Commons Sitting of 8 June 1815

MENDICITY OF THE METROPOLIS.
Mr. Rose, in pursuance of his motion, rose to call the attention of the House to the mendicity of the metropolis. He believed as accurate information had been obtained on that subject as it would well admit of. A Mr. Martin, a respectable gentleman in this neighbourhood, and well known to many members of this House, had, with the greatest industry, compiled an account of the numbers and description of people in a medicant state in the metropolis and its vicinity, an account which he was ready to submit to the House. According to this account there were, on the whole, somewhat more than 15,000 persons in the metropolis and its immediate neighbourhood who subsisted by begging. They were divided in this manner. The

687]
persons who had settlements in the metropolis or neighbourhood, amounted to 6,690; of this number 4,150 were children, and 2,540 adults. There were besides 2,604 persons who had settlements in different parts of the country, that is in England; of these 1,374 were adults, and 1,230 children. Of the persons who had no settlements in this kingdom there were 5,310 Irish, of whom 3,273 were children, and 2,037 adults. The Scotch amounted to 504, of whom 309 were children, and 195 adults. The persons who had no settlements in any of these kingdoms, amounted to 177. The result gave nearly 6,000 adults, and 9,000 children. They were not all of them beggars, but some were artificers who earned as much as 40 s. a week when in health, but who, from not being members of any friendly society, were left unprovided for when unable at any time to work. Allowing for the maintenance of these people, sixpence a day for such as were adults, and threepence a day for the children—the whole would amount to 100,000 l. a year. But he was persuaded that the gains of these people were actually much greater; and the result of his inquiry was, that he would state the sums of money received very low if he allowed 3s. a day to each. He knew, however, to an absolute certainty, that many of them received considerably more than this; but 3s. a day would make somewhat about 328,000 l. a year, supposing only the adults to receive it, and putting the children out of the question. The inconvenience to the public was notorious, not only from being incommoded by these persons in the streets (which was the least part of the evil), but from their having no regular means of subsistence, it was clear that the children must be brought up in habits of idleness, vice, and misery. Their system of education was most pernicious. This class of persons never sent their children to school; for the children were instruments in their hands to obtain relief by importunity. That schools were of the utmost advantage to the children of the poor, there could be no doubt; there were even instances of these children actually reforming their parents: he was acquainted with several instances of this description. There were many schools about the metropolis on a very extensive scale—the school for the children of Soldiers—the Royal Naval Asylum: there was one in Westminster for not less than one thousand
[688
children, which owed its existence chiefly to the Speaker, in conjunction with the late master of Westminster-school. Such schools were deserving of every degree of encouragement. A good deal of attention had also been paid to the situation of the poor of the capital and its neighbourhood. There was the association with which Mr. Martin was connected:—a number of gentlemen were authorized to deliver tickets to those people whom they might find begging; they carried their tickets to Mr. Martin's house, who made inquiry into their character, and if he found they were persons deserving of relief, they obtained assistance from him. In addition to this, there was an establishment which was called The Stranger's Friend, not generally known, but which was admirably conducted. The persons themselves went about town, and informed themselves as to the situation of various paupers, whose modesty would not allow them to beg in the common way, and gave them relief. There was another institution, called The Refuge for the Destitute, which was better known than the former. There was also another lately established, called The Irish Benevolent Society. His intention was to propose to the House to appoint a committee to consider the State of Mendicity in the Metropolis. If this should be agreed to, he would, in the first place propose, that the committee should endeavour to ascertain the fact of the extent of the evil. It was at least deserving of attention to try if some means could not be devised for remedying it. When the wisest and best of men had failed, it would be presumptuous to suppose that complete success could be expected; but still he thought something might be done. Nearly 7,000 of these people had settlements in or near the metropolis. The law of the country had provided a remedy for that. With respect to those who had settlements in the country, the same thing might be done with them. The next class was those who belonged to Scotland and Ireland; those from Scotland were few in number, and might be sent back to that country. But with respect to Ireland the difficulty was much greater, as they were more numerous, and in Ireland there were no poor-rates. In Scotland there were means of relief for the poor; and though there were no poor-rates generally in that country, yet the law was on that subject precisely the same as in England. Of the foreigners, many of them might be

