Sitting of 12 May 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Annual Indemnity.
Petitions presented. By Mr. WILKS, from the neighbourhood of Boston, against Church-rates.—By Mr. WARBURTON, from John Stevenson, Surgeon, of Limerick, against the power invested in the Apothecaries' Company of Dublin.—By Mr. PEASE, from Methodists in Durham, for the abolition of Church-rates, and the better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. W. MILES, from Blackburn, against the Ministerial plan respecting Church-rates.—By Mr. W. PATTEN, from Lancaster, for a repeal of the Duty on Raw Cotton.—By Sir GEORGE CLERK, from Dundee and Falkirk, against the Municipal Corporations (Scotland) Bill.—By Sir R. BATESON, from parishes in Antrim and Down, against the system of National Education in Ireland; and from Londonderry, complaining of the existence of the National Association.—By Mr. TENNANT, from shareholders of the Agricultural Bank of Ireland, praying that they might be at liberty to go in immediately before the standing orders Committee, in order to prove the truth of their allegations against the Agricultural Bank.—By Mr. S. O'BRIEN, from Croome and other parishes in the county of Limerick, for abolition of Tithes.—And by Mr. GROTE, from a parish in London, against Church-rates; and one from certain Debtors in White-cross-street prison, in favour of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS.
Lord J. Russellrose to move, that the House at its rising adjourn until Wednesday. He would take the liberty of saying a word or two on a practice which had formerly prevailed, and which he had been
822
told was in some danger of being revived—he alluded to the practice of entering into discussions on the presentation of petitions. He begged hon. Members to recollect that this was a real inconvenience to petitioners themselves, as the presentation of forty or fifty petitions might be delayed, while one or two hon. Members were raising a discussion on those with which they were intrusted. Another evil that he thought would be found to result from the practice was, that it would alter for the worse the character of the debates, as it absorbed those opinions which would more properly be brought forward when a subject was fairly before the House. He could not think that hon. Members would revive the practice after the opinion which the Speaker had lately expressed upon it, and he could not conclude without observing that he thought the House was highly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the course he had taken on the subject, which would tend to a greater facility in the presentation of petitions, effect a saving in the time of the House, and maintain the character of their discussions by confining them to those occasions when the subject was properly before the House, instead of wasting its time in fruitless and desultory debate. He was glad to perceive that he was not without the concurrence of the House in thus calling their attention to the rule, "which," said the noble Lord, "I am sure the House will agree with me in acknowledging that you, Sir, have so well enforced." The noble Lord then moved "That the House at its rising do adjourn until Wednesday, the 17th of May."
Mr. Humemust differ from the noble Lord, unless he were prepared with some other plan of taking notice of petitions. He thought it would be better to lay the petitions on the table of the House, to classify them, and then name a day on which they might be taken into consideration. If some such plan were not adopted, he thought it would be better to leave the matter to the discretion of Members, as, for instance, the case of the petitions that had been presented by the hon. Member for Berkshire on an important subject was an occasion on which he thought the rule should be relaxed.
Sir J. Grahamcould not concur with the statement of the hon. Member for Middlesex. So far from regretting, he

823
was happy that the noble Lord had introduced the subject. The ancient practice was, that no discussion should take place on the presentation of petitions, and it was not until 1817 that that practice was departed from. He thought that it would be most objectionable to leave it to the discretion of Members to decide whether they would or would not make a statement on the presentation of a petition. The great evil of the present mode of doing business in that House was, that so much time was wasted in the debates in talking upon subjects that were utterly irrelevant to the question under consideration. The consequence was, that so little business was done. If they allowed discussions on the presentation of petitions, they would consequently have long debates which would lead to no result. He thought that the plan that had been adopted by the Speaker was a most useful one, and ought to be continued. Under the present arrangement, when notice was given of the presentation of a petition which an hon. Member deemed of importance, every facility was given by the chair to the statement of facts contained in the petition, but not to debating upon a general question. He sincerely hoped the result of what was then passing would be a strict adherence to the rule which the Speaker had so successfully established, and which had proved to be so beneficial.
Mr. Warburtondid not wish to sanction the practice established by the Speaker on the ground of antiquity, but he would do so on the reasonableness of it. It would be impossible to conduct the public business in that House if their time could be taken up, at the pleasure of hon. Members, by discussions on the presentation of petitions. It was just as impossible that two bodies should occupy the same space as that the Members of that House should find time for debating on petitions and for conducting the ordinary business of the House. He considered the practice that had been recurred to was a most useful practice, and he hoped the House would not break through it. It should also be recollected that it was sufficient to give notice of the presentation of a petition to be able to make a statement on it. By this means greater attention was given to the more important petitions than was formerly the case. At present all petitions were referred to a Select Committee, who, reported to the House the nature and
824
prayer of each petition and the number of regulations affixed to it. This was a most useful practice.
Viscount Palmerstonobserved, that the rule that had been laid down was as much for the interests of the petitioners as it was for the facilitating the conducting the public business. He hoped the House would adhere to the practice as a general rule.
Mr. C. Bullerobjected to the rule, because it did not go half far enough. He thought that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Middlesex as to referring petitions to Committees was worthy of serious attention.
Lord Sandonagreed with all those who had said there should be no debate upon petitions; and he was sure that the House would, in general, bow to the authority of the Speaker on the subject. The rule, however, ought not to be too strict.
Mr. Wakleywished to know precisely how far a Member was allowed to go. Merely stating the place whence a petition came, and its prayer, was a useless ceremony, and they might as well put petitions into the bag at once without saying a word. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet opposite, that too much time was 1st in that House in useless discussions, but it was not upon petitions. He was sorry to say that more time had been consumed by the hon. Gentlemen opposite opposing justice to Ireland than had ever been done upon petitions.

HAND-LOOM WEAVERS.
Mr. John Maxwellrose to move, as an amendment to the motion of the noble Lord for an adjournment, for leave to bring in a Bill to give publicity to the prices of hand-loom weavers. He should persist in this motion if the noble Lord or the President of the Board of Trade did not promise that the Government would take up the subject, and do something for that most deserving class of persons whose cause he advocated. He trusted that the noble Lord would not be led away on this subject by the President of the Board of Trade. The hon. Member concluded by moving accordingly.
Mr. Poulett Thomsondenied that Government had opposed any obstacles in the way of the hon. Member. He (Mr. P. Thomson) had been there twice on notice days when the hon. Member had given notice of his intention to bring in the Bill

825
in question. On one occasion the House had been counted out, and on the other the hon. Member was not in his place. The hon. Member, not having availed himself of his legitimate opportunity, now wished to interpose his Bill by way of an amendment on the question of the adjournment of the House. If his hon. Friend would postpone his notice to an ordinary notice day, he would have plenty of opportunity for introducing his measure. He would tell his hon. Friend candidly he had no sort of objection to the introduction of the Bill, though he should vote against it in its future stages, because he was satisfied no plan could be devised by means of a bill by which the object of his hon. Friend would be attained. He should like, however, to see the Bill introduced, in order that his hon. Friend might be convinced of its impracticability. His great objection was to the introduction of the measure at the present moment; and if his hon. Friend persevered in his motion he should certainly vote against it. At the same time, also, his hon. Friend should recollect that there were other Members present who would oppose even the introduction of such a Bill.
Mr. Wortleyhoped that the House would do justice to the suffering hand-loom weavers, by allowing the Bill to be introduced.
Mr. P. Thomsonexplained that he had no objection to the introduction of the Bill. His objection was to its being introduced at the present moment.
Mr. Aglionbyimplored his hon. Friend not to press his motion for the introduction of the Bill at the present moment, for it would injure the cause he had in view if he thus endeavoured to force it.
Lord John Russellhad no objection to such a Bill being brought in, if the motion was made at a proper time; but he certainly did object to its being moved as an amendment when there was another question before the House. As it was, if the hon. Member made his motion it would lead to a discussion, which would probably last the whole evening; he therefore recommended him to postpone it to a future day.
Mr. Hindleyproposed that the discussion be postponed till Wednesday.
Mr. Maxwellsaid, that he should persist in his motion.
The House then divided on the original
826
motion. Ayes 82; Noes 39; Majority 43;

List of the AYES.

Angerstein, J.

Knight, H. G.

Barclay, D.

Lennox, Lord George

Baring, F. T.

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Barnard, E. G.

Leveson, Lord

Berkeley, hon. C.

Lowther, J. H.

Bernal, R.

Lynch, A. H.

Bowes, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Buller, C.

Nicholl, J.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

O'Brien, W. S.

Callaghan, D.

O'Connell, D.

Campbell, Sir J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Chapman, M. L.

O'Connell, M.

Clay, W.

O'Conor Don

Clements, Viscount

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Clerk, Sir G.

