The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-16 00:00:00

IMPEWAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 15.
Their Lordships assembled at Fire o'clock.
The Earl of RODEN prot.ented petitions from Caith-
ness and other places, in favour of the legalisation of
Presbyterian marriages in Ireland.

MR. MA ZZINE

The Earl of RADNOR moved that the petition, which
he presented on Friday last from Mr. Mazzini, be referred
to the Select Committee which had been appointed on
the subject of opening letters at the Po4-otfice.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the Com-
Inittee which had been appo:ntel was to inquire ,n,o
the state of the law respecting op,ning letter-. by the
Secretary of State ; and he did Iv see, thrref. bre, how
such an investigation could affet.t the charaet-r of Mr.
Mazzini, or how such a Committee could clear his cha-
aCter, supposing it to have been attacked ? lie (the
Duke of We;:ington), therefore, thought. this motion of
the Noble Earl was premature.
The Earl of RAI)NOR thought if this were the case,
that the decision of the Committee ought not to
biased by any statement which might be made with
respect to the character of Mr. Mazzini. As the Noble
Duke said the motion was premature, 112 (the Earl of
Radnor) would withdraw it fur the present, and reserve
it for a future occasion.
.•

The motion was then withdrawn.
Messengers from the Commons brought up several
Bills.

Several petitions were presented for and against the
Dissenters Chapels Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Sud-
bury, praying to 'be heard by counsel against the Sud-
bury Disfranchisement Bill.
The NOBLE and LEARNED LORD gave notice that he
should move the second reading of the Alien Bill
to-night.

PRIVILEGE.
Lord BROUGHAM then rose to call the attention of,
their Lordships to a gross statement which had appeared
in one of the newspapers of the day. Tha passage iu
question, in the newspaper alluded to, the Britannia,
stated, that Lord Brougham had given up his pet
Lileme of the new judgeship in the Privy Council, and in
obedience to Lord Lyndhurst had withdrawn the clauses
relative to divorce. It went on to state that Lord Brougham
no longer took any interest in the Bill, and the above clauses
were taken out of the Bill during his•absence. Now he
(Lord Brougham) had on two occasionsdistinctly denied
ever having applied for any situation under the new Privy
Council Bill ; and with respect to the clauses that had
been withdrawn, he could only say that he had re-
quested his Noble and Learned Friend on the woolsack
to withdraw them for him.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he could confirm
what the Noble Lord had stated.
• The subject then dropped.
POST-OFFICE COMMITTEE.
Lord SANDON appeared at the bar with a message
from the Commons, requesting their Lordships to allow
the Duke of Wellington and another Noble .Peer to give
evidence before the Post-office Committee sitting in the
other House.—Leave was given. •
BIRKENHEAD DOCK BILL.
-The Earl of STRADBR,OKE moved the third reading
of this Bill.
The motion was agreed to.
On the motion that the Bill do pass,
The Marquis of SALISBURY moved the addition of
certain claUses, and in doing so madc some rather severe
remarks on the conduCt of Mr. Mallaby, the solicitor
to the promoters of the Bill. -
Lord BROUGHAM thought it was unfair. for Noble
Lords to make MVO accusations against absent persons:
The Earl of WICKLOW thought the'Bill ought to be
Lent back to the Committee.

Lord MONTEAGLE thought the Bill a most im-
portant one to the trade and commerce of the country,
and was one which ought to pass with the least possible.
delay.
The Earl of HADDINGTON supported the Bill.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE :bought it was the
duty of their Lordships to pass thii Bill.
After a few words from Lord STRADBROKE and Lord
BROUGHAM,
The Marquis of SALISBURY withdrew his opposi-
tion, and the Bill passed.

BANK CHARTER BILL.. -
This-Bill was read- a third time and passed.
DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
Lord MELBOURNE presented several petitions in
fiVribur of this Bill.
The LORI) CHANCELLOR then rose' to move the
Commons', amendmentslo the Bill. He said that, in spite
of the. opposition of certain Noble Lords and a Right
Rev. Prelate in that House, this Bill had passed through
both Houses of Parliament. Still, however, the opponents
45fh the Bill were not discomfited. The principle of the
'fill having beet adopted by both Houses, it only re-
mained. for their 'Lordships to c• insider certain amend-
'Ments, which had been made by the House of Commons.
w
This as all they had now to du ; but he understood
thit a most unprecPdented course was about to be
adopted by a Rev. Prelate, which was that the amend-
.l.oents be considered on that day six months. Such a
motion as this would be a sli4it upon the House of
Commons, and he .could hardly think that any Noble
Lord would persevere in such a course. The amend-
ments were not of a complicated character; nor did they
require any very grave consideration in order to under-
stand them. Why, therefore, it should be proposed that
they should be postponed for six months, especially after
the principle of the Bill had been affirmed by both
Houses_ of Parliament, he could not understand. The
motion was a most extraordinary one, and one the object
of which could only be- to defeat the measure. The
• NOble Lord then proceeded to explain the nature of the
amendments which had been made in the Bill by the
Rouse of Commons, and he concluded by earnestly
calling upon their Lordships to give their, assent to the
amendments which had been made.

