The Sun.
London, England, 1836-08-02 00:00:00

GUST 2, 1836.

IMPER/ &IA PARLIAMENT.

_ROUSE OF COMMONS; Auausr 1.
The SPEAKER tOGii the Chair at the usual hour.
LEITH AND NEWHAVEN RAILWAY.

On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE the Edin-
burgh, Leith, and Newhaven Railway Bill was read a se-
cond time and ordered to be committed.
POOR LAWS.

Colonel RUSH BROOKE felt it his duty to offer an
explanation relative to a statement made by the Hon.
Member for -Finsbury on Wednesday evening, on the pre-
sentation of a petition by the Hon. Member for Berkshire,
and complaininc, of oppressive conduct pursued by the
Overseers of the Union of Stowmarket. The Honour-
able Member here read an extract from the speech of
Mr. Wakley on the occasion referred to, and proceeded :
these observations having been communicated to him when
in the country, he had seen the Clerk and some of the most
active. of the Guardians of Stowmarket, and he was able
to give the most complete refutation to them. With re-
spect to the first case, the Guardians never knew of it, and
never applied for such leave from the Commissioners ; and
with respect to the second, they had never heard any com-
plaint of the humane and skilful gentlemen who held the
appointment of surgeons to the Union. They also added
that the aged and infirm had received an addition to their
out-door allowance last winter. He was most happy to be
able to refute such scandalous charges.
Mr. WAKLEY said he had, on Wednesday last, at
.once given the name of his informant. He begged to say
that he was not answerable for the misrepresentations of the
proceedings of the. House which went forth. He had not
made the statements alluded to in the way they were re-
ported ; but there was considerable excitement in the House
when he spoke. The first charge of the blind man being
ill and being refused the attendance of his wife till an order
arrived from the Commissioners did not apply to Stowmar-
ket Union but to Besemere Union,. the other charge re-
specting the Surgeon related to Stowmarket and they
had been confounded together.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The Hon. Member after reading the letter he had received
stating the case, observed that the only difference between
that written statement, and the one he had made to the
House, was that the Guardians bad told the unfortunate
indi'.idual that he could not receive any assistance, instead
of the relieving officer.
Captain GORDON had made most anxious enquiries on
the subject, and he was informed that no such case had
occurred as that alluded to by the Hon. Member.
Mr. WAKLEY. was most willing to furnish the Hon.
and Gallant Member with the name of his correspondent,
and he thought, after that, he would not question the
truth cf the statement.
Mr. WI LKS presented a petition from the Chairman,
the Vice-Chairman, and the Board of Guardians of Ket-
tering, complaining that under the Poor Law Bill the poor
who were in workhouses were not allowed to attend divine
worship, and praying that some measure might be adopted
to enable them to do so.
Mr. MANSELL concurred in the prayer of the peti-
tion, which was then laid on the table.
CHURCH RATES.
_ _

Mr. HODGES presented a petition from some parish
in Kent, praying for the abolition of Church Rates ; also
two petitions from the same county, in favour of the re-
moval of the Jewish Civil Disabilities.
COLONIAL LANDS COMMITTEE.

Mr. WARD brought up the Report of the Committee,
which was ordered to be printed.
NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY.

Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from the Mer-
chants and Traders of Greenock, complaining of the great
difference in the amount of duty that was levied on Spanish
vessels returning with fish from Newfoundland, and British
vessels, stating unless some alteration was made in the existing
reciprocity laws with Spain, the trade of this country would
be much injured. The difference of the duty upon fish
landed in Spain from Spanish vessels, was 21. 13s. less than
on British fish. They stated that they considered they
ought to be allowed to enter Spanish ports equally as free
as Spanish vessels were allowed to enter the ports of New-
foundland. He hoped that the President of the Board of
Trade would attend to the prayer of the petition. The
Hon. Member also presented a petition, most numerously
and respectably signed, from Inverary, in Argyle, also re-
specting fish, but fish caught on our shores.
(Hear, hear.) The allegation of the petition, was very
unusual; it stated that the fishermen of Scotland, Ire-
land, and Holland, had found out the breeding places
of the herrings, and had resolved there to catch them, and
that since the discovery was made the fishery generally
throughout the west and north of. Scotland had annually
decreased. They prayed the attention of the President of
the Board of Trade and the Government, with a view to
protection being afforded. No trade was more entitled to
receive the protection of the Government than the herring
fishery, which was fully of as much consequence as the
salmon fishery—(Hear)—there being no less than 100,000
vessels employed in that trade on the coasts of Scotland
and the northern coast of Ireland.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG had, three years ago, felt it his duty
to call the attention of the Government to the Reciprocity
Act ; afid the conduct of the Spanish Government, which
pressed most severely upon British interests. The reply of
the Government at that time was, that the political state
of Spain was such as prevented the Act being strictly en-
forced. He hoped the matter would be taken into consi-

