The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-22 00:00:00

'

the House would do well to attend to. The English and
Scotch laws relative to the providing further power were not
very different in their nature, but they were very different in
their administration. The Scotch, with that prudence and
caution which characterised their proceedings in everything,
took care in all possible cases to avoid assessment. It was only
in extreme cases that they consented to it. In Glasgow, and
some of the parries in that part of Scotland which were
most exposed to the influx of Irish labourers, it was
necessary to have recourse to assessment ; and it had also
been found proper to resort to it in other parts of the
country, in cases of scarcity arising from famine, or other
causes, as was the case in 1795. But it was always with
the greatest reluctance they did so. The Scotch adminis-
tered relief to their poor on a most sensible and judicious
plan. But it was far different in England. Here there were
great abuses in the administration of the poor laws, and never
could those laws be properly administered until we had a rigo-
rous and uniform system for the pupose. It had been said, in
objection to the proposal to have a uniform system of poor
laws, Why not leave the administration of each parish in its
own hands, in the same way as the administration of an indi-
vidual's own affairs is left in his hands? He (the Lord
Chancellor) would never expect that where there was a com-
bination of men with interested views, the affairs of others
would be administered by them with that carefulness and pru-
dence, with which an individual managed his affairs. This
fact was confirmed by the history of too many charities. The
Noble and Learned Lord here referred to several cases illus-
trative of the abuses to which he alluded, and then proceeded.
Does not this show how long a bad system may prevail before
people open their eyes to its evils ? The Bill to which he
was directing the attention of their Lordships, was to put an
end to these abuses and evils. At present there was a great
want of proper persons to superintend the affairs of parishes.
With regard to the Poor Law itself, he would at present say
nothing. When the'administration of its provisions was cor-
rected, then they might take the law itself into their
consideration. He had now to entreat their Lordship's
attention for a short time longer, while he referred to
another point. He knew that a prejudice had been at-
tempted to be created against this measure, by associat-
ing it with political economy, and political economists.
It had been said that the authors of the measure were
theorists, speculators, visionaries, and to sum up all, as if
that were the worst
charge which could be brought against
them, that they were political economists. This was said as
if political economists were necessarily theorists, speculators,
and visionaries. Why, he hoped, and indeed he was sure, it
was unnecessary to state to their Lordships that many of the
greatest and most celebrated men of modern times, heads of
academies, and the most distinguished seats of learning of the
present day—men whose names would be venerated long after
they were dead, were political economists. The greatest men of
his(the Chancellors') day were political economists. Pitt himself
was a political economist. The name of Adam Smith, popular a§
he has since been and now is, was scarcely known, and cer-
tainly his works excited little attention, until brought before
the country by Mr. Pitt quoting and praising his writings in
the House of Commons. That great statesman was fond of
the science of political economy. He ( Mr. Pitt) was a bad
political economist, it must be admitted ; but still he was fond
of the subject, and was perhaps as good as any statesman of
his time. Will any one, then, say that Mr. Pitt was a vision-
ary or a theorist ? Mr. Canning also was a political econo-
mist • was he a speculatist or a visionary ? He (the
Lord Chancellor) had heard many objections to Mr. Can-
ning on other grounds, but never on this. Mr. Hus-
kisson, likewise, was a political economist. He sup-
posed their Lordships would be told that that gentleman
also was a visionary, a mere theorist, and that he knew -
nothing of the true principles of trade and commerce, and na-
tional finance. Why, if he (the Lord Chancellor) were to
search all England, he did not know where he could find a
more practical statesman, or one who more disliked theory,
than Mr. Huskisson. Henry Thornton was another political
economist; yet he was a banker, and possessed a thorough
knowledge of business. The French political economists
also numbered among them some of the greatest men that
country ever produced. But ignoranee was always absurd.
Science sometimes proved the parent of ridiculous notions ;
but the absurdities of ignorance were endless, were boundless.
It makes men, " dressed in a little brief authority," play the
most fantastic tricks. With respect to the French economists,
they were charged by those who knew no better with being
levellers and republicans ; whereas those who knew any thing
of them, knew that they not only flourished under a despotism
or absolute Monarchy, but expressed themselves satisfied with
that system of Government. In fact, the greatest objection
which he had to the French economists was, they were too
much attached to their own absolute Monarchy. If he (the
Lord Chancellor) should be charged with being a theorist, a
speculatist, and a visionary, because he approved of those
papers (it was supposed the Noble and Learned Lord referred
to the report of the Poor Law Commissioners), he would
willingly submit to it, consoled by the reflection that he shared
it with such eminent men. With respect to the report of the
Commissioners, they ( the Government) had rejected the one half
of their suggestions—some of them of very great importance, be-
cause they were anxious not to adopt so many at once. If those
which they had adopted, and which were introduced into the
present measure, should be found to operate beneficially, the
others would certainly receive from him his best attention, and
they could, if approved of, be afterwards acted on. He now
begged their Lordships' attention for a little, while he adverted
to the plan which Ministers had devised for the better admi-
nistration of the poor laws :—First the uniformity of the sys-
tem, which was so important a feature of the plan, could only
be carried into effect by a central board of commissioners.
