The Statesman. — London, England, 1822-06-01 00:00:00

• ' . ; , I i 1 . 1 1 i i I i t 11 i 1 1 i 1 e 1 i . e i 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 . I i I . i I . 1 1 . . 1 . I r i i 1 fl i t, • q 1 I 1 i • 1 I I I ' 1 e C • I t ; r i . 11 1 C dot I 1 1 I 1 i /I . ii I ) 1 . • s , , 1 1 • ) ! t s 1 I I 1 %i, 1 i . i • j e t i }: '. . 1 1 • t A • '. ll • • I • 1 ! , 1 , 1 ' O . ' ...., , . % . . . , , . : 1 , ,• 1 / 4 .. '. 1 I • . • ' ii . I I • • . i . i . 11 • ) 1 i '.• ' I.: • r 11 i t ifil .. .0 ' si . ' '.•••• i '. i ''+; , , STATESMAN believed that cause to be dependant upon another, namely, the increasing, or certainly not diminishing state of the foreign Slave Trade. From information which hehad lately received, he believed that many re spectable merchants of otir own were making themselves subservient to the carrying on of this infamous traffic. The means by which they did it conduced to lessen the demand for their own produce. The African market was unfortunately very limited, but there was the legal trade in ivory, gold, and some other articles. This part of the trade was made subservient to the traffic in slaves, and it was dune in this war • our vessels, lades with such produce, met o ff the African coast with the Spanish, Portuguese, and French ships, who now carried on the traffic to so infamous an extent. Here they changed cargoes, taking a little palm oil, or something of that kind, to cover their rral object, and the produce they took out went to the purchase of slaves, which were shipped to Cahoot the Brazils. Ile had looked carefully into the Abolition Acts, and be was not sure that the proceedings did not come within the 47th of the late king. At all events, he trusted that the persons en gaged in them were not aware how nearly they approach ed to a breach of the laws. He bad stated this because be wished to give them warning, and because he thought it his duty to communicate the information to the bons.. Mr. HUME thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well to bring down the duties on West India Sugar to 17 or 20 shillings. The petition was ordered to be printed. Mr. CA NININO said, be held in his hand a petition from another class of merchants in the same place, con taining a contrary prayer. It prayed that the Bills be fore the bone upon this subject, should not be passed into laws. He also had to present a similar petition from the city of Loudon. As future opportunities for discussing those questions would come regularly before them, be thought it best to abstain from any observa tions for the present. The two petitions were ordered to be printed; Mr. C. ELLICE presented a Petition from the Agents of the West India Colonies, praying that the regulation of the Act of last year fur imposing protecting duties on their produce, might in the course of the present Ses sion be rendered permanent. The Petition was read and ordered to be printed. Mr. HEATHCOTE presented a Petition from Oak bans against the Poor Removal Bill. Ordered to be printed. INFLUENCE or Tel CROWN. Mr. BROCOHAM "ave notice that on Wednesday, the 19th ofJune, he should bring forwaed a motion relative to the increase of the influence of the Crown. Mr. WILBERFORCE, is a low tone of voice, gave notice of a motion for Thursday, the 13th of June, which we understood to be up n the subject of the infor mation given to the House by Mr. Brougham relative to the Slave Trade. POOR REMOVAL RILL. Mr. SCARLETT observed, that lie was not surprized by the number of petitions, which were presented against the Bill, the second reading of which was fixed for to night. Ile was indeed prepared for a good deal of re• sistance to the measure lie had undertaken. But many persons, who conceived the Bill to have an injurious effect, would not be of that opinion if they were aware of his intention to follow it up by other measures. He wonld now confine himself to th e single measure before the House. The object of this Bill, he avowe4, was to prevent the removal of the poor. He hoped die House would indulge him with a few moments' attention, whilst be gave a sketch of the history . of this branch of the Poor Laws.