The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-18 00:00:00

POOII-LAW BILL.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM, in rising to move the Order
of the Day for the second reading of the Pour-law Bill,
said, that as:he had already explained to the Hotte the
principles on which this measure rested, he trusted the
House would excuse him for not again going over the
same ground, and he would, therefore, content himself
with moving that this Bill be read a second time.
GOLD COINAGE.

Mr. C. BULLER said, he did not wish to oppose the
Order of the Day being read on any ground connected
with the Poor-law, of which he was a supporter, but be
wished to call.the attention of the House, to a subject of
importance, namely. the recent conduct of Government
with regard to gold coin. He knew that, according to
the new rules, anti he allowed they were wise ones, it
was not admissible for him to make any amendment
on the Orders of the Day which was not connected
with the subject, but he might move that another order
be read in its stead, and he should move that the Order
of the Day for going into a Committee of Supply
be now taken. He did not wish to do any
thing which would interfere with the course of
public business, but the subject to which he wished
to call the attention of the House was one of

urgent importance, and had occupied more of
the attention of people out of doors, as being practical
and pressing grievance,_ than any other subject—
(Hear, hear)—and it was rather discreditable to the
House, that the question had not been already
discussed, and that the Government should on
their own authority be allowed to adopt the proceeding
they. had without that house discussing the propriety of it.
He informed the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, of his intention to bring this subject
under the consideration of the House, who informed him
that he was not prepared to give any information
on the subject. He did not wish to be precluded
from bringing forward a subject of such importance ;
but if no obstacles were interposed, he had no objection
to bring it forward on Monday ; but if otherwise, he
should proceed with it now. It would be making
a mockery of the rules if they were made use of to
prevent a matter of such importance being discussed.
Therefore if the Right Hon. Gentlenian wished him not
to go on with the subject till Monday he would waive
the question—(Cries of " Go on")—otherwis3 he would
oppose the order of the day till this subject was brought
under discussion.

Sir R. PEEL said, that the Hon. Gentleman had not
given notice of bringin on this subject. It had been
dperfectly open, yesterday, to call the attention of the
ouse to the subject, when ho could have given notice.
The Honourable Gentleman had not dune so, and
on that • ground he (Sir Robert Peel) decidedly
objected to the Hon. Gentleman's proceeding
with the-matter now. It was a thing quite contrary to
the course usually pursued. With respect to Monday,
it could on that day be determined whether the course
sought to be now pursued was in conformity with the
rules of the Hons.!,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, wished
to state what had occurred. About two or three minutes
ago, the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Builer) had
come over to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
and mentioned that he meant to move another Order of the
Day than that for the second reading of the Poor-law
Amendment Bill, with a view to bringing under discus-
sion the subject of the gold coinage. He (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) told the Hon. Gentleman that he had
not come down to the House with a view to having
that subject discussed, consequently , that he could
give but very imperfect information on the matter. It
was virtually a breach of the Orders of the House to at-
tempt to introduce this discussion on the Order of the Day.
Mr. C. BULLER had distinctly stated in the com-
mencement of his remarks, that if he would he allowed
to bring the question forward on Monday, he was ready
to put it off till that day. The reason he had not given
notice, was because it was customary to give no-
tice of amendments, but his intention was simply to
oppose the Order of the Day. He would now give notice
that on Monday next he shouldbring the subject forward.
POOR-LAWS.

The Order of the Day was then read for the second
reading of the Poor-law Amendment Bi.l, when
Colonel WOOD presented a petition against the gene-
ral principle of the Bill.
Captain PECIIELL presented a petition to the same
effect from Brighton. The Hon. Member also pre-
sented a petition from the Guardians of the Poor and
parish of Brighton against the Bill. Also petitions from
Warrington and other, places against the clause of the
Bill abolishing the Gilbert Unions.
Mr. LEADER presented a petition from the parish
of St. James, Westminster, against the Bill.
Mr. B. WOOD presented a petition from St. George
the Martyr, Southwark, against the
On the motion for the second reading of the Bill being
read,
Mr. S. CRAWFORD rose to move that the Bill be read
a second time that day th.ee months. From the noise
made by the large number of mbers who quitted the
House, it was impossible to catch the Hon. Member's
observations for some mi utes. In the first sentences,
that could be caught, he was referring to the ques-
tion, as one of the most vital to the inte-
rests of the nation which could come under
discussion. He should, therefore, beg the attention
of the House while he endeavoured to make out a cause
for the motion of which he had given notice. When
the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home De-
parttnent, introduced the Bill into the House, he referred to
certain extracts from the speech of Lord Brougham on
the occasion of_ his introducing the measure to