Palmer, General

Clive, E. B.

Palmerston, Viscount

Clive, hon. R. H.

Parker, J.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Pattison, J.

Collins, W.

Pease, J.

Conolly, E. M.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Coote, Sir C.

Pusey, P.

Corbett, T. G.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Divett, E.

Robarts, A. W.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Dundas, J. D.

Russell, Lord J.

Fox, C.

Sandon, Viscount

French, F.

Smith, R. V.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Stanley, E. J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Stanley, Lord

Grattan, J.

Stuart, V.

Grey, Sir G.

Thomas, Colonel

Hall, B.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Harcourt, G. G.

Thompson, Colonel

Hastie, A.

Vesey, hon. T.

Hawes, B.

Warburton, H.

Hawkins, J. H.

Weyland, Major

Heathcote, J.

Whalley, Sir S.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

White, S.

Howick, Viscount

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Hume, J.

Hutt, Wm.

TELLERS.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Seymour, Lord

King, E. B.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Gore, O.

Attwood, M.

Hamilton, G. A.

Attwood, T.

Hayes, Sir E. S.

Baines, E.

Hindley, C.

Baring, T.

Hoy, J. B.

Bateson, Sir R.

Lucas, E.

Borthwick, P.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Brocklehurst, J.

Mosley, Sir O.

Brotherton, J.

Mullins, F. W.

Chandos, Marquess of

Ross, C.

Crawford, W. S.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Denistoun, A.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Ellice, right hon. E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Fector, J. M.

Trevor, hon. A.

Freshfield, J. W.

Wemyss, Captain

Gillon, W. D.

Whitmore, T. C.

827

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Young, G. F.

Wodehouse, E.

TELLERS.

Wood, Colonel T.

Maxwell, J.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Aglionby, H. A.

Original motion agreed to.

POOR LAW (IRELAND) SETTLEMENT.
The Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill was read. On the question that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Mr. Lucasrose to move the instruction to the Committee of which he had given notice. The hon. Member for Dundalk had given notice of certain amendments which he should have deferred to had it not appeared to him that they brought the question before the House by implication instead of in a distinct form; and the opinion which he entertained of the m was shared with him by the Committee on this Bill of last night. The amendment he was now prepared to move was to the following effect: "That it be an instruction to the Committee to introduce a provision for settlement, so as more justly to apportion the pecuniary charges to be incurred and levied tinder the name of poor-rates." He thought the first inquiry he ought to make was, what was meant by the term "law of settlement." He only knew of the term as it was recognised by the law of England prior to the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Act. The law of England, prior to the late amendments, gave to the poor the right of relief—if not in terms, at all events the practice under that law had given a right by prescription, so that, as it was understood and acted on, those who in any parish were destitute had a right to call on that parish for relief. The relief was given on certain conditions, which constituted the law of settlement. The object of imposing those conditions seemed to have been to confine and regulate, or possibly to limit, the claims on each parish; thus the parishes were each surrounded with a certain imaginary line, the poor within which could claim relief, and the poor without which could not. It was concluded that as the rates were confined to the parish, and as the introduction of poor persons, and persons likely to become chargeable, would add to the burthen of each individual parish, the rate-payers would be influenced by the strongest motives to oppose the introduction of such parties. Such had
828
been the effect of the system. The parishes did oppose the introduction of poor into their locality by every legal means in their power, and he might add, in many instances by means which were not legal. This opposition was carried to a degree of harshness which prevented the honest and industrious poor from pursuing their ordinary avocations. On the other hand, the poor practised trick and chicanery to prevent the law from being enforced. Thus a most prejudicial contest was carried on between the ratepayers and those who wished to throw the whole burthen of their maintenance on the rate-payers. While men were in easy circumstances, or were in sound health, and capable of contributing their labour, the rate-payers did not object to their residence amongst them, because they added to the wealth and power of the parish; but when it became apparent that they were likely to become chargeable, then the rate-payers turned round on them and had recourse to all possible legal means for their expulsion. The consequences of that system were now acknowledged to have been the greatest mischief to the country at large, as well as a great hardship to individuals; serious obstacles were thrown in the way of honest industry, which, instead of finding an open and fair market, came to be considered something that was contraband, and was reduced to the necessity of smuggling itself into employment. The question before the House at present was, not whether they should frame a law which possessed the features of that system for Ireland; such a proposition would be as monstrous in itself as it would be prejudicial to the country whose interests were under discussion. It was their honest intention to frame a law as useful as their best judgment, formed by such means of information as they possessed, would allow, and he was not surprised, therefore, that the Government had revolted at the idea of introducing such a system into another country. He, however, thought it a question which deserved serious consideration, whether a part of the old law could not be adopted—whether they could not construct a system which would define chargeability without bringing with it the terrible evils which the English law of settlement had entailed on the country, and which he most heartily desired to avoid. He thought the proposed measure liable to

829
this objection, that if there were an influx into any particular parish of 100 poor, imposing a charge of five pound per head, the burthen would so far exceed the estimate, and would fall so heavily on the rate-payers of the said parish, that they would refuse to pay the rates. Mr. Nicholls had admitted, that a little inconvenience might result from the first working of the system, but he argued that it would soon be removed; his opinion was, that if there were an overflow at one place or another, that would prove to the ratepayers and guardians of the union that they had not managed well, and that they must alter their plan of proceeding. He considered Mr. Nicholls, in this respect, under a mistake, for what materials would the rate-payers or guardians have for the removal of the evil? According to the Bill, and he did not object to it in that respect, nothing more than a bare sufficiency was to be provided for the paupers—how then could they check or get rid of the influx of paupers by lowering that which was barely sufficient already? The food was to be of the coarsest description, and the quantity a bare sufficiency; would it not be impossible, then, for them to reduce it in either quantity or quality? To adopt a uniformity of allowances would be exceedingly difficult. The poor would pour into the more favoured districts, and if, to get rid of an overwhelming population, the rate-payers were to be obliged to reduce the relief, what a system of tyranny was not the House about to sanction? With regard to the casual poor, they might be charged on the nation at large; but that would not get rid of the necessity of a law of settlement, because they must define who the casual poor were. The motion with which he was about to conclude, he had purposely drawn up in the widest possible terms, his object being to conform to the wish of the House, which he understood to be, that the general question should be discussed unembarrassed with any particular details. The motion that he meant to propose was one composed in very general terms; it was intended that upon that motion the House should express its opinion. If the House approved of it, the Members would not be bound to any particular plan, but the details of a plan might be considered in Committee. In order, then, that the House might be fully aware of the plan that he proposed, and what it was that he
830
desired to have done, he should endeavour to explain it. He should propose that any pauper casually found in any district in a destitute state, whether that he himself applied for relief, or that he was found in that state by the guardians or wardens of the district, he proposed that that person, supposing him to be totally destitute, should be treated as a person in the same situation belonging to the district, and who was known to every resident in it; that person was to have no abstract right to relief, as no abstract right was admitted by the proposed Bill. The Bill proposed that a destitute person should have "a claim" to relief on the ground of destitution. He proposed, by his plan, to give no more. He proposed that the person should have "a claim," but not "the right" to relief, on the score of his destitution, and for the sake of humanity. He proposed that such a person should be received into the workhouse, if workhouses were finally adopted; that upon his coming into the workhouse, or at any moment after his reception that the guardians might think fit, he could be removed, as circumstances required it, to another workhouse. The question then would be, to what district does the party belong? That brought him to the question of settlement, as he proposed to have it adopted, if his motion were to be followed by the amendments that he intended to move. Objections had been stated in that House as to the different modes of acquiring settlement, and the manner of ascertaining them. He conceived that there was one mode which had been alluded to by Mr. Nicholls; but he (Mr. Lucas) admitted that, upon the whole, it met with the disapprobation of Mr. Nicholls, but which he thought furnished the most unexceptionable, and, indeed, in his opinion, the only practical mode of founding a law of settlement upon, The House was aware that two or three times there had been a census taken of the population of Ireland. The last census had been taken in the year 1831. It had been proposed that a census should be taken every ten years—six years then had elapsed since the last census. There was, they were aware, no regular and effectual registry of births in Ireland. He thought that the just basis for a law of settlement would be on a census taken at the earliest possible period. If the census were taken now, it would be only hurrying the usual

