The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-25 00:00:00

LUNATIC ASYLUM.

Mr. WODEHOUSE obtained leave to bring in a
Bill to amend an Act of the4Bth of the late King,
relative to Lunatic Asylums.

VAGRANT. LAWS.

Mr. CHETWYND took the earliest opportunity
of complying with the directions of the Select
Committee appointed to inquire into the existing
laws relating to Vagrants, by moving for leave
to bring in a Bill to amend those laws. The
present system of administering the Vagrant
Laws cost the country a sum of not less than
100,0001. a year, and he was entitled to say,
from the evidence which had been given before
the Committee, that they had not produced .a
single practical good. The remedy which, he
proposed to apply, embraced five different ob-
jects. His first object would be to suspend the
present system of passing vagrants for a year, or
for some given period. Great abuses existed
under the present system of passina. vagrants.
One of those which was given in evidence before
he would relate to the House. A man who kept
-a monkey was taken up for begging in York-
shire, and a pass to Scotland was made out for
him at an allowance of Bd. .a day. The man ob-
jected that this sum was too small to maintain
himself and monkey, and the Justice's clerk
being pleased with the tricks of the animal, said
he would pass his monkey too. Accordingly, a
pass was gravely made out for the monkey under
the name of John Strange, at an allowance of Bd.
a day, and in that character the monkey actually
proceeded from the North Riding of Yorkshire
to Scotland.—(A laugh.)—His second object
would be, to accompany the suspension of the
.present system of passing vagrants with a more
extended period of imprisonment. A mere im-
yrisonment for seven days was art expence to the
country, and answered no good purpose whatso-
He should propose an imprisonment of
one month for the first offence ; and instead of
.suffering vagrants to enjoy themselves, as they
were allowed to do under the present system, he
thought they should be kept to hard. labour.
Vagrancy was donsidered by the laws as a crime,
,andought.to be treated as a crime. At the same
!time, he should propose that a portion of their
earnings be given to them at the end of their im-
prisonment. His third object would be, to abo-
lish the present system of rewards ; and the
fourth, to give a power to Magistrates to bind
over constables to prosecute vagrants for a repe-
tition of their offence. His fifth object would be
to abolish walking passes. He would not enter
further into the subject on the present occasion,
as the House would have an opportunity of dis-
cussing the details on the second reading of the

ever.

Mr. SCARLETT adverted to the absurdity of the
present system of the Vagrant Laws, by which
vagrants were sent to their places of settlement,
to receive precisely the same punishment which.
might have been inflicted upon them in the first
instance. If it were necessary to punish vagrants
at all, surely the cheaper and the more expedi-
tious mode would be to punish them in The place
where the act of vagrancy was committed, in-
stead of sending them from one end of the king-
dom to the other at a great public expence. This
View of the question was calculated,to illustrate
the arguments which he had urged on a former
occasion with regard to the settlement. In fact,
to send a pauper to his place of settlement, was
an most cases to send him to a place where he
Lad no connections, and no means of obtaining
.a livelihood. He hoped, therefore, that his
,Learned Friend, in introducing his Bill, would
propose some measure to limit the• discretion of
Justices in this respect. It deserved considera-
tion, that the mere circumstance of a man being
reduced to necessity, was not in itself to be re-
garded as a crime, for it was only against the
sturdy, incorrigible vagrant, that the penalties of
the law were directed,

Mr. F. 'LEWIS contewled that there was no '
place in which a Vagrant was so likely to abandon
his-idle habits, and apply himself to useful la-
bour, as that in,which the law emphatically styl-
ed him-to be last settled. - -There would be diffi-
culty in dealing with a part of the system of the
Poor Laws, without considering in what way the
whole would be affected by' such a partial appli-
cation of a remedy. -
:Mr. LOCKHART said that there were various
sorts of -Nagrancy marked out by the old law,
such as beggars, hawkers, and even players.—
(A laugh.)—liut he thought it would be unjust
to visit all these with the same punislunent.
There was another more effectual, and certainly
more merciful way of restraining vagrancy, and
that was by withholding all aid from the vagrants
when they were in need. lie was afraid the
Committee had nor paid attention enough to the
distinction of vagrants, but had allotted a punish-
ment for vagrants indiscriminately. It • was,
however, most material to attend to their classifi-
cation. •

