Commons Sitting of 17 May 1819

LONDON GAS LIGHT BILL.
Mr. Peter Moore moved the third reading of this Bill.
Sir R. Fergussonconfessed, that he was not very friendly either to Gas Lights, or Water Work companies—not that he was hostile to the ingenious improvements or discoveries, by which the public had derived great convenience; but his dislike arose from the way in which these companies conducted themselves. They might be termed a sort of amphibious animals, sometimes upon land, sometimes upon water. In another view, a kind of ambiguous animals, sometimes presenting fire instead of water, and sometimes water instead of fire. So that it was frequently doubtful whether the public of this great metropolis were to be exploded by fire, or overwhelmed with water. In many instances their concerns were so wretchedly directed, as to excite fears and alarms. With regard to the present bill, he thought it so defective in many particulars, that as he despaired of any satisfactory amendments in its present form, he should move the third reading on this day six months.
Mr. Colclough, although he admired the public utility derivable from the gas lights, yet could not approve of the manner in which the companies conducted their concerns. In some cases, the gas amounted to 5s. per cubic foot only, while in others it reached 14 s. The bill now before them was, he believed, in the latter calculation, and therefore was of sufficient quality to answer the purposes intended. But while parliament was encouraging chartered gas light companies, it forgot a paramount duty to the public, that was, to protect the health of the inhabitants of London and Westminster—to take care that nothing pestiferous should arise from the manufacture of gas, so as to endanger the lives of that community which the companies were bound to serve. The mode now adopted in discharging their off-scowerings into the river Thames, put the salubrity of the whole metropolis to the hazard. This refuse from the gas contained a deleterious composition, which, impregnated into the Thames, endangered the lives, not only of all the fish in the river, but of all the inhabitants' of London and Westminster. But he wished for a rivalship in the various
452
gas light companies, by which the community might be benefited, and would, for the sake of an experiment, support the bill.
Mr. P. Moorethought, that there would be just cause of complaint, if those who opposed the bill were to succeed. The gentlemen concerned in the proposed company, had already subscribed 120,000 l. sterling; and before they had ventured to make any application to parliament, four-fifths of their capital had been realized. They had also applied to the directors of the chartered gas light company, stating, that if any objections occurred on their part to the plan now submitted to parliament, the new company would willingly enter into any explanation, so as to reconcile all differences. But all the answer which they could receive was, that they had received no orders to state any objections. They afterwards, however, proceeded with a total want of candour, by assailing and condemning the project with every prejudice and every effort of hostility. It was even insinuated to their friends, that if the present bill were not thrown out, they would be no longer able to command the monopoly of the metropolis; and this by a company whose rental exceeded 100,000 l. a year. But it would be extraordinary indeed, if this great and populous city, consisting of 8,500 streets and squares, should, in the application of gas light for public convenience, be left to the caprice or control of such a company. The House would see the policy of rousing a spirit of competition, not only to prevent the probable inconvenience, but perhaps the arbitrary exactions also of the said company.
Sir J. Yorkehad no partiality for the fire and water companies. By their conduct, they were a nuisance to the public. In his opinion, all the competition or rivalry which they produced was the rivalry of who should pull the pavement most violently to pieces.
Mr. H. Sumner, in order to accommodate the various parties, recommended the recommitment of the bill. If the measure were a good one, and he was inclined to think it was, it would be unfortunate if the prejudices of the moment were to defeat those who had embarked so much property in the concern. The advantages derived from the application of gas were manifest. Besides the great convenience to the public, by rendering the streets,

453
squares, and passages, light as day, gas was highly advantageous to the police. This last recommendation alone ought to operate in favour of the bill.
Mr. Alderman Woodapproved of what had fallen from the last hon. member. The aid which the police derived from gas lights was of the greatest importance to the community. With regard to the complaints of the refuse of the gas being thrown into the river, and endangering the lives of the inhabitants of the metropolis, a clause should be introduced into the bill, ordering that the commissioners of sewers should take care that no nuisance of the kind should be suffered. Thinking that the provisions of the bill might be beneficial, he was in favour of the re-commitment.
Mr. Bennetthowever much he admired the gas light confessed his apprehensions and fears from some sudden derangement of the pipes or works, when perhaps nearly the whole town might be left in total darkness. We reposed too much confidence in these companies. It was advisable to draw some line between their profits and the public safety.
The House divided: for the amendment, 134. Against it, 31. The third reading of the bill was consequently put off for six months.

