rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the division which had taken place on the motion of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir C. Burrell) on the 9th inst, for an instruction to the Committee on the Brighton Railways. In the majority on that occasion he found the names of several hon. Members whose names also appeared on the subscription-list for one of the lines of Brighton railway for considerable sums, and according to the rules of the House he considered that the votes of those Gentlemen ought not to have been allowed. Last year he had been a shareholder in one of the railways before the House and his vote had been struck out of a division in regard to that railway in consequence. He brought forward the motion purely On public grounds, and would not offer any opinion as to the practice of the House; but, considering the small amount of the majority on the occasion to which his motion alluded, and also disapproving of the motion itself, he thought he had only done his duty in affording the House an opportunity of revising its decision. He would beg to move, "That the resolution respecting the Brighton Railways of the 9th instant, which was carried by a majority of five, be entered on the journals as negatived, in consequence of the following six Members having voted for it, who have subscribed the Parliamentary contract for Stephenson's line, viz. Matthias Attwood, Esq., 4,000l., Archibald Hastie, Esq., 2,000l., Joseph Pease, Esq., 20,000l., Joshua Scholefield, Esq., 8,000l., William Tooke, Esq., 1,000l., and Sir Andrew Leith Hay, 5,000l., who has subscribed the Parliamentary contract for Gibbs's line."

said, that it was extremely painful for him to present himself to the House on a matter purely personal; but he had been injured by the motion which had just been submitted to the House, and he was convinced that, under the circumstances, some indulgence would be shown him. He had never been in any way, directly or indirectly, concerned with any one of the Brighton railways—he had never held shares in any of those undertakings—he had never subscribed the Parliamentary contract for any of them, and had no personal interest in the success of one line more than another. The shares alluded to in the motion were not in his name, but in the name of a relation, and the hon. Member might easily have known that such was the case, as the usual addition of M.P. was not attached to the name on the subscription list, but which would have been the case had it been his (Mr. Pease's) signature. Having stated this much, he would only add further, that he had given a conscientious vote on the occasion to which the motion referred, but he thought he had just cause to complain of want of courtesy on the part of the hon. Mover, for although he had taken tea with him upstairs last night, the hon. Gentleman had not given him any intimation of his intention to bring forward the present motion.

considered that he had been most uncourteously dealt with, as he had received no notice of the present motion till he had seen it in the votes of the House. Before his election he had purchased twenty shares, but in March of last year, having been returned a Member of that House, he disposed of those hares in the following April, and he had now no connexion with any of the lines of railway to Brighton. Having stated this much, he thought it was unnecessary for him to say more, as the House would see that he had violated no rule, and his vote had been given from a conviction that he was only discharging his duty to the public, and not from any personal or interested motives.

had no connexion with, nor any personal interest in, any of the railways to Brighton, or if he could be said to have any private interest in the success or defeat of any of the lines, it would have been in the defeat of Stephenson's line, the very one on the Parliamentary contract of which his name appeared as a subscriber. He had at one time held a share in that undertaking, but had long ago disposed of it, and was now in no way connected with either of the lines. That such was the case might easily have been ascertained, had the hon. mover of the present motion acted with the usual courtesy, and he thought he ought to have made himself acquainted with the facts of the case before placing his (Mr. Tooke's) name, and those of other hon. Gentlemen, on the votes of the House in connexion with such a motion.

thought it was a farce to lay down a rule that no person should vote on motions regarding railways or other undertakings, who were shareholders, as Members, though not shareholders, might be actuated by a feeling stronger even than one which was purely personal. It was impossible to find out the actual motives which influenced any one to vote, and it would, in his opinion, be better to leave it to hon. Members themselves to determine on all occasions whether they ought or ought not to vote, and never to call in question the vote of any Member, on the ground of his being a shareholder in any undertaking which might be the subject of a division.

