DISTRESS IN BOLTON.

HC Deb 10 February 1842 vol 60 cc247-62

Dr. Bowring

had to call the attention of the House to a report which had been laid on the Table at the close of the last Session of Parliament, and which had created in the borough which he had the honour to represent both astonishment and annoyance —astonishment that an individual, deputed by her Majesty's Government to inquire into the state of families suffering distress, disease, and death, should, in a public document, have denied facts of public notoriety; and annoyance that he should have gone out of the way in order to attribute to gentlemen, some of whom were the most honourable and most benevolent in existence, and who had engaged in an inquiry into the misery which surrounded them, and of which they had evidence on every side, motives other than those which influenced them, which were indeed no other than to ascertain the facts as to the existing distress, with a view to its removal. The hon. Member, the seconder of the Address, had allowed frankly, fairly, and boldly, that the statements made on that (the Opposition) side of the House of the sufferings of the people, and of the great and extensive misery on the part of the manufacturing population, were not only not exaggerated, but that those statements were frightfully true. To that sentiment the right hon. Baronet the Premier, and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had responded, and had declared that the existing distress was severe and of an alarming character. He might appeal also to the hon. Member for Newark, for Canterbury, and for Sandwich, who had lately visited Bolton, who had seen with their own eyes the sorrows and sufferings of the manufacturing people, who had heard with their own ears their tales of misery, and who, no doubt, when appealed to, would come forward and confirm his statements. He had brought forward three cases of a peculiarly distressing character; he had chosen those instances from a multitude of others that had been placed in his hands; he was willing to allow that these melancholy facts had occurred some time ago, and he did attach some blame to the gentleman who had placed these statements in his hands, that he had not attached to the document the dates when the cases occurred. The earliest cases as they stood on the list were undoubtedly the most remote in point of time; but the state of things was aggravated now, and from that period to the present the distress had not been diminishing, but increasing. The cases which were few two years ago had now become numerous; and he could bring evidence that at the present period not only was there a general want of food, but that many thousand individuals had not the means wherewith to supply the ordinary cravings of nature. He had brought forward the case of a person named Pearce, and it was averred that he had been starved to death, and the jury had recorded that verdict. That was one of the cases to which the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had specially called the attention of the Poor-law commissioners, and Mr. Mott had embodied in the report which had been presented to the House, the evidence which he supposed had disproved the facts which had been brought to the notice of the House. He had to complain, and the people of Bolton had to complain, of the manner in which the inquiry of Mr. Mott had been conducted. Evidence had been brought before him which he had refused to receive, and the most important facts had been stated in his presence, which he had either refused to record, or which he had not recorded in the document which had been laid upon the Table of the House. With reference to the death of this man, the following questions had been put to the relieving officer, with regard to the position in which this individual had been found. After describing the condition in which Pearce's family was found, the question was asked "Was that the state in which we found the family when we visited them? His answer was "Precisely so !" Was it your opinion at the time "that the man had died from want?" The answer was, "That is still my opinion," but in Mr. Mott's report, no notice is taken of this important testimony. He called the attention of the House to this point, on account of the excitement produced by Mr. Mott's report, and which had led to a reinvestigation of the cases referred to. He, himself, though he had taken no part in that inquiry or examination, had afterwards gone over the ground, had examined witnesses, had seen many individuals, whose names he was about to introduce to the notice of the house, and he ventured to assert, that after this examination, the House must agree with him, that the facts stated were substantially true, and that they could not be better employed than in finding a remedy for evils and miseries, such as those he was about to describe, which were not solitary examples. Mr. Mott had asserted, in his report, that there was no evidence of this man having died of want; and he had gone so far as to declare, that the family was in a comfortable condition. He had visited the family. Mr. Mott had declared, that the family, at the time of Pearce's death, received 9s. a week for their support—but the woman, Mrs. Pearce, had denied to him that they had ever obtained that sum. He (Dr. Bowring) did not attach any value however to the widow's evidence. She was in