the House of Lords. Having— done so, he (Mr
Sharman Crawford) was at liberty to refer to
other extracts from the same speech, in order to
show what were the sentiments of the Noble Lord.

The Right Hon. Baronet had quoted these paragraphs
from the Noble Lord's speech, for the purpose of showing
that the Com Mission was not appointed in order to procure
uniformity in the administration of the Poor-law. (The
Hon. Member then read two passages from the speech
referred • to.) He had thus shown, upon this
high authority, what was the object contemplated by
the Bill. But the Bill itself did not attain that object.
The last Report of the Commissioners expressed ve7
different sentiments, and very different determ
nations, from those made use of in their formei
Reports. It was necessary, then, that he should
briefly .refer to the back Reports of the Com-
missioners to show what were their opinions for-
merly of the mode of administering relief. In the
seventh Annual Report, page 42, the Commissioners
stated that all their proceedings bad been directed to a
faithful execution of the designs of the Legislature,
more pirtieu arly as regarded their administration
of relief ; and they had came to the conclusion
that it would be desirable to withdraw all out-
door relief, from able-bodied people ; and there were
cnly seven cases in u hich exceptions were made, and on
the whole of these cases the Commissioners remarked,
and explained the reason which induced them to de-
part from the rule they. had laid down. In every other
instance, the Commissioners insisted that their views, as
before expressed, should be carried out without any limi-
tation or restriction ; and in a certain manufacturing dis-
trict where the operatives were only partially employed,
the guardians, by their advice, would not afford them
any relief, except they consented to enter the Work-honse.
But there were cases of a still more 'extraordinary na-
ture, and to these the attention of the House should be
directed. (The Hon. Member then read a statement with
respect to the Bridgewater Union.) Now such
having, been the proceedings of the Commissioners,
he would ask if the system were right ?---(Hear.) He
now came to the Eighth Report. It was remarkable that
there were views expressed in this Report very
different fr.m-i any that had beta expressed in
the previous ones on the subject of out-door relief, and
he thought the Commissioners should explain why that
Report differed from any other. If the Commissioners found
that their former precedents were wrong let them ac-
knowledge themselves in error, but let not the poor be
cOerecel. It was a great evil in the present state
of the law, that there was no fixed responsibility.
In the case of Bridgewater the Commissioners laid the
blame on the guardiang: If neither the Commioion nor

