POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND).

HC Deb 11 July 1845 vol 82 cc417-29

The Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill, was read.

On the Question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,

Colonel Rawdon

expressed a hope that before the House went into Committee, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department would state the intentions of the Government with respect to the clauses affecting the rights of Irish paupers, as the right hon. Gentleman had been requested to do by a deputation of the Irish Members.

Sir J. Graham

said, the best course to adopt would be to proceed with the Bill in Committee until the clauses referred to were arrived at.

Mr. Hume

said, if the Members for Ireland objected to particular clauses of the Bill, he should object to the measure altogether. The Government had already postponed a great number of measures, and he was anxious that they should adopt the same course with regard to the present Bill. It was so large, and contained so many provisions, many of them most uncertain and undefined, that it would, if carried, prove to be only an Act to create dissension and litigation. The time would be very brief until next Session, and in the mean time the measure might be fully and fairly considered in Scotland, and many important and necessary amendments suggested. The opinion prevalent among the best informed parties in Scotland was, that if the Bill passed into law in its present form, another measure to amend it, would, as a matter of course, have to be introduced next Session.

Mr. Ewart

agreed altogether in what had fallen from his hon. Friend who had just sat down. The measure was one which all parties united in saying could not be satisfactory or successful, and the probability was, that if it now became law, it would have to be amended next Session. The delay would also produce the advantage of enabling those hon. Gentlemen who, though Members for Scotland, had unfortunately the misfortune not to be born in Scotland, to become better acquainted with the subject.

Mr. P. M. Stewart

said, he would go a step further than the two hon. Gentlemen who had last addressed the House, and would ask the Government to apply their own principle to the Bill which they had relied on when another Scotch question had been before the House a few nights ago, and to allow their decision upon it to be regulated by the petitions that had been presented from Scotland on the subject. Though the measure was one which was of vast importance to Scotland, he believed there had not been a single petition presented in its favour, whereas numerous petitions from all persons interested in the state of the Scotch poor had been presented against the Bill. All these petitions concurred in representing the great necessity of legislation on the subject of the poor of Scotland, whereas they, at the same time, described the Bill introduced by the Government as an ill-digested and an ill-adapted measure. They stated, that it would not allay the discontent existing against the present measure, and that the poor had no interest whatever in it. That it would have the effect of overloading the Statute Book with eighty clauses, most of which would, as a matter of necessity, be repealed next Session. In fact, the measure was one which would do no good to the poor man, while it would have the effect of throwing him beyond the pale of the Constitution.

Sir J. Graham

, in answer to the appeal of hon. Members opposite, would begin by stating, that if ever a measure had been brought before the House which was completely divested of party character, it was the Scottish Poor Law. It was also admitted that the law for the relief of the poor in Scotland, was in such a state as to require immediate alteration. There had been full inquiry, and ample materials for immediate legislation had been obtained. The Report of the Commissioners had been before the public for twelve months, and had been under the consideration of Government during the whole of that time. If, therefore, the measure then before the House could be called crude and imperfect, the fault must lie with the Government who had prepared it, as ample time and full materials had gone to its preparation. Besides, the principle of the measure had been approved of by a very large majority of that House. Neither could it be said that the House had been taken by surprise. The Bill was introduced at an early period of the Session, and the second reading was postponed in order that the counties of Scotland might, in their county halls, have full opportunity of taking the matter into consideration. Neither was the absence of petitions in its favour any evidence of its unpopularity, as people seldom petitioned in favour of Government measures which were generally approved, except their success seemed doubtful. The principal petition against this Bill was from one parish which was peculiarly situated, and which, it was feared, would be affected by the 16th Clause; but that cause of petition was removed, as the clause was to be postponed. He thought that, as the principle of the Bill had been fully discussed and decisively affirmed by the House, and as they had made considerable progress in Committee, there was not any valid reason existing for its further postponement. If any hon. Member wished again to have the opinion of the House, the best plan would be to let the Bill pass through Committee, and take a division on the third reading.

Mr. Lockhart

expressed his satisfaction that the right hon. Baronet had not postponed the progress of the Bill.

