The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-09 00:00:00

POOR ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

The Earl of CAMPERDOWN presented petitions
against the bill.

The Earl of AIRLIE, in moving the second reading of
the bill, said that at the present time there were no less
than four modes of assessment in force in Scotland,
and the object of this bill was to abolish that system and in-
troduce a system applicable to all descriptions of assessablo
property. Under the existing system there were grievances
which it was desirable should be redressed; and amongst
these was the want of efficient representation at the paro-
chial boards. There was also a mode of rating ac-
cording to what had been called " means and substance"
in practice which gave rise to a variety of ineonsistencies
which necessarily impaired the efficiency of the system. In
proof of the popularity of the bill, he adverted
to the fact that the petitions presented to the other
house in favour of the bill exceeded by a large
number thosepresented on any question relative to Scotland
during the present session. He went into some details in
support of the alterations which the bill proposed to
introduce into the existing law.

The Earl of CAMPERDOWN opposed the bill. He
complained that it had been introduced into the other
house by a private member, a coarse which would not have
been adopted if the bill related to England. H•
objected also to the want of a proper inquiry into the work-
ing of the poor law in Scotland preliminary to bringing
forward this bill. The question to be considered was
whether they should make it compulsory on persons to give
up their right of local taxation, to which, for some reason
.ar other, they appeared to be attached ? He contended that
the provisions of the bill were opposed to the 35th section
of the Poor-law Act. He appealed to the noble lord (Earl
Airlie) to pause before he pushed forward a measure of this
importance, and to the Government to enquire into the
working of the existing law in Scotland before they pro-
ceeded to legislate on this subject. The powers which the
bill proposed to confer on an irresponsible body in Edi♦-
burgh were very wide, and required careful consideration.
The Earl of EGLINTON supported the bill, and said
he did not attach much importance to the objection of the
noble lord who had just addressed the house as to the bill
having been introduced by a private member, for that had
nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the measure.
He contended that noble lords internally acquainted with
Scotland must know that the present system did not
work well in this country. He had peosonal
experience of the subject in two parishes with which
he was connected, and there the working of the system
was most abominable. He had nothing whatever to do
with this bill, and he gave it his conscientious support
from a conviction that it would prove a benefit to Scotland.
The Duke of ARGYLL supported the bill, and said that
whoever might have introduced the bill it had the careful
consideration of the board of supervision in Edinburgh
end the approval of those who were best informed on the
question.

[LEFT SPEARING.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--(This DAY.)
The SPIIIKER took the Chair at 12 o'clock.
IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill, and resumed
at clause 9.

Sir B. BRYDGES said he did not intend to propose the
omission of the whole clause, provided the amendment of
the hon. member (Mr. S. Estcourt) to the effect that the
common fund should be based upon assessment calculated
by adding to the annual value of the lands and heredita-
ments in each of the parishes, a sum equal in pounds ster-
ling to the amount of the numbers of the population of
such parishes according to the last census, be acceded to.
He had considerable experience in the working of the ori-
ginal as well as the amended law. He felt bound to pro-
test against the principle of a larger area of rating than ex-
isted at present. He considered every inducement should
be held out to landlords to make them give employment to
the poor in their respective localities. But if the system
of union rating were adopted it would do away with this
induc sment.

Lord HENLEY said that although he had great respect
for the propo-er of this amendment, still he thought the
effect would be injurious, as it would lead to the eviction of
the poor from various parishes.

Mr. ADDERLEY said he could not support the amend-
ment of his hon. friend, as the arbitrary check it imposed
would defeat its object. He believed the more they localised
the burthen of poverty the better it would be for the interest
of the community. He thought, however, that the clause
required amendment though not that proposed by the hon.
member (Mr. Estcourt.)
Mr. TOLLEMACHE said that he also had considerable
experience in the working of the law, and he felt bound
reluctantly to oppese the amendment. Tie had paid great
attention to the evidence produced before the committee,
and he felt satisfied that some alteration, such as that pro-
posed by the bill, was necessary.

