The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-13 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

An HoN. MEMBER, on the Ministerial side of the
House, presented a petition from Bury and Ashton-
ur,der-Lyne in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill; also a
petition against the Settlement Bill ; and a petition
against highway rates.
ISLE OF MAN—CASE OF COLDECOTT.

Dr. BOWRING rose to inquire of the Home Se-
cretary, whether his attention had been called
to the circumstances under which John Waters
Coldecott was arrested and long imprisoned in
Castle Rushen, in the Isle of Man ? He had
given notice of his intention to ask the ques-
tion, in order to give the Right Hon. Gentleman an
opportunity of inquiring into the subject. J. W. Coldecott
had been arrested on Sept. 9 last, on affidavit, charging
him with having assaulted his wife. The place where
the affidavit was taken was not recorded. He was ar-
rested and taken before Deemster Heywood, and or
dered to enter into securities to keep the peace for six
months, and in default committed to Castle Rushen gaol,
without ever having being confronted with his accusers.
He had been there more than six months, when he was
detained for a debt due to a person named Kerman ; on
his suing Kerman for maintenance, it was alleged that
he was detained for the assault on his wife. His port-
manteau and all his property was taken from him, and
he was left in a state of destitution. He applied to the
Governor, who referred his complaint to Deemster Hey-
wood, who ordered Mr. Coldecott to be detained three
months longer in gaol. Such was the statement made
to him, and he wished to ask if the Home Secretary had
made any inquiries on the subject ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that, in consequence of the
notice given by the Hon. Gentleman on a former even-
ing, he had directed the Lieutenant-General of the is-
land to make inquiries into the matter, but he had not
yet received his report thereon.
JUSTICE COURTS IN THE ISLE OF MAN.
Dr. BOWRING also begged to put the other question
of which he had given notice, namely, whether any mea-
sures have been taken to provide against the delay ofjus-
tice which has resulted from the non-holding the Chancery
Court in the Isle of Man ? He had been informed that the
delay in one case involved a matter of not less than
150,0001.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the delay had solely
arisen from the fact of the Lieutenant-Governers being
seriously indisposed, which had compelled him to resign
his appointment. He trustee, that matters would be so
arranged as to obviate the necessity of the Hon. and
Learned Member's future inquiries.
COLLEGES BILL (IRELAND).
Mr. ROCHE wished to know whether the Right Hon.
Baronet would put off the Irish Colleges Bill for the
present, in order to give the Members of that House,
and more particularly the Irish Members, time to con-
sider the amendments which had been made in it, before
coming to a decision on the matter ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that, although the amend-
ments sought to be introduced in this Bill were of
a somewhat important character, be did not con-
sider them so very important as to justify a further
postponement, and he could not, theretore, accede to the
request of the Hon. Member. To-morrow night he
should take the money vote, as a preliminary step to
going into Committee.
THE SCOTCH BANKING BILL.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
the third reading of the Scotch Banking Bill.
Mr. FOX MAULE did not intand to oppose the
motion ; but, before the Bill was read a third time, he
thought it necessary for him to enter his protest against
the measure. He could not do otherwise than condemn
any interference with a system which had hitherto
worked so well in Scotland.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the order of the day being read for the second
reamdirn.gFoofx.thiziAScuotEh Pp
roeosr-enl at
ewd Aampenedtimtioenntßdl,
against the
Bill from the General Assembly of the Free Church of
Scotland.
Mr. LOCKHART also presented petitions from Scot-
land against the Bill.
The LORD ADVOCATE then moved the second
reading of the Bill, when
Mr. RUTHERFORD said he found the opinions of
others whose authority was greater than his were un-
favourable to the Bill. He thought there were great
inconveniences in the existing system, but that if no-
thing was to be done but this measure of the Go-
vernment, it would not give satisfaction to Scot-
land. They would have petitions from all quarters for
further legislation. Discussions would be renewed and
aggravated, and bring into play feelings of excitement
and passion, which he, for one, did not wish to see
aroused.—(Hear.) The law of Scotland, as it now
stood, provided that all those who were decrepid, impo-
tent, and unable to sustain themselves, should be sup.
ported by parochial assessments, and in every parish of
Scotland the law had establish, d a parochial board for
the prorr sustenance of such persons, and for raising a
fund for their adequate relief. In the borough parishes
that board consisted of the magistrates, in the county
parishes it consisted of the heritors and the clerk of ses-
sion. They had the power to make an assessment
\
for the support of the disabled and incompetent poor.
The law at present was anything but satisfactory. In
the burghs, it was provided that the assessment should
be levieq on the means and substance of all the inhabi-

