The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-12 00:00:00

POOR-LAWS.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, if the House
were disposed, he would now briefly state the
alterations he intended to propose in the present
poor-law.—(Hear, hear.) As it seemed, then, to be
the disposition of the House that he should proceed,
and as he saw that the Honourable Member
for Finsbury, and the Honourable and Gallant
Members for Brighton were both in their places,
he would first allude to certain provisions which
were in the Bill he intended to introduce the ses-
sion before last, and which were not to be found in
the present Bill. The House would recollect that the
two gentlemen to whom he referred, objected more
particularly to the abolition of the Gilbert unions.
He entertained a strong opinion that they ought to
he abolished, but as there was a difference of opinion
with regard to the propriety of abolishing them, and
the nature of their operations, he was not disposed
to refuse inquiry on the subject—(Hear, hear)—and
he did not propose to abolish those unions.—(Hear,
hear.) But he should be prepared on the part of the
Government to move, on another occasion, for a Se-
lect Committee to inquire into their operation. Having
stated that point, lje would now proceed to state
the material alterations in the present Bill
as contradistinguished from the former Bill to which
he referred. In the first place, he would refer to that
portion of the existing law which had long been a
subject of much controversy, and which had excited
warm feelings throughout England and Wales. He
alluded to the bastardy law.—(Hear, hear.) Great
dissatisfaction had been experienced with the operation
s
of that part of the law as it stood at present Wales
and 118S4,
and in the North of England. In
ofth
the
Bill
Io an or-
as it passed that House, the power
der for relief in cases of bastardy,
an end to. It was the female,
would operate as a restraint makingabsoutely put
and be conducive to chastity and greatly
PAalrulciahmdeinsetuosn-
supposed thadtuwpasosunch a principlediminish
illegitimatee
in the other children.ou se of
principle, and a power was given to
tioicenenti
roue(
elti bopeflratei
the magistrates in petty sessions to make an order
upon the oath of the female. But then a necessity
was imposed for testimony corroborative of the oath
of the mother herself. So the law stood till the

year 1839, when it was thought unfair that
the whole burden of proof should be thrown
upon the female; and the public feeling entirely
coincided with that provision introduced in the Act
of 1839. He proposed essentially to modify the
provisions of 1834, and of restoring to magistrates
assembled in special sessions the power of making an
order. He would now allow to magistrates assembled
in petty session and in quarter session the
power of making orders in cases of bastardy, where
corroborative evidence could be given; this was a very
great change. It was introduced in analogy to the
law of Scotland, and he was sure it would relieve
the law from a great deal of odium which
now attached to it. This was one of the most
important alterations in the law, for there was a very
urgent cry for the necessity of some change in this
respect- From information which he had received, he
knew that the pressure of the law as it stood
at present was severely felt in South Wales. He pro-
posed to place the mother of a bastard in the position
of a destitute female. He proposed that, as be-
tween the mother and the putative father
there should be a short summary process before two
magistrates, by which upon application made within
a certain time after the birth of the child, they could
make an order for some maintenance as against
the father. He proposed that application should be
made within forty days of the birth, and he pro-
posed that thirteen should be the age up to
which they should be supported, as 'that was the
line drawn in the Factory Bill between children and
young persons, and he proposed that the order against
the father of the bastard child should be not only
against the goods of the father, but against his person
—(Hear, hear)—as was the case before the Act of
1834.

Mr. HAWES asked how was the bastardy to be
proved?
Sir J. GRAHAM said by the oath of the mother,
corroborative evidence being given. This, as he said he -
fore, was the most important provision of the Bill, and
he hoped it would be satisfietory to the public feeling
He now came to another important part of the sub-
ject. He was sorry to say that in large towns a
great hardship was experienced in consequence of
there being no place of refuge for destitute per-
sons. Thy were at present obliged to shelter
themselves under walls and porticos, where they
were exposed to the extremes of want and hard-
ship, which was hardly consistent with the
safety of their lives.—(Hear, hear.) It would be
necessary, therefore, to introduce some provision to
remedy this.—(Hear, hear.) The House would
remember that, on a former occasion, he had
proposed that children brought up in workhouses
should have a distinct school in the metropolitan dis-
tricts, and in large towns. In the present Bill he
proposed that there should be distinct asylums, wh;ch
should be open one night in every week for
the reception of destitute persons. These
asylums were to be maintained at the
common cost of the districts. The destitute per
sons were to receive food night and morning, th
only condition being that they should work fo
four hours. He was sorry that he had no
momoranda about him, or he would have en-
tered more fully into the provisions of the
Bill. This, however, was a brief outline of the mea-
sure, which would be discussed out of doors, which
would enable the House, at a future period of the
session, to mature the measure. At present he con-
fined himself to moving for leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the Poor-law.

