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

sfrmtor
an
gt he opsea
rips
hl paces
lay
hwhey w
ehraed
nresided forHse'
heldrs to
. in
u
his hand a petition, signed by the clergyman and two
ratepayers of a parish, in which a number of labourers
bed settled themselves. They had built houses on a
waste common, and worked at an ironworks in the
neighbouring parish. They spent all their money in tee
parish in which they had settled, and were of consider-
able benefit to it, and in case of their being made charge-
able, their living there would more than compensate for
a few individuals being left on the parish. He therefore
wished that the Government would keep the law in its
present state, and make no alteration at all.
Mr. E. BECKETT DENISON said that no Won
was more convinced than he was of the necessity of some
alteration in the law of settlement. It was a disgrace
to England; for poor people were sent away to all parts
of the kingdom, as if they were criminals. It was very
hard that persons having spent the greater part of their
lives in one place should, in their old age, be removed to,
another, where they had no friends. In the year 1843
in the borough of Leeds, there were 964 persons removeds
from it ; of these, six had spent their lives there, and
six had passed forty years. He had no difficulty in de-
nouncing as inhuman, and a scandal upon the nation,
that those parties should be removed in that manner to
place where, perhaps, they had never been before. What
would be the consequence if the Bill before the House
passed, and that no person would be removed after a re-
sidence of five years? Why, these 900 persons would
remain iniLeeds, and there would be an enormous burden
and responsibility inflicted on that town. Look, then,
what would be the effect of the present measure if it
now, in July, in 1846, passed the House. He must,
therefore, call upon the House to consider the responsi-
bility which the present measure would put upon the
manufacturing towns. He was not adverse to the lay/
of irremovability, but this was a monstrous jump, and he
asked the House, and the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Secretary of State, to be upon their guard, and not to
deal lightly with the question. With respect to the
hardship of a parish being obliged to maintain partied
who had no other claim but industrial residence, he di
not think that of the slightest importance, for he thought.
when these parties earned and spent their money in that
parish they had a claim upon relief if they required lt-
He hoped the Committee on the Bill would take the
whole matter into their consideration,_ together with tb°
law of settlement, and that the House would net
rush hastily into a new system of legislation which
might be attended with the worst results.
Mr. G. BANKES felt great difficulty in Orin
his opinion on this subject, when he saw so rciJ
diversity of opinion amongst those for whom he
entertained the greatest respect, and who, as chairman
of quarter sessions, had been able to obtain a practical
experience of the working of the present law, and the
probable working of the Bill under discussion; but,
after all, he still held the opinion he expressed when
the measure was introduced, and although it stopped
g
far short of what he considered a proper arrangement °'
the question of settlement, yet looking at the Bill,
which only contained seven clauses which were not ob-
jectionable, he could not consent to postpone the discus'
sion of the subject until a future day. It was true adds'
tions might be made in Committee, but in its present
form he considered it would confer great benefit urnt.
the poorer classes, imperfect as it was. He was I°,
opinion that the right of settlement should be conferreo
by a residence of five years. The poor would derive
consolation from the knowledge that such a Bill was or
tertained, and was likely to be adopted by the House'
He wished to ask the Attorney-General this question;
which be considered was a very important one--whethl
it was the intention of the Bill, for so it seemed ast
stood, to allow a man to choose his settlement? If this
were so, he doubted whether it would benefit
tie poor ; and whether he would have power
hereafter to return to the settlement to which be
was now entitled? By the Act, it seemed that all
power of removability was taken from magistrates.
The poor man had not the means of removing hinaselfti
and, looking at the constitution of the Bill, he doubte
of the power of the magistrates to interfere to order S.
removal. He doubted whether they would be conferring
any benefit at all on the poor man if they proceeded
with the Bill in its present shape, without any explanta;
lion of this point. He should support the going in ti
Committee, with the distinct understanding that whes
in Committee he should, in the first clause, propose
words whereby the poor man might gain a settlereeTe
by an industrial residence of three or five years ; or, 11
he preferred it, he should have the option of going ha 4
to his original settlement. In that case they would be
conferring a benefit on the poor man; but if they 0,
him no option, he doubted whether benefit would "0
conferred. He wouldo into Committee entirely ct),§
this understanding. He differed altogether with ;sr,
Hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (
B. Denison) regarding union settlement, and he thoqh",
the present Government had acted prudently in v/I'o
drawing that portion of the measure for the prese
session. His present opinion was, that if the range 'P
settlement was to be altered, they had better have i,
county instead of a union settlement.--(Hear, hear.) s,
that shape the proposition might advantageously r'o
adopted. With these observations, he would decline .a
vote for the motion of his Hon. Friend near him, an
shoAtiirld. vEovteEfryiNts gDoEiuNgiisnotoNCosamidmitttheaet.
objection to the Bill as it at present stood.he Tbande grgeean:
bGeehnetfletmhaatntohne tßheillopwpoonslidtebseide of the House stated
followed by a Bill for the were
and that it
it were followed by that measure
settlemvstg,e
of benefit.
