The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-06 00:00:00

BRITISH MUSEUM.

Sir ROBERT PEEL intimated that her Majesty had coil,
sented, in reply to the address of the House, to grant a sum of
money to the Commissioners of the British Museum.
RAILWAY COMPANIES.

Mr. H. RICH moved for the following returns :—Re.
turn of all Moneys to be raised under the sanction of the Acts,
whereby Railroad Companies have been incorporated, between
the Ist day of January, 1844, and the Ist day of January,
1846 ; distinguishing the sum to be raised as principal
from the sums to be raised by loan or mortgage. Return of all
moneys liable to be raised by Acts for the incorporation or for the
increa►ed powers of railroad, companies, and for which
Bills are now before this House ; distinguishing the sues
to be raised as principal from the sums to be raised by loan or
mortgage, and classifying them according as they have passed

to a first, second, or tN‘ird reading ; and stating the term of years
within which the works sn provided for are to be completed.
Agreed to.
POOR LAW REMOVAL BILL.

On the order of the day being read for going into Corn-
mittee on this

Mr. EVELYN DENISON rose to move certain instruc-
tions to the Committee connected with the law of settlement,
but he was interrupted by
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, who rose to a point of order. It
was not competent, he said, for an Honourable Member
to move an instruction to a Committee, if the Bill to
be committed would accomplish the object the Honour-
able Member had in view. Now, he maintained that the
object of the Hon. Member for Nottinghamshire could be ob-
tained under the provisions of this Bill. It might be done
by moving clauses on the Bill when it went into report.
The Bill affected the whole law of settlement, and recited
every Act of Parliament at present in existence connected
with it. It was quite unnecessary, therefore, to have any
discussion, or to waste their time upon any views of the Hon.
Member.

The SPEAKER said the Bill was to amend and consolidate
the law relating to the removal of the poor, and without
instructions from the House it would not be competent for the
Committee to consider the law relating to the settlement of
the poor.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE repeated his opinion that the Bill
did in fact involve the law relating to settlement.
Mr. G. BANKES would not presume to offer any observa-
tions upon the opinion given from the chair, but he did object
to the Hon. Member for Nottinghamshire having precedence
on that occasion, because it should be recollected, that it was
distinctly understood on the second reading of the Bill,
that the discussion of its principles should take place,
at this stage of its procedure through the House. If, therefore,
they allowed that opportunity to slip by them, the prin-
ciple of the Bill could not be considered at all.—(Hear.)
He certainly thought that he had a right of precedence of the
Hot,. Member for Mahon. It would be in the rec illection
of the House, and especially of his Right Honourable
Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, that no
discussion should ensue on the second reading. And
this course was adopted with the express un-
derstanding that whatever dispute might arise it
should not interfere with the principle of the Bill,
but only affect the provisions by which that principle should be
carried out. He did not think it right that the
Hon. Member should introduce any such material alteration
as this, and he had in fact intended to ask some Member
of the Treasury bench what course they intended to pursue in
the next stage of proceeding ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that his Honourable Friend
who had just sat down bad been perfectly right
in the assumption that on the second reading of this Bill there
should be no discussion of its principle, though he did
think, from the point which had been started and the
'reasons assigned by the Honourable Member for Finsbury,
that there might be some instruction given to the Committee to
I regulate its provisions. The Bill in no way interfered with the
law of settlement; it only had te do with the removal of the poor.
I The Hon. Member for Mahon would introduce another prin-
ciple into the Bill, and he thought that the Chair was per-
fectly correct in the view which it had taken,
of giving instructions to the Committee. He did not
think the House was competent to introduce any alteration or
principle whatever at this stage, and he conceived therefore
that the House could not entertain what the Hon. Member
proposed to do.
Mr. HINDLEY thought the House ought to know what
course they ought to take, for, if the speakers were correct, it
was only another instance of the great inconvenience that
would arise upon their usual mode of proceeding in such Bills
as these. Then with regsrd to the settlement question ; this
Act would repeal the clause which it had been stated would
not be meddled with, and then they would have to go back to
the 13'h and 17th clauses of Charles 11. By repealing the
clause which gave a settlement after forty days residence, this
Act would give a settlement without any residence at all.
Another clause relating to the law of settlement would also be
repealed, though the Right Hots. Baronet had stated that this
Act would not interfere with the law of settlement at all, Now
he considered that most important questions affecting the law of
settlement were involved in it, at least so he thought as he had
read the Bill, though he might be wrong ; but if the House
agreed to turn over this Bill, by agreeing to have it read this
day six months, it would be tvachirg a good lesson to those
who had introduced this Bill.—( Hear, hear, and laughter. )
Mr. DUNCOMBE would wish to a.,k, did not this Bill in
fact prevent persons who had had a settlement from being re-
moved ?—( Sir James Graham was understood to assent. )
Then he (Mr. Duricombe) would say surely that the Bill did
open the whole question of settlement.