the guardians were to- be respt -nsible 'for the trcatmen
of the poor, what security had they against oppression ?
In every country there was injury done to the poor man,
but especial injury was done to him in those coun-
tries where the law , of primogeniture and en-
tail
existed. Such laws were an invasion of the
natural right of the poor man, and such being the,
case, he had a right to come upon the- 1 and
for that support which was otherwise denied him;
There were other laws passed for the benefit 0'
property, which entitled the poor to support
and the first and principal of these was
the Corn-law, if by this law the price of provisions was
raised, and the poor man found it more difficult to pro-
cure
them, he had a right to fall back upon the
land for relief. The enormous amount of taxes
and the profits which were accumulated from labour, also
demanded that a fixed fund should be made for the provi-
sion of the poor. Another important consideration, the vast
progress in machinery of late years, and which, though
it might ultimately prove beneficial, was in the wean' •
time deeply injurious, rendered it necessary that the
poor man should e
have a fund upon which h
could fiat back. There were objections made to the ' .
operations of a Poor-law. It was said it produced'
improvidence and sloth, and early marriages, and
tit use population, and a want of improvement and
bad cultivation, and a want of respect for the law. These
were the various charges brought against the Poor-law;
bat it was worthy of observation :hat not one of those evils
which were attributed to the Poor-laws in this countrk.
but were found to exist in Ireland, where, till
lately, there was no Poor-law in operation.—(Bear'
hear, hear.) Did these evils arise in that country
from the want of a Poor-law ? When they Why''
to this country, and compared it with Ireland, he thouga",
it must be admitted that the prosperity of this countri
was owing to the influence of a Poor-law ; and at all WI
if it was not owing to a Poor-law, it was impossible tha
it ever would have risen to its present s:ate of prospel
without the Poor-laws. The state of crime in Englail
at the present day was worthy of consideration
A remarkable advance in crime, had taken Place
since the enactment of the new Poor-law. In the .ell',.
1834, the total number of offences amounted t?
15,995, and the total of offences committed since 184'
was 20,218. Such hid been the increase in crime guest
the establishment of the new Poor-law. The object 0'
the old Poor-law was to prevent a man from falling into the •
lowest stage of destitution by riving him either subsistenee .el
employment. But by the New Poor-law he must be reduLi.
to the very last. stage of destitution before he could be ent.,ii;'
to relief. It was on this ground that he opposed the pre',;:"
law. Nor could they say that the poor could he left tol.; .
support of charity, as the Vagrancy Act made it a crime el,t,"
to seek for charity. He argued that the growth of taxidN" -.
within the last few years had not been se great as had !II
.tated, and in further referring to the most important lawsuri:-,,'
had been passed for the relief of the poor, he mentioned nw- '''
Gilbert Act and the Select Vestry Act, by which the inanagf;
ment of the poor was vested in a representative board; l'of
approved of this principle, believing that the management_ J..)
the poor was best lodged in such hands, as the member.; ;0'
these -boards possessed local knowledge. He could eoe. , .134,,,
reason why the same test should not be applied to the run,not,
to the manufacturing districts. He had endeavoured tell. of ',
plain to the House what seemed to him to be the prinelPle 0
that Bill ; he had endeavoured, also, to call the attention
Hon. Members to the proceedings of the Commissione"'„';
They were now called upon to renew that Act and to eont,
the power of the Commissioners. He asked them then whet":"ti;
with the circumstances before them which he had stated, and,W'g
the 1 roeeedings which he had adopted they would be tic :b
justice to the poor of this country if they continued to plate ';:,,
administration of the Poor-law in the hands of there Geierib-0
sioners? He did not deny but that a Court of Appeal wou'iree
of considerable service, but he wou.d not consent to invests
~
Commissioners with the power of making laws. Let the POI,'.
ment enact such rules as they thought would be proper to govf':
the relief of the poor, and let the powers of the Coon11:501
sioners be limited to ascertaining whether the guardian! acid
according to the law or not. He maintained that relief 510" in
be given to the able-bodied poor without exacting labent.c),„i
return. lie called upon the House to reject a measurivh,o,, •
contained so many objectionable principles, and which' c(!ch,
tinued in the hands of the Commissioners those powers oh: to,
they had so greatly abused. He did not make this oppositiel
the measure from any party considerations. He did not 410.11/1
that many Hon. Members had supported-the Poor-law origielbi
because they believed it would promote the real interests- of t
poor themselves, but he called upon those Hon. Gentleinen.ii
look at the real working of the law and not adhere obstinately' .;
their former opin'ons. If they telieved the poor had been 1'
jured, he asked them not to persevere in this system. fiel
thankful to the House for the attention which they bad Pe
i
his remarks, and he would now move that the Bill be -
-,. 4 ,
a second time that day six months. Int; i

