Posted with permission of the transcriber, 'Ann'. Geo. SICKNESS & POVERTY IN Nineteenth Century Whitehaven. # 44. OUT - DOOR RELIEF. ____ TO THE EDITOR OF THE CUMBERLAND PACQUET. Sir, - I am aware that in making the slightest allusion to anything in the shape of abuse, impropriety, or mismanagement, under the New Poor Law, I am setting my foot upon a Hornet's Nest, and that the sensitive nerves of the advocates of that ill-fated and unpopular measure will be more irritated then would be the busy little insects to which I have alluded. However, as I am an advocate for improvement, and anxious to remedy abuses wherever I see them exist, I cannot allow the feelings of such sensitive beings as those to whom I have alluded, to stand in my way. I was one of those who felt pretty sanguine at the commencement of the present mis-spent session that the Poor Law Bill would have undergone considerable modifications. I grounded my opinion upon the promises made by the Lord John RUSSELL himself; and when I saw that that testimony was borne out by so many hon. Members, who alluded to repeated instances of hardships and oppression which had come under their own individual notice as magistrates, I felt strengthened in the opinion I so earnestly entertained, that the situation of the poor subject to the operations of such a grinding and oppressive measure power as to its extent; and that the cruel and revolting feature of the bill, the denial of relief to the widows left with young families, unless the mother broke up her little establishment, abandoned home, and accompanied her family to the union workhouse, would have been in some degree ameliorated. I could also have much wished, for the sake of the English character that the senators of Britain in the course of the present mischievous parliament (by far the most mischievous of any upon record) had altered this and other parts of the bill equally objectionable. However, after the shuffling and evasive conduct of Lord John RUSSELL, through which the consideration of the measure was put off till almost the eleventh hour of the session; and the manner in which every attempt to ameliorate the cruel measure was treated by ministers, both collectively and individually, but little hope could be entertained, by even the most sanguine, of the bill under going a consideration favorable to the interests of the poor. The bad feeling and worse taste displayed by ministers themselves, at every attempt at mitigation, come from whatever quarter it might, was not calculated to impress the country with any very exalted view of humanity of the House of Commons, and the opposition displa! yed on all occasions by the ministry came with a peculiarly bad grace from men pluming themselves on popularity of their measures, and professing so high a regard for interests of the poor. Now, with regard to the subject of out-door relief, I can state that such is the severe and unworkable nature of the New Poor Law that it is oftener violated through necessity of out-door relief being given in money, but also the folly and injustice of giving such relief in kind. A poor woman, who was allowed a ticket by Whitehaven union to procure food for herself and her family, to the amount of two shillings weekly, one week got an order for one shilling's worth of groceries, and a shilling in cash. Having during the same week, been employed by a grocer, she was partly compelled to take her wages in kind; and had therefore no use for the shillings worth of goods which she obtained for her ticket, she therefore sold them for eight pence, and though they were all that the poor woman got for her shilling ticket, they were considered dear enough at two-thirds of that sum! This circumstance clearly proves two very material things, namely, that it is both better and cheaper to give relief to a certain extent, than to take a whole family of children, parents and all, into a workhouse; and secondly, that where the out-door relief is given, it is better to use discretion and give it in money than in kind, because it will at least make 30 per cent. Difference to the poor creatures who have to lay it out, as in the case I have mentioned, and others that I could mention, very clearly prove. There can be no question but that any poor person would be able to make a much more economical use of the money than they could of a ticket or of an order, binding them to certain tradesmen, and to take out the amount of goods of such a quality as he might think proper to give. It is creditable to the humanity of those guardians who disregard the griping provisions of the law and give out-door relief, and I trust that what I have here stated will induce those guardians who give out-door relief, to give it in the most advantageous way possible to the pauper - in money. - I am &c., A FRIEND TO THE POOR Vicinity of Whitehaven, August 24, 1839 ________