The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-13 00:00:00

NEW POOR-LAW.

The• House then went into Committee on the Poor-law
Amendment Bill.
On clause 22 being proposed,
Captain BERNAL moved an amendment to the effect
that justices of the peace appointed under the Munici-
pal Act shall be, ex officio, members of the • board of
guardians. The Hon. Member said he did not intend to
divide the House upon the subject if there was a strong
feeling against him. He threw his opinion out more as
a suggestion for consideration than with a desire to
cause trouble.

Sir J. GRAHAM said he could not consent to adopt
the suggestion which had been thrown out.
After a few words from Captain Bernal, Mr. Christo-
pher, and Mr. Buck, the amendment was negatived with-
out a division.

Mr. BORTHWICK moved another amendment, to
the effect that every 'clergyman having the cure of souls
Within the parish should be an ex qfficie guardian.
Sir .T. GRAHAM objected to the amendment. Whea
he considered the various duties the clergy had to per-
form, he thought their appointment as guardians would
he inconsistent with their duties. _ _

Mr. B. COCHRANE said that in Scotland the money
collected tor the poor was distributed through the hands
of the clergy, and he, therefore, could not see why a
clergyman should not be an ex officio guardian. He
Should, therefore, support the amendment.
b Sir WALTER JAMES thought the distinction drawn
y the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State was
a just and sound one.
Mr. G. KNIGHT thought a great deal. more harm
than good would be done by having the clergymen ex
Vick) guardians.
Mr. 'l'. DUNCOMBE did not think any person more
suited to be ex officio guardians than clergymen, because
they were best acquainted with the condition of the
Poor. He should vote for the amendment.
Air. AGLIONBY thought that a new light had come
over the lion. Gentleman.—(Hear.) If he (Mr.
Aglionhy) was not mistaken, the Hon. Gentleman had
gone out with him and voted against the
appointment of any guardians of the' poor
who were not elected by the people ; now he
thought that the clergy were the proper guardians
of the poor.—(Laughter.) He was anxious to see the
Poor-law carried into effect humanely and considerately
to the poor. He hailed this Bill as a great amendment of
the existing law, but he was for amendment only, and not
for repeal. He never could agree, however, in the opi-
nion, that the clergy should be dragged into official
responsibility in connection with this Act, and he there-
fore must give his decided opposition to the amendment
Which he had proposed.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he was charged with not
giving a reason for desiring to see the clergy ex officio
guardians of the poor. His reason, then, was this, that
the clergyman of the parish was the best acquainted
With the wants of that parish, and that the clergy gene-
rally were amongst the most lenient and consistent ad-
3tinistrators of help to those who stood in need of it.
Lord JOHN MANNERS said though there might be
difiiculties in working out the suggestion embodied in
the amendment of the Hon. Member for Evesham, still
't was one that ought not to be lightly disregarded.
Mr. REDHEAD YORKE had the highest opinion of
the qualifications and the humanity of the clergy, and of
their fitness for the performance of the duties proposed,
but upon the whole he thought they had better be left,
as now, to the chances of selection from the, general
body of their fellow-countrymen.
Me. G. HEATHCOTE had exactly the same opinion
of the clergy as the Hon. Member who addressed the
house last; but his ground for opposing the amendment
Would be the fear of making the ex officio guardians too
numerous and powerful.
After a few words from Mr. Cripps, Mr. Palmer, and
Mr. Borthwick, the amendment was withdrawn.
After a short discussion the clause was agreed to.
On clause 23 being proposed,
Mr. HENLEY called the attention of the Right Hon.
Gentleman to the painful circumstances in which the
wives of convicts were placed in comparison with widows,
and suggested that they should be placed on the same
footing as that class of persons.
After a few words from Colonel WOOD.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the clause imposed
ao new hardship op a woman who was deserted by her
husband. By the clause, she was ,to be treated as a
Widow. The object of the clause was to prevent a
woman, whose husband had been been convicted, or who
had deserted her, from deserting her children. It placed
her in the same situation as the father, and subjected
her, if she deserted her children, to the same penalties.
After a few observations from Captain PECHELL,
the clause wss agreed to.