The Bishop of LONDON admitted that the course
he was about to pursue was an unusual one,
and' one which was only to be adopted in ex
e
the
and urgent cases. This Bill contravened
the dictates of common sense, and was contrary
,
maxims of reason. There was one chance
for e
defeat of this measure, and he now intended to
1,1,v.ail himself of this last opportunity opposing this
13111, It might be said that he was pertinacious in his
uPPosition ; but when he found that all the-arguments
against the fundamental principles of the Bill had been
unanswered, he thought that pertinacity became a virtue.
Re saw that there was a formidable array marshalled
against him in that House, but he was fortified by the
knowledge that out of doors this Bill was looked upon
as a most dangerous one, and one to which the majority
of the judges and of the legal profession were decidedly
°PPosed. He recollected no question—not even except
ing the Catholic question— upon which the public mind
had been so much agitated. Ile believed, and out of
doors it was generally believed, to be a measure hostile
to religious truth, and one which would have a most dan-
gerous tendency. He concluded by moving that the
Commons' amendments to this Bill be taken into con-
sideration on that day six months.
The Bishop of DURHAM did not anticipate that the
danger which the Right Rev. Prelate so much feared
would result from the passing of this Bill. He looked
upon the Bill as a measure calculated to do justice to all,
and to bring the whole body of the Dissenting p )pula-
tion within the protection of the law. Under these cir-
cumstances, he could not fear that any bad effect would
result from the operation of this Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM argued that if these amendments
were to be rejected, a conference with the Commons would
be appointed ; and if, in that conference, the Commons
should consent to withdraw the amendments, the Bill
would then pass, and the Right Rev. Prelate would gain
nothing by his motion. Everybody admitted that the Bill
had been improved by the amendments which had been
made, and he, for one, could not see on what pos
sible ground, any opposition could be offered to
them, He thought this Bill would prove as beneficial to
the Trinitarians as the Unitarians, for it might happen
that a case would be found in which Trinitarians were
holding possession of a Unitarian foundation. He con-
sidered this to be a Bill of peace, and as such he had al-
ways supported it.
The Bishop of NORWICH had formerly looked upon
this Bill as nothing less than a Socinian Endowment Bill,
but he had been deceived, for he now discovered that
this was not a theological measure, but merely a mea-
sure of justice and of equity. Many others had been
Placed in the same situation, and having discovered their
error, had deeply regretted having placed their hands to
Petitions which had been presented against the Bill. On
examination he had found that the majority of the peti-
b"ns upon this subject were in favour of the Bill, and
that those petitions which were in favour of the measure
were signed by very few persons. The question was nut
one of religion or doctrine, but a question of equity and
Justice, and it was not for man to separate those princi-
ples which God had joined together. On these conside-
rations he should give his unqualified support to the
for in doing this he was only acting on that prin-
ciple which taught them to do unto others as we would
they should do unto us.—(Cheers.)
The Earl of RODEN looked upon this Bill as a Bill
of injustice, because it gave a property to persons who
had no right to it. He defended the course which bad
been adopted to reject this Bill, and contended that many
precedents could be found for it.
Lord COTTENHANI contended that this measure
Was strictly Conservative in its principle, for it was
intended to confirm the possession of property to persons
who had held it for a great number of years. He con-
sidered the amendments were a great improvement to
the Bill, and be apprehendhd that that question was the
only one which they had to consider.
Lord BROUGHAM explained.
Lord TEYNHAM felt that a deep wound was inflicted
on religion by this Bill. The original owners of the
property, respeeting which this Bill had been framed,
would rather have suffered tine and confiscation—would
rather have suffered death itself in Smithfield, than have
lived to see their houses of worship pass into the hands
of those to whom this Bill would give them.
After a few words from the Earl of GALLOWAY and
Lord LYTTELToN in support of the amendment,
The House divided on the amendment, that the Com-
mons' amendments be considered that day three months,
Content
Non-content
Majority for the amendments
Proxies—Content
Non-content lO2
Majority for the amendments —BB
The amendments were then agreed to.
The remaining Bills on the table were then forwarded
stage, and their Lordships adjourned.

-73

fIOUSE F . Jul 15.
The SPEAKER took the CrCOMMON
hai at Twelve o clock.
POOR-LAW AMENDNIENT BILL. •
On the motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, the House
resolved itself into Commits/co ou the Paer-law Bill.

