Sitting of 21 February 1817

LONDON PETITION RESPECTING THE HOUSE AND WINDOW DUTIES.
Sir James Shawrose to present a petition from several merchants, traders, and shopkeepers, in the city of London, on a subject to which he begged leave to call the attention of the chancellor of the exchequer. It was respecting the new reading and new construction given to an act of par-
†

493
liament by the commissioners of taxes, whereby they attempted to levy a tax on warehouses and shops, which were solely occupied as such, and were not in any respect dwelling-houses: and what rendered the case more oppressive was, that many of these tenements had been occupied by the petitioners for a period considerably exceeding five years, and no such demand was ever thought of or made before. This application would last year have been made to the House for redress, had an assurance not been given to the petitioners by the treasury, that a bill would be brought into parliament to prevent such irregularity. That assurance had not, however, been fulfilled, and the petitioners had therefore felt themselves irresistibly compelled to make this application for redress to the House, particularly because when the House was prorogued last session, advantage was taken of that circumstance, and this unlawful tax demanded, which they were forced to pay, or be exposed to the consequence of its being levied by a distress. The barons of his majesty's court of exchequer in Scotland had decided that such a tax could not be levied, and they had done so unanimously. It might therefore be reasonably expected so glaring a difference should not be allowed to exist between the two kingdoms, and that a bill to that effect would be brought into the House. The case of the petitioners was certainly oppressive in the extreme as they were obliged to pay this illegal and most oppressive tax at a moment when even that small part of the foreign market which remained open to the British trader was glutted with goods, when the warehouses at home were overstocked, and when the trader had no alternative but to resort to his capital to support his family, instead of the profits of his industry. He trusted the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer would give this his most serious attention, aad really remember, that at a time so pressing in every point of view as the present, it was oppressive in the extreme to allow the trader to be unnecessarily and improperly harassed.
The Petition, which was then read, was as follows:—
"To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled;
"The humble Petition of the several persons whose names are here under-written, being respectively
494
Merchants, Traders, and Shopkeepers, within the City of London.
"Sheweth—That your petitioners have lately been charged with the inhabited house duty, and the duty on windows for tenements, solely used or occupied by them either as shops, counting houses, warehouses or manufactories, and which can in no respect whatever be considered as dwelling-houses.
"That the tenements so assessed to the said duties have been in the occupation of your petitioners for various periods of time, namely from five to seventeen years, without having been before charged with the aforesaid duties, or any of them and without having been used as dwelling-houses during those periods; and that many of them would never have been taken into the occupation of your petitioners, had it not been supposed that they were clearly exempt from the duties chargeable on inhabited houses.
"That on appeal to the commissioners for assessed taxes your petitioners have not been able to obtain either redress or any satisfactory information as to the ground on which they have been so charged; and so varied are the cases of your several petitioners, that they are convinced either that the legislature did not intend they should be so charged and assessed, or that from the general and sweeping words of the act the interpretation of the law is sufficiently clear to include and charge with the said duties every building which comes under the denomination of shop, counting-house, warehouse or manufactory, although not used or occupied in any respect as a dwelling-house. Yet your petitioners have observed, not only that the said duties have been very partially levied in England, but that the right hon. the barons of the exchequer in Scotland have unanimously decided, that no shop, counting-house, warehouse, or manufactory, similar to those of your petitioners, is chargeable with the said duties, in that part of his majesty's dominions.
"That a petition similar to the present, would have been presented to this honourable House during the last session of parliament, had not an observation of the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer led your petitioners to expect redress before its close.
"That as soon, however, as the session was ended, the commissioners proceeded to enforce the assessment, and in many instances levied the rates by distress.
"That your petitioners do not yield to any of his majesty's subjects in readiness to bear whatever amount of taxation the necessities of the state may lay upon them, equally with their fellow subjects; but they do trust and hope, that they may not henceforth be compelled to pay or submit to duties and imposts which seem to be charged and inflicted upon them with evident partiality, and apparently without justice.
"Your petitioners therefore humbly pray, that this honourable House will take their case into its early and serious consideration, and will adopt such measures for the relief of your petitioners therein, as to this honourable House may seem fit.
"And your petitioners shall ever pray. &c."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was fully aware of the hardships of this case, as stated by the hon. baronet, and he could assure him and the House, that immediate measures would be taken to prevent its recurrence. He should certainly do every thing he possibly could to promote the benefit of all parties, and to do justice between them. He should do so without delay, and could only regret that any individual should have been put to any inconvenience.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

LICENSING OF PUBLIC HOUSES.
Sir S. Romillypresented a petition from several householders residing in, and by White Horse lane, in the parish of Stepney, complaining of the conduct of magistrates in the licensing of public-houses. All he should ask at present would be, for the petitions to lie on the table, as he intended at a future time to move for a committee on the subject. If his hon. friend, who moved for a committee last session on the subject of the police, should offer any measure on the report of that committee, the present petition might be referred to that; if he did not come forward, he should himself propose a committee on the question. The petition in his hand was signed by 250 respectable individuals, who complained of the injustice of the magistrates in refusing to license a house in that district, which was very much wanted; the house, too, was one of a very superior description. Taking the circumstance by itself, perhaps there was little to complain of, that the magistrates, in the exercise of
496
the very great discretion that was reposed in them, should refuse to license a particular house: but in the very same district the same magistrates had licensed houses of the most notoriously objectionable description. There certainly had been a difference of opinion on this subject, and it had been complained, that the magistrates had had no opportunity to go into their own justification. It was, however, quite impossible for him at present, and in such a manner, to go into the case with any hope of doing justice; he was therefore desirous that the House should choose a committee for the purpose. But the light in which he regarded the subject was, not the inconvenience to an individual in not obtaining a licence he might have a right to expect, or the inconvenience of a neighbourhood in not having a public-house it might be in need of; it was, that this subject was intimately connected with the state of the police, and that the conduct of the magistrates did mainly affect the state of the criminal poor, if he might use the expression. In the district from whence the petition came, the number of public-houses was so great, that in Shadwell every twelfth house was a public-house; in Gravel-lane, every eighth house; in Nortonfalgate there was a public-house for every 73 inhabitants; and these houses were principally of the lowest and most infamous description, the common resort of thieves and prostitutes. It had been imputed to some of the witnesses before the committee, that they had acted from pique; but he would rely on the statement made by Mr. Gifford, in his account of the police of that district, that the conduct of the magistrates was so grossly unjust, they were so inattentive to the complaints that were made, and the complaints were so entirely fruitless, that he had stayed away from the meetings altogether. The evidence of Mr. Markland was to the same effect. Sir S. Romilly then proceeded to read part of Mr. Gifford's evidence. To the question, whether a formal complaint proved against a house before the magistrates was sufficient to cause a refusal of the licence to that house, he answered, no: he had himself reported a most disorderly house, and yet a licence had been granted, as if no such report had been made. Houses of this description were termed "flash-houses," and were the refuge of thieves and prostitutes of the lowest description.

497
He thought them a great cause of the depravity of morals in the metropolis. His reasons for not attending the meetings of the magistrates were, that no complaints were ever attended to. Some of the magistrates were brewers themselves, others were owners of public-houses, others had relations who were brewers or owners: one of the magistrates who granted licences in that district was the proprietor of twelve public-houses, and receiver of the rents of ten others; he was more or less interested in two-and-twenty. He would not take up the time of the house any longer, to show in what manner these licences were granted; he would only add, that one man had obtained his licence after six different convictions! He should not mention names at present, because he thought the circumstances should be more fully inquired into. He wished to ask whether the government had taken any steps in consequence of this report. In one part of the report, it appeared that one of the magistrates had complained of his inability to remedy any disorders in the neighbourhood of Charing-cross, the power of licensing houses in that vicinity being in the board of green cloth; that representations and complaints had been made by the magistrates themselves; but that the board of green cloth had continued to license the houses in spite of all remonstrances. There was much disorder in the neighbourhood of Charing-cross, which could not be put down by the magistrates, owing to the jurisdiction of the board of green cloth. He wished to ask his majesty's ministers whether they had any measures, in contemplation in consequence of this report? He could not omit this opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the enormous increase of crimes committed by children; and he wished also to say something on the rewards that were given to persons who apprehended offenders. In the police report, it appeared, the magistrates had all been examined touching the propriety of these rewards offered by statute on the conviction of criminals, and there was not one of them who did not declare, that no officer of justice was ever influenced by those rewards in the testimony he might have to give; they only thought they might be improper, because they raised up a sort of discredit against the witness. Nay, so delighted was the recorder with this system of pecuniary rewards for the
498
detection of crime, that he wished them by all means to be extended. Now, after all, the report was scarcely printed before a combination came out, the most extensive and atrocious that had ever been devised, for entrapping innocent men out of their lives for the sake of the reward. It appeared that 16 l. was the whole amount of the reward for which three lives were to be sacrificed! He only mentioned this to show how far things had gone before the mischief was even known or suspected. He thought it desirable that the committee should be renewed as soon as possible, and he was anxious to know if any measures were in contemplation.
The petition was then read, as well as another from the village of new Haggerston, in the parish of Shoreditch, complaining of similar grievances. In the last instance a public-house had been refused to a new village of 130 houses, while there was no public-house within half a mile.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, that if this complaint were on an individual case or two, it would not require the interference of parliament; because it was a mistake to suppose that the law did not afford a remedy—the court of King's-bench had a jurisdiction in cases of this sort. The question, however, rested on the report of the committee of last session, which certainly contained charges of a serious nature against the magistrates, and on that ground an investigation had partially taken place; but all the parties had not been fully heard, and therefore he thought the course proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman was the proper one to pursue. The different cases had been submitted to the lord chancellor, who did not think himself justified in applying that discretionary power which was vested in him, but had directed that the opinions of the attorney and solicitor general should be taken with regard to the propriety of instituting a prosecution. These law officers had not discovered sufficient grounds for recommending such a measure; but he could assure the House, that his noble friend and relation lord Sidmouth, had done every thing in his power to attain the ends of justice. He knew that he was animated by an earnest desire to effect some improvement, and that he felt it to be not so much a question of property to individuals, as one affecting the discharge of a very important trust on the part of magistrates, and a trust which appeared, in some instances,

