The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-02 00:00:00

EVEN IN G EDITION

workmen in Sheffield have been lately compelled to throw
themselves upon the perish for relief during the temporary
depression of trade. It would be a great hardship on them
to be compelled to go to tae union workhouse.—( Hear.)
He hoped the clause would be withdrawn.
After a few words from Mr. DAR BY,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he would withdraw the
clause.—(Cheers.)
The clause was accordingly withdrawn.
Mr. GISBORNE expressed a hope that the clauses
which had been gone through should be printed with the
amendments, as it was impossible in their present state to
comprehend what their eff:et might be.
Sir E. KNATCHi3ULL agreed with Mr. Gisbrrne as
to the expedreney of immeliately printing the clauses in
their amended shape.
Lord J. RUSSELL bad no objection, provided that if
they were printed in their present wording, that should not
be considered their final state, as there had not been suffi-
ciesat time to attend to the correct expression of the amend-
meats in some respects. lie w u'd net oppose the propo•
anion, with the undcastandieg th.-.t the clauses should be
open to reconsideration a'tn- the Easter recess.—( Hear.)
After a fen, wards front Sir E. KNATCHBULL and
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, it was understood
that the clauses would he printed as proposed.
Mr. WA K LEY rejoiced that the 18th clause had been
withdrawn, f ,rt it was the most savage that could be con-
ceived.--(" Hear, hew.," and " No,- ne.") The next
clause (number 19; was conceived in ti c same spirit
(" NJ, no," sad Yes, yes ") And he imph. ,he
Lord rro carve:to his manly disposition Li preverttng the
vie perpesca of those who framed it from being carried
into affect. Its object was to place the women and
&ea et the utter mercy of deprz.ved husbands, and to make
the wife of a man who was transported suff.r additional
punislaraeot far his offences.—( Hear. hea-.)
Captain PE CHE LL regrette 1 the absence of the A,-
tome).- General on this important oceasioo. 'That Hon.
and Learned Goatlernan loaf g;vol i as 1 is s: 1 trnn opinion,
that the wife of a trans-pea-teal te!oa was bound by the law,
as it stood before the Poor-Ilw Arreadment Act was pro-
rosod, to support not mar lv her own children, but all
the children of the t tansp,irtcd husband. If that were
kb* ca-c, what necessity was the. e fir this clause ? It
antest have b.:tea introduced at the desire of the Commis-
4041ers without the knowledge of the Attorney-General.
(Ideal., hear.) He hoped the Nob!e Lord would not per-
severe a i-li the clause, or that t-,t least he would so modtfyit
as to render mothers scowo from the severity of guar.
diens.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Hon. Member for
Finsbury had on that, a; on other occasionc, spoke of the
cause as savage, and of the Bill in general as an insult
to humanity. He obte:ved, toe, that charges of craelty
were constantly mlde against the Commissioners, whi'e
it !‘eented to to supposed that nothing but the purest me-
tive3 and the most humane i teations could be imputed t
the Hon. Gartlema I.—(Hear, hear.) Will rspcct to
the ques:ion of humanity as regarded the present clause
cud the Bill in general, he (Lord J. Russell) conceived
that humanity should net embrace merely one class cf per-
sons. It would appear that those labourers will worked
from morning until night to earn their daily bread and to
support their wives and children could be taxed and bur-
aicaed for the maintenance of other families which their
fathers had neglected or abandored. But was it to be
sail that those were the only parties for whom the House
was to care, and to which th.ir humani y was to be ex-
tended ? And were the) to have no concern for those
men who, relying upon their own exertions, never applied
for public charity ? He did not think such a mode of
proceeding would be wise or equitable. He remembered
tilt before a Committee of that House which had sat
fifteen or sixteen years ago, he had called a witness who
stated that although he had been a labourer earning but
very moderate wages be had brought up and educated his
family without in any one instance having appl' ei to the
parish for assistance, or making any complaint on the sub-
Surely the House in framing their laws should con-
sider the claims of such men—(Hear, hear)—and when
they found instances of parties leaving their families and
adding to the burdens of the country, tiey should do their
utmost to prevent such evasions of the law. That was the
principal object of the preseat clause, and to him it ap.
peered a perfectly legitimate one.
Mr. DARBY could not approve cf the clause. Tbo
effect of the cloture would be that instwai of relieving the
rate-payer they would throw an additional burden upon
the rate-payer, by throwing on him the maintenance of the
wife. If a man were so devoid of principle as to run
away from his family, the puzishing his wife would not
mahe him rrturr.

