AMENDMENT OF THE NEW POOR-LAW. (Hansard, 1 May 1838)

§ Lord Wynford

pursuant to notice, begged, leave to lay on the Table a bill to amend the New Poor-law in certain particu- 732 lars. The noble Lord was understood to say, that whatever opinion he might have as to the constitution of the board which his noble Friend had described as "the three kings of Somerset-house," it was not his intention to propose any change in that respect, particularly as a year and a half had only to elapse before the whole subject-matter must undergo the reconsideration of Parliament. Nor did he propose the entire repeal of the Act, although, undoubtedly, many were anxious to go that length. His amendments immediately referred to the exercise of the authority exercised in certain cases under the bill. Their Lordships had heard to-night of many grievous abuses, which should be put a stop to, and which, if distinctly proved, ought to be severely punished. But he would not dwell on those abuses, because he considered the present law of the land sufficient to punish every abuse of authority; and he had often thought it would be much better for those who declaimed upon such topics at public meetings, and discussed them in newspapers, to institute prosecutions against the parties implicated. It was not by discussions in newspapers, it was only in a court of justice, such questions could be clearly and calmly considered. If the parties were found guilty, they would be promptly and severely punished. Every one of the cases which had been brought forward was entitled to consideration; but he was almost led to believe that there was no truth in them, or prosecution of the supposed offenders would have taken place. Every public officer who had been guilty of any neglect or abuse of his office was liable to be indicted. In the Bridgewater Union, for instance, where some of the poor were represented to have been actually poisoned, others nearly poisoned, and all the inmates of the workhouse much injured by unwholesome gruel, there must have been the greatest neglect on the part of those in the neighbourhood who were acquainted with the facts, in not instituting proceedings against the authorities; for no one could deny that the poor-law guardians, overseers, and all persons concerned, might, in that case, have been indicted for manslaughter. In the same way, with respect to those emaciated miserable beings whose health had been destroyed in the workhouse, there was no cruelty which could be practised against the poor of this country which was not punishable. Nor let it 733 be said, that prosecutions in such cases were attended with great expense, for, by a late Act of Parliament, the magistrates had the power of awarding costs, and on a most liberal scale, in cases of misdemeanours. The law being then sufficient to punish abuses, every public officer being indictable for any abuse of his authority, and there being, in several cases, penalties denounced against public officers for infringements of this Act, he did not intend to propose any new clauses for the purpose of preventing abuses. But still there were many most objectionable clauses in the bill, and his intention was to apply himself to the evils done by the Legislature, and which the Legislature only could correct, not to those which the present law of the land was sufficient to redress or remove. He maintained, that, in the exercise of the very extraordinary and despotic powers which had been given to the commissioners, or the three kings of Somerset-house, as his noble Friend had called them, they had made by-laws, which were not only not consistent with the laws of the land, but contrary to them, and yet to be considered equally binding with the ordinary laws of the land. Very great ruin, injustice, and mischief, had, in many cases, resulted from those bylaws, or, as he would call them, great departures from the law of the land. From the period of the statute of Elizabeth, down to the Gilbert Act, the principle which pervaded all the legislation on the subject was, when a man could not get work himself, it must be procured for him. If he would not take it, if he neglected it, or performed it in an improper manner, the law provided that he should be committed to the House of Correction for any period not exceeding three months. That law was sanctioned by Scripture itself, which said, "He that will not work, let him not eat." But in no Scripture, in no book of morals, in no law of this land, founded on the ordinary principles of justice, could it be laid down that a man, whether he would work or not, should be immured in what was called a workhouse, but what in fact was a prison. According to the present Poor-law, and the directions given under it, the unfortunate labourer who sought relief in consequence of some temporary difficulties, some depression of agriculture, or some change in the mode of cultivation, was refused all assistance without the 734 walls of a workhouse. He was quite disgusted with the language which some of the assistant-commissioners had used on this subject. They said the workhouse was the only proper test of destitution. Industry was the true test. The principle of all the Poor-law legislation of this country was, when the applicant could not get work, that work should be found for him; but the principle of the Poor-law Amendment Act was, if a man could not find work himself, maintenance should be given him only in a prison. The principle was clearly expressed in the statute of Elizabeth, and still more distinctly laid down by that excellent judge the late Lord Tenterden, that it was the duty of the parish overseers to find work for the applicant. What he, therefore, proposed in that respect was, that the guardians should not send a man to the workhouse, but offer him work when he applied for relief; if he refused to work, being convicted in the regular way, not by the arbitrary law of the commissioners, but on evidence before two magistrates, he might be sent to the House of Correction for three months, and if, after coming out, he applied for relief a second time, there being some evidence of his being an idle and disorderly person, unwilling to work, relief should be refused except on the condition of his being confined in the workhouse. Perhaps he might be told this would break in on the principle of the Poor-law Amendment Act; but that Act itself broke in upon every law and maxim of this country. By his next clause he meant to propose the introduction of provisions to enable guardians to find work for the paupers within their unions. Heretofore the Legislature had frequently provided work for persons who had been previously engaged in manufactures; but for persons brought up to agriculture