§ Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment to reject the Bill, and he put that Motion on the Paper on two grounds. In the first place, it appeared to him desirable that the House should have another opportunity of expressing an opinion on the measure, especially considering the small majority by which the Amendments of his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) were rejected the other day. In the second place, the arguments which were brought forward in favour of those Amendments were never answered, though they went to the very principle, as well as to the details of the Bill. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) begged the question entirely when he said his great wish was to encourage friendly societies. They all wished to encourage them, and such a remark had the sympathy of every one in their Lordships' House. But that was not the question, and to make such a general observation was no answer to the arguments which had been put forward in favour of the Amendments. The Bill, as it stood, was entirely opposed to the principles which had, up to the present time, regulated the distribution of poor relief; and no answer had been given to the apprehensions which had been expressed that the results which would follow the adoption of the Bill would be very dangerous. 301 It had been said that although the stricter principles of the Poor Law were applicable 30 or 40 years ago, yet it was desirable that a milder system should now be introduced. For his own part, he ventured to think their Lordships would view the admission of the principle of this Bill as a dangerous proposal. The Poor Law undertook to maintain at the public expense every man who was destitute, and had no property of his own, and that was the fundamental principle of their system of Poor Law relief. But this Bill made a distinction when a man became a pauper between the savings which he might have invested in a friendly society and the money he had placed elsewhere. Now, he should like to know—because he had not yet heard either from the noble Duke, or the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill—what were the grounds upon which this distinction was defended. If an individual had invested money in an ordinary insurance company or any savings bank, when he became a pauper the money was an available asset; and on what grounds were they to distinguish between the money invested in those institutions and money which had been invested in a friendly society? To his mind, both cases stood on precisely the same footing; and if they once admitted the principle that the whole property of a man was not liable when he became a pauper, then, in his opinion, they were entering upon a dangerous and an unsound principle. He at once admitted that in the administration of the Poor Law large discretion must be left in the hands of the Guardians. At the same time he hoped their Lordships would not, without careful and due consideration, abandon a principle which had been the foundation of the present law, and for which, if once abandoned, it would be very difficult to substitute a better principle. While saying this, he was also bound to admit that from both sides of the House he had received requests not to press his Motion for the rejection of the Bill to a division. He was in the hands of the House as to what he should do, though he begged to say that it would apparently be consulting the wishes of many noble Lords if he withdrew his Amendment, and enabled the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) to proceed with the alterations he pro 302 posed to make in the provisions of the Bill.
EARL NELSON, as one of those who voted in favour of the Amendment of the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) the other night, was glad to hear the determination of the noble Earl not to press his Motion for the entire rejection of the Bill to a division, but to give their Lordships another opportunity of expressing an opinion with regard to that Amendment. The object of the Amendment moved the other night was to limit the effect of the Bill to the case of pauper lunatics, which was a very different matter to the case of ordinary paupers. When a man went into a lunatic asylum the charges were very heavy, and they would soon absorb the whole of his savings, which would not be the case if he was simply a pauper receiving ordinary poor relief. In the case of a lunatic asylum, he believed that sometimes as much as 9s. and 10s. a-week was charged; and this would, therefore, soon take up what savings the man might have made.
§ THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, he did not think the Amendments which were proposed really met the case; and, at all events, he did not see they had any assurance that those Amendments would be carried, if they allowed the Bill to proceed. He, therefore, suggested that they should not allow it to be read a third time, but that they should recommit the Bill for the purpose of inserting the Amendments. One provision in the Bill he strongly objected to, and that was the proposal that the decision as to those who were to receive relief was to be loft, not with the Guardians, but to the friendly societies. The Bill was one which, if it was to be dealt with at all, ought to be dealt with thoroughly and carefully; and he thought that, in the circumstances, instead of attempting to amend the measure on the third reading, the wiser course would be simply to re-commit the Bill.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, the course proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale) was not a wise one, and that he could not agree to it. In fact, it was the very course which, in his opinion, ought not to be taken. If the Bill was really so bad a measure as his noble Friend appeared to think it, what would be the use of re-committing it at all? A great deal 303 had been said about the alleged departure from the principle of the Poor Law which was involved in the Bill; but, if the proposal made last Monday by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Fortescue) were adopted by the House, the officers of friendly societies would not be able to hand over the savings of pauper lunatics to their wives and families, who would then, of necessity, have to be taken into the workhouse; and in that way a much larger charge would be thrown upon the rates. The present law, which the Bill now under discussion sought to remedy, was the result of an alteration made two years ago in the then existing Statute. From the reign of Queen Elizabeth, down to 1876, if a man was a subscriber to friendly societies, and became an inmate of a lunatic asylum, there were no means whatever of getting at the savings which he contributed to those bodies. The societies would not pay his money to anyone while the man himself remained a lunatic; but, when he was restored to health and left the asylum, his savings were handed over to him. This state of matters was altered in 1876; but the alteration had been found to work so prejudicially upon friendly societies, and through those societies upon the working classes, that it had been considered necessary to introduce the present Bill.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he regarded the measure before their Lordships as one which struck at the very root of a proper administration of the Poor Laws. The argument which had just been used in support of the Bill by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), appeared to him to be most unsound. Everyone concerned in the administration of the Poor Law knew that it was the commonest thing in the world to hear it said—"Oh! if this or that poor man gets half-a-crown or two shillings a-week, joined to the little which he himself earns, he will not go to the workhouse; and the result will be that we shall not have to pay so much in rates." Anything more unsound than that he could scarcely imagine; but it was the same principle, though not in so aggravated a form, which the noble Duke advocated—the principle of making outdoor relief supplement weekly earnings, and of looking to some machinery which would, if possible, keep people off the 304 rates. The true principle, however, which was involved, and which alone should be acted upon, in the administration of the Poor Laws, was that relief should be given in those cases, and in those cases only, where men were destitute.
LORD FORBESthought that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury), instead of taking up their Lordships' time with any mere motion of philanthropy or sentiment, had brought the matter to an issue on the ground of political economy. Though it might appear, on the first blush of the matter, that the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) and his supporters were the advocates of a proper administration of the Poor Law, he believed that what they proposed would tend to increase, and not to diminish, pauperism, and to add to the rates instead of relieving existing burdens.
§ EARL STANHOPEsaid, there were hundreds of clubs and friendly societies which were not only of a very questionable character, but which were utterly unsound; and no real service would be done to the working classes by passing any law which would bolster up those establishments.
§ EARL FORTESCUEhoped that his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley), who had given Notice to move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months, would substitute for that proposal the admirable course suggested by the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale). He quite agreed with the latter noble Earl that, if their Lordships passed the third reading of the Bill without re-committing it, they would be in great danger of having the measure placed upon the Statute Book in such a shape that it would conflict with every principle upon which Poor Law Administration was founded. He had been charged with inconsistency, because he had shown himself ready to assent to the principle of the Bill, so far as pauper lunatics were concerned; but it was only fair to remember that, in some previous observations upon the subject, he admitted that the case of such lunatics rested upon somewhat different grounds from that of others whom the measure would affect. There was precedent, moreover, for making an exception in favour of pauper lunatics; for, under the law as it stood, the jus 305 tices were empowered to recognize the claims of the wives and children of such lunatics as a first charge upon the income and property of the latter. The justices might make an order for the maintenance of a pauper lunatic, to be paid out of any property or income which he might have in addition to what was required for the support of his wife and children. There was practical reason and expediency in the power which the justices thus possessed. Great additional depression might affect the mind of a pauper lunatic if he thought that his wife and family would have to go to the workhouse as one of the consequences of his affliction; and, in that way, the chances of his recovery might be seriously diminished. Instead, therefore, of proposing the rejection of the Bill—which, he admitted, strict logical consistency would have called upon him to do—he had simply proposed last Monday night that the operation of the measure should be limited to pauper lunatics. With reference to what had fallen from the Lord President of the Council (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), it appeared to him that the noble Duke was distinctly reversing the policy the Local Government Board had recently recommended in their admirable Circular showing the advantage resulting from a more restricted administration of out-door relief, and had strangely forgotten the principles upon which he acted—or upon which he hoped and presumed he acted—while at the head of the Poor Law Board; but he now seemed to favour bounties on one particular kind of thrift in the case of all paupers. He ventured to say that he and many noble Lords on the same side of the House were quite as alive to the value of friendly societies as the noble Duke was; but he protested against the principle of bounties. Those societies ought to be allowed to stand on their own merits; and he did not believe they would be injured in the least if the Bill were not to pass. If his noble Friend (the Earl of Redesdale) did not put the suggestion he had made into the form of a Motion, he would himself move that the Bill be re-committed.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the noble Earl who had just spoken.