Sir JAMES 'GRAHAM said it would only affect those who
had had a settlement of five years.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he thought the more regular
mode of proceeding would be to discuss this question when the
Bill should go into Committee on the second reading. But he
did not see how the course the Hon. Member suggested would
effect the object he had in view, for as he (Lord John Russell)
understood him, his motion would have the effect of remodel.
bog the whole Bill. He conceived; also, that was- perfeo,.ly
competent for the Hon..,Gt.ntlerr.an- tis 4o that on the third
reading which the rules of the House prevented-lhittarom
doing now.

1 Mr.. DENISON was very anxious to meet the convenience
' of the House. He trusted that after the discussion which had
taken place, the House would allow him to proceed with the
instruction to the Committee, of which he had given notice.
1 He could not help considering that great inconvenience had
arisen from the title of the Bill, which stated that it referred
I to the removal of the poor, whereas it would raise the poor-
rates in every parish in the kingdom, therefore every person
who paid poor-rates would be affected by it. It was
introduced as a measure intended to be reconcileable
to country districts as regarded great towns, and was
received with great approbation, but it appeared to
him that it would work such great injustice between different
parishes, that he was anxious to draw the attention of the
House to the subject. At present what was the gate of the
labouring poor, and the chief evils under which they suffered ?
They suffered from bad cottages, and from too few of them.
Men were crowded together into small and single groups—that
was one of the greatest evils from which they suffered. Lord
Stanley had stated that one of the greatest evils from which
the industrious classes suffered was bad accommodation. He
(Mr. Denison) regretted to say that that inconvenience was
not confined by any means to great towns, and the same
warning voice which made the remark with respect to towns
naisht with equal justice have been applied to country districts.
But it was not necessary for him to offer his own opinion on
this point, because there was an authority in existence to which
the House could not refuse to attach importance. It was the
Report of the Commissioners appointed in 1843 to inquire in.o
the state of the children employed in agriculture. Mr. Aus-
tin and the Rev. Mr. Clutch, in that report stated, that the
want of accommodation in the cottages of families employed
in agriculture was the cause of much of the demoralisation
which existed in this country. If this were to be allowed, the
labourers would in some sort have a right of retaliation ; within
the depths to which they were thrown there would be still
lower depths. This system prevailed throughout a
large part of the country which surrounded the
borough which he had the honour of representing,
and might be said to prevail largely throughout the
welds of Yorkshire. In that county it was the custom to drive
the labourers into the small towns, where they were obliged to
take houses for their wives and families. but with this arrange-
ment the farmers were not content. They required the men
to be near to their employments, and consequently the men I
were obliged to sleep in some loft or stable, whilst their wages
were to be paid partly in money, and partly in food. The
wages, which were sufficient for the maintenance of a family 1
when together, were quite insufficient for their nutriment when
they were separated ; and net only was there the evil of a de-
privation of food, but all those evils which arose from a division
of a man from his family, and he thought this was a matter
11 ell worthy of consideration. If they were to wait for a settle-
ment of five years, the probability is, that no man would obtain
a settlement at all. In his part of the country there were
what were called close and open parishes. I% hat was meant by
a close parish was, where one owner alone held the property.
In the southern district there were 60 parishes, of which 28
were ekes, and 32 open parishes. In the Loughboro' district
there were 12 close parishes and 23 open. In the
Shardlow district, 23 close and 23 open. In Daysford
23 close and 33 open. In the Mahon district there were 31
close and 37 open; and he had understood frcm an Hon. Friend
of his there were 41 parishes in his district, of which 20 were
close and 21 open. He did conceive that this opened up a
l principle which ought to be taken into account. If these
Iparishes were all thrown open, and the settlement was made a
union settlement, it would obviate the great evil. It would
remove the inducement to pull down cottages, and would prompt
the individual proprietors to care for the destitute poor in their
neighbourhood •, it would prompt them to provide employment 1
whilst the people were in health and strength, and would occa-
sion a feeling for their maintenance when old age rendered them
I unfit for labour. The Hon. Member for Cornwall had said,
that the first effect of the repeal of the aorn.law would be to
I awaken one thousand farmers from their sleep. The first
thing they would discover would be the inadequate employment
1 awl remuneration of their labourers. They would find that the
labourers were employed in their work at a distance of 4 and 5
miles from the houses, and that distance theyhad to return at night.
There were many farmers who would prefer the building of
cottages on their own farms for the accommodation of their
tlahbaotutfretrhst,9 tßoilal dwimerienutetion passi,n their own
andthepre rents. He believed
provision
nof
whtehhlehved
had
giliovuense,rtiohteireee
wweeerled trio() rl
ee
nc
ge ievre e
xt ht
set
af anvyo ua
pr apbr
el e opinion h
ens
e Il
ernf
tt
hh
ee
working of any antagonistic principle. The measure would re-
sult most beneficially to the interests of the labourer and the
farmer. Their predilection for ancient statutes with respect
to the parochial system should not prevent them from correct-
ing existing abuses. He found that the total expense con-
nected with the poor-laws amounted, in the year 1834, to
7,597,0001., and in the year 1844, the corresponding expense
was 5,440,000/. ; so that a saving of upwards of 2,000,0001. was
made, owing to the superiority of the working of the new law
over the old law. The Hon. Member concluded by thanking
the House for their patient attention, and moved the adoption
of the resolutions of which he had given notice.
Colonel WOOD was sorry that his lion. Friend should
persevere in pressing his motion. He was opposed to the
motion because it contemplated giving the poor man a union
settlement instead of a parochial settlement, so that, as far as
the individual pauper was concerned, the parish in which the
union-house was placed would be charged for his maintenance,
instead of the parish which was legally, chargeable with the
man's settlement. He believed that the day was not far dis-
tant when funded property would be rated to the relief of the
poor, and that a rate, not exceeding sixpence in the pound,
would be levied on funded and other property, which would
furnish a settlement for the whole of the poor in the kingdom.
Ho was opposed to any proposition which, after a certain
number of years, would deprive the poor of their proper set-
tlement.
Mr. BANKES was anxious to bear the opinion of her
Majesty's Government on the general subject. He should,
however, oppose the present motion, because he believed that
it would have the tendency of producing a useless mass
of unemployed labourers. They must look to a different system
ithanskt.hertylenEowth possessede
mfoortitohne
17poruoltdectoipoennotof tmheostcopmnimeiolyn
lands.
'Unjustly on many of the
poor in all parts of the country.
There certainly would be a great difficulty in remodellin
Bill;
and he considered that the Government were axi ' g the
I know whether the House considered such a remodellinngneeuesetso
sary.--( Hear, hear. )
Mr, CHRISTOPHER said if he considered the Bill would
benefit the poor he would vote for it, but he was not of any
I such opinion. A parish would not support its own p_..or, but
would throw their support
opooaodfrporf
ecetehlhili
relieving
feelings
whole
tew union.eoefn tgialiade, haasdhea
considered also that some of the
hrie middle and
snYgsetehl: poor, would inflict
anxious as any other person to see
II
eieglokraeneusasitreedioeroroe,:s,esrteii:te:
el
Branf
soigTireel
:ni
st.dhi
anee
firs
te:}idal;sdedg.
new burdens upon them?
dheerceodntshie.
:It thl eedencenntsi
lldbs
which had moved would ea to some other
amendment
which already existed, equally objectionable
ti:Merv.iii!Tinfithrie present
beensyetem
of general
abases te those
With respect to the q4,as,sti:pnon the subject was a positive evil
dered it an evil ; anyi
necessary. On geriorsi gi'utines
union settlement • but he
h—e(Nlivaesard,
disposed
d—bout it was necessary. a
ass into a
b ie qt; ch measure as that
able, unless it was / son
accompanied
sweoantldutpllrevfeerretotehear thseup@oerstliaown, it would be most objection-
able, debated. if the pre.
proposed.
hays the effect of threw-
the Hou. Member for llialtou would ha
Mr. PAKINGTON feared that the amendment moved by

