Sitting of 5 April 1865

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Salop (Southern Division) v. Viscount Newport now Earl of Bradford.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [April 3] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Court of Chancery (Ireland) [Salary, Retired Allowances, and Stamps.]
Ordered—Commissioners of Supply (Scotland).*
First Reading—Commissioners of Supply (Scotland) *[104].
Second Reading—Tories, Robbers, and Rapparees (Ireland) [95]; Locomotives on Roads* [63].
Committee—Land Debentures (Ireland) (recomm.) [80]—R.P.; Metropolitan Houseless Poor [83].
Report—Metropolitan Houseless Poor * [83].
Third Reading—Inclosure* [89], and passed

LAND DEBENTURES (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 80.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he desired it to be understood that in consenting that the Bill should pass through Committee receiving appropriate Amendments, he distinctly reserved to himself and the Government the right to take any course at a later stage of the present Bill, as well as of other Bills with a similar object, which might seem to be right. The Bills involved very important principles, and it was for the House to consider how far it would be contrary to the course hitherto pursued—with respect to Irish legislation especially—to give Parliamentary facilities for the re-creation of encumbrances on land. The next point to which the attention of the House ought to be directed, was the question how far it was expedient to give the appearance of an especial Parliamentary security to mortgages on land by means of debentures, which might be created at common law without such security. Another important point was the question of value in regard to the proposed debentures. If the appearance of a Parliamentary security was

  751
  given, it would be perfectly delusive, unless the debentures were represented by a sufficient value in land; but there was great danger that the powers created by the Bill might be made the means of fraud. He hoped that that point would be taken into due consideration. Three Bills had been introduced in reference to this subject; and a considerable number of persons thought that, on the whole, it would be of advantage if greater facilities were afforded for raising money on land with proper securities. Under these circumstances it had been thought right to allow the Bills to be referred to a Select Committee, and the form in which the Bills had been returned to the House, showed that some care had been bestowed on them. It, therefore, appeared to the Government that it would not be an improper course, if it were only out of deference to the judgment of the Select Committee and for the sake of many persons who took an interest in the measures, to permit them to go through a Committee of the whole House, the Government reserving to themselves the full right to oppose the Bills, if it should seem desirable to do so, at some future stage.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was glad that the House had received an assurance that these Bills, which were important either for good or evil, would have the consideration of the Government, and he desired it to be understood that if they were passed the adoption of them would be upon the responsibility of the Government. When they were brought in he had called the attention of the House to what he feared might be the guasi-character of security given to the debentures by mixing them up, as proposed in one of the Bills, with a Government Office. Many persons at present believed that a security attached to the debentures which in reality they did not possess. He hoped that point would receive the consideration of the Government.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Owner of Land may issue Debentures with sanction of Court.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that by the Bill the Landed Estates Court was to examine the title to the land on which the debentures were to be charged, and also to ascertain that since the granting of the certificate no persons had acquired
  752
  rights which would be injuriously affected by the debentures. The common seal of the Court was then to be put on the debentures, and the seventh clause concluded with these words—
  "The seal of the Court shall be conclusive proof of the validity of the debenture to or upon which such seal shall be affixed or impressed."
  He felt some apprehension that those words would have a misleading effect, for though they did not give a Parliamentary title they might seem to some persons to have that effect, and he was inclined to suggest that those words should be omitted.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he had at first intended to move the omission of the clause, and that another should be substituted. But he would suggest that to the words "common seal" should be added "special seal," a course approved of by Judge Long-field, to whom he had sent a copy of the Bill as it came from the Select Committee.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he could not agree to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would move the omission of the words "by its common seal, and also by the signature of such Judge or Officer "after" shall be signified," in order to insert "in such manner as the Court may by any general order authorize for such purpose."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Form and Effect of Debentures.)
