Lords Sitting of 11 July 1876

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Public Works Loans* (167).
Second Reading—Poor Law Amendment (150); County of Peebles Justiciary District (Scotland)* (158).
Report—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bingley, &c.)* (136).
Third Reading—Union of Benefices* (147); Local Government Provisional Orders, Bristol, &c. (No. 6)* (129); Waterford, New Ross, and Wexford Junction Railway (Sale)* (133); Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment* (149); Local Light Dues (Reduction)* (132), and passed.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord President.)
POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 150.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was to remove various inconveniences which had been experienced in the working of the Poor Laws. As it was now 40 years since the New Poor Law Act had been passed, it was not surprising that during that period some defects and inconveniences should have been discovered which required amendment. The remedies for these evils which had been suggested or adopted by the Local Government Board were embodied in the present Bill. These amendments might be arranged under four heads. It proposed, in the first place, a better division and arrangement of parishes forming unions and other local areas, and it gave power to annex isolated parts of parishes to the parishes by which they were surrounded. In the next place, it authorized various changes in the administration of the Poor Law; it gave power to the Local Government Board, under certain circumstances, to dissolve Unions or to change their names. The third part contained amendments of the Law of Settlement and Removal. The fourth related to the Poor Law as it affected the metropolis, enabled the managers of fever and small-pox hospitals, who might, under emergencies, have admitted persons not actual paupers into those institutions, to
  1274
  recover from those persons all reasonable charges, in the same manner as Guardians were now empowered to do in respect of paupers. The advantage of the provisions for dealing with isolated parts of parishes would be apparent when he stated that there were no fewer than 13,000 split-up parishes in England and Wales, chiefly in the North. The provisions for re-adjusting areas and dissolving Unions were likewise calculated to be very useful. At present the Local Government Board, although they had the power of transferring parishes from one Union to another, could not dissolve a Union, however much such a step might be for the advantage of all parties concerned. Much benefit was also likely to result from the provisions for the consolidation of small Unions, especially in the Eastern Counties, where one workhouse would be sufficient for two or more Unions. With regard to the Law of Settlement, the Bill, as originally introduced, applied only to Irish people who came to England in search of work, but it had since been extended—with justice, he thought—to the country generally. It proposed that a continuous residence of three years should entitle a person to a settlement in a parish. That provision, he believed, would be of considerable advantage to the labouring classes who were compelled to migrate from one part of the country to another. There were some miscellaneous provisions in the Bill to which he might refer. The Bill repealed an existing enactment rendering it illegal to apprentice boys belonging to the metropolis at a greater distance than 40 miles from London—a provision which could not possibly be maintained in the present day, however right and proper it might have been in former times; and it enabled authorized Guardians to send any boy in receipt of relief who might desire to enter the naval service to any part or place for examination. The measure also gave a power which those who had any knowledge of the working of the Poor Law would agree was a useful and beneficial one—namely, that of treating a woman living separate from her husband who might not altogether have deserted her, but who had left her chargeable to the parish, in the same manner as a widow, and therefore applying the workhouse test to her; and it allowed the Guardians to permit husband and wife admitted

  1275
  into any workhouse, being over 60 years of age, or disabled by infirmity or accident, to live together. The exemption of municipal corporate property from being rated to the relief of the poor was repealed, as was also the exception of the Inns of Court and Charterhouse from inclusion in any Union. These were the main points in the Bill. These provisions were founded on the experience of the Local Government Board, of the workings of the Poor Law over a large number of years, and he believed that if the measure received the sanction of their Lordships it would effect a considerable improvement in Poor Law legislation. The noble Duke concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETregretted that so many miscellaneous subjects had been mixed up in that Bill. With regard to the alteration of the boundaries of Unions, he hoped that the Government would bear in mind that their great object should be to bring the area of Unions as near as they could to the area of counties.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONpointed out that it would be impossible in some districts, which he named, to bring the boundaries of Unions to the boundaries of counties, although he believed it would be of great advantage if it were possible to do so.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he should be glad to say a few words on one or two points in the Bill, and particularly as to one, that part of it which dealt with the Law of Settlement and Removal of the Poor, for he had ventured to bring this question before their Lordships on two occasions—in 1874 by a Bill to do away with removal, and again last Session by a Motion for a Return. He would not claim to have started this question, for it had been brought forward on several occasions, but he might say he had revived it. It had been discussed, since he first brought it before the House in 1874, all over the country, and public opinion had been brought to bear upon it. Whatever he might wish to see done eventually, he could not but thank Her Majesty's Government for the concessions they had made. It was, indeed, a great stride in the direction which, he believed, all those who wished to see the Poor Laws properly administered, and had the interest of the poor
  1276
  at heart, with very few excptions, could not but think was the right one. He had presided over, perhaps, the largest Poor Law Conference which had taken place in England a short time ago—at all events, one of the largest—and there the feeling was strongly in favour of the abolition of the Law of Settlement and Removal. However, be that as it might, he was sure the feeling generally went in the same direction throughout the country, and that the steps taken by the Bill would be most acceptable. He should have been glad to have seen a difference made between the Irish and English paupers. The Irish paupers were, in some respects, on a different footing, and large towns, such as Liverpool, might have a claim to be specially considered. Under these circumstances, he would have been glad to see the settlement in England made to depend on exactly the same conditions as the present status of irremovability—namely, that three years should make a settlement for Irish paupers, and one year a settlement for English paupers—the same time as was now required to make a pauper irremovable in England for English paupers, and three years for Irish paupers, who would, in any case, gain no small advantage by the passing of the Bill. He would raise this question probably in Committee, when the proper time arrived. Another point he wished to touch upon—the great advantage the Bill would give in allowing Unions to be amalgamated. He did not think it was possible to amalgamate them generally, at present, as far as Boards of Guardians were concerned; but it might be done with great advantage for the purpose of providing house accommodation. It was quite true what the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had said as to the number of unnecessary workhouses in the Eastern district. In his own Union the question had been set on foot. The Union house and the one in the adjoining Union were nearly empty, and, probably, would never be full again, from various causes too lengthy to go into in their Lordships' House on that occasion. This was one of many cases, and what was more, not only could Union houses, unnecessary Union houses, be done away with under the Bill, but it would, he hoped, encourage the establishment of district schools. Even some of the empty

