§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving that the House go into Committee on the Bill, said, the object of the measure was to prevent the provisions of the Act of 1876 from applying to money to which a pauper, or a pauper lunatic, might be entitled as member of a friendly or benefit society.
§ Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
§ EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that before the House went into Committee on the Bill, he must ask the indulgence of their Lordships to make a few remarks on the principle which was involved in the measure. He thought it might fairly be said that upon the occasion of its second reading, the Bill had been somewhat imperfectly discussed; but that was not his only reason for troubling the House on the present occasion. His noble Friend the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale), whose opinion justly had weight on any question in their Lordships' House, could speak with particular authority on this subject, on account of his long practical experience in the administration of the Poor Laws. But if the House now went into Committee, they would be deprived of the advantage of hearing the noble Earl's opinion on this important subject. It 108 was with much regret that he found himself differing in regard to the Bill from his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), whom he had for many years admiringly followed—sometimes in a majority and sometimes in a minority—in that course of sanitary reform, and especially of factory legislation, with which the noble Earl was now, and would always be, honourably associated. On this particular question, however, he could not accept the authority of his noble Friend as conclusive. He apprehended that, in the long course of the noble Earl's active and beneficent life, he had had comparatively little to do with the Poor Laws. It had been his own fortune, however, for some 35 years to have been engaged in the administration of those laws. For something like a quarter of a century he had occupied the chair of a Board of Guardians, and for four or five years he had acted as Secretary to a Poor Law Board. On the matter now under consideration, therefore, he must venture to think for himself; and to be at variance with his noble Friend who had charge of the present measure in their Lordships' House. It was rather disappointing that more than 40 years after the passing of the Act of 1834, it should be again necessary to revert to first principles. But it must be remembered that the Poor Law was designed to deal with cases of destitution alone; that it did not undertake to supply the place of Christian charity in the relief of distress; that it did not profess to give bounties; and that it did not substitute itself for thrift, providence, and prudence on the part of the people. The most heroic and valuable services rendered to the public by any man—whether in the largest sense of public services, as to the State, or whether in their more limited sense, as to a particular town or parish—gave that man no claim upon the poor rates; and, on the other hand, no folly or extravagance on the part of a man, no immorality or offence, when once that offence had been expiated by imprisonment, could deprive him of his claim for relief from the poor rates, if he were really destitute. Those poor rates, be it remembered, were levied, not as a great statesman the other day would have led his hearers to infer—from the general income of the country, but from a particular kind of property alone—namely, real property, which amounted only to 109 something like one-fifth of that general income. He was almost ashamed to trouble their Lordships with these remarks on first principles; but too many of the public appeared, to a great extent, to have ignored or forgotten them. He was surprised the other day at the arguments which were used on this question by a deputation from some friendly societies to himself; and he was still more surprised at finding the same arguments gravely put in print and circulated in their favour. He would read one of those arguments.
We think, that in any circumstances, where a member has a wife or family dependent upon him, the sick pay should be devoted to their maintenance.These words were not restricted to the man's own wife and children. Any relative in a family—and a man might well have 100 such—might be included under them; and, in all probability, if a demand were to be made upon the public purse, the member would find some relative or other to whom he would cheerfully resign his sick pay—calling himself all the time independent; but, meanwhile, being supported by the rates. The deputation to which he alluded went on to argue that, if that person—Instead of being careful and provident, had fallen sick and been compelled to go into the workhouse, or even if he had committed some offence against the laws of the laud, and had been sent to the House of Correction, in either case he would have been kept at the public expense.Of course he would; but members of friendly societies were not the only persons in the country who were neither paupers nor criminals. By providence and self-denial a man might put by, out of his earnings, a provision against future want; and he could not understand why it should be proposed to select solely the membership of friendly societies for protection, while ignoring what, in some instances, might be the much wiser disposal of a man's money—the placing of it in the Savings' Bank, the investing of it in the purchase of a house, or the employment of it in business. It seemed to him that, under the Bill now before their Lordships, an artificial bounty was given to one particular form of thrift and providence contrary to all sound principle. He remembered that when he was at the 110 Poor Law Board a special clause on this subject was brought in by one of the most humane and kind-hearted men he had ever known—he referred to the late Mr. Charles Buller. That Gentleman introduced a clause providing—That every person who shall apply for relief, having at the time of such application in his possession or under his control money or other property which, on inquiry, it is found he did not disclose at the time of his application, shall be treated as an idle and disorderly person.It was the presumption of law, that a man had applied and exhausted his own means and property for his support and maintenance before he came upon the funds of others for that purpose. In the Session which followed, the adoption of that clause another clause was passed providing that—When any pauper shall have belonging to him any money, or security for money, the guardians of the union or parish within which such pauper is chargeable may take and appropriate so much of such money, or produce of such security, as will