—The House was acquainted with the present state of the poor—that they formed a ninth part of the popu lation—that they were, emphatically, without Repre sentatives, and that they were is a lower state than the poorest p t io any other country. If a poor man apply for relief in a parish, supposing him not entitled to a settlement there, no matter what was the cause of his poverty, he was liable to be sent to a parish, perhaps the most distant, where he had no friends, relations, or acquaintance, and where he had but little chance of obtaining work. This state of things, be wonld show, was not necessary to the interests of any . party. The Statnte of Elizabeth, the 43d, put the poor into that con dition that Blackstone laments they had not since been left. The purport of that Statute was to make those who were able to work, and those who were not were to be supplied from &general fund. This Statute remained in force a considerable time; and from its passing until the time of Charles IL, only two Acts wets made about the poor; but neither of them had any reference to the increase of the Poor Rates, or the number of the peor. • One of those Acts, made in James's time, was enacted to provide against the running away of fathers of fa milies; and the other for the punishing of fathers of il legitimate children. The unhappy reign of Charles L changed the state of the lower orders—armies were raised —the population was driven from one part of the king dom to the other—the state of the country was such as to call for the attention of the Legislature, in order to re press the growth of idle and diiorderly persons; and in Cromwell's time the evil became so oppressive, that an Ordinance was issued, which clearly recorded the fact of the increase of the number of low, disorderly persons.— In the ISth of Charles 11. being the second year after his accession to the throne, a Statute was passed, enact ing the compulsory removal of the poor. The effect of that Statute was this, that if any person was likely to be come chargeable to a parish, and was not entitled to a settlement there, he slionli be removed to the parish where be was last a resident for a certain time. The, result sax important. The Legislature was compelled to interfere to check the operation of this Act, and passed several laws, making exceptions against its pro visions. At the same time the Courts of Justice, feeling the cruelty of the law in many instances, and preferring the milder spirit of the Common Law, relaxed the ri gour of the former by a variety of decisions. In the reign of William 111. a remarkable instaaceof the effect of the law oft:harks I L occurred. In 1696 the House 01 Commons had its attention drawn to the state of the law resperting the poor, and a reference was made to the Board of Eraile. at the head of which was the celebrated Mr. Locke. The report, which was known to have been drawn up by Mr. Locke, set forth that the increase of the por.r. ana ii,r i x frreraary to support them, were blitl jeCia of miss general complaint, that they were not so he . dotilt•ed of; that the evil was one of many years growth ; that it was telt in the two last reiens, and that it resulted not from the scarcity of provisions, but from the corny- Hon of lie lower el ,fk.c. This report was fallowed up by an Act of Parliament, the Bth and Nth of William, by which persons were allowed to come in on certificate. The Courts of Law assisted by their decisions, in a great measure, to confirm the effect of this law, namely—to do away with the Act of Charles 11. Coming down to n darn times, he could not avoid noticing, with the sleep. est feeling of satisfaction, the Act of the 36th of the late reigu, which by preventing the removal of any persons until they became actually chargeable, elfected inure good than any since the days of Elizabeth. And here he must observe, that when that Bill, introduced by Sir E. Hyde East, had been before the House, numberless petitions were sent in against it. The opposition, in deed, was so great, that the respected individual just mentioned, was compelled to allow a clause in the fiill, by which women pregnant of bastard children, were deemed chugeable and liable to a e removed.— The effect of the law of removal, was first to produce a great increase in the charges of supporting the poor.— 'lids he could demonstrate. It bad been said by Dr. Burn, the most comprehensive, learned, and practical writer oa this subject, that this law produced more liti gation than could be believed by these ail oninsintoft with the fact on undoubted teatimes.. Yet be alluded but to the decisions of the Kiag's Bench on the law. and numerous as they were, they were nothiag com pared to the number of appeals to Quarter Sessions. whirl, took place four times a ye a r in many districts throughout the country. Th enrage expenses of three years beginning in they 1815, for removals and litigation throughout the kingdom, amounted to 327 thousand pounds a year. Now, even if this son was saved, it would be rendering no small service to the country. But there were farther expenses than those, for those were but the law expenses—the labour bestow eton the removals—the expenses of inquiries, fa. But the greatest evil of the law was this, that if a poor man askeil the