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

Mr. F. MAULE wished to give a reason why he
should vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for
Glasgow. He was of opinion that no law would be
satisfactory to the Hon. Gentleman himself (the Lord
Advocate), or to the country, unless it offered some
permanent advantages. He would ask whether this Bill
embodied principles which were likely to become per-
manent or satisfactory? After due consideration he
believed that by taking more time to consider they
would arrive at a better measure, and for this reason,
that they had not yet discovered the proper way to deal
with the people of Scotland. In Edinburgh and in
Glasgow associations assembled for the purpose of pro-
tecting the poor. Some of these societies applied to
him to become a member, but he told them that the best
association for the relief of the poor was the legislature
of the country. If they did not beware they would have
these associations spreading up, which would interfere
with the good government, the peace and tranquillity of
the country. He thought that by suspending their
judgment, and by taking opinions in this matter during
the interval, after this session they would be more likely
to arrive at a more satisfactory settlement.
Mr. REDINGTON thought that there were two
clauses in this Bill which would have a material opera-
tion on the people of Ireland. He would ask the Lord
Advocate why he advocated a measure which no com-
mittee of the House was ever asked to assent to ? The
first objection was the question of settlement. There
was a clause enabling the removal of paupers to other
parts of the empire, which was a hardship much dwelt
upon by the Commissioners. According to this Bill
there was no earthly means by which an Irishman could
obtain a settlement in Scotland. The law at present
was, that three years' industrial residence would give
any person a right of relief. Bat if this Bill passed, no
person could obtain relief under any circumstances what-
ever, unless he was a Scotchman. He knew instances of
Englishmen and Scotchmen being admitted into poor-
houses in Ireland—in fact, they were never asked what
country they came from, it was only necessary to know
that they had six months' residence, which gave them
the right of settlement, and, consequently, they could
claim relief. He did think that Irishmen ought to re-
ceive the same sympathy in Scotland that Scotchmen did
in Ireland.
Mr. SCOTT wished to say a few words on the 71st
clause. He was of opinion that the law of settlement
should not be discussed until they came to the 73d clause.
He had been in communication with the Lord Advocate
on this subject ; but he had found it impossible to pro-
cure a law of settlement for the Scotch paupers in Eng-
land ; and therefore he begged to say that it was quite
absurd to suppose that any invidious distinction was
made in regard to Irish paupers in Scotland.
Mr. ELLIS would trespass on the time of the House
for a few moments. He did believe that prudent, good
legislation might prevent much of the distress that ex-
isted in the Highlands of Scotland ; and he had an
impression amounting to conviction, that a great deal of
that distress had been owing to the clearance system.—
(Hear, hear.) He had heard attacks made upon certain
persons in Sutherlandshire ; but he should say that
many of those attacks were unfounded, and that a great
deal of kindness and humanity had been evinced in that
country to those who had been evicted. If those who
represented that a degree of harshness had been used to
individuals in Sutherlandshire, would only prolong their
journey to the north, they would find many instances of
much greater harshness.—(Hear, hear.) This was the
first Government who had ever taken up this question,
and, therefore, he had had much difficulty in deciding
on the course he should adopt in regard to it. However,
he had made ep his mind, and he would say, that though
he was aware that Scotland did stand in need of a re-
formed system of poor-law, still, as lie did not think this
Bill made that provision, he would vote for the amend
ment. He looked upon this Bill as containing much o
valuable matter ; but some of the clauses were so objec-
tionable, and gave it so much the character of what his
Hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire had called a
landlord's Bill, that he should oppose it, particularly in
consequences of the provision it made for boards of ap-
peal, which were not by any means calculated to afford
satisfactory and prompt modes of appeal to the poor
man. The Honourable Member then read an extract
from a speech made by one of the sheriffs of Scotland, and
contended that that speech bore out his argument against
the board of appeal. He would next call attention to the
defective provisions the Bill contained for affording suit-
able protection to the lunatic poor, in which he consi-
dered he was borne out by what had already taken place
in this country in reference to pauper lunatics. In Eng-
land he was aware that the people were assessed for sup-
porting their lunatic poor, and he would admit the justice
of such a law, and if such was intended by this Bill for"
Scotland, he did think the first thing the Bill should do
would be to define that assessment ; and if it did not, the
Government would find they would have to come back
to the House to ask for such a provision,
Mr. P. M. STEWART said he had presented several
petitions from various parts of Scotland, most of them
approving of parts of the Bill, but all of them praying
that it should be postponed till next session. He wanted
to know what was the reason of the undue ;haste which
had been shown in endeavouring to pass the Bill during
the present session ? The history of the Bill had been
given by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down,
and therefore he would not enter into the particulars.
