§ Mr. T. Duncombe moved to add a clause to exempt parishes with local acts from the operation of the bill.
§ Lord John Russell
must oppose the clause upon the ground that it would go further than he contemplated, when he stated that he did not mean the bill to extend to parishes with local acts.
§ The House divided on the question that the clause be read a second time: Ayes 21; Noes 45: Majority 24.
§ On the question that the bill do pass,
§ Mr. T. Duncombe
said, that he should oppose the motion. He thought of all the breaches of faith ever committed, the conduct of the Government in the present 208 instance was the most outrageous. The parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn, ten years ago, obtained at an expense of 3,500l a local act for the management of its parochial affairs. The noble Lord had more than twice or thrice declared that no local Act would be affected by this bill. He believed the noble Lord made that declaration in good faith; but he also thought that those who drew the bill did it in the dark, against those parishes having local acts. This he had since found out to be the fact, and he now again asked the noble Lord to keep faith with those parishes, and not violate the pledge he had given to them.
§ Lord J. Russell
observed, that if he had ever said that he would agree to a clause enacting that this bill should not effect any parish in which there existed a local act, and now opposed it, then the hon. Gentleman might with justice accuse him of a breach of faith; but he had never said anything of the sort; therefore, he knew not why he should be bound to vote for the clause which had been proposed. When he was asked whether this bill would affect any local acts, he answered that it was not his intention to affect those parishes; and he now declared that in introducing this bill he never intended thereby to apply the New Poor-law Act to parishes having local acts. But that declaration did not bind him to accept any form of words to be introduced into the bill which any Gentleman might frame. How his conduct on this occasion could be said to be a breach of faith he could not conceive.
§ Viscount Howick
understood his noble Friend merely to have pledged himself that this bill should not be the means of introducing the Poor-law into those parishes which were not yet under the operation of that law; but his noble Friend never assented to introduce a clause excepting those parishes where there were local acts for the collection of poor-rates merely.
§ The House divided.—Ayes 37; Noes 18: Majority 19.
|List of the Ayes.|
|Baring, F. T.||Briscoe, J. I.|
|Bernal, R.||Broadley, H.|
|Bryan, G.||Praed, W. T.|
|Callaghan, D.||Price, Sir R.|
|Cowper, hon. W. F.||Pryme, G.|
|Eliot, Lord||Redington, T. N.|
|French, F.||Rice, right, hon. T. S.|
|Grey, right hn. Sir G.||Rolfe, Sir R. M.|
|Hobhouse, T. B.||Russell, Lord J.|
|Hoskins, K.||Rutherfurd, rt. hon.A.|
|Howard, P. H.||Sheil R. L.|
|Howick, Viscount||Somerville, Sir W. M.|
|Hutton, R.||Stanley, hon. W. O.|
|Irving, J.||Stock, Dr.|
|Kemble, H.||Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.|
|Labouchere, rt. hn. H.||Troubridge, Sir E. T.|
|Morpeth, Viscount||Wood, C.|
|Muskett, G. A.||TELLERS.|
|Parker, J.||Stanley, E. J.|
|Pigot, D. R.||Steuart, R.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Broad wood, H.||Pechell, Captain|
|Darby, G.||Scholefield, J.|
|Douglas, Sir C. E.||Thompson, Mr Aid.|
|Ewart, W.||Vere.Sir C. B.|
|Fielden, J.||Vigors, N. A.|
|Finch, F.||Williams, W.|
|Freshfield, J. W||Yates, J. A.|
|Humphery, J.||Duncombe, T.|
|Langdale, hon. C.||Grimsditch, T.|
§ Bill passed.
§ [We give the lists on the second division only.]