The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-12 00:00:00

THE CONFEDERATE STATES.

Mr. J. WHITE asked the Secretary of State for the
Rome Department, owing to the absence of the noble lord
the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Government
had determined to withdraw its recognition of the belli-
gerent rights of the (so-called) Confederate States of
America ?
Sir G. GREY thought it better to postpone the motion
for a few days.

FOREIGN WINES.
Sir F. BELLY asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in reference to a paper quoted by him, whether he was
prepared to state in what manner, and upon what principle,
the priceorvalue of foreign wines were estimated or ascer-
tained upon the payment of the customs duty upon im-
portation ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
manner in which the value of the wine was arrived at was
by an organised system and on the payment of customs'
duties. The course pursued was Clearly stated in the
customs' instructions he held in his hand, which the right
hon. gentleman could have if he moved for them.
Sir F. KELLY then moved for a copy of the documents
referred to, viz., the instructions of the Inspector-General
of Imports and Exports.

NORTH AMERICAN FORTIFICATIONS.
Mr. B. COCHRANE asked the Secretary of State for
the Colonies whether the communications which had
passed between her Majesty's Government and the com-
missioners from Canada had led to any change of view re-
specting the amount to be expended on fortifications in our
North American colonies?
Mr. CARDWELL said as soon as the commissioners
arrived at a result no time would be lost in communicating
it to Parliament. In the meantime he did not think it de-
sirable to mention anything further Connected with the
matter.

LAND TENURE IN OTTDE.
Lord STA.NLEY asked Uao kiecrotary of state for 1.4613

whether he had received any recent reports relative to the
investigation into the land tenures of Oude ; and if so,
whether he was able to state the substance of such reports,
or to lay them upon the table.

Sir C. WOOD said he had not received any official papers,
and therefore he could not lay them on tl e table of the
house.

INDIAN TRANSPORTS'.
Lord STANLEY asked the Secretary of State for India
what amount of expenditure it was intended to incur in
the establishment of a line of steam transports to convey
troops by the overland route ; whether all transport of
troops to and from India was to take place hereafter by
that line ; and, if so, at what seasons of the year, and
what use, if any, would be made of the transports during
the months not available for the conveyance of troops.
Sir C. WOOD said the matter had been for some time
under discussion, and it had been thought that a great
gain of time and money would be made if the overland
route was adopted. The result of the inquiry was, even
though at the outset additional expense would be
incurred, that a line of transports should be esta-
blished between this country and Alexandria and
Suez to India. It was proposed to build five transports,
and the Admiralty having been consulted contracts for the
construction of these vessels had been entered into. To
show the advantage of having such vessels, he might in-
form the house that the Himalaya had saved her own cost
three times over. The vessels would not enter the Red Sea
from the end of October to the beginning of March. When
not engaged in the service for which they were constructed
the vessels would be available for taking troops from India
to other colonies.

An HoN. MEMBER asked whether the expense would be
borne by the Indian Government.

Sir C. WOOD, in reply, said the expense would be borne
as the service was performed. The Indian Government
had advanced the million of money for the construction of
the vessels.

BANK OF ISSUE.
Mr. NEATE asked the Chancellor of Die Exchequer
whether, in his opinion, the State might justly withdraw
from banks, other than the Bank of England, the right of
issue they now enjoy, without giving them pecuniary com-
pensation for the loss of that right ? •"
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
answer to such a question seemed to him rather as an ab-
stract declaration. (Laughter.) He wouldtherefore post-
pone answering it until he had some hiformation upon
which he could form an opinion. (Laughter.)
UNION CHARGEABILITY BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. VILLIERS observed that the hon. member opposite
had a motion on the paper with respect to certain instruc-
tions to the committee. He did not think it was compe-
tent for the hon. gentleman to proceed in the manner he
proposed.
The SPEAKER ruled that it would be quite in order for
the hon. gentleman to proceed as he had given notice.
Mr. BENTINCK then rose and moved that it be an in-
struction to the committee, with a view to rendering the
working of the system of union chargeability more just
and equal, to facilitate in certain cases the alteration of the
limits of existing unions.
Mr. PACKE seconded the motion, and an animated
debate ensued, in the course of which Mr. E. Egerton ex-
pressed his entire approval of tho bill, qualified only by the
wish that it had gone further and abolished the law of
settlement altogether.
Mr. ADDERLEY, whilst not opposing the bill, which
he regarded as inevitable, nevertheless thought that as a
preliminary it was necessary to provide for a new adjust-
ment of unions in various parts of the country. Otherwise
great injustice might result.
The instruction was opposed by Mr. Vaunts, on the
ground of the vagueness of its terms, and because its sup-
porters did not show how the limits of the existing unions
were to be adjusted in a more satisfactory manner.
Sir W. MILES could easily point out how that difficulty
was to be met. All they need do was to empower two-
thirds of the guardians to imperatively call upon the Poor-
law Board for the dissolution and re-arrangement of a
union. By this means there would be less recrimination
between parish and parish and those who had to carry out
the law.
Sir J. PAKINGTON supported the instruction, and at
the same time declared that he was in favour of extending
the area of rating, but that could only be done by causing
a great change in the incidents of taxation.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said there were as gross inequalities
existing in the areas of unions as in the areas of parishes,
and it was evident that the Poor-law Board contemplated
the necessity of effecting some alteration in these unions.
In many cases that would decide whether a parish taken
from one union and joined to another should pay at the
rate of 4s. or even 6d. in the pound. The country was on
the eve of a general election, and he asked the house
whether they were prepared to place in the hands of a
Government office the enormous patronage that might be
thus exercised at this particular moment.
Mr. CLIFFORD agreed that the changes proposed would
be for the benefit of the agricultural parishes.
The House divided—
Ayes ... 118
Noes ... ... 193

Majority against the motion ...

