The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-01 00:00:00

z•not prohibited under the 46th of Geo. 111., where the words 1
were more large and extended. He was sure the persons to
whom he alluded were not aware how nearly this traffic ap-
proached to the direct trade in slaves, and he hoped the House
would excuse him for having called their attention to the cir-
cumstaecee, since it would be a warning to those persons that
the legislature were not inattentive to their conduct.—(Hear !)
Mr. HUME said, as there were at present two contending
interests, the West Indian and the East Indian, in the sugar
market, it was a matter worthy the consideration of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, whether much benefit would not ac-
scrue if the duty on sugar were reduced considerably lower than
275. From 1803 to 1809 the duty on West Indian sugar was
295. , from 1809 to 1813 it was 26.5. ' • and now it was as high
as 275. •If the duty were, reduced to 205., or even lower, the
Right Hon. Gentleman would, by the increased consumption,
:secure the same amount of-revenue which the existing duty
speoilliced, and at the same time add very much to the comforts
of the people.
The Petition was laid. on the table, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. CANNING said he' had now two Petitions to present,
:the player 4 which was ip- direct contradiction to that which
just been laid on dr table. The one was from certain
Merchant% and- Ship-owners of Liverpool, in which they
varlet that the duty which had been imposed on the im-
portation of East India sugar, in order to protect the West
India manufacturer, end which was about to expire, should
not be renewed. They stated the extent of the sugar manu-
facture in the East Indies, and recommended that East India
-sugar-should be, allowed to be imported under bond, and that
the duty on sugar should henceforth be levied according. to its
valet, without any distinction between the produce of the East
and of the West Indies. The second Petition was from cer-
tain Merchants, Agents. and Ship-owners, interested in the
trade with the East Indies, and resident in London. They
prayed that the duty of -10 s. per cwt. which was imposed on
East India sugar in 1813, might not be renewed. The Right
I fonourable Gentleman proceeded to observe, that as the Bills
--to which those petitions related were then before the. House,
and would perhaps come under discussion that night, but, at
all events, as they must undergo considerable discussion bee
fore they were passed, he thought it better to postpone any
observatibns he might feel it necessary to offer on them, until
they arrived at that stage when their principles and provisions
-might be discussed most conveniently and effectively.—(Hear.)
The two petitions were then laid on the table, and ordered
-to be printed.
Mr. H. ELLIS presented a petition from the agents of seve-
ral British West India Colonies, deprecating the encourage-
ment which was about to be given to theimportation of East
India sugar, by which the trade of :the West India mannfae-
turer would be destroyed. They obsetved, that, when the East
India Company's charter was renewed, a duty of 10s. per cwt.
was imposed on East India sugar, to protect the interest of
the West India Colonies, and they prayed that that duty,
which ;vas about to expire, might berendered peemanent.—
Laid on the table.
Mr. lIEATHCOTE presented a petition from the Minister,
Churchwardens, and Overseers of Okeham, in Rutlandshire,
against the Poor Removal Bill.—Laid on the table.
INFLUENCE OF THE CROWN.
Mr. BROUGHAM gave notice, that he would on Friday,
the 7th of June, submit a proposition to the House respecting
the increase of the influence of the Crown.
POOR REMOVAL BILL.
Mr. SCARLETT, in rising to move the second reading of
- the Bill for-preventing the Removal of the Poor, expressed his
regret that he had no opportunity when he intrcduced the Bill
of stating the Founds upon which he rested it. He intended it
• .as-one of a series Of measures which would chiefly depend upon
the success of this. And he was convinced, therefore, that if
• -the Other measures had been stated, those who now consider-
ed their interests to be ,in danger of injury from this
Bill, votild, however, have entertained a very different
-opinion. He saw no reason to alter the grounds upon which
he rested the question last year, and they were these, that the
-existing law imposed an unjust restraint upon the circulation
of labour; that unlimited relief' was granted to the poor; and
/hat such relief was .indiscriminately applied. These were the
-effects of the law, and it was his object to remove them. The
numerous projects which had been entertained at various pe-
riods for remedying these defects, proved the necessity of some-
: thing being done.. Some of these projects had been adopted,
and at first acted as palliatives upon the system. But their
good was soon worn out by the pernicious nature of the prin-
-ciple upon which the laws were founded. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman then remarked upon the difficulty of bring-
ing all the three heads of the subject into one discussion, and
-skated that he should restrict himself to the last, although
.nothing had occurred to change his opinion that all three mea-
eseres were absolutely necessary. He should also state, that if
-the present measure were adopted and not followed up by the
-two others, he should not consider his object to be effected.
