The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-12 00:00:00

tioner to recover damages. The Hon. Baronet moved that
the petition be printed, and gave notice that he should submit

a motion on the subject on Monday next.
Mr. DIVETT said he hid a petition on the same subject
feom Mr. Parrott, who stated, that in giving the evidence
complained of, he had been actuated by no malicious
or vindictive feeling, and that such evidence was given
under a sense of duty which he owed to that Hon. House.
The petitioner prayed for an opportunity to substantiate the
truth of his statements, and alleged that Mr. Phillips had not
been deprived of any office in consequence of the evidence of
the petitioner.
Mr. BALFOUR presented a petition against the Scotch
Poor Law.
Messengers from the Lords then brought in several Bills
from the Upper House.
THE DANISH CLAIMS.

Mr. HAWES postponed his motion on the Danish claims
till Tuesday week.
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
_

Mr. ESCOTT said he world onv Tuesday next move
for leave to bring in a Bill for the abolition of
certain unjust fees in courts of criminal jurisdiction.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved the order of the day fur
going into committee on the Poor-law Amendment (Scotland)

Mr. HUME said that while he was most anxious that her
11Iajesty 's Government should ameliorate the condition of the poor
in Scotland, he was yet anxious, as the Bill before the House was
a long one, containing many provisions, that it should be post-
poned till next session, so as to give the people of Scotland an
opportunity of testing the Bill, and of postponing such amend-
ments as would render further legislation unnecessary. He
trusted that they would, therefore, postpone the Bill.
Mr. EWA RT quite agreed in the opinion of his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Hume) that the measure should be left over till
next session. He thought an opportunity ought to be ac-
oorded every Member of the House, but especially those re-
presenting Scotch communities, to consult their constituencies
on the measure. He for one wished for such an opportunity,
as he should be in a better position next session to give a de-
cided vote upon the Bill.
Mr. P. M. STEWART said he would go further than either
of the Hon. Members who had preceded him, in urging the
postponement of the measure. He asked the Government to
apply to Scotland their own principle—that principle which
had guided them in their conduct of other propositions intended
for the benefit of other parts of the kingdom. He asked them
to look at the feeling of Scotland upon this measure, to consult
the opinion of the people of that country, and then act upon
the expressed advice of those most competent to give it. Now,
though this Bill had been more than two months before
the public, not one petition had been presented in
its favour—( Hear, hear)—while, on the other hand,
numerous had been the petitions laid on the table
of the House in its condemnation. It was a measure which
while bringing no good to any one, but making the case of the
poor man infinitely worse, would, as his Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Montrose had said, encumb'sr the statute-book, already
overloaded with amended laws, with anotlier altered or re-
scinded enactment next session. The present was purely a
national question. He was willing to assist the Government
on the subject of national legislation. The proposed measure
(1,(1 no good to the poor man. No sufficient equivalent was
substituted for the pains and distresses which he suffered. The
Hon. Member for Peebles might shake his head, but that fur-
nished no argument. There was the evidence of the parish of
St. Cuthbert, a little world in itself, resisting the Bill. The
Bill was not passed yet, and the parish of St. Cuthbert, which
contained a population of 70,000 individuals, objected to the
measure, because it would amalgamate them with the city of
Edinburgh. They provided for their own poor, had their own
workhouses, and were perfectly independent of the city, and yet
it was intended by the present measure to assimilate them with
the city where the poor-rates were is: 6d. in the pound. The
Bill would force them to join with the city. That was a sample
of the entire measure. The centralisation system was founded
on a false principle, and would occasion universal discontent if the
Bill were proceeded with any further, as it now stood. Why
not consult the feelings of the people of Scotland? He would
say, let the Bill for the present stand as it did, but do not let
it be passed through the statute-book until the next session, in
order that sufficient time may be afforded to make the neces-
sary inquiries for proper alterations. He would say that they
ought to apply the same principle to Scotland that they applied
to other questions. Hardly had one petition been receive' in
favour of the measure, while great numbers had been forwarded
against the measure from the people of Scotland. All admitted
that legislation was necessary, that a poor-law was wanted for
the people of Scotland, but they considered that 'the present
measure, instead of effecting an improvement, would render
matters far worse than they now were.—( Hear. )
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that''as a direct appeal had
been made to him, he would briefly address himself to the ques-
tion. If ever there was a question which was divested of all
party character it was the present. It was said that the present
Bill was a crude measure, and that time had not been given for
the due consideration of the question. That was not the ease.
There had been ample inquiry made before the present Bill was
framed. Evidence bad been taken before a commission, and
_ whatever difference of opinion might prevail as to many points
of that evidence, it was generally admitted that it abundantly
proved the necessity of legislation. That evidence had been
before Honourable Members for twelve months. He was sorry
that any man should think that the Bill was a crude and im-
perfect measure, yet in supporting that opinion it could not be
said that it had been hurried through the House. The Bill was
introduced at the beginning of the session, it had been amply
_discussed, and a large majority of the House had decided in its
favour. It had also been once postponed, in order to allow the
people of Scotland an opportunity of discussing its provisions.
His Right Hon. and Learned Friend (the Lord Advocate) and
himself had given the measure their best consideration and
most anxious attention, and it was their deliberate opinion
that it was as good a measure as could, under the circum-
stances, be introduced. When be remembered how muds
the matter had been canvassed, and what a' length of time
the people of Scotland had bad for deliberation, he could not see
that there was any necessity for further postponement. The
Hon. Gentleman said there were no petitions in favour of
the measure, whilst a great number were against it. He
( Sir James Graham) must say that he had never known, in
all his Parliamentary experience, a measure of this kind to be
petitioned for. He thought, when the measure came into full
operation, the people of Scotland would be well satisfied with
it. The House had already, by a large majority, twice
affirmed the principle of the 811, and if, after passing through
Committee, there remained anything obnoxious in it, the
Hon. Member could move the amendment on the third read-
ing of the Bill.

