The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-10 00:00:00

MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.

Mr. BERNAL, and other members of the House
of Commons, brought up the County Rates Expen-
diture Regulation Bill, the Spring Assizes Regulation
Bill, the West of England Life Assurance Company's
Bill, the Glasgow Gas Bill, and the Staines Bridge
Bill, which were severally read a first time.
SCOTCH ADDITIONAL CHURCHES BILL.
After some observations from the Earl of Rose-
berry, the Earl of Haddington, the Duke of Hamil-
ton, and the Bishop of... London, the report on this bill
was received, and the bill was ordered to be read a
third time to-morrow.

SCOTCH ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES

BILL.

The Earl of RO SE BERR Y gave notice of his in-
tention to move the second reading of this bill on
Thursday next.
The house adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock
till to-morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 9.
The SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter past five
o'clock.
Several private bills were read a second and third
time.
A message from the Lords reported the passing of
other private bills.
Mr. O'CONNELL moved that the writ for the
borough of Carrickfergus be suspended until the sth
day of next session.
. _ _

In answer to a question put by Mr. HUME, rela-
tive to the Custom duties between this country and
France,

Lord ALTHORP said he had no objection to
the return of the necessary documents.
POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT BILL.
Sir G. GREY presented a petition from Devon-
port, against the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill.
In answer to a question put by Mr. ROBINSON,
Lord ALTHORP stated that at the close of the
sitting of the committee this night on the Poor Laws'
Amendment Bill,he should propose that the house should
sit in committee on the said bill on Tuesdays and
Thursdays at the morning sittings, and that public
committees should not sit during that time, nor private
committees, without special permission.
The house then went into committee on the said bill.

Mr. C OBBE TT said that he rose to make a pro-
position, which, considering the importance of the
subject, might expose him to the charge of temerity ;
but he trusted that he should justify his conduct
by indisputable facts and sound argument. In
the early part of the session the noble lord had said
it was not necessary to repeal the malt tax or the
agricultural horse tax, or any other measure
for the relief of the agricultural interest, be-
cause he had itin contemplation to introduce
a measure which should completely and effec-
tually relieve it, and his measure of relief was
this Poor Laws' Amendment Bill. With regard
to the question of tithes, the noble lord did
not seem very anxious to bring any proposition
of consequence before the house. No, he fled from
the church—he fled from the Dissenters—but he
would very readily face the poor, feeling that he had
a phalanx in that house ready to back him up, but the
others were adversaries which he feared to
a step further in this bill to propose the following
It was his (Mr. C.'s) intention before the house

