The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-08 00:00:00

POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the bringing up
of the report of the above Bill.
Upon the clause relating to the preservation of the corre-
spondence and the minutes of the proceedings of the Board of
Commissioners,
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved an amendment,
the production of minutes to cases where it should be
directea `..1", the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
After some conversation it was agreed that the production
of minutes of the u. tailed opinions of the Commissioners
should be limited to cases in which they finally differ.
The 20th clause was struck t;pt.
Various verbal amendments were made in clauses 37 and 47-
The amendments made in clauses 52 and 57 were agreed to.
The Bishop of EXETER then gave notice that he should,
to-morrow, on the third reading of this Bill, move for the
omission of all the clauses which related to bastardy.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said he was aware that a strong
feeling existed, not only in the House of Commons, but indeed
throughout the country generally, respecting the alteration
proposed to be made in the law of bastardy.—( Hear, hear.)
Although he admitted the existence of such a feeling, he still
must confess that he for one approved of the principle of the
Bill as it stood, because he believed the best way to get rid of
the evil of bastardy would be to throw the whole burthen of
the child upon the woman alone, without rendering the puta-
tive father liable to contribute to its support.—( Hear, hear.)
He repeated, that both the House of Commons and the coun-
try generally had manifested a repugnance to follow this prin-
ciple—which came to them recommended by the Poor Law
Commissioners—and to its fullest extent.—( Hear, hear)--
and hence it was that he believed if the Legislature were now
to pass these clauses as they stood in the Bill, Parliament
would before very long be called upon to alter the measure in
this respect.—( Hear.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR suggested that if the Noble
Baron meant to propose an amendment, the proper time for
doing so would be on the third reading.
Lord
propose any amendment. He could net come down to the
House to-morrow, and that was the reason lie had taken the
present opportunity to express his sentiments with reference to
this part of the Bill. He had carefully looked into the re-
port, and he certainly was bound to admit that he could find no-
thing in it which bore out the recommendation which the Com.,
missioners had given to the extent to which that recommenda-
tion had been carried.--( Hear, hear.) The Commissioners
had spoken of Bingham and other parishes in which they said
this principle was acted upon, but he was satisfied a reference
to the practice of these parishes would show, not only that
their statement was incorrect, but that the Bastardy laws were
inforced against the putative father whenever the child became
chargeable, care only being taken that the mother derived no
advantage from the money contributed by him. It would, there-
fore, appear that wherever the present laws were properly ad-
ministered they were effectual ; and that being the case, their
Lordships should pause a little before they agreed to an alte-
ration which certainly would introduce a new principle into the
laws of this country. He entirely agreed that the annuity
system, that was, increasing a woman's income according to
the number of her children, should be done away with; and
if any Noble Lord should propose a clause having that object
in view, he for one should give it his best support ; but al-
though he said this, he was at the same time bound to admit
that he went the whole length of the principles asserted in these
clauses of the Bill as they now stood.—( Hear, hear.)
On the question being put that the clause (with the amend-
ment) for establishing Provident Institutions be agreed to,
The Duke of RICHMOND objected to the principles of
imposing a tax upon the owners and occupiers of land for the
maintenance of Provident Institutions. He had no doubt that
such establishments might be productive of great good, but he
could never, for his part, consent to any portion of the poor
rates being applied otherwise than in the maintenance of the
poor. The adoption of such a principle would open the door
to all the abuses that now existed in respect to the county
rate, and he would r6ther set about reforming the present
Provident Institutions than expose the owner and occupier of
land to a burthen from which he never could hope to derive
any benefit. No principle, he contended, could be more ob-
jectionable than that of raising money for the support of the
poor, and afterwards converting it to other purposes.
The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted that there was
great weight in the objection which his Noble Friend had
made. This clause would undoubtedly introduce into the Bill
a new principle, and one which he feared the Commons would
not concur in. He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would
not press the adoption of the clause.
The Bishop of LONDON defended the clause on the
ground that nothing was more common than for parishei to
apply sums out of the poor rates In support of hospitals and
other charitable institutions, but, for the reason which the
Noble and Learned Lord had stated, it might not be desirable
to retain the clause.
After a few words from the Duke of RICHMOND in ex-
planation, the clause was struck out.
The clause relating to emigration, as amended by the Com-
mittee, was agreed to.
The 65th clause, relating to settlements, having been put,
The Duke of RICHMOND proposed that the words " by
apprenticeship," which had been inserted on the motion of
Lord Wynford in the Committee, should be struck out. The
Noble Duke said that this was the most objectionable means
by which a settlement could be obtained, and led to more liti-
gation than almost any other that he knew of.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE hoped their Lordships would not
disturb the clause, but admitted that some other arrangement
with respect to settlement should be made.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that diminishing set-
tlements by servitude went, pro tanto, to increase derivative
settlements. This was, he admitted, objectionable. It was,
however, his intention to devise a plan for making settlement
depend upon residence rather than servitude ; but then Bauch
an alteration would take time, in order that it might be bseil
upon sound and safe principles. In Scotland a.residence of,
he believed, two or three years, conferred the right of settle-
menta been found
upon the pauper, and the arrangement had been
to work well ; but whether it would answer in this country
was quite another question. He had considered the
practica-
bilityhewas in
of introducingconveed
thatthe it change
not int obethdeonper;esethnatt mtheaseffuercet,
but
it a little care would be necessary, and therefore he hoped
their Lordships would be satisfied
assurance
thtthhaet pal amn
ecaosnutraei noend
thine
this clause, and accept his
subject of settlement by residence should be framed before toe
next Session. There was another
reason why he did not wish
to make any alteration in this clause, and that was, the situa-
tion in which the introduction of new matter would place the
other House of
therefore,Parl iam nt.
the Tonhleyyocoouurslde havethecbouat one
ld
pursuevot e
uponit, and,
would be to reject it as they had that day done one of the best
amendments that had ever been made in any me:,sure, namely,
that w
L ordhicwh
ythi LNeFr
0 orsßdp 1 a ip s had
thought a d made in the Briberythatmahingar Bi
11.
Lord sidilel.
n ce
of
three years or any other period a ground for settlement would
introduce an anomaly into the laws of this country, which,

