said, that during the number of years he had had the honour of sitting in that House, he never rose to offer any animadversion, or to support any censure, upon the public press but with extreme pain and reluctance. But, he should think that he violated his duty to himself, and his duty as a member of parliament, if he did not bring under the consideration of the House a statement in which the honour of the House itself was too deeply implicated, and its privileges too openly compromised, to allow him to hesitate in the discharge of such a task. This statement had appeared in a Sunday paper, called the "John Bull," and trespassed upon one of those privileges which every member had an undoubted title to exercise. The House would probably recollect, that on Friday evening last, in consequence of a question having been put to him by the member for Ross-shire (Mr. Mackenzie), he took occasion to disclaim altogether the truth and accuracy of a report of a conversation which was represented in some of the daily papers to have taken place in that House. That report was not known to him till some days after it had appeared. The inaccuracy he had no doubt was of a perfectly venial character, although the words therein imputed to him by no means conveyed the sense of what he had said on the occasion. It was obvious, therefore, that on finding this to be the case, he was called upon in common courtesy, for an explanation. Under these circumstances, he could not help making an apology to the hon. gentleman opposite. In consequence, as he supposed, partly from the low tone of voice in which he spoke, and partly from the inattention which was frequently manifested to conversations which involved matter of little public interest, although, perhaps, of much private importance, there was no report of this speech in apology in the public newspapers; but the hon. member for Ross-shire expressed himself at the time perfectly satisfied with what had fallen from him. In the Courier of Saturday there was an advertisement of it, which he would read to the House. That advertisement, though not verbally correct, was correct in substance: he should make no remark upon it, as it might have been inserted without the knowledge of any of the parties concerned. It was contained in the article which he should now read from the "John Bull," of Sunday, May 6, 1821— "The Lord President and Mr. Henry Bennet.—We have been requested to republish the following paragraph, which, was inserted in the Courier of last night:—'The following reply made by Mr. Bennet, in the House of Commons last night, was not distinctly heard in the gallery, and, in consequence, is very imperfectly reported in the morning papers. It was given by the hon. member, on the observation of Mr. Mackenzie, that the public press, in reporting the discussion on the army estimates, which took place on a former evening, had erroneously attributed to Mr. Bennet a serious reflection on the conduct of the lord president of the Court of Session. Mr. Bennett expressed himself much obliged to the hon. member in affording him an opportunity of refuting what he had been misrepresented in the newspapers to have said in the debate to which the hon. member alluded. Mr. Bennet denied that he had on that occasion cast any reflection on the conduct of the lord president of the Court of Session in Scotland, or of those who had acted with him in the matter that was under discussion. He regretted that any thing which passed should have occasioned any unpleasant feeling to the lord president and his friends. Had any thing appeared to him in the conduct of the learned judge which called for censure, he would have brought it forward by the fair and manly course of making a regular motion on the subject.'" This was the paragraph or advertisement which was copied from the Courier, and on this the writer in the "John Bull," made the following comments, which contained the matter on which he felt it necessary to bring the subject before the House. "Now, the truth of this is, that the lord president has a son; a gentleman of high honour and courage, who no sooner heard of Mr. Henry Grey Bennet's speech, in which he reflected upon his father, than he put himself into the Edinburgh mail, and started forthwith for London, where having arrived, he sent Mr. Henry Grey Bennet a message. Mr. Henry Grey Bennet referred Mr. Mackenzie to that general vouchee for the whole party, Sir Ronald Fergusson; and the result of the communication was (as usual) an apology, which was made, according to agreement, on Friday night, in the House of Commons, by Mr. H. G. Bennet; but in so low a tone of voice, that had it not been for the kindness of the Courier, it might not have been so generally understood, and perfectly appreciated, as we trust it is, at present." Now, the objections which he had to take to this paragraph was, that it charged a member of that House with having, in the first instance, told an untruth; but it accused him also, with having basely and in a cowardly manner broken his faith and compromised his honour. He did not know that it was necessary for him to use many words in disclaiming a libel of this scandalous description; but he believed that it was impossible to sum up, in a few words, any thing that could be more offensive to the feelings of any individual member; for he had no hesitation in declaring, that of an untruth, at once so disgracefully uttered, and so meanly retracted, he never could be guilty. He did not wish to wage war against this paper, or to injure its printer, but his object in the motion which he should feel it his duty to make on the subject, would be, if possible, to know the author of the article in question. As to the paper itself, he did not wish to say any thing; its character was well known. As to the comments of the press generally, he could assure the House that it never was his wish to withdraw himself from them. He did not object to the comments of the daily press, nor even to its licentiousness, though he had suffered from it. Indeed, he should be sorry to shelter himself against any attack which, in the way of opinion, could be made upon him. If there was any thing which could more than another keep up the high honour of public men in this country, and raise the standard of that honour still higher, it was, that wherever the English language was read, their follies, their errors, and their crimes were held up by the press to public animadversion. But every thing good was liable to abuse, and there could be no greater abuse of the liberty of the press, than, as in this instance, to invent statements, which had no foundation in fact, with the malignant design of representing a member of parliament in the exercise of his duty, as mean and base and cowardly enough, to degrade his situation to purposes of detraction, and then shrink from the consequences by compromising his honour-He would now move that the said paper be delivered in, and the paragraph complained of read.—The paragraph was accordingly read by the clerk; after which, the hon. gentleman moved, "That the said paragraph is a false and scandalous Libel, and a breach of the Privileges of this House."

said, that having been personally alluded to by the hon. member, he felt it due to his own feelings, and but justice to the character of the hon. member to declare, that the comments in the paper which he had read, upon the article in the Courier, were false and malicious. The fact was, that no apology whatever had been made; no apology could have been made; none had been applied for. The real case was, that certain words had appeared in a report in one of the newspapers, which were calculated to hurt the feelings of a near relation of his, the president of the court of session in Scotland; and certainly, if those words were true, they were of a nature to wound tile feelings of the party in question; but the very moment that the hon. member had heard of the existence of the words in the newspaper, he, in a manner the most handsome and honourable to himself, explained them. As to the paragraph which appeared in the Courier, it was not exactly correct in words, but it was substantively so. At the same time, he felt it his duty to declare, that it was not sent by any of the parties to the transaction. He could declare further, that the publication of the account gave great pain to all the parties, lest it might be thought for a moment to be the opinion of any of them that the conduct of the member for Shrewsbury was not honourable in the highest degree.

said, there could be no doubt that the article containing such an insinuation was a libel, and a breach of the privilege of the House. He would therefore support the motion.

rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the consideration of two acts of the last parliament—the one intituled, "An Act for more effectually preventing Seditious Meetings and Assemblies;" the other "An Act for the more effectual Prevention and Punishment of blasphemous and seditious Libels;"—two acts, perhaps, the most important in their consequences and the most fatal in their effects on the vital principles of the constitution, of any that had been passed since the just expulsion of the house of Stuart from the government of these realms;—acts, between which an odious rivalry in the power of mischief might be said to exist. In performing the task which he had allotted to himself, he trusted, when his inexperience in the House was considered, that he should meet with the indulgence which was so often shown to persons placed in similar situations. If he could show that the constitution had been infringed by these measures, that important rights of the people had been taken away, and that restraints as unjust as unnecessary had been imposed, his pur- pose would be answered. In a review of the constitution, two of its most important features were—first, the right of the people to meet for the redress of grievances; the right to express, in the way of humble petition, their opinion either to the Throne or to either House of Parliament; Secondly, the liberty of the press, unfettered and unshackled by the dread of frightful and unconstitutional punishment. He did not say that these rights were gone; but it would be difficult for the most devoted admirer of the measures of the noble marquis and his colleagues to contend, that they had not been abridged and narrowed, in a way the most unconstitutional, the most destructive to the existence of civil liberty, and the most likely to produce that discontent which they were designed to smother. It would be his endeavour to show that the people of England had been convicted and sentence passed upon them on insufficient grounds; that it had been passed in times of alarm, when the minds of his majesty's ministers were under the influence of terror; when their fears magnified the danger—danger in fact, if it had in reality existed—produced by the dreadful expedient of a regularly organized system of espionage advocated and supported by ministers themselves. It had been well observed by Mr. Fox, on a similar occasion, that no passion was so calculated to harden the heart and make it sanguinary as excessive fear, and that the most inhuman tyranny had always had its foundation in the hearts of those whose actions condemned them to incessant terror. On consideration, it would be seen, that the oppressive measures under consideration had been supported in the country by two classes of persons—those who in their hearts were hostile to the people and who willingly and eagerly seized every opportunity to abridge their right; and, secondly, those who concurred in them under the influence of panic, and conceiving through the medium of their fears, that the civil constitution of society was about to be dissolved, were willing to sacrifice a part, in order to save the remainder. Those who, on a calm review, should repent the injury they had done to their country, in a fit of despondence or fear, had now an opportunity of restoring to the people those rights which they had helped so unjustly to vote away. He should indeed hope, that his majesty's ministers themselves, after having enjoyed the full benefit of the panic produced, would not consider it necessary any longer to debar the people from the enjoyment of those civil eights which had contributed to make them the envy and the admiration of other nations. Before the passing of the acts in question, the right of petitioning existed in the freest and to the most unlimited extent. If the people were aggrieved—if the measures of ministers met with their disapprobation—they assembled, and their opinion was expressed; it reached the House through its constitutional channel and the throne—now dammed up, but not, he trusted, for ever. Would any one pretend to say, that the opinion of the people, their wishes, and their remonstrances, would, under the new system, ever reach the House as it did in the case of the income-tax? Let the House consider how, under the act in question, the right of petitioning might be exercised. By one act no county meeting could be held unless it was called by the lord lieutenant, the sheriff, or five magistrates; no town meeting, unless called by the mayor or head officer of the corporation: even a parish could not be called together without notices being given by seven householders of the parish, of their intention to meet, to some neighbouring magistrate, that he might attend with power to dissolve it if he thought fit. To all measures there were two classes of objections—those founded in principle, and those arising from the practical effect. In principle, a law which abridged a right which was considered as one of the most important possessed by the people, must be admitted to be a grievance; in practice, the law which imposed those restraints had been found to possess in its execution all those inconveniences which had been so prophetically anticipated. Had not the very line of conduct which has been pursued by the sheriffs been anticipated? Who could consider the conduct of many of the sheriffs without being convinced of the truth of what he asserted? The slightest consideration of the different refusals given by those sheriffs to the requisitions to call meetings for the consideration of the measures against the Queen would show that their conduct had been as arbitrary as the different reasons for their refusal had been absurd and futile. By the passing of these bills, the spirit, the fire, the freedom, the boldness, and energy of the British constitution, had been mainly impaired. It was the energy, the boldness of a man's mind, which prompting him to speak, not in private, but in largo and popular assemblies, that constituted the principle of freedom. It was that principle which gave life to liberty; and without it the human character was a stranger to freedom. That liberty of speech had been a third time wrested from us; and he contended that if we continued long deprived of it, much of the freedom, the fire, and the boldness of the British character would be lost. It was not until the unhappy period of 1796, that any such attempt on the liberty of the subject had been made, and then the fetters were less severe, and the duration of their imposition shorter, than the present. These acts were passed only for three years; the one allowed seven householders to call a county meeting, while at present five magistrates were required to do so; the other limited the period of banishment, on a second conviction for having published a libel, to seven years, instead of leaving it, as was done under the present act, at the discretion of the judge to banish for life. But on the passing of those bills, one of their warmest, and certainly one of their most effective supporters, sir William Grant, admitted, that in a time of peace, if they had been brought forward, he should have had no hesitation in rejecting them; admitting at the same time the benefits which resulted to the people from their ancient privilege of assembling, deliberating, and expressing their sentiments on any public measure; and that the voice of the people acted as a salutary check and corrective, of which even legislators stood in need. Even supposing, for the sake of argument, the necessity of the bills in 1796, how different was the state of the country in 1819, when the acts under discussion were brought forward! The hon. member went on to contend—that the state of Europe, and of this country in particular, in 1796, could not be compared; and that there was much less necessity for such measures in 1819 and at present, than there had been at that period. The Solicitor-general had declared that he was tired of temporary expedients; and the noble marquis opposite, after much opposition, had consented to limit the duration of this bill to five years, in order that, at the end of that time, it might be renewed and rendered permanent, after having received such alterations as should be found necessary, to render it completely effective. He had said that these bills were passed under the influence of terror, when the passions and the fear of his majesty's ministers led them to magnify the danger. Could any proof of what he asserted be wanting, when the evidence given on Mr. Hunt's trial was considered? The trial of Mr. Hunt bad contradicted all the positions laid down by the noble marquis and his colleagues. Where was there any evidence of the heaps of stones and brick-bats, said by the noble lord to have been accumulated in heaps in the place of meeting, and supposed by him to have been brought there in the pockets of the Radicals? Where was there any account, except in the noble marquis's speech, of the unfortunate! magistrate, said to be trodden to death? What traces were there of the bloody dagger which had created such panic in the House and through the country? The learned counsel for the prosecution against Mr. Hunt had admitted, that there was no trace of it to be found unless in the circumstance that the end of one of the flag staffs had been painted red. What was proved with respect to the constable, said by a noble lord in another place, to have been stoned to death? Why, that after having thus effectually played his part, he had been resuscitated, and was quietly living with his family without having ever received any injury. The subject of the melancholy catastrophe at Manchester would shortly be brought before the House by the honourable baronet, the member for Westminster, and the House might then from his eloquence and his talents, expect that every topic that could be urged on that disastrous subject would be urged. He had only noticed it, as having led to the adoption of the two bills, the repeal of which was his present object. If the conduct of the meeting at Manchester had been considered as affording grounds for passing these acts, and if it could be shown that such conduct had been misrepresented, that the fear and the misconduct of the magistrates had enabled ministers to make out a case which had induced the House to punish so severely an offence which, it could be proved, never had been committed, was it not an act of mere justice to reverse the attainder of the people's liberties—to remit the forfeiture on their innocence being proved?—With respect to the conduct of spies, to which he had alluded, it must be admitted, that no per- sons had been more assiduous in their endeavours to undermine the loyalty of the people, by disseminating among them the most seditious and inflammatory publications, and by inciting them to acts of violence and treason, than these paid agents of the government. He did not say that there was no discontent—he did not say that the opinion of the people was not decidedly against the measures of his majesty's ministers—he did not say, that an opinion was not generally entertained of the expediency of a reform in that House; but he contended, that it was lawful to express these opinions, and that the wisdom of our constitution had well provided for the due restraint of any excess or ebullition in their expression; and he sincerely believed that, had soothing remedies been applied instead of punishment and coercion, much more real benefit would have resulted. But, would silence ensure security? Did they suppose that they made men forget their grievances when they made them silent? No: if a man who feels himself aggrieved is prevented from declaring his sentiments in a constitutional way, he is forced to other expedients for redress. In proportion as opinions are open, they are innocent and harmless. They become dangerous to a state only when persecution makes it necessary for the people to communicate their ideas under the bond of secrecy. But it might be said, that one of the acts would expire in a short period, if the people should show themselves worthy of the boon, and if their conduct should tend to the supposition that they would never again transgress in the eyes of the noble marquis and his colleagues. The people were told, that when every thing went well, when they were happy and comfortable, they might meet freely to recognise their happiness and pass eulogiums on the government, or on the holy alliance; but that in times of calamity, when they considered themselves aggrieved, it was not permitted them to meet; because then, instead of eulogizing, they might think proper to condemn ministers. What a mockery to say that this was preserving to the people the right of petition! If it were contended that the mixed and balanced government of England was good only for holydays and sunshine, but that it was inapplicable to a day of distress and difficulty—if it was meant that freedom was not as conducive to order and strength as, it was to happi- ness—let it be said so, and he would contend, that among all the other advantages arising from liberty, were the advantages of order and strength in a supereminent degree; and that too at the moment when they were most wanted. One of the most remarkable consequences of the two bills, and, in his mind, one that was most to be dreaded, was, the apathy they had produced among the people. He sincerely believed that, comparatively with former times, the mass of the people took very little interest in whatever was passing in that House: they considered it as sitting to devise new and severe laws for the abridgment of those rights and liberties which remained to them, and which had never been more dangerously attacked than by the passing of the two bills in question. He could not devise a mode of more effectually awakening the confidence and the gratitude of the people, and enabling them the more cheerfully to bear the privations which the fallen state of commerce had brought upon them, than by the repeal of those odious bills.—He should now proceed to make some observations on the second act under consideration—one, in his opinion, not less important, not less afflicting in its operation, than the first, and for the repeal of which he was equally anxious. It had introduced anew and dreadful punishment for an offence the most indefinite of any that was known to the laws of England;—an offence that no act of parliament, no judge, no lawyer, had ever yet precisely defined, and which it was declared in another place, when that act was under discussion, it was impossible to define. By that act judges were enabled on a second conviction to inflict the punishment of perpetual banishment. When he looked back at the cruel judgments which had passed in former periods of our history, and reflected on the prejudices and passions to which all men were subject, he confessed he saw nothing that led him to negative the possibility that judges might be as corrupt, as servile, and as cruel in times to come, as they had been in former times. They might form a just estimate of a law that enabled judges to inflict a punishment of so dreadful a nature as perpetual banishment, for a crime so indefinite and so doubtful as a political libel. He was one of those who thought that fine and imprisonment were punishments sufficient for the most extravagant opinion as to the form of government of a politi- cal community. Might not, as Mr. Fox had observed, the writings of Locke have condemned their author, under a law like the present to banishment from his country? In arguing for the repeal of the bill in 1797, Mr. Fox put the case, that it had been in existence during the prosecutions against Mr. Wilkes; and had asked whether it could be doubted that that individual would have been punished to the full extent of the law. But without going back to a distant period, if the hon. member for Westminster, who had just expiated the offence of what had been deemed a political libel, were again, in the exercise of what he might consider his duty to his constituents, to express himself warmly on the conduct of ministers, and if by another legal finesse, he should be brought again before a Leicestershire jury, and another conviction be gained, he should tremble for the fate which would await the hon. baronet—and the more so, when he considered the spirit which seemed of late to have actuated some of the judges, in cases where political offenders were concerned. It had been said, that the execution of bad laws made bad judges; and he should not wonder if the very cruelty of the punishment inflicted by the Press bill should harden the hearts of those who had to dispense so severe a law. The House had already been approached with petitions complaining of the conduct of one of the judges, not in the administration of the law under discussion, but on the trial of a political offender. He trusted the day was far distant in which they should see the judges imbibing fury and vengeance from that severe enactment, and. adding to the cruelty of the law by the severity with which it was dispensed. No one could have witnessed with more pain than he had done the presentation of the petition against the conduct of the learned judge who had tried Mr. Davidson. No one could have more sincerely regretted the conduct of the judge on that occasion, punishing the unfortunate culprit at a time when his mind was intent on his defence, with a severity which those who coincided in opinion with that learned judge could not find a precedent for in the worst times of the most servile or the most virulent judges. It might be urged, that there had been no appearance of restriction in the liberty of the press since the passing of the new act; and that that had been shown by the severe com- ments on the conduct of ministers which had appeared during the proceedings: against the Queen. But what did that show? That as yet the people were not fit for the execution of the law prepared for them—that as yet the intervention of a jury was too intent a safeguard to be removed by the attorney-general; but let a case arise in which there was a chance of such a general feeling not existing, as in the case of the Queen, and it would then be seen what would be the forbearance of his majesty's law officers in the execution of this law. It had been suggested, that some who were hostile to the passing of these bills had, since their existence, been less so. If there were such, it was one of the very evils of those laws. Deprive the people of their liberty and their rights, and they soon become unfit for the enjoyment of them, and incapable of appreciating them. It was possible that some with whom he was in the habit of acting, might differ from him as to the time and the manner in which the measures had been brought forward; others, who might have been as hostile as himself to the measure relating to the seditious meetings in its origin, might suppose that the people would be best served by letting the question rest, and waiting calmly until the allotted time for the existence of the law should expire. Those who thought so, would perhaps be able to produce some reasons which he had not anticipated. In his opinion, the sooner such an inroad in the constitution as was made by these two bills was abated, the better; and so important did lie consider the present motion, that if he should now succeed in obtaining leave to bring in the bill, he pledged himself on every convenient opportunity to bring the subject under the consideration of the House. He had attempted to show, that the state of the country did not require the bills—that the constitution was greatly impaired by them—that they were passed on insufficient evidence, or admitting that they were not, that the existing cause was removed, and that, that being removed, the necessity for their continuance no longer existed. He thought no time was so fit for their repeal as the present, when every just concession ought to be made to a suffering and ah unoffending people. If there were those who thought that the liberties of the people were too luxuriant—and that by pruning them they would thrive better hereafter; that the affairs of the nation were best managed when the distresses of the people were concealed by silencing the voice of complaint; that the character of the British public would be improved by the abolition of the express ion of public sentiment on national concerns, thank God, he was not one, of them! He might be wrong, but by bringing forward this motion, the country would be enabled to fix their own judgment upon it. Happen what might, he should be happy that he could say, both to his constituents and to the people at large, that as far as he was concerned, they might meet unrestrained. The hon. member then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for the repeal of the statute, 60 Geo. 3, c. 6, intituled, 'An Act for more effectually preventing Seditious Meetings and Assemblies.'"

