ers upon that occasion, because it mixed up inextricably two questions which were wholly distinct first, the question of finance connected with the proposed plans, and next the important questions of the government of the Museum by trustees. It had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), with a force which could not be denied, that the effect of the Government proposing the Bill was to obtain indirectly, and by implication, the sanction of the House to a very large expenditure, which had not been regularly brought before it, and upon which it had no direct means of expressing an opinion. That argument appeared to the Government to be sound, and therefore they believed they should best perform their duty by submitting the question to the House, in the first instance, in a financial shape and under circumstances which would afford the House the fullest opportunity of pronouncing a decided opinion.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR said, he wished to know when the Estimate would be produced?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER replied, that it would be produced as soon as questions now under discussion between the Board of Works and the trustees had been settled. Those questions related to the internal arrangements of the building, and it would be necessary to produce perfect plans when they asked for

MR. FERRAND said, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General to inform the House by whose authority the written statement was prepared from which, on Monday last, he read his replies to the questions relating to the Bankruptcy Court at Leeds, and whether he will lay it upon the table of the House; and whether he will lay upon the table the letter of Mr. Welch, the registrar, which he read to the House on Tuesday last to complete his previous statement, as well as the letter of the Hon. Richard Bethell, confirming the same.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think, Sir, that probably on no former occasion has the House heard so extraordinary a question as that of the hon. Gentleman. When I saw his Notice on the paper that some questions were to be put to me upon a matter of public interest,

of course it was my duty to go to what I considered to be the proper quarter in which to obtain correct information; and, having provided myself to the best of my power with that information, upon my own responsibility and in good faith I gave to the House the information I had thus acquired. Any memorandum either, made by myself or by anybody else for my use for that purpose is a document which I believe never has been treated as of a public nature, and I wholly decline to treat it as such on the present occasion. As to the letters, if the hon. Gentleman, as between man and man, wishes to see the letter written to me from which I stated the matters which alone I thought useful to state to the House-which is not a publie document, and which I am not authorized by the writer to treat as such-he is welcome to see it, for there is nothing to conceal; but I wholly decline to treat it as a public document. I have also authority from the person who received the other letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers to say that if the hon. Gentleman, as a gentleman, has any curiosity to see it, he shall be gratified; but I wholly decline, on my own responsibility, to treat them as public documents.

LORD ROBERT CECIL: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is competent for a Minister of the Crown to quote in his place letters and papers which he is not prepared to lay on the table?

MR. SPEAKER: Public despatches, documents, and papers relating to public affairs, if read and quoted by Ministers, may be called for to be laid on the table. distinction which he draws in this case, But the Attorney General has stated the and which distinction certainly appears to me to be a just one.

CROWN SUITS, &c. BILL.-QUESTION.

MR. HADFIELD said, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, If he intends to proceed with the Bill to amend the practice in Crown suits, or will delay it until after the holydays, to give time to consider if the practice of registering Crown debts can be amended by Clauses to be introduced to render it unnecessary for bond fide parchasers of real estate to incur the expense of searching the registry before they can complete purchases?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in reply, said, he did not propose to proceed with the Bill that night, but he was

Clause 1 (Repeal of the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 26 Provision. The Relief of all the Poor in Union to be charged to the Common Fund.)

SIR JOHN JOHNSTONE said, he wished to propose an Amendment, the effect of which would be to put the clause in harmony with a new clause he intended to bring up, providing for a gradual approach to the principle of union rating by annual instalments up to the year 1870. He therefore moved in line 14, after "shall," to insert, "subject to the provisions hereinafter contained."

MR. C. P. VILLIERS said, that he did not object to the insertion of the proposed words.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON said, that as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just taken 2d. in the pound off the Income Tax, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of The Attorney General

the Poor Law Board now proposed a measure which would impose an additional burden of about 3d. in the pound upon the agricultural interest of the country to the advantage of the towns, it was desirable that the whole law of assessment should be inquired into, as well as the exemptions of stock-in-trade and other species of property. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers) would give some assurance that all those questions

should be considered.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS said, that when

he was questioned on the subject the other night he had said that next year the Act for the exemption of stock-in-trade would come to an end, and as that would be that exemption should be continued, it an opportunity for an inquiry whether might also be an occasion for inquiring

into all other assessments. If such an

inquiry were proposed he should support it. Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD moved in line 15, after "poor," to insert

"and the expenses of the burial of the dead body of any poor person under the direction of the guardians, or any of their officers duly authorized." Amendment agreed to.

