Commons Sitting of 14 July 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Slave Trade (Brazil); Municipal Districts, &c. (Ireland).
2°. Turnpike Acts Continuance; Loan Societies; Highway Rates; Militia Ballots Suspension; Valuation (Ireland); Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Fisheries (Ireland); Ecclesiastical Patronage (Ireland); Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Bonded Corn; Bail in Error.
Reported.—Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics; Masters and Workmen; Borough and Watch Rates; Joint Stock Companies; Art Unions (No. 2).
Private.—2°. White's Charity Estate; Ellison's Estate.
Reported.—Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings Railway (Hastings, Rye, and Ashford Extension); Yoker Road (No. 2); Shrewsbury and Holyhead Road; Heaviside's Divorce.
3°. and passed: — Monmouth and Hereford Railway; South Eastern Railway (Tunbridge to Tunbridge Wells); South Wales Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Plumptre, from Clergy and other Inhabitants of Herne Bay, for a more decided Support of the Church of England.—By Mr. Plumptre, from several places, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. Plumptre, from a great number of places-against the Grant to Maynooth College.—By Mr. Hawes, from. A. J. A. Hoffstaedt, a Prisoner in the Queen's Prison, for substituting Affirmations in lieu of Oaths.—By Mr. C. Bruce, and Mr. Pringle, from Presbytery of Moray, against Universities (Scotland) Bill.—By Sir T. Wilde, from Attorneys and Solicitors, practising in England, Wales, and Ireland, for Repeal of Stamp Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. Masterman, from Members of the Religious Society of Friends, against Charitable Trusts Bill.—From Thomas Bradfield, Westminster, for Repeal of Sixth Session of the Coal Trade (Port of London) Act.—By Mr. J. H. Vivian, from Inhabitants of Cwm Neath, for Establishment of County Courts.—By Mr. Hume, from Charles Henry Russell, against the Games and Wagers Bill.—By Mr. Ellice, from Coventry, for adopting Sanatory Regulations (Health of Towns).—By Sir J. Y. Buller, from Justices of the Peae of the County of Devon, against Justices' Clerks and Clerks of the Peace Bill.—By Sir J. Y. Buller, and Mr. Plumptre, from several places, for Alteration of Physic and Surgery Bill.—By Mr. Plumptre, and Lord Worsley, from several places, in favour of Physic and Surgery Bill.—By Mr. Ellice, and Mr. Hume, from Glasgow and Montrose, for Alteration of Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Rutherfurd, from Heritors of the Parish of North Leith, for Postponement of Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord Worsley, from Members of the Temperance Society, Barrow, Lincoln, for Diminishing the Number of Public Houses.—By Mr. C. Hope, from Trustees and Creditors on the great Turnpike Road betwixt Edinburgh and Glasgow by Bathgate and Airdrie, in favour of Turnpike Roads (Scotland) Bill.
The Speakertook the Chair at twelve o'clock; but only formal business was transacted till five o'clock.

THE CASE OF JOSEPH MASON.
Mr. H. R. Yorkesaid, that he wished to ask

473
the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the order of liberation was sent to Norfolk Island in behalf of Joseph Mason, who was transported upon a conviction for burglary at the York Spring Assizes, 1843, which conviction turned out to have been altogether and entirely unjust? Also when the said Joseph Mason might be expected in England?
Sir J. Graham, in reply, stated that after a conference with the Judge who tried the case, and after further investigation, being satisfied of the innocence of Joseph Mason with respect to the crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to transportation; and that another party was guilty of that crime, he had considered it to be his duty to advise the Crown to give a pardon to this person, and this was accordingly done on the 1st of January last. He had given directions also that Joseph Mason should be immediately provided with a free passage to England. He believed that the first intelligence of the return of this person would be by the arrival of the individual himself.

