the House will permit them to commence, by the statement of a few results drawn from the returns of the earlier periods, which have indeed been formerly stated to the House, but which it may be useful to place here :

The pecuniary amount of the levies, by way of poor's-rates progressively, and very largely increased from 1789 to 1812:

The amount of the sums applied to the relief of the poor, increased within the same period progressively, and very largely:

The amount expended for other purposes increased progressively, and still more largely than the expenditure on account of the poor.

In reference to comparisons with the year 1803, your Committee have to observe, that there is no account of any average of years between 1783-4-5, and 1813-14-15; nor any account of any single year between those periods, except that of the year 1803. The House will judge, whether there would have been any materially different result, if an average of 1801-2-3 had been taken, instead of the year 1803 only. However this may be, it is clear, that in 1812-13 the expenditure, both for the poor and for other purposes, greatly exceeded the amount in 1803. Since 1812, the total expenditure in both branches has still further increased; and the remark made upon the former statements, that the expenditure for other purposes rose more rapidly than the expenditure on the poor, is not applicable to the later years.

The subsequent remarks your Committee will confine to the amount of money expended upon the poor within the last eight years.

But the annual abstract shows, that this increase has not been progressive, year by year, throughout the whole period, and that it is not now progressive.

From the year 1812-13, the amount declined gradually in the two subsequent years (which were years of war); rose again in the next three years, so as to be in 1817-18 greater in pecuniary amount than at any former or subsequent period of which returns exist. In each of the two succeeding years, forming the first and second of the third triennial period, the expenditure declined again, but not very con siderably. The returns for the year 1820-21 recently required, will show whether the amount has continued to decrease; and your Committee have been informed, that the greater number of the returns which have already been received exhibit a more or less considerable diminution.

These comparisons are taken from the total amount of England and Wales; your Committee have considered the county abstracts with the view of ascertain. ing the exceptions which are to be found, in particular counties to the results drawn from a general average.

These exceptions are most numerous as to the first triennial period. In the counties of Durham, Hertford, Kent, Middlesex, and Surrey, the amount was considerably greater in 1813-14 than in 1812-13, and in seven other

counties of England, and in eight of Wales, there was also a slight excess. But there is no exception to the statement, that the year 1814-15 was below the average of the two earlier years, and below the year immediately preceding.

As to the second period, there are three exceptions to the gradual rise to the year 1817-18, and to the statement that that year was the highest which had at that time been known. In the county of Nottingham the year 1816-17 was the highest and in Wiltshire and Berkshire the year 1812-13 exhibited an amount which has not since been equalled.

There are more numerous exceptions to the statement, that the year 1817-18 was higher than any subsequent year; for it appears, that in the counties of Devon and Surrey there was an excess, not inconsiderable, in 1818-19 over the preceding year; and a slight excess in Bedford, Cumberland, Gloucester, Hunting don, Lincoln, Middlesex, Northampton, Rutland, Westmoreland, and the East and North Ridings of Yorkshire. In other counties of England there was scarcely a diminution; and in Wales, generally, an excess. In Cumberland, Leicester, Lincoln, and the West Riding of Yorkshire, the year 1819-20 shows the greatest amount.

The exceptions to the statement, that as to the two years of the third period, of which there are returns, there was a slight diminution in the second, arise in the counties of Chester, Cumberland, Derby, Durham, Leicester, Lincoln, Nottingham, Warwick, and the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Reverting to the averages, it is to be remarked, that there is no exception to the general excess of the second period over the first; and that Berkshire, Norfolk, and Salop, afford the only exceptions to the general excess of the third period over the second.

At the foot of the table of yearly amounts, the House will find a statement, in which the returns from towns are distinguished from all others. The towns included in this distinction are those which in the abstract of population in 1811 are set down in Roman capitals.

This separate account of the towns affords no exceptions to the general statements which are worthy of particular remark.

It appears that select vestries, under the act 59 George 3rd, c. 12, have been appointed in 2,006 parishes; and assistant overseers in 2,257. The whole number of parishes, townships, or other subdivisions, from which returns have been required, is about 14,700.

Your Committee have not thought it necessary to make any selections from the "Observations" which, in conformity with the orders of the House, have in some instances been subjoined by the parish officers to the returns. Many of these are irrelevant; some, such as the Committee must have noticed with reprobation; but there are others of a different character; and your Committee conceive, that much useful information would be ob tained, if parish officers would, whenever their returns exhibit a remarkable variation, whether of excess or diminution, from the preceding year, give some ex

planation of the causes of the variation.

And here your Committee cannot avoid observing, that returns, stating merely the gross amount of the expenditure fall very short of what is necessary to enable the House to judge of the nature and causes of the variations in the amount. For that purpose it would be necessary to have accounts, showing the different circumstances under which relief has been afforded, and the rate and principle of relief adopted in ach district. The able-bodied entirely out of employ; the ablebodied earning wages not sufficient for the maintenance of his family; the married, the single, the sick and impotent, the aged, the labourer in husbandry, and the manufacturer or mechanic, should

all be distinguished.

And it should be known whether the relief is afforded at the discretion of the parishes themselves, or by order of the justices of the peace.

The Committee are not of opinion that returns in this detail could conveniently be called for by order of the House.

It is for the House to consider whether overseers, in rendering their accounts under the act 50 Geo. 3rd, c. 49, should be required, by a new law, to state these or any other particulars in a prescribed form, so that a more complete and useful account of the expenditure of the poor-rates than any which has hitherto appeared might be rendered periodically to parliament.

10th July, 1821.

