§ The Duke of Richmondsaid, that the object of the Bill he held in his hand was, to amend the Act of last Session relative to the better employment of Agricultural Labourers in certain districts. That Act had passed after some discussion, but without any division, and the object of the present Bill was to explain parts of it that were obscure, and to add a penalty clause, the want of which in the Act, had been felt in many instances. He should have done no more than merely state in this manner the object of the Bill, had the observations on a former evening not been made, and was there no opposition expected from the right reverend Prelate (the Bishop of London), who was, of opinion that a labour-rate was contrary to principle, and that it was impossible to enact a scale of payment which would do 665 justice to all classes. Though there might be some truth in this latter remark, yet he must say, that he thought the principle of giving the rate-payers the means of employing the labourers in their district must be advantageous. It could not be wrong that they should have the expenditure of their own money. Moreover, the agreement was not binding unless sanctioned by a majority of the Justices in Petty Sessions assembled, and not quashed by an appeal when it became a contract. In his humble opinion that was a sufficient guarantee against any act of injustice. He must, however, refer to the papers which were moved for by the right reverend Prelate on a former occasion, and entreat their Lordships to believe that, in the observations he should make on that Report, he had not the slightest intention to detract from the merit of those gentlemen who undertook the gratuitous, though arduous and important office, of Commissioners to inquire into the present state and operation of the Poor-laws. He would call the attention of their Lordships, particularly, to those parts of the Report which were favourable to this Bill, and he would leave to the opponents of the measure the task of quoting any portion which had a contrary tendency. The Commissioners stated, that they had been struck by the frequent recurrence, in the answers to their inquiries of the suggestion of a labour-rate. The Commissioners then proved that a general feeling in favour of a labour-rate existed in the country; and their Lordships would find upon inquiry, that persons who had seen the experiment tried, were of opinion that it had worked well, both for the employer and the employed. The Commissioners proceeded to say, that the expedient was generally proposed 'Where a portion of the land in the parish is not cultivated to the extent which would be profitable, although there are labourers in the parish ready to do the work, and supported in idleness or unproductive labour, in consequence of the refusal of the occupiers of the land to employ them. This is a subject obviously unfit for legislative interference. The refusal of an occupier to employ labour profitably must arise from want of capital—in which case it would not be remedied by a labour-rate—or from a perverseness so contrary to the ordinary principles of human nature that it may be safely left to its own punishment. 666 It cannot be necessary to force men, by Act of Parliament, to make a profitable use of their capital.' He had not the slightest wish or intention of interfering with the profitable use of the capital of the occupiers; but the Legislature ought to take care that the labourer whose only wealth was his labour, should have the means of supporting himself by employment, instead of being dependent on the overseer for relief. The second case put by the Commissioners was this:—Where the labourers in the parish are more than are wanted for the profitable cultivation of the whole of the land, and a portion of them who, if employed, or still further cultivating the land, would earn not the whole, but a part of their maintenance, are supported in idleness, or in comparatively unproductive labour, in consequence of the refusal of the occupiers, or of some of the occupiers, to employ them in further cultivation, at a loss, indeed, but at not so great a loss, as is actually incurred. To this case of the existence of surplus labourers, whose services were wholly, or almost wholly wasted, but which might be turned to some account, the Commissioners gave the following answer:—'That they have met with many cases in which an agreement among the occupiers to divide among themselves, the surplus labourers has immediately been beneficial, has diminished the rates, increased the fund for the payment of labour, and improved the character and condition of those labourers whom it has taken into farm-service from the roads or the gravel-pit.' That was in fact one of the great objects contemplated by the Bill, and yet those gentlemen put forth that as an argument against it. The Commissioners went on to state, 'That they have met with a still greater number of instances by which one or more individual occupiers have, by their resistance, either prevented or occasioned such an agreement to be discontinued, or have obtained an unfair advantage by participating in the reduction of rates without contributing to the process by which that reduction has been effected.' Yet the Commissioners said, that the evil seemed to them, in the first place, unfit for Legislative interference, and that it arose either from a want of capital, or a perverseness of disposition. The first a labour-rate would not amend, and the other might safely be left to the operation 667 of its own punishment. With this he could not bring himself to agree. They next remarked that it was an evil that those labourers, who, if employed by the rate-payers, would at least earn half their subsistence, were now wholly kept in idleness. How did the Commissioners answer that? Why, they admitted that in many cases where the rate-payers had agreed to divide among themselves the surplus labour of the parish, great advantages had