The Sun.
London, England, 1821-06-15 00:00:00

tage to the country. These are symptoms which
We cannot behold With indifference. We hail
gladly every accession to the ranks or economy
for it is by econonly alone that the nation Can get
-through its dillictilas.

PROVINCIAL JOURNALS:

THE POOR LAWS. • •
[From " The Leeds Intelligeneer," June ll.]
- When Mr. Scarlett first introduced • his Bill for ameadieg
the laws for. the relief of the poor, we expressed our ophlion,
that the country
.was highly indebted to that Gentleman for
having brought the subject again before Parliament. .Although
we object to many of the details of his prbposed yet we
think, that the discussion which will take place, and the spirit
,of inquiry which will be excited, may lead, eventually, to real
improverrients in the existing system,' the burthen of which is
so severely felt. We are not enemies to that system itself,' but
to its abuses. The principle of the poor lases is worthy of that
humanity and benevolence which are characteristic of our coun-
taehien-: and the establishments for our poor form the proudest
monuments ofour fame. Still there are practices, to which the
present administration of those laws gives• rise, that call loudly
for amendment ;____there are abuses committed under their sane.
tion, which require the reforming hand of the Legislature to
remote them. -
Mr. Scarlett's Bill is not, hoWever, merely a correction of
abuses, it is a 'sWeeping alteration of the Whole system ; and
will, we hope; receive many amendments before it is pass.-
ed into. a law, if it be passed at all. lirith respect to the first
object, the fixing of a maximum, we were the first to point
out-the impolicy of such a measure; and a clause subsequently
• introducede has, in fact, done away with it altogether. This
clause provides, that, " if by reason of any unusual scarcity of
" provisions, epidemic diSease, or any other cause of a tempo,
tar), or local nature," a larger sum should be required for tbe
relief of the poor; than is fixed by the Act, that such stun
be assessed by the authority of a town's meeting, called by the
overseers. This completely nullifies the first clause, and re=
duces the operation Of the Act to the jresent practice. For no
rate can now be levied, except it has been assented to by. the ley=
payers and confirmed by two justices of the peace..
Mr. 'Scarlett's Bill having thus done away with the maximum,
next proceeds to propose, " that it shall not be lawful for any
churchwarden, overseer, or guardian of the poor, or any other
person having authority to administer relief to the poor, to
" allow or give, or for any justice of the peace to order, any re.-
" lief to any person whatsoever, who shall be married after the
" " passing of this Act, for himself, or any part of his or her
wily, unless such poor persons shall be actually, at the tinie
" of asking such rehef, by reason of age, sickness, or bodily
infirmity, unable to obtain a livelihood, and to support his or
" her family by work." This is a clause, on which, as we
before observed,- " much may be said on both sides."
For whilst, on the one hand, the numerous impoSitio;-.S
now practiced by able-bodied paupers (which are at '
• once a fraud on the rich and the really deserving poor,
and which no vigilance can, at all times, detect), seem
to require some strong legislative measure to prevent
their frequent
.recurrence,—the manifest injustice and
cruelty of a positive enactment (from which, of course, no tie-
viation could be allowed), to the purport of the foregoing clause,
is so apparent, that we trust it will never receive the sanction of
a British Legislature. Theie are, we are aware, many persons
whO marry, with no prospect whatever of supporting theina,lsas
and a family ; and who do look to the parish, as a source frore; • •
whence they are, to derive a maintenance ; but, there are alsO
others who marry with the best prospects, and, in a few years.
find them all blighted by misfortunes withering hand ;."all .
means of obtaining support for themselves and children being
lost, and no other resource left them than the poor-rates B
would be_ceuelty to tell such persons you will not give them re-
lief; and, if we were to use such language to them, we
could
not be surprised, if they took by force, what was withheld front
their sUpplieations. -
Besides, this clause contains an anomaly, which, we think,
the framer must have overlooked. Whilst it orders the over.. seer not to afford relief to any married person, there is nothing;
Whatever; to preclude-the single man or woman from claiming
parish pay, however able they may be to support themselves by
work. We are sorry that so respectable a man as 'Mr. Steel, ti