Captain PECHELL said that in common with the
Right Hon. Baronet he was deprived of the use of
any documents on the subject in consequence of the
unexpected proceeding with the question this even-
ing. The Right Hon. Baronet's notice of not inter-
fering with the incorporations under Gilbert's Act,
drew from him the expression of thanks to the
Right Hon. Baronet. The Eight. Hon. Gentleman
did not mean, he supposed, to abolish the Gilbert
unions, if the Select Committee should not make any
suggestion to that effect. He only regretted that
the Right Hon. Gentleman had not, two sessions
back, agreed to the appointment of such a Com-
mittee. 'With respect to the clause in the former
Bill, relative to plurality of voting, he hoped the
Right Hon. Baronet would abolish that system
altogether. He hoped they had now turned over a
new leaf, and as the Right Honourable Baronet had
announced many concessions, he trusted when the time
had arrived for showing how relief had been admi-
nistered under the Gilbert's Unions Act, he would
find the guardians had done their duty, notwith-
standing the great prejudices and difficulties they had
had to encounter.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that, having twice
moved the House to inquire into the operation of the
Gilbert Unions Act previous to any amendments
being made in the Poor-law Act, it was with great
satisfaction he heard the Right Hon. Baronet say it
was his intention to propose the appointment of such
a Committee as he (Mr. T. Duncombe) had
moved for two or three years ago ; all they asked
was to be allowed to- prove that their system
was more satisfactory to the rate-payers, and more
humane to the poor than the system pursued under
the new poor-law. If upon such an inquiry they
could be satisfied that the new poor-law system was
superior to theirs, they were ready, as they had for-
merly stated, to abandon their own system and adopt the
other ; but if, on the other hand, they should prove that
their system was more satisfactory to the ratepayers,
and more humane to the poor, he hoped they would
not then, for an instant, think of interfering, with
their present state, or with the prevent law. He was
quite certain that nothing would render the part of
the country governed under Gilbert's Act satisfied
with the new poor-law, so much as the sort of
relaxation proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet.
He thought the alteration in the bastardy clauses
were very valuable. But he was sorry to hear the
Right lion. Baronet say that insurrection had been
necessary to draw the attention of the Government to
this subject.—(Signs of dissent from Sir J. Graham.)
He had understood the Right Hon. Baronet to say,
that the recent occurrences in Wales had induced
him to reconsider the subject.—(Hear, hear.)
He thought the alterations proposed with regard to
the relief of the destitute poor would be of great
advantage, and would be well received.—(Cheers.)
He hoped, however, that the four hours' labour would
not be rigidly exacted from those destitute persons,
as many of them were aged, infirm, decrepid, and sick.
He would not, however, now discuss the question.
The modifications, as far as they had been stated,
would prove acceptable to the public; but he wished
to see an end put to the system of plurality of votes,
and to that of voting by proxy.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. EVELYN DENISON thanked the Right
Hon. Gentlemen for the alterations he proposed to
introduce into the present system, which he thought
would meet the approval of his constituents, and
make the law work much better. He wished to be
informed more particularly, as to the provisions of the
clause providing for the education of the children in
union workhouses.

Sir WALTER JAMES thanked the Right Hon.
Gentleman for the alteration he had made. He (Sir
W. James) objected, however, to the principle of the
pcor•law, as tending to undermine the foundation of
human society, by depriving the poor man of his
home. He wished to know if it was intended to inter-
fere with the local acts.