they had never made any provisions; they had never made the least provision for the employment of agriculturists, excepting an occupation of a very unwholesome kind. His clause immediately following this would be one to enable the guardians of each union to take a piece of land, at a convenient distance from the workhouse, in order that persons whose habits unfitted them for any other pursuits than those of agriculture should be provided with suitable employment. As he said before, however, the great object was, to enable guardians to find work 735 for the paupers, an advantage which, whatever might be their industry, they could not now obtain in workhouses, for there were very few of those establishments in which employment could be procured. He had lately visited three workhouses, and nothing like work could be found in them. [The Earl of Radnor: Were there any able-bodied men in those houses?] He could assure the noble Earl, from his own knowledge, that there were several able-bodied men in those houses. He asked them why they did nothing, and their reply was, that they could get no work. Now this state of things was not only exceedingly to be deplored, as regarded even the expense to the rate-payers, but as regarded its effects upon the minds of the paupers themselves, for there could not be a greater encourager of vice than idleness. Every one of his proposed changes would be perfectly consistent with the original law of Queen Elizabeth, and with the state of the law under Gilbert's Act. One thing he conceived to be perfectly evident, that no change could be for the worse. Human beings were reduced by the present law to the most wretched condition which the power of Parliament, great as it was, could reduce them. One instance amongst many to which he would refer, was that of a poor man afflicted with gravel, who was able to earn only 5s. a-week; the parish allowed him 5s. more, and on this his family were enabled to live: 10s. a-week certainly did not supply them with a very luxurious board, but they were not in a state of starvation. When the new law came into operation, the poor father of this poor family no longer received his 5s. a-week from the parish. He and his family could not live, though they might starve upon the 5s. a-week only, which he, suffering under disease, was able to earn; they were obliged to give up and go into the workhouse. Thus was great cruelty inflicted; it was, however, not merely an act of cruelty, but of extreme bad policy and bad economy, for each member of this family, when shut up in the workhouse, cost the parish 2s. 11d. a-week; five children and two parents cost the parish upwards of 20s. a-week; instead of 5s., which was the charge under the old law. These particulars he had from his noble Friend near him, who received the statement from rate-payers in the parish, suffering from this and other increased expenses arising out of the pre- 736 sent state of the law. The recurrence of such evils he endeavoured to prevent by some clauses that he intended should form a part of his measure. He was perfectly aware, that under the old system, farmers sometimes, nay, too frequently, contrived to eke out the scanty wages which they gave their men by obtaining for them some allowance weekly from the parish. Now, he certainly should not, so far as depended upon him, allow a renewal of this practice. His Bill would prevent any allowance to able-bodied men who were partly supported by their own earnings, without there being previously instituted a minute and searching investigation; and the necessity for relief should in all cases be certified by the medical officer of the parish or union. Men might be able-bodied, might be industrious, and therefore in the receipt of a weekly payment from a farmer, but a man might have twelve children, and it was quite clear, that no farmer could allow the father of such a family wages sufficient to maintain them; under such circumstances he saw no reason why parochial relief should not be afforded, provided, of course, that the case was clearly and satisfactorily made out, for unquestionably no agricultural labourer received payment sufficient to enable him to maintain a family of twelve children. [A noble Lord: They did.] No, it was impossible; no farmer would be so liberal—none so foolish—as to allow it. He meant to provide, that if a poor man had more than a certain number of children incapable of work, he should be entitled to relief—that he, his wife and children, should not be dragged to the workhouse and placed in confinement, to their own manifest injury, and to the great expense of the parish. In his opinion, families could never be well brought up unless some such regulations were adopted. He did not propose to restore the old law; in many respects it was most unjust, and had led to most abominable crimes; but, on the other hand, the new law was, in a variety of particulars, exceedingly exceptionable, especially as regarded bastardy. The mode of determining the putative father was extremely imperfect and expensive. Instead of sending the parties to the sessions, he proposed that the woman should bring her complaint before one magistrate, that then all the witnesses, together with the accused, should appear before three magistrates, and they should hear the 737 whole of the evidence, and not call on the woman to do more than swear to the paternity according to the best of her belief, for she could not always be positive, and he would not hold out any temptations to commit the crime of perjury; he would place no one in such a situation as to be liable to an examination offering the least inducement to commit that or any other offence. It was his opinion, that no confirmation of the statement of the mother should ever be required, for if it were, there would in 99 cases out of a 100 be no order made. If there were a general investigation set on foot, the testimony of the mother taken, and all the witnesses examined whose evidence could throw a light on the question, nothing further ought to be required, and most certainly he should oppose the practice of throwing on the mother the whole expense of maintaining the child. It was a horrible injustice, more than once eloquently exposed by his right rev. Friend at the table. He had recently been informed, that in his own neighbourhood three girls between the ages of fourteen and fifteen years had been gotten with child by men of twenty-five; ought the relatives and friends of those unfortunate girls to be subjected to the expense consequent upon the crimes of the beast who seduced them before they had attained an age at which they could judge of the consequences of the act to which they were consenting? Still he should take care