HC Deb 02 April 1841 vol 57 cc828-42

Lord J. Russell moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill.

Mr. Wakley

said, he had that day found, that the city of London had lost none of its fame for gormandising, for, on asking how the city poor were fed, the answer was "like fighting cocks; we take care not to put our poor on your country allowance system." He would in a day or two lay before the House the city dietary, in order that the House might see that the boasted uniformity of the New Poor-law was all imaginary.

House in committee.

On clause 24, to the effect that the boards of guardians should have the expenditure of emigration funds, subject to the control of one of the Secretaries of State,

Lord J. Russell moved, that it be struck out, for the purpose of having it inserted in a different place. He wished to say a word on the subject of emigration, respecting which, he hoped, they might get rid of some of the difficulties now felt, and have a better administration in future. Hitherto it had always been an object to the parish to rid themselves of those persons who were found troublesome, rather than to furnish good subjects for emigration. On the other hand, the colonists were, of course, anxious to get persons of respectable character who were anxious to emigrate, but not on account of their bad conduct at home. He hoped it would be possible to obviate in some measure those difficulties.

Mr. L. Hodges

said, the married men with families encountered the greatest difficulties of those who desired to emigrate, while such men were those most of all wanted by the colonies. Now, remarking that many of those men had contracted marriage on the faith of the old Poor law, and had suffered greatly under the operation of the new, he trusted the noble Lord and the House would take the peculiar hardship of their case into further consideration, so as to give married men and their families an opportunity of removing to settlements where their labour would be beneficial to all parties.

Mr. Darby

said, the emigration sgents were desirous to get the very men whom the parish authorities desired to keep at home—namely, the men of good character. He did not know how the noble Lord would get over this difficulty.

Clause struck out.

On the 25th clause, relating to the burial of paupers, being read,

Mr. Darby

said, he understood it had been agreed that the burials of paupers were to tale place in the burial-grounds of the parishes to which they belonged; and he therefore proposed an amendment to provide clearly for this object, enacting that the pauper be buried in such parish as he was chargeable to.

Colonel Sibthorp

thought it was the general feeling of the House that the noble Lord intended to give up this clause altogether. A greater insult had never been offered to the poor people than was conveyed by the clause. If the committee adapted it, they might go one step further and give up the bodies of the poor to the anatomy schools. It would give guardians power to consign to the grave the bodies of paupers without the consent or attendance of their relatives. He hoped the noble Lord, who, he believed, had really some humane feelings, would on this occasion show some respect to the affections of the poor, which in the occurrence of death, were buried with more touching sincerity, he was sorry to say, than the higher classes generally displayed. He therefore begged the noble Lord to give up the clause.

Lord J. Russell

said, that the hon. Member who last spoke did not appear to understand the object of the clause, or he would not seek to have it expunged. The object of the clause was not to prevent the bodies of poor persons from being given up to their relatives, but to provide for their burial when necessary. With respect to this point the question was still unsettled, and many unseemly disputes occasionally arose between parishes and the Poor-law authorities, which it was the purpose of the clause to provide against. With respect to the amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Darby), he had no objection to its adoption, reserving to himself the right of altering the precise words, should he deem it necessary to do so in point of form.

Sir E. Knatchbull

thought the amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman so just that it deserved the serious consideration of the House. He was glad to hear what had fallen from the noble Lord, for it now appeared that there were not two opinions entertained on the subject.

Dr. Lushington

thought the clause ought to stand thus—that there ought not to be an absolute compulsion to bury the pauper in the parish to which he might belong, but: that it should be done on the application of his friends; in short, showing that there were some persons who took an interest in the matter, and their feelings ought to be consulted. But there were difficulties to be met. What would they do in such places as the metropolitan parishes, where there were no burying-grounds, or where they were quite crowded, as in the St. Margaret's churchyard? He apprehended, therefore, that some clause or other must be introduced to guard against this difficulty, not only as applicaable to London, but as applicable also to other very populous places where there might be a deficiency of burial ground. The object of this clause was for the purpose of providing for the payment of the customary dues; because, as the law now stood, a clergyman could not refuse to bury a corpse brought to the churchyard. He was bound to bury it, and if a pauper it was impossible that he could recover the smallest amount of dues. He thought the amount ought to be regulated, and that the expenses incurred ought to be reduced to a moderate scale.