On clause 24 being put,
Mr. DARBY okiected to it, first, because he doubted
its policy, and, secon:lly, that, in carrying it out, there
rearsecurity to the parties whose goods were taken.
°light there ought, lii the first instance, to be a
certificate Sir
by proper inquiry as to the lunacy of the party.
r d• GRAHAM said that the operation of the clause
Would lead to what he very much desired—namely, that
.there
.parties were lunatic they should not remain in
the union, but in a lunatic asylum ; for though that
Might be more costly, they would be better taken care
of. The necessity for this provision arose from an over-
sight in the 9th of Geo. IV., c. 40, s. 41.
„Mr. DARBY explained, and considered the Right
'ion. Baronet had not answered the principal objections
'Aide by him to the clause.
f B. COCHRANE opposed the clause, and objected
"-) the practice of keeping lunatics in workhouses on the
same footing as the other paupers, a practice which had
existed, to his own knowledge, for some years, and
,which the present clause was calculated to perpetuate.
-they should be sent to a lunatic asylum.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, according to the-present ste-
llate, the guardians could not keep a lunatic in a work-
"se for more than fourteen days, without incurring a
Penalty.
Lord EBRINGTON thought it exceedingly unwise
that the lunatic paupers should be kept in workhouses,
48 it tended to confirm or increase their. insanity.
Alr. P. BORTHWICK objected to the phrase " dan-
gerous lunatic;" those lunatics who were confined in a
Workhouse, though harmless at first, would speedily be-
.e(mee " dangerous," from the necessary absence of proper
t
,reatment, whilst, had the same person been placed in a
Lunatic asylum, his intellects would be probably restored.
•to. Lord ASHLEY quoted, from an authorised report,
show that several lunatic paupers were confined in the
Workhouses in England and Wales. There were forty-
fourt in a workhouse in Penrose, several of whom were
hvt_tegerous lunatics, andthere were seventy-one persons of
lie Same description in a workhouse in Manchester, many
of Whom were. subject to fits of raving madness. The
th(lrd " dangerous" in the Act had been interpreted in
ree different ways. By some it was held to apply to
Persons," by others to " lunatics," and by others to
idiots." In the workhouse there was neither a medi-
Vsupervision nor, any remedial treatment whatever.
Was said lunatic, paupers ought to be sent to the asy-
-,a..te, but how could they, be sent there, when there were
4,000 lunatic paupers in England and Wales, and the
`tinatie asylums were only competent to contain 4,500?
--(Hear, hear.) In England the lunatics were
generally disposed of in the workhouses, or in private or
tublic asylums, but in Wales these unfortunate creatures
ere treated worse than cattle. They were placed in
11t!ibles and outhouses, and chained in dark rooms ; some
~, -1 them underground, and where no man of feeling-would
114 his deg.(flear, hear.) If the cases of these unfor-
tunate lunatics were taken in hand during the first three
months of their illness they might be treated successfully,
ble4 after the expiration of twelve months the lunacy
jce.are, e confirmed, and cure became almost impossible.
Workhouses,
was it true economy to keep those creatures in
erirhouses, for, as their disease became permanent, so
eon expense of their maintenance became certain and
enstant.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the remarks of his Noble
Fend the Member for Dorsetshire were entitled to the
bravest; consideration. His Noble Friend had indeed
rtite utterance to a startling fact, that there were
-cll.l.land 17,000 pauper lunatics, and asylums capable
of accommodating only 4,500. Such a statement was
Well entitled to the consideration of Parliament. In co.n-,
siirlece of the report of the Metropolitan Commis-
%,""rs of Lunacy, it had been the intention of the
con-
sideration to bring the whole subject under the
th of Parliament, which they would certainly do
itte ensuing session.L--(Hear, hear.)
WAKLEY said though the expense of maintain-
te lunatic paupers in the workhouse was one-third less
in lunatic asylum, yet as the Noble Lord had
Short
remarked, that that economy would bell most
por"-slghted, as well as selfish, which should treat those
th:r demented creatures on such a ground. He hoped
ot. ?whole subject would be brought under the revision
pospliament at as early a period next session as was
of •When workhouse authorities were desirous
idtransmitting pauper lunatics to asylums, they were
slefie asylums were full. So the poor creatures whose
ores° had only commenced were subjected to the
tre :nary workhouse regulations, without earth or medical
Gentleman lauded the manner in which the Middlesex
thsec,ellm, Hanwell, was oracred. lie quite concurred in
vacinrearks of the Noble Lord, the necessity. of
care 5 Cases of this description under
bet
Lthitnne earliest period of the disePsZior7wedh
:11
These things
there was so little ovision at present.
9.:s ought to be guardedagainst. The Noble.
sct (Ashley) had promisedttheed whole subject
promise,
the House, and he mustobes bring
u top to
handle keep
thehis
qui:erestiisoen,f_ormne man was more competentpurr
Part of i near. hear.) But he must not deal with a
wour t he must, embrace, the whole, or the public
be ct not be satisfied. The question involved the very
Principle of hunlanity, and, as such, he would not

