§ SIR ROBERT CLIFTONsaid, that he 885 rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, Why he has annexed the non-parochial district of Nottingham, called "The Park," to the suburban Union of Basford, instead of making it contributory to the poor rates of the town of Nottingham, of which it was in reality a portion? Although the question was one altogether of a local character, it was of great importance to the people of Nottingham. There were 153 residents in "The Park," the great majority of whom were leading merchants and manufacturers of Nottingham, who were chiefly indebted for their affluence to the industry of the working population of that town. It was by no means just that at a time when the operatives were suffering severely from the depressed state of trade consequent upon the war in America, that the very persons who had derived so much advantage from their industry should either endeavour or be allowed to evade their responsibilities as regarded local taxation. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman could have been aware of the real facts of the case, and he implored him at least to postpone his final decision until after the 1st of March, in order that full particulars might be laid before him. The feeling of the people of Nottingham on the subject was clearly evinced by the fact that in the course of two or three days above 2,300 signatures had been obtained to a petition against the proposed annexation. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would concur with him in thinking that the wishes of so many of the inhabitants of the town of Nottingham ought not to be made subservient to those of the 153 residents of the Park. He should like to be informed why the annexation had been considered advantageous to Basford, and not to Radford Union. Radford was nearer to the town and nearer to the Park than Basford was, and the rates in the latter Union were consider ably less than in the former, while in some of the parishes in Nottingham they amounted to as much as 6s. or 8s. in the pound. In his opinion the proposed annexation was both unjust and unwise, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision.
§ MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he regretted that since the hon. Baronet and his constituents had attached so much importance to this annexation, he had not taken an opportunity of addressing the Poor Law Board until the very day before the 1st March, the last on which anything could be done 886 to remedy the complaint. Even, however, were he to delay his decision, he doubted whether the hon. Baronet would be able to by before him any other facts than those which had been already submitted for the consideration of the Poor Law Board. The facts were, briefly, that the district proposed to be annexed was a tract of country near Nottingham that had hitherto been extraparochial. Some years ago, by the operation of an Act which had passed that House all these places ceased to be extraparochial and became bound to maintain their own poor. This particular district had no poor, but it was still the duty of the Poor Law Board to see that all parishes liable to the maintenance of their poor should be attached to some Union. As the district had no poor, each one of the neighbouring unions was anxious that it should be united to it. He had received deputations from three unions, Radford, Basford, and Nottingham, and heard evidence adduced in support of their respective claims. He then had made inquiries as to the rule of the Poor Law Board which usually regulated the annexation of such places. He found that the public convenience of the district had been the guiding principle, due regard being had at the same time to the opinions and wishes of the owners and occupiers of the property to be annexed. He accordingly desired that some public meeting should be held to collect their opinions. Such a meeting had been held, and the owners and occupiers of the district had expressed a nearly unanimous wish that they should not be connected with Nottingham, and that they should be united to Basford. He found that the contribution of the district to the establishment charges of Nottingham and Basford unions would he precisely the same. He also found that Nottingham was "the county of the town of Nottingham," and that it had always carefully avoided having any parish attached to it. He was therefore looking about for a reason to determine his decision, when a representation was made to him that the hundred of Basford was a few years ago made liable for the destruction of the castle of a noble duke, and had had to pay £22,000 for an outrage in which its inhabitants took no part. This consideration, coupled with the expressed wishes of the owners and occupiers of the district, finally induced him to decide in favour of Basford Union. He did not think the capitalists who had villas in this district could fairly be charged with neglect 887 of the poor, because they were employers of labour, and were at this moment employing more hands than were absolutely required for the purposes of trade, owing to its present depressed condition. If the hon. Baronet could lay any further facts before the Poor Law Board they would receive attention; and if any good cause could be shown for so doing, he should be happy to revise his decision.