The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-16 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(THIs DAY.)

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' amendments to the Dublin Corporation Bill
were considered and agreed to. The following bills were
considered and ordered for third 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 contributions to the common fund
of the unions in which they are comprised, shall, notwith •
standing anything herein contained, be hereafter exempt
from such contributions." Ho 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. Scme of the members had received a
communication as late as 4 o'clock in the morning, inform-
ing them of the change in the order of business. With re-
gard to the amendment, he could not give it his support.
Mr. VILLIERS entered into an explanation, from which
it appeared that the transposition in question originated in
a mistake, which he had endeavoured to rectify as soon as
possible.
After some conversation the matter dropped.
Mr. KNIGHT then proceeded to contend that the
amendment would not effect the benefit proposed by the
measure, and therefore he felt bound to oppose it.
Sir J. PAKINGT ON said that by this clause owners of
property which had been exempted from taxation to poor
rates would be called on to pay an impost which they never
contemplated when theybecame possessed of their properties.
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 would operate
most unjustly 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 nalking 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
whole of the case in favour of the clause rested on the
authority of the committee, and without sufficient know-
ledge the Government asked the house to make a perma-
nent alteration. He stated, on the information of
the clerk of an union, that in one parish the
change proposed would mulct the inhabitants in
£3,000 a-year, which was equivalent to £30,000 capital
withdrawn from employment. It must be admitted
by any one who paid attention to the subject that the
changes proposed would benefit the poor ; but the question
then arose, were ithese changes to be effected in a manner
just to the parties interested ? He thought that in the dis-
tribution of this rating of the taxed landed property, which
had hitherto been exempted, they should also extend rat-
ing to mines. He drew attention to the peculiar position
in which landed property was placed, particularly to what
were called derivative settlements. He thought the whole
question of settlement should be brought before the house
that
rto
shouldper be firstmanenttestedalterationby i
being introduced,opergationfor
and
the one
year.
mete'dtiotheaetonthomisywwasitohnwe
nofiethhettfeewdiffquerees
td-
fri ooSninisr ohis jf
rural Git
right
Aahon.inldAdis said
o 1
friend who had just sat down. As
early as 1845 he had introduced a bill containing the prin-
ciple of union settlement, but he did not pass it, and it
passed into other hands. This question had been most
fully investigated by different commissions which sat in
1847, and the majority of opinion was in favour of the
abolition of the principal of removal, the extension of the
area of rating for the relief of the poor, and the eligibility of
unions to carry out that object. He considered that the
poor law in Ireland was an example we should imitate in
this country, and that the principle of settlement should not
be required as necessary to entitle a pauper to local relief.
He stated as his most confident opinion that there could be
no more beneficial alteration as regarded a large body of
their countrymen than the abolition of settlement, which
must be attended with a coincidence of union rating.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE said that he had not heard one argu-
ment in favour of the existing average on which rating was
based, and he believed its increase would inflict the greatest
injustice.
Mr. CAYLEY opposed the bill, and contended that what
had been advanced rested on authority and not on argu-
ment.

Mr. 'WALTER, and Sir C. JERVOISE supported the clause.
Lord LOVAINE contended that the clause would be un-
just in its operation to rural districts, and would benefit
only parishes in large towns.
Alderman SIDNEY argued that, as the management of
the poor was vested in the union board of guardians, the
maintenance of the poor should be in the unions. The ab-
sence of a wider area of rating in the metropolis was to
throw the burthen of the support of the poor on the poor.
In his opinion, the present law of settlement exercised a
very considerable influence on the strikes in the building
trades, as the men complained that the
get residences near their places of work, and they
day. Ile felt
away from their homes at least 14 hours a
bound to support the clause. were not able to
thi to do with
had ever heard that the poor Jaws hafloaneX, g
d after the argu-
Sir J. TROLLOPE said that this was then first time he
the strikes in the building trade. r. p
a would not press it.
ments that had been advanced
President of the Poor Law Board,
the house divided—
After some further discussion .
;List the clause, that the
........... 127
For the clause ............
Majority ..... • ......
accordingly Against it .... . .......
The clause was agreed to.
....................... —8344
addition of a clause to the
- "T' TON moved the
The other clauses were also agreed to.

Mr. AYR _
re
iffo edc t
of t
fih
va
et
years,the wl I h
he ohho uhl
od
measure,e conta
tstated
nawuneodu
enable
giveaf ob rl force e
ft
ha fort
em tmao pr
to
0-.
test the efficiency of t
trace their steps.
After a short discussion the motion was negatived with-
out a division.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress,
and the house re-
sumed.
REMOVAL OF SCOTCH AND IRISH POOR BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, and some
discussion arose on the Ist clause, which, however, was
agreed to.
Some other clauses, with verbal amendments, were
agreed to.
The sitting was then suspended at 4 o'clock.
The house resumed at 6 o'clock.
(LEFT SITTING.)

The Brighton Railway traffic return shows this,
week an increase of £1,098, and the South Eastern a de--
crease of £4,472, which is accounted for by the Agricultural
Show at Canterbury in 1860.