POOR LAW AMENDMENT.

HC Deb 05 July 1844 vol 76 cc423-45

On the Motion of Sir J. Graham the House then went into Committee on the Poor Law Amendment Bill.

The 1st Clause was then agreed to.

On the 2nd Clause, giving power to the mother of a bastard child to summon the putative father to Petty Sessions, with a view to compel him to support the child,

Mr. T. Duncombe

inquired whether the Government did not think that the term within which the mother of a bastard child could under this Clause summon a putative father was too short? By the Clause the term was limited to six months after the birth of the child, but he thought it ought to be extended to twelve months.

Sir J. Graham

, before answering the question of the hon. Member, alluded to an Amendment of which the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Sibthorp) had given notice, relating to abolishing the Poor Law Commission, and said that it would be still competent for the gallant Member to bring it forward at the end of the Committee. In reference to the question just put to him, he was bound to state, that after consideration, he thought the limit of six months was perhaps too short; and he should not object, if it met with the general concurrence of the House, to extend the period from six months to twelve months. He therefore moved that "six months" be omitted, and "twelve months" inserted.

Colonel Sibthorp

complained of the manner in which he had been treated. In common candour and decency, he ought to have been informed of the proper period for bringing forward his Motion. As to future opportunities, when, he should like to know, would they arrive? Besides, what had occurred had taught him a lesson, not to depend on the promises of the right hon. Baronet.

Amendment adopted.

Mr. J. Stuart Wortley

proposed an Amendment, to the effect that the mother might also summon the putative father "at any time after the twelve months subsequent to the birth of the child, upon satisfactory proof that the man alleged to be the father has admitted the truth of such allegation." He said that the father might voluntarily agree to give the mother an allowance for twelve months; and he thought that this voluntary payment might be taken as a proof of his being the father, even after the period of twelve months had expired.

Sir J. Graham

opposed the Amendment.

Mr. Tatton Egerton

said, that the father might pay a sort of hush-money for twelve months, and that, if after that period he ceased the payment, the mother under the present Clause would have no remedy against him. He suggested the addition of a few words to the Amendment, so that it would run as follows:—"Upon satisfactory proof that the man alleged to be the father has admitted the truth of such allegation, by payment of money."

Mr. Escott

said, that this was a most important part of the Bill. His opinion had been in favour of limiting the term to six months rather than twelve months; but he now believed there was good reason for adopting the larger term. However, he thought that the present Amendment, if carried, would renew the most objectionable parts of the old bastardy system.

Sir J. Graham

said, that the principle of the Clauses was to give every facility to the mother for obtaining her remedy against the putative father, not through the medium of the parish officer, but by directing a summary remedy as of debt against the putative father, and he solemnly declared that the Clause was sincerely and honestly brought forward. He was anxious and willing to discuss any Amendments, from whatever quarter they might come, provided they were consistent with justice, and tended to carry out the principle of the Clause. As to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, he would state that he objected to the words "at any time thereafter," without any limitation. He thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Cheshire (Mr. T. Egerton) was less objectionable.

Mr. Henley

did not mean to say that the Government were wilfully deluding the country by introducing these Clauses. As far as experience went, he believed it was the fact, that not 5s. of the money which was spent under the bastardy orders of the old law were ever recovered. The evidence of the Commissioners, which was the foundation of the New Poor law, showed that it was quite a losing account, and he now thought these Clauses would not have the effect intended, that was to say, they would not give such a remedy to the woman as would reasonably enable her to maintain her bastard child, and so keep her out of the union-house, which was a nuisance to all classes of persons in her circumstances.

Captain Rous

thought this Clause was a premium for perjury; many an abandoned woman would make a profit by swearing other women's children against a man.

Sir J. Graham

would propose to insert these words in line 19,—"Or any time thereafter, on proof that the alleged father of such child, within twelve months after the birth of such child, had paid money for its maintenance."

This Amendment was agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3, authorizing justices in Petty Sessions to make an order on the putative father for maintenance and costs.

In the 31st line, in which it was enacted that the case should be heard before two justices,

Mr. B. Denison

proposed to substitute three for two. His object in proposing this Amendment was to force the way for the rejection of the Appeal Clause, of which he intended to propose the omission. His opinion was, that unless that Clause was struck out, all this part of the Bill would be totally inoperative. In the first place, this Appeal Clause threw upon the woman for the first time the responsibility and cost of defending herself. Hitherto she had been defended by the parish, now she was to conduct her own defence; and he put it to the common sense of Parliament, what chance had a poor woman, with a child, friendless, in the presence of strange magistrates — against a father backed by a sharp attorney ready to take every advantage? There were few women, he believed, who would venture upon the exposé, and it was his decided opinion, that if they left the Clause as it stood, they might as well burn the Bill at once. With these feelings he would propose, in order to make the adjudication of the magistrates a final adjudication, that the case should be heard before three instead of two Justices of the Peace.

Mr. T.G.B. Estcourt

said, that the hon. Member had not said one word to show that the old, acknowledged, and recognised tribunal of the Petty Sessions was insufficient for the trial of such an offence. For his own part, he had always found that the more Judges there were the less was the responsibility, and he really saw no reason for arriving at the conclusion that two magistrates were not quite sufficient.

