Star.
London, England, 1821-06-21 00:00:00

creased as circumstances required, but limited it to
a maximum, declaring, that whatever the rates were
all over the kingdom in the month of March it e.
they should never be increased. Yet the Ilotroarrb
Member himself found it necessary to make s,
modification in this law in favour of certain tow
and these exceptions, he contended, clearly she ..e:
a want of confidence by the Honourable 3lenthe i;
his own Bill. If the maximum was good, why rei r
it at all ? But the Honourable Member, after same
deliberation, found it absolutely necessary to relay
The next proposition was, that no nor who was
,thk,*
to work should receive parochial relief.--Nr.Semt,
LETT said that was not exactly his proposition. T,,,e
object of his Bill was to prevent improvident mar.
riages.:l—Mr. Calcraft contended that the pmpositimi
in effect amounted to what he had stated. Nothini
could be more unfeeling than this, when it was 0;7,
sidered that, in the space of a week, caprice, the
change of fashions, or other trifling occurrences,
might throw the working people of a whole mann.
factoring district out of employment.—(Hear, heal.
—When such an event did happen, if all parochial
relief was denied, there could but two conseluentes
follow—either universal starvation or universal con.
fusion.—(Hcar, hear).—Then another proprtition;sn
to do away the Law of Settlement altogether, so tha
when
.a number of people got together in a larae.
town, no matter whether the work was constant et
not, there they were to remain and starve. Aod it
was not true, as the Honourable and Learned llem.
ber stated, that these towns were enriched by Cie s.
bour of these people, the produce of their la, ,
was not confined to these toss ns, but extended to .:re
whole country. The rrofits of those manufacturer.
at Birmingham and Manchester were not felt he
these towns alone, but by the whole kingdom. P.tit
in this proposition too a considerable modificution
had been made, which shewed the Movet.'s •,‘,lllt Ci
confidence in his Bill. Again, it was said that the
Poor Laws tended to destroy the morals and the
energies of the people of this country. This be
(Mr. Calcraft) strongly denied, and he challenge'
a comparison of the state of morality amongst the
poor in this country at. the present .time with any
other period of our history, or with the morals oldie
people of any other country in Eurore. The gee
propagation of Bibles through the country wars
proof of the dissemination of useful k ehwledge.—
There was no want of energy in the people, or of is-
dustry, for the people of England, take them ail in
all, were the most industrious, most energetic, and
bravest people in the world. Of course to this, as tr
all general rules, there were many ezcoptions, but
the present Bill was inapplicable to their r.:lnedy,
Then it was said .that the Settlement Law presented
a free circulation of labour, but he asked, did asy
instance occur of a want of hands when there was
capital to be employed ? The Settlement Law wan
certainly productive of much litigation; but that in•
convenience, too, had been exaggerated. With re-
gard to relief being indiscriminately administered,
he could only say, that if the Civil Magistrate sasia
all active, and that the provisions of the present lase
were attended to, this could not happen in any caw.
It was also said, that the facility of procuring relief
was an inducement to improvident ruturiages. This
he admitted in some respects; but it appeared to
him that there were other causes operating to pro-
duce an increase of population. The high demand,
for instance, in which men were during the war, the
bounties paid the soldier, and the wages paid the ma-
nufacturer, made these feel that they could embark in
matrimony with less peril. This was a bad time to
make an experiment upon the distresses of the poor.—
Provisions, to be sure, were cheap, and perhaps that
was the only thing that favoured it; but it should
not be forgotten that the price of labour was reduced
much more in proportion. And talking of the great
extent of Poors' Rates, it seemed to be forgotten, that
a great part of these rates were the wages of labour.
There were few parishes in which the labour of the
public incumbents did not in some measure give an
equivalent for the relief which was extended to them.
Besides all these, the rates had been increased by the
increase in the taxes. Take, then, the rise in the
taxes, the National Debt, and rental of the country
for the last 50 years, it would be found that the in-
crease in the Poors Rates had not kept pace with
these—(Hear, hear). But the greatest error which
he discovered in the Bill of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman was the omission, altogether, of the funded
property, as a source of wealth which ought to bear
its share of the burthens of the poor—(Hear, hear).
There was no law or reason why this species of pro-
perty, like land, should not be saddled with Poors
Rates, and considering that it was that branch of
the public wealth which had been most profited by
the increase of trade in this kingdom, it was in-
conceivable how people could be so blind as to let
it escape for so long a time—(Hear, hear, hear).—
The Judges had declared that it was, like any other
species of property, subject to Poors' Rates, but
that, in the levying, difficulties would arise, which,
under the present system, could not be got over.—
The principle being thus granted, would it not be
more wise, more charitable, and more praiseworthy
in the Honourable Member, to facilitate the collec-
tion of these rates from the fundholder by some Le-
gislative measure, than to introduce impracticable
and inapt remedies—when, too, justice required that
every species of property should be alike taxed to
support the poort?—(Hear, hear)— The Honourable
Member then referred to some parishes where there
rates were said to exhibit themselves in the wort
light ; but he shewed :hat the mischief of them was
greatly exaggerated. In a parish in his own neigh-
bourhood, the rates had been reduced from Ellago
£l5OO ; and there being more discrimination in tte
choice of objects, practised by the Overseers, the pCCt
were still comfortably off. He also argued that there
was a feeling amongst the poor themselves to make
some provision for the day of want, by Benefit and
other Societies, rather than have recourse to the pa•
rish. It was not true that the poor calculated upon
the parish support as the stay of their infirm or da.
cayed ae. He then stated, that in the town of L't;
tester, £17,000 had been collected for the poor,
which £9806 was furnished by the mechanics of the
town, who were, in fact, the poor themselves.
fart of itself would upset the principle of this 11."0
which assumed that the poor of themselves had 1.0
exertion. He would, however, vote for the preFo'
>ition that no relief ought to be given to those wino
could work—(hear, hear).—lle was cenfident th.
Bill would not pass this Sesiott, and, speakis,