THE POOR-LAW,

HL Deb 13 June 1839 vol 48 cc174-95

Earl Stanhope

presented a petition from several clergymen of the Established Church, ministers of five adjacent parishes in Kent, lying in three different unions, and comprising 8,000 souls. The petitioners expressed their hope, that a searching inquiry would be made, to discover whether the power vested in the Poor-law Commissioners had not been exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner; they pressed the necessity of dispensing with the Assistant-commissioners, and the saving of expenditure to be effected thereby; they were anxious that all the provisions of the Poor-law Amendment Act should be carefully examined, with a view to mitigate the rigour of its effects on the poor, whose interests it ought to protect: they were especially desirous that the bastardy clauses should be got rid of altogether; for, said they, it was most unjust to visit the punishment on one only, and that the weaker particeps criminis; they condemned also the hardship of throwing the expense of maintaining the child upon the mother, and declared that these regulations had, it was to be feared, greatly increased the dreadful crime of child murder, without diminishing or checking profligacy; they esteemed the refusal of relief, at their homes, of deserving objects, a great hardship; it was, in effect, to punish poverty as a crime; and they prayed that discretionary powers might be vested in the Boards of Guardians, to relieve such cases as, on investigation, might seem to them to call for relief. The noble Earl said, he only wished these sentiments were universally entertained by the ministers of the Established Church; and then no apprehension need be entertained for the security of that body. He need not say, that he agreed entirely with the reverend petitioners, and especially as to what they said of the bastardy clause; and here he would observe, of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), without, however, meaning any disrespect to his noble and learned Friend, that he seemed to be one of those who strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel; for he thought, it was rather remarkable, after all that they had heard the other day, from the noble and learned Lord, of the depravity and demoralization of beer-houses, why the noble and learned Lord did not dilate upon the demoralization caused by the Poor-law Amendment Act. He declared that the bastardy enactments had, in many cases, operated to give perfect impunity to the seducer; while it caused, but too often, the suicide of the female, or the murder of the offspring. He distinctly charged all this on the New Poor-law. But this was not all; he had received a communication from a gentleman residing in the neighbourhood of these petitioners, who stated, that the workhouse of the Tunbridge Union never has contained many more than 400 persons; but, in last year, or rather, from the 1st of February to the 31st of December, what was the number of deaths, did the House think? No less than 47; that was to say, upwards of 11 per cent. This was the mortality of a workhouse under this system—11 per cent, a-year, while the individual to whom he had referred stated, that, in his own parish, the mortality, on the whole, was only two and a half. A respectable person had informed him (Earl Stanhope), that the average number of persons in the workhouse of Horsemonden, last year, was 200; and, of deaths, 34; making 17 per cent. He thought it absolutely necessary, that a full and fair inquiry into these cases should take place, and that it should not be conducted by Assistant-commissioners, Secretaries, and their dependents.

Petition to lie on the Table.

The noble Lord then said, he would beg to present the petition of Thomas Coombs, which he had read to their Lordships some days since. Perhaps, as it was a valuable document, and their Lordships might have forgotten some of the statements, it might be advisable to read it again.

Lord Brougham

. Oh, no! God forbid. He hoped his noble Friend would have no objection to postpone this petition to another night. Surely, one petition was enough for one night. His noble Friend had founded a lecture on the Poor-laws, which he seemed determined not to allow to drop; but he hoped his noble Friend would now allow them a respite from a second petition on the same night. He would suggest to his noble Friend, that it would be a much fairer course, to move at once for a repeal of the Poor-law Amendment Act, or to wait till the promised bill for the alteration of that measure came before them, instead of attacking the general administration of the law from particular instances of alleged misconduct.

Earl Stanhope

said, that, for the first time during a parliamentary career of 30 years, he had heard the presentation of a petition designated a lecture.

Lord Brougham

said, his noble Friend forgot that that was the expression he had himself made use of last year, having declared that it was his intention to institute a course of lectures on the Poor-law.

