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

In the or

'adjuepinionadd expressed by the Right Hon. Baronet,
st ressed the Committee, that by
.ttempt-
to define the term they would only involve its in fresh
;_eulties. He considered, therefore, that the better
•;ourse would be to alio x the same word to be used as
wad f*rnicily been employed, the definition of which
„ as generally understood in the courts of law through-
eat the country.
~eMv• POULETT SCROPE said that courts of justice
wpc often were not able to explain the proper meaning,
rii°l h the Legislature intended to convey, and thus in
watlY instances the very intentions of the Legislature
12.erre;:ufsrtor.mated. But he did consider that the
giSiatUre would stultify itself very mucn if it
explaining what it meant in an
%aebParliament. He considered that there was too
latitude in the definition of residence, so much so
ditci't it would be the subject of endless litigation. He
Eft. Aoteonsider that it would be fair that the parish of
huttles should support all the poor who lived there,
ttedwno spent their strength and health in the richer
thel?, tae wealthy parishes of St. James. e hoped,
ta°atre tH woeld define the word resideuceac .
gteBORERT PEEL said, they were approaching the
etisat question of union settlements by the present dis-
t() cr°,ll. lie apprehended the question strictly for them
d fieFicie upon was, whether they should give a stricter
otel. onion to residence. Now, he considered the words
t4reeted to implied industrial residences; they would
sa:thice more doubt into the Act than certainty. What
it iticant by residence was generally understood, and
eotnwoulta better to leave the question open to, the
peri,i o.lld sense which would guide those to whom the
reset.n°as of the Bill were entrusted to be carried into
)41.• ste,
ioteINLEY wished to have the sentence rendered
e-s.6l°Je• He would like to know what answer the
4,-;utls •
of that House would be able to give if they
slept examined on their oath as to where they had
ter.,every night during the last five years ?—(Laugh-
ters) The parochial authorities would question the un-
titillate individual (whom they wished to remove),
the onus would remain on him to prove his right.
STUART WORTLEY considered that they
tend
which leave the definition to the dictates of common
anq would be found a much bettercriterion than
itrennition.
hue; BECKETT DENISON said he hoped the
.House_
tw ses not accept the suggestion to make the decision of
ou'snaagistrates binding. He considered that they.
e. Rut to
11)6 leave the question undefined, so that the prin-
this °i* common sense might be the guide by which
litathorities should decide.
Bic VBRNoN SMITH considered that it would in-
tim erY. great hardship on the applicant before the ma-
sirtate it they did not define their meaning.
llati * GRAHAM offered some observations in expla-
th.°4, but his observations were utterly inaudible in
e gallery
Lle S "
hTr WORTLEY also explained.
_
as• HENLEY objected to the principle of the clause,
stiti;fwould be almost impossible for any man to prove
,uaketorily that he had slept forty nights in the parish.
po: burden of the proof would be thrown on the
k teae who sought relief.
••M •
th Intim PECHELL withdrew his motion; and on
toe, next clause relating to widows, he should certainly
sae. the sense of the House.
ent of
hie, PAKINGTON rose to move an amendm
ao u he had given notice, namely, to substituwteasthsoe
three for the word five. The amendment
h., e, that it required but little explanation ; and he
tosu,,,therefore,state that the greatest evils arose
kfttie poor from the topresent system of removal ; and,
niact they suffered more than those who were. punished.
tti`e e Great hardships had also been inflicted upon
stainedrirn 'from their fear of the system. They had ale-
from seeking any relief, in many instances, know-
t that any application would result in an immediate
w'tlioval. The authority of the Poor-law Commissioners
e'S in favour of the period of three years industrial resi-
settee ; and by a law which existed in Scotland last year,
o‘tilree years industrial residence, in any expressed town,
tiiftld entitle them to a settlement there. It was for
k: benefit of the poor that they uld be made irre-
,,teable in as short a period as possible
k.;01
tirtiOliel WOOD said that he had given notice of a
Ikt Lur motion to the one made by the Hon. Member,B
kin.% learniree that it would be resisted by the ir-
t) lihaus manue'facturers he had withdrawn it. He
reetii,':ecommend the Hon. Member to follow a similar
Sir es
ei• GREY said that he was not prepared to deny
'
be "tee of the arguments used by the Hon. Member,
Widerthought that as the Bill had been a long time
losbs itea consideration, and the period had always been
iti".r°rward to as five years, he thought that it would
kfyilable to withdraw his motion.
Si Alterable
a few words from Lord HARRY VANE,
",•PskIiINGTON withdrew his amendment.
ra.tirGONER thought that the pauper should have
(3‘1,-1,.°4 of going to his own parish if he so pleased.
4 itBe arrangement he considered that the pauper,
i,4lllfetea„,,Person, would be enabled to go among
.his
`tietee,',a• It would, in his opinion, be a great tm-
maY . 44, -"On the proposed plan.
wiehed to draw attention to tho
he'wergi.ving a right to relief. to any Irishman, who
teeere sae 'sided here for a period of five years, while
reeWer 4° law of settlement in Ireland, and those who
jet Tr:v,e relief were treated in a very indifferent rat.m-
,akil.p: 'B4l, 1842, and 1843, there were 320 English
.28 riernoved from Manchester, while there were
j'etecil° families being nearly one•half. (Hear,
mea". There were' nearly a million of Irish-
las President in England, and the effect of
eleiVscot Bill would be to give every one of these a
ets:o relief. That would be an enormous extra and
tchttlbilirge to the ratepayers of this country. He did not
tkat"ta that the Irish received relief, but he thought
13e 5,,%° great an anomaly as he had pointed out should
clip `Zored, and he would conclude by moving that
4 p();Ing words be added:—" Provided always,that
°Xti e of Ireland shall be liable to removal till
e411.4„8 avright to relief in his own country.
fleet 0/. GREY was sure that the House would not ex-
risturn to go into the question of the, Irish Poor-laws.
%pear,
hhear.) considered that %%hen.
.an Irishman
Wouldls man had spent several years toiling 'together,
be
Zievoming chaarggreeaahtiehardship, in the event of their both
that one should be entitled to re-
towee‘rellef, and the other be removed, and sent out of the
ano2
ms, he considered, would be a far greater
ttekLbal 'PtY
than that complained of by the Hon. Gen-
-4%4 B. FERGUSON said that, as chairman of a
believe of guardians, he could state that the English were
YniOd on the same terms precisely as the Irish in the
4,11 over which he presided ; and there were one. or
Itllerinstts!ne°B which recently came under his notice,
agreed
were dealt with even more favourably.
%greed- to was then withdrawn, and the clause
atr—btoi On clause 2,
s_cksI,;,..CHELL moved that, after the word " widow-
'll the second line, the words "be required to
aitainined as to her settlement, or," be inserted.
the 4. 11A1CINGTON, under the circumstances, thought
Plektaeudneent ought not to be pressed on the House at
Afttit;
P% After a few words from Captain PECHELL and Mr.
114-4' in support of the amendment, and Sir G.
eh, against it, the amendment was withdrawn, and
ettt"„ase. in its original form, agreed to.
Oss`„le 3 was then agreed to. •
`alase 4 being read,
`elisti -LATTON EGERTON said they
.ought to re-
ewr this clause when they kept in view the great
works in when
kingdom, which would lead to
!sited ,isar districts being hardly pressed on. He merely
'llbjeere attention of the Right Hon. Baronet to the
Ste4Present.
liklee'GßGE GREY thou ht such cases as those
Dtseetit could hardly be reached by any Bill like the
Naiht In the construction of joint works, it was im-
Xsd in to avoid some districts being hardly pressed on,
The Olt that no general measure could reach
Aelk clause was then agreed to.
t use safter few words from Mr. Henley, the
st a
/tti eY-General, Mr. P. Scrope, and Sir George Grey,
I,:greed to, with a few verbal amendments.
discuremaining clauses were then agreed to without
kission, the House resumed, the chairman reported
kieas, and the report was ordered to be brought
-raorrow.