499
to have been abused. He believed it likewise to be the opinion of his noble friend, that at all events some new legislative provision was necessary.
Mr. Bennetexpressed his satisfaction at the communication just made by the right hon. gentleman, and stated it to be his intention, on an early day, to bring the question of the revival of the committee under the consideration of the House. When the magistrates said they were unheard, he must say, unfortunately for some of them, they had been heard. The conduct of one of them had been proved to be so improper, by himself, on his being heard, that he (Mr. Bennett) fell Inclined to blame that charity which had at the time restrained him from bringing the individual in question before the House. He spoke of Mr. Merceron, whose evidence had been such as ought to have drawn down upon him the punishment of that House. After the disclosures made in the last year, it might have been expected that enough had been done to caution the magistrates. It might have been hoped they would have offered some atonement for the past, by acting a more upright part. This, however, they had not done; and the proof of it was, that all the houses complained of had again been re-licensed. For acting thus, he now, in his place, charged the county magistrates with the most corrupt exercise of the power entrusted to them. Another instance of their corruption was to be found in their having re-licensed a house called the Duke of York, in defiance of the most respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, and of the churchwardens and police magistrates. A petition against it had been presented by Mr. Markland, but in spite of all the representations that could be made, Mr. Merceron and the other trading magistrates of the county, who were worse than the trading magistrates of other times, had thought themselves justified in renewing the licence, a sort of lecture being read by sir David Williams on the occasion to the landlord, setting forth the rules by which his conduct ought to be regulated for the future in the management of a public-house. But what was the result? Was the house more respectable than formerly? No. He knew that within the last two days it bad been as bad as ever. It was the resort of thieves and prostitutes; and boys were daily assembled there to be instructed in all the varieties of debauchery and crime.
500
If such things were suffered, it must be from the most corrupt motives. He must say, that it was his opinion the lord chancellor had not done his duty in suffering that guilty, that shuffling magistrate, Mr. Merceron, to retain his situation.
The Attorney Generalwished to put it to the candour of the House, and particularly to the candour of his hon. and learned friend, whether it could be considered to have been the duty of the lord chancellor to advise the striking out of an individual's name from the commission of the peace, whilst the conduct of that individual was a subject of inquiry before a committee of that House. He would ask, whether it would be becoming in the chancellor to act against any magistrate before his conviction, as if he were already convicted of some offence? The lord chancellor had not, however, acted as if the party had not been at all inculpated; for he had directed the opinions of himself and the solicitor-general to be taken, with regard to the propriety of filing a criminal information against him. But although it was competent to any person complaining of injustice or misconduct in magistrates, either for granting or refusing licences, to apply to the court of King's-bench for a criminal information, the law-officers of the crown had no means of putting themselves in motion until they were perfectly satisfied of the weight and incontrovertibility of the evidence upon which they were to proceed. It was their business, when they filed informations, not to do it by an application upon an ex parte statement, but to do it of their own authority. Such a proceeding, in the present case, would have been to arrest the inquiries of a parliamentary committee, and to anticipate an order to prosecute, which it was possible the House might subsequently vote. With respect to another subject referred to by his hon. and learned friend, that of statutable rewards, he begged leave to assure him, that it had been long under the consideration of government, and that the noble secretary for the home department had at present some measure in contemplation to submit to parliament.
Sir S. Romillysaid, the hon. and learned gentleman was mistaken, if he imagined that it had been intended to impute any blame to the law-officers of the crown.
Mr. Broughamdesired to know whether the House was to understand, that the rule which the lord chancellor prescribed to himself was, never to recommend the omis-

501
sion or striking out of a name in a commission of the peace, unless the party had been guilty of some offence.
The Attorney Generalthought the hon. and learned gentleman extremely well qualified to answer his own question. He could not describe the rule upon which the lord chancellor acted on all occasions, although he was sure that it was from the most conscientious motives; but he had not uttered, and never could have uttered, any thing to justify the interpretation of the hon. and learned gentlemen, without exposing his own ignorance and presumption.
Mr. Broughamsaid, if he had been mistaken, it was a mistake common to many on his side of the House, who certainly understood the hon. and learned gentleman to have stated that the lord chancellor had not struck out the name of Mr. Merceron from the list of magistrates because he had not hitherto been legally convicted of any offence. He regretted that the learned lord had omitted to strike out the name of that individual, especially as that individual stood openly convicted to the understanding of the world, upon his own evidence; and he regretted also that the chairman of the committee had not deemed it necessary to report that person to the House. He perfectly agreed with the observations on the purity of the lord chancellor's motives; but was sorry that, under the circumstances of this case, he had not thought the same sort of interposition necessary which he had on one occasion exercised in the county of Durham, in which he had of his own authority put an individual on his defence.
Mr. Lockhartobserved, that he had ever since the publication of the report, thought it incumbent on his majesty's ministers to adopt some immediate measure for remedying the evils which were there developed. He could not help saying, that ministers generally evinced a much greater anxiety for the collection of the revenue than for any improvement in the morals of the country. Although the House heard frequent congratulations from the throne on the prosperous state of the finances, they never heard any allusion to the growing virtue of the community. He believed, however, that with reference to the interests of the revenue itself, nothing could be more advantageous than a healthy state of morals among the people.
Mr. Bennetpresented a petition from 259 inhabitants of Brentford, in favour of a
502
publican of the name of Joseph Harding, who had kept the sign of the Castle, in that town, but whose licence was taken from him by the magistrates, in consequence, as the petitioners asserted, of some undue bias against him, although, instead of being a disorderly house, the Castle had always been one of the most regular, and well conducted houses in Brentford.
Mr. Bathurstsuggested that the case in question was more fit for the consideration of the court of King's-bench, than of that House.
Colonel Woodwas confident that no undue bias existed in the minds of the magistrates of the division in which the town of Brentford was situated: than whom a more honourable set of men were not in existence.
Mr. H. Sumnerdeprecated loose charges against the magistracy of the country, made in that House by petition or otherwise; such charges brought in the court of King's bench would not be half so prejudical, as when they were brought forward in that House, where the gentlemen accused could not defend themselves, and by which step the imputations against them, however unfounded they might eventually turn out to be, were circulated more widely than they could be by any other process. For himself, if he were described in any petition in the way in which some of the magistrates were described in the petition which had just been, read, he would immediately request to have his name struck out of the commission for the peace, well knowing that, however unjust the charge, the extensive circulation of it must materially diminish his usefulness and respectability as a magistrate.
Mr. Butterworth, adverting to what had been said about Mr. Merceron, remarked, that it was but justice to that individual to observe, that he had recently obtained a verdict in the court of King's bench against some individuals by whom he had been libelled.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that he had no charge to make against Mr. Merceron, but that which Mr. Merceron had furnished himself in his own evidence.
Mr. Butterworthacknowledged that the country at large was extremely indebted to the hon. gentleman for his humane and zealous exertions. What he had observed about Mr. Merceron was merely what he conceived to be an act of justice to that individual.
Mr. Bennetdescribed Mr. Merceron's conduct before the committee as evincing cool, deliberate, and habitual falsehood. Whenever he was asked a question, his invention seemed immediately to be set to work to get rid of it by artifice. So short was his memory, that he never recollected what he had said ten minutes before and therefore contradicted himself continually.
Mr. Broughamconfirmed this statement, and again expressed his regret that the humanity of his hon. friend had prevented him from reporting Mr. Merceron's conduct to the House. As to the petition which had just been read, it was impossible to reject it, consistently with the rules and practice of that House. He allowed that the line ought to be carefully drawn between those complaints that ought to be made to parliament, and those that ought to be made in courts of justice. But there was nothing in the petition under consideration—no imputation of malversation in office, which could warrant an application to the court of King's-bench.
The Attorney Generalasked, if there was no imputation, for what then did the petitioners pray?
Mr. Broughamsaid, that the prayer of the petition was for relief generally. As such a doctrine as that now advocated by the hon. and learned gentleman would end in the rejection of all petitions, he requested the Speaker would have the goodness to state whether a petition, praying for relief generally, could, according to the rules and practice of that House, be rejected.
The Speaker.—Not on any such ground certainly. It will be for the House to judge for itself whether any petition presented to it does or does not pray for relief generally.
The petitions were ordered to lie on the table.

PERSONS UNDER SENTENCE OF DEATH IN NEWGATE.
Mr. Bennetcalled the attention of the House to the number of Prisoners now under sentence of death in Newgate, and whose cases had not yet been reported to the Prince Regent. This number was set forth in a return presented to the House on Wednesday last. There were five who received sentence of death in July last, and four in September, whose cases had been reserved for the opinion of the judges. He could wish to know whether, in these instances, the delay was
‡
504
imputable to them. There were 29 persons in the same awful situation, on whom judgment had been passed in October last; 29 also in December: 21 in January; and 12 more had been since added to the number. At four o'clock yesterday, when he visited that prison, the whole number of individuals in that dreadful situation was not less than one hundred. He wished the House could have been a witness to the scene which was there exhibited, to the deep despair of some, the impiety of others, and to the senseless and half intoxicated state in which a third class appeared to be absorbed. He was informed, by persons familiar with such scenes, that this was generally the character of them; and such, he was sorry to say it, was the shameless manner of administering the laws, that these unhappy offenders rejoiced when the certainty of execution was made known to them, because it was a relief from that state of cruel and horrid suspense in which they were before situated. He trusted the noble lord had a satisfactory explanation to give upon this subject, for he could assure him from a very extensive correspondence, that the country expected it, and considered the evil he had alluded to as the greatest blot on the administration of justice.
Lord Castlereaghunderstood that the delay in the earlier cases had arisen from a necessary investigation into their circumstances. With regard to the latter cases, a council would have been already called, on the subject, had not a very important inquiry intervened and caused an unavoidable postponement of that consideration. The council would, however, be held tomorrow, and he entirely concurred with the hon. gentleman in thinking that no subject demanded greater promptitude of attention.
The Attorney Generalobserved, that of the convicts mentioned by the hon. gentleman as being under sentence of death, some were those whose cases had been reserved for the consideration of the judges; whose judgment was not promulgated.
Mr. Bennetreprobated the delay that ' had taken place in the report of those under sentence of death in October. Why had it not been presented long ago?
The Attorney Generalobserved, that during the first part of the intervening period the recorder had probably not been prepared for his report, and that of the delay in the last part his noble friend had stated the cause.
Mr. Bennetreplied, that he knew from good authority, that the recorder had been long prepared with his October report. If so, he contended that the secretary of state for the home department, the lord chancellor, or whosoever ought to have had to do with the business, had been guilty of a criminal neglect of duty.
The Attorney Generalremarked, that whatever information the hon. gentleman might have received, it could hardly be on better authority than that on which he asserted, that, some days ago, the recorder was not ready to ask for a day to be appointed for the reception of his report.
Alderman C. Smithstated, that the delay in making the report arose from the length of the sessions and from motives of humanity. It was spent, in fact, in making inquiries into the various cases. The prisoners in Newgate, where he had been that day, did not complain of the law's delay. At three o'clock that very afternoon, the recorder had told him that he would make his report to-morrow, and was happy to say that he should have but few to execute.
The motion was then agreed to.

PETITIONS RELATING TO REFORM, &c
Sir Robert Heronpresented a petition from the town of Gainsborough and its vicinity, praying for triennial parliaments, representation co-extensive with direct taxation, and election by ballot. The petition had been agreed to at a numerous meeting, regularly convened, and the proceedings of which were conducted with perfect order. He did not concur with the last part of the prayer—that which referred to election by ballot; but he would support such a plan of reform as should, by extending the elective franchise, make that House more substantially the representative of the people. He wished for the restoration of triennial parliaments, an institution established at the best period of our history, and repealed by a measure of very equivocal policy. He would give his support also to every proposition for the retrenchment of the public expenditure, and the abolition of sinecures and useless places. With regard to plans of more extensive alteration or reform, he should reserve the statement of his opinions for another occasion; but as it was manifestly the wish of the great body of the people that some reform in the representation should take place, he trusted that the House would
506
not so insult their constituents as to refuse, whenever the discussion should be entered upon, to refer the petition to a committee. If it should be said that the reformers were not agreed among themselves as to what they recommended, he should reply, that they were that very day about to proceed to a discussion, in which, perhaps, there were very few gentlemen in tile House who would concur at once in any specific object. He trusted, therefore, that the differences of opinion on the question of reform, would not be made the ground for resisting the proposition to refer the petitions to a committee.
A petition in favour of reform was presented from the borough of Boston. It stated, that it appeared, from the annals of the country, that for more than a thousand years before the Revolution, annual parliaments were the constitution of England— [a laugh].
The petitions were ordered to lie on the table.

MR. CURWEN'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE ON THE POOR LAWS.
Mr. Curwenrose and said:—Mr. Speaker; in compliance with my notice, it now becomes my duty to bring under the consideration of the House a question of the most vital importance to the general interests of the country. Deeply affecting the prosperity and happiness of all ranks, so vast the objects connected with the subject, so interwoven with the distresses of the country, that in tracing this operation, my mind has been so appalled, that I have frequently felt ready to abandon the undertaking in despair. Nothing but a sense of duty, and a firm conviction that the country would consider such conduct as a dereliction of public duty, have given me courage to proceed. The House will do me the justice to recollect that I undertook the task in a former session,* in consideration of a promise exacted from me by my constituents. I then felt, as all have felt who have attempted an amendment of the system of the poor laws, the difficulties which attended it. The task was then comparatively easy. The distresses of the country were infinitely less—in proportion as the necessity of supplying a remedy has increased, so have the difficulties of effecting it. Under this conviction I applied to his
* See Vol. 34, p. 878.