—Dlr. LOCKHART thought, with some modifications, the
Bill might be made acceptable to the people of Scotland. He
further thought that it would prove a remedial measure. The
only clause he objected to was the 16th clause; with that ex-
ception he approved of the Bill.
Mr. GIBSON CRAIG was understood to say that he
entirely approved of the Bill, and thought it would be received
with approbation by the people of Scotland.
Mr. HASTIE hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would post-
pone the Bill, at least for the present. That some remedial
measure for the condition of the poor of Scotland was neces-
sary, he did Tilt mean to deny; but in consequence of the
manner in which the press had described their sufferings, much
had been done to ameliorate their condition, and they were
nosy in a better state than they had been for some time. He
must repeat his desire that the Government would postpone
the Bill.

Lord DUNCAN did not agree with the Hon. Member in
thinking the condition of the poor of Scotland at all improved.
Mr. E. ELLICE said he held in his hand a statement, from
which it appeared that since the discovery of the actual state
of the law, the poor had been in a much better condition, and
were better cared for than they were before. He differed very
much from the opinion of his Hon. Friend the Member for
Edinburgh. He knew that the almost unanimous opinion of
the people was against this Bill being passed in its present
shape. He had met with but one opinion with respect to this
Bill if it were passed in its present shape, and that was, that it
would be most mischievous in its effects. At a meeting lately
held in Scotland, this Bill was declared to be a fraudulent at-
tempt to take away the rights of the poor. He entreated the
Right Hon. Baronet to pause before he pressed this measure.
Sir J. 111, TAGGART could bear testimony to the accuracy
of what had fallen from his Hon. Friend the Member for
Paisley.
Sir J. HOPE, and Mr. P. BORTHWICK supported the Bill.
Mr. G. DUNCAN said he had received a great many
letters upon this subject from various parts of Scotland very
recently, and some of them even that day, all of which ex-
pressed their dissent to this Bill, in many of its clauses. Now,
with regard to the definition of the sum at which parties were
to be rated, he understood it was intended to be fixed at 40/. ;
but if it was, he would ask, why not state it in the Bill?
( Hear.) But if the Bill were to be passed into a law in its
present state, so far from its being of any benefit, it would be
an unfailing source of litigation, and of heart-burning and ill-
will.

