The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-23 00:00:00

RUTHIN CHARITIES BILL.

This bill passed through committee with some amend,
ments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (No. 2;

BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
INCLOSURE (No. 2) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
POOR REMOVAL (No. 2) BILL.
_ _

The house went into committee on this bill.

Or. clause 1,

Mr, HENLEY objected that that was the first time it
had been attempted to make a man and his wife atd twenty
legitimate sons and daughters, if he had them, liable for
the maintenance of a bastard child. He did not think that
could be intended. He also objected to the removal clause.
Mr, HERBERT said the clause was copied verbatim
from the English Act.

Mr. HENLEY—Then all I can say is that the English
Act is very bad.

Mr. C. TURNER objected to that portion of the clause
which rendered a whole family liable to removal from
Ireland to England because one member might have become
liable, and moved an amendment embodying his objection.
Mr. HARVEY LEWIS considered the amendment so
reasonable that the committee could not hesitate to adopt it.
Mr. H. HERBERT said his object was to assimilate the
law of England and Ireland. He had adopted the law of
England as applied to Ireland, to be applied by Ireland

towards removals to England. The amendment would
render the bill inoperative.
After some discussion, in which Sir B. Leighton, Mr.
Vivian, and Mr. I. Butt took part,
Mr. VILLIERS said the right hon. gentleman had over-
looked the law of settlement. The question wa,,, not what
advantages were to be conferred upon Ireland, or what evils
were to be done to England, but simply what the law of
settlement was. By the law of settlement, every child born
in England had a settlement, unless it could be proved that
such child had derived a settlement from its parents. And
it was the consequences which followed from that law that
were now complained of. He would support the clause, be-
lieving thatwhatever objections could be urged against it had
still greater force if directed against the law as it now stood.
He did not mean to say but that some few evils might here
and there arise from the proposed clause; but at the
same time nothing could be more proper than that the
same law should exist both in Ireland and England. The
right hon member for Oxfordshire seemed to thing that the
proposed law was a bad one, but the objections which had
been urged should rather be directed towards obtaining a
change in the law of the two countries. He would support
the clause.
Mr. COLLINS thought the effect of the bill would be to
give a great advantage to the children of Irish parents over
those of English parents.
Mr. M'MAHON thought it would be better to have a
law of settlement in Ireland, as it would be a remedy for
the fearful evictions which took place in that country.
Mr. LOCKE deprecated the proposition of the hon. mem-
ber who spoke last, as, if there was one thing in Ireland
which was worthy of imitation, it was the simplicity of its
poor law. He would, therefore, support the clause, if for
no other reason than that it might bring about an
tion of the poor-law system in both countries.
Sir H. BRUCE supported the clause as it stood, and was
opposed to the introduction of the law of settlement in Ire-
land.

The committee then divided—
For the amendment 73
Against
Majority
Mr. HERBE EtT moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress, in order that he might consider what he would do
with the bill.
Mr. MaGUire urged the right hon. gentleman to aban-
don the bill, and complained of the decision to which the
house had come.
Mr. M`MAHON recommended that the bill should be
proceeded with.
Mr, HENNESSY hoped that it would not, and declared
the English members, when dealing with the poor, had one
law for England and another for Ireland.
Sir B. LEIGHTON denied that it was so, and maintained
that more leniency and consideration were shown to the
Irish poor in England than to the English poor in Ireland.
Mr. C. TURNER repeated the statement, and urged
that it was impossible to establish identity between the two
systems so long as the circumstances of the two countries
remained so different. His whole desire was to do justice to
both.

Sir J. TROLLOPE remarked that the English law of
settlement was that which pressed most heavily on the Irish
poor, and not the law of removal. It was to the former,
not the latter, that they should direct their attention.
The motion was then agreed to, and the house resumed.
Sir H. BRUCE obtained leave to introduce a bill relating
to Prisons in Ireland, and the bill was read a first time.
Lord RAYNHAM obtained leave to introduce the three
following bills :—Bill to amend the Nuisances Removal Act
for England, 1855, with respect to the seizure of diseased
and unwholesome meat ; Bill to.prohibit Unqualified Per-
sons from the Practice of Midwifery; Bill for the Preven-
tion of Accidental Poisoning.
The house then adjourned at half-past eleven.