quently used there. The memorandum | House a letter from the Adjutant General

tachment of the 36th Regiment, engaged in that either House of Parliament would learning the Enfield rifle practice at the Depôt of allow church rates to be thus summarily swept away, without any consideration of the interests involved in them. He could

Instruction at Umballah."

Motion made, and Question proposed.

understand that such a proposal suited the political purposes of hon. Gentlemen anxious to win the applause of popular constituencies, but he did not believe the country would approve of it, or that the honest religious Dissenters wished to carry into effect so intolerant a design. He introduction of this Bill, but only protest would not offer any impediment now to the against the free judgment of the House being fettered by the title of the Bill.

MR. PACKE asked if the Bill was similar in its provisions to that of last Session?

LORD STANLEY said, that as certain statements made by the hon. and gallant Member on a former occasion had been contradicted, nothing could be more na tural than that he should desire to vindicate his accuracy. For himself, he had no evidence before him on the subject, and he should decline to offer an opinion upon the matter. He had ascertained, from inquiries he had made, that the papers for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had moved were not to be found in the Indian department. He was ready to write to India for them, but as some of SIR J. TRELAWNY said, that it these papers appeared from their titles to be confidential, the hon. and gallant Gen was precisely the same as that which he tleman would allow him to see them before introduced last Session, and which was he undertook that they should be printed. carried through the House by a great maIt was quite possible that all these papers jority. Having understood from the Gowere of a character to be laid on the table, vernment, that if he did not ask for the but the correspondence between the Com-second reading of his Bill until they had mander in Chief in India and the Judge Advocate General might be of a character not usually made public, and he should like to have an opportunity of seeing it before he promised that it should be laid upon the table. In that case, it would perhaps be better for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw his Motion, as, if it were carried, he (Lord Stanley) would have no alternative but to produce the whole should they be forthcoming.

COLONEL SYKES said, he should be happy to place himself in the hands of the noble Lord.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CHURCH RATES ABOLITION.

LEAVE. FIRST READING.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY moved for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish Church Rates.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, he must protest against the title of the Bill, which, if it were introduced in so rapid and unobserved a manner, might prejudice the entire question, and render any Amendment of the measure afterwards inadmissible. The Bill ought to be introduced under a neutral title, such as "to amend the law relating to Church Rates ;" this would allow the discussion to proceed fairly; but under this title, as "a Bill to abolish Church Rates," it would admit but one way of settling the question. It was not likely

had an opportunity of laying their own measure upon the table, they would not oppose his having leave to bring it in, he had deferred all explanation of its provisions, and proposed to fix the second reading for to-morrow (Wednesday) fortnight. He wished that this question should be settled, and that every one should have a fair opportunity of being heard with regard to it. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Griffith) objected to the title and scope of the Bill, it was quite open to him to introduce under another title such a measure as he should prefer to it.

MR. H. DRUMMOND said, that if the title of this measure were "A Bill to amend the Law relating to Church Rates," no objection could be raised to its introduction, because there could be no doubt that the application of the machinery of the ecclesiastical courts to the raising of these rates ought to be done away with. At the same time they must remember what occurred last year, when a periodical of great circulation and conducted with some talent, said, " Gentlemen, do not be cheated by sounds; we do not care a farthing about church rates themselves, we want to get rid of tithes." Hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted the abolition of both church rates and tithes. He did not know whether they meant to put tithes into the landlord's pockets, but they certainly intended to put the church rates into their own. As this Bill received the sanction

MR. WALPOLE said, that there had been no particular understanding between the hon. Baronet and the Government. The hon. Baronet asked him a question without notice, which he answered, and answered advisedly. The Bill for the abolition of church rates had passed through all its stages in that House last year and went up to the other House. He had answered, therefore, that if the Bill to be brought in were the same as that of last Session, no opposition would be offered to it by Government at this stage. He had himself given notice of his intention to bring in a Bill which he thought would provide a better settlement of this question than that of the hon. Baronet, but he thought that the fairest mode of dealing with the subject was, that all propositions likely to be made upon it, should be before the House, and then they would be in a position fairly to discuss them. In assent ing to the introduction of this Bill he did not assent to its principle. He had only informed the hon. Baronet that, provided the Government had a fair opportunity of laying their own measure before the House, before he asked for the second reading of his Bill, he would not oppose his having leave to bring it in.

of the House last year some deference | relief given to such irremovable persons ought to be paid to that decision, and as shall be charged upon the common fund of there had been an understanding between the Union." In accordance with the usage the hon. Baronet and the Government, he of the House he had placed that notice on would not, although most determinedly hos- the table; but the Motion was, in reality, tile to its principle, oppose the introduc- one for the appointment of a Committee tion of the Bill. Members, however, who such as that which was appointed last were opposed to the object of it had a year, and one reason for the urgency of right to stipulate that no advantage such Committee arose from the circumshould hereafter be taken of the title. stance that the last-named Act was to expire towards the conclusion of the present Session of Parliament. It appeared to him that, after nine years of experiments and temporary Acts, the time had arrived when the House might make up its mind on the question what should constitute irremovability, and in what manner the charge of relieving the irremovable poor should be defrayed. That would be the subject of the inquiries of this Committee. In a very few words he would lay before the House the present position of the matter. In the year 1834 the New Poor Law Act passed, and by that statute all means of acquiring a settlement were taken away, except birth alone. In ten or twelve years it was found that this operated harshly on the poor man. Under the former law he had the means of acquiring a settlement wherever his industry called him; but this had been taken from him. With a view of meeting the case, Parliament, in 1846, passed an Act which declared that any poor person having resided five years in any parish should be irremovable from that parish, and this was one of the statutes which he desired to bring under the consideration of the Committee. No sooner had that statute passed than it was felt that it involved a great additional expense on different parishes on whom the five years' residence operated. In the following year, therefore, another Act passed, which cast the expense of these irremovable poor on the whole of the Union in which their parish happened to be situated. A Select Committee, of which the present Speaker was a Member, sat in 1847 for the purpose of determining the great questions of settlement and removability. They examined many witnesses, they brought much ability to the discussion of the questions, and after laborious investigation they determined on several resolutions, any one of which would have effected an important alteration, but the result was that when the question was put that the resolutions be reported to the House, to the astonishment of many the question passed in the negative, and the

SIR J. TRELAWNY explained, that he had not said that there was any understanding between himself and the Govern

ment.

