The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-13 00:00:00

UNION CHARGEABILITY BILL.

Lord GRANVILLE, having presented several petitions
in favour of the principle of a union rating, moved the
second reading of the Union Chargeability Bill. He de-
scribed what had been the course of legislation on the re-
lief of the poor from the date of passing the new Poor Law
Act, to prove that its tendency had always been to shorten
the period of residence that gives a legal settlement, and to
equalise the rating. He then noticed the chief objections
made to the measure. It was alleged there ought to be
further inquiry, but they had been inquiring into this sub-
ject for more than 30 years. They had done more ; they
had legislated on the recommendations founded on those
inquiries. It was now time to act more decidedly in the
same direction. He admitted the formation of the present
unions was not perfect, but it would not be expedient to
delay the bill till the unions could be readjusted. Another
objection to the measure was that less economy could be
exercised in the management of large areas than in that of
parishes. Experience, he believed, had shown the reverse
to be the case. He urged the house to pass the bill, which
would do away with the law of uniformity in the present
system of poor law administration, by which one class of
poor was relieved from one fund, a second class from
another. The measure would complete the principle of the
measure of 1834, according to the recommendation of the
best authorities, among whom were Sir J. Graham and Sir
G. C. Lewis. He could see no ground or reason for refer-
ring the bill to a select committee, and he believed the mo-
tion was irregular in itself. The reference to a committee
could not be proposed till the bill had been read a second
time. In the next place, their lordships could not receive
any alterations of the bill originating in that house. The
reason for referring a bill to a committee generally was
that its details were numerous and intricate. This was a
measure of few clauses, and with no intricacy of detail.
He hoped, therefore, the house would reject the motion and
pass the bill, which he believed would ultimately prove
beneficial to the interests of the owners of land.

Lord BROUGHAM briefly supported the bill, the prin-
ciple of whichwas approved by the authbrs of the reform of
the poor law he had himself advocated more than 30 years
ago. The bill now proposed would complete what was left
imperfect in that great measure.

The Duke of RUTLAND then moved that the bill be
referred to a Select Committee. He did so because he be-
lieved the measure would operate very unjustly in some
localities. He read a number of letters and documents to
prove this position, and contended that on such a question
the house ought to proceed with great caution. He argued
further that the bill would create mischievous distinctions
between town and country, and destroy the present com-
munity of feeling between employers and the employed.
Lord SPENCER spoke in favour of the bill, and
answered some of the objections made by the Duke of
Rutland. He thought the measure was required. It
might be necessary to make some readjustment of the pre-
sent Unions, but he would not for that reason endanger
the passing of the bill, which he believed would prove
beneficial to the labouring classes and to the country at
large.
Lord St. MAUR addressed the house on the influence of
the law of settlement and the law of removal in restricting
the field of employment for the labouring class. The bill,
by removing these restrictions, would improve the position
of the labourer.

Lord CARNAR VON would vote for the second reading,
though he thought it would have been better had some pre-
liminary measure been introduced readjusting the present
Unions. It appeared to him that on this question both
parties had overrated the results of the measure. They
would not be so formidable as the opponents of the bill
predicted ; on the other hand, the supporters of the bill
anticipated too many advantages from it.
Lord GREY approved the bill, the principle of which
was sound. Too much of the vicious administration of
the old system survived the change introduced by the Act
of 1834, and it was necessary to remove it. He should
vote for the second reading.

Lord REDESDALE doubted the policy of increasing
the area of rating. Nor was a large area conducive to the
good administration of the Poor-law. It had been a failure
in London because the officials had no knowledge of the
poor they relieved. This was not the case in the country,
where the law could be•well administered.

The house then divided on the question that the
be referred to a select committee. The numbers were—
Contents 24

Non-contents
Majority against the motion .
The bill was then read a second time.
Their lordships rose at a few minutes before ten.

-62

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
—Abergavenny and Monmouth Railway ; Blackpool and
Layton with Warbrick Improvement ; Brean Down Har-
bour Railway ; Bute Docks, Cardiff (No. 2); Cale-

donian Railway (Additional Powers); Caledonian
Railway (Bangholm Junction) ; Caledonian Railway
(Cleland and Mid-Calder Railway and Branches) ;
Carmarthen and Cardigan Railway (Branches) ; Edinburgh
and Glasgow Railway (No. 1) ; Glasgow and South-
Western, Maybole and Girvan, &c., Railway Companies ;
Greenock Police and Improvement; Leamington Gas ; Liver-
pool Gunpowder Regulation ; Monkland Railways ; Mon-
mouthshire Railway and Canal ; Moses Gate and Ringley
Branch Road; Nantlle Railway; North British and Edin-
burgh and Glasgow (Bridge of Forth) Railways ;
Northern Assurance Company ; Ross and Monmouth
Railway ; St. Stephen's Green (Dublin) ; Severn Junction
Railway ; West Yorkshire Railway ; and Witham
Drainage.
WESTMINSTER IMPROVEMENT BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. A. SMITH moved that the bill be referred to a
there
for further consideration. He thought that
er
ought to
dweelling houses for thebes°nepoaorrnangement made for building
Mr. TITE opposed the motion.
Mr. W. PATTEN thought the bill was entirely one of
a private nature, and for merely acquiring certain land,
and therefore there was no need for adopting any different
course to that usually
bills.
Pursued with rspect to private

Mr. DODSON also was averse to the adoption of the
course suggested by the hon. member (Mr. Smith).
The motion was withdrawn, and the bill was read a
second time.
THE CASE OF MRS. GREY.
Colonel SYKES gave notice that to-morrow he should
ask a question of the Government as to whether steps had
been taken to obtain compensation for Mrs. Grey, whose
husband had been murdered near the Cape of Good Hope.
THE CHARITY COMMISSION.

Mr. YERRAND gave notice that to-morrow he should
ask her Majesty's Government whether it was intended to
fill up the vacancy of one of the charity inspectors, caused
by the death of Mr. J. Symonds, jun.
SATURDAY HALF-HOLIDAY.
Mr. AYRTON asked the First Lord of the Treasury
whether her Majesty's Government would be pleased to
extend to the officers and clerks of the Civil Service, who
had presented amemorial, the Saturday half-holiday allowed
in other establishments.
Lord PALMERSTON said, as the Government were
about to appoint a commission to ascertain how far the
prayer of the memorial could be granted without interfer-
ing with the public service*; he thought it desirable to grant
what was asked, but until the inquiry had taken place to

which he had alluded, he could not say what could be done
in the matter.

THE CUSTOMS.

Mr. LYALL asked the Secretary to the Treasury why
the Custom House authorities charge the merchants for
the attendance of their officers on goods in transit after
their arrival within the docks, as, in t'i it ci ke, the officer
was immediately removed from the ship -)r lighter, but this
charge continues to be made though no officer was em-
ployed.

Mr. F. PEEL said the privilege which merchants enjoyed
of removing goods without examination was granted, on
the understanding that they should pay all the expenses.
When goods were removed from ships an officer was re-
quired to watch, and it was for that the parties had to
pay.

Mr. LYALL remarked that it only took one officer to
watch the property taken from a great many ships.
Mr. F. PEEL replied that the owners of those ships
were the only parties charged.