said—If there are any new members to be sworn, let them be pleased to come to the table.

Mr. O'Connell immediately came forward, conducted by lords Ebrington and Duncannon. Mr. O'Connell produced at the table a certificate of his having been sworn before two of the deputies appointed by the lord Steward, whereupon the Clerk tendered to him the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy and Abjuration, upon which Mr. O'Connell stated, that he was ready to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Abjurations, but that he could not take the Oath of Supremacy, and claimed the privilege of being allowed to take the Oath set forth in the act passed in the present session for the Relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects; whereupon the clerk having stated the matter to Mr. Speaker,

said:—It is my duty to state to the House, if I have been correctly informed, that the course which the hon. member has proposed to take, is a course which, until over-ruled by stronger authority, I do not conceive it my duty to acquiesce in. I understand the hon. gentleman proposes to take the oath prescribed to be taken by Roman Catholics, as it is to be found in the act recently passed. As I read that act, it is my impression—and upon that impression it is my duty to act—that it involves two points relative to the course to be pursued in taking seats in this House. The first point is that of repealing the Declaration against Transubstantiation; the other, that of appointing an oath to be taken by such members of this House as profess the Roman Catholic creed in lieu of the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy and Abjuration. But this substituted oath, as I imagine, refers only to such members as shall be returned subsequently to the passing of the act. Now the hon. member was returned as the House is well aware, long before the passing of this act. I have therefore only to refer to the law affecting all the members of this House until the late act passed; and with the single exception of repeating the Declaration against Transubstantiation, I have to state, that the construction which has been uniformly put on the law of the land, and which has been repeatedly sanctioned and confirmed by act of parliament, is, that every member before he takes his seat, shall take the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy before the lord Steward, and the Oath of Abjuration at the table of this House. This is the course which the dignity and the privileges of this House require. I state this the rather, because it is well known that this House is open to an appeal by petition, or it may be brought forward by any member in this House. In that case, the House will be better able to judge, and to state its, opinion of the propriety of the conduct which it appears to me to be my duty to pursue. I therefore state to the hon. gentleman, that he must withdraw,—unless he is prepared to take the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration.

Whereupon Mr. O'Connell withdrew.