As the, Poor were not represented in that Houk, he trusted
ethat he might be allowed to enter into a statement of their, his,
tory and condition ; and in doing so, he thought he could shew
that it was worse than that of any other peasantry. As the
law stood, if a poor man were to apply for relief, whether he,
-did so from misfortune, crime, or idleness, a Magistrate or
Overseer had the power of removing him to another town-
ohip, however distant it might be, and there his personal
liberty was restricted under the fear of punishment if he
left the place. Another consequence was, that a family
.so confined very frequently became beggars from genera-
tion to generation. He wished the principle of the laws to
I be, that of the Statute of the 43d of Elizabeth, which provided
that those who were impotent should be entitled to relief ; but
• that those who were not so should be put in a place where they
- could work, by the overseers, and those who would not work
should not be allowed to eat, Upon this footing the law rested
for sixty- years without any material alteration. In the reign
of James First, ehere was a Statute passed to prevent paupers
:leaving their families ; but it did not appear that at that time
-there was.any remarkable increase in the numbers of the poor.
In the reign of Charles the first, which was a time of tumult,
the population of the country hail been disturbed and moved
in different parts. Armies were raised and conveyed to dis-
- tent 'places ; one of which, being collected in Cheshire, was
marched into Cornwall. They found what the result of this
was so soon as in the time of Cromwell. In 1566 an ordi-
nance was issued, which stated that the number of idle, die-
. solute, and disorderly persons had of late much increased,
by reason -of the defects in the statute relating to paupers
-and beggars. The statute of Charles the Second then came,
which inflicted the hardship upon the poor of having them
removed within forty days after an application for relief. It
was a most unjust and cruel principle, and, only gave to ma-
gistrates and overseers the power of exercising arbitrary op.
pression. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman then
proceeded to remark, that in the time of King William, the
effects of this principle began to shew themselves: He read
a report made by Mr. Locke, in the year 1696, which shewed
what it had produced, even in the course of two reigns.—
The report stated that the increase of the poor rates, and the
-multiplication of the poor, with the consequent increase of the
-tax for their- maintenance, were so commonly talked of, as not
to be doubted. It went on to say that the evils Were not de-
-pending open want, because the times had been blessed with
plenty, but upon the decrease of discipline'and industry, and
-the consequent growth 'of "vice and idleness. There was one
other statutauponlhe subject, passed in the reign of- George
This measure was brought into the House- by Sir Edw.
Heyde East, and he remembered with satisfaction • that it
.was at first met by more petitioning and opposition than had
"been directed against the present Bill. This was the history of
ethe law as it stood, and he would next endeavour to shew its
e effects. ThaOit went greatly to increase the' whole charge of
• the poor upon the country, he thou ht he could demonstrate,
• 'is far as such athing would admit of demonstration. He should
first speak of the litigation to which it led. 'ffie Buenea- very
eminent writer upon this question; stated that the' statute of
e Charles tha Second bad given rise to more litigation than any
law •that had ever been enacted, In the year 1815, the litiga-
tions upon removals ,amounted to 327,0f01. It would be an
object of anifieient importance to -save this money to the coin':
try; iridependent- a the comfort and. relief which- the measure
was calculated to bestow upon the poor mein If .a man
with a family Wal4ted a shilling to relieve a 'Child, he was
-exposed to be removed by the obbrseer, although he could
support the remaining part of his family; and-perhaps the place
to which he would be taken would not afford hirn'the means of
procuring bread for any of them. These were only a portion
of the dreadful- evils of the system. If 327,0001. were ex...
