§ House again in Committee.
The EARL of CLANCARTYsaid, he wished to ask a question. He wished to ask whether, under the fourth section, the Poor Law Commissioners could appoint relieving officers where they would have no duties to perform? and whether out-door relief was to be given as matter of right?
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, that such officers only as were necessary would be appointed. Out-door relief was only to be given under certain circumstances, and it would not be necessary to appoint relieving officers in all unions.
§ On the 5th Clause,
The EARL of CLANCARTYsaid, that he had given notice of his intention to move the omission of this clause. The object of this clause was to enable the Poor Law Commissioners to direct the guardians of the different unions to appoint a medical officer or medical officers for the purpose of affording medical relief out of the workhouse. He begged that in moving the omission of this clause, it would not be understood that he was desirous of curtail- 492 ing the means of relief to the destitute poor in Ireland. His object in making this Motion was to benefit another class, the industrious poor of that country. He wished to see the medical charities placed on a better footing. If a greater number of these institutions were established, there would be in every electoral division the means of affording medical relief to all classes. The Fever Bill, which now afforded some relief, would expire in November next, and he hoped that the Government would introduce some further enactment on this subject, to come into operation when that Act expired. He moved the omission of the clause.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that this clause would not at all interfere with the existing medical charities in Ireland; it was, on the contrary, a clear addition to their other means of relief in sickness. He thought that it would not be for the benefit of the sick poor if the Commissioners had not this power to appoint medical officers to give medical relief out of the workhouse, that it should be understood that this arrangement would not stand in the way of any more beneficial measure which might be introduced.
§ Motion negatived.
The EARL of CLANCARTYsuggested, that as all the relieving clauses were to be of a temporary nature, the words which had been introduced into the first clause should be introduced here, so as to make this clause temporary also.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid he understood, after the vote of last night, that the whole Bill was to be temporary.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he thought that some words should be inserted if the clause was intended to be of a temporary nature.
§ EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, he thought it would be better to give the Bill a temporary character altogether.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that the intention with which he moved his Amendment last night was, that those clauses only should be of a temporary nature which were connected with the new principle of giving out-door relief.
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, that from what had fallen from his noble Friend, it was quite clear that their Lordships, when they divided last night, were in complete error as to the intentions of his noble Friend. The Notice given by his noble Friend was, "The Lord Monteagle of Brandon, to move to limit the operation of the Bill to the 1st of August, 1847, and to 493 the end of the then next Session of Parliament." The "Bill" must mean the whole Bill or nothing. The matter was now in such a state of confusion, that no two men could agree as to the nature of the vote which the House came to last night.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he last night stated what the object of his Motion was; and he must deny that the confusion mentioned by the noble Earl had any existence, unless in the noble Lord's own mind.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that not all the ingenuity of his noble Friend could get rid of the confusion to which the House must be subject after the Amendment which was carried last night; for it was now impossible to tell what parts of the Bill his noble Friend intended should be permanent and what temporary. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) must disclaim on his own part and on the part of Her Majesty's Government making any answer to the question of the noble Earl (the Earl of Clancarty). It was for the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) to give an answer. It was not for him (the Marquess of Lansdowne) who had not been admitted into the secret councils of those noble Lords, to go from clause to clause and say, "In this I see the fitness of permanency, and the fitness of that is temporary;" and he must beg, on his own part and on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to disclaim the means of giving any answer to any question of that sort. He must beg leave to refer the noble Earl to the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) and those who voted with him; and if the noble Earl asked him the question, whether he thought the words ought to be applied in this clause, he could only say they might he applied or they might not be, as this clause might exist independently of out-door relief, or it might be made to fall with out-door relief.
§ LORD MONTEAGLECertainly not.
§ EARL GREYsaid, this was a most important point. Undoubtedly the Amendment of which the noble Lord gave notice was one thing, and the Amendment which he actually moved was a very different thing. He apprehended that no one could doubt what the noble Lord really meant. His clause provided additional means of medical relief to the poor of Ireland. The noble Lord said that it was to be permanent. He (Earl Grey) agreed with him that it ought to be permanent. But by the vote of last night, the clause author- 494 izing out-door relief had been made temporary, and the House had decided that, for the next two or three years, if the workhouses were full, an able-bodied man was not to be allowed to die of starvation, but to be relieved from the property of the country. But he wished to know why, after the two or three years, that man was to be allowed to die of starvation, but was still to be allowed medical relief. What was right to-day was right to-morrow and hereafter. The real truth was, that the noble Lord wished to give a damaging blow to the Bill at an early stage of the discussion. He did not wish to wait, for the legitimate and proper time of discussing the question of making the whole Bill permanent or temporary; but he availed himself of a technicality to introduce those few words limiting the operation of the Bill, though he (Earl Grey) believed that a majority of the noble Lords who voted for that Amendment did not perceive its full drift and scope, for be thought that its effect at this stage would be to impair and damage the Bill that the House was about to discuss; but noble Lords must be well acquainted with the long-practised ingenuity of his noble Friend in Parliamentary tactics to fully comprehend this dexterous and successful manœuvre. He (Earl Grey) could not help expressing his great satisfaction at this incidental discussion, for it had shown to their Lordships and to the public the spirit in which it was endeavoured to amend this Bill. He trusted that the public opinion was too firmly in favour of this measure to lender any risk of its being ultimately seriously damaged by any manœuvre, however well matured, or however dexterously applied.
§ EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, that the Bill contained a great variety of enactments, and of course it was probable, nay, it was almost certain, that it must contain some which ought to be temporary, and some which ought to be permanent. The noble Earl said, that the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) had availed himself of a technicality to defeat this Bill. He asked, why was the noble Earl to avail himself of a technicality to induce the House, by means of those parts of the Bill which were acceptable to all of them, to give their sanction to a principle of which many of them disapproved? It would be better to consider the Amendment carried last night as affecting the whole Bill.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEcould not help observing that his noble Friend (Earl Grey) 495 had more than once made use of the expression that this Amendment of his (Lord Monteagle's) was some manœuvre—his noble Friend did not exactly say deceit, but he spoke of it as a piece of Parliamentary tactic and ingenuity, and certainly conveying the impression that it was his (Lord Monteagle's) wish to deceive their Lordships. Now, he would appeal to the Treasury bench, and to every noble Lord who heard the debate last night, whether he did not distinctly, when moving his Amendment, state, in the clearest manner, that his intention was to move that the clauses relating to out-door relief were to be made temporary, while the rest were to be made permanent? Was that object concealed from anybody? He thought it was rather hard, after such a distinct statement of his object, that he should be charged with having deceived their Lordships into acceding to the Amendment he proposed. But, as the same accusation which had been made against him of having practised this supposed deception on their Lordships, must reflect upon the majority of the House, he was perfectly ready to share the obloquy which was to be borne by that majority.