507
majesty's ministers to take the matter into their own hands: I professed also my readiness to resign the task to any gentleman more equal to do it justice. Failing in these applications I had only the choice of difficulties. I have preferred the sacrifice of every personal consideration to an imputation of indifference to the sufferings under which the country labours.
Measures, Sir, which are designed to effect great and important changes belong exclusively to the executive government. With them rests the responsibility: they possess superior sources of information: they alone have the influence to carry into effect such changes. They have the co-operation and aid of the first information and abilities on all subjects at command, and under their united auspices measures can be so digested and arranged as not to be subject to material changes from the shape in which they are first introduced to the notice of this House and of the public. Widely different is the case with any individual, and especially the one who addresses you. I have now to submit to the House a plan on a subject on which persons most distinguished for abilities who have made a similar attempt have failed—without any co-operation or assistance from almost an individual in or out of this House, compelled to hazard speculations at a time when the minds of all classes in society are agitated by their sufferings without knowing how they can be relieved. Permit me to observe that I differ most widely from those who seem to consider that the mere agitation of the question will satisfy the public. I believe directly the contrary effect will be produced, and that infinite mischief may be done, if we go into a committee, and that out of it should proceed no measure of relief. Great evils must arise out of the propositions that I have to submit to the House, should they be totally rejected. Pressing as this danger is, still greater danger impels me to act. Some measures to meet the magnitude of the evils of the moment are indispensably requisite. By these observations, I do not, however, Sir, mean to insinuate any thing invidious to ministers, or to anticipate that they can have any interest in my failure. Though perfectly unacquainted with their views, I am satisfied and give them full credit for being aware of the dreadful state of the country. One cause, and a very prin-
508
cipal one, arises out of the unjust pressure of the poor laws. Without any claims for support on that side of the House or this, I have and shall continue to proceed in this business (with no view but that which is felt by every gentleman in common with myself,) and endeavour to benefit the country and reanimate its exertions.
Sensible of the indulgence of the House in a former sessions, I shall not now, Sir, abuse it, or occupy a longer portion of their time than is indispensably necessary to explain what I have to submit to their consideration. I do not propose to enter into the particular hardships which arise out of the defects of the existing laws relative to the poor. By the numerous valuable communications with which I have been favoured from various quarters of the country, I am fully satisfied that were all the just complaints which they contain redressed, there is not a statute relating to the subject that would not require to be revised and amended. My endeavour on the present occasion will be to consider the general effect of the principle of the 43d of Eliz. as now construed; to show the injustice and oppression of the laws as at present executed for raising the sums necessary for the support of the poor; to call on the House to amend, not to create new laws, so as to divide the burthen more fairly and equally; to point out the indispensable necessity for providing for a crisis which cannot be distant, I mean the failure of voluntary contributions. I shall submit with great deference a plan for substituting other resources for the maintenance and bettering the situation of the poor by destroying the baneful, pestilential effects of the poor laws. Were every regulation respecting the poor as perfect as human wisdom could devise, were there no ground for a single complaint on his head, still, Sir, we should not have advanced a single step towards the correction of the evil under which the country now labours, an evil coeval with the existence of the system itself. Still I do not attribute the mischiefs which have arisen out of the 43rd Eliz. to its inventors; quite the contrary—the wisdom and humanity of the plan does infinite honour to the head and heart of those with whom it originated. The support and maintenance of the old, lame, blind, and impotent, was conformable to a duty of higher influence than human institutions. The construing and acting

509
upon this law, by those who had to administer relief under it, has introduced what is evidently foreign to its intention. It was never designed to give a right of support and maintenance to those who, by the practice of frugality, sobriety and industry, might have supported themselves, but who have become chargeable by their crimes and misconduct. It never had in contemplation that men should anticipate parochial support as a source of maintenance for themselves and families,—nor did it intend to take away from the labouring classes all interests and concern in their own well-being. It did not contemplate the total destruction of independence, or that so large a proportion of the community should view the present moment as the sole object worthy of their attention. These, Sir, are the evils which have arisen out of the administration of that act. For two hundred and fifty years the attention of legislators has at different times been directed to the consideration of expedients to stop the growing evil: whilst the country remained wholly agricultural, the progress of this malady was slow. Since we have become a manufacturing people, its increase has been out of all measure and calculation, rapid. In 1776, the amount of the poor-rates was 1,530,800 l. In forty three years, they are augmented, I verily believe, to eight million and a half. Admitting the system to continue, can it be doubted that it will stop short of swallowing up the whole revenue and industry of the country, extinguishing at the same time every vestige of respectability and happiness among the poor? Each successive augmentation of the burthen has been attended with a proportionable increase of misery. Pauperism contaminates all who come within its vortex—foreigners contemplate with astonishment the sums provided in Great Britain for the poor, which, with the addition of endowments to charities, exceed nine millions annually, a revenue possessed by a few sovereigns in Europe. Dazzling as this appears at a distance, what are its effects when viewed more closely? Does it produce happiness, content, and gratitude among the poor? No, Sir! discontent, gloom, and misery pervade all who partake of it. Not a particle of gratitude, not more of contentment is to be found.
We hear perpetually of the wretched state in which the Irish peasant is doomed to exist: when examined, on the first
510
glance, it does indeed shock an English eye. Accustomed as we are to see a more liberal distribution of the comforts of life among the lower orders, we commiserate the situation of those whom we see deprived of what habit leads us to view as the first necessaries of life. Their clothing scanty and worn out; their cabins mean, and in disrepair: the earthen floor, a few boards and a wretched straw pallet, their bed; a stool or two, and an iron pot forming their whole ménage: their sole food potatoes: salt and buttermilk, their luxuries. Such are the outward objects in view. But those who have the courage to examine more minutely into the condition of this hardy race, and to judge by their own feelings, and not by ours, may draw conclusions very opposite to those which first strike the eye. The inhabitant of this wretched abode will be observed cheerful: kind hearted, affectionate, charitable in the highest degree; with the strongest sense of his duties as a son, a husband, and a parent, and happy in their execution. In the midst of his privations, his independent, unsubdued spirit supports him. It is the mind which imprints the stamp of happiness or misery. The Irish peasant amidst all his wants and sufferings, appears far superior to the unhappy victim of pauperism in this country. I was so struck, Sir, with a result so contrary to my preconceived opinions and first impressions, that I visited in a circuit of above a thousand miles in Ireland, hundreds of cabins, to assure myself of this fact, and excepting in great towns, the result was almost universal. That great moralist and philosopher, Dr. Paley, has observed on this subject, that "happiness consists in the exercise of the social affections; that those persons commonly possess good spirits who have about them many objects of affection and endearment, as wife, children, kindred, friends." Now the condition of the Irish peasant is such as to call forth and exercise these social affections, in a higher degree, and more frequently, than is the case with the English peasant. The effect of the poor-laws is here to destroy all the best and most kindly feelings of the heart. It jaundices the eye and prevents it from deriving comfort from what it possesses; every benefit granted to one, is considered by others as an injury done them: thus envy and jealousy are perpetually engendered. The contrast is observable between this class, and

511
the industrious, frugal, and sober peasant, who tempers the interest of the present with that of the future, providing for the necessities of both. Between the comforts of his existence and that of the pauper the distance is so great, the advantages so preponderant, that I have no words to express it. The difference is as striking as between a day of sunshine and a day of gloom. The legislature is called on to stay this evil from motives higher and more dignified than any which self-interest can dictate. Every feeling of humanity and love of man for man, implanted in the hearts of all, bids us restore happiness and respectability to two millions and a half of fellow-Englishmen.
So great, Sir, has become the amount of the relief levied for the poor, that it cannot be removed without substituting something in its place. To correct the mischief will require a length of time. If a principle can be adopted by which the labouring classes can be elevated in the scale of society, and tempted to contribute towards their own necessities by the hopes of greater and more substantial comforts, it will, in time, make its way. Such a plan, I do conceive, may be adopted, as I shall hereafter attempt to show. It is some satisfaction to me that my views, last sessions, on this subject have, as far as the communications received enabled me to judge, been very generally approved, though some doubts have been expressed on the expediency of adopting them at present. The impossibility of suggesting any plan that would be universally applicable to all situations, gives additional weight to my project. I propose, Sir, to leave it to every parish to frame and adopt the regulations best suited to its situation. Great are the difficulties generally accompanying any alterations in legislative measures of this importance. Here, if any should arise, a remedy would be immediately at hand to remove any incongruity which might appear in adapting it to the local situation. You would have the abilities and co-operation of the whole country at work to bring the scheme to perfection.
Whatever, Sir, might be my former opinions, I have so far changed them as not to propose to the House to adopt the measure I last year detailed to them as compulsory, but rather to submit it as a measure and experiment to be adopted when the majority of the parishioners of any parish were disposed to try it. I am
512
sanguine in my belief it would answer, and impose a very light burthen on the whole community. With great increased comforts, to be exempt from the horrible, and yet I admit necessary, coercion of a poor-house, would lead every reflecting person to contribute cheerfully to the fund for general support. The administration and management of the poor being in part in the hands of the poor would secure tenderness in the administration of relief, whilst it would give consequence to them as a body. In parishes that should adopt the plan, I propose that the construction, of the 43d of Eliz. should be strictly adhered to, and that parish funds should be provided for the relief of those who come within its operation. To all above a certain age, relief should be afforded under the present laws. It has been objected to my plan that it would have the effect of raising wages. Should that be the case, I do not think it would ultimately be injurious to the general interests of the country. What are the poor-rates in many places, but a mode of payment of wages, and that the very worst sort, as k breaks the spirit, and destroys the independence of the labourer? In order to effect a cure, a complete alteration is necessary in the whole system of our poor laws.
Great and imperious as is the call on us, Sir, to apply some remedy to the existing evils, we have at present a still more pressing demand on us; that is, to devise means for making the existing laws for the support of the poor, adequate to the purpose.
Here it is, Sir, I feel peculiarly, that I am occupying ground which ought to have been exclusively in the hands of others. Yet I must have been both blind and insensible to every feeling of humanity, to every duty imposed on those who have intrusted to them the interests of the public, had I passed over this part of the subject in silence. Awful is the crisis—every hour adds to and increases it. Imminent is the danger in numerous districts, both in the manufacturing and the agricultural. The whole amount of income arising from real property will be inadequate to the support of the poor—so dreadfully are they increased. I shall not dwell longer than can be avoided on this painful subject; but to justify my appeal to the House, and the measures I shall have the honour to propose, I must lay some foundation. There are indeed already petitions on your table that bear

513
out this statement. Of the communications received, I shall instance one or two. Those from Sheffield are particularly worthy of attention. The paper I hold in my band was published by the overseers of the poor, addressed to the magistrates of the West-riding, and was communicated, as I am given to understand, to his majesty's ministers. It states that, on the 29th of November last, there were 840 families relieved: that on the 10th of January they had increased to 1,504. That the weekly payment had arisen from 200 l.
500 l.; that Mr. Girdler, a farmer of 210 acres, paid a guinea a day towards the relief of the poor, but must now be called on to double the sum. That if this state of things continued two months longer, the town would be utterly unable to raise the sum requisite for the support of the poor. That other townships in Sheffield parish were in no better situation. It states also the noble struggles made by many of the artizans to avoid being chargeable: many had sold furniture and other articles to the amount of 30 l. and had exhausted every resource, before asking for relief. Here I must call on the House to consider one class of persons at present contributing much to the augmentation of the burthens; I mean persons who themselves heretofore paid their share of the rates, instead of receiving any part of them. The artizan and the small shopkeeper, many of this most respectable and industrious class of society, have been forced in to the dreadful gulph of pauperism. The decreased value of land has fallen, Sir, with peculiar hardship on this class of society. The rent of their dwellings has not fallen in proportion. The advance of the rates is probably five per cent, from this cause alone; but more still on them, as their rents remain undiminished. How much farther the mischief will go, unless your wisdom and humanity interfere to stop it, I pretend not to conjecture. Sir, I have communications from Shropshire saying that the poor-rates are 19 s. and 20 s. in the pound. From the neighbourhood of Aylesbury, also I have similar accounts. From Sussex, I have statements of 25 s. in the pound. I will not trouble the House with more, but proceed to lay before them what I conceive to be the present state of poor-rates on the average of England. In 1803, Mr. Rose calculated the revenue of the country at 34 millions, adding four millions to the amount for canals, mines, and personal
514
property of different descriptions assessed, making a total of 38 millions. The number of paupers was then 1,234,768; their maintenance 4,267,965 l., equal to 12½ per cent, on the capital taxed. In 1815 the revenue of land and houses had advanced to above 52 millions: adding four millions according to Mr. Rose's computation, the amount is 56 millions; that of poor-rates being 6,400,000, and of paupers 2,000,000, made it 16 per cent. Admitting the revenue to have fallen in 1817 to 35,000,000, it would add one-third to the amount of the poor-rate, and make it 20 per cent. Now, Sir, taking the increase of paupers in 1817 to be 500,000, and the advance of rate at 2,000,000, the increased expense of necessaries of life augmenting the cost will make the poor-rates not less, probably, than eight millions and half, or 26 per cent, on the actual amount of real property.

