POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL. (Hansard, 13 June 1876)

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,
in reply to a question, stated that the object of the clause was to render a married woman living separate from her husband responsible for the maintenance of her children who might become paupers.

§ MR. MELLOR
moved, in page 5, line 30, to leave out from "him" to "such society," in lines 35 and 36, and insert— As a debt, or from his executors, administrators, or assigns, in case of his death the sum so expended by them as aforesaid, and the managing body of such society after notice from the clerk, served previously to the money being paid over, shall be required to pay the same and shall be exonerated on payment thereof from any further liability. The hon. Gentleman said, he knew the case of a woman who was for 18 years kept as a pauper lunatic in the County Asylum, and it turned out that she was entitled to a considerable sum of money, and the relatives were compelled to recoup the parish the whole cost of her maintenance. Another and a similar case occurred last year. Had those paupers died in the Asylum the cost of their maintenance would have been borne by the Union, and the money which was recovered would have been lost to the ratepayers. By the alteration he proposed the Board of Guardians, under such circumstances, could recover any such advances with great facility and certainty.

§ MR. PELL
moved, in page 7, line 30, to leave out "born in Ireland," Nothing could be more unfair to the poor of this country than the present Law of Settlement, the remnant of a monstrous code designed to prevent the industrial classes seeking their bread where they could best obtain it. Any attempt of the poor man to leave the poor parish, to exchange low wages where his labour was not required for higher terms where he would be welcome, was jealously impeded and interfered with by the various Laws of Settlement. Of late years these and the Laws of Removal had been somewhat modified, and further advance in the right direction was suggested in 1766 this Bill for the Irish poor. If this proposal was fair and just towards our fellow-countrymen in Ireland it was impossible to resist logically, or with effect, its application equally to those born in England and Scotland, on whose behalf, with every confidence that the Committee would support him, he moved his Amendment to leave out the words "born in Ireland." The large book he held in his hand was the one volume of Burns' Justice which treated of the Poor Laws, and he ventured to assert that more than one-third of it was taken up with the question of Settlement, one-half or more of which would disappear from the volume if this Amendment was accepted. He prayed the House to reflect on the condition of a widow and her children whose husband coming, perhaps, from the extreme North to settle, marry, and earn his bread in the South, left her unprovided for and dependent on poor relief. If removable, though after many years' association with local friends and employment, she might find herself transported to the midst of new scenes and new faces, without a friend to stand by her, while the litigation on this head was continual and most costly. He trusted the Government would accept his Amendment.

§ MR. RATHBONE
said, he felt it his duty to oppose the Amendment. The question of Settlement was one which ought to be dealt with as a whole, and dealing with it in a partial way would simply tend to create one injustice instead of another.

§ LORD ESLINGTON
contended that as the subject of Settlement had been introduced into the Bill, it was only common justice that the advantages enjoyed by Irishmen should be extended to others.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
hoped the Committee would not enter upon a discussion of the general Law of Settlement. He pointed out that the grievance complained of by Irishmen was that a poor person who came over here from that country without any animus revertendi was liable, nevertheless, when he became a pauper, to be sent back to his native place, and that considerable hardship was thus often inflicted. He did not think, however, that anything would be gained by the adoption of the proposed Amendment, while he admitted that the question which it involved was one which 1767 was rapidly ripening in the public mind, and one with respect to which legislation could not be long deferred.

§ MR. STANSFELD
supported the Amendment. He objected to exceptional Poor Law legislation in regard to Ireland, which he declared did not commend itself either to Irish or English Members. He regretted that his right hon. Friend should have thrown away so good an opportunity of introducing a very important and valuable change in the English Law of Settlement.

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
said, the people of Ireland did not act upon a principle of reciprocity in cases of removal of English paupers. The Irish did not send the English poor who became chargeable to the Irish back to England. In Ireland they had no Law of Settlement. He should certainly support the Amendment.

§ MR. FLOYER
was of opinion that considerable difficulty would arise if they adopted the Amendment of his hon. Friend. The object of the clause was in the interest of the poor, and with regard to the Irish, he thought a great many Irishmen would he glad if they could be sent back to Ireland. He approved of the principle laid down in the clause by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, who had charge of the Bill, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would hold by it.

