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

EQUALISA

IUR BATES.

Yesterday a deputation fr,ml V.e clergy of the
east end of London, consisting of Canon Champ-
neys, Rector of- hiteaiapel ; the Roy. G. H.
M'Gill, incumbent of Christ Church, St. George's
East ; the Rev. W. M'Call, incumbent of St.
Mary's, St. George's East ; Rev. G. T. Driffield,
Rector of Bow ; and the Rev. R. C. Smith, Seitior
curate of Stepney, had au interview wigi
Poor Law Board respecting the equalisation t f
poor-rates in the metropolitan parishes.
Canon CIIAMPNEYS said the deputation appeared
there on the part of their poor parishioners rather
than for t!ternselves. 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 1
as a powe,ful magnet, attracted the poc.r from their
own locality in search of work and concentrated them
along the line of the river. The effect of ais was that
a poor population which did not in any way belong to
the east, was drawn and located there, and as thepoor
flowed in the rich flowed out, so that the district ,
became every year more subject to high poor-rates,
although every year less able to raise them. wasthe
desire of those represented by the deputation that
this unequal and, as they conceived, unjust pressure I
should be put an end to by the equalis lion of the
poor-ra• es throughout the metropoli.an districts;
and he submitted to the board a petition got upfor
presentation to bosh Houses of Parliament to this
effect, signed by 36 clergymen in the east end of
London representing a population of something
like 360, 000.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD (Mr. Bouverie)
asked if the ,deputation were prepared with any
specific plan. There could be no doubt that as
long as the poor were locally maintained there would
be inequality of burdens, and that there must
always be same places 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 raised
The Rev. G. M'GILL said they were not pre-
pared to answer that question, but what the depu-
tation aske was that the poorer parishes 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 popr-rate. Thus, the
parish he represented, that of St. George's-in-the
Big, paid 3s. 4d. in the pound to the poor rate,
while St. George's-iu-the- West paid 71d. More-
over, in spite of the crushing rates now levied in
the eastern parishes of the metropolis the pa r
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 12i., instead
of 3s. or 4s. in the pound. As a matter of justice
they asked that these poor persons, who laboured
for those at the west end as well as those at the
east end of Loudon, 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. 111 '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 thlt 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 bad
boon a gradual increase under all three heads, un-
til in 1846 the number of in-door and out-doorpoor
was 1,414 and 4,698 respectively, while the rates
of Mid~uhtmer and litehaelmas 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-
Tort 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'Grer, 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 clergyman he was anxious to see means
adopted whereby that peace should be preserved.
Mr. BOUVERIE wished to bring the deputation
back to the practical point before 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, wet+
they prepared to maintain that the administration
of these rates, if equalised, should be still
left in the hinds of their local authorities,
and that they should thus have the privilege of
putting their haudiinto the pockets of the whole
metropolis, the metropolis having no voice in the
expencli.ure ? 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-
cam-e these who administered the rate felt that
they were spending their own money. Bat it was a
pretty general impression that no such security
would be had if the ratepayers knew that °tiler
people's money was being spent in relieving their
poor.
The Rev. G. M‘Grm, 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 thopoor, as men of honour, would
not be as careful of other people's money as of their
own. If it were his case he thought lie should be even
more careful of other people's money than of his own.
Mr. BonvEmE—That sounds well in theory, but
it is not found to be the case practically.
The Rev. W. M'aeee thought all London might
be regarded as one parish, the interests of which
were intermingled and the same.
Mr. Bouveran 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-
kropolis 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 London would not relieve
themselves, while they would involve their neigh-
bdurs. 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 mailnd-
tenance of the poor, he did not see that they
help applying the same principle to
eewholeonut
s
country, and having a national rate. At all
events,
he had no doubt the case of the metropolis, with
qs uai ntearsgll-
ure
the rating so altered, would be cited a
went for national rate, whereas he was
that th a e
general feeling of the country was against '
the adoption of such a principle.
The Rev. G. M‘Gree—lt would be objected that
a national rate would lead to centralisation, lout we
a
do not think thatany such results need be feared
regards the metr.
ipolis
Your s ystem would lead to me-
Mr. BouvEnlE—
tropolitin centralisation.
Tito Rev. G. IVl'Gree said it was thought that if
inquiry were made by a committee of the House of
Commons the present inequality might be reme-
died, and the rich districts of London trade to con-
tribute in proper proportion to the relief of the
poor,throughout the metropolis generally. They
had consulted their members, who were unanimous
M thinking that there should be an investigation
of the whole matter.
Mr. BOUVERIE said that as regarded a committee
of inquiry he did not think the Government would
be disposed to move for such a committee, and if it
were proposed by others it would be for them to
consider the propriety of acceding to it or other-
wise. He was unable to engage that Lord Palmer-
ston would as eat to any such proposal, but should
probably have some conver ation with his lordship
on the subject. He wished to know whether the
deputation had held any communication with their
brethren at the west end of London on the sub-
ject. Had they any 'idea of the resistance with
which their plan would be met
The Rev. G. M`GILL Raid they had no reason to