The Sun.
London, England, 1830-04-27 00:00:00

MADRAS REGISTRAR BILL.

Mr. ASTELL presented a petition from the Di-
rectors of the East India Company against the se-
cond reading of this Bill. They prayed that the
Bill might not pass into a law, and that they might
be heard by Counsel against it. The Hon. Gen-
tleman then moved that the petitioners be heard by
_ _ _

their Counsel at the bar against the Madras Regis-
trar Bill.—Agreed to.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH was anxious that
the second reading of the Bill should take place as
early as possible, but he had no hope of being
allowed to bring it in that evening, and he found
that every day for some time was occupied lay fixed
business. He wished to name the following Wed-
nesday, but he was well aware how reluctant the
House was to enter on lengthened discussions on
that day, and he was also aware that it was the day
on which his Majesty's Ministers dined together.
He would not name the following Wednesday, but
he would fix that day week, with the hope that
before that period an opportunity would offer for
the second reading of the Bill. He would now
move for the order of the day being read for the
second reading of the Bill, in order that it might be
postponed to Wednesday week.
Mr. A STELL said that the same objection which
was held against the next Wednesday would exist
against every succeeding Wednesday, as the rule
was general that business was not to be taken on
that day.
Mr.' MOORE (Dublin) presented a petition
from Enniscorthy, in the county of Wexford, against
the proposed duty of Is. Bd. a pound on Irish grown-
tobacco. The cultivation afforded employment to
the poor, and for both women and children, and the
duty would amount to a prohibition.
Mr. O'CONNELL was also of opinion that the
duty would annihilate the culture of that article.
Sir BYAM MARTIN presented a petition from
Plymouth, against the punishment of death for
forgery; and another from the same place, against
the Beer Bill.
Mr. HUSKISSON presented a petition from the
West India proprietors and merchants resident at
Liverpool, for a reduction of the duties on sugar
and rum.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from Bol-
ton, against the punishment of death for forgery.
Lord GEO. SOMERSET presented a petition
from Monmouth, against the East India monopoly.
Mr. BUCK presented a petition from Exeter
against the punishment of death for forgery.
Mr. SL ANEY presented a petition from Waltham-
stow in favour of a revision of the poor laws, and
from the residents on the Skinners' estate in at.
Pancras parish against the General Lighting and
Watching Bill.
Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a petition from
a chapel congregation at Walworth against the
punishment of death for forgery.
Mr. Alderman WA ITHMAN presented pe-
titions to the same effect from Uxbridge, St. Mary
Newington, and a chapel at Lambeth.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented petitions from three
parishes in Ireland against the Vestry
.Act.
Mr. DENISON presented a petition from the
merchants of Sunderland against the renewal of the
East India Company's Charter ; and from the
journeymen paper-makers of surrey against the use
of machinery.
Mr. S. RICE presented a petition from Galway,
in favour of the Galway Franchise Bill.
Lord A LT HORP presented a petition
ifrom Ket-
tering, Northamptonshire, against inflcting the
punishment of death for forgery.
Mr. WARD presented a similar petition from
the Ward of Bishopagate.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented a similar
petition from a place in Huntingdonshire. He
cordially concurred in the prayer of the petition.
Mr. HJATHUOTE presented a similar per
tido'', but also praying for the abolition of the
punislment of death for other crimes, from Boston,
Lincolnshire. The petitioners, the lion. Member
stated, were not visionaries, but practical men. It
was ,ignesl by the bankers of the place.
Lord F. L. GOWER presented a petition from
the fish-curers of Wick, praying for the continuance
of the bounty on catching and curing fish.
answer to a question from Sir JOHN NEWPORT,
who complained that the Stamp Duties' Consolida-
tion Bill would have the effect of raising the duties,
not only in Ireland, but in England,
The CHANCELLOR of the IXCIiEQUER

ei!il the sehedule had been delayed in consequence
of the difficulty of arranging it. It was, however,
now ready to be delivered to Members.
Mr. RUMBOLD presented a petition praying for
the abolition of the punishment of death for forgery,
from the inhabitants of Great Yarmouth.

Colonel DAVIES presented a similar petition
from Worcester. It was signed by almost all the
bankers, and he cordially concurred with its prayer.
Mr. Secretary PEEL brought up. some accounts
of the extraordinary expences of certain Foreign Am-
bassadors.

Lord MORPETH presented petitions from Ec-
Bilton, Budsley, and other places in York•
shire, all praying that the East India Company's
Charter might not be renewed.
Mr. PORTMAN moved the Order of the Dr:
for the second reading of the General Watching and
Lighting Bill. The lion. Member wished to refer
the Bill to a Committee up stairs, in order to make
the machinery of it perfect. He would also state,
that it was his intention to exempt from the opera-
tion of the Act all the parishes of the metropolis,
and all parishes that had local Bills.
The fill was accordingly ordered to be referred
to a Committee up stairs, and such a Committee
was appointed.
On the motion of Mr. SLANEY, the House re-
solved itself into a Committee on the Poor Laws
Amendment Bill. Mr. R. COLBORNE in the Chair.

