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

relating to Irishmen, and hoped that, on going into Committee,
they would be altered so as to give the natives of that country
an industrial settlement.

Mr. HENLEY said that unless the clauses were much al-
tered, he should give the Bill every opposition in his power.—
( Loud cries of " Divide.")
The Gallery was then cleared for a, division, when there
appeared—
Far the amendment
Against it
Majority against the amendment ...... —52
Mr. HUME said, that he himself did not give trouble to
the Government with respect to this Bill, but he only for-
warded to the Lord Advocate all the requests of the working
classes in Scotland that it should be postponed. He had been
assured that the going into Committee would not be pressed
against the wishes of the people of Scotland, whom this Bill
would affect. He wished to see the Bill postponed and cor-
rected. He thought it was the Bill of the rich man, against
the poor man.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that he was Terfectly con-
vinced that his Hon. Friend had not expressed his own
opinions, but those of others, for he well remembered that
when his L arned Friend (the Lord Advocate) first introduced
the Bill, the Hon. Member Oh. Hume) expressed: his de-
cided approbation of it.
Lord JAMES STUART begged to say, that he and
many Members at his side of the House, whom he could
answer for, bad voted in accordance with their views, as to
their public duty. He would not sit in that House to sup-
port landlords' measures, nor to give his vote in favour of any
measure which would be oppressive to the poor of Scotland.
It was said that there were no petitions presented from Scot-
land but which were hostile to this Bill. He himself had pre-
sented a petition from his own constituents, and he could not
say that there was any desii e expressed in it for the postpone-
ment of the Bill. He could not perceive that it was a landlords'
Bill, as was stated. He was, therefore, in favour of their going
into Committee once more on it.

Mr. P. M. STEWART approved of the introduction of
the poor-law into Scotland, but yet he was of opinion that the
measure should be postponed till next session, in order to give
themselves the opportunity of obtaining information on the
subject from practical men, and framing the Bill so as to be
satisfactory to all parties. •
Lord DUNCAN said that it was difficult to discover what
they were at. If they wished to discuss the principles of the
Bill, would it not be better to do so on the third reading, and
if they wished to discuss the details, why not go into Committee
on the clauses?

The Hou:e then went into Committee.
On th.e reading of claim. 35,

Mr. GLADS7TONE said that there was a great necessity to
improve the provision for the poor in Scotland. But, unhap-
pily, the question had been mixed up with ecclesiastical and
territorial matters with which they had no natural or necessary
connexion. He thought that farm servants and domesties
should not be assessed to the poor-rates.
Mr. HOPE saidhe had had peculiar opportunities of seeing the
working of this law. In the parishes with which he was con-
nected they had only been driven to the assessment in conse-
quence of the larger proprietors having refused to contribute
their share of the funds necessary for the support of the poor.
The clause was then agreed to.
On the 36th clause' being proposed,
Mr. M. S-TEWART said -that• he should wish to see
some more practical machinery to carry out the clause. •
Mr. HUME said that he should be glad to see any means by
which, in the case—of refusal, any proprietor could be corn-
,7.pelled to pay• his portion. Certainly there was 'none 'in the
clause.

•
Mr. E. ELLICE thought, that some better means should to
provided for_ the certainty of obtaining relief for the pauper.
In the Lowlands the clause might work.very well,
.but in the
parishes in the Highlands there was a great. difference. In
three counties there was no possibilityof enforcing this relief.
Mr. ESCOTT theught that some better, means should be
adopted for enabling the authorities to grant more efficient
relief than that which the clause allowed.

Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE said that much was to be
granted for what had been said on the other side of the House ;
but he was quite inclined to agree with what had fallen from
the , Hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Escott), and that
greater facility should be given for the obtaining of this relief,
and for increasing the amount of it.
Mr. HAWES said that the Bill was well worthy of consi-
deration, and from the opinion which had been stated by Dr.
Alison and Dr. Chalmers, he was quite ready to believe that
its effect would be to improve the condition of the lower classes
of the people of Scotland, and it was a matter of indifference
as to how the assessment should be enforced.
After a few words from Lord DUNCAN,
The LORD ADVOCATE said that he was not prepared
to say that there were not difficulties in, the aay of urging this
assessment, but in those parishes where the system had been
adopted it had worked most satisfactorily. He had received a
great many communications, and he was justified by the tenour
of the whole of them in persevering in promoting the principle
of the Bill and the integrity of this clause. It had been a
matter of peculiar care with him to frame the clause in such a
way that the property should be assessed in the parish in which
it was situated. He had endeavoured to take the benefit of all

the communications from different parts ofScotland, and they
were very numerous, and to embody them in this Bill.
He had taken care that the assessment should be
made on the actual means of the residents. By
the law as it stood, one half was raised on the
real property, and one half on the other means of the
parties, so that if a man had 5001. a year from real property,
and 5001. a year from other sources, he paid on the 1,000/.
a year ; and the same rule held in all cases, and thus got rid of
this source of complaint. With regard to the mode of levying
the tax, he proposed that one half should be levied off the land-
lord, and one half off the tenant, and he did think that would
be a fair and equitable mode, and to prevent the possibility of
that mode being rendered oppressive, he had placed in the
hands of the Board of Supervision a sufficient remedy, as *ell
as a proper guard against any one party being assessed in more
than one parish, unless under peculiar circumstances.
Mr. P. SCROPE begged to remind the Lord Advocate of
the fact that while the sale and transfer of property in Scotland
would go on, still the assessment would be the same, and no
power proposed to be given to the Board of Assessmentafforded
a remedy against such a state of things, while, at the same time,
an illimitable power of assessment was proposed to be given to
the Board of Control. He would ask how would that Board of
Assessment deal with a man who might have an income of
1,000/. a year from funded property. These, and several other
matters of an objectionable nature suggested themselves to his
mind by the assessment clauses of the Bill.

