The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-23 00:00:00

they had made. The circumstances, however, were
brought before the Magistrates, and they thought it of
so serious a nature as to require further investigation.
The case was brought before a Court of Justice, and
the Learned Judge in addressing the Grand Jury said,
the indictment against the medical men who had sent
this person in such inclement weather in an open cart,
should have been for manslaughter, and not for misde-
meanour. The case was now undergoing further in-
vestigation.
Captain HAMILTON said, as a guardian of a
union, he bad always understood that the medical offi-
cers had the power of ordering whatever they thought
best. But he thought the statement which had just
been made, should induce members to pause before they
voted for the fourth clause, lest what they blamed and
condemned at Uxbridge should be enacted elsewhere.
Mr. WOOD had acted as a guardian for a consider-
able period. The result of his experience was, that in
all cases the medical man ordered whatever he thought
proper, and the first intimation that the Board had of
it, was an application to the relieving officer to pay the
bill.

Mr. E. BULLER had seen the same practice uni-
versally pursued.
General JOHNSTON complained that the medical
officer had not the power of administering to the patient
unless he had the authority of the relieving officer or the
board of guardians. Sometimes the guardians did not
meet for a fortnight. Did the House of Commons sit
for the purpose of starving the poor ?—(Hear, hear.)
He extremely regretted the declaration of the Noble
Lord at the commencement of the debate. A declara-
tion which confounded evil with good, virtue with vice
—a declaration that there should be but one teat, what-
ever the cause of destitution.—(Hear, hear.) He
called upon the House to pause before they sanctioned
such a principle. Had it been promulgated by the
Commissioners he would not have been surprised, but
when such a declaration came from a leading Member
of the Cabinet, he was totally at a loss to know how he
could place any further confidence in the Government.
Mr. GROTE said that was not the moment for
commenting on the speech of the Noble Lord
the Secretary for the Colonies the other evening,
otherwise he should say that he never in his life
listened to a speech which he more thoroughly con-
curred in.—(Hear, hear.) He felt the strangest admi•
ration of the steadfastness and the courage with which
the Noble Lord persevered in what he believed to be
the only true and humane manner of dealing with the
poor and with pauperism, in spite of the temporary
obloquy which had been thrown upon him.—(Hear.)
The Hon. Member behind him desired that the medi-
cal officer of every Union should have unlimited power,
to order medical relief and sustenance of the most ex-
pensive kind without the possibility of the guardians or
Commissioners correcting or disallowing such an order,
in the event of their believing it to be unnecessary.
Why, if that doctrine were established the medical
officer of the union would become the real distributor
of relief.
Colonel WOOD said in the Staines Union the me-
dical officer was held to be responsible not only for the
medicines, but for the diet he gave to the poor.—(Loud
cries of " Spoke, spoke.") He was not aware of the
meaning of the cry.
The SPEAKER had a strong recollection of the
Hon. and Gallant Member speaking of houses not being
heated with warm water.—(Laughter.)
Mr. EAST HOPE was of opinion that all medical
,„.
orneers under the Poor-law ought to have the power of
dealing with the sick poor as they pleased. They were
entirely under the control of tee guardians ; if they
were too lavish in their treatment, it would only be for
a week or a fortnight, when the guardians had the power
of suspending them from their functions. In his opinion
all medical officers ought to be unfettered in the dis-
charge of their duties.
Mr. W. ATTWOOD said the case which bad been
detail ,d in the House that cvoling was enough to jus-
tify him, aad those who opposed Cie Bid altogether—
it was that of a poor person, guilty of no crime bet
poverty, sinking under sickness and disease, yet the
n:c lical cificer did not feel hinis, if juqificti in affording
tit relief which sinking misery required without the
concert of the board of guardins.. Yet this was a system
which the Member for the City of London supported.
Ile had no doubt that that and many similar cases had
ars,2ll from the !trolls: laogeage indolged in by the
Commissioners, which La 1 been condemned by the
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tanrworth, and
had not been defended by any one.
Mr. WARD said he was astonished to bear any
lion. Member so misrepresent the statements of the
lion. Member for the City of London. He felt
laelkei to call them wilful misstatements.—(Cries of
" Order.') If he had used any unparharnentary
le, of course, withdrew it.—(Hear, hear.) But
I,is Hon. Friend only contended that tie medical
cflieer should be amenable; to the board of guardians,
jyet he was charged with inhumanity. In the district
with which he was connected the medical officer or-
dered whatever he considered requisite for his pa.
tients ; of course be accounted to the guardians, but
In no case, up to the present moment, had he been
found Emit with. At one time a low fever broke out
in the Bishops Stortford Union, when the poor were
treated with all that was necessary, even to the amount
of 31., 41.: or 51. a week for a family. That was a case
and spoke well in favour of
' cae now Poor-law.
M,. W. ATTWOOD understood the Hon. Mem-
ber to have withdrawn the charge made against him,
and therefore had nothing to say on that head. As for
m:srcpresentetion of any kind, he was glad he was in
the recollection of the House.
Mr. COURTENAY was not one who had ever
courted popularity at the expense of his feelings of jus-
tice and right, or he might have indulged in abuse of
the Poor-law Bill, considering the feelings which per-
vaded his constituents. The evils of the old system
were enormous, and he respected the moral courage of
the Ministry who attempted to grapple with such a
subject. The evils were enormous, and it was neces-
sary to probe the wound deeply. He was in favour of
the law, but he could not shut his ears or his heart to
what had taken piece under it in the Bridgewater
Union. He did not think it was enough that the sur-
geons should have the power to give wine or other ne-
cessaries. He thought ho ought to be unrestricted
altogether in his treatment of the sick poor. In Oct.
1836, an epidemic of a dangerous kind broke out in
Bridgewater ; it raged to excess, and vast numbers
were ill. The medical men said it was absolutely ne-
cessary that there should be a change of diet to those
who had not been attacked with the disease, in order
to save them ; they asked for merely a change from
water-gruel to rice milk : that was all they asked for ;
but the guardians refused the change ; they said they
had not the power to interfere with the dietary laid
down for their guidance by the Poor-law Commissioners.
He was no enemy to the Poor-law, but he could not
but let the House know how it worked ; that great
enormities took place in consequence of too rigid an
adherence to the letter and not the spirit of the law.
He trusted when any infectious disease existed in a poor-
house a change of diet would not be confined to those
who were actually sick, but to those who were in a
sick atmosphere.
Mr. MUNTZ wished to call the attention of the
House to the despotic power of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners. It had been said that if any pauper guardians
could not do as they pleased, they were not responsible.
Now, if the Commissioners gave such general orders,
that, from circumstances, they were likely to be misun-
derstood, and the death of an individual was caused
thereby, they were guilty of murder. The despotic

