poor within the hundreds of Mitford and Launditch, in the county of Norfolk. And counfel having been heard for and against the bill, the Earl of Buckinghamshire moved, that the Eart of bill be committed. His Lordship entered into a general Bucks. view of the poor laws, made feveral remarks on the great abufes which have prevailed in the execution of them, and applied his whole reasoning particularly to the fhameful and neglected state of those parifhes and hundreds meant to be incorporated.

The Lord Walpole owned the general principles laid Lord Waldown, but denied the propriety of the application. His poles Lordship contended, the prefent bill could be countenanced but on two grounds; either for the better fupport and employment of the poor, or for the relief of the land-owners and occupiers, by lowering of the rates. The first of those includes the eafe, happiness and content of the perfons maintained and employed; the other, the approbation and relief of those who are to pay for .heir maintenance; neither of which can be fo much as pretended in the prefent inftance for neither my noble relation near me Lord Townfhend] who fo warmly patronizes the bill, nor any other noble Lord in this Houfe, can infift, that the poor in general are not ftrongly averse to the bill, and that a great majority of the land occupiers, who are to pay the rates, and an equality of the proprietors, who may be fuppofed to be affected in a fecondary degree by thofe rates, have not done every thing in their power to oppose it.

The Duke of Manchefter obferved, that great ftrefs had Duke of been laid by the counfel who argued against the propriety of Manchester the bill's being fent to a committee, on the claufe which makes it a capital felony to pull down, deface, or destroy any of the fences or inclofures to be raised about the house or fields meant to be erected or inclosed; and had ludicrously fuppofed the cafe of a perfon pulling a hedge-ftake, breaking a pale, or committing any fuch trifling trefpafs, as coming within the penal view or provifion of that claufe; but for his part, however he might admire the ingenuity of the learned gentleman, he could not poffibly fee the neceffity of inferting the word malicioufly, according to his ideas; becaufe, in the conftruction of all penal ftatutes, he had always understood, that it was the intention, not the act, or, more properly fpeaking, the intention and the act coupled together, that conftituted the offence. His Grace was therefore for permitting the claufe to ftand in its prefent form, as a prevention of any general or particular intention to deftroy, VOL. II. fooner

Lord Lyt telton.

fooner than have it altered, upon fuch flight, remote, and vifionary grounds?

The Lord Lyttelton approved of the principles of the bill; and faid, he should vote for it. The objections made at the bar, that the poor would be confined, and that confinement was a real hardship, and contrary to the fpirit of our laws, his Lordship contended, was a mistake; for the prefent bill, though it might differ as to the mode of reftraint, gave no new fubftantial power, but what might be legally exercifed under the ftatute of the 43d of Elizabeth. The other objection, that confinement was repugnant to the spirit of our laws and conftitution, was an affertion in his opinion equally erroneous; for his Lordship could never believe that a qualified, optional restraint, defigned manifeftly for the benefit and relief of the perfon alone who was to be bound by it, could be deemed a hardship or punishment, particularly when fuch reftraint grew out of the very act itself, which was to conftitute the relief; for, the nature of mankind is fuch, that you cannot relieve without the power of reftraining, therefore you must have the power of doing both or neither. His Lordship then launched into great encomiums on the act of the 43d of Elizabeth; and enumerated the various and important benefits derived from it; lamenting at the same time the fhameful neglect and abufes which had fince been introduced into the framing and executing the poor-laws. He dwelt with great energy on the vaft fums daily wafted in endlefs litigations, relative to the law of fettlements; and the corruption, cruelty, and interested conduct of parish officers. There is, fays his Lordfhip, above three millions of money annually raised in this country, for the fupport and relief of the poor; and I folemnly believe, that of the vaft fums of money thrown away in fuits relative to parish fettlements, and fquandered by the churchwardens and overfeers in their feafts and revellings, &c. with several other species of mifapplication and fraud, not a million and a half is applied to the real purposes for which it is granted; but though I highly approve of the principle of the bill, I beg leave to differ from the noble Duke, that the claufe does as well without the word malicious. I think a provifion which enacts and fub ́mits the offender to fo heavy a punishment, the highest known in our law, fhould be as clear and definite as poffible; and though we may well prefume it will never be rigorously executed, fo as to obtain a bad purpose, I muft confefs I would be much better pleased that the claufe had been penned with the clearness and precifion fo neceffary to the true fram

ing of all penal ftatutes. Neither do I entirely approve of the mode of confinement propofed by the bill, though as I faid before, I believe that confinement, or a certain qualified degree of restraint, to be neceffary. But take the bill on the whole, as I prefume no alteration can, confiftent with the claims of the other House, be now made, as it is a money bill, and approving of the principle of the bill, as I do, in the light at leaft of a local improvement of the poor laws, as they now ftand, I fhall give my hearty affent for fending it to a committee.

