presented a Petition from the Merchants, manufacturers, and Dealers in Tobacco in Bristol, against the measure for imposing so small a duty as 1s. 8d. per pound upon homegrown Tobacco. The petitioners stated that the expense of cultivation had been over-rated, and was not such as to entitle home-grown Tobacco to the protection this low rate of duty would afford it, and they prayed that it should be made liable to the same duty as Foreign Tobacco.

observed, that the statement of the petitioners, as to the small expense of cultivating Tobacco at home, could be only attributed to their ignorance on the subject. The expense of cultivation was very great, and he knew himself an instance where the expense of cultivating one acre of Tobacco, in the county of Wick low, amounted to 10l. If the proposed measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should pass into a law, it would be fraught with greater injury to Ireland than any measure that had been enacted these fifty years. That cultivation, at present, afforded considerable employment to the peasantry of Ireland, and to talk of exporting the Irish peasantry because they wanted employment, while employment was to be taken from them by taxation, was a legislative absurdity. The greatest excitement prevailed on the subject in Ireland, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not think of carrying into execution a measure fraught with ruin to that country.

, in presenting a Petition from the cultivators of Tobacco, residing in the town of Enniscorthy (county of Wexford), praying that no duty might be levied on Tobacco grown in Ireland, and signed by nearly 100 gentlemen of respectability observed, that he had felt it his duty to make inquiries into the subject of growing Tobacco in Ireland, and he had not met with a single person who was not convinced that the amount of duty was such as would amount to a total prohibition of the cultivation. The petitioners stated, that they were ready to bring forward evidence to prove this point, and they observed, that to prohibit that culti- vation would be very injurious to Ireland, for it employed a great number of persons, particularly young persons, for whom, otherwise, no employment could be found. Another fact, of considerable importance, was, that since the cultivation of Tobacco in Ireland, smuggling Tobacco, which formerly existed in the county of Wexford to a great extent, had entirely ceased, and it was to be apprehended that a duty would revive that demoralizing practice. He was also prepared to contend, that such a duty as would amount to the prohibition of the cultivation of Tobacco would be contrary to the Act of Union, which prohibited the levying any duties on the produce of Ireland, but such as were just and reasonable. The petitioners prayed that the House would not legislate on the subject without examining witnesses, whose experience concerning the growth of Tobacco would enable them to give the House satisfactory information.

supported the prayer of; the Petition, and declared that the duty would annihilate the cultivation of Tobacco in Ireland.

presented a Petition from the Bankers, Traders, and other inhabitants of Royston, praying for the abolition of the punishment of death in cases of Forgery.

would take the opportunity to express his satisfaction at seeing the number of petitions coming in from such quarters for the mitigation of the severity of the forgery laws. It was most gratifying to observe, that those persons who had formerly thought it their interest to oppose any such measure, and more particularly the traders and dealers in a paper currency, were now becoming generally favourable to it. The bankers throughout the country were reviewing their former opinions, and getting gradually rid of the prejudice which had hitherto induced them to suppose that the punishment of death, in cases of forgery, afforded security and support to the credit of a paper currency. He had, within the last week, occasion to look through a very extensive correspondence upon the subject, from various parts of the country, and from persons situated as he had described, and he should soon have to present several petitions from bankers and traders, in which they express their con- viction that the continuance of the punishment of death for forgery was injurious instead of beneficial to their interests: he should have to present petitions signed by the most respectable bankers and traders, in which they call upon the House to pause before it passed a bill, allowing the punishment of death to remain for certain cases of forgery; and they assign as a reason, that the severity of the law, instead of preventing forgery and protecting paper securities, tends to promote the crime, by preventing punishment, and thereby affording indemnity to the offenders. They did not go upon any abstract principle of religion, or upon any view of humanity; they came forward as practical men, to object to the continuance of a punishment which they found to be injurious to their trade and interests. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite would have any objection to a postponement of the discussion upon the principle of his bill for some time longer, so as to afford an opportunity for the presentation of the various petitions which were in progress to that House upon the subject. The bill might be read a second time without discussion, upon the understanding that the discussion should be had in another stage of the bill, and in that way no unnecessary delay would occur.

had no objection to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member. The discussion, as he proposed, might be taken in the committee; he wished, however, then to remark, that in proposing to reduce the number of cases to which the punishment of death should be applied, his bill did not go to create any new capital punishment. The principle of his bill was a consolidation of the criminal law with regard to forgery. For the convenience of hon. Members, he should not object to a postponement of the discussion upon the bill for a fortnight, but certainly not to a more distant period. The bill might now be read a second time, and the discussion would take place in committee upon the clause for retaining the punishment of death in certain cases of forgery.

had no objection to that arrangement, on the understanding that no Member was pledged to the principle of the bill by not opposing the second reading of it.

presented a Petition from Kingston-upon-Thames; he said it prayed a revision of that part of the criminal law which inflicted capital punishment with respect to property. He stated that the petition was signed, not only by the magistracy, but a long list of the more respectable bankers and persons engaged in trade in the place. He rejoiced to have it in his power cordially to support the prayer of this petition, against laws which were ineffectual for their object, while they were hurtful to the feelings, and disgraceful to the character of the country. He was most happy to sec an intelligent and weighty class of the community come forward, when those laws which had long been the objects of the silent horror of all Christian and enlightened minds were about to be submitted to Parliament for re-adoption as part of the code of the country.

presented a Petition from the East-India Company against the Madras Registrar's Bill. The petitioners complained that the principle of the Bill was most unjust, and they prayed to be heard by counsel against it. The hon. Member moved that the petitioners be heard by counsel at the Bar against the second reading of the Bill.

would not oppose the Motion for the petitioners being heard against the Bill, but he merely rose to say, that this was a case of great hardship, in which a gentleman of advanced age and reduced fortune had been for thirteen years a suitor in the Court of the Directors, and in that House, for redress, on account of losses which he had suffered in consequence of the malversation of one of their public officers in India. At the same time, he could not recall to mind without great pain, the share which he had in creating that delay, and he should not willingly consent to postpone the Bill any further, so as to cut away the probability of it being passed during this year. In every thing short of that delay, he should be most happy to consult the convenience of the hon. Member who had just spoken. He candidly confessed that he wished to have this Bill sent up to the Lords before that period when a general massacre of all bills was committed by their Lordships on account of the old age of the Session. He had first thought of postponing the discussion of the Bill till Wednesday next, but he had discovered, by diligent research, that there were another set of gentlemen, besides his Majesty's Ministers, who dined together every Wednesday, and who had quite as much objection to having their festivities interrupted by the calls of business. He did not intend to quarrel with their weekly festivities, as he understood that they had a tendency to harmonize minds sometimes brought into collision by the preceding occurrences of the week, and to lead them to a more serious performance of duties, too important to be neglected, by dissipating the tedium which occasionally arose during its continuance. He repeated that he had first thought of postponing the Bill till Wednesday next, but in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member, he would fix Wednesday se'nnight for its discussion, subject to this understanding—that if it were possible to obtain on another day time for its discussion, which he did not conceive would last two or three hours, he would take it then.

wondered how the right hon. and learned Gentleman could reconcile it to himself to fix his bill for Wednesday se'nnight, after the strong and unanswerable reasons which he had given for not bringing it on at all on a Wednesday.

