The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-25 00:00:00

sonal interest in thi3 Railway. Of those la how he represented Sir U.
one party was in favour of the Bill, and the other was as dc, not make
cidedly opposed to it. Therefore, under these circumstances, their pat.
he had felt it his duty to attend to the merits of the for
whole case, and after forming his own opinion, he would take
the liberty very shortly to state it to the House. With -
egani
to the respectability of the claimants for ' the seer-, .
of the Bill, he had nothing to say. Ho toe"
id ;ceding
that they were bone fide subscriptions it for granted
and coming* as they did
from the opulent town of Maul,:
ester, he had little doubt but
that these subscriptions w.-ould be paid. lle did not for a mo-
ment suspect that.the parties concerned in this Bill were at all
of the same dese!..lption as that complained of. his Right Hon.
Friend (sir R. Peel) had influenced the lloube, not to depart,
from the usual practice of allowing the Bill to be read a second
time, and then the merits might be discussed in Committee. His
Noble Friend ( Lord Stanley) in his very perspicuous and able
speech had met the question on its proper grounds. From what
he knew of the rules of the House he thought it was this—that
if persons came with petitions against the principle of a Bill,
it was in the stage of the second reading-, and that only
then the question of merits could be discussed. It was,
therefore, to that particular point—with all respect
to the House—that he would address himself exclusively.
There was one particular argument to which, in his opinion,
the House was bound to attend. This railroad, which was called
the South Union Railway, was only part of a plan. The original
plan was for a railway from Manchester to Tamworth ; and,
as far as the Company was concerned, these two places were
to be the termini. Part of the plan was from Tamworth
' to Rugely, but the Standing Orders Committee determined
that the Tamworth and Rugely line could not be approved of.
They therefore passed by that part, and adopted the line from
Manchester to Tamworth, by which, as the Noble Lord ( Stan-
ley) said, only one mile would be saved. They had sanctioned
the Act for a Railway from London to Birmingham ; they
had sanctioned another line from Birmingham to Liverpool;
and they were now called upon to permit another competing
Company to come forward after the original one had spent mil-
lions of money without reaping the advantage of a single shilling.
lie did not think it would be fair to hold that those who had
been in receipt of large incomes from the profits on their
shares should be in the same situation as others. It was
said that these shares had been at 80, and that now they
were at 40 per cent. He did not know whether they were
now worth only 40 or not ; but if they were, why was it ?
Simply because it was a very well known fact that
the Birmingham and London Railway would not be
completed for less than double of what it was stated
at first it would cost. He did not think that those who had
made the poorer speculations should be taken as the criterion
by which to judge of the subject. It had been said that
those who had sold their shares and put large sums into their
pockets should be the parties to look to ; but the fact was, those
individuals had left the concern, and the present holders were
persons who had laid out large sums, without having received
one shilling of return. It had also been said that Parliament,
in sanctioning one line of Railway, ought not to sanction a com-
peting line. Parliament had refused to agree to that, and
what took place when the London and Birmingham Rail-
way Bill passed ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Why the projectors
were called upon to show such a reasonable probability of
traffic as would yield a fair share of profit to the shareholders.
They did produce proof to that effect, and no sooner had that
Bill passed than the House sanctioned a competing line. He
felt exceedingly obliged for the attention with which the
House had heard him, and he should not trouble the House
further.—( Cries of " Divide, divide.")
Mr. JAMES said the Right Hon. Baronet had addressed
the House with his usual ability and with his usual plausi-
bility—( Great laughter)—and had stated the people of Tare-
worth had nothing to do with the Bill ; but the Right Hon.
Baronet had not told the House he might not have some bene-
ficial interest in the matter. It appeared to him (Mr. James)
that every principle of justice and fair dealing demanded
the measure should be rejected at once by the House,
as one not worthy to be considered in detail by a com-
mittee of the House.—( Cries of " Divide, divide.")—
He had no interest whatever in the concern, and was no advo-
cate of a monopoly.--(Renewed cries of " Divide.")
Lord SAND ON addressed the House, but from the noise
which prevailed, he was altogether inaudible in the gallery.
We understood him to support the Bill, and to say that he
had presented a petition from 167 landholders in its favour.
Mr. G I SBO RNE rose amidst loud criesof " Divide 1" He
said that if the House would permit him, he would only say
a very few words as to the position in which the Noble
Lord who had moved that this Bill be read again this
day six months was placed. The Noble Lord said, naturally
and properly, that this line divided itself into two parts, and
that he approved of one of them and disapproved of the other ;
but he could not have that portion of which he disapproved
rejected, unless the other portion also was rejected. Now he
(Mr. Gisborne) proposed that the Bill should go to a Com-
mittee, and the Noble Lord could then gain his object ; for a
Committee could sanction the adoption of that part of the rail-
way which he desired, and throw out that portion to which he
objected.—( Hear.) He almost agreed with the Noble Lord
as to the point at which the railway should stop ; but it was
monstrous to throw out what he approved of, in order to have
thrown out that to which he objected. The Hon. Gentleman
then read a passage from the report of the Committee on the
question, but was inaudible from the noise which prevailed :
we could only collect that the Committee recommended the
investigation of the whole case. He then concluded by asking
if the House, after that recommendation, would stop the mea-
sure at its present stage ?—( Hear.)
Mr. MAR K PHIL LIPS then rose, and the loud cries of
" divide, divide," prevented the Honourable Member from
addressing the House for some time. He would ask Hon.
Members whether the constituents whom he represented
should have a fair hearing through him, before the House came
to a decision upon the second reading of the Bill 7—( Hear,
hear.) He was unconnected in any private capacity whatever
with either of the lines. He would vote for the second read.
ing of the Bill, as he considered it was a simple act of justice
to allow the Bill to go through that stage. The Noble Lord,
the Member for North Lancashire, had not adverted to the
quantity of carriage anticipated on this line from Notting-
ham and Derby. This was an additional reason why the
Bill should be allowed to go through a second reading. He
had but one word to state with respect to the Grand Junction
Railway. The town of Manchester was not consulted as to
whether the line that was adopted was or was not the best.
He did not see any reason why the town of Manchester should
be compelled to pass through a longer and highly inconve-
nient line, because the railway projectors could not look into
futurity, and because they had not made that line which they
ought to have adopted, had they taken into consideration the
interests of the important town of Manchester.
Lord F. EG E RTON rose to reply. He was not authorised
to make" any compromise for the purpose of obtaining support
to this Bill. The time to enter into or justify such a compro-
mise was when the Bill was in Committee. He hoped the
House would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and
when it was in Committee the subject of a compromise might
be very properly taken into consideration.
Mr. P. THOMSON disagreed with the Right Hon. Mem-
ber for Tamworth in the opinion expressed by him, that the
House was bound to give to all Bills of this kind a second
reading, in consequence of the resolution of last year.
Where there was a general objection he thought the second
reading the fit time for opposing its further progress. He did
not, however, suppose, that because there were already two
competing lines that the House was bound to reject the Bill,
and he did not think the reasons advanced by, the Noble
Lord were sufficient to induce the House to reject it. He
should therefore vote against the proposition of the Noble Lord.
Lord STANLEY did not think he would be justified in
troubling the House by calling for a division, after the indica-
tion of opinion by several Members who agreed in the gene-
ral principles contended for by him. He was afraid, however,
that the result of the decision of the House, after great expense
and great loss of time, would have the same effect as if the
parties had compromised the matter.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.

