Sitting of 27 July 1836

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR, from Dalton-le-Dale and Hustanworth, against Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues' Bill.—By Sir JOHN BECKETT, from Hasey, Epworth, Owston, Belton, for Common Fields' Inclosure Bill.—By Mr. CHALMERS, from Montrose, against Municipal Corporations' (Scotland) Bill.—By Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE, from the European Inhabitants of Bombay, for the Adoption of Measures to facilitate the Communication with India by Steam.

THE NEW POOR LAWS.
Mr. Waltersaid, that he had been intrusted with a Petition from Magistrates, Clergy, Owners and occupiers of land, Guardians of the Poor, and inhabitants of the parish of Pet-worth and the neighbouring parishes, in the

591
county of Sussex. The object of the petition was to deprecate the harsh manner in which the new Poor-law was enforced in that important district. The petitioners stated themselves to be all rate-payers, and therefore the money for the humane; relief of the poor must come out of their own pockets. The grievance of which they complained came, perhaps, under but one head, namely, the order recently issued by the Poor-law Commissioners, forbidding any out-door relief whatever to be given to the families of able-bodied labourers: but that grievance was one which passed through every gradation of cruelty—
The Speaker, interrupting the hon. Member, observed, that he should confine himself to a statement of the substance of the petition and the prayer of it. Such was the rule laid down by the House.
Mr. Waltersaid, that he should be most unwilling to transgress any of the rules or regulations of the House. It struck him, however, that other Gentlemen had been permitted to accompany the petitions they presented with observations in illustration of the statements contained in them.
The Speakerrepeated, that the hon. Member should only state the substance of the petition.
Mr. Walterproceeded to say, that the petition stated with truth, that at the time when the present body of industrious labourers with large families first married, the law and practice were, to afford relief in proportion to the number of children they had beyond those whom they could maintain by ordinary labour. In fact, every incitement was at that day held out to industrious labourers to marry. For example, it was said in that House by Mr. Pitt, "Let us make relief, in cases where there are a number of children, a matter of right and an honour, instead of a ground for opprobrium and contempt. This will make a large family a blessing, and not a curse; and this will draw a proper line of distinction between those who are able to provide for themselves by their labour, and those who, after having enriched their country with a number of children, have a claim upon its assistance for their support." And Mr. Whitbread, though opposed to Mr. Pitt in politics, said, "As to the particular case of labourers who have to provide for a number of children, the wisest thing for Government, instead of putting the relief afforded to such on a fooling of charity, supplied perhaps from a precarious
592
find, and dealt with a reluctant hand, would be at once to institute a liberal premium for the encouragement of large families."
Mr. John Parkerrose to order. He submitted that the hon. Member had no right to go into these general statements on the presentation of a petition.
Mr. Waltersaid, that he had only referred to these statements in explanation of what had been the law and the practice on this subject formerly. But now, the law and practice turned round upon these unhappy industrious people, and forbade all relief to them except such as they should receive when immured in the prison of a district workhouse, in which they were to go to bed at this time of the year at eight o'clock in the evening, the husband to be separated from his wife, and the children, except perhaps such as were at the breast severed from their parents. The petitioners had already applied to the Poor-law Commissioners themselves for a relaxation of this atrocious and unnatural order; and, procuring no relaxation of it from them—no relief to the victims of it from them—to whom could they fly but to that House—the representatives, he hoped he might still say, of the poor and the oppressed? In addition to the petition, he had also received a letter from a gentleman of the first respectability in the parish, of which he would read a part, as necessary to the better understanding of the case:—
"I shrink with horror from the cruelties which are now being practised upon my poor fellow-parishioners, and trust that the most prompt steps will be taken to cause a relaxation in the rules laid down by the Commissioners; being convinced, that if they are adhered to, numbers around me must perish ere the close of the next winter, either by want, or by those fruitless attempts at resistance to which they will be goaded."
The Speakermust again remind the hon. Member, that he was infringing that rule of the House which required that he should only state the substance of the petition and the prayer of it.
Major Beauclerksaid, he wished to say one word with regard to the rule in question. He seldom addressed the House, but, nevertheless he was anxious that this rule should be properly understood. He had observed upon late occasions some Gentlemen speaking for two hours together in presenting petitions, and others, on similar occasions, making orations of not less than an hour's duration. Now what he wished

