§ Bill in Committee.
§ (In the Committee)
§ On Question, "That the Preamble be postponed,"
§ MR. J. FIELDEN, in moving that the Chairman do now leave the Chair, said, this appeared to be a Bill of a very novel character. It was called a Discharge and Regulation Bill; but he found it was in reality proposed to enact a new law by which poor people could be detained in, rather than discharged from the workhouse. The principle of the Bill was a great invasion of the liberty of the subject. If the Bill passed, powers would be given to the Guardians that were now possessed only by Judges and magistrates—namely, the power of imprisonment. The Bill was framed also with a view to prevent vagrancy, but in practice it would have a contrary effect. The Guardians of any Union may, if this Bill becomes law, detain the inmates of workhouses, under certain circumstances, for times specified in the Bill. He was at a loss to understand why paupers were to be prevented from leaving the workhouse to earn their livelihood, instead of getting rid of them, out of the workhouse as soon as possible. But the Bill did not merely deal with the ordinary inmates of a workhouse. By the 5th clause it was 1539 proposed to give power to the Guardians to detain casuals—which was the new name for vagrants—in casual wards for as long a time as three days, if they had applied for food and lodging on more than two occasions in one month. The effect of the clause would be precisely the opposite of what was intended, and would certainly tend to increase rather than to diminish the vagabond class, who would take good care not to apply to the same workhouse more than twice in one month, and who would wander about from one Union workhouse to another. The fear of imprisonment, for this was nothing less, would, therefore, drive poor people to become vagrants. The measure introduced a new principle in the administration of justice in this country; and if the administration of justice was to be committed to Boards of Guardians it was important to consider whether they would be competent to discharge such a responsibility. He did not approve of making a prison of the workhouse. It ought to be used for the case of the sick, aged, and infirm poor. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 gave to the Poor Law Commissioners, who were now represented by the Poor Law Board, the power to make orders which had the force of law, and which ordered the separation, in the workhouse, of man and wife and parents and children. The House would scarcely credit the arbitrary and cruel orders and directions issued by these "Three Kings of Somerset House," as the Commissioners were called. He should like to quote a passage from an "instructional letter issued to Boards of Guardians on their formation," dated "Somerset House, 31 January, 1837," and signed "Edwin Chadwick, Secretary," and which would be found at p. 86, in the Third Annual Report of the Commissioners—
Where the pauper is the head of a family and he declares he has no work, and proves satisfactorily that he can obtain none, either in his own or in any of the parishes within a reasonable distance, he may be offered temporary relief within the workhouse until he can get some kind of work, relief wholly or chiefly in kind being given in the interval to the family, to prevent the immediate necessity of selling off their goods and breaking up the cottage establishment. The pauper should distinctly be told that such an arrangement can only be temporary, in order that his wife and family may seek work for him; and that the strict workhouse principle require that all the members of a family claiming relief should enter 1540 the house and give up their property for the benefit of the parish.The effects of these orders and regulations had been foreseen by Cobbett, Walters, Wakley, and by his own father, who for many years represented the borough of Oldham in that House, and they had been most graphically described by Dr. Southwood Smith, in the 42nd Report of the London Fever Hospital made in 1844—A large proportion of the subjects of fever received into the hospital during the past year were agricultural labourers and provincial mechanics who had been induced to leave their native counties in search of work, and who, either on their road to the metropolis, or soon after their arrival in it, were seized with the disease. The causes assigned for their illness, by these poor creatures themselves, were various, some stating that it was owing to sleeping by the side of hedges, others to want of clothing—many being without stockings, shirts, shoes, or any apparel capable of defending them from the inclemency of the weather—while others—and these constituted a very large proportion of the number—attributed it to want of food, being driven by their intense hunger to eat raw vegetables, turnips, and rotten apples; and certainly their appearance in many instances fully corroborated the truth of their representations.The result of this harsh and cruel treatment of the poor had been to increase