HL Deb 14 June 1875 vol 224 cc1778-807
LORD LYTTELTON

, who had given Notice to move— That it is expedient in the administration of the Poor Law to revert more nearly to the principles laid down in the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry (1833), with a view to the ultimate discontinuance of out-door relief. said:*—My Lords, perhaps I need hardly say that I do not much expect—I am not sure that I have any decided wish—that this Resolution should pass at this moment. We know the Parliamentary objection to abstract Resolutions; and this is so far abstract that it does not point to any immediate or specific legislative or executive measure. But we do not disapprove of such a Resolution when it is as a peg on which to hang a discussion on an important subject. The importance of the present subject will be admitted; and so, I hope, will be its special importance at the present time, and that the time is suitable for the discussion. I am glad to find that the same proposition, in principle, with mine, is about to be laid before the other House by Professor Fawcett, whose recent work on Pauperism I venture to commend as a manual of sound doctrine on the question. Now, it is of advantage in a question like this, of such magnitude and complexity, when we can dispense with long historical investigations and with a recurrence to first principles. So here, there are one or two assumptions I shall make, to which I anticipate general assent; and if anyone should think that they are even truisms which it is needless to mention, I would request him to think twice before he maintains that opinion. And the first may be this—that pauperism is an evil, and should be felt to be so by all classes. Is this a truism? Well, I hope it is. But let us be sure that we give a sufficiently wide sense to the word pauperism. It does not mean simply the receipt of doles, alms, for nothing. It means maintenance, as regards the necessaries of life, in return for real work, for sham work or for no work at all, out of a public fund on which one has a right to draw if destitute of any of the said necessaries. And if this is a truism, at least it is a recent one, or a return to what may have been held in old times. Prom about 1600 to about 1800, so far from pauperism, in at least one of its forms, having been an acknowledged evil, the system of public work to be found for all applicants—ateliers nationaux—in every parish, as really such as ever were propounded by French revolutionists—was advocated by a stream of authorities as a specific, if not a panacea, for all our difficulties. But on this I need not dwell. I assume the reverse: that what we all wish is that the labouring class should look more and more away from any such compulsory resource, and rely more and more on the natural course and progress of commercial prosperity, on the natural value of their own right hands. The next assumption may be that a Poor Law we must have; and the definition of our Poor Law may be drawn from what I have said about pauperism. I dwell on it for a moment, because it has been sometimes denied or doubted that there is such a legal right to relief as I have stated. But this is a mere question of expression. A right is not less a real legal right because it is contingent. It is, no doubt, contingent on the fact of destitution, and the fact may be denied by the authorities at their peril. But if it exists—above all, if it is proved by the death or serious illness of the applicant—the authorities would certainly have violated the law in refusing relief; and this is virtually identical with the existence of the right. Is this, too, a truism? I fear it is. I say, I fear it, because if we admit that pauperism is an evil, it follows that a Poor Law is at best a necessary evil, or the lesser of two evils; for a Poor Law inevitably generates pauperism. If we have a law declaring that in no circumstances can anyone by law starve or die of cold, it is quite certain that there will always be some to avail themselves of that law. If we have a pauper law, we shall have paupers. Still, I am prepared to admit that the law is right; though I do so on the sole ground of humanity: and I think it may be said that in fact the principle of our law exists in all Christian countries. Mr. Doyle, the Poor Law Inspector, has recently laid before the Local Government Board a series of documents, which may be taken in continuation of a similar work formerly by the late Mr. Senior, respecting the relief of the poor on the continent of Europe; and from his introductory paper I should gather, that where there is not a formal and direct law, the law recognizes and assists charitable institutions in such a way that it comes much to the same thing. It may be interesting to notice in passing, that it seems doubtful if this right to relief is part of our ancient law. It is at least probable that as an express right, it dates from a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in 1801. The case was that of a foreigner found destitute; and it is notable that Lord Ellenborough, in pronouncing for his right to be relieved, quoted no authority, but placed it on the ground of self-evident common sense and humanity. Such, at all events, has been undoubted law ever since; for if a foreigner possesses that right, à fortiori any Englishman does. Admitting, then, what has been side, we shall surely grant further, as an inference or corollary, that if we must have a Poor Law, it should be such an one as will not stimulate, but, as far as possible, consistently with its essential object, repress and discourage pauperism. And on this basis we may proceed to inquire what has been done? How have we attempted, and how far have we succeeded in the attempt, to repress pauperism by our legislation? In answering these questions, it seems needless to go farther back than the epoch of the only effective attempt ever made as I believe, to repress pauperism by law: the date of the New Poor Law, 1834. I know it is believed by some that the Workhouse Act of 1717, Sir Edward Knatchbull's Act, had a great effect in this way during much of last century. I doubt if this can be made out, though it is possible the Act may have tended to produce some degree of equilibrium in this respect. But, at all events, whatever was done by the worthy Baronet in question in 1717, was wholly undone and reversed by another and much less worthy Baronet in 1796, Sir W. Young; whose Act threw the reins on the necks of overseers and magistrates, as the administrators of relief, and, as we all know, in about 30 years brought to pass a state of things which, had it not been sharply checked and pulled up by the Act of 1834, would undoubtedly have been the ruin of the country. A man of sagacity, when the Act of 1834 was announced, said it would be a very effective measure for 30 or 40 years, when we should begin to relapse. The question is if this was a true prophecy. It is remarkable that the Poor Law Act of 1834 made no direct change in the law. What it did was to establish a strong and intelligent central executive, with large powers to regulate and control the administration of the law. And if our excellent Friend (Sir John Lefevre) who, we rejoice to know, is a still surviving member of that executive commission, had had, with his Colleagues, Sir Frankland Lewis and Sir George Nicholls, the resolution—perhaps I should say the power, with due support from Parliament and the Government—to meet more effectually the storm of prejudice and obloquy with which they were assailed, the result might have been different from what it is. As to what has happened, nothing would be easier, for one who had the time and the faculties, than to accumulate a vast mass of figures and facts about it. But in this Assembly, less than in most, can it be requisite to do so. Almost all your Lordships have houses in the country, and are acquainted more or less—many of you very well acquainted—with the state of things; and I can appeal to any one who is so acquainted, whether there is anything like a satisfactory appearance of any approaching extirpation, or even great reduction, of pauperism. For