re-imburse the said guardians for the relief given to that pauper during the preceding twelve months, thus dealing, not only with money belonging to the pauper when he applied, but also with any he might acquire after applying, for relief.It might be said that, these being his views on the subject, he ought, in logical consistency, to have given Notice of a Motion for the rejection of the measure, instead of merely desiring to have it amended in the way he had suggested. But, in truth, the calamity of lunacy in any rank or position of life, and more especially in the case of the breadwinner, was such, that he did not ask the House to follow out the general principle of the law to its logical consequences; but simply to restrict the operation of the Bill to cases of pauper lunatics, whose wives and children had long been dealt with on this principle by the Lunacy Act of 1853, and to limit the application of the sick pay of any such pauper, from his club, to his wife and children—instead of leaving it optional to him to assign it to any relative. He earnestly hoped that their Lordships would restrict the operation of the measure in the direction, and to the extent he had indicated; for in its present shape the Bill was of a very sweeping character, inasmuch as it comprehended the case of every pauper who belonged to any club or friendly society, however unsound or however irregular, and it applied to any 111 relatives dependent upon him, however distant the relationship.
§ THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, he regarded the Bill as contrary to every principle on which Poor Law relief had hitherto been administered in this country; and he trusted that their Lordships would give heed to the remarks which had just been made by his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue). A great number of those who were ratepayers were persons of very small means; and, to throw an additional burden upon them simply in order that friendly societies might be protected, was perfectly monstrous. He did not think there was any good ground whatever for making the funds in those societies an exception to other accumulations of earnings.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he differed entirely from what had fallen from his two noble Friends who had just addressed the House. The noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) who commenced the discussion, entered into a somewhat lengthy history of the early state of the Poor Law, and instanced some provisions which were introduced into the Statute on the subject by the late Mr. Charles Buller. In the remarks of the noble Earl in praise of that Gentleman he entirely concurred; but, at the same time, it seemed to him that the observations of his noble Friend did not really touch the point of the case. The question before their Lordships was—Did they believe that the friendly societies throughout the country had been a benefit to the labouring classes or not? His impression was, that the friendly societies throughout the country had been of very great benefit and advantage. It was the best of the labouring classes who contributed to them, and any legislation which would tend to injuriously affect these societies would be a very great evil, and to throw cold water upon the societies would be to injure the labouring classes themselves. With regard to persons who were not lunatics, the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue), with his experience of the working of the Poor Law, must know that if a member of a friendly society who was not a lunatic applied for relief, there was the workhouse test, and if the man were really a pauper, he would get an order to go into the house. The noble Earl had stated that he would confine the persons who were to receive relief under the operation of the friendly societies to the 112 wife, and children under 16 years of age; but he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) could not understand why he should confine it to those particular persons, and no others. He could well understand a good and thrifty working man might have contributed to these societies, having in view the time when he might be able to be of some use to his aged father and mother who had become incapacitated from work. The noble Earl had referred to the non-registered societies. Now, there was an enormous number of these societies, especially in the manufacturing districts, which were unregistered; yet they were as solid and as sound as those societies which were registered. These societies numbered some hundreds of thousands of members, and they were doing a great deal of good in the immediate districts in which they were situated, yet they could not be registered under the Act in consequence of the expenses which would be incurred. The present Registrar of Friendly Societies, who was a Government officer, would, he had reason to know, very much deprecate the idea of confining this question merely to the registered societies. Parliament had not thought fit to compel all societies to be registered, and therefore he objected to the insertion, by a side-wind, of words into this Bill, which would practically put compulsion upon the non-registered societies to become registered, although Parliament had not hitherto thought fit to make any such enactment.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought the noble Duke was not quite rightly representing those who had opposed this Bill, in saying that it involved the question of whether they approved of friendly societies or not. He did not think there was any Member of the House who did not in the highest degree approve of those societies, which were formed upon a sound basis; and the question was, whether they ought to promote these friendly societies at the expense of the poor rates? There might be reasons why they should do so; but do not let them disguise from themselves the fact, that wherever a man invested his savings in any other way, they were liable to be taken possession of by the Boards of Guardians in case he had to apply for relief; while, if his savings were invested in these friendly societies, they were to be exempt from liability. The provision in this Bill would repeal the Enactment 113 of 1876, and it was a pity that in 1876 the noble Duke did not object to what was then being done. His opinion was, that the true principle upon which they should act should be, where a person had saved money, that money should be applied to his maintenance if he required relief. He knew the clause in the Act of 1876 had greatly alarmed some of the friendly societies in the country, and if it were thought it had worked too harshly, let them agree to the Amendment which would restrict it to the wife and children. It was carrying the principle too far to say the money should go to other relations.