, on moving that this Bill be read a second time, said, that he wished to have it sent to a committee up stairs, in order to have the machinery of it properly regulated. He wished, also, to exempt from its operation the metropolis, the different parishes adjoining the metropolis, and all those parishes, in different parts of the country, which had the benefit of local acts for the same object.

objected to this clause, stating, that it involved a question of the utmost importance, and which required the most serious consideration. He never remembered any similar clause in any former enactment, and he was afraid the Members were not aware of its import. Such a proposition had indeed been agitated in former committees, but never sanctioned, he believed, by a recommendation from them. It was one to which he never did and never would consent. It authorised the parish overseers to take away their children from the poor, and provide for them, and educate them. Good God! was it not enough that these people were poor? must the legislature also deprive them of their children? The great mass of the labouring classes were already too much degraded; and to take away their offspring from them would cut asunder all the ties which yet bound them to good behaviour, and connected them with the rest of the world. The clause was, in his opinion, so objectionable, so likely to be destructive of all good feelings in the poor, that he was bound to oppose it.

said, that he took shame to himself that he had not before made himself acquainted with the Bill. He had only read it after he had entered the House, and he must say, that he never remembered so improper an instance of legislative interference. The hon. Member who brought in the bill assumed that the poor married because they knew that their children would be provided for. He did not believe that assumption to be well founded; but if it were, he took the readiest method to encourage them to do so, for he expressly declared by this clause, that their children should be educated and provided for, though separated from themselves. The clause was not only objectionable on the score of cruelty, it was also impolitic, and would not answer the only end for which it was proposed. He should most certainly object to that clause, and unless it were omitted, he should oppose the Bill altogether.

said, no person who was at all acquainted with the country, and with the habits and manners of the people, could support such a clause. The Gentleman who had introduced it could not, he was persuaded, know anything of the people he attempted to legislate for. He believed that it would promote early mar- riages, and make the people utterly regardless of their children. At present they did take some little care of them, and how they might provide for them was a consideration with many before they married; but if the clause were carried, they would be deprived of every motive, both for abstaining from marriage, and for taking care of their offspring. It was impossible that such a clause as that could be allowed to remain in the Bill.

only wished to explain to the Committee how the clause was introduced into the Bill. The committee which sat up stairs to make inquiries into the state of the poor, had been informed by several persons who were examined—which was indeed a well-known matter of fact—that a great many of the poor were so very badly off, that they could not provide for their own children; they were brought up therefore at the expense of the parish, either at their own homes, or in the parish workhouse. Being neglected, therefore, receiving little or no education, these children when they grew up came, in their turn, to be the parents of beings as destitute as themselves. They, therefore, perpetuated the evil of pauperism, and it was supposed by the committee, that one means, and which appeared to the committee a feasible, a proper, and, he would add, a humane means of checking that evil would be, to take the children of such parents as were quite unable to provide for them, and by educating them, raise them above the miserable condition of their parents. This was the view of the committee; in this, he must say, he saw nothing cruel, nothing deserving the censure of hon. Members. It should be always remembered that the clause applied only to those children whose parents were quite unable to provide for them.

expressed his satisfaction that a clause of the kind under consideration had been introduced into the Bill, because it involved that great principle of population which the House must sooner or later be called on to take into consideration. He was very much obliged to his hon. friend for having introduced the clause. The question the House would have to consider would be, the relation between the capital of the country and its population; between the means of employment, and the number of labourers, with a view of making them equal, and keeping one from outgrowing the other. At present it was admitted, that the demand for labour was not equal to the supply—that the supply was in fact excessive—that population was superabundant; and it was also admitted, that as long as that superabundance continued, all the means which could be invented for improving the condition of the poor would be only palliatives, which would probably in the end render the disease more virulent. He did not know that the particular clause was otherwise worthy the attention of the House, except as it involved this great principle, but involving that, and leading the House, compelling it, in fact, to look at the source of the evil, he would give it his support. He hoped the Bill would pass.

said, he thought Gentlemen who objected to this clause on the score of inhumanity, and who stated that it was unexampled in legislature—who, like the hon. member for Cricklade, had taken the Bill into his hands for the first time that evening, must be quite unacquainted with the fact, that the House had actually passed a bill with this clause in it, or one precisely similar in principle, in 1816. That bill was lost in another place. He did not mean, however, to state that the House, having before given its consent to such a measure, was then bound to support this clause. In fact, he could not vote for it, and he would state why: he knew that by the 43rd of Elizabeth, the overseers had the power of setting an able-bodied pauper to work, but they could not set his infant children to work; and as they were bound to give the means of supporting the children, they gave it to the father, being unable to give it to the children, so that for the maintenance of his children, though not on his own account, he did in fact obtain the money. To obviate this, it was proposed to establish institutions where pauper children were to be fed, and clothed, and educated; but he thought such a system could never be effected, because it broke through all those ties that nature imposed. It had been said, indeed, that the children of the rich were thus separated from their parents; but every one must perceive the difference between the master of an institution where the children were on principle taught to look to others than their natural protectors, and those nurses and schoolmasters whom the rich employed to bring up their children, and whose interest was most closely connected with the welfare and good condition of the children intrusted to their management. He utterly despaired of the success of any such establishment, though no one entertained a more decided conviction than he did, that the present system of Poor-laws was fraught with destruction to property. The system of retarding the increase of population was recommended, and he thought with some reason, as he especially believed, that it could not be better put into operation than when the labouring classes were not overwhelmed with active and pressing distress. The other system—that of encouraging the increase of the population—had been the favourite scheme in Mr. Pitt's time, and it was only in late years that the people had been informed that the procreation of children, without the means of supporting them, was a great evil and a great offence. He thought the best thing to adopt in the administration of the Poor-laws, would be to diminish the power of magistrates in granting relief. The reason why the Poor-laws were not so mischievously overwhelming in Scotland as in England was, that their administration was in the hands of those who provided the rates. It was from the opposite system that the payment of wages out of the rates had arisen. The interference of magistrates with the relief of the poor was only a recent practice, and at first intended to act as a check upon the expenditure of the rates; but it turned out that they were the worst instruments that could have been employed, for they confirmed and extended the evils. In his opinion, the owners of small cottages, who built them on speculation, and not the occupier, ought to be charged with the rates; they obtained the rent of these cottages from the rates. The fact was proved by a case mentioned before the Emigration Committee, from which it appeared, that the owners of these cottages were persons, who, having the management of the rates, let out the cottages to paupers, and took the amount of the rent from the sums allotted for the support of their pauper tenants. The witness who stated this fact was asked, what would happen if funds were provided to clear the parish of paupers, and he answered, that the owners would pull down the cottages, as they would not suffer the paupers of other parishes to inhabit them. Large manufacturers, who had the management of the rates, and who possessed cottages of this description, filled their manufactories with apprentices, and they furnished the means of filling the cottages with paupers. He said, that the remedy for this was to charge the landlord with rates for these cottages. He recommended the hon. Member to consider these various matters, and to revise his Bill, some of the parts of which he was willing to support.

thought that the clause for separating the children from their parents, never could be carried into effect; and if it could, it would be productive of more harm than good.

