NEW POOR LAW. (Hansard, 1 May 1838)

§ 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 Hardwicke
thought, 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 Sydney
said, 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 Wharncliffe
said 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 Stanhope
said, 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 Wharncliffe
said, 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.