HC Deb 25 May 1865 vol 179 cc789-800

Order for Third Reading read.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought that after what had taken place in previous discussions, the House would not be surprised if he made a few observations which would be somewhat in the nature of a personal explanation. The House would recollect that during the course of the discussions in previous stages lie had already taken exception to the wholesale charges made against all parts of England, and especially against the county of Oxford in which he lived. It was said that there had been a great and sweeping destruction and demolition of cottages throughout the agricultural districts, for the purpose of clearing off the poor. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board represented those acts as tyrannical, and made some strong remarks as regarded the county which he had the honour and pleasure of representing. It was stated that though the population of the county was nearly stationary the population of its principal city had actually decreased; and that consequently the rest of the county must have increased in population, he wished to question both these statements, which appeared on unquestionable authority to be erroneous. When the first of them was made he expressed great doubt about it, and he had since referred to figures, which made it plain to any one who looked at the census how the mistake had arisen. The city of Oxford was described in part of the Census of 1861 as a union with a population of about 20,000. It would be perfectly true that if the Oxford Union was taken to represent the city of Oxford, lower figures would show a trifling decrease; but when you came to take a larger area than one union—namely, the area of the cess—which was set forth in the detailed portion of the census, you found that not only had the population of Oxford not decreased, but had actually increased. The actual population of Oxford in 1861 was 27,533; its population in 1851 was 27,388, which showed a slight increase in the ten years; but even those figures did not exhibit the whole truth of the matter. As stated in a footnote of the Census Returns in 1861 the University was "down," in 1851 it was "up," a circumstance which made a difference of 700 or 800 persons. He had therefore shown that the argument for an increase having taken place in the county population founded on the decrease in the population of the capital completely fell to the ground. The premisses being wrong, the conclusion founded upon them was also erroneous, lie would illustrate the mistake in a still stronger manner by mentioning the oases of Banbury and Chipping Norton, two important towns, one of them of considerable size. In 1831 the population of the former town was 5,900, in 1861 it was 9,139; the population of Chipping Norton was 2,262 in 1831, it was 3,111 in 1861. The census showed that the increase had been in the towns and not in the rural districts. He now came to a larger question. Having disposed of fourteen or fifteen places which had been mentioned in the first instance, the right hon-Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers) replied by firing eighty places at him—a pretty good discharge to come at a man without notice. He had gone through those places and grouped them. Out of the eighty he took thirty-four cases in which the decrease of houses in no instance exceeded three for any one case. The number of houses in those thirty-four places was 2,563; and the whole diminution in ten years had been sixty-five houses. But what was the number of unoccupied houses? No less than ninety-one. Were proprietors to keep up houses for which there were no occupants? If not, why should such cases be brought forward to show that landlords were pulling down houses in order to clear off the poor? He now came to twenty-nine other places in which the numbers varied above three, and he would first call attention to three or four parishes which were within eight or ten miles of the place in which he lived himself—namely, Charlton, Great Milton, Little Milton, and Great Hazley. In one of these the decrease was fourteen houses, in another eight, and in a third four. These were perfectly open parishes, so that the diminution must have been the natural result of the law of supply and demand. To show how dangerous it was to jump to a conclusion upon an insufficient knowledge of facts he would instance the case of Little Milton, the population of which was stated in the Report to have greatly diminished in consequence of the demolition of cottages. Some seventeen or eighteen years ago the proprietor of that parish, finding it to be over full, put his hand into his pocket, and assisted a great number of the inhabitants to emigrate. No doubt many of the