NEW POOR-LAW. (Hansard, 13 July 1837)

The Bishop of Exeter
rose to present petitions from places in Devonshire against the Poor-law Act, and one also from the township of Hull, in Lancashire. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that he had on a former occasion adverted to the grievance so generally complained against, that the inmates of the workhouses were not allowed to enjoy the advantage of attending divine worship. He understood that in all cases where there was in the workhouse a sufficiently good room to admit of their assembling in it on Sundays, they were denied the privilege of going out of the house to church. He had received a letter in the early part of the last month from a clergyman resident in one of the midland counties, which, with the permission of the House, he would read. It was as follows:— In reply to your Lordship's inquiries on the subject of the spiritual destitution of the inmates of the union workhouse at this place, it is my painful duty to state, that the information you have received is substantially correct. The workhouse has been occupied nine months, no chaplain has been appointed, nor have its inmates been permitted to attend divine service at the parish church, distant about a quarter of a mile. Five or six weeks ago a chaplain was advertised for in the papers, 1897 at a salary of 25l. per annum, and Tuesday last was the day appointed for considering any applications that might be made; none, however, were received, and I understand that a proposition was then agreed to, that the paupers should be allowed to go to the parish church, under the surveillance of the master. The church service and a sermon have been read each Sunday morning and afternoon by the master, but I know that neither has ever been heard within the walls from the mouth of an authorised minister of the church of England. As servants of that Jesus who went about doing good, we might, indeed, take shame to ourselves, if, as your informant states, 'the paupers had been entirely without religious instruction and consolation.' No, my Lord, this has not been the case; my coadjutor and myself (curates of the parish) have attended upon the sick and dying, and I have made a point of visiting the house at short intervals, and conversing on religious subjects with its occupants. He had every reason to know that the case mentioned in that letter was far from a solitary instance; he hoped, however, that enough had been said to prevent the guardians of the poor from continuing the practice.

The Earl of Radnor
expressed a hope that the right rev. Prelate would put the House in possession of the whole of the letter.

The Bishop of Exeter
expressed his perfect readiness to do so. The right rev. Prelate proceeded to read the remainder of the letter, to the effect that the workhouse was occasionally visited by the clergyman, the writer of the letter, for the purpose of administering religious consolation to the inmates; and that those inmates never exceeded sixty in number, of whom half were children under ten years of age, two-thirds of the adults being either idiots, or bedridden. The right rev. Prelate was proceeding, when

The Earl of Radnor
observed, that the right rev. Prelate need not trouble himself to read any more. He (Lord Radnor) thought the House would think that they had heard quite enough. In his original statement the right rev. Prelate had laid great stress on the circumstance that divine service had been read to the paupers on Sunday only by the master of the workhouse, but had omitted to say anything of the permission given to clergymen to visit the paupers, and to administer religious consolation to them. Nor had the right rev. Prelate said anything of the number of the inmates of the workhouse. 1898 It now appeared that they never exceeded sixty in number; half of whom were children, and that of the remaining thirty, two-thirds were either idiots, or bedridden. It should also be remembered that the right rev. Prelate had not produced this letter until the 12th of July, when there was not sufficient time to obtain satisfactory explanation on the subject.

The Bishop of Exeter
had no reason whatever for not reading the whole of the letter, except that he did not wish to trespass upon their Lordships' time.

The Earl of Radnor
disclaimed any intention of throwing out an insinuation against the right rev. Prelate's fairness.

§ The Duke of Richmond
observed, that when a noble Lord produced such a letter as that which had been produced by the right rev. Prelate, it was better that he should read the whole of it. At the same time he wholly acquitted the right rev. Prelate of the slightest intention of making an unfair statement. The facts, however, were important. The accusation was, that no clergyman was allowed to attend on the inmates of the workhouse. It now appeared that they had the benefit of religious consolation. For his part he (the Duke of Richmond) was one of those who hoped that every union in the kingdom would have a paid chaplain competent to perform the duty of that union: Nothing could be more desirable. Most unions had such a chaplain. But what had been the practice under the old system? There had been no chaplains; and that the clergymen of the parishes in which the workhouses were situated had refused to visit any of the inmates, except those which belonged to their own parish. He repeated, that in most of the unions there was provision for a chaplain; and that where there was not, the paupers were generally allowed to go out on Sundays. Undoubtedly he should much prefer having a chaplain in the house, and not allowing the paupers to go out, for it appeared to him to be exceedingly important, that to the clergyman who administered religious consolation to the paupers on every other clay in the week, they should look up for spiritual instruction on Sunday. The right rev. Prelate had alluded to an assertion of his (the Duke of Richmond's), that if the paupers were allowed to go out of the workhouses on Sundays, instead of going to the churches they would go to the beer-shops. 1899 But the right rev. Prelate should have stated all that he had said on the subject. He had allowed that some of the able-bodied would go to church, and return to the house; but in many parish churches there was hardly room for even the usual congregation; and some of the parish churches were seven or eight miles distant from the workhouse. How could infirm paupers be expected to go there? With respect to the number of the inmates in the workhouse alluded to by the right rev. Prelate, even of the ten adults left, after the deduction of the idiots and bedridden, who could say how many might not be Dissenters? The fact was, therefore, that it was only an assumption that this was a hard case. He regretted to hear a noble Earl so fond of calling these workhouses by the name of gaols. What would the noble Earl say if his servants were to petition that House, complaining of being hardly dealt with by being transported to Germany for two years at a time? Would not the noble Earl say, that their coming into or remaining in his service was their voluntary act?