Earl Stanhope

was not aware that any course he could take would be fairer than that which he was now pursuing, although it pleased his noble Friend, as on all other occasions, to be facetious. He (Earl Stanhope) had lived on intimate terms with a man, whose memory he should ever revere, who had been one of the brightest ornaments of that House—the late Lord Eldon. In one of the last conversations he had had with that great man, who had been snatched from them, to the infinite and irreparable loss of his country, Lord Eldon remarked, when speaking of the expediency of attempting the repeal of the New Poor-law, that "nothing could be done till the country was ready for it, which it would soon be." That was one of the reasons which induced him to postpone any general motion upon the subject; but, although postponed, according to a French proverb, it would not therefore be lost. In the mean time, he would beg leave to read to their Lordships an affidavit which contained an interesting statement relative to the administration of the law in the parish of Wimborne. It was as follows:— I, Ann White, wife of Silas White, of the parish of Wimborne Minster, do solemnly and sincerely declare that, in January, 1837, I applied to Mr. Henry Bartlett, one of the Guardians of the parish of Wimborne, for relief. I had then been confined about a month with my seventh child, and had no victuals nor money for myself, husband, and seven children. We were all starving, my husband not having been able to get regular work for some months. My landlady, Mrs. Wareham, accompanied me to Mr. Bartlett, when I told him how distressed we all were, and begged of him to give me something for my family (in all nine of us) to eat, for we were hungry enough to eat each other up. Mr. Bartlett said, he would not give me a farthing if it was to save my life, and that I had better go home and make a pie of some of my children, and begin with this infant in my arms. Mrs. Wareham then asked him how he would like to see his daughter made into a pie, and whether he did not think that I had the same love for my children as he had for his. I then went away without having any relief given me. And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of an act made and passed in the 6th year of the reign of his late Majesty, entitled 'An Act to repeal an Act of the present session of Parliament, entitled' An Act for the more effectual abolition of Oaths and Affirmations taken and made in various departments of the state, and to substitute declarations in lieu thereof, and for the more entire suppression of voluntary and extrajudicial oaths and affidavits, and to make other provisions for the abolition of unnecessary oaths. The + mark of ANNE WHITE. Declared and subscribed at Wimborne Minster, in the county of Dorset, this 13th day of April, 1839, before me, ISAAC FRYER, a Master Extraordinary in Chancery. And I certify that the above declaration was read over and explained to the said Anne White in my presence, previously to her putting her signature or mark thereto, and that she fully understood the same. ISAAC FRYER, a Master Extraordinary in Chancery, The noble Earl recapitulated the chief facts contained in the petition of Thomas Coombs, presented on June 6th. The petitioner stated himself to have a wife and nine children, seven of whom were under sixteen years of age, and one only seven months old. Last summer he earned 12s. a-week, but for fifteen weeks previous to his addressing this petition to the House, had been able to obtain no work. He applied for relief to the guardians of Westbourne Union, of which he was an acknowledged pauper, but was refused, and directed to go to Portsea Union, where he applied and was also refused. Having, at last, reached the degree of suffering which the assistant-commissioner for Hampshire gives as the description of destitution, and thus become qualified, in the opinion of the Portsea board, for relief, he had for his family 4s. and three gallons of bread weekly, and for himself medical relief and such nourishment as the surgeon prescribed. And when he had recovered sufficiently to bear the journey, he was, with his family, removed to Westbourne workhouse, where they were first locked up in cold damp rooms, as if they had been guilty of some crime, and afterwards separated from each other. The noble Earl moved, in conclusion, that the petition do lie upon the table.

