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

TOBACCO DUTIES.

Dr. BO WRING presenied a petition from some of the
most respectable tobacco dealers in the kingdom, which
stated that it nas impossible to prevent ti le smuggling
or adulteration .of tobacco, in consequence of the pre-
sent enormous duties on that article, and: they prayed
that the duty might be reduced to one shilling per pound.
THE INDIAN ARMY.

The SPEAKER informed the House, amides general
cheerinsr, that he bad 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 India.
THE REI'EAL 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 Ireland 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 ROi3ERT 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. LA BOUCHERE 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,
G( vernment 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 BANKSD) (IRELA
BILL. ND AND SCOT-
LAN

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, the c,mmittsl of this Bill was postponed.
FEES IN COURTS OF LAW.
Mr. B. ESCOT r said that, in the course of a debate
which took place a short time ago with reference to the
system of tees in courts of justice, a general inquiry was
into
admi ttd to be necessary 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
comp nsation paid in the courtsof e,)mmon law and equity
1
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 fit and legitimate

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 for, he would be happy to sup-
port an inquiry into the subject.
POOR REMOVAL BILL.
On the order of the day for going into Committee on
tkis 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 nut his wish to extenuate the hard-
ship which attended the removal of paupers, but he sub-
mitted that they could not proceed with too muchcautton
in legislating on this subject. The ground why he wished
post ponem en t was that the quest ion 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 °plain 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.
It 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 bounds, 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 to with-
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. Is 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 reliet, 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.
scquently, become entirely new burdens. In St. Mary's,
Cambridge, 100 families would become chargeable
to the parish, 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 throws 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 persons who worked in mines in a neighbouring
parish, only separated from that in which 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
reside. 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 better 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 consider 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.
He confessed he should have preferred the Bill as it
was originally proposed by the Right Hon. 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
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;
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, bear.) But while they were anxious
for the relief of the labouring poor, they should not for-
get that they ought also 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.—(Heaf, bear.) saw a
poor ratepayer, who might have been a pauper,
but who by his own exertion, his own industry, economy,
and self-deial, had succeeded in maintaining him-
self as a latepayer, he must say, that ho 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-
ini,► 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 wonld 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 Hon. 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 introduced so far back as 1844, 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.-44.:7,4e on this
Bill.

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