The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-27 00:00:00

TrtE st7N, LONDON, FRIDAY MOANING, MARCY," 27, 1

-
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
, . riot/8E OF LARDS, MaiTh 26.
Their Lordships net at the usual hour.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
The Duke of RIOIIMOND wished to ask the Noble
Dtike (Wellington) when he should move the adjourn-
ment of the House for the Esster holidays ?
The Duke of WELLINGTON—I propose to move,
on Tuesday, the 7th, that your Lordships should adjourn
until Tuesday, the ii.llst of April.
The puke of RICHMOND said it would also be very
coovonient to their Lordships to know when it was likely
OP eg.rl4-1"w Rereal Bill won:a h:,... "
wrought up from the
II had thought it very probable
that it would be brought up before the 27th.
wiuse of commons. Ile
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, cert!inl,7 not
before the 2fth of A rii.
Lcrd BROUGHA—The Noble Duke must be aware
that it cannot be I rought up before the 25th of Aprils
because they were going into " coeNiqn" pe4t week.
The pfilLe pr WELIING TON said it would cep,
tainly not 19 brought up before the Psth,
THE REGULA rioN OT gliAlirilito.
A BIGHT Ray. DRET.4TE presented a petition against
the second r&adink of this Bill, which stood for to-
morrow.

Messevgers from the Commons brought 1.11 'i.:6-tiersti
Bills.

TIDAL twoons, COMMISSION.
The Eat' of ELLENBUROUGH presented ti report
from this Commilsion,
OUT PENSIONERS (GREENWICH.)
On the motion of the.NOBLE EARL this Bill was read a
second time.
LINCOLNSHIRE JUNCTION RAILWAY.

Lord ST4NLEY presi.nwti a petition from a gentle-
man named Stainford (as we unckrstood) against this
railway, on account of its separating his residence from
his garden, stables, whey property, by a deep cut-
ting, and because there Ivspi a railway between the parts
of the counfry_which it wasyroposed to accommodate.

notwithstanding the breviate was not laid on the table
till Wednesday the 25th day of March.—Agreed to.
TEN HOURS' BILL
Dr. BOWRING presented a petition, signea by fifteen
medical men of Bolton, in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill.
GOVERNMENT MEASURES.
Mr. NE WDEGATE presented several petitions from
Hampshire and other Places against the measures of
the Government.

POOR-LAWS.
Colonel ROLLESTON presented a petition from Not-
tinghamshire, praying for an alteration in the present
law of settlement ; also petitions against the measures of
her Majesty's Govq/toent with reference to corn.
mr. GP ri.pleal nreseuted a petition from the poor-
• tAS''
poor-
is guardians o _Lane—ester, praying for an alteration
in 00 lay; of settlement,
Mr. WO.I4HOUSE presented four petitions from
Norfolk aptust the measures of the Government
IRISH POOR-LAW.
Mt. J. O'CONNELL presented a petition from the
Kilkenny union, setting forth that the present tax fell
unequally on the community, and praying for a more
equal distribution of the tax.
RITTOL QV THE UNION.
The To!. MpilitEß also presented a petition from a
tpilva:euniinoln.reland in favour of the repeal of the legisla-

THE MILITIA.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition against
the eulliug out of the militia.

CORN-LAWS.
Mr. COBDEN presented a petitition from Southamp-
ton, in f ►your of the repeal of the corn-laws.
SOUTH MIDLAND RAILWAY.
Mr. TROTTER presented a petition against this
railway.