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Transfer of Debentures.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the clause provided that there should be two modes of transferring these debentures; the one by memorandum, entered in the books of the Court; the other by indorsement of the transferee. He objected to the second of these modes of transfer, and proposed that the words authorizing it should be struck out.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he had previously proposed a third mode of transfer in addition to the two now contained in the clause, and that third mode was by delivery, like a bank note; but as the Select Committee would not agree to it, he had to give it up. He supposed he must also give up the second mode—namely, by indorsement, as the Attorney General would not assent to it; but he believed its omission would be mischievous. For his own part, he did not see why these debentures should not pass by delivery, like a bank note; but, probably,

  753
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer might object to that, as introducing a new kind of currency.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHcounselled caution in that matter, and thought the hon. Member (Mr. Scully) would exercise a wise discretion in acceding to the proposal of the Attorney General.
  Words struck out.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Coupons), agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Debentures on Unincumbered Land.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, this clause, which was the most important of the Bill, provided that in the case of unencumbered land no debenture or debentures should be charged upon the land for more than ten times what might appear to the Court to be the yearly value of the land, having regard to any lease or other matter affecting it; nor was the annual amount of interest reserved on any debenture to exceed one-half of what might appear to the Court to be its yearly value. Now, how was the Court to ascertain the value of the land? There was no machinery for doing so supplied by the Bill. He had no faith in Court valuations. The Court, which in such matters had no knowledge of its own, must place confidence in other persons, such as surveyors and professional valuers, who, he was sorry to say, were certainly not infallible and not always honest. They could never be sure that the margin they proposed to leave really existed. This was the clause in regard to which his great objection to that scheme mainly turned. What he disliked and distrusted in all Bills of that kind—although he did not think it belonged to his department to take the whole responsibility of opposing a considerable opinion entertained in favour of that experiment—was that a great number of simple people in the country might be led by the machinery of these measures, by the intervention of the Court, and all the other forms, to suppose that they need not look narrowly into the title or the value of the property on the security of which they lent their money, and that great losses and, perhaps, frauds might occur. The limit of one half, the yearly value fixed by the clause, appeared very fair, provided they could be quite sure that that amount would be bonâ fide ascertained; but there was no machinery in the Bill for ascertaining it.
  COLONEL DUNNEconcurred in the objections taken by the Attorney General to
  754
  the principle of these Bills, and thought their provisions required very careful watching.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTbelieved that the public valuation of land in Ireland was based on sound principles, and would admirably answer all the purposes required by the present Bill. It was from 10 to 20 per cent under the real value.
  MR. SCULLYallowed that this clause contained the whole essence and marrow of the Bill. However, his intimate acquaintance with the transfer of land in Ireland enabled him to state that he had every confidence in the valuations of the Landed Estates Court, the Judges of which were practical men, with every appliance at their command, In a letter which he had recently received from Judge Longfield, that learned Judge expressed a hope that he would insist on the principle of valuation by the Court, otherwise the Bill would be of little value. The writer saw no substitute for such a system of valuation, and did not believe that the public would have any confidence in any valuation by a person selected by the owner himself. That a public valuation was a safe standard of value was proved by the experience of other countries. In Poland the limit of three-fifths was adopted, whereas the present Bill took only one-half. In Hamburg and Frankfort the limit was one-half, with a guarantee of the title by the State. In Belgium, Lombardy, parts of Germany, and Switzerland, public valuations were also used to measure loans on land; and in Ireland they had a uniform Government valuation, which regulated all rates on land, such as poor rates, income tax, &c. He had tried to keep down the limit as low as possible, so that the debenture should be almost cash, and he gave no Government guarantee, which was expressly negatived by the 30th clause, providing that under no circumstances should the holder of a debenture have any claim on the Court or on the public funds in respect of any mistake or omission relating to the value of title to any estate or otherwise.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the explanation elicited in the course of that discussion as to the public valuation of lands in Ireland seemed to be important; but there was not a word about that valuation in the Bill. He proposed, therefore, to add to the clause, as an additional security, these words, "Not exceeding in any case the value fixed by the public valuation of lands in Ireland."
  MR. SCULLYhoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not insist on that alteration, which would cut down the Bill much too far. In many cases the public valuation in Ireland was far too low, and no one would dream of dealing with land merely on that valuation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had proposed the words in order to get out of the region of mere speculative values, and he must express some surprise, after the course which the discussion had taken, that any one should object to such an Amendment.
