§ On the Question that 120,700l. be granted to defray the annual expenses incurred in administering the Laws for the Relief of the Poor,
§ MR. HUMEthought it was exceedingly desirable that this vote should, in part at least, be deferred until a statement of the evidence which had been taken before the Committees above stairs had been laid upon the Table. He had always on principle supported the Poor Laws; and it was with extreme sorrow and distress that he was led by every day's experience to the conclusion that the administration of those laws had been very much misdirected. It was impossible to overstate or exaggerate the amount of the evils which had been inflicted on the country by the present Poor Law Commissioners, who he believed to be totolly incompetent and unfit for their situ- 1105 ations. Indeed so strongly was he impressed with this conviction, that he was prepared to bring forward a Motion for their removal from office, and only waited for the production of the evidence which had been taken before the Committees of that House. Under all the circumstances of the case, he was exceedingly unwilling to vote away the public money (at least in a larger sum than was essentially and imperatively necessary) for the purposes of these Commissioners, until it had been clearly ascertained in what manner they had discharged their duty towards the country. It was trifling with great national interests to permit the present state of things with respect to the treatment of the poor to continue any longer; and most fervently did he hope that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would, with as little delay as possible, take the matter zealously in hand, and devote to it his best attention. He did not want to withhold such sums as might be necessary for the payment of medical officers and other expenses equally important, and to which the public were pledged; but he was for taking a partial vote on account, and leaving the remainder of the estimate undisposed of until the information which had been elicted by the Committees now sitting above stairs had been laid upon the Table of the House—information which would enable the House to estimate in what manner the Commissioners of Poor Laws had acquitted themselves of their duty. He was not for reducing the estimate, but he submitted that the better course would be to take a vote on account for 100,000l., and leave the balance to be disposed of when the question of the administration of the Poor Laws was formally under the consideration of the House.
MR. WILLIAMSagreed with the hon. Member for Montrose, and thought that great responsibility rested on the Government with respect to this matter. It was undeniable that mismanagement and maladministration of the Poor Laws existed to a scandalous extent, and that the present system of things could not be endured any longer. Such evidence had been brought before the Committees as showed the total incompetence of those who were at the head of the Commission, and their total inadequacy to discharge their duty. The country, he was convinced, would not much longer tolerate the present system, and the sooner the Government looked to it the better.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was now too late in the Session to give to the general question of the Poor Laws as minute and deliberate a consideration as the paramount importance of the subject would require. Whatever consideration might be given to the subject hereafter, or whatever might be the amendments of the present system, which it was desirable should be introduced, it was certain that these objects were not to be attained by resisting the present vote.
§ MR. HUMEsubmitted, that the House had every right to stop the pay of the Commissioners, if they had not discharged their duty towards the community in a creditable and becoming manner. No less a sum than 6,000l. was allocated for the salaries of the three Commissioners; and he, at all events, submitted that this amount should be withheld until the House was satisfied that the Commissioners had acted as they ought.
§ SIR R. INGLISsupported the Motion. He thought that the question of the administration of the Poor Laws was too important a subject to be entertained by so thin a House as the present—there being not more than about forty Members present. The hon. Member for Montrose wanted to get rid of the Poor Laws and the Commission too.
§ MR. HUMENo, no. I have stated that I have ever been favourable to the principle of the Poor Laws, but I object to the manner in which they are administered, and to the conduct of the Commissioners.
§ SIR R. INGLISwas still of opinion that the estimate ought to be agreed to. The withholding of their salaries from the Commissioners would be a very severe sentence upon them, and one which certainly ought not to be come to unless on the clearest evidence of their misconduct. No such evidence was now before the House, and he hoped, therefore, that the vote would be passed.
§ SIR DE LACY EVANSalso supported the vote. He would do so irrespectively of the consideration whether the Poor Laws were mal-administered. Even though misconduct were hereafter to be established against the Poor Law Commissioners, and that on a future occasion they were to be dismissed in consequence, other Commissioners would be appointed in their stead, and the money now voted would be available for the remuneration of their successors.