111 r. SLA NE Y apprehends I the intention of the clause
was to place t':e wife in the same situ,fon as a widow,
nsd they would, hereafter, to discuss a clause giving
algae i nary power to relieve Viidows out of the house.
Mr. DARBY did not apprehend that such would be the
effect of the clause.

Mr. MUNTZ hoped the Noble Lord would withdraw
the clause on account of its utter inutil ty.
Mr. BRISCOE dii not pretend to understand the
clause, but the object of it appeared to him to be twofold.
Ist. To place these persons on the footing of widows,
which would be a relaxation on the side of humanity.
2d. To prevent relief being given to the children separate
from the mother. Now these objects were very distinct,
and ouglit to be made the subject of separate clause?.
Sire. KNATCHBULL had voted for the committal
0' the Bill in the hope of obtaining some relaxation of the
law. He did not think there was any necessity for the
clause whatever. He had imagined that at present when
a man ran away from his family, it his wife had the means,
sbe:was bound to support them, and the same in the ease
of the husband being transported. If, however, she had
sat the means, the parish were bound to afford them relief.

Mr. SANFORD thought that, instead of this being
a inhuman it was a most salutary clause, and one that
Ras calculated to protect the mother.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that it hai p-
eer aly been considered that the wife of a person trans-
poitA was f,r most purposes a sole. It might be douht-
ft.l whi:ther she could be made a bankrupt, but he (the
Solicitor-Genera/) was rattler inclined to think that she
could. It was true, thE the clause went further than the
old !aw to create ths liability of a marriel woman, because,
as he understood it by the first part of the clause, when the
husband should be abserit from the wife she was charged
v.ith the support of the children in all respects as if she
was a widow. And the second part of the clause treated
the wire where the husband refused to support her as if she
was a singe woman. In fact, the first part of the claus.o
paced the married woman in tha state of a widow, and the
cond in the situation cf a single woman. .

Lord G. SOMERSET tho-eght the clause wculd place
arrarried woman in that situation in which she ought not
to be, because, in case cf her husband being abroad, she
wo dd be liable to the debts of her children in the same
manner as the father was at present. He (Lord G. Sc.
merset) did not think the present Committee was the
proper place to make so great an alteration in the law is
respect to married Warner. In what situation, he would
ask, would the wives of sailors and soldiers be placed if
the present clause was made law.—( Hear, hear.) He
objected to enacting a seve c law against married women
oh) had Bien deserted by their husbands; such a course
would have the effect of increasing those vary miseries
e.liich it ought to be their object and study to alleviate.
Vr'he, he would ask, would pursue tl e guile)? father, when
the a ife strangled on through misery and destitution, de-
term'ned rather to sta.-ye than to accept parochial reef ? At
pins:lst the parish had a strong intere:t in locking after
him ; but if this clause were passed, they would say they
coald not burden the parish rates by searching fur him,
and t;11 tho woman to seek for hers If. Was that
a position in which they ought to place the
married worroa (1 this c: unity, upon the gratu:tous
nasumption teat they reji Lied when thcir husbands left
there and were in collusion tri.h them ?—( Hear, hear.)
Upon these ground. lie would have g: c.t satibfeeli rn iu
supporting the Hon. Member for Fina'eury in resistirg the
whole clause, and he hoei that the Noble Lord, aft :r
aeliv't had been said, would be induced to withdraw it.
n answer to a question put by Mr. DARBY, •
The SOLICITOR-GENER IL arid that the clause
would leave the husbnuel is the same positron as at pre..
sent,aannda
twtcoupldarioshely c-rate a now relation between the
Mr. FRESIIPIELD said that according to the ex-
planation of the Hon. and L, ar Gentleman the So.
tieitor-Gencral, the object of the
clause was to i.roveet
collusion; but :es it stood it would ts the hut-
baud being an idiot or insane. This irrofahlZlJianion
in an adeitional hardship upon the
gather
--Ir. T. DLTNCOMBE hal not beenun or t u e a
of or opposedGteoLttihP;
faem the s[e ell of the Honourable and Leaa'r'neetdo
van whether be was in favaur
clause, but he mu: t say that the Noble Lord
opposite had completely mac'e out the charge made by his
lion. Friend the Member for Ficsbury, that it was
man. The Noble] Lord hal crea gone further; he had
spoken of it as a revolutiortary clause—a clause which
created a great revolution in the state of the marrle I we_
urea of this coontry.—( Iker, Lear.) When this all was
first proposed the object was stated to be net only to
amend the Poor laws, but to remedy many a its rigour.
I! had at all events been sati4_.ctorily proved to the Com-
mittee by the specab of the Solicitor-General that by
Allis clause the law would be rea.le much more rigid
as
against married worriers than it had been Li'.herto. WITa!
ta,glit had they to do that? Was public feeling sufficiently
se favour of this Bill to justify them in proposing ruch is
*Anse? He thought the speech of the Noble Lord wculd
mtisfy tho Committee that the chute ought to be ex-
vunited. His Hon. Friend the Menaber ter Somerset
had argued in favour of the clause and upon what
ground? Why upon the ground of the possibility of a
traudalent application for reacf.—( Hear, bear.) Were all
the applications necessarily frauclulset ? Might there
not be nAny virtuous and industrious women who, with
five or six cauldron had teen deserted by their husbands ?
Hear, hear.) yet such persons were to be cornl - cued
to come into the house and suffer all the indignities to
which individuals were esi.
oseci ia a union workhouse. He
sincerely hoped that the Committee would expunge the
clause.
Sir C. GREY said he thought the clause humane, and
in every respect: Le.:afialal to tt.e parties to whom it re-
lated. —( Ci les of "Oh, oh. -)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE could astute the Right Hon.
Gentleman who had just sat dawn, that-I:tithing was far-
ther from bis thoughts than to treat the chum with ridi-
cule. It was only in refs renee to an expressicn of the
Right Hon. Gentleman, that he had been induced to smile.
Ho heard nothinv to indrice him to support the clause.
Captain PEC if ELL said the Noble Lord (J. Ruwell)
had found fault with his remarks with regard to the C n"
duct of the Poor-law Comer-iisiencrs, hut he t.egged to
sate that his remarks merely applied to individual eases,
sad more especial!, to that of Jane Champion.—( Hear.)
Sir T. A CL AND did not think tire Cernmittee was
quite ripe fir the decision of the clause then before it.
He did not think there was any situation in which a woman
was entitled to greater conenisseration than that of widow-
bood—( Hear, hear). and in the temporary widowhood to
which the clause applied, he was willing to place her in.the
same situation as the law placed a widow in reality. He
thought the case was one in which a discretion might very
fairly be left to the Board of Guardians, and be would sug-
gest the propriety of postponing the clause.
Sir S. LUSHINGTON.
hoped the discussaion of the
&We wouldnot be pressed at
present. Its object was, in

