The Sun.
London, England, 1867-01-26 00:00:00

LONDO.N, Si'..:I,!DAY, JAN. 26, 18C7.

A very important deputation yesterday waited
upon Mr. GATTORNE HARDY, at Whitehall, to
urge upon him the pressing necessity for an equa-
lisation of the metropolitan poor rates. The ques-
tion is without doubt a very extensive and important
one ; but, like many other necessary reforms, its
consideration has already been too long delayed.
We in England are very apt to talk over a matter
and delay action until some great and pressing ne-
cessity arises. It requires too often some imminent
danger or. terrible catastrophe to arouse indifference
and break through prejudice ; and such has been

the case with the long-existing grievance which the
deputation yesterday complained of. The wide-spread
and severe distress now existing among a large pro-
portion of the working classes of the metropolis will,
it may be hoped, at least have the effect of stimulat-
ing the required reform in the administration of the
Poor-law. For some time past there has been a good
deal of dissatisfaction created by the accounts of the
treatment of our sick poor in some of the London
infirmaries, and the revelations from the casual
wards have not improved matters. A new measure
for the amendment of the Poor-law was one of the
first things promised by the Government, who were
conscious of the strong feeling existing on the subjeet.
Events, however, have moved quicker than opinions,
and the growing need of some more comprehensive sys-
tem is now forced upon the recognition of the most
unwilling. The inconsistency of taxing the parishes
least able to pay the rates at an amount five or six
times heavier than the wealthiest districts is so
glaring, so opposed to common sense, as well as to
justice and humanity, that one can only be sur-
prised it should so long have been tolerated. The
poor in London, as in most other great cities, reside
chiefly in certain districts ; the rich and affluent in
quite another direction. It might be even claimed
with some show of reason that the rich
west - end parishes should pay in heavier
proportion than the struggling districts of the East,
but no one asks this. All that is claimed is that
there should be a nominal equality all over Lon-
don. We say nominal advisedly, because a rate
of two or three shillings in the pound would be
very different in its pressure on a rich house-
holder in Grosvenor-square or Prince's-gate, and
on a small shopkeeper in Poplar or St.George's-in-
the-East. Nevertheless, suck is the value of house
property in London that the equalisation would
make an immense difference. As it is the land-
loads of the East-end suffer as well as the tenants, as
a member of the deputation yesterday clearly showed.
Comparatively few persons taking a house at the
West-end would stop to consider the rates, but in
the East they make the difference between taking a
house and a room. The value of property is con-
sequently affected, and hundreds of houses which
were formerly occupied by one family have now a
family in every room. As Mr. BUXTON, M.P., re-
marked, it is useless to hope for effective measures
for improving the dwellings of the poor in those
parts while the rates are so high. In some dis-
tricts they come up to five and six shillings in the
pound, amounting, of course, to a quarter or
third of the rent. Even this is totally in-
adequate to the necessities of the case,
and, as a memorial yesterday presented to
Mr. HARDY showed, the poor are in many cases
very insufficiently relieved, not because the guar-
dians are hard-hearted, but because they dare not
increase the rates for fear of pauperising the rate-
payers themselves. What other result could follow
from increased rates when Ratcliff, who has few
inhabitants above the rank of artisans, has to pay
nearly 6s. in the pound already. The rates in many
other districts range from 4s. to 65., while parishes
like Paddington and St. George's, Hanover-square,
do not pay 6d. The parish of St. George-the-Martyr,
Southwark, pays a rate of 4s. GI. in the pound ; the
population is 5,600, and one person in every 20 is
a pauper. The Rev. Mr. M‘GILL, who made a

eloquent and forcible appeal to the President of the
Poor-law Board, reminded him that from statistics
of the Board itself it had been shown that of 39
parishes and unions in Loudon, five would lose by
an equalised rating. It is not of course difficult to
discover those five. They are St. George's (Ilan-
over-square), Paddington, Islington, Kensington,
and the City of London. Contrasting those five
with Bethnal-green, Whitechapel, St. George's-in-
the-East, Shoreditch, and Stepney, wo shall come
upon some startling figures. The rateable value
of the first five is £4,641,773, and in 1865 they
expended for the purposes of the poor-rates
£127,423. The rateable value of the last five is
£1,140,970, and there was raised upon that for the
poor-rate the sum of £136,664. That is to say,
nearly ten thousand more was paid by the parishes
whose rateable value is just one quarter of the others.

