The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-12 00:00:00

BANK OF ISSUE.

Mr. NEATE asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether, in his opinion, the State might justly withdraw
from banks, other than the Bank of England, the right of
issue they now enjoy, without giving them pecuniary com-
pensation for the loss of that right ?

_
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
answer to such a question seemed to him rather as an ab-
stract declaration. (Laughter.) He would therefore post-
pone answering it until he had some information upon
which he could form an opinion. (Laughter.)

UNION CHARGEABILITY BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,

Mr. VILLIERS observed that the hon. member opposite
had a motion on the paper with respect to certain instruc-
tions to the committee. He did not think it was compe-
tent for the hon. gentleman to proceed in the manner he
proposed.
The SPEAKER ruled that it would be quite in order for
the hon. gentleman to proceed as he had given notice.

Mr. BENTINCK then rose and moved that it be an in-
struction to the committee, with a view to rendering the
working of the system of union chargeability more just
and equal, to facilitate in certain cases the alteration of the
limits of existing unions.

Mr. PACKE seconded the motion, and an animated
debate ensued, in the course of which Mr. E. Egerton ex-
pressed his entire approval of the bill, qualified only by the
wish that it had gone further and abolished the law of
settlement altogether. .

Mr. ADDERLEY, whilst not opposing the bill, which
he regarded as inevitable, nevertheless thought that as a
preliminary it was necessary to provide for a new adjust-
ment of unions in various parts of the country. Otherwise
great injustice might result.
The instruction was opposed by Mr. VILLIERS, on the
ground of the vagueness of its terms, and because its sup-
porters did not show how the limits of the existing unions
were to be adjusted in a more satisfactory manner.
Sir W. MILES could easily point out how that difficulty
was to be met. All they need do was to empower two-
thirds of the guardians to imperatively call upon the Poor-
law Board for the dissolution and re-arrangement of a
union. By this means there would be less recrimination
between parish and parish and those who had to carry out
the law.

Sir J. PAKINGTON supported the instruction, and at
the same time declared that he was in favour of extending
the area of rating, but that could only be done by causing
a great change in the incidents of taxation.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said there were as gross inequalities
existing in the areas of unions as in the areas of parishes,
and it was evident that the Poor-law Board contemplated
the necessity of effecting some alteration in these unions.
In many cases that would decide whether a parish taken
from one union and joined to another should pay at the
rate of 4s. or even 6d. in the pound. The country was on
the eve of a general election, and he asked the house
whether they were prepared to place in the hands of a
Government office the enormous patronage that might bo
thus exercised at this particular moment.
Mr.CLIFFORD agreed that the changes proposed would
be for the benefit of the agricultural parishes.

The House divided—
Ayes ... ... 118
Noes ... ... 193
Majority against the motion ... --75
Mr. THOMPSON then moved that the bill be referred

