The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 11, 1854.

selves, could effectually prevent the erection of labourers'
cottages in the parish, and where cottages already existed
suffered these to fall into decay, so as, afters time, to have
no labourers whatever resident in theparish. The result of
this was, of course, that the labourers who worked in the
parish had to reside elsewhere, an injustice and hardship
to which the present law of settlement gave every encour-
agement. (Hear.) The evidence before the committee of
1847, and before the commission of 1843, showed more
cases in which, owing to this policy, labourers had to walk
three or four miles to their work in the morning, and three
or four miles home from their work in the evening. (Hear.)
The house must see at once how severely the farmers' in-
terest suffered by this state of things in the depreciation of
labour. It was occasioned by the extra toil to which the
labourer was so needlessly and cruelly exposed. (Hear.)
Nor was the additional toil undergone by the labourer the
only suffering to which the law of settlement exposed
him ; for, compelled to take up his abode in the
" open" parishes, he was placed there amid an overcrowded
population, and, with his family, exposed to all the manifold
evils and wretchedness incident to that condition of over-
crowding. This part of the subject called for the most se-
rious consideration of the house. He would not then dwell
upon the gross frauds which the system permitted and en-
couraged; his attention was most especially applied, on the
present occasion, to the severe hardships to which the
labouring population was so needlessly exposed by the ex-
isting law. With the permission of the house, he would
read a passage on this subject from the report one of the
commissioners of 1848, a gentleman now distinguished as
one of the most able and intelligent of the metropolitan
police magistrates—Mr. A'Beckett :--
" It is, however, as to their command of their places of re-
sidence, and in the comfort and condition of themselves and
their families, that the labouring classes suffer most severely
from the operation of the law of settlement and removal of
the poor. It is almost impossible to imagine the misery, dirt,
degradation, and consequent immorality in which a large por-
tion of the labouring classes of this country are at the present
moment living. If it can be shown, as I believe it can, that
much of this moral and physical abasement is caused by the
operation of the existing law of settlement and poor removal,
the necessity for an immediate alteration of the law will be
admitted on all hands. In almost every union where the
course of my inquiry has taken me, I have found some one or
more densely populated parishes in the neighbourhood of
others very thinly inhabited by labourers, and in some in-
stances having scarcely any cottages at all. In the former the
dwellings are for the most part wretched, damp, unwhole-
some, inconvenient, excessively high-rented, and crowded with
inmates to such an extent as to render it impossible that
health or comfort could be enjoyed, or the commonest rules of
decency observed. It is the general result of my inquiries on
this head that the labouring classes are to a great extent demo-
ralised and deprived of domestic comfort by the inducement
offered to owners of property in close parishes to clear their
estates of cottage habitations—an inducement for which the
present law of settlement and removal of the poor must be
held chiefly, if not entirely, responsible. The desire to shift
the burden of parochial chargeability prevails almost co-ex-
tensively with the power, though I have met with some
honourable exceptions, and in many cases I have heard the
motive openly avowed, and the sanction of the law cited as a
justification of conduct involving much unfairness, if not actual
dishonesty, towards one's neighbours, and great oppression
towards the labouring portion of the community."
Another process to which he would solicit the attention of
the house was the hardships involved in the removal itself.
Let the house consider what that removal was to the un-
fortunate pauper, transferred—forcibly removed, if neces-
sary—under a justice's warrant, from, in many cases, one
end of the kingdom to the other. He was removed in all
probability from a place where he had formed attachments,
connexions, and occupation, to a place where he was alto-
gether unknown—for he might be removed by reason of the
birth settlement, 60 or 70 years before, of his father or his
grandfather— to a place where he had no chance of the
employment to which he had been accustomed all his life,
and where, consequently, his own prospect was pauperism
for life, and the communication of the taint of hereditary
pauperism to his children. The house, perhaps, was
scarcely aware of the extent to which the system of re-
movals was carried under the present law. According to
the latest returns on the subject—those moved for by Cap-
tain Pelham—it appeared that in 1849 there were no fewer
than 13,867 orders of removal issued inEngland and Wales,
and,the average number of each family removed under
these 13,867 removals not being less, certainly, than three
persons, it followed that no fewer than 40,000 persons were,
in this one year, rendered liable to forcible removal from
the place in which they had been residing to more or less
remote parts of the country. (Hear, hear.) The house
could readily picture to itself the aggregate of misery thus
inflicted upon the unfortunate labouring class by this very
oppressive law. (Hear, hear.) Various provisions had been
enacted by the Legislature for the purpose of mitigating
that misery ; but the law of settlement had largely ope-
rated to frustrate them. An act of George 111., in 1795,
had, indeed, effected one very beneficial modification of the
law of Charles 11. ; for whereas by the latter persons were
removable who were likely to become chargeable, the sta-
tute of George 111. provided that no person should be re-
moved who had nut actually become chargeable. But
here, again, the operation of the law of settlement had
frustrated, to a very material extent, the mitigation con-
templated, for whereas, under the former law, a person
would, perhaps, have been removed within 40 days after
his coming into a parish, under the later law he was
allowed to remain in the parish till he had formed attach.
meats, or connexions, or occupation there, and then, all at
once, upon the occurrence of some matter, he would be
removed under circumstances entailing far greater hard-
ship than would have been occasioned by removal after
the briefer residence. (Hear, hear.) Let him give a still
more striking illustration of the harsh working of the pre-
sent system :—ln 1846 the present First Lord of the Ad-
miralty, then Home Secretary, carried a measure of most
benevolent intention, rendering persons irremovable from
a parish in which they had resided for five years. Some
benefit had, doubtless, accrued from this act, but it had
been largely frustrated by the practical working of the
system under consideration, and with what cruel effect he
could not better illustrate than by an extract from a letter