§ MR. LAW
said, he was prepared to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. It would go further than the Bill did at present towards abolishing the Law of Settlement by extending the same boon to the English as was proposed for the Irish pauper. A Committee of this House in 1847 strongly recommended the abolition of the Law of Settlement; but now, 30 years afterwards, we found ourselves just as we were, and if the House was not now prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member the probability was that we should in a quarter of a century be exactly in the same position. It was not desirable that there should be any difference between the laws of England, Ireland, and Scotland; and certainly the workpeople from one part of this United Kingdom should not be treated as aliens in another. It was time to adopt a uniform system in dealing with paupers born anywhere 1768 within the Kingdom, and he should therefore support the Amendment.

§ MR. ASSHETON
also supported the Amendment, though he thought the better course would be to omit the clause altogether, leaving the question of the Law of Settlement to be dealt with separately.

§ MR. MACDONALD
said, that the Amendment, so far from being an injury, would confer a benefit on the English labourer. He condemned the Government proposal as nibbling with the question.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
held that the Amendment would not be a boon to the English pauper, because he might often prefer to go to his three years' residential settlement rather than to his natural settlement. The advantage of this clause was that it gave, for the first time, the Irish labourer in this country a settlement. The English labourer had a settlement already, and if he wished to improve that, he should wish, not to confine it to three years, but to make it a two years' or one year's settlement. The Bill would get rid of some of the scandals which now existed in the Law of Settlement; but he had not dealt with this question as a whole, partly from want of time, partly because he thought it ought to be treated in a separate measure, and partly because opinion was not ripe; but he admitted that public opinion was growing in the direction of abolishing settlement, and as soon as he could find time to do so he would endeavour to deal with the question.

§ MR. CLIVE
asked the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider the Amendment, with a view to its adoption, which would be a step towards the abolition of the Law of Settlement.

§ MR. CLARE READ
considered the preferable course would be in the framing of the Bill to strike out the whole of the clauses relating to Settlement. It was simply nibbling with a great question. It was a great hardship that after a man had left his native county and secured a settlement in another part of the county, where he had lived for many years, perhaps married and brought up a family, he should be sent back to the place in which he had originally secured his settlement. At all the conferences he had attended the law as it at present existed had been condemned 1769 in toto, and its abolition would be but just and right.

§ MR. MUNTZ
thought they ought to be content with the promise given by the President of the Local Government Board, and adopt the Bill as now proposed on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government would, as soon as possible, take the whole question of Settlement into consideration.

MR. CARPENTER-GARNIER
submitted that the Government would be wise to accept the Amendment, or else withdraw the clauses relating to the Law of Settlement. He should be glad to see the existing Law of Settlement done away with, and supported the Amendment as an important step in that direction.

