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

The clause was accordingly withdrawn.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 effect might be.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL agreed with Mr. Gisberne as
to the expediency of immediately printing the clauses in
their amended shape.
Lord J. RUSSELL had 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-
cient time to attend to the correct expression of the amend-
ments in some respects. He would not oppose the propo-
sition, with the understanding that the clauses should be
open to reconsideration after the Easter reces..—( Hear.)
After a few words from Sir E. KNATCHBULL and
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, it was understood
that the clauses would be printed as proposed.
Mr. WAKLEY rejoiced that the 18th clause had been
withdrawn, for it was the most savage that could be con-
ceived.—(" Hear, hear," and " No, no.") The next
clause (number 19) was conceived in the same spirit._
(" No, no," and " Yes, yes.") And he implored the Noble
Lord to exercise his manly disposition in preventing the
vile purposes of those who framed it from being carried
into effect. Its object was to place the women and chil-
dren at the utter mercy of depraved husbands, and to make
the wife of a man who was transported suffer additional
punishment for his offences.—( Hear, hea-.)
Captain PEC HELL regretted the absence of the At-
torney General on this important occasion. That Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had given it as his solemn opinion,
that the wi'e of a transported felon was bound by the law,
as it stood before the Poor-1 iw Amendment Act was pro-
posed, to support not merely her own children, but all
the chi'dren of the transported husband. If that were
the clue, a hat necessity was there for this clause ? It
must have b.en introduced at the desire of the Commis-
sioners without the knowledge of the Attorney-General.
(Hear, hear.) He hoped the Noble Lord would not per-
severe with the clause, or that at least he would so modifyit
as to render mothers secure from the severity of guar-
dian.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Hon. Member for
Finabary had on that, as on other occasions, spoke of the
clause as savage, and of the Bill in general as an insult
to humanity. He observed, too, that charges of cruelty
were constantly made against the Commissioners, vvhi'e
it seemed to he supposed that nothing but the purest mc-
tives and the most humane intentions could be imputed to
the Hon. Gentleman.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to
the question of humanity as regarded the present clause
and the Bill in general, he (Lord J. Russell) conceived
that humanity should not embrace merely ore class of per-
sons. It would appear that those labourers who worked
from morning until night to earn their daily bread and to
support their wives and children could be taxed and bur-
dened for the maintenance of other families which their
fathers had neglected or abandoned. But was it to be
said that those were the only parties for whom the House
was to care, and to which their humanity was to be ex-
tended ? And were they 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
that before a Committee of that House which had sat
fifteen or sixteen years ago, be hid called a witness who
stated that although he had been a labourer earning but
very moderate wages he had brought up and educated his
family without in any one instance having applied to the
parish for assistance., or making any complaint on the sub-
ject. Surely the House in framing their laws should con-
sider the claims of such men—( Hear, hear)—and when
they found instaaees of parties leaving their families and
adding to the burdens of the country, they should do their
utmost to prevent such evasions of the law. That was the
principal object of the present clause, and to him it ap-
peared a perfectly legitimate one.
Mr. DARBY could not approve of the clause. The
effect of the clause would be that instead 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 punishing his wife would not
make him return.
Mr. SLANE Y apprehended the intention of the clause
was to place the wife in the same situation as a widow,
and they would, hereafter, have to discuss a clause giving
a discre ienary power to relieve widows out of the house.
Mr. DARBY did not apprehend that such would be the
effect of the clause.
Mr. M UNTZ hoped the Noble Lord would withdraw
the clause on account of its utter inutility.
Mr. BRISCOE did 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 ought to be made the subject of separate clauses.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL had voted for the committal
of 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,
she:was bound to support them, and the same in the case
cf the husband being transported. If, however, she had
not the means, the parish were bound to afford them relief. 1
Mr. SANFORD thought that, instead of this being
an inhuman it was a most salutary clause, and one that
was calculated to protect the mother.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that it bad ge-
neraily been considered that the wife of a person trans-
ported was fur most purposes a sole. It might be doubt-
ful whether she could be made a bankrupt, but he (the
Seliciter-General) was rather inclined to think that she
could. It was true, that the clause went further than the
old law to create the liability of a married woman, because,
as he understood it by the first part of the clause, when the
husband should be absent from the wife she was charged
Kith the support of the children in all respects as if she
was a widow. And the second part of the clause treated
the wise where the husband refused to support her as if she
was a sing'e woman. In fact, the first part of the clause
placed the married woman in the state of a widow, and the
second in the situation of a single woman.
