The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-24 00:00:00

in the opinion expressed by the Right Hon. Baronet,
who had just addressed the Committee, that by attempt-
ing to define the term they would only involve it in fresh
difficulties. He consiqf red, therefore, that the better
course would be to .11°4- the same word to be used as
had formerly been einp:oyed, the definition of which
was generally understood in the courts of law through-
out the country.
Mr. POULETT SCROPE said that courts of justice
very often were not able to explain the proper meaning,
which the Legislature intended to convey, and thus in
many instances the very intentions of the Legislature
were frustrated. But he did consider that the
Legislature would stultify itself very mucn if it
shrunk from explaining what it meant in an
Act of Parliament. He considered that there was too
much latitude in the definition of residence, so much so
that it would be the subject of endless litigation. He
did mot consider that it would be fair that the parish of
St. Giles should support all the poor who lived there,
but who spent their strength and health in the richer
and more wealthy parishes of St. James. He hoped,
then, that they would define the word residence.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, they were approaching the
great question of union settlements by the present dis-
cussion. He apprehended the question strictly for them
to decide upon was, whether they should give a stricter
definition to residence. Now, he considered the words
objected to implied industrial residences; they would
introduce more doubt into the Act than certainty. What
was meant by residence was generally understood, and
it would be better to leave the question open to the
common sense which would guide those to whom th•
provisions of the Bill were entrusted to be carried into
effect.

Mr. HENLEY wished to have the sentence rendered
intelligible. He would like to know what answer the
Members of that House would be able to give if they
were examined on their oath as to where they had
slept every night during the last five years ?—(Laugh-
ter.) The parochial authorities would question the un-
fortunate individual (whom they wished to remove),
and the onus would remain on him to prove his right.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY considered that they
should leave the definition to the dictates of common
sense, which would be found a much bettercriterion than
any definition.
Mr. BECKETT DENISON said he hoped the House
would riot accept the suggestion to make the decision of
two magistrates binding. He considered that they
ought to leave the question undefined, so that the prin-
ciples of common sense might be the guide by which
the authorities should decide.
Mr. VERNON SMITH considered that it would in-
flict very great hardship on the applicant before the ma-
gistrate it' they did not define their meaning.
Sir J. GRAHAM offered some observations in expla-
nation, but his observations were utterly inaudible in
the gallery.
Mr. S. WORTLEY also explained. _ .

Mr. HENLEY objected to the principle of the clause,
as it would be almost impossible for any man to prove
satisfactorily that he had slept forty nights in the parish.
The whole burden of the proof would be thrown on the
poor man who sought relief.
Captain PECHELL withdrew his motion; and on
the next clause relating to widows, he should certainly
take the sense of the House.
Sir J. PAKINGTON rose to move an amendment of
which he had given notice, namely, to substitute the
word three for the word five. The amendment was so
simple, that it required but little explanation ; and he
had, therefore, simply to state that the greatest evils arose
to the poor from the present system of removal ; and,
in fact, they suffered more than those who were punished.
for crime. Great hardships had also been inflicted upon
the poor from their fear of the system. They had ab-
stained from seeking any relief, in many instances, know-
ing that any application would result in an immediate
removal. The authority of the Poor-law Commissioners
was in favour of the; period of three years industrial resi-
dence ; and by a law which existed in Scotland last year,
a three years industrial residence, in any expressed town,
should entitle them to a settlement there. It was for
the benefit of the poor that they shc uld be made irre-
moveable in as short a period as possible
Colonel WOOD said that he had given notice of a
similar motion to the one made by the Hon. Member,
but on learning that it would be resisted by the Bir-
mingham manufacturers, he had withdrawn it. He
would recommend the Hon. Member to follow a similar
course. _ _