said, that, with all submission to the Speaker, he thought the hon. gentleman who had been directed to withdraw had a right to state his reasons for adopting the course which he appeared to have done. Standing in the situation in which that hon. gentleman was placed, perhaps he had not, according to the strict usage and practice of the House, such a right. The doubt (continued Mr. Brougham) which most presents itself to my mind, and which occasions my addressing the chair, is, whether a member coming to the table to be sworn, can be prevented stating his reasons why he will not take the oaths prescribed, and why he ought to be admitted to his seat without taking them. For any thing I can see, there is no objection to his being heard; and it is doubtful if any instance can be found of members being refused this privilege, whilst there are precedents of their being allowed to enjoy it. Until this question be disposed of, it is useless to speak of the other questions which arise out of the case. But now, Sir, the hon. member has withdrawn by your direction, I submit that, according to custom, and to reason, the construction which you have put upon the act, and the opinion to which you have come on the situation in which the hon. gentleman stands, ought to be so far subject to discussion as to allow the House to exercise their opinions on the subject; at all events, to the extent whether the hon. gentleman ought to be heard at the table or at the bar of the House. I repeat, without departing from the profound respect I owe to the chair, or from the disposition I entertain, to bow to its authority, that the hon. gentleman has a right to be heard; but it is a question of great importance, that no opinion of any individual member whether in the chair or out of it, ought to bind this House. The question at the present moment relates to the right of the member for Clare to be heard himself in that place, at the table. He ought, I say, to be heard at the table, as to his right to take his seat. Now, there are two or three precedents upon this point, to which I must beg shortly to direct your attention and the attention of the House. They appear to me to bear out the proposition which I submit to the House for their consideration. They will not assist in deciding the principal question, but they will serve as a guide in deciding on the preliminary point, as to whether the hon. member shall be heard at the table. The first case is that of sir Henry Monson, which took place on the 13th of May 1689, and the other is that of lord Fanshaw, which occurred on the same day. It appears by the Journals of the House, and by the account which remains of the proceedings which took place upon that occasion, that sir Henry Monson was at the table, and that some discussion, little or much, took place then; and that he was called in by order of the House, and asked, if he had any objection to take the usual oaths. He answered, that he had objections, but that they were entirely personal and in no way tended to the disturbance of the government. The House, it appears, was not satisfied with his explanation, and he was directed to withdraw. A discussion took place and the result was, that the seat was declared vacant and a new writ issued. But what I wish particularly to impress upon the House is, that which took place before the issuing of the writ; namely, that the party whose interests was more immediately concerned was heard at the table of the House, to state his own case before it was disposed of. In the case of Mr. Archdale a similar course was pursued. He stated that he could not in conscience take the oaths which were tendered, and a new writ issued. The same was the course pursued in the case of lord Fanshaw; but in all of them the party concerned had a hearing, and addressed the House from the table before he withdrew.^* The time which they occupied in explanation is of no importance. It is sufficient, that the individuals, in these cases, were heard at the table, previously to their being ordered to withdraw. I could not press this point before. But you, Sir, in the exercise of your discretion, having directed the hon. member for Clare to withdraw, it becomes competent for me to introduce the subject; and the question is, has the hon. member for Clare a right to be heard at the table? If so, we ought to have him recalled, and heard there; and then, if it should be your opinion, and that of the House, that he should withdraw, we shall be at liberty to deal with the main question. I think I need make no apology for stating what I have done in this stage of the business. It is a subject of the highest importance, and we ought not to act without the fullest deliberation. I have stated the impression, of my mind, which is founded as well on precedents as on the reason of the thing. As regards the hon. member, the case involves a very great hardship, because a high privilege, the highest civil right—is not taken from him, certainly—but it is, up to a certain extent, interfered with, without his being heard. I wish the House to decide this point; and that they may be enabled to do so, I shall move, "That Mr. O'Connell be called back, and heard at the table."

^* See Parl. Hist. vol. v. p. 253.

said, it was scarcely necessary for him to remind hon. members, that they were called upon, in the present case, to act in a strictly judicial character. What they had to decide on related to the law of parliament, and to the rights and privileges of the House of Commons. Now, in his view of the case, he had no doubt on his mind that the learned gentleman who had withdrawn was not in possession of the right to be heard at the table; because, if it were so, every person returned as a member of that House, who entertained any scruple with respect to any part of the oaths would have an equal right to state his objection in person. The law appeared to him to be plain and direct on this point. It expressly said, that a party, before he was entitled to take his seat, should be required to take certain oaths. Now, if that was the law, the individual refusing to take the appointed oaths, could not assume any of the functions to arrive at which it became necessary to take those oaths; and therefore he could not be heard at the table. No notice having been given of the intention of the learned gentleman to agitate this important question, he should hope, if the House entertained serious doubts on the subject, that they would not attempt to decide it on the present occasion. His own opinion was entirely against the existence of the alleged right. It appeared evident to him that no person who had not taken the preliminary oaths could act as a member of parliament, and be heard in that House. It was not necessary to go into the legal point; and he hoped that no hon. member would enter upon it that evening. In his opinion, they would best consult their own feelings, the dignity of the House, and the importance of the case, if they adjourned the decision of the question until Monday.

