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

Noble Lord also, that this tax on what he might call one of the
grst necessaries of life, had hitherto been felt as 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 fuel.—( Hear, hear.) He had
heard the Noble Lord opposite defend this proposition upon the
ground that it was a very low tax ; but that was an argument
which cut two ways ; for it argued either in favour of the tax,
inasmuch as that another additional penny would not be felt ;
or that, because it was so small and trifling, it should be abo-
lished ltogetheeohich lie (Lord Howick) conceived 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 parts of the City,
and the fund proposed to be raised in this way could not be ap-
plied without the sanction of Parliament, and, therefore, no ap-
prehension need exist as to the mode in which the fund would
be applied.—( Hear, hear.) Last year this subject was brought
before Parliament, and it was then fully discussed. 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 evening, he would just call the attention
of the House to a few specific remarks illustrative of the uti-
lity of this tax. The Right Hon. Baronet then read an ex-
tract from the work of I's-Ir. Seaford Smith, in which
was stated the unhealthy nature of the localities of
Whiteehapel and Bethnal-green, and other districts of the
city, into which it was absolutely necessary to introduce some
means of preventir', the recurrence of fever and other diseases,
arising from such causes as a pestiferous atmosphere; and
having concluded reading the extract, he then asked, would it
be of no moment to have those wretched lanes and alleys 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 purpose of constituting a
fund to build infirmaries for those 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 expenditure of 11,0001.
per annum for the mitigation of their ills, he was of opinion
that an actual amount of positive good would preponderate.
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 puttinc, a duty on coal could
add to their comforts. He was rather desirous that the duty
should be taken 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
snore than one ton annually.
Mr. 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. EWA R T said lie ha:l considerable reluctance in
opposing a Gentleman who, in that House, had always
c-sndueted hiroselt 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
oppositio:i to every measure of sound policy. He was opposed
to the principle of the tax, and not to the amount. In the city
nr Londo.i the amount of tax was twenty -fire per cent. on the
first price of coals. Other duties were levied at other places,
and the country looked r,ther that all these taxes should be
taken off: than iecreAsed. He trusted that the House would
act on sound principles, and refuse the Bill proposed by the
Government.
After a few words from Mr. BARNARD and Mr. Alderman
llustettrxv, who explained,
The House divided, when there appeared,
For the amendment
Against it...
Majority —27
On our return to the gallery we found the Earl of LIN-
Cf:L N moving the following amendment :—That from and
after the 31st day of December, 1845, the duty of one penny
per lost on cot,!s, cinders, and culm, so impo<cd and extended
as acoresai shall from time to time when and as received he
ut r invested in the purchase of Stock in so•ne of the
peaFe Stocks er Funds, or upon Government or Real Securi-
tie,, at interest, in the names of the Commissioners for the time
being of her Majesty's Woods, Forests, Land Revenues,
Works, and Buildings, to an account to be intituled, " The
7.Tetronnlis Improvement Fond Account ;" and the said Corn-
roii,ioners shall from time to time lay out or invest the yearly
.iividerids or interest of the Stalks, Funds, and Securities so to
1) 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 reputed 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.
Ti:e clause, as amended, was agreed to.
Clauses .3, 4,5, 6,7, and 8, were then agreed to.
The rernalo'nes clauses of the Bill were also agreed to.
' Mr. 11 UME wished to know if a Bill were not to be intro-
duced this session to carry oat amatory 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.morrow.
POOR LAW (SCcTLAND) BILL,
On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the House went
into Committee on this Bill.
Clause 56 vas agreed to, as was clauses 7, and all the clauses
cp to 64.
ler. PRINGLE believed they would never impose the ap-
Vieation of this clause cn Scotland. If any Gentleman
