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

THE INDIAN ARMY.

The SPEAKER informed the House, amidst general
cheering, that he had received communications from
Lord Hardinge, Governor-General of India, and Lord
Gough, the Commander-in-Chief, returning thanks for
the vote of Parliament respecting the late spirited con-
duct of the British army in Indic.
THE REPEAL OF THE UNION.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice, that early next session
he should move for a Select Committee to inquire into
the manner in which the legislative union of
England and Leland was effected, and under
what circumstances ; and also to inquire into
the effect which the union had had upon the people of
Ireland —(Hear, hear.)
Sir ROBERT FERGUSON moved for certain re-
turns relating to Ireland.
FAILURE OF THE POTATO CROP IN IRELAND.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, seeing the Right Honour-
able Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland in his place,
he wished to ask him whether the Government had
received any information relative to the anticipated
failure of the potato crop in Ireland, and whether they
intended to take any measures to meet the suffering
which such an occurrence must necessarily occasion.
Mr. LABOUCIIERE said, in answer to the question of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, he begged to say that
from various quarters, some private and some official,
Government had received information, that although
there was every prospect of an excellent harvest in those
things which constituted the food of the people, yet with
regard to the potato crop, the disease which produced
such sad effects last year had made its appearance.
With regard to the second question, as to whether
Government intended to take measures to provide for
the emergency, he hoped the House as well as the
Honourable and Learned Member for Cork would see
that it was highly important gentlemen should have
time to consider a measure which ought not to be pre-
maturely decided upon.—(Hear, hear.)
JOINT STOCK BANKS (IRELAND AND SCOT-
LAND) BILL.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, the committal of this Bill was postponed.
FEES IN COURTS OF LAW.
Mr. B. ESOOT r said that, in the course of a debate
which took place a short time ago with reference to the
system of lees in courts of justice, a general inquiry was
acimi•ted to be necessary into the whole system.
Considering what took place in that debate, and what
fell from the late Prime Minister and the late Secretary
for the Home Department, he was induced to ask the
present Secretary for the Home Department if, in the
event of a Committee being moved for, he would have any
objection to grant an inquiry into the system of fees and
compensation paid in the courtsof common law and equity
Sir G. GREY said, in reply to the question of the
Hon. Gentleman, he considered the subject of fees and
compensation in courts of justice a at and legitirmite

subject for inquiry ; and he had not the slightest hesi-
tation in giving him an assurance that, in the event of a
Committee being moved fir, he would be happy to sup-
Fort en inquiry into the subject.
POOR REMOVAL BILL.
On the order of the day for going into Committee on
this Bill being read,
Mr. WODEHOUSE said that when this Bill was last
before the house he expressed a desire that it should be
postponed. It was not his wish to extenuate the hard-
ship which attended the removal of paupers, but he sub-
mitted that they could not proceed with too much caution
in legislating on this subject. The ground why he wished
postponement was that the question should be brought be-
fore Parliament fully. The great danger which would follow
the present measure was, that it would throw a vast
number of people on a district of small
resources. The committee which sat upon the subject
in 1817 said that a residence of three years entitled the
party so circumstanced to relief, but to prevent litigation
they considered it advisable to accompany that expression
of opinion with a recommendation that the party should
depose to the fact of such residence before two justices.
The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill
be postponed till that day six months.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion. He considered
it rather singular that the Poor-law Com-
missioners gave no recommendation of the Bill.