On clause 36 being proposed, which provides asylums
for the destitute poor,
Mr. CHRISTOPHER complained that the clause was
not sufficiently extensive. Ile thought
.that in every
union workhouse throughout the country there should
be established a vagrant ward for those houseless poor ,
'who move from one place to another, some in quest of
employment, others going to their several parishes. He
thought that in every parish the means should 'be
prOvided for supplying those poor persons with a night's
lodging, and at least one meal in the course of
the day, before they proceeded on their journey.
There ought to be a vagrant ward in every union work-
house. It would be a saving of expense t, the parishes,
and would save-the magistrates the pain of committing
to prison, even for pity sake, unfortunate persons who
were travelling from pace to place in search of employ-
ment. These poor persons were, for the most part suffer-
ing every kind of de-tit ution, rather than commit trim►'.
Sir J. (il that the subject alluded to by
his lion. Friend was not immediately connected with the
clause' bef.me the House.—(hear, hear.) He thought
that there was every reason of humanity and policy in
favour of the establishment or district asylums in the
metropolis, and the five large twins.
• Sir C. NAPIER said that, in the two parishes which
he had the honour to represent (St. Pancras and Mary-
lebene) there was no difficulty in any d stressed person
obtaining 'elief at any hour of the day and night. •
Sir J. GRAHAM said that, it' he wished to refer to
any workhouse for a proof that these 'asylums were
necessary it would be Marvlebone.
Sr CHARLES NAPIER said that last year the Poor-
law Commissioners went over the 'whole of the Mary-
lebone Union. Be had also gone over it himself, and he
must confess that he never taw a place better conducted.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the information he had
received was what had taken place before a police magis-
trate and on oath.

Colonel WOOD understood that .if a person applied
for relief .at a union they were bound to give them a
night's lodging and a meal in the morning. He thought
that was a course that was likely to be greatly abused.
So much had it been abused that now the Commissioners
had ordered that a person having a night's lodging must
be detained four hours in the morning, and have four
hours' work. Now, to the person who was really
a pauper or wayfarer, such a course was
extremely hard. He thought the proper way of treating
the question was, that every person who stated he was
houseless should have a night's lodging in the police sta-
tion.—(Oh, oh.) Ile was anxious that the clause should
be rejected altogether.
Mr. HAWES entirely differed from the course pro-
posed by the Honourable and Gallant Member
who had just sat dawn. The object of the
clauses was purely charitable, but he thought they
ought to have more information on the subject before
they passed them. The real question was, whether these
clauses were necessary, or whether, under the autherity
of the Secretary of State, sufficient relief might not he
given to the destitute poor without these clauses. The
Poor•law Commissioners themselves regarded these pro-
visions w.th considerable doubt and difficulty.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was very sorry that the
Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down concurred
with the Hon. Member for Brecon in resisting this
clause. The Hon. Member for Brecon said he thought
that destitution, accompanied with the want of a lome,
was prima facie evidence of criminality sufficient to jus-
tify his incarceration in a police-station with criminals.
—(Heats hear.) In his (Sir James Graham's) opinion
it was much better to provide an asylum for such per-
sons for three or four days than to commit them
to gaol.—(Cheers.) It was indispensably necessary, as
the law then stood, to provide out of the rates fur those
who were unable to maintain themselves, for orphan
children, for destitute children, and for-the education of
the children of the poor ; and he had yet to learn that
it was good economy to confound all the poor, instead
of making a separate provision for each.—(Hear,
hear.) The necessity of making this provision had
been forced upon his attention by the great
number of persons who had be. n found last winter in
the metropolis, lying under arches, and in other places,
without any shelter.—(Hear, hear.) Such a state of
things threw a great burden on the more hum -me portion
of society.—(He ir, hear.) He. altogether rejected the
assumption of his Hon. Friend that, because persons
were houseless they were to -be considered as
guilty—(Hear, hear)—although by the force of
circumstances the policemen were driven to treat them
as criminals.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that three or
four of these asyluriss in well-selected localities would
enable the police at once to take such parties to a place
where they would he admitted by the heads of the
establishment at all hours of the night, where they
might remain for 3 or 4 days, and, if they were sick, have
proper attention paid to them. At all events, he was satis-
fied that the duties of Christianity and humanity would be
fulfilled by their sanctioning this arrangement. His
belief was, that they were .iiolated by the existing sys!
tem.—(Hear, hear.) IR reference to the question whe-
ther this was recommended or not by the Poor-law
Commissioners, the Hon. Member for Lambeth had re-
ferred to the tenth report of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners. He begged, however, to refer him to the eighth
report, issued in 1841, from which it appeared that
some such provision was sanctioned - .the
Poor-law Commissioners. He did not rest, how-
ever, on their authority alone ; his experience, of, the
past winter convinced him that some regulation of this
kind was absolutely necessary. He could never dis-
card the considerations upon which the Hon. Member
had dwelt ; he could never forget that many of those
who contributed to the poor's-rate had the greatest diffi-
culty in honestly maintaining their independence, and
bringing up their own families without assistance ; but
he did not believe that under regulations such as those
contemplated by the Bill any extra burden would be
imposed on the public.—(Hear, hear.)
Colonel WOOD explained.
Mr. 13. COCHRANE said that the House must have
been delighted with the speech of the Right lion. Gen-
tleman—(Hear, hear)—and the kindness of feeling it
exhibited. He was also glad that the Gallant Colonel
(Wood) had in some degree explained the most mon-
strous proposition ever submitted to the House—that a
.poor person in the last stage of destitution and suffering
was to be takete to the cells of a police-station. He
approved of the p!an proposed by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman. Ile could not see that the new poor law was
much cheaper to the rate-payers than the old one. Under
the old la.+, the rates amounted to 8,000,000/. per annum,
and at present they were 7,300,0001., with a gradual ten-
dency to increase. There had been a great relaxation
of the provision by which out-door relief was forbidden ;
he wanted to know then what the country saved by the
management of the poor-law. In a few years the rates
would exceed eight millions.
Mr. WAKLEY that the Right Hon. Gentleinan
had not overcharged the description of the condition of
the casual poor. Is the present state of the law, there
was great inequality in the amount of relief given to the
casual poor in the different parishes of the same union.
He took the Brentford union as an instance,
where some of the parishes relieved nearly a thousand
casual poor, others only two, and some not a single
one. By the 51st clause this relief would be equally
shared by all the parishes, which would be a great im-
prOvement. The Right Hon. Gentleman had referred
to the cruel manner in .which the casual poor were
driven from parish to parish ; he fully agreed with him
as to the facts, and approved of the establishment of
district as ylums ; he believed they would be good insti-
tutions.lt appeared the casual peor were not to be
admitted into workhouses after the formation of district
asylums.—(" No, no.") He (Mr. Wakley) would say no
more then. If there were to be only three or four dis-
trict asylums the poor persons would have to travel a
good distance to get admission ; this he did not think
would be a cure fur the present evil, but rather an
aggravation' of it.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he .used the words three or