deration by his Majesty's Ministers.
Captain PECHELL in seconding the petition of the
Hon. Member for Greenock hoped he would undertake a
Bill for Scotland, similar to that which he (Capt. Pechell)
had brought in for the protection of the English fisheries.
Mr. P. THOMPSON said that great efforts had been
made with the young Queen of Spain to enter into an ar-
rangement which would be mutually advantageous to both
countries. He was sorry to say that there did exist a jea-
lousy with part of the Spanish Government towards the
British navigation, that Government having only a small
commercial marine. The petitioners complained that
fish from Newfoundland paid more when carried in
British than in Spanish ships, and they prayed that
a duty might be imposed upon the fish. Now
to use a vulgar expression, that would be " cutting off our
nose to spite the face ;" for we could scarcely even now
compete with the Spanish in their own market, and by im-
posing a duty upon the fish we would not only lose the car-
rying as at present, but we would also lose the sending of
fish altogether.
Mr. FIELDEN presented a number of petitions, but in
so low a tone of voice as to be inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. LUCAS presented a petition from the minister
and parishioners of a parish in Cloync, complaining of the
delapidated state of their church, the want of funds in the
hands of the church commissioners to repair it, land pray-
ing fur some parliamentary enactment upon the subject.
The. SPEAKER thought the petition could not be re-

eeived as it asked for a grant of money.
Captain PECHELL presented a petition from.the Ease
Preston Union in favour of the Poor Law Amendment

BRIGHTON MUSEUM.

Captain PECIIELL presented a petition from Jll
Patron and Council of the Scientific Institution, and from,,
Museum, in the borough of Brighton, praying their
petition might be referred to the Select Committee in the
British Museum, in order that they might get duplicate
copies of letters, &c.