smallest sum—say a shilling, from the parish, to Kelp him to support any of his family. the appliel. tion became a pretext fur removing him to his parish, be it ever so remote. What was the consermenee? The man able to work—able to support himself and the whole of his family, with the exception of oseor two, must be sent off to a parish, where probably he gets no work at all, and where necessari ly the whole family become a burden upon it. Ile believed the experience of most persons would establish the truth of the statement, that in the majority of the cases of removal,the pauper removed was not able to find work in the parish to Which he was sent. It was obvious then that one effect of the system was, that the poor man was driven from a place where he could obtain work, to a place where be amid not obtain it. Supposing a man were to propose that a commodity produced in a particular parish sboold sot be sent out of it, would be not be looked on as ab oard. Has not the poor man the greatest possible la- Wrest in his labour—has lie not a right to have it car ried to market? Why confine him to the place of his birth where there may be no 'parka at all ? if in a country the price of a particular commodity was ,unequal in different places, would it not be said that the administration of the Government was badly conducted. lie would now show the unequal state of wages in different parts of the country : la Sussex, wages were from 7s. to 9s. per week; in Lancashire from 15s. to 18s. lo Surrey wages were higher than lo Sussex; and very often • great variance was seen to almost neighbouring parishes.— (Hear, bear, hear.) This disparity showed that there was not a free circu lation of labour. In Sussex the average sum for three years levied for the poor amounted to 275 7621. per an nnm. The population for that county, In 1811, was IWO. I o Lancashire the average sum, for the same tinn raised for the support of the poor, was, 261,7301. per annum, being 14,0001. per annum less than the sum raised in the county of Sussex. The population in Lan cashire in 1811 was 828,390. Let them, then, see the state of property in each of those counties. The amount of property assessable to Poors' Rates in the county of Sussex was 915,3481. per annum. In Lancashire it amounted to 3,0237,7841. In addition to this it would be found that, in counties where there were large towns end manufactures extensively carried on, the amount of the Poors' Rates was lower in comparison to the popula tion and property than it was in the agricultural districts. Now, what was the cause of all this disparity ? It had been the policy of the great Act of Elizabeth, that each should contribute to the support of the poor according to his ability; and the burden was equalized, and would continue to be so, but for the Statute of Removal. He would first consider that Act in principle, and then in detail. It was the right of a poor man to go where he pleased—where he could Und the best market for his la bour. Bet if a man was prevented from seeking out a market for his labour, the consequence was that he must become a burden to the parish in which he lived if he could not find work there. Not long since, be had heard that, in a certain parish in Sussex, there were 25 able-bodied men who could not find Work. They could not go abroad for work, unless they could get it imme diately. In the parish where they were settled, there was no work to be bad. One of the evils of the system was, that be poor bad imbibed the notion of absolute right to support ; and this was but a natural effect.— The poor man converted the oppression of the law into a ground of right, and made reprisals for its exclusive and binding force on the property of individuals whom accident had rendered subject to Isis claim.—(Hear.) — Alarms were felt that the poor should be left to wander about. lie would deal frankly with the House; he would say that the poor man had not facilities enough in going from place to place. There was another objec tion which arose out of the system, to which he would apply himself. Gentlemen said that the effect of the repeal would be, that the cottages would be pulled down, and the poor sent into large towns. But how was the fact?