Star.
London, England, 1821-05-25 00:00:00

was ready to look with lenity von
.thy, occasional
intemperance of a speaker; they were not there to
compliment each other, but to discuss public rhea•
sures; and he would be the last man that would visit
with a harsh comment a momentary excess of that
useful hostility which naturally resulted from oppo-
site opinions in politics; butlte was not acquainted
with any law or usage of respectable society, that
warranted a man in making another the victim of
anonymous attack—(Hear).—He would, therefore,
entreat the Hon. Member, if he had any ground of
charge against him (Sir Charles), to assume the office
of accuser in the proper place—that House ; but, as
long as the Hon. Gentleman contented himself with
the character of an anonymous adversary, so long
would he have the advantage of him (Sir Charles),
for he would declare that he never would descend to
a contention on such terms—( Hear).
Mr.o It EEVEY shortly replied. He contended that
nothing which had fallen on the other side impeached
the validity of the original Acts creating the duties,
and re-asserted, that they formed part of the Public
Revenue, were regularly credited to the Public from
1715 to 1796, at which time they were converted to
pensions, and were prudently deemed by contempo-
rary and subsequent Finance Committees to have
been introduced into the Public. Accounts by mistake,
and that they ought not any longer be considered as
a branch of the Public Revenue.
The House then divided, and the numbers were
For thi! previous question - - 76
Against it - 52
Majority 24
which, of course, disposed of the original motion.

On re•openin the Gallery,
Mr. CREEVEY was moving a Resolution, that the
funds on the 44 per Cent. West India Islands Du-
ties were nearly exhausted, and that a Committee
should be appointed to inquire into the nature and
the application of the Revenue of the other West In-
dia Islands. _ _

The Resolution was negatived without a division.

RIGHT OF VOTING.

Mr. WILLIAMS trusted that lie should meet with
no opposition to the motion he meant to submit to
the House. He only wished that those nho sent
Members to that house should have bona fide votes.
He should move for leave to bring in a Bill to pre-
vent occasional Votes from Freeholds under 40s. in
certain Cities and Boroughs.—Leave given:
Mr. WODEHOUSH obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the Act of the 48th of the late King, relative to Lunatic
Asylums. VAGRANTS.
Mr. CHETWYND lost no time, agreeably to the
instructions of the Committee, to bring in a Bill for ,
the better Apprehension and Punishment of Vagrants.
He stated, to shew the abuse of passes, that a man
with a monkey, had been passed from Yorkshire to
Scotland, the monkey passing under the name of John
Strange! He should propose to suspend, for a year,
the system of passes ; and in the next place, that an
act of vagrancy should be punished by a month's im-
prisonment, and during the time the vagrant should
be kept to hard labour. The third provision was to
abolish the system of rewards ; and the 4th, to enable
Magistrates to bind over constables to prosecute for a
repetition of acts of vagrancy ; the last was the abo-
lition of walking passes. He concluded by moving
for leave to bring in a Bill for the better Apprehen-
sion and Punishment of Vagrants.
Mr. SCARLETT stated, that the Magistrate had
the power of imprisonment for vagrancy, and to pass
the vagrant to his parish at his own expense (the va-
grant's), if he had money, and at the expense of
others, if he had none. He could see no use in pass-
ing a vagrant to his parish in the idea that he would
reform, when the chance of reformation was at least
equally great in the place where he was apprehended.
He should support the Bill.
Mr. F. LEWIS thought the House should turn
their attention to instruct the minds of those by whom
the law would be executed. He was sure that the
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Scarlett) would, by patience
and deliberation, attain his object, by attending to
the sense of the House and the country. He thought
that the Poor Laws, and the Vagrant Laws, should
be considered as part of the same system, in order to
afford an effectual remedy.
Mr. LOCK lIART adverted to the various spe•
cies of vagrancy. He was anxious for some gene-
ral system, that the poor might know the real state
in which they stood. He should not oppose the in-
troduction of the Bill, but the source of the evil
should be looked to, in order to afford a general, and
not a partial remedy.
Mr. CRIPPS said, that the Committee were fully
aware of the connection between the Vagrant and
the Poor Laws. If the Bill of the Learned Gentle-
man should not pass this Session, he trusted the pre-
sent Bill would pass for one year, as a measure of
experiment only.
Mr. MONCK admitted, that it was a principle of
our law that every man was entitled to relief; but it
did not follow that it was indifferent to two parishes
which of them should maintain him. He thought
they ought to consider the existing laws with respect
to the poor, before they made any innovations in them.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY thought they
ought to wait till the Report of the Committee was
before the House.
Mr. HARBORD said it was extremely difficult to
distinguish between mendicants and vagrants, ac-
cording to the old laws. He hoped that Honourable
Gentlemen who would vote for this Bill would also
make it a point to vote for some other arrangements
being Thade for the keeping the vagrants at hard
labour until they cou!d be removed to their parishes.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.
Mr. M. CHOLMONDELEY obtained leave to bring in a
Bill to enable Justices of the Peace to act In distrkts where
they were not resident.

