HC Deb 25 April 1870 vol 200 cc1769-87

Order for Second Heading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Goschen.)

DR. BREWER

said, he had not intended to take a prominent part in opposing this Bill; but he could not allow it to be read a second time without observation. He did not deny the existence of the evil which the Bill was introduced to remedy; but he considered that the value of a measure, which at any rate tended to alter the whole policy of local self-government as applied to the management of the poor, ought to be gauged not simply by the force of evidence as to the existence of a particular evil, nor by the adequacy of the provisions of the Bill to remedy that special evil, but by evidence showing that the framers of the Bill and the measure itself grasped the subject in all its bearings. The Bill was intended to provide for one salient evil; but it neglected other evils equally salient. The inequality of the distribution of the charge for the relief of the poor over the whole of the metropolitan area was the evil at which the Bill was aimed; but those who had studied the subject knew that this was not the only evil, and not even the chief or prominent evil, to be remedied. The great defect of local Poor Law government in the metropolis at the present time was its disorganization; and the origin of this could be traced to the various action of the Poor Law Board during the last four or five years. They had taken up the subject bit by bit, had dealt with a part without reference to the whole, and consequently had thrown the whole machine into inextricable disorder. The indefiniteness of the duties and functions of the Local Boards was one of the sources of this disorganization. Another source was the irresponsible management of what was called the Common Fund, the incurable vice of which was that the collection and distribution of this Fund was not under the direction or under the correction of representation; the body responsible for collection had no voice whatever in the distribution of the rates. And by this Bill the principle of representative government in local self-government was entirely and effectually destroyed. He would point out what the sum proposed in the Bill—namely, 3s. 6d. for each pauper in the workhouse—represented. It really represented the expenditure of 31s. a week in every artizan's family for maintenance, lodging, &c. in order for him to obtain the same advantages which the Bill contemplated for the pauper. An artizan must be in very prosperous circumstances to be able to give his wife, for lodging and maintenance, 31s. a week. Supposing that a wife and a family of four children—and that was the average number—cost 21s. a week for food, 6s. for lodging, 4s. for clothing, these items amounted to 31s.; and to do it he must be in receipt of 40s. a week as wages. He (Dr. Brewer) did not believe that the House would sanction such an abnegation of constitutional principle as was adopted in the case of this Common Fund. Those who contributed to it were to have no share in its expenditure—those who were to spend it were not to be responsible to those who contributed to it. A third evil was the utter uncertainty that existed as to the action of the Central Board. Practically, it was impossible to separate in-door from out-door relief, because a knowledge of the persons, circumstances, and conditions of the applicants was an essential requisite in dealing with pauperism. According to the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government on a recent occasion, the fund for the relief of the poor should be taken from the neighbourhood. The right hon. Gentleman said that even the principle of the Poor Law, if you examined it closely, presented the gravest difficulties to the philosophic mind; and this principle of neighbourly love and care was the only one on which a Poor Law could be tolerated at all: the funds being supplied from local levies in each neighbourhood, the sentiment of honour and the sentiment of shame imposed a salutary check on that which would otherwise prove an inroad on the property, the self-respect, the morality, and the independence of the people. The great point, then, was to ascertain how could the scruples of the philosophic mind be set at rest by the Bill before the House. "The funds for the relief of the poor should be taken from the neighbourhood." Why, this Bill established a directly opposite principle; the fund was to be taken, not from the neighbourhood, but from the whole area of this huge metropolis. The idea of providing for neighbours was knocked on the head at once. It was impossible to show that if they collected the money for the relief of the poor over the whole metropolis this neighbourly action could be maintained which the First Minister regarded as so essential. The Bill not simply was opposed to the practice of the people of this country, but directly contravened the principle upon which alone the First Minister said a Poor Relief Law could be accepted by a philosophic, or, in other words, a good practical politician. It was impossible for him (Dr. Brewer), if he had any regard whatever to the principle of the old Poor Law institutions of this country, to support this Bill. The Poor Law Board was practically irresponsible; and the policy of the Board was notoriously fitful. The power given to that Board by the Bill was more autocratic than any power ever before sought by the Government of this country, and was unparalleled in any previous legislation. So far from inspiring confidence, the Bill had created widespread and very reasonable alarm, and this alarm had not been allayed by the course of action pursued by the Poor Law Board during the last four or or five months. A letter had been issued, signed by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Poor Law Board, according to which one-half the rates was decidedly illegal, and yet he allowed 100,000 summonses to be issued in the metropolis against those who could not, or would not, pay. Why should the right hon. Gentleman call upon the law of the land to enforce payment of charges which he himself allowed to be illegal? For his own part, he could not suffer this Bill to pass without protesting against it, in the first place, as a bit of piecemeal legislation, when comprehensive legislation was required; and, secondly, because it proposed to deal with the taxation of the country in a most objectionable manner. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Dr. Brewer.")