The Noble Lord on his
(lr itE wouldDenison's) side of
the House, on that observation: messed his Hon Friend.
of no avail unless it
opposite as an authority for ch.' Bill, but declined
lowing it by such a measure as the union settleusell ;
and he (Mr. E. Denison) considered that, under theseri
circumstances, his Hon. Friend ought not to have beej
quoted at all as an authority for the Bill. He believ to
that the effects of the Bill would be very injurious to
the ratepayers, and would be certainly calculated
cause great injustice to the poor. He therefore castles";
entreated his Hon. Friend not to press the Bill this Pr"
session.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER se:.
that he did not by any means consider the Bill as a Pei;
m
gamoi
invs
stael
existed,
et
oe,nn,
saweshauimeasure.engnhr consequent upon
wautTopuhohl
nnedr
it,dpdsr ehe
wssi
ptearn,
so t
ynal
and
dhw
eahatoesfult
arhs
measure
tn,
ft
thought
earh mntt
dhetnebtt as
ahb,
:ena
e° 001;
of the poor.
Mr. HENLEY said he would support the Bill if 11
thought it would stop removals, but he did not thiells
would do so, and as he thought it was a most iroperf"i
measure, he must support the amendment for a P°-ot
ponement. They might pass the Bill this session, , ,
it
the
ew
matteroul d not
wouldset a
have
arvees t t the
ohe beag question
mooted o f
and r
settlement,.ope o 'l
eed
whatever
hcnourse they took, early in the next session.,
S IdAt oN contendfelt stronglyainstt,haenddiiffit cwualtsietsh7the'ecis
Government
m ing which would induce him to vote for the postPene,
ment of this poor-law settlement. When the Gesfeli
ment came into office, he anticipated that they olltion
have abandoned this Bill, but he had been misttli"ii
True, they had abandoned part of the Bill, but he thong a
the measure ought not to be considered piece-meal, tin
he must, therefore, vote against the Government.
fhb
Sir J. GRAHAM had not the slightest doubt t'ile
this portion of the original Bill would be of inestimalle
value, and he was prepared to proceed with it. Wl° ;
however, he said this much, he must admit that tbe,,,
would still remain a good deal to be done. It vroul,u,
indeed, in justice to the ratepayer, be indispensa,hl;
necessary next session to establish the right of uerto
go on mweintht,
tbhuattsptiollrthhentmofustthereporeiagtinhael
Bill no
b
pared
tptohret speecha n t
the house.—:(llTloeifair,tthhhiots,uagri.hm)
Baronet opposite was of itself sufficient ground for t'h-
pHoosAntip.ro.Baronet admitted that even if mthaey passed the
as it now stood, there would still remain much to be 00-
before the question would be satisfactorily settled.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it ll2
Majority against it —76
the
The original motion was then agreed to, an"A
House went into Committee on the Bill.
On the first clause being proposed,
Capt. PECHELL moved as an amendment, that jail%
seven, after the word " parish," be inserted the Iv°. r
" who has maintained himself therein by his industry, C),.t
been a householder therein." The Right Hon. Baroneo
the late Premier, admitted that the settlement ougbt,to
be an industrial one, and he apprehended, therefore,
Right Hon. Baronet's party could have no objection to
his amendment. The present Government, howererA'
he inferred, from their omitting the words he propose
ti"
to be introtnduincterdn,ddninde
it
tbjienctto
tthoeit,
largerbut inifeathsneyre
undertake
t i Go
nE
ofO Rt Gh Es
BGil RI
must
uYs t t
bheo upgarhtti
parties
we
brought forward next Session, he would notpress it.
dent
unnecessary, because those who would amen
Eander
a parish for a period
dopueSsrtirariously engaged in
Mr. V. SMITH considered that, from the maenetTieir
would be considerable difficulty
years.
which property was distributed
fn
carryingin this country, un try a pogo
out the P
visions of this Bill. He hoped some words or c
would be inserted to make the present measure one tia°
refer to industrial residency. No Hon. Member cribe
define the meaning of the word " residence," tin:, '0"
thought it would not be right to leave during the tite
terval of this and the next session of Parliament
vos
solution of the difficulty to country magistrates. I,.tbese
no joke to leave this matter to be settled by ce
s-den
magistrates. He therefore wished the term re '
used in the Bill to be defined. Id be
Mr. HENLEY thought the meaning which w°l2 h or
put upon the word residence, in the Queen's Berle esi.
Common Pleas, would be that it was constructive r
deuce referred to in the Bill, and not actual resiclencot
Sir J. GRAHAM said, after having given it the
mature consideration, and had the advice of the 15" rsls
wo,
visors, he had thought it right to withdraw the' Dill.
whit he had inserted after first proposing t"
There was an immense difficulty in settling this end
Any attempt at definition would lead only to cad re'
he thought it was the best mode to allow the word Do
main as it stood for so long a period. There wed to
hcoonradubeeivintoufiller;
doubt that the word "residence" in the Act referj own
an industrial residence. This was a term 'well-jowl
to the laws of Scotland, but was not known to throne"
of England. In amending in the last session ofiestnod
merit a Scotch Act, in which the word was wure
as referring to an industrial residence, the Legieste°3o
had not, however, thought fit to alter the tern, or „on 0
to define it; they left it in precisely the sanrc_r ser
before. He thought that the chairmen of qua their
sions would have no difficulty, in the exercise. !us fool
discretion and judgment, in determining wfian§,seed
of residence was referred to by the termsid ed-
in the Act. He hoped, therefore, the House wt!:',`
here to the usual term, and not introduce into LP'
a term unknown to the laws of this country. 00004
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL perfectly 6