The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-25 00:00:00

THE LONDON, OATTYItDAY BYtNING, MARCH 25, leS

LINES LEASED AT. FIXED RENTALS.

IMPERIAL PARMA MgICTT.

Lesslng
Compans.

Closing Prices
this day.

Business
this day.

I them, nor had its features been described to them by the
noble lord, farther than that it would alter the arrangements
proposed by the bill now before them, and that it would not
put the Irish paupers on precisely the same footing as the
English poor. That was quite evident; because, if it did,
it would only have been necessary to leave out the words
"England and Wales," and not to introduce a new bill.
But whatever the changes the noble lord had announced
might be, the public consideration of this bill, as well as
the petitions both against it and in its favour, had all pro-
ceeded on the supposition that the status of the Irish poor
was to remain as it was before the measure had been pro-
posed ; and if at the very moment of the second reading
such entirely new provisions were to be suddenly intro-
duced, he must say that a kind of deception had been
practiced upon the public. (Cheers.) There had not been
a single witness examined before the committee of 1847
who had not been asked how he proposed to deal with the
Irish poor, and they had all given answers which showed
that the matter had not escaped their attention, and that
they attached the greatest importance to the subject.
And, indeed, the returns which had been moved for fully
justified their view of the case. It appeared from one of
these returns that the number of orders of removal in Eng-
land had been—from parishes 498, and from unions 3,742;
making in all 4,204 ; the number of persons affected by
them being 10,032. The Irish orders during the same
time had been—from parishes 383, from unions 4,832;
making together 5,215. Now, taking the average of
per-
sons included in each order at so low as 2, that wouldgive
nearly 10,500 ; and adding one-tenth for the parishesnot
reported, that would give 11,412 Irish paupers who had
come under the present laws of settlement and removal.
Nor had they been sent from one or two places in England
or from the western coast only ; for he found there had
been as many as twenty towns in England and Wales in
which these orders had been acted upon. (Hear, hear.)
Thus they had a system of operation with reference to the
Irish poor, which was confessed on all hands to be of the
greatest importance; and yet when the house were asked
to read a bill on the subject for the second time they were
told that there was a part of the measure, and that a
most important part, not yet before them. (Cheers.) In
moving the amendment, of which he had given notice, he
(Mr. Stafford) could assure the house that he brought it
forward from no belief that the question was unimportant
or that it was one that could possibly be of a party cha-
racter. As a member of an Irish Board of Guardians and
as the president of an English board he had seen enough to
prevent him from wishing at all to dogmatise, and to con-
vince him that this must always be more or less a mat-
ter of compromise. (Hear, hear.) A great deal had been
said of late about extending the area of taxation, but the
present bill appeared to have no such object, and it cer-
tainly possessed no machinery for such a purpose, It pro-
fessed simply to redistribute the burden amongst the same
parties as now bore it. They were told that the present
law of settlement interfered with the freedom of labour,
and that it tended to disunite the interest of capital, but
he thought that no foreigner could land on our shores, and. ,
see the numerous works in progress around him, could wit-
ness the vast masses of men collected together, quietly, re-
tiring as soon as the work on which they were engaged
was completed, and assembling again as if by magic in ano-
ther part of the kingdom to carry on similar operations—
no foreigners, he said, could have witnessed such things
and have possibly come to the conclusion that labour was
not free in England. (Cheers.) As to disuniting the in-
terests of labour and capital, there was certainly a melan-
choly spectacle of that disunion existing at the present
time. But he would put it to any hon. member whether
that strife between labour and capital had the least what-
ever to do with the law of settlement ? (Cheers.) On the
other hand, the agricultural poor, upon whom this bill
would have the most stringent operation, had endured a
period of high prices without the slightest attempt at com-
bination or riot whatever. (Hear.)- He did not deny that
some of the details of the present law of settlement might
be faulty, and might require reform, but he felt con-
vinced that the abolition of that law would be unwel-
come to the labouring poor. (Cheers.) They had lately
seen the public sympathy excited on behalf of the wives of
the soldiers who were going abroad ; but what steps had
the War-office taken with respect to these poor women ?
Had they made them chargeable to the port of embarka-
tion, or to the town in which the barracks were situated ?
Certainly not. They had made a wiser and more humane
arrangement. They had said that, if these poor women
had been deprived of their husbands, they should not be
also deprived of their friends, but they should be conveyed,
at the public expense, to their respective homes. (Hear, '
hear.) He hoped the bill would be withdrawn, in consi-
deration of the evils which would flow from it. The evils
it proposed to remedy might be more efficiently dealt with
by other means. He opposed the bill from no party feel-
ing, but in the belief that it would allow the tide of pau-
perism to overflow the whole country—that it would tend
to destroy the present arrangement of property, while it
impaired the birthright of the poor. (Hear, hear.) He
moved that the bill should be read a second time that day
six months.

