Star. — London, England, 1821-05-25 00:00:00

inquired at all into the circumstances and condition in which the farmers of England were placed by the burdens to whic i they are subject, could for a mo ment suppose that a free trade in Grain could at all 1 exist in this country. Mr. HUME supported the prayer of the Petition. The reduction sought for was only equal to the dif ference in the value of money. He also supported the observations of the Hon. Member for Bridge water on the evils of the fluctuation of prices: Mr. T. WILSON contended, that it was impos sible to regulate the non-importation price of Grain by the value of the Bank-note, which seemed to be the idea of the Hon. Member, as long as the Taxes remained undiminished. • The Petition was ordered to lie on the table. • LoxiioN WHARFS BILL. Mr. HUME moved, that the minutes of the evi dence taken before the Committee on the London , Wharfs Bill be laid on the table; not with a view to' their luing printed, but that they might be open to the inspection of Members. Sir J. GRAHAM said, the minutes could not be • printed in less than a fortnight, and if they were not to he printed, their production would be of no use at all. After a short conversation, in which Mr. C. CAL VERT, Mr. SCARLETT, Mr. Hums, and Mr. ELLICE took part, strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the house divided on the motion— . Ayes - • . - Noes - . . - - Majority against the motion - —St POOR LAWS AMENDMENI 1311. T.. Mr. BIRCH presented a petition from the Minis ter, Churchwardens, and other Inhabitants, of the Parish of St. Mary, Nottingham, against the Poor Laws Amendment Bill. The Hon. Member said, he should oppose the Bill in every stage. Mr. BERNAL wished to know from an Hon. and Learned Member (Mr. Scarlett) at what time- he meant to proceed with the further stages of the Bill? Mr. SCARLETT said, he did not mean to urge the measure with precipitancy. He could assure the House, that from different communications which had been made to him, he found that the Bill was likely to give more general satisfaction than he could in the fit st instance have anticipated. The second reading of the Bill was fixed for to-night, but if the other business should occupy the House at too great length, he should propose that it might be read to night pro, forma, and that the discussion should take place in another stage. Mr. JENKINSON thought that the Honourable and Learned Member deserved the cordial thanks of the country for having brought forward the measure. 'The abuses in the system of the Poor Rates in the county of Sussex, with which he was connected, were so glaring, that he was only surprised how they could have existed so long without due notice being taken of them. Mr. CALC RAFT said, if the second reading should take place to night, he should certainly feel it his duty to discuss the merits of the Bill. Mr. LAWLEY was convinced that a very strong feeling existed against the measure in some popu lous places. Mr. LOCKHART remarked upon the severity of the Poor Rates on the Landed Interest.—Though the amount of the Rates this year was considerably re- 1 duced, as compared with the last, yet there was no l actual decrease, for the number of paupers had re ceived a peat accession. Mr. D. BROWNE said, that the pressure of the Poor Rates was intolerable. The country now paid not less than 1:10,000,009 to the support of the Poor. A sum equal to the whole expense of the Government at the time the late King came to the Throne. Mr. F. PALMER said, that in the part of the -country with which he was connected, ,the people were by no means satisfied that the Bill would pro duce the favourable effects which some anticipated from it, and there was a general desire that the mea sure should not be pressed this Session.--The Peti tion was then ordered to lie on the table. Mr. SCARLETT should have acceded to the re quest of his Honourable Friend for postponing this Bill, if he had not been fully impressed with the con viction, that the principles of his measure had been already amply discussed and well understood, Loth without and within the walls of this House. As to the opposition of certain great towns, he had expected that—he was prepared for it. There was never any great measure passed which did not produce some partial opposition. The Public would save £.500,000 a-year alone by the decrease of litigations which this measure would effect—(Hcar, hear). The Petition was ordered to be printed. FOUR AND A HALF PER CENT. DUTIES. Mr. CREEVEY rose, in pursuance of notice, to submit his motion to the House concerning the Four and a Half per Cent. Barbadoes and Leeward Island Duties. Ile referred to the objection which he had made on a former evening to a vote for the repair of the fortifications in those Islands, because his opinion was then, as it was now, that those Islands had sup plied a fund themselves, which was applicable to these purposes. He was aware, indeed, that this opinion was opposed as bad law, by those Ladies and Gentlemen in the country who derived their pensions from this fund; but he would nevertheless contend, that the four and a half per cent. supplied by Barba does was applicable, among many other charges, to the building and repair of the fortifications of that Island; and he grounded his argument on an Act passed by the Colonial Legislature, dated the 12th of September, 1661 He saw nothing in that Act which authorized the payment of that fund, or any pit of it, to any Ladies or Gentlemen in this cows t,ry, particularly such Gentlemen as were Members I of that House—(Hear, hear).