—Before the .law of Removal was ever enacted—nay, even in Elizabeth's time—so general was the disposition to build cottages, that a Statute was enact ed in her reign prohibiting the building of cottages, ex cept such as should have four acres of groundattacbsd to them. The lion. and Learned Gentleman read a long extract from Dr. Burn's work on the Poor Laws, in which he h umou rou sly descri bed the duties *fan overseer. The House would observe, that Dr. Burn was of opinion that the pulling down cottages was the result of the law of Removal. Ile (3lr. S.) did not mean to enter into the controversy, but it was too much for any one to as sume that this would decidedly be the result of the abo lition of the law, as proved since there was an authority of such high value against them. Another of the evil results of the law was, that it gave the overseers of pa rishes the power of making a distinction between the two classes of those likely to become chargeable, the settled poor of their own parish and those that were not settled. They always took care of their own poor, watched their habits, and always saw that they were pro vided with work. He hail lately received aletter from an overseer in Cumberland, who had acted as overseer, at different periods, for twenty.three years. He stated, that in his parish, the parishioners paid the greatest at tention to theyoung women of their own parish,but those that were oot settled were not so treated—were, in fact, considered as fair prey, because if they were got with child they could be sent hack to their own parishes. Ile did not vouch for the truth of this statement, he merely stated what was communicated to Lim by one whom he thought to be • wraith) , honest man. But to come to the ohj action. It was said that if the removal was aledi.iled, you take away the restraint which now ope. rated on those Who were not settled, from becoming a burden on the parish. If a man was settled in a parish he could claim relief—if not, there was a restraint ope rating on him and be took more care. The argument was that the law of removal was a penal law to restrain vice and idleness. If the principle of the law was good, it ought to go farther. TheJusticesought to be enabled to send a person applying for relief to a distance of some hundred and fifty miles. But it wanted one princi ple of a penal law—its justice. lie would admit that a moral restraint, operating on a person likely to become chargeable on a parish, was of great benefit. But this I was nut the restraint which ought to be pot in practice. The best ought to be used, but this was the worst. If indeed the poor mail was to get nothing but bread and water in the parish where he was removed tu, the arrangement would be right and the argument coo sistent; L.--t at present you did no more than send idle ness and vice from one place to flourish more pro teemed in another. The law, as a penal law, operated unequally; social ties---.habits of i otercourse --the lore of old associations were more likely to ope rate in the good and amiable than the idle and and wicked; but as poverty was likely to overtake the one as the other, so did the law place the two cha racters on an equality—to the one the removal was no punishment—to the other it was a visitation the most severe. He denied, therefore, that the law in this sense even was most law. What was then die right mode of punishing r It was the ascertainiumet of the merit and necessity of each individual applying for relief, and the skilful apportioning to him of relief. There was an other branch of the subject—that of bastardy, which called loudly for reform. According to the present state of the law, the overseer was employed in finding out pregnant unmarried mime women, to drag them out . before the world, and fix the 'tangs of shame upon them. lint there was no obligation on parishes to support these persons. Let the law he assimilated to that of Scotland —leave it to herself to complain if she will, and in case she did, let an order of maintenance be made on the fa Cher, but let no one meddle with her unless she com plains. The general effect of the measure would be to promote every where a g disposition to examine into the moral habits of the poor. It would afford ineans of rewarding industry by discriminating between those whim poverty was a consequence of vicious courses, and those who became distressed from accidental misfortunes. It would tend to make parishes wore attentive to their religious education. It would not increase the Poor Rates bat would rather diminish them. The relative burdens with regard to the agriculturists would be the same, but the inanufacturing districts would not be in a worse situation than In fairness they ought to he. For it was not reasonable that a manufacturing town, after baring bad the benefit of a roaa's labour for the best part of his life, should send him in his old age a pauper to be supported by his parish. One other effect, too, it would hare; it would encourage the format ion of fends among the working classes themselves, to which they might have re course in causer need wi th au tcoming upon their parishes. In Salford, ha Lancashire, there Wasa feud upon Reis principle, whistle