EARL DE GREY, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, said, that when he moved the second reading of the Bill, a noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) had asked for a short statement as to the operation of the Act which the present Bill proposed to continue. As their Lordships were aware, before the passing of the temporary measure on this subject last year, the provision made for the relief of the casual poor in London was very unsatisfactory. The accommodation was very inadequate, notices were frequently put up that the casual ward was full, and that therefore no more of these poor persons could be admitted, while none of the wards were kept open all night. He was, however, happy to say that the Act of last year had worked well, and that there had been a marked improvement in the treatment of these persons. At the present moment there was adequate provision for the casual poor in all the unions with the exception of three, where the provision made was not sufficient. In no less than twenty-one unions, in which previously the accommodation was very insufficient, there was now permanent and adequate accommodation; but in several of the remaining unions the accommodotion thus provided was not of a permanent character, for, as the Act of last year was only temporary, these unions had not thought right to provide permanent accommodation. Nevertheless there was no doubt that, if the present Bill passed 379 into law, adequate permanent provision would be made by the guardians in the metropolis for the accommodation of the houseless poor. With respect to the adequacy of the accommodation provided under the Act of last year, he was able to make a satisfactory statement. Before the passing of that Act there was accommodation in the metropolitan unions for 997 casual poor, and that was very unequally distributed, and of a very unsatisfactory condition. But at the present moment there was suitable provision for 1,578 persons; but upon one night in the month of January last, when the largest number of applications was made at the unions, 620 casual poor were received into the union wards, while, at the same time, 955 persons of a similar description were accommodated in the refuges which existed in various parts of the metropolis. Thus, on the night when the largest number of persons required accommodation, only 1,575 applied for it, being somewhat less than the number which could have been accommodated in the union wards, independently of the refuges. He thought that their Lordships would agree with him in considering that was a satisfactory result to be obtained in a few months under the operation of the temporary Act. He would not trouble their Lordships by reading the many letters which he had since received stating the view taken by the Boards of Guardians of the Act, but he would state generally that the Act was approved by them, and they were now willing to do that which they were never willing to do before—namely, to provide permanently proper accommodation for the casual poor. There was almost universal testimony on their part in favour of the operation of the Act. There was one or two clauses in the present Bill which effected improvements on the Act of last year, to one of which only he would refer on the present occasion. The claase in question provided that the police should have the power to take persons coming under the description of casual poor to the wards of the workhouses, who were then to be immediately admitted. This provision was re commended by the Committee of last year, and he believed that it might be carried into operation with great advantage. Sir Richard Mayne thought that it could be worked without difficulty in the metropolis, and therefore it had been thought desirable to give this additional security to persons in the unfortunate situation of the casual poor.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONadmitted that, in many instances, the Act of last year had worked satisfactorily, though he was surprised to hear the noble Earl state that there was an unanimous feeling among the Boards of Guardians of the metropolis in its favour. He could not himself concur in the eulogy which the noble Earl (Earl de Grey) had passed on that Act. From inquiries he had made he had come to the conclusion that the Act had undoubtedly produced satisfactory results in certain parishes where the guardians were willing to meet it in a liberal spirit; but in other parishes, he was sorry to say, it had been met in a spirit so illiberal and churlish as to have proved almost ineffectual. He did not state this as a mere matter of assertion, but the Returns which had been ordered by the other House and which had been laid on their Lordships' table, proved on their face that the Act of last year had not been so complete a success as the noble Earl would have their Lordships suppose. The very first thing observable in looking at the Returns was the in equality which prevailed in the different unions. It extended to every part of the administration, and affected the accommodation given, the treatment of the persons admitted, and the labour exacted from them. Every pauper was entitled to receive one meal on admission and another on discharge. The food varied from nine ounces of bread down to four, three, and in one case actually 2½ ounces of bread. This was an enormous disproportion in the fare, which must make the Act work badly. The bread was in some unions supplemented by a pint of gruel in the morning; in other cases gruel was given both at morning and