The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-14 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 13.

Mr. GoauoN and others hi ought up the London Police
Bill without amendment, Kentish Town Road Bill, the
Stamp Duty Advertisement Bill, the Lewes Improvement
Bill, and other private Bills.

Earl 13ATIJURST presented a petition from Glouces-
tershire for the abolitio❑ of the house and window tax.

The Earl of RODEN presented a petition from Boyne,
in the diocese of Elphin, against the Irish Church Bill, and
another from Sir Harcourt Lees to the same effect. Also
a petition from the Magistrates of Dublin for the better
observance of the Sabbath ; and from Sligo, for the abo-
lition of slavery.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH said he rose to bring
under the notice of the House one of the grossest
breaches of its privileges that had ever taken place.
It was not his intention to follow up his statement
with a motion; therefore he trusted their Lordships would
grant him their attention for a few moments, even though
it was a personal matter. The paper he had to complain
of was the Dublin Evening Mail, which stated that he
(Lord W.) bad voted on Monday evening against the

Duke of Wellington, and, of course in favour of the
Nlinistry—they said they were unwilling to trust to the
lists that appeared in the newspapers, but if they found
that he (Lord W.) had actually pursue] such trimming
conduct, they would be obliged to claim his Lordship's at-
tention to some very violent letters of his which would show
his conduct in a very peculiar light. They did not like
to see him shifting his politics alternately between Whigism
and Toryism—now a conservative, and anon a rat. Now,
the Noble Earl at the head of the Government might
recollect, that last session some angry discussions took
place in that House respecting Ireland ; he went to that
country and met some of the same way of thinking as him-
self, and be bad written some letters on the subject which
might not be expressed in the most temperate language, but
still he was not afraid of the publication of those letters,
for they contained nothing but what be had stated in
that House ; but it was a most infamous threat to bold
over any one belonging to that House, to say that letters
written to private persons, even though upon public subjects,
should be sent forth to the public. It was very true that
he bad heard the speeches of both the Noble Duke (Wel-
lington) and the Noble Earl (Aberdeen), as well as the
justification of the Noble Earl (Grey), and he certainly
had voted in favour of Don Pedro against Don Miguel
as his conscience dictated, and he would continue to do so
in spite of any threats.

Lord SUFFIELD presented a petition from the female
inhabit ints of Blackburn, for the abolition of slavery.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved that a message
be sent to the House of Commons, requesting a copy of
the report of the Commissioners of the Bank Charter.

