rose to make his promised motion respecting the Four and a Half per Cent. Barbadoes and Leeward Island duties. He had on a former evening called the attention of the House to this subject. Of its importance no person could express a doubt who felt the necessity of making every just and possible retrenchment. The persons who questioned his law, and opposed his views on this subject, were certain ladies and gentlemen of high rank, who put into their own pockets the fund that should be applied to colonial purposes alone. One would have thought that the guardians of the public purse would have received with satisfaction any suggestion on this head; but when it was considered that many of those guardians themselves received part of this fund, the House would see that he had a difficult task to perform when he attempted to restore it to the purposes to which, in justice, and in law, it ought to have been applied. He would for the present take the case of the island of Barbadoes only. With respect to the law of the case, he would recite the colonial act, dated 12th Sept. 1663, by which the duty of 4½ per cent, on all goods the product of the island, which should be shipped from thence, was granted to his majesty for the purpose of keeping up the honour, and dignity of the government in the Island, and for building and keeping fortifications and other public works in repair. In that act he saw nothing, with respect to pensioners of the Crown; he did not see one single word to authorize the appropriation of those duties to pensions for lords and gentlemen,, and more particularly members of that House, The obvious intention of the act of 1663 was however departed from; and about 40 years after that act had been passed, a petition had been presented to that House from the merchants and planters of Barbadoes, in which they stated that the duties had been applied to other purposes than those pointed out by the act, and that the fortifications were in consequence allowed to go to decay. The petition was referred to a committee, and that committee reported, that the Complaint of the petitioners was a just complaint; accordingly an address was presented from that House to queen Anne, praying that the funds might be restored to the purposes for which they were originally intended. The answer of the queen informed the parliament, that she had given directions that the funds should, in future, be appropriated to the purposes of the colonial act; and in the settlement of revenue on the queen, made in a day or two after, those duties were excepted by name. That exception was made under the eye of lords Somers and Godolphin, men as well able to decide upon the legal appropriation of the fund as the gentlemen opposite. Out of that fund, however, there was an exception of an annuity of 1,000l.. to be paid to lord Kinnoul, who was the representative of the earl of Carlisle, the former grantee of the island of Barbadoes. Under the peculiar circumstances the annuity to lord Kinnoul was not unreasonable; yet when he stated the circumstance the other night, the right hon. gentleman opposite seized upon the fact, as if it afforded an argument for the total misapplication of the fund. The anxiety with which tile right hon. gentleman seized upon this grant to lord Kinnoul, showed how anxious he was, that himself and those who with him received those duties in grants dud in pensions, to sail in the same boat with lord Kinnoul. It was said that the late lord Chatham and Mr. Burke had large pensions chargeable on that fund; he lamented the fact, but custom did not make the law, and he had precisely the same right in 1821, to call for the appropriation of those funds, as the parliament of 1702 had. He regretted that pensions should have been granted out of that fund to lord Chatham and Mr. Burke. It shewed the danger of abuse; for no sooner did these great men accept of pensions out of the fund, than half the illegitimate children at the west end of the town were quartered upon it; between those and peers and peeresses and members of parliament, the whole of that fund was exhausted. In looking to the means of restoring that fund to the object for which it was granted, he could do no more than lay before them the plain words of the colonial act; the address of the House in 1701; and the answer of queen Anne. It was not his intention to deprive daughters and sisters and widows of the pensions chargeable on that fund. However improperly granted, he was willing that the pensions should remain during the lives of those who held them; but in future he hoped that the House would feel themselves, under the circumstances, bound in law and in justice—in propriety and in decency—to make the fund available to the intentions of the act of 1663. With respect to the duties of the Leeward islands, though the words were not so explicit, he thought the law was equally plain. He had no objection, however, that all the colonial acts should be referred to a committee to report their opinion as to the true intent and meaning of these acts. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That it appears to this House, by an act of the colonial assembly of the island of Barbadoes, bearing date the 12th of September 1663, stating, amongst other things, 'that well weighing the great charges there must be of necessity in the maintaining the honour and dignity of his majesty's authority here, the public meetings of the sessions, the often attendance of the council, the reparation of the forts, the building a sessions-house arid prison, and all other public charges incumbent on the government, did, in consideration thereof, give and grant unto his majesty, his heirs and successors, for ever, the following imposts or customs, that is to say, upon all dead commodities of the growth or produce of this island, that shall be shipped off the same, shall be paid to our sovereign lord the king, his heirs and successors, for ever, four and a half in specie for every score; "That it appears to this House, by reference to its Journals, that on the 16th day of March 1701, a petition was presented from the agent, planters, and merchants of Barbadoes, stating that the said duties of 4½ per cent, which had been granted by the said colonial act of 1663, for the reparation and building of fortifications, and defraying all other public charges incident to the government there, had been collected, by officers appointed by the commissioners in England, and applied to other uses; and praying that the said duty of 4½ per cent. Might be applied to the uses for which it was given: "That on the 24th of March following, an humble address was voted from this House to her majesty queen Anne, praying that the said duty or impost of 4½ per cent, arising in Barbadoes and the Leeward islands, subject to an annuity to the earl of Kinnoul (which earl of Kinnoul was the representative of the earl of Carlisle, the former grantee or patentee of the island of Barbadoes), might be applied for repairing and erecting such fortifications, and other public services for the safety of the said islands, as her majesty should direct, and that an annual account how the said duties were expended should be laid, before the House of Commons; and further, that on the 30th of March following, Mr. Secretary Vernon reported to the House, that her majesty had, been pleased to say she would give directions that the duty of four and a half per cent, should be applied in the manner prayed for, and that an annual account should be kept of the same duties: "That, notwithstanding such specific appropriation of the 4½ per cent, duty, by the colonial act of the island of Barbadoes of 1663, confirmed as it was by the proceedings in this House in 1701, above referred to, the said fund at present, though amounting, according to the last return, to 22,000l.. and upwards, is nearly exhausted in pensions granted by the Crown to different persons in this country, whilst a sum' of 7,500l.. has been voted this year out of the public money, for repairing the fortifications, and other public services, in the island of Barbadoes. "That, under all the circumstances above referred to, this House is of opinion, that the duty of 4½ per cent, imposed Upon the island of Barbadoes by the colonial act of 1663, is a fund, duly, strictly and legally, applicable to defraying the expenses of fortifications, and other public purposes in the said island; and that more particularly, in the present distressed situation of this country, it is the bounden duty of this House to see this fund so applied, and to prevent it from being exhausted in" pensions."