• certain particular case', to place a wife on the same footing
as a widow, and for particular purposes. He thought there
were greater difficulties attending the discussion f the
clause than the Committee anticipated, and the obscrva-
tiens of the Noble Lord the Member for Monmouthshire
with respect to the wives of sailors, had been Id, totally
without an answer.—( Hear.) Now in that case there
could be no collision between the wife and the husband.
In the case of idietcy or insanity referred to by he Hen.
and Learned Member for Penrhyn, there could be nothing
like collusion.—( Hear, bear.) He protested against the
system of compelling a married woman to go into the
workhouse. He hoped his Noble Friend would con-
sult the feelings of the majority of the House—of those
who nee anxious to see the best principles of the Poor-
law Bill carried out, and not press the clause at present.
Sir H. VERNEY would not vote against the clause,
but he should certainly concur in the recommendation to
postpone ie. He had had some experience in the working
of the Poor-laes, and he believed that they could not com-
pel the a lees E f sailors to go into the workhouse,— (Hear.)
Mr. AINSWORTH would vote for a discretionary
pow. r being placed in the hands of the guardians as to
weer:or the woman was entitled to relief or not. If they
thought the case was one in which she should go into the
workhouse, they ought to have the power to compel her
to do so.
Mr. WAK LEY had moved the expulsion of the clause,
and ample grounds hal b,-en given for Gentlewea of
the highest professional acquirements had spoken upon
the clause, Arid hal given the most oppw it:: opinions upon it.
Mr. FIE L DEN opposed the clause.
Lord J. RUSSELL sail that there appearel to he a
vary general ferlirg against the clause as it at present
stood, but at the same time before he stated whit he pro-
posed t do he would remind tie Committee of the hard-
ship of the law at it existed, and he lived they would bear
in mind the principle, that while they were extending
.elite fto one cla%s of persons from a not vary overflowing
burdens upon another class.
ti easerv, they were imposing
At vesent a man who was reeeiving very high wages at
sea, and who hai a cost :in sum paid monthly to 113 wife f r
her support, the wife of that mae might apply for relief for
her ceildt el, and they might either receive out-door relief
or Lc taken into the workhouse. Again—if a man was
at work at a distance, upon a railway, and transmitted to
his wife enough of money to support her, that woman might
apply for and obtain relief for bier children. —( Hear, hear,
hear.) But with regard to a man in the immediate
neighbourhood of his wife and family, the answer to any
application for relief was to be, You cannot get it'unl.!ss
you come into the workhouse." So egain with regard to
a widow, the Commissioners might say, " Although you
are destitute arid hate not the means of relief, we will
give you none unless you come into the workhouse." If
that were the case at present, was it not sonic hardship
to say that the law was to be charged, end that an
a !vantage was to be given to tee woman whose
hu,bried was at sea or at a distant .e over the
hard working man who was nearer home. He
thought it desirable that some amendment should be
made in the law in that respect.—( Hear, hear.) After
what had been stated by his Hon. and Lea-ned Friend,
the Solicitor-Genera', as to the effects of particular parts
of the clause, he certainly should not press the Committee
to adopt it as it at present stood. Ho should therefore aek
the Committee to postpone it for the present, and bring it
forward on a future occasion, because he felt the law could
not. remain as it at present stood.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET hoped the Noble
Lord would go a step further, and withdraw the clause
altogether, and it would be in his power to draw up an
amended clause at a future stage. .