Mr. S. O'BRIEN also presented a petition in favour
of the line, and one against it.
NOTICES OF MOTION.
THE CHELTENHAM POST:`37FICE.
Mr. CRAVEN BERKETY,,`; gave notice, that on
Tuesday next, the
copy of Lb:: order or orders by which the deputy-post-
n27.l;ier of Cheltenham was entitled to demand a penny
•:.11:1 of March, he should move for a
extra on letters in certain respects delivered in that
town,

THE ORDERS OF THE DAY.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE gave notice, that on the ques-
tion being put for the first reading of the Bill for the
Protection of Life in Ireland, he should move that the
other orders of the day have precedence.
THE LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN wished to ask a question of
the Right Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary. He
wished to know whether, in the proposed Government
measure for giving a settlement to persons who had
been employed for five years in any manufacturing
town, that it was the intention to include Irish and
Scotch poor ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said, the measure was intended to
extend to all persons, without any distinction of country
whatever.

CORN-LAWS.
Sir ROBERT PEEL presented a petition, signed by
the deputy• lieutenant, commissioners of supply, the
justices of the peace, the clergy, freeholders, tenant-
farmers, and occupiers of land in the county of Aber-
deen. The petitioners stated, that having maturely con-
sidered the subject of the corn-laws, they had come to
the conclusion that they operated prejudicially to their
interests, and prayed the House to remove them
front the statute•book. Also a petition from the town
council, mayor, aldermen, and burgesses, of the town
of Manchester, who stated that there was a great em-
barfassment in trade, in consequence of the delay in the
decision of the House upon the question of the corn-
laws, and praying that the House would speedily pro-
nounce its definite judgment. Also a petition from mer-
chants and manufacturers of Nottingham, also praying a
speedy settlement of the corn-laws.
COLONIAL TRADE.

Mr. HUME wished to ask the light Honourable
Gentleman at the head of the Government, whether it
was intendsd to carry out the principles of free trade,
as regarded the colonies, by amending certain existing
Acts ?

Sir R. PEEL wished to know whether the Hon.
Member's question had reference to sugar.
ADJOURNMENT OF TIIE HOUSE.

Sir R. Pe.EL, in answer to a questionpultohim the
other day by Mr. Hume, stated that it was his inten-
tion not to propose a longer recess at Easter than eleven
days, and that he would not even pledge himself to
move so long an adjournment.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to know whether
the Coercion Bill would take precedence of the orders
of the day. On subsequent consideration, he thought
it would appear to the Right Hon. Baronet, that it
would be desirable to proceed with the Coercion Bill
on Monday instead of the cern question.
sir R. PEEL said that the course the Government
intended to pursue, and the reasons they had for adopt-
ing that course, would not be depirted from in any par-
ticular. The Coercion Bill should be the only business
to interpose between the consideration of thew Corn Bill
and other business. He proposed that the Bill should
be read for the first time on Monday, and it was pro-
posed by her Majesty's Government that that should be
the only business to interfere with the discussion of the
corn• laws.