Mr. DENT said ho hoped the house would reject the
amendment and adopt the clan's° which was the main point
in the bill. He did not consider that poverty in a parish was
produced by mismanagement, but from the fact of the nut
ber of persons in certain parishes being without regular
employment all the year round.

Mr. BALL said he felt bound to accept the bill as a whole,
from a conviction that it would operate beneficially. He
thought the amendment would do away with the most im-
portant element of the measure, namely, the equalising of
the contributions throughout the country for the poor.
Mr. DODSON supported the bill, and said that the dimi-
nution of the status of irremovability would not increase
the number of irremovable poor, and illustrated this asser-
tion by reference to Leeds, Manchester, and other large
towns.

Mr. CAYLEY said that the grievance proposed to be
remedied in the present case was the exemption of close
parishes. But if they altered the existing system, in some
cases parishes would have to pay perhaps 3s. in the pound,
though the property was bought without reference to any
such tax, which would be most unjust. If they assented IS
the principle which the 9th clause proposed, they might
rely on it that they would be admitting the thin edge of
the wedge, which would inevitably lead to the adoption of
union rating. He also objected to the clause as conferring
management on an irresponsible body.

Mr. PAGET supported the bill, as he thought its action
would be to make it the interest of each parish to have a
rating sufficient for their wants.
Mr. LYALL supported the clause. He had no doubt
the effect of it would be to include in the 'rating some few
parishes which were exempted, and unjustly so, from con-
tributing their quota to the support of the pauperism of
the country.

Mr. 'WALTER could not see the justice of allowing one
parish to throw its share of the relief of the poor upon an-
other. Union rating must be the system ultimately to be
arrived at, and he considered it most fair and just.
Mr. HENLEY supported the amendment. He consi-
dered they were legislating prematurely and without in-
formation.
After a few words from Lord H. VANE,
Sir J. P ARINGTON said his experience, as chairman of
the board of guardians, led him to entertain the same view
as the hon. member for Berkshire.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT said the clause introduced a new
principle in rating which ought not to be admitted without
the fullest consideration. It was proposed that accord.
ing to the amount of a man's property he was to be
rated towards the support of the poor, but he thought that
the amount of population should also be taken into consi-
deration, and by uniting the two a fair result would be
arrived at. If the principle of the clause was admitted
it would be found in a few years impossible to stop at that
point.
Mr. VILLIERS raid the clause was to remedy an injus-
tice that had existed for 12 years. He therefore opposed
the amendment.
The committee then divided, when there appealoo
red—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority
The amendment was accordingly rejected.
Sir J. PAKINUTON moved the additionro.ed oaflstohethfoaltlotwh-e
follow-
ing proviso to the clause, :
contributions of extra parochial pla"cFes trodthsehcaol7 mlmonfun
fund
of the union in which they are oompris
notwith-
standing anything therein contained, be calculated as here-
tofore."
Mr. VILLIERS objected to the proposed addition to the

clause.
Mr. K. SEYMOUR thought the bill would press with
great .hardship upon parishes which had but few poor per..
sons residing there.
After a short discussion, Sir J. rAKINGTON amended
his proposition as follows : " Provided also that extra
parochial places
which have hitherto paid no
ontribution to the common fund of the unions in which
they are comprised, shall, notwithstanding anything heroin
contained, be hereafter exempt from such contribution.
Sir J. GRAHAM supported the amended proviso.
Sir G. LE WIS would agree to the amendment if any
very strong argument could be urged in its favour, or if
the class of cases were likely to be numerous.
Some further discussion took place, at the termination
of which the chairman was ordered to report progress.
THE NEW ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
Sir W. ATHERTON, the Attorney-General, took the
oaths and his seat for Durham.
The sitting was then suspended.
At six o'clock the house resumed, and was
`LEFT EITTINO,I