a state of complete mental imbecility. She was not able to give an account even of the present earnings of her family. When he went to her, she had informed him that she had received about 2s. a week, but her daughter, who was in a condition almost equally imbecile, stated that the amount was only ls. 10d. per week. Ought Mr. Mott to have been satisfied with the statements of an imbecile old woman? alarmed as she probably was by his presence. Why did he not refer to the books of those who employed the family? It was proved by the most irrefragable evi- dence, that the maximum of their receipts was only 4s. a week, and the books to which Mr. Mott had access, had recorded that the amount did not exceed 3s. per week. He had found one individual after another desirous of offering evidence that a scene of greater misery had never been witnessed than that presented by the house of this family. What was stated by the relieving officer? He said— That he was waited on by Mr. Coop, a comb-maker, who said, that a man residing near his house was starving to death: he went and found him dead. He said?— I felt the corpse, and it was still warm. I noticed the cellar to be in a very wretched state. Through the wall of the back part of the cellar, I perceived dirty filthy water oozing through the crevices of the bricks, which I afterwards found proceeded from a middenstead adjoining the cellar. There was a nauseous smell, and which I considered very unhealthy. All the furniture in the cellar was a small three-legged table, an old chair with scarcely any bottom, and a three-legged stool such as children use; there was a small bedstead, on which was placed some sacking containing shavings; the shavings were quite visible through the sacking. There was no covering. The bed was quite wet with damp, and stunk with filth—so much so, that I gave orders for it to be burned, which I believe was done after deceased was buried. The corpse of Pearce lay out on a loom, without any covering, but Mrs. Coop lent them a pair of sheets. The value of the furniture altogether, I should consider, would not fetch two shillings if sold. I asked the woman and her daughters whether they had any food. They said, ' They had not tasted any that day.' I went to my house, and brought them a quantity of broth, which they all devoured very voraciously. I was in the cellar whilst they partook of it, and one of the daughters, immediately after she had taken it, began to vomit very much; which I attributed to an excess of appetite, and being kept without food so long previously. I may add, that previously to partaking of the broth, they began to quarrel amongst themselves which had the greatest portion. I reported the case, and they were duly relieved. On the Tuesday following, the committee sat, and they were ordered to be relieved. I now refer to the book in which the distressed cases' are entered, and I find that they were relieved with a grant of three shillings per week. I find the following entry:—Pearce, Ellen, widow, Howell-croft, to receive three shillings per week for an unlimited period;' and the following entry in the remarks:—'Husband supposed to have died from want.' I inquired into the earnings of the whole family, and found they did not exceed three shillings per week. I have since several times visited the old woman, Ellen Pearce, and find that she is of very weak intellect; and any statement she might make is not fit to be taken as evidence; and her daughters are the same. It appears that a dullness of intellect afflicts the whole family. I went to the Coroner's Inquest for the purpose of giving evidence, but not being called upon, I did not do so. Had my evidence been taken, I do not know how the Jury could have done otherwise than returned a verdict that the deceased died from want. What said Mr. Webster, the town missionary of Bolton? He said: My duty is to visit cases of sickness and distress. On Monday, the 24th of February last but one, from information I had received that a man had died from want in Howell-croft, I went there and made enquiry. The cellar of the deceased was pointed out to me, and on entering I saw the deceased dead, and laid out on his loom. I found the whole of the household requisites to consist of a small three-legged table, a chair, almost without a bottom, a stool, and a bed with some sacking on: the whole of which were worthless, not worth carrying away; the bed was very filthy. I reported the case to the Benevolent Society, who gave the family 5s. I have seen the entry made in the Benevolent Society's book, and find Pearce's case is entered 'Died from want of food; ' and this was my full impression immediately after I had examined into the case On inquiring into their earnings I found they did not exceed three shillings per week. I have frequently visited and relieved the case since, and I consider them all—that is, the old woman (Mrs. Pearce) and her two daughters, to be of such very weak intellect that it approximates very closely to insanity, and that they are totally incapable of giving evidence that could be depended upon. Whenever I have conversed with them I have always left them fully impressed that they were labouring strongly under a degree of insanity. And yet Mr. Mott chose to rely on the testimony of this poor and almost insane old woman, in opposition to that which was tendered on every side. Another party (one