PETITION FROM CAPTAIN HANCHETT CONCERNING HIS REMOVAL FROM HIS OFFICIAL SITUATION.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he held in his hands a petition from John Martin Hanchett, a post captain in the royal navy, a companion of the order of the Bath, and late comptroller of the naval watch, for the prevention of smuggling. The petitioner was a person who had distinguished himself on many occasions in his profession, and was a gentleman of excellent character. He complained of having been deprived of his situation, without any adequate cause, by an hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Lushington), who had so abused the powers of his official situation for the purpose of appointing a person who had the power of furthering his political influence in the city of Canterbury. He would not injure the cause of the petitioner, which would be best understood from the petition itself. He should merely state that this honourable officer, after undergoing great fatigues in this office, by which, in addition to his former professional services, he was very much worn out, had
454
signified a wish to retire on a superannuation allowance, and that he had been displaced by the hon. secretary of the treasury, who abruptly removed him and placed another officer in his stead to serve his election purposes. The hon. gentleman concluded with moving that the petition be brought up.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwished to explain to the House the part which he had had in this transaction. Soon after the return of peace, he had received several letters from captain Hanchett, on the subject of a plan for the prevention of smuggling, which displayed great ability, and which led to an interview with the writer. At that time, he knew nothing of captain Hanchett, except that he had heard his name mentioned with approbation as a naval officer. On the grounds then of captain Hanchett's merits in the service, coupled with the admiration of his letters, he solicited the interview with him: and it was with sincere pleasure that he introduced into the public service of the country, in time of peace, an officer in high estimation, on public grounds alone. Captain Hanchett discharged the duties of the office to which he was appointed, very much to the satisfaction of government, till last autumn, when he signified a wish to resign in favour of a gentleman, to whom there was no objection, that he was not of a rank to be placed over other officers who stood higher in the service. In the mean time, information was given to the treasury, that captain Hanchett had entered into a negotiation with this gentleman to receive from him 500 l. a year, or 6,000 l. paid down at once. When these circumstances came to his knowledge, he determined that captain Hanchett should no longer hold the situation. There could be no doubt that a person who endeavoured to obtain money by such means, was a very unfit person to hold such a situation.—His hon. friend near him had not taken one step in the business without consulting with him. As he himself had boon the principal actor, he was willing to take his full share of the responsibility.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he had been aware of the official storm which would be raised against this officer; and he had cautioned him to beware how he proceeded—that he would do so with a rope round his neck,—and unless he made out his case in every respect, he would certainly lose himself. Captain Hanchett had determined to pro-

455
ceed with his case; and it was now necessary that he should proceed; for had he been disposed to withdraw the petition, the conduct of the right hon. gentleman would have prevented this. The case of that officer would go out of the House with the statement of the chancellor of the exchequer, delivered with an air of candour, but hostile and offensive in the highest degree towards him. Having stated what the charge and ground for dismissing the petitioner was, it was impossible for him, if he possessed those feelings, which he believed he possessed, to hesitate one moment as to the course which he should pursue.
Mr. Lushingtonsaid, if the hon. gentleman had looked into the case deliberately, he would have found that so far from the petitioner having been treated with cruelty, too much lenity had been shown him. He owed an apology to the country and to his right hon. friend near him, that this officer was not dismissed sooner; and when he stated the circumstances to the House, which were proved by evidence which he held in his hand, and the records of the Treasury, he trusted the House would be convinced that he could not suffer the petitioner to remain any longer in his situation. In August last, the petitioner proposed, in consequence of the wounds he had received in the service, to retire on a superannuation allowance. It was stated to him in answer, that he had not the least claim; that his services, as a naval officer, were quite distinct from his services in the other situation; and that as he had only been two years and a half connected with the revenue, it was impossible to allow him to superannuate. He had calculated his office worth 1,500 l. a year; and on this calculation he wished a superannuation of 1,000 l. a year. In the mean time it was discovered that he was endeavouring to sell his appointment; and this was the ground for his dismissal. The case had been sent to the law officers of the Crown with the evidence, to ascertain whether the negociation for resigning an office, accompanied with the corrupt purpose of receiving money from the person who succeeded him, did cot come within Mr. Perceval's act. The answer received was, that it did not come quite within that act. As the law now stood, he escaped the penalty of the law; but if he had negotiated for another person's resignation, he would have come within the act. With
456
respect to the particular statements in the: petition they were totally groundless. He did not mean to deny that he entertained a regard for his constituents; but he should be ashamed to sit in that House, if he had misapplied his patronage in the manner charged against him. He should have no-difficulty in showing, that the persons named in the petition were recommended by captain Hanchett himself. The only fault he had to accuse himself of was his lenity towards captain Hanchett: but this proceeded from a wish not to throw any discredit on an officer of character in the service to which he had belonged. And under these circumstances he would ask the House, whether he was not justified in the lenity which he had shown.