If they had, he (Mr. Hume) did not see any
He was anxious that the question should be postponed
on this ground. If the subject were to be taken up early
next session, when the whole of it would be considered,
he (Mr. Hume) was not prepared to say that he would
not then agree to the settlement now proposed, provided
an union settlement were established. He could state
that in parts of Norfolk entire parishes could remove
every individual from its bounds and pass them
to a neighbouring parish, called an open
parish. He could state on his own knowledge
that one parish would have the power of removing
every individual from its boands, and there were hve
other parishes in the same district could remove their
poor, and obtain what labour they required from the
neighbouring parishes. The system would throw the
expense of the maintenance of the poor on the most
populous and poorest parishes, and thus cause the
greatest possible inequality and distress. There were
many reasons which might be assigned, but he would
only appeal to the Right Hon. Baronet himself, for in
the statement which he made to the House a
few nights since, when he asserted that he
would only take a part of the Bill, he said that
he would leave the rest to be considered early
next session. When the whole subject would come
under their consideration at a future period, why should
it be proceeded with now? Without any wish to give a
further opinion on the subject, he hoped the House
would assent to his motion, and postpone the discussion.
Mr. BROTHERTON was anxious to state that the
manufacturing interest entertained no adverse feeling to
the Bill. If the present Bill was thrown out, the House
must bear in mind that it would be by the hands of the
Government, and not in consequence of the opposition
from the manufacturers.
Sir G. GREY wished to remove any opinion which
might be entertained that the Government wished towith-
draw the Bill. He proposed that the Bill should go into
Committee for the purpose of receiving any amendments
which might be proposed by the House. He admitted
that the present measure was but a partial remedy. He
did not think the House ought to refuse to proceed with
the measure. It would be merely a step to the passing
of a more comprehensive measure. He hoped, there-
fore, that after the gratifying fact which they had heard
from the Hon. Member for Salford, that the manufac-
turing interest did not intend to oppose the Bill, the
House would allow the Bill to be proceeded with.
Mr. P. SCROPE thought the present Bill removed
an old injustice, and introduced in its place
a new injustice. He held a list in his hand
of a few parishes, which set forth the burdens
which would be imposed upon them if the Bill was
passed ; and he should like to read a few of the state-
ments set forth in this petition to the House, in order
that they might not rush into the great change with
their eyes shut. In the parish of Sutton, Nottingham-
shire, there were eighty heads of families engaged in
agricultural pursuits, entitled to relief, and 90 heads of
families, consisting altogether of from 300 to 400 souls,
not settled there, but who, on the passing of the Bill,
would become immediately irremovable, and would, con.
sequc ntly, become entirely new burdens. In St. Mary's,
Cambridge, 100 families would become chargeable
to the perish, who were not previously entitled
to relief ; and in a parish in Warwick, 300 per-
sons, not previously entitled to relief, would become
chargeable. A petition from a parish in Norfolk stated
that the Bill would nearly double the present number of
paupers. Such was, in reality, the principle of this
Bill, and the support of the poor would be thrown on
parishes whose finances were extremely inadequate for
that purpose. The Right Hon. Baronet might say
that in a future stage of the Bill he would take care
to remove this inequality, but he (Mr. P. Scrope)
was not sure that those who had an interest in the pas-
sing of the Bill would allow him to alter its objection-
able provisions. A parish in Wales, inhabited princi-
pally by per'sons who worked in mines in a neighbouring
parish, only separated from that in +.l hich they re-
sided by a small stream, would, under this Bill,
become chargeable to the rural parish on the other
side of the river, in which they did not
res!de. Surely, as the Bill as it stood was not in-
tended to become the law of the land, it would
be better to postpone it until the laws relating to
settlement had been clearly defined by the House.
He thought it would be bet ter to postpone the Bill till
the whole question of settlement was gone into. It
would then be seen what steps were necessary to adapt
the Bill to the law of settlement that might be agreed
to; till then he did not eunsidQr it would be proper to
do anything in the matter.
Mr. S. WORTLEY believed that the measure, even
in its present shape, would prove extremely advan-
tageous, and be a great boon to the working classes.
