The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-09 00:00:00

EVENINi4

the 0.1
Ireese cunt of the poor-rates, for the twenty years
pre
to 1836. He thought they would show the
!eald°u new view altogether of the question ; and it
_eftiintlicate to the House, that if the commercial
rth
lof the country increased, that there ought to be
eerease of the amount of relief bestowed on the
Poor,
16 For the 14five years ending March the 25tli
ultl
la 1819, the expenditure for the'Poor-rate
6,288,0001. ; •from 1819 to 1824, it was
l
Al,ooo/. ; from 1824 to 1829, 6,157,000/. ; and
aroro 1829 to 1634, it was 6,754,0001. ; and taking the
igeura.3f the first and last ten years, from 6 1814 to
Irate' .1" annual expenditure averaged. 3.36:000/. ;
ipleoterratiioB42444 to 1834,' 6,456,000/., showing in .he ten
„ before the Poor:law Amendment Act came into
in
ratio ratio increasedid of 9,5001. The increase
Now
use would see was per cent. in ten years. c
population increase? Why in th
°of 16 per cent. In what manner did wealth in-
C'e• Judging of that from the amount paid for legacy
alp Why from 1815 to 1825 the amount was
hei0'.31343?°. 01. ; from 1825 to 1835 it was 382,577,0001.,
increase of 63,2141. in ten years, or at the rate
(4,00
kt th °I- a Year. The increase of the property was
„ _ e rate of 6,000.000/. a year, and Cae increase of the
Poor-rat 6,000,0001. was 95,000/. a year ; and yet an outcry bad
aholl raised that the poor rate would soon absorb the
*hoc Pr°Perty of the country.—( Hear, hear.) Now
Act as t•
he operation of the Poor-law Amendment
Plop; Were its effects on the feelings of the peo-
. Isectioh eat law came before that House under the
" a a Liberal Administration, it was proposed
the' ral Ministry, and it showed how cautious
tsi °llea to be in the use of terms, for he felt no hesi-
he.% in declaring that no Tory Administration would
wogs Proposed such a law, and that if they had, they
p?"o°ldriever have enacted it into a law. In 1818, a
osittlirtoisitiloontiwegas made in that. House to give a right of
to ratepayers. Act, called
By
an
rated
.1:08; Bourne's Act, the rate-payers, who were h
aetdYmeaern,,steere entitled to give six votes in Pane
law A siectioDe. What was the proposition under the Poohr.-
sill Act ? Did the Noble Lord by t
to 14 nele before the House propose to modify that sys-
of ratinw6ig ? How did he reconcile the manner in
1444 the right of voting was exercised in parishes in
Ti/batrY with the manner in which he proposed that
f
Valerall'd be exercised by the Bill for the Registration o
ti ie Ireland ? He (Mr. Wakley) could noto
theeitllt"ad the degree of liberality which appeared i
Oreo,lieeuei when everything that was illiberal was so
1304;ite°11 displayed in the other. Under Sturges
ae's A
At -scl.passed in 1818, an occupier who was rated
Was d • lelaar WAS entitled to give six votes. What
Pith of °4e by the Poor-law Amendment Act? That
t,
re Wee, "e11"g from occupiers was transferred to non-
reti,l 'oners, and under the existing laws, the non-
ve,:eut o;mer could give by proxy six votes for the
VeePtePerty which only enabled the occupier
.to give
f
li6ertiNee. Was this just? Was it a specimen
tehe ItY ? Was it the kind of franchise which oughtf
he, "'lied to them by a Reform Government ? If
b. l.; the
-Ater sooner that Government was changed the
r_44ld it be for the interest of the people.-
402 °a, from Col. Sibthorp.) The public werecha
het; "-'46 under. a delusion with reference to the . -
Yasai:,,f!,he Government, and the sooner that delusion
proear, the better would it be for the country.• 7
Prokeltet,' ".ear.) Indeed, the Bill of the Noble Lord did
Pteiy, inth,ll°ftle measure to modify the right to vote by
keen"hY.under the existing law he (Mr. Wakley)
hundred "individual who, in one parish, put in sixteen
that iof._!°tea by proxy. The
.Noble Lord proposed
Nei. elute a man should only give twenty-four. proxy
Ns I What effect has this system of proxy voting, ana
hadit„s,,tllt of voting with regard to owners ? What effect
ittuallyd•
e' 'On the mass of the rate-payers ? Why, they were
*etel4.• l'frauchised ; they felt it, they knew it, and they
The, q'Pant at the effect of the law upon their interests.