Sir Francis Burdettwas of opinion, that all that the hon. gentleman bad just said, amounted only to an additional reason for receiving this petition. Now, as to the alleged transaction of the secret agreement, there was no moral guilt, no actual crime, in selling a resignation; they might make it a crime, and had indeed done so, at law: but it was well known that, among officers, the sale and exchange of commissions were matters of every day occurrence. If the officer in question had been detected in taking money to pervert the duties of his office, then indeed he would have been guilty of a moral crime, of a crime too against the public. It did not appear that in this instance the transaction would have prejudiced the public service. The hon. gentleman opposite had said, that it was not included in the provisions of Mr. Perceval's bill-a bill which was brought in after the commission of what was, beyond doubt, a very corrupt act—an act which was proved against Mr. Perceval himself, and a noble lord who was now sitting opposite; yet upon that occasion the House did not think proper to allow the slightest expression of its disapprobation to be recorded. The hon. gentleman had been pleased to consider this before the House as a casus omissus in that bill. Now, he would beg gentlemen to remember, that supposing what that hon. member had stated to be perfectly correct, it did not follow that the petitioner was necessarily guilty. Nothing advanced by, the hon. gentleman himself necessarily implied any thing like moral guilt. But there was a charge against the hon. gentleman, that he had used the patronage and influence of government to further his own electioneering views. For his own

457
part, as he, on the one hand, did not believe that charge to be a true one, so on the other he was not prepared to say that it was entirely without foundation. As on the one side there were direct charges, and on the other mere assertion in reply, he hoped the House would permit the petition to be brought up, especially as it would afford the hon. gentleman a fair opportunity to vindicate his own conduct.
The petition was then brought up and read. In addition to a variety of details relative to former services, and the conduct pursued by captain Hanchett in the execution of his duties, it particularly stated, "That the petitioner finding in 26 days after the date of his appointment, that the sum produced by (his) one-third part of the king's share of all seizures would exceed 6,000 l. or 7,000 l. per ann., which he considered to be greatly beyond a fair compensation for the discharge of his duty, especially at a time when economy was necessary in the public expenditure, voluntarily resigned the same. On the motion, that it do he on the table,
Mr. Lushingtonclaimed the attention of the House, because the petition contained very strong reflections upon the character of one of its members. The hon. gentleman opposite had said nothing about the affair of the 6,000 l., which was the very head and substance of the charge against him. The hon. member then proceeded to read the deposition of lieut. Dombrain. The examinant declared, that in conferring about the proposed arrangement, capt. Hanchett had said, "This is all under the rose; not a word about it to Mr. Lushington." The complainant's petition stated, that lieut. Dombrain, the officer appointed to serve under him, was young and inexperienced. It was a little remarkable, however, that he was the very person in whose favour the resignation of capt. Hanchett was to be made, and with whom the arrangement was projected. And why was not that arrangement concluded? Why, because he (Mr. Lushington) had interfered to prevent it All the statements made by lieut. Dombrain; in regard to the whole affair, were. quite satisfactory. He had always found him zealous and active in the discharge of his duty, and believed him to be incapable of becoming a party to so dishonourable a transaction. The charges which related to himself (Mr. Lushington) referred to meetings of his voters at Rochester, It
458
had been stated on the part of the petitioner, that lieut. Dombrain and his father were to go to Canterbury during the election, and charge their travelling and other expenses upon the contingent account, as if against the public service. Was it likely that he should stultify himself so completely, as to commit himself in this open and tangible manner? He appealed to those who knew his character, whether it was likely that he could for a moment entertain such disgraceful intentions? But' what was the fact? That very officer on the day charged, was employed by capt. Hanchett himself; as could be proved by his own letter. The hon. gentleman then entered into the particulars of the successive appointments and employments of lieutenants Dombrain, Warre, and Gowland, and of captain Knight, and defended the conduct observed towards capt. Hanchett, whose projects he denominated expensive, wild, and impracticable. He would only add, that his resignation was not received till after his dismissal had been determined on.
Mr. Bennetbegged to remind the House, that he had disclaimed any personal acquaintance with the petitioner, or with the facts of his case, upon presenting his petition. He had particularly warned him to advance nothing but the pure truth; and the captain had assured him, in reply, that the statement contained nothing but the truth. As to the story of the 6,000 l., he had explicitly authorized him now to declare, upon his word of honour, as an officer and a gentleman that there was not one word of truth in it. It was true, that in a conversation which took place shortly before the event in question, a proportion was made by old Dombrain, that the captain on his resignation should have two-thirds of the salary of his appointment reserved to him out of it Some explanation ensued in consequence, in the course of which Dombrain, the father, said, that if the Treasury did not make that allowance, he himself would make it up; that at any rate he should have one-third reserved out of the profits of a place which was worth about 5,000 l.or 6,000 l. a year, in consequence of the resignation being so much to his son's advantage. The hon. member hoped the House would feel that consideration at any rate, was due to the case of a man who fad relinquished those pro fits, in the very first act of his appointment, with an honesty which ought to be

459
duly appreciated. He did not know what the artful old Mr. Dombrain might have said, not one word of whose depositions, by the bye, had been communicated to the House; but he knew that captain Hanchett solemnly protested, that, so far from expressing a wish that any arrangement between them should be under the rose, he would not be a party to any one without every particular having been previously communicated to the hon. gentleman opposite. What he complained of in the appointment of lieut. Dombrain was as regarded that appointment three years ago, when he had never seen either duty or service as a lieutenant on board any of his majesty's ships. There was no doubt that so intelligent and active a young man as captain Hanchett described him to be, would have taken good care since that time to render himself efficient. The hon. gentleman reminding the House that at the first outset of this matter he had deprecated the discussion which had ensued, concluded by moving that the petition be printed.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that the extreme length of the petition was a strong objection to the printing of it. The great length of petitions presented to the House struck at the right of petitioning itself, as it would compel the House to make some regulation to save its time. He thought it the duty of every member to impress on petitioners the necessity of compressing their statements. The facts of the petition before the House might have been stated much more briefly and intelligibly.
