HC Deb 25 February 1870 vol 199 cc826-32
MR. FIELDEN

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the follow-passage, contained in an "Instructional Letter to various Boards of Guardians on their formation," sent from the Poor Law Commissioners' Office, dated the 31st day of January, 1837, and signed "Edwin Chadwick, Secretary," (that is to say)— Where the pauper is the head of a family, and he declares that he has no work, and proves satisfactorily that he can obtain none, either in his own or in any of the parishes within a reasonable distance, he may be offered temporary relief within the workhouse, until he can get some kind of work; relief, wholly or chiefly in kind, being given in the interval to the family, to prevent the necessity of immediately selling off their goods and breaking up the cottage establishment. The pauper should be distinctly told that such an arrangement can only be temporary, in order that his wife and family may seek work for him, and that the strict workhouse principle requires that all the members of a family claiming relief should enter the house, and give up their property for the benefit of the parish. This question was a very important one. He should probably be told, as many hon. Members had told him since he had placed his Notice on the Paper, that this Letter was not one which was ever acted upon. If so, there could be no objection on the part of the President of the Poor Law Board to issue a Minute to rescind it. But there was a strong feeling in the country that the Letter was acted upon in the present day. In the north of England, certainly, the general belief among the poor was that unless they sold their furniture they would not be entitled to relief. This belief had been alluded to in the House by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson-Patten) at the beginning of the cotton famine, and he was told by Mr. Villiers, then the President of the Poor Law Board, that no Order justifying that belief was in existence. But, though there might be no such Order, yet there was this Instructional Letter, which had never yet been repudiated or contradicted. He would read an extract from the speech of Mr. Leppock, the Chairman of the Manchester Board of Guardians, in December last, to show that this was the belief entertained by the poor in the neighbourhood of Manchester— Many of this class—labourers thrown out of employment, although willing to work—had been obliged to emigrate; others had become paupers, while some had disposed of every scrap of furniture they possessed, and there were hundreds of cottages in this city where scarcely any furniture or even a blanket was to be found. It would be the duty of the Guardians to inquire minutely into the cases which came before them; and it would be well for the relieving officers to advise the poor not to postpone coming to the Board till they had disposed of everything they possessed. There seemed to be a mistaken opinion among the poor that they could not get relief if they had a decent house and some furniture. It was of the greatest importance that the poor should be assured that this was an error, and that the Board was willing to relieve them, and would be glad it they would keep their furniture. The sentiments of Mr. Leppock did him honour, though he believed that it was that gentleman who, unfortunately, was in error, and not the poor. He might allude also to an important document as proving that this was the condition on which relief to the poor was to be administered. The President of the Poor Law Board had said on the Minute lately issued and dated November 20, 1869— One of the most recognized principles in our Poor Law is that relief should be given to the actually destitute, and not in aid of wages. And surely a destitute family was a family who had sold their furniture. This confirmed the opinion that prevailed amongst the poor—that they could not obtain relief while they retained their furniture. Let him now call attention to this Instructional Letter. They were told that, "where a pauper is the head of a family, and he declares that he has no work, and proves satisfactorily"—that was, he (Mr. Fielden) supposed to the satisfaction of the Guardians—"that he can obtain none, either in his own or in any of the parishes within a reasonable distance" what was to be done? The natural answer was, that he might have relief; he had done all that an honest man could do; he had gone through his own parish and through the adjoining parishes to obtain employment; and he had satisfied the Board of Guardians that he had done so. What was he to have then? He was told that "he may be offered temporary relief within the workhouse until he can get some kind of work." The man was to be admitted into what he regarded as to all intents and purposes a prison, where he was separated from his wife and children, locked up at night, stripped of the clothes in which he entered, and clothed in the dress in which we put those in our jails who are awaiting trial. But this was not all. While the man, who was willing to work, and had done all that he could to obtain work, was separated from his family and kept within the walls of this prison, he was to be "distinctly told that such an arrangement can only be temporary, in order that his wife and family may seek work for him." Could anything be conceived more unjust, more cruel? The man who had honestly tried to get work—for he was bound to satisfy the Guardians of that in the first instance—was shut up, in order that his wife, with, probably, two or three little children, and one, perhaps, on her back, might go seeking about for the employment which her husband had been unable to find. The creature that could conceive the idea of this refined cruelty was not a man, he was a demon in; human form. The Letter went on to say that "the strict workhouse principle requires that all the members of a family claiming relief should enter the house, and give up their property for the benefit of the parish." Enter the workhouse or starve was the choice thus put before them. Surely it could be no wonder that such a system had practically failed. It had created the army of vagrants which the Guardians and the Poor Law Board were now trying in vain to control. It was not the idle vagabond alone who was thus dealt with, but the honest and deserving man—the man who was willing to work. Such a man would not go into the Union workhouse to be separated from his wife and children. He and his wife would not submit to this. After parting with their all they went to the road; they slept under hedges and in barns; they went to the nearest town, and often found their way to London. Dr. Southwood Smith confirmed this state of things in his Report to the London Fever Hospital in 1844. At page 44 he said— A large proportion of the subjects of fever, received into the Hospital daring the past year, were agricultural labourers and provincial mechanics, who had been induced to leave their native counties in search of work, and who, either on their road to the metropolis, or soon after their arrival in it, were seized with the disease. The causes assigned for their illness, by these poor creatures themselves, were various, some stating that it was owing to sleeping by the side of hedges, others to want of clothing—many being without stockings, shirts, shoes, or any apparel capable of defending them from the inclemency of the weather; while others—and these constituted a very large proportion of the number—attributed it to want of food, being driven by their intense hunger to eat raw vegetables, turnips, and rotten apples; and certainly their appearance, in many instances, fully corroborated the truth of their representations. He (Mr. Fielden) told the House that if they persevered with this system, attempting to drive the honest, hard-working poor into the workhouse, the necessary result would be that the vagrant and criminal classes would go on increasing to such an extent that it would be an utter impossibility to put them down. In fact the state of affairs would become so fearful that it would end in a revolution. In order, therefore, to know whether the Government intended to persevere in this course, he had to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether this is still the principle by which the Board directs the administration of relief; and, if not, whether he is prepared to issue a Minute rescinding this objectionable Instruction?

