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

poor were not impoverished but degraded—that it sanc-
tioned the miserable system of paying wages out of the
rate—that. it discouraged the industrious, and offered
a premium to the idle. Let them remember that it
acted as a cancer on the heart of the country ; and he
would then ask them whether those were the friends of
the poor who wished to restore them to the debasement
of the former system. That was not the course which
the friends of the labouring classes should pursue. They
should, on the contrary, teach them to rely upon their
own exertions, and endeavour to secure for them better
wages and more employment. Those were not the
enemies of the poor who wished for those objects, but
those were their enemies who endeavoured by misrepre-
sentations, to enlist their passions against a law intended
to raise their condition. It should be remembered,
too, that England was the only country in which
anything worthy of the name cf a Poor-law
was in existence—it was the only country in which the
law compelled those who were not paupers, to relieve
those who were. He did not complain of that, but he
thought the circumstance should be remembered by
those who indulged in such sweeping condemnations of
the Engiish Four law. He should also observe that
the amended system was in many respects superior to
the old one. In a Metropolitan district with which
he was connected they had elf, cted a saving 0125,000/. a
year in the Poor-rate, while at the same time they greatty
amended the condition ofthe poor whowere better accom-
modated and had better medical attendance than before.
If the stories which bad been circulated with a view to
bring the law into disrepute, were traced to their s.eirce,
thus. would be found to be tithe r (Its itute of foundation or
gross exaggerations.—( Cheers.) Lamentable occur-
rences had no doubt taken place, but they had taken
place under the old law ; also under the old sys
tern those occurrences had let en much more nu-
merous. Be did not mean to defend those abus,,s,
but they were not necessary consequences of the new law;
and if wrong had been done, he ee.eld say let the wrong
doer be punished. No pauper could now be bandied about
from parish to parish until he died in the cart, but if des-
titute, he was entitled to immediate relief. The Hon.
Member for Finsbury bad drawn a very lamentable picture
of the case of a man sixty years of age ; but he thought
the Hon. Member ought to have been prepared. Had lie
studied the Act, he would have known that provision had
been made for the relief out of the house of persons who
had attained sixty years of age. It was only to the able
bodied that out of door relief was refused. He respected
the feeling of the poor men who considered the workhouse
a disgrace, and made every exertion to keep himself and
his family out of it; but a man had no right to say that it
was not a fit place for him, if he chose to live upon his
neighbour. The union house was in some re-
spects better than the poor maws own cottage—it
was warmer, and the diet was better ; and what less cruel
mode than restraint could be devised to make a difference
between the workhouse and the cottage? One word with
respect to the meriturious poor. It would certainly be
more agreeable to his feelings if all could be relieved out
of the house, but he thought in all hard cases priva.e cha-
rity was the proper source of relief; and whenever they
met with a hard case, they could always relieve it by
putting their hands in their pockets. I: had been said that
although the New Poor-law was adapted to agricul-
tural districts, yet it was not adapted to manufacturing
towns. Now, be considered it was even more adapted for
those towns than for agricultural counties. Towns acre
subject to constant fluctuations in trade ; the operatives
there were in the receipt of higher wages, and therefore
that law must be admirably adapted to them which taught
them to make provision, by saving their wages, against
the day of pressure.—(Hear.) He believed that the
welfare of the English labouring classes depended upon
;he maintenance of the New Poor-law, and be thought
that justice and mercy alike forbade its being repealed.
Ile begged Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House not
to look upon this measure with less favour becaus., it was
a Whig one. It was too great a measure to be discussed
with party or political feelings. H' was as little disposed
as any one to overlook the errors of her Majesty's Minis-
ters, but when they did deviate into right—(A laugh).—
as they had done in the Now Tithe.law, the Now Poor.
law, and, he would add, the Treaty of last July—( Cheers)
—he considered he should not be acting the part of a good
citizen if he did not give them his support.—( Cheers.) If
he thought the measure was merely to save the money of
the rich he would not support it, but believing its object
to be to raise the character of the poor, he would give it
his cordial support, in spite of any unpopularity which
might attach to him. lu voting fur the second reading,
however, be was not to be understood as approving of all
the details, but they would be better discussed in Corn-
mince.

