The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-25 00:00:00

1844.

several vexatious proviiitna, and the non. Gentleinan who
had, on the advice of his Right Hon, Friend kept postpon-
ing his motion on Prison DiseiOne until it was a perfect
farce of him to ask for a Committee, could not do
better than recommend his Hon. Friend to follow his ad-
vice, and postpone his Bi:I. Policemen were to
have power to enter yards, and to ascertain if
horses and cattle had a sufficient quantity of nutritious
fo,,d add watar, and if they had not, they might order it
for them, and charge the owner double. By the inter-
pretation clause it appeared that cattle meant oxen,
pigs, or goats. Fancy a policeman being empowered
to ascertain if one's pigs or one's goats had a sufficient
quantity of food.
Mr. WPER—The Bill does not apply to-cattle in-
tended for human food.
Mr. DUNC-OMBE—Why, his Hon. Friend had talked
of horse sausages, which he might get in
Marylebone, but which were not made in Fins-
bury. This was a piece of pettifogging, vexatious
legislation like the Lap Dog Committee, and he should
move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave
to sit again when the Committee's reports should be
presented.
Mr. COWPER said that would be postponing the
Bill altogether. His Hon. Friend had said that this Bill
had emanated from the Society for the Protection of
Animals. They had certainly discovered the ineffi-
ciency of the present laW. He did not think it- looked
well for his Hon. Friend to say that they had no busi-
ness to meddle with things which did not belong to them.
Why his Hon. Friend was in the habit himself of med-
dling from morning till night with matters which did
not concern him.—(Cheers and laughter.) This might
be put on the ground of public principle in that House,
and persons might subscribe to buy estates for his Hon.
Friend, for meddling with matters which did not con-
cern him.—(Laughter.) But he thought that other per-
sons might be treated with the same indulgence as
the Hon. Gentleman in that House. The interference
of the Society, on the whole, was beneficial, and the ob-
ject of the present Bill was to mitigate the sum of mi-
sery. He trusted his Hon. Friend would not divide.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said he would move that the
Chairman should leave the chair.
Mr. COWPER doubted whether his Hon. Friend could
make that motion.
Mr. B. ESCOTT suggested that the Hon. Member
should move to refer the matter to the Dog Committee.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ll
Against it
Majority against the motion —93
On elause 2 being proposed,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE objected to the clause. At present
the knackers had a perpetual license, liable to be
withdrawn only in case of misconduct. It was now pro-
posed to make the license annual. He objected to this,
as an interference with vested rights.
Mr. COWPER said, by the 26th of George 111.,
provision, was made for granting- licenses ; but the
Hon. Member could hardly speak of vested rights, since
the license could not be retained if the law were violated.
Mr. ESCOTT said it was a waste of time to discuss
the Bill, when so many, and such important measures
were on the paper, and waiting for discussion. •
Mr. COWPER did not think it any waste of time to
discuss the measure. The delay, if any, had been oc-
casioned. by Hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of
the House.
Mr. ESCOTT would resist this, and all such kind of
attempts at legislation.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he saw no reason why a
Member of Parliament should not oppose or support a
a Bill if he thought proper. The Bill had been com-'
pletely emasculated, and the projectors of it would not
give a farthing for it as it now stood: It 'was a perfect
waste of time to-discuss,sucka measure, and more than
a waste, of time when the immense amount of important
,public business yet to be transacted was considered.
The Poor-law Amendment Bill had been postponed
from day to day, to give time for discussion on knackers'
yards.—(Laughter.)
The clause, as amended, was then allowed to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 3 was then agreed to.
Several amendments upon clause 4 were agreed to.
Upon the motion that the clause, as amended, do pass,
Mr. ESCOTT again protested against the waste of
time which this useless Bill occasioned. He also objected
to the clause as unnecessarily severe.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 5 being proposed,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he would be glad to know
whether this clause had the sanction of the Right Hon.
Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department ? The
clause provided that an inspector nqght go into a
knacker's yard, in order to see if the horses therein had
sufficient nutritious food.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought the clause ought to remain
in the Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved that the clause be
omitted.
Mr. E. DENISON supported the clause.
Mr. CURTEIS thought the police ought to be em-;
powered to shoot the horses, rather than to see that they
had food.
