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

THE SM:N, LONDON, SATURDAY _EtVENING, MARCH 25, 1854.

all
all
all
all

all
I:LS

all
15
A
A

1
10
1
1

all
all
15
10i
all

Agua Fria
Anglo Austrin. Gold
Anglo Californian
Australasian
Australian

Australian Cordillera:
Australian Freehok
Ave Maria
Baden (Gd. Duchy of:.
Blaenarvon Ir. & Coa'
British Austrin. Gold
British Iron
Brazilianlmp.(issued
at £5 pin
Do. Cocaes & Cuiada
Do. St. John Del Rey
Carson's Creek
Clarendon Con. Min
Co. of Jamaica
Cobre Copper
Colonial Gold

Copiapo
Copper Min. of Eng
Do. Pref. 74 p. cent,
English and Austrin,
Copper Smeltg. Co
General

Great Nugget Vein
Do. Registered
Great Polgooth
Liberty
Linares

Loud. &Californ. Gold

Quartz Crush. Co.
Mariquita
Aexican&S.Amerien.
New Graiada

New Linares Mining
and Smelting Co
Noureau Monde

Pontgibaud Silver
Lead Min. dt Smelt
Port Philip
Quartz Rock
Rhymney Iron
'Do. New

Santiago do Cuba

?4uth Australian
fin Croft

United Mexican
Waller
West Granada

West Mariposa
.Vorthing Mining of
Australia

Yuba

la —la pl
1
2
-
a
A
9i
d
7 9

3A 4A
li 21
31 33
A id

39 - 41
- 1A
10 - 12
50 - 60
2 - 4p

li - 24

1
1 2
A di
11. 12

g - 4
5 - 6
- i

1
15 17
d
1 lip
29 31
8 10
4 -3d
4i
2t 34
d

i id

+

FOREI

10
5
20
20

9
3
8
2g.

Antwerp&Rotterdam
Belgian Eastu. June
Beziers to Graissessae
Bombay, Baroda, and
Central India, &rip
Central of Italy
Charleroi & Erquelin
Demerara

20i
100
20

15:
all
all

Dijon and Besancon
Dutch Rhenish

East Indian
Do. Extension
dt. Indian Peninsula
Gd. Juliet. of France
Grd. Trunk of Canada
Do. Debentures
Do. do

Central of France
Western of Canada
Shares
Do. Bonds (Ist is.)'s7
dandlton & Toronto
Do. 6 per cent. _

Lake Coust. & ilasle
iaucea & -2istoj r. 5 p. c
pre:
Luxembourg
Do. (Railway)
Do. Pref

Do. (Canal)
I Do. 6 p. et. pref
Lyons and Geneva ,
Lyons & Mediterran.
Madras

Maria Antonia
Do. do. New .

Melbourne Dk. & Ry
Namur & Liege (wit"
interest)
Do. (ex interest)

Norther n of France
Do. 20/. 3 p. c Bds
(fmy. B. & Ams. Shs. ;
INorwegianTrunkPref
Paris and Lyons
Ditto Bonds

~'aris and Orleans
iaris and Rouen
Paris and Strasbourg
ParisCaen & Cherbrg
Quebec & Richmond
Rouen and Llavre
Royal Danish
Royal Swec..isu li

