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

parishes nailer the Gilbert corporation. It was the constant
i
rayer of the Poor-law Commissioners thatthehsaed endeavoured
p might
shes
ar
s e brought under their management. They
0 persuade the Noble Lord and the House that it was neces-
s arse in order to secure uniformity. They had not shown
hat the administration of relief to the per had been in-
udicious or improper ; but they bad stated that , they
were mistaken as
to their own interests as well as
the interest of those who were nod. r their care
. It was no-
torious, however, that the administration of relief in the Gil-
be rt corporation hail given the greatest satisfaction. No
wmanagetnent had been stated. They simply wished not
t. tWbe interfered with by the Poor-law Commissioners, and
he trusted that the House would not agree to the dissolution of
these unions without the consent of the guardians. On a
future occasion he should be prepared to substantiate what
he bad advanced in favour of these unions, and to convince
the House of the impropriety of sanctioning any interference
with them by the Poor-law Commissioners.
Mr. W. A T TWOOD rose and said, he was one of those
who intended to vote against the second reading of the Bill,
and, therefore, came under the special reprobation of the
Noble Lord the Member for Northumberland. It was a re-
markable circumstance, that scarcely a single Member had ex-
pressed his opinion in support of the Bill, who had not said that
he looked forward to amendments and ameliorations. He
would ask what hope there was of amendments and ameliora-
tions after the tone which had been adopted by the Noble
Lord the Member for Northumberland? Upon all occasions
when this subject was discussed, their had conic forward a
number of Honourable Members declaring, that upon many
points they disapproved both of the principle of the Act
and of the manner in which it had been carried into effect. But
they stated at the same time that they did not intend to offer
any opposition to the measure, because they hoped that in con-
sequence of the discussions that would take place in that House
the severity of the Bill would be mitigated. Now, he asked
Hou. Members whether from the moment that those discus-
slope first took place there had been introduced into the conduct
of the Commissioners any one amelioration; whether, instead
of administering its provisions with greater mildness they had
not given unequivocal proofs of their determination to add to
the severity of the Bill, and to carry it into operation with all
the harshness it would allow. When the Noble Lord (the
Member for Northumberland) taunted Members who opposed
this Bill, by asking if there were any of them who were ready
to support the old system, he (Mr. Attwood) would
throw back the taunt, and ask if there were any
Members of that House who would support this Bill
without amendment? He would ask whether, if the Bill were
presented to the House without any hope of amendment or
mitigation, it would have that majority in its favour which he
feared he would be condemned to witness on that occasion ?
If they referred to the Report, they would find a determination
to carry into effect all the regulations upon which the disap-
probation of the Committee had been most unequivocally ex-
pressed. The Committee had proposed to shorten and
limit the powers of the Commissioners. ( Hear, hear,
hem.) They recommended that there should be an ame-
lioration of the mode in which the law was administered,
and that many modifications should take place in the law itself.
None of these recommendations were attended to by the Noble
Lord in bringing in the Bill. There was no hope of amelio-
ration by allowing the Bill to proceed to a Committee, and he
hoped that the House would not allow itself to be deluded by
the expectation of improvement, to consent to the second read-
ing of the Bill.
Sir EDWARD FILMER wished to give the reasons by
which he was influenced in deciding that he should not vote
either upon the original motion or upon the amendment that
had been moved.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.") He could
not oppose the motion which professed to be for the amendment
of an Act which he believed to require amendment. But
on looking into the Bill, he found that itrwas not an amel ora-
tion of the present law.—(Divide, divide.) He was favourable
to the allowance of relief out of doors to persons .labouring
under temporary distress, and capable, when opportunity
offered, of resuming their industrious habits, and maintaining
themselves without any burden to the parish.—(Divide, divide. )
He believed that the law required amendment, he could not
vote against the second reading of the Bill, nor could he vote
for the motion of the Noble Lord, because he was satisfied the
Bill would not effect the object professed.