wish to see it in better hands than those of the Noble.
Lord.
The clause was then agreed to, after a slight verbal
amendment.
Clause 25 was agreed to. On clause 26 being proposed,
Colonel WOOD (Brecon) said this clause was to
apply to the metropolitan district alone, and it was
! his wish that its power should be extended throughout
; the country. He proposed, therefore, to leave out the
words " any part of which is situated within the me-
tropolitan police district, or the City of London."
Sir J. GRAHAM was understood to oppose the
amendment, but the observations which fell from him
were wholly inaudible in the gallery.
After a desultory conversation between Mr. Escott,
Mr. Wakley, Sir J. Graham. Mr. Hawes, Col. Wood,
Mr. D'Eyncourt, Sir Walter James, and Capt. Pechell,
the amendment was withdrawn, with a view to Colonel
Wood's bringing up a clause at the proper time, embo-
dying his views and wishes, and then taking the sense of
the House upon it.— The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 27 being put, which regulated the burials of
paupers. some short discussion took place, when
Mr. WAKLEY entreated the Right Hon. Baronet to
postpone the clause, because he was convinced, upon con-
sideration, the clause would be reconstructed, and great
misery prevented by it. He would state, seeing what he
had, that poor creatures went about begging for coffins,
and could not get them till there was a meeting of the
board of guardians. In cases like these, burials ought
to take place as soon as possible, because it was most in-
jurious to the health of the survivors, to allow the corpse
to remain in a room where seven or eight people were
huddled together.
Sir J. GRAHAM deprecated the postponement of the
clause. All the grievances of which the Hon. Gentle-
man complained would be perpetuated unless some pro-
vision was made for the burial of persons who died out
of the workhouse. As the law at present stood, no
parish was compelled to pay for the burial of a pauper,
who died out of the workhouse.
Colonel WOOD trusted the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury would not insist upon postponing the clause ; he
might alter it as he pleased, but he trusted it would be
made law that the board of guardians of parishes should
furnish coffins to paupers.
Sir J. GRAHAM was willing to leave out the words
with respect to the pauper dying " without effects of suf-
ficient value to bury him," and by that means he thought
- he should put anend to all objection.
After some further discussion,
Lord ASHLEY moved that the following proviso
should be added to the clause :—" Provided always, that
it shall not be lawful for any officer of any parish or
union, or constable, to receive any money for the burial
of the body of any poor person which may be within the
parish, division of parish, chapelry; or place in which
the death may have occurred, or to act as undertaker,
for personal gain or reward, in the' burial of any such
body, or to receive any money from any dissecting school
or school of anatomy, or hospital, or other person or
persons to whom any such body shall be delivered, or to
derive any personal emolument whatever for or in re-
spect of the burial or disposal of any such body ; and
any such officer offending as aforesaid shall be thence-
forth incapable of holding any office under the said re-
cited Act, or this Act, or under any other Act relating
'to the relief of the poor in England."
The motion was agreed to after a few observations
from Mr. BORTHWICK. and Sir J. GRAHAM, and the
clause passed.
On clause 28 being proposed,
Mr. C. WOOD said, that, in his opinion, the au-
ditors ought to be elected by the Commissioners, and
not by..the guardians. He also thought there should
be a power vested in them, of disallowing sums of
money levied for illegal purposes.
Mr. S. WORTLEY wished to know what was the
extent of the power to be vested in the Commissioners
under this clause, and what grounds there were for
making alterations with regard to the auditors.
Mr. HAWES thought that the auditor to be ap-
pointed under this clause, should be a person of some
standing where the district was large, and the accounts
extensive. By this clause the auditor was to be ap-
pointed by the chairman, or vice-chairman of the dis•
trict, and two guardians. Now, he did not 'think this
was the best mode of obtaining a proper auditor.
Sir C. NAPIER said the parishes of Marylebone and
St. Pancras did not wish to have their Local Acts inter-
fered with at all, and they wished to know from the
Right Hon. Gentleman whether this clause would inter-
fere with those Local Acts.
Captain PECHELL said that he was alarmed at the
interference of this clause with Local Acts. He hoped
the Right Hon. Gentlemen would not allow a clause of
this grasping nature to exist in a Bill to amend the poor-
laws. He hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would not
persist in maintaining this clause as a portion of the
Bill. It could not fail to excite distrust and suspicion in
those places which were under Local Acts. He objected
to the auditor being appointed by the Commissioners.
Colonel SIBTHORP would move that this clause be
expunged.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that objections of a very dif-
ferent kind had been. urged against this clause. The
