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

heir rights—(Hear)—and considered the subject mate-
rially affected the privileacs of the House. The de-
claration required Mr. Barrett to plead on Friday
next, and it was, therefore, necessary for some specific
resolution to be adopted With‘.ut delay. The Hon.
Member concluded that the petition be read
by the clerk at the table, and printed
immediately with the votes, intimating his intent,on of
following the matter up to-morrow by a substuitive
motion.
The petition wat then laid on tl e table, and ordered
to be printed with the votes, but its reading at the table
dispensed with.

FIELD GARDENS BILL.
Mr. W. COWPER presented a petition in favour of
t 1 is Bill from the inhabitants of Kettering.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
On the clause which provides that three rate-payers
in a parish may call a meeting on the subject of allotting
land for gardens being read,
Mr. CURTEIS moved that the number of rate-payers
s' ould be six.
Mr. ROEBUCK took that opportunity of inquiring of
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Ilome
Department whether this Bill, it' carried, would not su-
persede the existing poor-law ? Ile would also ask the
Right Hon. Gentleman if this Bill was in accordance
with the views of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and whe-
ther he was prepared to give tLe sanction of the Govern-
ment to it ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man was probably aware that since the last discussion
on this Bill it had been re-committed, and ail the clauses
relating to the poor-law had been withdrawn. To the
19th clause he had several objections. but he had
reason to believe that the Hon. Gentleman who had in-
troduced the Bill, was willing to consent to the omission
of that clause. If he did consent to the omission of
that clause, then his (Sir James Graham's) insu-
perable objections to the measure would be removed.
His mind, however, was undecided as to the practical
utility of the Bill. Still, a'thoueli he doubted whether
any practical advantage could arise from the Bill, he had
no objection to give it his support.
Mr. DARBY hoped the lion. Gentleman would omit
the clause.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON suspected that the Right
Hon. Gentleman was practising a species of cruelty to-
wards his Hon. Friend the Member for Hertford. The
Bill would be allowed to pass on to the close of the
session, and would then be killed dead by a count-out.
He would tell his Hon. Friend candidly that he looked
upon this Bill as a species of romance—there was nothing
sound or real about it. It was not calculated to do good.
The opinion of the ablest men in the country was op-
to=ed both to the principles and details of the measure,
and it was trifling with the time of the House to proceed
with it any further.—(Hear, hear.) If his Hon. Friend
the Member for Bath would move that the Chairman de
report progress and ask leave to sit again this day sic
months, he (Mr. M. Gibson) would support the motion,
Mr. COWPER expressed his readiness to abaneloie
the 19th clause, on the intimation which he had reeseived
from the Right Hon. Gentleman. The object of the
Bill was to provide allotments of ground for the labour..
ing man to cultivate as small gardens, so that he migh4
have the benefit to be derived from their cultivatisaa,
The Honourable Member for Manchester had des'.giveted
so t 0
theßill as rather romantic than practicable. No doubt
wtt
hhoeet
ildp
eocrhi measureemflaywn
.abs e anefi
Themeret
wb
yor
ro
hmt
naeng c
Bee
ialt
classes
ehim,l .
et
orbeauntnot
thosewho
Leicestershire and Northamptonshira, whereYtphart°
time
sooorf
were in the habit of employiag their leisureme
in cultivating gardens, small a
measure as the one
proposed would be of vast bee.
not be very anxious to
"sei-at to them. He should
m -
.a.ter generally on the subject of
aplrlaoettieesna now.
ltly
,-se believed that all persons who were
saw with the subject were in favour of
garde': allotments, and the objections of those who were
against allotments were to be ascribed entirely to their
ignorance of their practical working and effects, He
believed that all the labouring classes in different parts
of the country would be benefited by the measure.
Mr. ROEBUCK, complained that the Bill before the
House would have an injurious effect upon the Condition
of the working-classes.—(Hear, hear.) It was
the peculiar advantage of the working classes of England,
in comparison with other countries, to be free to serve
any employer they thought fit, and to be paid in wages.
Now, he looked upon this measure as a roundabout
process to substitute payment in kind for payment in
wages. Let there be no disguise. Was the working
man to get wages, or was he to use the
fringes of his time in these miserable patches
of gardens to eke out his wages ? That was
the real question. He had no objection to the work-
ing men having gardens to cultivate, but he was
against any scheme that would give employers an oppose.
tunity of using these gardens as a substitute for wages.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman concluded by moving
that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said that the Bill was
a movement in the right direction,
giving the labourer
some portion of independence, and raising him
from the condition in which he was entirely
dependant upon the pittance which the capitalist
and landowner might choose to allow him.