ing out the Bill, but he did consider that a union-settlement
was in principle a very good one. If the question came to a
division he would support the amendment of the Honourable
Member for Melton, and his only fear was that it would delay
the Bill, which was so important to the poor of this countrv.
Sir J. GRAHAM said on the abstract merits of the question
he would not trouble them at any length, as it was the. very
same Bill he had brought in on a former session. The Right
Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when he
mentioned the introduction of the measure to the House, said
it was a measure to limit the removal of the poor, but that it
would not interfere materially with the law of settlement. Now
that was the real nature of the Bill. His opinion on the mea-
sure remained unchanged, and he considered the measure
would remove many of the abuses which at present existed.
The law of settlement was a grievance in itself ; and
that view of it was ably maintained by the Hon. Member for
Derby. Adam Smith, if he remembered rightly, also strongly
disapproved of its existence, and considered that it inflicted
more injuries on the labouring classes than any other enact-
ment on the statute-book. The law asit now stood was liable to
grave objections, but he did not think tl.e evil would be al-
together met by the instruction of the Hon. Member. There
were several parishes at present in which the land was in the
hands of a few great proprietors, and no person was allowed to
marry in such parishes, or to remain in them should they hap-
pen to get married. To meet such cases, therefore, he con-
sidered there should be a new arrangement, so as to extend the
operation of the law of settlement over a larger tract of country
than these restricted parishes. By that means the proceedings
of such persons as he had referred to would be counteracted.
( Hear, hear.) He had had a communication from Mr. Chalk,
the Chairman of the Board of Union, strongly in support of the
substitution of unions for parish settlements. The Right Hon.
Baronet read the document in question, which was in substance,
that there was 14,500 parishes in England, and but
600 poor-law unions; and that the substitution of
union settlements, for the present system of parish settlement
would allow of the free circulation of labour, and get rid of the
evils of the present system. The Right Hon. Baronet read a
letter from the Reverend Mr. Alcroft, Chairman of
the Medway Union, to the same effect. He had a letter
from another Rev. Gentleman, connected with the manage-
ment of the poor, to a different effect ; his objection being
that the able-bodied and strong labourer would alone be able
to take advantage of the extent of range allowed under the
present law, and that the weak and inactive would not be
able to go beyond the limits of their parishes. If that objec-
tion were of any force, it would be that the present law was in
favour of idleness—(Cries of " No, no")—or. of those who
were not disposed to make any exertion for their own main-
tenance. It was, therefore, no argument against the proposed
change. Such were the opinions of those who had had expe-
rience of the management of the poor; in addition to which he
would add the testimony of Mr. Tuffnell, the Assistant Poor-
law Commissioner, who, in a report made in 1844, pointed out
in a forcible manner the evils of the present law of settlement, and
the necessity there was for such a change as that now proposed.
The changes of the Hon. Member, he considered were volun-
tary, still he did not think they were proposed in the manner
they ought to be, and that in their present shape they might
interfere with the proper working of the Bill. He hail al-
ways thought the various laws relating to the removal of the
poor should be consolidated into one general Act, as was now
proposed in the Bill before the House. When they went into
Committee he would then be prepared to give every explana-
tion on the various provisions of the Bill that might be required.
In reference to the operation of the law as at present, and the
changes which were now proposed, he would call their atten-
tion to the relative number of persons in the locality
where they resided to those from other quarters,
in the manufacturing districts as compared with the
rural districts. In 1841, in the city of Westminster,
114,000 were born in the county ; 188,000 born elsewhere.
In Liverpool 180,000 were born in the county; 103,000 burn
elsewhere. In Manchester 103,000 were born in the county ;
55,000 elsewhere. In Birmingham 96,000 were born in the
county; 41,000 elsewhere. In Glamorganshire 126,000 were
horn in the county; 41,000 elsewhere. In Surrey 156,000
were born in the county; 154,000 elsewhere. Compare this
with the state of things in the rural districts. In the agricul-
tural county of I3uckingham 127,000 were born in the county;
and but 28,000 elsewhere. In the East Riding of Yorkshire,
174,000 were born in the county ; 20,000 elsewhere. In
Anglesea 48,000 were born in the county ; but 2,660 else-
where. And in three hundreds of Norfolk 54,000 were
horn in the county ; and only 65 persons elsewhere. This
showed the law of settlement pressed on small agricultural
lucalities. In conclusion he must say, that believing the in -
struction of the Hon. Member (Mr. E. Denison) to be
founded on a correct principle, should he press it to a division,
he (Sir J. Graham) should feel it to be his duty to give it his
support; and in the event of the House affirming it, he would
he able in a few days to submit the amended Bill to the
House.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. BROTHERTON considered that the principle of
union settlement would be beneficial to the working classes,
and at all events it would be much more just to the rate-
payers. The present system was attended with great expense.
which he considered would be removed by the adoption of the
suggestion.
—Sir R. INGLIS could not see why, if the. Right Hon..
(4entleentin entertained such a strong sense of the valise .of the.
principle, he did not introduce it in. the-Bill for
now sought to obtain the sanction of the Houge.—( Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member said that the measure would be greatly
prejudicious to the manufacturing interests, and yet he said it
would not be opposed by them, as they believed it would work
immense good. But he contended that it would be most be-
neficial to the manufacturers, as they had congregated (for
their own good to be sure) an immense concourse of
people around them, of many of whom they would be
relieved. The measure had been announced with great triumph
by her Majesty's Government, as sine of those remedial measures
intended to be introduced as a boon to the agricultural interests.
But he considered it a very small gift, and quite unworthy of
the Government. But the amendment would certainly be pre-
judicial to the measure, as, if it were adopted, it would throw it
over to the next session. He looked upon it as another attack
upon the parochial system, and that it would weaken the local
ties which bound society together, and give parishes a tempta-
tion to relieve themselves of those persons who were no longer
able to work, by throwing them on the union ; and believing
this, he would reject, as far as in him lay, the amendment.
Mr. C. WOOD could not take any step which would have
for its object the severing of any of the local ties which bound
society together. He did consider a union settlement was
most necessary to remedy the evils which would flow from the
immovability of the poor from particular parishes. If the Bill
did not give settlement, he would vote against the Bill.—
(Hear, hear.) At the same time he was quite ready to vote
that the Committee have a power to introduce a clause for
union settlement.
Mr. HENLEY considered that the Government had taken
a most extraordinary course in reference to the Bill. When
the Government introduced the Bill they clearly said it
should have no reference to settlement ; yet, notwithstand-
ing, the Secretary fur the Home Department got up,
and said he was quite prepared to carry out a suggestion which
conferred very great powers of settlement. How such a
course could be pursued he did not know. If the benefit to
the poor was not clear and certain, they had a right to look
at the inconvenience the measure would cause to the rate-
payer. He did not think that the man who was physically
incapacitated from hard work should be put on the same level
with the full-bodied labourer, and thrown into the union be-
cause he was unable to work. If the maxim of buying in the
cheapest and selling in the dearest market was fully carried
out, the inferior labourer would be immediately thrown out of
employ. If the parochial settlements were to be broken down,
he thought that the principle ought to be carried much further
than was at present contemplated. He could not agree with
the proposed instruction to the Committee. He was afraid,
that as labour was the great charge upon agriculture, and as
facilities would be afforded for procuring union settlements for
,1
the weak and infirm, inferior labourers would, of necessity, be
thrown out of employ. He thought it was unfair to deal with
the question of settlement as at present proposed, and should
therefore vote against the motion.
Mr. VERNON SMITH thought that the course pursued
by the Government on the present measure was a most in-
jurious one. The Government had interfered, on serious oc-
casions of late • ears, without laying down any definite or
practical principles. The law of settlement, as at present
constituted, was a most unsatisfactory one. He should cer-
tainly vote for the instruction moved for by his Hon. Friend,
because it would place the law of settlement on a satisfactory
basis. He thought the Hon. Member for Melton would find a
difficulty in assimilating the averages he had taken with re-
spect to the unions. The only argument he had heard with
respect to the passing of the poor off the parish was ascribed
to the generosity of the landlords, who preferred giving them
emplasment, in order to keep them from being burdensome to
the parish. lie was not disposed to go so far as that, and he
should give his support to the motion, because he thought it
would lead to satisfactory results.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the present subject had been
most fully canvassed in the district with which he was con-
nected, and he was assured that his constituents were as much
opposed to the proposed alteration in the law es they had been
to the measure of 1844. It would create feelings of dis-
satisfaction and discontent among them

