The Sun.
London, England, 1834-10-15 00:00:00

NEW POOR LAW BILL.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR, The NevvPoorLaw seems to be strangely misconstrued
by the Metropolitan Police Magistrates, if the newspaper
reports are at all to be depended on ; and I can assure you,
from what I have myself seen and heard, that the unpaid
Justices of the country are not behind their salaried brethren
of the town in similar misunderstandings.

In particular, it appears to be almost universally consi•
dered by them, that the power of Magistrates to order relief
to paupers is altogether taken away, and that however pi-
tiable the pauper's distress, and however culpable the ne-
glect of the Overseer to relieve, no Justice has power to
interfere with the determination of the parish authorities.
This, however, is far from the fact, and as it is desirable
that a misconception so pregnant with danger and suffering
to the poor, and so likely to bring the new law into un-
merited odium, should be corrected, perhaps you will allow
meto point out briefly in your columns to what extent the
power of Magistrates in ordering relief has been taken away
by the Act, and to what extent it is still left in their hands.
The 53d and 54th sections are the only parts of the New
Act which limit the power of Justices in ordering relief.
The 54th section, which declares it unlawful " for any Jus-
tice or Justices to order relief, &c." applies only to such
parishes as are " under the government and control of any
guardians of the poor, or select vestry," and leaves un-
touched the jurisdiction of Magistrates over the great mass
of parishes, forming five-sevenths of the entire number in
the country, which are not managed under any local act,
nor by a select vestry.
The 53d section limits this jurisdiction to a certain ex-
tent by repealing the 36th, 55th, and 59th Geo. 111. (by
which Justices were empowered to order relief for indefi-
nite periods to paupers at their own homes), but leaves in
full force all preceding acts, in particular the 3d and 4th
William and Mary, c. 11, and the 9th Geo. 1., c. 7.
By the first of these acts one Justice is empowered to
order relief to any pauper. By the second, this power is
limited to an order of relief in the workhouse, where a parish
possesses one. But where a parish has no workhouse fit for
the reception and decent accommodation of the pauper (of
which fitness the Justices are made the judges under the 22d
Geo. II.) the order of a Justice can compel out-door relief.
Even in unions and parishes governed by select
vestries, or under local acts by boards of guardians,
Justices are empowered to order relief "in articles of ne-
cessity to poor persons, not settled nor usually residing in
the parish " (casual poor), by Sect. 53 ; and likewise to
order out-door relief in unions to infirm persons certified to
be incapable of work, by Sect. 27. It is thus apparent
that Magistrates still possess very considerable authority in
ordering relief to deserving objects, and in controlling the
parish officers when they show an inclination to save their
own funds at the expense of humanity and justice.
Some overseers appear to imagine that they are inter-
dicted by the Act from relieving paupers with money in
cases of emergency by Sect. 54. But the limitation con-
veyed in the words " not in money " in that section is
clearly confined in its application to the relief which the
overseer is " required " to give in such cases, (of course
under pain of indictment for a misdemeanour), and does not
extend to that relief which, in the preceding part of the
same paragraph he is permitted to give at his discretion
without consulting the Board of Guardians. Take, as an
illustrative example, the case of Emma Passau, reported
lately in the newspapers. She had slept a night in St.
George's parish, and was, therefore, chargeable to that
parish as a casual pauper, both under the old law and the
new. The overseer was bound by the late Act to afford
her relief ‘' in articles of absolute necessity," her's being a
case " of sudden and urgent necessity ;" and for neglecting
to do so he was liable to be indicted as a misdemenant,
and, had the woman died of want, as a murderer. Upon
his refusal to relieve her, Mr. Conant might have made an
order upon him, and fined him in 51. if he neglected in-
stantly to obey it. But if the overseer had chosen to re-
Here her spontaneously, (as in truth it was his bounden
duty to do), lie might have done so, even in money, with-
out the leave of the Board of Guardians of his parish, under
the 54th clause.
The only other misconstruction of the Act which I will
at present notice, is that most absurd one attributed by the
police reports to Mr. Ballantine, viz., that all orders of
affiliation extant at the time of passing of the late Act, are
void, because the word. "only" is not introduced into the
clause which repeals the old bastardy laws "so far as
respects children born bastards after the passing of the Act."
The introduction of the word ". only," would have accorded
with the usual pleonastic phraseology of Acts of Parlia-
ment, but is wholly unnecessary to give full effect to the
intended meaning of the passage. If it were asserted
that Mr. Ballantine, by this quibble, had lost his
character " so far as respects sagacity and legal discern-
ment," the assertion would still leave his character un-
touched in all other respects, notwithstanding the omission
of the word " only," in the qualifying phrase employed to
designate the extent of his loss. The outstanding claim of
tile various parishes through the country upon the fathers of
bastards affiliated before August last, must amount to a
very vast sum in the aggregate, and it would be indeed la-
mentable if a debt of such magnitude were to be extin-
guished by such a miserable verbal fallacy as that to which
Mr. Ballantine is reported to have lent his authority.
I am, Sir, your very obedient Servant,
JUSTITIA.

