THE NEW POOR LAW BILL.

PETITION OF MAGISTRATES, CLERGY, OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS OF LAND, AND OTHERS, OF PETWORTH.

(Reprinted from the Votes of the House, July 27, 1836.)

A PETITION of the undersigned magistrates, clergy, owners and occupiers of land, and others, all being payers of poor-rates in the parish of Petworth, and other neighbouring parishes, in the county of Sussex, was presented and read; setting forth, that the petitioners had long viewed with concern the great increase of pauperism in this neighbourhood, and were convinced of the necessity that existed for much alteration either in the poor law itself, or in the mode of its administration; and the petitioners are sensible that the operation of the Poor Law Amendment Act has been productive of a considerable alleviation of those burdens, the constantly increasing pressure of which at one time fell so heavily on the landed property of this country; and the petitioners are desirous to co-operate in their respective stations towards carrying the provisions of the act into effect, as far as can be done consistently with justice and humanity. But the petitioners submit to the house, that an order recently issued by the Poor Law Commissioners, forbidding any out-door relief whatever to be given to the families of able-bodied labourers, is neither just nor humane. The petitioners beg to state, that they are acquainted with many instances in which a labouring man, earning, upon an average of the whole year, less than two shillings per day, is called upon by this order to support a family of from six to ten children, all of very tender age, and the petitioners are perfectly aware of the impossibility of his doing so. By the order in question, the only alternative offered is, to take the parents with their children into the workhouse, where the husband and the wife are to be separated from each other, and from their children, and where the degree of confinement and discipline differs little from those of a prison, and to the honest and industrious labourer is equally loathsome and degrading. The petitioners beg to state to the house, that the guardians of the Petworth and several other Sussex unions have sent strong memorials to the Board of Poor Law Commissioners, calling. their attention to the harshness and extreme injustice of an order the effect of which is to inflict on the industrious and deserving poor man a punishment more severe than that with which many felonies are visited; to destroy all his domestic comforts, by compelling him to quit his cottage and separate from his family, and to take from him all those local attachments, and annihilate all those feelings, which have hitherto been his pride as well as his solace, and helped to render a life of toil endurable; and that the guardians have earnestly requested to be permitted to take into the workhouse such proportion of the children belonging to large families as should seem to them expedient, according to the peculiar circumstances of each particular case; and that this their request has been met by an absolute refusal from the board, and a positive injunction to act up the extreme letter of the original order. And should such be the case, the petitioners cannot refrain from calling the attention of the house to the heartrending scene of an honest and industrious labourer, with no other crimes on his head than those of poverty, and of being the father of a large and helpless family, shut up in a workhouse, divided from all that is dear to him, when compared with the joyous comfort with which your petitioners, and no doubt the members of the house, have often with delight contemplated in the sight of an honest and industrious labourer, after the toil of the day, sitting at his cottage door with his children, as dear to him as those of his superiors are to them, playing around him, or sitting on his knee. The petitioners beg to state, that all whose names are subscribed are assessed to the poor-rate, and some of them to a very considerable amount; that they have severely felt the pressure which of late years has been caused by their great increase, and that they are deeply interested in their

diminution, but wish not to see that diminution brought about by a system of injustice and oppression. The petitioners beg to call the attention of the house to the important fact, that when those paupers married who are now burdened with large families, the effect of the law, as then administered, was to lead the poor man to think he had a right to be relieved according to the number of his children. However erroneous this idea might be, still the petitioners submit that it is very harsh now to punish the pauper for what he was hardly taught to consider as an imprudence, much less a crime-the venturing to marry without a reasonable hope of being able to support a family. And therefore the petitioners humbly submit, that whatever regulations the legislature in its wisdom may enact with reference to those who may in future marry under such circumstances, those who are now burdened with large families should be more leniently dealt with, and the present difficulty provided for by a system of regulations which shall gradually come into operation, and not by such harsh and violent remedies as are now proposed to be applied, and the effect of which is to excite a feeling of horror and disgust among all classes, against a law which, if modified in some points, and gradually and cautiously administered in all, must be productive of very general benefit. The petitioners also beg to state to the house, that, by the operation of the rule alluded to, an able-bodied labourer out of the workhouse, if himself in health, cannot be deemed a pauper, and therefore cannot be permitted to claim medical relief; and by the regulations of the Poor Law Commissioners the medical officers employed under them are not called upon or required, nor have the guardians the power of directing them, to administer relief to any part of an able-bodied labourer's family, be the necessity ever so urgent, even if his wife and ten children were altogether ill; and the petitioners beg to submit, that the effect of this regulation, if acted upon, in addition to the want of humanity and kind feeling in its practice, must be a loss of life, and must lead, in many instances, to a wide and fearful spread of contagious disorders. The petitioners therefore earnestly entreat the house to grant such relief in the premises as to their wisdom may seem meet.