solution,
this
ii
so
thenb,i ;:dTh
cause
oaapt
pt
or
rii
os
te houseaausseeslbe before i
cot
hmtemp riogt
tereeeeedatt eo di
inquirenf
ca r tr
ebaseer
of poor rates in England and in Wales."
At present, he would do no more than refer to the t.
report, and, if there was not reason enough in that
report, of itself, to cause the house to say the
measure ought now to be stopped, it would be
strange to him, and still more strange to the
people at large. The house had always been told by
the noble lord that he had a remedy for agricultural
distress • he had always said if he had only
a poor law bill, that would be a tickler for them ;
that would suit the farmer. (Hear.) On several-0.,
occasions he (Mr. C.) had asked the noble lord if he
would state any mode by which the farmer would be
relieved by his scheme ; but he had always declined to
do so. However here he now was with his precious Poor
Law Bill. On what ground was he proceeding
What did the numerous volumes of reports, proceeding
oo ff
culturalt thhoe
poocra agriculturistspliatwa ls
:had arose7o
declined
g onfrtloo:m toAh eobf
ett
from the fruitful minds of the commissioners, state
They were intended to inquire whether the distros
Wales were asked the question if the amount of egr
would have been, to have asked if the farmers were
poorer now than they formerly were. The whole 1,77'
with one exception had replied, that the farmer was
poorer now than he formerly was. That one ex'
ception was the steward of Sir James Graber°:
who stated that Sir James was such an excellev;
landlord, granted such long leases, and was so kin:,
to his tenantry, that but for the expense incurred 'IJ
sending back the bastards of the Scotch vagrants Vh°
infested the country, there would be no complai,nt:
amongst the farmers. 401 had said positively teal'
the poor rates were not the cause of the farmers ins
poverishment-1,157 assigned other causes, and sai
tion, and that it was greatly
it was partly owing to the weight of tor
aggravatedadministration
Englandue 5
ta
bo
the change in the currency. 159 considered
the poor rates contributed towards the poverty of the
farmer. After all this, the house was still called upol'
to go on with this bill, in which, as a learned gentle
man had said of it, ingenuity had been taxed to make
it a measure which was calculated to violate)
every principle of the constitution. (Hear, hear'
All those 401 said that there was a great diminution
of agricultural capital, but they positively say that ',*t
was not owing to the poor laws. And upon this evideln
the noble lord wished to show his power, by getting bhne
A m Among thosethe p00r159 wholew
yaws,
attributedsevortti theof
passed which was in every respect contrary t° t f
farmerrthepeo.them
were anonymous, and yet they were called
upon to allow themselves to be carried awed
by this small minority of anonymous vvitnesses•
One of those 159 was a poor law ccmmissioner himself,
and the evidence of one witness, whose own name did
think that a bishop might be better employed than in
not appear, was subscribed by a bishop. One would
trampling on the poor and endeavouring to effect the
destruction of one of our best and oldest institutions.
But what then ? The poor alone were to sufl'er,and where
were the poor to expect sympathy ? When an atterapi
was made to take away unmerited pensions, hundredi
of voices were raised to denounce the revolutio.n-
ary proceeding; but the poor would swallow up the
land, they would devour the country, if they were
not deprived of the means of subsistence. It was so,'
with alarm and terror that the poor rates amounted 1o
.
upwards of six millions ; and why should they rd:
amount to six millions ? The poor rates had inereas,i,
ruin o
but that was no reason why they should be u
minished. The poor had not increased the poor rateas;
it was owing to the increase of taxation, to the 7110
against Jacobinical principles. Why, then, were
.e,
oor to be blamed ? To make the poor rates less,
them take off the malt tax, put a stop to the pcO'
sions paid to the German Legion, and quite do awa
with the enormous retired allowances paid to cio:,
servants. ( A laugh.) Yes, he declared that til
dinners were taken off the tables of the poor in t 115..
country, in order that the money might be sent, to t_
nover. (Hear, hear.) The country had had. !I'd'
information upon the bill which the noble fort
was pushing through the house with such inde_caen.o
haste, as if he was afraid the members might possibly b
time to look into it, which, he was sure, if they vle_:o
caberto do, they would throw it out. The towns .' j
newspapers were seen might know of it, but he venturer
to say that there were 60,000 country parishes WhAi:
not one knew anything of it but the parson. I h
house ought to have time to read the report whic,;
clearly stated that agricultural distress was It'
at all attributable to the poor laws, but to over taxatiov•
The bill was most cruel in its spirit, and, if passed',
would be found intolerable when attempted tobe-carrio
into effect. He should certainly divide the house uP°9
his motion.
Lord ALT HORP said that the hon. member wh°
had made this proposition seemed to think that he
wLord Althorp) had only one object in bringing for-
ard the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill, namely, the re'
lief of the farmers. Now this was by no means the
sole object of the bill, nor had he even stated such t°,
be the case. He had undoubtedly said that he looked
forward to the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill as a mea-
sure likely to produce very beneficial effects to the,
farmer and the agricultural interests generally ; but
never said that it was intended to relieve the brine::
alone. The hon. gentleman had dwelt at considerablet-
length on the evidence given by a
number of wi
nesses to show that the agricultural distress had not
arisen from the poor rates. No one had ever said that
t
the poor rates were the sole cause of the agricultiri!
distress that prevailed in the country; but he w.t.ults
ask the hon. gentleman himself if he did not belieL
the farmers ? He would now repeat what he had sfauics,
that the poor rates were felt as a very great pressure. jujiYl
the house when he introduced the present Pl'
o'uf the
Bill, that it was intended mainly for the
reliethat de'
labouring classes, and to rescue them fe°l°.n which
grading state of pauperism and dependence
A the hon.
gentleman think it a benefit to the labouring
they had so long been sunk. ( Hear.) pi" to
be left in this state of servile and wretched pauPer in-
that was so calculatad to debase and destroy thelr.ure
dependence ? So far, therefore, from the me!
being, as had been described by the hon member7ree
oppressive evil to the labouring classes, he cons: de
it as calculated to do them much good. He W tht
sirous that the hon. gentleman's statements as to
.be
supposed objects of the bill should not go forth to
o'oci
country uncontradicted. He could not see arrY go.
that could possibly result from any inquiry by a co.
mittee now, and he therefore looked upon the aPP°
Flo
meat of one as unnecessary and uncalled for' these
should resist the motion of the hon. member for -
classe.ser,

