presented a Petition which had been intrusted to him by his constituents—the Chancellor, the Master, the Fellows, the Professors, and the Students of the University of Oxford—against the Bill pending for second reading on Wednesday next to admit Dissenters to take up degrees in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He considered it a duty on his part, not only as regarded the high respectability of the petitioners, but with reference to the great magnitude and importance of the subject itself, to read to the House the language in which the petition was couched; but before he did so he must express the regret which he felt, that the severe indisposition of his hon. colleague (Sir Robert Inglis) had deprived him of the benefit of his hon. friend's assistance on an occasion like the present, when it was so much needed.—The hon. Gentleman proceeded to read the petition, which commenced by stating the great alarm which the petitioners felt on learning that their rights were to be infringed by the admission of Dissenters to a participation of the privileges which they had so long enjoyed. The Universities were corporate bodies established for the education of youth, and the petitioners conceived that they would not faithfully execute the powers and privileges intrusted to them if they did not in the most solemn and respectful manner protest against any interference on the part of that House with the rights which belonged to these institutions. Only one instance, they said, had ever occurred in which a legislative interference with the management of the Universities was attempted; and if it were now intended, that the union between Church and State should be kept inviolate this Bill must be rejected; for that such a measure would, if passed, eventually lead to a severance of that connection they were thoroughly satisfied. They anticipated the most serious results from any alteration of the law as it existed with respect to the Universities; and if the Bill now before the House were adopted it would be altogether impracticable to afford religious instruction to the youth committed to their charge. The tendency of that measure would be to promote dissension and discord, to banish divine worship in the Universities, and therefore they prayed that Parliament would not abrogate the rights which they possessed, and the exercise of which they deemed indispensable to the proper maintenance of the established religion of the country.—He need hardly remind the House, that this petition referred solely to the University of Oxford, from which Dissenters were excluded. The University of Cambridge was, however, open to Dissenters, though not to the extent they desired. But he denied the right of that House to interfere in such a matter; and there never had been any well-founded complaint made against the system of education adopted in the University of Oxford. There was great difficulty in obtaining admission to that institution; and in no case was a student received without the strictest examination of his moral character. He therefore asked upon what ground the proposed interference could be defended? And, under these circumstances, he, with the petitioners, protested against that part of the measure which authorised the admission of Dissenters to either of the Universities. The University of Oxford was a Corporation, and, as such, as fully entitled as any other Corporation in the kingdom to retain the rights and privileges which had been conferred upon it. This was the first time that an attempt was made by the Legislature to alter the constitution of the University of Oxford, as a reference to the history of that seat of learning would prove. It was true, that James 2nd did interfere with the Universities; but it should not be forgotten, that it was rather as to persons than privileges; and even he did not attempt to abrogate any of those rights which were now so violently and so unjustly attacked. Even in the time of the Great Rebellion, no such attack was directed against the Universities, although every other ecclesiastical establishment in the country was assailed with violence; and, therefore, he must insist, that this measure was a more glaring assault upon the Universities than they had ever before sustained. What might become of this Bill when it was introduced into the higher branch of the Legislature God only knew; but, without anticipating its ultimate fate, he could not help saying that, if such a measure should obtain the sanction of this House, the future historian, who looked back at their proceeding, would have ample cause to blush for the conduct of the Reformed House of Commons. The petitioners stated, that the by-laws and regulations of the College were made by them, and that the youth committed to their charge were educated in strict conformity with the tenets of the Established Church; but if such an interference as this were admitted, how would it be possible for the present system of education adopted in the Universities to be carried on? The admission of Dissenters, it was apparent to all reflecting minds, must go the length of abolishing religious instruction altogether; and, therefore, every Member of that House who was desirous of maintaining the ascendancy of the Protestant Church was bound strenuously to resist a Bill, the principles of which were calculated only to sap and weaken, with a view ultimately to destroy, the foundation of the established religion of the country. He did not think, however, that any actual danger impended over the Church itself, because he was satisfied it was too firmly based to be injured by such means; but still it was obvious, that if they deprived the clergy of the advantages of a Protestant education, such as they now received through the medium of the Universities, they would take from the Church the first stone of the foundation on which it rested. He hoped he had said quite enough to convince the House of the great and imminent danger of passing such a Bill as this. They had before their eyes one instance of the effects of discordant opinions with respect to religion in an establishment for the education of youth from which religious instruction had consequently been banished; and he would ask them, whether it would be wise on their part to follow such an example, and thereby not only give the enemies of the Church a triumph over them, but pave the way for the separation of Church and State?

said, that the hon. Member for the University of Oxford had stated, that immense mischief and danger would accrue to the Universities if they touched those institutions, and that the admission of Dissenters would raise such religious controversies that the orthodoxy of the Universities would be sapped to their foundations. But Dissenters had been already admitted to Cambridge. The experiment had been tried; and, he asked, had it sapped the orthodoxy of Cambridge? He thought, this was a sufficient answer to the alarm of the hon. Member.

participated in the alarm of his hon. friend, and did anticipate great danger from the passing of the Bill then before the House. As long as the Established Church was to be maintained, the exclusive character of the Universities Of Oxford and Cambridge, as far as related to ecclesiastical degrees, ought also to be upheld.

could not understand why other institutions were to be altered and amended, and that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were to remain unchanged.

said, that, it was his belief, that if the Universities would meet the Dissenters, that the latter might be admitted into the Universities without the slightest injury to the interests of the Universities.

, in presenting a petition from members of the Established Church in Walsall, against the Bill for the admission of the Dissenters to the Universities, said, that he could not agree with the hon. member for Oxford.

supported the claims of the Dissenters, and denied, that the Church of England could claim the property and privileges of the Universities on the footing of private property. If its clergy persisted in their opposition to the rightful claims of the Dissenters, the Establishment would become a practical grievance, and must be dealt with as such by the Legislature.

contended, that until it could be proved, that the Universities were not Corporations, they should not be deprived of their rights; and, for his part, he should defend their privileges until they themselves called for alteration. They ought to take a serious lesson from the Motion which was brought forward by the hon. and learned member for Tipperary last night. The object of that Motion was to enable Dissenters and Roman Catholics to participate in the whole of the advantages to be obtained in the University of Dublin; but although the advocates of the claims of the Dissenters disavowed all desire on their part to appropriate to themselves fellowships, professorships, and scholarships, was it not clear to the commonest understanding, that if one concession were granted to them, they would use the power placed in their hands to obtain others? All he could say was, that if this Bill were passed, he should be prepared, and at no distant period, to see the Dissenters as clamorous for a full participation in every endowment of the Universities as they were now for admission into them.

observed, that it had been said, the Dissenters did not desire professorships and scholarships; now, he begged to say that they did, but they certainly did not wish for any ecclesiastical offices; because they were not congenial with their own principles. They merely wished to obtain those privileges of which they were deprived as Dissenters, and which they could only enjoy as Dissenters. It was said to be a popular doctrine, that Dissenters should be placed in a situation of exclusion; but it was not a popular doctrine; on the contrary, it was very unpopular, and the conduct which the Universities were pursuing towards the Dissenters under their professed and avowed opposition to the separation of Church and State was the very means of hastening the discussion of that question, and the churchmen were defeating themselves. He had thought proper to make that open declaration, because anything short of it would be hypocrisy, of which neither he nor the Dissenters of this country were capable. The members of Oxford and Cambridge were represented as wishing to secure to themselves liberty of conscience, and undoubtedly they had a right to that liberty; but let them consider how far they were infringing on that right in submitting certain tests to candidates of any description for admission to the Universities. It was said, they were anxious to preserve uniformity; this was the charge brought against the Roman Catholics in former times, and it was the worst part of the Roman Catholic religion which the Universities preserved. As long as there was but one religion, and, as it was said in Spain, "but one, and that the true religion," of course it was all uniformity; but was that a doctrine to be propagated in this country? It was said, the Dissenters designed to seize on the rights and privileges of the Universities by violence. This he denied, and he wondered how the hon. member for Oxford could undertake to assert it, seeing that the Dissenters quietly and respectfully petitioned the Legislature to enact such laws as would give them those privileges to which they had an undoubted right, to the endowment of the different Colleges. It was a fact, that thirteen out of the nineteen Colleges at Oxford, and twelve out of the sixteen at Cambridge, were endowed before the Reformation; therefore, if they were to be placed on their original foundation, there was another religious body which had the best right to them.

expressed his admiration of what had fallen from the hon. Member who had spoken last. If the first degree were granted to the Dissenters, it would be injustice to deny them to all the others; they would be hypocrites if they did not seek for them also. The concession of privileges to them would be an infringement upon the laws and rights of the University.

, in explanation, said, that he could not keep back a fact that was already before the public, namely, that the Dissenters, at their meeting on the previous day, had passed a Resolution to the effect, that it was expedient a separation should take place between the Church and State.

rose to propose an Amendment. He observed, that he saw the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies suggesting to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He rose for the purpose of moving for certain papers connected with the passing of a decree by the Portuguese Government which materially affected our commercial relations with Portugal. He was sorry to see the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, smiling at the very mention of it. The subject was, perhaps, beneath the consideration of a Minister so deeply engaged in diplomatic relations.

must, at once, protest against the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. He thought, the course the hon. Member was pursuing was most inconvenient. The Amendment which the hon. Member proposed to bring forward had no relation whatever to the four per cents.

admitted, that the course he was pursuing was a most inconvenient course, and confessed that there was no excuse for his Motion except the fact that he had sought all manner of opportunities from the Government to bring the question forward at such time, and in such manner as might be agreeable to them; but he could obtain no assurance with respect to any particular period on which he could depend. In adopting an unusual course of proceeding, which he maintained had been imposed upon him by the Government, he felt he had a right to claim the indulgence of the House.

thought, that if the hon. Member had not some legislative enactment to propose—if he had only to pronounce a censure upon this Government or some past Government—he would not be justified in persevering in his Amendment.

said, that according to the forms of the House and the law of Parliament, there was no necessity that the Amendment should be akin to the question. However, it would be much better if the House should always know upon what subject it was likely to be engaged, and, accordingly, he thought it would be incumbent upon the hon. Member to show, either that the Amendment related to a matter of pressing importance, or else that it bore upon the question before the House.

said, he was perhaps the least connected with party of any man in that House, and therefore he could not call for that adventitious support, the value of which was so well known to hon. Members connected with party in that House. If the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would name any day in next week, he would be happy to give way on the present occasion. He understood from the noble Lord, that he could not. Well, he must proceed. He had the authority of the Speaker for proceeding. The case he had to urge, was one of pressing importance. By a late decree of the Portuguese Government, we had been placed in a less advantageous position with respect to our commercial relations than we had been in for the last 125 years. He did not quarrel with the Portuguese Government for this measure; they had the full right to pass it, although he thought the course they had pursued was an extraordinary one, and not very conspicuous for its gratitude towards the present Ministers of England. He would state to the House, without hesitation, that his conviction was, that this decree was brought about by the imprudent and injudicious conduct of the Government in 1831. The noble Lord had no excuse for his conduct at that period; he was warned by all connected with the Oporto trade, by him (Mr. Robinson) among others, that it must bring about such a result as that which they now had to deplore. The noble Lord expected three advantages from the equalization of the duties upon wine. First, that the revenue upon wines would be increased. The fact was, the revenue was diminished. Secondly, that the consumption of French wines would be increased. On the contrary, the consumption had rather diminished. Thirdly, it was supposed, that the spirit of commercial liberality, and of reciprocity would have greatly increased, but no such event had yet taken place. M. Thiers had certainly made some remarks upon the subject at Havre, which no doubt found favour in the eyes of the people there. The right hon. the President of the Board of Trade had also, he entertained no doubt, received, upon the occasion of his late visit to Paris, very flattering compliments from the French Government: but, notwithstanding all the laudable and strenuous exer- tions of the right hon. Gentleman and Dr. Bowring, he begged to ask if anything tending to the commercial advantage of England had yet been adopted. He believed, indeed, there was a proposition to diminish the duty upon English coals, and on cotton-wool; but surely it must be obvious to all Gentlemen, that those reductions were for the advantage, not of the English, but of the French manufacturers. He admitted, that it was desirable that we should extend, if possible, our commerce with France, but he did not think our Government were taking the right way to the attainment of that end. He believed, that our Government had no just ideas of foreign policy, so far at least as the commercial interests of Great Britain were concerned. Although the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, might be a great protocolist—although he might be a person most potent to arrange the most tortuous diplomatic processes—the affairs of Greece or Belgium—he was convinced, the noble Lord was entirely ignorant, he meant not the word offensively—of all commercial matters. In common with the majority of noble and hon. individuals connected with the Government, the noble Lord had an aristocratic contempt for commercial pursuits, and those attached to them, and therefore he, for one, did not wonder that they remained unattended to. He had to ask the noble Lord one question, and that was, whether the noble Lord had received the decree of the Portuguese Government affecting British commerce, and whether any remonstrance had been made against it. He must protest against the system of suspicious neutrality which had been observed by the Government of this country with respect to Portugal, the effect of which had been to disgust and to estrange both parties from England. The decree which had been lately passed in Portugal was an insult, not to the country—that he did not say—but certainly to the Ministry, who had done more than they ought, more than they were justified in doing, to support the prevailing Government in Lisbon. We had lost commercial advantages in Portugal; but it was by no means unlikely, that we should yet be called upon to contribute from the funds wrung from an overtaxed population to the establishment of Don Pedro's Government in Portugal. If the Acts lately done by the Administration of Don Pedro in Portugal had been done by Don Miguel, there would have been a grand manifestation of feeling upon the subject on the part of the Government, through the medium of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston). But now all Acts of oppression, violence, and injustice, were passed over without comment, because they were the Acts of what was called a liberal Government. If Don Miguel were now in Lisbon, and such things had been done, the noble Lord would be but too glad to come down to that House with the view of exciting the popular indignation against the tyrant. For himself, he spoke without any feeling of favouritism on this subject. He did not care one farthing which of the brothers succeeded in the contest. They were each equally worthy of a Throne. He believed, however, that the object of the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, was to make a mere puppet of Donna Maria; and to have the appointment of her Administration. This, he was convinced, was the opinion of Don Pedro, and of his Ministers, and therefore was it that they had passed that decree. The original cause undoubtedly was the equalization of the duties on wine, by our Government, and against this he inveighed as most impolitic and most unjust. He did not know what course he could now pursue, except to move for papers connected with the decree to which he had alluded. The conduct of this Government in all commercial affairs had tended to offer a premium upon the throwing of impediments in the way of British commerce. He did not wish to use any expression which might appear offensive, but, in all courtesy, he would observe, that he thought there was a flippancy in the manner of the noble Lord, when alluding to the Prussian league, which was, in his mind, exceedingly to be deprecated. He thought the moral of the whole bearing and speeches of the noble Lord upon our commercial policy was, that foreign countries were to understand, whatever they might do to obstruct or injure us, that no reprisals on our part would be made. He complained, also, that there was a want of communication between the Board of Trade, and the ambassadors abroad. He had nothing to say against the right hon. Vice President of the Board of Trade, whose diligence in attending to his duties was remarkable, and the arrangements of whose office were most praiseworthy; but infinite evil arose from the circumstance, that all communications from the Board of Trade to ambassadors abroad had to pass through the soporific medium of the Foreign-office. Justice was not in consequence done to recommendations favourably accepted, and transmitted from the Board of Trade. He had no confidence in the noble Lord, dexterous as he might be in diplomatic intrigues, so far as the commercial interests of the country were concerned. Without detaining the House further, he would conclude by moving, "that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying, that he will be graciously pleased to lay before the House copies or extracts from the correspondence between the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and the British authorities in Portugal, relative to a decree on the part of the Portuguese Government, by which certain commercial advantages heretofore enjoyed by Great Britain were withdrawn; and also for a copy of papers relating to a vexatious interference with British subjects in their legal commerce with Portugal."

