Sitting of 6 August 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1½. Small Debts.
2°. Religious Opinions Relief; Forms (Assessed Taxes); Militia Pay.
Reported. Copyhold Commission; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Stock in Trade; Highway Rates; Loan Societies; Gauge of Railways; Steam Navigation.
3°. and passed. Court of Common Pleas; Spirit Licenses and Duties; Baths and Washhouses.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Viscount Clive, from several places, against the Union of the Sees of Saint Asaph and Bangor, but in favour of the Immediate Appointment of a Bishop to the newly erected See of Manchester.—By the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, from Inhabitants of the Town of Dalkeith, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. Hume, from Free Colonists of Van Diemen's Land, for a Free Assembly.—By Mr. John Abel Smith, from Chichester, for Abolition of Flogging in the Army.

DECCAN PRIZE MONEY.
SIR H. W. BARRONsaid, he wished, pursuant to notice, to put the following questions to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control: "What is the amount available of the debt and prize money since the last distribution in the year 1832 of the Deccan prize money? Have the Nagpore jewels, in the custody of the East India Company at Benares, been adjudicated, as set forth in the printed paper of the House of Commons as printed in the year 1838? When will the distribution of the debt and prize money take

359
place; and has the dispute which prevented the distribution of the said prize money been settled; if not, what is the nature of the dispute?"
SIR J. C. HOBHOUSEsaid, with respect to the first and third questions, he could only say, that the last distribution of the Deccan prize money was in August, 1834, instead of 1832; and if his hon. Friend wished for any further information, the best course he could take would be to move for a continuation of the return which on a former occasion had been moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. With respect to the second question, he begged to inform his hon. Friend, that the subject had been submitted to the Queen's Advocate, and also to the standing counsel of the East India Company, and they were both of opinion that the jewels referred to were not prize, and therefore they had been returned.

QUARANTINE REGULATIONS.
CAPTAIN LAYARDwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade whether Sir W. Pym, Superintendent General of Quarantine, had within the last two years been employed by Government to proceed to the Continent for the purpose of obtaining information on the subject of quarantines from the authorities of different places, or for some other purpose; and to know if he made a report on his return, and, if he made a report, whether there were any objection to its being printed, and laid on the Table of the House? And also to move that Government may institute an inquiry by competent persons as to the nature of the fever which prevailed last year on board Her Majesty's ship Eclair; and if shown to have been the true yellow or black vomit fever, that the inquiry should then extend to the question as to whether it had been proved that such a disease was transmissible from persons labouring under it to others in health.
MR. M. GIBSON, in answer to the first question of the hon. Gentleman, had to state that Sir W. Pym was employed by the Government to make inquiry into the subject of quarantine, and that he had made a report to the Board of Trade, which report had been already laid before Parliament, together with all the correspondence connected with it. With regard to the second question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to state that there had been an inquiry into the fever referred to
360
by two gentlemen (Sir W. Pym and Sir W. Burnett), but they differed in the conclusions to which they came. Sir W. Pym was of opinion that the fever on board of the Eclair was of a highly infectious nature. Sir W. Burnett, on the contrary, was of opinion that it was not infectious, but merely an intermittent fever produced by exposure to air at night, and irregularities on the part of the men who suffered from it, and that it could only be infectious from an accumulation of sick people in a confined space. With regard to what the Government might think fit to do upon a future occasion, it was not for him to say.

RELIGIOUS OPINIONS BILL.
LORD J. RUSSELL: In proposing to this House that the Religious Opinions Bill should be read a Second Time, I will make some statements to the House of the nature of that Bill: It is a Bill to repeal certain penalties which are inflicted upon persons, either on account of professing certain religious opinions, or on account of certain practices with respect to their religious faith, which are supposed to be dangerous to the country. The greater part of those punishments will, I believe, be considered by the House as unworthy of remaining upon the Statute-book; and I will, therefore, only mention them generally, and will proceed to those two parts of the Bill upon which there may be some difference of opinion. In the first place, it is a Bill to repeal two Acts concerning the Jews. The first is an ordinance regarding the Jews which is supposed to prevent their holding land. That has been a question of considerable doubt, an therefore we thought it better to repeal that ordinance, and thus dispose of any doubt there might be upon the subject. The other Statute provides that the Jews shall wear a certain badge, a mark of degradation and inferiority which certainly the House will not wish to continue. The next class of Acts to which the Bill refers, are Acts which require the attendance of persons at public worship according to the usage of the Established Church, and inflict penalties upon those persons who attend public worship in other places than those of the Established Church. The first is the Act of the 5th and 6th Edward VI., which inflicts penalties upon persons who attend public worship in other places than those of the Established Church; for the first offence, imprisonment for six months; for the second, a year; and for

