addressed the House to the effect following:^* Mr. Speaker; in bringing forward a measure for amending those laws which peculiarly respect the Poor, I beg to assure the House, that no one feels the complicated

^* From the original edition, printed for J. Butterworth.

difficulties of the undertaking more than I do. Any attempt which is to interfere with the habits, the manners, and daily subsistence of the most helpless and improvident of our fellow subjects, requires, no ordinary carefulness and caution. It has to embrace in one comprehensive system of provision and regulation the most numerous and least tractable, because the least informed, classes of society. It must labour to reconcile and provide for the diversified, and in many respects conflicting, interests of districts, not less separated from each other by difference of manners than by distance: not more distinguishable by their sources of industry, than by their local peculiarities. It must struggle to unite such measures as are indispensable for the general safety with those which are urged by humanity, for the protection of the forlorn and the destitute. Sir, when I reflect upon these and many other difficulties which surround the task I have taken upon myself, I must acknowledge that I almost repent me of my own temerity. That feeling presses more deeply on my mind, when I consider the many great and distinguished persons who have taken up the subject with much original ardour, and have finally relinquished it; often without attempting any thing, and rarely having effected much for the cure of mischiefs, which it is much more easy to discover, than to devise any safe and practicable remedy to remove.—But, however painful, laborious, difficult, or ungracious the task may be, the time is come when the House must resolve to encounter this most important subject, and grapple with all its intricacies and perplexities. That the poor-laws, as they are now administered, operate injuriously and oppressively to the best and most immediate interests of the country, none will deny, with whom it would not be a waste of time to dispute. The petitions on your table, and what I may call the universal cry of the public, proclaim the mischief and demand a remedy. If doubts lurk in any rational mind upon this point, a reference to the useful labours and painful researches of the different committees of this House upon the subject of the poor-laws, and the various returns made under the orders of this House, must dispel and remove them. With your leave, Sir, and that of the House, I will shortly refer to a few of those facts which bear more immediately upon the subject. It appears by the population returns laid upon your table this session, that the population of Great Britain and Ireland, exclusive of the islands in the British seas, amounted, in the year 1821, to 21,236,636; that of England and Scotland being 14,379,677, that of Ireland no less than 6,846,942; that the increase of population in England, between that time and the census taken in 1811, is 18 per cent, that the surplus upon the census of 1801, is 32½ per cent; and that the mesne increase of England, Wales and Scotland, between 1801 and 1821, a period of no more than 20 years, has been no less than 31⅔ per cent. The late returns of Irish population refer to the census of 1813, as the first regular return on the subject, so that the increase cannot be so accurately estimated; but supplying the deficiencies in the last return by reasonable inference from the earlier documents, the population of that country appears to have augmented in rather a more accelerated ratio than that of either Scotland, Wales, or England. That some, and perhaps a considerable portion, of this great apparent increase arises from the inaccuracies of the former census, I believe to be the fact; but making every reasonable allowance and deduction upon this account, it is manifest that the general population of the United Kingdom has much augmented. It is to be observed, that this increase is by no means fluctuating or occasional. It is not to be referred to any local or temporary cause: our numbers have swelled in a steady and uniformly accelerating ratio in every county and city that has made returns, and that without such an influence from the poor rates as some of our most ingenious theorists have not irrationally conjectured to be necessary for producing it. I draw this inference from the facts, that the population of Scotland, where the relief afforded the poor is very limited, has augmented in a ratio of only two and a seventh per cent less than England, where the numbers have so enormously multiplied; while that of Ireland, where the poor-laws are altogether unknown, exceeds that of either in its proportionate increase. If the demand for labour has increased in the same proportion with the increase of population in England and Wales, it is the most decisive proof of our accumulating prosperity and power. If, on the other hand, the number of hands exceeds the natural demand for labour, the surplus labourers with their families are reduced to idle consumers, and become a heavy drain upon the capital of this country through the means of her poor-rates. Neither, when we are considering the balance between the quantum of labour, and the demand for it with reference to the poor-rates, should the increase of labourers in Scotland and Ireland be struck from the account. The unemployed surplus, and often more than that surplus, will naturally migrate from these poorer countries, where there is no protection against want by poor-rates, into England, where the prices of labour, and particularly of the coarser kinds are higher than home. If a superabundance of labour exists here, such an influx must increase it. If the number of competitors exceeds the natural demand for their labour, and thereby depresses its price beyond the true value, that depression compels the English labourer to have recourse to the poor-rates, and thus the emigrant Irish or Scotsman indirectly augments those funds, from which, as the law now stands, he can derive no support. Sir, I have hazarded these remarks because the rise in our rates is attributed by some to this increased population. The observations are not to be overlooked in considering this subject. But whether correctly applicable or otherwise, we may turn from them to the more directly conclusive facts, that the poor-rates between 1750 and 1821 have increased in the proportion of above ten to one. That the number of persons receiving relief in the year 1818, either as permanent or occasional paupers, as calculated upon the census of 1811, was no less than 9¾ in every hundred, or nearly one in every ten of the entire population; and that the aggregate amount of our annual poor-rates in 1821, as well as those of the immediately preceding years, were almost one-seventh of the total annual income arising from the landed revenue, calculated upon the return made in 1815: a return which is much higher than any that could now be made under the existing circumstances of agricultural depression and distress^*.

^* The average amount of the money raised and expended for the use of the poor in 1750, was 689,971l.; in 1816–17, 6,918,217l.; in 1817–18, 7,890,148l.; being an increase beyond the preceding year of 971,931l. This was the highest

It is impossible to, look upon a mischief spreading thus widely, uniformly, and irresistibly, without a degree of terror bordering on dismay. Its result, if not counteracted speedily and manfully, must reduce the entire country to the condition in which four Sussex parishes † have represented themselves in their recent return to be, a condition to which I fear some other parishes seem fast approaching. For if the poor-rate swallow up the entire profits of the lands, they will be rendered not, worth cultivation, as yielding neither gain to the landlord, nor advantage to his tenant. A crisis the more to be apprehended, because every diminution of the occupier's profit reduces his ability to employ the labouring poor, and thus creates an additional necessity for an increased rate upon whatever little remains. That some remedy must be applied to averting the impending calamity seems uni-

annual amount of the poor-rates yet known. Since then they have gradually declined as follows:

1818–19,	£.7,531,650	an. decrease,	£.358,498
1819–20,	7,329,594	an. decrease,	202,056
1820–21,	6,958,445	an. decrease,	371,149
Total decrease in last three years,			931,703

But the average increase of the poor-rates calculating upon each three years from March 1812, to March 1821, is

March 1812 to March 1815,	£.6,129,844
March 1815 to March 1818,	6,844,290
Increase from 1815 to 1818	714,446
1818 from 1821,	7,273,229
Increase from 1818 to 1821	428,939

The entire of these reports, by the committees on this subject, are worthy of the general attention. It is to be hoped that they will be continued annually, and upon enlarged principles of inquiry.

† See the return of the poor-rates and population in these parishes. Northiam, near half the population paupers, rates at 1l. 11s. 6d. in the pound. Salehurst, half the population paupers, rates 16s. 9d. in the pound. Dewash, more than half the population paupers, rates 11s. 2d. in the pound. May-field, half population paupers, rates 14s. in the pound. Not having the means of inquiry, I can only suspect that some, and possibly a considerable part of these enormous rates arises from the mischievous practice, of paying some portion of the labourer's wages with part of the rates.

versally agreed. Some persons, and they are not a few, seeing nothing in the system but its mischief, and disgusted with its practical and pressing evils, propose to eradicate altogether that code laws, which has, for between two and three centuries, regulated the support of the poor, and to sweep away, either immediately or at no very remote period, the laws of parochial, removal, settlements, and poor-rates. Sir, I must avow that I want courage to adopt such a bold, violent, and precipitous measure; to me it would afford the most strong and serious grounds for alarm. It is seldom wise or statesmanlike to root out at once laws, however originally misconceived, which have become identified with the habits and manners of the country. A system under which nearly two millions of the people of England have been lodged and clothed and fed, must not at one single pull be so unceremoniously overturned. Little less than eight millions of money are divided annually, among the people, their wives, and their children, from the poor-rates. To pluck such large means of subsistence, as it were, from the very mouths of the poor without affording them ample time for supplying it from other resources, would be cruel, if it were safe; and would be most unwise, as it would be most dangerous—I say most dangerous, as it must arouse the strongest feelings of nature against our civil tranquillity, and give to popular commotion the colour of necessary resistance against wanton oppression. These reasons would deter me from such schemes and efforts, if I were satisfied that these laws had been mischievous in their original institution, and repugnant to the sound principles of civil economy. But, upon the best consideration I can give the question, and I do not speak without having reflected much upon it, I must say, that the poor-laws, when administered in their original spirit, appeal to me more likely to produce benefit than disadvantage to the people. There is little doubt, that the artificers, peasants and all the lower classes of this country have increased more rapidly in mechanical skill, in useful knowledge, and also in the comforts and decencies of social life, that those of any other country in civilized Europe. The peasantry of all European nations may be considered as having made their start together towards civil improvement and importance somewhat more early than the reign of our Elizabeth. If there existed, any perceptible distinction in their respective conditions in different states, those of England could not boast, the advantage of any relative pre-eminence. Yet, in this race of civil refinement, they have ultimately outstripped all their rivals. The connexion of this effect with the existence of the poor-laws appears more striking by comparing the condition of humble life in England with that which, obtains in Scotland and in Ireland. They all live under the same constitutional law—receive the, influence of the same governing system—enjoy the same freedom, and may, boast, that the upper ranks of life in all assimilate as much as possible to each other in knowledge, manners, ants, and civilization. Yet the general condition of the English labourer excels that of the Scotch, where these laws, are adopted under a very limited modification, and far outstrips that of the Irish, where they are wholly unknown. Sir, I am far fro wishing to push this conclusion beyond its fair limits. Much less do I entertain the idle conjecture, that the present distressed and degraded state of Ireland is altogether, owing to the want of poor laws. To that most melancholy effect many complicated, causes, which may be traced to a remote date, undoubtedly co-operate. But there are some calamities which have recently fallen on that fine country which a moderate, poor-rate might have averted. In 1816 the potatoe crop failed, and the people must have starved if the government had not stepped forward to succour them. In the present year, the same misfortune occurred, and the failure of one single kind of food would have brought down, famine and pestilence on the people, in the midst of abundance of every other article of consumption, if they had not been averted (if they are averted), by the noble and generous efforts of the people of this country, aided by no inconsiderable exertions of their own gentry, and by a prudent and cautious assistance from, his majesty's government. If some provision must be made against such occasional visitations, I prefer that of a moderate, parochial rate, to one which, is to be furnished by the king's government. If any thing like general recourse should be had to that indiscriminating mode of showering down relief, I know of no prudence that could place either fine or period to its progress: there would be neither means of control, nor motives for economy. The re-action which takes place in this country, and causes a demand for labour from an effort to avoid the increase of poor-rates, could not exist, and there would be no end to application until the fund that was to supply, the cravings of the people was totally consumed. I do not offer these remarks as wishing to introduce this system into Ireland in the present state of society, but to demonstrate the policy and expediency of continuing it in this country where it has so long existed^*. Founded upon these reasons, and others with which it would be inconvenient to exhaust the House's patience, my design is, not to destroy the existing system for relieving the poor, but to restore and bring it back, so far as the existing grades and habits of society will admit, to the true spirit of the statute passed in the 43rd year of the reign of queen Elizabeth. Previous to pointing out the means by which I propose to effect this object, it may not be improper to draw the attention of the House to the more prominent and

^* The foundation of the system for occasionally sustaining the laborious classes by poor-rates seems referable to the following principles. The price of labour must always constitute the chief source of the labourer's support. As far as that price depends upon actual value, it must be regulated by the demand, and what the employer can afford to give, looking to a beneficial return for it. But, the labourer must also take into consideration how far the price of labour is sufficient to purchase subsistence for himself and his family. These from necessary causes, must ultimately find their level, and balance each other. But occasional fluctuations from accidental causes, such as a fall in foreign markets, failure of crops, &c. must occasionally occur. The price of labour will always fall immediately with the decline of the employer's profit; but although it must ultimately rise with it, the rise is not equally prompt. For times of occasional dearth and disability, the labourer ought in strictness to provide, by saving from his surplus earnings in more abundant seasons; but, unfortunately, the labourer is seldom a saver, and is no good husbander of superabundant means. It is against these occasional periods and fits of distress that the poor fund seems intended to provide, and constitutes a useful provision.

