The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-24 00:00:00

LES'S

IMP ERIA 1.4 PAI LA ITEN T•
The HOUSE OF LORDS, July 23.
'sok a, LOAD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool-
)4s Five o'clock. precisely.
IiAGE FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
do as
''ngere from the House of Commons brouelit
certain Bills.
i
Le--,4 1 HUDSON AND THE BRE AK OF GAUGE.
teaol, RATHERTON said that their Lord-nips would
r(lieit that a discussion had taken place in their
tioilssBiPs Rouse on the subject of the gauge resolu-
'te and be wished to make an explanation upon the
e
al,
the b On that occasion he wade some comments on
b re
qt.had of gauge which happened at Glouc- ster.
been since informed that Mr. Hudson
• nothingth whatever to do with that event,
the b. at he had nothing whatever to do with
to
enreeng
itprßristol
line, and had never
;
Glohtti: to
b once. He had, theref
ti.eat pleasurester
ut
in making this retractation ore:
M t
whoa: servatiots with regard to
Sir. Hudson, for
conduct he had a very great respect.
Nhlie-- "B°° had even been characterised in his
kith ecohduct by the utmost liberality and good
LTattoos uut he did not mean to retract. his obstehe
it% to the effect that the inc..nvemence of
korti
I:cautkeermof
4it °Ol euage were very e really exaggerated. _
The'llEA-T WESTERN RAIL WAY COMPANY.
Railwaydr WELLINGTON presented a petition
lOt liartnell, complaining of the conduct of t
thComiesny, who had, in construct-
a_l44 fee& 4,8°1'11 line, entered upon eis property,
me htd-seil to give him any satisfaction whatever..ht.
tett
or received two notices to quit, but no noticew a
b snthe,affixing a price upon his property, so that he.
rspe• ep-" deprived not only of the enjoyment of his
Nice, but of the money which ought to have been
ektliiiti)ere„4' 110 (the Duke of Wellington; thought that,
NtlieBt-ug the great power which had been conferredhhave
Ilandp,greitt companies, they ought at least to a
Loekid themselves without such trespass as this. _He
i7B no themselves
without naming the company who
Nte°,-I,B3ltted what he could not but call this outrage—
""e Great Western Company.
kattee Earl
; CLARENDON felt anxious to put the
lise of
•ti its Cooper point of view, he having been chair-
-140 the Committee when this line had been passed,
had conceived it then to be a case of great
Itits 11:, and he had provided for the evil, but he
initt,l,at all aware of the trespass that had. been
fohtes° -
yet believed that if this poor man were
O eetaa.rie`ht in- his 'neighbourhood, he would be able
ages- an action for trespass, and would obtain
1?1 411
111101IGHAM was very glad that his Noble
Setdri
„brought forward this case, for it really was
L'Oe-Th!ni bearing that those great companies should.
i'lleeeen'tipower to. act as they chose. Last session,
ig the petition of a certain noble lady, he had
N:3' Properly instructed. to bring the case of this
payunder their Lordships' notice, and it was one
I:3' great hardship. The fact was, my Lords, that
/IN 411 Way speculators might come on the land at any
theY
chose, and the. owner was prevented from
Nib, his land or improving it, or even using it in his
bie4B as a nursery gardener. As for a tresspass, the
Probability is, that if this poor man were to bring
hie
'cin,all the jurors being railway proprie.tors,. he
kklig,:ertainly not obtain even the costs out of pocket,
104 Mess get any damages for the injury he had
tti. VIVIAN had always felt that this long time
the railway companies to come on the land was a
Uta,,` and in the London and York Committee,
4h ranch discussion, he had succeeded in obtaining a
4 on of the time specified in the Bill from seven
A to five years
Duke of GRAFTON q,iite agreed in the neces-
r curtailing tbe powers of the great companies.
8 Petition was ordered to lie on the table.
SLAVE TRADE DISCUSSION.
elie-e';IIROUGHA.M begged to give notice to their
;IPs, that in consequence of observing that the
ethethe sugar duties was to be brought on in
Zit 1;1' Place to-morrow, he would beg to give notice
Zit
88110111 d postpone his motion respecting the slave
1 tell to•morrow week.
Itis •
ether rs of LANSDOWNE wished to know
qui
his Noble Friend read intended to bring on
tat his
then ? y
BROUGHAM—Of course, it would much de-
t of 411
-VII the turn the matter tookl in another ace,
ith a
OP 4 Postponed it until the Bill came up from the
tb p,l,isocie
othfetrobabsiiolinty was, that it would be at so
that there would be a very
I:44,tbithiledrketifee of Ise?: Lordships., and whether decided
te.kor ore, he should certainly bring on the sub-
row week.
POLISH CONFISCATIONS.
;41 puord t
b SUO '
--o NE stated, in reference to a ques-
itanibira)? his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord
liscOes ahi 4 reference to the unfortunate =cum-
tsio...lnforril_ch had occurred in Poland, that be
he subject of the
"'5 question, and found thatford's no in-
Qtr, aeon
had
question, an
iskernin uad been received from the Austrian
rued But authentic information had been re
(171fr02,4,81. eemujest ,'s Government from time to time,
(`itere; `uut inform)ation it appeared that tbe Austrian
pd Lent had every disposition to leniency. He
1,711 le. -Bhsdowne) could only say that if any one bad
'etioe,,""voluntarily involved in the unfortunate occur-
eNt ihthitt had taken place in Poland, he had no doubt
'°113.-"c Austrian Government would do them reason-
LoAtstiee.
