HC Deb 08 February 1867 vol 185 cc150-79
MR. GATHORNE HARDY,

in moving for leave to introduce a Bill for the establishment in the Metropolis of Asylums for the Sick, Insane, and other classes of the Poor, and of Dispensaries; and for the distribution over the Metropolis of portions of the charge for Poor Relief; and for other purposes relating to Poor Relief in the Metropolis, said: In bringing before the House the subject of which I have given notice, I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible in my explanation of the provisions of the Bill which I shall have to submit to the House. At the same time, I trust that the House, admitting the great importance of the subject, will allow mc to make those remarks which are necessary, in order that they may have fully before them the scheme which I am about to propose for the management of the poor in the metropolis. It is not my intention, on this occasion, to go much into the past. I think we had much better avoid discussions which can lead to no good result with respect to what has been done on former occasions. But it will be necessary to some extent to refer to the past history of what has taken place in respect to the management of the metropolitan poor, in order to explain the reasons why I have felt it to be my duty to submit this question to the consideration of the House. I will not go very far back in my retrospect. A Committee sat upon the question of Poor Relief, not only as it affected the metropolis, but England generally. It began its inquiries in 1861, and reported in 1864. Now, it is a remarkable thing—very remarkable, it appears to me when I look upon what has occurred since—that nothing was brought before that Committee tending to implicate the management of the workhouses in the metropolis in the charges which subsequently created so much excitement not only in London, but in the country also. Nothing was brought before that Committee tending to show that the metropolitan workhouses in their management presented features of a disadvantageous character as compared with those in the country generally. On the contrary, there was every reason to suppose that those workhouses were properly managed, and that the treatment of the poor inmates did not demand intervention. Of course, then, the Report of that Committee did not touch upon the circumstances that have since been disclosed, inasmuch as there was nothing pressed upon the Committee at all relating to them; indeed, they rather expressed their satisfaction with the medical treatment of the poor generally, and said, I think, that it required no alteration, and that nothing further was necessary to be done in order to bring the medical treatment of the poor generally into a more satisfactory state. They said, however, that not only in the metropolis, but throughout the country, the central authority of the Poor Law Board ought to be confirmed, and, if possible, strengthened, and that it might be done, in one way, by lengthening the term for which the Commission was appointed. They went on further to say that it was specially required that for classification in workhouses—and that without reference to the metropolis only—more powers should be given to the Central Board— It appears to the Committee that the union workhouse is insufficient for the proper classification of the inmates, and they consider it desirable that greater power should be given to the Central Board than what they now possess, to require the guardians to make adequate arrangement for maintaining such classification in the workhouses. In 1864, then, we had arrived at this point. After a long and elaborate inquiry, conducted by highly-qualified judges of the Poor Law, the conclusion was arrived at that the Central Board was without sufficient authority for the classification of the poor, and generally for the proper administration of the poor relief throughout the country. Towards the end of 1864, the case of Timothy Daly occurred in the Holborn Workhouse; it was the first of those cases which so much attracted the attention of the country; it was followed by that of Gibson in the workhouse of St. Giles, in 1865. In April of the same year, a letter written by one of the nurses at the Rotherhithe Workhouse called attention to a very painful state of circumstances there; and finally, in 1866, the same nurse called attention to the state of the Strand Workhouse, where she had been lately engaged as a nurse. Inquiries took place with reference to Daly and Gibson's cases, and in 1865 the Rotherhithe guardians inquired into the statements made by that nurse. No action was then taken by the Poor Law Board on the evidence taken by those guardians; but in 1866, upon the requisition of the Workhouse Infirmary Association, official inquiries were made respecting the condition of the sick in the Strand, Rotherhithe, and Padding-ton Workhouses by inspectors, whose reports were exceedingly adverse to the management of the sick in these workhouses and caused a great sensation throughout the country—perhaps a greater sensation than was justified by all the circumstances. "When one considers that in the metropolis there are thirty-nine workhouses, containing a population of from 25,000 to 30,000 persons, it would not strike one as remarkable that there should have been four cases in which great hardship and wrong had been inflicted. No doubt many things were revealed which showed that there was necessity for interference, but these particular cases, each seen in varied shapes, as it were, in a kaleidoscope, through the comments of the press, caused a sensation, which if not unreasonable or unnatural, was perhaps disproportioned to the circumstances under which they occurred, and blame was imputed to the guardians, not only of the workhouses in question, but of the workhouses of the metropolis generally. Every one must admit that the office of a guardian is one of great difficulty and delicacy. He has to stand between the poor and the ratepayers; he is continually pressed on one side and the other; and in London he is watched with excessive scrutiny by the press, particularly after the occurrence of cases like those named; through these discussions he becomes more fearful of acting on his own responsibility, and there is a vacillation in his movements which there would not have been if he was left more alone. At the same time, I will not say it is not advantageous that there should be the fullest scrutiny into every transaction of the kind referred to, and that the fullest publicity should be given to all the circumstances connected with institutions which so materially affect the welfare of the poor and the interests of the ratepayers, both of the metropolis and the country generally. During 1865 and 1866, whilst these things were going on, a well-conducted newspaper, The Lancet, thought proper to employ, at its own expense, certain medical men, who made full inquiry into the administration of the sick departments of the metropolitan workhouses. I should be the last person to complain of the mode and manner in which that inquiry was conducted, it being conducted in a tone and spirit very different from that which characterized the comments of some other portions of the press. On the whole, The Lancet founded its animadversions on facts and incidents that really occurred, and it did not indulge in mere sensational writing as some other papers did. The articles in The Lancet naturally made a great impression, because they called attention to the facts that the construction of the sick wards in the workhouses was bad in itself; that in the main they were overcrowded; that the nursing was bad and wholly inadequate; the ventilation in almost every respect was defective; and that the furniture, appliances, clothing, and cooking arrangements were bad, and not at all appropriate to the wants of the sick. In May, 1865, in consequence of the prominence which the subject of nursing had acquired, a circular was sent out by my right hon. Predecessor, calling the attention of the metropolitan guardians to the inadequacy of the staffs, and calling upon them to appoint at least one paid nurse to superintend each sick ward, and also to appoint paid assistant nurses who might wait with more responsibility on the patients. Subsequently, a full investigation into the state of the sick wards was undertaken by the Poor Law Board itself, through its medical officer and inspector, Dr. Edward Smith, and Mr. Farnall, inspector of the metropolitan district; and their inquiry did not terminate until just before the change of Government which took place last year. Their Reports were, however, in the hands of my Predecessor, but no action had been taken upon them up to the time that I succeeded to the office I now hold. Hon. Members who take an interest in this subject will find that Mr. Farnall's Report is based upon one supposition, and