to the consideration of a select committee. Several very
high authorities had admitted the unfairness of the present
system, and the justice of extending the poor rate to all
kinds of property, but they had abstained from offering any
suggestion as to how that object might be effected. If this
bill were sent to a select committee, suggestions might be
made which might meet the difficulty in a practical way,
and he might observe that the proposal of the hon. mem-
ber for Worcestershire, who had given notice of an amend-
ment, was not liable to the principal objections which had
been urged against other plans.. The hon. member pro-
posed that half of the amount of the poor rates should be
charged upon the Consolidated Fund. Whether this
scheme were adopted or not, it would at least be satisfac-
tory to those who were about to have additional burdens
put upon them to know that their case had been inquired
into by a select committee, which might also throw light
upon other subjects bearing upon the working of the poor
law, and thus enable the Poor Law Board to draw up a
comprehensive bill for the consideration of the new Par-
liament. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. FERRAND said he was precluded by the rules
of the house from bringing forward the motion of which ho
had given notice, and he should therefore second the
motion of the hon. member for Whitby (Mr. Thompson).
This bill had been denounced throughout England as a
spoliation bill, and if carried it would raise the same spirit
of hostility on the part of the manufacturing classes in the
north of England as had been roused by the New Poor
Law of 1834. The right hon. gentlemen had sent inspec-
tors to the agricultural districts in order to make out a case
for this bill, but had sent no inspectors to the manufactur-
ing districts of Yorkshire and Lancashire. Ho ventured to
say that not one in fifty of the operatives in those counties
had cottages provided for them by their employers, and
the rule was that they went a distance of one or two miles
to their place of work every morning. Now, for the pur-
pose of showing the inconsistency of the right hon. gentle-
man, he would refer to a speech of his on the 18th of
June, 1863, where, in speaking of the state of things in
Lancashire, he said that " there was a lamentable need of
all those requirements which were considered essential to
promote health, cleanliness, and general convenience."
Could anything worse than that be said of the agricultural
districts. The Poor-law Act of 1834 had been passed prin-
cipally to put an end to the ruinous system of granting aid
in relief of wages in the agricultural districts of the south
of England. But what had been abolished in the south of
England had become the rule of the manufacturing districts
of Lancashire and Yorkshire. Lord Brougham in 1834 had
denounced the system as tending to spread ruin and devas-
tation over the land. But the right hon. gentleman had not
a word to say against the same system which was in full
operation in the north of England. He was ready to pledge
himself to the house that he could produce evidence to
show that the practice of giving relief in aid of wages was
more common in the north of England now than it had
been in the south of England in 1834, when Lord Brougham
described its evil consequences. In the Keithley Union,
where his own parish was situated, and also in the Brad-
ford Union, the expense of the maintenance formed a very
small amount compared with the sum given in aid of wages.
It was often the case, when the mills were closed for weeks
and months, that the men were entirely maintained in that
way. At other times, when the men only had three days'
wages in the week, they went to the guardians and applied
for relief in aid, which was almost invariably afforded to
them. The hon. member quoted the statistics of the Keithley
and Bradford Unions to show how large a proportion of the
relief was out-door relief, and what was the effect of giving
relief in aid of wages at the present time in the manufactur-
ing districts. He then quoted other returns, to show the
comparative effects of the system in seasons of adversity
and in seasons of prosperity, the result being that,
though the out-door relief in seasons of distress increased
very considerably, the in-door relief scarcely increased at
all. The effect of the right hon. gentleman's bill, he said,
would be to extend into the rural districts the relief in
aid of wages system, which had been found so objec-
tionable in the manufacturing districts. He then went
on to show that at
present the system of rating was
much harder on agricultural property than on manufac-
turing property, and denounced the bill as a violation
of the principle upon which free trade had been estab-
lished in 1846, that the town populations were not to be
taxed for the benefit of the country. The present bill
proposed to tax the agriculturists for the benefit of the
towns. The right hon. gentleman was wrong in sup-
posing that the agriculturists in the country had any
special benefit by the trade carried on with the large
towns, because they received no higher price for their
produce than was paid for that grown near the town.
He wished to call attention to Brierly Union and the
Low Moor Ironworks. That union was 14 or 15 miles
in length, with Bradford in the heart of it. One portion
was moorland, and another was the densely-populated
district between Bradford and Leeds, and the bill of the
right hon. gentleman would make the small farmer and
the labouring population in the neighbourhood pay for
the people of the Low Moor Ironworks, who
were 14
miles away from them. Was it possible that a bill like
that co4ld become law witholit creating the greatest

possible dissatisfaction in a district such as he had in-
dicated ?
Mr. W. E. FORSTER was not aware of the existence
of the agricultural districts spoken of by the hon. member.
Many years ago there was a strong feeling among the
poorer classes on this subject, but they had now come to
consider that the change proposed by this bill would be
for their benefit. Ho denied that relief was given in
Bradford in aid of wages, and pointed out that in that
town it was deemed undesirable to send paupers to the
workhouse unless they were sick and houseless, or were
supposed to be lazy people who would not work. A great
recommendation of the bill was that it would remove the
temptation from the agricultural interest to keep their
labourers at a distance from their employments. The
medical report which had now been laid upon the table
more than bore out the statement of the President of the
Poor Law Board when moving the second reading of the
bill, as to the evils of the system of close and open parishes.
He did not deny that of late years a great many landed
proprietors had behaved in the most praiseworthy manner
in the expenditure of vast sums of money upon the erection
of labourers' cottages ; but, after all, that was the excep-
tional case, and they had but little in favour of the general
state of the country. The truth was, it was the interest of
employers to drive the labourers off their property, and
therefore they would infallibly exercise the rights which
the law accorded to them. To his mind, however, the pro-
per principle was that those who employed the labourer
should be at the burden throughout of relieving his neces-
sities ; and a chief reason why he supported this bill was,
that he hoped it would be taken as a precedent, and that
measures would be taken to put an end to the horrible state
of things existing in London. On that account especially
he objected to the bill being referred to a select committee ;
for any one must feel that a motion to refer it to a select
committee only emanated from a desire to insure the over-
throw of the general principle which had been accepted by
the house. They had not done much in that Parliament ;
still he hoped that they would be able to go before their
constituents and say that, in their expiring moments, they
had remedied one of the greatest practical evils under which
the country laboured. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUBBARD, While admitting that close parishes were
an anomaly, and that they inflicted hardships upon the
poor, could not forget, at the same time, that they were not
the result of yesterday's action. On that account he felt
the details of the bill could not be hurriedly adopted. He
should be prepared to support the motion of the hon. mem-
ber for Whitby (Mr. Thompson), as it would be competent
for a select committee to entertain the important subject of
exemptions and other matters bearing upon this measure,
so as to enable the Poor Law Board, at some future period,
to introduce a bill which would definitively settle the whole
question.