—Tbe Journals of the House chewed, that, in 1702, an Address was pre sented to Queen Anne, to restore these funds to their original purposes, they having been taken as part of the hereditary revenue of the Crown for some years previous to that time. The Ween did restore them, in pursuance of the Address: and he contended, that though since then a contrary custom had grown up, yet that that custom did not affect the law of the question at all. The opinions of Lords Godolphin and Somers were in favour of the view which lie took of the Colonial Act. It was true, that Lord Chat ham and Mr. Burke had , in the last century, large pensions from these funds, but that did not make the misapplication of them law. And here was seen the force of bad example, for no sooner were such great • .l ~~~ men as these pensioned in this manner, than the funds -were abused, and many illegitimate children in va rious parts of this town, placed on them—(Laughter). He did not mean to contend th lt the pensions which now existed should he taken away, for there were many widows and other persons to whom the loss of them would be extremely serious. He thought, how ever, he was not asking Parliament to do too much, when he called upon it to say that no further pensions should be granted from these funds—(Hear, hear). — This was the object of his first Resolution. The ob ject of his second Resolution was to refer the Colonial Acts of the Leeward Islands to a Select Committee, that they might have the opinion of that Committee I communicated to the House. The first Resolution having beer. read, Mr. GOULBURN rose and said, that the history of these funds was very much misrepresented. It was not long since he had seen publications issuing from the Press, which affected to give information on this subject to the Public; but which were drawn up either in ignorance, or with an intention to mislead those to whom they were addressed. He alluded particularly, o a pamphlet, addressed to the Electors of Great Britain, which was written certainly in forci ble language, but which was a tissue of misrepresen tation. In that publication, dated 1820, it was stated, that the four and a half per cent. fund was applied exclusively to pensions, which were said to have been bestowed on Members of Parliament and their wives. Now, with respect to that particular statement, he had to say, that ie 1820, the net produce of the funds in question was £2.5,500 ; and of that sum £15,650 was applied to purposes strictly colonial—(Hear). — The House would thus see the falsehood of the state ment in the pamphlet ; and he alluded to it, not for the purpose of imputing it to the Hon. Gentleman opposite, but of warning the House against the errors which it contained—(Hear, hear).—The Hon. Gen tleman had admitted that the fund was applied at the discretion of the Crown for the last hundred years, and yet he now came fi .rward to call for a total change in the practice which had so long, remained undisturbed. It was stated, that the Colonial Act .constituted this fund for the building and repairs of fortifications, among other purposes. He (Mr. Gout burn) contended, that the fund was given by the Co lonists in lieu of a Pcll Tax, and other Taxes, that originally prevailed in that Island. In 1684, the Co lonists made a proposal to his Majesty to commute this Duty upon them. They offered in lieu of the four and a half per cent. Duty, an annual sum of £6OOO, to be paid into his Exchequer in England, which proved their conviction that the Duty was al together independent of fortifications, or any other colonial purposes. He concluded with moving the previous question. Mr. BERNAL said, it was a well known fact, that in the time of Charles 11. heavy burdens had been laid on the Colonies, and a rich harvest held out to rapacious adventurers. Lord Kinnoul made over his claim is Lord Willoughby de Pelham, who alarmed the Colonists by the most extravagant demands.— The case came before the Privy Council, among whom was Lord Clarendon, whose conduct on that occasion was made an article of impeachment against him. A Mr. Campbell. one of the Agents of the Co lony, agreed to this Duty, without the consent of the Colonial Assembly, and much against their inclina tion ; but the influence of the Crown carried the point, and that was the origin of this Duty. The Ministry of Charles 11. did everyti.ing in their power to crush the Colony of Barbadoes, when it remon strated against the tyranny of the Crown. The Re solution of his Hon. Friend went no farther than had been done by the House in 1701 ; and all that was asked was, that.the Act should be equally impera tive now as it was then. Mr. BENNETT would consider the policy and propriety of the application of the funds arising out of the 41, per cents. Ile denied that any argument could be drawn from the concurrence of the Assembly of Barbadoes, in the application of those funds to the use of the Crown—because he contended that this concurrence was the submission of the weak to the strong. He then traced the