The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-14 00:00:00

HOMELESS POOR.
On going into Committee of Supply,
Dr. BREWER called the attention of the House to the
unsatisfactory working of the regulations in force to
secure the humane intentions of the Legislature in behalf
of the homeless poor, consequent on the practically indis-
criminate distribution of relief given to the whole class of
applicants, criminal or not criminal, impostors, or
genuine poor ; and moved that vagrants applying for
shelter and food shall be put under the protection, regula-
tion, and management of the police. The hon. gentle-
man went very fully into the subject, and quoted very
largely from statistics bearing upon pauperism in this
country. The vagrant classes, he argued, constituted
too complicated and dangerous an element to be entrusted
to any but the direct executive of the country. He con-
tended that the large proportion of criminals must be
separated from the defenceless -and accidentally poor.
Mr. B. DAVENPORT seconded the motion. He had
long been of opinion that the police should have control
over vagrants. At the same time, he did not think they
should stop there. They must attempt to modify heredi-
tary instincts, and the instincts of a vagrant were preda-
tory. He urged the necessity of educating the children
of vagrants, so that they might not follow the evil courses
of their parents.

Mr. CORRANCE thought the House was indebted to
the hon. gentlemen who had introduced the subject.
He believed that vagrancy and pauperism were distinct.
The hon. gentleman expressed an opinion that the Govern-

ment ought to have taken the matter up, as it was one of
the utmost urgency and importance. He then proceeded
to read a number of extracts to shew the number of
houseless poor and tramps, and the means taken for
accommodation, but he considered that the only real
means of decreasing tramps would be to have a strict and
accurate supervision ; that they should, in fact, be ticketed
by the polices and that the Home Office should take the
matter in hand in place of the Poor Law Board.
Mr. STAPLETON thought it was clearly the duty of the
Home Department to take the most active steps to put
down the harbouring of vagrants, and to see that the tramp
discharged from the workhouse in the morning should not
spend the day in begging and then on coming to the next
parish turn into the casual ward for the evening.
Mr. READ was firmly of opinion that if the house re-
pealed the hawkers license they would open
the floodgates of vagrancy in the rural dis-
tricts. He thought that if every vagrant
was compelled to take a cold bath on his admission
to the vagrant ward, such an arrangement would soon
reduce the number of applicants for the accommodation.
Mr. W. H. SMITH thought that if a system similar to
that adopted at the Depot de Mendicite, in Paris, was
organised in this country, the best results would follow.
The education that was forced on the vagrant in France
was work, and it was so regulated in the Depot he had
referred to that the weak a s well as the strong ha,d to perform
their allotted task. He was strongly in favour of the
utmost care and tenderness being taken of those whose

misfortune was not attributed to their own imprudence ;
but, unfortunately, that was not the class of persons who
filled our workhouses, and therefore some very stringent
measure, such as a labour-test, should be insisted on.
Mr. GOSCHEN said that he and Mr. Bruce had been try-
ing to devise a scheme in order to put a stop to the evils
complained of. It was a mistake to suppose that there
was any divided responsibility between the Home Secre-
tary and himself. They had worked harmoniously
together, and had tried to arrive at a settlement of the
question, but it was impOssible unless the public co-operated
with them. Vagrants, remarked the speaker, tenddd to
feed permanent pauperism, inasmuch as when a vagrant
became sick he became an habitual pauper. It
was impossible by the stringency of the casual ward to
diminish vagrancy, because the casuals did not care what
sort of a ward they slept in so long as they could find a
soft-hearted public during the day. Many remedies had
been tried, but he was disposed to try the power of deten-
tion, which meant a kind of imprisonment. He thought
it might be useful to consider the expediency of changing
the definition of a roving vagabond in such a manner that
a certain number of applications at the casual ward should
constitute an offence. He did not reject the idea of
utilising the police force, •because he thought that in
places where the workhouse staff was small the vagrant
ward might with advantage be at the police-station.
Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH spoke of the action taken
by the Poor-law Board just before the late Government
quitted office, with reference to the question of vagrancy.
He believed what was really wanted above all else was a
uniform system of dealing with the subject throughout the
country. So long, he observed at the close of his speech,
as the public gave alms to an idle and undeserving class
vagrancy would exist.
Colonel DYOTT disapproved of the proposal to convert
the police into relieving officers. He agreed in the pro-
posal to apply the power of detention as a remedy, as well
as concurred with the President of the Poor-law Board in
the expediency of strengthening the definition of a vaga-
bond.

