rose to move for a return of the number of prisoners confined for Small Debts in the several prisons of Scotland. He said, he had no doubt that when that return was laid before the House, it would so forcibly interest its humanity, as to urge the immediate adoption of a legislative measure upon the subject. In the preparation of that measure, he hoped for the assistance of those learned gentlemen, whom he had then in his eye. The House, he was persuaded, could hardly imagine the degree of misery which the prisoners alluded to were condemned to suffer, and when the numbers who thus suffered were taken into account combined with the insignificant debts for which they suffered, its astonishment must be excited, while its feelings must be severely afflicted. In the prisons of Glasgow alone there were last year no less than 93 persons confined for sums under one pound, and it was to be recollected that not one of those was likely to come out of prison, without having his morals polluted by the persons he was obliged to associate with in prison. The whole number of prisoners thus confined in all the Scotish prisons, amounted, he had reason to believe, to several hundreds, while he apprehended that those confined for sums under 5l. amounted to some thousands. He had also to observe, that none of these poor prisoners were entitled to any prison allowance or succour, until ten days after their committal, while the receipt of each afterwards was only 4d. per day. Yet the creditor could not commit one of these prisoners, without expending ten shillings, nor could the debtor be released without paying six shillings. Upon such facts, he thought it unnecessary to make any comment. The House would no doubt promptly and seriously consider the means of remedying so great an evil.—The hon. member concluded with moving for accounts,

1. "Showing the number of persons imprisoned in the different Prisons in Scotland during three years preceding the 31st December 1817, for debts not exceeding one pound. 2. Of persons so imprisoned for debts exceeding one pound and under three pounds; also above three pounds, and not exceeding five pounds, distinguishing the number in each class so confined for any period exceeding one month, three months, and six months, respectively. 3. Showing when the prisoners became entitled to their legal aliment, together with the amount thereof in the highest and lowest cases."

recommended to the consideration of the hon. gentleman, the act passed some years ago, with respect to the confinement of debtors in this country, under the decrees of courts of conscience, and which act, he had the honour to propose to that House. In the provisions of this statute, he apprehended the hon. gentleman would find something to guide his judgment in framing a remedy for the evil alluded to.

thought it highly creditable to the hon. gentleman to have brought this important subject before the House, and he wished the chief magistrates of other towns would direct their attention to objects equally interesting to humanity. For himself, he would freely say, that he thought our law materially defective in the tenderness which it always manifested towards property, while it was comparatively indifferent about liberty, and too often also about life.

The motions were agreed to.

said, that the House would recollect, that next Monday was fixed for the discussion of the Bank Restriction bill, and that on the same night the first reading of the Country Bank Notes bill was to take place. He now thought it his duty to seize the earliest opportunity of stating to the House, that in consequence of some circumstances which had occurred at a meeting with the chief country bankers yesterday, in which certain modifications had been proposed in the measure, which would render it impossible to be carried through during the present session, he should move that the order of the day for the second reading of the bill be discharged [Hear, hear!]. He wished, therefore, that it should be understood, that, although his opinion respecting the utility of the bill was not altered, it was not his intention to proceed farther with it until next session.

congratulated the House on the abandonment of this measure. But he implored the right hon. gentleman, if he had any respect for the tranquillity of the country and the stability of public credit, to state most distinctly the determination of his majesty's government respecting the proposal of any measure of the kind at a future period. Otherwise the country bankers would be reduced to a state of the most injurious anxiety.

hoped the House and the country would not allow themselves to be caught under such pretences. This was the second meeting at lord Liverpool's, in which the business of parliament was arranged without consulting the House of Commons. It was thus its sanction was set at nought. How could he know the grounds on which this measure was now withdrawn? Had the right hon. gentleman given any reason? It was, he said, in consequence of a meeting of the minister with a rich body of men. Did he fear, that if he persevered in a measure which so essentially affected their interests, they would leave him, in the event of a general election, to shift for himself [Hear, hear!]?

never understood that when a member gave notice of his intention of submitting a measure to the consideration of the House, he was deprived of the discretion of withdrawing it, if he should think proper, or of altering it as to mode or time. The right hon. gentleman was in the habit of imputing motives—that was an old expedient of his; and if he meant to be effective, he would recommend him not to avail himself of it so often.

trusted that the country bankers would fairly understand how their interests were affected by the present situation of this question. It had been distinctly acknowledged that the principle of the measure was not abandoned, but was to be again brought forward in a shape somewhat different. He entertained not the smallest doubt that a similar measure would be introduced after the next election, and when circumstances would be more favourable to its success.

was glad to hear that the measure was to be postponed, although his satisfaction was much diminished by the probability of its revival next session. He believed its tendency to be very injurious to credit, and to the means of securing the regular payment of the taxes. He had conversed with many enlightened persons on this subject, and had not met with one who did not express his disapprobation of it. It had already materially shaken confidence in the country, and caused a considerable run on several banks. He had no interest in any country bank, but he entertained a most unfavourable opinion of the measure, and wished to hear that it was entirely relinquished.

