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

dened with business.—(Hear,. hear.) There had been
ample time for consideration in that louse, at least with
respect to the other House of Parliament he did not an-
ticipate any difficulty. The principal business was now
nearly disposed of, and there would be nothing to pre-
vent the measure from passing this session. He trusted,
therefore, that the Bill would bit permitted to go into
Committee.

Lord REDESDALE said the complaints against the
delay in bringing forward this Bill were not answered
by the statement that it had been throe weeks before the
House. When they remembered that the session had
commenced i❑ November, and that they were now in
August, he considered there was great cause for com-
plaint that such a measure should not have been brought
in at a time when their Lordships were actually crying
out for work. —(Hear, hear.) It was well understood
that no business should be brought before their Lord-
ships at this period of the session when it was almost im-
possible to secure a proper attendance unless it was of
the most pressing character. He did not concur in the
Bill, and he believed the amendments intended to be pro-
posed by the Neble and Learned Lord would not remove
tiis objections. For these reasons he thought their Lord-
ships would be justified iu delaying the passing of such a
measure.

The Bishop of OXFORD said that as he should feel
bound to vote for the motion of the Noble Lord against
going into Committee, he was desirous of briefly ex-
plaining why he did so. lie admitted the greatness of
the evil which it was sought to remedy; but that was
no reason why be should take the first random meaiure
proposed on the subject without due consideration—the
very magnitude of the evil was a reason for greater care
in applying a remedy .—(Hear, hear.) This was essen-
tially a parochial measure, and the charities affected by
it being of a very old foundation, it was the more ne-
cessary to give time for mastering the details of the Bill.
The INoble and Learned Lord had argued that the Bill
was before the House last year, but al► the objectionable
parts of the present measure were not in the
Bill of last year, they were entirely new. The
Bill gave large powers to the judges of the County
Courts, who were not necessarily men of high legal.
standing or attainments. It was not even necessary for
them to be barristers; yet to these judges it was pro-
posed to entrust the power of changing the management
of " trust property and of altering wills.—(Hear, hear.)
By the Bill any shrewd Dissenting attorney might draw
up a scheme, get it passed by such judges, and transfer
the property of the Church to persons nut members of
it.-----(Hear, hear.) He objected, at such a period of the
session, to the introduction of a principle which was
alien to the whole of their previous legislation with re-
spect to trust property. de was firmly convinced that,
unless the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and
time given for full consideration, it would neither be sa-
tisfactory to their Lordships nor to the country.
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared-
For going into Committee, Contents 21
Nun-contents
Majority —2

Their Lordships then went into Committee on the Bill.
The Bishop of OXFORD objected to that part of the
first clause (as we understood) which gave the judges
of the County Courts the power of extending their own
jurisdic ion to trust property not exceeding 30!. It was
true that by a subsequent clause there wa. an appeal to
the Lord Chancellor, but the Lord Chancellor had the
power of deciding whether the appeal should be heard
or not, so that practically it gave the judges of the
County Courts the power he stated. This was, in his
opinion, altogether contrary to the principles of the
English law.
The Lord CHANCELLOR replied in a tone which
rendered him almost inaudible in the gallery. We
understood him to say that in dealing with such small
sums such a regulation was necessary. There were no
funds to support protracted and expensive litigation.
The Bishop of OXFORD then proposed an amend-
ment to the effect that the judges of the local courts who
would have to adjudicate upon charities with incomes
not exceeding 301., should be sergeants-at-law, or
barristers-at-law of ten years' standing.
After seine further conversation, several verbal amend-
ments were agreed to, and the Committee divided, when
there appeared—
Contents•
15
Non-contents

Majority i❑ favour of the clause ... —4 •
The clause was then agreed to, as were clauses 2
and 3. . .

Clauses 3,4, and 5, with some unimportant verbal
amendments, were passed.
On clause 6 being read,
Lord STANLEY objected that tha power of the
Court of Chancery should be assigned to a judge of the
County Court, with the view of exercising jurisdiction
over charities not otherwise subject to his jurisdiction.
The entire clause was objectionable, and he should move
that it be expunged.
After a short conversation, in which the Lord Chan-
cellor, Lord Campbell, and Lord liedesdale took part,
the clause was amended and ordered to stand part of
theßill.

On clause 7 being proposed,
The Bishop of OXFORD moved an amendment, that
the trustees named by the judges of County Courts for
the purposes of the Act, should be members of the
Church of England.
The clause was agreed to with verbal amendments.
Clauses 8 to 18 were agreed to inclusive, with a few
verbal amendments.

The remaining clauses ware agreed to with the excep-
tion of clause 22, which was postponed; and the House
having resumed, the other Bills on the table were for-
warded a stage, and their Lordships adjourned at a
Quarter to Twelve o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Agoust 4.
POurc.-14.a. tv ciIARGES (No. BILL.
(Continued from onr Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. I'. SCROPE considered that vagrancy had been
increased 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
altogether 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 trusted in that spirit that it would re-
ceive the sanction of the House.

Mr. NEWDEGATE said, although he did not mea❑
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 wero much
better oil when in the House of Correction, as far as the
question of food went, than when i❑ 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
i❑ use. The relieving 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. I'. 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 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 indicted upon many parishes, inasmuch as
a person, who bad committed au 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. MILLER said tho matter in question was a
clear oversight in the Poor-law Act. The signification
of the words in the clause were too large. The) stated
that a family should not be removable whilst its head
was irremovable. The object and real weaning 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, 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. FLOYER said the clause stated that cases were