addressed to him in 1851 by Mr. Doyle, the able Poor Law
Inspectorfor the Staffordshire and North Wales district :
‘. But all other injurious effects of the law sink into insig-
nificance when compared with the sufferings to the
poor of which it is the source. In putting upon paper the
plain matter-of-fact details of one or two out of many cases
that have come under my own observation, I can hardly
hope to escape the suspicion of writing under the influence of
exaggerated feelings. Last year, for instance, I was instructed
by your board to inquire into the circumstances connected
with the removal of a man with a family of young children
from a union in Lancashire to a union in North Wales. He
had been in the receipt of good wages, some 255. a-week, in
the parish in which he was on the eve of completing his five
years' residence.' From some cause his employment suddenly
ceased, and he was compelled to apply for relief. The relief
was at once granted, and when accepted an order of removal
was taken out. In the meantime the man again got work and
was busy at his labour, earning the same wages as before,
when he was literally forced away, removed to his parish, a
place he did not even know, where he was utterly friendless,
and where he had as little chance of finding the peculiar em-
ployment to which he was accustomed as if he had been cast
on a desert island. One of the witnesses, in the course of the
inquiry, happened to remark, speaking of this man, He was
more like a madman than Anything else, he suddenly broke
out, in uncontrollable passion, Yes, and lam more' like a
madman than anything else; it is enough to drive me mad to
be dragged here with my family as I have been.' I turned to
the overseer of the removing parish, who was present, and
asked, What induced him to remove this mau under such
circumstances ?" To prevant him from completing his five
years, sir.' It would be easy to multiply cases of this sort,
characterised by more or less hardship to the poor, so as to
prove that one grievous general effect of the Poor Removal
Act is to stimulate officers, guardians, and ratepayers to have
recourse to every means in their power to induce those who
aro liable to become chargeable to break their residence.'
From this district, at least, complaints are constantly made
to your board of such proceedings, and, while investigating
cases referred to me, I have seen quite enough of the means
by which the provisions of the law are evaded to know how
hopeless it is to attempt to check the prevailing practice, so
long as the inducement to it exists."
(Hear.) Another great evil of the existing system was the
enormous amount of money annually wasted in the litiga-
tion arising out of removals, a waste of which the rate-
payers had most grave cause to complain. (Hear, hear.)
The law on this subject was the most complicated, the most
obscure, the most unsatisfactory that had ever been de-
vised ; there were no fewer than 40 statutes on the subject,
while, as to the adjudged cases, they were to be counted
by thousands, and of such a nature as to make confusion
worse confounded. Yet such was the law, and such the
decisions which the poor law overseers were to construe
and administer, as it were, in dealing with the unfortunate
paupers. (Hear, hear.) Observe the ordinary course of
an order for removal. A man has become chargeable on a
parish, say in Middlesex; the overseer finds some reason to
suppose that the man's settlement is in a remote country
parish, say in Northumberland : he accordingly goes before
two magistrates, and obtains an order for the pauper's re-
moval to his supposed parish in Northumberland, the
parish in Northumberland being utterly ignorant, mean-
while, of the 'whole affair so far ; the order, however,
when made, is transmitted to the Northumberland parish,
with a notice that the Northumberland parish may, if it
thinks fit, appeal within 21 days to the Middlesex Ses-
sions. The Northumberland parish, perhaps, conceives
it more expedient to receive the pauper than to fight
so formidable an opposition; if, however, it does ap-
peal, it comes up to the Middlesex Sessions with its
counsel, attorney, and witnesses, and there contends
with the Middlesex parish and its counsel, attorney,
and witnesses, at an outlay on each side of not less
than 501., which the loser has to pay. If the Northum-
berland parish loses, it has to take the pauper and to pay
the 1001. besides ; if the Middlesex parish loses, it has to
keep the pauper and to pay the 1001. besides ; or, in other
words, a sum is squandered, under this law, upon the
lawyers, more than sufficient, perhaps, to maintain the
pauper and his family during the whole period of their
chargeability. (Hear.) Some five years ago the matter
was still worse, for then questions of removal were decided
in the courts of law upon the nicest technicalities, utterly
irrespective of the merits of the case. A measure, how-
ever, which he (Xr. Baines) had carried, had swept away
these mere technicalities, and had, he believed, done some
good so far. (Hear, hear.) Another measure which he
had introduced, giving power to the Poor Law Board to
arbitrate between parishes, had also, he believed, effected
good—(hear)—but, after all, these measures were mere
palliatives which had left a vast amount of litigation,
wasteful expenditure, and individual misery still unre-
medied. One most objectionable feature of the present
system was that scandal to public justice which exposed
the Court of Queen's Bench tri have its time wasted, its
dignity compromised, and the rarepayers' money squan-
dered, by being called upon to decide whether, perhaps,
some stable boy had been, 50 years ago, hired by ono hiring
or by another. He trusted he had now shown sufficient
ground for the changes he desired. (Hear, hear.) He
could say most truly that he had made a minute search
into the opinions of all those persons who might fairly be
considered authorities on questions of this kind, and he
could not find, since the passing of the act of Charles 11.,
any one, whether writer or speaker of reputation, who de-
fended seriously the principles of our law of settlement
and removal. (Hear, hear.) He found, on the other hand,
authorities in his favour, whose views were deserving of
the gravest attention, and to some of these he would ven-
ture very shortly to refer. In 1735 a committee of that
House was appointed to inquire into this subject, and ho
found this expression of their views, reported in the ninth
volume of Hansard under that year :
" March 27, 1735.—The Commons appointed a committee
to consider the laws in being relating to the maintenance and
settlement of the poor, and to consider what further provi-
sion might be necessary for their better relief and employ-
ment ; and the said committee, having considered and exa-
mined this affair with great care and attention, came to seve-
ral resolutions, among which is the following :—That the laws
relating to the settlement of the poor, and concerning vag-
rants, are very difficult to be executed, and chargeable in
their execution ; vexatious to the poor, and of little advan-
tage to the public, and ineffectual to promote the good ends
for which they were intended. This resolution was reported

