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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY _ EVENING, JUNE 6, 1846.

from being proceeded with ; and also by limiting the time for
making the calls it would greatly tend to relieve the labour
market. But he should deny that it was in the power of the
Committee to
.remedy the evil, as the Noble Earl appeared to
think, because in some cases lines of railway came before the
Committee and were not opposed, and then the Committee
had no remedy but to pass them.
Lord ASHBURTON could not clearly see his way through
the difficulty with which this question was surrounded ; but
he did think it would be a means of inflicting great hardship
upon individuals if railways which had made a certain progress
were now to be stopped.
The Duke of WELLINGTON would like to see the in-
struction intended to be proposed by the Noble Lord before he
could consent to it. He thought it would be very inconve-
nient to allow all the Bills to be collected into one mass, before
any step should be taken to limit them, and that would be the
effect of the first resolution.
Lord AIONTEAGLE was of opinion that if some step should
not be taken to put a stop to these railway . speculations, the
Leg:slature would find itself surrounded by ddficulties. Many
railways had been started, not because they were useful public
works, but because they were mere speculations. He was of
opinion that it would be well to give parties, under certain
circumstances, at least twelve months' time for consideration.
The Duke of RICHMOND quite agreed with his Noble
Friend in the observations he had made about speculative rail.
ways, but he found it would be an act of injustice to some to
stop them, if they were now in progress ; but he would sugge=t
that some measure should be taken to remedy the evil by the
next session, arid he thought the best way of doing it would be
by limiting the means of borrowing money. He was also of
opinion that the standing orders ought to be revised, and made
more decisive.

After a few words from Lord KINNAIRD,
Lord REDESDALE admitted that there were de-
fects in the standing orders, and they ought to be remedied, but
if they restricted the time of taking land, they ought to en.
large the ,ime for preparing the preliminary plans and sections.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM spoke a few words in reply, and with-
drew his resolutions.
Several Bills on the table were advanced a stage, and their
Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 5.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
EDINBURGH AND NORTHERN RAILWAY
(BRANCHES FROM THE DUNDEE AND AR-
BROATH RAILWAY, AND TAY FERRY DI-
PR 0 YEMEN T).
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
DUNDEE NEW GAS BILL.
The Lords' amendments on this Bill were considered and
agreed to.
STIRLINGSHIRE MIDLAND JUNCTION RAILWAY
BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND (EASTERN EX-
TENSION) BILL.
This Bill was also read a third time and passed.
ALFORD VALLEY RAILWAY BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
NORFOLK RAILWAY EXTENSION BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
GREAT GRIMSBY AND SHEFFIELD JUNCTION
RAILWAY—( HUMBER FERRIES).
This Bill was also read a third time and passed.
BRISTOL AND SOUTH WALES JUNCTION RAIL-
WAY AND FERRY BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this Bill,
Mr. H. BERKELEY proposed that the standing order
No. 121 be suspended in the case of the amendments pro-
posed to be made on the third reading of the Bristol and South
Wales Junction Railway and Ferry Bill, of which notice has
been Elven in the Private Bill office.
The amendment wa. agreed to, and the Bill was read a third
time and passed.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (GLASGOW TERMINI

