The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-02 00:00:00

Poor rates were excessive, the
labouring popthation
n; g while in Shropshire, where
the tc o
condition
tion bill. The great ob-
ject rates sv"" e starv-
bile in Kent, where the wages were 48
iandthe wages only 38/. a-year, that elac- much lower,
of people were, com-
paratively speaking, well off.
Mr. BUL TE EL supporf:eu , the ,
motion.
jecNtioru. ought to b e t
ROBINSON
O alleviateobjected
lation for that would bring of the labouring
popu about everything else that
was cl.esirable. But this bill had no tendency whatever to
effect that alleviation, nor to relieve the poor from their pre-
sent degradation and misery. All that it tended to effect was
the erection throughout the country of a system of workhouses
compulsorily filled with a pauper population, thrust in there
with no distinction between the aged and the young, the infirm
and the able bodied, the deserving and the infamous ; all who
could not obtain labour by their own exertions were to be
locked up in these workhouses. This monstrous proposition,
if admitted, would be a canker to our social system, which
would neverlbe eradicated. Instead of mending matters this
bill would institute and perpetuate a much worse state of things.
Even the commissioners themselves, in page 92 of their re-
port, admitted that without a provision for the amelioration in
the condition of the labouring population, no measure for the
amendment of the poor law system would be found effective.
It was said that the present measure would give relief to the
agricultural interest, but would it add to the security of pro-
perty, or would it place those who had property in a better
situation than they were in before ? ( Hear.) It was recom-
mended to them to return as nearly as possible to the prin-
ciple of the 43d of Elizabeth. Now, he would ask if
they could hope to bring the country back to the state in which
it was at that period ? Did any public debt exist then to any
extent? Had we not had changes in the currency which had
naturally affected the lower classes ? There had also been a
vast increase of machinery, which had been brought into com-
petition with human labour. He alluded to machinery, not
because he was opposed to it—he believed it tc have been, on
the whole productive of benefit—but solely for the purpose of
showing that the state of society in the present day was essen-
tially different from its state in the reign of Elizabeth, and
therefore required to be legislated for on other principles. It
was a fact that the wealthy classes, since the introduction of
steam power, were much more independent of the labouring
classes than they were formerly. The noble lord opposite
appeared to doubt it ; but the proposition seemed to be self-
evident. The question was not so much one of surplus la-
bour, as it was whether there was sufficient capital possessed
by the farmers to enable them to cultivate their farms. ( Hear.)
In fact there were not too many labourers, if they were em-
ployed to the extent to which they might be ; but there were.
absentee landlords, who would not cultivate the land to a
greater extent than they thought was to their personal
advantage. ( Hear, hear.) He objected to the bill on the
ground that it did not afford the labourer any alternative.
He agreed with the honourable baronet, who declared
that the noble lord had been obliged to make so many
concessions, that the result was, the commissioners had ob-
tained too great a degree of discretionary power. He had
heard some persons declare that the condition of the poor had
been improved—others that it had got worse. This bill, how-
ever, admitted the deterioration ; but how did they propose to
legislate for the evil ? It appeared to him that they ought to
have endeavoured to ascertain the causes before they came
forward with a remedial proposition. It was as great an in-
sult to the poor, and to the public at large, to say that the
bill would be a boon to the labouring classes, as it was to
pretend that the bastardy clause was a boon to the female po-
pulation. The advantage of the old law was, that it brought
the wealthier classes into contact with the poor man. When
this bill had passed into a law, the poor man would feel that
he was an isolated being--that there were none of his more
wealthy neighbours who sympathised in his distresses. He was
confident that in a very short time the legislature would be
called on either to repeal the bill, or to make some very ma-
terial alterations in it. In opposing the bill he did so..con-
scientiously, and without any reference to the feeling which
existed on the subject out of doors.

Mr. SL ANE Y said that the supporters of the bill were
reproached with trying, on this occasion, an unjustifiable ex-
periment ; but, he would ask, was there no case made out ?
He would not name any particular county ; but were there not
several in the south of England which had been in a state
of moral insurrection ? For the sake of the poorer classes
themselves, as well as for that of the richer, whose property
was insecure, it was the duty of Government to endeavour to
apply a remedy to the present state of things. There were
certainly sonic portions of the bill which he held to be objec-
tionable; for instance, he thought that the aged ought to be
allowed out-door relief. But though there were parts of the
bill which he considered capable of improvement, he approved
of it on the whole, and would contend that the experiment
ought to be tried. In addition to the improvement which an
amended system of poor laws was calculated to produce, by
checking the increase of surplus labour, it would be well to
promote the education of the poorer classes residing in popu-
lous manufacturing towns, and also to accommodate them with
open places in the vicinity for healthful recreation.