, to the house on the 2nd of May, and on the 7th of the same
month was agreed to without amendment."
Fifty years afterwards Adam Smith delivered an opinion
on the subject, which was perfectly familiar to the house,
but which could not be too frequently cited, because it
was the opinion of a great man, of a great authority on
the subject—a man of peculiar sagacity, and having the
great advantage in the matter of perfect impartiality—
writing, as he did, in Scotland—with relation to the state
of our institutions in England :
"To remove a man who has committed no misdemeanour
from the parish where he chooses to reside is an evident vio-
lation of natural liberty and justice. There is scarcely a poor
man in England of 40 years of age, I will venture to say, who
has not in some part of his life felt himself most cruelly op-
pressed by this ill-contrived law of settlements
Let the same natural liberty of exercising what sp:xies of in-
dustry they please be restored to all his Majesty's subjects—
that is, break down the exclusive privileges of corporations,
and repeal the statute of apprenticeship, both which are
really encroachments upon natural liberty, and add to these
repeal of the law of settlements, so that a poor workman,
when thrown out of employment either in one trade or in one
place, may seek for it in another trade or in another place,
without the fear either of a prosecution or of a removal."
The house was aware that the wiser legislation of later
years had removed two of these impediments to the exer-
cise of the industry of the labouring man—the exclusive
monopoly of corporations and the statute of apprentices.
It was for the house now to decide what should become of
the third impediment thus denounced. (Hear, hear.) He
would now quote another authority of importance—one
followed with implicit deference by many members of that
house, and regarded with respect by all—Mr. Pitt. On
the 12th of February, 1796, Mr. Pitt thus expressed him-
self on this subject :
" The laws of settlement prevent the workman from going
to that market where he can dispose of his industry to the
greatest advantage, and prevent the capitalist from employ-
ing the person who is qualified to procure him the best re-
turns for his advances. These laws have at once increased the
burdens of the poor, and have drawn from the collective
resources of the State to supply wants which their operation
has occasioned, and to alleviate a poverty which they tend to
perpetuate I conceive that to promote the free
circulation of labour, and to remove the obstacles by which
industry is prohibited from availing itself of its resources,
would go far to remedy the evils and diminish the necessity
of applying fog, relief to the poor-rates. In the course of a
few years this freedom from the impolitic restraint which these
laws impose will in part supply the purposes for which these
laws were instituted. The advantages will be widely diffused,
the wealth of the nation will be increased, and the poor man
rendered not only more comfortable, but more virtuous."
The last authority to which he would call the attention 'of
the house was that of a resolution agreed to by a commit-
tee of the house which sat in the year 1847. That committee
sat 50 years after Mr. Pitt had used the expressions which
he had before quoted, and therefore their experience was
of later date. That committee had examined persons best
qualified to give all the requisite information, end after
the most careful inquiry they had agreed to ;resolution—
" That the law o f settlement and removal is generally pro-
ductive of hardship to the poor, and injurious to the working
classes by impeding the free circulation of labour. That it is
injurious to the employers of labour, and impedes the im-
provement of agriculture. That it is injurious to the rate-
payers, by occasioning expense in litigation and removal of
paupers. That the power of removing destitute poor per-
sons from one parish to another in England and Wales be
abolished."

