moved the order of the day, for taking into further consideration the report of the Poor Relief Bill.

, after giving due credit to the benevolent intentions of the hon. mover of the Bill, felt himself bound to oppose it in toto. 1st. Because it appeared to him impracticable, on account of the complexity of its provisions. 2d. Because those provisions were not in conformity to the preamble: inasmuch as that preamble proposed, to have it in view, to take away the grievance of a removal, in consequence of the grant of mere temporary relief; whereas, for his part, he could not find out any thing in the Bill calculated to effectuate any such purpose. 3d. Because the Bill involved a principle in his mind highly objectionable, which was this—that the magistrates would have power to make orders of payment on parishes, not present, to resist such orders. 4th. Because the trouble attending the various proceedings, which the Bill created, alarmed him, when he looked to the examination of the witnesses, the adjudication, the allowance, &c. &c. 5th. Because the provision for a re-examination, before an appeal appeared to him defective, as he could see no mode devised as to what was to happen, in case the justices revoked their adjudication. 6th. Because the charges in obtaining reimbursement, would, as he was informed, run to not less than 3l. or 4l. 7th. Because it would necessitate parishes to open a debtor and creditor account to a large extent with other parishes, and he was informed, that the parish of St. Giles's had now not less than 1,000 removals in a year, and this Act would therefore open 1,000 accounts in its stead. As to the 2d clause, in affording medical relief, it appeared to him objectionable, as interfering between the parish and the medical practitioner; and that, as the law at present stood, the medical practitioner, if he could get no payment from the pauper, had, at least, the advantage of the credit and collateral practice that such aid gave him.

went over the same ground, and, at least, hoped that the Bill might be deferred till another session.

, in reply, expressed his extreme surprise at the objections now made by the hon. member for Essex, because he could not perceive the smallest weight in any one of those objections. He doubted, indeed, if he could have attentively read the Bill, much less have taken the pains to understand it, at least in some of its main provisions. He hesitated, whether to intrude on the House so far, as to enter into a detailed answer to all the misconceived objections which the hon. member had so minutely gone through. He would endeavour to avoid wearying the House, by being as general and brief as possible in his reply; yet, weak and untenable as those objections appeared to him, he could not avoid all answer to them, lest those, to whom the Bill was not equally familiar, as it was to himself, might be misled by uncontradicted errors. With regard to the charge of complexity, he must presume to say, that never was any thing more unfounded. He insisted, that the simplicity and perspicuity of the Bill, was a merit which none, who looked with attention to it, could deny. He had had the best advice; and not only all the professional skill, but the most unqualified approbation of those known to be most eminently qualified in this branch of the law, as to its practicability, and easy, and intelligible execution. The second objection still more astonished him. Was it possible that the hon. member could complain, that no provision was made, in conformity with the preamble, to prevent removals, in consequence of temporary relief? Why, if this was not done, there was no meaning in words! At the very top of page 2, it would be found, that the justices "shall determine and direct what relief shall be paid weekly, or otherwise, &c. without making any order for the removal of such poor person." This was the very main feature and essence of the Bill; and, to effectuate this purpose, without burdening the parish, whence the pauper was thus made for a time irremoveable, all the minor provisions and machinery of the Bill were anxiously adapted.

The third objection, which was directed against one of these minor provisions, appeared to him not a little strained and farfetched. Parishes refuse to take the burden of paupers on themselves, even for a time. If an attempt is made to facilitate and extend settlements, the kingdom is in arms: overseers and vestry clerks flock and herd together, and petition and clamour. And yet, when it is proposed to order payment by the parish, where the settlement is by the existing law, then it is objected, that neither ought they to pay; because, forsooth, they are often too remote to attend at the making of the order. The truth is, that it is a discretion which, in this case, must ex necessitate rei, he left in the breast of the magistrate, where it is not likely to be abused; and where, at worst, if abused, it cannot last beyond the time required for a final adjudication of the settlement.

The fourth objection, contained an expression of alarm on the part of the hon. member; which, a little further attention to the Bill, would, as he contended, have entirely dissipated. Certainly it furnished an example of exaggeration on the part of those, who instructed the hon. member, not a little striking! All that was to be done, as to adjudication, beyond what was now required, to found an order of removal, was a service of a copy of the adjudication on the parish to which the pauper was adjudged to belong, instead of a service of the body of the pauper, and the bodies of all the pauper's family. So far, at least, it might be conceived, that it was proposed to exchange, not simplicity for complexity, but complexity for simplicity; at least, it might be argued, with some tolerable share of justice and reason, that it was both more easy and less expensive to convey, through the post, a written adjudication, to be served by an agent, than to convey a poor man and all his family from Middlesex to Cornwall, even if we were to put the tortured feelings and ruined hopes of the poor man out of the question!