cases relied upon in the Report as proofs of the tyranny of landowners were capable of an equally easy and innocent explanation. In that parish at the present moment there were four unoccupied houses. This parish also furnished an instance of the good feeling between the labourers and their masters, for when a number of rioters from a neighbouring county attacked and destroyed the property of the landowners, the inhabitants came forward the next morning and identified every mother's son engaged in the riot. Dr. Hunter referred to some parishes in which he said nothing had been done to increase labourers' house accommodation, but he (Mr. Henley) found that in Chesterton the number of cottages in 1831 was 83, and in 1861 it was 89; in Blackthorn the number of cottages in 1831 was 81, and in 1861 it was 90; in Clifton, in 1831, it was 54, and in 1861 it was 63, and in the last-named parish, which comprised 670 acres, there had been several houses pulled down; but he would ask how a population of 244 could be properly maintained there? In the parish of Hook's Norton there were 313 houses in 1831, and 347 in 1861, and the number of uninhabited houses was 18. Then came nine places—three of them market towns—Henley, Woodstock, and Witney, and which could not be said to be under the control of tyrannical landlords; the remaining six being parishes in the city of Oxford, St. Peter's, Holywell, St. Mary the Virgin, St. Aldat's, St. Peter Baily, and St. Michael, and in the whole of these there were 72 uninhabited houses. In some of these places, such as Woodstock, which had been famous for the manufacture of gloves, employment had declined; but in the county within fifteen years past the wages had increased 10 or 12 per cent, and there could not have been an increase of wages if there had not been a decrease of people. He had now gone through most of the parishes; six or seven of them were very peculiar, being cut off from the rest of the county; and, looking to Abingdon, in the two parishes of St. Helen and St. Nicholas, he found that in the former case there was a diminution from 1,225 to 1,202, and in the latter case from 151 to 147. He had been at the trouble to analyse the condition between 1831 and 1861 of a great number of the parishes in Oxfordshire, and his own surprise was that, having regard to the course of events, the diminution of houses was not much larger than it seemed to be. It was an absurdity to say that the conduct of landowners could have any effect in reducing the population of those places in which there were many unoccupied houses. So far from the poor being driven into the towns the town of Abingdon was pulling down its cottages in consequence of the decrease in the number of the labouring classes. He trusted he had stated what was necessary in reference to the eighty fresh shots that had been fired at his head. He did not pretend to account for the diminution of the population in the places referred to, which might be owing to various causes. Then, with reference to the Bill itself. They were told they were quite mistaken with regard to it. The leading journal described the Bill as being simply a measure for bettering the position of the agricultural labourers by removing the temptation at present existing to reduce the amount of cottage accommodation available for their use. That was not his view of the matter, as lie did not believe in the existence of any such temptation. In his judgment, there were two or three other strong reasons that had not been referred to which induced many people to regard the Bill favourably. One reason was, the prospect it held out of greater facility of management and a greater simplification of the accounts. Another matter which he could not avoid believing had had some influence upon the increasing majorities by which the Bill had been supported was that in the re-distribution of charge which it would effect, three-fourths of the parishes would gain at the expense of the other fourth; and it did so happen, no doubt quite accidentally, that among the gainers were all the large towns, and an enormous number of the boroughs which returned Members to that House. There was one thing he had been more and more astonished at: he was anxious to do away with all removals; he had no means of judging of the feeling of those who supported the right hon. Gentleman, but he should have thought that the supporters of the Bill would have been only too glad to give such a boon to the poor, for that it would be a boon no one had ever denied. The right hon. Gentleman, who knew the trim of those who supported him better than he could do, said that the measure itself was a proper one, but he opposed it because he (Mr. Henley) had suggested it. Many persons had thought that such a measure would