The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-01 00:00:00

The Houseless Poor of London.

On Saturday afternoon, delegates from all Metro-
politan Boards of Guardians assembled at St. Mar-
tin's-hall, Long-acre, at the invitation of Mr. H. B.
Farnall, C. 8., the Commissioner of the Poor-law
Board, to confer together with a view of adopting a
uniform system of treatment of the classes known as
the "Houseless Poor," whose condition has excited
so mucl. attention of late. Mr. Farnall was unani-
mously oted to the chair, and some interesting
facts were elicited in the course of the proceedings.
The CHAIRMAN said the subject which they were
met to discuss could not fail to be of great interest
to them all, for, both as residents of the great city
and a guardians of the poor, they were deeply con-
cerne in the condition of those houseless poor and
wanderers, for whose relief the Legislature had pro-
vided in the enactment known as the Houseless Poor
Act. It seemed to him expedient that the guardians
shou cl meet together to confer as to the adoption of
some uniform treatment of those poor at all the
workhouses in the metropolis, both in regard to the
food given to them and the labour exacted from
them in return for the relief they received, so that
there should be no inducement for those who claimed
this relief to visit one place more than another. He
was particularly desirous that a labour test should
be exacted from those who could work, and that
there should be in every workhouse this' test of indi-
gence, and this would save the able labourer from
the temptation to wander from union to union and
live without employment--an inducement which
was certainly open to him by food and lodging be-
ing given without labour being exacted in return.
(Hear.) The Poor Law Board might have issued an
order laying down certain rules to be followed ; but
it had been thought better to adopt the mode of
asking the guardians themselves to express their
views as to what plan it would be most advisable to
follow in regard to the uniform treatment of the
houseless—(cheers)—and to assist them he proposed
to lay before them a few facts. As they were doubt-
less aware, before the passing of the Homeless Poor
Act the guardians were bound to provide for the
destitute and homeless who applied to them, and
the whole accommodation in the metropolis before
the passing of the act for those known as casuals
would have provided for 997—that was to say, in
the workhouses. Now this room was most unevenly
distributed, for some of the parishes had fair accom-
modation, while others, and some rich parishes
too, had none at all, and he knew instances
of a board being hung outside a workhouse
with " Take Notice.—The Casual Wards are full,"
when there was not a casual ward in the place.
(Laughter.) It was to remedy the injustice of
poverty-stricken parishes having a burden from
which rich parishes were free that the Legislature
passed the act. Society was very properly shocked
at the destitution which was seen in the streets at
night, and a benevolent Legislature determined that
relief should be given to those wretched beings who I
were found sleeping under arches and in ruins, and
herding in any miserable places where they could
shelter themselves in any degree from the weather,
and that they should have the protection to which
they were entitled by the laws of the country. The
result of the passing of the act was the doubling of
the accommodation for the casual poor; for now
2,000 could be sheltered where before nearly 1,000
could be received. The last returns showed that
this accommodation was ample, generally, for the
average relief afforded each night was to 1,238 per-
sons, who were bedded and provided with food
night and morning at the charge of the whole me-
tropolis. This number did not appear to him to be
by any means a numerous body of poor—casual
poor—to be accommodated in this way. Some
people seemed to think that, by thus making ar-
rangements for the care of the houseless, encourage-
ment was given to vagrancy, but a calm considera-
tion of the wholeniatter would dissipate this opinion.
Here, in London, there were nearly 3,000,000 of
people, and when the pauperism of this large num-
ber was examined, it was found that, of these
3,000,000 of people, there were but a fraction
over three in every 100 receiving parochial relief
—that was to say, not three families in every
100, but three persons—counting the old, the
