HC Deb 18 February 1870 vol 199 cc567-83
MR. GOSCHEN

In asking leave, Sir, to introduce a Bill to provide for the equal distribution over the Metropolis of a further portion of the charge for Poor Relief, it will be convenient that I should state what progress has been already made towards equalization, and what thus far have been its effects, both financially and as regards the administration of Poor Law relief. I am not sure that the results of the equalization have been fully appreciated—partly, no doubt, because, though it is now two or three years since the Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) passed, only three half-years have come under its operation. The audit always occupies a certain number of months, so that the parishes do not get immediate payment. At present they have received only two payments under the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman; but in the course of a few days they will receive a third payment. As regards the general financial statement of poor relief in the metropolis, the situation is about as follows:—The aggregate expenditure for poor relief in London amounts in round numbers for the year ending Lady-day, 1868, to £1,300,000, and for the year ending Lady-day, 1869, it amounts to £1,400,000. But I ought to add, especially at the present time, when, very naturally, great attention is drawn to the expenditure in the metropolis, that, although the year ending Lady-day, 1869, shows an increase of £100,000 over the preceding year, yet the half-year ending Lady-day, 1869, shows only a very slight increase over the corresponding portion of the preceding year. I may also mention that the half-year ending at Michaelmas, 1869, shows a reduction in regard to in-maintenance and out-relief as compared with the corresponding half-year in 1868. Therefore, up to last Michaelmas, there was no increase at all in the items for in-maintenance and out-relief in the metropolis. I attribute this to the circumstance that, although the number of paupers has been slightly greater, corn was cheaper, and a certain economy was effected in that respect. However, irrespective of the question of increase or diminution, these figures represent what I hope we need not consider the normal state of expenditure in the metropolis—because I hope we shall not always be burdened with the present number of paupers—although they fairly represent the average expenditure for the last two or throe years. Now, it is well known to all who are engaged in the administration of poor relief, but not, perhaps, to the public in general, that this large sum which is spent in poor relief is usually divided into five or six heads. First, there is a heavy item for in-maintenance, representing about three-tenths of the whole; another for out-relief, also representing three-tenths; a third for lunatics in asylums or licensed houses, representing one-tenth; salaries of officers about one-tenth; workhouse loans and other expenses about two-tenths. It will, therefore, be seen that it is not only the in-maintenance and the out-relief which form so great a part of the total charge for relief, but a number of expenses which are more or less con- nected with poor relief, and in part administrative expenses. As regards equalization, very considerable progress has been made—much more, indeed, as I remarked just now, than is generally supposed. I ought, however, to add that the increase in the expenditure in 1869, as compared with 1808, represented 1d. in the pound, the average rate being 1s. 6¾d. in 1868, and 1s. 7¾d. in 1869. The increase would have been slightly greater, but for some addition to the rateable value. And now to return to the question of equalization. The following items were put on the common fund by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford:—the cost of lunatics, of children, of fever hospitals, and of medicines and drugs, and a very large sum for the salaries of officers. These are already upon the common fund. When the Act first came into operation, there was some little difficulty in bringing all these items on to the common fund, because the clerks to the Boards of Guardians found themselves in arrear; but the system is now in full operation, and I may say that £400,000 a-year is already charged on the common fund, out of £1,400,000, the aggregate sum paid for poor relief. For the half-year, of which the audit has just been concluded, the sum charged on the common fund is £200,000; in the previous half-year, £170,000 was so charged; and in the half-year before that £130,000. There has been a progressive increase under the head of cost of maintenance of lunatics in proportion to the number of lunatics whom the Guardians have been able to remove to asylums, for hon. Members may remember that it is only when this class of paupers are removed from the workhouses that the Unions enjoy the benefit of coming on the common poor fund in respect of them. The same rule applies when children are removed from the workhouses and placed in separate schools or district schools. So, in proportion to the removal from the workhouses of lunatics and children, the charge on the common fund has been increased, and the charge on the Unions themselves decreased. It may be interesting to some hon. Members, or at all events to the parties concerned, to know what kind of benefit is given to the poor parishes in the metropolis by the equalization up to this time. I will quote a few figures relating to the half-year ending on Lady Day, 1869. Bethnal Green is entitled to a surplus of £6,300, Shore-ditch to £4,700, Whitechapel to £3,900, and Stepney to £3,000. Thus the poorest parishes are receiving the most money. Twenty-four parishes receive money from the fund, and about fifteen contribute to the fund. As regards the latter, I may remark that the City of London is called upon to pay nearly £15,000; St. George's, Hanover Square, has to draw a check for £6,500; Paddington has to contribute £5,600, and Kensington about £4,000, so that the Act is by no means inoperative, as some people suppose, but has already conferred a very considerable benefit on the poorer parishes. During the last three half-years, including the