The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-29 00:00:00

BRIBERY BILL.

The Marquis of LAN DOWNE was sorry to delay the
proceedings of their Lordships on the Poor Law Bill, but he
thought he should not be doing his duty to the House as Chair-
man of the Committee to which their Lordships referred the
Bribery Bill, in laying the report upon the table without entering
shortly into the amendments the Committee had thought it
tight- to recommend to the House to adopt. In making
those amendments, the Committee were only actuated
by a desire to further the great object the House of
Commons had in view in the introduction of the measure.
Their Lordships' Committee had not interfered with the
first proceedings in alleged cases of bribery—they thought
the House of Commons was the proper House to take all pre-
liminary measures upon such a subject ; they, however,
proposed that when that house found, upon such prelimi-
nary inquiry, that further inquiry was necessary, they
should communicate it to that House by message, and
address his Majesty upon the subject, praying him to
issue his commission to inquire into the matter—they also fur.
ther proposed that a Judge should preside over the Commis-
sion, and that further it should be formed of Members of both
Houses of Parliament. The Committee proposed, that at
the commencement of every session the Chancellor should
name above one hundred members of that House,
and that the other House should also name a number of
their Members not to be less than one hundred, from whom
the tribunal was to be selected ; they also proposed that be-
sides the Judge, it should consist of seven Members of the
Commons, and five of that House—which should constitute a
Court of Inquiry for all the purposes of that Act. That Court
was to call before it all witnesses they thought necessary, who
were to be free from all consequences that might attach to such
evidence as they there gave. The finding of that Court was to
be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and it was to be
the foundation of any Legislative enactment that might be
thought necessary upon the case. Ile trusted that these
amendments would be agreed to, and that thoy would be
found to work so as to relieve the House of examining wit-
nesses at the bar, of which they had had a tedious example
of late. The report was then laid on the table, and ordered to
be committed to-morrow.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said the Noble
Viscount (Melbourne) had laid certain papers, from
the
Foreign Office, on the table. He wished merely to
remark that they were not either in form or substance what he
moved for. What he wanted was an account of the money
expended by the Foreign Office last year, in the nature of
secret service money.
Lord MELBOURNE said a few words in reply, but in so
low a tone, as to be inaudible in the gallery.
On the motion of Lord EL L ENBOR OUG H, an account
was ordered of all sums of money paid to the Church Commis-
sioners in Ireland under the Irish Church Temporalities Act,
and the manner in which the same was expended.

POOR LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
The House then again went into Committee upon the Poor
Laws Amendment Bill.

The House then proceeded to consider, the 62nd clause,
which related to emigration and the union of parishes.
The Marquis of SALISBURY and the Earl of F'ALMOUTII
objected to the clause.
The LORD CHANCELLOR supported it. The clause
would be perfectly harmless. The natural disposition of the
people was opposed to emigration, and they must be very un-
comfortable in this country when they surmounted their habi-
tual slothfulness, and determined on going abroad in the hope
of bettering their condition. Man was naturally, from a variety
of circumstances, attached to the place of his birth, and a writer
of high authority had said that "the experience of all ages
proved that man was the most difficult of all animals to be
transported." He thought it only right that those who wished
to emigrate should have the option of doing so.
The Earl of CHICHESTER was favourable to the clause.
He did not think that emigration would operate so as to be any
check on the increase of population. It was quite light to
allow able-bodied men, when no employment could be pro-
vided, the option of emigrating or being maintained in the
workhouse.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said he concurred in some
of the observations of the Noble Earl who had just sat down.
He could not help thinking that there were a great many per-
sons in this country who wished emigration to be encouraged
and facilitated, and it was in consequence of this impression
that he should support the clause as now amended.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND—If power is to be given
to the Commissioners to raise such amount of rate as they
think proper, is it not to be assumed that emigration is to be
encouraged ?
The Earl of CHICHESTER—The power extends no far-
ther than to facilitate emigration.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that what he wished
simply was, to give the Commissioners power to raise such an
amount of rate as would enable them, not to encourage emi-
gration, but, if possible, to induce the people to stay at home.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE could assure their Lord-
ships that such a thing as forcing emigration never entered
into the contemplation of the framers o the Bill.—(Hear.)
The clause only went to facilitate emigration, and when the
law was to be administered with such strictness, he thought it
only reasonable to allow parties the option of going abroad or
remaining at home. It was his opinion that the effect of this
provision would render emigration wholly unnecessary.
The clause was then amended as proposed.

