[BILL 78.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 24 March 1876)

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,

in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he would only trespass on the attention of the House while he stated briefly the nature of its provisions. Although it was called an omnibus Bill, it chiefly contained provision for the amendment of the Poor Laws. The first nine clauses had reference to a proposal which had been frequently brought before the House—namely, that the Local Government Board should have the power of dealing with what were called divided parishes. This proposal was sanctioned, by a Committee of great authority which sat during the Session of 1873, and he did not think it was a change to which there could be any reasonable objection. There were, as the House would be surprised to hear, throughout England and Wales about 1,300 cases of these divided parishes, 595 most of them being in two portions, but some, consisting of three, four, or even five portions isolated from the main body. Every facility was given, in the Bill for objection to the proposed re-arrangement of parishes. Nothing could be done without inquiry, and if a certain proportion of the ratepayers objected, further proceedings must be by Provisional Order. He believed, however, that persons who were interested in this question would be found to acquiesce readily in the re-arrangement which might be found convenient. In Wales, for example, 200 parishes were divided in this way, and in 90 per cent of these cases there would be general acquiescence in the re-arrangement. Another part of the Bill, Clause 10, would authorize the Local Government Board under certain circumstances to dissolve Unions. This power was guarded, as in the last case, by the necessity of proceeding by inquiry, and after notice to all parties, though there would be no procedure by Provisional Order, for the language of the clause ran thus— If it shall appear to the Local Government Board that it is expedient for rectifying or simplifying the areas of management, or otherwise for the better relief of the poor …. the said Board may…. issue their order for the dissolution of any such union. These Unions were only constructed 40 years ago, by the authority of the Poor Law Commissioners; and were so constructed without any power on the part of the Boards of Guardians to object. On the whole, the laying out of the kingdom for Poor Law purposes in 1832 was remarkably well done, but certain inconveniences had since arisen in the areas thus apportioned. Out of 600 and odd Unions, 180 overlapped county boundaries. He did not suggest that it would be practicable or expedient to restrict all those Unions to the limits of county boundaries, but considerable improvements might be made in this respect, and the number of such cases might be reduced by a considerable percentage. The power of dissolving so important an administrative area as a Poor Law Union was, of course, a considerable one, though it was really not much in excess of the power already exercised by the Department in taking away this or that parish from a Union and annexing it to another. That power had been exercised with most satisfactory results, 596 and it was only within the last few days that he had ordered two very important parishes to be severed from one Union and annexed to another. That, however, was not in all cases an adequate mode of dealing with the matter, and therefore it was considered right to give the Local Government Board the power to dissolve Unions and to consolidate two or more into one if considered necessary. He hoped that by means of Clause 10 and Clause 19 they would be able to effect that object. Since these areas had been laid out there had been many changes of population, and many arrangements made in 1832 had become inapplicable. Many small Unions might now, with advantage, be consolidated in one, if there were the power of setting aside the establishments, which now could not be done. Another object of pressing importance was the consolidation of Unions by agreement with each other, thus leading to a considerable economy. In the Eastern counties there were several cases in which it would be convenient that one workhouse should be retained for the use of two Unions. By means of the Bill this object would be effected. The Committee on Boundaries, which recommended that this power should be given, also recommended the extinction of small parishes. He had not, however, thought it right to load the Bill with a power which might provoke controversy. There were some other miscellaneous provisions which, though interesting, were hardly suitable for discussion, except in Committee. As to the Law of Settlement, which had been discussed with interest by recent Poor Law conferences, far be it from him to enter upon a general discussion of that important subject, which had been so often considered in that House. He should only say that he had not seen his way to advise the Government to abolish settlement or to make any considerable change, believing that such changes were premature, and were called for by no public necessity. If the question were raised in Committee, he should be ready to give it his consideration. He had, however, endeavoured to improve the existing law as regarded what were technically known as derivative settlements. Upon the question of the Irish poor removal the Bill proposed something which might be accepted as, at all events, a palliative for the evils 597 which occasionally existed, though, as he had stated last year, those evils were now far fewer than those which used to exist in former days. It was proposed that the Irish immigrant—he would not call him a pauper—should have a special settlement after a three years' residence in an English parish. There were some important provisions with regard to the law relating to the relief of the poor of the metropolis with which he need not trouble the House at that moment, seeing that they were all matters of detail. He might, however, remark that one of those provisions dealt with the exemptions hitherto enjoyed by certain extra-parochial places in London, under which they did not contribute to the relief of the poor. He believed that the time had now comewhen some reasonable settlement of this question would be arrived at, and that these places would in future bear their fair share of the charge for the relief of the poor. In conclusion, he trusted that the House would read the Bill a second time.