The Duke of Richmond

said, that the present petition, to which the noble Lord, through the medium of the newspapers, had given a most extensive circulation, was signed with the mark of Thomas Coombs, and witnessed by the rev. Mr. Dewdney. It was evident that the petition, which was remarkably well drawn up, was the composition of Mr. Dewdney and not of the petitioner. In anything he was going to say, he wished particularly to guard himself against being supposed to make any attack on that rev. gentleman, who, he believed, from all he had heard, was a very humane and a very good man, but, somewhat like his noble Friend, on the subject of the poor law had taken a twist, and could not hear the question discussed without loss of temper, and having his judgment warped by his prejudices against the new system. The rev. gentleman had acted well by putting his signature to this petition, so that it could not be said that it came before their Lordships under false pretences. Coombs was a man who had been working in the Portsea union as a digger of brick-earth, for 12s. a-week. His eldest daughter, who was sixteen years of age, was only able to earn 1s. 6d. a-week, by making stays, and his next daughter was fourteen years old. Now he, (the Duke of Richmond) complained that the man should have neglected to place his daughters, when they had arrived at such an age, out to service. It was very easy for girls of their years to go to service, there being always a demand for them at the houses of the neighbouring farmers. No farmer could be expected to give wages large enough to maintain such a family; and besides to retain the eldest children at home at their years, was only to bring them up in idleness and improper habits. He (the Duke of Richmond) thought that persons situated as this man was, ought in all cases to put their children out to service, which, besides enabling them to earn something, fitted them to become wives and mothers themselves. This man had applied to the board of the Westbourne union for relief, and was told that he must apply to the relieving officer of the union within which he resided. He was taken before a magistrate, examined as to his proper parish, and ordered to be removed thither, but in consequence of the man's becoming ill, the execution of the order was suspended. When the man got well he came to Westbourne, and arrived when the board of guardians was sitting. Here he would put it to the rev. Mr. Dewdney himself, or any other gentleman, however strong might be his prejudices, to say, whether the chairman and members of this board were not as respectable and humane men, and as exemplary in the discharge of their duties, as could anywhere be found. He would venture to say, that the farmers of the neighbourhood gave their labourers as good wages as any in the country—as good as his noble Friend himself gave. The board was told that the man came from a place at a distance, and ordered him to be admitted into the workhouse, which was not, as the petition represented it, fitted up like a gaol, for it had no iron bars at the windows.—[Earl Stanhope—The inmates are locked up.] He was ready to meet his noble Friend on that point. The man was taken to the probationary ward, If the parties were not locked up, it would be impossible among the lower classes, of seaport towns especially, to prevent the introduction and spread of infectious diseases. The man was put into the male side of the probationary ward, and his children into the female side. Instantly on this being done, a fire was lighted, and dinner provided for him. The doctor was sent for; he arrived soon after, and ordered him to be taken into the infirmary. The man had not been there more than an hour and a half, when his wife told the matron she wished to see her husband. The request was instantly complied with; she was taken into the infirmary, where her husband said he was very comfortable, and had nothing to complain of, on which she went back to sleep in her own part of the house. If they had been in a county infirmary, could his noble Friend suppose that the woman would have been allowed to remain with her sick husband all night? It should be observed, that the complaint of the petitioner, as to separation, would have applied as well as to any other infirmary. On the following morning the woman again asked to see her husband, and was taken immediately, as before, to see him. He should like his noble Friend to ask Mr. Dewdney, whether he would give his word of honour as a Gentleman, that he had heard the statements which he had put into the petition from the lips of the individual. He wished to ask Mr. Dewdney that question, as he was certain that Gentleman was a man of too high honour to reply in the affirmative if it was not the case. He did not believe that Mr. Dewdney had taken the statements from the lips of the petitioner, but of his wife. With regard to the declaration which his noble Friend had made to their Lordships, he objected to the legality of the proceeding. He contended, that the magistrate who had taken the declaration was liable to be fined for a misdemeanour. Returning to Coombs, he must observe, that the petitioner had been heard to say, by one who was an inmate of the workhouse at the time, that he should like to spend a week in it very much; that the petitioner's wife had said, that she would not have come to the union at all, if she had not hoped the guardians would have given her out-door relief, and that if they had, she hoped to have got assistance from other persons also. He must also deny that the rooms of the workhouse, as asserted in the petition, were cold and damp; he wished the rev. Gentleman who wrote the petition, had inquired a little more fully into its state. The guardians would be happy to allow the rev. Gentleman to examine the workhouse. He would only add, from his knowledge of the wages and habits of meritorious labourers, that those who were determined to be provident, and take every means in their power to bring up their children in industrious habits, would always be able to rear a family. He knew persons in the same situation as the petitioner, and with as large families, who had money in the savings bank.

Lord Wynford

said, there were allegations in the petition into which he thought the House was bound in duty to inquire. It was evidently impossible, that a man and his wife, with a family of nine children, could be supported on a sum of 12s. a-week.

The Duke of Rutland

intimated that the noble Lord had forgotten, that the eldest child received 4s. a week, and that the eldest daughter received 1s. 6d. a week for stay-making, so that the man had 17s. 6d., and not 12s. a week, for the support of his family.

Earl Stanhope

.—That was only occasionally.