593
to know was, whether it was to be understood, that no gentleman should make a speech on the presentation of a petition, but should limit himself strictly to a statement of the substance and prayer of it. If the rule was to be so understood and so enforced, he was perfectly ready to assent to it; but he must object to the practice of allowing Gentlemen one day to make speeches on petitions, and then on another day preventing hon. Members from speaking at all on a similar occasion.
The Speaker: I have endeavoured, as far as it was practicable, to adopt and enforce the rule laid down by the House on the subject. That rule is, that if a petition be presented referring to a subject before the House, the hon. Member presenting it should confine himself to a statement of the substance and prayer of such petition. There is, however, a class of petitions often presented to the House, complaining of individual grievances, and not relating to any general public matter before the House. It is the pleasure of the House, in regard to these petitions, that the hon. Members presenting them should be allowed to go into a statement of the facts and arguments connected with them. As far as I am able, I have endeavoured to enforce the rule in the manner I have stated. The rule has been adopted by the House for the public convenience and for the despatch of business, and it is very important that it should be adhered to in practice.
Mr. Waltersaid, that he should not have occupied the time of the House for more than five minutes in presenting this petition, if he had been allowed to proceed without interruption. It appeared from the statement contained in this letter, that the Board of Guardians had refused to act; and it would be impossible for him to do justice to the case of the petitioners unless he was allowed to state the circumstances connected with that fact. The hon. Member proceeded to read the letter as follows:—
"One rule sent down by the Board of Guardians is, that no relief be granted to any able-bodied labourer after the 21st ult., however large his family may be; and the only alternative held out, except starvation, is, that the elder children may be sent to one workhouse— the man and his wife, with the younger children, to another; but then in this other the man and his wife are to be kept apart by stone walls. Another rule also is, that no medical relief is to be afforded to the wife or children of an able-bodied man, because relief to them is relief to him. If he is himself ill, the medical
594
officer is to attend, but his wife and children are to be left to die. The guardians of the Petworth Union have strongly remonstrated against the first of the above orders; have begged to be allowed a discretionary power in extreme cases of taking some of the children into the poor-house, and this, their reasonable request has been absolutely refused. They met yesterday, and unanimously resolved not again to form a Board, or in any way to make themselves the instruments of such unheard-of cruelties. More than thirty women attended the Board yesterday with cries and lamentations, and praying that relief which the guardians are not permitted to give. I suppose that it is in mere mockery they are called guardians."
And the same gentleman had since written to him as follows:—
"Daily cases of great suffering are brought forward: one was mentioned to me to-day, of a person lying forty-eight hours in excruciating torture, for want of that medical aid which was refused to be ordered for him by the relieving officer, and which was at length bestowed gratuitously by a medical man of this town, who lives out of the union in which the poor creature was thus relieved, from motives of mere compassion. Under the present system of medical treatment, or rather lack of treatment, many must die. First, the relieving officer is to be found—he may be miles away; then the medical men, who may be as far off in another direction. Meanwhile the father or mother of a large family is dying in agony, or seeing one of their children in that state."
He (Mr. Walter) should only add to these statements, that they came from a gentleman who had no original objection to a change in the administration of the old law.
The Speakerwished to know whether this letter formed any portion of the petition?
Mr. Walterreplied in the negative.
The Speakersaid, that if the hon. Member wished to produce a general discussion on the subject of the Poor-laws, the course for him to pursue was to present this petition, to move that it be printed with the votes, and then to give notice of a day for taking it into consideration.
Mr. Wallersaid, that though, from the unwillingness of the House to hear all that could be fairly said on this subject, he must omit much of what he had intended to state, this he would say, that Lord Althorp had expressly declared in that House that it was not intended to do away with out-door relief in all cases. How far the practice had failed to coincide with that noble Lord's professions, the petition which he should now