  MR. SCULLYsupposed he must submit if the hon. and learned Gentleman persevered, but if this alteration were now made a Bill would have to be introduced before long to get rid of it.
  MR. KERsuggested that, as a general rule, the Government valuation might be taken, subject, however, to certain exceptions, within the discretion of the Court.
  COLONEL DUNNEthought it would be much safer to adopt the Government valuation than to leave the matter to the Court.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 12 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clauses 31 and 32 postponed.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday.

TORIES, ROBBERS, AND RAPPAREES (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL. 95.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE O'DONOGHUE,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it was intended to repeal an Act of Queen Anne, under which poor people in Ireland were sentenced to penal servitude for the offence of vagrancy. The Act of Anne was intended to deal with a state of things which no longer existed, and had often been made an instrument of oppression. He hoped the Government would not object to the second reading. Should any discussion be thought desirable it might be taken on going into Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The O'Donoghue.)
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he had no objection to the Bill being read a second
  756
  time on the understanding that in Committee a discussion would be taken on various points arising on the wording of the first clause. The first clause proposed to repeal not only the Act of Queen Anne, but also "the several Acts amending and continuing the same." This he thought too extensive; but that was a question which would be best considered in Committee. He would only add that it was hardly correct to say that under the statute of Anne poor persons were committed to penal servitude for vagrancy. He did not defend the Act of Anne; but it should be known that the man who was convicted at Kilkenny had been going about the country causing the greatest possible disturbance and distress to the poor, not merely asking for alms as a pauper, but threatening to quarter himself on the poor farmers whom he intimidated, often burning down their stacks or homesteads if they refused compliance with his demands.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, he was ready to assent to the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, upon the understanding that it should be open to discussion on the Motion for going into Committee. He believed that some misapprehension prevailed with respect to the existing state of the law. There were three Acts which related to this subject—the Act of 6th of Queen Anne, in which the words "Tories, Robbers, and Rapparees" were introduced; the Act of the 2nd of George II., with respect to which some doubt had arisen whether it continued that of Queen Anne; and the 31st George III., chapter 44, which continued not only the Act of Anne, but many other most useful Acts, which no one wished to see repealed. The first clause of the present Bill would, however, under the words "the several Acts amending and continuing the same" repeal all those Acts, and so far it should be considered wholly inadmissible. It was under the Act 31st George III. that presentations before the grand jury took place, and however absurd the thing might seem to be in these days, it had worked very beneficially in many instances. There were and had always been in Ireland, a number of idle vagabonds prowling about the country, without any visible means of subsistence, who were found, not only "coshering," but intimidating farmers to give them supplies, and it was in the prosecution of this class of offenders that the Act was found convenient. At the same time it was too harsh and peremp-

  757
  tory for ordinary cases of vagrancy, and if the Act were repealed the Law Officers in Ireland should be consulted to see whether some available substitute could not be provided for the protection of farmers and the industrious classes in Ireland against this class of offenders.
  COLONEL DUNNEthought that legislation of this kind was not conducted in a manner sufficiently careful—when it proposed to repeal existing Acts of Parliament they ought to be careful to have those Acts before them and know what they meant. It seemed absurd to him to talk of taking action against "Tories, Rapparees, and Robbers." There are not in Ireland such things as "Tories." He did not think that at this day there was such a thing as a Tory to be found even in that House. Originally, "Tories" were disbanded soldiers in Ireland, who lived a very irregular life, at least were said to do so by their enemies, and the name was finally given to the Royal party; just as the "Whigs" in Scotland did, who were opponents of the Government, and gave their names to the democratic party. Nothing but the fantastic name of the Bill—"Tories, Robbers, and Rapparees "—had called attention to it. The Bill seemed to be a remnant of the old penal laws, and as such objectionable; but as there were no other objects, it seemed now to have been exercised as a law against vagrants, and the case mentioned by the hon. Member, against a notorious and incorrigible thief. If it were necessary to deal with the subject of vagrancy let a proper Act be introduced upon the subject. He hoped that at a future stage of the Bill a further explanation of the objects of the Bill would be given to the House.