pended upon those removals only. which were litigated, the
whole must entail an enormous .expence upon the country.—
He shouldebe very much surprised to hear any Gentleman get
up in that House and say that the produce of apy particular
town should be confined to it, and not permitted to pass outside
of its •walls. Why, then, •he would ask, was the poor man to
have such a restriction imposed upon the prOduce of his la-
bours. The 'difference of wages in :different ,counties proved
that there was an impediment in the way •of the circulation of
labour. In- Sussex wages were from seven shillings to nine
per week, and in Lancashire they were from ISs. to 18s. In
Surrey they were -rather more thawin Sussex, and they were
often found to ,be very 'different in adjoining parishes. This
was sufficient proof that labour did not circulate freely. The
Hon. and-Learned Member then went into seine comparative
• statements of the amount of poor rates, population, and pro-
perty in the counties of Lepeaster and Sussex, shewing that
the first predominated inn the latter "county, and that Lan-
cashire possessed an,' enormous- advantage on the other two
heads. Ile argued that •it would be found universel that ma..
nufaeturing counties,'abounding in 'large towels, 'were under
the lowest assessment. He did not, wonder, therefore, that
large towns had an objection to the Bill, although he hoped
-to convince them- that it would ultimately be for their benefit.
Ait.'l.:e!y, he contended,. the burthe.us of Jaaintaioing the poor

ought not to be greater where there was less property than
where there was greater, and a system of regulation ought in
justice to be adopted. The cause of the great difference would
be found in the removal of the poor • and the only way to alle-
viate it was to suffer a' man to do what he ought to do, namely,
to allow him to remove where there was the greatest demand
for.his labour. fine of the great evils of the restraint upon la-
bour was, that it created the dangerous notion in the mind of
the poor that they claimed relief as a matter of right. This
notion was engrafted upon the principle of the law, and it must
lead the poor man to consider that he had a right to make re.
prisals upon property, in return for the oppression of restrain-
ing his liberty, and 'the injury done to his property in his la-
bour. The Act of the 37th of Elizabeth recited the great in-
convenience which had attended the building of cottages for the
poor, and prohibited any such building unless lands were set
apart with them. The provision had been repealed so lately as
the reign of George 11. The Hon. and Learned Member here
referred to Burn's humorous account of the business of. Over-
seer, who generally kept a sharp look-out after the new corners
in every parish, encouraged short hirings, as a long hiring gave
a settlement, and stuck at no expence to get rid of their pau-
pers, and fasten them uporn another parish. This last he
(Mr. Scarlett) knew to be the fact. Indeed in the course of
his professional experience, he had known the officers of a
parish had decorated their underlings with ribbands in conse-
quence of succeeding upon an appeal. In fact, the object was,
always to depopulate the parish. Another objection to the
present law was in the fact that it created in the overseers a
strong interest to distinguish their own settled poor from
those whom they had the privilege of removing. The latter,
he assured the House, were neglected in an astonishing de.