Ann Beswick) spoke of this man in the following terms:— About three weeks previous to the death of Pearce, I stood against my own door-step and saw Pearce coming towards my house. There are three steps up to my house. He looked very wan, and pale as death, and was so weakly, that to get on to my house floor he had to go down on his hands and knees and creep up. He had been in the habit of weaving for us some months before, and I had missed him for a month about, on the day I am now speaking of. When he got in, he said, "Nancy, do, bless you, make a sup of warm tea, for I am dying for want." I made him some tea and a little toast, and he devoured it very greedily. When he had done it he told me all that he had had for three or four weeks back; he had had nothing but a bason of gruel per day to subsist upon. In about a quarter of an hour after the old man had had the tea, he was seized with sickness, and I had to obtain the assistance of neighbours, for I thought he was dying. We reared him up in chairs with pillows, and in about three quarters of an hour he came round. I then asked him why he clammed himself to that degree, and he said as he did not belong to Bolton he could not get relief. He pulled up his trowsers and showed me his legs, and they appeared nothing but skin and bone; and it was frightful to see him. He was taken home by my husband, and I and his wife went to the overseers' office to represent the case to them. We saw Bridge, the assistant to the relieving officer, and told him the case, and he was very saucy, and said we had better mind our own business. I gave in the name of Pearce to the officer myself, for although his wife was present when the officer asked her husband's name, she could not tell, and desired me to do so. The officer said, he should visit the case, but whether he ever did so or not I never ascertained, and I never heard anything more until about three weeks afterwards, which was, that he was dead. I heard this the same night that he died, and went to the cellar. I there found them in a most shocking state, and the cellar smelled so much that I could not remain in it. He was laid out on the loom, with a sheet over him. I noticed in the back cellar there was a sewer, or midden channel, ran through, and the floor was covered with nauseous filth and water. All the goods in the house were a broken three-legged table, a stool, chair, and the bed, made of sacking, without covering. I went again on the Monday morning, and turned down the sheet to look at the corpse, and there were hundreds of creeping filth upon him. I pointed out the filth to his wife, and she appeared to be quite vacant. Similar evidence, no less distressing was given by a neighbour, Mr. Coop. One of the overseers gave the following evidence:— I was one of the overseers of the poor at the time of the death of Pearce. I recollect going with Mr. Naisby to the cellar at the time that Pearce lay dead on a pair of looms. From what I saw and heard from the old woman and her two daughters, I felt convinced that the old man died from want. The old woman and her daughters appeared of very weak intellect." Now, notwithstanding this evidence, Mr. Mott, in the report which was laid before the House, declared that this family was well off. He (Dr. Bowring) confessed that the result of the inquiry had produced a great change in his mind with reference to the Poor-law commissioners; his con- fidence in them was wholly shaken, and he should deliberate long before he delivered over the suffering poor to their tender mercies. And now to the case of James Bristol; and what was the evidence with respect to this case? Mr. Skelton, a neighbour said:— I recollect, about two years ago, Mr. Naisby calling upon me to visit the case of Bristol. On getting into the house, we inquired of the woman where her husband was, not knowing that he was dead. She stated that he was up stairs. Mr. Naisby replied, 'I want to see him;' and she then said, 'He is dead. Mr. Naisby then went up stairs and looked at him. The woman had a very bad leg, and was quite unable to walk. There were two children lying in the corner of the house, on a bit of straw placed on the flags. One child was very much afflicted with the St. Anthony's fire, and all the other children were very ill and sickly. I asked Bristol's wife what food he bad had lately, and she then stated that her husband had asked, the day before he died for a bit of cheese and bread, but that she was unable to procure him any. An old woman, a neighbour, stated, that Bristol had been clammed to death.' The wife of Bristol gave the following evidence:— 'My husband died about two years ago. I recollect, when he was laid out dead, Mr. Naisby then coming to visit us. My husband was laid out on the necessary door, up stairs, covered over with a sheet, which a neighbour had lent us. I was lame myself at the time, and could not walk. For three weeks previous to my husband's death we had nothing but three shillings per week coming in; and we had to live sometimes on potatoes, sometimes on porridge, but had only one meal a day, which we generally made about four o'clock in the afternoon. I think it was for a fortnight that we had to confine ourselves to one meal a day, sometimes having porridge and sometimes potatoes. When Mr. Naisby found us in this state, we got more food; otherwise I believe I should have lost more of my