The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-21 00:00:00

FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 21, 1847.

stances under which they had acted. From the experi-
ence we have had of the proceedings of those gentlemen,
I cannot allow the resolution of the Committee to take
away my confidence in them. Having general faith in
their character, abilities, and integrity, I cannot suppose
that they have acted in the affairs of this union without
due consideration.—(Hear, hear.) Meanwhile, with
regard to the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners, I
think that what has fallen from the Hon. Baronet the
Member for Radnorshire is extremely true. I do
not think the House of Parliament would
give to the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners a
freehold of these offices, and remove them from all con-
trol of the head commissioners. With the ordinary
officers of the Government departments, absolute power
was given, though it was seldom used, to the heads of
the several departments to effect any removal they might
deem necessary. If a clerk under me was incompetent,
and if his retention was not for the benefit of the public,
I should feel it my duty to remove him; and I cannot
conceive that the different offices can be satisfactorily
filled unless such powers are placed in the hands of the
different departments. It is said that the Andover
Committee intimated that there was no ground for
the removal of Mr. Day or Mr. Parker; so that I
must say, I cannot say that such a Committee had any
such experience of the conduct or proceedings of the
gentlemen in question as to give a just and correct opi-
nion.—(Hear.) But it is further stated that Mr. Chad-
wick has said that there was a division between him and
the whole of the Poor-law Commissioners, because they
were desirous of correcting abuses, and would not en-
courage and promote any Assistant Commissioners who
brought any errors or mal-practices before them. But
let us look for the proof of this. When I do so, I find
them meagre in the extreme. Mr. Parker says that he
complained of the state of the workhouse accounts in
1843, and had done so on several occasions since. To
this it was mentioned to him; at the time he first named
it, that a Bill was about to be iutroduced on the sub ect,
and that he had better refrain from doing any thing till
he saw the result. The Bill was given up at the end of
that session, and again introduced the session fol-
lowing. And because this has been so,
it is stated by Mr. Parker that the Poor-
law Commissioners had set their faces against him.
flow, on anything so meagre could they make a founda-
tion for such a charge?—(Hear, hear.) But I must say,
if this were so, if the Poor-law Commissioners had set
their faces against correcting abuses, it was not fair for
the secretary, or an assistant-commissioner, like Mr.
Parker, to go on countenancing such a state of things.
They ought either to have resigned at once, or to have
complained to the Secretary of State, instead of con-
tinuing to act under commissioners who were not dcing
their duty.—(Hear, hear.) 1 think it was a great dere-
liction in them not to have brought the question under
the notice of the Secretary of State, if they thought
the head commissioners were incapable to the task.
There is no department, be it what it may, that will be
able to stand if those who are appointed,to administer it,
instead of acting under the direction of their superiors
are continually making their complaints—(Hear, hear)—
and instead of performing the orders of their superiors,
are undermining, and contriving,—(Hear, hear)—and
plotting against those commissioners who are placed
over them. No department can, under such a state of
things, be expected to act efficiently and beneficial to
the interest of the public.—(hear, hear.) It is
that kind of House, which we know, upon the
highest authority, will not be able to stand. I
think that while these charges is made, and made very
loudly, there has not been any sufficient proof of it, and,
therefore. the Poor-law Commissioners are, in my mind,
acquitted of this, the only grave charge brought
against them—that with respect to the making of
the law, their ideas of it may have been
different from that of the Secretary, they may have con-
ducted their business in a way which some gentlemen
may think—and which all Secretaries of State thought—
in conformity with the law ; while there was no doubt
that with respect to certain individual cases, such, for
instance, as the case of the Andover Union, they com-
mitted faults of a want of discretion—that several of
their decisions with respect to the Andover Union were