Mr. Darby

said, that in some parishes they might have a very small churchyard and a very large union workhouse, and he therefore thought it expedient that the bodies of paupers should be buried in their respective parishes, and not in the parish in which the union workhouse might be situate; and yet there ought to be a control in the hands of the guardians, in order to guard against the difficulty of a pauper dying when his parish might be sixty or seventy miles off.

The Chairman

wished to know if the hon. Member would withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Darby

said, he would withdraw his amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

Colonel Wood

said, as he understood the expense of burying the paupers was to be borne by the general fund of the union, his opinion was, that the expense should be borne by the parish to which the pauper belonged.

Mr. F. Maule

was understood to say, that, would be the case

Sir T Fremantle

was glad that the amendment was withdrawn. He thought that the burial of the pauper in his own parish ought not to be compulsory, unless it was required by the relatives.

Mr. Wakley

said, at that moment he and the Members near him did not know what amendments had been proposed to be introduced, or what modifications were proposed to be made. He thought it would frequently happen that there would be indecent disputes as to who were to bury the bodies of persons who died without effects. It was right that their burial ought to be provided for, and the feelings of their relatives ought to be respected. Did the noble Lord propose to modify that portion of the clause which related to the burial of the deceased in the parish where he died? If so, his (Mr. Wakley's) objection to the clause would cease.

Lord J. Russell

said, he had stated that the hon. Member for Sussex, had proposed, that persons dying without effects should be buried in the parishes to which they belonged. There was an objection to that, because it might be that no person or relative desired that the body should be interred in its own parish; he had, therefore, said, that he would endeavour to form words which should provide for those objects.

Mr. Wakley

said, that would do away with his objection to the clause.

Sir A. Dalrymple

objected to paupers being buried in the small churchyards of some parishes where union workhouses were situate, as the crowded state of the churchyards thereby became a grievance.

Mr. Darby

objected to the latter part of the clause, which gave the decision of the payment of the amount of the customary fees for burying paupers to the Poor-law commissioners. He should move the omission of these words from the clause.

Mr. H. D. Goring

was glad the noble Lord had given way on this clause; otherwise the poor would have been greatly aggrieved.

Mr. Grote

did not see any great distinction between the clause as it stood and the amendment proposed. Discretion was vested in the guardians as the clause now stood. As he understood the amendment, it was to continue that discretion to the guardians. He thought the difference not very material.

Sir T. Fremantle

said, the difference was very material. The amendment contained directions to the guardians, which would be compulsory. This was not the case with the clause which gave them a discretion. But if they connected this clause with the twenty-ninth, they would find the object they wished for was there carried into effect.

Colonel Sibthorp

could not see where the difficulty would be in sending for the relatives of the deceased person and allowing them to take the body away and inter it in the place where they wished.

Lord G. Somerset

said, he had objected to the clause as originally brought in, but the objectionable points were to be modified, and he thought the committee should apply itself with great care and assiduity to render this clause unobjectionable. There was one point, with regard to the burial of paupers in the churchyards of the parish where the union workhouse might happen to be, on which he wished for information. The noble Lord had spoken of giving power to the commissioners to increase the churchyards, and he wished to know the intentions of Government on that point. He agreed in what had been said, as to the feelings of paupers on this point, of being buried in a particular parish because the union workhouse happened to be situated in that parish. If a pauper should express a desire to be buried in a particular parish within the union, his wish should be complied with. With regard to the burial of paupers in a distant parish, he had had representations made to him that the mode of conveyance was not in accordance with the feelings of the poor, and he thought that a little more expense might be incurred in conveying the bodies of paupers to a distant parish. He should with this view move this proviso:— That when the body of any pauper is conveyed for interment far from the union workhouse, due care be taken that the conveyance of the body be conducted in a decent and proper manner, and that all expenses incurred for carrying such proviso into effect shall be allowed by the auditors of such union. He hoped that the noble Lord, in revising this clause, would insert some words to carry out this object.

