The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-03 00:00:00

Tag ge N.,
_ii.r.)spt?..Y4E.,_lB7-ii:LoNF;BII,A.Y '

""- • 17.7.4.-•
quatio, rill tefilt to the advocacy of-•• the Hon. asfembe,
behind bins. It was geing upon a most dangerous principle.
He would not yield to that Resist Hon. Baronet in the slightest
degree in his support of the principles of toleration, and in his
admiration of the-great body of the Free Church, set. he could
not support. the present motion, because he honestly believed
it would tend to retard inst. ad of advance the cause they were
so anxious to prernete. The question was in course of settle-
ment ; it would, in due course of things, be arranged by the
people of Scotland themselves, anti for the House to
step in and interfere would be to revive the evil. it was ad-
mitted that since last year die cases of refusal of sites had
greatly reduced, and that this year there were but thirty. This
showed that the cause of the comfilaint was being gradually
done away with, in obedience to the expressed feeling of the
House, and the sense of the Scotch people. To appoint a
Committee, therefore, would be of no use, but to ensue again
the hail feeling that was dying away. With regard to the
Duke of Buccleuch it was well known that he had only refused
• because parties, ministers and their frienes from a distance,
came on his estates and excited hi: own tenantry against him.
He (Mr. S. Wortley) did nst say that the Noble Duke acted
right in refusing sites, still he mentioned tlis in his
vindication. As a proof that the state of things was
steadily improving, he would refer to the fact that
while thousands of petitiens were poured in last year
into Parliament on the subject not One was present: d during
the pre cut.— ( Hear, hear. ) On these ;pounds, therefsre, he
did not think any good would come front the Committee. lie
would therefore oppose its ap ,oint Lent.
Lord J. RUSSELL. in rising to support the motion. must
not be understood as speakihg on the behalf of the parties to
whom it hal ieference. No one hail more strongly resis ed
the claims of the Free Church party before the unfort tinateseces-
si n t ban himself, as he could see no good that would arise fermi it.
But the secession had taken place. A great numbsr of the
people of Scotland hail left the Estaldished Church, and their
ministers lied given up their houses and their means of liveli
hood, so that they might be at liberty to txpress the string
religious feelings which they en-ertained, freely and unmolested.
That secession having taken place. he was now no less persua-
ded that everythieg should lie done to enable them
to preach and to practice the doctrine which they
believed that it was their right to do.—( Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester (Sir
James Graham), put the case in a smooth and round firm,
from which they might conclude that all further inquiry into
the. subject. was unnecessary. He said that the facts were un-
disputed—that a Committee was not required, but no sooner
had the Right Hon. Baronet concluded than up got the Noble
Lord the Member for Lynn, and said that regarding the
facts, they were not to be taken for granted. He disputed
their correctness, aed stated that the reason why sites had
in many instances been refused was, because the Free
Church parties had acted iu such an unbearable and oppressive
manner that to grant them was impossible.—( Hear, hear.)
Now, this was to be ascertained by inquiry. As the facts
were disputed, and as these reasons for a refusal of sites were
given, a Committee of Inquiry to ascertain the truth was re-
quired. They would then learn the true reason why the
grant of sites was refused. Here it was confessed there was
a considerable grievance. In one place pat ties were driven
to the moor and the moss, under the pelting of the storm, and
drenched by rain, in order to listen to religious worshi in such
a way as they desired. Like the Covenanters of old, when
persecution was the established law, they were deprived of all
shelter in their endeavours to worship according to the dic-
tates of the consciences. In other places they had to go out
in boats to meet the ministers whose religious doctrines they
adhered to. All this had been justified, on the ground of the
rights of property. Now a legislative rtmesly was talked of;
and while on the one hand he was unwilling to consent to a
legislative remedy on a subject of such difficulty, on the other
hand, it it were proved that the facts alleged were true—that
the inquiry showed that the refusal of sites die of arise from
the improper proceedings of the parties themselves, but were
simply refusals on the ground of being a dillerent religious
sect, and if the pastors still were obliged to worship with.
out the shelter of a roof or dwelling, he would not be indis-
posed to a legislative remedy.—( Hear, hear.) It was, there-
fore, a case for inquiry, as it would not be for the House at
once to interfere. He admitted that if the Free Church was
entitled to sites, that so was the Roman Catholic, the Society
of Friends, or any other religious body.—(Bear, hear.) The
principle he admitted was universal. But though that was
the case, it did not convince him that a legislative re-
medy was not advisable.—( Hear, hear. ) There was no-
thing more sacred than the right of every man to wor-
ship according to the dictates of his conscience; and though
some gentlemen of the highest character and most benevolent
disposition had refused sites, it only showed to what extremes
men of the best feelings would go on the question of religion.
