Star.
London, England, 1821-07-03 00:00:00

EXTRA POST.

The CH ANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
the Order of the Day for receiving the Report on the
Extra Post Bill.
Mr. CALCRAFT rose to oppose the Motion, and
stated all the objections which he had to the measure.
He dwelt on the unjust advantages which an early
delivery of letters would give some individuals over
others, and the inconvenience which this double deli-
very would produce. He contended that no change
in the mode of carrying letters was necessary in
this country.
Mr. N. CALVERT hoped the individual who had
been at the expense of making the experiment would
not be a loser by it.
A conversation then took place between Sir JOSEPH
YORKE, Mr. MABERLEY, Mr. PETER MOORE, and
Mr. FRANELAND LEWIS, after which the House di-
vided, when there appeared—
For the BM - - -
Against it - - -
Majority against the Bill
TIIE APPROPRIATION BILL.

- 39

The Report on this Bill was brought up, and the
Bill ordered to be read a third time this day.
POOR RELIEF BILL.

Mr. SCARLETT rose, not, he said, at the close of
the Session, to press any discussion on the Bill ; in-
deed, from the outset, he did not express a hope that
the Bill would be carried through the House, that
Session. He would not enter at present into any dis-
cussion whatever, but would reserve himself for a
further opportunity to answer the arguments that had
been urged against the Bill. It would, in particular,
be necessary tor him to brush up his law, in order to
meet the opposition of his Hon. and gallant Friend
(Sir R. Wilson). Whether they should meet in pri-
vate contest or otherwise, he hoped his Hon. and gal-
lant Friend would not prove more fortunate than he
ought to be. He (Mr. Scarlett) was aware that much
had been written in order to inflame the public mind
on this subject; for himself, he would say, that
his attention had been directed to the state of the
Poor Laws for the last thirty years, and he always
was of opinion that they were laws most injurious
to the community, and most oppressive to the poor.
fie thought they were laws which went to degrade the

lower classes. He withdrew the Bill for the present,
but he proposed next Session to renew the measure.
He would not pledge himself to words, hut, in prin.
ciple, it would be substantially the same. If he should
meet the same sot t of support which be had received,
he would propose another Bill for greater discrimi-
nation between the moral claims of persons seeking
for relief, and for the purpose of checking the expen-
diture, which was now a subject of general complaint.
He should also propose, that the fathers of families
should be no longer balloted for the Militia, but that
single men should be compelled to serve.
Sir ROBERT WILSON said, that when the mea-
sure should be brought forward he would oppose it
every inch. In order to qualify himself to meet the
threatened contest with his Honourable and Learned
Friend, he would sit down to study black letter during
the summer—(A /nue).
Mr. H. GURNEY said, he hoped the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman would duly consider the state•of
the Poor Laws before he attempted to interfere with
them. He could not help thinking that the principle
of the BM was absurd and injurious. The object of
the Bill was to prevent marriages, it went on the
vicious principle laid down by Mr. Malthus, ayrin-
ciple which was against the laws of nature, and which,
if acted on, would not leave an Englishman to tin
the ground which maintained his forefathers. He
hoped that the House would not be insulted by any
of Mr. Malthus's friends attempting to force upon
them the adoption of his system. A violent attempt
to subvert the .Poor Laws was more worthy a raving
madman than a Legislator !
Dr. LUSHINGTON said, that if he thought the
Bill went to interfere with the real comforts of the
poor, he would not give it his support, but he looked
upon the Bill as a measure likely to remove the causes
of their degradation, and to promote their real inde.
pendence. The Hon. Member had said that the Bill
was a measure to prevent marriages ; it was no such
thing, it was a Bill to take away undue encourage.
ment to improvident marriages.
Mr. F. PALMER rose; when
Mr. SCARLETT said, that he had avoided all ar-
gument on the measure, and he thought it unfair,
after he had waived his right, for Hon. Gentlemen
to open a debate and- to misrepresent the principles
and objects of the Bill. He might be assimilated to
a madman, but the Hon. Gentleman himself was an
abhorrer, and an abhorrer could not reason.

