The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-24 00:00:00

AVER ,LAND MAIL
FROM CALL UT TA.

Ilochcester (Mr. Boe-li-ln), and the Hon. Member fur
B.%th (Mr. 80.-buck), wore members. He thought if
the Bill was to be altered from tine to tinae—it' eiause,
after clause. was to ha altered cr expunged—that it
would better to withdraw is altogether. The clause
which they wished to he expunged was the most
valuable part of the Bill, because it would reach those
who pandered to their base appetites.(Roars of
laughter.)
Mr. SPOONER consented to the suggestions of the
Right Honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for
the Home Department, and said he, with the aid of his
Learned Friends, would remodel the Bill as proposed.
The Ho-o. Gentleman in the chair might now report the
MI!. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury,
hal, he thought, introduced the clause for the purpose
of defeating the 13i11.—(Cries of " Order, order.")
Mr. DUNCOMBE denied that he had been actuated
by any such motive. The clause was drawn up by the
Honourable Gentleman himself, and he simply adopted
his words,
Mr. SFOONER replied that he drew up the clause at
the suggestion of the Hon. Gentleman himself.
Mr. C. BERKELEY then moved, as an amendment,
that the report be brought up that day six months.
The Committ( e then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment . . 26
Against it
Majority against the amendment —55
After a short conversation the report was received,
and ordered to be printed and brought up on Wednesday
next.
POOR REMOVAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Captain PECIIELL said that there had been no
remedy provided by the Committee for what was disap-
proved of in this Bill, the Committee having con-
cluded their labours without making any re-
port. Notwithstanding what had been said by
the • Attorney-General, he could, if he did not
fear to weary.-the -House, show that the retrospec-
tive working of the poor•law was most unjust. He
thought that the House was bound to agree
to the Bili of the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire as a
means of remedying the evils that existed. That Hon.
Member was deserving of the thanks of the country,
and how was he supported? Why, there were no less
then 197 petitions in favour of the Hon. Member's
views, and these petitions contained no less than 30,196
signatures. (The Hon. Member here read some ex•
tracts from a correspondence that had taken place on
this question in support of his views.) He trusted that
the Hon. !,".ember would succeed in his endeavours.
Mr. P ALMER said that he felt bound to support
He considered that the Bill would be of great