Lord Wynford

must, at the same time, express a wish, that no more petitions of this kind should be presented. It was not the way in which their Lordships could get at the truth. His noble Friend near him (Earl Stanhope) made one statement, and his noble Friend opposite (the Duke of Richmond) made another. What positive conclusion could their Lordships come to, after such conflicting statements. How were they to know whether the statement of the noble Earl was correct, or whether that of the noble Duke was incorrect? It was a mere idle waste of time to bandy these charges and these defences about, on the mere presentation of petitions. If the guardians had acted as this petition stated, it was clearly an indictable offence; but if they had acted, as the board of guardians asserted that they had acted, then the board had acted with great humanity. If the petitioner had died upon the snow, then the reverend gentleman who had drawn up this petition, had stated the law correctly, when he said that it would have been manslaughter at least, if it had not been murder, on the part of the relieving officer. Now, it was his delibe- rate opinion, that if the reverend gentleman would bring a case of that sort before a jury, it would do more to stop the present abuses in the administration of the poor laws, than all the petitions which might be presented to their Lordships against them. If the parties indicted were acquitted, the public would no longer be abused with these stories; if they were convicted, their conviction would prove, more clearly than anything else could do, the existence of the alleged abuses. If a man neglected his duty as relieving-officer, and if, in consequence of his neglect, the poor either suffered in health, or were put to any inconvenience to which they ought not to be subjected, as for instance, in one case of which he was himself cognizant, where an individual had been directed to travel 100 miles before he could obtain relief, there could be no doubt whatever that matters of that sort might be investigated upon an indictment, and that they might even be made subject of a civil action also. Now, such a mode of proceeding would bring the point at issue to a speedy termination, and it would have this advantage beside, that it would be clearly understood, and shortly decided. He would say a few words on a case which had occurred in Suffolk, and which had been proved before their Lordships' committee last year, a case in which the relieving officer having walked into a house, and having there seen a poor man of the age of ninety, in the last state of infirmity and destitution, had allowed him to remain so there, without a change of linen, and without medical assistance for five days, until his sufferings were terminated by death. Now, would it not have been better to have presented an indictment, than a petition against this officer? If an indictment had been presented, and had been followed up by a conviction, it would hare prevented this monster from remaining in his situation as relieving officer. He hoped, therefore, that in future, parties who complained of abuses under the Poor Laws, instead of petitioning, would institute criminal proceedings against the individuals whom they denounced as guilty of these malversations. For his own part, he was not an enemy, generally, to the present Poor Laws. There were many things in them of which he approved highly; but there were also many things of which he disapproved as strenuously—for instance, he could not approve of the bastardy clauses, which had been productive of great injury to the country already, and which would be, he feared, productive of still more. It was not his intention to renew the bill which he had introduced on this subject last Session, though he thought that measure, and even one still larger, was required by the circumstances of the country. He was too old and too infirm to enter upon such a task now. But a new bill must shortly be brought in upon this subject, and then the three kings of Somerset-house, as his noble Friend called them, would of necessity lose their thrones. If such a bill were brought in, he hoped that a clause would be introduced into it, by which the people of England would be placed on the same footing with the negroes in the West-Indies. It was deemed consistent with British Justice that stipendiary magistrates, quite independent of the planters, should legislate between the negroes and their employers. He therefore trusted, that there would be no objection to give to the poor of England some mode of appeal from the boards of guardians to an independent tribunal, as it was not fair to leave them entirely at the mercy of a board, generally composed of their employers, and who must always relieve them out of their own pecuniary resources.

The Duke of Richmond

observed, that the petition alleged that this man, with his nine children, had all been sent to the workhouse. Now it appeared, even from the statement of the Rev. Mr. Dewdney, that only eight of his children were sent there. The noble Earl also admitted, that one of the man's children earned 4s. a-week, and that his eldest girl earned 1s. 6d. a-week by staymaking. He had, therefore, no right to argue this as a case where only 12s. a-week was the income of the man and his family. For his own part, he must say, that he did everything in his power to influence the farmers to give good wages to their labourers, not only as a matter of fair dealing to the labourers, but also as a matter of economy to themselves. What he complained of was, that none of the denouncers of the present system of poor-laws, and of its mode of administration, had ever ventured to present an indictment against any of the boards of guardians whom they abused so lustily. Why did not the noble Earl opposite, if he believed these charges, present a bill of indictment against the guar- dians of the Westbourne Union? He challenged the noble Earl to present such a bill against them. Why were they to be shown up night after night by the public press, at the suggestion of the noble Earl, when they had no one either in that House or out of that House to defend them? "I ask the noble Earl," said the noble Duke, "to prosecute these respectable gentlemen. On their part I defy the noble Earl to do his worst; but the noble Earl knows well, that prosecute them he cannot, for nothing wrong have they done." His noble and learned Friend had said, that there was no appeal from the decision of these boards of guardians. He thought that he had heard his noble and learned Friend speak of the three dictators who overruled the proceedings of these local boards. Those three dictators, as his noble and learned Friend called them, stood to the poor in this country in the same relation in which the stipendiary magistrates stood to the negroes in the West Indies. They were not appointed by the rate-payers, but by the Government; and their regulations must have the sanction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or else they were invalid. He declared, that if he had known of any instance of inhumanity occurring in the execution of this law in the county of Sussex, he should have felt it to be his duty to prosecute, at his own expense, the party guilty of it. He recollected the case in Suffolk to which his noble and learned Friend had alluded, and he must say, that to him it appeared that the overseer had been right in law, though he had been wrong in practice. The overseer in that case had asked the man if he would have a surgeon; the man said, no. Nevertheless, under all the circumstances of that case, he thought, that the relieving officer would have done his duty better if he had sent a surgeon to the man's house, no matter whether he liked it or not. If the presentation of petitions of this kind were, as his noble and learned Friend had justly said, highly inconvenient, it was still more inconvenient to have quoted on a sudden, cases which rested upon evidence which none of their Lordships had read for some time. He again challenged the noble Earl to present an indictment against these guardians, if he really thought them guilty of the conduct which he had imputed to them. Let him present it when and where he liked. Let him. even put the Rev. Mr. Dewdney into the jury-box, and he was sure, that when Mr. Dewdney examined the whole matter calmly and carefully, he would agree with him in saying that the guardians of the Westbourne Union had done nothing harsh towards this petitioner.

