The Sun.
London, England, 1836-08-02 00:00:00

Mr. Walter concluded his tirade against the Poor-
Laws Amendment Act last night, by moving a rest)•
lution that in the early part of the next session the
House would institute an inquiry into the operation of
the Act in question. The only point in thespeich of
the Hon. Gentleman entitled to much attention is that
relating to medical assistance. It would seem that
medical relief can only be obtained by the poor in the
workhouse. Now, seasonable aid to a poor man may
often prevent his becoming a burden to the parish 4
Casual relief of any other description is liable to abus#,
but there is little fear of a man being tempted to 41Pdal.
low medicines when they are not really required, Mr,
Cripps, who immediately followed the Mer„ber for
Berkshire, and spoke highly in favour of ti:ie operation
of the Bill, admitted, nevertheless, t/IP!.. with regard to
medical assistance, the law migh.', in some respects
be amended. The opponents at the Poor-law Amend-
ment Bill do not seem to be aware that the mixing
relief with wages, which they advocate, led to all
the abuses of the old system.. The giving casual
relief to labourers leadf,i necessarily to the con-
version of the laboUr'er into a pauper ; and one of
the great advr.A.ritages of the new Bill is, that
it draws e. strict line between the pauper and the
" Among the abuses," said Lord John
Russell, " which the amended system was in-
tended to remedy, there was no more striking or
more injurious one than the practice of eking out
the wages of labour by payments from the Poor-
rates. This was a practice which had been de-
nounced by every Committee that had investigated
the subject ; it tended not only to injure proprty,
and to occasion a great waste of time and re-
venue, but to destroy the independence of the
labourer. This alone, strong and striking as it was,
the Hon. Member for Berkshire was now
to restore to its full vigour. This and no other was
the object of the motion then before the House."
Lord John showed that in the expenditure of 1836,
compared with that of 1834, there was a decrease of
no less than 1,794,9901. Fortunately the improve-
ment of the poor is in the ratio of the diminution of
the expenditure. Mr. Wakley, however, seemed to
think that the system had only given satisfaction to
the rate-payers. There is, we believe, the very best
evidence from all quarters that the diminution of the
rate has enabled the farmer to expend more in labour,
so that the industrious labourer receives more in the
shape of wages than he received formerly in his mixed
character of labourer and pauper.—Morning Chron.
The falsehoods and misrepresentations which a por-
tion of the press, doubtless at the dictation of their
masters, the Ministers, are daily disseminating rela-
tive to the Irish Church Bill, make it worth while to
remind our readers of the origin and history of that
measure. As the Bill stands for consideration this
evening in the House of Commons, the public must
be prepared to find the Ministerial prints straining
every nerve to-day, with the view of outdoing each
other in what an Irish classic has denominated "rheto-
rical artifices," but which, if we recollect rightly, the
Greeks were accustomed to denominate, more shortly
and more appropriately, Nevertheless, we con-
fidently submit to every honest man the following plain
unvarnished narrative of the facts of the case, as a sufficient
means of correcting the misrepresentations, not only of the
Government Swiss, but of those who subsidize them.
It will be recollected that in 1834 a tithe bill, which
contained_ no appropriation clause, was sent from the
House of Commons to the House of Lords, and was
ther-,; thrown out on the second reading. This is the
Measure which Lord Hatherton spoke of the other
night in the House of Lords as a measure of the Go-
vernment—a mistake which was immediately corrected
by other noble lords, who reminded Lord Hatherton
that it was not a measure of the Government, but a
measure firced upon the Government. It is quite
true that in the month of May, 1834, the Govern-
ment did bring in a tithe bill, which underwent some
half-dozen alterations at the hands of its makers. It
was reserved, however, for Mr. O'Connell to re-mould
it entirely, which he did by means of an amendment, in
which lie was successful, though opposed by Ministers.
Mr. Littleton himself, the present Speaker, the pre-
sent Lord Chancellor, Lord Althorp, Mr. Rice,
Sir J. Hobhouse, Mr. P. Thomson, Mr. C. Wood,
Mr. F. Baring, Mr. C. Fergusson, and Sir A. L. Hay,
all voted against this measure of Mr. O'Connell, which
Lord Hatherton on Monday week last was pleased to
call a measure of the Government, and which a Minis-
terial print yesterday called " Mr. Littleton's bill !"
