The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-05 00:00:00

/yam

A ~~

77,

-'-~'_ r 2

this misfortune, that it included the industrious poor in the
same category. He concluded by thanking the House for the
indulgence it had extended towards him.
Mr. FERRAND seconded the amendment, but without
speaking upon it.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that after the speeches which had
been made it was expedient that he should address a few ob-
servations to the House upon the important subject then under
its consideration. And he would begin by frankly stating that
if, alter hearing all that had been said, and after duly consider-
ing much that had been written, he could come to
the conclusion that the existing law was hostile
in principle to the interests of the poor, no consideration upon
earth should induce him to oppose the motion for its re-con-
struction. But his experience told him, that the poor-law as
amended in the year 1843, had been useful to the working
classes ; and although, doubtless, it was, like every
other law, capable from time to time of modification,
still he frankly confessed that his judgment approved the
agenveerrayl rioensuglths
iwsthoihrcicahad b l
review of
opfrodced
the
evarbiy it. A
various
poor-laws,
ts,aik.rioning
their earliest origin to the last great amendment in 1834, the
Right Hon. Baronet contended that that amended Act was
identical in all its essential provisions with the enactment of
Elizabeth, of which there was, in the present (las ,
so much talk, but which was, in fact, so lit ths
understood by those who made a sort of stalking..
horse of it. Now, the Act of 1834, had been denounced as
unconstitutional by the Hon. Members for Bridport and
Evesham; but it had not been stated by either of them what
was to be its substitute. Neither to the Act of Elizabeth, of
George the Ist, or any other Act were they to go back. Na
substitute whatever was offered to them—nothing tangible
suggested ; but it was said, that in the matter of out-door relief
the present law was essentially different from that of Elizabeth.
This he (Sir J. Graham) denied. In the Act of 1834, there
was no denial of out-door relief.--( A loud Hear, hear,"
from Mr. Ferraud.) He ( Sir J. Graham) was stating the
fact—the fact and the law. There was no provision in that
Act directing a denial of out-door relief. lsw less than one
million five hundred thousand persons in England
and Wales had, during the year 1843, received re-
lief, and a very considerable number of these persons
had received such relief in their own houses. Such was the
fact, and therefore the assertion that the law specially forbade
out-door relief at once fcil to the ground. He lamented, with
every lion. Gentlemen who heard him, that so large a pro-
portion of the population of England and Wales should have
required relief; but he rejoiced, as an Englishman, to think
that he lived in a country whose laws were so considerate and
humane as not only to provide this relief, but to authorise, to
direct, and absolutely to require its administration.—( Hear.)
The Hon. Member who had just sat down said the honest,
industrious poor, should be provided for by the State. Gaut
much depended in what sense the term " poor '. was used ;
if by "poor" he meant the honest, industrious labourer, who
was unable to obtain employment, then he entirely agreed with
him ; but care should be taken that idleness should not be en-
couraged. The law in Scotland did not recognise the
claim of any able-bodied
.pauper to relief; and such
had been the law there since the time of Charles the
Second. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridport
had in his speech alluded to the distress which prevailed in the
manufacturing districts. It was true great distress had
existed there, and great distress still existed there, but it should
be recollected that the population was very dense in these parts,
and unfortunately as population increased poverty became pro-
portionately more prevalent. The °eV way of properly and
efficiently meeting this evil was by multiplying the means of
productive industry.---( Hear, from the Opposition,) Heknew
what the lion. Members on the other sideof the House meant
by crying" Hear," but notwithstanding he asserted the principle
though they might differ as to the means of applying it. He
was willing to admit that any restrictive interference with
manufactures and machinery would be the greatest blow the
country could receive. He would not say that the present
law was perfect. It might require many amendments—it did
require some, but he felt satisfied that in the present state of
the country nothing could be more unwise than by a summary
resolution of this sort, to annul the only law in the statute-bonk
providing for the maintenance of the poor. Such a course
would be, he firmly believed, an impolitic and fatal course ;
and he hoped the House would take the more humane and
benevolent course—to revise the statute, and introduce the re-