that the production of natural children should be no advantage to the mothers—payment for the maintenance of the children should be made to the guardians, and likewise for the charges of lying-in, no matter whether the male or the female parent defrayed the expenses. Whenever there was any fear of any individual becoming chargeable on the parish, precaution by deposits and security with the guardians should at the outset be taken. He referred to the possibility of the female parent being made to pay, and in some cases it would be perfectly consistent with justice that she should, for it did happen that women of mature age, though, of course, not past the time of child-bearing, induced boys to get them with child. The investigation of that question, as well as the other, he proposed to leave to the decision of three magistrates; but these provisions he hoped to form so as that no advantage should accrue to any party from the number of 738 natural children born, and as little injury as possible to the children themselves. He proposed, further, that all children should remain with their mother for the first year; during that period of their lives she could yield them assistance which no other human being could; but after that, it was much better that they should be in the workhouse; there they would stand a chance of being more advantageously and virtuously brought up than in the family of such a mother. Then the present Poor-law made the order in bastardy remain in force for seven years. He proposed, that it should be in force so long as the child remained chargeable. Another alteration which he intended to propose related to the size of the unions; they were, in his opinion, much too large—to remove a poor agricultural labourer sixteen or seventeen miles from the place in which his previous life had been spent amounted in his eyes to banishment; it would be viewed by him, as total banishment would by a person in a higher walk of life. On this point, the size of the unions, he proposed to restore the old provision of Gilbert's Act—that no union should extend to a greater distance than ten miles from the workhouse, nor to a greater distance than ten miles from the place at which the guardians assembled. The law gave the poor man an appeal to the guardians, but how could be take advantage of that privilege if he had not access to them at their place of meeting? Moreover, he should, when necessary, be furnished with a conveyance—he spoke feelingly on the subject—if he were a pauper, how could he attempt to walk five miles, or two? He could not attend a board of guardians, and the lame man who had no conveyance must submit to any order, however arbitrary. Their Lordships would see that his objects were to secure the poor from oppression rather than protect the rates, for he would rather sacrifice all the land of England than the comforts of the poor. The separation of husband and wife he thought most objectionable in the present system, as well as the denial of beer in some cases. He found, that in several of the union workhouses the article of beer was prohibited. This, he thought was unfair. Many of the poor agricultural labourers had been accustomed to have beer at their meals. It was an article of necessity to them. In his bill there would be a clause to this 739 effect—that every union should, at its expense, provide beer for the old and impotent inmates. There was one part of the present Poor-law Act for which he could find no reason. It was, that no parent, friend, or old master should be allowed to give to any inmate of a workhouse any present or gift, or any addition to their allowance which would add to their comforts. As an illustration of this practice he might mention a case which had been related to him on the authority of a gentleman whose statement could not be doubted. His friend had informed him that in a workhouse in Kent, a poor old woman had been for some time an inmate. Her daughter, who, although unable to support her, was anxious to contribute as much as she could to her parent's comfort, brought her on one occasion a seed-cake, but the well-intentioned gift was intercepted by the master of the workhouse, and never reached its intended object, because, forsooth, it was against the rule and discipline by which the House was governed. Many similar cases could be mentioned; or, at least, there were many instances in which the friends, relations, or former masters of paupers were prevented from administering to their comforts by small presents of articles which the workhouse did not supply. This was because the regulations of the Poor-law Commissioners were to be carried out in all their severity. What he should propose in this respect was, that any person who should feel disposed to administer to the comforts of any inmate of a workhouse by any little article of food or drink, spirituous liquors excepted, should not have their intention frustrated by the will of the master or guardian. Another clause of his bill would provide a separate ward for such paupers as were labouring under infectious diseases. There had been instances in which persons labouring under typhus fever were in the same room with healthy paupers. This was a practice which ought to be checked, not alone with reference to the inmates of the workhouse, though that would be a sufficient ground for it, but also for the sake of the community at large. There had been, he was aware, a power of that kind given to magistrates in quarter sessions, but he believed, that it had been virtually repealed. If, however, it should appear, that the magistrates had the power, be was disposed to leave it in their hands. 740 Another point in the present law was, that if a man, reduced to the necessity of going into the workhouse, had any property, it was taken from him. Now, if a man had money in the savings-bank, for instance, he thought the interest of it might be taken while he remained in the workhouse, but the principal should be reserved for him when he came out, or should be left for his family. He had not introduced any clause on that subject; but if his bill should go to a Committee, he would move one which should reserve the property of the pauper for such purposes as he had mentioned. His bill consisted of many clauses, any one of which might be left out without injury, and the bill might remain. He should be happy to adopt any amendment which would improve the bill. His great object was to improve the condition of the poor, and without going into any of the clamour which had been raised against some parts of the present law, he trusted the poor would find the Peers firm and resolved on their behalf. With these remarks he would now move, that the bill be read a first time.