a more particular statement I may refer to an article in the Fortnightly Review for last May, by a gentleman named Roberts. I believe he is a gentleman farmer in Wiltshire. He writes in a plain style, with no attempt at historical or philosophical research, but with knowledge at first-hand of his subject from his own experience as a guardian: and he sets forth what we so well know, the settled and habitual reliance of the working class on their "little annuities," derived from the labour and property of others, instead of any result of their own exertions. Another general statement I will quote, as it is from an authority which will carry much weight; it is from the recent 4th and final Report of the Friendly Societies Commission— The increasing disposition of the labouring class to throw themselves upon the poor rates has been of late years a source of no little anxiety. The Commissioners sent queries to all Boards of Guardians in England and Wales; and they say that— Their replies show, that while a feeling of independence may still, generally speaking, be said to prevail among the poor north of the Trent, it exists but to a very slight extent in the south. In some districts, especially in the south, the labourers always look to the Poor Law for relief in old age. A few figures I may give, such as are always referred to in this question. In 1834, just before the new law, the amount expended on the poor was £ 6,317,255. In 1837, from our "first love" under that law, it was £ 4,044,741. In 1873 it was £ 7,692,169. Of course, this must be qualified, in respect of the increase of the population. Looking, then, at the ratio per head of the poor rate, in 1834 it was 9s. Id.; in 1837, 5s. 10d.; in 1873, 6s. 7½d. The poundage is not given earlier than 1841. In that year it was 1s. 6½d.; in 1872, 1s. 5½d. The proportion of paupers to the entire population is better. In 1841 it was estimated at 9 per cent; in 1849 at 6.2; in 1873 at 3.8. But only three years before, before the great increase in the prosperity of the country, it was 4.7. In 1873 the total number of paupers was 883,688; in 1870, 1,032,800. These results are not very satisfactory; and I would then ask, in the way we work our system, how could we expect them to be so? Let me recall to the House what I said just now, for I am sure it is the key to the whole question; that pauperism should be felt to be an evil by all classes. And surely we do not exclude from the list the labouring class itself. Surely they have much to do—many may think they have more than anyone else to do—with the determination of their own condition; and. I repeat, what do we do to make them feel that pauperism is an evil? Philosophers, men of forethought, politicians, the wealthy and middle classes, the ratepayers, feel it, on grounds too obvious to need repeating: what of the labourers themselves, the very subjects with whom we are concerned? How is it possible that they should feel it, with a system of out-door relief? We must in common sense consider the kind of men with whom we have to deal. We cannot expect them to take a comprehensive view, and act on the principle that in the long run the receipt of relief is not good for their class. For a given individual, indeed, such relief may not always be bad; at all events, there would probably be many in all classes who, if they could have half-a-crown a-week for the asking, would feel very little scruple in taking it on account of remote consequences on the public welfare. The only point on which I would differ from Mr. Roberts's paper is, that he throws too much blame on the labourers themselves. But the question is still, how do we attempt to make Poor Law relief—we must not mince our words—distasteful to the working class? For even if the soundness of what is called the "deterrent principle" be another truism, the question is not whether it be admitted as a doctrine, but how we give effect to it in practice? The recipients of out-door relief either can work or cannot. If they cannot work, it is nearly self-evident that the deterrent principle cannot be applied. We must remember the simple object of the law, that no one shall be without the necessaries of life. And if these are fully given in out-door relief, it is manifest that the recipient must inevitably be about as well off as the average of his class, or as he himself was before. Here I may just notice a singular expedient which a few years ago was adopted at Elberfeld, in Germany, in the hope, apparently, that it might be a good substitute for the workhouse system, and equally effectual in in the repression of pauperism. The town was divided into a great number of small districts, each under the charge of what we should call, as to his duties, a relieving officer; but who was to be of a higher social class, and unpaid. Each was to have not more than five or six cases of distress under his charge, and the object of the law was to be attained through a system of examination into the circumstances of the applicants, incessant, minute, inquisitorial, and vexatious to an incredible degree. And it is remarkable that Mr. Doyle, the Poor Law Inspector, who was at Elberfeld on the institution of the system, and then seems to have been rather struck by it, was there again very lately, and he now speaks of it in a very different tone. Indeed, he dismisses it summarily, as obviously impracticable to us. It would be intolerable to those who should try to administer it, and to the poor either intolerable or simply inoperative. On the principle assumed, I can think of no other substitute for the workhouse, unless it be what was once so well-known as the labour test. There is no part of the question more well-worn than this, and I may say that nothing has been more decisively condemned on various solid grounds than the labour test. Here, as elsewhere, I only wish to consider it with reference to the principle on which I am mainly dwelling, that of deterrence. How can pauper labour be made, as the rule, "less eligible" than ordinary labour? Not in quality, for a great deal of the ordinary labour of the country, while quite necessary and quite sufficient for a livelihood, is, and must always be, extremely disagreeable; not in quantity, either by smaller wages being paid for the same amount, or a larger amount being exacted for the same wages, because by the inevitable laws of social economy these things are so regulated that ordinary labour can hardly yield more than will fairly support life and health, which by the hypothesis are to be equally attained by the pauper. We come, then, to the workhouse, which, as happily is generally and sufficiently the case, is repellent to the respectable labourer. The feeling of shame and degradation attaches to it, which it is idle to expect should attach, and, as a fact, does not attach, in the minds of the unskilled labourers as a class, to out-door relief. Even the fear of it is very operative, and the power which the working class know the Guardians have, and which always has been possessed, of ordering the workhouse in any case—a power which may have led to the common expression—"He has no prospect for his old age but the workhouse," which, in respect of the real fact, is quite inaccurate. But it is manifest that this merely contingent application of the principle is not enough. It should be observed that it is the workhouse simply as such that is adequately deterrent. I do not at all want to have them places of severe discipline; and it is quite possible that in some respects, as in the ugliness of their outward appearance, which led to their being called "Bastilles," the principle of repulsion may have been carried too far. The mere confinement, the submission to authority, the regularity, and—in this sense—discipline of a workhouse is enough, Old people need not be made uncomfortable there; but, surely it is most undesirable that to them, or to any one else, the workhouse should be made actually attractive, as is occasionally advocated. Able-bodied pauperism is no doubt the worst, and the prohibitory Order by which it is so generally relieved in the workhouse alone, is perhaps far