could not agree with the hon. Member for West Surrey, that the votes of Members should never be questioned, and should the hon. Member bring forward a specific motion, embodying the principle for which he had contended, he (Sir J. Graham) should be prepared to contend by argument against such doctrines, and by his vote to support a contrary motion, for it was his opinion, that whenever a pecuniary interest could be established, the vote should be struck off. In the present case, however, he did think that it would have been only courteous for the hon. Member, who had brought forward the motion, to have given some intimation of his intentions before placing such a personal notice on the votes of the House, and he further considered, that he ought to have made himself better acquainted with the facts of the case, for in three out of the six instances specified in the motion, the facts of his position had been distinctly negatived.

said, that if the hon. Member brought forward his motion solely on public grounds, he should like to know why he had confined himself to railways on one side. Then were the names of hon. Members to be found on the list for Rennie's line, as well as on that of Stephenson's, and the hon. Member's motion ought, if it was brought forward on public grounds, to have embraced both.

observed, that he had seen the names of his colleague, and a near relative of his own, in the motion, and as both were absent, he considered it his duty to state, that he was perfectly persuaded they would be able to give as satisfactory an explanation of their conduct as had been given by other hon. Members. He thought the hon. Member who had brought forward the motion, had acted rashly in not making himself better acquainted with the facts of the case, and that he had been wanting in courtesy in giving no intimation of his intentions to those who were so prominently brought forward in his motion.

thought the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the motion, ought not to be allowed to withdraw it, and that it ought in justice to the Gentlemen who had been so prominently noticed, to receive a decided negative by the House. The motion had been most improperly brought forward, and it was a case of very great hardship that no notice had been given, as some of those who were deeply interested in the matter were, as he understood, in the country, and had no opportunity of vindicating their conduct.

supported the motion, and said that, although some of the hon. Members, whose names appeared in the motion, had denied all connexion with the Brighton railway, yet their names still stood on the subscription list. Now, that subscription list was the one by which the House was to be guided in forming its opinion as to the probability of the undertaking being completed, should the Bill pass the House. It was the guarantee which the House had required for the protection of the public against gambling speculations, and if hon. Members had actually withdrawn their subscriptions, and their names still stood on the contract for large sums, then the list was no longer a bona Jide one, and did not give the security which the House intended it should.

said, his name was not on the list, it was the name of a relation.

said, that the hon. Members who had stated that they had withdrawn were still, in point of" law, shareholders, and responsible for the amount opposite their names.

entered the House, and said, that till the moment he entered the House, he was totally unaware of the motion which had been submitted to its consideration. The vote he had given had no reference to the adoption or rejection of any particular line out of the competing railways, but was given with a view of bringing before the House sufficient evidence to enable the House to decide as to the merits of the rival lines. In regard to his name being on the subscription list, he acknowledged that he was a shareholder, and still continued to be so, but his vote on the occasion alluded to was given conscientiously, and were the same motion before the House, he would again give his vote in its favour.

thought it only justice to the hon. Member who had last spoken, to state, that as his name had on a former occasion been mentioned in connexion with the Deptford and Dover railway, there was not a tittle of evidence to connect the hon. Gentleman with any improper proceedings in regard to that railway. He, as a Member of the Deptford and Dover Committee, thought he only discharged his duty in making that fact known to the House.

proposed an amendment, with a view of making each separate parish or town-land responsible for its own poor.

said, the proposal of the hon. Member would, if carried into effect, assimilate the practice in Ireland to that of England, and introduce the separate rating of distinct parishes into that country. The circumstances of the two countries being different,—in the one a Poor-law having been in operation, in the other a Poor-law being about to be introduced,—it would be inexpedient to adopt the same system. It was, however, to be recollected, that the English Bill was more favourable to the combined system than to the separate; for it gave the power of forming unions. He hoped that the House would pause before it foisted on Ireland the laws of settlement which had proved a prolific source of dispute, discussion, and litigation in England. He thought that it was but prudent to take a district of fair size and diameter as the representative of the really existing distress. He could not believe that it was desirable to adopt the proposition of the hon. Member; he was of opinion, that if applied to Ireland, which was a new field for the operation of the Poor-laws, its effects would be prejudicial; and therefore he could not consent to it.

