noble Lord first brought in his Bill, then read it a second time; and next laid this Report of his own Commissioners on the Table, to show, that his Bill was necessary; yet the whole 1,717, excepting 159 persons, had given it as their decided opinion, that the depression of agriculture was not owing to the poor-rates, or to the administration of the Poor-laws. It was just as if the noble Lord had said: "I will show you what power and influence I possess-I will bring in a bill, and pretend to back it up by a Report which directly contradicts it, and yet I will make the House of Commons pass the Bill; if it will not go, I will drag it with me." It was curious, also, that, of the 159 persons, twelve or fourteen were anonymous witnesses, one of whom was indorsed by the Bishop of London. Surely the Bishop, at this day, might better have employed his time, than in supporting evidence against the poor, and one of the most ancient institutions of the country. There was another ancient institution, that at present much required his aid, and to that he had better confine his exertions. Another of the 159 witnesses was one of the Commissioners who went down to his own parish, signed the Report, and sent it to his brethren.

tion, That, before the House proceeds | ruin of the farmers to the poor-rates. The further with the Bill, a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the cause or causes of the great increase of the poor-rates in England and Wales." If the Report laid on the Table did not afford sufficient reasons for this delay, it would be strange to him and stranger still, perhaps, to the people at large. After asserting, that the Poor-laws' Amendment Bill would afford effectual relief to the farmer, it was very natural that the noble Lord should introduce it; and after it had been read (he believed) a second time, another Report from the fertile brains of the Poor-laws' Commissioners was presented. The Commissioners had been instructed to find, whether the depression of agriculture arose from the increase of the poor-rates, or from the mal-administration of the Poor-laws. If they discovered that it did not, then there was clearly no necessity for this Bill. What did they report? That they had put this question to 1,717 gentlemen of England and Wales" Do you think, that the amount of agricultural capital is declining?"-The real meaning being, in plain words, "Are the farmers worse off now than they used to be?" With one exception, the whole 1,717 replied, that the farmers were poorer than formerly. The exception applied to the estate of the late First Lord of the Admiralty, which, it seemed, was so well managed, that were it not for Scotch bastards and Scotch vagrants, the farmers would have been in a better condition than formerly. Then the Commissioners followed up their first question by a second, which was coupled by the little conjunction "and"-" And do you attribute such increase or diminution to any causes connected with the administration of the Poor-laws?" Why did they put this question? It was just as much as to ask them, "Do say, it is owing to the Poor-laws-do say, that magistrates, overseers, and the poor are to blame, and that the latter will soon devour up the whole country, or our poor Chancellor of the Exchequer will go crazy." What reply had been given? Out of the 1,717 gentlemen, 401 had positively given it as their opinion, that the poor-rates had not been the cause of the diminution of agricultural capital: 1,157 assigned other causes the weight of taxation, and, above all, great, sudden, and arbitrary changes in the currency: 159 only ascribed the

Another was the member for the West Riding of Yorkshire; another, the member for Suffolk; another, the member for West Kent; another, the member for Stafford; another, the member for Warwick; and another, the member for Buckingham. To these were to be added the names of two Peers, Lord Radnor and Lord Seaford. They ought to look a little closer into the actual amount that was collected for poor-rates, and into the real portion of that amount from which the poor could be said to derive any relief. Eight millions was, in round numbers, the amount of the poorrate; but, of this, the sum of 1,694,0002. was expended for other purposes than the relief of the necessitous and the afflicted. They ought to have it stated, plainly and precisely stated, to what purposes this sum was applied; for, in his (Mr. Cobbett's) opinion, the Game-laws, the punishment of poachers, and such like matters, had no little to do with this expenditure. Then there was the pay of the overseers, and all other sources of patronage. The amount that actually went to the relief of the poor did not exceed 5,000,000l. This

than ever they were before, and whether the parties gaining most by the Bill then before the House would not be the labourers themselves? The hon. member for Oldham said, its operation would be cruel; but would it not be a benefit to the labourer to be made independent? He denied, that it was intended to be, or that it would be cruel, and he was convinced, that it would prove of the greatest possible benefit to the labourer himself. He should, of course, oppose the Motion.

Colonel Evans wished to know if it was a benefit to make the poor man a pauper, or if it was a benefit to the labourer to be refused assistance when he really wanted, unless he consented to enter a workhouse? He agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobbett), that there were many causes of the increase of pauperism which had been entirely overlooked, especially the unfair way at present adopted of raising the revenue of the country, instead of making property contribute its fair proportion. He should support the Motion for this reason-that he thought it indecent thus to press forward a measure founded on evidence, which, he would venture to state, not one person in that House had read.

fearful increase of the poor-rates was the | tlemen then surrounding him, whether theme of every tongue; nothing else was they were not in a much worse state in thought of. But the 50,000,000l. of regard to the poor and the Poor-laws taxes the increase there was never complained of in that House. Why the German Legion, then in Hanover, received, and had for the last twenty years been receiving, more than the county of Bedford- the much-abused county of Bedford-paid towards the relief of the poor. Before such a Bill as that before the House were passed, they ought to go into the abuses which prevailed-into the reckless squanderings which had taken place. Why should they not? In the time of James 1st the entire poor-rate of England, according to Chalmers, did not amount to more than 160,000l. per annum ----not so much as was now expended in the purchase of workhouse dresses. According to a return made in 1776, 16,000l. was the sum paid to the relief of the poor by the county of Bedford; now it was 100,000l. In 1776, the amount paid by the whole kingdom was 1,400,0007.; now it was 8,000,000l. Let them compare that increase with the increase in the general taxation of the country, and see how they went on together. The fact was, that the increase of taxation was the real cause of the increase of the poorrates. And yet they railed against the poor, and abused them and insulted them. Why, they did not make the debt—they were not the cause of a twenty-two years' war to put down the Jacobins and Levellers-they were not the cause of the dead weight. Why were they to be railed against? and why were not other burthens to be reduced as well as this burthen of poor-rate? If the Legislature proceeded any further with such a measure as that Poor-laws' Amendment Bill, the people would have the right to mark them down as most inconsistent in their conduct, and most inhuman in their dispositions; and, therefore, he should consider it his duty to divide the House upon his Motion.