Mr. C OBBE TT was desirous of showing what were the
real objects of the present bill, and what the consequences
likely to result from its passing into a law. With regard to
what had been said concerning surplus labour, he was asto-
nished, after the evidence which had been so frequently laid
before them upon this subject, to find it still insisted upon that
there was such surplus. The contrary was the fact. Instead
I of there being any surplus labour, there was, in truth, a want
of hands to cultivate the land. In a report before that house,
a report, too, in which he had been savagely libelled, seven
hundred and seventeen gentlemen gave it as their opinion that
there were not too many labourers ; and as far as related to
Lincolnshire, so far from there being a surplus, that very re-
port stated that there was not a sufficiency in the harvest
time. A committee sat in 1828, of which the hon. member
for Shrewsbury was chairman, to inquire upon this very sub-
ject of surplus labourers, he replied that there was not. And
he added, that he was grieved to see, in one part of the coun-
try, forty young men harnessed to gravel carts, and doing the
work of horses. He was asked, was not this a proof of super-
abundance of labour, and replied that it was not ; that there
was labour for them on the land, in hoeing, draining, and
ditching ; but that this labour was not entered upon, though
necessary, because the farmers had not the means of under-
taking ;it. Why, he (Mr. Cobbett) would ask—why had
they not the means ? Because of the distress and ruin created
by the Currency Bill of 1819. ( Hear, hear.) He hoped
that this Poor Law Amendment Bill would not increase the
misery which that measure had brought on the farmer and
labourer. An hon. member, the member for Shoreham, said
the other evening, that he 61r. C.) was the cause of the out-
rages in that country, and the libel in the commissioners' re-
port said the same. They insisted on this, notwithstanding
the evidence given on the trial of the rioters. Now, he would
show that the report of the poor law commissioners stated the
real cause. The hon. gentleman here read a passage from the
report of evidence given before the commissioners, in which
it was stated by the labourers that the harsh treatment of the
overseers was the cause of the outrages ; and that if they had
been treated with civility they would not have so much minded
being poor. He was opposed to this bill because he believed
its object was to reduce the labouring poor of England to the
wretched condition of the poor of Ireland. (Hear, hear, and
No, no.) In one part of the empire the labourer had his
snug parlour, his neat cottage, his curtained window ; and in
this part they had their old English poor laws. In another
part of the country the poor laws had been violated; for poor
laws had existed in Scotland before they existed in England,
and they were done away with because the reformation took a
more violent turn there. The Scotch members worked with
the Ministry to chip them away ; and the consequence would
be seen in the report of the commissioners in (he believed) Ap-
pendix B, fig. 1. He wished the hon. member for Middlesex was
present to say whether he would wish to see England reduced
to that state. In that part of the empire a mongrel system of
poor laws have reduced the labouring classes to the lowest
state of wretchedness. In a third part of the empire there
were no poor laws, and what was its condition. Let the phi-
losophers revel then in theories. There the people were not
only without shoes and stockings, but half naked. (Hear,
hear.) Nay, in some instances they were entirely naked. (A
laugh.) It was none of his statement, it was in the reports.
( Hear, hear.) Let the philosophers luxuriate in Ireland, that
fine land, where the inhabitants were not brutalised by the
degrading allowance of the poor rate ! Let them look there
and see the consequencies of their fine theories in the ever-
lasting rebellions, and he would say justifiable rebellions of
the people. They were resolved to reduce the other two parts
of the empire to the condition of Ireland for the purpose of
putting the amount of the poor rates and tithes in the pockets
of the landlords, that these latter may be thereby
enabled to meet the demands of the fundholders.
He understood that if it were found that the poor
rates had diminished, or were stationary, there would be no
measure enacted lest any hazard might ensue. Now it had
been found by the returns for England and Wales, that there
was a diminution to the extent of three and a-half per cent.
Why not stop then ? The amount of the assessment for the
poor was eight millions, but of this there were two millions
which they did not receive. He might state the amount of
what they received at five, perhaps but four millions ; but
let it be stated even at six millions. Did the Government
propose to interfere with the two millions which did not go to
the poor. Oh, no I—they were very brave where the poor
were concerned—they would face them. There was ano-
ther reason against this interference with the poor-rates. By
comparing their amount with the taxes paid by the poor for
the last century, it would be found that the former had consi-
derably decreased in proportion. Again he would repeat
there were no grounds for this bill. It was evident that the
ultimate abolition of the poor-rate was intended, and the go-
vernment deceived the House of Commons if they denied
this. Why were not the instructions given for the commission
of inquiry laid before the house ? There were two things in
these instructions to which he would particularly allude. The
draftsman was desired so to manage the thing, that the people
of England might be gradually reduced to a coarser sort of
food; and the other was, that the number of workhouses
should be reduced to 200. If the number of parishes were
divided by this number, it would show that the object was to
unite 60 or 70 parishes in one union ; and if a poor man or
poor woman wanted relief, it would be necessary to send them
perhaps 40 or 50 miles from their homes. What would
the people of England say if they were honestly told that
the government wished to reduce them to a coarser sort of
food—to potatoes and sea-weed ? only tell the parishes that,
only tell it them, they would soon find it out. Such was the
intention of this bill ; and the house was not able to prevent it,
for uncontroled power was given to the commissioners to make
regulations themselves. These regulations were, many of
them, of a very harsh, degrading nature. Amongst ether
things, a man was to be stripped of his furniture and clothes,
and compelled to wear the workhouse livery. Was this fit
treatment;? The commissioners, in their report, mentioned
one parish, in4hicit'e,iery fainter the last 30 'yeara 444 Mlle

