The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-16 00:00:00

THE BUDGET.

Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked the Prst Lord of the Treasury
whether, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had exone-
rated the officers of the civil service from having divulged
his intention as to the budget on a late occasion, such in-
formation might not have been supplied from some higher
source, and if so whether the noble lord could afford any
indication of the quarter from which such a communica-
tion had proceeded.
Lord PALMERSTON said he begged to disclaim all
responsibility with respect to newspaper prophecies. They
lived upon the future as well as the past. If they made
guesses which turned out right, why they got all the
credit, but when they were wrong, they wore
soon forgotten. (Laughter.) When the time came round
for his right hon. friend to make his financial statement
the contents of it were as freely known by the world at
largo as his
,right hon. friend. (Laughter.) Any
one of natural sagacity would at once see that with re-

spect to the fire insurance the Government would have to
attend to the determination of the house in this matter. They
would also know that, with such a surplus, some portion
of it would be devoted to the reduction of direct and in-
direct taxation, and ho did not think much of the sagacity
of the Times newspaper in coming to such a con-
clusion. (Laughter.) There could not be any very
great credit in anticipating that which was very generally
known, as it was quite obvious that the income tax and
tea duty would be dealt with. (Hear, and laughter.) He
was quite sure no person in the Government had committed
a breach of trust.
THE UNION CHARGEABILITY BILL.
The adjourned debate on this bill was resumed by
Mr. HENLEY, who indignantly repudiated the charge

brought against the Opposition by the President of the
Poor-law Board, on Thursday, of throwing unnecessary
obstructions in the way of the bill. In the teeth of the
fact that the report of the commissioner upon which the
right hon. gentleman relied for arguments in support of his
proposal, was not at the time in the hands of members,
this was a most monstrous assertion. He argued that if
the power with which the Poor-law Board asked to be in-
vested for altering the limits of the unions was absolutely
necessary, it ought to be so fenced about and guarded by
just provisions as to prevent the Minister from being forced
into the perpetration of jobs, It should be observed,
moreover, that the motion for referring the bill to a select
committee did not emanate with his side of the house, but
with a follower of the Government themselves ; and the
various cases which had been mentioned in the course of
the debate were, he contended, legitimate subjects for in-
quiry. He admitted that no man could go among the
habitations of the poor, whether in towns or villages,
without seeing much that ho could wish to have mended ;
an enormous amount of distress which he was unable to
relieve, and many things which, if put upon paper, would
shock every humane feeling. But the question was whether
that regretful state of things was in any way caused or
aggravated, not by the omission to build cottages, but
their unsparing demolition by the landed proprietors.
Passing, then, to the consideration of the report of Dr.
Hunter, the Royal commissioner, the right hon. gentleman
criticised its statements as to the condition of cottage ac-
commodation at considerable length, and described it as
resting upon assertions that were either unsupported or
untrue. In short, if the report had been prepared to order
with the sole 'object of bolstering up this Government bill,
it could not have been more highly coloured. It was argued
that the measure would be advantageous to the poor ; but
he had read through the report with the greatest care, and
he came to a totally opposite conclusion. Without inquiry
and the collection of additional information on the sub-
ject, the bill ought not to pass into a law. He should
therefore give his vote for referring it to a select committee.
Mr. H. BRUCE remarked that the bill was brought for-
ward upon the recommendation of a committee as fairly
constituted as any committee that had over been appointed
by the house. But its principle did not rest upon their
recommendation alone ; for it was well known that it had
been recommended by nearly every thoughtful writer and
statesman during the last hundred years. Tho bill was
supported not only by a majority of the house, but its pass-
ing was looked for with great interest by the country.
Mr. PEACOCKE enumerated several inaccuracies in Dr.
Hunter's report relative to the cottage accommodation in
Berks, Cambridge, and Cornwall. In the first two pages
only there were no less than 29 errors, and at the same rate
for the whole 22 pages there must be a total of 319. Such
a fact as this was the strongest argument in favour of the
amendment.
Mr. WATKIN spoke in support of the bill, as a measure
of justice to the labourers, and as calculated to give great
satisfaction to the country.
Mr. PACKE condemned the bill as the most thoroughly
unjust, dishonest, and tyrannical measure towards the
agricultural interest that had ever been introduced into
Parliament. It was legislation for the towns at the expense
of the country ; the towns being the wolves, the rural
parishes the lambs.
Lord HENLEY regarded the motion for further inquiry
as absolutely hostile to the bill. To every such motion,
therefore, he should give a negative. The bill was a very
good one, and he was anxious to see it pass into law with
as little delay as possible. When that had been done,
however, the question of a redistribution of the unions
would present itself, and he hoped the poor-law authorities
would take it into their consideration. They must either
make towns above a certain size unions in themselves, or
so constitute the unions to which they belonged that all the
circumjacent parishes should bear their share of the gene-
ral burden.
Sir B. LEIGHTON did not believe that the bill would
make the slightest difference to the poor, or that any land-
lord would build a single cottage more or pull down one
less in consequence of its becoming law, whilst it most
certainly would inflict great hardship upon the ratepayers
in the rural districts.
Mr. WLIALLEY opposed the amendment.
Mr. LIDDELL did not look upon the question as one
botwtewencern
atolNavnndanod country, hon
ipbtuintnraanthf eprrnapes artyq.uesTtihoant be-
y-
at the root of the matter. It was that which had given
es impressionetrhe a
et
nt
thaegree
roifsethteo
bortheough
r ems
n iwas
c atofethele ouincgonntrythe; paanrdt
when a measure such as this was proposed to effect a
the
transfer of burden to correct an inequality of rating it must
create serious dissatisfaction. Tho arguments against
bill were, however, exaggerated, and, thinking that the
tendency of the amendment was to hang up the measure
for the remainder of the session, ho should vote for the
house going into committee; but he hoped the Govern-