said, that he thought the House would agree with him that the course adopted by the hon. member for Worcester was a highly inconvenient one, and the reason the hon. Member had given for pursuing it was most unsatisfactory. The hon. Member said, that he had interposed this Motion between the House and the usual course of its business to-night, because his noble friend did not consent to fix any day next week at which he might have a more convenient opportunity of calling the attention of the House to this subject. That argument might just as well be used by any other Member of the House who wished to bring forward a Motion, and he had no doubt, that there were many present most anxious to bring particular subjects under the consideration of the House, but who were prevented from doing so in consequence of the great number of Motions already standing upon the books. If each of them were to adopt the course which the hon. member for Worcester had pursued this evening, (and they would have just as much reason for doing so), it would become impossible that the regular business of the House should proceed. He should be justified, therefore, if, instead of answering the speech which the hon. Member had made upon this occasion, he had sat still and allowed his noble friend to proceed with his statement upon the subject of the four per cents, or if in rising, he had addressed himself to that question, instead of speaking to the Motion with which the hon. Gentleman had concluded. But he should be sorry to be wanting in that civility to the hon. Gentleman, which he appeared to be so little disposed to exhibit towards others; and he, therefore, assured, the hon. Gentleman, that he was induced to answer his observations, not so much from a sense of public duty, as in courtesy to him. He must say, however, that the hon. Gentleman had exhibited a little waywardness upon the present occasion. He, first of all, found fault with his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, for not looking sufficiently pleased, and then the hon. Member took him to task for looking too much in good humour; now, really, if the hon. Gentleman could be satisfied neither by the gravity of the one, nor by the gaiety of the other, he had better turn his eyes to Mr. Speaker, and take no notice of any other person in the House. He certainly wished, that the hon. Member had so far followed his example as to have spoken in a spirit of better temper. Perfect indifference, flippancy of manner, aristocratic contempt, and many other charges of a similar description, were hurled forth against him (Lord Palmerston) with great velocity and fervency, but those were modes of expression generally resorted to by Gentlemen when their argument failed, or when they were irritated at finding that there really was not quite so much in their case as they had imagined. The hon. Member, among other things, had accused him of indifference to the commerce of England amongst the rest, and this arguing as it did a want of common sense upon his part, was, he thought, rather a reflection upon the common sense of the hon. member for Worcester, since it was scarcely possible that a man destitute of common sense could have attained to the situation which he (Lord Palmerston) had the honour to fill. With regard to the question itself, the only charge against the Government was, that an important decree had been passed by the Portuguese Government, of which notice had not been given to the British Government. This, he admitted, was the fact. He did not stand there to defend the Ministers of Donna Maria more than he might the Ministers of Don Miguel. He thought that, upon this occasion, the Portuguese Government ought to have given due notice to the individuals concerned in commerce with that country when it was their intention to make an alteration in the commercial relations between Portugal and Great Britain. But there was nothing in the decree against which, upon the faith of treaties, Great Britain could reclaim, and he did not believe, that it would have the injurious effect which might be anticipated upon British commerce, and especially that branch, the Newfoundland fish-trade, with which the hon. Gentleman was connected. In Spain we had no peculiar advantage over France, America, or Norway, and yet our trade had still maintained its pre-eminence. [Mr. Robinson observed, that our trade with Spain had fallen one-half within the last twenty-years.] He was aware, that our general trade with Spain had fallen off, but he believed that our fish trade had not declined equally to our other trade, and certainly not equal to the fish trade of other nations. At all events it must be admitted, that the Portuguese Government, at all events, had a right to make the decree in question, and there was nothing in the treaty of 1810 which enabled us to reclaim against it. He repeated, however, that he considered they should have given this Government notice of the projected alteration. The hon. Member had attacked him (Lord Palmerston) for being, as he said, ignorant and incompetent: if the attack had been openly made against him as a political opponent of the hon. Member, he could have at once understood him. He did not, perhaps, pay the same minute attention to the matter as the hon. Member desired, because he had no fear, that British commerce would not be able to compete with that of any other country. The hon. Member had described this as another instance of the way in which this Government were imposed upon by the arts of the French Ambassador. He (Lord Palmerston) would venture to say, however, that the French Government had been taken quite as much by surprise at the announcement of this decree as had the English Government. The hon. Member was equally mistaken in his assertion, that the French Govern- ment were making no advances towards liberal commercial arrangements between the two countries. The hon. Gentleman must have heard of the Report made by the Chamber of Commerce to the French Government, in which they strenuously recommend many very liberal arrangements as to the duties imposed on mutual commerce. He had no objection to furnish the hon. Gentleman with a copy of the decree, and of the correspondence relating to it. As to the latter part of his Motion, he did not think the hon. Member (Mr. Robinson) had made out any Parliamentary grounds or shown any case of hardship on which his demand could be founded. Doubtless, there had been several cases in which British subjects had complained of the Portuguese Government; but, in all those cases in which it was thought that the complaints were just, our Minister at Lisbon had felt it his duty to make representations on the subject to the Portuguese Government, and in almost every instance in which such representations had been made, redress had been obtained, so that there was no ground for calling upon the House to accede to the latter part of the Amendment. If the hon. Member had thought proper to state what the case of Mr. Roberts really was—why our Minister at Lisbon did not support his claims, and why he (Lord Palmerston) had not been requested to interfere in his behalf, there might then be some ground for calling for the production of papers, but at present there was none. He must confess, that he was rather surprised at the matter of the hon. Member's speech, inasmuch as he had declared that it would compromise no political topic. If that speech was to be taken as the measure of the hon. Member's capacity to distinguish between commercial and political topics, he was not at all surprised that the hon. Member should think that he (Lord Palmerston) was, in the discharge of his duty, totally indifferent to the commercial interests of the country.

said, that he thought the hon. member for Worcester was entitled to the thanks of the country for having brought this important subject under the notice of the House. When he found the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs standing so much on a point of order, and so evidently anxious to get rid of the question, he immediately concluded, that his Lordship was unable to offer anything like a tolerable answer to the case of the hon. Member. When he found a person so well versed in Parliamentary tactics as the noble Lord occupy nearly a quarter of an hour in prefatory observations upon the manner in which the Motion had been brought forward, he was convinced in his own mind, that he must have a very lame answer with respect to the substantial merits of the Motion. His anticipation had been verified. He asked hon. Gentlemen what answer the noble Lord had given to the substance of the complaint of the hon. Member? The statement of the hon. member for Worcester amounted to this—that the Portuguese Government had, in the exercise, certainly, of an undoubted right, deprived this country of certain benefits which she heretofore enjoyed; but then he alleged, that this was the consequence of the course of policy pursued by the British Government. It really was too much, after the manner in which we had been coaxing the Government in Portugal, and after the interference of this country—for nobody except Gentlemen connected with the Administration, but was perfectly aware that the British Government had been working changes in Portugal—had been busy in overthrowing one brother and setting up another the character of each being equally estimable, and one quite as much, or rather as little, entitled to our favourable opinion as the other—it was, he must say, too bad, that Don Pedro should requite our kindness in the way he had done. There was not a man of common sense in Europe who did not perceive, that our Government, in connexion with its present alliance with France, had been busy in forcing a Government upon Portugal in opposition to the declared opinion of the people of that country—that the contest was between a whole nation on one side, and on the other, a band of adventurers of condottieri collected from different parts of Europe, to fight for hire. This was the sort of conflict which was carried on under the auspices of the British Government. Under these circumstances, was not the hon. member for Worcester entitled to say to Ministers, "Enjoy your predilections if you please,—hug Pedro to your bosoms, and make war upon Miguel, but tell the merchants of England, tell the English people, what we are to gain by all this." The fact was, that this most objectionable person, Don Miguel, had been some years in Portugal; that, during that time, he had it in his power, as the noble Lord had stated (in consequence of the improvident alteration in the wine-duties), to act in a manner offensive to this country, yet he not only abstained from doing so, but gave a preference to our commerce, and favoured us in every possible way; whilst the very morning of the day when it was announced that a quadruple alliance had been formed for the purpose of forcing a Government on the Portuguese nation brought the intelligence that our good friend Don Pedro had issued the injurious decree in question. Without wishing to say anything offensive to the noble Lord's feelings, he must declare, that his Lordship seemed to have prosecuted his views of foreign policy with an utter forgetfulness of the commercial interests of this country, which, after all, it most behoved the Government to consider. For his part, he cared not a straw which of the two Dons reigned in Portugal; but if one of them were disposed to act favourably to the commerce of this country, and the other were not, he would say, let us have the former. The noble Lord admitted, that the decree was unfavourable to our commerce; but he said, that Don Pedro had a right to issue it. Certainly no one could deny, after the imprudent alteration which had been made with respect to the wine-duties by our Government, that the Portuguese Government had the power to promulgate such a decree. It was admitted, not only that the decree had been issued, but that it had been published in the most unfriendly manner; it came upon the noble Lord at his office, on the very day when it was announced to the world, that the Government of this country was determined to put an end to the contest in Portugal, by forcing Don Pedro upon an unwilling people. The noble Lord had confessed the whole of this case, and therefore he was not surprised, that in his attempt to answer the hon. member for Worcester, the noble Lord should endeavour to amuse the House by observations upon every thing except the point at issue. He thought the charge which had been made against the noble Lord, namely,—that throughout the whole course of his diplomatic relations, he had neglected the commercial and industrious interests of the country, was well founded. If the noble Lord was not to blame in this respect, he certainly was one of the most unfortunate Ministers who ever held office. The House had been made acquainted to-night with the result of the noble Lord's diplomacy in Portugal; and it was well known that whilst his Lordship had been busy intriguing in the affairs of Belgium, Prussia had been as diligently occupied in negociating for the exclusion of our manufactures from Germany. He had been informed by persons who were incapable of deceiving him, and who had been in different parts of the continent, that no effort had been made by our Government to avert what he maintained would in a short time be felt to be one of the severest blows ever inflicted upon our commerce. If the noble Lord had condescended to take the slightest interest in this subject, and had interfered with the free towns and small principalities, nothing could have been more easy than to avert this blow. He considered the treaties which had been formed in Germany as a more decided blot upon the administration of foreign affairs than even the Portuguese transaction. The cases he had mentioned, however, were not the only instances in which the noble Lord had exhibited a disregard of the industrious and commercial interests of this country. Last year he had occasion to make a representation to the noble Lord on the conduct pursued by the French fishermen, which tended to drive our own fishermen entirely out of the Channel. The noble Lord caused an investigation to be made on the subject; but nothing had resulted from it. The noble Lord accepted the denial of the French authorities, but afforded the persons aggrieved no opportunity of substantiating their case. If the French Government denied the facts which were alleged, why did not the noble Lord call before him the persons who could refute that denial? He was informed, and he believed correctly, that a few days ago, there were no fewer than thirteen English fishing vessels seized and carried into French ports, because they had happened to run during a fog, or been drifted in a calm, into what were called the French bounds. This, too, happened at a time when the French vessels were taking fish almost in our very harbours.—[Lord Palmerston: The facts are denied.]—He took it for granted, that the French government would deny every word of the statement. All he could say was, that he believed the fact to be as he stated. The crews of the fishing boats were kept for months together in France, and then sent home in a state of destitution. The right hon. first Lord of the Admiralty knew well, that the result of the want of protection which our fishermen had experienced, had been to give the French and Dutch fishermen, but particularly the former, almost a monopoly of fishing in the Channel. This branch of the national industry was absolutely perishing for want of protection. If the noble Lord were to wait until the French Government ceased to deny the charge before he interfered, the poor fishermen would be long enough without redress. Taking all circumstances together, to whatever point of the compass he turned and looked at the conduct of the British Government in its foreign relations, he perceived striking evidence of that indifference to the commercial and industrious interests of this country which had been charged upon the noble Lord; and in conclusion, he would observe, that so far from regretting the Motion had been brought forward, he thought that Gentlemen connected with the commercial interests were obnoxious to reproach for not having forced the subject on the attention of the Government at an earlier period.

