SUPPLY—POOR LAW. (Hansard, 27 May 1850)

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, the office of the Poor Law Commission had now been established about twenty years, and he would like to know what good it had ever done. Instead of nine assistant commissioners, there were now thirteen inspectors; but, though the names differed, the nuisance remained. When the poor fell under 410 misfortune, they were still incarcerated in bastilles, and subjected to the most revolting treatment, and it was time that some check were put to the system. On the first establishment of the New Poor Law system, he had predicted that it would confer no benefit on the poor, but quite the contrary; and experience had proved the truth of his prediction. The time had come when some check should be put to the expenditure under this head; and if he did not despair of success, he would divide the Committee. The Treasury bench had, however, not only the aid of its own Members, but of those financial reformers who were great economists on the hustings at least, and said they would insist on a reduction in the expenditure of 10,000,000l He would content himself, therefore, with protesting against the vote.

§ COLONEL DUNNE
wished to call the attention of the House, and of the Irish Members particularly, to the fact, that in England the amount of the salaries of the medical officers and schoolmasters and schoolmistresses attached to the poor-law were paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Such was not the case in Ireland, where the taxes pressed so grievously. No assistance of that kind was given in that country, and he would ask the House to consider whether it was not highly unjust that such should continue to be the case.

§ MR. HUME
said, that he would rather have those charges withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund. He agreed, however, with the hon. and gallant Colonel that not a shilling should be charged on the Consolidated Fund in England, without a corresponding charge as far as Ireland was concerned. With regard to Scotland, he was sorry to say that such an establishment had been introduced into that country. It demoralised the people, and removed that care and prudence which were the peculiar characteristics of the Scotch character.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, that he wished for a moment to make an allusion to the salaries paid to the secretaries of the Poor Law Commission. Looking at the estimates he found that the president of the Poor Law Board had 2,000l a year, while the two secretaries had 1,500l. a year each. He was sure that it would be no disparagement to the noble Lord the Member for Plymouth, who was one of the secretaries, and had a seat in that House, if he were to say that it was absurd that he, as secretary, received the salary of 1,500l a year, while the president had only 2,000l a year. 411 The president should be a man of higher standing, and having a greater degree of responsibility. If the secretaries were to have 1,000l a year, and the president's salary to remain where it was, they would be abundantly paid. He was quite satisfied that the salaries of the secretaries were far too high, and he wished to bring the matter under the consideration of the Committee.

MR. DRUMMOND
wished to impress on the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose the necessity of having some central board of authority. There would be very much neglect if such were not the case. He was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say, that he regretted that the establishment of the poor-law in Scotland was injurious to that country. He hoped that there were persons in that House who had read the reports which had been made on the working of the poor-law in that country, and heard the statement made by the learned Lord Advocate on the subject last year. They would, no doubt, hold a different impression.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY
remarked that, independent of salaries, the thirteen inspectors were allowed 700l a year each for travelling expenses. If they travelled 300 days out of the 365, this charge for travelling expenses was very much beyond what it should be.

§ MR. BAINES
said, the present secretaries, with the president, were to be considered as representing the hoard of commissioners which formerly existed. The former board consisted of three commissioners at 2,000l. a year each, that was 6,000l; whereas the expense of the present board was but 5,000l., making a saving of 1,000l per annum. With respect to the inspectors, the whole of the duties of the original commissioners had been thrown upon them; and to the exertions of that valuable body of men were to be attributed the degree of success which had attended the working of the poor-law. He was perfectly certain that those gentlemen who, in the capacity of guardians, had rendered most valuable and at the same time gratuitous services, would, from their being brought so frequently into contact with the inspectors, be exactly that class which would be best able to appreciate the value of the duties rendered by those gentlemen. The inspectors were, in fact, the eyes and ears of the central department in each of those districts to which they were appointed. 412 They were constantly applied to by the boards of guardians for advice and information upon the most difficult and delicate subjects connected with the working of the poor-law. They were bound to investigate the conduct of the union officers, and the treatment of the paupers; and were, in fact, always on the spot ready to discharge their duties whenever any grievance existed of which it was necessary for the central hoard in London to inform itself accurately. In addition to these services, their time was fully occupied in looking after the general affairs of the union, giving advice to the guardians, in inspecting the unions to see that all things were properly conducted, and, in fact, in making the poor-law work as harmoniously and effectually in their districts as possible. His belief was, that at this moment there was not in England a body of more valuable and intelligent public servants than those employed as inspectors under the Poor Law Board; and those hon. Members who had had opportunities of personally witnessing their exertions, would know that he was not employing the language of undue eulogy when he applied that character to them. The number of assistant commissioners under the former Act was 9; under the present it was unlimited, and his predecessor had made the number 13. With respect to the travelling expenses, the rate of allowance, in addition to the salaries, was a guinea per day for travelling and incidental expenses, and the expenses of actual locomotion.