Mr. HUNIE said it appeared to him that the Bill made a
number of alterations which would be found to be very op-
pressive. He would suppose such a case as that of a_ man re-
ceiving 5,000/. a year from the East Indies, and 5,0901. a year
from the West, and yet residing in Scotland in a part of the
country where he might have a small property in each of three
parishes ; he (Mr. Hume) would wish to know in which of the
three parishes he was to be assessed for this property of his in
India ?

The LORD ADVOCATE said he thought he had already
satisfactorily explained that difficulty.
Mr. HUME did not th'nk it would be fair to assess the
property in India of a gentleman who might have come to a
parish in Scotland merely for a few months' shooting, and
where he might be the only person' in the parish who could be
assessed.

Mr. SMOLLETT said he thought that some distinction
ought to be made in the assessment between those who held
land under different circumstances.
Mr. ESCOTT did not think the mode of assessment at all
an equitable one.
Mr. EWART conceived it an inconsistent thing that this
Bill should provide that in certain cases the mode of assessment
now existing should continue.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the Bill provided re-
medies before the Board of Assessment in all cases where any
questions of difficulty of a peculiar nature should arise.
Mr. G. DUNCAN said the Bill provided in certain cases
that where the rate could not be had, the process of distress
against the goods should be had recourse to ; but he would ask
how that remedy could be had recourse to in cases of persons
with three and four thousand a year living actually in hovels,
several of which he was aware of.
Mr. P. SCROPE hoped that a system of assessment would
be adopted that would have stability. The proposed mode of
assessment would be a premium to absenteeism, and a penalty
to persons residing on their estates in Scotland.
Sir J. GRAHAM wished that Scotch Members should avail
themselves of the experience which the English law at present
afforded, and the fruits would then be an attempt to escape
those evils which were complained of in the present law. Tne
provision entitled Foulet Scrope's Act was exactly similar to
the mode of rating recommended by Hon. Members opposite;
that Act was rigid and unbending ; and though its principle
was good, as effecting a uniform system of rating, yet, as it had
proved wholly inoperative, he was loth to adopt the same
unsuccessful experiment in the assessment of any other part of
the kingdom.
Mr. P. SCROPE denied the analogy between the Act he
had introduced into England and that now sought to be applied
to Scotland.
Sir J. GRAHAM explained.

Mr. BAINE said, that as the town of Greenock had been
mentioned in the course of the debate, he wished to take the
opportunity of expressing his entire concurrence in the clause,
and his astonishment at the unmeaning opposition evinced
against it. In this opinion he was backed by strong represen-
tations from the inhabitants of Greenock, who were extremely
anxious that the present mode of rating should not be altered,
and felt considerable alarm at a change so serious being
threatened.

Mr. ESCOTT, after the opinion thus strongly expressed
of the feeling of the people of Greenock, and, he doubted not,
of the entire population of Scotland, hoped the Right Hon.
Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department would with-
draw the Bill altogether, as its very essence was a change in
the mode of assessing the rates.
Mr, DARBY supported the clause.
Mr. E. ELLICE, jun., did not think the present law so ob-
jectionable as had been attempted to be proved. If any part
whatever of the Act did operate prejudicially, it was that which
related to means and substance. He was quite certain that if
the Bill was passed, it would be the occasion of much legis-
lation en the subject of assessment, as it was more inquisitorial
than that of the income tax. He perfectly agreed that the
poor-law in Scotland should be assimilated to the poor-law
in Ireland.

Lord DUNCAN said that it was much more easy to speak
against the measure than to propose a new one. For his own
part, he thought that in lieu of a better system, the one before
the House should be adopted. He trusted, however, that the
intentions would be subsequently imp! oved.
Mr. REbINGTON said that the proposition laid down
by the Lord Advocate was, that he was adhering to the law
of Scotland ; but he (Mr. Redington) asked if he was doing
so ? He said no. He contended that the Lord Advocate was
most inconsistent, and did not adhere to his promise. lie was
changing the whole system of the law in Scotland, end in a
manner, too, which would be most unacceptable to the Scot-
tish people. The manner in which the Irish paupers would
be treated in Scotland under the proposed law, would be most
unsatisfactory to the Irish people generally.
Mr. GLADSTONE said he thought those without domi-
ciles should be provided for, so as there should be no doubt er
uncertainty about their relief. It was only right there should
be a clear understanding on this subject.
Mr. HUME moved the following amendment to the clause :
—" At the end of line 17, that no person having less than 401.
a year from means and substance, should be so assessed."
The LORD ADVOCATE said it was very hard• to fix a
precise sum, for the expense of living was greater or lrts in
might
different parts of the country. A minimum g
fixed, it was true ; but that rule would be sometimes the cause
of hardship.
Mr. HUME thought it should be left to the discretion of
the board of guardians.
Mr. ELLICE, jun., said the words " means and substance"
not being defined, he would vote against the clause.
The House then divided, when their appeared—
For the clause
Against it ............... . . ...
Majority in favour of the clause —6o
Clauses 36 and 37 were agreed to.
On clause 3t being proposed,
Mr. P. M. STEWART objected. He thought that exces-
sive powers were invested in the hands of the Commissioners.
The clause, after a few words from the LORD ADVO-
CATE, was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 39 and 40 were passed without opposition.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK proposed that a provision should
be added, that no person not having a provision to the amount
of 401. should be rated.
Clauses 41, 42, 43, and 44 were then passed without objec-
tion, as was also clause