the most valuable result of the law of 1834. But it is evident that many of the evils of pauperism, on which I have not dwelt, as they are among the common places of the subject—such as the discouragement to forethought and thrift, and the deadening of the sense of family obligations—apply fully as much to all other classes. Now, referring to the terms of the Resolution, I admit that the Report of 1833 does not explicitly contain the general principle that all forms of pauperism should be deterrent, or the consequent provision that all relief should be confined to the workhouse. But I believe that the real mind of the framers of that Report was to that effect, though they might not actually lay it down; and at all events, I submit that these principles do properly and logically follow from the whole tenor of the Report. Here I may be asked if I mean literally that all relief should be confined to the workhouse. Now, no doubt, to some extent, this must be a question of degree. I should be thankful for any progress in the right direction; if, for instance, as has been recently side, the converse of the present state of things could be obtained, in which in-door relief is the exception, out-door relief the rule. It it is, indeed, manifest that there must be many cases in which, as long as the principle of the law remains, in the first instance relief must be given out of the workhouse. From a sudden calamity, such as an inundation or a famine, there may be no sufficient accommodation in the workhouse; or, as to individuals, a man has a sudden illness or accident, and cannot be moved: he must be relieved at home; or, without the existence of physical impossibility, there are undoubtedly cases in which there is a real moral certainty that the administrators of the law would not be brought to confine relief to the workhouse. Such is that, often mentioned, of "breaking up the home "of a man who only needs temporary relief for a few days. He holds on, perhaps for weeks, and if he really only wants support for one week longer before he recovers his capacity or opportunity for work, it is a pity to drive him into the workhouse. Still, I conceive there is an answer to this, depending on a more accurate view of what we mean by relief. Relief may be said to be what is actually given to a man. "We give him the money or the food, and he walks off with it; it is his, and we hear no more of it. But if you lend it to him, it is different; and I believe that while there is no part of our system which is more feebly and inefficiently worked than "relief by way of loan," which is perfectly well known to the law, there is none from which, with a better administration, much more good might be expected. Nor do I know what objection exists to a more general use of the process, also well known to the law, of attachment of wages; it is actually in successful operation, and it is, I believe, the only case in which it is, in our system of Assisted Emigration to Australia for labourers. This is in fact poor relief by way of loan; and the labourers sign a bond to repay, which is enforced—if necessary—in the colony, if I understand it right, by attaching their wages. This system would have the great advantage, as I look upon it, that in it we should be treating the working class in the same general way as we do others, and not by the application to them of the "paternal Government" principle, as if they peculiarly needed it. For what do other people do when in difficulties? Small tradesmen and the like have just as hard a struggle to live in their way as labourers do; and what do they do? They manage to live on their credit; and so do the poor, and the loan-relief would be only continuing in another way what they have already begun. As long as their own resources or credit lasted, they would go upon them; when these were exhausted the State would step in and become the creditor, if there were reasonable prospects of their acquiring the means of livelihood. And no one would drive the matter to such a point as to say that this would be a gift only because interest might not be charged. Nothing is more annoying than to have a strong man, with not a large family, who has been earning perhaps £ 2 or more a-week, coming for relief the moment he is ill, having saved nothing, for he has had no sufficient inducement—and you must relieve him for he is destitute. Now on this plan, if you cannot make him save beforehand, you will put the screw upon him and bind him afterwards to repay the loan. Further, there is the great resource of voluntary benevolence; for whatever some philosophers and doctrinaires say, it is again another truism that charity will always continue in this country, and I certainly have no wish that it should not. It has always been admitted, nay contended, by all the Commissions on this subject, that charity should continue, and should supplement the inevitable shortcomings and severities of the law. Take the case so often mentioned, of the separation of married persons in workhouses. Old couples, it is well known, by the law need not be separated. Others, it is the intention and presumption of the law, are only to make the workhouse a temporary abode; and if even it should be otherwise, or if for other reasons in particular cases, as does sometimes happen, poor persons cannot be induced to enter a workhouse, it might be a case for private charity. The difficulty indeed would be only to regulate it, so that it should not do too much. Then I may be asked what exactly I would do at present? Now, many medium plans, if I may so call them, have been proposed on this subject, but I shall only advert to one, which has lately been recommended on high authority. By an Act passed to extend Mr. Hardy's Act, indoor relief to the amount of 5d. a-day per head, is now charged, in the London district, on the general metropolitan fund, out-door relief remaining as before on the parishes. This has the effect of a direct premium on the former, relatively to the latter, and, I believe, has tended much to increase in-door and diminish out-door relief. And it has been proposed to pass a general measure on the same principle, only introducing the Imperial Exchequer, from which a subvention should be paid to every Union in England, of 2s. a-head per week for every inmate of the workhouse. That this would have a considerable effect I do not doubt; but I do not much like this principle of a direct bribe. If indeed the system were carried further, to the extent of a national rate throughout, the question would be different. Since I read about 30 years ago, the pamphlet of the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) in favour of such a rate, I have always been disposed to believe that it might safely be adopted; but that is not now in question. My belief is, that a very short Act might be passed, simply providing that after a rather distant date—five years, 10 years, what you will—out-door relief should be discontinued as the rule; all regulations in detail to be framed and enforced by some powerful central executive. And now I will venture to adduce a remarkable instance, for encouragement to us to proceed in this direction, of success which has already attended an attempt to do so. I refer to the well-known case of the Atcham Union in Shropshire. Sir Baldwin Leighton, the worthy son of a worthy father—for it was the late Sir Baldwin to whose intelligence and energy the successful administration of that Union has been due—has kindly furnished me with many particulars on this subject. I cannot fully give them; but a few simple figures, up to the most recent date, such as I noted before, may be stated. In the whole of England the ratio of paupers to the population was 4.2 per cent; in Atcham, 1.6. In England the cost per head on the population 6s. 11d.; Atcham, 4s. 5¾d. In England the rate in the pound 1s. 5½d.; Atcham, 3d. In England, out-door paupers to in-door are as 5 to 1; in Atcham, 1 1–5 to 1. And this, notwithstanding that so late as 1871 the whole of the large and pauperized town of Shrewsbury was injected into the small rural union of Atcham. In two years, between 1870 and 