said, he agreed with the right hon. gentleman that it would be highly inexpedient and extremely precipitate to enter at once into a discussion as to the very important question, whether a Roman Catholic, being elected to serve in parliament prior to the passing of the late bill could take his seat in that House on taking the oath prescribed by the new act. The determination of that question would require deliberate investigation and discussion. The point now before them was whether the hon. member for Clare had a right to be heard at the table. He had no hesitation in saying, with respect to that point, that the precedents quoted by his hon. and learned friend were decisive in favour of allowing the hon. member to state his reasons for refusing to take certain oaths. It would not, indeed, be fit—it would not be consistent with the privileges of the House—that he should be allowed to speak or to perform any act as a member of parliament; but the act to which this motion referred, would be that of a person claiming to be admitted to parliament,—claiming to go through certain preliminaries to enable him to take his seat, but not doing any act as a member of that House. Now, in his opinion, there was no distinction; no difference the hon. member should be heard at the table or heard at the bar. But, as precedents had been spoken of, he begged leave to refer to the case of Mr. Wilkes. That gentleman having been returned as a member of parliament by a large majority, the House would not receive him, and declared that he was incapable of sitting. He presented a petition to the House, complaining of a breach of privilege, and the House decided to hear the petitioner make his defence. He asked the House "whether, situated as he was, he would not incur the penalties prescribed by different acts of parliament, if he came to the House for that purpose?" and the Speaker said, "It has been customary for petitioner to state the allegations of his petition without taking the oaths, and, in so doing, he is not guilty of any offence within the intent and meaning of the acts." Now, it was the same thing here; and he maintained, that every individual having a wrong to be redressed, should be heard either at the bar or at the table. In his opinion, however, it would be much better to adhere to the former course. It would be better to allow the honourable member, on his application, to state at the bar his reason for believing that he was entitled to take the new oaths and to act the old. It would be proper to hear him at the bar on that point like any other petitioner, or like any other person claiming any right of that House. He thought there was no question as to which way this should be done. If a petition or application were made, setting forth that the hon. member wished to state to the House the grounds on which he conceived that he ought to be admitted to sit in parliament on taking the new oaths (supposing the House not to know any thing whatever of the printed document which had been put into the hands of hon. members)—he was of opinion that the House should hear the application some shape or other. He did not care whether the hon. member was heard standing at the table or standing at the bar, but it was a principle, founded on all reason and on all precedent, that when an individual asked for his right, he should be allowed to state the grounds on which claimed it.

said, the question was, whether this gentleman had a right to be heard in his defence in that House. He did not think that he possessed any such right. It must be taken for granted, before such a proposition was conceded, that the 5th of Elizabeth had been repealed, which he was not disposed to admit. The 5th of Elizabeth applied to a member before he entered the House; and it provided, "that any person, who, having been elected to serve in parliament, shall presume to enter the House without having taken the oaths before the Lord High Steward, shall ipso facto be considered as having committed an act which shall render him incapable of serving as a member during that parliament." Now the hon. gentleman, not having conformed to that act, and having entered that House, was no longer a member of parliament. He knew not, therefore, how he could be heard at the table.

said, the House knew nothing of what had passed in the Steward's office, and could not therefore found its decisions upon that of which they had no certain knowledge. He understood the fact to be, however, that the hon. member for Clare had a certificate of having taken what he conceived to be sufficient, oaths before the proper officers. He should now take leave to suggest that, as the member for Clare had expressed his consent take some oaths whilst he objected to others, the House should give him permission to take the oaths which he did not object, leaving the question upon the others open as before.

observed, that his right hon. friend had said, that there was no material distinction between allowing the hon. gentleman to be heard at the table, or at the bar. He, however, could not but think that there was a very great difference. As there had been no time for consulting precedents, he should at once propose that the discussion be postponed till Monday.

said, that in order to enable the hon. gentleman to enter that House, he must previously go before the Lord Steward. Now, the fact that the hon. gentleman would not take the oaths before that officer wash avowed in his own publication.

said, the hon. and learned gentleman was calling on the House to act, in a delicate and difficult matter like this, not on an ascertained fact, but on a conjecture, drawn from a printed pamphlet, which might or might not bear out his conclusion. For how did they know whether, after that pamphlet was published, the hon. member for Clare might not have gone to the Steward's office, and taken certain oaths? He believed he had gone to that place, and that he did take certain oaths? With respect to what the right hon. gentleman said; namely, that this part of the case required grave consideration, he should only say, that whether the hon. member was heard at the table or at the bar, he must be heard.