831
period for taking it by four years. This could be done with a view of forming a basis for a law of settlement upon that census. In a census the minutest details were entered into. A census was taken—it was like -the map of an estate—every person who was registered on it could be easily come at. It afforded information which was not likely to be partial. He wished it to be observed, that he only used it as a basis. He did not propose it as to the future carrying on of a law of settlement. From that record it was to be first formed—afterwards the right to be given by birth, by industry, and by residence. He should, however, now return to the case of the casual pauper, who had no claim upon the district. He should then suppose that that pauper was taken into the workhouse, and was received there with all the care and attention as if he were a poor man belonging to the same district. The first question to be asked him was, to what district did he belong? He proposed to make it the interest of the pauper to give upon that point information as clear as he possibly could—he should make it to be the interest of the pauper, having that information in his possession, to give it without evasion. He should be anxious to accomplish this, for the purpose of preventing litigation between different districts. But then, it might be said, that when the pauper found himself in a comfortable situation, that he would wish to remain there—that he would prefer being in the workhouse and idling there, to looking out for work in another place—and that being in the workhouse, there would be no power to remove him. His answer was, that if the system proposed was good for anything, it would be to discourage all persons from idleness, and to give them the strongest motives to avoid sloth, and to practise industry. He might then be asked, what interest was it that he proposed to give to the pauper to have a settlement, and to declare it? The means that he would take were these, and he thought that they would be efficient. In the first place, if the pauper declared that he did not know his residence, or denied his residence, he should propose to place in the hands of the Commissioners in that case, and in that case only, a power to remove him to such district as the Commissioners might think fit. As a check upon the Commissioners in the exercise of such a power, he should propose that
832
one-half of the expense should be paid out of the general national fund—supposing, as he had every right to do, that the Commissioners would be men of impartiality, capacity, and integrity, they could have no motive, no desire, to enforce such a power, except in extreme cases—in one in which they had reason to believe fraud was contemplated; and they would have, on the other hand, the natural motive which influenced all official persons of keeping down the expenses of a system confided to their care. But he should also give an interest to the district in which the pauper was found, not to remain in sloth and idleness as to his residence, he should give them an interest in ascertaining it. He should propose to place the burthen upon the district in which the casual pauper was found—that it should pay one-half of the expenses until he was removed by the Commissioners. He admitted that, abstractedly, this was not a just proposition; but if it were unjust in the abstract, in practice it would be found to work no injustice, because it would apply equally to every district in Ireland. As a check upon fraud and idleness, a power ought to be given to the guardians of removing the pauper to his own district. As a check upon the exercise of this power, he should propose that the entire expenses of the removal should be thrown upon the guardians who removed him—that it should fall upon their own workhouse. It would be the same to the guardians to maintain the pauper in another workhouse as in their own, and they would not, for the mere satisfaction of seeing him, disturb him. This power, he was sure, would never be exercised, except where there was a suspicion of fraud. He wished the House to recollect that, in the present Session, an Act had passed which gave much greater power than he proposed for the removal of Irish and Scotch paupers from England. His plan was based upon the principle that the free migration of the poor man was not to be interfered with—that relief, as far as it was to be given by the Bill before the House, was to be afforded to the poor man in a state of destitution, in whatever district he might be found, and with the same tenderness and humanity as if he were known to every person in that district. The basis of his plan was, that the poor man had a strong claim to relief—without having an absolute right—its basis, also, was to ascertain the settle-

833
ment by the simplest and most efficacious means; to ascertain that settlement with the least hardship to the poor man, and certainly without interfering with his free migration. His plan was based upon the fairest principles that he could devise. He considered that it was the interest of every party to forward the working of the law. He thought it to be his duty to explain the nature of his proposition to the House; because, having given notice of a general proposition, it might have been said that all this was vague—that nothing was to follow from it—that it was merely visionary; and without explaining what he had to propose, it would appear, that his motion was merely for the purpose of creating a discussion that would be useless. His object was, that the general question of settlement should be recognised by all without reference to any particular plan—that it should undergo discussion in the House—that the general question of settlement should be decided without reference to any plan of his, of the hon. Member's for Dundalk, or to any that might hereafter be proposed. What he wished was, that the House should express its opinion upon the subject. If the House should be of opinion that what he proposed was correct, then his plan might be discussed on a future occasion. He considered that the people of Ireland were entitled to the greatest attention from the House upon this subject, for they had acted with regard to it with the most laudable discretion. The hon. Member concluded by moving the instruction.
Mr. Lynchopposed the motion. He could not understand the justice of removing paupers from one part of the country to the other, as the hon. Gentleman proposed. What would that hon. Gentleman think if a cargo of paupers were taken from one part of Ireland and placed upon his own estates in Monaghan? In his opinion a census never could be adopted as the foundation for a law of settlement. There was, however, a preliminary question to be determined before the law of settlement was determined upon, for the House ought to remember that a law of settlement depended upon an abstract right to relief. If there were no right, there could be no law of settlement. If, then, they had first determined upon the abstract right, they must give relief out of doors. He asked those who were acquainted with the country, if it would not
834
be madness to introduce into Ireland a system that would lead to out-door relief? But if they would not give out-door relief, what, then, must become of the abstract right? Some of his friends frankly told him that they were favourable to the plan of out-door relief; but to such persons he said, consider what is the situation of England now, and what it was before the new Poor-law came into operation. The benefit of the change was experienced by all classes. No abstract right was given by the statute of Elizabeth; and they never could commence a Poor-law by giving an abstract right to relief. Let them first admit a law of settlement, and then they admitted all the evils, and all the litigation which had cursed this country. Black-stone had exposed the evils of that law, and Mr. Chadwick had shown its effects to be, that if a man could not get employment in his own district, he was unable to go out of it. But the hon. Member for Monaghan had asked them, was it fair to burthen one district at the expense of another? To what extent, he (Mr. Lynch) asked, could they be burthened? Was it likely that a destitute person would go from one workhouse and travel to another? What inducement could there be for the pauper to desert his own workhouse—leave his friends, and depart from a place near his home, to seek another workhouse? If there were an inducement to go, it must be something in the particular workhouse. They could not but say that there must be some inducement in that particular workhouse. The fact would be sufficient to cause inquiry into the details of the management of that workhouse. It was to be remembered that the poor now are relieved to the same extent that they would be by the proposed Bill. But then it was said, why allow them to go from one district to another? Surely, the hon. Member for Monaghan must know that at present the paupers left their own poor districts for those that they considered to be rich. Under the workhouse system they would be supported with care and economy, and for the benefit of society, instead of being, as they are now, allowed to indulge themselves in extravagance and idleness. The burthen of their support would not be greater on the districts than it is at present; but vagabonds would be made industrious subjects. A law of settlement would not protect property—the way to protect it would be by giving power

835
to the guardians under the control of the Commissioners. Upon these grounds he was opposed to a law of settlement; being firmly convinced that nothing could be more injurious than the introduction of such a principle.
Colonel Woodsaid, that if the proposed plan of settlement would entail such a system of litigation as that which prevailed in England, he would not support it; but he thought they might adopt a plan of settlement which would be free from those liabilities with which the law of England was entangled. He would make the law of settlement in Ireland assimilate to that of Scotland, namely, a residence of three years; and if a man fell into destitution, he must make his way back to the parish in which he had resided three years. He would give no man a title to relief out of the parish in which he had been resident three years. He would expunge from the Bill those clauses that made mendicity a crime, and would certainly not mix vagrancy and parochial relief under the same Bill.
Mr. Charles Bullerwas sorry, that the hon. Member for Monaghan had encumbered his motion with a specification of settlement which he did not, in the first place, understand; and which, in the second place, he could not vote for. It appeared to him, that this was a question of such importance, that it merited greater discussion than they had been able to give it on the second reading. The whole question of the good of relief turned upon the question of settlement. It appeared to him, that without an adequate law of settlement, the provision which they might make for the legal relief of the poor, would lose the greater part of the benefits which it would otherwise confer upon Ireland. The great advantage which would arise from a Poor-law Bill, was not the immediate relief it would give, so much as the gradual change it would produce in putting an end to destitution. Gradual and permanent improvement, less than immediate relief, was the object to which he looked. One great mode in which the Poor-law would operate beneficially, would be the effect it would have on the taking and letting of land. The great mass of the working population in Ireland, at present, were dependent on the taking of land. He did not think he exaggerated, when he said that the greater portion of the landed property was let amongst small
836
tenants. The land was let at rents which it was impossible to pay so as to do justice to the land. The consequence was, that the land was worked out in the course of a few years; the tenant himself was reduced to ruin, and in the end became a pauper; and the land was, in all probability, notwithstanding the lessons of experience, let at a still higher rent. Such a system was most prejudicial to all classes. When the tenant could not pay the enormous rent which he undertook to pay, the landlord was obliged to eject him; and such was the sympathy created on behalf of the ejected tenant, that the landlord could not get a new tenant. There was, in fact, a system of combination to prevent ejectments; and the turbulence and disorder to which this gave rise, prevented a capitalist from embarking his capital in lands. The object of a Poor-law—and, in his opinion, a very sensible object—was to raise the condition of the people of Ireland generally; namely, instead of small tenants farming a very small portion of land, to create large farmers having the command of a considerable capital to cultivate their farms, whilst the rest of the people should be labourers working for wages. It was impossible to do this without an effective system of Poor-laws. By this plan they would prevent the existing competition for land, they would enable the landlords to eject those tenants who could not or would not pay; the tenant would not be tempted to bid too high; and the landlord would not find it his interest to let his lands at an extravagant rent, as he would have, in a great measure, to support the ejected tenants as paupers. They would hear no more about the murder of persons who took the farms of ejected tenants, as the tenant who might be ejected in Ireland would have the same facilities as in England, of obtaining support in the workhouse. In such a plan, it was absolutely necessary that the charge and the relief should be local. If the landlord, by harsh measures, drove his tenants to destitution, upon whom ought the burthen of supporting the tenants to fall? Why, upon the landlord. He could not conceive by what means they could localise the burthen and the charge, without a law of settlement. The objections which had been made to the law of settlement applied merely to some peculiarities of the English law of settlement, The English law of settlement was

