Lords Sitting of 29 June 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Drainage of Lands (Scotland.)
Reported.—Baths and Washhouses.
3a and passed:—Royal Marine Service.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Working Men of London, for the Enactment of Sanitary Regulations.—By Lord Monteagle, from several Proprietors of Baths in London, for Compensation to Proprietors of London, desirous of discontinuing their Establishments in consequence of the Establishment of Baths and Washhouses.

POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEmoved the Second Reading of the Poor Law Administration Bill. The chief object of the present measure was to alter the machinery by which the laws for the relief of the poor were carried out in this country. To anticipate that their Lordships must feel the necessity of continuing the powers of the Commission, was only to assume that they thought the Poor Law founded upon sound and just principles, though modifications might be advisable in regard to the administrative body. The question had arisen whether it was expedient that the powers—and they were very great—to be vested in the authority constituted for the administration of the law, should particularly be confided to one person, or be left in the hands of more than one person. After much consideration, Her Majesty's Government had resolved to propose the present Bill; the effect of which would be, that the co-ordinate authority which had hitherto been exercised by three Commissioners would essentially, though not without certain checks and restrictions, be practically intrusted to one individual. That one individual would be, according to an analogy which had been thought appropriate, placed in a position similar to that occupied by the President of the Board of Control. The Bill was intended to secure that effectal co-operation which was desirable among all parties
1050
concerned in the proper administration of the law. It was thought advisable that the President of the Poor Law Board should be placed in such a position as to be responsible to Parliament and responsible to the public; and that explanations on questions which might arise should not be given indirectly through one of Her Majesty's Ministers, but directly by the person to whom the power of controlling the administration of the law might be confided. Such were the principal objects of the Bill. There were other provisions for adapting the powers hitherto entrusted to the Poor Law Commissioners to the system now proposed. The noble Marquess (who was but imperfectly heard) concluded by expressing his hope that their Lordships would now give the Bill a second reading. He would propose that it be committed on an early day, when an opportunity would be afforded of stating any opinions which their Lordships might have formed as to the provisions of the measure.
LORD BROUGHAMadhered, in all essential respects, to the principle of the original Poor Law measure; and he felt it highly important that nothing should go out to the public which would in the slightest degree indicate any doubt or hesitation on the part of their Lordships in regard to that great and salutary amendment of the law. He felt that it would be unjust if he were not to say that, generally speaking, he entirely approved of the conduct of Mr. Nicholls and his coadjutors; and peculiarly grateful was he to the gentleman he was about to name—Mr. Edwin Chadwick, the Secretary of the Board. He (Lord Brougham) should consider that that most respectable and most able officer of the Board had been worse used than any public servant in his time, if he found the slightest disposition in any quarter to sacrifice him to clamour, a clamour raised against him for the faithful discharge of his duties. Those to whom the administration of the Poor Law was committed, were peculiarly obnoxious to abuse, and slander, and vituperation; and it became the bounden duty of Parliament and the Government of the day jealously to watch over the interests and the fame of those individuals, and to see that they were not abandoned as victims to public clamour. Some of these persona had not shown the firmness in the discharge of their important duties that Mr. Chadwick and Mr. Nicholls had done. He (Lord Brougham) would name no names; but he had before him a statement, not

1051
of Mr. Chadwick, but of another and a respectable person connected with many friends of their Lordships, and nearly connected with important Members of the present Government; and the account which he gave of the want of nerve and firmness of some of the Commissioners was such as to show clearly how it happened that the Act had not been thoroughly carried into effect, and that the hopes formed of it were not fully realized. He stated—
"It was perfectly clear to me, that what was always uppermost in their minds was not how they should best perform their duty, but how they should appease the newspapers, and mollify, by concession, all the objections of the anti-Poor Law agitators. They have encountered the natural result of such conduct, in losing their friends and not gaining their enemies.…. Both, too, were distinguished by another quality, which, in my opinion, absolutely disqualified them from wisely managing the difficult duties of a Poor Law Commissioner. They were literally without any moral courage. A depreciatory paragraph in the newspapers seemed to fill them with the direst alarm, and they were ready to sacrifice any subordinate officer, or any principle of the law it was their duty to enforce, to appease a newspaper clamour, or the demands of an anti-Poor Law agitator.…. Hence the conduct of the Commissioners was especially annoying to me; and, further, rendered my tenure of office very precarious, as I knew perfectly well that they would not hesitate a moment in ejecting me ignominiously, if, in the discharge of my duty, I should ever be made a mark for newspaper attacks. Right or wrong, I should be sacrificed without scruple; and the business of an assistant commissioner is so extremely difficult, and exposed to such obloquy, that the utmost caution cannot preserve him from public attacks and misrepresentations."
Persons who undertook to manage the administration of such a law as this ought to know how to resist groundless attacks and bear up against clamour, supported as they must know they would be by Parliament. Nothing could pass more innocuous over the head of an honest man engaged in the discharge of public duties, than attacks made, perhaps, only for the sake of gaining a fleeting, a base, and an ignoble popularity. Popularity, indeed! Those who vigorously administered this Poor Law were really the poor man's friends. This law was made for the sake of the poor—not for the benefit of the rich, nor to save the money of the rich, but to benefit the poor—to redeem their character and restore their independence. They who could best put this principle into execution were the truest friends of the poor. Those persons ought to have disdained popularity and praise obtained only by yielding to clamour; and they ought equally to have
1052
despised any abuse, any vituperation, which the firm and faithful discharge of their duties might draw upon them.
"Falsus honor juvat, et mendax infamia terret Quem, nisi mendosum et mendacem?"
Or, in an English dress—
"False honour charms and lying slanders scare Whom but the false and faulty?"
He (Lord Brougham) must enter his protest against the bad conduct of this measure; the flinching from the performance of duty imposed by it; the yielding to clamour in the performance of that duty; and he only discharged his own duty in doing justice to some of the most useful public servants ever employed by this country, and charged with great and difficult and invidious and delicate public duties.
LORD REDESDALEmust enter his protest against bringing the President and Secretary into Parliament, to mix in party conflict. It would be next to impossible to find a qualified person, able to take a prominent part in debate, willing to perform the duties of the office, and having a constituency not likely to be carried away by popular outcry with regard to the Poor Law.
Bill read 2a