I He confessed he should have preferred the Bill as it
was originally proposed by the Right lion. Baronet,
the late Home Secretary, still he would support it as it
now stood. He could not conceive how anything more
satisfactory could be proposed than the proposi-
tion respecting the irremovability of the poor. They
could scarcely have forgot the papers that had
been placed on the table of the House, showing the great
hardships imposed on the poor by the present state of
the law. He knew, from his experience in the West
Riding of Yorkshire, that the greatest complaints had
been made respecting the sending back of the poor in
populous parishes, in times of manufacturing depression,
to the agricultural districts. He was sorry the
Bill did not go further on the subject of
I settlement than it did, still he was willing to support
it in its present form till inquiry was made, as proposed,
into the subject.
Mr. STRUTT thought the measure ought not to be
pushed forward in the present session, but they ought
rather to wait till a full investigation into the law of
settlement had taken place. They were told that the
subject was one of great difficulty. If so, then
he considered it would be better to wait till
the whole question was fully discussed, instead of
passing the Bill in its present shape. They were pro-
posing a new principle in the Bill—that of irremovability;
1 and he considered it could not be properly arranged till
such time as the law of settlement was finally disposed of.
Now, under those circumstances he could not help think-
ing that if they waited for a few months, till an inquiry,
had taken place, which inquiry would by no means pre-
judge the question, the House would be better able to dis-
cuss this measure. The Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke
last stated that those gentlemen who he (Mr Strutt)
would not say opposed, but desired the postponement of
this Bill, did not seem to consider the labouring poor.
He (Mr. Strutt) hoped he should not render him-
self liable to the charge of a want of humanity towards
the poor.—(Hear, hear.) But while they were.auxious
for the relief of the labouring poor, they should not. for-
get that they ought elk) to show some humanity to-
wards the poor ratepayers—their humanity should
not be exclusively confined to one class.—(Hear, hear.)
Now, what would be the immediate effect of this Bill ?
Why, it would impose upon a great number of
poor parishes the burden of relieving the
poor of this country, and the result would
be that the poor would hereafter be relieved by poor
ratepayers, that burden having been removed from the
shoulders of the rich.—(Hear, hear.) When he saw a
poor ratepayer, who might have been a pauper,
bat who by his own exertion, his own industry, economy,
and self-denial, had succeeded in maintaining him-
self as a ratepayer, he must say, that he did
think that some humanity should be extended
towards such men, and they should take
care that no provisions in this Bill should injure them.
—(Hear, hear.) There was another provision in the
Bill to which the attention of the House
had not been called. He thought it was
now admitted that nothing could be more dangerous
than leaving it to the option of the pauper as to
the parish by which he should be relieved.
It was well know how much the officers and ratepayers
of a parish were interested in getting paupers
removed from their parishes, and that they would
offer bribes and- inducements to paupers to swear that
their place of settlement was in some other part of
the country. It was true that there was a penalty
of from 40s. to 51. in the Bill against such practices,
but how difficult was it to put such provisions into effect.
—(Hear, hear.) He trusted, in conclusion, that the
House would not proceed with the measure at this
period of the session.

Sir JOHN PAKINGTON could not help express-
ing his great satisfaction at finding that the Right Hon.
Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment had made up his mind to proceed with this Bill,
and trusted be would not be deterred from
doing so by such arguments as those they had
heard from Honourable Members on the oppo-
site side of the House. One Honourable Gentleman
opposed it on the ground that the Poor-law Commis-
sioners had made no report upon the subject but so far
from this being the case, he held in his hand a report
of the Poor-law Commissioners wherein was the very
principle that was proposed by this Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
Another lion. Gentleman urged as a reason for its
postponement that the Bill had been brought
forward before it had received sufficient con-
sideration, but let him remind that Hon. Gentleman
that this Bill was inbroduced so far back as 1814, by the
Hon. Member for Dorsetshire ; again in 1845, when it
was fully discussed ; and now again in 1846.—(Hear.)
Mr. PACKE thought that Lancashire, Yorkshire, and
Cheshire, were the only counties' where this Bill would
operate beneficially. He thought the poor would be liable
to be most tyrannically removed from their parishes,
and treated most harshly by the operations of this Bill.