Colonel Wood

said, it was a mistake to suppose that two magistrates always constituted a petty session. For the purpose of auditing accounts under the Common Fields Enclosure Bill three magistrates were requisite to form a petty sessions, and, if so many were necessary for such a purpose as that, surely an equal number was required for the purpose of affiliating a child against whose affiliation there was an appeal. In the event, too, of any difference of opinion between the magistrates, no affiliation could be made without the presence of a third, and in that case the woman would be saddled with the keep of the child.

Sir J. Graham

was disposed to think the affiliation Clause a very important subject of consideration, but certainly he could not see that any greater security would be obtained by the substitution of the Amendment now proposed by the hon. Member. The judgment of three magistrates was not likely to be more sound than the judgment of two, and he really did hope that the Amendment would not be pressed; but that the hon. Gentleman would permit them to put the question whether there should be an appeal or not.

Amendment withdrawn.

Mr. P. Borthwick

observed that, as the Clause stood, the mother of an illegitimate child was necessitated to receive the weekly sum awarded by the magistrates from the father of her child. Now, that would bring her into a weekly contact with her seducer, which might be dangerous. She might, and in all probability would become the mother of two or three illegitimate children consecutively, instead of one. Would it not be infinitely better that the allowance should be paid by or through the overseer.

Mr. B. Escott

said, he had practised formerly at sessions, and he had seen a great many cases of hardship upon the fathers of illegitimate children. Now, this Clause would give the power of committing the father of a child for three months in the event of non-payment of arrears due to the mother and of there being no goods on which to distrain. He would like to know what good reason could be given for attempting to inflict such a punishment upon the father, and he expressed great doubt if such an exercise of power was consistent with the principles of the Constitution.

Sir J. Graham

was satisfied that, unless there existed a penalty upon the person these Clauses would be entirely inoperative. His experience led him to the conclusion that the remedies of the mother would be entirely nugatory without such a power was given by the law.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 4 being put,

Mr. B. Dennison

moved to omit all the words in the Clause after line 7—that is to say, every part of it relating to the appeal to the quarter sessions from the decision of the magistrates.

Colonel Rolleston

would not trouble the Committee by recapitulating the arguments which he had already urged in support of the alteration which he had proposed, but should simply confine himself to the expression of a hope that justice would be done to the woman who should be placed in the circumstances contemplated by the Clause. His only object was to prevent the man from escaping from the consequences of his conduct, in consequence of the inability of the woman owing to her poverty, to prosecute her claim against him at quarter sessions. If the Clause remained as it now stood, this result would happen in nine cases out of ten.

Mr. P. Borthwick

hoped the suggestion thrown out by the last hon. speaker would be adopted. It would be wholly impossible for the unfortunate woman to raise such a sum as would be requisite to enable her to prosecute her claim at the quarter sessions. The cost of making an appeal could not be estimated at less than 4l. 10s.; and how, in the name of fortune, was a poor woman, in such circumstances to procure this sum? The power of appeal would altogether nullify the intentions of the right hon. Baronet in framing the Clause, and he hoped that he would remove it from the Bill. It was far better, in his opinion, that a little evil should be endured on one side than that a great one should be sustained by the other.

Mr. B. Hawes

said, that the woman under the circumstances contemplated would have already obtained all that could be desired for her. The decision of the magistrates in petty sessions being in her favour was conclusive, unless the man wished to have the opinion of the superior court, in which case he might carry it at his own expense to the quarter sessions.

Sir J. Graham

said, that great caution was requisite in considering the point in question, and hon. Members must guard against allowing their feelings to guide their judgment. If extraordinary facilities for recovering the sum awarded for the maintenance of her illegitimate child were to be granted to a woman, the Bill would have a demoralizing effect. For himself, he confessed he was generally in favour of granting an appeal to quarter sessions from the decision of magistrates in petty sessions. A revision of such decisions in open court, where there was a bar to watch over the conduct of the magistrates, and public opinion to check it, operated as a most wholesome provision against injustice being done in the petty sessions. The 3rd Clause of the Act gives the magistrates in petty sessions power to fix a poor lahourer with the sum of 2s. 6d. a week for the support of his child during thirteen years, and it was therefore advisable to proceed with caution before such a burthen should be irrevocably placed on a person in the situation of a labouring man, and means ought to be afforded to the latter to remove it from himself if he could show that he was not justly liable to it. For that purpose the appeal to the quarter sessions had been devised, and his (Sir J. Graham's) only doubt in the matter was whether the rich man would not alone benefit by his ability to carry the proceedings into the superior court, and thus defeat his unfortunate suitor.

Mr. Wakley

asked the right hon. Baronet what the views were by which he had been guided in framing the Bill, as it at present stood; and why the appeal was given to the man only, and not to the woman?

Sir J. Graham

said, that he considered, on the whole, it not to be an advantage, if the woman were to have the power on her side of carrying an appeal from the petty sessions to the quarter sessions, and of supporting her claim against the putative father, by producing corroborative evidence of her shame. The whole feelings of the country were opposed to such a course as that of permitting a woman, under these circumstances, to come forward and produce confirmatory testimony to her own shame, before a crowded court. On the whole, therefore, the legislation which had formerly prevailed upon this matter had been deliberately departed from, and as far as the woman's claim was concerned, the decision in the petty sessions was final.

Mr. B. Escott

said, the reason why the appeal was one-sided was because the punishment was all on one side. The penalty awarded by the law to the offence was a very heavy one, considering the circumstances and position of the labouring man; and, therefore, he had a right to appeal from the decision which fixed it on him, to the superior court. He had seen so much of the proceedings of magistrates in petty sessions, that he should be very loathe to do anything that would extend their power.