general causes to which the progressive increase of these rates is attributed; to explain the law as it originally stood under the act of Elizabeth; and specify the leading efforts which have been made by the legislature to amend or alter it. Upon this last subject, the House will not fail to remark, that our ancestors, faithful to the genius and spirit of our legislation in this as in every other instance, have uniformly endeavoured rather to amend and improve, than to repeal and destroy, the original enactments.—Of most of these causes of our increasing rates, it is merely my purpose to bring them before the House for its consideration, rather than to comment upon their operation and. extent. Some of them are of a nature altogether occasional: such are those which originated in the want of employment of the manufacturing classes at the termination of the war, and which are now fortunately at an end; and that arising from the melancholy extent of our agricultural distress, which still continues to exhaust and oppress the country. With these is to be classed an evil deeply felt in some districts, as the resulting consequence from both the former; I mean the great number of removals of persons who became chargeable to a certain extent, from their inability to procure a sufficiency of work or wages to maintain them and their families, and who were on that account removed back to their places of settlement, where they could procure neither. For occasional demands upon the charity and capital of the country, from causes like these, against which the poor have not means nor foresight to provide, there does not seem any reasonable prospect of devising an efficient remedy. With them may be ranked one more permanent, but likewise local and peculiar, I mean that over breeding, if I may so speak, for particular callings and trades, which is the usual consequence of a relative excess of wages in different manufactures, and of that natural predilection which parents feel to educate their children to the business in which they have themselves been trained up. Unless the demand for the manufactured article increases with the increase of manufacturers, all must abate in wages, and some be kept out of employment. The evil is nourished by the inherent ambition of all ranks in the advanced stages of social refinement to push themselves upwards; and it unfortunately happens, that those bitter lessons of inconvenience which ultimately work the cure of each individual excess, operate too slowly and remotely to prevent its recurrence in other casts of employment and pursuits of life. To a certain extent, therefore, we must always calculate that this cause of distress will be locally and partially felt.—A more extensive, and infinitely more alarming one, if it really exists, is that to which I have already called the House's attention; namely, a general excess in the quantity of labour beyond the demand for it, owing to an excessive increase of our population. If this evil does gain ground upon us, it is beyond the reach of redress from any alteration in our system of maintaining the poor; neither the spade husbandry, nor parish farms, nor any other palliatives, of ancient or modern device, will do. The only effectual remedy will be found in the encouragement of some system of colonization, a subject to which I shall hereafter refer. But, Sir, it appears to me, that the true cause of our malady lies chiefly in the mal-administration of the poor-laws; which, from being originally wise and useful, have been recently perverted into an instrument the most pernicious and destructive to the independence of the lower classes of society, and thereby to the general prosperity of the country. That some causes must operate beyond the increasing wants of the poor and impotent to produce the increase of rates, seems demonstrable from the fact, that in their rise and fall they keep no corresponding pace with the existence or decline of those causes, with which the wants of the labouring classes are most obviously connected. They have augmented progressively since the year 1750, during the most flourishing periods of the empire, and with the general growth of our wealth, our commerce, and our manufactures. The price of corn and other provisions has affected this increase but little. The fluctuations in the demand for labour have produced occasional, but scarcely perceptible changes in the comparative scale. In all counties and in all districts, in England and in Wales, in the north and in the south; in all cities, towns and places, whether the population be agricultural, manufacturing, or commercial, the rates augment, and the demands of the poor accumulate. Although the nominal price of food and raiment has fallen by our return to a metallic currency—although the real value of every article of the first necessity has diminished by their abundance and plenteous increase—notwithstanding the restoration of employment to our manufacturers, the reanimation of our commerce, and the recent aid of a new and more prudent mode of administering the parish funds, the rates have not declined so much in the last three years as they increased in the single year from March, 1817, to March, 1818—a more striking and conclusive evidence that the evil originates from mismanagement, arises from the observation, that it has yielded to the activity, energy, and vigilance of public spirited parishioners, in those places where they have superintended the administration of the fund with a sober, temperate, and steady regard to economy. Some instances of the effect of this attention are to be found in the evidence reported by your committees; some have occurred within my own personal observation; and many more have been stated to me upon the most credible report. Having thus detailed some of the causes of our present condition, I proceed to give a short account of the law, as it is to be traced in the statute books. The 43rd of Elizabeth projected the means of support for the impotent poor, and of educating the young; but it neither provided for, nor conceived, a general state of the labouring poor such as now exits. The churchwardens and three or four substantial householders annually appointed, were fully adequate to that species of parochial duty, assigned to them by the act. But those who made it, never contemplated that persons selected solely for their substance should become the daily task masters of the parish, and supply work and materials to all who, from laziness or indolence, or any other cause, were unable to procure the one or the other. In directing that the poor should be set at work, the act intended rather a measure of salutary police, than one of local general employment as a means of subsistence. But, in whatever light that act is to be viewed, it is clear that its present uses have far outgrown the machinery devised or effecting its original purposes. Persons usually selected for overseers can neither spare time nor forethought from the urgent calls of their own affairs to superintend the domestic economy and supply the various wants, or check the unreasonable claims, of a large and active, and, in many instances, a cunning and vicious population. Hence their expen- ditures have necessarily been lavish and inconsiderate; their method of levying and collecting, the parish funds careless, irregular, and slovenly; and their manner of keeping their accounts, inaccurate and confused. A loss from neglecting their private affairs being individually felt, is carefully avoided; but the consequences of mismanaging the parish concerns are overlooked in the feeling that an injury is trifling which is shared, among many. Thus negligence and inattention do much mischief, but ignorance and inexperience produce more: almost before the overseer has acquired some insight into the duties of his office his year terminates, and he yields his place to a successor as raw and ignorant as he himself had been when originally appointed. Neither, Sir, are the lavish and improvident squanderings of the parish property to be exclusively attributed to this local deficiency in its management. I regret to say, that the notions and principles commonly taken up and followed by magistrates, in making orders of relief, operate a much more wide and permanent mischief. The power of ordering relief vested in a single magistrate, residing near the dwelling of the poor man who requires it, is attended with much utility. It seems in theory to be impregnable to reasonable objection; yet in practice it has been attended with no small disadvantage. Its greatest and cardinal inconvenience is, that a single justice is unable to bear up against the clamour of his neighbours, and unwilling to hazard their good opinion by a steady rejection of a specious, but unwarranted application. One or two justices yield to the hardship of the individual case, instead of adhering to some universal, inflexible, steady principle, in administering the law of relief. They do not reflect, that it would be much more wise, and even more humane as a general rule of conduct, to make the particular case bend to the general law, than to force the general law to bend to the individual case. Where indigence is entitled to extraordinary commiseration from peculiar hardship in its circumstances the sufferers may and ought to call for the gratifying exercise of private benevolence. But such instances furnish no sound apology for departing from those general rules which ought to govern the distribution of a common fund. It is in truth, at best, but an indulgence of private feelings at the public expense. The natural and necessary consequence of this practice has been, that the special circumstances which warped the judgment in making the original order are speedily forgotten, while the extent and nature of the relief is noted and remembered; and thus, that which in its origin constituted a humane exception, becomes registered as a governing rule, from which it is deemed unwise and scarcely safe to depart. These principles have caused much inconsiderate and injudicious interference with work-house relief and discipline, and, indeed, every species of parochial management. It was held to be the duty of parish officers to search out work for the pauper, who was thereby discharged from the obvious duty of procuring it for himself. Unless they were so fortunate as to obtain what he might be too lazy to seek for, he was to be adjudged entitled not merely to a sufficiency to sustain himself and his family, but to be placed in an equal, if not in a better situation, than the meritorious, considerate, and, I may add, high-minded labourer, who maintains himself and his family by the produce of his hard and honest labour. It was farther held by many, under an erroneous interpretation of the law, that this work must be found within the boundary of the individual's settlement. Although work could be obtained nearer to the poor man's dwelling, yet, if in another parish, it was thought from some reference to the statutes of Charles 2nd, that he could not be compelled to go to it, and must be supported, and amply supported, by his own. The inevitable effect of such indiscriminate and wild prodigality of relief has been; as it must be from the nature of man, and woman also; to remove and put away from the minds of the lower classes, those feelings and habits of sober, prudent, domestic economy and frugality, which peculiarly and honourably distinguished the wise and provident manners of their ancestors. That foresight with which heaven has blessed mankind to provide against the accidents of life, and the accustomed recurrence of distressful times and seasons, is dismissed as a useless and teasing quality by the pauper, to whom it is indifferent, whether he comes to the justice or the overseer, fuming from the ale-house, or fresh from a country excursion, or reeking in the effects of the most laborious toil, if, like a parish annuitant, he is entitled to demand and receive equal relief, without distinction or inquiry, whether his wants are owing to his vices or his misfortunes. Sir, I appeal to the experience of all who hear me, whether this picture of putting the hand into our neighbours' pockets to relieve others, is overcharged in truth or colouring. That the public, and, as I trust, the great body of the magistracy, if not now, will soon be alive to the impolicy and illegality of this mode of administering relief, I hope and believe. Many have doubted, and not without grave authority to support their opinion, whether the distressed and impotent poor are entitled to any assistance from the public as a matter of common right. Lord Holt is reported to have said, when speaking of casual poor, that unless relieved by private charity, they must starve. Sir, to me this notion appears erroneous. The necessitous poor are entitled to some relief; but it is of the most stinted and penurious kind. According to the language of Horne's Mirror of Justices, which is the oldest authority, it is limited to such relief, as may prevent their dying from want of sustenance. Or, to use the language of an act of Henry 8th, to such as may prevent them begging from very necessity. But neither these laws, nor that of Elizabeth, nor any interpretation put upon them by our ancestors, ever considered or supposed, that the poor man, without work, was to live with his family a co-rival in comfort and respectability with the honest provident labourer who derived his support from his personal industry. I am happy to acknowledge, that the giving of relief through those improvident mistakes and errors to which I refer, originated from the most benevolent and excellent feelings and motives. But I have to do with their consequences, not with the motives from which they arise. The vice and danger of the age, and particularly of this country at this moment, is, that the most hazardous and unwise projects and practices are obtruded upon the public mind, graced with virtuous intentions, and recommended by honest but mistaken motives. Sir, the result has been an increase of the poor to an unnatural, unwholesome, and ruinous extent. Scarcely less than one in every ten of our entire population are either permanent or occasional paupers. A poll-tax little short of 17s. per head is levied to sustain them. The sum wanted for the really necessitous poor, except in periods of national calamity, must always bear nearly the same ration to our population. Any fluctuation from temporary causes ought, as it depends upon them, to be commensurate with them. A decrease in the demand for labour, or a rise in the price of provisions should naturally produce a corresponding advance in the rates; and, on the other hand, a sudden and unusual demand for labour, and the cheapness of provisions, ought to cause a proportionate reduction. But the rise and fall in the rates seem never to have been materially affected by either class of causes. Since the year 1750 the price of labour, as well as of provisions, had undergone material variations both as to increase and diminution. But the poor-rates have been constantly progressing in an increasing ratio. The prices of labour, and of different kinds of labour, have differed much in different districts, and that without producing a corresponding alteration in the prices of food or clothing. Yet it appears by the returns on your table, that the applications for relief are nearly as numerous and as profuse, and certainly not less proportionably increasing in all. The manufacturer in a productive trade, whose wages are high, comes as boldly for relief, and receives it almost as readily, and not less abundantly, than the labourer whose wages in this period of agricultural distress are much too low. Sir, although these evils and mischiefs have arrived to a crisis at this time, it is not to be denied, that they were felt and complained of, at much more early periods; even as far back, if not farther back, than the reign of Charles 2nd. I shall shortly detain the House by a brief reference to those measures enacted by our predecessors to avert those evils of which they partially felt the effect, without anticipating their full extent. The first general measure was passed in the reign of Charles 2nd. Its provisions were much extended in that of William 3rd, and enabled the poor to seek employment in other places than those of their settlement, by the means and under the protection of certificates of settlement. One object of the certificate was, to guard against the dangers of vagrancy, of which our ancestors felt a wise and politic dread. Another, and more immediate one, was, to allow the bearer to migrate with his family into another district, and to prevent his removal from thence, by an en- gagement, that the parish receiving him should be protected from any burthenous consequence incident to his residence there. The measure may be presumed to have had practically some, beneficial effect, as it was the object of legislative care, down to the 12th of Anne, c. 18. But the consequences of entailing families, as it were by record, upon parishes granting certificates, made parish officers reluctant to give them; and the provision of 35 Geo. 3rd c. 101, by preventing removal until the party becomes actually chargeable, rendered them unnecessary. The result of which is, that certificates have grown almost, if not entirely, out of use. The next general measure was introduced by 9 Geo. 1. c. 7, which provided for the maintenance of the poor in work-houses, and imposed a wise restraint on the grant of relief by magistrates. Under that act no justice could order relief until application had been previously made either to the parishioners in vestry, or to two overseers. The provisions respecting work-houses still continue in force, and have undergone some subsequent statutory regulations. As it is not my purpose to intermeddle with them, I shall merely observe, that the mode of managing the poor by these means was materially affected by the discretionary power subsequently given to justices to order relief to the poor at their own homes without a right of appeal. The next alteration was introduced by the 22nd Geo. 3rd c. 83, usually known by the name of Mr. Gilbert's act. It enabled parishes and other places to unite and incorporate for the purpose of jointly maintaining their poor. By this plan the relief and management of the poor was vested in a more compact and permanent body than the parish overseers created by the 43rd Elizabeth. It took away also, to a great extent, the right of interference and control which justices possessed by former laws over the relief and management of the poor. Of its practical effects with reference to any comparative diminution of expenditure, no documents are furnished which enable me to form any thing like a correct opinion. It may be rationally conjectured, that neither that act, nor any of the various local ones, have kept down the rates to the extent calculated by their respective projectors. For those provisions by which they were limited to a definite amount have all, some how or other, been got rid of. Of their comparative effects upon the manners, morals, and population of the districts subject to such peculiar regulations, I have also no certain means of judging. But as with the House's leave it is not my purpose to intermeddle with these local systems farther than to extend to them certain powers for employing the poor in common with other parishes, I sheik hazard no farther observation, than that they appear to carry the imperfections of the work-house plan to a more mischievous, because to a much wider extent.—Looking as I do upon the moral habits of the country to be the chief object of our guardianship and solicitude, I cannot view without much distrust and jealousy, institutions which bring together large bodies of people who have no common tie of union, except those of necessity and misfortune. The honest and the dissolute, the industrious and the idle, the young and the old, of either sex, are driven to shelter together in the same receptacle, with small means for their classification. Sir, I will not condemn such institutions, for I have no evidence to warrant me in so doing; but, sensible as I am that the example and contagion of vice are more prevalent than that of virtue, I can neither approve nor uphold them. The next important alteration was introduced by the 35th Geo. 3rd c. 101, which prevented the removal of the poor until actually chargeable. The consequences of this enactment might give rise to much discussion; but I will content myself with making one observation, which refers to all these acts. That observation is, that in all times, and under all circumstances, the legislature has never thought either of repealing the 43rd of Elizabeth or the acts respecting removals; but has laboured to fortify the principle, and improve the administration of these laws, without destroying either. I hasten now, Sir, to that valuable and important act passed in the 59th year of his late majesty. It was founded upon the patient, laborious, and indefatigable researches and inquiries of the committee, of which the right hon. member for Christ-church (Mr. S. Bourne) was chairman. Sir, if that gentleman had persevered in his, efforts on this subject, I should have preferred to have become the humble assistant of his labours, rather than to have brought forward an original measure of my own. That statute gives a power to parishes assembled in vestry to repose the general care and management of what concerns the poor in a limited number of their own body, to be called a select vestry. The obvious purpose of the provision was, to confide the trust in the most judicious and capable inhabitants, whose number should be too small to be liable to the confusion inseparable from crowded meetings, and yet sufficient to enable them to execute their duties alternately without personal inconvenience, and to press their proposals upon their fellow-parishioners with that efficient influence which is attached to numbers and to respectability of station. The act likewise gave to all places separately maintaining their own poor, the power of appointing one or more assistant overseers, with a salary. Under this provision, parishes were enabled to procure and pay (which they could not before do) a person competent to the duties of relieving and attending to the wants and condition of the poor, by a weekly, or, if necessary, by a daily superintendance. A less obvious, but not less important result, is, that it enables parishioners of a higher capacity and condition to undertake the office, when the more laborious part of the official functions may rest with their salaried assistant; while the general and more important duties of control and superintendance remain with themselves. These measures were well calculated to bring home, as far as it is necessary, the discipline and regulation of a work-house to the pauper's cottage, stripped of its moral dangers. They have been considered as being so wisely calculated to improve the old laws, that out of the total number of districts maintaining their poor, being 14,700, no fewer than 2,006 have already chosen select vestries, and 2,257 have appointed assistant overseers. But as the law now stands, the election of the assistant overseer, the amount of his salary, and the specification of his duties, rest with the parishioners at large. The danger of the selection of this most important officer under the influence of intrigue and cabal, the obvious propriety that those who are to superintend the parish concerns should become responsible for an efficient appointment, and that those should specify the duties, the discharge of which is to operate in relief of their own gratuitous labour, seem to require some alteration in these respects. I have therefore prepared a clause to vest these powers in the select vestry, instead of the parishioners at large. It must also happen that as a populous and extended district may require more than one assistant overseer, so the time of a person fitted for the office may be only partially occupied in a small parish, and his salary be too small to recompense him for devoting himself entirely to this arduous employment as a means of livelihood. I shall therefore propose, that the same person may be appointed by two or more neighbouring parishes to this office. Undoubtedly this may be effected under the existing law; but to guard against the possibility of abuse, I propose to limit the appointment to parishes within the distance of five miles from each other, and subject to the approbation of the petty sessions, by whom all such appointments must now be formally made. As the law now stands, select vestries are to superintend the collection and administration of the poor-rates. and the overseers are required to conform to their directions in these respects, as well as in what relates to the relief and management of the poor; but no power is given to the vestry, either to fix the amount of the assessments, or to prescribe the time at and for which such rates shall be made. This power is so obviously connected with their present duties of directing and controlling the expenditure, that I almost hazard the conjecture that the omission to give it has proceeded from mistake. I have framed a clause to supply what I regard as an obvious defect.—The present law also gives to the select vestry a power to take into its consideration the character and conduct of the person applying for relief, and to distinguish in that relief between the deserving and the idle, the extravagant, and profligate poor. This provision is, in truth, the first effectual attempt to bring us back to the original scope and spirit of the 43rd of Elizabeth. It seems to me to be in substance rather a declaration of the law than a new enactment. But I am persuaded, that in what ever light it is to be viewed in this respect, the House will feel, that the regulation is not only salutary and expepedient, but absolutely essential; for some wise and temperate distinction between the sober and industrious but unfortunate poor, and those who are idle, lazy, and dissolute, must become the very corner stone of whatever reforma- tion we meditate. The operation of the statute is now confined to the person applying for relief. I propose to extend the inquiry and regulation to all persons constituting the same family. The head of a family is, during the minority of its subordinate members, morally responsible for its education and conduct. Their common means of support are applied, and regulated by him, even where it is not altogether provided by him. It is thus impossible to disconnect in practice the effect of relief which, though nominally given to one, is actually shared by all. It seems reasonable, therefore, that these inquiries should include the entire family. I have also thought, that it may be expedient to give the same power to parish officers in general, which is now confined by the act to select vestries and justices, when making orders of relief in those particular cases which are pointed out by the statute. If a select vestry is judiciously appointed, any foreign interference with their management of the poor will be generally mischievous, and always displeasing The 59th Geo. 3rd seems to have adopted this principle, when it made the concurrence of at least two magistrates necessary for an order of relief, made upon the ground, that what was offered by the select vestry was inadequate to the real wants of the pauper. It occurs to me, that the expediency of having all orders for relief made upon some fixed and certain rule, requires that this provision should be extended farther. I shall propose, therefore, to render the concurrence of no less than three justices necessary to such an order; and I will freely own, that I should have made that of a larger number essential, if the condition of the magistracy as to numbers in many, and more particularly in the northern and Welch counties would have admitted it. Thus far, Sir, the provisions of the intended bill are grounded upon those of 59 Geo. 3rd. The remaining clauses, although new in their provisions, proceed upon a principle acknowledged and admitted under every construction and interpretation of 43 Eliz. It is, that the indigent pauper is bound to repay by his labour what he receives in the sustenance of himself and his family; and that he who asks for relief must submit to work. It is my design, therefore, to propose that the same power which is given to guardians and visitors by 22 Geo. 3rd shall be extended to select vestries and to parish officers; namely, that of hiring out the poor to work while they do not procure it for themselves. I propose to extend the limit within which such employment may be obtained to any distance not exceeding ten miles from the pauper's dwelling. To carry this measure into effect, as well as those with which it is my intention to follow it up, for the purpose of urging the labour of the indigent poor into channels most likely to afford compensation to their parish, a thorough acquaintance with their state and condition, with the amount of their expenditure, and the resources for employing them, are indispensably necessary. To obtain this desirable object, I design to propose that the church-wardens and overseers of every parish shall prepare and make up two weekly lists of persons receiving parish relief: one, of the impotent poor, who are incapable of sustaining themselves by their labour; the other, of those able-bodied persons, who receive relief because the wages received for their labour are insufficient to support them and their families. Both lists are to contain the names, the ages, and the occupations of each pauper, and of their respective families, as well as the causes for relieving them. They are to be signed at the end of each week not only by one or more of the parish officers, but by the pauper, who is thereby to attest their correctness, in so far as respects his individual case. A summary of these lists is to be made up and returned quarterly to the justices at their petty sessions, at which not only the parish officers, but the surveyors of highways, and the contractors for public works, within a certain distance from each parish, are to be required to attend. Upon these highways and public works, all able-bodied persons receiving relief are to be compelled to work, at the discretion of the justices, after a full consideration of the utility of such employment, with reference to the public benefit as well as the particular interest of each parish. The wages of such labour, as also of that where paupers are hired out to private individuals, are to be paid as the parish officers shall desire; either to the pauper, or to the parish officers, to be by them applied in repayment of what may be expended for his support, and that of his wife and children, where they deem it expedient to withdraw that charge from the improvident individual, and take it upon themselves. From this employment, if judiciously applied to the most useful of public undertakings, that of making good roads, I am sanguine enough to anticipate much beneficial result; perhaps, ultimately to diminish the heavy burthens now levied on the country by the numerous turnpike trusts. Sir, I farther propose, that a general summary of these quarterly accounts shall be laid annually before the petty sessions, and that whenever the select vestry, the parish officers, or any number of inhabitants, rated in the aggregate to the amount of 50l. shall require it, those able-bodied males, who have received three month's relief in the preceding year, for themselves or their families; and all who have attained the age of eighteen, and were supported by parish relief for three years of their minority, either as part of their parent's family or otherwise, shall be selected and included in one list; that their names shall be arranged in numerical order by the justices, upon consideration of each individual's case; and that from this list persons shall be returned to serve in the militia for the parish, without ballot, according to the order in which they stand in the list. Of the right to call upon these persons to repay those who have fed and clothed them, by becoming militia substitutes for the parish, and thus relieving their benefactors from a heavy personal burthen, theta can be no doubt: of its expediency there will, I trust, be as little. It will ease the rated parishioner from the expense of providing substitutes which, though trifling in times of peace, is considerable in those of war. To serve in the constitutional force of the country is not degrading, and ought not to be distressing to any one, as we are all equally subject to these laws. But so far as it shall be thought a hardship, it may have a most salutary effect both fee the poor and the country. It will make those heads of families, who feel aversion to the service, either on their own account, or on that of their children, pause before they apply for parish relief. It may induce them and their employers also to pause before they give or take lower wages than the fair value of their service. It will then be no longer a question of indifference to the poor man, whether his wages are to be made up to him from the poor rates, or taken from his master's pocket. Sir, if it will have the effect of checking the practice of employing the poor as rounds-men, it will prove not less beneficial to the labouring poor than to the rated parishioner. But, as this list is not to be made up, except when the parish by its application shown it to be necessary, so no person is to be compelled to serve without every possible precaution that he shall not be improperly called upon. Cases of sickness are to be excepted. The list is to be annually revised by the magistrates. The names of persons are to be erased, who pay back a certain portion of what they have received from the parish; and their respective places in the list may be changed by the justices, so as to retard or accelerate their being returned to serve, upon proper application and due consideration of each party's conduct and character, and his exertions for the support of his family during the preceding year.—If these lists are regularly kept, and I shall introduce such regulations and forms as appear to me best calculated to ensure their being so, a farther advantage will follow. They will lay the foundation for such accurate returns of the state and condition of the poor being regularly made to this House, as must enable it to probe the evil to the core, and by discovering where the disease lies, supply the legislature with means to devise more effectual remedies, if those which I now suggest should prove insufficient. The only remaining measure which I intend to propose for regulating the dependant poor, is one upon which I have thought much, and consulted many experienced persons. I do not wish to conceal from the House that I have felt much repugnance to bringing it forward, and that in doing so, I sacrifice my personal feelings to a sense of duty, and the conviction that it will prove beneficial. By 8 and 9 W. 3rd c. 30, all poor persons receiving parish relief were compelled to wear badges. The indiscriminate application of a distinction which, pointed out poverty as an object of shame and reproach, was considered to be a measure of severe, if not of cruel discipline. Hence it nearly fell into desuetude, as it were, by public consent, before it was actually, repealed, by 50 Geo. 3rd c. 52. But though this mark may be harsh and oppressive to many there are some to whom the application of it will be eminently useful, and the apprehension that it can be so applied may prove not less useful to many more. There exist in most parishes a set of spongers upon the parish funds, whom nothing can entice into any exertion for themselves or their families; persons to whom a workhouse has no terrors, who dissipate their means in debauchey, and submit their children to all the miseries and privations incident to idleness and vice; upon such persons the former provisions of this bill can operate nothing. It is proposed therefore, that justices, at petty sessions, shall be empowered to compel such persons and their families to wear badges for limited periods. But recourse is not to be had to this ultimate remedy, unless upon application by the vestry, or those officers to whom the care of the poor is entrusted, and after a scrupulous examination by the justices of the facts and circumstances under which it is asked for. Sir, the remaining provisions in the intended bill, respect the keeping and passing of parish accounts. It has been my fortune to have many such professionally laid before me; their confusion and inaccuracy are frequently so great as to defy every attempt at explanation; and although I will not say that they are made a cover for fraud and imposition, I must observe that a more secure and easy means for both could not be devised. There is no solid reason to prevent parish accounts from being kept us regularly and exactly as those of a private person; there are many and most cogent ones why they should, if possible, be kept even with more scrupulous stictness. Yet I will venture to say, that if any private gentleman had his accounts kept in the manner in which most parishes endure to have theirs kept and passed, his inevitable ruin must be the consequence, although his fortune should be ever so large. As a remedy for this enormous mischief, I propose that all parish officers shall keep a day-book and a ledger, in which they shall make their entries regularly; that at the end of every quarter they shall draw up a summary of the several heads of receipts and expenditure, with the sums due, both to and from the parish; these abstracts are to be submitted to the petty sessions quarterly, with all necessary vouchers, to be there audited and allowed. Sir, I shall endeavour to make this mode of keeping accounts as little difficult to parish officers as may be. For this purpose I shall add such forms for keeping them as appear, not only to myself, but to persons more conversant with such matters than I am, to be best calculated to unite simplicity of arrangement with necessary detail. Serious losses and inconvenience often occur from overseers retaining more of the rates in their hands than they ought. To guard against the hazard of such fraudulent practices, it seems necessary to give a power to justices, whore they think that any overseer has retained more parish money in his hands than is necessary, to direct him to pay it over to some of his fellow officers, with whom they may consider it may be more safely entrusted. The application of public money to the receivers' private purposes, under any circumstances, is an offence not to be tolerated: wherever therefore the overseer shall not forthwith obey this order, the amount held back shall be levied by distress upon his personal property. But as the remedy is prompt for the parish security, so the protection of the individual against mistakes should not be neglected. It is therefore proposed to give him an appeal against the allowance of the accounts in petty sessions, upon his finding adequate security for repayment of what shall be finally adjudged due from him by the quarter sessions, to which he makes his ultimate appeal. Such, sir, is the outline of those provisions which I intend to have the honour, with the House's leave, of submitting to it, in the shape of a bill. I am deeply sensible that every such measure re-requires the most minute and cautious consideration. I shall propose therefore, it the House grants me permission to bring it in, to move that it be read a first time and printed, without being carried farther during this session. The approaching recess will give time to the members, as well as to the country, to examine and scrutinize its various, and in some respects complicated, provisions. It is my ancious wish and desire that this should take place, as it is by such means alone that its adequacy for any useful public purpose can be truly judged of. If it should be found incompetent to its object, and incapable of amendment by the wisdom of this House, no man will rejoice more sincerely in its final rejection than myself. Sir, there is one other measure connected with my plan which is not included in the intended bill. It respects that supposed excess of population to which I have already alluded. Looking, as I do, upon the population of every kingdom as the main source of its power and prosperity, I cannot admit the existence of any superabundance of our people, beyond the demand for, their labour, without great reluctance, and much more evidence than is now before the House. A surplus in some parishes and districts may exist, without the country being generally crowded. If this inconvenience should be merely local, the laws now in force, coupled with the provisions of the intended bill, will, I trust, be found sufficient to remove it. The labouring classes may now remove where they please in search of employment. If the bread of idleness is not brought inconsiderately and lavishly home to their doors by their parish, they can seek work in places where the thinness of population admits of that demand for labour which will enable them to find it. If the entire county is so over-peopled as not to admit of this remedy, the only effectual redress will be found in a well-regulated system of colonization. This was the sole resource of the ancients against that national superabundance which, in Greece and Rome, was not unusual: not to speak of those hostile swarms which constantly poured from the northern hive, at least from the commencement of the Roman republic to the fall of the empire. Even in the present times, Ireland and Scotland have drawn occasional relief from the emigration of their people as well into this country as into America. Neither has the practice been confined to ourselves. It has not been uncommon on throughout Germany, Switzerland, and other parts of the continent. I know that theorists and others have sought their remedy against this malady in restraints and regulations, and discouragements of marriage among the poor; schemes infinitely more pernicious than any evil of which they complain. Sir, I will never either conceal or disguise my abhorrence of such fancies, which I think founded upon anti-social principles, utterly subversive of morality.^* There is no legis-

