§ Lord Abingerpresented a petition from Norwich complaining of the operation of the Poor Law Act, particularly as regarded the separation of husband and wife, and against some of the provisions in the bill for extending and renewing the Poor-Law commission before the House of Commons.
The Marquess of Normanbyobjected to the petition as irregular, on account of its seeking to have the new bill, now before the House of Commons, improved and al- 855 tered before that bill reached their Lordships' House.
§ Lord Abingerobserved, that the petition only incidentally referred to the bill in the House of Commons, but in order to prevent any discussion, he would at once withdraw it.
§ Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, that before the noble and learned Lord withdrew his petition, he (Earl Fitzwilliam) wished to call the attention of their Lordships to a petition he held in his hand, and in which the noble and learned Lord opposite would feel considerable interest. The petitioners strongly objected to the duration proposed to be given by the bill in the other House to the power of the poor-law commissioners. They did not object to the duration, or even the establishment of a permanent office for the superintendence of the local boards, but they did object to those powers with which the commissioners were now gifted, and which appeared to partake almost of a legislative character. They thought, and in this he agreed with them, that the poor-law commissioners seemed to act like most persons in power, as if they were desirous to stretch that power to the utmost. They had recently issued an order, which he considered highly improper, namely, that the return of the guardians, when elected, should be made by the clerk of the union, instead of, as formerly, by one of the parochial officers. As the clerk was generally a person of legal habits, and the guardians, on the contrary, persons ignorant of law, the clerk would have a great advantage over them in the event of any dispute arising between him and them, or of his acting improperly. Residing in the centre of the union, he would exercise a control over the election of the guardians in the remotest districts. Such of their Lordships as had seen the bill brought into the other House would be aware that it gave power to the commissioners entirely to alter the form of the present unions as regarded three classes of the poor—the insane, the infirm, and the infant. Now, with respect to those three classes, the commissioners were to be empowered to alter the form of every union in the country, with the view, as it were, of calling those classes out of the present workhouses, and placing each of them in separate unions. With regard to the insane poor, he did not entertain much objection to the proposed arrangement; but, with respect 856 to the infirm poor, he had the strongest objection. It would be a great hardship upon those who were infirm from age, sickness, or accident, to remove them from the parishes and unions in which they had been accustomed to be taken care of. In reference to the infant poor, he did not carry his objection quite so far. There were many reasons which made it desirable to provide schools and asylums for a larger number than the workhouses could accommodate. The general prayer of the petition was, that the bill now before the House of Commons might not pass into a law. He apprehended, however, that the same objection that had been started against the reception of the petition just before brought in by the noble and learned Lord opposite would apply to the present petition.
The Marquess of Normanbyobserved, that the same objection would operate in point of form against their Lordships receiving the petition brought forward by the noble Earl. He (the Marquess of Normanby) had, however, listened to the observations of the noble Earl with the greatest attention, and could assure the noble Lord that all who were anxious for the good working of the law would be happy to receive suggestions for its improvement. He could not state at present what provisions he should introduce into the bill, but he would give the noble Lord's suggestions his very best attention.
Lord Ellenboroughhad not understood from the noble Lord whether the order alluded to was a general one, applying to all unions, or a particular one applicable only to some. [Earl Fitzwilliam did not know.] He thought it would be highly objectionable that the clerk of the union should have any influence over the election of the guardians. The clerk should be made to understand that he was the servant of the guardians. His opinion was, that the whole machinery of the Poor-law Bill would fail if there was any attempt to diminish the power or responsibility of the guardians themselves. It was only by giving them responsibility and power that good men would be induced to come forward and take the office.
§ Earl Fitzwilliamentirely concurred in the views expressed by the noble Lord. He suspected there were many unions in which the clerks endeavoured to become the masters of the guardians instead of their servants. He would take the oppor- 857 tunity of acquainting their Lordships that in many unions, where the population was great, the clerk had a fee of a farthing a head on a contested election in the parish in which it took place. Where the population was small the fee was increased to a halfpenny.
The Marquess of Normanhyhad no doubt that the order alluded to was a particular order. He believed there was no such general order.