§ VISCOUNT RAYNHAM rose to move an Amendment, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the condition and administration of Metropolitan Workhouses, and into the arrangements made and carried out by the parochial authorities of the Metropolis for giving relief to the poor." The noble Lord said, he had been led to consider the condition of these workhouses by circumstances which were as well known to most Members of that House as to himself; but, since the attention of the public was last drawn to it, matters appeared to have become worse and worse in most of the metropolitan workhouses. He thought the mismanagement of the metropolitan workhouses a subject deserving the consideration of the House. Though the enormities to which he intended to refer were matters of notoriety, he would, nevertheless, support his Motion by instancing certain cases from a return which had recently been made by the Poor Law Board, in the shape of a large blue-book, which contained nothing but details of the mismanagement in the workhouses of St. Pancras and Marylebone. Dr. Henry Bence Jones, who was appointed to inquire into the state of the workhouse of St. Pancras, after entering into various matters of detail connected with the condition in which he found the workhouse, went on to state that he could use no other term to describe what he had seen than the word "horrible." He had no doubt that the condition of that workhouse had materially improved, but it would not be disputed that that improvement had been the result of inquiry, and he had no doubt that, were inquiries made respecting other workhouses, much good would ensue. It seemed that these metropolitan workhouses were mismanaged not with respect to two or three matters only, but in regard to almost every circumstance connected with the administration of those establishments. The want of classification was universal throughout them; and the consequence was that decent persons, whom misfortune had reduced to take refuge in the workhouse, were compelled to associate 375 with some of the worst characters, whose conduct and language were deservedly offensive to them. It was notorious, moreover, that the guardians screwed down the salaries of the officials to the lowest point; their great object appeared to be to get persons for little or nothing—in many respects it was nothing—and the result of this was that many of the officers were quite unfit for the situations which they filled. In some cases the guardians exercised a power which did not legally belong to them by giving orders to the porter of the workhouse to refuse relief, while in others they did not enforce the test imposed by law, of making every pauper who had a night's lodging and a breakfast perform four hours' work. Therefore they broke the law at both extremes. Another matter which required alteration was the system of employing paupers as nurses in the sick wards, and these persons were generally so advanced in years as to be wholly incapable of performing the services required of them. He was informed that in the parish of St. Pancras this practice had been discontinued, but in other workhouses it still prevailed. In most of these workhouses, too, the wards were overcrowded, and no proper measures were taken for their ventilation. The result of this was the production of a great amount of disease and death. The excuse given was want of room; but surely the remedy could be found in making it imperative upon guardians to remove their pauper children into the country. Such a regulation would prevent overcrowding in many cases, while in others the evil might be still further reduced by abandoning the too parsimonious principles which so strictly regulated the action and conduct of the guardians. In St. Pancras a ladies' visiting committee had been appointed which was attended with very beneficial results, and these committees could be so arranged as not to interfere at all with the general regulations for the management of the workhouses. A material alteration was required in the constitution of the boards of guardians. It was utterly at variance with the interests of the inmates that persons should be elected merely because they were pledged to reduce the expenditure. It would be of great advantage if clergymen and other persons of respectable position in the district were made guardians as a matter of course. There ought, too, to be more efficient control over the officers of the unions in the discharge of their 376 duties. He could next refer to several cases in which the conduct of the officials had been such as that some punishment ought to have been inflicted on them. A case occurred last year which showed an utter want of proper feeling for the discharge of his duties on the part of a medical officer at Hampstead. A widow woman, fifty-nine years of age, committed suicide while in a state of insanity produced by the neglect of the officer. The coroner's jury in their verdict passed a severe censure on the conduct of the two relieving officers. The next point to which he would refer was the state of the lunatic wards; in 1856 the commissioner, Mr. Gaskell, reported that at St. Pancras none of the recommendations of the former report had been carried out. He would not further detain the House, although he had many cases in which the inhumanity of the officers had led to suffering and death. A more strict inspection was requisite, and more duties should not be imposed on the officers than they were able to discharge.
§ MR. D. NICOLLseconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the condition and administration of Metropolitan Workhouses, and into the arrangements made and carried out by the parochial authorities of the Metropolis for giving relief to the poor," instead thereof.
