The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-03 00:00:00

country. It appeared that landlords had power to grant
allotments of waste land to labourers, and that any sur-
plus which might occur should be applied to the
relief of poor persons in the parish. He should
oppose that clause. They had already pauperism
enough; they had one great scheme by which they were
relieved to a greater or less extent. He thought it an un-
desirable thing that any fresh system should be ori-
ginated. The Hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S.
Crawford) bad spoken harshly on this question, for be
felt warmly upon it; but he (Mr. Bright) was sure he
thought that no manufacturing population were so com-
fortable as that large class which he represented, and
which were dependent on their earnings for a subsist-
ence. A labourer, wherever it was possible, should
have a piece of ground near his cottage, but that was a
very different thing to the system proposed to be carried
into effect by the Bill. Its real object was to give a cer-
tain description of relief to that class of people in the
rural districts who were in a condition of suffering. He
had no objection to their having relief; but it appeared
to him that every labourer, when he becamepossessed of
one of these gardens, would be driven, by the compe-
tition of labour, down to receive just such wages as
he could barely live on, and would have only
a small quantity of potatoes as his food, from the land
which he cultivated. If there was a superabundance of
labour, wages would be reduced to the smallest possible
amount. There was another certain degree of depend-
ance. The moving power of the Bill was to be the cler-
gyman of the parish. He might be a suitable person,
but they knew that the most deserving labourers were
those who went to church and chapel. So that the
labourer, if the Bill were carried out at all, would be
more dependant than at present. He however agreed
with the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) that it
would not do much harm. No .provision was made for
the expenses which would have to be defrayed ; and he
could not but think it a mere toy of legislation, which
the Hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Cowper) had been
amusing himself with that session ; and it would be
more respectful to the House if he were to withdraw it.
Mr. DARBY referred to the circumstance of a lady
who had granted 500 allotmehts to her tenants, and who
made it a stipulation that whoever was taken before a
magistrate should forfeit his allotment, and not one in-
stance had occurred for several years. This might per-
haps be too severe, but the Hon. Member for Bath must
give him better information as to the bad working of the
system than he had done before he could agree with his
opinion. With respect to the voluntary system, he did
not know an instance in which it had led to the reduc-
tion of wages ; it bad bad a very different result; as in-
stea l of lowering the condition of the people, it had ele-
vated it. He was not sure that the Bill would effect that
which was accomplished under the voluntary system,
because the owner of the land frequently afforded the
tenants assistance by giving them seeds, and aiding them
in vari,ms ways. But wherever the voluntary system
could not, from local causes, be carried into effect, he
should feel disposed to see the plan proposed in the Bill
tried.

Lord CLEMENTS explained the " cottier" system
pursued in Ireland, which consisted in granting from 20
to 30 acres of land, and which bad bad a favourable
result, whilst the "con acre" system (the renting of an
extremely small piece of land by a peasant) was driving
the Irish agricultural labourer to the earth, and since the
decision of an assistant barrister at a quarter sessions
that no tenancy was caused under the " con acre" sys
tem, and that a tenant had a right to remove the agri-
cultural produce of his land, it had become worse, as a
person desiring to rent a piece of land could not obtain
it, unless he could find security, and as the security had
to be a farmer, who bad the power of reducing the wages
of labour to the lowest ebb, the difficulty and hardshi
was greatly increased. The system of "con acre'
created a running account between farmer and labourer,
and did away with the payment of wages in money.
So much did it increase misery in Ireland, that he was
anxious to caution gentlemen in England not to incur
the risk of similar distress in England by the introduc-
tion of this Bill.
Mr. STANSFIELD was in favour of voluntary allot-
ments, because they promoted a good feeling between
the landlord and the labourer. As the Bill would
destroy this system, and would defeat the good inten-
tions of landlords, he should vote against it, and the
sooner the Bill was withdrawn the better.

Mr. HENLEY said that the Bill was very severe in
some of its enactments, and as he did not think it would
have the desired effect intended by its projector, he
should support the amendment of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath.