words of the clause would operate not only on those
unions under the control of the Poor-law Commissioners,
but where Local Acts existed. Some Hon. Gentlemen,
complained that the clause would give too much power,.
though indirectly, to the Commissioners; while the Hon.
Gentleman the_Member for Halifax thought the Com-
missioners should have more power with regard to the
appointment of the auditor. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man then quoted the report of the Committee bf 1838,
to show that they thought the auditor was too much
under the control of the guardians. If he adopted either
of the opinions which had been expressed with regard
to this clause, he would adopt that of the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Halifax, whh thought that
the auditor should be appointed by the Commissioners.
Strict principle would require they should go that
length, but they had not gone so far, and he hoped the
Committee would not reject the clause.
Mr. C. WOOD said that everything the Right Non.
Gentleman had stated showed that the power of appoint-
ing the auditor should be vested in the Commissioners.
Leaving his appointment in the hands of the chairman
or vice-chairman would leave things pretty much as
as they were at present, for the auditor being appointed
by those persons would not be at perfect liberty to re-
fuse . auditing an illegal application of money.
The Hon, Member concluded by moving an amendment
to the effect that the auditors be appointed by the Poor-
law Commissioners, instead of by the chairman and
vice-chairman of the board of guardians.
Mr. DENISON supported the amendment. If the
Hon. Member for Halifax would divide, he would sup-
port his motion.
Mr. VERNON SMITH would likewise support the
motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. The
principle of the board of guardians appointing an officer
to audit the accounts, was contrary to propriety. The
officer should be made thoroughly ihdependent of the
board of guardians, and of all other local influence.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY said an auditor was in all cases
appointed by those whom it was intended he should pro-
tect. He could not•see why the principle which operated.
in other cases should not be allowed in this—he thought
the rate-payers should have a voice in the appointment
of the auditors. He would entertain great objections to
conferring on the Poor-law Commissioners the power of
displacing an auditor appointed by the poor-law guar-
dians, who at present did his business honestly and
efficiently.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM explained.
• Sir C. NAPIER would oppose the amendment of the
Hon. Member for Halifax.
Mr. ESCOTT would oppose botl the clause and the
amendment.
Mr. RICE said the change proposed by the Right
Hon. Baronet would be most offensive to the board of
guardians, and he thought it was altogether unnecessary.
Mr. DARBY thought the present system of auditing
parish accounts was exceedingly inefficient.. There was
no means of knowing whether the overseer had paid in
all the money he had received ; but he must also say
that he feared the present Bill provided no remedy for
this defect.
Mr. R. YORKE wished to know why the appoint-
ment was to rest with the chairman or vice-chairman,
and not with the guardians generally.
Sir J. GRAHAM said they did not wish to take away
the power from the guardians altogether, and they left
it in the hands of the chairman and vice-chairman be-
cause they were elected by the guardians, and not of the
rate-payers.
Mr. BORTHWICK would rather adopt the proposi-
tion of the Hon. Member for Halifax than that of the
Government ; but he objected to the clause altogether,
for he thought those who paid the money ought to have
the power of appointing the person who was to audit
the accounts.
Mr. CHILDERS did not see how it was possible for
the rate-payers to appoint the auditor. He thought the
correct principle was to leave the appointment in the
hands of the Commissioners, who would be swayed by
no other object than the appointment of the best person.
Mr. WAKLEY thought that the mode devised,by the
Government, for the appointment of the auditor was a
most clumsy one, and would. work in the worst possible
manner. Ile would vote for the amendment of the Hon.
Member for, Halifax, and afterwards hp would probably
vote against the clause altogether. If the Commis-
sioners were to be retained at all, they ought to be made
as useful as
.possible, and they could not be made more
useful than in auditing the accounts.
Mr. PLUMPTRE thought the rate-payers would be
much better pleased in having the appointment of the
_auditor placed in the hands of the chairman and vice-
chairman, than in the Commissioners'.
Mr. HAWES said he would support the amendment
of the Hon. Member for Halifax.
Sir THOMAS D. ACKLAND was understood to
say he would support the amendment.
Mr. R. YORKE said he could not vote for the amend-
ment of the Hon. Member for Halifax, because he was
opposed to granting an irresponsible power to the Com-
missioners, neither could he vote for the clause. He
would therefore do that which was more agreeable and
Oanyenient to him, namely, to walk home,—(Laughter.)
After some further conversation, the Committee di-
vided, when dim appeared—
For the amendment „„
Against it _
_ _ _