Mr. Wakley

did not think that the right hon. Baronet had given a satisfactory answer to his question. The hon. Member who spoke last had asserted that all the punishment was on the side of the man. Did he mean to say, the woman endured no punishment? What did the Act say? That if a woman failed to support her illegitimate child she was liable to be treated as a rogue and a vagabond, under the Act of George III. A woman ought to have the right of appeal to quarter sessions, if the magistrates at petty sessions refused to grant her an order of affiliation. She would never dare to face the bench at quarter sessions if she had not justice on her side. He therefore requested the right hon. Baronet to introduce into the Clause a right of appeal for the woman as well as for the man, or else a great deal of discontent would be created by this measure out of doors.

Sir J. Graham

said, that appeals were rare under the Act existing prior to 1834, because the appellant had to fight against the parish and the poor rates, but, under the present law, all that a man had to resist was the resources of the mother and her friends. He must, however, again repeat, that after full deliberation he was inclined to maintain the Clause.

Mr. Wakley

would ask whether the victims of misfortune who came within this Act were to be left without an appeal against the decision of the magistrates where their decision had been unjust? It was their bounden duty in such cases, after what they had heard as to the feelings against the present law, and the horrible results of throwing the maintenance of the child upon the woman, not to give to the man an advantage which they withheld from the woman. With an infant at her breast, her character ruined, how was she to obtain a livelihood? And what was one of the results of throwing the burthen of maintenance of the child upon the woman? Child murder! Could it be denied? The coroners of the country could assert the truth of it. It was only the day before yesterday that he saw as fine an infant as was ever seen, which had been picked up in Oxford Street, within 200 yards of his own house. Scarcely a week passed that he did not meet with an instance of the kind. He had sometimes seen two or three a-day, and frequently several in a week. The juries were horrified—they were disgusted with the law and with that House. And what was the House now doing to amend the law? They said that two justices should decide whether an order should be made on the putative father; and suppose they made an order on the father for the maintenance of the child—and a most miserable maintenance it was—only 2s. 6d, a week—they would give to the father a right of appeal against a decision, but to the mother they would give no right of appeal when the decision was against her. The decision of two judges was to be final against the woman, but not so as to the man; and that was the mode in which they proposed to remedy the law and satisfy the public. He was convinced there was so much injustice in the proposition, that it would inflame the public mind. The justice of the case was so obvious, clear, distinct, and self-evident, that no show of mysterious argument would deceive the public with reference to it. What was the consequence of the present law? That child-murder was going on to a frightful extent, to an enormous, a perfectly incredible extent: and the means of destruction in a number of cases was such as to make detection impossible. There were no means of detecting it; children were brought from some place in a distant part of the country and deposited near the terminus of a railway. The body was found, an inquest was held, in some cases death by violent means was found; in others, not so, but in scarcely an instance were there any means of discovering by whom it was deposited, so adroitly was it managed. But was it not an object in amending the law, to remove from the woman the temptation of committing so horrible a crime as child murder? He hoped, then, that the House would not make the law one-sided, but would give to the woman the same power of appeal as to the man. He was disposed to ask the right hon. Gentleman who had treated this subject with so much ability and fairness, that the Clause might be postponed for re-consideration; because he was persuaded that if the right hon. Gentleman investigated the subject, he would be so convinced of the injustice of the present law towards the woman, that he would not leave it as it now stood.

Mr. B. Denison

said, under all the evils which the hon. Member for Finsbury had pointed out in this case, he proposed to put the woman who wanted assistance, in such a situation that she could not obtain it. If two magistrates at petty sessions made an order against A., B., C, or D., and he appealed against it, the remedy the woman had was to go to the quarter sessions; and she, coming out of the workhouse perhaps, had to go to the quarter sessions in some other part of the county, and then she might be kept for a week together at her own expense—that being to his own knowledge, not less than 10l. or 12l. If they agreed to mitigate the severity of the present Poor Law as regarded these Bastardy Clauses, they would act like men of common sense, and put the woman in a condition to have justice done to her, and not to give her a remedy in words which practically would be of no advantage to her.

Mr. Wakley

said, the hon. Member for Yorkshire had argued this question as though he (Mr. Wakley) had originally proposed an appeal to the quarter sessions. Now, he knew that sometimes an appeal from the petty sessions to the quarter ses- sions was from Noodle to Doodle; but when Doodle was under the guidance of an intelligent bar, he might gain an infusion of mind that might lead him in the right direction. If magistrates were as wise and sagacious in their judgments as the hon. Member for Yorkshire, he should not fear their decisions; but it was known that persons were made magistrates, not because they were competent to discharge that office, but because they had friends who had influence with the Government; and, therefore, that Noodle or Doodle, in all great families, being troublesome at home, found employment as a magistrate and dealing with the poor. He contended that it had been so; and if it had not been for the conduct of the magistrates in the mal-administration of the Act of Elizabeth, they would not then have been discussing this question in the House of Commons. It was in consequence of the mal-administration of that most excellent law by incompetent persons that they had been thrown into all this difficulty. He again insisted, that if they were to give to a man upon whom an order was made, a power of appealing to the quarter sessions, they should not withhold that appeal from a poor woman, with regard to whom that order had been deliberately and pertinaciously refused.