837
exceedingly defective. The litigation that had arisen under the English Bill, was owing to the great variety of settlements, which amounted to not less than ten. Now, he would propose, that the right of settlement should be restricted to birth, marriage, or a three years' residence. Such a restriction would render the law exceedingly simple, and would prevent, in a great measure, if not entirely, the litigation that arose under the English Bill. He did not wish the House to pledge itself to any peculiar plan, but it was a very important question, whether they could have an effectual Poor-law without some law of settlement. He was quite satisfied that the Bill, as it was, would be attended with great advantage; but, without a law of settlement, it would not confer permanent advantage on Ireland. If they had not a law of settlement, how was it possible for the guardians of the poor to know whom they ought to relieve? On this subject, he would refer to the preamble of the 14th and 15th of Charles 2nd, to show what a dreadful state this country was in before the law of settlement was passed. The hon. and learned Member having read the preamble, added, that his reason for wishing the charge and relief to be local was, that the relief might be more effectual. Above all, he thought that they could not do justice to Ireland, or to the remedies proposed to be applied there, unless they gave a vent to pauperism by adopting a large and effectual system of emigration. He, upon the whole, approved of this Bill as a wise and benevolent experiment, and he hoped it would succeed; but in order to give it a fair chance, he would strongly recommend that they should adopt as satisfactory a law of settlement as it was possible to devise.
Lord Clementsthought, that the question of settlement would be attended with insuperable difficulties. AH they could do now was to relieve the poor, as this Bill, in his opinion, would not, and could not, put a stop to the undue competition for land.
Mr. Denis O'Conorwas of opinion, that without some law of settlement, it would be impossible to carry the measure into effect. If a provision for this purpose were not made here, it would be made in the districts in Ireland in a manner to lead to dissatisfaction and disturbance. If there were a local rate, there ought
838
also to be a local settlement for relief. He thought settlement should be limited to unions, and not to parishes.
Viscount Howicksaid, the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard had taken a much too narrow view of the objects and principle of a Poor-law. According to the principles laid down by him, it would be necessary not only to have a law of settlement, but a settlement limiting so many small subdivisions, that almost every estate would be a district in itself. He disputed the truth of the position, that a Poor-law ought to operate so directly upon the relation between landlord and tenant, nor did he agree that a Poor-law should operate over the whole population of the country. If they were to set out by acting upon such a principle as this, they would, instead of diminishing, greatly increase the distress of Ireland, and at the same time, weaken the mainspring of industry. Amongst the advocates for a law of settlement who had spoken to-night, two at least had advocated the principle without attaching to it the principle of right to relief. Now, he could not understand how a law of settlement, unaccompanied by a right to relief somewhere, could be brought to work. He thought it would be very hard, as well as very impolitic, to confine a man to one district, and absolutely deny him the possibility of relief elsewhere, and yet not positively promise him relief in the settlement to which he belonged, and to which he was so restricted. The hon. Member for Monaghan, in introducing this proposition, said he did not wish it to interfere with the right of migration, or to induce removal as a necessary consequence. He really was at a loss to conceive how any law of settlement, with such limitations, could be devised. The same hon. Member proposed, that a census should be taken, and that settlement should be fixed by residence. Now, upon this point, he begged to read the opinion of the English Commissioners in 1834:—
"It will be seen, that we do not recommend the introduction of settlement by residence, We are aware of the advantages of that mode of settlement; it is the most natural and the most obvious, and its adoption would often prevent inconvenience to particular parishes, from the return, in age or infirmity, of those who have left them in youth and vigour, and inconvenience to the paupers themselves, from being removed from friends and residences to which they have become attached, to places in

839
which they have become strangers. But these advantages, great as they are, appear to us to be over-balanced by objections still more powerful. It appears from the evidence, that the existing modes by which a settlement can be changed, are productive of perjury and fraud; and that they tend to injure the employers of labour by restricting them in the choice of their servants, the owners of property, by distributing the labouring families according to rules not depending on the demand for their services, or the fund for their support, and, above all, the labourers themselves, by depriving them of the power of selling all that they have, their labour, to the best advantage. We fear, that settlement by residence would aggravate all these evils. At present, a labourer may be steadily employed for years in a place in which he is not settled, by means of successive hirings, each hiring being for less than a year. But if settlement by residence were adopted, this would be impossible. We should have the constant occurrence of one of the worst consequences of the existing law, the separation of master and man, notwithstanding their mutual utility, and their mutual attachment, to the injury of both, but to the greater injury of the most numerous and the most helpless class—the labourers. Again, the demolition of cottages, and the forcing the agricultural population into the towns and the parishes in which property is much divided, though we fear that they must, to a certain degree, arise under any law of settlement whatever, would be much promoted by a law which would fix on a parish every labourer who should have been allowed to reside there for any given period, unless the period were so long as to render the law almost inoperative. Another objection to settlement by residence, which has been dwelt on by many of our most intelligent witnesses, arises from its effect on the unsettled labourers. At present, they are confessedly superior, both in morals and in industry, to those who are settled in the parishes in which they reside."
Now, if these remarks were true as regarded England, still more applicable were they to the case of Ireland. A law of settlement by residence would add to all the existing difficulties of applying a Poor-law to Ireland, and defeat the object of the measure itself. It would retard the improvement of land, by obliging the landlord to employ the labourer in his own immediate neighbourhood, or run the risk of seeking more expert and useful labourers in other districts at the risk of saddling an additional burthen upon his own district. Such a law of settlement would likewise promote parish marriages for the purpose of getting off an unmarried woman with bastard children to ano-
840
ther parish. But, besides his opposition in principle to the proposition for a settlement in Ireland, there was this important difficulty which they had to contend with; namely, that no two people of those who wished for a law of settlement, were agreed upon the principles upon which to frame it. The great inconvenience apprehended from a Poor-law without a law of settlement, appeared to be an unequal apportionment of the burthen of the poor-rates. Now, it appeared to him, that no pauper would be tempted to go to any other district than his own for relief, when his so doing would necessarily separate him from all his old friends and acquaintances. He thought they might trust to the guardians for giving relief when it was wanted; and even if they were to legislate in such a way as to give the poor a right to relief, the guardians might still be left to judge of the extent to which it should be granted. The law of settlement he did not think good in any country; but in England it had been established so long, that it was found impossible to get rid of it entirely and at once. By the new Poor-law Bill, considerable alterations had been made, for it had been enacted, that children under sixteen years of age, should follow the settlement of the parents. That, to a certain extent, did away with the settlement by birth. And he would say further, that by the practice it had been almost superseded. In several unions, both in Gloucestershire and Nottinghamshire, the workhouses had been thrown open as asylums to the destitute, many of whom, in these places, were supported by voluntary subscription. He must therefore say, if the members of the Board of Guardians could open the workhouses to all the destitute, the law of settlement was not necessary. He would only add, that they might safely trust the guardians to grant the necessary relief; and if they adopted anything like a law of settlement, they would only aggravate the danger of introducing a Poor-law into Ireland.
Mr. Villiersobserved, that the noble Lord had treated the subject with great ability, and shown more knowledge than had yet been displayed upon the subject of settlement; and as he had exhibited how it had proved a fertile source of mischief and injustice in this country, he would just remark, that it had done so precisely in the manner by which some Members