361
the third, imprisonment for life. The next is the Act of the 29th of Elizabeth for the same object, imposing a penalty of 20 l. a month upon those who do not attend public worship in the churches of the Established Church. There are other Acts which impose penalties upon persons who do not attend church on the 5th of November, and various other Acts, several altogether, one of which was, I believe, put in force only a few years ago, imposing penalties upon persons who do not attend church on Sunday. It is proposed, as it is now according to the law of the land allowable to all persons to attend public worship in places conformable to their religious opinions, to abolish entirely the whole of those measures. The other class of Acts to which I shall refer are Acts providing against the dangers which this country incurred in former times on account of the pretences made by the Pope of Rome to supremacy over this country. Now, those Acts are of a very severe nature, and many of them impose penalties which, whatever may be thought of the danger to which they refer, it is impossible to maintain in the present day. There are penalties against Popish recusants—penalties of a very severe nature against any person who may maintain the authority of the Pope. There is the Act of Elizabeth upon this subject, which imposes for the first offence the condemnation of the whole of the offender's personal property; for the second offence the penalty of præmunire; and for the third offence, it declares the offender guilty of high treason. I do not say that I propose now to do away with the whole of those penalties; at the same time I must admit that a question has been raised whether in so doing we do in any way affect the title of the Crown of these realms to supremacy in all matters ecclesiastical and spiritual. But it has been laid down by the greatest authorities of former times, by Lord Hale and Lord Coke, that the supremacy of the Crown of these realms, in matters ecclesiastical and spiritual, is part of the common law of the land. The same opinion has been given within the last few weeks by Lord Denman, Lord Campbell, and Lord Lyndhurst, and therefore we may assume that there is no danger whatever that in taking away those penalties we do in any way touch upon the doctrine of the supremacy of the Crown. We take away penalties against those persons who maintain the supremacy of any foreign power or potentate over these realms. It
362
cannot be seriously said that there is any advantage in keeping up penalties of this kind, for the mere assertion of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope in these realms. If it is only an opinion held by persons of the Roman Catholic religion, it ought not to be punished so far as it is an opinion, and nothing is done in consequence of that opinion by which the course of law is disturbed. If, in any way, a person were to question the Queen's supremacy, so as to bring the question before a court of law, no doubt the doctrine which I have mentioned would be maintained, and the law would make provision accordingly for the settlement of that doctrine. There is another offence which this Bill deals with, and that is the offence of introducing a bull of the Pope into this country. According to the Act of the 13th Elizabeth, when there was an assertion of the authority of the Pope, and an attempt was made to relieve all persons from their allegiance by the authority of the Pope, it was declared that all persons who introduced those bulls should be guilty of high treason. The question is, whether it is desirable to keep up that or any other penalty for such an offence. It does not appear to me that we can possibly attempt to prevent the introduction of the Pope's bulls into this country. There are certain bulls of the Pope which are absolutely necessary for the appointment of bishops and pastors, belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. It would be quite impossible to prevent the introduction of such bulls. Every one knows that now they are not prevented, but are, in fact, introduced into this country. But let us suppose that there is some bull introduced into this country similar to those we heard of in former days; let us suppose—though it is almost extravagant to suppose it—that there was any attempt by the Pope to assert any sovereign authority in these realms, or to interfere with the Queen's authority—my belief is, that no such bull would be observed by any Roman Catholic, but that it would be a dead letter; and thus much I am sure of, that if any person acted contrary to his allegiance in consequence of such a bull, he would be punishable according to the law of this country. Again, the security with respect to this and all other Acts is, that if anything seditious or treasonable is contained in those bulls, they would be punishable in this country the same as any other writing of a seditious or treasonable nature. If they contained anything seditious or treasonable,

