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

whenever any thing was said against the Poor-law Com-
missioners. the Nnble T,Ard rcss:_, with great chivalr,
(1,-1,11:1Qd them ; and when U irate Secretary
for the Departnicnt (Sir J. Gr L.l-2) berfi7l .•

..,G, ahle esith resie t ts •(ac', 1
Lord got up and proteeteo agates., aey aiteis-aion its :tie
law, and his sentiments were loudly cheered. " Unitor-
mity of practice" was, no doubt, a grand principle ; but
it was one which had been tested and had been found
oflaw. personsueonce attended fallacious. Now he (alr. Ferrand) had seen the
whoon had been
a jury,
en starved to death
bbyodie thsis
who
felt desirous to return a verdict of " wilful murder "
against the relieving officer, and the coroner agreed with
them, because it was w,-ii hoown to them that the man
had refused to afford the wocaan eho had died relief ;
but when the man was taxed with this, he drew the
printed instructions of the Pour-law Commissioners from
his pocket and threw them on the tabe, and in the most
insulting manner snapped his fingers at the jury.
Sir GEORGE GREY—What was the nature of those
instructions?
Mr. FERRAND said he had not got a copy of them,
but they were to the effect, that the man was not to go a
y
yard oTutheofwhhims panarilishvefdorhhthethpeurhptohseer osifdeo a dispensingbrook, re-
lief.about ten yards out of the parish, but she had often re-
ceived 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,
evils which the auditors caused. The relieving
Every post brought him letters setting forth the
officer of Dudley had brought an action against the
guardians of the poor, for treating the inmates of
the union to "plum-pudding" on Christmas-day. In
1845, the Hon Gentleman the Member for Finsbury
(Mr. Wakley) Game 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—e here 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 ? Was 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 ?
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 more,
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
people might have relief out of the workhouse. There-
tore, 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 mat ter
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 bad
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 1,000,0001. a year, of which the poor
nad been robbed, in order that the commissioners might
be 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,
but 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 he abolished, as it
had been productive of the greatest evil, as the poor-
rates had increased 10,306/. in three years.—(l-rear.)
That was the way they diminished the expenditure.—
(Hear, 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 ex pe-
rience in the unions. They had had to establish rttral
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
praetised upon the people by the Poor-law Commissimer,
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. Wosrk-
houses had been erected under the protection of a mili-
tary guard, and they had greater distress in tbeis
country than they had had since the time of the French
Revolution. These were the penalties they were called
upon to pay. And how long did they think the people
would submit to this state of things? they were going to
let the Poor-law Commissioners " down easily," but did
they think that the people were not eufEcientlly
aware that this would ba a great question at the
next general ection ? The Whigs had stood
pretty firmly to the declarations made by them at the
last general election. But what was the conduct of tree
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 poor-law—one
was returned to the House, and continued his opposition
to the poor-law, and the other was rejected, but ne sub-
sequently obtained a seat in that House, and now sup-
ported the law.—(Hear, hear.) He challenged any one to
say that the law had not only proved a great tailure, but a
bitter curse upon the countr, and the remedy was the
same cruel and unconstitutional system limier another
,erm. In the first clause tour Csbln, t Ministers were to
ue pledged to maintain this law against all ()reposition ;
and in the sixth clause two c eninissionere and the
president were empowered to use :Ly powers vested in
tile whole body. By •he ilev.ai h they were empowered
to summon witnesse,, and also to make rules, and to
Ater them. But was the Right H n. Beronea inclined
to sign an order to separate a man trees his wife, and his
children from their parents? Was he going t u sanction
all the tyranny which had been practised eturing the
past
Bight l3
H yearn? I
what right had he to d.) so ? A
h
poor man asfs
inalienable a right to relic as the
Baronet had to his own property. Lord
o n. d
Brougham had admitted that this seas so. Was; he pre-
pared to test the measure upon those who were t sear and
dear to him ? If not, what right had he to i its
tortures upon the poor man ? And let him tell the
Right Hon. Baronet that a poor man was just tas fond
of his wife and children as the Right Hon. Baro net was
el his. But what must be the position of :I Cabi-
net Minister who was compelled to act thus towards
she poor man, for no other crime than that. he was
poor and unable to obtsin work. Tien they t Carew the
responsibility upon her Majesty. By the 20th clause
the Queen, by the advics of the Privy Council, avas ern-
powered to alter the rules ; but the four! Cabinet
\linisters were Members of the Privy Cowecil. The
Ministers were, therefore, responsible. There they were
to appoint inspectors. From that tyrannu to whomt
con
were they to appeal ? Their appeals_ wr ; and a nom-
her had no right to pass the present BiteLnded t
Locke, h I
her of high authorities, were opposed to the principle the H 011845
it be kepi
back from the Sovereign.
given to the Poor-law Commis-
sionerspowers which were here g _
by were such as could not be exercised even the
which was here contended for. LordWinfori thought that
bounden duty
Sovereign. Lord Abinger had also strongly expressed
himself upon this question. It was their
to set the present matter ut rest. He would read a letter
agreedwith of the
on poor law,) law.)hshjc . (;coke and
Judge
Haines was also of the opinion which he
which he had received from a working man. (The lion.
Member here read the letter in quesnou, whi•ct strongly
Bisedeprecatedksto the
working
exp re zed, and
even Lord Brougham himself ad •
of the poor to relief. And mated this right
they had. no right
to impose upon them a vassalage. the Poor-
law Commissioners themselves said that; the pre-
sent crime, which was the result of destitution,
was repugnant to the feelings of human nature. The
lion
• 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 Parlia went would,
no doubt, refer to the conduct of the poor-law guardians,
he would not dwell upon their conduct. lie would,
however, allude to the Long Town union—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member deprecated the state of that union.
And these were the foundations on which reports were
used against him in 1842 for the purpose adr crushing
him, reports to which be had
nut further alluded to
than to state that Sir John Wa s , 1 Ingham in his report
upon the same union, showed that 49 inmates were sleeping
in thirteen or fourteen beds, and when he laid similar
tects before the House, the Home Secretary, Si r James
Graham, turned up his eyes, and smote his bre* -st, that
such things could occur. The report stated, that front
the day the law was enforced, in 1838, to thie time in.
which it was made a resident poor law, comn sissionvea
bad never entered it. On hearing tnis, the la Le Misals-
ser said, high time for the Government to interfere , yet
what was the CAS, ? When did they enter Use • House
agAin ? not for tour years—not till May, 1134 6—not
until he himself came down to the House, and ei.ked the
Government to insist that an Assistant Poor- latw Com-
missioner should visit Bingley. Now, let them see what
were the next visits paid. They were made at iiuterralg