HC Deb 21 May 1817 vol 36 cc818-9

On the motion for recommitting this bill,

Lord Milton

expressed his doubts as to the probable efficacy of this measure in affording any substantial relief, particularly in populous places, like Manchester and Sheffield, where the distress was greatest, and the habits of the unemployed least adapted to the labour incident to the execution of public works. That part of the bill which contemplated the repayment of the money borrowed on the security of parish funds within the term of three years, he regarded as perfectly nugatory.

Mr. Long Wellesley

felt considerable objections to the general principle of the executive government advancing the public money on private security. If not an unconstitutional, it was a dangerous practice. He was at the same time satisfied that the measure under consideration would be perfectly useless. There was sufficient capital already in the country for carrying on every profitable and useful public undertaking. The only permanent benefit that would, in his opinion, be conferred upon the labouring poor must arise from an attentive examination of the effects of the poor laws upon their condition, and the adoption of some gradual system that might operate to restore their original principle, and rescue the lower orders from their present degradation of moral feeling.

Mr. W. Smith

was inclined to give credit to ministers, and to believe they had, acted with the purest intentions in bringing forward this measure. He thought that just now ministers might easily get those public works forwarded, which they would hereafter require to be finished—as for example, the Plymouth Breakwater. He was sorry the estimate for it had been reduced from 60,000l. to 30,000l. for he would rather have seen it made a 120,000l. as thus it would have afforded employment to many of the poor miners in Cornwall, who were at present in a state of indescribable distress. In Scotland also there existed dreadful distress, there being no work, and no means of earning money for provisions.

Sir W. Burroughs

could not give ministers credit for their intentions, as in truth they would never have adopted this measure had they not been driven to it. If they had been sincere, why had they not sooner convened parliament? If it was true that parliament was soon to be dissolved, he was afraid this measure might be considered as a means of securing patronage to ministers. He wished ministers, or some of their friends, would disavow they had any intention of making this a source of patronage.

Mr. Thompson

approved of the intention of ministers, and thought the plan might do good, because it would furnish the means of employment.

Mr. Rose

expressed his astonishment at the insinuation of the learned gentleman, that this measure was proposed for the sake of obtaining any undue influence, and referred to the names of the commissioners appointed as a complete answer to the supposition. No expectations were entertained of any extensive benefit to be derived from the measure; but it might do good, and could not be prejudicial.

Mr. Lyttelton

considered the principle of the measure to be false, unsound, and hollow, and was persuaded that its adoption would not produce any permanently good effects.

The House then went into the committee, in which a desultory conversation took place upon the several clauses.