The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-21 00:00:00

POOR-LAW AMENthiENT

The Order of the Day was then read for the House
resolving itself into Committee on the Poor-law Amend-
ment Bill.

Mr. HAWES presented a petition from several
congreFations of Independents and Baptists, praying
that ministers of those denominations might have free ac-
cess to the poor houses.
Colonel SIBTHORP said, as he had always opposed
this law, he felt it his duty first to oppoie the motion
for going into Committee. When the Right Hon. Ba
ronet proposed to renew the Poor-law for a period of five
years, he thought it would, have been more manly and
more straightforward if he had proposed to make the
Commission perpetuai. The total' c. st of the Commis-
sion from 1834 up to 1840, was 557,6341., and adding to
this the cost of the two following year, at the average
rate of 41,0001. par year, the whole amount up to the
present time would he 641.396/. He could see no use
whatever for the continuance of the Commission ; the
plan was atheitted by all to Le bad ; and such being the
case, why were they asked to perpetuat4 t ? When the
proper time arrived, he should take the sense of the
House upon the quesion that the Commission should
be discontinued. He preferred the old Poor law greatly
to the present, and he should, therefore, take the sense of
the House upon the question that the Bill be committed
that day three months.

Mr. WAKLEY said he was glad of any event that
was likely to put a stop to the further progress of the
Bill. His dizlike increased with its age. The more he
heard of it, and the more he saw of it, the more invete-
rate did his hostility become. It underwent no mitiga-
tion in consequence of the Bill being fostered by the
great Tory party in that House. Heaven knows the
Whigs were execrated enough in consequence of their
proposing the Bill, and it was well known that the Tory
party took advantage of what the Whigs tlid, in order
to put themselves in possession of power. The people
were not unmindful of what passed, and it held out but
a small example of political honesty. What the result
would be he knew not, but he could not believe that it
would be a fortunate one. The Hon. and Gallant
Colonel who had just sat down had made a statement to
the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home De-
partment, and he (Mr. Wakley) was perfectly persuaded
that the IJon. and Gallant Colonel was sincere in his
oppooition to the Bill. He gave him credit fur that sin-
cerity ; but the Hon. and Gallant Colonel must not
fancy that he could make a scapegoat of the Right Hon.
Baronet on that occasion. The Right Hon. Baronet,
the Secretary for the Home Department, exhibited no
inconsistency or dishonesty in his advocacy of the Bill.
Therefore he said that Honourable Gentlemen opposite
should not, when they referred to that measure, speak of
it as the measure of the Right Hon. Baronet, but us the
measure of the great Tory party—of that party; which,
when out it was out of power, was almost unanimously
vociferous in condemning the principle of this Poor-law.
—(No, no.) He knew there were exceptions. • The
Right Hun. Baronet at the head of the Govt rnment was an
exception. Be said the Right Hon. Baronet stood per-
'feed:, excused in that matter. He was throughout the
consistent advocate of the principles of the Poor-law Act.
Therefore he exhibited no evidence of dishonesty. with
toePect to that amino: The 6.3140 row* applied in. g

