did not state-and it is a material ques- national workshops in Paris, you increase tion-what is the assessment of the two, the charge for the poor; if these 107,000 what is the value of the two establish- paupers of whom my right hon. Friend ments. Every Gentleman knows that these spoke are converted into 200,000 or two docks are of great value. I do not 300,000-a change which might very know what is the value of the London rapidly be made under a vicious system of Docks, but they embrace an enormous relief, instead of an average charge of mass of buildings, considerably larger than 1s. 7d., you will have an average charge the St. Katherine Docks, and unless the of 3s. 4d. in the pound, and the lowest hon. and learned Member can tell us what taxed parishes under your amended system is the percentage on the buildings he gives will pay higher rates than those levied us no material information to guide us. I under the present system in the most have the rate-book of the Whitechapel heavily charged parishes. That is the Union, including the county and the po- consequence which the House must be lice rate, and therefore to give these will prepared to face if it unhappily listens to strengthen the argument of the hon. and this project for the equalization of the learned Gentleman, as these are in addi- rates, attended by the necessary consetion to the poor rate. There are seven or quence of the abolition of the local and eight parishes in the union, and the ave- parochial check, and the substitution of rage given for all the parishes is 2s. 3d. central management by the Government. in the pound. The first is 3s. 11d., the second is a low-rated parish, being only 9d.; the third, 2s. 11d.; the fourth, 2s. 2d. ; the fifth, 2s. 9d.; the sixth, 1s. 1d.; the seventh, 2s. 1d.; and the eighth, 2s. 6d. If any one will take the parishes of a country union he will find among them inequalities quite equal to these. Looking at the rates for the different London parishes, I am prepared to maintain that there is between them no inequality which cannot be paralleled by the country unions, and therefore, if we lay it down as a principle that the inequality which exists in the metropolis justifies an equalization of poor rates we must be prepared to extend that principle to the rest of the country. Much has been said as to what would be the average charge upon all parishes if this equalization was carried into effect. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) placed it at 1s. 7d. in the pound; the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets at about 1s. 1d. How is that average obtained? By taking the present amount of the charge for the poor, and distribu-bour, and herein lay the fallacy to which ting it among the different parishes. That assumes that the charge for the poor is a fixed and permanent charge, like that for the army and navy. Let me remark, however, that there is nothing which is more uncertain, more fluctuating, or more liable to be increased by maladministration than the charge for the relief of the poor; and if by removing the check of local management, if by centralizing the administration in the hauds of the Government-because to that you must inevitably come-if by instituting a system like that of the public works in Ireland, or the

MR. BARROW fully admitted the value of local management, and was convinced the present system of management was the best for the poor. The change in the administration of the poor law since 1836 had been for the benefit of the poor; it was better administered by Boards of Guardians than by overseers. A single fallacy had prevailed throughout the whole of this debate. The real truth of the matter was that this was a complaint of relative injustice between the parishes. The increase and decrease in the rates were owing to the alteration of the law made in 1834. Before that year the charge for the poor depended mainly on the right principle that the employer of labour should pay the cost of maintaining that labour in the event of its falling sick or into distress. That principle of the law of settlement threw the support of the labour on the parish where it had been employed; but a change was made in that system, by substituting a settlement by residence, instead of a settlement by la

he had referred. The reason why the rate of St. Georges's, Hanover Square, had fallen from 1s. 6d. to 6d. in the pound was this: all the servants in St. George's who had acquired a settlement under the old law had no longer a claim under the existing system. Hence it was also, that the labourers who worked at the St. Katherine's Docks, but lived in the parish in which the London Docks were situated, became chargeable to that parish, and not to the one in which they worked. It was to this that the attention of the Government ought to be drawn, as the real remedy

for the evil would be found in an alteration | almost altogether escaped rating, while of the present law of settlement. many small buildings in their immediate vicinity paid large sums of money. And the same was the case with regard to the Government Dockyards. There men might be collected when their labour was requir

MR. SCHNEIDER said, an unfavourable allusion had been made in the course of this debate to the city which he had the honour to represent (Norwich); but he had no hesitation in saying that the manage-ed, and then when it was no longer needed, ment of the poor law in that city was as perfect as in any other city in the country. The rates of Norwich had increased of late to 7s. in the pound, whereas the rates of the neighbouring parishes had fallen to 1s. or 1s. 3d. in the pound. In fact just in proportion as the rates had increased in the parishes of the city the poor in the neighbouring parishes had diminished; and he concurred with the last speaker, that the only remedy for this state of things was an entire reform of the law of settlement.

they might be cast upon the neighbouring parishes, upon which the burden pressed with great severity, and by which they might be almost reduced to a state of insolvency. He thought it unfair that Government should possess this power & power which had been used with terrible effect in the parish of St. Olave's, Deptford. It was another anomaly which might be removed. Something had been said in the course of the debate about rich people expelling poor persons in great numbers from the parishes in which they resided, or in which their property was situated. He did not think anything of the

doubt, the fact that when neighbourhoods became overcrowded, numbers of the inhabitants were obliged to go elsewhere. And this must be the case, for unless room were made they would be eaten up with fever. He thought, however, that the anomalies he had mentioned in the operation of the existing law furnished sufficient reason for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the means by which they might be removed or alleviated without recurring to anything like an equalization of the poorrates or a centralization of their administration, and he should therefore vote for the Motion.

LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR said, he intended to support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Ham-kind could be proved, although it was, no lets, but he should do so for reasons widely different from many which had been advanced in its favour. As one of the representatives of Middlesex, he had sought information upon this subject, and found, wherever he had sought it, in books and blue-books, the greatest mass of confusion, and perhaps quite as much of the confusion in the Report of the Committee of 1847 as anywhere else. All the authorities on this subject were against a national rate, or against any proposition for such an equalization in rating for the Metropolis as was now sought. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), who had once been President of the Poor Law Board, had opposed it on the ground that it would lead to the greatest carelessness and extravagance in the administration of the rates, and ultimately, if persisted in, to the destruction of self-government and local administration. In those sentiments he entirely agreed. But he did not on that account see any inconsistency in the present Motion. The abolition of the law of settlement, and the law for settling the charge for the irremovable poor on the different parishes of a union, had had the effect of casting the burden upon the poorer parishes, and relieving the richer parishes. He thought it was quite well worth inquiry whether that law did not operate altogether in a different manner in rural and in urban parishes, and whether something might be done to amend it. Besides, it was shown that at present large properties like the Bank of England and the Royal Exchange

MR. AYRTON, in reply, said it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Poor Law Board, had entirely mistaken the question. He (Mr. Ayrton) had regarded it as a case specially confined to the Metropolis. It had been said that he could find all the information necessary in the printed papers. He, however, said there was not a particle of information as to the causes of the inequality of the rates, and it was on that that he founded his Motion. It was a Motion to inquire, not into the fact of the inequality, but the causes of it. His object being not to legislate, but to inquire, he thought it sufficient to show that there were causes which made persons chargeable in one parish, while those who made them chargeable were resident in another. He would not trouble the House with other topics, but he would make one remark as regarded the inconvenience of appointing

more Committees. In a few days most of lating to turning the two-minute sandglass the Committees now sitting would have be repealed." finished their labours, and with regard to MR. FITZROY said, he thought that the election Committees there would be the hon. Member had not sufficiently cononly a few sitting at one time, consequent-sidered the manner in which the Order of ly no difficulty would be found in selecting the House was carried out with respect to a sufficiently large number of hon. Gentle- Divisions. It appeared to be assumed that men to institute an inquiry into the causes the whole time allowed to hon. Members of the inequality of the poor rates in the serving on Committees was from the time Metropolitan District. The House ought the glass was turned to their arrival at the not to be frightened by the bugbear of too door; but such was not the fact. If any many Committees, advanced by the Go-hon. Member were in sight, within 100 vernment. It was only the other evening that an hon. Gentleman obtained a Committee of fifteen Members to investigate a subject which could have been inquired into by a third of the number. The Government put fifteen Gentlemen upon a perfectly useless Committee, and then, when he brought a subject of real importance before the House, he was told that it could not be investigated, because so many hon. Members were engaged in other inquiries.

Question put.

yards, the doors remained open until he had had an opportunity of entering the House. Upon the second division last night, five minutes elapsed after the glass was turned before he could proceed to put the Question, because so many hon. Members, not expecting a division, had gone to distant parts of the building, and one after another appeared in sight. By the adoption of the proposed rule, considerable hardship would be inflicted upon private Members unconnected with the Government, who already complained that they had too short

The House divided:-Ayes 81; Noes a time to enable them to carry through the 123 Majority 42.

DIVISIONS ON WEDNESDAYS.

REPEAL OF STANDING ORDER PROPOSED.

MR. PACKE said, that when the House was sitting on Wednesdays, hon. Members attending Committees were frequently unable to get to the doors in time for divisions on important questions, and the haste with which those who wished to be in time were obliged to traverse the distance from the committee-rooms was attended with some danger and great inconvenience. He hoped the House would assent to extending the time from two to four minutes on that day, for though the time lost would be very small, the gain to the 250 hon. Members now attending Committees would be very great. He therefore moved that the Standing Order on Divisions relating to turning the twominute sandglass be repealed, and that the following Order be substituted :— :

"That so soon as the voices have been taken, the Clerk shall turn a two-minute sandglass, to be kept on the table for that purpose, and the door shall not be closed until after the lapse of

two minutes; except on Wednesdays, when the Clerk shall turn the two-minute sandglass twice, and the doors shall not be closed until after the lapse of four minutes, as indicated by such sandglass."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Standing Order on Divisions re

Bills they might bring in. The House was frequently in Committee on these Bills on Wednesdays, and if double the present time were occupied in Divisions, a considerable deduction would have to be made from the opportunities at the disposal of independent Members to pass their Bills. It was not for him to say whether it was important that Gentlemen who had heard none of the arguments should rush in and vote at a division, or whether it was a national evil that they should be prevented from so doing. The hon. Gentleman had made out no practical grievance, and he therefore thought it undesirable to change. the rule of the House.

