--^^
 
 LIE) RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UN IVLRSITY 
 
 or ILLI NOIS
 
 LORD LYTTELTON'S SPEECH 
 
 ON 
 
 THE POOE LAWS 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, 
 lUh JUNE 1875. 
 
 LONDON: 
 JOHN MUEBAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 
 
 1875.
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PKr-NTKP BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SOKP, STAMFORD STREET, 
 AND CHARING CROSe.
 
 SPEECH. 
 
 My Lords, 
 
 Perhaps I need hardly say that I do not much expect— 
 I am not sure that I have any decided wish — that this resolu- 
 tion should pass at this moment. We know the Parliamentary 
 objection to abstract resolutions ; and this is so far abstract that 
 it does not point to any immediate or specific legislative or 
 executive measure. But we do not disapprove of such a resolu- 
 tion when it is as a peg on which to hang a discussion on an 
 important subject. The importance of the present subject will 
 be admitted ; and so, I hope, will be its special importance at 
 the present time, and that the time is suitable for the discussion. 
 I am glad to find that the same proposition, in principle, with 
 mine is about to be laid before the other House by Professor 
 Fawcett, whose recent work on Pauperism I venture to com- 
 mend as a manual of sound doctrine on the question. 
 
 Now it is of advantage in a question like this, of such mag- 
 nitude and complexity, when we can dispense with long historical 
 investigations and with a recurrence to first principles. So 
 here, there are one or two assumptions I shall make, to which I 
 anticipate general assent ; and if any one should think that they 
 are even truisms which it is needless to mention, I would request 
 him to think twice before he maintains that opinion. And the 
 first may be this : that Pauperism is an evil, and sliould be felt 
 to be so by all classes. Is this a truism ? Well, I hope it is. 
 But let us be sure that we give a sufficiently wade sense to the 
 word Pauperism. It does not mean simply the receipt of doles, 
 alms, for nothing. It means maintenance, as regards the neces- 
 saries of life, in return for real work, for sham work, or for no 
 work at all, out of a public fund on which one has a right to 
 draw if destitute of any of the said necessaries. And if this is 
 a truism, at least it is a recent one, or a return to what may 
 have been held in old times. From about 1600 to about 1800, 
 so far from Pauperism, in at least one of its forms, having been 
 
 B 2
 
 4 SPEECH ON THE POOR LAWS 
 
 an acknowledged evil, the system of public work to be found 
 for all applicants — ateliers nationaux in every parish, as really 
 such as ever were propounded by French revolutionists — was 
 advocated by a stream of authorities as a specific, if not a 
 panacea, for all our difficulties. But on this I need not dwell. 
 I assume the reverse : that what we all wish is that the labour- 
 ing class should look more and more away from any such com- 
 pulsory resource, and rely more and more on the natural course 
 and progress of commercial prosperity, on the natural value of 
 their own right hands. 
 
 The next assumption may be that a Poor Law we must have ; 
 and the definition of our Poor Law may be drawn from what I 
 have said about Pauperism. I dwell on it for a moment, 
 because it has been sometimes denied or doubted that there is 
 such a legal right to Belief as I have stated. But this is a mere 
 question of expression. A right is not less a real legal right 
 because it is contingent. It is, no doubt, contingent on the 
 fact of destitution, and the fact may be denied by the autho- 
 rities at their peril. But if it exists — above all, if it is proved 
 by the death or serious illness of the applicant — the authorities 
 would certainly have violated the law in refusing Eelief ; and 
 this is virtually identical with the existence of the right. 
 
 Is this, too, a truism ? I fear it is. I say I fear it, be- 
 cause if we admit that Pauperism is an evil, it follows that 
 a Poor Law is at best a necessary evil, or the lesser of two 
 evils ; for a Poor Law inevitably generates Pauperism. If we 
 have a law declaring that in no circumstances can any one by 
 law starve or die of cold, it is quite certain that there will 
 always be some to avail themselves of that law. If we have a 
 Pauper Law, we shall have Paupers. 
 
 Still, I am prepared to admit that the law is right ; though 
 I do so on the sole ground of humanity : and I think it may 
 be said that in fact the principle of our law exists in all 
 Christian countries. Mr. Doyle, the Poor Law Inspector, has 
 recently laid before the Local Government Board a series of docu- 
 ments, which may be taken in continuation of a similar work 
 formerly by the late Mr. Senior, respecting the Belief of the 
 Poor on the continent of Europe ; and from his introductory 
 paper I should gather, that where there is not a formal and 
 direct law, the law recognizes and assists charitable institutions 
 in such a way that it comes much to the same thing. 
 
 It may be interesting to notice in passing, that it seems
 
 m THE HOUSE OF LORDS. 5 
 
 doubtful if this right to Belief is part of our ancient law. It is 
 at least probable that, as an express right, it dates from a 
 judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in 1801. The case 
 was that of a foreigner found destitute ; and it is notable that 
 Lord Ellenborough, in pronouncing for his right to be relieved, 
 quoted no authority, but placed it on the ground of self- 
 evident common sense and humanity. Such, at all events, has 
 been undoubted law ever since; for if a foreigner possesses 
 that right, a fortiori any Englishman does. 
 