deserved to be imitated. One thousand, persons there subscribed a penny a week, which aticnion hoed till the fund reached two hundred a year; but it was suffered to exceed that sum. For twenty years this fund had not been touched. When it became ne cessary to apply it, the sum wanted was taken, and its place was then supplied by the subscribers. The mem bers were cheerful and happy. It was to be wished that such associations were more general. Something in the way of a legislative encouragement to theta might be embodied in the present measure. The poi of it wonld be incalculable. Fur all these reasons, then, he brought the Bill forward. He had taken the abolition of the. Law of Removal as a first step to a more equitable sys tem of Poor Laws. Common justice to the poor, who were so grievously oppressed by this law, called loudly for its repeal. The system would at least be simplified Ciereby. That tissue of contrivances to get rid of the poor, and all that mass of ingenuity which was at pre sent used to find them employment, would be dispensed with. The whole of the present artificial system would be got rid of. With regard to himself, be wished to say that be was no otherwise interested in the measure than as be those ht it would conduce to the public good. He was entirely is the hands oldie hone. If they were in disposed to adopt the measure, of course be would not press it; but if, on the other band, they thought the Bill should pass into a law, he would stick by it, not withstanding its unpopularity, and the ridicule which was attempted to be thrown upon it. He was also wil ling to admit of such usoditications as gentlemen would suggest; or, if the house thought proper to send the Bill to a Committee, he would entirely concur with them in such changes as to them would seem fit. The Hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill. _ _ _ On the question for the second rending being put, Mr. MANSFIELD opposed the motion ; but the noise in the house was so great, that we could not distinctly hear him. We understood him to object principally to the penal clauses in the Bill, which went to iudict pu nishment, instead of affording relief. He moved, as an amendment, " That the Bill be read a second time this day six months." Mr. lIIONCK seconded the amendment. The evili in the present system of the Poor Laws had not been met by a proper remedy. The present Bill, would, if passed, make it the interest of large towns to encourage the vo luntary removal of idlers. They would be bribed away. The Hon. Member here referred to the several statutes, authorising removal, and contended that all authority was in its favour. It had been described as oppressive; but in fact, it was a security to the person who was the ohjeceof it. The large manufacturers injured the towns in which they were situated, for they obtained the la bour of many of their workmen at the expence of the parish. The deficiency in the wages was made up in poor rates. The towns in fact would be extremely glad to get rid of their manufacturers altogether. If the Bill passed, it would, he believed, cause a greater revolu den in property than any which had ever been brought by any legislative proceeding, except indeed the Bill of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Secretary Peel.)—He thought his Hon. and Learned Friend, with the best intentions, had really not paid sufficient atten tion to the subject. Mr. COURTENAY opposed the Bill, though be would support any measure for giving a settlement upon a short residence. The present Bill went, in his opinion, to alter the whole Law of Settlement, and to this he could not consent. He thought, too, that some of the clauses could not be carried into effect. Mr. SCA RLETT said the present question was upon the principle of the Bill. He had refrained from enter ing into the Clauses, as be knew they could be more ad vantageously discu ssed in a Committee. Sir JOHN SHELLEY said, his Hon. and Learned Friend received little encouragement to proceed with the measure. He (Sir J.) trusted, therefore, that Govern ment would take it upon themselves. Unless something effectual were to he done, the land would not be able to support the poor, and rent and taxes would be entirely out of the question. Capt. MABEKLEY referred to some comparative statements respecting the Population and Poor Kates of Lancaster and Sussex; but he spoke io so low a tone of voice that we could notdistioctly hear kim.