^* The ancients classed marriage among the fundamentals of society and civilization.

——Fuit sapientia quondam

Publica privatis secernere, sacra profanis,

Concubitu prohibere vago, dare jura maritis,

Oppida moliri, leges incidere lingo:

Sic honos et nomen divinis vatibus atque

Carminibus venit.

HORACE.

lative instrument by which we can expel nature beyond its power of recurrence. We may defile and desecrate that institution which Heaven has consecrated—we may remove the influence of moral restraint over the most powerful of human passions, but we cannot subdue it. Marriage in humble life is the parent of sobriety, of industry, of social affection, and of every domestic virtue which cheers and tranquillizes the poor man's cottage, both in the morn and in the decline of his frail existence. Never, no never, will I lend my assistance, with any view or for any purpose, however plausible, to tamper with an union, founded in the laws of nature, destined to yield happiness with innocence to youth, and to supply old age with the consolations of society and reciprocal support. Any system for colonization to be effectual, must obtain the assent and concurrence of his majesty's government. For this reason I have deferred to embody my notions on that subject in the shape of a bill during the present session. It ought properly to follow as a consequence upon the adoption of those reforms which I now propose to introduce. If such a plan is ever taken up, I would found it upon two essentially governing principles. First, that it be not made the instrument of fraudulent or involuntary eviction even of the poorest and most insignificant individual from his native country. Ample precaution should be taken, that all who avail themselves of the measure, should do so solely from the impulse of voluntary choice. The other would be, that those places which are pressed by the inconvenience should raise from their local funds the necessary means for enabling the poor to emigrate. This would form the most effectual guard against injudiciously pushing the practice beyond the evils which the measure is designed to remedy. No parish or place would incur the expense, unless compelled to it by an injurious superabundance of population; and no inhabitant would be aided to remove, unless when the inconvenience of over numbers was practically felt. That this measure may, at least for the present, be dispensed with in this part of the empire. I confidently hope and expect. Whether it may not be more immediately required in Ireland, as the only means of providing permanent succour for the poor, and insuring civil tranquil- lity to that country, is a question of a very different aspect. But whenever, or under whatsoever circumstances, we may be thus compelled to separate from our fellow subjects, we shall, I trust, sustain ourselves by the consolation, that they will carry with them British hearts, British principles, and British freedom; that they go to provinces won by the valour of their countrymen, or discovered by their nautical research, to become the means, I trust the auspicious means, of extending the language, the arts, the sciences of England, to remoter regions, and of transmitting them to future ages; laying in the firm foundations of their own immediate prosperity new and extended sources of increase for her commerce, her manufactures, and all her industrious monuments of civil and peaceful preeminence. Many subject connected with the regulation and support of the poor remain untouched by the provisions which I have thus detailed to the House. I shall, with your leave, Sir, shortly refer to the grounds upon which I have kept them distinct. The mode of imposing the poor's rate has occupied much of public discussion. It is wished, and not unnaturally wished, to cast some of that burthen, which is now almost exclusively sustained by the landed proprietor, upon the commercial and funded interests. Any local appropriation of a tax upon the funds among the 14,700 local establishments which now maintain their poor separately, would be unattainable in practice. We must either abandon the long and wise usage of sustaining the poor by small districts, or give up this attempt. To consolidate the poor-rates of the country into one national, or even into separate country funds, might obviate the objection; but such general establishments would give birth to others more numerous, and not less insurmountable. The very essence of this relief is founded on the peculiar circumstances of want or calamity, which give to each individual his temporary or permanent claim for assistance. The skill to apportion succour, with reference to the real wants of pauperism, to be efficient, must be local and personal; to be accurate, it must be minute and perpetual; to be vigilant, it must be quickened and animated by some direct and visible interest. All frugal care would be lost in the indiscriminating distribution of a national or a county fund. The struggle between parishes and paupers would rather be, to appropriate more than was their fair due of a common spoil, than to husband the produce of a general contribution. As these consequences demonstrate that such a plan would be either impracticable or ruinous, it is unnecessary to consider its effects and bearings upon another most important question; namely, the national faith; as it stands pledged to the public creditor. The rateability of commercial and other personal property is now fully established; but general experience has induced the country, as it were by common consent, to abstain from the exercise of a power with which every parish is clearly and completely invested. The answer to any attempt to render personal property, if possible, more liable to assessment is, that the law has already done all that it can do, consistent with the principles of sound and rational legislation. To the abominable means of an inquisitorial scrutiny from each individual of his actual ability, the law of England will, I trust, never resort. What national experience relinquishes as unattainable after long unsuccessful experiment, it is seldom, if ever, safe to revive. I had once thought that the effect might be indirectly obtained, by making all who are engaged in trade contribute a small sum per head for each person whom they employed; the amount to be applied in relief or other assistance of the individual on whose account it was contributed as occasion required. This would be in effect to form a kind of parochial compulsory saving-banks. But I was induced to relinquish this scheme, in the feeling that it must ultimately resolve itself into a tax upon labour; that it must in the end fall on the servant, although originally advanced by his employer; and thus compel the labourer at all times, and under all circumstances, to an equal contribution from his earnings, without reference to their amount, or his immediate capability. A farther important obstacle to the execution of such a plan is, that, to be effectual, it would require more complexity than seems convenient for any general national compulsory arrangement. Another subject of usual complaint is, the existing law of settlement. So far as that system causes an undue increase of the poor-rates, it must do so either as an injudicious or as an expensive mode of administering relief. Upon the propriety of continuing to relieve the settled poor by parishes or their subordinate districts, I have already laid my sentiments before the House. With respect to the trouble and expense of parish litigation, the topic is so popular, that it becomes scarcely prudent to hazard a doubt upon it; and yet, Sir, if the maintenance of the poor by small districts is desirable, the expense of law-suits and removals seems to some extent unavoidable. Variety of discordant interests must give rise to intricate and subtle questions of both fact and law; they may sometimes perplex the justices in sessions, and occupy their time, at no small expense to parishes; yet, after every possible reflection upon its consequences, and every allowance for the enormous expense, the law will be found, in this instance, as in all others, the only sure resource against fraud, injustice, and oppression. That the costs of removals and law-suits have been magnified beyond the reality, appears, Sir, by the reports on your table. They do not exceed in amount one twenty-fifth part of the total of what is raised for the exclusive use of the poor; an expense at which, I believe, few gentlemen can collect and manage their private incomes. I am bound to add, and I appeal to the experience of all who hear me to corroborate the assertion, that a fair and economical expenditure is generally secured by the employment of professional men, who rank, in point of integrity and respectability, with those of any profession whatever. Sir, these, I trust not ill-founded, apologies, are neither intended to conceal nor to do away with any fair ground of objection to particular heads of settlement law, as they may affect either the reciprocal interests of parishes, or the comfort and condition of the poor. One, the utility of which seems peculiarly questionable, is that of settlement by hiring and service, which not only gives rise to the most numerous and complicated questions of law and fact, but to a relative inequality of burthensome effect between different parishes; as it is evaded by the course of hiring in some counties, while it is scrupulously adopted in others. The settlement and binding out of apprentices more pre-eminently require our anxious consideration. The object of the statutes of apprenticeship was, to secure to the young and unprotected a useful and virtuous course of instruction, which might qualify them for the usual avocations of domestic life. Upon the indiscriminating haste with which they are now huddled in droves and flocks from the workhouse nursery to the manufactory, I shall trust myself with no other observation than that such practices are cruel and mischievous evasions of the wise and wholesome provisions of the law. In the turning a wheel, the opening of a valve, or the feeding of a spindle, the child meets with painful occupation, and is defrauded of its fair recompense in useful information. By such early employment the body is unfitted for the efforts of ruder labour, without either mind or body being trained up and adapted to the skill which is necessary for the usual sedentary employments of mechanical callings. Fortunate, most fortunate, will these early victims be, if they can count in their catalogue of ignorance and omission, that of remaining uninitiated in early vice and immature corruption!—But, Sir, the evils are not confined to the consequences of such injudicious bindings: while the apprenticeship continues, the child shares at least some portion of a master's care, secured to him by the protection of humane and salutary statutes. But as the law of settlement now is, a male or female infant is settled by a residence for forty days under its indenture, though executed at the most childish age at which it may please the parish or their parents to bind them. Although the master or mistress should die, or become bankrupt, or disappear the very next after this fortieth day, the child is to remain estranged from the fostering care and moral protection of its parents during the continuance of its natural and necessary pupilage. Yet even here, where the mischiefs are so manifest, I am not without apprehensions that it will be found not altogether easy to devise remedies free from solid objection. The existing right of removing the poor to their place of settlement has been objected to, both in and out of this House, upon more serious grounds than that of expense: it has been declaimed against as harsh, impolitic, and cruel; as an oppressive encroachment upon the poor man's liberty; and as injurious to the industry and general interests of the country.—Sir, our ancestors entertained very different notions upon this subject from those of their more bold and inno- vating progeny. As far as our institutions can be traced backwards, the great body of the people were restrained to continue in their settled dwellings under certain defined regulations. To this extent a law of settlement has existed, and been rigorously observed from the most remote periods of our law, as a measure of wise and necessary police.—In the existing law I must profess my inability to discover any injurious or impolitic restraint; every person enjoys under it full liberty to remove where he pleases in search of work, and to continue there at his free will and pleasure, unless he becomes chargeable to the place thus selected for a new abode. That he shall not be tempted to wander, not suffered to continue without some reasonable prospect of obtaining work, is surely a wise and constitutional limit, not less useful for the poor man's comfort, than salutary for the public peace. By manful struggles against difficulties, both rich and poor are enabled to overcome them. Our changeable natures want no such temptations to lure us rather to fly from misfortunes than to wrestle with them.—But I will leave it to any reasonable mind to calculate the innumerable evils which would result, in the present general facility of intercourse and conveyance, from not only suffering, but enticing every labouring man to run from his family, his connexions, and the responsibility of his personal character, under the legal assurance that wherever he chose to ramble he would be certain of sufficient support and a comfortable asylum. In this, as in many other instances, our reason is seduced from its more correct conclusions by some humane sympathy and compassion for particular cases. It is undoubtedly a great hardship that an industrious family should be removed from their accustomed dwelling and their usual course of employment, because they become accidentally chargeable through some occasional cause. But Providence, which looks primarily to the species, causes the antidote to arise from the very evil of which it allows; it renders the labourer and the artisan more cautious, more frugal, and more saving, that they may avert such a serious calamity from themselves and their children. Left to himself and to his own exertions, the poor man will do more for himself, and without injury to others, than any law can do for him. In the few cases in which he may prove unable to extricate himself, private liberality ought to assist; and it would cheerfully do so, unless it were kept back by the feeling that an application to the poor's rate renders such interference unnecessary and almost intrusive. Sir, upon these grounds it seems to me that the object of our law should be the direct reverse of what is here and in some other instances contended for; and that sound policy requires, that if any alteration is made, it should be rather to render removals even more easy, and the acquisition of settlements more difficult. Sir, the report of your committee goes strongly to support this opinion: "It is uniformly found, that such inhabitants of a parish as have not acquired a settlement in it, and can obtain no such relief without being removed, are distinguished by their activity and industry, and generally possess, not only the necessaries, but the comforts of life; and your committee have lately heard with satisfaction, that the operation of the act of this session has already relieved some parishes of the metropolis from the heavy burthen of maintaining numbers of persons without settlements in England, who are stated now to support themselves, instead of applying for parochial relief, under the apprehension of being sent home.^* It is farther most remarkable, that this principle has been uniformly followed without being openly avowed. For every proposed alteration in this branch of the law has terminated either in abolishing some modes of acquiring settlements, or in rendering other less easy to be gained; so that, whatever may have been suggested, and however recommended, no more easy and simple mode of settling the poor has hitherto been sanctioned by the legislature. One mitigation of the law of removals I have ventured to introduce, but which it escaped my recollection to notice in its proper place. Parishes often afford relief to their settled poor while residing elsewhere, upon principles of humanity, and obviously mutual advantage. My object is to render this practice legal to a limited extent, under certain guards and cautions; the principal one is, that such relief should only be given with the vestry's consent.

^* Report from the Committee on the Poor Laws, 1819.

I trust this House will not think it unreasonable that those who are to bear the expense should possess the right of controlling it. Experience of what has followed from the attempts of others, has rendered me apprehensive of the unforeseen consequences of all untried measures upon this subject; I will therefore frankly avow, that I introduce even such an innovation upon the law with doubt and reluctance. But as the sense and feelings of the country have anticipated the measure, and given it the sanction of usage, which has not been followed by any perceptible inconvenience, I am encouraged to hope, that in the greater extent to which it may be carried by being rendered legal, it will prove harmless in its remoter consequences, and useful in its immediate effects. The only remaining branch of this law to which it seems necessary to refer, is that which respects illegitimate children: it is intimately and most seriously connected with the subject of parish expenditure; but for reasons with which it is unnecessary to fatigue the House at this time, it has hitherto been made the object of distinct legislative provisions. The present laws require much attentive consideration, both as they affect the morals and the general economy of the poor. I have thus briefly touched upon this subject, in the hope of calling some member's attention towards it who may have time and talents for the undertaking. I cannot conceal from myself that this plan, of which the House has now heard the detail with such kind indulgence, may be liable to many objections, both as it respects the means by which it is to work, and the results it is designed to produce. Like all laws of common daily application, as every man feels it, so every man will judge of it; and applaud or condemn, rather as it removes or disregards the inconvenience by which he practically suffers, than as it is calculated to answer the great national purpose which it labours to accomplish. But as there is no end of local objections, or suggestions for improvement, so they admit not of any answer. Against the difficulties which it may be supposed to cast upon overseers, particularly by multiplying the number and increasing the complexity of their accounts, I trust a sufficient remedy is provided in the aid of an assistant overseer, whose labours, if he is rightly chosen, will amply repay whatever salary he may receive.^* It may also be urged, that it imposes fresh duties and additional responsibilities upon the local magistracy of the kingdom: I trust it will produce no such inconvenience. The regular arrangement of parish affairs, and the due ordering the real poor, which the bill aims at effecting, seem better calculated to lighten than to increase their official labours. But even if it should prove otherwise, I am persuaded that this invaluable body of men will be the last to complain. If benefits may accrue not only to themselves but to their country, and not only to the present but to future generations, they will spare neither pains nor labour to bring them within the reach of the people. It will possibly be objected, that the plan is better adapted to regulate the agricultural poor, than those of large towns and considerable manufacturing districts. As far as the objection arises from an application of the pauper's labour to highways and public works, it has some foundation. But the nicer employments of the manufacturer or artizan do not admit of this appropriation to public purposes: it is only the ruder and coarser kinds of labour that allow of such general regulation. On the other hand, as the manufacturer's wages are commonly higher, the power of apportioning relief, with reference to the pauper's industry, yields more than a counterbalancing advantage to manufacturing towns and districts: and as the means of saving are usually greater in such places, recourse to the parish rates will be less necessary, more especially if a prudent use is made of the wise institutions of saving banks. There is another objection which I am not a little anxious to repel. I may be accused of bringing forward regulations, which press with additional heaviness and severity upon the poor; as they tend to curtail the extent of relief, while they render the poor man's return for it more laborious and irksome. Sir, in throwing the imputation from me, I will say, that nothing can be more remote from my intention. My object, and it is one to me above price, is, to promote their comfort, to preserve their true spirit of independence, to cherish their domestic virtues, to chase away every lure to laziness and thoughtless dissipation. In this heavy,

^* Forms for keeping the accounts will be subjoined in an appendix to the bill.

and perhaps ungrateful, task, it is necessary to winnow the chaff from the corn; to separate the idle from the industrious; to distinguish, by a clear line of demarcation, the prudent from the spendthrift; the moral from the profligate. Sir, he is no true friend to his kind who would keep them, as far as possible, unemployed. We may look to Ireland for the practical evils resulting from such a listless mischievous economy. The bread of labour is the bread of peace. When Providence made the sweat of man's brow the condition of his inheritance, alleviated the dispensation by soothing the ways of industry with that content and happiness, which to idleness and vice must remain for ever strangers. I mistake altogether both the provisions and the object of this bill, if it imposes injurious hardships, or severe discipline, on one. It professes no specific for sudden or violent amelioration. It holds out no prospects of unattainable advantage. Its object is, to follow in the paths of our predecessors, and by so doing to respect the feelings, the habits, the manners, the comforts, and the prejudices of the people. It is brought forward in the time of general peace, and in the season of domestic abundance, when the experiment, if it is to be ever hazarded, may be attempted with safety and a reasonable prospect of success. Sir, I am fully, aware that neither this nor any other measure can effect more than to devise means, and afford facilities, by which the country may extricate itself from this growing and monstrous evil. As this is the utmost which the legislature can accomplish, it is all that it should attempt; beyond this the nation must minister unto itself. It is upon the active perseverance and vigilant superintendence of the magistrates; upon the unremitting, unwearied, paternal attention of the landed and manufacturing interests; upon the persuasion, influence, and example of those who spare from their own wants, that which is to lighten those of others; and upon the cordial, cheerful co-operation of the poor themselves, that we must rely for any sound, substantial, and lasting improvement. Let us then earnestly call upon them all, both individually and collectively, to unite in one common effort to rescue themselves and their posterity from this calamitous pressure, and thus, rid their country of an incumbrance which clogs so heavily its prosperity and vigour. —The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with moving. "That leave be given to bring in a bill to amend the Poor Laws."

thought it would be most advisable to allow the bill to be brought in and read a first time, without entering into that kind of desultory discussion, the tendency of which would be, not to advance, but retard the object in view. He congratuluted his hon. and learned friend on the great pains be had taken upon this subject, and expressed his satisfaction at finding that his object was to bring back the system to what it was originally intended to be, instead of misleading the public mind, by any attempt to remove that which had grown up and strengthened with the institutions of the country.

said, that several honourable friends were absent who wished to take part in the discussion of his resolutions. Perhaps, therefore, he might be allowed to move the first seventeen now, without debate, and to bring forward the last on a future day. He was resolved that the subject should be again considered before the close of the session.

said, he could not agree to any of the resolutions in their present form; several of them contained mistakes in fact, and all of them were pervaded by an erroneous principle.

strongly objected to the postponement of the discussion.

