§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAM, in putting a Question of which he had given notice, relative to the appointment of Mr. Catch to the office of Master of Lambeth Workhouse, said, that attention had been much directed of late to the condition of these establishments, but no attempts at reform would be of any avail until greater care was exercised in the selection of men to fill offices upon the permanent staffs of the different workhouses. He could not but think that the Poor Law Board, in sanctioning this appointment, had been led astray by letters of recommendation, which were easily obtained and hardly tested. The person in question was originally porter of the Strand Union. At the death of the master—thirteen years ago—he succeeded to his place; but he treated the inmates with such severity that the whole house rose in rebellion, and he was sent away. He succeeded, however, in getting the appointment of Master of St. Mary's, Newington, where he conducted himself 2047 much in the same manner, until, in the spring of 1866, he instituted a charge against the medical officer of improper intimacy with one of the nurses, which charge having been investigated and disproved, his own appointment was cancelled. Since then he had tried to get other situations, but failed, owing to his antecedents. Lately, however, he had been appointed to the Mastership of Lambeth Workhouse, which more than any other, perhaps, owing to the number of infirm persons and children which it contained, as shown by Mr. Farnall's Report, needed most careful handling. The establishment contained 968 inmates, of whom 725 were disabled by illness or old age, and nearly fifty were children. He did not wish to deny to any one the power of reformation; but it was a very different thing to give to a man the opportunity of retrieving his position, and to place in a responsible position a man who might be described as a person of known bad character. Some of the Guardians might have voted for him in ignorance of his antecedents; while others, it was said, were influenced by the fact that he had married an excellent woman, who was well fitted for the office of matron. However this was, it would be satisfactory to the public to know what amount of previous misconduct in the eyes of the Poor Law Board unfitted a man for such a position of responsibility as master of a workhouse. It might be thought that such matters were not of sufficient importance to be brought before the House; but he feared that similar appointments were not infrequent. He had heard that the guardians of Portsea had recently elected a master who had previously been turned out of Clerkenwell. Under those circumstances, he felt justified in asking, Whether the Secretary of the Treasury was aware of the antecedents of the recently appointed Master of Lambeth Workhouse?
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, Copies of the Evidence taken by Mr. Farnell at the inquiry held at St. Mary's, Newington in the spring of 1866, and of the Correspondence between the Newington Board and the Poor Law Board which led to the removal of G. Catch from the office he then held,"—(Mr. Percy Wyndham,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
2048§ VISCOUNT ENFIELDseconded the Motion.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that before he replied on the special case, he wished to state that he fully concurred with his hon. Friend as to the necessity of appointing none but persons of good character as masters of workhouses. There could, in fact, be hardly a more important function to administer than that of master of a workhouse with 1,300 inmates. That was the present number in Lambeth Workhouse, though in consequence of an Act framed last Session, the sick would soon be removed to an asylum, and other alterations were in contemplation which would further diminish the numbers in the workhouse. In answer to his hon. Friend's first Question, he had to state that Mr. Catch was formerly Master of the Strand Union, but that so far from having a bad character there, the guardians testified on the occasion of his voluntary resignation in January, 1858, to his honesty, sobriety, and integrity. They stated that he had governed the house with firmness and humanity, and that he resigned of his own accord, in order to obtain a better appointment at St. Mary, Newington, where for eight years—namely, from 1858 to 1866—no complaints were made of his treatment of the inmates. In January, 1866, complaints were made by the guardians of quarrels between the master, the medical officer, and the other officers of the house. It appeared that these quarrels had risen to such a height that the business of the workhouse could not be carried on. The Poor Law Board instituted an inquiry, which was carried out by Mr. Farnell, and the result was that, although considerable irregularities had taken place on the part of the medical officer, it was proved that Mr. Catch had so far misconducted himself, by quarrelling with and obstructing the medical officer, and in other ways, that the Poor Law Board requested him to resign. At the same time, he must add that nothing was proved against his honesty, or sobriety. He was dismissed solely for not agreeing with the other officers of the workhouse, and Mr. Farnell, who recommended his resignation, added that he should be well satisfied if the Poor Law Board took a more lenient view of the case. Mr. Catch resigned, went into business, and failed. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not know that that should necessarily disqualify him as master of a workhouse, and subsequently he applied to the Poor 2049 Law Board to know whether, if elected to another workhouse they would sanction his election. The Poor Law Board felt that he had been dismissed for differences with the medical officer; that no other complaints had been made against him; and they probably thought that deprivation of office for eighteen months was sufficient punishment. Under these circumstances the Board sent a favourable answer. Mr. Catch then applied to the guardians of Lambeth, and he and his wife were elected master and matron. He wrote to the Poor Law Board informing them of his election, and the Board felt it their duty to write to the guardians informing them of the whole previous case against Mr. Catch. The Lambeth guardians, with a full knowledge of the facts of the case, confirmed the election, and the Poor Law Board had no option but to sanction the appointment; but they coupled this with a request that the guardians would at the end of six months make a special report as to the manner in which Mr. Catch had performed his duties. Since the appointment, Dr. Markham, a Poor Law Inspector, had visited Lambeth Workhouse, and he reported—"The present master seems to me to manage the workhouse well, considering its crowded state, and the impossibility of classification." He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) trusted, therefore, that the House would not endorse the statement of his hon. Friend that Mr. Catch was a man of known had character, and would consider that the Poor Law Board had not acted wrongly in giving him another opportunity of conducting a workhouse properly. If the Motion for Papers were pressed, he should not oppose it; because he thought they would correct the erroneous impression which prevailed, but the correspondence which had passed between the Lambeth guardians and the Poor Law Board should be added.
§ MR. THOMAS HUGHESthought that anything more disastrous to the proper administration of the Poor Law in the metropolis could not have taken place than the conduct of the Board in this case. It was, no doubt, a very magnanimous thing to give a man a chance of redeeming his character at one's own expense; but it was not at all worthy of praise when that chance was given at the expense of the poor of the metropolis. He trusted that that was not the last the House would hear of the case.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.