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

IMPEItIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 24.
GAMING.
Mr. BOUVERIE have notice that he would move that
a message be sent to the House of Lords, to ask for the
report of the Select Committee on Gaming.
HORSE SLAUGHTERING BILL.
On the order of the day for the House going into Com-
mittee on this Bill,

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE objected to the Bill that it gave
too much additional power to the police.
Mr. COWPER defended the Bill, which was
called for by the accounts made public last year
of the cruelties practised in the knackers' yards.
All that the Bill proposed to do was, to give justices in
quarter sessions a power of cancelling licenses, where
cruelty was carried on in knackers' yards. He believed
that it was a common practice, where horses were
stolen, and the party had information where they were,
to break the horses' legs, in order that they might state
that they came there in that condition. He proposed
therefore to give the police the power of inspecting these
yards. He hoped, therefore, that the Honourable Gen-
tleman would allow the Bill to pass through its present
stage.

Mr. B. ESCOTT disbelieved many of the statements
that had been made to the Hon. Member, because he
could not see why people should be guilty of the acts of
cruelty that had been alluded to ; but supposing they
were true under the present law parties could be
punished. Ire hoped the Hon. Member would wait to
see whether it was intended to go on with the Bill or not.
Mr. MACKINNON thought the Hon. Member for
Winchester was labouring under a mistake. The report
of the Commissioners would not interfere with this Bill.
His Honourable Friend the Member for Hertford was
deserving of great credit, for the manner in
which he had braved public ridicule in bring-
ing forward this Bill, which was supported
by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals. Many of the Hon. Member for Finsbury's
constituents belonged to that Society, and he would find
it better to have their support than to curry favour with
the keepers ofknackers' yards. If the Hon.Memberwas fond
of sausages he might run the risk of having horse-
sausages. He could corroborate all that had been stated
with regard to the cruelties practiced in knackers' yards.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that if the Hon. Member
thought he was a better judge of the interests of his
constituents than himself, he had better offer his
services to them—(A laugh)---but as long as they did
him the honour to entrust their interests in his hands,
he must be permitted to judge for himself. It was ad-
mitted at last that this Bill was an emanation from the
Society for the Suppression of Cruelty • to Ani-
mals, and on that ground he objected to it.
—(Hear.) There were many of those societies
in this town which employed themselves in meddling
with everybody's business but their own—(Cheers and
laughter)—and it would be better if they attended to
then own business,—(A laugh.) The Bill contained

several vexatious provisions, and the Hon. Gentleman who
had, on the advice of his Right Hon, Friend kept postpon-
ing his motion on Prison Discipline 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 Bill. Policemen were to
I have power to enter yards, and to ascertain if
horses and cattle had a sufficient quantity of nutritious
food and water, and if they had not, they might order it
for them, and charge the owner double. By the inter-
-1 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. COWPER—The Bill does not apply to cattle in-
tended for human food.
Mr. DUNCOMBE—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. lie 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 clause 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 such a 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'
yard s.—(Laugh ter.)
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 fur the Home Department ? The
clause provided that an inspector might 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 clause
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 stringent,
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 should
not go to the informer, but that the whole should go to
the parish.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
Ayes
Noes

Majority

The clause 'was then agreed to with a few verbs,
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, and
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 withdrawn.
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. BORTHWICK 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 man
had rights as well as the rich one.—(Hear, hear.) The
great vice 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
he was subjected to these inflictions, and stated that it
was in a spirit of conciliation to the poor that he submittei
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 the intro-
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 should have
free access to their mothers at all convenient times. He
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
rained 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 able-
bodied poor when lnbouring under temporary infirmity.
The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following
clauses ;