  COLONEL FRENCHobserved, that presentments to the grand jury under this Act were made, not in cases where the parties accused had merely threatened, but had actually committed, malicious injuries. If the Act was repealed, something should be done to suppress this class of offenders who were very common in the rural districts of Ireland.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he would not object to the second reading of the Bill; but it would require to be considerably altered in Committee. The Act of Anne being to continue only for seven years, had died a natural death; but a subsequent Act, which was not alluded to in this Bill, had set it on its legs again. The 6th of Anne was only one of the penal enact-
  758
  ments affecting Ireland, each being more cruel than its predecessor. The same year, what was called the Registering Act was passed for the discovery of the estates of Papists and handing them over to the Protestants, or for the benefit of the Established Church. A great number of Irish gentlemen were in this way deprived of their estates. They were left without a shilling to live upon; and being much respected in their localities, and not able to get out of the country, they were obliged to go among their former tenants, getting from them what scanty subsistence they could. This was the origin of this Act of Anne—to extirpate "such as pretended to be Irish gentlemen."
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Friday, 28th April.

  METROPOLITAN HOUSELESS POOR BILL— [BILL 83.]—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Provisions of 27 & 28 Vict., c. 116. extended to Michaelmas and Lady Day next.)
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSstated that the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) had given notice of an important Amendment to this clause, and, as he was not present, he should move that the clause be in the meantime postponed.
  Clause postponed.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clauses 3 and 5 agreed to.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS MR. C. P. VILLIERS moved to insert after Clause 3 the following clause:—
  "Any constable of the Metropolitan Police, or of the Police of the City of London, may personally conduct any destitute wayfarer, wanderer, or foundling, not having committed or being charged with any offence punishable by law within the knowledge of such constable, to any wards or other places of reception approved of by the Poor Law Board under the said Act or this Act; and every such wayfarer, wanderer, or foundling shall, if there be room in such wards or other places of reception, be temporarily relieved therein."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this clause be added to the Bill."—(Mr. C. P. Villiers.)
  MR. BROMLEYsaid, he should not object to the insertion of the right hon. Gentleman's clause if the following, of which he (Mr. Bromley) had given notice, was also added:—
  "That, from the passing of this Act, every

  759
  Police Station within the Metropolitan district shall be constituted an office for the issuing of orders of admission for destitute persons requiring the same, into the casual ward of the workhouse of the district in which the said Police Station is situated."
  He had only these objections to the new clause proposed by the right hon. Gentleman—first, that it was not imperative enough in requiring the police to interfere in the case of both vagrants and destitute persons; next, that in conveying the poor person to the workhouse or other place where relief was to administered there would be an unnecessary loss of time by the police by which the public might suffer. He preferred the system now adopted in the Strand Union—namely, that of issuing at the Police Station tickets which the casual pauper took to the workhouse; and when a particular ward was full, the Inspector of Police was made acquainted with the fact, and any further applicants were sent to the relieving officer, who was bound to provide accommodation for them. He saw no reason why the clause of which he had given notice should not be appended, and if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to admit it, he would not offer any opposition to the clause which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed.
  Moved, "That those words be added to the clause."—(Mr. Bromley.)