Lord J. RUSSELL had no objection to the proposi-
;ion of the Noble Lord.--(Crie3 of " Hear, hear.")

The clause was then struck out.
Clause 20 was agreed to without observation.
On clause 21 being real,

Mr. GRIMSDITCH objected to the clause as giving
too much power to the Commisssoncrs to interfere with
and supersede at their pleasure the laws of the land.
Mr. %VAKLEY asked whether the Act 7th of George
the Third was to be considered as repealed by this clause,
or was it to be left to the Commissioners to set aside Acts
of Parliament, cr allow them to have force just as they
pleased.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the object of
the clause was not to set aside the Act of George
the Third, which it recited, but t, prevent the
inconvenience of two classes of persons exercising
the same powers given to t-e Commissioners by
this clause, and which other persons might attempt to
assume under the 7th Geo. 111., if not restricted by this
clause. He hoped if the amendments were not adopted,
the clause would be postponed.
Colonel SIBTHORP objected to the clause, and
thought that as so many clauses were objectionable, and
so many had already been struck out, the best and shortest
way would be to strike out the Bill altogether.
After a few words from Mr. SLANE Y and Mr.
G 0 ULB UR,N, the clause was agreed to.
On the reading of the 221 classes, which relates to the
cost of building workhouses,
Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE moved an amendment
to the eff,ct that the cost should not be incurred without
she consent of the rate-payers. The clause, as it stood,
would give the board of guardians, who were under the
complete control of the Poor-law Commissioners, the power
to tax the rate-payers without the consent of the latter,
and to any extent they pleased. In some of the metro-
politan parishes, there were, in fact, two sets of guardians
acting in oppo•ition to one another—one being elected
under the Poor-law, and the other under a local Act. How
was this chum to be can led into effect in these parishes ?
The Bill, instead of producing uniformity would produce
confusion.

Mr. F. MAULE said that it was to produce unifor-
mity in the metropolitan districts the clause had Wen in-
troduced.

