Mr. Slaneyregretted, that a subject of so much importance as that to which his motion had relation, should have fallen into hands so incompetent as his own. He had vainly waited, however, for some member of greater weight than himself, to undertake it; but finding that no hon. gentleman was likely to do so, he could no longer forbear submitting his views of a question, in which the welfare and happiness of a large portion of the community were bound up. The poor-rates and pauperism had gone on, frightfully increasing, for many years. By the report of the Poor-laws' committee, dated May 1825, it appeared, that for England and Wales, the amount of poor-rates was in 1748, 689,000l.; in 1784 and 1785 about 2,000,000l. each year; 1803, 4,000,000l.; in 1815, 6,000,000l; in 1818, 6,800,000l.; and in 1821, 7,200,000l. It was at present, a little more than 6,000,000l. On a comparison of several periods, the amount seemed to have doubled in every twenty years, while the population was found to have doubled itself but once in a century. The hon. gentleman went on to shew, that the present system of Poor-laws was destructive, not only to the independence and character of the labouring agricultural population, but, eventually, to the whole capital and interests of agriculture. He drew a comparison between the state of the poor in Scotland, as compared with their condition in England and Wales, and entered into various statements to show that their condition in Scotland was much better; 1257 the charge of their support so much less, that it was only as one to sixty-eight, contrasted with the charge for England and Wales. He deprecated, in strong language, the fatal system adopted by the south and south-eastern counties of England, of paying able-bodied labourers wages, in so many cases, out of the Poor-rates, as one which tended not merely to the extinction of all industry and spirit among them, but which operated powerfully to sanction improvidence, and encourage crime. What was the cause of pauperism in England? Not, as had been idly contended, the extent of our manufacturing interests; for high Poor-rates and low wages were invariably found in our agricultural districts. Those gentlemen who were given to geology, as well as to legislation, would observe, that by drawing a line between the north-west and south-east part of the country, those counties which lay on the north-west side of the line, were coal and agricultural counties; whereas those which lay on the south-east were chalk and manufacturing ones. With the exception of Norwich, there was not one eminent manufacturing town on the south-east side of the line. As further proof that poverty was more prevalent in agricultural than in manufacturing districts, the Poor-rates were much heavier in the former districts than the latter. He would next refer to the committee of 1817. In that report it was stated, that the effect of the present system would be "to increase the amount of the Poor-rates, so that they would continue until the whole property of the land was absorbed, to the subversion of the order and happiness of society in this country." After referring to the increase of Poor-rates arising from allowing able-bodied men to come upon that fund which should be sacred to the infirm and helpless, he next called the attention of the House to the far better arrangements respecting the poor which were to be found in Scotland than in England, and the comparatively less prevalence of poverty in that country. Another important point of view in which to consider the comparative poverty to be found in the two countries, was, that the increase of Poor-rates was found proportionable to the extent and increase of crime. The Poor-rates of Scotland, taking the average of the last ten years, as compared with England and Wales, were in the proportion of one to sixty- 1258 eight, and the proportion of criminals in that time was as one to fifty-seven. The object of the bill he was about to propose was to remove the bounty to improvidence which the present system held out in the southern counties, in the payment of able-bodied men out of the Poor-rates, and to restore that natural order of things which would raise a man from a degraded dependence to one of independence. After quoting the opinions of two committees in support of his opinion, and referring to the opinions of Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Malthus, and others, as authorities to guide him rather than advance any opinion of his own, the hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "for leave to bring in a bill to declare and amend the law relative to the employment and payment of able-bodied labourers out of the Poor-rates."
Leave was given to bring in the bill.