§ MR. M'LAREN
thought this clause should be altogether withdrawn. If it were not, he should certainly vote for the Amendment. He could not see that there was any principle to authorize the introduction into an Act of Parliament of anything about nationality. He objected to putting into any Act of Parliament that an Englishman, a Scotchman, or an Irishman was to have some privilege which, was not accorded to the other nationalities. They were all British subjects, part and parcel of the United Kingdom. It appeared to him that the main difficulty had been scarcely referred to in this discussion. The main difficulty, he apprehended, was this, that Irish paupers crowded into England and Scotland because there was no Law of Settlement in Ireland. Until they made a Law of Settlement for poor Irishmen in their own country, like that existing for poor Englishmen and poor Scotchmen, they would do no good. As to the clause now before the House, its only effect would be to facilitate a greater number of Irish paupers being settled in England, whilst the proposed Amendment would give the same facilities in regard to Scotland. He denied that there was at present any difficulty in Irish paupers getting a settlement in England or Scotland. On the contrary, great facilities were afforded them, and in consequence of those facilities England and Scotland were unduly burdened by the Irish paupers they had to support, but who ought to be supported by rates levied on the lands of Ireland. 1770 Lately there had been laid on the Table a Return bearing on this matter. It showed that there were 36,000 Irish paupers in one half-year in England and 40,000 in the other half of the same year. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) had stated that in Ireland there was no power to return English or Scotch paupers. That was quite true, and he would be delighted to give them every facility for doing so. How many, however, would they be able to return as against the 40,000 Irish paupers maintained by England? Why, there were only 153 English-born paupers maintained in Ireland, so that, if clauses were put into this Bill to send those 153 back to England, it would be a very small matter. A still more expensive class was the lunatic paupers. There, again, the difference was enormous. There were 15 English-born lunatic paupers maintained in Ireland in one half-year, and 23 in another, but there were 1,280 Irish-born lunatics maintained in England. He would be quite willing to give his Irish Friends power to return the 15 or 23 to England, but if they did that, how could they ask England to maintain their 1,280? The case with Scotland was still worse, the proportion of ordinary paupers and pauper lunatics sent from Ireland being much larger. Whatever evil England suffered in the matter Scotland suffered it at least doubly. He repeated that the only effect of this clause would be to give additional facilities to Irish paupers to settle in England, whilst by an Amendment to the next clause it was proposed to give them the same facilities in Scotland. He thought they should make a Law of Settlement so as to make it to the interests of poor men to stay at home instead of forcing them to come here. At present it was no secret that lunatics were sent over from Ireland, landed at Liverpool, and sent direct to the lunatic asylum. They were sent over for the express purpose of being maintained out of the English rates. He was not asking any privilege for Scotland. He wished all three countries to be on the same footing; but to confer this special privilege on Ireland by Act of Parliament seemed to imply that the Irish labourer was much more valuable than the English or the Scotch. He found that the number of Scotch paupers who became 1771 chargeable to England was very trifling, and that whilst in Lancashire there were 251 Irish-born pauper lunatics, there were only 13 Scotch-born, showing that Scotland was not in the habit of sending her paupers over the Border in order to get rid of the burden. He hoped the clause would be withdrawn, or postponed.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
might stop that discussion by stating at once that he saw plainly it was the feeling of the Committee that the proposals of the Government should be extended to all paupers, whether English or Irish. He had been afraid to make that proposition, because he did not wish to enter on the general question of the Law of Settlement. He therefore proposed now to adopt the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), and then he hoped the clause might pass. He would next suggest that the five following clauses should be struck out, with the understanding that, if necessary, he should be entitled to strikeout this clause also when the Report was brought up.

§ MR. PELL
thanked the Government for accepting his Amendment.

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
said, that if this clause was struck out altogether, as recommended by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), the right hon. Gentleman would break faith with the Irish Members altogether, because last year he promised that he would insert the clause as it stood.

§ MR. RATHBONE
moved, in page 7, at end, to add— Provided, That a settlement acquired by a person under this section shall cease if, since the acquisition thereof, the person has for a period of twelve months ceased to reside in England; Provided also, That an order by which a person may be removed to or become chargeable upon a parish under this section shall not be made upon the evidence of such person only, without such corroboration as the justices or court think sufficient.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
moved, in page 10, line 4, after last Proviso, to add— 1772 Provided also, That from and after the said first day of September next the registrar of the Charter House shall cease to be the overseer of the parish of the Charter House, and the justices of the peace having jurisdiction in the place shall forthwith appoint an overseer to act for the said parish until the time of the next annual appointment of overseers; and thenceforth appointments shall be made as in the case of other parishes, and every such overseer shall have all the powers and privileges, and shall be subject to all the duties which by law attach to such an officer.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following Clause:— (Superannuation allowances not affected by services as registrar of marriages or sanitary officer.) If any officer seek a superannuation allowance from the guardians of any union or parish, or from the overseers of any such parish, under any statute applicable to such allowance, his service as a registrar of marriages, or under any of the provisions of the Sanitary Acts as defined by "The Public Health Act, 1875," or of that Act, shall not operate to prevent him from obtaining the same.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
moved, after Clause 24, to insert the following Clause:— (Boys in receipt of relief, who are desirous of it, may be forwarded by the guardians for examination for the naval service.) If any boy not already an apprentice in the merchant service who, or whose parent or parents, shall be receiving relief in any union or parish, be desirous of serving in the naval service of Her Majesty, and be forwarded for approval by competent authority for such service, the guardians of the poor of such union or parish may enable any such boy to be so forwarded, and may pay out of their funds such sum, if any, as may be required by the regulations of such service for providing outfit or otherwise, and also such expenses as may be necessary to be incurred for the conveyance of such boy in charge of a proper person to and from the port or place in the United Kingdom at which he may be required to attend for examination, and, if accepted, for entry into such service.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
suggested that there might be a difficulty with regard to the consent of the parents.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, that the Local Government Board would narrowly watch these cases and see that no injustice was done.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
moved, after Clause 27, to insert the following Clauses:— (Justices to make allowances to clerks of justices in respect of jury lists.) The justices of the peace of every county in quarter or general sessions assembled shall from time to time make such allowances as to them shall seem proper as compensation to the clerks to the justices in the several divisions in the county for their services in relation to the revision and allowance of the jury lists. Every such allowance shall be charged upon and be paid out of the county stock or fund.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
then proposed a new Proviso to the effect that— The managers of any district school may appoint and pay any officer or other competent person to visit and report upon the condition, treatment, and conduct of any poor child under the age of sixteen, who shall have gone into service from the district school.