EARL GREYconsidered a very important principle was involved in the Bill. Formerly, great abuses existed in regard to the administration of the Poor Law, and the great rule laid down in the Act of 1834, and which was the principle to which Parliament had since adhered, was that destitution, and destitution alone, should entitle to relief. That great principle had worked a reform in the administration of the Poor Law which could hardly be estimated; but it seemed to him they were now going to make a step backward, and that they were about to allow these men connected with friendly societies to put their hands into the pockets of the ratepayers when they were not, strictly speaking, destitute. He maintained that was a principle involving so much danger that the House ought not to sanction it, because they did this in order to give exceptional advantages to one particular kind of investment on the part of working men. Upon what grounds could they say that because a man had invested his savings in a friendly society they were not to be touched in case he became destitute, but the cost was to come out of the pockets of the ratepayers? He was at a loss to discover any ground or principle upon which they could lay down one rule in regard to a Government annuity, and another with regard to a payment to a friendly society. Parliament ought certainly not to go out of its way to take a step directly at variance with the principle hitherto observed in regard to the Poor Law, in order to give an artificial and special stimulus to one particular mode which working men might adopt to provide for sickness. If his noble Friend had moved the rejection of the Bill he should have supported him; but as he 114 had not done so, he should certainly vote for the Amendment which he intended to move in Committee.
§ Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
§ Clause 1 (The provisions of s. 23 of the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, not to apply to moneys to which a pauper or pauper lunatic may be entitled as a member of friendly or benefit society).
§ EARL FORTESCUEmoved, in page 1, line 7, to leave out ("pauper or.") It had not occurred to him, in the observations he had already addressed to their Lordships, to exonerate himself from the charge of being one of those who were either indifferent or hostile to friendly societies. He had been President, for a great number of years, of a sound friendly society, one of the largest in the West of England, and he had bestowed much time and attention upon it. It was quite a mistake to suppose that, before the introduction of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1876, there were no means of getting at the sick pay of paupers, though the process was rather less easy.
§ THE EARL OF REDESDALEThe noble Earl can only speak to the Amendment which he has proposed. He cannot go into the general question again.
§ EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he would content himself with moving the Amendment that the words "pauper or" be omitted from the clause.
§ Amendment moved, to leave out ("pauper or.")—(The Earl Fortescue.)
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYstrongly objected to the omission of these words, and he thought the noble Earl ought equally to object to their being struck out; because the retention of the words "pauper lunatic" violated quite as much the principle to which the noble Earl adhered. All who were acquainted with the tremendous infliction which was caused to the poorer classes by lunacy, would, he thought, be willing to modify the application of the principles of political economy in order to afford some relief in a case where Providence had inflicted such a calamity. And, as regarded general 115 disease, they must recollect that it was not always due to the conduct of the great mass of the working classes. It was frequently brought about by the dwellings they were compelled to inhabit in the great manufacturing towns, and in the Metropolis. They had no choice but to dwell near their work; and he had seen, time after time, men in the prime of life come up to London, and be compelled to take their residences in some of the most infectious and detestable of places on earth; and he had known these men subsequently carried off by fever in four or five months. Typhoid fever, cholera, and other diseases, were rife in such places. Their Lordships should bear in mind that the section in question was no part of the Bill of 1876 introduced by Her Majesty's Government—it was moved in the other House by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Mellor), in a very thin House, one Wednesday, and it was carried; but the effect of it had been so pernicious upon the people themselves, that Mr. Mellor was now the man who came forward and moved the repeal of the section in this Bill. The societies said they were doing all they could to secure thrift and economy amongst the working classes; and they declared that the enactment of the Bill of 1876 had been a great injury to them during the last two years, and if Parliament threw any further impediments in the way of these societies they would altogether retard the progress of them. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) had said that this Bill would allow the members of friendly societies to put their hands into the pockets of the ratepayers; but, as a matter of economy, it should be remembered that the friendly societies stated that they were saving, by their contribution to the poor rates, no less than £2,000,000 a-year. Therefore, the poor rates would be much more burdensome were it not for the existence of these friendly societies. In more than one instance the Guardians had taken the money; and the wife and children, by being taken into the workhouse, had cost ten times as much as they would otherwise have done. He contended that thrift and economy would be best promoted by passing this Bill, and that the discretion of the Guardians should not be taken away from them as to deciding as to cases in which the law might be strictly administered or not.