On the question, "That the debate be adjourned till Monday" being put,

said:—Before I finally put the question, perhaps the House will not think me unreasonable, if, without anticipating any judgment to which the House may come in respect to the course I have pursued, I put them in possession of my reasons for adopting that course. The House on all sides agree, that the question in both its points—the construction of the law, and the right of hearing and the mode of hearing—is a matter requiring grave deliberation; and the best proof I have of that fact is the unanimity of feeling in favour of postponing this discussion. All I have to state to the House is, that though it is impossible for me to differ from them on the great importance of the question, and on the consequent necessity for deliberation, it was for them to appoint the time for deliberation; and not for the chair. The course which I pursued, under the circumstances of the case was, to take that line which the law of the country pointed out to me; knowing, that if I were in error, the House would set me right without prejudice to this gentleman. With respect to not hearing the individual at the table, I found myself on this—that I know of no instance where any person has been heard, without a decision of the House that he should be heard, short of his being a complete member of this House; and it was obvious, if a debate were going on, with a person thus situated standing on the floor of the House, that he might subject himself, not to the provisions of the statute of Elizabeth, but to those of the statute of Charles 2nd. This is the ground on which I stand. I do not advance any thing to prejudice the case itself, but merely state the ground on which I proceeded. There is one other subject on which I will make a single observation—that is, as to the oaths taken before the Lord Steward or his commissioners. The House are well aware, that the lord Steward and his commissioners are not officers of this House. The certificate received from them, that the person has taken the oaths, is put in by the person receiving it; therefore, it is impossible for the House to know, in its aggregate capacity, what oaths were taken; and when no evidence is given that improper oaths were taken, the presumption is, that the oaths taken were proper [hear].

said, the question simply was, whether the hon. member for Clare should be heard at the table or at the bar—a question which he thought ought to be settled at once. Because, in point of fact, if it were not decided to-day, another day would be lost; which he considered to be a great hardship on the hon. member for Clare, who would not be able during that time to know how he ought to proceed. Now, if the motion of his learned friend were adopted, the hon. member might have been allowed this evening to state at the table the grounds on which he hesitated to take the oath proffered by the clerk. It would not be necessary for them to decide hastily on the argument which he might adduce: nothing would, indeed, be more proper than an adjournment of the discussion, after the hon. member had been heard. But to adjourn without knowing what the hon. member's argument was appeared to be perfectly absurd. The hon. member for Clare could not be heard at the bar, or at the table, without an application. The motion before the House was a preliminary step, and the sooner it was decided the better. He confessed he saw no difficulty in the case, whether the hon. member was heard or not at the table. If not allowed to be heard at the table by a decision this evening, he might still be time enough to make an application to be heard at the bar; and the next step would be, to fix the day when he should be so heard. This was the most direct and consistent mode of proceeding. It was a question on which they ought to be prepared to come to an immediate decision. And if, as the Speaker had said, no precedents could be found—though he understood from his learned friend that there were some—that circumstance must render delay still less necessary. But, whether the precedents were more or less, or none at all, some opportunity ought to be given for explanation to the person refusing to take the oaths. In the three cases which had been quoted, the reasons given by the parties were very short; and, for any thing he knew, the reasons of the hon. member for Clare might be equally so. But, after a member had been reported, as regularly elected—after he had taken the oaths up stairs, the House in its wisdom, said—"We know not what to say or do," They ought, instead of putting off the discussion, to decide at once to hear the hon. member at the table; and if they decided differently, why then he might make his application to be heard at the bar. If they proceeded differently, the hon. member for Clare, who had tendered himself to be sworn, would perhaps be obliged to make his appearance again on another day, and be then placed in the same situation. He thought the House was able, at the present moment, to decide on what ought to be done.

