The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-30 00:00:00

EVENING ED ETION

tain77niy were to be kept working at all other
hours but at-meal-time, and in the workhouse silence
was to be maintained. Was this system, which was re-
garded as the most severe punishment that could bu,
inflicted on a criminal, to be inflicted upon the unfortu-
tiAte being who stretched out his hand for charity ?
Was it to enforce regulations of this kind the Poor-law
Commission was to be continued ? If not, he asked,
why was the country to be burdened with such a bur-
densome charge ? He could see no necessity for the
continuance of that Commission.—(Hear, hear.) It
he could, he would be one of the fast to support it,
because nothing was more desirable than due adminis-
tration of the laws relating to the poor. But when it
was proposed to inflict on them the same species of
punishment as that inflicted on the worst of criminals, he
said that such a law wanted humanity in principle, and
&suction for its guidance.—(Hear, hear.) In the
. _

elice he had the honour to holdhe had ample opportu••

nity of witnessing the operation of this Lire, and of
knowing whit were the feelings of the middle classes of
society in relation to it. (Hear, hear, hear.)
lie met these classes in large numbers,

Limost every day of his life, and be bad scarcely found
()le man out of ten who approved of the operation of
this law—(Hear, hear)—on the contrary the feeling
rgainst it was universal,—it was increasing in force,—
was deep rooted,---it was not to be sitaicen ; one and
contended there was no necAsity fir such a law.—
I ar, hear.) They asked why such a law enacted,
leas it was to drive people from making any applied.
a at the workhouse for relief?• All of them enter-
.. led the opinion that they were m .king the workhouse
:muse of torture, to prevent the poor applying for
7lief. In one week he had known two persons in the
.earish of Chelsea, who preferred death to going into
he Union Workhouse. They declared they would
..a!her die than be separated from their children, in the
manner provided by the law, and they did die, rather
:ban go into the workhoes. And what was the humane
ystem with regard to the classification of the poor?
ue parish of Gnelsea, consisting of 40,000 inhabitants,
as not large enough to form one local government,
out was- incorporated in an Union, consisting of 120,000
persons, and thus the poor had sometimes to travel
mi:es to apply for relict from Kensall Green to Ken-
sington. There was no workhouse in the parish of Pad-
dington. He knew an instance of a chid of 12 years
of age which bad been exposed at a door in the E,lge-
ware.road, when found by a policeman it was lively,
and when taken to the station-house stretched
'orth its hand to play with a dog, and was
• p able of laughing. The policeman took it to Ken-
-.legton Workhouse. It was a very thick fog, and in
consequence he was two hours going there. The child
died shortly after, and the surgeon deposed that it had
died of cold, and a verdict of murder was returned

against the mother who deserted it. Here was nn in-
stance of the evil of having to travel far for relief.
Those who supposed the English mind would bear such
things, wcre altogether deceived as to the English
character.—(Hear, hear.) He entreated the House
to pause before they gave permission to introduce a Bill
continuing A Commision that operated in this way—in
a manner which violated all the feelings of humanity.