§ MR. WAKLEYwould give his most cordial support to the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose, who, he thought, was bound to divide the House on the question. The time had fully arrived when that House should show, in a manner not to be misunderstood, their opinion of the Commission itself, and of the conduct of the Commissioners; and he knew of no better or more emphatic manner whereby to signify their opinion than by withholding from those functionaries their salaries. If only for one week, it should be done, not through a feeling of vindictiveness, but to testify the displeasure and just indignation of the House. He would not attribute unworthy motives to the Commissioners; but he would not hesitate to affirm that the manner in which they administered to the necessities of the poor was most unfortunate, if not most cruel. They received a salary of 2,000l. a year each; and what did they do for the poor in requital of this? He was sorry that he had not with him just at that moment a copy of the diet table of the Bromley Union, in the county of Kent. He could bring it down, however, any evening for the satisfaction of the House; and by a reference to that document, hon. Members would be enabled to form some idea of the treatment which the poor received. What would hon. Members think of the administration of the Poor Laws when they were informed that in the Bromley Union, situated in the county of Kent—the garden of England, as it had been called—the allowance of animal food for the able-bodied paupers, men of strong constitution and vigorous health, was only four ounces in the course of an entire week. Yes, four ounces of meat in the course of seven days, and nineteen ounces of broad per diem—seven ounces of bread for breakfast, six for dinner, and six for supper—that was the dietary prescribed in Bromley union for men of strong constitutions, and in the full possession of their health, who were unfortunately compelled, through the inability to procure employment, to seek refuge in a poorhouse. The inquiry into the proceedings at the Andover Union presented a horrible picture of the treatment of the poor; but in Bromley, nearer to London, he found a worse diet table. He had it from one of the guardians themselves that the number of the wretched inmates in the workhouse at Bromley amounted to eighty-seven; and it was his impression that the guardian added, that out 1108 of these, forty-seven were on the sick-list. He was sure, at all events, that the number forty was mentioned. Nor was he surprised that the fact should be so; for, speaking medically, he would not hesitate to say that if an able-bodied man were to be kept a year on such an allowance of food, his constitution must be inevitably ruined. Foundations of disease would be laid which would be fatal to him. Was it to be endured that the Commissioners should pocket their 2,000l. a year for thus treating the poor—torturing men in order to drive them from the House? What did the aged and infirm receive? Fifteen ounces of animal food per week; yet the able-bodied had only four ounces per week, and thirteen ounces of bread per diem. Then, he said, the object of the Commissioners appeared to him to be the object originally designed,—to make the workhouse a place of misery and torture to the able-bodied man; and though the hon. Member for Montrose and others expected that the effect of the measure would be to raise wages, the labouring population viewed the workhouse with such horror that they would endure any misery rather than resort to it for relief. He had been informed that, in a parish in Dorsetshire, the men at the hay harvest struck for a rise of wages, and had what they asked, namely, 5s. a week. What had they before? Why, only 3s. 6d. a week. This was at Frampton, in Dorsetshire. This statement had been made by a person resident there to a Member of that House. He was prohibited, by the forms of that House, from going into the facts stated before the Andover Committee; yet the House was legislating on the subject without that evidence. What was to be done? To mark the sense of the House with respect to the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners. He believed in all the social relations of life they were excellent men; but they were acting on a mistaken principle, and violating the rules of justice to the poor, when they said to the labourer that he should be tortured and driven from place to place by scanty and insufficient diet. From year to year there had been promises of amendment, but none appeared. The tone and manner of the noble Lord to-night, in speaking of this question, inspired him with a better hope. He trusted that the noble Lord was not so wedded to the Poor Law Act that he would not be willing to have a Committee upon the subject. It was quite clear that 1109 the Commission was useless—that it was worse than useless—that it was a monster grievance engrafted on the Constitution, which ought to be removed. Not but that the poor must have some appeal from the local authorities. It was quite clear that they could not be left to the management of the local authorities. There must be some appeal: how it was to be constituted it was not for him to say; but that a radical change was necessary, must be evident to every hon. Gentleman who for the last five or six months had applied his mind to the subject. Therefore, he entreated the noble Lord at the head of the Government to give his early attention to the subject. No subject more urgently claimed the noble Lord's attention than this. The noble Lord was bound to consider what was the condition of the destitute poor under the present system. If they applied for relief, they were told to go into the workhouse; and if they went into the workhouse, the result was what the House was but too well aware of. It was evident that if in the workhouse relief were given at the rates he had mentioned, the poor man would rather starve, having his liberty, than starve in the workhouse. Therefore he remained out, determining to subsist, as he could, upon any pittance he might pick up, than enter the workhouse. That being known to the employers of labour, they offered wages according to the scale of the poor man's necessities, and the consequence was, that wages, throughout England ranged from 3s. to 10s. or 11s. a week. But 12s. a week was not sufficient for a man to support himself and his wife and children upon. It was quite evident, that as the poorhouse system was conducted, the poor would subsist on anything rather than go into the workhouse. He (Mr. Wakley) thought the poor man ought to be placed in a situation, if not of comfort, at least of sufficiency, whilst he was on the look-out for employment. He entreated the hon. Member for Montrose to go on with his Motion and take a division, in order to show the Poor Law Commissioners the opinion of the House upon the way in which they had discharged their duties.