§ The EARL of ST. GERMANS, in answer to the appeal of the noble Lord, felt bound in honour to say, that although he (the Earl of St. Germans) was opposed to the noble Lord on his Motion, yet he distinctly understood the noble Lord to say, that by his Amendment he intended to provide that one part of the Bill should be temporary, and the other permanent; though, certainly, there did appear to him (the Earl of St. Germans) a distinction between the explanation of the noble Lord to-day and the Amendment as it appeared on the paper. There was some degree of uncertainty prevailing throughout the discussion of last night as to which of the clauses the noble Lord intended should be permanent, and which temporary; and that was one reason why he (the Earl of St. Germans) voted against the Amendment, because he thought their Lordships were prejudging the question. He certainly was of opinion that great inconvenience had arisen from the division of last night.
LORD CAMPBELLvery much regretted the confusion which had been occasioned by the Amendment of his noble Friend. Though a lawyer of some experience, he certainly was at a loss to know what was the legal interpretation of the words which had been introduced into the Bill by the 496 Amendment of his noble Friend, who told them that his intention was to divide the Bill into two separate parts; the one to be temporary, the other permanent. But, then, every word of the Amendment applied to every part of the Bill. It certainly would be a very novel mode of legislation to have one section of an Act of Parliament temporary and another permanent, unless it was distinctly pointed out in each clause. In the New Poor Law, for example, there was a temporary clause, which declared that the Commissioners should be appointed for five years only; but that appeared upon the face of the clause itself. There was no ambiguity there. He earnestly hoped that his noble Friend would not persist in this mode of dealing with the measure; he would not say by attempting to damage the Bill, because no doubt his noble Friend's object was to render it as little objectionable as possible; but he would earnestly appeal to his noble Friend to allow the words of his Amendment of last night to be erased, and that he would come back to his first thoughts, which, according to the notice he gave, were to move the rejection of outdoor relief altogether, and to allow all the other portions of the Bill to be permanent.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEfelt the difficulty of contending with his noble and learned Friend; but, nevertheless, he would take upon himself to say, as a lay Member of their Lordships' House, that there was no difficulty at all in this measure. Was his noble and learned Friend prepared to say, that there were no permanent Bills containing temporary clauses, and that there were no temporary Bills containing permanent clauses? [Laughter.] Yes; temporary Bills in their general enactments. He admitted that there might be some complexity arising from the Amendment of last night, if it were not proposed to insert at the end of the Bill a clause pointing out those clauses which should be temporary, and those which should be permanent. That was his answer to his noble and learned Friend.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEconsidered that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord last night was totally different from that of which he had given notice. The noble Lord's original proposition was, not to make the out-door clause temporary, but to omit it from the Bill altogether. The fact was, that their Lordships had got the Bill into a state of inextricable confusion by the Amendment of 497 last evening. He hoped his noble Friend would reconsider the subject.
The EARL of SHREWSBURYsaid, that as he was one of those who voted with the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) last night, he must honestly avow that he did so in error. He voted with the noble Lord, not as being opposed to the principle of the Bill, or to any part of its principle, but he did so because he thought it was impossible to be carried into effect; and he, therefore, believed it would be highly advantageous that the measure should return to their Lordships as speedily as possible for reconsideration. In fact, he thought it was a Poor Relief Bill which could not relieve the poor.
The EARL of CLANCARTYwould withdraw his Motion for omitting the clause, and reserve himself to make another proposition on the bringing up of the report.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHcomplained of the construction which the noble Secretary of the Colonies (Earl Grey) had put upon the motives of those who voted in support of the Amendment of last night. The noble Earl had also come down at the heel of the discussion and stated that they were to have public opinion to bear upon this question. Now he (the Marquess of Westmeath) did not know exactly what the noble Earl meant; but their Lordships knew that they had had some very coarse comments made elsewhere upon their proceedings; and he certainly must lament hearing a Minister of the Crown getting up and threatening their Lordships with the awe of public opinion, as if their Lordships were not an independent branch of the Legislature.
§ Clause 5 was then put and agreed to.
§ On Clause 6 being read,
LORD STANLEYmoved to propose the substitution of a clause for the one which was now before the Committee. Their Lordships had decided that there should be relieving officers to carry out this measure, and that the appointment of those relieving officers should be left to the boards of guardians; and the present clause proceeded to define the duties of those relieving officers. He would just remind their Lordships of the nature and extent of those duties, and in doing so, would compare them with the extent of the duties to be discharged by the relieving officers in England. The average population of a union in England was 24,845; the average population of a union in Ireland was 65,384; there were upwards of 620 498 unions in England, no less than 541 of which were of an area below 100,000 acres; while in Ireland the number of unions was only 130, and there were only twenty-six of those unions whose area did not exceed 100,000 acres. The average area of 570 of the unions in England was about 53,297 acres, while the average area of the whole 130 unions in Ireland was no less than 146,000 acres. This additional difficulty, therefore, applied to the case of the relieving officers in Ireland, beyond those difficulties which arose from the social state of Ireland; in England there was one board of guardians to an area of 53,297 acres, with a population of 24,845; while in Ireland there was one board of guardians to an area of 146,000 acres, with a population of 65,384. The parties to afford relief under this Bill were the relieving officers, and with them would lodge the discretion of granting or of withholding outdoor relief throughout these extensive areas. They would have no means of referring for advice or assistance to the boards of guardians, who might, in the case of each union, be sitting at a distance of twenty, twenty-five, or even thirty miles from the places in which the duties of the relieving officers were to be performed. The consequence of this inability to make immediate application to the board of guardians, might be to place the relieving officers either in a state of the most imminent danger, or else, from fear of violence, they would not dare properly to discharge their duties, but would prefer running the distant risk of having their conduct disapproved of by the board of guardians, than refrain from a system of very lavish and improvident expenditure of the public funds. He had placed an Amendment upon the Paper which he believed would have the effect of interposing a controlling power between the board of guardians and the relieving officer. He did not mean to state that his plan was free from objection, or that it did not admit of amendment. He should not conic to a division upon it, but he thought he should not have been doing his duty if he had not pointed out the danger which would besot a great number of the relieving officers for want of a sufficient degree of power on the part of the board of guardians, and if he did not also suggest what he believed would be a remedy for that evil. The remedy he proposed was, that independently of the board of guardians, there should be in each electoral district a subordinate board to discharge the duties 499 of a relief committee, and with whom there should be associated a certain number (he would limit that number to two) of the highest ratepayers of the district; the relief committee being formed of the guardians of the union, resident on, or having rateable property within, the district; that this board should have the power to entertain applications for relief, which could not properly be relieved by the board of guardians. This he proposed to be done in the following way: every relief committee would be directed to meet weekly, and the relieving officer would on those occasions report to them every case of sudden or urgent necessity that was brought under his notice, and should have power under an order signed by the chairman, to give provisional relief in all such cases, by affording food, lodging, or medical attendance; but that the relieving officer should report the case, and the nature and cost of relief, to the next meeting of the board of guardians, and thereafter should give no further relief except under the direction of the board. There might, no doubt, be objections to this proposal; and one of these might be, that there would be difficulty in obtaining meetings of those parties whose decision was necessary to meet cases requiring immediate relief—a difficulty which might not be experienced as the Bill now stood, by which uncontrolled power was given to the relieving officer. But he thought this objection would have little force in practice, while great benefit would flow from his proposal, both as regarded the relief and the administration of the funds. In the first place, the funds would be intrusted to the administration of a party in whom they could repose greater confidence than in the relieving officer; and, in the second place, the relieving officer, who would incur great responsibility by the present system, would be protected by the board under whom it was proposed he should act. He threw out this question for the consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers, in the hope that they might see it their duty to adopt its principle; but it was not his intention to give their Lordships the trouble of dividing upon it, unless he found that it met with their very general concurrence. The noble Lord concluded by proposing a clause in the room of No. 6, and embodying the above proposal.