 Admitting, then, what has been said, we shall surely grant 
 further, as an inference or corollary, that it' we must have a 
 Poor Law, it should be such an one as will not stimulate, but, as 
 far as possible, consistently with its essential object, repress and 
 discourage Pauperism. And on this basis we may proceed to 
 inquire. What has been done ? How have we attempted, 
 and how far have we succeeded in the attempt, to repress 
 Pauperism by our legislation ? 
 
 In answering these questions, it seems needless to go farther 
 back than the epoch of the only effective attempt ever made, as 
 I believe, to repress Pauperism by law : the date of the New 
 Poor Law, 1834. I know it is believed by some that the Work- 
 house Act of 1717, Sir E. Knatchbull's Act, had a great 
 effect in this way during much of last century. I doubt if this 
 can be made out, though it is possible the Act may have tended 
 to produce some degree of equilibrium in this respect. But, at 
 all events, whatever was done by the worthy Baronet in question 
 in 1717, was wholly undone and reversed by another much less 
 worthy Baronet in 1796, Sir W. Young; whose Act threw the 
 reins on the necks of overseers and magistrates, as the 
 administrators of Belief, and, as we all know, in about thirty 
 years brought to pass a state of things which, had it not been 
 sharply checked and pulled up by the Act of 1834, would 
 undoubtedly have been the ruin of the country. 
 
 A man of sagacity, when the Act of 1834 was announced, 
 said it would be a very effective measure for thirty or forty 
 years, when we should begin to relapse. The question is if this 
 was a true prophecy. 
 
 It is remarkable that the Poor Law Act of 1834 made no 
 direct change in the law. What it did was to establish a strong 
 and intelligent Central Executive, with large powers to regulate 
 and control the administration of the law. And if our excellent 
 friend (Sir John Lefevre), who, we rejoice to know, is a still
 
 6 SPEECH ON THE POOR LAWS 
 
 surviving member of that Executive Commission, liad bad, with 
 his colleagues, Sir Frankland Lewis and Sir George Nicholls, 
 the resolution — perhaps I should say the power, with due 
 support from Parliament and the Government, — -to meet more 
 effectually the storm of prejudice and obloquy with which they 
 were assailed, the result might have been different from what 
 it is. 
 
 As to what has happened, nothing would be easier, for one 
 who had the time and the faculties, than to accumulate a vast 
 mass of figures and facts about it. But in this assembly, less 
 than in most, can it be requisite to do so. Almost all your 
 Lordships have houses in the country, and are acquainted more 
 or less — many of you very well acquainted — with the state of 
 things ; and I can appeal to any one who is so acquainted, 
 whether there is anything like a satisfactory appearance of any 
 approaching extirpation, or even great reduction, of Pauperism. 
 For a more particular statement I may refer to an article in the 
 * Fortnightly Eeview ' for last May, by a gentleman named 
 Koberts. I believe he is a gentleman farmer in Wiltshire. 
 He writes in a plain style, with no attempt at historical or 
 philosophical research, but with knowledge at first-hand of his 
 subject from his own experience as a Guardian : and he sets 
 forth what we so well know, the settled and habitual reliance of 
 the working class on their " little annuities," derived from the 
 labour and property of others, instead of any result of their own 
 exertions. 
 
 Another general statement I will quote, as it is from an 
 authority which will carry much weight; it is from the recent 
 4th and Final Eeport of the Friendly Societies Commission : — * 
 
 *' The increasing disposition of the labouring class to throw 
 themselves upon the Poor Kates has been of late years a source of 
 no little anxiety." 
 
 The Commissioners sent queries to all Boards of Guardians 
 in England and Wales ; and they say that — 
 
 " Their replies show, that while a feeling of independence may 
 still, generally speaking, be said to prevail among the Poor north of 
 the Trent, it exists but to a very slight extent in the south. In 
 some districts, especially in the south, the labourers always loot 
 to the Poor Law for relief in old age." 
 
 * P. clxxxix.
 
 IN THE HOUSE. OF LORDS. 7 
 
 A few figures I may give, such as are always referred to in 
 this question. In 1834, just before the new law, the amount 
 expended on the Poor was 6,317,255?. In 1837, from our 
 * first love' under that law, it was 4,044,741Z. In 1873 it was 
 7,692,169. Of course this must be qualified, in respect of the 
 increase of the population. Looking, then, at the ratio per head 
 of the Poor Eate, in 1834 it was 9s. Id. ; in 1837, 5s. lOd. ; in 
 1873, 6s. lid. 
 
 The poundage is not given earlier than 1841. In that year 
 it was Is. Q^d. ; in 1872, Is. b^d. 
 
 The proportion of Paupers to the entire population is better. 
 In 1841 it was estimated at 9 per cent. ; in 1849 at 6*2 ; in 
 1873 at 3 '8. But only three years before, before the great 
 increase in the prosperity of the country, it was 4*7. In 1873 
 the total number of paupers was 883,688 ; in 1870, 1,032,800. 
 