  1277
  workhouses, when they were done away with under the Bill, might be used for that purpose. There was actually only one separate pauper school in the Eastern Poor Law District at the present time, and that was in his own Union: all the other pauper children were in the workhouses, or boarded out. Nothing could be worse than to bring children up as paupers, and the advantage of these schools could be seen wherever they had been established. He had visited an excellent one at Anerley the other day, and could not speak too highly in praise of the way in which it was managed, or say too much as to the evident good work it was doing. If large and useless establishments were kept up, nothing was more unlikely than that ratepayers would be willing to establish district schools. Only one more point he wished to refer to—that of medical relief. In country districts it was the most pauperizing part of the present administration of the Poor Law; it made men paupers who would not in any other way become paupers. It was a comfortable way of receiving medical treatment. He hoped some Amendment might be introduced into the Bill in their Lordships' House to make medical relief in some manner less easily obtained.
  THE EARL OF POWISsuggested that before any change was made in Unions ample notice should be given, so that all persons interested might have the opportunity of considering it. He understood that the Bill proposed to give parishes the locus standi to oppose a scheme, provided two-thirds of the ratepayers should desire it, which, in a parish like St. George's, would require the signatures of 7,000 ratepayers; but he would suggest that a small portion of the ratepayers—such as 10 or 20 of them—should have power to oppose.
  LORD ABERDAREagreed with the opinion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) that the Bill dealt with too many subjects. He approved of the powers which the Bill would give for the purpose of amalgamating Unions, and of the powers which it would confer on the Local Government Board. It was quite right that there should be a power of amalgamation; but he thought that a smaller proportion of the parishioners should have power to oppose, if they objected to any proposed scheme. Some parishes were of an unwieldy character.
  1278
  He lived on the border of two extensive parishes. On that border a large mining village had sprung up, and it contained no fewer than 8,000 people. One portion of the village was in one of those parishes, and the other portion was in the other parish. Why should not facilities be given to enable that distant portion of those two parishes to amalgamate with neighbouring parishes, and so form a new district?
  LORD COTTESLOEsaid, no doubt it would be a very good thing if all Unions could be made conterminous with counties; but there were various circumstances connected with local administration which rendered that suggestion impracticable.
  LORD REDESDALEbelieved the Bill would be a useful measure, and concurred in the view of the noble Lord (Lord Cottesloe) that Unions could not possibly be made conterminous with counties, becaue of the manner in which the Unions were situate, and for various other reasons concerning the management of Union affairs.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he had no reason to complain of the manner in which this measure had been received, because it was clear that the House was generally in favour of it, although various suggestions concerning details had been made which would receive careful consideration at the hands of the Government. He dissented from the opinion of the noble Duke and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Aberdare) that too many provisions had been introduced. The Government were placed in the dilemma of either inserting the several points which required alteration, or placing them in separate Bills, or else not dealing with them at all; and he maintained that the proper course had been chosen of inserting them in the Bill, for they would by no means hamper its passage through the House. He entirely agreed in the observations that had fallen from the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees as to the impracticability of making Unions conterminous with counties; but, at the same time, he must point out that the provisions for the dissolution and re-arrangement of Unions would tend to carry the proposal into effect wherever it was expedient to do so. The Act would come into operation directly it was passed, so that persons who had been residing three

  1279
  years in a parish would gain a settlement under it.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a according, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till Thursday next, a quarter before Four o'clock.