Mr. GRAINGER was of ()Pinion that the principal argu-
ment upon which the Hon. Member had fottuded his motion
for the instruction to the Committee had totally failed, and he
should oppose the motion.
Lord MORPETH said he would confine his observations to
matters which fell beneath his own local experience. Many
evils arose from the system of paroc!iial settlement; in the
wolds of Yorkshire, near where he resided, more than three-
fourths of the perms removed had lived from their parishes
more than five years ; he would therefore support the instruc-
tions moved for by the Hon. Member for Malton.
_ _

Mr. PA CK E considered that it was most preposterous for them
to come to a division on the subject, seeing that the country was
not generally aware of the change about to be introduced
into the Bill. Petition! might be presented against it, which
might have weight with the House, and he considered the mea-
sure would only aggravate the evils which already existed, and
he would therefore object to the instructions.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said that he would have been content to
have supported the Bill, had it remained the same as it was at
first introduced by the Government. But now that the Secre-
tary for the Home Department had signified his willingness to
support the instruction moved by the Hon. Member for Mal-
ton, the question assumed a perfectly different appearance, and
he did consider that the Right Hon. Baronet supported the in-
struction most unadvisably, and he would vote against any such
instruction. He would move that they should repeal all pro.
vision for the law of settlement, and that the poor of each dis-
trict be relieved in the particular district where the distress
arose, and that the State should make a provision for the relief
of the poor in such proportion as it aught in its wisdom think
proper. They might say that the time for such an arrangement
had not arrived, but he contended that it had, for when
they reflected on the great commercial changes which
had beer, made, could they any longer maintain
the old principle of settlement? It was impossible.
From all the towns except Stockport, these returns had been
readily furnished. He was therefore compelled to move in the
House that these returns should be furnished forthwith. From
these returns, defective as they were, it appeared, 15,260 per-
sons were sent from these large manufacturing towns to the
rural district. In Manchester, there was the case of one o!ci
man, who was sent back to his parish after a residence of
thirty-five years. h the years 1841 and 1842, there were
sent over front Stockport to Ireland a great number (If pe-
qms, with families averaging from eight to twelve each ; but
the clerk of the union of Stockport, with a strange forgetful-
ness,d
hots:ehifacpedr
rh residede
his
satisfactiono)
ehi jeglyafdel
markeddi e ,?t, cfhtt
amendment,tp e.
improvementrr
at if t)i .4te
manufacturing
ing ti
dwDei
,4upoae
vvrol
lft
onivotl k
hmrmiaf
~g tegiiehostt,tnetterrgi,,,,leiewirematethohsti:hews
nizocdol
suofehoni
uwogis
Cladabr.
bst
enehdbgeptellsh!.heeroaecaavueca.isteffect
classes.
people:hetp sdget.
e
glteresl
with safety at any time, it was the present. He believed that
an alteration, or a total abolition, of the existing laws would
teg eprti!eaiece,.
be met with pleasure by all elasses of the community.
iss liTthies
satisfaction
tr:cyt
gene:o ..!OHNSON seconded the amendment. He was
yearst
o the present leer Qt settlement.--:( cheers.
Mr. BRIGHT had been at a lois to consider, from the
would btteeto9ntolytal7y4Yabot!:
speech of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, whether he in-
tended to oppose the Bill or to have a blow at the manufac-
turers. The lion, mem
er for F n.bur
had been dovn. in
iy
those parts of the country;and had Possibly been endeavormi
h
to find the grievances fert' amOng the" trades uni ons. 'The
lion. Member proceeded to argue that 1 there was more atten-
re of
the large capitalists to the welfare
lanourers eniplqed than -by ene small capitalistv.
The' lion. Member Should recCltect, When he spoke ot the