, having acted as a magistrate in a large district for thirty years, begged to deny some of the statements that had just been made. With respect to the plan of bringing back the Poor-laws to the state in which they were in the reign of Elizabeth, he should approve of it if it were practicable; but he feared it was not, for the state of the country was much changed since that time. We were then an agricultural people, having no surplus labourers; now we were a manufacturing people, working by machinery, and having a large surplus population; and we were thus reduced to straits, from which we knew not how to escape, but by a better administration of the present system. An hon. Member had called some of the payments now made an assignment of wages out of the Poor-rates: he denied it. The value of labour was regulated by the proportion of the supply to the demand, and no law of this description could alter it. A pauper with several children could not support himself upon 8s. per week, and if he received only that sum in wages, he required 8s. more from the parish, to support him and his family. The hon. Member charged the giving of such a sum to a working labourer us a grievous fault committed by the magistrates of the South and West of England, and said that the parish allowance was given in aid of wages. No magistrates could compel the farmer to give a higher rate of wages to his labourer than was required by the state of the market for labour. If that were not sufficient to support the labourer, the parish was obliged to give something for the maintenance of his children, which it must support in some way or other. He did not think that there was, properly speaking, so much a superabundance of labour as a want of demand for it, arising from circumstances to which he would not further allude. But as to the payment of money to a labourer whose wages were insufficient to maintain him, he believed that custom had so established that mode of relief, that we could not now depart from it. It would be useless, as some imagined, to employ such paupers in unproductive labour to the amount of the money given them; and it would be better for all, that the labourers should be employed in productive labour, especially as the agriculturists were the class who contributed most to the Poor-rates. He did not approve of the plan of sending men abroad, for he believed that would only produce a reaction on the population. He did not think the present Bill practicable at this moment; but he believed that great good might be attained by giving a stimulus to agriculture, and by taking off those obstacles that now existed to the cultivation of waste lands. He did not agree to the plan of rating the owners instead of the occupiers of small tenements. He knew several men of property—and could name them if he pleased—who had received money from the Poor-rates under a bad system of administration; and in such men there would be no check if poorer men had no interest in keeping down the amount of the rates. He therefore thought that the occupiers of tenements, whom he had generally found punctual in their attendance at vestries, ought to pay the rates, and then they would have an interest in keeping them clown. Besides, he saw no reason why small proprietors should be liable to pay rates for their cottages, when the occupiers and not the owners of large houses and extensive properties paid the rates. On the whole, though he approved of the principle of the measure, he was obliged to dissent from many of its details.

was willing to assent to the Bill, provided it were accompanied with the clause recommended by the right hon. member for Ashburton (Mr. Sturges Bourne). That clause, a few years ago, had been brought forward in the shape of a separate measure, and the object of it was, to provide, instead of giving paupers increased wages when their families amounted to a certain number, that some of their children, if not wholly taken from them, should at least be supported and educated by the parish. The clause suggested did not necessarily require the separation of the parents from their children; and he thought, that not merely paupers, but persons above that rank, would consider it a boon to have their families thus taught, fed, and clothed. Supposing, however, that they were separated, the hardship, for such an object, would not be great; and many parents in this metropolis, who had sons at Christ's Hospital were content to make the sacrifice of their children's society in order that they might be well educated. The intention of the separate measure to which he had alluded was, to return as nearly as possible to the letter of the 43rd of Elizabeth, which pro- vided for setting to work children whose parents were not able to support them; and he conceived, without the clause under discussion, which was precisely similar to the principal enactment of the measure he had alluded to, the remedial part of the present Bill would be useless. It was his opinion, that the measure never could come effectually into operation without the clause, but with it, he was willing that the experiment of raising the wages of the poor should be tried. At the same time he was convinced, that the hon. Mover would be disappointed in his hopes on this part of the subject. Although he supported the Bill, he heartily joined with the hon. Baronet in a determination not to abandon the industrious poor and their families.

was anxious to preserve a moral check upon the poor man, in order to prevent his marrying until he was in a situation to maintain a family. At pre-sent, if a labourer married, he knew that his children must be supported by the parish, if he could not support them him- self. The principle of separating parents and children had been adopted in a clause already approved by the Committee, so that, if it were now objected to successfully, the Bill must be re-committed, in order to remedy the discrepancy. The Bill did not at all deprive the pauper of relief; it only declared that the relief should be given entirely as the parish thought fit, and not partly in a weekly allowance in money, and partly in educating and feeding his children. He was anxious that the Bill should be made prospective, and if it were rendered so he should give it his decided support.

observed, that as the law now stood, it allowed the separation of paupers and their children, for the purpose of being apprenticed by the parish; but that was quite a different thing to separat ing them for the purposes of board and education.

