The Express.
London, England, 1853-03-31 00:00:00

EQUALISATION OF THE POOR RATE.

Yesterday evening a public meeting of the rate-
payers of the City of Loudon was held at the Sessions-house,
Old Bailey," for the purpose of considering the propriety
of adopting a petition to parliament in favour of repealing
the existing laws of settlement ja.id removal, and for the
more equitable distribution of the charge for the relief and
maintenance of the poor." The chair was taken by Mr.
Ald. SIDNEY, M.P., who was surrounded by the following
common-councilmen :—Mr. Deputy Bedford, Mr. Deputy
Holt, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Pitcher, Mr. Abraham, Mr.
Patten, Mr. Blake, Mr. Barber, Mr. Barnard, and Mr:
Hawkins.

The CHAIRMAN, in opening the proceedings, said the
subject they were met to consider was not second in impel.-
tanee to anyconneeted with the fiscal system of the country.
The act of Elisabeth had had the effect of levying more
money than any other ststute which had been passed,
and there had been no essential alteration in the
mode of taxation since 1601. At the time when the poor
law was first enacted parishes were natural divisions for
the purposes of eelief ; but in the present day it was clear
that all parishes ought to be united. The greatest ineqmli.
ties prevailed ; apd in London, for example, while some
parishes were burdened immensely, others paid nothing at
all. In the country generally the rates were in some cases
20s. in the pound, and in others not more than a farthing.
(Hear.) The support of the poor was clearly a national
affair; and there was nothing more injurious to society
generally,and espeMally to labouring men, than the existing
law of settlement. We were no longer burdened with surplus
poor; and, whatever might have been the case formerly,
there was no neces-ity now for shackling the liberty of the
labourer. The petition which had been prepared shelved
the operation of the poor laws in the City of London. Some
persons thought that by equalising the poor rate the legis-
lature would do injustice to those who had become pos-
sessed of property in parishes where the rates were low. He
maintained, however, that simple justice required that the
tax should be adjusted rateably to the amount of property
all over the euuntry. (Hear, hear.) The following
exhibited the decrease which had taken place in several
parishes in the City withia a very few years:
In the parish of St. Christopher-le-Stocks, which was occu-
pied by the Bank of Ragland, the cost of the poor in 1838
was 2661., in 1850 it had diminished to 741. 10s. Ild. ; St.
Margaret Fattens, 1838, 3121.; 1850, 1091. 14s. ed. : St.
Martin Pouiroy, 163.1, 3221. ; 1850, 1721. 01. Ad.: St.
Michael Bassishaw, 1838, 904 g.; 1850, 6181. 13.. ftd. ; St.
Lawrence Jewry, 1834, 7751. ; 1830, 4531. 17s. 6d.: St.
Michael, Crooked-lane, 1838, 7901. ; 1830, 6261. Its. 63. :
Christchurch, Newgate street, 1839, 2,4991.; 1850, 2,0071.
Bs. Ild. These were the wealthier parishes, in which the
poor-rate had decreased. Simultaneously with this de-
crease there had occurred the following increase in the sub-
joined parishes :—St. Nicholas Olave, 1838,2181.; 1850,
5811. Is. tkl. St. Ann, Blackfriars, 1838, 1.7371. ; 1830.
2,7931. 15e. 93. St. Benet, Paul's-wharf, 1839, 4171.; 1859,
9261.35. 81. St. James, Garlick Hithe, 1834, 4461. ; 18.50, '
1,0061. 103. 106. Holy Trinity, 184 4291. ; 1850, 8041.
6.. 9d. St. Mary Magdalen, Old Fish-street, 1838, 6061. ;
MO, 8111. 16s. N. St. Gregory by St. Paul's, 1838, 8861. ;
1850, 1,5901. 4e. 6d. The result of the operation
of the present system was, that the poor had'
been swept out of the wealthier parishes ; and
ether parishes had been proportionately burdened. (Hear,
hear.) Many noblemen and gentlemen who were the sole
proprietors of a parish had reduced the poor-rate to a nul-
lity ; and at the same time the rate in adjoining parishes
had been doubled and trebled. Under such a state of things
rich men were led to abide by themselves, and poor men
were forced to starve by themselves. (Hear, hear.) He
had for the last three years been co-operating with a large
body of gentlemen on this question, and he was happy to
state that much progress had already been male. The late
Mr. Charles Buller was in favour of the proposed alteration,
and one of his last acts was to introduce into parliament a
measure founded on the proper principle. Mr. Barnes
and Bir G. Nicholl had taken the same view ; and
before the dissolution of Lord John Russell's ministry, the
latter had prepared a measure of amendment. As regarded
Lord Derby's government, Sir John Trollops stated to him
(the chairman) that !if Lord Derby remained in power a
measure would be introduced in eoaformity with the pre-
vious recommendations of the Poor Law Board. He could