Sir J. Graham

said, this Clause was sufficiently difficult without any extraneous matter being introduced into it. Various questions had been referred to which it was not the duty of the House at that time to consider. With regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Finsbury, as to the increase of infanticide, he must deny its accuracy. Returns had been made upon that very subject from various counties both manufacturing and rural, and both for a period before and since the passing of the New Poor Law. The variation was extreme in many counties; but the result did not sustain any theory of the increase of infanticide. He could understand, though he would not say that such was the effect of the existing law, that the difficulty of obtaining any maintenance for the child might lead to such a crime: but, when the simple question was, whether the decision of the magistrates should be final or not, he could not think that that would be a feather in the scale with the mother whether she should sacrifice the life of her child; but he had already said how nicely balanced the question was, and how wavering his own judgment was upon this point. He thought there were strong reasons why, according to the present system of our jurisprudence, it would not be possible to give an appeal to the quarter sessions, because there might be no res gestœ in decision upon which any appeal could be rested. If the justices in petty session refused, on the application of the mother, to grant an order on the person alleged to be the father of the child, the proviso precluded such magistrates, or any other justices, from reconsidering the case. He would suggest to the Committee, whether the omission of that proviso might not meet some of the objections urged against the Clause.

Mr. B. Denison

expressed his satisfaction that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) was inclined to give the mothers of illegitimate children an opportunity of obtaining a reconsideration of their cases, after decisions had been given against them by the justices; but this concession did not meet his objection to the Clause. The objection he (Mr. Denison) took was this—that if, after an order had been made upon the man for the maintenance of an illegitimate child he entered an appeal, it was in most cases impossible for the mother to sustain the order. He would remind the Committee that, in many cases, the mother might have just come out of the workhouse without a penny in her pocket; she might obtain, from the justices in petty sessions, an order upon the alleged father of her child; but, an attorney might recommend the man to enter an appeal, and, if the appeal were prosecuted at the quarter sessions, how was the unfortunate woman to obtain funds to support her case.

Mr. Cripps

considered that such statements as had been made to-night on the subject of infanticide—especially when proceeding from individuals who had access to the best sources of information, as was the case with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley)—had a very unfortunate tendency. Now, he put it to the hon. Member for Finsbury, whether he could deliberately assert that, within his own knowledge, the crime of infanticide was on the increase. He might state that when the Commission, of which he had the honour to be a Member, was prosecuting inquiries in Wales, one of the first grievances brought before them by gen- tlemen, by magistrates, by people of all classes, was this that the crime of infanticide was enormously upon the increase. The Commissioners thought there might be just grounds for this statement, and they took great pains to investigate the subject. They sent for coroners, for magistrates' clerks, for registrars—indeed for all persons from whom they thought they might gain information; and, if there was one subject they investigated more carefully and anxiously than another, it was this—whether the crime of infanticide had increased under the administration of the New Poor Law? That was negatived most directly and distinctly by all the authorities the Commissioners examined. Of course, if the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) said, that, within his own knowledge, infanticide had increased, he could not dispute the assertion; but, certainly, in those districts in which he had had any opportunity of instituting inquiries on the subject, he had found that this evil was diminishing.

Mr. Estcourt

said, if the proviso of this Clause were omitted, a woman might make application after application to magistrates for an order upon the alleged father of her child, until she succeeded in her object. This was a subject of considerable difficulty; but he considered it was essentially necessary, to further the ends of justice, that men should possess a power of appeal in cases of this nature. For his own part, he believed that in many cases when orders were made upon men for the maintenance of illegitimate children, they would find great difficulty in prosecuting appeals at quarter sessions. The Committee must also remember that it was the interest of the parishes to which the mothers of illegitimate children were chargeable that the adjudication in case of appeal should be in favour of the woman; and there could be little doubt, therefore, that (at all events in the great majority of cases) the parishes would assist women in endeavouring to obtain a confirmation of orders of maintenance. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) would retain the Clause as it stood at present.

Sir J. Graham

said, that if, as was proposed by his hon. Friend, the words in this Clause by which a power of appeal was given to the man were omitted, he (Sir James Graham) would propose to retain the proviso. If, on the other hand, the words giving the power of appeal were agreed to, he would consent to strike out the proviso.

Mr. P. Borthwick

was understood to say that, admitting the difficulties with which this subject was encompassed, he would have been much better satisfied if the right hon. Baronet had agreed to postpone this Clause, in order to give the matter more mature consideration. His objection to the Clause was, that it would be inoperative for good, and that it might and would be operative for evil.

The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out by Mr. B. Denison, relative to the power of appeal, stand part, of the Clause:—Ayes 84; Noes 40: Majority 44.