THE SUN, LONDON, SATUIVDAY EVENING, JUNE 6, 1846

apathy of the capitalists in times of distress, that there had
been several large firms `which paid a great sum for wages
during the three years of distress, and had not received a single
shilling of profit on that labour. There was one firm in Hali-
fax which paid 361,0'0/. in three years for wages, but had not
paid a single farthing to the income-tax. The manufacturers
did not consider the poor-laws a burden, and they would not
come to the House to be relieved from such rate'.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—You relieve yourselves by sending
the paupers away.
Mr. BRIGHT—It was not to be supposed that
when the landlords of it-eland were expatriating their
population, that the town of Stockport was to be
filled with these people without some effort being
made to relieve themselves from this burden. The Hon.
Member did not represent the interests of the labourer in the
manufacturing districts, the party he represented, with whom
he associated, and whose bad passions he instigated, were but
a handful of the population, and they had been among the
sternest opponents of the association which had effected the
emancipation of industry in the repeal of the corn-laws.
Lord G. BENTINCK said, the Hon. Gentleman who had
just sat down had appealed to the report of the Government
Commissioners, to show the comparative prosperity of the ma-
nufacturing operatives of Stockport, but he thought that the
Hon. Gentleman should not have forgotten the report that had
been made by Mr. Trimmer, one of the Factory Commis-
sioners, who, speaking of the injuries done by ma-
chinery, stated that in Stockport alone, in the years
1837, 1838, and 1839, no less than 340 cases
had occurred in which persons had suffered injuries.
whilst working in the cotton factories.—( Hear, hear.) And
compensation by the master manufacturers hal been made in
only two of those cases. He defied The Hon. Membeebeta'show
that the landed gentry hail so treated those who had been in-
jured in their service.—( Hear, hear ) The Hen. Member
had also said that the Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Dun •
combe) had no right to speak in that House as the representa-
tive of the working classes. - Why, then, if that lion. Member
was not, he would ask who was ? ( Hear, hear.) He felt him-
self bound to oppose the proposition of his Hon. Relative. The
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department
hod not the slightest pretence for saying, as he had done that
evening, that the Government did not contemplate any material
change in the poor•law. He contended that after the poor of
this country had been worked out by the manufacturers, it
would be unjust to send them back as paupers to the agricultu-
ral parishes in which they were born.—( Hear, hear.) He
hoped that the discussion of this measure might be postponed
to afford a better opportunity of ascertaining the opinions of
the people at large.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir T. ACL AND thought that the motion of his Hon.
Friend the member for Milton was entitled to a great deal of
very serious consideratioa ; but in giving his vote for the fur-
ther consideration of the measure, he did not consider himself
hound to adhere to the provisions proposed by his Hon. Friend.
His great object was, that the main intent and object of this
non-removal law should be attained, because it approximated
in a great degree to effect non-removal altogether. Nothing
in his opinion could be snore equitable than that three years
should constitute a settlement, and it would be a great act of
justice to that class of the poor men who were the means of
creating the wealth of the rich. On those grounds he would
support the Bill, and because it made residence a ground for
non-removal.