Mr. Gibson Craig

, as they had so far advanced in Committee, could not conceive the expediency of postponing the measure. His own opinion was, that, generally speaking, the Bill had been favourably received in Scotland, although certainly some alterations were called for in it.

Mr. Hastie

objected to the further progress of this Bill. The poor in Scotland were never so well looked after as in the present time. Therefore, in postponing the measure, no possible harm could result.

Viscount Duncan

trusted that the House would at once go into Committee, when there would be an opportunity of adopting any improvements. He had always found that the Lord Advocate had been willing to listen to suggestions for the improvement of the measure. The 16th Clause had been so much amended, as to remove nearly all the objections to it.

Mr. E. Ellice

confirmed what had been stated by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Hastie). The condition of the poor of Scotland within the last eighteen months, compared with what it had previously been, had been made much better by the discovery of the actual state of the law with regard to them. This was not a party question here or in Scotland; he had conversed with men of all politics upon it, and had met with but one opinion—that, if the Bill passed in its present shape, it would be likely to produce very mischievous effects. The allegations of the petitions against it were, that, it would deprive the poor of their present remedy against the heritors, and subject them to an irresponsible power in order to put the law into effect. He gave the Government credit for honest intentions; but they only knew the state of the people of Scotland, through a prejudiced channel; with respect to Scotland, they appeared to be subjected to some influence that blighted all they took in hand. Had their measures with respect to the Scotch Church, or any other of their measures with regard to Scotland, been satisfactory to the people? Had they not all met with general condemnation? On a subject of such vast importance, ample time ought to be given for consideration; as the knowledge of the provisions of the Bill extended, the objections to it would increase. He hoped the Government would postpone it till next Session; if not, he hoped other parties in another place would prevent it from passing this year.

Mr. Duncan

was constantly receiving communications from Scotland stating objections to the measure. He felt that it was only common justice that it should be postponed to another Session. He had not received a single letter in favour of the Bill. He was anxious for an amendment of the present law; but, instead of this imperfect measure, they had better wait until next year, when they could get a well-digested Bill.

Mr. Ross

felt called upon to oppose strenuously the progress of this Bill, in consequence of the injustice inflicted upon the Irish residents in Scotland by it. By one of the clauses an Irishman was prevented getting a settlement in Scotland; although he might have spent his youth and his manhood in that country, such an industrious man, engaged in manufactures for twenty or thirty years, was liable to be sent to Ireland at a moment's notice. Unless the right hon. Baronet abandoned the clause, he trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would move that it be committed that day three months. If his hon. Friend did not do so, he certainly would.

Mr. T. Duncombe

said, that, it was rather singular that only on Wednesday evening last, one of the reasons urged by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, for the rejection of the Scotch Universities Bill was, that no petitions had been presented in favour of it; but to-night, in answer to the remark that there was no petition in favour of this Bill, he replied, that it was not customary to present petitions in favour of Bills, and, above all, of a measure like the present. He happened to know that there existed a very strong feeling against the Bill in many parts of Scotland, and more particularly in several of the large towns. He had no connexion with Scotland; but petitions had been intrusted to him against the measure from many places, some of which had thousands of signatures attached to them. The Scottish labouring classes generally considered that the Bill would place them in a worse position than before, it being altogether destructive of that right of appeal in their favour, which had only of late been discovered to exist.

Colonel Rawdon

said, that almost every Scotch Member who had spoken on this subject had opposed the Bill, and on the part of the Irish Members there was a united action against it. He begged to move that the House go into Committee of the Bill that day three months.

Sir J. Graham

would put it to the gallant Member whether, as the objections he and other Gentlemen near him advanced, were objections to details, it would not be better and fairer to discuss them in Committee? He had stated to a deputation of Members, who called upon him at the Home Office, and of which the hon. and gallant Member was, he believed, one, that he intended to make considerable modification in many of the clauses objected to, adding, indeed, that he was not prepared to say, the principle of the Bill as to industrial residence ought not to be entirely abandoned.

Mr. Hamilton

thought it well to go into Committee; but certainly, when the clauses in question came before them, they would meet with his opposition unless considerably modified.