itlformtcl RCIUGFIAM expressed his gratification at the
l• i 4,4011 he had received, and strongly condemned
°"sh insurrection.
t 0,,, CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
LYNDUURST intimated that he. had met
k the Right Reverend Prelate who interpose
Parraeveittoriums setiaeaonfthis Bill, and they had agreed on
comna
he now asked the House to go
ittee prod
forma, that these amendments might
it,l;,lttiecuoropuosrea.ted witn the others that had been made in
-elle stated that he understood her
iteeirt,s.ts's present Ministers bad intimated their
laril eon
L. adopt the measure as a Go-
kith Measure. If they adopted that mea-
os win whole,
and without change, he would go
l'hlrriltettiltit' hoping to have the support of the Go
e Lord .'°lllfl LANSDOWNE said that the Government
The°,,,P,nevery facility for the progress of the measure.
"18110 P of LONDON said there were several
f
the 'lrt Points hi the Bill, especially the supremacy o.
4.9,, • as n, and the introduction of bulls into this coun
Zdile," Ile begged, on behalf of his reverend brethren
'4on-self, that the Bill should be postponed to another
.
'•
°A.LIMONT could not help expressing his
1441 d bir at the course pursued by the Right Rev. Prelate
e+cti4e- brethren. The question had been before the
:ttty- „..now three years. The Right Rev. Prelate on
ell occasion of its being introduced had. . spoken
".°ll, and had had opportunities of dividing the
i
%Id °a it. The two questions, the supremacy o
Nkt• ioe• r,,,° and the introduction of bulls, had been
I,t the and every objection met by the Learned. Lord,d
'lttiee-e'ght Rev. Prelate wished to have it postpone
ipla-eeer session.
t!h 44one l'ilishoP of LONDON explained, and said his
br„,,or wishing it postponed was the absence of
'4lcll "rea on official duties, the discharge of
Al it occupied the whole of their time.—(Hear.)
,itisrk„t_PPered to him it would affect the oath which the
Zilq,„"'lty he did hope that they would postpone the
"etl3.."`°n, as it affected the interest of his right rev.
. elk
ibrdprismnußsT said he had nothine to complain
desires4l° Manner the discussion was carried on. He
lets t 1
that their Lordships would allow him to go
0 uttuaittee pro forma, in order that he might have
ONPPOrtunity of printing those amendments which had
bd
with
to by him and the Right Reverend Prelate,
st ra''th which he expressed himself quite satisfi.d,
811 48t Buy that he was quite unprepared now for any
he House then went into Committee pro forma.
t ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR BILL.
pOwIS moved the third reading of this Bill,
i.eh was agreed to and passed.
LIVERPOOL, PRESTON, AND ORMSKIRK
RAILWAY.
41,1412,!:)rd STANLEY said he had a petition from the !ti-
ttles-Ms of Ormskirk in favour of the Liverpool, Preston,
Prrnskirk Railway. Their case was one of peculiar
tort i:1,111). The Bill had been now before Parliament
th " Years. The company had petitoned to in
140%11111 early in January ; they did so early
.in the
thdth of February. In June, the parties being all
t,f) Proceed, the House of Commons interfered,
•tht,;" `"day of four months was thereby occasioned.
4,4' want into Committee e4rly in the month of Juhne,
tilsyNiltici in the month of July it was reported t
Frio tlia; complied with all the standing orders. On
Lateitie communication was made which led to a
''„,%tPolili".°7, and the consideration of the report was
e-roth th %It'll the 9th. On the 10th of the same
4,.‘"e nee:, was engrossed, but in consequence of
k""geth-j the t)fficers the sheets were not stitched
-"°'• h :/I.° aconside;able delay was occasioned.
f these accidents happeued, not one
wc
°Ye 3.oned by the neglect ot the parties,
154,;ae ill would chaaysle already received their Lordships'
keiPerties filhearStp-onenaent of this Bill would involve
Biieilents were to
r next seseion, they would be pre-
expens Postponement
60,000/. ; and if the same
sameace would ata k°
position
ryie.ehadr af,lrthaheya:snizrnia7t.
oonb lne
hime next,
:a4.lstit,?:,.„;:uldnisastNki
h had passed the
and ascertain
e4d retai 'l'l.l there might ttoe
in the other House, and were stopped
thatby
I:lll()teeeePetten°_,--ar circumstances of the regulations of
u see hew many of them might, without much
laotellienee, be itted, and got throu:h the
Bioe 8° as to have as remnants left for next sea-
tte r 41 Possible
t3/4 decd BROUGHAM conceived that some plan should
, Millar to that of the last session, and that
/ttiße„,'gbtful expense mi h, be saved to the par i
Ztel:Cieti°ll,, had been made that three Peers should be
°We' a for Committees, but considering the great
er- %'?tieh were delegated to those Committees, and
,lions‘-twilling the House were to set aside their deci-
'4tebe ct thought there were important reasons why. the
knot II') of five should be continued. Some provision
tolde to the effect which he had suggested.
'° ho -84 of CLARENDON said that he had bad
.khis of receiving :everal parties connected
hope
abi it 413 Rouse would depart from the resolutions which
Pted. But this was a case of very great hard-
the',.\ and if it could be overruled by. any means, he
fs,-tug.'t tho.t course ought to be adopted. The Bill, in
been read a second time on Monday.
the gill IA BtiouOllAM and Lord STANLEY explained that
L, only)rd sto. d fur a second reit:tin:T.
RH°ughDESDALE thought that their Lordships
Yep-'m
to commit the same error which they did last
/"..,111st of preferring one line to another ; for it

