The Sun. — London, England, 1834-07-22 00:00:00

industrious. The distribution of charity by parishes was the more injurious in its effects, because more liable to abuse, from being more certain in its nature, m ore known in its existence, and because, from the nature f its existence, it gave rise in the minds of the poor people to a notion, of which nothing could divest them, that they had a strict, an undeniable, and a general right to apply to it for support whenever they pleased. That pernicious practice, which was known under several denominations, bnt which was generally called by the comprehensive name of the allowance system, which arose out of the scarcity of 1795, was a complete development of all the evils which lurked in the 43d of Elizabeth, but which it re quired a length of time and a succession of human improvi dence and want of foresight to educe. He had known only two excuses ever proffered for this pernicious system, which he would shortly advert to in order to show their utter fallacy. The fact was an opinion which had been stoutly maintained by an excellent and talented friend of his in the other House, who, though possessed of much local knowledge and experience, had by no means taken an enlarged view of this important question—this gentleman had approved of the system, because he considered it calculated to support the character of the labourer, in enabling him, when in distress, to come with an erect and dignified port to demand, as a right, that support to which, as an Englishman, he was entitled; but which otherwise, he would be compelled to beg and pray for like a slave. Now he (Lord B.) could not imagine any more fallacious argument than the one here advanced; for so far from the system having any such tendency as the one here al leged, it had a precisely contrary effect, for it had almost wholly destroyed the character of the labourer; for where the name of pauper had heretofore been considered by the individual and his family as a name of disgrace—little better than that of felon—it was now no longer felt as a scandal ; the labourer, indeed, came with an erect port to demand his money, but it was not with the dignity arising from the feeling of worth plunged into unmerited distress, but with the "sturdy" air of a "masterful" beggar —a beggar by choice, and not by necessity, who insolently tramples upon the honest rate-payer by whose industry he is fed.—( Hear.) This was not, then, a system which raised the character of the labourer, for, on the contrary. it lowered, if it did not entirely destroy it, and rendered him vi cious in action and base in principle, if it did not deprive him of every principle whatever. The other excuse made in defence of the system, was one which he spoke of with great respect, as proceeding from a man whose experience he highly esteemed; that gentleman approved of it, as considering it an effective check upon a surplus population ; for, said he, while no laws which human legislatures could desire, or still less execute, could prevent imp rov id en t marr i ages , t h e poor laws presented an effectual check upon them, from the manner in which' re lief was distributed. Now, certainly, a more short-sighted argument than this, or one made use of with less reference to facts and circumstances, had never been advanced in the whole history of human error. The very reverse of this effect was palpable in this fatal law; for the corner stone of the per nicious building was the incentive and encouragement it held out to improvident marriages.—.( Hear, hear.) What more direct encouragement, indeed, could have been thought of for such marriages, than the saying to a young couple, " Here's a fund at your service; you have only to marry and have children, and we will not only support you and your children, but we will make you more comfortable than the industrious man, who labours hard and does not marry, from an honest determination not to have a family till he can support one ?" Before he (Lord B.) concluded his ob servations on this subject of population, he could not feel sa tisfied if he did not do justice to a most learned, a most able, and most virtuous individual, whose name had been mixed up with more odious misrepresentation than any other name of science, he believed, in this Protestant country, or in the pre sent enlightened age. Every man would understand who he meant, when he named as that great man's attributes--talent, honesty, integrity, the strongest sense of public duty, the most amiable feelings in private life ; when he described him as the distinguished ornament and delight of his private and literary circle, as one of the most blameless and virtuous men that ever breathed ; when he had stated these attributes, no one could hesitate at pronouncing the name of Professor Malthus, a man who, though he had made one of the greatest -and most beneficial discoveries in political and social science ever con ceived, whose abilities were as original as they were trans cendent, had been the subject of the malignant and flip pant attacks of the low-minded and the ignorant. He (Lord B.) would now proceed to call the attention of the House to one of the most important steps which the Go vernment had undertaken—the issuing of the Poor Law Commission. He had been one of those who thought there was sufficient information already before the House ; but on more close inquiry, he found that, to obtain a full under standing of the practical effects of the poor laws, it would be indispensable that such a Commission should issue, and the labours of the Commissioners had fully satisfied his anxiety for such information. The country was highly indebted to those gentlemen for the unexampled industry and talent they had so eminently displayed in obtaining information, and compiling their admirable and most eminently useful report. The judg ment in the selection of these Commissioners had been fully evinced in the result. The Rev. Prelate the Bishop of Lon don, Mr. Sturges Bourne, Mr. Coulson, Mr. Chadwicke, and other gentlemen, had fully deserved the highest com mendation which the country could bestow upon them. Their report was one whose details were of the highest interest and importance. From it, it appeared that throughout the coun ' try able-bodied labourers preferred small sums paid them by the parish, which they did no labour to earn, to large sums obtained by wages for labour performed. Many instances were adduced of young men saying they preferred 3s. 6d. a week parish money and the liberty of being idle, to les. a-week earned by labour. But it was not to be supposed that these parties were merely idle ; alarming facts proved that these very idle paupers were always amongst the first to originate and take the lead in executing mischief and crime. Nor was this feeling confined to the lazy agricultural labourers, for the evil had spread itself among the hard-working seamen and fisher men, who heretofore would have dared every danger of every season of the year on the ocean, in order to keep themselves and families from the parish, but who now, as a matter of course, threw themselves upon the parish for unearned support during the winter months, declaring that they would never go out in bad weather while they could remain at home comfort able and get supported by the parish. These were facts which required no commentary.—( Hear, hear.) And not only did these paupers assert their right to as much money as was earned by the independent labourer, but in many parishes they asserted their right to be exempted from working as bard as the independent labourer, and, indeed, in one or two parishes, the grounds of appeal by paupers, from the overseers to the justices, was that the overseers wanted to make them work as hart as the independent labourer. --(Hear, hear.) The next evil was that paupers had not only less work to do than the independent labourer, but they were better off in many places ; their actual re ceipts were considerably larger than those obtained by persons who supported themselves by their industry.