Mr. BUCK supported the Bill, but he thought the
Noble Lord ought to pledge himself that he would itlow
cJrtain parts of it to be amended when it went into Com-
mittee. He alluded particularly to the power given to the
Assistant Poor-law Commissioners. He hoped that
such powers would be curtailed, as they were urterly
unconstitutional.

Mr. MUNTZ had been long aware that the great mis-
fortune of the people of the country was, that those who
were the law makers were not the law workers. It the
Noble Lord and his colleagues were to act as Poor-law
Guardians for only six months, they would never attempt
to enforce such an obnoxious law, for it made no distinc-
tion between the honest man and the idle, dissolute, and
drunken vagabond. If those stupid farmers who made up
wages out of the Poor rates, had discovered that they paid
these rates themselves, and therefore gained nothing by
the practice, they would have remedied the thing them-
selves, as he (Mr. Muntz) had seen it remedied in other
places. He remembered a time when the s into practice
existed in the town of Birmingham, but in a very short time
it was cured, and there was no danger that it weuld ever
under any circumstances he revived. It was said that there
had been a great saving under this law. He (Mr. Muntz)
doubted the truth of that statement. From all that he
could learn, the amount of wages at present was fully equal
to what it had been before the passing of the present law.
—( Cheers from Lord John Russell and Lord Howielt )
The Noble Lord cheered that statement but he (Mr.
Muntz) believed that no saving had been effected in the
aggregate by the operation of the Poor-law.—( Hear.)
Now, whatever might be the experience of other gentle-
men, his (Mr. Muntz'a) was uniformly to this effect. He
bed never known a man of kindly feeling who was overseer
for the space of six months who did not in that time be-
come callous to all who were placed under his control.
That being the case, what must be the feelings of those
who were permanently masters of workhouses, who had
held that office for two, three, five, or six years ?—( Hear,
hear.) Many instances of the cruelty of these persona had
been related to the House by the Hen. Member for Fins-
bury, and let them not imagine that these were solitary
cases, although there were few men of the same energy
arid ability as the Hon. Member for Finsbury to bring them
before the country. These were not the only cases
in which the law was objectionable, and in which its seve-
rity and injustice were manifested. There ought undoubt-
edly to be a distinction made between large towns, where
great numbers were frequeutly thrown out of employment,
and small places, where the distress was upon a much
smaller scale. He (Mr. Mintz) had seen ten thousand
men thrown out of employment at once. When they ap-
plied for relief, they were told that they might come into
the house, but they would not accept the offer. Its fact
it was not iatended that they should; there was not suffi-
cient room for them; and the offer was made merely for
the purpose of getting rid of them. The intention of the
law, perhaps, was good, but its effect was most unjust
and severe. He was quite confident that if the Noble
Lord and his colleagues knew the working of the law,
they would be the last men not only to bring it in, but
even to vote for it.—( Hear.) Feeling, as be did, the
greatest objection to the renewal of the Commission for
ten years ; believing, us he had long believed, that the
Poor-law Bill, like the Factory Bill, and several others
which he could name, were the effects of an erroneous
view of finance, and calculated to inflict a deep injury upon
the country, he (Mr. Muntz) would do all in his power to
prevent the passing of the law un that occasion.