Lord EL LENBOR 0 UG H suggested whether they ought
not to provide that any person who emigrated and returned
should be liable to the whole charge which he had occasioned
to his parish. •
After a desultory conversation across the table, which we
could not hear, the clause was agreed to.
Clause 63 was also, as verbally amended, agreed to.

On Clause 64 being put,
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that he could not allow
part of the Bill at which they had now arrived to pass unno-
ticed. It went the length of totally altering the law of settle-
ment, and he must say that he could not help regarding such a
proposition with extreme regret. Supposing a labourer from
the south of England went into one of the northern counties
and settled, and after the lapse of many years became charge-
able to the parish, he might be removed back to the parish
from which he originally came, and in which he was born. An
industrious man might, from a thousand fortuitous circum-
stances, require temporary relief in the decline of his days,

and it would be a matter of the greatest cruelty to separate
him from his family and friends, and convey him back to a
county of which he then knew nothing. At present no hiring
took place from year to year in the south of England, for the
farmers, with the view of preventing settlements being made,
would only hire for fifty-one weeks, or a few days short of the
year. In the north of England it was common to hire servants
for twelve months, and thus settlements were formed, and the
best feelings existed between the farmers and their labourers.
He thought that it would be an act of great cruelty to remove
a man in his old age from a place where he had resided many
years to a parish in which he was a perfect stranger. He was
sure if this part of the Bill were carried into execution it would
excite the minds of the people, and produce a general feelipg
of dissatisfaction against the Government and the local autho-
rities. He had no doubt but that there would be a universal
feeling throughout the country against such a change as that
now proposed. If any other Noble Lord in the House agreed
with him in the view he took of the case, be should feel it to be
his duty to take the sense of the Committee as to striking out
those clauses.

The Bishop of LONDON did not think that it was neces-
sary to offer many observations in reply to what had fallen
from the Noble Lord. He (the Bishop of London) had
thought that if any opinion put forward by the Poor Law
Commissioners was more strongly supported by evidence than
another, it was that relative to the chance in the law of set-
tlement. He thought if the proposed change was effected it
would be conferring one of the greatest boons on the lower
classes that could be bestowed upon them. He wassatisfied
that if the lower orders applied for relief, they would
have it bestowed upon them in that shape least detrimental to
the other classes, provided it was not inconsistent with the
principles of humanity. He did not despair of seeing the
time when the labouring classes would be extremely loth to
apply to the parish for relief, and that, in point of fact, that
species of aid might almost be dispensed with. He trusted
that ere long a poor man would consider it to be degrading
to apply to a parish for relief. When he acted as a
Magistrate in a county in which the maladminis-
tration of the Poor Laws was carried as far as possible, he
found that constant attempts were made by the farmers to
evade the law by hiring labourers only for the term of fifty-
one weeks. This was a constant source of litigation, and
gave rise to the most bitter feelings of animosity between
the farmers and their labourers. The greatest difficulties
arose in proving the settlement, and there was constant dis-
putes as to whether the parties were hired for fifty-one
weeks or fifty-two weeks ; and hardly any question of this
nature came before the Sessions which was not accompanied
with great perjury. By making the proposed change in the
law of settlement they would hold out inducements to farmers
to give constant employment to their labourers, and thus
strengthen the ties of friendship, if he might so express him-
self, existing between the employers and the employed. The
Commissioners, after the most mature deliberation, were in-
duced to propose this alteration in the law of settlement as a
boon to the poor. He admitted that in carrying the change
into effect there might be some few cases of suffering, but the
ultimate result must be productive of good to them, and must
better their condition. In conclusion, he contended that, for
the lasting comfort and well-being of the labouring classes,
they must put an end to the system by which the poor acquired
settlement by hiring.
Lord WYNFORD was satisfied that the adoption of the
principle involved in this clause would be productive of much
mischief, and would be attended with considerable danger.
He admitted that giving facilities to gain settlements was any-
thing but desirable ; but if those clauses passed in their pre-
seat shape they would throw great burthens on the agricul-
turists. He did not intend to cast any censure on the
Commissioners, but he felt bound to declare that that part of
the Report relating to the law of settlement was most unsa-
tisfactory. It appeared to him that the Assistant Commis-
sioners, whose duty it was to collect the evidence, had pre-
viously made up their minds against the present system,
and took care to scrape together anything which they thought
was calculated to advance the views they had adopted. Instead
of the plan now proposed, he thought that it would be better
to adopt the Scotch rule of settlement, namely, a residence
often years in a parish. He never could consent to such a
change as that now proposed, and he should therefore vote
with his Noble Friend to strike out the clause altogether. If,
however, their Lordships should not coincide in this view of
the subject, he should propose as an amendment that altoge-
ther hiring should not constitute a ground of settlement, but
apprenticeship should.