LORD DUNSANYsaid, the noble Earl the ex-Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) had spoken of the Bill as being objectionable, because it seemed to him to be reverting to the old fallacy of out-door relief; but he begged to call the attention of their Lordships to the important fact that, in a great many of the Unions of the Metropolis, out-door relief was now entirely abandoned. With what object had it been given up? It had been given up with the view of promoting greater providence among the working classes; and he could not approve of or support anything which would tend to interfere with the development of that providence. He thought it would be unwise in their Lordships not to pass, as it was, the Bill which they were now considering. The savings in friendly societies relieved the rates by preventing persons from coming on the Union; and, in many cases, it was the influence of the wife which induced the husband to make deposits in those societies. If, when the breadwinner was laid aside, the little provision which had been thus made through the friendly societies was to be carried off by the Poor Law Guardians—and taken when most required—a very heavy blow would be struck at that thrift and care on the part of the working classes which he desired to see encouraged. The cultivation of provident habits among those classes would ultimately do far more to reduce the poor rates than anything else. Indeed, it was in such a direction, and by such means, that many in London looked forward to an almost total extinction of those rates as possible; and in this view of the matter, the question was an eminently practical and important one. As to the point of principle, it seemed to him that there was but little to be said. It had been stated that, unless a man were destitute, his claim to relief was invalid; but those who made this statement did not at present act fully up to their own contention. In nine cases out of ten working men subscribed to burial funds, and, in his opinion, that was often a great waste of money; but, if the point of principle was to be rigidly enforced, there were circumstances under which it would be argued that the money so contributed should also be confiscated, for such money was as much a part of the assets of a poor man as anything else.
EARL GREYsaid, that considering the very small majority—a majority of 1 only—by which the proposal of his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) was defeated on Monday night, he considered that the House should have another opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon the question. He thought the Bill should now be read a third time; and, that having boon done, his noble Friend could then move his Amendment. He did not think it would be desirable to throw the measure back a stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he desired to point out that, while it was perfectly competent to move that the Bill be re-committed, it would not be competent, supposing that last proposal should be carried, for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the measure the same night.
§ EARL FORTESCUEsaid that, after what the noble and learned Lord had just stated, he would not press his Motion.
§ Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly.