List of the AYES.
Acland, T. D.	Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.
Arkwright, G.	Langston, J. H.
Baillie, Col.	Lawson, A.
Baird, W.	Lennox, Lord A.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Lockhart, W.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	McGeachy, F. A.
Benett, J.	McNeill, D.
Bentinck, Lord G.	Manners, Lord J.
Boldero, H. G.	Mitcalfe, H.
Bowles, Adm.	Napier, Sir C.
Boyd, J.	Nicholl, rt. hn. J.
Cavendish, hn. G. H.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Childers, J. W.	O'Brien, A. S.
Christopher, R. A.	O'Conor Don
Clay, Sir W.	Palmer, R.
Clerk, Sir G.	Peel, J.
Collett, W. R.	Praed, W. T.
Cripps, W.	Price, R.
Curteis, H. B.	Pringle, A.
Damer, hon. Col.	Protheroe, E.
Dickinson, F. H.	Pusey, P.
Duncan, G.	Rice, E. R.
Escott, B.	Round, C. G.
Estcourt, T. G. B.	Rumbold, C. E.
Fitzroy, hon. H.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Flower, Sir J.	Seymour, Lord
Forman, T. S.	Stanley, Lord
Forster, M.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.	Stuart, W. V.
Gaskell, J. Milnes.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Godson, R.	Tennent, J. E.
Gordon, hn. Capt.	Thesiger, Sir F.
Goulburn, rt. hn. H.	Thornely, T.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Trench, Sir F. W.
Guest, Sir J.	Vernon, G. H.
Hamilton, C. J. B.	Vivian, J. H.
Harris, hon. Capt.	Wakley, T.
Hawes, B.	Warburton, H.
Herbert, hon. S.	Wodehouse, E.
Hervey, Lord A.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Hope, hon. C.
Hope, G. W.	TELLERS.
Hussey, T.	Young, J.
Johnstone, Sir J.	Baring, H.

List of the NOES.
Ainsworth, P.	Hindley, C.
Aldam, W.	Irton, S.
Barnard, E. G.	Kemble, H.
Beckett, W.	Layard, Capt.
Borthwick, P.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Brocklehurst, J.	Morgan, O.
Brotherton, J.	Morris, D.
Browne, hon. W.	Morison, J.
Buck, L. W.	Pechell, Capt.
Burroughes, H. N.	Plumridge, Capt.
Chetwode, Sir J.	Pryse, P.
Colquhoun, J. C.	Rolleston, Col.
Crawford, W. S.	Sibthorp, Col.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.	Strickland, Sir G.
Douglas, Sir H.	Walker, R.
Egerton, W. T.	Wawn, J. T.
Ellis, W.	Wood, Col.
Entwisle, W.	Wrightson, W. B.
Fielden, J.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H.	TELLERS.
Henley, J. W.	Liddell, hn. H. T.
Hinde, J. H.	Denison, E. B.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 5, That the money under the order is to be paid to the mother, or to a person appointed by the justices,

Mr. J. Henley

said, that it appeared from this Clause, that when the woman became chargeable upon the parish, she would not be able to obtain any money from the putative father for the support of the child. That was a point which he thought was deserving the serious consideration of the right hon. Baronet. Some alteration ought to be made in it, to obviate that objection.

Mr. P. Borthwick

had brought this matter under the notice of the House on a former occasion. It appeared that the money was only payable to the mother of the bastard child provided the woman was of sound mind, was not confined in any gaol or prison, under sentence of transportation, or chargeable to any parish or union. The mother of the illegitimate child would be subjected therefore, to the constant visits of the person who had already been too successful in his attack upon her virtue.

Sir J. Graham

did not see the force of the hon. Member's objection.

Sir H. Douglas

said, it was not clear from the early portion of the Clause what was to become of the money due to the mother when she became chargeable upon the parish. Was the woman to be entitled to the arrears? Was the parish to receive the money, should the woman be chargeable on the parish?

Sir J. Graham

must confess that the point which the hon. and gallant Member had raised was one well worthy of consideration. It certainly was not intended by the Clause that the putative father, under the circumstances pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member, should go scot free. This Clause must be considered conjointly with Clause 7. He thought that by omitting after the word "transportation" the words "chargeable to any parish," the objection which had been raised would be obviated.

Colonel Sibthorp

referred to the latter part of the Clause, which provided That no order for the maintenance or support of the bastard child, made in pursuance of this Act, shall be of any force or validity after the child in respect of whom it was made has attained the age of thirteen years. He begged to move that "fifteen years" should be substituted for "thirteen."

Sir J. Graham

could not see any force in the hon. and gallant Member's objection to the age specified in the Clause. It was clear that before the Act of 1834 passed the order of maintenance upon the father did not extend beyond the age of seven. It was thought that at the age of seven, the period of nurture expired, and until that age the mother had a distinct right to keep the child, and to call upon the father to pay for its support. Between the age of seven and nine there existed only a contingent liability on the part of the father for the support of his child. But he had nearly doubled the period during which the mother would have a right to demand payment from the putative father.

Amendment withdrawn.

Mr. Borthwick

wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet had any objection to the money being placed in the hands of a trustee for the benefit of the mother? If it was the wish of the right hon. Baronet he would bring up a Clause to that effect at the end of the Bill.

Sir J. Graham

had some difficulty in understanding the hon. Member's objection. It was generally found that when money was paid to a third party for the benefit of another individual, a portion of it rested half way. He could not see why the mother should not receive the money directly, without the intervention of a third person.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 11, giving a power to the Poor Law Commissioners of regulating the trades, &c., to which parish children shall be apprenticed,

Mr. W. Ellis

said, his constituents had instructed him to object to this Clause. It was true this Clause was not imperative on the Poor Law Commissioners, but still he thought the guardians must be the best judges, in all cases, of the proper fees and the trades to which children should be bound, and he was decidedly opposed to the Clause?

Sir H. Douglas

said, his constituents had the same objection to giving this power of interference to the Commissioners, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, on consideration, would consent to some relaxation of this central supervision.

Colonel Rolleston

thought, that boards of guardians must be infinitely better judges in these cases than the Commissioners could be. He was surprised to find from a letter he had received within the week, that they did at this moment exercise this power. His correspondent stated a case in which they had objected to a boy being apprenticed to his own uncle.

