Lords Sitting of 1 May 1838

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord KENYON, from Shrewsbury, against a grant to Maynooth.

POOR-LAW (IRELAND).
Lord John Russelland others brought up the Poor-law Bill for Ireland.
Viscount Melbournemoved the first reading of the Bill, which was accordingly read a first time, He proposed to take the second reading on Friday, the 11th instant, as by that time he apprehended noble Lords connected with Ireland would be in attendance. He did not wish to press it on too early in its second stage, because it was a subject of so much importance that he wished noble Lords to have ample means of examining its details.
The Marquess of Clanricarde, after alluding to the proposition of the noble Duke opposite, last Session, on the subject of the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill—for postponing that measure until it was seen what the other measures were which were intended for Ireland—expressed a hope, that their Lordships would agree with him in thinking, that it ought to be seen, at least, what the nature of the Bill was on the subject of tithes in Ireland, which Government was to bring forward, before the Poor-law Bill for Ireland was pressed to a second reading. The landlords of that country had a heavy charge upon them as regarded the tithes. There was a large arrear of them at that moment owing, and he thought it only fair and reasonable towards that class of persons, that they should see what the measure on the subject of tithes was before they were called upon to sanction this Bill now brought up from the other House of Parliament. Under these circumstances, therefore, he was of opinion, that the measure should not be proceeded with beyond its first stage, until the Bill on the subject of tithes had been introduced into the House of Commons. He was well aware, that as a money bill it was not for their Lordships to originate it, nor alter it, but they ought to be informed of its provisions before being called

723
upon to give their sanction to the Bill now before the House.
The Earl of Limericksaid, he had a petition to present from the grand jury of the county of Limerick against the Bill, and he believed it contained the sentiments of almost all, if not the whole, of the grand juries of Irish counties—indeed, he might say all of them. This was a question upon which all parties were united in that country. There was unfortunately enough of religious animosity and political strife prevailing upon many other topics, but upon the introduction of a measure of this sort but one opinion prevailed, and that was deprecating it. It was a measure, he believed, which would cause great mischief and vast ruin, and, in his conscience, he believed it would go more towards promoting the separation of the two countries than anything that had ever taken place.
The Marquess of Londonderrytrusted, that the noble Viscount would fix a later period than that he had named for taking the second reading of the Bill, in order that noble Lords connected with Ireland might have ample means afforded for considering it. There were numerous petitions to present from the northern part of Ireland; he had several in his possession, and others, he had been informed, were in preparation, and he could assure the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government, that even his strong political adherents in that part of the kingdom were averse to the Bill. For his own part he begged to add, that when it was proposed to be read a second time, he should certainly take the sense of the House upon it.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the object of the noble Marquess (Clanricarde) would be answered by the Bill proceeding no further than deferring the period for the Committee (after it had been read a second time) until it was seen what the nature of the other measure was to which the noble Marquess had alluded. He must say, he thought the noble Viscount had not given sufficient time between this and the period he had mentioned for the second reading. He would, therefore, suggest, that the second reading should not be moved before the Monday or Tuesday after the day now named by the noble Viscount.
Lord Lyndhurstthought, that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham)
724
ought to be present, who had taken so conspicuous a part in the Poor-law Bill for England, and his noble Friend would not have returned from the Continent by the 10th instant.
The Earl of Glengallremarked, that it had been said by his noble Friend near him (Lord Londonderry) that in the northern part of Ireland the feeling of the country was against the introduction of such a measure, and he (Lord Glengall) could bear his testimony, as far as some portions in the South of Ireland were concerned, that a similar feeling prevailed there; so that it was pretty clear what the provinces of Ulster and Munster thought on the subject.