1872, the out-door paupers in Shrewsbury were reduced from 519 to 152, or 70 per cent; while in 1870 in Atcham proper the number of in-door was actually greater than out-door, 154 to 139. At the same time, it will be found that the condition of the labourers in that union is peculiarly good. This has been partly attested in the Report of Mr. Stanhope, one of the Commissioners on Agricultural Employment; and it is notable that though wages in Atcham are not very high, and have received no great increase, the agitation of the Agricultural Labourers' Union, while prevalent in many neighbouring districts, made no way in that union. Similar, though not equal, results have been attained elsewhere, as at Brixworth, mainly through the exertions of Mr. Pell and Mr. Bury; at Aston by Birmingham, and in a few London unions, as Whitechapel and Marylebone. The result is due to a strict and careful attention to existing regulations, and to the discouragement of out-door relief, together, no doubt, with what should always accompany it, much general care of the well-being of the poor. There are many obvious advantages in the way of simplification and convenience of administration, which would attend the change which I advocate. There are some questions which in our present system, I conceive, will never be quite satisfactorily settled in practice, such as, what to do with paupers who have resources, suppose voluntary pensions or allowances, to which they have no legal claim, but which they are perfectly sure to enjoy. But I will only dwell on one topic in this connection, as it has lately been treated with authority in the Report—to which I have already alluded—of the Friendly Societies' Commission. I strongly recommend the few pages in that Report, on the connection of Friendly Societies with the Poor Laws, to the attention of those interested in the subject. It is well known that Guardians often are in the habit of estimating, with a view to the amount of relief, the sum received from a Benefit Society, at one-half what it is. I believe this is of doubtful legality, and I am sure it is altogether wrong in principle, being a sort of promise or inducement to rely on the Poor Laws, to members of Institutions of which the very object is, or ought to be, to make them be and feel independent of it. But there is a superficial plausibility in it, which will always dispose Guardians to admit it. In the workhouse it is plain that all this difficulty is got rid of. The pauper's receipts from the Benefit Society of course go to his maintenance, and if, which is rare, there is any surplus, it can be kept to his credit. I will now advert to a subject of much interest in itself, and very illustrative of our subject, I mean the Scotch and Irish Poor Laws. I remember the debates in 1838 on the Irish Poor Law Bill. One of the ablest speeches ever addressed to Parliament was made against that Bill by the late Lord Fitzgerald. But that was in respect of the peculiar case of Ireland. It was vehemently attacked by Lord Brougham, on the old grounds of political economy; and I remember his expression of amazement at the double folly of Parliament in disregarding the warnings both of England and Scotland: the one as having a Poor Law, and the other as not having one, or at least one much less operative. But Lord Brougham, though, as knowing everything, he of course knew something about the matter, might have spoken differently had he known what was soon about to be brought to light by a Commission of Inquiry into the condition of the Scotch Poor. Both the Scotch and Irish laws were based on what I have always said I conceive to be the only sufficient ground—that of simple humanity. It was felt that Scotland and Ireland could no longer continue to be nearly the only countries in Europe without an effective Poor Law. In Ireland there was a faint shadow of such a law; but so feeble and partial, that it is not even alluded to in the Act of Parliament, and may be disregarded. In Scotland there was a law, which in its theory was meant fully to provide for destitution; but its administration, in the hands of small, local, obscure, and irresponsible bodies, had been so extraordinary, that the result was absolutely grotesque, and hardly credible. It was said that old people in Ireland were found living, as to food, on 6d. a-week; and it is an authentic official fact that the legal relief was often 2s. and 2s. 6d. a-year, the rest of what was requisite to support life being had through mendicancy and other miserable means. And it will be seen on consulting the Scotch Act and the ample debates in the House of Commons on its introduction, that the whole tendency of it was to facilitate relief—to make it more easy, more accessible, more judicable, more public. This may have been right; but it cannot be said that the results have been entirely on one side. The Irish Law was wholly a new one; and it is interesting to observe the variations between the two laws on account of this difference in their inception. The Scotch Law adopted the general framework of the existing law of the country; the Irish Law extended to Ireland, with differences, the general principles of the English Law, and for the first few years it was administered by the English Poor Law Commissioners sitting in London. There are accordingly several points of distinction between these two Acts; such, for instance, as this—that in Ireland the Commissioners are expressly forbidden, as in England, to interfere in individual oases of relief, while in Scotland there is a proviso which is constantly put into practice, for an appeal in such cases to the Board of Supervision. But on the main difference which exists, I must dwell a little more. No Poor Law could be passed in those days which did not in some form or other recognize the "deterrent" principle. Accordingly it is found both in the Scotch and Irish Acts, but in very different forms. The Scotch Act, adhering to the ancient usage of the country—I say usage, because, so far from its being expressly the law, it is said that there is a legal decision the other way—gives no right of relief to the able-bodied. It does not declare that they have no such right; it only provides that no such right shall accrue under the Act. This restriction, though it has more than once been recommended on high authority, I conceive to be quite illogical and untenable, assuming the ground of humanity as the basis of this law; for if an able-bodied man is destitute, how can it be more consistent with humanity that he should starve and die, than that any one else should? Such, however, being the principle on which the Scotch Law mainly relies, the workhouse principle, which does exist under the law, is, as might be expected, relatively weak. There is a passage about in and out-door relief in the First Report of the Scotch Board of Supervisors, which might almost have been written by Mr. Cobbett, or by one of the early opponents of the English Poor Law, and which shows on the part of Sir John M'Neill and his able colleagues, a total want of apprehension of what we here consider to be the real object of the "workhouse test." For the present state of things my chief authority is that of a writer in a recent volume published by the Cobden Club, Mr. M'Neill Caird. He writes carefully, and draws from official documents; and he writes as a Scotchman, with no disposition to magnify any existing evils in his country. There are poor-houses in Scotland, but apparently on no regular system; and when they have them they do not always use them as we do. As an example, I may mention that in Kirkcudbrightshire, where poor-house accommodation does exist, of 87 women, with 207 illegitimate children, only 3 with 8 children were in the poor-house, all the rest receiving outdoor relief. I need not say that if there is an absolute rule with us in England, it is that such cases shall only be relieved in the workhouse. If we compare the general state of pauperism in Scotland with that in England, I find that on a given day recently there were 3.3 per cent in Scotland against 3.6 in England, But the figures on which the English calculation