MR. HIBBERT moved in line 15, after "incurred," to insert

"and all charges thenceforth incurred by the guardians of such union in respect of vaccination and registration fees."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 (Guardians of Unions, &c.)

MR. HENLEY moved in line 17, to leave out "when," and insert "no;" leave out "such," and insert" or parish;"

leave out from "be" to end of the Clause, and insert

"liable to be or be removed to any other Union, parish, or place, or to Scotland or Ireland; and the several Acts recited in the Schedule to

this Bill shall be repealed."

The right hon. Gentleman said: Sir, I rise to move the Amendment of which I have given notice, and the object of which is to entirely do away with all removals of poor persons. This Bill was introduced to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board in a speech in which he stated most strongly the evils which the poor suffer from what he calls being "shuffled" about by all sorts of methods from one place to another, in

order that they may be prevented from obtaining a settlement by three years' residence in one parish. He very much rested this Bill for shifting burdens which have been sanctioned for 200 years on the alleged benefits to the poor which would arise from the change. I now want to test the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman and those who support him, as to whether they really do mean by this Bill to benefit the poor, and free those poor persons who may want relief from all the manœuvres, and consequent miseries and other evil consequences which the present law of removal entails upon them. It is necessary that I should call attention to a Return presented to this House by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and with the contents of which he must, therefore, be well acquainted. It shows the number of orders of removal for the year ending the 25th of March, 1863, and I beg of the House to attend to that date, because it is a material element of consideration. The House will recollect that during 1863 a great pressure from accidental circumstances arose in the county of Lancaster; necessarily there was a great pressure on the poor in that county; and, therefore, I think when the House sees what the number of removals were at such a time they will come to the conclusion that the case is now ripe to be dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman, when speaking the other night of those whom he was pleased to call the farmers' friends," quoted from paper after paper in which the desire was distinctly expressed that those removals should be done away with, and that as large an area as possible should be adopted. It appears, from the Return for the year ending March 25, 1863, that the total number of orders of removal in England amounted to 5,689, and the whole number of persons removed to 13,900. Therefore we may say in round numbers that something like 6,000 orders for removal were made, and that something like 14,000 persons were removed-or not quite 2 persons under each order of removal. The money expended in carrying out these removals was not less than between £19,000 and £20,000, and that was independently of the expense incurred in the maintenance of those persons while the orders were being worked out. In addition to those English removals there were 416 Irish and a very few Scotch and Channel Island removals. The carrying out of this system imposes hardships and involves cruelties

which no care can prevent, and I believe the greatest boon we could confer on the poor would be to set the labour of the country free, and do away with this dreadful system. Let us see for one instant how limited will be the benefit conferred by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. Out of the whole number of removal orders only 366 were made out for removal from one place to another within the same union, and therefore all the Bill would do as it stands would be to get rid of those 366 orders. But every one knows that an order of removal to a place within the same union does not necessitate, and in most cases does not cause the removal of the person. It is a mere document to shift the charge from parish "A" to parish "B," and in most cases the poor are allowed to remain where they are. The House cannot forget the case which occurred in connection with a union at Greenwich or some place in that direction. A poor Irishwoman who had been only recently confined was put on the deck of a vessel in the depth of winter, and nothing but the humanity of a man who was on board interfered to check her removal to Ireland in such a way and at such a time. An inquiry was instituted, and how had the law been evaded under the management of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board? A pauper had been employed to carry out the removals, and what was the use of levying a penalty on a pauper? That is the way the dodge was worked; and it does not appear that the Poor Law authorities took care to prevent it. The fact is, you cannot prevent the infliction of cruelties under such a law. A third, or nearly a third, of the whole of the removals-namely, 2,200 out of the 5,689-were from this metropolis; and if my recollection serves me rightly, the total number of persons relieved throughout the whole length and breadth of England was stated to be about 1,000,000, and the cost of the entire maintenance, indoor and outdoor, £4,000,000. The figures, as my right hon. Friend must be aware, show that these expenses come to about £4 per head. The number of persons in each order of removal was, as I said before1 something like 2 to each order, but of course in the metropolis many of the removals that have taken place have been from one part of the metropolis to another. They are not all external, and some, no doubt, are from places external

