Star.
London, England, 1830-04-27 00:00:00

MADRAI REGISTRAR RILL.

Mr. AST ELI. pie;;;;llaictiiintt&nilieDirectors of the Feat
Company agair.st the second reading of this Rill. The)
payed that the bill might rot pass into a law, and that they might
ue heard by Counsel against it.—A:treed to.
?Ai, JAMES MACKINTOSH wished to say only a few words
the subject. It-was a case lie thought, of great hardship, and
eiii.i;rt.d the interfereace of the Legislative. The gentleman who
wad yearend by the conduct of the Registrar was of an advanced
no. Ile had been more than thirteen years in the colony, and,
p.:.onveritience of a snit in the Court or Chancery, had been de-
Nititi atl relief. #lc would now move for the order of the day
being rasti for the aecond reading of the bill, in order that it might
sK tiertpohed to Widaesday week.
• POOR LAWS.
After the presentation of several other petitions -against the mo.
wooly of the East India Company, :Ind the punishment of death
ter forgery, on the motion of Mr. SLANLY. the house went into a
tyreellinn on the Poor Laws' Amendment RH.

Vi the clause to empower magistrates to order that the children
,er parents unable to maintain them he taken away and put to school,
sir T. BARING slid, that the house wits not full enough to take
important a subject into consideration, and that time should be
given for the purpose. To a clause of this kind he could not under
►apt ciscumstances give hi. consent.
Mr. GORDON took shame to himself for not having before read
the bill. The clause assumed that persons got married, in order to
man allowance from the parish, and enabltil two justices to take
away their children from them.
Mr. CRIPI'S protestcd against the clause, and thought it was
ens of the most romantic plans ever devised. It would have the
effect of encouraging instead of preventing early marriages, while it
wonkl, at the same time, destroy all natural aftection.

Le 11 ALTHORP said the reason of the introduction of the
iga...e was to relieve :hose who had families so large that they were
.tnable to maintain the.n. As to the hardship of separating parent
.ird child, he could not discover it, when it was for the purpose of
traintenance and education.
Mr. W. HOUTON wondered that the bill had not been debated
upon principle; but thought the principle a useful one. Unless
sum? such separation us the one proposed were effected,no alteration
of any benefit could be carried into operation with respect to the
poor laws.
Mr. FRANK LAND LEWIS said that, although a similar clause
had passed the house in the year 1817 with his consent, he was at
puscnt of an opposite opinion. It would be a good plan to attempt
to establish institutions, in which, instead of paying able-bodied
.ren, their children should be taught and provided for during the
day. This was better titan entirely separating the children from
their patents. Another good measure would be—the diminishing
the power of the magistrate to grant relief. The reason that the
poor laws hail not over-run Sco•land was, that they were adminis-
tered by those who were to provide relief. In England, individuals
ordered relief without, in any adequate degree, contributing towards
it.