Mr. GURNEY assured the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman that he did not mean to betr'ay, even in
appearance, a want of courtesy to him.
Mr. T. COURTENAY said, he had been amongst
the opponents of the Bill, but if anything would have
induced him to be ashamed of his conviction, it would
be the praises which had been bestowed on those who
had taken the same course as himself. He hoped the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman would bring in
a Bill, next Session, on the principle of modification
and limitation, instead of abolition.
Mr. HA RBORD said, the House seemed too much
disposed to hear everything on one side, viz. in praise
of the Bill. Though he was not disposed to urge
arguments against a measure which had been with-
drawn, he should say, that he disapproved of the
principle of it, though he was disposed to thank the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman for having
called their attention to what was certainly a subject
of great importance.
Mr. F. PALMER considered the Poor Laws as
the chartered rights of the Poor, and hoped the House
would pause before it consented to touch them, and
inquire seriously into the condition of the labouring
classes. He was persuaded there was not a single
Member who was acquainted with the wages and
outgoings of a labouring man, so as to be able to
know whether, if in full work, he would be able to
support a family. At the end of the last Session he
had obtained an account of SW poor families from a
friend of his, who had employed himself in obtaining
them, and the wages were then not enough to mi.
port a family. He had himself laboured during the
last six weeks to obtain information on the same sub-
ject, and he hoped the House would take no step
without the fullest inquiry.
Mr. MONCK said he felt it was necessary to take
some step on the subject of the Poor Laws; and he
would go so far as to say, that he should be satisfied
with nothing but their total, though gradual, aboli-
tion. But before he consented to such a measure, he
should deem it necessary to demand, in the name of
the People, the redress of several grievances, which
it was not necessary for him now to detail, but he
particularly alluded to the Corn Law.
Mr. SCARLETT said, it was necessary to state
that he had never proposed to go so far as to deny.
provision to the infirm and aged poor. His feel-
ings were in favour of such a provision, though
there were strong authorities, and he would mention
one of a person who would not be considered by the
Honourable Gentleman (Mr. H. Gurney) a raving
madman—a term which he supposed the Honourable
Gentleman had applied, not to him (Mr. Scarlett) per-
sonally, but to all who differed from the Hon. cientle-
man in opinion on the subject of the Poor Laws,.
The authority to which he referred was that of Dr.
Franklin, who said, that in those countries in which
the greatest public provision was made for the poor
they were in the worst condition, and in those coon-
tries where least provision was made fdr them, they
were in the best condition. In reply to the observa-
tion of the Honourable Member for Reading (Mr. F.
Palmer), he observed, that the Poor itate.s kept down
the wages of labour, and that at the present moment,
in many of the agricultural counties, when horn the
rise in the value of money, the wages heretofore paid
would have been sufficient to support a family, in.
stead of the Poor Rates having been reduced, wages
had been reduced, the subsistence of the labourer being
still supplied in the degrading shape of arms. This
system would go on till it was checked by some such
measure as he had proposed. As to popularity,
though he wished to obtain it, he would not pur-
chase it by sacrificing the interests of the country,
and he hoped it would not be said of any Legislator
as of a comic Poet—
sibi tatted crediderit esse soli, •
" Ut papule #accrent quasfecissetfabulas
The Order was dischargeu.
The Tobacco Dudes Bill Report was agretd to.
The Metropolis Police Bill was read a trtir d time.
Mr. R. MARTIN rose to propose a clause. Ile said, *hat in
their neighbourhood the most cruet sports were car: ied on alma,'
daily—he meant dog-fights, cock. lights, bull baiting, monkey-
lights, badger-baiting. The places where these barbarous a nose-
meets were carried on, issued bills regularly like Covent-C4rdea

and Drury-Lane. At one of these places a man had had his leg
so bitten that it was forced to be amputated. If an objection
was made to the clause which he should bring up to prevent
these practices, he should bring in a Special Bill next Session.—
The Hon. Member brought up his clause.
Mr. H. CLIVE thought this was not the proper opportunity
for introducing such an enactment.
Mr. R. MARTIN withdrew the clause.—The Bill passed.
The Audit of Accounts Bill was read a third time and passed.
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the usual Ses-
sional Addresses.—Report to-morrow.
Mr. S. WHITBREAD presented a Petition from the In-
ventor of Iron Coffins, complaining of the high fees demanded
by Parsons, and of the refusal of the Hackney Coach Commis-1
sioners to licence a certain description of hearse.
Mr. BRIGHT having renewed his objections to the Packet
Vessels Licenses Bill, the further consideration of the Report of
the Bill was postponed to this day six months.
The Report on the Lotteries Bill was brought up and laid
upon the table.--Thrd reading to-morrow.—Adjourned.
_ .