The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-24 00:00:00

IRREMOVEABLE POOR BILL.

Lord WODEHOUSE moved the second reading of this
bill. He stated that the class of irremoveable poor was
created under the act passed in 1846, by which, for the first
time, it was provided that five years' residence in a parish
should confer a status of irremoveability ; and another bill,
brought in by Mr. C. Buller when he was President of the
Poor-law Board, provided that the irremoveable poor should
be thrown upon the common fund of the union, the assess-
ment being calculated upon the cost of the relief of this class
during the three preceding years. Under this law a great
many poor persons had become irremoveable. In 1860 no
less than 225,000 were relieved as irremoveable poor, and
the expenditure for their relief amounted to £708,000. It
was proposed by this bill to diminish the time during which
there must be continuous residence to constitute irremove-
ability. from 5 to 3 years, and it was also proposed that, in-
stead of this continuous residence being necessary within a
particular parish continuous residence within any one union
should be sufficient. The bill also made a change in the
mode of raising the funds for the relief of the irremoveable
poor, proposing, instead of their being raised upon an assess-
ment based upon the average expenditure of three years
preceding, that they should be raised upon the county as-
sessments, so that the expenditure would be thrown equally
according to their assessment to the county rates upon all
the parishes of the union, This was not a bill for the abolition
of settlement, nor was it a bill for union rating. The object
was to remedy certain grievances, which, in point of fact,
had arisen principally out of the law of 1546 itself. The
law of 1846 had aggravated the evil, which arose in parishes
which were in the possession of a few landowners, by
making it their interest to reduce the number of settled
poor in their parish. The poor people came in to supply a
deficiency of labour, not in a particular parish, but through-
out a district, and it was a great hardship on open parishes
that the whole of the cost of their relief should fall upon
them. There were parishes which were overburdened with
poor, because land was easily procurable in them for resi-
dences for labourers, and there were others benefiting by the
labour of those persons which were free from contributions
to their relief. As regarded the diminution of the terms of
residence from five to three years, one of the great improve-
ments in the administration of the poor law of late years
had been the reduction in the numbers of removable poor.
The greatest hardships were suffered under the present ad-
ministration of the law in the removal of poor persons from
one part of the country to another, and the effect of this pro-
position would be to make a still further reduction, and a
very considerable one, in the number removeable. (Hear.)
This bill gave the poor man the right of being relieved in a
district after a residence of three years, and required not
that he should be resident for that period in a particular
parish, but in a whole district. It did not seek to establish
union rating, and in regard to settled poor all that was pro-
posed by the bill was to extend the area of residence to the
whole union. It was a great hardship that poor persons
should be liable to be removed suddenly to a distant parish
of er having given their labour to a particular parish for a
number of years; and there were not a few instances of per-
sons losing their claim of settlement by moving from one
house to another 100 yards off. It was to mitigate evils
which were inseparable from the present law of settlement
that this bill was introduced, and he trusted their lordships
would consent to read it a second time. (Hear.)
Viscount LIFFORD objected to the bill that it destroyed
the present parochial system, and was the first step, and
not a small one, towards the establishment of a system of
union rating. There was only one way in which security
could be obtained for the proper administration of the poor
law, and that was a small rating area, that every man might
know how his money was being expended, and see that it
was his interest to prevent as far as possible poor persons
from coming upon the parish. The effect of the charge
being made upon electoral districts instead of upon parishes
had been injurious enough in Inland ; but the system pro-
posed by the noble lord was infinitely worse, because in Ire-
land they had not, as in England, the cankerworm of out-
door relief. The only remedy against the evil was the
establishment of small areas of rating. He trusted their
lordships would not defeat the beneficial arrangements of
the act of 1845 by the provisions of this bill. He begged to
move that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Earl of DEVON supported the bill. He thought that
whatever benefited the labourer and ameliorated his condi-
tion must, by a not remote consequence, improve the condi-
tion of his employer also. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord
who spoke last, after passing a just eulogy upon the former
poor-law act, implored their lordships not to interfere with
the principles of that great measure. Bat he (the Earl of
Devon) contended that this, so far from interfering with,
was simply a continuation of and supplement to, that for-
mer measure. The doctrine that the labourer ought to be
permitted to carry his labour with the most perfect free-
dom wherever he pleased, was one which had been ac-
cepted ever since the days of Adam South. He did not
know whether their lordships had ever read the speech in
which a lamented friend of his, the late Mr. Baines, intro-
duced this subject to the House of Commons, and in which
the hardships of the law of settlement were most fully ex-
hibited. Arguments had been advanced in favoir: of small
areas of rating, and he had always been in favour of
small areas with regard to Ireland. But, in point of fact,
this bill did not go the length of establishing uion areas of
rating with regard to the poor universally. It merely pro-
posed to diminish the time, and to increase the area neces-
sary to confer irremoveability in certain cases. As the case
now stood, it often happened that the poorest parish con-
tributed unevenly to the fund, because the common fund
often received the largest contributions from the parish
which for the last three years had received the greatest
number of poor. He thought that the principle ofirremove-
ability had already had great effect in diminishing theahll didmiouii
i t
of pauperism throughout the county. All that this
was to throw upon the common fund the charge of the irre-
moveable poor, now contributed by the several parishes.
He thought the bill fraught with benefits not only to the
poor but to the ratepayers. It came before their lordships
recommended by two committees of the Houseof Commons
and by many leading authorities, and he strongly recom-
mended it to their lordships' consideration. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of STRADBROKE said he was one of the few
members of their lordships' house who recollected the pas-
sing of the measure of 1834, and he had cordially supported
the passing of that measure. Ho had objected strongly to
the introduction of the principle of irremoveability, because
when the Chargeability remained on the parish to which a
poor man belonged, it was to the interest of the ratepayer to
find him employment. (Hear.) blow it was proposed, not
only- to reduce the period from five years to three, but to
extend the area from the parish to the union. Ho feared,
therefore, that the result would be a great increase of irre-
moveable poor. Besides, were their lordships satisfied that
the eouuty rate was a fair basis on which to levy the com-
mon fund ? No doubt it was true that the bill did not in-
troduce union rating ; but which of them failed to see that
it was the thin end of the wedge? He was not unfavourable
to the principle of union rating in towns; but he maintained
that that principle was not equally applicable to country
districts. He denied that the landlords were desirous of
pulling down cottages in order to rid themselves of
their fair share of the poor rate. In the county with which
he was himself connected there had been no fewer than
2,621 new cottages built within the last ten years. (Hear,
hear.) lie believed that the bill would have an injurious
efiact upon the Poor, because it would prevent them from
being so well employed as they
hould therefore support the were at present; and he
Lord It LDESDAL d it hadendmentE said am. (Bear.))
been the object of those
4 ho supportA the bill to represent it as a little measure,
but it was in point of fact a very large one. (Hear hear.)
It Was really impossible to agree t it withoutconsidering
the whole law of t-otilement. The bill would not altogether
cure the evil which it sought to remedy, because if a man
lived in a border parish and stepped over the boundary of
the union he would lose his irremoveability just the same
as l'e would at present. (Hear, hear.) Be (the noble
lord) contended, therefore, that they
wholetheyc ould not deal with
the bill without con,idering law
of
settlement.
very great alteration in the
The m,abure would make a
incidewe of the poor rate, Tor.o. for example, *31,3