The Hon. Mr. LIDDELL ruse and said that be felt
it his duty to vote for the amendment of the Hon. Member
for Finsbury. The Noble Lord, in intriiducing this Bill,
had thought fit to remind the House of those grievances
and evils which it was the obj ct of the Poor-law Amend-
ment to remove. He (the HAI. Mr. Liddell) thought
the Noble Lord might almost have spared himself the
trouble of going over that ground again for as he
understood, that was a subject on which there was little
difference of opinion. He agreed with the Noble Lord
in giving full credit to the authors of the Poor-law fur
having clone their best to check a system which, if per-
severed in, if not checked by even a rigorous enactment,
might have produced innumerable evils in many parts of
the kingdom. Ho agreed with the Poor-law Commis-
sioners in that part of their Report in which they referred
to the progress of pauperism in the more highly pauper-
ised districts of England. It was the object of the Poor-
law to remedy that evil, and he believed it was necessary
that a very strong remedy should be applied. To that ex-
tent the Noble Lord and himself were agreed ; and
to that extent he was willing to support the
continuance of the Poor law, But he would
never consent to go to so great an extent as was
contemplated by that Bill. He would never accede to the
proposition, that in order to work out the principle of the
Poor-law Amendment Act, it was necessary to vote for the
Perpetuity of the Poor-law Commission. That was, in his
opinion, a fair and intelligible ground for objecting to the
Bill. Tu this ground he was able to add some others,
viz., specific objections to certain clauses, which he consi-
dered to be extremely injurious in their operations upon
the community. The Hen. Member for Finsbury, in the
course of his able address, had given to the House his ex-
perience of the working of the law in the popular districts
in the surrounding metropolis. He, the Hon. Mr. Lid-
dell would say a few words as to the working of the law in
a district of a character altogether different, in a dis-
trict strictly rural and agricultural, where, as was ad-
mitted by almost all authorities, it was not neces-
sary, so far as regarded any abuse which had here-
tofore existed, to make any alterations in the old law.
Regard for truth and fairness compelled him to admit that
the law did work indifferently well in his immediate dis-
trict. But the object of the law was to ben, fit some class
or other ; and, in his union, it had benefited no one—the
cp
roooars
owde. r e notH better
o did, taken
however,
careknow o f and the rates
auoion iowhilacihd
the
o-
rates had been diminished to the amount of 2,000/. a yesr.
There were some points connected with his own parish to
which he wished to call the attention of the House. 0:10
great grievance was the extent of the union, which ren-
dered it difficult to get guardians to attend from remote
districts, without being paid for their sereices, which was
effected somewhat illegally by a private rate. The pre.
sent Bill proposed to make overseers eligible as guar-
dians—a practice which was connived at, at present, in the
union of which bespoke, and was not attended with benefit.
He thought it was highly objectionable, and hoped the
Noble Lord would reconsider it. But lie came now to
another objection, namely—the maintenance of the Cen-
ti al Board for so long a period as ten years, during which
they possess a power of g eventing the whole kingdom—
powers capable of the most tyrannical and pernicious applica-
tion, and beyond the law. He hoped the House would

not consent to such a clause, and that, if he could not
hop s to be joined by a majority in his support
of Mr. Wakley'e views, the House would not coi.-
sent to the proposed prolongation of the Commission.
—( Hear, hear.) By another clause relating to the
Commissioners' Chambers, they would be to a great ex-
tent relieved from the necessity of notifying and making
public all their regulations. This was also a most
objectionable clause. Even under the present law, by
which they were tequ:red to notify publicly every regula-
tion which they formed, they sometimes evaded their re-
sponsibility ; and in his union, very great dissatisfaction
and inconvenience had been ocelsioned by their doieg so.
lie believed that so far from its being necessary to give
relief to the poor by rule and square, if they persevered in
what they termed their just principle of relief, which was
measured by rule and square by the Commissioners at So-
merset House, they would increase that alienation which
mss at prevent taking place. He regretted that he
should differ from honourable Gentlemen whom he re-
spected, but be would never consent to the prolongation
in power of the Central B said of Commissioners longer
than eves necessary to give their accounts to the public.
