The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-25 00:00:00

- -
Manis elauses.sa-(lfear, hear.) He believed that that
liiiuciplewes already noted upon in well regulvelunions.
He protested cg tinst the erneity of forcing o old people
into the union-house, and separating them. He hardly
though t that any gentleman would wish to see two old
people thus forced to leave their homes, and not after-
wards be permitted to see each other.—(Hear.) But if
that argument was good for the first dasise, it was better
for the second. If it was cruel and abominable to separate
an old man and his wife, was it not still worse to sepa-
rate a man from his wife if she were ill? Why should she
be turned over to the care of a hired nurse, who might
be, perhaps, a woman of bad character, instead of being
permitted to have her husband to attend her ?—(Cheers.)
.bie asked the Right Hon. Baronet if he would mike the
law such that out-door relief should be necessarily
granted in every case to persons of more than 60 years
of age, for, if he would not, he should vote for the
'clause.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DARBY objected to the wording of the clause.
What was the meaning of suitable and decent ac-
commodation Y Different meanings would be attached
to the different words by different boards of guardians.
Then with regard to the second clause, who was to de-
termine when one person stood in need of the assistance
of another? Both clauses were indefinite. Then with
. regard t,) the proposal to give magistrates the power in-
tended to be given them by this clause, he believed ma-
, kistrates would be very unwilling to have those powers.
ne objected to out-door relief, without any test—there
Ought to be a labour test in conjunction with the work-
' . house test.. He should long since have proposed a clause
to enact a labour test, if he had not met with great op-
Position on the part of the boards of guardians, He
-never would consent to giving relief to able-bodied men,
without any test at all. The great hardship of the law
vtas, that able-bodied men out of work could not receive
out-door relief. He had never seen any case of cruelty
or hardship to old people. He would defy any board of
guardians to carry the provisions of these clauses into
operation—they were too indefinite, and were conse-
quently impracticable. The Government proposition was
great improvement on the existing law.
Mr. STUAR f WORTLEY thought the clauses were
intelligible, and if they waited until they could draw up
a clause without a flaw, they would never legislate at all.
Re agreed with the Hon. Member for Sussex as to the
third clause. He thought it would open a door to the
introduction of the evils of the old system, and he
should oppose it, as he did not wish to interfere with
the discretion of the guardians. With regard to the
first clause, he approved of it, as, although he admitted
that the orders of the Commissioners had in a great
Measure carried out the objects of these clauses, yet he
Would rather have those objects secured by legislative
enactment.
Lord STANLEY said that if these clauses were agreed
to; they would, as far as the poor-law was concerned,
frustrate the labours of the present session.—(Cheers.)
It had been admitted on all hands that the present Bill
made many advantageous alterations in the poor-law.
zut he, for one, would rather that those advantages
should be deferred till another session, than purchase
them at the price of these clauses.—(Loud cheers.) His
Ron. Friend who had just sat down had abandoned the
third clause.He had admitted that he did not think it right
to empower a single justice of the peace to overrule a
decision of a board of guardians, and he had also
admitted that if such power were conferred on a single
Justice it would re-introduce the abuses of the old poor-
law and revive that system which had nearly brought
the country to the verge of ruin. The first and second
clauses met with the support of his Hon. Friend. He
(Lord Stanley). however,•was satisfied that however
humane might be the intentions of his Hon. Friend the
Member •for the West Riding, and however humane
?night be the intentions of the Honourable Member for
'tresharn, a clause more cruelly bearing upon the old
people could not have been introduced. It was a com-
Pulsory clause, and would bear upon the aged and infirm
Poor with the greatest hardship. The law as it stood at
Present invested a large discretion in the board of
t'llardians, the persons who, of all others, were most
_cognizant of the peculiar circumstances of each particular
ease. The board of guardians were not compelled to give
out-door relief to persons above sixty years of age, be-
cause the law imposed no test upon them, but upon the
• Necessity of the parties. A man of sixty years of age
,'fight be capable of doing a good day's work, while an-
%her -man of fifty might, from his infirmities, be a
Proper Subject to be taken into the workhouse, or to
' relieved out of the workhouse. His Hon. Friend,
and the Hon. Member for Eversham, wished to deprive
the board of guardians, of this discretion, and confine
' !heir attentions solely to the age, without reference
;_o the state of health. The present law gave the
. board of guardians a discretionary power of granting
?lit-door relief, if the parties were infirm ; and surely
That was a much safer, a much better, and a much
:more humane test, than the test of sixty years, which
Was proposed by the Honourable Gentleman.—(Hear,
from blr. Borthwick.) The present law provided that the
board of guardians should have power to grant
out-door relief, without separation of parties, in their
ton homes, if they were in a state of bodily infirmity.
''sts lion. Friend the Member for the West Riding
Ivished that state of things only to apply to parties
above sixty years of age, whether' they were infirm or
not ; and the Hon. Member for Evesham said that, if they
Were above sixty, and were relieved in the workhouse,
NY were to have separate rooms. The principle sought
to be established by the Hon. Gentleman existed alreaay,
Tut*, by the provisions of the present law, a power existed
111 the Board of guardians to allow the infirm or aged
usband and wife to inhabit the same apartment in the
Workhouse, only requiring the board to report such case
to the Poor-law Commissioners, and subject to the re-
strictions they might impose. What would be the con-
sequence of the clause? Why, the board of guardians
would have only to choose between the necessity of pro-
viding aged and infirm couples with separate apartments in
the workhouse, or refuse them admission altogether. They
would be compelled from want of the means of accom-
modation, to adopt the latter alternative, and thus these
poor people would be forced back into their hovels,
,subject to all the privations and discomforts of the lowest
stage of poverty. The amendment, if carried, would
operate seriously to the disadvantage of the poor and of
the
rate-payers, and he called upon the House. to re-
ject it.