Sir J. Graham

said, whatever might be thought of this Clause, the motives with which he had prepared it could not be impugned. He had been told that there were cases in which the intervention of a central disinterested authority would operate for the protection of the poor apprentice; because local interests frequently prevailed in such cases, at the expense of the future comfort of the apprentice. There was always an interest with the board of guardians to transfer the young person to a parish out of the union. Perhaps the House remembered the Mines and Collieries Bill, which had passed into a law two years ago. In that Act there was a positive prohibition against binding to a collier. The Legislature absolutely prohibited that species of apprenticeship. Under this Bill he proposed no prohibition; all he proposed was, that a power of supervision and control should be exercised by a responsible tribunal as to the species of employment to which the child was to be bound. He thought it better to leave generally the arrangement of binding out to the local body, but he did not see any sound objection to the supervision and control of a responsible tribunal to the extent he had mentioned. He had been taunted with wishing to support the Com- missioners at Somerset House, for the purpose of grinding and oppressing the poor. He had constantly negatived that charge; he denied it again; and he asserted, that if the Commissioners did their duty they were, beyond all their other duties, pre-eminently bound to be the guardians of the poor throughout the country. He was not prepared to say, as the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) said last night, that the elective guardians had become the most harsh administrators of relief to the poor; he was not prepared to say they were more so than the ex officio guardians: but with respect to medical relief, he would say that it was in consequence of the intervention of the Commissioners that a far lower remuneration had not been given in many cases to the medical officers than was now given, He repeated, that binding out by the guardians the Bill did not prohibit, but he was afraid that if it were left to local interests to get rid of individuals, if the power were given of binding out without check to any trade, however unwholesome, however foreign from the former habits of the child, very great injury would be done. All that was required was, that there should be the concurrence of an independent tribunal with reference to the trade to which the child was to be bound.

Captain Pechell

objected to this Clause as giving an unnecessary power of interference to the Commissioners. When the right hon. Baronet said this was a measure of amelioration, he could not think why he encumbered it with this Clause, which the right hon. Baronet knew had drawn on his Bill the hostility of places containing 2,000,000 of inhabitants. The Clause went to give the Commissioners' order the force of law. In many cases it would operate to throw obstacles in the way of binding out children. At any rate, the Clause ought to be embodied in a separate Act. He did not know what it had to do with the Poor Law. He considered it was totally unnecessary. The right hon. Baronet had failed to make out his case. Legislation on the subject ought to have been preceded by an inquiry. The right hon. Baronet said that local prejudices might work to the disadvantage of the children to be apprenticed. That he thought was casting a slur on the boards of guardians throughout the country, which those that he was connected with certainly did not deserve. The right hon. Baronet was wholly misinformed on this part of the subject. He moved the omission of the Clause.

Mr. Christopher

hoped, that the right hon. Baronet would not consent to withdraw the Clause, for both as a magistrate and as chairman of a board of guardians he could see that this Clause would be one of the most useful in the Bill. The effect would be to protect the parish apprentice. It would prevent the guardians from getting rid of an idle boy from the workhouse, by apprenticing him to a person of little respectability, who might neglect both his education and morals; and it would provide a sufficient control over any master to oblige him to bring up his apprentice in a proper manner. He considered the power as a most useful check, and he cordially supported the Clause.

Mr. C. Wood

thought the Clause imposed too much on the Commissioners when it required that they should "define the trades or businesses to which poor children should be apprenticed." Surely the guardians taking into consideration the peculiar position of the parish, and all the accompanying circumstances, would be best able to settle all that. He thought controlling, not prescribing powers proper for them on this point.

Sir J. Graham

did not desire that the Commissioners should exercise any origiginal power upon details on this subject, but he wished that they should have a complete controlling power. He had been informed and believed that the 15th and 61st Clauses of the Act gave the Commissioners all the power conferred by this Clause, which in reality only added that in which the Act was deficient,—a penalty for the enforcement of obedience. He should not be disinclined to adopt words rendering the construction clear, that upon the points referred to the local authorities should have the original power.

Mr. T. Duncombe

thought this Clause went further than necessary. It would "prescribe the duties of the masters and the terms and conditions to be recited in the indentures." Now, he believed that it was on these points the jealousy of the Commissioners' interposition chiefly was excited. He considered this an enlargement of the powers of the Commission, the existence of which he had always been told was to be temporary only, but the continuance of which was rendered more and more permanent by these constant additions to its powers, the result of which was of course to make the law more and more dependent upon it for its operation. In 1842 the Bill introduced for amending the Act had a Clause of this sort, which though far more limited than this would be, even when altered, excited great apprehension and hostility. The boards of guardians, were the best judges of the parties to whom, and the terms on which, apprentices should be engaged.

The Solicitor General

observed, the effect of the Clause would be that the Commissioners should settle forms of indentures so far as the master's duties were concerned.