MR. PAGET
thought that it was the Guardians who should have this power. He moved to amend the clause by leaving out "the managers" and inserting "The guardians of any union or"

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
moved, after Clause 33, to insert the following Clauses:— (Proviso for pending orders of removal.) Those provisions relating to settlement shall not apply to any pauper in respect of whom any order of removal shall be pending at the passing of this Act. (Rates made by overseers not now audited made subject to the audit of district auditor.) From and after the twenty-fifth day of March next, when an overseer shall make and levy any rate of assessment which is not now subject to be audited by the district auditor, such rate or assessment, and the accounts relating thereto, shall be submitted by him, and by the collector thereof, if any, to the said auditor, in the like manner, and with the like incidents, consequences, liabilities, and power of appeal as in the case of the poor rate made by him; and every other audit of such rate or assessment, if any, shall cease. And the Local Government Board shall have the same power to make orders to regulate the keeping of such accounts as they have in regard to other local rates. (Auditor's decision upon a joint account may be reversed or remitted in favour of one or some only of the parties.) 1774 When an auditor shall have allowed, disallowed, or surcharged a sum in any account rendered to him jointly, and an appeal shall be made against the same, the decision of the auditor may be reversed, and the disallowance or surcharge may be remitted by the court or the Local Government Board, as the case may be, in favour of one or more of the persons appealing only without discharging the other person or persons against whom such decision of the auditor was pronounced.

§ MR. MORGAN LLOYD
moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following Clause:— (Local Government Board may authorize election of guardians to hold office for three years.) The Local Government Board may by their order, whenever they may think fit, authorize and direct the ratepayers of any union or parish to elect guardians for such union or parish who shall remain in office for a period of three years, subject to such provisions regulating the annual retirement of one third of such guardians as the Local Government Board may think fit. He said, that in many parts of the country there were complaints of the expense of annual elections, and there would be convenience in certain cases in having the election for three years.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said that he had received representations upon this subject from various parts of the country, and there was a good deal to be said for it. If the Committee were disposed to place such a discretion in the hands of the Local Government Board there would be security that it would be satisfactorily exercised.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
thought that annual elections answered very well.

MR. PAGET
drew attention to the wording of the clause, which would give power to the Board to direct the mode in which the election should be held. This would be a very great power to entrust in the hands of any Board.

§ MR. THOMSON HANKEY
also thought it would be objectionable to give to the Board so large a power.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he could not undertake to bring up a clause to meet the object in view. He had received deputations from populous places in favour of such a change. He recommended the withdrawal of this clause, and that the hon. and learned Member should propose another on the Report more adapted to the object in view.

§ MR. PELL
moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following Clause:— (Notice to parishioners of persons relieved.) The clerk to the guardians of every union or parish shall at the close of each half year at Lady Day and Michaelmas, prepare from the accounts of the union or parish separate statements for each parish or township, the accuracy whereof shall be certified by his signature of the names of the persons relieved in the half year, as shown by the in-door and out-door relief lists, and shall, within one week from the close of each half year, cause the same to be delivered to the overseers of each parish or township respectively, and the overseers shall forthwith cause the same to be fixed on or near to the doors of their respective parish churches, or if there be no church, then at the usual place for affixing notices of parochial business. He stated that as by this Bill paupers were disqualified from voting on the election of any officer whose appointment was determined by statute, it became a matter of necessity, if not of convenience only, that ready opportunities should be afforded for information as to who might be disqualified and who not. These lists were already in many districts generally affixed to the church doors with much advantage to the better administration of relief, and as a guide to those who might be charitably disposed in the distribution of their alms, and there seemed much reason and good reason for ensuring the universal publication of this information.

§ MR. THOMSON HANKEY
opposed the clause, as it would be cruel to the persons relieved, and would give no information of the kind of relief given. It would involve great expense without any corresponding benefit.

