The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-20 00:00:00

fairly divided among the different members of the
community ? Neither of these queries can be very
satisfactorily answered. Cases are constantly
coming under our notice in which, from some cause
or another, poor persons suffer the extremes of want
and hunger, and juries have to return the melan-
choly verdict, "Died frem want of the necessaries
of life." No one can attribute wilful neglect or in-
tentional cruelty to the officials of our parishes, but
tco often in poor and densely peopled localities the
natural desire to keep down the rates which press

so heavily on the ratepayers produces a reluctance
to attend to the needs of the extreme poor, and an

anxiety to discourage pauperism which. sometimes
bears startling fruit. The inequalities and injustice
of thc present system of rating ore so manifest that
it is only surprising they should have survived to
the present day. It stands to reason that in a dis-
trict like Spitalfields or Bethnal-green, where the
largest number of poor congregate, the householders

are very unlikely to be able to pay heavy rates
with anything like ease. Very probably a great
many of them with difficulty keep off the rates
themselves. Small shopkeepers, occupiers of tene-
ments with four rooms, or little lodging-house

keepers, are not likely to be very willing to sub-
scribe for the relief of the destitute on a larger
scale than the rich merchant of the City or the mar-

quis in Park-lane or Grosvenor-square. Why are
some parishes2ratekat:two or three shillings in the
pound, whereas in others a poor rate is almost
a thing unknown ? Which class can beat afford to
contribute to the relief of the necessitous—the in-
habitants of St. George's Hanover-square or those of
Bethnal Green? The intelligent foreigner so
often referred to as the referee on matters of
social philosophy, might naturally consider that
the latter was the wealthiest of the two. A
great deal is said about the equality of our laws,
and the fairness of our system of government,
but we expect the true explanation of such a
glaring absurdity is to be found in a remark
made by Mr. VILLIERS the other evening. "It
was difficult," said the right hon. gentleman, "to
induce parishes that were exempt, or but slightly
rated, to support the principal of equal contribu-
tion, based on the value of all the property rated ;
and the resistance, on account of this interest had
always been extremely influential." Naturally so,
because it is the wealthy parishes who oppose the
reform, and the injustice of the present method,
and the hardships of the poor weigh but little
in comparison. The true cure is to be found in a
national rate. The poor of the country are a
national burden which every man should assist in
bearing according to his ability. There is no rea-
son because a man lives in one street, instead of
another, that he should give six times as much
towards the relief of persons who have no real claim
on his aid, save that of common humanity which
appeals to all parishes alike. A national rate
would cure many evils. It would avoid the mani-
fest injustice of the burden as now distributed all
through the country. Witness the high rate of
Liverpool, and the ingenious arrangement by
which some country landowners contrive to keep
the very men employed on their farms off their
estates. It would take away that anxious desire
on the part of the officials of heavily rated parishes
to discourage the poor from applying for help—an
anxiety which has no effect on the hardened and
worthless, but which makes the decent and indus-
trious poor struggle on through &most any
privations rather than go to " the House." It would
relieve poor ratepayers of a heavy burden, and in
eases of a national calamity like the distress in
Lancashire and Cheshire, the weight would fall on
all alike. No one could fail to bo touched during
the worst time of the trouble by the accounts of the
rf;tepayers vv::o were themselves reduced to the
greatest straits, yet fighting on till overpowered by
the burden of the constantly increasing rates. Had
there been a national rate a good many might have
been kept from pauperism. A line once overstepped
is hard to retrace. Such a rate would remove the
inducement to keep labourers off the land, and con-
sequently have an influence in promoting the build-
ing and improving of cottages. What says Mr.
VILLIERS, who, as one of the original inquirers in
1833, and the present head of the Poor Law Board,
should be able to give a sound opinion ? " The
effect of the parochial system has bee❑ to exempt
some parishes entirely, and to cause in others every
kind of inequality and injustice besides in the dis-
tribution of the burden." With such a confession
from our Poor Law President, with deaths from
starvation continually recorded in our columns,
with the dwellings of our agricultural labourers in
a state that is a national disgrace, and with strug-
gling tradesmen of the lower class heavily taxed for
a common burden which the rich man may not pay
for at all, it is certainly time that something was
done in the matter of our parish rating.

Sir G, GREY'S motion for leave to bring in

a Bill for amending the Penal Servitude Acts,

afforded occasion for some debate on the slab-
It proves that the question still en-
gages the attention of the House, as it has long
engrossed the thoughts of the public. Amid
the discussion some very conflicting statements
were made, but en the whole Sir G. GREY'S
Bill appeared to receive general approbation. It
is certainly, as Lord NAAS stated it, a step in the
right direc►ion, and it is to be hoped that having
once entered into the spirit of the task, the autho-
rities will prom& and that whatever be the poli-

tical creed of those who occupy the Treasury
benches, the importancs of this subject of penal
servitude will be duff considered, and the question
studied with reference to its bearing on the inte-
rests of society. There is one point in which many
will concur with Lord NAAS, and that is relating
to Western Australia. With all due deference. to
Sir G. Gnm—who is doubtless animated with the
best intentions, and thinks he sees valid grounds for
his resolve—it is to be regretted that the right hon.
b tronet has come to the determination not to carry
cut the plan of sending convicts to Western Aus-

tralia. This is a mistaken concession, and one that
furnishes a bad prccedent, while at the same time
it will occasion great disappointment to the colo-
nists, who sought for the convict labour, and work
incalculable mischief to the unhappy subjects of
discussion. In the first place, to take the question

upon the broad principle of justice, what rigb
have those who are so far away from the place in
dispute to set up a claim or put forward a demand
to judge of the propriety or non-propriety of such
a proceeding ? c nisistency is highly necessary,
and for the inhabitants of one place to dic-
tate to those of another as to what class of
workers they shall employ, is simply absurd. The
fact is, that prejudice hae a greet deal to do with
this vehement opposition,
and in some cases un-
founded alarm, produced by the exaggerated repre-
sentations of tlase whose object it is to sound an
alarm, or create a panic, until the vexed question
is withdrawn, and the attempt proves futile. There
is everything to hope for as regards the future of
the criminal who returns to liberty on that distant
soil, far away from old associates, and surrounded
by a complete change. Surely, under such in-
fluences, we may venture to form a well-grounded
expectation, and to indulge in a substantial hope,
that fur these outcast brethren it may be said, "old
things are passed away, and all thin,s are income