But the hon. member contended, fifthly, that there next was superadded to this intolerable complexity another impracticable provision, which threw in the way difficulties of execution in his mind, not only insuperable, but unattempted to be provided for. There was a clause, that after the copy of adjudication served, the parish, so burdened, might, before appeal, require a re-examination before the same or other magistrates! "But what," he cried, "if the first adjudication should then be reversed—what must be done with the pauper?" Why, did not the hon. member know, that, like the case of an order of removal quashed on appeal, the pauper remains in the parish where he was resident before the adjudication, till a new settlement can be found for him? So much for these giants raised by the fertile fancy of the hon. gentleman! So much for the complexity created by this single intermediate step provided by the Bill!

We now come, sixthly, to the complaint of grievous charges to be incurred by parishes for enforcing orders of reim- bursements for temporary relief advanced. The same partiality, the same exaggeration, the same mode of viewing only one side of the question, occurs in this instance. It is said, that to obtain the means, contained in every order, an expense of 3 to 4l. must be incurred. A calculation had been exhibited to him to this effect; and how was it made out? Why, all the expenses of adjudication were included (which have nothing to do with the order of reimbursement) 1l. 1s. 6d. for three affidavits, where none is required, and other items charged twice—so that, after deducting these, the expense, on this head, remained at the mighty sum of 7s. 6d. But had those, who argued in this way, forgot, that whatever expense might be incurred by these provisions, even if they amounted to the exaggerated sum they estimated them at, parishes were great gainers by the exchange, when it was recollected, that the Bill, which imposed it on them, exonerated them from the expense of removing the pauper; and it was quite clear that the expense of removing a pauper to a distance increased out of all proportion to that of obtaining reimbursement from a distance! The 7th objection, as to the debtor and creditor account, is open to the same answer. If the parish of St. Giles's now makes 1,000 removals in a year, it furnishes the strongest and most urging proofs of necesssity for the present Bill. It is much easier for that unlucky parish to keep these debtor and creditor accounts, and enforce them too, through agents authorised, by the medium of the post, than to be sending its officers about conveying paupers all over the kingdom!

In reply to the objections to the second clause, regarding medical relief, he was by no means of opinion, that the medical man would find a sufficient stimulus to afford his aid to the poor for the barren honour of a remote contingence of collateral practice; and, as to the reason for the law as it now stands, that the medical man had already his remedy by action against the pauper, it was too ludicrous, or too insulting, to be seriously entertained. In short, sir Egerton trusted, that, after the length of time that had been taken for the consideration of this measure; after the support it had received from those, best qualified to form a sound opinion on it; after the letters of approval, which he could truly say he had received from magistrates in every part of the kingdom; after the irrefragable grounds of reasoning, justice, and policy, on which the principle of the Bill had been established, the House would not reject the measure in its present stage; but, by giving its sanction to it, add some necessary extension to the Bill which had passed in the 35th of his present Majesty, called East's Bill—a Bill found to be more beneficial than all besides, that had been enacted since the first insitution of the Poor Laws.

A division then took place on Mr. Western's amendment, for the taking the Report into further consideration this day six months—For the Amendment, 21; For the original motion, 30. Majority, in favour of the Bill, 9.

The Report of the Bill was then about to be taken into further consideration, when it was discovered, that a written copy of the Bill, in its amended state, had been, by some mistake, omitted to be made, and it was therefore deferred to the next day.

presented a petition from the merchants and bankers of the city of London, praying that the House would take into consideration the great inconvenience they would experience by the removal of the Post-office; and further, that it might not pass into a law.

was of opinion, that the subject of the Petition was highly deserving of consideration. The first object should be, to enquire what advantage was likely to accrue to the public from removing the Post-office; and the next, whether the advantage, if any, was worth the immense expense that must inevitably attend the measure, especially in the present state of our finances. In his opinion, it required to be very seriously and strictly enquired into, before the House and the country should venture to embark in an expenditure of such excessive extent. He understood, that the purchase of the site alone, would cost the public 300,000l.; for which, during a certain time, they were to receive no interest at all; and, after that period, the Orphan's fund was to be mortgaged for the payment of the interest of a part only of that sum. There would then be the expense of building, which might turn out very enormous. The House should first enquire, and find out, what would be the expense; a committee should be fairly appointed, with powers to send for persons, papers, and records. Let the merchants, and others concerned, shew all the incon- veniences attending it, and let every circumstance be thoroughly investigated, that could throw a light on so important a subject. He should, therefore, move, that this petition, and all others that might be offered, relative to this Bill, be referred to a committee.