Ilecii:„l'd„," Of what use is it for us to interfere in toe
of
eete,...' r• we are absolutely deprived of the right
410 " the Plurality of votes which are given by richthese
Greg dhY the voting of non-occupiers." Under
tleetrollateereea they were absolutely indifferent to the
,r4Atter t guardians, and they felt no interest in the
itkoohs!lle (Mr. Wakley) could tell the House that
tetin. leance of the operation of the law, and by r.e-
-44, -6 41)0n these things, they were becoming dissatis-
ilhet4t heart with their proceedings. They had no re-
-4k Lich' the Legislature of the country ; and he would
tittisleuether this was a feeling which Conservatives were
Ptiiii°l4 of seeing extended through the land ? The
eetitie' "std the Hon. Gentleman, the public are be-
-11 detached from the Parliament of the kingdom-
-3' feel proceedings ; they tell
ale th an interest in your
this litt it is useless to present a petition to
ead th.°46e---that they do present a petition now
d
11.0.-'4, but when it is presented not a w
the Zed to be spoken upon it, and that, int fact,o.
Pelo !'le Proceedings of this House are adverse_veorsepteh
Aoki netts% adverse to popular interests, and ad
were feeling. Now, if the principles he had condemned
hh.
40: est obnoxious, if he did not feel them to be
to
theiteut", Yet if the people as a body were opposed
'"e might endeavour to express their feelings beassese
prittu4der.etned them to exist. But when he found these
be doubt !ere really obnoxious, when he entertained
'l%lO 0! their being hostile to the public interest, ht.e
taeou ;',.1 eat. 'ely wanting in his duty to his cons '-
With ;11." did not take the part he was now taking
W4L'lnerence to the Poor-laws. I say, said Mr.
ZeY, 415 a cold-blooded mercenary Act,—l say it is
is 44 el hued on fierce and savage prinuiples,—l say it
theeet calculated to lead to the misery and torture of
iete,tvi
ul? poor of this country, and, more than this,dl
too ",.111,,au Act calculated to excite the muscle and
do got 4°lland to resist the authority of Parliament.
law,
"hesitate helitate to predict that if you proceed with this.
this try to carry it out, you will produce in
tosee--rtrY a feeling of indignation which nothing . u
is
*di be able to resist. Are you prepared for this ?
is Your desire ? Sir, I do not believe that it is. It
tni 6
this sum conviction that this House has legislated on
thati"trit thoughtlessly, and without due reflection—
Put "I bean instigated to legislation by statements
10411 P I C •
14'4 Y the Poor-law Commission, b.ase.d, tn.eapow s
Hi:neasure, on fallacy—containing statisticaltabl
this
ouse !n to be untrue, and which deceived tp the ttad led it into false conclusions with regard
toiled rea.u,lt. Nov, the poor labouring man, who has
day, hhi"Y or forty years, and, at the end of every
Self bad scarcely
bread sufficient to maintain him-
lore "yaou children, prostrates himself on his knees be-
C%) and He appeals to your humanity, to your
reli-
to Your love of justice, and asks you, in the
It law vti.krad,to retrace your steps, and to act no longer on
htei which is so savage in its nature. He states that after
414itil I" is
well, and endeavoured to keep his
40111 the workhouse—that having done his duty
I"ei, eillietteighbour, and violated no law, he is unable to
leecol,:::te:-.iteitticlihmildren, and implores you in the name of
n" ook upon him with feelings of compassion,
become the victim of the mercenary
tAfiitlt?lCestiseonlieofdesire to make his poverty the ground
punishment. I have witnessed cases
farrowed to break the heart—l have witnessed the
%tie cheeks of men who have attained the age of
61141. Years acting as Jurors, whose furrows were.
letiottwah the tears of sorrow and grief at the desti-
W„,°f the fallen creatures. They ask of me
tt:" is Parliament about ? what do they desire?