not guided by sound judgment—that with respect to
some other particular cases they may have failed in
hitting the regular rule, and that their conduct was not
altogether such as might be considered the wisest. All
these I consider however as very minor charges ; I con-
sider them as very inferior in importance, in considera-
tion of the duties which I have shown were so difficult,
and which excited so much odium ; and they are such
as I think they should not be arraigned upon.—(Hear,
hear.) I am told that, with respect to the working of
the law, that although there may have been complaints in
particular instances, yet that the general working of the
law has been more satisfactory during the last two years,
and during the present year, and I can answer for it
more especially since my Hon. Friend has been the Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department. I can say
that, considering the number of the unions, amounting
to 590, the complaints have been remarkably few; and
the guardians in general say that they are satisfied with
having to receive the orders of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners, and that they would rather have some rule to
guide them, than be left to act entirely according to
their own discretion in the administration of the law.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member who opposed the
second reading of this Bill, and who moved that it should
be read a second time that day six months, made various
accusations both against the law and against the com-
missioners; they were, however, accusations so extrava-
gant, going so far beyond anything that he could prove,
so completely resting upon assertion, that I do not feel it
necessary to give a reply to those accusations.—(Hear,
hear.) I have taken notice of what I think
is a serious charge, viz., that of endeavouring
to suppress inquiry; with respect to these other matters
such as convey ing paupers to Manchester, and exposing
them to misery and starvation,—sach charges as those,
they are so little founded, that I really do not think it
necessary to enter into them.—(Cheers.) We some now
to that which is the third question under discussion,
though, properly speaking, the only question for dis-
costhu es spine
s tehnit Be vi
lel gs
z s wt
to cdt ehscerryteh se 0 planfar
tphreo
saons ec pdt
oi
nn
of the House as to allow this Bill to be read a second
rethheeratrhere should be any central control—
)--and here we must first ask the
idlwrieweahhave any central control at all, should we
Commissioners to expose and leave
asizitihlumliuesfl the Poor- law
the law to be administered by the unions and the board
of guardians, and in those unions leave each board of
guardians to exercise its own discretion as to the mode
of administering
Poor-law Amendment of 1830. The result of the dis-
h')
ioeohr ,
seemingly and i likewise tie Poor-law of Elizabeth and the
dis-
cussions in this House, shows that there should
be some central control. I think such a
system desirable, both in order to prevent
occurrencethe
tthepreventto
o thethe
poor is most injurious to the independent labourer of
Veis country. I feel convinced that in many instances
the boards of guardians might administer the law in a
manner which might be called more harsh and strict
w ifsacvotuorab le
than they would if they were amenable to some central
body, and that central body one that had to answer for
their conduct before this House. Now, suppose with
respect to the Andover union, or any other union —sup-
pose some gentlemen had discovered that there were
great abuses in the Andover union, this House might
probably appoint a Committee to inquire into the abuses
of that union, you might find in the course of the in-
quiry that the master of the workhouse had misused his
power, and had acted in a manner totally at variance
with the trust reposed in him, and the report of the
Committee would no doubt be that such workhouse
master! should be dismissed, and that the poor-
law guardians had acted very negligently in not
dismissing him before.—(Hear, hear.) There might
be perhaps three or four of such cases in the course of
the year, but I think there would be very few persons
disposed to give their time to such Committees, in which
I do not know how many thousand questions were to be
asked—we were told to-night by an Hon. Member how
many it was—and sit for 60 days for the purpose of in-
terrogating these matters, and perhaps in the next year
have five or six similar cases to inquire into, and re-
commence an inquiry of the same length and end with a
similar result. Those are not objects that would induce