increase the charge in particular places, but that circumstance could, of course, have no influence with Gentlemen who were supporting this Bill merely because it would confer a boon upon the poor. It did, however, appear to him to be, to say the least, problematical whether the right hon. Gentleman would at any future time be able to carry such a measure if when he was giving to his supporters a large pecuniary benefit they would not consent to do that which might in a slight degree diminish its value. The House did not know one half of the suffering that arose from the law of removal even as it was now limited. Let them take such a case as this:—A man came to this or to any other city, married, lived ten, twelve, or twenty years, had children, and died. If his widow, in order to obtain a less costly residence, went into another parish her irremovability was gone, and she and her children were liable to be carried away forty, fifty, or 100 miles, to some place where she had never been before, and where she knew no one. Even if she was fortunate enough or well-advised enough to remain in the parish in which her husband died, all her children over seven years of age might be torn from her and carried a hundred miles away. That, however, was only part of the evil which the House was continuing as burdens upon the backs of the poor. The main cause for the alteration of the law of removal was what occurred in the manufacturing districts during the periods of distress in 1839 and 1842, when it was found that many persons who were in the greatest distress would not apply for relief lest they should be removed. The same thing was going on now both in London and elsewhere, and the result was that the public were repeatedly shocked by the occurrence of cases in which distress actually resulted in the death of the sufferer. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had the means of giving the House accurate information upon this subject, and if that was the case it ought not to be withheld. It was a most important part of the subject, and the Return of removals throughout the kingdom which had been presented to the House was intended to illustrate it. By the kindness of the vestry clerk he had obtained information as to the state of things in the parish in which they were now sitting, and he found that in 1862 there were 100 cases, including 263 persons, in which inquiries were commenced, but in order to avoid removal the applicants for relief ceased to make themselves chargeable. In 1864 the number of persons of whom that might be said amounted to 306. Some of these people might have had the good fortune to obtain employment, but many of them had, no doubt, gone down to the lowest dregs of distress, perhaps crime, rather than be torn away from the places in which they had lived nearly all their lives. This information was stated by those who had fnrnished it to him to be a part of a Return to the House of Commons. If that was the case, the Return presented to the House must have been shorn of a material fact. He had stated before that in his judgment, as far as the rural districts were concerned, the change introduced by this Bill would not be for the benefit of the poor. He said that because henceforward every union would be exactly in the position of a large parish, and he had noticed that whenever pressure came, the labouring population—he would not use the word "poor"—were not so well employed in large parishes as they were in more limited areas. The hest thing for a working man was regular employment, at the best wages he could obtain, and anything which tended to deprive him of that chance of employment was, no matter how he was dealt with after he had been made a pauper, injurious to him. That was another reason why he deplored this Bill. All measures such as this depended upon a balance of conveniences and inconveniences. If they had got rid of removability, he believed that the benefit to the poor would have been so great that they might have risked the other consequences of this Bill; but the House was about to adopt a measure which would confer no benefit upon the poor, and had refused to accept one which would have been greatly for their advantage, because the right hon. Gentleman, for some unaccountable reason, had said, "If I accept your Amendment I shall wreck my Bill." Why the right hon. Gentleman should have such an opinion of his supporters as to suppose that when they were receiving a considerable boon they would hesitate to consent to what would confer a double benefit upon the poor, because in some places it might increase the charge upon the rates, he could not imagine. His objections to the Bill remained in full force; but it was not his intention again to trouble the House to divide against it.