He could not consider a measure fraught with more in-
justice than the present one; he would, therefore, oppose
the motion for the House going into Corn,te on this
Bill.

Colonel WOOD considered that the proposed Bill
would remove considerable hardship from the poor. It
would prevent their being Sept sway in their old age

:~~

from
strangethose
parishes placesw hw-ehreertehtebyeyw
were
ed
unknown.resided for
nye_e_haderld:wito:
his hand a petition, signed by the clergyman
ratepayers of a parish, in which a number
hwaadsteseettolnaedmotloie,masoedlvews.orkle'
neighbouring parish. The
parish in which they had settled, and were of c IslregPe.
able benefit to it, and in case of their being made P for
fherefore
able,few
their
individualsliving
l
wished that the Government would keep the law
yidlsepyea
ntlti had
dni builti
theirro nw houses
moneyoo rfisaobinst.ll;:n;:blirrsee
left would
o n moretthe
p ari thansh, compensate
u ein its
present state, and make no alteration at all.
Mr. E. BECKETT DENISON said that no te.ono
was more convinced than he was of the neceseitYel: Bee
alteration in the law of settlement. It was a u,l:gpriats
to England; for poor people were sent away to an
very
of the kingdom, as if they were criminals. It alteleir
hard that persons having spent the greater part ot,r,e,
lives in one place should, in their old age, be removed.B43
another, where they had no friends. In the year love
in the borough of Leeds, there were 964 persons real
_id
from it ; of these, six had spent their lives thereL
six had passed forty years. He had no difficulty Teo,
nouncing as inhuman, and a scandal upon the 07.1"t0s
that those parties should be removed in that manne,og
place where, perhaps, they had never been before..nuse
would be the consequence if the Bill before the J"ifre..
passed, and that no person would be removed after2ota
sidence of five years? Why, these 900 persons"'
remain injLeeds, and there would be an enormous eL"tbee
and responsibility inflicted on that town. Look, if it
what would be the effect of the present measureouse
now, in July, in 1846, passed the House. He nonsi•
therefore, call upon the House to consider the resy tee
bility which the present measure would put 111)00 Ise*
mannfacturing towns. He was net adverse t tiled be
of irremovability, but this was a monstrousj amp, ail the
asked the House, and the Right Hon. Gentleman se
Secretary of State, to be upon their guard, and 13,,, ot the
deal lightly with the question. With respect ".ties
hardship of a parish being obliged to maintain poi did
who had no other claim but industrial residence, boeeebt
not think that of the slightest importance, for he th
et
when these pat ties earned and spent their money i.nred
parish they had a claim upon relief if they ee(Illle, the
He hoped the Committee on the Bill would tn., the
whole matter into their consideration, together wel"net
law of settlement, and that the House would tsieb
rush hastily into a new system of legislation !"
might be attended with the worst results.
neeitig
Mr. G. BANKES felt great difficulty in b
eb
his opinion on this subject, when he saw 50 01 he
diversity of opinion amongst those for evlltesa
entertained the greatest respect, and who, as cha"ol
of quarter sessions, had been able to obtain a prec,ltie
experience of the working of the present law, and„4
probable working of the Bill under discussion; ",:es
after all, he still held the opinion he expressed whoa
stePpthe measure was introduced, and although it
far short of what he considered a proper arrangemelLi%
the question of settlement, yet looking at the Yob,
which only contained seven clauses which were not or
jectionable, he could not consent to postpone the diseede
sion of the subject until a future day. It was true 51'01
tions might be made in Committee, but in its pres
form he considered it would confer great benefit 111)0(
the poorer classes, imperfect as it was. He w‘gild
opinion that the right of settlement should he confer
by a residence of five years. The poor would clere
consolation from the knowledge that such a Bill was er
oe.