children, for we had got as far distressed as we well could be to be alive, About five months previous to my husband's death I had a child sucking, which died; and I feel sure that its death was occasioned by my not being able to give it suck, for want of sustenance. I had no bed, bedding, or anything whereon to lay, when Mr. Naisby visited us. I had only a stool whereon to sit, for myself. I had no shop where I could get provisions at; they all refused to give me credit. My husband wished for a bit of cheese and bread the day before he died, but I was unable to procure him any. The evidence of Mr. Wood is as follows:— I was a guardian at the time of Bristol's death, and recollect the case being brought before the board of guardians, and Mr. Naisby remarking to Mr. Benjamin Brown, the relieving officer, who was then present, 'Why, that poor fellow has died from want, Brown;' to which Brown made answer, ' Yes, I believe he has. Betty Brown spoke as follows:— At the time of the death of Bristol, I laid him out on the top of a necessary door. I assisted to undress him, he having died with his clothes on, in which he had lain for many weeks, having nothing besides to keep him warm; when I cut his trousers legs and stocking-legs open, there were large quantities of creeping filth, which had eaten quite into the flesh, and his legs were nothing but putrid flesh and scabs. He had nothing but straw to lie upon, which was spread on the floor.' One of the children had the St. Anthony's-fire, and the rest were all more or less very sickly and bad. They all slept together in one room, and the wife of Bristol had a great hole in her leg, and could not walk or assist her husband; but after she had received relief, and had got bedding, she began to come round. I recollect Mr. Naisby coming down, when Bristol was laid out on the necessary door, and I then told him the man had died for want, and I knew such to be the case. The third case was that of a man named Kirkman, but as Mr. Mott did not deny the facts which were brought forward, he would not weary the attention of the House by referring to it any further. But he had not attacked the Poor-law guardians—he did not say that they were cognizant of these cases. He believed that they were not, and he was bound to say that, whatever might be the benevolence of the guardians, they had no sufficient means of relieving the aggravated distress which surrounded them on every side. Mr. Mott, however, had not satisfied himself upon an inquiry into these three cases, to which the attention of the Poor-law Commissioners had been drawn by the right hon. Baronet, but he chose to enter into a work of supererogation and entirely beside that to which his notice was directed; Yes! he chose to enter into the question of the general distress existing in the borough of Bolton. In December, 1840, a number of excellent and benevolent men, struck with the scenes of calamity which surrounded them, determined to institute an inquiry into the extent of the prevailing distress. Mr. Mott, in his report, has ventured to throw on these gentlemen the reproach that they had gone into the investigation —not to relieve the distress—not on the interest of the sufferers, but to aid the progress of Anti Corn-law agitation. He said: Their object was not explained at the time, but it would appear to have had reference to the anti-corn-law meeting which was held in the Temperance Hall, Bolton, on the 2d, of January last. At that meeting statements were made by those gentlemen who had instituted the inquiry, by which the distress was attributed to the operation of the duty on corn. No attempts were made by them to relieve the distress which was said to exist, and no application was made to the guardians or the relieving officers until the 15th of January, a fortnight after the statements had been used at the meeting, when a deputation of gentlemen waited on the guardians, and left a list of upwards of three hundred families, who were described to be in great distress. The information so obtained was handed over to the relieving officers, and the facts elicited by them are deserving of notice, as exhibiting the evil tendency of all such voluntary attempts to seek out cases of distress. The relieving officers found that the cases had been grossly misrepresented to the committee; that only one out of the whole number was considered as attended by circumstances requiring relief; that in this case the guardians granted relief of 2s. weekly, in money, and supplied the family with bedding and a bedstead, as they were found to be lying on the floor; and, to show how slightly the poorer classes estimate the possession of this last article of furniture, on visiting the family three months afterwards, the relieving officer found their bed placed on four chairs and some boards, and the bedstead remained unused in an adjoining room. He begged to say that no man had done more for the relief of the poor—for the substantial relief of the poor than those gentlemen, whom Mr. Mott had thought fit thus to calumniate; and he thought that he could not do better, if the House would permit him, than to read the words in which those gentlemen had repudiated the charge brought against them. They said:— We deem no apology or explanation requisite from us for having inquired into the condition of our distressed and destitute neighbours. The inquiry originated