HC Deb 21 May 1846 vol 86 cc953-8
MR. FERRAND

I rise to put the four questions of which I have given notice relative to the Bingley union. The House will perhaps allow me in the first place to make one or two remarks. This is a personal affair, relating to myself, because I am charged with neglecting my duty as a country gentleman as well as a magistrate, and I feel that the House ought to allow me to proceed. In 1839 the old Poor Law ceased to be enforced in the town of Bingley; there were then twelve inmates in the poorhouse. The Commissioners then took the affairs of the parish into their own hands, and the poor of other townships were crowded into the building. The poor-house was never entered until the year 1842, after which the Commissioners entered into a plot for the purpose of crushing me. Sir John Walsham drew up a report which stated that there were then fifty-nine inmates in the poorhouse. I shall not quote the expressions of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department on the occasion. It will be sufficient for me to say, that from the time of that report to the present moment no Assistant Poor Law Commissioner has ever approached the building of the Bingley poorhouse. The inmates have been increased instead of decreased, and there are now no fewer than seventy inmates. My four questions are these:—'1. Whether Her Majesty's Government possess the power of rescuing from the hands of the Poor Law Commissioners seventy poor persons who are now confined by their orders in Bingley poorhouse, which is a building capable of accommodating on an average twelve inmates, and was occupied by that number on the last day that the old Poor Law was in operation?—2. If Her Majesty's Government possess the power, whether they will immediately exercise it, as a fever has broken out among them?—3. Whether Her Majesty's Government possess the power of compelling the Poor Law Commissioners or their assistants to visit this poorhouse, as not one of them have done so since June, 1842, when two reports were drawn up for the purpose of crushing an independent Member of this House, and which the Secretary of State for the Home Department took steps to procure?—4. Whether the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury will now retract his unfounded charge against the ratepayers of the parish of Bingley, that they were the authors of, and answerable for the state of the poorhouse, when it contained fifty-nine inmates, instead of the present number?"