Viscount Melbournecould have but one wish, which was, that the measure should have the most impartial consideration, and that ample means should be afforded all noble Lords interested in the question to be present, when the principle of it was discussed. He had imagined, when he named the day for the second reading, that he should be told he was delaying and not as now, hastening its progress. If there was also any desire to see what the other measure alluded to by the noble Marquess, who had spoken first in the discussion, was, he would rather it should be on the motion for the second reading than afterwards. But he thought the position of things was different from what was presented last year. The Municipal Corporations Bill was deferred because the other Bill, the basis of the Irish legislative measures—the Irish Poor-law Bill, was not then in the House. But now that the Bill was there, it was sent up as the basis of the whole measures, and it was not a little unreasonable to ask that it should be deferred until the less important measure was produced. He was not surprised to hear, that a difference of opinion existed upon the subject, because the measure was undoubtedly one of very great importance. It had been discussed in the other House of Parliament without any party feeling being mingled up with the consideration of the subject, and he trusted and believed, that their Lordships would give it the same quiet and dispassionate consideration here. After these few remarks he would only add, that as it appeared to be the wish of many noble Lords that the second reading should not take place on the day he had named, he had no objection whatever to defer it.
Bill to be read a second time on the 14th of May.

THE CORONATION.
The Marquess of Londonderrywished to put a question to the noble Viscount, with a view of explaining away the discrepancy which appeared between the answer he had given last night, and that given by a noble Lord (Lord John Russell) in another place, on the subject of the Coronation. The noble Viscount had stated, that no alteration would be made in the ceremony: now, as it appeared in the proclamation, there was to be no procession; but the statement made last night by the noble Lord elsewhere was, that a procession was intended. Now he wished to know from the noble Viscount whether there was to be a procession, and if so, whether it was to be a walking procession, or one in carriages?
Viscount Melbournesaid, at the former coronation there was no procession, but in the present there was to be a carriage procession from the Palace to the Abbey.
The Marquess of Londonderry: Then am I to understand that there is to be no alteration in the arrangement respecting the banquet?
Viscount Melbourne: In that respect no alteration is made.

NEW POOR LAW.
Earl Stanhope, after presenting two petitions for the total repeal of the new Poor-law Act, adverted to a petition presented before the recess, by a noble Lord (Sidney), from the chairman and deputy chairman of the West Kent Union, and which petition he had described as not conveying the sentiments of the Board of Guardians generally, but only the parties whose signatures were attached to it; and he had now an authority which set that matter beyond dispute, and there was reason to suppose that the petition had originated with Mr. Tuffnell, one of the assistant commissioners. He (Lord Stanhope) had full authority for giving the name and address of a rev. gentleman, the rector of a parish in Kent within that union, who had addressed to him the letter which he now held in his hand, and which he would read to their Lordships. He had been taunted with having produced no authority for his statements, but he thought he should be taunted no longer with that. The letter was in these terms, and was
726
from the rector of Horsmonden, Kent, dated March 21, 1838:—
"My Lord,—Knowing the great interest you take in the Poor-law question, I take the liberty of informing your Lordship that petitions will shortly be presented to both Houses of Parliament from the chairmen and vice-chairmen of sundry unions in Kent. I think it very likely that an attempt may be made to prove that they speak the sentiments of the different boards over which the petitioners preside; but if so, the deception ought to be exposed, as I believe that the documents were in some instances signed without any communication whatever with the guardians. I have some reason to suppose that they originated with Mr. Tuffnell, the assistant-commissioner, who, I know, summoned a meeting of chairmen and vice-chairmen at Maidstone; and I am the more inclined to believe this from the high commendation bestowed on the interference of the commissioners and their assistants, which, to my certain knowledge, has often been deemed both uncalled for and vexatious by Boards of Guardians. The gentlemen who signed the petitions have a right to their own opinion respecting the principle of the new Poor-law; but when they say, that 'few or no cases of hardship arising from its operation have come to their knowledge,' they assert what every unprejudiced Member of the boards over which they preside must know to be grossly incorrect.
"If this petition should be presented to the House of Lords in your Lordship's presence, I feel persuaded you will prevent its going forth to the world as speaking the general sentiments of Boards of Guardians.
"I can safely say, that in my own parish, and the neighbouring one of Brenchley, the rate-payers generally see the necessity of some change in the law."