Sir T. BARING objected to the clause taking,
away the children from their parents, which he cha-
racterised as cruel and impolitic.
Mr. R. GORDON thought such a clause so ab-
surd that it could not be maintained.

Mr. CRiPPS thought the clause would he an
inducement to early marriages, instead of checking
them. He thought such a clause could not be al-
lowed to stand part of the Bill.
Lord ALI:110RP explained that the clause was
only intended to take the children from such parents
as could not provide for them and educate them.

le did not think this was either harsh or cruel.

Mr. W. HORTON supported the clause. It in-
volved an important principle, which the House must
at length acknowledge, and he hoped the House
would then pass the Bill.

Mr. F. LEWIS stated that a similar clause had
passed through the House in 1816, but he could not
give it his support at present. He knew that by
the 43d Eliz. the overseers had the power to set an
able-bodied pauper to work, hut they could not set
his infant children to work ; and as they were bound
to give the means of supporting the children, they
gave it to the father, as they could not give it to the
children, so that for the maintenance of his children,
though not on his own account, he did in fact obtain
the money. To obviate this, it was proposed to
establish institutions where pauper children were to
be fed and clothed; but he thought such a system
could never be effected, because it broke through all
those ties that nature imposed. He utterly despaired
of the success of any such establishment. The re-
tardiag system was recommended, and he thought
with much reason, as he especially believed that it
could not be better put into operation than when
the labouring classes were not overwhelmed with
active and pressing distress. The other system—
that of encouraging the increase of the population—
had been the favourite scheme in Mr. Pitt's time,
and it was only in late years that the population had
been told that the procreation of children, without
the means of supporting them, was a great evil. He
thought the best thing to adopt in the administra-
tion of the poor laws would be to diminish the
power of Magistrates in granting relief. The reason
why the poor laws were not as overwhelming in
Scotland as in England was, that their administra-
tion was in the hands of those who provided the rates.
It was from the opposite system that the payment of
wages out of the rates had arisen, The interference
of Magistrates was of the latest introduction
into the Poor Laws, and Magistrates were at first intended
to act as a check upon the expenditure of the rates, but it
tamed out that they were the worst means that could have
been employed, for they confirmed and extended the evils.
In his opinion the owners of small cottages ought to be
charged with rates, for it was proved they obtained the
value of these cottages from the rates. The fact was
proved by a case mentioned before the Emigration Commit-
tee, from which it appeared that the owners of these cot-
tages were persons who, having the management of the
rates, let out the cottages to paupers, and took the amount
of the rent from the sums allotted for the support of their
pauper tenants. The witness who stated this fact was
asked what would happen if funds were provided to clear
the parish of paupers, and he answered that the owners
would pull down the cottages, as they would not suffer
the paupers of other parishes to inhabit them. Large
manufacturers, who had the management of the rates,
and who possessed cottages of this description, filled their
manufactories with apprentices, and they furnished the
means of filling the cottages with paupers. He said that
the remedy for this was to charge the landlord with rates
fur these cottages. He recommended the Hon. Member
to consider these various matters, and to revise his Bill.
Mr. WODEHOUSE thought that the clause for sepa-
rating the children from their parents, never could be car-
ried into effect.
Mr. BENETT, as one who had acted as a Magistrate
in a large district for thirty years, begged to deny some of
the statements that had just been made. With respect to
the plan of bringing back the poor laws to the state in
which they were in the reign of Elizabeth, he should ap-
prove of it, if he thought it practicable ; but he feared it
was not, for the state of the country was much changed,
since that time. We bad now surplus labourers to a great
extent, and we were thus reduced to straits from which
we knew not bow to escape, but under the administratka
of the present system. An Hon. Member had called some
of the payments now made an assignment of wages out of
the pours' rates. Ile denied it. The value of labour was
regulated by the proportion of the supply to the demand,
and no law of this description could alter it. A pauper
with several children could not support himself upon Be.
per week, and if he received only that sum in wages, he
required Bs. more from the parish to support him and his
family. The Hon. Member charged the giving of that
sum to a working labourer as a grievous fault committed
by the Magistrates of the South and West of England, and
said that the parish allowance was given in aid of wages.
He denied it. Wages were fixed by the proportion be-
tween the demand and the supply of labour ; and no Ma-
gistrates could compel the farmer to give a higher rate of
wages to his labourer. The parish then were obliged to
give something for the maintenance of the paupers' children,
which they must support in some way or other. He denied
the superabundance of labour ; there was a want of
demand for it, arising from circumstances to which
he would not now further allude. But, as to the payment
of money to a labourer whose wages were insufficient to
maintain him, he believed that custom had so established
that mode of relief, that we could not now depart from it.
He did not approve of the plan of sending men abroad, for
he believed Oa it would only produce a reaction en the po-
pulation. He did not think the present Bill practicable at
this moment; but he believed that great good might be
attained by giving a stimulus to agriculture, and by taking
off those obstacles that now existed to the cultivation of
waste lands. He did not agree to the plan of rating the
owners instead of the occupiers of small tenements. There
were several men of property—he bad six of them in his
eye at that moment, and could name them if he pleased—
who had received money from the poors' rates--( Hear,
hear)--under a bad system of administration ; and they
would have no check if poorer men had no interest in
keeping down the amount of the rates. He therefore
thought that the occupiers of these tenements ought to pay
the rates, and then they would have an interest in keeping
them down. Besides, he saw no reason why small pro-
prietors should be liable to pay rates for their property,
when men of 2001. or 3001. a-year did not.
Mr. COIJRTENAY was willing to assent to the Bill
provided it were accompanied with the clause recom-
mended by the Hon. Member for Ashburton. The ob-
ject of the proposed law was to return as nearly as pos-
sible to the letter of the 43,1 of Elizabeth, and he ob -
jected to the amendment now suggested, because it went
to destroy the remedial part of the Bill. It was his opi-
nion that the measure never could come into operation
without the amendment, and so qualified, he was willing
that the experiment of thus raising the wages of the poor
should be tried ; at the same time he was convinced that
the Hon. Mover would be disappointed in his hopes on
this part of. the subject. Although he supported the Bill,
he heartily Joined with the Hon. Baronet in a determina-
tion to abandon the industrious poor and their families.
Mr. W. HORTON was anxious to preserve
a moral
check upon the poor man, in order to prevent his marry-
ing until he was in a situation to maintain a family. At
present, if he married, he knew that his children must
be supported by gle parish, if he could not support them