not afford to labour so cheaply. By the press .t sr,
tem, a labourer bad no expectation but a work,„)e's:
If every parish in England were to propose mn y—
for Musicians, who could doubt that we should
week
equal the most celebrated nations in Hump
music?—(/fear, hear).—The present system of ace
Poor Laws equalled this, for tisey offered a prelim.'
for pauperism. Could they,
_ then, too soon put an
end to such a system? They ought root to poor,
vent any man from labouring where he might best
find work ; and therefore he proposed the am
abolition of the law for removing the Poor to their Wt.
dements. lie intended, if the House would alto.
the Bill to go into the Committee, to propose some
amendments in the Law of Settlement, which he
trusted would meet the approbation of all those
who were now disposed to object to the
This measure would be a check upon poor persoii,
entering into improvident marriages, and encumber_
ing themselves ss its families which they intended to
leave to the maintenance of the Parish, and not to
support themselves. He had paid every attention to
the variety of suggestions which had been sent to hies.
None of them were new to him, though almost all of
them were still well worthy the attention of Parlia-
ment. When they continued a system which demo.
ralized the minds of the prior, it was impossible that
the strictest attention to the execution of the ptesert
laws would be productive of any good. The Pariah
of St. James, at Bath, since 1703, had only increased
one-third, and yet the weekly sum was £9l; and is
1805, it was Cal. This was produced by furnishing
the Poor with work, and not suffering them to &hitt
for themselves. The present laws took from the Pox
their morals and their independence. Tne Returns
made by the Parishes (who did make Returns) form
morals, amounted to £300,000 a-year. The system
was vicious and artificial in its origin. He wished the
Bill to be allowed to be read a second time, and that
the Committee should be gone into at an earlier host
than the present, in order to get a fuller discus,icm,
and in order to ensure a larger attendance of the
Members—(fkar, hear).
Sir ROBERT WILSON rose with a perfect seam
of the di ißculty he should find in opposing the ergo.
assents of his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Scarlett),
He knew that the lion. Gentleman was anxious only
for the rights and for the interests of the po e. He
(Sir Robert Wilson) had the same feeling: they agreed
as to the end, but they differed widely as to the
means. Before they consented to abrogate the laws
of Elizabeth—those laws which Blackstone had de.
scribed as founded upon the first principles of ciri-
lized society—before they consented to take the
course, let the House look at the state—the artificial
state—in which, from circumstances, the country we
placed. When labour was, in many places, an un-
marketable drug; when Corn Laws and Excise Lan
prevented the lower orders from obtaining, at a low
price, the necessaries of life; when .the poor were
many of them absolutely unable to obtain a lir&
hood, surely they had a right to look for the means
of existence to those who had the power of affording
them those means ? Let the House beware how they
touched that statute of Elizabeth, which was the
Magna Charta of the poor, and might be called the
palladium of their rights. Men would live; audit was
better that they should live by charity than by rapine.
The statute of Elizabeth provided that the lame, the
blind, and the indigent poor, unable to work, should
have relief in money ; and that all persons, married
or single, who were able to work, should have labour,
and the means of exerting it given to them. That
they must have at present immediate subsistence was
clear. The Hon. and Learned Member indeed seemed
to think that only the sick, the blind, or the impo-
tent, were entitled to relief ; hut how long would it
be before the poor who could work, but were unable
to find work, fell into that situation? Six and thirty
hours would go near to qualify the best man in Enp
land for such a certificate as, even in the Hon. and
Learned Member's view, would entitle 11;m to relict
If a maximum was to be imposed upon the Poor
rates, why not impose one upon the dormant capital,
which in a great measure contributed to throw th
poor out of employ ? In truth, the maximum world
do harm, for it would always be looked upon ass
arinimunt : the scheme had been frequently tried i
other cases, and it had invariably failed. Now, deal
to the Hon. Member's anti-matrimonial and wairpb
pulation scheme. Such a scheme was incompatible
with all the legal, moral, and religious institutiona
the country. flow could the House check marriage by
law, and yet seek to maintain those laws which ren-
dered illicit intercourse a crime ?—(Hear, hear, hear).
Did Honourable Members hope that they could roe-
troul the impulses of nature, and subject human
beings to such unnatural restrictions?—(Hear,
He would not speak of men; but in what situatim
did the House place the female part of the commie
nity ? They were to be shut out from marriage; aoi
they were liable to ruin and disgrace, if not to abso-
lute punishment, for adopting an intermediatecoase
—(Cheers).—They were not to be permitted to nortir
and their illegitimate children, if they had any, Wag
to be starved to death!—(Cheers.)—Would any owe
who had looked into the labourer's cottage say thst
parish relief was a bounty upon Idleness!—that
allowance of a shilling or eighteen pence a•weekki
a man's second or third child was a premium terca
,population?— (Hear hear.)—Even if this anti-pop
lation scheme succeeded, what would be its disc_ t•
Would it not go to increase the very evil of woo
the landlords complained? Farmers said theiredils
were too low. Low prices proved excess of peedoc!s
and were to be removed, not by abatement; but
bI
increase of population. He could not, for his PI;
consent to take away the rights of the poorf7
every other scheme of retrenchment had Wu 701
He Must first see the Barbadoes Fund 2004 s
right use; he must. see retrenchment in the Mink,
the Navy, in the Civil List. If the poor were 4ra
to be touched, let it at least be evident that seem
measure was the result of absolute necessity
Mr. F. LEWIS contended, that the Hou
sedßap
right to alter the Poor Laws, though they Lo.
called the Magna Charta and palladium of SIN
The object of the present Bill was to secure t
Poor any property which they might accumuilbuur
The Act of Elizabeth enacted compulsory :2.k
all its penalties were those of force : let any m
to that Statute, and then say whether he thong
was the palladium of the Poor.
t?
n aftl
Mr. BENNETT said, that after the abolition cr
' •
i;
Monasteries, the Poor were found to be
absolute starvation, and laws were necessary ter