Lord Wynford

said, the relieving-officer in the Suffolk case had walked into the house of the poor man, and had seen with his own eyes his state of destitution. It was, therefore, his duty to relieve him—for the law of England was founded on Christianity, which was itself a law of humanity. He repeated his former assertion, that under the existing Poor-law there was no appeal from the board of guardians, who at present exercised a power absolutely uncontrolled.

Earl Stanhope

said, that the noble Puke considered his rev. friend, Mr. Dewdney, to have the same twist on the New Poor-law that he (Earl Stanhope) had. He was proud to say, that he concurred with his rev. friend, Mr. Dewdney, with his rev. friend, Mr. Brill, of Bradford, and with many other rev. gentlemen, in their statements respecting that atrocious law. But was it a logical conclusion on the part of the noble Duke to assume, that because Mr. Dewdney was mistaken as to the operation of the New Poor-laws, he was therefore mistaken as to the facts of the present case? Was it a logical conclusion to assume that the information contained in this petition was derived, not from the mouth of the petitioner himself, but from that of his wife? He (Earl Stanhope) knew, not only that Mr. Dewdney had received that statement from the petitioner himself, but also that he had examined and cross-examined him closely on every word that it contained. As soon as his rev. friend discovered that he had not given him correct information as to the earnings of the man's family, his rev. friend communicated the discovery to him. He repeated, however, the statement, that during fifteen weeks the petitioner was without an opportunity of getting work, and that at last, nature being exhausted, he fell down in a fit before he got to Westbourne.

The Duke of Richmond

Then there is an end to the charge against the board of guardians at Westbourne; for you admit that this exhaustion and this prostration of the powers of his constitution took place before he asked them for relief.

Earl Stanhope

The poor man had then arrived at that state of suffering, which, according to the declaration of the Assistant-commissioner for Hampshire, was a sufficient test of destitution, for he was ready to die of starvation in the streets. He knew persons in whose presence that atrocious declaration had been made, and he was ready, if their Lordships pleased, to prove it at their bar. The noble Duke might, perhaps, give another version of that story; but he should like to know whether the evidence on which that version rested did not come from persons liable to be warped by that spirit of intimidation to which reference had been made already in the course of the debate. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Wynford) seemed to think, that the presentation of petitions was unnecessary, and that this was not the best mode of investigating the matter. But he contended, that it was the duty of that House, which, he trusted, they would never deviate from, to throw open widely their doors to receive the petitions of the people. His noble and learned Friend recommended the adoption of legal proceedings, but cases of this sort were so numerous, as well as flagrant and atrocious, that if investigated in courts of law, no other business could possibly be proceeded with. And who was to bear the expense of such proceedings? Whilst protesting, as he always had done, against this execrable and unchristian enactment, he must say his objection to it did not depend on particular cases, though they were as thick as leaves in autumn, and he was aware, that he would always be met with the answer, that although the bill might operate to the injury and oppression of individuals, still it had been productive of good. His objections, however, pointed to the principle of the bill; and whoever sent their petitions to him, might depend on his discharging his duty by presenting them. It was for their Lordships to consider what course they would adopt, whether they would not renew the Committee of last Session, which might have been productive of good, if it had been duly conducted, not in a quibbling and pettifogging manner, overloading the minutes with useless matter, and merely attempting to confound and confute the opinions of witnesses, so that, of their report, it might be said, nascitur ridiculus mus. Few persons would take the trouble to read, and none to present, a digest of such a document. He thought it their duty not only to receive, but patiently and deliberately to examine, every allegation in the petitions which were presented upon this important subject. He, at least, would discharge his duty with firmness, at the same time, giving, as he was bound in fairness to do, every opportunity in his power to those who were affected by the allegations made in the petitions of making what answer they could.

