a railway was not opposed, they had scarcely | phrase, were only "occupying a position" the right to throw it out. A serious de- which they feared the enemy might attain. rangement would take place as soon as the It was unjust to give companies power great number of Bills now before the House over parties to take their land whether they had passed, and the calls began to be made would or not over a period so long as three on them. years; for during that time improvements were stopped, and everything was in a state of suspense. He entreated their Lordships to take some step or other to improve the present system of railway legislation. The DUKE of RICHMOND thought the thanks of the House were due to his noble Friend (Earl Fitzwilliam) for calling attention to this subject; at the same time he agreed with his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade, that it was impossible to carry the Resolutions now before the House in justice or fairness after they had suffered matters to go on so long. The House ought to frame resolutions for another Session. Their object was not to LORD ASHBURTON said, that in the present position of affairs, he had so strong an objection to almost anything that could be proposed, that he did not see his way clearly enough to support the present Resolutions. If the amount required for the construction of the railways passed this Session, came at all near to that which had had been stated, there could be no doubt it would derange the monetary system, and produce confusion through the country. At the same time, the state of the case ought not to be exaggerated. If the railways passed this Session required a capital of 60,000,000l., it should be remembered that the calls were usually spread over a period of three years, and that only one-stop the construction of proper railways, third of that amount would be required during the present year. He did not lose sight of the fact that calls would also be made during the present year on behalf of railways which were in the second or third year of their construction; but he could not see in what manner Parliament could again interfere. The DUKE of WELLINGTON said, that the first Resolution of the noble Lord, to stop the Bills until they reached a certain stage, would have the effect of collecting the Bills in one mass, and passing them at nearly the some time. It would thus create the very inconvenience which the noble Lord wished to avoid. He should like to see the instructions given to the Committee (for he supposed it would be necessary to give them instructions) before he was called upon to judge of the noble Lord's propoWith respect to the first Resolution, he would again submit to their Lordships that it would collect all the Bills into one mass, and their Lordships would be called upon to pass them at the same mo but to prevent Bills being obtained for branches that were never intended to be made, but which were brought forward to defeat railways that would be more useful to the public. He had been on a Committee where the company sought for powers to take land extending over a period of five years; the Committee, however, had given them only eighteen months. Companies said that the reason why they required so long a term was, that they found it so difficult to deal with landowners. He thought the House ought to limit the power which companies now possessed of borrowing money; that was the way to check some of those reckless schemes. At the present moment it was impossible to attend to the Standing Orders without feeling that they required great revision, and that they ought to be made more clear and decisive. An instance of this had occurred to-day in the operations of what was called Lord Wharncliffe's clause. Their Lordships should also, if possible, come to an arrangement with the House of Commons, so that when Bills had passed LORD MONTEAGLE said, it was not the Standing Orders Committee of the decent that the House should not take other House, they might be immediately some pains to put railway legislation on a brought before the Standing Orders Comproper footing. Almost all the Bills grant-mittee of their Lordships' House. The ed a compulsory power of dealing with latter Committee, after a company had landed property; and railway companies, spent 8,000l. or 10,000., did not like to during the period of three years allowed throw out their Bill upon some technicality. them, took the land or not, just as suited He hoped the present Session would not the exigencies of the moment. During be allowed to pass over without some arthis time the owners of land were kept in rangement being made for a future Sessuspense, while the companies, in military sion; but until railway companies were sition. ment. compelled to conform strictly to the Standing Orders, things would never be put wholly right. LORD REDESDALE agreed with the noble Duke that some improvement ought to be made in the Standing Orders. Their Lordships ought to insist that a line should be laid down so accurately that the engineers might at once proceed to work upon it, instead of sending in plans so imperfectly prepared that they wanted more time to revise them. He agreed also in the opinion that railway companies ought not to be allowed to borrow any money, and that all their capital should be raised by shares. He thought that some limit upon speculation was desirable; but their Lordships could not interfere again now. There was a great deal of leniency towards companies on the part of the Committees to whom they were referred. The duty of the Committee was to say whether the line before them was the best that could be laid down; and they had a right to call for evidence upon this point. In other countries the selection of the best lines was made by the Government. that because parties had spent a great deal of money, their Bill ought to pass, was to offer a temptation to getting up crude schemes. He trusted that Committees would inquire strictly into the merits of every Bill before them. To say Earl FITZWILLIAM replied. He concurred in thinking that Committees ought to be more strict, for at present their Lordships took every Bill into consideration, with reference to its own peculiar claims to being passed, without regard to the effect it might produce on the country generally, in consequence of so much capital being employed in one branch of speculation. He would not, however, press the Resolutions. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Bangor, but providing for the Immediate Appointment of a Bishop to the newly erected See of Manchester.By Mr. Hawes, from Ratepayers of the Parish of Saint Mary, Lambeth, in Vestry assembled, against the Highways Bill.-By Mr. Fuller, from Ratepayers of the Parish of Froxfield, and from Elected Guardians of the Poor Law Union of Newhaven, for Repeal or Alteration of the Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.-By Mr. Bankes, from Bridport, for Inquiry into the Bridport Election.-By Sir John Hanmer, from Kingston-upon-Hull, for Alteration of Law of Rating and Settlement.-By Mr. Marjoribanks, from Watford, for Rating Owners in lieu of Occupiers of Small Tenements.— By Sir Robert Peel, from Trustees of the British Museum, for Aid.-By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Liverpool, against the Deodands Abolition Bill.-By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Dublin, against the Abolition of Guilds.—By several hon. Members, from various places, against the Poor Removal Bill. POST OFFICE. MR. G. BERKELEY wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary respecting the puritanical attempt now making in different parts of the country to close the Post Offices on Sunday. The question he wished to put was, whether it was in the power of the Postmaster General to close the Post Office on Sunday, and prevent the delivery of letters on private solicitation? SIR J. GRAHAM said, that the hon. Member had been obliging enough in the course of that morning to give him notice of the question he was to put on this subject. He had had no opportunity of consulting the Postmaster General since the receipt of the hon. Member's note, but he conceived it was a question of general law which he might answer without consulting the Postmaster General. He believed that the law as it now stood was, that the Postmaster General had power to regulate the hours of delivery on Sunday at the different Post Offices. In the metropolis, as the House was aware, the boxes were open for the receipt of letters, but there was no delivery. In country towns, however, he believed that a delivery did take place at certain hours, though there was no attendance at the office during the time of divine service. He (Sir J. Graham) was not aware there was any intention to change either the law or the practice. POOR LAW UNION OF CARRICK- COLONEL RAWDON wished to know from the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland whether any information had been received by the Government respecting alleged misconduct on the part of the officers and others connected with the Poor Law Union of Carrickmacross-whether inquiry had been made into the circumstances by | visions of the Bill. The Bill was entitled Government or by the Poor Law Commis- "A Bill to consolidate and amend the sioners; if so, the date of such inquiry, and the date when the complaints of the ratepayers and their demands for investigation were received by the Poor Law Commissioners; if any report had been made upon the subject; and if the Government would consent to its production, and to the evidence taken at the investigation, together with copies of the correspondence which led to, and which related to, such investigation? The EARL of LINCOLN replied, that the Government had received information from the Poor Law Commissioners of the circumstances to which the hon. Member referred—that inquiry had been made into the circumstances, not by the Government, but by the Poor Law Commissioners-that Mr. Symons, the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, had been instructed to make the inquiry on the 9th of May last-that he proceeded to make the inquiry on the 19th, and reported on the 25th-that the Poor Law Commissioners had received the complaint of the ratepayers on the 1st of April-that some correspondence took place between them and the Poor Law Commissioners in the interval between that and the 16th or 17th-that on the 18th the Commissioners referred the case to an eminent counsel for his opinion, and this opinion they did not receive till the 9th of May, when they immediately ordered an inquiry. He (Lord Lincoln) had no objection to produce, not only the report and evidence, but the whole correspondence, which should all be laid on the Table as soon as possible. POOR REMOVAL BILL. SIR J. GRAHAM moved the Order of the Day for Committee on the Poor Removal Bill. MR. J. E. DENISON rose to move an Instruction to the Committee to make provision for the establishment of union settlements; and was proceeding to state his reasons for asking the consent of the House to the proposition, when MR. T. DUNCOMBE rose to order. He had always understood that it was a rule of the House, that it was not competent for any Member to move an instruction to a Committee when the object in view could be gained in Committee, which he thought was the case in this instance. The question of the hon. Member could be raised in Committee, both as to the title and pro Laws relating to the Removal of the Poor." It proposed to repeal certain former Acts relating to the removal of the poor; and by the sixth Clause it was proposed to be enacted that every person who had become chargeable to any parish or union in which he was not settled should be liable to be removed therefrom to any parish in which he was settled; so that there would be ample opportunity for discussing the point the hon. Member for Malton had in view. If it was necessary to move an instruction to the Committee on the point the hon. Member was going to urge, they would never have a single Bill without an instruction being moved from that day forward. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Finsbury has quite correctly stated the practice of the House, that it is not competent for a Member to move an instruction to a Committee when it is competent for the Committee itself to entertain his Motion; but I am of opinion that, in the present case, it is necessary for the hon. Member for Malton to move his instruction in order to enable the Committee to entertain the subject. MR. BANKES would not venture to offer any observation upon the point which had just been raised after what had fallen from the Chair; but, in another respect, he ventured to object to the hon. Member for Malton having precedence on the present occasion. It would be in the recollection of the House that it was distinctly understood, when they allowed the Bill to be read a second time without discussion, that at the present stage of the Bill there should be a discussion on the whole principle of the Bill; and, undoubtedly, if they allowed the present opportunity to pass, another might not arise. If the hon. Member for Malton succeeded in his Motion, the opportunity of discussing the principle might be lost. Waving, therefore, for a moment, the point raised by the hon. Member for Finsbury, he submitted whether he ought not to have, on the ground he had already stated, precedence over the hon. Member for Malton. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would, he was sure, bear him out, that when they last parted, it was distinctly understood that an opportunity was to be afforded for making observations on the principle of the Bill. It was upon that understanding that the Bill had been allowed to reach its present stage. SIR J. GRAHAM said, nothing could| be more accurate than the statement of his hon. Friend, that the second reading had been allowed to pass without discussion, on the distinct understanding that it would be open to any hon. Member to discuss the principle at the next stage of the Bill, With respect to the point raised by the hon. Member for Finsbury, he begged to remind the House, that as the Bill now stood, its principle was strictly limited to the removal of poor settled in England. The hon. Member for Malton, however, was anxious to introduce into the Bill another most important principle, one immediately connected with the removal of the poornamely, an alteration to a limited extent of the law of settlement. After what had fallen from the Speaker, it was not for him to offer any observation on the right of the hon. Member to move that instruction; but he thought it would be better that the hon. Member should proceed now, because, if he succeeded in obtaining the assent of the House to his proposed instruction, it would be in vain to discuss the measure as it now stood-the whole Bill must be remodelled, and he should have to ask the House to go into Committee pro formá, in order that the Bill might be altered in some most important particulars. MR. HENLEY said, this case afforded another proof of the inconvenience of allowing the second readings of Bills to pass sub silentio; for, if the hon. Member for Malton succeeded, the time would be gone by for any discussion on the principle of the Bill. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Baronet say that the law of settlement was not included in this Bill. To say so was really to throw dust in the eyes of the public. Why, it would much better have been called a Settlement Bill than a Removal Bill. He repeated that, in common fairness, there ought te be a discussion on the principle of the Bill. MR. DUNCOMBE asked whether, if the object of this Bill was to prevent the removal, under certain conditions, of persons who had a settlement elsewhere, such a provision did not, in fact, raise the question of the law of settlement? SIR J. GRAHAM was understood to say, that although the Bill provided that a person, after a five years' residence, should not be removable, yet that provision did not touch the settlement of such a party in the least degree. A party so non-removable still retained his settlement, which was not affected. LORD J. RUSSELL agreed with the hon. Member for Oxfordshire that it was more convenient in general to discuss the principle of a Bill on the second reading, and reserve for the next stage the questions properly belonging to it. But he did not see that the hon. Member would now be precluded from making any objection to the Bill which he might think proper. The right hon. Baronet said if the instruction were carried, the Bill would have to be remodelled, and it would then be a comparatively new Bill. If the hon. Member for Malton should fail, however, it would then be quite competent to the hon. Member for Oxfordshire to take an opportunity of obtaining a night for the discussion of the general principle of the Bill. MR. J. E. DENISON was most anxious in every way to consult the convenience of the House; and he had only given his notice in accordance with the advice of the Speaker. He begged altogether to disclaim any intention of getting rid of this measure by his proposed instruction, as had been suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury. Nothing could be further from his thoughts, as he was most anxious for the success of the measure, if accompanied by certain modifications, without which it appeared to him not to deserve the support of the House. He thought that it would be more convenient for the House to discuss his Motion before discussing the principle of the Bill, because, as the right hon. Baronet had told them, if the instructions were agreed to, the Bill would have to be remodelled, and the previous discussion of the principle would then have been a waste of time. He would, therefore, with the leave of