SETTLEMENT OF THE POOR.
Mr. BANKES rose to move for a Select Committee to
inquire into the law of settlement and removal of the
poor. It would be observed that the Right Honour-
able Baronet at the head of the Government had
introduced the measure as an accompanying one to that
of the corn-law, and it wa3 in that point of view
that now, when the Corn Bill had approached the
stage of second reading, he considered it right to direct
the attention of the House to the measure, conceiving
that both might be considered at the same time,
with a view to their going to the Upper House at the
same moment.—(Bear.) There were other measures
introduced as accompanying ones to the Corn Bill, but,
in his opinion, they were of little importance, and there-
fore he was not prepared to take the same steps in
reference to them as in the case he then introduced to
the notice of the House.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
It was far from his intention to charge the Right Hon.
Baronet, or any other member of her blajesty's Govern.
ment, with intentionally misleading the public on
this subject, but from the recent statement of the Right
Hon. Baronet they expected something different to the
measure which had been laid on the table of the
House. Now, he did not presume to make any such
charge against the Right Honourable Baronet or any
other Member of the Government, or even to say that
the public were right in the conclusion they had drawn,
but cer.ainly the conclusion was very different from
the measure which was now before the House.
It would be by no means satisfactory, that the Corn
Bill should be passed and sent into the other House,
before this Bill should be discussed, and understood,
and put in point of progress on an equal footing with
the other. He was not prepared to say what might be
right or what might be wrong in the changes which it
contemplated, but this he would say, that his own opi-
nion coincided with the general feeling, that a residence
for a period of five years—(ilear, hear)—or even a
shorter one of three years, should confer the right of
settlement. The Bill was set down for a second reading
oa Monday next, and he was of opinion that it could not
attain to such a progress ' • and he, therefore, bad a right
to draw the attention of the House to the subject, in
order that they might understand precisely what were
the views of the Government with reference to the
principle of the measure. The Bill might
be divided into two parts, that which in-
volved the removal of the peer, and that
which regulated the machinery by which its provisions
were to be carried out. He was prepared to object to
that portion of the measure which conferred new power
on the Poor-law Commissioners.—(Cheers.) To this he
would give his decided opposition. The second
portion had only reference to the machinery
of the Bill, which would involve considerable
discussion, and might well be postponed, but the
principle of the Bill ought to be discussed ; it was of the
utmost importance, and could not be discussed too
anxiously or too soon. But retaining that part of this
Important principle, they would in fact be accomplish-
ing the great advantage which was intended, namely,
the benefit to the poor man himself, to the full extent
of the proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet. That
principle he conceived was, that in consequence of a
residence of a smaller number of years—three years—
theY should give a right of settlement as well
as a right to relief. Now this comprised
the whole subject of the question, and would be
rectifying a great omission of the present poor-law. It
was already granted that the residence of five years
should not only entitle him to relief, but in the event of
any inducement being held out to the poor man, so as to
bribe him to go to a country district, should be visited by
a penalty, and he perfectly agreed with the Right Hon.
Baronet that it was a hardship in the ex-
treme to induce any man who was suffering from
misfortune and poverty to go to a county
with which all connexion was lost, with which all his
ties were broken, and with which he could have no rela-
tion
o t h whatever,e
r._(
at
e daby in fact, any inducement to re-
turn
hear.) This was one of the great
the measure proposed, making
difficultiest urecreated
or,r
l
this alteration in the law of settlement. He thought it
was not wise or right, after, perhaps, a long residence in
a manufacturing town, to induce any one to go into
an agricultural district. He therefore hoped that,
after having obtained the benefit of the right to relief
they would not deprive him of some sufficient right of
settlement, for it was only, in fact, offering him an invi-
tation, at the best, to reside in the workhouse.
For these reasons he trusted that the Government would
not refuse to grant this modification of the law of
settlement, while at the same time it maintained all the
position which they sought to obtain by their new Bill.
He trusted that no Member in the House would consider
this question to be a party one, or that he had brought
Opposition side of
it forward for the purpose ei a political party. He be-
lieved he might say that he might calculate on the support
othfethHeomosse.
joritTyheofG.thoroesrenemvecont ohfadtatted that they thewere
anxious to consider the question of the settlement of the
poor, and he would ask, why had they not set about
carrying out their desires? In many towns in this king-
dom there was an anxiety, and he must admit that.'it
was a justifiable anxiety, to have the question fully
learn from
considered and settled. He believed that it
would be much better settled by a Select Com-
mitteeulear,
hear.)than a
HCeosm.omolidttehee
mostof wholetahnexioosto
the members of the Government why it was that having
the principles which they had professed to entertain on
this question they had stopped short in carrying them
into effect ? And why it was that, having con-
sidered as the Right Hon. Baronet did in that most
able statement, to which he (Mr. Bankes) bad before
alluded, that the labourer had earned his rights, he he-
sitated to confer them upon him ? He wished also
to know why it was that under the law as shadowed
forth by its proposer, if an operative should go for a time
to seek his
.bread in the agricultural districts, and he