841
thought the Poor-law in Ireland would work well, namely, by giving the landlords an interest in improving the condition of the poor. The way in which it was so to operate was, by giving them an interest in escaping from the liability of supporting them. Modes of settlement were the means of determining the particular liability of property to support the poor; and the result was, that it depended upon accident or contrivance whether property entirely escaped from this liability, or whether it was quite exhausted by the extent to which it was so burthened. This, therefore, led to every species of device on the part of different parishes and proprietors, to shift the burthen from themselves upon their neighbours. From the various modes of acquiring a changing settlement, this had led to the overseers paying single women to produce their children out of their own parish, of paying men to marry women to change their settlement, and of proprietors clearing their estates of all cottages for the poor, in order to drive them into a parish which would be compelled to maintain them when they could not procure employment. And he had little doubt that a law of settlement in Ireland would be followed by an attempt on the part of landowners to drive the labourers into this country to escape from the charge of maintaining them there. There was nothing just or equal in the principle of settlement. It fixed a charge upon property without any reference to its ability to bear it, and left without any charge or burthen much property well able to sustain it. There was no necessary relation between the number of poor and the particular property out of which they were to be maintained. He thought the poor a national charge, and should be therefore born equally by a general rate. He considered that the measure before the House was favourable to this plan, because it proposed to administer public relief upon a uniform system. There was no reason, therefore, why the poor should prefer one district to another for the purpose of obtaining relief. There was no hardship, then, in this case if the places for obtaining the relief were situated at convenient distances. It was impossible to exercise discretion with the view to the particular character of the persons relieved—the great object was to prevent destitution. He thought there was an objection to the measure, which had been stated by the
842
hon. Member for Roscommon, which had not been answered, that there was to be a local rate levied, but not applied to local purposes. That was one of his objections to the law of settlement altogether, that it would operate very partially in fixing a much heavier burthen upon some property than upon others, as in some districts there would be much more pauperism than in others. But this was, of course, as acted upon by the present measure, far less objectionable than what was proposed in the amendment.
Mr. Poulett Scropedid not think a Poor-law could work well in Ireland without some law of settlement. A modified system of settlement could not do much harm, and that, to a certain extent, appeared to be the opinion of the Poor-law Commissioners. But, at the same time, he was ready to admit, it was a subject surrounded with great difficulties, and the question was, which side to choose. For his part, he did not think such a law of settlement as that which existed in England would be advisable, or even one like that proposed by the hon. Member for Monaghan. But unless some system of the sort was adopted the great number of paupers who would flock to particular localities would greatly aggravate the difficulties which, the guardians had to contend with. Even at present, great inconvenience arose from the system of alms-giving, and it was not unusual to hear of persons going to a particular district and accusing themselves of murder, in order to obtain alms from the inhabitants by exciting their sympathy. They ought, therefore, to guard against that, and how could the evil be prevented without power was given to pass mendicants to their places of settlement? If relief was refused in cases of distress, that would only increase the number of mendicants, and how inconvenient would it be to leave the amount of relief to the guardians, and compel them to make an act or by-law which ought to be made by the Legislature? He believed there was no country in the world where there was a Poor-law without a settlement. He was, therefore, of opinion, that it would be advisable to adopt a modified system of settlement at first, till they saw how the Bill would work.
Mr. Harveyobserved, that this was one of the few cases in which Ireland happened to be in a better situation than England; they might, therefore proceed

843
now to legislate for Ireland, unencumbered by any previous system or any ancient prejudices; they would now, he rejoiced to say, proceed to legislate for Ireland on broad principles. The existence of evil, as regarded a provision for the poor, was admitted—no one denied the truth of the statement made upon that subject—no man attempted to deny that there were 2,000,000 of human beings in a state of destitution, and sometimes in a state of starvation. Now, what was the plan by which the Government proposed to provide for these 2,000,000 of paupers? Why, cooping up 800 of them in each of 100 barracks: they proposed to relieve 2,000,000 by actually confining in workhouses 80,000, giving three houses per county. Did they propose to meet the claims of the remaining 1,920,000? Quite the contrary; they admitted the impossibility of meeting those claims; they must also admit this, that it would be impossible to conceive any difficulties in the way of a law of settlement which Were not traceable to circumstances connected with the artificial condition of the parties by whom the required provision was to be made. On behalf of those parties it had been alleged, that the right to a provision would have the effect of confiscating a large proportion of the property of the country. In the statements upon this subject, he believed there had been much exaggeration, but assuming the fact to be so, did they not see in the fears of the owners of that property the great source of the resistance to the proposed measure of settlement? They resisted the right to settlement on account of its inevitable consequence, the general right to relief; they felt that they must recognise that right if they once assented to the law of settlement, and yet, bow vain it would be for them to hope that they could eventually escape from that recognition. In making a provision for the poor of Ireland, they must sooner or later come to first principles, and that, too, before they could proceed to do what justice or expediency required. The example which they had of the Poor-law Act in England ought to form some guide for them in legislating for Ireland. To that Act he had given a tardy and reluctant assent; for he thought at the time when it was under the consideration of Parliament, that such a measure could not coexist with the Corn-law already in force
844
in this country. Strongly under the influence of that conviction, he had ever since attended to the operation of those acts, and he now found himself fully fortified in his original opinion. Amongst the various objections which had been urged to this law of settlement, there was one, that its tendency Would be to induce owners of estates to get rid of all tenants who were likely to become paupers. He was of a different opinion; but in order to guard against the possibility of such a result, he should recommend that all property be made liable for the maintenance of the poor. He was most fully persuaded that for that great principle they must combat, for the fear which that principle engendered lay at the bottom of all the opposition made to the law of settlement; they must contend for the right of every man to a maintenance out of the soil which his industry had contributed to cultivate and render fruitful. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had, a few evenings ago, given the House some statements as to the quantities of cultivated and uncultivated land in particular counties, and there was a variety of evidence before the House and the country to shew that a very large proportion of the soil of Ireland was, though perfectly capable of cultivation, not yet turned to any useful account. While matters remained in that state, he wished to know with what show of reason or justice could schemes of emigration be so strenuously urged. Before he sat down, he desired to impress upon the House his deep sense of the greatness and importance of the subject, and to add, that he considered it to be yet in its infancy, and that it could not be too much discussed.
Mr. Shawmight be satisfied as to the expediency of a law of settlement in Ireland, if it could be proved to him that by injuring the rich the poor would be benefitted. The whole question was very important. It was beset with difficulties; and all that could be done was to endeavour to arrive at the best conclusion. In his opinion, the balance of difficulties was decidedly against the law of settlement. He admitted, however, that some of the existing evils would be obviated when the unions were generally established. Independently of other considerations, he thought that the proposed measure either did not go far enough, or that it went too far. He was convinced that if a right to

845
relief were established in Ireland by a law of settlement, it would tend to a general confiscation of property.
Mr. O'Connellexpressed the pleasure which he felt at the tone and temper in which the present discussion had been carried on. They had now been three nights engaged in it; and he defied any stranger to say to what political party any speaker belonged. The question of settlement was one of great importance. They had to decide, in the first place, on the legal right; in the second place, on the locality; in the third place, on the plan. For his own part, he was against any law of settlement; because he was persuaded that it was against the principle of legal right. There was a moral right and a Christian right; but those did not constitute a legal right. What was the object of the proposed measure? To tranquillize Ireland. But would it tend to tranquillise Ireland to give one man a right to ask what another man had a right to refuse? On these points he perfectly agreed with the hon. and learned Member for the Univertity of Dublin. He confessed, that he shuddered at the experiment of this Bill. The execution of which he foresaw would be pregnant with serious difficulties.
Lord Stanleysaid, that it was with rare satisfaction he had seen the hon. Member who had just sat down and the right hon. Member for the Universities of Dublin acting in perfect accordance upon a subject which was undeniably of such great importance, to Ireland: With the greatest deference, however, for the opinions of both these hon. and learned Gentlemen, he confessed that he could not bring his mind to the same conclusion to which they had arrived—to the conclusion, that, either satisfactorily or safely, any measure of this description could be introduced into Ireland, without the principle of settlement, coupled with the right to relief. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny complained of this motion upon two grounds. He objected to the principle of a settlement, first because it involved the right to relief; and next, because there had been laid before the House no definitive mode of settlement. He could not separate, in his mind, the two ideas—a law of settlement, and the right to relief. This Bill subjected the relief to the fluctuating decisions of a board of guardians, uninfluenced, upon this subject, by legislative control. The hon.
846
and learned Member for Kilkenny had said that he was against the right to relief. He admitted the moral right, he admitted the Christian right; but he was against the right, considered in a legal point of view. This was as much as to say that he admitted the charity, but was against enforcing it by law. And then he had sneered at the idea of tranquillising Ireland by extending on the one hand, the right to relief, and conceding on the other to the board of guardians the right to shut the door. Why this was precisely what the Bill did; it was of this that he complained. And it was to furnish a remedy for this evil that the proviso was proposed to be inserted the Bill. "I will admit," said the noble Lord, "that it is a dangerous, if you will, a desperate experiment; but it is, undoubtedly, the duty of a Government to make up their minds to the full extent of the principle upon which they are prepared to act, and to be ready to carry it into effect." Ostensibly the Bill gave relief universally throughout Ireland to the destitute; but it gave no right to the destitute to ask for such relief, and none to obtain relief, even upon the fullest proof of that destitution. He was willing to go the full length in defining the limit of destitution, of bringing it down as closely as any hon. Member could desire to starvation; because he felt confident that the laying down of a strict boundary like this would be the best safeguard against the fraudulent and pernicious expenditure of the public money, as well as the most efficient protection of those who by their own industry may have raised themselves to the point immediately above starvation. But if they were to have any thing deserving the name of a Poor-law for Ireland it should be such a one, in his conviction, as would recognize by law the principle that no man should starve. He was in favour of a settlement by residence, he would not say whether by unions or not, but limited to such boundaries as would give the power to individuals, by their combined endeavours, to promote the prosperity of their respective neighbourhoods, and limit the pauperism of individuals. Let the House look to the effect which the proposed Poor-law (without a clause of settlement) might produce in the way of clearing estates in Ireland. There was, undoubtedly, a great temptation to landlords to clear their properties of insolvent tenants, if this could be effected without the infliction of intense sufferings upon