mont would give a pledge that the grave questions raised
in the course of the debate by the opponents of the bill

would be taken into their serious consideration.
Mr. CAVE saw no use in sending the bill to a select
committee , but if it became law there was no doubt that
they must have a redistribution of the unions, and that the
bill must be supplemented by other measures to redress
existing inequalities. _ _

Mr. SCHNEIDER, alluding to the general principle of
he bill, said that no measure could be introduced that

would do more justice between parish and priest, tend
more to ameliorate the condition of the poor, or give
greater satisfaction to the country.
Sir J. TROLLOPE denied the accuracy of the state-
ments contained in the commissioner's report. The question
at issue concerned the honour and humanity of English

gentlemen, and imperatively demanded inquiry. Other

grounds for referring the bill to a select committee were
. .

:hat the new union assessment valuations were net yet

completed, that the bill tended directly to break the
connection between the employers of labour and the em-

ployed, and would ultimately lead to a national rate.
Mr. KENDALL hoped the Government would intro-

duce a bill admitting the principle of rating mines and plan-
tations, in order that it might be considered by a select

committee.

Lord J. MANNERS believed that his hon. friends would

find themselves greatly disappointed if they expected that
the Government would over follow the bill with any mea-

sures that would render it just and fair. The noble lord
stated that ho, too, had instituted an examination of tho
returns of the commissioner, and found that of 821 parishes
where it was represented the amount of cottage accommo-

dation had decreased, thero were not less than 290 in
which it hid either increased or not diminished, whilst in
those 290 parishes the number of houses had actually in-
creased by 1,439. After that ho felt he had a right to de-
mand a full investigation of every figure and fact alleged
in the report.