of F116:114
osod
This 13,11140
[er "hc
given d-k
le ten o{
af
agonw- 0
t, she Alva.
e tend to
-es WO of
)resencter
• and
e greatu

should be recollected that they were all competing lines.
He said that the public suffered much from imperfect
yst,,ms, passed under particular favour. He said it not
with any disrespect of his Noble Friends, who had been
OG the Committee ; but he did say that there were not
two less periect schsmes than those two which he had
enjoyed the honour of bringing up.—(Hear, hear.) These
schemes could not have been constructed on the Bills
which had been passed ; the Bills were being amended
and patched up, and indeed new Bills altogether would
have to be drawn up. lie hoped the House would keep
strictly to the rules which had been laid down; and,
though it might be a hardship, their keeping strictly to
a day beyond when no Committee should be appointed
would only prevent greater hardship in a future year.
Lord BEAUNIONT thought it would have been more
convenient the Noble Lord had not entered into dis-
cussion on that occasion, as the Government bad given
notice of their intention to lay these measures before
the House to morrow. But he could not allow the
House to go away under the idea that the Government
agreed with all that fell from the Noble Lord. He
tln,ught it would be a monstrous grievance, if in a case
which was purely voluntary, as the rising of the House
was, their Lordships inflicted on parties who came into
that House with private Bills the necessity of renewing
the whole progress.
Lord STANLEY thought that it would be convenient
if a list of private Bills, and the stages at which they had
arrived. were laid before the House.
Earl GREY assented.
GLASGOW TERMINI BILL.
On the motion of Lord HARDWICKE, this Bill was
read a third time and passed.
The Balls on the table having been forwarded a stage,
their Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 23.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.
Mr. Wu..u.tx BROWN was introduced by Mr. Bro-
therton and Mr. Thornely, and took the oaths and his
seat for South Lancashire, in the room of Lord Francis
Egerton, now Earl of Elb-smere.
GLASGOW, AIRDRIE, AND MONKLANDS