ha I read this Bill, he would find that the effect would be to
throw the inhabitants of many districs, especially in the High-
lands, into a state of positive idleness. He would, therefore,
caution lion. 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 haul cow the right to relief, and the Lord-Advocate had
not denied the position. If the Learned Lord meant to take
a•.vay this poser he should introduce a clause for that purpose.
Mr. A GLIONBY 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 aught to be kept from starving without going into a work-
house. 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. Bf)RTHWICK saw that he said with extreme re-
gret that there was any necessity for a poor-law at all, and he
trusted that the House would not introduce the workhouse test
into Scotland. It was altogether opposed to the 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 defin'tion 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 poor man ahould 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, he would.
Mr. EWA TIT said that it mattered but little what was the
opinion of this or that Government respecting the law of Scot-
land ; for he understood the Learned Lord-Advocate to say,
that the able-bodied poor man was not entitled to relief, and
he agreed with his Hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth
(Mr. Aglionby) that the clause should be explicit. If no other
Member did so, he should move that the proviso be expunged.
Mr. P. AI. STEWART said there was much doubt at pre-
sent as to whether ahle•.bodied paupers were entitled to relief,
and the 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. He should
eepport the clause, as it would still have the effect of preventing
able-bodied paupers from obtaining relief.
Mr. P. BORTH WICK objected to the proviso in the clause,
and moved that it be omitted.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 2l
For the motion...
Majority..
—52
On the re-admission of strangers, we found
Mr. HASTIE moving, according to notice, an addition to
clause 64, to the effect that it shall be lawful for the parochial
board of every parish, or combination of parishes, to allow nut
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 to 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 addition 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 of 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 lic.d
the power to grant it under extraordinary circumstances. He
could not see any reason WI the parochial authorities in
Scotland should not have the same discretionary power.
After a few words from Mr. BA/NE,
The Committee divided, when there appeared,
For the amendment ... 3l
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,
Mr. -SHARMAN CRAWFORD moved, that the proviso
at the end of the clause be expunged.
Mr. P. M. STEWART did not think that the working
of the clause would be judicious or just. The poor man would
be 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 clawe upon constitutional grounds.
The LORD- ADVOCA'FP. defended the clause, on the
groom; that it would have the effect of affording more real
mean.; of defence to the poor man than he ever could have
hoped to have had within his means, because it gave
him the power of cueing in forma paupet is, which he
ne7er had before by any previously existing law. In fact, he
had slow the power, by the simplest means, of ensuring inquiry
into his ease, because the Act compeped the Board of Inquiry
to
enter instantly upon the consideration of the case of each
poor man vrlio applied for relief, and if they did not do as, the
gate
tfre power to the poor man to enforce an inquiry into
hit case yittiotat any expense, because he still sued in f
a A orma
e
P1111.;e1 cr 10)313Y h
car. )
ould not but regard the speech of the
i
Lord-Adv,,,te
that of an interested
.advocate. (Cries of
very glad to firm such provisions as
" Oh, oh 1") lie 3."
appeal against the rule of the Board
er.abl?d the poor man to
Ip.eris, but then he ( Mr. Aglionby)
of Snirrvision in farina pa
later part of the clause contained
would still centend that the
crainst the poor man, and there--
shoultdit bfreomErurecticiresosutb.y The
aforee,lautshe which
at owfasthae'elauw
poor man was the ono virtually shut
clause, for did they think a pauper would go to a lawyer while
he was al owed to sue in forma Pa Peris, or that any
att,yrney would undertake a suit fora man without money
vherewitli to 'fee him? For these reasons, believing that the
practical effect t of the clause in connexion with the proviso was