MR. BENTINCK

said, before the House went to a division upon this question he should like to offer a few words in reference to some charges which had been preferred at a former stage of this measure by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board against that part of the country with which he (Mr. Bentinck) had the honour to be connected, reading from the remarkable Report from which it appeared the right hon. Gentleman had received his information.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

I got my figures from the Agricultural Society of Norfolk.

MR. BENTINCK

Wherever the right hon. Gentleman obtained his information, the statements he had made in respect to the county of Norfolk were as inaccurate as those contained in the Report relating to the county of Oxford. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that both the population and the number of houses in his county were much on the increase. He was glad in having this opportunity of exculpating his part of the country from the unfounded charges which had been brought against it, and which ought never to have been made. His strong objection to this Bill was its hypocritical character. Its professed object was to benefit the poor, and yet they had not had one word from the right hon. Gentleman in reference to that object, with the exception of the allegation of the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill would no longer allow the continuance of the inducement to landed proprietors to pull down the houses of the poor and to get rid of the inmates. Now he thought that they ought to have had some statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to how the poor were to he benefited by this Bill. The opinion to which he (Mr. Bentinck) had arrived after all he had heard and seen was this, that so far from the poor deriving any benefit from the measure, in many cases it would occasion a large amount of suffering. It appeared to him that amongst the aged and unskilled labourers a vast amount of hardship would arise from the operation of this measure. He, therefore, contended that the Bill was one of a hypocritical character, professing to benefit the poor and yet containing clauses which in their operation would materially damage their position. He concurred with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) in thinking that there was something extremely suspicious in the character of this Bill. It was remarkable that just immediately preceding the general election a Bill should be framed by the Government which, upon close investigation, was shown to be a measure obviously framed to confer a peculiar benefit upon boroughs and towns, and, at the same time, to damage the position of the rural districts surrounding them. The circumstances alluded to by his right hon. Friend tended to show that the Bill was certainly of a somewhat exceptionable character. In whatever light they viewed it, one result at all events would arise from its operation—namely, that it would benefit in a pecuniary sense a large number of towns, whilst it would inevitably prejudice to the same amount the rural districts surrounding them. Now it was well to understand what the nature of the Bill was, and how it would operate before they went to the country. It should be known that under this Bill the interests of the rural population would be sacrificed to benefit those of the towns. At an earlier stage of the Bill he ventured to ask the sanction of the House to a proposal which he believed would tend to counteract the injustice which this Bill in its present shape would inevitably occasion to the rural districts. That proposal was to give power for the re-distribution of the rating areas. That proposal, however, was negatived by a majority of the House. He would make no further opposition to the measure. In conclusion, he would only express a hope that the change which he had failed to make in the Bill would he effected in another place, and that the provisions of the measure would be so modified as to render it one of less injustice to the rural districts of this country.