§ MR. K. SEYMER
said, that the only complaint which he had to make of the inspectors was, that he did not see them often enough in the country.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, that he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Poor Law Commissioner had given a satisfactory answer to either the observation made by himself or by the hon. Member for Stafford. He stated, that at present there were two secretaries and a president, who were to be considered in the place of the board; that the board formerly cost 6,000l a year, while they now paid the president and the two secretaries only 5,000l a year. Why should they be satisfied to pay 5,000l a year because they once paid 6,000l. a year. These secretaries stood in the same position to the right hon. Gentleman as the Under Secretary of State did to his principal. It was absurd, then, that be should only have 2,000l., and he (Mr. Bright) did not propose 413 to increase it, while they had 1,500l. He would not comment on the capabilities of these gentlemen. They might be as good as any they knew; but their salaries were too high. He intended, therefore, to move that their salaries be diminished by the sum necessary to bring them down to 1,000l a year each. With regard to the inspectors, he would ask whether the guinea a day was not an addition to their salaries, and whether they had not their expenses allowed besides—that was, whether they had not a guinea a day whether they travelled or not? If such were the case, it would be better to have it all charged as salary. With regard to the secretaries, he would ask the Government whether they I would not consent to the reduction he proposed?

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that there were two secretaries, one in Parliament, the other not. The latter used to receive 2,000l. as a commissioner, had served thirteen years, and now discharged duties as important for 1,500l. It would be exceedingly hard to deprive him of that amount; a piece of more false economy could not be proposed. The salary of the secretary who held a seat in that House would come for consideration before the Committee on official salaries recently appointed, and pending the inquiry of the Committee, it would not be dealing fairly with the office for the House of Commons to interfere. The Government were prepared to act on the recommendations of that Committee when they were made.

§ MR. BRIGHT
admitted that there was some force in the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to the salary in the second case being under consideration of the Committee on Official Salaries. All gentlemen were declared efficient when their salaries were made the subject of discussion. He should not divide the House on his proposition.

§ MR. J. E. DENISON
said, that the principle of allowing the poor-law inspectors a guinea a day whether they travelled or not was a bad one.

§ MR. BAINES
said, that he had no difficulty in stating that it was his opinion that the guinea a day should be considered as part of the inspectors' salary.

§ MR. MONSELL
reminded the House of the observation which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington, referring to the payment of certain 414 poor-law officials in England out of the Consolidated Fund, when such was not allowed in Ireland.

§ SIR G. PECHELL
said, the hon. and learned Attorney General had insisted, in connexion with the Bill for extending the jurisdiction of the county court, that the judges should not have more than 1,000l. a year, nor more than 15s. a day for their travelling expenses. Now, he (Sir G. Pechell) did not see why the poor-law inspectors should have a guinea a day for their expenses, if the judges of the county court were only to have 15s. He was gratified in being able to express his satisfaction at the manner in which the President of the Poor Law Board discharged his duties.

§ COLONEL RAWDON
complained of so much money being paid to poor-law officers out of the Consolidated Fund, while no such assistance was given to Ireland.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that in 1846 it had been arranged to pay certain charges for medical officers, &c., out of the Consolidated Fund in England and Scotland, where the county police were not paid by the Government. But the cost of the constabulary in Ireland was paid out of the public Exchequer; for the year ending February last it amounted to 574,000l., having increased upwards of 90,000l. within the last two years.

§ COLONEL DUNNE
said, that the police in Ireland ought to be reckoned as a military force. The expense of the poor-law in Ireland had much increased since the arrangement made in 1846.

SIR R. FERGUSON
reminded the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a portion of the constabulary expenses had always been borne by the Consolidated Fund. The portion borne by local taxation had never exceeded 160,000l, or 180,000l

§ MR. BRIGHT
did not think that Ireland was so badly used in this matter, after all, seeing that last year 62,800l. was voted for the poor-law establishment of Ireland, and only 35,000l. for that of England. With respect to general local taxation, he begged to say that a thorough reform of the grand-jury system would enable Ireland to obtain a reduction of that without coming to that House.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, that supposing the grand jury system were reformed, the only saving that could be effected by that means was upon the 1,100,000l. of grand-jury 415 cess; and of that sum the hon. Member would perhaps he surprised to learn the grand juries had the control over cue-fourth only, the rest being compulsory. Since the period when the right hon. Member for Tamworth made the arrangements which were alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the poor-rates in Ireland bad increased from 13,000l. to 14,000l. a year, which surely ought to be taken into account by the House; and it should be recollected that the local taxation in Ireland amounted to rather more than 5s., whilst the whole amount of local taxation in England, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, amounted to 2s. 4½d. in the pound.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY
was anxious that the President of the Poor Law Board should give the House some distinct assurance as to the emoluments of inspectors. A great number of gentlemen gave their time to the administration of the poor-law, and rendered great services without remuneration. He wished to know whether, of the thirteen inspectors, each inspector was to have a clerk allowed to him? There were other inspectors who had no clerks allowed to them. There were the inspectors of factories, and there was scarcely a union in England where they were not obliged to employ clerks for Parliamentary returns. He did not know what was the duty of inspectors, which should require them to keep a clerk. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to state what was the fixed amount of salary which he would in future recommend, and whether he intended to discontinue all allowance for travelling expenses? There was one inspector for every four counties, and therefore the expenses of travelling were quite unnecessary.