one of which the audit is now-being settled, Bethnal Green has received £16,000, Whitechapel £11,500, Greenwich nearly £11,000, and Shore-ditch nearly £9,000; while during the same period the richer parishes have of course paid sums equal to the amount received by the poorer ones. I will now briefly state the items with regard to which these payments will arise in respect of the year ended Lady Day, 1869. The maintenance of lunatics in asylums and licensed houses amounts to £160,000—that item, I am sorry to say, is constantly increasing all over the country—medicines and surgical appliances to about £9,000, salaries of officers to £103,000, maintenance of children in separate or district schools to £91,000, expenses under the Houseless Poor Act to £12,000, and registration and vaccination fees to £15,000. The heavily-rated parishes have not yet reaped all the benefit of the change, but when the system is in full action, and the schools are all ready for the reception of the children, and the asylums for the imbeciles are completed, I hope that they will do so. To a certain extent it must be borne in mind that the tendency of equalizing the poor rates is to increase expense. The salaries of officers, for instance, have increased materially since 1866. In the first year there was an increase of £10,000 under this head, a similar increase occurred in the year following, and last year there was an increase of £15,000. This is a most instructive item as regards the administration of relief. At first sight it points to the conclusion that there has been increased extravagance; but I think the House will desire to look into the matter somewhat closely. How has this increase arisen? I have examined carefully the circumstances as to three classes of officials—the doctors, relieving officers, and nurses. I find that the doctors have been increased in number by eighteen; that the relieving officers, formerly 110 in number, are now 150; and that the paid nurses have been increased by 173, being formerly 213 and now 386. These additions represent very fairly the advantages and disadvantages resulting from placing charges of this description on the common fund. Very few persons to whom the circumstances are known would grudge the increase either in doctors, relieving officers, or paid nurses. But what happened was this. Before the equalization of rates parishes which were overburdened with rates frankly confessed the necessity for an increased number of relieving officers and paid nurses, but were unable to support further expenditure for the purpose; but as soon as the burden of taxation became more evenly distributed, they then recognized the necessity of increasing their staff, and not without good results. I hail the increase in the number of relieving officers as one of the very greatest advantages which has resulted from the introduction of the new system. There ran be no stronger instance than that of Poplar, which has greatly increased its staff of relieving officers, and the consequence has been that while other districts in the neighbourhood have seen their pauperism increase, that of Poplar has been stationary, having been kept down by an improved system of administration. Throughout the metropolis generally each relieving officer, on an average, has to take care of 386 adult paupers, while in Poplar, every such officer has only 176 under his charge, the result being that he has infinitely more time at his disposal to investigate cases properly, to trace out distress, and to deal with any attempted imposition, than he can have in neighbourhoods where he is overburdened with work. There are many districts where the proportion is infinitely higher than 386, and I feel confident there is no better way in which growing pauperism can be dealt with than by increasing the staff of officers and giving them the means of properly inves- tigating cases of distress. The want of a proper staff of nurses was one of the evils which was dwelt upon very much a few years ago, and it is not yet entirely removed; but the appointment of an additional number of paid nurses in the infirmaries and workhouses must be regarded as a decided progress. Putting, then, these salaries upon the common fund has not been unattended with good results. But there is another and less inviting aspect of the question. Boards of Guardians have no longer the same direct interest which they formerly had in keeping down the salaries of their officers. This may and does happen; some Union with a good relieving officer at a salary, say of £120 a-year, comes to the Poor Law Board and ask to have his salary raised to £150. Why? "Because if we do not another Union will bid higher for his services, and take him away from us." The Unions find their account in keeping down the general expenses of relief by the activity of the relieving officer, regarding the amount of the salary to be paid to him as a matter of comparative indifference, as it is borne by the common fund. There is only one way of meeting such applications, and that is the way the Poor Law Board have adopted—of refusing their sanction to any such proposal, unless a clear case be made out, either on the ground of length of service, or additional work, or some exceptional circumstances warranting the increase of salary. And this brings me to a point of great importance. Every step in the direction of further equalization of rates must be taken in such a manner that the poorer parishes, or indeed any parish, may not be able to utilize the common fund without the control of those who represent the common interests. That seems to be an axiom from which we cannot depart. It is absolutely necessary that when we equalize the burden we should also equalize the control, and insist upon a certain uniformity. One main cause of the trouble into which the Poor Law Board has got with various Boards of Guardians has boon because these insisted upon increasing the salaries of their officers. "Surely," they argued, "we may be allowed to manage our own affairs, and we must know better what our officers are worth than the Poor Law Board can do." But the answer seems conclusive; they really are not managing their own affairs—at