Lord J. Russell

said, when he spoke of introducing words to sanction the burial of a pauper in the parish to which he belonged, he meant to say, if the pauper himself expressed a desire to that effect. He saw some difficulty in accomplishing this, but it should be considered. With regard to the other point mentioned by the noble Lord, whatever might be the practice in certain cases, he thought the interment of paupers was conducted with decency, and the introduction of the proviso would imply, that without it there would be a disposition to violate the law. He did not, therefore, think it advisable to insert it, but it must be understood that the burial of paupers should be conducted with decorum.

Lord G. Somerset

was glad he had elicited this opinion from the noble Lord, that the interments should be conducted in a decent manner, because some auditors had thought they were not authorised to allow it.

Mr. Darby

said, as the clause was to be altered, he should wait till he saw it in its altered state; but he should be glad to hear the opinion of the noble Lord as to leaving out the latter part, authorising the commissioners to direct, in cases of dispute, whether any, and what amount for the burial of paupers, should be paid out of the poor-rates, to which he had an objection.

Lord J. Russell

said, he proposed to limit the amount to 10s.

Mr. Goulburn

said, if, as he understood, paupers were to be buried in the parish to which they belonged, the question as to fees for non-parishioners would be done away with.

The Chairman

read the clause thus far— That it shall be lawful for guardians to charge the expense of the burial of paupers to any parish under their control to which such person may have been chargeable.

Captain Pechell

proposed as an amendment to insert, after the word "control," the words "or to which the deceased, at the time of his death, may be actually chargeable." His object was to prevent unions which contained only one parish being made liable to the funeral expenses of paupers who had come from a distant parish.

Mr. F. Maule

objected to the amendment. His hon. Friend seemed to have in view the case of the Gilbert unions. The only effect of the amendment would be to give boards of guardians the power of disposing of the money of parishes which were not under their control.

Sir A. Dalrymple

said, that the case which his hon. Colleague had principally in view, that of the Brighton union, stood almost alone. The county hospital stood within its limits, and consequently the funerals of many persons from distant parishes became chargeable on the union. As the law at present stood there was no means of recovering the expenses of such funerals from the parishes which were justly liable.

Mr. Darby

suggested to the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw his amendment, and give the words to the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, for his consideration.

Captain Pechell

saw no reason for withdrawing his amendment. It was one of considerable importance. He could assure the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, that it had nothing to do with the Gilbert unions. The House would soon hear enough of the Gilbert unions, and would find that in those unions the funerals of paupers were conducted in a way grateful to the feelings of their relatives.

On the question that the words be inserted,

Lord J. Russell

objected to the words, as going further than the spirit of the clause intended. Their insertion would give guardians an improper control over the funds of distant parishes.

Sir T. Fremantle

was opposed to the insertion of the words as altering the whole meaning of the clause.

Sir C. Grey

said, it appeared to him that the object of the hon. and gallant Member would be effected by striking out the words "under their control."

Captain Pechell

differed from the hon. Baronet. He had done his duty by proposing the amendment, but he would yield to the feeling of the House. He therefore withdrew his amendment, with the hope that the noble Lord would bear it in mind.

Amendment withdrawn.

Mr. Leader,

on the Chairman reading the words "fee or fees," suggested that the clergy might, without making any very great sacrifice, forego their fees on the burial of a pauper; or, if they would not, the chaplain of the union ought to be called upon to perform this duty.

Dr. Lushington

observed, that the words "custom of the place" were very ambiguous, and might give rise to some discrepancies hereafter. He suggested, that the words "fees usually paid in the parish on the burial of a pauper" be inserted in the clause.

Lord John Russell

said, that he willingly consented to the insertion of the amendment, of which he would take a note.

Mr. Humphery

asked, what the amount of the fee on the burial of a pauper was proposed to be?

Lord John Russell

replied, that 5s. was the amount proposed to be inserted in the blank at the end of the bill.

Mr. Pryme moved that the following words be added, as a proviso to the clause:— Provided always, that in case of any poor person dying within any public hospital or infirmary to which he may have been admitted as a patient, it shall not be lawful for the guardians to charge the expense of the burial of such poor person to the parish in which such hospital or infirmary is situate, unless such poor person had been previously chargeable to or legally settled in such parish.

