The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — 1843-08-29 (Liverpool, Merseyside, England)

THE WORKHOUSE.—We direct attention to a report in our paper of this day of a case of aggravated assault on the governor and another officer of our Workhouse, into which the tender mercies of the new poor-law have at length found their way, and though not yet to their full extent, in a manner sufficiently to show that that heartless enactment never can be brought into full play in the town of Liverpool, wherever else it may be tolerated. Here we have an instance of a pauper, refractory and outrageous we admit, but nevertheless a human being in destitution, labouring under disease, and consequently entitled to some modicum of the humanities of our common and sinful nature. He had been confined in gaol for refractory and threatening conduct for fourteen days, during which he was in the gaol hospital, and having no means of living, returned to the workhouse. He stated at once that he was " past labour," from the disease that hung upon him, and that two surgeonF out of doors had so affirmed. But no examination whatever of his person was made ; he was pronounced fit for work ; and the new governor (for the administration of the new poor law) on hearing of his return, exclaimed (by his own account) " What ! the notorious Smith come back again! send him to break stones." A hammer was then put into the man's hands, and he was told that lie would be punished if he did not work. Being, as must be admitted, a desperate character, and exasperated at such treatment, he struck the officer, and afterwards the governor, with the dangerous weapon, arid was proceeded against for a murderom assault, though it appears, from the evidence of the surgeon of the gaol, that the blows were not dangerous to life, and alleged, that he in reality was still labouring under disease which would be aggravated by the work l:e was ordered to commence. His being sent to break stones was certainly no palliation for so savage an assault; but why should a man who had undergone punishment for a former offence, and had legally purged himself of it by undergoing it/be received and treated on his return to the house as a criminal? 'Why was he not examined as to his infirmity, and treated accordingly ? We can devine no reply that can be made, but that the new poor law contemplates poverty as a crime, and adjudges all who seek relief under it to a measure of irksome and degrading labour, which shall compel them to one or other of the alternatives—begging, stealing, or, as in this instance, to desperate revenge. As the magistrate properly remarked, character, in a case of want and illness, ought not to be taken into consideration. If he and we (who accord with him on this point) be not mistaken in our position, the case is one which, we think, the Poor-law Commissioners are bound thoroughly to investigate, for the benefit of the public. Of the general working of the poor-law act so far, in this town, we have only to say that it is already driving the poor wholesale from the establishment. Although there is little or no improvement in the market for employment, the inmates are already reduced by about 400 ; and if the system be persisted in, there will be no need for the erection of the contemplated buildings on a larger scale. So stringent are the rules, that in a short time it will be deserted by all but the utterly helpless; and the town, inundated by persons struggling in desperation for a living, will be more grievously burthened for the prosecution of criminals than for the support of paupers.