The Press. — London, England, 1857-06-20 00:00:00

JUNE - 20, 1857. they must consider what it was proposed to substitute for the existing evil, and what objections there would be to the substitute. Now, what were the possible substitutes for that system to which the hon. and learned gentleman had called the attention of the house ? The first was union rating. The hon. and learned member claimed the support of the late lamented Mr. C. Buller to his views; but Mr. Buller's notion only went to the length of union rating and no further. Mr. Baines's proposal of 1854, also, was only a proposition for union rating; but that was a system which would afford no remedy for the grievances which were urged in the metropolis; for bow by any possibility could the wealth of the west be brought to contribute to the poverty of the east by any plan of union rating? It was true that for the city of London a union rating might be of great advantage to the poor parishes, and he should be glad to see it adopted for the city of London; but that would be a distinct measure for that portion of the metropolis alone, and would not touch the general question. What was the next substitute ? Would throwing the metropolis into large districts be of any avail ? He believed nut, for they would still meet with this difficulty— that in the east, where the poor were accumulated, the pro perty was of no comparative value compared with the num -1).- of poor, while in the west the property was of high value and the poor were few ; so that no possible allocation of districts that they could adopt would effect the desired object. It would be impossible to get anything like an equality of rating iu that way, and therefore the grievance would be practically untou2led. What was the next remedy ? Would a common purse—a common fund—for the whole of the metropolis answer the purpose ? Was it proposed for the whole of this great metropolis, for this province with its 2,500,000 inhabitants and its 10,000,0001. or 11,000,0001. of rateable property, to have one common purse, to be dipped into by every one of the existing local administrations? To such a proposition he apprehended the house never would consent, for no more certain plan could be devised for the utter demolition of the entire property of the metropolis. if all these substitutes failed, then they were reduced to the adoption of one great poor law administration for the metropolis. Now, he asked the house fairly to work out the results involved in such a proposition. How were they to get a proper board of unpaid guardians to administer the law for a population of 2,500,000 souls—a population larger than that of any county in the kingdom ? What imaginary number of unpaid guardians would undertake the responsibility of conducting that administration, and what amount of time and attention would be sufficient on the part of any con ceivable body to carry on the affairs of such a vast concern ? Well, if that would not do, were they prepared to have one great paid administration for the relief of the poor in the metropolis—was the metropolis to give up the management of its parochial affairs and to throw the whole into the hands of a great paid ce.►tralised body? Then, it appeared to him that there was no other alternative—no possible conceivable remedy to the extent that was desired for the evil that existed. The claim for an equalisation of rates in the different parishes of the metropolis was based on the present in equality, and it was found that a uniform rate of Is. 71d. over the entire metropolis would be sufficient for the pur poses of poor relief. But, suppose that we had the metro polls under one system of administration, with a rate of I s. 7 1 d. in the pound, what should we say to those other large towns that were rated much higher than that—to Liver pool, for example, rated in 1650 at Is. 101 d. in the pound, Manchester at 2s. ;34d., Birmingham at 2s. Old., Norwich at 4s. lOid., and Bristol at 2s. 9d.? Exactly the same cry which had been raised for justice by certain districts of the metropolis would be raised with unanswerable force by the heavier rated districts in the country if the rate in the metropolis were reduced to a uniform Is. 71d. He did not know what the house might be prepared to say on the subject, hut he spoke his own sentiments, as well as those of the Government and of persons who had closely investigated this question, when he stated his belief that a national rate would never be maintained fur any length of time as a provision for the poor of this country. Mr. BUTLER considered an equable and national rate far preferable to the existing inequalities. Mr. Locxs contended that ample cause had been shown for the appointment of a select committee. Mr. KNIGHT thought he could show by a few figures that the complaining parishes had really not so much to complain of as hon. members seemed to think. He bad gone back to 1815, and taken out the amount of poor rates paid by several of the " poor parishes "as they were called. He had then drawn a line every five years, and made an average of amount paid in each quinquennial period. He found that the average of the poor rates, although it bad varied, had not increased much between 1813 and 1856, while the amount of property upon which property tax was levied and which paid the poor rates had increased considerably. He found the average amounts paid in the periods he bad men tioned were as foil 18,234 15,246 17,731 16,420 14,021 14,133 14,5t5 11,928 17,538 8,723 9,00 t 14,361 17,537 10,155 13,003 14,64 , 13,655 20,661 , s : 4 It I O ! 