§ On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?— Their Lordships divided:—Contents 45; Not Contents 44: Majority 1.
| CONTENTS. | |
| Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Chelmsford, L. |
| Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.) | |
| Richmond, D. | Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.) |
| Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.) | Colchester, L. |
| Crofton, L. | |
| Hertford, M. | de Ros, L. |
| Digby, L. | |
| Bantry, E. | Dunsany, L. |
| Bradford, E. | Elphinstone, L. |
| Clonmel, E. | Forbes, L. |
| Ellesmere, E. | Gage, L.(V. Gage.) |
| Lindsey, E. | Harlech, L. |
| Mount Edgecumbe, E. | Inchiquin, L. |
| Ravensworth, E. | Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.) |
| Romney, E. | |
| Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.] | Manners, L. |
| Wharncliffe, E. | Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.) |
| Wilton, E. | |
| Northwick, L. | |
| Cranbrook, V. | Norton, L. |
| Hardinge, V. | Penrhyn, L. |
| Hawarden, V. [Teller.] | Robartes, L. |
| Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.) |
| Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.) | |
| Bagot, L. | Skelmersdale, L. |
| Bloomfield, L. | Tollemache, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Bedford, D. | Sidmouth, V. |
| Devonshire, D. | |
| Grafton, D. | Aberdare, L. |
| Somerset, D. | Bolton, L. |
| Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) | |
| Amherst, E. | |
| Camperdown, E. | Carlingford, L. |
| Dartrey, E. | Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.) |
| De La Warr, E. | |
| Devon, E. | Clinton, L. |
| Fitzwilliam, E. | Cottesloe, L. |
| Fortescue, E. [Teller.] | Crewe, L. |
| Granville, E. | De Mauley, L. |
| Grey, E. | Foley, L. |
| Kimberley, E. | Gwydir, L. |
| Morley, E. | Hampton, L. |
| Nelson, E. | Hanmer, L. |
| Powis, E. | Heytesbury, L. |
| Redesdale, E. | Monck, L. (V. Monck.) |
| Stanhope, E. | Mostyn, L. |
| Stradbroke, E. | Seaton, L. |
| Sydney, E. | Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.) [Teller.] |
| Cardwell, V. | Truro, L. |
| Halifax, V. | Waveney, L. |
§ Resolved in the Negative.
§ EARL FORTESCUEnext proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "other relative," and insert "child or children under 16 years of age."
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that the objections he had already urged would also apply to this Amendment, which he must therefore ask their Lordships to reject.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ EARL FORTESCUEthen moved, in line 9, after ("any"), to insert ("registered").
§ On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
§ EARL FORTESCUEproposed, in line 15, to leave out from ("relative") to the end of the clause. He could not understand what could be the object of giving 31 days' notice that the relief given to a pauper having no relative was to be regarded as a loan. To say that such a person was a pauper, seemed to him to establish all the facts that were necessary. If there were any question as to what disease he was suffering from to incapacitate him from work, a certificate of the medical officer of the union seemed to him quite sufficient to establish that. This part of the clause would be inconvenient and most unfair in its operation. If a man had no very near relatives dependent upon him, his money ought, as soon as possible, to go to the relief of the ratepayers.
§ Amendment moved, to leave out from ("relative") to the end of the clause.— (The Earl Fortescue.)
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, the Local Government Board insisted upon the principle laid down. The object was that the Guardians, or their relieving officer, should give notice to the secretary or trustees of the society within 31 days, and no claim could otherwise be made upon them for the expenses incurred in the man's relief.
§ EARL FORTESCUEasked why such notice should be necessary? An official declaration that such a person was destitute and sought relief ought to be sufficient.
§ On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
THE EARL OF MORLEYgave Notice, that on the Order for the third reading of the Bill, he should move that it be read a third time that day three months.