The allowance system being abolished, and the central board established, next came the powers of the commissioners. He proposed one uniform system operating over the whole country, in order to obtain which they were to have power to make general rules and orders as to the mode of relief, and for the regulation of workhouses, and the mode of relief afforded therein. As a check against any abuse, every such rule, order, or regulation so proposed by the commissioners would be submitted to the secretary-of-state: forty days were to elapse before it could be brought into operation, and during that period it should be competent, by an order in council, issued for that purpose, to prevent it from being carried into effect. The commissioners would further have power, he said, to make specific rules and orders for the regulation and mode of relief of the poor in separate districts and parishes: to form unions of parishes, in order to make larger districts; to arrange classifications of the poor in the same or different workhouses; to exercise a general control in such unions as might be established without their consent; and to dissolve unions which might now exist. Unions having been formed, each parish in the union would have to maintain its own poor, or contribute to the general fund the proportion of expense which it had hitherto borne by itself. The commissioners would likewise have power to call the attention of parishes and unions to the state of their workhouse establishments, and to suggest to them the propriety of adding to those formed, or of building separate and distinct establishments. Another fertile source of mischief had been the practice of ordering relief to the poor in their own houses. The bill would provide that justices should have no power for the future, thus bringing back the law to the state in which it had been previous to the year 1796. Other features of the bill, he explained, consisted in simplifying the law of settlement and removal; in rendering the mother of an illegitimate child liable for its support, and, for its ailment, to save from imprisonment the putative father to whom she might swear it. The great principles of the proposed plan, therefore, went to stop the allowance system; to deprive the magistracy of the power of ordering out-door relief; to alter, in certain cases, the constitution of parochial vestries; to give large discretionary powers to the commissioners; to simplify the law of settlement and removal; and to render the mother of an illegitimate child liable for its support. The bill by which these principles were to be carried into effect having been brought in, the second reading was opposed by Colonel Evans, one of the members for Westminster, and Sir S. Whalley, one of the members for Marylebone. The latter moved an amendment, that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. It was his opinion, he said, that the bastardy clause, which threw all the burden on the mother, on whom the odium rested already, thus held out a premium to immorality and an inducement to infanticide; and the clauses which effected the law of settlement would of themselves justify the house in throwing out the bill. His great objection, however, was to the board of commissioners. The board was unnecessary, for the principal existing defect consisted in the ratepayers not having sufficient control over the expenditure. If they were only vested with complete control over the poor-law management, the evils of the present system would soon disappear. He doubted whether the house had authority to give powers of the description proposed to any set of men—at all events it was impolitic. The bashaws whom the bill proposed to start into life would be omnipotent; they might do as they pleased, and account for their acts by merely stating it was their pleasure. There were to be no less than thirty-six discretionary powers vested in the commissioners; a degree of authority entrusted to three men of which the country afforded no parallel. Government ought to wait before they undertook any poor-law reform: the report of the commissioners had already led to the correction of many abuses, and time only was required to secure a trial to the greater part, if not all, of the recommendations that report contained. The amendment was seconded by Alderman Wood, and supported by Mr. Walter, a reforming representative of Berkshire. Messrs. Grote and Hume, and Sirs J. Scarlett and Francis Burdett, with other members who spoke on the occasion, all agreed that there was no good reason against the second reading of the bill, though none of them approved it as a whole. The chancellor of the exchequer argued in reply, that nothing had been stated which could be regarded as an ostensible reason for not going into committee; and that when in committee all matters which had been noticed would be open to consideration. The second reading was carried by a majority of three hundred and nineteen to twenty. In the committee a discussion took place as regarded the effect of the bill in establishing workhouses, a system which some members disliked; but the clause was retained. Another discussion also took place on the clause which allowed occupiers and owners to vote in vestries, the latter having accumulative votes proportioned to their property. It was objected to as being inconsistent with popular rights and good management; but it was nevertheless retained. The forty-fifth clause provided that it should be lawful for the commissioners, by such orders or regulations as they should think fit, to declare to what extent the relief to be given might be administered out of the workhouse. An amendment was moved, “that no rule or order of the commissioners shall prohibit the guardians of unions from giving relief out of the workhouse, to such of their sick or impotent poor, and to such widows, orphans, and illegitimate children, as they may think fit so to relieve.” This amendment, however, was only supported by forty, while one hundred and forty-eight voted against it. In the clauses regarding settlement, settlement by having occupied a tenement, and having been assessed to the poor-rates for one year, and having paid such assessment, was added to settlement by birth and marriage.