595
have the honour to present painfully attested. It was signed by two magistrates, by the rector of Petworth, by six other clergymen of the neighbourhood, by thirteen guardians of the poor, and nearly 300 ratepayers; and he (Mr. Walter) believed that no petition had ever been presented which, from the severity of the evils denounced by it, and the character and station of those who denounced them, more thoroughly deserved the attention of the House.
Major Beauclerkhad been requested to support the prayer of this petition, and he looked upon it as one that was eminently deserving of the serious attention of the House. The fact was, that this subject was attracting the attention of the people all over the country. It was well known that a petition most numerously signed had been transmitted, within the last few days, from the town of Leicester to the noble Viscount who was at the head of his Majesty's Government. The petition in question was signed by thousands, and the petitioners did not send it to that House because they had observed, that whenever the question of the Poor-laws was introduced there, the subject excited the distaste and impatience of hon. Members. The discussion that had arisen on the present occasion would certainly tend to strengthen that impression. He had repeated applications on the subject from medical men, who were not able to perform the duties assigned them in the districts for which they had contracted. They all concurred in expressing their readiness to do all in their power to meet the wants of the poor, but they submitted that, in the matter of medical aid the Legislature should not be stingy towards the poorer classes, who were not able to provide such aid for themselves. He fully concurred in that opinion, and he thought that common justice to the people of this country required that the administration of the Poor-law Act should be altered and amended.
Lord George Lennox, as one of the Representatives of that part of Sussex from which this petition came, might be expected to have something to say upon the subject. He, however, knew nothing of the petition, or of the intention of the hon. Member to present it, until the present moment, and the hon. Member had given him no notice whatever of the contents of it. He felt that he had a right to complain of that circumstance, as, had he previously known the statements in the petition, he might have been able to make an inquiry on the
596
subject, and to give an explanation of them.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that it was with regret he saw that the complaints of the poor met with such a reception in that House from a liberal Parliament, and a liberal Ministry. If such was to be a sample of what they were to expect from them hereafter, he would say that the sooner there was an end to such a liberal Ministry the better. When the sufferings and grievances under which the poor laboured were brought before the House, the greatest impatience was manifested by hon. Members. Now, he felt it his duty to protest against such a course of proceeding. He recollected that the other day, when a petition was presented from three individuals, who had been officers in the East-India Company's service, there was a discussion that lasted for an hour and twenty minutes. When, however, the poor came before the House, the utmost impatience was manifested at their complaints, and the hon. Member who had their petition in his charge was scarcely able to obtain a hearing. It appeared to him that such conduct was anything but creditable to the character of the House. The complaints as to the administration of the Poor-law Act, were universal throughout the country. He would give some which had reached himself. He was informed, that in the union of Stowmarket, there being two old persons in the workhouse, husband and wife, of whom the husband was blind, the wife was not allowed to attend her decrepit old partner on his death bed until a special order came down for the purpose from the Poor-law Commissioners in London. Another fact was, that a woman who was neglected by the medical man employed by the union for the space of two months, sent for another practitioner to attend her. The Poor-law officer shortly afterwards called upon her, and desired to know who it was that she had employed; and on her informing him, he told her, that unless she employed the person selected by the union, her relief should be suspended. She was obliged accordingly to do so. The disease with which she was affected was one of great bodily suffering, and yet she was obliged to give up the medical attendant of her choice. Unless she had done so she would have been consigned to starvation. Practices such as these would not be long endured by the people of this country, and it would be a disgrace to the Legislature if it did not interfere for their protection.
Mr. Humewished to know whether his hon. Friend knew of these facts of his own

