regret that provision had not been made to enable Unions, which were desirous of so doing, to draw upon their own future resources, by way of loan, instead of throwing themselves upon the charity of other districts. He hoped, however, that no opposition would be made to the second reading. One point only he wished to refer to at that stage of the Bill. He could not see why the rate-in-aid was not to come into play until the charge for the maintenance of the poor exceeded by twothirds its average height for the preceding three years. He thought also that the area over which the rate-in-aid extended might be enlarged at once from the limit of the parish to the limit of the county.

Mr. Henley said, in attempt ing to meet the crisis, the House should not, if possible, take any false step, or lay down any false principle, and he hoped that in the Committee the Bill would be made more consistent with the old law of Elizabeth than it was. He threw out a few suggestions as to the effects of the working of the Bill; and, with regard to borrowing of money, which was always a very easy matter, he was not, on general principles, fond of it. He thought the old principle of a rate-in-aid was the soundest.

Mr. Cobden considered that Mr. Henley had founded his argument upon a fallacy. Be fore a rate could be levied, there must be property to levy it upon. In the cotton manufacturing districts production could be got only by a sacrifice of capital. The paralysis in these districts had arisen, not from natural, but from

artificial causes; and this fact complicated the difficulty of meeting the calamity. The Poor Law was not adapted to such a state of things. The practical question was, how to deal with a population circumstanced as that engaged in the cotton manufacture, deprived of the raw material. It was absurd to go back to the Act of Elizabeth; a principle should be adopted that would add as little as possible to the burden of those whose mills were now working at a heavy sacrifice to their owners, who, in many cases, had very little floating capital, and would be ruined by heavy rates laid on for the sake of symmetry. The ruin of these manufacturers would aggravate and extend the distress not only of operatives but of little shopkeepers. In his opinion, the Government and the House ought to act on the advice of those whose interests were at stake in this matter, and if parishes wished (as he thought they did) for a borrowing power on the security of the rates, spreading the burden over a series of years, he thought it would be a very unwise interference on the part of the Government to take upon themselves the responsibility of preventing those communities from carrying out this policy.

Mr. Bouverie observed that Mr. Villiers had admitted that the present means, under the ordinary law, were adequate to the present emergency. But it was argued that the emergency might increase and the means be exhausted, and therefore it was a measure of prudence for Parliament to take precautions. The question then was, what was to be done? The proposal to raise

money by loan was, in his opinion, the very last resource to be looked to. A public grant was not to be thought of. Then a rate-in-aid was proposed; but, before this proposal was acted upon, there should be some proof, which he had not seen, of an inability on the part of the parishes to be relieved to support their own poor.

Mr. Bovill criticised some of the details of the Bill, and urged upon the House that the effect of it would be to throw the additional burthen, not upon property, but upon occupiers.

Mr. Villiers, after replying to the criticisms of Mr. Bovill, intimated his willingness to consider the suggestion of authorizing parishes to raise money on the mortgage of the rates. It was a resource, he observed, that should, if possible, be avoided, and he did not speak with confidence about a matter which it was for the parochial authorities in Lancashire to consider. He justified the step taken by the Government in the introduction of this precautionary measure, and the views upon which it was founded, there being nothing new in its principle; and replied to objections, stating the modifications in the details of the measure he was prepared to consider previous to the committal of the Bill.

Sir H. Willoughby did not con- · sider himself pledged by assenting to the second reading to the principle of a rate-in-aid, which it would be very difficult to carry into effect. He thought no very strong ground had been laid for extraordinary legislation, but if anything were done, it would be safer to limit it to raising aid by loans.

Mr. Newdegate also was favour

able to loans, but at the same time was not averse to a rate-inaid.

The second reading of the Bill then took place, without opposition. In Committee it underwent a rather protracted discussion, and some important modifications were introduced.