 These results are not very satisfactory; and I would then 
 ask, In the way we work our system, how could we expect them 
 to be so? Let me recall to the House what I said just now, for 
 I am sure it is the key to the whole question : that Pauperism 
 should be felt to be an evil by all classes. And surely we do 
 not exclude from the list the labouring class itself. Surely they 
 have much to do — many may think they have more than any 
 one else to do — with the determination of their own condition ; 
 and I repeat, what do we do to make them feel that Pauperism 
 is an evil ? 
 
 Philosophers, men of forethought, politicians, the wealthy 
 and middle classes, the ratepayers, feel it, on grounds too obvious 
 to need repeating: what of the labourers themselves, the very 
 subjects with whom we are concerned ? 
 
 How is it possible that they should feel it, with a system of 
 Outdoor Belief ? We must in common sense consider the kind 
 of men with whom we have to deal. We cannot expect them to 
 take a comprehensive view, and act on the principle that in the 
 long run the receipt of Relief is not good for their class. For 
 a given individual, indeed, such Relief may not always be bad ; 
 at all events there would probably be many in all classes who, 
 if they could have half a crown a week for the asking, would 
 feel very little scruple in taking it on account of remote 
 consequences on the public welfare. The only point in which I 
 would differ from Mr. Roberts's paper is, that he throws too 
 much blame on the labourers themselves. 
 
 But the question is still, How do we attempt to make Poor
 
 8 SPEECH ON THE POOK LAWS 
 
 Law Relief — we must not mince our words — distasteful to 
 the working class ? For even if the soundness of what is called 
 the "deterrent principle" be another truism, the question is 
 not whether it be admitted as a doctrine, but how we give 
 effect to it in practice ? 
 
 The recipients of Outdoor Relief either can work or can not. 
 If they cannot work, it is nearly self-evident that the deterrent 
 principle cannot be applied. We must remember the simple 
 object of the law, that no one shall be without the necessaries 
 of life. And if these are fully given in Outdoor Relief, it is 
 manifest that the recipient must inevitably be about as well 
 off as the average of others of his class, or as he himself was 
 before. 
 
 Here I may just notice a singular expedient which a few 
 years ago was adopted at Elberfeld, in Germany, in the hope, 
 apparently, that it might be a good substitute for the Work- 
 house system, and equally effectual in the repression of Pau- 
 perism. The town was divided into a great number of small 
 districts, each under the charge of what we should call, as to 
 his duties, a Relieving Officer ; but who was to be of a higher 
 social class, and unpaid. Each was to have not more than 
 five or six cases of distress under his charge, and the object of 
 the law was to be attained through a system of examination 
 into the circumstances of the applicants, incessant, minute, 
 inquisitorial, and vexatious to an incredible degree. And it is 
 remarkable that Mr. Doyle, the Poor Law Inspector, who was 
 at Elberfeld on the institution of the system, and then seems 
 to have been rather struck by it, was there again very lately, 
 and he now speaks of it in a very different tone. Indeed he 
 dismisses it summarily, as obviously impracticable with us. It 
 would be intolerable to those who should try to administer it, 
 and to the Poor either intolerable or simply inoperative. 
 
 On the principle assumed, I can think of no other substitute 
 for the Workhouse, unless it be what was once so well known as 
 the Labour Test. There is no part of the question more well- 
 worn than this, and I may say that nothing has been more deci- 
 sively condemned on various solid grounds than the Labour 
 Test. Here, as elsewhere, I only wish to consider it with refer- 
 ence to the principle on which I am mainly dwelling, that of 
 deterrence. How can Pauper labour be made, as the rule, 
 "less eligible" than ordinary labour ? Not in quality, for a 
 great deal of the ordinary labour of the country, while quite
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. 9 
 
 necessary and quite sufficient for a livelihood, is, and must 
 always be, extremely disagreeable ; not in quantity, either by 
 smaller wages being paid for the same amount, or a larger 
 amount being exacted for the same wages, because by the 
 inevitable laws of social economy these things are so regu- 
 lated that ordinary labour can hardly yield more than will 
 fairly support life and health, which by the hypothesis are 
 to be equally attained by the Pauper. 
 
 We come then to* the Workhouse, which, as happily is 
 generally and sufficiently the case, is repellent to the respect- 
 able labourer. The feeling of shame and degradation attaches 
 to it which it is idle to expect should attach, and as a fact 
 does not attach, in the minds of the unskilled labourers as a 
 class, to Outdoor Belief. Even the fear of it is very operative, 
 and the power which the working class know the Guardians 
 have, and which always has been possessed, of ordering the 
 woi-khouse in a7ii/ case ; a power which may have led to the 
 common expression, " He has no prospect for his old age but 
 the Workhouse," which, in respect of the real fact, is quite 
 inaccurate. But it is manifest that this merely contingent 
 application of the principle is not enough. 
 
