The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-13 00:00:00

POOR RELIEF (METROPOLIS) BILL.

Mr. GOSCUEN moved that this bill be read a third time.
Mr. CROSS said he did not wish to stop the bill as it re-
lated to the metropolis, but he hoped that those members
who represented counties would take care that the measure
did not establish a precedent to apply to the counties. The
expenses connected with the relief of the poor in London
last year amounted to £1,400,000, and the in-door relief
amounted to £400,000. It was practically in the power of
those who had the administration of relief to the poor to
force everybody into the workhouses, because they would
transfer the charge from their own union to the common
fund. In the next place it involved this 'important prin-
ciple, that one part of the metropolis would have to pay,
whilst the expenditure of the money would be entirely
out of the control of those who contributed to the fund.
Lord GEORGE CAVENDISH observed that with regard to
three-fourths of the indoor relief over that vast area of
the metropolis they were going to do away with all con-
trol by ratepayers as to the expenditure of their own
funds. The principle of the bill would not stop there as
to the equailsation of the rates. It would be extended to
the rural districts. It would end in a national rate, with a,
huge system of centralization. He should not oppose the
measure, because it would be useless to do so.
Mr. T. .CHAMBERS said that the principle and precedent
which was set in the metropolis would be extended to the
country, and all the objections which had been urged that
night were adVanced as strongly as possible by the metro-
politan member to empty benches. He believed that the
measure was but the beginning of a scheme which would
subvert the principle of parochial relief in this country.
The president of the Poor-Law Board had said that the
Irish Poor-Law Act contained a principle which, by the
the present measure, compelled any parish to pay
£2,000 or £3,000 a quarter for not complying with the
regulations of the Poor Law Board. The hon. gentleman
remarked that this principle constituted the Poor-Law
Board judge, jury, and witnesses in their own case.
Mr. LIDDELL, whilst protesting against the principle of
the bill, did not oppose it, so far' as the metropolis was
concerned. His fear was that it would be extended to the
counties. There were, he admitted, special circumstances
in regard to the metropolis which justified the measure,
but he urged upon the Government to give the country an
assurance that the principle would not be extended.
After some remarks from Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH,.

Mr. J. G. TALBOT said the ratepayer,; would be called
upon to pay for that which they had no control over.
This, he contended, was a new principle, and ought not to
be adopted without due consideration. At the same time
he believed there were strong reasons for exceptional legis-
lation so far as London was concerned. If the President
of the Poor-law Board proposed equalising taxation in
London he should equalise the assessment of the different
parts of the metropolis. At present the assessment varied
immensely. Sixpence in the pound in one place was
equal to one shilling in the pound in another.
Mr. GOSCHEN said that before they equalised the poor-
rate the Government would equalise the assessment. In
the last session the House actually passed a bill for equal-
ising the assessment in the metropolis, and arrangements
were in progress and he trusted that the abuses alluded to
would be remedied. The equalisation of the rates in the
metropolis did not carry with it the equalisation of the
rates all over the country, as was apprehended. If
it tended to the equalisation of rates, a national
rate, and to support the poor out of the
Consolidated Fund, there would be no greater oppo-
nent to the bill than himself. He could not conceive any
greater danger than the support of the poor out of the
Consolidated Fund. It had been stated by a select com-
mittee that the circumstances of London were of an ex-
ceptional character, and the Government, during the
Progress of the bill, had had satisfactory proof that the
metropolitan members were not opposed to it ; on the
contrary, there were as many for as against the measure.
Mr. KNIGHT believed the bill to be dangerous, inasmuch
as it aimed at preventing out-door relief, and forcing the
poor into the workhouses.

VALUATION OF LANDS AND ASSESSMENTS
(SCOTLAND) BILL.

The LORD ADVOCATE moved the second reading of this
bill, and ity944JAWlCl_O—a_Belco Ccwi ttee.