appropriation of the fund at different periods, and among the individuals whose pensions were charged upon this fund, he men tioned Mr. Burke, who received, in 1796, no less a sum than £7,500 out of this fund at one time. He contended then, that it was time for the house to in terfere, and restore the firm) to its original destination, and let the surplus be transferred to the use of the Public. The Crown had resources enough to supply" its pensions. Being of this opinion, he exhorted the House to concur in the motion of his Hon. Friend. Mr. HUME complained that no returns had been given of the state of the fund, except for the year 1818, though they had been moved for by him. It was remarkable that the per cents. were credited to the Public as part of the Revenue from the year 1715 to 1796. In that year the fund began to be xpended on pensions, and accordingly disappeared from the statements of the Public Revenue. After a few observations, in elucidation of this statement, he called upon the House to support the proposition of his Hon. Friend. He did not wish to deprive any individual of what he was in the enjoyment of ; let the principle be conceded, and let the pensions, as they dropped, be saved and turned to their legitimate destiny—(Hear). Sir C. LONG contended that these funds had been at all times at the disposal of the Crown, and main tained that they were included in the public accounts by mistake. One of the Finance Committees, noticing the exclusion of them, in the year 1796, from the ac count of the Public Revenue, stated that the arrange ment was properly made. He stated, further, that this fund was not included in Mr. Burke's Bill for regulating the Civil List; and added, as another evi• deuce of its being considered exclusively at the dis. posal of the Crown, that offers had been made, at various times, to farm the duties of the King. In addressing the House upon this subject, he could not forbear noticing that, in certain observations upon those duties, in a published pamphlet, of which he believed the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Creevey) to be the author, his (Sir C. Long's) name was introduced in a manner totally unjustifiable. Whether or not the pamphlet was written by the Hon. Member he could not say, but all he begged was,. that if the Hon. Gentleman had any accusation to bring ag, ainst him (Sir C. Long), he would state it in that House ' where he had an opportunity of defending himself. He (Sir Charles) was as anxious as any one in that House for preserving the freedom of discussion. He was ready to look with lenity von . thy, occasional intemperance of a speaker; they were not there to compliment each other, but to discuss public rhea• sures; and he would be the last man that would visit with a harsh comment a momentary excess of that useful hostility which naturally resulted from oppo site opinions in politics; butlte was not acquainted with any law or usage of respectable society, that warranted a man in making another the victim of anonymous attack—(Hear).—He would, therefore, entreat the Hon. Member, if he had any ground of charge against him (Sir Charles), to assume the office of accuser in the proper place—that House ; but, as long as the Hon. Gentleman contented himself with the character of an anonymous adversary, so long would he have the advantage of him (Sir Charles), for he would declare that he never would descend to a contention on such terms—( Hear). Mr.o It EEVEY shortly replied. He contended that nothing which had fallen on the other side impeached the validity of the original Acts creating the duties, and re-asserted, that they formed part of the Public Revenue, were regularly credited to the Public from 1715 to 1796, at which time they were converted to pensions, and were prudently deemed by contempo rary and subsequent Finance Committees to have been introduced into the Public. Accounts by mistake, and that they ought not any longer be considered as a branch of the Public Revenue. The House then divided, and the numbers were For thi! previous question - - 76 Against it - 52 Majority 24 which, of course, disposed of the original motion. On re•openin the Gallery, Mr. CREEVEY was moving a Resolution, that the funds on the 44 per Cent. West India Islands Du ties were nearly exhausted, and that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the nature and the application of the Revenue of the other West In dia Islands. _ _ The Resolution was negatived without a division. RIGHT OF VOTING. Mr. WILLIAMS trusted that lie should meet with no opposition to the motion he meant to submit to the House. He only wished that those nho sent Members to that house should have bona fide votes. He should move for leave to bring in a Bill to pre vent occasional Votes from Freeholds under 40s. in certain Cities and Boroughs.—Leave given: Mr. WODEHOUSH obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act of the 48th of the late King, relative to Lunatic Asylums. VAGRANTS. Mr. CHETWYND lost no time, agreeably to the instructions of the Committee, to bring in a Bill for , the better Apprehension and Punishment of Vagrants. He stated, to shew the abuse of passes, that a man with a monkey, had been passed from Yorkshire to Scotland, the monkey passing under the name of John Strange! He should propose to suspend, for a year, the system of passes ; and in the next place, that an act of vagrancy should be punished by a month's im prisonment, and during the time the vagrant should be kept to hard labour. The third provision was to abolish the system of rewards ; and the 4th, to enable Magistrates to bind over constables to prosecute for a repetition of acts of vagrancy ; the last was the abo lition of walking passes. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the better Apprehen sion and Punishment of Vagrants. Mr. SCARLETT stated, that the Magistrate had the power of imprisonment for vagrancy, and to pass the vagrant to his parish at his own expense (the va grant's), if he had money, and at the expense of others, if he had none. He could see no use in pass ing a vagrant to his parish in the idea that he would reform, when the chance of reformation was at least equally great in the place where he was apprehended. He should support the Bill. Mr. F. LEWIS thought the House should turn their attention to instruct the minds of those by whom the law would be executed. He was sure that the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Scarlett) would, by patience and deliberation, attain his object, by attending to the sense of the House and the country. He thought that the Poor Laws, and the Vagrant Laws, should be considered as part of the same system, in order to afford an effectual remedy. Mr. LOCK lIART adverted to the various spe• cies of vagrancy. He was anxious for some gene ral system, that the poor might know the real state in which they stood. He should not oppose the in troduction of the Bill, but the source of the evil should be looked to, in order to afford a general, and not a partial remedy. Mr. CRIPPS said, that the Committee were fully aware of the connection between the Vagrant and the Poor Laws. If the Bill of the Learned Gentle man should not pass this Session, he trusted the pre sent Bill would pass for one year, as a measure of experiment only. Mr. MONCK admitted, that it was a principle of our law that every man was entitled to relief; but it did not follow that it was indifferent to two parishes which of them should maintain him. He thought they ought to consider the existing laws with respect to the poor, before they made any innovations in them. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY thought they ought to wait till the Report of the Committee was before the House. Mr. HARBORD said it was extremely difficult to distinguish between mendicants and vagrants, ac cording to the old laws. He hoped that Honourable Gentlemen who would vote for this Bill would also make it a point to vote for some other arrangements being Thade for the keeping the vagrants at hard labour until they cou!d be removed to their parishes. Leave was given to bring in the Bill. Mr. M. CHOLMONDELEY obtained leave to bring in a Bill to enable Justices of the Peace to act In distrkts where they were not resident. not afford to labour so cheaply. By the press .t sr , tem, a labourer bad no expectation but a work , „ )e ' s : If every parish in England were to prop ose m n y— for Musicians, who could doubt that we should week equal the most celebrated nations in Hump music? —(/fear, hear).—The present system of ace Poor Laws equalled this, for tisey offered a preli m . ' for pauperism. Could the y, _ then, too soon put an end to such a system? They ought root to poor, vent any man from labouring where he might be st find work ; and therefore he proposed the am abolition of the law for removing the Poor to their Wt. dements. lie intended, if the House would alto. the Bill to go into the Committee, to propose som e amendments in the Law of Settlement, whi c h h e trusted would meet the approbation of all tho se who were now disposed to object to the This measure would be a check upon poor persoi i , entering into improvident marriages, and encumbe r _ ing themselves ss its families which they intended to leave to the maintenance of the Parish, and not to support themselves. He had paid every attentio n to the variety of suggestions which had been sent to hies. None of them were new to him, though almost all of them were still well worthy the attention of Parlia ment. When they continued a system which demo. ralized the minds of the prior, it was impossible tha t the strictest attention to the execution of the p tesert laws would be productive of any good. The Pariah of St. James, at Bath, since 1703, had only increased one-third, and yet the weekly sum was £9l; and is 1805, it was Cal. This was produced by furnishing the Poor with work, and not suffering them to &hi tt for themselves. The present laws took from the Pox their morals and their independence. Tne Returns made by the Parishes (who did make Returns) form morals, amounted to £300,000 a-year. The system was vicious and artificial in its origin. He wished the Bill to be allowed to be read a second time, and that the Committee should be gone into at an earlier host than the present, in order to get a fuller discus,icm, and in order to ensure a larger attendance of the Members—(fkar, hear). Sir ROBERT WILSON rose with a perfect seam of the di ißculty he should find in opposing the ergo. assents of his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Scarlett), He knew that the