upon the poor-laws. Were these men to be thus insulted ?
How-many of the tra.deinien in Fleet-street and the Strand
would come upon the poor-rates before that day twelve months ?
Were those tradesmen, who for many years had paid taxes and
!poor:rates, and supported the government, to be compelled to
Twear a workhouse dress? These were the recommendations
of the commissioners ; and the parties who recommended them
were the parties to whom the working of the bill would be
entrusted. He could, therefore, come to no other conclusion
than this. For the commissioners still acted as the Mentor to
the noble lord, who might be aptly compared to the minis-
terial Telemachus. ( A laugh.) And what was the bill to
do ? Why, they said it was to raise the character of the
English labourer, and make him more independent. Inde-
pendent ! Why, who, he would like to know, was the most
independent,—the English labourer who went to the over-
seer, and demanded assistance as a right, or the Scotch
beggar, who wandered about with a license in his pocket,
to entitle him to receive alms from his Majesty's lieges?
The object of this bill was to rob the working people, and to
enrich the owner of the land ; not that he believed they had
any such expectations in view, he would do them that credit.
Then it was said it would relieve the farmer. Why, how could
it relieve the farmer ? He had a farm for which he paid 1601.
a-year ;it was true he had it on lease, but suppose he was te-
nant from year to year, 801. would be taken off for poor rates.
The landlord would, f course, raise his rent to that amount,
and the next thing he would do would be to say, " Strike off
the tithes, and that will put 451. a-year more in my pocket."
He would have the friends of the Church remember that. To
say that this bill would raise the condition of the labourers was
either the grossest ignorance or the grossest hypocrisy. And
though it was said that the allowance system was an abuse of
the poor laws, it was a very good abuse for the labourer, and
to the existence of that abuse in the southern counties he at-
tributed the superior condition of the labourers in those coun-
ties. ( Hear, hear.) But he should like to inquire whether
Parliament had the right to pass the bill. He knew
they had the power—but the question was, had they
rightful power ? Blackstone, in treating of the rights of per-
sons, declared that every man was by law entitled to every
necessary for his support. Paley also said that a provision
for the poor formed a fundamental portion of the constitution
of England. And yet they were going to violate the consti-
tution in such a manner as might possibly justify the people
in acts of resistance. If the house determined to dissolve the
bonds of civil society, they must expect them to go back to
this state of nature. How would they like that ? He was
very sure .the Parliament would not pass this bill. If any
future Parliament did it, they would in effect raise the cry of
war to the cottager, which he trusted in God would be an-
swered by a cry of war to the homestead of the landowners.
The Bible cursed those that oppressed the poor—Deutero-
nomy, chapter 28th. Many curses were threatened,. but he'
would only select one for them; that which threatened that
God would smite them with the plagues of Egypt—with the
scab and the itch. (Oh !) The Bible told the people how to
deal with those who were guilty of acts of tyranny. Moses
slew the tyrannical Egyptian task-master. The landowners
told them to read the Bible, and he would tell the poor so too
—but he would them tell to read the bill along with it. Of this
he was sure, that if ever there was an attempt to carry this
bill into execution in this country, something would take place
infinitely more terrific than any thing that has been known for
the last century.
Mr. GORING said that it was true that the hon. member
opposite was not himself at battle, but one of his emissaries
was lecturing them.
Mr. COBBETT—Name him, name him.
Mr. GORING could not name him, but it was a notorious
fact ; and moreover it was the opinion of the farmers of Sus-
sex as well as the gentry, that the riots in Sussex were attri-
butable to the writings of the hon. member. The hon. mem-
ber charged the magistracy with having been in a conspiracy
against him wifh regard to Goodman's confession, but he could
assert that he received the original confession of Goodman,
undictated to by any person from the hands of the high sheriff
himself. It was remarkable that the riots always took place
in counties where there was a difference between the wages
of single and married men. He should support the third
reading of the bill.

