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

7 general ground:, namely, the recollection of the evils'
which the old system had produced, and the imperfection
$ of the present system, he preferred giving the charge of
its administration, for the present, to a Central Commis-
sion, aiel should give his vote for the second reading of
the Bill. (Great cheering.) But at the same
tize.e he felt it necessary to reserve to himself the
o enre right of judging of the merit of particular elaeses.—
( Hear.) He would mention one or two clauses of the
propriety of which he had great doubts. He Fad doubts
as to the propriety of continuing the duration of the Com-
mission for so long a time.—( Hear.) He did not mean
to say the experience of another short period might not
convince him still more that the existence of a Central
Commission
be more satisfactory
ad vtaon ttahge feelings
o cuci
nz
sibus
of the
t
hethocuoguhnttryit
would
that at ae earlier period the matter might again pass under
revision, and that the 'Louse would find it advantageous
not to extend the period for its duration beyond five
years.—( Hear, hear.) It did not necessarily follow that
there must then be a termination of the Commission, if
they were convinced that it was working well. But at
any r-te there was a difference between leaving it open to
any Member to propose the repeal of the existing law, and
having it certain that at the end of five years they could
reject or renew the existing law.—( Hear, hear.) He
did not deny the force of some of those arguments that at
the end of five years there should be a legislative revision
of the conduct of the Commissioners. He thought
sit
would be a greater security for their goad conduct thin
securing them in office far ten years, and if five years con-
vinced them the Commission worked well, he Was sure the
good sense of Parliament would induce them to consent to
its continuance.—( Hear, hear, hear) Another reason
for his insisting, as far as he could insist, for a shorter time
for the duration of the Commission, was, that a great deal
depended on the personal character of the gentlemen cm.
pl eyed. Great power was devolved opera them—a power
of legislating to such an extent that he thought it would
be more becoming in Parliament to reserve to itself the
power of supervision where so much depended on the per-
sonal character of the gentlemen employed. He was
strongly inclined to think that a shorter period than ten
years would be more likely to produce a proper discharge
of duty in those to whom Orley delegated those enlarged
pow se s. —( Hear, hear.) Another clause, respecting
nhieb he certainly felt great difficulty, was that respecting
attaching burial grounds to union workhouses.—( Cheers.)
Ile did hope the Noble Lord would not attempt to carry
this system too harshly into execution. He (Sir R. Peel)
never had given his vote in favour of the measure from any
other motive than to promote the interests of the labouring
classes—( Cheers)—and to remedy the abuses of the Poor-
law; and he regretted this clause because he felt it was
calculated to prejudice the law in the feelings of a large
class of this country. It was of immense importance, and
he hoped the Noble Lord would secure the proper execu-
tion of this law with as much respect as possible to the
feelings of those who were more particularly affected by it.
Ir, as he believed, the poor of this country had a decided
preference to being buried in these consecrated grounds
attached to their parish churches, one could not help ad-
miring the honest prejudice; and, further, he could see no
objection to that last solemn ceremony being performed
over their remains in the ancient burial-ground, where
their ashes might mingle with the ashes of those to whom
death once more united them. He did not sec that this
was any necessary part of the operation of this law—
( Hear, hear)—and he was convinced that, the more they
cool I legislate consistent with their main object, the ele-
vation el the character of the poor, who could not be ex-
pected to take these enlarged views of the ultimate effect
of legislation, it would be so much the Letter. Ile had a
strong impression that it would be infinitely better to en-
courage, as strongly as possible, the burial of the poor in
churchyards to which they were attached, than to bury
them in cemeteries attached to the workhouse.—( Hear,
hear). There was one other clause he should be sorry to
see adopted. He should be sorry to see any extension of
the existing unions.—( Hear, hear). He quite understood
there might be some advantage in very large unions, but
he was inclined to think they had carried that principle as
far as they could advantageously do, and that possibly it
might bo advantageous- to diminish them. They wculd
find in those large unions a great difficulty in securing the
attendance of guardians, and he thought also that
where they had a relieving officer visiting remote
rural parishes by having unions too extensive, and its parts
too remote from the cognizance of the Board of Guardians,
there might be opportunities of abuse which would be cor-
rected, if the unions were on a more limited scale. He
should, therefore, regard any proposition for the extension
of unions with great jealousy.--s( Hear, hear.) He had
mentioned these two or three clauses respecting which he
entertained considerable doubt on giving his consent to
the second reading of the Bill, and he must repeat what he
had More stated, that he reserved his consideration of
specific clauses. When he saw increased powers con-
ferred, he must be convinced that increased powers were
necessary fur the proper operation of the Act, but these
clauses would all undergo consideration, and he should
apply to the consideration of them on the principle he had
before stated, namely, the desire to provide an effectual
remedy against the abuses which had undermined the pro-
sperity of the country, and the desire also to consult as far
as he possibly could this feelings of that class who were
more immediately subject to the operation of this Bale—
( Cheers.)
Mr. T. DUNCOM BE said, if he had not seen the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) in the House at the
time it was proposed, he should have supposed he had not
heard the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for
:Maidstone. The question before the House was not
whether they would adhere to or abandon the present sys-
tem, but whether they would agree to the second reading
of a Bill, entitled an Act to amend the present Poor-law,
but in which he could find no amendment whatever.—
( Hear, hear.) Or. the contrary, lie found aggravation of
every evil of which the people of the country complained.