MR. GOSCHEN

, in reply, said, the Instructional Letter to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, and which he properly mentioned was dated in the year 1837, had long since been superseded by the General Orders of the Board; and, therefore, so far as the Poor Law Board was concerned, and so far, he believed, as regarded the public, the Letter was exactly in the same position as if it had been withdrawn. Indeed, so obsolete had it become that it was very difficult now to obtain a copy of the Letter. There were three points raised by the hon. Member. One was the suggestion in the Letter that the head of the family should be taken into the workhouse temporarily, while his wife and family were to seek work for him. That practice, which the hon. Gentleman had justly condemned as cruel and foolish, had entirely ceased; it was not enforced either by the out-door relief Prohibitory or Regulation Orders, but, on the other hand, he freely admitted that the workhouse test had been made more efficient since 1837. The Letter was used temporarily; but when the Act of 1834 came into full force, and Union workhouses were built, it ceased to have any operation, and out-door relief was altogether prohibited in agricultural districts. The hon. Member asked whether the Government considered it right to remain on the same line, as regarded the workhouse as a test, on on which they had hitherto been progressing. He confessed, so far as he was concerned in the administration of poor relief, he should be sorry to do anything to smooth the way for more paupers to be on the rates, or in any degree to relax the workhouse test. The hon. Member had pointed to the increased number of vagrants, which they all deplored; but he must remind the hon. Member that it was a great question whether the whole system of outdoor relief was not responsible for that increase. When the Act of 1834 was first vigorously applied there was a decrease of paupers; but when it became impossible in large towns to find work-house accommodation there was an increase; and any relaxation in the shape; of out-door relief would be followed immediately by an increase in the number of paupers. It stood to reason—it was so easy to receive money from the rates—that there was a great temptation to paupers who placed themselves in that condition to continue in it. This was too large a question to argue on the present occasion; but he believed they had now to deplore the evils of increased pauperism because the administration had been too lax, not because it had been too severe. The hon. Member said it was hard that an able-bodied person should be put to the workhouse test. But was there any other country that gave relief, compulsorily, to the able-bodied labourer at all? In Scotland the able-bodied were entitled to no relief whatever. In England that class was entitled to relief in the Union; but nothing could be more unwise than to relax the Order relating to out-door relief. The increase of paupers was greatest, not where the in-door test was enforced, but in large towns, where it was impossible to apply that test thoroughly. There was another and somewhat difficult point to which the hon. Member alluded as regarded the furniture of the applicants for relief. He believed the hon. Member had stated the law correctly. The law said the man must be destitute, and he was glad to hear the hon. Member state that such was the opinion of the labouring classes, and that they were prepared rather to sell their furniture than apply for relief. That was consistent with what one heard on every side—that rather than become paupers and a burden to the community they would make real sacrifices and endure many hardships. It was, of course, impossible to apply the rule absolutely, as if it were of iron; it could not be done; but, as a general rule, certainly it ought to be laid down that, in the case of the able-bodied, so long as he had means he ought not to receive parish support. He was aware that in Manchester they had resorted to a plan in cases of great pressure—namely, taking care of the furniture of the pauper while he was in the workhouse—and such cases might occur, but they must be exceptional. He had now, he believed, answered all the points stated by the hon. Member, and he could only add that he should be sorry to issue any Minute that might lead to the opinion that it would be wise or in the interest of the working class to relax the system of in-door relief.