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

clauses,—(Hear , hear.) He believed that that
Principle was ..,lready acted upon in well regulated unions.
He protested against thecruelty of forcing two old people
into the union-house, and separating thorn. He hatlnf
though t that any gentleman would wish to see ',Apo old
People thus forced to leave their homes-, and not after-
wards be permitted to see each othw,--(llear.) But if
that argument was good for the .rat clause, it was better
for the second. If it was cru-41 and abominable to separate
an old man and his wife,, was it not still worse to sepa-
rate a man from his 17;ife if she were ill? Why should she
be turned
ptuehrnreadvozer to the care of a hired nurse, who might
Et woman of bad character, instead of being
trinitted to have her husband to attend her?—(Cheers.)
8 asked the Right Hon. Baronet if he would make the.
law
8401 that out-door relief should be necessarily
granted in every case to persons of more than 60 years
a age, for, if he would not, he should vote for the
tittllse•—(llear, hear.)
lr• DARBY objected to the wording of the clause.
yr,a
Yrhat was the meaning of suitable and decent (w-
-e'll:elucidation ? Different meanine.s would be attached
;.o the different words by different'boards of guardians.
Then with regard to the second clause, who was to -tde-
termine when one person stood in need of the assistance
of another? Both clauses were indefinite. Then with
regard to the proposal to give magistrates the power in-
tended to be given them by this clause, he believed ma-
gistrates would be very unwilling to have those powers.
tie objected to out-door relief, without any test—there
;light to be a labour test in conjunction with the work-
Douse 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
Dever would consent to giving relief to able-bodied men,
Without any test at all. The great hardship of the law
ta'S, that able-bodied men out of work could not receive
out-door relief. He had never seen any case of cruelty
Dr hardship to old people. He would defy any board of
guardians to carry the provisions of these clauses into
ci.iy
°Peuernattion—they were too indefinite, and were cense-
impracticable. The Government proposition was
a great improvement on the existing law.
-
Mr. STUART WORTLEY thought the clauses were
intelligible, and if they waited until they could draw up
hLI clause without a flaw, they would never legislate at all.
Ie; "Teed with the Hon. Member for Sussex as to the
lreelause. He thought it would open a door to the
'ntreduction 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
„,rst clause, he approved of it, as, although admitted
(pat the orders of the Commissioners had in a greet
lure 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.)
't had been aclmitteq. on all hands that the present Bill
oracle many advantageous alterations in the poor-law.
ut he, for one, wiktld rather that those ll—vantages
should be deferred 'till another session, than purchase
tta at the price of-these clauses.—(Loud cheers.) His
°ll- Friend who hactj oat sat down had abandoned the
third clause.He had admitted that he did not think it right
_
empower a single= justice of the peace to overrule a
ci •
"lawn of a board of guardians, and he had also
admitted that if such power were conferred on a single
• iustice it would re-introduce the abuses of the old poor-
try and revive that system which had nearly brought
- Country to the verge of ruin. The first and second
°m7uses 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
ember for the West Riding, and however humane
might be the intentions of the Honourable Member for
4tesharn, a clause more cruelly bearing upon the old
people could not have been introduced. It was a corn-
Vlsory clause, and would bear upon the aged and infirm
o
r with the greatest hardship. The law as it stood at
present invested a large discretion in the board of
tardians, the persons who, of all others, were most
teizant of the peculiar circumstances of each particular
tti'te• The board of gdardians were not compelled to give
'door relief to persons above sixty years of age, be-
trse the law imposedlno test upon them, but upon the
,e,cossity of the parties. A man of sixty years of age
!X ht be capable of doing a good day's work, while an-
,"tler man of fifty might, from his-infirmities, be a
tr°Per subject to be taken into the workhouse, or to
2 relieved out of the workhouse. His Hon. Friend,
t 7141 .the Hon. Member for Eversham, wished. to deprive
t,
,board of guardians of this discretion, and confine
~eeir attentions solely to the age, without reference
'1'1! the state of health. The present law gave the
ja,.rtl of guardians a discretionary power of granting
t door relief, if the parties were infirm ; and surely
fat was a much safer, a much better, and a much
-.ore humane test, than the test of sixty years, which
f u`sl Propoted by the Honourable Gentleman.—(Hear,
1,41 Mr. Borthwick.) The present law provided that the
rd of guardians should have power to grant
-.t; of
relief; without separation of parties, in their
.14'11 homes, if they were in a state of bodily infirmity.
ls Hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding
Wished, that state of things only to apply to parties
above sixty years of age, whether they were infirm or
Wet ; and the Hon. Member' for Evesham said that, if they
at're above sixty, and were relieved in the workhouse,
hQY were to have separate rooms. The principle souzlit
be established by the Hon. Gentleman existed already,
.0; by the provisions of the present law, a power existed
;1 the Board of guardians to allow the infirm or aged
illtsband 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 separatet apartmenthsein
-the workhouse, or refuse them admissional agnesthoefra. Tcconi. would be compelled from want of the m
modation, to adopt the latter alternative, and thus these
poor people would be forced back into their hovels,
aubject 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-
Cling 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 himse
°bilged to oppose every one of these resolutions.