NEW ZEALAND.
Mr. Hawessaid, that he was anxious to put a question to the Under Secretary for the Colonies. It would be recollected that a few nights ago a question was asked of the hon. Gentleman, as to a conflict having taken place between Her Majesty's troops and the natives of New Zealand; and the hon. Gentleman then staled that the Government was without official intelligence on the subject. He now wished to ask whether any information had reached the Colonial Office since that time.
Mr. G. W. Hopereplied, that since the question was put to him respecting news from New Zealand, which it was stated had been made public, he could now state that the Colonial Office received despatches yesterday of the same date as those referred to; and the accounts received by the Government agreed with those which appeared in the Times and other newspapers three or four days ago. The des-patches stated, that a renewed attack had been made on the settlement in the Bay of Islands, by the chief who had formerly pulled down the flagstaff there. There was nothing now but an attack of a decidedly insurrectionary character. It was suspected some days before that an attack would take place; but not at the time
474
when it did take place. The natives were about 1,000 in number, and advanced in different bodies; and they showed in their proceedings considerable military discipline. The attack took place upon those who had charge of the blockhouse, near the flagstaff. Those who had charge of it, were taken by surprise, as they were absent, being out on a working party. The person who had the command, was not aware of the approach of the natives, until he turned round and saw it in their possession. A party of seamen and mariners were landed from Her Majesty's ship Hazard, then in the bay, to attack the natives; they were but a small party, and the officer commanding them, Captain Robertson, was severely wounded. They drove the natives from the blockhouse; but another accident then occurred, as the magazine in the blockhouse blew up and did much mischief. After a long and determined attack, the natives were everywhere repulsed. The gun, however, in one of the stockades had been spiked, while the other had been blown up, and the ammunition was nearly exhausted. No lives of any of the settlers were lost, with the exception of one gentleman, who was killed, by the explosion of the magazine. The loss altogether, taking troops, settlers, and seamen into account, was thirteen killed, and twenty-three wounded. The loss of the natives had not been ascertained, but it was very considerable. The settlers were then removed to Auckland; but the missionaries still remained in the Bay of Islands. In justice to the natives, he must say that, after the settlers retired, they forwarded a woman and child which they found in a blockhouse, under a flag of truce, to the settlement. Many of the natives were armed with American rifles, which they obtained by barter, and most of the remainder were armed with muskets. Troops, previously to this melancholy event, had been applied for, to the Government of New South Wales; and the North Star had arrived at Auckland from Sydney on the 23rd of March, with two hundred and ten troops and artillery on board. The last accounts were dated the 26th of the same month; and they certainly showed that the effects of this conflict were looked upon with great alarm in New Zealand. It did not appear that those proceedings grew out of any accidental circumstance, such as from a collision or dispute between the natives and

475
the settlers, but from a determined attempt on the part of the chief he had alluded to, to deny the sovereignty of the Queen. Such was the object in view, as far as he could ascertain, and not so much to make an attack upon the settlers. He might add that the arrival of troops from New South Wales had done much to restore confidence.

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH.
Mr. Humeobserved, that he had a Motion for to-morrow, respecting the recall of Lord Ellenborough from India; but he felt, under all the circumstances of the case, bound to abandon the Motion.

THE BOERS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
Mr. Hindleywished to ask a question of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, respecting some recent proceedings in the vicinity of the Cape of Good Hope. Had any accounts reached the Government with respect to an attack which, it had been stated in the public papers, had been made by the boers, from Natal, on the natives in or near the boundary of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope? and also, whether the Governor had left Cape Town for the frontier in consequence of this?
Mr. Hopereplied, that no report of an official character from the Governor had reached the Colonial Office, giving an account of the proceedings alluded to. He must state, however, that, from what he had seen in the public papers, it appeared to him that a wrong impression had gone abroad as to the facts of the case. From the facts that had reached him, it appeared that the collision did not take place within the boundary of the Colony of the Cape. The Griquas, upon whom the attack had been made, were an independent tribe living beyond the Cape; and therefore not within the limits of the jurisdiction of the British Government. A number of missionaries had settled with the Griquas, as with an independent nation, and the attack made upon Phillipolis, the capital of that country, did not appear to have been made by persons from Natal; for the places were 300 miles distant from each other. The boers who had made the attack were those who, since the abolition of slavery in the Colony, had emigrated to the north of the boundary of the Cape; and it did not appear that there was any connexion between
476
them and the boers at Natal. The conflict had taken place before the Colonial Government could interfere to prevent it. At present there was a considerable force at the Cape, and this had been increased since 1842, by a regiment of cavalry 500 strong; and no doubt Sir P. Maitland would take proper steps to protect the Griquas against further attack; but it should be remembered that they were not Her Majesty's subjects.
Mr. Hindleyasked whether the right of sovereignty was claimed by this country over the boers?
Mr. Hopereplied, most unquestionably. The boers who had emigrated, had always been regarded by Her Majesty's Government as subjects of the British Crown. Steps had been taken long ago at Natal for this purpose, and a Lieutenant-Governor had been appointed to govern that place.

THE BLOCKADE OF THE RIO DE LA PLATE.
Mr. Milner Gibsonasked whether General Rosas, of Buenos Ayres, had the right to stop the navigation of the river Plate, and to prevent communication with Paraguay by those waters; and whether the British Government had acknowledged the right of General Rosas to close the navigation of the river Plate to foreign vessels?
Sir R. Peelsaid, that General Rosas, in the assertion of belligerent rights, had intimated an intention to establish a blockade of the waters referred to; and the British Government had expressed its disposition to assent to the blockade, on the condition that it should be generally enforced. The French Government had, in the first instance, claimed that French vessels should be exempted; and Great Britain then of course refused to permit the blockade. Subsequently, however, France, it was understood, had professed her willingness to have her vessels included in the operation of the blockade; and Her Majesty's Government then also assented on the condition, as before, that the blockade was to be, so long as it lasted, of universal application. As to the Paraguay, General Rosas, occupying both banks of that river, claimed the right of preventing navigation upon it. With reference to the Plate river, the blockade of that river required the consent of the other Powers, and Great Britain had assented on the conditions he had stated.