Mr. VILLIERS said that if he could admit the premises
of the noble lord he might consent to abandon the bill, or
what would come to the same thing refer it at this period
of the session to a select committee. The noble lord, like
the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Henley) saw the difficulty of

his case. He saw this was no ordinary question. He per-
ceived that the bill was one brought in upon information of
a very extended character, and supported by evidence of no
ordinary kind. (Laughter.) The noble lord and his friends
saw, therefore, that they must by some means change the
issue—that thoy must shuffle the pack—(oh, oh)—and di-
vert attention from the bill ; and therefore they fixed upon

some statistics which he (Mr. Villiers) had incidentally re-
ferred to--(laughter)—and they asserted, though they did
not prove—(oh, oh)—perhaps they were disposed to inter-
rupt the proceedings as they had done the other night. (Oh.)
They assorted that the bill was based upon imperfect and de-
fective information. There was, however, no ground for

such a statement. The bill was passed upon the recom-
mendation of a committee which had sat for three years

upon the subject, which had made the fullest inquiry into
the working of the poor law, and in that most important
matter—the rating of property for the purposes of that law.
The question before the house was no novel one. The
noble lord and the right hon. gentleman knew perfectly
well that it had been before the house for one and thirty
years, and now the right hon. gentleman who opposed the
bill admitted that he was the owner of a close parish.
(Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman was one of those who
had resisted this measure for 31 years, but who now felt
that their interests could no longer be protected against
those of the community. (Cheers.) He (Mr. Villiers)
must repeat that this measure was proposed by the ori-
ginal projectors of the new poor law, and that those
gentlemen had never had the smallest doubt that it
was essential to the success of their measure. It was
supported, moreover, by the authority of the most
revered statesman that ever sat in the House of Commons
—by Sir James Graham, and by Sir George Lewis,
as well as by Sir George Nicoll, and the com-
mittee of 1847. After all, what did the noble lord's objec-
tion some to ? Out of 820 parishes, in which it was stated
that the population had increased and the houses diminished
the noble lord said that in 290 the population had indeed
increased,but that the houses had also increased, though not
in the same proportion. (Hear, hear.) Ho (the right hon.
gentleman) would appeal to hon. members whether they
could have any doubt as to the real object of the amend-
ment—namely, that it was intended simply to defeat the
bill ? (Hear, hear.) He had hoard that an hon. member
had been told that he had better support the bill, because
the country wished it, and that if it was thrown out this
year it would be brought in again next ; but his reply was
that he did not see it, that they had got rid of Baines's
bill ton years ago, and by throwing out this to-night they
would get rid of it for ton years. Well, all he could say to
that was, that it seemed to a man who had had all the
trouble and bother of framing and introducing a bill of this
character that it was only reasonable that he should have
1 ten years rest before he attempted it again. (Laughter.) The
hon. member who proposed the committee wanted it for
the purpose of inquiring into the incidence of the tax ;
whether, in fact, it could not be properly transferred to the
consolidated fund, or at least a portion of it; and the hon.
member who seconded the motion wanted it for the purpose
of showing that there was an extraordinary maladministra-
tion of the poor-law, and great waste of means in the north
of England. Then the hon. member wanted it for the pur-
pose of showing that the promoters of the measure wero mis-
taken in respect to the area of chargeability, while another
hon. member wanted it for the purpose of enlarging the area
of natural charity, which was certainly a novel purpose,
and one not likely to be inquired into under the parochial
system at least. (Laughter.) A good deal had been said
against Dr. Hunter's statistics with respect to how many
houses had been pulled down since 1851, but the only
straightforward motion which had been made was that made
by the hon. member for Northamptonshire, which was that
they should not consider it this year at all. That sugges-
tion could not be accepted by the house, but it had at least
the merit, which the others had not, of being a straight-
forward attempt to get rid of the bill. This was in fact
the old story
.of whether they should or not continue the
parochial system. They did not want Dr. Hunter's
statistics for the purpose of proving that the labourers