is based include 124,925 adult able-bodied, besides their children. As the able-bodied do not receive relief in Scotland, England is heavily weighted in the comparison. Putting aside the able-bodied, the ratio of persons receiving relief was in Scotland 1 in 28, in England 1 in 31. And even if all "casuals" were deducted on the Scotch side—and without counting the children of the English able-bodied—the result would still be, in Scotland 1 in 30, in England 1 in 31. The pound-rate on the English gross rental was Is. 3½d., in Scotland 1s. 1½d., or within 2d. as much, notwithstanding the difference as to able-bodied and the long-established pauperism in England, and the thrifty habits of the Scotch. In the comparison of Scotland with Ireland, I will only mention one fact. The poor rate collected annually in Scotland, on an average of four years, was £ 815,775, in Ireland only £ 772,322, notwithstanding the same difference as before as to the able-bodied, and that the population of Ireland was 5,402,759, in Scotland only £ 3,360,018. On the general state of the Scotch workpeople, I will again quote a sentence from the Evidence before the Commission on Friendly Societies:— There is a growing class in Scotland who fool that they need not insure in any Triendly Society, as the Poor law provides them with a certainty of sick pay. And I add one more passage, though it has been recently printed, because of its singular force. It is from evidence given by Mr. Briscoe, Superintendent under the Scotch Poor Law— Out-door relief in the Highlands has deteriorated truth, industry, morality, self-respect, self-reliance, the natural affections, independence of character: it appears as if the whole of the humbler classes had completely changed their character. There is no shame whatever in demanding relief, even among some of higher station. This state of things in the Highlands is perfectly deplorable, and every person admits it. It is true that this statement was made 11 or 12 years ago. But I adduce it as an illustration of the tendency of outdoor relief; and in that view, the sooner it was after the change in the law, the more strongly does it show its tendency. In Ireland this deterrent method was provided, as in England, through the workhouse. The whole law was to be found within the corners of the Act; and it expressly prohibited relief being given in any way except as the Act directed, which was limited to the workhouse. Indeed, it did not even promise relief to all; giving preference, in case of deficient accommodation in any workhouse, to resident destitute, and making no provision at all for the others. But the "destitute" indiscriminately were to be relieved; and, as I have side, that there must be sudden emergencies which anywhere would put to a severe trial the system of in-door relief, it was nearly certain that such would be the event in Ireland, where the bulk of the population lived on the coarsest and cheapest kind of food, with no resource beyond it if it came to fail. The Irish Famine broke down the workhouse system as an exclusive one, and the Extension Act of 1847 gave unlimited power to administer out-door relief, subject only to the discretion of the Commissioners, and to some well-intended provisions for possible future revocation. But, canis à corio nunquam absterrebitur uncto, and it is not likely that such a population as the Irish, having once tasted of out-door relief, will ever abandon it. In March 1848, 50,143 able-bodied paupers were relieved out of doors in Ireland, and the total daily average of all classes was 703,762 outdoor, to 140,536 in-door. This was, no doubt, exceptional, being so soon after the famine; but I find in the last Report of the Irish Poor Law Board that the average daily number of out-door paupers in Ireland rose, by constant yearly increase, between 1865 and 1873, from 12,205, to 27,509—much more than double. The general result of a survey of the effects of the Scotch and the Irish Poor Laws ought to be, I think, to confirm us in adherence to the main principle of our own law. My Lords, I hope I need not say that our main object in all this question ought to be the well-being of the poor themselves. One only point in this relation I will dwell upon, as I am enabled to illustrate it in a particular manner. Ear the worst result of a lax Poor Law, I conceive, is its disastrous effect on the sense of family obligations; and I beg attention to the following extract from a letter I have received from a medical gentleman named Macnamara:— I have worked among the natives of India as a medical man for 20 years, and have perhaps seen more of their family life than any European in Bengal; and it is impossible for people to realize the devotion of children to parents, and the wonderful self-sacrifice practised by the young to support the aged and sick of the family. This feeling is as strong among the lower as in the higher classes; and I need not remind you that there are no Poor Laws nor public charity of any kind in India, but a vast amount of private charity: confirming what I have said as to the distinction between public and private aid. Thus does a Heathen country contrast with a Christian one after centuries of a Poor Law. At the outset I ventured to hope that the present time would be deemed a suitable one for this discussion, and for any attempt to wean the working class from reliance on the fatal gift, the doron 'adoron of public relief. It is so because it is a time of prosperity. Should the present promise of an abundant harvest be realized, and should we be further blest with a succession of good harvests, the probability is that the condition of all classes, and of the labourers in particular, will be permanently raised; for of course the law is by no means the only agent that affects that condition. "We are glad to know that from various causes their condition has improved and is improving; our object should be that the Poor Law and its administration should work in the same direction. We know there are serious counteracting evils to the good of prosperity. Nothing in such times is more distressing than the waste of the resources of the labouring class: their not working nearly as much as is perfectly consistent with their comfort and health, and squandering the produce of the work which they do render, so that often their wives and families are no better off in good times than in bad. In my own country I hear of a notable instance of this. We have, as in almost all parts of the country, a system of allotments or field-gardens for the poor. We have had it for many years, and have never found any difficulty in obtaining tenants; but I am now told that from the high wages of the working people, they care but little for their bits of land. Nothing can be, of course, more short-sighted; but we aggravate the evil in so far as by our legal system we weaken the springs of forethought and thrift. Nor can we work effectively in the right direction, except by some self-acting test. In Staffordshire and Worcestershire the nailers are doing better than ever they have been; but they of course, as far as possible, hide it from the Guardians whenever they choose to apply for parochial relief. There is also, no doubt, an unfavourable effect of such times on the minds of many of those from whom Guardians are chosen. Prosperous and lightly-burdened times tend to make them careless and lax in the custody and administration of public funds. The more important is it, then, to bring to bear upon them a strong central control, and a weight of opinion from the Government, from Parliament, and from the country. My Lords, it will be no small thing for the people of this generation in England, if—to the many triumphs and benefits which they have achieved and received—if to the countless inventions, discoveries, and improvements in science, the great sanitary reforms, the spread of education, the revival of religion, they shall be able to add and bequeath to their posterity some real, effectual, lasting check to one of the most deadly and spreading plagues that can affect a civilized and industrial community—the plague of pauperism.