§ EARL FORTESCUE moved, Clause 1, page 1, line 7, to leave out the words ("pauper or"). The effect of the omission would be to restrict the operation of the Bill to the case of pauper lunatics.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he must oppose the Amendment, which he still regarded as inconsistent. The part of the clause retained by the noble Earl, was as much a violation of principle as the part struck out. The noble Earl by whom the discussion was opened on this occasion (the Earl of Morley) did not appear to see the distinction between investments in friendly societies and investments of other kinds. It might be that legally there was none; but morally there was a wide distinction. In a large number of instances, the wives were the persons who subscribed the money to those societies. He did not deny that, to allow the wives and relatives of paupers to claim their savings was a departure, in some respects, from the strict principle of the Act of 1834; but a great complaint made against the working classes of this country was that they were wanting in habits of economy, and the great object of the Bill was to give them encouragement in the pursuit of thrift. Those of them, how 308 ever, who invested savings in friendly societies were not open to the charge of waste; and he considered it unadvisable to seize on such savings when the contributors might be suffering from a visitation for which they might in no way themselves be accountable. The present measure was brought forward in consequence of the clause which was forced on the Government Bill of 1876. The alteration which was made in that year, and the nature of which had been already sufficiently indicated, had produced such a pernicious result in regard to friendly societies, and those who contributed to them, that they now prayed, as the large number of Petitions which had been presented on the subject showed, to be relieved from the great discouragement under which they were labouring. They did not ask or expect any relief in respect of money which might have come to them by gift or inheritance; but they did ask for relief in respect of moneys which they had subscribed from their own savings to friendly or to benefit societies. This was all they required; but they declared, at the same time, that if power were given to the Poor Law Guardians to come, in a time of difficulty and distress, and lay hold upon the money which they had so contributed, any effective progress on the part of friendly societies would be altogether impeded. These friendly societies did not ask for any general power; they only asked that they might deal with these funds in cases where there was a wife or relative dependent upon the man. It was not correct to say that all discretion would be taken from the Boards of Guardians, because they would still have the power of saying, if it was an undeserving case, that the man should have no relief whatever, and in that case he must resort to the money which was in the hands of the friendly society. As he had said before, he was not going to deny that allowing the wives and relatives to claim these savings, and yet receive relief, was in some respects a departure from the strict principles of the Poor Law, as laid down in 1834; but the great complaint against the poorer people of this country was that they were wanting in habits of economy. Those of them, however, who invested savings in friendly societies were not open to that charge, and the Legislature 309 ought to give every assistance it could to these societies in enabling the best use to be made of the money when misfortune came upon the man. It had been stated that the operation of the friendly societies saved the poor rates £2,000,000 a-year. To seize the payments due from the friendly and benefit societies, and then take, as the Guardians must do, the wives and children into the workhouse, would cost the Union perhaps ton times as much as if they had left the society's payments alone, and had given but partial relief.
§ LORD HAMPTONsaid, it was with extreme regret that he found himself constrained to oppose any measure promoted by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), because they must all admit the excellency of the motives by which the noble Earl was always animated. At the same time, he was rather surprised to find the noble Earl an advocate of this Bill, because he should have thought that he would have been the first to admit, what nobody could doubt, that the measure which had tended more than another to benefit the labouring classes was the Poor Law Act; and he could not regard this Bill in any other light than as a most serious and dangerous invasion of that law. He was not now, but he once was, Chairman of a Board of Guardians; and he appealed to many of their Lordships to say whether he was not right in stating, that amongst those who were called upon to contribute payment to the rates, there were very many who were themselves on the verge of pauperism, and with regard to whom a great hardship was inflicted by calling upon them to so contribute. They could only justify the call on the ground of extreme necessity. It was true it was said that under this Bill there would be an equivalent in the shape of out-door relief, and that the members of these benefit societies would live upon the money they received, instead of placing themselves on the poor rates; but, in regard to that point, he was very much struck by the argument of his noble Friend a few minutes ago, that all these societies were not of the most perfectly sound character. On these grounds he should feel compelled, although it was with regret that he arrived at the determination, to vote against it, because he believed if it passed it would be a serious invasion 310 of the principle of the existing Poor Law.
§ On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?"—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 71; Non-Contents 52: Majority 19.
§ The words ("pauper or") struck out.
§ EARL FORTESCUE moved to leave out ("other relative"), and insert ("child or children under sixteen years of age, or father or mother.") "Relative" was a word of formidably wide application. He had known various persons with more than 100 cousins.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYobjected to the age of 16 years being mentioned.
§ EARL FORTESCUEconsented to omit 16 years, and the words ("child or children, or father or mother") were inserted.
§ EARL FORTESCUE moved to leave out from ("relative") to the end of the clause.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYpointed out that this clause had received the sanction of the Poor Law Board.
§ THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, the Board could not know what it was doing when it gave its sanction to such a Bill.
§ Amendment agreed to; words struck out; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.