were crowded under that system into cottages too small for
them, nor did the hon. member for Oxford attempt to deny
that there was such a thing as driving the poor out of the
parish under the parochial system. [Mr. HENLEY—" I did
say so."] Then he was very sorry the hon. gentleman
was in a position to say it. (Laughter.) How was it that
the hon. gentleman, whom he always looked upon as the
farmers' representative, had in his speech studiously omit-
ted to give the house any opinion from that body ? Ho was
a great authority upon all matters in which the farmers
were interested, and therefore he (Mr. Villiers) listened
with interest to hear what the farmer said about this mat-
ter, but no, not a word fell from the right hon. gentleman
with regard to the manner in which the farmers regarded
the bill. Was not the inference irresistible that they were
against it ? (No, no.) However, he thought he should be
able to supply the omission from some good authority, and
ho would take that of the Farmers' Club, at which it ap-
peared this matter had been frequently discussed, and at
which the decision had been invariably one way, namely,
against the parochial system which the right hon. gentle-
man and his friends wished to preserve. He proceeded to
quote the opinions of the farmers as expressed in resolu-
tions passed at their club from 1847 to the present time, all
of which were in favour of an enlarged area of rating and
of doing away with the parochial system, observing that
they were obliged to employ people whoin they did not
want, and that if this measure were passed they would bo
enabled, as other persons wore, to employ the best men.
The hon. member for Leicester, in fact, let the cat out of
the bag when he told them that he had two interests, one
in which the proposed change would be advantageous, and
ono in which it would be disadvantageous. No doubt he
struck a balance in his own mind before he determined
whether he would support or oppose the bill. (Laughter.)
In case tho authority of the Farmers' Club should be dis-
puted he would quote another, which could not well be dis-
regarded. A few years ago this matter was inquired into
by the House of Lords, and they examined men who were
most certainly the best representatives of the farmers, but
they were all in the same story, and all against the con-
tinuance of the parochial system, quite concurring in the
opinion that it led to the unprofitable employment of labour
and added materially to the burdens of the ratepayers. A
gentleman who was sent up to represent the West of Eng-
land was of opinion that the present law led to the crowd-
ing of labourers in particular parishes to the exoneration
of other parishes, and the Rev. Mr. Huxtable, the rector of
Sutton, in Dorsetshire, in his evidence said that the exist-
ing system operated to the disadvantage of the good
labourer. (Hear.) If the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Oxfordshire, and others who thought with him,
would only refer to the evidence taken before the House of
Lords they would see what the farmers thought of the pre-
sent system of parochial settlement, and that there was
evidence sufficient already to remove any grounds in this
case for disposing of a useful measure by proposing to refer
it to a select committee. He did not distrust this report of
Dr. Hunter; on the contrary, he believed it to be a very
valuable one. It had not, ho thought, been shaken very
much. (" Oh, oh," laughter, and cheers.) There had been
an attempt to shako it in a few cases, but his belief was
that Dr. Hunter had rather understated than overstated the
case. (" Oh, oh," and cheers.) He stated it again whether
right hon. gentlemen and noble lords believed it or not
that he never heard of the report till after his measure had
been prepared, and that it was only a day or so before its
introduction that ho heard of the document. The instant
ho received that report he directed it to be sent to the in-
spectors of all the districts, requesting them to see whether
its statements were correct, and the replies so far as he had
received them went to show that though there might be
some inconveniences, substantially the case was stronger
even than Dr. Hunter had stated. Mr. Wigram, of Biggles-
wade, in Bedfordshire, said that the result of his inspection
in different parts of the union proved that the report was
not at all exaggerated ; and he was enabled, with the assist-
ance of Sir John Burgoyne, to verify the statements of
Dr. Hunter with respect to the overcrowding of cottages
in Sutton. If other landed proprietors as candid as Sir
John Burgoyne could be found he had no doubt that
similar accounts would be received from other districts.
They were asked now in the middle of May to appoint a
committee, the effect of which must be to throw over the
measure altogether for the present, but no ground