tants wherever such should be found, whether their
possessions on the spot er in the public funds,
their ships in harbour or any other depository.
The appeals to the courts of law could not be
made but in the most unsatisfactory manner, and the
whole machinery for apportioning and working the
law in that respect was intricate and incomplete.
There was already a sufficient safeguard that the relief to
the poor would be administered upon a most economical
principle. It was the rate-payers, those nho were
assessed, that held the check—to this he did not object.
He thought it in the main a good principle, but it
was all the more necessary to have an easy,
expeditious appeal to the courts of law. Good care
should be taken that this power of the rate-
payers should not be abused. What was the history
of the administration of the poor-law in Scotland. He
was not there to exaggerate, or to excite the passions
against this law, but they could not conceal from them-
selves that the Commissioners declared in their report that
the present provision for the poor of Scotland was wholly
insufficient. He spoke of the permanently-disabled
poor. In some of those parishes the Commis-
sioners stated (and, amongst other parishes,
those in the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow) that
when representations had been made to the magis-
trates that the provision for the poor was insufficient,
those magistrates refused to increase the assess-
ment. He must therefore say that a cheap.
expeditious, and easy appeal to the courts of
law was above all things desirable. They had,
then, unquestionably, this state of things, that
by not giving to the poor an easy and expeditious
appeal to the law, they took away one of its most
necessary provisions, uhile, at the same time, the
provision it did contain involved an extravagant
expenditure of the funds intended to be applied for the
relief of the poor, thus operating in one way against the
poor, and in another against those who pay for their
support. Looking, then, at the names of those who signed
that report (for every one of whom he had the most
unfeigned respect) let him ask the House to consider what
that report recommended. The Commissioners recom-
mended that the jurisdiction of the court of quarter
sessions should be abolished ; but they did not propose
that the sheriff, who, unlike the same officer in this coun-
try, was a judge of the land in Scotland, should have the
jurisdiction ; they c:id not propose that it should be
transferred to the central board ; no, they removed all
jurisdiction, and left to the poor applying for relief to seek
a re 'needy at the hands of the parochial authorities,
and the board of supervision, who were to report to
the Secretary of State for the Hume Department.
It had been suggested that the grounds on which the
scheme was founded were superficial, and his Hon. and
Learned Friend in laying the measure before the House
had defended those grounds. He knew how little
public opinion would influence the principle of the
measure as regarded the jurisdiction of the Court
of Session. He (Mr. Rutherford) thought it was
time that relief for complaints against inadequate
support should meet with some redress, and the poor
man ought to have an opportunity of bringing his case
before that Court with facility. Ile was about to draw
the attention of the House to one of the leading princi-
ples of the measure. It was proposed that a board of
supervision should be established. If a poor man
considered that the means of sustenance 16th which
he was ,upplied were not adequate, he must first make
out a case before the board of supervision ; but that
board had no power, under the I3ill, to give the

poor man ultimate relief. They could only say to
him that he has liberty to refer his application
to the Court of Session. This restriction was