the House, proceed. In the first place, some confusion arose from the title of the Bill. It professed to be a Bill for the removal of the poor; yet its first principle, they were told, was nonremovability-a word not known to the English language, and which he hoped he would not have occasion to use a second time in that House. It was also said to be a Bill which did not affect the law of settlement, but it certainly did incidentally affect all who paid and who received poorrates. It was introduced as a measure which was to be serviceable to the country districts, as regarded great towns. It was introduced at the same time as the Corn Bill, and was received with much approbation by hon. Members who sat on the Government side of the House. Now, as to this question between the town and coun the large villages rather than in detached cottages "The want of good cottages, where the mem- "In Studley I found twenty-nine people living under one roof, amongst them married men and women, and In young people of nearly all ages. Studley it is common for a whole family to sleep in the same room. In Foxton things are different. The people in Foxton are much more moral, orderly, and better disposed. The wages are the same, and the employment the same. I attribute the difference to the circumstance of each family in Foxton occupying a separate tenement, with sufficient accommodation, while this is hardly ever the case in Studley." try districts, he proposed to raise no discussion; but as between different districts and parishes of the country, it did appear to him that the measure would work very great injustice. This was the subject he wished more especially to bring under the notice of the House. What were some of the chief evils under which the labouring poor now suffered? Bad cottages and too few of them. Many people were crowded together in rooms too small, and too often in single rooms, to the utter destruction of health and morals. The same evils had been brought under the notice of Parliament by Lord Ashley, as existing in the great towns of the manufacturing districts. That noble Lord said, that the state of the labouring population in those towns was the monster evil of this country. Would that the same reproach could not be east on the rural districts, as regarded the condition of the labouring poor! It was in vain to take steps to ameliorate the condition of the people, it was in vain to vote money for their education and improvement, to build school-houses and appoint schoolmasters, if the scholar on his return home each day saw examples stronger than any precept, and far opposed to the instruction he had just received as to order, cleanliness, and morality. But the House had higher authority that is, in the hands of a considerable number of "Castle Acre is what is called an open parishthan his for those statements: they had proprietors, while the neighbouring parishes are the authority of their own Commission, to each owned by one or two (or very few) propriewhich they would naturally be disposed to tors. These last, partly in order to prevent an pay attention and respect. A Commission increase of birth settlement, and to keep down the was appointed to inquire into the employ-in cottage property, not only allow no new cotrates, partly from an unwillingness to invest money ment of women and children in the agricul- tages to be built, but let the old ones fall into ruin. tural districts in 1843, and he would read The resident population of these parishes is thereby a few extracts from their Report and evi- gradually reduced, as the labourers are forced to dence. With reference to the state of the quit them and come to reside in Castle Acre. Thus, while in the adjoining parishes there are not people in Wilts, Dorset, Devon, and So-hands enough left to cultivate the soil, Castle merset, they said— He would only trouble the House with one more extract respecting the working of the gang system. The example was from the county of Norfolk: : Acre is overstocked with inhabitants that do not “It is impossible not to be struck, in visitinging, the worst characters of the parishes from properly belong to it, and who are, generally speakthe dwellings of the agricultural labourers, with the general want of new cottages, notwithstanding the universal increase of population. Everywhere the cottages are old, and frequently in a state of decay, and are consequently ill-adapted for their increased number of inmates of late years. The want of sufficient accommodation seems universal; a great many cottages have only one bed-room; the consequence is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to divide a family so that grown-up persons of different sexes do not sleep in the same room; three or four persons frequently sleep in whence they come. The competition caused by the parish; and as they are at the mercy of those who new comers raises the house-rent throughout the have land at Castle Acre, they are forced to pay exorbitant rents for very wretched dwellings. Fortynine labourers' families belong to Castle Acre, 103 families belong to other parishes. Suppose a farmer in or near Castle Acre wishes to have a partiber of hands, he applies to a gang master at Castle cular piece of work done which will demand a numAcre, who contracts to do the work and furnish the labour. He accordingly gets together as many hands as he thinks sufficient, and sends them in a gang to their place of work. If the work, as usually happens, is such that it can be done by women and children as well as men, the gang is in that case composed of persons of both sexes and of all ages. The system is essentially bad, productive of immorality, and attended with much *The want of proper accommodation exists in hardship. The poor man, under the gang master, the same bed." The next passage of the evidence was one to which he would pray the most particular attention of the House, for it was of the very greatest importance: |