—( Hear. hear. ) They had an imeance in the Hon. Member
for the University of Oxford himself, than whom none could
possess a more kind or benevolent disposition, but on this
question he has shown how little he can teel for the sufferings
of others.—(Heat, hear.) He thinks the people of Scotland
should support the churches that were open for their accom-
modation, and has no regard for their feelings or opinions when
they differ from him. But how would that le on. Member like, if
he, were in a town where there was no place of worship but a
Roman Catholic chapel, and was told to attend there for there
was no other place for him, and that there was plenty of room.
—(Cheers and laughter.) This showed, how little persons
of the kindest notions could act justly in religious
disputes.—( Hear, hear. ) Though it might be considered a
dangerous principle in legislation to admit such a remedy as he
referred to, and that it would be a violation of the rights of
property, still he would be prepared to support it if he saw it
required. With respect to the rights of property. was not
the rights of property equally violated in questions of health.
in constructing railroads, and in forming streets or squares?
There was no hesitation in opening a way or removing a house
if they thought such a step was necessary. On the same
principle he did think, in the granting of sites, that inter-
ference might be required —( Hear, hear.) In the course
of the present debate he had been glad to hear but one opinion
prevail as to the impolicy of refusing sites, and he hoped,
whatever decision the House might come to, those who had
hitherto made stilirefuoils would take notice of this general
expression of opinion, and c angc their course of proceed-
ing in relation to the worshippers of the Free Church.
Mr. SCOTT was prepared to give his vote against this
oCro2emonfi Committee eNoofbll
en qvuairrtyii
es tlyfhohew sevreer es too
f teconn saul
llut d
it.hde
to,
ow: shhee sof
be-
lieved that he would court inquiry, and prove beyond doubt
that he had good and sufficient reasons for withholding these
sites. Similar, lie believed, would be the sentiments of Lord
Macdonald. When he remembered the late commotions in
the Church of Scotland, and die fact that the vast number of
sites which had been in the first instance refused had dwindled
down to about thirty, he could not but see with pain this re-
opening of the question, and he hoped that within a few years,
if they were to allow the public opinions to unfold itself, the
country would be at peace—(Loud cries of "Divide.")
Colonel MORE thought they were bound to make inquir}i
and he would support the motion of the Hon. Member, at tln,
same tints not pledging himself to support any after motion
which might be founded upon it.—(Centinued cries of
" Divide.")
The gallery was then cleared for the division, when there
appeared—
For the motion for inquiry
Against it ••
Majority —2B
POOR REMOVAL BILL.

Mr. BANKES then proceeded to call the attention of the
Howe to the report of the Select Committee on the Settlement
and Poor Removal, and also to the copy of the case submitted by
the Poor Law Commissioners to the Law Officers of the
Crown, for their opinion with reference to the construction of
a clause in the Poor Removal Act. It had been his (Mr.
Bankes.) endeavour to induce the committee to examine
into the working of the measure as it affected the comforts of
the poor, but after some discussion, a majority of the Committee
determined to postpone that consideration. If the Committee
did not, before Easter, make greater progress than they had
yet done, he should feel it his duty to bring in a measure
modifying in a very great degree, or perhaps, repealing alto-
gether, the Act of last session. It had been promised by the
Nr ble Lord and some others of the Members of the Govern-
ment, that this subject would be laid before the House this
session; but looking to the great diversity of opinion in that Com-
mittee, he did not see any hope that they would have a measure
introduced in sufficient time to warrant them in expecting it
to pass into a law that session. There was a feeling very
popular now-a-days to do away with settlements altogether, and
to provide for the poor by a national rate. '1 hat feeling
had greatly progressed in consequence of the defi-
ciencies of the Bill passed last Parliament.—( Hear.)
He believed that the abolition of settlements would be most
prejudicial to the poor, an that it would not (as had been
absurdly argued) give a stimulus to industrial exertion. To
support his statement he must allude to the evidence of Mr.
Guls in, an Assistant Pour-law Csmmissioner, but he must
first state that the reason he had not referred to it before was,
because the Committee which sat upon this subject decided
upon reporting before they heard, and published the evidence.