said, he was quite ready to proceed, if it was the desire of the House [go on, go on!]. It might be thought that he was pertinacious on this subject, but if those, who were of that opinion felt, as deeply as he did, the importance of the question, the unparalleled situation of the country, the unexampled ruin that had already spread around, the apprehension that that ruin was but the precursor of more extensive evils, and the conviction, that all was attributable to the cause to which he had already called the attention of the House, he was persuaded, that they would not blame him for his perseverance. It was his most decided opinion, that if the bill of 1819, was allowed to continue n force, its operation would involve this and the sister island in the most unprecedented condition of peril. He utterly denied that there was any exaggeration in this statement. Of this fact he was convinced, that by the operation of the measure to which he had alluded, two-thirds of the cultivators of the soil, had, in the course of a few years, and in a time of profound peace, been rendered insolvent. The turn of the landowners would soon come. They would soon be involved in the ruin of their tenantry. There were very many proprietors of estates, at the present moment, who did not receive 20 per cent of their rents. That was but a foretaste of what they must expect, should the present course of policy be persevered in. The noblemen and gentlemen of the country would be dragged down from their proud elevation, and degraded from their rank, in a manner which had never before occurred in the annals of the world. They would have to undergo the transfer and confiscation of all their property. Adverting to the bill of 1819, he had no doubt it originated in a laudable wish to maintain those sound principles of justice and honesty by which this country had ever been distinguished. But it was not too much to say, that, with all their excellence of intention, the, authors of the measure had fallen into error. Not only the misery in this country, but the excess of misery which had appeared in Ireland, was, he was perfectly convinced, attributable to the present state of the currency. He had received many letters from Ireland, all of which stated, that in the distressed districts there was a want of employment, a want of money, not a want of food. Was there ever any thing so anomalous as the present state of Ireland? To see a large portion of the population of a country dying for want, while ministers asserted, that in another part of that country there was a superabundance of food! To see human beings starving, with the cup of plenty close to their lips! The fact was, that the farmers of Ireland, having no money, could not employ the poor; and that the poor, having no employment, could not buy food. When he considered these things—when he looked also at the poor of this country, who were absolutely at this very moment living on the capital of the country, he entertained the most fearful apprehensions that we should, ere long, have a high price of corn arising out of a deficiency of supply. He would read to the House the resolutions that it was his intention to propose, and make a few comments on them as he proceeded.—Ad- verting to what had been said of the necessity under which landlords were placed, in the present times, of being liberal and giving up a portion of their rents to their tenants, he said that he held in contempt the use of the word "liberality," in such circumstances. The landlords were bound to do their duty. They had a right to expect from their tenants their just due, but they had no right to expect more. It was, however, evidently impossible that tenants could continue to fulfil contracts made under circumstances entirely different from those under which they were now called upon to perform them. All the contracts which had been made for many years antecedently to the bill of 1819, were, in fact, violated by that bill. It was not just, therefore, to attempt to hold the tenant to the contracts which he made before that period. The hon. gentleman here entered into a statement of the prices of corn at various periods in support of his argument. When he contemplated the situation of the landowners, from the highest peer of the realm downwards; when he calculated all their outgoings, their fixed payments, their jointures, their allowances to younger children, their mortgages, their law agents, their land agents, the necessary appendages of their rank and station, it was his perfect conviction, that they amounted to full half their actual rent. He absolutely denied, that any of the landlords of the country, from the highest to the lowest, had evinced any sordidness of disposition. It was an aspersion of which he would rather be the object than the author. On the country, the landed interest had manifested too deficient an attention to their own interests. Their patrimonial estates were melting away from them; and the operation which was now going on must eventually strip, them of their rank and property.—With respect to the question of taxation, he contended, that the natural amount of any payment was not to be estimated by the pounds, shillings and pence, in which the payment was made, but by the quantity commodities which would be required to produce the pounds, shillings, and pence, in which the payment was made. To estimate taxation by the quantity of labour necessary to raise its amount, was indisputably the only fair means of ascertaining the real pressure on the people. He most fully believed that the effects of the bill of 1819, were not at all in the contempla- tion of the author and the supporters of the measure. He put it to them, and to the House, whether, if they had anticipated what had taken place, they would have enacted the measure? It could only be in ignorance that the measure was agreed to. Perhaps he might be accused of aiming at a breach of public faith. If he were so charged, or rather if he were so aspersed, he would not say that he would treat the accusation with contempt, but he would say that it would not produce on him the slightest effect. In answer to such an accusation, he would say, that faith had not been kept with the public debtor. There had already been a breach of faith towards the public, and a breach of great extent, productive of the most pernicious consequences. Had the events which had since occurred been anticipated in 1819, an arbitration between the parties liable to injury, a kind of adjustment of their interests, ought to have taken place. So far, however, was that from having been the case, that a great breach of faith had taken place towards the public. He apprehended that the restoration of the metallic currency had been intended merely to do justice to the stockholders prior to 1797. Such an object was, however, totally unattainable. In a period of nearly a quarter of a century, how large a proportion of those ancient proprietors of stock must have ceased to be holders of stock, and must necessarily and unavoidably have converted their stock into land, into manufactories, and into the means of pursuing all the various active employments of society. Thousands, however, were receiving their death-blow in consequence of this act of retributive justice, as it was called; and the confidence which the people had hitherto reposed in parliament, as the conservators of property of every kind, had been most decidedly shaken. With regard to high prices, it had been asserted by many, that higher money prices than those now existing would be injurious to the poorer classes of society. In his opinion, however, it was indispensable to the interests of the country, and to all the classes of its population, that all commodities, that all the produce of the earth, and that labour should bear a higher price than they did at present. A rapid declension of every interest in the state would otherwise take place. To what did many persons look for the relief of agriculture? To an advance of price occasioned by a reduction in the quantity of produce. He, however, maintained, that it was not necessary to reduce the quantity of produce for that purpose. He was decidedly for affording protection to agriculture; but he would at that very hour willingly open all our ports, and allow all the hoarded corn in the granaries to be poured into the country, or sent to the distressed districts in Ireland, provided that extended circulation was afforded, which was so necessary to the vast concerns of the country. Were that done, it would soon be found that there was no superabundance of corn in the country. When did any man before, see, hear, or read of a country ruined by superabundance? Such a thing had never entered into the head of any but modern philosophers! Never country had shown so much industry, patience, and patriotism as this country had shown; and but for this fatal law, no country had ever enjoyed greater prosperity than it would be now enjoying. The hon. gentleman concluded with moving the following Resolutions:

1. "That the Select Committee appointed last session to inquire into the petitions complaining of the distressed state of the agriculture of the United Kingdom, reported, That it was with deep regret they had to commence their report by stating, that in their judgment the complaints of the petitioners were founded in fact, and that at the price of corn, at that time, the returns to the occupiers of arable farms, after allowing for the interest of their investments, were by no means adequate to the charges and out-goings; and that a considerable portion thereof must have, therefore, been paid our of their capitals:—That the price of grain having experienced a still farther depression, viz., from 55s. 6d. per quarter of wheat to 45s.; and all other grain, and all other articles, having undergone a similar or greater decline, the insufficiency of the receipts of the farmers to cover their charges must be proportionably increased. Which is farther confirmed by the numerous petitions on the table of the House, representing in the strongest terms their aggravated and excessive distress; and that, in consequence thereof, the labourers in many districts are destitute of employment and the consequent means to purchase food, and have broken out into acts of violence and aggression, and for which the lives of some have been forfeited under sanction of the law.

2. "That it appears by the papers relating to the state of Ireland, laid before this House by his majesty's command, that serious disturbances had broken out in that country, of which the demand and collection of rents had been, on the part of the insurgents, the alleged causes; and subsequent information has been received, that the labourers in agriculture, from a partial failure in the crop of potatoes, together with a total want of employment, and consequent means to purchase other food, are in the most calamitous and deplorable situation; and that many have died from the want of nourishment, whilst the price of provisions still continues so low, as not to afford to the occupiers of land the means of defraying the various charges to which they are subject.

3. "That in the same report of the Select Committee of last session, it is stated, 'That the measures taken for the restoration of the currency have contributed to lower the price of grain and other commodities generally, and consequently to cause a severe pressure upon the industry of the country, and not only to have occasioned a proportion of the fall of prices here, but to have produced a similar, though not equal effect in other countries; and, in a degree, to have deranged the markets of every part of the civilized world.' That in proportion as all commodities, whether the produce of the soil, manufactures, or commerce, have experienced a depression of their money value; so must the proprietors have suffered a direct injury; and whatever may be the degree, it was impossible that the commercial and manufacturing classes of the community can long continue to prosper, whilst the cultivators of the soil are rapidly sinking into ruin and decay, and the labourers sulfating in consequence of the want of their usual employment.

4."That soon after the passing of the act of 1791, by which the Bank of England was restricted from paying its notes in specie, the ancient metallic, standard of value having been thus departed from, the currency of the country, composed of Bank-notes, became depreciated, which depreciation was evinced, and may be estimated by the amount of Bank paper money above 3l. 17s. 10½d. necessary to purchase an ounce of gold; and which fluctuating from that sum to 5l. 11s. was, on the average of eighteen years to 1816, 4l. 10s. 10d. thence to 1819, 4l. 1s., and the last ten years of the war, 4l. 16s. 1d. That this depreciation may be farther and more accurately estimated by the price of commodities, particularly of wheat, at different periods, by which it will also appear, that the value of gold was reduced by the issue of paper, which became its nearly exclusive substitute; that the price of wheat, according to the Eton College tables, during 150 years prior to the commencement of the late war, calculated in periods of 10 on the average, exceeded 51s. 7d. per quarter, and on averages of 50 years, had not exceeded 44s. 9d., and an ounce of gold would consequently, during all that time, exchange for about one quarter 4 bushels; that from 1797 to 1816, the average price of wheat fluctuated from 50s. to 125s. per quarter, the average of the last eight years of the war being 101s. 9½d. and the average of the gold would 81s. 10d. and an ounce of gold would therefore only exchange for one quarter; that the price of grain thus became, in its nominal or money value, nearly double its amount at any former period; the rent of land and commodities acquired a similar additional value, and consequently all possessors of fixed incomes sustained an injury to the extent of such alteration.

5. "That the average price of wheat between the years 1797 and 1819 having been, therefore, in that currency about 80s. per quarter, existing leases were formed according thereto; that the average price since 1819 has been 55s. 6d. and last year and this about 50s.; that, upon the supposition of rent being estimated at one-fourth, or two-eights of the gross produce, it is evident, at the price of 50s. being a reduction of three-eights, that so much of the money value of the gross produce is annihilated, as constitutes the present entire rental of the kingdom, and likewise so much of the receipts of the occupier as amount to one-eight; that the tenant is, therefore, liable to utter ruin if held to his engagement, or the landlord to the loss of his income, subject, at the same time, to the payment of all charges and settlements increased in their amount in the ratio of the increased nominal or money price of grain and other commodities; and in case of mortgage to the extent of half the value, at the period, a reduction of rent in proportion to the fall in the money price of produce, places the mortgagee in full possession of the estate.

6. "That, from the year 1797 to 1816, the country was, with short intervals, engaged in a war of unprecedented expense; the taxes were quadrupled, as well as county and parochial assessments, and a heavy public debt created.—That this period was at the same time distinguished by extraordinary, efforts of national industry, applied to its agriculture, manufactures and commerce, by a facility and extension of credit in all those branches, giving more immediate activity to capital, and a consequent extent and complication of money engagements beyond all former precedent:—That the national debt, which on the 5th Jan., 1793, was 227,989,148l. at an annual charge of 8,911,050l. progressively increased to the amount of 795,312;767l. of capital of various denominations, on the 5th Jan., 1822, at an annual charge, inclusive of terminable and life annuities of 30,015,785l.; and the tota1 of taxes, which on the 5th Jan., 1793, amounted to 17,656,418l. 11s. 3d. progressively increased, till in the year 1815, it amounted to 78,431,489l.: that, subsequent to the war, it has been reduced; and the total on the 5th Jan., 1822, was 60,671,025l.

7. "That this taxation has acquired an additional weight by the act of 1819, and the measures preparatory thereto, the degree of which can in part be ascertained by a comparison of the price of gold, but more justly by the money price of commodities, by which the real value of all payments must be determined: that the equivalent in gold to 60,571,025l. was, in the former period, 13,358,934 ozs.; and, in the present, 15,657,264 ozs.; or in current money of the former period, 71,109,992l.; and that taxation is therefore further and unjustly increased, as paid in gold, 2,298,312 ozs. or 10,138,067l. in money.

8. "That the average price of wheat of the former period having been 81s. 10d. per quarter, the equivalent of the taxes in wheat was 14,228,155 quarters; and the price, since 1819, having been on an average 55s. 6d. the equivalent at that price is 21,863,720 quarters; or, in money, 89,459,050l. and the increase of taxation paid in wheat is consequently 7,035,565 quarters, equal to 28,787,233l..

9. "That it appears from various evidence, given in successive committees appointed to consider the petitions of, the agriculturists, that the wages of labour of an able husbandman, did, during the former period, amount to 15 or 16s. per week; and that, at 15s. the labour of 5,000,000 of persons for 15 weeks, was then equivalent to the discharge of the present taxes. That the price of labour being now reduced to about 9s. per week, the labour of 27 weeks of the same number of persons is now necessary; and which, at 15s. per week, amounts to 101,150,000l.; and that taxation paid in labour is consequently increased to the amount of 40,468,175l.

10 "That it appears by a comparison of the official and declared value of exports of British commodities, that in the year 1814, the declared value of the exports was 47,859,388l. and the official value 36,120,733l. being 32½ per cent of the declared, above the official value; and that in 1821, the quantity in official value amounted to 10,191,893l. and the declared value to 35,826,083l. being 11 per cent, of the official above the declared, making a total decline in value of 43½ percent and the general price currents exhibit a similar decline. That the total amount of taxation in commodities, is therefore equivalent to 87,003,397l. of the former period, and the increased taxation paid in commodities to 26,331,572l.

11 "That the farther reduction of wheat from 55s. 6d. to 45s. and other agricultural produce, together with any farther decline in the money, wages of labour, and price of commodities, additionally increases the burthen of taxation, as well as all other charges, both public and private, upon the property and industry of the country, to an extent proportionate to such farther reduction;—and that as wheat never exceeded, upon the average, the present rate in the old money standard, it must be expected that it will on an average there remain, unless enhanced by scarcity; and that the price of commodities, and wages of labour, will continue at the money value they now bear, or be further reduced.

12. "That such effects could not by possibility have been in the contemplation of the legislature, still less of the people of England, at the time of the passing the act of 1819:—That its destructive consequences are now visible—that individuals held to their contract, either have been or must be ruined; an unexampled revolution of property follow, and the burthens of taxation become absolutely intolerable.

13. "That by the parliamentary paper, No. 145, of the present session, columns 1 and 2, it appears, that from the 5th Jan. 1798, to the 5th Jan. 1816, the sum of 159,630,826l. of money, including bills funded, was paid into the Treasury on account of loans, for which an annual charge for interest and annuities was created of 23,860,020l. which sum converted into a three per cent capital is equal to 795,331,000l.

14. "That the average price of gold having been during that period 90s. 10d. the equivalent in gold to the money so lent and capital created was 101,203,117 ozs.; and the 3 per cent stock being now at 80, the said capital is equal to 110,095,550 ozs. of gold, at the before-mentioned average price of 90s. 10d. and that at the present price of gold 77s. 6d. to 163,107,,306 ozs.; the difference, being 23,311,836 ozs., constitutes an undue gain to the public creditor, at the expense of the public, equal in money to 110,974,691l.

15. "That the average price of wheat having been during the above period 81s. 10d. the equivalent in wheat to the money so lent was 112,333,400 quarters; and the price of 3 per cent stock being now 80, and wheat at the same average, the equivalent would now be 155,533,185 quarters; but at 55s. 6d. the average price since 1819, it is equal to 229,285,478 quarters, or in money, 958,159,330l. being an increased gain of 73,782,215 quarters by the alteration of the currency; or in money 301,892,228l.

16. "That the annual charge of 23,860,020l. created in the period above stated, as equal to 5,253,502 ozs. and is now equal to 6,127,174 ozs. being an increase of 871,192 ozs. or 3,403,886l.; that the above annual charge in wheat was equal to 5,831,370 quarters; is, at the average since 1819, equal to 8,600,000 quarters, or in money 35,196,666l. being an increased gain of 2,799,000 quarters, or in money of 11,328,311l. and that by comparison with commodities and labour, in the proportion of difference of their money value in those two periods, an equally undue advantage to the public creditor is proved to have been given at the charge of the public.

