COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 02 March 1863 vol 169 cc968-80

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Extension of Powers of Union Relief Aid Act of 1862).

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he wished to move the insertion of words to limit the duration of the Bill to Midsummer day next.

Clause amended, and agreed to.

Clause 2 (Limit of time for issuing Orders).

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

proposed, to leave out from "day of" to the end of the clause, and to insert "September next."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Construction of the Act) agreed to.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he would then move to insert the following clause after Clause 1:— (Repayment of Sums borrowed.) Any sum borrowed under the authority of this Act may be repaid by equal annual instalments, not exceeding fourteen.

Motion agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he had then to move the insertion of the following clause: — (Interpretation.) The word 'expenditure' in section Five of the said Act shall be construed to include the amount paid under any order of contribution issued by the Poor Law Board, pursuant to the said Act or this Act.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

said, he wished to suggest whether his right hon. Friend would not authorize Boards of Guardians to borrow from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners; and if he would, whether it would not be desirable to provide for that power in the present clause. He had a natural reluctance that the county of Lancaster should be the first to ask for such a power, but, on looking back, he found very memorable instances in which power to borrow from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners had been allowed under precisely similar circumstances. In the Report of a Committee which sat in 1810, there was a reference to a power of borrowing from those commissioners in 1793, when certain London merchants in distressed circumstances were thus assisted. A similar case occurred in 1825, and, he believed, also in 1847, to relieve distress in London and other parts of the country. He would therefore suggest that the guardians of Lancashire should be authorized to raise money from the Commissioners. Banks in Manchester had been applied to, but they stated that it was not in their line of business to lend money on the terms proposed, and private persons were equally reluctant to lend money to be paid in annual instalments. The consequence was, that the guardians were obliged to pay a much larger rate per cent than they would have to do under other circumstances, whereas they might get money from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners at 3½ per cent.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, his hon. Friend had pursued an unusual course, and was raising a very important question. The clause which had been moved had no reference to borrowing from the State or the Exchequer Loan Commissioners. It referred to the Act which he was seeking to continue, and in which it was provided that the guardians might borrow money on the security of the rates-—which was altogether a transaction of their own—and that they should have fourteen years for repayment instead of seven, as at first intended. He would ask his hon. Friend to wait until the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), who had given notice of a similar proposition, should bring it forward.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

said, he had been under the impression that the hon. Member for Oldham had withdrawn his proposal.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. E. C. EGERTON

moved the insertion of a clause providing for the Apportionment of contribution for Unions in two or more counties according to the annual rateable value of so much of the Union as shall be situate within such counties respectively.

Motion agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. BAZLEY

said, he wished to move the insertion of a clause empowering the overseers of townships where the expenditure for the relief of the poor should have exceeded the rate of 3s. in the pound to borrow money from time to time, with the consent of the Poor Law Board, as they shall think necessary to meet such excess.

Motion agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), which stood next on the paper, to insert a clause—"Power to Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance Money to Unions"—could not be brought forward without the consent of the Crown, inasmuch as it referred to the appropriation of public money.

MR. HIBBERT

said, that the clause of which he had given notice, empowering the Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance money to unions, was one which would, in his opinion, be productive of considerable advantage without inflicting a loss upon any parties. That clause was as follows:— The Public Works Loan Commissioners, as defined by the Act of the 19th year of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter 17, may, out of the Funds for the time being at their disposal, advance to any Union such sum or sums of money as such Union may from time to time be empowered to borrow under the authority of this Act, subject to the following regulations:—1. No Union shall borrow any money from the said Commissioners under this Act until the order of the Poor Law Board has been issued for the purpose. 2. The interest payable in respect thereof shall be at the rate of £3 5s, per annum on each hundred pounds. 3. The period for repayment of any sum shall not exceed fourteen years. It was not an entirely new principle that the Government should lend money for the relief of the peer, as by the Act of 1817, when the Public Loan Commissioners were first appointed, they were empowered to advance money, not only for drainage, piers, harbours, and other public works, but also for the employment of the poor in parishes of Great Britain. Though it might be true to a certain extent that the Boards up to the present time had experienced little or no difficulty in procuring money under the Act of last Session, it should be recollected that they had required less money during the last year than they would need in the next twelvemonths, in consequence of the largo subscriptions collected to relieve the distress in Lancashire. If the voluntary subscriptions ceased, and the entire relief of the distress were thrown on the unions, it would be with the greatest difficulty that they could tide over the crisis. The pressure in some of the unions had already been very severe, for he found that in the Union of Glossop the cost of the relief during the first week of February was at the rate of 9s. 3d. in the pound from the union, and 14s. 8d. from the relief committee, equal to a total annual charge of £1 3s. 11d. in the pound upon the rateable value; in Ashton the charge was at the rate of 6s. from the union, and 16s. 4d. from the relief committee, equal to a total of £1 2s. 4d.; and in Preston it was at the rate of 5s. 5d. from the union and 6s. 3d. from the relief committee, equal to a total of 11s. 8d. It also appeared that there were at present 470,000 persons in the receipt of relief, at a weekly cost of £39,000; and those figures showed that the greatest difficulty must henceforth exist in meeting the emergency. He believed, that if the Government did not give the slight relief he now asked for, the unions would be obliged to come to Parliament before the end of the Session and demand a national grant. He therefore trusted that the President of the Poor Law Board would take into favourable consideration the present proposition.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he had to remind the hon. Member, that as the clause could not be put, there was no question before the Committee. It proposed to give powers to the Public Works Loan Commissioners to appropriate public money in a manner not authorized by the existing law. If that were done, it must be done by an Act of Parliament introduced with the consent of the Crown.