Sambre and Meuse...
Do. 5i p. cent. Pref.
Southern of France..
St. Andrew's and

Quebec (A)
West Flanders

11 Do 5A per c. Pref
0 Western of France
7 West. of Switzerland
2 Wiesbaden
.5 Zealand

4 —34 d
i 14
44 3jd

id il3

2 -24 p
1 --
-

. -

41 3id
21i —22 i
7 9 p
1 lip
107 109

dis
Ci
3 4
1
1 lr
1f d
3 2 d

1 id

6 - 71

284 -28 i

- 84
11a nip
424 - 434
32 - 34
274 -27 i
- • pm

ld par
. . d
7.:* 8

▪ - • ...
▪ -pm

3i - 1
2i -34 p

5 4.dl

ii 4

: ,

6 51
2a

IMPERIAL PARLIA MENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTE, RDAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
PRIVATE BILLS.
The following private bills were read a third time and
passed:—Hatfield Chase Warping and Improvement,King-
ston upon Hull Docks, Nottingham Waterworks, and
Rossendale Waterworks Bill.
The Hull Cemetery Bill was considered and agreed to.
The Kilkenny and Great Southern and Western Railway
Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed.
PETITIONS.
A large number of petitions were presented, praying
that all public-houses may be cleared on Sundays.
Mr. MAGAN presented two petitions from Drogheda
against Ministers' Money.
Mr. F. SCOTT presented petitions from various places
in Scotland, against the Scottish Education Bill.
Sir J. TROLLOPE presented petitions from Unions in
Lincolnshire, against the Poor Removal Bill.
Captain VERNON presented a similar petition, end
praying the poor may be relieved by a national rate. Also
a petition from certain electors of Chatham in favour of
the Bribery Bill.
Sir H. HALFORD presented a petition from a Union
in Leicestershire in favour of the Poor Removal Bill.
Sir J. DUKE presented a petition from a city parish
against the bill.
Mr. F. DUNDAS presented a petition from the Orkneys
against the endowment of Roman Catholic clergymen in
prisons.
Mr. 0. RIO A.RDO presented a petition from Worcester
in favour of the Poor Removal Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Islington
against the bill.
Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from Birmingham
generally approving of the New Reform Bill, but against
the minority clause.
Mr. PETO presented a petition from Norwich in favour
of the establishment of reformatory schools.
Mr. BROWN presented a similar petition from a place
in Lancashire.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY presented a petition from St.
Martin-in-the-Fields, Westminster, against the Poor
Removal Bill.
Mr. MAGUIRE presented two petitions from places in
Ireland praying for the discharge of the order for a select
committee to enquire into conventual institutions.
Mr. SPOONER presented a petition from a place in
Warwickshire against the endowment of Maynooth.
Mr. COBBETT presented a petition from the Oldham
guardians against the Poor Removal Bill.
Mr. HADFIELD presented a petition from bankers,
merchants, and other inhabitants of Leeds, Wakefield,
Bradford, Sheffield, and York, complaining of the consti-
tution of the recent commission for inquiry into the regis-
tration of titles, and alleging the importance of legislating
only on evidence before a committee of the house.
METROPOLITAN SEWERS.
Sir B. HALL said all the unpaid commissioners of the
metropolitan sewers had resigned, but before their resig-
nation they ordered all the draining works, amounting to
3,000,0001. sterling, to be continued. Now, he wished to
know if these works had received the sanction of the
Secretary of State.
Mr. FITZROY replied that such sanction was not ne-
cessary; but the continuance of all the works had not been
ordered. The only order made was that the works already
commenced should be continued until the new commis-
sion was appointed.
CHILDREN OF SOLDIERS.
Mr. OLIVEIRA asked the Secretary-at-War, consider.
ing the objects for which the Royal Military Asylum at
Chelsea was established, as set forth in the several royal
warrants bearing dates respectively the 26th day of April,
1805, the 4th day of February, 1809, and the 10th day of
October, 1811, by which the whole number of children of
non-commissioned officers and soldiers mostly employed on
foreign service was 1,200, and that at the present time
there are only 350, whether it would not be desirable to
fill the number up to 1,200, giving the preference to the
children of non-commissioned officers and soldiers now or
or about to leave on foreign service, instead of permitting
them to have recourse to parochial relief.
Mr. S. HERBERT said the statement of the hon. gen-
tleman was quite true, but part of the establishment
had been abolished, and such a change had taken place in
the asylum that it would be impossible to comply with the
request made by the hon. gentleman.
SCOTCH FISHERIES.
Mr. F. DUNDAS asked the First Lord of the Admiralty
what measures will be taken by the Government for the
protection of the fisheries ou the north-coast of Orkney
and Shetland, in the event of war being declared.
Sir J. GRAHAM stated generally that every measures
fiwsouelriedbs.e taken for the protection of these and all other
h

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his fat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

would, he submitted, be prematnre to announce any
proceeding of this sort, until the emergency to which it
was to be directed arose. (Hear.)
Their lordships then adjourned at seven o'clock.

PROCEEDINGS IN CiIANCEZY.

Lord ST. LEONARDS moved for retunar ; of all the
cases before the Court of Chaucer• and the :Masters in
Chancery. His chief object was t) ascertain the actual
state of all matters which had beer before t &al court for
some time, and to vindicate it from the r ittacks which
had been made upon it with respect to delay. If it
should appear that suits were now pending which ought
to be wound up, he should feel it proper to move that
their lordships should investigate into the present state
of the proceedings in the court, with the view of re-
medying evils, if any should exist.
Lord BROUGHAM expressed his satisfi motion at the
motion of the noble and learned lord. B:e was confi-
dent that the 'returns would shovv that ',here was no
ground whatever for the complaints of del; Ly which had
recently been made.