lion. Gentleman was anxious only for the rights and for the interests of the po e. He (Sir Robert Wilson) had the same feeling: they agreed as to the end, but they differed widely as to the means. Before they consented to abrogate the laws of Elizabeth—those laws which Blackstone had de. scribed as founded upon the first principles of ciri lized society—before they consented to take the course, let the House look at the state—the artificial state—in which, from circumstances, the country we placed. When labour was, in many places, an un marketable drug; when Corn Laws and Excise Lan prevented the lower orders from obtaining, at a low price, the necessaries of life; when . the poor were many of them absolutely unable to obtain a lir& hood, surely they had a right to look for the means of existence to those who had the power of affording them those means ? Let the House beware how they touched that statute of Elizabeth, which was the Magna Charta of the poor, and might be called the palladium of their rights. Men would live; audit was better that they should live by charity than by rapine. The statute of Elizabeth provided that the lame, the blind, and the indigent poor, unable to work, should have relief in money ; and that all persons, married or single, who were able to work, should have labour, and the means of exerting it given to them. That they must have at present immediate subsistence was clear. The Hon. and Learned Member indeed seemed to think that only the sick, the blind, or the impo tent, were entitled to relief ; hut how long would it be before the poor who could work, but were unable to find work, fell into that situation? Six and thirty hours would go near to qualify the best man in Enp land for such a certificate as, even in the Hon. and Learned Member's view, would entitle 11;m to relict If a maximum was to be imposed upon the Poor rates, why not impose one upon the dormant capital, which in a great measure contributed to throw th poor out of employ ? In truth, the maximum world do harm, for it would always be looked upon ass arinimunt : the scheme had been frequently tried i other cases, and it had invariably failed. Now, deal to the Hon. Member's anti-matrimonial and wairpb pulation scheme. Such a scheme was incompatible with all the legal, moral, and religious institutiona the country. flow could the House check marriage by law, and yet seek to maintain those laws which ren dered illicit intercourse a crime ?—(Hear, hear, hear). Did Honourable Members hope that they could roe troul the impulses of nature, and subject human beings to such unnatural restrictions?—(Hear, He would not speak of men; but in what situatim did the House place the female part of the commie nity ? They were to be shut out from marriage; aoi they were liable to ruin and disgrace, if not to abso lute punishment, for adopting an intermediatecoase —(Cheers).—They were not to be permitted to nortir and their illegitimate children, if they had any, Wag to be starved to death!—(Cheers.) —Would any owe who had looked into the labourer's cottage say thst parish relief was a bounty upon Idleness!—that allowance of a shilling or eighteen pence a•weekki a man's second or third child was a premium terca , population?— (Hear hear.)—Even if this anti - p o p lation scheme succe eded, what would be its disc_ t• Would it not go to increase the very evil of woo the landlords complained? Farmers said theiredils were too low. Low prices proved excess of peedoc!s and were to be removed, not by abatement; but bI increase of population. He could not, for his PI; consent to take away the rights of the poorf7 every other scheme of retrenchment had Wu 7 01 He Must first see the Barbadoes Fund 20 0 4 s right use; he must. see retrenchment in the Mink, the Navy, in the Civil List. If the poor were 4 r a to be touched, let it at least be evident that seem measure was the result of absolute necessity Mr. F. LEWIS contended, that the Hou s e d ßap right to alter the Poor Laws, though they L o . called the Magna Charta and palladium of SIN The object of the present Bill was to secure t Poor any property which they might accumu i l buur The Act of Elizabeth enacted compulsory :2. k all its penalties were those of force : let an y m to that Statute, and then say whether he thong was the palladium of the Poor. t ? n a ft l Mr. BENNETT said, that after the abolit ion cr ' • i; Monasteries, the Poor were found to be absolute starvation, and laws were necessary ter POOR RELIEF BILL. Mr. SCARLEIT moved the second reading of the Poor Relief Bill. He said, it never was his intention to encumber this measure with any minute details, but to present it in its most simple state; and his in tention was to offer certain clauses at a future stage, which might either be adopted or introduced into a new Bill. His object was to give relief to the real poor, aged, and indigent ; and to punish those who would not labour, and those who wished to travel in vagrancy. It bad been said, by an Hon. Friend of his, that he would oppose this Bill, as an infringement on the rights of the Poor. It was so; but only with a view to better their condition. According to the present system, a man unmarried, who would work for 9s. a week, must get employment, when a man with a family could not get work because he could : ' . • a V --