Commissioners had lately proposed to Her Majesty a scheme for the abolition of all peculiars in the diocese of Oxford. When that scheme had received the sanction of the Council, Wokingham would cease to be a peculiar jurisdiction, but would be placed under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Bishop of Oxford. The noble Earl opposite had avoided entering into a series of minor facts mixed up with this question; and he (the Bishop of Salisbury) had confined his remarks simply to matters of a public nature. He fully concurred with the noble Earl that it was most advisable some remedy should be devised for the grievances to which he had directed the attention of their Lordships. that it was difficult to find a case of greater reserved rent of 267., which till the expirahardship and grievance than that of the tion of the present leases was all the proparishioners of Wokenham; for large sums perty at their disposal. Upon one point originally designed for the spiritual im- referred to by the noble Earl, namely, the provement of the parish were devoted to a subject of ecclesiastical visitation, it would purpose which, though good in itself, was not be becoming in him to enter; but he not that for which they were bestowed. must say that he considered the peculiar He must say that he did not think the ecclesiastical jurisdictions a great evil and noble Earl had at all overstated the griev- anomaly. These "peculiars" were estabance; but he wished the noble Lord had lished under the Papal system, from a depointed out any immediate remedy for sire to limit the power of the diocesan episit. What was the grievance complained copates; and the subject was one to which of? It was the widely-extended grievance the attention of the Commissioners had of the diversion of tithes from the purpose been directed; but, though they had preto which they were originally appropriated sented a report, the proposal of a complete -the relief of the spiritual wants of the remedial measure had been delayed from country. But, however great might be year to year. The Act 3rd and 4th Victhe grievance under which the parishioners toria, however, gave the Ecclesiastical of Wokingham laboured, they were less Commissioners a power, though not a comunhappily circumstanced than the parish-plete one, to abolish peculiars; and the ioners of some other places; for under the late Act of 3rd and 4th Victoria, c. 113, s. 49, it was provided that the tithes should, on the next vacancy in the deanery, come into the possession of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. A vacancy in the deanery having now occurred, these tithes and estates, subject however to the existing lease, were vested in those Commissioners. But another grievance complained of was, that the tithes being thus appropriated away by the system of leases, were removed from the control of the possessor of the dignity of prebend, or whatever it might be. Now, to this evil a remedy would be applied, so soon as it could take effect, by the rest of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners expressing their determination not to renew leases on lives. On the expiration of the existing leases, therefore, this tithe property would come into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who would apply the funds for the spiritual advantage. of the parish of Wokingham. By the 67th Section of the Act to which he had referred, the Commissioners were under special obligation fully to consider the wants and circumstances of that parish; for under that section, so soon as the Commissioners had any funds in their hands arising from the ecclesiastical property in the parish of Wokingham, they were bound -before making any other application of them to pay due regard to the circumstances of that parish. Desirous as he (the Bishop of Salisbury) was to see a remedy applied to this great evil, he did not think that, under existing circumstances, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said, that on a forthe Commissioners could do more than ap-mer evening he had moved that the Comply to the spiritual care of the parish the mittee on the Poor Removal Bill be taken Petition read, and ordered to be laid on the Table. House adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, June 8, 1846. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS. 1o. Smoke Prohibition. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Hume, from Montrose, complaining of Refusal of Proprietors of Land to grant Sites in suitable Places, or on any terms, for the Erection of Churches for the use of the Free Church in Scotland. By Mr. Wakley, from G. L. Hutchinson, of Lambeth, for Inquiry into his Plan respecting Poor Rates. -By Mr. Rice, from Dover, in favour of the Art Unions Bill.-By Captain Layard, from Out-Pensioners of Chelsea Hospital, complaining of Deductions from their Pensions. POOR REMOVAL BILL. On the Question that the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Protection to Life (Ireland) Bill be read, this evening, in order that he might move that it do take precedence of the other Orders of the Day. At present the Irish Coercion Bill stood for discussion before the other Orders; but he maintained that he was fairly entitled to precedence for the Poor Removal Bill, and that the Coercion Bill ought not to be gone on with till that Bill was discussed, and in some way or other disposed of. He made this claim in consequence of an assurance which had been given by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government when the first reading of the Coercion Bill was agreed to. The right hon. Baronet then stated what he proposed should be the course of business-that immediately upon the first reading of the Irish Coercion Bill he should proceed with the Corn and Customs Bills, then with some Votes in Supply, then with the Poor Removal Bill, and then that he should take the sense of the House on the subject of the Sugar Duties. Now, the right hon. Baronet had disposed of the Corn and Customs Bills, and had taken some Votes in Supply, but he had not yet given the House a discussion on the Poor Removal Bill. On