The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-09 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The balloting for Committees on two Election
Petitions, the one complaining of an undue return
for the County of Warwick, and the other for the
Borough of Aid borough, occupied the House un-
til five o'clock, before which time strangers were
of course not admitted.
On the motion of Mr. DENISON, the Petition of the Fish-
mongers',Compvny against the Newington Select Vestry Bill,
was ordered to be referred to the Committee on the said Bill.
STATE OF EUROPE.

Mr. C. HUTCHINSON gave notice, that he would on Fri-
day next call the attention of the House to sonic expressions
which had fallen from the Noble Lord opposite (Londonderry),
previously to the House going into the Committee of Supply,
and would submit a motion on the subject and relative to the
present state of Europe, with a view to having those expressions
recorded on the Journals.

• Mr. C. DUNDAS gave notice that he would this day move
for leave to king in a still to amend the Act relative to the dis-
posal of certain Workhouses. • _
Sir G. WARRENDER presented_ two petitions from Land-
owners, and other Inhabitants, of Dumfriesshire, against the
Scotch Juries Bill. , • _

After a short conversation on the subject, between Sir R.
Fergusson, Sir G. Clerk, Mr. Abercrombie, Sir G. Warrender,
and the Lord Advocate, they were ordered to lie on the table.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.

- Mr. Dyson brought up the reduced List of the Committee to
try the County of Warwick Election Petition, the names of
which were read, and the Members sworn, as follows :
Lord J. Townshend Sir J.Vorke
Hon. C. Lowther Lord Vis. B. de Tregony
'Wm. Crossett, Esq. J. Ramsbottom, Esq.
Sir M. Chuhneley R. 13. Cooper, Esq.
Marquess of Titchfield W. H. Seourfield, Esq.
(4. W. Taylor, Esq. Sir J. Mackintosh
Joseph Pitt, Esq.
,T. F, Lewis, Esq.
Sir C. Ilulse
The Reduced List of the CM'
Borough of Aldborough was th,
Lows

mniittee. on the Petition for the
Len brought up, and read as fol-

W. W. Whithiore, Esq.
H. Dawkins, Esq.
J. F. Palmer; Esq.
J. Cripps, Esq. .
E. J. Littlam), Esq.
Wm. Ileygate, -Esq.
J. Bror.ne, Esq.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

W. C. Paxton, Esq,
T. 11. Davies, Esq.
S. Scott, Esq.
J. 11. Leigh, Esq.
J. Calcraft, Esq.
J. llaine, Esq. '

Mr. BgNNET said, it was with :considerable re-
luctance he' pressed himself upon the attention of
the House, but he should conceive himself un-
worthy to sit in it if he did not notice a para-
graph which appeared last Sunday in a News-.
paper called JolzU Bull. it would be in the re-
collection of the House, that on Friday last he
disclaimed the accuracy of a report of speech
which had appeared in some of the Public Prints
on a former debate, wherein mention was made of
the Office of Lord President of Scotland. On
being informed that an erroneous report of what
he had stated had gone abroad, he, in common
courtesy, corrected the mistake the moment he
heard that the inaccuracy of the Newspapers in
this respect had occasioned some pain to the feel-
ings of an individual. In Saturday's Courier, an
Advertisement appeared, and as it was a sub-
stantial, though not a literal report of his expla-
nation, he did not complain of it. Ile now came
to the paper in question, John Bull. This Paper
contained a paragraph, headed " The Lord Pre-
sident, and Mr. 11. Grey Bennet ;" and after
copying the Advertisement from the Courier of
Friday, made the following remark :—" The
truth of the above matter is this. The Lord
President has a son, a Gentleman of high honour
and courage, who, hearing that his father
had been reflected upon: in a speech of
Mr. Bennett, put himself into the Edinburgh
mail and came up to . London. On his
arrival, he, through Mr. M'Konzie, sent
message to Mr. Bennet, and was by him referred
to that general voucher for the whole party, Sir
It. I;.'ergusson.—(A laugh.)—The result was, as
usual, an apology, which, according to a previous,
agreement, was made by Mr. Bennet in his place
in the House on Friday last ; but in so low a
tone of voice, that had it not been for the kind-
ness of 71/2e Courier the public would not have
known it, as Mr. B. was inaudible in the gal-
lery."—This paragraph charged a Member of
the House with having uttered an untruth ; and•
with having compromised his honour to save him-
self from respricsibility. The whole passage indeed
was most offensive, .and. if lie were capable of
acting in the way imputed to him, he would 'be
unworthy not only of a seat in that -House, but
of the society of Gentlemen. It was not his
wish to wage war against this Paper, but he
wanted to find out the Author of the paragraph.
--(Hear, hear !)—lie wanted to find out who
was at the bottom of the paper.--(Cheers.)-11.0
never had any wish to withdraw himself from the
correction of the press. It kept that House
under controul, and 'preserved the standard of
high honour among its Members. Oar follies