Viscount Melbourne

did not rise for the purpose of prolonging this debate, being very much of opinion with the noble and learned Baron opposite (Lord Wynford), that if they continued it for three hours later, they would not be likely to arrive at any more satisfactory conclusion, or more clear conviction in their own minds, than he apprehended they were already in possession of. But, as the noble and learned Lord had repeated the declaration made by the noble Earl, which was altogether erroneous and injurious to the character of a person of the highest respectability, and who discharged the duties of the office he held in the most exemplary manner, he could not help reading to their Lordships that gentleman's own explanation of the expressions which had been attributed to him. The noble Lord had attributed to the Assistant Poor-law Commissioner of the district, Colonel A'Court, the statement that a man had no right to relief until he had actually, fallen down in the street dying from destitution, exhaustion, and inanition. Such a statement, when attributed to a person like Colonel A'Court, was altogether unlikely and improbable. It never was used by him. His own account of the matter was this:— As regards the expressions which Thomas Coombs has attributed to me, as my definition of destitution, at this distance of lime I cannot charge my memory with the exact words which I may have made use of; but I perfectly well recollect observing, on a discussion as to the relative duties of relieving officers and overseers, that it was very desirable that all outdoor relief should be administered by the union officers, but that cases might occur in which it was absolutely necessary that an overseer should interfere. As an illustration, I may very possibly have cited the case of a wayfaring man suffering from exhaustion in the streets, as one of many which the Portsea overseers were compelled to provide for, notwithstanding the appointment of a resident relieving officer. The question was not as to the interpretation of the term 'destitution,' but I had in my mind reference solely to such cases of emergency as parish officers were bound to take cognizance of in the absence of the paid officers of the Union. It is hardly necessary for me to declare, that I never, for an instant, intended to convey the impression 'that a man must be ready to drop in the street before he could be legally entitled to parish relief,' Their Lordships would at once see the manner in which these expressions had been used by Colonel A'Court. They were not intended as a definition of the situation in which a man must be before he could claim relief, but as a statement of the case which would justify the parish officer in interfering when otherwise he would not be justified in so doing in the absence of the paid officers of the union. The noble Earl, therefore, who must have spoken inadvertently or upon misinformation, had evidently attributed the expression to Colonel A'Court in a sense it was never intended to bear.

The Duke of Wellington

said, he was very happy to hear the explanation which had been given by the noble Viscount. He did not know the name of the Assistant Poor-law Commissioner to whom reference had been made, but knowing pretty well those who filled, that office in Hampshire, he was perfectly certain that none of them were capable of making use of such expressions as those which had been quoted on the present occasion. This, however, was only an example of what had frequently come under his notice in that House—he alluded to the facility with which facts of this description were stated in petitions against the Poor-law Commissioners and other parties, which upon investigation turned out to have little or no foundation in truth, and as little confirmatory of the original statement as the circumstances which had been so satisfactorily explained by the noble Viscount in relation to Colonel A'Court. He really thought it would be very desirable if the noble Earl would attend to the recommendation of his noble and learned Friend behind (Lord Wynford), who urged him to bring in a bill to alter this law, and see what he could do in the way of its amendment. He had been long enough in Parliament to recollect that before the present law was passed there had not been less than half-a-dozen attempts made by some of the greatest men this country ever produced to amend the system of poor laws. Among others, a person for whom he knew the noble Earl entertained the greatest respect, the late Mr. Pitt, made an attempt to amend these laws, and failed, for a reason, which he believed, had occasioned the failure of every at- tempt to alter them until that which was made within these few years, and the present Poor-law Amendment Act was passed principally by the exertions of the noble and learned Lord (Brougham), who was present at the commencement of this debate. The real truth of the matter was this: that in every parish in the country there existed abuses, he would venture to say, a hundred times greater than any of those which the noble Earl had brought forward in any of those petitions with which he entertained their Lordships upon every vacant day that presented itself. In every parish, he repeated, there were abuses; and in each, abuses upon a different principle from those in the neighbouring parish, so that no law could be produced to remedy them, for the measure which should apply to parish A, instead of removing the abuses existing in parish B, would only tend to aggravate and render them intolerable. At length the Administration of which the noble Viscount was a Member took up the matter. There was a very general and searching inquiry into the whole state of the administration of the Poor-laws, as the result of which it was, and of the experience of the various attempts to amend those laws, the present measure was arranged and brought into Parliament. It passed both Houses in a very short space of time, and looking to the importance of the subject, with a very extraordinary degree of unanimity; for he believed on the principle there was no division whatever, and hardly a difference of opinion in that House; he believed there was none in the other House of Parliament, and very little difference of opinion upon any part of the details. With respect to the administration of the law, he had observed it in different parts of the country, and he must say that its administration had been entirely satisfactory, and most particularly to those parties who were likely to become its more immediate objects. That part of the law of which the noble Earl and the noble Baron behind complained most—namely, the existence of the Poor-law Commissioners—was, in his opinion, the most important part of it. The truth of the matter was, that the abuses in the administration of the poor laws were so numerous, so various, and at the same time so inveterate, that it was absolutely impossible to get the better of them without the constitution of some central authority which should superintend the execution of the law, taking care that it was duly administered, and that those intrusted with its execution in the country did not infringe upon its provisions. Such, he believed, was the object of the institution of those Boards of Guardians and Commissioners. Every measure had been adopted to secure the publicity of the reports, to enable Parliament to acquire a knowledge at any time of all their transactions upon any particular subject; and he must say it was this part of the noble Earl's conduct that astonished him the most, for while he ought to know that at any time he could have the means of ascertaining the conduct of those authorities upon any point, particularly that comprised in the petition which he had read three or four times to their Lordships, instead of moving for the production of the papers and correspondence, and ascertaining precisely what the real facts were, he went into detail of all the allegations in the petition, producing exaggerated statements on the subject, and was thus guilty of all the injustice of doing an injury to the reputations of those persons whom he traduced.