o nel EVANS could not see how the noibtolehelerci Colonel reasons.
could show that the present bill was intendeldered it
benefit to the labouring classes unless he ectsiess they
a benefit to them to be refused all relief
.ur.reed with
consented to go into a poor-house. He -0 he had
w.hat_ricui,
the hon. member for Oldham in much of
said. There was a great pressure upon th 55 a
eother 811-
tural capital of the country, arising frl „ not at
different causes than the poor rates. H. did
the same time see that much goodanid he
see any use
pointing a committee, and still
erve that he considerg
in dividing the house
While he said this he must ° roper to hurry this bill
it extremely indecent and
t_ iaTP
as
-,,, now done, before i'
forward in the manner
anb t
in living to have read throug'
was possible for
aneYthat had been taken by the cow
the mass of evident
which their report was founded,
missioners, and
°n able lord himself to say that he ba:
(A laugh.)
He would defy tile n the evidence when he intredgeke-
e en did not at all agreuledwanitshe from
use
whole
did
meth.
read the
that he had read it to that me 1,0
this bill, or
Mr. HUM Oldham
lahuurt g
member'. for Oldham that the wretched state ° n
• for It
lasses, arose from the pressure of taxation, _ b4tter
classes,
known that the labouring classes were nevc,rwer, a'
agricultural interests, and particularly of the , 10.. A
off or had higher wages than when the taxes
upon tbshelemotion.
the highest.
wiry should
Mr. ROBINSON said that ample
have been made before this measure
of the poor
forward into the causes of the inereiasuceed the fright-.
rates, and what it was that had pr a
resent prevailed
ful extent of pauperism that t inquiry ought to have
throughout the country. In fact,
inci lord had pre:
preceded legislation. But the noble
.he Bin before
tz;
judged the question by bringing t
in
been gone into ELS ~
proper and full investigation had
beiog.at all reqiiireat,
the causes that led to such a bill
legislation on this subjeco
He was not opposed to all
I,f from taxation vile
• • n that re ie
but he was of opinio
ards
The labourer would then be
relieving all classes of .p
go much farther t
population than any bill of this degeriv
per' would
agriculturalaxes
, were reduced the labourer oec
tion. If depend for his support on his own unshae'reiv
'Rastgh brought
rtoou.ght,ot
left to
industry.
ode
on his own exertions. This would be the proper Inicera-
raise the labouring classes from pauperism and uf:tind
dation, and without it all other means would be
to be futile and abortive. Ala Crag)
Mr. PETER concurred with what had ii""