arisen—an admission which overthrew one of their former objections. As to the Pulborough case on which the Commissioners had dwelt he would make a few remarks. They said in the labour-rate agreement lately proposed at Pulborough, in Sussex, the clergyman's tithes were rated at 1,050l. a-year, and he was consequently required either to take thirty-five labourers, or pay the parish a sum equal to what would have been their wages. Against any system which perpetrates such fraud and injustice the Commissioners enter their strongest protest. Protest indeed! well, they might, but his answer was that that agreement was never carried into execution. It was taken to the Petworth Petty Sessions, and there rescinded. But independently of that it was not fair to quote Pulborough, which was, he admitted, in a most distressing situation, owing to the want of harmony between the rector and the parishioners. The consequence was, that from 100 to 150 labourers were placed upon the roads, because no other employment could be found for them. The Commissioners then objected to the scheme, because, as they said, it would enable the majority of those present to bind the rest, by which small parties would be enabled, by connivance amongst themselves, to form a majority at any given meeting, and thus inflict a labour-rate against the judgment of almost the whole parish. The supposition was rather an unfortunate one, for it required a majority of three-fourths of the persons present to make the rate, and if the parishioners did not choose to attend after due notice, they must blame themselves. The Commissioners carried their supposition so far as to say, that a few members of factories might pauperise a whole manufacturing town, by removing from the scene of their operations with the spoil they had accumulated. The answer to that extravagant supposition was, that as manufacturers did not shift from one town to another, 668 the effect would fall on those who caused it, as well as on the rest, and also that this Bill was not to take effect in a town with more than one parish. The manufacturers supposed by the Commissioners appeared to him to be of that class which travelled in covered carts from one common to another, and who did too often run off with whatever spoil they could lay their hands on. Having said this in answer to the objections made by the Commissioners, he should now proceed to speak of the practical effect of this Bill. He had received letters from different parts of the country on this subject—from parts where the experiment had been tried, and where consequently the opinions were formed from practice not from hypothesis. He would, with their Lordships' permission, read some of those communications. The noble Duke accordingly read extracts from a great number of communications, expressing opinions highly favourable to the Act. The first of these was from a Magistrate of a parish in Sussex. That letter stated, that in that parish there had been thirty-two men who had been employed upon the roads before the labour-rate was adopted; that they had been idle and discontented, but that since that rate had been adopted, only two had been so employed; that no complaints were now heard either from the overseer or the men, and that a saving of 500l. had been effected. The next letter was from the parish of Henfield, and stated, that the saving effected had equalled the sum of 600l., and that the state of affairs since the adoption of the labour-rate had been most satisfactory. The third letter related to Wanham, and was from Sir T. Shelley, an active Magistrate, who stated that the Bill had perfectly succeeded in that parish, and that the consequence of it was, that no labourer was out of work during the whole of the winter. In West Grinstead, Sir Charles Burrell said, that the system was stated to have answered the expectations of its most ardent well-wishers. In Chichester the report made was, that the people felt convinced that this Act would do great good; and that unless something of the kind had been done, they should have been ruined by their poor. He had a similar testimony from Gloucestershire. From Badingham, a parish in Suffolk, the report sent up was that by the operation of the labour-rate, a sum of 100l. had been saved in a few 669 weeks. From another place in the same county, it was stated, that after the experience they had had of it, they could not speak too highly of the labour-rate. From Potten Island, word was sent that the bill, so far as they had seen its operation, had given universal satisfaction. From Moulton the account was, that only one-half the amount of expenditure was required in February and March that had been required in December and January, and yet that the labourers were in a better condition. The same was stated to have been the effect in other parishes, although, from the unfortunate state of the weather, as it regarded agricultural employment, the labourer would, otherwise, have been quite destitute. From Buckinghamshire, the report was, that it had done great good, and that it had tended to unite those classes, who had too long been severed from each other. From Hampshire, Mr. Reader, an active Magistrate, sent word, that it had acted most beneficially—that it had kept down the poor's rates—that the men were employed—and that the poor men had been prevented from clubbing their discontents, and hatching mischief's. From Hampden, the Report had been most favourable; and from Farnham, the statement made was, that in the winter of 1831–1832, 196 men had been upon the parish; but that in February, 1833, there were only twelve—that a saving of 84l. had been made in eight weeks—that there had been no fires, no depredations, no disturbances. At Marlow, eighty—nay, he might say 100 labourers had been taken from the poor's rates; and from Enfield, he had evidence of its great utility. In Surrey, he had the authority of Mr. Holme Sumner for saying, that in many parts it had produced