advantage.
Sir J. PAKINGTON could not agree with the Hon.
Gentleman. In his part of the country the Bill intro-
duced by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Dor-
chester (Sir J. Graham) had worked well, and had not led
to one instance of litigation ; and if the Bill of his Hon.
Friend were acceded to the poor would be deprived o;
one of the most valuable boons which had been conferred
upon them.—(Hear, hear.) lie did not deny that
cases of hardship had occurred under the Act—
(Hear, hear)—but they arose simply from the conduct
of the boards of guardians, and not from their adhering
to the Act. Hardships had been inflicted upon aged and
infirm poor by guardians driving them from one parish
to another, in order to get rid of the responsibility of
keeping them. The Act to which he had
referred was passed to amend the anomalies
and hardships in the old law, and as it had worked well
he thought it should continue. If the lion. Gentleman
the Member for Dorsetshire (Mr.Bankes) were to refer
to the report of the Poor-law Commissioners for the
present year he would find that he was correct in saying
that the law had been a great boon, and that where
hardships arose they were not attributable to the law,
but to the guardians of the poor. The ratepayers,
he was sure, would not refuse any additional
burden which might be cast upon them by the additional
cost of supporting those who had expended their labour
and their days amongst them; at the same time he
admitted that the law of settlement required great
alteration. He regretted to hear that the.-Committee
which had been appointed on the law of settlement
had agreed to resolutions and had afterwards rescinded
them, and had, therefore, come to the determination to
keep them to themselves.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Such was the nature of the rumours which had reached
him. He hoped, hoe. ever, that the Government in the
next session of Parliament would take the whole sub-
ject of the law of settlement and ate-paying seri-
ously into their consideration, and bring forward
measures for the purpose of amending them.
He begged to move, as an amendment, that the Bill be
reel a second time that day six months.
The motion having been seconded,
Sir G. GREY said, in submitting the ground of his
objection to the Bill, he begged at the outset to say that
it was now his intention to offer the Bill that op-
position which he stated on its introduction
it would have to encounter from him in its
subsequent stages. What did the Bill propose to do ?
It did not propose to amend the Bill of last session, but
absolutely to repeal the very essence of it, which was
one of the most valuable and important Bills that
had ever received the assent of that House,
as it was calculated to confer the greatest advantages
upon the poor. The principle embodied in the Bill
of last session was this—that residence for a certain
term should entitle a person to claim exemption
from removal, so that a person who had lived
and worked in a parish for a given number
of years should not be driven to another, and a
perhaps distant one, for support in the hour of need.
When the Bill of last session was proposed very great
objections were made to it, but they were not to look to
the inconvenience which had arisen from the Bill in one
or two, or in any number of instances, and infer
that the Bill had not worked well, because
if they were to do so they would overlook the nume-
rous beneficial instances which had resulted from
it. It was to prevent localities from being bur-
dened Stith the support of those who had no claim
upon thorn that the Bill was passed. The re-
movability of persons after a lengthened residence
in a district was admitted on all hands to be a grievance
requiring the interposition of the Legislature, and there-
fore this Act was passed, confirming the principle that
persons should be irremovable after a residence of a
certain term. It had generally worked well he believed,
and he was glad to hear from the Hon. Baronet that it
had worked well in his part of the country. Notwith-
standing the objections which had been made, be be-
lieved the balance was much in favour of the poor, and
he feared, if they repealed it, that they would inflict the
greatest and most irreparable injury upon the poor.
These inconveniences were incidental to a change in the
law, and he believed that after all changes there would
be found considerable difficulties in the administration of
it. If the inconveniences complained of by his Hon.
Friend had been removed by length of time, why should
it be proposed that the parish officers should again be
thrown into uncertainty as to their duties under the law,
by a repeal of the present law, and the-
stitution of a new one? It was no objection to this
Act to say that litigation took place under it,
for unless it could be shown that any new law would
remove the system of litigation, the objection was not
valid. The real question to decide was, whether the
case was one of such present emergency as to require
that, at the end of a session, and without the
presence of those who were most interested,
the whole of this law should be repealed,
and a new one substituted upon an entirely diffe-
rent basis. He was quite sure that the resolutions
of the Committee upon the law of settlement had been
rejected, and refused to be reported to the House by a
small majority, but that did not remove from the House
the power of now considering the matter. These reso-
lutions would shortly be reported to the Howe, and
tbere seemed to prevail an opinion that an extensive
ve
change in this law was necessary, by mea
of a change in the area of rating. Sir
F. Pigot, before the Committee, stated that be
did not think that there was any immediate necessity
for a change in the law, as it created very considerable
confusion in the unions which had just adapted their
operations to the existing law. He thought that any
change which should take place immediately, and with-
out the full concurrence of the whole House, would be
most mischievous in its consequences both to the public
and to the poor ; but he thought that that forbearance
now would by no means interfere with the full discussion
and consideration of the question at a very early period
in the ensuing session. For these reasons he hoped
that the House would not consent to the repeal of an
Act which could not be properly discussed at this period
of the session, and which involved so serious and exten-
sive a change.
The Marquis of GRANBY said that it did not appear
to him that the Right Honourable Gentleman
who had just sat down was very confident in
the success of the measure before the House.
lie believed that the law of last session bad acted most
injuriously, and that the ratepayers of towns had been
great sufferers in consequence. It did not confer the
nefits which it intended, nor remove the evils which it
roi,osed to obviate ; and he should, therefore, support
the motion of his Hon. Friend.
After a few words in explanation from Sir JOHN
PAKINGTON,
Mr. SPOONER said be would not go into the question
whether the Bill was or waS not a boon to agriculture.
His obiect in supporting the Bill of last session
was bt:eause he was of opinion that the parish
bit h 7 t ceived the benefit of the poor man's
leheee should support him in his distress.
Ile ai!jtved the House to put a step to those evils which
li:rto arisen in the larger towns by the repeal of
tins which was not only injurious to the poor them.
selves, but also to those a hose duty it was to afford
them the means of relief.
Mr. V. SMITH said that his great objection to the
Bill was, that as soon es the ratepayers found its
operation in any way disagreeable they would avail them •
selves of the only obvious remedy, viz., by making the
poor suffer greater hardships than they did at present.
Ile moment the present Act was passed a considerable
amount of confusion was created, and although they had
been told by the law officers, that the portion of the Act
referring to industrial resiklenee was to be interpreted
by the rules of common sense, and on their finding
that common sense was inapplicable to the law, and
again applying to the law officers, a totally
new construction of the Act was 'given to
them. There had been, notwithstanding all that had
been said, a very considerable amount of legisla- '
tion under this Act, and there were already a con-
siderable number of legal questions dependent upon it.
The question was submitted to a Committee in the be-
ginning of this session. It had been in labour for the
whole session—(Laughter)—but as yet no result had
appeared to the House or the world. The Committee
was truly a secret as well as a Select Committee, for not
a word could they get out of them, and this was the
Committee on which they were to depend. And
let the House remember that next session was a
new session of Parliament, and the persons then
coming in would not be bound by the wisdom .of thou