The amount of dividends and interest payable to the public creditor may be calculated at

32,000,000

In six millions of India stock

300,000

Four millions South Sea stock

200,000

Income of the bank on twelve millions worth 24,000,000

1,200,000

33,700,000

Ten per cent, on the produce would produce

3,370,000

a sum amply sufficient to equalize the rates of the whole kingdom, and to supersede the necessity either of a general, or more extended assessment.
The next source of income, and which spreads itself over the whole kingdom, would be the interest arising from personal property.

Supposing two hundred millions, producing at5 per cent.

10,000,000

20,000,000 l. the produce of trade

2,000,000

1,761,453 tons of shipping, producing now half what it did, at

1,000,000

13,000,000

Ten per cent. on this

1,300,000

Do. on stock, as above

3,370,000

Making a total of personal property

4,670,000

With 12½ per cent, from land

4,375,000

Making

9,045,000

515
The great and immediate relief such a measure would afford, would tend most materially to relieve the agricultural and commercial interests.
I should not propose this plan for more than three years, by which time it may be confidently hoped that the agriculture and commerce of the country may be greatly revived. The pressure of the poor laws at this time, is in an inverse ratio to the power of sustaining its burthen. Every hand that is discharged, the profit of his productive labour is lost to the state, whilst he claims support from a diminished source. Thus is the evil daily spreading, whilst the power of supporting is decreased. Nothing can so effectually reanimate the active exertions of the country, as relieving it from its burthens. I am decidedly averse to every plan that would enhance the price of the necessaries of life, in order to keep up the price of land: this system has occasioned much mischief to the trade and commerce of the country: our commercial system has given umbrage to every nation in Europe. We must unshackle trade, and by conferring reciprocal benefits, advantage both ourselves and other nations. It is the enormous taxation which has forced this system on the country. The return of peace has reanimated the industry of other countries, and we must either be enabled to serve them cheaper, or they will cease to be our customers. Whilst we offer them the produce of our staple manufactories, we must receive theirs in return.
In looking to the resources by which the radical evils of the system of the poor laws can be corrected, we must have recourse to the people whose in come exceeds in amount that of all other classes together. I have made the calculation on five millions of persons earning at the rate of 12 s. a week. Mr. Colquhoun, in his recent publication, calculates that in the united empire, there are ten millions of persons employed in different manual occupations and earning wages amounting in the year to three hundred and thirty-one millions. If we take England and Wales, as two-thirds, compared with Scotland and Ireland, the earnings of labour would amount to two hundred and twenty millions. Could the whole people be led to feel their interest and happiness combined in making a small weekly sacrifice of two and a half per cent, on the produce of their labour, its yearly amount would be three millions and a half. But, Sir, the
516
effect would be much greater, from the economy, frugality, and industry, that would spring from it. Such a change would quickly lessen the demands on the funds: there would be few, except from accident or misfortune, who would become burthensome. The seamen actually do at this moment contribute liberally out of their wages to Greenwich-hospital. The measure is not therefore new, even in practice. Is this complained of? No.—I believe it is cheerfully paid, although its amount must exceed two and a half per cent, on their wages.
A deduction to this amount from the earnings of labour, would produce, then, three millions and a half. Besides the direct benefit which would result from the addition of a sum so coniderable to the funds now dedicated to the support of the poor, its tendency would be to induce the labouring classes to extend their views beyond the present moment. The enjoyments of the present moment are alone the object of attention to the poor: to them the present is every thing; the future nothing. To this may be attributed those premature marriages, from which spring such misery. To check these, you must bring mankind back to reflect and to balance individual enjoyment with the misery by which it is to be purchased. It is a subject beyond the reach of legislation: the only restraint which can prevent it, must arise out of the mind, by the combination of the present with the future.
I am not unaware, Sir, that my plan may by possibility create some jealousy in the breasts of those who patronize the system of Saving Banks, and that they may be thought in some degree to clash with each other. This can only arise from a misconception of the subject. That the establishment of saving banks is likely to be productive of much good, will not be questioned; as little, that the country owes essential obligation to the right hon. gentleman now in my eye, under whose auspices, and by whose powerful recommendation, they have become so widely extended; but when held up as a remedy likely to stay the baneful effects of pauperism, I must confess that this appears to me to go beyond all fair and rational expectations. That the friendly societies have generally failed, is much to be regretted. And what has been the cause? The insufficiency, I fear, of their funds, to meet the exigencies of the parties,

517
leaving the members still dependent on parochial relief. That the savings which could reasonably be expected from individuals in humble life, could ever be made adequate to the wants of themselves and families, in all cases, can by no means be expected.
The establishment I propose, at once extinguishes reliance on the poor laws; it combines, with the earnings of the parties, the contributions of other classes: it opens to the poor, greater comforts than they could otherwise obtain—the security of their own mansion; education of their children; rewards for meritorious conduct.—It embraces a still further and more important object,—the participation in the government and distribution of these funds. They who have ever been taught to look only to those above them for support, would henceforth look to their equals; it would bestow on the labouring classes a new character: they would acquire rights, the exercise of which would bring them into contact with their superiors; the value and blessing of education would be developed; the intelligence, the talents of the people—that good sense of which so large a portion is to be found amongst them, would have full scope given them. The road to respectability and consideration being thus opened, what might not reasonably be expected to result from it? Would it not kindle in the breast of all that class of society, a spirit of emulation? Whilst they looked up with admiration and pride to the consequence attained by one of their own class, they would be led to aspire to the same honourable distinction: it is the operation of this principle that must furnish the antidote to the present evils.
To show the facility with which the fund could be raised by interesting the people in their own cause, I shall instance what is daily under my own eye. The township of Workington contains 8,500 souls; the sum raised for the maintenance of the poor is 2,000 l.; four hundred pounds of which is applied to other purposes, the actual charge for their support is then 1,600 l.; the real property of the township is about ten thousand per annum. Now, Sir, these rates are levied with the greatest difficulty, particularly from the inferior classes of artizans, and little shop-keepers; the distress which they sometimes occasion to useful members of the community, cannot but excite the most painful feelings in the minds of those who are compelled to
518
enforce their payment. In the same place four hundred individuals now raise without a complaint or remonstrance, nearly 700 l., which, with the contribution of one third, from the proprietor, making together about 1,000 l., equals one half of what the whole township raises with such difficulty. Now, Sir, assuming that in the same place there are 2,500 persons earning in various ways their substance by labour, whose earnings average 12 s. per week, or 70,000 l, 2½ per cent, on that sum

would produce

1,500

10 per cent, on land and houses,

1,000

2,500

From this it is evident that 1½ percent, on labour producing

750

And 7½ per cent, on land

750

1,500

would raise 1,500 l. more than equal to what the poor costs at this time, not including the charges arising from bastards. Three half-pence, or even three pence out of every ten shillings earned, would not be a burthen that the labourer ought to feel if he was adequately paid. Its amount would not exceed, the defalcation from wages which arises from the practice too frequent in manufacturing towns, and indeed elsewhere, of paying the weekly wages in a public house, to the journeyman and labourer. I must observe also that when this plan was adopted, the 43d of Elizabeth, strictly construed, must exist, for the maintenance of those whose misfortunes disabled from administering to their own support. Where men contributed towards their own maintenance, the laws of settlement might be rendered at once more simple; there would be less apprehension of men's becoming burthensome by acquiring settlements; all the endless litigation that now costs so large a portion of the rates, would be avoided.
From the demand for labour arising occasionally in consequence of our becoming a great manufacturing country, individuals of the sister kingdoms are taught to flock to those places were hands are wanted. Is it reasonable, after a life spent in promoting the wealth and prosperity of the place of their residence, that in their old age, they should be sent back to the spot which gave them birth, where no trace of them is left, without friend, relation, or any soul to console the concluding days of a miserable existence. The change of the times requires that our fellow subjects of Ireland

519
and Scotland should be able to gain a settlement and close their lives in the place where their years of active industry had been spent. A further strong motive arises, I apprehend, for adopting a measure like that which I recommend, which will put it in their power by contributing a part of their earnings to lay up a fund by means of their own honest industry for the hour of sickness or misfortune.
For twenty years back the pride and ambition of my life has been to be instrumental in promoting the measure of the nature with that which has now so unexpectedly fallen to my lot to propose, Viewing it merely as a measure of experiment, I do not despair, if it be adopted, of seeing it speedily and extensively put in I practice.
In order fairly to understand the situation of the real property of the kingdom, we must take from the thirty-five millions at which I compute its revenue, one million for county rates, and other public charges; for repairs, and various losses by failure of tenants, &c. ten per cent, on three millions and a half, leaving nett to the proprietors thirty millions and a half. Now, Sir, this is the actual state of receipt. How does it stand, compared with the revenue of the public creditor? Is the funded or unfunded debt less than thirty-two millions? Should it be even one million and a half less, still it will equal the whole revenue of the kingdom. Is it consistent with justice that such an amount of property should escape from any participation in the support of the poor? admitting for a moment that parliament had pledged its faith to the public creditor that lie should be exempt from his share in succouring the miseries of his fellow creatures, I will not hesitate to say it had exceeded its powers, and attempted what was beyond its province. Charity is of divine institution; it stoops not to distinguish and discriminate: it knows no distinction of properties: it is an imperious duty, binding on all—crime and infamy would deservedly attach on an attempt to bar the rights of humanity. But nonesuch will be made. The immutable principle of justice which directs the policy of parliament has led them to enact that all property shall be liable to contribute to the support of the poor. There wants no new law. It only requires additional machinery to bring into action the laws already in existence. Within these walls this will scarcely be doubted: I shall however refer to two or three decisions on the point.
520
In 1633, the judges resolved, "that the personal, visible ability of the inhabitant might be rated: in a subsequent case, that every inhabitant should be charged in respect of his personal estate and ability." More recently, in the reign of Geo. 1st, the king v. the inhabitants of Clerkenwell, on the validity of a poor rate made upon a land tax assessment, it was quashed by the court of King's-bench as being an unequal taxation, because the personal estate in the public funds is not chargeable to the land tax, but is chargeable to the poor rates." The same doctrine has always been held, and the failure of taxing personal property has arisen from the difficulties which attend it. No doubt as to its liability has ever been entertained. The grounds on which the assessment of personal property has generally failed have been the difficulties of proof, the onus resting with the overseer. The showing also any other species of property unassessed, subjects the rate to be quashed,—the office of overseer being annual, few can be supposed willing to expose themselves to the odium and troublesome litigation of such a measure. Reverse the law, and let the proofs rest with the parties assessed and we shall soon see personal prosperity bearing its just proportion of this oppressive burthen.* If the necessities of the state in war justified a deviation from former policy will not the suffering state of the poor now plead for them with tenfold force? The public creditor might here plead exemption in all wars which have occurred since the first institution of the funding system. Sir, I do not know that this was ever urged. The necessity was felt so strong, that the justice of the question was not called in question. I How far do the present calls of humanity I outweigh that of war? though the general law will justify the assessment of the fund, its application would be so endless that the object would be defeated, I should therefore propose calling in funded property to take its share of the burthen, that the sum arising from it should form a fund for equalizing the rates throughout the kingdom, and be employed in aid of the parochial fund, where the sums raised ex-
*Such is said to be the practice in the island of Jersey. Each man thee rated both for his real and personal income, to the relief of the poor. If he thinks himself aggrieved in the rate, he is entitled to a reduction, on proof that he his overcharged.