Lord CAMPBELL trusted the returr is would be
agreed to, for he was sure that there was no grievance
connected with the Court of Chancery. Although no
human institutions were perfect, he belies red that very
little remained to be done in the shape of improvement
in the Equity Courts.,

The LORD CHANCELLOR had no doubt the re-
turns would remove some misapprehensio.2s respecting
proceedings in these courts, but they would also show
that some cases had been hanging over fo r some time.
They, however, were rather administrators of the effects
of deceased persons than suits, and before tfiey could be
brought to a termination they often requir ed communi-
cation with persons in all parts of the woi Id. If there
were case of delay, the blame rested with, the parties,
and not with the court, which endeavoured to push suits
forward,

The returns were then agreed to.
SECOND COMMON LAW PROCEDURE, 1854,

BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second
reading of this bill, said he would not again enter into
its details, but would merely make one or two observa-
tions upon some objections which had been. urged to the
measure. One of the provisions of the bill was that it
enabled parties to have their causes tried either by juries
or by the judge alone ; and it had been said. that he had
done wrong in making it optional with the judge. It
would be extremely embarrassing to a judge to have to
try certain cases—for instance, a case of trim. con., and
award the amount of damages. After a trial was over,
the jury sunk again into society, and nobody could
point out a man and say, " that is the person who taxed
me to such an amount," but this parties would be
enabled to do with reference to a judge. _Again, it was
said that in pauper actions a, defendant should be at
liberty to pay a sum of money into con t, and if the
plaintiff went on and did not recover a greater amount,
he should be called on to pay the additional costs.
Now, he thought that must be qualified. Suppose the
character of a person had been 'attacked, and he' brought
his action to vindicate it, should a party be at liberty to
say, "Here is 50/., go on with your action if you dare ?"
and if the jury found that , the plaintiff was entitled
to no more, he was to be called on to pay all the
costs. Surely that would be scandalous. Such a
law could not be permitted. There was another
point to which he wished to allude—..the commis-
sioners recommended that the common law courts should
be empowered to make an order for ' specific per-
formance. Now, this was not possible wi t.b. reference to
all kinds of contracts—for instance, to plat an extreme '
case, where a person make a contract to marry ; he
thought, however, that the bill provided for every such
case where it would be at all useful. provided for
delivering up chattels, and where a party lad agreed to
do certain work its performance might be ordered by
the court. It could not, however, be madle to apply to
the sale of estates, where a question of title was con-
cerned, because there was no machinery, as in the equity
courts, for inquiring into questions of tittle. He in-
tended to propose that the bill be referred to a select
committee.

Lord CAMPBELL said a school had sprung up out
of doors which treated with contempt everything esta-
blished. He was of opinion that, where there was con-
flicting evidence, a trial by jury, with the assistance of a
judge, was the fairest and best kind of trial. With re-
gard to the question of specific performance, he thought
there should be one court which should deal with that
matter, he did not care whether it was a court of law or
equity, but whichever it was the parties should have the
option of suing for damages or enforcing the contract.
He rather preferred the power being given to a court of
law.

Lord ST. LEONARDS, with reference to the dis-
cussion between the noble lord the Chief Justice and his
noble friend on the woolsack, entirely agreted with the
view of the latter on the subject of specific performance.
Lord BROUGHAM agreed with his noble friend the
Chief Justice so far as that there should only one court
to deal with the question of specific performance, and he
did not see why a judge of a court of equity could not as-
sess damages without the assistance of a jury. He thought
there should be an option allowed to parties to sue for
damages for breach of contract, or to enforce it by means
of specific performance.
The Earl of WICKLOW drew attention to a new prin-
ciple which had been introduced into the law of the land
by this bill—he alluded to the clause which empowered a
judge to dispense with an oath in the case of persons con-
scientiously objecting to take such an oath. The house
ought to have been informed of the provision in the bill,
whereas he was the only person who had brought it be-
fore them.

THIS DAY.)

The Duke of ARGYLL said he was one of those who
were present when his noble and learned friend explained
the bill, and he drew especial attention to the clause in
question. There was nothing more anomalous than the
law as it stood in regard to voters. Where conscientious
objections existed they ought to be respected. In fact,
that was already the principle of the law, Quakers, Sepa-
ratists, and Moravians, were now allowed to dispense
with the taking of oaths, and was it to be said that
others who conscientiously objected to take an oath were
not entitled to the same amout of relief? He concurred
with what had fallen from his noble friend as to the ex-
tension of this clause to Scotland, but he felt convinced
when once its principle was established in England, it
would not be long before it was extended to Scotland.
Lord BROUGHAM, as showing the importance of
extending the operation of the clause to Scotland,
mentioned a case where a man had been imprisoned
thirty days because he refused on conscientious scruples
to take an oath.