AND BRANCHES).
The report on this Bill was brought up and agreed to, and
the Bill was ordered to be engrossed.
SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL (MAIDSTONE
TO STROUD, NEAR ROCHESTER).
The report on this Bill wns brought up and agreed to, and
the Bill was ordered to be engrossed.
LEICESTER AND BEDFORD RAILWAY.
Mr. PACKE moved the consideration of the report on the
Leicester and Bedford Railway Bill.
Mr. V. SMITH objected to the consideration of the report,
on the grounds that there was no traffic on the line. He
would, therefore, move that it should be postponed until
next session, such a proceeding could do no injury to any one.
He hoped the Bill would be postponed till next year, when all
the five Bills involved might receive full inquiry. Under the
circumstances, he would move the further consideration of the
report that day six months.
Mr. HUDSON seconard the motion.
Sir CHARLES LEMON, as chairman of the Committee,
would not have spoken had not the Honourable Member
who had just sat down made some insinuations about
the proceedings of the Committee. All he could say en the
matter was, that everything the Hon. Member had urged against
the Bill was as well stated, if not bk tter stated, before the
Committee than it had been now before the House; and yet
after a careful investigation and deliberation on the merits of
the Bill, for ten days, the Committee decided unanimously in
its favour. There was not the least doubt entertained by any
of the members, and, therefore, he thought the result ought
not to be interrered with by the House.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the report
adopted.
GREAT GRIMSBY AND SHEFFIELD JUNCTION
RAILWAY
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
REA DING, GUILDFORD, AND REIGATE RAILWAY.
Mr. MANGLES moved that the report of the Reading,
Guildford, and Reigate Railway Rll be brought up.
Captain PECHELL said he had been waiting to ascertain
what Hon. Member of that House would have had the courage
to move the adoption of the report of the Committee upon this
railway, for he should say that the line had been supported
by the most extraordinary documentary evidence he had ever
heard of, and which inflicted upon the committee very consi-
derable labour. The tables of traffic that had been produced
were such as he thought would not be justified had
they been produced by the London and Birmingham Co-npany.
The amount of traffic in carriages and horses and passengers
had been estimated at a higher figure than had been known to
have been received upon the London and Birmingham line.
He thought that the reasons ought to have been stated why
the Committee approved of the preamble on the single vote of
the Chairman. He should therefore move that the second
reading of this Bill should be postponed till this day week.
On the motion b'ing put,
Sir C. DOUGLAS said that he was ready to give the reasons
of the Committee which the Hon. Member had required. He
would beg, as one of them, to remind the House that in the
report which the Committee had made they had stated that,
in consequence of the circumstances pleaded by the opponents
of the Bill, the Committee had delayed its consideration for
several days. This circumstance they had stated in their report
to the House. if the Honourable Member would refer
to the last paragraph of that report, he would find
that this circumstance was stated as a reason why, instead of re.•
porting strongly, they bad left it to the election of the House
whether the report should be adopted or not. Certainly in the
opinion of the Committee there were sufficient reasons for its
adoption, and amongst them was the fact that the number of
shares in the company was 40,000 at 201. each ; the amount
of deposit required by the Act was 24,0001., but the money
actually deposited was 92,0001., and considering that this sum had been paid in for fully five months, the Committee felt
fully justified in reporting favourably, although, in the absence
of one member of the Committee, it was carried by the casting
vote.

The House then divided, when the numbers appeared to be_
For the motion 7l
For the amendment
Majority — 66
Mr. BARRY BA LDWIN presented a petition in favour of
the London and Warwickshire Railway.
IRISH MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
The Midland Great Western (Ireland) Bill (Mullingar and
Galway) was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
SION COLLEGE ESTATE.
This Bill wa; read a third time and passed.
GORBALS GRAVITATION WATER-WORKS.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
DUBLIN AND KINGSTON EXTENSION RAILWAY.
This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted

PORTSMOUTH HARBOUR PIER.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
TOBACCO DUTIES.
Dr. BOWRING begged to give notice, on behalf of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that he should,
on Monday week, bring under the attention of the House the
inordinate amount of crime and misery which is suffered by
the country by the enormous duties on tobacco.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. YOUNG moved the adjournment of the House at its
rising until Monday next, when he was interrupted by
Mr. G. BANKES, who rose to present a petition from
Bridport, but he was interrupted by
The SPEAKER, who declared him out of order.
The motion for adjournment was then carried.
BRIDPORT ELECTION.
- -