521
ceeded in a certain proportion the rate now levied, or due, on real ratable property. The accounts to be audited and allowed by the sessions. That would afford an ample source and be effectual to its purposes. A further and most beneficial appropriation of this fund would be by holding out its aid to such parishes in which the labouring classes should associate for their mutual relief If an annual million was dedicated to tempt the labouring classes to become independent by means of their own foresight and economy, it would be well and wisely bestowed; and thus one third would be added to the amount of their individual contributions.
Deeply sensible as we must all be of the evils arising from the present burthen of the poor rates, alarming as is the view of their progressive rise, and the expectation of their still further increase, however pressing the call on the attention of the legislature on this ground alone, yet, Sir, there are other motives of a still higher nature to stimulate us. The imputation would, I am assured, be unjust that on this occasion we were actuated by selfish views only. There are other interests to which we must attend, as important as those of the class of society who contribute to the maintenance of the poor. Yes, Sir, the poor themselves have a still higher interest in the correction of the system, which whilst it wastes your means, destroys their happiness. Let the labouring classes in I England have the subject freely laid before them, and I will venture to say you will have their blessing if you can devise a; plan to restore to them independence and respectability.
I cannot conclude without addressing myself to the noble lord in the blue ribband. Great as was the glory in which you participated with the heroes of Waterloo, unfading as will be the laurels which their valour acquired, a more glorious, a more important victory is with in your reach; a victory unpurchased by blood and misery. If out of this committee, which I trust may have the good fortune to reckon you as the most distinguished of its members, you, my lord, can give effect to a measure that shall stop the baneful progress of pauperism and misery, shall plant the gem of happiness in the breast of the rising generation, shall restore to the people of England that independence and honest pride which give estimation to industry, economy and temperance, your name will be numbered amongst those of the first
*
522
and greatest benefactors to your country. I move you, Sir, "That a committee be appointed to consider of the Poor Laws, and to report their observations thereupon to the House."
Lord Castlereaghcomplimented the hon. member on the calm, deliberate, and judicious manner in which he had introduced this important subject; and admitted, that his claim on him for his general view of the subject was fair. He was anxious to support inquiry, as were all around him. The hon. member might rest assured, that his majessy's ministers would most cheerfully dedicate so much of their time as they could possibly withdraw from other duties, to assist in the investigation of this most important subject. Though he might entertain doubts, whether all the sanguine views of the hon. gentleman could be realized by the labours of the proposed committee, he certainly believed that much good might reasonably be expected from the measure; and it should not be said at the close of the inquiry that any indifference had been shown by ministers with respect to it. The subject was one of the very utmost importance to the safety and prosperity of the country; and if any class of men were called upon more than another to give their attention to it, it was those who were entrusted with the care of the affairs of the nation. The mind of government ought to be turned to that subject above all others; and after his majesty's ministers saw their way clearly, and were satisfied of the existence of a disposition in the country to support any measures which it should be deemed advisable to propose, they would then feel themselves justified in giving every assistance in their power to the giving effect to them. He assured the hon. gentleman, that he took as gloomy a view of the influence of the poor laws in breaking down the national character as he could possibly do; and if no means could be found of elevating the national character by inspiring the population of the country with the wish rather to live on their own labour, than on what they could draw from the labour and property of others, he firmly believed that the English people would not in future ages be what they had been in times past. He believed, that if they were to look to the mere letter of the law, they would find that the statute of Elizabeth and the poor law of Scotland would be found nearly the same. But though the original pur-

523
view of the poor laws of England and Scotland might be the same, what was the difference in the practice of these laws? It was of extreme importance to contrast the respective systems of England and Scotland under the same laws, and to contrast the state of England and Scotland again with that of Ireland under the absence of all poor laws, for he went with the hon. gentleman in the favourable character which he had drawn of the Irish peasantry, and he had always thought that the hardness of the lot of the lower orders of the people of Ireland had been infinitely exaggerated; he agreed with the hon. gentleman, that they might trace, in the habits of living of the Irish labourer—in the plain and simple fare which he took, but which was neither unfavourable to strength of body or of mind—in the habitual cheerfulness of his disposition—in the manly simplicity of his character, and his kind sympathy with his fellow creatures—in these they might trace the absence in Ireland of those laws which in this country had broken down the character of the lower orders of the people by accustoming them to the dependence and degradation of asking for individual relief; for every man who had any knowledge of human nature knew how much the characters of men were influenced by the situations in which they were placed; and in that part of the empire, where the people had no claim for parochial support, they cheerfully contributed to the relief of the wants and distresses of each other, and displayed a spirit of mutual hospitality and charity as friends and neighbours, which made their character as interesting as it was respectable. This was observed more or less in other parts of the empire in proportion as the poor-laws were either relaxed or partially executed. In Scotland, where the population was not so dense as it was in England, and where manufactures had been more recently introduced, the construction which was given to a law in the latter closely resembling that of Elizabeth, was very different from what had been given in England; and that facility in the obtaining of pecuniary relief, which indisposed men, or rendered them indifferent to labour, had never yet crept into the practice of Scotland. In that part of the United Kingdom the practice was for proprietors to assess themselves in what they deemed necessary for the support of those whom they themselves considered as entitled to
524
it. They might look, therefore, to the situation of Scotland as an intermediate state between that of Ireland and England, where the claim for support was looked on as a matter of right, and the magistrate forced the parish to afford relief. The proprietors of land in Scotland relieved individually those only whom they considered fit objects of relief; but in this part of the empire, where the meaning of the original law had been explained by subsequent statutes, they were to consider it as a founded notion, that no man suffered distress without having a right to be relieved. This opinion then, being so generally entertained, he could not but think that they were bound to proceed in this subject with great caution, though when he said this, he assured the hon. gentleman, that, if he should have the honour to be on his committee, he should have to charge him neither with neglect nor with indifference; but, upon the maturest deliberation, he was apprehensive that he could not consent to shake a system that was so generally considered as founded in right as well as in law; especially at the present moment, when the poorer classes had established such a claim on the admiration and benevolence of the more affluent by their patience, their fortitude, and resignation under those great sufferings and privations which arose out of the transition of the country from one state of social exertion to another, and from which he hoped the charitable and humane contributions of individuals, coming in aid of the law, would find them relief, till a change of circumstances, which might soon be expected. However desirable it might be to make some change in the poor laws, the property of the country could not at once escape from this burthen. He could wish the hon. gentleman not to appear to hold out any thing like the delusive prospect to the landed gentlemen of this country that in one day they could escape from the present system. No man could venture to think that it was possible to shake so firmly rooted a system, established too by so long a course of legislation, at once. Any notion of precipitate measures directed against the system could not be entertained; but while he said this, he would allow that measures might be adopted, connected with improvements in the administration of the existing law, which might be attended with the greatest advantage to the objects of it, namely,

525
the poor. The present system not only went to accumulate burthens on the country which it could not continue to bear, but to destroy the true wealth of the poor man, the capability of making exertions for his own livelihood; for if pecuniary relief went on with the laxity which now prevailed, and all the cunning of uncultivated minds was to be directed to the means of escaping from labour and enjoying the fruits of the labour of others, a national calamity might be said to be overtaking us by a double operation—in the increased burthens imposed on the country, and the diminution of the industry from which its resources were derived. Though, therefore, they could not set themselves against the statute of Elizabeth, yet they could look into it, and on doing so, they would find that these objects which were within the original purview of the law, were the sick and infirm poor, and those labouring under temporary difficulties from want of work. Without any innovation therefore on the existing law, or shaking any of those claims which were supposed to exist under the law, he apprehended that no proposition was more clear than that when a man possessed bodily ability to work, the performance of work might be made the criterion of the condition entitling him to relief, and that his pecuniary claim might be invariably founded on his disposition to work. If that were made the basis of the poor-laws, there was hardly a parish in England, however small, where the industry of those able to work and applying for relief, might not be turned to advantage. In every parish they might find materials sufficient for relieving all the distressed of the parish by means of work, excepting children, and those whose advanced age or infirmity precluded them from exertion. But he would push this principle so far, that he would rather employ the labouring poor to dig a hole one day, and make them fill it up again the next, than allow them to remain idle, and expose themselves to the danger of losing the use of their hands and legs, and the power of making themselves serviceable to themselves and their country, Though this labour might not be immediately productive, it at least kept the labourers in a state which rendered them capable of future efforts, and thus averted one great danger to be apprehended from a great proportion of the labouring poor subsisting without effort at all. If the law did
526
not receive some such correction in its administration, the evil would at last become too strong for the law. But in order that an improved system should take place they ought to look to a more effective administration of the law. He doubted whether any remedy could improve the practice which prevailed in considerable portions of this country, where systems were established by particular laws, adapted to the peculiarities of the situation and the habits of the people. But though they could not have much expectation of amelioration with respect to such plans, there was certainly the greatest room for improvement in the great mass of parishes where the administration of the poor laws was lax in an extreme degree, and in hands which could not possibly administer them well. In one parish with which he had some connexion, the administration of the poor laws was in the hands of a woman. Under such a system of administration all sorts of tricks, were resorted to by those whose idleness disposed them to withdraw themselves from labour. To counteract these tricks, and to prevent the misapplication of the funds of charity, required an officer of an experience, and knowledge of the character of the different individuals of the parish, not merely of one, but of two, three, and four years; and without such experience, he could not be considered as capable of filling the office. The House were aware of the legislative provision already subsisting, by which a power was given to unions of parishes, where there was a common workhouse to employ overseers with salaries. But hitherto, when parishes had employed any person at a salary as an overseer, it was to be considered as a breach of the law; for there was no law by which an intelligent person could be employed as an overseer of a parish at a fixed salary. He did not wish to change the parochial system, and he could wish farmers to go through the parish offices by rotation, that they might feel a confidence that the parish funds were not misapplied; but he thought they could not do the parish business well without a permanent officer. He thought that an officer paid by the parish, who would devote his whole time and attention to the administration of the poor laws and the charge of the poor, might execute the business more skilfully and beneficially than it was executed at present. The hon. gentleman had, at