said, it did not appear to him that any grounds had been stated in support of the motion sufficient to induce the House to agree to it. It was said, that the bills proposed to be repealed, had been carried through by two classes in that House; that one had been influenced by hostility to the people, and the other by panic. He did not know in which class the hon. gentleman placed him, but he would leave it to those who knew him best, to judge, whether, upon any occasion, he had manifested hostility to the liberties of the people. If fear had any influence on his decision when those bills were before the House, he had not yet sufficiently recovered from it to vote for their repeal. Certain he was, that the state of the country called for them when they were passed. The hon. gentleman said, that they who opposed his motion were bound to shew that no inconvenience arose from these laws. Now, this principle he could not admit. Inconvenience was no ground for legislation. To establish sufficient cause for a repeal, it should have been proved that the evil produced was greater than the good. He could not allow what the hon. gentleman had said, in reference to the conduct of one of the judges of the King's-bench, to pass without notice. It appeared to him a most improper way of bringing such a subject before the House. If there was good ground for a charge, why not proceed against the learned judge in a constitutional mode? He would willingly submit his conduct to the most jealous investigation. He had known the hon. judge alluded to from early life, and he never knew a man of more tender and delicate mind, more averse to harsh measures, or less disposed to stretch the law beyond its just and necessary limits. He must deprecate any bye attacks of this kind. If there was any thing censurable in the conduct of the learned judge, a constitutional mode of inquiry might be resorted to. He was surprised to hear the lion, gentleman tell them gravely, that the people were deprived of the means of making themselves heard in that House by petition: seeing that there was no topic of public interest on which since the passing of these laws, numerous petitions had not been presented from all parts of the country. It was said, that the people were prevented from meeting in a constitutional manner to express their opinions. Now, before the time of the grand rebellion, there was no instance of any meetings having been held in the manner prohibited by the acts of 1819. How, then, could it be said, that they invaded the constitutional mode of holding public meetings? Magistrates, it was true, were appointed by the Crown; but could they be called the creatures of the Crown? When was it seen that a magistrate had been dismissed for his political conduct? The relation in which lords lieutenant of counties stood was quite different. If Mr. Fox, in 1797, was not able to convince the House of Commons that they ought to repeal the acts of 1796, it was not very likely that the hon. gentleman could now persuade them to agree to his motion. He had no hesitation in saying that, were he in the House in 1796, he would have voted for the bills then proposed. He could not be persuaded that sir W. Grant had upon that occasion professed that he would not assent to them in time of peace. Had he been reported to have said, "in time of tranquillity" he could understand it, but surely a person who viewed every subject with so much good sense and acuteness as sir W. Grant, could not, under the circumstances of the period, have refused his assent, whether in peace or war, to measures so necessary. With respect to Mr. Hunt, he was convicted by a jury of the county of York. He had afterwards applied to the court of King's-bench for a new trial, and the application bad been unanimously rejected. He deemed that the punishment of banishment from the realm was new to the constitution. Abjuration of the realm was still a part of the law of the land. The definition of a libel was said to be such as no judge could understand. It appeared, however, to hurry to be-pointed out in these acts with sufficient clearness. The offence was described to be the composing or publishing a seditious or blasphemous libel, tending to bring the government into contempt. Under these circumstances, he felt himself bound not to retract his original vote. He should not move the previous question, but should let the House go to a division upon a motion which he thought ought not to have been made.