He would also, with their Lordships' permission, read another letter from the same rev, gentleman, which went to support his (Earl Stanhope's) view of the question:—
"My Lord,—You were kind enough to say you would present another petition on the Poor-law from my parish; I beg, therefore, to forward one to your Lordship. It speaks of the lamentable consequences resulting from the refusal of out-door relief, and, in my experience as an ex officio guardian and as a clergyman, I can vouch for the justice and truth of this designation. Perhaps it would be more correct to speak of fatal consequences. I will not confine myself to what we read of the dreadful disclosures made by Mr. Bowen in the Bridgewater union. I speak of facts to which I can testify myself. Nearly all the persons who were ordered into the Tunbridge union workhouse from my parish this winter have been more or less ill since they left it. Several have lost members of their families,

727
But the case within my own knowledge, which speaks most loudly against the harsh and cruel refusal of out-door relief is this:—A poor man, residing in my parish, but belonging to Brenchley, was temporarily out of work. Nothing could be said against his character. He and his family were ordered into the house. Not long had he been there before his children were taken ill. He lost one fine boy; and both he and his wife being much attached to their children, and fearing they should be deprived of more of them, they resolved to leave the House, though quite uncertain whether they could procure work or not. I saw the poor man's wife before she went into the house, and after she came out, and I was shocked at the change. She was previously as fine a looking and as healthy a young woman as ever I saw; and when she returned home she was the picture of debility and destitution. She never regained her health; and soon after, being attacked with a sudden severe seizure of cold, she was unable, from sheer prostration of strength, to contend against it, and she died in a very few days, leaving a husband, who was much attached to her, and five or six young children, to lament their sad and irreparable loss. This was a victim of the harsh and unchristian provisions of the Poor-law Amendment Act. I have little doubt (humanely speaking) that had a little temporary out-door relief been afforded to this family, the poor boy who died in the workhouse and his unfortunate mother would at this moment be alive. I believe many instances of the same kind might be brought forward. This I give on my own authority, and I beg your Lordship will make whatever use you please of the statement. The name of the man is Thomas Bury.
"P. S.—In the Ticehurst union, they are now unable to take paupers into their house, from the fact of the small pox being prevalent there; but in conformity with the principles of this most cruel law, the guardians afford relief to the unfortunate unemployed labourers as scantily as possible. Their plan is this.—If a man has a very large family, they make him walk from any part of the union to Ticehurst, where work is found for him at 1s. 8d. per day, for three days, and these earnings are all that he and his family have to live upon for the week. If his family be small, he has only two days' work. I give this statement on the authority of a clergyman of that union. I am happy to say, the neighbouring clergy agree with me in condemning the harsh provisions of the law; and I cannot help fearing that, unless your Lordship's benevolent exertions to mitigate them are crowned with success, a rise among the unfortunate sufferers (and who could wonder at it) may be expected."
The Earl of Hardwickethought, that the noble Earl ought to submit the case mentioned in the letter to the Committee sit-
728
ting to inquire into the operation of the Poor-law Amendment Act.
Earl Stanhope: I did not read it as a public letter; I read it as a private letter, and I stated who was the author of it.
Viscount Sydneysaid, that the petition to which the noble Earl had alluded had been agreed to at a meeting of the chairmen of the boards of the different unions in the western division of the county of Kent, which unquestionably had been convened at the desire of Mr. Tuffnell, the Poor-law Commissioner. Mr. Tuffnell, however, had nothing to do with that petition. It had been drawn up by one of the guardians, and he (Lord Sydney) had proposed it for adoption. It had been carried by a very large majority, and not one of the chairmen of boards of guardians had omitted to sign it. It might, therefore, very fairly be taken as the petition of the different unions in that district of Kent.
Lord Wharncliffesaid that, in order to give the noble Earl an opportunity of having the case which he had just mentioned investigated by a Committee, he would now, without any circumlocution, move that the papers respecting the operation of the Poor-law Amendment Act, which had been presented in pursuance of the order of the House of the 26th day of March, be referred to a Select Committee. He would also move that the letter which the noble Lord had just read be also referred to the same Committee, and he would further move that such Committee do examine into the several cases alluded to, and report the evidence taken, together with the opinion of such Committee thereon. [The noble Baron named the Peers whom he wished to have appointed on the Committee.] He had not, he said, put the name of Earl Stanhope upon it; but if that noble Earl would assist in the inquiry, it would be of great advantage to have that noble Earl upon it. The noble Earl had told him on a former occasion that he would have nothing at all to do with the Committee, and that he would not give it any information. If the noble Earl had reconsidered his former determination, he should have no objection to add his name, with that of Lord King, to those which he had named on the Committee.
