POOR LAW. (Hansard, 12 June 1846)

§ MR. CHRISTIE

wished to put a question to the right hon. the Home Secretary, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a satisfactory reply. It was, whether, on a former day, when the right hon. Baronet answered a question relative to the administration of the Poor Law, he was informed of the existence of a letter, of which he made no mention, and which was completely opposed to his answer? He (Mr. Christie) had called the attention of the right hon. Baronet to two cases that had come before the public, regarding two women, the mothers of infants, who, on leaving the workhouses of the Wootton Bassett and Ledbury unions, had had their children stripped. The question he had put on a former day was this:—"Whether the attention of the Poor Law Commissioners had been directed to the case of Elizabeth Butcher, tried at Salisbury on the 12th day of March, for the murder of her infant child, and acquitted, the child having been stripped of its clothing on the mother's leaving the Cricklade and Wootton Bassett workhouse; and to the case of Harriett Bowkett, tried at Hereford on the 30th of March for the exposure of her infant child with intent to murder, and acquitted of the intention to murder, the child having been stripped of its clothing on the mother leaving the Ledbury workhouse; and whether the stripping infants 379 of the clothes which have been supplied in the workhouses, where the mothers have no other clothing for them, when they are taken out of the workhouses, is ordered or sanctioned by the Poor Law Commissioners?" The right hon. Baronet had answered him by reading an extract from a letter, addressed by the Poor Law Commissioners, on the 5th of February, to the board of guardians of the Wootton Bassett union. The extract read by the right hon. Baronet was as follows:— The Commissioners think it right to state to the guardians, that if a woman delivered in a workhouse of a bastard child desires to leave the workhouse, and has no provision of clothing for the child, she may apply to the board of guardians or to the relieving officer, and they may make her the necessary allowance as for a case of emergency under the first exception to Article 1 of the general prohibitory order. The guardians may likewise, if they think fit, empower the master of the workhouse to furnish clothing for the child in cases of this sort, where there is not time for the woman to make an application to the board of guardians or the relieving officer. To the case of the Ledbury union the right hon. Baronet had made no allusion in his answer, and he (Mr. Christie) had been surprised by the omission; but he had afterwards availed himself of an opportunity of recalling the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the subject, and of asking whether any notice had been taken of it by the Commissioners. Instead of answering, the right hon. Baronet complained that he had had no notice of the second question; and the inference he (Mr. Christie) had drawn at the moment, and which had been drawn by the public, was, that in the two cases the boards of guardians or the workhouse masters were in fault. In the case of the Ledbury union this inference would certainly be most unjust, because it appeared that immediately after the case had occurred, the board of guardians met and passed a resolution for the purpose of giving the master of the workhouse the very power regarding which the Poor Law Commissioners had written. The case was reported to the Commissioners, and they immediately replied that the guardians had no power to do what they had done. Their letter was in these terms:— Poor Law Commission, Dec. 19, 1845. Sir—I am directed by the Poor Law Commissioners to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th, reporting a resolution of the board of guardians of the Ledbury union, 'That a discretionary power be given to the master and mistress of the workhouse to clothe any child in quitting the workhouse which may have been born in the 380 workhouse, and not left the workhouse previously.' The Commissioners desire to explain to the guardians, that the only relief which a master and matron can, upon their own responsibility, or at their own discretion, afford, is that provided by Article 1 of the general workhouse rules, namely, the admission of a destitute person into the workhouse under circumstances of sudden and urgent necessity. The guardians cannot delegate to these officers a discretionary power to grant relief in clothing. The guardians themselves can alone give such relief, and they must issue the requisite direction in each particular case. If in any such case the relief afforded by the guardians should be at variance with the provisions of the general prohibitory order, it should be reported to the Commissioners under Article 4 of that order. To Mr. Hughes. In the letter from which the right hon. Baronet read an extract on the 8th of April, the direct contrary was stated; and he (Mr. Christie) wished now to know whether, when the right hon. Baronet gave his answer on that occasion, he was informed of the existence of the letter just read? His other question related to the statement of the right hon. Baronet that the Poor Law Commissioners had taken a legal opinion, which was opposed to that he (Mr. Christie) had expressed. He was informed that no case had at that time been submitted to counsel by the Commissioners, and that the only opinion given was from one of their assistant secretaries. Since that date a case had been drawn up, and submitted by the Commissioners to counsel; and he (Mr. Christie) wished to be informed whether any opinion had yet been given on that case, and whether the right hon. Baronet would consent to produce the case and the opinion?

§ SIR J. GRAHAM

began his answer by remonstrating against the interposition of questions after the Order of the Day had been read for resuming the adjourned debate. He could not give a categorical reply to what had been asked; but as to the first inquiry he had no hesitation in stating that at the time the hon. Gentleman put his former question, he (Sir J. Graham) had not directed his attention particularly to the correspondence with the Ledbury guardians. The hon. Member had stated a portion of that correspondence, which rendered it necessary that he (Sir J. Graham) should lay the whole of it before the House. As an illustration of the inconvenience of these interlocutory discussions, he might mention that a Motion had been made for the production of the whole of the correspondence with the Ledbury union; it had been granted, and it would be placed upon the Table entire in all its 381 parts, and not garbled as the hon. Member had read it. When it was before the House, it would be open to the hon. Gentleman or to any other Member to found a Motion upon it if he thought fit. In answering, it would be necessary for him (Sir James Graham) to offer some explanation. The House might infer, unless it had watched closely what fell from the hon. Member, that the resolution of the Ledbury guardians referred to the clothing of infants. This was not so; but it gave "a discretionary power to the master and matron of the workhouse to clothe any child on quitting the workhouse, which may have been born in the workhouse, and not have left the workhouse previously." That resolution was communicated to the Poor Law Commissioners; and in answer to it, understanding it to apply to children generally, and not to infants, the letter of the Commissioners was directed. The Ledbury guardians explained that their resolution, though purporting to apply to children generally, was intended to apply only to infants; and on the 5th of January the Commissioners wrote a letter, which would appear in the correspondence, and which he (Sir James Graham) would take the liberty of reading:—