Sir J. C. LAWRENCE observed that there was a tendency
to regard all vagrants as vagabonds, but he knew from ex-
perience that a large portion of the London vagrants
were those who had been suddenly deprived of the means
of employment. He believed that the power of detention
would prove of great advantage, although he was not dis-
posed to sanction more than 48 hours' detention.
Dr. BREWER then withdrew his motion.
THE DISMISSAL OF MR. BARRY.

Mr. COwPER-TEMPLE called the attention of the House
to the correspondence relating to the dismissal of Mr.
Edward Barry from his 'employment as architect of the
Houses of Parliament, and moved that, in the opinion of
the House, the abrupt discontinuance of the employment
of the architect, who had hitherto been engaged when-
ever professional skill and responsibility were required,
at a moment when works entrusted to his direction were
still in progress, was uncalled for, and of doubtful ex-
pediency. The hon. gentleman, at considerable length,
noticed the principal circumstances connected with
Mr. Barry's position as the architect of that House,
and described the nature of his employment. Mr.
Barry was not paid by salary, but by commission, and
he (the hon. gentleman) found that during the last ten
years the commission paid to the architect amounted to
£3OO a-year on the average. He contended that Mr.
Barry's appointment was more an honorary one, and
pointed out that all the large buildings in London had
permanent and salaried architects. He thought the First
Commissioner of Works must show good grounds for the
change. Whatever might be said about the architecture
of the building no one can deny that it was carried
out to perfection in its particular style. The
hon. member held that the contemptuous manner
in which.Mr Barry hap been treated was indefensible.
Mr. AYRTON justified the course which he had taken.
In asking Mr. Barry to give up the contract plans and
drawings of that building, he had acted upon the opinion
of Mr. Hunt, the surveyor of the Office of Works, as given
in another case. The Crown had paid for them, and
therefore they were the property of the Crown. He con-
tended that Mr. Barry knew perfectly well his position,
and that his employment was not permanent. The First
Commissioner of Works read an extract from one of Mr.
Barry's letters in which that gentleman explained his
position. There really was no foundation for the state-
ment that Mr. Barry was dismissed whilst engaged in
certain works which were in progress. As soon as Mr.
Barry certified the amount due to the various contractors,
the money would be paid on his certificate, and his alone.
He alluded to what he called the Institute of Architects,
to which Mr. Barry belonged, and denied their right to
aesert that they alone were competent to deal with mat-
ters connected with the public works. At the present
moment an engineer officer was performing the duties in
connection with the Public Works Department.
Mr. BERESFORD-HOPE said that Mr. Barry's net profits
amounted to only about £179 a year, and therefore his
services had been almost gratuitous. The hon. member
replied to the remarks made by the Commissioner of
Works in reference to the Institute of Architects, and,
under strong excitement, reminded the House that the
Institute ~of Architects was an acknowledged, incorpo-
rated, and representative body, and hadreceived accumu-
lative marks of loyal favour, and formed the governing
body on all such' questions as were in dispute.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said the whole history of that building
was one of profligate expenditure. The original estimate
.for the building was £750,000, and the actual cost was up-
wards of £3,000,000. Upwards of £12,000 had been spent
in frescoes, which were now rotting on the walls.
Hitherto the First Commissioner, of Works had been in
the hands of the architect. He sarcastically alluded to
Mr. Hope's connection with the " family of architects,"
and remarked that they had had Mr. Barry round their
neck too long.

Lord JOHN MANNERS said Mr. Barry had been treated
with unnecessary and exceptional harshness.
After some further discussion, in which Sir William
Tite, Alderman Lawrence, Lord Elcho, Mr. Walter, Mr.
Gladstone—the latter pointing out that the motion was
wrong in stating that Mr. Barry had been dismissed from
employment on works in progress, and that it was not
right to assume that he would not again be employed—