The Earl of Hillsborough informed the Houfe, that he had Earl of made the poor laws his particular ftudy, and had many years Hillsborough. fince framed a general bill for their amendment and improvement; but after he had made a confiderable progrefs, and the bill having met with ftrong oppofition, the able man who at that time prefided at the head of public affairs (Mr. Pelham) fearing it might produce fimilar clarours to that raised against the Jew-bill then recently repealed, advifed his Lordship to drop it, as he could not with prudence promife it his countenance or support. His Lordship obferved, that since that time he had remembered feveral bills relative to the poor laws, brought into Parliament. Some directed to remove some partial evil, others for the purpose of local benefit, or convenience; none of them, he feared, anfwering the ends propofed; for, in his opinion, the evils, whether partial or general, have been for many years in a ftate of progreffional encrease. However, in all remedies of a local nature, two invariable rules had been conftantly adhered to; one was, that the mode of relief or improvement was well directed, and would probably have the defired effect; the other, that the matter being of a private and perfonal nature (the cafe being quite otherwife where the whole community is concerned the perfons immediately interested in the event alone are to be confulted. Now, how does the prefent bill come supported by those inseparable marks, and inherent qualities? Why, in the first place, guardians are to appointed, who, it is prefumed, being gentlemen of probity, humanity, and independent fortunes, will execute the trufts repofed in them by this bill, with honour and fidelity. I allow the principle as a mere fpeculative propofition, to be an extremely just one; but I contend, it will be found the direct contrary in practice. I know too much of the world to believe otherwife. It is well known, that nothing of this kind was ever taken up, upon purer or more exalted ideas of humanity and generofity, than the appointment of the select veftry of St. George's, Hanoverfquare.

Q2

fquare. It is equally notorious, that no truft or parish regulation was ever more faithfully and honourably executed for a time; but what is the cafe now? Why, that myself and several others, at first equally fanguine, have neglected what from our fituation and general purfuits we have found we could not poffibly attend to; and the parish of Hanoverfquare will in a few years fall under the direction, though perhaps modified into another form, of the very fame species of power the felect veftry was inftituted to prevent. What will the cafe then be probably within the hundreds of Mitford and Launditch? That the gentlemen appointed guardians, in execution of their prefent ideas, will exert themselves in the manner we did; and that when the fervor of reformation and improvement abates, things will again flow into their former channels, of private jobbs, petty oppreffions, and all the detail of grievances which fill up the local annals of almoft every parish in the kingdom. For I believe no perfon will be hardy enough to affert, that in an extent of country, which takes in 23 miles in length and 15 in breadth, the guardians of the poor, I mean for any long continuance, will, in the winter, through dirty roads, and short days, do what the select veftry have failed to execute, even at their very doors, without any perfonal inconvenience whatever. As to the other general ground of the bill, the confulting and taking the fenfe of those who are to be immediately affected by it, that, I think, is a matter of very serious confideration, and ought to be very cautiously attended to. Parliament fhould, on no account, on applications of local regulation, countenance a bill of this kind, or any other of a fimilar tendency, without being fully fatisfied that fuch a clear, decifive majority, as is ufually deemed fufficient in fuch cafes, are for the bill. How, then, does it appear in the inftance before us? One gentleman, examined at the bar, fays, that there is fuch a majority of the land-owners, which is as flatly contradicted; while it is confessed on all hands, that of thofe who actually pay the tax, the landoccupiers, there is an indifputed majority against the bill. The fame gentleman, if I mistake not, was examined to prove the wretched, neglected ftate of the poor within the parish in which he refides. Now, I would obferve, that this gentleman is a juftice of the peace; and I would ask this House, if, by the nature of his office, he was not competent to correct in the first inftance, or remedy upon reprefentation, the very evils, the averting and removal of which are intended by the bill he is brought to give his teftimony

in fupport of. On the whole, therefore, as the House on a former occafion threw out Mr. Gilbert's bill, intended to give an optional power of incorporation to every hundred or number of parishes in the kingdom, as the plan, however plaufible and well intentioned, appears to me ideal and impracticable; and as the diffentions are much too numerous to warrant the legislative interference of this Houfe, I fhall be against the bill going to a committee.

Lords Townshend and Monfort spoke in favour of the bill. It was committed upon a divifion of 58 to 3.

May 9.

Counsel heard for and against the third reading of the Braunfton inclofing bill.

The Earl of Sandwich, as foon as the council had finished, Earl of moved, that the faid bill be now read a third time. His Sandwich, Lordship faid, that the bill had been oppofed on a variety of grounds, and that great induftry had been used to reprobate it; but however, without wifhing to combat fuch a croud of objections, many of them trifling and contradictory, in detail, he fhould crave the indulgence of the House, after claffing them under three diftinct heads, to confider briefly fuch as carried moft weight, or were fupported with the greatest degree of plaufibility. Thofe heads of objection, fays his Lordship, are the rights of the Lord of the manor, the ftate of confents and diffents to the bill, both in point of comparative property and number; and which I look upon to be the true caufe of the prefent oppofition, the feeming interefts and perfonal difapprobation of the rector, Mr. Edwards; I therefore entreat, that the House will please to give their attention for a few minutes, while I endeavour to fhew, that no one folid objection can be maintained upon any or all of those grounds, taken together. Before I proceed, it will be neceffary to affure the Right Rev. Bench, for whom, as individuals, as well as a collective body, I entertain a very high reverence and efteem, that nothing which may fall from me in the courfe of the following obfervations, is meant to convey the leaft degree of cenfure on their conduct. As to the claim of Sir John Webb, (the lord of the manor) I have been long converfant with inclofures, and frequently interested as a party, and, till the prefent occafion, never heard, that the confent or diffent of the Lord was confidered, only in proportion to the property he poffeffed. I am myself Lord of a very extenfive manor in Huntingdonshire, the beneficial property of which is enjoyed by my noble kinsman now in my eye, [the Duke of Manchester] and my intereft in it is not worth five guineas per annum, the only power vefted

in