GILBERT UNIONS—POOR LAW. (Hansard, 7 February 1845)

§ Mr. S. Crawford

said, that he did not then rise to oppose the re-appointment of the Committee, but simply to express his profound conviction that the perseverance in such an inquiry was a mere useless waste of time of the gentlemen who were engaged in it. If the Government were determined that the Gilbert Unions were to be done away with, they had better not institute any inquiry, for the time of the Members, and the Report, would be altogether thrown away. He had witnessed some proceedings with respect to this matter in Rochdale, the Borough with which he was connected, which had convinced him of the truth of what he asserted. In that place the Poor Law Commissioners lately had determined that the Guardians of that Union should no longer relieve their own poor. The Guardians were unanimous in their determination against this interference. They resolved not to act under the control of the Poor Law Commissioners. The people of the Union, and all connected with it, were all unanimous in the same view, and the Guardians and Magistrates refused to assemble under any such orders as had been issued. Was it, therefore, right that the Poor Law Commissioners should be permitted, or even encouraged, to force themselves in this manner upon the Union? The Guardians had been threatened with a mandamus, but, if he was rightly informed, no such mode of proceeding against them could legally be taken. At the same time, when he witnessed such a pertinacity on the part of the Poor Law Commissioners to thrust the New Poor Law into operation in the borough with which he was connected, he could not but consider that the Government was determined that no other law should be in force there, and, consequently, he looked upon the appointment of the Committee of Inquiry moved for by the hon. Gentleman as an entirely useless and unnecessary proceeding, and one which would not repay the trouble. There was a great difference between the working of the Poor Laws under the Gilbert Unions, and under the law as administered by the Somerset House Commissioners: and the advantages in his opinion were all 217 on the side of the Gilbert Unions, both with respect to economy, the feelings and comforts of the poor, and the inhabitant ratepayers. He could not therefore omit to avail himself of the present opportunity of impressing these views on the minds of Ministers, more especially on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, who had expressed his sentiments the other evening in relation to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury. But what must be the nature of a law which could sanction such sufferings as were described by that hon. Member? If the Government were determined, however, to carry that law into universal operation throughout England, all inquiry, he repeated, was totally unnecessary. It was a question beyond all others of importance. The public mind was in a most unsettled condition, and, for his part, he believed it to be impossible that the people could continue to preserve their loyalty, and maintain their respect for the laws, if the New Poor Law were to be persevered in and carried out to its present extent. He, therefore, again put it to the Government whether this useless inquiry was to be persevered in? If it were for the purpose of discovering abuses in the administration of the Gilbert Union Acts, then he would by all means urge an inquiry. But he did not believe the Committee was appointed with this view. He admitted the liability of all laws to be abused. The Gilbert Union Acts were not free from this liability; and if such abuses existed in them, it was only right they should be inquired into and brought into comparison with those which were found to exist under the New Poor Law. Let both the systems be placed fairly and fully before the nation, and then let it be seen which of then was the best adapted to the purposes for which they were designed. He had had the honour of being received, together with a deputation from Rochdale on this subject, by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, and it was then stated to the right hon. Gentleman, that out of a body of 12,000 ratepayers who contributed to support the Gilbert Unions there, all except nine of them were decidedly opposed to the introduction of the New Poor Law. He was ready to admit the perfect courtesy with which the right hon. Baronet, as was his unvarying custom, received the deputation, 218 and replied to their representations that he had no power to interfere with the law. The right hon. Baronet did not say that he had not the power of controlling the Poor Law Commissioners; but if he had not that power, he would be the very first to grant it to the right hon. Gentleman. He made these observations in the full belief that all inquiry into the working of the Gilbert Unions was entirely useless, and that the appointment of the Committee was uncalled for.