said, that if he thought the effect of his Bill would be to depress instead of elevating the character of the poor of this country, he would abandon it at once and instantly. He had read every report of every committee, and every work of reputation on the subject, and founding himself upon them, he had brought forward this Bill, in the hope of remedying acknowledged and existing abuses. After investigating all parts of the question, the committee, of which he had the honour to be Chairman, had come to the almost unanimous determination, that it was necessary to face the evil and to point out a remedy. That remedy was the Bill before the House, and he had proceeded cautiously, but steadily and firmly, in endeavouring to bring it into operation. The abuses of the Poor-laws were not, as some supposed, general; they were confined very much to the south of England, for in the North they were very beneficial in their operation. In the last Session an objection had been taken by the right hon. member for Ashburton (Mr. S. Bourne), and in order to obviate that objection, certain clauses were introduced, not recommended by the committee; but on the authority of the right hon. Chairman of the Committee of 1817, who had published one of the most valuable reports ever laid upon the Table of Parliament. The object of the present Bill was, to restore some parts of the south of England to the present condition of the North, as related to the maintenance of the poor. The magistrates of the south, in the teeth of the law, and acting upon a mistaken notion of humanity and benevolence, had apportioned the relief of the poor by the price of bread, and this principle had been introduced into about sixteen or seventeen counties. The effect had been in all those situations to degrade the poor, and to render them indifferent and dependent, while in the north of England, where no such practice prevailed, they were still independent, honest, and industrious. All that he asked was, that by this Bill a wholesome uniformity might, in this respect, be established. The hon. member for Radnor (Mr. F. Lewis) had contended, indeed, that the admitted evil was so extensive, that no remedy could be applied to it; but he (Mr. Slaney) hoped that this measure, if adopted, would accomplish the change without injury or violence. By its provisions nothing was taken from the pauper. He had still his right to relief, but the form of that relief was changed. Instead of money, he was provided with work to earn it; and his children, instead of being neglected, were to be fed, clothed, and educated. He trusted that the House would at least permit the Bill to go through the present stage. The existing law took away all reason for forethought, as respected the marriages of the labouring classes, who argued thus—"If we cannot maintain our families, the rates must." Of course this feeling led to improvident marriages, to an enormous increase of the population, and to a depression of wages, with a correspondent augmentation of the poor-rates. He was happy to add, that he had received letters from various parts of the country, where attempts had been made to retrace steps hastily taken, stating, that the system had been revised, and that a beneficial change was already apparent. The hon. member for Wilts (Mr. Benett) had said, that the present was the worst time that could have been chosen for bringing in such a bill; but surely that hon. Gentleman's experience must have taught him that no course could be worse calculated to do permanent good than to resort to measures only when they were rendered necessary by the urgency of temporary pressure. The Bill had already been two years under consideration; and if adopted, it would gradually but effectually draw a broad line of distinction between labourers who married because they knew their children must be supported by the parish, and those who married with a fair prospect of being able to provide for their increasing families. He had not heard a single argument to weaken his confidence in the Bill; and he trusted that the House would not hastily and inconsiderately reject what had been founded upon the mature deliberations of no less than five different committees.

gave the hon. Member credit for the ability and perseverance he had shown upon this subject, although he was convinced that it would be impossible to carry the Bill into effect, even if it were passed. He maintained that in Gloucestershire the magistrates had no choice but to regulate the degree of relief by the price of bread. No comparison could fairly be instituted between the South and. the North of England, inas- much as the population in the one was much less dense than in the other. He resided in a very populous county, and had means of considerable information with reference to the object of the Bill. He had given the question much attention, and the result of that was, that no enactment would be required if the 43rd of Elizabeth were acted up to. Here was a case in which they had a large body of manufacturers to provide for, who were thrown out of employment; and what could be done for them, except to afford them a parish allowance? Though making these observations, he begged not to be understood as objecting to the whole of the Bill; he wished to see the Bill divided into parts, and he should have no objection to support the latter part of it. He thought that if they went no further than to fix the rent at 10l., and made the owners of all houses let at a less sum than that, and not the occupiers, pay the rates, all would be effected that could be wished. He should be sorry to see the whole of the Bill negatived, or at least he should regret to see the latter part entirely abandoned.

said, he was sorry that there had not been a preliminary discussion—that they had not discussed the principle of the Bill before they went into committee upon it. At present, instead of paying all that attention to the clauses which it was the practice of the House to pay in committees, they had occupied themselves chiefly with discussing the principle of the Bill; thus reversing the usual course of business, by leaving to the third reading the arrangement of the clauses, and occupying the time of the Committee with that which ought to be done at the third reading. He wished, therefore, that the hon. Mover would endeavour, in the Committee, to render the Bill as perfect as possible according to his own conception, and then let it take its fate on the third reading. The hon. Gentleman had expressed his readiness to do all in his power to meet the views of Members, and so to frame or alter the Bill as to obtain general support: in doing so, he more indulged his own good nature than did what was calculated to promote the success of the Bill. He really thought that the object of the hon. Member would be best effected by making the Bill as perfect as possible, according to his own conception, and not by endeavouring to accommodate it to the fancies of every hon. Member. Though he saw much matter for serious consideration in the Bill before the Committee, yet he should be far from throwing any obstacles in the way of its passing through that stage; and he should be extremely sorry to say anything that could prejudice it on the third reading; but he must be allowed to say, that he doubted whether the hon. Member could accomplish what he had in view—namely, making the condition of the South resemble that of the North, by the introduction for a time, of an intermediate system not now in use in either. No one could doubt, that the hon. Member's object was a very laudable one; and wishing, as he did, every success to the hon. Member, still he entertained doubts with respect to the propriety of some of the details of the measure before them. He thought, in fact, that by this measure the hon. Member would introduce into the South a plan which did not exist in the North. The manner in which the reception, care, and education of children were provided for in this Bill was unknown in the North. He had his doubts with respect to the propriety of the power given by this Bill, of separating the children from their parents. In cases where the parents were persons of profligate character, the separation might be advantageous; but where the parish had provided houses for the reception of children, he was afraid this power of separating children from their parents would be exercised indiscriminately, and that the overseer would make no difference between the careless and profligate, and the industrious and affectionate parent. Overbearing necessity might justify this power of separation; but at the first blush of the question, and as a general measure, he was decidedly opposed to it. In some cases it would doubtless be consulting the morality and the interests of the children to separate them from their parents; but there were many cases in which he should be extremely sorry to see such a power exercised. He doubted, also, if it would not prove an expensive system, and he therefore entreated the Committee well to consider that point before they proceeded further with the Bill. He understood it as conferring certain powers upon the parish officers, until the practice of the South should be assimilated to that of the North—it gave them a power of founding a school, in which they could place all children on whose behalf parochial relief was demanded, from the age of seven to fourteen, and fixed it entitely under the management pf the parish officers. Whenever relief was asked for any child from the parish, he was perfectly ready to admit that from that moment the parish officers were entitled to interfere with its daily education, namely, with the education which they might receive at a day school; but beyond that, he much questioned the expediency of interference. He had had some experience on this subject in Ireland, in respect of an establishment which undertook not alone to provide for the education, but for the clothing and employment of the children committed to its care; and he must confess, that the result of that experience was by no means favourable to the practice. One of the difficulties which it presented was this, that when the children attained the age of fourteen, the managers knew not what to do with them. They might have twenty, thirty, forty children at the age of fourteen, who had received a better education, perhaps, than might have qualified them for situations merely servile; and from that, and other causes, the conductors of Charter-schools—the establishments to which he particularly alluded—had great difficulties to contend against. Those conductors stood in the place of parents, and the parents and friends of the children had a right to say, you are responsible, and not we, and to you we look for putting forward in the world those young persons, now at the age of fourteen or fifteen, of whom you have assumed the care. Then, again, another objection to the Bill was, that it conferred upon Churchwardens and Overseers powers which they would be very likely to exceed. To establish such a school as was contemplated by the Bill, invested the Churchwardens and Overseers with the power of appointing masters and mistresses, and attendants, and so conferred upon them a certain amount of patronage; for the persons employed must, of necessity, get some stipends, more or less. To such an enactment, he confessed, he could not help feeling considerable objection. This Bill would confer upon Churchwardens and Overseers the power of taking leases, making purchases, building or fitting up houses—surely such powers, were open to abuse. For these reasons, then, he thought that the Committee ought to pause before they agreed to all the clauses of the Bill. He begged not to be understood as urging these observations as objections to the Bill; he only aimed at suggesting topics which he thought were deserving of serious consideration.