The Duke of RICHMOND rose to support the second
reading of the Agricultural Labourers' Rate Bill. That
Bill had passed after some discussion, and the object of
the present Bill was to explain parts of it that were ob.
scure, and to add a penalty clause, the want of which had
been felt in many instances. He should have done ne more
than state in this manner the object of the Bill, but for
the expected opposition of a Right Rev. Prelate, who was
of opinion that a labour rate was contrary to principle,
and that it was impassible to enact a scale of payment
which would do justice to all classes. Though there
might be some truth in this latter remark, yet he must
say that he thought the principle of giving the rate-payers
the means of employing the labourers in their district
must be advantageous. It could not be wrong that they
should have the expenditure of their own money. He
should now refer to some papers which had been moved
for, and were now on their Lordships' table. In doing
so, he did not wish to detract from the merit of those
gentlemen who had undertaken the gratuitous and arduous
duty of inquiring into the poor laws, hut it was impos-
sible to allow their report to pass without calling tbeir
Lordships' attention to those parts which he thought
favourable to his side of the question. He should leave
his opponents to cite those which bore against him. In
the first place, then, they were much struck with the gene-
ral demand for a labour rate. The fact of such a demand
showed the general feeling of the country in its favour.
The next point alluded to by the Commissioners was, that
the lands of the parishes were often only half cultivated
from a deficiency of labour, although there were labourers
in abundance in the parish. Yet they said that the evil
seemed to them, in the first place, unfit for legislative in-
terference, and that it arose either from want of capital, or
a perverseness of disposition. The first, a labour rate
would not amend, and the other might safely be left to
the operation of its own punishment. With this he could
not bring himself to agree. They next remarked that it
was an evil that those labourers, who, if employed by the
rate payers, would at least earn half their subsistence, were
now wholly kept in idleness. How did they answer that?
Why, they admitted that in many cases where the rate-
payers had agreed to divide among themselves the surplus
labour of the parish, great advantages had arisen ; an ad-
mission which overthrew one of their former objections.
Then, as to the legislative interference. In the labour
rate agreement made at Fulver, in Sussex, the clergyman
was rated much too high, name'y—at 35 labourers, and
they said, that against such a system of fraud and in-
justice, they must protest. But hie answer was, that that
agreement was never carried into execution. It was taken
to the Petty Sessions, and there rescinded. He bad re-
ceived letters from different parts of the country—.frets
parts where the experiment had been tried. The first of
these was from a Magistrate of a parish in Sussex. The letter
stated, that in that parish there had been 32 men who
had been employed upon the roads before the labour rate
was adopted ; that they had been idle and discontented,
but since that rate hail been adopted, only two had
been so employed ; that no complaints were now heard
either from the overseer or the men, and a saving of 500/.
had been effected. The next letter, from a different
parish, stated that the saving effected had equalled the
sum of 6001., and that the state of affairs, since the
adoption of the labour rate, had been most satisfactory.
The third letter was from Walham, from Sir T. Shelley,
an active magistrate, who stated that the Bill had per-
fectly succeeded in that parish, and that the consequence
of it was, that no labourer was out of work during the
whole of the winter. In West Grinstead, the system
was stated to have answered the expectations of its most
ardent well-wishers. In Chichester, the report was that
the people felt convinced that this Act would do great
good; and that, unless something of the kind had been
done, they should have been ruined by their poor. ' From
a parish in Suffolk, the report sent up was, that by the
operation of the labour rate a sum of one hundred pounds
had been saved in a few weeks. From another place in
the same county, it was stated that, after the experience
they had had of it, they could not speak too highly of
the labour rate. From Potten Island word was sent that
the Bill, so far as they had seen its operari ea, had given
universal satisfaction. Fron► Molton the account was,
that only one half the amount of expenditure was required
in February and March, that had been required in De-
cember and January, and yet that the labourers were in a
better condition. The same was stated to have been the
effect in other parishes, although, from the unfortunate
state of the weather, as it regarded agricultural employ-
ment, the labourer would otherwise bevesheen quite desti-
tute. From Buckinghamshire the report was, that it had
done great good, and that it had tended to unite those
classes who had too long been severed from each other.
From Hampshire, Sir. Reader, an active magistrate, sent
word that it h td acted most beneficially—that it had kept
down the poor rates—that the men were employed—and
that the poor men had been prevented from clubbing their
discontents, and hatching mischiefs. From Hampden the
report had been most favourable; and from Farnham the
statement made was, that in the winter of 11331-1832,
196 men had been upon the parish ; but that in February,
1833, there were only 12—that a saving of &IL had been
made in eight weeks—that there had bee❑ no fires, no de-
predations, no disturbances. At Marlow, 80, nay, he
might say 100, labourers had been taken from the poor
rates ; and from Enfield he had evidence of its great
utility. In Surrey he had the authority of Mr. Hohne
Sumner for saying, that in many parts it had produced
the most advantageous results; and in the report of the
Poor Law Commissioners, who visited Warburton, great
benefits were attributed to its operation. Their Lord-
ships would see, from these testimonials, that not only
in every instance had the Act reduced the poor rates,
but it had done more—it had effected an object of much
higher importance in finding constant employment at a
fair rate of wages, for large bodies of labourers.—
(The Noble Duke here read an extract from " An Appeal
to the Justice of his Country, by one of those tried for
Machine-breaking at Salisbury, in 1331," in ohich the
unfortunate man stated that he was brought to his un-
happy situation from no fault originally of his own, but
from an impossibility under the system pursued in agri-
cultural districts, of earning fair wages.) It was for
these reasons, continued the Noble Duke, and having
proved by the evidence he had read the great benefits
which the Bill had conferred, that he had taken the liberty
of calling the attention of the House to it. He hoped
he should not be misunderstood. He did not propose it
as a cure for all evils under which the agricultural popu-
lation was suffering, nor as a remedy for those produced
by the maladministration of the poor laws. He brought
it forward as a temporary measure, and as a palliative for
present evils, till a more permanent amelioration could
be decided on. He would express an earnest hope that
their Lordships would permit it to be read a second time.
The Bishop of LONDON felt himself bound to oppose
this measure—first, as a member of the Poor Law Com-
mission, and in the next place, as the protector of an
order of men for whose benefit this measure was kindly
intended, but whose ruin, in his opinion, it would ulti-
mately prove. Indeed he would not have come forward,
if he were not satisfied the measure would prove down-
right ruinous to those very parties whose privations
it was hoped to diminish. With respect to the
document frost] which quotations had been read, he did
not think the Noble Duke Irel treated the Poor Law
Commissioners very fairly. The Noble Duke read cer-
tain portions of the Commissioners' answer to the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, in favour of a certain kind of
rate; but he passed over those which told against the
present one. The Commissioners said there were many
places where a labour rate would prove highly beneficial,
when it was founded on just and tolerable principles.
Why be himself knew of an instance (at Pulverborough,
as we understood the Right Rev. Prelate), where the
labour rate o❑ the incumbent automated to 9001. per an-
num, the living producing but 1,000/. A Bill of a similar
kind to this had been introduced by a Noble Lord oppo-
site some time back, on the discussion of which some

