The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-22 00:00:00

sideration of the House, in order that no uncertainty
might rest upon a matter of so much importance.
POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION ACT.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this
Bill,

Mr. BORTHWICK rose, but was for some time in-
audible, in consequence of the uproar prevailing in the
House. The Hon. Gentleman said, as he had main-
tained a consistent course since the period he had en-
tered that House, it became incumbent on him to ex-
press the opinion he entertained, that the Bill was only
an amendment of a previous Act, which embodied prin-
ciples of the most unconstitutional character, and ho
felt obliged, therefore, however painful it might be to
him, to record his vote that the Bill should be read a
second time that day six months. The Ministers, in the
course of the present debate, had not shown much inte-
rest in the present question. On the last night of the
debate he saw on one bench the Eton. and Learned Mem-
ber for Bath soundly reposing. On a bench behind the
chair, at one end of the Ministerial bench there lay
stretched the lion. Member at the head of the Ordnance,
and at the other end profoundly reposed another Mem-
ber of the Government ; chile the Right Hon. Gen.
tleman the Home Secretary sat in the centre, as if to
realise the language of the Irish poet—
" Since the lovely are sleeping
Go sleep thou with them."

—(Laughter.) The Hon. and Learned Member for
Bath had attacked the Honourable Member for
Knaresborough in a very . pers nail man.
nor, and had insisted that his opinions or
sentiments were entitled to no consideration, but it
should be recollected that that Hon. Member represent-
s 1 the feelings of the great body of the people. He was
neither a hypocrite nor hunter for popularity, for his
clients were not those who returned Members to Par-
liament, but the poor. It was their opinion that the
Hun. Member for Knaresborough sought to obtain.
"No, let the candied tongue lull absurd pomp,
Or crook the pregnant hinges of the knee,
Where thrift may follow fawning."
These were not those who opposed such a measure as
the present. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman the
Member for Bath referred at some length to the works
of Grotius, Puffendorf, Vattel, and other authorities,
and stated that he believed in his conscience that his
(Mr. Borthwick's) Hon. Friend the Member for Knares-
borough . did not know whether Grotius lived in
the reign of George 111., or during the reign
of the Emperor Adrian—(Loud laughter)—which
was, in his (Mr. Borthwick's) estimation, a most im-
proper and uncalled for observation, for one Member of
the House to make to another. He know that the Hon.
and Learned Member for Bath was familiar with the
43d of Elizabeth—that he might have got knowledge of
Grotius—that he might have read every line of Puffen-
dorf—and that he had read the work to which he made so
much reference, namely, Mrs. Trollope's novel, " Jessie
Phillips ;" but how did these authorities affect the ques-
tion before the House ? Did it not stand as it did
before ? And did not the Hon. Member for Bath stand
accused of having spoken on subjects which were not
before the House ? The Hon. and Learned Member for
Bath told them that the law of Elizabeth was one in
fact with the law of 1834, and the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government told them that the law of 1834
was simply passed to correct the mischiefs which had
occurred in 1795 ; or, as he phrased it, the evils which
had prevailed towards the end of the last century.
The Noble Lord had stated that the magistrates had
at that period decided that no difference was
to be made between unexpected misfortune and deli-
berate immorality. Now this was plainly unconstitu-
tional, and if that be true it was equally plain that the
same proceeding was unconstitutional wherever it might
be practised ; and if it was unconstitutional, therefore,
1 in the magistrate, it was equally plain that it was un-
constitutional in the authorities at Somerset House. The
lion. Gentleman then proceeded to prove from a sup-
posed case between two labourers, one industrious and
the other depraved, in order to show that a magistrate
would be placed either in a position of difficulty or would
be compelled to commit great injustice, by committing
the steady with tho unsteady man to the workhouse.
The law of Elizabeth took good care not only
that the poor should have relief, but that in
respect of work being provided, that they should
have that with a good and comfortable lodging.
The Noble Lord seemed to him to adopt a fallacy which
seemed very general, namely, that the description of the
Bill of 1844 was a central control over a local adminis-
tration. Now his objection to the law was, that it took
the unalienable rights of the poor from them, and re-
moved them from out of the pale of the constitution. A
man might render himself liable to the law from the
moment, from an unforeseen calamity, he had been
stripped of his independence. The labourer of England
possessed a lower nobility of spirit than the aristocracy
of England—they might say what they liked to the con-
trary ; but so it was. The Bill before the House did riot
touch the principle of 1834, which left the power of the
Bill in the hands of the Poor-law Commissioners,he must
however admit, that the machinery introduced into the
present Bill was a great improvement upon the former
system. When the Bill went into Committee, he was
determined to move that three should be inserted instead
of five years, for he believed that in three years the
country would discover that it was wrong in principle
and tyrannous in its operation.
Mr. MILES—The Bill was merely for the purpose of
changing the nature of the Commission, and be was as-
tonished, after the speech of the Noble Lord, that such a
Bill should be introduced, for it was nothing else but
a most elaborate defence of that Commission,
both from their own acts, and the charges
of Mr. Chadwick, who was secretary to it.—(Hear.)
It was his intention, after the a,sertion made by the
Noble Lord last night that he was not particular to tho
form in which this matter should be regulated, to give
him his support upon the second reading of the Bill.
The poor had an in•dienable right to relief, but if he
reasoned by analogy from the law of Elizabeth, be would
see that the able•bothrd had only a right to relief in a
certain way. They should have a test of destitution
still more strong than the one they had ; for he must
say that the present test was slipping little by little from
under their fingers. The Noble Lord made another
observation that if the power was left with the board of
guardians they would act with more severity than the
Poor-law Commissioners, and he begged, as far as his
knowledge went, to contradict it, for whenever any
interference of the board of guardians bad taken
place, it was always to induce the Commissioners to take
a somewhat more merciful view of the particular case
submitted to them, than the law seemed to warrant. If
the case were referred to the quarter sessions, the poor
would be still less likely to receive a lenient considera-
tion, as the quarter sessions was a place, its most cases,
influenced by party, and made a place of declaiming and
debate.