—( Hear, hear. ) This disparity was particularly observable in some parts of Sussex, where, according to the report, each pauper received sixteen shillings a week from the parish, while no independent labourer, work hard as he might, could earn more than twelve shillings; and, in the Isle of Wight, a case occurred of two hundred paupers rebelling because they were paid no more for doing nothing than the independent labourer, and they succeeded in getting a rise according to their demand. He did not so much blame the men as the laws, which made them what they were. Again, the law of nature declared that parents should support their children ; and that, as a ge neral rule, all distressed relatives should be relieved by such of their kindred as were better oft than themselves ; but the poor laws said no such thing ; on the contrary, they said, " Don't trouble yourselves about supporting your parents, or your children, or your distressed relations, the parish will do all that for you ;" and hence arose the most disgusting conduct in such children, for parents said to the parish officers, " If you don't give me more to support my son, I shall turn him out," and, as in a case mentioned in the report, a son comes and says, "If you don't give me some money for the support of my mother, I'll take her out of my house and lay her down in the street, or at the door of the workho u s e ." This was, then, a system which not only tended to destroy the best feelings of humanity, to counteract the law of nature, but it had a direct tendency to ruin the country. If it were per severed in, parish after parish would be thrown out of cultiva tion, for here one parish was thrown out, the unavoidable tendency would be to throw out three or four of the surround ing parishes. Some people seemed to think it would be better to remain as we were, and to avoid any attempt to better things, least they should become worse, but he was decidedly of opinion; that things were in such a position that we could not stop short with impunity. The picture presented by the report was a most harsh, a gloomy, and awful one, and the most determined, though still cautious legislation was neces sary to avert the calamity. The laws we had made had re versed the original curse on man, " by the sweat of your brow shall you live, " but the Poor Laws took from the labouring man the rew ards of the sweat of his brow, and bestowed it upon those who worked not. The Poor Laws, too, took from the poor man that safeguard from vice which con sista in labour and industry, for the pauper spent his time in that idleness which invariably produces vice and crime. The crimes which the calendar were swollen with, murder, infanticide, incest, were in very great part attributable to the Poor Laws. The sole exceptions to the general report of depravity and corruption detailed in this volume, were to be found in the manufacturing towns, those flourishing seats of art, which alone seemed to oppose any resistance to the en trance into them of this fatal evil : but it would be in vain to ex p e ct that even such places as these, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, should long remain as they now were, so many claps in the desert. It became then the b oun d en d uty o f t h e Legislature, before all was involved in one common ruin, to make a firm stand, and to bring into effect real and practical reformation of these manifold and destructive evils. He did not for the present say anything about repealing these laws, which he should look upon for the time as the fixed law of the land ; but much might be done in amending their administra tion—( Hear)--and to this they should apply their best attention. One thing to be attended to was, the separat e jurisdiction. At present the utmost want of unifornait„ and re gu l ar ity p reva iled, and the consequences were vel, mischievous. One magistrate laid down one rule ; an y other, another : one set of overseers had one system ; an" other set had another : one bench of justices, one rule - another, another. Now, as every thing depended upon unity; of system in the persons who administered these laws, the pre sent want of unity must be fatal to good administration. So different were the plans in different parishes, that though next to each other, one would suppose them to be in different coun ties. The change which was wanted might be very simple for several cases had occurred where a simple plan of action carried fairly into effect, had effected the most extraordinary improvement in the respective parishes ; the poor-rates dimi nished one half, the idle reclaimed and set to work, and the in dustrious rewarded according to their works. Scotland, in the j matter of her poor law administration was an example which ' the House would do well to attend to. The English and Scotch laws relative to the providing further power were not very different in their nature, but they were very different in their administration. The Scotch, with that prudence and caution which characterised their proceedings in everything, took care in all possible cases to avoid assessment. It was only in extreme cases that they consented to it. In Glasgow, and some of the parries in that part of Scotland which were most exposed to the influx of Irish labourers, it was necessary to have recourse to assessment ; and it had also been found proper to resort to it in other parts of the country, in cases of scarcity arising from famine, or other causes, as was the case in 1795. B ut i t was always with the greatest reluctance they did so. The Scotch adminis tered relief to their poor on a most sensible and judicious plan. But it was far different in England. Here there were great abuses in the administration of the poor laws, and never could those laws be properly administered until we had a rigo rous and uniform system for the pupose. It had been said, in objection to the proposal to have a uniform system of poor laws, Why not leave the administration of each parish in its own hands, in the same way as the administration of an indi vidual's own affairs is left in his hands? He (the Lord Chancellor) would never expect that where there was a com bination of men with interested views, the affairs of others would be administered by them with that carefulness and pru dence, with which an individual managed his affairs. This fact was confirmed by the history of too many charities. The Noble and Learned Lord here referred to several cases illus trative of the abuses to which he alluded, and then proceeded. Does not this show how long a bad system may prevail before people open their eyes to its evils ? The Bill to which he was directing the attention of their Lordships, was to put an end to these abuses and evils. At present there was a great want of proper persons to supe r i n t en d the affairs of parishes. With regard to the Poor Law itself, he would at present say nothing. When the'administration of its provisions was cor rected, then they might take the law itself into their consideration. He had now to entreat their Lordship's attention for a short time longer, while he referred to another point. He knew that a prejudice had been at tempted to be created against this measure, by associat ing it with political economy, and political economists. It had been said that the authors of the measure were theorists, speculators, visionaries, and to sum up all, as if that were the worst charge which could be brought against them, that they were political economists. This was said as if political economists were necessarily theorists, speculators, and visionaries. Why, he hoped, and indeed he was sure, it was unnecessary to state to their Lordships that many of the greatest and most celebrated men of modern times, heads of academies, and the most distinguished seats of learning of the present day—men whose names would be venerated long after they were dead, were political economists. The greatest men of his(the Chancellors') day were political economists. Pitt himself was a political economist. The name of Adam Smith, popular a§ he has since been and now is, was scarcely known, and cer tainly his works excited little attention, until brought before the country by Mr. Pitt quoting and praising his writings in the House of Commons. That great statesman was fond of the science of political economy. He ( Mr. Pitt) was a bad political economist, it must be admitted ; but still he was fond of the subject, and was perhaps as good as any statesman of his time. Will any one, then, say that Mr. Pitt was a vision ary or a theorist ? Mr. Canning also was a political econo mist • was he a spec u l a ti s t or a v i s i onary ? H e ( t h e Lord Chancellor) had heard many objections to Mr. Can ning on other grounds, but never on this. Mr. Hus kisson, likewise, was a political economist. He sup posed their Lordships would be told that that gentleman also was a visionary, a mere theorist, and that he knew - nothing of the true principles of trade and commerce, and na tional finance. Why, if he (the Lord Chancellor) were to search all England, he did not know where he could find a more practical statesman, or one who more disliked theory, than Mr. Huskisson. Henry Thornton was another political economist; yet he was a banker, and possessed a thorough knowledge of business. The French political economists also numbered among them some of the greatest men that country ever produced. But ignoranee was always absurd. Science sometimes proved the parent of ridiculous notions ; but the absurdities of ignorance were endless, were boundless. It makes men, " dressed in a little brief authority," play the most fantastic tricks. With respect to the French economists, they were charged by those who knew no better with being levellers and republicans ; whereas those who knew any thing of them, knew that they not only flourished under a despotism or absolute Monarchy, but expressed themselves satisfied with that system of Government. In fact, the greatest objection which he had to the French economists was, they were too much attached to their own absolute Monarchy. If he (the Lord Chancellor) should be charged with being a theorist, a speculatist, and a visionary, because he approved of those papers (it was supposed the Noble and Learned Lord referred to the report of the Poor Law Commissioners), he would willingly submit to it, consoled by the reflection that he shared it with such eminent men. With respect to the report of the Commissioners, they ( the Government) had rejected the one half of their suggestions—some of them of very