sick, the infirm, and the babe at its mother's
breast. And it was not to be wondered at
that there should be poverty in this large popu-
lation of 3,000,000, taking into account, the effects
of fever, which would drag a working family down
to be for a time recipients of relief—the sudden
stoppage of work, fire, and loss of furniture and
tools, the death of one on whom a family depended,
were all casualtieswhich recruited the ranks of pauper-
ism, and it was not at all surprising that the Lon-
don workhouses should be called upon nightly to
house some 1,200 wanderers. Of course, there were
more sometimes, and generally the same persons
would be found applying over and over again, who
were really homeless and shifted from place to place,
while others it would be found were parishioners—
the chargeable poor of the parish, who would take
their turn of the straw bed and their crust of bread
night and morning, in preference to asking the guar-
dians for relief, hoping doubtless to obtain employ-
ment. It was to be remembered, too, there was no
new obligation imposed by the Homeless Poor Act.
In the old times the masters of workhouses were
under a legal obligation to open their doors at any
time, night or day, and the relieving officers might
have been called at all hours to give necessary relief.
The only change was that the payment for the house-
less was spread over the whole metropolis instead of
some poor parishes being burdened and others get-
ting off. (Cheers.) An opinion had gone forth that
this act was a failure, and this had been broadly
stated, but how it could be so was not shown. The
casual wards of the workhouses were not filled ex-
cept in certain places. Marylebone, for instance,
where the act was now properly carried out, might
complain of the large numbers who received relief
there, but it must be remembered that Marylebone
was a vast parish, and its workhouse was peculiarly
situated for receiving a large number of houseless,
being in a great thoroughfare, and the high road to
the western, northern, and north-western districts.
With regard to the " utter break down" of the act
which was reported during the week in the news-
papers, and which " utter break down" was stated
to be shown from official sources, by giving official
opinions on its working, he would just state that the
official authority was no authority at all. He begged
to state that the Poor-law Board had not asked for
the guardians' opinions, and that no opinions had
been received, but the manner in which the official
opinions had been obtained was by a reporter writing
round to the masters of the workhouses for their
opinion of the act, and which he published as offi-
cial. The masters generally would never like the
act ; it was not to be expected that they would ; and
the fact ought to be known that the guardians had
not been asked for their opinion, and they had not
given it. On the other hand, he had received a let-
ter from the guardians of large and important
parishes, disclaiming all participation in the belief
of their master, that the " act was a dead letter."
(wear.) The act ought to be a great success, and
he thought it had been, even up to the present time,
a very great success, judged by the fact that there
was nothing like the misery and distress about the
London streets to what there used to be. (Hear,
hear.) He was well aware that the management of
the London houseless poor was a difficult and deli-
cate operation, that there was such a thing of so
giving relief as to invite men to become idle, and
that if once the parish loaf Was given away without
necessity, there was a beginning in the way of fos-
tering poverty. He did not want the necessities of
the homeless tested. They came in the garb of
want. They were ragged and hungry ; but if they
got the shelter and fOod which they wanted they
ought to give some work in return. (Hear, hear.)
And this should be done to send back the idle to
honest industry ; to earn their bread by the sweat
of their brow, as all should do, and this
might be
done without any
severity. All the poorpeople who
filled the ranks of the houselesswere not of one class.
There were among thein respectable clerks, broken
clown tradesmen, and skilled mechanics, who could
not, if they sought shelter in the casual wards, break
stones in return for their relief, but they could pick
a given weight of oakum or teaze some bristles,
while the navvy and labourer class could be made

