The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-25 00:00:00

LONDON,

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading lO5
Against it
Majority —7o
The Bill was then read a third time.
Mr. SPOONER, then moved the following clauses:—
Clause 19. Provided always, and be it declared and
enacted, that no rule, order, or regulation of the Poor-
law Commissioners heretofore made, or hereafter to be
made, prohibiting the granting of relief to any able-
bodied person, except within the workhouse or union,
shall remain or continue in force or effect from and after
the passing of this Act. Clause 20. And be it declared
and enacted, that it shall not be lawful for the
commissioners appointed under this Act to make or issue
any rule, order, or regulation, prohibiting the granting
of relief to any able-bodied person requiring the same,
except eithiu the workhouses of the union. Clause 21.
And be it declared and enacted, That from and after the
passing of this Act, it shall be lawful for every board of
guardians of the poor, and they are hereby respectively
empowered and required, to set to work, out of the
workhouse of the union, all such able-bodied persons as
shall lawfully require relief from any parish within such
union; and to grant such relief as to the said guardians
of the poor shall seem fit, out of the workhouse of the
union, to all such able-bodied persons so set to work as
aforesaid. There was no one who had a nractical
knowledge of the pauper system, but would say that their
prisons were conducted on a far more liberal system, in
point of food, clothing, and education than their work-
houses. lie would not detain the House at any greater
length, bur, he must say that he objected to the labour
test, as it was at present carried out, but more parti-
cularly so, as they were now arrived at the last week
not of a session, but of a Parliament. The question
was deserving of a much fuller consideration than they
were now able to give it. The country had frequently
spoken upon this subject, but their voices had not been
heard in that House. He trusted, however, that the
House would now do the people tardy justice.—(Hear.)
Sir GEORGE GREY said, if the clause of the Hon.
Gentleman were adopted, it would be tantamount to a
repeal of the existieg poor-law ; and as it did not
directly relate to the administration of the law, he could
not consent to its introduction into the Bill. The Hon.
Gentleman seemed to think that the workhouse test was
introduced for the first time by the Act of 1833 ; but he
begged to remind the Hon. Gentleman, that so far back
as 1772, the principle was in operation in the country,
and sanctioned by a Legislative enactment. If the Hon.
Gentleman's clause were adopted, he was afraid it might
have the effect of inducing the labourer to rely more
upon support from the poor-rates than his own exertions,
and that was another reason why be called upon the
House not to agree to it. The Hon. Gentleman, in his
warmth, spoke as if the order of the Poor-law ommis-
sioners 83 to the workhouse test, applied to the poor
generally ; but he could assure the Hon. Gentleman
and the House that it only applied to the able-bodied
pear, and not to the aged and infirm. Under these cir-
cumstances, he trusted the House would not think it
necessary to pass the Hon. Gentleman's clause.—(Hear.)
Mr. BANKES said the present rule of the Poor-law
Commission did not apply only to able-bodied persons,
though the order to be established by the future Com-
missions might ; but the House would bear in mind
that a long interval might elapse before the provisions
of this Bill were carried into effect.
Mr. B. FERRAND said he could state from his
own knowledge that in the vast majority of the
workhouses of this country the test was applied to the
aged and infirm poor as well as to the able-bodied, but
if the rule did not apply to the aged and infirm why
not introduce a clause into the Bill that should remove
all doubt upon the matter?—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman the Member for Bath had
thrown out some insinuations against him, and he called
upon the lion. and Learned Gentleman if he had any
regard for his own character to speak out boldly and
tell the House what he meant, because he (Mr.
Ferrand) denied that there was any foundation
for the inuendos of the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman. The House would remember that, on a for-
mer occasion, the Hon. and Learned Member sought
for the protection of that House ; and ever since then
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had been making
these attacks with impunity, under the protection of
the House.— (Hear, hear.) He was prepared to give li
the name of the medical officer he had mentioned to the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the
Home Department. When that medical officer gave
him information, as to the cruelty and oppression of
the poor-law, he told him that the cost of the drugs he
had to provide for the poor exceeded the salary allowed
him under the rules of the Poor law Commissioners.
—(Hear, hear.) With regard also to the statement
he made as to a woman being starved to death, he was
prepared to give the name of the Coroner to the Right
Hon. Gentleman, and to render him every assistance, if
he were desirous of seeking further information upon the
subject.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Sir C. BURRELL,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER appealed
to those who had acted as guardians to bear him out that
the statement of the Hon. Member for Knaresborough,
that aged persons were forced into workhouses, was un-
founded.—(Hear.) He had acted as a guardian of the
poor for several years—in fact since the law came into
operation, and except under very special circumstances
no person above sixty years of age had, in the union
with which he was connected, been sent into the work-
house against his will. He had, it was true, ordered
persons above sixty to be taken into the workhouse ;
but the special circumstances of each case warranted
him in doing so ; for instance, in order that they might
obtain better care and attendance than they could out of
the workhouse.
Capt. PECHELL reminded the Right Hon. Baronet
that the report of the Committee on the Andover
Union stated that it was the custom in that union to
make persons seeking relief perform a certain quantity
of labour before they acceded to their request—whether
in the shape of money or food—and that Committee
was of opinion that such a system ought to be abolished,
as it inflicted the utmost hardship upon the poor,
and besides was an objectionable mode of
applying the test. An instance occurred of a man com-
ing a distance of ten miles to seek relief, but he was not
allowed to carry food home to his family until he had
performed a certain quantity of work which had been
assigned to him. He was sure this never was the inten-
tion of the law.
Mr. WAKLEY repeated that old persons were
forced in ;o the workhouses against their will, and that
they were refused relief except in the house. Under the
27th clause of the Poor-law Act, infirm persons incapable
of working who objected to enter the house, were to be
maintained out of it; but in the face of this, old persons
were refused relief except within the walls of the work-
house. He would relate an instance: an old man, wholly
incapable of working for his living, applied to the
guardians of his pariah for relief; ho was, however, re-
fused, unless he consented to come into the House.
He went before the magistrate, and Mr. Waddington,
the surgeon, afforded him temporary relief. He received
out-door relief from his parish for a week, but at the
expiration of that period, they refused to continue it.
He returned to the magistrate, who told him that they
could not furnish him with any more relief, and that his
remedy was by action against the guardians. This was
one of the cases, which, as soon as her Majesty Govern-
ment became Poor-law Commissioners he intended to
bring before the House.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER said he should support the
amemdment. He said there were instances in which
out-door relief was given to persons who were neither
disabled nor infirm, and who were moreover under the
age of sixty. This showed that one general unvarying
rule could not be applied to all parts of the country,
and that the Poor-law Commissioners and the boards of
guardians should be invested with discretionary power.
—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the Government would take
the whole subject into their serious consideration,
and in the next session remodel the law as he had
pointed out.
Mr. ETWALL said aged persons had been forced
into the Andover workhouse in opposition to the law.
Mr. SPOONER, explained.
The gallery was then cleared, and the House divided,
when there appeared—
For the clauses .
Against them ....