was not surprised at the hostility which sortie hon. gentlemen felt towards this fund, as they were evidently unacquainted with its real history. Many publications had of late issued from the press, which professed to give a history of it, but which proceeded from linen who either knew nothing of the subject, or who intended, for purposes which he would not mention, to mislead those for whom they were writing. To this class belonged an address which had been published to the electors of Great Britain. That address, in giving a history of this fund, had made several observations regarding its origin which were totally unfounded; and though the hon. gentleman had not fallen into the same errors, he had fallen into some scarcely less material. The hon. gentleman had read the preamble of the colonial act to the House, from which it appeared, that the fund was granted for various purposes, though he had chosen to affirm, that it was only granted for the repair of the fortifications in the Leeward islands. Now, this was not the fact, as the funds in question had been granted in 1663 to the Crown, for the renunciation of certain rights which then belonged to it. That those funds had never been intended for the repair of the fortifications was clear from this consideration, that in the years 1665, 1666, and 1681, sums of money had been raised by the colonial legislature expressly for that object. That those funds were intended for the sole use and benefit of the Crown was established by another fact; namely, that in 1684 the colonial legislature had offered to pay into his majesty's exchequer in London, to be at his majesty's own disposal, the sum of 6,000l.. annually, as a commutation for the duties levied in the island. These points being established with regard to the light in which this fund was contemplated by the colonial legislature, it next became his duty to consider how it had been viewed by the British parliament. Now, in the reign of king William, parliament had taken, and by name applied it to the civil list. What connexion there could be between the civil list and the purposes to which the hon. gentleman had said the fund ought to be applied, he could not well see. The later proceedings in the time of queen Anne clearly demonstrated to his mind, that the then parliament conceived its predecessor to have acted improperly in appropriating to such purposes as it thought proper funds which belonged absolutely and without control to the Crown. At the commencement of the reign of George 1st, this 4½ per cent, fund was mentioned in the Civil List act, for the ex- press purpose of placing it on the same footing as the funds belonging to the duchy of Cornwall. Its history from that period there was no occasion for him to repeat, as in each succeeding reign it was considered as of a similar nature with the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall. So much for the light in which parliament contemplated the funds in question. The hon. gentleman had stated, that they were distributed amongst lords and ladies and members of parliament, and that no part of it was applied to colonial purposes.' On that head he was also much mistaken, as in the year 1818, 15,000l.. out of 25,000l.. which it produced, was applied to the use of the colonies. He defied any lion, member who read the acts of the Leeward islands relative to this fund, to entertain a doubt regarding the construction of any of them; and yet the hon. gentleman wished to refer them to the consideration of a committee. He concluded by stating that the 4½ per cents, were expressly granted by the colony to his majesty, because he had given the island a constitution; and by moving the previous question.

entered into an historical review of the government of the island of Barbadoes, and adverted to the rapacious measures pursued towards the colonists in the reign of Charles 2nd. At that period the earl of Carlisle obtained a proprietary grant of the revenues of the island, and afterwards consigned the interest for a limited period to the earl of Pembroke, from whom it passed to a merchant on the island. The second earl of Carlisle at a subsequent period leased out his interest to lord Kinnoul, who again transferred his right to lord Willoughby; and these successive persons conducted themselves with so much rapacity, that the colonists were under the necessity of claiming the protection of king Charles. They begged permission of that unprincipled monarch to try at law the validity of the letters patent under which the exactions had been carried on; but the king, instead of granting this request, referred the matter to certain lords of his council, of whom the earl of Clarendon was one; and the conduct then pursued was among the grounds of charge adduced in the subsequent impeachment of that earl. This duty of four and a half per cent, was first proposed to the colonial council, by a colonist named Kendall, who had acted without the authority of the people of Barba- does. The duty was strongly resisted, at the time, by the local legislative assembly; and the governor sent home some of the inhabitants, under charges of mutiny and high treason for that resistance. Thus, the act of 1663, instead of being a voluntary act of the assembly at Barbadoes, was one which had been extorted from them by the oppressive power of the Crown. But even then the stipulation made by the government was, that the public burdens of the island should be alleviated out of the duty—the governor's salary, for instance, as well as lord Kinnoul's incumbrances were paid there from. A sessions-house and other improvements were to be made at the same time, not one of which conditions was carried into effect according to the original stipulation. The government also broke faith with the colonists, in not exempting from the duty, according to the terms of the express stipulation, a spot comprehending 10,000 acres of merchants' land. So completely was the violation of the treaty apparent, that, in 1701 precisely the same proposition was made which his hon. friend had now submitted to the House. Why not, then admit in 1821, the same under standing upon the subject of that compact, which had been sanctioned by the legislature one hundred and twenty years ago?