§ CAPTAIN PECHELLcordially concurred in the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. He had himself told the Secretary of the Treasury that he was prepared to move the reduction of this vote. Though the Members of the Andover Committee were precluded by a vote of the House from tak- 1110 ing notice at present of the facts which had been brought to light relative to the Andover Union, yet it was not possible for anybody to avoid being aware of what was taking place before that Committee, and of the horrors that appeared in the evidence. From what he had seen in the faithful organ of information on this subject, he was strengthened in his determination to support that Motion. He wished to mark his indignation at the conduct that had been pursued, and also his extreme astonishment that the Government did not agree to the very fair proposition of his hon. Friend, to postpone this vote till the next occasion of a Committee of Supply.
§ MR. J. PARKERcould not see any sort of reason for refusing this vote. When the allegations that had been made, with the proofs of them, were regularly before the House, then they would be in a condition to go into them; but without the proofs before them, to take the step proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be quite unusual, and might lead to very considerable difficulties.
§ MR. HENLEYthought, that after what the hon. Member for Finsbury had stated respecting the diet table of the Bromley union, the hon. Member could not do less than move for a return of that diet table; for when it was stated that the allowance in that union-house was 4 oz. of meat per week for an able-bodied man, with 13 oz. of bread daily and 1½ oz. of cheese, it was obvious that was too little for human sustenance. With respect to the vote, it must be remembered that the vote was to defray the expenses of the Commission only till the 5th of April next; and that being the case, he did not consider that any sufficient reason had been offered for its postponement. Till the report of the evidence alluded to had been laid on the Table, they could not properly act, and there could not be time this Session to examine all the allegations that had been made, or come to any satisfactory determination on the subject. The effect of the Motion would be to stop the Commission at once, and the whole of the unions throughout the country would be at a standstill if the Commission were suddenly stopped. To that, therefore, he could not consent, for it would throw the relief of the poor into confusion, and he should certainly divide against the Motion, if the hon. Member pressed it to a division.
§ MR. HUMEdid not wish to embarrass the Government, and also, and principally, 1111 he felt that the House were not yet regularly in possession of the facts of the case against the Commissioners, and that it would not be altogether fair to press his Motion. But it must be distinctly understood that his object had been that so much of the vote should be reserved as would give the House an opportunity of discussing the whole matter on a future day. He was anxious not to be supposed to object to the system of the New Poor Law as it was originally established, but only to the administration of it at this time. As the question could be raised on other occasions, he should consent to withdraw his Motion.
SIR R. FERGUSONwished to know whether it had been the intention of the late Government that the plan of increased allowances to schoolmasters and schoolmistresses in workhouses, auditors, and medical officers should be extended to Ireland, and whether they had intended to relieve the county rate in Ireland from the expenses of paying medical officers for the poorhouses?
§ SIR J. GRAHAMreplied, that the sums in the Estimates for the three purposes mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, had been intended by the late Government to be limited to Great Britain, the sum for medical relief more especially. The intention of the late Government had been to relieve the counties in Ireland of the moiety of the expense of the constabulary, amounting to 180,000l. a year nearly; and, considering that that large amount was added to the public charge, and that 100,000l. had been voted for education for Ireland, they had thought, on the whole, that the arrangement was fair that this relief, with respect to medical officers, should be limited to Great Britain.
§ MR. WAKLEYwould follow the example that had been set him, and give way upon the present occasion, hoping that the discussion would be productive of good. Perceiving that it was proposed to vote 70,000l. for the part payment of the medical officers of the Poor Law districts in England, he wished to know whether it was intended to make any new arrangement with respect to their appointment. It was quite clear that some new mode of appointment ought to be made, which should render the medical officers more independent of the authorities under which they now exercised their duties, It was proved at the inquiry at Andover—not the inquiry before the Committee of that 1112 House—by Mr. Westlake, that he was in constant fear of bringing the abuses of that union before the board of guardians, lest he should be dismissed by them. However, Mr. Westlake did ultimately make a complaint, and he was no longer the medical officer of the union. He had been driven from his office, and there was every likelihood of Mr. Westlake being obliged to leave Andover in consequence of the offence he had given to the influential men in that town connected with the board of guardians. The services which that gentleman had rendered to the public and to the poor by his public spirit were incalculable; their value could scarcely be over-estimated; and yet what was his position? He found that he was deserted by his old friends; he had lost the most important office he held; and after having practised at Andover for several years, maintaining a most respectable character in society, he would now have to go and seek practice elsewhere. When a man was performing services for the destitute poor, who had no power to render him services in return, he ought to be in a position as perfectly independent as possible, and compatible with the honourable and just discharge of his duties. When medical officers were, year after year, entering into now contracts with the boards of guardians, they felt so dependent on their situations that they could scarcely exercise those functions which they ought for the benefit of the poor. It was well known that medical officers in gaols were empowered to order what they deemed necessary for the sick criminals: wine, meat, fish, jellies, &c, they ordered without stint, complaint, or rebuke from the magistrates; and it was right that the medical officers should have these powers, because these orders were made medically. He knew that in many unions the medical officers had given the greatest offence, because they had ordered a quantity of animal food in this or that case out of the workhouse, and had thereby endangered their tenure of office. It was now proposed to pay from the revenue of the State one-half of the income to be granted to medical officers for attendance on the poor: he should have preferred that the State should have taken the whole of the payment and the whole of the appointments on itself, taking away those appointments from the guardians. Let the House consider the condition of a poor man, with five or six children, who in the plenitude of his health received no more than 10s. or 12s. a week, 1113 prostrated on a bed of sickness; and if the medical officer in such case ordered meat, jelly, wine, or beer, or anything that was essential for the sick man's welfare and recovery, ought he to receive from any individual a frown or check for the discharge of his duties? In such a case of emergency he ought to be as free as the air he breathed to take whatever course he liked, and ought not to be acting under dread of rebuke or dismissal. This was an extremely important subject, which must force itself on the attention of the noble Lord when legislating on the general question of the Poor Laws in the next Session of Parliament; and he did trust that its magnitude and importance would receive full attention from the noble Lord.