The clauses which laid the burden of supporting an illegitimate child on the mother, as if she had been a widow, gave rise to much discussion. Mr. Robinson moved that they should be omitted, he objecting to them chiefly on the ground that they removed the liability from the father. He did not object, he said, to so much of them as repealed certain acts affecting the mother, but to that part which let the father go free. The bill proposed, he said, that in case the woman should be unable to support the child, the liability should rest on the father, or if he were not alive, or being alive and not able to support it, then the liability was to fall on the grandfather or grandmother. Could the house, he asked, seriously entertain propositions of this nature, or consent to pass enactments so contrary to every principle of justice and humanity? Lord Althorp protested against these provisions being discussed as matters of feeling; they should be considered not as they affected one portion of society, but the whole of it; and looking at it in this point of view he was prepared to support this part of the bill as a boon to the female population. He left it as an alternative to the committee, that if this clause was struck out, the bastardy clauses should be wholly severed from the bill, and proceeded with in a future session of parliament. The general feeling in the house seemed to be that the clauses should be struck out, and the matters which they involved made the subject of a separate measure, or that they should be postponed till some middle term should be devised. The majority, however, preferred the latter alternative, and it was decided that the provisions in question should not be expunged. On the 21st of March Mr. Miles proposed a modified clause, which still refused any claim to the mother against the father, and gave no power of demanding security before the child was born; but it exposed him to a claim at the instance of the managers of the poor, in the event of the mother and the child becoming chargeable to the parish. The chancellor of the exchequer said he would have preferred the original provisions of the bill; but he acquiesced in the adoption of the proposed clause, because he saw that the opinion of the house was in its favour. Subsequently clauses were added, disqualifying the commissioners from sitting in parliament; requiring all general orders and regulations to be laid before parliament; and limiting the operation of the act, in so far as regarded the commissioners, to five years. The bill was read a third time and passed on the 1st of July. It was introduced to the lords on the day following, and the second reading was fixed for the 8th of July; but in consequence of the resignation of Earl Grey, it was not again brought forward till the 21st of July. The second reading was moved by the lord-chancellor, who, after giving an historical account of the progress of the poor-laws, pointed out the manner in which they had become the sources of so much evil. The bill found its most violent opponent in Lord Wynford, who moved as an amendment that it be read that day six months. He did not oppose it, he said, on the ground that there was not much in the administration of the poor-laws which required to be corrected, but because he conceived that the remedies proposed by the bill were partly unnecessary and partly inefficient, while some of them were perfectly tyrannical. The Earl of Winchilsea and the Dukes of Richmond and Wellington supported the motion for the second reading, though they did not approve of all the provisions of the bill. The division on the amendment gave seventy-six peers for the second reading, and only thirteen against it. In the committee Lord Alvanley proposed that the bill should be dropped. Lord Wynford urged strong objections to the central board of commissioners, but this was defended by the lord-chancellor, the Earl of Winchilsea, and the Duke of Wellington. The only alteration made in the clauses respecting them and their powers was an addition proposed by the Duke of Wellington, to the effect that they should be bound to keep a record of each letter received, the date of its reception, the person from whom it came, the subject to which it related, and the minute of any answer given to it, or made thereon, and also, where the commissioners differed, of the opinion of each commissioner, and that a copy of such record be transmitted to the secretary-of-state once a year, or oftener if required. The Bishop of Exeter moved to substitute for the leading enactment in reference to bastardy, “That the father and mother of an illegitimate child, or the survivor of them, shall be required to support such child, and that no parish shall be bound to support such child whilst either parent is able to do so, and that all relief occasioned by the wants of such child shall be considered as relief afforded to the father and mother, or the survivor of them.” This amendment, however, was negatived by thirty-eight votes against thirty-four; but the clause itself, being that which the house of commons, on the motion of Mr. Miles, had substituted for the original clause, was likewise rejected. On the third reading the Bishop of Exeter again brought the question before the house, by moving the omission of the clause which provided that any person marrying a woman who had an illegitimate child or children by another man, should be liable to maintain them. The original clause, however, was retained, although by a majority of only eleven, eighty-two voting for and seventy-one against it. Instead of the rejected clause which Mr. Miles had carried in the house of commons, clauses were introduced on the motion of the Duke of Wellington, enacting, that the putative father of any bastard child, so soon as such child became chargeable to the parish by the mother’s inability to maintain it, should be liable to reimburse to the parish the expenses of its maintenance until it attained the age of seven years, on his paternity being proved before the quarter-sessions, but not without the testimony of the woman being corroborated by other evidence; that when a woman had had one bastard child, she should obtain no order in a subsequent case; that an order should be operative only till the child attained the age of seven years; that sums to be recovered from the putative father should be recoverable only by attachment or distress; and that he should not, in any case, be liable to imprisonment for costs. Subsequently, several other amendments were made of minor importance, as alterations in the allowance system, and in administering outdoor relief, &c.; and the bill thus altered passed the third reading on the 8th of August, by a majority of forty-five against fifteen. On the 11th of August, when Lord Althorp moved the commons to agree to the lords’ amendment, an amendment was moved that they should be read that day six months. This proposal was chiefly supported by those who were opposed to the bill altogether, or who wished it should be delayed till next session; but Lord Althorp declared that if it did not pass, he would not again bring it forward; and the amendment was negatived by a large majority. All the amendments of the lords were then agreed to, with the exception of the omission of the clause which provided for the instruction of pauper children in the religious creed of his surviving parent or god-parent, and entitled dissenting clergymen to visit workhouses at all times, for the purpose of religious instruction, at the desire of any pauper of any sect. This amendment was said to be a violation of the principle of religious liberty, and an insult to the small portion of good feeling towards dissenters which existed in the upper house, and it was rejected. Finally, the amendment of the commons restoring the clause which had been expunged, was agreed to by the lords, and thus the great experiment of a revision and alteration of the poor-laws commenced.
