The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-05 00:00:00

IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
On clause 1,
Mr. LOCKE said the bill made an alteration which had
not been demanded throughout the country. It involved
the question whether the parishes in the metropolis, which
were materially interested in the proposed change, should
have their wishes attended to. He wished to have the area
of rating in the metropolis extended, in order that the whole
of them should form one union, and he proposed an amend-
ment by adding to the clause he words "and for that pur-
pose the area, subject to the provisions of the Metropolis
Local Management Acts, shall be a union." This would
constitute the metropolis a union in itself.
Mr. WARNER thought great injustice would result
from the passing the first clause as it stood, but he did not
think the amendment would meet the difficulty. He ap-
proved of the bill as far as it mitigated the law of settle-
ment ; but if any member would move the total omission of
the clause he should support him.
Mr. KNIGHT did not think that Norwich had much
reason to complain. The property-tax returns showed a
great increase for that city, while the rural parishes were
being enriched at its expense. He thought Norwich had
one of the strongest cases against the extension of the area
of rating.
Mr. DODSON thought parochial rating was too nar-
row, but they might run into the opposite extreme. He
thought there might be a rating extending over
such a district as derived a community of in-
terest. Many of the labourers worked in one parish
and resided in -mother, therefore, as they gave one
the benefit of their labour, and the other the expenditure of
their wages, when they became chargeable he thought both
should bear the burthen. Ile approved of the bill as it
stood, and he hoped the amendment would be rejected.
Sir G. LEWIS said if they were to go on discussing this
bill on every point he should altogether despair of passing
it in the present session. The measure was one of great
importance, and its object was perfectly clear ; it had been
thoroughly investigated in committee, and the bill was
founded upon its report. The subject hey were now dis-
cussing was a totally distinct question from that embraced in
the bill. They were now engaged, in fact, in discussing the
subject of the equalisation of the rating of the metropolis.
He thought it would be wasting the time of the house if
they continued the present discussion.
Mr. BENTINCK thought the bill was one to relieve the
urban at the expense of the rural population, and such
being its object he considered it most objectionable.
Sir G. LEWIS contended that the bill, so far from
being what was described by the hon. member who had just
sat down, was one in favour of the landed interest and
against the urban parishes, but the charge was just, and
therefore the representatives of the towns did not object
to it.
Mr. HENLEY could not agree with the right hon.
baronet the Secretary for the Home Department that the
bill needed no further discussion. It was one in his
opinion that inflicted great injury on rural parishes, and he
should like to know how it would act. That it would act
with great capriciousness he was quite certain—(hear, hear)
--and he did not think they ought to be called upon to pro-
coed with the bill until a statement had been laid before
Parliament, of all the parishes, showing how the measure
would work; but as they were going on at present, they
were working entirely in the dark. He thought if the
present measure were withdrawn for the session, Govern-
ment could obtain the necessary returns, by which they
would be enabled to deal with the subject much more
efficiently next session.

➢lr. VILLIERS could not consent to the proposal of the
hon. gentleman opposite. The bill had gone through a
second reading, and he thought it was very desirable that
it should as speedily as possible go through its other stages.
He thought the proposal of the hon. member for South-

wark highly objectionable.
Mr. BARROW thought the bill a very good one.
Mr. AYRTON was of opinion that the amendment o
his hon, and learned friend the member for Southwark was
most urgently required in the bill. If the Government had
not fully considered the subject, he thought it offered very
good ground of withdrawing the bill altogether during the
present session.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT thought the object of the hon.
member for Southwark both impracticable and unjust. The
amendment he had moved was merely a preliminary one,
and as it was desirable that the other clauses should be con-
sidered, he hoped the honourable member would
withdraw it from further consideration, and bring up a
new and definite clause, embodying his proposition,
when the,. arrived at the proper part of the bill. He
thought the bill was grounded in justice, and therefore he
gave it his earnest support.
Mr. WALTER hoped the hon. member would not press
his amendment to a division. Ho thought the bill a good
one, and therefore he gave it his support.
Sir J. SHELLEY thought the object of the hon. mem-
ber for Southwark—the equalisation of the poor rates—
was too important to be dealt with in the manner proposed,
viz., by tacking on some words at the end of the clause of
the bill then before them. The proper way to deal with the
question was to have the whole subject fairly inquired into
before a committee, and he for one had no fear of the result.
Sir L. PALK approved of the principle of the bill, and
he should be sorry were it unnecessarily obstructed.
Mr. KNIGHT opposed the bill. He found there were
9,000 parishes that would be injured, and only 6,000 bene-
fited, and he should accordingly support the amendment of
the hon. member for Southwark. Perhaps the best course
to adopt was to withdraw the bill altogether from further
consideration during the present session.
Mr. LOCKE, in withdrawing the amendment, said he
did so on the understanding that the question was to be
considered as not having been decided in any way, but that
it was one that at a future time must come under conside-
ration.
Mr. WARNER said he could not approve of the clause,
and expressed his intention of dividing the house upon it.
Mr. KNIGHT moved that the following words be added :
—" That five years' continuous residence in any parish
shall confer a settlement therein, and that four years' con-
tinuous non-residence in any parish shall forfeit and extin-
guish all claims to a settlement therein."
The proposed addition to the clause was negatived with-
out a division.
The clause was then agreed to, and ordered to stand part
of the bill.
Clauses 2 to 7 were agreed to.
On lause 8,
Mr,c AYRTON objected to the term "perpetual." It
was also urged that great injustice was done some
when any alteration was attempted. He therefoert persona
ttePasih,3ublde
move that the words "are hereby up
shmaltderemPam in force
expunged, and that the words
during the existence of this act," be inserted
dintystteetaedn.,
and
The amendment was negatived without
the clause was ordered to stand part of the a
bill.
On clause 9 being proposed
Mr. S. ESTCOURT " u on
on an as-
moved,
in line 12 to leave out after
" thereof'" to the end of line 14, and insert
value of the
sessment calculated by adding to the annual
lands and hereditaments in each of such parishes, as here-
inafter described, a sum. equal in pounds sterling to the
amount in numbers of the population of such parish, ac-
cording to the last census."
Mr. VILLIERS said he thought the proposition would
lead to complications, but ho left it entirely to the house to
say whether the alteration should be made. (Cries of
"Divide, divide.")
sir W. RIDLEY and Sir B. BRIDGES thought that a divi,
sion on so important a clause should not be taken at that
moment.
The sitting was then suspended till six o'clock.

The house resumed at six o'clock, and was
[LEFT SITTING.]

THE LATE LORD CAMPBELL.—TllO Morning post
states that Lord Campbell died enormously wealthy, having
i 4 lair+ profession 44t1 iu 9fac9 ACCUMUIgiIdSIIII £200,000'