The Duke of Richmond

would move, in order to afford the noble Earl an opportunity of reply, "that there be laid on the table a statement from the Poor Law Commissioners of the examination by the clerk of the Westbourne union respecting a certain publication in a newspaper," meaning the petition of Thomas Coombs, presented by the noble Earl. He would only say, in reference to the allegation which had been made by the noble Earl as to the expensive character of proceedings in a court of law, that if the noble Earl would consent to prosecute the Westbourne guardians, he would undertake to pay the whole of the expense if they were found guilty, on condition the noble Earl would pay the whole if they were acquitted.

Earl Stanhope

said, he felt at a loss to conceive what notions of justice were entertained by the noble Duke(Wellington) when he complained that those worthy and excellent persons, the Poor Law Commissioners, were falsely calumniated and reviled, because those who suffered under the severity of their administration ventured to call the attention of the Legislature to the circumstances of their case. He must also be allowed to say, in answer to another observation of the noble Duke, that he was not a public prosecutor; nor, as he had repeatedly stated, did he rest his oppo- sition to this accursed measure on individual cases, however aggravated they might be. The noble Duke had referred to the various attempts which had been made to amend the poor laws. He denied there was any failure on the part of that great Minister whose memory he revered as the greatest statesman, without disparagement to any in modern times, whom this country had ever produced, whose councils he hoped would always be followed, and who, if he had been spared by Providence, would have preserved this country from those dangers which now encompassed it on every side. The plan which that great Minister proposed, it should be recollected, was different as light from darkness from the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act. In December, 1796, his plan was brought forward. In the following year a variety of calamitous events occurred, and amongst others the suspension of cash payments by the Bank of England. Mr. Pitt's attention was naturally absorbed by these, and he did not find it possible to proceed with his bill: But the measure so proposed could not therefore be called a failure. The noble Duke had called upon him to bring forward a bill similar to that introduced last session by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Wynford) to amend the Poor Law. He had no doubt considered well in what respects the present acts should be amended; but he thought the most convenient mode of discussing the subject would be by resolutions, and not on the introduction of a bill. He intended, therefore, to lay on the table the resolutions which he thought desirable to be proposed, and which he should move be printed for consideration on a future occasion. He declined accepting the sort of bet offered by the noble Duke opposite (Richmond) as to the expense of prosecuting the Westbourne Guardians. Undoubtedly, it was quite competent to any person who thought himself injured to appeal to a court of law; but the expense, inconvenience, delay, and difficulty, considering the intimidation which prevented witnesses coming forward, were such as might well prevent any one resorting to that mode of gaining redress.

The Duke of Wellington

did not call upon the noble Earl to assume the character of public prosecutor; but if he thought proper to accuse people, he should take care to do it in such a shape as would enable them to defend and justify them- selves if they were not guilty. That would be but just on the part of the noble Earl; it was not just to come down to that House, night after night, and accuse Gentlemen, without taking those steps which would enable them to justify themselves. When the noble Earl made statements such as the House had that night heard, he thought that those statements ought to be accompanied by a motion respecting some one particular case. The House ought to have the papers on both sides before them—the defence as well as the charge. Thus, and thus alone, could their Lordships be enabled to see who were right and who were wrong. He had never referred to the public accuser during the French revolution for the purpose of instituting any comparison between him and the noble Earl. That which he thought, and that which he now desired to say upon the subject was, that the noble Earl gave a most exaggerated view of one side of the question—he gave the case strongly against individuals who were not in that place present to defend themselves. He made charges in the most exaggerated terms, and would not listen to any defence. He refused to the parties accused those documents which were necessary for enabling them to make an effective defence. But it was true that the commissioners had not been permitted the use of the papers necessary to their defence. The noble Earl refused to give the necessary papers to the commissioners, and they were therefore deprived of any opportunity of knowing what they were charged with.

Earl Stanhope

replied, that the papers to which the noble Duke referred were already before the House, and the defence of the commissioners had already been sufficiently made by the noble Viscount. He had not been guilty of any refusal of documentary evidence to the commissioners. He declared, and he acted upon that declaration, that all due publicity should be given to the papers in question; but at the same time he added that he should not have any direct communication with the commissioners. The papers had been published.

