rose to call the attention of the House, and still more of the public, to the time at which the subject was brought before parliament. When a motion for repealing the Malt tax was carried in that House, the number of members present being 274, the noble marquis declared, that the House was too thin finally to determine on so important a subject; he advised gentlemen not "to halloo before they were out of the wood," and in the end, he actually did convert the majority of 24 for a repeal of the tax, into a majority of 98 for its continuance. Again, when the hon. member for Cumberland succeeded in inducing a House of 254 members to agree to a repeal of the agricultural horse tax, the chancellor of the exchequer said, that it was too small a House, and that he would try his hand again; a resolution, however, from which he had subsequently been diverted. A House of 274, or of 254 members, was too small to discuss a subject in which the interests of the people were at stake; but when the proposition was for the benefit of the Crown, or any of its members, the noble marquis had no objection to a House such as that which he was then addressing—a House, the majority of which was composed of placemen. If ever there was an unanswerable case in favour of any proposition, the present state of the House furnished such a case in favour of the proposition of his hon. friend the member for Shrewsbury, to exclude placemen and pensioners from seats in parliament. At the late period of the session, placemen, always formidable, became still more so. They were as numerous in the House as ever, while other hon. members, fatigued with the laborious duties which they had so long continued to perform, were gone out of town. Then came the noble marquis and his right hon. colleagues, and availed themselves of so advantageous a position of circumstances to get money from the House for some one branch of the royal family. It was highly objectionable to bring forward such a proposition, when it must be decided by such a House as that which he was addressing.

declared, that he had never heard a proposition so unprincipled and so extravagant, as the proposition to pay what were called the arrears. To acquiesce in such a proposition, would be to show that the House was indifferent about that economy of which so much had been said, He should vote against the payment of any arrears; but the prospective grant of 6,000l. a-year, seemed to him to rest on different grounds. He was as anxious as any man, that all the branches of the royal family should be maintained in becoming splendor; and in that view he should have supported the measure for conferring this additional income upon his royal highness, but that his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen had shown that by giving him 3,500l. a-year of additional income, they would place the duke of Clarence on the same footing as the other younger brothers of the royal family.

felt himself bound to oppose the grant. In the present situation of the country, the simple consideration for the House was, whether strict necessity or justice required such an expenditure. The only way in which ministers could be made to be economical was by lopping off some of the taxes, and thereby depriving them of the means of being otherwise.

hoped, that as he was not in the House on Saturday, he would be allowed to offer an explanation of the alleged delay which had taken place in asserting her majesty's claim to be crowned. The noble marquis had stated the delay to be about two months from the time that ministers had intimated their own opinion on the subject. To show the inaccuracy of this statement, it would be necessary to refer to dates. On the 21st of May, a question was put by his hon. friend (Mr. Monck) which was answered by the chancellor of the Exchequer; and in the course of the conversation which followed, the noble marquis stated his opinion. Something had been said respecting an authority for her majesty to attend the coronation: but it was clear that there was no necessity for any such authority, as her majesty had a right, as a subject, to attend the ceremony as a spectator. The noble marquis also said, that there was no right so clear as that of the Crown with respect to this subject; and that the coronation of the queen-consort depended upon the grace and favour of the king. He at that time protested against the doctrine of the noble marquis; adding, that he had not made up his own mind on the legal question—and protesting against the doctrine of the noble marquis, lest his silence on that occasion should be construed into assent. This was what had taken place on the 21st of May. It was not the duty of her majesty's law officers to put in her claim immediately upon this. It was their duty to wait her majesty's orders, as they were not her responsible advisers like the ministers of the Crown. Besides, as the coronation had been appointed in the preceding year, and had been postponed, it became proper to wait until there was almost a certainty of its actually taking place. The proclamation appointing the ceremony this year was dated the 9th of June; and inserted in the Gazette on the 12th. The memorial claiming her majesty's right to be crowned was settled at his chambers eleven days afterwards; and upon a subject of such great importance he was not disposed to take any great blame to himself for a delay of eleven days, even had that not (as it had) been partially caused by the indisposition of Dr. Lushington. The holidays had also intervened, and the British Museum was shut, to which plate access was required for the purpose of making some searches connected with the subject. The memorial was sent in on the 25th, and as yet no answer had been returned to it. There were now seventeen days to intervene before the coronation, but there was ample time to alter the arrangements, and yet keep strictly within precedents. There was an instance on record, of a proclamation giving only sixteen days notice of the coronation itself; and another, of an alteration in the arrangements being ordered only two days before the appointed day.