Mr.-G. F. YOUNG would have supported a moderate
measure, but he felt himself bound to oppose a bill which so
far exceeded the necessity of the case.
Lord E A STNO R would not have risen but to make one
remark, which appeared to him to be called for by what had
just occurred. He could not deprecate in language too strollg
the conduct of any individual who should endeavour to make
the poor of England discontented with their situation, or quote
Scripture to justify any acts of violence which discontentment
might drive them to commit. (Loud cries of " Hear.") Taken
by itself, the measure might, perhaps, in part be objection-
able; but, taking into consideration the extent of the neces-
sity, he was of opinion that it was calculated to do much good,
and he should therefore give it his support.
Mr. FRYER contended, that when they had got this bill,
they would find that they had got the Bottle Imp, which would
disappoint all their expectations. ( A laugh.) The parish
workhouses would be parish gaols ; and would be a terror to
the poor. The emigration scheme was only another name for
transportation. He perfectly agreed with the principle of the
bill, that no able-bodied man ought to receive compulsory
relief; but then it must be under very different laws from those
at present existing. Let all restrictions on labour be abolished,
and we should not want to send the population out of the
country, for we should have a Van Dieman's Land in Eng-
land. ( A laugh.) But the great evil was the wicked, cursed
corn laws. ( A laugh.) Those who supported the corn laws,
never considered the real interests of the poor of England.
They courted the Tories, and every other little party ; but
they never thought of the people of England. The noble
lord opposite put on his tail in Downing-street like a great
kangaroo. [Here the laughter was so loud, that we were un-
able to hear the conclusion of the sentence.] It was that
wicked corn law which had done all the mischief; that wicked
measure which the landed aristocracy of the country had de-
termined, per fas et nefas, to support. (A laugh.)
Lord ALTHO RP felt himself called upon briefly to state
the grounds on which he thought the bill was calculated to
improve the condition of the labouring classes of the people.
No man who considered what had been the conse-
quence of the allowance system, namely, that of redu-
cing the wages of the labouring classes to the lowest
amount upon which the magistrates might think it was pos-
sible a family might be supported, but must admit that
that system had been the cause of great degradation and
evil to the labourer. The object of the present bill was
to remove the allowance system. The hon. gentleman who
had moved the amendment, expressed his conviction that the
system under the bill could not be carried into effect without
producing a collision with the people. If he (Lord Althorp)
were of that opinion, he would not have proposed the measure ;
but he did not think that any thing of that kind was to be ap-
prehended.. Undoubtedly there might be danger in some
places, if the change were to be sudden, and if relief were to
be all at once denied. But the very object of one of the
alterations which had been introduced into the bill by him
(Lord Althorp) was to give a discretion to the commissioners
to dispense with such a sudden change, wherever the dispen-
sation might be felt expedient and necessary. He was per-
fectly satisfied that that alteration would avert the danger
which the hon. gentleman feared. The hon. baronet who
seconded the amendment spoke of the large towns from which
petitions had come against the bill, and estimated the number
of the petitioners at 9,000. Now, if the number of the peti-
tioners was only 9,000, that was assuredly a proof that the
bill was not unpopular. The hon. member for Oldham op-
posed the bill, and asserted that the object of the authors and
the supporters of the bill was to deprive the country of poor-
laws altogether. That he (Lord Althorp) distinctly denied.
The lion. member had adverted to the miserable state of the
labouring classes in Ireland, and had ascribed that state to
the non-existence of poor-laws in that country. Now it
might, or it might not be advisable to establish poor-laws in
Ireland ; but he (Lord Althorp) denied that the distressed
condition of the labouring classes in Ireland could be justly
attributed entirely to the want of poor-laws • and it was well
known to be the opinion of some persons who were intimately
acquainted with that country, that the establishment of poor-
laws would be injurious to it rather than beneficial. The hon.
member for Oldham had spoken in high terms of the comfort
of the poor classes in this country. He (Lord Althorp)
wished he could say that he did not think the picture of the'
hon. member was a flattering one. He was glad, however, to
hear the hon. gentleman's description, although it was cer-
tainly not very consistent with some of his former statements.
But though no one could be more desirous than he (Lord
Althorp) was, that the labouring man should have a comfort-
able home and a comfortable garden, and all the other com-
forts described by the hon. member for Oldham, yet every
body knew that such was not the case, and that the very re-
verse was the case especially in those parts of England in
which the poor-laws were in a state of the greatest activity.
Some of the opponents of the bill had argued against it as
if it were precisely the same as the report of the commis-
sioners. Now the bill had never gone to the extent of that
report—it had never gone to the extent of declaring that no
relief should be given out of the workhouses. It had been
stated that there was a surplus population in the country,
and that it was impracticable to employ that surplus po-
pulation in workhouses. There might be a surplus population
in some parts of the country, but he denied that there was a
surplus population in all parts of the country. So far from it
that in many parts it would be difficult to get in the harvest
without the assistance of Irish labourers. But if there actually
was this surplus population, he did not see how it was incon-
sistent with employment in the workhouse as a part of the
mode of giving relief. Let them look at those districts in
which the workhouse system had been carried into effect. Let
them look, for instance, at Nottinghamshire. At first
there appeared to be a surplus population. At first a mum-
her of persons came to the workhouse, but now the number
was small, and the labourers were in a much better condition.
With respect to the aged, the sick, and the infirm poor he felt
that every attention ought to be paid them. It would be en-
tirely inconsistent with the law of the country that they should
not receive that attention.. But he could not see why it would
be inconsistent with the comfort of such persons to place them
in a well regulated workhouse, where they or their friends
may contribute to their support. Some hon. members had
objected to the present bill, on the ground that it was a de-
parture from the statute of the 43d of Elizabeth. But that
statute confined relief to the aged and infirm, and partially to
the able bodied labourer who could• not find employment. The
principle of the bill under consideration was the same. There
was nothing in the statute of Elizabeth about workhouses.
But the principle of the present bill, like the principle of
the statute of Elizabeth, was, that no relief should be given
to the able-bodied labourer, without he was first placed
in a situation worse than that of labourers who were em-
ployed. (Hear.) The present bill proceeded on the
principle of the statute of Elizabeth ; although its detOls were
different, in consequence of the different doe
tWQ Peri* lie 44bQenIiittutect with the alterations in the

