POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT (1876) AMENDMENT BILL—(Nos. 99, 153.) (Hansard, 15 July 1878)

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, it would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that their Lordships had struck out of the Bill the words "pauper or," the object of that Amendment being to prevent friendly societies paying to the relatives of any pauper who was not a lunatic his accumulations in their funds. As having charge of the Bill, he much regretted that Amendment. The Commons had disagreed 1437 from it, and he hoped their Lordships would not insist on it.

§ EARL FORTESCUE
said, he did not wish to speak disparagingly in any way of the most illustrious Representative Assembly in the world; but the readiness with which Members on both sides of that House had accepted a reversal of the principles which had characterized Poor Law legislation for nearly half a century was so remarkable that he could not help remembering that the organization of friendly societies was very widely diffused throughout the country, audits efficiency such as would render the votes enjoyed by members of those societies rather formidable at an Election. He sincerely hoped that their Lordships would abide by their Amendments. The matter appeared to have been but very slightly discussed in the other House. The first Amendment, the Commons stated, would render inoperative the immediate policy of the Bill; but that policy, as he had said, involved a reversal of the Poor Law legislation of successive Administrations ever since the year 1834. He quoted a speech delivered recently to, and applauded by, a meeting of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows at Suffolk, by Mr. Daynes— We had a Poor Law in England, the avowed intention of which was to prevent any human being wanting food, raiment, and shelter; but the human being to need food, clothing, and shelter at the public cost must be without property. What more reasonable than that the tax levied on all classes should only be applicable to the relief of those without means? But in the case of a man without a family, who had no one dependent on him, the proper persons to receive that money would be those who took charge of and maintained him, whether he was a lunatic, or incapable of working. The more closely the matter was examined, the more the justice of it would be seen. This view of the matter was supported by the Report of the Poor Law Inquiry Commission (page 272)— At this point (of relief) as on many others," says the Report, "the independent labourers may be our best teachers. They adopt and enforce most unrelentingly the principle that under no circumstances shall any member of their societies receive relief while earning anything for himself, 1438 Mr. T. Platt was asked whether, in the rules for the management of friendly societies, framed by the labouring classes themselves, he had ever found any for the allowance of partial relief, such as relief in aid of wages, or on account of the number of the family? He answered—"No, I never met with an instance." Their penalties for continuing on the sick roll after they had become able to work, he stated, were— In all cases, utter expulsion and enforcement of the repayment of the money, from the period from which it was proved the party was able to work. I have known them expel a party for stirring the fire, or putting up the shutters of his window, at the time he was in receipt of the allowance. He had on a previous occasion explained as to pauper lunatics that their prospects of cure would be liable to be impaired by the dread lest their families should have to be maintained by the Guardians, while they themselves were in the Lunatic Asylum; and the Lunacy Act of 1853 had dealt with them accordingly on the same principles as this Bill did. Even though the result of their disagreeing with the Commons should be to make the Bill be given up this Session, this would, at any rate, insure it a more careful and fuller consideration by the other House on another occasion.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOK
said, that having voted against this Amendment on a former occasion, he supposed he came under the ban of the noble Earl's displeasure, as having been formerly President of the Poor Law Board. He admitted that if this measure was looked at as a Poor Law measure, it was inconsistent, to a certain extent, with the strict and hard principle of the Poor Law. But the noble Earl had given up this hard principle in admitting the pauper lunatics to the benefits of this Bill. As the Bill had stood, there was no longer in it a strict adherence to the Poor Law. The only case in which this exemption would act would be when, under the pressure of some calamity, a pauper happened to be placed in the same condition as a pauper lunatic—some occurrence that necessitated his removal to the workhouse—and when, not wishing to pauperize his whole family, they might allow it to have the benefit of the money he had saved in the friendly society by his thrift. There was such a thing as pedantic 1439 adherence to rule. As their Lordships had given up the pauper lunatic, they might give up the pauper also. The Guardians would still be able to say they declined to relieve him, and would throw him back upon the money he had saved. Why not be content with this discretion as a safeguard? Why should the family of a man, who got his arm or leg broken say, and who, owing to the want of proper provision for his treatment at home, was removed to the workhouse infirmary, be deprived, while he was being cured, of the small pittance he had obtained by his thrift? Parliament had already interfered with the strict carrying out of the principle of the law on behalf of these friendly societies, and had given them certain privileges; and surely it was no great hardship or wrong to allow them to pay their money in the way that was most convenient for them? Even were they to pass this Bill with their Lordships' Amendments, the friendly societies could, if they liked, frame rules that would baffle the Poor Law administration. They did not wish to evade the application of their money to the succour of afflicted people; and he did not think, in the special circumstances of the case, their Lordships should insist upon so very strict an adherence to the principle of the Poor Law.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, it might be fairly admitted that the provision favoured by the Commons was contrary to the principles of the Poor Law, and he thought the House had reason to complain a little of the action of the Government in the matter of this Amendment. As he understood, it was brought forward in the other House at so late an hour that it was impossible to fully consider it. But while it was a breach of the principle of the Poor Law, he was bound to say, at the same time, that the Government, having decided to support the Mover of the Bill, and to take the responsibility of this change, he did not think it would be wise to disagree with the Amendment of the House of Commons.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE
hoped the House would not follow the advice just given them. It had been the deliberately expressed opinion of both sides of the House that this exemption of friendly society funds should not receive the assent of Parliament. There 1440 was a difference in the circumstances affecting the pauper lunatic and the pauper. The pauper lunatic was maintained at great expense, and, consequently, the whole amount that could be obtained would not suffice to maintain him in the lunatic asylum. It should be borne in mind that the altered form in which the Bill now came before their Lordships placed it in conflict with the immediate policy of the Poor Law. The policy of the Bill as it came back from the Commons was to destroy the principle of the Poor Law, and he hardly thought their Lordships would take such a grave step in a manner so very hasty. Their Lordships, he held, were bound to adhere to their Amendments, which were in accordance with the law which had now for a long period been established in this country.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
entirely differed from the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook), who had described the opposition to the Bill as pedantic, and contended that it was of vital importance that they should adhere to the principle of the Poor Law. When they diverged from it, they got into grave dangers, and with that view he should vote for the retention of their Amendments.

CONTENTS.
Bedford, D.	Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)
	Foley, L.
Bristol, M.	Forester, L.
	Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Airlie, E.
Chichester, E.	Hammond, L.
Cowper, E.	Hampton, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.]	Hanmer, L.
Kimberley, E.	Harlech, L.
Lucan, E.	Heytesbury, L.
Morley, E.	Mostyn, L.
Northbrook, E.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Powis, E.
Redesdale, E. [Teller.]	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Spencer, E.
Stradbroke, E.	Seaton, L.
Suffolk and Berkshire, E.	Sherborne, L.
	Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Abercromby, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)	Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Churchill, L.	Truro, L.
Clinton, L.	Vivian, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Waveney, L.
Egerton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Melville, V.
	Strathallan, V.
Richmond, D.	Bagot, L.
	Chelmsford, L.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
Hertford, M.	Colchester, L.
	Dunsany, L.
Annesley, E.	Forbes, L.
Bantry, E.	Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Bathurst, E.
Harrowby, E.	Lawrence, L.
Nelson, E.	Leconfield, L.
Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]	Ormonde, L. (M. Or-monde.)
Cranbrook, V.	Skelmersdale, L.
Hardinge, V.	Wrottesley, L.
Hawarden, V. [Teller.]