From the great change effected in the poor-laws, no class of men could eventually expect greater relief than the owners and occupiers of lands. At this time, however, the agriculturists longed after means of relief of more immediate, direct, and certain operation. The subject of agricultural distress had, indeed, formed a paragraph in the king’s speech, and it was now brought forward by the Marquis of Chandos. On the 21st of February, after ably stating both the local and general causes of the evil, he moved a resolution, “That, in any reduction of national burdens by the remission of taxes, due regard be shown to that distress of the agriculturists which had been alluded to in the speech from the throne.” The resolution was supported by Mr. A. Baring, who said, that importunity and clamour, threats of commotion and resistance to the law obtained that which was refused to the patient suffering of the farmer. Several members spoke against the resolution, not meaning to deny that the agriculturists were suffering, but considering the resolution as not likely to lead to any result; and that the means alluded to by those who supported it were neither efficient nor just. Moreover, the supporters of the motion were far from being of one mind as to the manner in which relief ought to be afforded. On a division the resolution was lost by a majority of four only in a very full house. This success induced the noble mover to bring the subject before the house again. On the 7th of July he moved, “That an humble address be presented to his majesty, expressing the deep regret that this house feels at the continuance of the distressed state of the agricultural interests of the country, to which the attention of parliament was especially called in his majesty’s most gracious speech from the throne, and humbly to represent the anxious desire of this house that the attention of his majesty’s government should be directed, without further delay, to this important subject, with a view to the immediate removal of some portion of those burdens to which the land is subject through the pressure of general and local taxation.” On a division the motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and ninety against one hundred and seventy-four.
On the 17th of March the question of the malt-duty was brought directly before the house by a motion of Mr. Cobbett, that it should cease and determine from and after the 5th of October next. It was rejected by one hundred and forty-two to fifty-nine.
THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.
While the agriculturists were thus demanding relief, the corn-laws were not only insisted on as an answer to all complaints by those who maintained a different interest, but were also themselves made the subject of a formal attack. On the 6th of March, Mr. Hume moved, “That this house do resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to consider of the corn-laws, and of substituting, instead of the present graduated scale of duties, a fixed and moderate duty on the import at all times of foreign corn into the United Kingdom, and for granting a fixed and equivalent bounty on the export of corn from the United Kingdom, with the ultimate view of establishing a free trade in corn.” Sir James Graham defended the present system as necessary to prevent the destruction of the farmers, and the annihilation of the occupations of an immense body of agricultural labourers. On the other hand, Lord Morpeth, who was himself connected with the landed interest, Lord Howick, and Mr. Clay, member for the Tower Hamlets, supported the motion, contending that it was the corn-laws which kept the agricultural interest in a state of depression while all other interests were prospering. The Irish members who spoke were adverse to the proposition; the very agitation of the question, it was said, would do much mischief in Ireland, unless the house distinctly declared that there should be no change in the existing law. Lord Althorp said that he would meet the motion with a direct negative, although his opinions were favourable to an alteration of the existing system. In opposition, therefore, to his theoretical opinion, he would resist the motion; and he believed that every cabinet minister would vote against it. There were, however, some of the members of government favourable to a repeal of the corn-laws; and Mr. Thompson, vice-president of the board of trade, supported the motion, and delivered a long speech, principally in answer to Sir James Graham’s. He contended that so far from the existing system conferring any benefit on the corn-growers, the farmers, who had been deluded by it, had more reason to complain of it than any other class in the country. And what, he asked, were the effects on our manufactures of this system which had ruined the farmers? The motion was rejected by three hundred and twelve against one hundred and fifty-five. The subject was again discussed incidentally, on the occasion of the presentation of a petition from Liverpool in favour of free trade, and especially of a free trade in corn. Sir Robert Peel embraced this opportunity of expressing his opinions on the subject—opinions utterly at variance with the enlightened policy adopted by him at a subsequent date. On the other hand, Sir Henry Parnell said that the pretext of farmers being interested in a continuation of the corn-laws was a gross delusion practised on them by the landlords. It was for their advantage alone that the whole community was taxed.
At this time, also, those concerned in the shipping-interest complained loudly of distress, which they considered to be either caused or aggravated by the admission into our ports of the ships of foreign nations on the same terms on which our vessels were admitted into theirs; an admission which the crown had the power of conceding under the fourth of George IV., c. 77, commonly called “the Reciprocity of Duties Act.” Many petitions for the repeal of this act were presented; and on the 5th of June Mr. G. F. Young moved for leave to bring in a bill for that purpose; but the motion was resisted by ministers, and rejected by one hundred and seventeen against fifty-two.