The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-23 00:00:00

ettrti Witititon

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
SEDUCTION AND PROSTITUTION BILL
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
Mr. SPOONER said that the Hon. Gentleman who
had just sat down objected to the Bill because it was
not tairly within the province of legislation, but he (Mr.
Spooner) contended that this objection applied with
equal force to the suppression of every sort of crime.—
(No, no.) The Hon. Gentleman then entered into a
general defence of the measure, which he maintained
vt as called for by the wide-spread and lamentable crime
against which it was directed.
After a few words in explanation from Mr. ROE-
BUCK,
Mr. C. BERKELEY thought that this Bill would have
the effect of increasing rather than diminishing the
crime against which it was directed. He should, there-
fore. move that the Chairman report progress, and ask
leave to sit again, as he believed the Bill would never
effect the good anticipated from it.
Sir J. PAKINGTON urged most strongly upon the
Douse the propriety of proceeding with the Bill. The
objections made against it, on the ground of its not being
within the province of legislation, and of its opening the
door to cons piracy, were of no force, and should not weigh
for a moment against it.
The LORD ADVOCATE was of opinion that much
good might be done isy the Bill in its present shape, and
he would therefore give it his support. He thought that
in order to place a Bill of this sort upon a right footing
it was necessary to put the definition of the offence more
clearly, and with a better protection to those who might
be unjustly accused under its provisions.
After a few words from Mr. TRELAWNY, which
did not reach the gallery,
Mr. R. YORKE said that in his opinion it was the
province of the House to put down every abomination
that came under its cognizance, and therefore he came
with the intention of supporting the measure of the Hon.
Gentleman opposite; but on a revision of its enactments
he had come to the conclusion that it would give faci-
li;ies to ill-dispcsed persons to get up false charges
against persons who were perfectly innocent of them, and
yet afraid to repel them publicly, and taking that into
consideration he thought that the measure was not one
waich could be safely carried out, however good its
intentions might be.
Mr. BANK ES said that offences under this Act could
not always be proved when charged, for the previous
immorality of the accusing party was necessary to be
proved, and how was that to be done? Even though the
accusing party might be notoriously immoral, still the
proof of her misconduct might be wanting, and could
not be obtained.
After a few words from Mr. B. DENISON,
Mr. ROEBUCK objected to this measure, as throwing
upon every man in decent society a risk of accusation
which ho did not incur at the present moment. The
Bill would not prevent the evil it was intended to remedy,
but would merely give rise to another. Under the
provisions of this Act no one would be safe, from the
Archbishop of Canterbury downwards—nay, even the
Hon. Member himself. What remedy was there pro-
vided? None. Ia fact the accused was destitute of all
means of defending himself, while every facility was open
to the accuser.
Sir G. GREY said that considerations of great im-
portance had been urged against the last clause, upon
which they then were, and it was stated that the only
remedy was to reject it. To that course he would give
all the opposition in his power, as he thought that it
would be very unfair, after having assented to the mea-
sure so far.
Lord SANDON approved of the suggestions of the
Right Hon. Gentleman, and advised the Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Spooner) to adopt them.
Mr. BODKIN said the difficulty with respect to the
second clause could not be got rid of by its omission and
the substitution of another, owing to the difficulty
of reaching those who set the procurers and pro-
curesses in motion. He had had much experience
of the great extent to which the system was carried;
but still an innocent and respectable person was rarely
convicted by a jury of an offence unjustly imputed to him.
Mr. DUNCOMBE supported the clause as it stood.
Ile had proposed the insertion of the words in Com-
mittee; it was agreed to nemine contradicenti in
a Committee of which the Lord Advocate,
the Judge Advocate, the Honourable Member for
Rochester (Mr. Bodkin), and the Hon. Member for
Bath (Mr. Roebuck), were members. He thought it
the Bill was to be altered from time to time—if clause
atter clause was to be altered or expunged—that it
would be better to withdraw it altogether. The clause
which they wished to be expunged was the most
valuable part of the Bill, because it would reach those
who pandered to their base appetites.—(Roars of
laughter.)
Mr. SMONER 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 Hon. Gentleman in the chair might now report the
Bill. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury,
had, he thought, introduced the clause fur the purpose
ot defeating the Bill.—(Cries of " Order, order.")
Mr. DITSCOMBIi denied that he had been actuated
by any such motive. The clause was drawn up by the
H )nourable Gentleman himself, and he simply adopted
h;s words.
Mr. SPOONER replied that he drew up the clause at
the suggestion of the lion. Gentleman himself.
Mr. C. BERKELEY then moved, as an amendment,
that the report be brought up that day six mouths.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
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 PECHELL said that there had been no
ri medy 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 Attorneyllgneral, he could, if he did not
fear to wearffititt 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 Bill 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
aii4natures. (The lion. Member here read some ex-
tracts from a correspondence that had taken place on
t7iis question in support of his views.) lie trusted that
toe Hon. Member would succeed in his endeavours.
Mr. R. PALMER said that he felt bound to support
this Bill. He considered that the Bill would be of great
vantage.
Sir J. PAKINGTON could not agree with the Hon.
Gentleman. In his part of the country the Bill intro-
d,icel by the Right Hon. Baroaet 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 ce
one of the most valuable boons which had been conferred
upon them.—(Hear, hear.) He did not deny that
cases of hardship bad 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 Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes) were to refer
to the report of the Poor-law Commissioners for the
3 present year he would find that he was correct in saying
o that the law had been a great boon, and that where
hardships arose they were not attributable:to the law,
bet ce the guardisus 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 theneselves.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Such was the nature of the rumours which had reached
him. He hoped, however, that the Government in the
next session of Parliament would take the whole sub-
ject of the law of settlement and rate-paying seri-
ously into their consideration, and bring forward
measures for the purpose of amending them.
begged to move, as an amendment, that the Bill be
read a second time that day six months.'
The motion haysinaldr,in
been seconded,
Sir G. GREY
submitting the ground of his
objection to the Bill, he begged at the outset to say that
it was now his intention t o offer
position which he stated the Bill that op-
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 Billof
b last a sit t session,
which
wasbut
absolutely to repeal the very essence
One of the most valuable and important Bills that
had 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 No
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 is a parish for a given number
of years should nut be driven to another, and a
peehaps 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 with the support of those who had no claim
- upon them that the Bill was passed. The re-
movability of persons after a lengthened residence
in I 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 6, residence of ac

