HC Deb 26 June 1876 vol 230 cc477-83

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. HAMOND

moved the insertion of a new clause providing that husband and wife in the workhouse, if either should be infirm, sick, or disabled, or above the age of 60, might be permitted, at the discretion of the Guardians, to live together, and every such case should be reported to the Local Government Board.

Clause— (Husbands and wives in workhouses.) ("When any two persons being husband and wife shall be admitted into any workhouse, and either of them shall be infirm, sick, or disabled by any injury, or above the age of sixty years, it shall be lawful for the guardians of any union or parish to permit in their discretion such man and wife to live together, and every such case shall be reported forthwith to the Local Government Board,")—(Mr. Hamond,) —brought up, and read the first and second time.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

proposed an Amendment to the clause, to the effect that if am an and wife were both above 55 years of age they should not be compelled to live separate and apart in workhouses. This would simply carry out the principle of the present law, which fixed the limit at 60 years of age. Further than that he contended there would be no increase of population occuring in the workhouse through the operation of the clause, for at the age mentioned, if not impossible, it would be very improbable. Beyond that, why should they separate a married couple at such an age?

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "wife," in line 1, to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words "both of whom shall be above the age of fifty-five years, shall be received into any workhouse, such two persons shall not be compelled to live separate and apart from each other in such workhouse; and any rule, order, or regulation, and any provision of any Act to the contrary is and are hereby respectively rescinded and repealed."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)

MR. WALTER

said, he had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury. Since the subject was last under the consideration of the House he had looked into it a little, and had specially referred to the debate on the occasion when the rule was established which prescribed 60 years as the age at which married people should be allowed to live together in a workhouse. This rule formed no part of the original Poor Law, but was introduced almost exactly 29 years age. The alteration was effected by Mr. Borthwick in 1847, when the Poor Law was undergoing revision. He introduced the Amendment, which was a relaxation of the original rigour of the Poor Law. It was opposed by Sir George Grey; it was accepted, with some qualifications, by Lord Russell; and he was strongly supported by his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) and by the late Mr. Ellice. They were high authorities, and they supported it, not on the ground that it would prevent outdoor relief, but that it would tend to increase it. Earl Russell wished to make it discretionary with the Guardians, and not compulsory upon them; but the House rejected that modification, and carried the Amendment by a majority of 70 to 55. It became the law of the land, and he should like to know what harm had ensued from the operation of the law. The hon. and learned Member stated there had been no increase in pauperism ascribable to it. He did not suppose that any increase would be ascribable if they adopted 55 instead of 60. But the point he wished to contend for was that, failing the condition that increase of the population was not to be allowed, they had no right to make the natural and best feelings of the poor a reason for oppressing them. There could not be a more odious principle than to employ the best feelings of the poor as a means of working upon them to their loss and discomfort. As a matter of fact, he believed poor people of the age of 60 seldom applied to live together in the workhouse. He, therefore, contended that no danger was to be apprehended from this relaxation of the law. He had visited the workhouses of two Unions—the workhouse in his own neighbourhood and the Chelsea Workhouse—and the excellent officials at these institutions stated that, not only had they never experienced an application from old people to live together, but they had received expressions of satisfaction from unfortunate married couples that they were able to live separate. The master of the Chelsea Workhouse told him that there was no wish to bring old married couples into the workhouse, as there was no accommodation for them, in fact; and outdoor relief was always given them. He had no objection to that; he thought it was the right principle; but if they compelled them to go in, they would work upon the natural feelings of the better class of the aged poor. Where such a class of persons were compelled to go into the house, they ought not to be separated, a proceeding which was a real hardship to them, but which was none at all to another class who were often driven there by the intemperance or bad conduct of one or the other, and who gladly accepted it as the best arrangement for them. Those were the grounds on which he supported the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury. He would not now express any opinion as to the second clause, but with regard to the first he should give his cordial support to the proposal before the House.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, that as the matter had been discussed the other night very fully, he would not go over the arguments again. He did not wish to fix the limit at 55 or 60, but rather to go back on the principle of allowing the Guardians to exercise that discretion which the Poor Law gave them. Everybody was aware that in a large number of Unions where provision had been made for separate quarters for married couples that such provision had never been availed of. The Guardians might safely be left to exercise the discretion proposed to be left them by his hon. Friend. He hoped, however, the House would negative the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The House divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 72: Majority 72.