expressed his regret, that the Motion had been brought before the House in so inconvenient a manner, that it was impossible to enter upon the subject to which it referred so fully as the importance of that subject would justify. For his part, he should be glad to have the conduct of the Government with regard to our commercial policy brought under discussion, in order that he might have an opportunity of meeting the charges which had been unjustly brought against it. On the present occasion, however, he would confine himself to the subject of our commercial relations with Portugal. The charge of the hon. member for Worcester had been reduced to almost nothing, even upon his own showing, and the Motion could produce no result except, perhaps, the expression of the opinion of the House on one single point—namely, the conduct of the Portuguese Government in issuing the decree which had been referred to without giving the Government of this country previous notice. The hon. Mem- ber could not do otherwise than admit the right of the Portuguese Government; but contended, that it had exercised it in an improper manner. His noble friend allowed, that it was an impropriety in the Portuguese Government to issue the decree without notice; but, as regarded the practical consequences of the decree, they were just the same as if notice had been given. The Portuguese Government determined to place its Custom-house regulations on a different footing, by equalizing the duties levied upon the goods of all nations, and had a perfect right so to do; and, therefore, we had no power to remonstrate. The hon. member for Essex said, that this step never would have been taken by the Portuguese Government if the Government had not neglected to follow his advice years ago, upon the subject of the wine-duties. That had nothing whatever to do with the case; and he was surprised that the hon. Member was not better acquainted with the subject, than to suppose that Portugal obtained the power to issue the decree complained of in consequence of our abandoning the article in the Methuen treaty—the treaty of 1810. All that the Methuen treaty said was, that in the event of our departing from it, the Portuguese might prohibit our woollens. The treaty of 1810 was for the general purposes of trade, and involved this condition, that the merchandise of this country should never be taxed more than fifteen per cent; but it said not a word about the necessity of taxing the produce of other countries to a larger amount. At the expiration of that Treaty, which was to last for fifteen years, it was really in the power of the Portuguese Government, on giving a certain notice, to cancel its obligations. Accordingly, M. de Carvalho, in his statement of the reasons on which the decree was founded, made not the slightest reference to the equalization of the wine-duties or the Methuen Treaty. He was obliged to admit, that the manner in which the Portuguese Government had issued the decree, intimated unfriendliness to our commerce. He certainly regretted the circumstance; but, at the same time, he was bound to say, that the Government had been taught it in this country, and had only acted on the principles upon which this country had been acting for years and years. In our transactions with foreign countries, we conferred no peculiar favours upon them, and we asked for none from them; and it was precisely upon this principle, that the Portuguese Government had acted. We had no right to complain of them for acting in the same manner in which we had for years been acting ourselves. Those who preceded the present Ministers in office acted on this principle in 1821, 1825, and every succeeding year, at least as far as he had been able to find traces of their sentiments. The hon. member for Essex stated, that the commercial interests of this country had been more neglected by this Government than any other, and adduced particular instances in support of his general charge. A compliment had been paid to him, indeed, in the course of the discussion; but he was not disposed to accept it at the expense of his noble friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He knew, that his noble friend had exerted himself unremittingly to carry into effect the objects which the Government had in view. The hon. member for Essex, had adverted to the Prussian system, and said, that it had grown up in consequence of the neglect of the British Government. Would the hon. Member say, that any and what representations had been made when that system first began to germinate? The present Government had followed up representations where they had been previously made, and he could assure the hon. Member, that those made by the present Ministers, were more urgent than any which had been made before they entered office. That all the efforts of the Prussian Government had been turned to perfecting that system, no man acquainted with the Continent could doubt; but as far as England was concerned, equal efforts had been made to check that system. The hon. Member must have been grossly misinformed when he said, that we might have made arrangements with the different German States, but thought it beneath us; for we did conclude a treaty with Frankfort with the very object of checking the system; and although it had not had any material effect, it showed that our efforts, at least, had not been wanting. If they had proved ineffectual, it was because those efforts were not begun at an earlier date; because the commercial system of this country did not hold out to Prussia in 1817, in 1821, and in 1822, the advantages which Prussia had a right to expect. The hon. member for Essex had likewise touched upon the subject of the fisheries in the Channel. He begged to ask the hon. Member, whether he had examined that subject attentively, and made himself acquainted with the difficulties by which it was environed? The fact was, that the subject was mixed up with some most intricate questions, the solution of which was extremely difficult. As soon as his noble friend was put in possession of the complaints of our fishermen, a representation was made from the board at which he had the honour to sit, requesting that some means might be employed to bring the question to an amicable settlement, by the only means by which a question involving the rights of nations could be amicably settled. His noble friend lost no time in entering into arrangements with the French government. Then, again, it was said, that we had sacrificed our trade with Portugal for the sake of France; and it was asked, why should that be done, when France was so unwilling to do any thing for us? We had not sacrificed our trade for France, neither was France unwilling to enter into commercial treaties with us. The French government had manifested a strong disposition to introduce into their country the commercial principles which regulated this. Already a report had been laid upon the table of the French Chamber, which not only recommended the removal of the prohibition with respect to several important articles produced in England, but also that the King should have power to effect that object by ordinance whilst the Chamber was not sitting, in order that no time might be lost in removing prohibitions. It had been stated, that we had obtained no concessions from France; but this was at variance with the fact, as he would prove. It would be recollected, that the principal complaint of our silk manufacturers had been, that they could not compete with France, because she maintained a monopoly of the raw article, and would not allow it to be exported. Last year, however, the French government was prevailed upon to permit the exportation of raw silk, and, in the report lately presented to the French Chamber, the duties on iron, cotton, twist, and other important articles were recommended to be changed. From the present state of public feeling in France, he was satisfied, that if the government of that country should hesitate to pursue the course which had been recommended by the report, they would ere long be compelled to do so by the voice of the people. He would not trouble the House further upon this occasion, but if another opportunity should be taken for bringing forward charges against the commercial policy of the Government, he would be prepared to meet them to the best of his ability, and he was confident, that he should succeed in proving that it was not deserving of the censure which had been cast upon it by the hon. members for Essex and Worcester.

was astounded by the argument which had been used by the noble Lord (Palmerston). The noble Lord appeared to contend that, inasmuch as British commerce maintained a superiority over other nations, it was a matter of perfect indifference to us, whether we lost or preserved the advantages that we possessed. This might be a very convenient argument for the noble Lord, but the people of this country—the merchants, manufacturers, and shopkeepers—he would find, would repudiate it as equally adverse to their interests, and as incorrect logic. The argument of his hon. friend who brought forward this Motion, seemed to have been mistaken by the noble Lord. It was not—if he (Mr. Young) understood it right—that there had been an infraction of any treaty, but that the Government of this country had pursued an impolitic course in reducing the duties on French wines, which had induced Portugal to enforce the restrictions of which we complained. The obligations of the treaty that had been entered into between this country and Portugal ceased to be binding after 1825, when it became open to either party to take the course that each might consider most beneficial. Acting on this principle, England, in 1830, withdrew from Portugal the advantages the Treaty had secured to her; and Portugal had, as regarded us, followed our example. He recollected that his hon. friend, the member for Essex (Mr. Baring) stated, almost prophetically, on the debates which took place at the time of the proposed alteration in the wine-duties, that he did not expect the proposed change would provoke a retaliation on the part of Portugal at that time, but he had apprehensions as to the consequences, in case the liberal party ever obtained the ascendancy in Portugal. The noble Lord replied, that he admitted it was possible Portugal might impose the restrictions anticipated, but he did not think she would do so. The right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade also stated, that, in his opinion, no such course would be followed. The predictions of his hon. friend had been verified to the very letter, and, of course, the counter-expectations of the noble Lord and of the right hon. Gentleman had been falsified. If Portugal withdrew certain advantages from this country, they ought not to forget that the advantages she possessed under the Treaty were concessions to her at that time.

wished the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, had been more explicit as regarded the fisheries. He had said, it was a question of international law. He was aware of the circumstances of the case, and he would observe, that he could not see any good reason why, or on what grounds of justice between two nations at peace, the French boats should be allowed to come to our shores and cast their nets where they pleased, and our fishermen should be interfered with if they cast their nets off the French shores. Much conflicting testimony was delivered before the Committee last year, and, taking the whole of the evidence, it certainly was not easy to make out the case between the two parties. Amongst the other difficulties, there was the difficulty of determining from what points the distance should be measured—whether from beach to beach, or from headland to headland. The case was well worth consideration; and if a case of aggression were made out, the proper representations ought to be forwarded.

said, that, under the Treaty of 1815, the French government set up a claim to the exclusive right of fishing on their coast. In 1817, the Government conceded to them the exclusive right to fish within one league. In consequence of representations made in 1821 to the then Government, the distance was extended, in 1822, to six miles from the coast. The result was, that our fishermen, who had been accustomed to fish nearer the coast where oysters were in great abundance, thought they were treated unjustly in being deprived of the right they had enjoyed, and they did not observe the line, but, when they thought they were not watched, passed beyond it. The French Government, jealous of the encroachment, and desirous of enforcing the regulation, omitted no opportunity of seizing vessels within the prescribed distance, whatever the cause of their being there, even though they were driven there by the wind, or drifted there by the tide. Such, then, was the state of the question. He had never said a word to the noble Lord on the subject; his information did not come from the Government. He had seen the papers, and he could say, that it was a complicated and very difficult question, involving the right of France to the exclusive fishery of that line of coast. He wished to guard himself particularly against giving any opinion as to the matter in issue; but he knew, that an application had been made to the noble Lord on the subject, and he had reason also to know, that it had met with very great attention from him. In his judgment, this was an affair that never could be settled on strict legal principles, but must be the subject of negotiation.

said, that our severe Custom-laws, under which large boats were seized by our cruisers, occasioned our fishermen to use smaller boats than were used by the French fishermen, their Custom-laws being more indulgent. Our fishermen ought to be enabled to have larger boats, that they might meet the French fishermen on an equality. There was another point to which he wished to advert. He recollected the opprobrious epithets which the late Government had bestowed on Don Miguel. Whatever might be said of Don Pedro, it would be admitted, he believed, that the present Regent of Portugal was not to be put on a level with the usurper. He must object, however, to the terms in which the hon. member for Essex, and others, spoke of the British officers in the service of the contending parties in Portugal. Was not Sir J. Campbell, for instance, on exactly the same footing as the officers on the other side? These individuals were but following their profession for want of military employment in the service of their own country.

said, he should not have to address the House at any great length in proposing the Resolutions which it was his duty to bring before them. The amount of the Four per Cent Annuities did not exceed 11,600,000l., and, in proposing their reduction, he might say, that the operation could be effected much easier, and the Government would be less inconvenienced in making the arrangement than on former occasions. This being the case, he should not consider himself justified in offering any great bonus to induce the holders of the stock to accept his terms. In point of fact, he meant to offer no bonus at all. There would, however, be some advantages derived from placing the amount in question in a larger fund: it would be more negociable and more valuable on that account; another advantage, which he admitted would not be very considerable, was, that by transferring the amount to the Three-and-a-half per Cents, it could not be paid off till the year 1840. The saving to the public that would result from this arrangement would be more than 53,000l. a-year. His offer was this—to holders of Four per Cents, for every 100l. of Four per Cents, 100l. of what were called New Three-and-a-half per Cents; the New Three-and-a-half per Cents to be added to and consolidated with the existing New Three-and-a-half per Cents, and not to be liable to redemption till the 5th January, 1840; the holders of Four per Cents to receive the half-year's dividend on the 10th of October next, and the first payment on the Three-and-a-half per Cents in January next. He thought it impossible to make a better offer than this. His Lordship moved the following Resolutions: "That all holders of Four per Cents, commonly called Four per Cent Annuities, 1826, who shall not signify their dissent, shall have for every 100l. of the said Four per Cents. 100l. of New Three-and-a-half per Cent Annuities, the dividend upon which shall be payable 5th January and 5th July in each year. "The said New Three-and-a-half per Cent Annuities shall be added to, and consolidated with, the existing New Three-and-a-Half per Cent Annuities, and shall not be liable to redemption until 5th January, 1840. "The holders of Four per Cent. Annuities, 1826, to receive the half-year's dividend, which will be due thereon on the 10th of October, 1834; and the first dividend—namely, one quarter of a year's dividend, to be payable upon the said New Three-and-a-half per Cent Annuities, on the 5th of January, 1835. "Books will be opened at the Bank of England on Thursday, 8th May, to Wednesday, 28th May, both days inclusive, for receiving notices, by themselves or their agents, of those persons who may be desirous of dissenting. "Persons who shall be out of the United Kingdom during the whole of such period, shall, in such case, be permitted to express their dissent at any time before the 6th July, 1834; and any person who may be in any other part of the world except Europe, to be permitted to express such dissent at any time before the 1st of March, 1835. "Persons not signifying their dissent within the periods before mentioned will be deemed to have assented. Persons signifying their dissent within these periods will be paid off in such order, at such time, and in such manner, as Parliament may direct."