least they are not spending their own money. When they propose to increase salaries, they are proposing to dip their hands into the pockets of all who contribute towards the common fund. The next point is as to lunatics and children. By the removal of the charge for them on to the common fund the Poor Law Board has been able to carry out the declared wishes of Parliament in a way that it never otherwise could have done. The Guardians steadfastly refused for years to provide distinct buildings and separate schools, or to part with the control of a single pauper. But the temptation of transferring to the common fund the charge for the maintenance of the lunatics and children proved too much for them, and the result is that 8,000 out of the 10,000 children in metropolitan workhouses are now in separate or distinct schools, and not in the workhouse itself. Very great advantages to the children themselves, I am convinced, have resulted from this change. With respect to dispensaries, since the clause in the Act of last year was passed, giving powers to the Poor Law Board to stop the charge of the salaries of the medical officers to the common fund if dispensaries were not built, there has been every disposition to meet the Poor Law Board, and I trust dispensaries will soon be established in almost every Union in the metropolis. If there be harmony between the central authority and the Boards of Guardians, and if arrangements are carried out in conformity with the intentions of the Legislature, they will be entitled to payment from the common fund; but if there be resistance to the central authority and to the intentions of the Legislature, they must bear the burden themselves. Where the power is retained of spending common money without central control there is great difficulty in procuring economy; and it is necessary, if the relief of the poor of any class is put on the common fund, to take the necessary precautions to strengthen the hands of those who to a certain extent have control over the whole. That being the case as regards equalization in the past, I think there are few who will not concur with me that if we can take a further stop towards equalization it ought to be done. The burden of paupers in the metropolis is so great, and the changes which occur in the places which are chiefly burdened by increase in the number of paupers are so decided, that few object to the principle of equalization up to a certain extent. There was a time when the usual argument against equalization was this, that all the advantage gained by equalization resulted to the benefit of the owners of property in various places, and that they would increase their rents if poor rates were increased. That may be true to a certain extent, but it is certainly not true entirely. The proportions of pauperism change very rapidly in the present day. There are certain portions of the metropolis where there used to be a large number which have ceased to have this distinction; and what with the demolition of houses, the introduction of railways into the metropolis, and the general advance in the number of paupers who come up from the country to the capital, there are parts of London burdened with paupers now which used to be comparatively free from them; so that the argument as to the owners of property breaks down in these cases. The Government are anxious that some further alleviation should be given, it being justly required by the poorer portions of the metropolis, which are not responsible for the pauperism that congregates in those particular localities. We have been anxious to see what further step could be taken in the direction of equalization, without running the risk to which I have alluded of affording the opportunity to certain parishes of being exceeding liberal at other people's expense. I must freely confess that, without a total change in the administration of relief in the metropolis—without superseding local agency altogether—I do not see how out-door relief could be placed on the common fund. Nor have I yet seen any plan that gives sufficient control to the central authority to prevent abuses. Under these circumstances, it has appeared to the Government that they could not place out-door relief on the common fund; we must rather look to the other claim—namely, the in-door relief; and what we propose is to place the whole maintenance in workhouses upon the common fund, less a necessary margin which shall leave a stimulus to Guardians administering the funds of Unions to be economical. We propose that a certain sum per head—a large proportion, but not the whole cost of the maintenance of each inmate—should be charged on the common fund. We propose that 3s. 6d. per week, or 6d. per night per head, should be paid in that way. This would be a very large relief to the poorest parishes in the metropolis, and I think it can be shown that no danger is likely to arise from it. I can fancy, at first sight, that objections may be urged. It may be said this will tempt the Guardians of every Union to crowd their workhouses. That is perfectly true; we must therefore enact, it may be in a Bill containing very few clauses, that, once for all, the numbers which any single workhouse may hold shall be settled, so as to prevent that overcrowding which has thrown so much discredit on the administration of relief in the metropolis. While relief is given, it is necessary that an end should be put to overcrowding, and I feel confident that no one can object to this, that the maximum number should be fixed, and that beyond that amount no payment should be given to the Guardians. Then, again, I think we should infringe on the principle of the separation of children from workhouses, if we permitted the Guardians to claim payment in respect of children kept in the workhouses. Children, as heretofore will have to be sent to district schools. Of course, it is necessary that precautions should be taken that if Unions receive the sum of 3s. 6d. per head of adults in the workhouse, they should comply with the general regulations and requirements of the law, and that the relief afforded should be adequate and should fairly represent the average form of relief in the