the most advantageous results; and, in the report of the Poor Law commissioners, who visited Warburton, great benefits were attributed to its operation. Their Lordships would see from these testimonials, that not only in every instance had the Act reduced the poor's rates, but it had done more—it had effected an object of much higher importance, in finding constant employment at a fair rate of wages, for large bodies of labourers. It precluded the necessity of sending young married men on the high roads, by which, they became bad workmen and worse subjects. It made them independent, and showed them the value and the comfort of peace, good order, and industrious 670 habits. It took away the temptation, which was continually before their eyes, to do one of two things:—First, to make an early and improvident marriage, by which the labourer, having nothing to do, hoped to force the farmer to give him employ: or, secondly, being placed in gangs on the road, and becoming dissatisfied with his miserable pittance, recklessly committing offences against the laws of his country. This was no new, no hypothetical case, but one often occurring. In order to illustrate this part of his case, he would read an extract from an Appeal to the Justice of his Country, by an agricultural labourer, who was tried for Machine-breaking, at Salisbury, in 1831. It was this: 'But I am told, I am indebted to the benevolence of the law, for a provision against want. My Lords, it is the mode, in which this benevolent law is administered by the legal authorities, that has brought me into the unhappy position in which I now stand. I am unmarried; and for this reason alone, during nearly one-half of the year, I am refused all employment by the farmers of my neighbourhood. They prefer the men of large families, because, as they truly say, they must keep them; and, whatever wages they pay them go to save the Poor-rate; whereas, if they employed me, the same wages would be far more than I can claim from that rate; and, by not doing so, they save that difference. My Lords, I humbly beg to represent, that the difference which they save, as employers and rate-payers, I lose. I am prevented, through no fault of my own, but solely, through my being unburthened with a family, from earning fair wages in an industrious employment, and driven to apply to the overseer, to save me from starvation. The overseer sends me to work for those very farmers who refused to employ me voluntarily, to work on their farms, and for their profit, at a rate of 6d. a-day. My natural sense of justice revolts, at being required to do the same work for 6d., for which, other and weaker men than myself, working by my side, receive 2s., because they have a wife and family. The overseer takes me before a Magistrate, for not doing as much work as the man who receives four times as much pay as myself, and the Magistrate commits me to gaol it was to afford employment—to mitigate the evils here alluded to—that the measure of last Ses- 671 sion was brought before Parliament. It had been found, in practice, to exceed the most sanguine expectations. He hoped he should not be misunderstood. He did not propose the measure as a cure for all evils, under which the agricultural population was suffering, nor as a remedy for those produced by the mal-administration of the Poor-laws. He brought it forward as a temporary measure, and as a palliative for present evils, till a more permanent amelioration could be decided on. And here he would express his sincere hope, that the Session would not be allowed to conclude, without some step being taken towards the improvement of those laws, which, though originally passed with the benevolent intention of protecting the poor, had become the cause of much distress and crime. He would just remind the House, that this Bill would not again have come before their Lordships, had it not been for the accidental omission of a penalty clause; and with the assurance that he should not object to the insertion of any clause, which they might think a desirable addition, he would express an earnest hope, that their Lordships would permit it to be read a second time.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, he felt extremely indisposed to oppose the second reading of any bill, which was brought forward under the auspices of the noble Duke. He knew well the excellent motives which influenced all his conduct in that House; and great was his reluctance, therefore, in opposing the present Motion. But that respect would not, of course, deter him from the performance of what he considered to be a duty. He felt himself bound to oppose this measure—first, as a member of the Poor-law Commission, and in the next place, as the protector of an order of men, for whose benefit this measure was kindly intended, but whose ruin, in his opinion, it would ultimately prove. Indeed, he would not have come forward, if he were not satisfied the measure would prove downright ruinous to those very parties whose privations it was hoped to diminish. With respect to the document, from which quotations had been read, he did not think the noble Duke had treated the Poor-law Commissioners very fairly. The noble Duke read certain portions of the Commissioners' answer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in favour of a certain kind of rate; but he passed over those which told against the present one. The Commissioners 672 said, there were many places where a labour-rate would prove highly beneficial, when it was founded on just and tolerable principles. He denied, however, that the Commissioners had, in any part of their report, been inconsistent, as might be inferred from the argument of the noble Duke. What did this Bill do? It gave a power to a certain class of men, to inflict positive injury on the proprietors of land. Look to the case at Pulborough, to which the noble Duke had referred. The living was worth 1,050l.; and, for the non-employment of