The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted that it might ap-
pear hard that where a man had worked all his life in a place,
that he should be removed to the place of his birth if he be-
came chargeable to the parish ; but still, as a general rule,
he thought that it was advisable to adopt the principle. He
had stated on the second reading of the Bill that he thought
that every body was agreed as to the evils of the present law
of settlement, and was prepared to give it up ; but, to his
great surprise, his eyes had been opened, and he found that
many were opposed to the abolition of it. The present law
was con ;tantly evaded, and gave rise to the most violent ani-
mosities. It not only did not answer its purpose in conse-
quence of being evaded, but it occasioned many abuses, and
produced the worst possible feelings between the farmers and
their servants. It made the masters and parish officers sup-
pose that the labourers were always anxious to get settlements,
and it made them regard their masters as their oppressors, and
as being always endeavouring to evade the law, with a view
to injure them. The existing law respecting the hiring of
servants tended to lower both the character of the master and
the servant. Nothing could be more injurious to the character
of servants than their being obliged to live a part of their time
idle, which time they generally spent at fairs, or in cock-
fighting, bull-baiting, and other demoralizing sports of that
nature. The consequence also of the present system was that
farmers in the north had become more cautious in hiring ser-
vants by the year for fear of their obtaining a settlement.
Much had been said of the cruelty of removing servants
from the parishes in which they had worked ; but every
body must see that even now a labourer might work
forty years in a parish without acquiring a settlement. The
present laws would not augment the difficulties of obtaining
a settlement ; but, on the contrary, it would tend to do away
with them, and would certainly remove the mischief that re-
sulted from the facility with which the present law was evaded.
He was borne out by the evidence of persons well acquainted
with these matters that non-settled labourers were better than
settled ones ; the latter were not half so good and discreet
workmen as the former. He agreed with his Noble Friend
on some points. There were certainly objections to settlement
by hiring and service. Settlement by apprenticeship was
good, but if it were adopted some alterations should be made
ui the niceties of the law on this subject.
Lord WYNFORD said his intention was to make the law
similar to what it was in Scotland. He wished that settle-
ment by hiring and service should remain, but that settlement
by apprenticeship should be abandoned. He preferred settle-
ment by birth to that acquired by parentage. He should pro-
pose, therefore, that the words "or by apprenticeship" be
omitted.

The Marquis of SALISBURY was understood to suggest
the omission of the clause. He agreed with the remarks of
the Noble and Learned Lord respecting settlement by hiring
and service, that. it tended to demoralize the inhabitants of the
rural districts. He should like to propose the abolition of
that sort of settlement, and would be glad to see greater
facility of settlement given to large towns.

The Earl of FALMOUTH considered that it would be
better to postpone the bastardy clauses, in order to introduce
them in the shape of a separate Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had no objec-
tion to abolishing settlement by office, but with respect to
settlement: by birth, there were so many guards with which
it ought to be fenced, that at present he could not see his way
clearly on the subject.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE made a few observations in reply.
After a few words from the Bishop of LONDON, the Marquis
of SALISBURY, and the Bishop of EXETER, the verbal amend-
ment of Lord Wynford was agreed to.
On the motion of the Marquis of SALISBURY, the words
" or by serving in office" were added to the clause.

The clause, as amendment, was then ordered to stand part
of the Bill.

The 65th clause having been put,

Lord WYNFORD moved the insertion of a new clause to
the effect that all children born from and after the passing of
this Act acquire a settlement in the parishes in which they are
born.

The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the amendment,
on the ground that it would interfere with several other parts
of the Bill. Such an amendment or clause could not be in-
troduced immediately after the passing of the present Bill, as
it would be productive of great harshness to women now in
the family way, since it would cause them to be removed from
the farmhouses, parishes, or places in which they might now
happen to be resident.
Lord WYNFORD said that all he wanted was to get rid
of settlement by parentage, and to prevent paupers from being
removed to the places where their parents happened to be-
born. He hoped their Lordships would consent to introduce
into the present Bill settlement by birth, and, as he said be-
fore, he would abandon his objections to settlement by hiring
and service. He should not object to the following alteration
in his amendnient, that instead of " children born from and
after the passing of this Act," the words " hereafter born "
should be substituted.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the Noble and
Learned Lord was just in his objections to settlement by pa-
rentage, and that the same objections might be opposed to set-
tlement by birth if the law were left as it was.