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he could not give his concurrence to the suggestion of the noble Lord; at the same 500 time, that he admitted that there were some of the circumstances to which the noble Lord alluded that were deserving of some consideration from their Lordships, he could see many objections to the introduction of such a system as that proposed. Under the existing law there were many difficulties often found to arise in getting the boards to work; and those difficulties would be materially increased if a second board were in existence on which a part of the responsibilities would be thrown. Besides, the electoral divisions were exceedingly ill calculated, in most cases, for being formed into a sort of separate unions, as they were originally arranged, not with a view to the granting of relief so much as to the area of taxation. They were formed with reference to taxation, and not with reference to the extent and wants of the population. He believed the difficulties would be insuperable in getting an attendance of guardians at the meetings of the two boards. But, while saying this, he admitted, at the same time, that there was a great deal of justice in the noble Lord's observations with regard to the inconvenient size of some of the unions. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider that his objections in this respect would be sufficiently met by the adoption of the clause in the English Poor Law Act, under which the Poor Law Commissioners were given power to authorize boards of guardians in large unions to appoint committees of their boards to meet at convenient places for the purpose of giving relief.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he would be quite satisfied with the proposition of the noble Marquess, as he considered it nearly identical with that which he suggested. It was not very material whether a subordinate board, such as he suggested, were appointed for each electoral division, or whether the board of guardians appointed committees of their own body to meet in each division.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, there was by no means that identity between the two plans which the noble Lord supposed. The noble Lord made it imperative to have a relief committee sitting in each electoral division, whereas the clause in the English Act only empowered the Poor Law Commissioners to authorize the guardians to appoint committees of their own body in some distant districts of the union. As he before said, the electoral divisions were exceedingly ill qualified for the administration of relief.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he considered the plan which he proposed necessary, both for the protection of the public purse, and for the protection of the relieving officers themselves. In effecting those objects, it was a question whether they ought not to associate with the guardians two of the highest ratepayers in each electoral division, who though, perhaps, not of sufficient station to be appointed guardians, would consider it an honour to be elected to serve with the guardians, and would be able to afford valuable aid, from their local knowledge and habits of business. It would be a great protection to the relieving officer to be deprived of the power of granting aid on his own responsibility alone, and it would also be a saving to the public purse.
LORD WARNCLIFFEconcurred in the objection made by his noble Friend to the enormous extent of some of the unions, such, for instance, as the Westport union, and others in the west of Ireland. He did not know how Her Majesty's Government intended that applications for relief were to be made from districts thirty or forty miles from the union workhouse, unless some additional machinery were introduced.
The EARL of CLANCARTYthought that some words ought to be introduced restricting the power of the relieving officer in giving out-door relief more definitely than was done in the clause.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEthought the words used, and the restriction at the end of the clause providing that the temporary relief should be given only "at such times and in such manner as the Poor Law Commissioners shall determine and direct," were sufficient to prevent any improper use of the power vested in the relieving officer. As to what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Wharncliffe), he should remind the House that in those very large unions a great part of them consisted of waste lands from which no rates could be levied.
§ The EARL of HARDWICKEsaid, that, considering the extraordinary power which they proposed to vest in the relieving officer, he could not help thinking that he ought to be a man such as had been described the night before. Her Majesty's Government ought to remember that they were very generally advised on the preceding evening that the person to be entrusted with this power should be a person in whom the utmost confidence could be 502 placed; and he hoped steps would still be taken to prevent the appointment of such an officer resting with the guardians.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ On Clause 7 being moved,
§ LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he wished to suggest that the clause be so worded as to prohibit any relief being granted out of the rates in aid of wages or towards payment of rent.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he certainly should not object to such a clause; but he thought the nature of the relief to be given was so specifically fixed, that no danger of the abuse which the noble Lord wished to guard against was to be apprehended.
LORD BROUGHAMexpressed his entire concurrence in the opinion of his noble friend opposite (Lord Monteagle), that the payment of any portion of rent or the payment of any portion of wages out of the rates would be the greatest of all possible abuses. But the difficulty was how to prevent such an abuse, and how to draw up a clause prohibiting the application of the rates to such purposes. If they once gave out-door relief, they admitted the possibility, nay the probability, of paying wages or paying for rent. Suppose a man was poor, but still enabled in the natural way to earn 4d. or 5d. a day, and that, not finding this sufficient, he applied to the parish for more, and supposing that the workhouse was full, then, coming under the description of persons entitled to relief, he obtained the additional assistance, and so managed to make both ends meet. He would get 5d. from his employer and 3d. from the rate, and with this conjoined he lived very well, and would occupy a position sufficiently easy to make him perhaps envied by a landowner. He (Lord Brougham), though approving of the suggestion of his noble Friend, could not therefore see how it could be worked out; and this, in point of fact, amounted to one of the greatest of the objections which he entertained to the measure.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEobserved, that the pictures of difficulties which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) had painted as likely to be attendant on this unfortunate Bill, were only those difficulties and dangers incidental to the operation of every poor law, and which might have been prophesied quite as justly in reference to the law passed for this country, or in reference to any poor law 503 which had ever been proposed. The Government, in framing this Bill, had proceeded on the assumption of certain circumstances, and had prepared for the occurrence of exceptions to what they believed to be the rule; and when noble Lords came to state particulars and enumerate peculiar dangers, the only reply he could give was that they might multiply these cases ad infinitum, and under no poor law would they find a solution for the difficulty but by lodging a discretion somewhere. That discretion was intended to be placed in the hands of the Poor Law Commissioners, and every care was to be taken that they would exercise the power wisely, justly, and charitably. He could not argue with the noble Lord on every one of the exceptional cases which his ingenuity might point out; he did not deny that some of these difficulties might arise, but he was of opinion that they would not be of such frequency as to interfere with the general efficiency of the measure. The question had been put to Sir J. Burgoyne, whether under this measure relief could be given in aid of wages; and the reply had been in the negative. As such relief could not be given, the noble and learned Lord need be under no apprehension of such an abuse as that which he had contemplated.