363
there is no difference to be made between circulating them and any other seditious or treasonable writing. I think, therefore, that the objections made to this part of the Bill are completely unsound. It appears to me that it is only common justice to repeal all those penalties by passing this Bill, which has been sent down to us by the other House of Parliament. I should say, after this Bill has passed, there certainly will remain some confusion in the law (though I do not think contradiction), as no Bill is introduced to alter the oaths now taken. We shall still continue to take the oath that the Pope has not, nor ought to have, any jurisdiction, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within these realms, though, at the same time, in point of fact, there is no doubt that he exercises a spiritual authority in these realms. That is the case at present, and that will remain after his Bill is passed. I have always interpreted that oath to be, that in the opinion of the person taking it the Pope has not any jurisdiction which can be enforced by law, and ought not to have any; but at the same time, I think the subject of oaths is one that ought to be taken into consideration, and therefore I shall not contend that the passing of this Bill will relieve us from the necessity of considering that subject in another Session. The question, whether it were desirable to introduce this Bill alone, or to connect it with another Bill as to oaths, was maturely considered by the late Government; and the late Government came to the conclusion that it was more advisable to introduce this Bill with respect to which there was likely to be little difference of opinion, than to meet the difficulties which might arise upon the other subject. I think that by passing this Bill you will get rid of many absurd penalties and much absurd legislation now on the Statute-book, and I therefore now move the second reading of it.
COLONEL SIBTHORPfelt bound to oppose this Bill, by his veneration for the acts and laws of his ancestors, and his attachment to the National Church, which the Bill went to undermine. At all events, he would enter his protest against it.
SIR H. W. BARRONhoped the hon. and gallant Member would remember that his ancestors established the Roman Catholic religion here, and that he would therefore have some veneration for it. The professors of that religion handed down to us every principle in the British Constitution worth contending for. He could not
364
understand how any man could take the oath that no foreign prelate "hath or ought to have" any power or jurisdiction, ecclesiastical or spiritual, in England. Why, it was notorious that the Pope conferred the authority of the Catholic bishops here, and no man ought to be compelled to deny the fact.
MR. ESTCOURTcomplained of the introduction of this Bill into the House at so late a period, when a great proportion of Members were naturally absent. It was only that day that the Bill had been in their hands. It certainly did not contain the objectionable clauses which had been proposed in another Bill (Mr. Watson's), interfering with the provisions of the Roman Catholic Relief Act; but still it proposed to abolish the law against the publication of bulls here—which had been prohibited by statute ever since the 13th Elizabeth; and upon that point the House was to decide at seven or eight hours' notice. He was no advocate for the existence of penalties which were not necessary for the protection of Protestants and the Protestant religion; but since legislation on part of the subject was to be postponed by the noble Lord, the whole subject might best be taken up together. He would move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
MR. ESCOTTfelt grateful to the noble Lord for completing the good work commenced by the late Lord Chancellor, and abolishing penalties the retention of which was a disgrace to the law of the land.
MR. SPOONERinsisted that the Bill ought not to be pressed at so late a period, when many Members had left town, like the hon. Baronet the other Member for Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis), who found his health unequal to a longer attendance this Session. If the noble Lord persevered, he (Mr. Spooner) should feel it his duty to take all the steps that Parliamentary usages allowed, to oppose what he must call a most indecent act at that period of the Session. It was easy to say that bulls would remain as much illegal at common law as ever; but let the Attorney General state in what way a bull, quâ bull, could be touched, if it did not contain any seditious matter, but was merely an exercise by the Pope of authority over the subjects of this realm. The House and the country ought not to be taken by surprise on so important a subject.
MR. HENLEYcould not forget that, though the Bill had only just been printed,

365
this was not entirely new matter; the whole subject had been introduced in the former Bill (Mr. Watson's), which was cut into two parts expressly because a Minister of the Crown stated that this measure was coming down to the House. As to the Bill itself, he could not see what harm it would do the Church of England; and if there was no harm in it, something ought to be conceded even to the prejudices of our Roman Catholic fellow subjects. The Acts of Parliament proposed to be repealed were entirely obsolete, and did no good to anybody. The Bill would not interfere with the oath of supremacy; everybody who took it now would take it still; and he believed the noble Lord's interpretation of it to be the true one—it merely stated that which was the belief of the party, his belief what ought to be the case; it could not alter the fact.
The House divided on the Question, that the word "now" stand part of the question:—Ayes 79; Noes 10: Majority 69.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Layard, Capt.

Baine, W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Bannerman, A.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Barnard, E. G.

M'Donnell, J. M.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Maitland, T.

Bellew, R. M.

Mitcalfe, H.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Moffat, G.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Morpeth, Visct.

Bernal, R.

Morris, D.

Borthwick, P.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bridgeman, H.

O'Conor Don

Brotherton, J.

Parker, J.

Brown, W.

Pigott, rt. hon. D.

Browne, hon. W.

Plumridge, Capt.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Protheroe, E. D.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Pulsford, R.

Collett, J.

Pusey, P.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Russell, Lord J.

Crawford, W. S.

Scrope, G. P.

Dodd, G.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Duncan, G.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Dundas, D.

Stewart, P. M.

Entwisle, W.

Strutt, E.

Escott, B.

Tancred, H. W.

Evans, Sir D. L.

Thornely, T.

Ewart, W.

Towneley, J.

Forster, M.

Turner, E.

Fox, C. R.

Vane, Lord H.

Gore, hon. R.

Wakley, T.

Greene, T.

Warburton, H.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Ward, H. G.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Wawn, J. T.

Hawes, B.

Wilshere, W.

Henley, J. W.

Wood, rt. hon. C.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Wyse, T.

Howard, P. H.

Yorke, H. R.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Hutt, W.

Tufnell, H.

Jervis, Sir J.

Marcus, Lord M.

366

List of the NOES.

Blackburne, J. I.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Douglas, Sir H.

Spooner, R.

Fuller, A. E.

Trotter, J.

Jones, Capt.

Lindsay, hon. Capt.

TELLERS.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Palmer, G.

Sibthorp, Col.

Bill read a Second Time.