Lord D. STUART, in seconding the amendment, depre-
cated the matter being treated as a party question ; and
said that the difference between his political views and
those of the mover of the amendment proved that they
were not actuated by party views. The bill had two
distinct objects, the abolition of removals and the altera-
tion of the area of rating. It was in fact two bills ' • and
to give full effect to its provisions a third bill ought to have
been added, making it applicable to Ireland. He under-
stood this would have to be done to enable ministers to
carry the bill; if so, he hoped it would not be carried. If
he were an Irishman he would never support a bill
which nada a distinction between England and Ireland.
But he objected to this bill as regarded both countries. He
did not wish to see the power of removal taken away,
either as between parishes in this country, or as from this
country to Ireland. He believed that it would be inju-
rious both to ratepayers and the poor. He saw in it a
tendency to bear hardly upon the poor man. The rate-
payers in large towns would find their burdens unjustly
increased ; for if paupers once knew that they could come
and throw themselves on. the metropolis without being re-
moved, there would be an immense influx of that class.
The only means which the ratepayers would have of de-
fending themselves would be by a harsher treatment of
paupers, thus endeavouring to keep them away. This
would make the condition of the latter class worse than
ever. Instead of schools and other institutions being
established for them, every endeavour would be made to
keep down the rates. It was of course a hardship on the
poor not to be able to go where they liked ; but it could
never be contended that they should go and claim relief
wherever they chose. Giving the right hon. gentleman
credit for ability and the most praiseworthy intentions in
dealing with the poor laws, he could not but think that he
had drawn an exaggerated picture of the effects of the pre-
sent law of removaL It was not the usual practice, at
least not in Marylebone, to remove a pauper the moment
he became chargeable to the extent of a single loaf of
bread; this was only done where paupers were likely to
become permanently chargeable. The right honourable
gentleman had not even stated the law correctly ; for a
man could not be removed who was chargeable through
sickness or accident, unless it were certified to the magi-
strate that the sickness or accident was likely to render
him permanently chargeable. It was said that, in
some cases, removals cost 1001., but he knew that in
the metropolitan parishes the average cost was from
51. to 71. A man who returned after removal was cer-
tainly liable to imprisonment ; but this was under
the Vagrant Act; and though it might be a good reason
for altering the provisions of that act, it was none at all for
abolishing the law of settlement. If the bill passed they
would have hundreds of thousands of Irish poor coming to
this country, and there they would remain. A return of
the mumber of Irish poor relieved in this country in 1847
would show the frightful consequences which might ensue
from abolishing the right of removal. There were 7,864
Irish poor relieved in 1847 in the parish of Marylebone ;
in the parish of St. Pancras, 7,660 ; in the small parish of
St. Martin-in-the-field, 11,37. In Liverpool there were
relieved in that year no less than 47,191 Irish poor, and
in two parishes of Glasgow 30,000. The expense in the
case of Liverpool was 20,0001., and in the latter 29,0001.
(Hear, hear.) It was true that a famine prevailed at that
time in Ireland ; but they were legislating for bad times
as well as good, and such consequences as those he alluded
to should be guarded against, He thought the house ought
to have the whole measure before it in order that they
might be able to come to a right determination on the en-
tire question. With regard to the substitution of a union
for a parochial rating, he believed that that proposition
would lead to a confiscation of property in many parishes.
He looked upon this measure as the first step towards a
national rating. (Hear, hear.) Nothing in his opinion
was more precious than the right of self-government. It
was to the habit of attending to their local affairs that
they were indebted for all their greatness, and they should
be cautious ere they struck a blow at that system. (Hear,
hear.) He therefore begged to second the motion of the
hon. gentleman.
Mr. A. SEYMEIt said it was somewhat new to see a
member for a metropolitan borough seconding the motion
of a county representative. It was evident from this that
the question would not be discussed on party grounds, but
he thought the fact might suggest some misgivings on the
part of those county members who were going to oppose
the bill. (Hear, hear.) He thought some little breathing
time should be allowed them before they were called on
to consider the application of the principle of the bill to
their Irish fellow subjects. When that part of the ques-
tion was brought forward, ho trusted it would be of such
a nature that he could give it his support. But in the
meantime he would not refuse to vote for the second read-
ing of a measure which he believed to be advantageous to
Hnglishmen. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. DRUMMOND said that this bill would sever
the last link between the parson and the poor, the com-
mon-law rights of the latter having been previously frit-
tered away. He drew a hideous picture of the dirt and
immorality of the Scotch system, and asked whether this
was what it was wanted to introduce under the pretence
of freeing the labourer. He approved of a free communi-
cation between Irish and English labour. The poor laws
were the Magna Charts, of the poor, and were their only
idea of the constitution. If, on consideration, he found
this bill, and others which must follow, for the benefit of
the poor, he would support them ; but if they were only,
intended to cause a saving to ratepayers, he should op-
pose them.
Mr. RICE supported the bill on the very ground taken
by Mr. Stafford at the end of his speech—namely, the at-
tachment of the poor to their home. It was to their home
and not to the place of their birth that they were at-
tached, and the bill was intended to prevent their removal
therefrom. He believed, also, that it would conduce to
the moral and social improvement of the poor, and so to
the advantage of the owners and ratepayers, and that it
would also tend to give more employment to the labourer.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER opposed the bill, believing that it
would injure the poor, and that it was calculated not for
the benefit' of the industrious, but for that of those who
had no fixed residence, and who could wander about at
will, bringing their labour into competition with that of
the industrious. He argued at some length against the
proposed rating system, but his great objection was, that
the spreading the rating over districts would induce the
forcing of able-bodied men into the workhouse instead of
giving them employment, which the present system induced.
The measure would do away with the wholesome interest
which the richer took in the poorer classes. He also con-
sidered the bill as a removal of the ancient landmarks of
the constitution.

Mr. P. URQUHART supported the bill.
Mr. BUCK supported the amendment, considering that
the bill would be a boon to vagrancy.
Sir G. PECHELL expressed a decided opinion against
the measure, which he thought would be very unpopular
throughout the country as soon as it was understood, and
he did not believe that the poor man would be bettered
by it.

Mr. KENDALL said that the bill would increase the
burden on the ratepayers. As soon as it passed, we should
have thousands of men who would do no work whatever.
But such misery and perjury were caused by the existing
law of removal that he must approve of the part of the bill
which abolished this, while opposing the proposed union
rating system.
Mr. VERNON SMITH suggested that those who were
agreed as to the desirability of getting rid of the existing
law of removal should support the second reading, as the
rating portion of the bill could be altered in committee.
The bill would, mug other AflyantAcriol get rid of the
_