Now, Mr. Gulson? in his evidence, said the Act was unjust
and defective, had totally failed in its operation, and must
sooner or later be altered. This he thought was enough to
prove his case. He could conceive no better testimony in his
favour than this. It was perfectly true that it counterbalanced
the evidence of the Po •r-law Commissioners themselves,
but he thought the preference ought to he given to Mr. Gul-
sou's evidence, because he had ample opportunities of witnev-
ing its injurious effects upon the poor, whereas the Poor-law
Commissioners had no such opportunities. Mr. Gulson
spoke practically, but the Poor-law Commissioners gave their
evidence theoretically. No doubt the intention of the Act
unjustwa sgood,
andbutinoperative,
in
o i)eractaivrrey.ingi)(eiruhtailts):
i(tledtaidils
notit was
n.eighfosuondoptporobse.
bthivaetlypruoppoonsittia,p:h)ner
aaws
otnhonhrtatt eo- phaoyaelrt,e r
obdu
in et vheant
radmitting
that proposition, the law oueht to be altered in that respect or
discontinued altogether. lie
session so regretted much that Govern-
mentfi
far to advance
without stating
what they intended to
do witmp
eu itsntei,,,d a t
to
thatils
thee did not
expect that they would have disclosed H
this time, but certainly 112 haea,
its
general principles would have been communicated
House. Had there been any parties in the House responsiblet
for the operation of the poor-law, he was quite certain so many
deficts could not have crept into it, and he was, therefore, the
more anxious to learn what improvements were to be intro:
duced into it. The law had been decided by the law officers of
the Crown, as well as other eminent legal authorities, to be
defective, and he thought the House was entitled to have the
opinion of these legal gentlemen. But he did not ask fir much,
all that he asked for was the care upon which the opinion was
given. Mr. Lewis, in the Committee, stated that six questions
were submitted to the law officers of the Crown upon which to
found their opinion upon the legality of this law, and it was for
the production of these six questions that he now made this
motion. They were called for in the Committee, hut it was
stated that only the House of Commons had the power to eels
for their production, and it was under these circumstances that
he brought forward the present motion. At present there was
a strong feeling abroad, that the law ought to be
abrogated altogether, but he warned the Govern-
ment that their best course was to amend its
defective provisions, and the strong feeling would ssbsile.
In an amended form, and, with the aid of a new Poor-law
Commission, the Act might prove successful, but, without
that amendment, it must still remain unjust and inoperative.
Mr. C. BULLER said it was a rule in the legal profession,
which had always been respected and observed, both by the
House and the Government, that neither the case nor the opi-
nions of counsel should he prsiduced. The questien which bad
been referred to the Committee alluded to, by the lion Gen-
tleman opposite, was a most difficult one. Opinions upon the
consideringe om t o anyts decision
upon the .uhjgeneral
law of settlement were so very diversified, tha• it was quite
imposiiblt fors thet,nt
Committee to have
withoutfirst t
bearings, and without considering what were the
particular circumstances of each mode of settlement.
The question which he t'• ought to he decided by the : urn-
mittee was, whether there was anything connected with the
framing of the law, which rendered the working of then
measure in a manner contrary to the opinions of those who
brought in that measure. The opinion of the majority of the
Committee was, that the interpretation of the Committee
should be different to the interpretation put upon it by the
framers of the measure. A particular interpretation bad been
put upon the Act, in consequence of which, one half of the
paupers of the comitry had obtained an irremovable
settlement ; and he, fur one, would not consent to
alter the measure, so as to meet the supposed in-
tentions of the framers of that measure. It would be a
great hardship to the poor of the country if such a course were
adopted. The excuse of the Committee for refusing the evi-
dence of Mr. quiston upon the working of tlse present law was,
that the Hon. Member for Dersetshire had proposed that
evidence too late; the evidence had been closed when he offered
it, and the Committee were then engaged in reporting upon

the evidence they had heard, The House muss, ;GOY up3u the
question as a whole ; it was ore which affected, to an immense
extent, the condition of the people of this c,:iuntry.
. .

Mr. MILES said that there was a very strong opinion in
the minds of the Committee that the operation of the Poor
Removal Bill ought to have ii en most carefully looked into
The real question, he thought, for the House to consider
was whether the country was to be taken in by a gross fraud.
The courrry thought it was a fraud, and it was reprobated
throughout all portions of the country as such. The Hot,.
Member then alluded, at considerable length, to the statements
of a gentlenr:n residing in the Frume union—a union con
taining twenty-nine parishes—showing the injurious operation
of the existirg law in that union.
Sir G. GREY thought that the motion of the lion.
Member was a most unusual one, and he hoped that the Hon.
Member would not press it. He did not see what advantage
could possibly be derived from publishing to the world tie six
doubts referred to by the Hon. Member, and which had been
submitted to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown.
The Hon. Gentleman should submit a defioite motion on the
subject, and until he did so be should consider himtclf tootles
to abstain from entering into the general ques!inn.
Mr. FINCH thou,c,dit that the Hon. Member for Di,rset-
shire should not 10-ess his motion at preset t. Ile was of opi-
nion, hoe ever, that the Removal Act of last s 'on was one
which produced considerable evil, and was pas favour the
lauded at the exi ense of the manufacturing in est ; bat as
the law of settlement was at present under the consideration of
a Committee, he thought the Hon. Member should trait for
their report. If they did riot recommend its repeal, then he
would support the Hon. Member if he made a motion to that
effect. _ _ .