COLONIAL OFFICE.
MR. V. SMITHinquired whether any alteration had been made in Mr. Gladstone's arrangement for the appointment of an Assistant Under Secretary to the Colonial Department? Mr. Gladstone had appointed Mr. Rogers to the situation of Assistant Under Secretary to the Colonial Department, and proposed to pay his salary by a reduction in the number of the clerks, thereby doing injustice to those gentlemen, and injury to the business of the office. If the appointment were to be maintained, a better mode of providing the salary would have been to have come down and to have asked Parliament for the money. He wished to know whether the present Government intended to continue such an arrangement?
MR. HAWESwas not prepared to go into the general merits of the question; but, in the opinion of his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department, the appointment of Mr. Rogers was an efficient and necessary one. With respect to the general efficiency of the clerks in the Colonial Department, he could cheerfully bear his testimony. More efficient or able gentlemen were not to be found in any department.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that having been for some time at the head of the department in question, he could agree only partially in the view which appeared to be taken of the matter by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Vernon Smith). It might be all very true that Mr. Stephen, as Under Secretary, had, until lately, required no assistance to enable him to perform the duties of the office, and Mr. Stephen had been for five years in the department; but the question was, in what manner the duties of the office could be best performed in years to come. Mr. Stephen's position was a peculiar one. Besides its general and miscellaneous duties, he was charged with the examination of all the colonial enactments passed in our various settlements. Now, he took it, that the mere statement of such onerous duties was quite

367
sufficient to make anybody understand that it was necessary, in their performance, to look over and examine a vast multitude of enactments—a task which could not be satisfactorily performed without previous knowledge of the Colonies, as well as some acquaintance with the principles and practice of law. Under these circumstances the appointment had taken place, Mr. Rogers being a gentleman of high legal character and standing. With respect to the manner of the appointment, however, he agreed with his right hon. Friend in deprecating it; and he shared his feelings with respect to the senior and junior clerks, who were not too many, and who numbered among them many men of distinguished talent. Considering the length of Mr. Stephen's services, he was inclined to approve of the assistance to be given to him, and he certainly did not think that the department would be benefited by any reduction of the number of clerks employed.
The EARL of LINCOLNsaid, that the appointment in question required a gentleman of the legal profession, and for that reason alone a strangor had been introduced into the office. The noble Lord had concurred in condemning the mode in which the arrangement was made; but his right hon. Friend, Mr. Gladstone, would have been glad to have adopted any other mode. He had had no wish to act harshly towards the clerks in the department, but had been anxious to carry out an efficient arrangement for the public service, without incurring any public additional public charge. As some severe comments had been made on his right hon. Friend out of the House in reference to this matter, he felt bound to say that his right hon. Friend introduced Mr. Rogers into the office, not because he was a friend of his own, but because it was absolutely necessary to have a lawyer in the situation, and the whole arrangement was made without additional charge to the public.

SPIRIT LICENSES AND DUTIES BILL.
On the Motion for the Third Reading of the Spirit Licenses and Duties Bill,
MR. WAKLEYbegged to state, that the chymists and druggists were by no means satisfied with this Bill, which, if passed, would place no fewer than 3,000 chymists and druggists under the Excise laws, and compel them to take out spirit licenses. Now, this was a very objectionable measure, and as it had been before the House only since the 27th of July, he
368
would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considered it fair that a Bill, affecting so extensively such a large class of persons, should be pushed so hastily through the House? What the parties complaining of the measure required was more time to consider the question. The druggists throughout the country knew nothing whatever of the measure; those resident in London had not had time to consider it; and if it passed, the Members of that House would be sure to hear from their constituents complaints, loud and long, as to its provisions. Nothing but the strongest necessity could justify such a measure; but all he now asked from the right hon. Gentleman was, that he would allow the Bill to be postponed to Monday week, in order to give full time for its consideration.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Bill arose from a case of absolute necessity; it was prepared by the late Government in consequence of great frauds having been discovered by the sale of spirituous admixtures on the premises of chemists and druggists. He had already stated to the House that certain amendments were proposed to be made in the Bill, which he understood to be satisfactory to a deputation which had waited on him. He would, therefore, propose that the Bill be now read a third time; that it be reprinted with those amendments, and the further progress of the Bill postponed until that day week, when ample time would be given for considering the measure, as amended, before it could finally pass the House.
Bill read a third time. To be reprinted with amendments. Further proceedings on the Bill adjourned.

GAUGE OF RAILWAYS BILL.
On the Motion that the House go into Committee on the Gauge of Railways Bill,
MR. P. M. STEWARTcomplained that while it recognised the principle laid down by the Commissioners appointed to investigate the subject, namely — deprecating the broad gauge as highly injurious, and recommending the narrow gauge as being best adapted for the country, it yet went on to enact that the existing broad gauge should be doubled in extent; that 500 miles more should be added to that which was already laid down. He saw the Chairman of the Great Western Railway Company (Mr. Russell) present, and he gave him great credit for the spirit in

