The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-05 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 4.

POOR-LAW UNION CHARGES (No. 2) BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. P. SCROPE considered that vagrancy bad been
increased by the non-administration of the law which had
been passed to punish undeserving persons. It the sug-
gestion ho 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 &Are of the House to increase the
punishment of vagrants, ho 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 ho 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 ou;ht 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 trusted in 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 gaol ; 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 ielievitig officer in many cases had 20 or
more parishes to attend to, and frequently from
the large sphere of his duties was not 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 com-
mitting acts of vagrancy, with a fortnight's imprisonment.
Surely frauds by vagrants upon public charity should be
as summarily punished ac frauds upon private charity.
Clauses 1 and 9 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 another parish, in which he was an entire
stranger; his wife and children would then become
chargeable to that parish. One parish with which he was
acquainted 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?
Mr. C. BULLER said the matter in question was a
clear oversight in the Puor-law Act. The signification
of the words in the clause were too large. They stated
that a family should nut be removable whilst its head
was irremovable. The object and real meaning of the
Act was, that whilst the head of the family enjoyed the
privilege of irremovability, that his family should also
enjoy the same privilege,, is order that they might
be taken together. he 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
formwould agree,a
Bl he shouldtheH be
n
happy to accede to o,
forms of the House, be introduced into the Bill in the
shape of a clausetoiwt
in which
hthe
of
he
Gentleman should think proper to introduce one.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 4 being proposed,
Mr, FLOYER said the clause stated that cases were