Second, those commissioners must not be political persons—
that is to say, not Members of either House of Parliament, and
not in any way connected with the State. And when he (the
Lord Chancellor) should be shown a man, who, by his sound
judgment, amiableness of disposition, and practical knowledge
of the subject, was qualified for the situation, he would at
once, however different might be that person's politics from
his, vote for his appointment to the office. Or, if two men
were proposed, with one of whom he differed in opinion
on political topics, while he agreed with the other, he
should decide in favour of the one from whom he dif-
fered in opinion, if he thought him the best qualified for the
appointment. (Hear, hear, hear.) It was necessary that
the Commissioners should possess large discretionary
powers. Unless they had large discretionary powers con-
ferred upon them, they could never administer the poor laws
under the new system to advantage ; for when anything. went
wrong, which they would not have sufficient discretionary
powers to enable them to correct, they would have to wait
until they got a new Act of Parliament, and thus everything
would be at a stand-still until next Session. Again :it was
necessary that the commissioners should possess large dis-
cretionary powers, because the circumstances of different
parishes were different. The circumstances of agricultural
parishes, for example, were different from those of commercial
parishes ; and, as it was impossible the Legislature could be
acquainted with the peculiar circumstances of each parish, it
was necessary to give discretionary powers to the commis-
sioners. The powers which it was proposed to give to the
commissioners were called arbitrary by some ; and by others
unconstitutional and novel. He (the Lord Chancellor)
would admit that they were novel as to their administration,
but certainly not as to their existence. With regard to
the extent of their powers, he would simply say they were
really irresponsible bodies which existed under the present
system that possessed such extensive powers. The fears
which were entertained lest the powers of the Commis-
sioners should be abused, were, in his opinion, groundless;
but supposing that there really were danger to be apprehended
from the exercise of those powers, he would ask their Lord-
ships were these times which required nothing out of the usual
way ? Need he remind their Lordships of the state of things
to which the present system of Poor Laws had brought the
country. What was the unanimous testimony to the existing
state of matters as brought on by the operation of those laws ?
Judges of the land, magistrates, men of science, tradesmen, as
well as landlords and farmers—men in every class of society—
all men, in short, whose testimony was worth having, concur-
red with one voice in representing the present state of things
as frightful—a state of things which made :industry and idle-
ness, and honesty and knavery change places, and which had
nearly annihilated commerce and agriculture. He would not
have referred to the melancholy condition to which the existing
system of Poor Laws had brought the country, and especially
the labouring classes of the country, if he did not believe, if
he were not satisfied, that the hand of the Legislature could
raise up and elevate the degraded character of the English
peasantry—a peasantry whose character for independence of
mind, and all that is noble and virtuous, would, but for the
operation of the present Poor Laws, have been, tothe remotest
ages of the world, the wonder and admiration of their country,
—(Cheers.) With respect to birth-settlement, the bill said no-
thing, he (the Lord Chancellor) was a great friend to birth-set-
tlement, and he hoped that ere long something would be done
relative to it ; but at the present time he thought it better not
to attempt doing anything. Then came the . point of hiring
service-settlement. That was extremely objectionable ; it was
so objectionable, as to be given up by all. It led to a great
deal of evasion of the law, which it was very easy to do.
And another evil which already resulted from it, and of which
it had long: been the prolific, source, were the differences to
which it led between the master and the man. Formerly
the most friendly feeling existed between masters and men-
servants. It was customary, before 1795, for them to dine
together, which, in the poorer class of farmers, not only
fostered a spirit of mutual good feeling, but the conse-
quences were most beneficial in many respects. When a
young man intended to marry, he generally informed
his master of the circumstance, and the master thought it
his duty, when the case was such as to justify the thing,
to warn him against the consequences of marrying before he
had any prospect of being able to support a wife and family.
The advice, from the moral influence the master possessed
over the servant, was often acted on ; and the mistress of the
house had generally a similar influence on the female servants.
In short, the masters and mistresses of farm houses, before
the Poor Laws had brought on the present state of things,
did exactly in this respect what Professor Malthiis has had so
much obloquy thrown on him for attempting to do, namely,
to prevent imprudent marriages. At the time to which he
(the Lord Chancellor) referred, the crime of bastardy was
not a twentieth part so common as it is now. The hiring ser-
vice settlement was also most injurious to the character of
servants. The three weeks in the year which they went about
idle to evade the law, opened the road to crimes and led to
the contraction of bad habits, from which they were seldom
afterwards reclaimed. They went about during these three
weeks to fairs and other places, where their morals were
corrupted, and where they formed idle habits. And as re-
garded female servants, they often, when thus going about
idle tcr evade the law, lost their character altogether.—( Hear. )
Their parents often resided at a distance--it might be of
fifty miles, and they could not afford the expenses of a
journey to see them. Hence they fell into bad company, and
often were ruined altogether. Apprentice settlement was bad