RAILWAYS.—STANDING ORDERS.
Mr. WARBURTON asked a question respecting the
Standing Orders, which
The SPEAKER declined to answer.
POOR LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day for
the purpose of giving the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter)
an opportunity of bringing forward this subject.
Sir ROBERT PEEL had a petition to present from a
great number of medical practitioners in Berkshire. One por-
tion of the petition prayed for an inquiry into the medical
treatment. Upon the subject of the Poor-law Amendment
Act, he begged to say that he was not hostile to the principle
of that Bill. On the contrary, he had given it his support.—
( Hear, hear.) He could neither support a motion for the
repeal of that Act, nor would he give his support any motion
for an inquiry, that would have a tendency to prejudice that
measure. He distinctly avowed that ; but still he thought
that there were several parts of the system that might be made
the subject of inquiry, and this with a view to prevent abuses
in the general system. He was quite confident that the prin-
ciple of the Bill would be promoted by an improvement in its
details. There were none of those details that, he believed,
called so much for inquiry as those connected with medical
treatment under the Act. He wished to ask the Noble Lord
whether, in any amendment he might move, he would be
against any such inquiry as had for its object an improvement
in the general operations of the Act, and particularly with re-
spect to medical treatment ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was against any proposition that
would tend to repeal the Poor Law Amendment Act, or affect
in any way the principle of that Act. He was ready to assent
to an inquiry into the manner in which the Act had been car-
ried into operation. He certainly was not prepared to say that
the Commissioners had in any instance acted but with a sound
and wise discretion on the subject of the law ; at the same
time, he thought that this was a fit subject for inquiry, and
more particularly as regarded medical relief. It was the opi-
nion of those whose opinions were entitled to great weight, and
whose opposition was conscientiously entertained as to the
plan adopted by the Poor Law Commissioners with respect to
medical relief ; and the Committee which he would have the
honour to propose as an amendment to the motion of the Hon.
Member for Berkshire, would inquire into all the various
measures adopted by the Commissioners, so far as the work-
ing of the plan was concerned, and, amongst others, the plan
adopted by them with respect to medical relief. He thought
that the best way of considering the question would be by a
Select Committee.
Sir R. PE EL said that his petition was not against the
principle of the Act; but it was from medical practitioners
who expressed an opinion against remuneration for their
treatment being by contract or tender. ' Persons the most
friendly to the operation of the Act were for an inquiry into
that branch of the subject. If he understood the Noble Lord,
there would not be the least4itficulty thrown in the way of an
inquiry into that particular branch.
Lord J, RUSSELL replied there would not.—(liear.)