Earl Stanhopesaid, that it was not his intention to trouble the House with many observations on this subject; but, with

729
regard to himself, he must just observe that he found his own name in the papers alluded to by the noble Lord. They had, however, been printed so very recently, that he had not had time to examine them, and to see whether they agreed with the originals. With respect to one of the cases, which he had formerly referred to, he had now the permission of his correspondent in Sussex to state his name, which, without his permission, no power on earth, not even the authority of that House, would have extorted from him. If it should be the pleasure of the House to summon his correspondent as a witness, his correspondent would be able of himself to furnish the Committee with innumerable cases, more indeed than would be sufficient to occupy its attention for the remainder of the session. For his own part, he had no wish to be a member of the Committee; neither had he any wish to decline being a member of it, supposing their Lordships should name him as one of its members. He attached little value to the investigation which it was about to undertake, opposed as he was to the principle of this most unconstitutional, and he would even add, most unchristian measure. Besides, the investigation itself was on one side too limited, and on the other too extensive. He supposed that the noble Baron intended to include within it the observations of his rev. friend, Mr. Bull, of Bradford. One of Mr. Bull's allegations was, that a cripple had been sent to one of these new asylums, as a noble Lord had been pleased to designate one of these places of punishment for all persons who had the misfortune to be paupers, and had there been treated with great severity. There was nothing extraordinary in that. Another of Mr. Bull's allegations was regarding a pauper who had committed suicide in one of the Poor-law bastiles, and on whom a verdict of insanity was returned. Mr. Bull had said that it ought to have been a verdict of "Wilful Murder" against those who had combined to oppress the poor, meaning nothing thereby except that the suicide was owing to the severity either of those who framed, or of those who enforced, the existing law. The third of Mr. Bull's allegations was, that in one of the new workhouses a young woman had been flogged like a soldier for some offence, which was not named. He had received from Mr. Bull the copy of a letter, which
730
he had communicated to the chairman of the Committee sitting in another place, and in that letter Mr. Bull stated that he found upon inquiry that the woman had not been scourged at all. He did not think that any further inquiry into that allegation was required, and it might therefore as well be expunged from the papers which the noble Baron had referred to the Committee. The proposed investigation was therefore too extensive in this respect; but then, to make matters square, it was too deficient in another respect, which he would briefly mention. Their Lordships had heard much of the extreme injustice to which the Poor-law Commissioners were subjected, in being exposed thus perpetually to attacks from anonymous accusers. Now, before they made such a complaint, it was incumbent upon them to show that where they had been attacked by accusers who had given their names, they had made inquiry into the truth of those accusations. Some cases of complaint had been stated anonymously on account of the unwillingness of the parties to be examined by the Committee of the House of Commons. But there had been innumerable cases of extreme hardship under the new law furnished by parties who had given both their names and their addresses. He should much like to know whether any investigation had been made into those cases. He had at that moment in his desk at home a letter from a clergyman of the Church of England, residing in Dorsetshire, who was not one of his usual correspondents on the Poor-law. That clergyman said, "I and others of my brethren could give you important information as to the working of the new law, but we are afraid to do so;" and he made this request at the end of his letter—"I must request of you that my name may be kept a complete secret."[Hear.] He was glad to find that the noble Duke (Richmond) was present to cry out "Hear" He hoped that that noble Duke would not only hear, but ponder well on these facts. It might be supposed that the subject of that letter was nothing less than treason, and so it was; but not against the Sovereign of this country, but against the three kings of Somerset-house, who were far superior to the Queen in power. The letter enclosed merely a copy of verses on the new Poor-law, which the writer thought might be published with advantage. Now, if a beneficed clergyman of the Church of

731
