The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-14 00:00:00

The first three Government measures have been
favourably received by the House of Commons.
No one, at the present price of coals, was reluc-
tant to throw open the coasting trade; none could
with decency object to the r cost stringent propo-
sitions on which a Governmbent would venture for
suppressing bribery and " n.ndue influence ;" and
it would require no small h:Lrdihood to defend our
present law of settlement and of compulsory re-
movals of the poor. As Mr. Baprzs shows, on
the authority of a Parliamezttary committee of the
highest character, and by appeals to every one's
knowledge who has paid attention to the subject,
the present law is not only an intolerable cruelty
to the poor, but in numerous instances a real
injury to their employers. The detestable system
of " close parishes," as it is termed, where one or
two proprietors combine to keep the poor from
acquiring settlements on the property they cul-
tivate, thereby forcing the burden of their
pauperism on the neighbouring parishes, and
compelling their labourers to walk many
weary miles backward awl forward to their
work, has long and justly been marked for de-
struction at the earliest opportunity. Even slave
proprietors do not waste the strength of their
"Diggers" in this way, nor farmers that of their
horses. For the following fact we can vouch,
though we suppress names : A large farmer living
about four miles from a 'city was met by an
acquaintance who lived there, and informed
that it was reported he was going to keep his farm
horses at the White Horse.—an inn within the
city gates. The rustic p•otentats indignantly
inquired whether "he thought him a fool, or
whether the cit was a fool, himself." The wag
assured him that it was generally believed. Why,
rejoined he of the top-boots and riding-whip, " do
you think I should let my horses tire themselves
out before they got to their work, and have to
walk all that way back afttu7 they had done it ;
you must be a fool to take that in !" " Well
then," was the reply, "how is it that four of
your labourers lodge at tilt-) White Horse, and
that you won't let them have a house in your
parish ; or do you care moire about tiring your
horses than your men ? Which is the fool now,
sir I" A faint defence of the close parishes was,
indeed, ventured by Mr. :KNIGHT on Monday,
Sir J. TROLLOP; however, whose aid he seemed
anxious to purchase by commendations, would
not take the bribe, but declared decidedly for the
principle of the Government measure. Notwith-
standing his plaints no one seemed to recognise
the injustice of making parishes which had
escaped rates by refusing holnes to their labourers,
share the burdens as well as the privileges of
property.

Mr. BAINES'S propositions are two. " That
from the passing of this bill it shall not be lawful
to remove any poor person by force upon the
ground of settlement from any parish in England
or Wales ;" and that " the area of chargeabi-
lity shall no longer be the parish, but the union."
lie aims ultimately at equal rating as be-
tween the parishes of each mnion, and the hard-
ship of this upon some parishes he proposes to
lighten by removing ineqnslities at the rate of
one-tenth per annum, so as to extend the process
over ten years. As to the first proposition, it is
a sheer necessity. The cruelty to the poor, and
the cost to the ratepayers of nearly 14,000 re-
movals, of at least 40,000 persons per annum,
have settled that point. It is, moreover, the ne-
cessary complement of free trade. If commerce
in every shape is liberated from restrictions, so
must be the labour by which commerce is created.
The operative must be made free of his country ;
and he can never be so if a week's distress, or an
unforeseen, accident subjects him to a compulsory
removal to the place where he or his grand-
father, it may be, was born ; a place which
may have become to him almost a foreign land.
We are not quite clear, from Mr. BAINES'S speech,
as to his mode of reconciling union, instead of
parish settlement, with the abolition of forcible
removal. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON wished him to
make his bill clear on the poor man's " right of
settlement." It seems to be taken for granted
that settlement as well as rating will go with the
union ; of course, in ten years time, no parish
would have any interest in removing a pauper
within its own union. But if Mr. BAINES'S doc-
trine be accepted, that relief can be claimed where
the destitution occurs (and it ought to be so), and
if the destitute man cannot be compelled to re-
move to the union of his settlement, it would
seem that his support must fall upon the union
in which he is resident at the time. If so,
of what use is a right of settlement to
him ? It can be of avail only in the case
in which, after short residence in a distant
union, which has not, therefore, become a home
to him ; he may desire to be removed to his real
home when circumstances have disabled him from
earning his livelihood among strangers. The re-
servation of such a right would be certainly
humane and desirable.

Mr. PASRLEY has reminded us, in his admi-
rable work, " Pauperism and the Poor Laws," that
" district relief" was tried under the statute of
14 Elizabeth, c. 5, till it was superseded by the 39
Elizabeth c. 3, the fundamental act of our present
system of parochial relief ; and he seems disposed
to lay great stress on its failure and supercessiou
by a return to the parish system in a reign of ex-
traordinary administrative ability. He also points
out the important fact, that the rating varies almost
as much between different unions as it does
between parishes in the same union. In Glou-
cestershire the average of the Tewkesbury Union
is 101 d. in the pound, that of the Dursley one
3s. sid. In the North Riding of Yorkshire, the
Darlington Union pays on the average Bd., the
Reath Union 2s. 614., in the pound, and the list
may be enlarged indefinitely. Mr. BAINES retains
the Union as the area of rating and the basis of
management, chiefly on the ground that local
supervision and local interest are essential to pre- !

whereby it is calculated that the right of voting
will be extended to a considerable number of the
labouring population. It is the principle of this
we look to—the principle which has now been
formally asserted that the working classes have a
right to a somewhat larger share in the system of
national representation.
Wherefore, we repeat, it is already apparent
to us that the prominent merit of the New Re-
form Bill of the Coalition is its declaration of
this great principle--its chief demerit the total
omission of the Ballot in its scheme of innova-
tions.

A measure so considerable as this requires,
however, let us add once more, time for
its due and deliberate consideration. The
reasonableness of which assertions must be
at once manifest when it is remembered that
the New Reform Bill involves the disfranchise-
ment of 29 boroughs which have fallen below 300
electors and have less than 5,000 for a popula-
tion, and the substitution of one for two Members
in the instance of 33 boroughs having less than
500 electors and under 10,000 for a population !
A project consequently placing 62 seats at the
disposal of the Legislature, or rather 66, includ-
ing the forfeited seats of St. Alban's and Sud-
bury Remember that these 66 seats the "large
measure" of the Coalition proposes to distribute
thus--by giving another member to those coun-
ties which have (exclusive, of the population of
represented towns) more than 100,000 as their
population, by dividing the West Riding of York-
shire, which has a population of 800,000, and
the Southern Division of Lancashire, which has
500,000 inhabitants, and allotting to each of the
four divisionsthree representatives, byawarding an
additional member to all towns having more than
100,000 inhabitants—an.cl by other additions
giving representatives to tine Inns of Court, to the
University of London, to two of the larger towns
of Scotland, and to the Sioottish Universities, to
Birkenhead, and Staley-bridge, and Burnley,
and Chelsea, and Kensington. Remember
all these, and the remaining points of the scheme
proposed to the House af Commons yesterday
evening, by Lord JOHN MINSELL, and it must then,
we conceive, be obvious enough to any man's
capacity—that some modeirate lapse of time is
requisite in order to enalile the country ade-
quately to appreciate the "large measure" sug-
gested by her MAJESTY'S Government.