said, he had not intended any reflection on her majesty's legal advisers in their professional character. He had merely contrasted the rapidity with which they had expected an answer, with the slowness of their own movements in making the legal claim. The 21st of May was not the only occasion on which the opinion of his majesty's ministers had been intimated to the Queen. Between that day and the 21st of June, her majesty addressed a letter to the earl of Liverpool, desiring to be informed what arrangements had been made for her convenience, and who were appointed as her attendants on the approaching solemnity. An official answer was returned, stating that it was a right of the down to give or withhold the order for her majesty's coronation, and that his majesty would be advised not to make any order for her majesty's participation in the arrangements. The Queen rejoined insisting on her right, and declaring that she should attend the coronation unless she were absolutely prevented. A respectful but equally peremptory answer was returned to her majesty, repeating the legal right of the Crown, and declaring that the former answer must be understood as amounting to a prohibition of her attendance. These proceedings clearly showed that her majesty was fully aware of the course intended to be taken by the government. There was on Saturday, a significant manner and an accusing tone about the hon. and learned member (Mr. Denman), as if there had been on the part of ministers an absolute denial of justice. Now, with these facts before the House, he would ask, whether it was not rather hard to call ministers over the coals and blame them for the delay? Respecting the hearing of her majesty's law officers before the privy council in support of, the claim, he had to state to the, House, that this had been asked that very morn- ing for the first time. A memorial dated on Saturday last had that morning been received from, her majesty, addressed to the king, and desiring to be heard by her counsel in support of the claim. This however was informally addressed, it being addressed to the king in his sovereign capacity, and not to the king in council. It would have shown a want of respect to her majesty's claim, if, when it had been formally presented, it was not referred to the legal officers of the Crown. Both applications were equally informal; but they had both been attended to. Upon the first, her majesty had been informed that no directions would be given to include her in the arrangements; and with respect to that which had only been received this morning, he had to inform the House that it was immediately laid before his majesty, who had given directions that the Queen should be heard by her lawyers before the privy council—it being first clearly ascertained, that this was no right, but was a grace and favour.

certainly thought her majesty's advisers had a right to complain that no answer had been sent to the memorial from Monday to Saturday last. The application itself, he contended, it would have been improper to make until the actual celebration of the solemnity had become morally certain. With respect to the former application, alluded to by the noble marquis, he trusted the noble marquis would pay him and his learned friends the compliment to believe that they had not prepared it; in fact, it had been presented while they were on the circuit, and they of course waited for her majesty's personal instructions on the subject. It had been represented that he had said, that the exclusion of her majesty's name from the Liturgy, was of itself a warning that she would not be crowned. He was not aware that he had ever made any such observation. If he had, it must have been incidentally, as he did not see that the exclusion from the Liturgy, necessarily led to an exclusion from the coronation. The bill was read a third time. Mr. Bernal then moved to leave out "1818," and insert "1821." The question being put that 1818 stand part of the question, the House divided: Ayes 94. Noes 33.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of opening a discussion on this subject. His object was to withdraw the bill for this session. It had been his wish and determination that the bill should not pass without ample discussion. He need not remind the House of the causes which had prevented him from attaining that part of his object. He postponed it also, in order to have an opportunity of acquiring strength to make an adequate reply to the gallant member (sir R. Wilson). He knew that the gallant general had got together a great mass of legal matter to oppose him with. He confessed, that in order to meet this terrific battery, he was anxious to have a little time to brush up his law. He was aware that many inflammatory and calumnious misrepresentations had gone abroad on this subject. He assured the House that his motives in meddling with the matter were of the most pure description. He felt that the existing system of Poor-laws was most oppressive on one hand, and that it defeated its own end on the other. He had no motive but to restore the ancient system to its primitive state and intention. The only essential difference was, that the facility of removing paupers from the places of their residence was exploded. He proposed to renew this measure next session. If he should meet with encouragement he should bring forward another bill for the greater discrimination of the moral claims of those who sought relief, to prevent the profuse expenditure of the Poor-rates in some respects, by taking away some provisions, which acted as a premium for pauperism. One of these was the rule, that every man who had two children, and was not possessed of property to a certain amount, was exempted from serving in the militia. This might appear very reasonable in itself, but its effect certainly was to deprive the militia, and throw upon the parish many able bodied men. For the present he should say nothing more, but merely ask permission to withdraw the bill.

begged to assure the learned gentleman, that as it was his intention to renew this measure next session, he would find him at his post, prepared to dispute every inch of ground with him.