of the Poor- of the parish of St. George the Martyr,
Southwark; stating that they could cot enforce the pi;ovisions
of the Poor Law Amendment Bill without violating their
consciences. The country was much indebted to the Hon
Member for Berkshire, for having so perseveringly pressed
.
thii subject upon the attention of the House.
Mr. WAKLEY presented three petitions from place.s
in Carnarvon, Norfolk, and Suffolk, against certain clauses
in the Poor Laws Amendment Bill.
On the Order of the Day being read,
Mr. WALTER said he could assure the House that
he regretted the necessity for his troubling. the House, which
he would not have done, had his petition from Petworth been
received by the House in that sprit which its importance
ought to have commanded ; but having then been denied
an opportunity of stating his opinions, and being anxious for
fair play, he felt bound to press the matter upon the
attention of the House.--,(Hear, hear.) He would,
however, not abuse the indulgence of the House, and
would confine himself to the complaint contained in the
petition he had presented from the magistrates, guardians,
&c., of Petworth, who were not averse to any change in
the poor-laws, but they nevertheless objected to some
of the provisions contained in the new law—especially
to that provision, which put an end to the system of out-
door relief to aged and infirm paupers. The magistrates
had declared it to be inexpedient to comply with the pro-
visions of the law as it related to wages. 'Well,
then, as to the new Poor Law Act, to correct the
evils of the old system it had been brought forward, and
whelk it was attempted to be carried into effect, there was
nothing to be heard of but remonstrance and complaint.
The Hon. Member then proceeded to read several cases in
which the operation of the Poor Law had been attended
with great oppression, and particularly adverted to the case
of a female who had been treated with the utmost severity.
Why was this poor woman to be imprisoned, and indivi-
dual charity taxed to relieve her from oppresSion ? The
guardians of the poor refused to carry the Act into effect
with all the severity that attached to it, and had resigned
their situations. Lord Brougham had said in the
House of Lords, that no one had ever dreamt or
imagined that • the husband would be separated from
the wife, or the child from the parent.—(Hear, hear.)
He (Mr. Walter) would ask had no one ever dreamt of
such a thing ? Would to God that that was not the case.
Not only was it not the case, but it had been carried into
effect with fearful severity.,—(Hear, hear, hear.) The
Noble Lord,•the Secretary for the Home Department, bad
stated that one of the rules that had been lately made was,
that husband and wife should be separated.—(Hear.)
The savings, if any, which might be effected by this Bill,
would eventually find their way into the pockets of the
landlords in the shape of increased rents. He understood
also that this Bill was not to be applied to the whole
of England—he was informed that it had not been
introduced into Lancashire, and that it was not in-
tended to be. Why was this ? No one in the country
but would have cursed the Reform Bill, could they have
foreseen that one of its first fruits would have been a Bill
for separating the children from parents, and the husband
from. the wife. He then read extracts from a
number of letters he had received upon the subject.
The Hon. Member then read several other communications
which he had received from Newbury, Dorsetshire, and
other places, showing the neglect and cruelty that had
taken place. ; and concluded by moving a resolution,
which was to the effect that the House would
at an early period of the next session, inquire into the
operation of the new Poor Law Act, especially that part
which caused the separation of husband and wife, and parent
and child.
Mr. CRIPPS contended that this Bill had certainly
bad a most beneficial effect ; and, in his opinion,
the country at large were under the greatest oblige-
tions to the Noble Lord who had brought forward the
measure. When he said that, he never dreamt that
it would be a perfect or unalterable measure,
or one unattended with difficulties. —(Hear, hear.)
He would say, that no Bill of the importance that this was,
ever found so many difficulties in the way of its operation.
But the difficulties stated by the Hon. Member for Berk-
shire (Mr. Walter) were general objections. It was true
that he laid particular stress on two or three clauses, but
he went almost, if possible, to annihilate the Bill.—(Loud
cries of " Hear, hear.") He did not say that he
(Mr. Walter) wished to put an end to the Bill, but
his objections went quite as far—it was plain, from
the objections the Honourable Member made, that he
wanted to oust the whole Bill. He (Mr. Cripps) had
been apprehensive that great difficulty would arise from
one clause of the Bill, viz., that which prohibited totally
and entirely relief to able-bodied men. He did feel that
there would be great difficulty in the way in which this
clause might be construed, and he did expect that it would
in a great measure be construed in the way it had been; He
believed that out of a population of 20,000 individuals not a
single child had been sent to the Poor-house. In some cases
that had come before him the fathers and mothers were un-
able to support their children, and he had asked whether they