Mr. G. BANKES resumed by stating that this mas the last
day, under Lord John Russell's Act, fer presenting public peti-
tions, and he trusted, therefore, the House would hear from
whom it originated. It was signed by six persons, who stated
themselves to be free and independent electors of Brid-
port, and that at the last election they had been par-
tisans to neither of the candidates. They stated
that at the preceding election serious acts of bribery and cor-
ruption had been practised.; that these acts had been preva-
lent for a long series of years, and that this bribery and corrup-
tion interfered with their rights as free and independent electors.
The petitioners went on to state that some measure ought to
be taken by which to protect the electors
Itohtlilie borough from
being overborne in this way in the exercise
that in presenting this TAM in they were wholly theirrulfrantineutiete—d
hy any private feelings, but they hoped thatgtehjeirrationaflorable
House would show to the country in borough in particular, that the electors would be protecteilits
the firm and independent exercise of their eleutorial duties.
Mr. G. BERKELEY hePg°
gSeTtOF.kFICh E. . h
1.1
purita
the Secretary of State for ihe'
in reference to the Home Departme.nt, a question
being made to close the post
whcolcuhntrywastonwonws
on Sundays. He would wish to know whether it was in the
power of the Postmaster-General to do this?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the Hon.
I 1 i cHa 11
attempt e
_i .Rn 1 g t on. aronet
Member had
been so obliging as to have sent him notice that morning
that it was his intention to put that question during
the sitting of the House to-day ; and, in
answer,,
he begged to say that since then he had
no opportunity of consulting had
the Postmaster-General upon the
subject. He believed that the Postmaster-General had the
power to regulate the hours of closing
offices of country towns on Sundays; and he believed that l
tter-b that was to be oen
re-
gulation was, that the e
d the non-delivepry
during the whole day, an
of letters was confined only to the hours of
•
divine service. But the question M
of the Hon.ember was one
of a legal character, which he was present competent to
not at
answer.

POOR-LAW IN IRELAND.

in reply to questions put by Colonel RAWDON, as to the
proceedings of the Poor-law Commissioners with respect to a
parish in Ireland,
Mr. S. HERBERT stated that the Poor-law Commissioners
were cognisant of the circumstances ; that they had appointed
a commissioner to inquire into the facts, who had made a re-
port. which he should have no chjection laying on the table,
together with any correspondence.