Sir M. W. Ridleycould not subscribe to the doctrine of his hon. friend. Every petitioner was bound to make out his case as fully and satisfactorily as possible. In the present instance, however, he was inclined to believe that the petition was incorrect, and that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lushington) had correctly stated the case.
Mr. N. Culvertsaid, there was an objection to the printing of the petition independently of its length. It contained a severe charge against a member, which should not be circulated until its truth was inquired into.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the denial of captain Hanchett of his proposal to receive 6,000 l. was wholly inconsistent with a letter of his of the 19th March, to the secretary of the treasury in which he acknowledged that he had, though unintentionally violated the act of parliament.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that capt. Hanchett had acknowledged the fact of a consultation, for the purpose of obtaining an allowance on the resignation of his office, but he denied the fact of any thing of the 6,000 l. being spoken of.
Mr. Lushingtonargued, that the letter of captain H. of the 19th of March, could only refer to this accusation of his having bargained to receive 6,000 l. As to the petition, he was willing to make this proposal:—He would lay before the House all the documents which he thought necessary to illustrate the case, and any others which the hon. gentleman chose to call for; and he would leave it to the hon. gentleman, when he had read them, if any shadow of doubt remained on his mind, to make what proposition he thought proper.
Mr. Bennetaccepted the proposition; and the petition was ordered to be on the table.

BARNSTAPLE BRIBERY BILL.
Lord Clive brought up the report of this bill On the motion, "That the Amendments made by the Committee to the bill be now read a second time,"
Sir Robert Wilsonrose. He claimed the indulgence of the House now, as having on former occasions, in obedience to its wishes, postponed his opposition to the bill until its present stage. He did not feel quite satisfied with its object, which being only the extension of the elective franchise to some 800 freeholders, over the five or six hundred electors of Barnstaple, was not sufficient, he feared, to guard the public against the recurrence of similar events. The mere addition of this number of voters would not, he thought of itself resist the machinations of such a Lothario as sir Manasseh Masseh Lopez. He saw no reason why they should restore to the freemen—freemen they were not—to the salesmen, he should say of Barnstaple, their elective franchise. It was a restoration that was, in effect only the reward of guilt. A fine opportunity was now presented for what he would call, an elementary system of reform. His proposition was, either that one of the counties at present inadequately represented, should have in addition the two members it returned, or that the electors of Barnstaple should be allowed to vote only in the election of the knights of the shire. Since the time of Edward 1st, about sixty boroughs had been created

461
and annihilated; and he thought that they were entitled in these times, where they had justice on their side, in like manner to make and to reject precedents. Let it be remembered, that they had seen thirty unoffending, at any rate unconvicted boroughs in Ireland disfranchised, and the representatives of that country reduced from three hundred to one hundred. There were many men, and he would admit, conscientious men too, likely to be alarmed at his proposition; those who would sanction the most notorious abuses rather than put in practice any thing like reform; who thought that to amend, was to innovate, and that to innovate was to destroy: who were unwilling to admit that any of the horrors of the French revolution had been caused by the profligacy of its rulers, the corruption of its ministers or the imbecility of its government, because it produced such mighty changes. The government of this country must always depend in a great measure on the authority of opinion, and that authority could not be maintained without showing a respect for popular rights, and a steady observance of the great constitutional compact by which all classes of the community were bound together. A reform was demanded, not upon theoretical principles or for the purpose of gratifying visionary schemes, but from a deep-rooted attachment to the principles of our free constitution. The people claimed it, not in indulgence of theories, but as a security against the mal-administration of their affairs and a safeguard of their liberties. It might be said, that if the House acceded to his proposition there would be no limits to the proposals of the reformers. For his own part, he only demanded such a reform as was suited to the moral and intellectual advancement of the age. His constituents, in whose behalf he spoke, were not advocates for annual parliaments and universal suffrage. They claimed the restoration of triennial parliaments which were withdrawn from them, not on any allegation of their inconvenience, but from the fear of a Stuart faction, and which should have been restored to them when that danger ceased. As to universal suffrage, they thought that whatever was the ancient law, a right of voting founded on that amount of property which could be easily obtained by industry, was more suitable to the present state of society. They looked not only to what was desirable, but to what was attainable. In fixing
462
the place to which he should propose to transfer the right of returning two members, he had some difficulty, as so many unrepresented or inadequately represented places had claims. He however thought that as in the West Hiding of Yorkshire; there was a population of 563,000 persons very inadequately represented—that as Leeds, in that riding contained above 60,000 people and 11,268 houses—as it had been an ancient borough, formerly disfranchised without any cause assigned in the parliamentary records, he might propose to give that town the privilege of returning two members, without affording cause of offence to Manchester, Birmingham, or other unrepresented places. It was his intention therefore to propose that the amendments be read this day six months, with a view of moving for leave to bring in a bill to transfer the privilege of returning two members from Barnstaple to Leeds; giving the electors of Barnstaple the privilege of voting for the knights of the shire for Devon, and continuing the sitting member in his seat for the remainder of the parliament.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he had in the case of Helston, suggested the propriety of transferring the franchise to the West Riding of Yorkshire, because all the borough had participated in the benefit of the corrupt bargain proved to have then taken place. In Barnstaple, many electors had not participated in the corrupt practices; he therefore thought, that the present proposal for infusing healthy blood into the borough v. as more just than a bill to divest it altogether of its franchise. He approved too, in the present instance, of the clause to prevent the making non-resident honorary freemen, as the purpose of the bill might be otherwise defeated by the corporation. He suggested that all persons hereafter obtaining their freedom by any means, should not be allowed to vote unless resident.