527
some length, gone into the subject of bringing in personal property to contribute to the common burthen. To the abstract principle he had nothing to say—he would even give to it his concurrence; but he thought the hon. gentleman might almost have collected, from the absence of execution of this principle up to the present day, that there was some difficulty hanging about it. Here he thought he was entitled to caution the hon. gentleman not to be so precipitate; and to renounce the idea which he seemed to entertain, that nothing was wanting on the part of the committee, but, determination to overcome the difficulty. He, for one, certainly did not go into the committee with that sort of ardour which seemed to be felt by the hon. gentleman, or with any thing like a pledge that they would overcome those difficulties, which he apprehended would meet them, from the circumstance that a principle so wise and so equitable had never been carried into execution up to the present day. The difficulty was the getting at personal property by taxation. On former occasions it had been found difficult to make personal property liable to an assessment for the state, and he was persuaded that that difficulty would not be diminished in an attempt to render it liable to an assessment for the poor. With respect to the application of such funds as might be obtained from personal property, in aid of the general interest, on a principle of equalization, assisting such parishes as were already taxed to a given amount, he could never approve of such a system. By it a parish which had once arrived at a maximum would have nothing to do but to put its hands into the pockets of the rest of the country. There would then be no interest whatever to counteract abuses, and to watch over the due application of the parish funds. Let not the hon. member apprehend, when he touched on these ideas, that he wished to discourage all attempt to overcome the difficulty—he threw there out because he wished them to go into the committee with the large views and liberal spirit of statesmen, who were determined to remove an acknowledged evil; or to show, by their exertions, that if it was allowed to continue, it was owing to unavoidable circumstances, and not to supineness on the part of the House, or from a reluctance to struggle with the difficulties that presented themselves. They were about to struggle with
528
one of the greatest difficulties that ever legislation had to struggle with, and a difficulty that the whole legislation of the country had hitherto gone to augment. If he understood the hon. gentleman, his views of amelioration were very much connected with the system of saving banks, introduced by a right hon. gentleman last year to the notice of the House. If the hon. gentleman condescended to propose his name as a member of the proposed committee, he would go into it perfectly unincumbered with prejudice he would go into it with no favourite plans or ideas; he would go into it with his mind open to conviction; he would go into it with the deepest impression of the immense importance of the subject, and with the fullest belief, that if no change were soon effected, the fabric of our greatness, and the system of our industry, would soon be shaken; but at the same time he would go into it with the highest sense of the difficulties of the question. He dreaded any interference with the saving banks, which he rejoiced to see likely to spread from voluntary adoption: as he was afraid that a conversion of the system from a spontaneous to a compulsory mode of contribution, would nip in its infancy a plan which promised to bring back the people to habits of industry, providence, and economy; to teach them ideas of independence, and make them look for relief—the relief that must always be the most grateful and effectual—from their own ingenuity, prudence, and labour. He begged pardon for detaining the House so long; but he thought it incumbent upon him to make the observations which he did, and to throw out the ideas that occurred to him on this momentous subject, that too high expectations might not be formed from the committee, and that proportionate disappointment might not be felt. This was not a party question. He was sure both sides of the House equally felt its importance, and were equally free from hasty or intemperate prejudices with respect to it; and that their utmost exertions would be pledged to the formation of some measure in which all were equally interested. No question went so deeply to affect the happiness of the whole community. Under this impression he was happy to lend his warmest support to the motion for a committee. He entered into the proposition with the utmost cordiality, and if so fortunate as to be appointed one of its members,

529
he would lend it all the assistance in his power.
Mr. Curwenwished to say one word in explanation. He did not mean that the slightest degree of coercion should be used as to saving banks. His plan was to be adopted only where it met with the wishes of the majority of the parishioners.
The motion was then agreed to, and a committee appointed.

REPORT OF SECRET COMMITTEE—MR. CLEARY'S PETITION.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, that a petition had been put into his hands, to be presented to their lordships, to the matter of which he was anxious to call their particular attention before they proceeded to the order of the day. The petition was from Thomas Cleary, the secretary to the London Union Society; and he was the more anxious to call their lordships attention to it now, because it might perhaps be the only opportunity which the individual might have of doing himself and others justice, before their lordships should have adopted measures founded on the report of the secret committee; and he had been given to understand since he came into the House, that it was the intention of ministers to propose the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. When this report of the secret committee had been first read at the table, he had contended that the evidence on which the committee had founded their conclusions ought to be laid before their lordships, to enable them to judge whether these conclusions were supported by the evidence, before they adopted measures upon it; because, in a matter of such magnitude, it appeared to him that they ought to legislate cautiously, and, he might almost say, less violently than seemed to be at present in contemplation. The noble president of the council at that time met him with statements of practice and usage. He spoke then merely from a feeling of the gross impropriety of acting upon the report, without satisfying themselves, from inspection of the evidence, that the conclusions were just: but he was now provided with a precedent—that of 1794, when a very strong report, and also the evidence were produced. It had occurred to him, when he first heard the report read, that much of it consisted of inference from facts, rather than a statement of facts; and that it was therefore peculiarly desirable that their lordships should see the evidence. This feeling was considerably strengthened by the statements, in this petition, which might be true for any thing he knew to the contrary. Whether they were so or not, he could not take upon himself to say; but if they were true, they would not only throw considerable suspicion on the evidence from which the committee had drawn its conclusions, but show that very great injury had been done to the individual who now petitioned, as well as to other persons.—His lordship then read the petition as follows:
474
"To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled.
"The Petition of Thomas Cleary Secretary to the London Union Society.
"Humbly showeth, That it is with great reluctance, as well as humility, that your petitioner offers himself to the notice of, and prays for a hearing from your right honourable House; but that your petitioner, though a very humble individual, feels himself impelled by a sense of imperious duty, to beseech your right honourable House to pause, and to hear further evidence, before your right honourable House proceed to adopt legislative measures upon the report, now on the table of your right honourable House, from your late secret committee.
"Your petitioner begs permission humbly to state to your right honourable House, that he has read in the aforementioned report of the secret committee of your lordships, the following passage; to wit:
"'Others of these societies are called Union Clubs, professing the same object of parliamentary reform, but under these words understanding universal suffrage and annual parliaments—Projects which evidently involve not any qualified or partial change, but a total subversion of the British constitution. It appears that there is a London Union Society, and branch Unions corresponding with it, and affiliated to it. Others of these societies have adopted the name of Spencean Philanthropists; and it was by members of a club of this description that the plans of the conspirators in London were discussed and prepared for execution."'
"Your petitioner presumes not to oppose his opinions against those of a committee of your right honourable House; but he hopes, that he may be humbly permitted to state, that when a bill was brought before your right honourable House by the late duke of Richmond, laying it down as a matter of principle, that annual parliaments and universal suffrage were the inherent and unalienable rights of Englishmen, the noble duke was not accused of a desire to produce "a total subversion of the British constitution."
"It is not, however, on matters of opi-

475
nion, but on matters of most important fact, that your petitioner humbly appeals to the candour, the wisdom, and the justice of your right honourable House, and on matters of fact, too, with regard to which your petitioner is able to submit to your right honourable House the clearest and most indubitable testimony.
"Your petitioner's entire ignorance of the views of the secret committee of your right honourable House, as well as his profound respect and extreme deference for every thing done within the walls of your right honourable House, are more than sufficient to restrain your petitioner from attempting even to guess at the reasons for your committee's having so closely connected the London Union Society' with the societies of 'Spencean Philanthropists;' but your petitioner humbly begs leave to assure your lordships, that he is ready and able to prove at the bar of your lordships, that there never has existed, between these societies, the smallest connexion of any sort, either in person or design, the object of the former being to obtain "a parliamentary reform, according to the constitution," while that of the latter, as appears from the report of your lordships committee, has been to obtain a common partnership in the land; and that, therefore, any evidence which may have been laid before the secret committee of your lordships to establish this connexion, is, as your petitioner is ready to prove at the bar of your lordships, wholly destitute of truth.
"But the facts to which your petitioner is most anxious humbly to endeavour to obtain the patient attention of your right honourable House, relate to that affiliation and correspondence, which your lordships secret committee have been pleased to impute to the London Union Society, by observing that "it appears that there is a London Union Society, and Branch Unions, corresponding with it, and affiliated to it;" a description which seems, in the humble conception of your petitioner, to resemble that which was given of the London Corresponding Society, in 1795, and which, as your petitioner humbly conceives, point to measures of a nature similar to those which were then adopted; and your petitioner, though with all humility, ventures to express his confidence, that the evidence which he doubts not has been produced to your lordships secret committee to justify this description, is wholly and entirely false, as your petitioner is ready
476
to prove, in the most satisfactory manner, at the bar of your right honourable House.
"Upon this important point your petitioner humbly begs leave to represent to your right honourable House, that the London Union Society was founded in 1812 by Mr. Edward Bolton Clive, Mr. Walter Fawkes, the late colonel Bosville, Mr. Montague Burgoyne, the present lord mayor, Mr. Alderman Goodbehere, Mr. Francis Canning, Mr. William Hallet, sir Francis Burdett, major Cartwright, Mr. Robert Slade, Mr. Timothy Brown, Mr. J. J. Clarke, and several other individuals equally respectable; that it continued to hold meetings but a very short time; that it never did any act except the publishing of one address to the nation on the subject of reform; that it never had any one "Branch;" that it never held any correspondence either written or verbal with any society of any sort; that it never was affiliated to any society, or branch, or any body of men whatsoever; finally, that it has not even met for nearly three years and a half last past; and, of course, that it is not now in existence.
"What, then, must have been the surprise and the pain of your humble petitioner, when he saw, in the report of your lordships secret committee, this London Union Society represented, not only as being still in existence, but busily and extensively at work, establishing branches and affiliations, carrying on an active correspondence, infusing life into societies of Spencean Philanthropists, and producing, by these means, plans of conspiracy, revolution, and treason! And, though your petitioner is too well assured of the upright views and of the justice of every committee consisting of members of your noble and right honourable House not to be convinced that very strong evidence in support of these charges must have been produced to your lordships secret committee, your petitioner cannot, nevertheless, refrain from expressing most humbly his deep regret, that your lordships committee should not have deigned to send for the books and other testimonials of the character and proceedings of the London Union Society; and your petitioner humbly begs leave to observe, that this omission appears singularly unfortunate for the London Union Society, seeing that the secret committee of your lordships appear, in another part of their report, to lament the want of means of obtaining the written proceedings of societies, and seeing

477
that it was natural to expect, that a society having branches, an affiliation and an active correspondence, had also a copious collection of written documents.
"Your petitioner is aware, that he has trespassed too long on the patience of your lordships; but, well knowing that your lordships seek only for truth as the basis of your proceedings, he humbly hopes that you will be pleased to excuse the earnestness of his present representation, and he also presumes humbly to express his hope, that your lordships will be pleased, in your great tenderness for the character and liberties of his majesty's faithful subjects, to consider whether it be not possible that your secret committee may have been misled, by what they may have deemed good evidence, as to other parts of their recent report; and, at the least, your petitioner humbly prays that your lordships will, in your great condescension, be pleased to permit your petitioner to produce all the books and papers of the London Union Society at the bar of your right honourable House, where your petitioner confidently assures your lordships that he is ready to prove all and singular the allegations, contained in this his most humble petition.
"And your petitioner will ever pray.
"THOMAS CLEARY."
His lordship observed, with regard to the petition he had just read, that it contained statements which it was of the utmost importance the House should thoroughly examine, because if these statements were correct, the secret committee must have been imposed upon. He had the highest respect for the members of that committee, but they might easily have been misled by false evidence, persons desirous of courting the favour of the House.
The Duke of Montroserose to order. He considered it highly disorderly to impute to the members of a committee appointed by their lordships any motives, such as courting the favour of the House, which could influence them in the discharge of a public duty.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, if the noble duke had allowed him to finish his expression, it would have been found that he had no intention whatever of imputing motives to the members of the committee. All he meant to say was, that persons with a view of courting the favour of that House, of courting the favour of ministers
478
(for what was intended but to give ministers additional power), might state to the committee what was not the fact, and that thus the committee might have been misled. This was his view of the subject, and it was most important that such a consideration should be adopted by the House. Was it to be endured, that upon statements made by any committee to that House, and which statements were offered to be proved at the bar to be untrue, the liberties of the people of England were to be placed at the disposal of Mr. Canning, Mr. Bragge Bathurst, lord Castlereagh, and their colleagues?
The Duke of Atholrose to order, and put it to the House, whether it was consistent with the order of their proceedings, that motives should thus be imputed to individuals?
Lord Rollealso rose to order, and asked whether it was fair thus to attack individuals, who not being members of that House, could not defend themselves?
The Lord Chancellordeclared the allusion to Mr. Bragge Bathurst, &c. to be most disorderly, nor could he consent to remain ten minutes longer in the situation which he held, if the House decided it to be in order. Nothing, indeed, could be more disorderly than the whole proceeding on this petition, which purported that the petitioner knew of a proceeding of that House, which he could not, consistently with the orders of the House, know any thing about, the report having-been presented for the use of the members of that House, and of them only.
Earl Greysaid, it appeared to him, that those who now stood forward in support of the orders of the House were themselves the violators. What his noble friend had said contrary to order, he had yet to learn. He did not hear him impute improper motives to any man. What he understood him to say, and which he was ready to repeat after him, was this, that the effect of the measure now in contemplation would be to leave the liberties of the country at the mercy of the ministers of the crown. Then his noble friend had named certain members of the other House—whether discreetly or not was for his own consideration; but he believed it was not contrary to order to name in that House members of the other House. It appeared to him, therefore, that his noble friend had been most improperly interrupted, and chiefly by the learned lord on the woolsack, whose