gree ; for no care whatever was taken of their moral or their
religious habits. He had received a letter from the overseer
of a'parish in Cumberland, stating that great attention was
invariably paid to the morals of the young women who were
settled in the parish; but that the others were neglected; they
were fair prey ; and if thy were got with child, they might be
removed to another parish. He (Mr. S.) was satisfied that
half the money now paid, if it were laid out upon proper ob-
jects, after proper inquiry, would answer every good purpose,
and, consequently, !relieve the country of half the present ex-
peace. , It had been Objected against this measure, that if
the power of removal were taken away, the present wholesome
restraint would be removed. This argument assumed that
the law of removal was a penal law. If this assumption were
correct it might be advisable to extend this restraint, which
was supposed to grow out of the law of removal. It might be
proper to generalise the law, and remove all the Lancashire
paupers, for instance, to Sussex. But he denied that the
punishment of banishment was the best moral restraint which
could be devised. On the contrary, he thought it was the
worst. If, indeed, privation followed removal, if the removed
pauper were fed upon bread and water, sit might be another
question ; but as the paupers were generally fed as well in one
parish as in another, where was the use of sending flourishing
Idleness from one place to flourish in another? Social habits
were stronger among the labouring virtuous, than among the
idle and vicious classes,. and consequently the punishment of
removal, if it was a punishment, fell upon the latter. Poverty
might overtake virtue as well as vice, and yet the punishment
upon each was equal. The local affections of the drunkard
and idler were never very strong, and therefore the punish-
ment upon him was not so severe as that which fell upon a man
of different habits. And yet he believed it would not be de-
nied that the good of all punishment was in the discrimination
by which it was guided. If relief and punishment were dis-
tributed according to the merits or demerits of the object, the
restraint so much talked of would be a real one, but at present
it was imaginary. Another argument urged against the Bill
was, that it would throw upon manufacturing towns the bur-
then of supporting all the illegitimate children who might be
born within their walls, though the mothers of them belonged,
to country parishes. Now he really bad no wish to speak dis-
respectfully of manufacturing towns. He was as much con-
nected with Manufactures as with Agriculture; but really
when he beard such an argument as he had mentioned, he took it
to mean neither more nor less than this, that the Manufacturers
were to possess the privilege of encouraging fine and fresh
young women from the country, seducing, them, getting them
with child, and throwing the children upon the country. Nay,
an Hon. Friend of his, the Member for Nottingham had com-
plained of the manufacturing towns being put to the expence
even of the lying-in of these- women • so that he, to be sure,
would have them delivered in good fresh country air at the ex-
pence of the farmer.—(A laugh.)-1 t was in this point of view
that he thought the present law highly objectionable. It allow-
ed a woman who was pregnant to be pursued by the parish
officers. seized upon, dragged into notice, and exposed to a shame
which often attached to her for life, and destroyed all her
future prospects. He thought the law had better be assimi-
lated to the law as it prevailed in many parts of Scotland,
wherein no notice was taken of a pregnant woman unless she
made application for assistance. His object was merely to
take away the legal power of removal. He begged here to
make a remark which had occurred to him, though it was not
in the order of his argument. It was known that some parishes
allowed weekly stms to others in preference to receiving
back the poor ordered to be removed from the parish reedy.
ing to the parish paying. It was equally well known that
the parish receiving fed the paupers very well for a very
good reason : they were feeding them at the expense of an-
other parish. But another consequence attended this system.
If the parish receiving, received the allowance in respect of
the child of a man who was settled with themselves, they took
care to reduce the man's wages in proportion to the allowance
for the child. This was particularly the case in manufactur-
ing towns. He might instance Sheffield, from which he had
lately received a paper containing objections to his measure.—
The Gentleman who had prepared this document, and had
done him the honour to send him a copy of it, reasoned thus :
Their own poor cost them 8001.' a year, and they had other
poor within their walls for whom they received 12001. a-
year from other parishes. They conceived, therefore,
that if the present Bill passed, they would be fixed with
this 1,2001. and thus their. poor rates would at once be in-
creased to 2,0001. a-year. If this should be the consequence
of their passing of the present Bill, it would, he thought, be
no more than was perfectly just. But they would be encou-
raged to support their poor with economy, and if to the
saving resulting from this they would add their lawyer's Bill
every year under the present system, they would find the dif-
ference of expence very trifling indeed. Returning ,to the
measure itself, in principle it would, he contended, produce
a disposition and a necessity to examine the moral habits of
the numerous applicants for parochial relief, and to distinguish
between vice and misfortune. By the adoption of the mea-
sure he really believed that although in point of relative
amount the agricultural interest would gain, the manu-
facturing interest would not lose. He understood that in
the manufacturing districts it had become usual to encourage
the labourers to subscribe towards a fund to provide against
' the necessity of applying for parochial relief. In the Parish of
Salford, near Manchester, he . was informed that, in one ma.