Mr. COWPER said he would not press the clause.
The clause was then withdrawn.
On clause 6 being proposed,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE objected to the power being
given to the police to demand the inspection of the books
of the owner of a licensed yard.
After a short conversation, that part -of the danse
was omitted.—The clause was then. agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 were-agreed to.
On clause 9 being proposed,
Mr. ESCOTT opposed the clause, as too stringeit;
which imposed a penalty of 101., one moiety of which
was to go to the informer. The Hon. Member moved.
as an amendment, that the moiety of the penalty shot!.
not go to the informer, but that the whole should go
the parish.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
Ayes
Noes

Majority
The clause was then agreed to with a few verbal
amendments.
The other clauses were then agreed to as was also
the preamble, and the report was ordered to be received.
on Friday next.
APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill, -
Sir J. GRAHAM said they could not agree to the
second reading of the Bill without affirming its princi-
ple, which the Government did not wish to bind them-
selves to do in the absence of the Attorney-General, arid
without further consideration. He was, however, pre-
pared, on the part of his colleagues and himself, to pledge
them to the consideration of the measure in the next
session. He trusted, therefore, the Hon. Member would-
postpone the second reading till another session.
Mr. KELLY acceded to the suggestion of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, and withdrew the Bill. He trusted,
however, in the next session, that the Bill would be
unanimously agreed to.—The Bill was then withdrawii.
POOR-LAWS.
On the question for the further consideration of the
report on the Poor-law Amendment Bill being' put, '
Colonel SIBTHORP deprecated the subject being
brought on at the present moment, as many Members had
left the House, under the supposition that the Bill of the
Hon. Member for Cambridge would have occupied some
considerable time.
On the question being put,
Mr. P. BORTH WICK thanked the Right Hon.
Secretary of State, for the ameliorations he had intro-
duced into the Bill. He hoped, in the same spirit in
which he had received the amendments proposed by
others, he would adopt the propositions he (Mr. Borth-
wick) was about to submit. Though they were four in
number—they were nearly identical in principle. The
two principal points were that no separation should
take place between the husband and wife, and parent
and children, when they were reduced to want, not by
vice but misfortune. He condemned such separation as
immoral and impolitic, and though many boards of
guardians were kind and Christian in their actions and
feelings, was it to be endured in a Christian country
that they could only be humane by a breach
of the - law ?—(Cries of " Hear.") Such separation
was a violation of the rights of the poor. He used the
words advisedly, for he contended that the poor mat
had rights as well as the rich one.—(Hear, hear.) The
great viee of the whole system of the poor-laws was, that
instead of affording casual relief to casual distress, it
converted that charity into a curse, by its being changed
into a continual and permanent cause of depression. He
traced the ruinous and demoralising effect on the poor
man of being compelled to enter the poor-house in which
lie was subjected to these inflictions, and stated that it
was in a spirit of conciliation to the poor that he submittk
his present propositions. He considered that the poor-
law, like every system of law applied to the body politic,
ought to operate like medicine in the natural body. In
the natural body. medicine was no other
than theintro-
ducing one disease less ephemeral and less dangerous
than the one they were trying to get rid of, and the
poor-law was no other in the body politic than trying to
get rid of one evil by- a smaller one. In a Christian
country like this there ought to be no need of a poor-
law at all, and he believed if the Right Hon. Gentleman
went on in the system upon which he had proceeded
during the present session, by and bye not only would
this poor-law disappear from the statute book, but that
they would yet see a state of things in England under
which there would be no need of a poor-law whatever.
There must always be poor amongst them : that they
had on the highest authority. But in a Christian coun-
try, the alms of God's people, collected at God's altar,
ought to be enough for God's poor. With respect to the
clauses which he should submit, he did not think the
Right Hon. Gentleman could say the 'purpose of
them was not a good one. If there was any difference
between himself and-the Right Hon. Gentleman, it was
this, that he sought to obtain that end by the machinery
of the Poor-law Commission, while he (Mr. Borthwick)
sought it by a law placed on the statute book, in order
to secure that to the poor man as a right, which the Right
Hon. Gentleman himself would not refuse as a bounty.