Mr. LANGDALE, who rose amidst loud cries of " Divide,"
said he would not trespass on the House, if it had not been for
the course which he had taken in respect to this Bill. He
had been a Member of a Committee which agreed to a strong
resolution en the subject of permitting the inmates of work-
houses to attend divine worship on the Sabbath. He was
desirous that Members of the Established Church shout] be
permitted to attend to the service of their Church on that day.
But he was also desirous that persons of other religious persuasions
should have the same facilities afforded them, and he took that
opportunity of expressing his determination to press for the in-
troduction of a provision in this Bill for that purpose.
Being satisfied of the general utility of the measure he should
vote for the second reading.--( Cries of " Divide, dii ide. )
Mr. JAMES said it was not on his own account but on ac.
count of those whom he had the honour to represent, that
he was desirous to address the House, in a few words upon
this question. In his county the New Poor-law had worked
most beneficially, and the unpopularity with which it had
been at first received had entirely disappeared.—( Cries
of 44 Oh," and " Divide, divide, divide.") It had
been the custom of that county to give out-door
relief to able-bodied labourers in the shape of money,
clothing, and medical attendance to an extent which the rates
by no means justified—(Hear.) There was a system of let-
ting oat the poor to the lowest bidder, at what was called a
Dutch auction, and persons were known to receive them so
low as 15d. a week per head. It was well to talk about torture
and starvation, but what greater system of torture could there
be than that which prevailed under the old Poor-law ? Under
the present system the evils which were formerly so glaring
were almost entirely remedied. The aged, the sick, and the
indigent poor were better taken care of, and their children
were better educated.—(Oh, and divide.) He did not mean
to contend that the measure was perfect; it had improved the
comforts of the poor, and had promoted in many ways their in-
terest. A large number of habitual paupers had been converted
into industrious labourers. A reduction of from 25 to 40 per
cent. in the parish expenditure had been effected—Divide,
divide.) He thought the Bill good and useful to the honest
and industrious, who ought not to be taxed for the support of
the idle and, profligate.—(Divide, divide. )
Mr.sFIELDEN complained of the Report of the Committee
of last-year, which he contended was a packed awl partial
Co.umittee. It was proved to demonstration before that
Committee that the rates of labour were not raised by the
operation of the new Poor-law. Now if the wages of labourers
were depressed instead of raised, the law must be an unjust one,
and would bring destruction en its framers. He• should cer-
tainly vote for the amendment of the Hon. Member, and would
throw all the obstacles in his power in the way of the passing
of such a measure.—(Cries of " Question.")
Lord J. RUSSELL said after the statements of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury, who had stated that the Bill was founded
of a ravage and ferocious principle, and after the stateme it of
the Hon. Member for Oldham, who wished for an inquiry into
the rate of wages, but would oppose the measure in every shoe,
arid on every occasion, where there was so much of declam-
and so littleenf argument, he must be permitted to r
words before the House went to a division. The non4Yllaleienw
her for Sussex had disputed his (Lord.
sell's) assertion that the Bill was found' on
Rus--
n the 431 of
Elizabeth, and had quoted BlacketeSne on that point,
but with every respect for that, high le; al authority
he ( Lord John Russell) maintained that such* was the
fact. He held the same princieele as the law of Elizabeth, that
with regard to the old, the in-firm, and the helpless, relief was
to be given by the State.; and that with regard to the able-
bodied, relief was also 'to be given ; but in that case they were
to ascertain whether destitution existed or not. The statute
of Elizabeth poisated out the mode in which that was to be
done, and th.e law was applicable to the state of society which
then existed. The population was wandering and unset-
tled, and the wool of England was sent into Ger-
many to be manufactured. Now, the circumstances
of the present times being extremely different, the same tests
of destitution could not be applied in the present day. The
very same principle had also been acted upon, in 1795, by the
Duke of Wellington' when in command in India, in the case
of a famine. On that occasion the very same principles, as
nearly as possible, were acted upon as were followed out by
the Poor-law Commissioners in framing the present measure.