great importance, be cause they were anxious not to adopt so many at once. If those which they had adopted, and which were introduced into the present measure, should be found to operate beneficially, the others would certainly receive from him his best attention, and they could, if approved of, be afterwards acted on. He now begged their Lordships' attention for a little, while he adverted to the plan which Ministers had devised for the better admi nistration of the poor laws :—First the uniformity of the sys tem, which was so important a feature of the plan, could only be carried into effect by a central board of commissioners. Second, those commissioners must not be political persons— that is to say, not Members of either House of Parliament, and not in any way connected with the State. And when he (the Lord Chancellor) should be shown a man, who, by his sound judgment, amiableness of disposition, and practical knowledge of the subject, was qualified for the situation, he would at once, however different might be that person's politics from his, vote for his appointment to the office. Or, if two men were proposed, with one of whom he differed in opinion on political topics, while he agreed with the other, h e should decide in favour of the one from whom he dif fered in opinion, if he thought him the best qualified for the appointment. (Hear, hear, hear.) It was necessary that the Commissioners should possess large discretionary powers. Unless they had large discretionary powers con ferred upon them, they could never administer the poor laws under the new system to advantage ; for when anything . went wrong, which they would not have sufficient discretionary powers to enable them to correct, they would have to wait until they got a new Act of Parliament, and thus everything would be at a stand-still until next Session. Again :it was necessary that the commissioners should possess large dis cretionary powers, because the circumstances of different parishes were different. The circumstances of agricultural parishes, for example, were different from those of commercial parishes ; and, as it was impossible the Legislature could be acquainted with the peculiar circumstances of each parish, it was necessary to give discretionary powers to the commis sioners. The powers which it was proposed to give to the commissioners were called arbitrary by some ; and by others unconstitutional and novel. He (the Lord Chancellor) would admit that they were novel as to their administration, but certainly not as to their existence. With regard to the extent of their powers, he would simply say they were really irresponsible bodies which existed under the present system that possessed such extensive powers. The fears which were entertained lest the powers of the Commis sioners should be abused, were, in his opinion, groundless; but supposing that there really were danger to be apprehended from the exercise of those powers, he would ask their Lord ships were these times which required nothing out of the usual way ? Need he remind their Lordships of the state of things to which the present system of Poor Laws had brought the country. What was the unanimous testimony to the existing state of matters as brought on by the operation of those laws ? Judges of the land, magistrates, men of science, tradesmen, as well as landlords and farmers—men in every class of society— all men, in short, whose testimony was worth having, concur red with one voice in representing the present state of things as frightful—a state of things which made :industry and idle ness, and honesty and knavery change places, and which had nearly annihilated commerce and agriculture. He would not have referred to the melancholy condition to which the existing system of Poor Laws had brought the country, and especially the labouring classes of the country, if he did not believe, if he were not satisfied, that the hand of the Legislature could raise up and elevate the degraded character of the English peasantry—a peasantry whose character for independence of mind, and all that is noble and virtuous, would, but for the operation of the present Poor Laws, have been, tothe remotest ages of the world, the wonder and admiration of their country , —(Cheers.) With respect to birth-settlement, the bill said no thing, he (the Lord Chancellor) was a great friend to birth-set tlement, and he hoped that ere long something would be done relative to it ; but at the present time he thought it better not to attempt doing anything. Then came the . point of hiring service-settlement. That was extremely objectionable ; it was so objectionable, as to be given up by all. It led to a great deal of evasion of the law, which it was very easy to do. And another evil which already resulted from it, and of which it had long: been the prolific, source, were the differences to which it led between the master and the man. Formerly the most friendly feeling existed between masters and men servants. It was customary, before 1795, for them to dine together, which, in the poorer class of farmers, not only fostered a spirit of mutual good feeling, but the conse quences were most beneficial in many respects. When a young man intended to marry, he generally informed his master of the circumstance, and the master thought it his duty, when the case was such as to justify the thing, to warn him against the consequences of marrying before he had any prospect of being able to support a wife and family. The advice, from the moral influence the master possessed over the servant, was often acted on ; and the mistress of the house had generally a similar influence on the female servants. In short, the masters and mistresses of farm houses, before the Poor Laws had bro ug ht on th e p resent state of things, did exactly in this respect what Professor Malthiis has had so much obloquy thrown on him for attempting to do, namely, to prevent imprudent marriages. At the time to which he (the Lord Chancellor) referred, the crime of bastardy was not a twentieth part so common as it is now. The hiring ser vice settlement was also most injurious to the character of servants. The three weeks in the year which they went about idle to evade the law, opened the road to crimes and led to the contraction of bad habits, from which they were seldom afterwards reclaimed. They went about during these three weeks to fairs and other places, where their morals were corrupted, and where they formed idle habits. And as re garded female servants, they often, when thus going about idle tcr evade the law, lost their character altogether.—( Hear. ) Their parents often resided at a distance--it might be of fifty miles, and they could not afford the expenses of a journey to see them. Hence they fell into bad company, and often were ruined altogether. Apprentice settlement was bad also. It was now abolished, and he was glad of it. All these settlements had been left out of the bill. The only other change was that which related to the law of bastardy. That was, he would say, a bold, yet it was a most necessary change, and he was sure it was a most salutary one. The existing law with regard to bastardy, was a most injurious one, both as re garded the woman and the man. It left both in that state that the one trusted to the consequences falling on the other. He (the Lord Chancellor) would go one step farther than this. He would say that it stirred up the frailties of the flesh ; for the woman reasoned in this way—" If I become the mother of a child to this man, I will compel him to marry me." In ad dition, then, to the natural infirmities of the flesh, the woman often proceeded to the commission of the offence from a cool calculation of the advantage, in this point of view, to which she might turn it. It furnished a soporific to her conscience, by looking forward to marriage as the probable result of her crime. The new law with regard to bastardy was the same in principle as that on which the Judges of the land legislated every day in cases of conjugal infidelity. It would make the woman trust to herself; it would make her the preserver and protector of her own virtue ; it would prevent her yielding to the solicitations of her seducers, when yielding would gain her nothing, but make her lose every thing. The seducer in that case would storm the citadel, and beat at the door in vain. He had now gone through all the important parts of this measure. In addressing their Lordships at such length on the measure, he certainly had not been led into the question by the seductions of the subject. He had no plea sure, no delight, in contemplating the scenes of degradation and unhappiness which the state of the labouring classes of this country presented, and to which he had called their Lordships' attention. In undertaking the performance of the task, he was actuated solely by a sense of public duty. It was this sense of public duty which alone vanquished the reluctance he felt to bring the subject before their Lordships. Never in• the whole course of his life did he feel so relieved, as when his Noble Friend, late at the head of his Majesty's Government, consented to move the second reading of the. Bill. He had in the whole course of his political life taken a lively interest in the subject of the poor laws, and as soon as he came into office he had