POOR RELIEF BILL. (Hansard, 20 June 1821)

Mr. Calcraft
said, he could not see the grounds on which any one of the propositions contained in this bill ought to meet with the approbation of the House. Fie was of opinion, that the evils said to result from the Poor-laws were greatly exaggerated. Being a friend to the principle of those laws, he was necessarily a friend to an unrestricted and compulsory 1229 levy for the maintenance of the poor. The first proposition of his learned friend went to cut up this entirely; and to fix a maximum, beyond which no levy should be raised. His learned friend, however, soon felt doubtful of the propriety of such a proposition; and the principle of a maximum was now entirely done away with. The second was, that no relief should be given to any man able to work, who should marry after the passing of the bill. Any person acquainted with the manufacturing districts, must know that a great demand for hands might exist at one period, and, at another, owing to the caprice of fashion or other causes, that it would be impossible for workmen to obtain employment that would support themselves, much less their families. How was it possible, then, to refuse relief to persons in this situation? If the proposition were carried into effect, it must be attended with one of two alternatives—starvation or intestine commotion. He was equally adverse to the third proposition of his learned friend, which went to abrogate the law of settlements. He would appeal to the House, whether any of the three propositions could possibly assume the shape of law. His learned friend said that the effect of the Poor-laws was, to injure the morals and destroy the energies of the people; but he thought that if the morals of the people of the present day were compared with those of their ancestors at any period of our history, the comparison would not be disadvantageous to the present generation. Who could say that any people ever existed, braver, more heroic, or more industrious than the English people of the present day? His learned friend had stated, as an objection to the law of settlement, that it prevented a free circulation of labour. He denied that a free circulation of labour did not exist in this country. He thought the argument was contradicted by the number of hands employed in public works in distant parts. He denied, also, that the Poor-laws had the effect of increasing the population to such an extent as was asserted by the supporters of the bill. There were other causes much more likely to produce that effect than the operation of the Poor-laws. The high price of labour during the war, and the increased pay given to soldiers were circumstances tending to the increase of population as much as any cause that could be assigned. No time could have been selected more inapplicable than the 1230 present for trying the experiment. Let the House consider the stagnation which existed in every branch of trade. The only favourable circumstance for the introduction of the measure was, the low price of provisions. But the wages were also low, owing to the superabundant supply of labour. It should be recollected, that a large portion of the poor-rates was applied as the wages of labour. If the present amount of those rates was compared with the amount sixty years ago, it would be found that they had only increased in proportion to the increase in the price of provisions, in the amount of taxation, and in the rental of the kingdom. The weight of the poor-rates fell exclusively on the land, whilst another species of property, which was in point of law equally liable with the land to the support of the poor, bore no part of the burthen. He trusted that in the next session this subject would be treated in a more comprehensive manner than was now possible, and that it would undergo the ordeal of a committee, before any propositions were made respecting it.

§ Mr. Lockhart
denied that the poor had been represented as a demoralised people. The argument was, that the existing laws had a tendency to make them so.

Mr. F. Lewis
agreed in the great objects of the bill before the House, but regretted that he could not support its provisions. The present system, if continued, would in time destroy the foundations of our national prosperity. He traced the increase of the poor-rates from the year 1748, when they amounted only to 690,000l., to the year 1820, when they considerably exceeded eight millions. He pressed upon the House the injurious effect of the existing laws upon the lower orders. He objected especially to the change which the bill attempted to introduce in the law of settlement, because the effect of it would inevitably be to place paupers in a worse situation. The amount of the poor-rates would be augmented by this measure; and with regard to-the maximum suggested, it appeared to him to be incapable of being fixed. The true remedy was not to-be found so much in new enactments, as in a strict examination of the law as it now stood, and a declaration of what it was meant to be by our ancestors, and what it ought to be in future.