HC Deb 23 March 1838 vol 41 cc1179-99

House in Committee on the Poor-law (Ireland) Bill.

On Clause 106, limitation of actions,

Mr. W. S. O'Brien

said, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to the clause. He thought it a great hardship that the defendants in all cases were obliged to pay costs when in the wrong, and the Commissioners were exempt from costs when they happened to be in error. He begged to ask whether it was the intention of the noble Lord to alter the clause, so as to make the wrong-doer, whoever he may be, pay the costs.

Viscount Morpeth

said, he must abide by the clause in its present shape.

Mr. Lucas

begged to mention a case very nearly similar, which occurred to himself. A quit-rent collector went out of the barony and parish in which he was authorised to collect quit-rent, and distrained a tenant of his for 5l., which the farmer, sooner than let his cattle be driven off the ground, paid. The tenant came to him to complain, and it turned out that the town-land was free from quit-rent. He hunted the matter up, and though he met with the greatest civility, he obtained no redress. He was informed, that if he sued the man and failed, he should have to pay the costs; but what was worse, it appeared that if he sued him and succeeded, he should still have to pay the costs; and so it was with the present clause.

Mr. Sergeant Woulfe

thought, the hon. Member was peculiarly ill advised not to proceed against the wrong doer. With respect to the clause under consideration, he should object to giving costs against the Commissioners.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 112. Power to the Queen to appoint a fourth Commissioner,

Mr. Shaw

said, that in the discussion of a former part of the Bill, the Government undertook that there should be a Commissioner permanently resident in Dublin, to an office established there for the purpose of receiving applications, and affording information to all who might be concerned in the administration of the Poor-law in Ireland. He admitted, there was an advantage in having the whole system, both in England and Ireland, under the direction of one board—but that would be too dearly purchased if the Commissioners were all resident at Somerset-house, in which case the business of Ireland must necessarily be postponed to the more pressing demands upon their attention from England. The present clauses were only permissive as to one Commissioner acting in Ireland. He, therefore, could not agree to them without an express understanding from the Government that the entire attention and time and presence of one Commissioner, at least, should be devoted to Ireland.

Lord John Russell

said, that it was intended that there should be one Commissioner permanently resident at Dublin, and that there should be an office at Dublin for the carrying on of the business of the Poor-law Commissioners. It might happen that in case of illness among the Poor-law Commissioners in London, the Dublin Commissioner might be called to this country; but in that case, an Assistant-Commissioner would be appointed for the time, so that the business of the Poor-law Commissioners would always be attended to in Dublin.

Sir E. Sugden

said, he understood a clause was to be introduced, making it necessary that one Commisioner should reside in Dublin. As the clause stood, it merely made it permissive in place of peremptory. The people of Ireland were decidedly of opinion, that there should be one Commissioner at the least resident in Dublin. Perhaps, therefore, the noble Lord would have no objection to introduce words to this effect:—"That there shall be an office in Dublin where one of the Commissioners shall be generally resident."

Lord John Russell

had no objection to introduce the words.

Mr. W. S. O'Brien

said, he was by no means satisfied with the clause as it stood; nor could he allow it to pass without entering his protest against it. It was absolutely indispensable to working out the measure that there should be a resident board in Dublin, and this was the unanimous opinion of the people of Ireland. It was his intention to move an amendment to the clause, and would leave it to the Committee to negative it if they thought fit. He should move, that three persons be appointed to sit in Dublin to administer the Bill. He should wish to see one of the Commissioners from the English Board; also, an eminent medical man; and the third, a person intimately acquainted with all the localities of Ireland. Such was the kind of board he purposed to substitute for the one resident Commissioner.

Viscount Morpeth

said, the Committee having before expressed a very decided opinion on this point, he should not now re-discuss the question. He considered that his noble Friend, having adopted the suggestion thrown out on the other side, had done all that was required.

Clause agreed to.

In Clause 116—the interpretation clause—it was proposed to insert the words, "and also every fee-farm rent, and rent seek, and rent charge tithe shall include rent or composition in lieu of tithe, and also the minister's money charged under an Act made in Parliament of Ireland in the Session holden in the 17th and 18th year of the reign of King Charles the 2nd, for provision of ministers and corporate towns in Ireland."

Mr. Shaw

opposed the insertion of these words. The Government had never intended that ministers' money should be made chargeable to the poor-rate; it would be unjust in principle, as a departure from the bill, which only professed to be a charge upon land, as against the landlord or quasi landlord in fee, in which light the tithe-owner was regarded in respect to composition rent, but could not be as to ministers' money; and it would practically bear with great hardship upon a class of income which was most difficult of collection by the clergyman, and in regard of which he had no benefit from the tithe composition acts. He protested against the shabby course the Government had taken in this matter; they not having introduced, or of themselves meaning to introduce, any substantive enactment, rendering ministers' money liable to the poor-rate, yielded to the pressure of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell), and now, in the interpretation clause at the end of the bill, as it were, smuggled in words, merely by way of interpretation, imposing a tax upon the clergy of a personal nature, to which no other class was subjected. He was aware that he would have a bad division, as his friends were quite taken by surprise, not having expected that such a course would have been adopted by the Government; but still, to show his sense of the injustice of that course, he would divide the Committee against the amendment.