Dr. Edward Smith's upon another. Mr. Farnall's Report is based upon what he called the requirements of medical science—namely, that certain medical men of the greatest eminence urged that 1,000 feet cubical space was required for each inmate of a sick ward; whilst, on the other hand, Dr. Edward Smith's Report was based on the understanding that the requirements of the Poor Law Board was what he had to see to. It appeared that up to this time 500 feet cubic space was considered sufficient for a sick ward, and he thought it was his duty to inquire how it had worked. Both, however, came to the conclusion that the workhouse infirmaries are overcrowded, that the nursing is defective, that the appliances are also defective, that the ventilation is insufficient, and that great reform is needed in the sick wards of the workhouse infirmaries. That was the state of things when I had the honour to be appointed to the office which I now hold. At that time my attention was called in this House to those cases to which I have referred, and others, in which it was said that great negligence, cruelty, and hardship had occurred to individuals in these workhouses, and I then said it would be my first duty to endeavour to mitigate, with the powers I possessed, the evils which then existed. I stated, at the same time, that I felt that the time must come when I must ask the House for powers to provide permanent remedies for evils which without I could only temporarily moderate. It has been asked in many quarters why I did not put in force the compulsory powers that belong to the Poor Law Board. In my opinion there has not yet arisen occasion to put them in force, because nearly every-thing I have asked has been done, or is in the course of being done, and it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to have proceeded by mandamus in the case of medical officers, legal and technical questions and questions of contract would undoubtedly have been raised. No doubt the Poor Law Board possesses the power to enforce the appointment of officers, but the power must be exercised carefully, and strictly within the limits of the law; and I thought that, as the time was approaching when I could ask the House for further powers, it would be unwise and imprudent to involve myself in a collision in which I might get the worst of it, and which might give rise to a feeling that I had used powers I did not possess, or that I had used legal powers unnecessarily. Besides, on the whole, the guardians were acting in a fair spirit; they were adopting the suggestions that were made to them, and were endeavouring to carry them out. At the same time, I am bound to say that the two inspectors who then had charge of the metropolitan district, Mr. Corbett and Dr. Markham, discharged their duties in the most indefatigable manner, and were deserving of every praise. They visited the workhouses by night and by day, and consulted the guardians, endeavouring by firmness and conciliation to obtain the remedies that would mitigate the evils which had been justly complained of, and simultaneously procuring information to enable me to propose legislation on this very important subject. I may be permitted to call attention to the letter of Mr. Ernest Hart which appeared in one of the daily papers, because he is a gentleman who has devoted his attention to the reform of our workhouses, and particularly the workhouse infirmaries. I am not going to put forward anything that I may have done other than to say that I have endeavoured to do my best; but I will take it on Mr. Hart's admission that much has been effected already in the way of temporary remedies—ventilation has been improved, paid nurses have been provided, more medical officers have been provided, and the furniture and other appliances required for the sick have been very much improved. Having made these preliminary remarks, I come to the permanent arrangements proposed for the metropolitan workhouses. The inquiries of Dr. Markham, a skilled physician, well acquainted with hospital treatment and the proper working of infirmaries, have been continually directed to the state of the workhouse infirmaries in the metropolitan district and their re- quirements, and from his reports and other information, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing absolutely definite on the vexed question of floor and cubical space. I determined, therefore, to call in persons who were qualified to give a distinct opinion on the subject, in order that when I came before the House I might not have to argue on disputed theories; and I am sure the House will not say that in consulting the gentlemen I did, gentlemen whose attention had been specially called to the London Infirmaries, I did so with the view of confirming any preconceived notions of my own, especially as one gentleman who was applied to, but could not act, was well known to be strongly in favour of the largest amount of cubical space. That was Dr. Parkes. I applied to Sir Thomas Watson, President of the College of Physicians, to whom I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude for the zeal and ability with which he applied himself to this subject, as though it were the only one before him. There was also Dr. Acland, of Oxford, whose only object was for the public good, offered to come up and take part in the Committee, together with Dr. Sibson, Mr. Charles Hawkins, Mr. T. Holmes, Captain Galton, Dr. Randall, Dr. Smith, Dr. Markham, and Mr. Corbett. They visited the workhouses by day and by night—they tested the atmosphere of the sick wards in the different workhouse infirmaries, and thus obtained data upon which they have founded their conclusions, and I cannot but call attention to the fairness of the mode in which they have dealt with the question. They did not treat the question simply as one of theory, but went fully into the subject, ascertaining the kind of diseases prevalent in the workhouse infirmaries, and with the knowledge that there would be a removal of certain classes of sick—for example, small-pox and fever patients—from those infirmaries altogether, whose absence would, of course, make a material difference in the calculation. One point is remarkable enough. It is that however overcrowded these infirmaries may be, none of those diseases appear there which are known to result from overcrowding. There are no hospital diseases, and it has attracted attention abroad as well as at home how very few are the cases of puerperal fever, which so often decimate lying-in hospitals, and in Trance, I believe, cause death to an extent of which we have no conception. Even in our own lying-in hospitals these cases occur to a much larger extent than in the metropolitan workhouses. I will now read a few sentences which form the practical groundwork of the Report— The problem to be solved really is what is the amount of floor and cubical space which shall not be too little on the one hand, nor more than enough on the other—not too little for the health and comfort of the pauper inmates, sick or well, not too much for the means of the humblest ratepayer. This practical aspect of the question the Committee have deemed it their duty to keep steadily in view, always with an inclination, if the balance cannot be strictly adjusted, towards the side of the sick and poor. It is fit that these houses be made safe, decent, and commodious; it is neither necessary nor expedient that they be made inviting. Upon that basis Sir Thomas Watson and the gentlemen associated with him arrived at their principal conclusions. Before calling attention to those conclusions, I will refer for a moment to the enormous changes which have taken place in the metropolitan workhouses. They were originally built at an enormous cost, and I find that since 1834—I do not know what they had cost up to that time—upwards of £1,000,000 has been spent upon them. When they were built it was not contemplated that they should become mere asylums for the aged, the sick, and the infirm; but these are now the main occupants of the workhouses, and the able-bodied are practically almost unknown. Assuming that the able-bodied are only those under sixty—an unreasonable period, perhaps as many men are quite able-bodied when beyond that age—it appears that there are only 889 able-bodied men in the London workhouses, and of women about 2,000. Besides this, it must be remembered that at the time when this inquiry was instituted, great changes had arisen in the various theories formerly entertained upon these matters. Former Reports and recommendations made show that a very much smaller space was thought requisite for the sick than is now almost universally looked upon as desirable. Thus the condition of things is very different from that existing when these workhouses were designed. They were designed as workhouses under the new Poor Law to deter able-bodied persons from going