did not rise to oppose the proposition, which he thought was perfectly fair and equitable; but he wished to ask one or two questions of the noble Lord. In the first place, he desired to know whether it was the intention of the noble Lord in the course of the present year to enter into any negotiation respecting the loan for the advance to the West-India planters? He took it for granted that no such intention existed, inasmuch as such a course would hardly be fair to the new holders of this stock. He also would beg the noble Lord to state what measures his Majesty's Government had taken to stop what were considered unfavourable conversions of Three per Cents into Life Annuities.

was understood to say, that it was not the intention of Government to propose a negotiation for a loan for the West-India planters. It would certainly be necessary to make an arrangement with the Bank to pay 3,500,000l. due to it in August. As regarded the other question, it was true, that it had been supposed (it was not proved), that in granting life annuities on ages above eighty, the parties who got the annuities gained an advantage. As far as the experiment had gone, and had been proved, the country had rather, if any thing, been gainer; but this had been on lives not so old. As far as he could judge, he should say, that if the lives were selected in the usual manner, the older lives as well as the younger, the bargain would be a very fair one for the public. He was informed, that, in some cases, parties who wanted to convert their stock into Life Annuities, examined the church-yards of the different parishes, to find out those families, the members of which had died at the greatest age, and they then selected some living member of such families. There was no proof, however, that these lives were longer than others. The first step which he took, on being informed of the effect as regarded the older lives, was, to order that in no more instances should annuities be granted on lives above sixty-five years of age, unless the party seeking the annuity were himself older.

said, that the differences between the picked lives and the ordinary lives, gave a result that was astonishing. He did not see why the same experiment, should not be made with lives of sixty-five as had been made with lives of eighty.

moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Poor-laws Amendment Bill.

complained, that the proposed measure would effect a total alteration in the Constitution. He had not attempted to wade through the whole of the Reports on the subject, but he had read so much of them as referred to the abuses which were stated to exist, and the modes of redress proposed. The first of these evils was the system of out-of-door relief, and it was said to be principally produced by magisterial interference. He had no objection to any measure which might be resorted to for the purpose of counteracting these evils, but in his opinion they were such as might have long since been rectified by the landed proprietors and the magistracy; and by means less objectionable than those now proposed. The next defects of the present system were said to spring from the Laws of Settlement and Bastardy, and the irresponsibility of Select Vestries? He found in the reports no other causes assigned for the extent of the demoralization and misery which existed. He would ask, whether these might not be referred, at least in some degree, to other causes, whether they might not partly arise from the unfair manner in which the poor were treated as regarded taxation on the articles of general consumption? whether the monopoly created by the Corn-law had not a considerable share in producing these results? and whether some portion of the evil might not be attributed to the neglect of the moral education of the poor, on the part of the upper classes. He was surprised to find no allusion to these points in the voluminous reports submitted to the House. On the part, of his constituents he could state, that they were all Whig, Tory, and Radical—opposed to the measure. He had also been present at two or three public meetings, numerously attended, at which the opinion was unanimous against the Bill, but more particularly against that part of it which proposed a Central Board. This proposition was most objectionable, and indeed he doubted whether it was in the power of that House to give to the Central Board such authority as the Bill proposed to vest in them—an authority which empowered them to repeal all the existing laws on this subject—an irresponsible power for the abuse of which they were unimpeachable before any of the ordinary tribunals of the land. Not only did the House by this measure propose to delegate to three Commissioners its own power, but the power and authority of the three estates of the realm. These commissioners were authorised not only to legislate, but also to levy taxes; and who composed the Commission, which recommended investing another commission with such extraordinary powers?—Two Bishops, two political economists, and two barristers. And was such authority as this sufficient, for the correction of the gross abuses which were stated to exist? With regard to what was proposed in relation to out-of-door relief, he must object to the shortness of the time allowed for putting an end to it. It was proposed that it should cease in 1835. ["No, no."] Well, it was proposed that it should cease in a very short time. He protested against the too sudden cessation of out-door relief, as he was certain it would lead to a revolution in the country. The proposed plan was subversive of the very principles of the Constitution. It was a measure which he did not expect to be brought forward by the present Government, who, for the sake of the patronage it conferred, proposed by this Bill to create a new power in the State. For these reasons he would move the follow- ing Resolution as an Amendment on the Motion of the noble Lord:—"That the existing abuses in the administration of the Poor-laws require a strong and compulsory legislative enactment for their correction; but that any measure, with that ostensible view, which shall in its tendency be utterly subversive of the representative principle of local government, which shall tend to withdraw all power from rate-payers over the expenditure of their own funds, or which shall materially increase the influence and power of the Crown, and of the Administration for the time being, ought not, in the opinion of this House to be adopted, unless some extreme and paramount necessity be made out, which cannot be surmounted by any means less objectionable, and less opposed to the free spirit of the ancient constitution of these realms."

said, he should have no objection to discuss the topics included in the Resolution of the hon. and gallant Colonel the member for Westminster, when the proper time for such discussions came; but there was one point in the Motion upon which he would content himself with a single observation. The Resolution spoke of the increased influence which would be added to the Crown and Administration for the time being. He (Lord Althorp) would only ask whether it was possible that his Majesty's Ministers would propose the measure now before the House with a view to any patronage which it might be the means of conferring on them? If there were any who thought so, he could only say, that they had a very strange notion indeed of the policy or sense of the Ministry.

felt considerable pain in addressing the House, because he knew, that this was a dry question to enter upon, and therefore he would occupy as short a time as possible in offering a few remarks. He felt sincerely the evil which was likely to be inflicted upon the country by this Bill; for, looking to the machinery of the measure, he thought that, instead of correcting the evils of which the community complained, it would increase them. It would be prejudicial to property, and demoralizing to the labouring classes. With respect to the principle on which the Poor-laws were founded, he had always held, that they were based on injustice, and that there was here a golden opportunity for the Government to remove the evil. Unless they did this the Poor-laws would continue a national curse instead of a national blessing. This measure went to violate the very principle on which a just Government was founded—namely, that every man had a right to the produce of his own industry. It had ever been held, that every man had a right to be supported thus far, that if he was not able to work or to get work, he must then be supported by the industry of others; but if they abused this principle, they only opened the door to profligacy, and he begged the House not to be instrumental in forcing a plan which must only tend to increase the evils which now existed. The hon. Gentleman then made some observations on the law of settlement to which he (Sir Samuel Whalley) objected, but thought the system might be modified, as he wished that every remnant of the feudal system should be swept away. On this ground alone, however, he should not feel himself at liberty to divide the House upon the second reading of the Bill. But another alteration to which he must refer was that respecting bastardy. He thought the Bill went to inflict a curse upon the people of the country, while he readily acknowledged it was a difficult and a delicate subject to provide for. In these instances criminality now attached to both sexes; but the new laws were to exonerate the male sex and to allow all the misery to be thrown on the unfortunate female who might be the mother of an illegitimate offspring; she had all the disgrace to encounter, nor had she this only to bear, she had also the pains of parturition to suffer. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he would not let false notions of delicacy prevent him from offering his opinion. This Bill went to offer a premium for immorality, and to encourage the crime of infanticide. With respect to the allowance system he agreed with the suggestion of the Government that it should cease, and the objection which he entertained to this part of the measure was the limited period at which it was determined it should stop. He thought the period of twelve months too short to carry this alteration into effect; and he had indeed so many objections to other parts of the Bill, that he felt he could not conscien- tiously allow it to go to a second reading. He believed that the exercise of the powers given to the Central Board would be destructive of property, and subversive of constitutional liberty. He was, therefore, anxious to divide the House upon the measure, that their constituents might thereby know with whom the fault of supporting it rested. It had, on former occasions, been held by the noble Lord, that all who paid taxes had a right to have a control over the administration of their money; but they were about to reverse the principle, and to say that the rate-payers were the last persons to be trusted with the administration of the taxes raised and paid by them. Look to the powers given to the Commissioners; was it to be supposed, that they were to say how much flannel was required for an old woman? Surely the quantity must depend on the length and breadth of the old woman. Leave, then, to the rate-payers the management of their own funds, leave with them the complete control, and he believed, that all the evils would disappear, arising as they did, from the erroneous principle upon which the Poor-laws were founded. At present, the mischiefs of the Poor-laws arose from the want of a sufficient control on the part of the rate-payers over their funds. Vestries were now self-elected, open, and representative. With regard to the first-named, he presumed, that no man would, in these days, advocate such a system; the second might, perhaps, be considered in many cases, as tending to promote or induce clamorous assemblies; but, in the latter case, that of a representative vestry; what was the fact? A man elected by his brother parishioners always felt, that he had an honour conferred upon him, and he always endeavoured to act up to the confidence which was placed in him; and he found, that wherever this latter mode of appointing vestries prevailed, the evils of the Poor-laws did not exist. In speaking of representative vestries, he trusted, the House would excuse him, if he spoke of the parish to which he belonged, that of St. Marylebone—a little kingdom—ay, a little kingdom. He used that expression advisedly, because it was almost equal to Hanover in many respects—it boasted of a larger revenue than Hanover. And before the system of representative vestry was established in that parish, the expenditure was 180,000l. annually; whereas it was now reduced to 50,000l., and a corresponding reduction had taken place in every case where this system had been enforced; and yet, these Commissioners were either ignorant of the matter, or suppressed the fact, in the Report laid before the House. The three Commissioners had the power to say, that the Acts of the three Estates of the realm should be null, for they had the power to overthrow the Act by which the majority of rate-payers had the right of decision. In the 35th section of the Bill proposed to be read a second time, a power was given to repeal Acts of Parliament by the lump. Now, with all the respect which he entertained for the House, he doubted whether it had the right to grant such powers. He doubted whether, in the event of a piece of paper, like that which he held in his hand, being laid before a Judge, the Judges would say the Commissioners could repeal Statutes under its authority. The conviction in his mind was, that they would say the Commissioners could not, and that conviction would be his only solace if such a nefarious Act, as that now proposed, should be ever passed. The Commissioners were called upon to assign no reason beyond their good will and pleasure. He would advise them to seal such a document with a triple crown, as emblematic of their trinitarian character; and if there should be in the House any embryo Commissioners present, he would advise them to adopt as their motto, "Sic volo, sic jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas." Now there was no principle so erroneous as that of a plurality of votes; because, instead of reducing expenditure, it had a contrary effect. A poor man who paid his 5s. only, had, perhaps, a greater interest in the reduction of parochial expenditure than the rich man who paid his 5l. The power to be vested in the Commissioners would allow them to put their hands into the pockets of the rate-payers, so that they might order the enlargement of workhouses to the extent of one-tenth—they might order the expenditure of 800,000l. They also had the power to call before them all persons connected in any way with the Poor-laws; and if these persons should not answer to their satisfaction, they had the power of committing them to any of his Majesty's gaols. But the Commissioners were protected by all sorts of indemnity. They even had the power to disobey the laws, and to punish the infringement of the laws which they themselves made. He would say, that the power thus given to these Bashaws—to these three-tailed Bashaws, was subversive of all constitutional principle. One of the evils which were complained of, in respect to the Poor-laws, was, the interference of the Magistrates. The hon. Gentleman here referred to the case of a parish (as we understood, of Cranbourne), in which there had been a Magistrate who was continually interfering in matters relating to the management of the poor, by which great inconvenience arose. This gentleman died, and was succeeded by another gentleman, who followed a very different course; he introduced a new system, and the evil was abated; and yet they were going, under the provisions of this Bill, to renew the same system of petty interference. The Commissioners had complained, not of the Magistrates themselves, but of the jurisdiction vested in them,—an objection which would apply to all other tribunals endowed with the same powers. One thing which was complained of was, the scale system,—and yet these Commissioners were to regulate the quantity of food for each pauper. The next thing aimed at by this Bill was, the simplification of accounts. Now, the discretionary powers given to these Commissioners were, he found, so numerous, that he found the words, "as they shall think proper," occur thirty-six times in the course of the Report. He doubted, too, the expediency of calling or collecting together a large body of paupers to be paid. He believed, that looking to this measure generally, there were many suggestions of the Commissioners which were practicable, and which would do away with certain evils. But, he would state his deliberate opinion, that if this Bill were allowed to go over to another Session, more good would follow, than by hurrying it on at the present moment. He would give to the Secretary of State the power to send round a circular to every parish, relating to the allowance system, accounts, &c., requiring information; and he was sure, that in this case, much abuse would be prevented. He thought, that this Bill unfortunately went to affirm more strongly than ever the feeling of the poor that they had an inherent right to the poor-rates. He did not know, indeed, why they had not the decency to refrain from giving a verdict before they had the evidence laid before them, because the country did not as yet understand the Bill. Meetings had been held in almost all the metropolitan parishes against the measure, and they had that day received a petition from the Corporation of London, which had been agreed to by the Common Council, with only two dissentient voices. He believed, that one of the effects of this measure would be, that men of character would abstain from filling parochial offices, while those who undertook them must consent to be the degraded tools of the Commissioners. He implored the House to put off this question till next Session, and again repeated his belief, that the Report which had been made would work good. Having returned thanks to the House for the attention which they had paid to his remarks, the hon. Gentleman moved, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

