The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-04 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at a Quarter past Twelve
o'clock .
Returns were presented from the Bankrutcy-office.
THIRD READINGS.

The following Bills were read a third time and
passed :
Fullerton's Estate Bill.
Jessop's Estate Bill.
Lister (or Hudson's) Estate Bill.
Miller's Estate Bill.
EXCHANGE OF ECCLESIASTICAL PATRON-
AGE BETWEEN HER, MAJESTY AND THE
EARL OF LEICESTER BILL.
The Bill was read a second time and ordered, on the
motion of Lord MORPETH, to be referred to the Com-
mittee of Selection, and the Committee on the Bill
obtained leave to sit and proceed on Wednesday next.
POOR-LAW UNION CHARGES (No. 2) BILL.
The House then resolved itself into Committee on this
Bill.

In answer to a question from an Hof. MEMBER,
Mr. C. BULLER said that the measure was only a
temporary one, and intended to be in operation for only
twelve months. Another and more comprehensive
measure would be brought on by the Government
in another session. But the present temporary
me, he thought the House would admit, was
abs'olutely necessary. It was also his intention to lay
on the table of the House at the close of the session a
Bill, the provisions of which would be, that wherever
there was a town co-extensive with a union, not under
any local jurisdiction, that there should be an entire
union charge. It was his intention to have that measure
printed and circulated through the country, in order that
the opinion of the country should be obtained upon it;
and if it met the sanction of the public it would be easy
to extend it to small towns.
Mr. HUDSON complained of the heavy charges that
were made on railways for the support of the lioor, and
contended that some course ought to be adopted'to make
rating more equal.
On the qnestion that the preamble of the Bill be post-
poned, some considerable. discussion took place on the
provisions of the measure.
Lord H. VANE supported the measure, thinking it
better to accomplish un important object by a bit-and•
bit reform rather than by a sweeping measure.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY objected to the Bill, thinking
that its provisions were not extensive enough to remedy
the evils it sought to put an end to. In London, Man-
chester, Liverpool, Leeds, Norwich, and in other large
towns in the kingdom, the poor-rates had increased to
an enormous extent within the last few years, whilst the
poor-rates in the agricultural districts had decreased in
a proportionate ratio. He considered, therefore, -that
nothing but a national poor-rate would remedy the de-
fects of the present law and give general satisfaction.
After a few observations from Mr. P. HOWARD,
Mr. HENLEY admitted that there were strong
grounds for complaining of the inequality of the pre -
sent poor-rate. The increase of vagrancy was no doubt
a great evil, but the way to get rid of it was not by ex-
cluding those who were vagrants by profession from one
parish, but by punishing them in some effectual way.
After some further discussion, in which Sir W. Jol.
liffe, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Floyer, Mr. V. Smith, Captain
Pechell, and other Hon. Members took part,
Mr. P. SCItOPE thought that the workhouse ought
to be open to every one who chose to apply for relief ;
but, in order to suppress vagrancy, power ought to be
given to bring all vagabonds and impostors, who were
not deserving relief, before a magistrate, and have them
punished. He considered that vagrancy had been in•
creased by the non-administration of the law which had
been passed to punish undeserving persons. If the sug-
gestion he made was carried out, and some one was ap-
pointed whose bounden duty it was to punish such
offenders, mendicancy would be got rid of, and relief
ensured to every destitute and really deserving person.
Mr. HUME considered that, unless it was the duty of
some person to bring vagrants before a magistrate, the
law which had been passed for punishing them would be
altog ether inoperative.
