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

to join the London and South Western Railway neat
Lambeth) Bill—Swansea Valley Railway Bill—Dundee
and Perth Railway (Alteration and Extension, and
Ineliture, Polgavie, and Inehmichael Branches) Bill--
Lowestoft Railway and Barbour (Alteration near Reed-
ham) Bill—Great Southern and Western Railway Ex-
tension (Portarlington to Tullamore) Bill—Dublin and
Drogheda Railway (Branch from Navan to Bells) Bill—
Gla-gow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct, and Glasgow
Southern Terminal Railways Amalgamation Bill.—
Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct Railway Bill,
with Amendments ;—Macduff Ha! hour ImprovemEnt
Bill, with an Amendment.
POOR-LAW A MEN DMENT.
Lord SANDON moved the order of the day for the
third reading of this Bill, when,
Mr. WAKLEY begged to say, that whenever the dis-
cussion on this Bill came on, he should feel it his duty
to move that it be read this day three months.
POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of the
Poor-law Administration Bill being read,
Mr. WAKLEY rose and said that, such was his
objection to the present Bill, that it was his intention to
divide the House upon his motion that it be read this
day three mouths. He had given notice of that motion
already, and, he would say, a more unconstitutional and
cruel Bill could not be introduced into the House. He
believed, also, that its operation would be attended with
the most disastrous consequences to the interests of the
poor and the character of the Legislature. He was of
opinion that Hon. Members had been confiding in the
Legislature without looking at the provisions of the
Bill. When it was first introduced they were desired to
wait until they should see what would be done with it in
Committee. But now it had gone through Committee,
and it was as objectionable now as it was in the first
instance, not one of the obnoxious clauses had been re-
pealed. It was still as tyrannical and as cruel
a law as ever disgraced the statute book. The
Bill was nothing more than an attempt to
maintain the poor-law enactment and the Poor-
law Commissioners, whose conduct had been con-
demned by all parties except the Ministers. He did not
believe that it was possible that under this the poor could
obtain justice from that House. The measure was one
of the most unfortunate propositions that could have
been made to that assembly. The poor-law was to have
diminished crime, to decrease the expenditure falling
upon the parish, and remove many of the existing evils'
and he asked the House had it accomplished any one 01
those objects? The facts when ascertained show that
seven-eighths of the relief is administered out of doors.
The Act of 1834 has entirely failed. Had the details
now existing been foreseen in that year as the effects of
the Bill then proposed, all England to a man, would
have risen against it. Yet all these details were to be
sanctioned by the Bill now on the table. Why, in the
old days of the Tory and Whig, and the unreformed
Parliament, they would never have tolerated such a Bill'
This Bill proposed that the president of the poor-law
board should have a seat in that House as well as the
secretary. Under this regulation, the solicitor, clerk,
and other officers of a board of guardians would
do all in their power to obtain political power,
and the effect of that would be, that attention
would be withdrawn from their legitimate function--
that of relieving the poor, and directed to purposes
gether extraneous. It was said that the law workedalto re-
markably well, but the fact was that the law was made
a dead letter, and then it was expected that it worked
remarkably well. In the Andover Union the
poor were literally starved.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.h?
It had been proved that the children had been in the
habit of running away with and eating the potato-Peel:it
thrown to the hogs, and, in one instance, a poor wows
had to carry the corpse of her child under her arm,
through the town of Andover, to the church-yard. He
was sorry to hear that the Noble Lord had stated that
he was prepared to defend the conduct of that Poor-law
Commission in that House, for if there was one thingwhich was more odious thau another to men, and which
they were more anxious to avoid, it was the Poor.law
Commission. The conduct of that body was
lll-
defensible ; and yet there were many gentle.-
men in that House who, to the misery and 1330 F;
tification of the poor, were prepared to uphold 1k-
If the Government should decide against a liberal llo'
ante what would be their position—would they Wit':
to stand against the cry made against them. Anthers,
them take the converse of the propositions. Why,
they would have all those poor-law guardians aga,iti
them who were anxious to grind down the poor. IT'A
should there not be a poor-law court, with a man
high character presiding over it, and a public advoca-,,
maintained to plead the cause of oppressed povertY
extent and
wwh
The present system was working badly for the 'Mertes
enormoush
unfortunates
people,was
oos
had
datdihviedtoiunugaipo.tuphl,eyhrfaoidcrhrofeTrlteioemnf,
o:ing
the poor.
tToifiheet
t trsife
forty and fifty miles before they could obtain
as
(Hear, hear.) No attempt in the present Bill w
made to remedy this defect and contract the pre-
sent gigantic size of the unions.—(Hear, heer:a/
He objected to the workhouse test, in the manner 1
which it was carried out ; he was of opinion that every
destitute person in the kingdom had aright to relief.
ra
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member then referred to so.
documents, and said that. it was not too late to do right.