remarks were made so pertinent, that the extracts not
being very long, he should trouble their Lordships with
!hem. (These extracts strongly denounced the proposed
Bill as putting the provident and improvident man—the
cane who thought of his family, and the other who only
thought of the beer shop—on the same footing.) These
remarks, continued the Right Rev. Prelate, were uttered
on the occasion alluded to by no other than the Noble
Duke, the proposer of the present measure —(Hear.)
Another Noble Lord, now the President of the Council,
bad also most emphatically, and with his usual ability,
denounced that Bill. The fact was, that the principle of
the Bill was radically bad, inasmuch as it led to the belief
that all must be provided for. however idle, reckless, or
undeerviog. The Noble Duke contended that the pre.
sent Bill would binder eat ly and improvident marriages,
but from that opinion he entirely dissented. In his view
of things, they ought never to relieve one class of
society at the expense of another. Another evil that he
saw in this measure was, that all property was rated
alike, whether arable or pasture. It was most unfair to
rate tithes on the same scale with other things; indeed,
they ought not in any case to be rated with agricultural
property. Mr. Lowman, in his admirable work lately
published, had clearly shown the injustice of this mode of
rating. In fact, as far as the clergy were concerned, he could
prove by. letters that if the measure were carried, it would
have the effect of depriving them of the means of exist-
ence. There was another point to which the Noble Duke
had not adverted, namely, that by the operation of the Bill,
the circulation of labour would be completely dammed up.
In many parishes (he himself had known instances of the
case) farmers would be compelled immediately to dismiss
their best labourers, because they did not belong to the
parish. The Right Rev. Prelate proceeded to read the
report of one of the assistant Commissioners, to show the
evils which resulted from the false principle of the poor
laws, that every man who wanted relief was entitled to it,
simply because he wanted it, and without reference to
other considerations. He opposed the Bill also on the
ground that (as indeed he had incidentally shown in what
he had taken the liberty of stating to their Lordships) it
would be injurious to the labourers themselves—to their
character, their comfort, and their happiness. In his
opinion the best course their Lordships could pursue, would
be to throw the Bill out, with a view, if any measure on
the subject were immediately necessary (which, however,
was not his opinion), to the introduction of a new Bill.
Under all these circumstances, he would move, as an
amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day
three months.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE assented to every one
of the principles laid down by the Right Rev. Prelate;
and continued to entertain every opinion which he had
formerly expressed, when a Bill proposed by a Noble Earl
opposite was under consideration, for which Bill his Noble
Friend's Bill was tendered as a substitute, and passed.
Nevertheless, he was desirous that the present Bill should
go into a Committee, as a temporary measure only; with
this knowledge and avowal, that, great as was the ne-
cessity for a remedy in the administration of the poor
laws, the present was not the moment in which to pro-
pose a remedy, or to endeavour to sweep away all the
existing abuses. Every mode ought to be adopted which
it was possible to adopt, to maintain the character of the
labourer, and to keep him in a state of comparative inde-
pendence; and that was the object of the present Bill,
and in so far as it was much preferable to the system, which
in many parts of the country, and especially in the West of
England, exposed the labourer to a degradation which
would unfit him for any future improvement. It was
undoubtedly true that the Bill might be liable to abuse,
hut it might undergo correction in the Committee. What
it principally did, was to enlarge the power of the parishes
to employ the funds which might be raised. It did not
give power to raise any new sum; but it merely divested
the existing system of some of its vices, until their Lord-
ships felt themselves in a situation to adopt some more
extensive measure.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA trusted that their Lord-
ships would agree to his Noble Friend's Bill, unless they
were prepared to pass some other measure for the purpose
of preventing those demoralizing effects which that Bill
was calculated to diminish. It had been already stated
by his Noble Friend and himself, that the Bill was only
temporary. As to the administration of the Bill, he
(Lord Winchilsea) had had experience of it in several
parishes, and it appeared to be fairly administered.
The Marquis of SALISBURY objected to a measure
which would give to any individual the power of imposing
such a ra'e.

The Bishop of BATH awl WELLS was afraid that
the Bill gave too much power to the rate-payers. He
would not oppose the second reading, because the defects
might be corrected in the Committee.
The Earl of STRADRROKE should vote for the second
reading.
The Marquis of BUTE was opposed to the principle of
the Bill, but he should offer no opposition to the second
reading.
Lord WYNFORD concurred in the views of the Right
Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London), and he was of opi-
nion that the Bill would be mischievous in its operation,
and most unjust to the clergy.
The Duke of RICHMOND replied.
The Bishop of LONDON withdrew his amendment.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed.—Adjourned.