POOR LAWS (ENGLAND). (Hansard, 27 June 1833)

Mr. Halcombe

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the state of the Poor-laws as they now existed in England. It might be thought, that he was acting prematurely in bringing the question forward before the commission on the subject had terminated its labours; but, having devoted many years to the consideration of those laws and the abuses that existed under them, he was anxious to bring the question forward, and at as early a period as he possibly could. From the report of the commission, he inferred something like a recommendation, that a national or central board should be established for the general administration of the Poor-laws; but for his own part be did not think such a course would be expedient, much less desirable. And indeed it was his opinion that the government of the 1283 poor, and the application of the funds for their relief, should be left, as at present, to the different parishes, but under an altered state of circumstances. That change was necessary no man could deny who was at all aware of the mode in which the Poor-laws were at present administered; and that the system was bad and demoralizing, must be admitted. The defect, however, was not so much in the law itself, as in the manner in which it was abused. The law of settlement was highly defective, and there were other evils connected with the system which were not only demoralizing to the poor, but cruel and oppressive. His object was, if possible, to return to the wholesome provisions of the 43rd of Elizabeth, and to consider what description of persons were the proper objects of the Poor-laws. Able-bodied labourers when out of employment claimed, under the existing system, parochial relief as a right, but he was prepared to demonstrate that they had no claim whatever upon the poor fund. He should divide his proposition under two heads, distinguishing one class as paupers, and the other as poor, for he intended by and by to show the distinction which existed between pauperism and poverty, and the manner in which each class ought to be treated. For the maintenance of paupers he would provide a compulsory parochial rate, but for the relief of the poor he would have a rate collected according to circumstances, in augmentation of which he would oblige each labourer between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, while in employment, to contribute a shilling per month out of his earnings. This plan he conceived would give independence to the labouring classes, by establishing a fund themselves to provide for their own necessities. And although it might appear unwise to compel the labouring poor to make this compulsory contribution, yet it would be found, on examination, that instead of coming out of their pockets it would operate as an indirect tax upon the proprietor of the soil. It was idle to expect, that the poor in this or any other country could hope for more than a bare maintenance, and while they were able to obtain that by their own exertions, he could not consider them fit objects for parochial relief. Poor laws were established for the protection of the old, the infirm, the sick, and also for the relief of those casual objects who were brought to distress by misfortunes. He contended that widows and children, the wives of persons in the army and militia, 1284 women having under certain circumstances illegitimate children, and wives and families deserted by their husbands and fathers, were all within the scope of the Poor-laws, and ought to be relieved out of the parochial fund for the maintenance of the poor. He would not have the management of the poor, as at present, placed under overseers; but he would name guardians of the poor in each parish, and allow them full discretion as to the distribution of the fund to be placed in their disposal. He wished also, that instead of compelling parties to reside in a poor-house, they should, if they thought fit, be allowed to live wherever else they pleased, provided they claimed no more than 1s. 6d. per week for the payment of their lodging. The system adopted in all workhouses at present was to separate the husband and wife. The reason for this arrangement was sufficiently obvious, but he contended, that in this particular, over seers acted not only in violation of the law of God, but contrary to the law of the land. The worst consequences resulted from children being placed in the promiscuous society of a workhouse, where there was no classification of ages or dispositions, and no masters and mistresses to attend to their religious or moral instruction. He would therefore propose that no children of tender years be admitted into the common workhouse at all. He proposed also, that monthly lists of the names of all paupers and the sums they received should be published; and he anticipated that the dread of appearing in that degraded list would stimulate many to guard against neglecting to provide for themselves or for their wives and children. The next point he had to propose was that of a provision for orphans who had lost both father and mother, and therefore were more peculiarly the objects of the public interest and care.