had any objection to send them to the workhouse ? The
answer was, " none in the least ; we know the person who
manages your workhouse, and he is a most excellent, man."
With regard to the statement that had been made, that the
children were kept upon bread and cheese and water, he
believed the only complaint that had hitherto been made was
that they lived too well. In the parishes round London
in which he (Mr. Cripps) had made inquiries, the answers
he received went completely to contradict the assertions
that had been put forth.—(Hear.) In the Union to which
he belonged they had desired the medical officers to put down
on paper what relief was to be given to paupers—that paper
was given to the relieving officer, and every pauper was
dieted accordingly. He 'had investigated into cases in
many parishes, and he had never found a more contented
people than he had then seen. If Gentlemen would but
lend their aid instead of making objections, they would
then most essentially serve their country. The Bill
in his opinion, had operated wonderfully—it had relieved pa-
rishes that were under great difficulties before, and thegood
effected by it was most unquestionable. Parishes which
before could not pay their poor-rates, were now enabled to
pay about fifty per cent.—(Loud cheers.) He hoped
that those gentlemen who had such erroneous notions on
the subject would not persevere in their statements that
the Bill would never have a good effect.
Lord J. RUSSELL must say that be did not participate
in the apprehensions of the Hon. Member (Mr. Cripps)
that anything that fell from the Hon. Member for Berk-
shire would have a dangerous or mischievous effect, or would
render this Bill unpopular in the country. There was a
time when the measure of Poor-law Reform was thought
a very strong measure, and when it required great boldness
on the part of his Noble Friend (Earl Spencer)
to maintain such a measure in that House, and to
carry it into law. At that time there were (if
he might call them so) great personal interests in
favour of the abuses of the Poor Laws. In the first place,
there were the able-bodied paupers, who liked subsistence
without work much better than the wholesoMe wages of
labour.—(Cries of " Hear.") There was also the nume-
rous class of shopkeepers, who found their best market
in the parish funds, and obtained very exorbitant prices.
In the next place, there was a small portion, he must say,
of the magistrates of England who endeavoured to obtain a
false reputation for humanity—who represented themselVes
as exclusively the friends of the poor—(Renewed cheers)—
and who promoted the old 'abuses of the PnOr Laws.
These were instigated and moved on by the efforts of
a portion of the press—(Loud and continued cheers)—
who lent themselves td the 'most mischievous ef-
forts to misrepresent and traduce those who wished to
reform the Poor Laws, and to represent all their efforts
as tending to the injury of the poor.—(Loud cheers.)
There were undoubtedly great obstacles in the way of
reform, but there happened to be circumstances that tended
very much in favour of the success of that reform. There
was in the first place the circumstance that this was .not
otfbethegreeta•itl
made a pf atrbtoy
mqaugei ss ttiroary
o(fLEonugdl a
od cheers)—nextooolioood
portion o
tendency of the existing laws, were willing to try an experi-
ment of reform.—(Hear, hear.) With these circumstances
in its favour, Lord Althorp was enabled to carry the Poor
Law Bill.—(Hear, hear.) Among the many abuses that
Bill was intended to remedy, there was none that was
more striking or injurious than the practice of defray-
ing the expenses of labour out of the parish rates.
This was a praCtice which had been denounced by
every Committee that had investigated the subject; by Mr.
Sturges Bourne's Committee in their excellent report of
1816, by the Committee on labourer's wages in 1824,
again most strongly by the Committee of 1828, and again
by the fullest and most complete evidence furnished by the
Commissioners of Inquiry, who, in numerous papers which
he would not detain the House by quoting, showed by the
testimony of unimpeachable witnesses that the practice
tended not only to injure property, and to occasion a great
waste of time and revenue, but to destroy the independence
of the labourer.—(Cheers.) This abuse, strong and strik-
ing as it was, the Hon. Member for Berkshire was now
endeavouring to restore to its full vigour. This, and no
other, was the object of the motion then before the House.
When the Bill for the Reform of the Poor Laws was first
brought forward, the question arose in what manner the-
abuse should be met. One proposal was, that out of doors
relief should altogether cease within a certain time after the
passing of the Bill. This was subsequently abandoned ;
but he was not incorrect, he believed, in stating that it was
proposed that after a certain time—the Ist of June, 1835—
the payment to able-bodied labourers from the poor-rates
should wholly cease. When the point came to be discussed
and reflected upon in the HOuse, it was argued (very justly
as it seemed to him) that the sudden and entire abolition
of a practice which had been very general in some parts
country might prove very injurious, if not dangerous, in
theof
effects ; and that it should be left to the Poor-LawCom-
missioners to fix some time, according to their discretion