Mr. HENLEY.--Was the report of that committee laid
on the table of the house ?
Mr. BAINES believed not ; but the resolution which he
had just read to the house was one which had been agreed
to, and her Majesty's Government were of opinion that the
resolutions of that committee were perfectly right. They
had arrived at that opinion on the grounds which he had
already stated to the house and upon some other grounds
which he (lid not think it necessary to state. The only real
remedy, they thought, for such a state of things as he had
described was to take away entirely the power of com-
pulsory removal, and, by the first clause of the bill which
he was asking permission of the house to introduce it was
enacted, " That from the passing of this bill it shallnot be
lawful to remove by force any poor person, upon the ground
of settlement, from any parish in England or Wales."
The committee which sat in 1847, having inquired into the
question of forcible removal, tut ned their attention to
another subject connected with the system, and that sub-
ject was the area of chargeability. At present the area of
chargeability was the area of the parish, and he had already
adverted to the great difference of size between various
parishes. There was abundant evidence before that com-
mittee of the evil of close parishes, and the subject to
which it became necessary to extend the inquiry was as to
whether, if the law allowing forcible removal were abo-
lished, it would not be also expedient to alter the area of
chargeability ; or, if this were not done, whether the poor
man would be any better off than before. If any parish
had no place in which a poor man could be sheltered, there
was as complete an escape from any expense of maintain-
ing a pauper as under the present law. An evil which
would necessarily result from this would be, that poor men
would be caged up in buildings such as he had already de-
scribed, and in which, in a moral point of view, there was
as much danger and evil as described by Mr. A'Beckett.
To this danger, however, another might be added in regard
to the sanitary effects of such a state of things. Places,
such as he had described, were the favourite haunts of all
pestilential diseases, with cholera itself in the van
(Hear, hear.) He would now ask the house to go with
him into the consideration of whether, under these cir•
cumstances, it might not be desirableto make some al-
teration in the area of chargeability. He would read to
the house the resolutions to which the committee of
1847 had come on that subject. That committee had
resolved—
" That the narrewnessof the area of chargeability is one
great source of the evils above adverted to, as well as of
others arising from the interest of landowners and rate-
payers in preventing the residence within that area of
persons likely to become chargeable. That it is therefore
desirable to extend the area of rating for the relief of the
poor. That unions would form the fittest area for that
purpose."
He was also of opinion that unions formed the fittest area
for levying rates for the relief of the poor, for, although
beingthose unions differed in extent, some being larger and
some smaller than others, still they were nearly of the same
size, and at all events there were no such monstrous dis-
crepancies in size as existed among the parishes. Ho con-
sidered that the area of the unions would be more advan-
tageous than a wider area. It was an area next iu degree
to that of parishes, and he was of opinion that it was not
desirable to extend the area too much, as it was of the ut-
most importance that ratepayers should look after every
case of distress which came before them. (Hear, hear.)
There was another thing to be considered, and that was,
that the unions were districts well known to the law, and
in them the ratepayers were represented by the board of
guardians who presided over its affairs, and all rates were
levied and expended within the same district and under
the superintendence of the ratepayers or their representa-
tives. There would therefore, he believed, be a great ad-
vantage in saying that chargeability should be attached to
the unions. (Hear, hear.) There were, he was well aware,
some well-meaning persons out of that house who would
go further than he felt inclined to do, and who were in
favour of a system of national rating, or even to having
recourse to the consolidated fund for the relief of the poor;
but he begged to state that he entertained the most insu-
perable objections to such a proceeding. (Loud cries of
" Hear, hear.") It was his firm conviction that any such
scheme must inevitably lead to fraud and jobbery of the
very worst description. (Hear, hear.) Such a scheme
would lead to the greatest wastefulness and carelessness.
(Hear, hear.) The direct effect of it would be to bring
about such a degree of pauperism as no man would ever
be able to get rid of. (Hear.) Such a scheme would be
totally inconsistent with the present proposal, which recog-
nised in the fullest possible way the expediency of pre-
serving the system of local self-government. (Hear.) If
such a course were adopted, there would be no local self-
government at all—honest men would become so careless
that they would take no part in the manner in which relief
was bestowed, and those who did concern themselves
would do so with some sinister object. The sum of money
raised for the relief of the distressed ought to be levied and
expended in the same area. and expended under the con-
trol of the contributors or of their representatives. That
was the safest and the justest principle for legislation
upon this subject. One clause in the bill which he wished
to introduce into the house established that unions should
be the area of chargeability, instead of the parishes, as had
hitherto been the case • and he believed that the imme-
diate effect of this enactment would be to get rid of close
parishes, and that it would be found to act in a satisfac-
tory manner. Another question which required conside-
ration was as to the manner in which the contributions
were to be raised and the sums to be levied. One plan
would be to have some fixed, uniform scale ; but in the
course of a few years a parish might alter most materially.
There might be a parish, in which a new factory having
sprung up, or mineral springs having been discovered,
might in a few years have made a great variation in the
value of property in the parish ; yet, according to the sup-
position he had started with, the scale of payment would
be invariable. Another circumstance which led him to
suppose that it would not be right to take the returns and
according to them to establish a
.fixed sum, was that to do
so would be to give close parishes for the future a benefit
on account of the mismanagement of them in times past.
It would be, in point of fact, stereotyping injustice for all
future times. Another alternative was to aim at gradually
introducing a system of equal rating throughout the various
districts. He would admit that there would be a hardship
in introducing such a principle at once—(hear, hear, from
the Opposition benches)—but it was one which be thought
it desirable to aim at ultimately. Her Majesty's Govern-
ment proposed to take 10 years to accomplish that purpose,
but that was purely a matter of detail, and it was compe-
tent to the house to consider and deal with that topic in
committee. The proposal appeared to him to be a fair one,
and he therefore submitted it to the candid consideration
of the house. It was not proposed to make any altera-
tion in the mode of rating in parishes not included in the
unions which were generally of large size and under local
acts, and in which the ratepayers entertained a great
jealousy of their own system. There was not the slightest
intention on the part of the Government to interfere with
them ; in short, they would be left precisely as they were
at present. He had now stated to the house an outline of
the plan which he had thought it fit to introduce to their
consideration, and he should regret very much if that plan
should be found to infringe upon vested interests. It had
been his object to form a plan which would effect the
greatest possible amount of good, and which, at the same
time, would inflict the least hardship upon any class ; but
he would defy any man to stir a step in this matter with-
out interfering with some interest. (Hear, hear.) The
great point in such a case was that the interference
should be a maximum in point of 9uality, and at the same
time justifiable in point of principle. He would repeat
that, to take any course at all, would be to interfere
with some existing interest, but ho must add that not to
take some course would be prejudicial to all the interests
of the country. He had referred to two or three topics
which were really only matters of detail, and nothing
would give him greater pleasure than to put himself in
communication with any gentleman who might be willing
to offer any suggestion on the subject. He should be happy
onto receive isvuebjaeonyt.sng(Hgeosatrionh,earei.t)herninw"or
his
st
wiofshthtaot
ahoofos:rnshkeee.„
plish the object he had in view as efficiently as possible,
and he should be delighted if he could introduce a measure
which would conciliate most support, and which would
least interfere with vested interests. (Hear.) He would
oofnityhereopeomatinheirsooeaarnndesmt
areluacesttutrheastotfhtehhiosuosoenn, fotri.yt,hoe
employmentr,wonld goifvelathboeurmaeansdurceaphie hadtal,antdh?ofhotnhoendreosftipturote
Poor, .
spiodtiseirnago.ton them a calm, candid, and dispassionate con-