  MR. NEATEsaid, it was not clearly shown by the Bill whether, when the police officers took destitute persons to the relieving officer, they would certainly be relieved. There should be no doubt left on that point.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that the clause which he had proposed would have the effect of giving the police full authority, after inquiry, to take any person in distress to an asylum provided for the relief of vagrants. The clause had been well considered, and he had communicated with the head of the police on the subject, and he considered the clause made ample provision for the objects in view. When a policeman conducted a vagrant to the workhouse the authorities of that establishment would have no power to refuse the destitute person admittance—it was imperative on them to admit him, because he had been brought there by the police. With respect to the doubt expressed by the hon. Member for Oxford, the words "other places of reception" made it clear that the workhouse authorities were under the obligation to relieve persons said to be
  760
  destitute whether there was room in their wards or not, and they must either find room in the workhouse itself or provide it in some other place. With respect to the clause proposed by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Bromley), he had the authority of the Police Commissioners for saying that it was not really necessary. The Poor Law Guardians could now make all the arrangements requisite to carry out the objects of that clause, and the Guardians of the Strand Union had shown an instance of this. Sir Richard Mayne had given notice that he was perfectly ready to place constables at the disposal of each Board of Guardians as soon as they thought fit to avail themselves of their services. Those who would apply for relief would be examined and would then receive orders to be presented at the workhouse. In the case of the Strand Union, Sir Richard Mayne placed three constables at the disposal of the Guardians, and all the other authorities might make the same arrangements. There was, therefore, not the slightest necessity for legislation on this point. If it were compulsory to have three constables placed at every station for the relief of vagrants, it would entail a considerable expense, and render necessary an addition to the police force, and consequently to the police rates. The Boards of Guardians had, with one exception, professed themselves willing to provide all the necessary accommodation for vagrants, and the only reason why that accommodation was not more largely provided previously was, as the Guardians had stated, the temporary character of the Bill which was introduced last year. The Guardians were in doubt as to what their position would be after the 25th of March. In some places wards had been completed and ample provision made for the reception of vagrants in future. It must be remembered that the places where destitute persons went to be relieved were not the police stations, but the workhouses, and it would be much more convenient for destitute persons to go to the workhouses at once with a policeman than to go first to the police station and there obtain an order and afterwards have to travel to the relief ward. At the workhouses, too, persons were obliged to sit up all night in order to provide for the wants of the destitute persons who might be brought there by the police. As the clause proposed by the hon. Member was unnecessary, he recommended him not to press it.
  MR. HENLEYdesired to know how far it was necessary to have the proposed addition made to the clause; and also whether the right hon. Gentleman had added to the clause the words "destitute persons," which he (Mr. Henley) privately suggested to him; and for this reason the object of the Bill was to take care that persons destitute in the streets of London at night should not perish, and that any neglect that should occur might be readily traceable to the person really culpable. As the clause of the right hon. Gentleman was now drawn, the first inquiry must be whether the person found destitute was a wayfarer, a wanderer, or a foundling. Now, it would not be very easy in the case of a man sixty or seventy years of age destitute in the streets for the police to ascertain if he really were a foundling; and the proof of what was a wanderer might also be a matter of some difficulty. The next question was whether he was a wayfarer, and as to this there might be a difference of opinion. Now, if the man were not one of those three things no person would be to blame for not taking him to one of the places provided under the Bill, or for not receiving him when he was so taken. But if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the introduction of the words "destitute persons" as he (Mr. Henley) had suggested, that would meet everything. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was willing to make that alteration. He now wished to call the attention of the Committee to the places to which vagrants were taken, which was a matter of some consequence. A Return had been lately circulated giving a minute and particular description of the places provided by the different unions for their reception. In the main, the accommodation provided appeared to be sufficient and reasonable; but there were, he was bound to say, three strange exceptions to the rule, and he was rather astonished at their having escaped the lynx eye of the Poor Law Board. The exceptions to which he alluded were Paddington, Rotherhithe, and St. George's, Southwark. Paddington was one of those unions which generally provided the most liberal accommodation for the poor of any of the unions, and yet the accommodation they provided for the houseless poor appeared to have escaped the notice of the Poor Law Board, notwithstanding that their attention had been called by Mr. Farnall to the circumstance that upon one
  762