477
If the hon. Gentleman, however, required fuller information on the subject for the guidance of merchants, his best course would be to apply to the Foreign Office.

THE BALLYHASSIG AFFRAY.
Mr. E. B. Roche, in reference to an unhappy collision at Ballyhassig, begged to ask the right hon. Baronet opposite whether any orders had been issued precluding, as was most desirable, the police from attending any fair or other popular assembly in Ireland, unless a magistrate were present? He had no hesitation, from his knowledge of the population about Ballyhassig, in saying, that had but one magistrate of influence or station in the country been present on the occasion of the late lamentable affray, no loss of life would have taken place, nor would that loss of life have occurred, had the police not gone to the fair.
Sir Thomas Fremantlemust abstain from saying anything that might be construed into an opinion, respecting the late unfortunate transaction, pending the inquiry now being prosecuted by a competent tribunal. He might observe, however, as to the presence of magistrates on the occasion, that he believed several magistrates had been present during the day, though none remained till the time when the unhappy affray occurred, which was at nine o'clock in the evening. With reference to the order suggested by the hon. Gentleman, he must decline at present giving any answer respecting it.

NEW ZEALAND.
Viscount Howickwished to ask the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, whether he proposed to lay the instructions sent out to Captain Grey on the Table of the House, before they were called upon to vote the Supplemental Estimate for New Zealand?
Sir R. Peelmust answer now, as he had answered on a former night the same question, that Captain Grey not being as yet in New Zealand, there would be, with reference to the large proportion of the instructions forwarded for his guidance when he arrived, great inconvenience in making those instructions public at present. There might be circumstances to prevent Captain Grey from reaching New Zealand for a time, a contingency which Government had framed arrangements to meet, and which rendered it additionally
478
unadvisable to make public as yet the instructions sent out for him. Part of the instructions relating to the New Zealand Company, however, had been communicated by Lord Stanley to a deputation from that Company; and he (Sir R. Peel) had no objection to lay the instructions which referred to that Company before the House.
Viscount Howickbegged to ask whether the extracts promised by the right hon. Baronet were such as would give the House a general notion of the policy which the Government proposed to act upon for the future, with reference to New Zealand? He, and those who thought with him, considered that the past calamities of the Colony arose from the past policy of the Government; and before Parliament separated, they believed it to be absolutely necessary—should the future policy of the Government with New Zealand, as far as it could be collected, not promise to be more satisfactory than the past—to have another discussion on the subject. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would give, at all events, such extracts from the instructions as would enable the House to form a general judgment as to the policy they contemplated, ere it was called upon to meet a heavy additional demand, occasioned entirely by the past errors of Government.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the noble Lord, when the extracts promised were laid on the Table, would be able to form a judgment how far they gave an insight into the contemplated policy of Government with reference to New Zealand, and could act according to his then view of the matter. He must confess he did not consider they would enable the House to form a judgment as to the general policy assigned to Captain Grey; but, he must repeat, he did not hold it consistent with his public duty to give, at present, any fuller information on the subject.

COAL TRADE (PORT OF LONDON) BILL.
The House in Committee on the Coal Trade (of the Port of London) Bill.
On Clause 2,
The Earl of Lincolnsaid, that in this clause he had to propose certain amendments. He need not go into a long statement of the necessity of widening the streets, not only of the city of London, but of other large towns. The evidence which had been given before a Committee