PRICE SEVENPENCE

and their crimes were exposed by the pres and.
God forbid he .hould regret it was so. But
there could be. no greater abuse of the press, than
to charge a Member of that House with having
compromised his houour. At present he shohld
,move that the Paper in question' do lie ort the
table, and that the paragraph he hatFalktded to
should be read. by Ole Clerk.—This was done
accordingly. •

Mr. BIN-NET then moved, that the said para-
graph should be declared a false and scandalous
libel, and a breach of the privileges of that
House.

Mr. MACKENiTE said, that as his name had
been alluded to, he thought it his duty to rise, not
indeed to corroborate the statement of the lion.
Member, for nothinz front him could ever re-:
quire corroboration, bet to declare that the para-
graph was in every resp'ct false and malicious.--
(hear, hear Men-Ayer -for Shrews-
bury had never made any apology, because he
had tiever said any thing which required an apo-
logy., Certain word's used by that Hon. Member
had been inaccurately reported, and the moment
the Hon. Member heard that that itiaccuttaCy had
given pain to the feelings of an individual, he, in
the most liberal. and handsome manner, corrected
the error.7—(Hear, hear !)—Nothing throughout
could possibly be more deserving of praise than
the conduct of the Hon. Member, and the para-
graph altogether was false, wicked, and mali-
cious.—(Cheers.)

The Marquess. of LONDONDERRY said, there
could be no doubt the paragraph was a gross
libel. It gave an explanation the character Of
an apology. 'lie therefore thought the matter
highly fit .for the consideration of the llouse.

The Motion was then carried unanimously,
and 111.7 N. Wearer, the printer of the paper, -as
ordered' to attend at the Bar' to-morrow.

THE SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL.