not just or proper, when compared Kith the power which
the parish possessed, of going at once without any inter-
ference to the board of supervision, to contradict what
the poor man might avouch with regard to his treatment.
Now, in reference to this part of the subject, he thought
it was worth while to consider what was the machinery
employed in this measure. What was the board of
supervision ? How was it constituted ? It was a
board consisting of a number of members, in
which one was paid, with one paid secretary, and
it had the power of ordering their own mem-
bers to any part of the country, or to employ
others to make inquiries as they might think necessary.
He wished to know whether the report made by the
Commissioners to inquire into the Poor-laws (Scotland),
a report which filled a most bulky volume, did
not contain sufficient evidence to enable them
to decide upon this question. Could they want more in-
formation on the subject of the poor-laws than that which
had been furnished them during last year? Certainly not.
He should have expected that in bringing forward an
efficient Poor-law for Scotland the mode of rating
would have been clearly stated. As the Bill
now stood, the mode of rating was derived from
the Act of 1779, in which the forms employed might
be very well suited to those days, but was altogether un-
suited to the present time. He wanted to know what
the Government had done to ensure a correct sys-
tem of taking the value of rateable property—what
measure was to be adopted to regulate the rating
on rental, tenantcy, land, and profit in business. He
considered some clear and definite plan would
have been suggested on the way in which this
important part of the scheme would have been met.
He thought it was not equitable to assess the rural
parishes to the support of the poor in the burghs. Was
anything ever heard of so unjust as to leave it in the
power of the board of supervision to assess one
rural parish to a burden from which other parishes
similarly situated were exempt ? In making the rural
parishes liable to such an assessment of the towns they
would relieve the proprietors of all participa-
tion in the burden of sustaining the poor.
The Bill provided among other anomalies, that the
parochial board should have the power of di-
viding property into different classes and
assign different ratings to different parishes. Thus
in the parish A this parochial board should inflict upon
certain prcperties situate therein a high rate of assess-
ment, perhaps six per cent., end in the adjoining parish
B a low and insufficient amount was levied, and thus a
different rate would be established, and a different classi-
fication adopted in every parish in the country. Surely
these were matters of grave consideration, and made it
imperative on the House, before dealing finally with the
measure, to look into the anomalies and objections ex-
posed in it. In the sixteenth century the principle of
rating and assessment was first introduced into Scotland,
and the present prosperity of that country was mainly
attributable to the amendments adopted in those original
provisions about sixty years ago, it being in the year
1780, just after the A merican war, that alterations in the
previous principle were suggested and efft eted. The
measure, in his opinion, required much more considera-
tion and many alterations, or it would inflict injustice on
some portion of the people of Scotland, and be generally
productive of litigation and legal difficulty. lie had
great doubts about the expediency of extending the
settlement to seven years. If they were to extend the
time from three to seven years they would render it so
difficult to ascertain the settlement of paupers, that they
would have to repeal that portion of the law, and return
to the old period of three years. He considered that
greater time ought to be allowed for the consideration of
this important point. Then there was not sufficient
protection afforded to parishes against the influx of
paupers from England and Ireland, who are bound to
maintain them until their settlements could be discovered
which was often a very difficult task. This was ex-
tremely hard upon parishes such as Greenock and Glas-
gow, where ships of indigent persons came. These were
his objections to the Bill, and he approved of its prin-
ciple, and thought the object it had in view a good one,
but he must again express his decided objection to the
capricious Parliamentary line of boundary,. which would
in many cases be most unfair and unequal in its applica-
tion. They had not the least conception of
the extent of the injury which it would in-
flict on private individuals by this capricious line.
He had already mentioned the case of Edinburgh and
rt to be
this a liable
inhe
had not the slightest objection, but the proposition
Leith, and there were many other cases where unequal
pressure of this law was felt in a similes. manner.
.The
parish
the
firstin wihnisctha instance el) poor
Isis rr
mans
was
lftoeunnat was
already existed as a law, and whatever the practice
might be in particular parishes, the law was that when-
ever a pauper was found, the parish in which he was,
was bound to support him. His Hon. and Lea ned
Friend was too well acquainted with the fact to doubt
it. The law, however, was not always carried out.
At times considerable litigation arose amongst parishes
as to the proper settlement of a pauper. Of his own
knowledge he was acquainted with a case of pauperism,
which had been litigated in the Court of Session during
the last four or five years, and which, in all probability,
would continue for as many years longer without any
definite conclusion being arrived at. The influences ho
had drawn from the objections he had raised were so
numerous, and so strong, that he was satisfied the pro-
visions of the Bill, as at present constituted, were most
imperfect, and totally inadequate to meet the require-
ments of the country for which it was specially in-
tended. He would recommend the House to
pause before conceding this Bill, and let it be
sent down into the country, in order that they
might have the opinions of partiesthere to guide them
in coming to a just and proper appreciation of the sub-
ject. The population in many parishes was thinly scat-
tered, and the provisions of the Bill were such, that it
would be extremely difficult to supply the urgent de-
mands for medical relief which such districts required.
Over such an extent of country, with such a thinly dis-
tributed population, it would be impossible for a medical
man to travel, so as to 'supply the demands made upon
his skill. There was nothing the parishes in Scotland
were so much in want of as medical attendance to the
poor, and he did not care how it was applied, whether by
a single parish, or a union of parish, s, so long as it was
done. Another point to which he would refer was that
of relief to able. bodied labourers. There had been
much discussion on this subject during the
last forty years, and a decision had been ob-
tained in a court of law, affirming the principle of re-
lief to abls-bodied paupers, though he was of a contrary
opinion. It was, however, neck ssary that this quest on
should be fairly settled. A sy stein of reliefof this kind should
only he applied under a worle' ouse system. There
might be cases in which relief should b, extended to
the able-bodied poor—such as in cases of great national
distress, or when epidemic diseases prevailed. There
ought to be a provision to meet cases of this kind—a
provision of a temporary character—whereby a rate
might be raised from the inhabitants of parishes ; but he
held it ought not to he of a pertnasnent character. lie
would not say that the Bill ought not to be read a se-
cond time, fur it might be considerably amended either
in Committee of the whole House, or in a Select Com-
mittee up stairs ; but entertaining
.strong objections to it
in its present shape, he thought it was a duty which
he
owed to the country to state the grounds on which
those objections rested.
Lord ARUNDEL referred to a meeting held in Edin-
burgh, in 1842, under the presdency. of the then Lord
Provost i
(Sir James Forrest), respecting the admission
of Roman Catholic priests into workhouses, and
ygiving facilities
ex-
pressed a hops that, in the measure before the House, a
tolerant spirit would be exhibited, b