himself. The principle of separating parents and chil-
dren had been adopted in a clause already approved by the
Committee, so that, if it were now objected to success-
fully, the Bill must be recommitted in order to remedy
the discrepancy. It did not at all deprive the pauper of
relief; it only declared that the relief should be given en-
tirely by the parish, and net partly in wages and partly
by the parish. He was anxious that the Bill should be
made prospective, and if it were rendered so he should
give it his decided support.
Mr. BENETT observed that, as the law now stood, it
allowed the separation of paupers and their children, fur
the purpose of being apprenticed by the parish, but that
was suite a different thing to separating them for the pur-
poses of board and education.
Mr. SLANEY—If he thought the effect of his Bill
would he to depress instead of elevating the character of

the poor of rhie courtry, would abandon it at once and
instantly. He had t..eu every report of every Committee,
and every work of reputation on the subject, and found-
ing himself upon them he had brought forward this Bill,
in the hope of remedying acknowledged and existing
abuses of the system. After investigating all parts of the
question, the Committee of which he had the honour to
be Chairman, bad come to the almost unanimous deter-
mination that it was necessary to face the evil, and to
point out a remedy. That remedy was the Bill before the
House, and he had proceeded cautiously but steadily and
firmly, in endeavouring to bring it into operation. The
abuses of the poor laws were not as some supposed, gene-
ral: they were confined very much to the South of Eng-
land, for in the North they were in very beneficial opera-
tion. In the last Session an objection had been taken by
the Right Hon. Member for Ashburton (Mr. S. Bourne),
and in order to obviate that objection certain clauses were
introduced not recommended by the Committee ; but on the
authority of the Right Hon. Chairman of the Committee of
1517, who had published one of the most valuable reports
ever laid upon the table. The object of the present Bill
was to restore some parts of the South of England to the
present condition of the North, as related to the mainte-
nance of the poor. The Magistrates of the South, in the
teeth of the law, and acting upon a mistaken notion of
humanity and benevolence, had apportioned the relief of
the poor by the price of bread, and this principle had now
been introduced into about 16 or 17 counties. The effect
had been in all those situations to degrade the poor, and
to render them indifferent and depending, while in the
North of England, where so much practice prevailed, they
were still independent, honest, and industrious. All that
was asked was to pass this Bill, that a wholesome uni-
formity might, in this respect, be established. The Hon.
Member for Radnor (Mr. F. Lewis) had contended,
indeed, that the admitted evil was so extensive that no
remedy could be applied to it ; but he (Mr. Slaney) hoped
that this measure, if adopted, would accomplish the change
without injury or violence. By its provisions, nothing was
taken from the pauper. He had still his right to relief, but
the form of that relief was changed. Instead of money,
he was provided with work to earn it ; and his children,
instead of being neglected, were fed, clothed, and eductted.
He was happy to add, that he had received letters from
various parts of the country, where attempts had been
made to retrace steps hastily taken, stating that the system
hel been abolished, and that a beneficial change was
already apparent. The Hon. Member for Wilts (Mr.
Benett) had said that the present was the worst time
that could have le!n chosen for bringing in such a Bill;
hut surely that Hon. Gentleman's experience must have
taught him that no course could be worse calculated to do
Lrmanena good than to resort to measures only when
they r. ere rendered necessary by the urgency of temporary
pressure. The Bill had already been two years under
consideration, and if adopted it would gradually but effec-
tually draw a broad line of distinction between labourers
who married, because they knew their children must be
supported by the parish, and those who married with a
fair prospect of being able to provide for their increasing
families. Ile had not heard a single argument to weaken
his confidence in the Bill ; and he trusted that the House
would not hastily and inconsiderately reject what had been
founded upon the mature deliberations of no less than five
Committees. _

