The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-07 00:00:00

EQ UILISA

IOR RATES.

Yesterday a deputation fr'm t' e clergy of the
east tnd of London, consising of Canon Champ-
net's, Rector of White:l-lapel ; the Rev. G. H.
M'Gill, incumbent of Christ Church, St. George's
Rist ; the Rev. W. M'Call, incumbent of St.
Mary's, St. George's East ; Rev. G. T. Dtiffield,
Rector of Bow ; and. the Rev. It. C. Smith, Senior
curate of Stepney, had an interview with the
Poor Law Board respecting the equalisation of
poor-rates in the metropolitan T aritles.
Canon CHAMPNEYS said the deputation appeared
there on the part of their poor pa iish;oners rather
than for tkeinselve3. The fact was that the west
end was elbow ng out its poor ; that the city,
which was a city of warehouses, was doing the
same ; and the great docks at the East-end, acting
as a powe-ful magnet, attracted the poor fr.'m their
own 1 tcality in search of workand concentrated them
along the lineof the river. The effect of this was that
a poor population which did not in any way belongto
the east, was drawn and located there, and as the poor
flowed in the rich flowed out, so that the district
became every year more subject to high poor-rates,
although everyyrar less able t ()raise them. It wasthe
desire of those represented by the deputation that
this ut:equal and, as t hey conceived, unjust pressure
should be put an end to by the equa.lisltiou of the
poor-rates throughout the me.ropli an districts;
and he submitted to the board a petition got upfor
presentation to both Hou4es of Earliament to this
effect-, signed by 36 clergymen in the east end of
London representing a population ef something
like 360,000.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD (Mr. Bouverie)
asked if the deputation were prepared with any
specific plan. There could: no doubt that as
long as the poor were locally maintained there would
he inequality of burdens, and that there must
always bOome p'aces where the rates would be
heavier than in others. This was inherent in the
present system. Then, again, had the deputation
taken into consideration the mode in which the
rates were to be administered, as well as.the mode
in which they were to be raise l ?
The Rev. G. M‘Grun said they were not pre- .
pared to answer that question, but what the depu-
tation aske t was that the poorerparishes of London
should not pay in a far larger proportion than the
richer towards the support of the poor. . Under
the present system the poorer a parish was, and
the less able to sustain burdens of this sort, the
more it contributed to the poor-rate. Thus, the
parish he represented, that of St. George's-in-the.
Rid, paid 3s. 4d. in the pound to the poor rate,
while St. George's-in-the-West paid 'ad. More-
over, in spite of the crushing rates now levied in
the eastern parishes of the metropolis the poor
were not adequately supported. The relieving
officer, imagining that in doing so he was taking
care of the interests of the ratepayers, gave a
labouring man a 41b -loaf and a shilling a-week,
upon which it was impossible that he could sub-
sist. In fact, if the poor in the districts to which
he was alluding were adequately relieved, he be-
lieved that the rates would be lOs or 124., instead
of 3s. or 4s. in the pound. As a matter of justice
they asked that these poor person', who laboured
for those at the west end as well as those at the
east end of London, should be supported by both
alike. _ _

Mr. BOUVERIE—That is precisely the point upon
which the inhabitants of the richer parishes would
join issue with you. They would deny that they
ought to be called upon, " as a matter of justice,"
to support your poor.
The Rev. G. M`GILL--But we deny the premise
that they are our poor exclusively. They work for
the benefit of rich rather than for the benefit of
poor districts ; yet the latter are called upon to
support them. The rev. gentleman proceeded to
observe that unless something was done to remedy
the evil complained of, the property in the east end
of London must be virtually confiscated. In 1886
the number of in-door poor in St. George's-in-the-
East was 813, out-door poor, 1,297, and the rate
collected per quarter, 2,3501. Since then there had
been a gradual increase under all three heads, un-
til in 1816 the number of in-door and out-door poor
was 1,414 and 4,698 respectively, while the rates
of Midsummer and Michaelmas quarters, 1856,
were 7,9741. and 8,4561. To his certain
knowledge, some of the parishioners had been ob-
liged to pawn their goods in order to pay their poor
rates. He felt convinced that if the poor parishes
were made to pay beyond their means in this way,
such payments being inadequate after all to sup-
port those applying for relief, and if the richer
parishes were allowed to escape, the peace of Lon
don would not continue safe. The men who went
about parading the streets and demanding bread
would not respect parochial bounds.
Mr. BOUVERIE said that was rather like an argu-
ment ad terrorem.

The Rev. G. M'GILL said he only adduced it be-
cause he felt_that the Goverdment of the country
was responsible for the peace of the country, and
because as a cle?gyman be was anxious to see means
adopted whereby that peace should be preserver).
Mr. BoUvERIE wished to bring the deputation
back to the practical point befure him. Could they
go to St. George's, Hanover-square, and ask the
ratepayers there to contribute towards the support
the poor in the east end of London ? Again, were
they prepared to maintain that the administration
of these rates, if equalised, should be still
left in the hands of their local authorities,
and that they should thus have the privilege of
putting their bands into the pockets of the whole
metropolis, the metropolis having no voice in the
expenditure 7 The deputation themselves repre-
sented that if the poor were adequately relieved the
rates would be 10s. or 12s. in the pound. Now,
the present system afforded the most effectual. secu-
rity against extravagance which could be given, be-
, cause these who administered the rate felt that

they were spending their own Money. But,it was a
pretty general impression that no such security
would he had if the ratepayers knew that ot ler
people's money was being spent in relieving their
poor.
The Rev. G. McGill, thought that if even there
were a little extravagance in the expenditure, this
would be a less evil than the ruin of the ratepayers
in these districts. But they had no right to assume
that guardians of the poor, as men of honour, would
not be as careful of other people's money as of their
own. If it were hiacase he thought he sh{aild.be even
more careful ofotherpeople'smoney than of his own.
Mr. BouvErtiE—That sounds well in theory, but
it is not found to be the case practically.
-The Rev. W. Walla, thought all London might
be regarded as one parish, the interests of which
were intermingled and the same.
Mr. BOUVERIE said it was only a question of
shifting a burden; but, unfortuna.ely, just iu the
same proportion as the east end of the town was
anxious to shift this burden to others, the rest of
the metropolis would be unwilling to have it shifted.
Some persons were in favour of a national rate, but
he believed that all those who had looked narrowly
into the subject turned from such a proposition
with a shudder.
The Rev. R. C. SMITH observed there was an
example of a consolidated rate throughout the me-
tropolis for sanitary purposes.
Mr. BOUVERIE replied that there was no indefinite
element of extension about that rate as there was
about the poor-rate. The latter possessed a certain
elasticity, a tendency to expand, resulting from
the pressure for relief, which required "the screw"
to be put on pretty tightly in order to prevent it
from becoming an intolerable burden. Now, the
only security against extravagant expenditure was,
as he had before observed, in the principle of local
rating. If they once took off the protection af-
forded by that system there would soon be higher
rates, not only in the districts represented by the
deputation, but throughout the whole metropolis.
Thus the east end of Loudon would not relieve
themselves, while they would involve their neigh-
bours: Then, again, it was quite clear that they
could not stop at the metropolis. If London were
once made subject to a general rate for the main-
tenance of the poor, he did not see that they could
help applying the same principle to the whole
country, and having a national rate. At all events,
he had no doubt the case of the metropolis, with
the rating so altered, would he cited as an argu-
ment for a national rate, whereas he was quite sure
that the general feeling of the country was against
the adoption of such a principle.
After some further conversation the deputation
retired, thanking the President and the Board for
the patient ateution with which their statements
had been received.