597
knowledge. He was as anxious as any man could be to see the Poor-law Act administered with leniency and humanity. He would submit to his hon. Friend, and to the hon. Member who had presented the petition, that if such serious charges against the Poor-law Commissioners came under their notice, let them move for an inquiry on the subject, and he would second the motion. But he would appeal to both hon. Members, whether they were not liable to be led astray by the representations of interested parties. He thought that the informations given to his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, would, upon inquiry be found not to be correct. He was satisfied that whenever the question came under discussion, the conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners would be borne out and justified by facts.
Mr. George F.Young said, he would recommend the hon. Member for Berkshire to fix a day for bringing the subject of the petition he had presented under the consideration of the House.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that the statement he had made to the House had been communicated to him by the medical man who had been in attendance on the poor woman. He would furnish his name and address to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
An hon. Member said, that he should have a petition to present on the subject of the Poor-laws on Friday, and he now wished to know from the noble Lord, whether an order had been issued by the Poor-law Commissioners to the effect that the windows in the workhouses should be made so high that the inmates could not see out of them?
Lord J. Russellwas not aware that any such order had been made; indeed, if it had, it would have come under his notice as one of the general rules. He would take this opportunity to say a word as to the statement of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He should certainly have an inquiry instituted into the facts of that statement. He must say, however, that even upon the hon. Member's own showing there was not that in it which he seemed to think. One of the general rules made by the Poor-law Commissioners was, that husbands and wives should be separated in workhouses. Surely it was necessary, when an exception was to be made, that there should be a special order for it. In the case also, it was one of the rules that the poor receiving relief must be attended by the medical
598
man employed by the union. Where an exception was to be made, a special order would be also requisite for the purpose.
Mr. Bonhamsaid, that the House was greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Berkshire for bringing this subject under its notice. He hoped that the hon. Member would not stop there, but that he would appoint an early day for a discussion of the question. He also hoped that his Majesty's Ministers would give the hon. Member an opportunity to bring the matter forward. He said so, because it was in the power of Ministers, at this period of the Session, to prevent a discussion on the subject if they chose.
Mr. Arthur Trevorsaid, that facts analogous to those stated by the hon. Member for Finsbury had been brought under his notice in respect to unions in the north of England. The subject was one that the House must take up.
Mr. Wilksalso hoped, that the hon. Member for Berkshire would fix a day for the discussion of this subject. Though the petition had been signed by labourers alone, it would be entitled to the serious attention of the House; but it was signed also by the magistrates, clergymen, and other respectable persons of the district. He repeated, therefore, that it merited the serious attention of the House. Innumerable complaints had reached him from all parts of the country with regard to the conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners, who violated the principles of religious liberty, and imposed taxes on parishes for the support of the Church. These Commissioners had taken upon them to do that which no Ministry would venture to do, and which no Legislature would dare to do. He trusted that the Session would not close without a discussion on the subject.
Mr. Waltersaid, that he should not fail to adopt the advice given him by Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, and that he should certainly fix an early day for the purpose of bringing forward this subject in another shape. With regard to the complaint of the noble Lord (Lord G. Lennox), that he had not been made acquainted with the contents of the petition, he (Mr. Walter) had only to say that he had brought the petition down to the House every day for the last eight or nine days, that he had mentioned its contents to other hon. Members connected with the county of Sussex who sat on the same bench with the noble Lord, and that he had actually given notice of the presentation of the petition more than a week ago. He would

599
now move, after the petition was laid on the table, that it be printed and circulated with the votes.
Petition to be printed.