Mr. BANKES agreed with the Hon. Member that
this Bill had many meritorious recommendations ;
but still the amendments of the Hon. Member
for Melton would have the effect of embarrassing the measure,
and, therefore, he could not see how the Government could ap-
prove of it. He would also contend for it that this measure
would be injurious to the agricultural interest ; but it would
certainly be upset by the amendment which had been intro-
duced. He had no objection to the settlement of the question
as to whether three or five years should constitute a settlement ;
but whichever way it was to be, let it be settled at once. If a
pauper was to be removed, he could not resist it ; but if he
was to be removed from one parish to another, at the expense
of the parish, then one parish could defend it, for they had the
means of doing so, and wonid resist the infliction of an addi-
tional burden upon them, if they thought it was unjust. Those
were the observations which he bad deemed it necessary to
make on the motion of the Hon. Member for Melton, which
he should certainly oppose.
Mr. SPOONER could assure the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury, that he gave his cordial assent to the proposition that a
residence of five years should give a right of settlement; and
he was further certain, that there was no disposition on the part
of the great manufacturers of the country, to deprive the la-
bouring classes of that protection to which they are entitled.
With regard to the question before the House, he should feel
compelled to vote against the motion of the Hon. Member for
Halton, as it would extend the power of the Poor Law Com-
missioners. to which he had a most decided objection. He did
not think the way in which the Commissioners had recently
used their power furnished any reason for giving them addi-
tional influence.—( Hear. )
Sir J. G RA HAM wished to offer a few observations in explana-
tion on account of what had Mien from several members. He ad-
mittted there was difficulty in defining what residence was;
still he thought that could be overcome in Committee, and he
, could assure Hon, Members that both in the House aed out of
the Irmise fie weulel do his best to make the -definition .aS clear
as Polsible.- Wcift regard ilie ler6Po4tiori 'of '.the` Hon.
Member for Dorsetshire, he agreed with the Hon. Member
for Durham, as he was persuaded the charge the former
Member recommended would lead to mast important conse-
quences, which they would do well to consider. It had been
said that the Government had not acted with good faith in
regard to the present measure, in supporting the instruction
of the Hon. Member for Melton. To that he could say,
that since the Bill had been introduced he had had
many communications with Members on both sides of the
House, and the result was that he now thought that the mea-
sure would not be complete without such a provision as that
which he proposed last year, and which was now incorporated
in the motion of the Hon. Member for Milton. As he had
previously observed, there were many parishes which had but
few proprietors, and in which the poor were placed under great
difficulty in obtaining a settlement ; to these a union settle-
ment would be a great boon, as it would remove the restrictions
under which they at present laboured. He therefore supported
the instruction, and if it were adopted by the House, the
Bill, as amended, could be ready in six or seven days for pro-
ceeding with. He was anxious tnat the measure should pass,
and he would do everrhing in his power to facilitate it.
Mr. BROTHERTON called the attention of the House to
Lancashire, in which the parishes were in many instances di-
vided into townships, each township supporting its own poor.
Lord J. RUSSELL, like his Hon. Friend the Member for
Halton, wished not to fetter himself in giving a vote upon that
occasion with regard to any future vote upon this most difficult
question. The difficulty of the question had certainly not been
diminished by the course which the Right Honourable
Baronet appeared inclined to adopt. He agreed with
some Honourable Gentlemen, that where a man
had been engaged in werk for a long time in a particular parish
he was entitled to claim relief from the rates of that parish
when he was reduced to a state of poverty. Acting upon this
principle the Right Hon. Baronet proposed by this Bill that a
person residing in a parish for seven years should be eligible to
relief, but his Hon. Friend the Member for Melton had stated
that there were certain localities where there were no rates at all,
and the labourer was thus driven to seek relief in a neighbour-
ing parish ; he was, therefore, to some extent, inclined to sup-
port his Hon. Friend's proposal; but then, by doing so, he would
be inflicting great hardships upon particular districts, and it
become necessary for them to consider how they could get over
that difficulty. The question then being so surrounded
with difficulties, he was most anxious to obtain every informa-
tion upon it, and he was therefore prepared to go into Com-
mittee upon this Bill, in order that they might elicit the opinions
of those who were experienced in the matter. There were diffi-
culties, as he had already stated, in the way of adopting the plan
of his Hon. Friend, but it seemed to him that those difficulties
were increased when the Right Hon. Baronet oppo-its. de-
clared that he wished the House to agree to the instrucoone.
