The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-18 00:00:00

THE SUN'

THE PITT POUND 'VERSUS TIIE PEEL POUND.

AN APPEAL TO COMMON SENSE.

LONDON, TIIURSDAY MORNING, JULY 18

IMPEXIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE Ol• COMMONS, July 17.
The SPEARRR took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.
NEW MEMBER.
Mr. SPOONER took the oaths, and his seat for Bir-
mingham. The Hon. Member was much cheered on his
way to the table. The Hon. Gentleman was introduced
by General Lygon and another Hon. Member.
POOR-LAWS.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved the order of the day for
going into Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill.
On clause 37 being proposed,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE objected to the Poor.law Com-
missioners having the power either to appoint the
number or the qualification of the district board,
directed by this clause to be formed. He (Mr. Dun-
eombe) was happy to see the Hon. Member for Birming-
ham had taken his seat that morning.—(Hear.) He was
the newest importation from the country into that
House—(Laughter)--and be should be glad if he would
inform them what was now the opinion out of doors in
reference to this poor-law. The Hon. Gentleman moved
the omission from the clause of the words "giving to the
Poor-law Commissioners the power to fix the number
and qualifications of the members of the district
board."

-1844.

Graham was understood to dissent.) He begged, then, to
say that he could not approve of the clause, as he looked
upon it as calculated to inflict serious hardships upon the
casual poor.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that before the close of the
present session he hoped to be able to introduce a Bill to
amend the law of settlement, and he thought the ques-
tion of removal would come under that branch of the
poor-law.—(Hear, hear.) The provision for removal
was now indispensable on account of the proposal to es-
tablish asylums.
Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE thought that unless
these asylums were as numerous as the police-offices,
they would be of no use.
Colonel SIBTHORP wished to know what provision
was to be made for those persons for whom there was
po room in these asylums?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM was afraid that, without the
insertion of a proviso, the clause might be construed to
relieve the unions from the obligation at present im-
posed on them, of relieving the destitute poor; and in
that case, when the asylums werejull, the poor would be
left without relief. He therefore proposed to introduce
a proviso enacting that nothing in this Act contained
shall be construed as relieving guardians or relieving
officers of unions from any obligation at present imposed
upon them by law to relieve any case of destitution or
urgent necessity.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. HENLEY, which were
inaudible in the gallery.
Sir JAMES GRAIiAM said, if he could ascertain
the exact wishes of the Committee, he should be most
happy to comply with them. On the whole, it would
be as well that the question of removal should be post-
poned—(Bear, hear)—and that the clause, with the ad-
dition he 1* p•roposed, should be agreed to, in order to
meet the immediate emergencies of the. case.-7-(Hear.)
Colonel WOOD (Brecon) quite agreed in the
.pro-
priety of postponing the entire question of removal until
the next session, when they would' all be better prepared
to discuss and decide upon it.
Mr. WAKLEY expressed a hope that the addition to
the clause was so worded as not to supersede the liability
of 'the relieving officer to extend help, or the right of the'
really unfortunate to claim it.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said his intention in framing
the clause was precisely that which the Hon. Member
for Finsbury desired, and he thought the phraseology
would bear out that intention.
The clause as amended was then agreed to.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said ho was now in the hands
of the 'lease, and he was willing to obliterate the power
of removal from the Bill, or to proceed with the discus-
sion of the words, giving such power as the majority of
the Members might think fit.
.Mr. BORTH WICK considered it better to retain the
power. As the Right Hon. Gentleman had promised to
bring in a Bill next session on the whole subject of the
law of settlement, it would be very easy then to modify
or otherwise alter the power now given, or to remedy
any evil which might be found to have arisen in the
exercise of it.
Mr ESTCOURT agreed with the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman (Sir J. Graham) that it would be better to abro-
gate the power, and leave the whole question for deci-
sion in the next session.
Mr. G. BANKES said the question of removal was
now never decided by the judges on its merits. He
agreed in the propriety of deferring the consideration of
the question until next year, when something sound
and permanent might be resolved on.
All the words giving, the power of removal were then
struck out from the Bill.
Clause 48 was then agreed to.
Clauses 49,50, 51, 52, and 53, Were agreed to.
Clause 54 was also adopted.
Sir J. GRAHAM then gave notice that he should con-
tinue the consideration of this Bill in Committee to-
morrow, at one o'clock. He had made arrangements
with his Hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) for that purpose.
Mr. HUME asked if any arrangements had been made
with respect to the Railways Bill.
, Sir J. GRAHAM said the Railways Bill would be
proceeded with at twelve o'clock till one, when the Poor-
law Bill would be taken. His Right Hon. Friend would
then state on what day the Railways Bill would be pro-
ceeded with.
The. House then resumed, the Chairman reported
progress, and obtained leave to sit to-morrow at one.
APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.