the hon. member opposite ( Mr. Hume). He did not
think the hon. member for Oldham, who had just ad-
dressed the house, would be found to turn out a true
prophet. That hon. member had prophesied that the
present bill would not be carried into operation, and
that if it should it would be the cause of destructive
consequences. Now he would say in contradiction
that not only the bill would be carried into operation
but that it would be seen in the course of two or three
years that it had worked considerable good. The
public would then see who was the true prophet—he
or the hon. member for Oldham. He had never seen
more wisdom and good advice contained in any thing
than he saw in the report of the Poor Law Commis-

sioners.
Mr. HODGE S said that if the house should be
pressed to a division he would divide with the hon.
member for Oldham, but after what had fallen from
the hon. member for Middlesex he thought it would
be more advisable to withdraw the motion.
Mr. SL A NE Y—The hon. member for Oldham
had said that taxation was the great cause of the de-
pression of the poor. Now taxation was spread over
all parts of the kingdom. How came it then that the
poor were differently circumstanced in different parts
of the country ? How came it that the poor of some
counties were more depressed than the poor of others ?
If taxation were the cause they would be all equally
depressed, whereas it would be seen that the labourer
of Northumberland and Yorkshire was very differently
situated from the labourer of Sussex. His opinion
Was, that the present bill would place the labouring
peasants of the southern counties on the same footing
With those of the northern counties, and that it would
save them from the depressed and degrading situation
they were now in. He should oppose the motion.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion S
Against it
Majority against the motion —132
On our re-admission into the gallery we found the
house in committee on the bill.
The 33d clause having been put,
Colonel TORR ENS expressed his satisfaction that
the noble lord (Lord Althorp) had so altered the clause
that ratepayers should be entitled only to one vote.
He• thought- it desirable that the clause should re-
ceive further alteration, and that the holders and
owners of property should not have more than one
vote. The more the poor laws were left in the hands
of the lower classes of ratepayers the better would
they be administered. It was for that reason that they
should be put on the same footing with the owners of
property, and that both classes should have but one
Vote for their several parishes. He should therefore
move that the 33d clause be omitted, and that another
be proposed and moved for containing the principle
he mentioned.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion. He thought
there was another reason why the noble lord should
concur in it, namely, that it would be making the bill
More acceptable in the large parishes of the metropolis
and of the great towns. There was no part of the
bill so much disliked and opposed in the large parishes
of Middlesex as that which gave the right of having
accumulative vot' s. There was a very good reason for
this dislike. The ratepayers at vestry meetings could
be borne down by those persons who had more than
one vote. He had a lease of his house for seventy or
eighty years, yet he had but one vote, whilst the owner
of that house had three or four votes. Now that
owner could come down to the vestry and give his
three or four votes, whilst it was evident that for the
!Pace of seventy or eighty years he could not have that
interest in parish affairs that he (Mr. Hume) had, who
had notwithstanding but one vote. Proprietors could
not have the same interest in parish rates that tenants
had, since it was the latter who paid them. It ap-
peared to him, therefore, most monstrous that the
tenants, who paid the rates, should have but one vote,
Whilst the proprietors, who did not contribute to them,
should have several votes towards the making of them.
He hoped the noble lord would equalize the right of
voting, and not allow the proprietors to override the
tenants.
Colonel E VANS objected to the accumulative
vote, and said that the inhabitants of the parish of St.
Martin considered that their Vestry was an open one ;
but that whenever they endeavoured to try the case in
Vestry they were outvoted by those who voted accord-
ing to Sturges Bourne's Act.
Lord ALTHORP said that two new principles were
involved in the clause, viz., allowing proprietors to
Vote and voting by proxy. One of those principles
depended on the other and was the consequence of it.
It therefore, it was thought desirable to admit one,
the other ought also to be admitted. That the