Lord John Russell

said, that so far from the question being decided the other night, the clause was allowed to stand over for consideration. His learned Friend, the Solicitor-General, had since looked into the acts, and had found the act creating ministers' money in Ireland to be very like that creating the stipend in lieu of tithe in London, and therefore he saw no necessity for exempting ministers' money from the payment of poor-rates.

Mr. Litton

had not heard any principle suggested from the beginning to the end of these discussions to warrant the rating of ministers money. The principle of the bill was, that nothing should be rated but lands or hereditaments, and therefore tithe was fairly subject to the rate, and the law dealt with it as land in all its qualities. On the other hand, ministers money was granted by statute, in the nature of pecuniary aid, in which the clergyman had no vested right, inasmuch as it was quite optional with the Lord-Lieutenant, in council, whether it was granted or not. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thonght it his duty to oppose the introduction of the words.

Mr. Sergeant Woulfe

contended, that ministers money was to all intents and purposes a charge upon the land, and therefore ought to be subject to poor-rates.

Sir E. Sugden

said, he thought it quite clear that on principle this money should not be rated to the poor. If this money were the same as tithe, then it must be rateable, but, according to the Irish acts, it was impossible that it could be viewed in that light. He would suggest to the noble Lord, that he should propose a substantive clause relating to this matter, in order that the opinion of the House might be regularly taken on it, and the point set at rest.

The Attorney-General

thought, that there was no evidence to show that ministers money was not assessable. In London it had been ascertained that this species of impost was liable to rates. It was a contribution in respect of each house levied in the towns of Ireland for the support of the clergy, payable by the occupier.

Mr. O'Connell

said, the law was quite clear upon the subject. Now Dean Dawson had 1,100l. out of the parish in which he (Mr. O'Connell) resided. The parish extended as far as Rathfarnham, so he, of course, received tithes from part of it, and on that portion of his income he would have to pay pror-rates, while it was sought to exempt the portion of his income derived from Merrion-square. Ministers' money was an annual income charged upon the house, and not the person: there was a remedy for non payment by distress. The contribution was levied on the same principle as tithes, and therefore ought not to be exempted from rates. He could not much congratulate the clergy of Ireland on the conduct of their friends, who struggled to exempt the ministers of the church in towns, where the greatest distress existed, from the payment of any amount towards the relief of the destitute.

Mr. Goulburn

maintained, that though the clergy paid rates on tithe, it did not follow that they ought to pay rates on the commutation received on their other allowances. Many clergymen were paid by stipend, and it was not sought to charge them with poor-rates. The words of the act referred to were conclusive. "Whereas there was little or no tithe." Now, when there was none payable, ministers money could not be said to be in lieu of tithe.

Mr. O'Connell

thought, if an impost arising out of the land was burdened with rate, a charge on houses ought to be liable to it also.

Sir E. Sugden

said, rent charges were exempt from rate; the present charge arose in the same manner, and ought to be exempted also. He insisted that there were no words in the Acts of Parliament bearing on the point which gave ministers money as tithes, or in lieu of tithes. It was not because the rate would be payable by the clergy that he wished them to be exempted from it, but because this kind of rent charge was not rateable in the hands of laymen, and therefore could not, on any principle of justice, be rateable when received by the ministers of religion.

Mr. Callaghan

said, he possessed some land on which he paid tithe—he built a house upon it, and the churchwardens forthwith demanded ministers money. He paid both for a while, but he now paid only the ministers' money. There could, therefore, be no doubt that ministers' money was received in lieu of tithe.

Viscount Morpeth

would not enter into the discussion of the legal question; he rose merely to state, that there was not the slightest warrant for the injurious terms in which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of Ministers on this occasion, for the question had been mooted one night last week, when Government had distinctly reserved it for further consideration; and the words now proposed for insertion had been printed and circulated, and in the hands of hon. Members for the last four days.

Mr. Sergeant Woulfe

said, the right hon. Member for Ripon had fallen into a mistake in assimilating this to a rent charge, for it happened, unfortunately for his argument, that rent charges were not exempted from rates by the bill. But this was not a rent charge; it was really and substantially a payment given by Act of Parliament in lieu of tithe, and as a substitute for it. Whether, however, it was considered in the same light as the money paid to the clergymen of London, or as a rent charge, it was impossible that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman could hold good.

Sir E. Sugden

said, he had drawn the clearest distinction that words could express between a rent charge and a perpetual rent charge, which placed its owner in the position of a landlord.

The Committee divided on the original motion:—Ayes 59; Noes 26: Majority 33.