and their knowledge of .the different eircumstaire%,i
ferent places, at whieli that new rule should be caiT' n'
effect. Accordingly, the Poor-Law Bill having beescritois
the law of the land for two years, the Poor-Law
ition
sioners had begun to carry this principal int° (We're's, tlion
various places. It had been established in no syr
twelve unions in Kent ;. in many voluntary, in 'tlla
suant to the. recommendation of the Commissioner`'.'"
all he believed with the best effect. many unions.i
The
sex, too, the same rule had been successfidly adop I
teit:c_ for,
Hon. Member for Berkshire had adverted to the prac
incrly pursued in Petworth. Why- this practice %vas dircetei'•er'y
posed to every effort oldie Poor-liew Commissioners, an 1.1 tbe
principle on which the Bill had been passed. So lenge' jot
labourer lived upon his own wages he was an indeP 06'10
man, with feelings of honest independence in him. _
let him derive a portion of his subsistence from tri?ro to
rates, and this feeling deserted him. He would beg t
re
refer the Hon. Member to some questions which
.„,or
by the assistant Commissioners-to the managers of the err?,
at Newbury. It had been stated that some of tlielabo
0,15'
derived assistance from the poor-rates. The questtigher
asked, " Do the rest of the labourers receive owe be•
wages than those who obtain parochial relief?" ", "inionr,
lieve their wages arc the same" was the reply.
the large class of labourers" was the next (I"es for
" Among the large class of labourers who do not ew-nlear,J
relief; is there not a great proportion of married men and ion
men who have large families ?" " Yes—we kimv therestill
" Receiving no higher wages than the others, thls the
maintain tl'eir families—do they ~not ?" Wb't Wat
reply ?
was the
They arc above coining to the parish."—(Chccrs.), JIB
ex wished
comingto m
taoi maintain.—(Cheers.) np.
"feYeelisngthey do, but how they do so we canno
roir
wished t
him those were the enemies of the labouring el'sseoC,ii
Cs see tllCniiiea'bVoi S‘‘
England wjio wished to inculcate into their hearts this b°recb•
and manly spirit of independence.—(Cheers.) dein'
be had just read was very naturally followed uP by tated
quiry whether this fact did not lead the person oh° solo
—ari(s!Ci
it to the inference that other men might live in °ea. flc
way; to which interrogatory no answer was returne the
maintained, then, that it was most desirable to cstablispor
sixthsneiv principle p
ewrlsloenr es vteor could be established. The,
,tenedrsgulstcolic
Law Commissioners had done 11 Fr°. • e 3,
the genl:rahL been IWPII
d 113
they had received no complaint wlieater:er, and they "3 004
numerous proofs that the reformed
practice had been it.
beneficially adopted. The Poor
Law Commissielgrent
parts of the country ceived weekly, almost daily, communications from "1 E tbo
amended Poor Law, some from its o ponents, but tho°
all agreeing that the measure had actedP rather he"e".fic
Y ; some from the advocates lost
they could have expected. Those who were santsseti,
first were astonished to find their expectations sulr-,rigi
and those who had feared evil consequences were,flisu-.t51.1;
that such different results had taken place. He --ilbsYt' both with reference to the case now brought forivard 000,
Hon. Member for Berkshire, and that introduced bY ots
plaint to snake, to apply •
Member for Southwark towards the end of last session,.
co.
tho
Poor-law Commissioners, or the Board of
would be but fair for any Hon. Member who had
• ber r
in, the first place either 0
Guarum how
the Home-office. Instead of pursuing this course, sl over
ever,
which appeared to him to be the fair and obvieu 'err
gentlemen came down to the House with some con'mucl'e
tion they had just received, and stated it on the than
kitnsonivoitngreteielaist•
inthgeaonryi gcontradictionn
tfovry
oaulwdeteke
socrotToynii,io:o3in
.to whom the contradiction would never he known•-;1` vor
hear.) This was the case last session, when the l'eaceg
able Member for Southwark brought forward a statte
at so late a period, that it was matter of the utro°,s-ra the
culty t.o. obtain the necessary information in reply beltisiler
final rising of the House. He was lad the Hon; '"", her
for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had not yet spoken' -rie
wished to read for his information a letter froin°l-oce,
the Assistant-Commissioners
, whose intelligence, visl with
and activity, could never be sufficiently praisculet.r
reference to his statement relative to Stoorillt,d
(Hear.) After stating that the board of guardians u"„t0
termined on preparing a memorial to the Home Secret
denying the alleged facts, and demanding the dlset tll°
of the name of their accuser, the writer stated, firs bps('
there were only two married couples resident in heel'
market-workhouse ; secondly, that all the others houtirtiel
dismissed on out-door allowance ; thirdly, that the r,„, iii
so dismissed lived with their wives ; fourthly, that soJelf
the workhouse, they were separated from their wives nP"
on account of the necessity of their residing in the iof
mary ; fifthly, that they were allowed to visit their Iv
in the day-time as often as they. desired ; sixthly, that tidp
availed themselves of this permission daily ; sever.(!iseti,
that the statement that out-door relief had been reTioill
because the surgeon had neglected their cases, was ',food,