Captain PECHELL said he rose for the purpose of secondi°
the motion. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of 7, ;%
for the Home Department, in introducing the measure, ha“prat
pressed a hope that the Bill would be received in a ge'-‘tas
spirit of charity and benevo:ence. What must have been t,
i
surprise of the House, after such a communication, to find tt:(11
there was in the Bill no one alleviation of the evils which tot
given so much dissatisfaction ? The Right Hon. Baronet ge
frankly avowed his intention to abolish the Gilbert Uisioet, 110,
was hostile to the power of t'ae Commissioners, and he t
means of interfering with local Acts but by opposing the In'c' ajeit
measure. He should vote against the second reading its
Bill, and would take every means in his power to orP°siket
fu-ther progress. The Right Hon. Gentleman quoted the ter
of Parliament; but he did not quote it correctly, because °tee
was not to be administered, as he stated, at the doors of la,
poor, but in some parish near his residence. The Pc'ef:ior,
Commissioners tried to interfere with this salutary Pr°,7tir ct
and made rules and regulations which were enough to rns
any man. The Right Hon. Gentleman also said unfair tnee
tices took place in the unions under Gilbert's Act, and he
~' ar,s
one case where the Commi.sioners stated that the:Slosrul-or
derived emoluments from their situation, by supplying situ i„,
with necessaries; but the fact was, that the poor in ths_ice,
stance were supplied with fuel at a very moderate l'!.00,
With respect to the geographical construction of the ne'dis-
and the consequent result to the relieving officers in the 40,
charge of their duties, the greatest contrast existed. bola.
one class of unions which were scattered throughout the c bad(
try, the relieving officer's whole time was taken up in PO
from one union to another. There were a million and e
of persons now enjoying their liberty under their own 106
and managed their own poor, quite to the satisfaction o,
~t 0
rate-payers. The object of the Government was evident!/,,,,
deal a heavy blow and great discouragement to these tin° ee
and to get rid of them. He was only doing his duty whet°, of
declared that he should give every opposition to those rartion
the bill that interfered with, or superseded the adtninistra the
of the Gilbert Unions. It had been frequently shown strut
Levves Quarter Sessions that the country was pia to
expense owing to the committal of persons for offenees,,,,,nce
mitted in the union workhouses. Boys much preeeren vs"nd
sent to the Lewes Gaol than remaining in the workhooldjteef
so many were the cases that came before the Justices, tba.tii,e,,a
at last told the guardians that they were quite
to,,,ayt
of such cases, and begged cf them to brine' n°
such before them. It rested with the Right flon.°B,""teer
show them that the poor would be better treated ths° taro
had hitherto been ; and if he could do that he (CePeolv
Pechell) should not offer such an opposition as he n°" Coin'
sidered it his duty to advance. When the Bill went intoll his
mittce, he (Captaaa Pechell) should bring forward ewes
statements in detail respecting the arrangements and ell', far
of the Gilbert unions showing that there was no near,: i'dit•
any paid officers, and that great discontent would arise
tricts where all now was peace and contentment; if 1,1141 could
Commissioners were thrust upon the parishes. ow.,,tiere
only add that he never had made use of this as a party ten, but
He certainly supported the party who brought in the,wiegi?'
he had never used this as a party question against the ~o urte,
Hon. Baronet. He should continue to pursue that
honestly and fairly, which he had always followed. Il e
, tobe,r.
pray before this proceeding was enacted that an inquires° 00s%
instituted. He cordially seconded the motion of the
Alember for Rochdale.
On the question being put, " 10 the
Mr. PA KINGTON rose. He entirely dissented -ref the
Hon. n over, and the Hon. and Gallant seconder
amendment, and he should most unhesitatingly and e°
aced'
support the Bill which her Majesty's Ministers had inn'?" to
On this subject there had been so much misconceet°,ol
many good intentions, but in his mind misdirected, 5" .„
endeavours to excite the passions of the people that 3,ithii
opinion it was the duty of any gentleman, who considereboet
subject without undue prejudices on the one 'toasty