847
the dispossessed, not only because the estate was thus improved, but because such a measure would tend to better the condition of those who remained behind. Six years since, he (Lord Stanley) had expended a very considerable sum of money upon a small property which he held in Ireland. For this expenditure he took no credit to himself; but he had incurred this expenditure for the purpose of promoting the emigration of a portion of his tenantry from this estate. For this outlay he had been amply repaid, since that period, in the shape of regular rents. He had not raised by the amount of one farthing the rent of a single portion of the estate; but whereas the tenants had starved each other before upon this land, the same individuals were now paying their rent as punctually as any persons in Ireland or England, and they were altogether in a state of comparative comfort. Here, therefore, existed a temptation to the exercise of a well-grounded economy, in clearing estates in Ireland. This might be done in a benevolent, but it might also be done in a harsh and oppressive, manner. What were the restrictions which now existed in the way of effecting this object? Landlords were now restrained, first by humanity (this he trusted was the case in a great many instances), and next by the fear of exciting prædial disturbance. What would be the impediments under the law of settlement? The landlord would then be bound to provide for those whom he ejected. He was not now bound to do so; but humanity withheld or the fear of consequences deterred him from turning his tenantry houseless upon the world, without making for them some species of provision. Pass this Bill without a law of settlement and the moment the property of the landlord was taxed to the full amount, that moment a premium was given him to clear his estate. The feelings of humanity and the fear of dangerous consequences would alike be at an end, because the neighbouring union must maintain the houseless mendicant, for whom there would exist in this hypothesis no special provision in the landlord's own union; and the calculating landlord would thus be enabled to clear his estate at the expense of his neighbours, whose property was not already overburthened by tenants. He (Lord Stanley) looked upon this as a very dangerous result, and as likely to prove a great impediment to the growth of that kindly feeling which it was so desirable to see
848
cultivated between the higher and lower classes of the community. There were undoubtedly difficulties in the way of establishing a useful law of settlement; but for his part he could see nothing that was either very grievous or absolutely insurmountable in the existing law of settlement in England. In Scotland there was a parochial settlement. There was no Scotch Member not even the Attorney-General who would stand up and deny this. The Scottish pauper was entitled to receive relief only in his last industrial residence, and yet he did not believe that this restriction had turned out to be any great preventive of emigration among Scotchmen. If they passed this Bill without the clause of settlement, they would be involved in a practical absurdity the very first year in which it should be carried into effect. They would take away the motive for cordial co-operation on the part of the resident gentry, without which no central board could act for an hour, and they would extinguish that reciprocal feeling upon the part of the boards of guardians which it was so desirable that they should keep alive—the feeling that their exertions tended to their own benefit as well as to the benefit of every rate payer in the community—that social advantages would spring up around them in proportion to their exertions and they would, above all, contribute as much to the weakening, as a settlement would to the maintenance, of a kindly feeling though out every parish in Ireland. It was his strong conviction that, unless they consented to the modification of this Bill, they would be the means of introducing delusion into Ireland, and before long would be forced to acknowledge that they had committed a fatal error.
Lord John Russellsaid, that he had listened with very great attention during the progress of this debate, and that he had not been disposed to take a part in it, but that after what had fallen from the noble Lord who had just sat down, he must venture to make a few remarks. The noble Lord had said that they ought to establish the absolute right to relief, or ought not to enact a Poor-law at all for Ireland. Now, he was decidedly of opinion that the Poor-law of Elizabeth, which he believed was a very excellent law, had never been framed with the intention of giving any right to relief, and, in point of fact, did not give such right. The authors of the law of Charles 2nd were mistaken in enacting their law of settlement, from

849
which had flowed most of the evils which were observable in the English system. That Act of settlement involved the right to relief. The labourer was told that he must not leave a certain parish, which was tantamount to an admission of his right to relief in that parish. Entertaining this opinion of the evils which had arisen from the introduction of the principle of settlement into the English Poor-Law, he should be sorry to introduce that principle into Ireland. It was a principle which would be rendered more pernicious in Ireland than in any other country. If the power of removal were thus practically suspended, the farmers would be slow in employing the most skilful labourers, coming from a distant quarter, even when there was a dearth of labourers in their own district, because they would thus be entitling them probably to support, at no distant period, in consequence of residence. Now, there were districts in Ireland where a vast number of persons were without the means of employment; and there were others, where labour might be most usefully and profitably engaged. This would be made more prominent by the introduction of capital into particular districts. Could they be, therefore justified in fixing and perpetuating a motive for the discouragement of this most valuable interchange of labour? With respect to the noble Lord's argument, founded on the probable consequences as to clearing estates, it was quite obvious that the settlement which the noble Lord contemplated must be the narrowest possible—restrictive, in fact, to such a degree that, in order to give any force to his argument, it must be confined, in each instance, to the limits of a single estate. Suppose unions of twenty miles to be established, one estate within this limit might be well managed, and the management of two or three others might be of an opposite description. The mismanaging landlord would therefore have the assistance of the good landlords within the limits of the same union in paying the rates. So far from being disposed to think favourably of the project of a restrictive settlement, he would say that if the number of paupers in Ireland amounted to anything like 2,300,000, as had been stated, there must be so many cases of extreme destitution that it would, in his estimation, be infinitely better to afford relief in the workhouse to which ap-
850
plication would first be made, than to remove the pauper to a different district. He begged the House to remember that this measure was an experimental one, and that it would be easy hereafter, to introduce a clause of settlement, should its introduction be found to be desirable.
Mr. Wyseagreed with the noble Lord that there should be every facility given to create in every district a direct focal interest in supporting their own poor, and preventing the influx of paupers from remote districts.
Viscount Sandonsaid, they must come to a law of settlement some way or other. He would not leave it to Commissioners to act arbitrarily, by adopting one rule in one district, and an opposite one in another. He thought himself warranted in referring rather to the wisdom of Parliament than to any body of men.
Mr. Chalmersstated, that hon. Gentlemen opposite were mistaken in supposing that the law of settlement was carried into effect in the greater part of Scotland. It was only in operation in a few parishes, and in all of these it was found to be most oppressive in its operation. He hoped that the noble Lord and the House would not rashly adopt the principle of settlement.
The House divided on Mr. Lucas's motion:—Ayes 68; Noes 120: Majority 52.

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Geary, Sir W.

Archdall, M.

Gladstone, W. E.

Balfour, T.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Graham, Sir J,

Blackburne, I.

Grattan, J.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hamilton, G. A.

Borthwick, P.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Brotherton, J,

Harcourt, G. S.

Bruen, F.

Hardy, J.

Buller, C.

Harvey, D. W.

Callaghan, D.

Hindley, C.

Chandos, Marquis of

Houstoun, G.

Cole, Viscount

Jackson, Serjeant

Compton, H. C.

Jones, T.

Cooper, E. J.

Irton, S.

Coote, Sir C.

Lefroy, A.

Corbett, T. G.

Longfield, R.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Lowther, J. H.

Crawford, W. S.

Mackenzie, T.

Damer, G. L. D.

Nicholl, J.

Dillwyn, L. W.

O'Connor Don

Dunbar, G.

Perceval, Colonel

Egerton, Sir P.

Pusey, P.

Evans, G.

Ross, C.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Sandon, Viscount

Finch, G.

Scrope, G. P.

Forbes, W.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Fox, C.

Somerset, Lord G.

851

Stanley, Lord

Williams, W.

Stewart, John

Wood, Colonel

Talfourd, Sergeant

Wyse, T.