addressed the House as follows: I rise, Sir, to express my hope that the House will read this Bill a second time, and suffer it to go into Committee. Approving as I do, of almost all its main ends—approving as I do also, to a great degree, and for the most part, of the new machinery by which those ends are proposed to be accomplished, and, convinced, as I am fully, that some new machinery is absolutely and indispensably requisite, I hope the House will not refuse to examine this Bill in Committee. This is a subject on which I feel a strong and anxious interest, and had I been left to my own unaided judgment and knowledge of the case, I should still have entertained a strong persuasion that some measure of this kind was indispensably requisite. But I feel the more confirmed in my opinion on this occasion, because this measure has been preceded by a careful and copious inquiry, the details of which are before the public. That inquiry I have consulted with great pains and care. The hon. Gentleman who preceded me states, that he does not believe, that any one has read the one-hundredth part of the evidence and reasonings published by the Commissioners. This is at least a proof of their diligence. But I may state, that Ix have perused with deliberate attention, not only the general Report of the Commissioners, but their Appendix A, which contains the Reports of the Assistant-Commissioners; and I must say, that the details of abuse, as they are set forth in those Reports, appalling as they are in their character, wide-spread throughout most parts of England, afflicting and ruinous to the rate-payer, and hurtful and demoralizing to the last degree to the labouring classes—I must say, that those details demonstrate in the fullest manner, the necessity for a large and comprehensive remedy, such as the present measure professes to be, and approaches to. I shall not weary the House by reading details from that Report, which would attest the magnitude of the abuse; but there is one fact capable of being shortly and plainly stated, which will convey to them some conception of the extent of the existing abuse. The House is aware, that the real and genuine object of the Poor-laws, is to furnish comfortable shelter for the aged and infirm, and to provide work for able-bodied persons who cannot procure employment. Now, the aggregate expenditure on the Poor-laws for the year ending March, 1832, was 7,036,000l. What proportion of this sum does the House imagine to have been employed in setting labourers to work for the parish? The total amount so employed was no more than 354,000l., less than one-twentieth of the whole. So much for the extent of abuse as regards the expenditure! But this vast and abusive expenditure, ruinous as it is to those who pay it, and weighing them down to the ground, in addition to so many other burthens, is, in my mind, as dust in the balance; it is as nothing, compared with the evil effect of the Poor-laws as now administered, on the character and comfort of the labouring classes. The sobriety the industry, and the independence of the labouring classes, are the first of blessings to a country, and the dearest of all objects to every virtuous citizen. Now, every page of the Reports of the Assistant Commissioners teems with evidence, that the Poor-laws throughout most parts of England are so administered as to corrupt and degrade the labourers to the last degree; to afford a premium on idleness and improvidence; and to place in the worst and most destitute condition the most deserving characters—those labourers who work the hardest, and who defer the period of marriage from an anxious desire to maintain their independence. Men of this last character are repudiated and driven from employment, and reduced to the lowest pittance. How can the morality of the labourers resist such mischievous dealing as this? If it be suffered to continue, what is there to prevent them from being all gradually debased and demoralized by the withering influence of pauperism? When I read such a catalogue of evils as this, I ask myself whether it be possible to escape from them without some large and comprehensive alteration of the defective system under which they have grown up? It seems to me totally and absolutely impossible; and therefore it is, that I call upon the House to read this Bill a second time, in order that its provisions and details may be carefully considered in Committee. It makes a great and grave change in our Poor-law Administration—it creates new authorities and new powers; but, in my opinion, not at all earlier than such a change was called for. There are some of the powers conferred by this Bill to which I myself object, and others for which I as yet see no sufficient reason. I see strong objections to the power granted of committing for contempt of Board, and to the sweeping powers granted for summoning witnesses. I object, likewise, to the power granted of uniting parishes contrary to the declared sense of the inhabitants. But all these objections are, in my view, fit subjects for consideration in Committee, and there only. I am quite aware that much jealousy has been expressed on the subject of the great and novel powers proposed to be vested in the Commissioners. I cannot wonder that it should be so; for it is perfectly natural that apprehensions should be entertained when any new and comprehensive authority, not sanctioned by previous habit, is proposed to be created. But the real question for the House to consider is—not whether the powers of the Commissioners are great, but whether they are greater than the urgency of the case requires. This is the real question for the House to determine. First, are not the objects proposed to be carried into effect by this Bill not merely wise and salutary, but of imperious necessity and overwhelming importance? Secondly, if these ends are good and necessary, can they be accomplished without the species and extent of authority, and the new and peculiar agency which this Bill confers? Perhaps it may be shown in Committee, that some of the portions of authority which the Bill confers are not essential to the objects aimed at, and therefore may be safely withheld. This will be matter for grave deliberation in each particular clause wherein the separate powers are enumerated. But I would earnestly entreat the House to keep in mind that general declamations on the despotic power of the Commissioners really avail little towards the merits of this question; that they serve at best only to disturb the calmness and sobriety of mind which its vast and momentous character calls for; and that, to expect the extirpation of an inveterate abuse, while we leave without correction or redress the defective administration from whence it has sprung, is no less chimerical than it would be to expect grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles. But though I am far from denying that the powers of the Commissioners are very large, such as nothing but urgent necessity can justify, yet I am bound to say, that I think they have been supposed to be much greater than the Bill really sanctions. For instance, it has been sometimes argued, as if all parochial vestries and authorities were to be altogether abrogated by this Bill. This is not at all the case. The parochial vestry still subsists; it still levies all the monies collected in the parish; it still issues all the disbursements, subject in certain definite points, to the current authority or superintending control of the Commissioners. But above all, it exists as a local point of appeal and protection against any misuse of authority by the Commissioners. If the Commissioners make any regulations which annoy or oppress the parish, still more if any exercise of their authority should fall hardly or cruelly upon individuals, the vestry will serve as a rallying point for all well-grounded discontent. Entertaining a strong and decided opinion upon this subject, I have done my best to persuade the House to read this Bill a second time. I know that I have done this at no small risk of favour and popularity to myself; for I understand that a petition was this day presented from my own constituents, directed strongly against the passing of this Bill. Sir, it is not without the deepest regret and concern, that I find myself opposed to constituents to whom I am attached by every tie, and to whom I owe the honourable station which I now occupy. But so strong is my conviction of the absolute necessity of some large re- medial measure as an antidote to the overwhelming evil of pauperism—so firm is my belief of the necessity of some central supervising agency to secure the fulfilment of any salutary provisions which the Legislature may prescribe—so strong is my conviction on these cardinal points, that if it were to cost me the certain sacrifice of my seat, I should feel bound to tell my constituents that I dissented from them, and that I would do my best to promote the attainment of this necessary and, in the main, valuable remedy. In doing so, I should feel with pain, that I had decided contrary to the opinion of my constituents; but I should also feel, that I had decided in unison with the best interests of my country.

expressed the pleasure he felt at the calmness of tone and temper with which the hon. Member who had just sat down had delivered his opinions upon this great and important question; and he felt, that both these qualities were the more agreeable, when contrasted with the style and manner of the former speaker. It was not for him (Mr. Slaney) to presume to dictate to the House; but he thought, if ever there was a subject of great and vital importance brought under their consideration, if ever there was a question upon the consideration of which it was right that they should lay aside all violent passions and strong feelings it was the present. It was, he repeated, a most important question, as far as regarded the interests of the great body of the labouring population, and he might say, of the community at large. Their great object ought to be to elevate the character, to improve the condition, and restore the independence, of the most numerous, and he might justly add, the most valuable portion of society. If he were allowed to address the House for a short time, he would state a few facts, which would prove that this was as important a question as had been undertaken by any Government. Let the House consider for a moment the immense burthens which the present system of Poor-laws entailed upon the country. They had heard much about agricultural distress; but he would say that, of all the evils which pressed upon those who resided in the country, none could equal the evil of the Poor-laws. He called upon the House, then, not to cast back, without calm and deliberate inquiry, the measure brought for- ward by Government to remedy that evil. They would find upon inquiry, that the weight of the Poor-laws had been increasing, not gradually but rapidly, upon the country, and had outstripped all the other burthens by which the people were borne down. Hon. Members might, perhaps, imagine that because the nominal burthen was the same, the real pressure had not augmented. But in this they would find they were mistaken. In 1750, the Poor-rates amounted to 700,000l.; in 1784–5, 2,000,000l.; in 1803, 4,000,000l.; in 1815, 6,000,000l.; in 1821, 7,000,000l.; in 1832, 7,054,000l. Now, if they were to take the value of wheat from 1821, as compared with the present time, they would find that the whole burthen had been increased 50 per cent, since that time—that was to say, that a farmer renting an estate would have to pay 50 per cent more Poor-rates in 1832 than 1821. The general increase throughout the country was nearly the same. And for what was he paying this increased charge. Was it in support of an improved peasantry? Was it to ameliorate the condition of an industrious and independent population? Certainly not; the burthen increased, but the working population became more wretched and depressed. It had been said, that the increase of paupers kept pace with an increase of population. Was this so? The House would see. By the 43rd of Geo. 3rd it appeared that the pauper population amounted to 1 in 9; in 1811, they amounted to 1 in 8; in 1821, to 1 in 7; and, in 1827, they amounted to 1,850,000 persons, or to 1 in 6. In several parishes they amounted to 1 in 2; and in one parish the whole population, save the parson, his clerk, and one landholder, were paupers. The total of Church-rate and Poor-rates amounted, in 1827, to 9,500,000l., being 3s. 8d. in the pound; but, taking the price of wheat at that period, and in 1815, the one being at 90s. the other at 60s. the rate would be from 5s. to 6s. in the pound. He would next draw the attention of the House to the increase of crime, which it would appear more than kept pace with the increase of the Poor-rates. In 1811, the number of criminals was 5,360; in 1816, 9,000; in 1821, 13,000; in 1826, 16,000; in 1831, 19,600. In twenty years, therefore, the increase of the population had been at the rate of about thirty-three per cent, while the increase of crime during the same period was at the rate of 400 per cent. Now, when they found the burthen of Poor-rates, the increase of pauperism, and the increase of crime, pressing upon the country at the same moment, surely some remedy was required. Hon. Members might be inclined to attribute this increase of crime to other causes; but, in answer to this he would call upon them to look upon two counties of England, in one of which the Poor-laws were best administered, and in the other where they were the worst administered in the kingdom. He would take a southern and a northern county, Sussex and Northumberland. He found that, comparing the five years up to 1831, there was three times the amount of crime and of pauperism in the county where the Poor-laws were worst administered, compared with the county where they were best administered. What were the evils principally complained of under the existing system? They were, first, the allowance system; next, the making the Poor-rates and the rent of cottages part of the wages. These were the principal evils. What was proposed by this Bill? He would for a moment lay aside the machinery by which the Bill was to be worked, and upon which the hon. member for Marylebone appeared to have directed the whole of his eloquence and argument. But, laying this aside for the present, and coming to what he considered the pith of the question, he would say, that this Bill went to remedy those evils. Any hon. Member who had read the Report of the Commissioners would find, that the existing system acted on three distinct classes of persons, namely, owners of property, employers of labourers, and labourers themselves. And first, with respect to the owners of property, he would, with leave of the House read an extract from the report of the Commissioners. It had been made with great care and minuteness of research, and was worthy of attention. The hon. Member read the following:—'Our evidence exhibits no other instance of the abandonment of a parish, but it contains many in which the pressure of the poor-rate has reduced the rent to half, or to less than half, of what it would have been if the land had been situated in an unpauperised district, and some in which it has been impossible for the owner to find a tenant. Mr. Majendie states, that in Lenham, Kent, at the time of his visit, some of the land was out of cultivation. A large estate has been for several years in the hands of the proprietor, and a farm of 420 acres of good land, tithe free, and well situated, had just been thrown up by the tenant; the poor-rate on it amounting to 300l. a-year. He mentions another place, in which a farm well situated, of average quality, was in vain offered at 5s. an acre, not from objection to the quality of the land, but because men of capital will not connect themselves with a parish in which the poor-rates would keep them in a constant state of vexation and anxiety. He states, that in Ardingly, those farmers who have any capital left, withdraw from the parish as soon as their leases expire. One of them admitted to him, that it was out of the power of the landlords to relieve them. Mr. Power, after mentioning the universal complaint in Cambridgeshire, that substantial tenants cannot be found at the lowest assignable rents, goes on to say, that Mr. Quentin, a gentleman of considerable landed property in the county told him, that he had a farm at Gransden, for which he could not get a tenant, even at 5s. an acre, though land from which thirty bushels of wheat an acre had been obtained.' These were but a few instances, but he could cite many others, were it not from a fear of detaining the House. He next came to the effects of the system upon the employers of labourers, which he considered of even more consequence than the effect produced on the owners themselves. The hon. Member here read a long extract from the report, showing, in strong terms, the injury sustained by the employers under the existing system, and instancing cases where labourers refused 8s. or 10s. per week, saying, "We can do better with the parish." He would be the last man to occupy the attention of the House unnecessarily, but he thought these extracts of importance. The hon. Member next read extracts from that part of the report which showed how the present system affected the labourer himself, and mentioned several cases where honest industrious labourers, who had saved a little money, had been thrown out of work, and had been driven almost from society, until they had spent their little savings and became paupers like the rest. Of course the paupers were anxious to bring all down to their own level; but this evil was principally caused by the fact, that unless a man were dependent on the parish, he had no chance of getting work. Could any thing be more demoralizing than such a system as this? Now, then, for the remedies to be applied to these evils. These were not new, either in conception or in operation. They were exacted by the 43rd of Elizabeth, and were acted upon in the north of England, and in the south of Scotland, They had, therefore, the test of experience in their favour. They were not confined to large districts, but had been tried in small villages and parishes, amongst other places, in Uley in Gloucestershire; at Swalfield, in Wiltshire; at Southwell, in Nottinghamshire; and at Cookham, in Berkshire; and in all these instances, where distress and disturbance existed, it was found that, after the improved system was acted upon, there was neither distress nor disturbance, and persons who were before paupers, were found contributing to the savings' banks. He would say, then, if they considered the diminution of crime as desirable, if they wished for the improvement of laud; that if they sought to obtain that which was above all desirable—the improvement of the moral condition, industrious habits, and independent feelings of the labouring population, they would adopt the measure now proposed. He sincerely hoped and trusted, that the Bill would be allowed to go into a Committee, where any trifling objections might be removed, and he had no doubt, when carried into a law, it would be found to work well, and be productive of the most beneficial effects. They had been admonished, by the increase of pauperism and of crime, of the evils of the existing system. They had, in addition to this, the awful lesson of a sort of civil war which took place about two years ago, in more than two counties, and where conflagrations became so common, that a Commission had been very properly appointed and sent down to put the law in execution. In one place, too, the labourers had actually been put up to auction, and sold to the highest bidder. Such a system was enough to make any man's blood boil in his veins, and it ought to be put down by a strong hand. Unless Government had come forward with a Bill of this kind, there would be no se- curity for life or property, and the frame of society could not hold together. It used to be the impression, that when persons went from the metropolis to the country, they retired to peaceful and quiet homes; but now no village, hamlet, or parish was safe from the work of the incendiary; and when the flames were raging at the highest, the labourers, instead of helping to extinguish them, were seen silently looking on. These were lessons which they ought not to neglect; and if the House now declined to support his Majesty's Ministers in their efforts to remedy these evils, they might not, perhaps, ever again have an opportunity of doing so.