369
which that company carried out their arrangements, and did not mean to be a party to saddling that company with the loss connected with any alteration of the gauge; but still he thought that this measure did not settle the question in a manner becoming its great importance. There could be no doubt that sooner or later they would feel the dangers, and difficulties, and hindrances attending a diversity of gauge throughout the country, and must come to some resolution in favour of a uniformity of gauge; but this Bill, so far from remedying, multiplied the inconveniences and increased the difficulties of the present system, for while we had 3,000 miles of railway, 2,700 of which were constructed on the narrow gauge, and only 300 on the broad gauge, this Bill, which professed to denounce the broad gauge, and uphold the necessity of the narrow gauge, actually enacted that the broad gauge should be extended 500 miles further. Was that a proper way of dealing with the question, or carrying out the suggestions of the Commissioners? By adopting such a course, the House was but creating difficulties it would have hereafter to encounter; and he therefore asked on what principle it was that this compromise between the broad and narrow gauge was brought forward? He wished to know, too, who was the author of a measure which compromised the question in this way.
MR. M. GIBSONsaid, that the hon. Member had asked for the authorship of this Bill. He (Mr. Gibson) thought he might say with propriety that Parliament itself was responsible for the Bill, seeing that its object was to carry into effect a resolution adopted unanimously by both Houses of Parliament. He could not quite agree with the hon. Member in thinking that this measure would increase the evil of a break of gauge. The fact was simply this—there were a number of Bills which had been passed this Session, in which there was no special clause providing for a particular gauge; they were left to a choice of gauge, and this Bill defined the gauge upon which the companies were to construct their works, in order that the broad gauge should be limited throughout the country. It did not interfere with those companies that had a clause in their Bill providing for the particular gauge on which they should be constructed; it only provided that the railways for which Bills had been obtained without providing for a particular gauge, should be constructed in a
370
way most suited to effect the object which his hon. Friend had in view, namely, to have the least amount of broad gauge consistent with convenience and the greatest amount of uniformity. He agreed with his hon. Friend that uniformity was exceedingly desirable as a national object; but where was the money to come from to effect it?
MR. PROTHEROEwould be sorry to see the broad gauge proscribed altogether. He did not speak as a scientific man; but he asked any Gentleman who had travelled by the Great Western line, if he had ever been conveyed with equal comfort, or on a railway where the carriages were larger, more commodious, or better ventilated? He (Mr. Protheroe) knew of none.
House in Committee.
Bill passed through Committee.
House resumed. Report was ordered to be received.

PAYMENT OF THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.
MR. LABOUCHEREthen moved, pursuant to notice, for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for removing the charge of the constabulary force in Ireland from the counties, and for enlarging the reserve force; and to make further provision for the regulation and disposition of the said constabulary force. They would all recollect that the late Government had pledged itself to the counties of Ireland to introduce such a Bill. The Government had thought it necessary, after consulting competent authorities, to ask for the discretionary power of adding about two hundred men to the reserve body of the present constabulary force in Ireland. But these and all the other details of the subject, into which he did not then think it necessary to enter, would be better and more fully explained in the Bill itself than by any statement which he could make.
MR. BROTHERTONthought the principle of this Bill was objectionable. It was wrong, he thought, to ask such a town, for instance, as Manchester, which paid 30,000 l. a year towards the expenses of its own police force, or other towns similarly circumstanced, to contribute to the support of the metropolitan police, or the police of Ireland.
The O'CONOR DONsaid, the hon. Member ought to have made his objection to this measure during the discussions on the repeal of the Corn Laws, when Sir R. Peel had introduced it expressly as a proposition

371
affording some compensation to a country upon which the intended Corn Bill was likely to press so severely.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid that, in his opinion, the promised compensation to Ireland for the passing of the new Corn Bill, savoured very much of bribery. He agreed with the hon. Member for Salford, that Ireland ought to pay the cost of maintaining her own police.
House adjourned at a quarter to Ten o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a. Adverse Claims (Ireland); Mandamus (Ireland); Joint Stock Banks (Scotland and Ireland); Cheshire Returning Officer; Waste Lands (Australia); Poor Removal; Grand Jury Cess Bonds (Ireland); Prisons (Ireland); Consolidated Fund.
Reported. Marriages (Ireland) Act Amendment; Art Unions; Ecclesiastical Patronage.
3a. and passed. Small Debts; Cheshire Returning Officer; Militia Ballots Suspension; Ordnance Survey; Newfoundland.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Royal Burghs of Scotland in General Convention assembled, for Reduction and Equalization of the Duties on Colonial and Foreign Sugars.—From Newport, Monmouth, and several other places, in favour of the Small Debts Bill.—From Poor Law Officers of several places, for Assistance and Protection, and for a Clause to be inserted in the Law of Settlement Bill to enable them to provide out of their own Salaries a Superannuation Fund for Old Age.