resolved on bringing their present state under the consideration of Parliament, and was only de terred from doing so by the all-absorbing subject of the Re form Bill. After the Reform Bill, the Commission for an In quiry into the State of the Poor Laws was issued, and it be came needless and of no effect to bring the matter then forward till such time as the report of the Commissioners was made. Those circumstances had retarded the bringing forward of this measure; but having been connected with the subject, from the circumstances which he had mentioned, he did not shrink from the duty which the bringing forward of it imposed upon him. He declared that he had no sinister motive in bringing it forward. He neither wished to distinguish him self, nor did he wish to court popularity for the Government of which he was a member. He felt that, with the greatest portion of the country, no apology was necessary for having brought forward this measure. It was only necessary to those who did not understand the subject. The only risk the Go vernment ran was from misconception among the more igno rant of the people, arising from misdirection and a mistaken notion of the views and objects which the Government had in bringing forward the measure. The Government sought no advantage from the measure in any manner as a party. They resolved manfully to do their duty—neither looking to the right nor to the left—regardless whom they might irritate, or whom alarm, but resolved to act for the good of the people them selves, who had hitherto cordially trusted them--( Hear) — determined to consult the real good of the people, and trusting to the support and co-operation of the enlightened, the ra tional, and the honest portion of the community. Lord W YNFO RD said that if the evil was so great, and had been of such long continuance, as had been represented by the Noble Lord, there could not be much inconvenience in postponing it to another session. The House of Commons had taken two months to consider of this measure, - and having now got into the close of July, there could be little expectation that their Lordships would have more than a fortnight to dispose of so important a Bill, if it was to be proceeded with this session. He was confident their_ Lordships would per ceive the impossibility of passing it this session, and it was useless, therefore, to waste time by attempting to carry it through its future stages. It was impossible that their Lordships could pay proper attention to the measure, and he objected strongly to its being passed in a hurried manner, be cause it would furnish an argument to those who were en deavouring to cry down their Lordships' privileges.—( Hear, hear.) It would be said that the House of Lords required no time for the consideration of such a measure—that they passed it within a few days after it was sent to them —that they were contented to yield at once, and pass the Bill without any consideration. The Noble and Learned Lord had assumed that all the evils he had described pro ceeded from bad poor laws, and a worse administration of them. This, however, was taking a narow view of the sub ject. Many of the evils enumerated had nothing to do with the poor laws, and many of the witnesses examined had attri buted those evils to other causes. What circumstances had oc curred to alter the state of the country? Many circumstances had occurred which tended to place the labouring classes in a worse situation. Without saying whether he approved of those circumstances or not, he would state that the alteration in the currency was one of those circumstances : but the more important one was the alteration in the corn laws, and the con tinued threats of other alterations in them, which frightened the farmers from cultivating the land. If their Lordships would attend to the evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons, and also that before a Committee of their Lordships, they would see that the poor who were in em-' ployment were better off now than in former times, comparing the price of corn at the respective periods. To what, then, was the misery of the people to be attributed ? To the fact that they were out of employment. Did this Bill, however, suggest a means of their obtaining employment ? The state of indolence in which they were situated engendered those vices of which the Noble and Learned Lord complained. In fact, the great mass of poverty had nothing to do with the poor laws, but was rather to be attributed to the distressed state of the farmer, which was such,"owing to the changes in the corn laws, that the poor lands were altogether driven out of culti vation. the Noble and Learned Lord had spoken of the con dition of the poor as if it was wholly attributable to the poor laws, but he (Lord Wynford) said that the poor laws had little to do with the present state of the poor. The increase of po pulation had enhanced the difficulty of procuring labour, and had rendered it necessary for the Magistrates to depart from the principle of the poor laws. The spread of population, too, the Noble and Learned Lord attributed to the poor laws ; but if that were the case, we should not find the population increase as it had done in Ireland, where there were no poor laws. We could never hope effectually to amend the condition of the poor in this country, until we had improved the state of the people of Ireland. The pauper population of Ireland would, until their condition was improved, come over here to better themselves. They had already done so to a great extent, and had driven the poor of this country from employment in towns, and were fast driving them from employment in agri cultural districts. By this Bill, Parliament was telling the people of England that it proposed nothing which would re lieve them, because, in this respect, which was the most im ,portant part of the case, nothing was to be done. Another principle to which he felt it necessary to call their Lordships' attention, was the allowance system—namely, giving relief from the poor rates to persons who were actually employed. It might be said that this Bill would effectually guard against that system. He did not believe that it would, or that the framers of that Bill believed it would, for if they did, what occasion was there to give to the Commissioners the powers which the magistrates at present possessed ? He was con vinced, that unless they could raise the rate of wages, this prin ciple could not be dispensed with. If wages were not lowered, even if they continued at their present rate, it was impossible for a man, with a wife and ten children, to lodge, clothe, and maintain his family. Allusion had been made by the Noble and Learned Lord to Mr. Pitt, of whose great and dis tinguished talents he had spoken with proper respect. That great and distinguished man knew that some provision of this kind was necessary ; and the Bill which he proposed, although in many respects defective, yet was in this point infinitely pre ferable to the present. Mr. Pitt proposed that when a labour ing man had a certain number of children some assistance should be given, and that the amount of that assistance should be defined by law. In the course of the arguments upon this Bill it had been said that the fault of the present system was not in the law, but in the manner in which it was administered by the Magistrates. He did not mean to say that there might not have been many cases in which the Magistrates had acted indiscreetly, but he denied that such cases were by any means so frequent as seemed to be supposed ; and when it was said that those from whose pockets the money was to come were too liberal in the distribution of it, he saw no reason for alter ing the administration of the law. The payment of wages out of the poor rates was only done when it was impossible for a man to get wages for his labour to support his family. The Noble and Learned Lord complained of the law. He (Lord I ,Vynford) had never heard the statute of Elizabeth complained of; but he agreed with Adam Smith, in complaining of the Act of Charles 11. Part of that Act, he says, was not improved by this Bill. The statute of Elizabeth said that when a man was impotent he should have relief. He hoped the country would never be without a poor law on that principle. He agreed with the Noble and. Learned Lord in the observations he had made with respect to settlement by birth, and by marriage ; but with respect to apprenticeship, his opinion was, that taking away the right of settlement arising from apprenticeship would be a most unjust, cruel, and impolitic measure. He wondered the Noble and Learned Lord did not recollect that not two years since a Bill had come up from , the House of Commons embodying this principle, and pre venting persons from gaining settlements by apprenticeship to mariners. He (Lord. Wynford) had opposed that Bill on grounds applicable to the present measure. The effect of such a provision was, that a youth was sent as apprentice from a country parish to a seaport town. That town derived the be nefit of his labour 'for six years and upwards ; and yet at the expiration of his apprenticeship, instead of acquiring a settle ment there, he was liable to be sent back to his native parish, which had derived no benefit from his labour, and to bring into it not