The EARL of WICKLOWcould assure the noble Marquess, that, short as the time had been during which the Temporary Relief Bill had been in operation, the people of Ireland had already found out that they were enabled to receive relief without being really in a position to require it; and they had in numerous cases given up all kinds of labour, discontinued all self-exertion, and thrown themselves destitute on the public funds. In this measure now before the House there was a clause the effect of which would be to prohibit the holder of three or four acres, however poor, from receiving relief; and this would act as an inducement to many of the small farmers to throw up the few acres they held, and depend for subsistence on the board of guardians.
The EARL of CLANCARTYobserved, that this clause was a copy in every respect but one of a clause in the existing Poor Relief Act—that part of the original enactment being omitted which made children liable to maintain their parents. He wished to know whether the omission was accidental or intentional?
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that he would make inquiry upon the sub- 504 ject, and the provision could be inserted upon bringing up the Report if deemed necessary.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ The 8th Clause (relief not to be given out of the union to which it is charged) was also agreed to with verbal amendments.
§ On question that Clause 9 (occupiers of a quarter of an acre not deemed to be destitute) stand part of the Bill,
§ EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, it appeared to him and others that this clause was loosely worded, and might be misunderstood. He had therefore drawn up a clause which he purposed substituting for that in the Bill. The noble Earl read his clause as follows:—
And be it enacted, That no person who shall be in the occupation of any land of greater extent than the quarter of a statute acre shall be deemed and taken to be a destitute poor person under the provisions of the first recited Act, or of the Acts amending the same, or of this Act; and if any person so occupying more than the quarter of a statute acre shall apply for relief, or if any person on his behalf shall apply for relief, it shall not be lawful for any board of guardians to grant such relief within or out of the workhouse, unless such applicant for relief shall bring satisfactory proof that he has (at least ten days previous to such application) surrendered to his reputed immediate landlord, which surrender such landlord shall be bound to accept, whatsoever right or title he may have had to the occupation of any such land over and above the extent of one quarter of a statute acre.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEthought the words suggested by his noble Friend would make the law more strict and be more satisfactory than those originally inserted in the Bill.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ On the question that the Clause so amended stand part of the Bill,
§ The EARL of ST. GERMANSmoved that the clause be omitted altogether. The question for their consideration was, what amount and species of relief should be afforded to the destitute poor of Ireland. The change from the present system must be gradual and a work of time; and he thought the necessity of administering relief or not should be left to the discretion of the boards of guardians. There was a prevailing opinion that these boards could not be trusted—that on all occasions they would be guilty of extravagance and jobbing in the administration of relief. If this were true, it would be an argument against allowing them any power at all; it would be better to supersede the system altogether, and give the necessary 505 relief through paid Government officers. But, as far as his own experience went, he did not believe that hoards of guardians were inclined to administer relief with a lavish hand; and he had no fear that they could not be trusted with the same power as boards of guardians in England. The clause denied relief to a man holding more than a quarter of an acre of ground; but a person holding more than that small portion might be reduced to actual destitution, and require relief; the administering it ought to be left to the discretion of the board of guardians.
The EARL of RODENopposed the omission of the clause. It was generally admitted that it was one of the most beneficial in the Bill. Boards of guardians frequently exceeded their powers, and went beyond the provisions of the present Act. The board of which he was chairman had given relief in food out of the workhouse to any one who brought a ticket from a guardian, though it was directly contrary to the law, and he had protested against it.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, though it might be true there were exceptional cases in which boards of guardians might be trusted, yet facts and evidence proved restrictions to be necessary. The case stated by the noble Earl was clearly a direct violation of the Act of Parliament; and he believed no restrictions they could devise would entirely prevent abuses.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEwas not inclined to fetter boards of guardians too closely, yet it appeared to him advisable and expedient to adopt such a clause as the present. From the change going on in Ireland, those who had hitherto lived by holding small pieces of ground would no longer be able to do so. The destruction of the potato, and the change from that root to grain for food, would make it impossible for holders of very small portions of land to live wholly by them. The clause tended to make less difficult a change which must take place, and the sooner the better. He could not support the Amendment of the noble Earl.
§ Motion negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ On the 11th Clause,
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, by this clause they were not only making a total alteration in the Poor Law of Ireland, but in the principle of the Poor Law as established in this country. The nature of the 506 clause was, that in every electoral division, whenever the rate on a half-year exceeded 1s. 3d. in the pound, the overplus should be thrown on the union at large. That, he contended, would have the effect of discouraging landlords from improving their property. The Amendment he proposed was to substitute words, the effect of which would be, that the rate in aid should extend only to out-door relief, leaving relief in the workhouse precisely as at present.
§ LORD BEAUMONT, on a balance of arguments, was inclined to agree with the noble Earl.
§ The EARL of DEVONwas understood to say, he could not support either the clause or the Amendment of the noble Earl. He was quite sure that those who framed this clause, were not acquainted with the peculiar circumstances of Ireland.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, the immediate pressure of defraying the rates was the economical check on which they had to rely for the prevention of abuses. It was in the out-door portion of the relief to be given that the excess was most likely to take place; and yet this clause departed from the econemical check where it was most required—namely, with respect to out-door relief; and adopted it where it was least required—namely, with respect to in-door relief. The principle of the clause was one which noble Lords who were conversant with the administration of the Poor Law in England would readily understand, by its being a permanent enactment of a general rate in aid, whenever certain circumstances should arise; and by it they would tax highest the electoral divisions in which most capital had been expended, and where most labour was employed in improvements. Just in proportion as they extended the districts in which the rating was to be made, would they discourage the improvement of the soil, and diminish the employment of honest labour and the investment of capital. He prayed noble Lords to hesitate before they consented to impose such restrictions on the development of the resources of Ireland. However, he saw no reason to adopt the Amendment; he rather thought that Amendment would make the Bill worse than it was; and he should concur in maintaining the law as it was at present, and abiding by what was called the Duke of Wellington's Clause, thus giving the landlords the strongest inducement that could be given them to 507 improve their property and furnish employment to the people.
§ LORD HATHERTONwished to call attention to the question, what would be the effect of the clause on those landlords whose estates were encumbered. The proposed clause would be a distinct notice to the English capitalist not to invest his money in Irish land. He sincerely hoped that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) would succeed in the rejection of this clause.
The MARQUESS of CONYNGHAMobjected to anything like a national rate; and he objected, therefore, to the Amendment.
LORD STANLEYasked whether his noble Friend intended to press his Amendment to a division; as, until this question was decided, he could not bring forward his Amendment.