was of opinion, that no blame ought to attach to any one who wished for delay. On matters of much less importance, regular notice was given of the question to be discussed, and he could not help thinking that, on a motion affecting the privileges of the House it was not unreasonable to ask for two days' delay to enable them to decide whether an individual refusing to take the oaths was entitled to be heard at the table, at the bar, or at all. Now, hearing great authorities differ in opinion on this subject, was, he thought, an additional reason, and a strong one, for adjourning the discussion. After the Speaker had stated his opinion that he was not aware of any precedent where a member refusing to take the oaths was heard at the table, without the previous decision of the House, it was certainly better, that a short pause should be allowed.

said, that no one objected to the postponement of the decision on the legal question. All concurred in the propriety of taking that course; but that was no reason why they should not, in the first instance, hear the objections which the hon. member for Clare had to state against taking the oaths. Let the House look at the predicament in which it was placed. A gentleman legally elected came to the table, and he was there debarred, by the interposition of the Speaker, from being heard at the table. He was thus so far suspended in the exercise of a right. But what followed? A motion was made that he should be heard, and it was next proposed that that motion should be postponed. Now, if the hon. member were allowed to state his reasons for refusing the oaths, that would form a good ground for adjourning, in order that they might consider those reasons. In fact, their proceedings would be greatly facilitated, by permitting the hon. member to put the House in possession of the reasons which prevented him from taking the oaths. Whether that statement was made at the table, or at the bar, he thought of no consequence. In pursuing this course they were injuring not only the hon. member, but his constituents; who had withheld from them the right of representation.

said, the question was how this gentleman should be heard. Until that was decided, how could they get his statement? Until they knew whether he should be heard at the table or at the bar, they could not come at his reasons for refusing the oaths.

said, the important question was, whether the member for Clare should be heard at the bar or at the table of the House.

said, that whatever doubt might exist as to the mode of proceeding to be adopted there did not seem to be any as to the proceeding itself. He was glad to see that, whether the honourable member for Clare was to be heard at the table or at the bar, it seemed the unanimous opinion that he ought to be heard in some part of the House.

said, he believed that lord Fanshaw had been sent for by the Speaker. He was asked, whether he would take the oaths; and having answered no, he was asked his reasons. He gave them and withdrew, and his seat was vacated.

had no hesitation in saying, that he had not formed a confident opinion upon all points, in the cases of Fanshaw and Monson. He knew that the latter had been a member of the convention parliament, which was an illegal assembly, until its acts were legalized by the subsequent parliament, constitutionally convened. The cases of these two individuals might differ from that of Archdale, the Quaker. Fanshaw and Monson's cases were in point with the present—possibly that of Archdale might be different. He had no objection to accede to the motion of postponement, but he had no idea that any man could entertain the notion that the hon. member was not to be heard at all, though a difference of opinion might exist as to the propriety of hearing him at the bar, or at the table. The idea of not hearing the hon. member at all, appeared to him quite impossible.

said, he was instructed by the hon. member for Clare, to state, that he claimed the privilege of being heard before the House in support of his claims.

The debate was adjourned till Monday.

said, he looked upon this as an absurd and ridiculous bill. It was called a Bill for Enlarging Smithfield Market, and yet it contained no clause for enlarging it. Besides this, all the recommendations of the committee had been neglected. He should therefore move, that the report be received this day three months.

said, that the bill effected much benefit in preventing carriages passing through Smithfield on market-days, and in changing the market-days, from Friday to Thursday.

said, that as the bill was only to last two years, he would support it as an experiment. The change of the market day would be a great convenience, and equalize the supply to the market.

objected to the bill, as it would delay the removal of the Market, without which no real good would be done.

opposed the bill, as it would have the effect of diverting public attention from the intolerable nuisance of driving beasts through the streets, to the danger of passengers.