England was so extremely alarmed at the idea of having his name divulged, when the whole corpus delicti was the writing of some verses, good or bad, against some features of the Poor-law Amendment Act, could it be a matter of surprise that those who were, or might become, personally subject to the severities of that cruel and most detestable law, should feel some reluctance to encounter the consequences of public exposure? He certainly should move, that the letter he had received from the Rev. Thomas Smith Marriott, dated Horsmonden, April 28, 1838, be printed.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, his whole object was, that inquiry should take place into the truth or falsehood of those stories which were told against the New Poor-law, and which, undoubtedly, in some districts, had produced very considerable effect. He was glad to hear from his noble Friend, that the rev. Mr. Bull now confessed, that the stories he had told were without any foundation whatever. But he for one would not be satisfied with that representation; he would have Mr. Bull himself before the Committee, to extract from him, on oath, a statement of the truth or falsehood of those representations he had made at excited meetings in one of the most populous parts of the country. The noble Lord seemed to complain that the inquiry had not been made more extensive; but he (Lord Wharncliffe) could only specify such cases as he could lay his finger on. If his noble Friend would furnish him with others deserving of inquiry, he should have no objection to move an additional instruction to the Committee. He believed the effect of this inquiry would be to dissipate much of the prejudice which existed with respect to the Poor-law Amendment Act, and show that many of the charges which had been so industriously circulated against it were without foundation. In truth, for his own part, he would enter upon it with a mind wholly unbiassed, with a determination to do his duty to the utmost, and give a verdict of guilty or not guilty, according to the evidence.
Committee appointed, and the documents ordered to be printed and referred to it.

AMENDMENT OF THE NEW POOR-LAW.
Lord Wynfordpursuant to notice, begged, leave to lay on the Table a bill to amend the New Poor-law in certain particu-
732
lars. The noble Lord was understood to say, that whatever opinion he might have as to the constitution of the board which his noble Friend had described as "the three kings of Somerset-house," it was not his intention to propose any change in that respect, particularly as a year and a half had only to elapse before the whole subject-matter must undergo the reconsideration of Parliament. Nor did he propose the entire repeal of the Act, although, undoubtedly, many were anxious to go that length. His amendments immediately referred to the exercise of the authority exercised in certain cases under the bill. Their Lordships had heard to-night of many grievous abuses, which should be put a stop to, and which, if distinctly proved, ought to be severely punished. But he would not dwell on those abuses, because he considered the present law of the land sufficient to punish every abuse of authority; and he had often thought it would be much better for those who declaimed upon such topics at public meetings, and discussed them in newspapers, to institute prosecutions against the parties implicated. It was not by discussions in newspapers, it was only in a court of justice, such questions could be clearly and calmly considered. If the parties were found guilty, they would be promptly and severely punished. Every one of the cases which had been brought forward was entitled to consideration; but he was almost led to believe that there was no truth in them, or prosecution of the supposed offenders would have taken place. Every public officer who had been guilty of any neglect or abuse of his office was liable to be indicted. In the Bridgewater Union, for instance, where some of the poor were represented to have been actually poisoned, others nearly poisoned, and all the inmates of the workhouse much injured by unwholesome gruel, there must have been the greatest neglect on the part of those in the neighbourhood who were acquainted with the facts, in not instituting proceedings against the authorities; for no one could deny that the poor-law guardians, overseers, and all persons concerned, might, in that case, have been indicted for manslaughter. In the same way, with respect to those emaciated miserable beings whose health had been destroyed in the workhouse, there was no cruelty which could be practised against the poor of this country which was not punishable. Nor let it

733
be said, that prosecutions in such cases were attended with great expense, for, by a late Act of Parliament, the magistrates had the power of awarding costs, and on a most liberal scale, in cases of misdemeanours. The law being then sufficient to punish abuses, every public officer being indictable for any abuse of his authority, and there being, in several cases, penalties denounced against public officers for infringements of this Act, he did not intend to propose any new clauses for the purpose of preventing abuses. But still there were many most objectionable clauses in the bill, and his intention was to apply himself to the evils done by the Legislature, and which the Legislature only could correct, not to those which the present law of the land was sufficient to redress or remove. He maintained, that, in the exercise of the very extraordinary and despotic powers which had been given to the commissioners, or the three kings of Somerset-house, as his noble Friend had called them, they had made by-laws, which were not only not consistent with the laws of the land, but contrary to them, and yet to be considered equally binding with the ordinary laws of the land. Very great ruin, injustice, and mischief, had, in many cases, resulted from those bylaws, or, as he would call them, great departures from the law of the land. From the period of the statute of Elizabeth, down to the Gilbert Act, the principle which pervaded all the legislation on the subject was, when a man could not get work