Mar 23,1801 - Poor Rates - Cumberland and Westmorland Newspaper Transcriptions

Mar 23,1801 - Poor Rates

The Times, Monday, Mar 23, 1801; pg. 2; Issue 5060; col C

HOUSE OF COMMONS, SATURDAY, MARCH 21.

The Attorney General said, he had in his hand a petition stating very
extraordinary facts, which, if they were true, must fill the mind of every man
with indignation, and convince the House that it was absolutely necessary to
adopt some legislative provision that might put a stop to the evil complained
of. The petition came from the Churchwardens and Overseers of the large and
populous town of Whitehaven, in Cumberland, and stated that it was totally out
of their power to make a Rate for the maintenance of the Poor, in consequence of
which they were involved in the greatest difficulty and distress. As the law now
stood any person might object to a rate, and appeal against it at the Quarter
Session; the consequence was, that if the objection was founded in law, the
whole rate made must be quashed. The petitioners had made a rate, a part of
which was objected to by a certain Noble Lord, who was Lord Lieutenant of the
county (the Earl of LONSDALE); and the ground of objection was that of the words
"two householders" - having been used, instead of "two housekeepers." - The
petitioners published two other rates after this, both of which, from objections
made by the same Noble Lord, were quashed also. The persons on whom the rates
had been made, refused to pay them; and the Magistrates at quarter-sessions
could not grant a warrant of distress to compel payment, because if they did so,
pending an appeal, they would render themselves liable to an action. In this
state of embarrassment and distress, the Petitioners were obliged to borrow sums
of money, amounting to 1000L. which was all expended, and the poor were now on
the brink of perishing for want. This petition had, but a short time before,
been put into his hands, and therefore he could not pledge himself as to its
contents, but if the facts stated in it were true, it was a shame upon the age
and the country, that such things be permitted.

The petition was then read, and besides the facts already mentioned, it stated,
that the town of Whitehaven contained about 15,000 inhabitants, of whom 5000
were liable to be taxed for the poor-rates: that all the rates the petitioners
had made were quashed, in consequence of objections made by the Earl of
LONSDALE. The petitioners therefore prayed, that so much of the poor-laws as
obliged the justices at quarter-sessions to quash-rates, in consequence of the
objection of any person, and that so much as related to the power to grant
warrants of distress, might be amended. They further prayed for relief, without
which 500 persons, paupers, must be starved.

Mr. CURWEN said he rose to bear testimony to the truth of every fact contained
in that petition; and that similar distresses were occasioned in other parts of
Cumberland, as well as in Whitehaven; the distress of that town, however, was so
great, that he hoped there would be no delay in affording the poor relief.

After a short conversation; the petition was ordered to lie on the table. -
Adjourned to Monday.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Times, Tuesday, Mar 24, 1801; pg. 2; Issue 5061; col D

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MONDAY, MARCH 23.

COLLECTION OF POOR'S RATES.

The Attorney-General, in pursuance to the notice he had given on Saturday, moved
for leave to bring in a Bill for the better collection of Poor Rates. He
considered such a Bill to be strictly necessary, as at present, in consequence
of a very trifling error, the whole rate assessed in any particular place, was
liable on appeal to be quashed; and it might happen that in consequence of
successive appeals, the Overseers would be wholly disabled from providing for
the Poor. It was an evil which had been said to have been long complained of,
and for which there appeared no other remedy than a Bill similar to that moved
for.

The Solicitor General seconded the motion.

Sir William LOWTHER complained of the Petition presented by the Attorney General
on Saturday, being presented on an unusual day, the object of which seemed to be
to cast a stigma on the character of a Noble Lord (the Earl of LONSDALE), who
had no notice whatever of any intention to present such a Petition.

The Solicitor General thought it a doctrine wholly new to the House that an
individual should not be at liberty to present a Petition without giving notice
to a Noble Lord, or any other person whose name might happen to be involved in
it exclusive of which, the Petition alluded to had stated nothing injurious to
that Noble Lord, but merely a simple fact in which he happened to share.

Mr. JOLLIFFE said a few words.

Mr. SATTERTHWAITE was proceeding to give a detail of a transaction in Cumberland
relative to the statements of the Petition presented by the Attorney General,
when he was called to order by

Mr. ABBOTT, who thought that as the Bill moved for was on a general principle, a
detail of any particular transaction was irregular.

The Speaker thought that as the Bill was avowedly moved for, in consequence of a
particular statement, some detail relative to that might be allowable.

Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE supported the motion.

Mr. MAINWARING expressed himself jealous of any infringement upon the Statute of
Elizabeth, which the Bill moved for went to alter, but would not oppose its
being brought in.

After a few words from Col. BUXTON, and a reply from

The Attorney General, who vindicated himself from any intention of presenting
the Petition alluded to by surprize, and contended for the necessity of the
measure he had moved for. - Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~