The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-12 00:00:00

' that the mandamus he issued at once, en the alle-
gation that the poor at the time were starving. This was not
the case, as the overseers of Rochdale, in pursuance of the in-
structions from the Commissioners themselves, continued to
relieve the poor as before, under the local Act. The people of
Rochdale made every exertion to escape the infliction of this
law; they wished by every legitimate means in their power
to prevent its operation taking place, and to avoid also the ap-
pearance of any resistance to the authorities. The Board of
Guardians signed a memorial to the Secretary of the Home
Department ; another memorial was also addressed to the
Right Hon. Gentleman by the rate-payers of Rochdale, each
praying his interference to prevent the law being forced upon
them. The memorial of the rate-payers was signed by 11,415
persons, and of the whole number of rate-payers
in the district, only fifty-one refused to sign it.—( Hear.)
He, therefore, stood there as the representative of a consti-
tuency which, though consisting of many political parties, was
on this subject completely united. The answer of the Secre-
tary of State to the memorials was—that he had no power to
interfere to prevent the operation of the law. Under these
circumstances, the inhabitants of Rochdale appealed to that
House for relief ; they came there to ask if that House could
not prevent the infliction of this law upon them. Though no
reason had been assigned for enforcing the law—though no
regular document had been produced--he had an indirect
knowledge of a document which had been drawn up with the
view of establishing a case for the Commissioners. That
document stated that the expense of the relief
of the poor had greatly increased, and instituted
some comparisons with other districts to prove
it, which he contended were not fairly drawn, inasmuch as
the three towns of the district of Rochdale were compared
with three other towns. In reply to this, he asserted that,
taking the whole number of paupers in England, the expense
of each of them was 21. 145., while the expense of the peer of
Rochdale under relief was not more than 28s. per head. Was
not that an argument in favour of Rochdale, and a reason why
they should continue a system with which the people were
contented ? This was not the first time he had ha,' to defend
the people of Rochdale. In 1841 he stated in that House the
distress of the town, and in consequence an inquiry was insti-
tuted, which also extended to the system of poor relief then
existing. This inquiry was conducted by Mr. Tuffaell, and
he reported that the poor were sufficiently relieved, and that
there was a general desire on the part :of the people to avoid
applying for relief. Now, if the poor were sufficiently re-
lieved, and economy also preserved, surely that sys-
tem ought to be continued. He had presented
a petition from the people of Rochdale, which con-
tainedvariety of allegations, and he would not be
doing d a
justice to those who had sent him if he did not call the
attention of the House to the allegations of that petition. The
ne
petitioners stated that the new poor-law was unconstitutional
and was destructive of the principles of civil Government.
Were they not right ? They went on to state that the new
poor-law destroyed the desire for public liberty. The peti-
tioners allege that the Poor-law Commissioners had the power
of levying money by means of the poor-law guardians. They
contended that this power ought not to be vested in irrespon-
sible parties. The guardians were machines to be worked by
the hands of the Commissioners, in order to sanction that taxa-
tion which they had no power in themselves to control. The
petitioners contended that the Parliament had no right to dele-
gate any power which was contrary to the Bill of Rights. Why
was this power, to which the petitioners had alluded, given by
the Parliament to the Commissioners ? It was intended that
the Commissioners should do that which the Parliament did
not choose to do. The intention of the framer of the new
Poor-law Bill was to abolish all out-door relief. The poor
man had a right to demand relief when he could not obtain
work. It had been stated that five-sixths of the poor received
external relief. He did not deny this, but it was contrary to
the intention of the framers of the new Poor-law Act. The
dietary was the next point which he would take up; and
here he would say that this was one of the greatest inflictions of
this law upon the poor. He saw by the returns of the Poor-
law Commissioners, issued in March, 1844, that the dietary
for five days in the week was, for breakfast, seven ounces of
bread and one piut of gruel ; and for dinner one pound of pota-
toes. Now, he would ask, what was a pound of potatoes ? Per-
haps some Hon. Members were not aware that one potatoe was
so large as to weigh more than la pound--( A laugh)—and it
was quite a common occurrence to find two potatoes weigh more
than a pound; and he would just ask the House to imagine a
working-man having only one potatoe for his dinner ?