No "'I wish the people to be murdered ?" say,
liittn't Parliament is deceived—it is the desire of Per-
i ~tlt to do justice to the people. But still, Sir, I
it-irlaot believed, because against my assertion there
are °Peration of the New Law. They hear the one, but
ciri Pelted to obey ar.d to rt.flect upon the other.
later ?.11181gra know what poor people in this country
011,4 , Does the Lord know what is the nature
r„ Yale 1 Noble
"iett. A, 4, toil 'fake a boy, the son of a labouring
the Di t,oe age of 15, dragging his feet, and toiling after
t:"g" ; at 21, aye, at an earlier age (for I do not
he,e,e ease at the worst) he fancies himself a man ;
teei,_,rfirov, and reap, and plough, but the dawn of
ja O.',""Y tells him of misery and toil to be gone throughhgt
,'e t• to obtain his bread. No luxuries, no comforts,
sad "astant fight waged between his physical body
44d 4.°71,(1• The next day and the next it is the saFivs,
lair a" of 60 he is broken down and palsied.
0 hint Y betonles weary, and his toil more oppressivef
the till' al his energies decline. He passes the gatedo
to 411"7.r.b.0u5e, " There is my doom ;" and, in or cr
the 6 :it more consolatory and gratifying to him, in
kttachercise of your Christien humanity, a cemetery is
la thee 44 to the back of it ; so that, after being located
the -
owelflog, his eyes may be regaled by the view of
which cover the unfortunate beings
these had gOne before him.—(Hear.) Day after day
hszu_eyeestrecticotninsgare operating upon his mind. At last
ese,,L" en longer earn the value of his wages, and his
on the principle of political economy,
ti'ree vr ie'', ray good man, I have lost by you the last
di►ew.eo!`:. and I can't lose by you any more. I have
kid 66. a week (high wages in our neighbourhood)
4i ell°. Ploy you any longer." "I am very sorry,
thras.:4,lll,ll_°_Peenlyou will try me a little longer No,"
taerailin:rfler I can't, indeed." He applies toa the
or
three relief.
house."
nh guardians ian
Gentlemen,"s i n turn
Ipsli%°l4e
Tinto
heyr—e-
tereali: have a cottage and a wife and let me reply? out, and allow me 3s. or 4s. a-week." The
44018f' N°. We would be glad to do it, but the Corn-
The ee acting under the law will not allow us.
tottehk•;°!Urnissioners sit in Somerset House, we can't
ue • titer° we can't reach them, we cannot control
teiluee •
Assei,t., en thesis. We should be delighted to com-
ae means Your situation, but we cannot. We have
tire it t:8 01 overruling their authority. We would
.o
You, but we cannot." His hopes are at an
114,10.4ne cloud of despair from that moment over-
house-: at Man. He enters the gate of the work-
Dort IL-4'll4th at that mossent that he has entered the
tilt of his t b• Now, Gentlemen, is that Chris-
legialet onl •
10444 ion ? Is it the legislation of an assembly
447 really desire to see their fellow-countrymen
of
~.4* of such, I ask, hear of the operation
The •1,‘,8 nature, and yet vote for its continuance
Pursult4ola Lord;Ministe Ministers, and men of wealth, whose
the ~ I were entirely at variance with the feelings of
%re?. could have no knowledge of the condition of the
fOr, if they
had, they would never support such a
was the Poor-law Act. Many years ago, he (Mr.

Wakley) was in practice as a medics' man, and he had
opportunities in that capacity of witnessing what was
the condition of the poor in their dwellings. He saw
their miserable huts—their horrid hovels. He had seen
women who, when they ware agOnized by the pangs
of childbirth, had not the accommodation of the
Honourable Gentlemen's horses in their sta-
bles, or dogs in their kennels. 'Nat he Led
witnessed a hundred and a hundred times ; at a
period when some little luxuries were required,
some comforts demanded, there would not be a single
thing at hand—a little cold water, or small beer, or dry
bread, being the only things which a Christian, under
such circumstances, could be afforded. Were lion.