Sir J. Newportapproved of the bill before the House. There was no other borough in the four hundreds in question, so that that part of the country would not have an undue share of representatives. The proposal of his gallant friend might be less objectionable as applied to Penryn. The bill which he proposed to introduce was objectionable, if not on other grounds on account of the anomaly, that one member would be left seated for Barnstaple on the old, and one returned for Leeds on the new plan.
Mr. Martin, of Galway, proposed, that the bill should be re-committed, to examine evidence, and ascertain how far corruption had prevailed in the borough.
Mr. V. Blakesaid, it did not appear that the whole corporation had been infected with corruption, and therefore he would not inflict a more severe punishment than had been thought necessary in other cases. If the House would consent to recommit the bill, he would move the introduction of certain words which should go to transfer the elective franchise to gentlemen who had freeholds in the neighbourhood, and who were also resident in the borough.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, that the public entertained great expectations that some measure of reform would be adopted, and regarded the present question as a test of the virtue of the House. It was a notorious fact, that corrupt practices prevailed to a great extent, not only in Barnstaple, but in many other places. The elective franchise ought to be considered as a public not a private right, to be exercised for general and not for personal advantage. It could not be denied that our representative system was one of great inequality, that Middlesex, Essex, and Lancashire had not their fair proportion, and that Cornwall sent as many members to that House as thirteen other counties. It was incumbent on them to show a disposition to correct this evil when an occasion was presented, and a gross abuse had been detected. Whatever might be the danger to be apprehended from what were called wild and visionary schemes of reform, he thought this was the period when the House was called upon to punish those acts of corruption which were proved to exist in the return of members to serve in parliament. When the abuses which were known to exist in the different boroughs in Cornwall were spoken of, they were laughed at; yet there was scarcely a member in the House who had not heard of those boroughs being offered for sale, and a price being fixed upon them. He had himself lately heard a gentleman complain, that notwithstanding the depreciation of property generally, the electors of one of those boroughs were so unreasonable as to ask 30 l. a head for their votes, though the price paid at the previous election was no more than 24 l. He thought the gallant officer bad not taken exactly the right course, and was anxious that the bill
464
should be recommitted, as there were a variety of topics connected with this subject which ought to be taken into consideration before the bill was disposed of by the House.
Mr. Alderman Woodanimadverted on the alarm which seemed to be excited on the opposite side of the House by every proposition for a reform. He was sorry so little had been said in the course of the present session in favour of a parliamentary reform, but he hoped the subject would shortly be taken up in a proper manner. He concurred with his hon. friend who had just sat down, in the view which he took of the present bill.
Lord Comptonsupported the bill.
Mr. D. W. Harveythought it would be better that the borough should remain as it now stood, rather than it should, by an extension of the elective franchise, be thrown into the power of some few persons of the landed proprietors in the neighbourhood; as he thought that the aristocracy and landed interest of the country had already more than their due influence in returning representatives to parliament.
Mr. N. Calvertdeclared the landed interest had no predominance in that House. He did not believe that it contained twenty members that purely represented the agricultural interest, most of the members from the agricultural counties being in fact returned by the trading interest.
Mr. G. Lambdeprecated the idea of considering a measure of this kind in the light of its being a parliamentary reform. The noble lord who introduced the bill, had justly stated it to be for the correction of abuses which had been proved to exist. The House by adopting this measure would not, in fact, do any thing more than enforce the laws against bribery and corruption in the return of members to parliament. Whenever the question of parliamentary reform was brought forward (and he trusted that day was not far distant), he hoped he should not be found backward in redeeming the pledge which he had given to his constituents to support that measure. But here that question was not involved: parliamentary reform had nothing to do with the bill before the House. He was anxious that those abuses should be corrected, but as he conceived that the bill did not go far enough he felt himself bound to sup port the amendment.
Lord Clive Lord Clive defended the bill; after

465
which the House divided: For the original motion, 110; For sir R. Wilson's amendment, 12.