quisite amendments.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY thought it was possible to
frame the present poor-law in conformity with the altered state
of society in which they now lived, and should therefore resist
a motion for the total repeal of the law. He would not say,
in the words of the Hon. Member for Evesham, that the
present poor-law was unconstitutional ; but he was willing
to admit that it was unsound, and if the Hon. Member for
Evesham would so far alter his resolutions, he would support
him. The Hon. Member quoted from several documents to
show that the unions had been formed without any regard
whatever to the population—sometimes they were too large,
and sometimes too small ; by the former, poor men were
obliged to perform long journeys to a workhouse for relief—by
the latter, the taxes on the rate-payers were made oppressive
almost beyond endurance. He quoted from the report of Sir
John Walsh= in proof of what he stated, as to the desirable-
ness of having unions of a moderate size. After some further
observations, the Hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, that
if the alteration he suggested were adopted, he would vote
for the resolution of the Hon. Member for Evesham.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he owned that the speech of the
[lon. Member who had just sat down, very much surprised
him. He could very well understand the resolutions of the
Hon. Member for Evesham. It was plain and straightforward,
but he very much apprehended that the declarations of the
Hon. Member for Yorkshire were not in accordance with his
professions on the hustings and elsewhere. The complaint of
the Hon. Gentleman was, that the union workhouses were too
large, and this, he must confess, appeared to him (Lord J.
Russell) a very extraordinary complaint. He thought the
Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, had answered
much that had fallen from the Honourable Member for
Evesham respecting this law. Hon. Gentlemen, in speaking
of this law in public, were very fond of indulging in vague as-
sertions. They described the law as oppressive and unconsti-
tutional. They talked about the unchristian system of sepa-
rating husband and wife. Now, it so happened, that there
was no such provision in the law ; but in the next place, he, would inform those Hon. Gentlemen, that in large workhouses
it was necessary, for mere decency, to adopt such a system. But
was this a new system ? No, it had been in existenes long
before the new poor-law came into operation. The
Honourable Member for Evesham, in speaking sir
this law, talked as though we had been living in a per-
fect state of happiness from the time of Elizabeth down
to the passing of the new poor-law, and he wondered
that the Government of Lord Grey, and Lord Brougham in
particular, should have endeavoured to have disturbed that
which, for three hundred years, had been the cause of so
'''eh happiness. No. doubt it was a very wise law for the
time in which it was passed, but it was not intended that it
should remain unaltered through every change in society. The
Hon. Gentleman talked very much about its having been con-
ceived in a Catholic spirit ; but he (Lord Joh Russell)
thought that every law which was passed in the reign of Eliza-
beth was conceived in a Protestant spirit. But had this
law produced the happiness which Hon. Gentlemen opposite
talked so much about? lie thought that a refe-
rence to history would show that it had not.
In the reign of William and Mary, and Queen Anne, great
complaints were made as to the operation of the new poor-law,
and frequent applications were made to Parliament for its
reform. In the year 1796 passed that law which the Hon.
Gentleman had so much commended, but which he (Lord
J. Russell) thought contained a great many evils. Did that
law meet with general approbation ? So far was this from being
the case, that immediately on the termination of the war, Com-
mittees of Inquiry were appointed on the subject. Various
alterations were proposed, but the evils complained of grew
greater and greater ; and in 1830 that law, which
had produced tumults and disorder in the country, was
repealed. It was found necessary, in consequence of
the state of the country, that a change should be made in
the law, and Lord Grey's Government undertook to effect
that change. It was very easy for persons to go about saying
that by this measure the poor of the country had been deprived
of the charity to which they were entitled. The fact was
otherwise. It was a degradation to the people to be obliged to live on parish allowance instead of wages, for it reduced
them to a state of slavery, and any law which would have the
effect of placing them again in a state of indepen-
dent labour, was likely to prove in the end a
blessing to the country. That the law was difficult of operation
no one could deny. The object of the law was to give a
stimulus to labour—to get rid, if possible, of a system of allow..
