§ MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he had received a copy of the Casual Poor (Metropolis) Bill before ten o'clock yesterday morning, and he confessed he had learnt 1800 with surprise that a measure of such importance had been brought forward at the fag end of the Session. He had had a great deal of communication with his constituents on that question, and while every body must be convinced that something should be done with regard to casual destitution in the metropolis, yet the general feeling was that having waited so long they ought to wait till an opportunity should be afforded for the proper consideration of the Bill, without hurrying it through the House in the manner now proposed. He thought it impossible that the measure should pass in the present Session, but if the Government persisted in going on with it, it would be his duty in Committee to move Amendments which would be likely to raise considerable discussion.
§ MR. T. J. MILLERsaid, that at present the Metropolitan Board of Works had had no opportunity of discussing that question; but they were to meet to-morrow, when they would be able to do so, and to give their opinion upon it.
§ MR. LYALL,as a Member of the Poor Law Committee, which had sat for three years, wished to say that the Committee were unanimous in the opinion that the subject of this Bill should be early considered, and its principle carried out. They all knew what great distress occurred last winter in the metropolis, when they heard many harrowing tales respecting the condition of the casual poor; and it was therefore a matter of urgency that this question should be dealt with promptly.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that the President of the Poor Law Board made his statement with reference to this Bill about two o'clock in the morning, when not fifteen Members were present; but the right hon. Gentleman gave no notice that he intended to hurry the measure through so rapidly as actually to read it a second time before it was printed. [No!] At least he did not get his copy before the second reading. The Bill was one of the greatest importance, and he could not understand why it had been brought in so late in the Session, when it could not possibly receive due consideration. He had a great objection to the Metropolitan Board of Works being mixed up with the relief of the poor.
§ MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he had no idea the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) would have taken that opportunity of stating his views regarding this Bill. He had stated, in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for White- 1801 haven (Mr. Lyall), that he did intend, in deference to the unanimous opinion and recommendation of the Committee, to introduce a measure on this subject. It was not possible to collect the opinions of the guardians of unions in the metropolis, but he thought it his duty to bring it forward even at that late period of the Session; and, as he did not expect any opposition, he hoped it would pass. On the following evening he moved for leave to bring in the Bill, but not at so late an hour as had been stated by his hon. Friend. [Sir JOHN SHELLEY: At five minutes to two.] It was very shortly after one, immediately after the Orders of the Day had been disposed of. It was very important and urgent that some provision should be made for the objects of this Bill before the coming winter set in. It in no sense transferred the poor from the Boards of Guardians to the Metropolitan Board of Works; but he said he thought that the Metropolitan Board might collect the trifling sum that would be necessary for the support of this class of the poor. The Bill was under their consideration, and he hoped they would consent to do that. He anticipated certainly the opposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley), but he certainly did not anticipate any opposition from the other side. Before he proceeded to move the second reading, he had taken care to in-form himself that the Bill was in the hands of Members generally, having ascertained at the Vote Office that the Bill was printed and delivered to Members with the Votes. [Lord CLAUD HAMILTON said, he did not receive his copy till between three and four in the afternoon.] Well, that must have been a solitary instance. He had even been urged to put the Bill for Committee to-day, but thought it better to place it in the Orders for to-morrow. There would be ample opportunity for hon. Members to express their opinions on the subject on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair. He could not, therefore, admit that the House had been at all taken by surprise. He certainly, however, was taken by surprise at the objection which had been stated. There was no novelty in the case. The Committee had been sitting for three years upstairs; they had carefully considered the matter; they were unanimous in their recommendation; and the hon. Gentleman who was most urgent for the adoption of the measure sat on the other side. When, therefore, he (Mr. C. P. Vil- 1802 liers) saw the urgency of the case, he saw no reason to postpone the Bill. He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would consider whether they had any good reasons for opposing it.