Mr. Wakley

hoped no conflict for powers on behalf of different bodies would cause the poor suffering children to be sacrificed. Such had been the result in the case of education on which the conflict led to the loss of great benefit to millions. Let all endeavour in this instance to look at the case of the parish apprentices. He believed many had never seen one of these poor children. He had made it often his business to inquire into their condition; and he affirmed it to be perfect slavery. To this Clause then he should give his unqualified support, as it tended to protect their interests, for the guardianship of which the present law was grossly insufficient. They were apprenticed seven, eight, and nine years to persons whose object it was all that time to make money by their labour. He had endeavoured frequently to advocate their cause before magistrates, and not only had he failed, but been insulted by the magistrates for his pains. The poor children worked from five or six to nine or ten o'clock. "The parish officers visit them," it was said. Yes; but how? They went into a nice neat parlour, where the master waited upon them with one or two or three of the apprentices, who before their master are asked as to their condition and treatment. "Have you anything, my dear to complain of?" "Don't be afraid to speak, my dear," when perhaps within the child's sight is the instrument of his last chastisement! The cruelty was monstrous that was too often practised towards these poor children; and there was no one to help or protect them. The responsibility of undertaking their protection was far too great for the Commissioners ever to have voluntarily assumed it unless impelled by a sense of duty. He cared not for the enmity of boards o[...] guardians or any other Boards that haf neglected their duties in this matter. He wished some parties to take charge of the poor parish apprentices, and with that view supported this Clause, for which he was sincerely grateful to the Government.

Lord J. Manners

supported the Clause, he did not wish to say anything harsh of the different boards of guardians, but he must say, that the principle which had been allowed to guide the conduct of individuals as well as of public bodies for the last twenty or thirty years—a principle which, as Lord Bolingbroke said, never made a man do his duty to God or his country — namely, that of self-interest, had tended very much to depress the poor people of this country.

Captain Hamilton

conceived that the Clause would be of the greatest benefit. Supposing that the time arrived when the Poor Law Commissioners might be done away with, he was convinced, that in such case, some other board ought to be appointed not only to superintend the education of parish apprentices, but also to regulate their hours of labour.

Mr. Escott

was afraid that it would be impossible for the Poor Law Commissioners to discharge the duty, which was now proposed to be assigned to them; and the result would be to prevent those who had the natural care of the children from bestowing that attention to them which they ought. The next Clause abolished compulsory apprenticeship, and yet by the present Clause they were requiring the Poor Law Commissioners to interfere in those voluntary contracts between masters and apprentices, and they were about to do that which they refused to do the other day, namely, to limit the hours of labour with respect to these children, and not directly but through the intervention of a tribunal which could not possibly know anything about the matter.

Mr. S. Crawford

did not deny, that these matters required some kind of superintendence, but he felt that the Clause, even as amended, would give the Poor Law Commissioners a power which was wholly inconsistent with the government of the guardians, and under all circumstances, he felt it to be his duty to vote for the total omission of the Clause.

The Committee divided on the question that the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 151; Noes 23: Majority 128.

List of the NOES.
Aldam, W.	Hodgson, F.
Borthwick, P.	Marton, G.
Brocklehurst, J.	Morris, D.
Collins, W.	Muntz, G. F.
Crawford, W. S.	Napier, Sir C.
Douglas, J. D. S.	Pechell, Capt.
Duncombe, T.	Power, J.
Duncombe, hon. O.	Pryse, P.
Escott, B.	Rolleston, Col.
Etwall, R.	Walker, R.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H.	TELLERS.
Forman, T. S.	Sibthorp, Col.
Henley, J. W.	Ellice, W.

Clause agreed to.

On the 13th Clause, repeal of 4th and 5th William IV., c. 76.,

Mr. T. Duncombe

adverted to the proposal embodied in this Clause to fix a new scale of voting proportioned to the extent of property possessed and held by owners and occupiers. It was his wish to do away with the plural system altogether, and to give each ratepayer one vote. He had never heard a good reason assigned why a scale of voting of this sort should be persisted in, and he should propose as a simple Amendment to the Clause to leave out all the words after the 33rd line, by which the scale was enforced, and to insert the words "each, ratepayer to have one vote."

Sir J. Graham

said, that although the hon. Member styled his propisition simple, he would take leave to remark that it was very drastic.—The scale now sought to be established had received the sanction of Parliament in the Irish Poor Relief Amendment Bill of last Session. He could not with any justice to the rights of property make a greater alteration; he thought he had already gone as far as justice would allow, and he felt it to be his duty to resist the proposed Amendment.

The Committee divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 142; Noes 17: Majority 125.

List of the NOES.
Brotherton, J.	Hanmer, Sir J.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Hawes, B.
Collins, W.	Hindley, C.
Crawford, W. S.	James, Sir W. C.
Dashwood, G. H.	Manners, Lord J.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.	Muntz, G. F.
Fleetwood, Sir P. S.	Pechell, Capt.

Power, J.	TELLERS.
Strickland, Sir G.	Napier, Sir C.
Wakley, T.	Duncombe, T.

Clause agreed to.

On the 14th Clause (giving the right of vote by proxy),

Mr. Hindley

objected to the admission of proxies.

Sir J. Graham

said, that a limitation had been introduced into the Bill with respect to the number and duration of the proxies, which was not to be found in the existing Poor Law. He could not assent to the withdrawal of this mode of voting altogether, but he considered that it was put upon a proper footing by being limited to four proxies in one person's hands, and the duration of two years for each proxy.

Captain Pechell

admitted, that the modification introduced into the present measure of the old power of voting by proxy for the election of Poor Law guardians was a great improvement in the system; for large sums had been taken out of the ratepayers' pockets by the inertness or ignorance of those who intrusted their proxies to others. The modification, however, of the practice in vogue did not, in his opinion, suffice to remedy the evil occasioned by it. He wanted to see the system of using proxies done away with altogether.

