The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-19 00:00:00

METROPOLITAN POOR BILL.

The Earl of DEVON said that in introducing this bill
for a second reading he might mention that it was a most
imp emit one with regard to the poor in the metro-
polis. The bill bad a threefold purpose—first, to pro-
vide for the sick and miserable; secondly, for the
proper care of the poor as regarded the workhouses;
and, lastly, for a general revision of the whole conduct
towards the metropolitan poor. When it was taken into
consideration how much difference there was between the
poor in the country and the metropolis, the necessity for
this bill would be thoroughly appreciated. In the
country workhouses there were only 14 per cent.,
while in the metropolis there were 37 per cent.
Of late years care had been taken to investigate into
the position of the sick poor, and one of the most impor-
tant questions to be considered was the amount of accom-
modation that could be given to them in the various work-
houses of the metropolis. It was considered necessary that
for 500 persons there should be 1,200 cubic feet of space.
but in no workhouse was there more than 850 feet. To
guide. them in the matter they lied had the cases of
Timothy Daly, who died in the Holborn Workhouse in
December, 1864, and of Richard Gibson, who died at the
St. George's Workhcuse ; and, under these circumstances,
inspectors had been appointed, who had pronounced that the
sick-wards were inadequate and insufficient, and that
in addition to these reports, among other circumstances,
proclaimed the same thing. From tins° circumstances,
he (the noble earl) should, without hesitation, contend that
there were just grounds for the Poor Law Board to take
ample steps in the matter. That house and the country
at large mustbe indebted to the exertions of that noble lady
(Miss Nightingale) who had exhibited such sympathetic
and loving attention all matters connected with the
sick and poor, and bad shown how much by judicious ma-
nagement might be done to alleviate the miseries of disease.
Tho noble earl then reviewed the precise terms of the
bill which would be adapted to the necessities of the poor
and sick, but would not in any degree interfere with the
action of the Poor-law Board. That would be for the
creation of fresh districts, where the poorshould be relieved
the foundation of dispensaries, the appointment :of paid
nurses, the compensation to medical officers, the establish-
ment of extended accommodation for pauper lunatics,
and the just relief of all distressed persons. He therefore,
in full confidence, well knowing that it was almost unani-
mously agreed to in the other house, moved the reading
of the bill a second time.
Lord KIMBERLEY said that ho considered that the
bill reflected great credit upon those who framed it,
but he could not help commenting upon a remark
made by the noble earl opposite, that the present
bill did not reflect upon the local guardians ; but he
(the noble eral) considered that it did se ; but in
that respect, he must say that ho thought that the
Poor-law Board should be free from that system of jeal-
ousy which had been exhibited towards it. These
boards should undoubtedly have the power to enforce
what they considered locally necessary without being
obliged only to take evidence in the matter by affidavits
in a court of justice. He cordially,approved of the clauses
in the bill.

The bill was then read a second time.
(LEFT SITTING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—Tms EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
NEW MEMBER.
Sir S. NORTECOTE took the oath and his seat for North
Devon.
THE REFORM BILL.
Mr. MILL gave notice that in committee he should
move that clauses 74-5-6 the word " man " bo omitted and
the word "person" inserted ; and also that clauses 8 to 16
be omitted, and that certain words embodying personal re-
presentation be inserted.
BRIBERY. _ _

Lard 11. THYNNE asked the Secretary of State for
the Home Department whether ho proposed to call the at-
tention of the Lord Chancellor to those magistrates who had
been reported on by t he commissioners who lately sat on the
corrupt boroughs, as being privy and assenting to corrupt
practices, with a view of their being struck of the save-
ral commissions of the pace to which they may belong.
Mr. WALPOLE said he did not know enough of the
facts of the case tt. give Ititir an answer.
THE REPORTERS', GALLERY.
Dr. BRADY asked the First Commissioner of Works
why it happened that, while accommodation was provided
for the London press in the Reporters' Gallery, the repre-
sentatives of the Irish and Scotch journals were excluded
from all facilities for reporting the proceedings of the
house ?
Lord J. MANNERS said the control of the Reporters'
Gallery was confided to the Sergeant-at-Arms, and ar-
rangements had been made, as far as possible, to accom-
modate the representatives of the press. The facilities of
the electric telegraph wore largely adopted by the provin-
cial press, but notwithstanding that assistance the accom-
modation afforded for reporting the proceedings of that
house was not made simply for the metropolitan press. He
could not hold out any hope of an enlargement of the gal-
lery.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. BENTINCK asked the hon. member for Leicester
whether he would enlarge his motiotfor an address to the
Crown to remove Mr. Churchward from the commission of
the peace so as to include all magistrates who had been
found guilty of, or consenting or privy to, corrupt prac-
tices by bribery commissions ?
Mr. TAYLOR said he thought the hon. member was
hardly serious in asking the question. He had given
notice of a specific case, with the facts of which he had
made himself acquainted, and he was now asked to extend
it to persons of whom he knew nothing. jlear, hear.)
Ho could not accede to the request of the hon. member.
Mr. BENTINCK gave notice that he should move an
amendment to the motion when it was brought forward to
the effect be had stated.
Sir R. KNIGHTLEY asked the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer on what day ho proposed to introduce his bill for
the better prevention of bribery and corruption at elections,
which he had promised he would introduce at the same
tune that he brought forward the reform bill, and which
promise ho had not redeemed ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would certainly lay the bill on the tale before the holi-
days, but he could not then state the exact date. It
would not, however, be before the second reading of the
reform bill.