POOR RELIEF (METROPOLIS) BILL—(No. 253). (Hansard, 27 July 1864)

LORD WODEHOUSE,
in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that the object of the measure was to alleviate as much as possible the distress which existed in some districts of the metropolis. Their Lordships were aware of the distressing cases which had of late frequently appeared in the public journals, arising from the want of sufficient means to relieve the casual poor. Cases had occurred of per- 2128 sons being left without food or shelter during the inclement nights of winter, and in some instances the death of the unfortunate persons so exposed had been the result. It was the fact that in the several unions of London there were in the aggregate 500 destitute persons applying for casual relief daily; but from the want of the necessary accommodation, many cases of great hardship—almost of cruelty—were of constant occurrence. It was not too strong an expression to say that such a state of things was a disgrace to the capital of a civilized country like this. A Committee appointed to inquire into the subject had presented a Report to Parliament, recommending that the charge for the casual poor should be paid out of a rate levied on the rateable property of the whole metropolis, and that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be the machinery for collecting such rate, while the Poor Law Board prescribed the necessary arrangements. It was calculated that the required funds might be raised by a rate not exceeding one-sixth of a penny in the pound. Some complaint had been made that the Bill had been introduced so late in the Session; but it should be borne in mind that the Report of the Committee was only presented on the last day of May. On the 16th of June the President of the Poor Law Board sent out circulars to the Metropolitan Boards of Guardians, calling attention to the Report; and a great number of the Boards approved the scheme embodied in the present Bill, the operation of which was limited to a period ending on Lady Day next. It would be for Parliament next Session to adopt some well considered and permanent measure for effecting the object. In reference to the relief of casual poor it was reasonable to regard the whole metropolis as one district, and it was desirable to take precautions against the recurrence of such scenes of misery and distress as were witnessed last winter.

§ THE EARL OF POWIS
said, that as the Bill was merely a temporary measure, he would not now argue whether the plan proposed was or was not the proper way for providing for the casual poor; but he could not see the slightest necessity for the Metropolitan Board of Works being employed merely for the purpose of discharging the functions of bankers. That 2129 was a duty which the Bank of England might more properly perform.

§ EARL FORTESCUE
regarded the Bill as one of great importance, and the proposition to spread the charge over the whole metropolis appeared consistent with a sense of fairness; but he could not agree that the machinery by which the rate was proposed to be collected was the best. He feared, too, that as before there had been a tendency on the part of some Boards of Guardians unduly to restrict relief to the casual poor, there would now be, when the cost was to be defrayed out of a common fund, a rivalry in expenditure with the view of obtaining popular favour. He thought the Bill should have been introduced at an earlier period of the Session, and that the opinions of the Boards of Guardians should have been earlier obtained.

§ LORD REDESDALE
had the same objection to this Bill which he had expressed with regard to the Poor Removal Bill—namely, that it had been brought up to their Lordships' House at too late a period of the Session to admit of any Amendments being proposed or the Bill being properly considered. It was a very serious subject of complaint, and had now become a systematic practice of the Poor Law Board, that important measures should be introduced at such an advanced period of the Session, that it was quite impossible to give them that consideration which their importance demanded. It was nonsense to talk of obtaining the opinions of the Poor Law Guardians before introducing the Bill. The proper course would have been for the Department to have framed a Bill and then submitted its provisions for the consideration of the Poor Law Guardians. The machinery of this Bill was defective in various particulars, and its effect would be to increase the number of vagrants, to draw the most abandoned from that part of the metropolis where they were known to those parts where they were not known, since no means were provided for testing in any way the character of the applicants for relief. The provision by which the money was to be raised by means of the Metropolitan Board of Works was also highly objectionable. Other provisions of the Bill were highly objectionable, but there was no time to propose any Amendments. For his own justification, therefore, and to enable other noble Lords to show their sense of the impropriety of introducing so important a Bill at the very 2130 end of the Session, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
hoped his noble Friend would not press his Amendment. Any one who was conversant with the condition of the poor of London must see how urgent it was that something should be done. He was very much disposed to agree with the objection as to the lateness of the Session, and that would be a good ground for passing a severe censure on the Poor Law Board; but it would be but a bad justification for any sufferings to which the poor might be subjected next winter if their Lordships were to refuse on that account to pass the Bill.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE,
while agreeing with his noble Friend in many of the objections which he had made to the provisions of the Bill, hoped he would not press his Amendment to a division.