"nen of property should have an accumulative vote
Was the necessary consequence of the other principle.
The expenses of the poor fell on the occupiers of the
land. This question should be discussed as a general
one, and not so far as it regarded only the occupiers of
houses. The question should be taken in general and
a 3 it applied to the whole country, and as so the in-
er3ase or the diminution of the poor rates affected the
occupiers of land materially. The owners of pro-
perty should have a right of influencing the vestry,
and if that right should be taken from them it would
be doing them a very great injustice. It seemed to
him quite clear that the owners of property should
have a right of voting as well as the occupiers. He
would now go to the right of voting by proxy. In
Political matters voting by proxy was a different
thing, and might be disputed. (Hear.) But in
Parish matters, if the right of voting was given at all
to a person, he ought also to have the power of au-
thorising his agent to vote by proxy for him. If such
was not the case, what would be the use of a person
residing in London having a vote in Cornwall, or vice
t'ersa? According to the original clause, not only the
ciwriers of property but the occupiers were to have
the accumulative vote. Great objections were made to
the occupiers having it; and, in compliance with those
objections, and in order to make the measure more ac-
ceptable to large parishes in towns, it was resolved
that the occupiers of property should not have the ac-
cumulative vote. In the country, on the other hand,
and particularly in the parishes of Lancashire, objec-
tions were raised to taking away the right of having
tte accumulative vote. What was done in the clause
it now stood was a fair compromise between the two
°ejecting parties. Let hon. gentlemen look to the
elect of the bill, and they would see that if the owners
;,,,Property made an improper use of the accumulative
they would be the greatest sufferers themselves.
The owners of property had the greatest interest in the
Proper administration of the poor laws ; they should
therefore have the accumulative vote. If they had
4:1'11Y one vote they might as well have no vote at all,
f_f trtthey would have no power in conducting the affairs
he parish For these reasons he wished to main-
tida the clause as it now stood, and that the accumu-
allve vote should be taken from the occupiers of pro-
Per.ty.
pr. GROTE considered that the noble lord drew
:Furnents in support of the accumulative vote from
what he had observed in country parishes. He sub-
tnitted whether it would not be better to allow the ac-I
!emulative vote to extend only. to rural parishes, and '
!0 restrict that species of vote in the large parishes of
the., metropolis and other great towns. As regarded
tie vote by proxy, he thought that it was quite objec-
tistable, for if the owners of land were to be allowed
tn, vote at all they ought to have the right of voting by
their agents. He hoped the noble lord would take
some ara
ndment of this kind into consideration.
Lord
same of hit ALTHORP admitted that he had drawn
rural distri— guments for the accumulative vote from
inquiries in la But, on the other hand, he had made
rnulative vote,rgitne Narishes as to the effect of the dif-
ferentau-
from what it he found that it would be very
instance, the fact ofwould be in country parishes. For
lative vote in the part Portman having an accumu-
rro great influence in meet. Marylebone could give him
Mr. BRINES
thtehat there were great con-
stitutional objections to
con-
the power of election in the clause. It would place
4argo property, and have the ands of the owners of
vlttions classes of small voters. effect of injuring the
principle were
n__44lorted it would tend to preve,ntwthbiecehamhendment in
a(rministration of these laws
He did not knowpoanpt
uyltaehrymwegleermcetoiorsnoe
;Talus to improve.
thiiii`ut?3 - to the great principle of.
of gMng accumulated votes to absentee proprietors
tre soil.
...."11% HAWES did not think that it was necessary
to
Iftaa-•
Bourse's Act any
iong67lll-the principle of Sturges
places as i That aft had been most mischievous in many
were best :blended to keep from the vestry those who
noble lord wouldattend to parochial business. If the
trusted that he ther he not give up the clause altoge
as to exempt to:uld
Mr. M. PHlat least so far modify the clause
Lt from its operation.
Lord SAND 0 N
th w Su ald l sobjected to the clause.
voting% e question of haove
al been left out of the bill, as been better pleased if
if
th
he was quite sure,
Present form, that it ivouhVause was agreed to in its
thttughout the country. Nvixlecite invidious feelings
Beat- •
eat- in the parish sent five or n gentlemen not resi-
slz votes in right of their