 It should be observed that it is the Workhouse simply as 
 such, that is adequately deterrent. I do not at all want to have 
 them places of severe discipline ; and it is quite possible that in 
 some respects, as in the ugliness of their outward appearance, 
 which led to their being called " Bastilles," the principle of 
 repulsion may have been carried too far. The mere confine- 
 ment, the submission to authority, the regularity, and (in this 
 sense) discipline of a Workhouse is enough. Old people need 
 not be made uncomfortable there ; but surely it is most un- 
 desirable that to them, or to any one else, the Workhouse 
 should be made actually attractive, as is occasionally advo- 
 cated. Able-bodied Pauperism is no doubt the worst, and the 
 Prohibitory Order by which it is so generally relieved in the 
 Workhouse alone is perhaps far the most valuable result of the 
 law of 1834. But it is evident that many of the evils of 
 Pauperism, on which I have not dwelt, as they are among 
 the commonplaces of the subject— such as the discouragement 
 to forethought and thrift, and the deadening of the sense of 
 family obligatioDS — apply fully as much to all other classes. 
 
 Now, referring to the terms of the Eesolutiou, I admit that 
 the Eeport of 1833 does not explicitly contain the general 
 
 B 3
 
 10 SPEECH ON THE POOR LAWS 
 
 principle that all forms of Pauperism should be deterrent, or 
 the consequent provision that all Relief should be confined to 
 the Workhouse. But I believe that the real mind of the 
 framers of that Report was to that effect, though they might not 
 actually lay it down ; and at all events I submit that these 
 principles do properly and logically follow from the whole 
 tenor of the Report. 
 
 Here I maybe asked if I mean literally that all Relief should 
 be confined to the Workhouse. Now no doubt, to some extent, 
 this must be a question of degree. I should be thankful for 
 any progress in the right direction ; if, for instance, as has been 
 recently said, the converse of the present state of things could 
 be obtained, in which Indoor Relief is the exception. Outdoor 
 Relief the rule. It is, indeed, manifest that there must be many 
 cases in which, as long as the principle of the law remains, in 
 the first instance Relief must be given out of the Workhouse. 
 From a sudden calamity, such as an inundation or a famine, 
 there may be no sufficient accommodation in the Workhouse ; * 
 or, as to individuals, a man has a sudden illness or accident, and 
 cannot be moved : he must be relieved at home ; or, without 
 the existence of physical impossibility, there are undoubtedly 
 cases in which there is a real moral certainty that the adminis- 
 trators of the law would not be brought to confine Relief to the 
 Workhouse. Such is that, often mentioned, of " breaking up the 
 home " of a man who only needs temporary relief for a few 
 days. He holds on, perhaps for weeks, and if he really only 
 wants support for one week longer before he recovers his 
 capacity or opportunity for work, it is a pity to drive him 
 into the Workhouse. Still, I conceive there is an answer to 
 this, depending on a more accurate view of what we mean by 
 Relief. Relief may be said to be what is actually given to a man. 
 We give him the money or the food, and he walks off with it ; 
 it is his, and we hear no more of it. But if you lend it to him, 
 it is different ; and I believe that while there is no part of our 
 system which is more feebly and inefficiently worked than 
 " relief by way of loan," which is perfectly well known to the 
 law, there is none from which, with a better administration, much 
 more good might be expected. Nor do I know what objection 
 
 * It is well known that apparent want of accommodation in a Workhouse is 
 often delusive. At Wellington, in 1873, of 3553 applicants for Eelief to whom 
 the Workhouse was offered, only 104 accepted it : and it is always so.
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF LOEDS. 11 
 
 exists to a more general use of the process, also well-known to 
 the law, of attachment of wages ; it is actually in successful 
 operation, and it is, I believe, the only case in which it is, in 
 our system of Assisted Emigration to Australia for labourers. 
 This is in fact Poor Eelief by way of loan ; and the labourers 
 sign a bond to repay, which is enforced (if necessary) in the 
 Colony, if I understand it right, by attaching their wages. 
 
 This system would have the great advantage, as I look upon 
 it, that in it we should be treating the working class in the 
 same general way as we do others, and not by the application 
 to them of the " paternal government " principle, as if they 
 peculiarly needed it. For what do other people do when in 
 difficulties ? Small tradesmen and the like have just as hard a 
 struggle to live in their way as labourers do ; and what do they 
 do ? They manage to live on their credit ; and so do the Poor, 
 and the loan -relief would be only continuing in another way 
 what they have already begun. As long as their own resources 
 or credit lasted, they would go upon them ; when these were 
 exhausted, the State would step in and become the creditor, if 
 there were reasonable prospects of their acquiring the means of 
 livelihood. And no one would drive the matter to such a 
 point as to say that this would be a gift only because interest 
 might not be charged. 
 
 Nothing is more annoying than to have a strong man, with 
 not a large family, who has been earning perhaps two pounds 
 or more a week, coming for relief the moment he is ill, having 
 saved nothing, for he has had no sufficient inducement — and you 
 must relieve him, for he is destitute. Now on this plan, if you 
 Xiannot make him save beforehand, you will put the screw upon 
 him and bind him afterwards to repay the loan. 
 