List of the AYES.
Acheson, Viscount Macleod, Roderick
Aglionby, H. A. Morpeth, Viscount
Aglionby, Major O'Brien, Cornelius
Barnard, E. George O'Brien, W. Smith
Barron, H. Winston O'Callaghan, hon. C.
Barry, G. Standish O'Connell, Daniel
Beamish, Francis B. O'Connell, M. J.
Blake, Martin, J. Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.
Bridgeman, Hewitt Pease, Joseph
Brotherton, Joseph Redington, Thomas N.
Browne, R. Dillon Roche, William
Busfield, William Roche, David
Butler, hon. Colonel Rundle, John
Callaghan, Daniel Russell, Lord John
Campbell, Sir John Salwey, Colonel
Chalmers, Patrick Somerville, Sir W. M.
Chester, Henry Stuart, Villiers
Curry, William Strickland, Sir George
Evans, George Style, Sir Charles
Fielden, John Thornely, T.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Vigors, N. Aylward
Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C. White, Luke
Grattan, James Wilde, Mr. Sergeant
Grattan, Henry Williams, William
Howard, Frederick, J. Wood, George W.
Howard, Philip, H. Woulfe, Mr. Sergeant
Howick, Viscount Wyse, Thomas
Hume, Joseph Yates, J. A.
Humphery, John TELLERS.
Hutton, Robert Baring, F. T.
Lynch, Andrew H. Rolfe, Sir R.
List of the NOES.
Barrington, Viscount Mackenzie, W. F.
Bateson, Sir R. Maunsell, Thomas P.
Bentinck, Lord G. O'Neill, hon J. B. R.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Perceval, Colonel
Castlereagh, Viscount Plumptre, J. P.
Conolly, Edward Powerscourt, Visc.
Dunbar, George Praed, W. M.
Filmer, Sir Edmund Richards, Richard
Gladstone, W. Ewart Rolleston, Lancelot
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Sugden, rt hon. Sir E.
Hillsborough, Earl of Trench, Sir F.
Hodgson, Richard
Hughes, William B. TELLERS.
Jones, Theobald Litton, E.
Kirk, Peter Shaw, rt. hon. T.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26, one of the postponed clauses, was put, "It empower the Commissioners to appoint paid officers to carry the Act into execution when the guardians shall not fulfil their duties."

Mr. W. S. O'Brien

, in rising to propose the omission of this clause, said, he should be ashamed to present himself before his constituents if he allowed a clause appointing paid guardians to pass without taking the sense of the House upon it. He firmly believed, that there was no part of Ireland in which virtuous and component persons would not be found to form a board of guardians, ready to work out the bill in a spirit of fairness and probity. He should not trouble the House with any lengthened argument upon the subject, but would merely express a hope that no Irish country gentleman of spirit would be found to sanction the clause.

Colonel Conolly

thought it possible, that circumstances might arise which would render the appointment of paid guardians necessary. He could not understand why the hon. Member for Limerick should take offence at Government providing against a fatality which was, at all events, of possible occurrence. In the west of Ireland, he very much feared that such a provision would be found necessary, and he could not bring himself to believe, that the Commissioners would have recourse, unnecessarily, to the powers with which the clause invested them. On the whole, as he could not see, that the honour of the country was at all involved in the decision to which the Committee may come, he should support the clause as it stood.

Mr. Lucas

suggested, that as the Bill gave the power to divide the country into electoral districts, each district in which a paid officer was appointed ought to support such officer itself.

Lord Clements

said, that if he really believed the true meaning of the clause to be that suggested by the gallant Member for Donegal, he should not object to it; but as he put a very different construction upon the meaning of the clause, he must oppose it.

Mr. Wyse

was of opinion, that if guardians appointed by the parish refused or neglected to serve, they ought to be fined like grand jurors or other officers appointed to perform public duties. If, however, it turned out in any particular locality that there was not a sufficient number of resident guardians, or if any other state of circumstances arose to call for the interference of the Commissioners, he did not think, that there could be any objection to the power given to the Commissioners to appoint paid officers.

Mr. Litton

thought, that the imposing of a fine upon persons for not performing a work of charity, would be rather a new mode of legislation. The measure, as it stood, in point of fact, imposed a fine in the most attenuated shape. If the resident guardians appointed by the rate payers refused to serve, and that paid officers were in consequence appointed by the Commissioners, the effect would be an increase in the amount of rates. That would prevent the continuance, or, at least, the repetition, of the refusal to serve, in which cases the Commissioners would probably revoke the appointment of paid officers, and allow the duties of the guardians to revert to the natural protectors of the poor. The clause, as it stood, appeared to him to be an extremely wholesome one, and guarded as much as possible against the occurrence of abuses. Supposing the workhouse to be built and the guardians refused to act, would it not be monstrous to allow all the machinery of the Bill to remain idle, and the expense and trouble to be gone to in vain.