L

aped that those medical gentlemen would
ante mistake in their recipes that they had in
..cion ; for what they had s'nt to him was a petition
ate Lords Spiritual and Temporal.--( Laughter.)
After a few words from Mr. ROBINSON,

Coload SIBTHORI requested of the Noble Lord to name
which would be convenient for the Noble Lord, in order that
he might proceed with his motion, which stood first amongst
the notices for that day.

• Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied that if he proceeded with
the Orders of the Day, the lion. and Gallant Gentleman's
motion could not be proceeded with until they had been dis-
posed of. When the Orders of the Day were not proceeded
with, in order that a particular motion might be discussed,
it was the general understanding, that others would give the
precedency to that motion. Ile could not name any parti-
cular day, nor did he see any reason why the motion of the
Hon. and Gallant Gentleman could not be made without op-
position.

In answer to ?Ir. lleathcote, ?4r. HUME said that he
hoped the County-rates Bill would be in the hands of Mem-
bers to-morrow, and that he might be able to proceed with it
on Wednesday.
_ _

Mr. C. 13 OLL ER wished to give notice. He held in his
hand a pamphlet said to be his Majesty's Commissioners' Re-
port on Public Records, as we understood the Hon. Gentle-
man. The Commissioners, be observed, very seriously im-
pugned the conduct of the Committees appointed last session.
These charges appeared to him wholly false. He would take
the opportunity of asking a question, in order that from the
answer he might know who and what Commissioners sent the
Report to the Treasury.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in reply to an Hon. Gentleman,
as to the application of the Poor-law Amendment Act to the
manufacturing districts, replied, that the inquiry he meant to
propose would extend to the manner in which the Poor-law
Commissioners had carried the Act into effect.
Mr. HARDY wished to know from the Noble Lord whe-
ther the alterations made in the provisions of the, Act, for in-
stance, as to the bastardy clauses, were to be excepted from
the inquiry as to the manner in which the Act had been car-
ried into effect ?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought it much better to allow
the debate to proceed.