13,014 35,944 12,598 31,571 13,546 31,973 16,003 36,441 10,935.21,473 12,065 34,767 19,157 39,707 15,482 37,109 17,213 49,995 10,064 9.367 9,406 10.30 7,323 12,461 14,224 13,660 13,118 17,840 17,131 28,041 20407 17,622! 20,660' 18,567! 24,4431 38,711, 13,01 t: 13,546 16,205 1e,935 12,065 15,157 14,4t12 17,213 The value of the property in those parishes had increased between 1815 and 1856, in Bermondsey, 5 per cent.; in Bethnal green, 88 per cent.; in Southwark, 62 per cent.; in Lambeth, Pl 4 per cent. ; in Poplar, 115 per cent. ; in Shoreditch, 112 per cent.; and in Fulham, 1:31 per cent. The increase of the value of the property was far greater in each of these parishes than the increase of the poor rate. The poor parishes, therefore; had no more ground of complaint against the rich parishes than one man had to complain of another being richer than himself. If it could be shown that there was a rapidly increasing poor rate in the poor parishes, and if that increase could be traced to some operations going on in the other parishes, then a ground of complaint might be laid. On a compa rison of the rates in the (pound paid by each county in England in the years 1814 and 1851, calculated on the annual value of real property assessed to the property tax, he found that in the county which was must highly taxed in 1815 the reduction which had taken place up to 1851 amounted to 3s. 6d. in the pound, while in the county which was the lowest taxed the reduction had only amounted to Id. Sussex, which in 1815 was taxed at ss. O'd. in the pound, in 1851 only paid Is. titl.; and Northumberland, which in 1815 paid Is. lid. in the pound, in 1851 paid Is. hi. This showed the extraordinary equalisation which had been going on during this period. Mr. MArass supported the motion. He thought a case had been made out for inquiry and in favour of enlarg ing _ the area of taxation. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, on the contrary, was of opinion that no sufficient ground had been shown for the appointment of a committee. All the facts were perfectly well ascertained. It was a question as to the distribution of the relief of the poor, and ample returns were upon the table whence a judgment could be formed upon it. He objected to the motion also on the same ground as Mr. Bon verie—namely, that unless the house was prepared to consent to the principle of a national rate, throw ing the whole of the collections into hotchpot, and destroying the whole local administration of the Poor Law, giving it up entirely to the Government, it would not be justified in granting a committee. Mr. SrIINEIDER and Lord R. GROSVENOR briefly supported the motion, and Mr. AYRTOS having replied, the house divided, when the motion was negatived by 123 to 81. Mr. Note moved an alteration in the standing orders relating to divisions, increasing the interval between taking the voices and closing the door from two minutes to four on Wednesdays. The motion was opposed by Mr. FITZROY and Lord PALMERSTON, and negatived. The house then went into committee upon the Grand Juries (Metropolitan Police District) Bill, upon which the house was counted out at half-past two o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—WEDNESDAY. GUISTINIANI'S OATH BILL. Mr. MONSELL explained the objects of the bill, which was introduced to carry out measures that have been adopted for the purpose of naturalising the Princess Guistiniani. It was necessary that the Princess should take certain oaths before her naturalisation could be effected ; and as she was unable to attend in this country, it was proposed that she should take the oaths before her Majesty's Minister at Florence. The bill was read a first and second time, and referred to a select committee. INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL. The house went into committee on this bill. Clauses up to No. 4 inclusive were agreed to. Clause 5, after considerable discussion, was cventually struck out, on the understanding that, upon the bringing up of the report, Mr. Adderley should submit a new clause, providing that a magis- trate need not necessarily remand a child to prison. On clause 6 being proposed, Mr. W. MILEs said that it distinctly gave to magistrates the power which he complained of—viz., to send vagrant children to reformatory schools, and he therefore moved its omission. After some further discussion, in which Lord Goderich, Mr. M'Mahon, Sir G. Grey, and Mr. Ad derley took part, The clause was struck out. On clause 7, Mr. BARROW proposed the insertion of certain words which would enable magistrates to dismiss charges if that should seem to them to be the best course. Mr. ADDERLEY assented, and the amendment was agreed to. Mr. HENLEY complained of the oppression which would be exercised towards the father if his recog