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. SAMUDA

said, he should give his support to the Motion for the second reading, on the ground that the measure was a just one, and was demanded by the circumstances of the case. Instead of being a piecemeal attempt at legislation it had, in his opinion, been framed from a most comprehensive point of view. He was old enough to recollect when the majority of merchants and manufacturers in the metropolis lived in the places where they carried on their business. But as time went on, and the metropolis increased in size, that state of things was altered for the convenience of all; a separation was made, and one quarter of the town was occupied by those who could afford to live in wealth and ease, and another by those who were engaged in daily toil. The poorer portion of the community having been thus drawn to one end of the town and the richer to another, the wealthy naturally retained the same obligation to pay which they had formerly acknowledged when they lived among their humbler neighbours. Therefore, instead of proposing a total change in the provisions for the management of the poor, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think, it did nothing more than revive the state of things which had existed formerly, and that in itself was a vast recommendation of the measure. Within the last few years a portion of the charge for the poor had been thrown on the Common Fund, and every one must admit the great advantage which had resulted to the community from that amendment of the law. What was now proposed was merely a further step in the same direction. If the sum to be allowed for each pauper was considered too much, the right place to correct that would be in Committee. But the object of the Bill was simply to assign such a sum as in practice might be found absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the pauper in the different workhouses of the metropolis. If that were so reformation must be sought in each individual workhouse, and no objection could properly be taken to the Bill, which sought to lay clown not an increased sum for the maintenance of the pauper, but an average sum. And after all was said and done, what was the great difference which these changes would make in each parish? It appeared from a Return made about two months ago that, with the exception of the City of London, the greatest difference was something like the difference between 1s. 7d. in some of the most favoured districts, and 2s. 7d. or 2s. 9d. in some of the less favoured. Doubtless, there were exceptions to this. He believed the Bank, of England was exempted from the payment of poor rates altogether, and that the exemption had arisen in this way—that as the institution occupied an entire parish, there were no parochial authorities, no poor, and no machinery for making or levying poor rates, and this was an instance of the inequality resulting from the present system of levying the rates over very small areas, and showed the advantage that a more general distribution would insure. He regarded the object sought to be obtained by charging the cost of maintenance of in-door paupers throughout the metropolis on the General Fund, contributed by all the parishes, as fair in principle and likely to be very beneficial in practice, from decreasing the encouragement to excessive out-door relief, and he gave it his general support.