into them; it is found that they do act, in a great degree, as a check in this way; but now they are places chiefly for the sick and aged poor, the very persons whom the country would wish to see well cared for. Then, the Poor Law Board itself does not seem to have been always of the same opinion respecting the cubical space and the nursing. Now the cry throughout the country and the metropolis is that you must have as many paid nurses as you can get; but in a Return moved for by the Earl of Carnarvon in the other House, occurs this letter, dated the 11th of February, 1850, in which the Poor Law Board urge the guardians at Croydon not to appoint too many paid nurses— Three at least of the paid servants in this hospital must be discontinued. In the greater number of country unions there is no paid nurse, and in none it is believed more than one. In pronouncing upon this point the Poor Law Board attach more weight to the results of experience than to the opinion of the medical officer of the Croydon Workhouse, though supported by that of three of his professional friends. If, for instance, the infirmary of the Wandsworth and Clapham union workhouse can be, as it is, perfectly well managed under one paid nurse, why should the medical officers say that five paid nurses are required in the much smaller infirmary of the Croydon Workhouse. I only quote that in order to show that we can only act up to the lights we have, and that some fifteen or sixteen years ago medical men and the Poor Law Board itself believed there was much less necessity for greater space, paid nurses, and other appliances than is now thought requisite. We should not, therefore, attack our predecessors unnecessarily upon this subject, because we should probably have acted at that time just as they did. I come now to the conclusions of the Committee. They say, respecting the classes of sick poor of whom I have spoken— The Committee, after full and anxious consideration of the subject, have recommended that a space of not less than 850 cubic feet on an average, with six feet across the beds, should be provided for each sick inmate; of not less than 1,200 feet for each 'offensive case' in the 'separation' wards; the infirm wards should have at least 500 feet with day room; the surgical wards, 850; and the lying-in-wards, 1,200; for general wards, 300 would be sufficient; but for fever and small-pox wards, 2,000, and that they should be removed to separate hospitals. But the great point upon which they dwell, and upon which the whole question turns, is ventilation. It is stated, upon authority which I cannot doubt, that, whatever amount of space you may have, if the ventilation be not good, all your expense and trouble are thrown away, and that it is idle to increase the space unless you improve the ventilation. Accordingly, the Committee gave great attention to this subject, and to the best mode of insuring proper ventilation. The appendices to the Report are not yet perfect; but I hope in the course of this week, or the beginning of the week after, to lay before the House all the data upon which these gentlemen have proceeded. The House will find them worthy of attention, and they show that you cannot by merely adding to space overcome the difficulty of obtaining fresh air. You must not give air to the patients cold or in draughts, because to these old people draughts would be more dangerous than overcrowding and heat; and if you give them warm air, you must have some artificial system by which the air is brought into proper condition so as to be adapted to their weak state. In one of the great hospitals in France—the Lariboisiere—2,000 cubic feet are allowed for every inmate, and yet from its defective ventilation it is said by Dr. Bristowe and Mr. Holmes, in their Report on Hospitals, to be worse than the old infirmary at Leeds. This space being then required by the Committee, and accepted by me as the data on which I am bound to proceed, I have made up my mind to act on these conclusions, and on them I shall proceed to legislate; and then the question arises, how is the space to be obtained? We have in the metropolitan workhouses about 26,240 persons. That excludes the inmates of, the Richmond and Croydon Workhouses, which are not properly comprised within the metropolitan district, though within the inspecting powers of the metropolitan inspectors. There are temporarily disabled, 7,046; old and infirm, 13,685; able-bodied, 2,899; children above two years of age, 2,150; infants, 1,015. Out of the whole of these, 1,977 are imbeciles or lunatics, and form a separate and distinct class. Now, there is a very remarkable thing in these workhouses, which shows to their credit—I refer to the great age to which people may live in them. There have been as inmates for the period of one year and upwards persons above the age of 70 to the extent of 4,783; from 75 to 80, 3,812; from 80 to 90, 903. Those who have been from five to ten years inmates number 1,352, and those above ten years, 857. I saw in one of the workhouses, in the City of London union, what Sir George Lewis would have told us was an impossibility—an old man of 100 years of age. I believe this is a well-authenticated case, and judging from appearances he was likely to live for some time. Well, the question is, how am I to get room for all the sick poor of the metropolis? In the first place, I propose that the lunatics and imbeciles shall be removed and placed in separate establishments; then that the children above two years of age shall go to separate schools, and having done that, I fear I shall find myself still with a considerable deficiency of space under the new circumstances. We have to provide for 34,000 persons, including children. How is that to be done? It must be done by additional buildings. I propose to do it in accordance with the original intention of those who passed the Poor Law Act. So long ago as before the formation of the Gilbert Unions, a Resolution of the House was passed which shows what was in the mind of the House at that time; it was in favour of the establishment of A proper hospital, separate workhouse, and house of correction in each district, as the most easy and effective method of relieving the impotent, employing the industrious, and reforming the vicious poor, and it was evidently not supposed that the aged and infirm would be brought in who were principally receiving outdoor relief at that time. In 1834, what did the Commissioners say? Their intentions are given by Mr. Edwin Chadwick in a late number of Fraser's Magazine, where he says they never intended to have large workhouses, but separate ones for separate classes; but in carrying out their intention they seem to have come to a different conclusion; for, so far as I can see, no step was taken in that direction by the Commissioners at that time, and I suppose that Mr. Chadwick must have been overruled, and that an entirely different scheme was adopted. In their Report we find it recommended that the Central Board Should be empowered to cause any number of parishes to be incorporated for the purpose of workhouse management, and for providing new workhouses where necessary, and to assign to those workhouses separate classes of poor. That the requisite classification and superintendence may be better obtained in separate buildings than under one roof. Each class might thus receive appropriate treatment; the old might enjoy their indulgencies without torment from the boisterous, the children be educated, and the able-bodied subjected to such courses of labour as will repel the indolent or vicious. That principle was, in fact, carried out in the District Schools Act, the 7 & 8 Vict.c. 101, and I am taking no new step now in what I propose, for in 1841 Earl Russell, then Lord John Russell, together with Mr. Baring and Mr. Labouchere, brought in a Bill, in which it was provided that parishes or unions might have separate buildings for the insane and infirm poor, as well as separate schools for children. My main object is to classify the different inmates of workhouses, and I hope to do that, in the first instance, by building such an establishment or establishments as will be necessary for 2,000 lunatics and imbeciles. I find that my view on this subject is supported by the Lunacy Commissioners themselves; for in 1859 they published a supplement entirely devoted to this question of removing the lunatics and imbeciles from the workhouses. I will, for a moment, call the attention of the House to a few short passages. After pointing out the evils attendant on the detention of lunatics in workhouses, they say— To remedy many of the evils adverted to would, in our opinion, be impracticable, so long as insane patients are detained in workhouses, whether mixed with other inmates, or placed in distinct wards. The construction and management of workhouses present insurmountable obstacles to the