The EARL of WICKLOWhad such objections to the clause as it stood, that if the Government persisted in it, he intended to vote for the suggested Amendment of the noble Lord.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that he was opposed to the Amendment, as it would increase the expenditure for out-door relief.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that he now rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, to reject the clause altogether. The discussion which had already taken place on this subject precluded the necessity of his addressing their Lordships at any length, because, in point of fact, the merits of the clause, and the objections raised, and whatever could be said in its defence had been fully stated to the House. It was, however, a matter of satisfaction to himself and to those with whom he acted, to find that, with the exception of the noble Marquess the President of the Council, there had been an almost entire unanimity of opinion in condemning the principle, and deprecating the evil consequences which must follow from the adoption of this clause. Whereas, at the present moment, under a general law of settlement, every electoral district was liable for its own poor, this clause proposed to alter that law, and to substitute the provision that whenever from improvidence or carelessness, or any other cause, the rate of any particular district should exceed 2s. 6d. in the pound for the year, then all the other districts should be taxed for the excess. That, on the very face of it, appeared to be an impolitic course 508 of proceeding. Suppose an improvident and rack-rent proprietor should be surrounded by persons who attended to their estates, who were at great expense to improve them, and had devoted to them their time, and labour, and patience, was it right that the rack-renting landlord should have a premium and reward by being entitled, in virtue of the heavy charge which his improvidence had brought upon his estate, to charge that excess upon all his more provident and thrifty neighbours? He could understand that something might be said in favour of this clause, if it referred to the great towns, and to the great towns only; but with regard to the country districts, it must, he conceived, be apparent without further argument, that in the circumstances of any country, but more especially in the circumstances of Ireland, where every inducement should be held out and every premium should be offered to those who were provident, and who were willing to sacrifice the temporary interests of property to secure its future welfare, this was a most impolitic as well as a most unjust measure. Though he did not wish to refer to any special instances, he was desirous to speak of a case that came within his own observation. He should state the precise position in which he was himself placed; the greater part of his property in Ireland was in an electoral division of which he owned about one-half; the electoral division consisted of 8,000 acres, and was rated at about 8,000l. or 9,000l.; as the proprietor of one-half of that electoral division he was subjected to the payment of the rates of about one-half, and he did not complain of that, but while he was charged with one-half of the expense for his half of that electoral district, the pauperism of his one-half was just one-fifteenth of the pauperism of the whole. If cases of this kind were to arise, and if so heavy a burden as this were to be thrown on unencumbered estates, it would be impossible to exaggerate the mischiefs which would result from so unjust and inequitable a system. How distressing would be the condition of the proprietor who, after having done his utmost for twenty-five years to keep down pauperism in his own district, and to make all around him comfortable, found himself suddenly made responsible for the relief of the destitute population in an additional area, covering some two or three hundred thousand acres! All combinations for prudent arrangements—all economy, all movements on the part of the landlords having 509 for object the comfort and respectability of their tenantry, would be at an end; and on the part of all classes there would be a general scramble to get as much as possible, and to do as little as possible in return for it, as every one would feel that their property was charged under a system of compulsory taxation, not to benefit their own poor, but those of others. He had little to say in favour of the Amendment, for, in truth, he had not heard a word denying the unfairness of the present clause, nor had he heard a word against the fairness and propriety of still further diminishing even the area of electoral divisions—of diminishing the area from which taxation was to be taken, and of thus increasing the inducements to private and personal exertion, and to private and personal responsibility. The average of the area of the unions in England, as contrasted with that of the unions in Ireland, were, as he had on several occasions stated, as 53 to 146—that was to say, the average area of the union in Ireland was threefold that of the English unions. This was the relative position of both countries; and he asked their Lordships whether they thought it possible that the Poor Law could be administered properly, and with a due regard to the interests of all parties concerned in England, if every destitute person within a range of three unions were to be made chargeable on their Lordships' well-managed estates in the several counties? But they were told that unless this was a measure intended for the relief of the towns, and that unless it were adopted, a general and sweeping system of ejectment would be resorted to on the part of the landed proprietors, and the towns would be overwhelmed with the burden of the rates; and the noble Marquess stated that it was intended to prevent what would be something like a confiscation of the property in towns. And what was it that this clause was to do? Practically it was proposed to enact by this clause that when the rates in a town exceeded 2s. 6d. in the pound, they were to make a rate in aid over the adjoining rural parishes. Their Lordships could not by the forms of the House alter the terms of this clause; but a half-crown rate was not an immoderate rate to be imposed upon the principal towns in Ireland; and if the Bill should pass, and it should be determined to call for a rate in aid, whenever the charge should exceed 2s. 6d., then he should never expect to see a rate in any town throughout the country 510 so low as 2s. 6d. The effect of the clause would therefore be to substitute, in almost every union in Ireland, a general union rate for an electoral district rate, and that whereas the electoral districts were already too large, they were going to multiply the area of those districts twentyfold, and thereby increase the objection to the present extent of their areas twentyfold; and what was the reason assigned for this? It was said to be to protect the towns from being overrun with paupers ejected from their holdings in the rural districts, who would become chargeable upon the towns. He thought that those who made this objection were very imperfectly informed as to the real state of the present law. It was not true that if he were to eject a person from his estate, and if that person were to go into the town of Tipperary, within three or four miles of his own parish, that that person would become chargeable on the poor-rate of Tipperary. The law stood thus—for, in point of fact, there was, practically, a law of settlement in Ireland at this moment—and this was how it stood—any person who should for a period of twelve months out of the last eighteen months have been resident within an electoral division, should have a claim to be relieved out of the funds of that electoral division. Consequently, if he (Lord Stanley), by reason of clearing an estate, were to send a number of persons into an adjoining town, they would have no claim whatever upon the funds of the electoral division in which that town was situated, until they had resided there for a period of twelve months at least; and if, previous to their removal, they had become chargeable upon his (Lord Stanley's) electoral district, then, although they had removed into the town, they would still remain chargeable to that electoral district; and even if they did become chargeable upon the electoral district in which the town of Tipperary was situated, there would still be no necessity for this clause; because, in that case a provision was made that all such persons were, by the law, chargeable upon the rates of the union at large. He thought that this statement of the law would go far to remove the objection which their Lordships entertained respecting the possible hardship to the towns; but this belief was, that this clause arose from the fears entertained by some six or seven great towns in Ireland; and yet, what was the fact with regard to those very towns? Why, they were, at this very moment, diminishing and not increas- 511 ing in population. He had already adverted to the injustice and impolicy of this clause. It would greatly discourage the investment of English capital in the cultivation of the land, and would seriously injure a large portion of the landlords of Ireland. As far as he was himself concerned, although he had property in that country and had for twenty-five years done what he could to improve the condition of his tenants and the people on his estates, yet he was not so immediately connected with Ireland as to make such a measure as this of any very serious importance to him. He thanked God that his interest was not so bound up in it but he could withdraw from that property and from the responsibility connected with it, and he could fall back upon the means which he possessed in England. But there were others who were bound by every tie to the soil of that country, whose whole interests and attachments were most deeply centred in the land of their birth—persons whose exertions there were of the most valuable description, and whose presence was most necessary; and the withdrawal of whom from that country would be most seriously injurious to it. Then, were their Lordships, by the passing of this clause, willing to declare to those persons that all the reward which they had to propose to them for all the exertions, all the great labours and the immense sacrifices which they had made for the advancement of Ireland, and for the improvement of the social condition of her people, was nothing more than that they should be additionally taxed in order to relieve the improvident, and to aid and encourage the recklessness of those who had neglected their duty?