thought that many of the objections to the Bill would be obviated, if it were distinctly understood that its regulations were to be prospective. It was proposed to fill up the blank in the clause then under discussion with the words "four years," thus giving to the Overseers and Churchwardens the power objected to only over the offspring of the parties who might marry four years after the Bill was passed.

said, that the hon. Member proposed to effect two objects by this Bill,—the one was, to raise the character of the pauper, the other to diminish the poor-rates. He thought the Bill calculated to effect neither of these objects. Was it raising the character of the pauper to insist that every man, himself and his family, should be maintained wholly by the parish if he came for relief at all? And could it be supposed that the very expensive machinery of this Bill would diminish the parish rates? He thought the Bill would degrade the pauper still farther, and increase the poor-rates.

said, that the Bill had been very much mistaken; and that, far from inflicting any hardship, it conferred a boon upon the poor, He looked upon it in a very different light from the hon. Baronet. By the law as it stood, the overseer might take the child of a pauper when it was nine years old and put it out as an apprentice; and all which this Bill did was to allow the overseers to take the child at an earlier period, making it, by education, more fit for the purpose of being bound to some trade.

said, that the Bill did no more than make that practice legal which was at present carried on every day without law. The practice, it was said, also, would be inconvenient; but in fact it was now done without any inconvenience. In many parts of the country, as he knew the paupers were employed in gravel-pits, or at any suitable work for the joint benefit of those who were obliged to support them, and they received sufficient wages. He did not see any difference between such cases and what the hon. Member proposed to accomplish by his Bill. On the whole, he thought that the measure would be beneficial to the paupers, and though there might be some difficulties in carrying it into execution, they were not insurmountable.

gave the hon. Member who brought in the Bill every credit for his meritorious exertions, but he thought the hon. Member was legislating on effects, not on causes. The practice prevailing in the north might be a very good practice there, but it might be a very bad one for the south, unless the conditions of the two were the same. The hon. Member appeared to him to have lost sight of one thing: there was a manufacture at one time in the south, which was removed afterwards into the north. At that time the population of the north was small, that of the south was large. The population of the north, it was true, had increased, but so also had the manufacture; while in the south, the manufacture was lost, and the large population remained to be provided for. Under such circumstances, what could be done but to get the farmers to employ as many as they could, and make those who contributed to the rates provide for the rest. He agreed that this system had a tendency to lower the rate of wages, but what else could be done? Many other circumstances too, such as the intervention of a person between the labourer and his employer, and the law of settlement, had been overlooked by the hon. Member. He did not think the plan would answer the object proposed, and he was afraid it would entail a great increase of expense on parishes. He therefore must oppose it.

said, that the hon. Member who spoke last had made out a strong case in favour of the Bill, by admitting that the law was deviated from in the south, and by admitting also the injurious effects of such deviation. Wherever the practice prevailed against which the Bill was directed the poor were ill off, and where it was not found they were well oft". As to the manufacture which the hon. Member said had been transferred from the south to the north; what manufacture, he would ask, had Sussex ever had? And yet Sussex was lowest in the scale. What manufacture had Kent ever had? Wiltshire, it was true, had once a manufacture, but the fact was, that the mischiefs were the greatest in districts which were, and ever had been, merely agricultural districts. Thus in the county of Sussex, exclusively an agricultural county, young men of eighteen or twenty made no scruple of marrying, and were applying for relief for their first children; and his Bill would give effectual relief by checking improvident marriages. He thanked the right hon. Secretary of State for the candid manner in which he had spoken of this Bill; and he was glad that the objections of the right hon. Gentleman were confined to one particular clause, and did not go to the principle of the measure. That clause had not been originally intended to form part of the bill, but had been adopted from another Bill, rather in the expectation of receiving the support of some hon. Members than from any very strong predilection for the clause. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman, however, that this clause was only of a temporary nature, for the persons it applied to would be gradually passing away. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the taking away children from their parents; but in fact, the measure made very little alteration in the present law in that respect. By the law at present the overseers may take the children of paupers, when nine years old, and put them to work, and afterwards put them out as apprentices. The present clause only accelerated the time at which they might be taken, fixing the period at seven years of age, with this additional difference,—that instead of being sent to work they were to be sent to school. In other respects he was glad the right hon. Gentleman admitted the principle of the Bill. His object was now to make it as perfect as he could, and he was sanguine in his expectation of being able to carry it through the House this Session. He did not hope to see it carried into a law at present, but he was anxious that it should go up for discussion to the other House; for his determination was, to persevere and bring it before Parliament from time to time, until his object should be effected.

said, the hon. Member was too hasty in supposing that he agreed with him in all the clauses of the Bill, because he did not object to them at present. He was anxious, however, to reserve any expression of opinion until he saw how the hon. Member proposed to carry his plan into effect, and he therefore hoped the Bill would go to a third reading.

said, one reason for the increase of the poor-rates in the south and west of England was, that manufactures of flannel and woollen had been all re- moved to the north. He thought, however, that the poor-rates were not an evil, and that the return of prosperity would replace them in the same condition as before. Some verbal amendments being made on the clause empowering overseers to take the children of paupers, and Sir T. Baring having expressed his determination to oppose it altogether, the Committee divided, when there appeared: For the clause 9; Against it 91—Majority 82. The other clauses were agreed to; the Report was brought up, and ordered to be taken into further consideration on Monday.

opposed the Motion, upon the grounds that the House had agreed to hear counsel against the Bill, and he had that evening, at eight o'clock, received a letter from Mr. Adam, the counsel, stating that he was unable to attend.

pressed the Motion. He thought, in the first place, whatever inconvenience it might be to a counsel to attend at the Bar, that should not be held as a sufficient reason for stopping the progress of a public bill; and secondly, he thought the case was not one in which counsel should be heard at all, because there was only one petition opposed to the prayers of a great number. He farther contended, that when the whole Bar of England was open to a man's choice, he had only himself to blame if he were left in any difficulty by the absence of a single person. He, for one, would move, "that the Speaker leave the Chair."

produced the letter, and declared he was not to blame. He saw Mr. Adam after receiving that intimation, and he had repeated the contents of that communication to him.

observed, that Mr. Adam had been in the House of Lords that evening.

observed, it had been decided by the House, that counsel should be heard. The question then to be considered was, if the absence of Mr. Adam was sufficient to authorize a postponement.

remarked, that counsel might equally well be heard on the report, or on the third reading. He thought that since this postponement would give the hon. Member a chance of checking the progress of the Bill for the entire Session, the House ought not to assent to it: for one he would not consent to the delay. He had certainly introduced the Bill, but, unlike the hon. Member, he was not personally interested in it.