back again to the metropolis. Now, the whole rateable value of the metropolis, so far as the poor rate is concerned, and so far as I can ascertain, is nearer £11,000,000 than £10,000,000. The orders of removal within the metropolitan area have been something like 2,000, and multiplying that number by 23, we find the number of persons removed was 5,000. Taking the cost of removal to be £4 per head the total amounts to £20,000, manifestly an utterly insignificant sum when compared with the rateable value. Then comes the question, are we justified in keeping this charge, and is there any danger in abolishing this system of removal; is there any possible ground for reasonable apprehension? An hon. Friend of mine has suggested the propriety of softening down the time of removal to one year. But I argue thus We first limited the time for removal to five years, and no inconvenience was felt; we then further limited it to three years, and still no inconvenience was felt; then why not take the final step at once and for ever, and abolish the system altogether? Why do I say we should not hesitate to take this step at once? The right hon. Gentleman told us in strong language that now, when the time for removal is limited to three years, the people are hunted about in order to prevent their remaining so long in a parish. If that be the case now, what will take place when the time is limited to one year? Why, the unfortunate poor will be like peas in a shovel, they will not be allowed to be still for a moment. In the language of the right hon. Gentleman, they would be hunted about from one place to another, in order to prevent their becoming chargeable through one year's residence. The evil is bad enough at present, but what will it be when you multiply it by three? I say, act like men, and do away with the system altogether, Had the right hon. Gentleman proposed the Bill in this sense he would not have found me opposing it. I tell him that honestly and plainly, because in my opinion such a measure would be a great boon to the poor man. Did the right hon. Gentleman, or those who preceded him, meet with any opposition when passing the Act for throwing the irremovable poor upon the common funds? So far as I recollect, there was no opposition worth mentioning. And for what reason? Because everybody felt that that was a measure which would be a great boon to the poor man, and they were Mr. Henley

willing to bear their fair share in lightening his burden. But when a measure is proposed, such as the Bill we are now considering, which confers no boon upon the poor but merely saves some trouble to officials, the right hon. Gentleman cannot expect that it will not be opposed. The difference in principle between the two measures appears to me to be so clear that I hardly like taking up the time of the House in explaining it. With regard to Lancashire, which appears to be the strongest case cited on behalf of the Bill, it appears that the number of removals in the year 1863-a year of extraordinary pressure-was 977, and what was that compared with the enormous wealth of Lancashire? The saving effected would be almost inappreciable. What becomes of the pretence of which we have heard so much about alleviating the burdens of the poor-supposing there is any sincerity in those who make use of that argument-if you refuse to relieve your poorer brethren of this great curse upon them? The ques tion is now very much narrowed, for it will be impossible to prevent the rates of the metropolis being equalized, after the Bill before us shall have become law. I hope the hon. Members who represent the metropolis, with all its vast wealth, will not stand in the way of such a great boon to the poor. So that when we have made these changes we may have the satisfaction of knowing that we are at all events conferring a benefit upon the poor man. As the system remains at present our Irish fellow countrymen endure great miseries under it; but until it is abolished in this country we cannot do anything with it there. I am not either by age or by disposition a very rash man, and if I believe there would be the slightest danger in abolishing the system, I should not stand here and propose such a measure. The words I move will have the effect of doing away with removals altogether. I believe if they can succeed once and for ever in getting rid of this question of removal it will confer greater credit upon Government than anything they have yet done.

leave out the words "When any,” in order Amendment proposed, in line 17, to to insert the word "No."-(Mr. Henley.)

MR. AYRTON said, the right hon. Gen tleman who had just sat down, told them he made this Motion as a test of the sincerity of those who were promoting and supporting the Bill. Therefore the House