ante and wages combined, and to give relief in cases of desti-
tution. He thought this was a sound principle, and he would
be sorry to see it departed from, for if they were to do so, it
would be only to bring back the many evils which existed prior
to 1830. He was sorry to find that se important a
measure as this had been delayed to so late a period
of the session. From what he had heard, he could not but
wonder that gentlemen should be found to pledge themselves
against a law, of the provisions of which they appeared to be
quite ignorant. He was glad, however, to find that the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State intended to persevere
with this measure, and he should give his cordial support to it.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY explained.
Sir W. JAMES opposed the measure, as one not founded
upon the principles of justice and morality. The Bishop of
Llandaff had told him that the workhouse system under this
Bill never would answer the purpose intended. But it was
said that it was wrong to agitate upon this subject, because
such agitation tended to make the poor discontented and mise•
rabic. But he could not agree with that argument, for he
was convinced that under the
.present law the wretchedness of
the people was rapidly increasing, and would go on unless the
Legislature returned to the old law. He knew that there were
many abuses in the old law which required correction. It
would be better to leave the poor entirely to the assistance of
private charity, than to lead them to look for such relief as the
present law professed to give them.—(Cries of " Divide.")
Captain PECHELL, who roeo amidst repeated cries of
" Divide," said he knew how difficult it was to obtain a hear-
ing in so impatient a House. But he would remind the Right
Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, that he had promised,
in the earlier stages of the Bill, that he would give every gen-
tleman an opportunity of stating- his opinions in the present
stage.—(" Go on.") He was willing to admit that the Bill
was greatly modified. Still it retained many clauses which
he considered objectionable in the extreme—(Hear, hear)—
and, above all, he should feel it his duty to support every
proposition for getting rid of the authority of the Commis-
sioners.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") These gentlemen interfered
in the most vexatious way with the local management of the
parishes under their control. That interference extended even
to the apprenticing of the parish children.—( Hear, hear.)
And they were now attempting to control those parishes which
were already so well managed under Hobhouse's Act.--( Hear.)
He would recommend the Government to look at the discon-
tent which this measure occasioned throughout the country,
and the great unpopularity, and many election defeats, which it
occasioned to the late Government. He would support the pro-
position of the Hon. Member for Evesham.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. S. CRAWFORD (who also was received with loud
cries of " Divide,") said that on so important an occasion he
had a right to claim the attention of the House.—( Hear, hear,
and Go on.) He would support the resolution of the Hon.
Mentber for Evelham, and he hoped that the Hon. Gentleman
would resist any attempts to induce him to alter the terms of
it.—( Hear.) Those Commissioners possessed the most
unconstitutional powers, rendering altogether null and unavail-
ing the functions of the elective bodies—the boards of guar-
dians.—( Hear, hear.) The great principle of this Bill was to
terrify the poor man, by the, horror of the workhouse, from
seeking relief until he was in the very last stage of destitution.
—( Hear, hear.) In the Tenth Report of the Irish Poor-law
Commissioners, it was stated that the law was going on most
satisfactorily. But what was the proof the: report gave of
this ? Why, that great numbers of people in the last stage of
destitution came to, the workhouse se reduced by want, that
they died soon after their admission. That was the satisfactory
working of the law in Ireland ! People kept out of the work-
house as long as they could, and until famine overcame their
horrors, Was this fair treatment of the workine-elasses ? Was
it not most cruel and inhuman ?—( Cheers.) 'Under this law
in England, a new system of giving tickets had grown up, by
which the farmers were enabled to reduce the wages of their
labourers.—(Cheers.) Something must be done for the poor
man. He must either be supported from the wealth of tho
country, or he must come back upon the land, and support him-
Self by his independent labour.—( Hear, hear. ) If something
were not done, the country would become a prey to anarchy
and riot, as was the case in the latter part of -the reign of
Henry the Eighth, arid down to the time when the present law
was passed.—( Hear, beer.) He entreated the House to look
to the eontl4iva ‘.;`: the working-classes at this moment, and to

(Ctothaued iu our Fourth Page.)