479
duty it particularly was to take care that the orders of the House should be attended to. When a noble lord was called to order, then, before any other noble lord spoke, the noble lord so called to order ought, without interruption, to be allowed to give such explanation to the House as he thought proper.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that whatever might be the objects of persons out of the House, he was sure that no individual within it could think of promoting their objects by the introduction of disorderly proceedings in that House; but a more disorderly proceeding than this he had never witnessed. He denied that he was particularly called upon to take care that the orders of the House should be attended to; although he admitted that such was his duty equally with that of any other noble lord in the House. The noble lord had stated, that it was in contemplation to suspend the Habeas Corpus act. Had any thing been as yet said about the suspension of that act? If the report of the committee of the House of Commons had been brought up and laid on their lordships table, then he admitted that the noble lord might have referred to the proceedings, and mentioned the names of members of the other House: but no communication of the Commons report had been made to them, and they knew nothing whatever of it; therefore it was disorderly to refer to it. With respect to the report of their lordships committee, it had been ordered to be printed for the use of the members of the House only; and the petitioner could regularly know nothing of it. In his anxiety to see the orders of the House enforced, he might perhaps go too far; but he conceived that he was perfectly right in calling the noble earl to order; and if he was wrong, he was so far wrong, that he wished the House to say whether he was right or wrong, that he might know his situation.
Lord Hollandsaid, that the speech of the learned lord who bad just sat down, made in support of the orders of the House, was itself eminently disorderly, When any noble lord was called to order, the usage was, that no other lord should speak till that noble lord had an opportunity of giving the proper explanation; but, instead of arguing that point, the learned lord proceeded to charge his noble friend with being disorderly for having brought up the petition, and read it to
†
480
their lordships in the present state of their proceedings. But if it was disorderly to have introduced the petition at all, then, if they meant to insist upon that point of order, his noble friend ought to have been interrupted before he stated the petition; but after that had been suffered to pass, it ought not to be made a ground of interruption, with reference to an entirely distinct point; for nothing could be more disorderly than, in rising to order on one point, to proceed to argue on another point, with respect to which there had been no call to order. Now, whether the learned lord was in a particular manner bound to take care that the orders of the House should be enforced, or was in that respect merely on a footing with the other peers, this was clear—that his noble friend having been called to order, he ought to have been heard in explanation without interruption: but yet his noble friend had been interrupted in a manner which had prolonged a most disorderly conversation.
The Earl of Liverpool, notwithstanding all he had heard, maintained that the whole proceeding of the noble earl was disorderly; first, in his bringing the petition before the House, before the report of the committee could have been regularly known; second, in referring to measures as about to be proposed, of which the noble earl could, as yet, regularly know nothing. According to the strict rule of order, the noble earl might certainly have been interrupted at the outset; but for the sake of general convenience, there was always a disposition to indulgence in this respect, and therefore the noble lord had been suffered to proceed with the statement of the petition. The point, however, in which he conceived the noble earl to have been particularly disorderly was this; that the noble earl had grounded his statement on an assumption that measures were in contemplation of which he could, as yet, regularly know nothing. All that the noble earl knew was, that the secret committee had made a report, which was read in that House, which was ordered to be printed for the use of the members of that House, and which was to be taken this night into consideration; and yet the noble earl had cast an imputation on the ministers of the Crown, on a ground of which he could regularly know nothing. He knew that, for the sake of convenience, measures intended to be proposed to parliament were some-

481
times previously communicated to individuals in conversation and otherwise; and in ordinary cases he would not have objected to an allusion to such projected measures; but if the noble earl had experienced the indulgence of the House, he had made a most unjustifiable use of that indulgence, in throwing out imputations against the ministers of the Crown, and even casting a personal odium upon certain members of the executive government, to whom the exercise of the powers which it might be necessary to concede, would not immediately and directly belong. This was the substance and truth of the matter, and there could be no question but that the proceeding was disorderly. The noble earl ought not to have taken advantage of the indulgence of the House, to throw out these imputations against the ministers of the Crown, on the assumption that measures were to be proposed of which he could know nothing.
Earl Grosvenormaintained that he was perfectly in order in making the allusion he did. He should have been utterly out of order to have named peers in that House, and he merely, therefore named those ministers who were in the other House. With regard to the petition he had presented, he contended it was of the greatest importance, particularly with a view to the measures to be founded upon the report of the secret committee, that it should be ascertained whether the allegations in that report were correct or not. The petitioner was now at the bar with the papers and books of the London Union Society ready to present them; ready also to adduce evidence, that with regard to that society the allegations in the report were unfounded, and he trusted their lordships would allow that testimony to be received. His lordship concluded by moving that the petition be read.
The Lord Chancellor was proceeding to object to the petition being received, when the earl of Lauderdale spoke to order, stating that the only question was, that the petition be read. The lord Chancellor admitted this, and said he had no objection to the petition being read. The petition was then read by the reading clerk at the table; after which, earl Grosvenor moved, that it should lie on the table.
The Lord Chancellorobjected to receiving the petition. Whatever might be the conduct in other societies, it was peculiarly incumbent upon that House to maintain inviolate the rules and orders of
482
their proceedings. If he stood alone, he would be found advocating the maintenance of those rules and orders which formed the only safeguard for the regularity of their proceedings. The report of the secret committee had only been printed for the use of their lordships; it was a proceeding confined within that House. How, then, could it be endured, that a petition should be received quoting a passage in that report, and calling upon the House to receive evidence in contradiction to it. Such a proceeding would be most irregular and disorderly, would be in contradiction to all their orders, to all their established rules, and to the constitution, if he understood it. He could not, therefore, consent to receiving any such petition; and should the House agree to receive it, he should feel it his duty to enter a solemn protest against the proceeding.
Earl Greysaid, he entirely agreed with the noble and learned lord as to the maintenance of the rules and orders of that House, nor should the noble and learned lord stand alone in maintaining them. With the opinion of the noble and learned lord, however, that to receive this petition would be contrary to those rules and orders, and contrary to the constitution, he could not agree. He understood the constitution in a different sense. He had always understood it to be a principle of the constitution that no subject of the realm should suffer a wrong without the means of redress; but how would the case stand, if in such a case as this the subject was debarred from his right of petition. In consequence of the publication of reports of commitees of parliament affecting the character of Mr. Horne Tooke, that gentleman brought an action against the publisher of those reports. When the case came on for trial before lord Kenyon, then lord chief justice of the court of King's-bench, that learned judge at once refused to let the proceeding go on, stating that the proceedings of parliament were not cognizable in courts of law; and as he sometimes happily applied quotations, he made use of one in that instance, observing, that were the proceedings in parliament to become cognizable in courts of law, then "Chaos is come again." It having thus been determined that the subject, however his character might be affected by any proceeding in parliament, had no redress in a court of law, where was he to obtain redress except in parliament? It

483
was in vain to say that he had no right to know what was passing in parliament; it was well known, that in point of fact, the proceedings of parliament did in some way or other go forth to the public; and was it to be endured that a technical objection was now to be set up to deprive the subject of his right of petition? Was it meant to be said, that with regard to a bill (which was as much a proceeding within the House as the report of a committee) the subject was on such a ground not to be allowed to petition against it? Was it to be endured, that if a bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus was brought in, and not printed, for instance (the case with former bills of that nature), that the subject should not be allowed to petition against it, because it was a proceeding in the House of which no one out of the House had a right to know any thing? If such an objection were at all applicable, it must equally apply to all bills, to all debates, and to every proceeding within the House. What was this but denying altogether the right of petition to the subject? He knew nothing with regard to the petition now before the House, whether the allegations it contained were true or not, but at least they were of great importance, when it was considered what measures were in contemplation, particularly if the report of the committee were to lead to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus. Surely, in such a view of the question, it was of the utmost importance to ascertain whether the statements in the report were well founded or not. He therefore was of opinion that the petition ought to be received.
The Earl of Harrowbydid not think it necessary to follow the arguments of the noble earl, or to go through the statements of the petition. He should merely confine himself to the question of the order of the proceedings of the House, which it seemed to be the fashion, to call a technical objection. He could not so consider it, the objection arising out of the essential forms of the House, which it was of the highest importance to their proceedings should not be infringed. Such a question as this, besides, ought to be considered with a view to its consequences, and what must be the result if they received this petition? It would no doubt be followed by petitions from all the societies alluded to in the report, the Hampden Clubs and the Spencean Philanthropists, which would tend to embar-
484
rass their proceedings in a manner altogether unprecedented, and, at a moment involving the safety of the country, might be productive of the greatest public danger. He therefore saw no reason whatever for receiving this petition.
Lord Hollandwas decidedly of opinion, that no sufficient reason had been urged why this petition should not be received. On the contrary, every reason, in his view of the subject, combined to urge its reception. He was as great an advocate as any noble lord for the maintenance of the rules and orders of their proceedings; but was it to be endured, that a rule was now to be practically applied for the first time, in order to do away the subjects right of petition? It had been already clearly shown, that for an injury done to the character of an individual by proceedings in parliament, he had no remedy in a court of law; and would their lordships take away all remedy by refusing the only means of redress, that of petitioning the House? It might be said that their proceedings were not public; but when it was known to every one that their proceedings were public, was it any answer to an individual to say, that he had no right to know what passed in that House, when he found himself in the ordinary intercourse of society deprived of his character in consequence of the publication of these proceedings? It was true that the committee had properly abstained from naming individuals, but the principle remained the same; the petitioner petitioned on behalf of himself and other respectable individuals connected with him to remove the stain upon them which resulted from the report of the committee, and surely the common and ordinary rules of justice demanded that they should be heard in their defence, and to disprove the allegations of the report involving their characters and conduct. He thought, therefore, the House were bound in justice to receive the petition and the evidence tendered.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, he had heard no adequate reason whatever, why this petition should not be received. The report stated allegations, which it was alleged in the petition were untrue; was it not therefore of the greatest importance to ascertain the point? It was in vain to say that they did not know what measures were in contemplation; they had a right to consider the possibility of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus being resorted

