Lords Sitting of 19 March 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Dissenters Declaration; Immediate Abolition of Slavery.—Read a third time:—See of Sodor and Man.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of RADNOR, from Medical Men of Leeds, that no uneducated persons might be permitted to practise Medicine.—By the Earl of STRADBROKE, from Halsted, for an Equalisation of the Postage Duties.—By Viscount MELBOURNE, from the Guardians of a parish in Surrey, and another in Kent, and by the Earl of DEVON, from Okehampton, in favour of the New Poor-law.—By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from a place in Yorkshire, complaining of the hours at which children work in Factories.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from a parish in Scotland, by the Marquess of SLIGO, from Wesleyan Methodists of Glasgow, and from Macclesfield, by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from a place in Yorkshire, by the Duke of CLEVELAND, from Wesleyan Methodists and Dissenters of Barnard Castle (Durham), and from a place in Derbyshire, by Lord BEXLEY, and by the Earl of BURLINGTON, from a place in Yorkshire, and by Lord BROUGHAM, above eighty petitions from various places, for the immediate abolition of Negro Apprenticeship; and by Lord BROUGHAM, from Electors of Norwich, for the Ballot; from the Operatives, and the parents of children engaged in the Woolen Manufacture at Calverleycum-Farley, at Shepley, and other places in the West Riding of York, for a limitation of the hours of Children's Labour; from the inhabitants of Musselburgh, from the inhabitants of Kinross, from the United Secession Congregation of the Eglington-street Chapel, Glasgow, from the United Secession Church in Rose-street, Edinburgh, from a village in Fifeshire, and from other places, against additional Grants to the Scotch Church; and from the Faculty of Advocates (Scotland), against Bills for reforming the law of Scotland.

NEW POOR-LAW—SEVENOAKS UNION.
Earl Stanhoperose to present a petition from the inhabitants of Broomside, near Durham, praying for the total repeal of the Poor-law Amendment Act. Their

985
Lordships would, probably, recollect, that, some days ago, when a discussion arose on the presentation of a petition by a right rev. Prelate, whom he did not now see in his place (the Bishop of Exeter), he (Earl Stanhope) had made a statement to the House with respect to certain grievances which existed in the union of Sevenoaks. Since that time he had received a letter from the clerk of the guardians of that union; and as it was just and reasonable that the same publicity should be given to the counter-statement of the guardians which had been given to his original declaration, he would, with the permission of the House, read the letter to their Lordships. It was in the following terms:—
"It having been reported to the board of guardians of the union of Sevenoaks that your Lordship has made the following statement in the House of Lords—that one of the most intelligent, respectable, and humane guardians of the union was so disgusted, and viewed with such detestation and abhorrence the conduct of the other guardians, that he refused any longer to act; and that he could mention the case of a family which, from a refusal of any relief in addition to their very scanty earnings, were now perishing by disease, produced, as an eminent physician had informed him, from cold and hunger. I am directed by the board of guardians to acquaint your Lordship, that, after a careful inquiry, they have not been able to find the case of any guardian who refused to perform his duty on the grounds stated by your Lordship. The only two cases of the refusal of relief to which your Lordship could have alluded, have been fully investigated by the medical officers of the union, and the charge proves to be without foundation. Under these circumstances, therefore, the board of guardians must repel the charge, and they feel bound to state, that it is the first which has ever been brought against them."
Now, there was no man more willing than he was to correct any error into which he might have fallen unintentionally, or more disposed to confess that any mistake or misrepresentation had been made, if such were proved to be the case, and by that means to remove, as far as possible, any improper impression which might have been created; but, in the present instance, he felt himself compelled, out of a regard for truth, to re-assert in the strongest manner that which he had before stated. All that he had read to their Lordships, in laying before them the letter of the guardians, was nothing more than a most lame and impotent, futile and ineffectual attempt to reply. He was not in the habit, in public
986
or in private, of making any statement on vague report. The guardians could find no record of any one guardian having declined to act. Did they expect to find it registered in their records, that A. B. refused to perform the duties of his office as guardian? All that they could practically record on the subject was, that any individual had declined to be put in nomination as a guardian, or that, being elected, he had refused to act. Now, he made his statement on the best possible authority—on the evidence of a person himself who was a guardian, and who stated that he could not act with persons by whom a system of so much cruelty and oppression had been pursued. ["Name, name."] He was surprised to hear that he was called upon to name the individual he had referred to. He would not name any person to whom he might refer, without having first obtained his consent. What he had stated was upon his own authority, and he pledged himself to the truth of what he had said. He had resided uninterruptedly in the neighbourhood of the union ever since the board had been formed, and he could not be ignorant of its proceedings. He had received much information from various quarters, and he had been informed of many circumstances by one of the former guardians, who, however, did not think it right to disclose all the secrets of the prison house. He was informed that a pauper who had applied for relief and was refused, in the agony of grief which he felt, expressed a wish, that Providence might remove him from this world, and almost, indeed, expressed a determination to commit suicide. It was but fair and just that, in reference to this case, the inhabitants of Sevenoaks should receive the due amount of praise to which they were entitled. The unfortunate individual to whom he had alluded, although refused assistance from the public funds of the union, was relieved by the private charity of individuals. With respect to the other charge which he had made, the guardians stated, that it had been fully investigated. By whom had this investigation been made? By the medical officer of the parish. He re-asserted what he had before said in reference to this case. He had received his information from a most eminent physician, who had retired from practice, and who gave advice to the poor gratuitously, and who had an estate in Ireland, and the gentleman declared, that, even in that land of misery and wretchedness, he had never seen greater