returned, the doors were shit against him in the
manufacturing districts which he had left ?
(Cries of "Hear, hear.") They would tell him then
that he had no settlement, and that ho had no right to
return. They would tell him that he had no right to
continue in the inariurectur'ing towns in which
ho had spent the best part of his exist-
ence, but if he chose to go into the
agricultural districts in eeareh of employment, he
must take his chance ; that he had, in fact,
become a gambling speculator in his industry,
and that he must now be content without any
sort of re-lief, because he had the rashness to leave his
usual place.of labour. He returns, perhaps, after two
or three months' aboence, and after all his exertions to
get employment in other places, he was compelled to say,
hetd coma badge to that place where he had worked
al, his life, and where only he had a claim for
relief. It was for this reason he would move for
this Select Committee. A discussion for two or three
days,
at the most, would enable them to form a
Bill, which would be more acceptable to the agricultural
and other interests generally than the measure proposed
by her
Mejeety's Government. It was to give the poor
man something like a settlement that he would move for
a Committee, and he was sure that it was in the power
of Parliament to do so, and to place this question at rest.
Mr. SPOONER, seconded the n
mce• A Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, theoH.woe would bear
with him while he made a few remarks
upon-the notion
li
proposed by the on. Member who had just sat down.
The Hon. Member had alluded to the speech of his Right
Hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) upon this question.
Now, he considered that the speech of the Right Hon.
Baronet was clear and perfeetly intelligible. The ques-
tion raised by the Hoe.. Member was from a forced and
strained construat;Zin of the two expressions which fell from his
Hon. Frt-;lsj. The first of them was the proposed alteration
in .'he law of settlement, and the second was its bearing upon
the Corn Bill. He must say, that had it been his lot to open
this question to the House, the subject could not have been
better stated with reference to his opinion. His Hon. Friend
had clearly described the precise object of the introduction of
this Bill. Ile spoke under the correction of the highest legal
authorities in that House, and he believed it impossible to alter
the law of removal without altering the law of settlement, for
the principle in either case was th same. His Hon. Friend
said that a permanent settlement was not intended to be pro-
posed by Government. Tim question was not by any means
connected with the alteration of the corn-laws. It was an-
nounced in that tseuse as a measure brought forward by her
Majesty's Government in connexion with the landed interest.
It was a measure conducive to the public good, and which
might stand by itself, perfectly independent of the other mea-
sures to which the Hon. Gentleman referred while calling the
attention of the House to the other measure. He (Sir James
Graham, was prepared to support the Bill without reference to
the corn-laws, and he was also prepared to vote for the Corn
Bill in its present shape, even though it should be the pleasure
of the Legislature to reject the other Bill. He must say that
in the course of allhis experience in that House, a more extra-
ordinary motion was never made than the one just made by
the Hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and who proposed
that the subject should be referred to a Select Com-
mittee before the second reading of the Bill.
They had a Bill then before them which had received the first
reading, and stood for the second. Many of the most im-
portant provisions, with reference to the law of removal, were
conclusively not injurious, but, on the contrary, highly bene-
ficial to that portion of the community likely to be effected by
it. Now it struck him that the proposition of the Hon. Gen-
tleman was rather an extraordinary one, as it gave the go-by
to that already before the House ; though every abject sought
to be gained by the Hon. Gentleman could be accomplished
after the second reading, on the motion that the Speaker do
leave the chair, and the House go into Committee.—( Hear. )
The first proposition of course would be, that the Bill be
divided into two parts, which he (Sir J. Graham) would de.
cidedly oppose. The Hon. Gentleman, however, said there
were certain portions of the Bill that did net meet his full ap-
probation. lie (Sir J. Graham) had the honour of proposinq
a similar measure to the present at a framer period ; but then
he accompanied it with several alterations as regarded parochial
settlement, instead of settlement under the old system, which
he did not press, in consequence of the opposition of Hon.
Members. If that opportunity were lost. there would be great
difficulty in hereafter settling the question ; while the arrange-
ment, as it now stood, was excellent and fair, and it was for
the House to determine whether it should be carried out. It
was true there were matters of detail which it might be neces-
sary to alter, but they could easiiy be arranged when the Bill
got into Committee. The principle, however; ha believed,
could not be objected to, and he, for one, was prepared to give
his most hearty and uncompromisiug support to the Bill. It
' a s his most decided opinion that it was equitable and fair, and
viewing this question irrespective of any other measure before
the House, it was one well worthy of support. Many of the
alterations proposed to be made in reference to the poor were
humane and just. The Bill itself had been most carefully pre-
pared, under the advice and guidance of the highest legal
authorities of the country, and he was quite satisfied its
machinery could not be altered with advantage. Under these
circumstances he should most certainly give his decided opposi-
tion to the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Messengers from the Lords brought down certain Bills.