should have embodied one of the most objectionable of the
trines of Malthus 'into his Lill. We can consider this claese
in no other light, than as calculated to throw disgrace upon T.'
honourable estate of matrimony; and as offering an encouraee-
went to licentiousness and vice. Certainly the single, as well
as the married, ought to come within the purvey of the bill,
if it be passed into a law ; and, in either case, a discretionary
power should he vested in the overseer to afford 'relief in ail
cases of real distress, whilst fraud should be severely and stun
niarily punished. Our worthy Recorder suggested on Thurs.
day, in cases of marriages contracted manifestly under circum:.
stances of inability to provide for a family, that, should relief
be unavoidably necessary, such relief should he stinted ia
amount, compared with instances of a more deserving nature,
Perhaps such a regulation might have • a good effect; partica
larly if the parties were made
.to work hard for what
afforded them. But then this regulation should not ex.
tend to the children (if any) the innocent sufferers for their
parents' folly and imprudence; and it. would involve a
difficulty, how they should be provided fie-, so as to prevent
their parents from misapplying the aid extended to them, ex.
cept by removing them from parental control ; and a proposi.,
tion to this effect, we recollect,. met with decided opposition
when suggested by Air. S. Bourne.
We do not mean to assert, that this clause of Mr. Scarlett'S,
Bill will be unattended with any benefits ; we believe it will 13i
accompanied by some great advantages, and th-ose advantagea
we stated in our paper of the 14th'ult. But then, on the other
hand, if made positive, it would, in our opinion, be accompanist]
with evils that would outweigh the benefits, and be productive
of absolute cruelty and. injustice.
The law of settlement is, in its operation, most harsh and op-
pressive to the poor. The suggestion of our 'Recorder, that. no
pauper should be removed (except such removal was deemed
more beneficial for him), but receive relief from the parish to
which he belonged, payable at the place where he might reside,
would, in a great measure, obviate the evil, as far as it affects
the-comfort of the pauper; 'though, as was observed by 31r.
Baines, it would introduce a complication in parish. accounts,
which might be attended with great trouble and eventual loss.
The law itself might be greatly simplified, by making a term of
residence, in which no. parochial aid- was required, the requisite
fora settlement; and, perhaps, it is also susceptible of
,ether
amendments. On this subject, our columns will be open to re:
ceive any suggestions from correspondents, whether adverse, or
otherwise, to our own opinions.
It might be advisable, should Mr. Scarlett's Bill be rejected
(which we think it will), for the overseers of the poor in the
large manufacturing towns, to take measures for suggesting to
Parliament, in concert, early in the next Session, such amend-
monis in the poor laws, and such alterations in the practice-a affording relief, as may tend to alleviate their burthen, without
entirely changing the system • and which may lessen- the ten.
dency to abuse and fraud, without saying to the married Man,
" in no case, except sickness or bodily infirmity, shall you come
to• the parislifor relief."— The great object should be to entou_
rage habits of industry, frugality, and prudence, in- the pea
themselves ; to teach them to rely on their own exertions; and
not to look to the parish as a sure resort in all
or imprudence.
distress,
whether brought on by misfortune, or vice, or imprudence.
And we again beg to press upon all conductors of large esta-
blishments, the propriety of forming a-fund, by deductions from
the wages of their workmen; for relief in cases of sickness ac-
cident.—The New Times of Wednesday last contains a lettrt
from a gentleman, who states, that he employs nearly one hun-
dred men ; that he makes a deduction of 3d.,per week from
their earnings ; that in cases of accidents or sicxness, they re-
ceive We. per week ; and that not one of them ever thinks-of
applying to
.the parish.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 14.

SIR. THOS. HENRY LIDDELL, BART. V. SMITH AND AN-

OTHER.
This was an action against the Hundred of Ossulston, for
daMagcs done to the plaintiff 's house, in Portl ind-place.
Air. F. JoarEs inforrrol the Jury that the mischief had oc..
curred on the night of the Bth Junc,lB2o.
Witnesses were called, who proved that, in the night charp:l,,
th laintiff's windows were broken by a mob.
rdict for the plaintiff.—llaniages 171. Is. 3d.