Moved, That it is expedient in the administration of the Poor Law to revert more nearly to the principles laid down in the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry (1833), with a view to the ultimate discontinuance of out-door relief.—(The Lord Lyttelton.)

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

side, he was far from complaining either of the Motion or of the manner in which it had been supported, and should confine himself to the practical issue raised by the noble Lord, and show how the authorities had carried out the Poor Law Act of 1834. The noble Lord had himself anticipated that his Motion was not likely to receive their Lordships' assent, and he had even understood him to say that he did not know that he entertained any decided wish in that direction. There could be no doubt from the figures produced by the noble Lord—and which were unimpeachable—that out-door relief had increased very largely in Scotland and Ireland within the last few years; but he could not admit the accuracy of his noble Friend's statements made in regard to the Highlanders of Scotland, and he did not believe that the alleged deterioration in the character of the population was capable of proof. A more exact inquiry would, he doubted not, free the character of the Scotch people from the imputation cast upon them. He did not think, also, that the noble Lord had correctly stated the views of the Commissioners of 1833 as implied in his Resolution. It was quite true that by a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench every man in this country had a right to relief. The noble Lord said in his Resolution, that it was desirable in the administration of the Poor Law to revert more nearly to the principles laid down in the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry (1833), with a view to the ultimate discontinuance of out-door relief. Now, on the contrary, he (the Duke of Richmond) maintained that from the year 1834, when the Poor Law Act was passed, to the present time the successive Governments of this country had, with more or less stringency, carried out the views entertained by the Poor Law Commissioners, and had restricted the system of out-door relief as far as possible. All that the Commissioners of 1833 insisted upon was that "out-door" relief should not be given to able-bodied paupers; and that was practically the rule on which the Boards of Guardians had acted as far as was possible. The subject was one of the most important that could occupy the attention of Parliament, and their Lordships owed a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord for giving them an opportunity of discussing it calmly and dispassionately, and of exchanging the views which they must have derived from a practical knowledge of the working of the system. The Commissioners of 1833 said— The great source of abuse is the out-door relief afforded to the able-bodied on their own account, or that of their families, and their first recommendation was as follows:— That, except as to medical attendance, and subject to the exception respecting apprenticeship hereinafter stated, all relief whatever to able-bodied persons or to their families otherwise than in well-regulated workhouses—that is, places where they may be set to work according to the spirit and intention of the 43d Elizabeth—shall be declared unlawful, and shall cease in manner and at periods hereinafter specified, and that all relief afforded in respect of children under the age of 16 shall he considered as afforded to their parents. This recommendation, their Lordships would observe, was limited to out-door relief, and it even contained an exception in favour of medical attendance. With respect to out-door relief the Commissioners said— That the out-door relief to the impotent, using that word as comprehending all except the able-bodied and their families, is subject to less abuse, and there was nothing in the Report to show that they contemplated so severe a measure as that all aged, infirm, and sick persons should be required to come into the workhouse. The Commissioners did not contemplate that the measures recommended by them would be sufficient to abolish pauperism, as the remarks of the noble Lord would lead their Lordships to suppose. In the conclusion of their Report they said— It will be observed that the measures that we have suggested are intended to produce rather negative than positive effects, rather to remove the debasing influences to which a large portion of the labouring population is now subject than to afford new means of prosperity and virtue. We are perfectly aware that for the general diffusion of right principles and habits we are to look not so much to any economic regulations and arrangements as to the influence of a moral and religious education. After the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 became law, and one of its clauses enabled the Commissioners to regulate the relief to able-bodied paupers and their families out of the workhouse. The clause was as follows:— And whereas a practice has obtained of giving relief to persons or their families who, at the time of applying for or receiving such relief, were wholly or partially in the employment of individuals, and the relief of the able-bodied and their families is in many places administered in modes productive of evil in other respects; and whereas difficulty may arise in case any immediate and universal remedy is attempted to be applied in the matters aforesaid; be it further enacted that from and after the passing of this Act it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners, by such rules, orders, or regulations as they may think fit, to declare to what extent and for what period the relief to be given to able-bodied persons or to their families in any particular parish or union may be administered out of the workhouse of such parish or union by payments in money, or with food or clothing in kind, or partly in kind and partly in money, and in what proportions, to what persons or class of persons, at what times and places, on what conditions, and in what manner such out-door relief may be afforded. This clause showed the mild and tentative manner in which the Commissioners were to proceed. He had had the good fortune to peruse the article of the noble Lord in The Contemporary Review, but notwithstanding the large experience claimed by the noble Lord, he admitted that it was impossible to approach the subject at the beginning except in a very mild manner. It would have been impossible, indeed, at that time to carry out a rigid system of workhouse tests. The workhouses did not exist, and it was only from time to time that these buildings had grown up to meet the necessity for them. The Poor Law Commissioners of that day consequently issued a prohibitory order to various parts of the country. The Act was not applied in all its stringency to the Metropolis or the manufacturing districts, because it was impossible to carry out the workhouse test in districts where the population were exposed to sudden reverses through being thrown out of employment. It was only in the year 1841, or thereabouts, that the prohibitory order was made a general order and became applicable to the whole of the country. He would read to their Lordships the exceptions to the prohibitory order. They were— 1. Where the relief was required from sudden and urgent necessity. 