§ EARL GREYhad listened with attention to the argument of his noble Friend against the adoption of this clause, and, however strong might be his inclination, on the first hearing of the argument, to agree with his noble Friend, yet on considering the real effect of the clause and the real bearings of it, he certainly thought they afforded ground for retaining it. His noble Friend had said that he believed that this clause was only demanded by five or six great towns in Ireland, the inhabitants of which apprehended some possible inconvenience from the enactment of this Bill without some such protection; but in which as yet no practical inconvenience had been experienced. In point of fact, however, his noble Friend had been misinformed. He believed that the other portions of this Bill, 512 without this clause, were likely to be much less disadvantageous to the great towns of Ireland, such as Cork and Dublin, and others of the first class, than to the smaller class of country towns—that sort of towns which in Ireland were very frequently the chief places in the union. It was upon those smaller towns, which formed the centre of the unions, that their Lordships would, by withdrawing this clause, inflict the greatest injustice. He was prepared with a statement of what had occurred even under the existing law, which he considered would be an answer to much of his noble Friend's argument; and he was about to refer to that statement the more readily, because he thought it would throw a most valuable light upon the practical working of the present law. He held in his hand a petition agreed upon at a public meeting held in Killarney on the 3rd of December, 1846. It was a meeting of the clergy, gentry, and ratepayers, and was presided over by a clergyman. It stated, that up to that period, namely, December, 1846, there had been only three rates imposed on the union. The first was on the 17th of August, 1844, and was a rate of 8d. in the pound on the town and the whole union. The second rate was levied on the 14th of February, 1846, and was a rate of 1s. 6d. in the pound on the town of Killarney electoral division; while a rate of only 6d. in the pound had been levied on the eleven rural electoral divisions of the union. But observe how unjust and inequitable was the pressure. The total expenditure on account of the relief of paupers for the year 1846 amounted to 655l. Of this sum no less than 423l. 18s. was charged to the Killarney electoral division, which was inhabited by a population of 11,383 persons, who were principally engaged in industrial pursuits, and maintained by their own personal exertions. That population contributed for the relief of the poor no less a sum than 4231. 18s., which was about twice the amount contributed by 41,242 persons who were the inhabitants of the remaining eleven rural districts, and whose rateable property amounted to 7,6001. It was to prevent the recurrence of evils like this, and to preserve the equilibrium of pressure in the towns and rural districts, that the eleventh clause had been introduced. But the grievance of the petitioners did not stop at the point he had already described, for they went on to make a statement to which he begged leave to call the especial attention of the noble Lord 513 opposite (Lord Stanley). He found it stated in the petition that a great number of the paupers that were charged upon the town electoral division were not natives of Killarney, but were strangers living beyond that division of the union, and who had taken their residences in that electoral division within twelve months. A material point in this case was—and he begged to call his noble Friend's attention to it—that a large proportion of these paupers were small cottier tenants, who had come from those very rural districts which were thus lightly charged—men who were broken down by misfortune, or who had suffered from having all their property extorted from them for rent, and who, quitting their former residences, came into the town as a common centre of refuge. Surely in a country where such a state of things could exist, it was idle to contend that the law of settlement to which the noble Lord had already alluded as being in practical operation in Ireland, afforded sufficient protection to country towns situated as Killarney was. This was not a speculative case, but one which showed that practically, under the operation of the law as it now stood, the centre towns of the union were exposed to a very grievous hardship. But, finding this evil to exist at the present moment, would it not greatly increase the hardship if their Lordships were to pass a law which should grant, under certain circumstances, temporary relief, at the same time giving to the landlord the power of denying that relief unless the holdings of land possessed by the poor tenants were surrendered, and thus conferring a power on the landlord that would facilitate the removal of paupers from his estate, and enable him to send them into the towns, there to live upon private charity, until they afterwards became a permanent burden on the inhabitants? Would that be a just law? His noble Friend behind him who, as chairman of a board of guardians in the county of Sussex, was aware of the practical working of the existing law, had pointed out most truly, that even in England the working of the system by which complete power was given to one or two proprietors over a whole parish, was frequently attended with very great injustice. In Ireland, under the system they were about to propose, and with the facilities they were about to create by the clause for the removing of the small holders from their land—under that system, his firm persuasion was, that they would inflict most grievous injustice 514 if their Lordships rejected this clause. But, his noble Friend thought that if this clause were right to be adopted, still the amount of the rate at which it was fixed that the clause should come into operation was much too low. His noble Friend said that a half-crown rate was a much' lower rate than he expected to see levied in any electoral town division. He confessed, that if that were his (Earl Grey's) anticipation, his views as to the future prosperity of Ireland would be much more gloomy than they now were; but he could not understand the grounds for that anticipation. Their Lordships knew, that up to the time of the great failure of the potato crop—and he must say, that that was a fatality which ought not to be looked upon as of continual recurrence; but, even if it did occur again, it ought never to be attended with the same fatal consequences as it had now been, because he trusted that the inhabitants of Ireland would never trust to the potato crop again for their means of subsistence—but until that calamity befell the country, the average amount of rating was somewhere about 7d. in the pound; and there was this further fact to be observed, that there was no one union workhouse in Ireland which up to that time was full—on the contrary, they were nearly all empty. It appeared to him that there was one fundamental fallacy running through the whole argument on the other side. It was assumed, throughout, that Ireland, of all countries in the world, was one in which the labourer, in point of fact, was to be maintained by charity—that labour was to be employed, not for the sake of the returns which were to be obtained, but as a sort of duty on the part of the employer, and to be received as an act of charity by the employed. Now, no country could be in a healthy state where such was the case; and he held that the maintenance of the great body of the population of Ireland could not be permanently derived from employment so offered. If, however, employment was given by those who expected a profitable return for the labour thus afforded, they might depend upon it that, under the operation of various laws, if they did their duty to Ireland, and interfered not with the natural circulation of labour—that country, possessing such great natural facilities for the profitable application of industry and capital, would find the means to employ, by degrees, its entire population in profitable labour. He should like to know to what length the 515 principle of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), as to the subdivision of districts, might not be carried. Would his noble Friend carry it from the townlands down to individual property? Was it meant to make every man responsible for the employment of the people on his own estate? If they carried the principle to its utmost, then the labour was to be given, not because it was valuable to the employer, but as an act of duty—it was as an act of charity, that an individual proprietor was to be required to employ the labourers on his estate. [Cheers from the Opposition.] Noble Lords on the opposite side cheered that, as if it was a principle to which they assented; but what would be the consequence of such a principle being carried out? Why, they would bring back that state of things that existed in the southern division of this kingdom in 1833, and which it was the object of the Act of 1834 to put an end to. Noble Lords must remember that the great evil then was, that every small district felt itself responsible for the poor of its own individual neighbourhood alone, and that the circulation of labour was thereby interfered with. This and other evils flowed from that state of things; and they would all arise again if they were to adopt the views put forth by his noble Friend. He was aware that on the other side there was a danger not less great. On the one hand, there was the principle of a labour rate with all the evils formerly experienced as springing from such a system; and, on the other, there was the great evil of a national rate. There was an extreme on both sides, and against that extreme it was that they called upon their Lordships to beware. He believed that the law, as it now stood, was a fair compromise between conflicting difficulties and interests, and that it furnished that motive to individuals to exert themselves to improve the condition of their own district that it was so desirable should not be wanting. But, by preventing, in extreme cases, this from being carried further—by providing that when the rate rose to a very heavy amount, the whole burden should be thrown on one particular electoral division—it seemed to him that they obviated the danger of falling into the opposite extreme. They could not adopt either principle exclusively; they must take a mean somewhere between those on both sides; and he was persuaded that if they looked at it in that light, and if they considered what was due to the towns, and in particular small country 516 towns, in Ireland, they would come to the conclusion that they could not have a fairer or more just compromise than this Bill afforded. In conclusion, he hoped their Lordships would give their assent to this clause; but he would certainly prefer its total rejection to the adoption of the proposal made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Wicklow) behind him.