Mr. CRIPPS gave the Hon. Member credit for the
ability and perseverance he Lad shown upon this subject,
although he was convinced that it would be impossible to
carry the Bill into effect, even if it were passed.
Mr. Secretary PEEL was sorry that there had not been
a preliminary discussion—that they had not discussed the
principle of the Bill before they went into Committee upon
it. At present, instead of paying all that attention to the
clauses which it was the practice of the House to pay in
Committees, they had occupied themselves chiefly with
discussing the principle of the Bill; thus reversing the
usual course of business, by leaving to the third reading
the arrangement of the clauses, and occupying the time of
the Committee with that which ought to be done at the
third reading. He wished, therefore, that the Hon.
Mover would endeavour, in the Committee, to render the
Bill as perfect as possible according to his own conception,
and then let it take its fate on the third reading. The
Hon. Gentleman bad expr?.s,,d his readine-s to do all in his
power to meet the views of Members generally, and so to
frame or alter the Bill as to obtain general support ; in do-

ing so, he more indulged his good nature than did what
was calculated to promote the success of the Bill. Ale
(Mr. P.) really thought that the object of the Hon. Mem-
ber would be heat effected by making the Bill as perfect
as possible, according to his own conception, rather than
by endeavouring to accommodate it to the fancies of every
Hon. Member. Though he (Mr. P.) saw much matter
for serious consideration in the Bill before the Committee,
yet he should be far from throwing any obstacle in the way
of its passing through that stage; and he should be ex-
tremely sorry to say any thing that could prejudice it on the
third reading ; but he must be allowed to say that lie
doubted whether the Hon. Member could accomplish what
he had in view—namely, making the condition of the
South resemble that of the North, by the introduction for
a time of an intermediate system not now in use in
either. He had doubts, too, whether the clauses
which went to separate children from parents
could justly be considered expedient enactments. When
once a house was erected for the purpose, it was im-
mediately to be expected that children would be taken into
it indiscriminately : might be doubted whether the
power was not too great to invest churchwardens and
overseers with, and he confessed lie should he sorry to see
exercised in all cases ; and under this Bill it might be
exercised in the case of the most virtuous parents. He
doubted, also, if it would not prove an expensive system,
and he therefore entreated the Committee well to consider
that before they proceeded further with the Bill. He un-
derstood it as conferring certain powers upon the parish
officers, until the practice of the South should be assimi-
lated to that of the North—it gave them the power of
founding a school, in which they could place all children
on whose behalf parochial relief was demanded, from the
age of seven to fourteen, and fixed such school entirely
under the management of the parish officers. Whenever
relief was asked for any child from the parish, he was
perfectly ready to admit that from that moment the parish
officers were entitled to interfere with its daily education,
namely, with the education which they might receive at
a day-school ; but beyond that, he much questioned the
expediency of interference. He had had some experience
on this subject in Ireland, in respect of an establishment
which undertook not alone to provide for the education,
but for the clothing and employment of the children com-
mitted to their care ; and lie must confess, that the result

of that experience was by no means favourable to the prac-
tice. One of the difficulties 'Which it presented was thi,,

