1821.] 
poses 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 ob¬ 
serve, that there is no account of any 
average of years between 1/S3-4-5, and 
1813-14-15; nor aiiy account of any 
.single year between those periods, ex¬ 
cept 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. How¬ 
ever 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 ap¬ 
plicable to the later years. 
The subsequent remarks your com¬ 
mittee will confine to the amount of 
money expended upon the poor within 
the last eight years. 
It appears, on an inspection of the 
table of averages, that the expenditure 
has continued to increase from 1S12 to 
1820:— 
The first period averaging . £6,122,844 
The second. 6,844,290 
The third. 7,430,622 
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 progres¬ 
sive. 
From the year 1812-13, the amount 
declined gradually in the two subse¬ 
quent years (which were years of war ;) 
rose again in the next three years, so 
as to be in 1S17-1S greater in pecuniary 
amount than at any former or subse¬ 
quent period of which returns exist, 
in each of the two succeeding years, 
forming the first and second of the third 
triennial period, the expenditure de¬ 
clined again, but not very considerably. 
The returns for the year 1820-21 re¬ 
cently returned, 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 ex¬ 
hibit a more or less considerable dimi¬ 
nution. 
Those comparisons are taken from 
the total amount of England and Wales. 
1 our committee have considered the 
243 
county abstracts with the view of as¬ 
certaining the exceptions which are to 
be found, in particular counties, to 
the results drawn from a general aver¬ 
age. 
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. 
Bnt there Is no exception to the state¬ 
ment, that the year 1814-15 was below 
the average of the two earlier years, 
and below the year immediately pre¬ 
ceding. 
As to the second period there are 
three exceptions to the gradual rise to 
the year 1S17-18, 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 
in 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; 
lor 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, Hun- 
t ingdon,Lineal n ,M iddlesex, Northamp¬ 
ton, Rutland, Westmorland, 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 Rid¬ 
ing of Yorkshire, the 3 ^ear 1819-20 
shows the greatest amount. 
The exceptions to the statement, that 
as 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, Not¬ 
tingham, 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 state¬ 
ment, in which the returns from towns 
are 
Report of the Select Committee on the Poor Laws. 