only the vices of a town, but the burden of a wife and family. There was one principle to which he wished to direct the attention of their Lordships—namely, that of making loans" of money to the poor. He had seen many instances in which great advantage had arisen from such advances, because they were checks upon habits of improvidence. He had had occasion to see how beneficial the operation of such a check would be in the town of Nottingham, where the habits of the labouring classes were so improvident that it had often hap pened that persons in the lace trade, who earned four or five guineas a week, were within a fortnight afterwards, living on the parish. With respect to bastardy he was glad that framers of the Bill had not folloWed the recommendation of the Com missioners. He believed that recommendation would not have had the effect of reducing the number of bastards ; but even if it were likely to reduce the number by nine-tenths, he THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1834, would rather that nine-tenths more of illegitimate children should be born than that the one-tenth should be liable to have the hands of the parents turned against their own offspring. The statute of Elizabeth held out no temptations to women to plunge into vicious courses, in order to increase their income ; for it did not say that the money was to be given to the mother, so as to increase her fortune in proportion to the number of children which she had. It was to be paid to the parish officers as an indemnity for the expense to which they were put, and they were to make her such allowance, either in the workhouse or elsewhere, as they thought proper. If this provision were strictly acted upon, it would effectually remove any temptation which arose from the consideration which had been suggested. This Bill would not take away the 'promise of marriage which generally accompanied such cases of seduction ; and, in his opinion, it would little dimi nish the number of cases of bastardy. He was convinced that acting in strict conformity with the Act of Elizabeth would be a much more effectual check upon bastardy. In fact, it ap peared in the evidence that wherever that statute had been strictly acted upon, bastardy was less frequent. He now came to a part of the Bill which gave him more pain. It had from the commencement excited a kind of horror in his mind that the people of England were to be exposed to the new power which was to be conferred upon the three Commis sioners, or rather the twelve Commissioners. It was said that there must be a Central Board, in order that there might be one uniform system. He said it was impossible to have a uniform system, and a Central Board would be useless, because they would not have the local knowledge necessary to direct the administration of the law in the various parishes.—( Hear.) He said that three Commissioners could never from a distance, with the quantity of occupation with which they would be overwhelmed, control the persons who were to administer the law in the 12,000 parishes of Eng land. The central board, therefore, would be impotent as to good, but most potent for evil. They had the power of order ing the unions of parishes, and he said that the junction of town parishes to country parishes would tend more to the dis semination of immorality than any other measure that could be introduced. The union of parishes had been tried, and found inexpedient. Property would be materially affected by the arbitrary power of the commissioners to combine and se parate parishes wherever they pleased. But that was not all. The commissioners were also to hire officers, and to pay them whatever salary they pleased. They were to subpcena wit nesses, and make the parishes pay the expenses which they oc casioned ; and they were to have the entire control of all the money that was raised in the country for the relief of the poor. They were to prescribe the amount which the poor were to re ceive from the rate-payers, and regulate it as they pleased, at the disposal of the commissioners. The Noble and Learned Lord had spoken of some 50 bills in which as large powers were given as in this Bill, but he (Lord Wynford) would under take to say there never had been such power conferred by any Bill. Judge Blackstone was struck with horror when it was first proposed, in the instance of the Mutiny Bill, that the King should have the power of making and deciding upon laws, and of executing them, but now a still greater power was about to be given to the Commissioners than that which had been considered too great to be given to the King, for they were to have the power of delegating their authority to nine other persons who were unknown in Parliament, and to the King. It was impossible not to see that poor under the con trol of these Commissioners, who were not only to regulate the amount of their miserable pittance, but to decide whether they should receive it at liberty or locked up in a workhouse, would be more complete slaves than the serfs on the continent, the villains in former days, or the slaves who had been recently emancipated in the West Indies. Were such powers to be given to the Commissioners without an imperative necessity being shown for it ? He said that the establishment of a per manent Board of Officers, to be appointed by the King and paid by the House of Commons, would be a most dangerous prece dent. If such a principle were extended to the army and navy, the constitution of the country would be gone, and the control of the army and navy would be completely taken from the King, and placed under the House of Commons. These were his objections to the Bill. It would not be possible to make such alterations in the Committee as would correct the evils which were embodied in the measure, and therefore he wished it to be postponed to another session in order that their Lordships might have time to consider it and to obtain the ad vice of practical men. They might procure from each pail of the country much practical knowledge as to the working of the Poor Laws, and he was convinced that much practical know ledge would show that no general system of administration could be adopted. He could not but foresee that this measure would be attended with an evil to which the Noble and Learned Lord had not adverted. It might create alarm amongst the poor ; and although that alarm might be ground less, still it would be dangerous to bring the poor into imme diate contact with the Government. It would be better—in case of complaint —to have to say that it was the fault of the local magistrates. But here, in case of complaint, it would be extensive and general, and would be directed at once against the Government of the country, 'whose immediate organ the commissioners would be. He entreated their Lordships to proceed with caution in a measure of such importance. He wished that they should have further time to consider it, and therefore moved that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months. The Earl of WINCHIL SEA said it was his intention to support the second reading of the Bill, but that he must at the same time express his anxious hope that it would receive amendment in some of the clauses, which he would briefly state, because he thought that the alterations which might be made in it would tend to render it more beneficial to the la bouring classes than it would be as it stood at present. He viewed this Bill as second in importance to none which had ever been brought forward—whether he regarded it with re ference to its relief to those parts of the kingdom which were weighed down by the burdens imposed upon them by the mal administration of the poor laws, which, in fact, had brought them into a state of actual ruin and bankruptcy—or whether he looked to its more important effect as regarded the moral character and the independence of the labouring classes of the people, for whose benefit he considered the measure, if carried to a conclusion, very much calculated. Those who opposed the Bill had not met the acknowledged abuses of the pre sent system by proposing any remedy, and their Lordships were therefore called upon to give the question their se rious attention, and to see whether those abuses could be removed. In his opinion the magistracy of England were much to blame. He believed they had acted from the best of motives, but they had acted injudiciously in making no distinction between the wants of honest industry and the demands of indolence and vice. The independent habits of the English peasant had been thus destroyed, and temptation held out to idleness and immorality,— (Hear.) In observing upon the various parts of the Bill he should first advert to the change about to be made in the bastardy laws. He could not agree with the Noble Baron behind him that this provision was likely to lead to the injury which the Noble Baron anticipated. So far from it, he considered that it would be extremely beneficial ; for the law, as it at present stood, held out a direct premium to vice. With respect to the question of settlement, he thought that the present measure, which went to destroy all settle ment by hiring and service, would be beneficial, because it would open the market to the honest labourer, and not con fine him to his own parish. But at the same time he must observe that such a provision, to be effectual, must be ac companied by a modified system of poor laws for Ireland.