The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-24 00:00:00

MORNING EDITION

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
(From the Morning Chronicle.)
Before going into Committee on the Poor-law Amendment
Bill, last night, Mr. Wakley complained of the arbitrary con-
duct of boards of guardians, and he alluded in particular to the
conduct of the guardians of the unions of Uxbridge and Not-
tingham. What he stated with respect to the Nottingham
case was afterwards substantially confirmed by Colonel Rol-
leston. It seems the guardians of these unions had disallowed
the orders of their medical officers, that nourishing sustenance
and stimulants should be given in certain cases. In the Not-
tingham case, as detailed by Colonel Rolleston, the medical
man, upon being asked by him whether something stronger
than water gruel, warm tea, &c., was not necessary to a
man named Park, answered, to his astonishment, that
" assuredly he would have given the patient
warm wine, or spiced wine, or something of that
kind, but that he had the orders f the Board of Guardians not
to do so without applying to the Board." He (Colonel Bolles-
ton) replied that it was impossible the Board could have
made such an order; that it was contrary to the spirit of the
Act, the rules of the Commissioners, and to all feelings of hu-
manity. Upon being referred, however, to the Chairman of
the Board, a gentleman of the highest worth and respectabi•
lity, he found, to his great suprise, that though there was no
written order to this effect, the medical gentleman had re-
ceived instructions not to apply stimulants of this sort to pa-
tients without an order from the Board; and the Chairman
added, that he had four or five times endeavoured to have this
injunction rescinded, but without effect. It is no doubt true,
as was observed by Lord Howick, that these objectionable re-
gulations of the Boards of Guardians could not be laid to the
charge of the Poor-law Commissioners; but we do not see
how this justified his Lordship's assumption, for the purpose of
striking a blow at Mr. Wakley, that it was quite possible the
recommendations of the medical officers might be made with-
out any just foundation:—
" It did not follow," said his Lordship, " because a man had
preferred to receive a medical education, and was a Member
of the College of Surgeons, or any other medical society, and
was entitled to practise as a medical man—it did not folow that
this man might not be a person whose object it was to create
discontent among the populace—(Hear, hear)—that he might
not be a man anxious to curry low arid despicable popularity,
by flattering groundless prejudices, and endeavouring to create
an outcry by untenable assertions—(Hear,hear)—it fled notfol-
low that, because a man had obtained permi'sion to practise
he might not be a person capable of abusing the trust which
had been reposed in him, for the purpose of mischief, and of
defeating the law which it was his duty to administer —( Hear,
hear)—and if it was considered possible that a Board of Guar-
dians might occasionally have reason to suseeet that, ender
the pretence of providing due nourishment for pauper patients,
their medical man was endeavouring to establish a different
dietary from that which was allowed, the House might well be
justified on this occasion in hesitaing to take it for granted,
upon the authority of the unsupported case of the Honourable
Member, that bodies of gentlemen, ac ing as Boards of Guar-
dians, would come to a vote to refuse to pauper patients that
medical relief which was ordered by a medical man in whom j
they confided."
His Lordship did not perceive that, in his anxiety to overtop
Lord John Russell (who- was borne out by the occasion) in an
attack on the Honourable Member for Finsbury, he was passing
the most severe condemnation on the boards of guardians.
They are not entitled to retain media! officers in whom they
do not confide, for that would be to proclaim that they were
regardless of the lives of the poor under their care. 'they ere
bound to dismiss a medical officer the moment they are zitisfied
he either neglects or is unfit for his duty. But so long as
they retain him, his prescriptions ought not to he counter-
manded. The guardians cannot be judges of the treatment
which a patient may require ; and if by ill-judged regulations
they interfere with the duty of the medical officer, and death
ensues in consequence, we hold the gi ardians to be t he cau e of
that death. Lord Howick wou!dseera to think that an ueiencould
no more get rid of a medical officer, than the nat on of a lord ; that
as far as bleeding or 'aiming goes the poor are for ever at his dis-
cretion ; and that alt the discretionary power of the guardians
is confined to the preventing debilitated patients from receiving
anything nutritious. We are astons! el that so sensible a man
as Mr. Grote should vindic ite the b mad; of guardia is in the
cases adduced. They were clearly in the wrong. Tne boards cf
guardians meet at intervals of a greater i r lessduratioi ; S 3 ne-
times many days intervene between their sittings. But a pa-
tient may require instaney that very relief to which by their
regulations their consent is necessary. " A died m-Ti is but a
dead man," says a character in etc:there," but rul s are every
thing." So say the Uxbridge and Nottingham guard axle.
