The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-15 00:00:00

Noble Lord also, that this tax nn what he might call one of the
grst neees.:aries of life, had hitherto been frit ac one of the

reatest grievances under which the labouring classes could be
oppressed, because it tended to increase to a still higher amount
the present very high price of feel._( Hear, hear.) He had
heard the Soble Lord opposite defend this prepesiiion upon the
ground that it was a very low tax ; but that seas an argument
which cut two ways ; for it argued either in tavour of the tax,
it:a:4.llll,h as that another artilitio al pe,•ny would not he felt ;
or tria:, he.•aua,a it was s all a,t irdliug, it should be aho-
Ushed altogether, which Le (Lord Howick) conceited was not
the real argument against it.—( Hear, hear. )
Sir ROBERT PEEL begged to assure the Noble Lord
opposite and the House, that the sole object of this tax was to
improve the condition of certain classes in pates of the City,
and the fund proposed. to be raised in this way could not be ap-
plied without the sanction •if Parliament, and, therefore, no ap-
prehension need exist as to the mode in which the fund would
be applied.—( Hear, hear.) Last year this suiiject was brought
before Parliament, and it was then fully diseusiseil. He did not
propose now wearying the House with a detail of what was said
then ; but, notwithstanding the objections he had heard urged
against the impost this eve,,ing, he would just call the attention
of the House to a few specific remarks iilustraiive of the uti-
lity of this tax. The Right Hon. Baronet then read an ex-
tract frera the work of Mr. Seaford Smith, in which
was stated the unhealthy nature of the localities of
Whitechopel and Bethnal-green, and other districts of the
city, into which it was absolutely necessary to introduce some
means of preventing the recurrence of fever and other diseases,
krising, from such causes a• a pestiferous atmosphere; and
having concluded reading the extract, he then asked, would it
be of no moment to have those wretched lanes and ellevs re-
moved, and wider and healthy and open streets built instead of
them ?—( Hear, hear. ) A tax for an indefinite period was
proposed on coals. Thirteen-pence was the original tax, to
last till 1862, one penny of which was about to expire. It was
intended that the penny should be continued for the same
period as the twelve pence, for the purpo e of constituting a
fund to build infirmaries for hose parts of London called the
fever districts. Looking to the purposes of the Bill—namely,
the alleviation of the distresses of the poor—and the good
which would result from the expe,diture of 11,0001.
per annum for the mitigation of their ills lie was of opinion
that an actual amount of positive good would preeonderate.
Those were the general principles on which he would give his
cordial support to the motion of his Noble Friend, which would
be the means of lessening, in some degree, the distresses of the
poor in the fever districts.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY said the improvements now
going on in London were a great benefit to the working classes,
but he did not think that the nutting a duty on coal could
add to their comforts. He was ratherrdesireus that the duty
should be tale-n off altogether. The poor would not derive
any benefit from relieving them from a tax of only one penny,
for there was not a single poor family in London that consumed
more titan one ton annually.
.11r. HAWES wanted to know whether it was possible or
not for the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the matter,
to find out a substitute for the proposed tax. What was there
at present in the tax that recommended it? A little more in.
vestigation would have shown that it was a tax on the poor,
and not on the rich. The benefit from the tax would result
to the rich, whose property it was intented to improve.
After a few words from Sir CHARLES LEMON,