certain term. It had generally worked well he believed,
and he was glad to hear from the Hon. Baronet that it I
had worked well in his part of the country. Notwith-
standing the objections which had been made, he 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.
Friead bad 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 sub-
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 House, and
there seemed to prevail an opinion that an extensive
change in this law was necessary, by means
of a change in the area of rating. Sir
F. Pigot, before the Committee, stated that he
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 [louse, 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 consideratioa 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.
He believed that the law of last session had acted most
injuriously, and that the ratepayers of towns had
rbetene
great sufferers in consequence. It did not confer the
benefits intended, norhe should,remov
e pberonpeofistsedwitioichobivte therefore,ev'l s
which
supportcht
the motion of his lion. Friend.
After a few words in explanation from Sir JOHN
PAKINGTON,
Mr. SPOONER said he would not go into the question
whether the Bill was or was not a boon to agriculture.
His object in supporting the Bill of last session
was because he was of opinion that the parish
which received the benefit of the poor man's
labour should support him in his distress.
He adjured the House to put a stop to those evils which
had hitherto arisen in the larger towns by the repeal of
this Bill, which was not only injurious to the poor them-
selves, but also to those whose 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 us 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.
The 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 residence 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 igiven 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 their
ancestors.—( Laughter.) Ile should, after a careful
examination of ad the circumstances, give his vote for
the Bill of the lion. Member opposite.
Mr. RICE said he was very anxious that a gentle.
man who possessed considerable experience on this sub-
ject should be examined before this Committee. He had
a letter from that gentleman deprecating the principle
of non-removal. Ile hoped that Hon. Gentlemen would
agree with the motion of the Hon. Member for Dorset-
shire. He 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 bx necessary
for him to detain the House for any length of time.
Considering the merits of the question, he agreed
with the Hon. Member, who said that it did not matter
what was the principle of that Bill. He then expressly
stated that he did not propose any compensation,
tecause he was aware that if any such pro-
position were made, the Bill would have been
rejected. He 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 rich 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 mast
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-
mingham (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 lion. Members that the Act of last session bad
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
Ibuse. He 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 had 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
had 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 he 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
majcrity of one, had 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 :—First, that
the law of removal ought to be abolished ; and 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 affcrd 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 Hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith) who had
so well played the part of the young Member, would
give them his support. He 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 Hon. 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
compettimeenthouse,mightshowthatopinionhadworkedo persons
l
Mr. Hall, one of the Assistant Poor-law Commis-
sioners, whose district in London comprised a population
by the recipients OrferPojted that no complaints were made
of 1,800,000 souls
the law, and the eLek:
with respect to the working of
complaintsdiminisi of the ratepayers were few,
Ityhe Bill of the lion,
into
he he believed that the
paanadainrgapoidf
Gentlemanthtehors
iwltloeul
hisd throwm o
most
the state of the law
he could not hesitate t 0
00mplete confusion,
course he
should pursue. ne should
strenuous support, and hoped that
would reject by a large majority silo proposition
House
which
he considered a most dangerous one.

—Mr. MILES said he had heard it stated that Mr. H
all
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. gap, 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 lion. Member for Dorset-
shire, that it would afford great benefits to the rate-
payers, whale 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 he saw no such prospect, he hoped that
his Hon. 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 mass 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 lion. Mem-
ber for Stroud, the Hon. Member for Leeds, the lion.
Member for Finsbury, and the lion. Member for Ro-
chester, severally brought forward plans, all of which
were rejected, with the exception of a portion of that
proposed by the Hon. Member for Stroud, which was
adopted by the Committee, and added to 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. He 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 motion of the Hon.
Gentleman opposite. They were asked to repeal the
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 year 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 man 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 any thing better, he proposed to repeal
the only law which had tried to better the condition of
the poor in the last 15 years.
Mr. BANKES replied.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading lO2
Against it
Majority against the Bill -3
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Six o'clock.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Room A.
WATERFORD AND LIMERICK.
Their Lordships met this day to hear evidence upon
this line, and decided that the preamble of the Bill had
passed.

Room B.

CALEDONIAN BRANCHES TO CANODIE.
Their Lordships met this day, at the usual hour, for
the dispatch of public business.
The evidence was again proceeded with, but was of a
wholly similar nature to that already given.

Room C.
STOUR VALLEY (No. II).

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-
owen. It was a great advantage to the public to have
the main line communicating with Stourbridge, as it
would give the means of a direct access with Birming-
ham. He thought that the proposed line would be
ballusted 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 1).
NEWPORT, A BERGAVENN V, AND HERE-
FORD (EXTENSION TO Tarr VALE).

This case came on before their Lordships at eleven
o'clock this morning.
Mr. TALBOT opened the case for the promoters of the
railway. lie proceeded to t oint 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.
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.