in a purely charitable and benevolent intention; and although the information was made public at an Anti-Corn-law tea party, we can truly say the inquiry was neither instituted for that purpose, nor was any such service contemplated at the time the inquiry was made. By making public the extent of suffering, we were in hopes some effort would have been made, as upon the previous winter, when near 3,000l. was raised by private subscriptions, towards alle- viating the distress; but, from the great increase of the distress, as well as the greater inability of many of the middle classes again to subscribe, it was eventually thought more deserving the attention of the board of guardians, than to be dealt with by private charity. Having done what we conceived to be an act of duty towards our fellow parishioners, and for which we received the thanks of the board of guardians, we cannot but express our surprise and regret that a public functionary, holding the high and responsible office of assistant Poor-law commissioner, as well as special government commissioner for inquiry into some particular cases of destitution, should so far have forgotten the trust reposed in him, and so far have wandered from the obvious line of his duty, as to impute unworthy motives to the parties who instituted this distressing inquiry: nor has he been satisfied with imputing motives; he has ventured without personal investigation of his own, without any effort to ascertain the truth of the statement made, to accuse us of partisanship, and of misrepresentation, leaving the impression that we had invented or exaggerated tales of distress, in order to serve a political and party object. We deny the accusation, and complain of the levity and carelessness in which it has been made. Since that report has been printed, we have felt it incumbent on us to re-institute a minute inquiry into all the cases now to be found. Each family has been visited by two respectable ratepayers, who are ready to vouch for the correctness of their statements; and of the 308 families before reported, forty-eight are broken up, and no longer to be found. Some have entered the workhouses, two families are gone to Australia, others are dispersed among their friends and relations. The condition of the remainder is in no respect better than last year—they remain living and suffering testimonies to the truth of our statements—sixtynine families are receiving parish relief, and this, in addition to the earnings of the parties, when rent is deducted, will only leave ls.5½d per head per week for each individual to exst upon; their beds, bedding, and clothing, are in a worse condition than before. He would not go into further details, but he would only add this important fact from the document which he had quoted, in which the guardians declared, From the best information we can obtain, we have good reason to believe, that Mr. Mott himself never visited a single case, and certainly avoided putting himself in communication with those who with much labour had undertaken the painful duty of examining into the sad condition of the people. He did not believe, that it was the purpose of the right hon. Baronet, when he sent Mr. Mott to Bolton, that he should conduct the inquiry in the way in which he had done, because he had left a feeling in that place,—that his object was to suppress the truth, and to give evidence only of such a nature as would meet his own views. And now, if he turned his attention to the general question, and especially to the increased mortality in the manufacturing districts, his mind was most painfully impressed. He saw by a report on the health of the navy, that the decrease in the mortality in that service had been very great. In 1779, among seamen, the proportion of deaths was one in eighteen; in 1811, it was one in thirty-two; but in the years for which the last return had been made, from 1830 to 1836, the mortality had been reduced to one in seventy-two. We had to contrast this state of things—this diminished number of deaths in the maritime service with the great general increase, and especially with the increase in the seats of manufacturing labour. The mortality in this country, he could not doubt, had been greatly increased by the want of sufficient food for the people: in 1840, as compared with 1839, there had been a very considerable augmentation in the number of deaths. From the year 1838 to 1839, the number of deaths was one in 46.52; in 1840, one in 44.56; but he begged the House to look at the alarming increase in the manufacturing districts. In Leicestershire, in 1839, the number was one in 48.27; in 1840, it was one in 39.89. In Nottinghamshire, in 1839, it was one in 47.74; in 1840, it was one in 35.61; in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in 1839, it was one in 44.47; in 1840, it was one in 42.92. In Lancashire, it was, in 1839, one in 35.71; in 1840, it was one in 31.99. Mr. Mott had endeavoured to show, that the number of uninhabited houses was attributable to the over-building which had taken place in that town and its neighbourhood. Now, he held in his hand a document which showed, that throughout the country there had been an enormous increase in the number of houses which were unoccupied. In a statement drawn up by Mr. Porter of the proportion of uninhabited to inhabited houses, it appeared that in 1811 the number was 2.77 per