Whether, therefore, the guardians make a regulation that
their consent shall be nece:sery for the allowance of certain
prescriptions, or directly interfsre and say that certain pre-
scriptions sha'l not be allowed, they invade the functions of a
responsible officer. Thee are the except osis to the rule. ll 'e
have no doubt that boards of gua diens in general act with the
liberality described by 3lr. Ward, and are not guilty of the
f Ily of tampering with the trea•ment of patients, Jeremy Ben-
thamobseried Wit there was no satisfying the Legislature that
thee did not know how to make shoes better than a shoemaker;
and Mr. Grote, by way of comment, tells us that every farmer
or shopkeeper of a board of guardians can tell better than the
phys:cian when d..a,ties or itimulthts should be given to a
patieu .
The Times of this morning, reverting again to the question
of the New Poor-law, remarks as follows :—" At this mo.nent
it must be evi lent to every man that the Commissioners of
the l'oor-lew la -e ro hoee left, except in the sufferance of Sir
el ; a word from him would seat the fate of Lord J. Rus-
sell's Bill, an I we will vonture to my if that. word were uttered,
it would be received with aceiam teon. Ihe country lenge for it I
—demands ie'---expects it; the Conservative Alembere, ai a'
body, desire it with restless imp itience; the humane and in:
dependent section of tte Liberal pasty would echo it ha, k with
joy. A great cpporturity is in air ttobert Peel's hands, ad .f
he neglects to tbe it, a peat rt sp insit ility w.li lie on him.'.
The Morning Post thus expresses ii self on the subjei t of
Mr. Laiouchere's proposed colonial trade arrangements :
" As <he circumstances of our foreign and colonial commerce are
so very variable and ununirorin, any general system, whether
of free trade or restriction, must be unwise. We hope Mr.
Labouchere will pause and well consider the probable practical
effects of his proposed colonial arrangements in respectof trade
bet ire he proceeds with a system which has as yet done no
good."
'1 he Morning "Jerald, speaking of the Poor-law, says
" Wh,thor it be that the worship of Mammon has become an
inveterate epidemic among all classes of British society, or
from what other or more hidden cause, we cannot telt, but the
pulsations of chari•able emotion seem, from day to day',to grow
feebler in British hearts in high paces, as the New Poor-law
w,th all its horrors is rendered familiar to the public contem-
eleion. An engrossing, mere sing. impracticable selfishness,
seems to accumulate, on this stagnation of holier feelings, lake
an iceberg that has floated beyond the influences of those warm
an I active currents which could alone prevent its expansion in
bulk and depth and frozen solidity."
(From the Globe.)
We think it right not to leave unnoticel one or two p( i its
in the discussion oflast night upon the Poor-la's Amendment
Bill. To the p.i iciple if the amended Poor-la-v we have
always been fsvourat.l t ; and, indeed, it would seem that
no 1 antics advertere to avow themselves host in to it. We
say this; because we observe that every critic of the pre-
sent system takea caee to dissv,tv any idea of reverting to
the old one. Now the pi inei,le cf the amended la..v is,
an lac', nothing else but a Legation of the abuses that in-
t], red in the euamended one. Those abuses were insepa-
rable from the until eked machinery of relief; and in fact
thet machinery was fi armed to facilitate those abuses. It
was no venerable immemorial system ; it was no older than
the Pitt Ministry ; and the years of high prices at the
commencemest of the last war. The absolute power of
relief eatrurted to a single unpaid Magistrate ; the Ale-
gisterial allowance system, pauperising the wholejnass of
the peasantry—these were abuses, it is now sail. Yes—
but abuses earriA on systcmatica!ly. Any Ma.fistrate
(and there would always be one or more such characters in
a dis'rict) who was ambitious of the title of the poor man's
hie id, by the cheap and easy process of putting his hands
in the pockets of the prositlent and industrious, to supply
weekly donativ.ec, without discrimination or seroti iy, to all
who applied for them—any sueh personage could buy
popularity, et the cost of otl erF, wi h tut reitraint. The
consequences are notorious to every one in his own ne'gh-
bourhood. It was a matter of indifference to many to
seek, or deserve, employment. Others, fully employed,
and well paid, a ere rest avers of parish allowances ; and that,
in many easel round London, unknown t their emplclers.
