Star.
London, England, 1821-05-09 00:00:00

inconvenience bad never been regarded as a proper
ground for the repeal of a law. Did the Honourable
Gentleman mean to represent the Justices of the Peace
as mere tools in the hands of the Crown? Was that .
a correct account of the Honourable Magistracy of
the country ?—(Hear, hear.)—lf Mr. Fox could not
convince the Parliament of 1797, he had very great I
doubt if the Hon. Member would convince the Par- I
lfament of the present day—(Hear, and a laugh).—
He believed that the state of the country had been
more alarming in 1819 than it had been in 1797.
The Ilonourable Gentleman seemed to have taken a
very narrow view of the subject, when he described
banishment as a new punishment ; k was, in fact,
well known to the law of the land. He should not
mevc the previous question, as he thought that the
motion should not have been made at all, but give
it a direct negative.
Mr. DENNIAN said, that if the Constitution was
not sufficient for its own support, our ancestors had
been strangely mistaken. He could not conceive how
any Gentlemen who thought the Meeting at Man-
chester had been legally dispersed, could be advo-
cates for the new Acts ; as the same means then em-
ployed 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.—
He knew of no instance in which this new enactment
had been brought into use. All the convictions had
taken place under the ancient law. It was for those
who had encroached on the rights of the people to
shew the necessity of the continuance of such en-
croachments. It the cause had ceased, then the enact-
ments ought to be repealed. By the law in ques-
tion, the right of petitioning had been materially
obstructed; and the country had been divided into
departmental districts. But that law bad never been
carried into effect, and no advantage had been taken
of that cause, by those who might wish to defeat the
operation of the Act, than which he conceived nothing
could have been more easy. Nothing could be more
difficult to define than a blasphemous libel; as ap-
peared from the fact, that three Juries had acquitted
Mr. )lone, whilst others had convicted persons in
exactly ,the same circumstances. Nothing could be
more vague than the language-4e 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 their continuance
now. Individuals had beer. 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 enactments of the late reign. Those Acts had
been justified by no necessity at the time, and still
less at the present day.
Mr. HUTCHINSON complimented the Honour-
able 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 be 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 tranquillity of Ireland, he had
thought that country would have been exempted from
the operation of the Acts. The motion should have
his cordial support.
Mr. MAXWELL said, that in the County he re-
presented much alarm had been excited by Public
Meetings, held for no rational object of political dis-
cussion. 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. ABERCROMBY 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 Man-1
chester. But he had voted for the Bill as a tempo-
rary measure, and the necessity for it had now wholly
ceased. Though some Sheriffs had acted with much
propriety, yet others had acted with much caprice.
The Meetings held at the time were wholly unfit for
all rational discussion. But the state of the country
was then different ; and, if pressed, be must concur
in the motion. At the same time, he could have
wished it had not been made. As there was but little
hope that the motion would be carried, he 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. LENNARD replied. He had not been sanguine
as to the success of the present motion, but he had
trusted a great deal to the justice of the cause; he had
trusted that Ministers might feel disposed to restore
to the people that which was the people's birthright,
or at least that they would shew sufficient reiscns for
withholding it—(Hear, hear).
Sir JOHN NEWPORT rose, amidst loud cries of
" Question!" and said, that as no case had been made
out on the other side, he should vote in support of
tin' motion. The House then divided—

For the Motion

- - 68

Against it

- 89

Majority in favour of Ministers —2l
On the re-admission of strangers, Mr. DENMAN
was on his legs, speaking on the motion for a Re-
peal of the Seditious and Blasphemous Libels Bill.
The Honourable and Learned Gentleman reprobated
in the strongest manner the principle of .the Bill ; it
inflicted a severe, cruel, and barbarous punishment,
that of exile, upon any person who might be a second
time convicted of publishing what a Jury might think
was of a libellous tendency. When that Bill was
first introduced into Parliament, he contemplated it
with a degree of horror; he hoped that no Gen-
tleman in that House would say that such a law was
now necessary. Publications of a blasphemous and
seditious kind were put down—put down, not by the
force of that Bill, but by the old laws of the land.
Prosecutions under the old laws put down those pub-
lications, but since the enactment of the statute, cir-
cumstances of a most frightful nature came to light—
(Hear)—the must infamous libels that had appeared
—libels above all others best calculated to excite the
people to acts of violence, perhaps to actual rebel-
lion—(Hear, hear)—were traced to certain spies and
agents, who evidently wished to goad the people on'
to acts of mutiny—(Hear, hear). Ile called upon
the House, as they valued the invaded liberties of
England, to repeal a law odious to the people, as it
was incompatible with the existence of their rights.
The House again divided—
For the Motion - 66
Against it - . . SO
Majority . -