Leave given.

Bill" to abolish Church Rates" ordered
to be brought in by Sir JOHN TRELAWNY,
Mr. DILLWYN, and General THOMPSON.
Bill presented, and read 1°.

IRREMOVABLE POOR.

SELECT COMMITTEE.

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT moved that a Select Committee be appointed "to consider the operation of the Act 9 & 10 Vict., c. 66, which enacts that no poor person shall be removeable who shall have resided five years in any parish; and of the Act 10 & 11 Vict., c. 110, and 11 & 12 Vict., c. 110, which enacts that the

SOTHERON ESTCOURT: I

whole of the proceedings became useless. I MR. Time passed on and nothing was done, but propose the same names as last year, and from year to year these temporary Acts the hon. Member will see that I have taken were continued. In 1855 a Committee care that the sister country is properly rewas appointed to consider one branch of presented. the subject, the removal of Irish and MR. AYRTON said, he rose not to opScotch poor persons; but that Committee pose the Motion, but to express his regret found itself compelled to consider the main that it was limited to an inquiry into two question, and passed a resolution recom- statutes only. The right hon. Gentleman mending that the term of five years should had made it apparent that it was quite imbe reduced to three, and that the area of possible to consider two isolated statutes irremovability should be extended from the for any useful purpose, without at the parish to the Union. In the following same time examining into their relation to year the right hon. Member for Leeds the whole system of Poor Law relief; but (Mr. Baines), then the President of the he had shown also that though, in some Poor Law Board, introduced a Bill to carry respects, the administration of the Poor those recommendations into effect, but that Laws had continued many years-nay, Bill was withdrawn, and now the question centuries-yet, in point of fact, the system was as far from being settled as it was in of Poor Law relief had been entirely 1846; indeed at the end of thirteen years changed in character and effect. Any infrom the passing of the first Act they were quiry before a Select Committee should in a rather less satisfactory position than embrace the whole scope of the adminisin 1834. The two Acts which he desired to tration of the Poor Laws in every departsubmit to the consideration of a Selectment, and not only in England, but in Committee stood on the threshold of the Ireland. If the Motion had been deferred, whole question. It was time for the Legis- he might have been tempted to move an lature to determine whether the propositions of those Acts should be maintained, and if so, on what conditions? And if they were to be swept away, then it would be for the Legislature to find a substitute. It would not become him to anticipate what would be the determination of the Committee, but he hoped to be able to induce those hon. Gentlemen who served on the Committee last year to serve again, and when they should have reported on this branch, he did not despair of their directing their Chairman to move the House to give them further instructions to consider the other branches of this great question. At the same time, if the House obtained no more than the solution of the legitimate and direct subject indicated in the order of reference, the Committee would not have been uselessly reappointed. He did not know of any objections to the Motion, or of any desire that he should go more fully into the question. He begged to move the appointment of the Committee in the terms of his notice.

MR. HENRY HERBERT said, he thought it would be impossible to discuss one question, without others forcing themselves under consideration; and he hoped that, although the tenor of the Motion referred to England only, some Irish members would be placed on the Committee, as the interests of the Irish poor were deeply involved in the question.

Amendment to enlarge the scope of in-
quiry; but perhaps it might be as well
that they should commence with the par-
ticular relief which was embraced in the
present Motion, and while this was pro-
ceeding he might bring the general subject.
before the House. The area must be set-
tled. They could not have a system of
settlement depending on casual employ-
ment, if the area of relief, of rating, and
of management were confined within very
narrow limits. Formerly, the system of
poor relief depended on the parochial re-
lations, and these again depended on the
accident of birth in the recipients; and
men were supposed to have a right to relief
in the locality in which they were born.
They were not even allowed to go out of
that locality, except with a certificate,
which would compel them to return to obtain
relief in it whenever they might want it.
But all this had been changed. It might
be rational to say, that the master ought
to support his labourer if he became poor;
that he who had reaped the advantage of
the man's work, should support him when
he could not labour. That was at least a
consistent system. But the master must
then have a right to command the labour of
the servant, and this was therefore the
system adopted in slave states.
ment we departed from this, there was no
reason why one set of persons rather than
another should bear the burden of relieving

The mo

the poor when out of employ. In conclu- the sale, the names of the parties consion, he might say that he should pro- cerned in the sale and purchase, and other bably take the opportunity of bringing the circumstances attending the transaction whole subject before the House on an early must all be registered at the time. It is dav. therefore a useful question for the House to consider whether those provisions have answered the purpose for which they were intended? According to the evidence of Mr. Bell and other gentlemen representing the Pharmaceutical Society, Dr. Taylor, and other famous chemists, given before a Committee of the House of Lords, the Arsenic Act has, to a great extent, tended to diminish the number of poisonings from arsenic. I will only quote Dr. Taylor. Dr. Taylor says: