The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-23 00:00:00

MR. WHALLEY'S INTERRUPTERS

Mr. WHALLEY desired to make a personal explanation.
During tho discussion which took place on Saturday morn-
ing be had been reported as having charged a member of
the government with interrupting him with the cry of
" sing." (Laughter.) Now as complaints had been made to
him on the subject of that report, ho desired to say that it
was not to a member of the government that he imputed
such an interruption of him.
UNION CHARGEABILITY BILL.
On the report of this bill as amended,
Mr. KNIGHT rose to move the following resolution :
" That in the opinion of this house it is expedient that the
following expenses now charged upon the union and paro-

chial poor rates, or which will become chargeable upon the
rates of unions and single parishes throughout England or
Wales, should be repaid to the unions or parishes by which
they have been so expended out of moneys provided by
Parliament for that purpose. Amount of each item taken
from last report of Poor-law Board, viz.: £501,868, all ex-
penses of the maintenance of pauper lunatics in asylums or
licensed houses; £679,480, the establishment charges of
poor law unions or of single parishes under boards of guar-
dians, including all salaries and rations of officers (in addi-
tion to those now repaid out of her Majesty's Treasury) ;
£168,745, all other expenses of, or immediately connected
with, the relief of the poor, excepting only those of tho in-
maintenance and out relief of the poor. All poor rate ex-
penditure for the following purposes, being unconnected
with poor relief, viz.: £43,273 constables' fees and cost of
proceedings before justices ; £69,130 payments on account
of Registration Act; £15,660, vaccination fees; £36,586
expenses in respect of parliamentary or municipal registra-
tion, and costs of jury lists." Every year the difference in
value between real and personal property was increasing.
It was true that real property was growing in value, but
personal property was growing in a much greater ratio.
Now this bill would confiscate from one-eighth to one-
tenth of the whole of the real property in certain parishes.
By proposing this resolution ho had no wish to disturb the
financial arrangements of the year, but he hoped the vote
would be considered an instruction to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer when any future reduction took place. The
charges which he asked the house to consider amounted
in the aggregate to about £1,700,000, and he maintained
that it was only fair to put those charges upon the general
taxation of the country. It might bo said that if the pro-
posal were agreed to the principle it embodied ought to be
extended; to Ireland and Scotland. No doubt such a
course ought ultimately to be taken. In conclusion, he
expressed a hope that the house would not object to vote
in favour of a proposal which was made with the view of
relieving the poor ratepayers at the expense of those who
were more wealthy. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PACKE seconded the motion, which was opposed
by Mr. H. BRUCE on behalf of the Government. The hon.
member also defended the accuracy of Dr. Hunter's report
on the state of cottage accommodation in the rural parishes
against the charges brought against it in a former debate.
Mr. HENLEY explained that in the previous discus-
sions on that subject he had not impugned the accuracy of
statements made by Dr. Hunter founded upon his own
knowledge.; but had protested against the sweeping charge
brought against thejlanded proprietors of having,as a class,
driven the poor out of their parishes by the demolition of
cottages and the creation of the close parish system. Re-
ferring to the resolution of Mr. Knight, he contended that
a large portion of the burdens which were now specially,
borne by the owners of real property ought to be trans-
ferred to the revenue of the State.

Mr. Portman, Sir B. Leighton, Mr. Floyer, Sir H. Ver-
ney, Lord Henniker, and other members took part in the
discussion that followed.

Mr. VILLIERS opposed the resolution on the ground
that it would virtually defeat the principle which the bill
was intended to carry out, namely, to make certain pa-
rishes contribute more equally than at present to the relief
of the poor. In fact, the mover wished to transfer local
charges to the public, while at the same time he would re-
tain the management in his own hands. He hoped the
house would reject the proposal by a large majority.
Mr. BROMLEY protested against the report of Dr.
Hunter, which he declared was inspired by a hostile feel-
ing towards the landlord class.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
wished to say, a few words upon the subject, which no
doubt was an important one, and to consider it from the
point of view presented by the hon. member opposite. It
was quite true that in consequence of the speech of the
hon. member for Leicestershire a great portion of the de-
bate had run upon topics foreign to the motion before the
house. What was the proposition involved in that motion?
It was a proposition upon the motion of a member of Par-
liament for applying, first, £1,800,000 as an annual charge
applicable to England alone. But the hon. member, with
great ingenuousness and equity, admitted that if the prin-
ciple were applied for the benefit of England, it would be
necessary to extend the benefit to Ireland and Scotland,
which would raise it to something like to £2,500,00. It was
a rule that no private member could move to give a charge
upon the Consolidated Fund; but the hon. member cir-
cumvented that rule by the ingenious method !hat it was
to be done by money provided by Parliament for the pur-
pose. He wished to remark that if there were a method by
which private members were to escape the operation of
that rule—if the restraint which the house had wisely
placed upon itself with regard to imposing a charge on the
Consolidated Fund were to be relaxed—all he asked, in
the name of justice and public policy, was, that some other
method might be evolved by which private members
might escape the operation of the rule which proposed
that taxes should bo laid upon the people ; and that the
hon. member who proposed to add £2,500,000 to the public
expenditure would be kind enough to rise in his place and
propose the taxes by which that sum could be met. (Hear.)
It was quite open to the house to alter the system on
which the public expenditure was provided, and to take
into its own bands the preparation of the estimates and
the proposal of the public charges, but what he contended
was that those two things ought to go together. Nothing
could be more preposterous than for individual members
to propose to scatter right and left boons and benefits for
particular classes of the community. and to leave to the
Executive Government the odious task of proposing taxes.
(Hear.) If the hon. member had it in his mind to make
a proposal of this kind a fortnight ago why did he per-
mit 2d. to be taken off the income tax. Why did ho not
resist that bill which destroyed the two and a half millions
that he now proposed to dispose of. He should like to hear
the views of the hon. gentleman as to the way the charge
he sought to impose should be met. Would he double the
succession duty ? (A laugh.) That would supply part of
the money. But he did not think the hon. member would
agree to double the succession duty. He -should be very
sorry to see that doubled. He had no wish to see this ex-
tensive tampering with the taxation of the country for pur-
poses which seemed to be so critical as regarded the risks
involved and so slight and trivial as regarded the benefits
which would arise. If that were the case, ho hoped the
house would have little difficulty in declining to deal with
this question in the shape of a merely general and abstract
resolution, and would, therefore, reject the hon. gentle-
man's motion.

Sir J. TROLLOPE appealed to the hon. member not to
press his motion to a division. The question of dealing
with the Poor-law was difficult enough in itself without
adding the greater difficulties which would be caused by
the motion.

The resolution was then negatived without a division.

Mr. KNIGHT moved a new clause to enable owners to
compound for the rating of small tenements throughout any
union under the 13th and 14th Viet., chap. 99. It was ne-
gatived, however, without a division on an explanation by
Mr. Villiers that a recent decision in the Court of Common
Pleas had changed the status of tenements so rated.
Some verbal amendments were then introduced, and the
bill, as amended, was agreed to.
PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT BILL.

The amendments to this bill were considered and
agreed to.

SUPPLY.

On the motion for going into committee of supply, seve-
ral hon. members expressed a hope that the noble lord the
Secretary of the Admiralty would not proceed at that hour
of the evening (half-past 10 o'clock) with the vote involv-
ing a sum of £6,000,000 for machinery, buildings,
works, &c.
Lord C. PAGET remarked that the votes had boon de-
layed until an unusually late period of the session ; but he
subsequently assented to the postponement.