without foundation ; and, lastly, that 'William Greenlifenr
the unfortunate blind man, in whose behalf the Hon.'fib°
ber for Southwark claimed the peculiar sympathy fo°,. his
House, was not blind, and was a very capable nian,-fais'
years.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.). Such was t'bteaif
statements which had gone abroad. It was unMin tb°
necessary to enforce a great deal of restriction e a on
paupers in workhouses ; but both in this respect, reasioo
the subject of the dietary, considerable misaPPre
had arisen. On the latter point the Hon. Gentleteeooo
had just sat down had given most important testi
to which he (Lord John Russell) could' add that 001
guardian of the poor, who had refused to pronounces silt
opinion on the dietary until be had lived upon it iotio
weeks, who did live upon it for that period, and statehood
expiration that he had never been so strong or in Oc..ecolir
bodily health, an experiment which he earnestlyis eiso
mended the Hon. Member for Berkshire to try in b`nt°,
person.--( Hear, hear, and laughter.) After refel%c'heJ
some other documents, not one syllable of' which oleat
the reporters' gallery, the Noble Lord said that ate'', to
effect of the present system of Poor Laws hAd
cederl3c
ether,
bring the Magistrates and farmers to co-operate sew
n
and to constitute one central local
•board, acting, %am thej
neral and well defined rules and regulations, in we, . ao
whole administration of the Poor Laws was vesft•
he would venture to say that this establishment 0.6
career
vernment, with good laws to guide and inspection,..t_en.olatee
them, had been productive of an efficient and well 1-115 000,1
g
system which had never existed previously. An",(3,_ Dill b
others, Lord Spencer, who, since the Passing of tess,
acted as a guardian of the poor, had borne his
timony to the efficient and admirable working of
statino
tem.—( Hear, hear.) He would conclude by ao
amount of expenditure connected with the Poor
their administration for the last few Amount of ears. adore,
Year."ll°o
1834 . • • • £6,317'n00
1835
1)4,720'000
1836 •
being a decrease, as compared with 1834,
x.,.99,000
In 1835, of
In 1836, of •
1,596,000 ,001.,
58,u be
The sum expended for law-suits was, in 1834' And t
in 1836 171,000/, showing a decrease of 87,000/•,;vitieb a.
total amount of decrease, under various head,s' year 14.
need not trouble the House by repeating, in tne ISt'
ing on the 25th of March, 1836, as compared ,v 1
was 1,794,990/.—(Cheers.)
the -4
Mr. ROBINSON had heard nothing fall'r:n,-al
~pose"
,st
Member for Berkshire which had led him —'llesire•t°
he was 'actuated by any other than an anxious blab
remedy tbe evils in tbe existing system ofoocg'.lrt the
_,ee
that Hon. Gentleman, in common with himself, 'ea, char%
istence of. The question was, whether so great te Cerrlact
had not been made too abruptly ? He was cleL
that it could not have been so well carried into
'crca:o;
under less favourable circumstances. Of these tile gren
stances the increased demand for labour analbi, ite:t
cheapness of provisions formed no inconsiderable that
He was, therefore, justified in contenne'br
s• e
the saving of 1,794,9901., which the N
had stated, had not arisen exolusivelonpose`a
the Poor-law Amendment Act. He be had noti and
the Bill on its original introduction ; be had 0.ne1,,,,d
it in parts. • Among other of its provisions, D. 15; whiltiPt
with his most strenuous opposition a PrinflPper ill
he hoped, neither his Majesty's Government 4fect-T_lr,
House would ever allow to be carried into fuel's `;_viiateo:l
meant the principle that, under no circumstari
should any relief be given to be able-bodied ues' but
abstrae-' Lice
might be a very good principle in the
_rid ink° at.
might it not be productive of great hardshipA.A. was
in cases of sickness, or wanfof employment, latair.,ife
most as bad ? Again, the separation of man
rancoltiagditeu,
he would submit to the Noble Lord, not onlyat
to the the
the feelings of the people of this Country',
ted th4v ffee'
tates of humanity itself. He sincerely trus tof c
Noble Lord would be enabled to attain his objet
on either Of
tually amending the Poor-laws, without actinge its par
these principles, in every case, without reference wont 'ther 4
,
Ocular circumstances. On another point--Ice r.ll_ first j°
a,
bastardy, clause—the opinion be had stated on ;use W
ll
ag
remained as strong as ever. Thatniii. It v!.
more repugnant to his feelings than any in the wbo
monstrous to visit an unfortunate young wool
ti
Jo full
into so desolate a situation for the first time 0"
P
tier-
consequences of a crime in which a man equallY ; g
pated, and to relieve him from the cost of mainta a :tho
•
own child, except—when ?—when the parish, and
woman, became chargeable with its mainterntar-!•,ave bell_
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET shoultt..iar car
glad to hear some other explanation of the part' Nebit'e
brought before the House than that afforded hYtaL,`_.,,,etioi;
Lord, who had limited his observations to ast:'"up
the evils consequent upon the practice of makingrates.
wages of able-bodied labourers out of the poor-ecce
was 0
(Lord G. Somerset) fully admitted that the pcne
bad one, and ought to be put a stop to ; at the sun'. it cad
Lord that
he did not understand from the Noble ,,,,
the
,opo"
e "
been wholly abolished, although he believed thted by
Commissioners had established the principle sta