could by no means participate in the fears entertained by the hon. member for Marylebone, that the powers which were to be intrusted to the Commissioners under the Bill were likely to produce any serious inroad on the rights and liberties of the country; for, to whom were those powers to be intrusted? Not to any body of persons powerful in themselves. If, indeed, those powers were vested in the Crown, in the House of Peers, in his Majesty's Ministers, or in any powerful Corporation such as that of the Bank of England, there might be some apprehension; but they were to be intrusted to persons who were merely public servants, possessed of no external authority, allied to no party, and against whom every man's hand might and would be raised in the event of their misconduct. So far from creating improper powers, the Bill went to limit the frightful powers which the magistrate on the one hand, and the overseers on the other, exercised over the labouring population, and by which they degraded that population to a state of absolute slavery. He allowed, that the powers to be intrusted by the Bill ought to be subject to proper limitations, and that there were some parts of the Bill which might be advantageously modified; but all that would be matter for consideration in the Committee. At present, such was the state of things, that no man's property, whether in town or in country, could be said to be his own. One step after another, the labouring population had been sunk into such an abject condition, that when they roused themselves from their state of slavery, it was only to plunge into crime. The hon. member for Marylebone had said, he should divide the House to see who were the supporters of the measure. He (Mr. Clay) was quite willing that the hon. Member should watch him as one of those supporters. Although the approbation of his constituents would always be dear to him as a reward for his services in that House, he never would allow the hope of their approbation to influence him in doing what was contrary to the dictates of his judgment; and he thought much too nobly of those who had sent him to Parliament as the guardian of their rights, to believe that when on any occasion be honestly differed from them, and acted conscientiously in consequence, they would feel towards him any displeasure. He had that morning had an interview with a deputation from several parishes of the metropolis, and even of those who most disapproved of the Bill, not one expressed any dissatisfaction at the conduct which he told them it was his intention to pursue. With these few words, and reserving himself for any further remarks until the Committee, he should sit down, by giving his cordial assent to the second reading of the Bill.

observed, that without reading all the details of the Report, but simply from his own knowledge of the facts, every man who had any experience on the subject, must, in his opinion, soon come to a just conclusion upon it. In fact, the House had nothing to do at present with details; the question before them was the principle of the Bill. Now, he roust say, that he felt great repugnance to so extensive a change in a system which had existed so long; a change which would go to the hearts and feelings of so large a portion of the people; which would annihilate those laws which had so long been enforced; and which would take from them all hope whatever of relief from their embarrassments, however temporary. If that were not so, he should be very happy, and be almost disposed to vote for the second reading of the Bill. But then there was another objection to the measure, which struck him as most extraordinary. All the good which it proposed to do by its cumbrous machinery appeared to him to be perfectly attainable by a proper administration of the existing Poor-laws. Some of the statements which had been made that evening by an hon. Member, were irrefragable arguments against so large a change as that which was projected; for the hon. Gentleman had mentioned several, parishes in which the Poor-laws were so well administered, that they formed a striking contrast to the parishes in their neighbourhood; and it was quite evident that, if a wise administration of the present Poor-laws produced beneficial effects in some parishes, the same effects might be produced in other parishes by the adoption of a similar course, without having recourse to so fundamental a change, and one which would unquestionably be repugnant to the feelings of a very large portion of the population. What were the great grievances of the present system? One was, that the overseers were, generally speaking, not men of sufficient intelligence, and that they did not devote sufficient time to their duties. Another was, that, indiscriminately, relief was given to the poor without any inquiry into their character or deserts; thereby not holding out either encouragement to the good, or discouragement to the bad. But, he repeated, these and all the other evils to the system might surely be remedied without having recourse to so extensive and overwhelming a measure as that under consideration. Surely some measure could be devised for remedying abuses which existed, without being troubled with the cumbrous machinery which disfigured the present plan. It was hardly fair to give any decided opposition to the second reading of the Bill, more especially as they had the power of altering it materially in the Committee. He remembered a Bill being brought into the House long before anything like general Reform was considered attainable, which was allowed to be read a second time, but which was so altered in Committee, that the clauses were not at all the same, and even not three lines of the original preamble were agreed to. The Bill, after coming out of the Committee, contained little more of the original Bill than the title. The same course might be pursued with the present Bill, and, therefore, he did not see any necessity for opposing the second reading. He would not take up the time of the House further than to express his regret, that so decided an alteration should be attempted at once—that so many new and varying principles should have been incorporated in one Bill. He thought each one should have been inserted in a different Bill; that they should have tried one particular point first, have ascertained its practicability, and thus take a less dangerous course in the object they had in view—that of reducing expence, and, at the same time, bettering the moral condition of the poor. He really thought, that the plan would be found wholly impracticable in the way now proposed; and though he would not vote against the second reading of the Bill, he reserved to himself the full right of making a proposition of his own in any of its future stages.

said, it had been the constant cry that Ministers ought to take the revision of the Poor-laws into their own hands, with a view to correct those manifold and glaring abuses, the existence of which no one attempted to deny. They had done so. He (Mr. Richards) had carefully read the Bill brought by them into the House, and, in spite of the taunts thrown out by the hon. member for Marylebone against it, and against the Poor-law Commissioners, on whose recommendation it was founded, he must beg leave to assert his opinion, that the Bill had many excellent features; and he was bound in common justice to say, that both the Bill and the Report did high honour to the talents and the integrity of the Commissioners appointed by Government. He thought his Majesty's Ministers entitled to praise for their judicious selection of Commissioners; he thought the Commissioners entitled to praise for the fearless and the able discharge of an onerous, and, in many respects, a painful duty. The hon. Baronet who last addressed the House, animadverted, in a slight degree, on what had fallen from preceding speakers; but he (Mr. Richards) must say, with the greatest respect for that hon. Baronet, that he could not have read the report of the Commissioners; or, if he had read it, that he had not brought to its consideration, that keen and shrewd talent which generally characterised his observations in that House. The principal provision of the Bill was that which went to deny relief to the able-bodied pauper, except in exchange for labour; and if this provision held out any hope—which certainly it did—of safely mitigating the immense abuses of this part of the system—of doing away with a notorious, a crying, and worse than all, an increasing evil—he did not, see any reason which could fairly impede any hon. Gentleman from giving the measure his best consideration, or justify him in say- ing, that it should not go to a second reading. He really must be allowed to say, that not only had there been a great deal of violence displayed in the sentiments uttered by the hon. member for Marylebone in that House, but that, out of doors, there had been a bold and unjust attempt made to raise a cry against it. He would advert to a pamphlet which had been lately published by an hon. member of that House (Mr. Walter), whose connexions with the press made his assertions of greater weight, and required that his opinions should be more closely examined. The hon. author had been obliged to admit, that the Poor-laws were deserving of consideration, and, in the eighteenth page of his little work, he said, 'It is very certain that distress has rather increased than diminished. It has extended higher, with the most frightful rapidity. The British farmer has been dragged down, and has, perhaps, not reached the bottom of the abyss; and the landed proprietor is in no enviable situation. But I do not think any of these are to be improved by a totally new system, engendered in despair, and which we are called upon to adopt in the heat of the moment. I should rather desire that we might cast our eyes back on ancient usages, and endeavour to return to them, than introduce a plan which might draw the country yet further from its ancient habits, and ultimately tend to change the very nature of Englishmen, who have been accustomed to look to each other for support, and not to call for the cold and hard hand of Government in all occurrences of life and changes of fortune.' The author himself, by the words, 'and has not, perhaps, reached the bottom of the abyss,' seemed to anticipate a future which might be worse in its consequences than the present; and he agreed with that hon. Member, that it would be so, if something were not done; but he still confidently expected—he said expected, for it was beyond a hope—that the measure then before the House, amended as it would be in some points in committee, would redress many of the great and startling evils which pervaded the present system—would raise the character of the labourer—(and what sacrifices should not be made for such an end?)—and greatly benefit the proprietor of the land. It was because the labourer would have a chance of raising himself—it was because the opportunity would be afforded him of making an advance in civilization—it was because by his own industry he might have a chance of bettering his wages—it was because there was here a prospect of others preventing themselves from being dragged into "an abyss of pauperism," that he gave to this measure certainly a very humble, but most earnest and anxious support. Adverting to the application of the principle, the question arose, whether the machinery was sufficiently simple, or, at all events, as simple as could be devised? and he must candidly express his opinion, that changes were desirable. The Central Board was certainly to be armed with immense powers, and, in this point, more than any other, he thought the proposed change too great. It appeared to him that some plan could be devised by which the same effect might be brought about without resorting to so great an organic change, and without shocking, in so violent a manner, the feelings and the habits of the people. It happened to him, a short time back, to pay a visit to the sister island, in relation to this great question, and he there saw a species of poor-law in active operation in the city of Dublin, of which few persons in this country had perhaps any cognizance. Owing to the dreadful annoyance experienced by the inhabitants some years back from pauperism, and its usual concomitants, disease, and crime, a Mendicity Society had been established, in order to redress the evil; and though gentlemen in that House might suppose, that no steps had been taken in that country to remedy the pauperism which prevailed, they would, from this fact, find that even many years ago, it had occupied the anxious attention, and commanded the untiring exertions of many eminent and excellent men. The principle established by this institution was, that no relief should be extended to an able-bodied labourer, except for work done; and the happiest consequences had resulted from the regulation. The very first step, on application for relief, was to give out work, and wages were paid in fair and just proportion. He believed that the whole city of Dublin would bear willing testimony to the advantages which had accrued from the plan, and as it had now been tried for upwards of twenty years, he thought the Poor-Law Commissioners were perfectly right in recommend- ing the adoption of a similar plan in this country. The author of the pamphlet to which he had already alluded, said, 'Had the projects which others have recommended been any of them of beneficial operation, I should have deferred to authority; but finding the whole system of Poor-Laws, from their establishment to the present day, a history of changes without benefit, every fresh Act indicating the inefficiency of that by which it had been preceded, I began to think that one man's opinion might be as good as another's.' Now, no doubt, the hon. Member had good reason for liking his own panacea, but that furnished no reason why others should speak in praise of it. Further on, the hon. Gentleman quoted, with approbation, a speech of Lord Harewood's, in which the noble Earl said, 'He hoped that he should live to see the time when the original intention of the Legislature, in introducing the Poor-laws, would be brought into operation, viz. to provide employment for those who required it, and to provide relief for those only who were incapable, from age or infirmity, of working.' Well, and what was the great principle laid down by the Poor-law Commissioners, but that which he had just quoted? What was their object but to bring back the administration of the Poor-laws to their original condition—to expose the nuisances and eradicate the evils which time and mismanagement had allowed to creep in? This was the principle which pervaded every line of their Report—the restoration of the original design was the object of the Bill. Knowing this—seeing it in the Bill itself—he should certainly vote for the second reading, reserving to himself the right of suggesting, in Committee, certain alterations which, as they did not affect the principle itself, it would be wholly out of order if he were to attempt to dilate upon in that stage.