— (Hear, hear.). There was one part of the Bill which he thought required alteration, and that related to house holders renting houses at 101. a year. He was afraid, as the Bill had come up from the House of Commons, that the clause would be injurious, and would lead to the same, and perhaps more litigation, than existed at present. It was also deficient as regarded hiring and service, because it would tend to make every proprietor of land cautious how he admitted persons on his estate to form a settle ment. For his part, he did not see any serious objection to make the rental not 101., but even 151. or 201. The poor had been so injured by the enclosing of commons, that some alteration of this kind was absolutely necessary. He cor dially approved of the alterations which had been made in the Bill, by which paupers could be relieved out of the parish workhouses. With respect to the appointment of the Com missioners, he allowed that they ought to be looked to with some degree of jealousy. He admitted that the Bill would confer on them a new and unconstitutional power; but at the same time he must look at the situation of the country, and the extraordinary necessity there was for adopting some mea sure which could remedy the existing evils. The poor laws, which were originally intended as a blessing, had become a curse, not only to the country, but to the poor themselves.-- ( Hear.) He had some experience of their effects as a Ma gistrate, and he saw and felt, as an acting Magistrate in three different counties, the impossibility of correcting the evils without something like a uniform system—(Hear)---and he maintained, that unless such a system was adopted, no change they could make would be effectual or beneficial. He sup ported the second reading of the Bill from the most con , scientious motives, and because he was thoroughly convinced that it would be of great benefit to the poor themselves. The Earl of ELDON thought the second reading of the Bill ought not to be urged that night. When they considered that so many Clergymen and so many Magistrates were divided as to the best mode of correcting the evils of the Poor Law system, and when they considered the great difficulty of the question, he was convinced they would see that it would be impossible to do justice to the measure at that period of the Session. That was his sincere opinion. Such a Bill ought not to be passed but after great deliberation.—( Hear.) Lord A L VANLE Y said he was opposed to the measure, and thought that the improved system which had been adopted in many parishes would do all that was required. He objected to the principle of the Bill. It gave to a number of persons despotic powers, which would, more than any other measure, interfere with the domestic habits and comforts of the people of every hamlet and village. In order to prove that the system might be improved without such extraordinary powers, he would refer their Lordships to a few parishes where the most beneficial results had been obtained by judicious manage ment. He would refer particularly to the parish of Bingham, where the rates in 1817 were 1,206/., and in 1832 they were reduced to 449/., by a system somewhat like that which the Bill sanctioned. It was a singular fact, too, that while the rates had diminished, the population had increased to a considerable extent. The Noble Baron then gave a similar statement with regard to two other parishes, and added, that he regretted the introduction of such a measure, because it would interfere with the natural industry of the country-_a country, too, which had gone on increasing by means of individual enterprise, without Boards or Commis sioners. How did it happen that a country like England, of so small extent, and with so few advantages, could have been raised to such a degre e o f prosper i ty but ° by this system of in dividual enterprise, which was in direct opposition to the system proposed by the Bill. To be convinced of this, they had only to look at the flourishing colonies belonging to Great Britain, greater than the whole Ron: A n empire ; they had only to look at the roads, the canals, and any species of commercial com munication and enterprise, which had all been effected without any Central Board, or any shilling system like that proposed by the Poor Laws' Bill. In conclusion, he would only say that it would be much better to postpone a Bill of such im portance to the opening of a now session. The Earl of R ADNOR agreed entirely in the eulogium which the Noble Baron had pronounced on the self-governing system of the country. But the Noble Baron had neglected to state that self-government sometimes became self-misgovern ment.—( Hear.) Had he taken that into consideration, he would not have been so opposes to a Central Board, calculated to check such self-misgovernment • and the more so when he re collected that this Board was limited to five years. Ile was surprised that the Noble Baron did not see that one part of his speech answered the other. The Noble Baron had stated that the new practice had been so beneficial in some parishes as to reduce the rates more than one half. But if the plan were so good ani beneficial, how did it happen that it was not extended to other parishes ? In order to attain such a result, what must parishes do ? They must meet ; they must have a head--or President ; and, more than that, they must have great bold ness and great courage to enable them to carry it into effect without the sanction of an Act of Parliament. If there were a Mr. Baker in every parish, the Central Board would not be wanted to lay down rules ; but, unfortunately, that was not the case, and Parliament therefore was bound to interfere. The Noble Baron had misunderstood some of the most important parts of the Bill, and more particularly that clause which re lated to the powers of the Commissioners. The Commissioners could not by this Bill repeal any laws ; and if the Noble Ba ron looked at the Bill more carefully, he would see that they were to act according to the existing laws. —( Hear, hear.) They could not supersede the laws ; and no Noble Lord, not even the Noble Baron himself, could deny that the administra tion of the Poor Laws was grievously bad. Some Noble Lords had objected to the Bill because it was founded on theory, but they ought to recollect that all great changes are founded, more or less, on theoretical principles, and might be described as theoretical till their effects were known. The Noble Lord said put off the Bill till next session, and give us time to go down to the country and ascertain how the system worked. But what had the Noble Lords been doing for the last twenty years? Had they not time to inquire before now ? and did they not see that the grievances of the poor laws were every day becoming more intolerable?—( Hear.) He was most friendly to the principle of the Bill. He knew that it would give great power to the commissioners, but that power would be exerted for the welfare of the people. Nothing could be so absurd as to say that it would reduce the people to a state of slavery. How could it have such an effect more than the present system ? A great clamour had been raised, too, about the power to be given to the Commissioners in regulating workhouses, but in what did that differ from the present system ? Why, in this, that men of general education and sound principles (as he presumed the Commissioners would be) would have the making of the regulations, and not such persons, ignorant illiterate men, as many of the present over seers are—persons, he must say, who, not from any fault of theirs, were totally incapable of laying down general rules.— ( Hear, hear.) The present system formed an opening to all sorts of partiality, which would be effectually done away with by a Central Board.—( Hear.) The Noble Baron said the Commission would have the power of raising the rates. No such thing. All the power they had on that head was to raise 50/. in any particular parish for the repair of a work house. It was essential to the welfare of the country that the Bill should be passed without delay, though not without deli berate consideration. He was convinced that those persons for whom it was intended would in the end be the most bene fitted by it. The Duke of WELLINGTON said he would vote for the second reading of this Bill, and shortly state his reasons. If it were proper to pass the Bill at all, it was proper to do so now. They had yet sufficient time for the mature considera tion of all the stages of the Bill, and in his opinion it ought to be passed without loss of time.—( Hear.) He should, therefore, vote against the motion for postponement. Ile agreed entirely with the Noble Earl and the Noble Baron, as to the necessity of the measure. The existing grievances of the Poor Laws were such that no man could deny them, and though he did not agree with the Noble and Learned Lord as to his construction of the 43d Eliz., he thought any one would agree with him in the statement that, in every one of the 12,000 parishes of England, abuses had crept in, and without Parliamentary interference, it would be impossible to correct them.