Mr. 'LENNARD rose, pursuant Co his notice, to
move for the, repeal of. the. Act of the 60th-of.
Geo. HI. relative to. Seditious Meetings,: &C.—
The-Hon. Member entered into a review of the
character of this measure, and the circumstances
under which it was passed. It was a measure
adopted by Government, and by the' House,
during a period of alarm and domestic agitation ;
which, thank .God ! no longer existed in this
country. And whatever, might have been the
necessity which called for the enactment•of mea-
sures So destructive of our liberties and the spirit
of- the Constitution, that necessity no longer 're-
mained; and these' Acts ought to expire. The
dearest rights of Englishmen were destroyed by
the operation' of this Law. _ Public Meetings
were interfered with, and the only constitutional
mode which the people had of expressing -their
opinions on the conduct of their 'Representatives
-.was-taken away. if these Bills were 'to lie con-_
tinued in operation, he was convinced much of
the energy and force of the country would be
destroyed, and the spirit of the • people done
away. By. the measure then adopted, the free-
dom of the Press, the best guardian- of the peo-
ple's liberties, was done away, and every pos-
sible faility. was given -to the establishment of
arbitrary power. The people were now quiet
and tranquil ; ,no one would venture.to deny that
position, and the occasion on which this attainder
of the• people's rights had been founded, having
pasted away, he trusted the attainderiwould be
reversed. Ile might be told that these Bills
-would expire in a few years, if the conduct of
the
.people should appear to deserie it ; 'but he
could not consent to have the restoration of our
liberties deferred for a moment. It was now
near two years since .a new.and arbitrary !node
of punishment for political libel had been intro-
duced into our code butsuch-had been the effect
produced on the spirit of the people, such the
apathy caused by this suspension of public liberty,
that not a single remonstrance had been made on.
'the subject. The people had ceased to regard.
the House as their Constitutional Guardians,, and.
paid no attention to their proceedings. The
second Act to which he had alluded, the- Libel
Act, .introduced a most severe and arbitrary
punishment for a Libel, which neither Judges
nor Lawyers could define correctly. He would
not trouble the House with any remarks-•dir the
• Law of Libel. But he saw nothing to negative
the proposition, that Judges in time future, might
be as cruel as in times past, and what an instru-
ment did such an Act put into the hands of: such
Judges Suppose an Hon. Baronet (Sir F.
dett), might by a legal finesse be tried for pub-
lishing a libel on Ministers, he should tremble
for the result; especially considering the conduct
that some Judges had adopted. It might be said,
there had been no restrictions on the press ; but
if so, that had arisen from the independence 'of
Juries:. He would say, that the expression' of
.public opinion Lad been less free since the publi-;
cation of these Acts. Though no inconvenience
might have arisen from the Acts hitherto, it did
not follow that the case would be the same in the
time to come. If to meet, was the right of the
people, in proportion as that right was circuin-
scribed, their liberty was diminished. He was
aware he had been but a feeble advocate of a
good cause ; and it might also he - thoUght that
the time had not been judiciously chosen. But
the earlier the resistance, it 'was the better ;- and.
should he fail now, he should bring it regularly
before the House till the subject should fall into
abler hands., If the affairs of the country should.
he deemed by any to be better managed under
system of coercion, he was not one of those.-,---
The lion. Member concluded by moving -.for
leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the 60th George
c. 6, - forfiliej more effectual prevention of
Seditious Meetings. •

Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW, notwithstanding_ She

2-IXlity which -had been manifested by the Hon.
Memter, denied that any sufficient grounds had
.been laid for the motion. No man could object
more than himself to any measures unnecessarily
hostile to the liberties of the people-, bit it was
Ijis firm opinion that at the time when theSe Bills
-were enacted there was great danger, against
17-hich it behoved the Legislature to guard. He
regretted the introduction by the lion. Member
of one topic—he meant the conduct of one of the
Judges of the- Court of King's Bench. Twice
had the subject been mentioned in that House.
f tfat individual's conduct was considered re-
yrkfiensible, let a charge be made in a fair and
-mthly way, and he was sure no one would more
readily meet it. He had long known that
Nidual, and he would say, that he. had never
known -a man of more tender mind or less-dis-
posed to harshness as a Judge. The only fault
-which he found with that Learned Judge,•on the
-occasion alluded to by the' Honourable Gen-
tleman, was, that he took off all the fines
'which lie had impOsed. He firmly believed
-that if he had not remitted those fines-no corn-
,claint wonlxl have been made against him. he
Jicnourable and Learned Gentleman proceeded
'to argue that the Bills in -question were indis-
pensibte at the time they were passed, and to
defend the honourable Magistracy of the Country
'from the assertion of the Honourable Gentleman,
'that they were subservient to the will of Minis-
,
The Hon. Member had adverted to the
-motion made by Mr. Fox in 1797, for repealing
the Act of -1796. Without meaning any disre-
spect- to the Hon. Gentleman, he must say, that
if Mr. Fox in 1797 could not convince the 1-louse
of Commons of that day that the Bill of 1.796
ought to be repealed, he doubted whether the
Ron. Gentleman would be able to persuade the
present House of Commons to repeal the Bills of
1-8-19. After urging a variety of arguments in
-hostility to the proposition, the Hon. and Learn-
ed .Gentleman concluded by moving the previous