said, the hon. member for Marylebone had stated many of his own notions without condescending even to touch on the substantial inaccuracies of the Bill, or to notice any of its real merits. The hon. Gentleman seemed to look with more than common fight at the erection of a Central Board, whose powers should pervade and control the mighty parish of Marylebone—hitherto looked upon as an independent state, but now it appeared a tributary one —a kingdom of his own—the El Dorado of his own imagination—in defence of the crown and dignity of which he appeared ready to venture his all. But there were parishes, he begged leave to say, which could not boast the beneficent influence of a well-regulated vestry. There were such things as small parishes—aye, and so many of them, that their population far exceeded the population of the towns, and in these the abuses were so frightful, that nothing but a strong, and, in some instances, an almost despotic power would be able to correct them. He would not deny, that the power to be vested in the Central Board was strong in the extreme; perhaps it was hardly constitutional; but when they recollected the constitution of the vestries in small districts—the thousand abuses which pervaded them—when they recollected the conduct of the magistracy, how they differed in opinion and practice, how local feeling operated in one case, how the petty ambition of appearing the poor man's friend influenced in another—how unable they were, in pauperized districts, to enforce anything like economy, order, or regularity; when they recollected these things, he was sure they must concede the desirableness of at least trying the proposed plan. For his own part, he felt, from long conviction, the absolute necessity of having a controlling power, remote from local influence—free from local prejudices—that would have the will and the ability to administer the law firmly, impartially, and justly. He did not conceal his opinion, that certain of the powers conferred, such as compelling the attendance of witnesses, committing for contempt, enforcing the production of deeds, &c. would require revision; but that revision belonged to the Committee, and ought not to act as a bar to the second reading of the bill. To another power vested in the Board, he also entertained a strong repugnance, though he was afraid it would prove to be necessary—the removal of salaried officers. Every one knew the incompetency of these functionaries—their ignorance, their tyranny—savages on the one hand, and peculators on he other, and not to be controlled without some strong power like the present. Instances of parish officers, too, who overbore the vestries, were by no means uncommon. He was acquainted with the case of a large parish, in which the governor of the workhouse, a man of violent passions and vindictive temper, controlled the whole parish; and such was the dread of this individual, that, although the mismanagement of the workhouse was iniquitous, and the expenditure excessive, no one ventured to come forward to oppose it. With regard to the proposal of the hon. Member to vest a controlling power in the hands of the Secretary of State, if the hon. Member looked into the Bill, he would find that such a power was given by it, and, in fact, that there was to exist an absolute control over the Commissioners in the hands of the Secretary of State, and that no control existed in reference to the Secretary himself. With respect to the power of the Commissioners to build workhouses, effect unions of parishes without consent, and regulate the relief to be given to able-bodied labourers and their families, he considered the authority granted by the Bill as by far too extensive. If the Bill should work well, it would be owing to the discretion and prudence of the Commissioners, and not inconsequence of the wisdom of Parliament. He doubted how far Parliament had a right to delegate such powers as it was proposed to grant to those Commissioners. The House was appointing something like an absolute and unlimited monarchy by means of the provisions of this Bill. Gentlemen might be influenced by a particular bias, and attempt to pursue their opinions too far, or carry on their measures of reform too hastily; there did not exist a sufficient check upon these possibilities. He must also complain, that the duties of the Commissioners were left undefined; he thought that their great powers ought to be defined distinctly. He thought it more fit that Parliament should define the duties and limit the powers of the Commissioners. It would be well, therefore, if Parliament passed a law for the government of workhouses. Much might be done to protect the rate-payers, and define the labour and hours of labour of the paupers. There was but one point more to which he should allude. The Commissioners were empowered to unite parishes for the maintenance of workhouses; and they would also have the power of separating parishes and families. They might place a husband in one workhouse, his wife in a second, and their boys in a third. He had heard, that it was intended to exercise this power of separation. If that report were confirmed, he must say, that to such a course of proceeding, he, for one, would never consent. He was of opinion, that, in the management of workhouses, there should be no more restraint upon the inmates than was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of order; and though it might be requisite to separate men from their wives generally, yet rules should be laid down which, enforcing regularity, should be consonant to humanity.

said, that it was impossible to conceal the fearful importance of the present measure, any more than its anomalous and unprecedented character. It was an attempt, not to alter or improve, but to abolish at one stroke the whole body of our Poor-laws, and to substitute another body of laws, totally different in principle and practice, in their place. The general usage in this country had been to correct abuses, to remove pressures, to strengthen infirm parts, and so by a system or succession of expedients our laws had grown up to their present form and consistency. He confessed that he dreaded, and his constituents were also beginning to dread, this new-made constitution, for such it must be considered, for the poor, and for every parish in the kingdom. He said, that people attained rights by long and unbroken enjoyment; and the poor of this country had rights, many of which they had lost, as the right of commonage, by the indiscriminate rage for enclosures. The right of maintenance and employment still remained to them under the old constitution by which they had been governed; and if injured, if their rights were violated, they were within reach of those to whom, by their voices, they could complain of that violation. But by this new constitution, their rights were to be removed from their old basis, and placed on a totally different foundation; and that foundation would not be within their reach, but placed in London, in a central board or commission. A certain Abbé at the beginning of the French Revolution was said to have had constitutions of every kind, which he could take out of the pigeon-holes of his bureau. This certainly was not one of his constitutions, for there had never been any legal provision for the poor in France; but, it resembled them; for it had no connexion with any thing that ever existed before in the habits of the people lo whom it was meant to be applied, no analogy with any of their pre- ceding laws, nothing congenial with their modes of thinking; it came out of the pigeon-hole of some theorist's brain, and had been supported before it was offered to that House by a partial examination of individuals and series of leading questions. He hoped the measure would not be persevered in, or, if persevered in, that it would not be carried forward without the most measured consideration and the universal assent of the nation, if that could be obtained. A copy of the Bill should be laid on every vestry table. Other circumstances connected with the measure were the appalling expense and ramified patronage with which it even started. What it might be in the issue heaven alone knew. He thought that, under a Reformed Parliament, there was to be a saving of expenses and a diminution of patronage. By this Bill there would be a mass of patronage created, of commissioners, sub-commissioners, clerks, and guardians, and an expense incalculable, for the first estimate rarely sufficed for one single and definite object; and who could conceive the expense of a system which it was meant should continue for ever? He should certainly vote for the postponement of the Bill till next Session, if the hon. Member divided the House, and should suggest that his Majesty's Ministers should direct their energies for the present to an amendment of the laws of settlement and of bastardy—of the former, by a very different provision from that which appeared in the Bill, by which a man in his old age, should he have fallen into misfortune, might be transported to the place of his birth, which he might never have seen from his infancy. In these two objects there was enough to engage their attention, and that of the House, during the present Session; and such a course would be more in accordance with the usual practice of legislation in this country, to remedy evils singly, rather than to body forth new forms and constitutions.

said, that the hon. Member who had just addressed the House, seemed extremely anxious that we should not enter upon any course which would entail an extravagant amount of expense upon the country. In that particular, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member; and it was because he thought the present Bill calculated to save millions of expenditure, that he approved of its provisions. If the hon. Member looked into the Bill, or had not forgot what he wrote on it the other day, he must agree with him, that the course which we should take in this instance, did not consist in a bit-by-bit reform, but in the adoption of a complete and comprehensive measure. What ought men to do who were aboard a sinking ship? Should they not try to save it by a bold and decisive course? The hon. Member had endeavoured to persuade his constituents to entertain an unfavourable opinion of the Bill: he had stated to them what he conceived to be the evils of the measure, and his own opinion of it. The hon. Member also admitted the evils of the present system. Yet, great and manifold as these were, he now proposed palliatives rather than a cure, and recommended the House to try what could be done for the amendment of the law of settlement. The hon. Member said, in his pamphlet on this subject. "In the mean time, it is very certain, that distress has rather increased than diminished. It has extended higher, with the most frightful rapidity. The British farmer has been dragged down, and has perhaps not reached the bottom of the abyss; and the landed proprietor is in no enviable situation." How was it possible to reconcile those sentiments with the hon. Member's speech, and with the course which he now proposed? The hon Member had spoken of the rights of the poor. What rights did this Bill take away from the poor man? The hon. Member had spoken of evils and abuses, and, in his pamphlet, addressed to his constituents, he said, "But I do not think any of these are to be improved by a totally new system, engendered in despair, and which we are called upon to adopt in the heat of the moment. I should rather desire, that we might cast our eyes back to our ancient usages, and endeavour to return to them, than introduce a plan which might draw the country yet further from its ancient habits, and ultimately tend to change the very nature of Englishmen, who have been accustomed to look at each other for support, and not to call for the cold and hard hand of Government in all occurrences of life and changes of fortune." He asked whether it could be fairly said, that this measure had been concocted in the heat of the moment, when it was notorious, that it was brought forward, after two years of cautious inquiry? If the farmers were dragged down into the abyss, and if the landed proprietors were in no enviable situation, he put it to the hon. Member, whether it was not desirable, after two years of anxious inquiry, and after an extensive and carefully conducted investigation, to attempt some effectual remedy for the evil? The proposed remedy was now before the House, and notwithstanding all that had been urged against it, he was not convinced, that the measure would be unpopular when it should be generally understood. Measures of the most infamous kind had been taken with a view to prejudice the public mind against the Bill. Tyranny and injustice were talked of, and all sorts of mis-statements were hazarded, supported by garbled extracts. The passions of the people were appealed to, and inflamed by telling them, that they were to be enslaved and ruined by this measure. Those statements were perfectly unfounded; he denied that the Bill was calculated to injure the poor. He was the last man to injure the poor—and if he did not believe the measure to be for the benefit of the poor as well as the rich, he would never agree to it. The hon. Member should take care what he was about. He said, that he wanted to raise the moral standard of the people: could he do so while the people were kept in destitution and dependence—while the labourer was kept in a dependent situation, without sixpence that he could call his own, till, driven by despair, he became utterly reckless of what he did, finding his family destitute and neglected, and every prospect of improvement closed against him? At this very moment there were instances of grandfathers, fathers, and sons, all in the workhouse together—a state of things lamentable in its consequences, and all occasioned by the demoralizing laws now in existence, and by the ill effects of the present system. This measure did not take away any existing rights—every man had a right to a subsistence (that he freely admitted), but it was not the part of good laws to support men in idleness and encourage improvident habits. What was now proposed was with a view to correct acknowledged evils. Would anybody object to this? He readily admitted, that he thought some of the powers conferred by the Bill too great, too extensive, and such as would not be found to be required; but that was not the question now before the House. The first forty-four clauses of the Bill embodied the means for carrying the measure into effect. After those followed what he considered as the principles of the proposed system, and to that branch of the subject he had heard no objection. If the machinery were thought too great or extensive, or if there appeared anything unconstitutional in its nature, let it be restricted—make the Commissioners responsible for their conduct; indeed no men should be intrusted with irresponsible power. Therefore, if the present check and control which existed by means of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Privy Council, were not considered sufficient, let it be increased. He maintained, however, that the control was very considerable. All regulations must be submitted to the Secretary of State, who had forty days for their consideration previously to any rule coming into operation. Great delusion existed with respect to the present Bill, but he trusted that it would be removed as the matter came to be discussed and canvassed. He had seen individuals from every part of Middlesex, and having explained to them the true purport and object of the measure, so far from wishing to have it materially altered or abandoned, they all agreed in its propriety, and hailed the advantages of which it held out a prospect. They said, however, that there were powers conferred by the Bill which they were anxious to see restricted. To this he replied, that those powers would be limited if it were found necessary. They said, that there should be a uniformity of system—the Bill was intended to effect that object. He felt somewhat surprised at the observations of his hon. friend the member for Marylebone, but doubtless his hon. friend thought this a good opportunity to trumpet the great and noble acts of the Marylebone vestry. He was ready to give the vestry of that parish full credit for its acts; he had exerted himself on behalf of that vestry, and he said, there was an instance of a proper control being exercised by the vestry. But did his hon. friend mean to say, that he thought the parish of Marylebone a fair instance or example of what was done in the rest of England? There was no intention on the part of the Commissioners to interfere with Marylebone; but if, at a future day, even that parish should fall away from its present virtuous course, it was proper that there should be an efficient control in some quarter—some remedy for evils that might arise. He denied the assumed unanimity of the Marylebone vestry in the petition presented to the House on this subject. Out of 120 individuals only twenty-four concurred in it. [Sir Samuel Whalley: Forty-seven.] Yes, the petition was afterwards signed by that number, but who were present when the petition was agreed on? What was the number of the majority in its favour? Only seventeeen, while eleven voted against it. In other parishes many votes had been taken on the subject, and petitions were coming up to the House against the Bill, which proceeded upon a perfect misapprehension and mistake as to its principles. Alarms and fears were groundlessly engendered in some people's brains, and in other people without brains; and thus the subject being imperfectly understood or altogether misapprehended, a prejudice was excited. The hon. Member talked of the impropriety of granting this power and that power, but he agreed in the principle of the Bill, although disapproving of the Central Board. Now, that was merely the machinery of the measure, and should be a subject for discussion in the Committee. Yet this machinery seemed to appal the hon. Member, who fancied he beheld in the Central Board a great and mighty giant, the simple movement of whose hands alarmed him to such a degree, that before venturing to grapple with it he was anxious to run away. He hoped that the House would not be actuated by such groundless apprehensions, but that it would agree to the second reading of the Bill and afford ample time for discussing the measure on other opportunities. The hon. member for Berkshire had not stated a single tangible objection to the measure—had his hon. friend the member for Marylebone stated a single objection? Not one, except as against the machinery of the Bill. But this was not the time to discuss objections of that nature. He asked, however, whether a uniformity of system could be ever carried into effect without some controlling power? His hon. friend would not answer in the negative. Well, then, all were agreed as to the principle of the measure. Even the hon. member for Berkshire admitted that we were sinking to the bottom of the abyss—that we were in a drowning state, and drowning men would catch at straws. Now this constituted his objection to a limited or bit-by-bit Reform, and evinced the necessity of a decisive measure. It was clear, that a controlling power must be lodged somewhere for the purpose of procuring uniformity; and that power would, in his humble judgment, be best lodged, as was proposed by this Bill, in the Central Board of Commissioners. If the power proposed were considered too extensive, let it be limited—if at present undefined, let it be denned, and he was sure the Bill would work well. He would mention that the state of Massachusetts had adopted the English system of Poor-laws, which was introduced by the first settlers, who carried it with them from this country. What was the consequence? The greatest amount of allowance raised by any state of the Union was in Massachusetts, where there was the greatest number of paupers. About the time of the commencement of the present inquiry in this country, the Assembly of Massachusetts appointed a Committee to investigate the subject, and the result was, to produce a Report declaring the opinion of the Committee, that to have men depending on any system of allowance was in itself a great evil—that the whole system was wrong—and the Committee concluded with a recommendation to take away all right of support whatsoever. If this were proposed in England, the hon. member for Berkshire would have ground to complain, but we did not do that. In Massachusetts they had come to a conclusion that the system was essentially bad, and in New York also a Report had been presented to the legislature in the month of February in the present year, stating that they had put an end to out of door allowances, and that the effect in one short year had been to reduce the expenditure fifty per cent, and improve the morals of the people. With such instances before their eyes, it was bad policy to damp the exertions of Ministers, and propose that the present Bill be read a second time that day six months. They deserved the praise of every man for the present attempt, which, if not perfect, ought not to be stopped unless the House was disposed to put an end to all improvements in the Poor-taws. He asked those Gentlemen who viewed with jealousy that part of the Bill which went to confer an unconstitutional power on the Commissioners, to suspend their decision till the Bill went into Committee. He trusted that the Bill would meet with such powerful support as would show the country that there was a determination to meet the great evil of the Poor-laws in the face. The measure would be beneficial to the farmers and landowners, and was in favour of the poor man. Let not power which was not necessary, for the success of the measure, be given, but let that be given, and then the measure would have a fair trial.