said, that as the hon. and learned gentleman threatened them with a renewal of these most dangerous discussions in the ensuing session, he could not allow the bill to be withdrawn, without the strongest protest he was able to make against all the principles on which it was founded. He maintained, that the understood right of the poor to reasonable support was as old as the law of England; that up to this time it had been the boast of England, that no man could be left to starve; that the learned gentleman's bill went to the reversal of the law of the land, the laws of nature, and the law of God, and that its only possible tendency would be, to make the country a scene of rapine and violence and utter confusion, from one end to the other. The hon. gentleman referred to Harrison's preface to Holinshed, in which he gives a description of the state of England in the 60 years between 1526 and 1586, a period during which a total revolution in the prices of all things had taken place, similar to that which we had witnessed in Our own days, as affording a striking exposition of the situation in which we should have found ourselves, had we not been carried through, with whatever diffi- culty and inconvenience, by the existing Poor-Jaws. The dissolution of the monasteries, a third of whose revenues at least went to the relief of the poor, took place between 1535 and 1539. In 1526, Henry the 8th began the debasement of his coin which be continued to deteriorate to the middle of the century. On this came the flow of silver into Europe from America; and now, Harrison tells us, there was every Where great and increasing luxury; that the prices of wares were augmented five fold; that merchandize increased as prices advanced; that trades were more skilful, manufactures slighter; that 4l. of old rent was improved to 40, 50 and even 100l; that the small occupyings and the commons were withdrawn from the poor; and that though there were "more ground eared than ever, the price of corn was such, it was "impossible that the labouring man could reach unto it, but was driven to content himself with horse-corn." "Then," pursues Harrison, "some also do grudge at the great increase of people in these days." He says that the better part of the population were driven to emigrate to distant countries, and that the worse turned to rob; that there were in the country 10,000 regular thieves of 23 recognized fraternities, and that there was no county which was not infested by 300 or 400 wandering robbers, living solely by plunder. Harrison goes on to state, that "Henry 8th hong 72,000 thieves, and now the executions relaxing, those who dwell in the uplandish towns or villages shall live in but small safety or rest," and finishes by observing, that "the end must needs be that marshal law shall be executed upon them." During this period of 60 years there were ten regular insurrections. In thirteen years passed the Poor-law of the 43rd Elizabeth, and we have never had a rising of the Commons from that day to this. As to the clause impeding the marriages of the poor ["No no!" from Mr. Scarlett.] Mr. Gurney said he could hardly trust himself to speak on it. But it was an attempt to bring the detestable system of Mr. Malthus to bear upon the legislation ofthecountry,—a system which every chapter of sacred history condemns, every page of civil history confutes, and every map of a half-unpeopled world, after a duration of near 6,000 years, proves the absurdity of. Mr. G. said, that hardly forty years had elapsed since Dr. Price had convinced the philosophers of his day, that the country was going so fast to depopulation, that there would not be enough of Englishmen left to till the soil of their fathers. But he hoped and trusted that that House would never be led to legislate on the theories of such philosophers as these; and least of all, to give any countenance to a doctrine which in this country should recognize a right in the rich, to say to the poor, that they had no business to be born; that it was in the order of nature that they should starve; and that whatever might be the abundance of his superfluities, from him they could demand nothing.

said, that he would certainly oppose such a bill, if he believed that it tended to degrade the poor; but his settled conviction was, that the increase of Poor-rates was an increase of misery. If he failed to express this conviction from any unpopularity td which it might expose him, he should prove himself destitute of moral courage. The effect of the present laws, was, to oblige the industrious and prudent to support the improvident and thoughtless; to mulct the single individual for the support of the married. Every country long inhabited had been obliged to have recourse to emigration. Why should England be an exception? The bill prohibiting artificers from emigrating was utterly unjust in its principle. He was glad, however, that the bill of his learned friend was withdrawn for the present; the public press, the great instrument of discussion in this country, would in the mean time examine its details, and when the House should come to consider it next session, they would be themselves better prepared, and the public would be found better informed respecting it.

said, in reference to what had been observed with respect to the popularity sought by the opponents of the bill, that if any thing gave him cause to regret the part which he had taken, it was, the praises which he had received for his conduct, in a quarter from which he neither expected nor desired them. He hoped that the learned gentleman would give the House, in the next session, an opportunity of discussing the Poor-laws upon their principle, and of coming to a determination, either to abandon or maintain that principle. He should for one, be prepared to maintain it. If out-voted, he most acquiesce; but he hoped that if the House should decide with him, for upholding the principle of the Poor-laws the supporters of the present bill would join with him in endeavouring to amend the laws in detail, by way of modification and qualification. He was even inclined to believe, that if the first bill of the hon. and learned gentleman should be defeated, he should be prepared to support, with a slight variation, the second bill, which he had that night announced his intention to introduce.

said, he disapproved of the principle of the bill, though he was disposed to thank the learned gentleman for having called their attentions to a subject of great importance.

considered the Poor-laws as the chartered rights of the poor, and hoped the House would pause before it consented to touch them.

conceived it to be unfair to take that opportunity of making general declarations against the measure. Although he had been desired to oppose it, yet so convinced was he of its necessity, and so friendly to its general purpose, that without pledging himself to support the precise bill, he felt that some measure of that nature was quite necessary.

said, he considered the Poor-laws to be an ingenious device for obtaining the greatest quantity of labour at the least expense. They ought therefore to be abolished; but previously to any attempt of that kind, redress must be given of great and numerous grievances.

said, he would state to the House the opinions of an individual, with respect to the tendency of our Poor-laws, who certainly did not deserve the imputation of advocating mad schemes. The person whose opinions he was about to stale to the House was Dr. Franklin. That eminent individual had said, that "he was for doing good to the poor, but he doubted as to the means of effecting that object. In his youth he had travelled much, and he found that in those countries where most was done for the poor by the state, their situation was the most deplorable. He thought that those who passed the English Poor-laws took away the greatest inducement to frugality, industry, and morality; and had substituted a premium on idleness and crime. He was of opinion that a great change in the habits of the people would soon be perceived, if the-Poor-laws were repealed." The order was then discharged.