( A laugh.) Why, he knew many working men in Ire-
land who would make but a poor dinner on seven
pounds of potatoes.—(Loud laughter.) In fact, this scale
of dietary was not at all suited to the wants or habits of
the poor ; and he would have no hesitation in saying that it
was a starvation scale.—( Hear.) The whole of this oppres-
sive and unchristian system of treating the poor had made such
an impression upon the inhabitants of Rochdale, that they
felt themselves driven to make the appeal they now did to
that House through him.—( Hear.) It appeared that, al-
though out-door relief would be the best possible system that
could be adopted, yet the guardians had made a rule against
it. He had often spoken of the hardship of this system ;
but surely it was not necessary to go this length with it. The
law gave a power to extend out-door relief to the poor in towns ;
but that too, had been rendered useless by the order of the guar-
dians, which went to the extent of depriving the justices
of the power of declaring who were, and who were not the
fit and proper objects of charity. He would be far from wish-
ing to vest too much power in the hands of magistrates ; but
surely they should not have been deprived of this useful
power ?—( Hear.) There was another point to which he
would allude, namely, the evil of compelling a person who
had once been industrious and respectable, but unfortunate
and pauperised, to associate with the very worst characters in
society when they sought relief in the workhouse.—(Hear.)
He contended that this alone would be sufficient to make
many people recoil with horror from the workhouse relief, as
would also what was called the workhouse test of destitution,
which was the only test applied, or that the law would be
allowed to apply, and hence its total failure. —( Hear. )
The working men of England claimed subsistence or employ-
ment. It was a birthright which they possessed by the laws
and constitution of England for a number of years, and was as
sacred to them as any right by which:property of any description
was held. The working of the present law was well described
in the words of a distinguished individual, who said that the
law might be defined in these words :—" And be it enacted
that the Poor-law Commissioners have unbounded dominion
over the poor and rich of the land," and it might be added, to
exercise this dominion in the most arbitrary manner. He was
most anxious that the House should inquire into the mode in
which the poor-law was administered, as he felt confident that
many Hon. Members were not aware of the injuries which it
inflicted. Let there be a public inquiry—a full investigation.
His constituents were determined to resist with all their might
the introduction of this law, and would suffer the penalties of
an attachment rather than concur in a measure which to them
seemed full of injustice and severity. The motion he made
was, " that the petition of the people of Rochdale be referred to
a Select Committee, to inquire into the administration of the
poor-law in that district." He had modified the resolution,
that it might, by its practicability, receive more general sup-
port, but would not push it further if the Right lion. Gentle-
man would promise to appoint a Commission to inquire into
the matter.

Mr. FERRAND said he was rejoiced that he caught the
Speaker's eye, far he was anxious to bear testimony to the re-
spectability and unanimity of the meeting at Rochdale, when
this petition was adopted. He wished to call the attention of
the House not only to this law, and to its administration, but
to the pledges which had been given when this law was first
introduced in that House. The people of Rochdale were, ho
considered, fully justified in resisting this law; in fact, under
such circumstances, he thought obedience was a crime, and re-
sistance a virtue. The most solemn pledges were given, when
this law was introduced, as to the mild mode in which the law
was to be administered, and the restrictions which were to be
kept up ; but these pledges, without which the House and the
country would never have consented to the law, were most
flagrantly violated. Lord Althorp said, on the 17th of
April, 1834, in reply to an observation of the Ho-
nourable Member for Marylebone, that the law would
not interfere with well regulated parishes, but the administra-
tors of it would copy their example ; and his Lordship further
said that when the parish was well regulated, the slightest ap-
prehension might not be entertained of interference on the
part of the Poor-law Commissioners. This pledge, continued
the Hon. Member, was given by the mouthpiece of the Go-
vernment, and such was the condition upon which the House
gave its consent to the Bill. The Hon. Member then quoted
the remarks of Lord Brougham on the old poor-law, which he
said destroyed all sense of dignity, erased all manly and honour-
able feeling, and fitted its victims for acts of violence. The
volume on the table of the House, said the Noble Lord, was a
record of the violence entailed by it, of the idleness which it
engendered, and the guilt, the sister of idleness, which stalked
over the land, notwithstanding the progress of education, and
the more extended and impartial administration of justice.