SISbONER wished that the motion of his Hon. Friend
would be ::greed to • and, with regard to what had fallen from
the Secretary for the Home Department, namely, that he had
never held out the proposed measure as one of compensation
for the passing of the corn-law, he would only refer to the
statement which he made when he introduced the
Bill, namely, " that he believed that it would give
a very material relief to the agricultural interest ;" and
the First Lord of the Treasury said, " that they
intended to accompany the Corn Bill with arrangements
calculated materially to advance the interest of that portion of

the community which would be called upon after the lapse of
three years to relinquish protection." How then would they
get over the great difficulty by bringing the measure on the
next night? He quite agreed with what bad fallen from the
Hun. Member for Oldham, that this matter was not at all un-
derstood in the towns ;as the measure at present stood, it was
likely to create a greater evil than that which existed under
the present poor-law, if the evil it contained was to be carried
out. It might lie all very well if confined only to the indus-
trious poor, who at present were occupied in towns. But
how were they to distinguish between the industrious and
vagrant poor, if the laws remained, as the Right Hon.
Baronet proposed—after a certain term of residence ? The
poor man could not be removed, even with his own consent,
should he fall into sickness or meet with an accident, to the
care of those who were best fitted for rendering assistance and
consolation necessary under such circumstances. He should,
therefore, contend that a Committee of the whole House was
not the proper place for the consideration of such a subject.
It ought to be dealt with by a Committee up stairs.
There was another practical difficulty. There were three
parishes in Birmingham ; and supposing a man to live in one,
and work in another, and had to change his residence within
the five years, he would be deprived of all benefit under the
law in such a case. His object was, that some practical men
would consider these difficulties up stairs, and be prepared,
against the second reading of the Bill, with some plan to meet
them, so that the matter might be fairly and satisfactorily set-
tled at once. These were the grounds en which he supported
the motion.