Trelawny, Sir W.

Young, G. F.

Trevor, hon. A.

Vesey, hon. T.

TELLERS.

Vigors, N. A.

Lucas, E.

Wason, R.

Hayes, Sir E.

List of the NOES.

Acheson, Viscount

Lennard, T. B.

Adam, Sir C.

Lennox, Lord G.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lennox, Lord A.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Leveson, Lord

Attwood, T.

Loch, J.

Bagshaw, J.

Lynch, A. H.

Baines, E.

Macleod, R.

Bannerman, A.

Marshall Wm.

Baring, F. T.

Marsland, Henry

Barry, G. S.

Martin, T.

Bernal, R.

Maule, hon. F.

Bewes, T.

Morpeth, Viscount

Blake, M. J.

Mullins, F. W.

Bodkin, J. J.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Bowring, Dr.

Nagle, Sir R.

Bridgeman, H.

O'Brien, W. S.

Brocklehurst, J.

O'Connell, D.

Browne, R. D.

O'Connell, J.

Burton, H.

O'Connell, M. J.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

O'Connell, M.

Campbell, Sir J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Oliphant, L.

Chalmers, P.

Palmerston, Viscount

Chapman, L.

Parker, J.

Chetwynd, Captain

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Clay, W.

Parrott J.

Clements, Viscount

Pease, J.

Collins, W.

Pechell, Captain

Dalmeny, Lord

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Divett, E.

Philips, M.

Donkin, Sir R.

Ponsonby, hon. W.

Dundas, J. D.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Ellice, E.

Power, J.

Fergusson, rt. hon. R. C.

Poyntz, W. S.

Price, Sir R.

Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.

Pryme, G.

Fitzroy; Lord C.

Pryse, P.

Fort, J.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

French, F.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Gordon, R.

Russell, Lord J,

Grey, Sir G.

Russell, Lord

Harcourt, G. G

Ruthven, E.

Hastie, A.

Scott, J. W.

Hawkins, J. H.

Seymour, Lord

Hector, C. J.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Heneage, E.

Smith, R. V.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Spiers, A.

Stanley, E. J.

Howard, P. H.

Stuart, V.

Howick, Viscount

Strangways, hon. J.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Strutt, E.

King, E. B.

Tancred, H. W.

Kirk, P.

Thomson, rt. hon. C. P.

Lambton, H.

Lefevre, C. S.

Thompson, Colonel

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

852

Lemon, Sir C.

Villiers, C. P.

Vivian, J. H.

Wood, C.

Ward, H. G.

Woulfe, Sergeant

West, J. B.

Young, J.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

TELLERS.

White, S.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Wilbraham, G.

Steuart, R.

Committee postponed.

WAYS AND MEANS.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerproposed, that a sum not exceeding 11,000,000 l. be granted to his Majesty, for the repayment of Exchequer Bills, out of the supplies for the service of the year 1837.
Mr. Goulburndid not wish to get into a discussion on the financial subject at that late hour, and if his right hon. Friend felt any objection to his making a few observations, and asking a question, he would postpone doing so if an opportunity was afforded him within a few days to bring forward the subject at an early hour. In the first place, then, with respect to the present motion he wished to allude to the hour at which it was brought forward. This was the first time for a long series of years that this vote was postponed until such a late period. He did not mean to say that any inconvenience had occurred in consequence of the postponement of this motion, but still some explanation was called for in consequence of the peculiar nature of the case. When Exchequer Bills were voted it was always accompanied by an express understanding by Parliament to the holders of them that they should be paid out of the first supplies moved in Parliament. By this means they had a great security of having them paid off, out of the first supplies in the ensuing year, therefore a practice had always hitherto prevailed of voting them at the earliest period of the Session. The next subject to which he wished to call the attention of his right hon. Friend respected the amount of Exchequer Bills that had been paid off out of the Sinking Fund. A paper had been laid on the table and printed, respecting the payments out of the Sinking Fund. It appeared that between the 5th of January and the 22nd of April, the amount of Exchequer Bills paid off out of the Sinking Fund was 1,470,000 l. On referring to the

853
finance accounts laid before Parliament for the year, it appeared that the whole sum applicable to the redemption of the debt, between the 5th of January and the 5th of April was only 680,000 l. Now, out of this sum it would appear as if there had been redeemed Exchequer Bills amounting to upwards of 1,400,000 l. But the latest date of the redemption was the 22nd of April, and not the 5th of April as was usual; and it might be supposed that the sum of 700,000 l. was paid off between these two dates. He did not think that the whole of this sum was applicable for this purpose between January and April. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman could not have applied the whole of this amount to the redemption of the debt, unless by sacrificing the principle always acted upon in the administration of the Sinking Fund, for the whole sum must be equally divided into the several weeks of the quarter, and applied equally. This was done that the Government should not create any fluctuation in the market, or any supposition of creating a fluctuation. It would appear, however, that in the short space of seventeen days 700,000 l. had been applied to this purpose more than ought to have been. As the account stood he did not understand it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerstated, that if he had had an opportunity of rising at an earlier period of the night, he would have gone at greater length into an explanation of the state of the unfunded debt. If there was anything imperfect in what he was going to say, he trusted that his right hon. Friend would consent to his postponing his explanation till a future opportunity, when he would go at greater length into the subject. The first point that had been referred to by his right hon. Friend was, that it was more usual to take the vote for Exchequer Bills at an earlier period of the Session, but he did not do so, from two motives; the first was, that there had been an alteration of the commencement of the financial year, and he, therefore, considered that no inconvenience could result from the postponement of the vote. But there was another motive which was still more important. In the course of the last Session the right hon. Gentleman called the attention of the House, and his attention to the nature and state of the unfunded debt. He admitted the peculiar necessity of directing great attention to this subject,
854
and he thanked his right hon. Friend at the time, for his suggestion; but his serious attention had been turned to this subject for some time before. He felt at the time that he had not increased the amount of the unfunded debt, but rather that he had diminished it, with the exception of an issue of Exchequer Bills, for public works, or rather an advance of money for the erection of workhouses. He had considered the question more especially as regarded the currency, and had felt that the amount of Exchequer Bills was much more in point of prudence than it was justifiable to recommend should be, on this ground, therefore, he commenced the application of the Sinking Fund at an early period to the unfunded debt. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that there was a large amount of Exchequer Bills held by the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, which could be redeemed at par. This he thought should be acted on, and that they should be charged with stock. He would take the liberty of stating to the House, in a very few words, the amount of Exchequer Bills at present and the same date last year. Last year, the whole amount of the unfunded debt was 29,700,000 l. The amount outstanding of various descriptions of Exchequer Bills was 28,976,600 l. The sum of 130,000 l. was due for the paying off Exchequer Bills of 1835, arid in the course of the last six months there was an addition of about 600,000 l. for public works in England, and for West-India relief. The total amount outstanding was 29,614,750 l. The present vote which he proposed to take would make the amount for the ensuing year 24,623,300 l. There had been reduced, therefore, of the unfunded debt, within the last fifteen months, a sum not less than 4,994,450 l. This was a very great reduction; but the circumstances of the case, as he had no doubt he should be able to show on a future occasion, fully justified it. This had been effected by the following means, taking round numbers; 1,757,000 l. of Exchequer Bills had been cancelled by the application of the Sinking Fund; 2,040,000 l. of Exchequer Bills by an exchange to that amount with the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund for that amount of Three per cents, at the market price of stock; and this was done in conformity with the Act of 1828. 1,163,000 l. had been paid for out of the money granted for ways and means, and