EXTRACT FROM HIS MAJESTY'S SPEECH TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT, FEB. 24, 1835.*

"THERE are many important subjects, some of which have already undergone partial discussion in parliament, the adjustment of which, at as early a period as is consistent with the mature consideration of them, would be of great advantage to the public interests.

"Among the first in point of urgency is the state of the tithe question in Ireland, and the means of effecting an equitable and final adjustment of it. "Measures will be proposed for your consideration which will have for their respective objects-to promote the commutation of tithe in England and Wales, -to improve our civil jurisprudence, and the administration of justice in ecclesiastical causes, to make provision for the more effectual maintenance of ecclesiastical discipline,-and to relieve those who dissent from the doctrines or discipline of the church from the necessity of celebrating the ceremony of marriage according to its rites.

"I have appointed a commission for considering the state of the several dioceses in England and Wales, with reference to the amount of their revenues, and to the more equal distribution of episcopal duties; the state of the several cathedrals and collegiate churches, with a view to the suggestion of such measures as may render them most conducive to the efficiency of the esta

It seems important to preserve this, from its connexion with some late discussions. The commissions themselves, too, ought to be printed.

VOL. X.-Sept. 1836.

3 A

blished church; and for devising the best mode of providing for the cure of souls, with reference to the residence of the clergy on their respective benefices. "The especial object which I have in view in the appointment of this commission is to extend more widely the means of religious worship according to the doctrines of the established church, and to confirm its hold upon the veneration and affections of my people.

"I feel it also incumbent upon me to call your earnest attention to the condition of the church of Scotland, and to the means by which it may be enabled to increase the opportunities of religious worship for the poorer classes of society in that part of the United Kingdom.

"I feel assured that it will be our common object, in supplying that which may be defective, or in renovating that which may be impaired, to strengthen the foundations of those institutions in church and state which are the inheritance and birthright of my people, and which, amidst all the vicissitudes of public affairs, have proved, under the blessing of Almighty God, the truest guarantees of their liberties, their rights, and their religion.'

REED AND MATHESON'S VISIT TO THE AMERICAN CHURCHES.

A CORRESPONDENT says, "The value of this book may be, in some degree, estimated by the following extract from an American Presbyterian review":—

"We can, of course, have no objection that Dr. Reed should have and express his own opinions on this subject [Slavery]; but we do object to his making statements at once incorrect and injurious, especially as they are made without any adequate opportunity or effort to gain accurate information. The case is the more objectionable, because the little Dr. Reed did see is in direct contradiction to his general statements. Dr. Reed's representations would lead his readers to a conclusion directly the reverse of the truth."Biblical Repertory, Oct., 1835.-pp. 623, 624.

The following observation on the statement, that there are 11,450 ministers of religion in America, is from a well-informed American, and is quite confirmed by that of another American, well known to the writer :

"But who are the ministers? Take away presbyterian ministers, 2,000, congregational ministers, 1,200, and episcopal clergy, 800=4,000, and the 7,450 who remain are chiefly methodists and baptists, the greater proportion of whom (say 6,000) are working mechanics, and illiterate men, wholly without education, experience, and weight of character, and the whole expense of maintaining them is not equal to the charge of the 800 episcopal clergy; and the latter are nearly half starved, though better paid than the ministers in any other community."

Besides, with regard to this book, had not one of the authors (Dr. Reed) committed himself to detailed statements in an anonymous work, before he went on his tour?

MARRIAGES.

The number of marriages solemnized at St. George's, Hanover-square, in 1835, was 896; of which, 677 were by bans, and 219 by licence. At the Collegiate Church, Manchester, in the same year, the number was 3,328; of which, 3030 were by bans, and 298 by licence. In the two parish churches in which marriages are solemnized, the number was 685; by bans 529, and by licence 156. The number at St. Philip's, Birmingham, was 419; of which, 387 were by bans, and 32 by licence.

359

CHURCH MATTERS.

RETROSPECT.

THIS eventful session has closed at last. The condition in which it has closed, as respects the church, is, to say the least, remarkable.

