THE PORTSMOUTH ‟CASUALS.”
Some three months ago but few subjects, we imagine, were more freely discussed than the treatment of casual paupers, and the merits or demerits of the various metropolitan boards of guardians within whose jurisdiction those paupers were lodged. Naturally enough, the subject attracted the attention of the Portsea Island Board and of the governor of the workhouse, and the latter entered in a book an account of the ‟experiences” of a number of tramps who occupied the ward for the night, in which ward the ‟casuals” themselves described the treatment they received at the various unions in which they had lodged on the previous night, and gave other details with reference to their calling, the object of their entering the town, &c., &c. Before making any further allusion to this interesting account, we may remind our readers that some three years ago an important alteration was made in the regulations with respect to the admission of tramps to the house. Formerly a tramp applied to the relieving-officer for an order for the union, which was at once granted; and the result was that as many as 70, 80, or even 90 persons were sometimes received at the workhouse on a single night. On this fact being considered by the board, it was resolved that no tramps should henceforth be admitted except on an order from the police-inspectors at the Landport station, and as a compensation for the additional work the guardians agreed to grant an annual allowance of 20l. to those officers. The alteration had the desired effect, for no sooner did the tramps learn that they must be examined by the police before an order for the house would be given, than the number of ‟casuals” speedily diminished, and whereas under the old system the number was seldom less than 70, on the first night of the new arrangements 40 only applied to the police for orders, and in the following week the number was reduced to 17. The cause of this decrease may be easily explained. Many of those who obtained orders from the relieving officers were possessed (for persons of their class) of a considerable sum of money, and as a suspicion of that fact would at the present time subject the applicant to a search by the police and most probably result in a refusal to grant an order, those who shrink from such an ordeal no longer burden the parish with the cost of a supper, a night’s lodging, and a breakfast. Others were, no doubt, scoundrels of no ordinary kind; and as the possession of property, of the ownership of which there might be some doubt, would, in all probability lead to unpleasant results so far as the applicant was concerned, the men of this class judiciously kept at as great a distance from the police-station as they could. Of course at the present time there are some whose character is not the most creditable; but it also appears tolerably certain that the majority of the tramps who now find their way to the union are not of that class who frequent the workhouses from choice, but are driven there from absolute necessity.
One or two instances may be quoted in support of this theory. G―― L ――, a widower 70 years of age, and an agricultural labourer, was born at Baughurst, near Basingstoke, and has brought up a family of 11 children. He had lived six years in a hut on the top of Portsdown-hill, in the immediate neighbourhood of the ‟Crown” beer-house, but was ejected in consequence of the Government requiring the ground for the fortifications. He then went to Purbrook and while his wife was living managed to obtain a comfortable subsistence, she being a laundress and working as such. But on her death some four years ago, he was compelled to leave his lodgings, and had been ‟tramping” ever since. 'The poor fellow stated when he entered the Portsea Island Workhouse on Thursday, the 1st of February, that he had never slept in a workhouse before, but had always stayed at a lodging-house or walked the streets. G―― B―― was a brick-layer’s labourer, belonging to Ryde, where he left his wife and three children a fortnight ago in search of work, but, not having succeeded in obtaining employment, was on his way back again. This was the first time he had ever been in a workhouse. J―― P―’, also a bricklayer’s labourer, belonged to Welwyn, in Hertfordshire, which town he left some four months ago in search of work. He was last employed on the Thames Embankment by Mr. Furniss, the contractor; but 250 men, of whom he was one, were discharged at Christmas, though they were promised that they would be taken on again in the spring. He was now suffering from rheumatism and a disease of the feet. T―― F――, a jobbing carpenter, belonging to Shaftesbury, had ‟had nothing to do” since Christmas. He had slept the previous night at Southampton, and had often, he said, walked the streets all night rather than go to a union.
But there are other cases in which the traces of laziness, and we fear something worse, are unmistakable. One fellow (in this list we forbear to use even the initials), a discharged soldier, had been in every gaol in the county. A second, an Irishman, who had been in England some 35 years, ‟working for different people in London and the suburbs,” said he could do anything!! A third, born at Corfu, had begged a passage to Portsmouth, and for the last two years had ‟tramped” the country. Another, who had served in the navy, and had been paid off from the Buffalo some six or seven years ago, had been ‟on the tramp” ever since.
The contrast in the treatment of the ‟casuals” at the various unions is also somewhat remarkable, if the statements of the men may be believed. One pauper, for instance, stated that he received at the Horndean union 6oz. of bread and cheese and a pint of tea at night; that he slept on a straw bed with a blanket, a sheet, and two rugs, on an iron bedstead; and that he received 6oz. of bread and a pint of gruel in the morning, for which he did no work. A second stated that on entering the Chichester union on the previous night he received 6oz. of bread and a pint of tea; that he slept on a straw bed, with a blanket, sheet, and rug; and that his morning allowance was 6oz. of bread and gruel, for which he picked 2lb. of oakum. At the Botley union the fare was very similar, with this exception—that the pauper had to sleep on loose straw on boards, and was covered by a rug, and had in the morning to pump water for the house. At Southampton the rations appear to be—5oz. of bread at 10 at night, with a similar allowance in the morning, after picking 1lb. of oakum, the paupers sleeping on straw on boards, and covered by a rug. At the Havant union the allowance—according to the statement of a ‟casual”—is 6oz. of bread in the morning, with straw bed and rug for the night. But the treatment at the Petersfield union—if we may credit the story of a man and his wife, the former a wood-turner by trade and belonging to Bradford, in Yorkshire—is cruel in the extreme. Both paupers had left their native town about seven weeks, and had been ‟in search of work” ever since. The night before their arrival in Portsmouth (Friday, February 3rd) they slept at the Petersfield union; ‟but,” said the man, ‟no rations were allowed to me or my wife, either at night or in the morning, and we slept in straw, spread on the flagstones in an outbuilding !” Of course we merely quote the statements of the paupers; but if the allegations be true—and the guardians or the master only are able to answer the question—it is high time some reform was introduced into the Petersfield Union. At the Fareham union the rations are 5oz. of bread at night, but nothing in the morning, either in the shape of food or work. At the Portsea island workhouse, the tramp-ward of which is remarkably clean, it appears that the allowance to each pauper is 5oz. of bread in the evening, and 5oz. of bread and a pint of gruel in the morning. A fire is kept in the ward the whole of the night, and the tramps sleep in their clothes, without any change whatever.
The number of tramps received into the house during the week commencing Wednesday, January 31st, and ending Tuesday, February 6th, was 47 fresh cases, and 20 re-admissions—total, 67, showing an average for each night of 9ֺּּּ‧5. The alteration in the arrangements has therefore, we think, been attended with satisfactory results; for not only must the expenses of the casual wards have been materially reduced, but the guardians of this union and the public have substantial grounds for believing that the majority of the ‟casuals” would not appeal to the parish could they by any means avoid it.