Mr. WALPOLE asked if the measure would extend to
the removal of the Irish poor?
Mr. BAINES was obliged to his right honourable friend
for the question. The bill related to the removal of per-
sons on the ground of settlement, and it was limited to
England SO Wales. It did not therefore affect the re.

moval of the Irish poor, because they were removed not on
on the ground of settlement, but on different grounds alto-
gether, and when the question came to be dealt with, the
case of the Irish and the Scotch poor would have to be
considered together. He concluded by moving—" That
leave be given to abolish in England and Wales the com-
pulsory removal of the poor on the ground of settlement,
and to make provision for the more equitable distribution
of the charge of relief in unions." (Loud cheers.)
Sir G. GRE ir said he had listened with satisfaction to
the clear and able statement of Mr. Baines, and that he
gave his cordial support to the principle of the bill.
Mr. W. MILES wished that a more extended view of the
law had been taken, and that we were not to attack the
poor-law piecemeal. The bill only went to the question of
settlement, but the bill would not be allowed to pass with-
out a full inquiry into the system. He wished for the pro-
duction of certain returns as indispensable to a proper con-
sideration of the measure.
Mr. PACK, thanked the right hon. gentleman for his
clear and lucid statement, and concurred in a great deal
of what the right hon. gentleman said as to the hardship
to the poor man of the present law of removal. He con-
sidered that the change in the area of rating from parishes
to unions would be productive of the grossest injustice.
Another point most material in his mind, was the altera-
tion of the area of rating; and he felt confident that in
many parts of the country that alteration of the area of
rating from parishes to unions would be productive of the
grossest injustice. (Hear.) Land had been purchased,
and was being purchased comparatively free from rates
on one side of a hedge, while on the other the :and
was burdened with poor, and there was consequently a
considerable difference in the mchase money. Therefore
it would be a gross robbery upon those persons who
had been purchasing property on the understanding.
that it was free from burdens, if the right hon. gentle-
man's bill were to saddle them with very serious. charges.
Under these circumstances, he thought, if the area of
rating were increased, the area of rateable property should
also be increased. It was not fair that landed property,
should be exclusively called on to contribute to the suste-
nance of the poor. All property in the country without
exception should share in the expense of the maintenance
of the poor. (Hear, hear.)
Lord LGVAINE inquired whether the Gilbert unions
and the parishes under local acts were to be exempted from
the operation of the proposed bill ? He thought that if
there were any part of the country where the administra-
tion of poor relief required amendment it was in the me-
tropolis, where some parishes were entirely inhabited by
the rich, and others almost wholly filled with poor ; and
in the latter the rate was, of course, exceedingly heavy.
Mr. BAINES observed, that the Gilbert unions were
not comprised within the bill. The abolition of the poor's
removal would extend to all unions in England and Wales
formed under the Poor Law Amendment Bill.
Mr.HILDYARD said, the present was a subject of great
importance, and required serious consideration. Without
disrespect to the great talent and industry displayed by
the right hon. gentleman, he must say that he could not
altogether concur in the general favour with which the
right hon. gentleman's observations appeared to have been
received. He thought the right hon. gentleman had to a
certain extent exaggerated the evils of the present Poor
Law, and had rather described the state of things existing
20 years ago. (Hear.) The state of the country was now
different from its condition at the period when the report
which had been read to the house was made. That was a
period of very great distress, and therefore any defects in-
herent in the Poor Laws exhibited themselves with great
intensity. Within the last two or three years enor-
mous emigration and other circumstances had, happily,
mitigated the evils of a surplus population. He called the
right hon. gentleman's attention to a serious defect in his
scheme. He understood that as soon as the present bill
passed the poor would become chargeable on the spot where
they resided ; and the consequences of such an enactment
would be, that if a poor man died, leaving a widow and a
