Lords Sitting of 6 June 1839

MINUTES.
Petitions Presented:—By Earls CAWDOR, STANHOPE, STRADBROKE, and RADNOR, Lords COLVILLE, BARHAM, and a number of other noble LORDS, from many places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By the Earl of CAWDOR, from a place in Sutherland, for Church Extension in Scotland.—By the Marquess of Downshire from places in Ireland, for redressing the Religious Grievances of Presbyterian Soldiers.—By the Bishop of CHESTER, LONDON, and BANGOR, from Liverpool, and other places, against running the Mails on Sundays.—By the Bishop of LONDON, from Belfast, against Idolatrous Worship in India.—By the Earl of STANHOPE, from Ilverton (Somersetshire) against the New Poor-Law Act.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from St. Mary's Newington, in favour of the Government Scheme of National Education.—By the Earl of ABERDEEN, from one place, for the Abolition of the Colonial Legislature in Newfoundland.—By Viscount LORTON, from Sligo, for inquiry into the appointment of Sheriffs.

POOR-LAW.
Earl Stanhopesaid, that, as he saw in his place a noble Earl (Hardwicke), who was chairman of the Thaxton Union, in the county of Cambridge, he should take that opportunity of presenting two petitions to their Lordships, respecting certain proceedings which were alleged to have taken place in that union.
2
He felt it right to say a few words on the rather unusual occurrence of presenting two petitions on the same day, from the same individual, and on the same subject, to their Lordships. The petitioner called for inquiry into her statement, which clearly could only be effected through a Committee of that House. When a committee was sitting last session, to investigate certain complaints connected with the Poor-law, it was impossible for them to investigate all the cases in time, as Parliament was prorogued, and it was obvious, that he could not present those petitions at an earlier period. They came from a woman of the name of ——, who resided in the union, and she, in the first petition, complained that she had been compelled to dispose of her dwelling, that relief had been refused her, and that she had been turned into the street, where she had been, for some time, exposed to the inclemency of the weather, night and day. She also complained, that her husband had been unjustly condemned to imprisonment for three months, in the county gaol of Cambridge. In the second peti-

3
tion, from the same party, she complained that she had been sent backwards and forwards, no less than 52 miles, before she could procure relief, and that she had been obliged to sell some of her clothes, for the purpose of procuring food. She, therefore, earnestly prayed for inquiry. Now, no man, who was at all acquainted with the noble Earl, could, for a moment, suspect that he would, in any shape, tolerate cruelty. The noble Earl was, however, Chairman of the Board of Guardians, and he (Earl Stanhope) felt that he had only done his duty, in thus giving the noble Earl an opportunity of explaining the matter.
The Earl of Hardwickesaid, he would endeavour, as briefly as possible, to answer the statement of the noble Lord. He was sure their Lordships would always receive, with proper attention, petitions from the humbler classes of society, and when such petitions, in any way, concerned one of their Lordships' body, it would, he believed, rather increase than diminish their desire to investigate the matters referred to. Their Lordships would recollect that, last year, a similar petition was sent to that House, from the husband of the present petitioner. He believed, that some individuals were induced to make an unworthy attempt to excite prejudice against the law, rather than to point out real and tangible grievances. That petition alleged, that certain oppressive acts had been perpetrated by the Earl of Hardwicke and the Guardians of the Thaxton Union. Allegations were made, in the present petition, either under a mistake on the part of the petitioner, or with a wilful intention, with respect to the Board of Guardians, impugning their conduct very unjustly. So far as regards the Board of Guardians, no reference was made to any acts committed by them that were not perfectly justifiable. It was made a matter of complaint in the petition, that these parties were incarcerated. But what was the fact? They were in very great distress; and, fortunately for them, there was a workhouse ready to afford relief. Into that house they were received, and they were, of course, amenable to its rules. It was further alleged, as a grievance, that the husband was sent to prison. The cause of his imprisonment was this:—He was permitted, by the Board of Guardians, to go out and seek for employment. He did so, and he was
4
then called on to support his wife, which he was obliged to do by that act of Parliament which provided that individuals should be compelled to support their families, if they were able to do so. The man refused. His offence came within the notice and jurisdiction of the magistrates, who visited his offence with imprisonment. The Board of Guardians had nothing whatever to do with the matter. The second petition complained that the petitioner was obliged to travel a certain number of miles, for the purpose of receiving relief. Of that, he knew nothing. But he was certain that, if the petitioner had made the Board of Guardians acquainted with the conduct of the relieving officer, and that that conduct appeared to have been improper, he would confidently answer for it, that strict and prompt justice would have been done in the case. He was very sorry, that this complaint had not been sent to the Secretary of State, because, in all cases of this nature, where complaint was so made, Commissioners were sent down to inquire into the alleged grievance. They investigated the matter carefully, and they examined witnesses judicially, on oath. Thus, they got at the true facts of the case; and, in every instance, he believed, strict justice was administered. He should be exceedingly glad if an investigation took place with respect to this, or other complaints of a similar description. He thought, that the committee of last session might be beneficially renewed, since its labours were useful in disabusing the public mind, with respect to the operation of this measure. He should only further observe, that if, in this instance, any inquiry were instituted into the conduct of the Board of Guardians, he was convinced they would come fairly and honourably out of it.
Petitions laid on the Table.

TITHE COMMUTATION.
Lord Ashburtonasked whether it were the intention of Government to bring forward, shortly, any measure for the explanation or amendment of the Tithe Commutation Act. There were various parts of the act which required one or other of these, and at this advanced period of the Session, he thought no further delay ought to take place.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that a measure of the sort was under the con-

5
sideration of the Government; but, in the course of their communications with the commissioners on the subject, so many new points, for the most part of minor importance, had arisen, that the production of the measure had been inevitably delayed. This was the sole cause, as the Government were anxious that something should be done.
Lord Portmanwas anxious that something should be done with regard to the mode of rating, not only tithe, but other properly. In consequence of a late judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, there was no one rate in the kingdom which could be maintained, if it were to be contested. That judgment had the effect of reviving a principle which had never been acted upon since the time of Elizabeth. It affected not only the poor-rate, but the way-rate, which is founded on the poor-rate. The judgment, in fact, imposed an income tax. Something should be done, and he thought a separate legislative measure would be necessary.
Lord Wrottesleysaid, that the practice of taxing profits to the poor-rate was unsatisfactory, and always had been unsatisfactory. The best mode of settling these cases was by private compromise.
Lord Ashburtonagreed, that the judgment spoken of by the noble Lord went to effect a complete revolution in the mode of rating. By the law, as it now stood, the profits of the farmer were liable to be rated.
Subject dropped.