Lord WYNFORD had no objection that, up to a certain
age, the settlement of the child should follow the parent.
Lord EL LENBORO UGH said he should prefer if settle-
ment was made to depend more upon residence.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he considered this part
of the subject as only postponed for the present.
Lord WYNFORD was certain that if postponed now it
would not be taken up next session.

Lord WHARNCI: IFFE was of opinion that settlement by
residence might beAnade a good substitute.
The Marquis of BUTE was glad that the Noble and
Learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) seemed favourably dis-
posed to the settlement by residence.
The Duke of WELLINGTON preferred the clause of his
Noble and Learned Friend (Wynford) to the present provi-
sion of the Bill. He did not see why some plan of settlement
by residence should not be adopted.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said something should be
done, and would be done. He should be disposed to say a
residence for two years ; but it would be difficult at the mo-
ment to draw up a set clause upon this point which would
adapt itself to the whole Bill. It would be better, perhaps,
to bring in a distinct measure next Session, with provisions in
the direction of residence. If, however, he should see his

way clearly, and be able to approve of his own handywork,
he would prepare some clause.
Lord WYNFORD said he had no objection to residence
for three years.
The clause was negatived without a division.
Clause 66 was agreed to, with an amendment proposed by
the Marquis of SALISBURY, requiring that the person should
not be merely assessed to the poor rates for one year, but have
paid them up.
BASTARDY.

—-- - -
Clause 67, that relating to bastardy, having been put from
the Chair,

The Bishop of EXETER said he was not quite certain
whether or not the time had now arrived for entering upon the
discussion of that part of the Bill which related to bastardy.
The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed a hope that
Noble Lords would avoid entering again into discussion of the
principle of the measure, which hitherto was too often done in
the Committee.