MR. V. SMITH
said, that the poor-law was admirably managed in Scotland, and Sir M. O'Neile received only 1,200l. a year. He begged to ask why the Irish board should keep an architect?

§ SIR W. SOMERVILLE
In addition to the general duties of visiting and inspecting buildings, there were now a number of workhouses in the course of erection, and his duties became very much increased. The building of workhouses was undertaken in this country by the board of guardians, who employed their own architect; In Ireland it was undertaken by a person in the employment of the commission.

§ MR. ALDERMAN COPELAND
supported the Motion. It was quite impossible that taxation could go on on the present system, and the Government ought to apply their minds to the question whether the property of the country should pay the taxation.

§ SIR R. PRICE
said, that the question was whether the board was too large for the purposes for which it was intended. In his opinion, the poor-law would be of little use if they in any degree diminished the power of the board in London. They should have a hoard of supervision to keep every part of the country under control until one general system was adopted. He bore his testimony in favour of the present law, and in favour of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the establishment, believing that he was doing his duty beneficially to the country, and with honour to himself. Although he did not say that it might not be possible to reduce the number of inspectors, he said that the House was not thoroughly conversant with the subject, and the board in London would be weakened if they took away a large part of its establishment.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, that the increase of the number of inspectors was founded on the recommendation of the Committee, which went fully into the whole administration of the poor-law. They reported that the number of inspectors was insufficient to enable the central board to exercise that supervision which was indispensable to the due administration of the law. Government had proposed the limit at twelve, but the hon. Member for Somersetshire had said that it was indiscreet to fix the limit at twelve, thinking that a larger number might be necessary for the due administration of the law.

§ MR. BRIGHT
would not consent to vote for the proposition unless they had some more information on the subject. He thought that it was quite within the bounds of probability that thirteen inspectors 417 were too many, but it did not appear that eight would be a sufficient number. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board would give his opinion that they could be reduced, he would vote for such reduction.

§ MR. ALDERMAN COPELAND
said, he had been assured that in the borough which he had the honour to represent, for every shilling spent in the maintenance of the poor, another shilling was spent in maintaining the executive.

§ MR. BAINES
said, that with regard to the number of inspectors all he could say was, that when the question came under discussion in 1847—there having been nine up to that time—Parliament came to the conclusion that that number was insufficient. The next proposition went to increasing the number to twelve, and a clause was introduced making that the limit; but it was the opinion of the House that the limit of twelve should be struck out, lest circumstances might at a future day require a greater number. When his predecessor (Mr. Buller) came into office, he considered maturely the question of the number of inspectors, and when examined before the Committee, gave it as his deliberate opinion that less than thirteen would not be sufficient. On his responsibility he made the number thirteen; and everything that had occurred to him (Mr. Baines) during the year and a half he had been in office, had led him to believe that thirteen was the proper number. But he confessed he was not surprised that this Motion should come from the hon. Member, because a short time since a petition had come up from Leominster for the reduction of the expenditure at Somerset House; and about a week after, the board was obliged to consider a plan, emanating from the guardians of that union, by which the salaries of all its officers were to be reduced 20 per cent, in consequence of the reduction in the prices of agricultural produce. The board, although anxious at all times to treat the recommendations of boards of guardians with respect, had declined to agree to that proposal, alleging that the salaries had not been raised with the rise in provisions, and that until the present state of things had become permanent, it would not be expedient to do anything calculated to interfere with the efficient working of the poor-law. They had given that opinion, and hence the present Motion.

§ SIR W. JOLLIFFE
was not disposed 418 to support the Amendment, considering it necessary to have that efficient inspection, the want of which had been a complaint especially prominent in the Andover Union inquiry. There were, however, many items in this enormous estimate, which he thought objectionable. For example, he wanted to know how many auditors there were, and in what proportions the large item of 13,500l. was distributed among them.

§ MR. BAINES
could not exactly say at the moment how many auditors there were, but the salaries varied from 250l. to 500l. per annum, according to the districts. The increase in the charge under this head, from 13,000l. to 13,500l., was occasioned by the expense of advertising the various audits.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY
objected to the number and expense of the auditors. The expense of railway audit, which was so intricate, was only about one-fourth that of the poor-law. He moved that the sum be reduced by 8,000?., which would leave sufficient to pay ten auditors 500l. a year each.