—( Hear, hear.) In order to establish a uniform system, it would be necessary t•i+ appoint some autho rity, some Board, which might control the different guardians of the poor, and place all the parishes of the country on a similar footing. His Noble Friend (Lord Wynford) had ob jected to the Bill ; but if he had attended to Parliamentary business as much as some other Noble Lords, he would have learned that every Administration who had undertaken the Government of the country Had in vain attempted to devise a system of improved Poor Laws, and none had fairly grappled with it but the Noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey), to whom he returned thanks.—( Cheers.) He admitted the powers to be intrusted to the commissioners were great, but the commis sioners would necessarily be under the control of Parliament at all times, and might be called to account, both by the Go vernment and the Legislature, for the course they might be pursuing. He would recommend to the Noble Lords opposite that the clause respecting allowance should be struck out, as lie considered it gave the commissioners too much power. With respect to other parts of the Bill, he was willing that it should be read a second time, in order that they might have an oppor tunity of making alterations that should appear advisable in committee. Lord SE GR AVE said, that as the Noble Lord opposite had mentioned a parish in Gloucestershire, and the name of a gen tleman connected with it, he merely rose to state that he was intimately acquainted with the gentleman mentioned, who was a most useful magistrate, and deserving of all the praise that had been bestowed upon him. But he wished to prevent any misapprehension. What that gentleman (Mr. Baker) had done had not been done by either his personal or local influence, for he did not reside in the parish of Ealing, nor did he act as a magistrate there. Lord ST 0 URTON would support the second reading of this Bill. He was exceedingly anxious, at the same time, that something should be done to relieve the condition and raise the wages of the Irish labourer, without doing which it would be almost useless to legislate for the English poor. Viscount MELBOURNE said that though he could not expect to be able to add anything to what had been said by the Noble and Learned Lord who introduced this measure, yet the measure was of such paramount importance that he did not think he would be discharging his duty if he did not make some few observations upon it. This Bill was of the deepest importance to the whole community, and to every part of the country. It was of the deepest importance to England, bur dened as she was by an immense load of taxation, arising from the Poor Laws—it was of the deepest importance to Scotland, in order that she might be induced to persevere in, and ad here to her more prudent and cautious system of Poor Law s --and it was of the deepest importance to Ireland, in order that it might teach those who were urging for the adoption of some measure of Poor Laws for that country to consider under what form a system of Poor Laws could be best applied. This wag a matter of the most serious consideration, and he trusted it would be considered with that calmness, patience, and care, which its great and paramount importance deserved.--( Hear, hear.) He did not agree with those who wished, on account of the lateness of the year, to put off the consideration of this Bill. Such a proceeding was very well for those who altoge ther disapproved of the Bill, but for those who approved of it in part, who saw the evils of the present system, and wished to apply a remedy, let their Lordships consider whether such a course was not the greatest absurdity.—(Hear, hear.) He had heard, with great pleasure, the speech of the Noble Lord ( Alvanley, we believe) upon the cross benches, but was very sorry that he could not, upon the present occasion, more completely agree with him. Know ing the power of that Noble Lord's mind, he was rather sur prised that he should have been misled upon the present occa sion. Nothing struck him (Lord Melbourne) so much as the great absurdity which existed in this country of leaving mea sures of such vast importance, which pressed so hard upon the financial resources of the country, and the effects of which were so deeply and universally felt, under a temporary local Government. The poor rates were the largest direct tax, they were in amount as much as any two taxes together, and ex ceeded the assessed taxes and the land tax together by not less than 1,300,0001. There were even many individual parishes where it quadrupled them. Was not this an evil ? But there was more ; it was subject to the great objection made to the income tax, that it was a growing tax, by degrees growing to confiscation, as the exigencies of the time might demand ; it was led on, little by little, till the whole property of the coun try would be confiscated. Was not that the nature of this tax ? was it not growing every year, and in a different manner ? The income tax could not be imposed without the consent of Parliament ; but this tax stole on silently and secretly, and they knew not what it amounted to. It was like the growth of the upas tree, small at first, and hardly perceptible, till it had struck its roots into the earth, and grown to a magnitude that should spread ruin and desolation round it, destroying every thing that grew beneath its pestiferous shade. But let them look at the evils of the poor laws in another point of view :—the effect which they had upon the morals of the people were infinitely greater, and required infinitely more careful examination. For this reason, he entirely concurred in the propriety of establishing a Central Board. It was impossible to settle the matter effec tually in any other manner. For these reasons, undoubtedly, it was necessary that the Board should be armed with power sufficient for the occasion, and for the duties which they should have to perform. With respect to the suggestions applying to particular provisions, the proper time to consider them was in Committee, for if he rightly collected the sense of the House, the Bill would proceed to a second reading.—(Hear, hear. ) It was unnecessary for him to do more than to express his en tire concurrence in the second reading of this Bill, and to con gratulate the country upon the determination of the House.— ( Cheers. ) The Marquis of BUTE said that he - would vote for the second reading of the Bill, which he would not do if he could imagine that it would in the slightest degree injure the con dition of the labourer, or lower the respectability of the Ma gistracy. He thought the Bill would be highly advantageous to all classes. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he would vote for the amendment. He entirely concurred in the opinion ex pressed by a Magistrate of the county of Durham (Mr. Cart wright) in a letter expressed to him (the Marquis of London derry), that "if that House passed this Bill the aristocracy would be lost, and would deserve to be lost." The Duke of CLEVELAND said that this might be the opinion of the magistrate referred to ; but it would be a mis take to suppose that it conveyed the sentiments of the magis tracy of Durham. Earl MANVERS said he would support the second reading of the. Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND said that he would vote for the second reading of the Bill, as he thought it would ea:a u ti , the farmer to employ the labourer with more advantage toe .o to parties. During the last Session he had introduced a 811 1 1 11 114 that House for the temporary employment of labour ; though it passed this House, he deeply regretted to say that I was lost in the other House of Parliament. He knevt very well the disadvantages of the present system of Poor Laws to ; it tended to demoralize the labourer, whose only object Wag" get as much from the parish as h e p oss ibly cou ld. To reilleu;,' this he saw no better measure than the present Bill. He ktt no better, and he would, therefore, vote for it. But be . , 315 own that he still looked at the Bill with co nsiderable Sta r : and he viewed the power given to th e C om missioners 01 _ jealousy and suspicion. He thought th a t the Secretarit of State for the Home Department would have a 111 0 1 responsible situation in taking care that those ge ne ., 4 regulations were not acted upon injuriously--he. if take care that every thing was done gradually. e , it were put under the administration of young and /rola rienced men, not practiCally acquainted with the details, ant situation of those parishes where there might be no re° on e gentry, and the overseers were ignorant men, if such Pet s attempted to carry those regulations into effect in such 1 30 rishes, it would excite a rebellion worse than in the year 1 be —( So we understood the Noble Duke). Believing thivsv_a could not look at this Bill without considerable anxiety; o, his great object in rising was to impress this particularly Ito his Noble Friend the late Secretary of State for the 11 ; to Department, with whom he would be perfectly satisfieuthe leave this control ; but they could not know who would be, to future Secretaries for that Department. He would le see a clause introduced into this Bill upon the principle °'i g , Labour Rate Act—( Hear, hear)—authorizing the Cou l `; o s