not say what counts would be pursued by the present go-
vernment ; bet, in 184.5, Sir J. Graham, when Home Secre-
tary, said be thought it would be an immense advan-
tage to the poor man, and no disadvantage to the
rich, te reduce the present restrictions as regarded
settlement; aad Sir James further advocated the
reduction of the number of poor law districts
from 14,600 to 620. At that period, in fact, a measure was
passed enabling guardians, if unanimous, to utite several
parishes; but if a single guardian, belonging to a parish
where the rate was only a farthing in the pound, objected,
no anion could be formed. (Hear, hear.) He then In-
ferred to a destruction of cottages in the vicinity of Nor-
wich, described by Mr. Pete, to prevent the poor from
obtaining a settlement ; and quoted an extract from a
speech of Mr. Gladstone on Mr. Disraeli's motion in 1850,
to the effect that the duty of maintaining thu poor was
equally incumbent on all kinds of property. The present
inequalities of the poor-rate were not confined to large
towns. In the year 1850, the highest amount paid in Lon-
don was 6s. 5d., the lowest 7d. la the town of Banbury, which
was in the midst of an agricultural population, the highest
amount was 65., the lowest 24d. They had no wish to see
any interference with local jurisdiction ; all that they asked
the legislature to do was to make the area of taxation co-
extensive with the poor-law unions. However just • na-
tional rate might be, at present the country was not pre-
pared for such a change; and they should therefore confine
themselves to the object which he had just stated.
Mr. WHITESIDZ, poor-law guardian of St. Catherine
Cree, moved the first resolution, to the effect that the exist-
ing laws of settlement and removal are unjust and oppres-
sive to the ratepayers and injurious to the poor. In the
City of London, the poor-law expenses of the past year
amounted to 43,0001., and of this amount one-third con-
sisted of common charges, three-fourths of which were paid
by the poorer parishes. He then entered into a number of
details with regard to the operation of the law of settle-
ment.

Mr. PRITCHARD (High Bailiff of Southwark) seconded
the resolution. One of the great objections to the present
state of the law was that it stereotyped the poor in the place
to which they originally belonged, and presented obstacles
to their advancement in life. The evils of the system were
universally acknowledged; and if any doubts existed with
regard to the necessity of change, the facts stated, with
regard to the removal of the poor from the wealthier
parishes, should suffice to extinguish them. Great as the
inequalities had been, they were daily increasing ; and a
law which combined two such evils as the forcible removal
of the poor and a gross inequality of burdens, could not be
suffered to remain. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HINGE& supported the resolution.
Mr. FINLAY thought that what the meeting advocated
would have the effect of saddling the out districts of the
metropolis with the charge of the poor, who ought to be,
and who were at present, supported by the City of London.
(" No, no.") The City wee now doing precisely what was
said to have been done in rural districts ; ft was pulling
down the houses of the poor, and very soon tkere would be
none left. If, therefore, the law of settlement were abo-
lished, the City of London would NISI (" No, no.")
Mr. C. COCHRANE moved an addition to the resolution,
to the effect that the common nseemaries of life were at
Went often refund.
The rseadinent was seconded by Mr. Biwoaa, but was
negatived ea a show of hands.
resolution was then adopted.
Mn, Illri.tralitz moved a rumbation manning the injustice
of the present system to the ratepayers of the poorer pa-
rishes after its condemnation by committees of both houses
of parliament, the reports of the Poor-Lew authorities, the
votes of the Court of Common Council, and many boards
of guardians throughout the country. He said the only
opposition which they could anticipate was that of owners
of property in low-rated parishes. Such peisons had taken
their property subject to all the incidents of property; and
what they saved by the present system was diverted from
the fund for the relief of the poor. (Hear, hew.)
Mr. HAWKINS seconded the resolution. He said he had
that morning seen vast numbers of young persons coming
to the City warehouses with work, upon which their em-
ployers might be presumed to obtain • considerable pro-
fit. Nearly all these persons resided in distant parishes,
and in their old age or sickness they would have no legal
claim on those who had benefited by their labours.
The resolution was carried unantmously.
On the motion of Mr. HowaLL, seconded by Mr.
Classic, it was resolved that petitions should be presented
in accordance with the foregoing resolutions, and that Lord
John Russell should be requested to present that to the
House of Commons. and the other City members to sup-
port the same.
Mr. Deputy BIDTORD moved that a deputation should
wait upon the Home Secretary. and the Poor-law Board for
the purpose of urging them to introduce a bill for the more
equitable distribution of the charges for the relief and
maintenance of the poor.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Hannan, and
agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. BARNARD, vice-chairman of the
Local London Union, it was resolved that the petition and
resolutions should be distributed at the discretion of the
committee.
A vote of thanks to the chairman terminated the pro-
ceedings.

RESISTANCE TO TITRES IN ST. ANDREW'S, HOL-
DOM.—The Rev. Dr. Worthington, the incumbent of
Trinity district, in the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn-
above-Bars, and the Rev. George Mansfield, the incumbent
of St. Peter's district, having caused summonses to be'
issued against several hundred parishioner, for non-pay-
ment of tithes, a meeting of inhabitants was held en Twee-
day evening at the Yorkshire Grey Tavern, King's-road, to'
consider the propriety of opposing such legal proceedings,
Mr. John Lloyd in the chair. From the statements made
it appeared that many of the persons summoned had not
paid tithes, nor had they ever been demanded from them,
for upwards of 20 years. In the year 1712 proceedings
were commenced in the Court of Exchequer against the in-
habitants for tithes, and it was decided that tithes were due
from 4S houses only, though they were now demanded,
from a larger ;.ortion of the parish. A strong opinion was
expressed that the demand was made without legal au-
thority, in the expectation that the claims would be coin•
plied with, in orili.r to prevent litigation. It was resolved,
on the motion of Mr. Low, " That in the event of proceed•
lugs being taken against any of the parishioners, measures
of resistance should be adopted."
GEE 1T .NOItTIiERN litiLwAT.—Return of traffic
for caeca M.tr,': 20. '661 parcel., car-
riage;, i, dog.. 11114 i utul*, Intretandise
and minerals, 8,3741. 41. 6d. ; cattle, 1814 10s. 44.
Total. 11,1s-il. Os. 54. Correspundiug week, 1852,
10,8671. 31. 101.