HC Deb 08 February 1861 vol 161 cc224-47
MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, in moving for the Committee of which he had given notice, it would not he necessary for him to detain the House more than for a few minutes, as it was in compliance with a wish already expressed by this House during the last Session, rather than from any want himself to obtain information that he rose to propose inquiry into the subject of his notice. It would be in the recollection of the House, that when he introduced the usual Bill last Session, providing for the continuance of the powers of the Poor Law Board, an opposition of a very decided character was offered to it, and though the reasons assigned for this course were extremely vague, and even conflicting—yet, there was something like a general agreement that inquiry was needed to investigate the matters alleged in debate, and, in fact, thereby into the past administration of the present Poor Laws. Willing, therefore, that the fullest investigation should take place, he had adopted in his notice the terms in which a reference had been made to a Committee on a similar occasion, more than twenty years ago, when, under the chairmanship of Mr. Fazakerly, the most comprehensive inquiry ever made into this matter was instituted. At that time, a great agitation prevailed on the subject among the poor themselves—but the circumstances were now different—for he believed that the only agitation out of this House that had occurred lately, was one which had its origin in the attempt which his predecessor, now a noble Duke in the other House, had made to remove a grievance of which the Catholics complained with regard to the religious education of orphan children of their persuasion, being inmates of the workhouse; and empowering the Guardians to provide for their instruction. He believed that this order was framed by the noble Duke with perfect good faith, with the view to remedy the evil in question; but, having the effect of awakening the fears and suspicions of some earnest Protestants, he was charged with having abused the powers of the Board with the view to conciliate political enemies; and on this account they organized a movement, with some success, to prevent the renewal of the powers of the Board; for finding that order himself in the department, and having obtained the concurrence of two other Members of the Cabinet, he (Mr. Villiers) had caused it to be issued. The Catholics allege, that in consequence of the agitation it has become inoperative; he thought, therefore, that now it must, with other matters of which they complained, form a subject of inquiry before the Committee. He was bound, however, to admit that in the House the objection to the Board was placed on a different ground, and one on which he was told was felt strongly by several of the Boards of Guardians in the country. The hon. Member for Manchester represented this party; and from his position in this House as Member for that large constituency, and from the strong feeling he exhibited himself against the Board had doubtless influenced the House in its decision, having actually himself proposed to limit the continuance of the Board for one year only. The view which this party entertained was, that the purposes for which the Poor Law Board was originally constituted had been satisfied, and that the law under the control of the annually elected guardians could be applied with the same uniformity, judgment, and economy as had characterised its administration for the last twenty-five years. They demanded to have more power—a full discretion in relieving able-bodied men out of the house, and the power not only to appoint the officers of the Union, such as the chaplain, the doctor, and the solicitor or clerk, as they do now, but, also to dismiss them at pleasure. They objected also to the system of auditing the accounts, which was done now (as some would think properly) by persons inde- pendent of those whose accounts they audited, but which, as they alleged, was the cause of collision. The Member for Sheffield proposed to give legislative effect to all these veins without enquiry, but, having withdrawn his propositions, they will now, doubtless, be referred to the Committee. The alterations which they demanded, he need not say, would alter the whole system of administering relief, and he was bound to say also, that these demands were made on the part of about fifty or sixty unions, they were not entertained by upwards of 600 other unions, amongst whom there was as yet but little complaint of the Central Board. However, if the persons who had petitioned could satisfy the House that the law would be as well administered under their control, as it had been under the Central Board, their evidence was worthy of every attention. The House, in its decision last Session was, doubtless, principally influenced by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Wilts (Mr. S. Estcourt), who had himself been President of the Poor Law Board, and who, in supporting the renewal of the powers of that Board, had expressed the strongest opinion as to the necessity of a general inquiry into the operation of the new Poor Law, and even, he believed, went so far as to say that if no member of the Government proposed the inquiry that he himself would move for a Committee. Such a speech, coming from one of the right hon. Gentleman's position, naturally had a great effect upon the House, and led to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Deedes), who, though he had been in former times a strong supporter of the new Poor Law, carried an Amendment limiting the continuance of the Board to a period of one-half of its usual duration. He (Mr. Villiers) saw no objection to the adoption of that Amendment, except that as the Government did not refuse to consent to an inquiry into any specific grievance arising out of the operation of the law, they were reluctant to cast a censure upon the Poor Law department, such as was involved in that Motion, without any statement of facts, or any proofs that abuses existed, or any complaint on the part of the poor, more especially in the face of the Report, which as to the reduction of the number of the