17. "That all public creditors prior to 1798, and others subsequent, have suffered in proportion to the depreciation that followed their respective loans; that they are therefore entitled, in strict justice, to be paid in money, of, value equal to that of those periods, and be indemnified for the diminished value of their income during the interval; that many of those creditors having probably, in such a length of time, sold their stock and purchased property, have since undergone another and more fatal injury, by the restoration of the old currency, injury, consequent diminution of the value of their, property so bought;—on the other hand, those who lent their money when the currency was depreciated below the average of the whole period, gained a farther undue advantage than is shown by the foregoing statements; and the depreciation was at its greatest extent during the latter years of the war, when the largest proportion of money was lent, and capital created; in addition to which the public have, upon very advantageous terms to the stockholder, redeemed a larger capital, debt than existed prior to 1797.

18. "That under all these circumstances, it it evidently and indispensably, necessary, to take into immediate consideration the destructive effects that have arisen out of the alterations made in the currency, by the acts of 1797 and 1819, as well respecting the enormous public burthens created and so augmented by the act of 1815, as the revolution of property in the vast and complicated intercourse of individuals throughout this country occasioned thereby; in order that, by a final arrangement of the currency, as equitable to all parties as circumstances will admit, or by a reduction of taxation equal to the advance occasioned by the act of l819, together with the establishment of some principle for the adjustment of private contracts, justice may, as far as possible, be administered to all, and the country saved from a revolution of property, and also from a pressure to taxation beyond the ability of the people to sustain."

commenced by saying that if he should not succeed in refuting the arguments of the hon. gentleman, it would be owing, not to the force of those arguments, but to his inability to reply to them. The hon. member had said, that the alteration which had taken place in prices was to be solely imputed to the alteration in the state of the currency brought about by the act of 1819; but the hon. gentleman seemed to forget, that the country had been subjected to such alterations in prices, when no such cause existed as the bill of 1819, or any similar bill. There could be no difference of opinion with respect to the fact of distress. The question was, what was the best means of removing that distress? The causes of low prices might be traced to various sources—the great influx of gold into this country—the improvements in agriculture—those and other causes operated. How, then, could the distress of the agriculturists be solely imputed to the alteration that had taken place in the currency? In an enlarged point of view, he was prepared to contend that the alteration in the currency had no effect upon taxation. The question of taxation ought to be argued as if no change had been made in the currency since 1797. The alterations that had been made might have affected individual classes—might have affected landlords and tenants, in their relations to the state; but if the value of produce was affected by the change in the currency, it should be recollected also that the value of all other productions was affected in the same way. He was willing to admit that to whatever extent the value of the currency had been affected by the bill of 1797, to that extent had taxation been increased. But it was impossible to prove that the depression of the agricultural interest was in any greater extent to be traced to the measure of 1819. As to the situation of Ireland, which had been alluded to, could any reasonable man suppose that the distress and misery of Ireland grew out of the measure of 1819? He thought it perfectly compatible that they should be suffering for want in Ireland, and from superabundance in this country. In a country Where the people lived on the cheapest food—such as potatoes—if that food failed, how could their wages afford the means of procuring corn? The hon. gentleman should have considered that wages were not regulated by the price of corn. In England, where food was not so cheap, such a calamity as afflicted Ireland was net so likely to occur.—The hon. gentleman here entered into a correction of a passage within inverted commas, as if quoted from the agricultural report, while there was no such passage in the report. There was even one passage in italics, representing that the currency was the cause of the severe pressure on the industry of the community, yet there was no such statement in the report. This was calculated to mislead; though of course there could have been no such intention. It did not follow that a fall of prices, which the report stated, occasioned any distress to the producer; for the cost of production might have fallen. If justice was to be done in one instance, it ought to be done in another. The parties who had suffered from the introduction of the paper system were not to be recompensed, it seemed, because their loss had occurred 25 years ago; but the main loss, in fact, had occurred at no such distant period, for the depreciation of the bank-note up to the year 1809 did not go farther than 2½ per cent. If those were to be compensated who were losers by the return to cash payments, certainly those had an equal right to remuneration who had been damnified by the departure from it. The hon. member was not Consistent in his resolutions. When he estimated the depreciation of bank paper by the quantity of it over and above 3l. 17s. 10d. which was necessary to purchase an ounce of gold, he admitted gold to be the standard of value. Why, then, did he afterwards come forward with arguments in which corn and other articles of produce were assumed to be the standard of value? Such a principle would justify every man in calling for an alteration in the currency of the country, according to the rise or fall of the commodity in which he dealt. He (Mr. R.) did not think the annihilation of rent by any means a necessary consequence of a fall in the price of corn. The cost of production might be diminished. But the hon. member for Essex, holding that opinion, was certainly bound to support his (Mr. R's.) plan for paying off the national debt, by a partial sacrifice of capital; because under that arrangement, he would forfeit only a part of his possesions, while, under the existing system, he lost the whole.—The hon. gentleman had said, that the effect of the bill of 1819 had increased taxation to the amount of ten millions; but to make out that point, he calculated gold at 4l. l0s 10d. instead of 3l. 17s. 6d. With respect to the general complaint of the hon. member, that corn and other articles of produce had been brought down in price by the bill of 1819, was it not a notorious fact, that before that bill had passed, those articles had fallen in price? How, then, could the hon. member charge the measure of 1819 with effects which could be traced to an earlier period, and which had been going on increasing in operation before the bill had been passed? He now came to another resolution of the hon. member's—that resolution made a mistake of no less a sum than 154 millions. That resolution stated a sum of 459,650,826l. of money, including bills funded, had been paid into the Treasury, from Jan. 1798, to Jan. 1816. Now he (Mr. R.) contended, that, out of that sum 154 millions had been paid towards the discharge of the national debt. If the chancellor of the exchequer had done away with the delusion of the sinking fund, would he have raised so much money from the country? No, there would have been 154 millions less: so much was applied, and by so much had the debt been diminished from 1798 to 1816. The hon. gentleman seemed to insinuate, that certain individuals were in the habit of making public attacks upon the landlords of this country. The charge could not be brought against him. It was true, he looked upon rents in the same light as he did every other article in the market, liable to fluctuations, and to be regulated according to the demand fir the produce of the soil. He had never said that the country would be ruined by a super abundant supply; on the contrary, that the country would greatly benefit by that supply; the greater the supply the greater the comfort. Great supply induced low prices; low prices injured the grower, but gave an advantage to the country. It was not, however, that kind of advantage which he should wish it to possess. On the contrary, he would always wish to see the grower receive a fair remunerating price; because he was convinced, that all classes in the country would go on better and more prosperously when the farmer received a fair remunerating price. But a remunerating price had nothing to do with the state of the currency. If corn were down so low even as 20s. and the price of labour and all other outgoings were regulated by that price, the grower could go on paying his rent as well perhaps as when he received 80s. and when his outgoings were in proportion to that prim—With respect to the advantage that one class had gained over the other by the bill of 1819, he would say, that it certainly was impossible to tamper with the currency of a country, without producing such effects. The payers of taxes had lost at one period and gained at another, in consequence of the fluctuations of the currency; but it was quite remarkable to see how nearly at par stood the loss and gain. In his opinion, the great mischief sprung out of the original error, he meant the bill of 1797.—That was the great error—the measure of 1819 was the remedy. The House acknowledged the mischief of the measure of 1797, and they were bound to support the bill of 1819, which was only intended to remedy the original error. If the House at a fatal moment interfered with that bill, what would be the consequence—what would be the state of London the next day? What wild speculation—what ruin would follow! So strong were the evils that would follow such a step, that he anticipated from that House its decided negative to the motion of the hon. member.

contended, that the distress and embarrassment under which the country laboured were not to be imputed to the simple measure of 1819, but were to be traced to the fatal measure of 1797, and the effects which followed, to the fluctuations of the currency, and the efforts which had been made with a view of returning to cash payments. He agreed that the agricultural body came with an ill grace to that House, not in fact to be relieved from distress, but with a demand to raise the price of bread upon the people. He thanked God that the House had not the power to do so if they would. He would regret any invasion on the public creditor: he hoped the House would keep faith with him; but whether the taxes would keep faith with him was another question. The House would not sanction an invasion of the debt; but he greatly feared that the taxes would not be able to meet the demand of the creditor. There were two ways to relieve the farmer; the one, to increase his receipts; the other, to diminish his outgoings: the first was impossible, the other might be effected. And how could it be effected but by a reduction of taxation. He thought that ten millions of taxes might have been remitted this session. Had so much been remitted, it would have afforded great relief to the agricultural interest. It would not afford the same relief next year; because there were scarcely any farmers who were not now paying their rent out of their capital. The noble lord referred, in proof of the extent of the agricultural distress, to the petition from Leicestershire, which had been signed by all classes, from the lord-lieutenant to the lowest occupier of land. The consequence must be, that in 1823 the farmer would have less capital titan in 1822, and that the reduction of taxes which would have been effectual this year, would not be then effectual. He was quite sure that before the next session, they would hear many great lords and many knights of the shires, who had hitherto been silent, clamorously calling for relief. He therefore implored the public creditor, as a matter of prudence, to consider whether it was not his interest as well as his duty, to compel the minister to retrench, in order to prevent the landholder from being tempted to make an inroad upon his property. The public creditor ought to recollect what had taken place at the late meeting of the county of Kent. He sincerely trusted that the example then set would not be followed; but what had been done in Kent might be done in Cornwall and Northumberland; and there was no security against the repetition of such a proposal at any public meeting whatsoever. After stating that he felt no pity for the landholders as a class, inasmuch as they had always been rigid supporters of the loan system, of which the evils were now beginning to be felt, the noble lord proceeded to declare, that he could not agree to the last resolution. As to the rest of his resolutions, his hon. friend might be right, or might be wrong; but sure he was, that to seek a remedy for our present distress in reverting to a paper currency, or in creating high prices, would be as absurd as it would be useless. The only efficient remedy left for the country to adopt was, a reduction of taxation by giving up the sinking fund, which in all probability, if not so given up, would shortly give itself up. He trusted that gentlemen would come to the next session of parliament convinced of the impropriety of keeping up a heavy taxation for such a purpose. The noble lord took a review of the leading measures which had been proposed during the present session, and maintained that neither side of the House had done for the country, that which the country had a right to expect at their hands. Indeed, there had not been a single motion, with the exception of that made by his learned friend the member for Winchelsea respecting the sinking fund, and that made by the hon. member for York (Mr. Wyvill), respecting the reduction of taxation, that would have done the country the slightest good had it been carried.

