The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-04 00:00:00

brethren, who, uncomplainingly, endured distress almost
without a parallel.(Cheers.) And what was their
present state ? What wai the food they now received ?
Why just what he himself had in his youth lived on :
for he was not ashamed to admit—notwithstanding that
many behind him had perhaps been educated and
clothed in purple and • fine linen—that he had
fed or. nothing but oatmeal porridge.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. Campbell, the minister of an important parish in
the county, had given similar evidence ; and in that
state, therefore, he was ready to support any measure
calculated to improve the poor. But the Bill now be-
fore the House, and the particular clause in question,
would go far to prevent, rather than promote, the inte-
rests of that class. It was inhospitable and unjust; and,
although unwilling to inconvenience the Government,
he must oppose the measure in its present state.
Sir J. GRAHAM lived on the English side of the
Scottish frontiers, and he could attest that a great num-
ber of English had obtained a settlement in Scotland,
while the Scotch could not obtain a similar hospitable
reception in the English borders. The Bill was in-
tended to equalise these anomalies. A clause was intro-
duced to make a three years' industrial residence alone
give a Settlement in Scotland ; but he would not wish to
press it eventually contrary to the inclination and opinion
of the country. If, however, the measure were rejected,
the Government would have the satisfaction of having
done their duty fearlessly and conscientiously ; and on
the House must rest the responsibility of the overthrow-
ing a Bill brought in with the purest intentions.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ..
Against it .
Majority for going into Committee —43
The House then went into Committte on the Bill.
On clause l being put,
Mr. E. ELLICE moved that the words " relief and
maintenance" should be held to include necessary medical

relict
The LORD ADVOCATE contended that in many
cases such a provision would be very difficult to carry
out. For instance, in the case of a parish in which no
medical man resided—as was frequently the case in
Scotland—in that case a medical man must be supported
at the workhouse of the parish.
Mr. E. ELLICE considered that relief was illusory
unless it was accompanied by medical relief, and inti-
mated that he would press his amendment.
Lord DUNCAN hoped his Hon. Friend would post-
pone his amendment, and make it another clause of the
Bill.

Mr. E. ELLICE said he would abide by his proposi-
tion, that medical relief was the most important relief
that could be afforded to the poor, especially in thinly
populated districts. He would adhere to his amendment.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the meaning of
the word " relief " included medical attendance.
Mr. P. SCROPE—Then, why not introduce it in
plain terms, to prevent any ambiguity ?
Mr. HENLEY said, it appeared that a deplorable
amount of destitution prevailed in Scotland, and that
nothing was so much wanted as medical relief. He did
not believe that the Bill would provide for the wants of
the poor of Scotland, still he thought the Bill, if it
really meant to afford medical aid, should say so, to pre-
vent all disputes.
Mr. ELLICE remarked that if the Government would
not give way on the point, and insert the words in the
Bill, that the term relief meant medical aid, he would
consider the measure a mere mockery and delusion.
Mr. FOX MAULE stated that it would not be possible
to afford medical relief in the manner his Hon. Friend
required, especially in the islands and very thinly peopled
districts. If carried out it would operate most oppres-
sively on those who would be called on to bear the
expense.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought it was not proper to hold
out expectations that could not be realised. They should
do all that legislation could do to afford relief, but he
considered that what the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ellice)
proposed would be found impracticable.
Mr. ELLICE contended that the arrangement was
not so impracticable as Hon. Members seemed to think.
He would certainly take the sense of the House on his
amendment.
Mr. GLADSTONE explained that there was a clause
in the Bill which rendered it optional with the perish
authorities to include medical relief in parochial relief.
After a few words from Mr. F. Mainz and Mr. ELLICE
the gallery was cleared for a division.
On our return the numbers were—
For the amendment f 25
Against it
Majority against it
_I —37

After a few words from Mr. GLADSTONE, the
Cause was agreed to.
Clause 2 was agreed to, as was clause 3.
Upon clause 4 being proposed,
Mr. BOUVERIE wished to know what the specific
fain was, that was to be paid to the Commissioners ?
Sir J. GRAHAM could not answer the question. The
money was not to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund,
And would, therefore, come under the annual revision of
the House.
Mr. BOUVERIE said he thought the words " ade-
quate salary," in the clause, of much too general a
nature. _ _