supported the bill, as it conferred a benefit without imposing any additional burthen on the public.

said, that practical men were in favour of the bill; and as he believed it to be a beneficial measure, it should have his support.

thought the bill ought to be encouraged, or that hon. members ought to suggest a better.

was opposed to the bill, and wished to see the market removed from its present site.

thought the market a nuisance, and that it was supported by the corporation only because it brought a considerable income.

believed that, if this bill were thrown out, it would not be long before they would see the market removed to a more convenient spot.

said, that the Corporation had come down to parliament on eleven occasions respecting this market; on two for its removal, and on nine for its improvement, and they had always been unsuccessful. Their parliamentary expenses had amounted to no less than 10,000l. They were desirous of doing all that was required of them by the report that had been made on the subject. They had already made arrangements which which were burthensome to them, but advantageous to the public.

The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 54. The further consideration of the report was put off for three months.

, adverting to the bill which he had introduced on this subject, observed, that his object had been greatly misunderstood, and much prejudice had been excited against him in consequence. It was imagined that what he proposed went to abridge the freedom of individuals to act in their own concerns as they pleased. Nothing could be more unfounded. No man could be more attached to perfect freedom of action in every concern of life than he was. It was one thing to allow men to do as they pleased in their own affairs, but when they came for privileges not given to others, the House was bound not to grant them, except on such conditions as might not prove injurious to others.

, regretted that it should have fallen to his lot to have brought forward this measure instead of his right hon. friend, who, he was satisfied, was actuated by no other desire but that of benefitting the members of friendly societies. The prejudice against the bill introduced last session, however, was so strong that it was greatly to be feared that any measure of this nature associated with the right hon. gentleman's name would be met by opposition.

proposed an amendment to the second clause, to the effect that no rules for friendly or benefit societies should be allowed by magistrates in quarter session, unless the tables were founded on calculations which might be adopted with safety to all parties. He had seen much distress and misery brought on individuals who had subscribed to friendly societies; but who found, when too late, that they had been calculated on data which could not go on with advantage to the subscribers.

said, that the duty which his right hon. friend would wish to impose on the magistrates was exactly that from which he would wish to relieve them. He thought they ought not to be called upon to give their sanction to any tables; because none had yet been made applicable to such societies, on which reliance could be placed. The sanction of the magistrates could not make the tables a fraction more accurate, or the society more secure. The two clauses which he had introduced would, he thought, be quite sufficient. One was, that every society should present annually an account of the state of its funds to the members, who would thus have an opportunity of judging of the situation in which they stood. The next was, that quinquennially there should be presented from each society an account of the mortality and sickness amongst its members. By this means we should in time arrive at the rate of mortality among the working classes.

The clause was agreed to and the House resumed.

begged the hon. member to withdraw his bill, which was perfectly inapplicable to the present circumstances of the country. He was aware there was no intention to carry the bill to the Lords during the present session; if so, there was little use in carrying it any further in that House. He recognized the extent of the evil resulting from the practice of mixing up the wages of labour with the poor-rates; but the hon. gentleman should recollect the state of things which had given rise to that practice; and, considering this, he was satisfied the proposed measure would not remedy the evil.

thought, his hon. friend did well to press the bill forward. It was desirable that an opportunity should be afforded for examining its provisions in the committee. Whatever objections were entertained to the measure could be then brought forward, and, if well-founded, might be obviated. He was aware of the difficulty of bringing the bill into practical operation; but what improvement was it possible to devise in the state of the poor-laws in which difficulties would not be found? The bill, he was satisfied, would confer a great benefit on the country. The only persons who could oppose it were those who approved of paying the wages of labour out of the poor-rates. To prevent that was the object of this bill; and upon this ground he supported it.

approved of the principle of the bill, but thought that great difficulties would be met with in an attempt to carry its provisions into effect in the manufacturing districts. He did not deny that labourers were paid out of the poor-rates in them, as well as in the agricultural; but the distinction was, that in the agricultural the poor-rates were made a means of reducing the wages of the labourer, while in the manufacturing districts the labourers were only paid out of the rates, when their wages were considered to be insufficient for their support. He apprehended, indeed, that the difficulties which arose in making any sudden reduction in the number manufacturers in any establishment created such a difference between them and the agriculturists, as would materially impede the execution of the hon. gentleman's measure.