§ MR. H. BAILLIEobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman adopted the course of the young woman who when charged with having had a bastard child vindicated herself by saying it was a very small one. The right hon. Gentleman said this was a very small Bill; but it was a very important one, and it was disrespectful to the House—indeed it was treating the House with contempt—to bring forward such a Bill at that period of the Session, when most of those who took an interest in these questions had left town. He trusted the Government would reconsider their decision. The charge was, not that the Bill was read a second time before it was printed, but that in the very last days of the Session—after the Appropriation Bill had been brought in, and when there were very few Members present besides the occupants of the Treasury Bench—a Bill involving such a total change in the constitution of the Poor Law was attempted to be shuffled through the House.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was present when the right hon. Gentleman made his communication to his hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Lyall), and he certainly did not understand that the Bill involved the new principle, that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be made an engine for levying the poor rates. He believed there would be found to be a difference of opinion on the Bill when it came to be discussed, and he thought the fullest opportunity should be given for the consideration of so important a proposal.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONIn answer, in the first place, to the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire (Lord Robert Montagu) who asked, by whose authority it was that troops of the line and marines had been sent to Japan—whether it was or was not by order of the Government?—I have to state that this force was sent on the decision of the Government. We thought it desirable to increase the defensive force on that station. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), I have to state that I thought it my duty to take the earliest moment, after the Report of the Committee was in the hands of Members, to ask the House to do justice—as I 1803 conceive—to my right hon. Friend the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), and the Department to which he belonged. I apprehend there will in all probability be as large an attendance on Monday as when the Resolution in April passed. There were not 200 Members present on that occasion; and that number at least, in all probability, will be present on Monday. That will be the time for the hon. Gentleman to put forward any objection he may entertain to the proposition. I cannot, in deference to his wishes, postpone the Motion of which I have given notice.
§ LORD HOTHAMsaid, he regretted very much that the noble Lord had refused to give way in this matter. He entirely agreed with the objection of his hon. Friend on the score of time and usage. Considering the period of the Session—considering that the Appropriation Act had been brought in—connsidering the small attendance they could expect—considering the importance of proposing to rescind a solemn Resolution of the House—and considering how difficult it would be to adduce any instance of such a proposal as that of which the noble Viscount had given notice—being made at such a time and under such circumstances, he did deeply regret the decision of the noble Viscount, and he did sincerely hope he would reconsider his determination. He should be glad to know what was the particular object of the Motion? Was it for the sake of the Department or for the sake of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe?
§ MR. SPEAKERwould remind the noble Lord that he was now entering upon the subject-matter of a Motion that was fixed for to-morrow.
§ LORD HOTHAMwould bow at once to the decision of the Chair. His object simply was to impress on the noble Viscount the impolicy, on every account, of bringing forward such a Motion at that period of the Session. He begged it to be understood that he could have no hostility to the right hon. Gentleman, his objection applied solely to the proposition itself. He did not know whether he was at liberty to allude to what had transpired within the Committee of which he was a member; but this, he might be allowed to say, that the Members of the Committee were perfectly satisfied that, as far as the right hon. Gentleman was personally concerned, everything had been satisfactorily explained; and he would say, moreover, 1804 if his (Lord Hotham's) wish had been followed it would have been this—that while the Committee made its Report on the case generally, the Chairman should have been instructed by the Committee to state to the House, on the Motion for printing the Report, that in the opinion of the Committee the difference which had existed between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne and the noble Lord below (Lord Robert Cecil)—the direct contradiction on a matter of fact—had been satisfactorily explained, and that it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that the resignation of the right hon. Gentleman was totally and entirely unnecessary. Under these circumstances, it was not to be supposed that he had any hostility to the right hon. Gentleman. He was acting solely on principle, and feeling strongly that the usual course of proceedings in the House should not be departed from. There was yet another objection to be urged against the course proposed to be taken by the noble Viscount. There were two parties to this unfortunate misunderstanding. There was the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) who was then in his place, and would most probably be there on Monday, on the one hand, and there was the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) on the other. Whether the noble Lord was in London or in England he could not tell; but certainly he could not have expected that such a proposition would have been made at this period of the Session. He asked, therefore, whether it would be decorous to enter upon a question of this sort when one of the parties was absent? Again, he implored the noble Viscount, for the sake of the Department, which he thought might rest satisfied after the Report of the Committee, and for the sake of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, not to ask the House to come to a conclusion to which, supposing the questions were brought forward at a proper time and in a proper manner, every one might readily assent. He said that without committing himself to any opinion at present; but if the Motion were pressed on Monday, and a difference of opinion were expressed upon the point of form, it would be easy for the country to suppose that it was based upon the facts of the case, and, therefore, it might be injurious to the right hon. Gentleman, a result which he (Lord Hotham) had no desire to see.
§ LORD FERMOYappealed to the President of the Poor Law Board to reconsider 1805 the arrangement he had made in respect of the Metropolitan Casual Poor Bill. He would be prepared at the proper time to show that the Bill as it was drawn would not work, and therefore, in Committee, much discussion would arise. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would bring on the Bill at a time when it could be fully discussed, whether at a morning or an evening sitting.