proper treatment of the disease of insanity; and, therefore, the removal of the majority of the patients and the adoption of stringent measures to prevent the admission of others have become absolutely necessary. … To secure for the insane poor now improperly retained in workhouses due care and treatment elsewhere, it will be necessary to add greatly to the existing accommodation in county and borough asylums. Many of these are already upon so large a scale as not to admit of the necessary extension, while some are of a size much beyond that which is compatible with their efficient working. After full consideration of the subject in all its bearings, we are of opinion that the best mode of making provision for the insane poor who cannot be received into the present asylums will be by the erection of inexpensive buildings adapted for the residence of idiotic, chronic, and harmless patients, in direct connection with, or at a convenient distance from, the existing institutions. These auxiliary asylums, which should be under the management of the present visiting justices, would be intermediate between union workhouses and the principal curative asylums. The cost of building need not, in general, much exceed one-half of that incurred in the erection of ordinary asylums; and the establishment of officers and attendants would be upon a smaller and more economical scale than those required in the principal asylums. Without the adoption of measures such as we have suggested no effectual remedy can, in our opinion, be found for the present evils which so urgently press for correction. I might quote at greater length; but those who are interested will find the whole Report worth perusal. I have spoken to one of the Commissioners, who tells me that it not unfrequently happens that persons who might be easily cured if put at once under medical treatment, are after a few days in a workhouse rendered absolutely incurable. I am sure that an evil of the kind to which I now refer is one to which this House will, if it be possible, apply a remedy. The next class to be removed is that of persons suffering from fever and small-pox. At present the great majority of those cases are sent to the hospitals specially devoted to the cure of these diseases; but it often happens that these hospitals are full, and I am bound to say that it is a matter of real necessity to provide some directly under Poor Law management. I would therefore propose to take or hire such buildings as will accommodate from 700 to 800 of those patients. I hope and believe that the time will come when by proper attention to the use of those remedies which science has discovered—vaccination on the one hand, and good sanitary arrangements on the other—we may be able to dispense with those hospitals almost entirely. We cannot, however, do so at present; and it is a most material thing to do for the people themselves, and for others in the workhouse, that to avoid risk and spreading the disease they should be removed. With respect to the children, almost all the metropolitan unions and parishes have district or separate schools. There are six instances in which we shall, no doubt, find no difficulty in obtaining their sanction—though we shall not require it—that the children shall be removed to separate schools like those which the inspectors have certified as being carried on on a most admirable system. In them the children are trained not only in the ordinary walks of industry, but the instrumental bands of some of our regiments are drawn from these schools. I am told that almost the whole band of one of our regiments came from the Stepney School. I have not been there, but am told that it is a most interesting sight to witness the training of the children. Now, am I to give up the existing workhouses? I think not. I believe, from the Reports made, that there are twenty-four of the present workhouses which may be easily and satisfactorily adapted for all classes of poor, except those which I have before described. There is one thing, however, which we must peremptorily insist on—namely, the treatment of the sick in the infirmaries being conducted on an entirely separate system; because the evils complained of have mainly arisen from the workhouse management, which must to a great degree be of a deterrent character, having been applied to the sick, who are not proper objects for such a system. That is one thing which I should insist upon as an absolute condition. I propose, therefore, that power shall be given to combine such districts as the Poor Law Board may think proper—whether parishes and parishes, unions and unions, or unions and parishes—under a more complete system of inspection and control, and to interest in the conduct of those establishments persons who might be inclined to give them their attention. I propose that we should be able to appoint nominees on the Boards of Guardians, providing they never exceed one-third of the whole body, and are-rated at not less than £100 a year. These nominees would, I hope, be persona taking a deep interest in the management of the establishments, and they would exercise a closer supervision than can be exercised by an inspector, whose visitation can only take place a certain number of times in a year. This proposal is, I am aware, a novel one, and will probably raise some objectors; but the House will bear in mind that in other parts of the country justices of the peace, acting practically as the largest ratepayers in the union, have seats at the Board. I propose that gentlemen residing in the several districts, and who are justices of the peace, though not perhaps filling that office in a metropolitan county, should be eligible to be placed upon these Boards, the nominee portion, however, never exceeding one-third of the whole. I know I shall be asked, from what I have seen in the press, and what has been said at public meetings, in respect to a plan that has been spoken of for workhouse and infirmary alteration, "Why do you not have six or seven large hospitals, each containing 1,000 inmates, and conducted upon the principle of hospitals pure and simple?" Now, there are several reasons why I do not propose this. In the first place, it would involve great expense and render useless the existing workhouses. Secondly, there is the objection which has been pointed out by many eminent medical men, that whereas in our smaller establishments, notwithstanding all their defects, gangrene, erysipelas, and puerperal fever do not intrude, in the large hospitals those diseases not only intrude, but are often permanently fixed there. Another objection is that these establishments ought to be readily accessible to the people of the district; because the people admitted into them are frequently in a transition state, and persons of advanced age are in the infirmary to-day and out to-morrow, in this week and out the next, and to remove them to and from a distant hospital would be a much more prejudicial course than to transfer them to an hospital near at hand, and capable, under proper discipline, of being as well conducted as the larger establishments. I hope under the new system to ensure, in cases where there are a certain number of sick, resident medical officers, in all cases separate and independent matrons, and paid nurses. But I know that we cannot by paying get trained nurses. Miss Nightingale says no such thing exists as a body of trained nurses at present: we must train them. Well, if we cannot get them, we must do the next best thing—we must use the best material; available—we must pay persons responsible to us, and in that way having got the best we can, by having these separate establishments under suitable matrons, we may probably educate nurses for our needs. I believe that suitable persons could in many cases be found in the workhouses who would gladly seize the opportunity of earning a good livelihood. I believe also in the schools young persons might be trained to nursing, and thus provided with means of earning a living in their future life, while they conferred a great benefit upon the class from which they came. This, of course, would be a work of time; and, after all, the large hospitals would experience the same difficulty. I will here call the attention of the House to a very curious circumstance which is referred to in the last Report of the Poor Law Board. In Liverpool a gentleman, to his honour be it said, gave £3,000 to be divided into three sums of £1,000 a year to obtain for the Liverpool Workhouse trained and experienced nurses. Twelve were appointed on the recommendation of Miss Nightingale, and under them were eighty others. There was a miraculous change in the management of the workhouse infirmary. In the appearance of it it seemed that everything was being done on an im- proved system. But what did the intelligent master of, the House report? For the first ten months—and I agree