Lord Castlereagh

did not object so much to the whole clause as to the words, "such and so many paid officers as the Commissioners shall think fit to appoint." These words would give the Commissioners the power of appointing an indefinite and unlimited number. The powers so conferred were much too extensive, and might afford a handle for abuse.

Mr. Hume

thought it was somewhat inconsistent and fastidious to limit the power given to the Commissioners in this clause, after the extensive powers which were conferred upon them in other and antecedent clauses of the Bill. He did not think it likely that the Commissioners would be guilty of an abuse of the powers confided in them, the more particularly as public opinion would operate to prevent them doing so.

Lord Clements

had an amendment to propose, which he thought would meet the views of the noble Lord opposite (Castlereagh). He proposed to leave out the words, "such and so many paid officers as the Commissioners shall think fit to appoint," and substitute for them the words, "the Commissioners may make order for the payment of such and so many of the guardians as they shall think fit." The consequence would be, that the persons to be paid by the Commissioners would be the guardians appointed by the ratepayers, and not independent officers of the Commissioners own selection. He thought the House should look with great distrust upon an attempt to place unlimited power in the hands of those who were not immediately responsible for its exercise. If the Commissioners were persons well acquainted with the state of the country, the case would be different. The whole spirit of the Bill would be changed if the clause was allowed to remain in its present shape. If a system of the kind proposed worked well, it would alarm him more than any single thing that could occur. If the unions were as large as were proposed, it would be impossible for the guardians to attend, and therefore paid guardians would be at once appointed. He was astonished that the present Cabinet, above all others, should bring in such a clause. They were bound, he thought, to render this Bill palatable to those who would, with their very hearts, support them. He was in the habit of receiving letters day after day from various parts of Ireland, saying there would be no objection to the Bill if the people were allowed themselves to work it, but the present clause put an end to the possibility of their doing so. The noble Lord concluded by begging of his hon Friend, the Member for Limerick, to take the division on bringing up the report.

Lord John Russell

said, that the line of argument pursued in opposition to this clause was as if the Commissioners would be anxious to make it impossible for the guardians to execute their duties, in order that paid officers of their own nomination might be appointed. Now he could not presume anything of the kind. The effect of the clause, as it stood, was, that where the guardians did not duly and effectively discharge the duties assigned to them by the Act, in such cases the Commissioners should appoint paid officers. This power, therefore, was a remedy only in cases of default on the part of the guardians, and where the Bill could not operate. It was, moreover, a remedy, the effect of which would be to induce the guardians to execute their duties properly. But what would be the effect of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord? Why, that in cases where the guardians did not perform their duties, they were to be induced to do so by the offer of a salary. Now, he was very much afraid that such an offer would be a motive to the guardians not to execute their duties gratuitously, but to neglect them, in order that they might obtain a salary. He thought, that the clause, as it stood, was preferable to the noble Lord's amendment.

Mr. Lucas

said, the noble Lord had mistaken the gist of his noble Friend's argument. The noble Lord was not entitled, having avoided retracting what he said on former occasions as to the size of the unions, now to have the benefit of retracta- tion. Now, in a union in England, containing 100 parishes, a farmer by acting might save to himself 25s.; but what could the Irish guardians save by acting? Only 3d., one-half of which he would only have to pay.

Sir F. Trench

thought, the Bill was a tissue of fraud, and held out expectations which would never be realised. If the Bill could be worked out at all, the effect of it would be a confiscation of property, without the slightest benefit to the poor. So determined was his opposition to the Bill, that upon the bringing up of the report, he would move, that it be received that day six months.

Lord Clements

said, that the chief object of his amendment was to get an expression of the noble Lord's opinion as to the payment of guardians elected by the people, rather than have the Commissioners appoint paid officers of their own selection. As, however, the words he had used in his amendment might not be suited to the intended object, he would withdraw the amendment altogether.

Mr. Lynch

was sure, that the clause would be very rarely called into action. The people of Ireland, he was satisfied, would do their duty with respect to this Bill, and it was only in default of guardians refusing to act that this power would be given to the Commissioners—a power which there was no doubt the Commissioners would not be likely to abuse.

Mr. Lucas

said, he would now move an amendment, that in cases where an unpaid guardian could not be found to act in a district, the paid guardian appointed by the Commissioners should be paid out of the funds of the electoral district, and not out of the funds of the whole union.

Lord John Russell

said, that in preceding clauses of the bill the persons appointed by the Commissioners were styled paid officers, and not guardians.

Mr. Lefroy

thought the object his hon. Friend, the Member for Monaghan, had in view was a very desirable one. It was but just, that the electoral district in fault should be visited with the expense.

Lord Castlereagh

wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-General for Ireland, if the board of guardians should refuse to act, what number of paid officers could be appointed by the Commissioners?

Mr. Sergeant Woulfe

replied, that if the board of guardians were found inefficient, the Commissioners would have power to appoint paid officers to act instead. The judgment as to efficiency must be vested somewhere, and he did not see where it could be better placed than in the hands of the Commissioners.