nufactory, one thousand labourers paid a penny a week to
keep a perpetual fund of two hundred pounds, and that
the calls upon it wire rarely more than five pounds a year.—
On the whole he was-convinced that this Bill would have the
effect of improving the condition of the poor, abolishing litiga-
tion, and, if followed up by other measures, of increasing their
morality. In bringing forward this measure, he was not in-
fluenced by either vanity or levity. If he should find that it
was not agreeable to the House, he should not press it; for of
course he did not expect to carry it against any considerable
opposition. If, however, the House should take it up and sup-
port him, he would persevere in it, regardless of the obloquy,
the unpopularity, or' the' ridicule with which it might be at-
tended. He was willing to receive any suggestion on the sub.;
ject ; to postpone the Bill, if necessary, until next Session ;
but as he thought it was founded upon sound policy, he should
at present move the Order of the Day for the second reading of
the Bill.
The SPEAKER here put the question, and declared it to be
carried in the affirmative; but this declaration being objected
to, it was again put under the form of an Order of the Day.
Mr. MANSFIELD then,, finding that no other person rose
to address the House, wished to observe, in the first instance,
that the sentiments of his constituents had been very strongly
expressed against the measure proposed by the Hon. and
Learned Gertdeman. Concurring with them that, hotvever
well intended, it was likely to prove as injurious to the poor
themselves as to those who were obliged to contribute to their
support, he should now move, as an amendment to the motion,
that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. 310NCK seconded the tnotion.—Ho readily admitted
that the existing system of our poor laws was replete with
error, and great abuses must prevail, so long as the system
rested on Its present basis. But these evils were, he thought,
comparatively small when weighed against those of which the
present measure might, if adopted, be eventually productive.
The 13th of Charles 11. had been passed with an object some-
what similar; for so inconvenient and pernicious was the ope-
ration of the law found even in the unartificial state of society
at that time, and the fei manufacturing towns then in exist-
ence, that it became necessary to correct and modify it. The
great towns,. it was then found, poured out their paupers into
all such parishes as were found to be in possession of the best
'stock. Then, as at the present day, the great desideratum was
a more complete equalization of the burden; but, unfortunate-
ly, now in some towns the rates amounted to 10s. in the pound,
whilst in adjacent parishes they did not exceed 2s. The law of
settlement did not, indeed, appear so incongruous or unintelli-
gible as had been represented. No poor man could be removed
till he became chorgeable; for the policy of the legislature had
always been to restrict, rather than to proniote, removals--
The practice was, he regretted to say, becoming general in va-
rious directions, of pulling down Cottages, and depopulating
agricultural districts, in order to evade the burden of assess-

ments for the poor. The fainters depended for their Tabour,
during the five or six weeks of harvest, on hands obtained from
neighbouring towns, to whom they gave good wages,. viz. 4s.
or ss. a day, besides beer, and whom they then dismissed into
the straw-yards of the more populous place from which they
drew them. This was a common case in Berkshire, and, as
he had reason to believe, in many other counties. Removal
should not be considered in the light of a hardship—its object
was charitable, and its intention to give security against that
dreadful calamity of want under which the Irish were now
suffering. But the great evil now was, that the manufac-
turer was enabled by the law to throw the cost of his produc-
tions on his neighbours, or even on those near whom he himself
did not reside. An article might cost 1,0001., and sell but for
9001., yet the manufacturer should gain 1001. profit, and by what
means? By the system of paying the wages of labour in poor
rates. This took place at Reading, and still more extensively
at Manchester, where, in numerous instances, wages did not
exceed five or six shillings a week—a sum utterly inadequate,
and therefore made up to the requisite amount by an allowance
from the parish. All these evils, however, which were a source
of misery to the poor, and of extortion to individuals of pro-
perty, would, he feared, be lamentably aug,rnented, were the
present measure to receive the sanction of that House.
