The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-12 00:00:00

THE POOR LAWS.

The house having resolved itself into a Committee on
the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill,

Mr. COBBETT resumed the debate on his proposed
amendment on the 4:ith clause, .• That provided always,
there shall be no authority given to separate parent
and child, or husband and wife, or to put a badge on, or
shave the heads of, persons receiving relief." Mr. C. read
several statements of accounts from different parishes in
the country, to show that the poor rates were applied prin-
cipally to the purposes of game preservation, and defraying
the expenses of preparing the lists of borough and county
voters, and to every purpose except the actual relief of the
poor, consequently it was wrong to say that the increase
of the poor rates was to be attributed to the actual demands
of the poor. The business of the house was to inquire
into the rights of the poor, and he should be pre-
pared to maintain that every British subject had
an undeniable right to relief and assistance in case
of need, for the Act of Elizabeth was a compact with
the people for that purpose. Unless the house declared
that no barbarity should be inflicted on the poor, the con-
clusion would be that the house would permit it. But the
House of Lords, thank God, would not agree to it.
(Laughter.) No ; although the government paper of that
morning had declared that the House of Lords ought to be
remodelled. (Hear, hear.) He was a reformer, but neither
he nor the reformers ever prayed for an Irish Coercion Bill,
or a Poor Robbery Bill, or the destruction of the House of
Lords, or any thing else that this ministry had brought for-
ward.
(Hear, and laughter.) The House of Lords, how-
ever, would protect the poor, and throw out the bill.
Lord ALTHORP said it was not intended to give any
such power as that the amendment of the hon. member
provided against.
After a few words from Mr. ROBINSON,

Mr. BAINES said he concurred with the general
views of the hon. member for Oldham, but thought that the
two principles of the bill were, that the money of the rich
should be saved, and the poor rendered more independent.
The evils of which the hon. member so justly complained
were the evils of the present system, and were not intended
by any means to form a part of the proposed bill. He
hoped the hon. member would allow the house to legislate
in a manner becoming the importance of the question.
Major BEAUCLERK said the question was so im-
portant that he wanted to know distinctly whether it was
the intention of Government that man and wife should be
separated while in the workhouse.

Lord ALTHORP said it certainly was not intended
that such a power should be given to the commissioners,
but instances might arise that would render it necessary,
therefore, though they would understand the feelings of
the reporting Commissioners, it was necessary that they
should have the power proposed.
The amendment was opposed in toto, by Mr. PRYME
and Mr. WARD.
Colonel WILLIAMS doubted very much the policy of
giving the Commissioners power to make such a regula-
tion as to separate man and wife.
Mr. FIELDEN and Mr. HODGES supported the amend-
ment.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY suggested that the hon.
member for Oldham should strike out part of the motion.
Some cases might certainly occur where it might be neces-
sary to separate man and wife, and he knew no one who
should have the power, or who were more likely to exer-
cise it beneficially, than the commissioners.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there
appeared—
.For the Amendment
For the Original Motion l2B
Majority I l 1
On being again admitted we found

--- -
Mr. P. SCROPE objecting to the 46th clause.
Lord ALTHORP agreed with the hon. member
that there were many places where it would not be
proper to introduce the allowance system too hastily. He
intended to make an alteration in the clause which would
meet the objection.
Colonel TORRENS considered that the most important
clause of the whole bill. He was afraid the clause as it
stood would reduce the married man to the level of the
single, the farmer wovld give the pre-
ference said that some special pro-
vision
objected to the clause, and would take the sense of the
feii'rgonle c'es T.
nood uFtlhhßdee be Esingle
was
A i
madA afraid
mN a
b T n
y l:
Sir
this bill for large families. He
committee upon it.
Mr. ROBINSON was afraid that this clause would
not have the effect of decreasing the disbursements to
the poor, and objected to it also on the ground that it
would be injurious to poor labouring men with large
families.
After a few words from Major HANDLEY and Mr. W.
WHITMORE,
Mr. GROTE said that he thought the clause already
provided for every purpose that was required, and he
hoped, therefore, the house would agree to it.
Lord ALTHORP said he knew from the labourers he
himself employed, though he did not give them higher
wages than other farmers, that men who were industrious
were able to support large families. He believed that
if men were paid by the job instead of by
the day they would be able to support large families.
With respect to the clause, he thought that every pro-
vision was made by it that could be made, and if
they did not carry the clause into effect, it would
be useless to try to amend the poor laws. (Hear, hear. )
It being three o'clock, the SPEAKER left the chair.