Viscount Duncan

hoped the Members for Ireland would suffer them to go into Committee, on the full understanding that the clause more especially objected to by them, should, in Committee, undergo thorough investigation.

Lord Claude Hamilton

should feel bound to oppose the progress of the Bill, unless some much more distinct statement was made by the Government as to the obnoxious clauses.

The House divided on the Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 90; Noes 38: Majority 52.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Duncan, Visct.
Arbuthnot, hon. H.	Duncombe, hon. A.
Ashley, Lord	Fitzroy, hon. H.
Baillie, Col.	Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.
Baillie, H. J.	Fuller, A. E.
Baldwin, B.	Gaskell, J. M.
Balfour, J. M.	Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Baring, rt. hn. W. B.	Gladstone, Capt.
Barrington, Visct.	Gordon, hon. Capt.
Bennett, P.	Gore, M.
Blackburne, J. I.	Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Boldero, H. G.	Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Borthwick, P.	Greene, T.
Botfield, B.	Hamilton, G. A.
Bowes, J.	Hampden, R.
Bramston, T. W.	Harcourt, G. G.
Broadwood, H.	Hawes, B.
Brotherton, J.	Henley, J. W.
Bruce, Lord E.	Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Hodgson, F.
Buckley, E.	Hogg, J. W.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Hope, Sir J.
Campbell, Sir H.	Hope, hon. C.
Cardwell, E.	Houldsworth, T.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.	Hughes, W. B.
Codrington, Sir W.	Hussey, A.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Jermyn, Earl
Corry, right hon. H.	Lincoln, Earl of
Courtenay, Lord	Lockhart, W.
Craig, W. G.	Lowther, Sir J. H.
Darby, G.	Lygon, hon. Gen.
Davies, D. A. S.	Mackenzie, T.
Dickinson, F. H.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Dodd, G.	M'Neill, D.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Milnes, R. M.

Mundy, E. M.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Nicholl, rt. hon. J.	Thesiger, Sir F.
Palmer, R.	Wakley, T.
Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.	Walsh, Sir J. B.
Peel, J.	Wawn, J. T.
Pringle, A.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Pusey, P.	Williams, W.
Scrope, G. P.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Smollett, A.	TELLERS.
Somerset, Lord G.	Young, J.
Stuart, Lord J.	Lennox, Lord A.

List of the NOES.
Acton, Col.	Esmond, Sir T.
Archbold, R.	Ewart, W.
Baine, W.	Forster, M.
Bannerman, A.	Grogan, E.
Barnard, E. G.	Hamilton, Lord C.
Bernard, Vise.	Hastie, A.
Blake, M. J.	Hume, J.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.	M'Taggart, Sir J.
Browne, hon. W.	Morris, D.
Clements, Visct.	Morrison, J.
Colborne, hn. W. N. R.	O'Connell, M. J.
Cole, hon. H. A.	Pechell, Capt.
Collett, J.	Rashleigh, W.
Curteis, H. B.	Somerville, Sir W. M.
Dennistoun, J.	Stewart, P. M.
Duff, J.	Villiers, hon. C.
Duncan, G.	Yorke, H. R.
Duncombe, T.
Dundas, A.	TELLERS.
Dundas, F.	Ross, D. R.
Ellice, E.	Rawdon, Col.

House in Committee.

On Clause 35,

Mr. Gladstone

called the attention of the House to the expediency of rendering the law clear, that farm labourers and domestic servants were not liable to be rated to the poor. The present mode of rating generally in Scotland was most inquisitorial in its operation. The parochial boards who managed it were not in any way bound to secrecy, and they fixed upon each person precisely such a rate as they pleased. That system might be made the means of much oppression, and, though he was not prepared to say that the English system, as a whole, was applicable to Scotland, he would throw out that that system might be adopted as the basis of an improved system for Scotland. He hoped that the Lord Advocate would indicate his intention of taking the whole law of rating in Scotland into his serious consideration; for he was persuaded that it would be found impossible to allow it to remain in its present state.