689]
sent home to their own countries. There were often to be seen seamen begging with one arm only, or one leg. Knowing the false imputation which they brought on the country, he had often spoken to such persons, who admitted that they received a pension of 8l. a year. These were the most importunate of all beggars. After alluding to Edinburgh and Hamburgh, where mendicity was prevented, the right hon. gentleman concluded with moving, "That a committee be appointed to inquire into the state of Mendicity in the Metropolis and its immediate neighbourhood, and to report the same, together with their observations thereupon, to the House."
Mr. Hammersleythought that an establishment on the same plan as the House of Industry in Dublin might be serviceable in this country, as it would give an opportunity at once to refer all mendicants to a certain place.
Sir M. W. Ridleyapproved of Mr. Martin's plan. Of the tickets given to paupers, four out of five were never brought to the office, as the mendicants dreaded the inquiries which would be made. If that institution were more known and further extended, he thought it would materially tend to check and lessen the number of beggars. He alluded to the soldiers who pretended to have been blinded by the ophthalmia in Egypt, and who exposed themselves in a disgusting manner in the streets.
Mr. Peelwas doubtful whether it would be politic to extend an establishment like the House of Industry in Dublin to this country. It cost 50,000 l. a year, and relief was given to every person that applied, because there were no poor-rates: but if he was to judge of its efficacy from the state of mendicity in Dublin, his opinion would be far from favourable, as there was no city in which mendicity prevailed to such a degree as in the Irish capital.
Sir J. Newportpreferred the plan of work-houses like those in existence at Cork, and other places, in which a previous examination took place before paupers were admitted. To extend an establishment in which no inquiry was allowed, would merely extend beggary.
Mr. Lockhartthought that if mendicants were prevented from begging, many of them would resort to more dangerous practices. They would spread into the country, would avoid well-regulated towns,
[690
and we should hear of their devastations in places where the police was less active, or not so well conducted. He doubted whether all charitable institutions had not a tendency to create the evil which they were intended to relieve.
Mr. Rosesaid, it was desirable that the respective parishes should take care of their own poor. Nobody was more averse than himself to remove any person while he could maintain himself; and he had first introduced a law to that effect.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose to detain the House but a very few moments; but he could not help bearing testimony to the assiduity and diligence of the gentleman who had principally conducted the plan of the mendicity inquiry, first under the auspices of lord Pelham, and subsequently under those of lord Sid mouth. He would not entertain too sanguine hopes of an entire remedy being provided for the evil; but be that as it might, he thought it a subject highly deserving of such consideration, as was doe to the benevolence of the individual who had conducted it, and that the mass of information which he knew to have been already collected, would be of great use to the committee which should be appointed to consider the subject.
After a few further observations from sir John Sebright, Mr. Alderman Atkins, and sir Charles Monck, the motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed accordingly.

THAMES BATHING BILL.
Mr. Barclaypresented two petitions against the Thames Bathing Bill: the one from the watermen that ply upon the Thames, and the other from the inhabitants and householders on the banks of the river. He thought that something should be done to prevent the indecencies which were now witnessed, and which otherwise would extend to a greater degree. He defended the principle of these petitions. He had heart much of the rights of man, and lately of the rights of Scotch poachets: he hoped he should not hear of the right of indecent exposure. The remedy by action at law was slow and expensive.
Mr. M. A. Taylorhad lived for twenty-seven years on the banks of the Thames, and had never perceived any acts of indecency. Some time he had not seen six persons bathing in the course of twelve months. Were we worse than our ancestors? As a magistrate he did not recol-

691]
lect that any particular acts of that nature had come under his knowledge; and if they had, they could not be punished by an action, but by fine and imprisonment.
Mr. Harveyhad likewise the pleasure of living on the banks of the Thames, and he could not help saying that it was almost impossible for any decent person to live in such a situation from the number of persons undressing themselves, and exposing their naked bodies to view.
Mr. Calvertbegged leave to state, that he did not believe either petition proceeded from the inhabitants of Southwark.
The petitions were ordered to lie on the table. Mr. Wynn then moved the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a committee on the Thames Bathing Bill. The House having resolved accordingly,
Mr. Harveyproposed a clause, the object of which was to prevent persons from bathing in the River Thames in particular places; by imposing a penalty, recoverable before a magistrate, of not less than 5s., and not more than 10 s. for the first offence, and of 20 s. for the second offence; the magistrates having power to prohibit bathing, on application from the inhabitants, in particular districts.
On this a division took place, without comment. The numbers were—For the clause, 28; Against it, 56; Majority, 28. The Bill, in its original form, was then agreed to, and the House resumed.