Ile was of opinion that the system supported by the
Honourable Member for Bath would make slaves
of the people by preventing them from having
the use of the soil which was intended by their
Maker for them. The great objection which he had to
this Bill was that it did not go far enough. This
measure was a just and proper legislation, and the
commencement of a better system, and therefore he
would eive it his warmest suppot t.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that he did not want to make
slaves of the people ; he wanted to keep the people of
England in their present position, not like the people
of Ireland, who were in that state on account of the
cottier system which was about to be introduced into
this country.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD begged to disclaim
all personal offence to the lion. Gentleman. All that he
intended to convey by the expression he used was, that
the operation of such principles would have the tendency
of making the people slaves.
Mr. MANGLES perfectly agreed with the Hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Roebuck) in his definition of theory, pro-
vided always that the theory was a sound one. It was
vain and utterly useless to set up the principle of the la-
bouring population living by wages. The question he
would ask was—could wages be got for them? The
fact was, the people could not get wages. It was only a
short time ago that he met a labouring man, who had
been a considerable time out of work, and was unable to
procure any. The Hon. Gentleman would probably tell
the poor man to go into the union workhouse. This
man may have had too, probably, a wife and children
If they laid down the principle that men were to
live by labour he would ask bow were they to get it ?
Was the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath lookin
out of his parlour window on one of the squares of Lon•
don able to tell how labour could be procured ? No man
living by wages alone in his neighbourhood was able to
make out a comfortable subsistence. The Hon. and.
Learned Member had stated that the labourers gene-
rally kept three pigs in his locality (Guildford)—that
was very rare. He would undertake to show the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman five men who had raised them-
selves by allotments to a comfortable condition, whereas
not one labourer could be shown who had so raised him-
self by his wages. He never knew one instance in
which allotments had been tried which_ had beenattended
with failure. He believed that tte system of wages as
it at present existed was caleulated to lower the cha-
racter of the labourer in a moral point of view. The
man who lived eacclsasively upon wages was generally a
man of narrow mind.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said that all the advantages which
the Hon. Gentleman extolled were the effect of the allot-
ment system, and would not be given by this Bill. He
had said when the Bill had come to the third reading he
would state the grounds on which he would oppose it.
The Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had discussed
the measure with his usual vigour and force. The Right
Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State had taken up a
stronger position against the principles of the Bill than
the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath. He would
contend that the present measure was a new parochial
system for granting relief in land to the labouring popu-
lation of the country, and if any portion of the labouring
population were of opinion that their condition would
be improved by this Bill, they would be egregiously
mistaken.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said it was the paramount
duty of the house to bring all their knowledge to bear
on the discussion of the measure, which had been brought
forward for the purpose of improving the condition of
the labouring classes. It would be proper to consider
whether the measure now tendered would conduce to
that great end or not, and to deliberate further with
respect to what might be called the impression out of
doors. He entirely concurred with several of the
leading maxims which had been laid down by the Hon.
and Learned Member for Bath. He thought that the
labouring classes of the country must depend on labour
for subsistence. They must depend on the fruits of
their industry to be derived from the capital belonging
to others being judiciously employed. It was absurd to
think that the industrious classes could derive their sup-
port from any other source. He would be extremely
happy to see the labouring population obtaining an _
in-
dependent subsistence from cultivating small districts of
land, but such a system was not compatible with
their present condition, and to introduce such
a system into England would be to assimilate the lower
classes to the wretched state of the peasantry in Ireland.
If the measure, as had been represented, reduced the
wages of the labourers, it would, in his opinion, be the
most pernicious measure ever introduced. With respect
to the efficacy of any measure introduced with the ides
of adding to the wages of the labourer, he had great
doubts. He was bound to observe with great sorrow the
statement of the Hon. Member for Surrey, that at the
present time, in the season of haymaking, in that county
there were agricultural labourers who could not get
employment. Sorry as he he was at this state of things,
he did not believe that such a measure as that before the
House would afford a remedy, though he admitted that
such a plan would be better than no employment at all.
As the Bill now stood he had great doubts that it would
effect any amount of good. He saw, however, no danger
in the experiment, and therefore he was not prepared to
state, on his own responsibility, that he would oppose the
progress of the Bill.
Mr. TRELAWNEY should support the motion of the
Hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck), as he maintained
that the gill would have the effect of lowering wages
in-
stead of increasing them, because it would diminish the
demand for labour. Believing this to be the case, he
should vote against the Bill.
Mr. S. 11 OUT LEY should support the Bill, as whet,
ever the system had been tried it had workedwell, and the
physical as well as the moral condition of the labourer&
had improved, instead of retrograded.
Mr. BRIGHT said he should vote for the motion off
the Honourable Member for Bath, as the Bill would
place the labourer in a more dependent state than here-
tofore, and because it would increase the number of pam-
pers and the mass of suffering and misery extant iz the