asked if the hon. member for Limerick would say that Mr. Adam did speak in the House of Lords that night?

thought they should not postpone the consideration of a public measure upon the simple assertion that it would be inconvenient for a counsel to attend. The principle would be highly injurious, as there was no public bill which might not be stopped if such excuses were suffered to prevail.

said, he apprehended that the petition was not opposed to the principle, but to certain clauses of the Bill; and he thought his hon. friend was not liable to the slightest blame. He had, at a late hour that very evening, received a letter from the counsel, stating that his state of health was such that he could not attend. And what was he then to do? He could not get another at that time, although he might certainly have previously chosen from the whole Bar of England. He considered that the hon. member for Limerick had a right to call upon the House to proceed with the Bill after such a manner as would prevent the possibility of any obstacles being thrown in its way that might have the effect of checking its progress for the Session, and he accordingly believed it would be well if his hon. friend acquiesced in permitting the Bill to go through this stage, upon the understanding that counsel should be heard upon the report; so that if a sufficiently strong case against any of the clauses were made out, his hon. friend might have the opportunity of moving the recommitted of the Bill, and thus be placed in the same situation in which he now stood. He would therefore submit, that the Bill should now be suffered to go on, upon the understanding that counsel should be heard on Wednesday next, when the Report might be brought up.

observed, that the petition was against the principle; he did not, accordingly, see how the Bill could be recommitted. He, however, was willing to agree to the arrangement.

having expressed his satisfaction in the arrangement, the Bill was passed through a Committee, and the Re port ordered to be received on Wednesday; counsel to be heard against it.

rose to move the second reading of this Bill. He explained that it was his intention to remodel the Bill, so as to confine it to the first of the two objects it proposed to embrace, namely—a provision for Deserted Children, and an abolition of the Foundling Hospital. The other point, which was a favourite one with himself, he proposed for the present to abandon; and this he did the more readily, because there was a committee then sitting above stairs, which would, in all probability, take the subject into consideration, and make some suggestion respecting it. He trusted, therefore, that as he had divided this Bill under separate heads, he might have it now read a second time without opposition. He acknowledged that there would be great difficulties in the way of this second division of the Bill, which referred to illegitimate children, and therefore he had proposed it for further consideration.

observed, great difficulties would arise in the details. Children might be transferred from one part of the country to another, and a species of parochial questions would arise as to whether they had been properly abandoned or no. He thought it might, perhaps, be better if the entire subject was to lie over for farther consideration. He would not, however, oppose the second reading.

wished to postpone the discussion on the second reading of this Bill; but the sense of the House was evidently against it. The hon. Member then proceeded to say, that in the present Bill he had endeavoured to meet the objections which had been made to the measure he had introduced last Session. These objections were directed to two points; namely, that in borrowing upon the security of real property, great inconvenience arose from persons tying themselves down to the payment of a rate of interest from which they were never afterwards able to relieve themselves; and secondly, that young men of good expectations were in the danger of casting themselves into difficulties for their whole lives, to meet the exigencies of a moment. Now, in his Bill, he proposed to meet both these evils; for, in the first place, he proposed to give as much facility as possible for the discounting of bills, and obtaining loans of money, while, in the next place, he wished that nothing except legal interest should be recoverable in a court of law. But as he did not anticipate any objection to the principle of the measure, he would not trouble the House at greater length on that occasion, but would merely move the second reading of the Bill.

declared, that nothing should induce him to relax in his exertions to prevent the Bill from passing into a law. Even the reservations in the Bill were more injurious than would be the abolition of the Usury Laws altogether. His hon. friend proposed to exempt mortgages from the operation of the Bill. If money were lent on mortgage for more than five per cent, the borrower might bring the case into a court of law, and the lender could not recover more than five per cent. But of what advantage would that be to the borrower? For although the lender could not recover more than five per cent, he might recall the mortgage. Was the present a proper moment at which to bring forward such a proposition? If any interest in the country were at the present moment in a prosperous state, it was the monied interest. The low price of every article, the change that had taken place in the currency, had all been favourable to the capitalist, yet at such a time his hon. friend proposed to allow the capitalist to take what might be considered as unlimited interest. If it were true that the time for such a change was inexpedient as respected the state of the monied interest, it was still more true, that it was inexpedient as respected the state of the agricultural interest; oppressed as that interest was with want of confidence, and with other difficulties, which his hon. friend's Bill must tend to enhance. All bills of this description had hitherto had an unfortunate termination; and he would venture to prophesy that this measure would share the fate of its predecessors. As he was persuaded that the sooner it was got rid of the better, he should certainly divide the House upon the present Motion.

regretted that his hon. friend the member for Wareham, under whose banner he had so frequently fought, in opposition to bills of a similar nature which had formerly been proposed by an hon. and learned Serjeant, and who had invariably shown himself one of the most able and persevering opponents of those bills, had not spoken on the present occasion. Besides the old objections which applied to the Bill under the consideration of the House, there was the additional one, that it sanctioned a little treachery—a little fraud. A borrower might deceive a lender by offering ten or fifteen per cent, while there was no legal obligation upon him to pay more than five. This was an inducement to fraud. He hoped his hon. friend, the member for Wareham, would state his sentiments on the Bill; and trusted that it would eventually be thrown out.

did not intend to trouble the House on the present occasion, but, as his hon. friend had called upon him, he had no hesitation in saying, that he maintained the same opinions upon the subject as he had formerly held. He had been induced to believe that the Bill of the hon. member for Dover was somewhat different in its provisions from the bill of the learned Serjeant. The hon. Member said, that the Bill would not affect mortgages, but in this he did not concur. He could not agree with him, that it would leave them in the same state in which it found them; since it legalized the loan of money at a higher rate of interest than five per cent. But he objected on general grounds to so great a change in the money system of this country. There already existed, he thought, sufficient anxiety and want of confidence in all money transactions; and the effect of suddenly changing the law concerning them would be to add considerably to the difficulties of every class in the country except that class which laboured under no difficulty at all. If his hon. friend had not called upon him he should not have troubled the House upon the question, as he had not read the Bill, and had not conceived that it tended to make so great an alteration in the money system of the country as he now found. He should therefore oppose the second reading, and continue to pursue the same course as formerly, which, though it might be called the result, of ignorance, he should persevere in, until some new light should be thrown on the question, and induce him to change his opinion.