said, that having through the whole progress of these bills done all in his power to oppose them, though without effect, he felt obliged to his hon. friend for bringing forward this motion, as it gave him an opportunity of stating that his opinions upon the subject remained unchanged. He maintained that these bills were an innovation on the constitution, and it was for those members who wished them to be continued, to point out the necessity for their further existence. He denied that there had ever existed any necessity for the enactment of such measures. Whatever might have been the excesses committed, the ancient law of the land was sufficient to repress or punish them. If this was not the case, then our ancestors had gone on in the dark, and their errors had only been discovered by the new lights thrown upon the country by the bills of 1819. Where was it found that the ancient law was insufficient to preserve public tranquillity? Was it to be argued, that the proceedings which took place at the memorable Manchester meeting required the enactment of a new law? What greater power could any magistrate require, than that exercised by the Manchester magistrates on that occasion? The House had there the example of a peaceable meeting, assembled for a constitutional purpose, dispersed and routed by a military force—and that, too, without any warning or notice, and while they were receiving from their leader the strictest injunctions to demean themselves quietly. Was that act of the Manchester magistrates legal, or was it not? IP it was not legal, then both the House and the country had been grossly deceived; but if it was legal, where, he would ask, was the necessity of enacting any new law to preserve the country from the dangers arising from public meetings? Not only had that meeting been dispersed, but the persons who called it had been punished by law—not by any of those new laws, but by the ancient law of the country. There had been a similar meeting held at Birmingham, and though that meeting had not been dispersed by violence, nor had any sacrifice of human life resulted from it, yet it being held illegal, the parties concerned in convening it were punished by the ancient law of the country.—With respect to the now law against political libels, he maintained that there had been no prosecutions for that offence but under the ancient law of the country. There was not a single instance within his recollection of any prosecution under the new act; though it was avowedly brought in for the purpose of preventing or punishing such an offence. If, then, the ancient law of the land was sufficient, where, he would ask, was the necessity of continuing this new-fangled measure. The right of petitioning still existed, but with a greatly diminished effect; for those opposed to the government had, in many cases, been driven to holes and corners by the conduct of the magistracy. A system of departmental divisions, of which so much had been heard in another case, was here adopted. The legislature were setting their wits against those who were supposed to create mischief among the people. A parish was to be divided, if it contained more than' 10,000 persons. Had a single instance occurred of enforcing that provision? Such a provision afforded great opportunities for mischievous persons to call together great numbers, and to inflame their dissatisfaction, by referring to the very restraints imposed on them. Every symptom of what had been complained of had ceased, but not from the effect of the acts. Were the supposed mischief-makers in earnest or not? If they were in earnest, the acts were not sufficient to restrain them; if they were not, the acts were not necessary. The act against popular meetings had established a fatal precedent: it had severed the people from the throne: it had destroyed those feelings and associations which ought to be most sedulously cherished.—He should now proceed to say a few words with regard to the blasphemous and seditious libel law. He was aware that that act was not directly under the consideration of the House; but it was so intimately connected with the present subject, that it could not easily be separated from it in discussion. He had not expected to hear any individual assert, that a blasphemous and seditious libel could be exactly defined; and therefore it was with considerable surprise that he had found his learned friend maintaining that it had been so defined in the act in question. His learned friend had taken up the Statute-book and read the words of that act, until he came to the words blasphemous libel. Then he stopped short of a sudden, just as if he had proved, the point which he had originally asserted. Now, he thought that there was nothing definite in the words "blasphemous libel." As to what was or was not blasphemy, scarcely any two men could agree: different individuals formed different opinions on the subject; and no human mind had yet attempted to define it precisely. Indeed, Mr. Hone had been acquitted in London by three successive juries, on the same grounds that other individuals had been convicted of blasphemy by other juries in the country. That was a decisive proof that blasphemous libel was an offence of a very indefinite nature. But seditious libel was, he supposed, an offence of which the law gave a somewhat clearer definition. Seditious libel, his learned friend had said, was any thing which tended to bring the government into contempt. Now, the commission of such an offence might, under certain circumstances, instead of being a crime, be the duty of every man who loved his country. Wherever grievances existed, it was natural to wish for their removal; and, in the endeavour to do so, it might be necessary to point out such defects in the government as must naturally tend to bring it into contempt. According to the existing law, if any speech were made at a public meeting which had a tendency to produce that effect, or which appeared to the presiding magistrate to have such tendency, it was in his power to dissolve such meeting immediately. If any individual refused to disperse after such dissolution had been proclaimed by the magistrate, he was liable to be treated as a felon, and to be transported for seven years. Now, he would ask, whether that was not a grievance, and a grievance of considerable magnitude? If a meeting were called for the redress of grievances, bow could the purpose of it be effected without entering into a repetition of the grievances themselves, and an examination of their causes and consequences? And yet, if any person entered into such a discussion, he was liable to all the pains and penalties which he had described, and might even be cut down by military force, according to the recent laws which had received so strong an eulogium from his learned friend, the sworn friend and defender of the liberty of the subject. Of those laws he entertained a very different opinion from his learned friend. Though nothing but necessity could justify them, they had been passed without any necessity being proved for their enactment: they had been passed upon ex-parte statements, upon fraudulent assertions, upon anonymous and inconsistent affidavits. Connected with these laws was another law passed at the same time, equally restrictive of the liberties of the people, and equally uncalled for by any defect in the existing laws. Military training was an offence even under the old laws; and he believed that every person who had been convicted of it had been convicted upon the old law, and before the passing of the new one. After making some further objections to these laws, the learned member proceeded to observe, that they savoured strongly of that rigid and unrelenting spirit, which had inserted more penalties in the statutes passed in the reign of the late king than were to be found in all the statutes which had been passed in the reigns of all his predecessors, from the time of Magna Charta downwards, and which in fifty years had loaded our shelves with more volumes of law-books than had been written in the three hundred years preceding them. That spirit was of the most mischievous nature; but none of the effects it had produced was so dangerous as that which had provided a remedy for evils which did not exist, or which, if they did exist, was more calculated to increase than remove them. He had not any intention, when he entered the House, of troubling it at the length which he had done; but the arguments of his learned friend had compelled him to break silence, and to offer the observations which he had made in defence of his own consistency. He had formerly maintained, that the acts of 1819, had been justified by no necessity; he now maintained that that necessity, if it had ever existed, was completely removed; and he trusted that there was yet too much spirit in the House to permit any encroachment on the liberty of the people to endure any longer than the necessity for its continuance could be made apparent. He had no doubt that there were still left in the House many gentlemen who would be happy to place their opinions on record in favour of the rights and liberties of their countrymen.

thanked the hon. mover for bringing forward this question, and giving him an opportunity Of saying a few words respecting the operation of these laws in that county of which he was a representative. He did not know what the learned gentleman meant, when he stated that a necessity existed for the continuance of these laws. He could not see that necessity; and he was therefore at a loss to see upon what ground the learned gentleman could vote for bills, which were disgraceful and insulting to the majority of the nation. He would not say that he would not, upon a case of extraordinary necessity being made out, vote for such bills; but he never did think that such a case had been made out by ministers. Would the learned gentleman say, that Scotland was in the year 1819 and in the year 1821, in the same state of tranquillity? The learned gentleman could not forget that the noble marquis and his supporters, in bringing forward these laws, had stated that there were regularly organised bodies opposed to the government; that they were trained to arms—that they marched with flags and banners—and that there were several thousands, both in England and Scotland, so openly opposed to the government, that it was necessary to have an additional number of troops—and that numbers of families in the country had been obliged to leave their homes, and seek protection in large towns. When the noble marquis had made these statements, in which he was confirmed by many hon. members, it was not wonderful that many gentlemen should think that a strong case had been made out, and that the measures had been called for; but the learned member could not have contended, that the same danger existed at the present moment, if he had not spoken under panic, and argued from generals to particulars. He could not conceive any two things more dissimilar than the state of the country in 1819 and in 1821; and when he could not be led to believe that a necessity which justified such an infraction of the rights and liberties of the subject existed in 1819, he could not be expected to alter that opinion in 1821, when the noble marquis who had then stated the necessity of these measures did not pretend to say, that it now existed. He re- collected that the noble marquis, after having stated the disturbed state of England and of Scotland, as the ground of his introducing these measures, concluded by contrasting the state of these countries with that of Ireland; and that the noble marquis, after expressing his satisfaction at the tranquillity of that country had never stated, that it was his intention to extend the operation of those bills to Ireland. The noble marquis had afterwards, to satisfy hon. members who thought it unjust that parts of England which were in as perfect a state of tranquillity as Ireland, should be subjected to the operation of these laws, and that Ireland should be exempted, extended them to Ireland—a measure which he, though without success, had felt it his duty to oppose. With regard to the Seditious Libel bill, he would say that it was completely uncalled for in Ireland, because there had not been one conviction in Ireland for seditious libel. Such an outrage and insult upon the Irish nation could only be equalled by the continuance of these bills, which were altogether unnecessary.