§ MR. BAINES
said, that recently a great deal of additional duty had been imposed upon the auditors, who were not at all overpaid. The salaries of some were only 250l., while none were above 500l. He was of opinion that there was no room for retrenchment.

§ MR. ALDERMAN COPELAND
hoped that his hon. Friend would not divide the Committee, but still thought that the subject required investigation.

§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTON
said, that the number of auditors had been the same ever since he had been on the Poor Law Board. [Mr. Alderman SIDNEY: How many are there?] Could not say exactly how many.

§ MR. BAINES
would undertake to let the hon. Member know by note to-morrow morning the exact number.

§ MR. W. MILES
suggested that in future the estimates should be accompanied by a statement of the number of auditors, their salaries, and services. He must say, however, that they were a most useful and 419 efficient class of servants in the working of the poor-law.

§ MR. HUME
would support the Motion, on the understanding that the payment of the auditors should be thrown on the unions, and that each union should pay for its own auditors.

§ MR. ALDERMAN COPELAND
felt assured that, in that case, the accounts of each union would be audited for 50l. He knew it could be done in the union of Stoke-upon-Trent. Some of his constituents waited upon him last week, and stated that in that borough for every shilling applied to the relief of the poor the executive cost another shilling.

§ MR. SLANEY
would oppose the Motion on the ground of economy, to which he considered the auditors contributed in a large degree. He believed that the executive only cost 20 per cent on the outlay for the poor,

§ MR. BAINES
said, that the hon. Alderman would find in the appendix to the estimates all the information he required respecting the districts, the salaries, and the number of auditors. The whole number of auditors was fifty, their salaries varied from 90l. to 450l., the average of salaries being 270l. The number of unions was upwards of 600.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY
said, that he should nevertheless divide, because, with only six auditors in Ireland, he did not see what was wanted in England with fifty.

§ MR. BRIGHT
thought the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner satisfactory. The hon. Alderman had said he would undertake to audit each union for 50l.; but as the unions were 600, it would appear by an easy calculation that the sum at present paid was only about 22l. There would, therefore, be no economy in adopting the hon. Alderman's offer.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, hon. Members opposite gave a very singular support to Her Majesty's Ministers in that House on these questions, which contrasted very oddly with their reform and retrenchment speeches on the hustings. But wherever there was honey there would be found bees—or rather drones. The conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite showed them to be, as far as the principles of economy were concerned, mere shams and shadows. Every day he passed through the streets of the metropolis he met persons who cautioned him to beware of the traps of the free-traders, who would, he hoped, some 420 fine morning he caught in their own traps.

§ MR. W. MILES
said, with regard to the item of 35,000l. for the salaries of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses in unions, that ever since the new system of the Government paying the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, came into operation in 1846, though alterations might have taken place in the salaries, this item had always remained the same.

§ MR. BAINES
regretted that not having had notice of the question, he was not in a position to answer it; and he was not aware that exactly the same sum had been voted since 1846. The right hon. Baronet who introduced the change in 1846 did it with a view of improving the character of the schools, and it was then proposed that the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The highest salary given was 60l. a year with rations, and he believed they ranged from 10l. to 60l. The greatest care had been taken to increase the efficiency of the schoolmasters; there had been communications between the Commission and the Committee of Privy Council on the subject, and he believed that upon the whole the character of the schools had been greatly improved.

§ MR. W. MILES
said, it really did seem to him that on such a vote as this they should have the fullest information. When the salaries were adjusted, those schoolmasters and schoolmistresses who were inefficient, he presumed would be discharged. He wished to know whether that had been done, and whether the education of the poor was conducted in an efficient and proper manner? It was only with this view that he put the question.

§ MR. BAINES
could answer that that had been the case within the last two years. Of course these improvements were gradual. There was a constant course of improvement now proceeding.

§ MR. ALDERMAN COPELAND
thought that in the absence of information it was his duty to move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

§ MR. LAW
hoped his hon. Friend would not take the sense of the House upon that question, because, though it might be the furthest from his intention, it might seem to amount to a censure on the right hon. President of the Poor Law Commission, of whose labours the House had the highest 421 appreciation. It was to be lamented that his right hon. Friend had not had notice of the question.

§ MR. W. MILES
agreed entirely with what had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was not his intention to object to this vote, but he wished to get some information. As the right hon. Gentleman was not able to give it, but still said improvements were going on in the character of the schools, that to him (Mr. Miles) was perfectly satisfactory, and he could only say that the sum of 35,000l. to educate the 60,000 children who were in union workhouses could not be better spent.

§ MR. ALDERMAN COPELAND
withdrew his Amendment.