(No. 161.) COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 20 July 1882)

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, he regretted very much that he did not ask their Lordships to reject the Bill on the Motion for second reading. As far as he could make out the Bill, it seemed to him to be suitable for dealing only with cases in the Metropolis and some large towns, and wholly unsuitable to the Unions in the rural parts, where it would have the effect of largely increasing the cost of Poor Law administration. He wished to know in how many Unions throughout England there now existed in the workhouses sufficient appliances to enable the Guardians to keep casual paupers within the casual ward for a period of five days, as was proposed to be done under the Bill? He believed that few of the workhouses at present possessed the requisite appliances for that purpose, and he thought, so far as that class of paupers was concerned, the country Unions would be obliged to lay out large sums of money for the purpose of building casual wards. They had heard a great deal of late years of the increasing burdens imposed on the shoulders of the taxpayers and the ratepayers of the country, and he thought it would be a serious matter to further increase these burdens by calling on the 1054 Unions to increase the accommodation for casual paupers. The effect the Bill would be to drive casual paupers from those Unions where there were appliances for enabling the Guardians to detain them five days, to Unions where there wore no such appliances. The Guardians in the last-named Unions would not consider themselves able to maintain the casuals five days; therefore, the provisions of the Bill would not apply. Beyond that, it was undesirable, in his opinion, that casual paupers should be mixed in the ward with the other inmates of the workhouse.

§ EARL STANHOPE
said, that the Bill, at first sight, might appear a somewhat harsh and cruel measure, but it was really founded on benevolent motives. It had for its object to enable the Guardians if they pleased—it did not compel them—to retain casual paupers five days instead of three days when they came to the workhouse twice in the same month. He was willing, however, if it were the wish of the Committee, to consent to the alteration of the maximum period for a pauper to be detained to four days instead of five, if the latter period was thought to be too long. All Poor Law reformers had asked for some such measure as this; the Government approved the general principle of the Bill; and he believed its adoption would not really entail any burden on the ratepayers for additional accommodation The real effect of the Bill would be that tramps walking through the country would not proceed so rapidly through the country, as the Guardians would have the power to detain them for a longer time. It was also expected that it would render the vagrant's life less pleasant, and lead to a decrease of expense, inasmuch as its deterrent effect would keep the tramps from going to the workhouses, and treating them as mere common lodging-houses. The result, he hoped, would be a decrease in the number of vagrants, and that less accommodation would consequently be required than was the case at present.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
also objected to the Bill, because he feared its operation would create expense to the ratepayers. He would be glad to hear the opinion of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject, as he had some knowledge of county matters.