said, he was not surprised that the hon. member opposite should endeavour to get rid of the force of the colonial act, by saying that the colonists had subsequently submitted, and acknowledged the error into which they had fallen. They had indeed submitted; but to what? To the encroachment of the strong—to the arbitrary plundering of an oppressive government. He expressed his concurrence in the construction of the acts, as they had been quoted by his hon. friends, and contended that the act of George 1st. threw back the produce of these 4½ per cent, duties to their original design, namely, the maintenance of the local government at Barbadoes. For a long succession of years that appropriation had actually taken place, and it was not until 1796 that a different system grew up, and pensions were assigned from this fund. At first they were comparatively small; lord Auckland and sitGrey Cooper received 1,200l.. or 1,300l.: a year out of it: soon after, however, I the duke of Gloucester was assigned 9,000l..a year from it; but the fund falling Short of the incumbrance in the year 1787, the duke of Gloucester's pension was transferred to the consolidated fund. But when this colonial revenue was afterwards augmented, the pension was not recharged upon it as it ought to have been; and government proceeded to give largesses out of it which altogether alienated the fund from its original destination. This was one of the most disgraceful acts of Mr. Pitt and his successors. In 1796, Mr. Burke received 7,500l.. out of this fund; and he and his heirs had ever since enjoyed a pension of 2,500l.. a year from the same source. This sort of alienation ought to be permitted no longer. The fund ought to be applied in reduction of the local expenses of Barbadoes; and whatever surplus remained, ought to go, not to the Crown, but to the general credit of the public expenditure. The Crown had already ample means for granting pensions. It had 300,000l.. a year independent of parliament for that purpose. Thinking that the motion was founded both in law and expediency, it should have his decided support.

observed, that with respect to the 4½ per cent, duties, there had been no return of their produce or application laid before the House since the year 1818. These duties had always been credited to the public, and formed part of the public revenue, up to 1778. Until 1796, indeed, some portion of this fund was returned as part of the public revenue; when it disappeared altogether, having been exhausted in pensions granted by his majesty. But, as the individuals to whom those pensions were granted happened to fall, it was surely fair that the surplus should be appropriated to the use of the public. That was the object of his hon. friend, and in this object lie called upon the landed gentlemen to support him.

read extracts from two reports of the finance committee on this subject; and from these he inferred, that the committee had recognised the right of the Crown to the 4½ per cent, duties, and that they formed no part of the public revenue. He also noticed that Mr. Burke's bill did not at all interfere with the fund in question, though the attention of parliament had been particularly called to the subject, and contended that the grant to the earl of Kinnoul was just as illegal as any of those subsequently made. In conclusion, he adverted to the anonymous slanders circulated against him on this subject. If the hon. mover was the author of the pamphlet alluded to, he hoped he would in future attack him openly and fairly in the House, where he should be ready to answer him.

shortly replied, relying upon the act of 1663, and contending that his case was unshaken by anything said in answer to his motion. He asked for the relinquishment of no pension, but merely that the matter in future should be put upon a clear, fair, and intelligible footing.

maintained the correctness of the assertion which he had made, that the 4½ per cent, duties were exhausted in pensions to members of parliament and their connections. He was in possession of the names of members of that House who received pensions to the amount of 13,000l.. a year from this fund. He concluded with moving, "That it appears to this House, there is a duty of 4½ per cent, accruing to the Crown upon certain produce from the island of Antigua, St Christopher, Nevis, Montserrat, and Tortola; and that these duties, though considerable in amount, are nearly exhausted in pen- sions granted by the Crown to different persons in this country, whilst large sums are annually voted from the public money for the protection and defence of the said islands; and that this House is of opinion, that the different colonial acts creating the said duties of 4½ per cent, ought to be referred to a Select Committee, for their examination and for the purpose of reporting upon the same to this House."—The motion was negatived.

rose to introduce a bill to prevent fraudulent votes being given at the election of members to sit in parliament. That an evil existed in the election of members for particular cities-and boroughs, by individuals giving occasional votes, arising from freeholds under 40s. a year, could not be doubted. Many cases of this description had been investigated by committees of that House, and various decisions had been come to. He would briefly state the object he had in view. His intention was, to extend the laws by which county elections were regulated, to the election of members of parliament for certain cities and boroughs. But, as he had already learned the sense of the House on one part of the measure which he had projected, he wished it to be understood that without giving up the opinion which he originally held on the subject, he meant that burgage tenures should be exempted from the operation of the bill. He thought his bill entitled to the support of every gentleman in the House. His object was, to oppose fraud, and fraud only. He did not wish to interfere with real property of any description, or to take away the right of election from those who justly possessed it; but he could not consent to allow it an influence beyond that which was acquired by a fair, open, and honest expenditure. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to prevent occasional votes arising from freeholds under 40s. a year, in certain cities and boroughs.—Leave given.