poor, the diminution of the poor rates, and the good condition of the people and their contentment under the operation of the law, was more satisfactory than any which had previously been laid upon the table. The Government were perfectly willing that an inquiry should take place; they were most anxious that the truth should be ascertained, and if any amendments or improvements were suggested they would be most willing to adopt them. He was bound to admit, however, that before the meeting of Parliament, circumstances had arisen springing out of the suffering occasioned by the extraordinary severity of the late season, which had further excited the feeling against the existing Poor Law, and gave something like propriety to the investigation that had been called for. To use the phrase most in vogue on the recent occasion, the Poor Law system had broken down, and it was said by people, perhaps little informed on the matter, that the time had come when another system of relieving the poor should be adopted. He was quite willing that this allegation should be made the subject of inquiry. He believed that there was considerable exaggeration in the statement, and that the conclusion had been drawn very hastily from the liberal, he might say the marvellously large contributions, that had been voluntarily made for the relief of the poor, that but for this assistance the poor must have fallen. He did not wish to speak otherwise than in terms of unbounded praise of the kind feeling which had been displayed by the wealthy classes towards the poor upon this occasion; but he could not help believing that much of their contributions had been made more under the impulse of religious and generous feeling, or from a desire to sacrifice some of their superfluities, to relieve those whom they believed to be in want, than from any reasonable conviction or opinion that the poor could not be relieved under the Poor Law. He did not doubt that the misery of multitudes was mitigated by the distribution of the relief to which he had referred, but he believed that if it had not been so lavishly bestowed there would have been found on the part of the parochial authorities the good will, the means, and the power to relieve the destitution which existed. Of course, when you had two funds, one of which was distributed without any test of the condition of the claimants, and the other subject to such a test, the demands upon the former would be more numerous than upon the latter, and that, he took it for granted, had been the case in this instance; but he was, after inquiry, convinced that there had been on the part of the parochial and union authorities much less neglect and much less incapacity than had been ascribed to them. It would be satisfactory to the House to learn that during one week of that severe season 23,000 more persons were relieved out of the rates than had received relief in the corresponding week of the preceding year. These 23,000 formed but a part of the 40,000 applications which had been made, and the difference between those numbers was accounted for by the persons who had refused to receive workhouse relief on condition of performing some task of work which was submitted to them as a test whether they were really deserving objects, or whether their aim was merely to extort assistance in order to enable them to live in idleness, or without doing work in return. But these people who thus refused relief at the workhouse on the conditions on which it was offered, of course went to the police-office, or any other place where relief was indiscriminately given. The information on which he was now speaking was derived from the official reports he had received, and if the facts were disputed it offered a reason, perhaps, why the investigation should take place. He had likewise caused inquiry to be made as to what had occurred throughout the whole country, and he had really been astonished to learn from the inspectors the intelligence, the judgment, and the humanity with which those placed in authority under the Poor Law had distributed relief in districts where the distress was quite as great as in London. It was, moreover, satisfactory to learn the very cordial and harmonious manner in which the parochial authorities had co-operated with the gentry and clergy, and with all whose circumstances and disposition enabled them to give largely to the relief of the destitution which the season had occasioned, and which had not been less in the country than in town. The House would feel that he (Mr. Villiers) had no conceivable object in concealing the truth; he was extremely anxious that the whole subject should be investigated; and if a Committee went into the inquiry every assistance which the department could afford them should be given. He trusted that by their labours some rational decision would be arrived at on the subject of the administration of poor relief, for it was really time that there should be something definite and stable determined in the matter. They had now the benefit of considerable experience, and legislation ought to decide what were the best permanent means of providing relief for the poor. Considering the immense number of persons who were nearly destitute, and the enormous sums annually contributed for their assistance, it was most unsatisfactory to be eternally hearing either that the poor were ill-used, or that the sums were wasted, or that the results for which persons looked in giving their money were never attained. It was most inexpedient on account of the poor, and most unjust to those who contributed to the rates, that a system should continue if it was really defective; at the same time, if the law did accomplish its purpose, and if the department to which it was subject and properly discharged its duty, much was it to be regretted that the most unfounded assertions should continually be made with reference to it. If the House decided on appointing the Committee for which he now moved, he should enter on the discussion without the least prejudice to himself, and he should only hope that some conclusion might be arrived at that would place the administration of relief to the poor on a sound, satisfactory, and stable basis.