COUNSEL FOR PRISONERS.
Messengers from the Lords returned the Prisoners' Counsel Bill, with amendments.
Mr. Ewart Mr. Ewart moved that the amendments be taken into consideration. The hon. Member proceeded to explain various amendments to which he did not recommend the Commons to offer any opposition; but there was another part of the Bill, and a very material part it was, which had been cut out of it—namely, that which established the principle that the accused person in the case of felony or misdemeanour should have the last word. That had been the very basis of the alteration of the law, and without that principle he thought that the ends of justice, and the dictates of reason and common sense would not be answered. The striking out this principle was to destroy the very essence of the measure; and, indeed, the circumstance of this alteration having been made, reminded him of the old saying of a thing being like the tragedy of Hamlet, with the part Hamlet omitted. The hon. and learned Member here read an extract from the Select Committee's Report, which declared, that the right of the prisoner's counsel to have the last word, and to give the concluding address, was one which was founded upon the principle of humanity. As the Bill now stood, however, it left the last word with the counsel for the prosecution; thus giving the counsel for the prosecution two speeches to the one for the defendant. The hon. and learned Gentleman here read the opinions of the then Attorney-General (Sir John Copley), now Lord Lyndhurst, as given in the year 1826, together with that of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas (Sir Nicholas Tindal), both of which opinions were diametrically opposed to any such amendment as that which had been made by the House of Lords. Now he considered the principle of the Bill, if they sanctioned the amendment, would be so at variance with the dictates of common sense, that he felt it his duty to oppose it unless some proposition should nullify this amendment. He would move the rejection of the amendment which took away the right of the prisoner's counsel to have the last word.
Mr. C. Bullerwas of opinion, that much credit was due to the Lords for agreeing
600
to the Bill in the shape in which it had been returned. He admitted, that the amendment, by omitting the second clause, was detrimental to the measure, and that the effect of it would be to throw great additional responsibility upon the counsel for a prisoner, as well as upon the judge. It was, however, in his view, easy to remedy the evil, by adopting the amendment of the Lords, and omitting the clause, still left in the Bill, regulating the mode of proceeding; thus leaving that matter to the discretion of the judge, provided that the counsel for a prisoner was to be allowed to address the jury last. The hon. Member suggested an amendment to that effect.
Sir Frederick Pollockadverted to the length of time this question had occupied his attention, and gave it as his opinion, that it would be better to leave the law as it stood, giving a prisoner the benefit of the sympathy of the jury at the hardship of his case, than to pass the Bill as it had been amended by the Lords. He objected to any bill which, in the employment of counsel, did not put felony and misdemeanour on the same footing; for, as the present Attorney-General had well observed, the distinction was often so trifling, that the treatment of the accused party in both instances should be the same. He adverted to the heavy responsibility under which counsel now laboured, since they were frequently afraid to call witnesses, and thereby appeared to neglect the case of the client, lest they should give the prosecutor the advantage of a reply. In cases of civil right, injustice was sometimes done, because the counsel for the plaintiff had a privilege to answer the case of the defendant; there the reason was, that the plaintiff was interested in the verdict; but in prosecutions no party was so interested, and there was no ground for giving the prosecutor the last word. As to the objection that the Bill as it stood, before it was altered by the Lords, would occasion four speeches on every trial, he maintained, that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, not more than two speeches would be delivered; the prosecuting counsel would open the case, and the defending counsel would state the answer to it; but the prosecuting counsel would very seldom reply, knowing that thereby he should give the defending counsel the right of being heard again. It seemed to him that the Bill, as it now stood, was worse than nothing. He

