§ Earl Stanhopesaid, that it might be in the recollection of their Lordships, that some 129 months ago he had presented a petition from an aged individual, named John Berry, who having arrived at extreme old age, and being entirely incapable of work, received from the guardians of the Worksop Union 2s. a-week towards the support of himself and his wife, being at the same time allowed a payment of four guineas a-year for house-rent. He had on that occasion stated, that this aged and respectable individual, being in arrear for rent, had requested the guardians of the Worksop Union that his rent might be paid for him, and that this request was not only refused, but he was informed, that if any further application were made upon the subject, his allowance of 2s. a-week would be cut off. He made this statement without any note or comment; but this act was so monstrous, and so repugnant to all the feelings which ought to animate the human heart, that, unacquainted as they were with the acts of grievance and oppression which were daily exercised under the New Poor-law Act, several noble Lords, and his noble Friend near him, rose in their places to express a degree of incredulity, thinking it utterly impossible that in a Christian, or even civilized country, such acts should take place. He had been informed that his noble Friend near him (Lord Wharncliffe) had instituted an inquiry into the case, and he wished to learn whether his noble Friend had received any report from the guardians, and if so, whether any proceedings had been taken in consequence of such report? He also wished to know whether the noble Duke (Portland), for whom he entertained the greatest personal respect, and whom, on that account, he grieved to see occupying the situation of chairman of the board of guardians of the Worksop Union, had any statement to submit to their Lordships with respect to this case?
The Duke of Portlandsaid, that it was perfectly true, as the noble Earl stated, that the pauper alluded to was in the habit of receiving 2s. a-week from the parish to which he belonged. In the beginning of 1837, the attention of the board of guardians was drawn to the fact that they could not legally pay his rent, and upon that a question arose whether an allowance should be given him to make up for the loss of the payment of his rent. On that occasion it was stated by Mr. Wright, one of the guardians of St. John's 130 parish, that he was acquainted with the case, and knew that the relatives of the pauper were both able and willing to pay for his support. He thought that this statement entirely disposed of the case as represented by the noble Earl. If the noble Earl should say, that the guardians ought not to have paid any attention to Mr. Wright's statement, all he need observe was, that they knew better than the noble Earl what sort of regard ought to be given to that gentleman's word
§ Lord Wharncliffehad made inquiries into this case, and he felt bound to state the result of them to their Lordships. He could not help regretting that the noble Duke should have taken the view he had done of the case, because it did not appear to be borne out by the facts. He had not had any direct or official communication with the Board of Guardians of Worksop, but had made inquiries by letter addressed to the Clerk of the Board, and the statement he had received was to the following effect:—The pauper in question was in his ninety-first year of age; was exceedingly infirm, having broken his arm, and had his shoulder put out. His wife was between sixty and seventy years old. He belonged to the parish of St. John's, and until the passing of the New Poor-law, received from the parish an allowance of 2s. a-week, and had his rent paid. After the Board of Guardians of Worksop was constituted, they thought right to stop the payment of the rent, though the allowance of 2s. was continued. After the lapse of some time the poor man got into great difficulties, and his goods were seized for rent. A representation of the circumstances was made by the parish of St. John's, backed by the overseer, to the board of guardians, who were requested to give the poor man an allowance for his rent. The answer returned was, that the man must come into the workhouse. This he refused to do, and was consequently reduced to a state of the greatest want. The board of guardians did, as the noble Duke had stated, imagine that the man had relations who would support him; but upon inquiry, he found that the only relative the man had was a person who had married his niece, and who stated that he had only sufficient means for his own maintenance; in fact, the utmost he had given the poor man was 6d. at a time. It was true, that the man's wife had in former years worked 131 in gentlemen's gardens, but was unable to earn more than 1s. a-day, even when she obtained employment. It, therefore, appeared that there was nobody standing in that degree of relationship to the man as to be compelled, either by law or even a moral sense of duty, to support him. The Poor-law Commissioners, after inquiry, felt so satisfied of the hardship of the case, that they recommended the Board of Guardians to make an allowance of 5s. a-week.
§ Earl Stanhopesaid, it was unnecessary for him to add a single word to the clear statement made by the noble Lord near him. He might, however, be permitted to say, that the statement that the man had received assistance from relations was sufficiently refuted by the fact that he was reduced to the greatest distress, and would have had his goods distrained for rent if it had not been for the interference of some person with more humanity than the Board of Guardians.
§ Earl Fitzwilliamthought, if John Berry did not make his application for relief in a proper way, it would have been most imprudent in the Board of Guardians to attend to the representations of overseers belonging to a different parish.