Motion made, and Question proposed,— That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Administration of the Relief of the Poor, under the Orders, Rules, and Regulations, issued by the Poor Law Commissioners and the Poor Law Board, pursuant to the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act.

MR. EDWIN JAMES

said, the right hon. Gentleman had fulfilled the promise which he gave last Session—when the Poor Law Board was in jeopardy, and when the House expressed its opinion rather strongly in reference to a renewal of its powers—that he would move for a Committee to inquire into its system of administration. In doing so he had pronounced a rather glowing panegyric on the services of that department, which, he (Mr. E. James), ventured to think, cost more and created greater dissatisfaction than any other department of the Government. From all parts of the country, but particularly from the manufacturing districts, complaints had proceeded on this very subject. He ventured to differ from the right hon. Gentleman in his estimate of the parochial authorities. These men were not naturally cold, hardhearted beings, insensible to the sufferings of the poor; but the fact was that, under the control of the guardians and under the superintendence of the Poor Law Board, they were often disabled and prevented from giving relief by the stringent rules which were prescribed for their guidance, and obedience to which was rigidly insisted on. With reference to the late destitution in the Metropolis, it was well known. that except for private bounty, which flowed in munificently from every quarter, numbers of the poor would, beyond all question, have starved, even in the most opulent districts. When poor men were dying of want, and stood in urgent need of a loaf of bread, there was hardly time to consider whether relief was to be "indiscriminate," or of some other character; it was not the time to stand out and say, "We will give you nothing, unless you comply with the requirements of the Poor Law Board." What he complained of was the utter want of a reasonable discretion, which the stringent and arbitrary rules of the Poor Law Board forbade. He was glad, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman had fulfilled his promise. He felt proud to add that the severity of the rules had been much tempered by the gentlemanlike tone and courtesy of the right hon. Gentlemen at the head of the department. But, as they still existed, he hoped that the inquiry would be an impartial one, and such as would give satisfaction to the country.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, it was not his intention to offer any opposition to the Motion. On the contrary, he thought the proposed inquiry exceedingly opportune, after the events of the late severe winter. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member who had last spoken that, in relying merely on the official accounts, the President of the Poor Law Board was depending on a source of knowledge which in this case was to a certain extent defective, as it underrated the extreme misery which the inhabitants of the Metropolis had undergone. On the other hand, he was ready to believe that the great bulk of the suffering, as well as the break-down of the machinery of the Poor Law, had been confined to the Metropolis. In saying this it was not his wish to cast the slightest slur either on the right hon. Gentleman himself or the Department which he represented, for he believed that it exercised a most salutary influence on the management of a great national interest, and that, but for the existence of that Department, the evils of which they had now to com- plain would be enormously increased. The blame of the break-down in the Metropolis, be far as any evidence was before them, was to be attributed, not to the Central Department, but to the parochial authorities. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken, he would not say with contempt, but with something like condemnation of the unreflecting manner in which benevolent and philanthropic persons had poured forth their money to relieve the distress which prevailed. If, instead of simply consulting the official accounts, the right hon. Gentleman had looked at what appeared in the newspapers, and had remembered the effect which those accounts must produce on those benevolent persons whose eyes they met, he must have admitted that there was strong cause for the exercise of a most liberal bounty. The right hon. Gentleman had told them of 23,000 additional persons who were relieved in one week—he presumed in January. But the distress did not begin in January, it commenced in the middle of December, the accounts for which month were before the House, and it appeared that less persons were relieved, indoor and outdoor cases included, than in the corresponding weeks of 1858, when, it would be remembered, the weather was remarkably mild. The fact was that at this time applicants were not flowing into the police courts, and the sensation which agitated London was not felt till after the cold had lasted for a fortnight. Then indiscriminate relief commenced, and the evils followed which he readily acknowledged were always attendant upon it. Then, too, it was possible that the workhouses were frightened into opening their doors, and the guardians might have become somewhat more liberal than they previously were. But the point to which he wished to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention was the account which the newspapers gave of the way that the parochial authorities administered relief. The theory of English law was that nobody should be allowed to starve in the streets, and if it were generally believed that the theory would be acted up to, and that, come what might, nobody would be allowed to starve in the streets, little would be heard of indiscriminate charity. It was only the belief that the thing was a delusion which induced people to part with their money in order to prevent so terrible and disgraceful an occurrence. There was always a difficulty in proving a statement in the House; if but few facts were adduced in support of it they were probably held to be insufficient, while if many were quoted they were apt