observed, that he should not fail to take the earliest opportunity of informing the House what were the ultimate intentions of his majesty's government in reference to this subject.

said, it would appear from the last observation of the right hon. gentleman, that the parties whose interests were to be affected by this measure, had merely craved time to consider the subject; now he had heard quite the reverse, and that at the meeting at lord Liverpool's yesterday, the gentlemen present distinctly declared, that no time would reconcile them to the principle of the bill. They did not ask for a postponement of the question, with any view to time, but for an abandonment of it altogether, as a measure to which no time could reconcile them, and as one which, if carried into effect, would ruin their credit with the country.

said, that as allusion had been made to the meeting at lord Liverpool's yesterday, he felt it necessary to state, that he was one of the persons who had there attended, and who, with one or two exceptions, were gentlemen concerned in country banks, and not members of that House. It was due, both to lord Liverpool and the chancellor of the exchequer to say, that they showed every disposition to hear with attention all the arguments urged against the proposition by the gentlemen whose interests it was to affect; but he had also to add, that there was not an individual called to the meeting, or a country banker in England, who could at any period, or under any circumstances, consent to the principle, in which the right hon. gentleman had avowed it his intention to persevere.

bore similar testimony to the dissatisfaction and alarm which the introduction of this measure had excited among the bankers in that part of Worcestershire with which he was chiefly connected. He had received the strongest remonstrances against its progress through the House, and doubted not that this was the case with many honourable members. It was desirable that facts of this nature should be stated, that the right hon. gentleman might know the sentiment universally entertained respecting designs which he had so imperfectly communicated.

could not help making a single observation on the course taken by the chancellor of the exchequer, and suggesting a departure from it in future. Would it not be as well if, when the right hon. gentleman had a measure to introduce affecting the interests of a large body of individuals, he would see the necessity of previously consulting them, instead of taking that step after he had announced his measure, and yielding after he had tried the temper of the House. It would certainly be less alarming to the House and the country that he should in future adopt this more discreet course.

should have been glad that the measure had been discussed, because he was persuaded that it would have been thrown out. His majesty's ministers had not behaved fairly. The House were called upon to throw out this bill, but no reasons had been given why it should be done. He knew of none but the alleged want of time. Some better reasons should be produced and what could they be? All the House knew was, that the country bankers were inimical to the bill; but he looked at the measure as one of the legislature, and he conceived it very possible that he might be friendly to a bill to which the country bankers might feel adverse. The present mode must create considerable alarm; for it would not be known how the measure was thrown out, and country bankers must consider that the principle of the bill was maintained by his majesty's ministers, to be probably renewed under circumstances more favourable to its adoption. They must then go on with their issues and circulation, in horror at the expectation of such a measure. The question ought to be fairly set at rest. As to the whole principle on which the currency of the country had been carried on for the last six or eight months, it was the most mischievous that could ever have entered the head of any chancellor of the exchequer.

, after vindicating his right to delay or withdraw his motion, admitted that many of the arguments used yesterday at the meeting went against the principle of the bill. His opinion, however, was unchanged. He thought that, with some modifications, much good might still be done, and as there was no time to carry those into effect during the present session he should persist in his motion.

The order for reading the bill a second time on Monday was then discharged. After which, it was ordered to be read a second time this day two months.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move, "That an humble Address be presented to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, praying that he would be graciously pleased to direct the payment of the sum of 3,504l. to the officers of the eight troops of the Royal Artillery Drivers, being the difference between the full and half-pay, and to assure his Royal Highness that this House will make good the same. "The hon. gentleman re-stated the reasons he had urged on a former evening, to show the justice and necessity of placing the officers of the artillery drivers corps on something like a par with those in other branches of the military service. As the officers to whose case he alluded were now placed, they had only their half-pay, notwithstanding their long service, and the wounds they might have received, while from the nature of the existing regulations, they could not, like other officers, avail themselves of an opportunity of getting employment in other branches of the service. The case alluded to on a former evening by the hon. gentleman opposite, of the two battalions of Irish artillery, was not a case in point, for the officers of these battalions had the option of retiring on full pay, or of going into the royal artillery. He was sure the House would not countenance the proposition that those officers who spent their youth and health in the service of the country, were to be abandoned at the close of the war, and put on a worse footing than others who had seen but comparatively little service. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving his Address.