. The object of the .third clause was to provide that
children should not be separated from their mothers
where the children were under seven years of age, and
that children under thirteen years of age shouldhave
free access to their mothers at all convenient times. Ile
could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman that great prac-
tical evils had arisen under the present law. The other
clause to which 'he' should refer was that of providing
temporary relief to the able-bodied poor, under certain
circumstances. This had been a subject of complaint
ever since the law came into operation. The law prohi-
bited the -board of, guardians from giving out-door
relief ; the consequence was that the able- bodied labourer
was forced to go into the workhouse, and he was thereby
ruined for ever,—(Hear, hear.) He saw by the Times
newspaper that a petition was agreed to at a meeting of
the board of guardians of Ipswich, praying the House
would give-power to order out-door relief to
.the f.'-‘
bodied poor when labouring under te-a,
.7-erary infirmity.
The Hon. Gentleman goaded—, !.
_ ey moving the following
c 1141103 ;--e _ .

~i

" And be it enacted, that when nny tire PBS s e
being husband and wife, both Of whom shall be el.
the age of sixty years, sh .11 be is-ceived into any work
house„.. irepareua.neeef the,: prove. ions of the said rec e.
Act, or of this Act, such two persons. shall not he-cooe
polled to live separste and anart from each ether in such
!
workhouse ; and to this end suitable and decent accol
moclation shall be provided in every workhouse for each
'e
man and his wife so of the ages aforesaid, anythingr'l
the said recited Act, or in the rules or regulations
the government of any workhouse, to the contrary note
withstanding.
" And be it enacted, that when any two persons, beill
husband and wife, both of whom shall be under the a.g*
of sixty years, and either of whom shall, from infirl
of mind or body, require the attendance or assistance e
the other of them, then and in such case two such P.Or.
~
sons shall have and be entitled to the benefit or
ri
lege of the provision hereinbefore contained, in reg'"'f
to persons being husband and wife above the age
sixty years, anything in the said recited Act, ae°,,
rule or order to the contrary notwithstanding: ie°g
" And be it enacted, that if any poor and Industr,
person shall, by temporary infirmity or insufficiency
employment, be unable to maintain himself or herself, °II
his or her family, then upon complaint thereof by sucl,
person to any justice of the peace residing in. or llef,)
the place of residence of such•person, it shall be 104,,
for such justice to inquire into the truth of such .in" ~e
mity or insufficiency of employment, and to certify the
same in writing under his hand to the guardians of Oa
union in which such poor people shall so resida; 9,_!0
upon receipt of such certificate, the said guardians sr,
immediately order sufficient relief for such poor Persll"„
and his or her family, out of such workhouse, during' -
time of such temporary infirmity or insufficiency of le
ploy went, anything in the said recited Act, or an,'
or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding. Apr
" And be it enacted, that when children, being to "-.0
seven years of age, shall be received into any work
in pursuance of the provisions of the said recited Act and
of this Act, such children shall not be separated fr°o
their mothers being inmates of the same workhouse, and
that to all children, being under thirteen years of age,
e
free access shall be afforded for their mothers being
the same workhouse, at all convenient times." a
The first clause was brought up, and read a first time'
On the motion that it be read a second time,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that, unless he had htee„,
compelled by an overpowering sense of public duty 191
resist the motion of the Hon. Gentleman, his net„lie
feelings would have prompted him to support it.
Hon. Gentleman had not brought forward any nei
argument in favour of his motion; indeed, it was scarce c,
/v
possible for him to do so, the subject had been alres
so much discussed. The Hon. Gentleman said thllt I,"e
hoped the time was approaching when the poor-la e
would no longer be necessary. He (Sir Jo r„
Graham) confessed that he did not take such a sango-1.