The rates in many of the eastern parts are at pre-
sent crushing, and as Mr. M`GILL observed, if the
rich parishes took their share of the burden, the poor
parishes would stand in leas need of charity. Eleven
deputations had, he said, gone up to the Lord
Mayor the day before to ask for charity, but that
day they came to the Pour-law Board to ask for
justice.

The memorial presented to Mr. HARDY expressed
succinctly and forcibly the facts of the case. It

pointed out very strongly the grievous inequalities
at present existing, St. George's-in-the-East, in
which the number of persoas relieved in one week of
this present January was nine per cent., as an
example. The memorialists pleaded that it was un-

fair the poorest parishes should be called upon ex-
clusively to pay for the support in times of sickness
and destitution of those who labour in all parts of the
metropolis, and who consequently have an equitable
claim, when labour fails, upon the places where
they work as ►•ell as where they live. They
showed that an equal rate of is. 3d. in the pound
would not only greatly relieve the suffering parishes,
but produce a sum fully adequate to all requires

ments. This is certainly a reasonable sum, and
need not frighten the West-end householders. If
the charge were once made no burden would be
felt, but many are alarmed at the sound of such an
alteration. Mr. GATHORNE HARDY did not, of

course, commit himself, but he said he

was preparing a comprehensive measure.

Ile has a great opportunity for carry-
ing out a reform from which his prede-
cessor, Mr. VILLIERS, always shrunk; and we hope
that, notwithstanding the difficulties which it must

be admitted might attend the carrying out of ti e
details of such a measure, he will not hesitate to

submit it to the consideration of the common sense

and justice of the public.

Mr. BRIGHT last night met a large number of his
workpeople in the public hall, Rochdale, who pre-
sented to him an address expressive of their " entire
sympathy with, and sincere respect for, him under
the malignant slanders which bad been urged
against him as their employer." After the affair of
the presentation, &c., was over Mr. BRIGHT made
a short speech, partly in his own favour, and partly
to explain his views on the matter. First of all, he
stated that the meeting in question was one of an
" unusual and noteworthy character," and indeed
he was not aware that at any previous time
such a thing had occurred. The object of
the slanders, in Mr. BRIGHT'S opinion, is to
" damage his political influence," and thereupo❑
as might have been expected, he waxed very
indignant, and treated his hearers to a few of
his empathic sentences. " There are," he says,
" 500 firms in the country, who carry on business,
and may have small or great differences with their
men, but the 499 are left untouched, and he
alone is singled out and assailed by these
men !'" Why is this? he asks." It is worth your
while to consider the question, " Whence came
these charges and these slanders? They came, as
you hear, openly and chiefly from obscure men in
the Tory ranks. Occasionally you hear
of them from some obscure man who by f

One

accident of party has been raised for a few
months into the position of a Minister of the
Crown. Our assailants, if you examine the matter
for a moment, you will find they are the monopolists
of political power in this country, and the base
creatures, who for selfish purposes are found crawl-
ing about them." After this elegant language, so
pre-eminently characteristic of Mr. BRIGHT, we
next find that he goes on to state the nature of his
crime in the eyes of those " creatures," who pre-
sume to scan his actions and criticise his
doings. Since the first hour he entered
public life and stepped upon a public
platform he has resisted that monopoly,
and pleaded for the rights of the millions of the
people of this country. This sounds very fine, and
in some degree may be correct ; but Mr. BRIGHT
claims to ignore how, or in what manner, he has
done these things of which he glories. He has,
indeed, of ten advocated the just claims of some por-
tion of the community, but he has never done so
without casting slanders on another portion of it.
He has striven hard to set class against class, and
to impress upon bis hearers that those
whom the accidents of birth, fortune, or posi-
tion, had placed higher than themselves
in the social scale were unworthy of trust'
and devoid of sympathy for those below them'
Another thing of which he is conveniently oblivious
is that he has not been consistent in the part he has
played of the advocate of the rights of the people.
When the questions relating to labour have come
forward he has always been on the side of those who
opposed the improvement of the condition of the
working classes and the curtailment of the hours of
labour. It needed the existing stimulant of op-
posing the hated Tory party tooth and nail to raise
Mr. BRIGHT'S energies; the very notion of doing
anything they disapproved of was as the trumpet that
calls for the war-horse to the charge ; but turn the
picture, and a very different scene presented itself.
As for Mr. BRIGHT'S declaration that he has never
asked that the lower orders should change laws or
settle our institutions, we think that he has been
consistently alluding to such things of late, and in-
timating pretty plainly to his political opponents
that they would experience most unpleasant results
if they did not speedily change their tactics and
modify their views. It is almost amusing to hear from
Mr. BRIGHT that he is no " flatterer." We really
do not think that any one has been found presump-
tuous enough to lay this sin to his charge ; but he
says that he has been guided by a higher law than
" the prejudices and passions of any class of the
people." Immediately after uttering this grandilo-
quent assertion, we find him referring to his own
conduct twenty years ago in a manner which shows
that he does not deem it necessary to be exempt
from passions and prejudices of his own, or from
making meaner views guide him in his public
career. The Factory Act, he says, was
brought forward twenty years ago, and he
did not deem it to be his duty to support it, and
many deemed him wrong in his decision. lie now,
after this lapse of time, condescends to tell us his
reasons for the opposition he made to this proposal
for benefitting the condition of the operatives. " I
was against any interference by Parliament with the
freedom of labour and capital in this country. I
did not wish to trust a Parliament of landowners
with the control and the disposition of labour and
capital in this country. I knew by their infamous
conduct, which had lasted for thirty years, they
had confiscated an untold and countless amount o