479
of the House was conclusive on this subject, and on the necessity of providing funds for this purpose. It was particularly mentioned, that the greater part of White-chapel was badly drained, overcrowded, and that the streets, courts, and lanes admitted of no current of air. As early as 1812 there was a Report on this subject; but in 1838, a Committee was appointed, which consisted of several metropolitan Members, and they recommended the tax on coal. In the following year another Committee was appointed, with a still larger proportion of metropolitan Members, when the question was over and over again considered, and all were in favour of an increase of the existing coal tax. The coal merchants, with one single exception, gave evidence in favour of this tax. He had himself made inquiries of some of the most influential coal-masters, and they had shown, by the weekly returns of the coal market for several successive years, that as the rise was by threepences, the duty of 1d. could not be felt by the consumer. If the duty were now remitted, it would only go into the pockets of the coal merchants. The noble Lord concluded by moving, as an addition to Clause 2—
"In order to provide a fund for the opening of poor and densely-populated districts in the Metropolis, or for keeping open spaces in the immediate vicinity of the same, as a means of promoting the public convenience, recreation, and health."
Mr. Williamswholly objected to the proposition of the noble Lord. He had as decided objections to a tax upon coals as he had to a tax upon bread, because, in this great metropolis, it was quite as much a necessary of life. The great bulk of the tax was paid by the poorer classes, and that was the reason why it had been so long maintained. Upwards of a million sterling had been raised from the tax within the last few years; 200,000 l. had been spent upon that enormous job the Fleet Market, which had been of no use to any one. Why did they, in this case, depart from the mode of raising all other municipal taxes? Merely because the greater part of the tax was paid by the poorer classes. He had not the slightest objection to the plan of improvement proposed by the noble Lord; but why should not the cost of it be raised by a house-tax? There were thousands of people, who, residing in the vale of the Thames, would be subjected to the tax; and what possible good would
480
their improvements in Southwark do to them?
Mr. Humewould ask who could possibly benefit from the proposed improvements, except the owners of the property in the neighbourhood where they were carried on? and undoubtedly they were the parties who ought to bear the cost. The noble Lord had alluded to three Committees who had been in favour of the plan; but not one Coal Committee which had sat within these ten years but had made every endeavour to get the tax abolished. Even the last Committee, of which the noble Lord had been chairman, were nearly unanimous against his plan; and he did not consider it fair that he should bring it forward in the House, where he hoped to carry it, by the aid of Her Majesty's Government. He would, indeed, be sorry if the House should support the noble Lord. He would give all the opposition in his power to the further continuance of the iniquitous tax.
Mr. Mastermanwas sorry that the noble Lord had determined to renew the tax. The city of London required no further aid, and the tax would expire with the year, and he thought the time had come when the poor of London should cease to pay the additional tax upon an article of such necessity as coal. He felt it to be his duty to vote against the proposition of the noble Lord.
The Earl of Lincolnwas, indeed, surprised to hear his hon. Friend oppose his proposition, and the more so at the grounds on which he rested his opposition. He had not intended to inform the House of the manner in which his proposal originated; but he felt himself compelled to do so after what had fallen from his hon. Friend. The tax was about to expire, when he was waited upon by a very influential gentleman connected with the City, who represented that the repeal of the tax would benefit no person in the world except the coal merchants. He agreed with him in that opinion, and having consulted with his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, he adopted the scheme. He was the more astonished at what had fallen from his hon. Friend, because it was not a long while since he headed a deputation to his right hon. Friend, when a proposal was made, not for continuing that small tax, but to impose an additional duty of 1s. 6d. a ton for the sole purposes of the city of London. His right hon. Friend certainly had told his hon. Friend

481
behind him that considering the taxes already levied in the metropolis for the sole benefit of the city of London, it would be most unfair to subject it to an additional duty for that purpose, and he declined to accede to the proposition. His hon. Friend and another hon. Gentleman connected with the city of London, the hon. Member for Preston, had attended before the Committee, and not only advocated, certainly more ably, than he (Lord Lincoln) could do, the continuance of the tax; but argued against the supposition that the remission of it would be a benefit to any but the coal merchants. He (Lord Lincoln) told his hon. Friend, that the city of London having got a million and a half for improvements, he thought it right to look to Whitechapel, Southwark, and Lambeth, in which there were poor and densely-populated districts which much required improvement, and that if the penny was to be granted at all, he should propose that it should be appropriated to the benefit of those places. And yet now, after all that had passed, his hon. Friend came and said, that under the circumstances he should oppose the tax being imposed at all.
Mr. Mastermansaid, in explanation, that he had said in the Committee that if the tax was to be carried, the city of London would expect a portion of it of course.
Viscount Howicksaid, that this bill would tax the consumers of coal in the valley of the Thames, in order to make improvements in which they had no interest whatever. He knew the condition of the labouring classes in that district, and he was aware that in Staines, and Datchet, and Windsor, the high price of coals was a serious evil to the working classes. When he looked to the condition of the working classes in that district, as compared with the condition of the same class in his native county, he could not avoid remarking the inferiority of the condition of the labouring classes in the valley of the Thames, and he attributed much of that to the price of fuel; he was, therefore, opposed to this tax upon coal for a purpose in which a great number of the consumers had no interest. Another objection to the tax, was its indirect operation as regarded the poor man, who in consequence of buying his coal in small quantities, would be obliged to pay twopence instead of a penny a ton as a tax. It would be highly desirable to expend a considerable outlay in improving localities
482
densely populated; but there were sources available for that purpose infinitely preferable to this, one of which would be the levying of a house tax, or of a tax upon the ground-rents in the particular districts selected for improvement. To adopt either of these modes would enable the Government to raise a sufficient tax from the owners of property, instead of an insufficient tax from the labouring and poorer classes. The value of property in the improved districts was increased to the full amount of the tax, if not in a much greater ratio. These were his grounds for opposing this tax. It was highly objectionable as concerned the labouring classes who paid the tax throughout the valley of the Thames. He thought the Government might have commuted the whole tax; and he, for one, would not consent to the continuance of even a portion of it.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the object contemplated by his noble Friend was not the mere ornament of the metropolis, but that his proposal was simply to constitute a fund for public improvements, which could not be appropriated without the sanction of Parliament; and when his noble Friend asked the House to let him appropriate this fund, he was desirous expressly to provide by it the means of promoting the health and comfort of those districts of the metropolis where, from the crowded state of the buildings and dwelling-houses, there was the greatest liability to disease. Of late years very general attention had been called to this important subject. He (Sir R. Peel) would confine himself now to the metropolis, and to the particular parts of it, the salubrity of which it was proposed to promote; and, in so doing, he felt it his duty to call the attention of the Committee to specific facts, connected with the state of those parts of the metropolis. Dr. South-wood Smith, a gentleman of great talent and experience, had directed his attention to this subject, and had personally observed the condition of the metropolis in its several districts. He had attended for many years at the Fever Hospital, and observed:
"The records of the London Fever Hospital prove, unhappily, that there are certain localities in the metropolis and its vicinity which are the constant seats of fever, from which this disease is never absent, although it may be found to prevail less extensively and with less severity in some years and some seasons than in others, but still in which it is incessantly committing its ravages."
The work from which the right hon. Baronet