bill, the introduction of which he had allowed, He did not
think, however,- that -any -of those alterations- had proceeded
from the opponents of the measure ; they had been suggested
by those who approved of it generally, and who wished- to faci-
litate its execution. It was clear that the present system
could not go on without amendment. It was true that it had
been contended, that the present proceeding was not the only
alternative, and that some other bill might have been introdu-
ced ; but as no other bill had been introduced, the only choice
was either to continue the present system or to adopt the mea-
sure under consideration. Among other objections to the
measure, it was said that too much discretion was given by it
to the commissioners. That discretion was necessary, for if
they had fixed in the bill the precise time at which the intended
changes should take place all over the country, such an ar-
rangement would have been found impracticable, or, if not
impracticable, at least very inconvenient. But by giving the
commissioners a discretion of introducing the changes
gradually, they would enable them, while they diminished
the poor rates, not to diminish the means of subsist-
ence of the labouring classes; but rather to increase those
means without destroying their independence and demoralising
their character. He was persuaded that the effect of the
measure would be to increase the wages of the labourer.
Where a similar system had been pursued a similar result had
been produced. In Nottinghamshire the average wages of
the labourer was 13s. a week, and in Northamptonshire 9s. a
week. He would not trespass longer on the patience of the
house. They had already decided in favour of this bill by
large majorities, and he hoped that on this last division they
would give it the same support.
Mr. LEACH, although extremely sorry to do so, should
feel compelled to vote against the measure. The effect of it
would be to place the local authorities under great restraint ;
and on that, and other grounds, much as he condemned the
present system, he would rather that it should go on, than
that the syStem proposed in the present bill should be sub-
stituted for it.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, that as the bill had no relation to
that part of the empire in which he was more particularly in-
terested, he would confine the declaration of his opinion upon
it to a single sentence. It was impossible for him to vote in
its favour, because it would destroy all parental feeling to-
wards the poor on the part of the local authorities; because it
would create an unconstitutional tribunal in the country; be-
cause it would give an accumulation of votes to the wealthy
over the poor classes ; because it would confer the privilege of
voting by proxy; and because, at the very moment that the
legislature was abolishing imprisonment for debt, it would in-
stitute imprisonment for poverty.
Sir CHARLES BURRELL could not agree with the
noble lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there was
any thing in this bill which went hand in hand with the 43d of
Elizabeth.