Such was the measure rejected by the Lords in 1834.
Lord Hatherton, moreover, in the discussion in the
House of Lords a week ago, reproached the Lords for
having rejected it. Nor should we be at all surprised
at that—notwithstanding he himself and his colleagues
had so strenuously opposed it—when we consider that
he committed the still greater mistake of supposing the
bill to have been his own, or that of the Government
to which he belonged. In rejecting that bill of 1834
the Lords, then did no more than Lord Althorp and
his colleague tried to do. But the curiosity of the case
does not end here. Lord Hatherton, imitating the
example of Mr. O'Connell, who is perpetually throwing
in the teeth of the Lords their rejection of that measure,
took very good care not to make the most remote allu-
sion to the ground on which it was rejected. That
ground was, that the Bill would impose a heavy charge
upon the public. A few words will explain the nature
of the measure, and demonstrate that instead of censure
the Lords deserve great praise for the course they took
with regard to it, especially when the ground of that
course is considered. The Bill in question fixed the
rent-charge at 601. for 100/. It did not, however,
propose to deprive the tithe-owner of 401. per cent.
No less a sum than 771. 10s. for 1001. was gua-
ranteed by that Bill to the tithe-owner, so that their
income was reduced to 221 per cent. only. But how
was the difference between the rent-charge of 601. and
the 771. 10s. to be made up ? Why out of the public
purse. Let the reader, too, observe the extent of this
charge upon the public. It was referred to Mr. Fin-
layson to make—
" A calculation of the expense which would have de-
volved on the public in carrying into effect the provisions
of the Tithe Bill of August 1834, by which the difference
(amounting to 17/. 10s.) between the rent-charge of 601.
for 1001. of tithe composition, and the income of 771. I.os
guaranteed to the tithe-owners, was to have been paid out
of the Consolidated Fund, the appropriation of the Perpe-
tuity Purchase Fund, in diminution of the charge on the
Consolidated Fund, to be included in the calculation."
The following is Mr. Finlayson's reply
" Referring, as, before, to the annexed special return (D.,)
in which the grounds of this estimate are set forth, the
practical answer is, that the loss would be a perpetual an-
nuity of 147,161/. 65., equal to an immediate capital of
3,870,544/., while the amount of the Perpetuity Fund,
which was charged to make good the greater part of this
sum, ' in preference to and exclusion of
any other applica-
tion of such fund,' was shown in the return to No. 7 to be
a quantity, the precise amount of which cannot be stated,
but at its maximum cannot exceed 1,507,050/., supposing
the whole of the tenants were to purchase."
And the Lords are to be abused for refusing to pass
such a measure as this 1 It is to be made a ground of
censure and reproach upon that assembly, that they
refused to impose so grievous a charge on the people,
and a Whig Government has the face to reproach their
Lordships for doing that which that very Government
would itself have done if it could—which it tried to
To sum up the chief points
do, but failed to achieve !
of this case in one short sentence, it may be affirmed
that the Lords refused to pass the Tithe Bill of 1834,
because they would not consent to rob the people.
In 1835 another Tithe Bill was sent from the Com-
mons to the Lords. So far as regarded tithes, it sub-
stituted a rent-charge in lieu thereof to the amount
of 75/. for 100/., making a deduction of 25 per cent.
from the income of the tithe-owners. This part of the
measure the Lords professed themselves perfectly ready
to agree to. Coupled, however, with those provisions
were clauses for the suppression of benefices, and the
seizure and abstraction of the revenues, which are
usually called the " appropriation clauses." In these
spoliation clauses the Lords would not concur; they
said, " We refused to rob the public last year,—we
refuse to rob the Church this year." Lord Melbourne
replied—" Very well, if you refuse to pass that part
of the measure, you shall not pass the other part : I
give up the Bill." The Bill of last year was accord-
in4ly dropped. In the present year, the Commons
have again sent up a Bill on the same subject, which
differed little from that of the last year. By it the
rent-charge was made 70/. for 1001., so effecting a de.