How, he asked, were the poor classified? In the Ken-
sington Union, the separation system was carried out
with a vengeance. The fathers of families were kept
at Kensington, the mothers were seat off to another
house at Chelsea ; the daughters were placed at a
}souse at Fulham, and the sons at another house at
Hammersmith. Thus father and mother, boys and girls,
were located in four separate houses, in four different
parishes.—(Hear, hear.) Now, if the House gave its
consent to introduce a Bill to continue the Com-
mission, be thought the Noble Lord ought in jus-
tice to state to the house, for the satisfaction
of the public, whether the authority of the Com-
missioners was in future to be exercised in a
manner similar to that in which it had been already
exercised. He wanted to know whether a softening
hand had been applied to the new Bill, or whether it
exhibited all the harsh and un-English features of the
existing law. Place I as he was, it was not in his power
to oppose the motion by dividing the House, because he
was most anxious to see the existing law amended ; but
at the same time ne person could be more opposed to
the continuance of the Commission, and he assured the
Noble Lord that if he introduced that portion in the
intended Bill for the amendment of the law, it was his
(Mr. Wakley's) sincere hope that even that Bill would
net be passed into a law. If, however, the first Bill
Was one that contained some provisions for softening the
severities of the existing law, it should have his support.
If, on the other hand, the Commissioners were conti-
tinned in the full exercise of their authority, and made
else scape-goats of all the Guardians of the country who
eesired to act with cruelty to the poor, he would oppose
tse introduction of such a Bill, and not only would he
oppose Its introduction, but he would oppose it to
utmost of his power at every stage.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. HINDE fully concurred in the observations
the lion. Member who had just sat down, that be-
lore the Noble Lord called on the House to continue
to these Commissioners the power hitherto entrusted
eo them, he should have laid before the House
some reasons why the future administration of the New
Poor-law Act could not be safely entrusted to persons
locally interested. He thought the proper course
would have been to appoint a Committee of the House
fro csamine the rules and regulations of the Poor-law
Commissioners, to continue those which might be ap•
proved of, and to place them on the statute book; and
to have the others which might be disapproved of, ex-
punged. He trusted the Noble Lord would explain to
the House his reasons for granting these extraordinary
powers. He wished also to kow from the Noble
Lord, whether it was his intention to continue only the
peeler of the Commissioners at Somerset Hauge, or
--whether he also intended to continuo the vast and ex-
tensive machinery of Sub-Commissioners ? He under-
stood the object of these Sub-Commissianers was to
divide the country into unions, and if that lied not yet
peen done, lie had no objection to continue these for a
turther time, but to extend their powers for ten years
was nothing short of perpetuating them.
Captain PECHELL did not find fault with the
Noble Lord for having omitted to enter into details,
because he had stated quite enough to alarm him ; he
objected principally to the provision for extinguishing
the Gilbert unions and the other local Acts, and lie un-
derstood that arose from the Poor-law Commissioners
complaining that these unions formed a blank upon their
map. He would not oppose the measure, hut he sin-
cerely hoped the Noble Lord would leave out the clause
relative to the Gilbert unions.
Mr. DARBY was n. t quite sure that the Noble
Lord would join his two Bills, and he very much feared
that he would endeavour to carry the "Lnurc 8.11, and
leave out the amendments. He hoped, however, the
Noble Lard would give notice when the second reading
of the Bill would come on, because it was quite clear
from the present tone of tha House, that there would
bc 53111 a discussion on the subject.
Sir GEORGE GREY conceived the p:•:-.sent Bill
had workers great good by preventing the insisting urn
relief where it was not necessary, and by oppos'ng
barrier to the invasion of property which was threatened
under the pretence of pauperism by innumerable de-
mandan.s. Ile did not believe the Co:nmissioners in
any instance hail intended to make regulations that
were inconsistent with the spirit of the Act, to act with
severity that went at all beyond it. lie thought the prc-
sant system well suited for all except those who might be
called a meritorious class of paupers. He entirely
agreed with the Hon. Member for Finsbury that there
were in the manufacturing districts hundreds aisd thou-
ears-Is who were redueed,without any fault of their own,
ton state of destitution by a mere fluctuation of trade.
c.:ould those who were connected with the agricultural
districts deny that they had themselves expressed sur•
.nxist: how the very labourers who title,' their
(14at,ca aria raised their tents were enabled to
..?eovisfe for their 'dillies ?—( Hear, hear.) They stood
1 the verge of destitution, and was it becoming any
et'i:eistsiers coultry to say to the meritorious pauper, the
prroection you shall hive extended to you is to be
s ;ied into a workhouse, in which the whole of your
oily shall Eke separated into four divisions, and each
-isien hare a separate habitation ?—( Hear, hear.)
";tat circumstance was a greater efftetion to a man
...:t41:1 the d gradation of entering the poor-house.—
deer, beer.) lithe Noble Lord brought in aMI to
erelong the present system, without making any altera-
tions in it, he should vote for it, because he thought the
oyster worked well, and ought not to be put down.
There ought, however, to be some provision made for
industri;u3 and meritorious pauper, and if such pro-
vision were brought forward by the Government, he
e sold hail it with joy. He had no intention, not pos.
esesing sufficient is fieence, of bringing forward any such
measure himself, but he thought a supplementary
power alight, with great benefit and advantage, be given
to vestry or parochial meetings, to afford relief in cases
that were deserving of it.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT would not trespass
long upon the House, especielly as the present discus-
on might in some degree be considered premature. As
the same time he begged to state that he had always
(sheeted to the all, believing it to be founded on erro-
iseous principles on any point of view, highly unconsti-
tutisnal, and altogether repugnant to the customs,
habits, and feelings of the people of this country. lie
Abu thought that it undermined the best moral feelings
of the poor ; and at the time it was first introduced he
felt it to be a most dangerous and rash experiment.
Heibought the Poor law Amendment Aetwasfundamen-
tally erroneous, to such a degree that it would not be
in the power of the Noble Lord so to frame the mea-
sure as to cause it to be permanently adopted by this
country. He (Sir Francis) entirely concurred in the
feelings which had been expressed by the lion. Mena.
her for Finsbury, and if it were in that Hon. Mem-
ber's power to move that the It.II should then be
thrown out and a new system altogether adopted he
would have been prepared to support it.—( Hear.)
We thought thelrst thing to be got rid of was the tri-
bunal in Somerset Adtifiy-LHear.) It was impossi-
ble to fro Tis any system ofetm
_Yrotti ns which could apply
to every fearticularesea'eeese-,Wt• ought the system of
eentraliiitiOo was ous that could be in-
troduced • W41140444;7 'l7ll4,expetiment had been
-X 7