Mr ,COWPER said that he did not assert that the Bi
would have no effect on wages, but that whatever effect
it would have would be to increase rather than diminish
them. Froua what he had heard of the cottier system
in Ireland, it was pretty clear that there was no such
thing as an allotment system there. He believed that
in ninety-nine cases out a hundred land was held—not
from the owner, but from a third person, a farmer, pro-
bably ; and such was the competition for it, that prices
far above the real value were offered by the one class
and accepted by the other.
Mr. BOUVERIE read extracts from two competent
authorities—(we could not hear the name) —which he
would oppose to the arguments of Hon. Members whoop-
posed the Bill.
Mr. NEWI)EGATE thought that the proposed al-
lotments could be of no use to.the labourers in the mining
and manufacturing districts. He had lived long enough
to see that the labourer was but too dependent on his
employer, and he would support any Bill which promised
him more independence.
Mr. CURTEIS thought the tendency of the Bill was
to lower agricultural wages, and he should therefore vote
against it.
Mr. M. GIBSON was ♦ery sure that the Bill would
be defeated on the third reading, even if it reached that
stage ; and he therefore wished to put the Hon. Mem-
ber out of pain as soon as possible.—(Laughter.) Al-
though he was ready to admit that it was a noble spec-
tacle to see a man struggling against adversity.
An HON. MEMBER wished to put a question of vital
importance to the Right Honourable Baronet the Se-
cretary for the Home Department. Had the Right
Honourable Baronet any experience whatever on this
subject ?—(Laughter.)
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD doubted the ap-
plicability of the Bill to Ireland.
Sir JA3IES GRAHAM said, that in the north of
Ireland the Bill would not be much regarded, because
there the land was held directly from the owners. He
observed also in the neighbourhood of Birmingham
there were garden-plots upheld by the labourers or
manufacturers ; but there again, as in the north of Ire-
land, the laud was held directly from the owners of the
soil. Although the Bill was capable of amendment in
some of its &tails, he did not mean to oppose it.
Mr. COWPER said, the more common mode in and
about Northampton and other large towns in England,
was for land to be held from societies.
The House then divided, when there appeared,
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against it —23
Mr. CURTEIS moved as an amendment that there
should be six, instead of three requisionists of a parish,
who should have power to call a meeting to put the Bill
into operation.
Mr. BRIGHT said that it appeared to him, that
under this clause three rate-payers of a parish would
have power to call a meeting, which should be con-
sidered a parish meeting, to decide whether the parish
would adopt the provisions of this Act, and he cer-
tainly did not think three was a sufficient number.
Lord Sandon, Mr. Darby, Mr. Sharman Crawford,
and Mr. Cowper supports d the clause as it stood, but,
after a short discussion, the amendment was agreed to
without a division.
Mr. HENLEY moved as an amendment, that each of
the six requisitionists should be rated to the poor at up-
wards of 10/.
Mr. Cowper, Mr. Darby, and Mr. Wakley resisted the
alteration.
Mr. CURTEIS and Mr. S. CRAWFORD supported it.
Mr. BRIGHT said the proposed alteration would
entirely defeat the chance of this Bill being carried into
operation in the agricultural districts, for there the
numbers were few indeed who were rated above 10L
After a short discussion the Committee divided, when
there appeared—
For the amendment

Against it
Majority —9
On the re-admission of strangers we found
Mr. COLLET moving an amendment to the effect
that " churchwardens" should be substituted for " rec-
tors or curates," in the administrative clauses of the
Bill.
Mr. COWPENhoped that the Hon. Gentleman would
not press his amendment, for, in point of fact, the
churchwardens were the administrators of the paro-
chial law.
Mr. BRIGHT thought that it was most unfavourable
to the minister of any church to be dragged into affairs
distinct from the preaching of the Gospel.
Mr. DARBY moved that the words "landed proprie-
tors, occupiers of land, and inhabitant householders" be
omitted, and the word "vestry" be substituted.
The amendment was agreed to without a division.
The clause then passed as amended.
The second clause was then proposed,
Mr. COLLETT moved that the word "churchwar-
dens" be inserted in this clause instead of the words
" officiating minister."—Agreed to.
Mr. BRIGHT also moved that the words " and other
places of worship" be inserted after the word " chapel."
This amendment was negatived.
Mr. CURTEIS moved that the words " twenty-one
days" be inserted, instead of "ten days."
The clause, as amended, was then ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
The 3d clause was then agreed to.
On the proposal of clause 4,
Mr. BRIGHT recommended the clause to be with-
drawn until the meaning of the word " Vestry " was
explained.
Mr. COWPER suggested that the clause could be
carried, and the meaning of the word " Vestry" could be
explained afterwards in the interpretation clause.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 5 being proposed,
Mr. COLLETT moved that the words " officiating
minister" be omitted.
Mr. COWPER opposed the amendment.
The House then divided on the amendment, and it was
lost by a majority of 37 to 7.
On the next clause being read,
Mr. BRIGHT said he conceived the words " officiating
minister " rather indefinite: for instance, there were
some townships in which there were several offi-
ciating ministers; and he would like to know who
would have the power to decide which was the
" officiating minister?" He thought the vestry ought
to have the power of making the election.
It was agreed upon to leave the definition to the inter-
pretation clause, and the clause was then agreed.to.
On clause 8 being read,
Mr. BRIGHT objected to the words " near such
parish" being left in, because persons in one parish