 Further, there is the great resource of voluntary benevolence ; 
 for, whatever some philosophers and doctrinaires say, it is again 
 another truism that charity will always continue in this country, 
 and I certainly have no wish that it should not. It has always 
 been admitted, nay contended, by all the Commissions on this 
 subject, that charity should continue, and should supplement 
 the inevitable shortcomings and severities of the law. Take 
 the case, so often mentioned, of the separation of married 
 persons in Workhouses. Old couples, it is well known, by the 
 law need not be separated. Others, it is the intention and pre- 
 sumption of the law, are only to make the Workhouse a 
 temporary abode ; and if even it should be otherwise, or if for
 
 12 SPEECH ON THE POOR LAWS ■ 
 
 other reasons in particular cases, as does sometimes happen, 
 poor persons cannot be induced to enter a Workhouse, it might 
 be a case for private charity. The difficulty indeed would be 
 only to regulate it, so that it should not do too much. 
 
 Then I may be asked what exactly I would do at present ? 
 
 Now many medium plans, if I may so call them, have been 
 proposed on this subject, but I shall only advert to one, which 
 has lately been recommended on high authority. By an 
 Act passed to extend Mr. Hardy's Act, Indoor Belief to 
 the amount of 5d. a day per head is now charged, in the 
 London District, on the General Metropolitan Fund, Outdoor 
 Belief remaining as before on the parishes. This has the effect 
 of a direct premium on the former, relatively to the latter, and, 
 I believe, has tended much to increase Indoor and diminish 
 Outdoor Belief. And it has been proposed to pass a genei-al 
 measure on the same principle, only introducing the Imperial 
 Exchequer, from which a subvention should be paid to every 
 Union in England, of 2s. a head per week for every inmate 
 of the Workhouse. That this would have a considerable effect, I 
 do not doubt : but I do not much like this principle of a direct 
 bribe. If indeed the system were carried further, to the extent 
 of a National Bate throughout, the question would be different. 
 Since I read, about thirty years ago, the pamphlet of the noble 
 Earl (Malmesbury) in favour of such a Bate, I have always been 
 disposed to believe that it might safely be adopted ; but that is 
 not now in question. My belief is that a very short Act might 
 be passed, simply providing that after a rather distant date — 
 ^ve years, ten years, what you will — Outdoor Belief should 
 be discontinued as the rule ; all regulations in detail to be 
 framed and enforced by some powerful Central Executive. 
 
 And now I will venture to adduce a remarkable instance, for 
 encouragement to us to proceed in this direction, of success which 
 has already attended an attempt to do so. I refer to the well- 
 known case of the Atcham Union in Shropshire. Sir Baldwyn 
 Leighton, the w^orthy son of a worthy father — for it was the 
 late Sir Baldwyn to whose intelligence and energy the suc- 
 cessful administration of that Union has been due — has kindly 
 furnished me with many particulars on this subject. I cannot 
 fully give them ; but a few simple figures, up to the most 
 recent date, such as I noted before, may be stated. In 
 the whole of England the ratio of Paupers to the population 
 was 4*2 per cent. ; in Atcham, 1*6. In England the cost per
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. 13 
 
 head on the population, Qs. lid. ; Atcham, 4s. 5j(Z. In England 
 the rate in the pound, Is. 5^c?. ; Atcham, Sd. In England, out- 
 door paupers to indoor are as 5 to 1 ; in Atcham, 1^ to 1. And 
 this, notwithstanding that so late as 1871 the whole of the 
 large and pauperized town of Shrewsbury was injected into the 
 small rural Union of Atcham. In two years, between 1870 and 
 1872, the Outdoor Paupers in Shrewsbury were reduced from 
 519 to 152, or 70 per cent. ; while in 1870 in Atcham proper 
 the number of Indoor was actually greater than Outdoor, 154 
 to 139. At the same time it will be found that the condition 
 of the labourers in that Union is peculiarly good. This has 
 been partly attested in the Keport of Mr. Stanhope, one of 
 the Commissioners on Agricultural Employment ; and it is 
 notable that though wages in Atcham are not very high, and 
 have received no great increase, the agitation of the Agricul- 
 tural Labourers' Union, while prevalent in many neighbouring 
 districts, made no way in that Union. 
 
 Similar, though not equal, results have been attained else- 
 where, as at Brixworth, mainly through the exertions of Mr. 
 Pell and Mr. Bury ; at Aston by Birmingham, and in a few 
 London Unions, as Whitechapel and Marylebone. 
 
 The result is due to a strict and careful attention to exist- 
 ing regulations, and to the discouragement of Outdoor Belief, 
 together, no doubt, with what should always accompany it, 
 much general care of the well-being of the poor. 
 
