conferring any such whenever
advantages, and dint it a t; fßilitre,
had crumb, . • Th,. r th
c 141,1 b-,,2u accnAou,ed to boa.t that the

f,, + t►

the IT

IVC,re n vier esll-0. upon to obey any law which
was nut passe., oy both planchet, o: the Legislature,
but notwithstanding, they had been obliged, now for
thirteen years, to obey the orders of the Poor-law Com-
missioners, as the law of the land. A Committee of that
House had been appointed to inquire into the operation
of that law, and after having sat for four months, they
came to the decision that the Poor-law Commissioners
had acted in a most arbitrary manner towards the As-
sistant Poor-law Commissioners. He thought it was
not sufficient that the Poor law Commissioners should
be dismissed, but that the law should be repealed. When
the law was first broached it was supported by men
whose object was to do away with poor-laws altogether,
and to punish poverty as a crime. The perion who
first brought it forward was Lord Brougham, who, be-
fore he introduced it obtained a pledge from both the
political parties that they would not repeal what-
ever might be the extent of the opposition raised
against it. He would ask, who had been selected
to guide the Bill ? No other than Mr. Malthus, a
man whose opinions on the subject was odious
to the country.—(An Hon. Member said he was dead.)
Well, then, he left his legacy behind him. He was Lord
Brougham's guide in this measure. He who had de-
clared that he who was not provided with necessaries by
his parents, had no right to food ; that no place had
been provided for him at Nature's feast, and that he
had no right to be there. Lord Brougham defended
this gentleman, and stated that he had been
greatly misrepresented, and that he was a most humane
and amiable man. A Commission was then appointed
to inquire into the old poor-law, and evidence taken
by Assistant Poor-law Commissioners, who knew what
was required of them, and did what they were
ordered, as obedient servants. Then came forth the re-
port, that " dark document," which was so bad and
wicked, that the Duke of Wellington denied its existence.
It was opposed by a friend of his, now on a bed of sick-
ness (Mr. Walter), whose services would last for cen-
turies, when the ,Hogg Baronetcy would be buried in
oblivion.—(Partial murmurs.) That document had been
signed by two of the bishops of their church, the Bishops
of London and Chester. Lord Althorp introduced the
Bill into that House, which gave power to the Poor-
law Commissioners to limit the amount of food,
but not to increase it, and also to lower wages. In the
correspondence of Messrs. Ashworth and Gregg, it
appeared that the guardians, in a case of a strike for
wages, were authorised to refuse relief if they knew the
parties could earn wages upon which they could earn
a subsistence. As soon as the New Poor. law Bill
passed, the Poor-law Commissioners employed persons
as Assistant-Commissioners, whom they sent to the
agricultural districts to induce the people to
leave their homes, assuring them that if they
did so, they should have abundant employment
in the manufacturing districts. They placarded
places with tables of wages, which they never
did, and it was never intended that they should
receive. One of the blackest things they did
was to send Dr. Kay down to Suffolk and Norfolk to
induce the labourers to go to Manchester, where they
sent them ticketed and labelled, like beasts to the slaugh-
ter. But, as his Right Hon. and Learned Friend (the
Attorney-General) seemed to smile, he thought it his
duty to reiterate what he had said : the labourers sent
to Manchester were actually ticketed, packed in boats,
and without any places to go to, turned adrift in the
streets of Manchester in the middle of the night. But
they should now hear Dr. Kay's own description of this
town three years before. In describing it, he said that
the inhabitants had ceased to have a pride in the ap
pearance of their houses. They spent their lives in
squalid wretchedness—their domestic economy was
neglected—their houses were ill furnished and ill
ventilated their food meagre, and not nutri-
tious, and they frequently fell victims to drink.
Such was the description of Manchester, when the inha-
bitants of the southern districts of England were to be
absorbed into the workshops of the manufacturers. He
would detail to the House the cruelties inflicted upon
those agricultural labourers. Not content with calling
in the military, the Government sent down the Metro-
politan Police, and there, with drawn cutlasses they
sought to enforce those tyrannical laws. They
sold up thousands of the poor people. Immense
buildings were erected in the county as modern
bastiles, where they were immured in cells, not
allowed to go a place of worship, their diet
tables were worse than those of felons, they were com-
pelled to wear a felon's dress, and they branded their
clothes with the name of " the union workhouse" upon it,
their furniture was sold, husbands were separated from
their wives, and children stolen from their parents at the
point of the bayonet. The union workhouses were
cleared, and its inmates sold to the manufacturers.