485
to, in consequence of this report; and in this view it became of still greater importance to the public welfare, and to the liberties of the people, that it should be ascertained by evidence, whether the allegations in that report were founded or not.
The Earl of Lauderdaleobserved, that the noble lords who opposed receiving the petition, did not prove that either in the details of its allegations, or in the spirit of its prayer, it attacked the forms of that House. What was, then, the ground of their objection? That it adverted to certain proceedings of that House, which the House alone was presumed by its forms to know. The objection, if it had force, was equally hostile to any petition being presented against bills. Indeed, there was no parliamentary proceeding against which, if justified, it would not be hostile. There was nothing in the stages of parliamentary progress lower than petitions on subjects to be entertained; yet the usage of parliament was, to receive counter-petitions. On resolutions of committees, frequently on reports of committees, it adopted the same course. He recollected well, that in the instance when a committee of that House reported the well-known Irish propositions, petitions, as numerous as were ever on any occasion presented, were received by that House, and that before any legislative measure, or any formal promulgation of such intention, was adopted by parliament.
The Duke of Atholbriefly adverted to some passages in the petition, which he considered highly disrespectful to the committee of their lordships House, and formed a justifiable ground, even without any reference to the forms alluded to, for its rejection.
Lord Erskinesaid, that he could not understand upon what principle the petition could be rejected, unless its language had been held to be insulting or disrespectful to the House. He could surely not be suspected of any vexatious opposition to government, since he had not been even once in his place during the last session, and for this short reason, because, though he could not change his opinions of the impolicy of the wars against France which it was too late to reconsider; yet he thought ministers entitled to credit for the successful termination of hostilities, and considering the period to be not then arrived for the adoption of a peace establishment, he had no object for attendance.
486
He desired to deal with ministers as they ought to have dealt with the people, by a judgment upon the overt acts of their administration, which he was very sorry to say were now of a most unjustifiable and alarming description. He was in a distant part of the country when he learned only from the public papers his majesty's message, and the appointment of a committee to consider it.—When the atrocious attack was made upon the Prince Regent, which might have been the treason of a single miscreant, though surrounded by mischievous people that the ordinary police might have dispersed, the country appeared every where else to be in the most profound tranquillity, and the petitioner, though guilty of no manner of offence, yet finding himself implicated by the report, only desired to offer his exculpation, and to support it by proof. Now, if a petition, having this justifiable object, ought to be rejected to night, because it referred to our report, could a petition referring to it be received at any future period; and was it just, that though immense bodies of peaceable subjects were stigmatized upon ex parte evidence, and their liberties abridged upon its authority, yet that they might be told they had no right to know any thing of the matter? The report of the committee had made an almost universal charge of treasonable conspiracy against the petitioners for reform throughout the whole kingdom. He desired to read the passage: "Others of those societies are called Union Clubs, professing the same object of parliamentary reform, but under these words understanding universal suffrage and annual parliaments,—projects which evidently involved not any qualified or partial change, but a total subversion of the British constitution." Now, though no man was more decidedly adverse to the alterations prayed for, which were nothing like a restoration of either the principles or practice of former times, yet even if their adoption had a tendency to the subversion of the constitution, or if adopted, would even certainly subvert it, yet he was wholly at a loss to conceive how men could be justly charged as traitorous conspirators for entertaining absurd opinions, which they only petitioned parliament to sanction, leaving their rejection on the legislative wisdom of their country. When, therefore, they found themselves charged in the Journals of parliament with treasonable combinations to maintain them by

487
rebellious force, he could not comprehend upon what principle their exculpation was to be rejected. He had himself presented a petition, signed by above 20,000 inhabitants of Glasgow and its neighbourhood, and he found them also accused by the report as traitors to the state. Should they also resist such an accusation, he should think it strange if they were not to be heard.—But the main stress of the objection seemed to be that they could not take notice of this report which condemned them; but the contrary had been decided, as truly stated by his noble friend (earl Grey), in the case of Mr. Horne Tooke. He was present himself when it was held by the whole court of King's bench, that every subject of the realm having a right to know, and, unless prohibited by parliament, to publish its transactions, the charge of a libel could not be supported against a publisher, who, in that instance, had only printed what he copied from the Journal of the House of Commons. The petitioner, therefore, having a right to refer to the report of the committee, and being severely inculpated by it, had a right also to be heard in his defence. The numbers also had been objected to, which such a claim of petitioning might involve; but that objection did not lie in the mouths of those who made general accusations. If he (lord E.), were to say in a large assembly, that there was not an honest man to be found in it, and an individual desired to be heard, could he be allowed to refuse him, by saying he must then hear them all? Certainly he must in that case hear them all, whatever might be their numbers from the generality of the charge.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, that, in his opinion, the arguments adduced by the noble lords opposite, were completely refuted by the spirited and argumentative speech of his noble friend (earl Grey). The petition was couched in respectful language; it distinctly stated that the committee had received, from some quarter or other, evidence that was not true; and it called for an inquiry into all the circumstances. In what a situation, then, would the committee be placed, if, after this was alleged, their lordships should reject the petition! The petitioner stated that they were ready, and able, and willing to prove, on oath, at the bar of the House, that the report of the secret committee, as far as it related to the Union Society, and the ramifications of that society, had not
488
any foundation in fact. When a report was presented, on which measures might be founded hostile to the liberty of the subject—measures that might go to deprive the petitioner of liberty—was it not proper that he should come forward, and, in respectful language, declare, that he was ready to be heard at the bar, on oath, and to point out those fallacies on which the committee had proceeded? His noble friend had justly observed, that it was most important, at the present moment, that the legislature should show a particular willingness to redress grievances; and he called on their lordships, for the sake of the people of England, for the sake of justice, for the sake of their own purity of character, to receive this petition. Whatever feeling their lordships might entertain of the magnitude of the danger that threatened the country, from dissatisfaction and discontent, of this he was sure, that parliament in adopting measures on this occasion could not proceed with too much caution. They ought to prove, that while, on the one hand, they were determined to enforce the law, they were, on the other, most anxious, by every means in their power, to protect the liberties of the people. "If," said his lordship, "you reject this petition, I confidently assert, that you will not do justice to the people of this country—that you will not do justice to yourselves."
Earl Greyobserved, that it appeared to some noble lords as if there was no distinction to be made between the committee of their lordships House and the evidence that was produced before that committee. In his contemplation, there was a very manifest distinction, and on that distinction the petitioner seemed to ground his respectful application. He did not arraign the proceedings of the committee, but he offered to contradict the evidence it had examined. His petition alleged, that he has himself been misrepresented; and thus aggrieved, what other means were left him to defend himself from the injury, but the very course he has pursued? Against this course the learned lord on the woolsack has met the petitioner with, a new point of form, which he would contend had no foundation in any former precedent of their lordships' House. The question itself was of such serious importance, that he could not help pressing it upon the deliberative judgment and calm consideration of the House. As to the argument, he could

489
have no doubt where it rested; but knowing how often the majority of their lordships, as to the extent and validity of the conviction that he entertained, differed from him, he begged them, as they valued the good opinion which that House wished to hold with the country, to consider how it might be affected by the rejection of the present petition. They surely ought not, in times like these, to shut their ears against the prayers of the subject, or refuse to receive information calculated to throw a new light on the report of a committee, on the truth and effect of which report they were most probably to be that night called upon to adopt measures the most important to the welfare of the nation. Under the impression that he felt on the subject, he was anxious to proceed in the best way that the forms of the House would allow. He would therefore, propose to move as an amendment, that this debate be adjourned for a short time, in order that the matter may be referred to a committee of privileges, with instructions to search for precedents, and to report whether there was any instance of a petition similar to the present being rejected on the ground of reference to proceedings of that House, of which the petitioner ought to have no knowledge. With this view, he moved that the debate be adjourned until Friday next.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he felt the strongest disposition to treat every petition which might be offered with the greatest indulgence. Were there any ground for doubt, he should be disposed to hesitate before he rejected the present petition; but he saw no ground for any inquiry of the kind the noble lord had proposed. Not a word had been said to show that the petition was such a one as ought now to be received, or that any similar petition had ever been admitted to their lordships' table. It advanced assertions which the individual from whom it came had no means of proving. It inferred that certain measures were to be adopted of which he could know nothing. It had been said by the noble lords on the other side, that petitions against bills were equally objectionable; but this was not the fact, as the usage of parliament had decided the question with respect to the right of petitioning against them. With respect to the Irish propositions, to which a noble earl had referred, they afforded as little authority for the opinion which had been maintained. Those propositions in-
490
volved measures affecting the interest of great bodies of people; and they were printed for the purpose of giving the persons interested an opportunity of considering them, and petitioning against them, if they should think fit. On comparing the statements of the present petition and, the prayer, it appears, that the inducement of the individual to come forward, is a desire that he may be heard, in order to prevent the adoption of measures similar to those of 1795, and which he conceives the legislature has now in view. That this is the object of the petitioner is to be inferred from the context: he prays to be heard, because he supposes that certain measures, similar to those of a former period, may be in contemplation. Whether such measures are to be proposed or not it is impossible for him to know; and to what a state would their lordships be reduced, were they to permit individuals to come forward with petitions, not merely against measures before the House, but against measures which the petitioners apprehend may be introduced: their lordships must perceive to what an inconvenient extent such a principle as this might be carried. Every individual in the country who apprehended that any measure affecting himself, or the public in general, might at some time or another be introduced into that House, would have the right of appearing at the bar with his petition. The noble earl had not been able to refer to any instance of a similar petition being received; and he considered that a sufficient reason for rejecting it, as well as for not acceding to the proposed adjournment.
Lord Hollandcontended, that the noble earl had entirely failed in supporting the distinction that he had attempted to draw between the present case and that of the precedent of the Irish propositions. All former reports of the committee were not, according to the forms of parliament, promulgated; they were as much secret as the present report, to which the petitioner had adverted. Yet the table of that House was crowded with petitions. A noble duke had taken another and a better ground for rejection. But did the fact correspond with the objection? The present petition was, in no way, in his opinion, objectionable, as to the language in which it was couched. There were, as he understood, but two grounds on which the petitions of the subject could be refused; either when what was asked was out of the

491
cognizance of the House to grant, or when it was stated in disrespectful language. Neither of these objections could be urged against the petitioner, and in every view of the subject he must say, that the House would evince a great appetite for the refusal of petitions, should it reject the present, without at least investigating those precedents, on which very precedents, those who opposed its reception, ventured to ground their hostility.
Earl Fitzwilliam.—As I had the honour of being a member of that committee of secrecy, whose report has been presented to this House, I feel solicitous to give my opinion on the subject of this petition. To that report, I assented, from the nature of the evidence that was before the committee. That evidence has been contradicted by the petition, both in point of fact and time; and therefore I should be exceedingly sorry that a petition containing such allegations should not be received. At all events I feel it a duty most seriously to press upon the consideration of the House the propriety of adopting the amendment of my noble friend.
The House divided on the amendment, when the numbers were—Contents, 18; Not-contents, 641.—Majority against the Amendment 46. The motion for laying the petition on the table was then put and negatived.

List of the Minority.

DUKES.

Lauderdale

Sussex

Rosslyn.

Somerset.

VISCOUNT.

MARQUESS.

Torrington.

Wellesley.

LORDS.

EARLS.

Auckland

Darnley

Erskine

Derby

Foley

Essex

Holland

Fitzwilliam

Say and Sele

Grey

St. John.

Grosvenor

HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL.
Lord Sidmouthsaid, that he was prepared, on coming down to the House that day, to have gone fully into the subject itself, and to have communicated the grounds on which his majesty's government felt it imperative to recommend the measure now about to be submitted to the consideration of their lordships. From the wish expressed by a number of the members of that House, he was willing to defer the discussion on the bill he then held in his hand until the second reading, which he
492
should fix for Monday, at the same time communicating his intention of forwarding it through its various stages on that night. He then moved, that a bill intituled "An act to empower his majesty to secure and detain such persons as his majesty shall suspect are conspiring against his person and government," be now read a first time.
Lord Hollanddid not rise to offer any objection to the mode of proceeding proposed by the noble lord, whose conduct in the explanations he had given had appeared to him perfectly fair and candid; but he should be sorry, if his agreeing to the arrangement which had been suggested should lead any one to suppose, that he approved of the measures his majesty's ministers had in view. He, therefore, begged it might be clearly understood, that his consent to the present proposition by no means precluded him from opposing the bill. He hoped that the noble lord would, when he moved the second reading, enter fully into the grounds on which he proposed so extraordinary and important a measure. If it should still be determined not to lay the evidence on which the committee had founded their report before the House, it might at least be expected that ministers would consent to lay before their lordships the dates of the transactions referred to in the report, and also the dates of the information relating thereto, which had at different times been received by his majesty's government. He again said, he trusted that the ministers of the Crown would be able to come down to the House on Monday to show sufficient grounds for the measures they proposed. He trusted that, to induce parliament to adopt them at once, and in one day, the dates, circumstances, and extent of the practices that called for them, would be particularly pointed out, and satisfactorily supported.
The bill was then read a first time.