Mr. BROTHERTON did not think the clauses pro
°sed by the Hon. Member for Evesham could be carried
`out, If he thought they could be, he certainly would
support them. He thought, however, it would be im-
Posstble to carry out the wishes of the Hon. Member, be-
7anso, to do so, an enormous expense would be incurred
.14 Providing separate apartments for the married in-
aties of the workhouses. He had often wished to see
t present law ameliorated, but he could never support
1113, proposition which was consonant with his feelings,
ut against his judgment.
Colonel ROLLESTON thought the boards of
guardians ought to have more power placed in their
har
-ds with respect to granting relief.
11Ir• P. HOWARD thanked the Right Hon. Baronet
flis attempts to ameliorate the existing law. He could
111(3t support the motion of 'the Hon. Member for Eves-
am, as it would place paupers on a better footing than
those who were engaged in our fleets and armies. He
Ilhollld therefore, give his decided opposition to the re-
4301ntions for he believed that, if they were carried, they
'Wouldould only h9old out an inducement to persons to go into
the workhouse.
Should CURTEIS thought it was desirable that paupers
he allowed certain times for recreation.
1,24 - BORTHWICK shortly replied. The question on
-240 i they were about to divide was the first clause, and
that only, Re wished that to be distinctly understood,
because he felt convinced many Hon. Members would
elc'at.uesfe.or that clause who would not vote for the third
The, 'House then divided, when there appeared—
the clause
Against it 95
Majority against the clause
In answer to a question from Mr. BORTHWICK on
the third clause,
b,,Tr j. GRAHAM said guardians had the power,
40e the 22c1 clause of the Poor-law Act, of ordering
"tdoor
Q 441% B. ESCOTT expressed his satisfaction at the de-
eation they had heard from the highest authority on
14 subject in the House. Ho had often contested the
tiiint at meetings of boards of guardians, but had gene-
-1,,„1, been out-voted; he trusted, however, that guardians
InTutd now interpret the Act according to its strict literal
d and act upon their discretion in ordering out-
°(,)ll,;_ relief .n cases where it was obviously required.
..qeana we
ty tithr clauses moved by the Hon. ember for
'-ere then negatived without a divisMion.
addition
STAFFORD O'BRIEN then moved the following
C'tiou to clause 20 :—" And be it enacted, that the
f °Lunaissioners do and shall take order for the due per-
' ho manse of religious services in each of such work-
togila, and for that purpose do and shall appoint fit
N0v13113, being clergymen of the Church of England, to
as chaplains in such workhouses, and fix the amount
" paid to such chaplains respectively by way of salary
Paid ance for their services (which amount, when so
shall be paid out of the rates accordingly) : pro-
to7d always, that no person who shall be so appointed
" a chaplain for any workhouse shall act as such
Plin, unless he be approved for that purpose by the
:40P of the diocese within which such workhouse is
He said ho had for his proposal the sanction
fPresident of the Council, who, in another place, had
suggested that a provision of this kind should be added
t
t" Present Bill ; and he had, also, the authority of
introduced
Poor-law Commissioners themselves. The change
:lodu.ced by the new poor-law was both a social
pfdreligious one, as it took a large number
the poor from those who were charge.' with their
iritual care. Yet in the original Act there was no
iriention of a chaplain, except incidentally, in an amend-
-eat introduced in the House of Lords in the interpreta-
ZTclime. Acting, however, on that mere mention of
rh an officer, the Poor-law Commissioners had ap-
Ited several chaplains, and in 1839 they obtained the
-4; 'stance of a mandamus from the Court of Queen's
,:-.3.(:5:11 to enable them to do so. In twenty-two union
'wog
in this country Divine service was per-
C hnatirecd gratuitously by clergymen of the Established
vio, II; but the act of performing f
rom as
was a
!ation of the law. It appeared, from a return which
(IP been made to the House, that there were, exclusive
smaller towns, thirty-five towns whose population
vtiaori,ed from 109,000 to 4,000, whose aggregate popula-
to.' was nearly 900,000, without chapels. In the whole
inuar,ltY of Cumberland there were but three chaplains;
a_ ;fie North Riding of Yorkshire there was but one ;
_in the whole county of Durham, with its
II:11/3.1114am of 325,000, there was no chaplain at
Church,A t their Conservative dinners they drank the
ve and it was boasted of as the church
Dvfore 1834 it Plight hale been