burdensome family, immediate means would be had re-
course to in order to get the latter out of one union into
another. This mode of dealing with the poor, namely,
driving them from ono parish to another, had actually led
to the law of settlement ; and he was apprehensive that
the right hon. gentleman had not been able to grapple with
this difficulty. He contended that gross injustice would
be done to well-regulated parishes by this proposed law.
Mr. KNIGHT contended that to increase the rate in a
parish was in effect to reduce the value of the property,
and that the measure would prove one of confiscation.
From statistical data he deduced results which went to
show that much error and mystification prevailed respect-
ing the operation of the law of settlement in close and
open parishes. If the principle of equalisation was
adopted, it would be impossible, he said, to stop short of a
national rate. He argued that taking away the Settlement
Act (which was the real Poor Law) would be a hardship
to the poor.
Mr. V. SMITH insisted that the law of settlement was
a curse to the poor man, and as great an evil to the em-
ployer as to the employed, and that, although this mea-
sure might be injurious to some property, it would remedy
a greater injustice.
Sir J. TROLLOPE thought it was a defect in the mea-
sure that it exempted parishes under local acts and Gilbert
unions. He was convinced that the house would consider
the bill, not as a party measure, but as one for the benefit
of the country
Mr. HENLEY characterised the measure as a confis-
cation of a large portion of the property of the coun-
try, and complained of a union rating, as in some cases,
where the union district was large, weakening the control
of the ratepayers. As it affected the poor, if a large pecu-
niary burden was cast upon particular parishes, they would
endeavour to recoup themselves by pulling down dwellings.
Before this question was settled it ought to be known what
was to be done with Ireland. He hoped that ample infor-
mation would be laid befcre the house in order to enable
them to come to a dispassionate judgment.
Sir J. SHELLEY had no good argument in favour of
union rating.
Lord C. MAMILTON complained of the hardship that
would be inflicted upon Irish paupers in England.
Sir J. PAKINGTON could not refrain from expressing
his satisfaction that a subject of so much importance as
that which they were engaged in discussing had been at
length fairly brought under the consideration of the house.
He was one of those persons who had for some years been
of opinion that the law of removal had inflicted great
hardships and great sufferings upon the working classes
of this oonntry. He had also long been of opinion that
if the present law had been abolished, the retention of
the existing system of parochial rating would be attended
with very considerable difficulties. A feeling of alarm
had, however, sprung up in this country—a feeling which
had rapidly increased within the last two years, lest any
changes which might be made in the law of removal while
they had the effect of doing away with some hardships,
would lead to the infliction upon the labouring classes of
others of a character no less severe. That alarm had
been founded upon the efforts which had been made in
numerous parishes of the kingdom to defeat the opera-
tion of the Five Years Act, by forcing parties to change
their residence after a certain period, and thus to d-
prive them of the advantages which that act had been
framed to confer. He understood his right hon. friend
opposite to say, that although he intended to abolish
the law of removal, he did not intend to touch upon
the right of settlement. He (Sir J. Pakington) was
of opinion that that was a most important feature
in the measure, and contributed to relieve it from
the grave objections to which it might otherwise
have been liable. His right hon. friend also proposed to
establish a union instead of a parochial rating. Now, that
twasrvuadegndtsl
mhehduoto
ateeepalatdrhieihl
nkonnloegftstnrhtri
e. ouobawgdwtyt
hejuhetnimheeharttieolr propertyispeobi
wmojhnr
rewaeaocglitnefaltnhrigaotpfutntsoooiryhuhro wouldsietonofsti
bndoet v
imiecme
odonaourodn t.
ffnei
friendnuEti materiallyrgy.
htoe propositionaffectar.)He
thee
ttdnahhei
reeHror nogteuwhrr
ohaen:toicai
putnaneedgs
and
die
apprehensions Op po
sit(gear,e
would avail himself of the information thus produced, and
tatwt
ihhl
esi
Aaasto
thilwthhei
ehfar respect
sheot thewouldnah,
efieotnrii
upon which those apprehensions were based.
of Ireland, and that he would not shrink from the difficul-
Kingdom, he undoubtedly would have to encounter.
Sir G. Tyler,