Sir J. GRAHAM contended that this was a power
which ought to be tested in the Poor-law Commis-
sioners. They had the power to appoint and limit the
districts, and the number of the guardians was a con-
tingent power which, in his opinion, could not be- as-
signed to a better authority. As to the qualification, he
had no objection to the House deriding on that point,
and for that purpose he now proposed to add the words,
" Not exceeding fifty pounds."
Mr. HAWES.: said he was glad to find that the Right
Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) was disposed to give
way on the subject of the qualification.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said as the qualification was now
to be defined, and was most properly kept within the
limits already stated by the existing Act, he should not
feel it his duty to press his amendment further.
The amendment of Sir James Graham was then agreed
to, sad the words proposed by him were added to the
clause.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought the district boards
ought to be elected annually, as well as the board of
of guardians.
Mr. FERRAND wished to know whether ex officio
guardians were to sit at, the district board, and whether
Dissenting ministers were competent to do so. He
thought it they were, they would have religious dissen-
sions, and nothing but envy and hatred in every class of
society.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the board of guardians
were to choose persons properly qualified to sit at the
district boards. He thought that the qualification
would be a rating of 401.
The clause, as amended, was then ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
On clause 38 being proposed, which defined the powers
and duties of the district board,
Sir J. GRAHAM proposed an amendment, to the
effect that a chaplain should be appointed to each asylum,
such chaplain to be a clergyman of the Church of Eng-
land, and to be elected by the board, the amount of
salary to be fixed by the Poor-law Commissioners.
Mr. HAWES said the proviso did not really carry
out the Government principle. He objected to the
words " licensed minister," the meaning of which had on
several occasions been variously construed. He con•
tended for a " lawful minister" of any Dissenting con-
gregation having access to the children of the poor at all
reasonable times, under the control of the district
board. He proposed therefore the substitution of the
word " lawful" for the word "licensed," and the addition
of the words " at all reasonable times of the day, as the
guardians may appoint for the purposes mentioned in
this clause."
Sir J. GRAHAM said nothing could be in better
taste than the way in which the Hon. Gentleman
had represented the feelings of the Protestant Dissenters
on that occasion, in abstaining from opposing the ap-
pointment of a clergyman of the Established Church to
each workhouse—(Hear, hear)—but at the same time
standing up firmly for the great principles of toleration.
—(Bear, hear.) The words " licensed minister" were
purposely copied by him (Sir James Graham) from
other Acts, which he thought gave the widest construc-
tion to the principle the Honourable Gentleman
(Mr. Hawes) wished to see enforced. He (Sir
James Graham) would not then decide whe-
ther the word, " licensed" or the word " lawful,"
or any other word should be used ; but he would con-
sult the law officers of the Crown, and also the Hon.
Gentleman himself, between the present time and the
bridging up of the report, in order that they might
come to a mutual and proper agreement upon the sub-
ject.--(Hear, hear.) Till that time he thought it would
be better to abstain from further discussion of the ques-
tion, which he was sincerely
,desirous to meet and to
arrange in the same excellent spirit in which it had been
brought forward by the Hon. Member for Lambeth.
Mr. WAKLEY suggested that the interpretation of
the words read by the Right Hon. Baronet should be in-
serted in the clause.
Sir J. GRAHAM had no objection to their insertion,
but he thought it would be better to postpone the dis-
cussion of the point -until he had bad an opportunity of
consulting his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-
General.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. COWPEti, inquired whether the Government had
any objection to insert in the clause a proviso for inspec-
tion ? Otherwise he feared the education would be of a
very inferior character. The Hon. Member proposed
that the Privy Council should have the power of in-
spection.
Sir J. GRAHAM had no objection to insert the
proviso.—The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 39, 40, and4l, were agreed to without discus-
sion.
On clause 42 being proposed,
Mr. BERNARD complained of the injustice of the
average system of rating for the support of the district
schools. The system had been productive of great injus-
tice in the Greenwich union.
Sir J. GRAHAM had not been able very distinctly
to catch the Hon. Member's observations, but he be-
lieved that generally the system of rating by averages
had been found to operate fairly, although it might have