Ile directed that, in all cases of great suffering and distress,
relief was to be administered, and his officers carried these in-
structions into effect. They were divided into two classes—
those who were able, and those who were unable to work ; and
in the former case the parties were to be taken into hospital,
and to undergo the discipline of that establishment. It had
been said by the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Darby) that the
test of hard labour out of tl e workhouse was a better one
than that recommended by the Commissioners, but that was a
question which was in a great measure to be ascertained by ex-
perience, and, looking at it merely theoretically, and as the
arguments had been applied, he should say that it was
a test likely to be fully equal to that of the woikhouse test.
Experience, however, was the °tinr way, and the opinions of
men best acquainted with the subject was in favour of the pre-
sent system, and their evidence had produced such an effect
upon the Commissioners that they had adopted the suggestion.
'I he first question the House had to consider was as to the re-
lief to be given to the destitute,
maker and the next was whether they
could, in giving that relief, great relaxation in the
mode. In the whole course of the discussionY
of that night, though
he had heard many hard terms applied, yet he had heard no
suggestion of a practical nature
which could adopt with
a conviction that it would nut brine them he
kto the old state
of things. The Hon. Member for thoughtKeua
,in seasons of great severity the poor might be relieved in
'.heir own houses, but if the rule was once broken in
• upon he
should be glad to know where the line was to be drawn, and
4iley would hare the plea of destitution put forward thefolloa
follow-
ing year, although there might be less severity in the season
m,
and the evils of the old system would again return upon theoni:
He argued with the Noble Lord the Member for Northum-
i)erland that there was great danger of such a result.
He would pass over the general idleness and demoralization
generated by the old system. In the original Report on that
'ystem, which received the sanction of the Bishop of London;
.he Bishop of Chester, and many other Members of that Com-
mission of Inquiry, who were not in the present Commission,
various cases were stated in which the labourers there men-
tioned what wore their own views on the subjeet. The
Noble Lord here proceeded to read several extracts
front the Report, confirming his views of the subject,
and went on to say, that under the old system the honest and
industrious labourer become broken-hearted. lie (Lord John
Russell) asked them then not to revive that system. He be-
lieved that the greatest benefit they could confer on English
labourers, would be to give them the greatest facility that could
be possibly conferred by any law, to enable them to obtain em-
ployment for themselves. The contract between the labourer
sad the employer was a fair one—it was a fair exchange, and
the labourer felt himself independent. Every law then which
enabled the labourer in this country to earn wages and obtain
more employment—to find new sources of employment, and to
obtain those situations which he looked to—every such law was
useful; hut, on the contrary, every endeavour tha
would have for its object
to reduce the labourer
to a
it state of dependence, they might depend
upon , that though they might obtain some
popularity by such an endeavour—althoueh it
to would be
lauded by many as showing eat benevolence—they would
treat
be, in fact, but destroying
the ,ndependeece of the
labourer.—
( Hear, hear.) If they would weaken his strength, and under-
mine his moral force, that was the course for thempursue.
They would be laying the foundation of an overgrows
lation, whom the law could not restrain—whom even refinglenn-
would be hardly able to awe into obedience—and they would
find that they were most certainly ruining the foundation of
society.—(Hear, hear.) He would not now, on the occasion
of the second reading, discuss the details of the measure. He
would be extremely sorry to see the House adopt the sug.
gestion of the Honourable Gentleman of limiting the
power of the Commissioners to five years. It was quite
impossible their conduct should be subject to much real
blame without the Ministers of the Crown being able
to prevent the recurrence of such conduct. But on the other
hand, if the House weakened their authority, they would give
strength to those who were opposeel to the law, and spread
reports that it was no use yet awhile to obey their orders, but
.put off obedience from year to year, saying in a little while they
eha 11 see the law repealed—that there is universal dissatisfaction
f i so ne reason - ethe- -'son they do not give ; and
ill be sure to occasion the
It was for the wisdom of
ion of the Commission,
much strengthened, and
s not unduly increased
He thanked the House for
listened to the subject, and

s su ne reason or other, which reaso
that that universal disoktisf ien will
repeal IMO ear. )
that II ' • durat
but h ra: 't - be
the ,po •._equat.t. "7*.••• ers
if • . -d
• 5703' ••••7. • H
the 4." lis
Al