four to show that the number of district asylums would

be limited, and not to indicate any particular number,
They would be so arranged that they could be easily
got at, and that the casual poor would know where to
apply.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY thought the question of removal was
so closely connected with the law of settlement, that it
would be better if the power of removal were withdrawn
from the Bill, and allowed to stand over till next session,
when the law of settlement was to come under the con-
sideration of the Hous.e. He thought the mischief of
which they were complaining atose from the disputes
between the pstrish officers and the orders of the Com-
missioners. He firmly believed that the power given
by this Bill would have the effect of making beggars of
the destitute poor.
Mr. BORTIIWICK said he would support the clause.
It only provided for the establishment of asylums in the
metropolis and other large towns. He thought there
ought to be an asylum in every union.
Mr. HAWES asked whether it was compulsory on
the guardians to erect these asylums, because if it were
not, the clause would not remedy the evil, inasmuch as
while the humane parishes would consent to their erec-
tion the careless and indifferent would oppose it.
Reference had been made to the 10th report of the
Commissioners, and also to the Bth report on this subject.
He agreed with the recommendation of the Bth report,
which recommended such an attention in the law as
should enforce the granting of relief to the casual poor
whenever and wherever they might apply. Entirely
concurring in the propriety of effecting these objects, he
could not support the proposed clause, because, he be-
lieved that the Commissioners had, by the existing law,
ample powers for remedying this evil.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that on Saturday, when he
had proposed that this Committee should sit at twelve
to-day, he had entirely forgotten that at two o'clock he
had to attend a Committee of the other House. He
trusted, therefore, the House would excuse him for a
few minutes. With regard to what had fallen from the
Hon. Member who had just sat down, he would ob-
serve that the power and the discretion of the Commis-
sioners were absolute as to the formation of the
districts, that by the 51st clause the relief of the casual
poor was made a union charge and not a parochial
charge, and, as the guardians of these indifferent parishes
would thus find, they would not shrink from bearing
their fair share of the burden, he thought there would
be no practical difficulty in inducing them to consent to
building an asylum ; to the building of which, however,
the assent of the majority of the board of guar-
dians was indispensable. The Honourable Gentle-
man misunderstood him with respect to the quo-
tation which he had made from the eighth report
of the Commissioners. He had not said that the Com-
missioners had recommended the establishment of these
asylums. He had quoted the eighth report to show
that the Commissioners were at that time convinced
that the present mode of the relief of the casual
poor was not a good one. The Honourable
Member for Bridport speculated as to the
increase in the expense some years hence. „eel'. J.
Graham) had always regarded the expense under the
new pour law as one of its most advantageous results.
There had been a saving to the rate-payers, and a better
administration of the law.
Darr T: DUNCOMBE thought these clauses ought to