...„. _
that when the children attained the age of fourteen,
their managers knew not what to do with them.—
They might have 20, 30, 40 children at the age of
14, who had received a better education, perhaps, than
might have qualified them for situations merely servile ;
and from that and other causes, the conductors of
charter schools—the establishments to which he particu-
larly alluded—had great difficulties to contend against._
Those conductors stood in the place of parents, and the
parents and friends of the children had a right to say, you
are responsible, and not we, and to you we look for putting
forward in the world those young persons now at the age
of fourteen or fifteen, of whom you have assumed the care.
Then, again, another objection to the Bill was, that it con-
ferred upon churchwardens and overseers powers which
they would be very likely to exceed. To establish such a
school as was contemplated by the Bill, invested the
churchwardens and overseers with the power of appoint-
ing masters and mistresses and attendants, and so con-
ferted upon them a certain amount of patronage ; for the
persons employed must, of necessity, get some stipends,
more or less. To such an enactment, he confessed, he
could not help feeling considerebie objection. This Bill
would confer upon churchwardens and overseers the power
of taking leases, making purchases, building or fitting up
houses—surely such powers were open to abuse. For
these reasons, then, he thought that the Committee ought
to pause before they agreed to all the clauses of the Bill.
He begged not to be understood as urging these observations
as objections to the Bill; he only aimed at suggesting topics
which he thought were deerving of serious consideration.
Mr. WILMOT HORTON thought that many of the
objections •o the Bill would he obviated, if it were dis-
tinctly laid down, that no relief should be afforded to any,
except, those who presented themselves in the true spirit
of the Act of Elizabeth. _ -

Sir THOMAS BARING differed from the Hon. Man'

hers who thought thaNSe present measure-was calculated
to raise the :charactere the people, and he way. altoge-
ther at a loss to discover how such a Bill could anninish

the parochial rates. For his part, he r,••ild not doubt
that the placing a crowd of children from the age of seven
to fourteen, iu a large house, must have a demoralizing
effect.

Mr. C. WOOD gave his support to the clause, for in Lis
opinion none of the objections to it were well-founded.
Sir THOMAS FREEMANTLE contended that the
Bill was no departure from the principle of previous legi-
slation upon this subject—it was merely declaratory of
the law.

Mr. ESTCOURT vindicated the present system:

Mr. SLANEY observed that where the practice pre-
vaned against which the Bill was directed the poor were
ill off, and where it was not found they were well off.
Amongst the effects which he an'icipated from the Bill,
one would be to discourage early and improvident mar-
riages. In the county of Sussex, young men of 18 or 20
made no scruple of marrying, and were applying for re-
lief for their first children. He rejoiced that the Right
Hon. Gentleman (the Secretary of State for the Home
Department) did not object to the principle of the Bill,
but merely to a clause which had nut been originally in-
tended to form part of the Bill, but had been adopted
from another Bill, rather in the expectation of receiving
the support of coins Hon. Members than from any very
strong predilection far the clause in question ; but it
should be remembered that the clause could only be of
temporary operation, applying only to those who might
marry within four years from the passing of the Bill. He
repeated, in answer to the Right Hon. Gentleman's ob-
jection, that this clause did no more than was done before
by the Act of Mr. Sturges Bourne. By that Act the
overseers had the power to take a child away from pauper
parents, and put him to labour at nice years of age. This
clause gave them a power to take a child away at seven
years of age, and put him to school, se that it actually
conferred a benefit on the pauper. He was happy, how-
ever, to perceive from the Right Hon. Gentleman's objec-
tion being made solely to this clause, that he was not
hostile to the others, or to the principle of the Bill itself ;
and although there were no hopes that the Bill would pass
into a law at present, he rejoiced at the prospect of a mea-
sure of some kind like the one lie proposed being carried
up for discussion to the other House of Parliament, be-
cause lie was confident it was the only means left to them
for obtaining a better system.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said the Hon. Member was too
hasty in supposing that he agreed with him in all the clauses
of the Bill, because he did not object to them at present.
He was anxious, however, to reserve any expression of
opinion until he saw how the Hon. Member proposed to
carry hie plan into effect, and he therefore hoped the Bill
would go to a third reading.
Mr. BENETT thought that the Poor Rates were not
an evil, and that the return of prosperity would replace
them in the same condition as before.

Some verbal amendments being then made on the
clause empowering Overseers to take the children of

paupers,
Sir T. BARING expressed his determination to oppose
it altogether.
A conversation then took place between Mr. SLAxstr,
Mr. Secretary PEEL, Mr. W. flowrox, Mr. CALVERT,
Lord ALTHORP, and others, on the propriety of allowing
the Bill to be printed with the Clause; but Mr. SLAM Y,
having declared that he was not anxious about it, if the
others were preserved ; and Sir T. BARING having perse-
vered in his opposition, the Committee divided—

For the clause 9
Against it 9l
Majority —B2
_ _

The other anises being then agreed to, the Report was
brought up, and ordered to be taken into further conside-
ration on Monday next.
GALWAY FRANCHISE BILL COMMITTEE.

Mr. S. RICE moved the Order of the .Day for the
House resolving itself into a Committee of the whole
House on the above Bill.