inflicted hardship in some localities.
Mr. BERNARD hoped that some alteration would
take place, for the system had been productive
of great injustice in the Greenwich union.
Mr. WAKLEY thought the observations of the Hon.
Member for Greenwich were entitled to great attention.
As he understood the Hon. Gentleman, it was that the
expense of maintaining these schools should be defrayed
by the different parishes, in proportion to the number
of children belonging to each parish in the school, and
not according to the average rating of the parish to the
union. If this were not adopted, cases might occur in
which parishes, having but one child in the school,
would have to pay as much as other parishes having
eight or ten.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that by the clause, as
it stood at present, the chargé for the maintenance of
the children was a parochial charge. It was the charge
for the establishment generally that was to be defrayed
according to the average of rating.
The clause was then, agreed to.
Clauses 43 and 44 were then agreed to, with some
verbal amendments.
On clause 45 being proposed,
Mr. S. O'BRIEN moved after the words " by virtue
of this Act." to insert these words, " Provided always,
and be it further enacted, that whenever it shall appear
to the board of any district school, that the space within
such school is more than sufficient for the accommoda-
tion of poor children within the district for which such
school shall have been built, it shall and may be lawful
for such board to make order for the admission of so
many other children residing in the said district as
shall seem expedient ; and the weekly provision for
the maintenance and education of such children
shall be fixed by the board at such rate as shall
in their judgment be amply sufficient to cover
every expense on account of such children." He
thought the clause, without some such addition would
be giving a premium to pauperism ; and moreover it
would tend to remove the stigma which must attach in
after life to children educated in these schools, if they
were devoted exclusively to the education of paupers.
Mr. FERRAND opposed the proposition, because it
had a tendency to throw the education of the country into
the hands of the Poor-law Commissioners.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said there were great diffi-
culties in the case, for if they fixed the charge for these
children at a high rate, very few children would be sent
to the schools, and if it were low the plan would esta-
blish an unfair competition with the British:and Foreign
schools, and other charitable schools. Ho should, there •
fore, oppose the amendment of the Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. BORTHWICK supported the amendment.
Mr. STUART WOR rLEy was understood to sup-
port the clause as it stood.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the proposition of the lion.
Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire was, in
his opinion, a good one, and he should, therefore, sup-
port it.
Mr. WAKLEY said it was clear they could not get
on without the sanction of the Commissioners, and, there-
fore, they ought to make them as useful as possible. The
schools proposed in this clause were intended very
properly, not merely for the children of those
who squandered away their money—not merely
for the virtuous and honest poor, but, upon
very slight payments, for the children of
those who were above the charity of the law. That
they might, therefore, have a proper and efficient con-
trol, he should move that after the word " board,"
should be added the words, " under the direction and
control of the Poor-law Commissioners."
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was exceedingly delighted
at the tone which the discussion on the educational
clauses of the Bill had taken, but as the amendment
might perhaps interfere too much with the ordinary
schools already established, he thought on the whole
it would be wiser in the House not to sanction it.
Mr. HAWES did not think any school would be in-
jured by the introduction of the proviso, but he thought
it would be best to postpone its consideration, in order
that its full effect might be known. He was
afraid that by the proviso the children of pau-
pers would have a much better education than
those of independent labourers, which was not at all
desirable. 11. thought it would be better to postpone
the proviso till the bringing up of the report.
—Fir. STAFFORD O'BRIEN would withdraw the
proviso, and take another opportunity of introducing it.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought it had better be postponed,
as he was himself desirous of considering the clause.
After a desultory conversation, Mr. S. O'BRIEN
withdrew his amendment, on the understanding that the
matter waS to be-further considered on bringing up the
report. The original clause was agreed to.
On clause 47 being.propased,
Mr. HENLEY said this clause affected the removal
of the casual poor, and as it would require much
consideration, he trusted it might be postponed...Oß J.-