property, it -would give rise to those feelings which,
under no circumstanc,?s, it t•'a ileFirahlo to excite, and
still less in conneetina tho a,l ni,,:s:;ration. Under
all circumstances, he should be glad it the clause was
omitted altogether.
Mr. JERVIS said that in the city which he repre-
sented, the old system of election prevailed. Sturges
Bourne's Act had never been brought into operation
there, and the poor laws were administered in a most
admirable manner. The clause under consideration,
however, was not constructed in the spirit of Sturges
Bourne's Act. It went much further than that, as it
gave to the absentee holder of property the right of
voting. Again, the principle of Sturges Bourne's
Act was optional, and not to be forced on any parish,
but only adopted where a large majority of the rate-
payers demanded it. The present clause, however,
left no choice to parishes.

Lord HO WICK reminded the committee that the
owners of property were not to have votes in the or-
dinary and daily proceedings connected with the poor
laws. The only occasions when they could vote would
be, first, in the election of guardians of the poor ; and
secondly, as regarded the adoption of regulations re-
commended by the Board of Commissioners. None
could be more interested in making a good choice of
guardians of the poor than the owners and occupiers
of the land. He thought it was desirable to hold out
inducements to landowners to take part in these mat-
ters.

Mr. CRIPPS was most anxious that the noble lord
should persist in the clause, as it would generally be
found that it would be much more just and equitable
—he would not say popular, because he did not care
for mere popularity ( A laugh)—than the adoption of
the amendment. He hoped the noble lord would not
be influenced by any fear of the loss of popularity from
proceeding as he had begun.
Mr. SL ANE Y also defended the principle of the
clause.

Mr. HARDY thought that the noble lord ( Althorp)
was perfectly right in the course he bad taken, and
that he had only promoted a just extension of the
principle of voting. He (Mr. Hardy) would ask who
paid the poor rates in England ? The whole amount
fell on the landlords. (Hear.) He would let his
land at a much lower rental than he would if there
were no poor rates. The landlord had a permanent
interest in the well-being of the district in which he
held property ; he therefore should have the right of
control.

Mr. GISB 0 RNE was willing to give the owners
of the soil the right of voting under certain restric-
tions ; for instance, if the property was not let for a
long term of years, for if that were the case the occu-
pier had a much greater interest than the landlord.
Mr. BENE TT contended that in all the country
districts the landlord had the deepest interest in the
good administration of the poor laws, and it was ab-
solutely necessary that he should be allowed accumu-
lated votes. He trusted that the noble lord would not
give up the clause, which he looked upon as one of the
best parts of the bill.
Mr. CARTER thought the clause might be so
modified'and improved as to obviate many of the objec-
tions that had been urged against it. He wished to
remind hon. gentlemen that persons with a small rent
charge would not be allowed to vote, for the clause
stated that it was necessary that the landlord before
voting should prove that he did not let his land at less
than two-thirds of its actual value.

Mr. C OBBE TT said that if the bill was to pass he
hoped that the clause would remain in it, as it would tell
the people of England that its object was to enable the
landlords to receive more than they did at present, and
to take from the poor a portion of the pittance they at
present received. (Cries of " No, no.") Hon. gen-
tlemen might deny that this was the case, but such
was the obvious object, and would be the effect of this
clause. During the riots in Sussex and other parts of
the country, who were deemed more obnoxious to the
people than the overseers of the poor ? They acted
under Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, and they were the
first laid hold of, so that it was Mr. Sturges Bourne's
Act which gave the offence and occasioned the riots of
1830. That act gave a plurality of votes; and now
they proposed taking the accumulative vote from the
tenant to give it to the landlord. But was this just ?
It might be, as a noble lord had said in another place,
only a march in conformity with the spirit of the age ;
but he (Mr. Cobbett) must deny that such a step was
in accordance with the feelings or wishes of the peo-
ple of England. The project, however, was too ab-
surd, too monstrous, to stand ; but if it should pass,
his earnest hope was that this clause should remain in
it. He was opposed to the whole measure, from be-
ginning to end. He regarded it as a studied piece of
tyranny, and as taking from the poor, who were al-
ready too hardly treated, to give to the rich—to the
landlord. The hon. member for Bradford said that it
was the landlord who paid the poor rates, but he
should like to hear the hon. gentleman make that out.
It was, however, a great mistake, and he was fully
prepared to show that it was so. If the house chose
to be blind to the effects of the measure, the country
would see through it; but, he repeated, if they passed
this bill, he hoped the clause would remain, for then
it would be innoxious.