855
130,000 l. to which he had before adverted—thus making a total of 4,994,450 l. This, then, was the amount to which the unfunded debt was reduced since last year. He hoped, and indeed he felt satisfied, that his right hon. Friend agreed with him in thinking that the reduction of the unfunded debt was satisfactory under the present state of things. This amount of reduction had been effected in that portion of the financial engagements of the country most open to fluctuation, and he was sure that what had been done could not but be acceptable to the House, and to the holders of that description of the public securities. But he might be told that a deficiency might be apprehended. The course, however, which he should take would be, to follow the example of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, while he held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, that on the amount of Exchequer Bills being laid on the table in March, 1835, he took a vote to make good any such deficiency as the actual amount applied for the redemption of Exchequer Bills between the 1st and the 22nd of April, which was another point to which he believed his right hon. Friend adverted. He would give a short explanation. The whole of the 1,400,000 l. was not expended in the interval alluded to, but the amount expended for a long period, was carried to account during the interval alluded to. They could not take this amount from the Sinking Fund and expend it at once, because the application was strictly limited in the way in which he had described. The amount applied from the Sinking Fund was exactly the amount that could be applied from week to week. There might appear to be a larger amount, but the sums were expended week by week to avoid any fluctuation in the market, and no more was applied to the outstanding debt, than the state of the Sinking Fund would allow. No doubt his right hon. Friend would be led to form an adverse conclusion from the paper before him; but the operation of reducing the amount of Exchequer Bills had been effected nearly in the manner which he had stated. No more nor less had been applied from the Sinking Fund than would be allowed by the Act of Parliament. He admitted that he had given a very imperfect answer to his right hon. Friend, but he should be happy to give him a more detailed, and
856
satisfactory answer when there was a fuller House.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, it was evident that an error had occurred in making out the account. It was stated distinctly that 1,400,000 l. had been paid out of the Sinking Fund, whereas it appeared, that in fact, only 800,000 l. had been paid out and that 600,000 l. remained to be paid in the course of the ensuing quarter.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeradmitted that there must have been some error in the adding up of the account, and pledged himself to investigate the whole of the matter on the following day.
Mr. Goulburnfelt quite satisfied with that assurance.
The resolution agreed to.
House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:— County Courts.
Petitions presented. By several Noble LORDS, from various places, for, and the Duke of WELLINGTON and other Noble LORDS, from various other places, against the abolition of Church-rates.—By Lord GORT, from the Grand Jury of the City of Limerick, against the Local Rating Act.—By Lord SEGRAVE, from Bradenham and West Wyckham, for the abolition of Church-rates.

MUNICIPAL REFORM (ENGLAND).
Lord Wynfordpresented a petition from Bristol, complaining of the manner in which the municipal affairs of that city had been conducted under the English Municipal Act. The noble Lord read a long statement, contradictory of the Report which had been read by Lord Melbourne to the House, a few weeks ago. The petitioners set forth, that the general municipal affairs of the city had been more cheaply and effectively carried on under the old Act; they complained of the present division of the city into wards, of the manner in which justice was administered, of the management of civic property and charitable trusts, and also that the police established under the new Act were not an efficient body, inasmuch as there had been no diminution of crime.
Viscount Melbournehad used every exertion to obtain as impartial and satisfactory information on this subject, as he possibly could; at the same time he had stated that that information had been affected to a certain degree by political feeling, not only as regarded Bristol, but every other part of the country. Considering, then, that this Municipal Bill had been the subject of so much debate,—considering, also, that it affected the interests, and still more so the feelings of numerous individuals in those towns,—considering that it was a measure which had been carried against their wishes and opinions, it was impossible to expect that there could be anything like a concurrence or unanimity of opinion respecting the mode in which its operations were carried into effect. He was not the least surprised, therefore, at the petition which had been presented by the noble and learned Lord. Upon the contents of that petition the noble Lord was inclined to rely, as he had relied upon the information which he had received on the subject; the noble Lord, however, had not contented himself with relying entirely upon the statements Contained therein, but had gone further
818
than the petitioners. They set forth, that many of the statements in the report were exaggerated and untrue, while the noble Lord said, that they were all so. He thought the noble Lord might have confined himself to his brief, as he had to that which he had received, instead of going beyond the opinions of his clients. He believed that this Bill had worked well in Bristol, and he certainly, in forming an opinion on the subject, would not be guided by the statement of the petitioners or the noble Lord, for it was evidently the case of the old corporation and its partisans. It was at all events an eulogy upon the old system. There might be truth in some parts of it, but he was not then prepared to go into the various allegations it contained. Almost the only tangible point in it was that respecting the police. The petitioners denied that they had afforded any security. Now, judging of the working of this Bill in other towns, he had come to the conclusion that the police arrangements made under it had been attended with the most beneficial results. If there existed any grounds for the complaints contained in this petition, he hoped the town-council would see them redressed, and that all parties in the town would unite to secure those benefits which were intended to be conferred by the Bill.
Lord Wharncliffeobserved, that however it might have been intended that the Bill should have worked, it had, nevertheless, worked badly. He, indeed, hoped, that its general effects, but, above all, that the use to which it had been converted for political purposes, would serve as a warning to their Lordships to be extremely cautious in dealing with the Municipal Bill for Ireland. He would here take leave to observe, that, by a reference to the votes of the proceedings in the other House of Parliament, he had perceived, to his very great astonishment, that the second reading of the Irish Church Bill, which was one of those measures their Lordships had expressed their desire of having before them before they proceeded to legislate upon the Irish Municipal Bill, had been fixed for the 9th of June—the very day to which they had referred the consideration of the Irish Corporation Bill. He was the more surprised at this, when he recollected that the noble Lord, the Secretary of State in the other House, had declared that they would proceed' with the Irish Church Bill, without refer-

819
ence to anything that had occurred in their Lordships' House. The 9th of June had, notwithstanding, been fixed for the second reading of the Bill. If such a course as this were to be persevered in, it would be utterly impossible for them to proceed with the business of that House.
The Marquess of Lansdownhad no hesitation in saying, that nothing had been done in the other House of Parliament with a view to deprive their Lordships of the opportunity of considering certain measures pending in the House of Commons before they should decide upon what course to pursue with respect to the Irish Municipal Bill. The postponement which had taken place was entirely the result of necessity consequent upon the mode of arranging business in that House. Their Lordships, however, would not be affected by that postponement, as the Irish Church Bill would be printed, and in the hands of Members before their Lordships would proceed to the consideration of the Irish Municipal Bill.
The Earl of Wicklowalso expressed his surprise that the same day should have been fixed for the consideration of the Church Bill in the House of Commons as that appointed for the further progress of the Irish Municipal Bill in that House, and until he had heard the explanation given by the noble Marquess, he had conceived that such a course evinced on the part of the Government a desire to thwart the views of noble Lords in that House, and that the probable result of it would be, the further postponement of a question, which his Majesty's Ministers had stated, it was very desirable to have disposed of immediately. The explanation of the noble Marquess was, therefore, to some extent, satisfactory; but the noble Marquess seemed to think, that the object which noble Lords had in view when they deferred the consideration of the Irish Municipal Bill, would be equally well attained by their Lordships obtaining copies of the Church Bill as printed for the use of the Members of the other House. He entirely differed from the noble Marquess on that point. It was quite a different thing to see a Bill in the state in which it was introduced to the other House, and that in which it came up to their Lordships. How could they tell what amendments would be made in it, what alterations it might undergo in its progress
820
through the other House, and consequently, what degree of security it would furnish in the minds of those who felt that security was necessary, before they proceeded to grant Municipal Corporations to that country as proposed by the present measure? He was of opinion, therefore, that the object of their Lordships in postponing the consideration of the Irish Corporation Bill could not be attained, until the other measures, which they were desirous of seeing, should be brought up from the House of Commons; and, moreover, he felt it necessary for his own consistency, to say, that he should deem it his duty at a future period, to move the further postponement of the Corporation Bill until those other measures should be before that House.
Lord Broughamwould remind their Lordships that during the debate on the Irish Municipal Bill the other night, he had stated how the delay of five weeks was likely to be received elsewhere. He had given his opinion, not as a threat to their Lordships, but in order to place before them, for their consideration, the conduct the other House would probably adopt; and he had stated that their Lordships example, in their unfortunate decision of delay to the 9th of June, would be followed. He had expected what had happened, not the exact form adopted by the other House, but he had anticipated something similar. The question now was, whether the course adopted by the House of Commons would not make their Lordships pause, and consider the vote of the other night, or whether, as often as their Lordships were opposed in one of their views, toties quoties, they would invent other means of throwing out the Bill. He thought it would suit the peace of the country better, and be more in accordance with the dignity of that House and the manly and straightforward character of their Lordships, to announce their intention of throwing out the Bill, instead of putting it off from day to day, by which means, they were lowering their reputation with the country.
The Earl of Falmouthentirely agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Wharncliffe), that the working of the English Municipal Bill did not at all bear out the statement of the noble Lord opposite, (Lord Melbourne). Although that Bill might not have been intended for exciting political

821
feuds, he knew no measure that had caused more. It promoted the opposite of peace and harmony in the country.
The Earl of Haddingtonwould not prolong the discussion, but would make one remark in reference to what had fallen from noble Lords opposite, and he was pleased to hear the noble Lord (Lord Melbourne) disclaim any intention on the part of the Government to play the game of retaliation, although the delay of the Irish Tithe Bill seemed to indicate it. It was impossible for their Lordships to proceed, without compromising their duty, until they knew in what shape the Irish Tithe Bill was likely to be sent up to them. It would be different if that Bill stood for Committee on the 9th of June, but it was in a much less advanced state. Their Lordships must again postpone the Irish Municipal Bill, but it was not necessary then to discuss that point; at the same time he would protest against the inference drawn by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) that it was the intention of that House to reject the Bill altogether.
Petition laid on the Table.