MR. W. M. TORRENS

said, that if the Bill sought only to effect an equalization of poor rates he would not endeavour to dissuade the House from agreeing to its second reading; but the measure disfranchised the ratepayers of London of a large part of the power which they had always enjoyed, while it also gave the Government an unlimited control over patronage of a small pettifogging kind which they would be much better without. It was a Bill to multiply places, which if there was not work attached to them would be "jobs," and which, if there were, would be the fruits and profits of centralizing usurpation. It was a Bill to change the administration of the Poor Law over an area containing;3,000,000 of people. He asked the representatives of counties and boroughs to give London fair play. How would they like to go before their constituents at the next election and say they had voted away the whole power and control over the inmates of workhouses in their respective localities? No Government would venture to propose such a disfranchising Act for the country at large. But London, having only 22 Members, could be treated as the House and the Government pleased. It was the duty of metropolitan Members to protest, and remind the House of the rank injustice to which it would lend itself if it passed the Bill as it stood. The measure went to the root of that which, in point of franchise, of local power, and local liberty, was older than the House itself, older than the monarchy as it now existed, older than Magna Charta. He held in his hand a summary, that he had made with some care, of the rateable property and the population in London, supposing the town to be divided, for the purposes of an equalization of rates, into three great Unions, retaining elective institutions together with local responsibility. If the President of the Poor Law Board only wanted an equalization of rates or of their incidence, let him constitute an Eastern, a Western, and a Northern division in London. The Eastern division that he himself would suggest would contain the City, Southwark, the Tower Hamlets, and the parish of Hackney, with a population of 967,000, and a rateable property of £5,333,000. Taking the Northern division, with which he was himself connected, and which would include the chief portions of Marylebone, Finsbury, and Hackney, it would contain a population of 947,000, with a rateable property of £4,627,000. The Western division would comprise a population of £950,000, and a rateable property of £5,400,000. If they divided London into those three districts, both as regarded property and population, they would have as nearly as possible £5 per head of rated property taxable for the support of the poor. It was not necessary to disfranchise the ratepayers of the whole of the metropolis in order to secure that boon. They might, if they pleased, make 50 different plans of re-arrangement of London, and still arrive at this conclusion, that if they wanted to establish equality in the incidence of the burden they could have it without subverting the whole administration of the Poor Law. If that were so, there was no case for a Bill of that kind. The measure, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer) had said, was another step in the same direction of centralization and disfranchisement which they had previously taken in respect to the insane and sick poor and the district schools. Every day's experience made him more deeply regret the fatal error of taking the care of the sick poor out of the hands of their own neighbours. That policy, he believed, would have to be retraced; but, at all events, it ought not to be carried further. He objected to London being outlawed. Did the President of the Poor Law Board think he could have a national rate for the whole of England? [Mr. GOSCHEN: No!] Then he ought not to apply the principle of such a rate in an unfair manner to London, stripping the ratepayers of the duties, the charities, and the privileges with which every other town in the kingdom was charged by the law of the land. What was there in the case of London which rendered its inhabitants less fit to discharge those duties and exercise those privileges than the people of other places? The right hon. Gentleman had had a squabble with the authorities of St. Pancras; but whatever might be thought of the proceedings in that parish, the rest of the metropolis had nothing to do with them. There was no grievance to justify that measure. Would the right hon. Gentleman say he would not abolish out-door relief if he could? He (Mr. W. M. Torrens) believed in his conscience that was really at the root of the present proposal; but he should be delighted to find he was wrong. He had seen statements reported to have come from the right hon. Gentleman, which it seemed could only have that meaning. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman had left the impression on the public mind that this was the first step towards locking the door against the poor. He took power by that Bill to charge 3s. 6d. for every in-door pauper to the Common Fund. That was to be at the will and pleasure of the Poor Law Board. He also proposed to take power to limit the number of inmates in every workhouse; and he had already power by other Acts that were concatenated with this measure to multiply workhouses. If the Bill passed in its present shape, the President of the Poor Law Board would be master of the whole system of in - door relief in the metropolis, and he would have nothing to do but to multiply the workhouses, and to say that no out-door relief should be given at all. Whatever might be said of a revival of trade, he (Mr. W. M. Torrens) knew that there was still much distress and privation among the working classes of London, and he submitted that this was not a time for decreasing the power of Guardians to give relief. On merely money grounds, he said this measure was most unfortunate; on social grounds he thought it was highly dangerous. Whatever defects existed in the local administration of the Poor Law could be cured by due supervision; but if the Bill were passed in its present shape, every undue power would be given to the President of the Poor Law Board in respect of the metropolis. In this measure an effort was made to treat London in a manner no Minister had ever attempted to treat any other portion of the United Kingdom. After the changes which Parliament had made in the law of chargeability during the last 20 years he hoped the House would resist an alteration like that which was now proposed.