The BiShop of Exeter proceeded. He felt that that part of
the Bill was by far the most important of the whole. All the
other clauses he considered as embracing only matters of ex-
pediency ; but this involved a most important question of
principle—one of the gravest nature. He felt assured that the
excellent persons who drew up this report were not disposed
to do, or to recommend, anything that they did not consider
humane and kind towards the poor unfortunate women on
whom, however, the provisions of this Bill would press most
harshly and most unjustly. He had no doubt that the provi-
sions were recommended by the Commissioners in a spirit of
kindness. He hoped, however, it would not appear incon-
sistent with this admission to say that there appeared at least
a harshness of judgment towards this unhappy class of women
which, in the perusal of the Report, gave him much pain. It
was now with some become the fashion to speak of the fathers
of illegitimate children as unfortunate young men, while the
attributes of vice was given to the females. This spirit per-
vaded the whole of the -Report. Before he could be induced
to come to such a conclusion he required much better authority
than could be found in the Report. The animus must be quite
evident to any one who would look over the Report of the Sub-
Commissioners. To show this he would read an extract, not
mentioning the name of the person on whose authority it was
written.—(The Right Rev. Prelate read an extract in which it
was stated generally that among the lower classes of females in
this country the virtue of female chastity does not exist, with
the exception of domestic servants, and that all the inquiries
made by the Commissioners proved that in those classes
female chastity was a nonentity. )--This was a very melancholy
and a very severe statement of the present condition of female
morals in this country. A few years back a French officer,
who resided for some time here, published his travels on re-
turning to France. He put forth in his publication the very
same opinions, and nearly in the same words. He would not
say they were copied into the Report of the commissioners,
but the language was so much alike in both as sufficiently to
warrant the idea. When the travels of this person were read
here, his statements were universally spoken of as audacious
calumnies, and excited one sentiment of indignation through-
out the country. If the traveller should revisit this country,
such was the feeling his falsehoods had excited that it was
much to be doubted whether he would be permitted to return
home to publish such another statement. These being the
opinions entertained by the Commissioners, they recommended
a new code of legislation upon the subject, and spoke thus_of
the justice of repealing the existing laws :_.
" What we propose in their room is intended to restore things,
as far as it is possible, to the state in which they would have been
if no such laws had ever existed; to trust to those checks, and to
those only, which Providence has imposed on licentiousness, under
the conviction that all attempts of the Legislature to increase their
force, or to substitute for them artificial sanctions, have tended only
to weaken or pervert them."
He trusted as much as the Commissioners to the checks which
Providence, imposed on licentiousness, but not in the same way.
The checks which suggested themselves to his mind were
three. The first was the sinfulness of bringing a child into the
world under such circumstances. The second was the appre-
hension of that responsibility which the parents must feel they
were liable to in consequence of their guilt. This apprehen-
sion was calculated to have a very strong effect on the mind.
He did not know whether the Commissioners were followers
of Mr. Malthus, but this was one of the moral restraints re-
ferred to by that writer as checks upon improvident mar-
riages. If it operated as a check against improvident mar-
riages, it must also exert some influence as a restraint against
becoming the parents of illegitimate children. His third
check was, those artificial sanctions which, as the Commission-
ers thought, only weakened the check which Providence had
imposed on licentiousness. He considered the laws of the
land to be among the checks imposed by Providence in the
case of bastardy, as much as in the case of any other species of
guilt, that of theft for instance. He did not mean by this to
imply that all human laws were wise ; some were bad, and
ought to be repealed or amended ; but he could not approve
of the alterations proposed. ' " In the natural state of things
(said the Commissioners) a child, until emancipated, depends
on its parents." This was the case with respect to legitimate
children ; they depended on their parents. Then why in the
case of illegitimate children should they not depend, not upon
one parent, not upon the mother alone, but upon both the
parents ? " But," said the Commissioner, " only one of the
parents of an illegitimate child can be ascertained." Now,
was it so according to this Bill ? Was this idea followed out
through the whole of the enactments ? By their own ad-
mission, liabilities would attach to both parents, and,
surely, it would be most unjust that the mother alone
should be liable, both parents being ascertained. He would
I not attempt to answer the argument of expediency on which
alone the Commissioners rested their proposal. It might be
expediency, but no one would say it was justice. It might
be said that it was for the interest of good morals and of fe-
male chastity, that the law should bear hard upon the mother.
He would not admit the force of this observation, for he was
not one of those who thought that evil might be done that good
might come of it. But were they so sure that the effects
anticipated would follow ? He was very far from being san-