himself, it must be procured for him. If he would not take it, if he neglected it, or performed it in an improper manner, the law provided that he should be committed to the House of Correction for any period not exceeding three months. That law was sanctioned by Scripture itself, which said, "He that will not work, let him not eat." But in no Scripture, in no book of morals, in no law of this land, founded on the ordinary principles of justice, could it be laid down that a man, whether he would work or not, should be immured in what was called a workhouse, but what in fact was a prison. According to the present Poor-law, and the directions given under it, the unfortunate labourer who sought relief in consequence of some temporary difficulties, some depression of agriculture, or some change in the mode of cultivation, was refused all assistance without the
734
walls of a workhouse. He was quite disgusted with the language which some of the assistant-commissioners had used on this subject. They said the workhouse was the only proper test of destitution. Industry was the true test. The principle of all the Poor-law legislation of this country was, when the applicant could not get work, that work should be found for him; but the principle of the Poor-law Amendment Act was, if a man could not find work himself, maintenance should be given him only in a prison. The principle was clearly expressed in the statute of Elizabeth, and still more distinctly laid down by that excellent judge the late Lord Tenterden, that it was the duty of the parish overseers to find work for the applicant. What he, therefore, proposed in that respect was, that the guardians should not send a man to the workhouse, but offer him work when he applied for relief; if he refused to work, being convicted in the regular way, not by the arbitrary law of the commissioners, but on evidence before two magistrates, he might be sent to the House of Correction for three months, and if, after coming out, he applied for relief a second time, there being some evidence of his being an idle and disorderly person, unwilling to work, relief should be refused except on the condition of his being confined in the workhouse. Perhaps he might be told this would break in on the principle of the Poor-law Amendment Act; but that Act itself broke in upon every law and maxim of this country. By his next clause he meant to propose the introduction of provisions to enable guardians to find work for the paupers within their unions. Heretofore the Legislature had frequently provided work for persons who had been previously engaged in manufactures; but for persons brought up to agriculture they had never made any provisions; they had never made the least provision for the employment of agriculturists, excepting an occupation of a very unwholesome kind. His clause immediately following this would be one to enable the guardians of each union to take a piece of land, at a convenient distance from the workhouse, in order that persons whose habits unfitted them for any other pursuits than those of agriculture should be provided with suitable employment. As he said before, however, the great object was, to enable guardians to find work

735
for the paupers, an advantage which, whatever might be their industry, they could not now obtain in workhouses, for there were very few of those establishments in which employment could be procured. He had lately visited three workhouses, and nothing like work could be found in them. [The Earl of Radnor: Were there any able-bodied men in those houses?] He could assure the noble Earl, from his own knowledge, that there were several able-bodied men in those houses. He asked them why they did nothing, and their reply was, that they could get no work. Now this state of things was not only exceedingly to be deplored, as regarded even the expense to the rate-payers, but as regarded its effects upon the minds of the paupers themselves, for there could not be a greater encourager of vice than idleness. Every one of his proposed changes would be perfectly consistent with the original law of Queen Elizabeth, and with the state of the law under Gilbert's Act. One thing he conceived to be perfectly evident, that no change could be for the worse. Human beings were reduced by the present law to the most wretched condition which the power of Parliament, great as it was, could reduce them. One instance amongst many to which he would refer, was that of a poor man afflicted with gravel, who was able to earn only 5s. a-week; the parish allowed him 5s. more, and on this his family were enabled to live: 10 s. a-week certainly did not supply them with a very luxurious board, but they were not in a state of starvation. When the new law came into operation, the poor father of this poor family no longer received his 5s. a-week from the parish. He and his family could not live, though they might starve upon the 5s. a-week only, which he, suffering under disease, was able to earn; they were obliged to give up and go into the workhouse. Thus was great cruelty inflicted; it was, however, not merely an act of cruelty, but of extreme bad policy and bad economy, for each member of this family, when shut up in the workhouse, cost the parish 2s. 11 d. a-week; five children and two parents cost the parish upwards of 20 s. a-week; instead of 5s., which was the charge under the old law. These particulars he had from his noble Friend near him, who received the statement from rate-payers in the parish, suffering from this and other increased expenses arising out of the pre-