"And be it enacted, that when any two per sO4
being husband and wife, both of whom shall be aboce
the age of sixty years, shall be received into any work;
house, in pursuance of the provisions of the said recited
Act, or of this Act, such two persons shall not be coins
pelled to live separate and apart from each other in such
workhouse ; and to this end suitable and decent accom-
modation shall be provided in every workhouse for each
man and his wife so of the ages aforesaid,
the said recited Act, or in the rules or regulations for
the government of any workhouse, to the contrary nor
withstanding. anything?!
And be it enacted, that when any two persons, Wog
husband and wife, both of Whom shall be under the Age
of sixty years, and either of whom shall, from infirmitl,
of mind or body, require the attendance or assistance a
the other of them, then and in such case two such Per
sons shall have and be entitled to the benefit or privi;
lege of the provision hereinbefore contained, in regal
to persons being husband and wife above the ages
sixty years, anything in the said recited Act,sor
rule or order to the contrary notwithstanding.i
" And be it enacted, that if any poor and nduStrioe
person shall, by temporary infirmity or insu&iency of
employment, be unable to maintain himself or horself, or
his or her family, then upon complaint thereof is; such
person to any justice of the peace residing in or Peat,
the place of residence of such person, it shall be laws"
for such justice to inquire into the truth of such infir-
mity or insufficiency of employment, and to certify the
same in writing under his hand to the guardians of t'id
union in which such yoor people shall so reside; OA
upon receipt of such certificate, the said guardians 03°'
immediately order sufficient relief for such poor person'
and his or her family, out of such workhouse, during the
time of such temporary infirmity or insufficiency of eO;
ployment, anything in the said recited Act, or all rw
or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding.
" And be it enacted, that when children, being under
seven years of age, shall be received into any vvorkholl
in pursuance of the provisions of the said recited Act an
of this Act, such children shall not be separated iron!
their mothers being inmates of the same workhouse, and
that to all ehildren, being under thirteen years. of lag!'
free access shall be afforded for their mothers being 1°
the same workhouse, at all convenient times."
The first clause was brought up, and read a first One'
On the motion that it be read a second time,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that, unless he had been
compelled by an overpowering sense of public .duty ti
resist the motion of the Hon. Gentleman, his natura
feelings would have prompted him to support it. lb,:
Hon. Gentleman had not brought forward any new
'
argument in favour of his motion; indeed, it was scarcely
possible for him to do so, the subject had been already
so much discussed. The Hon. Gentleman said that b_e,
hoped the time was approaching when the poor-in;
would no longer be necessary. He (Sir Jot
Graham) confessed that he did not take such a sanglo');
view of the state of society ; he was afraid that the l'°.°
were increasing and multiplying, and that the necessity
of supporting them would become more and more ncc
nary. But that was a vain speculation. In looking bt.4a
to the history of the country, he found that provio",
for the.poor %%RS made by Act of Parliament three ee°B
turies ago ; and, looking back through that period, is
could not find a trace of the precise enactments Onto
had been embodied in the four clauses submitted to to
consideration of the House by the Hon. Gentlent,
.0
With regard to the first clause, the board of guardis'r
had the power of giving out-door relief to persons oivieso
sixty years of age in their own houses. It was said t
that depended upon the caprice of the Commissioners'
and that there was no certainty in the law ; but tbee;
was a general order on the subject, which was sanction`,,
by the Secretary of State, and this had the force of Is
The Poor-law Commissioners could not rescind at tole
pleasure such an order. They must receive Is
sanction of the Secretary of State. There hi
also an order, under certain circumstances, 0,
which separate apartments were to be given to thee,
There was also an order, which provided that chilto
roa
under seven years of age should not be removed
their mothers, and that after that period they Enlist P7Ol
access to them at all convenient hours. Therefore.
regard to those portions of the Hon. Gentleman
tion, there was no necessity for the introduction
new clauses into the Bill to effect those purposes. ":ca
regard to the giving of out-door relief the clause es
the Hon. Gentleman proposed on that subject strut ere
the root of the entire law. If it were agr ieed •to, tbos
was not a single abuse which existed under the 01° se
which would not be revived by it.—(Hear, hear-) nn of
must say that he thought the power of granting af
door relief was much more safely intrusted to a.bon'ihe
guardians who were chosen by the ratepayers ; aura.;
did not think that the control of the Commissioner% be
superfluous. He begged to remind the House of villa iv
had often said before, that the duty of the Coleit
sioners was by no means a one-sided one. It W3sibeir
sacred duty, by all means in their power, by ge
influence, by their advice, and by inspection, toted.
that the interests of the poor were not ,ogle
On the whole, he was satisfied that the Cominisse ;T-
-had not neglected their duty. With regard to tile he
ference made by the Hon. Gentleman to Ipswijem of
begged to state to the House that that very Palner•
forded an excellent illustration of what the effects° r 425
mitting out-door relief would be. In that union
and
persons were relieved in the union workhouse, 'ere
2,281 were relieved out of door. Those who '14:40
maintained in the House cost 531 L, while those " if
received out-door relief cost I,94ol.—(Hear, hear.),o
the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman were agree dot
it would subvert everything which was established,tie
the law, and unless the House was prepared to incur ed
responsibility of producing such serious effects, be h°Y
they would not sanction this clause. • hieh
Lord JOHN MANNERS said that everything •
atio
the Right Hon. Gentleman had urged against the in hi
of his Hon. Friend, could be turned with equal eL).O.
against the remarks of the Right Hon. Gentlest:loll,7w
self ; for if the cases alluded to had been provides...,"
by orders of the Commissioners, where was the kala.
making them the law of the land ? The Right „..—„„y1
Gentleman said that what his Hon. Friend wished suvihe
be the law of the land, was already practised under ere
orders of the Commissioners. If that were so, w-tato
was the disadvantage of its becoming part of the sore,
law ?—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman ',b!et
adverted to the history of the poor-law, and said " •
during three centuries no provisions similar to thossa
troduced by his Hon. Friend could be found. foe
thought the Right Hon. Gentleman was the last Per`
in the world who should refer to the history of " pot
legislation on the subject, for he would 110
find there the principle of centralisation, wises
was the great feature of the present the
He maintained that they must legislate according t° use
wants of the people. They must not say that, beses,lcl
the principle had never before been acted upon, it s":'eiu
not be now. The question was, would they legisla`ole
accordance with the acknowledged feelings of the Re ;11
of this country? The outworks of this extraorlow
system were already giving way. He asked this hi
mittee to perfect that which had already been begill'ibt
supporting the resolutions of his Hon. Friend, and 010
rendering this session a session for which the poor ri°
ever be grateful. anci
Mr. HAWES said, on the ground both of charitYwee
humanity, he should support the Right Hon. Gentiehish
opposite. No one could have read the reports of
preceded the establishment of the present syster.oo,