he thought they were conformable with k
the
thatbecausei n fact
mover of this proposal, and if the House went
votetjset
infeo:r,tehe
made
ohuatlddhese instructions, the
terms and form of his Bill ;
theTßinhitgoeht oitlniegcohonti
Committee
Hon.
Righttenßee Baronet
r laHnorinotlnceis.
daaßil dtaerhwroeint
theshhet
and no doubt the Committee would he purely of a pro
.fornui
character, and they woul l have the Right Hon Baronet intro-
ducing an entirely new Bill. Now let the House reflect well
upon this, and consider the circumstances under
which this measure had been brought forward. It was
introduced in conjunction with a larger measure of reform, and
the House had had ample time fcr looking into its provisions.
What time would they have, though. to examine either the
principles of the clauses placed in their hands in the month of
June ? He thought the best chance then, for them was, sur-
rounded as they were with so many difficulties, to go into Com.
mittee and consider the Bill of the Government as it at pre-
sent stood, and see whether the House generally was prepared
to agree to its provisions. They must recollect, too, that the
Right Honourable Baronet had several times changed
his mind with .respect to this question. At ore time
he was only for birth settlement, and now he proposed to
alter that principle altweether. At another time, the Right
Hon. Baronet had protested that it was highly necessary that
Government should n hastily adopt any amendment upon the
subject of the corn-laws, until they had seriously considered
the proposal, and were prepared to carry it out through the
medium of a Bill. He (Lord John Russell) must confess that
he thought, after what had fallen from the Right Honourable
Gentleman, his opinions must have undergone an extensive
and a very sudden change.—(Loud cheers from the protec-
tionist benches.) Up the whole, he was decidedly of opinion
that the best thing they could do was to go into Committee on
the Bill, and thus enable many gentlemen who were conversant
with the subjeet to supply them with some valuable information
bearing on the subject, and to tell them what they
thought was the opinion of the working classes in
their respective districts with regard to this measure.
This he did think, that any further alteration on this subject
ought not to be made withoW grave previous consideration.—
( Hear, hear.) Therefore, in giving his vote for the instruc-
tions moved for by his Hon. Friend, he wished to say, that if
upon further consideration he found that no further alteration
ought to be introduced, he should not feel himself pledged to
any particular course by the vote which he should give on this
occasion. —( Hear, hear.)
Lord J. MANNERS admitted that the Right Hon. Baronet
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had been
rather severely dealt with during this discussion.—(Hear.)
That Right Hon. Gentleman had said, during the last year,
that the Bill which he had brought in last year was a sound
Bill, but, as it was objected to by the country, he was obliged
to bring in another Bill more calculated to meet the wishes of
the people. He wished to call the attention of the House to
the position in which Members would place themselves who
were disposed to adopt the course recommended by her Ma-
jesty's Government. They found the Bill introduced by her
Majesty's Ministers as a sort of compensation to the agri-
cultural interest. But what would their astonishment be to
find, at ten or eleven o'clock, a professed opponent of the mea-
sure giving it his support?—(Hear, hear.) Be confeseed
e Ra‘(as Member ford (amidst
g
was much disposed to agree as to the course suggested by the
Uo
e a
t Finsbury,ahua gvahent
ehd
rcries
should( d he
Jo.f
press
... thepe.o
amendmentntßlm Gentleman
H the
to a
v be
v n, he shouldr
Manners) support.—( Hear, and cries of " Divide, divide.")
l rtsl. 0
" Oh ! oh !" and " Divide, divide") said he rose for the pur-
pose of moving the adjournment of the debate, inasmuch as
nhlem to betrhe sweeoruersae whichbsen
t,atshe theGyo in
wyzeu;dt intended
t{ tmia
apapnr eYh ie i
union
to take that night with regard to this question.—("
[fluids,
divide. He thquoht thet the people at large were entitled to
ask an adjournment of this discussion, in ordertat the
measure might be fully considered.—(, Divide, divide.' )
Mr. BANKES having seconded the adjournment; idee,
The SPEAKER put the motion, when the
the Hon. Mem-
remarks which had been that evenine made
G tleman had
That Hon. en
her for Durham (Mr. Bright).
Mr. OUNCOMBE rose for the
which were
other things, that if the measures
said, amongst
for nearly
now before the other House
associatee,
they never would have
im
(Mr. buncombe) and his b
Uen in the manufacturing
ti I` had also said he as
1,22,c5r ose of fomenting discord between
r;a4 also pleased to
I"Yerte „an with regard regard to the feelings of the
Working masses he wa
did not know what right he had to make his assertions bee
cause he had the honour of sitting in that House
lid he Lad alw voted foeof
twenty years, a.. . a repeal the corn-
Hear; hear.) The Hon. Member for Durham had
tzi?.feyi r i c
not condescended say who those persons were with h
associated,' nor did he now know to whom he an Y.
'ar
certainly had had ghat were eatii,d I,4gt4emeetings,LAed. life
024 aesesys' openly Stated what were his and
he
views as to
ticket meetings.--(Loud cheers from the Protectionists.)
rd the
totally
nP aerrlriroartim.re:Ht"hebao(diAbri eerp.ellilEgfe
buncombe)
be