MR. STAFFORD said, he thought that the arrangements of the House on Wednesdays were very happy, but at the same time many hon. Members engaged up stairs were unable to reach the House in time for divisions. He thought that the arguments of the Chairman of Committees answered each other, because he first opposed the Motion on the ground of the time that would be lost, and then said that, instead of four minutes, as his hon. Friend proposed, five minutes were always given before the doors were closed. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had not succeeded in proving that four minutes were longer than five. As to giving votes when hon. Members had not heard the arguments, could

1937

Grand Juries (Ireland) {JUNE 16, 1857} Act (1836) Amendment Bill. 1938

the right hon. Gentleman name one question on which any hon. Member's opinion had been influenced by the arguments he had heard? They had heard last night, it was true, a right hon. Gentleman on that side of the House (Sir J. Pakington) say that he had changed his opinion, but that was not in consequence of anything he had heard in that House. The case made out by his hon. Friend was so strong that he should support the Motion.

MR. BIGGS supported the Motion. He had been sitting on a Committee up stairs for three weeks, and was likely to serve for three weeks longer. He was therefore interested in the adoption of the rule, and he thought it highly unbecoming the dignity of hon. Members that they should run screaming along the lobby to prevent the door-keeper from shutting the door upon them.

If hon. Members were to be allowed four minutes to come down from Committeerooms, why not extend the time further, and allow time for hon. Members who were at White's, and Brookes', and other clubs, to come down to vote? He would rather see vote by proxy established, because the person who held the proxies did hear the debate, and exercised his judgment upon what he heard. He entreated the House, for the sake of the character of Parliament and the dignity of its proceedings, not to agree to a Resolution that hon. Gentlemen who knew nothing of a debate should be able to come and influence the division by their votes.

MR. PACKE said, the arguments he had heard against his Motion made him feel extremely confident that his view was a right one. The Chairman of Committees said that when the door was open the door-keeper could see an hon. Member a hundred yards off, but the lobby was frequently so crowded with persons that it was impossible to see who was coming in, and hon. Members were sometimes physically unable to reach the door in time to

merston) said that the House was not
engaged in party questions on Wednesdays,
but last Wednesday the House was occu-
pied with some of the great constitutional
questions of the Session namely, the
no-property qualification, and the other
flowers of the "political bouquet,'
as it
was called. The noble Viscount said that
hon. Members who had not heard the de-
bate were not in a fit state to vote, but the
Standing Order that every hon. Member
should hear the question put from the Chair
implied that he was qualified to vote on
hearing the question at issue put from the
Chair; otherwise the House ought to refuse
to allow hon. Members to vote who were
in the smoking-room, the dining-room, and
the library when a division was called.
Hon. Members were called upon to serve
on Committees up stairs, and were they to
lose their right to vote on the questions
before the House because six or eight
minutes in the course of a Wednesday
afternoon might be lost?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON reminded the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) that the Motion did not apply to questions of party divisions. It referred to Wednesday, the day on which private Members' Bills were considered. Upon those an hon. Member usually exercised an un- vote. The noble Viscount (Viscount Palbiassed judgment, influenced but little by party considerations. The hon. Gentle man asked whether the opinion of hon. Members was ever influenced by the arguments they heard. He recollected a story of an hon. Member in former times who was asked whether he had ever heard a speech that altered his opinion. He said, "Yes, I have heard many speeches that have altered my opinion, but I have never heard one that altered my vote.' That might have been the case in former times, but it would be a bad compliment to the present House of Commons to say that this was the rule that regulated their proceedings. Yet the present Motion went entirely to the adoption of this principle. The practice of the House was, that before a division, two minutes should be given to allow hon. Members to come in from the library and the lobbies. This rule assumed that they had heard the debate, although they might be absent for the moment. But to propose calmly and deliberately that hon. Members who had been the whole day in Committee-rooms, thinking of entirely different matters, who had not heard a word of the discussion, should have time given them to come down and vote upon a question of the merits of which they were wholly ignorant, was a sarcasm and burlesque upon the proceedings of Parliament.

Question put, and negatived.

GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) ACT (1836) AMENDMENT BILL.-COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read, House in Committee.

SIR THOMAS BURKE said, the Bill

{COMMONS} Act (1836) Amendment Bill. 1940

altered the whole machinery of the Grand | Bill as it now stood would lead to great Jury Bill of Ireland, and he hoped the abuses. The county surveyors of Ireland Government would not proceed with it at were a grasping body, who were extremely that late hour (twenty minutes past twelve). well paid for doing very little work. He should move as an Amendment that Motion negatived. the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.