987
poverty and destitution than in the cottage of the individual to whom he had referred. The pauper and his family, from the action of cold and hunger, had become diseased, and it was expected that some member of his family might perish. He was in work, but all he could earn was 6s. per week, and although he had a wife and five children he could obtain no relief. The conduct of the guardians, he was ready to admit, might have been in accordance with the law, and with the rules, orders, and regulations issued under the authority of the law by the three gentlemen in Somerset-House, and the complaint which he made was, therefore, not so much against the guardians as against the Commissioners. He had thought it right, and fair, and just, to that much calumniated body of men, the guardians, to state to the House the answer which they had made, and he should be happy if any noble Lord, who might be acquainted with the union, would offer any observations to the House.
The Earl of Brecknockrose to defend the conduct of the Board of Guardians of Sevenoaks. After the observations of the noble Earl, on a former evening, he had requested to be furnished with some additional information, which would afford him some clue by which he might discover the individuals referred to, and having since made some inquiries into the, matter, he thought it fair to state their result to their Lordships. He found a gentleman who told him that he had informed the noble Earl of the two cases to which he had referred, and he had since had an opportunity of finding the guardian himself who was represented to have refused to act. [Earl Stanhope: Who was it?] When he had asked the noble Earl the name of the guardian, on a former occasion, he said he could easily discover him. The individual to whom he referred had admitted that he had declined to act as guardian, but from a far different motive to that alleged. He said that, having been a guardian several times, he found that a proper attention to the duties of the office interfered with his business, and therefore he was compelled to give it up; and he certainly admitted, besides, that he entertained a strong opinion on the subject of out-door relief. With regard to the case of the pauper mentioned, he had ascertained that there were only two cases to which the description of the noble Earl could apply. In one instance the person had been employed by a noble relative of his own during the severe part
988
of the winter, and although his family were suffering from disease, it was caused not by destitution or want, but by injuries which they had sustained. In the other case the person had been employed as a sawyer, and in one month had earned wages amounting to 9l., and the guardians, therefore, conceived that they were justified in refusing him relief, and besides, although it appeared subsequently that he was in want, his apparent destitution it was ascertained was caused entirely by mismanagement.
Earl Stanhopesaid, that the case of the guardian referred to by the noble Earl was not that to which he had alluded, and he must repeat that in the instance which he had mentioned he had received his information from the guardian himself. With regard to an allegation that the administration of the law was lenient in the union of Sevenoaks, he had a letter from a pauper confined in the workhouse there, who said, "We are kept so short of victuals, having hardly enough to support life, and we are never allowed to go out an any day or any hour."
Petition laid on the table.

CHURCH ACCOMMODATION (IRELAND).
The Earl of Ripon, in presenting a petition from the bishop and clergy of the diocese of Down and Connor, complaining of a great want of church accommodation in that diocese, took the opportunity to say, that their Lordships were aware that, in that diocese, there were a great many Protestants. They had offered to advance a considerable sum of money for the purpose of obviating the complaint, and had made application to the Commissioners in Ireland for assistance to complete the object. The Commissioners answered that they were sorry that they could afford no relief, but they had actually no funds from which they could advance any money. He was not at all surprised at that answer, because the expenditure of that commission, the necessary and inevitable expenditure, had exceeded their income in four years by the sum of 229,000 l.; and they had been compelled to borrow 100,000 l. under the Act from the Government, and apply the money which they obtained by the sale of perpetuities and bishops' leases, which money ought to have been laid aside to form a fund.
The Bishop of Derrywould take that opportunity of stating to their Lordships, that many of the clauses in the Church

989
Temporalities' Act were of a very injurious nature. In Ireland, as he supposed was the case in this country, there were many large parishes the churches of which were situated at the extremity, and he hoped that the Commissioners would, as soon as possible, turn their attention to that subject, as it was impossible for many of the parishioners to attend the performance of public worship. There was one class in Ireland who seemed to be altogether forgotten—he meant the curates, who were often turned out of their cures upon the coming in of a new incumbent, and were left to poverty in the evening of their life. He sincerely trusted that whenever the funds of the Commissioners were in a more flourishing condition, something would be done for that suffering class. Might he ask the noble Viscount if that Bill—the Church Temporalities' Bill, was likely to be altered during the Session?
Viscount Melbournewas not aware that there existed any serious objections to the Bill alluded to by the right rev. Prelate.
Petition laid on the table.