The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-09 00:00:00

upon them. Thi; principle had by this Bill been applied to
the south of England with the greatest success; it was a
wise principle, which to any great extent had never been
departed from in the north of England.—( [tear, hear. )
With regard to the question of widows he would remind
the House that the Hon. Member for Finsbury, notwith-
standing his hostility to the Poor-law Amendment Act,
had been obliged to admit, as was stated by the Committee
last year, that there was not a case of harsh treatment of
widows either on the part of the Commissioners or of the
Guardians. What necessity could there be, then, for
legislation? The Noble Lord, the Member for Mon-
mouthshire, had relied upon the recommendation of the
Committee of last year, but that Committee had not re.
commended any change in the law ; on the contrary, they
had recommended that the principle of the Poor-law
should be upheld. It hail been asked what was the inten-
tion of his Noble Friend with regard to the relaxation of
the law. It was impossible to answer such a question.
What he had stated was, that be meant next year to pro-
pose a measure correcting any defects which might
exist in the working of the Poor-law Act.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) This matter would be subjected
to the fullest inquiry on the part of the House,
and it would be for Parliament then to determine what
relaxation or alterations might be necessary. He hoped the
/louse would not permit the Hon. Gentleman to introduce
the small edge of the wedge in this way, and repeal the
Poor-law Amendment Act by a side wind.—(Cheers.)
Me. E STCO URT did not think the clause proposed so
contrary to the principle of the law, as to be justly charged
with being an attempt to repeal the law by a side-wind. It
was merely applying the principle which had been adopted
in case 3 of bastardy to marriages. He would not say
whether he was favourable to the Bill or not; but if he
were ever so unfavourable to it, if he thought this clause
was intended to get rid of it by a side wind, he would vote
against it ; but not considering it was so intended, or
would have that effect, he should support it.
Mr. T. ATT WOOD thought the Noble Lord, the Se-
cretary for War, was labouring under a pauper-phobia. He
did not believe in the evils of the old law; he did not
believe that relief was ever excessive, because overseers
themselves were ratepayers. He denied that there had
been any improvement in consequence of the Poor-law Act ;
the improvement was owing to the railroads, which had
given employment to 400,000 labourers. Ho had said, on
a former occasion, that the intention of the landlords in
introducing this Bill, was to grind down wages to the Irish
level, in order that they might get their paper rents in
standard gold.—( A laugh.) He did not think such had
been their intention, but such would have been the effect
of this law, had it not been for the railroads. The Noble
Lord was hostile to the mingling wages with rates. He
was not. He thought it was right, and just, and political, that
men with large families should have relief out of the rates.
He thought that the most important right a man possessed
was a right to an honest living for honest labour ; this was a
right, in his opinion, more sacred than any other right,and
one to which all other rights should give way. Should this
clause be carried, he would move as an amendment, to
leave out all parts relating to marriage, and all parts re-
lating to relief being given in kind rather than money,
so as to leave every thing to the discretion of the guar-
dians.

Mr BR AMSTON would oppose the clause. He
did not agree with the Hon. Member who had spoken last,
as he thought the New Poor-law had improved the condi-
tion of the labourer, by raising him in the scale of inde
pendence. He was ready to take his share of the blame
thrown by the Hon. Member for Finsbury on himself and
his friends. He should oppose the proposition, being on
the whole in favour of the Biil.—(Loud cries of " Ques-
tion," and " Divide.")

Mr. FIE LD EN, amidst cries of " Spoke," made a
statement of which but a few words reached the gallery.
The Noble Lord talked of destitution as the test for re-
lief, but the real test was the workhouse, and that under
the most degrading circumstances. He was sorry to see
the Gentlemen in that House were determined to carry
out this Bill, but he was sure they never could. He
thought it was unjust in the highest degree to deprive the
guardians who raised the money of the power of distri-
buting it.—.(Divide, divide.)
The Howe then divided ; there were—
For the clause 42
Against it .
Majo ity against the clause 35

Lord G. SOMERSET moved the following clause:—
" And be it further enacted, that in the case of any widow,
who shall be unable to maintain her child or children,
being the issue of her marriage, it shall be lawful for the
Guardians of the union or parish to which such widow is
chargeable, if they shall think fit, to give relief in kind to
such widow out of the workhouse, or to give relief to such
widow by admitting one or more of such children into the
workhouse of such union or parish, without requiring such
widow to receive relief in such workhouse."

Mr. DARBY seconded it.
Lord J. RUSSELL would oppose it, as he thought i
did not come fairly within the scope of the Bill.
Mr. HINDLE Y supported it.
The House divided on the motion; there were:—
Ayes . 43
Noes
_ _ _

Majority against the clause

Mr. DUNCOMBE hoped the House would at least
resolve that no females who had arrived at the age of 65
should be made to work in a workhouse. In the Holborn
union workhouse there were, not long since, found one
female of 86, another of 75, and several above 65 years
old, picking wool during eleven hours a day, and obliged
to drink water. He moved a clause to that effect.

Mr. WA KLE Y seconded the motion, but it was post-
poned, after a few observations.
The Bill was ordered to be engrossed, and read a third
time to-morrow (this day).