the contrary, he proposed to go on with the second reading of the Irish Coercion Bill. The House was called on to read the Bill a first time as a compliment to the House of Lords; a reason which weighed so much with some hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, that they voted for the first reading, although they were going to oppose the second reading. Before, however, they went on with the second reading, which must give rise to another long, wearisome, and futile debate, because it never could pass that House, he maintained that they ought to proceed with that Bill the Poor Removal Bill-to which the House was pledged as to the principle that certain residence should insure relief, irrespective, as it now turned out, altogether of settlement. The adoption by the Government of the instruction moved by the hon. Member for Malton had taken the House by surprise; and he considered that the majority on the division that took place did not really represent the sense of the House. His object, independently altogether of his hatred to the Coercion Bill, now was, to get the Poor Removal Bill discussed before the other Orders, because he believed that a majority of the House would discharge that instruction. Even the noble Lord the Member for London had not said he gave it an unconditional support. If he (Mr. Duncombe) should succeed in getting that instruction rejected, they would then have to go back again to the whole Bill before it had been altered in accordance with that instruction. He thought, under these circumstances, that they ought to know whether the instruction of the hon. Member for Malton, so adopted by a majority on Friday night, really embodied the sense of the House of Commons on the question-of the same House of Commons, which last year was so opposed to the principle of that instruction that the Government dared not proceed with the Bill. He therefore would move that the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Poor Removal Bill have precedence of that for the second reading of the Protection of Life (Ireland) Bill. SIR J. GRAHAM would not object to the Motion of the hon. Member if it were agreed to on the understanding that the Order of the Day was only read first for the purpose of postponing it. A majority of the House having on Friday decided on adopting the instruction moved by the hon. Member for Malton, he (Sir J. Graham) on Saturday morning gave.directions for the preparation of clauses which in his judgment would give effect to it. Those clauses were ready, but he had not yet had time to consider them. If the Order of the Day were postponed to Wednesday or Thursday, he would be prepared on either of those days, in obedience to the decision of a majority of that House, to go into Committee pro formá, and introduce those clauses. The hon. Gentleman, however, denied that the majority of Friday expressed the sense of the House, and maintained that to give precedence to the Protection of Life Bill was inconsistent with the arrangement of public business made by his right hon. Friend at a former period; but he was quite sure the House would remember that at the time the second reading of the Protection of Life Bill was fixed for Monday, the Committee on the Poor Removal Bill was fixed for Friday last; and that he (Sir J. Graham), at the time that that arrangement of public business was made, stated that the proposed instruction of the hon. Member for Malton was so important, both in form and in substance, that it must raise a prelimi nary discussion, and that, if it was agreed to, some delay would be indispensable, in order that the Bill might be modified in accordance with it. The second reading of the Bill for the Protection of Life in scheme, and it was to proceed pari passu with the Corn Bill. They were to go through the same stages, and together were to be sent up to the House of Lords. The one was to be taken as a counterpoise to the other; and as the Corn Bill was unfa the Poor Removal Bill was contended to be as much to his advantage. As to interposing any delay in the discussion of the Coercion Bill, he believed the notion was universal that Government had no idea of carrying Ireland was at the same time fixed for this evening. If, however, the hon. Member for Finsbury, not being content with the decision of the House on the instruction moved by the hon. Member for Malton, after notice given before Whitsuntide-and if he thought it expedient, after the full discus-vourable to the operative and the labourer, sion on Friday night, now, without notice, to put it to the vote in a more full House, by raising the question whether the Poor Removal Bill should not have precedence, of course it was open to him to do so. [Mr. DUNCOMBE had given notice on Fri--that they had resigned all hope, if they day.] He was not aware of that. He believed, however, that if the hon. Member did take the course he proposed, the decision of the House this evening would be in conformity with their decision on Friday; but, on the other hand, it was most important that the point should be decided, because the form in which the Bill would come before the House would depend upon that decision. Such a reversal of the decision of Friday, after the Bill had been prepared in accordance with it, would, he agreed with the hon. Member, almost render it impossible to proceed with the Bill. If, however, the House should adhere to its decision of Friday night, he apprehended that there would be no objection to allow him, as was usual with Members who had charge of a Bill, to go into Committec pro formá-on Wednesday, for instance when the Bill could be presented to the House in the shape required by the instruction, and reprinted. had not lost all wish of carrying-it. He admitted the principle to be deserving of consideration; but he had this objection to the instruction of Friday, that the Poor Law Commissioners had made unions so injudiciously large, that unless they were remodelled, the principle would be found impracticable. He trusted that the hon. Member for Finsbury would persevere in his Amendment, in order that a decision might be come to