question.
Mr. DENMAN said, that if the Constitution was
not sufficient for its own support, our ancestors
had been strangely mistaken. Ile could not
conceive how any Gentlemen who thought the
Meeting at Manchester had been 'legally dis-
persed, could be advocates fox the new Acts
as the same means there employed could -be
made use of on similar occasions ; nay more, the
Assemblers of the Meeting had been punished
by the old and Common Law of the land. lie
knew of no instance in wf►ich this new enactment
'had been brought into use. All the convictions
had taken place under the ancient law. It was
for those who encroached on the Rights of the
People to shew the necessity of the continuance,
of such encroachments. If the cause had ceased,
then the enactments ought to be repealed. By
the law in question, the Right of Petitioning had
been materially. obstructed ; and the country had
been divided into departmental districts.—
But t►►at law had never been carried into effect,and
no advantage had been taken of that clause, by
those who might wish to defeat the operation
csf the Act, than which he conceived nothing
could have been more easy. Nothing could be
,more difficult to define than a blasphemous libel ;
As appeared from the fact that one Jury had ac-
qu:tted Mr. Hone, whilst others had convicted
persons in exactly the same circumstances.
Nothing could be rnore vague than the language,
" Words tending to bring the Government into
contempt." The Law had been passed on false
-and fraudulent assertions, and no reason had been
assigned for its continuance now. Individuals
had heen convicted of going armed in the night,
but the convictions had been made under the old
Law. The Acts in question had arisen from that
love of legislation, which was so conspicuous in
the enactment; of the late reign.

Mr. llwrcniN-soN complimented the Hon.
.Mover on the talents he had displayed in bring-
ing the subject before the House. He did not
admit, that at the time a sufficiently strong case
had been made out; but there could he no doubt
the state of the country was totally different now.
Could any part of England or Scotland be proved
now to be in a state of disturbance ? From the
statement of the Noble Lord, as to the tranquil-
lity of Ireland, he had thought that country
Heald have been exempted from. the operation of
the Acts. The motion should have his cordial
support.—Mr. Serjeant ONsLow explained.
_Mr. MAXWELL said, that in the Ciiunty he re-
presented much alarm had been excited by pub-
lic Meetings, held for no rational object of poll-
itical discussion. He should vote for the repeal
-of the Act that went to restrain the liberty of the
press ; though, from a regard to consistency, he
could not vote for this motion.
Mr. ARERCROMIE had been one of those who
.had voted for the .Bill passing into a law, as he
thought the right of petitioning had been much
.abused. He also thought that the Meeting was
• illegal at Manchester; But he had voted for the
'Bill as a temporary measure, and the necessity
for it had now wholly ceased. Though some
Sheriffs had act4d. with much propriety, yet
others had acted with much caprice. The Meet-
ings held at the time were wholly unfit for all
rational discussion. But the state of the country
',was then different; and if -pressed, he must con-
,cur in the motion. At the same time-he could have
'wished that it had not been made. As there was
but little hope that the motion would be carried,
lie was afraid that the decision of the house
would be afterwards turned into an argument for
the continuance of the Acts in a time of tranquillity.

Mr. LENNART) replied. He complained of tile
indifference with which Ministers regarded the
question, whether or not the people should be
restored to their political rights, and declared his
intention of taking the sense of the House on the

question.
Sir J. NEWPORT spoke in favour of the motion.
Me 'should vote for it, as he saw no occasion for
-the continuance of the Bill ; and 'whatever the
-original merits of the measure (into which he
would not enter) might have been, he was of
opinion that it ought now to be repealed.—The
Mouse theirdivided—