The Hon. Member for Perth had said the Bill could not
work well, unless it had the confidence of the people of
Scotland. The powers of the Commission extended to
act in all the parts of Scotland by a vicarious change.
The Commissioners were invested with altogether terrific
powers, as respected the working of the measure. They
were not only to name the number of therepresentatives,
but they were also empowered to decide who they were to
be. He would ask why were the rate layers to be
represented by any other individuals than those chosen
by themselves ; and why should the clergy of the Esta-
blished Church be exempted from the payment of rates
for the poor, while the great majority of the other
clergymen was subject to assessment? He believed the
intention of the Lord Advocate, in bringing forward this
Bill, was well meant to the people of Scotland; but still
the Bill was so objectionable to all the competent autho-
rities in Scotland, and to all connected with the admi-
nistration of the law, that the Government should pause
before they hurried it through this session. He would
ask, was there a single petition presented in favour of
this Bill from Scotland ?
Colonel RAWDON objected to the Bill, and espe-
cially to clause 72. By it Irishmen were placed in a
different position in Scotland, to what Scotchmen were
in Ireland. The Irishman would derive no benefit from
it. In the removal of Irish paupers, there was no protec-
tion whatever that an Irishman could not be sent off from
the nearest port in Scotland for transhipment to Ireland.
In his opinion, the 72d clause made poverty a crime. If
any Irishman attempted to come back again in search of
employment, he was liable to be imprisoned and punished
with hard labour. This was a provision contrary to jus-
tice and to the interests of Ireland. He believed there
were .30,000 Irishmen in Glasgow, and that was a strong
case that great consideration should be bestowed on the
measure before it went into Committee.
Mr. VIVIAN said that the great evil in Ireland was
want of employment, and that was the reason why so
many of the poor Irish made a practice of coming into
Scotland and England. Tnere were from 150,000 to
200,000 Irish in the cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Pais-
ley, Greenock, and their vicinities. He could not con-
ceive anything more unjust than the proposed measure
in its present form, as it regarded the treatment of Irish-
men in Scotland, and he trusted that her Majesty's Go-
vernment would reconsider the matter.
Mr. ESCOTT had listened with great attention. He
had heard six or seven Me.nbers fur Ireland express
there objection against certain portions of the proposed
measure ; and had also heard several Scottish Members
express similar opinions. Nut one Hon. Member had
risen to defend the Bill. He must say that when on a
former occasion he was present in the House, he had
listened to the Lord Advocate, and from the observa-
tions which had fallen from him, it appeared to him
(Mr. Escott) that there was room for a better adminis-
tration of the poor-law in Scotland. He considered
some of the provisions of the proposed law might be
carried into effect with benefit to the people in Scotland,
but it would be advisable to inquire further into the
state of the poor, in order that the efficacy of the
measure might be sufficiently tested. He felt himself
called upon to say thus much. All the evils that had
resulted in England and Ireland, from the operation
of the poor-laws, had resulted from want of sufficient
consideration of those schemes before they became the
law of the land. He believed that if the report of the
Commissioners, appointed to investigate into the
condition of the poor, had not been so implieity acted
upon, the beneficial results would have been great.
The poor laws both of England and Ireland required
considerable supervision. It was proposed that the Poor-
law Commissioners for Scotland should have the same
powers as those of England and Ireland. Such a system
was highly objectionable to the feelings of the people of
Scotland, and it had been stated by all those who were
competent to judge of the matter, that the further con-
sideration of the Bill should be postponed to another
eeseion. He wanted to know what there was in the pre-
eent state of the por-law of Scotland that required alter-
ation. It was advisable that the intentions of that mea-
sure should he carried out t) their fullest extent, and
practically enforced before such a measure as that now
proposed was entered into.