§ DR. LUSH
said, it would be a species of branding most objectionable, and he hoped the Committee would not recognize the principle involved in the clause.

§ MR. WALTER
said, this very suggestion was made not long ago, on some occasion when a question arose as to the right of persons receiving relief to vote, and the proposal was received with great disapprobation by the House. It might as well be proposed that lists of the prisoners in gaols should be put on the church doors. He trusted the Committee would not entertain the proposal.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
hoped his hon. Friend would not press this clause, at all events, in its present shape. The question as to whether sufficient publicity was now given might well be considered, but it would be going too far to 1776 cause the lists as a matter of obligation to be affixed to the church doors. The clause was also objectionable on the ground of expense. He trusted his hon. Friend would not press the clause to a division.

§ MR. PELL
said, that in making the proposal, he had no desire to affix a stigma on these unfortunate people. If any stigma attached to pauperism at all, it attached, not to the pauper, but to the neighbourhood in which he lived, and to those who, by their false views of what real charity consisted in, encouraged the existence of pauperism, connected as it was known to be with out-door relief and inadequate wages.

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON
said that, according to the present state of the law, husbands and wives, if both were above 60 years old, could not be separated in workhouses; under that age, however, they were separated. He moved, in page 4, after Clause 14, to insert the following clause:— (Husbands and wives in workhouses.) When any two persons being husband and wife shall be received into any workhouse such two persons, although they shall not both be above 60 years of age, shall not be compelled to live separate and apart in such workhouse; and any rule, order, or regulation, and any provision of any Act to the contrary is hereby rescinded and repealed. He had received one letter from a working man 63 years of age, who said he had brought up a large family without parish relief, but who was now unable to work. His wife was 56 years of age; and would it not be wicked, he (the writer) asked, if he were compelled to enter the Union, to separate him from the wife who had borne the toils and hardships of life along with him? It was said that the law was based on economic considerations, and that the workhouse was not a place for the purpose of breeding paupers. He hoped, however, that the House of Commons would not adopt this hard and cruel doctrine, which was meant to exclude the worthless and the undeserving, and apply it to well-conducted, industrious persons, reduced to poverty probably from no fault of their own. The workhouse should not be made a place of punishment for such persons; and if his clause were rejected on a division, he hoped that the President of the Local Government Board 1777 would at least consider whether there might not be some relaxation of the existing rule.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, that without any disposition to undervalue the importance of the question, he must deprecate any lengthened discussion upon what, if carried, would be vital to the principle of the New Poor Law. It would not be proper to introduce so great a change in administration in this casual way. He did not think that the objection to the rule was general throughout the country, and to abolish the rule would be to break down one of the securities which the ratepayers now had against an undue application for indoor relief. The workhouse, of course, was not to be regarded as a place of punishment; but he saw no reason for so serious a change in the working of the Poor Law as that now proposed. He might observe that no special store was to be set upon the age of 60. All he contended for was no alteration should be made in the principle which now prevailed.

§ MR. MACDONALD
supported the clause. The working people of England looked upon the House of Commons as an assembly of Christian gentlemen, and he exhorted them to justify that character by supporting the Christian principle that those whom God had joined together no man should put asunder. He could say that the working classes of the country felt very strongly on the subject. He would warn hon. Gentlemen opposite and the House generally against the continuation of a principle in the Poor Law that he ventured to affirm was abhorent to the feelings of the great body of the people—namely, the separation of husband and wife of the aged poor. A time might come in the history of this country when the masses might consider by way of retaliation how far such a principle might be applied to all. He implored them not to provoke this issue being raised. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Dewsbury he concluded ought to receive the support of everyone who laid claim 1778 to possessing in any way the feelings of humanity.

MR. HAMOND
deprecated the practice of the hon. Member who had just sat down of presuming to speak as the special mouthpiece of the working classes. No hon. Member represented them more than another; and he claimed, for his own part, to represent the working classes as much as anyone else in that House; for of his constituency of 22,000 electors about one-third were working men. In his opinion, they ought to adhere to the present system, and the clause as it stood went as far as it ought to go. They little knew what would be the result if married persons of all ages were allowed to live together in the workhouse—the idle and dissolute would exist at the expense of the hard-working and industrious artizan. He should have much pleasure in voting against the clause.