2. From sickness, accident, or infirmity affecting the pauper or any of his family. 3. For defraying funeral expenses. 4. In first six months of widowhood. 5. In case of a widow having children and no illegitimate child born after widowhood. That was now the law; and he doubted very much whether it would be possible within a reasonable period to abolish altogether the system of out-door relief. The policy of the central authorities had been to discourage out-door relief; but there had been in various parts of the country a disposition on the part of the Guardians to interpret and administer the law in a rery lenient manner. It was impossible at a time of low wages to expect that the labouring classes could lay by sufficient to maintain themselves in old age or to support their destitute relatives. Their condition had no doubt improved since that time; but although wages had risen, the price of almost all articles of food had risen likewise, and the labouring classes had, therefore, not been enabled to put by a sufficient sum against a season of adversity. The authorities had from time to time called the attention of the Guardians to the necessity of discontinuing the practice of granting out-door relief to the extent to which it had been carried. There had been of late conferences of Poor Law Guardians to consider how the law should be carried out, and directions had been given to the Poor Law Inspectors to make inquiries and report upon this subject. They had done so, and their Reports—which might be usefully consulted by their Lordships—showed that the state of matters was improving. The administration of the Poor Law in regard to the workhouse test was not without its difficulties. His (the Duke of Richmond's) father was Chairman of a Board of Guardians in Sussex, and articles in the newspapers were written against him complaining of the hardships of the Poor Law and of the manner in which it was carried out by that and other Boards of Guardians. Articles in newspapers did not have much effect upon his father, and a different state of things now existed. It was, however, necessary to watch the administration of the law, and if it called for a remedy, it could be carried out with much greater success when the Government had public opinion in their favour, instead of running strongly against them. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Hardy) had carried into effect an improvement in the law on that subject already begun by his predecessor Mr. Goschen. The noble Lord had referred to a period long anterior to 1870—and that was one of the reasons why he disagreed with the Resolution. The figures would, he thought, show that about the year 1870 the highest amount of out-door relief had been reached, and that we had since been going on more satisfactorily than for several years past. The effect of placing the in-door relief upon the Metropolitan Common Fund had been highly beneficial. In 1870 the amount of out-door relief given in the Metropolis was £ 413,000. In 1874 it had dropped to £ 310,000, being a reduction of 25 per cent. In 1870 the number of out-door paupers was 114,000; in 1875 it was only 69,000. The diminution in the whole of England had also been considerable. In 1870 there was expended in out-door relief £ 2,899,029; in 1874 the amount had fallen to £ 2,801,455—a diminution of 3 per cent. In 1870 the number of outdoor paupers in the whole of England was 876,600; in 1875 it was only 664,114. He could hardly make out whether his noble Friend advocated a national Poor Pate, and he should reserve his opinion on this point until he had read the noble Lord's pamphlet on this subject. The noble Lord had, however, expressed an opinion in favour of making more use of relief by way of loans. That was a very useful mode of giving relief where it was practicable; but it was difficult to put it into operation. It ought to be resorted to when a man required relief who was usually in the receipt of high wages; but it was by no means an entire remedy for the state of things of which the noble Lord complained. It was a necessity that could not be avoided that from time to time people should go into a workhouse who were of the highest respectability, who had honourably supported themselves by their own exertions up to that time, but who were forced by uncontrollable circumstances to seek an asylum in the workhouse in their old age; and to make the workhouse such a place as the noble Lord had shadowed forth for this class of people would not be in accordance with the wishes of the great majority of the people of this country. The noble Lord said that, assuming that the infirm, the aged, and the disabled must always be admitted, there were others for whom private charity might be left to provide; but to leave them to private charity would be entirely wrong in principle; because if it was the law that no man should be allowed to starve, but that every man should be entitled to sufficient to keep him alive, we ought not to depend upon the charitable views of individuals; but we ought to provide for the able-bodied and industrious man who was, through no fault of his own, out of work and deprived of the means of subsistence. He objected to the Resolution of his noble Friend—first of all, because he did not admit that the administration of the Poor Law was not in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners of 1833; he maintained that it was strictly in accordance with those recommendations. He also objected to the Resolution because he did not like, by agreeing to such a Resolution, to admit that it was possible to look forward to a time when there might be a discontinuance of out-door relief.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