It was quite true the present system required much
amendment. It was very well to talk of speeches being
ii immatory when spoken against the Poor-laws, but he
begged leave to say that, if that'Commission was to be con-
tinued, he did riot believe the law could be safer than in
the hands of those Hon. Gentlemen—(Cheers)---but he
had a right to attack the system under which they were
acting.—( Hear, hear.) And on that principle alone he
rose to offer a few observations to the House. It was
stated that this was a Bill to amend the present law, but
where was it amended? He thought it would be better
that the Government should introduce a Bill of half a
dozen lines, merely saying the Commissioners should be
made perpetual, and should have the power of the Com-
mons, Lords, and Crown of the United Kingdom,
because, in fact, this Bill would confer on them
these rowers. It would be better at once to give
them the power of legislative enactment. The Right
Hon. Gentleman suggested the Commission should only
last five years. It was not difficult to predict that what
the Right Hon. Gentleman suggested would be accepted
by her Majesty's Government, and he (Mr. D.) therefore
wished the Right Hon. Gentleman had suggested one
year, as he felt satisfied in such case it would have been
agreed to. He was quite satisfied also that after the speech
of the Right Hon. Gentleman, there would be no private
church-yard in which these poor persons would be thrown
into the earth like so many dogs. It was not even said
in the Bill that any clergyman was to perform the service
over them. The Right Hon. Baronet gave great credit
to the poor for their meritorious feelings respecting burial
in their own church-yard, but he wished the Right Hon.
Gentleman would pay as much respect to these poor old
people during their life as ho seemed desirous
of paying to their remains. It would be much
more satisfactory to them. They thought a greater
evil could not be inflicted upon them, after
expending their time and strength in improving Hon.
Gentlemen's estates, than to be shut up in a workhouse
when they applied for relief at the discretion of the Poor-
law Commissioners.—( Hear, hear, and No, no.) It was
at the discretion of the Commissioners, they could not
deny that. If they wished to adhere to the present system,
why introduce the present Bill? When the old Bill was
introduced, it was promised that the Gilbert Unions and
local Acts should not be interfered with, but now the
guardians of these unions would not consent to the re-
newal of the Poor-law. They were going to do that by
force which they could not effect by reason. They were
going virtually to repeal all the local Acts of the Metro.
.polio, which he told the Noble Lord wag a breach of faith.
They were told on the first day of the Ssssion, by the
Noble Lord who moved the Address, that this Bill had
worked well, had been a boon to the country. If this
were so, why did not the Gilbert Unions at once embrace
it? They did not, because they knew it to be a jobbing
Bill. It was all a fallacy, but a profitable one for the
Ministers, to say that if this Bill was not agreed to, they
mutt revert to the old system of Poor-laws. The case
was now entirely altered; the laws were now administered
by individuals elected by the rate-payers, and were not
now under the control of overseers and Justices of the
Peace. That fallacy leaving been exploded, he saw
no reason why the House should give its sanc-
tion to the second reading of the Bill—of a
Bill which would take away from the ratc.payers
all control over the law—a Bill which would disfranchise
the rate-payers to any extent that it might please the
Commissioners—because, perhaps, few Members were
aware that it contained a clause giving the Commissioners
power to divide unions into wards, and settling, according
to their own pleasure, the number of guardians to be re-
turned by such wards. The Bill had been proceeded in
with indecent haste; the country had not had time to be
made aware of the provisions it contained. He had no
doubt the Bill would be read a second time; but from the
opposition the Noble Lord had met with that night, he
would have a foretaste of what 1:e might expect in Com-
mittee. He wished the Noble Lord would be wise and
withdraw the Bill. He would do so if he did not wish to
widen the chasm which now existed between the richer and
the poorer classes of society. He wished that the Noble
Lord could be induced to withdraw the Bill, and found
upon it
another Bill that would be more accordant to the
feelings of the rate-payers, more humane to the poor, and
more in accordance with the feelir gs of justice and hu-
manity. —( Cheers.)
Mr. F. MAUL E would press as earnestly upon his
Noble Friend as the lion. Gentleman who had just sat
down, but in a different way. Ile would press upon his
Noble Friend to persevere with the Bill, and be trusted
that notwithstanding the speech they had just heard the
Bill would meet with no more than fair opposition. It wa4
unfair to charge the Government with pressing on the
Bill with indecent haste. The country must be fully,
aware of all its provisions, for it was laid before Parlia-
ment in the March of last year, although, from eir,:um-
stances which he need not now allude to, it had not been
discussed until late in the Session. He had heard the
speech of the Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley)
with great regret. He charged the country gentlemen
of England with acting from mercenary motives in the
carrying out of this Bill. Now that was a position
which he did not think would be taken up by any other
gentleman, nor did he believe that it was founded upon
anything like fact. The Hon. Gentleman bad also said
e
that the discontent which had existed in the country of
late years arose front the Bill of 1834. In that statement
the lion. Gentleman maligned the poor, of whom he
well
' wished it to be thought he was the advocate. It wase
known the discontented were act the poorer classes—the
i cUscontent arose from, and was confined to, thoseclassesfrom
t who were earning such wages as to keep them far