said, that the hon. gentleman had placed him and those he represented in a painful situation—that of being forced, from a sense of duty, to deny to a meritorious class of gentlemen, what, if the House chose to grant it, the master-general had no personal wish to prevent. As long, however, as duty was to be performed, he was bound to state the official reasons against this grant. They were many and strong. But, in the first instance, he was anxious to deliver the case from all adventitious difficulty, and utterly to deny that any promise, express or implied, had ever been made by the noble lord at present at the head of the department, or any one acting under him, or, as far as he knew, any of their predecessors whatever. He had been called upon to deny that the officers themselves expected it in their own minds. But who could answer for what passed in another man's mind without inspiration, which he certainly did not possess? All he would do was to deny that they had any reason for such expectation—for even a semblance of a hope that any of the officers in question were to retire on full pay. That was confined to those of the four troops who had been arbitrarily as it were deprived of their commissions, while the troops themselves remained on service. All the rest had retired, as of course, with the troops they had commanded, and, as of course, on half-pay. This was in fact the true, the real, and only distinction between them, and afforded the only reason that could govern the case. What was its history? In the hurry in which the whole driver service was composed, excellent as it now was, there was this great defect: that its officers, although they certainly had military rank, could have no military command; he meant of guns and gunners. By their commission [which he here read], their command was confined to commissary officers, drivers, military farriers, and artificers, and the management of the artillery horses. They were, therefore, ordered to obey the youngest officer of the regiment who had the charge of any artillery in the field. Hence the Commissioners of Military Inquiry describe their duties rather as those of internal regulation, in respect to the state and condition of the horses and men, than those of the regular service in fighting the guns. These duties they had most satisfactorily performed, in the very teeth of the enemy, and, id as far as it required more cool determination to be passive under danger, too much could not be said of their gallantry. But this did not alter the condition of their service, by which, from the terms of their commissions, on account of the nature of their duties, they were told not to expect to rise higher than the rank of a captain-commissary. It was evident, meritorious as they certainly were, that with such commissions, great military promotion could not be open to them; and if they sustained any peculiar injury by being placed on half-pay, beyond thousands of other gallant officers, it could not be from the loss of such promotion.—He hoped nothing he had observed was calculated to hurt the feelings of any one of these meritorious persons; many of them he Believed had shown considerable talents; among them he was the first to acknowledge those of the officer that had been brought forward (captain Humphreys). He believed, in fact, that it was the anomalous nature of their service, thus crippled, that alone prevented their pursuit of a full military career. But at least such an anomaly was found inconvenient, and the master-general could not be blamed if he endeavoured, as soon as he could, to put an end to it. This could only be done; either by removing the officers, while the men were kept up, and introducing the officers of the regiment in their stead; or by waiting till the troops themselves were reduced at a peace, and upon a re-establishment of the corps on a future war, making a new constitution. In the first instance, as these officers would have been arbitrarily deprived of their commissions by no fault of theirs, and the service going on, it would have been unjust not to have given them the compensation of full pay. In the last, as the circumstance of being on half-pay gives no right to return to the service, should other regulations forbid, no one could complain at not being restored. Then what had the noble lord done? In regard to eight out of twelve troops the men had at different times been disbanded, and the officers had retired on half-pay. In regard to the four remaining, as the men were kept up, and officers of the horse artillery introduced, the driver officers, thus forcibly, as it were, dispossessed, and faultless themselves, received the compensation due to them, namely, full pay. This was the real case. Was there any thing in argument to alter it?—The hon. gentleman had dwelt much upon the merits of captain Humphreys, and the fact that the 5th and 6th troops, for which alone he pleaded, had served till September 1816, though ordered to be reduced in April. Suppose they had served till now! if the men were reduced with them, would that make any difference? That captain Humphreys had served 23 years meritoriously he was very willing to allow, and that a younger officer might be among those in the four senior troops, and had thus retired on full pay, might be true; but what was there in this different from the chances of the whole army, where an older officer might go into a younger regiment on promotion, or any other reason, and be overtaken by a reduction, while a junior who had remained in the old regiment continued employed. The hon. gentleman could not surely be ignorant of this, and wanted them therefore to introduce the strange confusion of either never being able to reduce the army by corps, or, upon every reduction, creating a revolution in all the old regiments—[Hear, hear!]. Such, then, was the principle. What was the practice? Why, even in this very artillery service, and this very corps of drivers, the precedents were all against them. In 1812, the commission of major in the corps was suppressed, and the officer, major James, placed upon half, not full pay; yet the office being declared useless, it was evident he could never return. At the peace, the artillery of the German legion, and also the foreign artillery, were reduced, and the officers (many of whom had served with distinction in the field) received, not full, but half-pay. These, also, were for ever out of the service. But a more exact case was to be found in that of the drivers on the Irish establishment, which had been reduced in 1802, not on full, but on half-pay. This was precisely in point: for these officers at this moment, enjoyed annuities to the amount of near 900l. a year. Now, what had these done, or those of the six troops on the English establishment, that they were not to be allowed the same benefit as those in whose favour the hon. gentleman pushed the department to break all rules? Nothing! and if this question were carried, the master-general could not and would not oppose their arrears.—This brought him to the question of finance. The arrears of the Irish drivers officers would be more than 15,000l. those of the English more than 10,000l., besides an increased permanent expense of about 6,000l. a year; but besides these, there was a battalion of Irish artillery reduced at the Union, never to return to the ar- tillery service, whose arrears would be full 22,000l.; in all 47,000l. With neither right nor precedent for them, with all precedent against them, were the House prepared to grant away all this money? Or, when the master general and board were called upon, from one end of the country to the other (and by no one more loudly than by the hon. gentleman who made this motion), could they on such a case be deemed good stewards for the public, if they sanctioned the application? He rested it, however, not on the ground of finance. God forbid that a question of justice should become a question of money! but in a case where there was no justice, finance must have its weight. It was really painful to him to say there was no justice in this demand, but it was forced upon him. An opinion was thus publicly called for, and he was bound to give it, or relinquish his duty. Were the country rich enough, with his good will, all officers who had served as long and as well as captain Humphreys, should retire on full pay. As it was he was at a loss to discover what there was in the case of any of these gentlemen (meritorious as he had allowed them to be), to set them above the claims of their brother officers and those of the whole British army, whose duties were at least more immediately military, who had many of them bled for their country, and who had even paid for their commissions, which these officers had not. For these the commander-in-chief had laboured in vain to procure such a boon as this: and he would state his royal highness's opinion, that if this measure were carried, it would be unjust to others, and create the greatest discontent. It was said, officers of the line had not lost their military career; he had shown, from their commissions, that that of the driver officers was, at best, but most contracted. It was said that the Irish battalion had been left eligible to commissions in the line; he could only say, as far as the ordnance were concerned, the driver officers were not ineligible. If being accustomed to evolutions, to command and to obey, and act coolly in the face of an enemy, could make officers eligible, he for one, should say they were eminently so. But the discretion was in the commander-in-chief, not the master-general, and the line itself was dependent upon that discretion. Gentlemen had argued as if there was a right in the half-pay of the line to succeed to vacant commissions. This was fallacious. The half-pay was a remuneration for past service, but gave no right to future employment. Regulation might sweep away a whole class at once. Suppose, for example, the commander in chief were to resolve to call no one from the half-pay beyond the age of SO, this would exclude a great body of officers; but would they, on that account, have a right to come to the House and demand full pay?—Upon the whole, he and those he represented, were fully convinced there was no colour of argument for the motion. Nevertheless, he was very glad to state one, the only boon which the master-general felt he could authorize in their favour, viz. that as they were out of the artillery service, and deemed so in the line, they should be allowed to hold their allowances, consistently with any other employment under government they might acquire. This was more than any officer of the army enjoyed, be his services, his distinctions or even his wounds, what they might. He trusted the House would permit this, and it was the only agreeable part of the task he had to perform, as he could assure the officers concerned, and the hon. gentleman who supported the motion, that he never felt his parliamentary duty so painful as in being obliged, for the reasons stated, to give it his opposition.