Mr. Chirps said that if the House acceded this
Session to the measure proposed by the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Scarlett), un-
doubtedly the present Bill must go hand in hand
with it. But if that measure should not be car-
ried this Session, he hoped the House would
lend its aid to his Hon. Friend, and agree to try
lan experiment, which, as the measure was limited
I only to one year, could at any rate produce no
very injurious consequences.
A MEMBER, whose name we could not hear,
observed that in the parish in which he resided,
upwards of 1,4001. had been expended in one
year, in prosecuting vagrants.
Mr. MoNcti observed, that by the laws of this
country no man was permitted to starve and die
of want. Some relief; therefore must be afford-
ed to destitute persons ; and though in a general
point of view it was a matter of indifference to
the country, whether that relief were afforded in
one place or another, it was by no means a mat-
ter of indifference to A. and B. the two parishes,
which was to be burthened with the permanent
support of such persons. It was with a view to
such interests that vagrants were sent to their
place of settlement by the existing law, and he
could not therefore agree to the plan suggested
by the Honourable and Learned Gentleman
(Mr. Scarlett) which would have no other effect
than that of subjecting vagrants to an eternal
round of punishments in the place where the
first act of vagrancy was committed. He had no
wish to oppose the present motion, but the sub-
ject was surrounded with difficulties, and a great
deal of attention ought to be devoted to it, be-
fore any innovation was made upon the existing
system.
Lord LONDONDERRY said lie did not rise for the
purpose of offering any opinion upon the propo-
sition of the Hon. and Learned Member. The
subject was full of conflicting difficulties, and the
object of the Legislature must be to find that
alternative, which was liable to the smallest
share of objection. The House was scarcely in
a situation to discuss this question with advan-
tage, for they had neither the Report of the
Committee, nor the Bill before them. Consi-
dering the period of the Session, lie could not
help thinking that the Honourable Member had
acted injudiciously in bringing his proposition
before the House before the Report of the Com-
mittee was in the hands of Members. He could
not but suggest to the llouse, therefore, that the
question would be more advantageously discUssed
on the second reading of the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. liiRBORD leave
was given to bring in the Bill.
JUSTICES OF THE. PEACE. _

Mr. M. CII6EICIII:KY obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
amend an Act of the 513th of George the Third, to enable Jus-
tices of the Peace in certain cases to act out of the limits of
the County in which they actually. were.
Mr. HUME postponed his mction resp'ecting the lonian Isles
till Wednesday.
General HART gave notice that on Wednesday he would
move for leave to bring in a Bill relative to the Distilleries at
Carrickfergus.
POOR RELIEF BILL.