union which had been referred to, where the rate in
one parish was as much as 9s. in the pound, and only 4s. or
ss. in the other. The bill would make in the one case as
great a difference as the imposition of a new income tax, and
in the other as the removal of the existing one. He did not
deny there were inequalities which ought to be cured, but
the remedy proposed was too violent—at all events too vio-
lent to be considered at this season of the year. He would
appeal to their lordships what the other house would say if
they had sent down to them a measure of equal importance
at that period of the session ? (Hear, hear.) He did hope,
therefore, that the noble lords in charge of the bill would
not press its second reading.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE did not say that the bill was
either a small or unimportant one. On the contrary, he
contended that if it passed it would cause the present ses-
sion to be looked back upon as one in which an act of great
practical beneficence had been done to the poor. (Hear.)
As for the period of the year, there was still a fortnight or
three weeks of the session to run—(oh ! oh 1)—and their
lordships had had sufficient opportunities as landlords for
inquiry into the subject; besides which they had had the
advantage of the investigations of the other house which
had thrown a flood of light upon the subject. Every pro-
vision of the bill had been recommended by Mr. Sotheron-
Estcourt's committee; and, with the exception of a very
strange proposal, namely, that units of population should
be added to the pounds sterling of rateable value as a basis
on which to levy the common fund, the measure practi-
cally embodied the report of that committee. It was an
err or to speak of this as the thin end of a wedge, or as the
commencement of an attempt to upset the parochial system.
It merely sought to correct the mode of levying the com-
mon fund, which at present was one of the most un-
just that could be conceived. In the first instance,
it was fair enough that each parish should pay towards the
union expenses in proportion to the number of its paupers ;
but the moment they threw the irremovable poor upon the
common fund it became as unjust as possible. Take, for
example, the case of a union which had been referred to by
the noble lord, and of which he (the noble duke) had some
personal knowledge. In the union of Radford (Notts) there
were three contiguous and populous parishes, but the rates
were in one case 11s., and in the other two 4s. in the pound.
There was in each an equal number of irremovable poor ;
and the rateable value of each was nearly the same—that
was to say, it only varied from £20,000 to £21,000. Now, if
they
charged each the same sum towards the union ex-
penses they would do justice; but if they made the contri-
bution depend upon the number of the settled poor, the one
parish, already overburdened, would have to pay nearly
three times as much as its neighbours towards its unsettled
poor, with which it had really nothing to do. He was cer-
tain the poor would benefit greatly by the provisions of the
bill, and he trusted their lordships would read it a second
time. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of CARNARVON was not prepared to give his
opposition to the provisions of the bill, but did not think
they should be asked to deal with a question of such mag-
nitude so near to the end of the session. Five new bills were
brought up from the House of Commons on the previous
evening, there were yet measures to be introduced into the
House of Commons, and in this state of the business of the
session he protested against this important question being
pressed upon the consideration of their lordships.
Their lordships divided—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority
The bill was accordingly read a second time.
The Dublin Revising Barristers Bill was read a second
,ime.

