The Sun.
London, England, 1836-08-01 00:00:00

POOR LAWS.

On the Order of the Day for the House going into Com-
mittee on the Customs Duties Bill having been read,
Mr. WALTER rose to present the petitions of which
he had given notice from the Guardians of the Poor of
Wallington, in Berkshire, and another place, praying that
the power at present given to two Justices to give out-door
relief in cases of adults should be extended to widows with
small children.

Mr. II Alt VEY presented a petition from the Guardians
of the Poor of the parish of St. George the Martyr,
Southwark, stating that they could not enforce the provisions
of the Pcor Law Amendment Bill without violating their
consciences. The country was much indebted to the Hon.
Member for Berkshire, for having so perSeveringly pressed
this subject upon the attention of the Hot, se.
Mr WAKLEY presented three petitions from places
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 hound 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
when 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, had
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—lie 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
had a moat beneficial effect ; and, in his opinion,
the country at large were under the greatst obliga-
tions to the Noble Lord who had brought forward the
measures. 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-