hfajority against the amendment
Captain nenErz moved that Local Acts be ex-
empted from the operation of the clause.
gir JAMES GRAHAM saw no gr.:40145 RI-such an
exemption, Thnd would oppose the proviso.
Mr. WILLIAMS supported the insertion of the pro-
viso, and opposed the clause.
MUNTZ said his constituents of 40 plgsses were
''• interference of the Poor law Cnip-
opposed id . ,
this clause. He trusted the
missioners sanctioned - - • The pbjec-
Government would reconsider the
tions to the clause were not confined to Brighton Mu,
Coventry, but were, he believed, universal.
Mr. DUNCOMBE thought the preset clause was an
underhand attempt to uhdermine local influence. It
would make the new poor-law more offensive and objec-
tionable than it bad been before, The sooner the Bill

was throlhn out the better. He could support the pro-
viso of his Hon. and Gallant Friend.
• 'Mr. SHAitMAN CRAWFORD said his constituents
vi ere oPpOSeette the clause.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the proviso 3B
Against it
Majority
Mr. ESCOTT inquired whether a provision could not
be introduced into the clause to exempt those places from
the operation of the clause in which the auditing of •the
accounts had given perfect satisfaction.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that if the llon. Member could
point out how the object could be effected, he•would have
no objection to such a proposal.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
. For the clause
Against it
Majority for the clause
_ _

Clause 29 was then agreed to.
On clause 30 being read, a desultory discussion ensued,
which was not understood in the gallery, and the clause
was ultimately agreed to.
On the reading of clause 31, .