Mr. SCARLETT, having moved the order of the
day for' the second reading of the. Poor Relief
Bill, commenced his reech by observing that he
wished at the outset to state, that it never was
his intention, even when he first proposed the',
measure now before them, to incumber it with
many matters of detail. He was desirous rather to
point out to the House the principles upon which
he thought the present system of our poor laws
vicious one, and one which required correction.
He had been, desirous of putting it in the most
simple form, and of calling the attention of the
House to what- he conceived to be the grand
sources of those evils under which we now
laboured. He would shortly recapitulate the
three great causes of all the various mischiefs and
inconveniences which were found to result from
our present system of poor laws. They were to
be found, first,, in a compulsory and unlimited
provision for the poor ; secondly, in the adminis-
tration of that provision, not to snpport_industry,
to encourage good conduct, and to be a relief for
-those who might .be disabled by infirmities, but to
cherish the vices and the indolence of that class
of the poor who were disposed to exist rather on
the charity of others, than to depend for their
own bread upon their own exertions : thirdly,
.(which was the grand and principal source of all
those evils, as compared with the others,) in the
restraint that now existed upon the_free exercise of
labour. It had actually been held that au order of
the magistrates for the relief of a poor man was not
valid, unless it contained the adjudication of those
magistrates that he was impotent to subsist himself.
T heLearnedG entlerrnin then adverted to a practice
which he said had a direct tendency to reduce
the wages of labour. This was the employment
of paupers (particularly those being married and
having families), who received very slight wages
for their labour, because they received them in
conjunction with their parochial allowance. Say
that a pauper, to support himself, his wife and
family, as a compensation for his labour received
9s. a week. The unmarried labourer was by this
means reduced to the condition that he who by
the proper wages of his own labour could support
himself was compelled to work in competition
with one who was, content to take gs. as the
weekly wages of his labour. Let Hon. Gentle-
, men look at the condition of the labouring poor

of England. They would find mett working
almost their blood out ; and for what prospects'?
For the melancholy prospect of terminating their
existence in the poor house. The labourer at 9s.
could have no other. In -every point of view,
moral, political, and religious, the Irian who had
a direct interest in his own labour, and could
thus discern something like a cheering prospect
to encourage him, was more valuable to society
and to himself, than a man without any pros..
pact but a poor-house for his old age.. The
Honourable and Learned Gentleman then
exposed the fallacious and ill effects of the
law of settlements at some length. The total
and unqualified abolition of this law appeared to
him to be absolutely necessary. Before they
could return to the original intentions of the Act
of Elizabeth, they must remove the difficulties
interposed by the regulations arising out of the
practice which had grown up with respect to
settlements. What was the principle of this
law ? Nothing more than an arbitrary connec-
tion between the man and the place of his nati-
vity, or of some other accidental relation. Arbi-
trary it was, because it was not founded on any
just principle of legislation or policy. After
some further remarks on the inconsistency and
injustice of the law of settlement, the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman observed that it had been
stated from 'Nottingham that there were a great
number of persons who had settlements in that
town, but who resided elsewhere, and that there-
fore the townsmen were afraid the effect of this
Bill might be to increase the burden of their
poor rates. But the House would see that the
limitations of this measure were calculated to
prevent any such additional charge, beyond a
specified proportionate amount ; and therefore
the churchwardens would have but a short an-
swer to give the parties : they would be em-1
powered to say, " You must go elsewhere, for ,
we cannot afford to maintain you." The Act,
the 43d of Elizabeth, provided a power of taxing
one parish in aid of the too heavily burdened
funds of another. He (Mr. Scarlett) ob-
jected to the principle of such taxation in
aid ; but, as the power stood upon the Statute-
hook, it might be quoted with some effect, per-
haps to meet an evil which he thought imaginary.
He happened to know that the accumulated po-
pulation of manufacturing towns rendered the
lands in the vicinity of such towns peculiarly va-
luable. Indeed, he could quote instances, where
such lands, cultivated for the subsistence of such
accumulated population, were let at so high a
rent as sixteen guineas per acre. Another ob-
jection to the 13111 before the House was the
maximum which it proposed to introduce ; and
he was free to confess that cases might for some
time arise, in which that maximum would be
found inconvenient. But the legislature ought
not to be deterred from adopting a sound and be-
neficial principle by the fear of temporary incon-
venience : let the house adopt the measure, see
the effect, retain the principle, and remedy, pro
tempore, the , transient inconvenience. If any
gentleman Fait such -a prospect of temporary
mischief, as to call for the enactment of a pros-
pective law; he (Mr. Scarlett) had a clause which
might be made part of the Bill, and which suppli-
ed a certain cure for the evil. If scarcity of provi-
sions, epidemic disease, or any other circumstance
of local affliction should be found to render an
allowance necessary beyond the maximum, then
let a meeting of the inhabitants of the place, not
a select Vestry, but an open meeting, at which
the sense of the people could be taken, have
power to make an additional allowance. The
system of maintaining illegitimate children, and
the mode of imposing rates, were' both points
upon which improvement might be made ; but
such arrangements were rather matters of detail,
to be treated of after the moving principle should
he adopted. It was said that, under the existing
laws, rates might frequently be diminished by
the vigilance of Magistrates. No doubt they
might; he (Mr. Scarlett) knew instances in
which such reductions had been effected; but
such instances were exceptions to the general
rule ; and the good effect lasted no longer
than the vigilance was maintained. He agreed
that. the calamities under which the poor were
suffering had been produced in a great mea-
sure by the increase of taxation. But why
had those sufferings been so produced 1 Because
increase of taxation, and the consequent increase
in the money price of almost every article of con- ,
sumption, had not been attended by a propor-
tionate increase in the rate of wages paid to them.
The, labourer was now paid, not by wages, but
by charity : he was demoralized, enslaved, de-
prived of that independence and self respect
' which alone could make him a good man and a
useful citizen. All this took place without a
single shilling being saved to his employer : nay,
the employer, in the end, was a loser by the sys-
tem. It- would be found, almost throughout
England, that the state of cultivation in which
the land appeared depended in a great mea-
sure upon the condition of the labourer by
whom it was cultivated, In Lancashire and
in in the West Riding of Yorkshire_ where fuel
was to be obtained almost for nothing, where
living was cheap and wages were compa-
ratively high, was not the land, in general, in
better cultivation than in the southern counties,
where muses were low, and poors' rates-enor-
mous ? Cfollowed, indeed, of necessity, that it
should be so; it followed of necessity that a man
should work better upon a plentiful meal and a
prospect of independence, than upon 9s. a week,
with the prospect of a workhouse. The farmer
who paid 2001. a year in wages, got more done
for his'moriey, and got it better done, than the
man who paid 100/. in wages, and 1001. in poors'
rates. The Hon. and Learned Member then re-
ferred to some returns which he had received
from the parish of St. James, Bath, by which it
appeared that, with an increase only of one-third
in population during the last 100 years, the,
poor rates had increased gradually from 9s.llid.
per week to 41/. ss. This increase wa,s even now
going on. Would the House stem the torrent
now, or wait until its force became overwhelm-
ing ? After some remarks upon the probable ef-
fectof.the proposed Bill, in saving the immense,
expellees incurred by removals, and in putting an
end to laws which formed an eternal source of

