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

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 us 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-
log of dissatisfaction continued, the Government would
find it a tar 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 had 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
if he bad done so it would have cost him the
whole of his Salary. Did they think that the poor
would not brood over such cases—in their club-rooms, at
their meetings, and in their shops ? He wished to have
some pledge from the Government that the children of
the poor would not be treated in the same way as at
present, as it was now the practice to send children to
the manufacturers, whenever they applied for them—a
manufacturer was, for instance, in the habit of saying,
" Send me the number you have, their ages, sex, health,
and I will send a person to look at them ;" and he
Would, no doubt, send an overlooker, who " took stock."
They were, no doubt, taken to be " absorbed," for
that was the term in the factories—children
who had been reared in the open fields,
and villages were taken from the union workhouses, to
be destroyed in the manufacturing districts. But the
Government, in the face of the opposition of the people,
were prepared to carry the Bill by a large majority. He
wished to know bow the Noble Lord, and the other
Members of the Government could meet the people at
the ensuing election, if they passed this Bill without
Modifying any of the provisions of the old law. After
saying that the Ten Hours' Bill had been carried by the
agitation of the people, and that he had abstained
from taking a part in an extensive agitation, which
was proposed for the Whitsuntide holidays, on the
ground that it would not be respectful to the
Government, some of whom supported a Ten
'lours' Bill, he proceeded to say that he
believed no man, with the exception of the Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Finsbury, possessed more of the
confidence of the people than he did, and yet, notwith-
standing all he had urged against the poor-law, no alte-
ration was to be made in it, and the only notice taken of
his statements by the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government was, that the statements which he had
brought forward were unfounded. He repeated this ob-
servation of the Noble Lord to the 2,000 or 3,000 who
comprised the meeting at the Crown and Anchor, and on
bis calling upon them to say whether the statement was
true or false, they all held up their hands in the affirma-
tive. That House, however, did not represent
the people ; the Reform Bill deprived them of
the franchise, and when the present freemen expired,
instead of sending one hundred and twenty Members to
that House they would not send one ; and when they
bowed and scraped to them upon the hustings, they
Would recollect that, at the close of the session a ques-
tion of the most vital importance to an immense mass of
the people was brought before them, and that they re-
fused to redress the grievances of which they had com-
plained during the last 20 years—that the poor had still
to walk forty miles to obtain relief, as the unions were
still of an outrageous size ; that the pay to medical men
for attending them when ill was at a rate which a man
Would not pay for the treatment of his dogs ; that the
aged and infirm were still driven into the workhouse when
they sought relief ; and that their furniture was stolen
from them, for he held that the compulsory sale of a poor
man's furniture before he could receive relief from his
union was nothing more than a theft, and that men were
separated from their wives, and children from their
Parents. How could they meet the electors and non-
electors? But did they think that a Parliament elected
On the universal suffrage principle would pass such a
measure as the one they were now discussing? The
burden of the song of the Poor-law Commissioners to
tlae rate-payers was " We have saved your money ;" but
the Hon. Member for Finsbury had shown that the very
converse„ had taken place. They saved it by starving
the poor to death, a fact which was recorded in the ver-
dicts of coroner's inquests, and if the verdicts of juries
Were to be set at nought, they had better be given up,
and the expense avoided, but they had proved that the
Poor had been murdered by this law.
Sir JOHN CAM. HOBHOUSE—By the order of the
Commissioners?
Mr. FERRAND—By the order of the Commissioners.
••"•e would give a case. fie attended a coroner's inquest
,
his neighbourhood upon a woman who was starved to
death. He was present when the jury returned from
Viewing the body, and in reply to the coroner, they
stated that the deceased was a mere " bag of bones."
The child of the dead mother could hardly give her
evidence from the state of distress in which she
had been plunged. She said she had gone to
the relieving-officer, and that he had refused to
afford her and her mother any assistance. The man
Who was present admitted that this was so, and in the
most insulting manner he put his hand into the pocket of
a Sporting jacket, and producing a paper said," This is
43,Y authority." It stated that he should not pass out of
boundary of his parish ; and this poor woman did not
live more than twelve yards on the other
side
of the brook which terminated its boundary.