Sr R. PEEL said that ta-re were many reasons wii;eli
induced him to give his vote io favour of the second real-
nig ot that Bhil, He consid,red that two main qua tiotis
were involved io the discussion of the subj,ct ; one, whe-
ther they should abandon that great experiment which
had been made fur the ittil)rovhment of the administration
of the Poor-lair ; the second was, whether it was de-
sirabie to adhere to the superitstendence of the Cenirat
Board of Commissioners. There certainly were greet
evils iii the presem, system. lie thought he perceived
that there leas a cancer eating away the strata of that
country—paralyzing its healthful condition—itii which
r: quitted Inc prompt intervention of P4rliament.---
( Hear. hear.) lie was much inclined to agree with
the Hon. Gentleman; and he doubted whether the
time had arrived for making that experiment. He was
inclined to thin it if a Conservative Government had fro-
posed the measure, there would be no great eifficuity in
carrying the amendment. If it would require the active
co-operation of the great political parties to effect the al-
teration, be concurred with the Hurt. Gehtlernan that that
active co-operation would be more easily procured by those
in whom he believed that Hon. Gentlemen placed the
most unbounded confidence. Hon. Gentlemen were apt
to forget what was the state of things when the alteration
was made in the Poor-law. It was not unnatural that they
should dwell almost exclusively on the evils and abuses
which they were actually experiencing, and ferg.t
those, however infinitely greater they might have been,
which were not su fresh in their memory. lie thought
it of great importance to remind the House of
what was the state of thi. gs at the time the
alteration in the Poor-law took place, because that state
of things constituted his (Sir R. Peel's) vindication for the
support which he now gave to the amendment proposed.
While the Hon. Gentleman was speaking, he (Sir R.
Peel) thought he recollected a Report on the Con-
dition of the Agricultural Labourers, which he thought
it would not be without advantage to refer to in the pre-
sent discussion, and which he would therefore bring before
the consideration of the Eieuse Its tire year 1824 a Com-
mittee was appointed to inquire into the rate of labourers'
wages, and evidence of the condition of the agricultural
labourers in several parts of the country was taken.
Some thought that labourers had good right to com-
plain of the diminished amount of the poor-rate paid to
them. The lion. Gentleman contrasted the increase of
property—the increase of taxation—the increase of wealth
generally with the diminished umeunt of poor rate, and
he thought that ground of complaint accounted for
the small part appropriated to the relief of the
labouring poor. He ( Sir R. Peel) thought that he could
take a hundred in which that ground of complaint did not
arise, and in which the lion. Gentleman would Lind a pro.
gressive amount of money appropriated to the relief of the
labouring poor, and he would see if effects, which he would
deem it natural to expect, had resulted (The Right
Hon. Baronet here proceeded to read from the Report, ex-
trscts of evidence relative to a certain hundred in the
eounity of Sulf Ik. The accounts, be said, were kept from
Lady Day to Lady Day, in each year—from 1610 to 1824
—showing an increase in the rate and in the amount ap.
propriated for the relief of the lab ,uring poor. From
Lady Day, 1310, to Lady Day, 1811, the amount paid
ati 11 3-,; from 1811 to 1812, it was 11. 10a. ; and from
1812 to lel3, it was 3/. ; it then increased to 6/. the next
year; the subsequent year it amounted to 51. ; it then
went on increasing till it amounted to 1,384/ ; and in the
year 1822 it advanced to 2:297/ ; and in 1e24 is increased
to 3,5361. In that progressive increase of rate, and progres-
sive increase of money appropriated to the relief of the poor,
what was the result? Did the moral condition of the la-
bourers improve by that increased applicetion of money to
their relief ? Were their actual comforts advanced ? Let
the House hear what the witness said What are the
effects you find produced by the present system of employ-
ing the labourers?" He was asked at first with respect to
the unempleyed labourers. The witness answered that
the effect produced was, the total demoralization of the
lower on ders. That they were made poachers and robbers
by it; and that he could not explain the state of demo-
ralization to which it reduced them. Yet, continued the
Right Hon. Baronet, the rate and the appropriation of
money were progressive. He ( Sir R. Peel) was only
wanting to show the House that the Hon. Gentleman was
not correct in his arguments, by which he would prove
that the industrious poor had a right to complain, be-
cause they bad not received a certain amount. He observed
that crime had increased undoubtedly within the lest five
years, owing to the. present system of relieving with money.