---
Mr. RICE thought the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire
should persevere in his motion fur a repeal of the Act of last
session. He knew that in his own district it would operate
most iejuriously, for on the h March next, notices would be
served on many ere +age; s iu his ricighteer: hetet, who wousl
obliged to leeve their holdings on Michaelmas next. The
Hon. Memoir state,/ several instances NS here the operation of
the Act was meat harsh. He hoped, therefiee, the Hon.
' Member wculd persevere Vi ith his motion after Easter, and lie
might rest assured he would be well supported by petitions.
Mr. E. WODEIIO USE hoped the Hon. Member for Dor-
setshire would persevere in his efforts, and expressed his obli-
gations to him for having taken the qtiestion up. The late
Act had operated most injuriously in his part of the country.
Mr. VERNON SMITH was glad that this discussion had
taken place, otherwise the report of the Committee might have
had the effect of inducing a feeling throughout the country
that the Act of last session was to be permanent. He hoped,
however the Hon. Member would not postpone his measure
till after Easter; for he contended, that the repeal of the
Poor Removal Act of last session was preliminary to coming
to any arrangement with regard to the law of settlement. The
sooner, therefore, he brought forward the measure the better
would it be fcr the country.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that his respect for the time
of the House prevented him from referring to the evidence
that had been adduced, bet which was not before the House,
and for the same reason he did not intend to go into the
question of the Removal Act of last session, which was not
under their consideration. The Hon. Member for Dorset-
shire gave notice of his intention for an alteration, er the
repeal of the Act of last session, after or before
Easter. He by no means denied that the interpretation of the
law officers of the Crown had given a more extensive operation
to the Act, than those who bad brought it forward, or the House
which passed it, intended. But he could not concur in
the censures which had been passed on that extension, for the
balance of advantages was greatly and decidedly in favour of
the poor of the country. That was not the question now, but
he considered that he should be wanting in his duty if he did
not detail some of the advantages to which he referred. '1 here
was one class, however, against whom it operated unfavourably.
He believed the Act of last session bad conferred inestimable
advantages on large classes of the poor of this country. First
of ail, he would call attention to that great provision
in the Act, which stated that a pauper should
not be removed after a residence of a certain
number of years. The next had reference to those oho re-
sided in a place for some time, but who had not establishe4 a
right of settlement by a residence of five years. He was satis-
fied that if this Act was rightly u derstood with respect to the
recipients of relief, it would be found that it was decidedly
favourable to the poor, and that it was therefore a humane and
just enactment. With regard to the effect of the Act upon the
ratepayers, he had never altered the opinion he had already
standingexpress theed'
an
offence
shouldce h
hadcontinue
therebyto it‘i,teenr t ation
many it , n
of h
o thi•
friends, that the law of settlement did not impose too heavy
burdens on the ratepayers. As he was a member of the Com-
mittee floe sitting on the subject, he could not well use the
evidence which had been adduced before it. If this were not
so he might have availed himself of the evidence
of Mr. Gulson, a gentleman of considerable experience,
who was called by the Member for Dorsetshire before the Com-
mittee, to show that they ought not to alter the present law of
settlement. As the whole of the evidence would be in the
hands of Hon. Members in the course of a few days, he en-
treated them not to give their attention to garbled extracts
but to peruse the whole of it. He was a man of the bighes.
authority and well conversant with the operation of the law,
not only in the manufacturing districts of this city, but in mans
parts of Ireland, in fact, he possessed more piactical know-.
ledge on the subject than any other man. They had that day
of
E Unionng
laann(
di
,t hae
Ichairman
eonft
inc oaunr of fggr
euaatte i
xa
pn r
iienn
etch:
wnho,
ortst,i,
examined one of the guardians of the Suffolk and Cambridge
e
o
e
e
evidence would be found moot material. In fact, he was jus-
titied in saying that the whole of the evidence aideced before
the Committee would tend to show, that the Act of last session
ought to be maintained in all its integrity, but that some por-
tion of the existing poor-law, and even of the law of settle-
ment, admitted of correction.

Mr. 0. STANLEY considered that in making the altera-
tions referred to, they would not overlookthe rate-payers, many
of whom were in a condition little removed from pauperism.
He trusted that the Committee now sitting for the purpose of
ir:quiry into the law of settlement, would endeavour to devise
remedies for all the anomalies which existed in the present
law, and whish had led the Attorney and Solicitor-Generals tr.
form a different opinion to the one entertained by many el the
hoards of guardians.