to be tedious. But, with the permission of the House, he would read what the magistrates and the reporters said in one or two instances with respect to the conduct of the Poor Law authorities. The first instance he would take was from Worship Street Police Office:— The magistrates' aid is so frequently entreated at this court by paupers of both sexes, who complain that without it they cannot obtain admission to the workhouse, or else are relieved in such a manner as virtually to amount to a refusal, that it really appears as if the police court were being converted into a branch office of the workhouse, through which it is necessary to pass before gaining admission to the latter. One poor woman made two applications to the magistrate. On the first she said she had applied for admission to at Shoreditch workhouse, but instead of taking her in they told her she must go before the Board. But the Board did not sit for several days, she had no homo of any kind, no subsistence, the weather was very severe, and how was she to live and get lodged until the board day came round? But when the board day was past the poor woman was not disposed of, for she again came into court in very much the same condition, and stated that on going before the Board one of the members told her that she was capable of helping herself, and, refusing to admit her, they only gave her an order for a loaf and a shilling a week. In a great many cases he was afraid the relief given at workhouses was confined to this loaf and shilling a week. It was evident that in London, especially during such weather as prevailed at the period, relief of that nature was perfectly illusory. On another day the remark occurred:— Scarcely a day passes at this court without one or more paupers coming up to complain of being refused either relief or the workhouse, and yesterday furnished another instance. These, it was true, were merely the remarks of the reporters, and he did not allege that they were infallible. They might have been mistaken, but these statements accounted very naturally for the sensation which the public experienced when such tidings made their way into the newspapers. When no contradiction was attempted by the parochial authorities it was but reasonable that people should no longer trust to the Poor Law, which seemed to have abdicated its functions. In another case at Westminster, "a poor attenuated lad, 17 or 18 years of age," applied to Mr. Paynter, declaring that he was without a home and perfectly destitute, and that he had been some hours at the workhouse of St. Margaret's, York Street, Westminster, where they would do nothing for him. The report proceeded:— Mr. Paynter:—It's shameful. Go to the parish, and tell them from me, it is at their peril to keep you out. It is perfectly intolerable these constant complaints against this parish. That was not an isolated instance, for the language of the magistrate showed that such cases were common, and that the neglect of the workhouse authorities was notorious. He would trouble the House with but one instance more. It occurred during last year, but it was important as showing the frequency of these cases. In November, 1859, George Thompson was charged before Mr. Corrie with breaking two panes of glass at St. Pancras' Workhouse. "I was starving," he said, "and could hardly move when I was refused admission; and then I broke the windows." The workhouse porter was called and said, "The Board have determined to put a stop to the taking in of men. A great number apply for admission," This, if true, was illegal on the part of the Board, and was an absolute denial of the principle recognized by the law, that every man had a right to be saved by the rates from starvation. On the same occasion the master of the workhouse said there was an order that no able-bodied man should be admitted, as there had been a run lately upon the parish, and the other evening there had been forty able-bodied men in the house. When accounts like these appeared in the public papers, and when no attempt was made to explain or palliate them, it was natural that the benevolent people of London should feel an absolute necessity no longer to trust to a merely illusory law, but to relieve with their own hands the destitution which theoretically was supposed to be relieved by the ratepayers. It was high time to put a stop to such a state of things, and to examine into the management of these workhouses. He believed that nobody unconnected with the Metropolis would assert with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. James) that it was the Poor Law Board who prevented the parish authorities in London from displaying greater liberality towards the poor. On the contrary, he believed it would be admitted that it was the Poor Law Board which was involved in continual contests with the metropolitan unions for the purpose of making them do their duty by the poor. He would next call the attention of the House to two or three instances of neglect of duty on the part of the metropolitan unions, but before doing so he wished to remark that the neglect of duty by these unions was rapidly bringing back the state of things to obviate which the new Poor Law was passed. That law was thought desirable, mainly because indiscriminate relief was pauperizing and demoralizing the community. Now, as soon as the wealthy were convinced—as they soon would be—that, in London at least, the poor obtained no adequate relief from the rates, pauperization and demoralization would begin again. This was the second or third winter during which there had been eloquent appeals from the press, and enormous collections had been made for the poor. Such appeals did not depend on the severity of the weather, because in previous cases they had a comparatively mild winter; but it was becoming habitual to call on the wealthy to do that which the law provided should be done by others. Nor was it alone in the actual administration of relief that these unions neglected their duty. He had drawn up a chronology of the battles between the Poor Law Board and the metropolitan workhouses. He would only go back five years. In 1855 the Board was contending with the Mary-lebone Workhouse authorities because they refused to