STAMP DUTIES—NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. Brogdenbrought up the Report of the Committee of Ways and Means. On the resolution for imposing a duty of an additional halfpenny on newspapers being read,
Sir John Newportsuggested the propriety of reducing this duty to its original state. He was quite sure that the quantum of revenue the increase would produce, would in no respect compensate the public for the loss which they would sustain by the impediments which would be thrown in the way of receiving that information which at this particular period was of such general importance. The right hon. baronet then moved an amendment by substituting three-pence halfpenny in the room of four-pence.
After a few words from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which were inaudible in the gallery, a division took place—For the Amendment, 16; Against it, 53; Majority, 37. The resolution was then agreed to.

List of the Minority.

Allen, G.

Montgomery, sir H.

Compton, earl

Newport, sir J.

Duncannon, visc.

Riddell, sir J. B.

Horner, F.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Lefevre, C. S.

Smith, J.

Moore, P.

Tierney, G.

Martin, J.

TELLERS.

Marryatt, J.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Monck, sir C.

Gordon, R.

Majoribanks,

EAST INDIA SHIPS REGISTRY BILL.
The Report of the committee on the East India Registry Ships Bill being taken into further consideration,
Mr. Wallaceproposed to introduce a clause to substitute 350 tons to 100. As the Bill stood, no ship under 100 tons was to obtain a registry: he found that ships of that tonnage were not employed in the East India trade, and therefore wished to alter the number to 350.
Mr. Marryattrenewed his opposition to the Bill. It had been said by an hon. member (Mr. C. Grant) on a former day, when he (Mr. Marryatt) had announced his intention to offer a clause for restricting the operation of this Bill, that it might as well be attempted to take from the East India Company their charter, as to prohibit them from employing India-built ships. He would state what had been advanced on this subject by that hon. member, and other directors of the East India Company on a former occasion, and leave him to answer his own arguments as he could. He then quoted the report of a committee of the East India Directors, dated January 27, 1801, in which the admission of India ships into a format participation in the commerce and navigation between Britain and India was viewed with the most serious apprehension. In another part of the same Report such a line of conduct was "deprecated as tending to supersede the Company's privileges, and open the way to what all agreed ought to be prevented—the colonization of Europeans in India." It was further stated "to involve principles and effects dangerous to the interests both of the Company and of the nation, to lead to the pouring of Europeans of the lower sort into India, and thus, by lessening that respect entertained for the British character, which had hitherto contributed to maintain our ascendancy in the East, to disturb and shake our Government there." In a second Report, the plan of the Governor-general respecting India ships, was