Mr. T. COURTENAY said, though he gave great credit I
to the laudable intentions of the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman who introduced the measure, yet he could not
support it. That some amelioration to certain parts of our
poor laws was called for, he did not deny; but the present'Bill
embraced too great a change to be effected at once, even if
all its clauses were necessary. According to the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman's plan, a pauper might still select any
parish to apply to for relief, and, being relieved, there would
still be nothing which could prevent his going for relief to
another. In every view which he took of the question, since
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's first introduction'of a mea-
sure to amend the Poor Laws, he (Mr. Courtenay) felt more and,
more convinced that the principle of those laws was a just one
and whenever the Hon. and Learned Gentleman should again
introduce the subject fully to the House, he would be ready to
meet it. In conclusion, he - implored the lion. and Learned
Gentleman to withdraw the measure at the present late period
of the Session, and in complance with the general opinion of
the country against it.
After a few words in explanation from Mr. SCARLETT,
Sir J. SHELLEY said lie was afraid that, in the present
state of the country, the land itself would not be able to keep
the poor, with the payment of rent and taxes. He thought that
some remedy should be applied, and therefore he would sup-
port the measure of his Hon. and Learned Friend. -
Mr. MABERLY, jun., next addressed the House; but
most of his observations were in so low a tone that it was im-
possible to collect their import in the gallery. He was un-
derstood to oppose the Bill, as producing too violent an
alteration in the laws. He also contended, that though the
system of removal might be Sometimes oppressive to the poor,
yet the proposed alteration would be exceedingly oppressive to
the rich. The Honourable Member then read from a paper a,
statement of the situation of the poor in some counties,
as compared with others, and contended that the comparative-
ly light pressure in some places did not proceed from any re-
straint on the free circulation of labour, but from the vigilance
and exertion of those who superintended the poor, and from
the prevalence of industrious and frugal habits. irhere those
causes operated, the poor laws were not so much felt; where
contrary habits existed, they were oppressive.
Sir M. AV. RIDLEY said he would not, after the general
expression of dissent with which this Bill was met in the house,
occupy much time in offering his sentiments upon it. Though
he did not mean to support the Bill, yet'he did think that some
modification of the law, as it affected the removal of paupers,
ought to be made. Great inconvenience and great expence, he
knew, were incurred by the present system of removal. Now
he would throw it out as a suggestion, that magistrates should
be empowered to suspend the order for removal, as in case of
sickness, in cases where disputes might be likely to arise 'as to
the parish of the pauper. This suspension might continue un-
til the parishes consulted upon the matter. By this means a
great deal of expence and trouble might be saved. As to the
Bill before the House, he should oppose it, because it would
make that extensive alteration all at once which he thought
ought to be effected gradually.
The Marquis of LosrnosrpEnnv.and Mr. NOLAN rase at
the same moment to address the Ilouse, but several Members
hiving called " Mr. Nolan," the Noble Marquis gave way, and
Mr. NOLAN proceeded. He began by alluding to a re-
mark that had been made—that the poor had no Representa-
tives in that House. He could, not suffer such an observation
to pass without maintaining that there was no class of his Ma-
jesty's subjects whose interests were not represented there—
and there was no class to whom greater attention had at all
times been paid than to the poor. He thought that great ac-
knowledgments were due to the Honourable and Learned Gen-
tleman (Mr. Scarlett) for the very able, candid, and ingeni-
ous, manner in which he had introduced the subject;
and though he (Mr. Nolan) might differ from him as
to the remedy now proposed, yet he thought this advantage,
at least, would result from the discussion of the question—
that it would set the public mind to work upon it, and that no
inconsiderable benefit might be derived from that source. It
had been said that the subject was one which ought to have
been taken up by his Majesty's Ministers. Now he did not
think they were bound to take it up. As a measure interesting
all classes, it was open to the consideration of, and might be
introduced by, any Member who felt himself competent to the
task. One general objection to the measure which he had was
this—even if he thought favourably of it, he should hesitate
to establish it as a law when he found so many petitions
against it from every part of the country, and so general an
opinion against its' practical effects. Another objection was,
that the measure was partial, and left wholly out of consi-
deration the general system of the poor laws, with an its defects.