MR. W. WILLIAMSmust say that the new President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Bouverie) was most assiduous in the discharge of his duties, although his action with regard to some of the metropolitan workhouses was not very palatable to the local authorities. He had no objection to the appointment of a Committee, but he thought it could not give the House more information than it already possessed in the Reports of the Poor Law Board. With respect to the Marylebone board of guardians, to whom the noble Lord had referred, he (Mr. Williams) begged to say that they were elected by the vestry, the clergy being ex-officio members of the board, and their conduct towards the poor had, in his opinion, been distinguished by great humanity. The Lunacy Commissioners had certainly reported that the workhouse of that parish did not afford sufficient accommodation for pauper lunatics; but the guardians and the vestry immediately set about carrying into effect the suggestions of the Commissioners, and they also intended to erect a school, which would afford ample means for the education 377 of pauper children. The noble Lord had referred to the employment of workhouse officials who were totally incompetent to the discharge of their duties; but that certainly was not the case in the parish of Marylebone, where the officials were most efficient, and received ample salaries.
MR. BOUVERIEhoped his noble Friend would not think he was guilty of any personal disrespect to him, if, being anxious that the House should go into Committee of Supply, he did not follow the noble Lord through the details into which he had entered. He thought the noble Lord had entirely failed to establish a case which would justify the appointment of a Committee. There were between forty and fifty workhouses in the metropolitan district, and, if a Committee were appointed to investigate their management with any care, the inquiry would necessarily extend over two or three Sessions. The noble Lord arraigned the conduct of the parochial authorities generally, and it would be necessary that before a Committee he should prefer regular charges against them, and that an opportunity should be afforded them of offering a full defence. The inquiry would, therefore, be almost interminable. The cases upon which the noble Lord mainly relied as justifying his Motion were those of St. Pancras and Marylebone; but he (Mr. Bouverie) did not think they afforded grounds for the appointment of a Committee. He could not say that he considered the administration of the Poor Law in those parishes perfectly satisfactory. They were governed under separate local acts, and he could not say there was no reason to complain of the manner in which the law had been carried out. Entertaining that opinion, he had thought it his duty last year to institute an inquiry with reference to the proceedings in St. Pancras. The result of that inquiry was laid before Parliament, and in consequence of the measures adopted by the Poor Law Board the evils pointed out had either already been remedied, or were in course of correction by the parochial authorities. The administration of the law in Marylebone had not been perfectly satisfactory; but occurrences which were represented to have occurred in the workhouse had been the subject of inquiry, and steps had been taken by the parochial authorities to prevent their repetition. The Poor Law Board were empowered by Parliament to 378 superintend the administration of the Poor Law throughout the country, and, so far as his power went, he had investigated all alleged cases of abuse which had been brought under his notice, and had endeavoured to apply a remedy where any maladministration was proved to exist. If, however, the Motion of his noble Friend were adopted, the effect would be that, so long as the sitting of the Committee continued, the Poor Law Board would be unable to exercise the powers vested in them by law, and their action would be entirely paralyzed. The Poor Law Board did what it considered just and right towards the poor; but at the same time it was matter of gratification that gentlemen were found who, without any remuneration, attended locally to the wants of the poor, and that with great zeal and success; and although the noble Lord appeared anxious to invest the Poor Law Board with greater powers, yet he (Mr. Bouverie) must say that, for his own part, he should shrink from the idea of having large centralized administrative powers placed in his hands. No doubt cases of hardship and maladministration might arise, but these hardly afforded grounds for the appointment of a Committee. If, however, his noble Friend had any particular cases of hardship which he was able to substantiate by evidence, let him place them in his (Mr. Bouverie's) hands, and he would endeavour to see that justice was done.
§ MR. P. W. MARTIN, in supporting the Motion, said, that he was acquainted with the state of affairs in the parish of St. Pancras, and considered inquiry urgently called for. The inquiry to which the right hon. Gentleman referred took place in January, 1856, and no doubt the regulation which the Board had laid down in consequence of the Report were excellent. Nevertheless, the state of things had not improved, and in October last Mr. Hall reported that they were disregarded wherever they differed from the former practice. Dr. Bence Jones reported that the workhouse was overcrowded, the inmates of the infirmary suffered from a poisonous atmosphere, and much disease was the consequence; while in the lunatics' ward great abuses prevailed, such as compelling a cleanly and a filthy patient to sleep together. This was the state of things on the 20th of December last. But, bad as matters were in the house, the management of the out-door relief was still worse; and he contended, therefore, that there 379 was a loud call for inquiry. He did not, however, wish to give power to a Committee of that House to make inquiry into the state of the workhouses all over the country, because he thought that was unnecessary. It was only in the metropolis, where nobody could be said to know his neighbour's business, and where, consequently, much suffering among the poor went unrelieved, that inquiry was called for; and having discovered the condition of one metropolitan workhouse, he wished to know what was the condition of the others. He should, therefore, strengthen the hands of the noble Lord (Viscount Raynham) by supporting his Motion for a Committee.
§ MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he thought the statement made to the House by the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Bouverie) made the case for inquiry much stronger than it was before. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had abundant power placed at his disposal. If he had that abundant power, why did he not exercise it? He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that the poor in the metropolis, in consequence of their isolation, were much worse treated than in the country. There was one question he should like to ask, why, if the right hon. Gentleman had such full power in his hands, how he came to suffer the flogging of women in the Marylebone workhouse? Not many years ago Barclay and Perkins's draymen took it into their heads to insult and maltreat General Haynau, when he came to London, for flogging women—a thing, by the way, which he never did. No one, however, could expect the draymen of Barclay and Perkins to be very conversant with foreign politics. But there, in the Marylebone workhouse, were women flogged. Besides, when the Poor Law Board proposed to institute inquiry into the matter, that inquiry was resisted by most of the poor law guardians in the parish, and they were backed by the clergyman of the parish, who had since been made a bishop. But it was perfectly clear that the poor in these London unions were most shamefully treated. He did not choose to go into any details. He was, however, conversant with the treatment of pauper lunatics. In the rural districts the country gentlemen tried to get those poor lunatics into proper asylums, because they knew that there the unfortunate creatures would be kindly and skilfully treated by persons who really devoted themselves to 380 the care of such people. In the country asylums, too, the condition of the lunatics was inquired into by the county magistrates periodically; but here in the metropolis there was no one who knew anything about such matters, and the result was, that the poor lunatics were most cruelly treated; they were huddled together in the most wretched manner, and had no one to look after them who understood the nature of their ailments. Was this, he would ask, a state of things to be allowed to go on under their very noses, and they were not to interfere? He did not know how the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) exercised his power. The right hon. Gentleman, it might be from modesty on his part, had not enlightened the House on that point; but he (Mr. Drummond) did not care in whom power was vested; what he wanted was, to see those poor people protected, and if he could not get that done through the intervention of the Poor Law Board, he would support the Motion for a Committee of inquiry.
§ MR. BRISCOEsaid, he would cordially support the Motion before the House, believing that the noble Lord, in bringing it forward, had shown ample cause for investigation, and in so doing deserved the thanks of the House. He was, indeed, surprised that the Government should oppose the Motion, especially as they were told that there were eight other workhouses in the same, or nearly as bad a condition as those of St. Pancras and Marylebone.
MR. BOUVERIE, in explanation, said the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. W. Martin) had referred to the state of St. Pancras workhouse on the 25th December last. He (Mr. Bouverie) had been informed, on competent authority, that the parish of St. Pancras was now laying out a very large sum of money in making improvements which had been recommended by Dr. Bence Jones, and that all the material suggestions which that Gentleman had made had been either actually effected or were in the course of being effected. The hon. Member, therefore, was not justified in basing his Motion on statements made six months ago.
§ Mr. ALDERMAN COPELANDsaid, his experience as a citizen of London and a magistrate had long convinced him that here poverty was regarded as a crime and treated as a crime. He felt bound to support the Motion of the noble Lord; but, considering the period of the Session, and 381 the vast number of election petitions which stood for consideration by Select Committees, he thought it would not be advisable to add another Committee to the number, and that the noble Lord (Viscount Raynham) would do well to leave the matter in the hands of the President of the Poor Law Board for the present.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the hon. Member who last addressed the House had made a startling and alarming statement—namely, that in this metropolis poverty was treated as a crime; but he trusted that statement was rather the result of the hon. Member's warmth of feeling than of his deliberate conviction. On the other hand, however, he could not but admit that, within the last few years, circumstances had transpired to show that the administration of the poor law in this great metropolis was not in a satisfactory state. He must say that, when the shocking revelations were made in the St. Pancras Report became public, he received a private communication from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), in which he manifested as much interest in the matter as any one could; but the complaints were not confined to St. Pancras, and he must congratulate the noble Lord (Viscount Raynham) on having found an opportunity of bringing forward a subject to which attention had been long directed; for, in the course he had taken, the noble Lord had done a public, service; but, considering the period of the Session—and, what was of more importance, namely, the spirit in which the Motion had been met by the President of the Poor Law Board—he thought the object of the noble Lord would be best attained by leaving the matter in the hands of that right hon. Gentleman for the present. He (Sir J. Pakington) understood that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) had promised to give his attention to the subject, and with that assurance the noble Lord might be satisfied. He (Sir J. Pakington) believed that much irregularity prevailed in the workhouses of the metropolis, and, unless the state of things there became more satisfactory, he thought the noble Lord, at the commencement of the next Session, would have abundant ground for repeating his Motion.
§ VISCOUNT RAYNHAMsaid, unless he received an assurance from the President of the Poor Law Board, that some steps would be taken in this matter, he should divide the House.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 52: Majority 21.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.