Lord Althorp did not consider it necessary to occupy the House above one or two moments. He begged to say, that he never had declared that the Poor-laws were the cause of the agricultural distress; but merely a great ingredient of it, and that the Bill, it might be fairly hoped, would go a considerable way in relieving that distress. He could safely appeal, in answer to the observations of the hon. member for Oldham, to numbers of hon. Gen

Mr. Hume had gathered from the evidence-that to whatever part of England they turned, where the Poor-laws were badly administered, there they invariably found wages the lowest. In the north, where, generally speaking, abuses did not exist, the wages of labour were highest. He did not think the observations of the hon. and gallant Officer were just. What he looked at was this-did the Poor-laws do injury to the country? He said, that they did, and to none more than to the poor and labouring classes. He hoped the Motion would not be persevered in.

Mr. Robinson said, that ample inquiry should have been made before this measure was brought forward into the causes of the increase of the Poor-rates, and what it was that had produced the frightful extent of pauperism that at present prevailed throughout the country. But the noble Lord had prejudged the question by bringing in the Bill before a proper and full investigation had been gone into as to the causes that led to such a bill being at all required. He was not

of the parish of St. Martin considered that their vestry was an open one; but that, whenever they endeavoured to try the case in vestry, they were outvoted by those who voted according to Sturges Bourne's Act.

through his agent? As the Bill originally stood, the right of giving cumulative votes was continued, as under Mr. Sturges Bourne's Bill, not only to the owners, but to the occupiers of property. He would admit, that the object of introducing that into the clause as it stood originally was for the purpose of conciliation, and to render the Bill more popular. He was now, upon further consideration, ready to concede that the occupiers of property should not have the right of cumulative voting. He would not deny, that in the Middlesex parishes, as the hon. Member for that county had stated, great objections would be taken to the modification made in this clause, but then great objections would be made by other parishes, for instance the parishes in Lancashire, against taking away the right of cumulative voting from the owners of property. To exemplify the injustice of taking away that right, he would just put the case of a landlord who had in his possession the greatest portion of a parish, and who would not have more power, though he had infinitely more interest in the administration of its parochial concerns, than any of the occupiers of property in it, unless this cumulative right of voting should be granted to him. It did not appear to

Lord Althorp observed, that in the altered form in which this clause now appeared, two new principles had been introduced into it-the one was, to allow the owners of property to vote, and the other was to allow them to vote by proxy. He thought, that if it was admitted that those were principles which it was desirable to introduce, it would follow as a necessary consequence, that the right of having cumulative votes should also be vested in the owners of property. It was true, that the immediate expense of supporting the poor fell upon the occupiers of the land. That was the fact, generally speaking, though there might be individual exceptions to it, and therefore they were bound to assume it in legislating for the whole country. But there was not the least doubt that the effects arising from an increase or diminution in the Poor-rates affected the landlord much more than the occupier. Owing to a variety of causes, the occupier of the soil was not so much concerned in an increase of the Poor-rates as the landlord was. He could, for in-him that any danger would arise in the stance, say to himself, "If the Poor-rates are high, my rents must be low;" and in that way he could counterbalance the evil. But the landlord was ultimately the suffering party, while at present he had not the power of influencing the management of the poor, or of voting at the vestry. He considered it an act of great injustice to deprive a man who might have the greatest interest in a parish of a vote at its vestry. It was, in his opinion, a clear principle, then, that the owners of property should have votes as well as the occupiers. Then came the principle of giving them the power to vote by proxy. In political matters it was true, that a great difference of opinion might exist as to the propriety of the principle of voting by proxy. But it was a different thing to allow owners of property, as a matter of accommodation, to vote in matters which concerned their pecuniary interest. If a gentleman who lived in Northumberland possessed the right of voting through a property that belonged to him in Cornwall, of what avail or use would that right be to him unless he could exercise it

conduct of parochial affairs from granting this power to the owners of property, the great danger to be apprehended was from the occupiers of property not caring about the increase of the poor-rates. If the owners of property did not get the right of cumulative voting, it would be a matter of indifference to them to have the right of voting at all; for if they came to have only one vote for their property in the parish, they would have no power at all in the conduct of parochial affairs. For these reasons he would maintain the clause as it stood. With regard to the right of cumulative voting, proposed originally to be extended to the occupiers of property, as he did not think that it would produce that contentment which was the object of it, he thought it desirable to take it away.

Mr. Grote was of opinion, that the distribution of the right of voting, as proposed in the clause, would be attended with mischievous effects in town parishes. He never believed that any such conspiracy as that feared by the noble Lord would ever take place on the part of the rate-payers in the town parishes for an