Mr. DALY opposed it upon the grounds that the
House had agreed to bear Counsel against the Bill, and
that he had that evening, at eight o'clock, received a
letter from Mr. Adam, the Counsel, stating that he was
unable to attend. _ _

Mr. S. RICE opposed the postponement. He thought
in the first place that the inconvenience it might be to a
Counsel to attend at the bar should not be held as a suffi-
cient reason for stopping the progress of a public Bill ;
and secondly, he thought the case was not one in which
Counsel should be heard at all, because there was only one
petition opposed to the prayers of a great number. He far-
ther contended that when the whole bar of England was
open to a man's choice, he had only himself to blame if
he was left in any difficulty by the absence of a single
person. He, for one, would move " that the Speaker
leave the Chair."

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

Mr. S. RICE observed that Mr. Adam had been in the
House of Lords that evening.
Sir G. HILL observed it had been decided by the
House, that Cour•sc;l should be heard. The question then
to be considered was, it the absence of Mr. Adam was
sufficient to authorize a postponement.
Mr. S. RICE remarked that Counsel might equally well
be heard on the Report on the third rending. He
thought that since this postponement would give the Hon.
Member a chines of checking the progress of the Bill for
the entire Session, the House ought not to assent to it.
For one he would not consent to the delay. He was cer-
tainly the introducer of the Bill, but, unlike the Hon.
Member, he was not personally interested iu it.
Mr. DALY asked if the Hon. Member for Limerick
would say that Mr. Adam did speak in the House of
Lords that night?
Mr. W. WYNN thought they should not postpone the
consideration of a public measure upon the simple asser-
tion that it would be inconvenient for a Counsel to attend.
The principle would be highly injurious, as there was no
public Bill which might not be stopped if such excuses
were suffered to prevail.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said be apprehended that the pe-
tition was not opposed to the principle, but to certain
clauses of the Bill ; and he thought his Hon. Friend was
not liable to the slightest blame. He had, at a late hour
that very evening received a letter from his Counsel,
stating that his state of health was such that he could not
attend. And what was he then to do ? He could not
get another :.t that time, although lie might certainly have
previously chosen from the whole Bar of England. He
considered that the Mon. Member for Limerick had a
right to call upon the House to proceed with the Bill after
such a manner as would prevent the possibility of any ob-
s►acles being thrown in its way that might have the effect
of checking its progress for tke Session, and he accordingly
believed it would be well if his Hon. Friend acquiesced
in permitting the Bill to go through this stage, upon the
understanding that Counsel should he heard upon the Re-
port; so that if a sufficiently strong case against any of
the clauses were made out, his Hon. Friend might have
the opportunity of moving the recommittal of the Bill, and
thus be placed in the same situation in which he now
stood. He would therefore submit that the Bill should now
be suffered to go on, upon the understanding that Counsel
should be heard at an early hour on Wednesday next, when
the Report might be brought up.
Mr. S. RICE observed, that the petition was against
the principle; he did not, accordingly, see how the Bill
could be re-committed. He, however, was willing to
agree to the arrangement.
Mr. DALY also expressed his satisfaction in the arrange-
ment. .

The Bill was then passed through a Committee, and
the Report was ordered to be received on Wednesday next,
when Counsel was to be heard against it.
DESERTED CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL.

Lord L. GOWER rose to move the second reading of this
Bill. He explained that it was his intention to remodel
the Bill, so as to confine it to the first of the two objects
it proposed to embrace, namely—a provision for deserted
children, and an abolition of the Foundling Hospital.
The other point, which was a favourite one with himself,
he proposed for the present to abandon ; and this he did
the more readily, because there was a Committee then
sitting above stairs, which would, in all probability, take
the subject into consideration, and make some suggestion
respecting it. He trusted, therefore, that as he bad divided
this Bill under separate heads, he might have it now read
a second time without opposition. He acknowledged that
there would be great difficulties in the way of this second
division of the Bill, which referred to illegitimate children,
and therefore he had proposed it for further consideration.
Mr. O'CONNELL observed great difficulties would
arise in the details. Children might be transferred from
one part of the country to another, and a species of pa-
rochial questions would arise as to whether they had been
properly abandoned or no.—(A laugh.)—lle thought it
might, perhaps, be better if the entire subject was to lie
over for further consideration. He would not, however,
oppose the second reading.—lt was then read a second time,

FORGERIES' PUNISHMENT BILL.

Mr. Secretary PEEL moved the postponement of the
second reading of this Bill until that day fortnight.
Mr. BUXTON assented to the proposition, and re-
marked, that before the day appointed, a motion would be

made for the abolition of the punishment of death in all
cases whatsoever.

USURY LAWS' BILL.