—tie opposed the Bill. _ . Sir M. W. RIDLEY trusted that his Hnnonrable and L .1 Friend would not press the Bill against the general fee.ing of the House. He thought, however, something like a remedy might be suggested for the present evils. Paupers, in general, would rather labour than be removed ; but any alteration of the law should be gradual. Mr. NOLAN said, that as it had been insinuated that the pour of the country were not represented in the House, he would take it upon himself to say, that there tvas . no part of the country for whose interests and whose fre;attes the House thought with more consideration. Llis Hun. and learned Friend (Mr. Scarlett) deserved much credit for the liberal and candid manner in which be had brought farward the question. It was no light hut one of great and arduous didical:y. Ile felt that it was an, though he could sot agreealtogether whit the Hun. Member. There was one advantage to be de rived front the present discussion—that of setting the public mind at rest ui-en the subject. He agreed in ..pinion with others, that it was one which should 'nut he left to his Majesty's Mioisters alone to take op ; but it was a question which, as it belonged to the people, could be taken up and brought before the House by any of their representativep. His opinion was much affected by the number of petitions presented from people of practical experience, which were all against the Bill— not ohe its favour of it. He paid more attention to those declarations than to theoretical • opinions. He was afraid that one of the consequences of the proposed measure, would be to make the poor consider the Poor's lt-.tes theirs as a touter of right, and that tvheroves the 7 were imelloolio theweeloas. eoutkd tts be with relief. which. if earned, would neither aor the rich or the comfort of the poor. that instead of stopping litigation. effect of multiplying it to a great be his duty to oppose the Rill. The Magness of WNDONDERR' House was much indebted to the Hot S. spoke last, for Isis sensible and judicious the question. It had been said her, that no proposition on the WI was likely to obtain a hearing in on the contrary, that the House es fullest attention to the subject. 1 tientlemen (Mr. Scarlett) who had measure. must feel how wrong it I jesty'e Ministers to take it up on grounds, when he, who had give; powers of his mind and his attenti difficulty in bringing forward only Lion. He felt that it was impossil could not view faeonrahly the prim which 14:1 for its object to give • labour of thecoaatry. While be the principle, he wished to can ' ; for if it extended as thi be feared that a great increase of tre was so frr friendly to that he would he happy to git. Learned Gentleman any &mistimee eonsidered that the lions. shoui encouragement to every Hooourabl pp the question. and instead of qu stages of the Bill, every facility - al come toe proger understanding ni was at that moment presses! to a should feel it his duty to meet it m but as many improvements might mittee, be should vow fur the sec( —ghat.. hear:) Sir C. DI:KRELL supported Captain UABERLEY explained. Mr. CHET W IN DE considered t' greatest curse the nation could lw his Learned Fritmd was roiled t public fur bringing the subject , was not at present possible to remoi evil, yet inane parts of it might be t of the law refative to settlement shout tidied, so as to put a stop to expensii gation. The law respecting bastard t to be corrected: for as it now stood, ragement to vice. As be believed might be made in the Committer ; second reading of the bill. Col. WOOD stated, that, if certal should make were attended to, he for the second reading of the bill lett obtaining any unpopularity h when its details were understood, be hailed se a friend by every poor , Mr. P. MOORE opposed thetilL Sir It. WILSON approved of '' but hoped it would receive some Committee. Mr. Alderman BRIDGES opposed he was in favour of some alteration poor laws. Mr. SCARLETT declared his alterations in the bill in the Commie some of the objections which had In Mr. PEN MAN objected to the and cautioned the house against fat permit it to be read a second time. After a few farther observatiJni the house divided. when the numhel Fur the second reading. M—: against the second reading, 16. On re.entering thi Hillery, we Mr. P. MOORE on his legs, cow, nary Mos% In 'which the character other Member of Parliament were a The Hun. Member was proceeding, Mr. H.O KENNET rose to ordi with mach at/talon. but lie was Hon:Member was driving at. certain, namely, that oue Hon. the circular in question was not , fore in common courtesy the subji Wed upon in his absence. After a few words from the Spear Mr. P. Moore. and the Chancellor subject dropped. Mr. WALLACE postponed the Navigation Bill to Tuesday next . The CHANCELLOR of the leave to bring in a Bill to enablt sury to provide more effectually the Receipts of certain Offices The CHANCELLOR of the that the house on its rising should day nest. The other orders of the day were t the house adjocrued at 12 o'clock The Ticket No. 11,211, a Prize u. tery, was sold is Shares by RICHARD. Co. who respectfully submit the leading tery of 7,000 Tickets, to be drawn Is. nzv, JUNE 4. The Scheme contains in f TWO PRIZES 01 2 .. Prizes of .. £l,OOO I II 2 .. of .. 