which was not open to the objection of surprise. SIR R. PEEL said, that the great majority of Members present must have come down with the expectation that the second reading of the Bill for the Protection of Life in Ireland was the chief subject for discussion this evening. When opportunities had become so precious, he should be sorry that a night should be lost. He regretted that the hon. Member for Finsbury seemed to think he had not fulfilled any engagement into which he had entered: he was MR. BANKES entirely concurred with always anxious to be explicit, and to carry the hon. Member for Finsbury, that the into effect all his assurances; but the House had been taken by surprise on Fri- House would be aware of the difficulties day. The surprise among his Friends had with which he had to contend, arising very been to see Ministers voting for a measure much from not being able to foresee to what which it was thought they would have re-length discussions might be carried. He sisted, because the right hon. Home Secre- had always felt that the second reading of tary had said some time ago that he found the Poor Removal Bill had been agreed to, it universally distasteful to the agricultural in order that the debate might be taken interest. His Friends had been very thin on the question that the Speaker leave the in their attendance under this persuasion. Chair; and, notwithstanding the great True it was that they had not been univer-pressure of some Votes in Supply, he had sally in the habit of trusting Ministers; given way, in order that a night might be but in this instance they had confided in devoted to the Poor Removal Bill. He them, and, as might be supposed, they had could not admit that he had ever led to the been deceived. Before it could be said that expectation that it should proceed pari the instruction had been adopted by a ma-passu with the Corn Bill: all he had said jority of the House, another opportunity for a division ought to be afforded. He knew not when a more full, free, or dispassionate consideration of the subject could be given than at the present moment. The Poor Removal Bill had been introduced by Government as part of a great comprehensive was, that he would afford the earliest opportunity for the discussion; but he had constantly stated, that, on the first possible occasion, he would submit the Bill for the Protection of Life in Ireland to the decision of the House. As to the instruction carried the other night, it was perfectly open to any hon. Gentleman to urge that it had been adopted by surprise; but it would surely be an additional advantage if due notice were given of an intention to reverse that decision. Notices given in speeches were not entered on the Votes, unless they were subsequently and formally handed in to the clerk. It seemed to him that the House was not at this moment in a position to enter into so important a question as the Poor Law, and he hoped that the night would not be wasted in fruitless discussion, but that hon. Members would be allowed to proceed to the expected business-the Irish Bill. MR. J. E. DENISON did not think he was open to the charge of having taken the House by surprise. The Bill as amended, in consequence of the instruction he had moved, was in such a state of progress that it might have been laid upon the Table this evening; but as the discussion of it was not expected, it seemed to him that it would be better to proceed with the business fixed for the evening. MR. WAKLEY could not agree that the House had been taken by surprise, for the notice had been ample. Before the recess the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had stated that the discussion would certainly be taken on Friday. He was astonished to learn that the agricultural interest was so strongly opposed to the measure, for 1844 and 1845 a feeling against it had been displayed on the opposition side of the House. The question was a most important one, and, considering the helpless condition of the hundreds of thousands affected, it ought to be debated without any tinge of party feeling. He trusted that it would be impressed upon the minds of all that the law would operate upon the poor for many years to come. He had paid the utmost attention to the subject. He had considered it in all its bearings, and he frankly owned that he knew not what course to take in consequence of the vote of Friday night. He really wanted more time. The Motion of his hon. Colleague referred to giving relief in unions, not in parishes, and he wished the House to bear that especially in mind. It involved a question of the continuance of unions under the Government of the Poor-law Commissioners. He had been sitting for some time on a Committee which was inquiring into the subject, and although he was bound not to disclose what passed, he might say, that from deficiency of information the House was not yet prepared to legislate. He had moved in the Committee, and in the House, that the proceedings should be laid upon the Table day by day, his object being, that hon. Members, as far as possible, should be duly instructed. It was impossible for the House to legislate until they were in full possession of the facts. LORD J. RUSSELL could not quite agree with the hon. Member near him, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had brought this question before the House in the most convenient shape. Though it was perfectly well known that his hon. Friend the Member for Malton meant to have introduced this question, he thought it would have been better if the House had had some previous notice that the right hon. Gentleman meant to support the Motion of his hon. Friend; or, what would have been still better, to take this instruction into his own hands. His hon. Friend who had made the Motion rightly interpreted his (Lord J. Russell's) vote on that question. He considered it fair to the right hon. Gentleman and his Government that the House of Commons should enable the right hon. Gentleman to shape his Bill in the mode he thought best for the public advantage. It might have been better, perhaps, if the Bill had been withdrawn, and the right hon. Gentleman had brought in a new Bill for the purpose of giving union settlements; but he could not quite see the advantage of going into this question on the present occasion. It was far better to allow the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of fully considering the Bill, and shaping the clauses in the manner he thought it best that they should be brought under the consideration of the House. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire had stated what he (Lord J. Russell) thought a good reason for taking that course, when he said that his reason against union settlements was, that the unions were inconveniently large. Until they saw the Bill, they were not aware whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to propose any modification in the size of the unions, whether they were to be smaller or larger. They had not the details before them, and until they had, they were not in a condition to judge of the question. For himself, he reserved his opinion until the details were before the House. He regarded the whole question as open for their consideration when the Bill should have gone into Committee pro formá, and been recommitted. tives of that country to take benefit under the Bill. He wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet had given directions to have proper words introduced to carry out the intention of the Government. SIR J. GRAHAM stated, that he by no means departed from the pledge he had given. He meant to extend the principle of irremovability to the cases of all Irishmen who had resided for five years in the place where they might fall destitute. Had it not been for the high authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he should have thought the present words in the Bill sufficient for the purpose. MR. DUNCOMBE'S object was to save the House trouble. The two questions were separate, and ought to remain separate; and there was no use at all in going into Committee pro formá, until the question had been decided by the House whether there should be settlement by unions. Question again put. Amendment withdrawn. MR. BRIGHT would take that opportunity of adverting to a statement made by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), to the effect, that while from some towns he had experienced the greatest difficulty in obtaining certain returns for which he had moved, specifying the number of persons removed from Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Cheshire, in 1841, 1842, and 1843, he had more especially experienced such difficulty in getting them from the town of Stockport. The hon. Gentleman had gone on to say, that "he had sent down to Stockport, and asked for information on this subject, because he had understood that great numbers of families had been removed from that town in 1842; but the clerk of the union would not suffer the persons who applied on his behalf, although a ratepayer, to see the books of the union, or afford him any facilities for his inquiry. He had received a communication from the gentleman pointed at, declaring that there was not one word of truth in the statement, so far as he was concerned; and that he had always in the discharge of his duties given all facilities CAPTAIN LAYARD wished to ask a for obtaining information as to the working question of the Secretary at War. It might of the Poor Law; that no such application be in the recollection of the House that, had been made to him, nor did he know last Session, he had brought forward a Motill Saturday last that such information tion concerning limited enlistments; and was required by the hon. Member for Fins- the Motion now stood on the books, to be bury. It was added that the return pre-made when the Army Estimates were sented to the House was made out as brought forward. He had been much surfully, and with as great despatch as pos- prised, on Friday last, at reading in the LORD H. VANE hoped the hon. Mem-statements, the following important and Times, a journal invariably correct in its ber for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) would withdraw his Motion, after what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member sible. for London. MR. DUNCOMBE wished to know what course the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take in reference to the Poor Removal Bill? SIR J. GRAHAM proposed to make it an Order of the Day for Thursday. SIR R. PEEL thought it would be better to see the Bill before coming to a decision on the subject. The opinion of the House might afterwards be distinctly taken on the question of union settlements. LIMITED ENLISTMENTS. new clause under the head of "Mutiny Act," and he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the information thus conveyed was authentic. The clause was Clause 8, as follows: "Are you willing to be attested to serve in the regiment of- for the period of [This blank to be filled up by the justice with 7, 14, or 21 years, as the case may be-10, 16, or 24 for cavalry, and 12, 16, or 21 for artillery, if the person is of the age of 18 or upwards; but if under his age and 18 to be added to such 7, 10, 12, 14, the age of 18 years, then the deficiency between 16, 21, and 24, (as the case may be)] years, provided Her Majesty should so long require your service, and also for such further term, not exceeding 12 months, as shall be directed by com MR. O'CONNELL observed, that at an early stage of this Bill the right hon. Baro-manding officers on any foreign station, and not net was asked whether it was proposed to include Irish paupers under the operation of the Bill, and stated that such was the intention. In Ireland there was no law of settlement, and provision would require to be made in express terms for enabling na exceeding three years, as shall be directed by any proclamation of Her Majesty; such additional period, in the latter case, to determine whenever six months of continuance in peace, to be reckoned from the ratification of any definitive treaty, shall said 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 21, 24, (as the case may be) have clapsed subsequent to the expiration of the years?" |