thought, that the House should come to a decision as to the practicability of making a Poor-law, which had no provisions for settlement, work well.—Should the House determine that the principle of settlement must be adopted, he was willing to consider the schemes which might be proposed.

was of opinion, that the Government had excluded settlement from their Bill. Those who wished for settlement should bring forward their views in the form of amendments. If the House could introduce the law of settlement, it would hesitate to do so after its experience of the mischief which it had effected in England. It might make the landlords attend more to their estates, but the advantages which that argument held out were encountered by the fact, that it gave rise to a series of litigation which would ultimately exhaust the land.

was of opinion, that there could be no efficient system of Poor-laws without a law of settlement; without a law of settlement, every such system would be a complete delusion. Local settlement and local charges were the prime points of the Poor-law.

wished that some definite proposition should be brought forward, on which the House might decide. It would be unfair to ask hon. Members to decide on the principle of settlement at once, when they might afterwards find that insuperable objections existed to every scheme of carrying that principle into effect.

was sorry to add to the difficulty in which the House was placed. This, however, was the marrow of this most difficult subject. Mendicancy, it was admitted on all hands, was the great evil of Ireland. It was decided by the Bill, that destitution did not give an absolute claim to relief; and in the 42nd clause, the distribution of relief was left to the discretion of certain authorities. If there must be a settlement, he should prefer the Scotch system; if the system to be adopted were the parochial one, he should prefer the scheme of unions. But the real question was, should destitution, or should it not, constitute a claim for relief?

admitted, that the right hon. Baronet had put the subject on the right ground. He hoped, however, the Government would not permit a law of settlement to be introduced.

thought, that his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) had not added to the difficulty of the question, but had facilitated the solution of it. It should be recollected, that if a right to be relieved somewhere were conferred, a right to removal to that particular place would follow. His right hon. Friend, or some other hon. Member might bring forward a distinct proposition to the desired effect.

was prepared to move some limitations to the relief which this Act would afford; he wished its operation to be confined to the sick, the infirm, and the aged. If destitution were made the test of just claims to relief, many difficulties would be the consequence, for each person who was destitute would imagine himself possessed of an equal right with others to relief.

was aware of the evils which had followed on the law of settlement in England; but he feared that greater evils would ensue if it were not introduced into Ireland. The opinion of the town of Belfast had been alluded to; it would, however, be recollected, that there was a great influx of Irish paupers on their road home from England into that town; and that there was some apprehension lest they should settle there. His wish was to tax the absentees, whereas, without a law of settlement, the taxation for the purposes of a Poor-law would affect the residents only.

observed, that the Members of the Government had made up their minds long ago, and, indeed, he had stated so two months ago. He was ready to consider any proposition on the subject then or to-morrow, as might be agreed on. He did not, however, think that the motion of the hon. Member for Dundalk was a fit one for the discussion of the matter. It would be better for him not to press his motion then, and to discuss the law of settlement to-morrow.

wished to prefix some preliminary words, to the effect that "the Commissioners who might be appointed to carry the Act into execution, should be styled the Poor-law Commissioners for Ireland, and sit in Dublin."

observed, that the hon. and learned Member was moving a specific Clause, which must be reserved till the end of the Bill.