 There are many obvious advantages in the way of simplifica- 
 tion and convenience of administration, which would attend 
 the change which I advocate. There are some questions which 
 in our present system, I conceive, will never be quite satis- 
 factorily settled in practice, such as, what to do with Paupers 
 who have resources, suppose voluntary pensions or allowances, 
 to which they have no legal claim, but which they are per- 
 fectly sure to enjoy. But I will only dwell on one topic in this 
 connexion, as it has lately been treated with authority in the 
 Keport (to which I have already alluded) of the Friendly 
 Societies' Commission. I strongly recommend the few pages * 
 in that Keport, on the connexion of Friendly Societies with 
 the Poor Laws, to the attention of those interested in the 
 subject. It is well known that Guardians often are in the 
 habit of estimating, with a view to the amount of relief, the 
 
 * Fourth Report, pp. clxxxix-cxcvi.
 
 14 SPEECH ON THE POOR LAWS 
 
 sum received from a Benefit Society at one-half what it is. 
 1 believe this is of doubtful legality, and I am sure it is alto- 
 gether wrong in principle, being a sort of promise or inducement 
 to rely on the Poor Laws, to members of Institutions of which 
 the very object is, or ought to be, to make them be and feel 
 independent of it. But there is a superficial plausibility in it, 
 which will always dispose Guardians to admit it. In the Work- 
 house it is plain that all this difficulty is got rid of The 
 Pauper's receipts from the Benefit Society ot course go to his 
 maintenance, and if, which is rare, there is any surplus, it can 
 be kept to his credit. 
 
 I will now advert to a subject of much interest in itself, and 
 very illustrative of our subject, I mean the Scotch and Irish 
 Poor Laws. I remember the debates in 1838 on the Irish 
 Poor Law Bill. One of the ablest speeches ever addressed to 
 Parliament was made against that Bill by the late Lord Fitz- 
 gerald. But that was in respect of the peculiar case of Ireland. 
 It was vehemently attacked by Loixl Brougham, on the old 
 grounds of Political Economy; and I remember his expression 
 of amazement at the double folly of Parliament in disregarding 
 the warnings both of England and Scotland : the one as having 
 a Poor Law, and the other as not having one, or at least one 
 much less operative. But Lord Brougham, though, as knowing 
 everything, he of course knew something about the matter, 
 might have spoken differently had he known what was soon 
 about to be brought to light by a Commission of Inquiry into 
 the condition of the Scotch Poor. 
 
 Both the Scotch and Irish laws were based on what I have 
 always said I conceive to be the only sufficient ground — that of 
 simple humanity. It was felt that Scotland and Ireland could 
 no longer continue to be nearly the only countries in Europe 
 without an effective Poor Law. In Ireland there was a faint 
 shadow of such a law ; but so feeble and partial that it is not 
 even alluded to in the Act of Parliament, and may be dis- 
 regarded. In Scotland there was a law, which in its theory was 
 meant fully to provide for destitution ; but its administration, 
 in the hands of small, local, obscure, and irresponsible bodies, 
 had been so extraordinary that the result was absolutely 
 grotesque, and hardly credible. It was said that old people in 
 Ireland were found living, as to food, on 6d. a week ; and it is 
 an authentic official fact that the legal relief was often 2s. and 
 2s. Qd. a year, the rest of what was requisite to support life
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. 15 
 
 being had through mendicancy and other miserable means. 
 And it will be seen on consulting the Scotch Act and the ample 
 debates in the House of Commons on its introduction, that the 
 whole tendency of it was to facilitate relief — to make it more 
 easy, more accessible, more judicable, more public. Tliis may 
 have been right ; but it cannot be said that the results have 
 been entirely on one side. The Irish law was wholly a new 
 one ; and it is interesting to observe the variations between the 
 two laws on account of this difference in their inception. The 
 Scotch law adopted the general framework of the existing law 
 of the country ; the Irish law extended to Ireland, with dif- 
 ferences, the general principles of the English law, and for the 
 first few years it was administered by the English Poor Law 
 Commissioners sitting in London. There are accordingly several 
 points of distinction between these two Acts : such, for instance, as 
 this, that in Ireland the Commissioners are expressly forbidden, 
 as in England, to interfere in individual cases of relief, while in 
 Scotland there is a proviso which is constantly put into practice, 
 lor an appeal in such cases to the Board of Supervision. But 
 on the main difference which exists, I must dwell a little more. 
 
 No Poor Law could be passed in those days which did not 
 in some form or other recognize the "deterrent" principle. 
 Accordingly it is found both in the Scotch and L-ish Acts, but in 
 very different forms. The Scotch Act, adhering to the ancient 
 usage of the country — I say usage, because, so far from its 
 being expressly the law, it is said that there is a legal decision 
 the other way — gives no right of relief to the able-bodied. It 
 does not declare that they have no such right ; it only provides 
 that no such right shall accrue under the Act. This restric- 
 tion, though it has more than once been recommended on high 
 authority, I conceive to be quite illogical and untenable, 
 assuming the ground of humanity as the basis of this law ; for 
 if an able-bodied man is destitute, how can it be more con- 
 sistent with humanity that he should starve and die than that 
 any one else should ? 
 