Mr. FERRAND regretted that he was absent
from the House during the time the Right Hon.
Baronet was making his statement. He was glad to
hear his Hon. Friend say that the people of the West
Riding would he satisfied with the alteration pro-
posed; but he feared that they would not go far
enough. He would postpone putting the question to
the Right Hon. Baronet, of which he had given
notice, until Monday.
Mr. S. DAVIS said a few words, which were in-
audible in the galleryt
Mr. C. BERKELEY wished to know, with re-
spect to the bastardy clause, whether, if a mother re-
fused to affiliate a bastard child, the parish had any
authority to compel her to do so?
Mr. S. CRAWFORD hoped that some alteration
would be proposed with regard to settlements in Irish
unions. Cases had occurred in which persons had
been removed to Ireland from parts of the country in
which they had resided for many years. This was
very oppressive.
Sir -JAMES GRAHAM would answer the ques-
tions which had been put to him as succinctly
as he could. With regard to local acts, he
was sorry to say that he did not in-
tend to propose any alteration in the existing
law—(Hear, hear)—inasmuch as the present law had
been confirmed by the decision of competent judicial
tribunals. The lion. and Gallant Gentleman seemed
to imagine that when the Report of the Committee
should be made, the Government would be precluded
from opposing the adoption of any of its recommenda-
tions. He wished that the Committee should befairly
forrned,and that the inquiry should be fully entered into.
He felt a confident anticipation as to what would be
the recommendations of the Committee ; but he would
not pledge the Government to adopt, on its own
responsibilitany recommendation of the Corn.. t
mittee. I e was sorry the Honourable Member
for Finsbury had so misunderstood him as to
imagine that a violation of the law and a breach
of the peace had been necessary to draw his attention
to this subject. The attention of the brovernment. had
not been directed to the subject until after the majesty
of justice had been fully vindicated in South Wales.
What he had stated was, that he was aware that not
only in South Wales and the north of Eng •
land, but throughout the country generally,
public opinion was very strong on the subject of the
stardy clauses, and that in deference to that opi-
nion, he had thought it his duty to re-consider the
subject. He had not proposed to revert to the ancient
law, but to separate the subject of bastardy alto-
gether from the subject of the poor law—an altera-
tion in. which h , thought the House would acquiesce.
tie had two questions to answer, one from the Hon.

Gentleman opposite (Mr. Berkeley), and the other
from his Hon. Friend behind him. The former
question was, whether parish officers would be justi-
fied in refusing relief on the ground that no orc'er
had been applied for ?
Mr. BERKELEY—No. It was, would they re-
quire women who had bastard children to affiliate
those children ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said the claims for relief in such
case would be decided in exactly the same manner as
the claims of widows with children born in wedlock.
lie thought the answer would be sufficient for his
lion. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (as we un•
derstood), namely, whether in the case of illegitimate
children a different provision would be made to those
children born in wedlock. In answer to his Hon.
Friend the Member for the West Riding of York-
shire, he had to state that the schools would extend
over a district of fifteen miles to each school. The
Hon. Member for Rochdale had inquired whether,
in the present Bill, there would be any alteration in
the law of settlement, and he (Sir James Graham)
had to state that, since the recent decisions in the
Court of Queen's Bench, it had been determined to
re-model the law of settlement, and to introduce a
separate and distinct measure on the subject.

Mr. J. S. WORTLEY begged to express his gra-
tification at the nature of the measure introduced by
the Right Hon. Baronet, which would be a consider-
able relaxation in the present law—without believing
that would entirely satisfy the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand), and others who
were strongly opposed to the present law. He
thought it would be hailed with great satisfaction,
and he hoped a still further relaxation would be in-
troduced of that severe provision of the acts which en-
forced the separation of aged men from their wives.
The question was then put from the Chair, and the
Bill was introduced and read a first time. -
OFFENCES ON THE HIGH SEAS.

Sir J. GRAHAM said, as the House had been
kind enough to allow him to introduce the Bill, he
would still further trespass on their kindness, by
asking them for leave to introduce another, which
stood next on the paper. It was a Bill for securing
the more speedy trial of criminals charged with of-
fences on the high seas. All these offences were now
tried at the Central Criminal Court ; the consequence
of this was, that on the arrival of vessels at the
out-ports, the depositions were taken there
and then sent up to London ; witnesses were also
obliged to be brought up to the Central Criminal
Court at a great expense and inconvenience. By this
Bill he proposed, in the commissions of oyer and ter.
miner, to give to her Majesty's Judges of assize the
power of trying these offences.
Captain PECHELL thought the only objection to
the Bill was likely to be made by the country gentle-
men on the groun i of expense.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he intended that the pro-
secutions should be conducted as heretofore, at the
public expense.
Leave was then given to bring_in_the Bill.