POOR REMOVAL ACT. (Hansard, 11 May 1847)

LORD J. RUSSELL
said, the Government would offer no objection to the Motion of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (for leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the first clause of the Poor Removal Act). The discussion could he taken upon the second reading.

§ MR. BANKES
then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the First Clause of the Act 8th and 9th Victoria, cap. 66— the Poor Removal Act.

§ SIR G. GREY
hoped it would be remembered that no Member of the House, and still less of the Government, was pledged to the principle of the Bill of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire. He only assented to the introduction of the Bill on 691 the understanding that the objections which he felt to the measure remained in full force.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
thought it all very well on the part of the Government to say, that they did not pledge themselves to the principle of this Bill by consenting to its introduction; but he was afraid the country would misunderstand the course they were taking. A very small section of the House would, he believed, be found in favour of this Bill, which would unsettle the relief of the poor in several parts of the country while it was before the House. The consent of the Government to-night, when they had business which they wished to bring on, meant that they would rather have the hon. Member's Bill than his speech. If the House were to hear that speech, and had the report of the Committee up stairs, he believed they would not consent to the introduction of the Bill. The country, he hoped, would understand that this was a mere moonshine Motion, to which the Government agreed rather than have the hon. Gentleman's speech.

§ SIR J. GRAHAM
was always anxious to consult the wishes of the House and the progress of public business, and it was only on those grounds that he could consent to the introduction of the Bill of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire to repeal the very important provisions of the Act of last Session. He was most happy to hear that, in the next stage of the Bill, the Government had determined to give it their decided opposition. He was anxious that it might be known that, though hon. Gentlemen acceded, in deference to the convenience of the House, to the introduction of this Bill, they entertained strong objections to the measure.

§ MR. E. DENISON
thought it most important that the second reading of this Bill should be fixed for some early day, so that the course which the House really intended to pursue with regard to it might be known to the country, or otherwise the inconveniences already felt would in all probability be augmented by the introduction of the Bill, without any decision being come to on the subject. He hoped, therefore, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department would allow the Bill to be read a second time on the earliest possible day.

§ SIR G. GREY
was anxious that there might be no mistake as to the opinions of the Government with regard to this Bill, for their opinions were already fixed. It was impossible for him, in the present state 692 of public business, to name any Government day for proceeding with the measure.

MR. V. SMITH
observed, that a Committee had been sitting for some time upstairs on the Law of Settlement; and he thought it most important that the House should be acquainted with the opinions of that Committee on this question. He would recommend his hon. Friend (Mr. Bankes) to withdraw the Bill for the present, and to give notice of it for some day when a discussion might be taken upon it. Whether this Bill were carried or not, he considered that an opportunity ought to be afforded for the discussion of the subject to which it related; because these perpetual changes in the laws affecting the poor were attended with the greatest possible mischief. he believed, that if the Committee on the Law of Settlement did not report this Session, the Government would be obliged to alter the existing law in certain particulars.

§ MR. BANKES
said, that if the Government would promise to take this Bill into their own hands, and amend it, he would withdraw his Motion; but in the absence of this intimation, he should feel it his duty to persevere. It would have been more agreeable to himself to have taken the discussion at that time. He did not, however, under present circumstances, desire to throw any obstacle in the way of the business of the House; and should therefore be contented with fixing the earliest possible day for the second reading, when the discussion might take place. He thought he had gained some advantage by the step he was now permitted to take.

§ MR. HUME
did not clearly understand the object of this proceeding. He remembered that this Act had been brought in as a sort of compensation to gentlemen of landed property for the repeal of the corn laws; and it was rather extraordinary that one of the landed proprietors of that House should come forward to move that it be rescinded. He did not think that they should accede to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. He should rather hope that Government would object to the Bill altogether; and he trusted, therefore, that the sense of the House would be taken on the Bill, so that it might be got rid of at once.

§ MR. C. BULLER
observed, that he happened to be the chairman of the Committee which had been referred to, and which had been appointed to inquire into the Law of Settlement; and he must say that he was glad his right hon. Friend 693 (Sir G. Grey) was prepared to take the course he had intimated with reference to this Bill, because, in his opinion, it would relieve the Committee and the House from great difficulties. The fact was, the great difficulty of the Committee arose from the exceeding vagueness with which Gentlemen talked, and the extraordinary diversity of opinion which prevailed upon this subject. There were, in the Committee, not merely two conflicting opinions, but a very great variety of conflicting opinions, with reference to this question. An attempt had been made to bring the Committee to a decision to repeal the existing law; but to that proposition they were very generally opposed. It was then suggested that a very simple resolution might be proposed— namely, that the Committee agreed that the Act of last Session ought to be amended; and that proposition was unanimously assented to; but when it was asked in what sense the law should be amended, it was found that all the Members of the Committee were for amending it in different ways. A very general opinion was entertained in the Committee that there were many evils resulting from the Act of last Session; but the greatest diversity of opinion prevailed as to the proper remedy to be applied. He thought the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes) had taken a proper and manly course in embodying his views in a Bill, because the House might then at once see what the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was; and they would be able to discuss the question much better than they could do on general and vague declarations that some amendment ought to be made in the present law.