Lord Clements

said, that if difficulties should occur, as no doubt there would be, in getting the guardians, or a sufficient number of them, to attend, the exception of the appointment of paid officers would soon become the rule; and if the power of appointment of paid officers once got into the hands of the Commissioners, it would be almost impossible for the people to get it back again. It was on this ground that he wished to have paid guardians, and he was sure that the bill would never work well without them.

Lord Castlereagh

said, if it was possible to make the bill more unpopular in Ireland than it was at present, this clause would make it so. The House had just heard what was the opinion of one of the warmest supporters of the Government upon the clause. He certainly never could be brought to vote for the bill after the expression of opinion against it which existed in the part of the country which he represented. Except the bill united the feelings of the Irish people, it would be in vain to suppose that it would work well through the assistance of paid guardians. He thought it desirable to omit the clause altogether.

Sir R. Bateson

had listened with attention to the arguments on both sides, but had heard nothing to induce him to support the clause. He agreed with his noble Friend, the Member for the county Down, that the bill, in its present shape, was most objectionable—the bill, without the clause in question, was sufficiently so, but with it it was quite intolerable. He was opposed to the formation of large unions—the clause could only be necessary for large unions, and for that reason alone he should oppose it; but it was not on that ground solely he rested his objection to the clause—he opposed it on principle, as tending to increase the patronage of the Crown, by the creation of more commissioners, where too many existed already. He thought the clause would be productive of jobbing, and he should therefore oppose it.

Viscount Morpeth

said, it was unfair to tax Government with a wish to create patronage. The hon. Member for Limerick wished to have three Commissioners, whereas the Government were satisfied with one. He said that the necessity of the case justified the clause and the powers intrusted to the Commissioners. Without the clause the bill would be inoperative. He, however, thought the success of the measure would chiefly depend on the spontaneous exertions of the inhabitants in the different districts. He denied, that the Government were pledged that the unions should be any particular size.

Sir W. Somerville

said, his noble Friend had not convinced him of the necessity of the clause. He objected to such unlimited and despotic power being conferred on any commissioners. The clause as it stood gave them the power of appointing all over Ireland.

Mr. D. Browne

said, it came to this, that if the bill would not work, it was to be forced upon the people. If so, he would prefer not having the bill at all.

Mr. Barron

said, the bill would be ineffective without the clause.

Sir C. Styles

would support the clause. The office of the paid guardians was not intended to be permanent, and the ratepayers could get rid of those officers if they were found to be inattentive to their duties.

Mr. Archbold

said, that if the power were given to the Commissioners to employ paid guardians, all the other officers would require compensation for their labours; and in that case the expenses would be much heavier than the Irish gentry and farmers could afford. These appointments would be very much to the advantage of the Government. If this power were conferred no officers would act without payment. The bill altogether was most unpopular in Ireland. There was no man who had an acre of land who did not dread its provisions. He received letters every day from those who agreed with him in politics and with those who differed from him. There was one point, however, upon which they all agreed—namely, in opposition to this bill. He did not think it possible it ever could work, and he should therefore oppose it.

Mr. W. S. O'Brien

thought her Majesty's Government were peculiarly sparing in their reasons for forcing this clause upon the people of Ireland. He maintained that where the Irish Members expressed a decided opinion upon a clause of the bill it was the duty of the Government to meet their wishes. On an amendment of his the other night, charging jointures, &c., he had twenty five Irish Members to eleven; and on the right hon. Member for the University's amendment there were three to one in favour of it; and yet upon neither did the Government give way. He for one could not be accused of being an opponent to poor-laws. For the last seven years, both by writing and speaking, he had been their advocate; but rather than this bill should pass, he would prefer one to this effect:—"Be it enacted, that the Poor-law Commissioners at Somerset House he authorised to tax all the property in Ireland." The power conferred by this clause was at variance with those principles of self government contended for by the Government in the corporations and other institutions of the country. If the 25th Clause were allowed to remain in the bill, he could only say, that Ireland was not fit to have a poor-law at all, If Irish Gentlemen on the division should be content to allow the Commissioners of Somerset House to tax their property, the blame would lie with them and not with him.

Lord John Russell

observed, that it was always very easy to select a particular clause, or a case which very seldom occurred, as the ground for condemning a whole bill. This was the course taken by the hon. Member for Limerick in the present instance, as he took this particular clause, attacked it for the powers which it proposed to confer, and said that this was the principle of the bill. He totally denied that the principle of the bill was such as the hon. Gentleman had represented. When the absence of self-government and local government was alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, he would remind him that the guardians under this act were to be elected by the different districts, and were to supply the poor with relief. Did the hon. Gentleman mean to say, that such a provision was opposed to local government? He was aware that this clause was not in the English bill; but he recollected that when that measure was under discussion it was argued that the most despotic powers were given to the Commissioners. And there were certainly some provisions introduced which would seem to justify that description. For instance, in the case of the guardians neglecting to act, it was made competent for those magistrates who were ex officio guardians, to assume the whole authority. Yet would it be just to say, that because such powers, in an extreme case, were given, magistrates appointed by the Government were to be intrusted with the execution of the provisions of the law? Now, that was the sort of argument used to prevent this clause from passing. This clause only provided for particular instances in which no boards of guardians were made. It was impossible not to see that such a case might occur. Now there would be relief given under these circumstances by the English bill, even when no magistrates attended, and it was not fair that a district should omit to bear the burthen of its own poor merely from the default, the resistance, or disobedience, of the guardians.

Mr. Shaw

supported the clause, because he considered it absolutely necessary to the working of the bill. The bill certainly conferred great power on the Commissioners, but the great difficulty had been the doubt as to there being sufficient machinery in Ireland to do without this. In England the case was different; but there the power so given was limited in its duration. Although there were many objections to the principle, yet he considered the clause so necessary in a practical point of view, that he should certainly support it.

Mr. Lucas

withdrew his amendment, and the Committee divided on the original motion: Ayes 35; Noes 33: Majority 2.

List of the AYES.
Baring, F. Thornhill Morpeth, Viscount
Barron, H. Winston O'Brien, Cornelius
Beamish, Francis B. O'Callaghan, hon. C.
Berkeley, hon. H. Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.
Brotherton, Joseph Roche, Edmond B.
Chalmers, Patrick Russell, Lord John
Conolly, Edward Salwey, Colonel
Curry, William Shaw, rt. hon. Fred
Fergusson, rt. hon. C. Stuart, Villiers
Grattan, James Style, Sir Charles
Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. Vigors, N. Aylward
Hoskins, Kedgwin White, Luke
Howard, Philip H. Winnington, T. E.
Howard, Ralph Wood, George W.
Howick, Viscount Woulfe, Mr. Serg.
Hume, Joseph Yates, John A.
Lefroy, rt. hon. T. TELLERS.
Lynch, Andrew H. Lord Advocate, the
Marsland, Henry Wood, C.
List of the NOES
Acheson, Viscount Cole, Viscount
Archbold, Robert Dunbar, George
Blake, Martin J. Evans, George
Bodkin, J. James Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Brabazon, Sir W. Filmer, Sir Edmund
Browne, R. Dillon Hillsborough, Earl of
Bryan, George Hodgson, Richard
Butler, hon. Colonel Hughes, W. Bulkeley
Castlereagh, Viscount Jones, Theobald
Chester, Henry Kirk, Peter
Clements, Viscount Litton, Edward
Mackenzie, W. F. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Maxwell, Henry Trench, Sir Frederick
Moneypenny, T. G. Wyse, Thomas
O'Neill, hon. J. B. R. Young, John
Packe, C. William TELLERS.
Perceval, Colonel Bateson, Sir R.
Plumptre, John P. O'Brien, W. S.

On Clause 72, this proviso was proposed, "That every rate made under the authority of this Act, on tithe and compositions, or rent in lieu of tithe, shall be paid by the tithe-owner."

Mr. Shaw

objected to this clause, and to the new clause which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had printed with reference to tithe-owners. He thought he had convinced the noble Lord the other night, that it would be much simpler and fairer to estimate the annual value of the lands without deducting the tithe, and to let the occupier pay the rate in the first instance, and then stop the tithe-owner's proportion as in the case of the landlord, where the occupier was liable to the tithe, and to let the occupier stop the half of the entire rate from the landlord, and then the landlord stop the tithe-owner's share from the tithe-owner, where the landlord was liable to the tithe. This could be done by omitting the proviso from the 60th Clause, which would leave the land and the occupier liable for the whole rate, in the first instance—and then, by adding a few words to the 69th and 70th Clauses, which adjusted the proportions of rate, the former as between occupier and landlords—the latter as between the different landlords receiving rent out of the, same land, the proportions between the occupier and tithe-owner, or landlord and tithe-owner, as the case might be, would be as easily settled—while, on the other hand, the plan of the noble Lord would involve much difficulty, intricacy and injustice; first, by deducting the tithe in the valuation under the 60th Clause, and rating it separately, you kept alive the distinction between rent and tithe, which it had been the policy of recent legislation to merge; secondly, by the proposed new clause for the recovery of rate on tithe; the noble Lord, pressed by the difficulty of finding a remedy except through the occupier, proposed, that after two months, if the rate was not paid by the tithe-owner, then the guardians might applot the occupiers as if they had been primarily liable, which was but a roundabout process of arriving at what he proposed in the first instance. And thirdly the noble Lord did not provide against the injustice which he admitted would be inflicted upon the tithe-owner in taxing him for tithe he might not receive by the second part of the proposed new clause; for, though it gave the tithe-owner, by a very cumbrous machinery, the right to make a declaration in writing that he had not received his tithe, and then sent the guardians to applot upon the tithe-payer, yet that was only in case the tithe-owner had not received in the whole tithe sufficient to pay the rate, so that though but one parishioner might have paid his tithe, and all the rest be in arrear, yet that one sum must be paid over as poor-rate by the clergyman on the entire of his benefice. There really could be no comparison between the two plans in point of simplicity, convenience and justice; and if the Government did not adopt his (Mr. Shaw's) proposition, he should move it as an amendment.