said, that too much blame had been thrown on the Magistrates, who had acted solely under the law. They had distributed their own money and the money of their tenants. They had been accused by the public Press, first of having been too sparing of their own money, and then of having been too lavish of it. This was a very difficult subject. A Bill had been brought in by Mr. Sturges Bourne, founded on the evidence and Report in the year 1817. No man understood the Poor-laws better than that Gentleman, and yet his Bill was not successful. Then the matter was afterwards taken up by Sir James Scarlett, who gave up his Bill. He was followed by Mr. Nolan and Mr. Slaney, both of whom in succession gave up their own measures. He was not standing up to oppose the second reading of the Bill, though he was confident that it must be altered so as to make it agreeable to the country. He agreed with many Gentlemen who said that something must be done; but if something must be done, it must be done well. The workhouse system, which only perpetuated poverty, must be abolished. The system might be put down without this machinery of the workhouse. The great evil in the west of England was, that able young men, who did no work, received wages. He should certainly support the second reading of the Bill.

expressed his assent to the principle of the Bill, and should vote for its going into a Committee. He had heard a great deal about despotic power, but he could not conceive how this Bill could be called a despotic measure. The power which it was proposed to intrust to the Commissioners might be subjected to some appellate jurisdiction. With some restriction of that kind be should vote for the Committee, reserving it to himself to check any great and unnecessary power which might be conferred by the Bill on the Commissioners.

said, that the Bill, before it received the final sanction of the House, must receive many Amendments and modifications. His constituents were in favour of the principle of the Bill. It appeared to him that, considering the fluctuations in the trade of the country, it would be impolitic to exclude able-bodied labourers from relief. This Bill would Reform the system of management introduced into parishes. He should support the second reading of the Bill, at the same time he must say, that he thought the power of the Commissioners by far too great.

had great satisfaction in stating, that he did not see any occasion to detain the House very long. The objections which had been raised against the provisions of the present Bill in the course of the evening's debate were so few and so inconsiderable that he need trouble the House with but very few observations. It was extremely satisfactory to him to find that such a general concurrence of sentiment existed in favour of the principles of the Bill before the House. Although some very few Gentlemen had announced their intention of voting against the second reading, there was no class of Representatives or of peculiar opinions united against it. The hon. member for Westminster (Sir Francis Burdett) had expressed an opinion that the provisions of this Bill were too large; but if he had considered how large was the evil that was to be remedied, he would not have expressed that opinion. If it was attempted by small measures to Reform the present evil system of the Poor-laws, it would be but a continuance of the mistaken principle which had hitherto been acted upon in legislating on this subject. It was well known that Bill after Bill had been carried through the Legislature upon this subject, which, so far from having any beneficial effect, had, in too many cases, made matters worse than before. Another hon. Member had said, that if parishes were left to themselves they would adopt such measures as might promise to be of a beneficial practical effect, and had instanced cases in which a wholesome system of Poor-laws had been introduced by the assiduity and good sense of the local authorities. He admitted these facts, but in doing so he thought they were but an additional proof in favour of the necessity for some general measure of the kind now before the House. The object of the present Bill was to raise the moral as well as the economical condition of the labouring classes. Some hon. Members had declared, that they did not see how that object was to be effected by it. Now it was evident, that inasmuch as the application for parish relief was discouraged, the labourer must bear a more independent and a more respectable character. The hon. member for Wiltshire, in allusion to the difficulties of the subject, had quoted the names of a number of persons of eminence and great ability who had attempted, but failed, in such a project. No man was more conscious than he was of the difficulties with which this question was encumbered; and so convinced was he of them, that he thought no one could hope to succeed in avoiding them unless he had previously obtained that vast fund of information upon the subject which it had been the object of the Commission recently appointed to procure. It was not at all surprising that Members unprepared with this fund of materials should have hitherto failed in attempting to legislate upon the subject. He now came to a few particular observations upon what had fallen in the course of the debate. The hon. member for the City of London had stated, as to the power proposed to be invested in the Commissioners to be appointed under this Bill, that if one fraction more was given than was necessary for carrying the provisions of the Bill into effect that fraction ought to be taken away. He perfectly agreed in that opinion; and, therefore, when the Bill came before a Committee of the House he should certainly not oppose any diminution of those powers which might be suggested, provided it did not go to such an extent as to invalidate the principle of the Bill. The hon. member for Lambeth had suggested the propriety of a superior Court of Appeal from the decision of the Commissioners; and he must say, that he did not feel inclined to oppose that proposal. He would also be happy to meet the inclinations of another hon. Member in doing away, as far as possible, with the immunities of indemnity proposed to be granted to the Commissioners in their official capacity; at the same time that he thought that, in cases where they might be acting strictly in execution of the provisions of this Act, they should be protected. If actions against them were permitted under such circumstances it might be productive of great and unnecessary vexation and litigation, as attornies in every county town would be constantly taking advantage of it to harass the Commissioners in the exercise of their duty. Another hon. Member, in allusion to the extensive powers which the Commissioners were to hold, had particularly alluded, amongst others, to their authority for settling the salaries, &c, of the overseers. It should be recollected that, whatever might have been said to the contrary on the subject, this Bill did not vest the power of appointing the overseers in the Commissioners. An hon. Member who had made some observations panegyrising the present system of Select Vestries in some parishes had, nevertheless, not advanced anything against the principle of paid overseers; and he did not think it expedient that the Commissioners, having authority to direct the duties of the overseers, should not also be intrusted with the payment of their services. He next came to the principle of enabling the Commissioners to make laws and general rules. He would ask, notwithstanding the objections which had been raised against it, whether this was so new a principle as to be objectionable on that account? Was not the power now vested in the Magistrates in appointing the allowance scale tantamount to making regulations? He was perfectly ready, however, to take into consideration any objection which might be raised upon this point when the Bill came before the Committee. He must be allowed to observe, however, that the House should not come to legislate upon a matter of this kind without giving some credit, to the Commissioners or other officers to be appointed for not seeking to exceed their legitimate authority. An hon. Member who had lately addressed the House, had borne testimony to the efficient alterations which had been effected in various parishes at different times and under different systems of management. Those facts appeared to him to bear strongly in favour of a measure of this kind, which would appoint a body of men capable of investigating all the particulars of different parishes with a power to appoint the course to be adopted in the various cases which presented themselves under the existing system. No one Legislative Act could be passed applicable to every particular case; what would be a proper course to adopt in one district would be directly the reverse in another. With respect to the union of parishes, it had been suggested as an improvement, that a scale should be adopted as to the extent of the districts. The hon. member for Marylebone had declared that there existed no sort of abuse in that parish. He had no doubt but the affairs of that parish were undergoing a wholesome course of improvement, yet he could hardly think, that there were not some points in which it might yet be improved by such a measure as that before the House. Some Gentlemen had expressed alarm at the removal of power from the hands of the Select Vestries; but it really appeared to him, that so far from the useful services of the vestries being impaired, they would be increased when the Bill came into operation. It should be recollected, that already under the existing state of the law the Magistrates had a very great compulsory power over the vestry authorities. He now came to the proposed workhouse system, upon which much misrepresentation appeared to exist. It was said, that the intention of the Bill went wholly to prevent the granting of relief out of the workhouse walls. Now the fact was, there was no one clause in the Bill to that effect; but, on the contrary, a passage expressly declaring, that in cases of emergency relief might be given out of doors. The Commissioners were certainly to have the power of recommending the building of workhouses; but, so far from all relief of any other description being prevented by the Bill, he believed, that when it came fairly into play, the out-door system of relief might be advantageously increased rather than otherwise. The hon. member for Marylebone, and another hon. Gentleman, would have confined, it seemed, all legislation upon the subject of the Poor-laws to the matter of settlement only; and the hon. member for Marylebone, with what propriety had not appeared, had denominated the present Law of Settlement as a remains of feudal times. With respect to the mode which it was proposed to introduce, he must say, that he not only considered it superior to that already in operation, either in England or in Scotland itself; but that it was at once the simplest and most efficient that could be contrived. In Committee, however, it might be susceptible of some modifications, which he should be willing to con- sider with a candid and unprejudiced mind. The whole Bill, in short, was still open to improvement, for he took this occasion to say, that it was not to be considered in the light of a party or Government question. The Government had done their utmost to meet the difficulties and the necessities of the case; and he should most readily give way to any well-supported opposition which might be urged in Committee, and which did not tend to diminish the efficiency of the general principle of the measure. Under these circumstances, he had no doubt, that the second reading of the Bill would be carried by a large majority. He hoped such would be the result of this evening's division, as it was a matter of great importance, after the misrepresentation and clamour which had been raised against it in some quarters out of doors, that the House should show their determination not to abstain on that account from giving their support to a measure which they thought would confer advantages on the great body of the people.

did not wish to detain the House, but he must beg leave to say, that he congratulated the country upon the Government having taken this momentous question into their hands; and though there were some particulars in which he thought the provisions of the Bill faulty, in respect to the authorities to be vested in the Commissioners, and the proposed alterations in the Law of Settlement, and the workhouse system, yet he would vote for the second reading. With respect to the Commissioners, he was decidedly opposed to the union of legislative and executive power which it was proposed to repose in them. This was a delegation of authority, a sort of imperium in imperio, which he could never bring himself to allow.