The principal alteration made was one which was proposed by Mr. Puller, and warmly seconded by Mr. Cobden, Mr. Ayrton, and other members, for enabling the distressed Unions to raise money by loan, as well as to resort to the expedient of a rate-in-aid. Mr. Cobden declared that it was the unanimous wish of Lancashire to have borrowing powers; and, speaking for the county, he was prepared to say that he would be ready to give up the rate-in-aid unless it were given in conjunction with the power to borrow.

Col. W. Patten also stated that he found it to be the general wish of his constituents in Lancashire that they should be enabled to relieve themselves of part of their burthens by loans.

Mr. Villiers at first showed a disinclination to accede to this proposition.

Lord Palmerston also suggested the inconvenience that might arise from granting the power to borrow, which introduced a new principle into the Poor Laws. He stated that the wealth of Cheshire and Lancashire was amply sufficient to meet all demands upon it.

Mr. Henley supported the proposition of the Government.

Mr. Puller, however, succeeded in carrying his motion for the re-committal of the Bill, and it being evident that the majority of

the House were in favour of conceding the borrowing power, Mr. Villiers consented to introduce an amendment to that effect into the Bill. The mode of doing this, and the conditions under which the borrowing power should become available were again earnestly debated, and much difference of opinion was expressed. Ultimately, however, the House decided that the liability to a rate-in-aid of the other parishes of an Union should arise as soon as the expenditure of a parish exceeded 3s. in the pound, and that a power to borrow on security of the rates should be conferred on the Guardians, subject to the sanction of the Poor Law Board, whenever the aggregate expenditure of the Union exceeded 3s. in the pound on the rateable property of the whole Union.

The second reading of the Union Relief Aid Bill was moved in the House of Lords on the 4th of August by Earl Russell, who dwelt in terms of sincere regret on the present distress suffered by the operatives of Lancashire, owing to causes over which they had no control, and pointed out the necessity of some extra means of relief being provided, as the distress would probably increase during the recess. Having briefly explained the object of the Bill, he showed that the principle on which it was based was no innovation, but as old as the time of Queen Elizabeth.

Lord Malmesbury censured the Government for bringing forward this measure in the last week of the Session, when it was evident a year ago that such a measure would be ultimately called for. He regretted that the Government

had not adhered to their original measure, and doubted much whether the distress in Lancashire was so great as had been represented. The principle of allowing a parish to burden posterity by raising a loan for a temporary distress was most prejudicial and unwise. He thought it unworthy of the dignity and heroism with which the artisans had borne their sufferings, for a district ordinarily so prosperous to apply for relief when many agricultural parishes were more heavily burdened with rates.

The Duke of Newcastle said the Government brought forward this Bill not as a precedent, but as an entirely exceptional measure. He pointed out that if the rates were low in certain Lancashire parishes, it was no argument against the poverty of the parishes, but showed the noble fortitude of the operatives of those districts. in refusing to be a burden on the rates. In postponing this measure Government had acted, in his opinion, wisely in not providing means for relieving distress before the actual exigency arose. In regard to the borrowing clause, although he would not defend it, he did not think it would work the mischief anticipated.

Lord Kingsdown viewed this measure with extreme pain, and severely animadverted on the conduct of the millowners, who, after enjoying a long career of prosperity, on the first dawn of distress attempted to throw their burdens on others

Lord Egerton welcomed the amendment which had been made in the other House with the greatest pleasure, and defended the manufacturers against the

remarks made on them by Lord Kingsdown. He described from his own knowledge the efforts made by the masters to relieve their workmen, and pointed out that the low amount of the rates was no criterion by which to estimate the poverty at present in Lancashire. He defended the borrowing clause.

Lord Överstone thought that, although this Bill introduced the objectionable principles of ratesin-aid and modifications of the labour test, it was the only prac

tical remedy for so exceptional a state of things. He hoped this crisis would be but temporary, and protested against the artisans being considered as paupers. They were the victims of strict adherence to a State policy, and their feelings should be strictly consulted.

Lord Russell having briefly replied, the Bill was read a second time; and the Standing Orders being suspended, it went through Committee, was read a third time, and passed.