Sir E. Knatchbull

observed, that the proviso was not necessary, for those who recommended patients to such hospitals, generally, if not always, removed the body in case of death.

Mr. Humphery

said, that there was no such difficulty as the hon. Member for Cambridge apprehended, in the interment of paupers who died in hospitals, for, if their friends did not remove their bodies, the governors of the hospital provided for their burial.

The committee divided on the question that the proviso proposed by Mr. Pryme be added to the clause:—Ayes 38; Noes 136: Majority 98.

Clause agreed to.

On the 26th clause, That the cost of the relief of poor persons not coming to settle, but becoming casually chargeable in any parish in a union, and the cost of their removal and all expenses incident thereto, and, in case of their death and burial by the direction of the guardians, the cost of their burial should be repaid from the common fund of such union; and all poor persons becoming so chargeable, excepting such as became and remained chargeable by reason of sudden illness or accident, should be removeable in like manner as persons going to settle; and, for the purpose of authorising such removal, they should be deemed chargeable to any parish in which they might receive relief.

Mr. Grimsditch

expressed a hope, that the noble Lord would consent to reduce the size of the unions, and take from them all densely-populated districts such as he (Mr. Grimsditch) represented, and which contained 40,000 inhabitants. The expenses attending the casual poor and va- grants in Macclesfield, to which they flocked as to a centre, amounted to several hundred pounds annually, and in justice ought to be separated from the union. One of the evil effects of the New Poor-law had been to increase the number of mendicants all over the country. [" No, no," from some Members on the Ministerial benches.] He begged to differ from those hon. Members. What he stated was the result of his personal experience, and he asked whether every Gentleman's house in the country was not troubled day by clay with numerous mendicants. Such was the system pursued in the South of England, that numbers of beggars belonging to Buckingham, Essex, and other southern counties, were scattered over the North of England. He admitted that, the expense of casual poor should fall on the whole union. At the same time, he must express his disapprobation of the clause and of the whole bill. He thought it would be impossible to carry out the principle of this clause in places where there were great numbers of paupers. It could never work in the large manufacturing districts, where all the expense of the casual poor would fall very heavy, and increase the rates to several hundreds. For his part, he did not like any part of the present Poor-law, and he thought the present clause ought to be omitted. He would divide the committee against the clause.

Viscount Howick

supported the clause, which he considered was calculated to remove a great many evils and inconveniences. Much litigation would be prevented by it; the hardship of paupers being driven about from one parish to another would be avoided; and the necessary relief of the poor would be much facilitated.

Lord G. Somerset

did not consider the relief of the poor would be facilitated by the clause. A great alteration, including a transfer of heavy burdens, was proposed, and it was incumbent on those who proposed that alteration to give good reason for so doing. As to the poor being driven about, they could as well be driven from union to union as from parish to parish. The clause, too, would inflict great hardships on remote parishes. Under all the circumstances, he felt bound to press for the rejection of the clause.

Mr. Hawes

should support the clause, as he conceived it would be productive of great benefit in preventing litigation, in facilitating the relief of the poor, and pre- venting their being driven about from parish to parish.

Colonel Wood

considered the clause would inflict great injustice, especially on rural parishes lying out of the line of great roads, for they would have to pay for the support of casual poor, while they derived no benefit from any money that might be spent by persons passing along the line of road.

Alderman Humphery

would admit that it would be a hardship on parishes twenty miles off the line of road to pay for casual paupers—Irish, for instance, who might sometimes spend money—along the line of road, but from which expenditure remote parishes would have no advantage.

The committee divided on the question, that the clause, as amended, stand part of the bill:—A yes 115; Noes 66: Majority 49.

On the 27th clause, providing that notices relative to the chargeability and relief of paupers should be held to be properly adressed to the parties entitled to receive the same if duly endorsed and put into the post-office forty-eight hours before the time when such notices are required to be delivered.

Lord Granville

Somerset complained of the short time allowed by the clause to receive the notice, and some words should be introduced into the clause to take care that the documents were duly delivered.

Mr. Grimsditch

was also of opinion that something should be done to ensure the delivery. Putting the documents into the post-office was not sufficient to ensure the delivery.