dismiss a master for frightfully ill-treating the female paupers. In 1856 there was a battle with St. Pancras about the awful condition of the casual wards in the workhouses there. So awful, indeed, was their condition, that it was found necessary to employ Dr. Bence Jones as a temporary inspector, and his Report, which had been presented to Parliament, contained many interesting comments on that active benevolence which they were told had been so hindered by the Poor Law Board. Amongst others were the following passages:— The bad arrangements which exist at St. Pancras Workhouse in relation to the system of outdoor relief ought not to be endured. Before eight o'clock on a wet morning I counted nearly 30 people standing in the street before a locked gate. No one was allowed to find shelter from the wet by admission until nine, by which hour, I was told, above 100 persons would be there. None were admitted after two. Sometimes the admissions amount to 900; sometimes only 300. They pass into a floor which is partly below the level of the ground, and which is divided into pens, to prevent accidents from the strong crowding to the overseers' room for outdoor relief. At one o'clock, another day, stepping over some urine. I passed through three pens which were crowded, some with men and some with women, and some of these had children in their arms. The offensive-ness was extreme. I saw one sickly woman who had just been brought out to the women's receiving ward, having fainted from want and from the offensive smell of the place. The medical men stated to me that two or three times weekly they were called to similar cases, chiefly among the women; sometimes among the men. Fresh air was the chief remedy. At half-past five o'clock I passed again through the pens; still very many remained; at least 150. They had had no food all day, and many loudly stated that they should not get any until seven o'clock. I was told that the want of air was so great that the windows were not unfrequently broken. The relieving officer, Mr. Birchmore, said that the same applicant frequently came twice, or even, more rarely, thrice in the week; that all are relieved—sometimes by half-past five, sometimes not till eight p.m.; that the ventilation used to be so bad that his predecessor died from the foul air, I believe of typhus fever caught here; that even now, when he thinks everything that can be done for the place has been done, still the foul air passing through the door by which the poor enter the office has made him and others ill; that they feel the effect of the bad air; that it is so bad that the directors are unwilling to come down into the office; that he has had many scores of the poor brought into the office having fainted from the atmosphere and the crowding, but that such cases are fewer lately than they used to be. That the poor often give up their tickets of admission, and go away without relief, in consequence of the air and the crowding. In another part of his report Dr. Jones referred to the "cellars for out-door relief as being the worst parts of the workhouse, and added— It is fortunate that death has not taken place among the poor in these cellars. That disease and death has come out of them is certain; and although everything that can be done has been done, I know no word more suited to them than 'horrible.' The directors were frightened by this report, and wrote to the Poor Law Board that they were putting the House into order as fast as they could. Time passed, and the thing was almost forgotten; but the repentance of the local authorities was as short-lived and resulted as such repentance usually was. The Board wanted to send down an inspector to see that the accommodation in the House was what it ought to be; but he was refused admission, and was not allowed to examine the interior. The result was another contest in the Court of Queen's Bench, and the Poor Law Board had to obtain a mandamus. In the parishes of St. James and St. Pancras there had been fights about the appointment of auditors, and the dreadful state of the metropolitan workhouses had been confirmed by an impartial authority, Mr. Selfe, the Thames Police magistrate, who was reported to have said— A most disgraceful and painful state of things existed in Wapping Workhouse, and there was a heavy amount of blame attaching to some per- sons. It was shocking that such a state of things should exist in a civilized country in the 19th century. In the Stepney Union, which contained 54,000 inhabitants and upwards, and comprising the parishes of Limehouse, Ratcliffe, Shadwell, and Wapping, there was only one place for female paupers. There was no classification, no proper regulation; the good and the bad, women who had committed adultery or carried on an illicit intercourse with men, and decent married women, who had been reduced by adversity to poverty, were all intermingled. There had been continual brawls in the workhouse, and the most disreputable scenes had taken place there. All were huddled together—lunatics with the sane. The house could not be well governed or there would not be so many rows and fights as there had been. It was a great shame that the respectable poor could not go into a workhouse without being forced to associate with vile and disorderly people and lunatics, like those before him. These facts he (Lord R. Cecil) submitted were sufficient to show that there was at least a case for inquiry, not into the conduct of the Poor Law Board, but into the parochial management of the metropolitan workhouses. Parliament was bound to ascertain whether persons who had so greatly misused their authority, should be intrusted with the large measure of discretion which they had heretofore enjoyed. At all events, it was time that some more speedy redress should be given to the destitute poor. Magistrates should be empowered to enforce a penalty, unless the relieving officers could show that in the cases they were charged with neglecting the persons calling themselves destitute had other means of support. Above all, he trusted the result of the labours of the Committee would be to give the Poor Law Board greater power of interfering summarily with the management of the workhouses in this Metropolis.