For the motion - - - - - 68
Against it - - - - - 89
Majority -- - - - -—2 l
On our return to the gallery we found Mr.
DEZ7III AN on his -legs, :arguing-again6t the .severity

or the law for the 1-,,,l:iishalent of political libels.
It was a horrid and barbarous law. He con-
tended that the old statutes were qulte sufficient
for every purpose. It had lately come' out, on
many occasions, that the worst and most scanda-
lons libels had been published by the spies and
vmissaries of- Government.—(hear, hear !)—The
House again divided—

For. tilb Motion
-Against it
Majority -
POOR LAWS

- -
88

On our re-admission to the Gallery some con-
versation arose between Mr. IVEs'rEalt and the
Marquess of-LONDONDERRY as to the postpone-
ment of this question to some other night. •
Mr. Sean.Ltrr expressed Himself willing to
comply .with the wishes
.of the House.
The cries of " Go on! go on !" then became
pretty general upon which
Mr. SCARLETT rose, to call the attention of the
House to a subject of the greatest importance,
and lie did so-in the hope that it-would meet all
that serious consideration which it deserved. In
moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the
Poor Laws, he was _not unconscious of his own
inability to place this question before the House
in that clear and perspicuous light which
was, so. desirable ; yet, at the same time, he
would say, that he had endeavoured, so far
as he could, .to make himself acquainted - with
its merits. He was aware that it should be
considered in all its bearings; and it was one
which
_was well' worthy the attention of a
liberal and enlightened Government. Indeed,
had he any expectation that the, question would
-be brought for Ward under the sanction of Govern-
ment, he should himself have abstained from
Making any :motion with respect to it; and he
-wool() further add, that if he thought it would
be taken up by any of those Gentlemen who bad
sat upon the Committee; and whose Report was
so very valuable, from the information it contain-
ed, he would have declined the duty that now de-
volved upon him. However, as he understood
from,some of those Gentlemen, that they did not
intend introducing, any motion on the subject, he
ventured to do so from a thorough conviction, that
in the existing state of things something ought to
be done.--(H ear, hear.!)—lle was quite certain
that nothing he
_could say could serve as an
additional recommendation to the import-
ance of those matters, which formed the
basis of his motion, and to which, for many
years past, he had given the 'fullest consideration.
He ' regretted, however, that at -the time he
framed the Bill which he had to propose, he had
not had an opportunity of availing himself of the
valuable inforthation contained in the Report of
the Committee. Yet, in the view he had' taken
of the question, he was fully borne out and- con-
firmed by that Report. The great evil he be-
lieved to be this : that by the established law,
as it now existed, an unlimited provision was
made for the poor.—(Hear, hear !)—The effect
of this must be, reasoning a priori, that if the
provision was unlimited, it must operate as a pre-
mium on poverty, licentiousness, immorality, and
crime.—(Hear, hear !)—The constitution of na-
ture was, that man should earn his bread by
labour, and .nothing was more hostile to that
principle than. to depreciate labour and profit.—
The effect, however, of the Poor Laws was
to do this ; it gave a- man a remedy for
all the inconveniences produced by his own
vices or imprudence ; it lessened him in
his own estimation,. and made him a degraded
being. In ,fact, the tendency of those laws
was to injure and debase the whole mass of the
labouring population.—(Hear, hear.)—The evil
was enormous, and the population -would soon
become so great, that if the Poor Rates should
increase in proportion, the farmer, after having
expended his capital, would no longer be able to
cultivate the soil.—(Hear.)—From the result of
the inquiries made by the Committee, it. appeared
that the mode of relief was not considered as a
charity, IV as a right; it was administered with-
out compassion, and received without gratitude.
(Cries of Hear, hear.)—The consequence was
'that all- the finer charities of social life were lost
in a revolting principle, which went to separate
the poor from,- their natural dependence upon
the rich. It -was a principle of exaction which
left no scope for the heart to expand itself on its
finer feelings.- (Ilear.)L--Unless some check
was speedily put to the evil, the landlord and
the pauper --would equally be left without the
means of subsistence - He should now beg leave-,
to advert to the-increase of the Poor Rate for a
certain number of years. In the years 1748,
1749, and 1750, the sums paid to the support of
the Poor amounted to 689,9711..; iu the course
of twenty-six years it had increased to 1,530,8011.
H4n 1783 it was 2,437,000/. In 1803 " it was
,206,963/. showing an increase in a few years of
2,200,0001. It had increased one-half -in thirteen
years, one-half in ten years, and one-half in five
years ; and in. 1815 the whole sum was 6,149,314/.
It would be seen from the Report of the-Com-
mittee, that in the parish of Nantwich, in Che-
shire, there was a considerable difference between
the amount of the Piior Rates from 1781 to 1815.
In 1815 there were 504 in-paupers ; in 1781
there were 90. And the difference in the out-
paupers in those years was 15 to 42. In 1781
there were 6 bastardA in the parish, now there
were 37, though the price of wages was so much
higher at present than in that year. The Ho-
nourable and Learned Member then read an
extract from the Report of the Committee,
which stated that the poor had become ut-
terly regardless of provident economy, in- con-
sequence Of depending on parochial relief.—
The first remedy that suggested itself was to
take away the cause Of the evil ; and he should
therefore propose to limit the provision. He
thought that a fair maximum. might be fixed ac-
cording to the rates as they existed last year,
when they were not at The highest pitch, yet
nearly so. lIiS first measure was, that it should
not be 'lawful to assess any parish at a higher
rate than it was assessed on the 25th day of
March, 1821. The Honourable and Learned
Member then 'commented generally -on the in-
calculable abuses. Which.• must result from an
unlimited provision, which, he contended, was
, quite contrary to the principles of the statute
of Elizaboll; - The Honourable -and Lea-rued