whatever might be its advantage in Scotland, would be highly
inexpedient in England.
After a few words from the Earl of FALMOUTH and the Earl
Of MALMESBURY,

The Duke of RICHMOND gave notice that he should;
on the third reading, move that the words " sea apprantice-
ship" should be inserted.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that when the bas-
tardy clauses were under discussion in the Committee, many
Noble Lords expressed themselves anxious to soften the ope-
ration of some parts of them. An amendment had been intro-
duced in the original Bill in the Commons to enable the
overseer to make the man pay a part of the expenses of a
child if it should become chargeable to the parish. The ob-
jection to this amendment was that in operation it would be
liable to many of the objections urged against the present
bastardy laws. In consequence of this their Lordships in Com-
mittee rejected the clause, but at the same time a general
opinion seemed to prevail that it was objectionable and some-
what harsh to make the woman's parish bear all the expenses
of supporting the bastard. Under these circumstances his
Noble Friend (Lord Wharncliffe) gave notice that he should
on a future stage move certain clauses, which would provide
for this object. His Noble Friend had that night stated that
he should not persist in his intention of proposing those clauses,
as he should not be present to-morrow. Now he (the Duke
of Wellington) thought that something should be done to
relieve the public mind on the subject, and also because it
was the opinion of the House of Commons, as well as of very
many of their Lordships, that they ought to do something to
soften the extreme harshness of that part of the Bill. Under
these circumstances it was his (the Dnke of Wellington's) in-
tention to propose to their Lordships, on the third reading,
to consider whether the three clauses of which his Noble
Friend had given notice, and which had been printed, should
not be inserted.
The Earl of RADNOR hoped their Lordships would not
agree to the clauses, as they would be in their operation much
worse than the clause that had been struck out. As for their
softening down the situation of the woman and relieving her,
he denied they would do anything of the kind, for now by
these clauses, if she were able to do so, she would have to
support the child ; if, however, she were thrown on the pa-
rish, then a portion of the expense was to be defrayed by the
man. The argument of the Noble Duke was therefore falla-
cious. He (the Earl of Earl of Radnor) was satisfied that
the plan the Noble Duke intended to pursue would tend greatly
to increase all the evils of the present system. It would give
the woman the opportunity of fathering the child upon whom
she pleased, and thus lead to the commission of perjury.
Again, it was proposed to throw upon her the great disgrace
of exposing herself to shame in an open court by declaring
who was the father of the child. It was most objectionable to
make a woman proclaim her shame before the Magistrates in
Petty Sessions; but by one of the clauses of the Noble Baron
(Wharncliffe) the woman was to do this in open court, namely,
before the Magistrates at Quarter Sessions. Again, these
clauses enabled the Magistrates to send the reputed father of
a bastard child to prison if he could not find security to indem-
nify the parish. In short, those clauses appeared to him to
open the door to all the evils of the old system.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE was perfectly satisfied that the
Noble Earl had not read the clauses, or if he had he had com-
pletely misunderstood them. The only question was whether
they would or would not give any relief to the parish where
bastard children were thrown on them. It had been stated
that, according to the present law the father and mother of a
bastard child could be punished. This, however, was an error.
He admitted, however, that a woman was liable to be sent to
the House of Correction as a lewd woman, for having a bas-
tard which became chargeable to the parish. He thought tha t
they should not depart frem the principle of throwing at least a
The
of the charge of maintaining the bastard on the father.
The noble Earl said that a man might be sent to prison if he could
not get securities to indemnify the parish, whereas the fact was
that the man was only to be called upon to enter into his own
recognizances. The man also was not to be made liable to the
expenses on the evidence of the woman alone, but it must be
supported by corroborative evidence. Again, if a woman had
a second bastard child she would not be entitled to relief.
They gave relief to the woman as regarded the first bastard
child in the presumption that there had been seduction ; but
when a woman had a second bastard, he thought all argu-
ment as to seduction was at an end. He considered that all
the clauses had been sufficiently guarded to get rid of all ob-
jection._