483
quoted then went on to state that the author's experience, during the present year, afforded a verification of the correctness of these statements. The metropolis had been visited by an epidemic, which was still raging, but which did not prevail in every part of London; nor did it prevail even in every fever district; for there were districts in this town known by that name. The author was asked why he called these districts by that name; to which the reply was, that—
"There are many districts in which fever is always so prevalent that the localities in question may be regarded as the ordinary seats of that disease."
Farther on it was stated, that—
"From the commencement of January to April in the present year, we have actually received into the wards of the hospital five hundred fever patients, and during a considerable portion of that time applications for admission have been refused, at the rate of thirty or forty a day, in consequence of there being no accommodation for them."
And again—
"In some districts there is hardly a single house in which fever has not prevailed, and in some cases hardly a single room in a house in which it was not to be found. I have observed this in particular to be the case in certain localities about Bethnal-green."
Now the object of the present measure was to provide a fund for the purpose of counteracting, and, if possible, wholly removing these evils. A Committee had suggested that the best mode of so doing was to put a duty upon coal. The noble Lord suggested a tax upon property, on the property of those who would be benefited by the contemplated improvements. That certainly appeared, at first sight, both judicious and rational. Nothing, however, was more difficult, when they came practically to deal with the question, than to say precisely who were the parties so benefited. If they could tell him who were the parties who would be benefited by improvements such as contemplated in Bethnal-green and Whitechapel, and enable him to apportion properly and equitably those burdens which, on account of the benefits which would accrue to their property from improvements, they would be liable to bear, he would willingly wave the proposition now before the House, and adopt the suggestion which had been made. The improvements contemplated would be beneficial to several districts, not
484
only in a healthful but also in a moral point of view. The Government, therefore, proposed—having no other means at present at command liable to less objection—to continue for a definite period the tax of one penny a ton upon coals, a tax which was now in existence. When it became a question, when there was a duty already existing of thirteen pence a ton, and which was to endure until the year 1862, with the exception of a penny a ton of that duty, which was about to expire, what was to be done with that small duty so about to expire; the Government proposed that the penny a ton should be continued for the same period as the other twelve-pence, in order that—the twelve-pence being applied to other purposes—the additional penny might be appropriated, not to the purposes of the Government, but for the purpose of constituting a fund from which the districts of the metropolis, called the fever districts, should be supplied with the means of necessary and permanent improvement. Looking at the parties to be benefited, looking at the evils under which these parties now suffered, at the fevers and other diseases which existed amongst them, and contrasting these sufferings with the absolute good which would arise from giving, for a certain number of years, such a sum as 11,000 l. a year to form a fund for the mitigation of the evils alluded to, he could not but think that the actual practical physical good which would accrue from such an appropriation would greatly predominate over all the objections to the tax. Those were the grounds on which he gave his cordial support to the Motion of his noble Friend.
Mr. Alderman Humpherywould not have said one word, had it not been for the fallacy of the noble Lord's proposition, when he said that the poor were to be benefited by the penny tax being taken off. He would like to know if the taking off the duly would reduce the price of coals to the poor? Now, by every improvement which took place in London the poor received a positive benefit. As one instance of this, he would like the noble Lord to see the number of those employed in the manufacture of bricks, called for by the various improvements at present in progress. As to the benefit which it was said the poor would derive from the abolition of the tax of an additional penny a ton on coals, he would like