General Johnson

said, he should oppose the clause as unconstitutional in the extreme, and quite unknown to the law. He should take the sense of the House against the clause.

The Solicitor-General

said it was a mistake to suppose that the provisions of the clause were unknown or opposed to the law. In very important business, such as giving notice of the dishonouring of bills of exchange, a notice sent by post was sufficient. He thought it only reasonable that proper time should be allowed for the delivery of the notices alluded to in the clause; but when such important business was transacted through the medium of the post, he did not think it necessary to employ special agents for the delivery of these notices.

Lord J. Russell

was understood to consent to the substitution of the words "se- ven days" instead of "forty-eight hours," as the time allowed after the notices are put into the post-office.

On the motion of Lord Granville Somerset, a proviso to the following effect was proposed to be added to the clause:—"Provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent any party to whom such notice shall have been directed to show by evidence that it has not been received."

Mr. Aglionby

objected to the amendment. If it were adopted, a person not wishing to receive a notice might go out when it was expected to arrive, and thereby avoid receiving it. Moreover, an honest and upright officer would find a great difficulty in proving a negative—in proving that he had not received the notice.

Lord G. Somerset

said, it had not escaped his notice that the case alluded to by the hon. Member might arise, but it was very improbable. The notice would generally be directed to the overseers or other officers of a union, and if they kept out of the way in order not to receive it, the Court before whom the case should be brought would perceive the trick, and take care they should reap no advantage from it. Was the hon. Gentleman prepared to say that the mere dropping of the notice into the post-office should be considered a delivery to the party to whom it was addressed, and that great expense should be incurred because, as often happened, the postmaster had omitted, for two or three weeks, to shake his bags sufficiently? When the very important nature of the matter was considered, something surely ought to be inserted, if not his (Lord G. Somerset's) proviso, to protect parties to whom documents of the kind were addressed, beyond what now stood in the clause.

Mr. Aglionby

knew from his professional experience how difficult it was to prove the negative in such a case. If any proceedings were taken, in the course of which the defendants denied the delivery of the notice, he thought it should be compulsory on the post-office to prove the actual delivery at the house of the party. It was not, as the hon. and learned Serjeant (Serjeant Wilde) seemed to suppose, an universal rule to prove notices by delivery at the post-office. In the notices required by the standing order committee to be given to proprietors of land, through which a rail-road was proposed to be made, the service was directed to be personal, or by leaving the document at the party's residence.

Lord G. Somerset

said he would willingly defer to the Attorney or Solicitor General as to the best form of putting the proviso, so the effect he intended should be produced.

The Solicitor-General,

under these circumstances, should propose an alteration of the proviso in these words, "unless the party to be affected by such notice or other document should prove that he had not received it."

Sir R. H. Inglis

wished to know whether it was fair to put a man to prove a negative?

Dr. Lushington

was of opinion that a negative might be proved by circumstances, though he admitted there was generally a difficulty in so doing. He was, therefore, favourable to the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.

Lord G. Somerset

would adopt the amendment of the hon, and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Darby

doubted the feasibility of the amendment, especially if the parties lived at a distance from each other.

The Solicitor-General

suggested, in addition, that on proof of wanton objection the party making it should be subject to the costs of suit.

Lord J. Russell

thought that the amendment of his hon. and learned Friend would meet all the exigiencies of the case.

Mr. John Jones

said that there would be no saving of expense by adhering to the plan of sending the notices by post. To serve them otherwise would cost little; but if an overseer was obliged to prove a negative, the expense of bringing forward circumstantial evidence would cost seven or eight pounds.

Lord G. Somerset

withdrew his proviso, and adopted the words proposed to be added to the clause by the Solicitor-general.

The Solicitor-General

said that the hon. Member for Carmarthen should recollect that the expense would not occur in more than one out of a hundred cases. If the notices were served personally instead of by the post there would be an appeal in almost every case, and the expense would be enormous.

The words proposed by the Solicitor-general were agreed to.

On the question that the clause stand part of the bill,

Mr. T. Parker

objected to the service by post at all, and hoped that the hon. and gallant Member for Oldham (General Johnson) would take the sense of the committee upon the question.