Gentlemen aware of those things ? But it was told him
(Mr. \Vakley) by the politic.il economists, that that law
would raise the wages of the labourer. Well, they had
bad it six years, and had it raised their wages ?—( Hear,
hear, and cheers from both sides of the House.) Oh,
then, there was a difference of pinion about it—there
were cheers from both sides of the House. Semis gen•
tlemen thought that it had raised the wages, some con-
sidered it had not. Would they by the operation of
that law force wages up ? That was the question. Let
thorn for one moment remember the ticklish ground on
which they stood. They told the working people, they
object of that law was to raise wages. But, he would
ask, were wages raised ? He was informed they were
not. It was his belief that they were not. He heard
from various parts of England that they were not.
He could tell them that in one county—in Devonshire
—they were only 7s. or Bs. a-week. Was that raising
the wages ? Did they wish that the agricultural
labourers in that county should combine ? The mowing,
season in June would soon arrive. Well, the farmer
would say to the labourer, " John, the grass is ripe for
cutting, you had better commence mowing in the mea- •
dow below on Monday next." John answers, " Very
true, Sir, I believe the grass is ripe, but we cannot touch
it. on the old terrus—eve cannot take ‘.2s. now—we must
get 7e. We have formed a little society—a union sort
of thing—(r,ssughter)—and now we cannot put a
soy the to the grass unless you give us 7e. an acre ;
in
three weeks the grass will be spoiled, but we cannot cut
it for less, for we are told that Parliament has passed a
law to raise our wages, and if we don't act thus we
will be criminals ; we must save some money, but we
cannot save if we don't get it to save." Well, the
grass will be cut, and that difficulty got over. By
and by the wheat, the barley, and the oats will become
ripe and require cutting. the farmer says to the la
bourer, " Come, John, begin the ricking." He replies,
" No, Sir, not on the old terms. Parliament has told
us that a law has been passed to raise our wages, and.
we cannot work, then, on the old terms ; we would be
criminals if we did." Was it the desire of Gentlemen
possessing a great stake in the country to force men
into such combinations, and destroy all the friendly re-
lations that might exist between the employers and the
employed? If that were not their desire, their course
was a most extraordinary one, for he could assure them
that it would necessarily produce that effect which he
mentioned. It was of no use to disguise the fact ; the
opinion entertained by the people was that it was Hon.
Gentlemen's object to deprive them of any relief either
in or out of the workhouse. They might be right or
they might be wrong in that opinion ; but neverthe-
less it was their opinion. Now, if that were not the
object, what were their arrangements. Take, for ex-
ample, Kensington parish. How many relieving offi
cers were there in that parish, which possessed 25,000
inhabitants, and was 16 miles in circumference—that
parish bordered close upon the Court and upon the
Palace, and was under the noses of the Commissioners.
How many, then, were the relieving officers in that
parish ?—One. In St. Luke's parish there were
40,000 inhabitants, and lately the relieving officer had
indeed got an assistant. Good God ! did they mean
to tell him that it was possible to give the poor the
relief that they required under such a system ? It was
impossible, and the people knew it. What was the lan-
guage occasionally held to the poor when they applied
for relief ? What was the language addressed to
the wife of a poor man when she applied for relief ?
The officer said, " hang you " He admitted it, and
by way of extenuation said that he used that language
in a joke. In Kensington what happened in the case
of Elizabeth Friars, whose name had been mentioned

that night. A woman was sitting on the floor, worn
out, exhausted, and with mortification in her
legs.—(Hear, hear.) A poor Irish girl had given
her shelter, and asked the union doctor to come and
see her—he went, and the girl was alarmed at her being
informed that she would be subjected to three months
imprisonment for giving that shelter to the wretched
creature. The relieving officer came in, and the poor
woman was dying. The girl remarked that the medi-
cal gentletnen bad told her she should be imprisoned
for three months for giving shelter to the woman, and
what was his reply. " The doctor was right," said ho.
These officers were to be sure reprimanded, but they
were not discharged from their situations. But the
Commissioners exercised a new function in that case.
After the constituted authorities had made an investi-
gation of the facts—after the jurors of the neigh-
bourhood had been sworn to inquire into the circum-
stances and returned a verdict, and pronounced accord-
ing to the facts, what did the Commissioners do ?
Why they sent down a gentlemen of their own, with
directions to try by every ingenuity to get rid of the
moral effect of the verdict which the Jury had pro-
nounced. In all such investigations the gates of
the workhouse were locked. The rate-payers
were not admitted—the reporters of the press
were not admitted. The Board did as they pleased.