BATHS AND WASHHOUSES BILL.
House in Committee.
LORD CAMPBELLbriefly stated the objects of the measure, which he anticipated would be productive of much benefit. After sketching the history of legislation upon the subject, from its having been taken up by a right rev. Prelate near him, and by Sir Henry Dukenfield, the rector of St. Martin's, to the passing of the Bill in the other House, he stated that an alteration which had produced much inconvenience, had been made in the measure as originally framed by the Act of last year for the establishment of public baths for the poor in any parish, with the consent of two-thirds of the ratepayers, allowed only one charge for baths—viz., 1d. for a cold, and 2d. for a hot bath. But it was desirable to have another sort of bath, not with a view to benefit the rich, but a less humble class of the poor. This was proposed to be accomplished by the present Bill, one clause of which would allow treble those charges for baths of a higher class. There were many little tradesmen to whom cleanliness was a great object, but who did not like to go into the same bath that had been used by coalheavers or porters, or

1053
their own menial servants. A profit would thus be obtained in relief of the rates, and it was a great object to make the baths remunerative to the parish, and acceptable to the poor. He had no wish to disparage the petitioners against the clause (the owners of private baths); but ho thought that they laboured under a false alarm. Their baths were meant for the higher orders, and ho believed that they never charged less than 2s. 6d. for a warm bath, and 1s. for a cold bath. Therefore, the baths proposed to be established under the present Bill would enter into no competition with them. But, oven granting that their interests would suffer, that would not be a sufficient reason for abandoning a great public advantage. By the establishment of railways, many innkeepers and postmasters had been ruined; and yet no one on that account contended against the system of railways. He believed that there were not above eight or nine petitions against the clause; and would their Lordships, on account of this small number, prevent the establishment of baths which were likely to be of so much advantage to the poorer classes of the community? Besides, there was in the Act a power reserved to the Secretary of State of interfering, on satisfactory cause being shown; so that if any person felt that his property would be injured by the establishment of any particular bath under this Bill, he might make a representation of the circumstances, and his case would be heard. Under these circumstances, he trusted their Lordships would agree to the provision.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that the principle involved in the Bill was one of great magnitude; and, if adopted, might be applied in a variety of instances contrary to every just doctrine of economic science, and contrary to the interests of the payers of the rates, and the possessors of property. He maintained, that the proposal was not a proper application of the rates. No one quarrelled with the proposition to provide this accommodation for the poor; but why should the rates be charged for the accommodation of those above the poor? As well might they provide in workhouses superior accommodation for a certain high class of the inmates. The noble and learned Lord said, that the parties for whom this superior accommodation was intended, would not condescend to bathe in the baths used by their menial servants; and that, therefore, it was ne-
1054
cessary to have two classes of baths. Would their Lordships then give power to burden the rates for the sake of those who only required this accommodation, not from distress, but because they would not condescend to bathe in the baths provided for their menial servants? He trusted that their Lordships would not allow the rates to be misapplied in this way. The noble and learned Lord said, there was power reserved to the Secretary of State to prohibit the establishment of these baths in such cases as ho thought fit. What then became of the whole principle of the Bill, when it was apprehended that it would lead to such abuses that it was necessary to give the Secretary of State a suspending power? That was an admission of the danger of the measure. The noble and learned Lord referred to railways, and said no one dreamed of stopping them, though they might injure the interest of other parties. Railways, however, were the spirit of private speculation; but the case was quite different with these baths, for which the money was to be raised by rate, levied, too, on the very property with which they would come into competition. Skill and capital had been employed in the establishment of private bathing establishments in the metropolis; and the invested capital perilled by the present Bill amounted to upwards of 50,000 l. He moved the omission of the clause in question.
The BISHOP of LONDONsupported the Bill. From the noble Lord's commencement, one might have imagined that this Bill was to create nothing less than a general disturbance of the rights of property; but ho thought that their Lordships might now feel relieved of all apprehension on that score. If there were any objection in point of principle to the Bill, it came too late; for their Lordships had already sanctioned the principle in a much more objectionable form. Far from encumbering the poor rates, the very object of the clause in question was to lighten the pressure on them. The Legislature had already sanctioned the principle of the establishment of baths for the poor at the public expense; and the recommendation of the clause was that the profit derived from the better sort of baths would tend to provide for the expenses of the baths for the poorest. Therefore, unless this clause were agreed to, the burden on the rates must be increased to maintain the baths for the very poorest classes. He maintained that the clause was