view of the state.of society ; he was afraid that the r°,„
were increasing and multiplying, and that the neeessw,
of supporting them would become more and more necl
nary. But that was' a, vain speculation. In looking /back
`,.s
to the history of the country, he found that provi
for the poor vies made by Act of Parliament three °e
svil
tunes ago ; and, looking back through that period,
could not find a trace of the precise enactments ''o
had been embodied in the four clauses submitted to Ina
consideration of the House by the Hon. Gentle
With regard to the first clause, the board of gutrtb7i
had the power of giving out-door relief to persons 0,0
sixty years of age in their own houses. It was said to,
, that depended' upon the caprice, of' the Commissioner'
I and 'that there was no certainty in the law ; but, there
was a general order on the subject, which was sanctioned
by the Secretary of State, and this had the fOrce of.hr„
'The"Pbor-law Coniniissioners could riot rescind et-th;
pleasure such an order. They must receive 9,4
sanction, or the Secretary of State. There by
'also an order, under certain circumstances,
WhiCh geparate apartments were. to he given to tki'
'There was also an order, which provided 'that, childre
under seven years of age should 'not be removed, tr°i,al
e
their mothers, and that after that period they must blth
access to them at all convenient hours. Therefore,
regard to those portions of the Hon. Gentleman's ino.
altion, there was no necessity for the introduction d o,vt
new clauses into the Bill to effect those purposes. th
. regard to the giving of out-door relief the clause w'ret
the Hon. Gentleman proposed on that subject strni_"re
the root of the entire law. If it 'were agreed to, Wig
was not a single abuse which existed under the'old:lp
which would not be revived by it.—(Hear, hear.) „t.
must say that he thought the power of granting 70f
door relief was much more safely intrusted to.a boar he
guardians who were chosen by the ratepayers ; and $5
did not think that the control of the Commissioners he
superfluous. "He begged to remind the House of whet is.
had, Often said before, that the duty of the Connor
sioners no means -a one-sided' one. It was theire
Sacred duty, -lay 'all means in their power, by Ode
influesee, by: their advice; and' by
by nspection, wt° ;(1,
that the interests of the poor were not negt.e°", rs
On the whole, he was satisfied that the Commisoree,
had not megbicted• their duty. With regard to the the
ference made by the Hon. Gentleman to Ipswich' $l-
- to state to the Heine that that very place r
forded an excellent illustration of what the effects of 125
miffing out-door relief would be.. In that unio
persons were relieved in the. union 'workhoaSei were
2,281 were relieved 'out of door. Those who rho
maintained in the Houie Cost sthi., While thos%-U
received out-door- relief cost -I,94ol.—(Hear, her'} to,
n. fire snotioof the Right Hon. Gentleman were ag4e des
it would subvert everything 'which was established littbs
the laW; and unless the House was prepared to incur a
reitlotisibtfitk ZffpeiSklncin:i serious effects, he hqe
they' would not sanction this Clause: •
LordJOHN MANNERS said that everything wbic,
the Right Hon. Gentleman had urged, against the inb,Pe°,--t
of his Hon. Friend, could be turned with equal e.y.„.
against the remarks of the Right Hon. Gentleman -11'or
self ; for if the cases alluded to had been provideo-
by orders of the Commissioners, where was the halo°,
Making them the law of the land ? The Right
Gentleman said that what his'Hon. Friend wished sh°,'',o
be the law of the land, was already practised under Pre
Orders of the Comthissioners. - If that were so, where
was the disadvantage of' its becoming part of the 01;0
law.?—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman' .I,ot
.adverted to the hiStory:of the poorslaW, and said
during three centuries. no proiiSions similar to thocille
troduced by' his Hon. Friend could: be found,
,00
-though-t. the Right Hom-Gentleman was the last reLir
in the world' Who shbuld refer to the history et -w-st
.legislation on the subject, for he would • 2;14,11
:find there the principle of centralisation, w'il'",r,
was the great feature of the present, 0 Hemaintained that they must legislate according, t° „vss
wants-of the people. Theymust not say that, beft„-el
M-fr
the principle had never before been'acted epen, it Bill
-1175tte Ituw. --The question was, would they legislate le
accordance with the acknowledge& feelings of the Re,ll,
of this country? The outworks of this extraorclL'lv.
system were already giving way. He asked this Li, °by,
,mittee to perfect that which had already been begun b 5
supporting the reiolutiOns of his Hon: Friend,' and °id
rendering this session a session for which the poor IV
, ever be grateful.. na
Mr. HAWES said, on the ground both_ of charity 0
humanity, he should support the Right Hon. Gentlen'.%
opposite.' No" one could have read' the reports 01','-of
preceded the establishment of the present systenl.o,
poor-laws, and the names appended to the,,re
without admiring the men by whom they, "_`",,-ct
sompi!•3.—(Hear, hear.) Break down this laij grof
how would they secure an effectual aclministrationi
r
relief to the poor? Where. would they find a simile.