It broke the bond of onion between the farmer and the la-
bourer, who both considered their interest as one and the
same. That mutual feeling how no longer existed. In
the generality of parishes it appeared that from five to forty
labourers have been without employment, loitering about
during the day, insulting passengers on the road, or con-
suming their time in sleep, in order to be the more active
during the hours of darkness. Let them suppose, then, that
the Hon. Gentleman came to those men in that condition,
and addressed to them the inflammatory speech that he deli-
vered to night—if he should have said to the able bodied la-
bourers, " It is a shame that you cannot get work ; what a
scandalous thing it is for those hard-hearted farmers not to
afford you the meansof support you have a right to under the
Act of Parliament," what, he would ask, might have
been the consequence ? The Hon. Gentleman might have
drawn exactly the same case of distress that he did to-
night, exciting their feelings, but disregarding these consi-
derations, which ought to weigh with a rational man as a
remedy for a great and growing evil. Let it be supposed
that the Legislature would grant relief to the able-bodied
poor, without exactly distinguishing the labourer from that
men who bad a tendency to the degraded condition of the
workman who was able to pay his rent, but unwilling,—let
them suppose that the Legislature would put some such
teat to the labourer as the workhouse, that was, to say "You
shall have comfortable lodgings and food, but it is required
that you take up your residence in the workhouse." Let
it then suppose that the Legislature thought that the legiti-
mate effect of that would be to improve the moral charee-
ter, and ultimately the physical condition of the lebourer,
would the lion. Gentleman say that the Legislature was
hound to adopt that system? He (Sir R. P.) admitted that it
was impossible to amend the lave without giving rise to in-
dividual cases of great distress. lie lamented that, but they
must look in those things to general results; they could
not decide by individual cases, lamentable though they
might be. He was inclined to believe that there were
abuses in the old system which were never heard of, and
of more aggravated kind, because they escaped the public
eye. He regretted that there existed under the amended
system abuses also, but he hoped that the consequence of
having public attention called to them would be their
removal. It had been hoped that the application of some
new test to improve the labourer would teach him tire
value of independence, and it was for that reason the great
alteration was made in the law. He (Sir R. Peel) deeply
regretted that after the expense that had been incurred,
which was, comparatively speaking, a minor consideration,
it had been found necessary to abandons the alteration
after a trial of four or five years. He was not able to
gather from the entire speech of fie Hose Gentleman
what project he proposed. Wag it intended to apply some
test by which they would be enabled to distinguish the vir-
tuous, industrious man? That was the test which in his
opinion they ought to apply, and by which they would be
enabled to do their duty to the rate-payers, from whom they
should be cautious to exact not one shilling for the reward
of idleness or fraud. He had conic to the conclusion that
it was not fit to have that experiment adopted in 1834
The Right Hon. Baronet here adverted to the statements
made by the Hun. Gentleman the Member for Birming-
ham, and observed that in many parishes there were far-
mers who were in the habit of paying wages out of the
poor-rate, and those farmers were called stupid—that was the
term—and yet that plan exactly conferred thr• benefit which
he expected from the Central B iard of Commissioners.
The cases to which the Act of Elizabeth applied were
mentioned ; but the majority of these were cases of mis-
placed humanity. He expected that the Central Board
of Commissioners would gradually introduce a uniformity
of system, and persuade those, who admitted the abuses of
the law, by reason and not by compulsion ; by represent-
ing the beneficial effects of a good administratiou of the
law, they would be able more effectually to introduce
a universally good and humane system.—( Hear, hear.)