wished to move an amendment, in conformity with that of the hon. Member for Dundalk, for the purpose of bettering the discretion vested in the Commissioners. The Commissioners were to be endowed with the power of declaring districts to be unions, without reference to existing civil or ecclesiastical divisions. He, however, must object to their being empowered to interfere with the limits of property, and he thought that the extent of rate-paying ought to be conterminous with the boundaries of property. A proper centre for unions should be fixed, round which the other places might lie. The boundary of town lands was observed in estates; the same practice was followed in unions. If leave were given to the Commissioners to alter the boundaries, their parallelograms would, no doubt, appear very neat on paper; but the effect of the arrangement would be mischievous, for the property of the same individual might be parcelled out into different unions. He was in favour of the law of settlement; if the right to be conferred were a local one, then there should be a local assessment; if the right were a national one, then should the assessment be national also. He was for the local system, because it would give to every man an immediate interest in keeping down pauperism. He should now move that the words after "declare" should be omitted for the purpose of inserting the words "to unite such and so many town lands or towns for the purpose of making such union as they may think fit."

admitted, that there would be a great advantage in adopting the division of town lands. He would not then object to the amendment, reserving always his right to oppose it,

thought, that this was a very inconvenient restriction to be imposed upon the Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman would perceive, that the Bill did not propose any particular limit for the extent of the union, but left that to the discretion of the Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman's proposition would confine the Commissioners, where there was a population of 6,000 persons within the area he suggested, to a space, the limits of which would be less than two miles and a-half from the workhouse, and which would hardly contain a sufficient number of persons fit to form a Board of Guardians. There were forty unions in England, of which the population exceeded 10,000 persons, and they were very much better managed than those unions which had only 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants. There was another consideration to which he begged to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman, which pointed out the wisdom of leaving a good deal to the discretion of the Commissioners. The Bill proposed, that relief be given in the workhouse. Now, if relief were given in the workhouse only, the business of the guardians would be far more simple, and would require far less attention and time, than was the case in England. The guardians in England had to consider the different rates levied, or to be levied, in the different parishes of the union, the claims of poor and infirm persons, and other matters, which occupied many hours in the day. But if relief were given in the workhouse only, the time of the guardians in Ireland would be very little occupied. If, however, the Committee should come to a different opinion, and say, that relief ought not to be confined to the workhouse, and that out-door relief should be given, then the Commissioners might come to a very different opinion as to the extent of the unions; but in either case, it would be far better to leave the rule to the discretion of the Commissioners. For these reasons, he hoped the Committee would not assent to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and would leave the point undecided.

was inclined, on the whole, to agree with his noble Friend opposite, that it would be better not to confine the Commissioners in the exercise of their discretion. He thought, however, that a district which, according to the proposal made by the Commissioners, would contain about 80,000 persons on the average, would be much too large. But, at the same time, he was not insensible to the advantage which would be gained where the extent of the union was large, from the greater facilities of obtaining efficient and working men as guardians of the poor. The point to hit was this—that the union should extend so far that, from its extreme limits, persons might come without inconvenience to the workhouse for relief, and at the same time so widely, as to obtain with great combination in the management, the highest degree of economy. An area of twenty square miles was, in his opinion, infinitely too small for these purposes. The local management, in these cases, would fall into improper hands. At the same time, if it was the opinion of the House that a law of settlement ought to be introduced into Ireland, he was not prepared to say whether, as regarded the local management, with the view of individualizing the burthen and responsibility, it might not be advisable to subdivide the unions for the purpose of rating. He would give to each individual district a reason to interest itself in the management of the whole union, in a manner analogous to the system prevailing in England.

quite agreed with the general remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Monaghan; but he could not concur in his conclusion. In matters of this sort it was best to look to experience, he admitted; but, when one of the Poor-law Commissioners recommended an area of 400 square miles for an union, he turned to see whether there was anything of the kind in England. He had extracted the accounts of the number of square miles in the area of the twelve largest unions which at present existed in England, and he found that not one of them equalled 300 square miles. He thought, therefore, that it was necessary for the House to express some opinion as to the size of the unions in Ireland. He should, therefore, move the following amendment—"Provided always, that in every case where the proposed union exceeds an area of 150 square miles, and the population in such union exceeds 25,000 persons, the Commissioners, at the time of the formation of such union, shall make a special report to one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, forty days before the declaration of such union, which special report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament after the commencement of every Session."