Mr. EWART said he had considerable reluctance in
opposing a Gentleman who, in that House, had always
c inducted himself with unusual fairness. He complained of
the manner in which the subject had been brought under the
consideration of the House. Neither the Noble Lord, nor the
Right Hon. Gentleman near him, had undertaken to defend the
principles of the tax. It was a proposition to levy a tax in
opposition to every measure of sound policy. He was opposed
to the principle of the tax, and not to the amount. In the city
of London the amount of tax was twenty-five per cent. on the
first price of coals. Other duties were levied at other places,
and the country looked rather that all these taxes should be
taken off than increased. He trusted that the House would
act on sound principles, and refusa the Bill proposed by the
Government.
After a few words from Mr. BARNARD and Mr. Alderman
lIIIIITHERY, who explained,
The House divided, when there appeared,
For the amendment
Against it
Majority
On our return to the gallery we found the Earl of LIN-
COLN moving the following amendment :—That from and
after the 31st day of December, 1845, the duty of one penny
per ton on coals, cinders, and culm, so imposed and extended
as aforesaid, shall from time to time when and as received be
laid cut .r invested in the purchase of Stock in some of the
public Stocks or Funds, or upon Government or Real Securi-
ties, at interest, in the names of the Commissioners for the time
being of her Majesty's Woods, Forests, Land Revenues,
Works, and Buildings, to 2n account to be intituled, " The
Metropolis Improvement Fund Account ;" and the said Com-
missioners shall from time to time lay out or invest the yearly
dividends or interest of the Stocks, Funds, and Securities so to
be purchased in their names on the account aforesaid, in like
manner for the purpose of accumulation in the mean time, and
until the said Fund shall be required for and appropriated by
Parliament to the execution of Improvements in the Metro-
polis.
A desultory conversation then ensued, after which,
Mr. HUME wished to know how the tax was to be ga-
thered ?
The Earl of LINCOLN—in the same manner as formerly.
The clause, as amended, was agreed to.
Clauses 3,4,5,6,7, and 8, were then agreed to.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were also agreed to.
Mr. HUME wished to know if a Bill were not to be intro-
duced this session to carry out sanatory improvements in the
metropolis? He was well aware there were great difficulties,
but the evil in London was a crying one, and required an imme
diate remedy.

Lord LINCOLN said that no such Bill would be introduced
during the present session.
The Bill was then ordered to be reported to•morrovr.
POOR LAW (SC'ITLAND) BILL,
On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the House west
into Committee on this Bill.

Clause 56 was agreed to, as was clanae 57, and all the clauses
op to 64.

Mr. PRINGLE believed they would never impose the ap-
plication of this clause on Scotland. If any Gentleman
had read this Bill, he would find that the effect would be to
throw the inhabitants of many districts, especially in the High-
lands, into a state of positive idleness. He•would, therefore,
caution Hon. Members that it would have. the effect of changing
the habits of the whole population.
Mr. HASTIE explained that the able-bodied poor in Scot-
land had now the right to relief, and the Lord-Advocate had
not denied the position. If the Learned Lord meant to take
away this power he should introduce a clause for that purpose.
Mr. AGLIONBY wished to know whether the object of
the Bill was to take away 'he principle, for he thought that
if a working-man were -to be thrown into distress
he ought to be kept from starving without going into a work-
hou,e. Till within the last few years, at Maxwell Town, there
had been no assessment whatever, and the poor had only been
relieved by a voluntary subscription of the heritors. In the
county of Kirkcudbright certainly there had been no poor,
law whatever, and therefore he thought that it would be better
for the Learned Lord to settle the point.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK saw that he said with extreme re-
gret that there was any necessity for a p ,nr- law at all, and he
trusted that the House would not introduce the workhouse test
into Scotland. It was altogether opposed to thq habits and
independence of the people. But he thought that it was cer-
tainly desirable that the heritors of Scotland and the poor
should know whether there was any right whatever to relief
in cases of distress. The clause, as it stood in the Bill, stated
that the relief was for the poor, and unless they intro-
duced an express definition as to what was meant
by poverty, the able-bodied poor man out of em-
ployment was entitled to relief. The statute of Elizabeth
provided for three things—either that a paor man should be
provided with sustenance, or removed to his native parish, or
to the parish of his settlement; and if the Hon. Member did
not move for the exclusion of the section, lie would.
Mr. EWART said that it mattered but little what was the
•pinion of this or that Government re:pecting the law of Scot-
land : for he understood the LE:arned Lord-Advocate to say,
that the able-bodied poor man •was not entitled to relief, and
he -greed with his Hon. Friend the Member for Coekermou'h
Mr. Aglionby) that the clause should be explicit. If no other
11fember did an, he should move that the proviso be expunged.
Mr. P. Al. S rEwART said there was moth doubt at pre-
sent as to whether ahle-bodied paupers were entitled to relief,
and ti3o effect of this clause would be to increase that doubt.

Lord DUNCAN believed that no able-bodied person had
ever received relief under the present system. lie should
s pport the Malice, as it would still have the eff ct of preventing
ali!o:bodied pauper!from obtaining re!ier.

Mr. P. BO RT. H WICK objected to the proviso in the clause,
and moved that it be omitted.

The Committee Olen divided, when there app,ared—
For Ow amenlnent
For t. e motion...
Majority. 1,

-5?

On the on of strangers, we fcund
Mr. 'MGM. moving, according to notice, an addition to
clause 64, to tla effect that it shall be lawful for the parochial
board of every parish, or combination of parishes, to allow out
of the funds, raised by assessment or otherwise, for the relief of
the poor thereof, such relief to able-bodied persons within such
parishes, or combination of parishes, as the board may deem
necessary, during the existence of temporary distress, arising
from the inability of such person tai obtain employment, pro-
vided always that such relief to the able-bodied has the appro-
bation of the Board of Supervision. He hoped the Lord-
Advocate would not oppose this ad ;it ion to the clause.
The LORD-ADVOCATE opposed the proposed addition.
He thought it would lead to false expectations on the part of
the able-bodied, and it would place the Board Of Supervision in
an invidious position.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that there was no evil found in this
country from an excessive provision for the relief of the able
bodied in the time of great distress. Some such means of relief
as existed in England ought to exist also in Scotland. It
would be a stain upon the Legislature cf the country, if the case
of a man willing to work, and unable to get work, was not pro-
vided for in a Bill of this nature.—( Hear.)
Mr, ROSS said that in Ireland the able-bodied pauper had
no right to demand relief; yet the parochial authorities had
the power to grant it under extraordinary circumstances. He
.cou1:1 not see any reason wl.y the parochial authorities in
Scotland should not have the same disc-etionary power.
After a few words from Mr. BAINE,
'The Committee divided, when there appeared,
For the amendment ...
Against it
Majority against the amendment —36
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 65.
Clause 66 was agreed to, with a few verbal amendments.
Clauses 67, 68, 69, and 70, were then agreed to, without a
discussion.

On the proposal of clause 71.
SHARHAN CRAWFORD moved, that the proviso
at the end of the clause be expunged.
Mr. P. M. STEWART did not think that the working
Hof the clause would be judicious or just. The poor man would
Po prevented by it from obtaining that amount of relief, or
that period of relief to which he would be entitled, or to
which he ought to be. He hoped the Lord-Advocate would
.explain this clause upon constitutional grounds.
The LORD-ADVOCATE defended the dame, on the
gro.and that it would have the eff,ct, of affording more real
mean.' of defence to the poor man than he ever could have
hoped Ie have had within his means, because it gave
him the power of sueing in forma paupePis, which he
never had before by any previously existing law. In fact, he
had now the power, by the simplest means, of ensuring inquiry
into his ease, because the Act compelled the Board of Inquiry
to enter instantly upon the consideration of the case of each
poor man who applied for relief, and if they did not do se, the
Bill gave the power to the poor man to enforce an inquiry into
his edge without any
expense, because he still sued in forma
pauperis,—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. AGLIONBY could not but regard the speech of the
Lord-Advocate as that of an interested advocate. (Cries of
" Oh, oh !") He was very glad to find such provisions as
er.abled the poor man to appeal against the rule of the Board
of Supervision in forma pauperi.' but then he (Mr. Aglionhy)
would still contend that the latter part of the clause contained
a clause which was against the poor man, and there-
fore, that part of the clause should be struck out. The
poor man was the one virtually shut out from redress by this
,clause, for did they think a pauper would go to a lawyer while
he cell al'owed to sue in forma pauperis, or that any
atorney would undertake a suit for a man without money
whe,:ewith to fee him ? For these reasons, believing that the
peactitol effect of the clause in connexion with
_therm* TM