Again, tree lion. Gentleman said that no saving whatever
had beers effected, and for this reason, that although he
believes there has been a nominal saving in the amount of
the rate contributed, yet there has been an increase in the
charge on account of the increased wages of labour.—
( Cheers.) Putting together the existing rate, and the
increased sum which he contributes to this rate, pay for
labour, and striking a balance, the Hon. Gentleman said
there will be no actual saving.—(Cheers.) Wliy, the
Ron. Gentleman was a great authority, He gave em-
ployment to a great number of persons, and one of the
advantages he ( Sir R. Peel) had hoped front the adminis-
tration of the Poor-law was that the industrious and vir-
tuous labourer would receive increased wages, and he (Sir
R. Peel) rejoiced that on that account there had been no
saving.—(Cheers.) But adding the increased wages to
the diminished amount of the poor-rate, on the whole the
balance was against the employer and in favour
of the employed —( Cheers. ) The lion. Member for
Finsbury in selecting the different counties of England,
and showing the low amount of wages in them, had se-
lected the county of Devon. Now it did so ha open
that the county of Devon was the county' in
which the greatest amount of out-door relief had
been granted—( Hear, hear, hear. ) lie ( Sir Robert
Peel) had looked at the teturns—[The lion. Gentleman
said that only 7s. a week had been paid to them. This
appeared exceedingly low, but it was necessary to inquire
whether that low rate was occasioned by the administra-
tion of the work-house test, for if not it was no argument
against the Poor-law-I
—and he found in the county of
Devon, selected by the Hon. Gentleman, there was time
lowest amount cf wages.—( Hear, hear.)' This was in a
county in which, in only two unions there had been a posi-
tive order to discontinue out-door relief, and in which, at the
present moment, of all the counties of England the great-
est amount of out-door relief was given. He did not mean
to say that out-door relief was the cause of lowness of
wages; hut it was a singular fact that the county in which
east the lowest amount of wages was the county in which
as the greatest amount of-out-door relief. Oa these
general grounds, namely, the recollection of the evils
bich the old system had produced, and the imperfection

of the present system, he prefet red giving the charge e
its administration, for the present, to a Central Commis-
sion, and should give his vote. for the second reading o
the Bill. (Great cheering.) But at the sani
time, he felt it necessary to reserve to himself ti
emire right of judging of the merit of particular clauses.—
( Hear.) lie would mention one or two clauses of tie
propriety of which he had great doubts. He had doute
as to the propriety of continuing the duration of the Con:-
mission fer so long a time.-_( Hear.) He did not ne. a:
to say the experience of another short period might net
comet-ice him still more that the existence of a Contra!
Commission would he advantageous, but he thought r
would be mo:c satisfactory to the feelings of the count:,
that at a.. earlier period the matter might again pass nude.;
revision, and that the House would find it advemageous
riot to extend the period for its duration beyond five
years.--( Hear, hear.) It did not necessarily follow thm
there must then be a termination of the Commission, it
they were convinced that it was working well. But a,
eery thsre was a diffarence between lensing it open te
any Member to ptepoee the repeal of the existing law, and
having it certain that, at the end of five years they could
reject er renew the existing Hear, hear.) He
did not deny the force of some of those arguniants that a,
!he end of five years there should be a legislative revision
of the conduct of the Commissioners. He thought it
would be a greater security for their goad conduct thaii
securing them in office for ten years. and if five years eon.
winced them the Ceniruirtion worked well, he was sure the
good souse of Parliament would induce them to consent to
its continuance.-_( Hear, hear, hear ) Another reason
fax his insisting. as tar as he could insist, for a shorter time
for the duration of the Commission, was, that a great deal
depended in the personal character of the gentlemen ein-
played. Great power vas devolved upon them—a power
of legislating ti such an extent that he thought it would
he 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 they delegated these enlarged
powers.—( Hear, hear.) Another clause, respecting
which he certainly felt great difficulty, was that respecting
attaching burial grounds to union workhouses.(Cheers.)
He did hope the Noble Lord would not attempt to cre'ry
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 sbases of the Poor-
law ; and he regretted this clause because he felt it was
calculated to prejudice the la* 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.
If, as he believed, the poor of this country had a decided
preference to being buried in these coasecrated grounds
attached to their parish churches, one could not help ad-
miring the honest prejudice ; arid, 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 see that this
was any necessary part of the operation of this law—
(Hear, hear)--and he was convinced that, the more they
could legislate consistent with their main object, the ele-
vation of the character of the poor, who could not be ex-
pected to take these enlarged views of the ultimate r ffect
of legislation, it would be so much the better. He had a
strong impression that it would be infinitely better to en-
courage, as strongly as possible, the burial of the poor ia
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), lie quite understood
there might be some advantage in very large unions, but
he was inclined to think they had carried that principle ss
far as they could advantageously do, and that possibly it
might be advantageous to diminish then. They would
find in these 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 perm
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. lie
should, therefore, regard any proposition for the extension
of unions with great jealousy.—y Hear, hear.) He had
mentioned these two or three clauses respecting which be
entertained considerable doubt on giving his consent to
the second reading of the Bill, and he must repeat what he
had le-fore stated, that he reserved his consideration of
spec fic clauses. When he saw increases: powers com.