693]
described to be at variance with the principle adopted by the Court of Directors." A third Report stated, "the public to have been under a delusion." They had heard so much of British manufactures and surplus produce, that they never believed other objects were in view; at last, however, the mask fell off, and the truth appeared to be—a trade in India-built ships. It was added, "that though this was the primary object of the parties concerned in these representations, their friends in this country were aware that British ships could not be sacrificed for so flimsy a pretence." In one of the Reports it was stated that "the Directors, after viewing the question respecting India ships generally, entertained a decided opinion that it was sound policy to look with a jealous eye on any other description of naval or military strength, or the seeds of it that might be about to arise in India, that was not British." The Directors, however, added, "they were willing to sacrifice their own judgment to that of the Government, and to endeavour to carry into effect the plans of the ministers for the public service; but doing this, they were aware that they ought to be on their guard, to speculate upon events, and to look for combinations far different from those which had formerly occurred." In replying to the statements which had been made, it had been said in the Report, that "it would be impracticable to bring the foreign trade to the River Thames, if teak ships were employed as the means. The best and only means consistent with the combined and extensive interests of land, commerce, and manufactures and navigation, at the same time that the public faith would thereby be preserved inviolate, would be to employ British ships." It was added, "that if there were any well-founded claim on Government at that time, it was the fair and just claim of British ships and seamen to provide, and not to deprive them of, the means of employment, in return for the great and meritorious services rendered during the war." These Reports were subsequently confirmed by the Directors and Proprietors. After some farther observations, he concluded by moving the following clause, "That no ship or vessel employed by the East India Company in the China trade, and not built within the United Kingdom, shall be entitled to the privileges of British-built vessels."
Mr. Grantthought the hon. gentleman
[694
had laboured hard to make the worse appear the better reason. He had quoted reports of the Court of Directors to support a doctrine contrary to the obvious intention and scope of those reports. The Court of Directors had never any particular objection to teak ships more than to other ships; but their objection was to admitting any other ships into the participation of their rights. He conceived, that the clause proposed by the hon. gentleman would have the effect of taking away the charter from the Company, and giving them up, bound hand and foot, into the power of a few ship-builders on the River Thames. His argument went upon the fallacious supposition, that if this Bill were to pass, all the ships to be employed in the trade for the future would come, from India. The only consequence would, be, that the Company would not be left entirely at the mercy of about half a dozen ship-builders on the River Thames, to be charged whatever exorbitant price they thought proper. In 1793 the price they charged was 14 l. a ton. In 1800 it was 19 l. 10 s.; but after 1805 it rose from 25 l. to 31 l. per ton. The price of wages, which in 1793 was three shillings and sixpence a-day, had afterwards got up to seven, and even to ten shillings. If those men choose to idle three days in the week, it was the East India Company that must pay for it. For a long period of time, the Company had been entirely at the mercy of the ship-builders of the River Thames. The power of building ships in India had certainly rendered them somewhat more independent of them. India, however, had not the means or resources, nor would it have for a long time, of finding tonnage equal to the demands of commerce. He believed that out of the last 79 ships, 13 only had been built in India. As the building for India was never above a third of the whole business of the ship-builders in the Thames, it was going too far to say that their trade would be annihilated, even if the whole of the East India business was withdrawn from them. There was no reason, however, to doubt but that they would for a long time have by much the greater part of their business. When the worthy alderman (Atkins) had spoken, on a former night, of the number of shipwrights that would be thrown out of employ, he must observe that he believed the whole number of shipwrights in the Thames did not exceed 4,500, and that 400 (not quite a

695]
tenth of these) were all that were ever employed in building ships for the East India Company. Were all the great interests of the Company then to be sacrificed to the interest of a very small number of ship-builders and shipwrights on the Thames? All that these persons could now complain of, was, that their monopoly would be affected by introducing a sort of competition. It was a most mistaken idea to conceive that India ought to be governed at all like a colony. It was a great and populous empire, rich in arts and manufactures, when we first came there: it would be therefore most unjust to prevent them from availing themselves of their natural advantages. It would be also most impolitic for this country to refuse to avail itself of the advantages that their great forests afforded for ship-building. As to the apprehension of the Indians becoming a great maritime nation, it must be recollected, that of all the classes of Indians it was only the Mahometans that ever became sailors, and therefore the Indian sailors could only be taken from among those Mahometans that happened to live near the sea-coasts. As to what had been said about the probability of a revolution in India, he considered that our government was now more confirmed and stable than at any former period.
Mr. Marryatt, in explanation, said, that his clause did not at all respect the ships employed in the trade between India and this country, but had only reference to the trade with China, the monopoly of which was allowed to be a great advantage to the Company.
Mr. Alderman Atkinsobserved, that the surveyors of the India Company exercised the right of survey as to the materials of the ships built for them in the river Thames, as strictly as it was exercised on the part of the royal navy. The great increase in the price of ship-building had not proceeded from any exorbitant demands on the part of the ship-builders, but from the great price to which foreign timber had been raised, from our being excluded from the trade of the Continent. As to the price of labour, the war had raised the value of a man's labour, in the same proportion that other articles were raised.
Mr. P. Mooresaid, that there ought to be a fair and open competition with regard to ship-building, and opposed the clause.
Mr. Forbesspoke a few words against the clause.
The House divided: For the clause, 11; Against it, 39; Majority, 28. The Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.