enormously the amount of poor rates, and, in a still greater degree, the cost of the police force, who had been increased to deal with the vast army of vagrants who were swarming all over the country. He had extracted the following figures from a little book called Statistical Abstracts, and which was published by authority:—1541 These figures showed most irresistibly that the amount of vagrancy and crime, within the period specified, had enormously increased, and he maintained that it was the result of the present law. Other facts pointed in the same direction. The distress and poverty in the metropolis were almost incredible, as Lord Lawrence had recently pointed out, and as the operations of the Charity Organization Society also showed. The hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), had laid it down that there was no right to relief, but that there was a right to charity. But could there be a right without a corresponding duty? The poor had as much right to relief as the rich had to their estates, and if the right to relief were once denied the time would come when the estates of the rich would be in jeopardy. The right to live had been recognized by all the jurists from the earliest times, and as the Poor Law was enacted in Elizabeth's time, all lawyers, since that, have acknowledged the right to relief from the State. Some years ago he was chairman of the Todmorden Board of Guardians, and he had always taken great interest in the state of the poor in his own neighbourhood. To show the House to what lengths the Poor Law Board were prepared to go to carry out the crotchets of its Presidents, Secretaries, and Inspectors, he would state to the House what had occurred. In the Todmorden Union there was no Union workhouse. The Guardians gave out-door relief to the poor, and the ratepayers were satisfied, and the poor were satisfied. But the Poor Law Board were determined to put a stop to that state of things. They asked the Guardians to build a Union workhouse and the Guardians refused; but the Poor Law Board threatened them that they could compel the adoption of a Union workhouse, by altering the extent of existing Unions, and amalgamating the portions of Union with those of Halifax and Rochdale. The consequence was, that the Guardians had agreed to build a Union workhouse. The ground upon which they were called upon to build was to provide better accommodation for the sick, the aged, and the infirm poor. His brothers and himself knowing the fearful misery that would be created in the Todmorden Union by a Union workhouse or "Bastile," as it was called, 1542 had, in order to prevent such a calamity, offered to build three cottage hospitals, at a cost of £3,000, but the Union workhouse was insisted on. The difference between the Act of 1834 and the present Bill was that the Act said the Guardians "might" build; the Bill said they "should" build. The Poor Law Board were centralizing in their hands the power which ought to exist in local bodies. If they persisted in this course, vagrancy and pauperism would continue to increase to such an extent, that they would defy the power of the police and the Army, and would eventually attack property itself. He moved that the Chairman leave the Chair.
Population of England and Wales. Increase. per cent. 1840 15,731,815 — — 1869 21,869,607 6,137,792 40 Total amount expended under the head of "Relief to the Poor," and other purposes, in England and Wales. Increase. per cent. 1840 £6,067,426 — — 1869 £11,115,630 5,048,104 83 Amount expended in "Actual Relief to the Poor," in England and Wales. Increase. per cent. 1840 £4,576,965 — — 1869 £7,673,100 3,096,135 67 Amount expended for "Other purposes, County and Police Rates, &c.," in England and Wales. Increase. per cent. 1840 £1,490,461 — — 1869 £4,100,899 2,610,438 175 Emigration (United Kingdom). Increase. per cent. 1840 90,743 — — 1869 258,027 167,284 183
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, no one could doubt the sincerity of the opinions or the liberality which had distinguished some of the family of the hon. Member in their dealings with the poor. The question was, whether the Committee should proceed with the discussion of the Bill now before them. The 4th clause of the Bill dealt with the habitual pauper; the 5th and subsequent clauses with vagrants. When the Committee came to each their provisions could be discussed. His hon. Friend dealt with the 4th clause as if it were to give a power of imprisonment to the Poor Law Guardians. He (Mr. Stansfeld) should object to the clause if he believed that such would be its operation. There were two views in which it might be regarded—first, that the clause was necessary for the discipline of the workhouse, and to deter paupers from resorting to it; the other was the idea that instead of that power of discipline, the paupers of the vagrant class should be treated almost as criminals. He was not prepared to treat any paupers as presumable criminals. The power sought was only a reasonable regulation for the maintenance of discipline.