WASTE LANDS (AUSTRALIA) BILL.
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he wished to put one or two questions to the noble Earl now at the head of the Colonial Department. The first question which he intended to put related to the government of New Zealand. He was well aware that there was a great deal of difficulty attending the whole question of the government of that Colony; but he could not help believing that, even at this advanced period of the Session, something might be done for improving the administration of affairs in that part of Her Majesty's dominions. It was understood that just before the late Administration left office they had prepared, and were on the point of laying before Parliament, a measure connected with the government of New Zealand; and he believed that the noble Earl had seen that measure. The general principle of it met with the general concurrence of parties in this country and the colonists themselves. Now, in the present state of affairs in the Colony he thought it a matter of very great importance that some such measure should pass this Session; and he wished to know from the noble Earl whether or not Her Majesty's present Government intended to introduce
350
any such Bill during the present Session of Parliament. If they did not undertake such a task, he was not certainly prepared to prefer against them any complaint for that omission; but he hoped, nevertheless, that something might be done. The other question which he intended to put related to the Australian Waste Lands. He had himself laid a Bill upon the Table of their Lordships' House, which had been read a first time; but he could not, under present circumstances, think of going on with it, for it was clearly a matter which the Government alone could take up with any view of bringing it to a satisfactory issue. If the noble Earl did not mean to take up that Bill this year, he hoped, as the question was one of great importance, that his noble Friend would be able to say that he would introduce a measure on the subject early next Session.
EARL GREYreplied, that he should be happy to answer both the questions put by the noble Lord. Late as it was in the Session, he did not despair of Parliament being able to legislate upon both those subjects. With respect to New Zealand, he did say that, notwithstanding all the difficulty which surrounded the task of legislating for it, the matter was too important to allow the present Session to pass over without some attempt to bring in some measure on that subject. Although every one must feel that the arrangements to be made required much consideration, and therefore much time, yet he thought it extremely important that some legislative measure relating to New Zealand should be passed in the present year. He entertained no doubt that the measure which he found in the Colonial Office had been very carefully considered, and he was quite ready to admit that, in the main features of the Bill he entirely concurred. It would require some alteration and some extension; but he hoped that in the course of a few days a Bill similar in principle would be brought forward in the other House. As to the other Bill respecting which the noble Lord had put a question, the measure was one of great importance, and he thought it was one which ought to pass in the present Session; he therefore did propose to proceed with it. He was sorry that there were in the Bill now on the Table some points which were not satisfactory; he intended, however, to reconsider it very attentively, and to propose that it be read a second time on Tuesday next, when he intended further to propose that the House

351
should go into Committee on the Bill, pro formâ, in order to give him an opportunity of stating the alterations which he intended to propose, and the grounds upon which he wished to submit them to the House.
Bill read 2a.

POOR REMOVAL BILL.
EARL GREYmoved the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Poor Removal Bill. He would beg to remind the House that the Bill was read a second time in the House of Commons, precisely in the shape in which it at present stood; that after the second reading of it in the other House, an instruction was moved, which was calculated to make a very extensive alteration in the principle and character of the measure; that that instruction was agreed to; but that when the Bill came to be considered in Committee, that instruction was rejected, and the Bill was sent up to their Lordships in its original form. He certainly should not stand forward for the purpose of recommending them to pass the present Bill if he thought that this measure was to be the end of legislation on the subject; for he must confess that the question of settlement was in a very unsatisfactory state, and no one could doubt that at an early period the whole subject must be brought under the notice of Parliament, and the whole question must be fully gone into. But, however ready every one must be to admit that, yet at the same time every one must be equally ready to admit that the question was one of extreme difficulty. Upon the several features of the question he did not as yet feel qualified to pronounce an opinion one way or the other, reserving what he might have to say till the whole question came before Parliament. But though the Bill then before them might not accomplish all that they wished, yet in his opinion that formed no sufficient reason why they should not try to obviate some of the more crying evils which arose out of the Poor Law. As their Lordships perfectly well knew, the evils against which the present Bill was directed were these: A man went from an agricultural parish to a manufacturing town, and there he spent thirty or forty years of his life, giving to that town the full benefit of his labour during the best portion of his life; yet he was not entitled to receive from it any relief should he require
352
it in sickness or old age, but was sent back to the district from which he originally came. This it would be generally admitted was a great hardship, as well to the poor man, as to the parish which was burdened with his support, without having enjoyed his labour; and it was to meet that case that this Bill was introduced. A strong expectation ws excited when the Corn Bill was proposed, that some such measure as this would be brought forward; and it was to meet that feeling that he now asked their Lordships to give their consent to the second reading of the Bill.
The DUKE of RICHMONDwas decidedly of opinion that the measure now brought forward ought to be postponed till another Session of Parliament. The noble Earl said till the next Session; then why make any change till the whole question was fairly and fully before Parliament? He thought the present Bill was calculated to occasion a great deal of litigation. The alterations which the measure made in the law of settlement would give the magistrates a great deal of useless trouble, and after all afford no relief to the poor. Ministers by the Bill professed to do much, and in fact did very little, or rather did nothing. Members of both Houses had been called upon not to oppose the repeal of the Corn Laws, because a great boon to the landed interest was to be introduced in connexion with that great change in our commercial policy; and they were asked not to express any opinion until they saw its real character; and now this great boon was under the consideration of their Lordships. Let them now see what this great boon was—it amounted to this—that a man, after five years' residence in a parish, could not be removed, but might go into a neighbouring parish, and in that way leave his native place still liable to his maintenance. He was adverse to union settlements; if they once admitted union settlements the poor would be ground into dust. Why not have parochial settlements? And when a man had lived five years in a parish, why not declare that he should have a settlement in that parish? Supposing a man went from the county of Kent to a manufacturing town, lived there, married there, died there, where would the settlement of his widow and children be under this Bill? It would be in some agricultural parish in the county of Kent. Then why not at once declare that residence should create complete settlement?