Sir R. PEEL said, that his Hon. Friend who had just
spoken did not misunderstand her Majesty's Government on
this question. What that Hon. Gentleman said was entitled to
the greatest consideration, as he had great experience on the
subject, living, as he did, in a large town, and knowing the
condition of the poor Therein. He said that the object of the
Bill, as explained to the House, was to substitute immovability
for removability, and not to confer rights. He, at least, had
no doabt on the subject, respecting the expressions used as to
what were the intentions of her Majesty's Government. He
(Sir R. Peel) would again say, that the intention of the mea-
sure did not relate to the right of settlement, but to substitut-
ing irremovability for removability. He proposed the measure
because he conceived it would not only be a benefit to the landed
interest, but a good in itself, and fraught with great moral and
social advantages.—( Hear, hear.) And when the Hon. Mem-
ber for Finsbary (Mr. Duncombe) said he attached ~the
n d hopedhe y mored
dtt
hhaeny
s didu r , nothing
Ministers.and hoped they
(the Government) also did, he did nothing more than
express the feeling of her Majesty's Ministers
at-
tach great importance to it. He (Sir R. Peel) said the Go-
vernment considered themselves under the positive obligation
e greatestx prs s ot
Government)
importancem
leinn feeling f to
Pidtlihaisesthylne'se
of doing everything they could to secure the advantages of
the proposed arrangement, not only for the benefit of the
landed interest, but for the interests and comfort of the poorer
classes. He could not consent then to discuss the principles
or provisions of the measure, so as to interfere with the pro-
gress of the Corn Bill before the House, but he would intimate
that he should do everything in his power to make the pro-
posed alterations a good and efficient measure of relief.--
His Hon. Friend who had male the motion wished to give
the right of settlement, and his Hon. Friend who had seconded
the motion had expressed himself as most decidedly opposed
to the right of settlement—( Hear hear)—and the mode in
which he proposed to deal with the question was, by having a
discussion en the second reading of the Bill, and that they
should consent to a Select Committee for the purpose of taking
into consideration the laws relating to the settlement of the
poer.—( Hear, hear.) It bad been stated by the Hon. Mem-
ber who proposed the appointment of a Committee, that cer.
tain impressions had been propagated throughout a great por-
tion of the towns of this kingdom, that the Government
intended to bring in a Bill to confer the right of settle-
rmeemnotv;ingantdhohsee
ipmropprosesesdiontsh.e CNoomzictotneesidfeorrintghethpeurpsagosaecitoyf
of the Hon. Member, he should have thought that he would
have been the last to propose any such course. He (Sir R.
Peel) hoped that his Hon. Friend would permit the House to
proceed in the usual course with respect to the Bill relating to
the settlement of the poor.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. COLQUHOUN rose, amidst cries of " Divide, divide,"
to say, that he hoped bis Hon. Friend would, after the speech
of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, withdraw his motion.—( Hear, hear)—
because it did appear to him that the course picked out by
him would be the best.—(Divide, divide.)
Sir R. H. INGLIS also hoped that his Hon. Friend would
not press the House to a division.—(Hear, hear. )
Colonel SIBTHORPE hoped, on the contrary, that his
hotohsee Rteighmt
akHeo.—n.
(BHaeroarn,ethheaard.
bear.) From
Kta
sis
eg whichht c
Hon. Friend would divide the House on this question.—
( Hear, hear, and lauglater)—for he did think that, after the
(Laughter)—no reliance ought to be placed on any pledges
ohwwnehhamievenyhr the.
the oldpl3ee dAsmNgymees
e andthought
wouldhe
be
oetuhlbed:nuiorgt
brought
see
wf
withdrew
useforward.
de.w his
1845 to 1846, a sum, not less than 52,0001. bad been expended
any longer.
tfs motion,pstuorsoduinf ogrhieat
should like her Majesty's
_Government to have a fixed day
El
nu
measure
second reading on Monday next, but it did not appear likely
that it would come on then, and under those cireamstances he
thought that a fixed day should be named for the decision.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that it would be impossible for
him to name a fixed day on which to bring on the discussion
on the measure. The second reading of the Bill was fixed
for Monday, and if it were possible then to proceed with it,
the principle of it could be affirmed.
Mr. VERNON SMITH would only make one observa-
tion. The words " industrial residences" had been used by
several Hon. Members in the course of the debate, and by
the Right Hon. Gentleman himself. Now there was no
mention at all in the Bill of the words "industrial residences."
Unless these words were introduced, the Bill would not fulfil
the intention of the Right Hon. Baronet himself.
Lord EBRINGTON hoped that no delay would take place
in passing the Law of Settlement Bill.
Sir R. PEEL said he would take this Bill immediately
after the decision of the House was taken on the Corn Bill, and
on the Bill for the better Protection of Life and Property in

_
Ireland.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE had paid great attention to the Bill,
and had consulted magistrates and others concerning it, who
concurred with him, in the opinion that the Bill was one
which ought not to pass. In the present state, however, of
public business, he would suggest, that his Hon. Friend should
withdraw his motion, and renew it when the Corn Bill had
been disposed of.
After a few observations from Mr. P. SCROPF,
Mr. BANKES said, after what had been stated by the
Right Hon. Baronet, he did not think he should deal properly
with the feeling of the House if he pressed his motion to a
division. He should, therefore, withdraw it; but, whilst he
did so, he begged leave to inform that Right Hon. Gentleman