485
to know how many poor families consumed more than one ton a year? In that case the saving to each family would be a penny a year.
Mr. Hawessaid, that all parties were agreed that this was in itself a bad tax. The right hon. Baronet said, that it was extremely difficult to suggest any other tax as a substitute for it, and as the Government were anxious that great sanatory benefits should be conferred upon certain districts, they were reduced to the necessity of continuing this tax. He, however, wished to know if the Commission had ever seriously inquired whether a substitute could or could not be found? So far as he had learnt, he believed they had not. It was worthy of remark, that upon that Commission were few persons connected with the metropolis. Nor was he ready to believe that the residents of the metropolis would not consent to the imposition of some other tax as a substitute for this, for the purpose of affording a fund by which to effect improvements. A great deal had been said about the price of coal. As far as the price was concerned, much effect might not be produced, either one way or other, by the remission of the duty. He objected to the continuance of this tax, because he believed that a little more investigation would have led to the discovery of a better source of taxation, for the purposes contemplated—a source free from the objections which were chargeable upon this tax; and which, if it pressed heavily upon individuals, would fall upon the rich and not upon the poor; whereas the coal-tax was distinctly a tax pressing upon the poor for the benefit of property, wherever its proceeds were to be expended in improvements.
Sir Charles Lemonwas understood to say, that the Committee did inquire whether a substitute could not be discovered for the present tax, but had come to the conclusion that such could not be found.
Mr. Huttregretted that the noble Lord (the Earl of Lincoln) had come forward as the advocate of such a measure as this. It was a proposition for laying a tax upon the poorer classes, in opposition to every principle of sound policy. He objected to the principle of the tax—not to its amount; but the question of principle had been altogether abandoned by the noble Lord. Already the amount of taxation to be paid by coal coming from the north of England
486
was disgraceful to the legislation of the country, and the noble Lord would gain but little credit from attempting to increase it. He trusted the House would, notwithstanding the confidence which the noble Lord reposed in his majority, after the discussion which had now taken place, rally round sound principle, and defeat the Government.
The Committee divided on the Question, that the words be inserted:—Ayes 69; Noes 42: Majority 27.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed. Report to be received.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND).
House in Committee on the Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill.
Clauses to 64 inclusive, agreed to.
On Clause 65, which enacts that all assessments imposed for the relief of the poor shall be applicable to the relief of occasional as well as permanent poor; provided always, that nothing therein contained shall be held to confer a right to demand relief on able-bodied persons out of employment,
Mr. Hastieinquired, whether there was not a decision of the Scotch courts that the able-bodied poor were entitled to relief?
The Lord Advocateobserved that there was such a decision; but still the prevailing opinion was, that able-bodied persons were not now entitled to relief by law. The present Bill would leave the law as it now was.
Mr. Aglionbythought it a great evil to leave the law in doubt; and the weak, impotent, and destitute, ought not to be the only objects of the Bill, if the able-bodied could not get work. The word "occasional" would not include them; for that only designated cases of temporary sickness and the like, as opposed to "permanent" poor. Let the workhouse test or any other be applied; but the able-bodied poor, when out of work, must not starve.
Mr. Pringlesaid, there was no wish in Scotland to have the present system changed. Able-bodied poor out of work must go elsewhere to find it; by law the parish could not, however willing, relieve them. If it were done, it would change the whole habits of the people, and the Bill would be a perfect nuisance; and in some places the people would live in a state of idleness.
Mr. Borthwickwas sure the workhouse test would not suit Scotland; it was only calculated to destroy the independence of the people. The able-bodied poor were not now entitled to relief in the sense in which other poor were; but it was neither the law nor the practice in Scotland to exclude them from all relief when starving. The best way would be to move the omission of the proviso.
Mr. Ewartthought the law, being ambiguous, ought to be settled by this Act; but the present clause seemed to exclude able-bodied poor from relief, even when only occasionally destitute.
Mr. S. Crawfordagreed that the proviso had better be excluded. If the able-bodied poor had a right to relief, it ought not to be taken away, particularly when the clearance system had been prevailing, as it had been proved to be, in some parts of Scotland.
Mr. Ewartmoved that the proviso—
"That nothing herein contained shall be held to confer a right to demand relief on able-bodied persons out of employment"—be omitted.
Mr. Hastiesaid, that in Paisley the authorities had had the greatest possible difficulty in keeping the public peace in times of distress, when they were told that by the law in England no man could be allowed to starve, and when they had an impression that under the law of Scotland they had a legal right to demand relief. He called upon the Government in this clause to determine whether the able-bodied should or should not have the right.
Mr. Borthwicksaid, that by the law of 1579 in Scotland, as by the law of the same year in England, the able-bodied poor were to be provided with work, and the proviso in this clause would do away with the old law.
The Committee divided on the Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause:—Ayes 73; Noes 21: Majority 52.
Mr. Hastiemoved the following proviso:—
"Provided nevertheless, 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 to obtain
488
employment; Provided always, that such relief to the able-bodied has the approbation of the Board of Supervision."
The Lord Advocatesaid, he must oppose this clause upon the same grounds as the previous proposition. If it were dangerous to introduce the principle of able-bodied relief, under particular circumstances, into counties, it was equally so as regarded town.
Mr. Ross and Mr. Baine, in support of the clause,
The Committee again divided on the Question that the clause be added:—Ayes 31; Noes 67: Majority 36.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 71,
Mr. Sharman Crawfordmoved to expunge the proviso at the end of the clause, enacting—
"That it shall not be competent for any Court of Law to entertain or decide any action relative to the amount of relief granted by parochial Boards, unless the Board of Supervision shall previously have declared that there is a just cause of action, as hereinbefore provided."
The hon. Member said he could not consent to create any obstacle to the poor man obtaining relief by appealing to the higher court of justice; and he must, therefore, press the Amendment.
Mr. P. M. Stewarthoped that some explanation from the proper quarter would be given of this anomalous clause. It was unconstitutional in principle, and its operation would be most unfair and unjust to the poor.
The Lord Advocatesaid, the clause was one which would confer the greatest possible benefit on the poor of Scotland. It would take them out of the hands of those professional persons who had their interests under their control at present; it would relieve them from the tedium and risk of lawsuits, and would save the parish funds for the relief of pauperism. The case stood thus at present: if the parochial board should not listen to the pauper's application for relief, he could go to the Supreme Court, and he could get relief there, because, being a pauper, he could sue in formâ pauperis; but in order so to sue, he must obtain a certificate from a body of professional persons, who, by the practice of the court, were appointed to investigate the matter, and report whether the party applying had a good case or not. Then, having got their certificate, he could go before the court; but he might be there

