The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-25 00:00:00

of the country, perhaps with a view to rising
upon the backs of the people to a high place in the Hosse
of Commons. But, the last time he (Mr. Roebuck) heard
of him, he understood the people of England were about
to be rid of him—(Laughter)—that he was going to
Dublin.—(Laughter,) Well, he must say to the Right
Hon. Gentleman that, in the estimation of the sound-
thinking people of this country, careless declamation,
wild expressions, and infuriated boisterousness, were
proofs either of insufficiency of intellect, or a want of
the love of truth.—(Cheers.)
Mr. FERRAND wished to explain, merely in refer-
ence to what had fallen from the Learned and Hon.
Member, as to the right the surgeon had to b.) paid out
of the poor-rates, that the payment was so small that
gentlemen could not attend to the cases. He then
quoted from evidence taken before a Committee on the
Poor-law, in 1834, when Mr. Guthrie said that the
salary was so insignificant, that no person qualified to
have the trust could attend to the sick, and any one who
did atten them, did it merely to keep out an interloper.
Mr. R ICEBUCK explained.
Mr. HENLEY said the statement that had been made
by the Hon. Member for Bath was so much at variance
with the truth that he felt bound to say a few words.
The fact was, that the sum paid to the medical doctor,
was for medicine and attendance. He thought her
Majesty's Ministers were making important alterations
in the law.—(Bear, hear.) Why, since the alteration
of the law, any person who was acquainted with
the subject, must know that child murder had increased,
and so great was the evil, that the Government were
obliged to come forward and make au alteration in the
law, giving the woman a remedy against the putative
father; but the law, even with this alteration, was found
to be wholly inoperative. He thought that the change
in the law left what was vice entirely untouched.
Captain PECIIELL said he thought that they should
know who were to fill up the places which were to be
made vacant by this measure. But upon this
subject the Government was entirely silent. The
officers who were to be dismissed, were to be
discarded without any reason being assigned. He could
not help expressing his sorrow that these poor-law offi-
cers, whose services had proved so valuable, should be
so unceremoniously, and so unjustly treated. This ss as
particularly the case with respect to Mr. Chadwick and
Mr. Parker. It was said of the latter gentleman that he
was not fit for the public service. Was that conduct
that should be pursued towards a gentleman, through
whose means, in conjunction with the other gen-
tleman, most valuable information had been ob-
tained. He hoped that the change would give
the country men perfectly efficient, and who would
be able to deal with parochial matters. If he voted
against this Bill, however, it was not upon the ground of
the dismissal of the poor-law officers, because he
thought, after the evidence brought before the Andover
Union Committee, that it would be impossible for any
Government to retain these gentlemen in office.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK said, if the Honourable
Member for Bath were correct in his accusation of
the Honourable Member fur Knaresborough, that
Honourable Member was slaying the slain.
The Honourable Gentleman had said that complaints
were not made against the Poor-law Commissioners fur
acting up to the strict letter of the law, but for allow-
ing themselves to be acted upon by other influences.
The present Bill was brought in to remedy that evil,
and he (Mr. Borthwick) thought that it would do so to
a certain extent. The present proposed Bill would be a
remedy in part, but he thought that it was neither so
deep nor so comprehensive a one as the House had a
right to expect upon this subject. The Bill did not at
all affect the question of the law of settlement or the
general tenor of the Bill itself, but merely referred to
an alteration in the administration of the existing
measure. He thought that it was a question fairly to
be raised that this Bill did not go far enough in apply-
ing a remedy to the existing grievances. It was a great
evil that medical attendance in workhouses was
supplied by contract, and that in that contract was
included medicine. An Honourable Member had
stated that a medical officer had declined giving
proper remedies in a certain case, on the ground that if
he were to give medicine in every case he would run
through the whole of his property. If that fact were so
no one could doubt that the medical officer had been
guilty of a great crime, but how much more was to be
attributed to the law which permited, and in a certain
degree enforced, such harsh and inhuman measures. If
the union entered into a contract for medical attendance
and supplied the medicine itself, Mr. Borthwick) thought
that this enormous evil would be obviated. He, him-
self, could give an instance of the cruelties under this
law. In a country union, the name of which he would
not give unless required, a labourer had maintained him-
self all his life. He was married and bad one :child.
The mother died, and the child was left with the
father, who was afterwards compelled to go
into the workhouse. The father fell ill in the
workhouse and the aunt applied for admission. She
was shifted from one person to another, until, at length,
she found the father dead and the child dying, the child
(who was nine years of age, never having been allowed
to see her father in his last moments). These were the
evils arising under this law, and he would only ask the
House whether it was safe to allow their imaginations
to be led away by the eloquence of the Honourable
Member for Bath in support of a law under which such
Aets as these could with safety be perpetrated, He, for
one, could not rest until a proper and salutary altera-
tion of the present law had taken place.
Mr. BANKES said. that he thought it justice to dis-
cuss in that stage those clauses which he objected to in
this Bill.