MR. AYRTON

said, he felt some satisfaction in hearing this subject brought under the notice of the House. When, three years ago, he introduced it, he was met with the opposition which was generally given to any attempt to alter the Poor Laws. He was sorry to say that a great many Gentlemen, who were always ready to express the greatest sympathy with the poor, and more especially with the poor as brought into connection with the administration of the Poor Law, were seldom found willing to give practical effect to their sympathy in the shape of an endeavour to amend the law itself. The moment an attempt was made to pass from general sympathy to the serious question of how the administration of the Poor Law was to be improved—what steps were to be taken to render it efficient—there was, invariably, an objection of some kind or other; and the result was, that no really useful steps had been taken in that direction for the last twenty-five years. Seeing this, one was forced to the painful conclusion that the real reason of that opposition and that non-amendment was, that the changes which were necessary might have a serious effect on the pecuniary interests of the great territorial aristocracy of this country—an effect which would be felt on the wealthy within the limits of the Metropolis as well as on persons of that class who had no direct connection with the City. This question was, in fact, one between a great mass of the people and a numerically small proportion of the population; but the latter, though numerically small, were so influential that his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board, like every other Minister of the Crown, could not—he was about to say dare not—meet the real issue. He would remind the House of the state of things which existed before the present Poor Law Act was passed. At the time to which he referred, there was a totally irresponsible system of relief administered in every parish. It was administered by an overseer who was irresponsible, except so far as being under the control of the justices of the peace, who, in their turn, were totally irresponsible. The overseer was a mere parochial officer. He was often an ignorant man—so much so that there were instances of persons filling the office who could neither read nor write. So long as his accounts were presented in legal form he was safe; and the justices usually exercised their authority in respect of the administration of relief with but little judgment. The Poor Law substituted a Union Board, elected by the ratepayers; and the members of this Board were placed on a very different footing, and felt a responsibility that had been unknown to the overseers. That had a tendency to introduce a better class of persons into the administration of the law. The measure also gave the advantage of stipendiary officers, who examined into the applications for relief, and administered the whole system with judgment and discretion. But that was only a part of the intention and scope of the Poor Law. The main object of the Act was to establish unions of a larger than parochial area, for the purposes of Poor Law relief; but it was felt by the Government of the day, that a measure carrying out that principle in its entirety would bring against them the opposition of the territorial party; and, therefore, instead of carrying out the improvement to the full, the Act contained a provision that it should be optional with the parishes to constitute themselves areas for all purposes of administration, but any one parish in a proposed union could oppose the contemplated change; so that that very necessary part of the law which contemplated enlarged areas had never been carried into effect. That change was at the bottom of the whole question. It was said that the change was for the benefit of the pauper, and it was enacted that a pauper should be relieved, wherever he had resided for a period of five years. But the real question was, who should pay for the relief? The five years' residence provision benefited one set of ratepayers at the expense of another; because, if a person had an estate conterminous with a parish, he might secure himself from a due contribution of poor rates, by taking care that people who were likely to become chargeable should not remain on his estate for five consecutive years. He had only to take care that they must not reside in his parish for that period; and if he did so, he would not be liable under the Poor Law to contribute one farthing for the relief of the poor; so that the richer a man was—the larger his estate—the less he might have to pay. This state of things was peculiarly applicable to the Metropolis. The poor of London were not, properly speaking, the poor of any particular parish. It was idle to say that the man who lived in one street had no claim for relief in another. If a man fell sick, he had, in justice, no more claim on one street than on another; yet an imaginary line of demarcation was kept up between the two streets in the same City. The consequence was that the poor were to be found in one nucleus, and the rich in another. The noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) had expressed sympathy with the poor; but, perhaps, he was not aware of the fact that there were ratepayers who had to pledge their goods in order to pay poor rates, while there were rich people at the west-end of the town rejoicing at the small sums that they had to contribute to the rates. The great evil was this—that the area of charge was capricious and arbitrary, arising from the fact that when England was divided into parishes for ecclesiastical purposes, certain areas had to be selected round the church. Those ecclesiastical divisions had no relation to the administration of poor relief, and they ought, as had been contemplated by the Poor Law Act, to be replaced by union areas. A system ought to be put in operation under which gentlemen of wealth, education, and leisure might take a part in the administration of the Poor Law, instead of confining themselves to the expression of mere barren sympathy. But is long as the Poor Law Board remained there would never be a good administration of the Poor Law itself. The Commission was established for a temporary purpose—to facilitate the changes that were introduced. But it was never intended that the new Poor Law should remain in its first defective form, and if the law were now properly framed, he believed the local boards, constituted as they would be, and having a full sense of their responsibility, would be amply sufficient for the administration of the system, and there would be no necessity for supervision by a Central Board in London. He hoped the Committee would come to this conclusion,—let the law be made as perfect as possible, and let the local boards have sufficient powers; it would then be unnecessary to keep up the large central establishment maintained under the present system.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, he did not think the subjects referred to the Committee would meet the whole case. It was evident that public opinion was in favour of an inquiry into the operation of the Poor Law itself, as well as into its administration. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had expressed a wish that the terms of the reference should be extended; at present they were confined only to the administration of the law. His own opinion was that the operation of the law needed investigation, even more than its administration. The law, as it affected the removability of the chargeable poor especially, had been left in a very anomalous condition, and much blame attached to the Poor Law Board for not having amended it long ago. The operation of the law of non-removability after five years residence, was, to a certain extent, humane; it was originally intended to be so; but as now administered it became harsh and oppressive. In his experience as a magistrate he found that a great number of the orders of removal applied for, were in the cases of persons who had lived four years or upwards in a parish. Then the guardians, fearing that they would become chargeable, endeavoured to get rid of them by removing them into another parish, or to the parish of their last legal settlement. And they generally came under the operation of the law, when they or their wives were sick, or when they had large families; it then became the interest of the Poor Law Guardians to remove them. They were at the mercy of the guardians because the right was acquired by a parochial residence of five years; but if the right of settlement were given for a whole union, it would be very difficult to deprive the poor of it. He hoped the operation of this law would come under inquiry. He could not agree with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, that there would never be a good Poor Law as long as the Poor Law Commission existed. On the contrary, he thought the country was indebted to the Commissioners for many humane alterations and applications of the Poor Law. Particularly was that the case in the Metropolitan districts. The Board having established district schools in the country for pauper children, who were now removed from the workhouses, where the mortality among the young children used to be very great. That provision had operated very humanely, and at the same time with great benefit to the community. He wished to see a similar principle in operation for the able-bodied female paupers. The able-bodied women's wards of a union-house could only be kept in order by the discipline of a prison, and were quite unfit for the reception of young persons, or the old and disabled. He thought that the principle of the district schools might be extended with the very best results to the establishment of asylums or houses of industry for the more refractory and disreputable poor, especially among the females, so that the workhouse itself might be, as it was intended it should be—a home for the afflicted and destitute who were well-conducted.