felt perfectly satisfied with the observations made by the hon. member, for the candour in making which he gave him great credit. Indeed, some part of the hon. member's remarks were an anticipation of those which he intended to offer on the subject. He would not therefore take up the time of the House by adverting farther to the topics on which the hon. member had so ably delivered himself. There was, however, one circumstance, on which he begged leave to say a word. He alluded to the affidavit which was to be made by every officer on receiving his half-pay, of his not holding any situation under the Crown. This he conceived to be a great grievance to the whole service. He could not see, why a Military man, who had long served his country, and after that service had been placed upon half-pay, should be precluded from again acting in any other than a military capacity, except with the loss of his half-pay. If they were found efficient for civil situations, he saw no reason why they should not be employed, and hold their half-pay at the same time.

said, that there was nothing in the commissions of these officers, nothing in their communications with the ordnance, which held out that the services of this corps would be absolutely annihilated. He held in his hand a letter from the late duke of Richmond to an officer on the establishment, in which the following passage occurred:—"It was certainly not meant that you should not rise to higher situations in the service." This held out a sort of hope of their attaining higher rank. There was nothing in it to show that on a peace their services would be absolutely annihilated, and all prospect taken away of their entering into the army or artillery.

thought that from the clear and candid statement made by the hon. member, there was nothing in the case of the officers of which they had a just right to complain. He therefore felt himself obliged to oppose the motion, which, if carried, would, in his opinion, create invidious distinctions in the service. He trusted that his hon. friend would not press it, and he felt satisfied that if the officers on whose behalf it was made, should come to hear of what had fallen from the hon. member opposite (Mr. Ward), there was not one of them who would not feel that no injustice had been done to him. There was, besides, a great difference between the situation of the officers of the artillery drivers and the officers of the army, in this respect, that the latter purchased their commissions, which the former did not.

, in reply, repeated, that the case of the officers he had mentioned was one of great hardship. The nature of their services seemed altogether to be overlooked. They were, in fact, the very sinews of the army, for without them the guns, ammunition, or provisions, could not be carried from place to place. A great many of the officers had suffered severely in the service, and many of them were at present entirely dependant upon the small allowance which they enjoyed. If the motion he had made should not be carried, it would at least be a satisfaction to him, that by the agitation of the question some benefit was likely to result to the officers of this deserving corps.