§ Earl Stanhopesaid, he had now to present a petition referring to a case which occurred in the same Union of Worksop, It was the petition of a poor woman, named Ann Wilden. She stated that her sister, Mary Wilden, now deceased, formerly lived with her brother, and was allowed 2s. a-week from the parish funds for her maintenance. Since the age of ten years she had been subject to fits, and incapable of providing her own support, and yet, since the passing of the new Poor-law, the allowance formerly made had been withdrawn. She was removed to the workhouse of the Worksop Union, and at the time of her removal she was represented to have been as well as ever. He entreated their Lordships' attention to this part of the statement. On the 17th of February last the petitioner, hearing that her sister was very ill, went to the workhouse, and found her in a filthy and horrible condition. She consequently offered to remove her sister from the workhouse, but she was informed by the governor that she must do so at her own risk, meaning thereby that she would be allowed nothing towards the expense of removal. The petitioner stated, that her 132 sister informed her that she had been confined to bed in the workhouse, and put under the sole care of an Irishwoman, who was called the matron; that she had only seen the doctor twice or thrice, who had never given her medicine or dressed her wounds, and that she was ill-treated by this matron. The petitioner was therefore, of opinion that the death of her sister was to be attributed to the discomfort, suffering, and neglect, she had endured in the workhouse, and considered that the tearing of the poor woman from all those who were naturally disposed to attend to her, and the placing her under the sole care of a stranger, was an inhuman proceeding. The petitioner concluded by praying their Lordships not to renew so cruel and unjust an enactment as the New Poor-law. He should inform their Lordships that a coroner's inquest inquired into the cause of the woman's death, and returned a verdict that she died from natural causes, and not from ill-treatment. But he entreated their Lordships to consider who were the witnesses who gave evidence on each side at that inquest. Two persons deposed as to the manner in which the woman was treated in the workhouse; a third deposed as to her condition when she was removed from the workhouse, being then covered with sores and vermin; a fourth gave his opinion that it was not possible that she could have been in such a state if she had received due care; and a fifth deposed as to the personal ill-treatment she experienced. These were the witnesses on one side; and who were the witnesses on the other? The very persons against whom complaint was made, First of all, there was the Irishwoman, then the governor of the workhouse, and next the house-surgeon. All these persons were charged either with neglect or misconduct. It was right to observe, however, that there was, besides, the evidence of two more surgeons, and another individual. He did not wish to speak disrespectfully of the jury, but he felt that few persons could read the evidence given at the inquest without being convinced that the poor woman experienced the most shameful neglect in the workhouse, and that her death was accelerated, if not caused, by neglect and cruelty.
The Duke of Portlandsaid, that for the last two years and a-half that this person had been in the workhouse, she 133 had been in a very impaired state of health, and the greater part of the time had kept her bed. Very little reliance could be placed on the evidence of the sister; and as to Mary Wilden herself, she had had that care bestowed on her in the workhouse which she could not have received elsewhere. Amongst other things, it had been stated, that when she was carried out of the house, her body was covered with sores; but from the evidence of all persons who were in the house at the time, and especially of the surgeon, it was proved that her body was as perfectly clean as it could be for a person who had been so long confined to her bed. He was glad to hear that the noble Lord did not intend to make any motion about the New Poor Law, and that therefore it was not now the question in debate; but he could state, that, as far as the sick poor were concerned, the greatest care was taken of them, and he would be content to contrast the treatment which this poor woman had received with what it would have been under the old law. With respect to the witness William Hodson, there had been so much prevarication with him in giving his evidence, that no reliance could be placed upon his statements; and he had understood from the coroner that there was no reason for thinking this poor woman had ever been beaten—that the jury were unanimous on that point, and had no confidence in Hodson's evidence from the manner in which it had been given.
§ Lord Wharncliffesaid, that as he was the only person in the House who had heard what passed at the coroner's inquest, he must say, he entirely concurred with the noble Duke, that there never was a case that seemed to him to have less in it than this. He had carefully looked to the evidence that was given, and he was quite satisfied with the verdict of the jury. He could also say, that many persons in the neighbourhood who had attended the inquest with the idea that this woman had been maltreated, had gone away perfectly satisfied of the contrary.
§ Earl Stanhopesaid, he had never grounded his opposition to this most execrable law in any number of cases of hardship which might have occurred; but his objection was to the principle of the measure—to the principle upon which it was carried on. If anything could satisfy his noble Friend near him, (and he would renew his investigation into those cases,) 134 he would engage to furnish him with as many as would amply occupy him during the remainder of his life. If their Lordships would enter into a detailed examination of this case, he would prove that the noble Duke, residing as he did in this particular part of the country, was one of the tools of the dictators of Somerset-house, and that he must have been grossly misinformed of the facts.