The Noble Lord said the new law would remove these evils,
and restore to industry its proper reward, and lift once more
the character of the English peasantry to that proud
eminence which they were naturally qualified to hold.
The Noble Lord the Member for the City of London had en-
titled himself to the respect of the country for the consistency
with which he had adhered to the views which he entertained
of this law. But what was the conduct of the Right Hon.
Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Secretary of
the Home Department ? They had been elevated to the places
which they now held by an express understanding that they
would oppose the proceedings of the Poor-law Commissioners.
The Right lion. Baronet had told them that the New
Poor-law would put an end to the giving of alms in this coun-
try. But what was the language used by the Hon. Baronet
this night, and what would be the effect, when the effect of
these declarations was made known in all parts of England ? But
how different had been the conduct of the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for the City of London, on the motion in 1839, for the ex-
tension of out-door relief to parties who had been married
before the poor-law came into operation. The Noble Lord
had opposed this extension on the ground that it would be a
continuance of the allowance system, which system it
was one of the main objects of the poor-law
to abolish—that it would have the effect of dividing
the poor into two classes, and render the law, in
fact, a dead letter. Why it was a dead letter already. There
was one law for the east and another for the north—another
for the south and another for the west. The whole system was
a system of force, and which nothing but force would carry into
effect. He well remembered the speech of the Noble Lord
the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; on hearing that
speech of the Noble Lord he jumped up in his place and
declared that he had no confidence whatever in the poor-law
Commissioners—that he desired rather to see their powers re-
stricted than extended—that his object was to secure to the
poor all the benefits of the law, whilst he endeavoured to
elevate the character of the noble peasantry of England, and
place them in an independent position. What was the inde-
pendent position of the peasantry of England now ? Expe-
rience was a sufficient reply, The Cabinet Ministers sitting
on that bench had been elevated to their places by advocating
the privileges of the poor of the country, either by speaking for
them on the hustings, or strongly against the new poor-law in
that House. They stated that they were apprehensive
of disaffectien in the country. Why, he would tell them that
the greatest inciters of disaffection were themselves and the
Poor-law Commissioners. They attempted to cary into effect
the discontinuance of the allowance system, but what had been
the course they had pursued? They had introduced the new
poor-law into Bradford—they dared not introduce it into Leeds
had deformed
b—ywiittshodinitoeuns rne'gileuslaotfiotnhse. "Trhyepylalcie wadiolnicch ltahweyin England on
one side of the brook, and another on the other. They professed
that this grand panacea was to elevate the wages, and secure
the comfort of the poor. But what was the consequence ?
They
wages in the north of Nottinghamshire,
3 a week, while in Northamptonshire they were only
9, a
week.hard llt was thus that they raised wages. Now came
some startling facts, which lie should adduce, in order to e
Istlat g
the dreadful malady which they had inflicted upon the country.
In 1841 the population of the country was 19,681,841. In the
year 1842 the number of persons who received in-door relief
was 222,642, while those receiving out-door relief wes
1,204,545, making a total of 1,427,187. In 1843 the number
wh.) received in-door relief was 24560, those receiving out-
door relief was 1,270,930, making a total of 1,509,490. Thess
were strong facts, and the House should remember that the
years 1842 and 1843 exhibited a progressive increase of pros-
perity in the manufacturing districts. In 1842 the sum pa;d for
in-dour relief was 15,9111., and that for out-door relief was
4relief, ami,otioi, making
atotal 2
93,1841. more than in 1841, making a total increase in 1843
o the total anlount of in-door
relief v e over
l
1843 the total amount of in-door relief
was 985,6701., and for out-door relief, 3,773,0191., making a
total of 4,758,9891., showing an increase in the in-door relief of
ioaf2s 4,,1 04f 94,513,1642,41402. ,
100. lf•
then I n
out-door 8
23,893/., and of the out-door relief 230,6241., making a total
increase in those two years of 254,5231. That was the reqt