commenced by remarking upon the speech of the hon. member for Portarlington, which he said contained views exceedingly mistaken and un candid of the resolutions before the House, and of the arguments of his hon. friend who had introduced them; but he said, that the errors into which the hon. member had fallen, had been for the greater part exposed in so unanswerable a manner by the noble lord who had followed him in the debate, that he should be reluctant at that hour to occupy the House with remarks on any parts of the hon. member's arguments, except those which were directly opposed to the main grounds on which the resolutions before the House rested. The main fact asserted in these resolutions—that on which they all depended—was, that that fall of monied prices, the effects of which were so destructive and ruinous, had been occasioned by the alterations which had taken place in the currency. This the hon. member for Portarlington denied. He maintained that the fall of prices was to be ascribed chiefly to other causes, and undoubtedly, if the hon. member was right in this opinion, there existed no ground for any one of the resolutions before the House. They rested on this, that a great depreciation had taken place of that money which was established by the act of 1797; and it was perfectly indisputable that a rise of prices to the extent of that depreciation, whatever it was, must necessarily have been occasioned by it; and that the return to the old metal standard must have been of necessity accompanied with a fall of prices, to the extent of the rise which had been thus occasioned. This would not be denied, and the question therefore between the hon. member for Portarlington and the hon. mover of these resolutions was reduced to this—to what extent had that depreciation gone? for to the same extent had the re-establishment of the old metal standard occasioned a fall in the price of agricultural produce, entirely unconnected with, and independent of those productive harvests and improvements in agriculture, by which the hon. member explained the fall in agricultural prices. Now, on this point that the depreciation had been very great and extensive, he should not proceed to establish that by any abstruse argument; but should content himself with resting it entirely on an authority which he was quite satisfied would be received as conclusive by the hon. member himself, and probably would satisfy the House. For it was the authority of the hon. member who now contested that point: and he would read his opinion on a former occasion given on that subject. [Mr. Ricardo here said he admitted it]. The question therefore was at an end. There was no grout for the confident attack which the hon. member had made on the principle of these resolutions; imputing to them the absurdity of ascribing that to alterations in the standard of value, which had been occasioned by accidental causes; and of asking for a reduction of taxes and burthens on no better ground than that of a productive harvest. The resolutions state, that by acts of the legislature, the standard of value has been first greatly lowered, and then as much raised. This the hon. member admits, and he must admit with it, that those measures of the legislature have occasioned great injustice, derangement, and ruin; that a great fall of prices, with all its destructiove effects, acting on high monied engagements, has been occasioned by those measures, and the resolutions go farther than the hon. member only in calling on the legislature to provide remedies, for evils, and injustice it has itself occasioned. The hon. member had asserted, that prices on the continent had fallen to as great an extent as in this country; that of course this could only have been occasioned by abundant production; and he had asked whether we should find in France so great an absurdity as a demand for a reduction of taxes on the ground of an abundant harvest and a glut of corn? The question as to foreign prices, was one on which much mis-statement had taken place, and on which it was of importance to have the real facts before them, as they threw light on our own situation. But first be desired, the House to consider to what extent, and how universal the fall of prices in this country had been, and to exhibit that, he would refer again to that paper, which had been delivered to the agricultural committee of the last session of parliament, by Mr. Tooke, and which contained a list of the prices of thirty of the most important articles of commerce and manufactures, selected as exhibiting the extent of fall of prices which had taken place on all commercial commodities generally. If these prices were continued down to the present time, the result which the list would exhibit was this, that from the month of May 1818, to May 1822—the first of these pe- riods being that when the second experiment for altering the standard of value had commenced—the prices of all those commodities had fallen to the extent of 40l. in the 100l., and that was nearly equal to the fall of agricultural prices since the same time. Let this fact, then, be applied to the question as to foreign prices. Was it asserted that a fall of prices, as sudden, as great and universal as this had taken place on the continent at large? If so, it led necessarily to one of these two conclusions; either that all productions had everywhere suddenly increased, in quantity; or that money had been reduced in its quantity; for the proportion between money and commodities had altered, and one of these two conclusions must therefore be of necessity admitted. Either all the productions of all industry, all climates, and all countries, had suddenly increased (which it was impossible to believe); or otherwise, from whatever cause, a reduction in the amount of money generally in circulation had taken place. With respect to this country, where, beyond any question, the fall of prices which had taken place, was to the extent of nearly one half on all property and commodities, the reduction which we had forcibly made in the amount of money in circulation, was fully adequate td occasion that fall; it was, in, fact, impossible, that such a reduction could be effected without such a fall of prices following; and doubtless these operations on English currency, must have materially deranged the monied system of Europe, and have affected more particularly those countries more exclusively connected with England, and which formed the channels through which the bullion of England had at tad period been dispersed on the continents and at another period been drawn back. But the real fact was that no such fall of prices as that experienced here, had taken place generally on the continent; and he referred individually to France, which the hon. member for Portarlington had particularly referred to, as exhibiting a fall of prices as great as in this country, and this fact he distinctly contradicted and asserted, that no material depression in agricultural produce or in property generally existed in France. He maintained that no material rise, in the monied price of agricultural productions, had taken place in France during the whole period of the war—during that period which had been distinguished by so great a rise of prices in this country; and that no material de- pression had taken place since the peace; and as this must be of necessity well known to many members present, and as he saw that hon. gentlemen opposite assented to that fact, he would not therefore go into the proof of it, from tables and authorities which he possessed. But it followed from thence, that the rise and fall of prices which had been experienced here, had arisen from causes peculiar to this country, and not common to us with the continent at large, as had been repeatedly asserted. It appeared, however, that there was one part of the continent, which was Flanders, where—whether from its more intimate connexion wit England, from a derangement at one time in its own currency, which there was, he understood, some reason to believe had existed, or from whatever cause—a rise and fall of prices, nearly equivalent to our own, had taken place: but so far was the example of Flanders from affording any support to the opinion which the hon. member for Portarlington had expressed, of its being absurd to demand a reduction of burthens on the ground of a fall of prices, that he (Mr. Attwood) believed, that great reductions had been there effected on that very ground; and he could not reply to the argument of the hon. member better, than by referring him to what had been recently stated on that subject, by the minister of the king of the Netherlands, in a speech delivered to the states; in which speech would be found a complete answer to the question which he had put to the hon. member for Essex, as to whether he expected to see so great an absurdity on the continent, as a reduction of taxes on account of a fall of prices? That minister, after describing a state of things somewhat similar to our own, first a great rise of prices, accompanied with much prosperity; and then as great a fall, and corresponding distress, proceeded to meet these difficulties by referring to the public burthens; and he said, that during the high prices proportionate taxation had been imposed; and that it would not now be just, for the same extent of taxation to be continued. "It is but just," said this minister, "that the taxes should be, reduced in proportion to the decline in produce." "The taxes which took away when "they were imposed one-fourth or one-"fifth of the revenue of land, would now, "if they mere continued, take away a "half. It was just, therefore, that they "should be reduced. The fiscus (by "which he presumed was to be under "stood the Dutch exchequer) would not "lose by that. The fiscus said this "minister will gain in all its disbursements. "Cheap times, reducing at once receipts "and disbursements were not, said he, "to be considered unfavourable to the "exchequer." This was the manner in which that government had encountered difficulties somewhat similar to our own, whose government had displayed no such firmness, nor such wisdom. Considering, therefore, the facts and principles embodied in the resolutions before the House as completely established—for the acute ability of the hon. member for Portarlington had entirely failed in attempting to impugn, them—he thought that it must be universally felt, that it was the duty of the House to proceed to an examination of the measures, now brought under its consideration; in order to determine what steps now remained to be taken for preventing their farther progress, and to redress, as far as was practicable, the injustice they had already committed. He was far from, agreeing with those, who thought that this task had been so long neglected that it could not now be advantageously performed; and considered, on the contrary, that it had become more urgent in proportion as it had been delayed; that it would ultimately be forced upon them; and that though the duty, which it belonged, under present circumstances, to the House to discharge, had become most extensive, and complicated, and difficult; yet for the House to desert that duty on those grounds, would be to abandon the most important functions, which a government could be called on to discharge. Let the House consider in what situation its measures had placed the country, not as that rested on opinions maintained by one set of men, and contested by others; but as far as might be now said to be concurred in, by all those, whose attention had been particularly directed to the subject. The depreciation of money which we had effected, he believed he might now say was estimated by none at less than one-fourth, by others, and on good grounds, it was estimated at one-half; so that from one-fourth at the lowest, to one-half at ft highest estimate, was the extent to which the House had, by legislative measures, effected a rise and fall, or prices, and had altered the monied value of every man's property. When they considered the debts they had contracted in money thus depreciated; the taxes imposed; that all contracts and leases for near the fourth part of a century, had been founded on this depreciated money; no measure could be conceived, more rash, ill-advised, impolitic, and unjust, none more urgently demanding revision, and a consideration which it had never yet received, than that which imposed the old metal standard on all these debts, contracts and taxes; without any measure of preparation or of investigation, which might have shown the full extent of the operation they were engaging in; which could apprize the country of the nature and extent of the change to which they were subjecting its most important and extensive interests; and which might have enabled the different classes of the community to have avoided, in some degree, that ruin, to which they had now been exposed, as completely as if the measures of parliament had been adopted with the purpose of ensnaring and deceiving the people: and which had done all this, above all, without any previous measure of reduction of taxation, or of expenditure on the part of the government. [Hear, hear!] But, ill-advised, and impolitic, and unjust as that measure was, there was another circumstance connected with these operations which was still more extraordinary, and which now most urgently demanded their consideration; and it was, that down to this present time, when the alteration in the value of money, they were told, was complete, when the old standard was said to be completely established; not one of the proceedings of parliament had been founded on it, or had been adapted to the altered condition, in which that measure had placed the country. They had carried into effect a measure which had altered the existing condition of the country, but the government refused to recognize or to act upon it, and still proceeded as though no such alteration had taken place. They had altered the existing condition of all the great classes of society, in relation to each other, and in their own condition; but the authors of that measure, proceeded as though utterly unconscious that any such change had been accomplished; or had been even in contemplation. That evil had pervaded all the proceedings of the present and several past sessions of parliament. They had proceeded in their system of taxation, and of expenditure; had fixed prices for the import of grain, had proposed measures for increasing the circulation; over which they had no power, on the footing it was now placed upon, either to increase the circulation by a single shilling, or to diminish it, and in all this had acted as though the paper money, its prices and prosperity still continued, and had been entirely forgetful of the altered circumstances of themselves and the country. The House had been occupied in reducing the people, from that condition of false and fictitious prosperity, as it was now called; from that condition of drunken prosperity as the right hon. secretary called it, to which it had advanced during the system of paper money: but the hon. secretary had forgotten that the government had participated in that fictitious and false prosperity; that it had become as drunken as the people; and that it was necessary to extend to the government also, his system of discipline and reduction. If they were to consider the establishment of the old standard as complete, as permanent:—if no further measures were to follow, what spectacle should they exhibit? A government still adapted to the bloated prosperity of one state of things, and a people reduced to the sober misery of another. A government in possession of taxes, salaries, pensions, and magnificent establishments, all arising out of, and adjusted to the condition of false and drunken prosperity, which arose out of the paper standard; whilst the people were groaning under the poverty brought on them by the return of the metal standard. Was this to be considered part of the experiment of cash payments; were they to be called on to determine whether incongruities and disorders like these could be reconciled and supported? It was impossible that they could continue to consider a state of things like that, as safe or satisfactory, or attempt to render it permanent. They could not remain in the position in which they had placed themselves. It was necessary to go further, or to return. Either to reduce the expenditure of the government, to a level with the altered means and condition of the country; or to place the country in a condition of enduring its burthens, by adjusting the standard of value to that in which they had been imposed. He would call the attention of the House to a single instance, of the manner in which they lost sight in their proceed- ings, of the alteration they had themselves effected. The House had before it an act for the purpose of reducing salaries; brought forward under the name of the Superannuation act. It was a measure introduced to the House, as one of great importance. On that measure they were told, the labours of the administration had been employed, during the whole of the last summer. The chancellor of the exchequer proposed it, in a very elaborate and detailed speech, taking a review of all official situations and their emoluments, and stating grounds on which it was proposed to effect general reduction in salaries. But in the whole of that speech, there did not fall from him one single word, respecting the altered value of that money, in which these salaries were paid. This had been totally left out of consideration by his majesty's government, in considering the grounds on which salaries could properly be rendered less burthensome to the country; and this was their conduct at the very moment when the value of money had been recently raised, by a disguised operation, to an extent which was estimated by none at less than 25 per cent, amidst the unexampled sufferings and distress of the country. The chancellor of the exchequer said, that to reduce salaries was a painful task: he had not courage to accomplish it: but he forgot that the question was as to increasing them: whether it were fitting at that moment that salaries should be virtually raised, by an indirect measure, without any one ground of service or of justice; or if it were not rather necessary, to adjust them to the altered value of the money, in which they were paid? Could there be a doubt entertained as to the reality of that alteration or its effects? It was perfectly undeniable that, if they had continued their system of circulation, such as it existed during the war; or if, on returning to a metal standard, they had adjusted, as was fitting, that standard to the value of the paper money of the war; then it would have required a measure, giving a direct nominal advance of nearly double, to every pension and every salary under the Crown, to place the holders of these pensions and salaries on the same footing as that on which the alteration in the currency had now placed them. The chancellor of the exchequer was slow to believe in the depreciation of money, or in its enhancement. Let him inquire, then, of the holders of pensions and official situations, if they do not find that the alteration in the value of money had placed in their hands increased means, increased affluence, increased wealth, beyond that to which their emoluments had been adjusted or fixed during the prosperity of the war; and if all this had not taken place at the precise time when they had heard of the increasing distress of the country at large? [Hear, hear!]. But it was said, that it would be hard to reduce salaries, because all prices had not fallen! Was not that an evil common to all classes of the community? Had not the landed men with reduced incomes to contend against expences not alike and equally reduced? All prices had fallen that were not upheld by taxation. And what is the remedy? To reduce at once the salaries and the taxes together, and that would give relief to the holders of office and of pensions, and to all other classes of the community at the same time. On this subject there appeared to exist a systematic determination, to keep our of view, the connexion between the altered value of money, and its effects on these situations. When the right hon. secretary reviewed the effects of his bill, on the different classes of the community, and brought into prominent consideration the manner in which it had, as he estimated, operated to the advantage of particular classes, he held out that disputed advantage as a consolation to others who suffered from it, but lost sight altogether of this great and important class of society, to whose advantage it had so unequivocally operated. The chancellor of the exchequer, in like manner, in his estimate of official emoluments, left out of view the increase they had received by the altered value of money. But these two circumstances were connected more immediately, than any others in the whole range of the interests of the country. Their connexion was so immediate and essential, that the House could never discharge its duty, if it considered one of them, without going at once into a consideration of the other. The House would not discharge its duty, if it considered the question, of the alteration in the value of money, without proceeding to consider its effect on the salaries of the public servants; and it was a mockery to regulate or to refer to these salaries, without taking into view the manner in which they had been by that alteration enhanced. But this was one instance only of the incongruous nature of their proceedings, and not the most important, though sufficiently apparent and striking; for that inconsistency pervaded the whole of their proceedings, and the effects of the measures before them were to be mainly seen in their pernicious consequences on the great body of the people, and in the extensive derangement and disorder which they had produced, in all their interests. And was the House to be surprised, if, when they refused all inquiry into measures so extensively connected with the national interests, endeavoured to avoid discussion as to those measures, and refused to take them into view, as the foundation of their own proceedings—were they to be surprised, if they found great bodies of the people, occupied in those discussions which the House avoided, and examining, the bearing of those measures in their utmost extent, and the grounds of justice or policy on which they rested? To suppose the contrary, would be to imagine that they could extinguish in the people, all disposition to avail themselves of the benefit of experience; or to guide their future conduct by observation of the past. For what had the experience of the present generation of active men shown them? Had they not seen all the common operations of life rendered ruinous; all the efforts of industry become pernicious, and all prudence and foresight frustrated, and the different orders and interests, of society sacrificed in their turn, one to the other? At one period, the interest of every man who granted a lease, of his land was sacrificed; at another, all those who took leases were ruined; at one time, it was the lender, of money who was sacrificed, at another the borrower was destroyed. And did they expect that the people were to continue these operations, granting and taking leases, borrowing and lending money, with all this experience before them, and without attempting to understand the ground of all this ruin and derangement, to discover the justice of these measures, whether they had any and what claim for relief and redress, how much further they were to be carried, and whether, and how often, and on what ground they were to be repeated? Nothing more extensively important to the interests of the country, had ever taken place in that House, than the resolution they had lately come to respect- ing those measures, coupled with the grounds on which that resolution had been proposed and supported. They had resolved, that they would not alter the money standard of 3l. 17s. 10½d.; and the noble marquis at the head of his majesty's government in that House said, that the meaning of that resolution was, that they would not now alter that standard; but that it did not follow they were not in future to make such an alteration if they found it necessary. And of what nature was this necessity thus referred to. A necessity of which the government was first to judge; and parliament be afterwards called on to sanction? And this they called giving a fixed standard to the country; on which it might depend, and on which its operations were to be founded. But what appearance and probable prospect of necessity was now before them, and to which they were exposed from the very attempt to establish the standard of 3l. 17s. 10½d.? First, there was the necessity which would arise from a defalcation, in the produce of the revenue; derived under present circumstances from precarious sources, which could not be possibility be permanent, and the present situation of which, as compared with the destitute condition of those from whose resources it was drawn, was a subject of astonishment to every man [Hear, hear!]