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

.^S UN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENINer, JUNE 24, 1847.

EAST INDIA HOUSE.
The quarterly General Court of the Proprietors of
the East India Company was held yesterday, in Leaden-
ball.street, when

PDOLATRY IN .
Mr. POYNDER brought forward INDIA
his motion on the
annuity paid for the support of the idol worship of
Hindostan, which he insisted was equally inconsistent
with Christian duty and political interests. He believed
that there were none of those insuperable obstacles
interposed before this advantage, which the timid
Fad the. wavering were so ready to imagine.
If the Hindoos were once convinced of the
necessity of relying upon themselves for the
/support of their own superstitions much of the
mischief would be at once subdued, for, under the pre-
sent circumstances, the Indian priesthood relied on the
credit of their authority, and the moment it was seen
1 hat that authority was not backed by that supreme
p ower, which was evident throughout the whole of India,
it must cease. There was, therefore, no reason what-
es •er why the custom on which he spoke should not be
ttt iolished; he would, therefore, move
" That it appearing that the continued pecuniary
'al lowance to the Temple of Juggernaut (subject only to
a recent modification) proceeds upon the assumption of
A' pledge presumed to have been originally given upon
t'i .e conquest of Cuttack, and that the late recommenda-
ion of the Bengal Government for the continuance of
this money payment, under another form, appears to
require further consideration, it be referred to the Ho-
nourable Court of Directors to review the arguments for
the continuance of this annual payment, having special
reference to their own dispatch to the Bengal Govern-
twat of the 20th February, 1843."
The motion being seconded,
The CHAIRMAN said, that while the subject which had
been brought before the Court of Directors was allowed
tta be of the utmost importance, there were considerations
tvhich greatly impeded their active interposition, but the
Hon. Proprietor might be assured that no efforts would
be spared to accomplish that which would be for the
advantage of India; and that, under any circumstances,
the directors decided that, whatever might be the result,
at the proper time they would do their duty.
Mr. POYNDER said that, with this assurance, he was
satisfied, and would, therefore, withdraw his motion.
Mr. THOMPSON also begged to withdraw his motion
for the present, and he would therefore give notice that
he would bring it on at the next general court.
The motion was accordingly p,stponed.
RAILWAYS IN INDIA.

Dr. SULLIVAN then rose to move for the production of
the correspondence and memorials respecting railways
in India. In doing so he was exceedingly anxious to
avoid anything like reflection on the directors,
but the matter which ho had to submit was
of too much importance to be lightly passed
over, especially as the formation of railroads would
materially increase the prosperity of India, and the ex-
pense of their formation would be of butlittle cost to
the Company. In this particular respect India was be-
hind every other country in the world. In the case of
that prime necessary of life, the benefit to the Indian
residents from the formation of railroads would
be immense, for the inhabitants of the coast
had only to expose the sea water to the action
of the sun, and with but little care the sun
would perform the whole duty of evaporation,
and sublimation would be done by the sun. Then, with
regard to the article of cotton, the advantages of a rapid
transit were equally evident, for it was an indubitable
fact that the plains of India were competent to produce
the whole of the cotton that was necessary fur the
manufacturing demands of this country. He was per-
fectly satisfied, if the Court of Directors would for-
ward this object, that the districts in the neighbour-
hood of Madras would alone be sufficient for
the purpose. Cuba, and Jamaica, and New Bruns-
wick had all railroads, and the Mauritius, Ceylon, and
other colonies, were about to have them. Seeing then, that
there was no insuperable obstacle, and that the outlay
would be repaid, not only in the shape of an ample re-
turn to the revenue, and a large per centage to the
proprietors, he would, therefore, conclude with the
terms of the motion, of which he had give notice.
The motion having been seconded,
The CHAIRMAN said that he could assure the proprie-
tors that the directors were anxious in every way to for-
ward the object. Twenty years ago he had himself
written a treatise to show the value of the cotton culti-
vation in India. But if railways were made at all there,
Bengal, which is as well adapted for the cultivation
of cotton as the neighbourhood of Madras,
ought first to enjoy the benefit, especially as it
is the seat of Government, and, consequently, the
centre of intelligence for the territory of the Company.
He would not have the slightest objection to produce the
papers requested, but he deemed them quite useless until
some results had been produced. Of one thing, however,
he must remind the Hon. Proprietor, that money was
not exactly picked up everywhere, and that it required
considerable thought before any plan was adopted.
General BRIGGS said that this matter had been under
consideration for some thirty years or more, and that
it was now high time that they came to some conclusion
on the subject, for the advantage to the country was so
great and so evident, that the directors ought to proceed
immediately. If it were necessary at all to obtain any
evidence of the benefit that would arise from the forma-
tion of railroads, they had nothing to do but to refer to
the progress which had been made since the
formation of railroads in India. It was a singular, but
not the less a substantial tact, that before the formation
of railroads in India, it absolutely required no less than
4,200 men to convey one officer to the seat of govern-
ment; and at a subsequent period not fewer than 7,300
men to carry three officers to the coast. But what
would have been the case if a railroad had
been made in that direction. Then, again, with
regard to the cultivation of sugar, it was
well known that sugar is consumed in this country after
the rate of 61bs. per head, and that the price paid is from
fivepence to sixpence per pound, whereas if it was ob-
tained from India it would not cost more than from
threepence to fourpence per pound. India is at the pre-
sent moment a large sugar producing country, for it
supplies not only its own population, but the
whole of the countries both east and west of it for
a considerable: distance.? Persia, amongst others,
produced no sugar, and derived its whole supply from
India. The population of that country alone consumes
580,000 tons, the whole of which is obtained from their
own cultivation. For cotton and every other product
the advantages were equally manifest.
After some observations from Mr.Princep, Mr. Lewis,
Mr. Fielder, and Major Oliphant, all of them, excepting
Mr. Lewis, supporting the motion,
Mr. Sergeant GazeLEE said that it was ridiculous to
talk of the want of money for any great public object,
when he had himself that very morning, at the
Privy Council, seen a brief endorsed with 6,000 guineas,
and averse as he was to a profligate expenditure even in law,
it did appear to him a little too much to talk of the want
of funds fur a great public improvement which would
not only return a good per centage to the proprietors,
but add greatly to the revenue in the face of this fact.
Mr. HILL explained that the case alluded to by
the Learned Sergeant was a Crown appeal, in which it
was necessary to retain not only the Attorney and
Solicitor-General of the present Government, but also
those of the late Government, together with standing
counsel of the Company ; and that was the occasion of
the large expenditure.
Dr. SULLIVAN having replied,
The Court divided, when there appeared for the
motion 26, against it 17.
The other motion, for which notice had been given,
being withdrawn, the business concluded, and the Court
adjourned.

The Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England had a
committee meeting yesterday.
A MAN KILLED IN A FiGur.--Between eight and
nine o'clock yesterday morning, a man named John
Watson, a fishmonger, standing at the bottom of Vic•
toria-bridge, and another man named Bradley, had a
dispute in the Fish Market, about a shilling, which
the latter alleged to be due to him from the former.
From words they came to blows ; after they
had fought for a short time, they fell together
over some baskets of fish, but got up and renewed the
fight, taking hold of each other by the hair. Watson
then commenced " butting" at Bradley with his head;
and at the same time a man named Peter Swift, who
is in the employment of Watson, came up, and struck
Bradley a violent blow with his fist on the temple.
Bradley immediately fell down insensible, and he
expired as some of the bystanders were taking
him to the Infirmary ; indeed, before he was taken far
from the spot where the outrage occurred. Watson
ran off immediately that the deceased fell, and has
not yet been apprehended ; but Swift, who remained,
was apprehended by sub-inspector Dixon, who had been
informed that there was a fight in the Victoria Market,
and came up almost immediately after the occurrence.
Swift was brought up at the Borough Court yesterday,
when the above facts were given in evidence, and he was
remanded till this day. The father of Watson, at the
same time, promised that his son should be produced at
the sitting of the Court to-day.—Manchester Guardian.
IMPOSITION.—This week a respectable-looking old
man, who pretended to be a lecturer on " Philology and
the powers of the human mind," called upon several par-
ties in town, representing that he had engaged a public
room, and intended to deliver a course of lectures on the
above topics. A number of persons bought tickets, but
on their arrival at the room in which the lectures were
announced to be delivered in, they found that they had
been duped out of their money, the room never having
been taken for such a purpose.—Glasgow Post.
SALE OF TILE EQUESTRIAN STUDS OF THE MESSRS.
COOKE.—Yesterday the sale by auction of thirty-
horses, mares, and poneys, the property of Mr. T. T.
Cooke and Mr. A. Cooke, took place at Cooke's Royal
Amphitheatre, Mount-street ; Mr. Fullalove wield-
ing the hammer. There was a numerous attend-
ance of the fanciers of horseflesh ; the pit seats
being well filled, and a considerable number of per-
sons occupying the stage ; the animals being trotted
out and exhibited in the arena between the pit
and stage. Amongst the parties present were, Mr.
Batty, the well-known circus proprietor; a Mr. Dum-
bolton, of London, who is said to be in the same line;
and a number of horse dealers and proprietors of coaches,
&c., amongst whom may be named Mr. Suffiebottom,
of Liverpool; Mr. Ri3hardsen, of Salford; Mr. Green-
wood, of Pendleton ; Mr. Emanuel Ilird, and Mr.
Ilengler, of Manchester; Mr. Massey, of Altrincham,
&c. We understand that generally the animals
fetched good prices ; and that Mr. Batty was a
very considerable purchaser,—so that " the well-trained
trick horses " are not likely to forget what they have
learned. The whole of the harness of the two studs was
subsequently sold, and the day's sale did not close till
six o'clock. The extensive wardrobes, the muskets,
drums, &c., will be sold to-day ; and we are told it is
not unlikely that, ultimately, the Amphitheatre itself
will come to the hammer.—Manchester Guardian.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, June 23.