  occasion one man more was received into the Paddington Union than the ward was calculated to accommodate. The accommodation in that union was about at the rate of 360 cubic feet for each poor person to be admitted, and therefore an additional person, being thirteen instead of twelve, would not be any great matter; but still attention had been directed to it by a note in Mr. Farnall's Report. In the two other unions, however, which he had mentioned, the provision was very much smaller. In Rotherhithe the area of accommodation was described in one of the wards as about 21 ft, 4 in. superficial measurement; the height about 7 ft. 6 in., and the authorities stated that it was capable of accommodating two persons. Now, let the Committee consider what that accommodation was. The table of the House was about 5 ft. I in. high; so that, under a place such as that, with their heads touching one wall and their feet another, two women were supposed to be accommodated, and the width they would have would be about, at the outside, somewhere between 1 ft. 9 in., or 1 ft. 10 in. each person. The women would have to double their legs up, like the unfortunate man Daley, who died, and where their knees would have to go did not appear. Taking the height, the cubical feet, therefore, for two women would be about 80 feet each in which to pass the night. That appeared to him to be a matter of great and serious consequence, because by law they were very rarely permitted to confine prisoners in less than between 600 and 700 cubic feet for each prisoner. The Rotherhithe accommodation, therefore, was, to say the least of it, very queer, especially when they considered that the tax was imposed upon the whole area of the metropolis, which was a very rich fund to draw from. He found by the Return that on the 24th January eleven women were accommodated in the different wards in Rotherhithe, with about 71 cubic feet for each person; so that these people had to lie in a space about 5 ft. 1 in. long, which was not certainly above the average height of a woman, and about 1 ft. 9 in. wide. That, he considered, was rather narrow, and closer than people were packed in an omnibus. They used to hear of fat and thin sixpennyworths in an omnibus, and it seemed to him that this accommodation was very insufficient. The area of the wards in St. George's, Southwark, was 178 ft. 6 in., the length

  763
  about 8 ft. 6 in., giving 1,517 cubic feet for twenty women, or about 75 ft. for each woman. He, therefore, asked upon what grounds such a state of things could be justified. On one night he found that fifteen women slept in St. George's, and he should like the problem to be submitted by the Civil Service Commissioners. If fifteen women were lying down on this space of 35 ft. by 5 ft., and five more came in afterwards and laid down upon them, what time it would require for the additional five women to find their way to the ground—because the fifteen must have been touching each other before the other five were admitted. They must lie upon each other like candles in a shop window. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee some information—because it was useless to pass a measure of this kind unless there was some prospect that the poor persons who were taken to the unions would receive that provision which might save them from perishing from want. There was no information how these persons were treated. Whether they were stripped and had to lie naked in heaps, or how they were managed, but he thought it was very unlikely, except under extraordinary pressure, that any person would go to them a second time. The accommodation should be such that it could not fairly be complained of, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure the Committee there must be some mistake about the matter, and that it had been remedied. At all events, it disclosed a state of things which, to say the least of it, was not satisfactory.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he was quite willing to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to insert the words "other destitute persons" after the words "wayfarer, wanderer." With respect to the parishes which had been referred to, where it was considered adequate provision had not been made, he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) thought the figures in the Return were quite correct, and he was glad the subject had been introduced. He had observed the inadequacy of the provision made in these parishes when the Returns were published, and it was asked what power there was of compelling any parish to provide better accommodation. The answer was that those places which did not make sufficient provision would not be certified as having complied with the Act, and therefore would not be re-im-
  764
  bursed for any expenses incurred. There were three parishes that had not been certified in consequence of their not having made adequate provision for vagrants; and two of these were St. George's, Southwark, and Rotherhithe. The accommodation in some of these places was better than it was before. An imperfect attempt had been made to meet what was considered necessary, and it was thought by one parish that when all the other parishes were making enlarged provisions, that particular parish would not have so many applications from vagrants. There had not been any unwillingness on the part of any of the parishes to make ample provision. He (Mr. C. P. Villiers) believed that withholding the certificate would be the best means of securing the adequate accommodation. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) that the figures had not escaped his notice.
  MR. HENLEY: If the right hon. Gentleman said that a place which gave seventy cubic feet for a human being to sleep in was better than under a former state of things before the passing of this Act, he thought it was not a revelation of a very creditable state of things. It was like putting two persons in one coffin to confine them to a space of seventy cubical feet. It was quite clear that poor people would die in the streets sooner than be confined in such places.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: Before the passing of this Act, in many parishes there were no vagrant wards at all, and in some of the rich parishes boards were put up to say there was no admittance. As to the seventy cubic feet of space, there must be some mistake. At Rotherhithe the space was ninety feet, the height being seven feet six inches; in the other parishes it was 109. However, difficulties in the way of providing these refuges had now been removed.