. Let any material defalcation in the revenue take place, approaching, for instance, to that which tool place in 1820, in the revenue of Ireland—a defalcation of one-fifth, or one-sixth, and the standard is gone at once,—that standard to which the people were to work, on which they were recommended to found their operations, but which none but a madman would found any operation upon. Then there was another contingency, that was, a demand on the part of the people, and yielded to by their representatives, for a general system of reduction in the establishments of government. Did any man believe that the present administration, or any other administration, would carry such a reduction of establishments into effect, or that they could do it and maintain their own places; or that such a demand would not be met or eluded, rather by a sacrifice of that standard to which we had sacrificed every thing else? This was precisely that conduct which they ought not to adopt; that situation in which they ought not to place the people. They ought not to attempt to establish a standard of value, the difficulties of establishing which were so great, that no reliance could be placed on their being able to succeed; nor respecting which were they able to give any assurance to the country as to its permanence. It was precisely the step they ought to avoid. Their duty was, to proceed to an investigation of the whole of the subject, to lay its whole operation open to the view of the people, that they might under stand from, whence this unnatural state of things had arisen; to come to a final settlement and adjudication, which should render that imperfect justice, which was now alone in their power, to the different orders of society; to adopt permanently and finally a standard of value which should reconcile, as far as could now be done, all existing rights and interests; to render that standard final, to secure it by every pledge and every penalty; to fence round with protection of every kind, to make it penal for any administration to tamper with it, under any plea of necessity; that thus the country might have confidence in the stability of their standard of value, and in their measures, and in their integrity, which at present they neither had, nor could have; and there was not one of all those who proposed to adhere to the standard of 3l. 17s. 10½d. on the ground of the advantage of preserving a standard permanent, who would now venture to say, that he had any confidence in its permanence, or that he would now proceed in his own affairs, to grant leases of lands, to provide for children, and rely in these affairs on the permanence of the present standard of value. This was their proper duty; and if they neglected, or shrunk from it, they forced upon the people the discussion of questions, which could not be by the people discussed, when their interests are connected with them, without danger,—questions of abstract right, of abstruse principles, of those principles on which the right of property itself depends, and they were accountable for the consequences, what ever they might be, Let them consider the situation in which they left the country, whilst they were engaged in this attempt of establishing a doubtful standard. All the foundations of, property had been unsettled, no security remained for it. There was not a debt nor a contract now in existence, of which its equity was not questionable. [Hear; hear]! Let them consider the case of lord King. During the depreciation of money, lord King demanded from his tenant, a sum greater than, that which the tenant was bound by contract nominally to pay. The value of money had been lowered by measures of the government, and haying found that to be the case, and that the alteration in value was to the extent of 14l. 12s. per cent, a he demanded of his tenant 114l. 12s. for every 100l. stipulated in his lease. A clamour had been attempted to be raised against that noble person; imputations had been thrown out against his motives; but where was there a single individual now, who would maintain, that his conducts was not most just and upright, and consistent with the high character and station of him who adopted it; or, that he was not subjected to a flagrant injustice, when parliament took away from him, the means of enforcing his just demand? But, if that demand were just, there is not now a tenant in the kingdom whose lease was granted during the depreciation of money, whose claim for reduction not equally just, and who is not equally defrauded, if required to pay the full nominal amount of his contract. No such rent so contracted for, could now be honestly received. The tenant was directly defrauded if compelled to pay it. And all the receivers of pensions, and all creditors, were placed on a similar footing. Whether they could honestly receive their nominal claim; that depended on the date of the agreement. No man could, deny it, on grounds worthy even of discussion. This was the condition in which all debts, and contracts, and leases stood, and in which they proposed to leave them. He adverted next to the argument of the right hon. secretary, who had placed the question, as respected the reversal of the act of 1819, on fair and manly grounds; for he had said, that it would require a case of strong necessity to justify such a measure, and that he himself did not recognise in the existing condition of the kingdom any suck necessity. He considered rather that his bill had operated to the advantage, of the main interests of the country. The right hon. secretary rested the main defence of the act of 1819 on this, that it was calculated, in his opinion, to improve the condition of the lower classes of society. This important body had been reduced, in his opinion, to great indigence during the depreciation of money, and in consequence of that rise of prices, which had been accompanied with so extraordinary a degree of prosperity in the country at large. It was principally from entertaining this opinion, and from believing that a fall of prices and the re-establishment of the old standard, would reinstate the labouring classes in their former prosperity, that he had originally promoted, and now supported, the inviolability of the act of 1819. Undoubtedly, no measures of any government could rest on a basis more satisfactory, than their tendency to improve the condition of the labouring classes, if they were capable of permanently effecting that great object. These classes formed a great majority of this, and of every country, and the interest of the greater number it was, in whatever condition placed, that it was the duty of all governments to consult. It was not for the advantage of those classes, which were in possession of distinctions and wealth, exclusively, or particularly, that the measures of government could be justly directed; those distinctions, the right of property itself, rested on no other foundation than this, that they were necessary not for the good alone of those by whom they were possessed, but for the good also of those by whom they were not possessed, the great body of the community. If the act of 1819, therefore, or any other measure, could be shown to be permanently capable of improving the condition, of the labourers, it should have his support. But, in fact, no error in the whole course of these proceedings, had been more palpable and obvious than that of the right hon. secretary, when he imagined that the act of 1819 could be otherwise than greatly injurious to the lower classes. This effect was so obvious, indeed, that the slightest consideration would show him (Mr. Peel), that it was only with respect to a very small part of that important question, that any difference of opinion could at all exist. Such difference of opinion as to the effect on the labourer of a rise or fall of prices, occasioned by a depreciation of money, or a restoration of it, was confined to the period when such rise or fall of prices was in process. Ultimately and permanently, the wages of labour rose or fell with the price of pro- perty, of commodities, and provisions: they adjusted themselves to the alteration in the value of money, whatever that alteration might be; and the condition of the labourer after that operation, was left precisely the same as that in which he was found. But that equality of condition under such circumstances could only take place where taxes existed on the wages of labour, or, in other words, on the necessaries of life. Where such taxes existed, there the effect of the operation they had now been engaged in—of raising the value of money—on the condition of the labourer, sufficiently difficult at all times, was, that it became necessarily, finally, and irretrievably, deteriorated, degraded and depressed; the wages of labour sunk to the price of provisions, but the taxes remained, and were to be paid out of diminished earnings [Hear, hear!] It was this effect of the act of 1819 on the condition of the labourer, the necessarily destructive influence which it must exercise on that condition, unless that act were accompanied with a repeal of taxes, to which he called the attention of the House, and to which their attention would be more urgently required, than by any other circumstance in the whole range of the interests of the country. When the wages of labour should have sunk generally, to the level of the old metal standard; when after that short period of difficulty and misery, which must always precede a fall in the wages of labour; that period, of industry without employment, and labour without reward; when wages should have sunk to 1s. to 10d. to 8d. for the wages of the labour of a day, as they had already fallen, and now existed in many parts of the country; then it would be for the House to consider, what would be the difficulty, the sufferings, the utter impossibility of draining from these miserable earnings, by taxes on the necessaries of life, the means of supporting the magnificent establishments, the enormous and cumbrous expenses of this governments, all adapted to a different state of things, value of money, and rate of wages. He desired them to consider what derangement, what suffering, must be carried by even the smallest reduction, by means of taxation into that severe economy, by which a family was to be supported in independence, out of such wages as he had described t and what then were they to expect from the almost universal extent of taxation that now prevailed; but that it would extinguish all economy and independence together, and convert the labourers in a body into paupers; when all wages had fallen but all taxes were maintained? But these taxes could never be maintained; they could not exist in, conjunction with the act of 1819; they muse be abandoned, whatever interests suffered from their being given up. These taxes must be yielded to the sufferings of those by whom they were paid, to their destructive effects on the great body of the community, and on productive industry. But it was most extraordinary that the right hon. secretary had supported opinion by a reference to the poor-rates. The labourers had been oppressed during the depreciation of money, and amidst the general prosperity of the country; that was his opinion. They had been relieved amidst a condition of general calamity and distress; and all this was to be seen by an examination of the poor-rate returns. Now it was on these very returns that he would rest that question. He would not refer the right hon. secretary to the principles, concurred in on this subject by every one of the writers on political economy, of any authority which this country had produced, and which were in direct opposition to the opinion he entertained; and who would tell him, that the interests of the labourers, were inseparably connected with those of the productive classes at large [Hear, hear!], but he would refer to the poor-rate returns. The committee which presented those returns to the House, had accompanied them very judiciously with a table of the price of wheat; for the mere nominal amount of money paid to the poor, unless accompanied with some measure of its value, neither showed the actual extent of relief given, nor of distress existing. It appeared by these returns, that the nominal amount of money paid to the poor in the three last years of the war, 1812, 1813, and 1814, the years of the greatest depreciation money, when, consequently, If the right hon. secretary were right, the indigence of the poor would have reached its greatest height; and when that indigence would be marked by the poor-rates, the nominal amount paid in these three years, was 6,600,000l., 6,300,000l. and 5,400,000l., which was 6,190,000l. for the average of the three years; and the average price of wheat for these three years was 99s. the quarter. But the money of that time was of a different value, as admitted in the argument of the right hon. secretary, from the money of his bill; for he said, that money was then depreciated, and that the poor suffered from that depreciation; and if we take off one-third to make it equal to our present money, then it would appear that the average paid to the poor in those three years, was 4,000,000l., and the amount paid in 1814, the last year of the war, and the greatest if depreciation was no more than 3,6000,000l. in money of our present value. This was a fact well worthy the attention of those individuals, who had directed their labours to the evils of our poor-laws, and who believed they saw in these laws, a source of great, and increasing, and interminable evil; threatening to sap the foundations of property, and to destroy the independent character of the labouring classes. Up to the close of the war these laws developed no such dangers. The labourers then supported their independence in spite of yearly increasing burthens; and the sums given in relief, showed no tendency to absorb the property of the landowners, nor were felt as a great burthen; corn being at 99s. a quarter at that time. There is no fact more incontestable than this—that during the war—during that depreciation of money represented by the right hon. secretary as destructive to the poor, pauperism decreased. It is so stated, and in these words, by an authority to which the hon. secretary would be inclined to defer—by Dr. Coplestone—who had investigated that branch of his subject candidly and ably, and who came to that conclusion. He took the period from 1802 to 1814, ending March 1815, and said, as the result of his examination, that during that period "pauperism was decreasing." He would refer then to the poor-rates at the time when the depreciation of money was corrected—when prices had fallen—when, according to the right hon. secretary, the indigence of the labourers was relieved, and that this would be seen by the poor-rates. The amount of money paid to the poor in the last year, of which returns were before the House, was no less than 7,390,000l. or double the amount paid in money of the present value, in 1814, the year of the greatest depreciation of money. The returns for the subsequent year were not yet before the House, but he believed they showed a reduction of about 400,000l., leaving the poor rates 6,900,000l.; and this reduction had taken place at the period when the establishment of select vestries and assistant overseers, generally throughout the country, had introduced a better system of administration, into the management of the poor; and he believed that that improved management would alone account for all the reductions which had taken place. But bread was now supplied to the prisons of the metropolis at 6d. and 1–16th for a quartern loaf, and in many parts of the country, the contract price of meat for the poor-houses was 2d. and 2½d. a pound; and with such prices as these, if there were not an exceedingly great reduction in the amount of the poor-rates, there was an exceedingly great increase of pauperism. This, then, was the evidence, which the poor-returns gave of the condition of the labourer, as affected, first, by the fall, and then by the rise in the value of money; and it was on such grounds as these, and so taken up, that the right hon. secretary told them he originally supported the act of 1819, and now recommends its continuance. It would be extraordinary, indeed, if a measure which increased taxation, should diminish pauperism; when it was taxation in which our pauperism consisted, out of which it had arisen, and into which it must be resolved. It was not the act of the 43rd of Elizabeth, to which the evils of the poor-rates were to be ascribed. It was the taxes on the necessaries of life. Up to the commencement of the last reign, the whole amount paid for the support of the poor was no more than 600,000l. a year; and the act of the 43rd of Elizabeth had then existed for a century and a half, but then the taxes had been dormant also; the whole amount of annual taxation at that time was under eight millions. The Excise was four millions, the Land-tax two millions, and the Customs two millions; and the money expended in the relief of the poor was little more than half a million. These facts sufficiently explained the nature and origin of the evils of the poor-laws; and they pointed most unequivocally to some principle, whatever it was, and that could be no other than the depreciation of money, operating most powerfully on the condition of the labourers, not in an hostile direction, but beneficially during the period of the war, and which had enabled them to bear up against all the burthens and difficulties of that period, without an increase of pauperism. He could not quit this part of the question, without expressing again his surprise at the manner in which the right hon. secretary on so important a subject had formed his opinions; the little attention which he had directed to the nature of the evidence which he had examined; and that formed another reason, why the Mouse should now interfere, and direct their attention to a measure which still continued to be persevered in by government, on grounds as erroneous as those on which it had been originally adopted. The hon. member adverted next to the condition of Ireland, as connected with this subject; for the House was not to take a partial view of the condition of the labourers, but their estimate must embrace the whole; and he requested them to consider the extraordinary statement made respecting Ireland by the right hon. member for Kilkenny, who informed them that in the midst of the present distress, the price of provisions was still as low as it had been, except on one or two occasions, in the whole course of his long experience: and what he said, extraordinary as it was, was confirmed in every word of it, by the communications and information respecting the state of Ireland, now before the committee in the city of London for the relief of Irish distress. The whole tenor of these communications was of this nature; they stated, in one sentence, that the population was perishing with hunger; and in the next they deprecated the sending them food; that was the general tenor of these communications. The causes of the distress, as collected from those communications, were, the want of money and of employment; these were the main causes, though it was aggravated greatly, by the partial failure of the potatoe crop. That it was not a deficiency of potatoes alone, which they suffered from, was manifest from this, that it was not desired by the Irish themselves, that potatoes should be sent to Ireland. It was deceiving themselves to confine their views to the failure of the potatoe crop. The potatoe crop was subject to accidental deficiencies at all times; but at no former time bad calamities such as the present followed. [Mr. Peel here said, that as great distress as the present, had on former occasions taken place in Ireland.] He again asserted it: Could any former period be pointed out, when distress in Ireland had been so extraordinary as to call for the universal consideration, and spontaneous assistance of the people of this country? Or was it to be supposed, that at times of greater prosperity for England than the present, the people of Ireland could have perished, as they were now perishing, and no relief be given? The present distress was not confined to the labourers. It reached to persons not dependent on potatoes, or existing on them, or suffering from any deficieny in the crop. The want of food (in the midst of its cheapness) had reached to the farmers and smaller shopkeepers those above the labourers. Let them consider what state of things that was. There was a famine—but it was not accompanied with dearth: the people perished with hunger—but there was no deficiency of food. The farmers were destroyed for want of a market for their productions—the people died without the means of purchase. That was a condition, extraordinary, unnatural, monstrous—a famine which it was in the power of a government to relieve; which could never have had existence but in its measures. The right hon. member for Kilkenny might well say, there was something in the condition of Ireland, mysterious, obscure, and difficult to be solved. He requested his attention to some observations applying to that subject, of Mr. Malthus, printed in 1815. That gentleman had inquired into the effect of the fall of prices which then took place, on the different interests and orders of society, and he referred to its effects on Ireland, and there it was his opinion, that if the low rate of prices should continue, if corn should remain as low as 50s. or 60s. a quarter, the effect on the population of Ireland,—always somewhat redundant, protected by no poor-laws, where there was little surplus capital, and little trade—the effect on that population, he expected would be one which was indeed nearly similar to that now existing. He recommended this opinion to the consideration of the right hon. secretary, who believed that low prices would better the condition of the poor. Mr. Malthus had come to a different conclusion. The condition of Ireland more than verified his opinion. Here were accounts of the cattle of the tenantry on a considerable estate, all seized for rent; these miserable cattle were sold by public sale, in the public market of the town; the prices they produced were 4s. on an average, for a cow, and 1s. 3d. for the average price of a sheep; and the price of potatoes was no more than 1s. 6d. per bushel, and of wheat 5s. a bushel, and of oatmeal very low; and in that town, and around it, with that scene before them, the people were perishing with want. He referred also to the expressions of a rev. prelate, who said provisions in the market were not unreasonably dear, or scantily supplied;" but there was, he said, "a total want of employment; "no scarcity of provisions—but the "spade, the plough, the trowel, the "shuttle were all at rest; and where "there was no employment, there could "be little or no food for the general mass "of the people." Doubtless there could be no food if there were no means of purchase; and that there could never permanently be, if there were no remunerative return to those who should employ them. It was the low price of agricultural produce from whence all this suffering had arisen, however it had been itself occasioned; and he (Mr. Attwood) did not again expect, after what had passed in that debate, to hear it ascribed to any other cause than to the act of 1819. It was the fall of prices in which this famine originated—that fall prevented the tenant from discharging his rent. Then came the inferior landlord, bound by contract to the superior lord, and unable to make any abatement. The ground landlord himself, bound by debts and engagements, all founded in a state of high rents and prices, was equally unable to consent to reductions. Then the miserable stock of the miserable tenantry was seized—then the labourer was left destitute of employment—then ensued a short scene of violence, insubordination, tumult and bloodshed, and that was suppressed by military force—and then ensued a scene of famine and despair. That was the short history, he said, of the distress of Ireland. It sprang from that scarcity of money which they had themselves effected, and on them who had urged forward that measure, rested the responsibility of all the sufferings of that unhappy country. He would not further occupy the attention of the House. They had before them the experience of the effects of their measures; they had before them the experience of the past, the sufferings of the present, and the uncertainty of the future. Every thing about and around them was full of change, difficulty suffering, and danger; and if the present state of things before parliament was not one to call forth its earnest attention and exertion, he thought there could exist no condition of the people, of which that House might not be Content to remain tranquil spectators. [Hear, hear!].