When his Honourable and Learned Friend introduced his for-
mer Bill, he observed that it was complicated, but that every
part of it depended on the other; but now he abandoned all
the parts, except that which referred to the removal of pau-
pers, without any reference to s how they were to be sup-
ported. It had been objected that the unsettled poor were ir-
regular in their habits. Now he, on the contrary, was prepared
to maintain that the fear of removal from friends and con-
nexions operated as a great stimulus to industry amongst that
class, which stimulus would be lost by the present Bill. lie
contended that this Bill was likely to produce one of the effects
that his Hen. and Learned Friend opposite had deprecated,
namely, to make the poor look upon that as a matter of right,
which, in point of fact, was a mere matter of charitable relief.
He likewise argued, that instead of checking, it would consi-
derably promote the expences of litigation.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY, after paying some
compliments to the Hon. Member who had preceded him, pro-
ceeded to congratulate the House that the Poor Laws had never
yet been made a subject of party discussion within its walls.—
He pointed out the injustice of calling upon Ministers .to legis-
late hastily upon this subject, especially as the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman opposite, with all the professional advan-
tages he possessed, had abandoned two out of the three points
which he had originally introduced to their notice, and had
found great difficulty in deciding how he should act even upon
the third of them. He was sae that every Member in the House
must be favourable to the principle on which the Bill was founded;
at the same time he must be allowed to remark, that it ought
to be so restrained as to keep the operation of it within proper
bounds. According to the present wording of the Bill, bands
of persons traversing the country would have nearly as good a
right to a settlement in any place where they found themselves
in need of assistance, as those who had long been resident at
it. That was an evil which in his opinion ought not to be per-
mitted. Without going further into the details of the new Bill,
he would simply state that it appeared to him to be calculated
to promote litigation to an unexampled extent, and to create
great additional expence, instead of furthering the cause of eco-
nomy. He wished the Hon: and Learned Gentleman opposite
to endeavour to find out some plan to disarm his Bill of the
evils which it was certain to create, if the principle of it were
pushed to its full extremity. Ile could assure the Learned.
Gentleman that if he did so, he would give him every assist-
ance in his power. Indeed he would state this once for all—
that the House was bound to give every assistance in its power
to any Gentleman who took the difficult subject of the poor
laws into his consideration ; and that it ought to encourage in
the outset any measure that was introduced to amend them.—
If he were compelled to give a vote upon this measure as it
stood at present, he should certainly vote against it ; but, as he
was favourable to the principle of it, and thought that the ob-
jections which he had against its details might be remedied in a
Committee, he had no wish to object to the reading of it a se-
cond time that evening.
Sir. C. BURRELL spoke in favour of the Bill, but looked
forward to its being in a more matured state.
Captain MABERLY explained.
Mr. CHETWYND had heard with pleasure the eloquent
and argumentative speech of the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman opposite, on the subject of the Poor Laws, the
system of which he considered to be one of the greatest
curses the country was afflicted with. A curious illustration
of the ruinous system of litigation carried on between parishes
occurred the other day, in a case which came before the Court
of King's Bench, to determine whether fifty-two weeks made
a year. He should propose to raise the rent of the tenement
for a settlement from 101. to 201., when the Bill went into a
Committee.
Colonel WOOD said, that if the rent of the tenement were
raised to 201., no poor man w mild ever have a settlement. If
this Bill were read a second-time, and went into a Committee,
he should propose that a falling scale be adopted, and that at a
very remote point. The present laws loudly called for amend-

ment ; and he should certainly support the present stage of
this Bill.
Mr. P. MOORE said that he concurred in the unanimous
sentiments of his constituents in opposition to the Bill.
Sir R. WILSON gave his unqualified approbation to the
principle of the Bill of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
Mr. Alderman BRYDGES declared himself to be against
the Bill, which he thought would throw a great number of
paupers from the country on the city of London.