e"
poor-laws, and the names appended to there
without admiring the men by whom they 006,
eompiled.—(Hear, hear.) Break down this le', of
how would they secure an effectual adrninistrati°„,itisr
relief to the poor? Where would they find a sib 50'
security? It was noth;ng to get rid of the presep Ito
curity, unless they provided another equally good; nted,
resolutions were in fact the old system, and, if ao°rost:
it would be better at once to repeal the new porn-stea
and let the responsibility rest upon those who adTbeeo
that old system.—(Hear, hear.) A great deal the
said about the treatment of man and wife. vvia",. the
Hon. Gentleman acquainted with workhouses unaetes)
withold sy sttheem ?
newW oounled? e( eenatru,rehteoar. compareH e tahpapte,s2i,,
i'e'sd too,
any one whether the workhouses existing provi„°,"Tlie
1834 were not a disgrace to the country.—(" No. %) 00
great advantage of the present system was that ther°,oP)
a responsible officer to administer relief.—(Hear,'o3os,S
If they wished for increased accommodation theyhesq
be prepared to incur increased expences.—(llean y
Gentlemen talked there by the hour of the neces;" bop:
giving more relief. He heard scarcely a vv.:0(400;
those poor ratepayers out of whose pockets retie 00,564'
come. That class must necessarily have an blur vser_e,
expense thrown upon them if those resolutions dart
carried. But he admitted that expense was a sec°;pllll
consideration. Still he maintained that some chsc„-'oert
was necessary in workhouses ; without that, haPr„l
could not be secured under any system of poor-10,11W
was through the discipline now: maintained ths" at,
had that order, and that cheerfulness and Nor tb'
(Ironical cries of "Hear, hear " from Colone.wo#:,
Thorp)—which he had himself witnessed in 4. eras'''.
houses.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gen
had made a very powerful appeal ; but he as": fro°
House to refer to the mass of information whici
uto
time to time had been laid before the House, an"
quire whether the abuses of the present law cci ?
compared for a moment to those of the old °wne ill!'
(Hear, hear.) He knew no board of guardiansfashiP'
was not prepared to listen to cases of peculiar his. f CIO
He hoped he would not be accused of a want °,4isly
for the poor, because he voted against the re-eat .
~eroo
meat of a system which had engendered such spa
evils, in the place of that which now existed
which he maintained was beneficial to the countrY;boe6
Mr. ESCOTT did not deny that is,oolQ`
existed under the old law ; but he Oppose
not be led by that circumstance to ,
an amendment of this law. The simple cluestiG°llentle;
whether the amendment proposed by the lion' Oa
man, was an improvement on the present system' e 1:10„;
question had not been touched in the least byt d
Member for Larnbeth.(Hear, hear.) TheY ba se' R-
from the Right Hon. Gentleman what were thoglibsto;
which out-door relief might be granted ; but, ~ed
nately, the power of granting relief was not aorl'ant retie
w
The powers of the board of guardians to g poor'lll%.
were checked by the prohibitory order of theertain eia
Commissioners. To that order there were
sioers
ceptions, which were explained by the Coinolli,ht 10,„1
an explanatory letter. He had asked his f.erted Walt
Friend a question on that subject, and had " re, in
him the answer that the board of guardians weof ergeo
cases, to judge what was or was not a caseid perse'd
necessity. But what was the fact? Why °l.t, poswerg,
were forced into the house without having a,. the cis°
appeal. He had heard no arguments agains' ,_
and he should certainly give it his support.
..„.0 lay won..
Sir C. NAPIER said he thought the quest_ts. a 331,,
annudtshheilsl.wifWe,h6eroeyes%a•arss tohfeangeec,esinsittoy
thefor fwrop.rocryt:3l:f
(Hear, hear.) The expense of maintainins, ;an tilts..
his wife in the house, was considerably roorq the ,g •
maintaining them out of the house ; and tP;ass
Hon. Baronet would consent to make it tnceo out;e.
emiieenf,antdhehrios
wviQiufei,46lo7(eliagrsneocldes,ssithyouoldr jbee 00