labourers, fines to the amount of 900l. were sought to be inflicted. This, he contended, showed the injustice of the Bill. The case was brought before the Magistrates; they did not refuse to inquire into it; but they dismissed it on some technical defect, and decided that the rate should not be paid. Now, with all respect for the country Magistracy, he did not think they were always competent to decide on nice and disputed points of law; and he would say, that power ought not to have been given to any two Magistrates, even to permit, as they might have done in this instance, that such an act of injustice as he had described might be perpetrated. It was true that that particular case had been dismissed; but, unjust as it was, it might have been otherwise. As to the extracts which the noble Duke had read in favour of the measure, he should only say, that the Commissioners had stated, as strongly as the noble Duke had done, that in many instances, the system had been found to have done good, and that, under it, considerable employment for the labouring poor had been obtained; but if they viewed its operation generally, a different result would be obtained. A Bill, the principle of which was much the same as that of the present, was introduced into that House by a noble Earl in 1831. On that occasion, he had stated his objections to it, on the score of general policy as well as of principle; feeling that it would deeply injure a particular class of individuals, whose interest it was his duty to protect. A noble Lord observed, in the course of that discussion, that "he believed the Bill to be radically wrong in principle. It put the provident and the improvident man on a level. It absolutely encouraged an opinion, which unfortunately prevailed amongst some classes, that, whether a man was prudent or imprudent, he deserved the same pro- 673 vision." That, in his opinion, really was the fact. Another noble Lord, the President of the Council, objected to the measure on that occasion, observing, that "he considered it highly objectionable, because it interfered with the farmer in the management of his property, and made it his interest to employ the cheapest and the worst workmen." In answer to these observations, the noble Lord who introduced that Bill stated, that it was not to be a fixed measure, but to be restricted to two years; but to that remark the noble Marquess objected, as he now objected, that if the Bill were once permitted to be passed, there would be great difficulty in getting rid of it. Now, let the House look to the future effects of the measure at present before them. Take a parish with 100 labourers, and having employment for only eighty of them. The labour-rate was called for, and the twenty surplus labourers were set to work. But would they be taken at the same rate as was paid to those whose services were found absolutely necessary? Was that possible? But if they were so paid, must it not be out of the pockets of those employers, who did not want their services? This he took to be an act of injustice. The noble Duke contended, that the present Bill would hinder early and improvident marriages; but from that opinion he entirely dissented. Let such a rate once be allowed, and they would be compelled to go on, continually increasing it, till the whole property of the country was absorbed, and that, not from the effect of a badly-administered law, but by the direct recognition of Parliament. The measure, the noble Duke said, was intended merely as a palliative. Now, in his opinion, it was not wise to palliate the symptoms of disease. They might, perhaps, ease a patient for a time, by taking blood highly excited from him; but was it sensible to transfuse that blood into the veins of another? Their Lordships ought not to attempt to relieve one class of the community at the expense of another, when they were prepared, as he had no doubt their Lordships were prepared, to remove the evils of every class. With regard to the answer of the Poor-law Commissioners to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was only fair to state, that it was not unanimously agreed to. One of the Commissioners, a gentleman of great experience, Mr. Sturges Bourne, could not agree with his 674 brother Commissioners. He thought, that the principle of a labour-rate was incurably vicious, but that the evils of it might be mitigated much more than they were by the present Bill, The right reverend Prelate further said, another evil that he saw in this measure was, that all property was rated alike, whether arable or pasture. It was most unfair also to rate tithes on the same scale with other things; indeed, they ought not, in any case, to be rated with agricultural property. Mr. Lowman, in his admirable work lately published, had clearly shown the injustice of this mode of rating. In fact, as far as the clergy were concerned, he could prove, by letters, that if the measure were carried, it would have the effect of depriving them of the means of existence. He likewise insisted, that the experiment of labour-rates had not yet been fairly tried. Where the results were likely to be of such great consequence, their Lordships ought not to think an experiment fairly tried which had only been in operation for nine months. Before the next Session, the House would have greater experience, and would therefore be able to legislate better on this subject. He likewise called the attention of their Lordships to the fact, that the noble Duke had not adverted to the mode in which this Bill would affect the free circulation of labour. That free circulation was already greatly impeded by the Poor-laws; but this Bill would dam it up, and stop it entirely. In many parishes (he himself had known instances of the case), farmers would be compelled immediately to dismiss their best labourers, because they did not belong to the parish. The right reverend Prelate proceeded to read the Report of one of the Assistant Commissioners, to