The Duke of Richmond

said, it was evident that the noble Earl could not have a good case, or he would never have spoken of the people of Sussex and Hampshire having been subjected to the influence of intimidation—it was no such easy matter to intimidate the people of those counties. The noble Earl himself could hardly believe that anything like intimidation existed in those quarters. If the evils arising out of the present state of the Poor-laws were really so great as the noble Earl represented them to be, he surely would not lose an hour in bringing the subject fully in detail before the House, and proposing a measure to put an end to these horrors. But so far from being instant and energetic in proposing such a remedy, he contented himself with postponing the whole matter till the next Session of Parliament. The noble Earl very much mistook what had taken place between them on the subject of legal costs. He never had offered a bet to the noble Earl. He begged to know if the noble Earl would pay the expenses, if the prosecution proved unsuccessful? [" No."] Then, if he did not agree to do that, how could other parties be expected to undertake the payment of costs, if the Westbourne guardians were defeated? The House must recollect the offer he had made, and it certainly, he thought, did not come within the proper description of a bet. There was nothing of which he entertained a stronger conviction, than that the Westbourne guardians were in all respects perfectly in the right. He should move, that the examination be laid before the House relating to the conduct of the Westbourne guardians towards Thomas Coombs, and he hoped that, as the noble Earl had published one part of the proceedings, he would use his influence to give as wide a circulation to the antidote as to the poison. The noble Duke concluded, by saying, that when those communications were before the House, he should move that they be referred to a select committee.

Earl Stanhope

confessed, that it occasioned him some surprise to learn, that the noble Duke should have expected him that night, or even in the present Session, to proceed with the resolutions of which he had given notice for the next Session. Those resolutions, if adopted, would pledge the House to nothing less than a repeal of the existing Poor-law of this country. He should now proceed to lay before their Lordships a petition from the guardians of the poor of the parish of St. George, Southwark, and it was not necessary that he should then recapitulate the contents of that petition. It complained, amongst other matters, of the misrepresentation to which the petitioners had been subjected by the Poor-law Commissioners, and the grounds of their complaint rested upon information which had been already supplied to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The parish of St. George had a calculation made, showing their parochial expenses before 1836, and subsequently to that period, from which it appeared, that in 1834, 1835, and 1836 the average decrease of expense had been 2,000l. a-year. Now, at present the Poor-law Commissioners took credit to themselves for a saving of 1,000l. a-year, which saving it was evident from the papers before him arose in no respect from the operation of the new Poor-law. The case of the parish of St. George Southwark was by no means a solitary instance. He held in his hand a report from the auditors and committee of the house accounts, made on the 2nd of last month, to the corporation and guardians of the poor of the city and county of the city of Chester, which referred to the topic he had brought under their Lordships' consideration in the following terms:— We cannot close this report without congratulating the ley-payers on the resistance which was effectually made to the introduction of the new Poor-law into this city, and on the reduction of the expenditure by a board of guardians, independent of the Poor-law Commissioners and of those restrictions and privations which exist under their rules, orders, and regulations—a reduction equal to that which in other parts of the kingdom they and their friends proclaim as the result of the Poor-law Amendment Act, which it is evident is not necessarily to be attributed to that law. In the first year after the introduction of the Poor-law, the rate in the parish of St. George was 7d. in the pound; in 1837 it became 14d. in the pound, without any alteration in the workhouse. In 1838 the tradesmen's bills remaining due amounted to 2,000l. When the Poor-law came into operation the parish had 1500l. in the hands of their treasurer, besides other funds to an equal amount, making in the whole 3,000l. The condition of their affairs, then, had been misrepresented by the Commissioners in a manner the most unjust and injurious, and he would add, that he did not see how any one could help perceiving, that they had been made the subject of wilful falsehood. He could bear testimony to the careful and exemplary manner in which the guardians of the parish of St. George had discharged their duties. No guardians could, under the circumstances, have done more than they have done to protect the rights of the rate-payers and the interests of the poor, and he must say, that the conduct which they had pursued, and the information which they supplied had gone a great way towards dispelling the delusions which the Commissioners had been endeavouring to create, but to create in vain, for they had fully shown, that the decrease in the rates was not to be attributed to the operation of the new Poor-law, but to causes perfectly distinct, one of which evidently was the demand for labour occasioned by the progress of railways and other public works.

Viscount Melbourne

observed, that there had been an error in the computation made relative to the years 1833, 1834, and 1835, to which the noble Earl had just referred, and which produced an apparent difference of seven per cent., being the difference between forty and forty-seven. That error had certainly not been committed by the Commissioners—it had been committed by the clerk of the guardians, and the guardians naturally adopted it from him: it was no great matter of surprise, that such an error should have crept into a calculation involving so many particulars of such great amount, and it was after all a matter of no very great moment. The Parish of St. George was not united with any other parish; its accounts would probably, therefore, be not kept with as much accuracy as if two parishes were interested in the result; but even supposing the error to have been greater than it really was, it still furnished no grounds for the general conclusions sought to be drawn from it.

Earl Stanhope

said, the petitioners were prepared to prove, that they, and not the Commissioners, were in the right.

Various papers, connected with the subject, on the motion of the noble Earl and the Duke of Richmond, were ordered to be produced.

Agreed to.

Their Lordships then adjourned.