The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-20 00:00:00

E SUN, LONDON,

In clause 8 an amendment by Lord Lincoln was agreed
to that the notice of inquiry into any town should also
be left with the clerk of the union or parish, and the
clause as amended was passed.
Clause 9 was then proposed.—Application of the Act
upon the report of the General Board of Health.
The clause, after a short desultory conversation, was
agreed to, with some verbal amendments.
Clause 10 was next proposed and agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 were also agreed to, as were also
clauses 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, with a few verbal
amendments.
On clause 19 being proposed,
Captain
PECHELL objected to the inequality of
-
voting provided by it, and proposed its omission or post-
ponement.
Lord MORPETH said that the clause was framed on
the same principle as that which prescribed a similar
mode of voting under the poor-law—namely, that as
property would be locally taxed it should have a propor-
tionate influence by voting.
After a conversation, in which Mr. S. Crawford, Al-
derman Sidney, Dr. Bowring, and Mr. Ilume opposed,
and Mr. Slaney and Mr. Henley supported the clause,
Colonel SIB I HORP declared his intention of not
taking any further part in the committal of the Bill, but
would oppose it on the report and third reading.
tt aeri nn cdf eo
every,frot
roht
2hofooledousilr.ne ;gas
naeodnfnduo
psw wo therefore he should
Mr. GRANGER proposed to limit the number of
titionwngsoa:u—nvbyosFtt instance,
ontsrus;
dt
ohiercoluvaorutsveeo;
ttefhos er;
movevfioCloltol eoi s.w:
thus making four votes the maxim am.
After a few words from Mr. IL DRUMMOND, which
did not reach us,
Mr. NEWDEGATE contended, as the Bill interfered
so much with property, that property ought to be pro-
perly represented; and on that ground he thought the
distinction made in the clause, as framed, was necessary.
Sir G. STRICKLAND opposed the clause, of the
ground that the system of plurality of votes was a most
objectionable principle, and was unsatissactory to the
country.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that the
system of voting adopted in the new Poor-law Act had
worked satisfactorily, and that was the system intro-
duced by the present clause into this Bill. Much of the
duty of the local boards so to be elected would consist in
making secure and permanent improvements; and if a
preponderating voice was given to the poorer classes, it
was to be feared that, with a view to lessen their own
rates, they would only execute the works in such a way
as just to satisfy the provisions of the Act, but without
any regard to their permanent durability.
Mr. BUCK concurred, and trusted the Government
would not give way to any of the suggestions made, but
would retain the clause in its present form.
Mr. HUME was decidedly opposed to the system of
of cumulative voting. He wished the principle adopted
by the Bill introduced by the Right Hon. Baronet, the
Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), with reference to
the Scotch Poor-law Act to be followed in the Bill,
namely, that every rate .payer should have one vote and
no more. The principle of that Bill had giveri great
satisfaction in Scotland, and as it was the last
legislation
on such a motion, it ought to be followed in the Bill now
under consideration.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that, speaking only from an
imperfect recollection of the provisions of the Scotch
Poor-law Act, he thought there was a distinction be-
tween that measure and the clause now before the Com-
mittee. This clause gave the elected body large powers
of taxation, whereas, in the Scotch Bill no taxing powers
whatever were conferred upon the elected board. Under
such circumstances he was disposed to support the clause
as it stood at present.
Mr. MUNTZ opposed the clause, and said that,
although he was the largest rate-payer in the borough
he represented, he should be quite satisfied with one
vote under this Bill.
Lord MORPETI-I said the object of the Government
was so to constitute the local boards as to avoid, as
much as possible, any interference with them by the
central authority. He had had many interviews and
much correspondence with parties from all districts of
the country on the subject of this Bill, and yet he had
not received a single remonstrance with reference to the
clause as now proposed.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. RICE, which were wholly
inaudible is the gallery,
Mr. Ald. SIDNEY contended that on every principle
of justice the owners of properpy ought to have no
more than a single vote just as the mere occupiers.
Sir W. CLAY was dissatisfied with the clause as pro-
posed, and could not understand why the same principle
which governed the elections in municipal corporations
should not be adopted in this measure, which was to rule
towns not incorporated. It was inconsistent to have a
system of single voting in the one, and of plurality of
votes in the other.

Lord DUNCAN also supported the proposition for
single Toting, and remarked that in Bath the operation
of Sturges Bourne's Act had produced the greatest dis-
satisfaction. If this clause was adopted, the measure
would no longer be a poor man's Bill, as stated.
Sir R. H.INGLIS supported the clause as proposed in
the Bill.