353
To do that would be much better than to proceed with this sort of patchwork legislation. He thought it would be much better to withdraw that little paltry Bill, than to waste the time of the House with it. A general alteration of the law of settlement was a matter of very great importance; and whenever it came under the consideration of Parliament, he dd hope that means would be taken for affording some relief to real property, which now suffered such burdens that it was not able to bear.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, this Bill was not the one intended to be brought forward by the late Government, and he could not, therefore, support it. [Earl GREY: It is the same Bill exactly.] Then, if it were the same, he must say that alterations were introduced into it in the House of Commons which completely changed it from that contemplated by the late Government as supplementary to the Corn Bill. The object of the late Government was to relieve the agricultural parishes from the expense of taking care of those of their parishioners who in early life went into the manufacturing districts, and came back to their native place in old age. The object was to give them a settlement in the manufacturing districts to which they migrated; whereas the Bill under consideration did not confer that settlement. Amendments had been introduced in the fifth clause of the Bill which totally set aside that principle.
LORD REDESDALEobserved that it was a trumpery measure; but he thought it might be of some use, and therefore he should not vote against it. It was good for this much, that it went to establish the principle that residence created, or ought to create, a settlement.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYsaid, he had understood from the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) that this Bill was to be postponed till the next Session; and therefore he had been led to suppose that Her Majesty's Government were not acting as a Government in respect to this Bill, but that it was taken up individually by the noble Earl. It appeared now that this Bill was not the Bill first introduced by the late Government. He understood it to be intended by the measure of the late Ministry that five years' residence should give a settlement: that would be no boon to the agricultural districts or to the pauper, who would be obliged to go to the magistrates
354
to ascertain whether he had a residence of five years; and, suppose the magistrates made an order, there might be an appeal, and all the evils of the old law of settlement. If this Bill was passed, there would be an unwillingness on the part of the Government to deal with a question of this magnitude next Session; and this Act would remain a disgrace to the Statute-book.
The EARL of WINCHILSEAhoped, as the noble Earl had stated, that he proposed to bring the question of settlement under the consideration of Parliament next Session; and as this was a question affecting the interests and feelings of a great body of the labouring classes, Her Majesty's Government would consent to the postponement of this measure. It was said that this Bill was brought forward as a boon to the agricultural interest: he was convinced that if it passed it would be productive of endless litigation in a few months. What was to be considered residence? Was it the occupation of a hovel or a hut, in which a man might have resided for a certain number of weeks? A five years' residence would have been the better course; but the Bill did not place the law on that basis. He suggested that it should be compulsory on the counties, if they had not room in their asylums for poor lunatics, to find some accommodation, and that no poor lunatic should be removed out of the county, where he was totally deprived of any communication with his friends, He instanced the case of a poor woman who had been removed to the county of Durham, 300 miles from hee friends. It was so cruel a case, that if the opportunity had been given to him, he would have received that poor person into his own house.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSsaid, that the noble Earl (Earl Ellenborough) was in error in supposing that this Bill differed substantially from that brought in by the late Government. It never was intended to give industrial residence in a parish in which a party had resided five years. What was intended was to provide exemption from removal; that where a person had resided five years he should not be liable to removal, but in the event of his removal—for instance, from Manchester to London—he would not be entitled to relief in the parish to which he removed. He admitted that this was not a perfect and complete measure; it could only be considered as a stepping stone; but, as far as