said, he took the earliest opportunity of obeying the directions of the select committee, appointed a short time since to inquire into the laws respecting Vagrants, for the purpose of bringing forward a measure in conformity with the report of that committee, as to the best means of apprehending, punish- ing, and passing them. Every gentleman must be acquainted with the great expense that was incurred in passing vagrants to their respective settlements. It amounted to not less than 100,000l.. a year; and he could see no practical good which resulted to the country from that inordinate expenditure. The first question would naturally be, What remedy do you propose to obviate the existing grievance? He would, then, in the first place, recommend that the present system of passing vagrants from county to county should be suspended for one year, or for a given period. It was quite clear, that vagrants rarely reached the parish by which it was intended they should be supported; and when they did arrive at their place of destination, they received but little relief. The consequence of this was, that they immediately absconded, and returned to their former practices. The passing of vagrants was, in fact, considered a mere matter of form, as might be collected from the following fact:—A man who carried a monkey through the country, as the means of earning a subsistence, was taken up for begging. A pass was made out for his conveyance to Scotland, on an allowance of 8d. a day. The pauper complained that 8d. a day was too little to support himself and his monkey. But the justice's clerk, who had been highly amused with the tricks of the animal, told the vagrant that he would provide for both; and he accordingly filled up a pass for the monkey, under the name of John Strange. With these passes the vagrant and his monkey were sent forward from the north riding of Yorkshire to Scotland. The second point was, that a longer period of imprisonment should be assigned before the passing of any vagrant, than could be awarded under the present law. As the law was now constituted, the magistrate must commit for seven days; which commitment was no punishment whatsoever. He would propose that the vagrant should not be committed for a shorter period than one month for the first offence, and that he should during that period be kept to hard labour. Vagrancy had, by the laws of England, been always considered a crime; and it should therefore be punished as a crime. He would further propose that the magistrate, when the vagrant had expiated his offence by imprisonment, should be empowered to present him with a portion of his earnings, for his support. The third alteration which he wished to introduce was the abolition of the present system of rewards; according to which individuals apprehending vagrants were entitled to claim 5s. or 10s. This system had been very much abused. Of that fact he had formerly given many instances which he would not now reiterate. His fourth proposition would be, that a power should be given to magistrates to bind over constables to prosecute for a repetition of the offence of vagrancy. The law on this part of the subject was at present extremely deficient; the consequence of which was, that confirmed vagrants often went unpunished. The fifth alteration would be, to do away with walking passes altogether. His great object was, if possible, to put an end to vagrancy, which had actually become a trade. He then moved for leave to bring in a bill "to amend the laws now in force relating to Vagrants."

adverted to the absurdity of the present system of the laws, by which vagrants were sent to their places of settlement, to receive precisely the same punishment which might have been inflicted upon them in the first instance. If it was necessary to punish vagrants at all, surely the cheaper and more expeditious mode would be to punish them in the place where the act of vagrancy was committed, instead of sending them from one end of the kingdom to the other at a great public expense. This view of the question was calculated to illustrate the arguments which he had urged on a former occasion with regard to the law of settlement. In fact, to send a pauper to his place of settlement, was in most cases to send him to a place where he had no connexions, and no means of obtaining a livelihood. He hoped, therefore, that his learned friend would propose some measure to limit the discretion of justices in this respect. The mere circumstance of a man being reduced to necessity, was not in itself to be regarded as a crime; it was only against the sturdy, incorrigible vagrant, that the penalties of the law were directed.

contended that there was no place in which a vagrant was so likely to abandon his idle habits, and apply himself to useful labour, as that in which the law emphatically styled him to be last settled. There would be difficulty in dealing with a part of the system of the Poor-laws, without considering in what way the whole would be affected by such a partial application of a remedy.

observed, that this bill did not touch the real question, namely, whether vagrancy was or was not a crime? There were many classes of vagrants known to the law. Beggars, for instance, who solicited charity; others, who did not actually solicit alms, but who carried on some foolish and trifling business; and, a third class, who endeavoured to excite pity, by the exposure of some bodily infirmity. All these came under the operation of the present law. He was of opinion, that vagrancy might be effectually checked, without having recourse to a multiplicity of prosecutions. Suppose a beggar applied for charity; what was the best way of repelling him? Why, give him nothing. If this principle were acted on, men would soon see the necessity of exerting themselves to obtain a livelihood. The vagrant, instead of being passed to his settlement at the public expense, ought to be compelled to proceed thither as well as he could. The effect of a restrictive system, by which each parish could only incur a specific expense, would, he conceived, be beneficial. At present, the poor were taught, not to rely on their own exertions, but on the exertions of others; and the consequence was that they ceased to be saving, industrious, and economical. The bill was that sort of measure which, if carried, would lead the country to believe that they meant-to continue, with some modification, that destructive system which had too long, prevailed.

said, that if the House acceded this session to the measure proposed by Mr. Scarlett, undoubtedly the present bill must go hand in hand with it. But if that measure should not be carried this session, he hoped the House would agree to try an experiment, which, as the measure was limited only to one year, could at any rate produce no very injurious consequences.