JUNCTION RAILWAY.
Mr. DENNISTOUN moved that the Lords' amend-
ments to the Glasgow, Airdrie, and Monklands Junc-
tion Railway Bill should be considered and agreed to.
Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE trusted that the consi-
deration of the amendments would be postponed for a
fortnight.
After a short discussion the amendments were
agreed to.
ELY AND HUNTINGDON RAILWAY (BED-
FORD EXTENSION).
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
LORDS AMENDMENTS.
The Lords amendments to the following Bills were
agreed to --
Blackburn and Preston Railway.
Blackburn, Clitheroe, and North Western Junction

Railway.
Black Sluice Drainage and Navigation.
Grand Junction Railway (lluyton and Aston and other
Branchee).
Lancaster and Carlisle Railway (Extension to the Cale-
donian Railway), and Lancaster and Preston Junction
Railways Amalgamation.
Leeds, Dewsbury, and Manchester Railway Deviations
and Branches.
London and Brighton Railway (Wandsworth Branch).
Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Rail-

way, &c., Amalgamation.
Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Rail-
way (Peak Forest and Macclesfield Canal Purchases).
Tenby, Saundersfoot, and South Wales Railway.
REPORTS.
The following reports were brought up, agreed to, and
the Bills ordered to be printed
Australian Agricultural Company.
Barr's Estate Bill.
Fleeming's Estate Bill.
Londonderry and Enniskillen Railway.
North Kent Railway (City Extension).
Park's (or Yates') Estate Bill.
Phiip's Charity Estate Bill.
Sligo and Shennon Railway.
Stamford and Spalding Railway.
DUBLIN WIDE STREETS.
Mr. GROGAN moved the order of the day for the
further consideration of the report on the Dublin Wide
Streets Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL moved that the further considera-

tion of the report should be postponed for a week, in
order that the evidence that had been taken before the
Committee might be printed and laid on the table of the

House.

_
Mr. GROGAN would have no objection to the propo-
sition of the Hon. and Learned Member, !provided it
would not have the effect of defeating the m easure al-
tugrtlier. It was admitted on all hands that same altera-
tion of the law was necessary, aid the Comm ittee were
unanimous in favour of the Bill.
Mr. ESTCOURT supported the Bill.
Mr. P. SCROPE trusted the House would consent to
the postponement of the consideration of the report, in
order that the evidence might be printed.
After some observations from Mr. BRoTNEATOS and
Captain JONES,
Sir W. SOMERVILLE trusted the House would not
read the Bill a third time until the evidence had been
printed and laid before it.
After a few words from Mr. O'Commr..i. and Mr.
GROGAN in explanation,
Mr. LAT3OUCFIERE said there were important
public considerations mixed up with this Bill, and he
was therefore an advocate for its postponement. It ap-
peared to him that the whole subject of land taxation
in Dublin required to be fully inquired into, and the
Bill ought to be delayed till such an inquiry had been
instituted. It would seem that the late Government
had given their sanction to this Bill, but the Noble Lord
who had formerly been connected with the Irish office,
he was glad to see was in his place. and h e should be
happy to know from him if any member of ti mt depart-
ment had given his sanction to the measure.
Lord LINCOLN said the Bill certainly was brought
under the consideration of the Irish office, but it was
before he became connected with that department. He,
hoe ever, on taking office as Secretary for Ireland, did
look into the provisions of the Bill, and certainly his
inquiries did not lead to thy" conclusions which the Right
Hon. Gentleman stated he had come to.—(llear, hear.)
Lord WORSLEY said it really appeared to him that
it was highly desirable that the House shoeUld have the
evidence of the Committee in their possession before
they passed this Bill.
Lord LINCOLN said, since he had addressed the
House he had made some inquiries relative to the
question of the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite,
and he had ascertained that an application was made to
his predecessor to introduce the Bill, but he declined
doing so because he thought it came within. the scope of
a private Bill.—(Rear, hear.)
The consideration of the report was adjourned.
EDINBURGH PAVING BILL.
Mr. GIBSON CRAIG moved that Standing Orders
Nos. 110, 114, 116, 117, and 134 and 135, with the reso-
lutions of 3d April and 10th June last, in reference to
the last men'ioned order, be suspended ; and that the
Edinburgh Paving (No. 2) Bill be read a secont time ;
that a breviate thereof be dispensed with ; and that the
said Bill be committed to the Chairman. of the Com-
mittee of Ways and Means, and the Members appointed
to bring in the same, with leave to meet to -morrow, at
one o'clock.—Agreed to.
LONDONDERRY AND ENNISKILLEN RAIL-
WAY EXTENSION.

