The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-31 00:00:00

that the Poor-law Commission, when first established,
was to have become a temporary board fur the purpose
of establishing a 'poor-law throughout the country. That
system hail proved to be so cru le, harsh, and ill digested,
that it was found necessary to alter it in every succeeding
session of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that
the system now proposed was capable of much improve-
ment, but he accepted it as an instalment to the poor,
and would accordingly vote in support of it.
Mr. EWA RT slid he was one of those who were very
strongly in fav-ur of the principle of this Bill, but he
did not agree entirely with the remarks of the Hon.
MemlaA. for Salford. ile regretted not to see the Noble
Lord the Member for Liverpool in his place, nor the
ocher Hot. and Gallant Member for that town, because
he could have wished to have made some remarks in
reference to the heavy manner in which this Bill would
op rate on the ratepayers of Liverpool. His Honour-
able Friend the Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment, if he had not already, would very soon
eceive a deputation from the rate-payers of that town,
1 complaining of the hardships which this Bill would
entail upon them. He had made these observaions to
the House because he considered it his duty.
Sir W. JAMES said that this Bill would also press
very heavily upon the rate-payers of Hull, which be
had the honour to represent. He believed tha it would
at least double the rates in Hull and Liverpool. He
would, however, give his support to the measure, hoping,
at the same time, that the Secretary for the Home De-
partment would be prepared with some more well-con-
sidered plan in the next session.
Mr. WRIGHTSON regretted that the Government
should persist in pressing this Bill forward at the very
moment that they had pledged themselves to take the
question of settlement into consideration, for the purpose
of introducing a more comprehensive measure during the
next session of Parliament. He considered the Bill to
be objectionable on many grounds, and would withhold
his support from it.
Captain PECHELL said this Bill was a most ill-con-
sideretd piece of legislation. One of the main features of
the Bill was the rich harvest it would bring to the lawyers.
The litigation .which would ensue before the next ses-
sion of Parliament, from the provisions of this Bill,
almost induced him to agree in the amendments of the
Hon. "Member for Dorsetshire, as he believed that they
would preclude a great deal of the inconveniences which
were likely to arise.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD did not regard the
present Bill as it affected the interests of town and coun-
try, but merely as it affected the interests of the Bill.
He would support the Bill.
The Bill was then read a third time.
Mr. HUME said, that before any further steps were
taken, it would be advisable to hear what were the.
amendments proposed to be made on the Bill.
On the motion that the Bill do pass,
Mr. BANKES rose, and moved the following clauses:
—" That if any person, upon examination by the jus-
tices to whom application may be made for an order for
his or her removal to a place of previous settlement,
shall si_anify to the said justices his or her consent
thereto, then it shall be lawful to remove such person to
the place of his or her previous settlement, although
such person may have resided for the five years last pre-
ceding in the parish from which such person is so re-
moved. And it is hereby declared, that nothing in this
Aot contained,shall have the effect of, restraining magis-
trates from acting and adjudicating in respect of orders
of removal, where such removal shall be applied for and
adjudicated upon with the consent of the person who is
the subject of such order."