The Lord Advocate

said, with reference to what had been stated by his right hon. Friend the Member for Newark, he would admit that there were difficulties in the way of assessment; but he had not selected the mode of assessment referred to in this Bill; it had existed for two centuries and more, and he had not ventured to abolish it. He had had representations from many parishes, assuring him that the system had acted satisfactorily. He had by the provisions of this Bill given to every parish the power of escaping from the difficulties of the present system, and had endeavoured to remove the existing inequalities.

Mr. Poulett Scrope

thought, that if any alteration were made in the law of assessment, it should be permanent in its character. Otherwise they should not interfere with it.

Mr. Hume

said, if there was ground for postponing a Bill, the want of power to explain how the many cases of difficulty that would arise were to be met, was ground sufficient. The only effect of this measure would be to unsettle that which was now settled. Under this Bill a Scotch proprietor, having 30,000l. in the English funds, would be liable to be assessed to the Scotch poor-rate on the full amount of his income; the effect of this would be to drive people from Scotland.

The Lord Advocate

said that, under the law as it at present stood, all personal property was liable to be assessed to the relief of the poor in the parish in which the possessor of such property resided; and the Bill now before the House did not, therefore, effect any alteration in this respect in the existing law.

Mr. Escott

complained that funded property was liable to assessment. The practice operated most unjustly, and he hoped that it would not be allowed to continue under this Bill.

The Lord Advocate

replied, that by the law of Scotland, as it now stood, parties were liable to be assessed to the whole amount of their property; and he did not propose to make any alteration in that respect.

Mr. Escott

said, suppose a man worth 10,000l. a year were to live in lodgings, for which he paid 30L. a year, how could he be assessed in the full amount of his property?

The Lord Advocate

apprehended that in such a case the party would escape altogether from the rate.

Mr. Ewart

wished to know upon what principle the assessment was to be made; that was, how the income of the party was to be ascertained? was it to be by a return, as in the case of the Income Tax, and if not, in what way?

The Lord Advocate

said, under the existing law, parties were appointed to estimate the incomes; and in this respect, also, he left the law as he found it.

Mr. Duncan

contended that these were matters which should be decided by the Legislature, and not left to local parties afterwards.

Sir J. Graham

said, that the hon. Members who contended for a uniform mode of rating were generally opposed to this Bill. The construction of the Act known as Mr. Poulett Scrope's Act, was to introduce into England one uniform and inflexible system of rating. The Act was very well intended, and was supported by the Government; but it had been found, to a great extent, inoperative, owing to the practical difficulties in the way of carrying it into general execution. It was found that, however desirable that there should be one general system of rating throughout England, yet that, from local circumstances and local peculiarities, it was impossible to carry that object into effect. Circumstances varied in different localities. In Liverpool, for instance, no occupier under 10L. a year was assessed to the relief of the poor; in other places no occupier under 5l. But by the operation of the Act to which he had referred, every occupier to the extent of 40s. a year would be rateable for the poor. The Bill now before the House proposed no alterations, unless to remove doubts in peculiar circumstances. He admitted the difficulties with respect to rating property in Scotland; but unless they adopted the inquisitorial system adopted with respect to the Income Tax, he thought it was much better to leave this to be governed by local circumstances, and the local knowledge of the parties. He had been informed by the hon. Member for Greenock, that in that great commercial and maritime town the mode of rating by "means and substance," had been for a long time in operation, and had given the greatest satisfaction.

Mr. Baine

could not concur in the objections to this clause. He was sure that the adoption of a uniform rate of rating would cause great dissatisfaction in Scotland. It appeared to him that the parochial boards would be desirous to give every satisfaction to the ratepayers, and to adopt that mode of assessment most to the benefit of their constituents and the objects they had in view. With regard to the means and substance system, it had been followed in Greenock for a number of years; the one-half being levied on lands and houses, and the other half on the means and substance of the inhabitants other than lands and houses, being very nearly the second plan described in the Bill. The assessment in Greenock was considered in Scotland to be a heavy one, being 6,000l. in a town with 38,000 inhabitants. If that mode of assessment were given up, the effect would be to relieve the wealthy inhabitants at the expense of the middle and poorer classes. It was said that it was hard to assess funded property; but, for his part, he could not see the hardship. The mode of assessing on the means and substance was this. A pretty numerous committee was appointed, and among them there were always some who knew something of the circumstances of each individual in the town. They accordingly fixed a sum at which they estimated each man's income, and sent him an intimation of the sum on which they proposed to assess him. If he felt aggrieved, he complained to the board, and they appointed a day on which they would hear the reasons of appeal; and in almost every case an amicable settlement of the matter was come to. They did not assess on incomes below 40l.; and on incomes between 40l. and 100l. they assessed on a reduced scale. On all incomes above 100l. the rate of assessment was equal. The best proof that this system worked well was, not that it had existed in Greenock for twenty-eight years, but that all his communications from Greenock were in favour of preserving this mode of assessment.