736
sent state of the law. The recurrence of such evils he endeavoured to prevent by some clauses that he intended should form a part of his measure. He was perfectly aware, that under the old system, farmers sometimes, nay, too frequently, contrived to eke out the scanty wages which they gave their men by obtaining for them some allowance weekly from the parish. Now, he certainly should not, so far as depended upon him, allow a renewal of this practice. His Bill would prevent any allowance to able-bodied men who were partly supported by their own earnings, without there being previously instituted a minute and searching investigation; and the necessity for relief should in all cases be certified by the medical officer of the parish or union. Men might be able-bodied, might be industrious, and therefore in the receipt of a weekly payment from a farmer, but a man might have twelve children, and it was quite clear, that no farmer could allow the father of such a family wages sufficient to maintain them; under such circumstances he saw no reason why parochial relief should not be afforded, provided, of course, that the case was clearly and satisfactorily made out, for unquestionably no agricultural labourer received payment sufficient to enable him to maintain a family of twelve children. [A noble Lord: They did.] No, it was impossible; no farmer would be so liberal—none so foolish—as to allow it. He meant to provide, that if a poor man had more than a certain number of children incapable of work, he should be entitled to relief—that he, his wife and children, should not be dragged to the workhouse and placed in confinement, to their own manifest injury, and to the great expense of the parish. In his opinion, families could never be well brought up unless some such regulations were adopted. He did not propose to restore the old law; in many respects it was most unjust, and had led to most abominable crimes; but, on the other hand, the new law was, in a variety of particulars, exceedingly exceptionable, especially as regarded bastardy. The mode of determining the putative father was extremely imperfect and expensive. Instead of sending the parties to the sessions, he proposed that the woman should bring her complaint before one magistrate, that then all the witnesses, together with the accused, should appear before three magistrates, and they should hear the

737
whole of the evidence, and not call on the woman to do more than swear to the paternity according to the best of her belief, for she could not always be positive, and he would not hold out any temptations to commit the crime of perjury; he would place no one in such a situation as to be liable to an examination offering the least inducement to commit that or any other offence. It was his opinion, that no confirmation of the statement of the mother should ever be required, for if it were, there would in 99 cases out of a 100 be no order made. If there were a general investigation set on foot, the testimony of the mother taken, and all the witnesses examined whose evidence could throw a light on the question, nothing further ought to be required, and most certainly he should oppose the practice of throwing on the mother the whole expense of maintaining the child. It was a horrible injustice, more than once eloquently exposed by his right rev. Friend at the table. He had recently been informed, that in his own neighbourhood three girls between the ages of fourteen and fifteen years had been gotten with child by men of twenty-five; ought the relatives and friends of those unfortunate girls to be subjected to the expense consequent upon the crimes of the beast who seduced them before they had attained an age at which they could judge of the consequences of the act to which they were consenting? Still he should take care that the production of natural children should be no advantage to the mothers—payment for the maintenance of the children should be made to the guardians, and likewise for the charges of lying-in, no matter whether the male or the female parent defrayed the expenses. Whenever there was any fear of any individual becoming chargeable on the parish, precaution by deposits and security with the guardians should at the outset be taken. He referred to the possibility of the female parent being made to pay, and in some cases it would be perfectly consistent with justice that she should, for it did happen that women of mature age, though, of course, not past the time of child-bearing, induced boys to get them with child. The investigation of that question, as well as the other, he proposed to leave to the decision of three magistrates; but these provisions he hoped to form so as that no advantage should accrue to any party from the number of
738
