§ MR. HENLEYwished before the House went into Committee of Supply, to call the attention of the House to that part of the report of G. A' Becket, Esq., that relates to Reading, in Berkshire, contained in the reports to the Poor Law Board on laws of settlement and removal of the poor, presented to both Houses of Parliament, by command of Her Majesty, in the year 1850. It appeared that some time since evidence had been given by Mr. Chadwick, before a Committee, to the effect that the poor had been driven into Reading in consequence of a number of houses having been pulled down in the surrounding agricultural parishes. That was doubted. However, in 1848 the late President of the Poor Law Board directed inquiries to be made by a gentleman named A' Becket. That gentleman, in his report, distinctly referred to the evidence of Mr. Chadwick, and in the last paragraph of his report he stated that he had no hesitation in saying that the practice of pulling down cottages for the purpose of driving out the agricultural labourers had existed in several parishes. That allegation bad created some surprise in the neighbourhood where the occurrences were alleged to have taken place; and Mr. A' Becket added that they had been driven into Reading either because they had been guilty of poaching, or had 351 been accused of it. Correspondence had taken place upon the subject, and he and his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire had received numerous communications. There now appeared to be two courses which might be taken on the subject. One was to appoint a Select Committee; and the other, the more simple and readier course, would be, that on some occasion he should move as an unopposed return, that that correspondence he printed and laid before the House. He begged to ask whether there would be any objection to that course?
§ MR. ROBERT PALMERsaid, that having seen the report alluded to, and the statement relative to the parishes in his own neighbourhood, he had thought it his duty last year to inquire whether that report was substantially correct; and he could not find that within the recollection of persons in the neighbourhood the facts were as stated by Mr. Chadwick. There was one parish in the county of Oxford the greater portion of the property in which belonged to a friend of his. He knew that that gentleman was considerably hurt at the allusions that were made, and he denied the accuracy of the statement. Also in a part of the county of Berks there was a small parish near the town of Reading, which he knew to be the property of only two persons. One of those gentlemen had brought him a list of the different cottages pulled down on account of dilapidation, and of others built in their place, and had made a statement which was very different from Mr. Chadwick's and the report. The other gentleman had made a statement of the facts before a Master in Chancery. He thought it would be very satisfactory if all the papers were to be laid upon the table of the House.
§ MR. BAINESshould be extremely sorry that any report that emanated from the Poor Law Board should be the means of doing injustice to any one; but the allegations having been made, he was anxious that the truth should be fully investigated. The hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to communicate to him the contents of the letters that he had received. He thereupon placed himself in communication with MR. A' Becket, stated that doubts had been expressed with regard to the accuracy of some of the information he had received, and asked him to go down again, and investigate on the spot the facts of the case. Mr. A' Becket accordingly did go again to Reading, and he had since re- 352 ported that his original impressions remained unaltered. He had handed the hon. Gentleman opposite the letter so received from Mr. A' Becket. Further correspondence ensued, and he begged to say that every letter and every document in his possession forming a portion of that correspondence should be most cheerfully produced.