ancestors.—(Laughter.) Ile should, after a careful
examination of all the circumstances, give Lis v3te fur
tie 7.31! of the Hon. Mernb:r opposite.
Mr. RICE said he w,ls very anxious that a gentle-
man who pus eased cons.iderallo experience on this sub•
,ect should be examined before this Committee. He ad
a letter from that gentleman deprecating the principle
of non-removal. He hoped that Hon. Gentlemen would
agree with the motion of the Hon. Member for Dorset-
shire. lie did not think that they should lose sight of
the ratepayers, and the effect of this law had been to re-
lieve the rich and impose the burden on the poor.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that it would not be necessary
for him to detain the House for any length of time.
Considering the merits of the question, he agreed
with the Hun. Member, who said that it did not matter
what was the principle of that Bid. He then expressly
stated that he did not propose any compensation,
hecause he was aware that if any such pro-
position were made, the Bill would have been
rejected. Ile would read the clause respecting
the removal, which was brought forward in
1844, and which was identical with that introduced by
him last year. (The Hon. Member here read the clause
in question.) He joined issue with the Honourable
Gentleman who contended that this was a
law for the rieh and not for the poor.
But there were other classes operated upon by the
Act of last session ; but another class derived great
benefit—the great class resident in districts in which
they were not settled before the passing of
the Act, and who were not in receipt of relief,
from their legal settlements, and who had never
ventured to apply for relief from the parishes in which
they resided, from the fear of being removed to their
legal settlement. They constituted a very large and a
very suffering class, and the Bill, therefore, of last session
was of the most beneficent nature to them. There was, for
instance, the industrious Irish,-of whom there were such
large numbers in the manufacturing districts, who after
having laboured in a district for a period of five years,
and contributed during that time to its wealth, were
told, immediately on applying for relief, that they must
be removed ; and upon this class of persons it
conferred the greatest advantages. By far the
most numerous class were either entirely injured from
the Act, whilst the other received the greatest benefit
from it. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Bir-
miegham (Mr. Spooner) supported the Act of last
session, and he did not now regret that he had given it
that support. Still he (Sir James Graham) was
perfectly willing to concede to him and to
other Hon. Members that the Act of last session had
received a more extensive operation than was originally
intended, from the construction put upon the words
introduced into the Bill during its progress through the
House. Ile asked them, therefore, again to try the Bill
by this test—were the poor injured? The construction
put upon the Act by the law officers of the Crown, and
which hal led to this extended operation, was most
humane and beneficent ; and if they had any regard for
the interests of the poor, that was an additional reason
why this Act should be maintained in all its integrity.
—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down
bad made some remarks upon what he (Sir J. Graham)
said, at the time the Bill was before the House, with
respect to ratepayers, but he (Sir J. Graham) did not
wish to retract one word which he uttered on this
part of the subject on that occasion, yet he could not
but admit that although the Act had worked most bene-
ficially as far as the poor were concerned, yet its cost
had fallen heavily upon the ratepayers ; and when the
subject of the law of settlement and of the removal of the
poor was before the House he trusted that the expediency
of giving a more extended area to the rates would be also
taken into consideration. The Committee on the law
of settlement, of which be was a member, had sat
five months, and collected a vast mass of evidence on the
subject, but he regretted that the Committee, by a
majority of one, bad determined that the resolutions
which they had adopted should not be reported to the
House ; yet by a wise regulation of the House their
proceedings would become known to the House and to
the country—how each member of the Committee voted
would be seen, and also that the resolutions which they
had passed were to the following effect t—First, that
the law of removal ought to:be abolished ; awl, second,
that the area of the rate ought to be extended. He
hoped that the evidence collected by the Committee
would enable the public to estimate the real nature
of the question during the recess, and that
it would afford the Government an admirable
opportunity of ascertaining the public opinion upon the
question ; he hoped also that her Majesty's Govern-
ment, without any undue prejudice, without reference to
the part which the Members of the Committee had
taken, would in the new Parliament be prepared
to bring forward a Bill on the subject
and that the Hun. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith) who had
so well played the part of the Young Member, would
give them his support. lie should give his decided
opposition to the repeal of the Act of last session. In
fact, the statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir G.