ALDERMAN SIDNEY

said, he also joined in the hope that the powers of the Committee would be extended. Great dissatisfaction was growing up in parts of the Metropolis at the unequal pressure of the poor rates. In many of the poor parishes in London, the rates were constantly rising, while in the richer parishes they as constantly decreased. This was at the root of many evils of which they heard loud complaints. It was a principal reason why the poor could not find any habitations in which they could exist in decency and comfort. They were compelled to herd together in lodgings and inferior dwellings. The result of the present system of rating was, that those who were very poor were heavily taxed for the support of those who were paupers. As an illustration of the inequality of the rating, he would take the decennial return of the rates in two London parishes. The first was the parish of St. George's, Hanover-square; there, the poor rate in 1832 was 2s. 6d. in the pound; in 1842 it was 1s. 4d.; and in 1852, 5d. in the pound. The other parish was St. Anne's, Blackfriars; there, the poor rate in 1832 was 2s. 8d. in the pound; in 1842 it was 3s. 4d.; and in 1852 it was 5s. in the pound. The poor rate had been called a tax on property; what would be thought of the property-tax throughout the country if it was as unequally levied? It would be thought intolerable if the property tax in some parishes was 5d. or 10d. in the pound and in others 5s. Nor was London the only place where this inequality existed. He had in his hand returns from all the unions and parishes in all the counties of England, and from those he would quote two or three examples. In Bedfordshire, in the highest rated parish the rate was 4s. 1¼d.; in the lowest rated 2¾d; in Berkshire, the highest rate was 2s. 8¾d; in the lowest 1d.; in Somersetshire the highest rate was 7s. 3¾d.; the lowest ¼d. It was said there was not much agitation in the country on this question. The cause of this was that when one parish complained of the injustice of having to pay high rates another stepped forward to support the existing system because it paid low rates. There was a growing feeling of dissatisfaction in the country with the present system, and means were being taken to bring the question before the great mass of the poor themselves. He believed that unless the proposed Committee were empowered to inquire into the law of settlement, the removability of the poor, and the inequality of the taxation for the relief of the poor, their labours would not be attended with the success that was desirable. During the pressure of the late distress, the alternative of the workhouse or the stoneyard was offered to the destitute poor who were out of employment; but rather than break up their homes they chose to go about asking relief from their more fortunate neighbours. A more frightful state of things he never saw. If the frost had continued a little longer there would have been a fearful amount of agrarian outrages. He had no hesitation in saying that at such times boards of guardians ought to have had ample power to provide additional relieving officers to meet any amount of distress, and such a test as the workhouse or the stoneyard ought not to have been applied to starving men. He hoped the Government would consent to the inquiry being extended to the general operation of the Poor Law.

MR. BARROW

said, he would not enter into the question of the real state of the Poor Law, as he did not think it was desirable to discuss it at the present moment. He rose to suggest that the inquiry of the Committee should be extended to the operation of the law; and he would propose that instead of the words, "pursuant to the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Acts," the words should be, "and the operation of the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Acts." The country was anxious that there should be an inquiry into the operation of the Poor Law, and he hoped the Government would consent to adopt his proposition.

LORD FERMOY

said, he rose to tender his thanks to his right hon. Friend for having at so early a period of the Session, redeemed the pledge which he gave at the end of the last. He did not think, however, that the Committee would arrive at any good result if the order of reference was widened. He did not say that inquiry into the entire operation of the Poor Law was not desirable, but the questions of law and administration should not be mixed up together. He was one of those who pressed on his right hon. Friend the importance of an inquiry into this subject; and it was very curious that he should have done so at the instigation of the large body of men whom the noble Lord had attacked to-night. It happened that in the very district of St. Pancras the Poor Law guardians, whom the noble Lord had accused of being so hardhearted and unjust, were, of all his constituents, the body who were most anxious that the question should be investigated. He would put it to the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) whether it was likely that the ex parte statements which he had brought forward could be proved against men who called so anxiously for inquiry. No class of men were, in his experience, more careless of the feelings of other men than philanthropists. When a philanthropist prepared to do anything, they might be sure he would tread on somebody's toes. When the noble Lord made up his mind to attack men who were doing their best to administer a law that was notoriously very difficult to administer, he ought, in fairness, to give notice of his intention to them or to their friends. He believed the Guardians of St. Pancras had done all that was in their power to relieve the distress that had existed; but it must be borne in mind that the number of paupers thrown suddenly upon their hands was very great. In a place like the Metropolis, where so many people depended on precarious incomes, there would be periods when pauperism would become so great all of a sudden that any laws they could make for relieving it would break down. The right hon. Gentleman had been, he thought, rather severe upon the charitable persons who had afforded voluntary relief during the late pressure. It was very well to say that the authorities should be able to relieve all the poor according to strict rule, but the thing was impossible. No law could be framed that would meet all the emergencies of an occasional pressure. He hoped the Committee would be limited in its inquiry into the simple fact whether the central authority was carrying out the existing law to the best advantage of both the ratepayers and the poor.

MR. DEEDES

said, he had hoped that one of the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman would have risen before this time to signify his readiness to attend to the suggestion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (SIR William Jolliffe) and to enlarge in some small degree the terms of his Motion. He had based that hope on two reasons—first, on the candid statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made to the House of his desire that everything connected with the administration of the Poor Law should undergo revision; and secondly, because the operation of the law appeared inseparable from the consideration of the subject which the Committee were to inquire into. Another reason for his entertaining that hope was that a strong desire existed thoroughout the country at large that the inquiry should be made. He differed, indeed, from the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) that it would either necessary or advisable to limit this inquiry exclusively to the operation of the existing Poor Laws. But if such an inquiry were properly conducted it would show two things—first, how the existing law operated, whether prejudicially or beneficially, and that, too, to the ratepayers as well as to those who received relief; and in the second place, how the law as it did exist was administered by those to whom that great charge was entrusted. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the part which he (Mr. Deedes) took on the question last Session, and spoke of him as one that had been in favour of the Poor Law at its first introduction, but that he had since changed his opinion. Now, the immediate object which he had last year was this. The question was whether the Poor Law should be continued for five years or for one year. He was against five years, because he wanted inquiry at once; and he was very glad he took the part he did, because that night it had been admitted on all hands that the public mind ought as soon as possible to be set at rest on the question. But he objected to one year, because the inquiry could not possibly be completed in that time. It would have been hurried, and necessarily incomplete, and, therefore, he was in favour of the intermediate term of three years. His object was that the subject should be considered in all its branches—whether the system now in force in the country was such that it ought to be continued, or whether it might be modified and altered in such a way as to render it more efficient and palatable to the country. On the other hand, if it could be shown that the existing law was in any way defective, then an alteration would speedily follow. He must own he was somewhat afraid of a return to that system of indiscriminate charity which had lately been manifested—he said it with all admiration for the noble liberality which the inhabitants of the Metropolis had shown, but unless great caution were shown in the mode of its administration they would go far to demoralise the recipients, and do away with all independence of feeling on the part of the poor. He would suggest the introduction of three or four words, so that the Motion might run somewhat in this way:—"A Select Committee to Inquire into the Operation, of the existing Poor Law, and into its Administration of the Belief of the Poor."