Mr. B. ESCOTT said that he had heard no reason
adduced in that House to prove the superiority of this
new system over the old one, and therefore he should
rote against it. The Noble Lord had admitted, in his
speech of the previous evening, that this Commission was
an experiment liable to many grave and serious objec-
tions. Under the new system, all the officers, down to
the pettiest officer in every union, would be under the
control of the Government, and that was not the least
of the very grave objections which could be urged
against it. Had the Hon. Member read the report which
the Poor-law Commissioners had decreed to be laid on
the table of the House on the very day on which the de-
bate upon the second reading of this Bill was first taken,
and if he had, would not its contents furnish a very suf-
ficient reason for not giving his vote in favour of tbo
measure? That report had stated, that in spite of all
the distress which existed in the country, the commis-
sioners had been enabled to keep up their rules and re-
gulations tolerably well. He thought that the feelings
of the commissioners, instead of being those of gratifi-
cation, ought to be of bitter shame for their past conduct.
whichu t couldionof
b e
this
system, brought w
forward
thear d
ilnihdeefoennclye odfeftehnece introd

absolute incapacity of the present syTitem, and the
present commissioners. The Noble Lord was not a
man to bring forward this measure without some very
lion.stro ngmanedmchoegrentet rsehaeswonthoaft thethe
kind.
present
ooHpedretedw an
hadany
ever been beneficially administered without some partial
disregard of the orders ;of the commissioners. This,
however, did not help him to vote for the new measure
until some reason was adduced which could show him that
the new Commission would be productive of
sults. It was a long time after thethe law of
1834;that the Poor-law Commissioners had theo
courage to
issue rules and regulations respecting the out-door
to the able-bodied poor. They did not do so four
forcedrelief
by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.i
They issued one then, restricting the relief of the able-
bodied poor to the house alone. It was, however, soon
passing anfybetter re-
found out that this would not act, and they were obliged
to issue a second rule, providing that out door relief to
the able• bodied, under particular circumstances. From
time to time orders of one kind or another have been
oiss. Thereued,bnti weren noin
wholestance have they betehnalenhe generally actedcor
n.
ducted the relief of the poor, without any
reference whatever to the dicta of the
m sioners.Au t
besubmitted
gre a t de a! ha d b
that eenfr tmsaioid had
theabo been uwatsot a
fstou
to
drivetnrhke.
workhouseeilmrei.s test, h
The object of it, it was said, was to distinguish
the industrious man from the idle vagabaonndd;
beingbu t h anda
it
done so ? No, but rather its practical effect
lf
vr
thee industrious
thd er dread
dl and
e of
vagabond
incarceration, honest pauper
wentinto the House,
and filled ed thewhae• eldlfe his belly at the expense of the rate-payers.
He cared for nothing so long as his stomach was filled.
He declared therefore tshoat
farthe boasted test had
Ithaenjdust expectationsl d from
n ot of
fo the
nths
completelymeasure
satisfyingfailed
paoertseura.dedThtehactoiutnwtoulwou uri
ienvtset er
yaninnt,
ihtes was
sar prove most dieedlceuso:
improvement. He considereeydal that the acts of the Poor-
lawmm i
Lords,s s i 0 n
ande r s were
Commons i irl g ,
QueCeno,because, although the
might pass acts binding
on the eountr •he ), denied that they could delegate to
others their power of doing so.
Mr. WAKLEY said that however bad the pre-
vious Poor-law Bill might Lave been, he feared the
public would find the present one an aggravation
of the evil. Under the present peculiar circumstances
of the country he thought it was singularly
unfortunate that the Government should have placed it-
self in this position, but it was still more unfortunate for
the people to find no relief from the grievanees under
which they had been suffering, under the operation of
this former law. He thought this the more unforttmate
as the Government had commanded the respect and
esteem of the House, and of the country, by the intro-
duction of the poor-law measure with respect to Ireland.
They bad certainly earned his esteem for their conduct,
and the,: therefore, tthe more regretted, indeed, it
was exceedingly painful to him to complain of the
manner in which this Bill had been framed.
lie did expect that some measure of relief would have
been introduced calculated to mitigate the inconvenience
under which the people suffered by this law. jtf •
was wholly disappointed, and therefore his regret was
great. Ile was extremely greti6ed to 44 the liTehle