show the evils which resulted from the false principle of the Poor-laws, that every man who wanted relief was entitled to it, simply because he wanted it, and without reference to other considerations. He opposed the Bill also on the ground that (as indeed he had incidentally shown in what he had taken the liberty of stating to their Lordships) it would be injurious to the labourers themselves—to their character, their comfort, and their happiness. On that ground, and because the Bill in other respects would be a bad one at any period, and was especially bad at such a period as the present, he must oppose it. The noble Duke had 675 spoken of amendments in the Committee; but what the nature of those amendments was, the noble Duke had not explained. He (the Bishop of London) feared, that the Bill was not susceptible of any amendment by which it would be rendered not decidedly objectionable. It would be necessary first to alter the principle of the Bill, before its details could be improved. Ill his opinion, the best course their Lordships could pursue, would be to throw the Bill out, with a view, if any measure on the subject were immediately necessary (which, however, was not his opinion), to the introduction of a new bill. He apologized to their Lordships for having trespassed so long on their attention; but, independently of his duty as one of his Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the Poor-laws, he had a duty to perform as a Minister of the Gospel. There was no subject which added so cruelly to the labour of a clergyman, which so frequently crossed his path, which so completely nullified his efforts, and which placed him in the painful situation of appearing to uphold one class of the community at the expense of another, as the state of the Poor-laws. Under the present pernicious system, aggravated as it was by frequent attempts at legislative correction, it was utterly impossible for the ministers of the Established Church to do their duty beneficially to the country. Under all these circumstances, he would move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
The Marquess of Lansdowncomplimented the right reverend Prelate on the clear and explicit manner in which he had stated his opinion on this most important subject. He (the Marquess of Lansdown) felt himself in a painful situation on the question; for, having had much experience respecting it, he was compelled to say, that he assented to every one of the principles which had been laid down by the right reverend Prelate; and that he continued to entertain every opinion which he had formerly expressed, when a Bill proposed by a noble Earl opposite was under consideration, for which Bill his noble friend's Bill was tendered as a substitute, and passed. Nevertheless, he was desirous that the present Bill should go into a Committee, as a temporary measure only; with this knowledge and avowal, that, great as was 676 the necessity for a remedy in the administration of the Poor-laws, the present was not the moment in which to propose a remedy, or to endeavour to sweep away all the existing abuses. All, indeed, that he had to complain of in the observations of the right reverend Prelate, and in the Report of the Commissioners, was, that they dwelt on what they termed the permanent disadvantages of his noble friend's Bill, as if it were proposed to engraft that Bill on the system permanently, while all that his noble friend proposed was, to divert for the present into a more useful channel, the money which, under any circumstances, must continue to be raised for the maintenance of the poor. He felt strongly, that if it were possible to get rid of the vicious principle of the Bill (as well described by the right reverend Prelate), which tended to create a demand for labour where it did not exist—if it were possible to get rid of the principle of mixing wages with relief, he would at once urge his noble friend to withdraw his Bill. But, looking at the various modes which had been resorted to in different parishes, he could not admit that they were better than that comprehended in his noble friend's measure. So little were the expedients to which he adverted calculated to raise the character of the labourers, that they were calculated to keep the labourers in a state of degradation which would disqualify them for receiving any amelioration of their condition which the Legislature might hereafter possess the means of affording. Every mode ought to be adopted which it was possible to adopt, to maintain the character of the labourer, and to keep him in a state of comparative independence; and that was the object of the present Bill; and in so far it was much preferable to the system, which in many parts of the country, and especially in the West of England, exposed the labourer to a degradation which would unfit him for any future improvement. It was undoubtedly true, that the Bill might be liable to abuse, but it might undergo correction in the Committee. What it principally did was, to enlarge the power of the parishes to employ the funds which must be raised. It did not give power to raise any new sum; but it merely divested the existing system of some of its vices, until their Lordships felt themselves in a situation to adopt some more extensive measure. Ad- 677 verting to the Report of the Commissioners, the noble Marquess maintained, that the evils to which that Report referred, were the evils of the existing system, and not of his noble friend's Bill. The provisions of that Bill would rarely be applied in towns by the manufacturer or the tradesman; its great object was, to keep the agricultural labourer in a state of comparative independence. It was, however, only as a temporary measure that he voted for it; although he was afraid a permanent measure could not be proposed in the present Session, as it was not probable the Report of the Commissioners could be made, until nearly the end of the Session, if then.