litigation, the Hon. Member concluded by mov-
ing that the Bill be read a second time.

Si ROBERT WlLsori • allowed that it was an
arduous task to reply to the arguments of his
Learned Friend ; but painful and arduous as the
task was, he undertook it from conscientious mo-
tives. No man could deserve more credit than
his.bearned Friend, and certainly no mart was
more disptAd to give it than himself. BUt his
(Sir R.'s) objection to the Bill was, that it tended
to abrogate the Statute of Queen Elizabeth, which
Justice Blackstone had declared to be founded
on the best principles of civil society. He would
say, that the laborious poor could only look, and
ought only to look for relief, to those who had
the means of relief in their possession. Suppose
that a Case happened that the inhabitants of a
populous town were thrown out of employ, and
relief refused them, did the House suppose that
they would starve ? His Learned Friend had ap-
peared to think that, by the Statute of Elizabeth,
the impotent alone were entitled to relief. But
he would ask, if relief were refused to the indi-
gent poor, who were willing to work but unable
to procure it, would they not soon be reduced to
that impotent state which would entitle them to
the benefit of the Statute ? The Honourable
Baronet then proceeded-to express his objections
to the imposition of a maximum. That maximum,
whatever it might be, would soon be considered
by the poor as a,mini mem. The system had been
already tried in other cases, and had always been
found inconvenient. With regard to that which
he termed the anti-matrimonial and anti-popula-
tion measures of his Learned Friend, he would say
that the clause was equally inconsistent with re-
ligion and morality. If they thus passed a law to
prevent marriage, how could they still keep up
those laws which already existed against illicit in-,
tercourse ? No person could go into the country
and say that children were the premiums of idle-
ness. The poor man seldom received relief until
trig third child, and then only at the rate of one
two or shillings a week. Formerly an extensive
population had been looked upon as an advantage,
but now it appeared it was to be considered a
burden. 'He never would agree to a measure
which would tend to take away the best rights
of the poor until he had seen those reductions of
public expence which he had so long laboured to
accomplish, and until he saw every thing done
which would satisfy the people that every useless
expenditure had been abolished.