SIR HENRY HOARE

said, he rose to tender his thanks to the President of the Poor Law Board for this Bill. He believed the constituency he had the honour to represent (Chelsea) were not afraid to see the principle of the measure carried out, even if they lost some of their local power. The Bill was an equitable one; and he was delighted at the prospect of Imperial authority being applied to the supervision of abuses which hitherto had existed in some districts. Both himself and his Colleague (Sir Charles Dilke) would support the Bill to the best of their power, and he trusted the principle of the Bill would hereafter be extended to out-door relief.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he regretted to be under the necessity of supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer). He should be sorry to give any opposition to a Bill for improving the administration of the Poor Law; but he did not think the Bill would effect that object. It lodged an enormous power in the hands of a Department of the Executive. That power, be had no doubt, would be exercised with discretion, and always with the greatest reluctance; but he thought it would be unconstitutional to give the Poor Law Board the power of compelling a particular district to pay for the maintenance of the poor of another district. The Bill provided that if the Guardians of any parish should neglect to alter or enlarge their workhouse, to construct sewers, to furnish the hospital with proper medical appliances, or to do certain other things which the Poor Law Board; might deem necessary, the Board should have power to omit from their precept the sums which such parish would have been entitled to be repaid under this Bill. That section would give the Poor Law Board the power of telling the Guardians that, unless they made what might perhaps be an enormous expenditure, those sums would not be allowed to them. The working of that provision would be that in some cases the power given to the Poor Law Board would be exercised, while in others the sums having been omitted from the precept in the first instance, would subsequently, after considerable correspondence and negotiation, be inserted. He did not think such a state of things would conduce to the improvement of the local administration of poor relief. No doubt there had been considerable evil in some localities; but the object of those who would get rid of it should be rather to raise the character of the local Boards than to diminish their responsibility. He believed that salutary results would follow if the Poor Law Board exercised the power of dissolving a Board of Guardians, when the general feeling was that it acted in a manner injurious to the public interests. When there was a proposal involving Imperial taxation good cause was expected to be shown to the House of Commons, and an estimate was prepared and laid before Parliament. Why should not cause be shown and estimates be prepared in the case of local taxation, which probably was equal in amount to one-half the whole taxation applied for the public service? There had been an enormous increase in local taxation, and the taxation was pressing severely on the country. It might be difficult to estimate the amount which would be required for the relief of the poor throughout the country during any current year, yet that amount equalled the expenditure of the Admiralty, every detail of which was submitted in advance to Parliament; and was it then unreasonable to object that the President of the Poor Law Board should have the power to increase, at his own discretion, charges which were paid out of the local taxation of the country? One effect of this Bill would be to cause the poor to remove from those districts where the rich also lived, and to go to districts where the poor dwelt almost entirely by themselves. At the present time there were many poor persons living in the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square; but the houses which they occupied were rated at about three times as much as similar houses at the East-end of London; and if by an equalized poor rate such tenants were asked to pay three times as much as if they lived in a poor neighbourhood, the immediate result of such a measure must be to send them away from the rich one. Owing to the difference of assessment there was not that inequality which many hon. Members might suppose; while, if there was any perceptional burden at all, it was to a great extent borne by the owners of property. A paper with which he had been supplied showed that the cost of maintaining the poor in London was 9s. 5d. per head of the population as against 6s. 6d. per head in England and Wales; and therefore he believed that, if there was to be any equalization of the poor rate, the ratepayers would very soon find out how much they were paying in excess of those districts who sent their poor to the metropolis, so that the result of this measure must be a very large advance towards a national poor rate. Such was not, in his opinion, a proper solution of the question. He would much prefer to see one Board of representatives in London having the management of all the workhouses, together with the infirmaries, lunatic asylums, and schools—a Board which would be strong enough to undertake the important duties that would devolve upon it, and at the same time be responsible to its constituents for carrying out such improvements in the treatment of the poor as ought to be effected. Such a Board would render it unnecessary for the Poor Law Board to be watching over the most minute details of daily life in workhouses, and, under these circumstances, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, would consent at all events to the postponement of this Bill.

MR. LOCKE

said, he had always advocated the equalization of the poor rate, and could not agree with those who were opposing this Bill, the principle of which was to make the maintenance of the indoor poor a charge upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. He could not collect precisely what was the view of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), who had not declared whether he was for or against the principle of the Bill. The objections which had been taken by the hon. Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer) should, in his (Mr. Locke's) opinion, be brought forward in Committee, when it would be open to him to suggest that, instead of the Poor Law Board having the management of matters under this Bill, there should be established some other body like that which had been suggested by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith)—which would not be contrary to the principle of the Bill—or that the metropolis should be divided into three parts, as had been proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury. For these reasons he should support the second reading of the Bill.