Mr. WAKLEY supported the amendment. He said
the object of this clause was to do away with the local
Acts in the metropolitan parishes, and to bring them under
the complete control of the Commissioners. If the /Coble
Lord would not consent to postpone the clause, he must
appeal to the Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel)
to come forward, as on a former occasion, with I is mag-
nanimous support.—( Hear.) It was so painful to hint to
appeal, night after night, in vain to those who called them-
s( Ives the friends of the people, that he could not speak
always in such dulcet tones as the Noble Lord could corn-
mand—(Laughter)—but could scarcely speak with tern-
per.—( Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL did not know whether the Hon. :Gen-
tleman's appeal to hiss was a joke or not.—(A laugh.)
But he thought the clause very reasonable.—( Hear, hear.)
At present the guardians had the power to build, repair,
and enlarge workhouses, and the only extension of their
power now proposed was that they should be able to select
and put chase a site.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HAWES considered the clause an excellent and
humane one.—( Hear.) Its only object was to enable the
guardians to provide better accommodation for those who
had the misfortune to be obliged to take refuge in the
workhouse.—( Hear.) Ho held in his hand a return of the
state of Betnnal-green workhouse, under the 01l system.
There were there, at one time, 170 boys in twenty-four
beds—( Hear, hear, hear)—and 123 girls in twenty-one
both. The same number of persons had now in that
union 164 beds.—(Hear, hear, hear.) In the old and
vicious syatem there were many interests bound up toge-
ther, Aich the improvement had destroyed.—( Hear.)
And hence all the discontent and clamour. But the ob-
ject and the effect of the new system was to benefit the
poor themselves, and to diminish pauperism. Ho sup.
ported the clause.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE considered this Bill as much a
Tory as a Whig Lai 1. It appeared to him to be a speci-
ous compound of philosophical Whiggery.—( Hoar, hear.)
He :h.;ught the Hoe. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes) must have
eerived his statement from Somerset House, and the gen-
tlemen there were not remarkable for the candour of their
statensents. If the Hon. Gentleman had said bedsteads
instead of Leis he would probably have been more cor-
net, for under the old system many of the beds were
made on the flier, and were as he (Mr. Duncombe) un-
derstood, much mere comfoitlble than the ethers.—
(Laughter.) After what the Right Hon. Batorot (Sir
R. Peel) had stated, a division was necessary. If the
clause has not postponed, he should move the insertion
after the words "metropolitan districts," of the words
" nith tire consent of the rate-payers in vestry assembled."
Mr. HAWES said that he had not received his infor-
mation from Somerset House, as his Hon. Friend had
stated, but from a professional gentleman of the highest
clia!a!tcr, and whose le.,timony was of undoub:el autho-
rity.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. GROTE said the Hon. Member for Finsbury, al-
though in the habit cf indulging in vituparation ageing
the Poor-law Commissioners, should not impute to them
acts which they bad never done, for the manifestation of
his spice-a. The Hon. Gentleman had dwelt upon these
topic usque a/ nauseant. At one time the Hon. Gentle.
man used as an argument the confidence which the House
might piece in the guardians, but now, when there was a
el suse in wl:ielt the words " Ponr-I,w Commifsiorer." did
not appear, the lion. Member for Fin,:bury told them that
ti
mbles s
on placed,ers a innd
tthh
net gnuoa
confin
.s
tnlioanmoiirrethce°r•P"orr-cicaiewacs
ora
dence couldthus
carryinghe placed
tin
any'T back b body but
lebibuttrhraeo
preposition.
evils
triyoopf
of .
ther:rotielide.
pa} e
system.—'-(Herr, hear.) He trusted the House would
not be disposed to assent to any such
question of local Acts was really not involved in the
present discussion, whatever determination the House
n esti'. come 'o with regard to the degree in which they
would i
permit nterfsr_nee with the local Acts, there was
no necessity to introtluce any such words as the Hon.
Gentleman proposed. There were, to his own knowledge,
in many London parishes good and roomy workhouses.
The powers in this clause
_w..ere reqeired t.onm_.ake.up the
deficient power of the guardian.., especiallyitieHl:oadon
where the site cf ground was so r would
parishes,
the observation tire speech of
regard to this clause, namely,
Act and the authority of
that the Poor. lass Amandment _
thealalso
Hon. Gentleman one
rearkwoint with leo
e the case in the
He did not know if this were un-
popular.
the Ceminis:ioners was becornieg more aed more
was able to say that t. e
he ( Mr. Grote) represented he
district the Hon. Gentleman represented, but in that which
hear)—
hostility which existed against the Bill, when it was first
introduced, had almost entirely subsided—(llear,
and that there was a friendly and well disposed leaning to-
wards the law and the Commissioners in all the tats ea
unions comprising
•the constituency which
he had the
honour to represent. —( Hear, he. r. ) He stated thiswith
the greater plc because, in 1834, when the BA was
first proposed, there was undoubtedly a decided opinion
against it ; and havinr:, as he diel, taken a decided part in
its support, although be felt great pain in taking such a
step vgainrt the feelit,gs of his own constituency it was a
great satisfaction to him to state that that feeling had
now almost entirely subei.lerl, and that the law in this
trict was regarded favourably by the great body of the
ratepayers.
Sir R. PEEL observed that the latter part of the
clause referred simply to the sites ef workhouses. If the
amendment were carried the guardians, although they
would have the power to increase the workhouses, would
not have the power to raise the 'sums necessary for the
purpose without the consent of the than which
nothing could be more absurd.
Dr, LUSHINGTON said that no truth could be more