Sir G. GREY said that they had not as yet been pro-
posed.—(Divide, divide.)
Mr. BANKES said that he thought that this
was the propei time. He should discuss the Bill,
as it stood, stating that it was not the Bill he referred
to. Ho wished to know, in the first instance, what were
the duties that he assigned to these Commissioners
which they proposed to elect, and whether the Govern-
ment thought that the present was a proper time of the
session to bring forward a motion of this importance.
He argued the great difference between the proposed
commissioners and the ?resident of the Board of Con-
trol. In the one case the Government proposed to make
the official a legislator, in the other he was no legislator
—he made no laws. But this was the proposal by which
the Government proposed to remedy the evils complained
of. What he thought they ought to do was to increase
the power of the local authorities, and to throw the
responsibility on the president, then if error was found in
the working they would know where to throw the blame.
The Member for Bath was wrong, when he said the
question was, whether this was a better system than the
other ; that was not the question. It was whether they
could found a third system better than both. The Bill
had been near five months before the House. At the
last hour they brought up new clauses, which they were
to add as a rider to the Bill, and they were about to
prevent hiss discussing these. He would support the
amendment—that the Bill be read a third time this day
three months, and leave the Government to bring for-
ward a better system in a new session. In fact it was
not, perhaps, worth the trouble or the time of the
House to tight about it, for the Government might,
after all, as in the case of the Railways Bill, have no
serious intention to proceed with their new clauses. He
was not without hope that his suggestion would be ac-
ceded to, and he felt convinced that if was, it would be a
great improvement in the Bill. He thought that the
present Bill was no essential amendment on the existing
one, and being of opinion that the country was entitled
to a much better one, he would most certainly oppose
the present.—(Divide, divide.)
Col. SIBTHORP thought that the present mode of
administering the poor law was an unconstitutional one.
He always objected to the system of centralisation, on the
ground that local government was infinitely better. The
present Bill proposed only to change two of the Commis-
sioners, and put in two fresh ones, just in the same mode
as was adopted when he used: to exhibit his humble
person in the country dance, where he was called upon
" to change sides, down the middle, and back again."
There was nothing good in the present Bill, and he
should certainly do his utmost to prevent its further pro-
gress. The Bill was a trickery Bill, a Government pa-
tronage Bill, an ad captandum Bill, a Bill meant for the
hustings, and not to pass through the House ; it was a
Bill proposing to amend the former one, but making it
infinitely worse ; it was nothing more than a Govern-
ment shuffle, and he thought with the Hon. Member for
Dorsetshire, that the country had better put up with the
present Bill than pass the proposed one for five years.
The new Parliament might perhaps be able to propose
some better Bill, but he did not know what sort of a
Parliament the new one might be ; the present was, if
he might be permitted to use the expression, " a very
dirty one," and he really had his fears that the next one
might be even still more " muddier."—(Laughter.) He
should give his most hearty vote in favour of the motion
or rejecting the Bill.
Sir G. GREY said that he had stated upon several oc-

easions the principle of the Bill, which was, that of esta-
blishing a general system of superintendence over the '
country.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading lO5
Against it ... ... 35
Majority —7o
The Bill was then read a third time.
Mr. SPOONER then moved the following clauses:—
Clause 19. Provided always, and be it declared and
enacted, that no rule, order, or regulation of the Poor-
law Commissioners heretofore made, or hereafter to be
made, prohibiting the granting of relief to any able-
bodied person, except within the workhouse or union,
shall remain or continue in force or effect from and after
the passing of this Act. Clause 20. And be it declared
and enacted, that it shall not be lawful for the
commissioners appointed under this Act to make or issue
any rule, order, or regulation, prohibiting the granting
of relief to any able-bodied person requiring the same,
except ithin the workhouses of the union. Clause 21.
And be it declared and enacted, That from and after the
passing of this Act, it shall be lawful for every board of
guardians of the poor, and they are hereby respectively
empowered and required, to set to work, out of the
workhouse of the union, all such able-bodied persons as
shall lawfully require relief from any parish within such
union; and to grant such relief as to the said guardians
of the poor shall seem fit, out of the workhouse of the
union, to all such able-bodied persons so set to work as
aforesaid. There was no one who had a practical
knowledge of the pauper system, but weuld say that their
prisons were conducted on a far more liberal system, in
point of food, clothing, and education than their work-
houses. He would not detain the House at any greater
length, but he must ray that he objected to the labour
test, as it was at present carried out, but more parti-
cularly so, as they were now arrived at the last week
not of a session, but of a Parliament. The question
was deserving of a much fuller consideration than they
were now able to give it. The country had frequently
spoken upon this subject, but their voices had not been
heard in that House. He trusted, however, that the
House would now do the people tardy justice.—(Hear.)
Sir GEORGE GREY said, if the clause of the Hon.
Gentleman were adopted, it would be tantamount to a