SECOND READING. (Hansard, 6 July 1882)

§ EARL STANHOPE
, in moving that the Bill he now read a second time, said, that it had already passed the other House, under the auspices of Mr. Poll and Mr. Bryce. He might, by way of explanation, state that its object was two-fold—first, to give the Boards of Guardians power to detain casuals making a first application for relief for one day; and, secondly, in the event of its being found that they had had obtained admission on false and fraudulent pretences, or under a false name, the Bill gave the magistrate power to impose penalties. The Bill was aimed at the class of professional tramps and vagabonds who gave so much trouble in different counties, roaming about from place to place, and who, when travelling through the country, used the workhouses as lodging-houses from which they might, when comfortably refreshed, start out upon their travels. In Kent, as he knew by experience, the vagrants regarded the workhouses as convenient lodgings for the night during their journey from London to the seaside, and that, no doubt, was the case in many other counties. In order to put a stop, if possible, to the practice, the Bill also proposed, in the event of a second application, that the Board of Guardians should be empowered to detain the "casual" at work for five days, instead of three days, as was at present legal. That provision, he thought, would be exceedingly useful in rendering the workhouses less agreeable to tramps and vagrants than they were at present. In conclusion, he might say that the Bill had the full approval of the Government, and he would now move the second reading.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, the proposed change in the law was of a very large nature; and he hoped their Lordships would pause before giving a second reading to a Bill which appeared to him to be a Bill which would simply give the Boards of Guardians in every Union through- 1578 out the country power to imprison and keep in the workhouse for five days anyone who, within a given space of time, should be so imprudent as to apply for relief a second time as a casual. That was entirely opposite to the usual policy by which the Poor Law was administered, and would have the effect of turning workhouses into gaols, which was most certainly not intended to be their primary use. For himself, he declined to give Boards of Guardians the power of confiscating any man's liberty for five days. He fully admitted the existence of the evil which the Bill was designed to remedy; in fact, no one knew better than he did the evil that existed in the large numbers of vagrants who travelled through the country; but where these people did not behave themselves, and where they made fraudulent representation in applying for relief, they should be sent to gaol. He objected not only to the main principle of the Bill, but to Clause 5; because he did not think they required an Act of Parliament to tell the Local Government Board what arrangements they should make for classifying the paupers in workhouses. He therefore trusted their Lordships would not give a second reading to the Bill; for, on the whole, he thought it was one to which the House ought not to accede. The fact that the Bill had passed the other House was no reason why their Lordships should be called upon to pass it.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that the Conservatives in their Lordships' House were not often a divided Party; but, on this subject, there was, he regretted to say, a profound division between himself and his noble Friend who had just spoken (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon). He (the Marquess of Salisbury) could not help thinking that upon this question the opinion of noble Lords would vary according to their residence in the various counties, and the different circumstances of those counties with regard to pauperism and vagrancy. For instance, his noble Friend might live in a county where there were comparatively few tramps or "casuals" calling at the workhouse, and where they were not very troublesome.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
Just the contrary.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, allowing it was so, he (the Marquess of 1579 Salisbury) might say that he lived in a county where they had become perfect pests, and he was sure that Hertfordshire was by no means singular in that respect. The magistrates and police concurred in stating that the evil became deeper and deeper year after year. It was not that the paupers and tramps went to the workhouses legitimately for relief, but they made them the basis of a vast mendicancy campaign. Either the workhouses had become more pleasant to the vagrants than they used to be, or the vagrants themselves had become more tolerant of the treatment they received, and of the means used by Boards of Guardians for the purpose of keeping them out. Formerly, the great mainstay of the British Constitution with regard to a vagrant was washing him. It used to be thought that if they washed him frequently, and made the water cold enough, they would drive him away; but that resource had failed, and the vagrant went to his bath with the utmost courage. His noble Friend demurred to making the workhouses gaols and wished offenders against the Vagrancy Laws to be sent to gaol; but he (the Marquess of Salisbury) would point out the inconvenience of adopting such a course, because they had the workhouses spread all over the country, whereas they only had one or two gaols in a county, and the vagrants whom they wished to discourage would first of all have to be sent to petty sessions, and subsequently to gaol. He could hardly speak too strongly of the amount of evil that was done to rural districts by the increased numbers of vagrants and mendicants, and in justice to the ratepayers of a county some less cumbersome remedy should be provided by the Legislature.

§ EARL FORTESCUE
also supported the Bill, observing that if workhouses were to be made either prisons or commodious hotels, he should prefer the former alternative. The ratepayers required some protection against vagrants, and ought not to be compelled either to support them in prison or to pay for their wanderings from one workhouse to another. He was satisfied that the Bill was one that would be likely to have a useful and beneficial effect in saving the money of the ratepayers.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD
said, he should like to know whether there was any good reason for the 3rd clause, 1580 which exempted Scotland and Ireland from the operations of the Bill? He thought if the Bill were to pass, Scotland and Ireland should be included under its operation; in fact, he considered it was unjust to Ireland that her name should be left out of the Bill, for he could inform their Lordships that there existed there a class of vagrants whom it was desirable to intercept in their journeys through the country.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
said, that whatever might be the effect of the Bill, it would inflict no hardship on the bonâ fide casual. He would also remind their Lordships that this was an optional measure, and that it was not at all likely that the vagrants would be detained in every case, or that they would be many in number.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
remarked that that was not his idea of an optional measure—a measure to detain a vagrant in a workhouse for five days.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he would explain that the measure was not optional so far as the vagrants themselves were concerned, but it was so far as the Guardians were concerned. He had no difficulty in adding his testimony to that of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) as to the extent of the evil, for in the part of the country where he resided (Norfolk), the people suffered greatly from vagrants, and their number was continually increasing. Although the Bill might not do much to remedy the evil, it was worth while, at all events, trying the experiment; and there was nothing in it which appeared to be a hardship to the vagrant himself.

LORD DUNSANY
said, that if it were not for the workhouses, people going through the country in search of work would have to put up in lodging-houses of the lowest class, perhaps the hotbeds of disease, which they would disseminate through the country.