The Sun. — 1846-04-08 (London, England)

THE POOR LAWS.  Mr. CHRISTIE asked Sir .larresGritham whether the attention of the Poor-law Commissioners had been directed to the case of Elizabeth Butcher, tried at Salisbury on the 12th day of March, far the murder of her infant child, and acquitted, the child having been stripped of its clothing on the mother's leaving the Cricklade and Wootton Bassett work house ; and to the case of Harriett Bowkett, tried at Hereford on the 30th of March, for the exposure of her infant child  with intent to murder, and acquitted of the intention to murder, the child having been stripped of its clothing on the mother's leaving the Ledbury workhouse ; and whether the stripping infants of the clothes which have been supplied in the workhouses, where the mothers have no other clothing for them, when they are taken out of the workhouses, is ordered or sanctioned by the Poor-law Commissioners? Sir J. GRAHAM said that the cases to which the Hon. Member had reierred had attracted the immediate attention of the Poor-law Commissioners; and he held in his hand a letter, dated the sth of February last, which showed clearly that the children of Butcherand Bowkett had not been stripped of their clothing on their leaving the workhouses in question. If they had been so stripped, the regulations which the •Poor-law Commissioners had issued to the different hoards of guardians throughout the country would have been openly violated, as there was an express direction given by the Commissioners that all bastard children should be suffered to leave the workhouse in the clothing given to them by the boards of guardians.—(Hear, hear.) In every case clothing was ordered to be furnished by the guardians to children born in workhouses, and they had no authority to deprive them of it on their being removed from the precincts of the unions. No impediment whatever was offered against mothers taking their children reni from the workhouses, and every facility was given o trehferto obtain clothing for them. Whatever had arisen law ence to these two cases did not spring from a 3 existing or regulation approving of the hardships whichn. the lion. Member appeared to suppose had u been inflicted on the two individuals in question. He would take this opportunity, of _ stating that he was very glad to find that the poor-law was being cart led out very beneficially in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) The Government were continually receiving intelligence of the feelings of the people ©f that 'country, changing materially in favour of the poor-law.—( Hear, hear. ) Indeed, he they, held in his hand two reports to that effect from the poor-law Commissioners in Ireland, which he would take the liberty of moving to be laid on the table of tlllonse, and subsequently proved, and after Hon. Members had read, lie felt convinced that they would arrive at the same conclusion to which he had, viz., that the poor in Ireland were now receiving great benefits from the operation of the laws relating to the poor in that country.—(Hear, hear.) The reports in question were then brought up by the Right Hon. Baronet, and ordered to NDIAN CO be printed. I RN.  Mr. 11‘CARTIIY wished to ask of the Government under what regulations the Indian corn would be distributed to the people of Ireland? Sir JAMES GRAHAM stated that general regulations upon the subject had been laid upon the table of the House; in some particular districts, however, the distribution would take place under different regulations, suited to varying circumstances. Sir It. PEEL would 'say one word with reference to this introduction. It was found already that persons who had been subsisting upon that article were able to do their work better, and to work for a longer time than they could upon their former article of diet. All prejudices against Lndian corn was now fast disappearing in that country. The people found it both palateable and nutritious. Tbis article, lloweTert Honourable lilembers would recollect, was now