He had always said he would attend public meetings
in favour of a repeal of the corn-laws, provided they were open
meetings.—( Repeated cheering from the protectionists
benches.) He had, of course, great ohjection to take part in
the genteel comedy at Ci vent-garden Theatre—(Laughter)—
and he had also refused to tumble with certain gentlemen at
Sadler's Wells. —( Cominued laughter.) An attempt was got
up by the League in Finsbury to call into account why he did
not go to Sadler's Wells, and tumble with them, and he openly
avowed that Fe could not take any part with the League, be-
cause they did not submit the principle of free-trade to public
opinion.—( Vehement cheering from the protectionist
benches.) The working classes believed that the League, in
bringing forward their free-trade measure, were not actuated
solely by the desire of furthering the interests of the working
classes, but rather to forward their own interests, and he (Mr.
Duncombe) was of the same opinion.—! Protectionist cheers.)
He supported the motion for the adjournment in consenuence
of the divided state of feeling in the House, he would certainly
take the sense of the House on his amendment.

Mr. P. BORTHWICK, then withdrew his motion for an
adjournment, in order to allow the House to express their sense
on the amendment of the 1-1,81. Member for Finsbury.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
. For the amendment
Against
Majority against the amendment —46
The House again divided on Air. E Denison'i motion, whet)
there appeared
For the amendment 92
Against

Majority for the amendment —22
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved that the House should go into
Committee on Monday next—(Hear, hear)—and he consi-
dered that an amendment in the law of settlement would be
more acceptable to the people of England than any debate upon
the Irish Coercion Bill ; he would, therefore, move that the
questim should have a preference to that Bill on next Monday
night.
Mr. HENLEY said, the Member for Malton was not pre-
pared with any of his clauses. It world be monstrous to go
into Committee on the Bill before the country would have an
opportunity of considering the question.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he did intend to give his support to
the amendments of the Hon. Member for Malton. He (Sir J.
Graham) had certainly been opposed to both sides of the House
to-night on the subject.—(Laughter.) But he would ask the
Hon. Member to consent to the proposed arrangement, by
which time would be afforded to the House to consider those
amendments; and if it was postponed till Monday, he would
have an opportunity of conferring with the Hon. Member. He
would then ask the House to go into Committee pro forma upon
the Bill.

Colonel SIBTHORP said it appeared to him that the
Right Honourable Baronet was glad to catch at any port in a
storm.—( Great laughter.)
It was then agreed to postpone the Bill till Monday.
GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.

Sir R. INGLIS wished to ask his Right Hon. Friend at
the head of her Majesty's Government whether he had re-
ceived any report as to the dangerous state of the Observatory
in Greenwich; and if so when that report would be laid upon
the table. In the event of that report not being received he
should move that the Hon. Member who had charge of the
Bill would move the order of tho. day upon Monday next.
Sir R. PEEL said that his Hon. Friend (the Secretary of
the Admiralty) had just informed him that the report had
been received at the Admiralty, and would be laid on the table
on Monday. Only he hoped that the Hon. Member who had
charge of the Bill would make a motion upon it.