355
it went, he thought it a great improvement on the present state of the law, and that it would tend to prevent the recurrence of those hardships of which the noble Earl had so feelingly spoken. He therefore trusted that their Lordships would not reject this Bill, which had been fully discused in the present House of Commons. It was part, if not the whole, of the Bill which had been introduced by the late Government, and carried into effect the intentions with which that Bill was brought before Parliament.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, if this Bill had been unaccompanied by the promise made by the noble Earl, he should not vote for its second reading, because he thought the Bill essentially a bad Bill; and that it would lead to additional litigation. But he saw that the Bill was substantially the same as that introduced by the late Government, who were answerable for it. The promise which now accompanied the Bill was of great importance; and he should therefore be sorry to throw cold water upon it. The Bill pointed out the principle of settlement gained by residence, though in an imperfect manner; and if that principle was carried out in future legislation, they had a prospect, upon a review of the whole law of settlement, of the question being set at rest.
The DUKE of RICHMONDdid not intend to divide the House; but he would ask the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack how they were to take residence? Whether a poor man was to lose residence by going a hop picking? The whole of the Bill would create litigation; there was an appeal in every line.
LORD CAMOYSsaid, that he wished to say a few words, being much concerned in the administration of these laws. He thought it a hardship that Scotch or Irish paupers should be sent from the place in which they had been working for years to a distant county with which they might have no connexion. He did not think the Bill went far enough, because he thought that residence ought to give a settlement. If the interests of the poor only were consulted, it would be advisable to have no settlement at all. If they were in a situation to be relieved, the settlement was only a matter of hardship. But the question was between the interests of parishes and the interests of the poor, between which a proper line must be drawn. The proper principle was to give a sufficiency of justice to parishes on the one hand, and avoid inhumanity
356
on the other. In the 9th Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, there was a singular statement showing in what light the poor who were removed considered their removal. It would be a difficult matter for magistrates how they were to understand the word residence. He was quite sure that most benches and most magistrates on the bench would differ on that point. It struck him that the difficulty might be got over in this way. Every person who was a householder ought to be on the rate book, whether he was a pauper or not. If that were taken as a means of proving that he belonged to the parish, that would include every person as a resident. The principle of allowing a claim to settlement on account of residence, however, appeared to him so just that he would support the second reading of the Bill.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYthought that it would be satisfactory if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack gave his opinion as to the exact definition of "residence."
The LORD CHANCELLORknew, from experience, that it was excessively inconvenient, if it were not useless, to lay down any abstract definition. He would much rather not give any abstract opinion as to what was "residence." It might apply to a vast variety of cases; but he believed that, so far, there had been found practically no difficulty. Their Lordships might recollect that in Scotland residence did give a settlement, and there had been found no practical difficulty.
The DUKE of GRAFTONhoped, that if not altogether withdrawn, the consideration of this Bill would be postponed, and that a more perfect measure would be introduced next year.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that as it was the intention to take the sense of the House on the second reading of the Bill, he would briefly state the grounds upon which he would give his vote. He greatly regretted that there had been any misunderstanding on the part of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) as to the day upon which the Bill would be brought forward for a second reading. Nothing had been further from his wish than to throw any obstacles in the way of the noble Marquess in opposing the progress of the Bill, and he would name any day for going into Committee most convenient. He was anxious, however, that the measure should be allowed to proceed,

357
for he considered, in the first place, that there was involved in this Bill a very great principle which it would be wise and salutary to place on their Statute-book; and he felt convinced that if that principle were once granted, it would be found to be the foundation of a wiser and better legislation hereafter. He would admit, certainly, that the Bill was only an imperfect application of this principle. Another reason which impelled the present Government to persevere with the Bill was anxiety not to show themselves remiss in following up any of those measures of the late Government to which it was considered the landed interest, at the time and in consequence of the passing of measures to which that interest was opposed, was entitled. It had not appeared, from what had been said, that the compensation would be received by their Lordships with any very great satisfaction; but the Government could not forget that, when introduced into the other House, the Bill had been looked upon in that light, and had been supported by the great majority of those representing the landed interest. The Bill was now before their Lordships as it had come from the late Government; and as it had been thus brought forward, after the promise of compensation, Her Majesty's present Ministers had felt themselves bound to accept it in the shape in which it had been left. They were, therefore, not pledged to the opinion that this was the best form in which the principle, of which they approved, could appear. Up to this moment, and until this enactment, there had existed a cruel, unjust, and unwholesome principle, as the principle according to which the poor of this country were to be treated and controlled. It had hitherto been the rule that, after a man had expended his industry and spent his life in a particular locality, he was not entitled to have from that locality, in the hour of infirmity and helplessness, however rich and wealthy were the place, that support which his toil and the fruits of his labour had so well earned. It had hitherto been permitted, when all his energies were exhausted, and the means of obtaining a livelihood were no longer within his reach, that he should then be removed from the spot to which his labour had been given, to a place with which he had lost all connexion, and where he no longer had any tie, and where he would then in vain search for house or home. This, it must be admitted, could only be unjust; and he was glad that by this Bill
358
another and a juster principle would be substituted—that where a man had toiled, there he should meet the reward of toil; that from the place to the prosperity of which he had contributed his industry, he should be justified in claiming support and assistance. The object of the Bill was solely to establish this principle as an opening to a future better legislation; and as it had obtained the consent of a large majority of the other House, he thought their Lordships would do well to pause before they thought of rejecting it altogether. Let them accept it as the lever, as the groundwork, for effecting after-improvement.
LORD REDESDALEreminded their Lordships that two years ago, when the late Government was strong in the other House, this much lauded principle received a direct negative. He therefore hoped that, if persevered in, such modifications, when in Committee, would be submitted to as would make the practical working of it facile and harmless.
Bill read 2a. To be committed on Thursday next.
House adjourned.