with him that that time is too short to give any sufficient proof of the working of the system—for the first ten months after the nurses came, he reported the discharges had been fewer and the deaths more frequent than under the old system. I confess that did to some extent dishearten me, and I have not at present any further return on the subject, though I have tried to obtain it. I am bound to say that Miss Nightingale was not quite satisfied with the administration of that department, although any one who visits the Liverpool Workhouse will see that it sets a pattern which is well worthy of being followed by similar establishments. I have another proposal to make with the view of securing more frequent visitation. It has been represented to me that there are no medical schools in which the treatment of chronic diseases can be studied; and I therefore propose that the Poor Law Board should have power to establish such schools, or more properly places of instruction, in connection with these hospitals, because the attendance of medical practitioners and their pupils would amount to an inspection of the most efficacious kind. Now, I think I have gone through the different classes that I propose to deal with in workhouses, and I ask, can nothing be done to prevent so many sick persons coming into the hospitals? I have had inquiries made on that subject, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will join me in admitting the debt which is owing to an officer of the Poor Law Board, Mr. Lambert, for the enormous assistance he gave them in the arrangement of statistics last year, and I have to thank him for the earnest and laborious assistance which he has afforded me in connection with the changes I propose. Though he had well earned a complete rest after having devoted himself to the preparation of the elaborate Returns that were laid before Parliament, I asked him, on his taking his holiday, if he would go to Ireland and make inquiries as to the administration of the dispensary system there. He did so, and has made a Report, which I have laid upon the table; and on that I propose to found a system which I believe calculated to diminish the amount of serious sickness among the poor. Half the pauperism of this country begins in sickness. I think it a most unsatisfactory system that such cases as this should occur constantly:—A child goes to the district medical officer, says some one at home is ill, and describes the symptoms. Medicine is sent with the child, without the medical officer having visited the patient. It may do harm, or it may do good; but I think the system contrary to common sense. Cases have come before me where medicine is continued to be sent frequently while the medical officer has not seen or seldom seen the patient. Not long ago a case occurred in the metropolis of this kind:—A daughter came to the medical officer, described pains, and medicine was sent to the mother; she died, and it was found she was suffering from quite a different complaint to that to which the medicine was intended to cure. I know of a workhouse in the North of England—I will not mention it—where they have what they call house medicine placed in a pauper's hands, and whoever wants it applies and gets it, and the demand seems good, for though the workhouse is a small one, the inmates consume a gallon a week. The medical officer says it does them no harm; the master says it has a great effect. The absence of disastrous consequences from medicines thus sent upon mere guess seems to prove that they must be at least harmless; but more is required. Now, to remedy this loose system, I propose that dispensaries be established in different parts of the metropolis, and that in all cases the medical men should write a prescription. It may be said that this is a cumbersome system; but it is carried out in Paris and in Ireland, where it answers exceedingly well, and prevents a great deal of sickness which otherwise would have to be treated in the hospitals. Mr. Lambert went to inquire into the matter. I do not propose to read at length his report; but if I read extracts from it it will be for the advantage of the House, for I am unable to give better reasons for this enactment than he has given. Dr. Rogers, in his evidence before the Relief Committee, suggested that the authorities should find the drugs, and not the medical officers. I propose to adopt that course; the drugs are to be found. I cannot help thinking that will remove from the medical man a great temptation. We shall secure good drugs; and when I come to speak of the mode of paying for them the House will see that the plan we propose will, or at least ought to, obtain for us the best drugs possible. The advantages of this system are stated by Mr. Lambert in better words than I myself could employ— It insures for the destitute sick poor a sufficient supply of all necessary and proper medicine and medical appliances. It enables those who are not confined within doors to obtain medical advice at fixed hours, and within a convenient distance from their homes. It insures for those who are unable to go out medical attendance, and enables them to obtain their medicines promptly. It affords facilities for vaccination, as well as for medical relief generally, by establishing fixed places at which it is well known that the medical officers must attend at stated hours. The next, I think a most important matter, which some of my hon. Friends from Ireland will no doubt be able to confirm; it is that nothing so much tended to check the recent outbreak of cholera in Ireland as the power of expansion which there is in the dispensary system. Mr. Lambert goes on to say— It provides an organization always ready, and capable of expansion if necessary, to meet any outbreak of epidemic disease with promptness; while, at the same time, it is calculated to prevent disease becoming epidemie by early treatment, and by procuring the adoption of precautionary measures in any locality which may be threatened. These benefits have recently been largely realized in Ireland in reference to cholera. I think it a most important point that when a person is removed from outdoor to indoor relief his prescriptions should go with him; so that the medical man in charge of the case may have the opportunity of seeing what the course of treatment has been— By preserving a record of the medical treatment in every case it furnishes a test of both the skill and attention of the medical officer. It prevents that conflict between interest and duty which must so often arise in the mind of the medical officer when he himself is required to provide medicines out of his salary. I think the reasons I have just read are reasons of great force and weight. In attempting to give effect to them it will, of course, be necessary that the Poor Law Board should have power to deal with all contracts entered into with existing medical officers; because I am sure the House, in a proceeding of this kind, would wish to see all those who have hitherto given their services dealt with justly and honourably. To another provision which it will be necessary to make in this Bill the attention of the House was called by the Report of the Committee which sat from 1861 to 1864, and that is as to doing away, as far as practicable, with Local Acts in the metropolis. At present there are ten places under Local Acts in the metropolis, and we propose that they should be brought just as much under the authority of the Poor Law Board as any of the rest. At the present there is a nominal audit, but the audit in some of these cases is worthless. I trust that the House, with the Report of the Committee from 1861 to 1864 before them, and with all the facts and reasoning in its favour, will carry that part of the Bill—the abolition of the Local Acts—so far as they relate to Poor Law administration in the metropolis. Now I come to a point which will be more interesting to some hon. Members sitting opposite than any other part of the Bill. I have been urged and invited by a great deputation, by pamphlets, and by letters innumerable, to state whether I am prepared to equalize poor rates throughout the metropolis. Upon that subject I will not keep the House in suspense, because I will say at once that I am not prepared to make such a proposition; but I am prepared to do a good deal, I will not say towards equalizing those rates, but towards distributing charges now levied separately upon the various localities. It is true that this metropolis is in a certain sense one altogether; but every one must see, I think, that there is no place in the world with more varied interests or more unmistakably divided into different districts than the metropolis. I find one gentleman proposing, for instance, twelve municipal establishments, and another proposing that London should be divided into all sorts of districts with distinct machinery; so