labour and capital of Englandwith the view of turning
it into the channel of rent themselves, and therefore
did not like this body of men to meddle with the
question." Now we consider this as disgraceful an
admission as any that was ever made, by a public
man in this country, and surely his most bitter
enemy could not devise any slander against him
which could thinage his reputation more than the
words he himself utters. It is a mockery for a man
to get upon a public platform and denounce the
political immorality of his opponents, and then
disc!oA such a glaring instance of his own
want of honesty. He is showing in this
explanation of his course a signal proof of
the folly of those who preach the old Whig
doctrine of "Men, and not measures." What pos-
sible difference did it make to those employed in
the factories which side of politicians passed the
measure which was to improve their condition, and
bless their hard lives of constant and unremitting
labour? The truth is, that it did matter to Mr.

BRIGHT and his friends that their opponents should
be seen to be the benefactors of the people, when
they were always denouncing them as the oppres-
sors and the tyrants of the lower orders.

Perhaps, however, the most inconsistent thing
of the whole matter is, that Mr. BRIGHT now says
that he rejoices as much as any of them that they
are now working ten hours and a half instead of
eleven hours and a half daily, as before; endea-
vouring, however, to qualify the assertion by in-
timating that if the Corn Laws had not passed
the full benefits of the change could not have
been made so apparent. He expects that if any
one looks back to the discussions of that time
they will find that he said nothing unfriendly to
the operative classes, and that he sought to defend
them and their employers from the " exag-
gerated and calumnious statements of those
to whom he was opposed." This one word
aptly explains the meaning of Mr. BRIGHT'S
policy past, present, and future. All who
are his opponents must be found wanting in the
thing needful, honesty of purpose, and he can-
and will not believe that they are to ba trusted.

Mr. BRIGHT concluded his speech by saying that he
thought no people could be happy without a wise

legislation and a just administration of the laws,

'This is no doubt quite true, but there is another
thing which goes a long way to ensure happiness,

and that is contentment. So long as angry and bit-
ter feelings are allowed to huld sway in men's

minds there will be no prospect of steady

1r lasting improvement, and in the desire to make

out the worst gAse against other people will be very

apt to forget what might be best for themselves.
We might all have mado a little allowance for some
irritable expressions on Mr. BRIGHT'S part last

night, under the circumstances, were it not that he

never loses an opportunity of decrying those who

are his political antagonists, and still more of under-

mining the reputation of those who are higher in

rank and influence ; so that jealousy and ill-will

seem to be the sentiments he desires the most as-

siduously to cultivate among the working classes.

THE ILLEGALITY OF TRADES' UNIONS.—At a
numerously attended meeting of trades' society dele-
gates held last evening at the Sussex Hotel, Bouverie-
street, Fleet-street, in relation to the late Trades' Reform
Demonstration, at the conclusion of the regular business,
Mr. G. Potter, the chairman, brought before the delegates
the recent decision given in the Court of Queen's Bench,
by which trades' unions were deprived of the power of re-
covering by law any sums of money that might be em-
bezzled from their funds by any officer or member of the
society. After some discussion, a delegate from the plas-
terers moved, and a delegate from the carpenters seconded,
the following resolution :—" That the Working Men's As-
sociation be and is hereby empowered by this meeting to
convene a meeting of delegates from the trades' societies
of the metropolis, for the purpose of taking into considera-
tion the position in which trades' unions aro placed by the
recent decision in the Court of Queen's Bench in the case
of the Boilermakers' Society, and to determine the course
to be adopted thereon." The resolution was unanimously
adopted.