to a first, second, or third reading ; and stating the term of years
within which the works so provided for are to be completed.
Agreed to.
AW
beingrßEMOVALread for
BILL.
On thegoing
into Com-
mittee on this Bill,
Mr. EVELYN DENISON rose to move certain instruc-
R
tions to the Committee connected with the law of settlement,
orderPO oOthLeay
but he was interrupted by
Mr. 'l'. 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
Hon. 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 what ever 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
1 the next stage of proceeding?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that his Honourable Friend
who had just sat down had 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
regulate its provisions. The Bill in no way interfered with the
law of settlement ; it only had tedo with the removal of the poor.
The Hon. Member for Melton 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 nut 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 regard 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 13th 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 relatine to the law of settlement would also be
repealed, though the Right Hon. 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 teachirg 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. Duncombe) 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 ir, view, for as he (Lord John Russell)
understood him, his motion would have the effect of remodel-
ling the whole Bill. He conceived, also, that it was perfectly
competent for the Hon. Gentleman to do that on the third
reading which the rules of the House prevented him from
doing now.
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.
He could not help considering that great inconvenience had
arisen from the title of the Bill, which stated that it referred
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 he 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 state 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
mi4ht 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 anointed in 1843 to inquire in'o
the state of the children employed in agriculture. Mr. Aus-
tin and the Rev. Mr. Gutch, in that report stated, that the
want of accommodation in the cottages of families employed
ir, 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
wolds 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
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
when together, were quite insufficient for their nutriment when
they were separated ; and not 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
vi 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. What 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 (Anse, 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 Baysford
23 close and 33 open. In the Malton district there were 31
close and 37 open; and he had understood frcm an lion. Friend
of his there were 41 parishes in his district, of which 21 were
close and 21 open. He did conceive that this opened up a
principle which ought to be taken into account. If these
parishes 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
whilst the people were in health and strength, and would occa-
sion a feeling for their maintenance when old ante rendered them
unfit for labour. The Hon. Member for Cornwall had said,
that the first effect of the repeal of the corn-law would be to
awaken one thousand farmers from their sleep. The first
thing they would discover would be the inadequate employment
and 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
labourers, to a diminution in their own rents. He believed
that if this Bill were to pass, and the provision of which he had
given notice were to receive the favourable opinion of the
House, there would no longer exist any apprehension from the
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 18t4, 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 Hon. 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 pauperwasclioenvwceaedsrned, the parish in which the
miunn:itnoen.as-dsheootfut
isteehmeweapnsat placed.rishwhich
He be would be charged for his maintenance,
thatl egaltlhyeedhaayrgweaabs lneowith
dt
it: e...
tent 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.
He 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 hear the opinion of her
it would have the
of unemployed labourperr
MaiestY's Governmentorpe the
and than
unjses.eTnthernyointiuons:
lbooeckatuose
different system
that
tendency of producing a useless mass
tehree nt
commonsyst em ed for the protectiona ofj
however,
the motion would operate m
theyustly on many of
all parts of the country.
cruelly
t gtri,eat difficulty in remodellingentrY.
lands. now possess
Government were an '
would House considered Mr. RICE thought th
kTnhoewr
whethere certainly
Bill; and he considered ha
bett
ae P"r 10
the
the
red such a remodel]. xious
to
sary.—( Hear, hear.) .ing neces_
Mr. CHRISTOPHER said if he
u
I),mi-fit the poor he would vote for it, consideredatwas not of an
the Bill would
such opinion. A parish would not support its
e
would throw their support on the whole own p-or, but
union. He ha d
great
en
respect for the old parochial system of En l d a
considered it engendered good feelings betweg art , as he
the middle and
the poorer classes. He considered also that some of
clauses of the Bill, instead of relieving the poor, would . the
Inflict
new burdens upon them.
Mr. STRUf T was as anxious as any other person to see
the evils in the present sy3tent removed, but he considered the
amendment which had been moved would lead to some other
abuses to those which already existed, equally objectionable.
With respect to the question of general settlement he consi-
dered it an evil ; any law upon the subject was a positive evil
—( Hear, hear)—but it was necessary. On general grounds
he was dispGsed to support a union settlement ; but he
would prefer to hear the question further debated. If the pre_
sent Bill were to pass into a law, it would be most objection-
able, unless it was accompanied by some such measure as that
proposed.
Mr. PAKINGTON feared that the amendment moved by
the Hon. }Heather for Malton would have the effect of throw.