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he believed it was the wish of his right hon. Friend to collect the opinions of the House before anything should be said as to the adoption of the Amendment which the hon. Gentlemen the Member for Kent (Mr. Deedes) had proposed. The terms of reference followed very closely those of the Committee which sat some years before, and was known as Mr. Walter's Committee, the object of which was to inquire into the order issued by the Poor Law Board as to the prohibition of out door relief. That order created great resistance on the part of many rural districts, and the terms of reference were framed so as to limit the inquiries of the Committee to the orders of the Poor Law Commissioners. Hon. Gentlemen who would read the terms of reference would see that it would not be competent for them to travel out of the orders of the Poor Law Commissioners—it would not be competent for them to inquire into the operation of any statute relating to the relief of the poor. There were, however, many statutes relating to the relief of the poor, which appeared to him very proper matters of inquiry at present. It was not the object of his right hon. Friend to restrict or narrow the inquiries of the Committee. It might be presumed that the Committee would not travel unnecessarily out of its way into matters which were not of special interest, but the Amendment suggested would give them a latitude which might be very useful. Therefore he would beg leave to move that after the words "Poor Law Amendment Act" be added, "and into the operation of the laws relating to the relief of the poor."

Amendment proposed.

MR. LOCKE

said, that it was gratifying to him to find that the Amendment should have been suggested by an hon. Member (Mr. Deedes) who so well understood the question of the Poor Laws, and it was gratifying to him also to feel that under the terms of the reference the Committee would have power to consider a question which at that moment was of so much importance in the metropolis, namely, the equalization of the Poor Laws. If the whole question was not to be considered, they would be only adding difficulties, and unnecessarily adding them to a subject which had been full of difficulties for so many years. During the last Session there had been a Committee to enquire into the question of the irremovability of the poor, and that, with questions about Irish paupers, was the only matter inquired into. Let it now, however, be distinctly understood, that the Committee might take a wide field and inquire into the whole question. He had been happy to hear two or three days previous an expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, that he was pleased to find that the guardians of the different parishes in London were in favour of the abolition of the law of settlement altogether, although at the same time the right hon. Gentleman could not accede to the proposition of an universal and uniform law of rating. But if the law of settlement were once abolished, there must be at least an approximation in the rating of the different parishes. Now the question, was, whether the present law of settlement should be maintained, and, supposing it were to be abolished, how the rating should be adjusted throughout the country? He was happy to find that the whole of the question, without any restrictions whatever, would go to the Committee; and there a full opportunity would be afforded of discussing what amendments ought to be made in the administration of the Poor Law.

MR. ANGERSTEIN

said, he thought the question which the Committee would have to consider would be quite large enough without going into the subject of the equalization of the poor rate, which was of sufficient importance to give plenty of work to any Committee which might be appointed to consider it. He agreed that it was very desirable that there should be the fullest inquiry into the administration of the Poor Laws. The question was one more of saving life than of saving the pocket. He was quite certain that, in the late pressure, there would have been a great number of premature deaths, if the public had not nobly answered the appeals made to them. One point for inquiry by the Committee should certainly be whether it was not advisable to give power to guardians, in times of pressure like that which we had just passed through, to find assistance for relieving officers in finding out and relieving cases of real destitution.

MR. LYALL

said, there was a question which had not been touched in the course of the discussion, though it was one of considerable importance. He referred to the condition of pauper schools. Some unions had erected schools for children, and gave them a really sound and valuable education away from the workhouse altogether; but there were others where the children were brought up within the walls of the workhouse, subject to all the moral contamination of such an atmosphere. An education in such a place could serve no good effect, and the consequence was that the children, both boys and girls, became, in many instances, permanent charges on the poor rates, and too often a curse to the community at large. He hoped that question would be taken up by the Committee.

Question, "That those words be there added "put, and agreed to.

Ordered,— That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Administration of the Relief of the Poor, under the Orders, Rules, and Regulations issued by the Poor Law Commissioners and the Poor Law Board, pursuant to the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Acts, and into the operation of the Laws relating to the Relief of the Poor.