observed, that, by the laws of this country, no man was permitted to starve and die of want. Some relief, therefore, must be afforded to destitute persons; and though, in a general point of view, it was a matter of indifference to the country, whether that relief were afforded in one place or another, it was by no means a matter of indifference to A. sand B. the two parishes, which was to be bur-thened with the permanent support of such persons. It was; with a view to such interests that vagrants were sent to their place of settlement by the existing law, and he could not therefore agree to a plan Which would have the effect of subjecting vagrants to an eternal round of punishments in the place where the first act of vagrancy was committed.

said, the subject was full of conflicting difficulties, and the object of the legislature must be to find that alternative, which was liable to the smallest share of objection. The House was scarcely in a situation to discuss this question with advantage, since they had neither the report of the committee, nor the bill before them. He could not but suggest, therefore, that the question would be more advantageously discussed on the second reading of the bill.

wished for an improvement in the system, and for an alteration, of the treatment experienced by vagrants in houses of correction, so as to ensure their being put to hard labour. An hon. member seemed to think, with a view to putting a stop to vagrancy, it was only necessary to refuse the beggar relief. This plan might answer for a society in a state of nature, but was inapplicable to one in our present artificial state; and could not be reconciled with the principles of our religion.

presented a petition in favour of the principle of this bill, from the inhabitants of Marylebone.

expressed his satisfaction that this populous and respectable parish approved of the bill. It was his intention to modify it in a future stage, so as to prevent any inconvenience being occasioned to local interests.

observed, that the bill had met with the approbation of a large body of the inhabitants of Sussex.

said, he had been requested by his constituents to express their disapprobation of the bill. They considered it not only highly impolitic but impracticable, at a period, when so great a number of labourers, both in the manufacturing and agricultural districts, were unable to obtain employment.

expressed a hope that the learned gentleman would not press his measure at the present moment; as he was convinced, from the generally dis- tressed state of the country, that it would be impossible to carry its provisions into effect.

presented a petition from the parish of St. Mary, Nottingham, against the bill, which they believed would, if carried into effect proveruinous to the country.

observed, that out of the great multitude of communications which he had received on the subject, very few were opposed to the bill in principle.

thought that the learned gentleman deserved the thanks of the country for having brought before the House a measure on this most important subject.

said, his learned friend deceived himself if be thought the bill met with general approbation. He trusted he would not press it this session, and referred to an official statement he had received from Broadwater in Sussex, showing that the poor-rates could be lowered under a proper administration of the present laws.

said, that in Warwick the opposition to the measure was general.

could not agree that the rates could be lowered under the present system. He hoped the measure would be discussed, in order that the opinion of ministers might be known. The reduction was often not so great as it appeared. The poor-rates were generally estimated at 8,000,000l.. a year. He had no doubt that in the present they would not exceed 6,000,000l..; and yet there would be no real decrease.

said, that the poor-rates amounted to a sum as great as was necessary for carrying on the purposes of the British government on the accession of the late king. Unless something was done to stop the evil, the entire property of the country would ultimately be taken out of the hands of the ancient proprietors.

contended that the rates might be diminished under the existing laws. In Oakingham they were reduced last year 4s. in the pound. In the two counties with which he was connected, he had not seen an individual who was disposed to support the bill.

said, that if the subject had not frequently been brought under the consideration of parliament and the public, he would have been more ready to accede to the wish of some of his friends to postpone the bill. But as the principle of it had frequently been discussed, he could see no reason for postponing it. With respect to the objections from great towns, it was his intention to introduce a clause in the bill for the purpose of providing a remedy against the possible and prospective inconvenience apprehended by them. As to the country and the agricultural classes, his object was not so much to lower the rates, as to improve the moral condition of the poor. If the bill should be postponed to the next session, he had no doubt but that those who had an interest in keeping up existing abuses, would attempt to raise an opposition to it. He did not fear that opposition, but he certainly did not covet it. When it was considered that 500,000l.. a year was, on account of the poor-rates, expended in litigation alone, the House would see that a multitude of persons had a personal interest in opposing the bill.