SIR R. PEEL

The House is aware that the communications between Government and the Poor Law Commissioners are not under my control, but that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department; still, as one of the hon. Member's questions, the concluding one, relates to something which passed in the House, now, I think, four years ago, and is supposed to have fallen from me, it is necessary that I should answer that question; and perhaps it will be more convenient that at the same time I should answer the others. The first is, whether Government possess the power of rescuing from the hands of the Poor Law Commissioners seventy poor persons now confined in the Bingley workhouse, a building capable of holding only twelve inmates. The answer I have to give is this: that I apprehend the Poor Law Commissioners have the power of restricting the number of persons to be admitted into a workhouse; there is, therefore, a power on the part of the Commissioners of reducing the number of persons now confined in the poorhouse of Bingley, and of bringing it below seventy persons. Immediately the hon. Member gave his notice, I felt it my duty to take care that there should be an immediate inquiry into the state of the Bingley workhouse, particularly as the hon. Member stated that fever prevailed among the paupers. I think on the evening of the day on which the hon. Member gave notice of these questions, at my suggestion, and that of my right hon. Friend, a letter was addressed to Mr. Austin, the Poor Law Commissioner, directing him to proceed without delay to examine the Bingley union, to ascertain the number of inmates in the poorhouse; whether fever prevailed among them; to what extent; and whether it was desirable to make temporary provision for the removal of any of the paupers. Of course it is impossible that we should yet have received an answer to that reference from Mr. Austin; but I need hardly assure the House that if it be wished Mr. Austin's report, when transmitted, shall be communicated without delay. A special inquiry has been made by a medical officer as to the fever said to prevail in the workhouse. The second question is whether, if Government possess the power, they will exercise it, in consequence of the appearance of fever in the workhouse? I have shown the anxious disposition of Government to institute an immediate inquiry into the subject, and to direct that if it be necessary or convenient to the paupers that some arrangement for their removal should be made, Government, acting in concert with the Poor Law Cammissioners, have taken the necessary steps to meet the evil, if it be found to exist. As to the third of the hon. Member's four questions, whether Government possess the power to compel the Poor Law Commissioners, or their assistants, to visit the Bingley poorhouse, where they have not been since the year 1842, I have to remark that the poorhouse has not been recently visited. With regard to the charge that the reports were drawn up for the purpose of crushing an independent Member of this House, I can only answer, that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself have entertained the slightest intention of crushing any hon. Member, whether independent or otherwise. Upon that point I need say no more; but as to the first part of the question, I repeat that it is true that the Bingley poorhouse has not been lately visited. [Mr. FERBAND: Has it been visited since 1842?] The hon. Member will perhaps allow me to proceed, and to state that Mr. Clements was the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner of the district, until he was removed, I believe, to Ireland, and that he visited the Keighley union on the 17th of May, 1843; and again on the 8th of May, 1844; also on the 3rd of October, 1844; and he reported that there had been some discussion among the guardians about improvements in the workhouse, but without any result. On the 28th of June, 1845, Mr. Clements was again there, and attention was then called to the fact. The Poor Law Commissioners have the power to fix the number to be received into the workhouse; and the attention of Mr. Clements was directed to this point. He said, "I am in communication with the guardians about the workhouse, and think the matter had better be postponed." It must be borne in mind that the restriction against outdoor relief has never been applied to the Keighley union; consequently the Poor Law guardians there have possessed an unlimited power to administer outdoor relief; therefore there was no obligation upon them to crowd the workhouse by taking too many persons within it. If they have the power of administering outdoor relief, it seems a preferable mode to give that relief in cases where it is required, than to crowd the claimants inconveniently into the workhouse. I think it is a matter to be lamented, and I state my opinion without reserve, that the visits of the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner were confined to the place where the guardians appear to have met. It is to be regretted that he did not inspect the workhouse. On this fact coming to my knowledge, I requested that immediate steps might be taken to remedy this omission, and that Mr. Austin might institute a personal examination of the workhouse. I believe that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's three first questions as fully as possible; and when Mr. Austin's report is received, it shall be laid upon the Table without delay. Every measure that it may seem to him advisable to adopt in order to restrict the number of paupers in the Bingley workhouse will also be communicated. The last question is that which relates to myself; and first, the hon. Member says that I charged him with dishonourable conduct as a magistrate. [Mr. FERRAND: With neglecting my duty as a magistrate.] When hon. Members ask for an explanation after the lapse of four years, they ought to take care that they do not impute words to others which were never uttered. I never said that the hon. Member acted dishonourably—I have not the slightest recollection of having used such words, or expressed such a feeling. [Mr. FEREAND: It was imputed to me in the report.] I thought the hon. Member said that I charged him with it. Now, as to the report, the question was virtually whether the Poor Law Commissioners should be abolished or not. I said, in the year 1842, that such a step would not be advisable, because I thought that entire dependence could not be placed on the local authorities without supervision. I appealed to the experience of the past in reference to the small workhouses, in order to show that entire dependence could not be placed on the local authorities. I quoted the report of a gentleman with whom I had no acquaintance—a public officer, Sir John Walsham—as so the state of the workhouse in the Keighley union; and I said, that in my opinion, that report confirmed my impression that entire dependence could not be placed on local authorities in respect to the administration of the Poor Laws, freed from all superior control. The hon. Member said that he denied the allegations in the report—that they were altogether unfounded. [Mr. FERBAND: Not altogether.] The House will observe what passed. On the hon. Member stating that the reports were not altogether, but in the greater part unfounded, the gallant Commodore who sits opposite (Sir C. Napier) said, "I think this question ought to be made a subject of inquiry." The gallant Officer remarked that the Secretary of State challenged inquiry, and he thought that the hon. Member for Knaresborough equally demanded inquiry; he recommended, therefore, that a Select Committee should be appointed, to which should be referred the report of Sir J. Walsham, from which I have quoted a sentence. That Committee was appointed, and, having made a full inquiry, they presented their Report, and it was to this effect:— No attempt has been made to impugn the general accuracy, nor, with one or two trifling and immaterial exceptions, any of the details of Sir John Walsham's report. The accuracy of his report as to the Keighley poorhouse is borne out by the evidence. That was the Report made by the Select Committee appointed at the instigation of the gallant Commodore, and when it was presented, the justice of it was disputed. A counter report, calling in question the accuracy of Sir John Walsham's Report, was proposed, but the resolution in favour of Sir John Walsh's accuracy was confirmed by the following Members:—Mr. Childers, Mr. Pakenham, Sir C. Napier, Sir J. Trollope, Mr. Bolton Clive, and Mr. Manners Sutton. Three Gentlemen, however, dissented, and they were Mr. Ferrand, Mr. Holditch, and Mr. Colville. After about three years and a half have elapsed, the hon. Member for Knaresborough refers to the Report, and inquires if I am prepared to prove the unfounded charge I made against the ratepayers of the Keighley Union. I say I made no charge. I relied upon Sir J. Walsham's report. If, indeed, I had made an erroneous and injurious statement, I should have the greatest pleasure in correcting it. I have said so before, and I say so now. If I felt, in reference to these transactions, that I had done injustice to the guardians or to the ratepayers of the Keighley I should have no hesitation in admitting it; but adverting to the Report of the Committee, and recollecting the speech of the gallant Commodore, I do not feel that I said one word that was unjust towards the guardians or the ratepayers. Therefore, I am not prepared to retract what I stated in the month of June, four years ago.

MR. FERRAND

I rise in explanation. The right hon. Baronet charged the ratepayers with being the cause of the crowded state of the Bingley workhouse; but the fact is, that the Commissioners themselves have sent in the paupers, and have had the control of the workhouse for three years. Under the old law it held twelve, and under the new fifty-nine have been put into it.

SIR R. PEEL

It is inconvenient to refer to matters that passed so long ago; but did not the hon. Member say that he altogether disapproved of the New Poor Law; and that although he was chairman of the board of guardians he would not adopt any step to carry it into execution? Under the existing law, the guardians have the power of administering outdoor relief; and were not representations made to the Commissioners that the ratepayers ought to be taxed in order that they might erect a fitter building; and have they not up to this day refused to accede to that course? Where is the point, then, on which I have made an unfounded charge?

Subject at an end.