489
many long years. What did this clause give him? It enacted that, if the parochial board should not have given the pauper what he thought adequate relief, instead of remaining content with that decision (as must be done in England), he should be enabled, by the simplest application—by a mere letter—to the board of supervision, to call upon them to consider his case and inquire into it; and he (the Lord Advocate) ventured to say that a board constituted as that would be, partly of lawyers and partly of persons not lawyers, would be as capable of saying whether the pauper had a good case, and giving him a certificate to sue in formâ pauperis, as the lawyers who at present reported to the Court of Session. But more than this, the board of supervision was empowered to fix the amount of relief which the pauper should receive, and that amount of relief he would receive unless it were taken from him by the court of law, and he could get that without expense or delay. Was that no benefit? If the matter were carried into a court of law, he (the Lord Advocate) ventured to say, that no long time would elapse before it would be found that the court very seldom overthrew the decision of the board of supervision in his favour, if any parish should have the temerity to enter into litigation on the subject.
Mr. Aglionbythought the learned Lord Advocate had not answered the objection of the hon. Member (Mr. S. Crawford). The hon. Member objected that where the board of supervision should have refused a certificate, the pauper would be barred from suing in formâ pauperis, unless he obtained the certificate of the learned persons of whom the Lord Advocate had spoken, and who would never grant a certificate after the refusal of the board. The pauper would also be barred of his interim aliment, and it was for these reasons, which the learned Lord Advocate had not refuted, that the proviso appeared to him (Mr. Aglionby) to be worse than useless. To expunge it would not lead to litigation either on the part of attorneys or paupers, and he thought it ought not to stand in the Bill.
Mr. Hastieobserved, that this clause provided one law for the rich, and another for the poor. The rich man could go at once to the Court of Session, whilst that step was denied to the poor man.
Mr. Wakleycould not support the
490
clause, for he believed that it tended to make this Bill one of the most cruel Poor Laws that ever was enacted. The Bill itself inflicted the greatest possible injury upon the poor of Scotland; and, looking at this clause, and those clauses further on with regard to settlement, he feared that he had done wrong hitherto in giving his support to it at all. He trusted that the Bill would not be allowed to pass this Session, at any rate, and he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman why such a proviso should be allowed to remain?
The Committee divided, on the Question, that the proviso stand part of the clause:—Ayes 79; Noes 35: Majority 44.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 72,
"That from and after the passing of this Act, no person shall be held to have acquired a settlement in any parish by residence, unless such person shall have resided for five years in such parish;"
Lord Duncanmoved that the term of five years should be substituted for seven years.
The Committee divided on the Question, that the word "five" stand part of the clause:—Ayes 108; Noes 8: Majority 100.
The Committee again divided on the Question, that the word "continuously" be inserted after the words "five years":—Ayes 88; Noes 25: Majority 63.
Amendment agreed to.
The Lord Advocateproposed an alteration under which the Irish were to be enabled to obtain a settlement in Scotland after certain residence, and under certain circumstances. It had been said that as the Scotch were allowed to obtain a settlement in Ireland without any condition, the Irish, upon a principle of reciprocity, should have the same benefit in Scotland. But the share of nothing which the Irish gave to the Scotch, was no reason for the share of something which the Irish claimed from them. But be that as it might, a fixed residence ought to be demanded from every stranger before he gained a settlement; and under the Bill, as it now stood, the Irish were treated in the same manner as other strangers. He proposed to strike out certain words of the clause in order that, if a person had been; absent five years, without having resided say twelvemonths out of that period in the parish to which he belonged, his right of settlement should not be continued.