§ MR. WALTER
felt bound to say he did not think the existing law so very unreasonable. He was, at all events, not prepared to vote with the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury for its indiscriminate repeal, and he hoped the matter would not be pressed to a division. The hon. and learned Member could not but see that if the law were repealed in the unreserved language of the clause it would be competent for any two young people of 20 or so, who had no means whatever, to marry one week and go into the workhouse the next, to remain there as long as they liked. As it stood, therefore, the clause was unreasonable. At the same time, he would not object to a certain amount of discretion being allowed to the Guardians in the matter. In certain cases, where, for instance, the husband was 75 and the wife 55, the present regulation might very well be relaxed, and if the right hon. Gentleman introduced an Amendment to permit of that being done he should be glad to see it adopted. He had never been a particular admirer of what was called the New Poor Law, although it was passed 40 years ago. It was a piece of legislation which it would be impossible for him to discuss then; but it was passed at a period of what he might call general panic with regard to the amount of pauperism and its dangers. He believed that that panic was unreasonable and unfounded, and that the Act was conceived and passed in haste 1779 under a wrong impression and had led to great evils. It was passed, moreover, in a day when there was no free trade, no emigration, and when population had largely spread in every part of the country. He remembered the time when the man who built a new cottage was thought to be an enemy of the parish. So far from wishing the workhouse system to be made more stringent, he was decidedly in favour of relaxing it; and therefore he would go a certain length with the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury, but he could not support the clause as that hon. and learned Gentleman had framed it, and he hoped it would be withdrawn.

§ LORD ESLINGTON
felt satisfied that the manly speech of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) expressed the sentiments of many Gentlemen in that House. For himself, he wished to obtain from the President of the Local Government Board an authoritative declaration as to whether or not the Guardians had the discretionary power by law of relaxing the restriction in cases where they thought hardship would result from separating aged married couples? His own impression was that such a discretion was vested in the Guardians; but if it was not, it ought to be. It would be impossible to accept the naked proposition now presented to the Committee; but it should be remembered that cases of excessive cruelty had excited in the breasts of the people such a dread of the workhouse that they would rather starve than enter it.

§ MR. MUNTZ
thought it was impossible to deny that there had been a strong feeling all over the country during the last 40 years as to the separation of man and wife in the workhouse. Guardians ought to have a certain latitude allowed them in dealing with cases of emergency. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) whether on the Report he would not bring up a clause giving Guardians a discretionary authority in that matter if they did not possess it already.

§ MR. PELL
said, that his experience as a Guardian, now extending over 30 years, convinced him that this separation of man and wife in the workhouse in the case of the sick and dying was not put in practice, and in the Union with which he was connected in London 1780 if a young husband in a workhouse was sick, dying possibly of consumption, cancer, or some other incurable disease, he would be found in the infirmary under the best possible care and not separated from his wife. Only last week he had been at the bedside of a man who was dying under such circumstances, whose wife was not only not kept away from him by the Guardians, but for whom, in reply to his (Mr. Pell's) inquiry of her he found every possible care had been taken and arrangement made for her comfort and presence at the sick bed of her husband in the workhouse infirmary.

§ MR. Serjeant SIMON
could not conceive of the case put by the hon. Member for Berkshire occurring in any well-managed Union—namely, that of two young people marrying in one week and going into the workhouse the next, and remaining there in their connubial felicity at the public expense. Though his clause was based on the broad principle of humanity, he would not press it if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would give him an assurance that he was ready to meet his views in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Berkshire and the noble Lord the Member for South Northumberland.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
observed, that though the Guardians were not empowered to allow young married people to live together in the workhouse, they could always in a hard case give them out-door relief, and it was inconceivable that such cases of hardship as had been described could occur. If a destitute young husband or wife was sick, they would not be taken into the workhouse, but would receive out-door relief.

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON
then gave Notice of his intention to propose a clause on the Report.

§ MR. AGG-GARDNER
moved the following Clause:— (Statement by owner pursuant to statute 7 and 8 Vic. c. 101, s. 15.) No statement by an owner pursuant to the seventh and eighth years of Victoria, chapter one hundred and one, section fifteen, shall be valid, or shall entitle him to be placed or retained in the registry of owners entitled to vote 1781 for the guardians of the poor of any parish, unless such statement contain an address for service within the parish in respect of which such owner shall claim to vote, and all objections and notices left at such address shall be deemed to be sufficiently served on such owner.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
consented to the clause, provided the words "or retained" were omitted.