The Committee divided—Ayes 130; Noes 69: Majority 61.

Clause agreed to.

On clause 30 borough and other rates payable out of the poor-rates to be paid to the officer entitled to the custody and the remedies as heretofore to be used for the recovery of deficiencies from the guardians.

Mr. T. Egerton

recommended the postponement of this clause likewise.

Lord Granville

Somerset thought that unless they relieved the high constable from the responsibility which now rested upon him with regard to the collection of the county rates, there would be considerable difficulty in his executing the duty imposed on him under this clause.

Colonel Wood

said that the county of Middlesex ought to be excepted out of the operation of this clause, for there each parish had a right to pay its rates to the treasurer of the county, from whom security was taken.

Sir B. Hall moved that the following proviso should be added to the clause, namely:— Provided that whenever such county-rates and police rates are collected under the authority of any local act, then the payment shall be made in such manner as would have been lawful if this act had not been passed.

Mr. Darby

said the consequence of the clause as it now stood was, that the ratepayers might be called upon to pay twice—once by the overseer, and once by the guardians.

Lord John Russell

said that the clause would effect a great saving in the collection of the county-rates. In Kent a thousand pounds would be saved to the ratepayers by that means.

Mr. Goulburn

objected to the clause on the ground that it threw upon the guardians a duty entirely distinct from those for which the guardians were originally created—and to which he was anxious to confine them, because, if they overburdened the office with duties, in a short time they would find no persons willing to fill it.

Mr. E. Buller

hoped the noble Lord would persevere in the clause. As to the guardians being required to pay the money for the county- rates, it was only the cheapest and readiest way of collecting them; and the additional trouble to the guardians was quite trifling.

Lord G. Somerset

said that there were now various summary processes for com- pelling parties to pay the county-rates, to be put in force under the authority of magistrates; and to those processes the guardians under this clause would become amenable. Thus the position of the ex officio guardians would be rendered still more anomalous than it was at present, for they might be called upon to issue warrants against their fellow-guardians. Great difficulty, too, must arise under this clause from the circumstance that the unions and the hundreds were not co-extensive.

Lord John Russell

said that he did not think any difficulty could arise, though the hundreds and unions were not co-extensive, as he presumed that neither of them divided parishes. This was altogether a matter of convenience; and it had been considered better that the guardians should order the collection. As to security for the money, he never found that the security was very great whilst the money was in the hands of the high constable; when it was in the hands of the treasurer of the county they did get security; and he thought that there might be some provision for getting greater security from the clerk and treasurer of the board of guardians, and making them responsible for the payment of the county-rates. The clause had been introduced in consequence of numerous suggestions that it would provide a more simple mode of collecting the county-rates. It added nothing to the power of the commissioners or the guardians.

Mr. Goulburn

said that it might be a great improvement in the collection of connty rates, but it had so little to do with a Bill relating to Poor-laws that it ought hardly to find a place there.

Mr. Hawes

hoped that the noble Lord would withdraw the clause, which had nothing to do with the subject matter of the present bill, and introduce it as a separate bill.

Lord John Russell

said it was quite true that it was not necessary to the working of the Poor-law; but it had been suggested and introduced as a great convenience. However, he had no objection if the Committee thought it better to leave it out of the present bill; but he could not undertake to introduce it in another.

Clause withdrawn.

On the question that the Chairman report progress,

Sir C. Douglas

inquired whether, according to the forms of the House, the bill could be reprinted during the vacation, so that Members might see after Easter what had been done.

Lord John Russell

said before that could be done, it would be necessary to go through the remaining clauses.

In answer to a question from Mi. Goulburn,

Lord John Russell

said he did not mean to introduce at present into the bill, in the form of clauses, the amendments which he had expressed his readiness to adopt. He had not however, altered his intention as to introducing them.

Mr. Goulburn

said it would be a great convenience, if the noble Lord would prepare and insert them himself rather than leave them to be introduced irregularly and desultory by each of the hon. Members who proposed them.

Lord John Russell

said the bill should be committed again on Monday pro formâ, so that these amendments might be inserted.

The House resumed, Committee to sit again.