The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-08 00:00:00

sailed ; and from that it appeared s had ropes fitted
on board her, bistened from stern to stern, and that after the
process it appeared that from 150 to 200 fathoms of line
had been thrown overboard from the steam-vessel, show-
ing that a direct communication had been established be-
tween the steam-vessel and the ship. He wished to know
if the Government had received from the naval officers
any communication calculated to explain or to affirm the
suspicions which most people entertained with regard
to that 'experiment. The fact was, it was generally
looked upon as a' complete humbug.
Sir R. PEEL had seen the report's which had been
• made to the Admiralty upon the subject by naval
officers ; but those officers had not been admitted into
any very close communication with the vessels. He
could not either confirm, or deny the report to which
the lion. and Gallant Member had referred. The ex-
periment, he took it for granted, had been performed in
the manner in which Captain Warner represented ;
but with respect to the ropes, he had had no opportunity
of satisfying himself on the subject in such a manner
as to enable him to answer the question, not that he
meant to imply that the vessel had been blown up
in any other way than the one which had
been represented. If the Hon. Gentleman had read
the correspondence, he would see that it was not likely
that he (Sir R. Peel) would enter into any incautious
engagement.—(Laughter.) He would not give 400,000/,
or even 100,000/, for the blowing up of a vessel, with-
out having that vessel pretty closely examined before-
hand—(Laughter)—but lie again repeated, that he did
not mean to insinuate that there had been any unfair
proceeding on the part of Captain Warner.
CASE OF THE CONVICT SIMPSON.
Mr. WAKLEY said he had had papers to present from
Mr. Humphries, the solicitor, on the subject of a convict
named Simpson, which he had submitted to the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment;
that Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that he
saw no reason for interfering, and that had determined
him to bring the subject before the House ; but, since
lie had entered the House, the Eight Hon. Gentleman
had stated that he thought there were points in the case
deserving of consideration, and, therefore, he would not
trouble the House on the subject.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought there was one important
fact in the case which had not received the attention
it ought. He considered the Hon. Gentleman had exer-
cised a sound discretion in acting as he had done.
LAW OF SETTLEMENT.

Sir J. GRAHAM rose to move fur leave to bring in
a Bill for the alteration of the law of settlement. They
had had many important discussions on the poor-law,
but this was u subject of the utmost importance. Within
the last year 12,000 orders of removal had been made
for English paupers, and 5,000 for Scotch and Irish ;
and in the whole 19,000 orders of removal had been
issued, under which 45,000 persons had been removed.
The House would do well to consider the immense
quantity of human suffering which was inflicted by these
orders of removal. It had been observed by Adam Smith
that there was no poor man in England, who had at-
tained forty years of age, who had not reason to complain
of the law of settlement. It was an important and diffi- •
cult subject, and the course which he proposed to
take was, to repeal all the statutes at present in
existence on that subject, and to legislate de novo.
He should propose to the House, therefore, an Act, re-
gulating the law of settlement, and the appeal on the
order of removal. The subject was naturally divided
into the branches of the settlement itself, the power of
removal, and the law respecting the appeal upon the order.
First, with respect to existing settlements, he proposed
wherever there bad been an order of removal, and a fixed
settlement, he proposed that that settlement should not
be disturbed. He then proposed to repeal the existing
Acts of Settlemeut, which, he believed, were no less
than nine in number. Settlements were now
gained by marriage, by apprenticeship, by rent-
ing a tenement, by paying rates, by serving
an office, and, last of all, by birth. Hiring at ser-
vice was another mode of gaining a settlement, which
was, however, still somewhat in dispute. His proposi-
tion was, that henceforth birth, and birth only, should
give a settlement, and that the place of birth should be
held to be the place of settlement. Failing proof of
the place of birth, he proposed to admit proof of a
derivative settlement in the second degree. First, h•
proposed to admit the father's settlement, and fail-
ing that, the settlement of the mother. He would
not carry the derivative settlement any farther,
and he proposed that the settlement of the grand-
father and the grandmother should no longer be
received. He proposed that the register of births
.and deaths, and the register of baptisms, should be ad-
mitted as proofs of birth ; and that a married woman
should not be removed from her husband's settlement,
during her husband's life. He bad now exhausted the
first branch of the subject. He had thought that
settlement by birth was the most simple ; and that
the derivative settlement, in the first degree from
the father and mother, was also the most
simple, the most sure, and the most advisable.
He now came to the second branch of his subject.
Two conferences then took place on the County Coro-
ners' Bill and the Art-unions Bill, in which the House
of Lords disagreed with the House of Commons.
LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
Sir J. GRAHAM then resumed his arguments with
respect to this Bill, lie proposed that parties should be
irremovable under; the following circumstances. First,
he proposed that men who resided in or near a parish
for five years, and who had not been guilty of felony of
misdemeanour, should be irremovable, and this applied
to Irish and Scotch. Secondly, no woman who resided
with her husband at the time of his death, in a parish it
which he had been settled, should be removable after the
death of her husband to her own parish. Thirdly, no widow.
whether living in her husband's parish or elsewhere.
should be removable until twelve months after his death.
fourthly, no legitimate child should be removed after its
father died under 16 years of age, and no illegitimate
child shall be removed under 16 from its mother ; sixthly,
no person who became chargeable through sickness or
accident should be removable till they received re-
lief for forty days consecutively. All persons
were to be relieved where they were resi-
dent irrespective of settlement. With regard to the
order for removal, he proposed that the overseer of the
removing parish should send a copy of the order and a
statement of the grounds on which it was made within
seven days. This statement was to contain not a copy
of the examinations—(Hear, hear)—but a statement of
the grounds of removal. Then the parties receiving
this statement of the grounds of removal are to have
21 days after the receipt of the notice to determine
whether they would resist the removal or not, and then
if they determined after the expiration of.twenty-one days
not to object to the removal but to the order, they were
compelled to send a statement of the reasons of objec-
tion. They would then have statement of the reasons
on which the removal had taken place, and a counter
statement of the reasons upon which the removal was
objected to. And having obtained those statements both
parties should be concluded by them, and upon the hearing
of the:appeal, they would not be at liberty to adduce other
grounds. The overseers of the removing parish, if they
had no notice of appeal given, might remove at the end
of forty days after notice of removal had been given.
The House would observe that there was great difficulty
with respect to the removal of Scotch and Irish paupers,
becanse they were removed, not to a parish or district.
but to a country. He proposed that rules should be
framed by justices in their respective districts, which
should provide, as far as possible, for the removal of
-Scotch and Irish to the parts or places where was the
place of their birth and residence. It would be then
their duty to remove them as, far as as circum-
stances would admit, to the nearest place
to that of their birth. He was anxious to
introduce a power of appeal with respect to the removal
of Scotch and Irish, and he proposed to do this by in-
serting the fUllowing words " when any removal shall
have taken place, on illegal grounds, either so Scotland
or Ireland, on the representation of local bodies or of
parties having an interest in the matter of removal,
on representation to the Poor-law Commissioners,
they shall have the power to cause an appeal
to be presented at the sessions against the order
of removal, and if the order is quashed, the parish ob-
taining the order shall pay all the costs of removal, and
shall also pay the costs of bringing back the party re
moved to the parish from whence he was so re-
moved." He had now stated the leading provisions
of the BilL It was one which would require the utmost
attention. He was not so vain as to think that it would
not meet with many objections ; but, as between country
and country, he had endeavoured to hold the balance
fairly, and he was quite satisfied that the provisions of
this Bill, as regarded the Scotch and Irish, were most
salutary and humane. He must now repeat what he
had stated at the commencement, that if this arrangement
should be adopted, the effect would be to place the whole
law in a much simpler and clearer form than it was at
present ; and though there might be many objections to
the details, he believed that to the principle of the men
sure there could be no solid objection.
Mr. HAWES expressed his satisfaction with the
measure of the Right Honourable Gentleman ; and read
a letter detailing the sufferings of the Scotch and Irishpaupers while being removed to their parishes and
homes. That shewed that no attention was paid to the
condition of these unfortunate paupers when they were
removed. He thought the provisions of the proposed
Bill would greatly lessen the number of paupers
to be removed, and he hoped power would
be given to the Poor-law Commissioners to see
that a proper person should be appointed to super-
intend the embarkation of these paupers, so that they
might not be left utterly destitute. He hoped every
Hon. Member would well consider the Bill during the
recess, and he, for one, should come to the discussion of
it, rather with a view to assist the Right lion. Baronet
in his attempts to amend the existing law than in a spirit
of opposition to the Government.
Mr. BROTHERTON thought that if the money that
was expended iu law was laid out on the poor, it would
be much better.
Mr. WARLEY thought the Government had shown
an honest intention in introduciletiinnlilatgl t the Bill.
wasnxoiswt
e existed
is calculatedtfidettoohu
thought
m re-
spect oiNvler .tmoWati
the
yeSolEaf
4tshaaei ds
g ri thatl ‘a. at nt
pcherese s
the course pursued by the Government with respect to
this Bill was worthy of following. After some further
observations,
Sir J. GRAHAM thanked the House for the attention
it had given to the measure, and he agreed with the lion.
Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakle ) that the Hon.
Member for Salford was mistaken' in thinking the
burden of supporting the poor would rest on the
manufacturing districts. The Bill would have an en-
tirely different tffect ; for if the Honourable Member
would closely examine its workings, lie would find
that each district, each parish, would be obliged
to support the poor persons who could prove
that they had been born within its limits, or
within its jurisdiction. The measure would also attend
to the evil the Member who had spoken last had referred
to, as a clause would be found in the Bill compelling
every parish and county to remove Irish paupers.