The Sun.
London, England, 1819-06-12 00:00:00

POOR. RATES' MISAPPLICATION BILL. .

Mr. S. Boy NE moved-the third reading of the
Poor Rates' Misapplicatonll.—Ou the queslion,,
that this Hi!! be read a third time,

Mr. PRIMROSE begged to call the attention of
the 1-louse to the nature of the proposed measure.
He objected to the principle.of the Bill, as it went
to do away with
,the 43d Eliz. which provided,
that old and infirm persons only should be charge-
able on the Poors' Rates, The present Bill would
have
,the effect of placing the, very lowest and
worst part of society in a better situation than
the honest and industrious classes. The Bill
would enable the idle and ill-disposed labourer
'to have his children provided for by the
Parish, while those persons, whos.: parental
affection induced them to keep their children at
home, Were to be deprived of parochial assistance,
and left to struggle as they could to support their
families. After several other observations, the
Hon. Member concluded by moving as an amend-
ment,- hat this Bill be read a third time on this
day six months.
Mr. P. Mooaa seconded the motion. He could
not consent to deprive the labourer of a share of
the Poor Rates while he knew, that in Coventry,
and several other parts of the country, the poor
were working 16, hours a day without being able
to earn enough to support existence.
Mr. S. BOURNE defended the Bill. As the law
now stood, the money paid by the parish to pa-
rents .for the support of-tlreir children, was al-
most univerally misapplied, while the poor chil-
dren were to be found hungry and in rags at
home. lie, from having resided a considersble
time in the country, had been enabled to judge of
the effects of the present system of Poor .Laws on
the lower classes. It was distressing to see the
state in which the children of the lower orders
were brought up. They were, in many instances,
eneouraged to commit depredations- on their
neighbours' property, by those parents who re-
ceived money from the parish to support them
(1-Dear !)—He had not a parent's fondness for this
Bill, but he thought it was Talcolated to produce
Cie- most beneficial effects 06 the lower orders of
society.

Lord MILTON objected to fhe Bill, as tending
to legalize the. evil of which the House and the
country complained. Until the rate of laboorers'
tcages had increased, he 'did not think .that any
measures like the present could Produce any good.
He therefore should support the Amendment.
Sir JOHN SEBRIGEIT eOnsidered the poor laws
as the great cause of the lowness of- wageS. He
had often spoken on the subject co farmers, and the
answer he received was, that if the wages were
increased, and no aid given from the. parish, the
unmarried men would have the advantage, and
the money would he spent in the ale-house. He
supported the Bill, because it was calculated, to
remove the children from the profligacy they now
witnessed, and would afford them at least a mural
education.

Mr. PHILLIPS acquiesced in every thing that
had been said of the evils of the Poor LaWs, but
he thought the present Bill would unmeasurably
extend them. Besides, what restraint would exist
against improvident marriage, if this facility was
given to careless and unnatural parents.
Sir ROBERT WILSON considered the 'interference
with the children a Most obnoxious principle.
Mr. BRAND deprecated the,idea that some Mem-
bers entertained, viz. That these children would
be sent to those vile receptacles, .the Work-
houses. No such measure was in contemplation,
as every precaution was taken in the present Bill
to provide for the care-ot the children.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH contended that the mea-
sure would only serve to establish a foundling
hospital in every parish. What would become

of the children, after their education should -10
finished, if they were sent forth into the world
without the means of supporting their existetted
It the third reading of the Bill was carried, lie,
,hotild move a proviso, excepting the children a
Protestant Dissenters from its operation, as 0101
alarm had been excited among that body, left
their children should be brought up in a religina
of which they did not approve.
Colonel Wool-) explained, that the schools
would be, schools of industry, where the children
would be kept and instructed in the day, bait
wpold be allowed to return to .their parents P;
night. The objection of the Dissenters cvai
therefore unfontided.
Mr. T. COURTNEY also defended the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. Alderman
and Mr. Cuawat4, the House divided—

For the Amendment
Against it

46
C 9

111;ijority against the llniendme►zt.... —23
On Stranger bri►►g re-admitted, Sir 3.ll.lAcmg'
TOSH was found proposing a clause to exclude the
Children of Dissenters from the operation of• the
1311 i.

Mr. S. BOURNE objected to the clause, and Ella
question being put, it was negatived.
Mr. Alderman WOOD proposed a clause, whicb
went to exempt the children of Jewish parent*
from the operation of the clause respecting relid
gious worship.—The motion was tiegatived.--7
The Bill was 'cad a third tine and passed.
A new Writ was ordered for the Borough.of,
Dorchester, to elect a Burgess in the room of Sir:
S, Shepherd, who, since his election, had accepted
the office of Chief Baron of Scotland.
Sir C. Mosctc moved for an Address to the
Prince Regent, praying his Royal ilig!tness to
give directions that a Treaty concluded betk‘eea
Russia and Turkey, in March MO, respecting the
Cisalpine Republic, be laid before the House.

Lord CASTLEREAGH did not object to the ow'
tioo, but doubted whether the intormatiou called
for c''uld be given.

'1 he !notion was then agreed to.

GIL:IMPOUND ELECTION.
The House then went into a Com►nittee on the
Grampound Election Bribery Bill, in which Mt
W. Moore, Alderman of Grampound, qua, Clda.
mined. •

The House then resumed, and tLe Report.re'
ceived, anu ordered to be printed.
The Report of the Charitable Foundations' Bal
was agreed to.

The other Orders of the Day were then dig"
posed of, and the house adjourned at One o'Cloc4
this morning.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CONSISTORIAL COURT, Jux.r,ll.

TEMPLE V. PAWLET.

This suit for a divorce came before SirWILLI/4te,
SCOTT. it was sought for on the ground
.4g
adultery between the wife of the plaintiff and the
defendant. 'f he Learned Judge decided that the
Plaintiff was entitled to a divorce, and sentence
was pronounced accordingly.