gross cases-the parish of St. Christopher-le-Stock (the only rate-payers of which are the wealthy corporations of the Bank of England and the Gresham Committee), and the ever-memorable St. Stephen's, Walbrook: the first-mentioned parish has an annual value of property the amount of which, we are informed by the return before quoted," cannot be stated;" and it is said to have levied in 1839, £. 179; none in 1840; in 1841, £. 120; and in 1842, £. 120: the question which suggests itself is to whom these sums were paid, there being no poor. With regard to St. Stephen's, the return states that the parish has an annual value of property assessed of £. 5,510, and that it paid in 1841 only £.67, which gives just 23 d. in the pound. In this division of the City there are eighteen parishes with assessed property of £. 129,789, paying 11 d. in the pound; and fifteen others of assessed property of £. 60,506, paying an average rate of 2s. 8d., some of which pay as high as 4s. 10d. in the pound, and none less than 2s. 2d.

Of London without the Walls, there are two parishes, viz., St. Botolph's, Aldersgate, and St. Dunstan's in the West, with assessed property of £.24,575 and £.27,531, paying 1s. 6d. and 1s. 4 d. in the pound respectively, while St. Sepulchre's, Newgate, and Trinity, in the Minories, are paying 6s. and 3 s. 9 d. in the pound upon assessed property of £. 14,324 and £.2,519 respectively.

The eight parishes of the City of Westminster, with an annual value of property assessed to the poor of more than one million and a half, pay an average rate of 1s. 9 d. in the pound. There are two parishes, however, in this district which must not be passed without special notice; viz., St. George's, Hanover-square, * and St. James's, Westminster, the first of which, whose rateable property to the poor is returned at £.604,105, and appears to aver

* Mr. Farr estimates these parishes as paying 6d. and 10d. in the pound, while our calculations from the Poor Law Return, 1844, p. 294, make them 74 d. and 1s. respectively for one year. (See also remarks on St. George's, Hanover-square, in Appendix, p. 147.)

1s.

age 1s. 2d. in the pound, paid Property-tax upon £.909,572. 11s. 3 d., and the latter is returned as having assessed property of £.250,160, and appears also to average 1 s.7 d. in the pound as paid for the poor, while it paid Property-tax upon £. 416,843. 19 s. 11 d.! Let us now contrast this, the wealthy and fashionable part of the Metropolis, with the eastern part, and lastly, with the suburbs :

(Extracted from Mr. Farr's Table, pp. 436-7.-Note on the designation by the common decimal notation :-The pound sterling is

taken for unity-one pound is £. 1,000; ten shillings is 500; five shillings is 250; half-a-crown, 125; two shillings, 100; one shilling, 050; sixpence, 025; a penny, '004, nearly; a farthing, 001, nearly. This notation is much more convenient for all the purposes of calculation than the system in use.)

The unjust disproportion of the burthen to the back is manifested by every calculation which it is possible to make.

We come now to consider the state of a few of the districts, &c., in the eastern and northern parts of the Metropolis, and we find this result:

"Look on this picture!-and now—on this!”

Thus, the former paid £.114,398 upon annual value of property of £. 1,220,375, and the latter, £.125,779 upon £.2,826,082!

And with respect to that part of the Metropolis which is situate in Surrey, the same unequal and unjust rating exists :

So that Lambeth, with an annual value of property of three-fifths in value, paid nearly double the amount of St. George's, Hanover-square; and Bermondsey, with less than one-third in value, paid nearly one-half more to the poor in one year than St. James's, Westminster.

The Inns of Court and Chancery (excepting only Barnard's Inn and Clement's Inn, which form part of St. Andrew's, Holborn, and St. Clement Danes), with a population of more than 70,000, are returned as extra-parochial," and assessed to the Property-tax at £.107,572, yet the writer cannot find any return of their contribution to Poor-rates.*

66

With these precious specimens of unjust rating, open as day-glaring-palpable," is there need of further argument to prove the immediate necessity for the abolition of such a system?—and yet how many additional reasons are there still remaining for

* A paragraph appeared lately in "The Times," stating that, by an accidental omission in its local Act, Lincoln's Inn had been compelled to pay something to the poor of the parish in which it is situate.

a radical change,--if any such be wanting. Why do the poor resort to, and why are the rates higher in the eastern parishes and the suburbs of the Metropolis?-simply because the class of houses which the poor can alone inhabit, by reason of their poverty, are to be found in those localities only. Compare the number and description of inhabited houses in Lambeth, Newington, Bethnal-green and Bermondsey, with St. George's, Hanover-square, St. James's, Westminster, St. Margaret's and Islington, the former being the highest and the latter the lowest rated parishes, and it will be found, that in the former there are 17,791, 9,370, 11,782, 5,674, and in the latter, 7,629, 3,590, 3,332, 8,508, respectively. We need not ask which class of houses pay the higher rent and are the more valuable.

No one can look with more pleasure upon, or be more satisfied of the value of, the many improvements now being carried on in this vast Metropolis than the writer of these pages; but while he rejoices in the daily increasing elegance and salubrity of the great city, he cannot shut his eyes to the fact, that by such means you are driving the poor to certain already densely-populated localities, trenching upon their few small comforts, and (as he will afterwards show) endangering the public health. It may be all very well and pleasant in theory to talk about getting rid of "rookeries," opening confined courts and other culs de sac, and the delight of seeing first and second-rate houses with large and elegant shops in place of small tenements and poor

*The number of paupers relieved in 1844, and their proportion to the population of 1841:

Middlesex-in-door, 21,478; out-door, 47,101; proportion per cent. to population (841,402), 8.2.

Surrey-in-door, 10,582; out-door, 30,588; proportion per cent. to population (512,580), 8.0.

(See Table in Poor Law Report, 1844, p. 161.)