Mr. TOWER, while he admitted that the existing state
of the poor laws called for amendment, expressed his regret
that he could not consistently support the measure under con-
sideration.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared,
For the third reading lB7
For the amendment 5O
Majority for the third reading —l37
On our return to the gallery we found Mr. Law Hodges on
his legs, moving a clause by way of rider to the bill • but the
noise occasioned by the rush of strangers into the gallery pre-
vented us hearing it.
Lord ALTHORP said the object of the clause was to ex-
tend the jurisdiction of the borough magistrates, so as to em-
power them to visit workhouses in districts, where, at present,
they could not act. He saw no advantage that would accrue
in giving this new power • on the contrary, much possible
disadvantage ; for it certainly was far from desirable to extend
the jurisdiction of borough magistrates. He should oppose
the motion.

The clause was then negatived without a division.
Mr. AGL lONB Y moved the following clause :—" That if
either of the parties shall have included in the statement sent,
as hereinbefore directed, any grounds of removal or of-appeal,
which shall, in the opinion of the justices determining the
appeal, be frivolous or vexatious, such party shall be liable, at
the discretion of the said justices, to pay the whole or any part
of the costs incurred by the other party in disputing such
grounds ; such costs to be recovered in the manner hereinbefore
directed as to the other costs incurred by reason of appeal."
Lord ALTHORP expressed his approbation of the clause,
which was ordered to be added to the bill by way of rider.
Colonel WOOD moved that a clause of the bill, which had
been withdrawn, without notice, at a late hour on Monday,
when there were scarcely half-a-dozen members in the house,
should be restored. It was the 56th clause, regarding the
power of visiting justices.
Lord ALTH OR P opposed the motion.
The clause was then agreed to, as were several others, the
purport of which was not heard in the gallery.
Mr. BL AMIRE moved, pursuant to the notice he had
given, the omission of the bastardy clauses, namely 61, 62, 63,
and clause H.

Lord ALTHORP could not consent to their omission.
After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY, the motion was
negatived without a division, and the clauses, as amended,
agreed to.

Thar. JERVIS then moved that the clause 0, page 48,
which is intended to give security to the commissioners, be
omitted, as ample protection was given to them by clause 82.
Lord ALTHORP had no objection to the omission of the
clause, as he did not think it essential to the bill, and did not
see how its omission would injure the measure.
The clause was withdrawn.

