Commons Sitting of 26 May 1830

MINUTES.
The Four-per-Cent Dissentients Bill was read 3 third time and passed.
Petitions presented. For a protecting Duty on the Importation of Foreign Lead, by Lord W. POWLETT, from Sum-hope, Wolsingham, Dufton, Hilton, and Merton:—By Sir E. LLOYD, from the Miners of the County of Flint, For Measures to give Security to Ireland, by Mr. G. MOORE, from Sir Harcourt Lees. Against the Scotch and Irish Paupers Removal Bill, by Mr. C. CALVERT. from the Overseers of St. Saviour, Southwark:—By Mr. DENISON, from the Overseers of St. Mary, Newington:—By Mr. BYNG, from St. Leonard, Shoreditch. Against the Select Vestries Bill, by Mr. BYNG, from the Inhabitants of Paddington. Against Poor-Laws for Ireland, by Colonel BERNARD, from the Freeholders of King's County. For a revision of the Friendly Societies Act, by Sir W. GUISE, from John Garlick Ball. Against an increase of Stamp Duties (Ireland), by Colonel BRUEN from Carlow. Against the increase of Duty on Corn Spirits, by Mr. R. GRANT, from the Freeholders of the County of Elgin; and from the same Persons, against the Inventory Duty. Against the Administration of Justice Bill, by Mr. E. DAVENPORT, from the Freeholders of the County Palatine of Chester; and from the Inhabitants of Sandback. For the Abolition of the Punishment of Death in cases of Forgery, by Mr. LAWLEY, from the Inhabitants of Rugby. By Mr. C. W. WYNN, from Mr. Dixon, of Dumbarton, complaining of the Votes of the Committee of the House of Commons, on the Clyde Navigation Bill, and praying that the matter might be referred to a Select Committee of Seven Members of the House, agreeable to a Standing Order lately made by the House.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. BROWN LOW, amount of Duties collected on Glass in Ireland during the last Ten Years:—On the Motion of Sir M. S. STEWART, Copies of all Acts of Sederunt, regulating the Fees of the Writers to the Signet (Scotland):—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, the Number of Persons convicted of Forgery in Scotland, from 1791 to 1829:—On the Motion of Mr. KENNEDY, the number of Causes decided in the different Sheriffs' Courts (Scotland), since the passing of the 6th of Geo. IV.:—On the Motion of Mr. LAWLEY, expense incurred by the Manufactory of Small Arms at Enfield, including Pensions, &c since Jan. 1st, 1812.

LIABILITIES OF STAGE COACH PROPRIETORS.
Sir T. D. Acland Sir T. D. Acland moved for leave to bring in a Bill to protect Stage Coach Proprietors from their present liabilities in respect of Parcels sent by their Coaches, where undue concealment was

1129
practised by the parties sending them. He was willing that they should be made generally liable in all cases to the amount of 20 l. without special notice. Wherever the value was above 20 l. the burthen of giving notice should rest upon the parties sending the parcel.
Motion, after a few words from Sir T. Freemantle and Mr. N. Calvert, agreed to.

PAUPERS (SCOTCH AND IRISH) REMOVAL BILL.
Lord Stanley Lord Stanley moved the second reading of the Scotch and Irish Pauper's Removal Bill. He merely wished that it should be read a second time, and submitted to a committee up stairs.
Mr. Sturges Bournedid not mean to oppose the Motion, but he had an objection to one of the clauses of the Bill. He confessed he felt some surprise that such a Bill should have been brought forward in the absence of the Secretary for the Home Department. It made an important alteration in the law, and ought to receive the most mature consideration.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that the principle of the Bill was monstrous, and he was quite certain that it could not pass in its present form.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that when those poor persons came to the parishes they must be relieved. Now the effect of this Bill would be to refuse them relief, and therefore, against such a Bill he conceived that every sort of opposition was perfectly fair. He had presented several petitions against it, and was resolved to divide the House rather than allow it to pass.
Mr. Denisonsaid, he also had presented petitions against the Bill, and he hoped the worthy Alderman would take the sense of the House upon it.
Mr. N. Calvertsaid, that in the parishes with which he was more immediately connected, they were often put to an expense of several hundreds a year for the removal of these paupers. He did not think the Bill so objectionable as his hon. friends did.
Mr. Littletonsaw no reason why the more distant counties should not have the benefit of the Act—the Bill ought to place all upon the same footing of equality. Perhaps it might be found advantageous to try the experiment of leaving those paupers without any parish relief; if due notice of such a system were given, it would be found that their
1130
numbers would materially diminish. The expense of passing these paupers, which fell on the midland counties, was enormous and could not be borne, particularly as those counties derived no benefit from their labour.
Mr. James Grattanthought, that if a sufficient provision were made for the Irish poor in Ireland, such a Bill as the present would be unnecessary—it was in effect a Bill to deprive England of the benefits of Irish labour.
Mr. Estcourtunderstood the object of the noble Lord to be, to have the Bill read a second time and submit it to a committee, for the purpose of seeing if any measure of relief could be devised. So far he meant to support the Motion.
Sir E. Knatchbullanticipated, that in the course of next Session some provision would be made for the Irish poor, but he thought that the present Bill would have the effect of imposing a heavy burthen upon one part of the country at the expense of another; it might be as well to wait and see what measure the necessities of Ireland can into existence.
Sir T. Freemantleopposed the waiting. Even if they did wait, the counties still might be left without relief.
Mr. Byngsaid, that he looked upon the Bill as so injurious to the metropolis that he should vote against it.
Sir John Wrottesleythought it a very fair proposal of his noble friend, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. That would pledge the House to nothing further than an examination of the Bill.
Colonel Woodwas convinced, that the large populous parishes of Middlesex had very unnecessarily taken alarm at the Bill; and if it were sent to a committee it might be shown that no such evil would accrue.
Sir R. Inglissupported the Motion. The principle of the Bill might be hereafter discussed should the Select Committee recommend it.
Mr. Maxwellsaid, that though he would not refuse to give his consent to the second reading, yet he was desirous that it should have reference to the kingdom at large rather than to any particular parts.
Mr. A. Dawsonsaid, that they ought to inquire into the cause of the evil: that cause was the want of employment; and by finding employment for the people the evil would be removed. He therefore wished that country gentlemen would give

1131
their support to Government making giants in Scotland and Ireland for the purpose of employing the poor.
Sir C. Burrellfound fault with his brother Magistrates for not putting the Vagrant Act in force; he contended that sending vagrants to the House of Correction, especially in cold weather, was no punishment at all. A little timely rigour sometimes made the blind see, and the lame walk.
Mr. Alderman Woodpersisted in dividing the House, but there not being forty Members present, the House was counted out.