Mr. BENETT said the object was to bring the law to the state
in which it existed in the time of Elizabeth, and to give relief only
to impoter.t persons. The hon. gentleman said no, but surely that
trust be his intention. He proposed to give nothing to any persons
on account of the extent of their families beyond the wages which
they might be able to earn. He (31r. llenett) called this paying
wages out of the poor-rates. It was impossible for the honourable
gentleman to regulate the value of labour. The value of la.
bour'was regulated by the amount of the supply and de.
mand: If a manufacturer gave a labourer Bs. a week (which
would not maintain his family,) and the parish gave 8s more,—it
was said that this was paying wages out of the poor.rates. He
(Mr. 11.) denied that altogether. He denied that the payment out
of the poor-rates was a paymeet of wages. There was now a super.
Abundance of labour, and a want of demand. The price of labour
was Bs. a week. A man who had six childreu could not live under
les. a week. It' he were deprived of parochial relief he must
starve. If a stimulus could be given to agriculture, an increase
would be given to the demand for labour, and then the honour-
a:tle gentleman would have a favourable moment for intro-
tit chug plan. Ile agreed with the honourable gentleman in
his principle, and should be glad to see the law brought into ope.
ration by which a labourer would bz relieved from the degraded
state in which he at present was. The honourable gentleman was
patting the cart before the horse in attempting to legislate at a
tune the country was not prepared for it. As to the clause by which
it was proposed to assess the owners of tenements instead of occu.
pants, he had no hesitation in assessing the owners of tenements,
witereva they were let as lodging-houses. Why should the owner
of a small freehold be assessed, when a man who possessed between
..:0001. and 30001. a year was not assessed. He approved of the
principle of the bill, and he was willing to join with his hon. friend
because be showed a spirit of conciliation and good sense ; but, as
the bill could not be carried into effect now, he felt bound to oppose
is for that reason, and for the other reasons which he had stated.
Mr. COURTENAY said that the bill was one of the greatest
importance. He would give his consent to the bill. Feeling that
no person in England should be suffered to starve—(hear), he thought
tnat the bill of the lion. member for Shrewsbury, if left as it was,
could potpies. The clause on which the committee was now, eon-
sensplated the separation of the children of paupers from their
patents, and, from seven years of age :to fourteen they were to be
maintained by the parish. He objected to the amendment; still
he was prepared to assent to the proposed clause, with an alters-
tioo ooty of four years to one. heaving the clause as it was, the
experiment contemplated by the bill, coald not be effected till
eleven years. Should the opposition to this clause, so amended,
restore the bill to its original state, he should, in that case, oppose
tler hill al they.
Mr. W. HOUTON observed that the moral check upon the in.
maw of popuhttkin was lost by the existing law, for men would not
he deterred from improvident marriages while they knew that their
children would Le supported by the parish. The principle of the
separation of children from their parents was already recognised, and
in full execution in the poor laws; for when the paupers could not
support their children, the parish was obliged to do it. He would
be better satisfied if his hon. friend made the bill altogether pros.
pective. He would suggest to his hon. friend to recommit his bill,
and to make the clauses prospective, so as to get this house to adopt
he principle.
111 r. BENEI`r wished to explain one point. The law now al.
lowed the separation of children from their parents as when they are
aoprenticed—but that separation was very different from that con.
teniplated by this Bill.
Alt. SIAANEV said that if lie had not well considered this sub-
ject, lie should be induced by the representations of hon. members
to abandon the bill. But alter having made himself acquainted
with all the laws on the subject, and seeing that that them was no
means provided for supporting the children of the poor, he could not
give up his purpose. (Hear, hear.) The principle to which
we wanted to get back was the practice of the northern coun.
ties. 10 years of distress a different practice first took place in
the western counties, when the Magistrates apportioned out to
Labourers money relief according to the price they sketched
out for bread. This practice spread to other counties, and in them
else poor man was degraded and depressed in mind as well as in
body--obliged to give great labour for very little wages. In the
nueth of England the wages of labour were still good, and the la-
bourer was sot so degraded ; he was rather independent in prin.
ciple, and had a spirit of frugality. He and those who supported
this bill asked parliament only to restore to the booth and west of
England what the practice of centuries proved to be good in the
north. By the laws now in existence, relief was given to the poor
man according to the number of his children, which In fact became
a premium upon improvident marriages, and consequently reduced
wages to a minimum. This bill would work the reverse of all
that, would be highly beneficial to the pcor man. and would tend to
raise his wages. He did not tee any reason to alter his own views,
sad be would leave the bill to the wisdom of the house.
Mr. GRIPES said he gave the greatest credit to the hon. member
(Mr. Money) foe the trouble lie took with the bill ; but he could not
eof the separatism of the children front their parents. As a
approve of
be was concerned in the system which was now repro-
bated, and which bad for its object to regulate relief for the pauper
according to the price of bread. It was on that principle that they acted
in the county to which he belonged. As to the system In the meth,
the population in dos parishes there was small, and could not be
compared with the parishes in the south. If he thought the
meaeure of the boa gentleman feasible he should be ready to give
it bit support. lie wished the hon. gentleman had adopted the
suggestion of the bon. member for Radnorshire (Mr.. F. Lewis),
and divided his proposition into two parts, being quite ready to
tumor in the sowed part, as it appeared to him likely to be pro.
duetive of advantage.
Er. Secretary FHB!. regretted very much that no preliminary
dimatssion had taken place on the merits of this bill. The greater
part of the observations which had been made turned on the prin-
ciple of the measure, so that they were, in fact. reversing the order
At their proceedirep, ond dimming in a committee that which
ought to be reserved for the third reeding. He hoped that else
MU would be made as perfect as possible in the committee, and
though the boollorablo genthansa was complimented by the ho.
nOstrablo insodsor far Wlitshko (Mr. &sett), upon the ground
of, his readiness so meet th&erisites of an ponies, he (14r. Peel)
aril hoped • that he woolliiesseult only his own discretion for,
in Isis andel to amommodate die measure to dos Wows of vs.