A MOST IMPORTANT INVESTMENT.
The WHOLE TERRACE at KENTISH TOWN, including
TWENTY-SIX superior built RESIDENCES, a RENTAL ex-
ceeding TWELVE HUNDRED A YEAR, and GROUND
RENTS of 1201.
MR. GEORGE ROBINS respectfully gives
notice, that he is directed by

COOKE IESQ.
to OFFER to PUBLICRICHARD COMPETITION,, and without any pro-
tecting Price, at the Mart, London, on TUESDAY NErr, June 17,
at Twelve, in 26 Lots,

M. JULLLEN'S CONCERT MONSTRE.
SURREY ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS, FRIDAY, JUNE 20.

Mona. JULLIEN has the honour to announce to the Not.Aity,
Gentry, and the Public, that he intends giving a
CONCERT MONSTRE, on FRIDAY, the 20th, (being +:ae comme-
moration day of the accession of her Majesty), on tlie same scale
of grandeur as those given in Paris, at the Jardin
Champ Elysees, in celebration of the Fete of I Tan, Casino, and
..ouis Philippe, and
other great occasions, as conducted by M. Jolliet).
The Orchestra will consist of 300 liistn;mental Performers, em-
bracing all the principal English end Foreign Artistes at that mo-
ment in the metropolis, forming an er"..,ern'ole never before heard in
England, and presenting the greatest ‘..:(mgressMusicale ever assembled
in this country. And in order to give full effect to this Grand
Musical Entertainment, whic-t, lf. Jullien trusts will be pro-
nounced unequalled by anythi;
1g Of the kind ever attempted, he has
decided to erect a Colossal ,Jrn'aestra at the south extremity of the
Gardens, where has bee
which ;,1 opened, this season, an extensive Pro-
menade, er.abi'e twelve thousand persons to hear this gi-
gantic musical effect.
LEADERS—Sivw,i
Nadaud, Hughes V and Vieuxtemps, Sainton, Blagrove,Tolbecque,
V. Loden

CONDUCTOR—MonsIeur JULIEN.
sellers.
Pr°grannr.,e4S 'to be had at all the principal Libraries and Music-

Ticke`.3 taken previous to the 20th instant, 2s. 6d., Admission on
the (1.4 y to the Concert, ss.
"Akkets to be obtained at the principal libraries, music-sellers, and
.rf Di. Julliee, Depot General de Masiqua Dansante, 214, Regent-
street.