Sir G. GREY said that he was not prepared to deny
the force of the arguments used by the Hon. Member,
but he thought that as the Bill had been a long time
under consideration, and the period had always been
looked forward to as five years, he thought that it would
be advisable to withdraw his motion.
After a few words from Lord HARRY VANE,
Sir J. PAKINGTON withdrew his amendment.
Mr. SPOONER thought that the pauper should have
the option of going to his own parish if he so pleased.
By such an arrangement he considered that the pauper,
if an old person, would be enabled to go among his
own friends. It would, in his opinion, be a great im-
provement on the proposed plan.
Mr. P. SCROPE wished to draw attention to the
anomaly of giving a right to relief to any Irishman, who
may have resided here for a period of five years, while
there was no law of settlement in Ireland, and those who
did receive relief were treated in a very indifferent man-
ner. In 1841, 1842, and 1843, there were 320 English
families removed from Manchester, while there were
728 Irish families, being nearly one. half. (Hear,
hear.) There were nearly a million of Irish-
men resident in England, and the effect of
the present Bill would be to give every one of these a
claim to relief. That would be an enormous extra and
new charge to the ratepayers of this country. He did not
complain that the Irish received relief, but he thought
that so great an anomaly as he had pointed out should
be removed, and he would conclude by moving that the
following words be added:—" Provided always, that
every native of Ireland shall be liable to removal till
he has a right to relief in his own country."
Sir G. GREY was sure that the House would not ex-
pect him to go into the question of the Irish Poor-laws.
—(Hear, hear.) He considered that when an Irishman
and Englishman had spent several years toiling together,
it would be a great hardship, in the event of their both
becoming chargeable, that one should be entitled to re-
ceive relief, and the other be removed, and sent out of the
country. This, he considered, would be a far greater
anomaly than that complained of by the Hon. Gen-
tleman.

Sir R. FERGUSON said that, as chairman of a
board of guardians, he could state that the English were
relieved on the same terms precisely as the Irish in the
union over which he presided ; and there were one or
two instances which recently came under his notice,
where they were dealt with even more favourably.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause
agreed to. On clause 2,
Mr. PECHELL moved that, after the word " widow-
hood," in the second line, the words "be required to
be examined as to her settlement, or," be inserted.
Mr. PAKINGTON, under the circumstances, thought
the amendment ought not to be pressed on the House at
present.
After a few words from Captain PECHELL and Mr.
SPooNER in support of the amendment, and Sir G.
GREY against it, the amendment was withdrawn, and
the clause, in its original form, agreed to.
Clause 3 was then agreed to.
On clause 4 being read,
Mr. TATTON EGERTON said they ought to re-
consider this clause, when they kept in view the great
railway works in the kingdom, which would lead to
particular districts being hardly pressed on. He merely
called the attention of the Right Hon. Baronet to the
subject at present.
Sir GEORGE GREY thought such cases as those
named could hardly be reached by any Bill like the
present. In the construction of joint works, it was im-
possible to avoid some districts being hardly pressed on,
and in a manner that no general measure could reach.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 5 after a few words from Mr. Henley, the
Attorney-General, Mr. P. Scrope, and Sir George Grey,
was agreed to, with a few verbal amendments.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to without
discussion, the House resumed, the chairman reported
progress, and the report was ordered to be brought
up to-morrow.
THE SUGAR DUTIES.

The dIIANICELLOR of the' EXCHEQUER said
that his' Noble Friend the First Lord of' the Treasury
would not be able to attend in the House to-morrow,
(this day) and he therefore begged to give notice that
the discussion on the Sugar Duties Bill would neces-
sarily be postponed until Monday.
SUGAR DUTIES CONTINUANCE BILL.

This Bill was then read a second time on the motion
of Sir George Grey.
Mr. HENLEY asked the Right Hon. Baronet whether
he had any objection to have the Billprinted ?
Sir G. GREY said he had not ; the word " Septem•
ber" would be found to be substituted for the word
" August."
BATHS AND WASH MOUSES BILL.

The report on this Bill was then brought up and
agreed to.
EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE OF TRADING ABO-
LITION (IRELAND) BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill ;
the whole of the clauses were agreed to, with a
few amendments, the chairman reported progress, and
the report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.
SHANNON NAVIGATION BILL.
This Bill also went through Committee.
ordered to be brought up on Monday next.
PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill also went through Committee. The repor
was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.
On the motion of Mr. LABOUCHERE, the other
Irish Bills of which he had charge were postponed until
Thursday next.
GRAND JURY CESS BONDS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill went through Committee. Report on
Friday (this day).
MANDAMUS (IRELAND) BILL.

Report

This Bill went through Committee. Report on
Friday (this day).
TAXATION OF COSTS (COMPENSATION FOR
LAND (IRELAND) BILL.

Tlth Bill went through Committee. Report on
Friday (this day).
BOOKS AND ENGRAVINGS BILL.
This Bill went through Committee, and the report
was ordered to be brought up on Friday (this day).
WRECK AND SALVAGE BILL.

On the question being put for going into Committee
on this Bill,
Mr. HUTT said he had no doubt this Bill would work
a great improvement in the law, indeed it was generally
admitted that it would do so, but there were certain
clauses in the Bill which must either be expunged or
amended before he could give his sanction to the Bill.
The Bill had not acknowledged or continued the juris-