asked, what reason there was for the House to revoke the decision it had come to not a month ago, without one new fact alleged; and begged gentlemen to consider the effect on all commercial intercourse of a declaration, that all transactions since 1797 were of doubtful equity, and should be revised. He contended, that the distress in Ireland was in no way attributable to the state of the currency, but to the failure of the potatoe crop, which was the chief reliance of a population, out of proportion to the means of employment.

thought the restoration of the old standard was, to a considerable extent, the cause of the agricultural distress, but not the only cause. There was, in addition, the cessation of the war demand, five more than usually abundant, harvests, and an enormous importation within those five years of foreign corn. Parliament neither could nor would obviate the two first causes, by endeavouring to counteract the bounty of Providence, or by plunging the country into new and ruinous wars. They had that session endeavoured to regulate the import of foreign corn. The violent reduction of the circulation, occasioned by the premature act of 1819, had affected this country, and in a still greater degree Ireland. He was not, however, for again abandoning the gold standard, but rather for augmenting moderately and cautiously the diminished circulation. If this were effected with prudence and good sense he did not doubt the return, not of high, but of fair and remunerating prices.

supported the motion in an elaborate speech, of which, from the lateness of the hour, no report has been preserved, and concluded with stating, that the only resolution for which he felt himself responsible was the last, seeing that it pledged the House to inquiry.