Grey) went to show that there were no petitions in favour
of the Bill of the Right lion. Gentleman. He quoted, it was
true, the opinion of a gentleman at Bath, and the opinion
of the editor of a York newspaper, but these were the
authorities on which they were to rely for the necessity
of the Bill, and the repeal of the Act passed during the
time he held office. He did not wish to detain the
House, or he might quote the opinion of several
competent persons to show that the Act had worked
well. Mr. Hall, one of the assistant Poor-law Commis-
sioners, whose district in London comprised a population
of 1,800,000 souls, reported that no complaints were made
by the recipients of relief with respect to the working of
' the law, and the complaints of the ratepayers were few,
' and rapidly diminishing. As he believed that the
passing of the Bill of the Hon. Gentleman would throw
the state of the law into complete confusion
he could not hesitate as to the course he
should pursue. He should offer the Bill his most
strenuous opposition, :and hoped that the House
would reject by a large majority the proposition, which
he considered a most dangerous one.
Mr. MILES said he had heard it stated that Mr. Hall
was one of the witnesses who, when before the Commit-
tee condemned the present law—(Hear),—and a refer-
ence to the evidence would show that that law was
not so much approved of as the Hon. Baronet seemed to
suppose. In fact, with the exception of Mr. Hall, all
the witnesses reprobated the law. They had only been
informed yesterday that the Committee had come to the
decision referred to, and that they thought it would not
be well to mix up the law of removal with the law of settle-
ment. He had always been in favour of an industrial resi-
dence being taken as the right of a person to receive relief.
The subject was a difficult one, and required the utmost
consideration ; but the House should recollect before
they rejected the Bill of the Hon. Member for Dorset-
shire, that it would afford great benefits to the rate-
payers, whose interest ought to be remembered in a
question of this nature. The Act of last session
was found fault with both by the ratepayers
and the poor and infirm themselves. If he
saw any prospect of an early adjustment of the whole
question'he would advise his Hon. Friend to withdraw
the Bill, but, as lie saw no such prospect, he hoped that
his llon. Friend would persevere with his BilL
Mr. C. BULLER said that much dissatisfaction had
been expressed at the result which had been arrived at
by the Committee on this subject, of which he (Mr.
C. Buller) was chairman, and the Honourable
Member for Northamptonshire was very witty
at their expense, but he (Mr. Buller) did not
See that the duties of a Committee were other
than this—to bring before the House and the country
a ma's of evidence which would enable the House to
come to a conclusion on this subject. It had
been said that the Committee had done no-
thing ; he maintained that they had done a great deal.
If he had acted upon the hints which had been made
to him with respect to the examination of all witnesses,
he believed the next Parliament, if it sat for seven years,
' would not see the end of the examination. The course
then which was adopted was, to make the best selection of
witnesses they could, and he would leave it to the House
to form its opinion of the judgment which had been
exercised in this respect. Another duty also was to
get as many practical men before them as they could,
and the Committee freely discussed resolutions which were
proposed for the alteration of the law. The Hon. Mem-
ber tor Stroud, the lion. Member for Leeds, the lion.
Member fa. Finsbury, and the lion. Member for Ro-
chester, severally brought forward plans, all of which
were rejeeted, with the exception of a portion of that
proposed by the Hon. Member for Stroud, which was
adopted by the Committee, and added t i the resolutions to
which they had come themselves. The conclusion to which
he had come, after a full investigation of the whole case,
was that the law of settlement and of removal should be
abolished. Ile had thought it dangerous to interfere
with that question, but he now believed that the law of
removal was injurious to all classes, and especially to the
industrious classes. After expressing this conclusion
he had no doubt as to the course which he should feel it
his duty to take with regard to the motio to re of the
lion.
Gentleman opposite. They were asked peath
Bill. The House last session ordered that the removal
of the poor man should not take place excepting under
certain circumstances. What would be the effect of this
repeal ? That the poor man who was not removed
last 3 ear would be liable to be removed next
year. Was the Committee to move the House to
bring to light a law of this nature? For the last fifteen
years the law had been against the poor. Under the
old law a poor mati could earn a settlement by hiring
himself in a district for a certain period. The Act of
the last session was humane and beneficent; but now
comes the lion. Member for Dorsetshire, and without
substituting anything better, he proposed to repeal
the only law which had tried to better the condition of
the poor in the last 15 years.
Mr. IIANKES replied. •
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority against the Bill
The other orders of the day were then .isposed o
and the Hcusc adjourned at Six o'clock.

