The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-17 00:00:00

lIOUSE OF COMMONS-YESTERDAY.

The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock, but
was some time before a house was formed.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' amendments to the Dublin Corp Oration Bill
were considered and agreed to. The following bills were
considered and ordered foxfthird reading :—Blane Valley
Railway ; Caledonian and Symington, Biggar, and
Broughton Railway Companies. The Savile Estate and
Westminster Life Insurance Society (Dissolution) Bills
were read a second time.
IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL.

The house went into commiteee on this bill, and the de-
bate on the following amendment of Sir J. Pakington to
the 9th clause was resumed :—At the end of the clause to
add, " Provided also, that extra-parochial places which
have heretofore paid no centributions to the common fund
of the unions in which they are comprised, shall, notwith-
standing anything herein contained, be hereafter exempt
from such contributions." He could not avoid comment-
ing on the change that had taken place in the order of the
day. Up to a late hour last night it was understood that
the Drainage Bill was to have had precedence of this bill,
and that the probability was that the latter measure
could not be brought forward at the morning sitting of
this day. Some of the members had received a
communication as late as 4 o'clock in the morning, inform-
ignagrathto the them of the change in the order of business. With re-
it appearedatmLEetndment, he could not give it his support.
Mr. ATILL Rt
he Sen teredin
transpositiont o a
in n question explanation,
originatedfro which i
in
a mistake, 'which he had endeavoured to rectify as soon as
P°A"fibtei.
re some conversation the matter dropped.
l‘lr. . KNIGHT
w owould
nottheneffect
proceeded to contend that the
amendmentbenefit proposed by the
measure, and therefore he felt bound to
pose it.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that by
they tl2: cla owners of
property which had been exempted from taxation to poor
rates would be called on to pay an impost which h
contemplated when theybecame possessed of their properties.
Mr. Mr. KNIGHT moved the omission of the clause, and the.
substitution of another. He maintained that the clause to
which he objected would effect an alteration in the area
of rating that was not required, and mould operate
most üßjustly on a class of proprietors who had not been
consulted in reference to the change. He considered that
the present was a most inopportune time for making any
alteration when poor rates were greatly diminishing under
the operation of the existing system, which it was pro-
posed to subvert. There were 9,000 parishes which would
be mulcted by the process suggested in this bill, while serious
injury upon proprietors would be inflicted. They were
disturbing by the proposed measure the actual value of
property, and the effect would be that the owners of certain
lands would be ruined. It was proposed to deprive owners
of no less than 1-16th, or in some cases of 1 .Bth of their
property, without giving them any compensation. If this
union rating were established it would not work efficiently,
and it was necessary the recipient and giver of parochial
charity should be mutually acquainted. He did
not deny that in many of the large towns relief
was required by certain large parishes. There was, no
doubt, great cruelty practised in regard to Irish poor, but
the present measure would not effect any improvement in
their condition.

Mr. BARROW opposed the amendment, and denied that
by this bill they were introducing the principle of union
rating, but merely proposing to effect a more equitable and
reasonable division of a particular rate. It had been said
that the bill would ruin a certain class of proprietors, but
the increase that would be made would not in any case
amount to 2s. or 2s. 6d.
Mr. HENLEY said he could not support this clause of
the bill because, as he had stated previously, he considered
they had not sufficient information on the .subject. The