  Amendment (Mr. Bromley) withdrawn.
  Clause amended by inserting the words "or other destitute person."—Mr. Henley.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
  MR. BROMLEYthen formally moved his Amendment, stating that he had also been in communication with the police, who had stated to him that their decided opinion was that the clause of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers) was

  765
  not stringent enough, and would be practically inefficient, and that it would not only entail a great loss of time on the constable, but also a great loss of protection to the public; that the system of issuing orders for relief by ticket was far better. He should not, however, feel justified in pressing his Amendment, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would embody some portion of it in his clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, there was a clause of which the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) had given notice, and to which there was no objection, and he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) would therefore move, in the noble Lord's absence, that the clause be added with an alteration rendered neceasary by the Amendment which had just been made in the preceding clause. The clause would, therefore, run thus—
  "The Guardians of every union or parish referred to in the said Act shall admit without delay, either to the workhouse or to the wards or places of reception provided under the said Act, every poor and other destitute person who shall apply to be admitted during the hours between six o'clock in the evening and eight in the morning in the months between October and March inclusive, and during the hours between eight o'clock in the evening and eight o'clock in the morning in the months between April and September inclusive, and who shall not have applied in the same parish during thirty days previously; and the Guardians shall cause to be furnished to every poor person so admitted such relief under such conditions as the Poor Law Board, under general order, shall direct."
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 1 (Provisions of, 27 & 28 Vict. c, 116 Extended to Michaelmas and Lady Day next.)
  MR. AYRTONrose to move an Amendment the effect of which would be to make the provisions of the Bill permanent. As long as the Bill was known to be temporary only, he did not believe that the different Boards of Guardians would take any trouble or care to go to the expense which would necessarily be caused by carrying out the provisions of the measure. No doubt the condition of many of the wards was unsatisfactory, but the object of the Bill would certainly not be thoroughly attained unless the Bill were made permanent. They must bear in mind, too, that the legislation of to day would take some time before it would be-
  766
  come known to the community at large. An interesting book had just been published, giving an account of the difficulties which a pauper encountered in his endeavour to find where he could be relieved. He was not aware whether the pauper died before he could ascertain what he wanted, but such a result was not unlikely to happen from the intricacies of the Poor Law administration extending over so vast an area. As long as the law remained in abeyance, it was to the interests of the guardians to invest the system of relief with as much mystification as possible, in order to avoid being overrun by paupers. By the Return laid upon the table of the House, which he could not regard as satisfactory, he found that the labour and relief in different unions were very varied. It was, therefore, exceedingly necessary that there should be uniformity of treatment, because there were a great many paupers who always took care to favour the workhouse where they could either get more or better food and less work. As a proof that this feeling existed very strongly among the lower stratum of society, he might instance the fact that, owing to the absence of work on the Sunday, the applications for relief were always greater on the Saturday night than on any night during the week. He believed that the people who were in a habit of writing to a great journal, complaining of the neglect which the poor experienced at the workhouses, generally did so without first making any inquiry. In support of this assertion, he would allude to a fact which had come under his personal observation. On his way to the House one evening he was asked for relief by a man who, in reply to his inquiries, told him he could not get admission to the workhouse as the ward was already full. He accompanied the man to the workhouse and not only found that the statement was incorrect, but that the man himself was a rank impostor. A person who had believed the man's story without inquiry would probably have written upon the subject to the influential paper to which he had alluded. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving to leave out all after "relief," and insert—
  "Of destitute wayfarers, wanderers, and foundlings in the several unions and parishes referred to in the said Act, received and to be received from and after Lady Day, 1865."
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he did not in the least object to the Amendment, as it was in strict accordance with the

  767
  recommendation of the Committee. It had always been intended to make the Bill permanent; but as the Bill had been introduced at the very end of the Session and was threatened with considerable opposition it was thought best not to make that proposition.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half after Three o'clock.