Lord John Russell

would adopt the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw), charging, however, the tithe-owner, according to the principle of the bill, with the whole poor-rate, by way of deduction. He admitted it was more simple to charge the occupier in the first instance, and then the tithe-owner would not be taxed till he was paid. He (Lord J. Russell) therefore, would withdraw the clauses for the present, and amend them according to the plan of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw).

The clauses were postponed.

Lord Castlereagh

then said, he had a clause to propose between Clauses 48 and 49 He was unwilling to take up the time of the House—but this was a subject on which deep interest was felt, particularly in that part of Ireland which be had the honour to represent. Petitions had been sent up from all parts of Ireland as to this bill, and from the reports on public petitions, it appeared that the number of petitions against the bill was 55; in favour of it 3; while the number of signatures against the bill was 27,259; in favour of it 252, and several petitions of those which he had presented were signed by the churchwardens on behalf of public meetings. He had presented a petition that day from the county of Down, against the bill. It was in deference to the wishes of these petitioners, that he begged now to move a clause empowering the Commissioners to exempt from the operation of the Act such parishes as were willing to take upon themselves the care of their own poor— which had hitherto been the case in many parishes in the north of Ireland, and with great success, for the number of the poor had been diminished, and the country greatly benefitted by this system. The people of Ireland, therefore, prayed that they might not be forced to abandon a system which had been found to work well, and to adopt one which they could not but regard as an experiment.

The clause brought up, and read a first time. On the motion that it be read a second time,

Lord J. Russell

said, he should oppose the second reading of the clause, as it would render the bill entirely nugatory—it would be leaving it to the option of the people of Ireland whether they would accept the bill or not.

Mr. W. Roche

remarked, the clause contained no machinery by which the parishes were to manage themselves for the purpose of carrying it out.

Mr. Shaw

agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Castlereagh) that it was a very serious question, whether a poor-law should be introduced into Ireland at all. But, if it was once introduced, he thought that excepting any particular district from the operation of the bill, but giving that district the power to tax itself, and then administer relief to the poor, according to such plan as the rate payers of that particular locality might adopt, would be full of danger, and, giving the managers every credit for the best notions, might induce all the abuses and intricacies of the old English system of out-door relief, labour rates, settlement, &c. Now he felt that the measure was a great and painful experiment, but if it was to be tried in Ireland, at all events, let them have the benefit of one uniform and simple plan, with the checks it afforded, the best of which be considered was the exclusion of out-door relief.

Sir R. Bateson

observed, that the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) would find in his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw) a most able ally in the progress of this Bill, and his right hon. Friend had better go over, perhaps, to the other side. He would support the clause, because it operated against the workhouse system, to which he was diametrically opposed. All that the parishes who were willing to adopt the clause asked was, that all the inhabitants should be compelled to pay their quota of the rate. The people of Ireland had been taken by surprise by this frightful measure, and were against it.

The Committee divided on the question that the clause be read a second time:—Ayes 25; Noes 66: Majority 41.

List of the AYES.
Browne, Robt. Dillon Liddell, hon. Henry T.
Cole, Viscount Mackenzie, Wm. F.
Conolly, Edward Maxwell, Henry
Douglas, Sir Chas. E. Monypenny, Thos. G.
Dunbar, George O'Connell, Morgan
Filmer, Sir Edmund O'Neill, hon. J. B. R.
Forbes, William Packe, Chas. William
Hillsborough, Earl of Perceval, Colonel
Hodgson, Richard Somerville, Sir W. M.
Jones, Theobald TELLERS.
Kirk, Peter Bateson, Sir R.
Lefroy, right hon. T. Castlereagh, Viscount
List of theNOES.
Archbold, Robert Macleod, Roderick
Baring, F. Thornhill Morpeth, Viscount
Beamish, Francis B. Nichol, John
Berkeley, hon. H. O'Brien, Cornelius
Blake, Martin J. O'Brien, W. Smith
Bodkin, John James O'Callaghan, hon. C.
Brocklehurst, John Plumptre, John P.
Brotherton, Joseph Power, James
Bryan, George Protheroe, Edward
Campbell, Walt. Fred. Roche, Edmond B.
Chalmers, Patrick Roche, David
Clements, Viscount Russell, Lord John
Curry, William Salwey, Colonel
Damer, hon. Dawson Shaw, rt. hon. Fred.
Ferguson, Sir Rob. A. Sinclair, Sir George
Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C. Stanley, Edw. John
Fitzsimon, Nicholas Stuart, Villiers
French, Fitzstephen Style, Sir Charles
Gladstone, W. E. Thomson, rt hn. C. P.
Grattan, James Tollemache, Fred. J.
Hawes, Benjamin Vigors, Nicholas A.
Hobhouse, rt. Hn. Sir J. Wallace, Robert
Hope, George W. Westenra, hon. H. R.
Howard, Frederick J. Williams, William
Howard, Philip Henry Winnington, T. E.
Howard, Ralph Wood, Charles
Howick, Viscount Wood, George W.
Hughes, W. Bulkeley Woulfe, Mr. Serjeant
Ingham, Robert Wyse, Thomas
James, William Yates, John A.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F. Young, John
Knight, Henry Gally
Lennox, Lord Arthur TELLERS.
Litton, Edward Gordon, R.
Lynch, Andrew H. Seymour, Lord
Mr. O'Brien