Mr. HARDY, in explanation, contended that in
point of fact it was the landlord by whom the poor
rates were paid.
Mr. PEASE thought that the owners of property
ought to be allowed to vote by proxy, and therefore he
should support the clause.
Mr. C. FERGITSSON should give his vote for
establishing the accumulative system of voting.

Mr. ROBINSON said that although that system
might be an advantage in rural parishes, it most clearly
would be an injury to the metropolis and large towns.
He therefore begged to suggest to the noble lord
whether it would not be better to make the clause
applicable only to rural parishes, and exempt the me-
tropolis and large towns from its operation.
Mr. HALCOMB considered it only just that the
owners of property should have the privilege which
this clause intended to confer on them.

Mr. TOWER concurred in the suggestion which
his hon. friend the member for Worcester had thrown
out, and hoped the noble lord would give it due con-
sideration.

Mr. LLOYD agreed that the clause should be mo-
dified in the manner proposed.
Mr. CLAY said that unless such a distinction was
made with respect to rural and town parishes the mea-
sure could only produce distrust and dissatisfaction.

Lord ALTHO RP said that although it might be
true that the accumulative system of voting would be
more beneficial in country parishes than in town
parishes, yet the advantage which would be gained in
one case would more than counterbalance the disad-
vantages in the other. In a country parish the land-
lord had clearly a right to exercise the privilege of
voting either as to the union of parishes with a view
to settlement, as to the election of guardians of the
poor, or as to the building of workhouses. It was
only right that in such matters the owners of property
should be allowed to possess the right to which he was
entitled; and although there might be some disad-
vantage in adopting the system in town parishes, the
disadvantage would be more a matter of feeling than
anything else. He therefore felt disinclined to with-
draw the clause.

Mr. GROTE thought the distinction proposed be-
tween town and country parishes ought to be made.
Sir T. FREMANTLE said that it would be im-
practicable to effect any such distinction. The attempt
had been made before now and failed. Instead of in-
creasing the number of votes the measure would rather
diminish them, and therefore he thought the objections
to the clause had been unfairly exaggerated. It was
quite right that the landlord should possess proper in-
fluence in the parish where his property was situate.
Mr. COBBETT said that the measure was one of
grasping, grinding tyranny. (Cries of " Oh, oh.")

Colonel EVANS said that voting by proxy was a
most aristocratic proceeding, and, in his opinion, it
would tend only to open the door to jobbing of the
grossest kind.
After some further observations in explanation by
Colonel TORRENS, Mr. BROTHERTON, Mr. Hums, and
others, the committee divided :
Ayes
Noes
—93
Majority
On our readmission to the gallery we found
Mr. JERVIS on his legs, making some objections
to the principle of voting by proxy ; which being
pressed to a division, the numbers were—
Ayes
Noes

Majority —9s
Clause 33, as amended, was then agreed to.
Clause 34 and 35 were carried, after a brief con-
versational discussion, which was totally inaudible to us.
On clause 36, being put,

Mr. P. SCROPE moved, as we understood, an
amendment to the effect that no poorhouse should be
considered as such if a certificate to that effect were
not signed. by two justices. (From the noise in the

house and in the gallery we could not hear the hon.
member's remarks.)
Lord ALTHORP said a few• words, which were
inaudible. _