Mr. W A L'i'E R then rose to address the house on the
motion of which he had given notice, for a Select Committee
to inquire into the operation of the Poor-law Amendment
Act, and to report their opinion to the House. We under-
stood him to say that he had originally given to the Poor-law
Amendment Act every opposition in his power; yet, continued
the Hon. Member, it having passed into a law, lie was ready
of course to bow to the decision of the majority. What he
did now on the matarest consideration was nothing more than
he must be obliged to do, in consequence of the call made
on him. He had to convey the sense of his fellow-subjects
to the people's House of Parliament, and" he hoped the
House would prove itself to be what it was called. He
was doing nothing more than the complaints of all sanctioned
him in doing—from men of high rank, from men of in-
formation, and particularly from the clergy, from many
members of the magistracy—and they had joined together
the cries of the suffering and the voice of reason and reflec-
tion, It was on these gr'sands he called the attention of the
House to this subject. He meant briefly to renal the recollec-
tion of Hon. Gentlemen to the changes that had taken place
in the Poor-laws. The magistrates of the southern counties
in 1793, instead of obeying the law for regulating wages,
thought proper to introduce a practice of their own. The
demoralizing effect of this was soon obvious. The impru-
dent and harsh conduct of the managers of the poor drove
them into premature wedlock, in the hope of increasing
their wages. The proper remedy for this would have been
to remove the causes that gave rise to it. It would save
much trouble in characterising these scenes if the House
would allow him to read the confessions made respectively
by two gentlemen who were the advocates and panegyrists
of the Poor-laws in the other House of Parliament. The
Right Reverend Prelate who presided over the Commis-
sion, on the question of an additional clause relating to the
establishment of provident institutions, spoke thus of the
whole measure :—His Lordship said that he was anxious for
the introduction of that clause, because, said he, " It is about
the only one in the Bill that bears a kindly feeling towards the
poor on the face of it." The Lord Chancellor said " That
the chief point involved in this Bill was, whether their Lord-
ships should retain their properties or not. It was the opinion
of the Commissioners—and in that opinion he concurred_
that if this measure, or a measure similar to it, were not
speedily adopted, the property of this country would shortly
change hands." The Government organs of the press made
use also of similar language—" We require a Dictatorship for
a time." From these three sources any one might clearly
come to the result what kind of a Bill it would be. This was
the sort of argument that influenced them in their conduct to-
wards the poor. He said nothing of introducing the Bill out
of kindly feelings towards the poor, who were the object of
it ; and it appeared that the necessity for that measure was
founded on the false assumption that unless it were passed the
whole property‘of the country would go into other hands. An-
other object of the establishment was to introduce a unifor-
mity of system throughout the country. Had this been the
case, or had it failed? The squabbles that had so frequently
taken place between the Poor-law Commissioners and the dif-
ferent parishes would best answer the question.—( Hear, hear. )
The evils of the system were of two kinds, as in every tyran-
nical operation there were% two extremes. It confined relief
to the workhouse. The Poor-law Commissioners used every
means to induce people to emigrate. He was well aware that
they did not attempt compulsory emigration ; but they did
that secretly which they dared not attempt openly. People
were not carried away by force but fraud; deception and un-
founded representation constituted the very worst kind of coer-
cion. General Stewart, in sceaking of compulsory emigra-
tion, said—" I have been told by intelligent officers who served
in Canada during the last war, that they found in the Highland
emigrants more fierce in their animosity against England than
even the native Americans." The motives to induce people to
emigrate were obvious ; but how stood the case with the Poor-
law Commissioners. He would read a passage from their own
report upon this head. "In the case of any real surplus of
population being found to exist, we have already announced
our intention of endeavouring to provide for it, either by emi-
gration to some of our colonies, or by migration to some home
district, in which an effective demand for labour might be found
to prevail.—( Hear.) In conformity with the intention thus
expressed, we have thought it necessary to enable many pa-
rishes in the south-eastern districts of England—particularly
in Norfolk, Suffolk, Sussex, and parts of' Wiltshire, where a
redundancy of labour was most complained of—to rsise the
necessary funds for the conveyance of numerous emigrants,