The Government could abandon the present Bill with
good grace, in a much better manner than they ahalle:
doned the Railway Bill, for in that case the publicst
quired some such measure. He had conversed
practical men, and they were all unanimous in the
demnation of this Bill, and quoted the opinions se that
vend, to show that it was a dangerous Bill, and no
would sooner or later end in a revolution, and hat
thile
monarchy would ever be able to hold office long while
monarchy
was in operation. Believing that the measure was
unjust and an impolitic one, and that it would opte.rir;
most injuriously, he would move that it be read a h ru
time that day three months. derstood
Mr. FIELDS N, who was very inaudible, was un
would
to say that he could not support a Ministry whowith
introduce such a Bill, and he should, therefore, vote
the Hon. Member for Finsbury. statement
Mr. FERRAND said that there was not a sta
made by Lord Althorp. when the law was first brought
forward but had been violated by the Poor-law Comm!i
Commis-
sioners. When the reports of the Poor-loo-law was
sinners were made, on which the new
p of the
founded, he asserted that a considerable portionsuppressed.
evidence in favour of the 43d of Elizabeth was_
the
Poor-
Who, he would ask, were they who defended
Member for
law Commissioners in that house? The
ben for
Wolverhampton, and the Noble Lord, the Ble m
very
but
London, defended the Poor-law Commissionery
much
there was a circtunatance which detracted ve
Lordoble
from that defence, which was, that both the N
lated
and the Hon. Merriber for Wolverhampton, were re
..0
to one of the Goramissioners. The late Secretary t,,r,
the Home Department also defended them, but he did
not attach much weight to his defence, as the Hoe-t.
Member for Dorchester had denied all acquaintance 10_11
the transactions of the Commissioners at the
time they occurred, and now he said that he
was cognizant of them, and approved of them.
The Right Hon. Baronet also said in the course of his
speech, that the Hon. Member for Weymouth had made
an ample apology to him, in reference to certain state-
ments. Now he (Mr. Ferrand) wished the Right Hon.
Baronet would :act in a similar manner towards him, and
apologise for the many erroneous statements which he
had made with regard to him. lie had not, however,
acted in that honourable and gentlemenly manner,
but said, " I had appealed to Caesar, and to Caesar I
should go." (Laughter.) Now, the Right Hon.
Baronet stated on the 28th of January last, that in six
weeks from that time the trial should bat
it e place; a
it was now the 24th of June, and nothing had been
done yet. He had, however, received a notice a short
time ago from his solicitor, that Lord Denman had inti-
mated that the tr ial could not come on before December
or February next. Such, therefore, was the position in
which he now stood, and all he could do was to
complain of the postponing and procrastination which
had taken place. The Noble Lord at the head of air.
Government state d on a former occasion that he (Mr.
Ferrand) had man le statements to the House which were.
utterly unfoundk,. Now, he denied having done so, and
he was prepared to stand by anything he had said.
What statement la ad he ever made that had been refuted?
When he called. upon the Noble Lord at the time he
made such an as sertion to name one, he could not do II
till he was prompted by the Hon. Gentleman the Mew't
her for Wolverhampton. He then attempted,
ot parrodo.E.
like, to repeat the words again, but he could n 1
He at length, however, said that he (Mr. Ferrand) badstated that the Poor-law Commissioners delighted to
murdering children. Now he (Mr. Ferrand) denied that
he had ever said uny such thing. He never said so;
he now called upon the Government to tell the House it
that was the way in which they ought to have acted.
such
He would ask them if they were now going to pass
a law without giving some guarantee that the aged an:
infirm of this muntry would be protected from the
cruelties which b.ad been hitherto practised upon there'
He would ask th e Noble Lord if be was aware that there
were tens of thot isands of the aged and infirm who were
convicted of no4:irime, but who, from the distress in
which they were involved, were obliged to sell off all the
little furniture they had, and seek a refuge in the union
workhouse, and that, consequently, their property, their
comfort, their hopes, and their liberty, were all affected
by the present law. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
the Member for Bt Lth, who had attacked him with so
much asperity w hen the question was last under
discussion, said that he was willing to interfere
with regard to the aged and infirm ; but he
(Mr. Ferrand) wi :nted the Government to interpoce.
Why if the people were to combine together against thke
law they would o' rerturn the Government in a woe
but there was no redress for the poor, and if he stoat
up to defend them he was met with a secret document
which, if it had bee n true, would have prevented him,.
from ever after sitting in that House. The 43d of
Elizabeth provided that labour should be found for the
indigent poor. If they did so now they would have a
robust labouring population. In Isis part of the country
he found men begging for work, but they were refused
it, because they IN ere told by the guardians that they
had applied to the Poor-law Commissioners to give
them the power se,' doing so, but that they had refused
to accede to their request. But in how many unions
were they compelled to refuse relief except within the
walls of the union -workhouse. On the second reading
of the Bill the Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man the Member for Bath taunted him with being
desirous that the poor should lead a life of
idleness • but no ms ,gistrate had committed more men to
the treadmill for deserting their families than be (Mr-
Ferrand) had. When it was shown that they were able
to work, and could have obtained it, he invariably sent
them to the treadmill. But when a man had sought
work, and could oiAain none, he was compelled to part
with his furniture at one-twentieth part of its value, and
to enter the union, to subsist upon a diet which reduced
him to such a ate to of debility that lie was unable to
work when he pri cured it to do. Such an inveterate
dislike did the peo pie entertain to the law, that he should
not be surprised if a revolution was the result. He et'
tended 13 meetings 0 the crown and Anchor is few weeks