POOR RATES MISAPPLICATION BILL
Mr. Sturges Bournehaving moved, that the bill be read a second time,
Mr. Curwen said: —Mr. Speaker; It is a painful duty to oppose any measure purporting to be for the relief of the labouring classes. Viewing it as I do, as calculated to increase, rather than diminish, the burthens, as well as sufferings of the working community; I am compelled to oppose its farther progress. I am at the same time ready to do justice to the motives of my hon. friend. He contemplates the measure through the medium of his own active and benevolent attention to the children of his poor neighbours. The general working of the bill, were it passed into a law, would be very different. Fully to comprehend the consequence likely to result from this measure, it is necessary to look to the actual situation of the working orders of society. At the opening of the session, I opposed the reappointment of the committee. After its having furnished an ample detail of the misery and suffering under the existing system of poor laws, it was the duty of government to have taken the business into their own hands. Efficient relief could only come from them. It may be more convenient for a weak, divided, and unpopular administration to devolve their duties to a committee, and thereby screen themselves from the odium attending a total failure of the plans for relieving the country from the burthens that press so heavily on the community; whilst they promote neither the happiness nor comfort of those who are objects of their relief. That the public are grievously disappointed in the expectation many had formed, must be admitted. I think the blame has fallen most unjustly on the committee. Those to whom it is fairly attributable are the ministers of the Crown. Whilst the nation considers this as the most momentous question, and the one that presses hardest on them, such is the apathy and indifference of ministers, that not one of them has thought it incumbent upon them to attend or give their sentiments on the bill before us. In discussing this measure I must shortly advert to the operation of the 43rd of Elizabeth. Within one century of its passing, the demoralizing effects produced
466
by it were loudly complained of. The legislature, instead of seeking for the causes, attempted a remedy by holding up the parties who received relief to public contempt. Badging the poor for a time produced its effect;—a change of circumstances, and the congregating of numbers into towns, destroyed the feelings of shame, and the numbers seeking relief rendered it impossible to extend it generally. The next expedient resorted to, in modern times, was the terrors of a poor-house, and being forced to abandon every comfort of a home. This has also proved abortive. Pauperism is daily and hourly on the increase. It seems high time to come to a right understanding as to the effect of the poor laws on the mass of the people. The radical evil of this system is, that it removes from the people the care of themselves, thereby destroying that necessary forethought and economy which mixes up the future with the present. Whatever lessens the influence of the present by combining it with the future, has a powerful influence on the moral conduct of mankind. When a whole population, at the very outset of life, contemplate pauperism, it is in vain to suppose they will be disposed to husband their little gains to make any provision for the casualties of life. In the first century after assessments became legalized, the money raised for the poor, amounted to near 400,000 l.; in the next century that sum was quadrupled. But I wish particularly to call the attention of the House to the transactions of the last thirty years: in this period, the contributions to the poor have been quadrupled. This account so greatly exceeds the march of this dreadful malady in former periods, that it at once indicates that there must have been other causes co-operating to produce so extended a demand for relief. It is a very generally received opinion, that this enormous increase of the burthens of the poor proceeds from the crime, waste, and improvidence of those individuals. Does the right hon. gentleman hold this opinion? I do not believe he does. I conceive it is demonstrable that it is the misfortune, not the crime, of the people of England to be thus universally pauperised. In corroboration of this I should adduce the wages thirty years ago of the labourer, then about 8s. per week; During this period the necessaries of life had doubled, whilst wages had only advanced to 12 s. or one-third. Nor is this

467
all, taxation had trebled, taking 1s. a week from every poor, family. Now, sir, the House has on various occasions testified its opinion on the depreciation of money, by the additions it has made to the incomes or allowances of the army and navy; nay, to the Crown and various officers of the state. Shall it, then, act with less justice by the people at large? Is the House prepared to deny that taxation and depreciation of money have pressed most grievously on the people, and that their situation is changed most lamentably for the worse? The 8s. paid as the weekly price, of labour thirty years ago, gave them a command of the necessaries of life eqivalent, to 16 s. in the present day.—If this be as I firmly believe it is, a true, representation of the state of the people, can their sufferings be relieved—can the degradation to which they are exposed be cured by any system of regulations such as have issued from the committee? The malady is seated too deep for such remedies. To destroy pauperism, the people must be enabled to live;—an augmentation of wages and an exemption from taxation are the only measures which can restore the labouring population to that independency of character from which they have so lamentably receded. All the enormous sums expended in the maintenance of the poor fail completely to produce either happiness or comfort. Degraded and humbled, the people have lost that respect for themselves so necessary for happiness. The first remedy is to give them a fair competency. From this will result independence of character and consequent content and happiness. I am ready to admit, as a general principle, the inexpediency of attempting to regulate wages. The writers on political economy have not contemplated the state to which we are reduced. Whilst capital and labour bore a fair proportion to each other, there was no necessity for legislative interference. I will not say, as in the case of Coventry, that it was in our power to relieve them; for had the price of their articles of luxury been advanced, the consumption would most probably have lessened. Is this to be apprehended in agricultural labour? Will the consumption of food be lessened? If not, we might at least have established in the various districts a minimum of labour. I should be strongly inclined towards making the experiment to destroy that cruel and impolitic system of making wages that will
