The Express.
London, England, 1858-03-26 00:00:00

TILI DAILY NBA% : LONDONL MORNING
ihrial=irgeirsalTresegirmi. la a
a MUM.
la inns sal seised es posmal sisse-la Os so=
it:
Ise supwis. sad is Or us* I empsas aml ONIMIllia
isaulaa la Soft. Misr*. spa mailsa sildss-ilds WWI In.
"MOlllllO/1 iri
ds.. is mums i
Pa szsbolvds Nes et disi, ce arum
.""--60.ww,yim II WM.
leo la a_powk
IT =WIN. ALL OVPINOVIII LITIIITIMIIIMMM
Is to radii
ilmarriniondloymalu
el pnvor Wpm =
8141.1
Nm= Xmlitgb. =1:1=71 sm7
°'MILT. ie* am:mosma la es Wm*. :et at
as
AI be la W euesiag
pill el • isissZt= largek=filsoreirs
=slig= mem SIPS M. pat isastsr. la

trio Oxpreoo.

TO COI

amllsimals taimiNt log ~.Tts Slime Lades Imams pew,
mg b. as um Olim. %O ilionerWalrall. W 11•VOlook sus la
lig elpelibiass.

NATI'
Ts W. lIXOCIIIIO WIII7L-17111 11171101111ACIL
Woo ssi Ilsoluftos;1d
7011 Aril ft, MN, law I
COL
wok.
11 MMUS ROM 011111.—LA DOX
Mom 11rYIMW Cooplio.—Comas Y 7.

sten Imre% ammerriliEL. . Ma. Clirde Zari.—Aad
KALLSQUI X T: !f. rriamis SWIG
Mt rein (lellossera Heim roe
en; SO. Lame. isel.—Og NB se

TWO WOIIIIIII. VASIO. amen Van sad Tier.. Keddle
II L Webwr.—TlA IS TWO VOLT& 12‘ X
evidaawe.—An oILDIZOT. Kean Brae Ileass.ll:ll7ain
aad J. Veranda. KW •rw.—O.rwr laden •

SIGH WATRI AT LONDON BILLDON.
Two Da ir—lionift ft. It Aftasses. ft. Ms
Iftftwv—lfteAft ft. Ms ..11ftefts. ft Oft

LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH W.

TIM poor of the hletropolia seem more likely to

obtain 'kitties st the bands of Mr. Surinam
FATCOURT than at the hands of Mr. Bouvnia.

Sorely to the annoyance of the late President of the
Poor-law Board, Mr. MILTON he.. obtained leave
to lay a Bill for the Equalisation of the Metropolitan
Poor•retee ea the table of the House of Commons.
Mr. Boum.= evidently plumed himself ea the
idea that his red-tape harangue of teat geisha had
settled the question for ever. He has been ends-

ceived. The matter will certainly be debated. Is
the meantime, seeing that Mr. BM:WIWI, with all
his courage, will find it impossible to barks the
subject, it becomes his duty to apply himself to its
serious consideration.

If there ever was a ease which to a man of plain
common sense might seem intelligible it is this of
the inequality of the London Poor-rates. Here is
an enormous area of ground covered with build-
ings, and inhabited by some 1,000,000 human
beings. Some are rich ; some are poor. Some
are beakers, some protemiimal men—some are
skilled artisans, some are ecennion labourers. But
they all belong to one town as it were. They are all
bound together by a common tin. The necessities of
business require that they should all live within each
a distance of each other that they can lend one ano-
ther mutual aid. During the day the mutual de-
pendent* of every man dwelling within the metro-
politan district is apparent. For some nine hours poor
and rich are found mingled together in such propor-
tions and in each localities as the business of life
requires. Out of that living, bustling mass of mss
is developed the wealth and power which make Lou-
don the first city in the world. But after six cfcloek
in the evening the whole scene is changed. Tho-
roughfares the most populous are deserted—the roar
of traffic oesses—warehousee and shops, banks and

law ooarts, are empty and silent. The
have gone to their mansions in Belgrave-equare or to
their delightful villas on the banks of the Thames.
The hard-working artisan and the grey-haired clerk
have retired to crowded lodgings in the Tower
Hamlets, or to their dingy homes in Southwark.
The people of the Metropolis have dispersed
themselves into distinct localities. As the pro-
gram of mankind has brought about a division of
kbear, so the progress of population has brought
about a division of dwelling places. Whatever may
be the ease during the day, daring the night Society
is divided into two camps. Now the law of England
says that no man shall starve. If any Englishman,
or woman, or child, cannot get • living, there is a
claim on what are called the Poor-Rates. The
question is, who are to pay the Poor-Rates? In fanner
times, and even now in most parts of the
country, the poor earn their bread and sleep
in the same parish, and therefore the Rates levied
within the parish are obviously the funds properly
applied to the support of the poor. The principle
that those who benefit by the labour of • man—
those who call crowds of workmen into a certain
district—shall furnish these labourers and workmen
with subsistence, is acted upon. But in London this
principle is utterly ignored. Those rich gentlemen
within whose warehouses and clubs the poor artisans
and servants pass their days and exhaust their
strength repudiate the idea of furnishing that sup-
port which the law requires to be furnished by
somebody. The consequences are inevitable. The
rich perishes in the West-end, and those which contain
the great banks and warehouses in the City, are taxed
at a mere nominal sum, whilst the parishes in the East-
end, where the poor people " moat do congregate,"
are taxed at an exorbitant rate. Nor is it unimpor-
teat to add that this inequality would be still more
glaring if the basis of assessment throughout the
'metropolitan parishes were more equal. Thus, in
St. George's, Hanover-square, there is an excess
in the property-tax usessment over the poor-law
aassennent of 400,0001., whilst in Bethnal-green the
poor-law amassment actually exceeds that for pro-
perty by 2,0001. Now, what satisfactory reason
can possibly be assigned for throwing the rappet
of the poor on the latter of these two damn d
parishes? Why should the parish within which a
man sleeps pay for him when be fails ill. instead of
the parish within which he spends hie active life ? If
those persons who employ labourers are to pay for
those whom they have worked out, as men pay for
wore out private servants, the proper plan would be
to charge parishes not with those who sleep within
their boundaries but with those who work within
their boundaries. In short, for the purpose of the
Poor Law it is London awake, not London asleep,
which ought to be taxed.
Of course we shall be told that to put this as
a question affecting the poor is a disgreosful mis-
representation. Ste. Ror.ticcx and Mr. Bourezin
instead that if the poor-rate were lowered to-
morrow the poor would not be benefited one iota—
the difference would be pocketed by the landlord.
According to this it ewes as if the interests of land-
lords were out of the varieties. But if the poor-rate
falls unjustly upon those houses peopled by the
London poor it is diffleult to understand why this
Injustice should sot be remedied, even though it may
benefit landlords. What we say is this, that
those who create the poor do not pay far them.
Barely the answer is idle, that to change the liability
from the shoulders of one set of landlords to sa
will sot benefit the poor. Bat the troth is, it will
do so. The present state of the law arts as a pod-
five prohibition against building houses for the poor,
Landlords and builders have learnt by exprekees
what is the consequence of allowing the poor to some
within a parish. If they value their own latteeete they
will not only prevent the influx of poor, but, by pall.