said, he believed the disposition to excite the people to tumultuous meetings still existed in full force, and that nothing but the laws in question kept them down.

said, he support 1819, because several meetings had occurred in that part of Scotland in which he resided, little calculated to promote the right of petition. He had also done so, because he knew that nine-tenths of his constituents approved of the measure, and because he wished to guard the people from such mischances as had occurred at Manchester. He certainly could not have given his consent to the measure, had the noble marquis persisted in proposing it as a permanent measure; but the noble marquis, on going to the vote, had met the wishes of himself and others, by making it only temporary. After such a compromise had taken place between them, he should consider himself guilty of a breach of faith to the noble marquis if he voted for the repeal of the Seditious Meeting bill, even though convinced that there was no longer any necessity for its existence. With regard to the Seditious and Blasphemous Libel law, he laboured under no such difficulty, and should vote for its repeal.

said, he was one of the few on his side of the House who voted that the bill should pass into a law. The reasons on which he had done so were perfectly satisfactory to his own mind; and their correctness had been proved by every thing that had since occurred. He had thought the conduct of the people at the time more injurious to the right of petitioning than any thing that had ever been known before, and therefore he had voted for the bill. He, for one, had never doubted that the Manchester meeting was illegal; but many respectable gentlemen had been of a contrary opinion. The question had, however, been set at rest at York; and he apprehended it could no longer be doubted that such meetings were illegal. But when he voted for the passing of that bill, thinking it necessary at the time, he did not bind himself to vote that it should continue in. force when its operation was no longer necessary. Circumstances that had occurred since it passed, had led him to the conclusion that it ought to be repealed. The conduct of the sheriffs under this law, though in some instances very creditable, had in others not been what it ought to have been; and meetings like that which had formerly taken place at Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, and other places, having been declared illegal by the decisions of courts of justice, he thought, in the present tranquil state of the country, there was no pretence for keeping this law in force. He should therefore give his vote in favour of the motion; but, at the same time, he regretted that it had been brought forward; for in the same way in which the people had endangered the right of petitioning by the mode in which they had formerly assembled to petition, he was of opinion that his hon. friend had injured the cause, of which he was the able advocate, by bringing forward the motion at the present moment. He wished him to consider in what situation, if the motion were not carried, they must stand, when this bill should expire. Could his hon. friend persuade himself that its failure would not furnish ministers with arguments in favour renewal? "Look," they would say, "at the proceedings of 1821. Where were the meetings—where were the disturbances to be complained of then? Yet the House, though the subject was brought before them, refused to repeal this law in that year, and thus it may be naturally inferred that they considered in fit to become apart of the constitution of the, country."

rose to reply. He said he did not entertain any sanguine hopes of the success of his motion, for he had seen nothing in the conduct of ministers which could lead him to expect that they would display the slightest leniency to the people. He had, however, made it in order to show the inhabitants of England that there were still some men in the House who regarded their interests, and who wished to restore them to such portions of their birthrights as they had been unjustly deprived of. He had expected to hear something new from the defenders of these bills; but in this he had been disappointed. Not a single hint had been made as to the existence of any secret conspiracy, nor had any letter been read from any of the anonymous correspondents of the secretary of state, who, on a former occasion, had spread terror and dismay throughout the whole of his department. He thought that the very omission gave him an additional reason for asserting that the bill ought to be repealed.

said, that as no case had been made out by ministers in favour of the laws sought to be repealed, he should feel it his duty to vote for the motion.

said, he could not agree to allow a law to remain in force, by which an individual might be exiled for that which a jury, under particular circumstances, might regard as a libel tending to overthrow the government of the country. He had heard that bill introduced with horror, but the circumstances under which it was proposed were no longer in existence. The blasphemous and seditious press, as it had been called, had been completely put down, not under these bills, but under the old law, as it ought to have been in the first instance. The worst of those libels which had been suffered to inundate the country for so long a period, had been proved to have been sent forth by spies and agents, as it should seem for the purpose of deluding the people into acts of outrage and violence, in order to find a pretext for abridging their liberties. They were now called upon to get fid of a measure which he regarded as an evil of the most alarming magnitude—of a law which in his judgment could not remain in force if the liberty of the press was to continue.

expressed his readiness to concur in any arrangement that appeared desirable to accomplish the object which the hon. member had in view. His personal acknowledg- ments were due to the hon. and learned gentleman, who, notwithstanding his extensive professional labours, had found time to turn his thoughts to this most important subject. As the bearings of the measure which he had to propose must necessarily be of a complicated nature, perhaps it would be better, since on the first opening of his plan it could not be expected that hon. members would be prepared to enter upon the discussion, that the hon. and learned gentleman should state that which he had to propose, or the outline of his plan, and then Jet it stand over for future consideration. He would give the subject his best attention, and he quite agreed with the hon. gentleman that the fullest opportunity ought to be afforded for debating it.

