POOR REMOVAL BILL.

HC Deb 13 July 1846 vol 87 cc1067-71

On the Motion that the Order of the Day for the committal of the Poor Removal Bill be postponed till Thursday,

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, he understood when those great measures of commercial reform which had just passed through Parliament were proposed that the Poor Removal Bill, the Highway Rates Bill, and another Bill, for the purpose of giving some sort of compensation to the tenant-farmers, were to be part and parcel of those "great and comprehensive" measures, and that the Government of the day were pledged to the passing of them—as a portion of their great and comprehensive scheme of commercial reform. These three measures, in short, were proposed as a sort of inducement to the country Gentlemen to permit the passing of the great and comprehensive measures of commercial reform. He had said at the time the promise was made that he entertained some suspicion as to the good faith of the Government with respect to these measures, and that the people of the manufacturing districts had just cause to complain of their conduct with regard to the Poor Removal Bill. The right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had said, and the late First Minister of the Crown agreed with him, that the honour and faith of Parliament were pledged to these measures, and that he would see to their being carried and conducted to a safe and successful issue, so that they and "the great and comprehensive measures of commercial reform" might go on pari passu. Well, what was the course to be taken now with regard to the Highways Bill? The right hon. Baronet had now thrown it over; and now, when they came to the Poor Removal Bill, that he presumed was also to be thrown over by the noble Lord; and the right hon. Baronet said now that it was not imperatively necessary that these measures should be carried if the consent of all parties could not be obtained. If the pledges of Ministers were to be thus broken, he wanted to know what the public and the labouring classes would think of the pledges of the Ministers of the Crown? They were bound to pass the Poor Removal Bill before the Irish Coercion Bill. On one occasion, when the Coercion Bill was brought forward, he contended that the Poor Removal Bill should be taken into consideration first, because he foresaw what was about to take place. And what had taken place since? The late Government had, in his opinion, been guilty of a gross breach of faith in not having proceeded with these measures which were held out as measures of compensation to certain parties. What the noble Lord was going to do with the Poor Removal Bill he knew not; but he thought that he should not be far wrong in saying that that Bill would not pass this Session of Parliament. Those who were responsible for it—those who had introduced it, had deserted it; and he would only add that consequently the working classes had been hardly dealt with, and that they had just cause to complain of the conduct of the late Government.

SIR J. GRAHAM

Sir, before the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) addresses the House, as the hon. Member for Finsbury has brought a charge against the late Government of a breach of faith, I hope the House will allow me to make a few observations. The hon. Gentleman says that the measure has been thrown over by the Government. I think he should have said that the Government itself has been thrown over, having lost the confidence of the House. If I had now been one of Her Majesty's advisers and enjoyed the confidence of the House, I should not have had the least difficulty as to this measure, and it would have been my duty to proceed with it. So far from the measure being abandoned, I am yet to learn that Her Majesty's present advisers will not, in the present Session, obtain the consent of Parliament to that important provision for giving the poor the great advantage of residence. I am of opinion, and I think the majority of the House is of that opinion, that this is the most important part of the measure; and my opinion is, that unless accompanied with a union settlement, many parts of the Bill will be attended with great hardship. I am willing that other parts of the Bill should be tried as an experiment; but I think that the parts which the hon. Member for Finsbury thinks of the most importance will prove harsh without a union settlement. I should say that such of the separate clauses of the Bill as had received the sanction of the majority of the House might pass into a law; but as to charging the late Government with a breach of faith, I assure the hon. Member that if we had remained in the service of Her Majesty it was our fixed intention to have proceeded with the measure, and I hope the noble Lord will proceed with it, and that it will pass and become law.

LORD J. RUSSELL

After what has passed, it may be convenient that I should state to the House the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Poor Removal Bill, which may tend, in some degree, to remove the suspicions of the hon. Member for Finsbury. As I understand the right hon. Baronet now, and as I understood him before, it was his intention, if he had continued in office, to go on with this measure, and to add to its provisions that the poor should not be removable under it without a union settlement. The right hon. Gentleman now thinks it better that the Bill should be left in the hands of the present Government. Now, I assure the hon. Member for Finsbury, not only that we mean to proceed with this measure, but that it is the very first measure we mean to proceed with. But the House will do me the justice to recollect, that upon the instructions moved by the hon. Member for Malton, I expressed a very strong opinion as to union settlements, and considerable doubt whether, though they might be beneficial in certain cases, they would on the whole operate beneficially. Now, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport hopes on Thursday next to go into Committee on this Bill, and settle whether the period shall be five years or shorter, to enable poor persons who have resided in a particular district to establish their claim to relief in the district in which they have resided. With respect to that part of the Bill which relates to union settlement, I propose to leave out that part of the Bill, and to make it a matter for inquiry. The hon. Member for Evesham has given notice of a Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the Poor Law; and I believe the right hon. Gentleman opposite was not prepared on the part of the late Government to offer any objection to a general inquiry into that subject. At any event, if there be any likelihood of this inquiry being prosecuted with effect in the present Session, or if not, then in the next Session, I would not object to an inquiry into the whole law of settlement—it is a most difficult and complicated question, and I think most important evidence can be received with respect to it. I am not satisfied now with the adoption of union settlements by this House without further inquiry; but I do trust that a Bill which will give all the benefits of the Bill as first introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, will pass during the present Session. Having said thus much with respect to the Poor Law Removal Bill, I may perhaps be permitted to make a short statement to the House. Her Majesty's Ministers have but lately accepted office; since that period they have been in distant parts of the country for the purpose of their elections, and, as they have not all assembled yet, I do not think it will be wise or advisable now to state the particular measures with which we shall proceed, or in what respect it may be advisable to adopt or alter the Bills now before the House; but I will take an early opportunity of making this statement, and I hope to do so on Thursday next. There is one subject in particular with respect to which I will make a statement on Thursday as to the day when I will bring forward my proposal—I mean the important question of the Sugar Duties. I am aware of the importance of that subject, and the injury done to the trade by a protracted suspense. I will therefore on Thursday next fix an early day for that discussion. I believe, also, it will be necessary to give notice of a Bill to continue for a further limited period the present duties, as the measure which I may introduce may give rise to considerable discussion, and it will not be desirable to lose the present amount of duties. I know not whether I have any further statement now to make to the House, and I trust that the House will give me till Thursday next to make the statement to which I have referred.

MR. WAKLEY

had heard with great satisfaction the statement of the noble Lord. He had taken the right course on a subject which was of great importance, and had attracted great attention in the country. The noble Lord had promised an inquiry into the whole subject; and he, therefore, trusted that the Committee would be appointed early in the next Session, and that nothing further would now be done than giving the poor the protection of relief after a residence for a certain time. He believed the noble Lord to have proposed the best course, and he hoped it would receive the sanction of the House.

SIR J. PAKINGTON

, also, expressed his high satisfaction at the course about to be taken by the noble Lord.