tertained, and was likely to be adopted by the flew,
He wished to ask the Attorney-General this quest:her
which he considered was a very important one--whe
tt
it was the intention of the Bill, for so it seemed his
stood, to allow a man to choose his settlement? 'intent
were so, he doubted whether it would benefit
ale ale poor ; and whether he would have
be
hereafter to return to the settlement to which all
was now entitled? By the Act, it seemed tnn' te&
power of removability was taken from magietrtift
The poor man had not the means of removing hilllse-ted
and, looking at the constitution of the Bill, he dell •
of the power of the magistrates to interfere to oeue:fig
removal. He doubted whether they would be conferridg
any benefit at all on the poor man if they proceeo,
with the Bill in its present shape, without any exPl%te
lion of this point. He should support the going Imo
Committee, with the distinct understanding that
ose
in Committee he should, in the first clause, Pollees
words whereby the poor man might gain a settlefo: if
by an industrial residence of three or five years ; tee
he preferred it, he should have the option of going es
to his original settlement. In that case they WO"' 14
conferring a benefit on the poor man; but if they labe
him no option, he doubted whether benefit woul
conferred. He would go into Committee entirelftwo
this understanding. Ile differed altogether withe
r,
,
Hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire b$
B. Denison) regarding union settlement, and he tholh.
the present Government had acted prudently in ligeet
drawing that portion of the measure for the Pre' ef
session. His present opinion was, that if the range a
settlement was to be altered, they had better bil,ero,
county instead of a union settlement.—(gear, hear') be
that shape the proposition might advantageously
adopted. With these observations, he would declinai`a
vote for the motion of his Hon. Friend near him, n
should vote for its going into Committee. A fig
Mr. EVELYN DENISON said that he had chrnen
objection Gentleman t o tnh et
the
Bill
oppositeas it a(sit.:tepr.reosEfe.rtiht
Des tenonooidsuo.sne:s)thateernli
belief that the Bill would be of no avail unless j.t,e'..etra
it were followed by that
fTohlleowNedobblye' a BillLord
measure it would 13.0 f bene f
Opposite as an authorit3rie,side ea
the House, on that obstlie svfuaontriioonn settlements,uotcd in dEtrniaefint.
but declined fol-
lowing it by such a measure the
Bill,e union settlement;
and lie (Mr. E. Denison) Consilse
circumstances, his Hon. Friend :atehgdhttliliaoti tuonhdaeNr'e tblahl°ll
quoted at all as an authority for the Bill. He beli„e, to
that the effects of the Bill would be very injurious to
the ratepayers, and would be certainly calculatedly
cause great injustice to the poor. He therefore earne.re•
entreated his Hon. Friend not to press the Bill this
session.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
nes
that he did not by any means consider the 8.11 as r;il
manent measure. The present law of settlement, 11'ra
existed, was a great hardship, and he thought that th,
legislation which would destroy that law,
and the tffiet
moval consequent upon it, was a measure
for the hell'
of the poor.
wth,o)DuullgrdhdftloiEtsNom:Loau}:liYdd
phi de
rhetermowuvgtat
thought
removals,
ibtsupport
did not
oßitmitlphl
71,:ft
sastaoa
feet
measure, he must support the amendment for a P°,;iit;
iiwtnhtlgemlwouldawmtre .ponement.havietietriehorne Governmentoonwu%t
,roeseuet
Theyatalrigeshittthpeass
the
questionßilol
fthis t
aseemsseinol4lcigj
ldthehyavteootko,
ebaerlymionotthede
nextand srees-siooPne.ll:,b
liddAt to contend
induce
felt sht
against,
agt
iolnysv
tto,ht
nee
nfddo
ri
itffi
tchwueal difficulties eot shs
postpone
five]
meat of this Shopualoor-law settlement. When the GoVernia
merit came into office, he anticipated that they
ri°tl,,,a-
-have abandoned this Bill, but he had been mistake
True, they had abandoned part of the Bill, but he thollgl
the measure ought not to be considered piece-meta, et/
he must, therefore, vote against the Government. „g
Sir J. GRAHAM had not the slightest doubt t'ele
this portion of the original Bill would be of inestimable
value, and he was prepared to proceed with it. Whmet;
however, he said this much, he must admit that there
would still remain a good deal to be done. It Welleli
indeed, in justice to the ratepayer, be indispenenll,
necessary next session to establish the right of tn%
settlement, but still he must repeat he was prepared t
go on with that portion of the original Bill now before
the House.— (Hear, hear.)