Lord G. SOM ERSE T thought the clause would place
amarried woman in that situation in which she ought not
to be, because, in case of her husband being abroad, she
would be liable to the debts of her children in the same
manner as the father was et present. He (Lord G. So-
merset) did not think the present Committee was the
proper place to make so great an alteration in the law in
respect to married women. 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-e law against married women
seho hod been deserted by their husbands; such a course
would have the effect of increasing those very miseries
which it ought to be their object and study to alleviate.
Who, he would ask, would pursue the guilty father, when
the wife struggled on through misery and destitution, de-
termined rather to starve than to accept parochial relief ? At
present the parish had a strong interest in looking after
him ; but if this clause were passed, they would say they
could not burden the parish rates by searching fur him,
and tell the woman to seek for laersAf. Was that
a position in which they ought to place the
married women cf this country, upon the gratuitous
assumpticn that they rejoiced when their husbands left
them and were in collusion with them ?—( Hear, hear.)
Upon these grounds he would have west satisfaction in
supporting the Hon. Member for Finsbury in resisting the
whole clause, and he hoped that the Noble Lord, after
what had been said, would be induced to withdraw it.
In answer to a question put by Mr. DARBY,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the clause
would leave the husband in the same position as at pre..
sent, and would only create a new relation between the
wife and the parish.
Mr. FRESHFIELD said that according to the ex-
planation of the Hoe. and Learned Gentleman the So-
licitor-General, the otja it of the clause was to prevent
collusion ; but as its ood it would also apply to the hus-
band Leing an idiot o: iitis tie. This in his opinion iefl.ct-
ing an additional hardship upon the unfortuna'e wife.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE had not been able to gather
from the speech of the Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man whether ho was in favour of or opposed to the
clause, but he must say that the Noble Lord
opposite had completely made out the charge made by his
}lon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, that it was inhu-
mar. The. Noble! Lord bad even gone further; he had
spoken of it as a revolutionary claisse—a clause
iwhich
created a great revolution in the
ea
r.) When state of
htehne
this rnarrßiejii wo-
men of this country.—( Hear, h
first proposed the object was stated to be net only to
amend the Poor-laws, but to remedy many of its rigours.
It bad at all events been satisfactorily proved to the Com-
mittee by the speech of the Solicitor-General that by
this clause the law would be made much more rigid as
against married women than it had been hitherto.ffi
•What
right had they to do that? Was public feeling au meetly
in favour of this Bill to justify them in proposing such a
clause? He thought the speech of the Noble Lord would
satisfy the Committee that the clause ought to be ex-
punged. His Hon. Friend the Member for Somerset
had argued in favour of the clause : and upon what
ground ? Why upon the ground of the possibility of
fraudulent application for relief.—( Hear, hear. ) Were all
the applications necessarily fraudulent? Might there
not be many virtuous and industrious women who, with
five or six children, had been deserted by their husbands ?
—( Hear, hear.) Yet such persons were to be compelled
to come into the house and suffer all the indignities to
which individuals were exposed-in 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 beneficial to the parties to whom it re-
lated.—j„ Cries of" Oh, oh.")Mr. T. DUNCONIBE could assure the Right Hon.
Gentleman who had just sat down, that nothing was far-
ther from his thoughts than to treat the el tine with ridi-
cub:. It was only in reference to an expression of the
Right Hoe. Gentleman, that he had been induced t) smile.
He heard nothiny to induce him to support the clause.
Captain I'EC}IELL said the Noble Lord (J. Russell)
bad found fault with his, remarks with regard to t ,e con-
duct of the Poor-law Comn is6oners but he Fig ed to
state that his remarks mei ely applied to indivi. Mil cases,
and more especially to that of Jane Champion.—( Hear.)
Sir T. ACLA ND did not think the Committee was
quite ripe for the decision of the clause then before it.
He did not think there was any situation in which a woman
was entitled to greater commisseration than that of widow-
hood__-( 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 he would sug-
gest the propriety of postponing the clause.
Sir S. L LISHING TON hoped the discusssion of the
clause would not be pressed at present. Its object was, in
certtun particular case, to place a wife on the same footing
as a widow, and for particular purposes. He thought there
141, ,cmegt7aater difficulties attending 116 discussion of the
Lordmittee anticipa.ed, and the observa-
'''.7.. tiana of t;lietNheobCleonithe
of Member
. tor Monmouthshire
.
I?. with respect to the wives
without an answer.—( sailors, had been left totally
..„; could be no collision between the •
t
4.',p,;:.i# 41,:
-7. '---:-_-1.- AZ( AV:-..i Hear.) Now in that case there
wife and the husband,
v ,-.:v.,..--TlPs:',:- /4744/
\ ::::sl-:,_--.=-7, -.'i;4. L '7= 9

s