MR. BROMLEY-DAYENPORTsaid, he thought the Bill in a great sense excellent, and he was convinced that with certain changes, it would do a vast amount of good. He held that a certain amount of steady penal treatment was necessary for those predatory vagrants who victimized the community to the detriment of the deserving poor. It was a mistake for the Guardians to force men into the workhouse to escape outdoor relief, because it was much more costly.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he questioned the expediency of the proposed new power being given to the Guardians, and suggested whether it would not be an improvement to make the frequent discharge of paupers at their own wish an offence, with the view of having them treated as rogues and vagabonds.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, the experience he had had in several counties led him to the conclusion that there was only one way of effectually treating vagrancy, and that was to enforce the law as it stood.
§ SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he founded his objection to the Bill upon the fact that it increased the charge upon the ratepayers, whereas vagrants ought to be charged upon the community at large. The Government, he thought, should provide one-half of the expenses incurred by Unions in the erection of casual wards, and he submitted that it was not worth while to attempt to frighten the Guardians by the threat of depriving them of the £180,000 or £200,000 which the Treasury gave them towards the total expenditure of £7,500,000. He should oppose the Bill because, like several other measures introduced this Session, it imposed a new charge upon one description of property.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEThe right hon. Gentleman who represents the Poor Law Board has exhibited considerable dexterity in trying to give the go-by to the powerful statement which has been made by the hon. Member who so well represents the Eastern Division of the West Riding in this House. Now, there is no hon. Member in the House who has, either personally or hereditarily, a better right to speak on this question than that hon. Member. It appears to me, that on many subjects the politics of this House are something like a railway engine. It will run smoothly upon a certain tram; but if by any unforeseen accident some hon. Member taking a wider view of circumstances, proposes to the House the general consideration of a subject, particularly if that subject is connected with the labouring classes, or with their welfare, immediately he is treated as if he had got off the line; and the most remarkable circumstance is this—that hon. Members who profess peculiarly the popular creed on the other side of the House, and who were in 1544 former days the foremost advocates of everything that might tend to the welfare of the labouring classes, are now, of all the Members of this House, the most averse to the consideration of such subjects. How is it that it has devolved upon the hon. Member who has made this Motion, and on my hon. Colleague and myself, miserable, bigoted Tories that we are; how is it that it has devolved upon us to appear before the House as the advocates of the rights of the labouring classes and of the poor? How is it? Surely it is not becoming in those who have claimed to be the peculiar representatives of the great body of the people to leave this task to us. But I wish to advert very shortly to what has fallen from the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of the West Riding. In this Union, and in this neighbourhood, his family have maintained the system of the old Poor Law before it was changed—the system of a well-administered out-door relief. Now there is no family—and I hope the hon. Member will forgive me for this allusion—which is more distinguished either for its wealth or for its philanthropy. I assisted the father of the hon. Member in passing the Ten Hours' Bill through this House, and I firmly believe, after now, no short experience in this House, that no measure that has been passed within my memory has tended so much to the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of a good understanding between all classes. It has been, indeed, a prolific measure, for we have seen the House proceed upon the same principle, and extending that principle to workshops and to the various trades and industries of the country, and always with advantage. I say, therefore, that the statements of the hon. Member ought to have a weight with this House which can attach to the statement of very few Members within it in reference to every subject which is connected with the labouring classes and with the poor. Now what are the objections which the hon. Member raises to this Bill? Why, that it is a mere palliative, and that a faulty palliative, for evils which have resulted from the general policy of this country with respect to the poor. I do not attribute the increase of vagrancy and the unsettled state of too large a portion of the labouring classes entirely to the operation of the Poor Law. No 1545 doubt, by breaking up their homes, particularly during the earlier and severer period of its administration, it did tend to unsettle the population; but that has been followed up by a course of commercial policy which has tended to bring about an actual collision between labour and capital; and the maxims of modern political economy have been carried out until this House has become case-hardened to the difficulties entailed on the labouring classes by the necessity of shifting from one locality to another for the purpose of procuring work. I happen