maintained that the present system operated most injuriously on large classes of commercial and trading-men. At the time when the existing laws were passed, there were reasons why money should not bear a higher interest than five per cent. Capital was at that period less abundant than it was at present; for it was a great mistake to suppose that capital was not at present abundant, not only in this country, but over the whole world. Under such circumstances, was it not a great hardship that both lenders and borrowers should be limited in their transactions? It was a great mistake to suppose that means were not at present resorted to, such as annuities and others, by which money was borrowed and lent at a rate greater than that which the law allowed. His hon. friend's Bill would do away with all the evils into which borrowers were driven by the absurd existing regulations. Having said so much in favour of the principle of the Bill, he must add, that he was decidedly adverse to that clause in it which, having allowed parties to borrow and lend at a greater rate than five per cent, held out a temptation to the borrower to go into a court of law for the purpose of violating his contract.

was of opinion, that if the Usury Laws were to be changed, there could be no more convenient time for the alteration than the present. As to the fraud which it was said the Bill would sanction, it should be remembered that the same means of fraud existed at present, nay greater; for if a party borrowing money at usurious interest brought the party lending into a court of law, he could refuse not only to pay the interest, but the principal also. He did not believe that the repeal of the Usury Laws would be disadvantageous to the landed interest; as it would not subject them to pay more for money than they did at present. He should support the Bill, as he had done all others of a similar description.

was not surprised that the Bill should be supported by the laity; but should have been exceedingly surprised if any lawyer had supported a measure which contained so gross an inconsistency as a repeal of the Usury Laws, while it preserved a clause, which allowed a contract to be made for unlimited interest, but permitted the borrower to bring the contract into a court of law for the purpose of having it repudiated and disallowed. The Bill contained another clause, which was scarcely less absurd; namely, that whenever more than five per cent had been voluntarily paid, it could never be got back. What was voluntary payment? Suppose money had been obtained by action or arrest, was that voluntary payment? How very rarely had any evil resulted from the present laws? If an adequate substitute could be found for them he would not object to it; but he had not yet met with any such substitute. The repeated discussions which had taken place on the subject had, in his mind, established the utter impossibility of looking at money as at other articles of trade, and of letting its possessor do what he chose with it. That was a principle disclaimed both by the ancient and by the modern world. It was a principle which no writer of character had ever maintained. He was convinced that if the hon. Gentleman's Bill were agreed to, it would render the landed interest an easy prey to the capitalists.

rose, in answer to the assertion of the hon. and learned Gentleman that no lawyer would be found to support the Bill. His only objection to it was, that it did not go far enough; he wished to see the Usury Laws abolished entirely. All attempts to put a maximum price upon any commodity—and money was a commodity—were absurd. Laws of that description could not be executed; they had never been executed. He had known instances in Ireland in which annuities of fourteen, fifteen, or eighteen per cent had been granted for money, when, if there had been no violation of the law, eight or nine per cent would have been the utmost that would have been given for it. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the cases of persons suffering from the law as it at present stood was extremely rare. He, however, could not agree to that, for he had known many cases of persons in Ireland who, by taking more than the legal rate of interest, had lost the principal, and in one particular instance he knew of a family having been ruined by such a circumstance. The law, as proposed by the hon. member for Dover, at least secured the principal. The only possible loss would be the additional bonus. But this was said to prove the absurdity of the proposition. He could see no absurdity in it. Its principle was to do away with the penalty of the Usury Laws, while it left the legal sanction to paying five per cent at least. Another mischief that arose from the present state of the Usury Laws was, that they tempted juries to strain their conscience, and, in a manner, gave an incitement to perjury. The Bill now proposed would amend this, and it would, at the same time, be the means of affording a higher value to the characters of individuals, as the facility of borrowing money would greatly depend upon that.—The only fault that he had to find with the measure was, that it did not go far enough.

said, he had never been an advocate for the total repeal of the Usury Laws; but now, on further consideration, he doubted whether they ought not to be altogether repealed. At all events, however, they needed alteration; and then the question was, what that alteration ought to be. He agreed with the noble Lord, that if ever there was a happy moment for the alteration, the present was that moment, the interest on money being not above two per cent. To allow men to ask twenty when they would be obliged to lend at two, did not certainly appear to be a very great evil. With regard to mortgages, parties generally undertook to pay legal interest, and generally were enabled to borrow money at that rate, the evasions which occurred being only exceptions to the general rule. If, therefore, they should have a law, making the legal interest recoverable in a court of justice upon such contracts five per cent, the great majority of mortgages in this country would still be effected at that interest. If the House were not prepared to do that, and the matter were left open, the interest would be generally taken at the market price. The great evil of the Usury Laws was felt in times of pressure: and he must admit, that it fell heaviest upon those whom they were intended to favour. With these sentiments he should not divide against the Bill, though he did not think that it was one which would ever pass into a law. The learned member for Clare had adverted to that which had been long felt as an injurious consequence of the present Usury Laws—the cutting down of contracts which, perhaps, had been drawn up under the direction of the best lawyers, and where it was afterwards discovered that the interest taken was illegal. It was not, however, necessary to repeal the Usury Laws, in order to get over this inconvenience. He was decidedly opposed to a total repeal of the Usury Laws, but he would rather that a total repeal of these laws should take place than that the principle of the present Bill should be adopted. It appeared to him to be quite an anomaly. It was a Bill to enable a party to do something which he could not afterwards enforce by law. If they did any thing, they should at least bring it within legal reason, and therefore they ought to make up their minds whether they would repeal wholly, or only in part. Another disadvantage of the present Bill was, that it held out an inducement to persons to be careless as to what interest they promised, as they would think that it would always be in their power to resist the payment of any higher rate than that of five per cent. If there were to be a rate of interest fixed, they ought to meet that question firmly at once, for then parties would know what they were about. It could not be concealed that this Bill was, in point of fact, an indirect repeal of the Usury Laws; for as it was to enable the lender to take what rate of interest he pleased, the operation of that would be, that the borrower would pay whatever rate the lender required till he was ready to pay off the money advanced—the effect of which would be, that the loan would stop as soon as the excessive interest stopped. The moment the borrower said, he would give no higher rate of interest than the law would enforce the payment of, the lender would demand his money. On the whole, he was ready to admit that an alteration was required in the Usury Laws; but he disapproved of the present Bill.