Colonel Rawdonthought the proposition of the hon. and learned Advocate was a fair one. He desired to see the Irishman in Scotland placed upon the same footing as the Scotchman in Ireland.
Mr. George Hamiltonsaid, he thought the proposition a fair one. It was fairer than the speech, and better than the reasoning, of the Lord Advocate; the learned Lord had neither done justice to the Irish, nor to the administration of the Irish Poor Law. It was quite true that there was no settlement or right to relief founded upon settlement in Ireland; but then it should be recollected that the want of a settlement in Ireland did not preclude relief—and the relief afforded was not an occasional but a permanent relief. That relief was afforded in Ireland to Scotchmen equally as to Irishmen—destitution was there the only qualification for relief; and, practically, every destitute person was considered to have a right to relief, whatever country he belonged to. Instead, therefore, of there being no reciprocity, as the Lord Advocate had stated, the Scotchman in Ireland was actually better off than in Scotland. In Scotland the Scotchman could not claim relief, unless he had a settlement of five years' industrial residence. In Ireland he was relieved, without settlement, if he was destitute. The Irish system, therefore, was the more liberal of the two—and Scotchmen had no reason to complain. At the same time he thought it not unfair that a stranger, after acquiring a settlement, should forfeit it by a long absence; and he was, therefore, satisfied with the proposition of Government.
Viscount Duncanobserved, that in England the law of settlement was very stringent; that in Ireland there was no law of settlement; and he now wanted to know if it were intended that five years' residence in Scotland should constitute a right to relief. He would ask, were they prepared to allow as many as pleased of the disabled Irish to establish themselves in Scotland?
Viscount Clementssaid, that a great many Scotchmen were employed in Ireland in confidential and lucrative situations; therefore no undue impediment should be put in the way of the Irish acquiring settlements in Scotland.
Mr. Lockhartthought the alteration introduced into the clause affecting the Irish paupers, merited the most serious attention of hon. Members opposite.
Sir W. Somervillehastened to express the satisfaction with which he witnessed the favourable change made in the Bill so far as the natives of Ireland were concerned. He was quite certain that the sentiment of hospitality which inspired that alteration, was felt, to an equal if not a greater degree, amongst his countrymen for strangers. Indeed, he could quote instances in which, amongst the applicants for relief in a district in the south of Ireland, preference had been given to Scotchmen over Irishmen, purely from a generous desire to relieve the stranger first.
Sir J. M'Taggartobjected most strongly to the proposed alteration in the law of settlement in Scotland as regarded the Irish. In the district with which he was connected, and which he consequently best knew, the Scotch very seriously felt their irruption. On looking at the roll of the poor in his own parish, he found that four-fifths of those receiving relief were Irish. The influx was principally from Donaghadee to Portpatrick. One day, when he was crossing over from Ireland to the latter port, he said to an Irish labourer, who was a passenger in the same vessel, "Well, Pat, and what takes you to Scotland?" "Oh, an sure your Honour," replied the fellow, "it is not want, for we've plenty of that at home." He objected to any alteration in the clause.
Colonel Rawdonsaid, that after the alteration made by the learned Lord Advocate, he should certainly not persist in bringing forward the Amendment of which he had given notice.
Mr. P. M. Stewartapproved of the alterations proposed by the Lord Advocate. He thought that after five years' industrial labour, a man earned a right to settlement; and he believed, that if the law was properly observed by residents in Scotland, they would have none but useful Irishmen in that country.
Mr. G. Craigcomplained, that the provisions of this Bill should be abandoned in this wholesale way. He must say, he thought the Scotch Members were not treated with proper respect, when important alterations were introduced of which they had received no intimation.
The Amendments proposed by the Lord Advocate were then agreed to.
The Committee divided, on the Question, that the clause as amended stand

493
part of the Bill:—Ayes 95; Noes 16: Majority 79.
Clause agreed to. House resumed. Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at two o'clock.