It is this-Four Bills were presented by the Church Commissioners, one regulating Episcopal Incomes and Dioceses; one respecting Deans and Chapters; one respecting Ecclesiastical Discipline; and one respecting Pluralities. Of these, one only, the first, is passed! The next two were deferred, because, as the minister says, so much opposition to them was expected. Now, as the Conservatives agreed with Government and the Commissioners, and carried the first of these Church Bills, no one can doubt that they would have carried the others also. The reason, therefore, assigned by the minister cannot be the only one, probably not the prevailing one. That reason is easily found. It is the weakness of the Government-a most serious matter as it regards the Establishment. The character of the bills is not considered here, and does not affect the question. The Radical party chose to make an outcry against these Bills, as not radical enough. When this party demanded that they should be withdrawn, amendments in the Irish Church Bill, made by the Lords, remained for discussion in the House of Commons. It had been originally passed by a majority of twenty-six only. An accurate analysis of the House shewed that of votes, tellers, pairs, &c. there were 312 against Government; twice 312 make 624; that leaves only 34 (658 is the whole number of members) to make the majority. Now, of these, eight had never voted one way or the other. Eight from thirty-four, leave only twenty-six. The minister knew this, and knew that if he affronted the extreme Radicals, and did not withdraw or delay the Church Bills when they ordered him, although they could not touch those Bills on which the Conservatives are with Government, they could just stay away on the Irish Church Bill, and then where was the Minister? He could not, without ruin, be defeated on that point.

The giving up the Pluralities Bill, after the settlement of the Irish Church Bill, unless it is to be accounted for in the same (though to persons without doors a less obvious) way,-viz., fear lest the Radicals, who stick close to the last, while Whigs and Conservatives are gone, should damage some other measure or measures; or, again, unless it is caused by mere weariness and wish to close the session, which the opposition of the Radicals (by moving adjournments) might protract,— would be a still more decisive symptom than the giving up the other measures while the Irish Church question was still open. At all events, the giving up the two first bills, at the Radical order, leads to one conclusion-(which, if it is the fact that the Pluralities Bill was given

The abolition of church rates, and the establishment of 5007. per annum as the maximum of a clergyman's income, and of 1,2007. per annum for bishops, are com monly said to be their demands.

up, not for fear of their votes on a particular question, but for fear of losing their general support, would gain additional strength,)namely, that the weakness of Government is deplorable, when it is obliged to submit to the dictation of some twenty or thirty Radicals.* So much for the ability of Government to aid the church. Of its inclination, nothing is here said.

But, then, what is the condition of the House of Lords? Can they give no aid? It is quite obvious that they are maintaining a very hard, difficult struggle, which it requires all their discretion and wisdom, as well as courage, to carry on. It is necessary that they submit to much that they dislike that just now they stand only on great points-thaton others they suffer much to pass them. It is not that they really stand ill with the country. But they are not the tools of Government; and therefore all the Government organs, as well as the regular Radical ones, in anger at the ministry being endangered, represent all the Lords' acts as against the people, and try at least to raise a cry. If we see how very much evil the Lords have felt compelled to leave in the Marriage and Registration Acts, for example, or in the Irish Church Bill, as it was returned to the Commons, we see how little power there is in that quarter to resist measures disadvantageous to the church, or prevent any but extreme evils.

With respect to the Conservative party, we all know that their policy is to yield all that can possibly be yielded, and to consent or propose a great deal of change in order to prevent more. We know

that they chuse to rest their hopes of doing good on convincing the country that, whatever might have been the case once, they now really enter, in a great degree, into the spirit of the age-that they are honestly persuaded that great changes must take place that old institutions must be modified to an immense extent, but not destroyed.

Again, we can all see clearly enough, that whether the Whigs wish for Church Reform or not, they made it a party cry, too long for it to be possible for them to avoid doing a great deal when they have the power. We see too, that, this being the case, it is quite certain that the Conservatives would think themselves bound to go as far as they could in the same way, that their adversaries might have no advantage on this score. Indeed, the Conservatives might, perhaps, go the farthest; for, of course, in the nearly balanced state of parties, Whigs must make their measures as Conservative as they can, in order to get support from Conservatives; and the Conservatives will make their measures as Liberal as they can, to meet the views of the Liberal party.

What a strange condition of things! Here are two great parties, each of them necessarily compelled (i. e., compelled by their own

Let the names of some of these gentlemen be re-called, and let the English consider the high respectability, the lofty eminence of character, moral and intellectual, which their Radical Lords possess:—Messrs. Wakley, Grote, T. Duncombe, Baines, D. W. Harvey, Warburton, C. Buller, C. Rippon, Aglionby, Whalley, E. L. Bulwer, Hutt, Gisborne, Villiers, Bowring, Roebuck, Lennard, Bewes, Gully, Potter, Beauclerk, Buckingham, Brotherton, Hume, Crawford, C. Lushington. These persons the comptrollers of the destiny of the church!!