Mr. CHARLES BULLER said, the reason why the
penal law against vagrants had not been applied was that
every person who applied to the workhouse for relief was
virtually a vagrant. So far, however, from the gaol
being any terror to them, in many cases where they were
refused relief by the vagrant ward, they took up a stone
and broke a window in order that they might be sent to
prison. But if it was the desire of the House to increase the
punishment of vagrants, he thought the subject would
require a good deal of consideration, and that the intro-
duction of a measure to put a stop to the increase of
vagrancy ought to be deferred until another session. In
his opinion the best expedient that could be adopted for
the relief of vagrants would be to leave it altogether in
the hands of the police, and he considered that
it would be better, ultimately, for Parliament
to deal with the matter in that way. Mr. Austin, one
of the sub-commissioners, was of opinion that the relief
of vagrants ought to be thrown over the whole union,
because the union was better able to cope with the diffi-
culties which presented themselves in dealing with va-
grancy. All he now wished for was such an alteration
of the law as would throw the burden of vagrancy upon
the union ; and although he could not pledge himself
that the evils which had been accumulating for the last
ten years would be got rid of, he considered that the pre-
sent measure, together with others which he had pro-
posed, would be the beginning of an amendment of the
poor-law, and he trustedlin that spirit that it would re-
ceive the sanction of the House.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said, although he did not mean
to state that some provision for the, effectual punishment
of practised vagrants would be a panacea for the evils
complained of, yet the introduction of such a provision
would be productive of much good.
Mr. E. DENISON agreed in the statement that
vagrants had no fear of confinement in a goal ; and
stated, that in the county of Norfolk they were much
better off when in the House of Correction, as far as the
question of food went, than when in the workhouse, and
that their maintenance cost one-fourth more than it did
when chargeable to the parish.
Mr. HENLEY believed that the statement of the
Hon. Member was perfectly true; but when vagrants
were sent to gaol they were subject to discipline, and in
many cases to hard labour, which persons of their de-
sultory habits did not relish. The great difficulty of
dealing with vagrants was that a great portion of them
did not commit the act of vagrancy in the particular
union or parish in which they applied for relief.
Captain PECHELL said they could not deal with
vagrants as they wished under the machinery at present
in use. The s elieving officer in many cases had 20 or
more parishes to attend to, and frequently from
the large sphere of his duties was net obtainable
when vagrants were required to be dealt with.
Many vagrants were strong, healthy, hulking fel-
lows, who spent their nights in poaching, and their time
in roaming about the country, and were, therefore,
a class of persons far from easy to deal with.
Mr. P. SCROPE observed that it appeared by the
Bill that vagrants were to be punished, if found come
mitting acts of vagrancy, with a fortnight's imprisonment.
Surely frauds by vagrants upon public charity should be
as summarily punished as frauds upon private charity.
Clauses 1 and 2 were then agreed to.
On clause 3 being proposed,
Mr. SPOONER observed that under it great injus-
tice would be inflicted upon many parishes, inasmuch as
a person, who had committed an offence might proceed
some distance off, and be taken, convicted, and im-
prisoned in adother parish, in which he was an entire
stranger; his wife and children would become charge-
able to that parish. One parish with which he was
acquanted was put to an expense of from 14s. to 15s.
weekly.for the maintenance of a family, simply because
the father was taken, convicted, and imprisoned in the
parish. Would the Right Hon. Gentleman have any
objection to introduce a Bill to remedy this obvious
defect in the law?
clearwtohf
aatt ishtlera.
irremovable.wCfoa.
oversightrmdisyi
aBULLERshti hnoeuTitcdhlhaes
enau.
pios doe:
bowjbtrhekierater
wme
at
monaAodot tevletarar.
real
agi i
removable
meaningwhe question was a
whilst
Theylenjoyed
njoi ytsignification
e dh
stated
ah deof the
Act was, that whilst the head of the family
privilege of irremovability, that his family should also
enjoy the same privilege, in order that they might
be taken together. The oversight was one which should
be remedied, and he should be prepared to agree to a
clause to remedy it; and if it could not, according to the
forms of the House, be introduced into the Bill in the
shape of a clause to which he would agree, he should be
happy to accede to it in the form of a Bill if the Hon.
Gentleman should think proper to introduce one.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 4 being proposed,
Mr. FLOYFR said the clause stated that cases were
to be submitted to the Right Honourable Gentleman for
his opinion. U Vagetistthreatoe,ldbust nyisteinqumoiratiehss
beforemight
mbeagais:d
ministered by a
tra
Righttes H
, oathson.
could
Gentlemannot p
brp
eoose
toadministered.act
r How did the
sf
itlfFt Obfy ebaocahr
de
sa s e
of h
ge
uhaar
d
othwedsboeletumentiotymoaf;taenr
no Mr.do uCb't BwljouildrjEbeßcsaariedfutiblye
diens, though not accompanied
oath. The vases StibilliaedtO'hilllby4