Mr. E. DENISON considered notwithstanding the sitting
of the Committee, that the House was in a tit condition to
proceed then to the discussion of the question of the law of
settlement. No pledge had been given to tl,e Committee that
the question would not be entertained by the :louse mild the
Committee had furnished their report. Ile considered ilia,
o.e law had worked well ; but when the ratepayers were dis-
satisfied the recipients could not fail to suffer as the ratepayer,
eou'.d believe the poor forced upon them, and it was not un•
likely that they might be u,ed unkindly. Therefore some
alterations were necessary. The evidence taken before the
Committee had not had that effect upon hi: mind which the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for INrsetshire had sated it
hail had upon his.
Sir W. JAMES wished to know if the Government intended
to take steps to remove some inconsistencies with respect to
the powers placed in the hands of auditors relating to the pay-
ment of accounts? He commended the conduct of the Com-
mittee in not wishing to interfere with the law of last ses-
sion until they had proposed the adoption of a better measure.
Mr. NEWDEGATE bore testimony to the fitness of Mr.
Gulson to give a Factical opinion on the working of the law.
Sir G. GREY stated, in reply to the question of the Hon.
Member for Hull (Sir W. James), that the Pour-law Com-
missioners had taken the matter into their special consi-
derat ion.

Mr. WAKLEY said, the parties who were so anxious to
get this law repealed were tyrannical boards of guardians, and
gentry who had no wish to pay for the maintenance of the
poor. Now he believed the Bill an excellent one, and he was
sure if they compared the gored end the evil of the measure
that the former would be found to predominated to a great ex-
tent.—( Hear. ) It would be useless for him to repeat what
had been so well said by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James
Graham), but he could confirm from his own experience all
that he had stated on the subject. The ratepaye. s in the me
tropolis did not complain, so far as he could judge, of the opera
tion of the poor-law. The expense of the rates pressed heavily
upon them, but they bore the expense because they he
lieved that it was absolutely necessary. In his parish
since the Bill had been in operation the guardians
had not sent any Irish paupers back to Ireland.
because they knew that by doing so, they would drive them to
starvation. The Irish pauper obtained relict in this country
when he sought it. Was it not mons!rous, that in England.
an Irish paup, r was entitled to relief, but that, if he were sent
to his own country, under the same Crown and under the same
laws, he would be doomed to starvation. The Right Hon.
Baronet in passing the Bill, got in the small end of the wedge,
and he hoped the people would see that it would be driven home,
and that all future laws on the subject would be framed on the
same principle. So anxious was he to put the matter to the
test, that he gave the Irish paupers a general invitation to come
over here. Ile, wished they would all come over. He wished
2,11;0,000 of the destitute people of Ireland would come over
here during the next month--( Hear and laughter)—because
would bring the Parliament to its senses with respect to those
laws, lie was informed that in St. Ann's parish, out of every
shilling paid to the poor, that l Id. was paid to Irish paupers,
and that nut of 27,0001. expended for the relic
of the poor in his parish, during the last year.
20,000/. was expended in the support of Irish paupers. He
admitted their right to relief, and would not deprive them of
it, but what he said was, that the poor-laws of the three coun-
tries should be assimilated, and that each county should sup.
port it 3 ewn poor.
Mr. HARRIS said that the whole of the question had arises,
from the vague manner in which the Act had been
constructed, leaving it discretionary with the guardians to adopt
the law or not.
Mr. BROTHERTON said that he believed that the measure
would be a humane one if properly carried out; and looking at
it as a whole, he believed that the good more than counterba-
lanced the evil, and he would be sorry to see it repealed.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said, that with respect to these numbers
of little debates, they only indicated that the whole question,
like one of finance, was to be hung up for another session of
Parliament. The indignation of the townspeople in England
had been very generally excited against the provisions
the law, and he could tell them that the country people also
mere of opinion that some substantive alteration should take
place in the relief of the poor. They could not enter into th,
not bn into
satisfied the
question of relief without entering into that of settlement, and
they could not enter into the law of settlement without enter-
iugquestion
unlesso the
of rating.
great The people
of
propertyofEnglsa
brought to contribute with the land. Thero gietors of
funded property should be made Poduldble
would
e to contribute their common
share wall those who contribute
their hard earnings. It was
the
owners of
funded property who made the
poor.—( Hear
hear, and laughter.) It was they
who caused the gres.
amount of taxation which was levied upon the people in order
to pay and keeo them up.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said that nothing would satisfy th
e
people t e
people unless there was an abolition of thel
law of settlement.