I.rred, he must be convinced that increased powers were
necessary f,r the proper operation of the Act, but these
clauses would all undergo consideration, arid lie should
apply to the consideration of them on the principla he had
before stated, namely, the desire to provide an effectual
remedy against the abuses which had undermined the pre-
sperity of the country, and the desire also to consult as far
as he possibly could the feelings of that class who were
more immediately subject to the operation of this
( Cheers.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said, if he bad not seen the
Right lion. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) in the lieuse 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 riot
whether they would adhere to or abandon the present sys-
tern, 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, bear.) On the contrary, he 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
inflammatory when spoken against the Poor-laws, but he
begged leave to say that, if that 'Commission was to be con-
tinued, he did not 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? lie thought it would be better
that the Government should introduce a Bill of half a
dozen line s, 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 powers. It would be better at once to give
them the power of legislative enactment. The Right
lion. 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, thete 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 lion. Bmonet gave great credit
to the poor for their meritorious feelings respecting burial
in their own church- yard, but he wished the Right Hen.
Gentleman would pay as much respect to these poor old
people during their life as be seemed desirous
of paying to their remains. It would be much
more satisfactory to them. They thought a greater
evil could not be ii.flicted upon them, after
expending their time and strength in improving lion.
Gentlemen's estates, than to be shut up in a workhouse
when they applied for relief at the discretion of the Poor.
law Commissioners.—( Hoar, hear, and No, no.) It was
at the discretion of the Commissioners, they could not
deny that. I( 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 vittually to repeal all the local Acts of the Metro-
polis., which he told the Noble Lord was a breach of faith.
They were told on the first day of the Session, by the
Noisle Lord who moved the Address, that this Bill hail
woi kad well, had been a boon to the ti•tititry. If this
were so, why did not the Gilbert Unions at (thee embrace
it? The) did not, because they knew it to be a jobhing
Bill. It was all a fallacy, but a profitable one ler the
Ministers, to say that if this Bill was not agreed to, tiles
muat revert to the old system of Poor-laws. The case
was now entirely altered; the laws were new administered
by individuals elected by the ratmplyere, and were not
now under the cantroi of overseers and Justic s of the
Peace. Thet fallacy having been expledvd, he sew
no reason why the House should give eta seem
ti .n to the second reading of the Bill—of
Bill which would take away from the rate- 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 ao
doubt the Bill would be read a second time; but front the
opposition the Noble Lord had met with that night, he
would have a foretaste of what he might expect in Corn-
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 ihe 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 feelings of justice and hu-
manity: —( Cheers. )
Mr. F. MA UL E would press as earnestly upon his
Noble Friend as the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat
down, hut in a different way. He would press up n his
Noble Friend to persevere with the Bill, and he trusted
that notwithstanding the speech they had just heard the
Bill would meet with no more than fair opposition. It was
unfair to charge the Government with pressing on the
Bill with indecent haste. The country must be fully
aware of ail its provisions, foe it was laid before Parlia-
ment in the Match of last year, allhough, from circum-
stances which he need not now allude to. it had eot been
discussed until late in the S, -siren El, lied ;•••:ird the
speech of the Hon. Member fo Fuiebtey ( Air. Wakley)
with greet 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 lion. Gentleman had also slid
that the discontent which had existed in the country of
late years arose from the Bill of n 834. In that statement
the Hon. Gentleman maligned the poor, of ie horn he
wished it to be thought he was the advocate Er was w- :1
known the discontented were not the poorer classes tee
discontent arose from, and was cot:fie, d to, these meas. a
,he were earning such wages as to keep then far from
poverty. The Hon. Gentleman hod also threatened timm
with a combination of agricultural labourers, should the