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 Mahon, and his only fear was that it would delay
the Bill, which was so important to the poor of this country.
Sir J. GRAHAM said on the ahstrect merits of the question
he would not trouble them at any length, as it was the very
same Pill 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
enact-
ment injurieson he s t
ao
tnn
ttehe labouring
-b
ook.
The
law
athan
as it
tnow
stood
he
o do
wast r
aehnlaec
tt
0-
tgorgaevteh oe
rb j
me cet ohnys ,
thebu nh
set
rdni de t
ino
no totfhtihnek
Ht
one evilAie mwhoeur le h
There
e-
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-
spiedne
rteod getthe
rme rri ed
should.
eTao
nme ewe
at r sr ua
nc hg e
mc aesne st
stoh earse ftoor
extende , he e o
then
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 dairman 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 parishs in England, and but
600 poar-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 pour ; in addition to which he
would add the testimony of Mr. Tuffnell, the Assistant Poor-
law Commissioner, who, in a report made in 1841, 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 •
titan 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 born
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
born in the county ; 41,000 elsewhere. In Surrey 156,000
were born in the county; 151,000 elsewhere. Compare this
with the state of things in the rural districts. In the agricul-
tural county of Buckingham 127.000 were born in the county;
and but 28,000 elsewhere. In the East Riding of Yorkshire,
1'14,000 were born in the county ; '20,000 elsewhere. In
Anglesea 48,000 were born in the county ; but 2,1560 else-
where. And in three hundreds of Norfolk 54,000 were
born in the county; and only 65 persons elsewhere. This
showed the law of settlement pressed on small agricultural
localities. 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
be 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.
Gentleman entertained such a strong sense of the value of the
prineiple, he did not introduce it in the Bill for which he
now sought to ohtain the sanction of the House.—( Hear, hear. )
The Hon. Member said that the measure would be gi•eatly
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 one of those remedial measures
intended to be introduced as a boon to the agricultural interests.
But lie 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-
mg, the Secretary for 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
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 SMITE! thought that the course pursued
by the Government on the present measure was a most in-
jurious one. The 3overnment had intedrofewrned,anoyn vdaerfiionuitseoncr-
insegttlemen", as at present
perasaicotnicsalofprlaintecipveas.rs,
Twhiteholuawt laying
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 Mahon 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
employment, in order to keep them from being burdensome to
the parish. He 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. NEWDEG ATE 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 as they had been
to the measure of 1844. It would create feelings of dis-
satisfaction and discontent among them
Mr. GRAINGER was of opinion that the principal argu-
ment upon which the Hon. Member had founded 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 parochial settlement; in the
wolds of Yorkshire, near where he resided, more than three-
' fourths of the persons removed had lived from their parishes
more than five years ; he would therefore support the instruc-
tions moved for by the Hon. Member for Mahon.
Mr. PACK E considered that it was mostpreposterous 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. Petitions 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 Male
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
hiamraciodspee,nr.oant dTathrhreaiyvte might
could
but
x ttschaeehy
et hgearotenat
contended
commercialdt iemd etf suchohrat it
had,anch a an rgrefao3nr g
we
when
conhnt
principle
From all the
of they
It was impossible.
any longer maintain
readily furnished. He was therefore compelled to move in the
returns should be furnished forthwith. From
House that these
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'd
man, who was sent back to his parish after a residence of
thirty-five years. Ie the years 1841 and 1842, there were
sent over from Stockport to Ireland a great number of per-
sons, with families averaging from eig • h t to twelve each ; but
the clerk of the union of Stockport,
with
a strange forgetful-
ness, could not far the life of him tell how
long these people
had resided there. H know e did not
of his amendment, but whatever it what
would be the effect was, he should have the
satisfaction of placing it upon
the records of the Ho s
use—
(Cries of " Hear.") During the l
.recess he had travelled
through all the manufactu • rine districts, and was pleased
to
see the marked improvementthe •
He believed that if the law amongf
settlement could be altered
with safety at any time, it was the present. Ile believed that
an alteration, or a total ah 1. •be met with plea o ition, of the existing laws would
sure by all General JOHNSON classes of the community.
satisfied, after thirty years
seconded the amendment. He was
give general satisfaction 3 s experience,
that the only way to
the present law ofs to the public would be to totally abo-
lish Mr. BRIGHT had beenettlement—(Cheers.
speech of the Hon.consider, from the
at a loss to .
tended to oppose the es _ember far Finsbury, whether he m-
Biil or to have blow at the manufac-
a
turers. The Hon. ]ember those parts of the count been down in
er for Finsbury had
to find the grievancesryird had possibly been endeavouring.
t aroong the trades unions. The
Hon. Member proceeded t atten-
tion paid by the lar:eareganeitatli.at theore wasthe morewelfare of
labourers employed than capitalists
small
capitalists.
The Hon. Member should recollect when he spoke of the