cent., in 1821 it was 3.27 per cent., in 1831 it was 4.66 per cent., and in 1841 it was 5.58 per cent. In Bolton, since 1835, 1836, and 1837, the whole loss sustained by empty houses, removals, and other causes, had been immense. At that period scarcely a house remained unoccupied for a month. Building had been stopped, population had increased, but the number of uninhabited houses was progressively augmenting; one house in nine is unoccupied, according to Mr. Mott's confession. In 1836, of the rates levied amounting to 2,062l., only 88l. 13s.4d. was lost by removals, allowances for poor tenants, and empty property;—in 1841 more was lost than the whole amount of rates in 1836, for while the rates laid amounted to 12,750l., the losses were 2,963l. from removals, unoccupied houses, and unrecoverable rates. So great was the proportion of unoccupied houses and shops, that in the poor-rates collected from March 1840, to 1841, on two shillings in the pound, there was a deficiency of 1,000l., making a diminished rental of 10,000l., independently of which 1,000l. had been remitted, to those unable to pay; so that another 10,000l. must be deducted from the average rental of 70,000l. per annum, which was the estimated rental of shops and houses independently of factories, founderies, land and other property. What had been stated with regard to the poor-rates at Bolton? The amount laid in Great Bolton in three years, namely, 1835, 1836, and 1837, was 11,900l., while for the year ending in March 1842 the amount levied was 16,740l.; so that in the last year the amount levied was 4,800l. more than in the three years preceding 1837, and, this, notwithstanding the amount of 4,000l. had been received from charitable contributions. In Little Bolton, the amount levied in the six years, from 1834 to 1840, was 6,307l.; while in the single year to 1842, no less than 7,000l. had been levied. Now, what was the present condition of Bolton? He would refer to a return which was made up of the Poor Relief Society in that place. The number of persons relieved from the 22d December to the 22d January last, was 6,167, the average income of each being 11¾d. per week—or less than 1¾d. per head per day for finding them with food, clothing, firing, and to pay their rent. The application of 828 persons had been rejected, on the ground of the insufficiency of funds, and the average earnings of these rejected persons was only Is. 9¾d. per week, while of the total number of applicants amounting to 6,695 individuals, the average earnings were but 13d. per week; and yet Mr. Mott had ventured to talk of the generous and even profuse expenditure per week for their relief. Of 50 mills usually employing 8,126 men, 30 were either unemployed or working short time. Of trades not exclusively dependent on factory work, such as Iron-founders, Carpenters, Bricklayers, Stonemasons, Tailors, and Shoemakers, it was found, that of 3,100 employed in 1836, only 1,730 were now employed, In December last there had been a survey made of the people of Bolton, and 1,003 families were then visited, consisting of 5,035 persons, whose net earnings amounted to 339l. 15s.7d. per week. They received parish relief and donations amounting to 521. 8s. 5d., making 392l. 4s. The amount required for the payment of their weekly rent, if paid, was 82l. 3s. 4d., and thus it appeared that the amount left for clothing, food, &c., was 310l. Os. 8d., which was ls. 2½d. per head per week. Among the whole of these families 950 had beds, and in the whole 1,553 beds were found; 716 were filled with flocks, the remainder with straw, chaff, and other such matter; among the 5,035 persons there were 466 blankets, or about 10½ persons to each; 53 families were wholly without beds; 425 persons were sleeping on the floor; there were found amongst the whole 2,876 chairs, 1,380 tables, 642 stools; 511 of these families existed by the habit of constantly pledging their small possessions, and 609 families had no change of linen whatever. This survey had been conducted by persons who expressed their readiness to attest the veracity of their statements. He had himself gone over this town, accompanied by an hon. and gallant Gentleman accustomed to witness the consequences of war, who had seen towns besieged, and all the other miseries and privations which belonged to such events, but he said that he had never witnessed scenes in which wretchedness so deplorable was depicted. In many of the streets of Bolton there was not a single inhabitant—many of the inhabited houses were without any furniture whatever—hundreds of families slept wholly on the ground without bed or bedding, and there were thousands who had no supply of daily bread to keep existence together, and to whom the use of animal food was altogether unknown, They had a feeling that that House might do something to relieve their distresses. They were innocent, desirous of procuring labour, and exerting themselves to procure it. They had heard that many countries were willing to receive labour at their hands, and to pay for that labour the superfluous food which those countries produced, and they inquired in their honest anxiety and their most excusable discontent, "Is this state of things to continue?" In conclusion, he moved for copies of any communications addressed from Bolton to the Home-office, during the late recess, upon the subject of Mr. Mott's report.

