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

IRISH WORKHOUSES.

Mr. FAGAN called attention to the present state
of the workhouse system in Ireland and to the laws
relating to medical charities and the relief of the
poor, and moved for a select committee to take the
subject into consideration.
Mr. H. HERBERT said the attention of the Govern-
ment had been turned to the subject, and he thought
the time had arrived, and that the Government were
in possession of sufficient facts, for legislating
cautiously, in another session, upon this subject.
Mr. FAGAN, upon this, withdrew his motion.
EQUALISATION OF POOR RATES.
•

Mr. AYRTON moved for a select committee to in-
quire into the causes of the inequality of the poor
rates in the metropolitan district, and whether the
rates should not be rendered more equal. He ob•
served that, in all great cities, the rich congregate in
particular localities and the poor in others, the effect
of which, under our poor law, was to diminish the
tax upon the rich because they were rich, to increase
the exigencies and claims of the poor, and to render
unequal a common burden. He pointed out. in-
stances of anomalies and injustice under a system
depending upon an area, which he contended de-
manded immediate inquiry, and, if the facts were
true, immediate legislation. He insisted, moreover,
that, as the relief of the poor was a national object,
every description of property ought to contribute
thereto. There would be no difficulty, he thought,
in finding a fitting remedy for the evil.

Mr. TowssEsD seconded the motion.
Mr. BOUVERIE resisted the motion. He remarked
that some 400 members were already engaged upon
committees, and he asked the house whether it was
prepared to add to the number of committees, and to
go into so extensive and important an inquiry at
that period of the session ? In discussing the merit.*
of the question he indicated some of its great ditf►-
culties, with which Mr. Ayrton, he said, had not
grappled. London was not a city so much as a vast
province covered with houses, the parts having little
connection with each other, and it did not requ►re a
select committee to discover the causes of the
inequality of the poor rates in different parishes,
which were patent. Where there was a local ad-
ministration of the poor law, unless the property was
the same and the number of the poor the same in all
the parishes, the rates must be unequal :

When persons complained of an existing system they
should always be prepared to propose a substitute, It
was very easy to make out a case against any tax, and
alnpst against any law, but, as practical and sensible men

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 enlarging
_ 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-