 Such, however, being the principle on which the Scotch law 
 mainly relies, the Workhouse principle, which does exist under 
 the law is, as might be expected, relatively weak. There is a 
 passage about In- and Out-door Belief in the First Keport of the 
 Scotch Board of Supervisors,* which might almost have been 
 
 Page xiv.
 
 16 SPEECH ON THE POOR LAWS 
 
 written by Mr. Cobbett, or by one of the early opponents of the 
 English Poor Law, and which shows, on the part of Sir John 
 jVl'Neill and his able colleagues, a total want of apprehension 
 of what we here consider to be the real object of the " Work- 
 house Test." 
 
 For the present state of things my chief authority is that of 
 a writer in a recent volume * published by the Cobden Club, Mr. 
 M'Neill Caird. He writes carefully, and draws from ofiicial 
 documents ; and he writes as a Scotchman, with no disposition 
 to magnify any existing evils in his country. 
 
 There are Poorhouses in Scotland, but apparently on no 
 regular system ; and when they have them, they do not always 
 use them as we do. As an example, I may mention that in Kirk- 
 cudbrightshire, where Poorhouse accommodation does exist, of 
 87 women, with 207 illegitimate children, only 3 with 8 children 
 were in the Poorhouse, all the rest receiving Outdoor Belief. I 
 need not say that it' there is an absolute rule with us in England, 
 it is that such cases shall only be relieved in the Workhouse. 
 
 If we compare the general state of Pauperism in Scotland 
 with that in England, I find that on a given day recently there 
 were 3-8 per cent, in Scotland against 3*6 in England. " But 
 the figures on which the English calculation is based include 
 124,925 adult able-bodied, besides their children. As the able- 
 bodied do not receive relief in Scotland, England is heavily 
 weighted in the comparison. Putting aside the able-bodied, the 
 ratio of persons receiving relief was in Scotland 1 in 28, in 
 England 1 in 31." And even if all "casuals" were deducted 
 on the Scotch side (and without counting the children of the 
 English able-bodied), the result would still be, in Scotland 
 1 in 30, in England 1 in 31. 
 
 The pound-rate on the English gross rental was Is. 3^^, in 
 Scotland Is. Ijc?., or within 2d. as much, notwithstanding the 
 difference as to able-bodied and the long-established Pauperism 
 in England, and the thrifty habits of the Scotch. 
 
 In the comparison of Scotland with Ireland, I will only men- 
 tion one fact. The Poor Kate collected annually in Scotland, on 
 an average of four years, was 815,775?., in Ireland only 772,322Z., 
 notwithstanding the same difference as before as to the able- 
 bodied, and that the population of Ireland was 5,402,759, in 
 Scotland only 3,360,018. 
 
 Essays on Local Taxation.'
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. 17 
 
 On the general state of the Scotch workpeople, I will again 
 quote a sentence from the Evidence before the Commission on 
 Friendly Societies : — * 
 
 There is a growing class in Scotland who feel that they need not 
 insure in any Friendly Society, as the Poor Law provides them 
 with a certainty of sick pay. 
 
 And I add one more passage, though it has been recently 
 printed, because of its singular force. It is from Evidence given 
 by Mr. Briscoe, Superintendent under the Scotch Poor Law : — t 
 
 Out-door relief in the Highlands has deteriorated truth, industry, 
 morality, self-respect, self-reliance, the natural aifections, inde- 
 pendence of character : it appears as if the whole of the humbler 
 classes had completely changed their character. There is no sbame 
 whatever in demanding relief, even among some of higher station. 
 This state of things in the Highlands is perfectly deplorable, and 
 every person admits it. 
 
 It is trne that this statement was made eleven or twelve 
 years ago. But I adduce it as an illustration of the tendency of 
 Outdoor Belief; and in that view, the sooner it was after the 
 change in the law, the more strongly does it show its ten- 
 dency. 
 
 In Ireland this deterrent method was provided, as in 
 England, through the Workhouse. The whole law was to be 
 found within the corners of the Act ; and it expressly prohibited 
 relief being given in any way except as the Act directed, which 
 was limited to the Workhouse. Indeed it did not even pro- 
 mise relief to all, giving preference, in case of deficient accom- 
 modation in any Workhouse, to resident destitute, and making 
 no provision at all for the others, t 
 
 But the " destitute " indiscriminately were to be relieved ; and 
 as I said above that there must be sudden emergencies which 
 anywhere would put to a severe trial the system of Indoor Belief, 
 it was nearly certain that such would be the event in Ireland, 
 where the bulk of the population lived on the coarsest and 
 cheapest kind of food, with no resource beyond it if it came 
 to fail. The Irish Famine broke down the Workhouse system 
 
 * Eeport, ut sup. p. cxcv. 
 
 t See Mr. Chadwick, * Comparative Results of Poor Law Administration in 
 England, Ireland, and Scotland ' (1864), p. 13. 
 t 1 & 2 Vict. ch. Ivi. sect. 41.
 