to know—and were it necessary I could prove—that not only is this continued shifting of the labouring population from locality to locality an actual necessity, under the present system of free trade, but that it tends to demoralize the people of this country more than almost any other circumstance; because when the honest poor man, from the failure of employment in one locality, is obliged to travel to another, he seldom removes until he is in distress. This being the case, he finds himself compelled to frequent the lowest class of lodging-house, where he has to associate with vagrants of the worst character, and where his family reaps contamination; and I know of no such prolific source either of criminality or of disease as the necessity which has been entailed upon the labouring classes of constantly shifting their homes. The result is this—that they aggregate in the great towns, and help to swell the numbers of their poor. They come there on the chance of getting employment, and, I am sorry to say, relying upon the hope of receiving that charity to the acceptance of which they ought never to have been driven. And I cordially agree with the hon. Member when he said that nothing could be more dangerous than to shake the confidence of the people of this country in the idea that every man has a right to relief from the State, when his condition without that relief must drive him to the commission of crime. Why, Sir, it is this principle to which we owe that which has been the superior morality of our population; and I object to this Bill because I am certain of this, that if you render a resort to the union-house more disgraceful and more distasteful to the labouring population of this country whom you have compelled to travel, you will find them resorting the more to 1546 those dens, I am sorry to call them, of vice and pollution—the lodging-houses by the way. Depend upon it that there is a feeling of honest pride in the poor man, and that if you once break that down, it will tend to produce a class in England analogous to the Communists of Paris. At this moment you have before you just across the water an illustration of what that class may become, and of the power that they may eventually exercise. I know hon. Members seem to think that because we have a police and an Army, the security of property in this country and of its peace is for ever assured and certain. There was the same feeling of confidence in France under a far more centralized despotism than you have ever seen in England. How has that confidence been realized? You have the example before your eyes, and yet hon. Members are so unwilling to extend their view beyond the narrow compass of their own prejudices, that we find the subject treated with something like ridicule by those who have always proclaimed themselves the special representatives of the people. Now, my firm belief is this, that this Bill is vicious, because it tends to confuse the vagrant with the honest poor man, by associating him in the same house with the casual poor. I hold that its tendency is further to degrade men who are driven by the necessities of their employment to travel from place to place in search of work. I hold, therefore, that the Bill is vicious in principle. But this is not the only shape in which I hold it to be vicious in principle. It is all very well to say that one of the clauses is simply a regulation for the detention of the poor man in the union-house for 24 hours. But what is this other than imprisonment? I say, then, that it is ridiculous to state that this is not a penal measure. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Stansfeld) that we ought to increase the stringency of our vagrant laws, and I am prepared to vote for such a measure; but not until you have established an adequate tribunal to discriminate the vagrant from the casual poor, and no such tribunal is provided in this Bill. There is no attempt in the Bill to establish a distinction which is so essential to the justice of its action, and to preserve that respect for the unfortunate poor man, as distinguished from the criminal 1547 vagrant, upon which depends so much of the self-respect of the labouring classes. For these reasons I can, without scruple, vote with my hon. Friend the Member for the Eastern Division of the West Riding.
§ MR. RICHARDsaid, he feared that the Bill would largely encourage vagrancy, and that the plan of getting the police to give relief to vagrants had answered where it had been tried.
§ MR. LIDDELLsaid, he thought there would be great objections to handing the vagrants over to the supervision of the police, because it would require an increase in the police force. He was in favour of some provisions like those proposed to distinguish the vagrants from the ordinary casual poor. He should support the Bill.
§ MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, that at Merthyr good results had been effected by requiring the police to proceed to arrest vagrants under the Vagrancy Act.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he should support the Motion for going into Committee, because the Bill was an attempt to separate vagrants in their treatment from the casual poor.
§ MR. COLLINSsaid, he would support the Bill, because it dealt with a crying evil, but he thought it would be better dealt with by being referred to a Committee.
§ MR. CORRANCEsaid, he thought the Bill was capable of being amended in Committee.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Joshua Fielden.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 79: Majority 68.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.