-75

Mr. THOMPSON then moved that the bill be referred
to the consideration of a select committee. Several very
high authorities had admitted the unfairness of the present
system, and the justice of extending the poor rate to all
kinds of property, but they had abstained from offering any
suggestion as to how that object might be effected. If this
bill were sent to a select committee, suggestions might be
made which might meet the difficulty in a practical way,
and he might observe that the proposal of the hon. mem-
ber for Worcestershire, who had given notice of an amend-
ment, was not liable to the principal objections which had
been urged against other plans. The hon. member pro-
posed that half of the amount of the poor rates should be
charged upon the Consolidated Fund. Whether this
scheme were adopted or not, it would at least be satisfac-
tory to those who were about to have additional burdens
put upon them to know that their case had been inquired
into by a select committee, which might also throw light '
upon other subjects bearing upon the working of the poor
law, and thus enable the Poor Law Board to draw up a
comprehensive bill for the consideration of the new Par-
liament. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. FERRAND said ho was precluded by the rules
of the house from bringing forward the motion of which he
had given, notice, and he should therefore second the
motion of the hon. member for Whitby (Mr. Thompson).
This bill had been denounced throughout England as a
spoliation bill, and if carried it would raise the same spirit
of hostility on the part of the manufacturing classes in the
north of England as had been roused by the New Poor
Law of 1834. The right hon. gentleman had sent inspec-
tors to the agricultural districts in order to make out a case
for this bill, but had sent no inspectors to the manufactur-
ing districts of Yorkshire and Lancashire. He ventured to
say that not one in fifty of the operatives in those counties
had cottages provided for them by their employers, and
the rule was that they went a distance of one or two miles
to their place of work every morning. Now, for the pur-
pose of showing the inconsistency of the right hon. gentle-
man, he would refer to a speech of his on the 18th of
June, 1863, whe'ii, in :speaking of the state of things in
Lancashire, he said that " there was a lamentable ueed of
all those requirements which were considered essential to
promote health, cleanliness, and general convenience."
Could anything worse than that be said of the agricultural
districts. The Poor-law Act of 1834 had been passed prin-
cipally to put an end to the ruinous system of granting aid
in relief of wages in the agricultural districts of the south
of England. But what had been abolished in the south of
England trad become the rule of the manufacturing districts
of Lancashire and Yorkshire. Lord Brougham in 1834 had
denounced the system as tending to spread ruin and devas-
tation over the land. But the right hon. gentleman had not
a word to say against the same system which was in full
operation in the north of England. He was ready to pledge
himself to the hour that he could produce evidence to
show that the practice of giving relief in aid of wages was
more common in the north of England now than it had
been in the south of England in 1834, when Lordßrougham
described its evil consequences. In the Keithley Union,
where his own parish was situated, and also in the Brad-
ford Union, the expense of the maintenance formed a very
small amount compared with the sum given in aid of wages.
It was often the case, when the mills were closed for weeks
and months, that the men were entirely maintained in that
way. At other times, when the men only had three days'
wages in the week, they went to the guardians and applied
for relief in aid, which was almost invariably afforded to
them. The hon. member quoted the statistics of the Keithley
and Bradford Unions to show how large a proportion of the
relief was out-door relief, and what was the effect of giving
relief in aid of wages at the present time in the manufactur-
ing districts. He then quoted other returns, to show the
comparative effects of the system in seasons of adversity
and in seasons of prosperity, the result being that,
though the out-door relief in seasons of distress increased
very considerably, the in-door relief scarcely increased at
all. The effect of the right hon. gentleman's bill, ho said,
would be to extend into the rural districts the relief in
aid of wages system, which had been found so objec-
tionable in the manufacturing districts. He then went
on to show that at present the system of rating was
much harder on agricultural property than on manufac-
turing property, and denounced the bill as a violation
of the principle upon which free trade had been estab-
lished in 1846, that the town populations were not to be
taxed for the benefit of the country. The present bill
proposed to tax the agriculturists for the benefit of the
towns. The right hon. gentleman was wrong in sup-
posing that the agriculturists in the country had any
special benefit by the trade carried on with the large
towns, because they received no higher price for their
produce than was paid for that grown near the town.
Re wished to call attention to Brierly Union and the
Lowin length,Moorwith Ironworks. That union was 14 or 15 miles
aßiadradfdafonorroddthiaearndtwhe heart of it. One portion
wdiasstrinictoobeltanweden
right hon. gentleman would
mLaakseeedttleeadnsemcinastllehleyf-abprmillopeuorlfaantthedde
the labouring population in the neighbourhood pay for
-the people of the Low Moor Ironworks, who were 14
miles away from them. Was it possible that a bill like
that could become law without creating the
greatest