Sir. J. Graham

said, that if the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had put, in the first instance, a question concerning the motion with which he concluded his speech, a great portion of his valuable time might have been saved, as he had no intention to offer any opposition to the motion. The hon. Member for Bolton, in speaking of something which had been done before the late prorogation upon the subject, said, that he (Sir J. Graham) had been guilty of supererogation. He (Sir J, Graham) however must say, that he was satisfied, from the best information which he could obtain, that he believed certain statements which had been made by hon. Gentlemen had been exaggerated. The hon. Member had now thought it necessary to go into a great many facts. He (Sir J. Graham) however should avail himself of his advice on this subject, and would not, therefore, be guilty of supererogation by following him throughout all these details after they had been already discussed for a third time, He thought, that it would be much better if the discussion upon this question were postponed until both sides of the House had been put into possession of everything connected with the case. He should not resist the motion, but he should propose to add to it the following words—viz., "together with any reports presented by Mr. Mott in answer to any such communications." Before, however, he sat down, he begged the House to recollect, that though he did state it to be his conviction, that certain facts had been exaggerated, yet he did not deny the truth of the statement, that great distress does exist in Bolton. Upon this point he would be very sorry to he misunderstood. He would beg to move the amendment.

Mr. Ainsworth

wished to hear his testimony to the existence of great distress in Bolton; indeed, in the whole course of his life, he never knew distress so pre- valent. With respect to the cases alluded to by his hon. colleague, he must say, that with respect to the case of Pearce and Kirkman the facts were most deplorable. The family of Pearce were in a state of imbecility, for the questions which were put to them by various parties were answered by the most opposite replies. With respect to the relieving officer, he was aware, that relief would have been afforded them if he had not conceived, that they were in the receipt of certain wages. When the relieving officer called upon them the second time, and discovered their destitute situation, he lost no time in administering to their relief. Indeed the relieving officer did whatever he could, after he had discovered their real situation. That relief had been since constantly given. This same statement, he believed, would hold good with respect to the family of Bristol, who were also relieved upon their case being made known. That family, he believed, were now in some employment in the borough. He regretted exceedingly the distress which had existed; but as far as he could judge, being intimately connected with the Poor-law guardians, relief had been granted, as far as it was possible to do so consistent with the rules and regulations laid down. Subscriptions had been raised amounting to upwards of 4,000l. for the poor of Bolton. He must bear his testimony to the manner in which relief had been administered by the Poor-law guardians to the poor of Bolton. They have even gone on their own responsibility, and have given out-door relief where they deemed it necessary, and have not consulted the commissioners. With respect to the relieving officers, he was quite sure that in every instance they had done all they could. He thought that Mr. Mott went much out of his way, indeed, to condemn the conduct of many individuals in the borough, who were solely actuated by a proper feeling of charity and good-will towards their poorer brethren. He, therefore, thought, that Mr. Mott did very wrong in making those remarks. He did not think that the distress was in the slightest degree exaggerated. There was, however, one point upon which he hoped he would be excused making an observation. His hon. colleague had stated that there were fifty mills in Bolton, thirty of which were unemployed. He had just left that borough, and he must say, that he believed the whole of the mills were at present employed, but working short time. He thought it right that those things should be fairly and honourably stated. He believed that there might be one at the present moment unemployed, but it arose from causes not connected with the general condition of the country. With respect to the number of houses unoccupied in the borough, there were certainly about 1,500 or 1,600 in such a state now, and have been in this state for some time.

Lord J. Manners

said, he did not be lieve that the distress of Bolton had been at all exaggerated. He went himself down to the borough to inquire into the truth of this fact, being unwilling to believe that such a state of things could have existed. As an Englishman and a Christian he was not disposed to believe this distress. He had, however, seen that distress, and he must bear testimony to the truth of the statements which have been made by the bon. Members for Bolton on the subject. He hoped, however, that some measure would be adopted that would permanently relieve this state of things.

The motion, with the amendment of Sir James Graham, was agreed to.