to do the heavier work. It was hard to discriminate
between those who needlessly sought the shelter of
the wards and those whose necessities a impelled
them to come there ; but this would sho v the neces-
sitous, for if an able man or able womln, in return
for six ounces of bread night and !horning and a
straw bed, could do a task of labour, it proved at

once they needed the relief. A case of the break-
down of the act was brought before the public the
other day in a case reported in the papers of a poor
cripple who was refused admittance to a workhouse,
and it turned out that the porter refused her even
with plenty of room in the wards, so that by the
negligence of a lazy man the act was brought into
disrepute. He was glad to be able to say that,
whereas formerly he was always being informed by
letters from the police of the refusal of the work-
house authorities to take in the houseless, he had
only received one letter during the last eight or nine
months reporting such a case, and this would show
that the act was working well. He went on to
suggest that the uniform dietary should be six ounces
of bread and an ounce of cheese to adults and chil-

dren above nine years of age for supper, children
under nine to receive bread and butter ; and in the
morning the same quantity of bread with a pint of
porridge, but he left the whole matter in the hands
of the meeting.

Mr. HARRIS, of the Poor-law Board, gave a de-
tailed description of the dietaries now in use round
London, from which it appeared that there was every
diversity.

A resolution to give bread and porridge during
the winter nights for supper, and bread and porridge
for breakfast was, after a very long and tedious dis-
cussion on details, carried. The delegate from
Marylebone, Mr. Taverner, advocated the giving of
gruel to women and children all the year round for
supper, but the humane suggestion was overruled,
and the proposal to give cheese was denounced by
one of the guardians as the "shadowing forth"
the giving luxuries to paupers. In the discussion
which took place with respect to the labour test one
guardian stated that since his parish had exacted it
the number of applicants for admission had been
reduced by nearly one-half. _ _ _

The resolution that a labour test should be applied
to all able to work was adopted unanimously.
The CHAIRMAN thanked the guardians for their
attendance, and remarked with respect to the re-
fuges, that these institutions relieved a great amount
of distress, but he wished they too would adopt some
labour test.

A vote of thanks to the chairman terminated the
proceedings.

General Grant on the late War.

Some of the best parts of the report are its references to
other generals, and we see their exact value given at once
to the good and the bad, as if they were weighed in the
very scales of justice.

Grant's references to Butler put that doughty personage
before the country in the proper light for the first time.
They show how a practical, sincere man regards such an
empty, blatant pretender, and justly hold him up to con-
tempt. Butler was instructed from the first in the cam-
paign against Richmond that that city was his objective
point, and that he was to co-operate with the army of the
Potomac, and to seize or invest the rebel capital while
Meade engaged Lee on the Rapidan. The plan was per-
feet, and no person with less ingenuity than Butler would
have it found it possible to spoil it. Butler, however,
managed wonderfully not to do what was requisite. He
was shown that Richmond could not be reinforced from
the south or from Lee's army, and was at his mercy ; but
instead of seizing it he sat down at Bermuda Hundred
and wrote despatches and " suffered the enemy to as
completely shut him off from further operations against
Richmond as if he had been in a bottle strongly corked."
Such is Grant's contemptuous disposal of Butler's co-
operation against the rebel capital. Subsequently, when
Grant was crossing the James, the enemy left the road
from Richmond to Petersburgh on Butler's front unde-
fended, and Butler seized it. Grant, seeing the advantage,
sent the Sixth corps to enable Butler to hold what he had
taken, and Butler kept the Sixth corps in idleness, while
the enemy re-captured the road. Nothing but Butler's
Fort Fisher failure could have put a climax to these
achievements. Grant shows how the order for Weitzel to
act against Wilmington was smothered by Butler ; how
Butler went where he was not sent and came away when
there was no reason ; and then how Terry, with nearly
tho same force, accomplished what Butler had declared im-
possible. As the sequel to this Grant merely said, "At
my request Major-General B. F. Butler was relieved, and
Major-General E. 0. C. Ord assigned to the command of
the Department of Virginia and No'rth Carolina." Butler
in this report and Butler before the Committee on the Con-
duct of the War—or making speeches at Lowell—are very
different persons.