observed, that he owed every deference to the suggestions which had been made by hon. Members, and if the House had agreed with him as to the propriety of his amendment, he should have proposed that each district should be separately liable for its proportion of the expenses of the workhouse. However, as the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had indicated a wish to localise the expenditure of each union, he was quite content to withdraw his amendment.

withdrew his amendment. The Chairman put the amendment proposed by Lord Clements.

was understood to say, that the House had not yet provided proper machinery to work the Bill. He was afraid, therefore, that they would get into difficulties.

hoped the noble Lord, the Member for Leitrim, would withdraw the amendment which he had proposed, because there was no good ground for restricting the discretion of the Commissioners. If they were to insert a proviso in the Bill to the effect that these unions should not exceed a definite limit, the Commissioners, under whatever circumstances might arise, would probably meet with great difficulty and opposition in any attempt which they might make, by increasing that limit, to adapt it to the exigencies of a particular case.

was of opinion, that none of the arguments which he had heard from hon. Members, affected the principle of his proviso. If no limit were assigned, he could not see any thing to prevent the Commissioners from making the unions of far too great an extent to be practically beneficial. For his part, he was not at all desirous to confine the Poor-law Commissioners in the exercise of their power, in any way which could be justly considered harsh or irksome towards them. All he sought, was the establishment of such an arrangement as would be productive of the best practical relief, and he trusted, in this matter, to have the support of the Irish Members, who were now in Committee.

could not concur in opinion with the noble Lord upon this subject. His noble Friend's proposition wag of too expensive a nature. He would, in effect, treble the number of poor establishments. Moreover, in his opinion, if the limits of the unions were narrow, the class of persons who would fill the office of guardians, would not be of the most respectable description. He thought the proposed Poor-law Bill would work exceedingly well; at all events it would put a stop to jobbing—a calamity by which Ireland had been proverbially afflicted.

thought, that the question was decided by the observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Wicklow—namely, that in unions of a limited extent, it would be difficult to find persons properly qualified to act as guardians. It was quite clear, that the Commissioners would make the unions of the size which circumstances would render most desirable; and to their decision he trusted the noble Lord would leave the matter.

denied that the management of the Poor-law establishments in England had been proved to be good, in proportion to the extent of the unions. He was disposed to think, that the more they concentrated local knowledge, the more they would conduce to the advantage of the paupers generally. By increasing the area, they would increase the difficulty of attendance at the Board of Guardians, particularly of those whose attendance would be most desirable.

differed from the right hon. Baronet. No matter how extensive the district, no applicant could make his appearance before the Board of Guardians, of whom some member of the board would not possess some knowledge.

said, that they were now about to try an entirely new experiment in Ireland. They were about to introduce into that country, a system which had been hitherto untried in any part of the empire. While they established a system of taxation for the relief of the poor, they acknowledged, on the part of the poor, no right to this relief, except according to the discretion and good will of the persons who laid on the rate. With respect to the Amendment, he believed, that it would be found wise and politic to give to the Commissioners as large powers as they possibly could. There was much less chance of the Commissioners abusing their power by the performance of erroneous acts, than there was of the House now committing serious mistakes, by making legislative restrictions beforehand.

withdrew his amendment.

suggested that no electoral district should contain more than 6,000 inhabitants. Such a number would be as many as could be attended to.

proposed that these words should be added to the clause:—"that any such union shall be divided in such a manner, that no townland comprised within an union shall be divided." By adopting this rule they would adhere to some certain and recognised boundary in the divisions of unions.

objected to the amendment on the ground that the adoption of such a principle would be attended with considerable inconvenience.

moved as an amendment, that for 3,000 inhabitants there should be at least one guardian.

said, it would be better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Commissioners.

objected to the motion.