The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-26 00:00:00

ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

On the motion that this Bill be read a third time,
The Earl of HARROWBY objected to the power
given to the company by this Bill to run steamers in
connexion with their line to the Channel Islands, and
the coasts of England and France. It was a monopoly
which ought not to be given to any parties, and the more
especially to railway companies. Moreover, it was an
improper application of railway funds. He should there-
fore move the omission of that part of the preamble of
the Bill which sanctioned the company becoming proprie-
tors of steam-boats.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought railway com-
panies ought not to have the power of establishing
steam-boats in connexion with their lines, and he should
therefore support the proposition of his Noble Friend.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS, as a member of the
Committee to whom this question was referred, vindi-
cated the decision of the Committees in the cases of the
Dublin, Chester, and Holyhead, and the Brighton and
South Coast lines. With respect to the London and
South-Western Company, the Committee had permitted
the purchase of steam-boats for the traffic with conti-
nental ports solely for the purpose of increasing the
amount of public accommodation and the facility of
transit.

Lord MONTEAGLE supported the amendment. his
experience of railway companies had shown him that
their plan was first to get a terminus at a seaport, then
to secure the port, and finally to monopolise the water
communication.

Tho Marquis of WESTMINSTER supported the
clause as the only moms of securing regularity of com-
munication with the continent, a point which all previ-
ous steam-boat companies had failed to effect.
The Earl of MINTO feared that the House had been
taken somewhat by surprise by the Noble Earl's amend-
ment. Would it not be better if the Noble Earl were to
postpone the discussion to a future day?
After a few words from Earl ST. GERMANS and the
Earl of WARWICK, in vindication of the decision of the
Committee, _ _ _

Lord BEAUMONT opposed the clause as a question
of principle, but the South-Western Company would not
be defeated-in their object, as they could form themselves
snto a separate company for steam-boat purposes.
The Earl of HARROWBY declined postponement,
seeing that all the facts were fully before the House.
Lord REDESDALE complained that no notice had
been given of the opposition intended. He concurred
with the Lord Privy Seal in thinking that an adjourn-
ment of the debate would be desirable.

After a few words from the Marquis of LANS-
DOWNE,

The Earl of lIARROWBY consented to the adjourn-
ment of the debate until Thursday next.
The House adjourned at a Quarter past Seven until
Thursday next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 25.
POOR-LAW UNION CHARGES (No. 2) BILL.
Mr. CHARLES BULLER (in continuation from
our Afternoon Edition of yesterday)—said he had no
wish, in making the proposition for union rating, to pre-
vent owners of estates in different parishes taking that
direct interest which they now had in upholding the
condition of the labouring classes. The Hon. Member
then observed that the present law of settlement—the
power of removing paupers—was a great hardship
upon the poor, and he trusted that no long time would
elapse without Parliament relieving the poor man of
that great evil. He believed that a great change, affect-
ing the condition of the poor, might be made without
interfering with the general principle, that the charge
for the resident poor should be thrown on the particular
parish in which they had resided and laboured all their
lives. He proposed simply now that parishes should
at once cheerfully submit to the extension of the rate over
a whole union. It was provided in the Bill that
extra-parochial places should be chargeable with their
own poor, but there was a modification to enable them to
join with another parish, instead of keeping up a sepa-
rate parochial rate. Ho was perfectly aware that some
parts of the Bill would be considered objectionable, and
he trusted that the House would now consent to the
second reading, in order that they might discuss the de..
tails of the Bill in Committee.
On the motion for the second reading being put,
Mr. HENLEY opposed the Bill. The Right Hon.
Gentleman had stated that he had no wish to break down
the present parochial system, but he (Mr. llenley) was
one who entertained the opinion that such would be the
effect of the present Bill. If the parochial system which
had been so many years established in this country, and
upon which large purchases of property had been made,
and long leases taken, was once departed from, he was of
Opinion that the House would eventually be obliged to
grant a national rate for the maintenance of the poor.
The Hon. Gentleman had given an analysis of charges
which he thought ought to be thrown over a larger area;
but he had brought forward no argument to show that
such an arrangement was either advisable or necessary.
He objected to throwing the support of vagrants and re-
movables over the whole union. They were now going, by
this Bill, to extend the system for levyiny the rates, and if
they continued to tamper
with the interests of the
people they woul bee
people as they hadlately
obliged to concede
one universal system of rating.
Ile wished now to off or a few observations upon that
part of the Bill which/ related to vagrancy. The Right
Hon. Baronet seemed to think that the vagrancy of e
present day was not so much owing to the law affecting
.
vagrancy as the manner which that law was adminis-
tered; but in dealing with this subject they must go
back to the events which occurred
i some thirteen or four-
teen years ago. At that time, n consequence of the
depression in the manufacturing districts, a great amount
lle ow. ns
of destitute poor were thrown upon
in the country, and a great outcry wasaraised the.larg
at gainst
aoly
the then system of poor-law relief,which
led to the establishment of the
vagrancy lawsu , an ltimdt the
formation of certain regulations fo
Casual poor of parishes. Those rthe relief of the
regulations had been
) to be
taken advantage of by the idle vagrant. and a monstrous
abuse had sprung up of parties, pretending
, going from parish to parish
and
levying
The Right
contributions upon the parochial funds.
Honourable Baronet proposed to remedy
this
by requiring: relieving officers to be more cautious in
i
the selection of parties to whom they administered to evil
re-
lief, but he warned the Right Hon. Gentleman not to be
too stringent in the regulations he inflicted on relieving
officers, or many parties who might be really deserving
of immediate relief would run the risk of dying of star-
vation. He thought if the relief of the casual poor were
placed under the control of the police fewer frauds
would be practised upon the parochial authorities by the
sturdy vagrant than there were at present. Vagrancy
had always been considered a crime in this country, and
he could see no reason why his suggestion should not be
adopted. At all events, he doubted whether the boards
of guardians would pay much attention to the subject.
Boards of guardians paid very little attention to any-
thing but the pounds, shillings, and pence, and as this
Bill would extend the charge of vagrancy over
a large area the expense to each parish
would be reduced, the matter would be neglected by
boards of guardians, and the natural result would be an
increase in the vagrancy of the country. Referring now
to other parts of the Bill, he wanted to know upon what
principle of justice the man who had a yearly income of
1004 derivable from land, had to pay 251. towards
the maintenance of the poor, and the man
who received 1,000/. a year from the funds paid nothing.
Why should a coal-mine contribute towards the sup-
port of the poor and a lead-mine not? These were
anomalies in the law which ought to be remedied with.
out delay, and so ought the system of rating; for in
the agricultural districts of theEn
gland
a of
a labourer, with a family of four children, could
only earn by honest industry 10s. a week, but if he went
into the workhouse his family involved the parish in an
expense of Is. Bd. per week per head, so defective was the
system of rating and managing the union workhouses.
lie did not think that bit by bit legislation, like the ,