Sir G. GREY said, to the principle of the clause he
was not opposed, but as it would open the door to col-
lusion, he could not assent to it. It' the House thought
that it would not have that effect, he had no objection to
assent to it, but, otherwise, he would oppose it.
Mr. SPOONER said that as the Right Hon. Baronet
had no objection to the principle of the amendment, but
to the practical working of it, he did not see what evil
could arise from its insertion in the Bill. For his own
part, he did not think that any collusion would result
(rem it. The, collusion might arise as the Bill now
stood, but the addition of the amendment would be a
check which otherwise did not exist. He hoped, there-
fore, that the clause would be allowed by the Right Hon.
Baronet to be added to the Bill.
Mr. FLOYER, thought that the overseers would
neither apply the public money nor their own money to
lacilitate removals, and he, therefore, would support the
amendment, believing, as he did, that it would be advis-
able to give the poor the option of removing, if they
pleased. '
Sir W. JOLIFFE would support the clause if the
words "voluntary consent" were added to it.
Mr. BROTHERTON opposed the amendment.
Mr. HENLEY supported the amendment. He did
not believe that any collusion would result from it,
for the overseer was not likely to pay money out of his
own pocket to carry out the design apprehended by
those who opposed the clause.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said that in his opinion, the present
mode of proceeding was not the way to alter the Poor.
law Bill at all. The question was to be cesidered the en-
suing session, and he did not think, therefore, that the
present Bill should be carried. It bad been said that
the question of the time of residence necessary to entitle
parties to relief would be a fertile source of litigation,
and the answer to that was, that if the clause was con•
strued by common sense, the meaning could not possibly
be mistaken. He objected altogether to the carrying
on the Bill under those circumstances, for he thought
that they had done enough of important legislation the
present session, and their persisting in this Bill would
not at all benefit the poor.
Mr. BODKIN objected to the introduction of the
clause, as it would open the door for very many abuses,
and would allow the parochial officers to exercise an
undue influence to obtain the consent of the poor people
to their removal That would in future litigation raise
the difficult question of whether the consent of the poor
person to the removal was entirely voluntary or not.
After a few words from Mr. REDHEAD YORKE,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it •I 62
Majority —47
Mr. P. SCROPE then moved the following clause:—
" Provided always, and be it enacted, that the five years
hereinbefore mentioned shall be construed to mean a
residence of not less than one-half of every year of the
five during which such person shall have exercised some
industrious calling within the said parish or union."
Such a clause would have the effect of completely estab-
lishing the residence of the party, he would be known
to all the neighbours, and if his case should afterwards
become the subject of litigation no difficulty could arise
on that point. If, as the Right Hon. Baronet who
introduced the measure had said, the residence meant
by the Act was to be an industrial residence, the
adoption of the present clause would secure to such
parish or union the benefit of the labour of the indi-
vidual.
Sir. G. GREY said he thought that the clause intro-
duced by the Hon. Member would rather have the ef-
fect of increasing the litigation consequent on the Bill
than of diminishing it.
Mr. B. ESCOT f thought they ought to have the
opinion of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Attorney
General upon this clause. Upon a former occasion he
was called upon to give an opinion upon a particular
Bill, but, no doubt, exercising his discretion, he de-
clined doing so.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said there was no
doubt the construction to be placed on the clause was,
that it referred to the last five years of the pauper's
life. That was it referred to the place where the pauper
had resided during the last five year, of his life.
After. a few words from Mr. P. SCROPE,
Captain PECIIELL wished to know if a person going
to sea, and leaving his wife and:family at home, in a resi-
dence which he had provided for them, would be en-
titled to relief, notwithstanding this interruption to the
five years had taken place.
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL was understood to
reply in the affirmative.
The clause was negatived without a division.
Mr. W. H. BODKIN proposed the insertion of the
following clause :—" And be it enacted, that all expenses
which shall be incurred for the maintenance, relief, or
burial of persons hereby exempted from the liability to
be removed, shall, in every parish which is included in
an union, be charged, and continue to be charged, to the
common fund of such union, in the same manner as the
expenses of purchasing, building, or providing work-
houses in unions are directed to be charged by an Act
passed in the sth year of the reign of his late Majesty
king 'William the Fourth, intituled, 'An Act for the
Amendment and better Administration of the Laws re-
lating to the Poor in England and Wales.' " There
could be no doubt that this clause was just and
equitable. It was not fair that all the expense
of maintaining a pauper who had resided in
a particular parish, should fall upon the funds of that
parish alone, but it ought to be spread over the whole
union in which the parish was situated.—(Gear, hear.
It was this feeling which bad induced him to place a
clause to that effect on the notice paper.
Sir G. GREY surrgested that it would be better to
postpone the consideration of this question till the larger
measure was brought forward, next session.
Mr. P. SCROPE thought if they tried the experiment
proposed by the clause, they would have experience for
their guidance on re-considering the whole matter next
year.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. B. DENISON,
Mr. BODKIN said he would not press his clause ;
and it was therefore negatived without a division.
The Bill wa; then read a third time.
On the question being put that the Bill do pass,
Mr. HUME said they were told, by the promoters of
the Bill, that it was to be an experiment, and if it
failed they would grant an inquiry. Now this appeared
to him to be an exceedingly just mode of proceeding, and
he should therefore take the sense of the House that the
Bill do pass.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK did not approve of the Bill
itself, but he did of the course proposed by her Majesty's
Government. He had confidence in them, and he should
vote against the amendment.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WODEHOUSE said, if the Member for Mont-
rose pressed the matter to a division, he would certainly
go widi him. But, if the Bill should pass, he begged
that the Government would impress upon the Poor law
Commissioners to proceed with great caution, and that
in the case of every application for relief, whether in-
door or out-door, it was their bounden duty to attend to
it, from whatever quarter it might come.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared.—
For the Bill passing 56
Against
elajority for the Bill passing
The Bill passed accordingly
JOINT-STOCK BANKS (IRELAND AND
SCOTLAND) BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the late
Government brought forward this Bill last year, for
extending the provisions of au Act already in operation
England to the joilltretc4 boalis Scotland

' •