side, he strongly sympathized in many of the views of his noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton); but he agreed with the noble Duke the Lord President, that to accept his Resolution would imply a censure upon the administration of the Poor Law Board of late years, and he did not think there was any reason to complain of that administration under any Ministry. The Board had always been disposed to carry out the principle of the Report of 1833, and to do even more, if public opinion would support them; and the noble Lord the Mover of the Resolution admitted that there were exceptional cases in which out-door relief must be given. In the general proposition, however, that there was a most urgent necessity that we should take advantage of the present improved condition of the labouring classes to enforce an improved administration of the Poor Law and the diminution of out-door relief he cordially concurred. The noble Duke unintentionally misstated the views of the Local Government Board, who had always held as a principle that a difference should be made in the administration of relief to the able-bodied. The noble Duke said he saw no reason why an able-bodied man should be treated in a different manner from the sick and disabled; but he had always held that it was absolutely essential that an able-bodied man should be treated differently.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

side, that what he meant to say was that the able-bodied man should be relieved from a different fund.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

At all events, the noble Duke would admit it was absolutety necessary that more stringent rules should be applied to the able-bodied than to the sick and disabled.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

Hear!

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

For himself, he had not understood the noble Lord the Mover of the Resolution to say that the workhouse should be made more deterrent, or that the treatment of the poor in the house should be made more hard and severe; but that the offer of the workhouse acted in itself as a deterrent, and he wished to offer it instead of out-door relief, because it acted as a deterrent. It was not desirable that the administration of workhouses should be made unnecessarily severe or cruel, and he did not think that that had been the case generally—certainly not of late years. On the contrary, guided by the Local Government Board, the tendency of Guardians had been to increase the comfort, and to ameliorate the condition of the poor in the workhouses. He had no objection to that; but still if we wished to deal effectively with this ques- tion, we must, in a certain sense, harden our hearts. Those who had to administer the law knew that the difficulty was, in case after case, to apply a general principle; and the moral was, that the Guardians must have strong support from the central authority to enable them to do their duty. He would not in any degree complain of the central authority, which, he believed, was to be trusted in this matter; but he believed this was a most opportune time to evoke public opinion in aid of the central authority, to enable them to support the Guardians in laying down more stringent rules in regard to the administration of out-door relief. It was quite true the prohibitory order had been long enforced; but he wanted to go beyond it; and unless we did, we should not touch the malady. It was not too much to say that large classes of this country were steeped in pauperism. It was not only that we had so many paupers on our roll, but what was much worse was that the curse of pauperism had entered into the minds and social habits of the people. They had lost all sense of shame in asking for relief. We must not impute too much blame to them; all men placed in the same situation would have been similarly demoralized; but having a law which insured relief in certain cases, we were bound to take the utmost care that it did not sap the independence of the people of the country. We had created a vicious public opinion by our law, and we could not expect that certain classes of people would act contrary to the opinion we had created. In nothing was the evil more flagrantly exhibited than in the loosening of the tie between parent and child. Nothing had struck him more painfully than the number of cases in which children who, by a little exertion, might have supported their parents, had neglected to do so, and the indignation with which they had resented any pressure put upon them to compel them to do so. It had been made a complaint against himself and others that they were going to make children support their parents. That showed the state of public opinion; and that such a public opinion existed was the worst thing that could be said. He submitted that we must go further than the mere refusal of out-door relief to able-bodied paupers. In the Eastern Counties generally there had been great laxity, and the result was a large amount of pauperism. He wished that in his own district he could have shown such a result as Sir Baldwin Leighton did at Atcham; he would have been more proud of that than anything he had done in his life. What not long since existed in his union—and he dared say in a great many unions—was that when the wife of a labouring man was confined there was given, as a matter of course, a certain amount of relief to the family for a period of three weeks, the total being equivalent to the cost of providing a nurse and the other expenses attendant upon bringing a child into the world. A member of the Board succeeded in carrying by a majority of one a resolution against the practice, which was accordingly discontinued; and, instead of there being general dissatisfaction, the reasonableness of the resolution was acquiesced in, the efforts needful to meet those emergencies had been made, and that branch of relief had been cut off. We should aim at restricting out-door relief to the cases in which the head of the family, the breadwinner, was himself ill; always excepting, of course, cases of accident and infectious diseases. He did not say this should be done at once, but it was what we might aim at. He had long felt a change was necessary in regard to members of Friendly Societies. Men said—"What on earth is the use of our saving? If you give us less relief, why should we save?" That was wrong in principle; and in cases in which the Friendly Society's allowance was sufficient, we had better cut off therelief altogether, and encourage all to cultivate the habit of independence. With reference to the loan system, he admitted that such a system might be excellent—he must, however, remind them that it was very easy to make the loan, but uncommonly difficult to recover it—it would probably end in something not very different from gifts. He thought if a great effort were made to restrict the amount of out-door relief, a considerable change in the condition of the people and of pauperism would be effected. Out-door relief should, if possible, be restricted to cases of absolute necessity. Good nature and weakness at the moment might give relief where it was not absolutely required; but an amount of evil would thereby be done altogether incommensurate with the amount of relief to the pauper. If the law were stringently enforced, private charity would supplement its administration, softening its bearings, and filling up the chinks which the broad strict line of the law had left open.

LORD HAMPTON

side, he could not refrain from saying that he entirely concurred in what had been said by the noble Lord who had introduced this subject (Lord Lyttelton), and who was entitled to the thanks of their Lordships for having done so. Last week he had presided over a meeting of the Central Chamber of Agriculture when the question of out-door relief became the subject of discussion; and the opinion was unanimously expressed that they ought to revert to a more strict system of outdoor relief. He was also requested to present a Petition expressing the unanimous opinion of owners and occupiers of land representing a very considerable amount and weight of public opinion, praying that the Government would take steps to enforce a more strict administration of the Poor Law in that respect. His noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton) had made a very able speech, and had shown—and it was his own opinion—that the administration of the Poor Law in this country was much more lax than it ought to be. A period of 40 years had elapsed since the introduction of the present law, and he thought there should be an inquiry whether there could not be a more strict administration of the system. What should be borne in mind in reference to the Poor Law were humanity on the one hand and sound principles of administration on the other. His noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) had said that they must harden their hearts against the system of out-door relief. He (Lord Hampton) did not like to adopt that language; but he thought that they must teach the labouring classes habits of self-reliance, and that they must not apply for out-door relief. He hoped that the Government would turn their attention to the subject.

EARL FORTESCUE

side, that he had been engaged in the administration of the Poor Law for 30 years, and he could say from experience that two-thirds of the loans made by the Guardians had been recovered. He quite agreed with noble Lords who had spoken that the administration of the Poor Law was not so satisfactory as it ought to be, and he could not help thinking that great good would result from the appointment of a Commission to inquire specially into the system of out-door relief. He would suggest that there should be a reprint of the original Report of the Commissioners made in 1833. It was full of sound principles and valuable information, and it was desirable that such an instructive narrative should be made accessible to all and be distributed amongst the authorities all over the country.

After a few words from Lord ORAN-MORE and BROWNE,

LORD LYTTELTON

was understood to explain that he had not suggested that the workhouse should be made uncomfortable, but that the relief which was given should be confined to the workhouse. He begged to withdraw his Resolution,

Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

    c1806
  1. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD'S PROVISIONAL OEDERS CONFIRMATION (BROMLEY, & C.) BILL [H.L.] 41 words
    2. c1806
  2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD'S POOR LAW PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (OXFORD, & C.) BILL [H.L.] 62 words
    3. cc1806-7
  3. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD'S PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ABINGDON, BARNSLEY, & C.) BILL [H.L.] 102 words