This Bill was postponed in consequence of the absence
of Mr. Fitzroy Kelly.
FIELD GARDENS BILL.

Sir J. GRAHAM suggested that this Bill should be
committed pro forma, and postponed till Wednesday
next: To the principle of the Bill he was decidedly
favourable, and he did not think that the course he sug-
gested. was at all hostile to the measure.
Mi. MACKINNON advised the Hon. Member who
introduced the Bill to accede to the suggestion.
Mr. COWPER consented.
`Mr. 'HUME advocated the propriety of giving la-
bourers a small portion of land in the same manner as
in Franco and Belgium.
Dr. BOWRING instanced the good effect of the
large number of landed proprietors in France.
It was ultimately agreed that the Chairman should
report progress, and ask leave to sit again, with a view
of having amendments introduced, when the Bill would
be printed,- and the further consideration of it postponed
until the next session.

IRISH FISHERIES.
Sir D. NORREYS, seeing the Noble Lord, the Secre-
tent' for Ireland (Lord Eliot), in his place, wished to ask
whether •he intended to introduce, during the present
session, any measure for the protection of Irish fisheries?
Lord ELIOT said there was a measure in a sufficient
state of forwardness to be introduced during the present
session; but whether it could be passed or not would
depend upon the opinion of the House. lie was in hopes
that the Bill was so framed as to merit a favourable con-
sideration; and he should, therefore, do his best to have
it passed into ulaw.
'IRISH MAGISTRACY.
Mr. SHELL said there was a sort of understand-
ing that when the Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Bill
was spain before the -House the question of the
9
restoration - of Mr. O'Driscoll •to .the commission
of the peace would be brought forward. Reflec-
tion had convinced him that that question was of far too
important a character to be discussed thus incidentally.
He, therefore, begged to give notice to the Government,
that if the Hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Ross) did not
make a distinct motion upon the subject of Mr. O'Dris-
colrs re-appointment to the Irish magistracy, he (Mr.
Shell) should feel it his duty to de so. -
The ,Copyhold' Enfranchisement Bill went through
Committee pro forma, and the report was brought up.
The District Courts and Prisons Bill went through
ComMittee, was reported, and ordered to be read a third
time to-morrow.
The Lecturers and Parish Clerks Bill was read a
second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.
Mr.GREENE brought: up the report of the Committee
on the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, which was
agreed to.
The Party Processions (Ireland) Bill was reported,
and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
The Trafalgar-square Bill was read a third time, and
passed.
On the question that the report on the Farm Build-
ings Bill be received,
Mr. HUME complained of the apathy that had been
displayed by the Government with respect to the incen-
diary tires that had taken place in different parts of the
country. He thought the Government ought to have
instituted some inquiry on the subject. lie concluded
by asking whether the Government had taken any
measures to ascertain the causes of these fires, and
-whether they were prepared-with any 'remedial measures?
Sir JAMES . GRAHAM believed that information
would be afforded to the Hon. Gentleman and to the
country as to the causes of the fires in Norfolk, Suffolk,
and Essex, at the approaching assizes, when seventeen
persOns would take their trials on charges connected with
these fires.
Sir CHARLES BURRELL denied that the agricul-
tural labourers were inadequately paid. Their wages
were 13s. a week, which was a fair and reasonable rate,
according to the present value of corn. Hon. Members
opposite would be better employed, if, instead of endea-
vouring to excite feelings against the farmers and landed
gentry, they would endeavour to persuade the labourers
to avoid these acts of mischief.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS considered 13s. a week very
inadequate wages, but in the eastern counties the la•
bourers could not procure even that amount. It ap-
peared, from the excellent letters which he had seen in
the Times on this subject, that the correspondent of that
paper brought forward evidence to prove that. the
wages in Norfolk and Suffolk ranged from Bs. to 9s.
a week. Those allegations had been subjected to the
most searching inquiry, and their correctness
had been proved ; and it had also been proved that
' where the rate of wages was lowest fires had
invariably taken place. Now, he would ask the Hon.
Baronet if Bs. a week was a sufficient remuneration to a
labouring man, whether it was sufficient to enable him
to maintain a wife and five or six children ? And unless
they could live on that scanty pittance, they must g'
into • the union workhouse. No one knew better than
the Hon. Baronet the • feelings of abhorrence with
which the labourers regarded these unions. They would
rather enter a prison than a union.
The report was then received, and the Bill was ordered
to be read a third time to-morrow.
Mr. HUME wished to know what the Hon. Baronet
meant by recommending lion. Members on that side ot
the House to advise the labourers not to do mischief ?
He (Mr. Hume) hadcomplelnedto the Government of evils
which were existing in the country, and had asked them
if they meant to apply a remedy. The country gentle-
men said it was necessary • that they should have a mo-
nopoly. of corn, in order to keep the agricultural la
bourers comfortable. They did not fulfil their promise,
and therefore lie proposed that trade should be set free,
which would enable the labourers to make themselves
comfortable.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE'S (MIDDLESEX) BILL.
Sir J. GRAHAM, in moving the second reading of
thi4 Bill, .prOpesed to take the debate on 'the motion for
going into Committee, which he would bring forward
to-morrow at five -o'clock.
The Bill was then read a secon I time.
LOAN SOCIETIES.

The report on the Loan Such tik3s 13111 was brought up
and nceived.

CRIMINAL 'JUSTICE.

- -
On the order of the day for bringing up* the report on
the Criminal Justice's (Middlesex) Salary Bill,
Mr. HUME asked what the amount of the salary
was to be?

Sir J. GRAHAM said the Bill only contained a pro
vision for a salary—the amount of it was open to the
consicleratip of the liouse.—Report received.
TURNPIKE TRUSTS! ' '

On bringing up the rePprt' of the rtkirnpike
(South 1911101rSalaries
Mr. HUME said there was no statement of what was
to-be the amount of the salaries of the Commissioners
laud the Secretary.