On the motion being put from the Chair, that the bill do pas's,
Mr. P. SCR OPE had given notice that, on the third read-
ing of that bill, he should move a resolution, " That this
house would be justified in passing a measure for securing a
more rigorous administration of the English poor laws, and it
did not contemplate the early extension of a similar law to
Ireland, whose labouring population having no legal provision
secured to them, are forced to resort in large numbers to this
country for employment, thereby driving an equal number of
English labourers upon their parishes for support." But he
felt, that at this late period of the session it was too mo-
mentous a question to bring forward, and more especially
as he felt confident that it was the intention of his Ma-
jesty's Government to bring in a similar bill for Ireland early
next session as that which they were about to pass for
England. He would therefore merely give notice, that if a
measure to that effect were not brought forward by the Go-
vernment in the early part of next session, he should himself
consider it his duty to bring one forward. He took the oppor-
tunity of asking the right hon. Secretary for Ireland when it
was likely that the report of the commissioners on the state of
the poor in Ireland would be laid upon the table. He hoped
that the right hon. gentleman would pledge himself that the
report should be laid on the table before next session, and
meantime he (Mr. Scrope) thought tt might be well if the
commissioners made some sort of parliamentary report similar
to that made by the English commissioners, for the purpose of
preparing the minds of the people for the proposed change.
Mr. LITTL ETON was not able to give the hon. member
such information as to when the report might be expected. It
was his hope and belief that the report would be before Par-
liament by the beginning of next session.
Mr. RIC HARD S bad lost all confidence in the intentions
of his Majesty's Government, since he had observed that Mr.
Tufnell, who had stated it as his opinion, that means should
be taken to get rid of poor-laws in England altogether, was
on the commission.

Lord ALTHORP had merely to say that Mr. Tufnell was
not on the poor-law commission, but on the church commis-
sion. (A laugh.)
The bill was then passed.
Mr. POWELL BUXTON withdrew his motion relative
to the amount of loss sustained by the destruction of the mis-
sionary chapels, as compared with the amount of compensation
proposed to be granted, because he had understood that go-
vernment had made a proposal to the parties concerned, which
was likely to.he accepted.

Mr. SPRING RICE believed that the proposed arrange-
ment would be satisfactory to all parties.
In answer to a question from Mr. RICHARDS,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he was very
anxious to advance his bill for the Abolition of Imprisonment
for Debt, a step that night.
BRITISH COLONIES;
Mr. BUXTON, in rising .to move for an inquiry into the
state and condition of the native inhabitants of countries in, and
adjacent to; colonies under the dominion of Great Britain,
said that he would content himself by stating, in every place
where we had established a colony, the native inhabitants, in-
stead of being benefitted, were injured by our presence among
them. This was the case in Australia and Africa, and in
North America, as had been remarked by a well-known writer,
British brandy and gunpowder had done their work in thinning
the natives. In South Africa, it was considered the most
meritorious action a European could perform to shoot the na-
tives. It was high time that some measures were adopted,
with the view of arresting the rapid decrease which was tak-
ing place among the native inhabitants of the colonies. Justice
and humanity alike required it. He would content himself
with moving that an address be presented to his Majesty,
praying that he would be graciously pleased to cause an in-
quiry to be made in the state and condition of the native in-
habitants in and adjacent to colonies under the dominion of
Great Britain.

Mr. SPRING RICE seconded the motion. He was pre-
pared to furnish the hon. gentleman with all tile information
which he possessed on the subject. If his hon. friend should
think proper next session to bring forward a motion for a com-
mittee of inquiry, he (Mr. Spring Rice) would most willingly
support it. But while he thus expressed his cordial approval
of the principles which the hon. gentleman had advanced on
the subject, he must differ from him as to the amount of the
evils to which he had referred. There must be evils to a cer-
tain extent, consequent on the introduction of civilization into
a savage country. And these evils, though he could not hope
to be able to do away with altogether, he would use every ex-
ertion to reduce.

Mr. PEASE was happy to hear the speeches of both the
hon. gentlemen.
The motion was then agreed to.
Mr. BUXTON then moved for the production of certain
papers and documents connected with the subject of his pre-
ceding motion..— Agreed

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then moved for leave to
bring in a bill to enable certain companies and associations to
sue and be sued in the name of their officers. This was a mea-
sure of very great importance. It would be productive of great
advantages to the community, especially to the commercial
part of it. He intended to introduce a proviso to the effect
that the measure should affect the Bank of England.
Leave granted.

The lion! avid learned GENTLEMAN then SAKI ilat he had
19 rmova !'or leave to bring in a bill o.4:;;lnch greater conse-
quence then the preceding. 1t was a bill to render uniform
and to regulate the execution of all wills of real and personal