§ MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can correct or corroborate the report that we are almost face to face with such a crisis of distress as this generation has never known; a distress affecting even the Metropolis, but operating with greater intensity in the cotton, coal, and iron districts?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSI presume my right hon. Friend's Question refers to distress among the poor inhabitants of the localities he has mentioned, and not to any commercial distress? [Mr. J. G. HUBBARD: Yes.] Everyone—and no one more than myself and the Government, and, in fact, this House—sympathizes with the poor inhabitants of all the great centres of industry in their present distress; but from all the inquiries I have been able to make I think the statement contained in the Question of my right hon. Friend, is a considerable exaggeration and does not agree with the true facts of the case. Therefore, I hope that, at all events, no unnecessary alarm will be excited as to the state of distress that undoubtedly exists. I have here a letter which I have received from a highly respected gentleman, the Chairman of the Board of Supervision at Edinburgh. He says—
So far as I am able at present to judge, I am not apprehensive that the distress will be beyond the ordinary means of relief.The Mayor of Liverpool telegraphs—There is considerable distress here, and in this respect we anticipate a severe winter; but it is not likely to be greater than we have experienced before with a depressed state of trade in the cotton districts.Another telegram, from the Mayor of Manchester, says—There is scarcity of work and consequent distress, beyond doubt increased by severity of weather; but local sympathy is actively aroused 950 and charitable efforts abound. There is no wish for Government aid. Manchester is quite able to bear the strain.I am quite sure that everyone who has it in his power to relieve distress will very willingly do so.
§ MR. MUNDELLAasked, if there was any statement from the authorities in the coal and iron districts—Sheffield, for instance?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSI have not had time to inquire into the state of the coal and iron districts since Notice was given of the Question. The right hon. Gentleman's Question was only put on the Paper last night.
§ MR. ANDERSONasked, if any communication had been received from Glasgow?
§ Afterwards,—
§ MR. HANBURY TRACYasked the President of the Local Government Board, If, in the present state of severe distress in some parts of the country, he will consider whether it may be necessary in any cases to modify the rules ordinarily governing the administration of poor relief, in order to tide over the emergency?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, that no evidence had as yet been brought to his notice of such severe distress as to require exceptional measures. On the contrary, he found that in 20 of the largest Lancashire Unions, the increase of paupers in the first week of December was 13,482. In 15 of the West Riding Unions it was 3,063; in the whole of Durham, 196; in seven Unions in Staffordshire, 1,141; in South Wales, 727; in the Metropolis, 52. Without wishing to depreciate the distress which undoubtedly prevailed, he might illustrate these figures by a comparison with a period of severe pressure on the rates. In Manchester there were at the end of November, 1862 (the period of the cotton famine), 39,023 paupers; there were now 6,243. He would add that the General Regulations of the Local Government Board, contained numerous exceptional provisions to enable Boards of Guardians to deal with extraordinary emergencies. These provisions had quite recently stood the test of severe distress in the South Wales iron and coal districts.