Clause added.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

moved, after Clause 11, the insertion of the following clause— The Local Government Board may by their order, upon the application of the ratepayers of any union or parish made in pursuance of one or more resolutions passed at a vestry or vestries duly convened for that purpose, authorize and direct such ratepayers to elect guardians, who shall hold office for a period of three years. The said Board may also, upon the application of such ratepayers, made in pursuance of one or more such resolutions as aforesaid, rescind such order: Provided, however, that the rescision of such order shall not invalidate or affect any election which may have already taken place under it.

Clause (Local Government Board may authorise election of guardians to hold office for three years,)—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd,)—borought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

opposed the clause. He was aware that many Boards were in favour of such a change, but the question of triennial elections of Guardians might well stand over. It should, however, receive his attention. He could not assent to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman at present; but he hoped to be able to do so on some future occasion, when dealing with the general state of the law.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

, satisfied with the assurance that the question should receive the consideration of the Government, said, he would withdraw the clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following clause— It shall not be lawful for guardians of the poor to pay out of the poor rates any church rates, notwithstanding anything contained in the seventh section of the Act thirty-first and thirty-second Victoria, chapter one hundred and nine; Provided, That, nothing herein contained shall alter or affect any other provision of the said Act. The clause was rendered necessary by the construction placed upon the 7th section of the Church Rates Abolition Act by the Local Government Board, who had held that its provisions enabled Poor Law Guardians to pay a voluntary church rate out of the poor rates. He believed that interpretation was wrong, but even if it were right it was not in accordance with the intention of the framers of that Act. As a proof of this he would refer to a letter written by the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in which it was distinctly stated that the clause was never intended to authorize any such payment by Poor Law Guardians.

Clause (Payment of church rates by poor law guardians,)—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he could not pretend to argue a point of law with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but certainly that was the first time he had ever heard such an interpretation of voluntary payment of church rates as that which the hon. and learned Gentleman had now given of them in connection with the poor rates. He could not accept the declared intention of the authors of a Bill as against the legal construction of it by professional advisers, which was that the payments objected to were legal, and he objected to amending so important a measure as the Church Rates Abolition Act by a clause in the Bill of this character. If it was intended to modify the Act referred to it ought to be done by a separate Motion, and not introduced at the end of a Bill having a different object in view. For that reason he objected to the insertion of the clause.

MR. STANSFELD

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider his opinion, and give the House an opportunity to modify the clause.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 112: Majority 32.

MR. RICHARD

moved the insertion of the following clause:— It shall be lawful for the guardians of any poor law union to make such arrangements as they may see fit for the religious instruction or worship of the inmates of any workhouse under their control, any existing provision contained in any statute, rule, or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding. His object was to enable other ministers besides clergymen of the Church of England to be appointed as chaplains of workhouses. At present they could only appoint chaplains of the Established Church, although the majority of paupers might be Nonconformists.

Clause (Religious instruction of inmates of workhouses,)—(Mr. Richard,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

opposed the clause on the ground that it would not provide the remedy desired, and said that the Local Government Board never insisted on the appointment of a Church of England chaplain, if satisfied that other arrangements were properly made. The Guardians under the existing law had very great power in the matter, and the clause as it was proposed might lead to great inconvenience, if not abuse. There was really no necessity whatever for the clause.

MR. STANSFELD

said, the whole question was a money question. The only paid chaplain who could by the law be appointed must belong to the Established Church. If any Board of Guardians chose to appoint and pay another person to give religious instruction or conduct worship, it must be at their own cost; and if the latter part of the clause were omitted he thought the clause might be adopted.

MR. RICHARD

said, on the third reading of the clause he would be ready to admit the Amendment of the hon. Member for the County of Kildare, or some other verbal Amendment, which would secure the main object—freedom of religious instruction and worship.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 107: Majority 26.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further Consideration of the Bill be now adjourned."—(Mr. Biggar.)

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

hoped the measure would be proceeded with, as it could be finished in 10 minutes.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 119: Majority 74.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 3, after the word "away," to insert at the end the words "The justices to hear the complaint against a husband, under the thirty-third section of the Act of the thirty-first and thirty-second years of Her Majesty, chapter one hundred and twenty-two, may be other than those who summoned him to appear before them, but acting for the same petty sessional division."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.