The Earl of Winchilseatrusted, that their Lordships would agree to his noble Friend's Bill, unless they were prepared to pass some other measure for the purpose of preventing those demoralizing effects which that Bill was calculated to diminish. It had been already stated by his noble friend and himself, that the Bill was only temporary. As to the administration of the Bill, he (Lord Winchilsea) had had experience of it in several parishes; and it appeared to be very fairly administered. The right reverend Prelate complained, that land of different descriptions—arable, pasture, and woodland—were equally rated. In the parishes with which he (Lord Winchilsea) was acquainted, that was not the case. Indeed, no one acquainted with agricultural matters would, he should think, put different descriptions of land on the same footing in that respect. He trusted their Lordships would allow the Bill to go into a Committee. He should have no objection to the proposition, that the tithe-owner should have his choice if he would be brought under the operation of the Bill or not; and that an average should betaken of the rates for four years. The Bill had tended much to improve the morals of the labouring classes, who had been greatly demoralized by the system which had compelled them to receive a pittance from the parish. He admitted, that in principle, the measure was not altogether unexceptionable. But such had been the mal-administration of the Poor-laws, that it was exceedingly desirable to embrace a mode of getting rid of even a portion of the evil which had resulted from it.
The Marquess of Salisburyregretted, that the noble Duke had thought fit to 678 extend his measure beyond a mere explanatory enactment. He particularly objected to that part of the Bill which empowered three-fourths of a parish to enforce a labour rate.
§ The Duke of Richmondsaid, that the Bill did not give that power to three-fourths of the parish, but to three-fourths of those present in the vestry.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellsassented to the principle of the Bill, because he thought, that the power with which it invested Magistrates of giving employment to the labouring poor would have the effect of preventing much misery. He should give his vote for the second reading.
The Marquess of Buteobjected to the principle on which the Bill proceeded; but, after the assurance given by the noble Duke, that the measure was only intended to be a temporary one, and entertaining a hope that some of its objectionable provisions might be modified in Committee, he should not divide the House against the second reading.
§ Lord Wynfordconcurred in every word that had been uttered by the right reverend Prelate (the Bishop of London) on this subject. He conceived, that the Bill revived all the vicious principles of the Poor-law, and remedied none of its defects. He trusted, from what the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdown) had said, that tithes would not be affected by the Bill. If that species of property were subjected to a labour-rate under this Bill, it would, in effect, be extinguished, and that, too, without commutation.
§ The Duke of Richmondbegged to inform the noble and learned Lord, that he could not be a party to any agreement to the effect that tithes should not be rated. If tithes were taken in kind, it was but just that they should pay the labour-rate; and they ought only to be exempted in cases where a composition was made, with an agreement that the parishioners should pay the labour-rate. He did not understand the reason of the extreme jealousy which was manifested on the subject of tithes. The Bill did not attack tithes. It had already been tried in 424 parishes, and no instance of a clergyman complaining of its operation had been mentioned. The Bill had been received with satisfaction by the labourers of the country, for it had shown them that the interest of the landlord, the 679 tenant, and the labourer, was one and the same. It was this feeling which offered the surest safeguard against the recurrence of those outrages and that system of terror which, in the Autumn of 1830, disgraced the fairest portion of England.
The Bishop of London, in withdrawing his Amendment, observed, that perhaps the reason why their Lordships had heard no complaints from clergymen against this Bill was, because they possessed the power, in consequence of the inefficiency of the measure, of frustrating its operation.
§ The Bill was read a second time.