Mr. 13-AIES said he was gratified at the manner in
which the question had been discussed. In reply to the
request for ample time to consider the bill, ho should,
without such an appeal, have given ample time for consi-
deration. On the 10th of March the subject would be again
brought forward, and before that he expected a valuable
report would be in the hands of members, which would
throw much light on the subject.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
IMPROVEMENT OF TOWNS IN IRELAND.
Lave was given to Sir J. YOUNG to bring in a bill for
the improvement of towns in Ireland, and to Mr. Ross
MooRE to introduce a bill on the same subject.
Mr. I. BUTT moved " That the general committee of
elections do appoint the select committee agreed to, to
inquire into the allegations of the petition of John Patrick
Somers ; and that such select committee consist of five
mem bers."—Agi eed to.
The house ;adjourned at twenty minutes to one o'clock,
until Monday next.

SPORTING NOTES.

THE PROGRESS OF SPECULATION.
The movements in the Turf Market during the week
have been somewhat important and although at present
it is difficult to determine their origin satisfactorily, yet
their tendency is perceptible and significant. Those
relative to the Star of Surrey and the Chester
Cup are perhaps the most interesting. This horse
steadily advances in popularity and his pretensions to
support are daily vaunted with growing confidence.
The " stable," too, in which he has been recently lo-
cated, and the party into whose possession he has been
transferred have a powerful prestige, and this circum-
stance has undoubtedly produced a telling effect on the
public, and will account for the increased eagerness
which has within the last day or two been evinced to
" get on" him at advantageous terms. At any rate, the
knowledge that he is now the property of Mr. Howard,
and that he is trained by " Honest John," is sufficient to
render backers confident and layers wary. Still the
Star of Surrey encounters violent opposition in certain
well-informed quarters where the belief widely obtains
that he is a confirmed " wind-sucker." Although there
may be some foundation for this report, yet I am in-
clined to believe that the person who recently purchased
him, is too good a judge, and too well-advised, to buy a
horse of that description. That the Star of Surrey
possesses a favourable chance of carrying of the Great
Cestrian prize, I will not attempt to deny; but it is
scarcely more formidable than that of many other ani-
mals that are as leniently handicapped, and have, per-
haps truer titles to support. Among the animals of his
own age the undermentioned are weighted lighter :
The Duchess of Loi raine colt, Bridesmaid, and Miss
Sellon ; and among those "in" with him on unquestion-
ably good terms are Torn Sandhurst, Aldford, Black
Doctor, Llanforda, Joe Miller, Cobnut, Muscovite, and
Ne wminster.

For the last mentioned I still retain my old fancy, a
fancy that is increased by his return to his former position
in the betting. Muscovite must be marked "dangerous."
He is doing strong steady work for either the Chester
Cup or Metropolitan Stakes, and he will prove a most
formidable antagonist for whichever event he is in-
tended.

The most important incident connected with specu-
lation on the Derby is the strong and steady support
which Autocrat still receives. Last Thursday he was
backed for little less than a thousand pounds. A heavy
commission is, I understand, in the market to lay
against him when his price is shortened to 3 to 1. Even
this prospect, however, does not discourage his backers.
A FRESH MAN.

Feb. 11.

LIVERPOOL SPRING MEETING, 1854.
Weights for the LIVERPOOL SPRING CUP of 100 sovs. in
specie, by subscription of 10 sovs. each, h ft, with 60
added ; one mile and three-quarters. 24 subs.