nisances, even though amounting only to a pound, should be estreated in case the child lapsed into bad conduct within twelve months. He hoped Mr. Adderley would consent to strike this provision out of the clause. Mr. ADDERLEY assented, and the words objected to were struck out. Mr. Sergeant 013raEs said that the clause as it now stood, after the alteration just made, rendered a child liable upon a first conviction, no matter how willing the parent might be to enter into securities, to be sent to one of these institutions, which, call them as you pleased, were nothing more than prisons. Mr. DEASY moved the insertion of words limiting the term for which magistrstes might order a child to be sent to an industrial school to any period " not exceeding two years." The house divided, when the amendment was lost by 197 to 63. ➢lr. GREGORY proposed to add the following proviso—. Provided, however, if within the county where the child was taken into custody, or any adjoining county, there shall be any certified industrial school conducted on the principles of the religious persuasion to which the parent of the child in the opinion of the justices shall belong, and the managers of such school shall bo willing to receive him, such child shall be sent to such last•menttoned school and not to any other; which was agreed to. Mr. HENLEY moved another proviso to the effect that the child should be sent to the industrial school within the county in which the child was apprehended, or within an adjoining county, which was rejected on a division by 200 to 55. The clause was then agreed to. The Bth clause was postponed. On clause 0, Mr. BOWYER moved that the chairman report progress, which was rejected on a division by 192 to 16. The clause was then agreed to. On clause 10, which provides that a parent may (under conditions) have a child sent to a school which he approves, Mr. COWPER said the clause as it stood gave parents the power of objecting to their children being sent to a particular industrial school upon any grounds. They might consider that one school was better conducted than another, and urge the removal of their children in the belief that they would obtain a better education, without any reference to religious teaching ; and he thought, therefore, if the clause afforded so much latitude, that the parents ought to be called upon to bear at least a portion of the expenses. Mr. HENLEY proposed that after the word "objec tion " the words "on other than religious grounds " be inserted. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. Bowynt moved the omission of the words " and pays or finds good security to pay any expenses which may be incurred in consequence of his objee• tion." The hon. and learned member was stating his reasons for proposing the amendment, when At a quarter to six o'clock, in compliance with the standing orders, the house resumed. GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) The Grand Julies (Ireland) Act (1536) Amend ment Bill was read a third time and passed. The house adjourned at ten minutes to six o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS-THURSDAY. MINISTERS' MONEY BILL. Earl GRANVILLE, in moving the second reading of this bill, adverted to the origin of the tax, main tained that the present arrangements were ineffective, that the loss to the Church would be nominal, and referred in support of its abolition to the Act of 183:i, introduced by the Earl of Derby, when Chief Secretary for Ireland, by which the church cess, producing 70,0001. a year, was abolished. The church cess was more ancient than the ministers' money—it brought to the Church an infinitely larger sum—and was more equally borne, being paid by Protestants as well as Roman Catholics—and every reason that could be urged in favour of the abolition of the one was infinitely stronger in favour of the abolition of the other. From the difficulty that must be experienced in collecting the arrears of the tax now due, the Government felt that they had no other alternative but to introduce a measure of this description. He referred to the objection urged by the opponents of the bill, that they were transfer ring this charge to a fund that was not able to bear it. He admitted that at present there is no balance in the bands of the Irish Ecclesiastical Commis sioners; but it was impossible to look into the returns without seeing that various reductions might be made in their expenditure, and he asked if it were not worth while to economise in some respect for the purpose of removing the practical difficulties arising from the collection of ministers' money. If they rejected the bill in opposition to the opinion of the other house, the proceeding would be preg nant with evil to the Church of Ireland, and he trusted that Lord Derby, if he felt called upon to oppose the second reading, would at least have some practical remedy to suggest in the place of an act, the machinery of which was totally inoperative, and only a source of odium and ill-will. The Earl of DERBY unhesitatingly opposed the measure, and moved that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. He cc.nsidered that, however ,expedient, the measure was &mart- THE PRESS. 599