metropolis. At present the salaries of officers are on the common fund, whereas their rations are not. Hence it arises that one Union officer has a salary only, while another has a smaller salary with rations; and the parish which gives the rations loses that amount. But the rations of officers will, on a certain scale, be also placed on the common fund. The House is entitled to know what will be the financial effect of this change. The effect will be this—that when the asylums now building are completed, and when the remaining district schools, which are making rapid progress, are completed, including the effect of the measure we now propose, nearly one-half of the total relief of the poor in the metropolis will be paid out of the metropolitan common poor fund, and the sum which will be distributed will be between £620,000 and £650,000. If the present enormous scale of out-door relief should be reduced, the relief afforded will be to the local burden, and not to the burden thrown on the common fund. If there is any margin the local funds will have the advantage of it. The workhouse accommodation in the metropolis is insufficient, and it is difficult to say how far out-door relief has increased in consequence of the impossibility of properly applying the workhouse test. In the great pressure we have just gone through, if the application of the workhouse test has occasionally appeared harsh, yet, as a general rule, the great increase of pauperism has been chiefly in those localities where it was impossible properly to apply that test. It may be objected that by the system we recommend we hold out a premium to Guardians to fill the workhouses, and apply the workhouse test most strenously. The possibility of a more frequent application of the test would not be a disadvantage; but hon. Members must not assume that there is, or will be, a very great margin which the Guardians, however stringently inclined, could fill up. Additional accommodation will be secured, but of that the first result will be that the same scandalous and dangerous overcrowding will not exist which occurred last year, when some 20 to 30 per cent of paupers more than the workhouses could properly hold were taken in. It may be asked—Why not relieve them out of doors? To that we answer, Because it is impossible, even if it were desirable to do so; and I am sure that such a relaxation of the law would not recommend itself to the feelings of the House generally. There is no danger that the workhouse test will be applied too strenuously, for though we do a great deal to increase the accommodation, yet we do not go much beyond the extent which will provide decent room and space for those within the workhouse. The general result of our proposal will be this, that when the Act comes in force the half of the whole charge for relief will be imposed on the common fund. If we are able, as we hope to be, to reduce the amount of outdoor pauperism, to effect some diminu- tion in the 50,000 additional paupers now in the metropolis, as compared with the number four years ago, it will be from the local and not from the common fund, so that the equalization will amount to more than a half of the whole charge. I do not know that to those who wish entire equalization this will commend itself. But, at least, it is a step that cannot lead to any increased laxity of administration or extravagance; sufficient interest will be left to the Guardians as representing their own ratepayers; the provisions against overcrowding will be valuable, and the ratepayers will see that their burdens are being partially removed in a way that is not objectionable, while the scheme will not increase the aggregate pauperism of the whole metropolis. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he was not disposed to quarrel with the net result of the scheme as stated by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that one-half of the sum necessary for the support of the metropolitan poor was to be levied on a common fund; and he should have been glad if his right lion. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board in the last Administration (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had been in the House to hear the good account which had boon given of the partial measure of equalization which he had brought in two years ago. At that time the Government did not expect that would be a final measure, but that something like the present Bill would be necessary. He thought the illustration given by the President of the Poor Law Board of the consequences of placing the salaries of officers on the common fund should induce the House to look narrowly into the details of the Bill, which would put so large a portion of the in-door maintenance on the common fund. This required consideration, and he would suggest that, instead of the sum so placed being a fixed one of 6d. per day per pauper, it should be a certain relative proportion of the whole, because otherwise, in consequence of variation in the price of provisions, the margin which was now considered sufficient to give the Guardians an interest in keeping down expenditure might become altogether insufficient. The way in which the common fund was to be disbursed was very important. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the issue out of the common fund should be watched by persons who had an interest in it, and in preventing its increase. It was to be supposed that in this he referred to the Poor Law Board, because there was no representative body which stood in the position to do this work. The ratepayers generally would, however, feel some difficulty in assenting to the proposition that the Poor Law Board had an interest in keeping down the amount of the common fund. The right hon. Gentleman had not said what he considered would be a sufficient margin to keep Guardians within due bounds in the administration of in-door relief, though probably he thought that a trifling amount would be enough. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) repeated that he should have preferred the amount placed on the common fund being three-fourths or four-fifths of the whole, instead of the fixed amount of 6d. a-day.