Hon. Members to devote their time, unless there were a
whole system involved, and some general system in
question. We should not find that Committees of this
House would enter into the details of the management of
every union, and declare its opinion of the competency
or incompetency of each board of guardians
who were at the end of the year to go out
of office, and when some other persons should
be elected to fill up their places as guardians,
to that particular union. The House must be con-
vinced that such a system would not be any security to
persons suffering hardships under the operation of the
poor-law. Would it prevent abuses? I feel convinced
that it would not. In some parts I feel convinced the
law would be administered with greater security and
harshness, in others "allowance system" would spring
up again—(Hear, hear)—in lieu of wages. That system
would be disguised by every sort of excuses when there
was no assistant commissioners or inspectors over those
unions. These abuses would gain renewed strength,
find
and in a few years we should ndourselves in a no better
position than in the year 1830 when
that system of
i
indulgence and liberality ended u rural insurrection,
and setting fire to farm houses during those times and
in those administrations which are now appealed to as
the good old systems.--(Cheers.) I come then to
this conclusion—that there should be some central
control, and that is the conclusion in which
I have heard Hon. Members in this House, who aro
adverse to the Poor-laws, and still more so to the Poor-
law Commissioners, concur. Well, then, what should be
the kind of control ? The Hon. Member for Radnorshire
said that he remembered when Lord Althorp brought
'nig that he thoueht it
in the Bill, his say in!} desirable to i
re-
move the Poor-law Commkts
them
ers from all party or po-
lical connexion, and ma h a body separate, as
it were, from the influence of party and politics. I be
here I knew what induced him to take that view; I
know, from communications which I have had with him,
that his original intention was to propose that the Se-
cretary of State should form a part of the Poor-law
Commission, and that he should have the superintend-
ence.
And along with the other commissioners should
Poor-laws. I
have the direction of the stated my views
Lord '
on the subject to Althorp and I succeeded
in persuading Lord Althorp to abandon any plan placing
the Secretary of State in the Commission. I had hoped
that the removal from party struggle, that the choice,
of the Poor-law Commissioners, solely
with a reference to their fitness and adapta-
tion for the office, and without any regard to their
party and political attachments or their political
party, -would, I had hoped, have prevented the
administration of the poor-law being brought, as
an exciting topic of debate before this House.
But, in that respect, I own I have been disappointed.
The acts of the Poor-law Commissioners have been
brought into that House ; the Secretary of State for the
Home Department has been obliged to defend them ;
and if the House had not supported him in that
defence, but disapproved all that he had supported

and approved—if they had condemned all that he thought
worthy of praise, it is obvious he would have been as
much committed as if he had been himself the real of-
fender. The fact, however, has indeed been that in every
instance, whatever Government has been in power this
House has supported generally the defence which the Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department has made
in reply to motions implying censure on the Poor-law
Commissioners. Therefore, you have not had a total
removal from the affairs of Government, or from the
Ministerial interest., that connexion with the Poor-law
Commissioners which was originally snpposed to be ne-
cessary. We have had certainly freedom from party
squabbles, but from the year 1834 to 1847, with
some few exceptions, with the leaders of party in this or
the other House of Parliament, the Poor-law has not
been made a political question out of doors. But the
question then arises whether, as it has been necessary
for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to
become aware of all that the Poor-law Commissioners had
to do, is it not better that the person who has
guided that machinery, who has directed and dictated
its decision, should not be a member of this or the other
House of Parliament, and should be here ready to de-
fend his own acts and conduct, instead of leaving them
to the defence of an imperfect explanation. I admit that
in so doing you do connect the poor-law more directly, and
I will not deny that evils may not arise in that particular.
