THIRD READING. (Hansard, 20 June 1865)

§ LORD LYTTELTON

said, he gave his hearty support to the Bill because he thought that, on the whole, there was in it a great preponderance of good, as leaving the working men absolutely free to go where they pleased. At the same time, he must confess that he approved the Bill only as a step towards a still larger measure, although he was afraid a long time might elapse before any further advance was made in the matter. He desired to see the area of charge extended as far as possible, even to the whole country. It had been objected that by a national rate the payment would be made out of the Consolidated Fund, and that it would follow that the Poor Law should be administered by a central body entirely. What he understood, however, by a uniform rate was such a system as had been proposed by the Earl of Malmesbury some years ago, by which, though the charge was uniform through the country, it should be still levied and administered locally, as at present. He should like to see that system established, with the total abolition of the law of settlement and removal, and he trusted that the noble Earl who was not now trammelled by official duties, would turn his attention to framing a Bill by which that object could be carried into effect. The abolition of the law of removal without, however, the abolition of the law of settlement, was proposed many years ago by Mr. Coode. Approving, however, as he did, the principle of the Bill, he thought, it might have been framed with a little more consideration for existing interests than it had been. In some parishes, which might be called close parishes, without any faults on the part of the owners, as only a small population was needed, the rates would be doubled and trebled. Even if the whole loss were thrown on the 525 landlord in the first instance, it would be a hardship; but, in many cases, it would be wholly thrown on the tenants for a time.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, that having been absent on the debate on the second reading he wished to express his great satisfaction at the success of the measure. He could not agree with the noble Lord who had just spoken (Lord Lyttelton) with respect to the desirability of extending the area of rating to the extent which he pointed out. He thought it open to great objection. A national rating must lead to the intervention of Government authority, and would do away with the excellent system under which were got together the landlord, the farmer, the magistrate, and the clergyman to work for the benefit of the poor of the district with which they were connected. He believed that this measure would confer the greatest benefit on the labouring classes, and would lead to an improvement in the administration of the Poor Law itself. The able-bodied labourer would not be fettered as he was at present, but would take his labour to the larger markets, and would thus command a greater price for the labour which he would bring to the farmer. It had been urged by a noble Friend of his that though the good and active labourer would be benefited, the inferior labourer would be in a worse position if the Bill passed. Though this argument had something plausible in it, a little examination of it would show the fallacy. The business of a union was generally conducted by a few guardians who attended regularly. He thought that if the Bill passed affairs would be managed as they were at present, and a few regular attendants of the guardians would attend to the business of the union. In his own union, out of fifty-nine guardians, there attended on the average only eleven, and these practically carried on the affairs of the union. The same parties would attend under the new system, and would soon discover that every shilling improperly spent would be out of their own pockets, though distributed over the whole union. In the same way the farmer would discover that if a weak labourer were thrown upon the rates, instead of getting employment, it must tend to increase his own taxes, and that it would be for his interest to employ him in his own parish. No doubt it would take time to get the measure into working 526 order; but he (the Duke of Richmond) had no doubt that before long the affairs of the union would be worked just as if it was one large parish. The present law had been in favour of the system now happily exploded, of close and open parishes; but though the pulling down of cottages was now done away with there was still a strong inducement not to build new cottages. He was astonished it should be said there was no evidence to show that cottages had been pulled down and that others had not been built in their places. If noble Lords would take the trouble to refer to Mr. Buller's Report of 1847, the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons last year, and a Report dated so far back, he thought, as 1830, they would find that if there was any information on any one subject more than another it was information to show that cottages had been pulled down and that others had not been built to replace them. For some time past the tendency of all our legislation with respect to the poor had been in the direction of this Bill, and it would be idle for their Lordships to try to stop it. One Inspector stated that more than half the expenditure of a union was now charged on the common fund. That being so, this Bill would only affect the less than a moiety which was charged to the parishes. Believing, therefore, that the Bill only carried out a principle which had been already recognized and acted upon by Parliament, that it would be beneficial to the poor, and that it would effect an improvement in the administration of the Poor Law, he was happy to give it his support.