601
trusted, therefore, that the Bill would not be adopted in its present shape, or that any amendment would be agreed to which, while it was meant to remove the defects of the law with regard to felonies, left those untouched which related to misdemeanours.
Mr. Poulterwas decidedly opposed to the Bill, and thought, that all the arguments which had been urged against it were unanswered. He still felt, however, that if the existing law were altered, that the prisoner ought to be allowed the last word.
Mr. O'Connellfully and entirely concurred in the views of the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir F. Pollock). This Bill contained a great deal of useful matter, even as it came down from the House of Lords, particularly as regarded that part of the United Kingdom with which he was connected, and his testimony to the fact, might be considered of some importance, as he had had more experience, he thought he might safely say, in the proceedings of the criminal law in Ireland, than any of those barristers who were of the same standing with him. There was one part of the Bill which would be of the greatest importance, namely, allowing the depositions to be inspected by the prisoner. That provision he would be glad to see passed into law; but if the amendment of the Lords which took away from the prisoner the last address to the jury, were insisted on, he owned that he could only make a selection, and determine to vote for the rejection of the Bill altogether. The present state of the law was anomalous and unjust; but the change which had been proposed would only aggravate the evil. He at once rejected, as untenable, the argument that the adoption of the principle of this Bill, as it had been originally introduced, would cause loss of time. If there were not a sufficient number of judges to perform the business, they ought to make more; but the plea of loss of time ought never to be heard 'of, when such a charge as that of felony and misdemeanour, were brought against any individual. He only rose for the purpose of expressing his decided conviction that the law, as proposed to be altered, would be worse than it stood at present; and unless they determined to give the last word to the prisoner, they ought not to give him any at all.
Mr. Macleansaid, that though he had opposed this Bill when before that House, his opinion had since been much shaken with
602
regard to it. He thought it was a debt which they owed to the House of Lords, and particularly to one of its Members, who was amongst the first legal authorities in the kingdom, that the Bill, as amended by them, should be allowed to have a fan-trial. He must declare it to be his opinion, however, that if they did not give the last word to the prisoner, they would not render him that effectual assistance, which the Bill proposed to give him.
Mr. Parkerhoped that some arrangement might be entered into between the two Houses of Parliament, for the purpose of securing the benefits which must result from the passing of such a Bill as the present.
Mr. Hardysubmitted, that if they left the prisoner the last word, they imposed upon the judge the necessity of pointing out the fallacies for doing away with the impression produced by any of the specious arguments conveyed in the speech of the counsel for the prisoner, and thereby subjected the judge to the imputation of acting with unfairness, or compelled him to express his views on the evidence in such a manner, as to induce the opinion in the minds of illiterate jurors of the prisoner's guilt. He trusted, that the amendment of the Lords would not be rejected.
Mr. Struttcould not agree with the amendment which had been made in this part of the Bill by the House of Lords, but concurred in the opinion expressed by some hon. Member who had preceded him, that some opportunity might be taken of arranging the differences which existed between the two Houses with respect to this measure.
Sir Thomas Fremantlethought that the question which had been raised on this clause was a new one, and ought not to be suffered to impede the progress of this Bill.
Lord John Russellthought the preferable course would be to do that which had been done on many former occasions— namely, to send the amendments to a Select Committee, with the view of, if possible, devising some plan by which the differences between the two Houses may be reconciled, and the Bill eventually pass into a law. He begged to move accordingly.
Mr. C. Bullerwould, under such circumstances, withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Ewartprotested against the course suggested by the noble Lord. The measure had been already quite sufficiently considered in a Select Committee of that House.
The amendment of the noble Lord agreed to.
Committee appointed.

HACKNEY CARRIAGES BILL.
Alderman Wood moved the Order of the Day for the Committee on this Bill.
Dr. Bowring moved, as an amendment, the postponement of the Committee for six months.
The House divided on the amendment: —Ayes 5 Noes 45; Majority.40.
The House resolved itself into Committee.
Mr. Wakleyhaving declared his determination to use every means in his power to oppose a measure so unfit to secure the object which it professed to have in view, moved as a proviso to one of the clauses, that to the back of every carriage drawn by one or two horses, and not being a hackney carriage or a metropolitan stage, a board should be affixed, with the name and residence of the proprietor painted in golden or yellow letters of an inch in length, on a purple ground. The hon. Member however did not persist in his amendment.
The Committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. Ayes 32; Noes 4; Majority 28.
House afterwards counted out.

Preamble
MINUTES.] Bills. Read a second time:—Land Tax Commissioners Names; Postage on Newspapers.—Read a third time:—Insolvent Debtors; Insolvent Debtors (India); Post-Horse Duties; and Administration of Justice (New South Wales).
Petitions presented. By Lord MOSTYN, from various Places for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.