They might punish, imprison, or torture, and the poor
man had no redress. He was not permitted to go out
—how was he to look for work ? How was he to ob-
tain the assistance of his friend? He was completely
at the mercy of his tyrants.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He
(Mr. Wakley) did not wish to say anything personally
offensive to any Member of that House, but he was
there to discharge an important duty. He bad the
greatest opportunities of witnessing the operation of
this law, and he had only now stated the facts which
had come under his observation. The Commissioners
and the Noble Lord had sanctioned the punishment
of Lisney, by the guardians, who had been both his
accusers and his judge. Had the Noble Lord
bettered the condition of the poor people by this Bill ?
The Noble Lord had added to the offensive power of
the Commissioners over the guardians, which had been
exercised in so tyrannical a manner that the gentlemen
of England would not submit to the humiliations to
which they are subjected if it were not from a wish to
protect the poor.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member
for Maidstone had moved that the Bill be read a second
time this day six months, and he (Mr. Wakley) in se-
conding it, took the liberty of recommending the Nehle
Lord not to allow the question to be put to the House,
but to withdraw his measure at once—( Hear, hear)
—to make way fot another Bill,to limit the Commission
to two years and reduce its power.—(Hear, hear.)
In such a Bill the Noble Lord would have an opportu-
nity of putting the Poor-law upon a rational
basis. In the present state of the administration of the
Poor-law there was no uniformity. Every union had
its particular rules, and pretty rules they were. The
Hon. Member then read an extract from the rules, in
which leave was given to the guardians to allow a sepa-
rate room, under peculiar circumstances, to aged and
decrepid people, on condition that they make a minute
of such permission on their books, with their reasons
for granting it—a copy of the resolution being trans-
mitted at the same time to the Commissioners, without
which it should be invalid. Such was the condescrn-
siou of the Commissioners to the gentlemen of England
who acted as guardians.—(Hear, hear.) He hsd
shown by statistical details that the increase of the
Poor-rates before this Bill had Lorne no propor-
tion to the increase of the national wealth.—(Hear.)
Still the Commissioners said they had saved some
millions by the alteration in the law. The truth, how-
ever, was that the Commissio' ers, in order to produce
an appearance of saving, had struck out of the accou it
every charge which they could have excluded. They
omitted, for instance, the charges of Coroners; which
had formerly been paid out of the Poor-rate, and which
were now paid out of the countyerate. John Bull now
paid with his left band what he formerly paid with his
right. Tire reduction, therefore, was a deception. But
after all had they satisfied the rate-payers? Let them
ask the rate-payers what they wished for. Let the
rate-payers be appealed to by an honest system of voting,
and let them say whether they desire that saving at the
expense of the comforts of the poor ; and what would
be their answer ? Their answer would be that they
would rather perish, that they would rather go them-
selves without their meals than the industrious
and deserving man, worn out with age and
toil, should be deprived of those comforts essential
to him in his old age. They were opposed
to the Malthusian maxim of the Noble Lord, who said
that the object of the Poor-law was merely to prevent
the poor from starving. His Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Kilenny said, on the other hand, that the ob-
ject of the law was to make a distinction between the
deserving and the undeserving, between the idle and the
industrious man, and he (Mr. Wakley) would go with
his Hon. Friend. He would support any law which
would lay that down as a principle. But he woald ask
the Hon. Member for Kilkenny how he could support
the law, when he saw what had been its operation, and
when he heard the Noble Lord propound the course
which the Commissioners ought to follow to carry it
into effect. The Hon. Member concluded by second-
log the amendment.
Mr. G. KNIGHT said that notwithstanding the
statements of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, he should
congratulate the Noble Lord on the introduction of his
measure. The principle of the Bill was that of cen-
tralization, and he thought that without such a principle
the amended Peor-law could not be carried out. The
law, it was true, had become a subject for invective and
unmerited censure ; and he (Mr. G. Knight) was not
surprised at that, for with many such a course was po-
pular. It was always more pleasing to give than to re-
fuse, especially when we were dealing with other people's
money. It was unpleasant enough to be held up
and announced as the enemy of the poor, but tleese
who heaped their censures on the advocates of
the measure, should remember what was the state