MR. W. M. TORRENS

said, he conceived that the measure was another step towards transferring power over the relief system from the local bodies to a central and perfectly irresponsible authority. He was not opposed to the principle of equalization, if it were joined with the principle of representation; but he understood that the present proposal was one to take from the elected bodies that control over the inmates of workhouses which they had hitherto enjoyed, and to vest the control of the expenditure for metropolitan poor relief in an irresponsible body. He understood that each workhouse was now to be limited in its accommodation by the Poor Law Board, and they knew by experience what that meant, for there were theories at the Board with regard to cubic space, and of the mischievous effects of whose application they had already had too much experience. They knew that extended accommodation for in-door relief implied gigantic expenditure and debt, and, as in the case of lunatics, idiots, sick persons, and children in district schools, it meant the borrowing of vast sums of money to be expended in Government masonry and to be charged upon the rates. The right hon. Gentleman had been represented as having stated elsewhere that the great object of the Government was to find the minimum of poor relief, and his fixing now 6d. a day for in-door maintenance was a practical illustration of the principle which he was supposed to have espoused. When they took away local control over the relief afforded to the sick and insane it opened the door to mismanagement, extravagance, and inhumanity; and he regretted that the President of the Poor Law Board had quoted that as a precedent to be followed in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman had also spoken hopefully of probable fluctuations in the numbers of the poor, but he (Mr. W. M. Torrens) feared that the "fluctuations" would only be from bad to worse. He did not know what number of coroners' inquests would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, but the fact was that the coroners were almost broken down in the discharge of their painful duty. If the House desired to treat the metropolis as it treated the rest of the country, let the same principles be adopted in legislating for the metropolis which were applied to all England, and let there be in London, as elsewhere, local control coincident with local taxation. As he understood the proposal of the President of the Poor Law Board, the control of the ratepayers over one-half of the total expenditure on poor relief in the metropolis was to be taken away, in order to try a further experiment in centralization—a course which was not desirable for the paupers, the ratepayers, or the nation at large. The tendency, and, he presumed, the purpose of this further step in local disfranchisement was plain. The number in each workhouse being arbitrarily limited; as soon as each was full, an order would be issued to build a new one or a large addition to the old one; and in this way the building speculators of Gwydyr House would proceed flourishingly and unlimitedly: for power of interposition ratepayers and Guardians would have none. The scale of charge for in-door maintenance might then be raised by the same despotic authority whenever it thought fit; and the poorer parishes would be bribed into acquiescence by being told that in this way they might put their hands into the pockets of those that were comparatively well to do. But neither the one nor the other would have any voice in regulating the outlay; for the whole of the in-door maintenance would henceforth come out of the common fund. It was, in fact, a revival of the vicious system of a rate in aid in the worst possible form. The right hon. Gentleman apologized for not applying the same rule to out-door relief by saying that such a change would involve the absolute sweeping away of whatever still remained of local government. To that, however, they would assuredly come if they took the present step in the direction so significantly indicated. The provisions of the Bill seemed to be framed with subtlety to put the metropolis out of harmony with the rest of the country, and with what object he could not divine, unless, indeed, wider projects were cherished for the gradual withdrawal of out-door relief; and it was thought prudent to experimentalize on the capital before proceeding to sequestrate the heritage of poverty and to destroy the local rights of industry and thrift throughout the kingdom.

DR. BREWER

said, he thought the Bill would bestow increased comforts on the poor, and he would admit that something like equalization could not be avoided; but his opinion was that the public had looked upon the extension of the common fund, without provision for the due representation of the ratepayers, as something quite new to this country, and as a most dangerous innovation; and they would hardly be prepared for the proposal that so large a proportion as one-half of the poor rates of the metropolis should be administered by a body that was not directly responsible to the taxpayers. The common fund, as he said last year, was a means whereby parish A could tax parish B without its exercising any control in the matter, or having the power to tax parish A. The Bill would be a valuable one if the ratepayers could have control over the expenditure of the common fund.