Mr. Escott

observed, that if a parish adopted that first method, funded property would not be included in "means and substance," and would not contribute.

Mr. Darby

would support this clause, chiefly on the ground of the statement made by the hon. Member for Greenock; as he thought they ought not to alter a mode of rating which was found to have already worked well.

Mr. Edward Ellice

was clearly of opinion that every man ought to contribute to the poor according to what he had—that was, according to his means and substance in the general sense of the term; and he congratulated Greenock that there the people seemed to meet without squabbling to provide decently for the poor. But did it follow that the same sensible course would be followed in every parish in Scotland? There did appear to be a strange obstinacy on the part of the Government—he did not use the word in an offensive sense—in adhering to the term "means and substance" without explaining what was to be understood by the phrase, and how they were to be got at. A meeting had been held in the county of Fife, where resolutions were passed generally favourable to the Bill, but concluding with a strong protest against inserting the phrase "means and substance" without defining its meaning. He objected also to the operation of the measure in cases where resident proprietors were to be taxed upon their whole means and substance, wherever situated, for half the support of the poor in the parish. Take his own case. He was the only resident proprietor in the parish where he resided. The effect of the Bill would be that he would be taxed for one-half the support of the whole poor of the parish, though his property did not amount to one-tenth of the parish. Such a mode of assessment was a premium on absenteeism. He did not say he should leave the parish; but if he did so, he might say, without any egotistical feeling, that his absence would be an injury to the parish.

Viscount Duncan

said this discussion showed that it was easier to find fault with a measure than to bring forward a good one; but he thought the House ought to leave the clause as proposed by Her Majesty's Government. The local boards would decide which of the three modes of assessment they would adopt; and then there was a safeguard against the operation of local prejudices by the controlling power lodged in the board of supervision.

Mr. Redington

complained that under this clause an Irishman coming to Scotland would have his whole property rated, while, by the 72nd Clause, they refused relief to Irish paupers. The learned Lord Advocate stated that he did not wish to alter the law of Scotland with regard to the rating; he wished that he would be equally unwilling to alter the law of Scotland in regard to the mode of acquiring a settlement.

Mr. Poulett Scrope

said, that his Act was declaratory rather than legislative, and that it had improved the system of rating throughout the country.

Sir J. Graham

said, that it was the uniform mode of rating proposed in the Act in question, which had proved a failure.

Mr. Edward Ellice

said, that as the words "means and substance" were not sufficiently defined, he should divide against the clause.

The Committee divided on the Question, that the clause stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 92; Noes 32: Majority 60.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 53 being put,

Viscount Duncan

proposed as an Amendment, to add the words on "parochial boards" to this clause. He did not propose this in any feeling of hostility to the Bill, but with the view of allaying public feeling in Scotland against the board of supervision. He felt this so strongly that he should take the sense of the Committee on the subject.

The Lord Advocate

thought that it would not promote any public object to adopt the Amendment of the noble Lord. He thought it would destroy the independent action and the efficiency of the inspector to have him dependent on the parochial board; but on any reasonable ground of complaint they could always apply to the board of supervision, who would dismiss him. He, therefore, must resist the Amendment.

The Committee divided on the Question, that these words be there inserted:—Ayes 11; Noes 81: Majority 70.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 51 to 55 agreed to.

House resumed. Committee to sit again.

House adjourned at a quarter past one.