LORD EDWARD HOWARD

said, he would move that the Chairman report progress, in order that he might have an opportunity of expressing his approval of the proposal contained in the clause. He believed that such a course would afford a very proper mode of employing the public money, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the guardian of the public purse, would introduce a Bill for the purpose of giving the Commissioners the proposed power. Money had been advanced by the Government to promote agricultural improvements, railways, and other things, and he thought that a loan might legitimately be made to the unions. The fact was that the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Villiers') concession of power to extend the loan over fourteen years made matters worse instead of better for the unions, because they would have to pay interest for a longer period. He moved that the Chairman report progress.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it was not regular to move that progress be reported merely for the purpose of raising a discussion on a matter with which it was not competent for the Committee to deal.

MR. J. B. SMITH

said, he only wished to state, that if the subject could have been properly discussed, he would have proposed that the powers of the Commissioners should be similar to those which they exercised in the case of advances for the improvement of lands, making the principal and interest of the loans repayable at 6½ per cent, for a period of twenty-two years. The object he had had in view was to afford Her Majesty's Government an opportunity of more fully considering the matter before the Committee. He had been informed that great difficulty was experienced in the manufacturing districts in raising money for the relief of the poor, and he had no doubt that that difficulty would every day increase. The matter therefore required the serious consideration of the House itself. Why should not the Government assist the manufacturing districts in the present emergency by enabling them to borrow the money which might be considered requisite on the lowest possible terms? He hoped the matter would be reconsidered by the Government, especially as it could be done without incurring any loss.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he did not desire to prolong a discussion which had been pronounced irregular, but, at the same time, he was unwilling that the Committee should suppose that this matter had been overlooked by the Government. The effect of the Amendment he had introduced was to render the prolongation of the period of any loan optional, and not compulsory. The hon. Member for Oldham appeared to think that the Exchequer Loan Commissioners had command of an unlimited sum to be applied to any object for which a grant might be made; but that was not the case. It would be seen by the Act of Geo. IV., the powers of which had been from time to time renewed, that a specific sum was voted to the Commissioners for a specific purpose. No power was given to the Commissioners to advance money for the purpose for which it was desired by the hon. Member. If hon. Members referred to the Act, they would find that the particular works to which money was to be devoted were specified as works of utility, and it was to be granted according to the amount which might be in hand. And even with respect to advances made in connection with the poor, the nature of the work required to be done by the poor was always distinctly defined. The proposal of the hon. Member for Oldham was, that there should be a grant for the maintenance of the poor or for defraying the current expenditure for their relief. Now, a grant for such a purpose had never been made, and before such a. principle were sanc- tioned, he thought it ought to receive the serious consideration of the House. If any grant were to be made, the unions requiring it must state a definite sum; but no specific sum had been mentioned. He was not going into the question whether or not it was sound policy for the State to make advances in order to assist the manufacturing districts. He did not deny that a time might come when advances would be necessary, but no precedent existed, and up to the present moment the Government had seen no reason to justify the step suggested by the hon. Member for Oldham. They had not heard that the guardians were unable to obtain money, that it was impossible to collect the rates, or that the funds which had been provided had been exhausted. There was evidence, indeed, of an opposite character; but, at the same time, whenever any hon. Member should think it his duty to ask for a Vote in aid of the distressed districts, the whole matter would be deliberately considered by the Government.