evening; and in one case the exuberant prodigality of the generosity of the guardians found vent in permission to the pauper to drink as much water as he pleased in addition to the bread which was given him. The labour required in return for food and shelter varied just as much. In some cases it took the form of corn-grinding, in others of pumping water or turning a crank, and in others a regulation prevailed which would probably excite their Lordships' surprise, and which so far as he knew was to be found in no county gaol—oakum picking was reserved for the aged and the infirm, for women and children. Not only did the character of the labour differ, but the quantity exacted and the time during which they were kept at their tasks, which varied from one hour 381 up to four, and the quantity to be picked from one pound to three. Again, the accommodation in the different unions varied greatly. In some cases the wards had not been fitted up for the purpose of accommodating the casual poor; in others the ventilation was defective, and the paupers had not more than seventy or eighty cubic feet of air each during the whole night; in one instance, it appeared that two beds in the male wards were occupied by three persons. It was a perfect farce to say, under these circumstances, that this was affording proper shelter to the poor, or that the Act was working satisfactorily. In one case, that of St. George's-in-the-East, every adult was required to pick two pounds of oakum for every meal he or she might have. It was impossible, consistently with the Act of last year, to re quire those conditions. In another in stance, the guardians assigned as a reason for refusing relief, that the applicants belonged to other metropolitan parishes; but that was no good reason why the guardians should not take in these persons and give them shelter. If Boards of Guardians acted upon such grounds as these the Act was entirely nullified and set aside, and there was no security that the relief which ought to be granted had been so granted. The consequence of this unequal treatment of the casual poor in the different unions was that some of the wards were too full, while others, in other unions, were comparatively empty. One ward was described in the Returns as never used, and the reason was obvious, for in proportion as the guardians acted in a harsh and illiberal spirit the poor would be driven away and the wards would remain empty. He quite admitted that there was a difficulty in the first application of the Act—too much liberality would be an evil, as too much strictness was, and it was not easy to fix the point where the guardians could give enough and not too much. It would be obviously wrong to give more to one of these casual poor than to the pauper within the walls of the workhouse, or to an honest man, who by his own industry was struggling to maintain himself out side the walls of the workhouse. The class of casual poor, moreover, was no doubt a difficult one to deal with—often idle and dissolute, and from the lowest dregs of society. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the casual poor were not a criminal class. As a matter of fact, very few criminals, if any, took advan- 382 tage of the Act of last year; and when the police agency contained in this Bill was put into execution there was less I chance of this still. He could not agree with the noble Earl that the Act of last year had been so successful as he had described; but he did not oppose the Bill, being merely anxious that the Poor Law Board should direct their attention to the subject, and as far as possible prevent the Act from being made practically a dead letter, as it very often was, by the illiberal and churlish parsimony of Boards of Guardians.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYadmitted that there might be defects in the administration, but where the law was effectively administered it worked very great good. He had been favoured with some statistics showing what had been done under the Act in one of the largest parishes in London. From the 29th of September, 1864, to the 25th of March, 1865, 4,740 persons had been relieved in this way, at a cost of £244, showing an average cost of 2½d. a head, for which each person received in the evening and morning six ounces of bread and a pint of gruel. About 50 per cent of the per sons admitted stated that they had not been in London more than three days. Only thirty-seven had been refused admission; of whom twenty men and eight women would not take the bath, which was always warm; two men found the beds too hard; and seven had more than a shilling in their possession. The conduct of the great majority of the "casuals"—for this was the new word that was passing into the English language—was reported to be good. Cases of insubordination had been rare; and it had not been necessary to take any of them before the magistrate for riotous or disorderly behaviour. This was a good picture of the results of the law. In some cases the Act might be administered with severity; but it must be remembered that there was a considerable difference in the population in different parts of London, and that it might be necessary to change the treatment according to kind of poor with whom you had to deal. After the discussion which had taken place, however, the law would probably be more efficiently administered, and he believed it would be a real and permanent blessing to the class it was intended to relieve.
§ House in Committee; an Amendment made; the Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.