The motion was than put, and negatived, without a division.

said, he should tres- pass as shortly as possible on the attention of the House, while he detailed the principal provisions of a bill, for altering the existing law of settlements, which, under the authority of the committee on the poor laws, he should move for leave to bring in. He should give a short view of the law on the subject up to the present period. In the early part of the reign of queen Elizabeth the maintenance of the poor was first established by law, and the law of settlement was then also for the first time introduced. That law laid down various rules for determining the parish to which any pauper should he held to belong, but it empowered all persons to remove from parish to parish at pleasure. That law continued in force for near a century, till the beginning of Charles the 2nd, when considerable doubts having existed on the subject, and different decisions having been given of what was to be held a settlement, a month's residence having in some cases been taken, in others a very different period of time, by the 13th and 14th Charles the 2nd these doubts were removed. The preamble of that bill stated, that great mischief had been done in parishes where there were extensive wastes and commons, by persons taking up a temporary residence on them, and when they had plundered the woods, removing to other parishes. This law of the 13th and 14th Charles the 2nd continued the basis of the law of settlement up to a recent period. The effect of that law was, to confine poor persons to their own parishes, than which nothing could be more unpleasant to the individuals so confined, and more unprofitable to the state. It gave a settlement to an individual on a residence of forty days in a parish, but it at the same time gave power to the parish officers to remove all persons taking up a residence in the parish and not renting a tenement of 10l. a year. Under that law it was not unnatural that persons coming into a parish should conceal their residence. A subsequent act required a certain notice to be given; and as it was afterwards found that this was not sufficient and that collusion took place, it was enacted that notice should be given in the parish church. To obviate the inconveniences which arose under this state of the law, the system of granting certificates was resorted to. Thus, a person wishing to remove from the parish of A. to the parish of B. received a certificate from the parish of A., acknowledging that he belonged to it, by which means he was, allowed to reside in the parish of 13., till he became chargeable to it. This was the law till our own time, when the 35th of the king liberated the lower orders from the power of parish officers. From the passing of the 35th the evil had been in a great manner done away, so far as regarded the power of removing from parish to parish. But when the labourer required relief, from illness or other causes, then the most distressing scenes frequently took place. If from illness, or other causes, an individual required assistance, he was removed perhaps to a distant part of the country, which he had not seen for many years, and where he could obtain no employment. This evil of the existing law called loudly for remedy. The laws which had grown out of the 13th and 14th Charles 2nd, for attaching people to the parishes where they worked, had completely failed. A forty days residence in a parish where a man did not work gave a settlement, while another person who had worked forty years in a parish had not a settlement in it. With regard to the litigation to which they gave rise, it was endless. Even under the existing law the questions of fact were innumerable. The number of appeals to the quarter sessions against orders of removal last year were 4,700. One of the most fruitful sources of litigation was, the renting a tenement of the value of 10l. yearly. The most contradictory evidence was frequently given by surveyors, as to the value of a tenement. Another source of settlement—the hiring of servants—was also the cause of much litigation; but he would refer those gentlemen who wished to go more minutely into the subject, to the report of the committee on the poor laws. But great as the evil of litigation was, it was not the greatest evil. A person might be removed to a distant part of the kingdom, where he might have settled in an early part of his life. If a person did not rent a tenement of 10l. value, it was in many cases not in his power to gain a settlement. In many parts of the country great pains were taken to prevent the obtaining of settlements—tenants were bound down in their leases not to hire a servant for more than a certain number of weeks, to prevent his obtaining a settlement. The country at large were sensible of the evil of the system; and it was necessary, therefore, to look to a remedy for the evil. Some persons thought the law of settlement should be altogether done away, and that the poor ought to be maintained by the parish where they happened to be when they first required support. But the consequence of this would be, that persons would flock to particular parishes; and in great towns a door would be open to innumerable frauds, and to endless vagrancy. But all these evils, it was again very confidently said, might be done away with, by granting this relief out of a national fund. But what check would there be on the expenditure? Was there such a tender feeling at present with respect to defrauding the public? Was it not seen, on the contrary, that persons who lived by defrauding the revenue were not unpopular?—that this was the employment of persons in a rank of life much above the lowest?—persons who would be ashamed of defrauding private individuals? These people were looked on with complacency, and he would leave the House to judge what might be expected when motives of humanity were added, and when every parish officer would be anxious to gratify his feelings of humanity at the expense of the public. A national fund was therefore quite impossible; and it became necessary to attach people to the parishes where they were to obtain local relief. The first ground for obtaining a settlement to which he should advert was birth. This would put an end in a short time to all litigation, as every person's birth would be registered. But against birth there were many serious objections. Another ground was residence for a certain time, three years for instance. It was worthy of the consideration of the House, whether, after all, this was not the best plan. He could see no injury from a settlement being obtained in a place where a person resided for three years. He should suggest to the House a mode of arrangement, which might go far to do away any difficulties connected with this subject. He should propose, that, after three years residence in a parish, an individual should then be at liberty, at the option of the parish-officers, to have it adjudged that he had resided three years. In case of refusal, instead of appeal to the quarter sessions, he should propose, that the decision be given to any two magistrates in the neighbourhood. It appeared to him that there could be no difficulty in proving a residence of the time required. The House, of course, understood that he proposed no retrospect. There might be a difficulty with respect to occasional absence. He shouuld propose, that a residence of three years, without an absence of more than 60 days in each year, without being in the mean time chargeable on any parish, and without the individual's having been convicted of any crime or misdemeanor, should entitle to settlement in a parish. This would obviate the present restrictions in hiring servants, and would have the effect of producing a stronger attachment between them. In short, this regulation he conceived would, in every way, be favourable to morals and good conduct. He should propose, that no settlement be gained under the age of 16. This might remove any disinclination to taking boys and apprentices. Another object of his bill would be to suspend the incurring the expense of removal till the decision of any appeal. In many cases this would save the expense of removing a man and his whole family to a distant part of the country. The alterations which he proposed were really not innovations, but bringing back the law to what it anciently was; and if he erred, he erred with very great authority, with both Mr. Pitt and Mr. Whitbread in their bills. The right hon. gentleman referred also to another authority which might be considered still greater on this subject, that of Dr. Burn, who wrote the history of the poor laws. He concluded with moving "That leave be given to bring in a bill to amend the laws respecting the Settlement of the Poor."