468
barely support the single man the standard of labour, and paying the addition to the married man from the poor rates. Thus is the single man completely debarred from making any provision for a married state. He has no motive, therefore, for delaying to settle, and whenever it occurs he must be pauperised: thus are improvident marriages encouraged and promoted.—Great as is the enormous sum raised for the poor, it must have been infinitely greater, but from a remarkable change which has taken place in the food of the labourer. Within these thirty years potatoes have become the food of the people. They must otherwise have starved on the wages they received. The distresses and difficulties which oppress the labouring classes must naturally dispose them to avail themselves of any expedient of relief, however revolting to their feelings in better and happier times. The present bill holds out a prospect of maintenance for their children. The worthless may accede to this without remorse—the honest and industrious may be driven to accept it through necessity. Is not the principle of this bill completely in unison with the demoralizing principle of the 43d of Elizabeth, creating dependence and thereby undermining exertion? Does it not degrade still farther the people, by proposing to pauperize the rising generation at the very outset of life. The apology for all this is, the education proposed to be given. But he would ask, were not the children of the poor educated now in every part of the empire? Since the introduction of the new system of teaching, education was placed within the reach of the poorest person. Nay, if its blessings were not felt and appreciated by the parent, its universally recognized economy, and the saving of apparel, more than paid the sum for teaching. But, were this not the case, was the education of the mind to be alone considered, was the formation of the heart by those lessons of tenderness and affection which were ingrafted into the disposition by the intercourse of paternal affection, and which were of the utmost importance in forming the moral character, to be disregarded? Could one only of these be obtained, I should prefer the latter, as most likely to produce the most valuable character in that station of life. I conceive the effects of this bill would be to augment premature marriages, whilst it would rob that class of society of their chief and greatest

469
source of happiness. The scale of human happiness is much more equal than by many is supposed. The children of the poor are to them a greater source of happiness, than to the higher orders. Blessed with health and probity, they have no fears for their future life. All the care and anxiety that attend the provision for a family in the upper ranks are here escaped. I am not for interfering with their affections or comforts. I am not willing to offer them a temptation which, however reluctantly their feelings would yield to, their necessities might compel them to comply with.—Such is my view of the operation of this bill. It is impossible the country can much longer endure the state to which it is reduced. If in the last thirty years the burthens of the poor have increased four-fold, or reached to a sum little short of a third of the whole real income of the country,—what a few years more may bring it to, I dare scarcely contemplate. The whole property and industry of the country is in jeopardy, if some effectual remedies be not found. These I conceive to be a removal of taxation, and a fair and reasonable addition to the price of labour. Already the ultimate payment comes from the land. Poor rates are calculated by the farmer as would be wages. No greater burthen could be brought on property. But the sums now paid in the shape of relief, if awarded as the fruits of honest labour, would produce a great and powerful change in the moral feelings of the people. It is to this point our labours must be directed. The demoralization of a whole people must produce its destruction. As such a measure as the one before us can only increase the evils we suffer, I shall therefore oppose its farther progress, and move that the bill be read a second time on this day six months.
Mr. Philipsobjected to the bill on two grounds; first, that it would act partially on the respectable poor of the country; and secondly, as it would give magistrates a power of taking the children of the lower classes from their parents without their consent. No greater encouragement could be given to improvidence and want of industry than this: it would also have the effect of destroying those filial and parental feelings which were the great bond of union in society. Under these impressions, he felt himself called upon to oppose the bill.
Mr. Brandsaid, the evil of the present
470
system consisted in this—that the funds were apportioned, not according to the labour done, but according to the distresses of the individual and his family. The immediate consequence of this was, a general discontent and a disinclination to work among the lower classes. For what poor man would work if he knew he could, obtain a certain support for his family from the parish? The effect of this bill, then, would be, to pay the labourer according to the work done, and not according to his necessities. He thought also that improvident marriages would be more decreased in number by the system proposed, than by paying the labourer, as now was the practice, in proportion to the number of his children. It had been said, that it would be cruel to take the children away from their parents; but the fondest parents had almost invariably adopted, for many years, the practice now proposed, namely, that of sending their children to public schools. He thought the bill, then, calculated to produce the most beneficial effects among the lower orders of society. The poor would be educated in principles of morality and religion, and apprenticed out to trades; by which they would be made useful members of society, instead of their growing up in sloth and ignorance, as was at present too frequently the case. If the bill was found not to be a remedy to the existing evils, recourse could be had to the existing system: but at all events it ought to have a fair trial.
Mr. Shepherdcontended that the bill had an inevitable tendency to increase population, and extend pauperism. The only effectual bar against improvident marriages was the difficulty which presented itself to parents, of providing for their children. Take away that bar, and improvident connexions would be formed, which would infallibly increase pauperism. Besides, the present bill was infinitely worse for children than the present system. The father at present was the only pauper; but by this plan the mind of the child would be degraded by feeling that he also was a pauper. He approved of the last clause which went to prevent the price of labour being paid out of the rates.