But let us see where we have arrived ; we have arrived
at the point that there shall be some kind of central con-
trol, and we have arrived at the point that experi-
ence has shown that no control vested in persons
debarred from being Members of this House, is a con-
trol which does not prevent the Government of the day
from being in a great degree responsible for its actions,
but does prevent full inquiry and discussion in this
House, which it is so desirable should be gone into. For
these reasons we are about to try that which we now
propose. You see I have stated two plans, the one re-
quiring a defence on the part of the Secretary
of State for the Home Department, and the
other a direct representative of the Poor-law
Commissioners in this House, and in principle
the two plans are identical. They are both connected
with the poor-law administration and with Government
—both liable to all the objections of being calculated to
excite party opposition, and, by that means, get party
and Government support to that which Members: of this
House might otherwise see reason to object to.—(Hear,
hear.) I confess, however, that, notwithstanding these
points—being persuaded that you must make some cen-
tral control—being persuaded that the system upon
which we have gone since 1834 has been greatly and
seriously defective, and that defect has been injusious
both to the Government and Poor-law Commis-
sioners—that the Government have suffered from that
which they did not originate—that the Poor-law
Commissioners have suffered for acts of which the whole
history was not gone into by this House ; seeing such
has been the case there remains no alternative but to
connect the poor-law administration with a department
of the Government. I come then to the further ques-
tion, whether we ought to connect it with an existing
department ? I own I think the Secretary of State for
the Home Department has, with the powers of Secretary
of State, the various businesses that have been imposed
upon him by Acts passed within the last few years—the
attention he must give to all the other business of the
Cabinet, both foreign and domestic—the attention he
must give to all the business of this House—he has suffi-
cient, if not more than sufficient, to absorb the whole of
his time and attention without connecting him specially
and solely with the administration of the Poor-law. If
that be the case, we must have another secretary, or
another board. I confess I have no great reverence for
one plan or the other, but I do not think the plan we
have proposed, if liable to the objections that were
stated against it by the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire,
in the course of this evening. He said there will be
Members of the Cabinet, who will not be able to pay
all the attention to the business that is required, in
order tolform proper opinions upon points connected with
the poor-law ; but still being members of the board,
they would feel themselves bound to defend particular
decisions. I do not think the plan is open to
that objection. It is in fact only adopting the
plan used, with regard to other departments of
the Government. It is in some instances found
inefficient to secure responsibility to have a
a secretary or president to devote his attention to one
particular department, and carry on the business of that
department with the assistance and counsel, if necessary,
of the other Members of the Administration. The
Board of Trade, for instance, has a president, and has
various colleagues connected with him. There is only
one person, however, responsible as the President of the
Committee of Privy Council upon the affairs of trade ;
and with reference to all minor points of detail, either
the president or vice-president acts, without reference to
the Cabinet ; but if there is a question of considerable
importance, all the Members of the Privy Council take
part in it. It is not very different with regard to the
administration of the affairs of India—with reference
to the Secretaries of State, and so on—but as
I said before, that is a matter, rather of
detail—a matter rather to be considered in Committee,
than matter to be discussed on the second reading of
the Bill. The real principle of the administration that
we propose is, that there should be a head—that there
should be a president, who should be responsible for the
administration of the poor-law—that that head should
have a seat in Parliament— that he should be called upon
in Parliament to give any explanation upon all points
connected with the poor-law administration.—(Hear,
hear.) I quite admit that it exposes Government to
odium and obloquy that Government was not formerly
exposed to. I admit that it was far easier for the Go-
vernment, when every parish depository decided upon
every questiou of relief that came before them, and when
all cases of abuse and hardship or cruelty occurred,
all the indignation of the public was thrown upon
and directed against the particular vestry, and no part of
it fell upon the Government of the day. But we hare
attempted to make a great social change in the adminis-
tration of the poor-law • we having attempted in 1834 to
reform those abuses which had sprung up by a depar-
ture from the statute of Elizabeth, of 1796. I think
that this reform cannot be carried out or completely
effected, unless you have a central control responsible
to Parliament. I believe in that manner you may get
the machinery to w9rk more truly than it did in the
beginning ; you may get it to work so truly, that the
cases of complaint brought before this House would be
few, and that the answers to those complaints would take
up but a little part of the time of the House in debate.