T

Thus individuals, its effect might be injured. For himself, be was
no: di-posed to say a single word against the principle of the bill,
• but there were some of its details which be considered objection-
' Me. The hon. member found the same law applicable to all parts
of the country, but he found, at the same time, that the node o. f
administering it wen much less satisfactory in some parks than in
others. In the North he found it to be satisfactory : but not so in
the South ; and his object was to assimilate the practice in both
quarters. This object was one which he was, to the fullest extent,
disposed to sanction, though he might direr from the honourable
gent., in sonic respects, as to the mode of carrying it into effect._
It was propene(' that, until the system in the South should be ac-
commodated to that existing in the North, an interincd'ate practice
should be adopted, under which children were to be separated
from their parents. He doubted very much the expediency of
i adopting this proposition ; for, however tight it might be to separate
pauper children from profligate parents, he felt persuaded that the
practice ought by no means to be rent:heed general ; but, when once
parishes were invested with power, they would act upon it indis-
criminately, without at all consulting the magistratea. Now, at the
first blush, It appeared to him revolting to the feelings of natur.r to
takeaway children from their parents indiscriminately, mithough
special circumstances might make it advisable to do so in particular
instances. Neither was it right to leave such a discretionary power
in the hands of the churchwardens and overseers. He, moreover,
doubted whether the proposed system of enabling the churchwardens
and overseers, with the consent of the vestry, to found schoels for the
maintenance and education of children from 7 to 14 years of age,
would not be Multi a very expensive one to the public.
he admitted that tile children of paupers out to receive a fair edu-
cation —such an education, in fact, as they would receive at a day-
school ; but beyond this he would not go. The experience he had
had In Ireland of schools which undertook the clothing and support of
children up to the period when they arrived at 14 years of age, was
in no respect favourable to the practice. When the children had
reached that age, the great question then was how to disposed of
them, for it was found that many who had been educated in the
Charter Schools of Ireland were not fit for servile work, and the
great difficulty was how to place them in a line of procuring
a livelihoad. It was clear, however, that if the bill were to pass
in its present shape, the churchwattl: ns and overseers would
all be anxious to adopt the school system, in consequence of
the patronage it would give them, for they would have to
adopt a superintendent, together with a master and 'a tnistresa, In
every parish. It was proposed that this power should now, for the
first time, be piven to churchwarden,' and overseers throughout every
part of the 11 est of England ; but be could not help looking with a
good deal of jealousy at any measure of the kind. lle would ask
whether, if in cases of compulsory apprenticeships the law war
found to work well, it was right that the churchwardens and over-
seers, with the consent of the vestry, should be authorised to pur-
chase land for the establishing of pauper schools ? Ile wislittl,
however, to be understood as rather suggesting these difficulties than
as offering any opposition to a measure which deserved to be taken
into serious consitleration.
Mr. 11'. NORTON said that all the objections of the right lion.
gentleman would be obviated if the principle of the bill made it de.
claratory that no man should be entitled to relief for his children,
unless he presented himself as a pauper in the spirit of the Act
of Elizabeth.