, in rising to move the second reading of his bill, commenced by observing, that he wished at the outset to state, that it never was his intention, even when he first proposed the measure, to incumber it with many matters of detail. He was desirous rather to point out to the House the principles upon which he thought the present system of our poor-laws a vicious one, and one which required correction. He had been desirous of putting it in the most simple form, and of calling the attention of the House to what he conceived to be the grand sources of those evils under which we now laboured. He would shortly recapitulate the three great causes of all the various mischiefs and inconveniences which were found to result from our present system of poor-laws. They were to be found, first, in a compulsory and unlimited provision for the poor; secondly, in the administration of that provision, not to support industry, to encourage good conduct, and to be a relief for those who might be disabled by infirmities, but to cherish the vices and the indolence of that class of the poor who were disposed to exist rather on the charity of others, than to depend for their bread upon their own exertions: thirdly (which was the grand and principal source of all those evils, as compared with the others), in the restraint that now existed upon the free exercise of labour. No one was more aware than he was that there were some evils which did not arise out of the principle of these laws, but were rather connected with the character and habits of the poor themselves; and such evils were modified by the benevolent attention and patriotic exertions of individuals, by the activity of magistrates, and by other circumstances affecting the character of the population of the district; but, whatever the evils were, they were ultimately referable to one or all of the three grand sources which he had enumerated. It had been urged as an objection to the bill, that it was a measure affecting the rights of the poor. He acknowledged it did affect the rights of the poor; but then it went to put them on a better foundation. It went to relieve them from their present state of dependence and calamity; but if his learned friend opposite said the poor man had a right to relief who was not labouring under old age, sickness, or infirmity, he would be glad to know in what book he found that law. He challenged him to produce it. The mistakes of individuals and magistrates had put an erroneous interpretation on the statute of Elizabeth; The decision of no court of law confirmed that interpretation, or authorized any such existing right. On the contrary, the courts had held that an order of the magistrates for relieving a poor man was not valid, unless it stated him to be incapable of labour. He would ask, then, in what way the present system operated? Was it not rather to the prejudice of the poor, than to their relief? There was one way in particular. The farmer, finding that he was called on to pay heavy poof-rates, resorted to the practice of diminishing the wages of labour. They thought it best to employ only men who had families, which must receive a certain sum from the parish, and allow them only such wages as would barely allow them to exist. The farmer said, if the parish pay five shillings, and he could get his work done for nine, why should he give more than nine? The unmarried man was consequently reduced to this condition, that he must enter into competition with the other, and must go without employment unless he worked for the same wages. Thus the poor man, who was working; almost his blood out, had only before him the melancholy prospect of terminating his life in a workhouse—he had no other refuge. How different was such a man in point of moral existence and affinity to the state, from him who was enabled to make some acquisitions of property by his own labour, and to lay up for his old age an independent provision! In every point of view, moral, political and religious, the man who hoped to lay by something from his own earnings, was more valuable to society and to himself, than he who was doomed to present labour and prospective wretchedness, without any hope whatever. Another evil was, that a single man, when he found that the farmer employed a man with a family in preference, would be induced to get married, and thus burthen the parish with another family. If the House would consider the effect of the present compulsory and unlimited provision, they would find that it tended to create idleness, misery, and accumulated distress. To make this more evident, he would put a case:—suppose the House thought proper to tax every parish for a provision for musicians, would not the number of persons who understood the gamut, be very soon extended, and should we not soon be able to contend with some countries on the continent in the number and skill of our musicians? Just so it was with the poor-laws. They offered a bounty to pauperism, and consequently must lamentably augment the number of paupers. Those laws had the effect of preventing many a man in the labouring classes from earning his own subsistence, because they laid up a provision to which idleness might give him a claim; while those who worked, had to endure the mortifying reflection, that even out of their scanty pittance a portion was to go to the support of idlers and vagabonds. There was a great difficulty here; and it was the first duty of the legislature to remove that difficulty; but such difficulty could never be removed, as long as the class of persons who were reduced to dependence and misery, was multiplied by a compulsory and unlimited provision, and by the continuance of the restraint on labour. It was necessary that there should be a total and unqualified abolition of the law of settlements, as a necessary consequence of the removal of that restraint. The connection established by that law between a man and a particular parish was exceedingly arbitrary; it was a mere accidental relationship. In the first place, it depended on his own birth, or the birth of his father or grandfather: secondly, on the renting a tenement of ten pounds a-year; thirdly, on having served one year on hire, not eleven months, as generally prevailed at present; and fourthly, having served some parish office. Such regulations were very injurious to the subject in many respects.—If a certain rule was wanted, why not take the place in which the man happened to be at the time in which he became chargeable, as one that was certain and admitted of no dispute? He would ask the House to look at the details. Suppose a man, who had worked almost all his life in Manchester or Birmingham, met with a season of great distress, if he had not rented a tenement of the yearly value of 10l.., or served a parish office, he was not allowed relief there, but an investigation took place as to where he was born, or perhaps his father, and He was sent off, it might be to some parish in Devonshire or Cornwall, to be supported where he never Had worked at all. What connection was there between the temporary relief which he required, and the place which was Charged to maintain him? If the House went into a committee, he proposed to meet the inconvenience which might arise from the change in the law. It was stated, that the burthen would be great in particular towns, and he instanced Nottingham; but surely as the provision was not to amount beyond a certain sum, the overseer had a short answer to give to applicants who exceeded the number to which relief could be afforded, namely, that there were not the means, and that they must go elsewhere for a provision. It had been said, suppose some gentlemen of landed property chose to destroy all the cottages on their estates, and turn out the inhabitants, how were they to be supported; but he would ask, what gentleman thought such a case probable, or that landed proprietors could have such a short-sighted view of their own interests? He would propose, that where rates might become very oppressive, other places in which they were not so should be taxed in aid. He wished to meet the inconveniences stated, though he hoped they were imaginary. It was besides to be taken into the account, that accumulated population gave value to land, and where that population was greatest as in the neighbourhood of great towns, the value of land was so high as to bear no proportion to that in the agricultural districts; such places as Nottingham were enriched instead of being impoverished by population; for in some of them land went as high as 16 guineas an acre. Another objection to the bill was the maximum which it proposed to introduce; and he was free to confess that cases might for some time arise, in which that maximum would be found inconvenient. But the legislature ought not to be deterred from adopting a sound and beneficial principle by the fear of temporary inconvenience: let the House adopt the measure, see the effect, retain the principle, and remedy, pro tempore, the transient inconvenience. If any gentleman saw such a prospect of temporary mischief, as to call for the enactment of a prospective law, he had a clause which might be made part of the bill, and which supplied a certain cure for the evil. If scarcity of provisions, epidemic disease, or any other circumstance of local affliction should be found to render an allowance necessary beyond the maximum, then let a meeting of the inhabitants of the place, not a select vestry, but an open meeting, at which the sense of the people could be taken, have power to make an additional allowance. The system of maintaining illegitimate children, and the mode of imposing rates, were both points upon which improvement might be made; but such arrangements were rather matters of detail, to be treated of after the moving principle should be adopted. It was said that, under the existing laws, rates might frequently be diminished by the vigilance of magistrates. No doubt they might: he knew instances in which such reductions had been effected; but such instances were exceptions to the general rule; and the good effect lasted no longer than the vigilance was maintained. He agreed that the calamities under which the poor were suffering had been produced in a great measure by the increase of taxation. But why had those sufferings been so produced? Because increase of taxation, and the consequent increase in the money price of almost every article of consumption, had not been attended by a proportionate increase in the rate of wages paid to them. The labourer was now paid, not by wages, but by charity: he was demoralised, enslaved, deprived of that independence and self-respect which alone could make him a good man and a useful citizen. All this took place without a single shilling being saved to his employer; nay, the employer, in the end, was a loser by the system. It would be found, almost throughout England, that the state of cultivation in which the land appeared depended in a great measure upon the condition of the labourer by whom it was cultivated. In Lancashire and in the West riding of Yorkshire, where fuel was to be obtained almost for nothing, where living was cheap, and wages were comparatively high, was not the land, in general, in better cultivation than in the southern counties, where wages were low, and, poor-rates enormous? It followed, indeed, of necessity, that a man would work better upon a plentiful meal and a prospect of independence, than upon 9s. a week, with the prospect of a workhouse. The farmer who paid 200l. a year in wages, got more work done for his money, and got it better done, than the man who paid 100l. in wages, and 100l. in poor-rates. The learned member then referred to some returns which he had received from the parish of St. James, Bath, by which it appeared that, with an increase only of one-third in population during the last 100 years, the poor-rates had increased gradually from 9s. 11¾d. per week to 41l. 5s. This increase was even now going on. Would the House stem the torrent now, or wait until its force became overwhelming? After some remarks upon the probable effect of the proposed bill, in saving the immense expense incurred by removals, and in putting an end to laws which formed an eternal source of litigation, he concluded by moving, that the bill be read a second time.