who have proceeded chiefly to Toronto, in Upper Canada."
The whole number of the persons thus sent out was 5,140 ;
of whom 3,000 had been sent from Norfolk alone. A friend
of his saw 217 conveyed in a single waggon.—( A laugh.)
The number had been calculated according to the weight of
the waggon, which was seven tons. Some idea might be
formed on the subject from the statement of the persons sent
from Downton, in Wiltshire. Out of 200 persons, 70 were
able-bodied men, and the remaining 130 either women or
children. What would become of the latter on the death of
their husbands or fathers ? Nor did it appear upon the assist-
ant Commissioner's own showing, that this emigration was ne-
cessary; for he adds, " it is a matter of very great difficulty to
ascertain even with an approximation to truth the actual exist-
ence of a superabundance of labourers. I can instance scarcely
a single parish in which there is not ample employment in the
summer season. In winter, men are too frequently discharged,
not because there is not profitable labour for them, but be-
cause their services can be spared, and the small occupiers of
land are too distressed to incur expenses not absolutely indis-
pensable." He would read a few of the cases that had been sent
to him by a highly respectable gentleman, who was a clergy-
man and a magistrate of the county of Sussex. The
Hon. Member then proceeded to read the following : —" The
Poor-law Report says much on the beauties and benefits of
migration to Manchester. I will mention the case of a family
belonging to the adjoining parish. The man is aged 47 and
his wife 38. They have seven children ; the eldest a girl of
15, in place, the remaining six are to maintain. Being out
of work five weeks before last Christmas, the man applied to
the board for work or relief. They told him they could give
him neither: he must seek out and get work. At last the as-
sistant poor-law Commissioners said, Why don't you take all
your family, and go to Manchester; you will there earn a 1/.
a week ?' probably thinking that the man would object to this.
But not so ; the man replied,' lam an old soldier. I care not
where I go, so as I can get a living ; I am ready to go to Man-
chester or any where else." Very well (says the Commissioner),
you shall go.' So fine formal papers were procured, duly filled
up, signed and countersigned by ministers, officers, &c.,
and the parish promised to pay his expenses. The man,
in the interim, is put on the roads at 9s. per week,
whereon for himself and family to luxuriate till the order
should arrive from a person called the migration officer,
for him and his family to start for this promised El Dorado.
But weeks passed away, and no answer from the
said functionary arrives. The assistant Commissioner
writes in vain. At length, towards the close of January,
he desires the clerk of the union to write also. The reply is,
there is no work for the man now ; possibly there may be in
the spring I Thus has this poor fellow been kept on the
teeter-hooks ever since November at 9s. a week, though
sometimes, by special favour, he is permitted to go to the
stone-quarry and earn 10s., but he must not earn more ; and
thus bursts this migration bubble." My informant calculates
that " if the man's wages are 10s. a week, after providing
flour and rent for his family, he has Is. 14. a week for clothes,
shoes, and fuel for eight persons, and only Id. a week for
the same purposes if he has only 9.3.-a week. But when the
assistant-commissioner discovers that the Manchester humbug
will not go down, he says, Well,, but you can go to the
railroads—they arc at a stand for the want of men l' The
answer to this is, the railroad work is such 'as stiff-limbed men
of between forty-five and sixty cannot undertake, being quite
new to them, and if they couid, the wages that can be carried
are not such as will enable a man to live out at quarters, and
send home enough to sustain a wife and six children. ' Well,
then, (says the Commissioner), let the, young men go to the
railroads; they can earn there great wages I' So the young
men are refused either work or "relief, or assistance to emi-
grate, and are told to go to the `railroads. To the railroads
they go; they come back. What do you want?' Work.'
Work 1 why I thought you had gone to get work on the rail-
road ? 'So I did.' Well?" I could not get any.' Ido not
believe a word you say; you are 'idle, so you may starve.'
Such is the kind of dialogue that takes place. Now let us
look to the facts. This circumstance of young men hairing
gone to the railroads for work, and having come back again,
saying they could get none, having been several times brought
to the notice of the Petworth Board of Guardians, they sent
their relieving officer to Winchester for the express purpose of
ascertaining the real truth. Ho returned and reported that
there was no work to be bad. The leading principle and
practice of the new law seems to be to harass the poor man,
and to make him run about from place to place, from one