guine upon this point. He felt confident that the existing law
if properly administered, would be sufficiently powerful as a
preventive, more so than the legislation now proposed. In
this he was borne out by the statement of Mr. Russell, who
said that, in cases of bastardy, it was found to operate as an
efficient check if the mother got no more of the father's allow-
ance than was barely sufficient to support the child. Why
should not this principle ba generally acted upon? It could
not fail to produce a beneficial effect. The Right Rev. Pre-
late went into an examination of the Marriage Law, with a
view to proving that the promise of a man, when a woman had
yielded to him in consequence of that promise, had in all early
and simple states of society held him bound in conscience to
marry her. From this he contended that in like manner the
father ought to be compelled to maintain the offspring of any
such connection, and concluded by moving as an amendment
—" That the father and mother of such child, and the sur-
vivor of them, shall be compelled to maintain such child, and
that no parish or union shall be bound to maintain such child
so long as the father or mother are able to do so ; and that if
any relief be granted for that purpose, such relief shall be
deemed relief to them or to the survivor of them."
The Bishop of LONDON was aware that the side of this
question which had been taken by his Right Rev. Friend was
the most popular one. But although he was aware he should
incur much obloquy by the course he felt it his duty to take,
yet he should not shrink from it, but would stand forward and
defend the report of the Commissioners as being consistent
with the beg interests of the country, and not opposed to any
of the principles, either of morals or religion, which a Chris-
tian State was bound to observe. As he understood his Right
Rev. Friend had imputed to the report generally that in cases
of bastardy it treated the men as the unfortunate parties, and
the women as the greatest or the only offenders. He was not
aware that there was any thing in the report justly open to
such a charge, but he would state that, even in cases where
the man was the seducer, and he was far from being ready to
admit that he always stood in that character, the Commis-
sioners were not bound to look at the question in its moral,
and much less in a religious, sense ; but their duty was to de-
cide upon what would be the best means of diminishing the
evil in its civil consequences, and of protecting society against
it. He denied that in discharging this duty they had done
any thing inconsistent which the claims of morality and reli-
gion imposed upon them. One of the Commissioners was in
the habit of using a style which from its strength of expres-
sion might sometimes, perhaps, make his conclusions appear
stronger than the premises warranted; but there was nothing
in the report which was substantially obnoxious to the cen-
sures which had been passed upon it, or which was not fully
justified by the evidence. The Right Rev. Prelate then re-
ferred to several parts of the evidence showing the great fre-
quency of later marriages, where the woman was pregnant or
had had bastard children before, and contended that the state
of the law had sadly deteriorates the morals of the lower classes
in respect to the sin of incontinency. The argument of his
Right Rev. Friend went to maintain that the whole evil was to
be obviated by compelling the father to marry the mother, and
to maintain the child. Now in a religious point of view he
could not understand any thing so calculated to desecrate the
holy ceremony of matrimony as thus to make it the punish-
ment, as it were, of the crimes of the lower classes. His
Right Rev. Friend had said, with that happy and peculiar
force of expression which always characterised his language,
that the laws of man ought to follow and imitate the laws of
God in their character. He admitted that this was a prin-
ciple always to be observed where it was practicable; but he
might ask his Right Rev. Friend to point out where there
was anything in the law of God which placed the support of
the child upon the father and not the mother. He contended
that the Legislature would have done its duty in this sense
when it had done all in its power to impose a preventive check
upon the sin of incontinency, and he believed that that would
have been done when they should have passed the law recom-
mended by the Commissioners. His Right Rev. Friend had
asked upon what principle of equity the mother could be pu-
nished, and not the father. To enter into the discussion of
such points as these would involve very abstruse considera-
tions, and he thought that that was not the place or the occa-
sion for them ; but he might observe, that if they looked no
farther than the natural laws of the case, it was evident that
the mother was made to suffer most. But he contended that
it was no part of the law as it stood, and never had been from
the time of James I. downward, to punish the man. The
woman was punished, but the man was only made to pay a
sum of money. This, however, went beyond the question
before their Lordships, for the object of the present Bill was
not to punish, but to prevent the mother from the commission
of crime. And this principle had been acted upon by the
sound feeling and strong sense of the lower classes themselves.
In the evidence of Mr. Tidd Pratt with respect to the practice
of the parish of Bingham, in Nottinghamshire, it was stated
that the benefit societies included it in their rules that no be-
nefit was to be extended in the cases of bastard children. In
the female society it was a. circumstance which utterly de-
prived a woman of all claim to relief from the fund to which
she had subscribed if she were to have a bastard child. So
in the male societies, if subscribers had children born out