or undue partiality on the other hand, and conscilarities
approved of the act, nut to shrink from the dee lad to
of those principles in that House. He was extreme'f tOO%
moo id
perceive the firmness with which her Majesty's woe
acted in this matter. He had a firm conviction that beosieg
be promoting the true interests of the working classes hfiefee
for the second reading of the Bill. The Hon. Me gel e
Rochdale had referred to the increase of crime; be bad d eel°
great deal about the origin of the Poor-law, and be ha the
gone so far as to favour them with some observation,' wing:
case, which had occurred in Norfolk, of a policemen"' ly t
prisoner to a bed-post, though how he made thatc:ljd
the subject under discussion he (Mr. Pakington) • Orli',
possibly conceive. There were, however, two points Inoot;tleff,
cular to which the Hon. Gentleman had referred ; as
Poor-law Commission, and secondly, the workhouse telt
rd to
to these two points he would briefly advert. With 1411'0,61er
the Poor-law Commission, it seemed to him that the ,goethe,
lay in a very narrow compass. The real question was roar-ie,
it was possible for the complicated details of the r,,isndfs
Amendment Act to be carried out in all parts o: 'sr!,
without some central contrclling board.—( Hear, "%jail°
was admitted even by the Hon. Gentleman that snretheCereei
power was indispensably necessary. With respect le ottlei,Al
inissioners, he did not hesitate to say that thoughiool
their acts were open to eavil—( Hear, hear, frem
ctrl, thorp)—they had on the whole performed their ctilhoor,
difficult duties with great judgment and ability. -11 retie°,ls,
her Majesty's Government had exercised a sound disecotil',
the period for which they proposed to continue the f the Po
sion. It was essential to the proper administratieo °
that the rowers of the Commissioners should not beleq,,jees
be renewed from year to year. The recent preeee poser
Easingwold proved the necessity for some controiW;dittli,o;
In that union the guardians had actually abandoned 11:es,-thlei
They had previously passed a resolution to the e...aPv baiT34s
deserving characters, not having had more than
.40asts.„,v,
child, and under twenty-two years of age, were fit "o"rit7,ll,'
outdoor relief. N. resolution could be more kart r-oissr;ar
Onn voser`
he was persuaded that if the Poor-law
would
was abolished, the very worst consequences ,the 0.,
The next subject to which he would allude was that oiremeee!„
house test, which had been adverted to by the Hon. oder liv.
Rochdale, and he educed abuses which took pie° artisto4
existing law in suppott of his objection, and he Pate of oto
alluded to three workhouses. But what was test h 4;14
workhouses under the old law ? The Hon. Genl7oistseto7
referred to the Reports of Mr. Mottand Mr. Pilkingt,°,l,,sh
Poor-law Commissioners, relative to the ablate!,_der the
70.,`
place in certain workhouses under the old law. tT.an,,,
law there were frequent instances of management t°2(l,,'ee ;e6
sistent with humanity, but no complaints were 1°", tee 5e,01..
nobody heard of them. The facts that occurredrattherosetse
je
Oaks, the Bridgewater, and Hoo unions, vrere,.,4lbapneTfroe!,l
proofs that they must come to light when they le"_o.3sesibores ,
thought, under all the:circumstances, that the public,the ed
. anything like an abuse of the powers intrusted. e
ties The outcry against the workhouse h
test be worl°so,:f,
quite groundless. Some test was requisite, a ..s, be
sir„•ij
test was the best. Persons in workhouses ine 001
cted to some sort of restraint. They wer,eere °P.orst'
io
haysoouses ; they we re housea to which person recTeet
to resort who felt themselves compelled tou
to the aid cf the public for their Irofte° .•
were there sure of a good roof over their bea__,li,„gs
_sok
fuel, and of wholesome food—(lronical cheers.) cola he
many an honest and industrious workman she! bee
and, therefore, it was necessary that these
.p,-,r7ice hue
.sons s,.
put under some sort of restraint. The outcry :"1001
rc-
raiscd against the new Poor-laws had proceed
and scastn7.rope---
who had taken no part in their admidstratio?:e_Pr, beat:! :0:i
suit rather of prejudice than of reason.--i( H.L'e petrt
rJr
Mr. Ferranti.) He that day saw a letter n IL „8,-
action -
gi.ed E. D0idt.4.,,, abusing the Poer-lawss• _ low eche'
full of insult and aangadinpsrtejtandeiclaew.,; he had nevrearteb:Fheard IE4O. if
making so little attempt at argument.i to th etre