said, that before the House consented to abrogate the laws of Elizabeth, those laws which Blackstone had described as founded upon the first principles of civilized society, they should look at the artificial state in which, from circumstances, the country was placed. When labour was in many places an unmarketable drug; when corn laws and excise laws prevented the lower orders from obtaining at a low price the necessaries of life; when the poor were many of them absolutely unable to obtain a livelihood, surely they had a right to look for the means of existence, to those who had the power of affording them those means. Let the House beware how they touched that statute of Elizabeth, which was the Magna Charta of the poor, and might be called the palladium of their rights. Men would live; and it was better that they should live by charity than by rapine. The statute of Elizabeth provided that the lame, the blind, and the indigent poor, unable to work, should have relief in money; and that all persons, married or single, who were able to work, should have labour, and the means of exerting it given to them. That they must have at present immediate subsistence was clear. The hon. and learned member seemed to think that only the sick, the blind, or the impotent were entitled to relief; but how long would it be before the poor who could work, but were unable to find work, fell into that situation? Six-and-thirty hours would go near to qualify the best man in England for such a certificate as, even in the hon. and learned member's view, would entitle him to relief. If a maximum was to be imposed upon the poor-rates, why not impose one upon the dormant capital, which in a great measure contributed to throw the poor out of employ? In truth, the maximum would do harm; for it would always be looked upon as a minimum. The scheme had been frequently tried in other cases, and it had invariably failed. Now, then, to the learned member's anti-matrimonial and anti-population scheme. Such a scheme was incompatible with all the legal, moral, and religious institutions of the country. How could the House check marriage by law, and yet seek to maintain those laws which rendered illicit intercourse a crime? Did hon. members hope that they could control the impulses of nature, and subject human beings to such unnatural restrictions? He would not speak of men only. In what situation did the House place the female part of the community? They were to be shut out from the resource of marriage; and they were liable to ruin and disgrace, if not to absolute punishment, for adopting an intermediate course. They were not to be permitted to marry; and their illegitimate children, if they had any, were to be starved to death. Would any man who had looked into the labourer's cottage say that parish relief was a bounty upon idleness?—that an allowance of a shilling or eighteen-pence a week for a man's second or third child was a premium upon population? Even if this anti-population scheme succeeded, would it not go to increase the very evil of which the landlords complained? Farmers said their prices were too low. Low prices proved excess of produce, and were to be removed, not by abatement, but by increase of population. He could not, for his party consent to take away the rights of the poor, until every other scheme of retrenchment had been tried. If the poor were at last to be touched, let it at least be evident that such a measure was the result of absolute and inevitable necessity.