Mr. Ricardoopposed the bill, principally on the ground that it tended to increase the population. If at present there existed a difficulty in supporting the poor, in what situation would the country be placed in twenty years hence, when those children so educated grew up to manhood? The

471
bill was only the plan of Mr. Owen, in a worse shape, and carried to a greater extent.
Mr. Ridley Colbornesaid, that the labouring classes were weighed down by a heavy indirect taxation, and were therefore compelled to apply to the parish for relief. By the present system a certain sum was paid to the parent, who might apply it either to his own gratification or to the maintenance of his family. The claim set up for relief was generally the distress of the party; but it was difficult, in many cases to ascertain whether that distress was occasioned by misfortune or by imprudence. When the hardship of taking children from their parents was so much dwelt upon, as a ground for opposing the bill, it should be recollected, with how much difficulty and pain the rates were, in numerous cases, collected, and the small link there was between the person paying, and the one receiving the rate.
Lord Miltonadmitted that this bill might have the effect of deterring the provident, the sober, and the industrious, from early marriages: but could it be expected to have the same influence over the profligate and the indolent, whom it was most important to restrain? He thought the provisions of the bill most unjust. Many persons had been born under the present system, who had now arrived at man's estate: and were these, at the close of a five and twenty years' war, during which the poor had displayed more attachment to the higher orders than had ever been known before, were these now to be rewarded with this bill, and to be told, that, after all the exertions they had made, it was the pleasure of the higher orders to break through the long established system, and determine that that provision should no longer be made for them from the poor rates, on which they had been taught to depend? He should certainly give this bill every opposition in his power, and he wished that besides rejecting it, some mark of reprobation should be set on it by the House.
Mr. W. Courtenaywas surprised at the language which he had heard applied to this bill. Every one in the higher classes of society must feel how much the conduct of the lower orders had merited their praise; but it was a little hard on those who had applied themselves to devise a measure to remedy a great evil, that they should now be charged with injustice and cruelty. But, while some objected to the
472
measure for its harshness towards the labourer, others complained of it as holding out too great a bonus to him, and thereby encouraging improvident marriages. To him the bill appeared to take a middle course, and to deserve neither of the reproaches which had been bestowed on it. He hoped that after the bill had been a short time in operation, it would have the effect of teaching the labourer to exert his energies in his youth, to make some provision for a more advanced period of life, and of deterring him from improvidently marrying. The relief it afforded to the poor, though less palatable to the party receiving it, would, in its effect, prove more beneficial to society. He should therefore, give the bill his most cordial support.
Mr. Westernopposed the bill, and thought it had the appearance of coming from those who wished to perpetuate the present poor laws, rather than from those who were anxious gradually to abolish them.
Mr. T. Courtenaydefended the bill, as embodying two valuable principles. It said to the labourer, "though our code of poor laws is such, that we are bound to save a poor child from starving, we shall do that in such a way as to prove that it is not intended to supply your deficiencies—that it is not done out of kindness to you. That was one important principle. The other which this measure went to establish was this—it divided wages from poor rates.
Mr. Humedisapproved of the bill. Until the country looked the evil fairly in the face, and taught the labourer to depend more on himself, no adequate remedy could be supplied. This measure, if passed into a law, would increase the evil. He wished a course to be taken in this country, similar to that which had been adopted in Scotland, where, if a woman had an illegitimate child, she was obliged to maintain it. What followed? She was careful not to repeat the fault she had committed, lest she should bring into the world a second. In England, women frequently threw two, three, or four children on the parish. He had hoped the hon. gentleman, in bringing in this bill, would have gone the length of declaring, "that from and after the passing of this act, no child legitimate or illegitimate should be entitled to a maintenance from the parish." Such a course, if taken, would strike at the root of the evil, and such a measure he still honed to see introduced.
Mr. Primroseobjected to the bill, as calculated to pepetuate the evils of the present system of poor laws.
Mr. Wynncomplained of the absence of ministers on so important an occasion. Though he objected to some of the clauses, he approved of the general principle, of the bill.
Mr. L. Wellesleyapproved of the bill.
Mr. Alderman Woodobjected to the hill, on account of its dragging children from their parents to bring them up at the expense of the parish.
Mr. Mansfieldwas of opinion, that nothing but patience could remedy the evils brought on the country by the protracted war in which we had been engaged, and that all the palliatives the House could apply would prove of little avail.
Mr. S. Bournedefended the bill, and contended that the opposite arguments urged against it ought to be held to destroy each other. There was nothing of harshness in that provision of the bill which went to separate the children from their parents; as persons in a higher station submitted to such a separation from choice, and sent their offspring not merely to another part of their parish, but to distant places, and even to remote countries. He was of opinion, that the effect of this measure would be, to spare many parishes half the applications which were now made. It was to be feared the habits of the present race of labourers were so formed, that it would be no easy task to effect in them that change which could be wished, and therefore he held it to be wise that the House should look to the rising generation. In them it might be hoped they would succeed in exciting a spirit of industry and independence, which it might be too late to revive in their parents.
The House divided: For the motion, 47; For the amendment, 22. The bill was then read a second time.