§ Earl Stanhopepresented a petition from the parish of St. George the Martyr, Southwark, of which he had given notice on the previous evening, and which he read at length. The prayer of the petition was,
To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled.The humble petition of the Guardians of the Poor of the parish of St. George the, Martyr, in the borough of Southwark, in the county of Surrey,Sheweth—That your petitioners are extremely anxious to represent and complain to your Lordships that the Poor-law commissioners in their several reports made to the Secretary of State, have misrepresented facts, and made statements in reference to the parish of St. George, which are totally incorrect and untrue,That your petitioners consider it to be highly important that such misstatements should be contradicted without delay, because they are calculated to mislead your Lordships and the public at large as to the injurious or beneficial effects of the Poor-law Amendment Act.That whereas, the Poor-law commissioners have stated in the pages of their fourth report, that a saving had been effected in the expenditure of the parish of St. George, of 47 per cent., as compared with the average expenditure of the three years immediately preceding the introduction of the Poor-law Amendment Act, that such statement has been proved to be untrue by Mr. John Day, one of the guardians, in his analysis of these accounts.That in the amended statement made by 39 the Poor-law commissioners to Lord John Russell, they have admitted themselves to be wrong, and that their published report laid before your Lordships is not correct.That the difference between the expenditure as stated in the Poor-law Commissioners' report, and their corrected statement to Lord John Russell amounts, on the average of the three years referred to, to no less a sum than between 6,000l. and 7,000l.That your petitioners also have to assure your Lordships, that the amended statement referred to, made by the Poor-law Commissioners to the Secretary of State, is, like the report itself, incorrect and untrue.The statement of the Poor-law Commissioners being to the effect, that although they find themselves wrong in calling the saving 47 per cent., that there is yet a saving of 40 per cent., while the state of the parish and the books themselves show the contrary to be the fact; and that, so far from any saving being effected, the amount of the poor-rate levied in 1835, previous to the introduction of the poor-law was 3s. 8d. in the pound; whereas, the amount of rate in 1838 was, with the increased assessment, equal to 4s. in the pound, or an increase in the burden of the rate-payers to about 1,600l. in the year 1838, as compared with 1835, previous to the introduction of the new law.That your petitioners have also further to complain to your Lordships, that important serious misrepresentations have also been made in reference to their parish in the third, as well as in the second, report of the Poor-law commissioners.That in their report certain evidence is stated to have been given by some of the officers of their parish, which was found, upon inquiry, to be untrue, and that such evidence as the Poor-law commissioners published and put forth in their reports was not given by those officers, and was therefore untrue.That your petitioners, in their experience of the administration of the relief under the new law, have found its working, in proportion as it has been carried out, to be injurious both to the rate-payers and to the poor, and therefore cannot but regret that an impartial examination has not been taken from those whose experience has enabled them to see its defects, as well as those who from private prejudice or interested motives were partial to its operation.Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray, that your Lordships will in future be pleased to place no reliance or dependence whatever upon the reports or statements of the Poor-law commissioners, now proved to be incorrect and false; and your petitioners also further pray, that the Poor-law Amendment Act may be repealed or effectually altered, because it is unjust in principle and oppressive in practice.And your petitioners will ever pray, &c.Signed on behalf of the board,CHARLES ANDERSON, Chairman.40THOMAS MARTIN, Vice-Chairman.J. FITCH, Clerk to the Guardians.
§ Viscount Melbournewas entirely ignorant of the facts of the petition, and so, he believed, were the Poor-law commissioners. He would suggest, therefore, that they be furnished with a copy of the petition in the first instance.
§ Earl StanhopeIt may be printed.
Lord BroughamWhen the noble Lord consents to have (say 500) petitions printed, that furnishes 500 reasons for letting the commissioners have one. It should be recollected, that these men are put on their trial on unknown charges; and I therefore hope the noble Lord will not refuse this request, particularly as he has behaved so fairly, generally speaking. [Earl Stanhope: Always.] I shall say "always," if the noble Earl do not make this glaring exception to his rule.
§ Earl StanhopeI have no objection that it should be printed for the public; but I will not show any special favour to those dictators.—Petition laid on the table.