DALE V. HAMILTON.
The arguments in this part-heard appeal were then
resumed, and occupied the Court the whole morning.
This bill was filed by Mr. Dale, a surveyor and land
agent at Birkenhead, in the county of Chester, to enforce
an agreement by which he claimed to be entitled to a
third of the profits arising from the purchase of some
building ground in Princes-street, Camden-street, and
Lord-street, in the new town of Birkenhead. The de-
fendants pleaded the Statute of Frauds in bar of the
claim, but the Vice-Chancellor Wigram held that it did
not so operate. His Honour, however, directed issues to
try the facts, and both parties appealed against the order
of the court below.
The case appeared likely to occupy some days in
argument.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, June 23.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His Honour the Viee•Chancellor of England took
causes to-day, but no case of any public interest came
before his Honour during the morning.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His Honour was occupied the whole morning will
bankrupt petitions.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
DELMAN V. PERCEVAL.
The further arguments in this part-heard case occu-
pied the Court the whole day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 23.
HILTON V. LORD GRANVILLE.
This case was again resumed at the sitting of the
Court this morning, and witnesses on the part of the
defendant were called to show that it was not the cus-
tom in the duchy to remunerate the owners of houses
which might be injured by the working of mines below
them. and that the expense of repairing them fell in-
variably on the owners themselves.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES,
HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY.)
Room A.

WATERFORD AND LIDIERICIC.
Their Lordships met this day to hear evidence upon
this line, and decided that the preamble of the Bill had
passed.

Rochester (Mr. Bodkin), and the Hon. Member for
Bath (Mr. Roebuck), were members. He thought if
the Bill was to be altered from time to time—if clause
after clause was to be altered er 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. 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 Hon. Gentleman in the chair might now report the
Bill. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury,
had, he thought, introduced the clause for the purpose
of defeating the Bill.—(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. SPOONER 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 mouths.
The Committee 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 PECHELL 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 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
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. 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
advantage.
Sir ZPAKINGTON 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 of
one of the most valuable boons which had been conferred
upon them.—(Hear, hear.) He 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 Hon. 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, 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.
Ho begged to move, as an amendment, that the Bill be
read 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 tha 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 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 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, he be-
lieved the balance was much in favour of the poor, and
ho 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 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 bo 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 Hou>e, 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 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.
He believed that the law of last session had acted most

injuriously, and that the ratepayers of towns had been
great sufferers in consequence. It did not confer the
benefits which it intended, nor remove the evils which it

proposed 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 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 as 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 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 their

ancestors.—(Laughter.) He should, after a careful
examination of all the circumstances, give his vote for
the Bill of the Hon. 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. He hoped that lion. 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 be 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,
because 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 cass 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 lrish,"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 Hon. 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
House. 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 bad 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
majority of one, had determined that the resolutions
which they bad 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 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 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
time he held office. Ho 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 I,Boo,ooosouls, 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 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 ho 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 for Stroud, the Hon. Member for Leeds, the Hon.
Member for Finsbury, and the Hon. 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

adopled by the Committee, and added to the resolutions to
which they had come themselves. The conclusion to which

he had co-me, 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
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 Hon. 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. BANKES replied.
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For the second reading lO2
Against it
Majority against the Bill
HEALTH OF TOWNS BILL
Mr. HUDSON inquired when it was intended to pro-
ceed with the further consideration of the Health of

Towns Bill ?
Lord J. RUSSELL—I had intended to bring it on to-
, but if it will suit the convenience of Honour-
able bring it on on Friday.
to-
morrow,
rLor GordwenGtim.eßEe'n we
said that in thin case notice had
given it would not be brought forward this week.
ben
Believing such to be the case, several Hon. Gentlemen
had made engagements which would preclude them from
attending on Friday.
Lord J. RUSSELL hoped that no objection would be
made to Friday.
The matter then dropped.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Six o'clock.

The Judicial Committee of the Council sat yes-
terday, and heard a number of motions and petitions
from New South Wales, Bengal, and Bombay. The
Lords present were the Master of the Rolls, Lord
Brougham, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall,
and the Judge of the Admiralty Court.