said, that as a short delay would be of no material importance, he would consult the pleasure of the House, and open the subject now, or postpone it until a future evening. [Cries of "Go on, go on."] As such seemed to be the will of the House, he would proceed, as shortly as the nature of the subject would admit, to state the grounds of the amendments which he wished to make in the laws relating to the poor. Aware of the vast importance of the subject—aware that one of greater importance could not be brought under the consideration of the House, he perhaps ought to apologize that so humble an individual as himself should intrude it upon their attention. It was with some difficulty that he could persuade himself to offer a proposition for altering the poor laws that had not previously received the sanction of the government of the day. Had he thought that such a measure, or any thing like such a measure as he had to propose, would have been originated by ministers, lie would have been the last person in the House to anticipate their intentions by bringing this measure forward. He would go further and say, that if he had had any reason to believe, that the body of gentlemen who formed the committee appointed some years ago, to inquire into that subject, had entertained any design of bringing forward, the measures of which they then suggested the outline in their valuable report, he should have felt it his duty to leave the business in their hands. But, understanding from some who were Members of that committee, that they had no such intention, he ventured to take it upon himself, from a deep and solid con- viction, that something roust be dope, at no distant period to arrest this great and growing evil. He would now proceed, to state that which he had to suggest, and in doing so, he begged leave to say, that the subject was not new to his consideration. It had for many years occupied his thoughts, and he had made the most anxious inquiries into the cause and character of the evil. The House would easily perceive that there might be some excuse for a person so much employed out of the House as he was, if he had not possessed himself of all the information which had been laid before them from time to time. He had read the reports which had been made on this subject; but he had not had an opportunity of doing so, until after he had given his notice. It was, however, with much satisfaction, that he found that there was no view which he had previously taken of the poor-laws, which was not confirmed and supported by the reports which had been laid on their table. It was satisfactory to find, that what he had to propose was thus sanctioned by gentlemen who had given so much of their time and attention to the subject; and this co-incidence led him to hope, that that which he had to submit would be more worthy of the consideration of the House than he could otherwise have hoped that it would be likely to prove. The great evil in connexion with the present poor-laws, which must press on every man's mind, was this—that by law an unlimited provision was made for the poor. To this fact he wished particularly to call the attention of the House. The effect of making an unlimited provision for the poor, it would appear à priori must be this—it must operate as a premium for poverty, indolence, licentiousness, and immorality. By the doom of nature man must earn his bread by the sweat of ms brow, and nothing could be more injurious to a country than the adoption, of a principle in legislation which held out to any considerable portion of the population an exemption from such sentence, and disconnected the ideas of labour and of profit. The poor-laws held out to the labourer a prospect of relief, not in old age, not in sickness—but a refuge from the consequences of his own indolence. They had a tendency to degrade the character of the man who received relief under them, to lower him in his own estimation, to diminish his industry, and thus to involve, by degrees, in their fatal circle the whole mass of the labouring population. This being the effect which might be expected à priori, it was naturally to be supposed, that the evil would increase, and continue to increase with additional rapidity. This would be found to be the fact. The evil thus continuing to increase, must at some, time or other—if the period were not now rapidly approaching—become so great, that all the industry that could be bestowed on the land would be insufficient to enable it to maintain our augmented pauper population. In some parts of the country, it was well known, that on account of the heavy pressure of the poor-rates it was not worth the farmer's while to cultivate the land; and if the evil continued to increase, it would at length come to this, that the poor-rates would be so enormous, that the farmer would not care to cultivate the soil, even if the landlord would give him the land for nothing. He would now proceed to state the result of the inquiries which he had made; and first, as to the effect of the present laws en the feelings of the people. The relief was scarcely considered in the light of charity: there was nothing of grace about it; it was bestowed without compassion, and received without gratitude. There was another consideration which was paramount to all others—it dissolved between the poor and the rich those ties which had formerly bound together the different orders of society; there was no longer gratitude on the one hand, or real charity on the other; the poor received without thanks what they were entitled to receive, and the rich gave without compassion what, they were compelled to bestow. Such was the direct operation of these laws; and, let the House examine still closer their result, by looking at the progressive increase of the poor-rates, which appeared to be inseparable from their operation. They would find, that so rapid had been the augmentation of the poor-rates, that unless some attempt was made to stem the torrent, they must at no distant period absorb all the land in the kingdom, and thus consume that upon which the poor had altogether to rely. In tracing back the produce of the poor-rates, it would be found that in the years 1748, 1749, and 1750, the annual amount was about 689,971l. In 1776, it was 1,530,804l. making in twenty-six years an advance of nearly 1,000,000l. In the year 1783, the amount, was 2,000,637l. making an increase of half a million in seven years. In 1803, the amount was 4,267,963l. making an increase in the twenty years preceding of almost 2,200,000l. In 1813, the amount was 6,129,000l.; so that it appeared to have increased in ten years two millions. Looking therefore at this increase, during the successive years he had mentioned, it would be found to stand thus: During the first period there would be found an increase of half a million in thirteen years: in the second period, the increase was half a million in seven years: in the third period it was one million an the same space of time; and in the last period at was a. million in. five years. In the year 1815, the poor-rates amounted to 6,129,844l. If they were suffered to go on progressively at this rate, unaffected either by peace or war (for such seemed to be the anomalous nature of their operation) their gradual accumulation must, as he had said before, absorb; the whole property of the country; indeed it would very soon be found that a number of parishes would be utterly unable to relieve their poor. The hon. and learned gentleman next read an extract from a document which appeared in the report of a committee of the House of Lords, respecting the state of the parish of Namptwich, in Cheshire. In the year 3 816, the parish officers addressed a public letter to the inhabitants, in which they stated that the increase of resident paupers from 1781, to 1815, was from 50 to 90. The increase of out paupers for the same period was in the same proportion. In 1781 only there were six bastard children charged on the parish. In 1815, they had increased to 37. Yet the price of corn was nearly the same at both periods, and wages considerably higher. The House, he was satisfied, would therefore agree with him in thinking, that a dependence on parochial relief caused a diminution of individual exertion, an inattention to economy, and a relaxation of morals. It was remarked, that in proportion to the liberality of the parish was the increase of paupers, the increase of vice and dissipation. Parochial aid extended to persons supposed not able to find employment, was found to be attended with consequences most injurious, most destructive of the best habits and the moral character of the people. It took away the necessity of labouring. Men, in order to indulge in idleness, became paupers. Thus the feelings of the people were gradually blunted, and the labouring class, formerly considered with so much justice the very strength and pride of the state, were in danger of becoming a disgrace and a burthen. Such being the state of things, and the sense entertained by the country of the operation of the Poor-laws, it became absolutely necessary that something should at length be done, in order to stem the torrent. The simple remedy, in such a case was, to ascertain the source of the evil, and then take away the cause. This was the obvious course, unless, in removing the cause, a greater evil was likely to be inflicted—than that which the removal was intended to remedy. The first step to be taken was, in his judgment, to limit the provision collected under the existing laws. With this view he meant to suggest the declaring a maximum, beyond which there should be no assessment for these rates. Now, according to the attention which he had bestowed upon this part of the subject, he thought it most expedient that the last year's rates throughout the kingdom should be fixed as the Poor-rate maximum. They were not then at the highest ratio; but they were perhaps nearest to it; and he should propose; "that from and after the passing of the act, it shall be unlawful to assess or levy in any parish or place in England any larger assessment for the relief of the poor than that assessed and levied for them in the year ending on the 25th of March, 1821." That was the first measure which he intended to submit to the House; and if he found that they were likely to go with him in the principle which he had laid down, it was his intention to follow up such a bill as he had sketched, with another, having for its object the establishment of a different system of administering relief under the Poor-laws. It was well known that the original object of the legislature, when the act of Elizabeth was passed, was, not to disseminate a premium for idleness, but to confer a relief for those whom old age or infirmity had disabled, and rendered incapable of supporting themselves by the efforts of then-own industry. A practice, however, had since grown up in the administrative system of those laws, not to confine the relief to the original objects of the law, for whom it was alone intended, but to extend it (which was done in very many parts of the kingdom) to persons who represented themselves as unable to obtain work. The abuses of this modern practice were incalculable. He thought it absolutely indispensable that the legislature should correct either the law or the practice. To correct the latter was perhaps impossible; if even it could be practised, the effect would perhaps be deemed extremely severe; for it would be retrospective in its operation, and would consequently affect large families reared up under the security of a protection which the law led them to think permanent. He thought that much attention was due to the families of the poor under such circumstances—for instance, every gentleman acquainted with agricultural pursuits knew that when the labouring man married, he reckoned on having the second child supported by the parish, and the overseer had regularly to meet a claim, of 2s. or 2s. 6d. per week for that purpose, A new principle ought to be infused into the poor. Why was not the labouring man to be impressed with the same necessity for husbanding his resources for his family, that were felt by other classes in society? It was obviously of the same advantage to all classes, that such an impression should prevail, and that a most immoral system must be the result of any particular relaxation from so just and provident a responsibility. His second provision would then be of this nature—"That it shall not be lawful for any overseer of the poor or justice of the peace to order or apportion any relief to be given to any person who, at the time of passing this act, shall be single, except in cases of actual infirmity of body, old age, or debility by sickness or accident." The effect of such an enactment would, he thought, be, to restore habits of industry and provident regulation among the poor, and to make them look a little more to their own resources when they had them, instead, as was now the case, of compelling the really industrious classes of the community to sacrifice a portion of their hard earnings to support the idle. If these two measures were deemed acceptable, he should have a third to offer, upon which he was perfectly prepared to meet a contrariety of sentiment. His own opinion upon it was, however, fixed; and as it was the result of long reflection, he hardly thought it could be shaken by any argument which might be opposed to it. As the law now stood, all parish pampers might be removed from the place at which they sought relief, to any other where they had been born, or might claim a settlement. The acts of the 13th and 14th of Charles 2nd enabled justices of the peace to order the removal of such paupers. Now, the effect of these laws was, to restrict the free circulation of labour, and to expose the labourer, who, being unable to obtain employment in his own parish, honestly endeavoured to seek it elsewhere, to the penalty of being seized and sent back to a parish where there existed no demand for his labour, and where, from the situation of the place, he was sure to remain a pauper. A more oppressive and impolitic law than that never existed any where: it made poverty a crime, and its punishment banishment. This was at once cruel and unjust, and most certainly as injurious to the community as it was to the individual. Suppose any member of parliament were to get up in his place, and propose such a bill as the following—"Whereas an incapacity to obtain bread by labour, by reason of bodily infirmity, or old age, or accident, is a great crime, and deserves exemplary punishment; be it therefore enacted, that if, from and after the passing of this act, any individual shall, by sudden calamity, old age, or scarcity of provisions, be unable to maintain himself and family, he shall be taken before two of his majesty's justices of the peace, and, on proof of the fact, be forthwith sent to such part of England where himself or family, was born, without any regard whatever to his or their maintenance there"—would not the House say, that the man who made such a legislative proposal was not only mad, but grossly inhuman; and yet he asked, where was the difference between it and the present code of our Poor-laws? Indeed, the impolicy and inconvenience of the law itself was soon felt after the passing of it, in the time of Charles 2nd, and much pains were taken by subsequent statutes, to modify and regulate the arrangements for carrying the provisions into execution. The consequence of these modifications was, the ultimate establishment of an artificial system, founded upon arbitrary and often imaginary principles. Well might Burn, when he wrote in the operation of this clause in the Poor-laws, declare that it had led to a greater quantity of litigation and hostile divisions than any other law on the statute book, ay or than all the other jaws from the time of Magna Charta put together. Such was the inevitable result of living under an artificial code of laws—the law was first made absurd, and then, instead of its being repealed to remove the incongruity, an artificial system was created in order to keep it in operation. A part, then, of his object was, to abolish the law for removing paupers from one place to another by an order from justices of the peace, or otherwise. He anticipated that it would be objected to this alteration, that it would entail upon manufacturing towns a heavy expense, for supporting those for whom they had no longer the employment which first attracted them to the spot. He had selected Manchester as being the place where the operation, whatever it might be under such circumstances, must be particularly felt. The labouring classes collected in that town were numerous, and, according to the present practice, as they became paupers, they and their families were removed, some to London, some elsewhere, by the Manchester parochial officers and justices; but in looking at the assessment for the poor at Manchester, he found it less than that in the agricultural parishes. In the year 1816, when a great additional expense was thrown upon the town by the equalization of the county rates, he found that the assessment for the poor was 8s. 6d. in the pound; it was afterwards much less; while at the same time in the midland and other agricultural counties the assessment amounted to 20s. in the pound on four-fifths of the rent. What would be the effect of the proposed alteration upon the town of Manchester r Suppose it prevented them from removing, four or five hundred families in the course of the year, and that this made a corresponding increase in the local assessment for their support; yet still the town would be saved the support of its own distant poor, who were conveyed back according to the present practice. On principle, however, he objected to the power of sending away, when business declined, those by whose labours, in the time of demand, the town had become enriched; and sending them away to places to which they had preciously contributed nothing. In looking at the consequence pf the alteration, he thought it could easily he shown, that no serious apprehension need be entertained; the effect would, in point of fact, be to make that practice general among the manufacturers, which was now only partially adopted. In one of the largest manufactories in Manchester, an excellent and politic practice had prevailed, which prevented a single labourer from being thrown by that factory upon the parish. The condition of the manufactory was, that each workman should, while employed, subscribe a small sum to a fund which was reserved in case of contingency^ for his future support. The hon. and learned gentleman then detailed some of the expenses incurred by the Manchester parochial officers for the removal of out-poor, and compared them with the expense incurred for their own poor who were brought back; and showed, that no great difference of expense would be likely to accrue to them from the proposed alteration. In Manchester it was the practice not to hire servants for the whole year, to prevent their gaining a permanent settlement; but there was a very largo number of Irish labourers, as well as some Scotch, who were fixed residents in the place. There were in the parochial accounts standing heads for the Irish, the English, and the Scotch poor; and it was a remarkable fact, which ought to be mentioned to the honour of the Scotch people, that only four had ever been known to require relief. The list of Irish, in 1815, was 1,676, and it had greatly augmented since, as well as the English; but the educated, enlightened, and industrious people whom he had first named, had only furnished four instances of obtaining parochial relief at Manchester, The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by summing up the three measures which he had opened to the House: the first was, the establishing the assessments for the last year as a maximum: the second, the preventing parochial relief where the parties merely grounded their claim upon being unable to obtain work: and the third, the abandonment of the power enabling justices to order the removal of paupers. He knew it had been held out, that the fear of removal operated as a check to pauperism. But this check would not be needed when his other measures were adopted. The proper check was the fear of poverty. That there would be times when there would be need of relief for poverty, beyond what his measures would supply, he admitted; but, for a remedy they might trust to what had never been known to fail—the benevolence of the country. Temporary distress should be met by temporary remedies, but they should not perpetuate a law which went on increasing the evil which it professed to remedy. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with moving, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Relief of the Poor in England."