He held in his band an application of one of the manu-
facturers for these poor people to the guardians of the
poor of the Llangollen Union, dated only twelve
months since, in which the applicant stated that he
had employment in his mills for twenty or thirty '
females, and also a number of boys, and stating that it
there were any in the union fit for such employment,
one of the firm would come over to the union and bring
those unfortunate creatures to the factory districts. And
who were the parties who were chosen to look over those
unfortunate creatures? Why, it was a well-known fact
that if the Government could offer the office, a non-com-
missioned officer of the cavalry, whose previous occupa-
tion might be supposed to have inured him to wretched-
ness or made his heart callous, was the person whose
services they were most glad to obtain. These unions
were formed so large that the poor had to travel to the
board of guardians ten, twenty, and even thirty miles, in
order to obtain their paltry pittance. Such was the
distance they had to travel that it often occupied three
whole days in going and returning from the union. He
held in his band a letter from a clergyman. in which be
stated that he knew a poor man who had to travel 24
miles every week in order to obtain even a sixpence.
Then, in addition to this, the poor have died in numbers
from want and improper medical treatment.—(Hear,
hear.) Aye, numbers have died from those sources
under the sanction of the Poor-law Commissioners and the
Government. Such were some of the horrible effects of
this blood-stained law—for such it was. Yes, blood had
been shed, and that too at the point of the bayonet, in
the endeavours of the Government to enforce the cruelties
of that law. He would read to the House the solemn
pledges made by Lord Brougham when he pleaded in
the House of Lords for the second reading of this ini-
quitous Bill. (The Hon. Member then proceeded to
read an extract from the speech of the Noble Lord, in
which he stated that that measure would elevate the
character of the people of this country, give a new im-
pulse to property, and destroy idleness and vice.) How
had (continued the Hon. Member) these pledges and
promises been realised ? The people had been robbed
and plundered under the operation of that law for
upwards of thirteen years. Was it to be supposed
now that the curtain was allowed to descend quietly over
those scenes of horror, of blood, and of cruelty ? If
the Government was prepared to take upon itself the
responsibility of all these accumulated cruelties, they
certainly possessed more courage and bravery than he
had ever given them credit for possessing. Before the
passing of this law the people were promised good
wages ; neat, good, and comfortable houses. But what
was the result, as appeared by the statements of the
Hon. Member for Manchester some time since? He sale,
that the people of Manchester were some of then,
living upon Id. per day ; that they were in th,
habit of eating dead horses, and so poverty-
striken were great masses of the people, that the)
were in the habit of pawning their day clothes in the
evening in order to obtain their bed clothes from th
pawnbroker's to cover them at night. He had thought
it his duty to move some time since for a return of th
mode in which the poor had been disposed of ; aua
although that return had been ordered, still not tht
slightest notice had been taken of that order, and de
reason given for it was that no possible account could
be obtained, and no return had been made from that day
to this. In the year 1843 the poor-law had been in
operation nine years. Now, what was the effect
of this law upon the morals, the condition, and
the habits of the people ? That law, which had been
pledged to produce such beneficial results ? He begged to
' read to the House a statement, made by one of the pre
sent Qabinet Ministers. Lord Howick, when a Member
of this House, stated that in Sum terland the poor-rate:•
had risen to 18s. in the pound. (rile Hon. Member then
proceeded to read at considerable length an extract front
a speech of Lord Howick.) What a contrast (con-
tinued the Hon. Member) did that statement present to
the fair pledges and promises made by Lord Brougham.
and others, when the measure was introduced. He
would, therefore, convict the Government of having
been false prophets out of the mouth of one of the
members of their own Cabinet. He would also read t.
the House a statement made by Lord Brougham in th..
year 1843, nine years after the passing of the Act.
in order to show to the House in what manner
the operation of the law had borne out
the pledges and promises of its supporters.
The Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from the
Times of 1843, stating that a great number of the poor
of Stourbridge were subsisting upon turnips alone, and
that the farmers in the neighbourhood had had five or
six tons a week stolen; but they were in such a deplor-
able state that the persons could not find it in their
hearts to prosecute them. He held in his hand en
account of proceedings which took place in the same year
at the Brentford Sessions, before the magistrates of the
county of Middlesex. A poor man was brought up
before them in the prison dress, and branded in the way
he had mentioned. The magistrates, and five or six
were present, all spoke with indignation of the manner
in which the poor were treated under the sanction of the
Poor-law Commissioners, and one of them, Mr. Armstrong,
stated that the country was coming back to the times
of feudal slavery, and he was glad to find that the
members of the Bench were
Commissioners unanimous
newspapers in deprecating
the edpurprecianragstuitnf
the conduct which the
towards the poor. He numberalshooiuenhhtardygaavean
aceoouf
netxotrfactiat:
mannerwyearshieh 1b
inh2ad andc
whichul daBr4fgr3e7nuwem• hers of persons were sent t..
iparwisocnonfounr
imssieorneley disobeyingr,s,buth the
he would
not orderstak
take
of thep th
eP
timeoor-
of the House by reading them, beyondH stating that they
yr,eatnedre
London,illreference
to
Sussex,and also witham psi Hampshire,
respect Et
to tehx;
Kent,hAado especialvSrurßreedbridge, and Sevenoaks Unions. The treat-
ment of the poor in the Blything Union so exasperated
the working classes in that vicinity that they were on
their way to the union (which was protected by police)
with pickaxes in their hands, when they were met by a
clergyman, who said, addressing one, " Honest man!"
" Honest r He replied, " the law won't allow us to Is
honest ; when we come poor we are treated like felons
He, however, dissuaded them from their purpose.
occurred as far back as in 1842. And her Majesty
Government said, after all that had occurred, that the
law worked well, and they screened the
Com-
missioners against public inquiry andp Publre indignation,r-igw
and aided and assisted them in oppressing the poor for

ary thing. w

7as said azainst the Po:,r-ir.w
. • ;tl-, rerno+

law, and his sentiments vs ire iuudle sneered. j"
lin-e'er-
mity of practice" was, no doubt, a grand principle ; but
it was one which had been tested and had been found
fallacious. Now he ( \tr. Ferranti) had seen the
bodies of persons who had been starved to death
by this law. He once attended a jury, who
felt desirous to return a verdict of " wilful murder "
against the relieving officer, and the coroner agreed with
them, because it was veell knee n to them that the man
bad refused to afford the woman it had died relief ;
his pocket ate! threw themwonhatthewarasb:hee, andu tuirnetohfe
but when the man was taxed with this, he drew the
printed instructions of the Poor-law Commissioners from
insulting manner snapped his fingers at the jury.
RAND said he had not got a copy of them,
those most
?I,GE GREY—
ibnusSlttlirtrruh.cGetyFiEoEnOßsl were to the effect, that the man was not to go a
yard out of his parish for the purpose of dispensing re-
lief. The woman lived on the other side of a brook,
i about ten yards out of the parish, but she had often re-
t eeived relief from the same officer ; he, however, was
only in the habit of visiting that part of his dis-
trict once a week. Then the auditors had caused
the greatest dissatisfaction to the board of guardians,
Every post brought him letters setting forth the
evils which the auditors caused. The relieving
officer of Dudley had brought an action against the
guardians of the poor, for tie acing the inmates of
the union to "plum-pudding" on Christmas-day. In
1845, the Hon Gentleman the Member for Finsbury
(Mr. Wakley) eame down to the House, and made a
horrible and startling statement, that it was currently
reported that the poor in the Andover Union Work-
house were so starved, that they were living on carrion,
and fighting for the possession of the bones which they
were employed in grinding for the purpose of manure. He
now came to 1847—and where, he asked—where were the
Poor-law Commissioners who had caused all this cruelty
and misery ? The Government said that they were to
be dismissed from their offices, but the Government
were still prepared (in a state of despair) to defend
them. Why did they do so ? Wss it because
they believed that the charges which had been made
against them were untrue ? Could they deny the
state of things which existed in the Andover Union. or
the statements which he had made that night, could they
believe that the voice of the people throughout the
country would have been raised against them if they had
not been guilty of all that had been imputed to them f
What did the Right Hon. Baronet say in introducing
the present Bill ? Did he say that they must adopt
" uniformity of practice ? " No ; that the operation of
of the measure must vary with the circumstances of the
district of the country to which it was applied. Was
"uniformity of practice " still to be the principle of the
measure ?