Mr. P. THOMSON wished to psstpone the discusi°4
on the second reading of this Bill but the sense of 01
House was evidently against it. The Hon. Member OA
proceeded to say that in the present Bill he had endeavoured
to meet the objections which had been made to the tnes'
sure he bad introduced last session. These objectioo
were directed to two points—namely, that in borruvri4
upon the security of real property, great inconveuicAce
arose from persons tying themselves to the payment of 3
rate of interest from which they were never afteie,vard'
able to relieve themselves ; and secondly, that )oung 10°
of good expectations were in the danger of casting the°
selves into difficulties fur their whole lives, to meet tl'6
exigencies of a moment. Now, in his Bill, he proposed t 1
meet both these evils ; for, in the first place, he propoe°
to give all facilities for the discounting of hills, and loan'
of money, while in the next place, lie wished th it notbia,
except legal interest should be recoverable in a Court °I
Law. But as he did not anticipate any objrctien to the
principle of the measure, lie would not trouble the 1106°
at greater length on th it occasion, but would merely moil
the second readine of the Bill.
Mr. HEATIICOTE declared, that nothing should
duce him to relax in his exertions to prevent the l3'`
from passing into e lew. Even the reservations in tbei
Bill were more injurious than would be the abolitios °
Usury Laws altogether. His Mori. Friend psoposed
exempt mortgages from the operation of the Bill.
money were lent on mortgage for more than five per east'
the borrower might bring the case into a court of W'
and the lender could not recover more than five per cent'
But of what advantage would that be to the boreowet.
For although the lender could not recover more than Ve,
per cent. he might ratd the mortgage. Was the preso
a proper moment at which to bring forward such s pr,
position ? If any interest in the country were at tuil
present moment in a prosperous state, it was the moneYst
interest. The low price of every article, the change Os
had taken place in the currency, had all been favourstbla
to the capitalist, yet at such a time his Hon. Friers(' Prrr
posed to allow the capitalist to take what might be c°°:
sidered as unlimited interest. If it were true that t"e
time for such a change was inexpedient as respected tb
state of the moneyed interest, it was still 7.9'1,! true thst
it was inexpedient as respected the state of >:.i. agrieul'
tural interest ; oppressed as that interest was \nth wa'
of confidence, and with other difficulties, which his HO:
w
Friend's Bill must tend to enhance. All Bills of th°,
and
ouldhe share would
the
fatee
description had hitherto bad an unfortunate terminatiom
entoufreitstoprpvrioepeeshescoymthaAt
sthhies
wits pet'messo
anaded that the sooner it was got rid of the better,
'should certainly divide the House upon the present motic't
Mr. GORDON regretted that his Hon. Friend the
Member for Wareham, under whose banner he (Mr.
don) had so frequently fought, in opposition to the Bill' cd
a similar nature, which had been proposed by an Hon. °lf
Learned Serjeant, and who had invariably shown hioe,
one of the most able and persevering opponents of 11,
7-e•
Bills, had not spoken on the present occlusion. „,
the old objections which applied to the Bill under the c°",
sideration of the House, there was the additional one tlis,
it sanctioned a little treachery—a little fraud. A I°°ri.
rower might deceive a lender by offering ten or fifteetil's
cent., while there was no legal obligation upon him to Pee
more than five. This was an inducement to fraud. fly
hoped his Hon. Friend. the Member for Wareham, 1011 iii
state his sentiments on the Bill ; and trusted that it iv°

eventually be thrown out
Mr. CALCRAFT had not had any intention of troublil4
the House on the present occasion, but, as his fl°11"
Friend had called upon him, he had no hesitation in air
ing, that he maintained the same opinions upon the sulY
ject AS he had formerly done. Be had been induced SD
believe that the Bill of the Hon. Member for Dover WO
somewhat different in its provisions front the Bill of 06
Learned Serjeant. But his objections to it were of 3 r
neral nature. The present was not the moment for 01.11
an operation. There was a want of confidence it
money transactions ; and if the laws respecting nuori
were suddenly changed, a material addition woulc
made to the difficulties of all classes bat that class w 1.41
laboured under no difficulty at all. If his Hon. Friel,
had not called upon him he should not have troubled is
House upon the question ; but he should certainly Y°bl
against the Bill.
.01

