The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-11 00:00:00

THE LATE EDITION of " THE SUN "
W. SMITH'S, " Camden Stores," 78, Park-street, Camden-

town.

LONDON, TUESDAY, FEB. 11, 1868.

It is not surprising that under the heavy pressure
now being put upon the ratepayers of some of our
metropolitan parishes another effort should be made
towards obtaining a most desirable result—the
equalisation of the poor-rates. When in one of the
very poorest districts of London the rates are nine
shillings in the pound, it is quite time that the
question was at least openly discussed. Last even-
ing a meeting of the ratepayers of the northern and
eastern parishes was held in the Shoreditch Town-
hall. After the adoption of several resolutions it
was determined that a deputation should wait upon
the Poor-law Board to urge the necessity of imme-
diate action in the matter. It was further resolved
that the several Boards of Guardians should be in-
vited to send representatives to the deputation, and
that a petition should be presented to Par-
liament embodying the spirit of the resolutions
passed at the meeting. It is difficult in
justice and common sense to find an answer to the
substance of the first resolution proposed, which
was as follows :—" That this meeting considers that
the burden of the support of the poor is one that
ought to be borne equally by all classes of the
people in proportion to their means ; and that the
present system, by which an undue share of the
burden is cast upon the poorest parishes and rate-
payers, is impolitic and unjust; and therefore de-
clares that, at least as far as the metropolis is con-
cerned, an equalisation of the whole charge of the
maintenance of the poor is an urgent necessity and
a just demand." As more than one M.P. was pre-
sent we may hope to see the matter vigorously agi-
tated during the present session. The extremity of
the distress in many of the eastern parishes renders
it a peculiarly appropriate time for investi-
gating the matter. Setting aside the dispute
about the wages of the shipwrights, we know
that there is at present a very great depression
of trade and slackness of employment in these
parts of London. Where, then, is the justice or
the reason of demanding from those householders
who are suffering from these causes a large in-
crease in their contributions to the public bur-
dens ? A bad season, or the fluctuations of trade,
affect the population of a particular locality more
severely than the other residents of London. The
better class struggle on with difficulty, though the
small householders lose their lodgers and the small
shopkeepers lose their customers. But the labourers
and their families in many instances are driven to
the parish for temporary relief. Whose place is it
to supply their wants ? Reason says those to whom
the badness of the times makes least
difference. The Poor-law says those who
suffer most from it, and who are themselves
trembling on the verge of pauperism. In this
aspect of the case alone the present system is bad
enough ; but it has another side. The pauper has
as much reason to complain as the ratepayer,
since the poorest unions have to support most
paupers, they have naturally less to spend, and the
poor suffer for it. The guardians are blamed for
stinting the poor and neglecting to provide comforts
and decencies for the sick ; but they know that the
ratepayers can hardly scrape up their three and
four shillings in the pound as it is, and they dare
not increase their demands. Their only resource is
to reduce the expenses to a minimum. IVe know
with what result—out-door relief to the amount
of sixpence a day and a weekly loaf for a man and
a child—in-door relief, which refuses to the
sick comforts which are almost necessary for the
healthy. The evil is a gigantic one, and until
our members of Parliament have the courage and
the honesty to face it boldly and deal with it
disinterestedly, the administration of our Poor-
law, howeyer well intentioned, can be nothing but
a scandal and a national disgrace.

At the annual dinner of the Lynn Constitutional
Association last week a good many subjects of
public interest were discussed. The speaker, to
whom a Lynn political audience is in the habit of
listening, and whose words have lent so much im-
portance to Norfolk rural gatherings, was not in-
deed present, but though the place of Lord STANLEY
was not filled, the gentlemen present spoke with
good sense and ability. Of course, their political
views might not be equally acceptable
to all their hearers, but it is always well to hear
what is to be said by men of opposite opinions from
foauirrneoswsna,naprgoovoiddedtemthpaetr.thelylearperieuxepipraelsssepdeawkeitrhs
of the evening were Sir W. BAGGE, M.P., the llon.
ROBERT BOURKE, and the lion. T. DE GREY, M.P.
It is rather singular, remembering the tone adopted
by Conservative orators in former days, to find
them talking about the Reform of Parliament and
the lowering of the franchise with all possible good
will and cordiality. Sir W. BAGGE, indeed, may
well be satisfied with the result of what many be-
lieved to be a rash experiment, for be is confident
that the lower the franchise goes in the western
division of the county of Norfolk, the more votes
will be recorded for himself and his colleague. Sir