Sir G. GREY —I did not say so.
Mr. FERRAND—Then is it now to vary? But did the
Government think that men had not the same love for
their wives and children in one part of the county as
in another, that concessions were to be made in favour
of the northern part of that county, in consequence of the
violence which they had manifested towards the
measure. He called upon them, therefore, to say
how the measure was to vary ? They had no
right to pass such a law ; and, what was mere,
the people of this country would not tolerate a varying
law under which the greatest tyranny might be inflicted
upon them. In some parts of the county they said
that no relief was to be given except in the workhouse,
but he had heard a Secretary of State state that the
p ople might have relief out of the workhouse. There-
hire, he said, let them have a law clearly defined, in
order that the poor might know how they would be
affected, and what cruelties they might anticipate would
be practised upon them, instead of leaving the matter
in tho hands of an irresponsible board. He had read
the defence which had been made of the Poor-law Com-
missioners, but it did not deserve the name which had
been applied to it, as it was nothing more than an
exparte statement: it amounted to this, that after
thirteen years of oppression of the poor they had been
enabled to save 1,000,000/, a year, of which the poor
nad been robbed, in order that the comadssieners might
he enabled to make this boast. They might have saved
the rates in the south of England, where incen-
diarism was rife, and in those districts from
which the poor had been driven, to the manu-
facturing districts, to equalise wages, or to
escape persecution by becoming inmates of the gaols,
hut in the north of England the very converse had -oc-
curred. The guardians of Wakefield, thinking that it
would be no use to petition the House on the subject of
the poor-law, as Parliament had delegated its powers to
three Commissioners, petitioned the board, and urged
that the Wakefield Union should be abolished, as it.
had been productive of the greatest evil, as the poor-
rates had increased 10,3061. in three years.—(llear.)
chat was the way they diminished the expenditure.—
(Rear, hear.) We had also returns from the unions in
his part of' the country, but it was sufficient to state that
they had increased, and were increasing.—(Hear.) Then
what was the other cost of this unconstitutional measure
during the last 13 years ? First, they had had the re-
bellion in Wales, fearful outbreaks in the north of Eng-
land, incendiarism rife in the south, and a fearful amount
of concealments of childbirth, in order that they might
escape the treatment which they could not fail to expe-
rience in the unions. They had had to establish rural
police in different parts of the country, to call out
10,000 pensioners, to have gaols enlarged and new ones
erected ; the sessions in the north of England were held
every seven weeks, instead of every twelve weeks, and
winter sessions were obliged to be held, which was rather
an unusual occurrence, and Mr. Justice Coleridge had
stated at the last York assizes that crime was rapidly in-
creasing over the whole country. Then they were going to
build barracks in Birmingham, in order that they might
be enabled to dispatch the military to any part at a short
notice in order to keep the people in a state of despotism.
Consideration had caused this? Why, the tyranny
practised upon the people by the Poor-law Commissioner,
for they had the people discontented in the north, in the
south, and east districts ; and the peace was only main-
tained by the presence of the military and police. Work-
houses had been erected under the protection of a mili-
tary guard, and they had greater distress in this',
' country than they had had since the time of the Freno/n
Revolution. These were the penalties they were culla d
upon to pay. And how long did they think the people
wonld submit to this state of thing,? they were going -to
let the Poor-law Commissioners "down easily," but did
they think that the people were not ?sufficient ly
eware that this would be a great question at ehe
next general ection ? The Whigs had stood
pretty firmly to the declarations made by them at tit e
last general election. But what was the conduct of the
late Government ? What was their conduct with Cam-
bridge when the poor-law was made the rallying cry,
and when they came to the House and betrayed them ?•
He could name a borough where two candidates took it
in turns to do the pathetic on the new poer-law—oner
was returned to the House, and continued his opposition,
to the poor-law, and the other was rejected, but he sub-.
eeqiently obtained a seat in that I louse, and now sup-•
ported the law.—( Hear, hear.) He challenged any one toe
:ay that the law had not only proved a great issilure, but. at
hitter curse upon the country, aid the remedy was rhea
same cm. 1 and unconstitutional syse m under anethere
form. In the first clause tour Cabin: Ministers were to.