"The Committee appointed in the last session of parliament having in their report stated, that it appeared that much inconvenience and damage were occasioned to the craft navigating the river, from the construction of Londonbridge, and your Committee seeing no reason to alter such opinion, they proceeded to inquire into the best means of preventing such inconvenience; and they have annexed to this report the evidence which has been adduced before them, together with copies of various documents upon the subject.

"A plan was suggested in the year 1814, in a report made to a committee of the Corporation of London by Messrs. Dance, Chapman, Alexander, and James

Mountague, to enlarge the waterway through the bridge, by substituting four large arches for eight of the present small ones. The expense of effecting such work has recently been estimated at the sum of 92,000l. founded on the supposition that the piers are sufficient to sustain the increased weight; but if on examination they should prove insufficient, the expense would be greatly increased. It appears likewise by the evidence of Mr. Rennie and Messrs. William and James Mountague, that no satisfactory mode of ascertaining the strength of such piers can in their opinion be adopted, but by the means of as many coffre dams there are piers upon which the new arches are to be erected.

as

Mr. Rennie stated, that the expense of each coffre dam would be about 18,000l. or 20,000l., which is not included in the before-mentioned estimate.

"An excavation has recently been made, by the direction of the corporation of London, into one of the piers, for the purpose of examining its stability, which your Committee have inspected; Mr. Chapman, Messrs. Ralph and James Walker, and several masons, have expressed themselves satisfied with the examination they have thereby been enabled to make, and they are of opinion that a similar examination of the other piers would be sufficient to enable them to form a decided opinion as to the practicability of effecting the proposed alteration; whereas in the opinion of Mr. Rennie, such examination has rather tended to decrease his confidence in the strength of the piers; and your Committee are of opinion that the reasons he assigns fully justify this conclusion.

"Your Committee are further of opinion, that a work of such public importance should not be undertaken without the greatest and most unequivocal certainty of ultimate success, and even if such success could be secured, without adopting the expensive mode of examination beforementioned, the comparative advantages which a new bridge would possess over the old one, which must under any circumstances be supported by starlings, are so great as to warrant your Committee in discountenancing the proposed alteration; and it should be observed that the professional men who proposed the plan of alteration did not them

selves recommend its adoption; but distinctly state, that in every respect, except with a view to economy, a new bridge would be preferable to any alteration of the old. Your Committee, from the evidence adduced, think it extrefnely doubtful whether a new bridge will not ultimately be found less expensive than the proposed alteration.

"Although your Committee cannot therefore recommend the adoption of the plan suggested in the before-mentioned report of Messrs. Dance and others; yet as it contains much valuable general information upon the subject under consideration, they have thought proper to annex it to their report.

"Your Committee have not been unmindful of the effect which will be produced upon the navigation of the river by the removal of the dam which the present bridge occasions; upon which subject they refer to the testimony of several of the witnesses examined before them, and particularly to the opinion of Dr. Hutton; the harbour-masters of the port of London; the report of Messrs. William Mountague, Rennie, Chapman, and James Mountague; the report of Mr. James Walker and Mr. Leach; and the evidence given by Mr. Rennie, Mr.Chapman, and Captain Ludlam, before a committee of the Corporation of London; by which it will be seen, that scarcely any difference of opinion exists as to the decided advantages which will be derived by a free current of water through the bridge. It is evident, that such free current will destroy the motive power of the London Bridge water-works. Your Committee

have been furnished with the particulars of a negotiation which has taken place between a committee of the Corporation of London and the proprietors of those works, which not having met with a successful termination, and not being within the reference made to your Committee, it is unnecessary to detail. Your Committee, however, think it proper to remark, that in the event either of altering or rebuilding the bridge, the obstruction caused by the water-works, which are evidently a public nuisance, must be removed.

"If the supply of Thames water be necessary to the public, your Committee conceive that other means, of a more certain, and, in all probability, of a less expensive nature than those now adopted, may be resorted to, for affording such supply.

"Your Committee have made inquiry into the state of the finances applicable to the support of the bridge, the particulars of which will be found in the evidence annexed to this report.

"After attentively considering all the evidence, your Committee are decidedly of opinion, that the present construction of Londonbridge, causes great impediment to the navigation of the river Thames, and is very injurious to the interests of the owners of the vessels which navigate the river, by occasioning frequent damage to the craft, and the loss of many lives.

"That it appears to your Committee, that the only effectual remedy which can be applied to remove all the inconveniences and obstructions now existing, is by the entire removal of the present bridge with the starlings

and water-works, and the erecting a new bridge with not more than five arches.

"That it appears to your Committee, that considering the local interests connected with the approaches to the present bridge, a new bridge should be erected on the present site, or as near as possible to the same.

"That it appears to your Committee, that the city of London hold in trust certain large estates, which were left to, and have otherwise become vested in them, for the purpose of sustaining London-bridge; that the yearly rental of such estates, subject to certain charges made thereon by acts of parliament and otherwise, and to expenses of management, the particulars of which will appear in the evidence of Mr. Robert Finch Newman, the Bridge-house comptroller, now amount to upwards of 25,800, and which, upon falling in of leases, will be gradually increased; that the trustees also possess stock and cash, of the present value of 112,000l. and which sum is ap. plicable to the same purpose.

"Your Committee further state, that in the event of the funds applicable to the proposed works proving insufficient, which they have no reason to believe will be the case, they are of opinion, that adequate means of raising the money may be found without imposing a toll on passengers passing over the bridge.

"That your Committee recommend that a bill be brought into parliament early in the next session for carrying into effect their report; and they also further recommend, that the notices required by the standing orders of the house, preparatory to the