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 Hall-
fix which paid 389,0' 0/. in three year, fur wages, but had rot
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 Ireland 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 sho e 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
1e37, 1835, and 1839, no less than 340 eases
had occurred in which persons had suffered injuries.
whilst working in the cotton factories.—( Hear, hear.) And
compensation by toe master manufacturers had been made in
only two of these cases. He defied the Hon. Member to show
that the landed gentry had 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 •
eombe) had no right to speak in that House as the representae
tire of the working classes. Why, then, if that Hon. Member
was not, he would ask who was ? ( Hear, hear.) He felt him-
self bound to oppose the proposition of his Hon. Re!ative. The
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department
had 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 pa-ishes 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 Melton was entitled to a great deal of
very serious consideration ; but in giving his vote for the fur-
ther consideration of the measure, he did not consider himself
bound 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 more 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 Mahon would have the etT.-ct 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 hail 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 would resist the infliction of an addi-
tional burden upon them, if they thought it was unjust. These
were the observations which he bad deemed it necessary to
make on the motion of the Hon. Member for Mahon, 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
Melton, 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 infiuenee.—( Hear.)
Sir J. G RA HAM wished to offer a few observations in explana-
tion on account of what had fallen 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 and out of
the House he would do his best to make the definition as clear
as possible. With regard to the proposition of the Hon.
Member for Dorsetshire, he agreed with the Hon. Member
for Durham, as he was persuaded the change the former
Member recommended would lead to most 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 Melton. 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 everr hing 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 rezard 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 G mtlemen , that where a man
had been engaged in work 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 Mahon 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, arid he was therefore prepared to go into Corn-
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 opposite de-
clared that he wished the House to agree to the instruc•ions.
The Right Hon. Baronet said he should vote for them, because
he thought they were conformable with justice, so that in fact
the tone the Right Hon. Baronet had taken, made him the
mover of this proposal, and if the House went
into Committee armed with these instructions, the
Right Hon. Baronet would alter the terms and form of his Bill ;
and no doubt the Committee would he purely of a pro forma
character, and they wool f 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 for 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 one time
he was only for birth settlement, and now he proposed to
alter that principle saltogether. At another time, the Right
Hon. Baronet had protested that it was highly necessary that
Government should not 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 subject 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 wishes' 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, hut, 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.) Ile confessed he
was much disposed to agree as to the course suggested by the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury, and, should he
press the amendment to a divison, he should have his (Lord J.
Manners) support.—( Hear, and cries of " Divide, divide.")
Mr. P. BORTHWICK (amidst great laughter, cries of
" Oh ! oh !" and " Divide, divide") said he rose for the pur-
pose of moving the adjournment of the debate, inasmuch as
many Hon. Members were absent, as they were under a mis
apprehension as to the course which the Government intended
to take that night with regard to this question.—(" Divide,
teo,
divide.") He thought that the people at large were entitled
the
measure e
ask for an adjournment of this discussion, in orderieth h
measure might he fully considered.—e" Divide, die .')
Mr. BANKES having seconded the adjournment,d
The SPEAKER put the motion, when
Mr. DUNCOMBE rose for the purpose of replying to the
remarks which had been that evening made by the Hon. Mem-
Gentleman had
ber for Durham (Mr. Bright). That lion.
said, amongst other things, that if the measures which were
now before the other House of Parliament had been left to him
(Mr. Duncombe) and his associates, they never would have
passed. He had also said he had been in the manufacturing
districts, for the purpose of fomenting discord between em-
ployers and employed. He was also pleased to
y that with regard to the feelings of the
say
classes he was totally in error. He (Mr. Duncombe)
did not know what right he had to make his assertions, be-
cause he had the honour of sitting in that House for nearly
twenty years, and he had always voted for a repeal of the corn_
laws.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Durham had
not condescended to say who those persons were with whom he
associated, nor did he now know to whom he alluded. He
certainly had had what were called League meetings, and he
had always openly stated what were his views as to
ticket meetings.—(Load cheers from the
Protectionists.)