greater degree to the Right Hon. Baronet the Seer_etarY
for the Home Department, who was one of the Adminis-
tration of Lord Grey, by whom the Bill weas brought in.
The Right Hon. Baronet then brought the whole weight
of his ability in support of it; and he now brought , for-
ward the measure as the measure of her NLajesty's Ad-
ministration. He (Mr. Wakley) therefore said it was
unfair to single out the Right Hon. Baronet as the only
author and foster• father of the Bill in the House. Now
if this was the case, how did the Tory party stand with
the country ? Did they believe that the principle WAS
less obnoxious because that party upheld it.? No; Its
principle was equally hateful and detestable. It was
obnoxious to public liberty and self-governatent in . this
country. He therefore entertained a strong hostility to
the measure, and his animosity was not 'in the slightest
degree abated by this Bill being upheld by the Tar
party in that House. The question before the House
was simply with reference to the Speaker's leaving the
chair ; but there was an incidental discussion, and .be
thought it a most desirable thing that 'every obstacle
should be thrown in the way of the further progress
hostile
this Bill. He thought that those who were.really host
to it, and who felt what was the nature of the measure,
were bound to . undergo some peril, and incur l'eri
considerable responsibility, before they allowed it to pro-
ceed a single step. He regretted the division of Friday
night, and be regretted that he had not an oppdritinit);
of participating in the discussion onthat occasion,
en°
he exceedingly regretted not recording his vote againsti
the second reading. This Bill was sowing the seeds 4
revolution in this country, and he believed that it vise?'
measure fraught with the greatest danger to the instft`'
tions of England. They were passing, in point of fit'"
a Coercion Bill against the poor of England—againstP
the labouring poor of England. There was some thing
the votes given for the second reading which he euuli
not comprehend. They decided five to one in faeour.
the second reading. The tradesmen, the persons wi,
gave the votes and returned Members to that House, SI
denounced it. Nine out of ten tradesmen denounced it:
—(No, no.) He spoke from his own experience."--le'
those who said No, speak from " theirs. These pere°lr.
all denounced it as a tyrannical and detestable 1i;'!-
sure. Still those very voters returned . 'geni
tlemeti to that House who voted in . favour :of
the measure. There was something very . lecompre•
hensible in this. - Was there a compact, an ethane:
going on between the aristocracy and tho voters ageins
the poor ? Was there an understanding between these
parties that the poor should be oppressed because the `e
men would support that which would benefit the middle
classes of society? He feared that there must, he sol
implied understanding of this nature, otherwise he cold
not believe they would support such a measure in,thate-1;
sembly. He feared that the Members of that House studio'
the interest of the voters at the expense of the poor ilte°'
and he thought, the, result , would be most disastrous'
Were they prepared in tte present. state of- the country}
with the most frightful distress :amongst all classes f';
society, the people almost starving-=were they prepar7,
to say that the poor man should be oppressed because
he was poor? Was that the announcement they well,,
prepared to make considering the present aspect' of tea
country? Yes, this was the announcement they Matle,'..,
the people of England. Tile Act of Elizabeth was-<#
benevolent measure.- The fault was that the Goon'
ment appointed improper individuals tocarry it into OA;
cution. There were incompetent individuals, , and th
Government well knew it. Such were the' magistrates'
and yet these were the persons selected as ex-officio t°
form boards of guardians. Now, considering that til.:
were defects with reference to the- administration.of t°l,
law, this measure was a violent outrage on - public f 1,,,,
ing. Why did they reject the Act of Elizabeth, and l''
troduce one wholly unknown to the Constitution.of Eng;
land, by which a power was given to the Commissionel
at Somerset House which the Crown and the two 119119‘;
of Parliament did not possess? and this, not to prof
the people, but to grind the poor into the du.%
He repeated that that was his conviction. He said that,
he was not- for continuing this Commission one Yes' '
his conviction was that it ought not to be retained a ell
Their power expired on July 31. If he had the poei,',
he would continue the agitation of the question until t'sci
31st of July. If he could devise any means—if he 00
the physical strength, nothing would deter him filler
continuing that agitation until the 31st of July, in eruoc
H
to get rid of that abominable institution. e spoke it i
of the persons who composed that Commission; he -luti,
nothing to allege against their individual characters
Ile made no attack on them. He spoke wholly of t.O
law, to which he gave his most determined and viiolo
opposition. Now, ' look to the various parts of t•ef
country for information. Had they petitions praying as
the Commission to be continued ? And if they had stt,i,s
petitions, what- were the allegations in -support tif _`,.
prayer ? He had seen no such petition during that Dvai
mon. He heard on all hands that there was no neeees7;
for the continuance of the Commission if they would b 4
enact a good poor-law. Now, if they could legislate 4.z,,
their own property and individual interests—if ti*
could legislate for all the great powers in the cotuit,i4
why could they not legislate for the poor also? Iv of
not put the poor within the pale of the law insteadof,
allowing them to be tortured at pleasure?—(l',o
hear.) The object . of, this Bill was to forte'. ji,
instrument of torture to prevent the people from ePrto
ing for relief. He had heard that the first object wet/
raise the ' wages of the working man. Had the. If
done it? Had it not entirely failed? How was it t,O 0
otherwise ? Any man of common sense would i°l,l
known this. How could it be otherwise, when the pa,;A
man was called upon to choose between whatever Of',
offered, and a gaol ? The poor hungry man had 00