MR. BAINES

said, it seemed to him that it would be altogether unwarrantable for the Committee at that time to make any grant of public money for the relief of the distress in the cotton manufacturing districts, and he believed that the Members for Lancashire and Cheshire did not wish for a grant of that nature. All the Members for those counties with whom he had conversed repudiated the idea. What they wanted was, not a Vote of money, but such facilities as Government could afford through agencies of which it had the command, to enable them to obtain sums which they would borrow upon their own security, which they would repay to the last farthing, but which it was most important they should procure on the lowest possible terms. The country was bound to meet the distressed districts half-way, to show that it respected in the highest degree the manner in which they had conducted themselves, and that it felt for the heavy and unprecedented calamity to which they were subjected. He thought the Government might easily do that which the hon. Member for Oldham had asked them to do. The case was one of peculiar and extreme distress, affecting the largest branch of our manufacturing industry, and involving a most important part of the community. One-fourth of the entire population of the afflicted unions was in the receipt of relief, either from the parochial rates or from the relief committees. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) stated lately that the loss was from £11,000,000 to £12,000,000 annually, but he (Mr. Baines) believed that the loss of wages alone was £9,000,000 a year; and if they added to that the loss of all profits on the part of the millowners, and the loss of rents on property, the loss would amount to nearly £20,000,000 a year. There was every probability that the distress would exist for some time longer, but he firmly believed that prosperity would eventually be restored to that manufacture. Cotton could be grown in a great portion of the world, extending over 60 degrees of latitude; and though some time was required to cultivate a sufficient quantity, he believed that the required quantity would be produced, and that again the machinery of Lancashire and Cheshire would be set going. Inasmuch, then, as the distress was peculiar and extreme, as it would exist but for a limited period, and as there was a certainty that there would be the ability to repay the amount borrowed, it seemed to him that the Government were called upon to do everything they could to provide facilities for obtaining the desired loans.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

said, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board should have read him a lecture upon the impropriety of introducing the subject of a loan before the hon. Member for Oldham had brought forward his clause. The right hon. Gentleman must have done so with a full knowledge of the fact that the clause in question could not be discussed at all.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he was not aware that the clause could not be considered until the circumstance was pointed out by the Chairman.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

said, he should however maintain that the observations he had made were strictly in order, inasmuch as he merely suggested to the Government to consider whether they could not give further facilities to the manufacturing districts by enabling the Exchequer Loan Commissioners to lend them money. He had in his pocket the latest report of Mr. Farnall, from which it appeared that in Lancashire at that moment, out of a population of 1,900,000 souls, there were 23 per cent receiving relief of one kind or another. In the town of Preston there were 33 per cent in the same condition. Under such circumstances the representatives of the distressed districts were justified in taking every opportunity to impress upon the Government the necessity of providing against any increase in the existing enormous amount of distress. The right hon. President of the Poor Law Board was wrong in stating that there was no precedent for the proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham. He had already cited more than one instance in which advances were made to the merchants of London. Another reason why the distressed unions should be allowed to borrow money from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners was, that the granting of such a power would remove many objections which were entertained to the Bill as it stood. Great dissatisfaction existed in the manufacturing districts with the principle on which the rate in aid was carried out, and which he believed was not, as had been stated by the President of the Poor Law Board, in accordance with the statute of Elizabeth. That statute said that when one union could not support its own poor, it should go upon the adjoining union; but in the present case the President of the Poor Law Board had defined the inability of any union to support its poor to be a rate of 3s. in the pound. The expenditure of such a rate enabled it to go on another union, and then the inability of the union was defined by a rate of 5s. in the pound, which extended the liability to the county. This was an entirely different law altogether from that of Elizabeth; and tenants complained that they should be obliged to contribute under circumstances which they could not contemplate so as to enter into arrangements with their landlords. He would suggest that the distressed unions should have the power of borrowing money at a less percentage, and repayable over a greater number of years; and then, if his right hon. Friend would consent to it, he would recommend that the limit at which the distressed unions should come upon the neighbouring unions should be raised from 5s. to 6s. But he would impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the expediency of giving greater facilities to the unions for borrowing money, so as to relieve other unions as far as possible from the burden of a rate in aid, which they believed to be thoroughly unjust.

MR. HUMBERSTON

said, he should maintain that there was no new principle in making advances for the support of the poor. The 43 Elizabeth authorized the levying of rates, not only for the relief of the poor, but for setting them to work. Nothing could be more irksome than the compulsory idleness to which thousands were now consigned in the manufacturing districts; and it would be a most legitimate course for the House to authorize the Government to grant loans to Boards of Guardians, who had ample security to offer, with a view to check this evil. There was a strong objection to the application of the rate-in-aid principle, the money obtained by which was found to be too easily obtained, and might be recklessly squandered. Although, indeed, there was no reluctance to grant a rate in aid when all other means had failed, yet it was felt that it ought to be kept as a last resource. If the Government would give the unions sufficient power and facilities for borrowing, many of them would be able to support and set to work their own poor, without calling for rates in aid from other places. The gross annual rateable value of the property in the Union of Ashton-under-Lyne exceeded £300,000, and surely the guardians of that union might raise at least £100,000 if necessary by loan. Up to the 31st of January last, no less a sum than £70,000 had been voluntarily advanced from different funds to the Union of Ashton-under-Lyne. Surely, then, a union having had that assistance, and possessing such large means of its own at command, ought to be called upon to exercise its power of borrowing money to such an extent as the Poor Law Board might deem just, before it could claim the benefit of a rate in aid.

LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH

said, he would add his voice to that of other Gentlemen who had urged the Government to take into their serious consideration the propriety of granting money through the Loan Commissioners, as being the fairest mode of meeting the present great emergency. By the time the Bill expired he was sure it would be found impossible to re-enact the rate in aid, so extremely unjust was it in its operation.

MR. DODSON

said, that the difference between the statute of Elizabeth and the measure under consideration, was, that the statute of Elizabeth left it to the discretion of the local justices to say when a parish should be aided by its neighbours, while the Bill fixed the limits, and in his opinion fixed the limit at a low point for wealthy Lancashire. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) was sanguine that prosperity would shortly be restored to the cotton districts—that the weavers would return to their looms, and that everything would return to its former state. Well, he only hoped that that might be so, but it was certainly no argument for doing what had been proposed by hon. Members. He might remark, too, that the precedents quoted for granting loans of the public money for this purpose were all drawn from the evil times, before the passing of the new Poor Law, and he thought the House ought to hesitate before it followed them on this occasion. If, as stated by the hon. Member for Leeds, the distress was to be merely transitory, there seemed to be less reason for calling on the Public Exchequer. The difficulty was not so much the largeness of the demand made for the support of the poor, as the suddenness with which the rates had increased. There was a manufacturing town in Leicestershire where the rates had for many years been 5s. in the pound, and where they were now 8s.; but the Bill did not apply to that county. If it could maintain its own poor, there was no reason why the manufacturing parishes of Lancashire, when things had settled down, should not likewise be able to do the same. If, however, rates were to be permanently increased in Lancashire, there must be a proportionate alteration in the amount of rent received by the landlords; and any increase of the facilities for borrowing would be merely a staving-off of this inevitable arrangement. As the House would have another opportunity of considering the question before the end of the Session, the Government, he thought, were not called on to commit themselves at that time to the principle of loans of public monies.

MR. BAINES

I did not say that the distress would be of brief continuance; on the contrary, I said that it would have a considerable continuance, but that ultimately a return to prosperity was certain.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought that before the Government asked the Committee to come to any decision, they ought to put before it in a plain and definite shape how much the counties in question had actually raised. Up to that time no such information had been given. The expenditure for a week, or for a given number of weeks, had been multiplied to show what the yearly amount would be at a similar rate; but what the Committee wanted was an accurate statement showing how much had been actually raised within the year, and then it could be seen what ground there was for making such an unusual application. The hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Dodson) thought it very odd that people should dislike a rate in aid. Most persons objected to pay money, and Lancashire had shown herself quite as sensitive on that point as any other part of the country with which he was acquainted. It was very fortunate, he thought, that a limit had been fixed, and that it had not been necessary to determine by an appeal to the Courts what constituted inability to pay. He did not say whether in fixing that limit the proper amount had been adopted; but he remembered that when the debate took place the Members for Lancashire were by no means anxious to have the limit fixed too high. The hon. Member for Leeds had said that it was only a case of persons asking for facilities to borrow money upon property affording ample security. That did not correctly represent the facts. The unions wanted to borrow upon Government security at a less rate of interest than they could obtain it themselves in the open market. Well, the question was whether they could make such a case as would justify the Government in giving their security, and the basis of such a case was the amount already raised stated in figures, and not mere estimates in conjecture. The information for which he had asked was therefore indispensable. A 1s. rate in Lancashire would produce about £350,000, while at that time it was quite impossible to give an opinion how many shillings in the pound had been raised. The proposition was one of an unusual, and, if not maturely considered, possibly of a dangerous character, for nothing gave greater encouragement to lavish expenditure than a facility of borrowing at low rates. No one could prophesy how long the present state of things would last. It was important, therefore, to ascertain whether it was intended, whatever the duration of the crisis, to keep these people in idleness. A great temptation was held out to those who might want to employ these people again—he did not say they would yield to that temptation; but the Committee ought to bear in mind that to keep the working classes idle for a lengthened period was to incur great risk of demoralization, and that, once demoralized, the bad effects did not pass away in a single generation.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]