Age st lb
Colsterdale 6 8 7
Cariboo
Lancashire Lass 4 8 2
Ulster 4 7 10
Dove
Kilquade
Missive
Cleveland
Cabin Boy 4 7 6
Angelo
The Event 5 7 2
Light of the Harem 4 7 2
Escape
Weights for the AINTREE Pi
Age st lb'
Eulogist 4 8 7
Lancashire Lass 4 8 2
Sir Robert a 7 12
A xwell
Warwick
Worcester
The Tempest 5 7 6
Songster 5 7 6
Escape

Age st lb
Charity
Helena (h b)
Lurley
The Speaker, by
Gabbier
St Clair
Roebuck 3 5 8
The Medal, by
Pantaloon
Mrs. Humby 3 5 7
Antonia 3 5 6
The Cripple
ndromache 3 5 0
,ATE of 70 sovs. One mile.
Age st lb
Voucher 4 7 4
Game Tommy
The Buck
Lord Lieutenant 4 7 0
Rachet6e 5 6 10
The Speaker
Antonia 3 5 8
Andromache 8 5 2
Daphne

DONCASTER SPRING-
ACCEPTANCES FOR THE
Age st lb
Hungerford
King of Trumps 5 8 1
Eulogist 4 7 13
Daniel O'Rourke 5 7 12
Ethelbert
Feversham 4 7 4
The Little Fawn 6 7 2
Lerrywheut
St. Michael 5 7 2
Mr. Sykes 4 7 0
Jack Leeming
Dove
Windsucker
Alonzo
Colsterdale
Lord Faueonberg 4 6 12
Catherine Parr
Radcliffe Hero 4 6 10
Jan ey 4 6 9
Jack the Giant
Killer
Needwood a 6 8
Candlewick
Marchioness
St. Andrew 4 6 4

MEETING.—MARCH 7.
DONCASTER HANDICAP.
Age st lb
England's Glory 5 6 2
Helena .(h b)
Vixen
Light of the Ha-

rem 4 5 12
Pearl
Criterion
Village Lass
Middlesborough 3 5 7
King Alfred
Caliph
Baal bec
Midsummer
Ptolemy 3 5 5
Lady Napier 3 5 2
Blakeley
Toggery
Streatlam Fairy 3 5 0
Julius Agricola 3 5 0
St. Clare 3 5 0
Pauline
Sister to Aphro-

dite 3 4 9
Antonio 3 4 6

G.—APRIL 27 and 28.
E MALTON HANDICAP.

MALTON MEETII
ACCEPTANCES FOR TEI
Age st lb'
Daniel O'Rourke
Songstress 5 8 3I _
Vindex 4 7 12 I Brat,.
Lough Bawn 6 7 81 The Even,
St. Michael 5 7 7 Birdtrap
Win dsucker 5 7 6 T. 4-1-1
Catherine Parr 4 7 4
Colsterdale 6 7 4
Tonic 6 7 3
Dove 4 7 2
Janey 4 7 0
Captain Cornish 4 6 10
Provost Marshal 4 6 9
Miss Agnes 4 6 9
St. Andrew 4 6 7.
ACCEPTANCES FOR THE CONVIVIAL HANDICAP.
Age st lb Age st lb
Daniel O'Rourke 5 8 5 The Tempest 5 6 9
Songstress 5 8 3 The Collier 5 6 7
Vindel
Catherine Parr ... 4 7 8 Patience
Brocket 4 7 8 Wings of a Dove 4 6 2
Tonic 6 7 7 Light of the Harem 4 6 2
The Puritan
The General
Ann Eliza 4 7 0 Jetty Treffz
Braxev
Captain Cornish... 4 6 12 Penitent 3 4 10
Miss Agnes

NOTTINGHAM SPRI
ACCEPTANCES FOE THE No

Age st lb
Windsucker
Alonzo
Jack Leeming
Cariboo
Tickton
Surveyor
Tomboy a 6 10
Landscape 4 6 7
Florist

Age st lb
Cabin Boy 4 6 5
The Collier 5 6 4
Bracken 3 6 2
The Event 5 6 2
Bird trap 4 6 2
Twinkle 3 5 12
Queen's Own 3 5 10
King Alfred 3 5 9
The Jewess 3 5 7
Diligent
Phoenix 3 5 3
Bright Phcebus 3 5 2
Jetty Treffz 3 5 0
IVlonimia 3 4 10
Penitent 3 4 7

ACCEPTANCES FOR THE
Age st lb
Alp a 10 7
Tomboy a 10 4
Victress a 10 0
Star of England a 10 0
Nonsuch
Songster
Miss West (h b) a 9 8
May-day
Squire of Malton a 9 7
Beresford
Fazely

iG MEETING—FEB. 21.
TINGHAIII SPRING HANDICAP.
Age st lb
Wellsbourne (h b) 5 6 7
Vixen 3 6 4
The Event 5 6 0
Old Castoff 5 6 0
Miss Goldschmidt 5 6 0
Criterion
Annabel 3 5 2
Roebuck ......