, although he foresaw some objections to the bill, conceived they were capable of being obviated in the committee. It was a thousand pities that things had gone on, with respect to the poor-laws, so long in the beaten track; and he hoped the hon. member would not be persuaded to withdraw his bill.

said, that they ought to take care not to make the law worse than it was, instead, of better. He denied the averment of the bill, that the wages of the labourer were paid out of the poor-rates. The payments made to the labourers out of the poor-rates were made on account of their children. The object which the bill had in view was, in his opinion, impracticable. But, if the price of labour could be raised by withdrawing labourers from the market, the vacuum would soon be filled up by those whom it would be impracticable to get rid of; and greater distress than at present existed would be occasioned. The bill would be injurious to the agriculturist, but it would be still more so to the manufacturer. Many thousands were now working for the manufacturerer at 4s. a week; for it could not be expected, that he would give more than the labour was worth to him. Even the provisions of the bill, as to who should have relief, were ill-digested; for it might be harder for a poor man at one time to maintain two children than at another to maintain three. The whole of the bill seemed to him to be a departure from the principle which hitherto had regulated our poor-laws, and he therefore felt himself called up to resist it, or any other attempt to legislate on a subject of such importance with so little caution and deliberation.

was persuaded the effect of the bill would be, to throw very shortly the whole of the married labourers out of employment, unless a compulsory clause were added to it, requiring farmers and others to take into their employment a certain number of married labourers at a rate of wages far higher than unmarried labourers received.

denied that his hon. friend had shewn any hurry in the introduction of the present measure. It was the produce of the committee, who had sat during the greater part of last session, and had come to the conclusion that this was the best remedy for many of the evils which existed under the present system of poor-laws. All that the bill did, was to compel a man, if he employed labourers, to pay them. By the abuse of the poor-laws, many labourers, in some parts of the country, were compelled to labour for much less than the fair reward of their exertions. He denied that the bill interfered with the principle of the poor-laws; it only corrected the abuse of those laws. The principal object was, to prevent the practice which prevailed of paying the labourers' wages out of the poor-rates. The scales of payment which, in some districts, the magistrates had framed, were most pernicious. If such a practice increased the price of labour, or tended to multiply the comforts of the labourer, he should be far from objecting to it; but it had not that effect. Hon. members talked of raising the moral character of the population; but that was not to be effected by giving the single man 4s. or 5s. a week for doing the same work for which the married man got 10s. The system at present acted on was a bounty to the single men to get married as soon as possible and have half a dozen children. The best way to improve the morals of the people was, to show them that their rewards depended on their own exertions. He hoped the hon. member would persevere and carry the bill through the House.

The House went into the committee. On the first clause the committee divided; Ayes 39; Noes 11. The other Clauses were agreed to.

moved, that it be an instruction to the committee, that it be empowered to repeal so much of the act 9 Geo. 4th, c. 31, as empowers judges to order the bodies of murderers to be given over for dissection.

said, that as he had reason to believe that the fate of this bill, depended upon its containining no such provision, he should oppose the motion.

said, he should decidedly oppose this measure, which gave over the bodies of the poor and friendless to the surgeon.

said, that the clauses of the bill were permissive only, and not compulsory and that the measure would be beneficial to the poor, as well as to the rest of the community.

said, he had gone into the committee on this bill as much prejudiced against it as any man could be, but that the evidence had completely removed his prejudices.

After a short conversation, the House divided: for the Instruction 8, against it 40. The bill was then committed.