What I wish to see is, the Act of Elizabeth, conferring
relief should be carried into effect in all its spirit, and iu
a manner which is conformable with the state of our
institutions of the present day. The exact words of
Elizabeth are not exactly applicable to the present time,
because if you were to set the poor to work in manu-
factures, they would either be competing with those who
have independent labourers earning wages, or their work
would be insufficient and useless. But the workhouse
system is in accordance with the spirit of the Act of
Elisabeth naturally applied—where relief is wanted,
relief would be given. That the relief should be large
and liberally given, in conformity with the spirit of that
Act. I believe it is necessary for the maintenance of
the forming of society of this country, and therefore it is
that I do not think that the expenditure which now
exceeds the whole sum raised by the property and in-
come tax of the country—l do not think that expendi-
ture ought in amount to be complained of, if the source of
administration were that which it ought to be.—(Hear.)
Admitting that it is an experiment—admitting that it is
a change in the present law—admitting that as there
were certaia defects in the law of 1834, which no one
could then see, there may also be similar defects in this
measure of 1847 ; admitting all this, still I think that it
is, under present circumstances, the‘ most expedient
course you can adopt, and in a path beset with difficul-
ties, the only one that can be recommended to Parlia-
ment, and I therefore pray the House to assent to the
second reading of the Bill.—(Loud cheers.)
Arr. B. DISRAELI regretted the lateness of the
evening, but hoped that ho would be able to compress
the few observations he wished to make on this measure,
so as to finish before the arrival of the midnight hour.—
(Hear, hear.) Although he thought the Noble Lord was
a great authority on subjects of that character, he could
not assent to some of the propositions which he laid
down, and he felt persuaded, however plausibly it might
be asserted to the contrary, that the general bu-
siness of the country must be brought before Par-
liament.—(Hear, hear.) It was very. tsar _ that
in doing so there might be a oertam infusion
of passion and as occasional interposition of
factions sentiments. but without the interference of Par•
iismient these measures of a special character must al-
ways prove a failure, and the situation in which they
at present found themselves proved the accuracy of that
position. Throughout the entire argument of the Noble
Lord, and of all those who agreed with him, this falla-
cious assumption pervaded all their speeches. They
said that central control was necessary, and the Noble
Lord assured them that that control must be a
metropolitan control.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
There was no middle state —no halting-place,
between the most obscure parish in the kingdom and
Somerset House.—(Hear, hear.) For his own part, he
never for a moment challenged the right of control over
the parochial administration of the law, and he thought
it would be wrong to agitate that question; but if it was
not considered right to leave this parochial authority to
itself, it did not follow that metropolitan control was
the most eligible mode by which the abuses which re-
sulted from it could be remedied. The laws of charity
must be local in their administration, as the feeling it-
self was prompted and kept alive by local residence.—
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, however, said there
was no difference between the control of a parish and
the control of a Minister of State, and however inju-
rious it might be to bring the parochial administration
before Parliament, that there was no middle course for
them to adopt. He (Mr. Disraeli) begged the House to
consider that central control did not involve metropolitan
control.—(hear, hear.)—and he did not see why a cen-
tral control should not be deposited with every county.
At any rate, he did not see why it should be set-
tled in London. The advocates of the measure
admitted the evil of large unions, and yet
the basis of the present system was a union
comprising all the unions of the country.—(Hear,
hear.) Let them look for a moment at the scheme of
control now before them. The Noble Lord*reosostehsen,
to
bring the eentral control into Parlilnt'
suppose a labourer felt aggrieved inmaremote parish,
from
and that he did not get redress the poor-law
was
brought what was the next step? The case
brought before Parliament; and who, he would
's ask,
was responsible for that? Why, her MajyMi-
nisters. It was very well for the Noble Lord to
say that party
feeling had never yet crept into the dis-
cussions on this subject. But he apprehended that time
might arise and circumstances might occur when the
great principles involved in this question would degene-
rate into a party struggle.—(Hear, hear.). With regard
to the Bill itself, he did not find fault with it, because of
the increase of patronage it gave to the Crown; for be
maintained that the amount of taxation, and the reduc-
tion 'of privileges, had always in this country borne