Gentleman then stated the second tteastrc which
he had in view, which was_ to order that no
Overseer or Justice of ibe Peace should, in fu-
ture, administer relief to any. single or unmarried
persOn, except the old, the infirm, and those who
were incapacitated from labour. This would
bring back the system of the Poor Laws to the
object for which it was origivally,'qtablishod.
This third measure-wOuld, he believed, excite a
greater variety of opinion than either of the two
former. The House knew that by the 13th and
14th of Charles 11. Justices of the Peace were
authorised to remove paupers from the parishes
to which they did not belong, or where they had
not resided for forty days. This was one of the
most oppressive laws 'that ever existed in any
code. It made poverty a crime, and punished
it by exile and imprisonment,—(Hear, bear !)
Since the statute of Charles 11., several statutes
had since been made to modify.its severity. The
wisest way, in his opinion, would be to repeal it.
Dr. Borne very justly remarks, that it produced
more litigation than any other law whatever that
was, passed since Magna Charta. He proposed
that it should be made unlawful for Justices
of Peace, or any other authorities, to remove
the poor. In order to show what the effect of
the present law, if strictly enforced, would
be, he referred to the state of the poor in Man-
chester, which he took for example. There the
number of Llbouring personS was well known to
be very large, ,and yet there was not a town in
England where the poor rates were so moderate.
The highest rate of the town had been Ss. 6d., it
was now only 4s. 6d. in the pound. Suppose a
number of pool. labourers, in a time of depression
and want of employment in Manchester,. were
sent away from that tOwn to their own parishes,
what would be the result? .„Why they might be
sent to a distant parish, wli4-e•-iao employment
could possibly be found for which Chey had been
fitted. If any parish was to support such per-
sons at all, it was surely most reasonable that
that parish should do so which had been most en-
riched by their labours. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman went into minute details, to show the
expences and inconvenience of the removal of
paupers; and after recapitulating the measures
which he had in view, he concluded with moving
for leave to bring in a Bill to Amend the Laws
relating to the Relief of the Poor in England.—
The Hon. and Learned 'Gentleman sat down
amid loud cheers from both sides.