Nelson

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY.)
Room A.
1:17 AT ERZ ORD AND LimmuciC.
Their Lordships met this day to hear evidence upon
this line, and decided that the preamble of the Bill had
passed.

the dh iesipr
CALEmin Room B.
EILANCTIES CANOIIIE.
T
alt,cuhrdosihripusblmicebtutshiinsed:.y, at the usual hour, for
The evidence wai again proceeded with, but was of a
wholly similar nature to that already given.

Room C.
STOUT/. 4.5.11.X.EY (No. X').
Mr. Robert Stephenson, C.E., engineer to the line, was
examined with respect to this line. The proposed line

would join the Midland branch at or near to Hales-
-1 Owen. It was a great advantage to the public to have
the main line cummunic,.ating with Stourbridge. as it
would give the means of a direct access with Birming-
ham. lie thought that the proposed line would be
ballasted in 24 or 25 days. By the proposed line
they would be enabled to combine with all the railways
to the north of Birmingham.
At the conclusion of the evidence of Mr. Robert'
Stephenson,
C. E., their Lordships adjourned till eleven
to- morrow.

Room D.
NEWPORT, .ABERGAVENNY, AND ItEILZ-
FOAD (EXTENSION TO Tarr VTJIEE).

This case came on before their Lordships at eleven
o'clock this morning. . _

Mr. TALBOT opened the case for the promoters of the
railway. lle proceeded to point out the advantages of
the line, and objected to the Taff Vale Company appear-
ing in opposition.
The Committee decided that the Taff Vale had a right
to appear, not against the general principle of the line,
but against the junction.
Mr. Merryweather was heard for the Taff Vale
Company.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.)
GROUP VI.

BRISTOL AND EXETER (TAUNTON AND
CASTLE CARY BRANCH, AND BLEADON
AND WELLS).
The Committee met at the usual hour, and were occu-
pied the whole of the day in hearing evidence on behalf
of the promoters of the line.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock till twelve
to-morrow.

GROUP X.
This Committee met at the usual hour ; Lord Clive in
the chair.

EASTERN COUNTIES (ILFORD TO TIL-

BURT POET AND SOUTHEND).
The opposition of the Thames Haven Company having
been closed, Mr. AUSTIN replied at considerable length.
The room was then cleared, and the Committee having
consulted for a few moments, strangers were re-ad-
mitted, when
The CHAIRMAN announced that the Committee had
decided that the preamble of the Bill was proved.
The Committee then adjourned.

GROUP XXX.
ALICUOLDIE (FROM LEEDS AND SELBY).
The Committee met at the usual hour.
Witnesses in favour of the Bill were examined during
he whole of the day.
The Committee adjourned till twelve to-morrow.

FOR.
Earl of Ellenborongh
Marquis of Exeter
Lord Saltoun
Viscount Canterbury
Earl Egmont
Earl Delawarr
Earl of Orford
Lord Bradford
Viscount Beresford
Earl Brownlow
Lord Brougham
Earl of Wilton
Earl of Eglintoun
Viscount Sydney
Bishop of Gloucester