THE SUGAR DUTIES.
t 4, - CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
", hi Noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury
It°4ld 8 tbe able to attend in the House to-morrow,
(011, not
day) and he therefore begged to give notice that
t}444 lon the Sugar Duties Bill would neces-
liseusba_
p ed until Monday.
1,1;11b--eGPAoRst DUTIESon CONTINUANCE BILL.
ofis Bill was then read a second time on the motion
George Grey.
htlit'ailENLEY asked the Right Hon. Baronet whether
tip4;-,anY objection to have the Bill printed?
GREY said he had not ; the word " Septem
"cluld be found to be substituted for the word
Th.nATIIS AND WASH .HOUSES BILL.
Itk'etCteP°" on this Bill was then brought up and
eLlt.;'•
si PRIVILEGE OF TRADING ABO-
1, —"e ZIONti,: (IRELAND) BILL.
t;43 whole° 1:1 went into Committee on this Bill ;
few a :m the clauses were agreed to, with a
e tellinoerit,ttstits, the chairman reported progress, and
ordered to be brought up to-morrow.
15":1I,NNON NAVIGATION
."1" also went through Committee. Report
be 'l, It°
brought up on Monday next.
',hi • -cRISONS (IRELAND)
°'''lllll also wenv through Committee.BlLl" The report
iri Drircive_reed to be brouL-ht up to-morrow.
—E
T~h Bills tnotion of Mr. LABOUC It, the other
I.ol:4v.hich he had charge were postponed until
INIII
ThiRJUR CESS BONDS (IRELAND) BILL.
(th
is dzent through Committee. Report on
'lll- kANOAMUS (IRELAND) BILL.
on
No is till
.Ik)acy (this went through Committee. Report
411°Naa COSTS (COMPENSATION FOR
Billti LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
`143, aise,:-!_lit through Committee. Report on
or, '
,1R11;-11`"K AND ENGRAVINGS BILL.
()NZ." Went through Committee, and the report
'l'ed to be brought up on Friday (this day).
th°4 thel;" 'RECK AND SALVAGE BILL.
this ~. question being put for going into Committee
14t A431-.lll'
-."'TT said hehd no doubt this Bill would work
Mt Prove
matted that rtnentinathelaw, indeed it was generally
kt;! the
Bill
would do so, but. there were certain
.I„"tbzleti , which must either be. expunged or
.'h
1341 tu'efore he could give his sanction to the. Bill.
acknowledged Or mitiuued the Pm'
not