that it is quite clear that London is felt to be separated into various and distinct divisions. And I cannot get over this: how, if you once equalize the rates of the metropolis, are you to provide for a central management? You must have a paid management, and you must do away with local management altogether. If not, how are you to put a proper check and control on the expenditure? I am quite sure of this, that by such a change, instead of bringing down the rates to a certain amount, you would have a very great increase in the present rate of expenditure. I could not help remarking the other day at the deputation how many gentlemen said they were a great deal less liberal than they should be if they had the means of putting their hands into the pockets of their wealthy neighbours. I quite admit that would be the result. It is clear, at all events, that the deputation looked to a much larger expenditure. And I am not now expressing any opinion of my own as to the sufficiency of their present expenditure in some respects—as to outdoor relief, for instance. But I believe that a great paid system for 3,000,000 people would utterly fail, though perhaps it would become a great department, and finally overtop the Department over which I have the honour to preside. If, on the other hand, the administration were intrusted to the Poor Law Board, it would occasion conflicts and difficulties greater than any that have hitherto arisen. Another difficulty I in the way of equalizing the rates, though that certainly might be overcome, lies in the question of uniformity of assessment. At this moment the rateable value of the metropolis is put at £15,000,000. How much of that is ascertained by the Union Assessment Committees? Why, as to between £9,000,000 and £10,000,000 of that amount, we have no means of ascertaining whether the value is properly estimated or not. It is ascertained without Union Assessment Committees, and is assessed in parishes as they please; and it may be, for aught I know, that the assessments may be so managed as to cause much of the evil which is complained of. The Poor Law Committee did not make any recommendations on this subject. They called attention to it, and say there are peculiar circumstances in the metropolis. There are peculiar circumstances in the metropolis, and I think they are such as to justify me in proceeding to the length I propose to do in distributing the charges. The Union Chargeability Act got rid of a great number of difficulties, particularly in the City of London, where, I think, one parish was rated at 2d. in the pound, and another rated as high as 9s. These inequalities have been remedied, and the City of London Union is now equally assessed, and pays, no doubt, a very moderate sum, having regard to its wealth, as compared with the surrounding districts. The charges of the houseless poor have all been thrown on the common fund of the metropolis. I do not think the time has yet come for forming a definite opinion on that question. I think the time will come when it will be necessary to inquire into the working of that Act. It has answered to a great extent in this way. It has provided that no person need be houseless in this metropolis. It has trebled the number of persons who used to apply for admission to the casual wards of workhouses; but I find that, although the estimate, in point of numbers, has been largely exceeded, the actual cost of the wards and relief given is not beyond the one-eighth of a penny regarded at the time as sufficient for the purpose. This charge is not a very large one, yet it has been instrumental in introducing a new principle into the metropolis. I told the House I had been petitioned repeatedly by persons at the East End of the metropolis to do something to bring them into a better condition. Curiously enough, I received only yesterday from one of the parishes that is rated highest—Whitechapel—a memorial on the subject; and, if the framers of that memorial had looked into the Bill which I propose to submit, they could not have put forward more accurately the points which they desired that I should take up, both as to the direction and extent of the changes that are recommended. I will not read that memorial at length; but I may state its substance. The memorialists Consider that the following provisions leave each union still to be responsible and chargeable with precisely those expenses and their administration where only indiscrete and corrupt expenditure could occur, and so supply a guarantee to all parties against the increase of pauperism by ignorant, partial, and profuse bestowal of the public funds. They propose that we should put certified and district schools upon the common fund; and that lunatics, imbeciles, the salaries and wages of permanent officials, fees for vaccination, small-pox and fever hospitals, and so forth, should be charged to the common fund. That is exactly what I propose to do. I propose, in the first instance, to charge to the common fund the lunatics and imbeciles. I cannot consider that an unreasonable step. When the settlement of these persons cannot be ascertained, they are charged to the county in county asylums, and counties find the buildings, and it cannot be contended that lunatics belong more to one part of the metropolis than they do to another, though all have an equal interest in seeing their necessities adequately and comfortably relieved. Besides, it is one of those items which cannot be jobbed; you cannot make lunatics for the purpose. It is not as in the case of ordinary sick persons, who in hospital would be charged to one fund, and out of hospital to another. Again, there are many reasons why the salaries of the medical officers, the officers of dispensaries, and the charge for medicines should be a charge on the common fund. At this moment half the medical officers' salaries are charged upon the Consolidated Fund. This was done by Sir Robert Peel, and in practice it has been attended with no evil consequences. And in dealing with the salaries of these gentlemen, and placing them upon the common fund, a check remains with the Poor Law Board, without whose consent no salary can be given. [Sir GEORGE GREY: The common fund of the whole metropolis?] The common fund of the whole metropolis. In speaking of it, I have called it shortly "the common fund." Then, as regards the salaries. I do not mean the salaries of assistant overseers and collectors, but the salaries of all officers actually engaged in the administration of poor relief ought, I think, to be placed on the common fund. In many cases, also, I think when this is done improvements may be introduced. Poor persons have to travel frequently to great distances to obtain outdoor relief, and it is very desirable that there should be more relieving officers, or more points at which they can obtain assistance. At present I believe the very applications for assistance often bring evils in their train; for by crowding together in large numbers at a particular point a long detention is caused, the poor have their sickness or infirmity much increased by being kept in the snow or the rain for an unreasonable time. Registration and vaccination expenses I would put on the common fund. These are small charges, but it is most desirable that the system of which they form part should be made as effective as possible, with a view of getting rid of that horrible and disastrous complaint, the small-pox. For the same reason I would establish the small-pox and fever hospitals, and pay the expenses out of the common fund. Small-pox and fever are not things the relief of which can be traded in. Nobody will go into a small pox or fever hospital who has not one of those diseases. Patients such as these endanger the health of the whole population if they are not properly cared for, and if means be not taken to prevent the infection from being spread. I now come to the children's schools. Great efforts are at present being made on behalf of education, some calling for compulsory education, and some for other systems. The district schools, and certified schools, and schools under the Inspectors of the Poor Law Board, are working admirably as separate schools. I propose by this Bill that we should have separate schools, and that the maintenance of the children shall be paid out of the common fund of the metropolis, s The building will be provided by the district. I have now to consider what all' these charges will amount to. I will not go into the details now, because I shall lay on the table papers that will give the fullest information on the subject. I propose to lay the Bill at once on the table; and I am sure that hon. Members will be able to judge better of details from reading the clauses than they would be from any description which I might give them. It is right, however, that I should answer some of the questions that will probably be put to