Prince
o
by - ti„o.
~ the PivcleColonei
oot,
de
troneen
n garret
"u
and
Duke 0
Visc°,ll
GeorOcil,
Lana,
ount
of i'L
AUG
Don VT
r Hon.
r.
'llon•
, Ecc.

militarf
t borrib.lB
NI W.
if'
[al whyta
)st brat"'
Is of caseiA
e founa
ave lately
excessil
have nn
been, but
official re'
n -chief of
ehment
an
)sue;
le hurniwg
when
re-
rva ce
lost.° ;
litY h"
,tber
to o
lication v
cur effort:t
opeo4
,OYES.

Sir ROBERT FERGUSON moved that the standing
order bo suspended, and that the report on. the London-
derry and Enniskillen Railway Extension Bill be taken
into consideration to. morrow —Agreed to,
POOR REMOVAL BILL..
The Marquis of DOURO presented two petitions
against this Bill.

- • -- r.
Tli SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, JULY 24, 1846.

from those places where they had resided for years, to
strange parishes where they were unknown. He held in
his hand a petition, signed by the clergyman and two
ratepayers of a parish, in which a number of labourers
had settled themselves. They had built houses on a
waste common, and worked at an ironworks in the
neighbouring parish. They spent all their money in the
parish in which they had settled, and were of consider-
able benefit to it, and in case of their being made charge-
able, their living there would more than compensate for
a few individuals being left on the parish. He therefore
wished that the Government would keep the law in its
present state, and make no alteration at all.
Mr. E. BECKETT DENISON said that no person
was more convinced than he was of the necessity of some
alteration in the law of settlement. It was a disgrace
to England; for poor people were sent away to all parts
of the kingdom, as if they were criminals. It was very
hard that persons having spent the greater part of their
lives in one place should, in their old age, be removed to,
another, where they had no friends. In the year 1843
in the borough of Leeds, there were 964 persons removed
from it ; of these, six had spent their lives there, and
six had passed forty years. He had no difficulty in de-
nouncing as inhuman, and a scandal upon the nation,
that those parties should be removed in that manner to a
place where, perhaps, they had never been before. What
would be the consequence if the Bill before the House
passed, and that no person would be removed after a re-
sidence of five years? Why, these 900 persons would
remain iniLeeds, and there would be an enormous burden
and responsibility inflicted on that town. Look, then,
what would be the effect of the present measure if it
now, in July, in 1846, passed the House. He must,
therefore, call upon the House to consider the responsi-
bility which the present measure would put upon the
manufacturing towns. He was not adverse to the law
of irremovability, but this was a monstrousjump, and he
asked the House, and the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Secretary of State, to be upon their guard, and not to
deal lightly with the question. With respect to the
hardship of a parish being obliged to maintain parties
who had no other claim but industrial residence, he did
not think that of the slightest importance, for he thought
when these parties earned and spent their money in that
parish they had a claim upon relief if they required it.
He hoped the Committee on the Bill would take the
whole matter into their consideration, together with the
law of settlement, and that the House would not
rush hastily into a new system of legislation which
might be attended with the worst results.
Mr. G. BANKES felt great difficulty in giving
his opinion on this subject, when he saw so much
diversity of opinion amongst those for whom he
entertained the greatest respect, and who, as chairman
of quarter sessions, had been able to obtain a practical
experience of the working of the present law, and the
probable working of the Bill under discussion; but,
after all, he still held the opinion he expressed when
the measure was introduced, and although it stopped
far short of what he considered a proper arrangement of
the question of settlement, yet looking at the Bill,
which only contained seven clauses which were not ob-
jectionable, he could not consent to postpone the discus-
sion of the subject until a future day. It was true addi-
tions might be made in Committee, but in its present
form he considered it would confer great benefit upon
the poorer classes, imperfect as it was. He was of
opinion that the right of settlement should be conferred
by a residence of five years. The poor would derive
consolation from the knowledge that such a Bill was en-
tertained, and was likely to be adopted by the House.