'.:e pledged to maintain this law against nil opposition a
and in the sixth clause two c. unaissionere and thee
president were empowered to use any powers vested int
tile whole body. By the eleventh they were empowered!
to seamen witnesses, and also to make rules, and tr. t
-titer them. But was the Right Hen. Baronet incline( 1
o sign an order to separate a man from his wife, are .l
.111, :I
:hildren from their parents? Was he going
,tio s.arientibi , ,
all the tyranny which had been practised ii rsin,g i
ia.
' tht to relief as th e
poor man
Lot d
Right Hon. Baronet
had to his own property.
past 13 years?
had as
st
inalienable
aabt
ireigah t:Vhe to do. . ?
the measure upon those who were near aw I
iß,arroeudgthoatmeshtad admitted that this was so. Was he pre ~.
dear to him ? If rot, what right had he to inflict ito
tortures upon the poor man ? And let him tell tile
'tight Hon. Baronet that a poor men was just as lot sat
,f: his wife and children as the Right Hon. Baronet w is
~f his. But what must be the position of a Caleti-
net Minister who was compelled to act thus towaeeds
:he poor man, for no other crime than that he was
poor and unable to obt tin work. Teen they threw • the
responsibility upon her Majesty. By the 20th clause
the Queen, by the advice of the Privy Council, we s em-
powered to alter the rules ; but the four Cabinet
Ministers were Members of the Privy Council. The
Nlinisters were, therefore, responsible. Then they were
to appoint inspectors. From that tyranny to whom
were they to appeal ? Their appeals might be, kept
roingihtthteoSpoays(sm;hi Sovereign. He h)lacdknofr
opposed to the pr inciPle
ber of high authorities, were
v.
tilitleindLeodekthea,ti4cshateHnou.um,s.e.
present Bill.
' h were here given to the Poor-law
powers which
be exercised by e vett the
Commis-
sioners were such as could not
which was here contended for. Lord% inferclt,hour? hithat
It was their leoun6en duty
himself upon this question.
present matter at rest. He would vete} a letter
Sovereign. Lord Abinger had also strong ly ex .pressed
to set the
which he had received from a working man. (TI le lion.
Member here read the letter in questing, whi eh s trongly
deprecated the working of the poor-law.) Coo ke and
Blackston agreed with him on this eubjeae Judge
flaines was also of the opinion ellich be express, -.:d, and
even Lord Brougham himself' admitted tint s right
of the poor to relief. And they had n
e right
to impose upon them
a
Po-
law Commissioners themselvvesasssaaalidge. TI
that 111 'ie 1-kp'orer--
sent crime, which was the result of d e stitution,
was repugnant to the feelings of human nat 3 re. The
lint:. Member for Bath was constrained to ? ;state that
for Ireland it was necessary to go back to the 43d of
Elizabeth. As many Members of Parliams int would,
no doubt, refer to the coreluct of the poor-law gut :rdians,
he would not dwell upon their conduct. He would,
however, allude to the Lung Town union—(I fear. hear.)
The Hon. Member deprecated the state of that union.
Alta these were the foundations on which r tepore s were
used against him in 184.2 for the purposes of en r,,ting
!tiro, reports to which he had net further alluded to
than to state that Sir John Walsiughain, in h is report
1.1 pon the same unien, showed that 49 inmates were irsleaping
in thirteen or fourteen beds, and when he lai a similar,,.,icts before the House, the Home Secretary, e iir James
Graham, turned up his eyes, and smote his bra cast, that
things could occur. The report stated, that from
he da y the law was enforced, in 1838, to tl le time in
which it was made a resident poor law, corn coissionent
such
:tad never entered it. On hearing tnie, the I ate Minis-
-or said, high time for the Gevernment to int Nrfert,, yet
what was the ease ? When did they enter the Rouse
again ? not for four years—not till May, IR46.—not
until he himself came down to the House. and las.kei.l the.
Government to insist that an Assistant Pour -law C Com-
missioner should visit bingli-v. Now, let then a .ses- eivt-hee
were the next visits paid. They were made a-r.intee.iw al4