MR. T. CHAMBERS

said, he was of opinion that the views held by hon. Members respecting the equalization of the poor rate were very much influenced by the character and circumstances of the constituencies they represented. One of the main objects of the Bill was no doubt to extend the principle of an equal poor rate; but that change really meant the total subversion of the original principle of the Poor Law. Such a subversion might be very proper, but it should be effected after due consideration, and with such conditions as would secure the change against the inconvenience and the perils by which all admitted it to be surrounded. He wished he could think that the recent changes in the Poor Law had worked well. The best test of the efficiency of a public office in administering a public fund was economy; but all the modern improvements in our Poor Law system had resulted in extravagance and in an increase of the rates. There was nothing in the history of modern legislation which afforded a parallel to Poor Law legislation; because, while the tendency of all other legislation of late years was in the direction of decentralization, our Poor Law legislation tended to the entire subversion of local self - government, being founded on the principle that those who paid the rates should possess no control over them. But, beyond that, if the Bill were passed, it would entirely put an end to out-door relief, by offering the Guardians a bounty of 6d. a day from the Common Fund for every in-door pauper. Such a result would be most disastrous to the honest and independent poor, who only required temporary relief during temporary distress, while it would conduce largely to the multiplication of workhouses in the metropolis and the increase of the rates. In the third place, the Bill would extinguish the Boards of Guardians altogether. In sub-Section 4 of Clause 1 it was proposed to enact that— If the Guardians of any Union or parish, or the managers of any asylum, shall, during any half-year ending at Lady Day or Michaelmas respectively, have refused or neglected to comply with any Order of the Poor Law Board, issued under the Poor Law Acts, directing the alteration or enlargement of the workhouse, the provision of proper drainage, sewers, ventilation, fixtures, furniture, surgical and medical appliances, or directing the appointment of any officer, or prescribing the maximum number of paupers to be maintained in any workhouse or asylum, or the classification of such paupers, such Guardians or managers shall be deemed to be in default. If this paragraph were agreed to, not the slightest discretion or power would be left to the Guardians, whose duties would become purely ministerial, if they were not compelled servilely to follow the orders of the central authorities. On these grounds he objected to the measure as he had objected to other measures of the same kind passed by both Liberal and Conservative Governments. The metropolitan Members were in a very small minority, and hitherto their objections to measures of this kind had been with- out effect; but, nevertheless, he again entered his protest against the current of legislation upon this subject, which he believed to be mischievous and disastrous, as tending to increase the burdens of the public without adding to the comfort of the poor, while it brought local bodies into contempt. So far had this gone already, that he wondered any gentleman could be got to accept the office of Guardian.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, that every hon. Member who had spoken upon this subject had admitted the necessity of the adoption of a better distribution of the poor rates of the metropolis; but they had failed to suggest any plan which was an improvement upon that proposed by the Bill. No one would contend for a moment that it was just that the poor in the East of London, who worked for those who lived in the I West, should bear the burden of supporting their poor while the rich wholly, escaped from it. The leading principle of the Bill was to equalize the rates, and he did not see how it was possible to attain that object in a better way than that proposed by this measure. London, with its 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 of inhabitants, was an exceptional place, and required, exceptional legislation, and he thought the Bill was a step in the right direction. As he saw no better method of dealing with the question than that proposed by the Bill, he should support the Motion for the second reading of the measure.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he was not able to agree with the hon. Member who had last spoken in his desire to seen an absolute equalization of the poor rates of London. Having made that preliminary observation, the fact of his supporting the second reading of this measure would not be misunderstood. His difficulty had been to understand why, at so early a period after the recent important changes that had been made in the Poor Law, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Poor Law Board should have thought it necessary to proceed as far as he had done in this direction. The effect of the Bill of 1867 had been to cause an increase in the charges on the Common Fund, which had mounted from £130,000 or £140,000 to about £200,000 per annum. As he understood from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he proposed that about half of the charges should fall upon the Common Fund; and, assuming that careful management was to be combined with this division of the charges, he should not offer any opposition to such a proposition. He must strongly urge the importance of putting some check upon those who used the Common Fund; the claim upon the Common Fund should be fixed at a sum which would, under no circumstances, form the full charge for each pauper—not even in the case of a supposed extraordinary cheapness of provisions, so that there should be something remaining for the local body to provide, and thus to ensure that the local body was economical and reasonable in its demands. The objection raised to one portion of the Bill by the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. T. Chambers) showed some ignorance of the duties of Guardians. The provisions in the latter part of the 1st clause, giving the Poor Law Board power to stop contributions in case the Guardians should not have done their duty, did not exact more from the Guardians than was at present incumbent on them; the novelty of the measure consisted in the fact that, just as the power of the purse was used in the House of Commons to compel a great many things to be done, so the Guardians were by the same power of the purse compelled to do some things they had in sonic instances failed to do most egregiously. While justice was being done to the ratepayers, some surety should be taken that the Guardians should be efficiently controlled by more expeditious means than a tedious law-suit. The means the Bill proposed was the power of the purse, and he trusted that, in Committee, the amount fixed on as that to be given to the Guardians would be so far short of the charge each pauper entailed as to oblige the Guardians to study economy.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