begged leave to express his sincere thanks to the hon. and learned gentleman, for the pains he had evidently taken with this most important subject. In refraining at present from making any observations upon the details which had been so forcibly submitted by the hon. and learned gentleman, he trusted that he would not infer from his silence any want of zeal, or any disinclination to lend his assistance in considering the whole subject. As the hon. and learned gentleman at present merely moved for leave to bring in his bill, sufficient time would no doubt be hereafter allowed to consider the whole question.

said, that though he acknowledged the good intentions of his hon. and learned friend, he must deprecate any proposition to take from the unemployed industrious poor a subsistence to which they had just the same right as every gentleman had to his estate. If the Poor-rates were oppressive, let a reduction of taxation be first tried, before they attempted to alter the law of the land.

said, that although he could not entirely agree in the propriety of the measure recommended by his hon. and learned friend, yet he begged leave to tender him his most sincere thanks for having undertaken the investigation of so important and pressing a subject. It appeared to him, that in the Report, which reflected so much credit upon those concerned in drawing it up, one main reason of the increase of Poor-rates had been entirely overlooked. Whoever would trace the rise and progress of taxation, or the national debt, would find that it was regularly accompanied by a diminution of the prices of labour; and thus they would find the increase of Poor-rates accounted for. It was not his intention to enter int6M' the question at length upon: the present occasion but, when the fit opportunity for full discussion arrived, he was prepared to prove the fact, beyond dispute, that as the prove of corn had increased, in the same proportion had the value of labour diminished. Therefore gentlemen must not expect to find relief from the evils of which they complained, by the present of any other measure of the legislature, unless they were prepared to advance the price of labour. His hon. and learned friend had divided his measure into three distinct propositions. The first was, that a maximum of rates should b fixed. Now, it was known to many hon. members that this had been tried locally, and that it had been found to fail. The nest proposition was, a return to the pure administration of the law of Elizabeth, and this he took to be an extremely wise recommendation. Whoever looked to the practice of country magistrates since the report to which he alluded had been printed, would se that the methods used to carry the Poor-laws into effect had been much more strict and efficacious than before. Unless, however, even if this part of the measure should be accomplished, it could be insured either that the price of labour should be increased, or that the price of provisions should remain at its present low state, it would be impossible to keep the Poor-rates down. The next proposition was, a return to the pure administration of the law of Elizabeth, arid this he took to be an extremely wise Recommendation. Whoever looked to the practice of country magistrates since the repost to which he alluded had been printed, would see that the methods used to carry the Poor-laws into effect had been much more strict and efficacious than before. Unless, however, even if this part of the-measure should be accomplished, it could be insured either that the price of labour should be increased, or that the price of provisions should remain at its present low state, it would be impossible to keep the Poor-rates down. The last proposition related to the question of settlements. He must confess, that he was afraid of the introduction of any new system upon this branch of the question. He was aware that the existing regulations led to much litigation, and that they possessed numerous and considerable evils. But still he was afraid of any new laws, because he thought they would still be liable to create litigation, disquiet, and expense besides other inconveniences which could not be foreseen. He must confess that the plan of his hon. and learned friend would tend to simplify this part of the question, but he was afraid that the difficulties of carrying it into effect were so great that he could not hope to see his hon. and learned friend's expectations realized. Having said thus much, he did not mean to object to the introduction of the bill; on the contrary, he should give it that due consideration which any measure, coming from a member of such talent and such standing in the country as his hon. and learned friend, deserved, and particularly a measure relating to so momentous and important a subject to the country. He did not, he must say, view the operation of the present system in the same' light that many intelligent individuals did; He did not perceive that alteration in the habits, conduct, and energies of the people of this country, which some gentlemen imagined had taken place, and which they ascribed to the operation of the Poor-laws. On the contrary, he would say, that a more energetic, industrious, and obedient population than that which existed at present in this country, was not to be found in any other part of the globe, where a spirit of liberty pervaded society. In the year 1740, the same gloomy predictions were uttered, with respect to the Poor-laws dissolving the moral feelings of the people which were now indulged in. But, let the House look to the conduct of the people, to the progress of society in this country, to its increase in wealth and commerce, and to its wonderful energy in arms, since that period. From 1776 to 1S15, the period during which the Poor-rates had increased most rapidly, was also the period of the most rapid improvement in the commerce and manufactures of this country. He ascribed the increase of those rates to the want of an increased price for labour, to the lax administration of the law as it stood, to the national debt, and to the circumstance that, whether these rates amounted to six, seven, or eight millions, they absorbed a considerable proportion of the wages of agricultural labour in this country.