said, that he thought this Bill should fix a certain rate of interest for some transactions, by which a jury could be guided in their verdicts when such cases came before them; the Bill should, for instance, fix a rate of interest, say four, or five, or six per cent, where no specific contract had been made, as in the case of a bill of exchange, which, it is always supposed will be paid, up to the last day, when, if not paid, interest commences upon it. That rate of interest should be specified by the law. He, from the first time he had considered the subject, had always been an advocate for the repeal of the Usury Laws, and he never could see any reason why the legislature should affix a rate upon the loan of money more than upon that of lands or houses. The letting of a farm was but the loan of it, and why should the Legislature affix a certain rate upon the loan of 100l. and not upon the loan of 100 acres? If the law were such that a man could not let his house for more than 50l., though it might be worth more, would not that be considered a great hardship? And why should such a principle be applied to the loan of money, which was but a commodity, that was felt to be so manifestly unjust when applied to other commodities? The consequence of such an interference was, that the difference was always made up in the shape of premium; besides which, the system of borrowing money on annuity effectually counteracted the law as it now stood. The Legislature could no more prevent persons from paying the market rate of interest, whatever it might be, than it could prevent a fluctuation in the value of land or houses. If the legal rate were fixed higher than the market rate, the law would be a nullity; if it were fixed lower, it would be continually evaded, and the borrower being the necessitous person, would have to pay the price, or the insurance against the risk of the evasion. Thus the law would add to the hardships of borrowers, who were to be benefitted and protected by it. If the law went a step further, and enacted that no man should borrow on annuities levied on land, beyond the legal rate of interest, whenever that was lower than the market rate, owners of landed property would be unable to borrow at all. That might, by some persons, be thought advantageous; but he believed the gentlemen of England would not like to put such a restriction on their own power. Bankers, by discounting bills, might lend money at any rate of interest, and if the landed gentlemen could not borrow on mortgage, and on annuity, at the market rate of interest, they would frequently be obliged to have recourse to the practice of giving, and renewing bills, which would be found more ruinous than any other method of obtaining a supply of money. Such a state of the law would be injurious to the landed interest, and, as he conceived that it was expedient to alter the present law, he should vote for the second reading of the Bill.

, in rising to move for a Select Committee on this subject, said, that this mode appeared to him to be the best and most unobjectionable one of providing for the old servants of the public. Till this system was adopted, they were either obliged to employ incompetent persons, or to keep back a portion of the salaries of persons as they came into office: but these modes he thought very objectionable. At all events, the appointment of a committee on the subject was very desirable, as in that case the circumstances would be looked into by those who were best able to judge of the matter, and who would propose to the House such alterations as were best calculated to prove beneficial. After the failure of the bill of the Session before last, which he had submitted to the House, the Government could do no more, till it found a spirit of economy reviving among hon. Members, and a disposition to allow the Government to carry into effect the recommendations of the Finance Committee. The Government had done all that was in its power. It had made a deduction from the salaries of all persons appointed since that recommendation, in order to form a superannuation fund. His object, therefore, in going into the committee would be, to inquire into what ought to be done in regard to those offices and salaries already in existence, and which were held before the recommendation. With a view to regulate those offices which might be hereafter created, or those appointments which might be hereafter made, he had a bill prepared, which he did not mean however to bring in till after the Committee had examined the subject. The Committee would then have the opportunity of examining the whole subject, and, according to its report, some permanent system of legislation might be established. It was not becoming the Legislature, to go on year after year, making new regulations on such a subject. It was due both to the public and individuals, that the whole matter should be regulated on some general principle, it was not right to enact a law one Session and repeal it the next; and it would be equally beneficial to the public and just to the individuals, to settle the principles on which every man entering the service hereafter should receive his salary and his superannuation. He ought not merely to know its amount, but also the principles on which his remuneration was to be determined. He would not enter further into the subject, but submit his Motion to the House. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that a Select Committee be appointed "to inquire into the regulations under which Superannuations in the Civil Service, and Half-pay and retired Allowances are granted, and to consider what alterations might be made consistently with a due regard to the just claims of individuals, and the benefit of the Public Service."

said, he never was more surprised in his life than he was at hearing the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. The House would probably do him the justice to recollect that he had, a short time before brought forward a Motion on this subject, founded on the admitted fact, that a half-pay officer, on accepting a civil situation, was obliged to give up his half-pay; while an officer on full pay, on accepting such a situation, was allowed to retain all his emoluments. He had then mentioned several instances of the latter, and he had proposed, as an equitable rule, that officers on full pay should be subject to the same restrictions as officers on half-pay. He had withdrawn that motion in consequence of the right hon. member for Liverpool suggesting, that the whole subject ought to undergo inquiry and revision, and that if nobody else undertook the matter, that right hon. Gentleman stated that he would himself bring it before the House. He wanted to know, then, why the question of officers on full pay accepting civil situations was not included in the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer: and he was unfeignedly surprised that it was not included. Now finding, contrary to his just expectations, that it was not noticed at all, contrary too he thought, to the promise given by the right hon. member for Liverpool, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he would allow him to move an instruction to the committee, to extend its inquiries into the conditions on which officers on full pay, accepting civil situations, should receive their emoluments. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would permit him to move that the committee be instructed to inquire into the expediency of persons in the Military and Naval service, when appointed to civil situations, continuing to receive their full pay. No fairer opportunity could offer of entering into such an inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would never convince the public that they meant to practise economy unless they began with themselves. The public, indeed, would look with much suspicion on a plan for reducing the allowance to poor clerks and half-pay lieutenants, while the whole salaries of General officers were untouched, and while some of those General officers, being in the full enjoyment of those salaries, having governorships, and other sinecure appointments, also united in their own persons the possession of a civil office, with a salary of 4,000l. or 5,000l. a year. It would be said, perhaps, that his proposition had nothing to do with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but he would ask if the question of retiring allowances would not fall immediately under the consideration of the committee? If it would not have to consider what part of their emoluments military officers should retain, who were appointed to situations in the Military College, and other public establishments, and if the committee could consider that subject without embracing the question of officers being in the receipt of full pay, and accepting civil situations, such a course must inevitably be adopted by the committee, and it could not well avoid, unless prohibited, entering into the inquiry. In conclusion, he repeated his expressions of surprise at the Chancellor of the Exchequer's omitting this subject, after the pledge given to the House, declaring that the public would look with great suspicion on a measure that went to mulct a few poor clerks, while it left General officers in the receipt both of full pay and civil salaries. [The hon. Member was about to propose his Motion for an instruction to the committee, but desisted on being informed that the committee ought first to be appointed. The committee being appointed, the hon. Member moved, that it be an instruction to the Committee to consider of the expediency of placing full and half pay officers under similar regulations, when appointed to Civil offices.]

seconded the Motion. The hon. Member observed, that no credit would be given to the Government out of doors, unless it began its economical reductions with its highest officers. He was decidedly of opinion, that both full and half pay officers should be placed on a similar footing.

objected to the Motion. He had no wish to deny that it related to a subject of great importance, and well worthy of the consideration of the House. He objected to it, however, because it was not necessarily connected with the object he had in view. He had given no pledge to the hon. Member. The only pledge which had been given was, that the whole subject of superannuations and pensions should be inquired into,—and to redeem that pledge, his present Motion had been brought forward. The hon. Member might submit a motion on the subject of his instruction to the House, and it was well worthy of separate consideration; but he could not consent to the present committee entering into the inquiry proposed.

said, he was move surprised, even at the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman, than he was at his omission. He had withdrawn his own Motion, on a distinct understanding that the Government would propose an inquiry—and now he found, not only, that it would not propose such an inquiry, but that it would not allow him, on a very fit and proper opportunity, to enter into it.