LORD BROUGHAM, instead of coming to the arguments applicable to the clause now before the House, felt it necessary to lay himself under great self-command, in order that he might refer in a sentence or two to certain general observations which, had fallen from the noble Earl. Before he proceeded to the arguments applicable to the 11th Clause—if, indeed, more argument was needed, after that employed by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley)—argument as clear in its texture and reasoning as it was impressive in its diction and delivery—he could assure their Lordships that to refrain from doing so required, on his part, a great exercise of self-command. But he felt compelled to take notice of one or two observations which had just been addressed to their Lordships. It appeared that they had all along been under the wrong impression that the Irish labourer was supported by his own industrious exertions, when he was a man supported alone by charity. It was not those who were hostile to the Bill who made this assumption—it was no assumption they had or ever could make—it was no reasoning of theirs; but it was an assumption set forth in the Bill which now lay on their Lordships' Table—a Bill which, by the blessing of God, and with much patience and perseverance, had now arrived at one-third of its progress through the House—viz., at its 11th Clause. This measure assumed that charity was to be the rule of their proceedings—by no means that charity which "is not strained," which "droppeth as the gentle dew from heaven," which "is twice blessed, blessing those who give, and those who take" it—but a strained charity; a compulsory charity; a charity that cursed those who received it, and oppressed those who gave it, degrading these, impoverishing those. It was a charity which taught the labourer not to rely upon himself, but on a forced rate to make up the shortcomings of his labour, and to depend upon doles extorted compulsorily from others on whom he had no claim. They had been told, too, that a great evil was inflicted on the people of 517 the towns for the advantage of the people in the country—not on the great towns, but on the small; and this reminded him of what was the original principle of the old Poor Law, of the 43rd of Elizabeth; a law no sooner enacted than it sank into oblivion, and remained a dead letter for ages. It had been said, that the original principle of the old Poor Law of Elizabeth was, that the land should maintain the poor, and that all other property should he exempted—that the landowners should maintain the paupers, whether they grew those paupers themselves, or whether they were grown by the manufacturers. The paupers, no doubt, as the law had been abused and perverted, were sent from the crowded and wealthy city with as much certainty as were bales of manufactured goods; and they were all to be supported by the land; in short, the land had to provide for all the paupers whom the wealthy manufacturers set forth as locusts on the soil. So it was now; but that was not the Poor Law of Elizabeth, which laid down the principle that all property should contribute equally towards the support of the poor. With all its imperfections and evil tendencies, and mischievous consequences, it was at least exempt from any such charge of flagrant injustice as the proposed clause in this Bill, brought forward in the middle of the nineteenth century, would inflict. There was less injustice in the Act passed in a comparatively rude time, at the end of the sixteenth century, for that Act did no injustice towards the land to favour the towns. It was an income-tax, it was a property-tax, it called upon all property to be rateable for the support of the poor; but, because there was no machinery, and because there was, in fact, very little property but land in those days, therefore it was that it ceased to be universally levied, and that it was levied, substantially, on the landowners. He was told, that whatever injustice there might be here, existed in the present Poor Law; but that did not make the injustice the less. If, formerly, they exposed the Irish landowners to great injustice by the Act of 1838, it would be a great deal worse now, because, if there was a burden of 2s. d. in the pound then, it was likely to be 20s. or 25s. now. The argument of the noble Earl (Earl Grey) was, that this clause was not unjust and oppressive, because there was a clause as bad in the Act of 1838. What! Was it nothing that you were now to apply the bad principle on a tenfold 518 larger scale? A knave borrows my cloak in summer, and in winter he comes and takes my coat also. I complain, and he says, "Why, you let me take your cloak in fine weather, so I must also be suffered to strip you bare in the frost and snow." Besides, they had different circumstances to deal with in Ireland; they had a different population, and in the guardians they had very different persons to whom to entrust the administration of a Poor Law. And then, above all, they had different men for landlords. With all their good feeling and their simplicity of character, if he were to say of these landlords that they were peculiarly provident individuals—that they were, of all God's creatures, distinguished by prudence, circumspection, and forethought; well able, in all respects, to administer their own affairs, manage their own fortunes, and superintend the cultivation of their own estates—he feared, great as would be his delight could he conscientiously so depict them, that he would be laying himself open to the suspicion of attempting either irony or extravagant panegyric. He would, therefore, confine himself to the strict fact; he would not say that providence and care, and caution and good management, were the prominent characteristics of Irish landlords; he would admit that, very many of them were improvident, incautious, and bad managers; and, granting this, it was apparent that it would be easy for them to impose a disproportionate burden on the electoral district where there was good management, in order to make up for their own bad management, or rather no management at all. It was said, did not taxation fall unequally in England? and he answered, Yes, and everywhere else, when you speak of general taxation. But do you, therefore, mean to extend the poor-law districts, and comprehend large tracts of country, with the towns in each? If so, you had better at once make the support of the poor a general or imperial concern, and thus remove every kind of restraint upon local improvidence and mismanagement. This is the direct tendency of the present clause. It says to all the landlords and their tenants, "Be as careless, and supine, and thriftless as you please, as you can and you will be helped by the parts of the district which are thrifty and careful." This was the plain argument: it was contained in that one sentence. He would now leave the question to their Lordships, confident that their decision would be con- 519 demnatory of the injustice which was proposed to be done.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEwould not attempt to follow his noble and learned Friend, but would confine himself solely to a consideration of the clause under discussion. It was the argument of noble Lords opposite, and of those who opposed an extension of the area of taxation, that the land should support the labourers located upon it and no more; he denied that that was sound political economy; he deemed it to be the most erroneous reasoning, founded upon the narrowest view of the true duty of a community. It had been remarked by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) that the opponents of the Bill had proceeded upon a mistaken assumption throughout; they seemed to consider the employment of labour by the owner of the land as a charity, as a step taken to preserve the labourer from starvation, and not as a duty undertaken for mutual benefit, and with the hope of conferring reciprocal advantage. So long as noble Lords set out from premises so obviously false, it could not be a matter of surprise that their conclusions were mischievously wrong, and liable to lead to extreme abuse. As regarded the question of labour, it was easy to say, see what hardship you are inflicting on large electoral districts, if in any case you force them to pay for the pauperism of the towns; but was this assertion practically true? They talked of effecting an improvement in those districts, and they would surely not deny that one of the greatest improvements under the circumstances of the country would be a diminution of the number of persons resident there? There was little doubt that when the population of a district became destitute, they would flock into and become dependent on the towns. If the workhouse test was good for anything, it would induce persons driven from their land to keep as long as they could from the parish. If so, they would be able to maintain themselves in and about towns for a time of sufficient duration to qualify themselves, under the provisions of this Bill, to receive relief; and thus the towns would have to support men in their destitution, from whose labour, previously, no benefit had been obtained. But, was it true that the electoral districts derived no benefit from the existence of the towns? Was it or was it not, he would ask noble Lords acquainted with Ireland, a notorious fact that there were districts which would be totally ruined were the poor 520 rates to increase to any great extent, and if the poor were entirely thrown upon them? The towns furnished a market to the district. The towns increased the value of the property of the district; and he would say it would be a gross injustice if the district were not called upon to pay a share of the taxation, if, under a peculiar pressure, and in a time of great need, the rates of the towns should rise to an amount which, as compared with the average rates heretofore in Ireland, would undoubtedly be exceedingly oppressive.
