HC Deb 07 September 1886 vol 308 cc1472-3
MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following paragraph, which appeared in The Weekly Dispatch of Saturday last:— Greenwich.—Vagrants and the Local Government Board. Alfred Webb, 48, was charged before Mr. Balguy with refusing to perform his task-work while in St. Olave's Union casual ward, Rotherhithe. Mr. Palmer said the prisoner had a night's lodging, and on the following day did his task of work; but one of the visitors of the Local Government Board inspected the place, and recognised him as having been in a casual ward of the Metropolis twice before within the past month, and consequently he was told he would have to do two days more work. Mr. Balguy said a rule was passed by the Local Government Board, for some reason or other, that if a visitor recognised a man, or fancied he reeognised him, as having been in a casual ward twice within the month, he could order his detention. Prisoner denied that he had been more than once in a casual ward in the month, upon which statement Mr. Balguy discharged him; what is the name and the salary of the visitor referred to; and, whether either "The Casual Poor Act, 1882," or the General Order of 18th December 1882, issued to carry out that Act, provides that the mere word of a visitor of the Local Government Board shall justify the detention of a casual pauper for two additional days; and, if not, under what authority Alfred Webb was so detained?

THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

I have made inquiry as to the facts of the case referred to. The visiting officer by whom the man was identified, was Robert Armitage. He recives 30s. per week. It is the duty of the visiting officers to visit the casual wards in the Metropolis with a view of identifying the habitual vagrants, who, under the Statute and the orders of the Board, are liable to detention. The visiting officers do not order the detention of the casual pauper, but identify and point out to the superintendents of the wards the persons who are liable to detention. As regards the particular case alluded to, the man, when told by the visiting officer at the Rotherhithe ward on August 26 that he was in the Camberwell ward on the 31st of July, did not attempt to deny that such was the case. I understand that the man is well known to the visiting officers.