The Drunkenness (Ireland) Bill and the Landlord and
Tenant (Ireland) Bill passed through committee.
The Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society Bill was
read a second time.
ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS.
The Bishop of LONDON rose to call the attention of the
house to the subject of ecclesiastical dilapidations. His
lordship said there were so many as 9,000 residences and
12,020 encumbances in this country ; but that fact did not
show the importance of the subject, The residences were
increasing at the rate of 125 a-year. In the last 25 years
they had increased in number from 6,000 to 9,000. What
they wanted was a law to keep t hese residences in proper
repair. Under the present law the incumbent was bound to
keep the residence in repair ; but that could only be done
through the Ecclesiastical Courts, and their lordships knew
these courts were not in the state they ought to be. The
only remedy for the present state of things was aperiodical
visitation, with power given to the bishop to insist upon
the necessary repairs. The machinery to work the measure
would be the same that was employed in Queen Anne's
bounty. The measure which he would now lay upon the
table had been approved of by both Houses of Convocation
and by the clergy, and it was important that during the
recess it should be considered what improvements could be
made in it. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Lord DUNGANNON and the
Bishop of CARLISLE in approval of the measure, the bill
was read a first time.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.
It was reported to their lordships that the Commons had
agreed to certain amendments of the Lords, and rejected
others,
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
THE WAR IN NEW ZEALAND.

Lord A. CHURCHILL asked the Under Secretary for
the Colonies what was the nature of the last despatches re-
ceived from New Zealand.

Mr. FORTESCUE said the news was of a very hopaful
character; the Governor of the colony reported that he was
negociating with those who had taken up arms against her
Majesty, and that he was in hopes that the result would be
satisfactory.