Lord LONDONDERRY expressed his thanks to
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman for bringing
forward this measure. lle hoped he should not
be considered as wanting in feeling if he should
offer no opinion on the principles of that measure
at present. When the Bill was printed, and in
the hands of the House, they would all be able
to consider it in its details, and he would assure
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that he would
give it the most serious attention.
Sir R. WILSON said, that the best way of re-
lieving the poor effectually, as well as to diminish
the discontent which followed poverty, was to
reduce the taxes. He maintained the doctrine,
that the poor had a right to the relief which they
received, and he was apprehensive that this mea-
sure would affect that right and destroy the civil
rights and independence of the lower classes.
Mr. CALCaAFT was not sanguine in expect-
ing that much benefit could he derived from his
Hon. and Learned Friend's measure. Unless
the price of labour rose, it would be impossible
to keep the Poor Rates down. With respect to
settlements, he admitted they were productive
of difficulties and litiaations. This part of
the measure would, he feared, meet with
much opposition from the country. He did
not look at the increase of the Poor Rates
in the desponding way in which many persons
did. The people of this country were naturally
industrious ; the same desponding prophecies
were uttered in the middle of the last century,
which they had heard in this, and yet within the
last fifty years the wealth and the energy of the
country, in arts and in arms, -had increased be-
yond any former, proportion.
Mr. S. BOURNE was glad that this subject had
been taken up by so excellent a workman as the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman ;- and he concurred
in the great principles laid down by him. The
proposed system had been fully tried, and found
to succeed in the Isle-of Wight. The establish-
ment of Select Vestries had materially reduced
the rates wherever
.they had been formed, though
that system had been resisted in some parts of
the kingdom. As to the second Bill, he thought
it would correct all the evils of the Poor Laws ;
because the poor were indifferent whether they
were maintained by a master or by the parish.
He should give every assistance to his Hon. and
Learned Friend.

Mr. MoNcK made some observations on the
present state of the Poor Laws. While:the House
deprecated in.its,lauguage the Spencean system;
it acted upon that system in enacting laws which,
in his opinion, legalizbd the Spencean system, and
gave it almost universal operation. lie would,
therefore, be happy to support this measure, if,
upon considering it, he should find that it tend-
ed to lessen the injurious effects of the present
laws.

Mr. MANSFIELD deprecated the establishment
of a maximum of Poor Rates. In his opinion it
would be unwise to fix a rate beyond which the
assessment could not-go, even in a moment of
urgent distress.

Mr. Puu.r.res made a few observations on the
injurious operation of the Poor Laws, as they
now stood, and expressed his disposition to sup-
port this measure.
Mr. RICARDO contended that it was taxation
which Principally oppressed the poor. The la-
bourers were poor, because the supply- of labour
was greater than the demand, and the taxes les-
sened the power of the rich to increase that
demand.

Mr. M. A. TAYLOR was inclined to give his
support to this measure. Ile sa;d that one of
the most oppressive parts of the Poor Laws was
the system of settlements.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
Mr. SCA/RLETT then brought in his Bill, ,and
said that nothing could be more dangerous than
to inculcate on the poor of this country that
they . had a natural right to relief froth the

'bear would under-
take to convince the Gallant General behind
him, or any other Member, who had an atom
of mind about him, that the doctrine was
as false as it was dangerous. The assertion, that
this measure would go to affect the civil inde-
pendate and rightsi,of the-poorcould not4yive
bee wades ax,Oed, t,oititii:„statement, 4mit s'
total misunderstanding of every part of ie.,
his measure had any such tendency in the slightest
possible degree, he would be the last man in the
House to oppose it.—(Hear, hear I)—lie took
this opportunity of adding an argument in favour
of his measure-which he had omitted. it was
this, that the very existence of a compulsory pro-
vision• for the poor bad a tendency to les-s.en the
wages of the poor.—L(Hear, hear !) . .
The Bill was read a first tirrie, and ordered to
be read a second time on the `4th, and to be
printed.