Sir T. BARING was decidedly adverse to this measure. The
first object which it professed, according to the hon. member who
brought it forward, was to nisei the character of the pauper. raid
the next was to diminish the amount of the rates. Nos, he
(Sir I'. Baring) contended that, so far from realizing either of
these objects, it would have quite a contrary effect. He concurred
with the right hon. secretary opposite in the opinion that the school
systetn would be attended with great expense. Besides, he thought
that the collecting of children from seven to fourteen years of age
in a large house would be productive of denic.ralizing eor•.sequerce..
Sir 'l'. FItEE, IANTLe. was of opinion that the doubts expressid
by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel), as to whether the bill could
be carried into operation without injury, were altogether groundless.
The decided impression on his own mind was that nut only no in.
jury would result from it, but that, on the contrary, it would he
attended with the best practical results. The great object of the
bill was to prevent the violation of the law by the parochial au.
thorities.

Mr. ESTCOURT said that the hon. gentleman with whom this
In3easure had originated expressed his wish to place the system in
the southern counties on the same footing with that which obtained
in the northern, and that parish officers should not be permitted to
act as they did at present ; but the hon. gentleman seemed to for-
get one main principle, for he was legislating on the effect, and not
on the cause, of the mischief. If he could place the southern coup.
ties in the same state with the northern, :hen he might very fairly
call upon the house to adopt his proposition ; but he appeared not
to recollect that at one period there were in the southern counties I
certain manufactures which they now no longer possessed. These
manufactures were removed to the northern counties, where the pro.
pulation was not so great as in the southern, and the consequence
of increased industry was a decrease of poor-rates. In the north,
therefore, it was not found necessary to resort to the system which
had been adopted in the south—a system which he himself admit.
ted to be bad, for it tended to reduce the price of labour; but be
did not see that it could be corrected by this bill.
Mr. SLANEY said that in all those places where labourers were
paid in part oat of the rates the poor were badly off, while in those
places where a contrary system prevailed they were comparatively
well off. He would ask the hon. gent. what were the manufactures
which had fled to the northern from the southern counties ? What
manufactures had Sussex ever possessed ? For his own part, he
knew of no southern county from which any manufacture had been
removed to the north, with the exception of Wiltshire (Hear.)—
The mischief was always found to be the greatest in those
places where the employment of the poor was of a rural nature.
(Hear, hear.) One effect of this Bill would be to prevent Mime.
vident marriages—such marriages as were at present so prevalent
all over the country. They had it in evidence that in Sussex
young men married between 18 and 22, though ithey were fee.
quently obliged to go to the parish tot relief for their first child.—
' The right honourable gent. objected to the power of taking children
from their parents, but he would beg to remind the right honourable
gent. that the principle of the Bill in this respect was not a new
one. The law, as It at present stood, enabled the overseers and
churchwardens to take the children, at nine years of age, and put
Ithem to work. This Bill only accelerated the time, giving them
power to take the children at seven years of age, and place them to
school. Ile hoped that the Bill might be allowed to pass this Ses.
aion—not, indeed, with the hope of its becoming a law, but for the
advantage of its discussion in another place. But, even if that
house should reject it, he would still persevere in his efforts to ob.
tain what he felt to be a necessary amendment of the law.
Mr. PEEL begged it might not be taken for granted that he ac.
quiesccd in the principle of the bill because he had confined his ob.
&creations to fits clause under discussion. He wished to reserve his
opinion on the principle until the third reading, and was anxious
that in other respects the hon. gentleman should render his measure
I as perfect as he could.
Mr. nENETT said that the poor laws were but a temporary
evil, and a great real good. When we should recover the state of
prosperity to which he confidently looked forward, they would cease
to be felt more burdensome than hitherto.

After a few observations from Sir T. Baring. Mr. W. Horton,
Mr. Slane y, Mr. N. Calvert, Mr. Peel, and Lord Althorp, the com-
mittee divided on the clause, when the numbers were,
Against It
In favour
Blajority —B2
The other clauses were then agreed se g the house resumed, the
report was brought up, and ordered to be taken into further consi-
deration on Monday next, and to be printed.