to create a fallacy, and virtually deceive the poor man with a
shadow of relief, he trusted some explanation would be given
by the Government, whether that proviso could be retained or
modified.

Lord DALMENY thought the quarter sessions were not
sufficiently open to the grievances of the poor, and believed
that the court of supervision would obviate this anomaly, and
quoted Dr. Alison to confirm that opinion.
Mr. HASTIE regarded the principle of the c' use as that of
legislating for the rich and oppressing the poor.
Mr. WAKLEY said that he had hitherto supported the
Bill, because he conceived it framed in a spirit of conferring
relief on the distresses which he understood existed in Scot-
land, and because he had been led to believe that no poor-law at
present existed to remedy the distress of the labouring classes
of that country. But he now believed that the Government
were not actuated by any motive but that of continuing to op-
press the poor; and as to the clause in question, it was cruel
and oppressive, and he should now oppose the measure in all its
subsequent stages.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against the amendment —34
The clause was then passed.
On the next clause being proposed,
Lord ASHLEY recommended that the term " five years"
should be substituted for seven years.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment .... 8
Against it
Majority —loo
The gallery was :immediately after cleared for a division on
an amendment proposed by the Lord-Advocate, the purport
of which could not be ascertained in the gallery, when the
numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority
Mr. AGLIONBY then made a few observations disap -
proving of the 72d clause, which was then proposed.
The LORD-ADVOCATE explained that the operation of
the Bill would be such as to enable the poor man to receive
relief on easier conditions than formerly.
Colonel RAWDON considered that the Bill did not place
the Irish and Scotch paupers on the same equality as Scotch-
men in Ireland who, if destitute, received relief and permanent
relief,: and he thought that the same liberality should exist in
Scotland by the operation of the present Bill.
After a few words from Lord DUNCAN,

Lord CLEMENTS said that Englishmen and Scotchmen
were employed in great numbers in Ireland. A good feeling
was promoted between them and the natives. He was asto-
nished that the Noble Lord was desirous of stirring up ill-will
between Irishmen and Scotebmen. The poor-law, after all,
was merely a public fund, out of which the public should de-
rive assistance when they stood in need of it. Many Scotch
farmers in the Lowlands of Scotland could not get in their crops
if Irish labourers did not come over from Ireland to aid them.
And if they encouraged Irishmen to come over it was their
duty to support them.
Mr. LOCKHART said he would give the Bill all the oppo-
sition in his power, as it had not undergone any alteration from
the state in which it had previously been presented to the House.
The Hon. Member said something about the number of Irish
paupers, and the difficulty of relieving them, but he was not
clearly audible in the gallery.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that if the Government passed
the Bill in the form which the Hon. Gentleman seemed to
wish, it mould be no credit to him or the hospitality of the
country which he represented.—(Hear, hear.) He thought
the Government deserved the warm thanks of every Irish
Member for placing the Irish on the same level with the
Scotch paupers. He must remark that the Scotch felt no
scruple in s-Atling in the south of Ireland ; and from his expe-
rience he felt bound to express his belief that if
an Irishman and a Scotchman presented themselves
before an Irish board of guardians, such was the generous
feeling of hospitality by which they were actuated, that they
would relieve the Scotchman in preference to the Irishman.
He was sorry the Noble Lord (Duncan) had thought fit to in-
troduce religious differences in a debate on the Scotch poor-law.
Lord DUNCAN said that if he had made any allusion to
religious differences, he regretted it, and it arose from his being
un2ccustomed to Parliamentary speaking.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE expressed his satisfaction at the
disavowal, and would withdraw any expression of censure upon
the words which the Noble Lord had, he now believed, inad-
vertently used.--( Cheers.)
After a few words from the Lord Advocate, Mr. Ross, Lord
Duncan, Mr. P. M. Stewart, Mr. Bouverie, and Sir G. Grey,
the House divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it
Majority for the clause
The clause was then agreed to

-79

Mr. BROTHER.FO I\l then moved that the Chairman re-
port progress.
The galleries were cleared, but no division took place, the
Lord-Advocate having acceded to the motion.
The House resumed; the CHAIRMAN reported progress,
and asked leave to sit again this day.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.

Cn the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER tbat this Bill be read a third time,
Mr. WILLIAMS said if the motion was urged at that late
hour he should move that the standing orders of the day be
postponed until this day.
AftPr some conversation the third reading was postponed
until Thursday.