All this, be it remembered, was at the charge of the pru-
dent and well disposed; not only the great land-owner,
but the small tradesman, and even the leuouree were taxed,
and often stinted is the honest wants of thri: own families,
to pay the.parish pension list of ahle-bodied idleness or inn-
providence. We are told, indeed; that such a cha-acter
must not be ascribed to pauperism—that the condition-is
involuntary; and must not be treated as criminal. We
say, that neither naustit be treated as the regular and normal
condition of any largo masses of the British people. It
Most not be erected, as some poor man's friends" seem
to desire, into a recognised states in in society, to be made
as comfortable as possible.
reason—
every comfort you afford, without labour,rthis iss temptationiatnple
to
become an applicant
for
gratuitous maintenance.
(From the Standard.)
The division upon Mr.
—ast..ope's amendment
h
T
may
be taken as a notice to the Poor_law Commissioners that their reign approaches itstermination.
have indeed obtained, ostensibly, a respite for fievye
years, by
a majority of 39
,in a House of 314 Mem-
bers ; but they have obtained it upon venue which
h
leave them but tenants-at-will in feet, and then
the influence of supplications almost abject. The now law,
or the Commissioners—for practically tbey are identical—
have been now tried for seven years ;
arri,cl the result
is (to use the words of Lord John Russe_lls viry well
guarded admission) "It cannot be denie I that a
very strong feeling against the continuance of the law
by the Bill before Parliament pommies the country."
The feeling is strong, and it will be stronger. The divi-
sion of lan night proves its force al-eady, but the whole.
strength of the feeling will be imperfectly appreciated
from insulated division?. We must look to the period
during which this feeling has been progressively advaecieg.
The New Poor-law Bitl was carried in 1834 by triumph-
ant majorities ; the law Ina been nearly seven years
in operation, and the vote for its continuance is obtained
by a majority of no more than thirty-nine. We are not
of the school who ascribe absolute wisdom to the decisions
of any People ; but there is this distinction to be taken ;
though thepeople of England may be, and often are, deceived
in their, estimate of the merit of untried measures, they
rarely are mistaken in the judgment they form upon measures
which they have seen tried for so long a period as
seven years. It cannot be disputed that the New
Poor-law has been sterdily aivancing in the extont
of its unpopularity. It •
le very true that from the first
persons denounced the law as grily,
ppee3rehnar:
many
more angrily, than any one denouncesan.-
but their number was far less thanit_ taht.e number
by whom the law is now coneealree
• and 11.1 s was the
natural course of an Oppressive system, Men of clear
foresight and strong feelings. Fee through the character of
promptly
m
such a system y
almost ietueively, „d
us
nozre-
pose i•but the many are less far sighted and
*pathetical, and they wait for practical tesVaionY
If ft-at practical testimony prove favourable, or even
if unfavourable testimony be absent, the result i,
be to the advantage of the measure upon its trial, and the
eviler accusations re-act to its honour; but where, at the
end of seven yearn,' experiment, the public feeling against
the system is seen becoming progressively stronger and
more diffused, there can be no doubt that the practical
'ciliToony has demonstrated its oppressive character.
(From the Courier.)
The new Poor-law discussion was resumed in Committee
list e-e,
and as the discussion proceeds so also is
It i internainando
succession of new Poor-law horrors
con-ecu ively
ands of hideousul'e'ed. Nay more, as if the • thou-
not sufficient or app7leigi' already matter of history, were
toove this hew, cf ,n.g enough to Dien the eyes mid
'fie •I't'bera of .the House to