Mr. BANKES said, that after what had I.llen from the pre,
ceding speaker, he wou.d agree not toh.., •
press
a motion

EXPENSE OF *ENGLISH. R ULWAYS:.
snake the motions of
k
et that the Right
as wantingrtgrto
tiriii.courtesy 10
Lord G. BENTINCK, in rising to
thin question.
which he had given mitice expressed hiss
Hon. Member should thin that he w
him in calling the attention of the House
But when, on a former occasion, the subject of
rail_
ways was under consideration, the late Chancellor of t
Exchequer had made the extraordinary statement he did as
the expense of English railways, he (Lord G. Bentinck
thought it necessary he should set himself right on tn.
queso.on. The extraordinary statement which the ex-Chan
cellar of the Exchequer had made was, that seven of the
principal lines of railway in this country before the year 1840
had cost no less a sum than 37,72941M'. This had induced
him (Lord G. Bentinck) to make an inquiry into the subject.
and the follow'ng was the result to which he had arrived.
The Right Honourable Gentleman stated that the London and
Birmingham Railway before 1840 had cost no less a
sum than 8,!50,0001. ; but what would they think
of this surprising statement, when he told them
that if they looked in page 475 of the returns furnished te
that House they would find the sum expended was onl)
5,994,536'. ; and of the ten Bills enacted for this company,
but six were passed before 184).—(Hear, hear.) The Grand
Junction was stated to have cost 4,638,0001. before 1841,
whereas he found there had been expended but 1 921,496'
The Great Western was stated to have spent before 1840,
8,282,0ia01.; the expenditure, however, lie found was only
4th,540t,8,w1a36 54,01. The Brighton Railway was represented to have
cost 20367,000!. ; the real expense was 1,166,5401.
The Sou, h Western was represented to have cost before
1840, 2, 600 000/ ;
3•6
01. B
the sum,
thheowgerveearietshtoulehpasrotmureewhfraotinundtheer

$ real facts of the ease hail been shown by the Right lion. Gen-
tleman in his representation of the expense of the South-
Eastern Rail way. He was not content with increasing it one-third.
or one-half, or even double, for while the real expenditure had
only been 364,4051. it had been represented to be 3 857,0001.
He stated that the expenditure on the Midland railways was
7,235,000/., when, in truth, the whole exeendituse at that time
had only been 1,257,600/. But he (Lord G. Bentinck) was
quite willing to give the Right Hon. Gentleman credit fsr a
tots! ignorance on this subject. It would seem that when he
took the Midland Counties Railway as an illustration, he ima-
gined that he was dealing with the Amalgamated Midland
railways of a liter period ; and therefore he included the ex-
penditure of the North Midland and Birmingham lines. If that
were so, then the entire expenditure from the first commence-
ment amounted to 4,724,753/., so that the truth woe, that on
these seven railways from the first commencement, from th
year 1836, when their Acts were first obtained, the expendi-
ture of the whole of them had been but 20,437,1151. When
the Right Hon. Gentleman had sent forth a statement to the
country that the expense in the two years of the deficiency was
37,729,000/. ; so that they had a Chancellor of the Exchequer
who, on the seven railway lines, was wrong to an amount of
17,291,090/..--( Hear, hear.) Now, if that was not a marvel-
lous statement for a gentleman to make, who once held
the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he (Lord G. Ben-
tinek ) did not know what constituted a marvelous statement.
But that was not the whole ease. The argument of the Right
Honourable Gentleman wss an answer to a speech
which was made three weeks before. Though
Honourable Gentlemen had came down to the House
calmly and deliberately, armed with the authority of the rail-
way Cs'ommittee report, of which he was himself a Member ;
he made this statement of the expenditure in the yeas of
deficiency. Now, as the only years in which a gloat de-
ficieney was found in the revenue were the years 18.?.9 and
1840, the impression which was intended to go forth to the
country was that this sum of 37,759,000/. was the expenditure
of the years 1839 and 1811. Whereas he (Lord G. Bentitick)
found that on these railways in th;,se two years the entire sum
expended was bat 9,718,f-'9;/., showing an aysrage expenditure
in each of the two years of 4,859,0001. ; so that taking this
view o' the question the Right Honourable Gentleman Wes
net wrong merely in the matter of seventeen bat of twenty-
eight millions—( Hear)—and when they reflected that this
statement was come to after much deliberation ; with all the
pomp and circumstance which attended an Ex Chsncellor of
the Exchequer, with the report of the Committee, of which
he had been a member, in his hand; and when they saw that
that statement was exhibited in the face of that party, with
the figures quoted in perpendicular columns; when they saw
111 this, he trusted the House would not think that he had
occupied its time unnecessarily, in showing how little reliance
was to be placed on the statistics and statements of the Right
Hon. Gentleman. But when it went to the country and to
Ireland, that it was on account of the pressure from the
Right Honourable Gentleman that her Majesty's Government,
which appeared to be wavering whether or not they would
accept the measure which he had introduced to the House,
when it was solely from the pressure of the Risslit Hon. Gene
leman that the First Lord of the Treasury was fixed to the de-
claration that he wou'd resist the second reading of the Bill
when it came to that House ; it would be stamped on the public
mind of the country that her Majesty's iklinisters had allowed
themselves to be led by such blinded guides as the Right Hon.