MR. LOCKE

said, he had been a strong advocate for the equalization of the poor rates, and he was pleased that this Bill proposed an extension of the principle so far that 3s. 6d. a head for every in-door pauper was to be levied upon the general rate throughout the whole metropolis. This was a step in the right direction, much more so than was the division of the metropolis into districts and parishes for the provision of asylums. He did not believe there was anything in the objection that equalization would lead to extravagance, because each parish or district would al- ways have to pay its share of the rate. Twelve or thirteen years ago he had his name on the back of a Bill, along with that of the right lion. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works, the object of which was to equalize poor rates; that Bill proposed to establish committees of magistrates and others to review the expenditure of each particular parish; but that mode of proceeding was deemed a clumsy one, and the Bill was not looked upon with favour by the House. At that time equalization was not so popular at the Poor Law Board as it is now, and there was no one at the Poor Law Board to support it. Now that the Poor Law Board had adopted it, there must be some one intrusted with the revision of the expenditure. The Poor Law Board were not perfect. On the contrary, great objections were from time to time made to them; but somebody must exercise a controlling power, and he should be unwilling, on this account, to throw any difficulties in the way of passing a Bill which would confer great benefits on the metropolis by the further approach to equalization which it contemplated. He should be glad, therefore, to give his right hon. Friend every support in his power in passing the measure.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he wished for an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. He was afraid that the Guardians of parishes would have little control over the district schools.

MR. GOSCHEN

, in reply, said he could assure his hon. Friend (Mr. Whalley) that the Guardians would exercise considerable power over these schools, for the Boards of management would be formed exclusively from the Guardians of the district, and they would be able to watch over the schools and to protect them from any sinister influences. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth), the Bill would provide that as regards the future the Poor Law Board might by order increase the sum of 3s. 6d., subject, however, to the condition that the Board should lay such Order on the table of the House, and that it should not come into effect until six weeks afterwards. This would guard against the the danger which the hon. Member anticipated—namely, that by a rise or fall in the price of provisions the 3s. 6d. might be either too high or too low. The hon. Member said it would be better to take a proportionate amount. But if that plan were adopted the stimulus to economy on the part of the Guardians would not be so great as under the Bill. The proposal was that 3d. 6d. per head a-week should be paid, and therefore any economy would be entirely for the benefit of the Guardians, whereas if four fifths were paid from the common fund and one filth by the Guardians, they would only be interested in any economy which might be effected to the extent of that one fifth. The point had been carefully considered, and the advantage that would accrue to the Guardians under the Bill had been anticipated. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), was mistaken in supposing that 3s. 6d. was the exact sum to be spent. The 3s. 6d. was to be paid out of the common fund; but at present, and for some time to come, every pauper was likely to cost considerably more than that sum. As to the margin which would be left, it was calculated that £90,000 would still be borne by the local authorities, irrespective of the common poor fund, and that they would therefore still be interested to the extent of £90,000 in economy. The hon. Member said that pauperism in the metropolis was increasing, and asked how many more inquests he (Mr. Goschen) would require to convince him of the fact. No one could be blind to the existence of pauperism in the metropolis, and no one was more impressed with it than he was; but he hoped that better times were in store, and as to the inquests, he would remind the hon. Member that some of them arose from the overcrowding of workhouses—the very point with which he proposed to deal by the provisions of this Bill. The hon. Member was entirely wrong in supposing that the whole control would be taken out of the hands of the Guardians. That would be the case if the Poor Law Board said they would be responsible for the whole administration of these workhouses; but there would be the payment of a fixed sum, and the general arrangements would be no more taken out of the hands of the Guardians than at present. Certainly, there would be this important difference—that, whereas as present, if any Board of Guardians dealt with their poor in such a manner as to call for the interference of the Poor Law Board, an application to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus was the only mode of compelling them to do their duty, the Bill would supply a more simple means of effecting this result and of strengthening the hands of the Poor Law Board in this respect.

Motion agreed to. Bill to provide for the more equal distribution over the Metropolis of a further portion of the charge for Poor Relief, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GOSCHEN and Mr. ARTHUR PEEL. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 30.]