natural children born, and as little injury as possible to the children themselves. He proposed, further, that all children should remain with their mother for the first year; during that period of their lives she could yield them assistance which no other human being could; but after that, it was much better that they should be in the workhouse; there they would stand a chance of being more advantageously and virtuously brought up than in the family of such a mother. Then the present Poor-law made the order in bastardy remain in force for seven years. He proposed, that it should be in force so long as the child remained chargeable. Another alteration which he intended to propose related to the size of the unions; they were, in his opinion, much too large—to remove a poor agricultural labourer sixteen or seventeen miles from the place in which his previous life had been spent amounted in his eyes to banishment; it would be viewed by him, as total banishment would by a person in a higher walk of life. On this point, the size of the unions, he proposed to restore the old provision of Gilbert's Act—that no union should extend to a greater distance than ten miles from the workhouse, nor to a greater distance than ten miles from the place at which the guardians assembled. The law gave the poor man an appeal to the guardians, but how could be take advantage of that privilege if he had not access to them at their place of meeting? Moreover, he should, when necessary, be furnished with a conveyance—he spoke feelingly on the subject—if he were a pauper, how could he attempt to walk five miles, or two? He could not attend a board of guardians, and the lame man who had no conveyance must submit to any order, however arbitrary. Their Lordships would see that his objects were to secure the poor from oppression rather than protect the rates, for he would rather sacrifice all the land of England than the comforts of the poor. The separation of husband and wife he thought most objectionable in the present system, as well as the denial of beer in some cases. He found, that in several of the union workhouses the article of beer was prohibited. This, he thought was unfair. Many of the poor agricultural labourers had been accustomed to have beer at their meals. It was an article of necessity to them. In his bill there would be a clause to this

739
effect—that every union should, at its expense, provide beer for the old and impotent inmates. There was one part of the present Poor-law Act for which he could find no reason. It was, that no parent, friend, or old master should be allowed to give to any inmate of a workhouse any present or gift, or any addition to their allowance which would add to their comforts. As an illustration of this practice he might mention a case which had been related to him on the authority of a gentleman whose statement could not be doubted. His friend had informed him that in a workhouse in Kent, a poor old woman had been for some time an inmate. Her daughter, who, although unable to support her, was anxious to contribute as much as she could to her parent's comfort, brought her on one occasion a seed-cake, but the well-intentioned gift was intercepted by the master of the workhouse, and never reached its intended object, because, forsooth, it was against the rule and discipline by which the House was governed. Many similar cases could be mentioned; or, at least, there were many instances in which the friends, relations, or former masters of paupers were prevented from administering to their comforts by small presents of articles which the workhouse did not supply. This was because the regulations of the Poor-law Commissioners were to be carried out in all their severity. What he should propose in this respect was, that any person who should feel disposed to administer to the comforts of any inmate of a workhouse by any little article of food or drink, spirituous liquors excepted, should not have their intention frustrated by the will of the master or guardian. Another clause of his bill would provide a separate ward for such paupers as were labouring under infectious diseases. There had been instances in which persons labouring under typhus fever were in the same room with healthy paupers. This was a practice which ought to be checked, not alone with reference to the inmates of the workhouse, though that would be a sufficient ground for it, but also for the sake of the community at large. There had been, he was aware, a power of that kind given to magistrates in quarter sessions, but he believed, that it had been virtually repealed. If, however, it should appear, that the magistrates had the power, be was disposed to leave it in their hands.
740
Another point in the present law was, that if a man, reduced to the necessity of going into the workhouse, had any property, it was taken from him. Now, if a man had money in the savings-bank, for instance, he thought the interest of it might be taken while he remained in the workhouse, but the principal should be reserved for him when he came out, or should be left for his family. He had not introduced any clause on that subject; but if his bill should go to a Committee, he would move one which should reserve the property of the pauper for such purposes as he had mentioned. His bill consisted of many clauses, any one of which might be left out without injury, and the bill might remain. He should be happy to adopt any amendment which would improve the bill. His great object was to improve the condition of the poor, and without going into any of the clamour which had been raised against some parts of the present law, he trusted the poor would find the Peers firm and resolved on their behalf. With these remarks he would now move, that the bill be read a first time.
The Earl of Hardwicke: said, that the noble and learned Lord had declared his wish to be, to give labour before relief to the poor. He wished to know from him whether there was any clause in his bill which went to compel the letting of land in a parish to the board of guardians, for the purpose of giving employment to the poor?
Lord Wynford: Certainly not.
Bill read a first time.