VICE-GUARDIANS OF UNIONS (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 28 February 1849)

SIR DENHAM NORREYS
would admit that there were more to be relieved in March than in September; but still all the preparations for providing relief would be made in the preceding months of September, October, and November; so that it would be, in his opinion, much safer that the boards of guardians should be elected, and that country gentlemen should come to the working of the poor-law at a time when these preparations had been made, than that they should be called upon to make them themselves. He, therefore, hoped 1374 the change would be resisted by a division.

§ MR. MONSELL
suggested, as there was a difference of opinion upon the subject, that the 1st November should be substituted, as it would probably meet the views of all parties.

§ MR. POULETT SCROPE
urged the House to pause before sanctioning a change which would necessarily have the effect of dissolving all boards of vice-guardians, and causing the re-election of the ordinary guardians, at a period when the difficulties of many unions would be probably much greater than they were at present. The elected guardians would have to learn the task which they had neglected to perform last year; and the lamentable circumstances of last autumn might occur over and over again, until matters arrived at such a pitch of aggravation, that the Poor Law Commissioners would be compelled to interfere. The question was one of time, and not of principle; and if the 27th September was inserted, the Commissioners would have no power to inter-fore until mismanagement had arrived at a crisis that would compel them to supersede the selected boards. The subject should be left to the discretion of the Commissioners; but he certainly believed that if Parliament said the vice-guardians should abdicate their functions, they would be opening the door to a renewal of the frightful scenes of last autumn.

§ MR. STAFFORD
had always considered; that one of the greatest constitutional questions strongly maintained in that House, and most, professionally, by hon. Gentlemen opposite, was the connexion between representation and taxation. The question involved in this Bill was not one of time, but one of principle. Further time was asked to continue in the disposal of funds those who had no connexion whatever with the people from whom those funds were derived, and he was willing to concede it; but he contended that its duration should be as short as possible. Would the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Scrope) say at what point the question of time ended, and that of principle commenced? He (Mr. Stafford) would call the attention of the House to the moderation exhibited by all the Irish Members, which had led them to refrain from discussing the conduct of the vice-guardians. He had reason to know that there were cases in which their conduct might be very pro- 1375 perly brought under the notice of the House; but as the Government had introduced a measure of particular urgency connected with Ireland, the Irish Members had, with great forbearance, consented to waive the subject for the present. The hon. Member for Stroud, however, opened the whole question; and Members connected with Ireland were, therefore, placed in the position either of leaving it to be assumed that all he stated was true, or of appearing to say that the boards of guardians were so inhuman that vice-guardians were, of necessity, appointed. He (Mr. Stafford), perhaps, knew cases of inhumanity, cruelty, and neglect, which the hon. Gentleman, who looked at the question simply as against the landlords, might not be acquainted with, but he should not enter into them now; and he must say, it was not fair for any question as to the vice-guardians to be now introduced. If, therefore, it should be necessary, upon the third reading of the Bill, to open the whole case as to the proceedings of the vice-guardians, the House would remember it was not the Irish Members who introduced the subject, but an English Member, who, whether right or wrong, placed them in the alternative either of debating the subject, or leaving it to be inferred, by all who attached any weight, much or little, to the statements of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud, that the sole cause of the boards of guardians being dismissed was, that they had been guilty of inhumanity.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, it would be unfortunate if there was any general discussion upon the conduct of the vice-guardians at the present moment. On a future occasion he should have no objection to enter upon it fully, and he should then be prepared to defend the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners with regard to the dissolution of boards of guardians. Their dissolution, he believed, might be defended without imputing the slightest fault to those boards; for there were some cases where they themselves wished to be relieved, and in which they were displaced upon their own suggestion and application. With regard to the question of time to be introduced into this Bill, he was sorry to find the general opinion of the Irish Members opposed to the proposition made by the Government. The Government was only anxious on this head to ascertain the most convenient time from those Gentlemen who had local experience. The hon. Member 1376 for Limerick had suggested the 1st of November as the most fitting period. To that, on the part of the Government, he had no objection; and if it met with the general concurrence of the House, he would move its insertion in the Bill.

§ COLONEL DUNNE
expressed his readiness to withdraw his Amendment, and consent to the substitution of the 1st of November.

§ MR. H. A. HERBERT
confirmed the statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Stafford) as to the conduct of the paid guardians in many instances. In one union, he had heard that the accounts had not been audited for many months, and were in inextricable confusion. It should be borne in mind, that the landlords of Ireland were often placed in a position most difficult and embarassing in the administration of the poor-law.

§ SIR W. SOMERVILLE
said, the removal of the boards of guardians was not to be attributed to their neglect or cruelty. He thought, however, a wise discretion had been exorcised in not discussing the conduct of the vice-guardians at present; and he must express his acknowledgments to hon. Gentlemen from Ireland for their forbearance on this occasion.

§ MR. POULETT SCROPE
denied that he had cast an imputation of cruelty on the Irish landlords as a body. What he had said amounted to this, that the majority of the boards dismissed had been guilty of very great mismanagement, and that by their neglect of duty the poor had suffered most cruelly and grievously.