*Be verdict was that the woman was starved to death,
,klid he said that she was murdered. She had committed
;,e Offence, and yet because she lived a few yards from
;Lae boundary line, she was allowed to die from want of
j(4°,(l. How long was this to continue ? How long was
r,„--4 crying evil to continue ? If he used violent lan-
Vtge, the treatment of which the poor had complained
as also violent ; and he, for one, would never be a
try to the oppression of the poor, and then expect
era to be loyal. Had not the poor cause to pray for a
revolution,_ whilst this treatment was inflicted upon them?
'tY change must be for the better for them. This
Zi:ls the state of England, and he trusted that it would
suffered no longer. Year by year it was growing
*°rsek and he warned them to take care, for unless they
tedressed their grievances then they would have to redress
;pm after going through the horrors of a revolution.
e Would, therefore, second the amendment proposed.
„ Mr. ROEBUCK said that one would suppose that
!ney were discussing the new poor-law, whereas they
Were only discussing that portion of it which required
certain number of gentlemen to form a commission
for the administration of those laws. By the present
System three gentlemen were appointed to carry the
Act into effect, and by this
measure it was proposed to
substitute one acting commissioner, and certain nominal
..ommissioners, and the acting commissioner was to
have a seat, if he could get it, in that House. The only
Change they were discussing was as to the formation of
the Board of Commissioners, and he asked what course
4f discussion had been pursued by the Hon. Member
t' Rinsbury, and the Hon. Member for Knaresborough.
The Honourable Member for Finsbury had dragged into
Into the
the principle of the whole law, and had entered
the details and operation of that law which in its
L.,-"`e,gral state was not before the Ilouse. With regard
the charge which had been brought against the com-
"• ISsioners, he did not think that there was any cause of
Complaint against them for adhering too strictly to the
._ISW itself, but for vacillation and fur yielding too much
it 2 the pressure from without, and to the observations of
° Press. Charges had been brought against those
„g
"enitnissioners in that House when they had no oppor-
!lillity of defending themselves ; and the most violent
:ttltaks and strongest vituperation had been put into
aeration against them. Under the new system these
Larges would no longer be made, for the answer would
given on the instant. Those who read the accusation
tWil eu I d ,
in the same paper, read the defence, and
th'eYtnous slander would no longer be sent to
ate, Press to be published, as the most instant
0; immediate refutation would be given. He did
',complain of these charges, for, standing as he did
itige midst of that circle, governing, as it did, by its
"nee, the whole world—the slightest accusation,
evenL the utterance of the greatest slander upon this sub
1,71,', became so important, that they could not, and dared
L! refuse to listen to it. lie would ask whether it was
trielaritaing in a Member of that assembly—a Member of
be, Commons of England—to assert that the people had
gs, :4 murdered under this law, and to bring forward
the which were not substantiated, which went forth
_to
World and increased the cry which was already
fie-ing? A charge had been made against a gentleman
pe 40•
e_ aging to a generous profession—a surgeon—of' an
°OO which approached nearly to murder, and certainly
141`.00unted to manslaughter. In the name of the Com-
hrts °f England, he demanded the name of the person
4 Q had so conducted himself? By
Person the law of England,
was required to give the relief that was
vitired by all those who sought relief under its pro-
aoeTl. "If " the statement had been made that a per-
il not administered that relief to a dying person
ieh the law compelled him to administer, why did not
talne
e4°°- Gentleman, who was himself a magistrate, at
b-talts cognizance of so gross a breach of the law.
y irsr statement equally strong had been made
liert;,° lion- Member for Kuaresborough. The eir.
the anees were flagrant, and the order of
hftv Poor-law Commissioners was stated to
N 6 been brought forward in justification.
et hop he had gone to the wrong overseer, considering
hunger did not kill except by slow process, there
the time for her to have gone to the right officer. But
ere 11°11. Gentleman charged with murder the high
h`2Teers of the Crown, a crime which was only less than
itleb treason. He would be amazed if shame, that feel-
°f 44 ingenuous bosom, did not rise at the assertion
of
ment
stic;ll callimnv. He would take one of the cases
th"°°eLl by the Hon. Gentleman. lie told the House
at
,pidda„ Woman near her accouchement had engaged a
eg. a surgeon, and a nurse, but she was
`hovered while alone. Why, the very description
wed her to be no pauper, Dut the Honourable