me. The City of London is the richest union in the metropolis. What would be the effect on the City of London Union of these additional charges on the common fund. They would increase the rate by 3¾d. in the pound. I will take an extreme case on the opposite side—St. George's, Southwark. They would relieve that union by reducing the rate from about 3s. to about 2s. in the pound. Adding the whole of the additional or new charges which I think will arise from this measure if you adopt it, a sum of about £60,000 per annum will have to be raised. Now, 1d. rate raises £61,000; sol think that at that sum the metropolis may purchase a very great improvement at a reasonably cheap rate. Those improvements, if the House should think them improvements, may be effected at so cheap a rate as 1d. in the pound; and, although this rate will fall on the impoverished as well as on the richer unions, it is to be borne in mind that the former will be relieved by the allocation of expenses with which they are now charged on the common fund. In order that the money to be raised should be devoted to a common fund it will be necessary, as in the case of the police rate, to appoint a receiver under the Poor Law Board. And instead of going to the Metropolitan Board of Works, which should have nothing to do with the management of the poor, I propose to relieve them of their present duty of obtaining the funds for the houseless poor, and to enact that the Poor Law Board shall issue warrants for the different rates; that the receiver who shall give proper security, shall pay the money into the Bank of England, and that he 8hall distribute the funds according to the just proportions due to the several unions and districts. I suppose it will be asked, further, what will be the cost of the buildings? I have already said that, having regard to the statement of the Lunacy Commissioners, the lunatics for whom the Bill proposes to provide cannot be looked on as the ordinary class of lunatics who have some chance of being cured. Those who have a chance of cure will go to the ordinary asylums; and where the cases are chronic some patients might be transferred thence to the new buildings, instead of being kept where they would only be in the way of inmates more needing special care. If I give £50 a head as the cost of the asylums, there being 2,000 lunatics, the cost would be £100,000. Of course, I speak with great reserve on this subject. I know that the price of building has risen very much; but, looking at all the circumstances, I believe we may easily provide such buildings as we require for that sum. In addition to this, I think we should have to provide for at least 2,000 more sick; and, putting down the cost of the building necessary for their accommodation at £60 a head, we have £120,000 more. Then there would be the additional school building, which would cost from £50,000 to £70,000, and the fever and small-pox hospitals, which would take from £50,000 to £70,000 more. It would thus appear that the entire buildings would cost about £360,000, or say, in round numbers, £400,000. When it is borne in mind that many unions of the metropolis would be obliged to build under present circumstances, and that some of them are at this moment building, it will be seen that a very considerable expenditure for new buildings will take place, even should this Bill not be passed. For instance, the site on which St. Martin's Workhouse now stands has been bought by the Government, and the guardians will be able to build on a better scale with the money which they will receive for the present house. I think, therefore, that I am safe in saying £400,000 would be the extreme limit. It would be paid off in yearly sums. The payment for the first year would be £40,000; but the annual payments would become less after that, and for such a sum two-thirds of 1d.in the pound over the metropolis would be the required rating. There is one other provision in the Bill to which I wish to allude before concluding. It is one conferring on the Poor Law Board a power similar to one vested in the Irish Poor Law Commissioners, and which, though I believe never exercised, has been found effective in producing the desired results. Though I intend to submit to the House another measure applying to England generally, in respect of certain minor points, we have thought it right at once to ask Parliament to give power to the Poor Law Board to appoint proper officers in the event of the guardians or managers declining to do so. Though I believe it never will be necessary to exercise this provision, I think it will be advisable to give some less expensive and more speedy remedy than that of a mandamus in case of neglect to appoint nurses or other officers. Knowing this power to be vested in the Poor Law Board, I think those intrusted with the management of unions will always so act as that it will be unnecessary ever to exercise it. I have now only to thank the House for the patience with which they have listened to me. I can assure the House that I have not dealt with this question without having given the subject much thought and consideration. I have endeavoured as far as possible to come to a just and satisfactory conclusion, feeling as I did very deeply the responsibility cast upon me lest, while endeavouring to mitigate existing evils, I might take any step which should lead to the worst of all evils—an increase of pauperism in the country. I have limited, as far as seemed to me possible to do so, the burdens to be thrown on the poorer parishes. I feel very much for those parishes, and I cannot help throwing out a suggestion as to what might probably be done at a future time in the way of exceptional relief without any injury to our Poor Law system might not power be given to the Poor Law Board in the event of any sudden and extraordinary calamity—such as an outbreak of cholera—to raise a general rate, not exceeding 1d.in the pound, over all the parishes of London? In this way a sum of £60,000 or £70,000 might be at once placed at the disposal of the authorities for the relief of the afflicted. I only throw that out as a suggestion. It appears to me that it would afford us a means of meeting some of the evils with which we have had to contend, without leading to that still greater evil to which I have just referred. I feel satisfied that this Bill will be received by hon. Members on the Opposition side in a spirit of forbearance and impartiality. This is a matter to which no party feeling can attach itself. We have only one object in view, which is the benefit of this metropolis—to do a service both to the ratepayers and to the suffering poor, whether in workhouse or receiving outdoor relief. I commend the measure to the kind consideration of the House, assuring them that we are not so wedded to its every detail as not to give the utmost attention to any Amendment which may be proposed; but I would earnestly beg of hon. Members who wish for larger changes to take care lest in grasping at a shadow they should lose the substance which we now offer to the House. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

MR. AYRTON

expressed the satisfaction he felt at finding that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, at so early a period of his political career, had applied himself to a consideration of this important question, which, he was sorry to say, had been too long left in its present state. He could not forget that it was now ten years since he had brought the subject under the notice of the House; and in vain had he been looking for some action on the part of the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presided. Even if it was true that the descriptions of what took place in some of the workhouses of our metropolis were somewhat exaggerated, he was glad that by the publication of those accounts the press had directed public attention to the administration of the Poor Law. If writers of equal ability to those who had described the workhouses attended at the bedsides of the poor who died in private houses, they would find material for reports as painful as those they had made on the condition of the unfortunate poor people who had had to seek indoor relief. He believed that the true source of all the evils connected with the administration of the relief to the poor in the metropolis, had been the injustice attendant on the unequal distribution of {he charges in the different parishes. As long as that injustice prevailed, it would be impossible to deal with the consequences which resulted from it. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had recognised that principle, and had proposed to extend the charge for those improvements through the entire community by means of what he termed a common fund. He was not going at present to complain of the measure of justice which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to accord; for last year he ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor that perhaps the best way of meeting the question of the equalization of the poor rates, would be not to attempt at once to subvert the whole administration of the Poor Law of the metropolis by one measure, but to proceed upon the principle of bringing from time to time other and different classes of the poor on a common fund as might be found convenient and practicable. The right hon. Gentleman had, undoubtedly, taken several classes with whom it would be comparatively easy to deal, and he appeared to have stopped at the very point where the real difficulties of the case commenced. Now, he did not complain of that; because if this tentative measure were found to answer, the system might be extended, and, assisted by the light of experience, they might extend the uniform charge to classes remaining excluded. There was only one point to which he wished to draw attention. The right hon. Gentleman had not explained very clearly what was to be the mode of administering the common fund. It was suggested that there were to be district Boards, and if so we should be going back to a plan which had been proposed twice before, and which on each occasion turned out a failure. For his part, he thought it a pity that the attempt should be made for the third time. There would be no merit in dividing London into new districts; but what was wanted was one entire administration which would deal with the whole subject, superintend the whole of the distribution of relief, in those cases which were embraced in the present Bill. Just in proportion as it was attempted to re-combine and re-group parishes and unions, would unnecessary expense be entailed, and the measure be rendered inefficient. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that, if one Board only were established, it would eclipse and overshadow his own; but that was a rather narrow view to take of the question, and he might depend upon it that, as long as he presided with ability over his own Board, it would not be overshadowed by any other. At all events, he did not think the question ought to be embarrassed by any consideration of that kind. The question was, whether it were desirable to have one Board to superintend the infirmaries, dispensaries, and lunatic asylums, or whe- ther there should be a multiplicity of Boards. The magistrates of the county were quite equal to deal with the lunatic asylums of Middlesex, and he saw no reason why a Central Board should not deal with the infirmaries, dispensaries, and lunatic asylums in the metropolis. He did not propose to discuss the practical bearings of the measure on the present occasion; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not pledge himself too much to that part of his Bill. In conclusion, he expressed his opinion that we should do well to deal with this question by degrees; for, if the system now proposed were found to answer, it might be extended at any future time. He was desirous before he sat down to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the great attention which he had given to the subject, and to express the pleasure with which he had listened to his able speech.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD

wished, in the first place, to tender his most grateful thanks to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) for the spirit in which he had approached this question; and, in the second, to assure him that the sole reason why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers) had not been present that evening was that severe indisposition compelled him to remain at home. With regard to the various details of the scheme, he could only say that every portion of it would receive the most impartial consideration on his part. He only wished now to tender his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for having so earnestly addressed himself to this important subject, and to state why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had not been present to hear his speech.

MR. BRADY

also thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the industry and ability he had displayed since he had presided over the Poor Law Board, and had brought to bear upon this important question. It was quite clear that he had paid great attention to it, and had considered it in a spirit of perfect impartiality. The alterations now proposed were highly important in a medical point of view, and would remedy many of the evils the pressure of which was now most severely felt. After paying a high compliment to the editor of The Lancet for the considerable expense to which he had put himself for the purpose of collecting accurate and ample information on this subject, the hon. Member proceeded to say that he hoped medical officers would for the future be freed from the influences which had hitherto been brought to bear by the guardians most injuriously upon the proper performance of their duties. They were at the disposal of the guardians, who might dismiss them or continue them in their offices as they thought fit; and it was well known that in many instances medical officers had been turned out or harassed out of their office because they were disposed to order for the patients more nourishment than the guardians approved of. As long as this was allowed the administration of the medical department of the Poor Law must continue to be unsatisfactory. The medical officers ought also to be better paid. If this were done the complaints which had been heard of the inefficient performance of their duties would not have to be repeated; but it was unreasonable to suppose that, while they were miserably underpaid, they would be found ready to devote their time and to endanger their lives cheerfully in attendance upon the poor. It was a piece of injustice to the poor so long as their medical men continued to be thus underpaid.

MR. LOCKE

said, that as he had always taken the deepest interest in this subject, he was unwilling to let the opportunity pass without tendering to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) his thanks for the introduction of the Bill, and likewise for the pains which he had taken in investigating the question, and the great ability he had displayed in introducing his Bill. When he waited upon the right hon. Gentleman with the deputation which had been referred to by him that evening, he saw that the sympathies and views of the right hon. Gentleman were sound, and that whatever was done would be done in the right direction. The right hon. Gentleman had only stopped short of carrying out the complete proposal of the deputation—namely, the equalization of the poor rates in the metropolis, because he thought certain difficulties would arise from there being no sufficient check upon a too lavish expenditure in the relief of the poor. He believed, however, that as soon as the present plan was adopted, it would be found that the principle of the Bill might be safely extended to the equalization of the whole poor rate throughout the metropolis. The Report of the Poor Belief Committee did not, indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, contain, a direct recommendation in favour of the equalization of the poor rates of the metropolis; but it stated that the circumstances of the metropolis were so peculiar that in any legislation to extend the area of charge or management it would be necessary to have regard to those circumstances. With respect to some of those peculiarities which pressed so heavily on the poorer parishes, there was no doubt that the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman would provide a remedy, though he did not pledge himself to all the details of the Bill, which would be matter for great consideration when they were before the House. But in the principle of the Bill he heartily agreed; and, with other hon. Gentlemen, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the great labour he had bestowed on the subject, and the distinguished ability with which he had treated it, and for the proposals contained in the Bill, which would be appreciated and approved of by the whole metropolis.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, that all must admire the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had approached a difficult subject, the clear and lucid statement he had made, and the tone and temper in which he had brought the matter forward.

Motion agreed to.

Bill for the establishment in the Metropolis of Asylums for the Sick, Insane, and other classes of the Poor, and of Dispensaries; and for the distribution over the Metropolis of portions of the charge for Poor Relief; and for other purposes relating to Poor Relief in the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GATHORNE HARDY and Mr. EARLE.

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 9.]