long time to consider. His children were crying Ito
bread, his wife in a state of destitution ; he. had butor
choose between starving on the highways, 'Or taioo,l
what wages offered. But the Commissioners inforn!,,t
them that they had a discretionary power of graett'e,
relief according. to the peculiar nature of the ;e'of
The Secretary for the Home Department said this rot
a
what they were called upon to .do. The dietary ws ie.
high where there was low wages ; but on the i 1
urptio
trary; and the variation in a dietary was from eri
for adults down' to Is. 7d. Was not this mo. .
They found that the amount where the agricultOrW)
bourers' wages were 55., 65., and 7s. was is. 7d.-
.i.,0
was raising the wages of the poor man. The poorlle
had to choose between low wages, or the misersoti
pittance of ls. 7d. a week. If the Commissioners It,
done their duty they would have adopted a contrary tt;4
Now, , in London, where the wages varied from 185.t.11
week to 405., the dietary was 21 ounces Of ruoiho
bread 112 ounces ; while in Cirencester it was 98.
~,J,
meat in London was 21 ounces, in Cirencester .5 pun'-
An HON. MEMBER—What date is that? . . -
o6tec
Mr. WAKLEY—That was last year. In.Cirene',; et
2-ilbs. of potatoes, in London 61bs. In London 4 Po- of
soup, in Cirencester 2 pints. In London 14 ounces
.00
cheese, in Cirencester 7 ounces. In London 10. pest
milk porridge, in Cirencester none, and no ecints'se3
In London 71bs. of pudding, in Cirencester none,.r err
no equivalent. In London 11 pints of beer, in Cltell
tester none, and no equivalent. In London buttertoe
sugar, &c., were allowed, in the country nothing (?'„eo
kind. Now did they consider that the Comrnisel°'oti'
had discharged their duty to the public? The .61e
missioners in the last report stated that the Old kr',
law was characterised by a causeless difference. P.iiio
ferent system of management was' formed in ri.ri ~as
perfectly similar and in the same- neighboarheod; •lioseil
to abolish the causeless difference that the central is
was appointed. And yet they found thit the diet,if
ene place was 21 ounces, and in another 5; and this 100
in a place where wages were so low that a .reau Ile
scarcely subsist upo.: it. Now, he asked the Hight ,01l
Baronet if he could vindi ate such a systemPlinPo irl,
was proposed, to renew the Commission for five yea ,:e
fact, wilt' a view to its becoming perpetual. Lie here,
again, that it was monstrous that here in London, ooh
wages were three times the amount, the dietary 'Pot,'
be so much higher. Were they so ignorant _as lit'
entirely incapable of legislating for the pocieL.l,l. '-49
them abdicate at once. If they could not seclef
this, it was their duty to resign. How were the ef.t°
missioners, sitting in a closet in Somerset 11°115, the
judge of the circumstances of cases so well 0 ie
tate-payers, who were fully competent to g° ?li
the merits of a case, who knew the district ,o
there was a discretionary power, it ought thl4,,
exercised by Justices alone. There was soril,eiiitll!
preposterous and repugnant to common sense itt nib„ 5k
this tyrannical power to parties incapable of 11'"fttli,
There was no court of appeal for the pour niall• cillal
guardian refused to give him relief the Magistrate ;IS
give him none. He had condemned the conduct oes
Magistrates, but it would be better for them to hie"
power. The poor man made application to the re,ool
officer, and he was told he could get no rend, 'a, I.
must see the Board ; he does see the B"9rrell,,,e'
having heard his tale they may refuse hill' dlieP4,
Why not leave it in the hands of the guardi3flicok;f;
selves? Why tell the poor they would be atis:oo,44
give relief if they were allowed by the Commis6l $0"4:
and the poor visited all their execrations on tiled av'dfr
in Somerset House. But they themselves deservhce boa"
execration if they permitted this. Where was t',1e51,,/ to
of appeal for the poor? He wished to have that gtotit"ht,
answered. And this was the law they were to stibroegb„,
'for the Act of Elizabeth. It was that law which and °lii,
so much odium upon the Whig administratioutle atitor;
tamed such popular favour for the party oppose :ite„,
last election.—(Hear, hear.) If there was ° 'ric'.4'
occasion now he did not think they would elecetOoe'r,
the same reception at the hustings. Their lea toe.
10 .0-,
would not be very musical'. He Should berg„ SI Eor
present at some of them.—(Laughter.) '-'-"p„-• 0114
were hated, despised, and detested—and just tolllthe_
that law, and now the party opposite wereo.lsd of into
their footsteps.—(Hear, hear.) They were ecarne pg•
iniquity of the Whigs for a time, and theYtherei°oo
power in consequence; but they would not he aciches,stet
—(A laugh.) Before that day twelvemonth% dissuijoe
would be presented to the Queen praying faded tOke of
tion of Parliament, and if the Queen ace gold w-:lie
wishes of the people, he thought the House :one
_,,,)
a different complexion from what it was at py Gla1!,1110
would ask the Right Hon. Gentleman (sir tl3 •eg
whether there was any provision in the linvorkoott."
meet the various objections urged against 0,,att.„,01
of the present system? The Right Nol:istrictilyk,
alluded particularly to the appointment of l' to boat,.
Committees. What were their function Eight -34,---
(Hear, hear.) It was a mockery. Theo rooel‘e,:001-
Gentleman did not so mean, but it was re-0114.0f
(Hear, hear.) Their functions were to 4 Golestr4
plaints and transmit them to the Boards 'lgor,
onser
who were to report to the Commissioners- ,`,f,the. efe!
But what in the mean time was to become e,
.100 !"
(Hear, hear.) Those unions were too la oce bore In •
the Commissioners had not the power to ¢t tt'sorae il';
convenient sizes. The poor were put te,.lce in. wiles 1
consequence of the size of the unions, wi,,',,,otice teetet,;.;
stances were sixteen, or eighteen, or,o' red° done ..,
diameter, and there was no power_ tna, vies . to tp .
This was a great grievance, and nothi
_reselitadt goiog ,
remedy it. Several petitions had been ther Wes
_a froto::!
House complaining of this'. evil from
~.ord; , 1., yaw
of Yorkshire ; from St. Nieholes, P i' geOli
.
Keladugtol3, N./4kb uniou saccerigsi .

I

retary
minis-
;ht in.
iveight
it for-
s Ad-
it was
e only

New'
I RzEh
e was
o; its
[t was
n this