could not refrain from offering a few words on that part of the gallant general's speech in which he seemed to consider the statute of Elizabeth as the Magna Charta of the poor, and the palladium of their rights. That he utterly denied. He denied that the House ought to consider that or any other law on the subject as one which they were not perfectly justified in amending, according to the demand of the time, or their altered view of the circumstances of the case. The basis of the constitution was, the security which it gave to all persons in the enjoyment of whatever property they had honestly come by. If it could be shown that the principle of the poor-laws was subversive of that by which property was protected, then it would be evident that such an antagonist principle ought not to be allowed to prevail. The meaning of the statute of the 43rd of Elizabeth was, to inflict compulsory labour by way of punishment, not to afford labour for the mere purpose of maintenance. It was any thing but in the nature of giving the poor personal property.

of Wilts, observed, that the greatest evil of the poor-laws was, that it rendered the poor man dependent on his superior, and made him so abject a wretch, that he had no object in acquiring property or maintaining a character in society. But, although that was a great evil, yet by its removal there would be danger of inflicting a still greater cruelty on the poor. There could be little doubt that if the existing poor-laws were suddenly repealed, the effect would be general starvation. As to any maximum of poor-rates, he could not conceive how that was possible, considering the difference which took place in the price of provisions and the price of labour. With respect to the clause respecting settlements, if the bill passed with that clause, every landed proprietor who had cottages on his estate would destroy them, as the only mode of preserving his property from utter destruction. As to the increase of population, which it was said had been occasioned by the poor-laws, he by no means considered that increase to be, generally speaking, an evil; although it certainly was so at the present moment, in conse- quence of the peculiar circumstances in which the country was placed. In a great country like this it was rarely indeed that the supply of labour would be found too great.

thought it desirable that the bill should go to a committee, and receive the modifications which the hon. and learned gentleman proposed to introduce into it, with an understanding that when it came out of the committee, it should be discussed by the House. He hoped that the House would then be prepared to come to a decision, as to the principle of the poor-laws. Adverting to the strong protest which the hon. member for Beaumaris had entered against the assertion of the gallant general with respect to the right of the poor to relief, he must say, that he totally disagreed with the member for Beaumaris, and much more nearly agreed with the gallant general. On a future occasion, he should be prepared to contend (if the House would allow him), that the poor, both from the course of our legislation on the subject and from what he might call moral right, bad a fair and reasonable claim before God and man for relief, much more extensively than the member for Beaumaris was disposed to allow.

said, that for the bill generally he entertained the most friendly feeling. That part of it which went to repeal the law of settlements had his warmest support. That law was productive of great mischief to the poor themselves, as well as to the country at large. At the same time, he could by no means agree with an hon. member, that the basis of the constitution was the protection of the enjoyment of property. The basis of the constitution was the protection of rights; and the rights of the poor ought to be protected as well as those of the rich. He doubted whether the population had increased so much as was supposed, especially in the agricultural districts. But, was the country to be told in the nineteenth century that it would be ruined by an excess of population? Had not all the great men of the last century declared that the population was the strength and wealth of a country? And yet it was now proposed to relieve the burthen which pressed on the capital of the country by destroying that population which, although it fed upon that capital, materially contributed to its increase! It was undoubtedly true that at present the whole population were not able to maintain themselves as they ought to be maintained. That, however, was attributable, not to the poor-laws, but to our immense debt, and to the taxes imposed upon the country to pay the interest of it, the holders of which, as far as that debt was concerned (and he begged not to be understood as making the observation invidiously), were mere drones. In another point of view, he confessed he thought the poor-laws productive of great moral evil. That evil would certainly be much diminished by the repeal of the law of settlements. At present the poor were in many districts very much in the condition of slaves, attached to the soil. A labourer was deterred from going out of the parish in which he had gained a settlement, lest something might happen to him in a parish in which he had none. And, if this operated against the poor by preventing them from seeking the best market for their labour, it also operated against the land-owner by burthening him with labourers who were of no use to him. With respect to the encouragement which the poor-laws gave to early and improvident marriages, he doubted if those marriages were so frequent as they were supposed to be. He doubted also if the clause which related to fixing a maximum of poor-rates could be carried into effect. If the other parts of the measure were successful in their operation, that clause would become nugatory; but it was not nugatory as it now stood.

repeated his gratitude to the learned gentleman, for having bestowed so much of his time and attention in bringing this important subject under the consideration of parliament. He should be extremely sorry to do any thing that might impede the fullest consideration of the problem; for it it were not immediately solved, still every grave and deliberate examination of the question would ripen the mind of the country, in its progress to that final amelioration of the System, to which he trusted we might ultimately arrive. This important subject had been discussed during two sessions in a committee above stairs, with a degree of candour and patience of which he regretted that the House and the country at large could not have been witnesses. The numerous difficulties which presented themselves to any arrangement on this important subject, could only be got rid of by frequent discussion. In fact, every fresh discussion of it was so much gain to the country, and therefore he hoped that the learned gentleman would persevere as he had begun. He trusted that he would consent to the suggestion of his hon. friend, and fix an early day, when the House might return to the discussion.

said, he should have no objection to go into the committee instanter, but as he was not prepared with all the clauses, he hoped the House would consent to read the bill a second time that night, and to enter into the committee on Monday. With respect to the influence of the present system upon marriages, he would mention the case of a young person under twenty, who recently paid for a licence to be married in one of the counties, and went the next day and demanded relief and residence from the magistrate.