MIDDLESEX GENERAL QUARTER SESSIONS
(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Serjeant ANDREWS and a Bench of Magistrates.)
Robert Smith was indicted for stealing a horse-cloth, value
55., the property of Mrs. Sarah Waters.,
The prisoner, upon being apprehended, at once admitted
the robbery, and stated that he did it for the purpose of get-
ting transported.
The prisoner upon being called upon for his defence stated,
that at the time he committed the offence misfortunes had
borne so heavy upon him that he thought it would be better
for him to go into another country, than remain in one where
nothing but misery and destitution awaited him. He had for-
merly carried on a respectable business in the oil and grocery
trade ; but misfortunes overtook him, and he was obliged to
abandon it. The prisoner, who appeared in the dock without
his coat, stated that he had been obliged to sell that article,
as well as his hat, to procure sustenance. He expressed
great sorrow for what he had done, and trusted the Court
would be lenient towards him.

Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS, under the hope that the contrition
he had expressed was sincere, and that in future he would en-
deavour to lead an honest life, would pass a lenient sentence.
The judgment of the Court was, that the prisoner should be
imprisoned six months in the House of Correction ; one week
of that period to be spent in solitary confinement.
Daniel Ross, a young urchin, fifteen years of age, was con-
victed of stealing a silk handkerchief, value four shillings, the
property of Ann Yates, and sentenced to be imprisoned one
week, and once well whipped.
Mary Robinson was indicted for stealing on Sunday se'en-
night a sovereign, the property of her master, Mr. James Evans
of the Swan, Knightsbridge. From the evidence of the,
sister of the prosecutor it appeared that on the day in question
there were three sovereigns, and four half-sovereigns, in the
till. The prosecutor, on missing a sovereign, taxed the pri-
soner with the robbery, who. for some time denied it, but ulti-
nlately admitted it. Other persons besides the prisoner could
have access to the till.

Policeman B 55, stated that on taking the prisoner to the
station-house she admitted she had taken other things, but
denied purloining the sovereign. She said she could not
think what possessed her to take the things, as she had a good
roaster and mistress. On arriving at the station-house, she
'sdmitted taking the sovereign, but not the other things.
The prisoner in her defence stated that she confessed to her
master that she had taken the sovereign, previous to the po-
liceman being sent for.
Several witnesses gave the prisoner an excellent character
for honesty.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, but strongly recom-
mended her to mercy (in which recommendation the prose-
cutor joined) on account of her previous good character.
The COURT sentenced her to six months imprisonment,
three weeks to be spent in solitary confinement.
Wm. Hutchins, a respectable looking young man, was in-
dicted for stealing eight stoves and two ranges, the property of
Mary Price.
Mary Price stated that on leaving a house in Tottenham-
court-road, she was indebted to her landlord a twelve months
rent and employed the prisoner to arrange matters with Mr.
Dawson, the solicitor, giving him liberty to state to the land-
lord that she would leave the fixtures in part payment of the
rent. The prisoner having had the key to give up on the fol-
lowing Thursday, called and informed the prosecutrix that he
had delivered the keys to Mr. Dawson, who would see the
landlord, and endeavour to get him to take the stoves and fix-
tures. In the meantime the prisoner had removed the fixtures,
having no authority from her to do so.
On cross-examination witness believed that the prisoner was
in great distress, and had a family of four children.
Mr. Sanderson, an ironmonger in Somers-town, stated that
on Thursday the 19th Sept., the prisoner came to him, and
stated that he had a house of stoves to dispose of for a relation
of his. Witness declined buying them, as they were so old-
fashioned, but consented ultimately to purchase them for old
iron. The next day the prisoner brought the stoves, and sold
them to him for old iron for the sum of 11. 3s.

The CHAIRMAN inquired of Mr. Price whether the prisoner
was any relation of her's?
Mrs. Price said he was not, but she had heard that he was
a 19th cousin to her husband.—( Laughter.)
The prisoner said nothing. in his defence.
Mr. Blacktnore, the solicitor in whose employ the prisoner
had been for some time as a clerk, gave him a most excellent
character, and stated that he could only attribute the present
offence to the great distress he was suffering. If the prisoner
was at liberty he should have no objection to employ him
again and entrust him with the receipt of large sums, as he
':gad previously done. • .
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, but strongly reconi-
mer.ided him to mercy.
The Conroy sentenced him to three days imprisonment.
Tho prisoner has already AlT,ffered one month.