The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 9, 1859.

REAPING STEEPLECHASES—Wednesday,
9th, and Thursday, 10th February. TRAINS leave
IWaterloo-bridge Station for READING at 8.5 and 10.50 a.m.,
returning at 4.10 and 7.45 p.m.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY).
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

when the report of the commission for manning the navy,
with the evidence taken before the commissioners, would be
laid on the table of the house; and also when the return of
the deserters moved for last session would be laid on the
table ?

Sir J. PAKINGTON said that a report had been pre-
pared, which would be shortly laid on the table, in refer-
ence to the first question ; with regard to the second ques-
tion, the report was not yet ready.

and had ascertained that they were not yet sent to England.
He would write to India for them, but as some of them
might be of a confidential nature, the lion. and gallthat
member would allow him to see them before ho promised to
lay them on the table of the house. Ho hoped the hon. and
gallant gentleman would therefore withdraw the address he
had moved. It was quite possible that the papers would be
of a character to be laid on the table, but if they consisted
of correspondence between the Commander in-Chief and
the Judge Advocate General, it might be inconvenient to
produce them.
Col. SYKES said he had the utmost confidence in the
noble lord's assurances, and would leave the matter entirely
in his hands. •
The motion was therefore withdrawn.
ABOLITION OF CHURCH RATES.

Sir J. TI3.3iILAWNE Y moved for have to bring in a bill
to abolish church rates.

Mr. GRIFFITH protested against the title of the bill,
which, if it were introduced in so rapid and unobserved a
manner, might prejudice the entire question, and render any
amendment of the measure afterwards inadmissible. The
bill ought to be introduced under a neutral title, such as "to
amend the law relating to church rates;" this would allow
the discussion to proceed fairly ; but under this title, as " a
bill to abolish church rates," it would admit but one way of
settling the question. It was not likely that either house
of Parliament would allow church rates to be thus sum-
initrily swept away, -without any consideration bf dab inte-
rests involved in them.. He could understand that such a
proposal suited the political purposes of gentlemen anxious
to win the applause of popular constituencies, but he did not
believe the country would approve of it, or that the honest
religious Dissenters wished to carry into effect sointoierant a
design. He would not offer any impediment now to the in-
troduction of this bill, but only protest against the free
judgment of the house being fettered by the title of the bill.
Mr. PIKE asked the hon. member for Tavistock to ex-
plain the provisions of his bill.
Sir J. TRELAWNEY said the bill was precisely of theS
same character as that which he introduced last session, and
he trusted no opposition would be offered to it in this stage,
as he had understood from the right hon. the Home Secretary
that the Government would consent to its introduction. He
uo pl
dp onFottu na_si tky
viewse er everybody b
heard d y might iugphotnhav thise
bill,
,he amplew o
desired that the question should be settled; but in order that
reading until to-morrow (Wednesday) fortnight.
i
foofrm theak Is
lege ohnids
Mr.DRUMMOND remarked that the hon. baronet was
desirous the question should be settled, the meaning of
which was that he desired the Church should allow herself
to be robbed quietly. It had been openly admitted by the
school from which this and similar measures proceeded,
that they did not care about church rates, but they urged
this question as a way of getting at the abolition of tithes.
That was what they wanted, and they did not intend to
put the tithes in the landlords' pockets, they intended to put
the church rates in their own. This bill being the same
that to a certain extent passed the house last year, some re-
spect was due to it, and it was difficult to 'refuse leave to
bring it in, but the meMbers who were hosiihi to the object
of it had a right to stipulate that no advantage should be
taken hereafter of the title. •
Mr. WALPOLE said the hon. baronet had asked him
whether the Government would oppose the bringing in of
the bill,and heanswered that, the bill being the same as that
of last session, no opposition would be offered at this stage.
The discussion uponthe billwould take place hereafter, and
he (Mr. Walpole) would be ready to state the objections he
had to it on the second reading.

Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
PAUPER SETTLEMENT.

Mr. S. ESTCOURT moved the appointment of a select
committee to examine into the operation of the Act 9th and
10th Victoria, cap. 66, which enacted that no poor person
should be removable who had resided five years in any one ,
parish ; and also the Acts 10th and 11th Victoria, cap. 110,
and 11th and 12th Victoria, cap. 110, which provided that
the relief given to such irremovable poor person should be
charged on the common fund of the union. It was neces-
sary to deal with the subject now, because the last cited act
would expire next year ; but it did seem to the Government
that the time had now come when the whole question must
be decided upon. In 1834, when the new Poor. law Act
passed, all means of any poor
.person acquiring a settle-
ment, elsewhere than in the parish of his birth, were taken
away. This went on for 10 or 12 years, and was found to
work•very hardly, since formerly, under the old law, a poor
man could move from one place to another, and acquire a
fresh settlement wherever his occupation or industrmalled
him. In 1846, therefore, an act was passed, providing that
no poor person, having resided five years in any parish,
should be removable from it. But no sooner had that act
been passed than it was found to entail a great additional
expense on particular parishes, and in the next year an act
was passed which charged the cost of the relief upon the
whole of the union in which that parish happened to be
situated. A select committee, of which Mr. Evelyn Denison
was chairman, sat in 18.17, to determine this great question
of settlement and removal. That committee examined many
witnesses, and investigated-the matter. Several resolutions
were passed by the committee, but when the report drawn
up was put to the vote in that committee for adoption, it
was negatived, and se the labour of the committee was
altogether thrown away. Time passed on, and nothing was
done, but from year to year these temporary acts were con-
tinued. In 185.5 a committee was appointed to consider one
branch of the subject, the removal of Irish and Scotch poor
persons ; but that committee found itself compelled to con-
sider the main question, and passed a resolution recom-
mending that the term of five years should be reduced to
three, and that the area of irremovability should be ex-
tended from the parish to the union. In the following year
the President of the Poor-law Board introduced a bill to
carry those recommendations into effect, but that bill was
withdrawn, and now the question was as far from being
settled as it was in 1810 ; indeed, it was in a worse position
now, in some respects, than it was in 1834. It was proposed
therefore to decide now whether the provisions of the two
acts he cited in the title of this bill should be maintained,
and under what conditions, or whether they should be
superseded by some other previsions.
Mr. H. A. HERBERT observed that the interests of the
Irish poor were deeply involved in this question, and he
hoped there would be some Irish member appointed on the
committee.

Mr. S. ESTCOURT said he proposed to put the same
names upon the list as thine of the gentlemen who composed
the committee last year, and in that list Ireland would be
fully represented.
Mr. AYRTON thought it would be useless to examine
into the operation of two isolated statutes without going into
the whole system. The entire administration of thepoor
laws in every department should be embraced in the inquiry.
The area of relief, and the area of management, should be
the main questions for consideration, in determining the
principle of settlement. He meant to take an early oppor-
tunity of bringing this subject before the house.
The resolution for the appointment of the committee was
then agreed to.