Mr. ROBINSON maintained that the present *rite!!
operated most injuriously on large classes of comma°,
and trading men. At the time when the existing 10
were passed, there were reasons why money should 01
bear a higher interest than five per cent. Capital was $
that period less abundant than it was at present ; for it iv
a great mistake to suppose that capital was not at pre
abundant, not only in this country, but over the who
world. Under such circumstances, was it not a gre'
hardship that both lenders and borrowers should ".
limited in their transactions? It was a great mistake
suppose that means were not at present resorted to, 85
as annuities and others, by 7, hich money was borrow'
and lent at a rate greater than the law allowed. His 111
Friend's Bill would do away with all the evils into xvhig
borrowers were driven by the absurd existing regulatiol
Having said so much, however, in favour of the prilleiPo'
of the Bill, he must add that he was decidedly adverse
that clause in it which having allowed parties to bar°,
and lend at a greater rate than five per cent., held 0+,.,
temptation to the borrower to go into a Court of Las'
the purpose of violating the contract.
.(1

Lord ALTHORP was of opinion, that if the Vs°
Laws were to be changed, there could be no more coo'
nient time for the alteration than the present. As tol
fraud which it was said the Bill would sanction, it shol
be remembered that the same means of fraud existed
present, nay greater ; for if a pal ty borrowing money
usurious interest brought the party lending into a Co'
of Law, he could refuse not only the interest, but
principal also. Me di4 not believe that the repeal of
Usury Laws would be disadvantageous to the landed
terest; as it would not subject them to pay more for naoi
than they did at present. He should support the Bill,
he had done all others of a similar description.
Sir C. WETHERELL was not surprised that the
.

should be supported by the laity ; but should have been e;,
ceedingly surprised, if any lawyer had supported a Illeaoel
which contained so gross an inconsistency as a repeal
the Usury Laws, and yet a clause, while it allows v,
contract to be made for unlimited interest, permitted
borrower to bring the contract into a Court of Law far,l,,,
purpose of having it repudiated and disallowed. The 9_,1
contained another clause, which was scarcely less ah,ool,
namely; that whenever more than five per cent. had l
voluntarily paid, it could never be got back. What `./
voluntary payment ? Suppose money had been obtag,
by action or arrest, was that voluntary payment? P,'
very rarely had any evil resulted from the present 131;,
If an adequate substitute could be found for them he e°o q
not object to it ; but he had not yet met with any such elB`.stitute. The repeated discussions which had taken Plit
on the subject had, in his mind, established the utter
possibility of looking at money as at other articles of troliu,
and of letting its possessor do what he chose with it. 'ft,
was a principle disclaimed both by the ancient and
the modern world. It was a principle which no writer,
character had ever maintained. He was convinced
if the Hon. Gentleman's Bill were agreed to, it 'W.':
render the landed interest an easy prey to the capitalist
Mr. O'CONNELL rose in answer to the assertiono;
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that no lawyer w°l
be found to support the Bill. His only objection to It dr
that it did not go far enough. He wished to see the 'Pp
Laws abolished entirely. All attempts to put a maxi?D)
price upon any commodity—and money was a commoditYle;
were absurd. Laws of that description were inexecuta
CJ
they had never been executed. He had known instan6
Ireland in which annuities of fourteen, fifteen, or eigprj
per cent. had been granted for money, when, if there
been no violation of the law, eight or nine per cent. o'civ
have been the utmost that would have been given fold
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated that the
of persons suffering from the law as it at present
was extremely rare. He, however, could not agree in fry
for he had known many cases of persons in Ireland 11,
by taking more than the legal rate of interest, had lost4l
and in one particular instance he knewvin
by the Hon. Member for Dover, at g
been ruined by such a circumstance. a
lfpaam,principal,,ilayha proposed
s
secured the principal. The only loss that there cool',
would be in the additional bonus. But this was called
absurdity of the proposition. Ile could see no absurd
it. Its principle was to do away with the penalty of of
Usury Laws, and to give a legal sanction to five per ced
at least. Another mischief that arose from the present Pit
of the Usury Laws was, that they tempted Juries to stlo
their conscience, and, in a manner, gave an incitenienor
perjury. The Bill now proposed would amend this!
it would, at the same time, be the means of afford't
higher value to the characters of individuals, as the fac;it
of borrowing money would greatly depend upon that.
only fault that he had to find with the measure was!
it did not go far enough.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—He had never b'el
advocate for the total repeal of the Usury Laws ; but '3l
on further consideration, he doubted whether they °'',l?
to be altogether repealed. At all events, however, 'O,l
needed alteration ; and then the question was, what, 044
alteration ought to be. He agreed with the Noble

that if.
the pre

on mor

tion of
and he
they wi
should
that it
could
Laws,

take to
care, at

parties

beet;
repeal
lender
tion of
ever ra
money
loan w
The
questic
with
that a

might

was to
for the
any re,
fix NV/
or oth
was, t
of pre
moue)
now 8
Usury
rest ;
other
great].
Th,

Th,
to mo

this n
jeotiot
public
oblige
portio
But t
event(
very
looker
matte

never beel
7 • but 1/;)
r they 05,,
$
owever,
as, what 41
Noble 10°