security? It was nothing to, get rid of the prescns4e
curity, unless they provided another equally gorat. 1.-1
resolutions were in tact the old system, and, if 'ader-,
it would be better at once 'to repeal the new poo a red
and let•the responsibility rest upon thoie who advee's:o
that old Systems--(Hears hear.) A great deal had beli
ele
said about the treatment of man and wife. NY'is te
Hon. Gentleman acquainted with workhouses under '0
old system? Would he venture to compare that sYliete
with the new one?—(Hear, hear.) He appalled to
any one whether the workhouses existing previon,s
• 1834 Were not a disgrace to the country.--(" No."): :es
great advantage of the present system was that there' )
a responsible officer- to adtninister relief.—(Hear; flea sr
If they wished for increased' accommodation they 03`;.)
be prepared to incur increased expenses.—(Hear',' hoe of
Gentlemen talked there by the hour' of the necessity:
giving more relief. He heard scarcely a word itts):sl
those poor . ratepayers out of whose pockets relief awed
come. That class must necessarily have an increll're
expense thrown upon them if those resolutions we
sled
carried. . But he admitted that expense was a seconxoo
consideration. Still he maintained that some discinss
was necessary in workhouses ; without that, haPPin-It
could not be secured under any,system of poor-lacy'Aceeras y
through .the - now' maintained that
order,-and that- cheerfulness and content.b,
t
chlaooroduuors
:nen
le)isc;_at_aaol
we(r
iliaeci
ifr;evi
haree
houses.—(clear,`
)t4epehtw;:inie.aH)rdaerstiaslhrT,oi
appeal
hpesipeenaeillffarolorllnvfoiabrtutonuirmeotasnb
heeCedwoohaliisonecknnheet.
ve,..50!0:
s
qtiumireetwohtiemtheerhatdhebeaebnuslaesid.obfeft(h)ree:
penthreesHot wuslea,ancdo;.n;;,eo
f compared for a moment to those
of the old 011`,:ka
(Hear, hear.) He knew rid board 'of guardians
was not prepared to listen to_ cases•of peculiar herds Se
He hoped he would not be accused of a want of 9'7
for the poor, because he voted' against the re-est:NIP;
merit of a system which had engendered such nutuer°olla
evils, in the place of that which now existed,
which he maintained was beneficial to the country.,.;o2.s
Mr. ESCOTT did not deny thatld
existed under the old law ; but he 1,",,--se
not be led by that circumstance to 0%-stis
an amendment Of this law. - The simple IEIOSOZ-des
whether the amendment proposed by the Hon. u'ihat
man, was an improvernenton the present system. go.
question had not been touched in the least by the sed
Member for Lainbeth.—(llear' hear.) They had Des It
from the Right Hen. Gentlernan what were the "sse
tu'
which out-door relief might be granted hut, IT, s
nately, the power of granting relief was not acted ef
The powers of the board of guardians to grant "Dog
were checked by the prohibitory order of the rec'es:-
Commissioners. To that order there were certain: je
ceptions, which were explained by the Commissiitgll'
an explanatory letter. He had asked his Rig"!;
Friend a question on that Subject, and bud
e
him the answer that the board of guardians wore, trees
cases, to judge what was or was not a ease, use—ang
necessity. But what was the fact? Why old Pe s
w,-
were forced into the house without having anY P°
use,
appeal. He had heard no arguments against the
and he should certainly give it his support.
annudtshhoilsl.wifWe,h6ercle was the
Sir C. NAPIER said he thought to question 1.4.11:00
(Hear, hent-•• g ?
_ht._ • The expense ot maintaining tha
than • to
wife in the house, was considerably more „e Rig
3'•"-s of a e into the worldwu
maintaining them out of the house ; and it the that a
a''':essity for foraiag
Hon. Baronet would consent to make it the law: 1A door
man and his wife, 60 years old, should receive_iunreptla-
elief, there would be no necessity for the ilou

r

r. 111 .L W.)1.4.0

•,e•