He wished to ask the Attorney-General this question,
which he considered was a very important one—whether
it was the intention of the Bill, for so it seemed as it
stood, to allow a man to choose his settlement? If this
were so, he doubted whether it would benefit
the poor ; and whether he would have power
hereafter to return to the settlement to which he
was now entitled? By the Act, it seemed that all
power of removability was taken from magistrates.
The poor man had not the means of removing himself ;
and, looking at the constitution of the Bill, he doubted
of the power of the magistrates to interfere to order a
removal. He doubted whether they would be conferring
any benefit at all on the poor man if they proceeded
with the Bill is its present shape, without any explana-
tion of this point. He should support the going into
Committee, with the distinct understanding that when
in Committee he should, in the first clause, propose
words whereby the poor man might gain a settlement
by an industrial residence of three or five years ; or, if
he preferred it, he should have the option of going back
to his original settlement. In that case they would be
conferring a benefit on the poor man; but if they gave
him no option, he doubted whether benefit would be
conferred. He would go into Committee entirely on
this understanding. He differed altogether with the
Hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr.
B. Denison) regarding union settlement, and he thought
the present Government had acted prudently in with-
drawing that portion of the measure for the present
session. His present opinion was, that if the range of
settlement was to be altered, they had better have a
county instead of a union settlement.—(Hear, hear.) In
that shape the proposition might advantageously be
adopted. With these observations, he would decline to
vote for the motion of his Hon. Friend near him, and
should vote for its goiug into Committee.
Mr. EVELYN DENISON said that he had great
objection to the Bill as it at present stood. The lion.
Gentleman on the opposite side of the House stated his
belief that the Bill would be of no avail unless it were
followed by a Bill for the union settlements, and that if
it were followed by that measure it would be of benefit.
The Noble Lord on his (Mr. E. Denison's) side of
the House, on that observation, quoted his Hon Friend
opposite as an authority for the Bill, but declined fol-
lowing it by such a measure as the union settlement;
and he (Mr. E. Denison) considered that, under those
circumstances, his Hon. Friend ought not to have been
quOted at all as an authority for the Bill. He believed
that the effects of the Bill would be very injurious to
the ratepayers, and would be certainly calculated to
cause great injustice to the poor. He therefore earnestly
entreated his Hon. Friend not to press the Bill this pre-
session.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he did not by any means consider the Bill as a per-
manent measure. The present law of settlement, as it
existed, was a great hardship, and he thought that any
legislation which would destroy that law, and the re-
moval consequent upon it, was a measure for the benefit
of the poor.
Mr. HENLEY said he would support the Bill if he
thought it would stop removals, but he did not think it
would do so, and as he thought it was a most imperfect
measure, ho must support the amendment for a. post-
ponement. They might. pass the Bill this session, but
it would not set at rest the question of settlement, and
the matter would have to be mooted and re-opened,
whatever course they took, early in the next session.
Mr. HORSMAN felt strongly the difficulties which
Government had to
contend against, and it was the feel-
ing which would induce him to vote for the postpone-
ment of this poor-law settlement. When the Govern-
ment came into office, he anticipated that they would
have abandoned this Bill, but he had been mistaken.
True, they had abandoned part of the Bill, but he thought
the measure ought not to be considered piece-meat., and
he must, therefore, vote against the Government.
Sir J. GRAHAM had not the slightest doubt that
this portion of the original Bill would be of inestimable
value, and he was prepared to proceed with it. While,
however, he said this much, ho must admit that there
would still remain a good deal to be done. It would,
indeed, in justice to the ratepayer, be indispensably
necessary next session to establish the right of union
settlement, but still he must repeat he was prep a red to
go on with that portion of the original Bill now before
the House.--(Hear, hear.)