of marriage, they forfeited all claim upOri the funds. ,c
these feelings then existed amongst the poor themselves 11
thought it a little too much that the enforcement of the rul
which they voluntarily established among themselves should be
denounced as a cruel and heartless infraction of their rights.
He had certainly not intended to go into these observation ,
,
but after what had fallen from his Right Rev. Friend he feu,
it due to his fellow-Commissioners, not only in their eharacr
as Legislators and as acting in the discharge of those duties
which had been imposed upon them by the Crown, but as men'
as Gentlemen, and as Christians, to say that if they had Ilres
believed that they were intimately consulting the real-bene
and cornforts)of the poor generally, and especially of the' iuoisat
interesting portion of the human race, he was sure they wesib,
not have recommended the measure which he now earue s
hoped their Lordships would adopt. There might be case
,in which the law would press severely upon women who sere
the victims of seduction, but these cases did not form the err.
against which they were called upon to legislate. The ell3o
dence to which he had reluctantly referred as showing
dreadfully degraded state.of the morals of the lower class—a
under the existing laws, showed that after the first error bile
' e
been committed, and a woman had been brought under t
operation of the law, having then ceased to blush, neither re-
morse nor shame would prevent her from adding to her sable
quent crimes that of falsely fixing upon an innocent man the
quent crimes that of falsely fixing upon an innocent '°jch
parentage of her offspring, because she expected from it a rle„
harvest. Nothing, he contended, could more tend to tletii,
riorate the morality and the religion and the general weti
being of those classes, who were, and always must be'
that
sinews and strength of the country, than such a system as
which now existed. He therefore trusted that their Lord,
ships would reject the amendment of his Right Rev. Friend,
and pass the measure.
The Earl of FALMOUTH said that the cases in 'ain't.
the protection of the law was required for the woman was
re
in cases of repeated offences, but where young girls "w
made the victims of systematic seduction, as, he was sorry.,
know, was so much practised in rural districts. It continualll3
happened that servants coming from London establishing ,
into the country spread ruin in the cottages of the rural Pluet
lation, and the proposed law would in such cases be most ci ti
and injurious. As far as his experience went as a cootr a
magistrate, in almost all cases the man was the seducer, alien
ought to bear the punishment. He had never in his life gisr,e
his support to any proposition with greater satisfaction than my,
should have in voting for the amendment of the Right ge
Prelate.
The Earl of RADNOR supported the clause as it at°oat
and contended that it was more merciful to the young and
au„,,
paratively innocent victim to give her a chance of conce;
her shame than bringing her up at the Petty Sessions and b
dening her in sin, as was now done. About two monthataeo
one hundred and twenty-seven bastard children were t'-of
into the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, and 0u...4
that number only .eight of the mothers applied for relic`ho
fact which fully proved that the great majority of females ;,,a1
had bastard children made a regular-trade of the business' 1,-,(1
were not in want themselves of parochial aid, while theY,-,.,
no hesitation in burdening the poor-houses with their ille,l I
mate offspring. bt
Lord WYNFORD said that, whatever respect lie —1 to
entertain for the framers of the Bill, he could never consen,i,
the present clause. He denied that the 43d of Elizabeth
•
rected that any payment should be made by the putative el'',
ther of a child to its mother, for such money was always gicjer
to the parish to pay for the support of the child, and 10 eco
to pay the expenses of the lying in of the woman. San 911
the law at present acted upon by magistrates in petty aesste,. ;
and he did not think that the present clause would introduche
better system ; neither would it have the effect of abating ,as
evil of bastardy. But, if he could persuade himself that it ;,ole
likely to effect that good, still he would never admit the princi,' •
of punishing the unfortunate woman while the more guiltY reora
son, the father, was to go unpunished. As the clause st° it
at present, instead of checking immorality and vice, nai!
an
would give rise to a crime of the worst description ; fer and
unfortunate woman who gave birth to a bastard child f 0 to
herself cut off from all assistance, she would have recourse to
infanticide sooner than bear the disgrace and ignoiniuY p,
which she would be subjected under the provisions of the .Ile;
sent Bill. The clause was not only contrary to the priucL to
of justice as regarded the parishes, but it was contrary aj?,oo
every principle of reason and humanity. The great ohiectilae
which he entertained against it was, that whatever inisf°riief
might overtake the unhappy- woman she must expect no re
from the parish, and no relief from the man, by wile° I:tea
haps she was basely and cruelly seduced. The Magistr"
before whom she came would not be at liberty to order her the
lief, and, thus situated, cut off from society, abandoned to
tie
wide world, and sent, as it were, adrift from every soeisit,
and every protecting roof, what would be her fate ? •
prostitution, disease, and death. The man in the zneal'"i 0
would be held harmless, at least so said the Act, tunb.;flr.
months' arrears were due. Thus he would have ample °r„ „r atrf
tunity of evading the law altogether, by quitting the e°"-to
before the money became due. He might go unmolested le
another country to seek for other objects of seduction; !rod
the unhappy object of his lust and villany might roam 11"vect
through the world degraded and undone. The great lot
of all Bastardy Laws was to give protection to parishes, hut re,
object was completely lost sight of by the framers of the
sent Bill. detain