the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Lord G. Bentinck)
had stated that the years 1839 and 1840 were the two past
years in which there was any great deficiency in the revenue,
l'rue there was a deficiency of 658,0001. in 1837, and of
345,0001. in 18',8 ; but these deficiencies had arisen from the re-
duction of 930,000.: of taxes, and did not arise from any
erostration of the resources of the country ; but in the year
1841 there was a deficiency of 2,100,000/., and in the year
1842 of 3,979,000/. Was there, in these two years, a great
expenditure of money on railways ? Far from it. He found,
that in the course of these two years, there had been ex-
pended—

On the London and Birmingham
On the Great Western ..
On the London and Brighton
On the Grand Junction
On the South- Western
On the South-Eastern ... ....... ..... 2,171,593
On the No: th Midland, the Midland Counties,
and Birmingham and Derby, together

Making a total of £3,009 637
Or about an average of 4,000,0001. on each of these '
y e .
He must say that when the exaggerations of the Rightllaorns
Gentleman went to the extraordinary length of 17,000,000/.
in the best face that could be put on the matter, or of
23,030,0001., if the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman
were taken in its fullest extent, he was justified in saying that
it could be nothing but a trick of the trade, or if not so it was
what he (Lord G. Bentinck) had already designated as mar
vellous a statement as was perhaps ever heard within the walls
of that House, and most ma-vellous, as coming from a Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. The Noble Lord concluded by moving
for a return showing the amount of money expended in the
actual cost of construction and of working stock (including
locomotive engines, carriages, tools, &c.,) of all railways in
Great Britain and Ireland in each triennial period previous to
;he first day of January respectively in the years 1841, 1844,
and 1847 ; as also a return, showing the sums of money actually
expended by the following railway companies previous to
1841 : —London and Birmingham, Grand Junction, Great
Western, Brighton, South Western, South Eastern and Mid-
11nd, likewise the aggregate sum expended by the above-men-
tioned railway companies in each year previous to 1841.
Mr. GOULBURN regretted that he had been the innocent
cause of inflicting on the House a somewhat lengthy speech in
support of certain returns to which there could have been no
possible objection. But he thought lie could satisfy the
House that it was not to him, nor to any statement of his, that
they were to impute this inconvenience. If on the occasion
when he had delivered the speech or expressed the sentiments
which the Noble Lord had seen fit to attribute to him, the
Noble Lcrd had availed himself of the privilege which he then
enjoyed (the House being then in Committee), of observing
upon the statement which he (Mr. Goulburn) was alleged to
have made, or if he had asked any explanation of that state-
ment he (Mr. Goulburn) would have been most ready then to
live that explanation which he would now be compelled to give
and thus would be precluded every necessity for further discus-
sion or this subject.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had
stated, that they had had a Chancellor of the Exchequer who
had advanced erroneous sta'ements, and false ca.'culations, and
shat he was therefore bouni to suffer the penalties attached to
these. He ( Mr. Goulburn) might say in return, that. a use
wao expected to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who
misrepresented what fell from ogler Honourable Gentlemen,
ind founded false arguments on those misrepresentations ; he
Mr. Goulburn) said that that person was not fit for the
ace to which be might be thought to aspire.—( Hear, hear. )
With these observations he would proceed to state to the House
slat it was he did say on the occasion to which the Noble
Lord had made reference : he would vindicate the words
le had made use of on that occasion, and the argument
which he had deduced from them. The Noble Lord said that
n making those statements lie was doing that which was im-
proper, because he was referring to a speech delivered three
weeks before in Parliament. He was afraid the Noble Lord
imputed to him a practice to which he himself was but too
prone, namely, that of taking nine days to consider his reply.
Honourable Members would recollect that he then
spoke to the strict question before the House, anti
referred particularly to a speech of the previous
evening. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had,
on bringing for ward his Budget, adverted to the revenues of
the years 1842, 1343, 1844, 1845, and 1816, and had shown
by reference to a number of articles that a reduction of duty on
those had led to a progressive increase in the consumption of
such articles, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued
from thence that the reduction of the duties on commercial
articles was the wiser policy to be pursued. Th
said that the Chancellor was wrong in his reasoning,
this increase was not to be attributed to any t:), lea the;d
vial policy of the country, but was to be attauntgeedianittohgenrantO
'he extension of railways. He said, "What has free trade to do
with it ? It is railway enterprise alone that has done this.
