STROOD POOR BILL. (Hansard, 13 March 1812)

Sir Samuel Romilly
rose to point out some clauses which seemed to him very objectionable. He thought the present prevailing practice, with respect to private Poor Bills, very faulty. Instead of that uniformity of system, both as to maintenance and punishment, which ought to exist through all parts of the country, every new Bill proposed some different project. The system was not national but parochial, and a different administration of criminal law was to be found in the different parishes. In some places the punishment was corporeal—in others, imprisonment—in others very slight, being a mere change of diet. Bills of this sort, being of a private nature, seldom attracted much of the public attention, and it was only by accident that he had become acquainted with those provisions of the present Bill, to which he now objected as destructive of that sameness which ought to characterize the system of the poor laws. He did not exactly know how to prevent the introduction of different regulations into different Bills. Perhaps it might be effected by a standing order of the House, that all Bills introducing new methods of punishment or of management should be submitted to a committee of the whole House. He objected also to the liability to abuse which was inherent in the present clauses. A poor wretch might languish in prison for days and months, and yet could have no remedy by action of false imprisonment. There were now no less than, three Bills in their progress, which had contained various methods of punishment, but which had been altered at his suggestion; yet, if he had not chanced to notice them, they would have passed the House unamended. He should now propose his alterations:—One clause empowered magistrates to apprentice youth at the age of 14 or sooner. He objected to the latter words, as giving a discretionary power to send out children at the tenderest age. He was not to be told that such abuse could not arise, as he was himself acquainted with an instance, where 20 children of only 7 years old had been 1261 sent apprentices to Scotland. The next clause he objected to was, that which enabled the magistrates to apprentice the children of Strood into Scotland, a provision which would remove them from the protection of a Bill for Apprentices brought in by his hon. friend; and they would thus be as much pat out of the guardianship of the law as if they were sent to the West Indies. The next objectionable clause was that, which empowered the trustees to let out the poor by the day or the week, for Works of husbandry; subjecting the poor to penalties, if they did not immediately return after the execution of their work. He had been told that this was a beneficial practice: be was not himself acquainted with the arguments which led gentlemen to such conclusions; he thought it a most important innovation of the existing law, and therefore not to be admitted into this Bill.

§ Mr. D. Giddy
agreed as to the necessity of an uniform code of poor laws, but thought that trustees should be invested with considerable power. He thought the whole system of the poor laws required alteration, and wished that some gentleman would dedicate his attention to such a work.

§ Sir E. Knatchbull
explained the motives of the clause which empowered magistrates to apprentice children into Scotland. He said there was a considerable trade carried on between Strood and that part of the kingdom, which necessarily led to a connection between the two places. If, however, any doubt existed as to the propriety of this clause, he was authorised by the framers of the Bill to withdraw it.

Mr. Thompson
said he bad seen boys of from ten to twelve years of age apprenticed out very usefully, on which account he would suggest to his hon. and learned friend, to substitute ten years in the place of fourteen, to which it would stand limited by his amendment.

Sir S. Romilly
said, the consequence of the Bill, as it stood at present, was to enable the trustees to place children out at the tenderest age; he knew of one parish that had sent twenty children out in one year at the age of seven, to a house in Scotland. He acceded to the suggestion of his hon. friend.