POOR LAWS.
Mr. SC ARLETT rose, pursuant to notice, to call
the attention of the House to a subject of the greatest
importance, and he 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 '
ability 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 en-
deavoured, so far as he could, to make himself ac-
quainted 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 Rime'
and enlightened Government. Indeed, had lie any
expectation that the question would be brought for-
ward under the sanction of Government, he should
himself have abstained from making any motion ith
respect to it; and he would further add, that if he
thought it would be taken tip by any of those Gen-
tlemen who had sat upon the Committee, and whose
Report was so very valuable, from the information it
contained, he would have declined the duty that now
devolved upon him. However, as he understood
from some of those Gentlemen that they did not in-
tend introducing any motion on the subject, he ven-
tured to do so from a thorough conviction that, in the
existing state of things, something ought to be done
—(Hear, hear). He was quite certain that nothing
he could say would serve as an additional recom-
mendation to the importance of those matters which
formed the basis of his motion, and to which, for
many years past, he had given the fullest considera-
tion. tie 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 in-
formation contained in the Report of the Committee.
Yet, in the vicar he had taken of the question, he was
fully borne out and confirmed by that Report. The
great evil he believed to be this: that by the esta-
blished 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 provi-
sion was unlimited, it must operate as a premium on
poverty, licentiousness, immorality, and crime—
(Hear, hear). The constitution of nature 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; they gave a man a remedy for all
the inconveniences produced by his own vices or im-
prudence; they lessened him in his oa n estimation, and
made him a degraded being. In fact, the tendency
of those laws was to injure and debase the whole mass
cf the labouring population—( Hear, hear). The evil
was enormous, and the population would soon be-
come 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, hear). From the result of the inquiries
made by the Committee, it appeared that the mode
of relief was not considered as a charity, but as a
right ; it was administered without compassion, and
received without gratitude—((Tics y Hear, hear).—
The consequence was that all the finer charities of
social life were lost in a revolting pi inciple, which
went to separate the poor from their natural de-
pendence upon the rich. It was a principle of exac•
tion which left no scope for the heart to expand itself
on its finer feelings—(Hear, hear). Unless some
check was speedily put to the evil, the landlord and
the pauper would equally be left without the means
of subsistence. The Honourable Gentleman here
made a statement respecting the progressive increase
of the Poor Rates, shelving that from X 689,961,
which had been their amount in the years 1743,
1749, and 1750, they had continued to advance,
till in 1815 they amounted to £6,129,844. The
Hon. Gentleman then read an Address from the
Parish of Nantwich, which stated that the parochial
relief had contributed materially to the deterioration
of the moral character. The first provision he should
propose would be to fix a maximum to parcchial relief,
and he would take that of 1821, as the rate had not
then been the highest, and the value of money had
approached somewhat to its ancient value. He should
then propose, that no higher rate should be levied
than had been done on the 25th of March, 1821. The
next measure he had to propose related to the distri-
bution of the Rates. In many places the poor looked
to the parish for the maintenance of their second child,
and in some even to that of the first. His regulation
should be prospective, after the passing of the Act
no relief should be afforded by any Overseer or
Justice of the Peace, to any single person, except in
the case-of sickness, infirmity, atid old age. He con-
tended that the law for the removal of the poor to
the parish in which their fathers or grandfathers
were born, was one of the most oppressive that had
ever existed ; it was one of a most cruel and oppres-
sive nature—it, as it were, expatriated the poor, and
made poverty a crime ; yet such was the true state
of our law, and there had been no law so open to
litigation since Magna Charta—(Hear, hear).—
His object was, to prevent the removal of the poor
from the parishes in which they may be settled, ex-
cept by their own consent. Manchester did not re-
move its poor, but it paid less for Poor Rates than
almost any agricultural parish in the country, which
were in the habit of removing their poor. If this law
were repealed, it would be the greatest possible ex-
citement to economy in the Poor Rates. The pour
man, whoa by his labour has contributed to enrich a
particular district, ought to receive his support from
that particular place. The Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman, after recapi.alating the measures which he
bad in view, concluded with moving for leave to
bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to the
Relief of the Poor in England.— The Honourable and
LearnedGentlanan sat down amid checrsjiont both sides.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY expressed his
thanks to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman for bring-
ling forward this measure. He 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 Gen-
tleman that he would give it the most serious attention.
Sir ROBERT WILSON said, that though he must
acknowledge the good intentions of his Hon. and
Learned Friend, he must deprecate any proposition
to take from the unemployed industrious poor a sub-
sistence to which they had just the same right asevery
Gentleman had to his estate. If they wished to-reduce
pauperism, they should reduce taxation—(icar, hear).