Captain PECIIELL objected to the powers which the
clause would give to the parish officers. The Right
Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department,
said that aggrieved persons had a remedy, but he (Cap-
tain Pechell) thought that the best remedy would be
" Leave us alone."—(Cheers.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said that if the Hon. and Gallant
Gentleman could point out a mode in which his object
could be carried out, the Government would accept of
his assistance.—Agreed to.
On the question that clause 32 stand part of the Bill,
Mr. P. BORTHWICK suggested an amendment as
to the auditing of union accounts. (The Hon. Member
spoke from the Opposition bench, at the table, where
his appearance caused much laughter.)
Sir J. GRAHAM thought that a double set of au-
ditors was superfluous.—The clause then passed.
Clauses 33 and 34 were agreed to without discussion.

The House then resumed:
On Mr. GREENE asking leave to sit again this
day, there were loud cries of " No, no."
Mr. DUNCOMBE complained that there had been
no notice of the House sitting on Saturday.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had stated last night, that
the House would meet on that day.
Sir C. NAPIER said that silting again to-morrow
was taking too much out of them.—(Laughter.) He
also begged to observe that he had been impertinently
shut out from the last two divisions. He was up stairs
taking a little refreshment, and on running down when
the bell was rung, he found the door shut. He did
think some reasonable space of time should be tllowed,
for to get down into the House now was quite impossible.
Mr. DUNCOMBE opposed the sitting on Saturday.
Captain PECHELL said the Right Hon. Baronet
had gained all his points and carried all his clauses; the
most objectionable parts of the Bill had been passed, so
that he thought the House might as well sit to=morrow.

Sir J. GRAHAM said, that at that late period of the
session he must really press the House to sit to-morrow
(this day) to go into Committee on the Bill, more espe-
cially, when, as the Hon. and Gallant Member for
Brighton had observed, most of the doubtful parts of
the Bill were already passed.
An How. MEMBER asked at what hour the Committee
was appointed for to-morrow (this day).
Sir J. GRAHAM—One o'clock, and we shall sit until
five.

Mr. WAKLEY thought it was unjust, unreasonable,
and almost opprersive, to sit this day. The Bill had
been before the House many months, and had stood on
the paper on many occasions when the Government had
either neglected to make a House, or had permitted the
House to be counted aut. The Right Hon. Gentleman
had no reason to complainof the manner in which he
had been treated during the discussion, and it was rather
hard to ask them to sit on Saturday, aftei they had sat
every other day of the week until two o'clock in the
morning. Many of the most important clauses, those re-
lating to district schools and asylums, yet remained to
be discussed. He hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman
would not persevere.
Sir.J. GRAHAM said if they did not sit to-morrow
(this day), no progress could be made in it during the
next week.

Col. SIBTHORP did not like Saturday sittings. It
was hard to call upon Hon. Members who really did
their duty by attending in their Places in Parliament,
instead of appearing in full fig, attending parties and
drinking champagne—(A laugh)—it was very hard
to call upon them to give up the only day ex-
cept the Sabbath which they had to devote to their
private affairs. If the House divided, he should vote
against sitting on Saturday ; but if the House should sit,
and the Bill get through Committee, he should like to
know 'when the report was to be brought up, as he had a
motion on the subject.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY, although averse to Sa-
turday sittings, would yet, under the circumstances, vote
for sitting this day.
Dr. BOWRING would vote for sitting on Saturday.
Mr. WAKLEY said the special circumstances that
rendered this haste necessary was the approach of the
12th of August.—(llear, hear, and laughter.) It was
the same every session. There was always a delay in
the progress of business until July. At the beginning
of that month they became very bustling, and towards
the end of the month, as the I:.'th of August approached,
the rapidity with which they got through business was
marvellous.

Sir It. PEEL hoped the Hon. Gentleman would not
discuss this measure tomorrow in a different temper to
that which he had hitherto exhibited. He thought,
under_ the circumstances, it was not too much for the
Government to ask that,they should to-morrow resume
this Committee. There was a great deal of business
yet before the House, and there was every probability
that the remaining votes of supply would not be obtained
before Monday week. If the Hon. Gentleman flattered
himself that he would be enabled to get away to the
country on his grouse shooting excursion by the 10th
or 12th August, he (Sir R. Peel) could only say that
there was not much chance of his doing so.
The Committee was then fixed for this day.
ACTIONS FOR GAMING DISCONTINUANCE