Mr. F. awls said, he rose merely for the
purpose of making one or two observations ofi
what had fallen from the Gallant General (Sir R.
Wilson). He- called the 43d of Queen Eliza-
beth the Magna Charta of the poor, the palladium
of their rights'. If by this he meant to establish
it as a principle that it was not competent to the
House to make any alterations in these laws, that
every change must rest on the conditions laid
down. by the Gallant General, he would entreat
them to consider what the consequences must be,
and what was the nature of the right, thus claimed
on the part of the poor. The principle of the
British Constitution was to secure to all whatever
property they had acquired. It knew of no other
principle, so fly as regarded property. It could
not therefore for a moment stand as a maxim of
right.that the poor were entitled to support.—
From the 43d of Elizabeth it was clear that the
poor-rates were never considered in any other
light than as a provision for the poor. The
words in that statute, which might be traced to
preceding laws, meant nothing but compulsatory
labour.' lie would take a future opportunity of
going into the details of the Bill.
Mr. BENETT (Wiltshire) conceived that the,
greatest evils of the existing Poor Laws were,
that they had reduced the poor to the most abject
state of wretchedness, leaving them without any
interest whatever In property. Yet he consi-
dered that if the proposed measures were adopt-
ed, at the present period, they would create a very
general state of starvation. The fixing of a maxi-
mum, he thought to be quite impracticable, and
the alteration of the law of settlements would be
productive of serious evils. Some parishes would
be relieved, while others would be much more
hurthened than they were at present. The sup-
ply of labour was not, in his opinion, too great;
there was only an insufficient demand, because
the progress of agricultural pursuits was checked
by the prevailing distress.
Mr. COUWtENAY thought it would be much
better to let the Bill go into the Committee
without discussion, and let the general principles
be discussed when it should come therefrom. He
would. merely say here, that_ he did not agree
with whit had fallen from ,an lion. Gentleman
(Mr. F. Lewis) as to the right of the poor to the
relief which they received, but that, on the con-
trary, he concurred in much that had been said
upon that subject by the Gallant General who
preceded him. And upon a future occasion he
should be prepared to contend, if the House
would hear him, that the poor had a moral right
and claim -upon the support of the Country.

Mr. HARBORD took the same view as the Hon.
Member who spoke last as to the course of pro...
ceedino- with the Bills. Ile should therefore re-
serve the. observations he had intended to ad=
dress to the House until the fit occasion should
arrive.

Lord MILTON said, he was friendly to the
Bill, and would give all the support in his power
to that part of it which went to repeal the pre-
sent Law of Settlement., That law he consider-
ed the greatest mischief to the poor themselves
and to the country generally. Ile did not think
the present distress arose from an increased
population, for on comparing the census taken
20 and 10 years back it would be found, that in
the agricultural districts the increase was trifling,
if any. There was no doubt an increase in the
manufacturing districts ; but it should be con-
sidered that this added to the rents of the land-
owners. The existing distress arose not from
population or Poor Laws, but from their im-
mense public debt. The Poor Laws were no
doubt a great moral evil ; but it would be
remedied in a great measure by repealing the
present Law of Settlement, which prevented
labourers from going where they might find em-
ployment. lie did not, think the same piovibion
allowed by these laws could operate as any great
encouragement to early marriages. ire thought