Captain PECHELL supported the amendment. No-
thing could be harsher than the present mode of separa-
tion between husband and wife practised in the work-
houses.
Mr. DENISON regretted that he should feel himself
obliged to oppose every one of these resolutions.
Mr. BROTHERTON did not think the clauses pro-
Posed by the Hon, Member for Evesham could-be carried
°llt- If he thought they could be, he certainly would
support them. He thought, however, it would be im•
..P°ssible to carry out the wishes of the Hon. Member, be-
Cause, to do so, an enormous expense would be incurred
ri Providing separate apartments for the married in.
kates of the workhouses. He had often wished to see
th'6 Present law ameliorated, but he could never support
rY proposition which was consonant with his feelings,
st against his judgment.
Colonel ROLLESTON thought- the boards of
gitardians ought to have more power placed in their
ands with respect to granting relief.
Mr. is. HOWARD thanked the Right Hon. Baronet
for not attempts to ameliorate the existing law. He could
1,„
support the motion of the Hon. Member for Eves-
-tn; as itwould leg paupers on a better footing than
th p •
3 thQuid, ose who were engaged our fleets and armies. He
therefore, give his decided opposition to the re-
i.solutions for, he believed that, if they were carried, they
t"s"only
hi hold out an inducement to persons to go into
'''e' Workhouse.
• Oir- CURTEIS thought it was desirable that paupers
I..keild be allowed certain times for recreation,
WliMr.
BORTHWICK shortly replied. The question on
th they were about to divide was the first clause, and
beat only. He wished that to be distinctly understood,
sekose he felt convind man y Hon. Members would
.for. that clause who would not vote for the third
The Reuse then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause 32
Against it 95
Majority against the clause • —63
th'a answer to a question from Mr. BORTHWICK on.
third clause,
Sir J. GRAHAM said guardians had the, power,
huger the 22d clause of the Poor-law Act, of ordering
4t.c.100r relief.
t,.
tlf:e. ESCOTT expressed his satisfaction at the de-
panon they had heard from the highest authority ion
ls subject in the House. He had often Contested the,
sailit,at meetings of boards of guardians, but had gene-
. a15..1, been out-voted; he trusted, however, that guardians
al old now interpret the Act according to its strict literal
dos—alog, and act upon their discretion in ordering out-
relief in cases where it was obviously required.
ts:hte other clauses moved by the Hon. Member for
soana were then negatived without a division,
Itt'
.11.4,1;,r,.._"° STAFFORD O'BRIEN then moved the following
'll to clause 20 :—" And be it enacted, that the
krannissioners do and shall take order for the due per-
hq,.rnatice of religious services in each of such work-
' I;4es, and for that purpose do and shall appoint fit
te49as, being clergymen of the Church of England, to
a. to bens chaPlains in such workhouses, and fix the amount
Nsii,Paid to such chaplains respectively by way of salary
o:.,,,asiciittice for their services (which amount, when so
144 e,, shall be paid out of the rates accordingly) :
alivays, that' no person who shall be so appointed
ie chaplain for any workhouse shall act as such
lisaeak unless he be'approved for that purpose by the
sit, of 'di-0 diocese within which such workhouse is
spa'ted." Issid he had for his proposal the sanction
s, e
sdple colleague o: the Right Hon. Baronet, the Lord
sokeZeot of the Council, 'Who!' in another place, had
forted that a provision of this kind should be added
' the ; Present Bill ; and he had, also, the authority,of
!..st,,o4°or-law Commissioners themselves:. The change_
tille.,llsed by the new poor-law was both BOOM!
th religious one, as it took a large 'smeller
ror from those who were charged with their
las,,,..Aat care. Yet in the' original Act there Was no
rean.ll of a chaplain, except incidentally, in an amend-
tio introduced in the House of Lords in the interpreta-
Om
tses,_ Acting, however, on that mere mention of
Poitits", Officer, the Poor-law Commissioners had ap-
aui,.,,mseveral chaplains, and in 1839 they obtained the
Ise lance of a mandamus from the Court of Queen's
sp„:`,9l to enable them•to do so. In twenty-two union
CZll.ouses in this counts Divine' service was per-
ei7l. gratuitously by 'clergymen Of the Established
chi
but the act of f Divine serelee was
_a
441434'tn of the 1
.I.Per"inin
appeared, from a return ystuph
c:been made toawtne.nous that
nthere were, exclusive
,„-,arnaller,thi fieve s whew population
tco",4l..from 109,000 tot)41,000, whose aggregate popula-
tows, ZLS nearly 900,000, without chapels. In the whole
• ill ta,!1•31 of Cumberland there were but three chaplains;
Itu.e North Riding of Yorkshire there was but one •
po„s_, in. the whole county of Durham, with its'
cistfuation of 325,000, there was no chaplain at
Ch `At their Conservative elintes they drank the
of u2n, and it was boasted of as Op church
'me poor. rptiore ,1,634 it slight Wu been