Lord J. RUSSELL remarked that the Noble Lord
the Member for Bath (Lord Duncan) seemed to think
that the Bill, called a poor man's Bill, should give fran-
chise and privileges to the poor man. If this was a
political matter, no doubt such ought to be the case ; but
this was not a Bill relating to political rights and privi-
leges, but a measure to effect certain sanitary improve-
ments for the sake of the health not only of the poor
man, but of every other member of the community.
The question simply was, whether those improvements
could be better secured by the :system of single voting
or by the adoption of the principle of plurality of rotes.
That principle had been adopted is 1317, in the case of
Sturges Bourne's Act, it had been further adopted in
1818 by the Legislature, and on every review of the
poor-laws, up to the last in 1144, the principle had been
adhered to. The Act of 1844 contained a clause ex-

actly in terms corresponding with the present clause,
and therefore he did not see that the principle of plural
rotes, so often recognised by the Legislature, ought now
to be condemned.

Mr. BROTIERTON supported, and Mr. WA'WN op-
posed, the clause as it stood in the Bill.
Captain PECHELL submitted that the clause had
better be postponed, in order that the Government might
reconsider this point, especially as the Noble Lord (Lord
J. Russell) had fairly told the Committee that this was
not a poor man's Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I said no such thing.—(Hear,
and a laugh.)
Captain PECHELL had misunderstood the Noble
Lord. He must observe that Sturges Bourne's Act only
gave plural ♦otes to occupiers, and not to owners, of pro-
perty. He must therefore oppose the clause.
Sr. GRANGER said that, seeing the disposition of
Hon. Members around him, he would, with the permis-
sion of the Committee, withdraw his amendment.
The amendment having been, by leave, withdrawn,
Mr. HUME again urged his former objection to the
clause, and called upon the Committee not •to stultify
previous legislation in respect of the Scotch Poor-law Bill
by consenting to the present proposition.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, since he last addressed the
Committee he had looked at the Scotch Poor-law Act, and
he found that, so far from the ♦iew taken of that measure
by the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) being
correct, a distinction was made between the burghal and
the rural parishes. In the former, every rate-payer,
whatever the value of his holding, had a vote, but the
owners of property had votes in this scale—above the
value of 201, two rotes, above 401., three votes, above
601, four votes, and above 1001., five votes; so that both

as regarded England and Scotland the Legislature had
been consistent, and wherever power was given to a body
to raise taxes, plurality of votes, to a certain amount,
had been given. As the present clause was drawn Per
Latin: from the English Bill of 1844, he (Sir J. Graham)
should adhere to the principles so recently adopted.

Mr. HUME said he had made his statement on the
authority of the lion. Member the Solicitor• General for
Scotland.—(A laugh.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM wished to add to what he
had already stated that whatever was the principle of
the Scotch Poor-law, the Hon. Member (Mr. flume)
had himself admitted that its operation gave the greatest
satisfaction in Scotland.—(Laughter.)
The LORD ADVOCATE, in the absence of his
Hon. Friend the Solicitor General for Scotland, must
remark that his opinion roust have depended upon the
mode in which the lion. Member fur Montrose had
asked the question.—(Renewed laughter.)
After a few words from Mr. MUNTZ and Mr. FREWENt
the Committee divided—

For the clause ll3
Against it
Majority —76
Clauses 20 to 26 were then agreed to with very little
discussion.

On clause 27,
Mr. HENLEY moved to strike out the proviso ren-
dering the appointment of the surveyor subject to the
approval of the general board.
Mr. HUDSON supported the amendment.
Viscount MORPETH said he had given up many of
the powers which he had proposed to vest in the ge-
neral board, and, willing to show as much confidence as
possible in the local boards, he would concede this point
also.

Mr. HUME regretted this concession, which would
render the surveyor the mere creature of e local board.
Mr. SLANEY believed that many of the corpora-
tions were sincerely desirous to have larger sanitary
powers ; and he thought they would be anxious to ex-
ercise them in such a way as would be beneficial to the
public.

_
The ommission of the proviso was then agreed to.
Mr. RICE proposed another amendment in the same
clause, making the town.clerks and treasurers of
corporate boroughs, clerks and treasurers of the local
boards.

Mr. Ald. SYDNEY supported this alteration.
Viscount MORPETII resisted the amendment, which
was withdrawn; and the clause, as previously amended,
was agreed to, as was clause 29.
On clause 30, directing the appointment of an officer
of health.
____

Lord MORPETH proposed to insert the words, " a
legally qualified medical practitioner," in lieu of " a
member of the medical profession."
The alteration was agreed to.
A conversation followed as to the mode of appoint-
ment and remuneration of this officer.
Mr. ANSTEY thought he ought to be paid in the
same way as the inspector, out of a public fund.
Viscount MORPETHsaid the cases were not pa-
rallel. The officer ,of health would be a local officer,
employed in the district, and he consequently ought to
be paid by the district.
Mr. RICE suggested that the removal of the medical
officer should rest with the local board.
Lord MORPETH said that as the medical officer
might often have to come; into collision with the local
board in the discharge of his duties, it was better that
his removal bhould rest with the general board.