 18 SPEECH ON THE POOR LAWS 
 
 as an exclusive one, and the Extension x\ct of 1847 gate 
 unlimited power to administer Outdoor Relief, subject only to 
 the discretion of the Commissioners, and to some well-in- 
 tended provisions for possible future revocation. But, " canis 
 a corio nimquam absterrebitur uncto," and it is not likely tliat 
 such a population as the Irish, having once tasted of Outdoor 
 Relief, will ever abandon it. 
 
 In March, 1848, 50,143 able-bodied Paupers were relieved out 
 of doors in Ireland, and the total daily average of all classes 
 was 703,762 Outdoor, to 140,536 Indoor. This was no doubt 
 exceptional, being so soon after the famine ; but I find in the 
 last report of the Irish Poor Law Board that the average daily 
 number of Outdoor Paupers in Ireland rose, by constant yearly 
 increase, between 1865 and 1873, from 12,205 to 27,509 — much 
 more than double. 
 
 The general result of a survey of the effects of the Scotch 
 and the Irish Poor Laws ought to be, I think, to confirm us in 
 adherence to the main principle of our own law. 
 
 My Lords, I hope I need not say that our main object in all 
 this question ought to be the well-being of the Poor themselves. 
 One only point in this relation I will dwell upon, as I am 
 enabled to illustrate it in a particular manner. Far the 
 worst result of a lax Poor Law, I conceive, is its disastrous 
 effect on the sense of family obligations ; and I beg attention 
 to the following extract from a letter I have received from a 
 medical gentleman named Macnamara — 
 
 I have worked among the natives of India as a medical man 
 for twenty years, and have perhaps seen more of their family life 
 than any European in Bengal ; and it is impossible for people to 
 realize the devotion of children to parents, and the wonderful self- 
 sacrifice practised by the young to support the aged and sick of 
 the family. This feeling is as strong among the lower as in the 
 higher classes ; and I need not remind you that there are no Poor 
 Laws nor public charity of any kind in India, but a vast amount 
 of private charity : 
 
 -—confirming what I have said as to the distinction between 
 public and private aid. Thus does a Heathen country contrast 
 with a Christian one after centuries of a Poor Law. 
 
 At the outset I ventured to hope that the present time 
 would be deemed a suitable one for this discussion, and for an 
 attempt to wean the working class from reliance on the fatal 
 gift, the Scopov ahcopov, of public Relief. It is so because it is a
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. 19 
 
 time of prosperity. Should the present promise of an abundant 
 harvest be reah'zed, and should we be further blest with a suc- 
 cession of good harvests, the probability is that the condition 
 of all classes, and of the labourers in particular, will be per- 
 manently raised ; for of course the law is by no means the 
 only agent that affects that condition. We are glad to know 
 that from various causes their condition has improved and is 
 improving ; our object should be that the Poor Law and its 
 administration should work in the same direction. 
 
 We know there are serious counteracting evils to the good of 
 prosperity. Nothing in such times is more distressing than 
 the waste of the resources of the labouring class: their not 
 working nearly as much as is perfectly consistent with their 
 comfort and health, and squandering the produce of the work 
 which they do render, so that often their wives and families are 
 no better off in good times than in bad. In my own county I 
 hear of a notable instance of this. We have, as in almost all 
 parts of the country, a system of Allotments or Field-Gardens 
 for the Poor. We have had it for many years, and have never 
 found any difficulty in obtaining tenants ; but I am now told 
 that from the high wages of the working people, they care but 
 little for their bits of land. Nothing can be, of course, more 
 short-sighted ; but we aggravate the evil in so far as by our 
 legal system we weaken the springs of forethought and thrift. 
 
 Nor can we work effectively in the right direction, except by 
 some self-acting test. In Staffordshire and Worcestershire the 
 nailers are doing better than ever they have been ; but they of 
 course, as far as possible, hide it from the Guardians whenever 
 they choose to apply for parochial Kelief. 
 
 There is also, no doubt, an unfiivourable effect of such times 
 on the minds of many of those from whom Guardians are chosen. 
 Prosperous and lightly burdened times tend to make them 
 careless and lax in the custody and administration of public 
 funds. The more important is it, then, to bring to bear upon 
 them a strong central control, and a weight of opinion from the 
 Government, from Parliament, and from the country. 
 
 My Lords, it will be no small thing for the people of this 
 generation in England, if to the many triumphs and benefits 
 which they have achieved and received — if to the countless 
 inventions, discoveries, and improvements in science, the great 
 sanitary reforms, the spread of education, the revival of religion, 
 they sliall be able to add and bequeath to their posterity some
 
 20 SPEECH ON THE POOR LAWS. 
 
 real, effectual, lasting check to one of the most deadly and 
 spreading plagues that can affect a civilized and industrial 
 community, the plague of Pauperism. 
 
 I move, " That it is expedient in the administration of the 
 Poor Law to revert more nearly to the principles of the Report 
 of the Commissioners of Inquiry (1833), with a view to the 
 ultimate disc(^untenance of Outdoor Relief." 
 
 I.0NDON : I'KINXED BY WILLIAM CLOVVKS AND SONS, STAMFORD 8TREE3' 
 AND CHAKING CUOSS.