withdrew the clause.

Mr. Lucas

then moved a clause, similar to the 26th clause in the English new Poor-law Bill. By that clause all the parishes of the union were liable to the charges for the maintenance of the workhouse, the pay of the staff, and the general expense of the union; but each of the parishes composing that union still con- tinued liable to support its own poor. His proposition was, that a similar clause should be adopted with respect to Ireland, and that each of the parishes of the union should be separately rated for, and be liable to the maintenance of its own poor, although it should, at the same time, be liable to bear a proportionate part of the general expenses of the union in other respects.

Clause read a first time. On the motion that it be read a second time,

Mr. Shaw

thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Lucas) would find it impossible to define who were the poor of any particular district. They could only be actually found at the workhouse where they applied for relief; and any attempt to discover and charge the district from whence they came, would be adopting the principle the House had already decided against of a law of settlement. In Ireland, above all places, it would be difficult to discover from whence a pauper came; particularly if he knew that his own district was to be charged, he would consider it a point of honour not to tell the truth.

Viscount Morpeth

said, that the power of the Commissioners had already, he feared, been so cramped by the amendments in the Bill made in Committee, that he doubted whether the proposed clause could, under any circumstances, be carried into operation. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the clause he had moved was exactly similar to a clause in the English Poor-law Amendment Act; but there were two circumstances which the House ought to consider before coming to the conclusion that a clause which was applicable to England would be equally applicable to Ireland. The first of those circumstances was, that in England there had existed "a separate system" previous to the passing of the Poor-law Bill. And the second was, that in this country the law of settlement had also previously existed. It was, therefore, easy to carry the provisions of a clause similar to that which the hon. Gentleman had proposed into operation in England; but the circumstances of Ireland were so different, that he feared such a clause would be productive of injury rather than good, and be should therefore feel it to be his duty to oppose it.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 53: Majority 28.

List of the AYES
Acland, Thos. Dyke Litton, Edward
Bateson, Sir Robert Mackenzie, Wm. F.
Castlereagh, Viscount Maxwell, Henry
Cole, Viscount Monypenny, Thos. G.
Damer, hon. Dawson Nicholl, John
Douglas, Sir Chas. E. O'Neill, hon. J. B. R.
Ferguson, Sir Robt. A. Perceval, Colonel
Filmer, Sir Edmund Plumptre, John P.
Gladstone, W. E. Roche, David
Grimston, Viscount Sinclair, Sir George
Hillsborough, Earl of Vigors, Nicholas A.
Inglis, Sir R. H. TELLERS.
Kirk, Peter Conolly, Colonel
Lefroy, rt. hon. T. Lucas, E.
List of the NOES
Archbold, Robert Knight, Henry Gally
Baines, Edward Lennox, Arthur
Baring, F. Thornhill Lynch, Andrew H.
Barneby, John Macleod, Roderick
Beamish, Francis B. Morpeth, Viscount
Blake, Martin J. O'Brien, Cornelius
Bodkin, John James O'Callaghan, hon. C.
Brocklehurst, John O'Connell, M. J.
Brotherton, Joseph O'Connell, Morgan
Bryan, George Protheroe, Edward
Callaghan, Daniel Redington, Thos. N.
Campbell, Walt. Fred. Rolfe, Sir Rt. Monsey
Clements, Viscount Russell, Lord John
Courtenay, Philip Salwey, Colonel
Craig, William G. Shaw, rt. hon. Fred.
Curry, William Somerville, Sir W. M.
Divett, Edward Stanley, Edw. John
Forbes, William Stuart, Villiers
French, Fitzstephen Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.
Gordon, Robert Thornely, T.
Hawes, Benjamin Tollemache, Fred. J.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J. Wallace, Robert
Howard, Frederick J. Wood, George W.
Howard, Philip Henry Yates, John A.
Howard, Ralph Young, John
Howick, Viscount TELLERS.
Hughes, W. Bulkeley Seymour, Lord
Kinnaird, hon. A. F. Wood, C.

The House resumed. The report to be received.