MR. KNIGHT

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers) by his Bill, instead of settling matters, was unsettling everything. The right hon. Gentleman had gone back to the large areas which were tried in the time of Elizabeth, but were reduced again; which were again tried in the time of Charles II. and again reduced. They were likewise tried in Ireland, but were subsequently reduced because it was found impossible to work them. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed great sympathy for the rural poor, but it was not known to him perhaps that the rural population were the longest lived of the whole community. He (Mr. Knight) had applied to the Registrar General for some statistics upon this subject, when that functionary placed in his hand the following ^information—namely, that the rural population were 15 per cent longer lived than the urban population. Of the rural population 33 per cent were the labouring population. Now that 33 per cent were much longer lived than the remaining 55 per cent of the rural population generally. That was to say, a man of twenty years of age of the labouring population of a rural district might reasonably expect to live two years and nine months longer than one of the remaining classes of the rural population. The right hon. Gentleman said it was for the good of the working classes he had brought forward this Bill, but he had made admissions as to some of its provisions, that he did not expect they would gain anything by it. The right hon. Gentleman said that the farmers would be benefited by this measure because they would not be obliged to employ partially infirm labourers, and their rates would be reduced. Now, how those two things were consistent with an increased benefit to the poor, to him (Mr. Knight, did not appear. Mr. Chadwick and those other gentlemen with whom the right hon. Gentleman was connected in 1837, at the time of the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act, stated that their object was to reduce the rates to the lowest possible amount for the relief of the poor; and in order to effect that object they endeavoured to lessen, year by year, the numbers receiving out-door relief, and to oblige the poor to go into the union workhouse. The consequence was, there was not a town in the country that was not full of chartists; great discontent arose, the whole kingdom was almost in a state of rebellion, and the people were levying arms in every town in England, which culminated in Frost's outbreak in South Wales. That state of things was only remedied by the great alterations made in the Poor Law Act, which tended to enlarge the classes of poor persons who had a claim to out-door relief. The great argument used in this House in connection with the present Bill was what was called the close parish case. The right hon. Gentleman had it in his power, if any such cases existed within his knowledge, to bring forward such cases and to probe them, but he had done nothing of the sort. If such places existed, nothing could have been easier for him than to have laid before the House specific information as to the counties in which they were to be found, and the persons who had reduced the number of houses on their properties. That, nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman had not done. The first time the close parish cry was raised was in the examination of the evidence taken before the Committee of 1847. But the only evidence heard on that subject was of a hearsay character, no specific instances were brought forward. The late Mr. Charles Buller appointed Commissioners to investigate the close parish question, and to discover the parishes in which the demolitions occurred. Those Commissioners produced by name a great number of alleged cases of that character. A reference, however, to the census, showed that those allegations were wholly unfounded, that the number of houses instead of having diminished had largely increased, and Mr. Baines in bringing in his Bill for union rating in 1854 thought it wiser to drop that part of his case. The subject was not again renewed until the right hon. Gentleman was appointed Chairman of the Irremovable Poor Committee. The charge was once more made of houses and cottages in certain districts having been pulled down, and the poor inmates driven away. An application again to the census, however, proved the groundlessness of such charge, and thus that argument failed again. Another Committee, which the right hon. Gentleman presided over, had been called the Whitewashing Committee. It was appointed to consider the state of the Poor Law Board—whether it had properly conducted itself, and whether its orders were beneficial to the public—before it could be allowed a renewal of its lease. The evidence taken before that Committee, however, was so craftily managed that the constant increase of infanticide, the disgraceful state of medical relief to the poor, the deaths by starvation, and the way in which the medical relief of the poor was put up, as it were, for sale at a sort of Dutch auction—all those questions were quietly got over by this Whitewashing Committee. Nor was there one word of evidence taken about the close parish case or the pulling down cottages. Yet a Member of the Committee newly appointed, and who had not sat or heard the evidence for the previous three years, proposed a Resolution in favour of union rating, and it was carried unanimously. They had had now with reference to the present Bill before the House two sets of arguments—namely, the arguments of the House and the arguments of the lobby. The arguments used in the House were the close parish case and the good results to the poor. Those arguments had been answered over and over again. The arguments of the lobby resolved themselves into this, "My borough will gain £1,000, £2,000 or £3,000 a year by this Bill, and, therefore, I must vote for it. At the general election, that argument will have due effect in securing town voters." Now there were about 330 borough Members in that House, to 160 county Members, so that the latter had no power to prevent this transfer of property. The fact was that the Bill was one to take the property of the counties and to give it to the towns and boroughs. He had hoped that the Return moved for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, would have been made before this, as it would have enabled the House to calculate how much every borough would gain at the expense of the county. In its absence they might assume that they were voting away millions of property on the eve of a general election. He knew it was useless to reply further to any of the arguments used in favour of the present measure.

MR. MITFORD

said, that he had supported the Bill, but felt that in the case of strikes or other extraordinary circumstances it would cast heavy burdens on rural parishes adjoining great towns. He had opposed the Amendment for the redistribution of unions, because the power to effect this already existed, and in hopes that the President of the Poor Law Board would give some pledge as to the exercise of this power. He (Mr. Mitford) had waited till the eleventh hour in hopes that this would be given, but the right hon. Gentleman had throughout evaded that question. In the debate on Mr. Baines' Bill the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) said that an alteration of the boundaries of unions would be necessary in some cases where rural parishes were included in the same union as populous towns. This is what he (Mr. Mitford) said now. The President of the Poor Law Board had promised to bring in a Bill to abolish Gilbert unions, when a favourable opportunity would be afforded to go into the whole question of re-distribution. He (Mr. Mitford) hoped to see shortly the end of the present cumbersome and costly system of making and collecting poor rates, and that for this purpose all the parishes of a union should be deemed to be one parish. He lived in a union of twenty-seven parishes which ran very much into each other. The practice was to call upon the overseers to make and collect a separate rate in each parish. Fees were paid to Justices Clerks, and much trouble and travelling resulted. Moreover, these functionaries were not always very competent for this work. He thought that the Board of Guardians should be empowered to make and collect these rates.

Bill read 3°, and passed.