The EARL of DESARTconsidered that the cities enjoyed many advantages as the depositories of the wealth of the country, and that therefore they should be compelled to endure the burdens of their own pauperism. It was a strong fact that the citizens were in the habit of encouraging the settlement of paupers in towns for the sake of the rack-rents obtained from their lodgings.
§ EARL FITZWILLIAMthought, that whatever they did with other parts of the Bill, this at least was a clause which ought to be postponed. He was quite convinced that the question of the community into which Ireland ought to be divided for the purpose of carrying this Bill into effect, had not yet been sufficiently considered. It seemed to him to be a grievous mistake to take this clause as having reference merely to town and country. It was not a question between town and country, but a question between high-rated, pauperized districts, and districts which were low-rated and not pauperized. The towns and the districts were intimately connected, and they could not advance the interests of one without promoting the interests of the other. The subject was as yet, however, imperfectly understood, and he should therefore vote against the clause.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHsaid, it had been decided last evening that this Bill should pass only as a temporary measure. He believed that division had not been come to for a factious purpose, and he found it necessary to declare that he had given his vote with the greatest sincerity. He had stated then, and he now repeated, he thought it due to the generosity of the House of Commons and liberality of the people of England, that the measure should be fairly tried in Ireland if it passed through Parliament; and he was willing to declare, if Her Majesty's Ministers would assure him they would not attempt to disturb the vote already come to, 521 that he, for one, would not offer any opposition whatever to any part of the Bill. He was willing to let all the responsibility rest on them, on the understanding that it was a temporary Bill. They, the landlords of Ireland, had a right to demand that it should be temporary only, and they would offer no further opposition to Her Majesty's Ministers if Her Majesty's Ministers would refrain from disturbing the vote of last night. If they refused to give him that assurance, and did attempt to disturb that vote, he should feel himself at liberty to give them all the opposition in his power.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas willing to relieve the noble Marquess from all the responsibility he felt. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) could make no such promise as that asked for. He reserved to himself, as their Lordships reserved to themselves, the power to take whatever course he might think proper at any subsequent stage of the Bill.
§ heir Lordships divided:—Content, 54; Not Content, 73: Majority for the Amendment, 19.
§ Clauses 13 and 14 were then discussed; and, after some conversation, agreed to.
§ On Clause 15, which regulates the rating of tithes, being proposed,
The EARL of WICKLOWmoved that both this and Clause 16 be omitted from the Bill; he believed they were inserted with the intention of benefiting the clergy; but he understood they would not oppose the omission.
The ARCHBISHOP of DUBLINhad come to the determination not to oppose the Amendment of the noble Earl. The clauses were introduced with a view of benefiting the clergy, and relieving them from a very great grievance; but, in doing so, the effect of the clauses would be to subject them to another. The grievance they at present laboured under was this—they were rated on their gross, instead of their net income. It was to relieve them from this that the clauses (making the tithe composition in future separately rateable, instead of being rated with the hereditaments on which such composition was charged) had been proposed; but, on the whole, the clergy preferred remaining as they were, thinking the evil they at present suffered less than that to which they would be subjected by the operation of the clauses inserted in the Bill. They thought it better—
To bear the ills they had.Than fly to others that they know not of.522 They were afraid, under the pressure of the times, and the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, they would not have received their incomes when a heavy rate would be demanded of them—that they would have to pay a rate on an income they had not received, and which, in some cases, they would never receive at all. It was the opinion of a majority of the clergy that the evil they now laboured under was less than that which would be created if the clauses were retained in the Bill. He therefore gave his support to the proposal of the noble Earl.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEconsented to the Amendment.
§ Clauses omitted.
§ On Clause 17 being proposed,
§ A short discussion took place on the power of recovering rates made and left uncollected.
LORD STANLEYsaid, when a rate was unpaid, it was not uncommon to make a new one before the arrears were collected. The consequence of this was, that the few who paid were rated twice or three times over, while the greater number escaped. If this were permitted with impunity, it would almost oblige others to take the same course in self-defence. If there was not a power given of recovering the rate from defaulters, the difficulty of collection would he so greatly increased as to cause an universal demoralisation; the honest and solvent would be discouraged, and an example would be set of opposition to a rate to the poor which would render the administration of the law in Ireland absolutely impracticable. This subject deserved the serious attention of the Government.
§ EARL GREYthought the matter would be better considered separately from the present Bill; he believed the existing law was not so defective in this point as generally supposed.
§ Clause agreed to, as was Clause 18, which regulates the valuation.
§ On the question that Clause 19, by which it was proposed to be enacted that the number of ex-officio guardians in any union should not exceed the number of elective guardians, should stand part of the Bill,
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEproposed some alteration in the clause, but in a tone which rendered it impossible to collect its purport.
§ The EARL of ST. GERMANSexpressed his approval of the proposed Amend- 523 ment. The idea which prevailed that ex-officio guardians would outnumber the elective guardians was illusory. There were not ten unions in Ireland in which the number of ex-officio guardians would equal that of the elective guardians.
The EARL of WICKLOWwas of opinion that the ex-officio guardians would, in the majority of instances, favour what was called the democratic party rather than the landed interest.
The EARL of CLANCARTYwas understood to express a wish that no ex-officio guardians should be appointed. If the magistrates were deserving of the confidence of the ratepayers, they would be elected by them.
§ Amendments agreed to; and the clause as amended was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ House resumed.
§ House adjourned.