The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-09 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(Tms DAY.)
The SPEAKER took the Chair at 12 o'clock.
IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill, and resumed
at clause 9.

Sir B. BRYDGES said he did not intend to propose the
omission of the whole clause, provided the amendment of
the hon. member (Mr. S. Esteourt) to the effect that the
common fund should bo based upon assessment calculated
by adding to the annual value of the lands and heredita-
ments in each of the parishes, a sum equal in pounds ster-
ling to the amount of the numbers of the population of
such parishes according to the last census be acceded to.
Ile had considerable experience in the working of the ori-
ginal as well as the amended law. lie felt bound to pro-
test against the principle of a larger area of rating than ex-
isted at present. He considered every inducement should
be held out to landlords to make thorn give employment to
tho poor in their respective localities. But if the system
of union rating were adopted it would do away with this
inducement. _ _ .

Lord HENLEY said that although he had great respect
for the proposer of this amendment, still he thought the
effect would be injurious as it would lead to the eviction of
the poor from various parishes.
Mr. ADDERLEY said he could not support the amend-
ment of his hon. friend, as the arbitrary check it imposed
would defeat its object. He believed the more they localised
the burth©n of poverty the better it would be for the interest
of the community. He thought, however, that the clause
required amendment though not that proposed by the hon.
member (Mr. Estcourt.)
Mr. TOLLEMACHE said that he also had considerable
experience in the working of the law, and he felt bound
reluctantly to oppose the amendment. He had paid great
attention to the evidence produced before the committee,
and he felt satisfied that some alteration, such as that pro-
posed by the bill, was necessary. . _

Mr. DENT said he hoped the house would reject the
amendment and adopt the clause which was the point in
the bill. He did not consider that poverty in a parish was
produced by mismanagement, but from the fact of the num-
ber of persons in certain parishes being without regular
employment all the year round.
Mr. BALL said he felt bound to accept the bill as a whole,
from a conviction that it would operate beneficially. He
thought the amendment would do away with the most im-
portant element of the measure, namely, the equalising of
the contributions throughout the oountry for the poor.
Mr. DODSON supported the bill, and said that the dimi-
nution of the status of irremovability would not increase
the number of irremovable poor, and illustrated this asser-
tion by reference to Leeds, Manchester, and other large
towns.

Mr. CAYLEY said that the grievance proposed to be
remedied in the present case was the exemption of close
parishes. But if they altered the existing system, in some
cases parishes would have to pay perhaps 3s. in the pound,
though the property was bought without reference to any
such tax which would be most unjust. If they assented to
the principle which the 9th clause proposed, they might
rely on it that they would be admitting the thin edge of
the wedge which would inevitably lead to the adoption of
union rating. He also objected to the clause as conferring
management on an irresponsible body.
Mr. PAGET supported the bill as he thought its action
would be to make it the interest of each parish to have a
population sufficient for their wants.
Mr. LYALL supported the clause. He had no doubt
the effect of it would be to include in the rating some few
parishes which were exempted and unjustly so from con-
tributing their quota to the support of the pauperism of
the country.

Mr. "WALTER could not see the justice of allowing one
parish to throw its share of the relief of the poor upon an-
other. Union rating must be the system ultimately to be
arrived at, and he considered it most fair and just.
Mr. HENLEY supported the amendment. He consid-
ered they were legislating prematurely and without in-
formation.

After a few words from Lord 11. VANE,
Sir J. PAK IN2iT ON said his experience, as chairman of
the board of guardians, led him to entertain the same view
as the hon. member for Berkshire.

`LEFT SITTING.]

AFFAIRS OF TURKEY.