Star.
London, England, 1817-05-13 00:00:00

BIRMINGHAM POOR BILL.

Sir. C. MORDAUNT moved the second reading
of the Birmingham Poor 'bites' Bill, strongly con-
tending for the necessity of passing this measure,
which could not but tend to afford considerable relief.
Mr. HALL opposed the Bid, complaining that
the measure was only applicable to one parish, and
went to alter the established law of the land. lie
moved, as an amendment, that it be read a second
time this day six montht.
Mi. CURWEN regretted that this Bill was of.a
local instead of a general nature. He thought the
Bill ought to be adopted in some shape or other, for
'otherwise a vast portion of the pauper population of
Birmingham would be thrown upon the public, des-
tituteof all means of relief.
Mr. GOOCH disapproved of the Bill, for he feared
the edoption of the principle to impose on owners of
houses the.payment of the poor-rates, would occasion
a more lavish expenditure than "at present existed.,
When the Gentlemen of Birmingham applied to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer for relief under the Ex-
chequer Bills' Plan, that Right Hon. Gentleman said
respecting • the security of the poor rates, that their
deecoaty would be. better if their Bill had gone through
she House. (Hear.) Thus was the Government for
the first time made party to a private Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
denied that the Government was in any way party to
the measure ; and he should give his opinion on it as
,an indiviader Member of. Parliament. As to the
principle. of the Bill, this was not the first time it had'
been brought under the consideration of the Legisla-
ture. The Bill had his support. •He thought it was
right that the proprietors 'should bear their propOr:'-,
him) of the burdens.
Mr. I)UGDAI.E approved of the Bill.
Mr. LITTLETON disapproved of the Bill, which
was wholly 'withotit a cbsopfete precedent. , This Bill
Went to Make those landlords 'liable who owned
~heassee let -under the rent of ten pounds, and if they
adopted this Bill, tl:eir doors would'-be assailed from
all parts of the country, by' HuU,-by Isiincheiter, tc.
Mr. THOMPSON looked upon this Ain as an at-
-14;1,1 to equaliie the htriden of the Poor Rates, and
that wilriuDit desirable., He hoped the Committee
on thelloor Laws eroild-rectimmend the adoption of
a general measure to'acconiiilish: such an eqoaliza-
tion.• The principle was a just one, and he, ore;'
wished it success. •

Sir J.. GRAHAM opprised the measure, conten-
ding that it war mint iiijuriciusly setting occupiers
against their landlords., He wished the House would
first ensure landlords their rents ; at all events,
he truitedihat the.:landlords,• many of whom could
get no rent at•all, gourd not be made liable to the
Poor Rates, as propoied by the /1.11.
Mr. WESTEkbrwas decidedly against the Bill,
which went to establish a most pernicious principle ;
it went to remove the burdens from tie occupiers to
the ownerr of property, Who Were already exposed to
sufficient severities,
Mr. WI,I4BERFORCE supported the motion, de.
siring that the measure should go to a Committee,
for it was asserted in thiteeth of those who opposed
the Bill, that 1770 houses had been built at Bilming-
hats within the last two years, so as to escape the
,Poor Rates. The fact ought to be examined, to as-
certain whether relief could be afforded.
Mr: 'BROVGHAM opposed the Bill, because its
prinCiple was so objectionable. If the principle were
good tar any thing, it would be good for a more ex-
tended:applieation '; and thin would they be prepa-
ring the way for the introduction of an entire new

principle of leghlatidft. If the distress were trrt-,
rary, as those connected with Government h,d
tofore contended, where was .a.verit% nt 1
ing permanently fir tempc•rai calamity ? U ti
Chancellor el the Exchequer sir/spirted it only as ;
individual, and not as a Minister, he felt assuied
the Bill ser;6l.l be thrown out, as all the argurriti,
were agAinLt it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUE,
denied tliat Gozernment had prcmiseJ any bupp,
to the Bill.

Mr. LITTLETON, in reply to this, begged,
observe, that the Right Hon. Groat-man had t
peatedly asicr'd him, how emits' Birmingham, ire!
curity for the loan without this Bill ?.....(llear,heee.'
Mr. EvrrFitwortTit and Mr B. Diu huitsr st;
p-!rted the &11, ciortending that it• principle sr,
most just, and that the facts ought to be *nit<
t:;tn, and that therefore ►t uregLt :o go to a Commit',
Sir C. MORDAUNT had nee' r heard dr tt
the intentitin of the supporters of the measure to wit]
draw it in the event or beMg deprived of the C:l4
ccliiir of the Exchequer's support.—(L'ear.)
The House then divided, and the numbers were.
For the Lill 36 against it 103 Majority 6.7.