§ The Duke of Richmondsaid, it appeared to him, that his noble Friend had brought forward this case as an attack against a noble Friend of his, who was chairman of the Board of Guardians. It appeared that a woman had died in the workhouse; that according to the excellent practice of this country, a coroner's inquest was held on the body, and the jury, after hearing all the evidence, returned a verdict of "Died by the natural visitation of God." That to him (the Duke of Richmond) was quite satisfactory, and if he had been, the noble Duke (Portland) he should have said nothing further on the subject, as he would rather trust to the verdict of the jury than to any statement he heard elsewhere. His noble Friend always at the end of the Session, brought forward a number of cases, and yet, upon examination, not one of them was found to hold water.
§ Earl Stanhopenotwithstanding all the pains and industry of the noble Duke to confute him when he thought his opinions were mistaken, and all his endeavours to embarrass and confound witnesses who were examined before the committee, with a most pettifogging and quibbling kind of inquiry, yet the cases he had brought forward, had been most fully and clearly substantiated, and if he had time and place he was ready to discuss them with the noble Duke.
§ Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, it appeared to him that his noble Friend's conduct—no, not his conduct—his position was this—that if any person in Yorkshire or Nottinghamshire, had any complaint to make against the New Poor-law, he sent it all the way into Kent to the noble Earl, although it might be made more conveniently to some person in the neighbourhood. The fact was, that he was afraid the noble Earl was considered by some persons who really had conscientious objections to some parts of the Act and by others who were anxious to raise a prejudice against it for purposes of their own, as 135 the only person who could lay their complaints before the House. He thought the noble Earl opposite had of ten times told them he never had had anything to do with the administration of the Poor-law; and in his opinion that was a great pity, because if the noble Earl had condescended to act as chairman of a board of guardians, he thought he might thus furnish himself with a number of facts on the subject occurring under his own eye, and be enabled to make such an impression on their Lordships as would induce them to make an alteration in this law. But as long as the noble Earl refused to do so, he would say the noble Earl had very little chance of producing any effect on their Lordships upon this subject.
§ The Duke of Richmondrose to explain. His noble Friend, had, most contrary to the orders of this, or the other House of Parliament, charged him with conduct of which, if he had been guilty, would have been unbecoming the character of any Peer or Gentleman of this House. He did not think his noble Friend had any intention so to do, but on every occasion the Poor-laws were mentioned, his noble Friend appeared to become almost wild, and in this instance had been more so than usual. He had understood his noble Friend to say, that he had done his utmost to confound the witnesses examined before the committtee, and to make them say on oath things that were not true. He would deny ever in his life having done so; he appealed to their Lordships who served with him on the committee of their House, whether he ever did anything more than endeavour to elicit the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He had not attended that committee so much as he could have wished, but it was only because he was engaged on two other committees. He assured their Lordships, that he never did intend or attempt to confound any witness, or make them say anything that was not true. He hoped the noble Lord would remember when he was charging a Peer of this, House with such conduct, that it was not the same as attacking the guardians, which indeed he was ever ready to do, who were not there to defend themselves, but he should be always prepared to defend them, and would allow no man in this country to impute to him motives which would be a disgrace to a Gentleman and a Peer of this House.
Lord Broughamsaid, if there were any member of the committee who the least of all had attempted to confound the witnesses who were examined, or had adopted a pettifogging arid quibling kind of inquiry, it was his noble Friend the noble Duke on the cross benches, for his noble Friend was notorious for taking exactly the opposite course. His noble Friend opposite had made a rash observation, which he (Lord Brougham) thought he could not have seriously meant to apply to his noble Friend.
§ Earl Stanhoperose to state, that it was not his intention to say anything personally offensive to the noble Duke. He had said, the noble Duke had only pursued the same course of inquiry and examination which was always pursued in that committee, and that when any witness was brought forward, a number of questions were put to him to refute hint and to confound the opinions he had given, but he never said the noble Duke wished to elicit from any witness anything that he did not believe to be true.
§ Lord Wharncliffesaid, that witnesses must expect to be exposed to a severe cross-examination, and if he went into a committee he must examine them closely, but he denied that at any time, during the sitting of the committee, on the part of the noble Duke on the cross-benches, there had been any such conduct as that spoken of by the noble Earl. It was true, that most of the witnesses who had gone to speak to the facts stated by the noble Earl, when they were examined, did not bear out the statements.
§ Petition laid on the table.