said, it was usual to give notice of every motion, of a similar nature to the present, which his hon. friend had now made. He, therefore, hoped his hon. friend would wave his motion till to-morrow; and that, in the mean time, all proceedings on the Bill should be staid till that motion was disposed of.

said, there were 3,000 names to the Petition, signed by merchants and bankers of the first fortune and character in the country, who would not have signed such a petition if they had not felt that the most serious inconveniencies must be the consequence of this measure. As there was to be a committee, he would not, at present, take up the time of the House, by entering into further particulars. He would only wish to mention, that there was a counter-petition, originating, he believed, about Temple-bar; at the meeting for which, Mr. Twining was in the chair. It seemed they had received all their information from the Post-office, and it was not therefore difficult to foresee what sort of materials it would be composed of. He hoped, however, that the business would now be thoroughly investigated and he saw no reason why it should not be put off till next session.

The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.

then presented a Petition, from nearly 4,000 bankers, merchants, and traders, resident at the west-end of the town, praying, the enactment of the Bill for the removal of the Post-office. The hon. member stated, that this Petition came from persons not at all connected with the original framers of the Bill, to which it referred, but who were interested in the early delivery of letters; and anxious for an arrangement, which would keep the receiving-houses open for half an hour later in the evening. This was naturally conceived a very material advantage to the inhabitants at the west-end of the town, which entitled the petitioners to particular attention, and the more so as the convenience of the merchants in the city was fully provided for in the Bill. It was notorious, that five out of seven of the let- ters received at the General Post-office were addressed to the west end of the town, and which circumstance pleaded strongly in support of the petitioners; and the manufacturing districts would be considerably benefited by the additional opportunity which the extension of the time, for receiving letters in the evening, would afford to their correspondents to answer their communications. Such he understood to be the impression among several Manchester houses with which he had had a communication upon the subject.

observed, that, by paying a certain sum annually, any man might insure the early delivery of his letters; and that the difference between the early and the ordinary delivery of letters at Lincoln's-inn, for instance, was no less than an hour and a half. This difference surprised him and others, with whom he had conversed upon the subject. Indeed, he could not account for the reason why all the letters might not be delivered at the same time, if due diligence were employed at the Post-office. But to whose hands the guinea a year, usually paid for this early delivery, finally fell, he could not say, but he thought that it would be much better to create some fund to insure the early delivery generally, than allow it to rest upon the discretion of any individuals.

said, that when the Bill was originally introduced he was adverse to it, because he apprehended that its enactment would be inconvenient to the merchants of London. But that inconvenience was provided against, and he now thought the measure highly desirable; and the several points referred to by the petitioners, as well as that stated by the hon. gentleman, who spoke last, certainly called for enquiry.

stated, that, exclusive of the other considerations, which called for the enactment of the Bill, the citizens of London, who considered the present state of St. Martin's-le-Grand as a nuisance, were extremely anxious for the improvements which this Bill was calculated to, produce.

The Petitions were referred to a committee.

proposed, that the report of this Bill should be postponed to next session.

expressed a wish rather that the Bill should now be re-committed, than that it should be postponed altogether.

said, he was ready to meet the wishes of the hon. gentleman, and begged he might be allowed to withdraw his original motion.

said, several gentlemen had left the House, under the impression that the Bill would be postponed till next session.

, under these circumstances, proposed to postpone the committee for a few days.

said, he would have no objection to agree to the Bill being got rid of for the present.

After a few observations from Mr. Wetherall, sir W. Scott, lord Palmerston, Mr. Manners Sutton, and Mr. Horner, who suggested the expediency of the Bill being then re-committed; Mr. D. Giddy moved, that the Speaker do leave the chair. This motion was carried, and the House resolved into a committee. Several verbal amendments were proposed and agreed to.

said, he had a clause of rather a curious nature to propose. It was for the purpose of protecting the interests of authors, who were in the habit of writing plays, merely intended for the closet. A gentleman, who had written several pieces of this description, which he conceived to be extremely good, had informed him, that as the law was at present constituted, though the copy-right of any play, he might produce, was secured to him, yet there was no enactment to prevent the manager of either of the regular theatres from bringing it out on the stage, which might seriously injure the sale of the drama. He, therefore, requested him to introduce a clause, "to prevent any play, or any production, purporting to be a play, which should hereafter be published for the closet, from being represented on the stage without the consent of the author being first obtained."

said, that the clause proposed by the hon. gentleman, was so utterly unconnected with any thing contained in the Bill, that it would, perhaps, be better to reserve it until a bill, to allow the erection of a third theatre, was introduced.

said, he had no particular attachment to the clause; but, as it was put into his hands, he thought it was right to mention it.

The clause was withdrawn. The House then resumed; the Report was received, and ordered to be taken into farther consideration on Friday.