wished to know the period of time that would be required to entitle a pauper to a settlement, and the time of removal in cases of appeal.

replied, that three years was the period required, and that the pauper must not have been absent more than 60 days in each of those years. The days were not to be consecutive, but in the course of the whole year his absence must not have been greater. No removal was to take place during an appeal, unless wished by the parish, who were, in that case, to be liable for all the expense. He wished to take that opportunity to explain what was to be proposed respecting servants. When servants had been three years with one master, and resided during that period in different parishes, it was proposed to make that parish liable for their maintenance where they had been for the last two or three months.

said, that as the right hon. gentleman had referred to Dr. Burn's authority, to show the propriety of reverting to the ancient law, he must remind him that the ancient law was not that three years constituted a settlement; but that, if the pauper had previously resided in another parish for more than three years, for five or six years, he should be removed to that parish; but this was rather a matter of curiosity. Such an alteration in the law of the land as was now proposed must occasion injustice. They could not sweep away laws once existing, whether good or bad, without gross injustice. The proposed law in this case did not seem to meet the evil. It did not prevent litigation, as to which of several parishes was under the stronger obligation to support the poor, in cases where the residence had not been three years in any one of them. A. B. and C. are equally bound, as far as residence is concerned, to maintain a pauper. Which of them is to be liable? This was the great difficulty to be removed. The law of maintenance was sufficiently clear—the pauper must be maintained. But the question respected the law of settlement, who was to maintain this pauper? There was another provision which he considered liable to objection. The acquisition of settlement was to be vitiated by any crime committed by the pauper. If the pauper committed a crime in one parish, why should another parish be therefore punished? The parish in which the crime was committed ought rather to be punished. It was agreeable to the law of the land, and the ancient custom of England, that the neighbourhood should be responsible for crimes committed amongst them.

rose to deprecate going into a discussion on the measure in the present stage of the question. It would be more satisfactory to wait till the bill should be printed.

said, he was certainly not prepared to discuss the principle of the bill, but he did not see why an opinion should not be: now given upon the measure. At the same time he felt by no means disposed to make any objections to the proposed measure. He conceived it to be a great improvement, and one that would prevent much inconvenience, much expense, and much suffering, This opinion he now gave, having had considerable experience in former years of the operation of the poor laws. The distress occasioned to the wretched paupers by sudden removals, and to a great distance, was extremely painful to every mind of reflection and humanity. It was monstrous to suppose that it was a matter of indifference to the pauper where he should be maintained. It was often of the utmost importance to him. On a sudden illness, depriving him of the power to work at his employment, he was removed to another parish, perhaps far distant, where, when he recovered, no employment was to be found for him. He had known a journeyman printer to have been so removed to a place where no printing was done, and where he could consequently obtain no employment. He, therefore, thought the proposed alteration most beneficial, most advantageous in its consequences, and altogether the most beneficial regulation on the subject during the present reign. He had often viewed it as the greatest cruelty to an unfortunate pauper to be, on account of a temporary illness, removed to a place where he would be surrounded with strangers, and where, if he recovered, no employment could be found. The distress to the pauper was very great, the expense of removal was great, and the ultimate burthen to the public was often much increased by this cruel law. He would take another opportunity of considering the details of the measure, but he could not now avoid saying that he thought it the greatest improvement that could possibly be made.