Sir J. Graham

said, that if the Clause were rejected, the present system of unlimited voting by proxies would be continued.

Mr. T. Duncombe

said, that the alteration made in the present law with respect to voting at the election of guardians was good, but it was not carried far enough. All proxies ought to be done away with, except those of female ratepayers, who alone ought to be allowed to vote by proxy. At all events, if the system were not to be entirely abolished, the exemptions accorded under the Clause as it now stood, to bailiffs, land-stewards, and rent-collectors ought to be struck out of the Act, and the proxies of those functionaries made renewable every two years. At Gravesend, he was informed the proxies held by two rent-collectors alone decided the election of the majority of Poor Law Guardians, in a population of 16,000 persons.

Mr. Wawn

proposed that the words of the Clause giving power to stewards bailiffs, land-agents, or collectors of rent to vote as proxies for the owners of property for whom they might be appointed to vote, should be struck out.

The Committee divided on the question that the words stand part of the Clause:—Ayes 157; Noes 15: Majority 142.

List of the NOES.
Brotherton, J.	Muntz, G. F.
Collins, W.	Napier, Sir C.
Crawford, W. S.	Pechell, Capt.
Duncombe, T.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Dandas, Adm.	Wakley, T.
Etwal, R.	Williams, W.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H.	TELLERS.
Humphery, Ald.	Hindley, J.
Langston, J. H.	Wawn, J. T.

Clause agreed to.

On the 16th Clause, the number of guardians may be altered with reference to population, &c. by the Commissioners.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 45: Majority 66.

List of the AYES.
Ackers, J.	Egerton, Sir P.
Acland, T. D.	Eliot, Lord
Antrobus, E.	Ellis, W.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of	Escott, B.
	Farnham, E. B.
Bailey, J.	Fellowes, E.
Bailey, J. jun.	Filmer, Sir B.
Baring, hn. W. B.	Flower, Sir J.
Barrington, Visct.	Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.
Bateson, T.	Fuller, A. E.
Beckett, W.	Gardner, J. D.
Bentinck, Lord G.	Gaskell, J. Milnes
Boldero, H. G.	Gill, T.
Botfield, B.	Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Bowles, Adm.	Gladstone, Capt.
Bowring, Dr.	Gordon, hon. Capt.
Boyd, J.	Goring, C.
Bramston, T. W.	Goulburn, rt. hn. H.
Brisco, M.	Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Bruce, Lord E.	Granby, Marquess of
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Hamilton, Lord C.
Burrell, Sir C. M.	Hanmer, Sir J.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Henley, J. W.
Childers, J. W.	Herbert, hon. S.
Christopher, R. A.	Hervey, Lord A.
Clerk, Sir G.	Hill, Lord M.
Clive, hon. R. H.	Hope, G. W.
Cole, hn. H. A.	Hussey, A.
Courtenay, Lord	James, W.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Jermyn, Earl
Cripps, W.	Jocelyn, Visct.
Curteis, hn. H. B.	Johnstone, Sir J.
Denison, E. B.	Ker, D. S.
Dickinson, F. H.	Knight, H. G.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Lemon, Sir C.
East, J. B.	Lincoln, Earl of
Eaton, R. J.	McGeachy, F. A.
Egerton, W. T.	Mackenzie, W. F.

McNeill, D.	Somerset, Lord G.
Mahon, Visct.	Stanley, Lord
Manners, Lord C. S.	Sturt, H. C.
Manners, Lord J.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Marsham, Visct.	Talbot, C. R. M.
Maxwell, hn. J. P.	Tennent, J. E.
Morgan, O.	Thesiger, Sir F.
Newry, Visct.	Thornely, T.
Nicholl, rt. hn. J.	Trench, Sir F. W.
Norreys, Sir D. J.	Vane, Lord H.
Palmer, G.	Vesey, hon. T.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.	Vivian, J. H.
Ponsonby, hon. C. F.	Walsh, Sir J. B.
Pringle, A.	Wodehouse, E.
Rashleigh, W.	Wood, Col.
Rolleston, Col.	Worsley, Lord
Rushbrooke, Col.
Sandon, Visct.	TELLERS.
Seymour, Lord	Young, J.
Shaw, rt. hon. F.	Lennox, Lord A.

List of the NOES.
Adderley, C. B.	Irton, S.
Allix, J. P.	James, Sir W. C.
Borthwick, P.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Bowes, J.	Kemble, H.
Brocklehurst, J.	Masterman, J.
Brotherton, J.	Mitcalfe, H.
Buck, L. W.	Morris, D.
Burroughes, H. N.	Mundy, E. M.
Butler, P. S.	Muntz, G. F.
Collins, W.	Napier, Sir C.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn C. T.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Dodd, G.	Pechell, Capt.
Douglas, J. D. S.	Power, J.
Duncombe, T.	Pryse, P.
Duncombe, hn. O.	Rice, E. R.
Dundas, Adm.	Ross, D. R.
Etwall, R.	Round, J.
Fitzroy, hon. H.	Sibthorp, Col.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H.	Wakley, T.
Forman, T. S.	Wawn, J. T.
Fox, C. R.	Williams, W.
Hawes, B.	TELLERS.
Hindley, C.	Crawford, W. S.
Hussey, T.	Arkwright, G.

The Clause agreed to.

Clauses to the 19th were agreed to.

House resumed. Committee to sit again.