As a contrast to Grant's picture of Butler, we may put
his picture of Sheridan. This soldier was always doing
exactly what was wanted, at exactly the right time and in
the neatest possible way. When he commanded in the
Shenandoah 'V alley and Earley lay in his front, Grant see-
ing the danger to us of a defeat there, feared to order bat-
tle without an exact knowledge of the position. He started,
therefore, to see it with his own eyes. He met Sheridan,
however, at Charlestown; and hepointed out so distinctly
how each army lay; what he could do the moment ho was
authorised, and expressed such confidence of success that
there were but two words of instruction necessary—" Go
in I" The victory at Opequan was the result. Butler had
to be hedged round and bolstered up with page on page of
minute instruction, and even den could always find a
reason why he should not do the thing he ought. For
Sheridan two words were enough and the victory came.
Grant tells plainly that he did not like Thomas's delay to
strike Rood as soon as the latter reached Nashville ; yet
he adds, with a grand sense of justice, "His final defeat
of Hood was so complete that it will be accepted as a vin-
dication of that distinguished off'icer's judgment." But he
intimates an opinion that Hood's back was weakened be-
fore he get to Nashville. Speakieg of the battle at Frank-
lin he says :—" This was the first serious opposition the
enemy met with, and I am satisfied was the fatal blow to
all his expectations." Of Ilood's movements past Sher-
man's right to Nashville—that grand piece of strategy
concocted by Davis—we have the simple declaration,
"Had I had the power to command both armies, I should
net have changed the orders under which Hood seemed to
be acting." As Frederick the Great forgave his enemies
the lies they told on account of the blunder they committed,
so Grant could easily tolerate all Davis's speeches for the
sake of that magnificent piece of acted stupidity."
Grant declares that the history of Sherman's flank
movements from Chattanooga to Atlanta " will over be
read with an interest unsurpassed by any thing in history."
The particulars of the growth of that great campaign in
the two minds are marked down with the modesty of a
nature too noble to claim the title of what belongs to
another. Fair tribute is paid to Meade also, whose "com-
manding wpresence of an officer superior to
hirn in rank has
in
has thedntwn from him much of that public
attention that his zeal and ability entitle him to, and
which ho would otherwise have received." But, un-
doubtedly, the best of all Grant's declarations is that in
relation to the qualities of the soldiers :—" It has been my
fortune to see the armies of both the West and the East
fight battles, and from what I have seen I know there is
no difference in their fighting qualities. All that was
possible for men to do in battle they have done. The
Western armies commenced their battles in the Mississippi
Valley, and received the final surrender of the remnant of
the principal army
opposed to them in North Carolina.
The armies of the East commenced their battles on the
river from which the
army of the Potomac derived its
name, and received the final surrender of their old anta-
gonist at Appomatox Court-house, Virginia. The splendid
achievements of each
have nationalised our victories."
This splendid recognition
of the qualities of our soldiers
closes a document that has no equal either for the grand
which it tells its story.—New
events of which it treats or for the admirable, generous,
just, and manly
spirit in
York' Herald. New

---
(ADVERTISEMEN --------
T.) Dyspepsia (indi;estlon), constipa-
tion, debility, consumption, any] all nervous, bilious stomach,
and liver complaints in every stage, are only aggravated and
able
accelerated by drugs of
every description, but perfectly cur-
by Du Barry's health•re.toring
Revalenta Arabica
Food, as proved by thousands of cues which had been con-
sidered hopeless, such as—cough, asthma, also diarrheas,
hmaiorrholds, liver complaints, flatulency, nervousness,
biliousness, fevers, sore throats, diphtheria, catarrhs, colds,
influenza, noses in the head and ear., rheum tism, gout, im-
purities, eruptions, hysteria, neuralgia, irrit ibility, sleepless-
ness, acidity, palpitation, heartburn, headache, debility,
dropsy, cramps, spasms, nausea and sickness, even in preg-
nancy or at sea, sinking fits, bronchitis, scrofula, tightness of
the chest, pains in the pit of the stomach and between the
shou'ders, &c. We quote a few :—Cure No. 46,276. 11rJames
Roberts, timber merchant, of Frimley, Surrey, of 30 years'
diseased lungs, spitting of Wood, liver derangement, and p ar-
tial deainess.—Cure No. 47,121, Miss Elizabeth Jacob., of ex-
treme nervousness, indigestion, gather:ngs; low spirit., and
nervous fancies. —Cure No. 1,771. Lord Stuart de Decies, lord
lieut. of Waterford, of many years' dyspepsia. —No. 19,832.
Fifty years' indescribable agony from dyspepsia, nervousness,
asthma, cough, constipation, flatulency, spasms, sickness, and
vomiting—Maria Joly —Cure No. 51,816. The Rev, James
T. Campbell, Fakenham, Norfolk, of indigestion and torpid-
ity of the liver, which had resisted all medical treatment.—
' In tins, 1 lb., 2s. 9d. ;21b., 4s. 6d ; Mb., lls.; 121 b., 225. ; ?,41b.
408.—Barry Du Barry and C0.,N0. 77, Regent-street, London;
also fbilli tea dealers, 4, King William-street ; likewise
at 61, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 49, Bishopsgate-
street Within ; 63, 1.50, and 298, Oxford-street ; 330, Strand;
54, Upper Baker-street ; 103, Tottenham-court-road ; 94,
Upper-street, Islington, N.; Harvey, ; Close
Brothers, 65, High-street ; and Stubbs, Queen's-terrace, St.
John's-weod, London ; and all respectable grocers and elle-
mists.—Beware of spurious imitations.