•
Mr. V. SMITH thought the speech of the Rig' ht Hon.
Baronet opposite was of itself sufficient ground for the
postponement of this important matter. The. Right
Hon. Baronet admitted that even if they passed Ithe Bill
as it now stood, there would still remain much to be done
before the question would be satisfactorily settlecL.
The House then divided, when there appeared
For the amendment
Against it 11:
Majority against it — -76
The original motion was then agreed to, raid the
House went into Committee on the Bill.
, On the first clause being prOpoped,
Capt. fWPEIELLAiofftd as an amendment, tha E.in line
_seven, after the wee-a ~parish,". be inserted th e= words
who has maintained himself therein by his indult, try, or
been a householder therein." The Right Hon. Flaronet
the late Premier, admitted that the settlement (yught to
be an industrial one, and he apprehended, there fore, the
fight Hon. Baronet's party could have no obj e ction to
his amendment. The present Government, 11 owever,
he inferred, from their omitting the words he ,p roposed
thought the amend [tient was
to be introduced, did object to it, but if the y would
o had been undertake to introduce it into the larger measu re to be
nisdeitr the
brought forward next Session, he wouldennorateprl
Sir GEORGE GREY
a parish for a perio 41 of five
operationunnecessary,in-
dustriouslye engagedtbbei csaßu ari/
imtnhuoss
must
whobe
p wouldies w h

years.
Mr. V. SMITH considered that, from the an ;miner in
which property was distributed in this counts y, there
would be considerable difficulty in carrying out, the pro-
visions of this Bill. He hoped some words 4) r clause
would be inserted to make the present measu re one to
Pulls raent the
refer to industrial residency. Np !lon. Menai rer could
define the meaning of the word ' residence," and he
thought it would not be right to leave durin g the in-
tervalmag.strate, L It was
which would be
no jo • ke to leave this matter settled by these
fore wished the
magistrates. He therefore wished term residence
solution o of
f thisthe
difficulty and
tnoexetousne
tstrsoyi session of ;
used in the Bill to be defined.
putM uponr. hidtentnhee, I:olneathneing
Queen's Bench or
Common PleAs, would be that it was constru e tive resi-
HEtNhLEwYortdhoruegs
dence referred to in the Bill, and not actual rest ;,dente.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, after having given i t the most
mature consideration, and had the advice of th 49 law ad-
visers, he had thought it right to withdraw the words
which he had inserted after first proposing the Bill.
There was an immense difficulty in settling this question.
Any attempt at definition would lead only to cavil, and
he thought it was the best mode to allow the we trd to re-
main as it stood for so long a period. There; was no
doubt that the word "residence" in the Act r ei.erred to
an industrial residence. This was a term w ell,-4known
to the laws of Scotland, but was not known t o the laws
of England. In amending in the last session of Parlia-
ment a Scotch Act, in which the word was u nderstood
as referring to an industrial restlence, the 14 !gislature
had not, however, thought fit to alter the term o r attempt
to define it ; they left it in precisely the sam e form as
before. He thought that the chairmen of qu aster ses-
sions would have no difficulty, in the exercis e 'of their
discretion and judgment, in determining w, 'it 3 form
of residence was referred to by the terns named
in the Act. He hoped, therefore, the House 't'o uld ad-
here to the usual term, and not introduce into. t he Act
a term unknown to the laws of this country.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL perfectly ceAcurred