§ SIR J. GRAHAMthought, that as the Government had so recently come into office, it was impossible for them yet to have given attention to all the minute details of this subject; and he therefore might be excused if he stated the view which he and his late Colleagues took of it. He admitted that the question was a most important and difficult one. It had been the subject of especial inquiry before a Committee of that House, presided over by Lord Ashley; and in consequence thereof a change had taken place by a general order issued by the Poor Law Commissioners, with the sanction of the Government. Two important alterations were introduced under that order. There had been a practice of putting up the office of medical relief to auction, and, consequently, of appointing such medical officers as sent in the lowest tenders, without sufficient consideration as to competency and efficiency. That practice was abolished under the order. Another arrangement was also included in that general order, which, he thought, introduced an improvement, and approximated very much to the principle which the hon. Member seemed to think expedient. The new arrangement was this, that the appointment of medical officers, in the absence of any specific term being assigned, should be held to be appointments during good behaviour, thereby rendering their situation as independent as in propriety it could be; for it was necessary that the power of dismissal should exist somewhere. He thought it necessary that in the exercise of their local patronage, the boards of guardians should have their decisions in this respect supervised by some central body, for the sake of the interests of the poor. The hon. Gentleman thought 1114 that the appointments had better be vested in the Government; but he (Sir J. Graham) was very much mistaken, supposing such a proposition had been made by the Government, if the hon. Gentleman himself would not have objected to such an increase of patronage. As the matter was arranged at present, he thought the plan was, on the whole, the best that could be. The local bodies, having the advantage of local information, made their selection in the first instance; but that selection was not perfect or complete till the central board assented to it. It was the duty of the central board to make inquiries on the subject, to see whether the selection made were good; and, if satisfied, they were responsible for the sanction they gave. He repeated that in the absence of a fixed term of employment, the employment was for life or good behaviour, subject only to the power of dismissal in the governing body. The public paying half the expense of the salaries, would render the boards of guardians willing in some respects to increase them; whilst the other half falling on the ratepayers, would form a salutary check against extravagance. He had stated the reason why this experiment should be tried for one year; and the whole question of the Poor Laws would come under revision next year. There must be some central authority, as he indeed had understood the hon. Member to have admitted; though he (Sir J. Graham) did not say that that which at present existed was the best that could be constituted. He was not aware of all the circumstances attending the case at Andover; but, if he mistook not, the dismissal of the medical officer there was the act of the local authorities, and that circumstance, in the judgment of the hon. Gentleman, must serve as a confirmation of his opinion that local authorities required some control.
§ MR. HENLEYobserved the sum of 30,000l. set aside for the payment of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses of the Poor Law unions, and he desired to know in what manner this sum was to be applied? Was there to be an increase in the amount of salaries, or was there any new casting of these offices? As to what had been said relative to the practices observed by the medical officers, it should be remembered that the Poor Law Commissioners originally forced the guardians to set the office up by auction; the local authorities had had nothing whatever to do with the evils spoken of as existing in the medical 1115 department. If, therefore, there was any obloquy in this matter, it ought to be saddled on the right horse.
§ SIR J. GRAHAMThe power of appointment of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses will remain in the board of guardians, as at present, subject always to the Poor Law Commissioners' consent. There was, in this estimate, a considerable increase in the salaries, more especially in the salaries of the schoolmasters; and the expectation was that, for the future, this would be an inducement to more competent and better educated persons than those who heretofore had filled the situations to accept these offices.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ Several other votes having been agreed to, the House resumed, and adjourned at a quarter past One o'clock.