The LORD CHANCELLOR suggested whether it would
not be better to take the discussion on these clauses to-morrow,
when the question would be brought forward on the amend-
ment of a Right Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter). In-
deed, he had told the Right Rev. Prelate that there was no
chance of going into the discussion of these clauses to-night,
and he had in consequence gone away. If the Right Rev.
Prelate's amendment to strike out all the clauses relative to
bastardy were adopted, which he (the Lord Chancellor)
hoped was impossible, it would be unnecessary to discuss those
clauses; if it were rejected, then they could afterwards be
debated.

After a few words from the Earl of ROSSLYN and the Ear.
Of FALMOUTH,

The Duke of WELLINGTON said that he was perfectly
ready to take the discussion on the clauses to-morrow.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR it was ordered
that in several of the clauses relating to the period
_ of the Act
coming into operation, the words " Ist of November, 1834,"
should be substituted for the words, " after the passing of this
Act."

The Report was then agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to
be read a third time to-morrow.
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 7.
The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at twenty-five minutes
past five.

BOROUGH OF WARWICK.

Captain GORDON presented a petition from the electors
of the Borough of Warwick, complaining of the franchise
having been so long withheld from them, and praying that a new
writ should issue forthwith for the election of a member for that
borough. The Hon. Member then presented a petition from
the friends of the Church of a parish in Aberdeenshire, for the
protection of the Established Church.
COUNTY CORONERS.
Mr. CRIPPS brought up the report of the Committee on
the County Coroners' Bill, setting forth the reasons why
the Committee had disagreed to the Lords' amendment, which
was read at length by the clerk. The object of the amend-
ment was to make the Coroner's Court a closed one, which
the Committee disapproved of.
The report was received, and Mr. CRIPPS and others were
appointed to confer with the Lords upon the subject.
Mr. HARDY gave notice that next session he should move
for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the laws
relating to bribery.
Lord EBRINGTON presented petitions frem Stoke-upon-
Trent and another place in support of the Established Church.
Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from the merchants,
traders, and others of Dublin, complaining of the injustice and
inconvenience to which they had been subjected by the refusal
of the Magistrates to license omnibusses, and praying for some
compulsory enactment to compel them to do so. The Right
Honourable Gentleman said he had had the petition some
weeks, but as there was no likelihood of any measure being
introduced at that late period of the Session, he had thought
it unnecessary to present it sooner. He would now give notice
that early next Session he would introduce a measure upon
the subject.

Mr. G. W. WOOD brought up the report of the Com-
mittee upon the Metropolitan Water Works Bill, which was
ordered to be printed.
Lord J. RUSSELL brought up the report of the Com-
mittee upon education, which was also ordered to be printed.
Mr. G OULB URN presented two petitions from Swabey
in the diocese of Winchester, and from Farnham in Surry, in
support of the Church.