After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR,
who combatted an opinion expressed by the Eall of
Wicklow that the clause in question ought not to have
formed part of the present bill ; the object of the clause
was to deal with those cases where to insist upon evi-
dence being given upon oath was to shut out evidence
altogether,
The bill was read a second time, and referred to a
select committee.

The Highways (South Wales) Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Registration of Bills of Sale Bill was read a third
time and passed. _ _

VALUATION (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT

BILL.

The report of the amendments to this bill was brought
up and agreed to.
____

PRAYERS FOR THE SUCCESS OF OUR ARMS
IN THE EAST.
The Earl of CLANCARTY wished, before their lord-
ships separated, to put a question to the noble earl
opposite (Aberdeen) upon a subject which he considered
of great importance, and which he believed was re-
garded as of great importance by a large proportion of
our population. Their lordships and the other house
of Parliament had been for some time engaged
in discussions in reference to the position in which
the country was placed by the course of events in
the east of Europe, and the war in which it ap-
peared we were about to be engaged in consequence.
They had had produced before theta the diplomatic cor-
respondence which had taken Place between our own
Government and that of Russia, including the secret
despatches, and it was most gratifying to him, as he
was sure it must be to their lordships generally, to find that
those despatches not only reflected no dishonour upon,
but the highest credit upon every one who had been en-
gaged on the part of this country in the correspondence.
The discussions which had occurred showed that the
preparations made by the Government to meet the
emergency were most complete in their character, and
that the utmost care had been taken to ensure the
efficiency of both the naval and military force about to
be employed. Public opinion seemed to be wholly in
approval of the policy of the Government, and the en-
thusiasm of the country in favour of the war was equalled
—if not exceeded—by the soldiers and sailors who were
about to be personally engaged in it. There appeared to
be every element. Notwithstanding all these favourable
prospects, there was one circumstance which he, in com-
mon with a large class of the people of this country, looked
upon with disappointment and regret—that was the
omission, on the part of the Government, to take any
step for publicly invoking the Divine blessing upon the ex-
pedition. He was no advocate for superstitious observ-
ances, but it was not to be forgotten that the battle was not
always with the strong, and when they saw that even
the Emperor of Russia had thought it necessary to re-
cognise the interference of Divine Providence, so far as
to invoke publicly at a grand military display a blessing
upon his banners, surely we, who had the right on our
side, and who were standing forward to protect the
weak against the strong, ought not to neglect so import-
ant a duty as before entering upon the war to pray for
the aid of the Almighty Disposer of events in the ap-
proaching conflict, lest, in the end, we might have as
little cause for congratulation as had the Spanish king
who sent what he believed to be the invincible armada
to attack this country.- The question he wished to put
was whether the noble earl had any intention to propose
such a proceeding as he had referred to, and if so when
he would be prepared to indicate when they might ex-
pect such intention would be carried into effect ?
The Earl of ABERDEEN considered the noble earl's
appeal somewhat premature, /for war not having yet
been declared, the time had not arrived when such a
step as that to which the noble earl referred could pro-
perly be taken, even if it should be thought proper to
take it at all. He would remind the noble earl, too,
that there was in our liturgy a prayer to be publicly used
in time of war, and which for the same reason—that war
did not exist-'was not read in our churches ; and it

them, nor had its features been described to them by the
noble lord, further 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.
Brit 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 nut 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 G, that would give
b
nearly 10,500 ; and addinr, one-tenth for the parishes not
rerorted, that would crivell,4l2 Irish paupers who had
come under the presentb 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. (Hoar, 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 progiess 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, ho said, could have witnessed such things
and have possibly conic 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.) Ho 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, ho hoped it would not be carried. If
he were an Irishman he would never support a bill
which made 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 metropoiis 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 bo 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, ho 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 lie 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, 11,587. fri Liverpool there were
relieved in that year no less than 47,194 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 fur bad times
as well as good, and such consequences as those ho 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. K. SEYMER 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, he 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
Englishmen. (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 Charta 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, lie 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. Ho 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
1 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.
Wile bill would, aruona other Advautpigew, get rid of the