ii—impossibie to carry into effect the, clause re•
specting a maximum. Indeed if the other parts
of the Bill were successful the clause would
be-
come nugatory.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, he rose
mervly to say a few words as to what he thottra
the proper...course of proceedin 'The House
was indebtedqo ate Hon. ands larned Gentle-
man (Mr. Scarlett) for brit/ging forward this sub-
ject. The frequent discussion of it would be
productive of this great advantage, that the
country would, by degrees, be habituated to con-
sider it in a just point of view, and be prepared,
when it was clearly understood, to act upon wise
principles. This great question had been within,
a short time twice under the consideration of a
Committee. If so much difficulty had been felt.
upon a former occasion in giving a mere modifi- •
cation to the Law of Settlement, the Home
would, perceive how necessary it was to prepare
the public mind by mature discussion for so com-
plete a change as getting rid of the principle of
settlement altogether. Nothing was more de-
sirable than to prevent, by wise regulation, the
increase of that expence for the support of the
poor which was tending gradually to absorb OF
property ; nothing more desirable than to apply
the principle of relief to those alone whom the law- ,
originally contemplated ; nothing more desirable
than to prevent vagrancy and the other evils aris- n
inn from the present Law of Settlement; but
though desirable, the House should still wait
till they saw how far these ends were rendered
attainable by the clauses of the Bill, and how the
provisions of it were reasoned by the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman in connection with the prin.
ciples. He would suggest therefore to have the
Bill printed, and to take the discussion in the,.
Committee as early as possible, Every discus-
sion.and every communication made on this im-
portant subject was a real gain to the country.—
The Report of his Right_Hon. Friend (Mr. S.
Bourne) did a great deal to enlighten the public.
They had long before been proceedinc, on false--
principles of huma.nity, by vesting in ?Magistrates
an unlimited power as to the amount of the relief
they would grant to paupers. Ever since that.
Report, the administration of the. Poor Laws
moved in a right direction. The Select Vestries
recommended in it were found to be productive
of great advantages in many places where they
had been introduced.

Mr. CALcaArr said, although be came pre-
pared to enter into discussion on this question,
he was disposed to defer the consideration, con'
ceiving that the suggestion of the Noble Lord
to reprint the Bill, with the additional claustts4
was the best course of proceeding.
Mr. SCARLETT had no objection to read thrie-
BUJ a second time, and in a Committee to move,
instanter, to annex -some of the clauses. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, adverting to the
money given to paupers in cases of marriage, said
he had received a letter from a Magistrate, in
which it was stated, that a young person, twenty
years of age, had received three guineas and 3
half to be married, and when he was married, he
came to the overseers to demand relief and as re-
sidence.

The Bill was then read a second time, null or-
dered to be committed on Monday.
METROPOLIS ROADS BILL.
Mr. D. GILBERT moved the further consideration of th.e
Report of the Metropolis Roads Bill.
Mr. CALCRAFT opposed the Bill, and said' he would take
the sense of the House upon it.
Mr. CRIPPS spoke in favour of the Bill.
Mr. DENISOI against it.
Mr. J. Smith supported the motion ; and Mr. H. Sumner!
Sir E. Knatchbull, Mr. Williams, Sir E. Harvey, Sir J. Se".
bright, and Mr. T. Wilson opposed it.
The Order of the Day for taking the Report into further
consideration was then put.
Mr: D. GILBERT moved that the Bill be re-committed.
Mr. CALCRAFT moved, as an Amendment, that the 140-
port be , taken into further consideration on this day thtt<
months.—The House divided—
For the Amendment . - 34
.Against it - - - . . 33
Majority for the Amendment - - —1
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed ef, ana
House adjourned at a quarter past-One o'Clock.