Mr._ H A L COMB contended that workhouses could
not be conducted with decency if the sexes were not
separated, and the separation of man and wife was an
insuperable objection to the clause.
Mr. HODGE S thought the clause the most impor-
tant in the bill. He wished to know if these work-
houses would be like the present workhouses, or
whether they would be houses of correction, and
whether they were to have treadmills or other means
of punishment and coercion ?
Lord ALTHORP said that the hon. member need
not be under any apprehension on this score. The
Gaol Act prevented the erection of treadmills in any
places except prisons ; and the proposed workhouses
would have no restraints except what were necessary to
prevent the consumption of ardent spirits, the creation of
riots, or anything that might disturb the sick, the aged,
and well disposed.
Mr. BENETT objected to the discretionary
power given to the Commissioners to send persons to
the workhouses. If the poor were to be sent by com-
pulsion to the workhouses they would never be able to
get out again. They would be deprived of their fur-
niture, other people would be put into their hovels,
and they would have no place to return to if released
from the workhouses. He had the greatest objection
to the workhouse system.
Colonel DA VIES supported the clause. The
object of all gentlemen in the country where there
was a redundant ',:population was to destroy cottages,
and not to fill them when the previous tenants had
been sent to the workhouse.
After some conversation Mr. &ROPE consented to
withdraw his amendment, and the clause was agreed to.
Clause 37, after a good deal of discussion, was post-
poned.
Clause 38 was agreed to after a short discussion.
Clause 39 was agreed to with a verbal amendment.
Clause 40 was also agreed to.
Clause 41, with a verbal amendment, was agreed to.
Clauses 42, 43, and 44 were agreed to without op-
position.

On clause 45 being read,
Mr. S C ROPE proposed as an amendment that the
guardians of the poor should retain the power of re-
lieving impotent poor, such as widows and children
and old persons, out of the workhouse. He wished
the commissioners not to have the power of interfering
with this species of relief. He did not see any objec-
tion to his amendment. _

Lord ALTHORP said there was nothing in the
bill as it stood to prevent the guardians of the poor from
affording the relief.
Mr. SCROPE said his object was to deprive the
commissioners of the power to restrain the guardians
from giving such relief.
The clause, on account of the lateness of the hour,
and as it broached a new subject, and was likely to
lead to a lengthened discussion, was postponed till to-
morrow (this day).
The house resumed, and the chairman reported
progress.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

On the motion of Lord ALTHORP, it was agreed
upon that for the future Orders of the' Day should be
taken at the morning sittings from twelve to three
o'clock ; that on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays,
Orders of the Day should precede petitions and mo-
tions, but that on Tuesdays and Thursdays petitions
and motions should have precedence ; and that when
the house had on Orders of the Day business before
it, Select Committees should be suspended.
FOUR PER CENTS. ANNUITIES BILL.

Lord ALTHORP moved the order of the day for
going into committee on this bill. His lordship said
that he had stated on a former occasion that the four
per cents. annuities amounted to something about ten
millions, and that his proposition, though perhaps it
was not considered advantageous to the holders of this
sort of stock, would be found beneficial to the country
at large. The number of dissentients to his proposi-
tion was greater than he had formerly contemplated,
for they amounted to 969, and the amount altogether
of the stock the dissentients held was 4,600,0001. He
was, however, prepared to meet this number of dissen-
tients, and indeed he would say any number of dissen-
tients, no matter how great it might be. He had for-
merly stated the regulations whereby he was to pay the
amount belonging to the dissentients, and he was happy
to say that he could find means of paying them off
without any difficulty. He had nothing more to say
than to propose the following resolution :
" Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee that
the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt be
authorised to pay off the holders of four per cent. annuities
who dissented to the resolution of the 12th May, 1834, and
that they be paid according to the said resolutions on ac-
count of any money in stock, exchequer bills, or on account
of money in banks of savings now in the bank of England,
and that the stock of such holders so redeemed be vested in
the said commissioners."
The resolution was then agreed to.
The house resumed, and the report was ordered to
be received to-morrow (this day).