Mr. V. SMITH thought the speech of the Right Tit
Baronet opposite was of itself sufficient ground for t",,
'"
postponement of this important matter. The Right
Hon. Baronet admitted that even if they pissed the 13'1:
beforea s
Tith nowe
hi
eosuqt
House
eioedts
ietonhnedrwievowiudoledudl,bd
ew satisfactorilystillh en t remainhereamp
puecahr et settled.od_b e op'
AFograitthl
set
iattn..e.
........... ....................
The original motion was then ......... 13126
Majority against . . ..........
House went into Committee on the Bill.
. —76 „
agreed to, and the
the first clause being proposed,
Capt.PECHELL moved as an amendment, that in line
seven, after the word " parish," be inserted the word°
" who has maintained himself therein by his industry, Or
been a householder therein." The Right Hon. Baronet
the late Premier, admitted that the settlement ought
be an industrial one, and he apprehended, therefore, the
Right Hon. Baronet's party could have no objection to
his amendment. The present Government, however,
he inferred, from their omitting the words he propelA
to be introduced, did object to it, but if they wow.-
IRI
mtEhlYonstetbhweohupogri
phwttioeutshl
dive
hc oomh a amendmentpress.dubnedeenr
tiF:
undertake to introduce it into the larger measure to be
brought forward next Session, he would not
oupnet.
SnreiareteiaGoanaEroOyf,Rt
becauseGh Es BGi
dustriously engaged in a parish for a period of My
years.

Mr. V. SMITH considered that, from the manner
is
which property was distributed in this country, there
gresoifdez
would be considerable difficulty in carrying out the Pre.
visions of this Bill. lie hoped some words or • clause
dreeffienretothinedmusetariNailn
would be inserted to make the present measure one 11
thought it
-
residency. No
'll‘ roensidMenecine,b"eranerb;
would not be right to leave during the ,12„
terval of this and the next session of Parliament 01:
solution of the difficulty to country magistrates. It was
no joke to leave this matter to be settled by these-
magistrates. He therefore wished the term residene
used in the Bill to be defined.
Mr. HENLEY thought the meaning which would 11
put upon the word residence, in the Queen's Bench
Common Pleas, would be that it was constructive rim
dence referred to in the Bill, and not actual residence. _
Sir J. GRAHAM said, after having
given it the 112°t
Z,
mature consideration, and had the advice of the law a`cii
visers, he had thought it right to withdraw the wo„ .
14/
which he had inserted after first proposing the J?;::a.
There was an immense difficulty in settling this quest' a
Any attempt at definition would lead only to cavil, see,
he thought it was the best mode to allow the word to r
main as it stood for so long a period. There was no
doubt that the word "residence" in the Act referred
an industrial residence. This was a term well-known
oce
to the laws of Scotland, but was not known to the
he. of England. In amending in the last session of riltrood
meat a Scotch Act, in which the word was
uud.e,to
"„re as referring to an industrial residence, the Lego'"t
had not, however, thought fit to alter the term or attenip
to define it ; they left it in precisely the same form see
befure. He thought that the chairmen of quarter their
sions would have no difficulty, in the exercise o.t
foro
discretion and judgment, in determining what for!
of residence was referred to by the term
to goi-
in the Act. He hoped, therefore, the House w?,__ Aos
here to the usual term, and not introduce into the
a term unknown to the laws of this country.
.000
The ATTURNEY.GENERAL perfectly 69"