The late Fatal Collision in the Channel.

- -a-- -

BOARD OF TRADE INQUIRY.
DOVER, Saturday.
The inquiry into the late catastrophe in the Chan-
nel was resumed this day at the Town-hall, Dover.
His worship the Mayor (Mr. W. Mummery) occu-
pied the chair, and there were also on the bench Sir
Luke Smithett and Dr. Astley, and the two nautical
assessors, Captains Harris and Baker.
George Fredk. Argles, examined by Mr. O'Dowd,
said—l am marine manager to the Hercules Insur-
ance Company. I was a passenger on board the
Samphire on the night of the 13th. I am the author
of a letter inserted in the Times, dated Dec. 23, re-
ferring to this unfortunate affair. The night was
calm and dark—not unusually so—but not hazy. I
went into the cabin for refreshments and remained
a quarter of an hour below. I then came on deck,
and remained there until the collision took place,
which was about 10 minutes afterwards. On look-
ing aft I saw the South Foreland lights. I adhere
to the statement with regard to the weather that I
made irr my letter. I was about midships when the
collision took place. I was not in a position to see
a vessel approaching ahead of the steamer. I did
not notice whether the Samphire had a proper look-
out. There might have been an efficient look-out
for all I know. I saw the bark before the collision

took place. I could not swear whether I saw her
lights.. I discovered her when the captain of the
ISamphire called out " hard a port." She-was just
coming on us. I saw the bark for about 10 minutes
after the vessels separated. I should judge the bark
must have gone a quarter of a mile before I lost
sight of her. When the collision took place the
whole scene on board the Samphire was confusion
and uproar. I founded my statement in the papers,
" The gallant crew displayed their coolness and in-
trepidity by taking possession of the boats and
leaving the captain and several ladies and children,
and all the other passengers, except those few who
by pure physical force got into the boats, to their
fate," on a statement made by the:captain when we
were making a raft. The statement was that the
captain would not lend any assistance, as he had
"only one man left." With regard to my assertion
that the fireman had left, and "we ran the chance
of being blown up as well as drowned," I founded it
upon the same statement. I saw two boats lowered.
They were both the after boats. I saw how the
lowering tackle of the boat thatwasswamped acted.
I assisted to swing her round. There was a rush
towards the boat, and several persons caught hold of
the two tackles. The fore tackle went down first,
but the after tackle would not act. There were
persons in the boat before it was lowered, and the
captain and I with others endeavoured to prevent
them getting into the boat. One of the persons in
the boat was the Russian nobleman who was drowned.
I saw two other persons taken out of the water.
There were some ladies on the deck when this scene of
confusion took place, and there was nothing done to
save them. It was a scramble for the boats. I believe
the captain in:his endeavours to keep the persons out
of the boat that was lost said he wished to reserve
it for the ladies. I did not assist in lowering the
other boat that I have mentioned. I made the state-
ment regarding the plug of the boat in the Times
from what I was told by the correspondent of the
Illustrated London News, who was on board the boat
at the time. The captain did all he could under the
circumstances, and was most active and energetic.
I did not see him go into the water. I asked the
steward if they had any rockets, guns, or blue
lights on board, and he replied that they were all
forward. On re-consideration, the remark I heard
the captain make with regard to the absence of his
men was not made when the raft was in course of
construction, but immediately after the Russian
nobleman was drowned, in reply to the interroga-
tion of the passengers, " Can nothing be done for
him ?" I only saw two lights on deck after the col-
lision, one of which was carried in the captain's
hand, and the other in the steward's. They were
ordinary sea lamps. I asked the steward if he had
any lights, and he replied they were all forward. I
know nothing of the strength or seaworthiness of
the Samphire. I meant, when I asserted that " she
was not fit for such a service," with regard to her
lights and equipments, and not to the vessel herself.
I saw the Belgian mail steamer passing, and we
hailed her. We all shouted together. I believe
that had we had a gun, rocket, or blue light we
should have obtained assistance much sooner. The
captain and steward waved their lanterns to attract
the attention of the Belgian steamboat when she
was passing us ; the whistle was sounded during the
whole time. I was actuated by no personal feeling
towards anyone in writing the letter in question. I
thought it was a public duty.