-Mr. ROSS said he represented a portion of the country
where the people were deeply interested in this Bill, and there
were some clauses in it that were deemed so unjust and so
monstrous, that if the Right Hon. Baronet opposite did not
eonsent to abandon them altogether, he would give the Bill all
the opposition in his power. What he now wished more par-
ticularly to advert to was this : it would appear by this Bill
that neither an Irishman nor an Englishman could acquire a
right to relief in Scotland. Now, let him ask, was it because
that men happened to be natives of.either England or Ireland
that no period of residence in Scotland would give them a right
to relief ? Was it possible that an Irishman, who might have
spent his youth, and his blood, and his sinew in enabling a
Scotch manufacturer to convert the man's strength into goods,
that at the end of his power of labour he was to be turned adrift,
sent back to Ireland, and, finding that none there lived belong-
ing to him, he was to find no asylum in Scotland if he should
return to it, but be treated as a vagabond. Such treatment
would be enough to make a man's blood boil. But let him asic
what argument could he, as an anti-repealer, use against such
a law ? If. then, the Right Hon. Baronet did not abandon
those clauses he (Mr. Ross) would move that the Bill be read
a third time that day three months.
Mr. T. DUNCOM BE said that though he was not con-
nected with Scotland, yet he had received several petitions from
different parts of that country against the measure. He had
received petitions from Aberdeen, from Dundee, from Edin-
burgh, from Paisley, and from Glasgow, and the parties sign.
ing them all complained that the Bill contained no provision for
the relief of able-bodied paupers out of employment. The
question was whether the Bill would not place the poor in a worse
position than before ? He considered it would. The measure,
in his opinion, was hurried through the House in order to put
au end to, certain rights of appeal that have lately been dis-
covered as belonging to the people. It was found that the poor
had an appeal to the Court of Session, which the present Bill
now sought to quash. He hoped, from the feeling displayed by
the people of Scotland in their petitions, that the Right Hon.
Gentleman would consent to the postponement of the Bill to
another session.

Colonel RA WDON supported the postponement of the Bill.
Nearly all the Scotch Members in the House had either
spoken or voted against the measure, and great numbers of
petitions bad been presented to the House from the people of
Scotland against it. On these grounds he hoped that the fur-
ther consideration of the Bill would be put off till the next
session. There was one clause which had his most decided op-
position. It was a most inhuman and cruel clause. It pro•.
vided that persons under the necessity of applying a second
time for relief should be acted towards as a criminal, and under
certain circumstances be treated as a felon. Such a clause
was so harsh, so inhuman, and so unconstitutional, that he
could not consent to going into Committee on such a Bill. He
concluded by moving that the Bill be read that day three
months.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the objections of the
Gallant Colonel were matters of detail, and could be better
discussed in Committee than now. He denied that the clause
was of the penal character described. It only provided that in
ease of parties living on the parish funds under circumstances
where they might be able to work, and had reasonable pros-
pect of employment, should be treated as rogues and vaga-
bonds. The same principle was recognised in England, as well
as in. Scotland. It was, therefore, nothing new, and was ne-
cessary as a protection against fraud.
After a few words from Colonel RAWDON,
• Mr. HAMILTON said he should be sorry to defeat the
measare, as the objectionable clauses were stated to be an open
question. He hoped the Gallant Colonel would withdraw his
motion, and allow the House to go into Committee. Unless
the clauses then were much modiffed, he should certainly give
the Bill his most decided opposition.
Sir J. GRAHAM explained, and . hoped that Hon. Mem,
hers would go into.Coinmittee on the Bill, when a full oppor-
tunity would be allowed of discussing the clauses.
Lord , HAMILTON condemned the clauses of the Bill