Mr. SCARLETT, in reply, said he hoped the House would
allow the Bill to go into a Committee. In this case he should
certainly adopt the plan of the•HoD. Member for Brecknock.
After a few words from Mr. DENMAN, in opposition to the
Bill, and from Mr. SCARLETT in explanation, the house
divided, when the numbers were :

82
66
-16

For the amendment -
For the second reading
Majority -
The Bill was consequently lost.
On our return to the gaiety we found Mr. P. MOORE on
his legs, stating that himself and two other Members had, been
charged with an offence which, if true, rendered them unworthy
to sit in that House.
Mr. G. BENNET rose to order, and expressed himself at
a loss to understand what his Hon. Friend was desirous of
bringing under the notice of the House. Ile had been informed
that a charge was made against one or two Members of that
House, one of whom was then absent (the Member for Aber-
deen), and he intreated his Honourable Friend would not bring
forward the complaint, whatever it might be, in the absence of
the parties. He appealed to the chair whether his Hon. Friend
was not out of order.
Sir R. WILSON said, although he was one of the persons
implicated in the charge, he wished it to stand over, as the
Hon. Member for Aberdeen, who was mentioned in a a'rea-
sury minute on the subject, was absent. The charge was a
most contemptible one.
The SPEAKER said,. he had been anxious to collect from
the Hon. Member who introduced the subject, the nature of the
proposition he was about to submit, and he had been called on
to state his opinion whether the course pursued by the Hon.
Member for Coventry was orderly, or not. It was quite clear
the question the Hon. Member intended to submit was a ques-
tion of privilege,
,affecting himself and another Member then
absent. The absence of one of the Hon. Members was a strong
ground to postpone further discussion on the subject. He
was, however, prepared to say, although .he had no notice of
what the charge was, that when an Hon. Member complained
of a breach of privilege; there was no time at which he might
not bring it forward.
Mr. .'AIOORE said, lie was willing to conform to the rules
of the House. He came forward to justify himself under a
foul charge. He was taking his dinner when he received a
Treasury minute of the charge.—(A cry of 'read, read.)—He
really thanked the Lords of the Treasury who made the charge.
It was the only instance in which he had ever expressed grati-
tude to them, and be really was grateful for the opportunity
they had given him of defending his honour and character.—
He expected they would prosecute the authors of the charge,
and he should then have no hostility towards them.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
been unwilling to interpose any observation upon what the
Honourable Gentleman had stated, but if it would save his
feelings, and the time of the House, he could state that
himself and the Treasury Board were satisfied there was no
foundation for the imputation against the Hon. Member and
others, but under the circumstances reflecting on the Hon.
Members, the Treasury thought it right to let them know the
charge and the name of the calumniator.
Mr. MOORE then expressed himseelf satisfied with the
explanation of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and said he should
not trespass longer on that occasion upon the attention of the
House.
The third reading of the Navigation Acts Amendment Bill
was postponed to Tuesday.
The House went into a Committee on the East India Trade
Bill, and Mr. C. WYNN moved a Resolution directing the
Chairman to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend seve-
ral Laws in force with resvect to trade in places within the li-
mits of the charter of the Last India Company.
The House having resumed, Mr. BROODEN obtained leave
to bring in the Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER alluded to
the d?ath of the Teller of the Exchequer in Ireland, and hav-
ing stated that it was necessary to provide for the Exchequer
Offices in that part of the United Kingdom, brought in a Bill
to enable the Lords of the Treasury to provide for the more
effectual regulation of certain Offices relating to receipts of his
Majesty's Exchequer in Ireland.
Sir J. NEWPORT, in consequence of the above Bill, with-
drew the notice he had given of a motion for the better arrange-
ment of that branch of the public service.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL brought in a Bill to amend
the-Act for enrolling and memorializing Grants of Annuities,
which was read the first time.
Mr. GOULBURN gave notice that, on Monday next, in a
Committee of Supply, he should move the Irish Miscellaneous
Estimates.
The other orders were postponed, and the House Adjourned,
at HALF PAST TWELVE O'CLOCK, to Monday.