Examined by Mr. Knocker—l mean when I say
the Samphire was deficient in her light and equip-
ments—the blue lights, guns, and rockets, and life-
buoys.

Captain Harris to Mr. Knocker—Why do you
not disprove this statement ?
Mr. Knocker thought the Court had sufficient
evidence upon the matter. It had been proved in
evidence that there was a magazine on board.
Capt. Baker—The witness does not dispute that
they had them on board, but he does not think they
should have been put in one place.
Witness—l think if the signal apparatus had been
available we should have obtained assistance sooner.
The tackle for lowering one of the boats was out of
order, I do not know how it became full. The diffi-
culty in lowering the boat might have been caused
through the unskilfulness of the hands employed in
lowering it.

Mr. Knocker—Would it have been proper to have
left the boats in the hands of the passengers, that
all the crew might remain on board the, steamer with
the captain?
Witness—l believe that on such a calm night as
that the boats could have been safely intrusted with
the passengers. I don't believe the captain ordered
the crew to get into the boats. I don't believe a cap-
tain who knew his business would do so under the
circumstances. Ido not know that if rockets and
blue lights are kept on deck when they are wanted
they are unserviceable. I think myself qualified to
give an opinion upon where the rockets and blue
lights should be kept. I think some of them ought
to be kept in the captain's cabin on deck. If there
is no captain's cabin, then they ought to be distri-
buted in various parts of the vessel.

Examined by Mr. Fox—l am the marine manager
of an insurance company, but I have had no expe-
rience in nautical matters. In the first part of my
letter I expressed my astonishment at the remarks
appended to the verdict of the jury, " expressing
their admiration of the captain and crew for the
coolness and intrepidity displayed by them." Ido
not mean this to be applied to the conduct of the
captain subsequent to the collision. I don't think
there was a proper look out kept. It is an infe-
rence of my own, drawn from the state of the
night. I know not what look out was kept on the
night in question. I did not express my astonish-
ment at the captain's conduct either before or
after the collision, but because a proper look out
was not kept, and at the remarks of the coroner's
jury. In the next paragraph in my letter I say, " I
owe it as a public duty to give my version of the
affair." I wish the readers of my letter to under-
stand that the facts detailed by me were based upon
my own knowledge of the affair. I considered as
life was jeopardised I had a right to give my opinion
as to how it was jeopardised. I had no opportunity of
seeing the chief mate on board, therefore I don't
know whether he went into the first boat. Ido not
know to my own knowledge that the first boat was
sent on shore for assistance. If a boat is sent on a
special mission by the captain it should be properly
manned. I can't say whether a boat was dispatched
to the bark for assistance. I can't form any opinion
whether it would have been proposed to have sent
the boat to the bark for assistance. If the captain
had sent a boat for assistance it should be properly
manned. I did not hear the captain give any orders
for a boat to go round and pick up those that were
in the water. I did not notice any lifebuoys at the
afterpart of the deck. Some of the passengers might
have taken them. I cannot say how many persons,
or who they were, assisted in building the raft. I
cross the Channel about a dozen times in the year,
but I do not know whether I have travelled in Cap-
tain Bennett's boat before.

By the Mayor—l was not aware that the boat