said, the Bill would lodge immense power in the Poor Law Board; but, without a most expensive supervision, they would not be able to carry out the object in view. It had also been objected to the measure that the 3s. 6d. a day was a premium upon in-door relief, and likely to lead to a considerable increase of expenditure. Great alarm was felt that this was an attempt to abolish out-door relief in the metropolis, and that by the addition to the rates, which would result from such a system, many poor ratepayers who now had great difficulty in meeting the demands upon them, would themselves become recipients of parochial relief.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he had no reason to complain of the reception the measure had met with at the hands of the metropolitan Members; though some had spoken against the Bill as many had supported it; and the chief argument against it was based on a misconception of its provisions. There was no intention on the part of the Poor Law Board to take the administration of the workhouses into their own charge, and he was unable to divine the meaning of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), when he said the Bill would create a considerable amount of patronage for the Poor Law Board. There was not a single line in the Bill justifying this presumption; and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had met another argument when he explained that the 1st clause gave the Poor Law Board nothing more than an easier and more sure way of enforcing orders it was at present obliged to give, with reference to the enlargement, alteration, or ventilation of workhouses. The truth was, the Poor Law Board not only had power to direct proper drainage, sewers, ventilation, furniture, and other matters of that kind, but were responsible for seeing those schemes carried out. All that the Bill proposed was that, in place of proceeding by mandamus from the Court of Queen's Bench for the enforcement of their orders, they should be able to exercise, to a certain extent, the power of the purse. The House had to determine whether the Poor Law Board should be longer invested with sham powers, than which, for his part, he could conceive no greater calamity; or, whether it should have the means of enforcing the orders other Acts of Parliament gave it authority to make. Often, when revelations of mismanagement had occurred, it was said—"Why does not the Poor Law Board interfere and remove the abuse?" The Poor Law Board did interfere. The Inspectors reported the cases to the Board, and the Board put themselves into communication with the Guardians; months, however, elapsed without anything being done, because the Guardians refused to carry out the orders of the Board. His hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had asked him to state frankly his motive in introducing the Bill. The motive was indicated by its title—"A Bill to provide for the equal distribution over the Metropolis of a further portion of the Charge for the Relief of the Poor;" and, if the hon. Gentleman only knew what complaints were made in the East-end of London, and what pressure was put upon the Poor Law Board whenever they sought to secure the amount of workhouse accommodation which they deemed indispensable, he would fully understand why they deemed it their duty to meet that urgent need. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had asked why the Bill was brought in at the present time. There was a very simple answer to that question. In certain parts of the metropolis the overcrowding of workhouses had for some time past been so great that it was impossible to allow it to continue; but, at the same time, the rates were so high that they could not expect poor localities to build fresh workhouses or increase the accommodation in those that existed, unless compelled. Last year, in a Bill dealing with other matters connected with metropolitan poor relief, he proposed a clause under which the expense of building workhouses would have been charged upon the Common Fund, and that proposal not having been accepted, he now endeavoured to meet the difficulty by a proposition that the in-maintenance should be charged upon the Common Fund. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had proposed, as an alternative plan, that the metropolis should be divided into three large Unions, and had shown that the rateable value and the population would be nearly the same in each of the three groups he suggested. The hon. Member had omitted, however, to state whether the amount of pauperism and expenditure would be the same in each of the groups. It might happen that the Western and Northern divisions, with the same rateable value, would have a much smaller number of paupers to maintain than the Eastern division. There would also be a great difficulty in carrying out the plan, because the proposed Unions would be too large to be able to control the out-door relief; for while it was perfectly true that, as regards in-door relief, the larger the areas were the better, on account of the increased means of classification, yet, on the other hand, if the Unions were beyond a certain size for the purposes of out-door relief, a great danger would result from a total equalization of the poor rate, unless there were some central control. He would now advert to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) respecting the sum fixed in the Bill. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had asserted that the Poor Law Board prescribed the actual amount that was to be given in relief. In point of fact, the Board did nothing of the kind. They only stated the sum which might be incurred, and the Bill would not enable them to interfere more than they did at present with respect to the amount, to be spent upon each pauper. The right hon. Gentleman, however, complained that 3s. 6d. a week was too much, and he entirely agreed with him that a margin ought to be left. Indeed, in the course of the remarks he (Mr. Goschen) made in introducing the measure, he stated it was the portion of the plan that a margin should be left in order to secure economy in the administration. If it were thought that 3s. 6d. was too high, he should be quite prepared to consider in Committee the propriety of reducing it. To meet the contingency of the sum named proving too high or to low, a clause had been inserted in the Bill to the following effect:— At any time not earlier than three years from the passing of this Act, or the issuing of any General Order under this section, the Poor Law Board may from time to time, if they shall deem it necessary, by a General Order addressed to the Guardians of all the Unions and parishes in the metropolis, fix a greater or smaller sum than sixpence a day to be repaid for every such pauper as aforesaid; but no order under this section shall take effect until it shall have been laid before both Houses of Parliament for the space of six weeks. The object of that clause was to meet the difficulty of 3s. 6d. a week proving to be too high or too low in the future, as compared with the price of provisions. The hon. Member for Finsbury had treated that clause as if it asked for further powers for the Poor Law Board, but he was wrong in his supposition. In introducing the Bill, he had stated that at least £90,000 would still have to be contributed by the local authorities, or, in other words, that the amount of 3s. 6d. per week multiplied by the number of paupers would fall short of what was at present required for in-door maintenance by £90,000. He would now refer to the alleged tendency of the Bill to encourage in-door at the expense of out-door relief. The hon. Member for Finsbury had challenged him on that point, and had asserted that he (Mr. Goschen) desired to stop out-door relief as far as he could, and to substitute in-door relief for it. He would frankly admit that the object of the Bill was to meet the difficulty of obtaining that amount of in-door accommodation which was absolutely necessary, unless the overcrowding which had led to such deplorable results was to be allowed to continue. At the same time he was perfectly willing to inform the hon. Member that he thought if they could put in-door maintenance on a fairer footing as compared with out-door maintenance, we should diminish pauperism in the metropolis. It was among the out-door poor that most of the abuses arose, and the great increase in pauperism was attributable in great part to the insufficient means which existed of testing the applicants for out-door relief. There was very great hope, therefore, that by making it more easy for the Guardians to apply the in-door test they might expect to diminish the amount of pauperism in the metropolis. At present they could not possibly sweep a larger number of paupers into the workhouses, because nearly every bed was occupied. There were never 1,000 empty beds in all the workhouses of the metropolis. If, then, that should happen which some hon. Members were afraid of, and in-door was substituted for out-door relief, what must be done? It would be necessary to build. The cost of building, it should be borne in mind, would devolve upon the Unions themselves, as it was not placed on the Common Fund by the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, if the abuse arose which some hon. Gentlemen feared, it would be necessary for the Unions who wished to extend in-door relief to build new establishments. Now, to build a workhouse for the accommodation of 500 inmates would cost upwards of £30,000, and, taking into account the payment of interest, the cost of furniture and repairs, rates and taxes, and other items not placed on the Common Fund, a charge would be imposed amounting on an average to 2s. a head per week, the average cost of out-door relief being at present only 1s. 6d. Although, therefore, the Bill made it easier for Guardians to build if necessary, it did not give them such an intense inducement to substitute in-door for out-door relief as some hon. Gentlemen imagined. In point of fact, the Bill would ease all in-door relief and place it on a more equal footing with out-door relief, with great advantage to the ratepayers; because a better test would be applied to a portion of the outdoor relief, though not in such a sweeping manner as had been anticipated by some who had taken part in this discussion. He trusted he had now satisfactorily answered all the objections against the measure; and, in conclusion, he would express an earnest hope that it would be allowed to pass into law.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.