Tifis:COLLETT said this clause was one upon which
be had given notice of an amendment. It referred to
the payment of sheriffs " as long as they continued mem-
bers of the Board," as the clause set forth. lie thought
the words too general, and saw no reason why they
should be paid 100/. a year each. He concluded by
moving the following amendment:—" To leave out all
the words in the clause, from the word' board' to the
end of it."
Mr. DUNDAS said that they would never get a
lawyer to work well unless they paid him, and he
thought that the words ought to stand.
Mr. F. FRENCH said that nothing could be more
moderate than the payment of 1001. a-year, and espe-
tially when he remembered the large sum of 1,000/. and
1,500/. a year, which was given to the Poor-law Com-
missioners both in England and Ireland, he thought that
this remuneration ought to be given.
Lord DUNCAN thought that the best way to secure
the attendance of the officers was to pay them.
i Sir J. GRAHAM said that all the experience lay on
the side of the payment of the Commissioners.
Mr. BOUVERIE thought that the true principle was
o pay a man according to his work. A gentleman might
e paid his 1001. and yet not attend once in the year.
Sir R. PEEL said that certainly some reliance ought
to be placed on the honour of the parties concerned.
i Mr. P. SCROPE said that the bait way of securing
the attendance of the members was to publish an account
Of their proceedings, and in his opinion the plan would
be improved if they were to appoint two paid Commis-
sioners instead of four.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the best check was
to be found, when the duty of the Commissioners was
brought before Parliament and the annual estimates
rvere put before them.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause
as passed.
Clauses 5,6, 7, and 8, were then agreed to, after a
few words from the LORD ADVOCATE, as were the
?lauses.up to 16.
On clause 16 being proposed,
Mr. LOCKHART moved an amendment—that in
,:ge 7, line 25, after the word "parish" to insert the
words, "Provided always, that such comidnation shall
not take effect until the board of supervision shall by
an order have directed the parochial boards of the re-
ipcctive parishes to take into consideration the matter
bf such combination, and if within a reasonable time, to
be specified in such order, the parochial board of any
f the parishes shall, by a majority of two-thirds, resolve
against having such parish included in the combination,
and shall intimate such resolution to the board
6f supervision, such parish shall not be included in
the combination." In moving this amendment, he thought
that its very terms presented a reason for its adoption.
For instance, in the ca e of Glasgow, there was one
parish in the union which contained a larger population,
and was assessed in a larger amount, and thirty-three
Of the other out-unions, and in 1856, according to the
usual increase, this district would contain upwards of
600,000 inhabitants. The inequality of this assessment
was, therefore, a positive injustice. The parish of Glas-
gow was under one system of management, while other
parishes had several trusts. He had no objection to
Combinations, but he thought that the clause was insuf-
ficient, and he should therefore move the addition to it
of which he had given notice.
1 On a suggestion of the CHAIRMAN, the amendment
was postponed until Lord Duncan's motion was settled.
I Lord DUNCAN then proposed the omission of
Clause 16, and the insertion of the following in its place:
H--." That in every case where it may appear to the board
lof supervision, on application by the parochial boards of
Ony one or more adjoining parishes, or from a regard
to the relative situation of two or more such parishes,
pr from any other circumstances, that the administration
of the affairs of the poor therein might be carried on
, .
with greater advantage to the said parishes and to the
poor therein, by the said parishe3 being combined for
the purposes of this Act ; then the parochial boards of
such parishes sha:l meet, on requisition to that effect by
the board of supervision, for the purpose of considering
the proposed combination ; and in every case where the
parochial boards of two or more such parishes shall re-
solve that it is expedient and proper that such parishes
shall be combined for all purposes connected with the
management of the poor, and the administration of the
laws relating to their relief, and for the purpose of rais-
ing the necessary funds for the relief and support of the
poor (and also for the purpose of settlement); and where
it shall be established to the satisfaction of the board of
supervision that it is expedient and proper that such
parishes shall be so combined, it shall be lawful for the
said board of supervision to resolve and declare that such
parishes shall thenceforward be combined for the pur-
poses aforesaid, and shall be considered as one parish, so
far as regards the support and management of the poor,
and all matters connected therewith ; and all expendi-
ture in respect to the poor belonging to such combination
of parishes shall be deemed and held to be the common
expenditure of such combination of parishes, and be
charged upon and paid out of the common and general
fund to be raised for the relief of the poor over the whole
of such parishes."
Sir JAMES GRAHAM considered that they ought
to obtain the opinion of the Committee on the 67th
clause, before they adopted the proposition of the Noble
Lord.

Lord DUNCAN called the attention of the Go-
vernment to the 36th clause of the Bill.

Mr. HASTIE thought the clau‘e under discussion the
best in the Bill, because it compelled landowners to con-
tribute somewhat to the support of the poor—a duty
which, under the former system, they were somewhat
apt to forget.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that, seeing the House
was rather opposed to the clause, he should postpone it
for the present.
After a few words from Mr. HASTIE, the clause was
p)stponed.
On clause 17 being put,
Mr. FOX MAULE objected to the incorporating
Leith with Edinburgh, as, by so doing, an injustice was