power of the Commissioners waq, he insisted, most ob-
jectionable. No man of independent mind would be-
come a guardian during the exercise of that power—
(Opposition cheers)—and the result would be that the
Poor-law guardians would be ultimately such men as
would not do that justice which the House required they
should. With respect to the question immediately
before the House, he would say that surgeons,
when it was necessary to prescribe for paupers,
ought not to wait until the board of guar-
dians approved of the prescription. It should be
recollected that the people now-a_days were not
such as those who used to be relieved under the Act
of Elizabeth. The people were now willing to labour
if they could get employment. The law ought to be
altered in such a way as that men of good feeling and
independent mind would become guardians.
The House then went into Committee, Mr. BERNAL
in the Chair.

On the lit clause, referring to the continuance of
the power of the Commissioners for five years, being
proposed,

Mr. E STHOPE rose to move an amendment. He
thought that fin years was too long a period during
which to consign the family of the poor to the Commis
- A.
sioners, and he would beg to propose as an amendment
to substitute the figures 1843 instead of 1846 in the
clause.
Mr.
BERNAL said that one Honourable Mm
proposed as an amendment to the same clausee
b
ther had
substitution of ttlbteevywrlviocerhdrdssllBB443l,. another the words
IBl2a
Committeen ll another a e
ether he should those
It
amendmentsvi,'as for thebe
greeter. He
blleeginwaws itinh
the
1 handssS 'l;
lulliedre
of tuuhmte bliCerr: mtorm. first-whether
t withhep e, andtie letg them decide.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that he would op-
poseished the Noble Lordb to address
ini'sl,:ihf Bet
oEatnhil'eeN'idmAmmLeendwt.iate question hefl'olie•e:LeorCdommittee
ihiieshintention of ono 'us-
as to which of the numl•ers he should first
Lord 3. RUSSELL said that the Hon. Gentleman
l!ad propured an amehnt(itnoiestew
ncluegiu!tory conversation took place as 'el
IA) fitehrotuvgarhdts-11 ea
which of the numbers should be first put from the Cehsai-o
Mr. BERNAL, in answer to a question from Mr.,
Easthope, said that he had emit-avowed to state the
case es clearly as possible. Tile matter to be decided
wag, whether the numbers proposed should stand part
of the gust' ion.
Sir J GRAHAM said tl.at if the effect of the com-
mitting a bill pro forma would be to fill up the IA asks it
would Le an important change. He was not prepared
to assent to a doctrine, now mooted for the first time,