Mr. DUNDAS, after a few preliminary remarks, in
svhich he strongly reprobated some observations which
tied fallen from the Honourable Member for Winchester
(Mr. Escott), observed that it was true the wants of the
poor, to his own knowledge, in certain districts in Scot-
land, were very great and urgent. Reports had been
published from time to time of the condition of the pe Ile
in the north of Scotland, and they were not without
foundation. He did not believe that the poor
whom we have always with us had yet attained
their proper position in Scotland.—(Loud cheers.)
If the House would go through the evidence, as he had
done, they would see with him the extreme suffering
under which the poor of Scotland were labouring ; and
ouch being the state, he, not as a landlord or owner of
the soil, but as a man of humane Christian feelings,
would support any measure likely to benefit his country.
(Hear, hear.) The whole system of Scotch existence
was built upon the mutual support which every class ren-
dered one another, end he contended that very great
credit was due to the poor as well as the rich, for the
generous, ft 6.44pgpf, 1404.: Andered to their suffering

i~

for twenty years, and had left at the age of sixteen, brethren, who, uncomplainingly, endured distress almost
and after that had been employed in a factory until he without a parallel.—(Cheers.) And what was their
he was too old to work, and ashamed to beg, they sent present state ? What was the food they now received ?
him back to Ireland because he had not been born in Why just what he himself had in his youth lived on :
that country. When there was distress in Scotland he for he was not ashamed to admit—notwithstanding that
recollected that the Irish in that country were excluded many behind him had perhaps been educated and
f rens the advantages of the subscriptions which were clothed in purple and fine linen—that he had
raised for the relief of those distressed. The Bill was fed on nothing but oatmeal porridge.—(Loud cheers.)
directed against a large Irish population, who did not go Mr. Campbell, the minister of an important parish in
to Scotland for mendicity, and he thought that natu- the county, had given similar evidence ; and in that
ralisation ought to be the result of industry. He would state, therefore, he was ready to support any measure
ask the Lord Advocate if he were prepared to make any calculated to improve the poor. But the Bill now be-
change in this measure? If he did not, ho (Mr. Sheil) fore the House, and the particular clause in question,
thought that the Scotch Members were not prepared to would go far to prevent, rather than promote, the in te-
support him in this system of direct national discrimi- rests of that class. It was inhospitable and unjust; and,
nation. 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 ... 33
Against it .
Majority for going into Committee —43
The House then went into Committte on the Bill.
On clause 1 being put,
Mr. E. ELLICE moved that the words " relief and
maintenance" should be held to include necessary medical
relief.
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. MAULE and Mr. ELLICE
the gallery was cleared for a division.
On our return the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against it ! —37
After a few words from Mr. GLADSTONE, the
clause 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
sum 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.
Mr. COLLETT said this clause was one upon which
he 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. He thought
the words too general, and saw no reason why they
should be paid 1001 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-
cially when he remembered the large sum of 1,000/ and
1,5001. 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.
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
to pay a man according to his work. A gentleman might
be 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.
Mr. P. SCROPE said that the best 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
were put before them.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause
was passed.
Clauses 5,6, 7, and 8, were then agreed to, after a
few words from the LORD ADVOCATE, as were the
clauses up to 16.
On clause 16 being proposed,
Mr. LOCKHART moved an amendment—that in
page 7, line 25, after the word " parish" to insert the
words, "Provided always, that such combination shall
not take effect until the board of supervision :Alan by
an order have directed the parochial boards of the re-
spective parishes to take into consideration the matter
of such combination, and if within a reasonable time, to
be specified in such order, the parochial board of any
of 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
of 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 case 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.
On a suggestion of the CHAIRMAN, the amendment
was postponed until Lord Duncan's motion was settled.
Lord DUNCAN then proposed the omission of
clause 16, and the insertion of the following in its place:
—" That in every case where it may appear to the board
of 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,
or 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 parishes being combined for
the purposes of this Act ; then the parochial boards of
such parishes shad 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 clause 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
postponed.
On clause 17 being put,
Mr. FOX MAULE objected to the incorporating
Leith with Edinburgh, as, by so doing, an injustice was