said, he considered it as a matter of congratulation to himself and to the House, that this subject had been taken up by so able and competent a mind as that of the hon. and learned gentleman by whom it had now been brought forward. The propositions which the hon. and learned gentleman had submitted to the House were not new to it. With respect to the first point proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman, namely, that of a maximum, it had been brought under the notice of a committee by a gentleman to whose opinion great deference was paid. He, in common with many others, was, in the first instance, startled at such a proposition; and, in drawing up the report, pains were taken to place it in the clearest point of view. Reference was made to its having already been acted on as a local provision. The Isle of Wight, the place where the experiment was tried, was eminently calculated to give it every fair chance of success. The plan did not, however, answer. Application was made to the legislature for an increase of the maximum, and he believed it went as far as double the sum originally proposed. The object of the committee from which the report emanated was, not only to introduce measures for legislative enactment, but to bring the whole subject fairly before the House and the country. He need not state his concurrence in the principles laid down by the hon. and learned gentleman, because he was a party to the drawing up of the Report upon which they were founded. The committee had laid before the House every thing which they considered as tending to elucidate the true merits of the question, as far as matters of direct information went, and then they proceeded to notice all the subsidiary and auxiliary measures which they held to be desirable. One of the strongest of these recommendations was the encouragement of select vestries, which they considered as being of the first importance in connection with the great object of their inquiries. He mentioned this the more particularly, because he hoped that it would have some effect with the hon. and learned gentleman, so as to induce him to consider it in the framing of his bill. There were many cases in which the establishing of select vestries had diminished the Poor-rates to a great extent. In the town of Newbury they had been reduced one-third in the course of two years. In many other places in the north of England, the best effects had resulted from them. At a village near Richmond, in Yorkshire, the rates had been decreased in a similar proportion to the diminution at Newbury. In the populous town of Preston, in Lancashire, the decrease had been still greater1; it amounted to three-fifths in one year. He made this statement, because it would be of the greatest use if other parishes who were not acquainted with the advantages to be derived from, or even of the existence of the law, should be induced to resort to the plan of appointing select vestries. The second measure, relating to the right of claiming relief, was the great object to which the attention of the House should be directed. If that were once settled on a solid and equitable basis, he thought all the evils of the present system would be corrected. The last report of the committee was particularly directed to that point, and he had been asked to carry the principle into execution by introducing a declaratory law that relief should be afforded, to the aged and infirm only. As to the third point, great objection, had been made to the proposal for making two years' residence a settlement, by honourable members, in consequence of instruction from constituents; and he feared the hon. and learned gentleman would meet with much opposition from the same quarter.

said, that though, in their debates, they reprobated the principle of an agrarian law or of Spencean justice, yet, in acts of parliament, they had absolutely adopted that principle; for gentlemen of landed property were the nominal owners of the land, while the rents and profits silently found their way into the hands of the parish officers, to be distributed to the poor. The system of our Poor-rates were extremely objectionable. They degraded the poor man, because he received that in the shape of alms, which ought to be given to him in the more creditable shape of wages. But, though the system was objectionable, he was not prepared to abridge the poor of that assistance which they had hitherto received. He traced the great amount of the Poor-rates to excessive taxation; and before he abridged the rights of the poor, he must see a repeal of the malt-tax, and of the salt-tax, and, above all, he demanded in their name a repeal of the obnoxious Corn bill.

felt it his duty to make a remark upon the proposition of the hon. and learned gentleman, not to allow parish relief except to the sick and infirm. In the large town which he represented, one-half of the manufacturers had at one time been thrown out of employ; and that not from a combination of the masters, but from the uncertainty of trade. They had, in consequence, suffered severe distress; and what would have been their situation, had such a bill as the one now proposed then been in operation?

observed, that although there were some parts of his hon. and learned friend's bill to which he should object if taken separately, yet to the whole united he had no objection whatever. On the contrary, he augured great good from its adoption, and thought it right to take an early occasion of bearing his testimony to the salutary effects of the act passed upon the proposition of the right hon. the member for Christchurch some years ago, especially in those dis- tricts of Lancashire with which he was more immediately acquainted.

expressed his surprise that any apprehension should be entertained of the tendency of his hon. and learned friend's bill to create embarrassment in the law of settlement, as the great object of that bill was, to remove all difficulty and litigation with respect to that law. It had been observed that labour, instead of being paid in wages by employers, had been paid out of the Poor-rates. If so, why then should not the amount of such payment be deducted in fairness from those rates? This was one of the objects of his Hon. and learned friend's bill; because that bill, proposed to have the labourer paid in just wages by his employer, instead of having him transferred to the Poor-rates. The effect, indeed, of his hon. and learned friend's measure would be, to regulate the price, of labour by the demand, and that was the end peculiarly desired. With respect to the pressure of the taxes and the national debt upon the, poor, that pressure could not be disputed, especially as it took away from the rich the means of employing the poor: but he had no doubt, if the supply of labour were reduced below the demand, which was the purpose of his hon. and learned friend's measure, that the public debt and taxes would bear exclusively upon the rich, and the poor would be most materially benefitted.

highly eulogised the principle and tendency of his hon. and learned friend's proposition, which he had no doubt would be productive of great good. He considered that the real evil of the Poor-laws arose out of the question of settlements. The litigation and expense occasioned by the disputes upon this question were beyond the conception of those who had not been concerned in them.

then brought in the bill. In moving the first reading, he said he wished to make a few observations upon the, remarks of his gallant friend. When his gallant friend stated, that the object of the bill was to abridge the rights, of the poor,' he stated that which was not the fact, and that which must have been founded in an entire misunderstanding of what had fallen from him. The object of the bill was, to increase the independence and to improve the condition of the poor of this country; and if it had, as his gallant friend represented, an opposite tendency, he trusted he was one of the last men who would be found to support it. He was of opinion, that that which would be most fatal to the independence of the poor, was, a feeling that they had a right to the allowances granted to them by the present system of Poor-laws. There was one argument which he had forgot to mention, that went strongly in favour of the bill. It was this—that the compulsory law for granting relief, had been the great cause of the low price of labour. In the North, where the Poor-rates were less than in any other part of the kingdom, wages were considerably higher; and land was better cultivated and better let there than in the south. It certainly appeared sowewhat paradoxical, but it was quite true, that in Sussex and Surrey the same kind of land, lying in a better climate, would not fetch so much rent as in Yorkshire, where the price of labour was considerably higher. The hon. and learned member then alluded to a paper which he held; in his hand, containing a statement made by a Mr. Walker, who had applied the principles upon which the bill was founded, to a particular district in the town of Manchester for four years. The result was, a regular diminution of the rates to a very great extent. The statement went on to express the conviction of the writer, that, if he had the means of carrying this plan to its full extent, in a very few years there would be no Poor-rates at all, except for the disabled and impotent, who were their proper objects.

observed, that in calling the attention of the House to the present state of the Bankruptcy Laws, he had to remind those gentlemen who sat in the last parliament, that the measure which he had now to propose, was not altogether new. A bill containing nearly the same provisions as that which he should have the honour to move for leave to introduce, he had before submitted to the? House, and it had met with its approbation. It had, however, failed of success in the other House. In bringing it once more under consideration, he should not deem it necessary, at this stage of the proceeding, to go into a minute exposition of all its parts. He would refer shortly to one or two of its principal objects, and state the more important evils which it was designed to remedy. One of the chief was, the danger and difficulty to which the commissioners were themselves exposed. It was also most desirable to adopt some means of putting an end to the frauds so often practised in obtaining certificates. He flattered himself that the measure in question would interpose some obstacles in the way of these fraudulent proceedings, while it would, at the same time, contain provisions for the security of the unfortunate and innocent bankrupt. His view was, indeed, to have the bankrupt laws, as they stood, duly enforced, especially for the protection of honest bankrupts, being thoroughly convinced, from long observation, that from the prevalent perversion of the law, honesty was the worst policy in a bankrupt. The hon. member concluded with moving, "that leave be given to bring in a bill to amend the laws relating to bankrupts."