sioners to give permission to the rate-payers, where there s a a considerable majority, to establish this Act. The Prete, system of allowance would be a hardship to many parh -- , d itil Unless wages were considerably raised, how could a man cb his wife and large family subsist upon the rate of wagFs v & o . might suffice for a single man ? It was possible that 10 D oi, mittee he would propose a clause upon this part of the an d but, as he had said before, he would not object to the sec reading. lear The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that, after the the and luminous statement of the Noble and Learned Lord 013 ~ Woolsack, it would b e w h o lly unnecessar y f or him to o ce,`l i ., much of their Lordships' time, or to enter into any general,og guments in support of this Bill. He could state that ItO tlll , lo o was farther from the intention of Government than to bur f los or force the changes in the present system, without ti to discuss not only the whole Bill in its principle, but- 10 0 , most minute details. He would also add that it was th e if tention of Government that the remedy should be appli e d each case with attention to its particular circumstances; 'wi e . necessary, with the most deliberate consideration. lqe the cerely hoped that, by means of this Bill, they would se's h is restoration of those principles of industry and virtue wa i l o p former times had distinguished this country amongst all tions, and that those principles would be perpetuated. e s The LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, commoll'i e y) the speech of his Noble and esteemed Friend (Lord Alvs e which, however, whilst he was happy to bear testimony ! g ot talent which it displayed, applied in favour of the 10 ,e: e ce though his Noble Friend was opposed to it. With ret!::,it to the powers which were to be given to the central I3 o * - 4_, would of course be indispensably necessary to keep a por-iate control on their proceedings. His Noble Friend, the f e lt Postmaster-General, had expressed the jealousy which be $o in vesting any set of men with such extensive powera.,,sbe did he. But as to the poor laws, what had they d0ne, 1 ,,,' of, last fifty years ? Why they had interfered in the an ..fse ' ever man, rich and poor. Nature and the ordinary CO w- lor affairs said that a man should be paid according to his eelP th e ment, but the poor laws ordered you to employ a man - Ittb e bit you wanted him or not 1 They required this, not becall labour was worth os. to you, but because the man wants„.oo to support his children. What he wished to impressasa their Lordships was that, looking to the attempts wili e l e est , been made by successive Governments, they should, at oet receive this measure as the basis of an improvement of toe The Duke of WELLINGTON made some obser y- ot which was not audible in the gallery, when the Hou' se cleared for a division— For the original motion For the amendment Majority in favour of the second reading: 7 - 63 . The Bill was theri read a second time, but we did no t any day named for the Committee upon it.' Several Bills were then advanced a stage, and their 11 , 1 ,y)' ships adjourned at Half-past Twelve till to-morrow (this, HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 21. ate The SPEAKER resumed the chair at 25 minutes Pa s o'clock. WEXFORD ELECTION. .6 0 0 The SPEAKER announced that he had received a P eti from Wexford, complaining of an undue return. „Ascii° On the motion of Mr. RUTH VEN, the Port Cro -- Harbour Bill was read a third time and passed. f th e Lord HOWICK brought up the annual report ° Inland Navigation in Ireland. The Noble Lord then tti"ep for copies of any correspondence that had taken place I r, t°l de rf the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Commissi°- of Emigration. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. , 0 10 Mr. POULTER gave notice that, next Session, I. l e: t h./ bring in a Bill for the better observance of th e Saw (Hear, and much laughter.) The LORD ADVOCATE moved the s e cond reale the amendments to the Roman C a th o li c (S co tland) . riages Bill. Mr. GO ULBURN presented various petitions fro% q by cashire, Devonshire, and Kent, in support of the Est' Chuff ch. MR. D. W. HARVEY'S CASE. 0 00 Mr. O'CONNELL moved that the Inns of Court C° . ." tee have leave to report from time to time. The flollooiA , and Learned Member then brought up a Report , o f t) he handed to the clerk, who announced it as the r eport bte d t Committee upon Church patronage in Scotland.—(Lalli n d The Hon. Member finding his mistake, returned and "'- up a report from the Committee on the Inns of Court. 12 ,1 0 Mr. WYNN said that it was very desirable that the: V Hon. the Secretary at War should be in his place pre the report being read. Re al Lord ALTHORP said that he had not seen the Hon. Gentleman that day (as we understood him.) The CLERK then proceeded to read the evidence Western, which the C omm itt ee d eeme d it th e ir ` 1 " bring at once to the knowledge of the House. so it s t:i substance of the evidence was, that Lord Western had „ to Mr. Ellice, as bein g connec t e d w i t h t h e T reas urYs*-107 down a sum of money (5001.) to insure the return of <0 1 : candidate for Colchester. Lord Western stated that.ftPibe: ject was to insure the return of Mr. M a yh ew . Mr. I ", s i or and Mr. Harvey stood upon the same inte res t, but mer e 0 1 violently hostile to each other. They were both refor o didates. A The evidence went on thus :—To Lord Western , ', ss,f s° Did you not write to Mr. Ellice, calling upon Ini n o 0 , 1 officer of the Treasury to send down a sum of money t o Of on Mr. Harvey's election at Colchester ?—No. I 0/ 11 p sum of money for the purpose of Mr. Mayhew's electiou rt pf a Was not the letter written to obtain money to supP ° o fro; Harvey and Mr. Mayhew jointly ?—lt was the fartb ° ,4 my thought to do it. I wrote for the money to supP ° ' Mayhew. Your belief strongly sustains that distinction ?—lt In point of fact, was any sum of money sent from the sury to Colchester?—Yes. Who were the parties that shared th e mo n e y so se - i tti cannot state ; but I understood from yourself that ther e i g fr A dispute about it—a litigious di s p u t e . My reco llection of it was sent for Mr. Mayhew, who had stood three c ° within a Short time. How much was the money 2-1 think 500/. Did Mr. Mayhew and Mr. Harvey stand upon the sw:0" rest ?—Yes, I beli eve th e y did ; b u t th e y were most ' . 4) hostile to each other, as I understood.—(Laughter.) r teh Did you know that Mr. George Saville, of Colches_,, at that time, the treasurer of a common fund to retl o - 0 Mayew and Mr. Harvey ?—I don't know that. or * asking me to matters that are irrelevant. My desire the money should be deposited in Mr. George Savill°; , ' Did he receive the money, and, in point of fac t ' any part of it to the support of Mr. Harvey's intetv believe so. 0 1 7 By Mr. HARVEY—WiII it appear that a sum ° was obtained in aid of my election at Colchester Voitu you that I did not get it for your support, but for that i v Mayhew. to You are understood to say that when you wrotneold) Treasury, to counsel a sum of money being sent to ue l, t it'l ter, it was a disti nct app li cat i on on b e h a lf o f Mr. MaP:01; to the exclusi on o f M r . H arvey ?—N ot to hi s e xclusi tio t my application was for Mr. Mayhew. I did not saY money was to be sent to the exclusion of Mr. Hamel' Mr. Mayew's account. tin t° l l Did you exert yourself on public and political groaiibeie secure the return of Mr. Harvey, as well as of Mr. '7 O l No. Mr. Mayhew's return was in danger, but the Harvey was thought to be secure. But he was not returned ?—Yes, he was. Tr es° And for that purpose the 5001. was sent from the —Yes. As soon as the reading of the Report was c oneluclt e , Mr. O'CONNELL moved that it do lie on the taii.day Lord ALTHORP said that he for one was total ll jloo- of the transaction to which the Report referred,' a n • f e ° lieved that his Right Hon. Friend would be able to 6 1 "I tisfactory explanation regarding it. aa i Mr. TENNYSON observed, that he had CO ob. with the Secretary at War, in order to learn from 1 1 11 4 0 ,° he wished to attend th e Co mm itt e e w hen the b i t ,4 brought forward ; b u t th e Ri g ht H on . Gentleman 081, that he preferred ha v i n g the matter brought before s foi House, and that he trusted he should be able to gip s vi sre satisfactory explanation of it. Perhaps he was not the Ret on the transaction would be made so o°4l Mr. WYNN said that the natural and obvioul ti c t it e d, to refer the Report to a committee of privileges "Gept l e or, be fair in the first instance to give the Right go.. ~a the an opportunity of explanation. No prejudice w° l4 •Geou tit l i t/ created in the public mind. After the Right Hen' a tio should have come into his place, it might be mo l d aliof Report be referred to a committee of privileges , L' - t l i e ,5 ,9 1 motion he would have an opportunity of addressli t iOL without unnecessary delay. The charge was ce geta' rious one, affecting the character of an in eo i ,, rd the privileges of that House in general ri s Mr. O'CONNELL suggested that the m° ll t° 3 course might be for him to give notice that to-trior Iv % be 11 l oi ; tl vs i t , of., Ain ;