The LORD CHANCELLOR promised. not to
s. ale
the Lordships long while he endeavoured to answer a'e fie
the objections which had been urged against the clause. bete
had hoped indeed that after all that had been done elsew,Thlf
to make it less objectionable, no misconception could pons the
have arisen in the minds of Noble Lords with respect to
motives of those by whom the clause was framed. In Just or,
however, to those who took so much pains to render that Pito
tion of the Bill as little liable to objection as they coulrbto.
was bound to say that the charge of being hardhearted, to
kind, and cruel to the female sex, because they thought fittild
act upon facts which came before them, and on which hot
founded their report, was, he would not say uncharitable,
certainly it could only arise from one of the grossest delasstu
e%
that man ever attempted to practise towards others or hilliopt
The simple question was, how was the Legislature to abet
means by which bastardy would be prevented, and in ,'`ing
way were they to prevent illegitimate children from beeo'Poll
chargeable to the parishes? The object of the present,. 0
was to reform the Poor Laws, and God forbid that in d°ll:ree
the female character should suffer from any unmerited deopill
either of odium or of punishment. But the object of the end
was not to make women more virtuous or men more conit,irlied
The Bill had nothing to do with that subject. It was Ira 05
to accomplish other objects ; and he believed that there, he
no legislative enactment ever framed, or ever coal ° rols
framed, that could effect so great an alteration in Ilit`iheir
as to make either men or women virtuous againstf,ao
inclinations. The Bill was framed to amend the Poor; of
and not to protect either male or female virtue. '0 the
that all the penalties of the measure were thrown uPe gag
-
~
women in order to shield and exempt the men, was tioit'
that which was not warranted by fact. He contended' 85 io
ever, that to punish the woman for a breach of morality sf,at
it
accordance, first, with the law of the land ; secondly, r' ibe,
was in conformity with all moral law ; thirdly, that it Wafet
course purscued by the Legislature in almost every Poe td
Parliament they framed ; and lastly, that it was agreea
the laws of society. But to show that, in adopting the P,
ple of punishing females for a breach of female moral din)l;jeJ
Commissioners on whose report the present Bill was feiletilig
were not introducing any novelty in legislation, or ?ile
solely on their own views with regard to the Laws Ore their
tardy, there was an instance recorded on the Journals 01 gr•
Lordships' House so late as the year 1830, whereine
t gpd
Simeon, a gentleman of great talents and experience, pre'
of Sir John Simeon, the Master in Chancery, laid doss rot
cisely the same doctrine which the Commissioners on the tete'
Laws had acted upon. Their Lordships would find the st
ment of Mr. Simeon in the 161st page of one of the In°5C011;
luable Reports that any Committee, he would not saY,
mission, ever put forth. Mr. Simeon was asked if the';
any other alteration he would suggest in the Poor Laws,: pl'
reply was, " I would suggest an alteration in the Law °f eta'
tardy." He was then asked what was the nature of the 81, fee',
tion he would propose ? He answered in these words, "
very strongly that until the law of this country with reg-hotP
bastardy is assimilated to the law of nature, by whioh,4o,oll
the onus and the shame of a breach of chastity shall be tllO.
on the woman, the present system under which the I' ro'
Bastardy was administered would never be altered." lob.°
this, be it observed, was not put forward by him as 011c •ni°
evidence upon the subject. It was given only as the °ll:ei!'
of a Gentleman practically acquainted with the poor oire
and as such it was entitled to respect ; but when the 0%014
sioners were attacked and torn to pieces, and held up t1;011',0
execration as men devoid of all generous, humane, antias 011,1
feelings, it was something to say, that here at least sties bad
gentleman who fully concurred in the view which w„
taken. Mr. Simeon was a country gentleman, actipo;
Magistrate in the county to which he was attached. b
no Poor Law Commissioner, and yet the opinion oltere,
held was, that the law of bastardy would never he!,ysteli
would never be effectually improved, unless the presen'';loova
underwent an alteration, and unless, in short, the onte,s.„,, Pr_
be thrown upon the woman. But why talk of punisoll'ort
woman, as if it were some new-fan led law by which the •045•
missioners proposed to follow up their own views andoP Fr
Why the law was old as James 1., in whose reign bastara-' flc
an offence for which the woman, and not the man, wail, Ili;
nished ; for, be it observed, it was no offence in the 11.1.,0a1i.;
though it was in the woman. The principle of the rlifi
,st''
law, from time immemorial, was, that if a man paid for,b
legitimate offspring, he was held to be legally, althottlt tP,,
morally, free
,from the consequences of the offence ; seet;il
woman, what was her punishment? Why, she was a, ge,r
prison as a lewd woman. Such was the law of Engl3 0
such was the law at present acted upon in this counti:loado
his own part, he was quite ready to bear all the otn'of
obloquy that might be heaped upon him on accouinv
opinion he avowed, with Mr. Simeon and the Poor 1.435 e
missioners, that women were liable, not only to lehotill'ot
guilt, but the legal punishment attached to a breach tetl rios
and he openly declared this opinion, although he trahsivale,l4
he entertained towards the softer sex a feeling as e t he l'll,
as any Noble Lord who heard him--( Hear, hear)--Yediuni
quite ready to risk all the unpopularity and all the 0 to tip,
tached to his opinions. He did not, however, meal!. he ,
that the want of chastity in man was an offence, h°"„ e'vt
tinctly maintained that the want of chastity in a wen-
be Of for
greater offence than the want of chastity in a man. 000)00
of chastity in woman struck at the root of morality at
roan 4
it sapped the very foundation of virtue itself. But n` t thitha
case was different.—(A Noble Lord shook his head 8010 Dic
if he dissented. )—But suppose the case of a w0°12161
brought a spurious offspring to her husband's bed, bolted
Lords tell him that that was no offence? He wetunt ada
put the crime of adaltery out of the question, althottg.,..icitra,,,,,
in a woman was a greater offence than in a man,
their Lordships' proceedings in cases of divorce-
ace be
posing a case in which a young unmarried woman g

The
Was •
thhot
wi ekthc
Their

tile term Nil. /
the
acid
_,
The
th ,4 /
%Ain
Thri
It I;eii

e
A m
oad

,°'
)t(,`' 1
•(
e,
at
Ballot
ie. r•
frl,kll,
the rh
sPiri

liotForde
the
th Sir -..
vt,
Aoned 413111ECt°
oilyt;
ref
i

es in wbicht
nan was no
e
girls welo
ras sorrY
continual
ablislonevts
rural Popi
most age'
otintr A
3educes, an
life given
ion than be
' Right Re'v'

Is it stood'
4
and c°l"-
oncea
al li4
s and
no
months ab
were takr
and out
relief--3
reinaleawb°,
usinesa, 'tna,ui
ile they" t•
eir 1 0