The Noble Lord said he (Mr. Goulburn) had confined his ob-
servations to the years 1839.40, and followed that statement up
with the declaration that these were the only two years of great
deficiency. Now, the Noble Lord subsequently, in his n
soeech, admitted that there was a deficiency in 1841 of own
millions, and in 1842 of three millions ; but let that pass.
The Noble Lord said he (Mr. Goulburn ) attributed the defi-
ciencies of the years 1839-40 to the expenditure which took
place in those years on railways. Now he ( r.
Goulburn) said no such thing. What he did
was not .at
say would
he found correctly recorded in what he
liberty to refer to in that House—in those memoranda which
conveyed the debates in some degree to the public. It would
' be found from them that he stated, that during the years of
deficiency there was raised for railways, in the course do
leave
pletion. no less than 47,700,000/., and in order not ht
hel
de-
the House in doubt, he stated the quarter from
rived his information. He collected it from a reportwhic made to
that House in the year 1846, from the Select Committee on
railways.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, however,
eytec, bad
atet that t is was
fixed a charge upon him, that he states tht3a4o, hi
but he
the sum expended in the years 1839 and 1
really said no such thing. What he did sa
uwas
the amount he had mentioned was the sum raised to, teat
date for the purpose of completing the railways in Pquestion.
The Noble Lord had told him that if he (gr. 6a:uurelbsubren)wohualdd
looked over the paper whence he obtained his Well,
have seen that the amount included sums to be raised.
did lie not state that of the total amount the
.;oernspanies had
g an as-
raised 8,250,000!. No doubt, had he been add
semhly who were not in the habit of attending to ssnub'ects of
this nature, he should, perhaps, have been more cujiar and
precise in his observations. He should have arts care to
guard his hearms against the impression
that the
T whole sum
had been expended fn one or two years.
two ways of addressing that House, which was supposed to
consist of an educated and well-informed assembly. One was
merely to deduce results in arguing particular topics, while
the other was to go into details and particalarswhich would
naturally suggest themselves to every man of intelligence. He
adopted the former course, for the obvious reason. that he did
not wish to make himself more dull ainmdpliteeadtrioouns
tthheanN
tiles s
temaent whicherh.e nevere
absolutely necessary. In the way
Lord had put into his mouth
h t
made. The Noble Lord statedastat
burn) stated that this sum had been expended in the
of two years in which there was
Hear.) He stated no such
a large
coarse
deficiency in the revenue.
thing. His argument applied. revenue.—(
a series of years of deficiency,
beginning with 1837 and ending with 1843. So far the state-
ment he made was literally true, and was not capable of
mo e
con-
tradiction. But it was said that he raised this d of argu-
ment to impress upon the House what was not founded on fact,
namely, that there had been a considerable expenditure in
railway speculations during the time of the deficiency in the
revenne. Of course he could not decide so accurately as an
the 47,000,000/.
Honourable Member in the position of the Honourable
deficiency, but
Member for Sunderland how. much of
was expended within the period. of the
it could not have been an inconsiderable proportion
because the
because during the period many of gnat lines connecting
he metropolis with the north were in thecourse of construc-
tion. Therefore he concluded that a considerable portion -S
the outlay must have been occasioned when there was a °aatmeousunmtesd theto
defi-
ciency in the revenue. There was a return sent to Parliament
in 1839, in which it was stated that thet argaetaree,g
different railways were ern
57,700,000; that was two years after the commencement of
the deficiency, and it was very natural to suppose that a
referut thereto for
wasn
other evidence to
consi-
derable portion of the expenditure of that sum fell within
the perioci to which he had adverted. B
which he could
support, and in which perhaps the Noble Lord would be dis-
posed to place some degree of confidence. Its the year 1844,
Committee
upon an examination took place before the Select
upon railways, Mr. Laing was asked what had been the whole
amount laid out in tie construction of tail ways wa up to that
time, and the reply was 64,000.000/. Now they deducted
from that sum the cost of railways that were completed
previous to 1837, of which they had no distinct account, they
would arrive at the exact amount expended between 1837
and 1844, which he was sure would
made,
fully to
justify the statement that he had
that co-existent with the deficiency in the namely,
revenue,
there was a large expenditure in railway speed ations. He
l
trusted he had now satisfied the Noble Lord and the House
statements;
the attention and
that he had committed no error in his
or
in conclusion, he had only to thank the House
with which they had listened to him, and to refer them for the
real statement he did make to the ordinary channels by which
information of the debates which took place in that House were
conveyed to the public.
Mr. DISRAELI rose to make a few_ observations to the
House for the purpose of substantiating the statements of his