1055
necessary—that it was consistent with the sound principles of political economy and financial justice. It was proposed that there should be two classes of baths, both of them for the poor people; one for the poorest, and another class for people somewhat above them—such as mechanics or poor tradesmen. He could not believe that these baths could ever enter into competition with those frequented by persons who were accustomed to pay 2s. 6d. or 3s. 6d. for a single bath. The effect of the petitions against the clause was this, that because the petitioners had invested certain capital in private baths, not for the benefit of the poor, therefore the poor throughout the metropolis were to be deprived of the advantage of the establishment of baths under this Bill; because, though all these baths were meant for the poorer sort, yet it was necessary to have one class of baths to defray the cost of the baths intended for the very poorest. A public bath, at which two classes of baths at different rates of charge were maintained, had been established for some time in the north-western district of the metropolis; and within twelve months no less than 80,000 persons had enjoyed the luxury of bathing in that institution. He would ask their Lordships whether they would interfere with the establishment of such institutions merely for the sake of protecting the interests of a few individuals, who could not be under any apprehension of sustaining serious loss from the extension of public baths? They might depend upon it, that if the practice of bathing became general among the poorer classes, the example would be followed by the middle and higher classes; and, in the end, the proprietors of private baths would be considerable gainers by the establishment of public baths. He held in his hand an Act which had recently received the Royal Assent, and which embodied the principle to which the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) now objected; he referred to the Towns Improvement Clauses Act. The commissioners to be appointed under that Act were empowered, by the 136th Clause, to purchase, rent, or otherwise provide suitable and convenient lands and buildings, to be used for public baths and wash-houses, and public open bathing places and drying grounds, the use of which was to be allowed to the inhabitants of the respective districts at such reasonable charges, and under such regulations, as the commissioners might deem expedient.
1056
The principle of the Bill now before their Lordships had, therefore, already received their sanction; and he trusted that they would adopt the measure in its present form.
LORD STANLEYsaid, it appeared to him that the principle of this Bill had already received their Lordships' approval in the Act which had been referred to by the right rev. Prelate. The principle had already been admitted, that baths should be provided for the lower and labouring classes at prices below those at which they could be furnished by the owners of private establishments; and, considering the immense advantage which the lower classes would derive from being afforded easy access to baths and washhouses, he thought it most advisable that such accommodation should be provided for them without any unnecessary delay. This Bill proposed that a higher class of baths should be instituted, from which some profit might be derived to assist in maintaining the lower class of baths, and thereby relieving the parochial rates. It was complained that this higher class of baths would interfere with the profits of the proprietors of private baths. Now, considering the very small amount of capital which appeared to have been invested in such establishments, he was not inclined to think—even if the competition should be more extensive than was anticipated—that such a consideration ought to induce their Lordships to reject a measure of so much importance as the present. He considered that the best mode of affording protection to the parties who apprehended that these public baths might come into competition with their private baths, would be to fix the charge for the superior class of public baths sufficiently high to guarantee the private bath proprietors against being injured by the competition of a better class of public baths at very low prices, He would suggest whether it might not be advisable to fix a minimum rather than a maximum charge for those public baths which might be established avowedly for the purpose of realizing a profit. He thought that, instead of providing that the charge for the superior class of baths should not exceed, in any case, three times the charges for the inferior baths, the better plan would be to provide that the charges for the higher class of baths should not be less than three times the rates charged for the baths provided for the labouring-classes.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas

1057
understood to say, that he considered, if the noble Lord's suggestion were adopted, the effect might he to render the superior class of public baths fashionable, and to bring them more into competition with private baths than would otherwise be the case.
Amendment withdrawn. Clause to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported.
House adjourned.