stated instances of the increase of litigation which he had lately remarked at two quarter-sessions. In one instance, the increase was from 1 to 20; in another from 1 to 16. He also mentioned instances of fraud and imposition by paupers having apprentices, and by men having property in one parish and removing to another parish, and taking houses rented so low as to come under the law of settlement. These evils required correction, and he hoped the measure proposed would be effectual. He apprehended, however, that by this measure a greater proportion of paupers would be thrown upon the towns.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

said, he had heard that, for the purpose of building the new churches, the sum of one million was to be raised from the consolidated fund of England and Ireland. This, according to the proportion settled at the Union, being two-seventeenths for Ireland, would throw upon that country a part of this expense amounting to 120,000l. If such was the case, he hoped that Ireland would partake of the advantage. He was as desirous as any man to see new churches built for the accommodation of the established church. Ireland required such accommodation as much as England, for the population had greatly increased there, and was becoming more numerous every day. There was not a country in the world more productive of population. The Protestant religion, too, was advancing as fast as any other description of religion. It could not be denied that Ireland was very much indebted to England, but it should be remembered also, that England was very much indebted to Ireland; and it was the interest of every Briton to support her. Her officers and soldiers always fought gallantly. Not one of them deserted their standard. In the time of Mr. Perceval, 50,000l. was granted for repairing churches in Ireland, and the same for first fruits in last session. They were not able to bear this. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer could not but see the distress of the country when he was last there. It was apparent; particularly in Dublin, the finest metropolis in the whole world. He must have observed the wretchedness of the place—some of the houses deserted, and a great part of the windows stopped up to avoid the tax. There were palaces there no doubt—there was the lord lieutenant's palace—but they were deserted; they were not frequented as formerly by the gentry and nobility, because their parliament was taken away from them. In the part of the country with which he was acquainted, he often saw people leaving the churches for want of room. He hoped, therefore, the benefit of this measure would be extended there.

believed he could remove the difficulties and satisfy the objections of the hon. baronet. This measure would not be attended with any injustice to Ireland. Of that he hoped they would never be guilty towards her, for they were fully sensible of the merits of their Irish fellow subjects. The hon. baronet was mistaken in all the points to which he had alluded. In the first place, this was not to be a grant from the consolidated fund. In the second place, the proportion of two-seventeenths, established at the Union, did not now exist. It was done away two years back, when the exchequers of both countries were consolidated. As to the grant of 50,000l. alluded to, a similar one was voted every year since 1810, not for the repair of churches, but for the commission of first fruits. Last year it was only 30,000l. If more accommodation was necessary for the congregations in Ireland, which he was happy to learn were upon the increase, the House, he had no doubt, would provide it most cheerfully.

objected to the clause which entitled twelve well disposed persons to build a church, and appoint a minister with the consent of the bishop, as tending to disturb the tranquillity of the church by the introduction of dogmatical sectaries, and by infringing on the rights of patrons. It was unworthy, too, in the church, to depend on private funds for its increase or support. He objected also to the language of the clause: the expression "well disposed" was loose in the extreme, and no certain construction could be put upon it. Their being householders of the parish was no protection; for strangers who did not belong to the parish might join with them; and if the bishop refused his consent, he would be exposed to a degree of odium he might be very unwilling to encounter. A clause of this nature could not fail to encounter opposition in another place, and might endanger the success of the bill altogether. He, therefore, moved its rejection.

defended the clause, and thought that the church should avail itself of all sources of assistance from private liberality. He could state, in answer to an apprehension that had fallen from his right hon. friend, that this clause would not endanger the bill in another place. Those who were most interested had been consulted, and had expressed their acquiescence in it. The clause would not enable strangers to introduce sectarians; it mentioned only that twelve well-disposed householders of the parish, and others, might build, and have two presentations. As the law stood already, nothing could prevent parties from building and preaching as long as they liked, doctrines the most opposite to those of the church. With respect to patrons, the clause did not interfere with their right of presentation; and as to its being unworthy of the church to profit by private munificence, the right hon. gentleman must be aware, that a great proportion of the churches at present existing had been founded by private patrons. He could not, therefore, consent to abandon the clause;

opposed the clause as likely to make a serious inroad on the rights of the established church. If this proposition were to be pressed, he hoped it would be made the subject of a separate bill, that the present measure which was so generally approved, might not be clogged with that which appeared so objectionable.