37
109

Majority against the clauses... 72
Lord G. BENTINCK moved that the House de now
adjourn.
Lord JOAN RUSSELL thought that was most un-
usual. They were near the end of a Bill, which the
House had agreed to read a third time this night. But
there were some amendments to be considered, which
would not take long, arid he thought it was most unusual
in the Noble Lord to move, before twelve o'clock, that
the House do now adjourn.
Mr. BANKES reminded the House they were to meet
to-morrow at twelve o'clock.
After a few words from Mr. Henley, Sir G. Grey, and
Mr. Ferrand,
Captain EGERTON said he thought it would be very
unfair to adopt the course recommended by the Noble
Lord, as it would interrupt public business.
Colonel SIBTHORP thought this a very unreasonable
motion.
Lord G. BENTINCK having stated that he would
withdraw his motion.
Mr. BORTHWICK then moved the following clause:
Provided always, and be it exacted, that when any
two persons, being husband and wife, both of whom shall
be above the age of sixty years, shall be received into
any workhouse, in pursuance of the provisions of the
said recited Act or of this Act, or of any rule, order,
or regulation, of the commissioners appointed by au-
thority of this Act, such two persons shall not be com-
peller to live separate and apart from each other in
such workhouse.
Sir G. GREY thought the clause would be produc-
tive of very great inconvenience, and he could not
accede to it.
Mr. ROEBUCK entreated the Right Hon. Gentle-
man to give way. He was sure that two old persons
who had passed their whole lives together felt the sepa-
ration as most painful.
Sir G. GREY explained that the whole objection
arose from the inconvenience in the case of the House
being full.
Mr. FERRAND and Mr. HUME hoped the clause
might be passed.
Mr. B. DENISON hoped the clause would not pass,
as it would give the paupers those advantages which they
were not entitled to. Thcy must have a right thereby
to claim a room by day and by night for themselves.
Mr. BROTHERTON recollected that when he was
an overseer several years ago, he saw an old couple very
needy, whom he asked into the house. Why, said the
old man, my old woman and I have lived together these
forty years, and if we were separated now, it would
break our hearts. He (Mr. Brotherton) thought the
clause ought to pass.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK was surprised to see
, his Hon. Friend who was returned for the West Riding
of Yorkshire upon an Anti-Poor.law cry, resisting a
proposition for mitigating the severity of the poor-law.

FRIDAY_EYRNING, JUNE 25, 1847.