300 It de. .tc. Tickets and S"Pnres are Selling by mod Co. at their Mice, 101, Bank MARRIEL On Thursday, the 30th ult. Charles to Miss Emma Ross. of Wandsworth, On Thursday the 30th ult. at St. IN D. B. Woodward, of Surrey-Iqt daughter of the late Cuthbert Scarborougt Kent-road. the the /10th ull. at Stamford, the Poplar, to Harrlet, only daughter the former place. DIED. On Tuesday last. the ?Stb ult. James Hriwnlev. F.si..ln the 4Sr a gentlensau of .ii•itinguislied unlerif might hare valifled hits to ador if he h.tl hue': fsroured by nits nften br.n much more humble life he WWI particularly remarked and vivo.% of r.nquence ; and rai cltlinfes iu wOich 3 tins of the Most were his opponents. Ills death' rising re:5!,...e , , and many atrectik, (1.1 the 13.;: ult. at Richmond. Surrey, Eliztbrolt Dr..naerntn,itged 67. On the 20th ult. at Bordeaut, the late Dr. Ilaw.•s, of Spiral-cp. Ott Saturday. the 23th ult. Win. year of his age. On Sunday, the 48th Ulf.. Nell, second daughter of Mr. Joseph her age. 'Yesterday, the Slat ult. at her' Mary Lute, aged 7S. London : Edited, Printed. and " THE t'erarasmas" end "The Paper,) No. 297, Strand, by R whom all eoinlnanications, Orders, be addressed. erseekres, that they were 'lief. It was a measure, • mem& the interests of lOW. He also muski er "' hot it would have the , at diugat. He felt it to sew 'DERRY said that the judicious remarks apon I by another Hon. Men.. subject of the Poor Laws eif in that House. He tell, was ever ready to give its get The Hon. and Lean e d It 'lc it was to Call on bin Me. on toasty awl inefficient wY given it so outtch of the 001 otion,ljad routed so much my part of the toes. in :114 31 I had 0 1 ;rlleifsi princ ipl e int freeril hihn. trieleoi pr e sent c t gitt fj ei i hO o rhic:f i t i l is lulllliiltfa#lo°t.:7lsinrie wouldnaxllutglojuwsrr prop e rt b: o ewril w .° er ll* admitted the justice of th 0 11 1 lo the general question, give the llonourahle and lance in hi, ;mire:. He we A 4 should give the greatest arable 3lember who took r quarrelliog in the early r - shoal.' 10 allowed to Al g upon it. lithe measure a vote on its merits, be A it with adirect Iterative ; A eht take place in a Cosi. (mond reading of the iiiil. A A LI the bill. 0 tined. 'red the Poor laws as the be afflicted with; and • 41 to the thanks of the • e A forward. Although it • move the whole of tics tbe corrected. That part V t should he entirely also. upensive roil ruinous 'steed children Wight zI.o stood, it war an mon. divvied these alterations tee, he should vote for Ile ti 'certain suggestions lie , he should cordially vote tit till. Instead of Mr. Scar- y by it, he was sure, ths• od, that gentleman wool poor man in the counts) if the principle of the hill we modifications in th Ipposed The bill, thous P ition In the system of th lti is readiness to rusk. suc nominee as would rewo tad been urged against i the principle altogethe st favouring it so far as t ime. itions from Mr. Scarlet A, ushers were— Against it, S2—Major' we found , complaining of a Tre meter of himself and a ere strongly alluded to. ding, when order. He had Rates At nimble to see what th One thing,however, w t. Member alluded to i st in the house, and ther object ought not to bee. Speaker, Sir R. Willa, dlor of the Exchequer, t. the third reading of t. 1 rat, e e EXCHEQUER obtain. the the Lords of the 'ire ly for the regulation ▪ in his Majesty's Exch le EXCHEW:EIt mov- should adjourn to MU were then disposed of, a • tick. :e of 40,0001. in the last L. CMARDSON, GOODLUCR, a leading features of a 1. sou in One day, Nary TL n Sterling Money, OF 120.000. 10 .. Prizes of ...non to ...... of .. tot) T. r by Richardson, Goodla. lank Buildings. l'ornhill. IED. ides Finch, Esq., of Stain. worth. St. Mary's, N e wington. 't y.square. to Ma-y, ell Scarborough, of the Rev. Charles e ter of Wm. Redifer, E 54.. D. 1. In hake-s ;sr Mt year of his rage. Ile a lenis and atm; nasut, sal Born a more elesated stat:. • of tha , e ,rto s merit into notice. la ea ed for his volubility o( ape rarely faiied in trion.phiaz lost ahle speakers of the o • t i i ‘ ci a i s ta d t ee'frir naffected his Surrey, much tauten:el. m • C, Miss Hawes, daseiter ;pare. r on di. seir ld i e; Nt k o v eni t ? E it s at l, ee t i li t the i i ;se f : cr h i p ho u u b se ihd S e pita 4 l l 7 0 I,ne a s r o v, sit The CONSTITUTION" (Sticir by R. WARDELL. LLB: Orders, dm. are requcalal