Mr. HIBBERT said there were many instances in
which agricultural parishes would be decidedly relieved
by the operation of this bill, and in his opinion the farm-
ing interest would not be affected so much by this measure
as some hon. gentlemen imagined. He hoped the house
would go into committee upon the bill, which would do
away with some of the abuses of the present system, and,
by giving a freer circulation to labour, would add to the
happiness of the people, For those reasons he should vote
against the motion for referring it to a select committee.
Mr. KNIGHT said the history of the English poor-law
showed that no poor-law could work successfully upon any
area except the area of natural charity—by which he meant,
the area in which the poor and the rich were thoroughly
acquainted with each other, and in which the money was
paid by those persons to whom, without a poor-law, the
poor would turn naturally for relief in the hour of their
need. (Hear.) At different periods the area of relief had
been extended in this country, but experience had soon
shown the necessity of again reducing it within moderate
limits. In Ireland, too, the enormous electoral divisions,
after a trial of sonic years, had to be subdivided. The next
instance he had to mention was the Scotch poor-law, which
in the lowland parishes, where they were small, had worked
fairly ; but in the highland districts, where the union
system prevailed, there was great distress amongst the in-
habitants. Norwich Union, which consisted of 43 parishes,
all of which had been united fur the purpose of ' rating in
the time of Queen Anne, might be cited as a practical ob-
jection to the bill, as it was the most highly rated and
miserable ono in England. Mr. A'Beckett, one of the com-
missioners who had made an inquiry into the working of
the poor-law in Norwich, stated that nothing short of a
national rate would relieve the pressure which existed
there. He had not the slightest doubt if there had been
43 parochial boards instead of ono union board that no
such pressure would have been felt. Mr. Charles Buller's
commission in 1847 had pointed out the London parishes
as presenting the proper rule of rating. But what was the
fact ? Those same London parishes had become the haunt
of the poorest and most wretched people that ever existed in
England. Some years ago a great outcry had been raised
in consequence of the wretchedness that had been brought
to light in the Andover Union, but there was not a weekly
London paper which could not give them 20 times more
horrors than had ever been imputed to Andover. After
the sitting of that committee, Mr. Buller sent eight poor law
inspectors into the country to see whether the close parish
system existed or not. They were sent into 14 different
counties, and the result was printed. lie had spent several
months in working out the results, which he had placed
before the house in a private pamphlet in 1851. As a con-
sequence Mr. Baines, in bringing forward his motion for
union rating, gave up the close parish case. The most
curious thing in his inquiry was, that the rating to the
property between 1815 and 1843 in the parishes which were
said to have been injured by having population driven into ,
them by the close parishes, had increased immensely,while
the close parishes had increased very little indeed. In 40
open parishes the increase had been 56 per cent., while in
the corresponding close parishes the increase had been only
5 per cent. The cause for this was obvious, for assuming
the old division of agricultural produce to be correct that
one-third went to the labourers, that proportion must have
been spent in those open parishes. The next committee,
in which the open and close parish systems were considered,
was by the Irremovable Poor Committee. But no witness
was allowed to make unfounded assertions about close
parishes without being compelled to give the name of the
parish. The pith of the evidence before that committee,
the hon. member went on to say, was that in all but two
cases the number of houses had increased between 1801 and
1851. As they were now talking about having another
committee, he thought it was but right that the house should
know that all attempts which had been made to prove the
close parish system a grievance had been perfectly futile
and vague. It was quite clear that two-thirds of the rate-
payers of England would be injured by this bill. It was
quite clear that the ratepayers as a body would not be
benefited by it, and he thought it was equally clear that the
bill would be of no advantage to the poor. The onlypersons
who would benefit by it were the officials in the house. They
were aware that they held their position by precarious
tenure. The sister establishment, the Board of Health
which intended to lord it over the towns the same as the
Poor Law Board over parishes, had broken down. (" Oh'
oh," and " Divide.") The hon. member, who had been,
interrupted throughout by murmurs and cries of "Divide,'
continued to address the house, but his remarks were
drowned by the opposition which he had to encounter.

Sir R. KNIGUTLEY moved the adjournment of the
debate.

Mr. VILLIERS objected to the adjournment. It had
been said that speeches were made to gain time, and he
thought that seemed to be the fact.

Mr. HENLEY had listened to the debate for seven hours,
but as the Government would not exert itself to keep
order in the house, he approved of the course taken by the
hon. baronet.

Sir G. GREY said it was quite clear the house would
not listen to the hon. gentleman.

Sir W. MILES was one of those who usually objected
to an adjournment, but when the hon. gentleman who had
just addressed the house had met with such great interrup-
tion, that his speech was considerably shortened (laughter),
he thought the hon. baronet who moved the adjournment
was perfectly right.

The house then divided—
For the adjournment BO
Against it
Majority —94