was willing to give both of the clauses his support, because he did not wish to endanger the success of the bill, but he would consent to them only with some modification. One of the clauses allowed twelve persons, who might provide the necessary funds for the building of a church or chapel, to apply to the bishop for the purpose, and having obtained his consent to proceed in the erection of the said church or chapel. The subscribers were then to have the right of two presentations, through trustees appointed by the majority. Now it might so happen, that the greater part of the funds might be raised without the parish, and of course that the nomination might rest with people not belonging to it. To the clause, as it thus stood, he could not agree. He could not consent to the nomination being placed in the hands of extra-parochial subscribers. He would therefore propose, when the proper time came, some modification, making it necessary for the majority of the subscribers to be resident parishioners. No person unconnected with the parish could have a personal interest in appointing a Christian instructor. General subscribers should not therefore be allowed to exercise the right of presentation. He did not wish to check the liberality of individuals which came in aid of the liberality of parliament to promote so laudable an object as the erection of places of worship, but he did not see how the limitation he proposed could have that effect. The society which had been formed for promoting this object had subscribed without any condition, and had even gone before parliament in raising funds for the purpose. As no plan had been laid down by the legislature on which to proceed, and as no faith had been pledged, there could be no faith broken with them under whatever regulations they were allowed to expend their subscriptions. In the case of parishes which received the aid of parliament, that aid could be extended on any conditions parliament chose; and one of those conditions ought to be, to limit the right of presentation, which might be given once or twice as an inducement to co-operate to a majority of resident subscribers.

said, that there was not such a difference between himself and his right hon. friend as might at first sight appear. It was to be supposed that the majority of subscribers would be resident parishioners, and a discretion was allowed to the bishop to grant or withhold his consent, as he saw how the funds were raised. The incumbent and patron likewise were to be consulted, and it was not likely that they would agree to any proposition by which an extra-parochial influence would be created. The incumbent himself might be a subscriber. He would not object to the introduction of some words by which the evils apprehended might be prevented, and the objections stated obviated.

said, that the objection was not answered by referring to the power conferred on the bishop by the bill. The bishop was only allowed to judge of the expediency of erecting an additional place of worship, and of the sufficiency of the funds raised for the purpose. He had no right to inquire whence those funds came, or into whose hands the right of presentation might devolve.

expressed his entire concurrence with every observation which fell from his right hon. and learned friend. The objectionable clauses did not seem necessarily connected with the rest of the bill, and might easily be detached from it, to be made the subject of a separate discussion. They, therefore, ought to be introduced in a separate bill, and determined on their own grounds. If right, they might be voted by themselves; if wrong, they ought to be rejected with out injury to what was right. The consent of the House ought not to be purchased to an objectionable measure by its union with what was desirable, nor ought the regulation of the latter to be hazarded by being coupled with the former. The bishop was not allowed to judge by the bill of the source from whence the funds arose. If twelve well-disposed persons agreed to raise the necessary fowls, they might apply to him, and have his consent to the erection of a place of worship, to which the trustees elected by the majority of subscribers, wherever they resided, would have the right of presenting twice. This description of persons appeared to him to be as indefinite as the result of their operations might be injurious to the rights of the church. What was meant by well-disposed persons, when the term was introduced into an act of parliament? Crime was defined by law, but he never yet heard of a definition of morality in a statute. How were we to measure good dispositions, or ascertain the character of well-disposed persons by an act of parliament? He was confirmed in his objections to this clause of the bill by the very concessions that had already been made, and the amendments introduced. In the original proposal of the measure, the subscribers were to have the tight of nominating thrice. His right hon. friend, the chancellor of the exchequer, had now reduced this right to two turns of nomination, and another right hon. friend (Mr. Bathurst) spoke of one. Why was the original proposition abandoned, if it were right? In the bill there was no description of the kind of fabrics to be raised, and no provision made for their repairs. They might only be of a kind to last so long as the original subscribers had an interest in the nomination of the clergyman; and might devolve to the patron or the incumbent when unfit for use. He opposed the clause, and wished it separated from the bill.

said, it became the House to consider the want of churches, and whether the legislature would not relax in certain rights to enable the zeal of individuals to, concur with the wishes of parliament. It was true, indeed, that law was unbending, but this was not the case with legislation. If there was a real want of churches, be had rather that churches were erected by sectarists, than not built at all. He was not for separating the measure from the bill. Not with standing the anxiety he felt to maintain the ascendancy of the church, he confessed that he wished to see the present clause carried. It would, however, be recollected, that the bishops still retained the power to repel all abuses of the bill.

felt it his duty to object to the clause, and doubted much if the bishops had a power to prevent the abuses of it. He hoped it would finally form a separate bill.

would shortly state the grounds upon which he should support the clause. He much, doubted, in the present state of the growing population of the country, whether the amazing void of religion could be, supplied without some collateral aid. He had rather not tempt men into the church; and if this measure could have that effect, he wished it put under guards. It would still be open to the incumbent and the bishop to control the appointment of the minister of such church or chapel. He believed it would benefit the common cause, if the people had the pointing out of their ministers; this would accelerate the establishment. This being his general impression, he would vote for the clauses. At the same time, he was not prepared to say that they should not be separated, though they were members of the same system.

regretted that he was compelled to vote against the measure proposed by his right hon. friend: he feared that the bill would be endangered if the clause were introduced.

could not concur in the idea of excluding private liberality from assisting the services of the church. When they saw the land covered with dissenting meetings by private liberality, he wished to afford the same means to the established church, and was confident of its success.

The House then divided:—For the clause, 22; Against it, 47: Majority against it, 25. The chairman then reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.