HL Deb 19 June 1848 vol 99 cc800-9
LORD MONTEAGLE

rose to move the Resolutions of which he had given notice:— That the Circular Letters of the Irish Poor Law Commissioners, dated the 23rd May, 1848, direct a Change in Practice at variance with the direct Provisions of the 1st and 2nd Vict., cap. 56, sect. 53, 54, and the 10th Vict., cap. 31, sect. 8, 10. That such a Change in the Administration of the Law, if shown to be necessary and expedient, can only be carried into effect by the Authority of the Legislature. That any Orders issued, or Authority claimed or exercised, by an Administrative Department, to alter or set aside the Law of the Land, is of Dangerous Precedent, and demands the immediate' Attention of the House, more especially when such Orders are issued during the Session, when the Sense of Parliament might have been taken upon the Question. This was a subject which affected England as much as it did Ireland; and he would explain to their Lordships in a very few words the case he was about to submit to them. The question which he was desired to raise was, whether the Poor Law Commissioners had or had not exceeded their authority. In every poor-law the principle had been recognised that relief given to a wife was relief given to the husband; and that relief given to a child under fifteen years of age was relief given to the father. When the last Irish Poor Law Bill was in the other House, a clause was inserted which had the effect of prohibiting the extension of relief to any person in possession of more than a quarter of an acre of land. The Bill did not palpably differ from the law of England, with this exception, that the practice under the law in Ireland was more in favour of the pauper than it was in the former country. Taking, then, the two provisions of the Irish Poor Law to which he had referred together, it was evident that the giving relief to the wife or child of a person who held more than a quarter of an acre of land was prohibited. Now, the order issued by the Irish Poor Law Commissioners, in the circular dated the 23rd of May, entirely set aside this provision of the law, as completely as if it had been repealed by Act of Parliament; because it said that cases of very great privation had arisen, "in consequence of the head of the family refusing to give up the occupation of any part of the land he held" (the occupation being more than a quarter of an acre); and proceeded to direct that such members of the family of a person holding more than a quarter of an acre of land as might be destitute, might legally be relieved in the workhouse of the union; or if the workhouse were full, the guardians might relieve them out of the workhouse, if an order of the Poor Law Commissioners authorising the relief of such persons out of the workhouse, under the second section of the Act, when in operation in the union in which they resided. The effect of the circular would be to encourage persons not to give up the possession of their land; and the person refusing to do so would have a direct advantage over him who gave up possession, because he would receive relief for his family under the circular, which would be claimed by the other under the law. This assumption of authority by the Poor Law Commissioners should be terminated. It was time that some understanding should be come to as to the principle to be observed; and if that laid down by the Commissioners were right let it be declared to be law by Parliament; for if the Commissioners were allowed to set aside the law, there would cease to be any co-operation on the part of the people of Ireland in maintaining it. In reference to the relief works, it would be recollected that complaints were made that parties in possession of land were permitted to take advantage of them, and it was said that they were got upon the relief works by the interest of persons wishing to be the better able thereby to obtain their rent from those parties. This was put a stop to, and direct authority was given to the Government officers to strike off from the public works the holders of land. How then could be reconciled with that course of proceedings the circular of the Irish Poor Law Commissioners, which set forth that parties receiving relief might continue in possession of their land? In the case drawn up by the Commissioners for the opinion of the Attorney General, the circumstance of a woman who perished from want was mentioned. The law, however, was not responsible for that. It was stated in the case, that—" inquiry has been made by the inspector of the union in which the woman died, in order to ascertain the truth of this statement; and he has confirmed it, and stated at the same time that the woman's husband and her children are not likely long to survive her, as the man will not give up the land he holds." The defect was not in the law, for relief was open to these parties, but it was the unnatural husband and parent that was to blame, as he refused to do that which the law required him to do in order to get relief. With regard to the second circular of the Poor Law Commissioners, dated June 8, he observed that that claimed afresh the same unlimited power of setting aside the law; and if this enlarged system of relief were acquiesced in, the fund for the relief of the really destitute would be exhausted in a period comparatively short. He could not believe that these circulars had been issued with the knowledge of the official members of the Irish Poor Law Commission. His right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland could hardly have been cognisant of the first circular, or of the awkward and inefficient way in which it was attempted to be explained by the second circular. The circular of the 23rd of May, if permitted to be acted on, would give rise to the direst consequences, inasmuch as it would hold out to those who disregarded the law not only impunity from punishment, but an actual premium for persevering in that disobedience. The noble Lord concluded by moving the resolutions.

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE

was not at all surprised that this subject had attracted the attention of the noble Lord. Agreeing as he did in most that had fallen from the noble Lord, and in the importance of preventing any mischief arising from misapprehension on this subject, he hoped he should be able to satify the noble Lord that it would be perfectly consistent with his duty and with the interests of Ireland to withdraw or suspend any Motion on the subject. Undoubtedly he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) could not concur in the proposed Motion, if upon no other ground, still upon this, namely, because it took on itself to pronounce the law, not in the form of an Act of Parliament, but by the resolutions of one House, and thus lead them into the very error into which the Commissioners had fallen. The only explanation he could offer of the circular in question was, that it was hastily drawn up to meet a particular object, and that it emanated in a moment of haste from a desire to prevent the destruction of life from starvation, which had, indeed, taken place in one particular instance. If the principle of the circular were adopted as a general rule, it would, no doubt, subvert the principle of the law, and of the policy on which it was founded. The intention of the Legislature was that the law of Ireland should not exceed the law of England in its provisions for maintaining the poor. He was sure the House would agree with him when he said that those who held possession of land ought to be compelled to provide for the maintenance of their families. That was the law of England, and he did not hesitate to say that it ought to be the law of Ireland also. So fully was he convinced of the necessity and justice of acting upon that principle, that it afforded him great satisfaction to be able to inform the House that the Poor Law Commissioners of Ireland intended as soon as possible to make an order to the effect that no assistance should be given by the head of a family whenever he is in possession of land. It was the duty of the Commissioners to see that relief was duly administered; and he doubted not their Lordships would approve of the regulations by which it was proposed that that object should be carried into effect. Owing to the eagerness with which land was sought for in Ireland—the almost ungovernable desire which influenced the peasantry of that country to obtain upon any terms the possession of land, it frequently happened that small patches got into the hands of parties who were in the utmost extremity of distress, and those wretchedly poor individuals held it without being able to make the least contribution towards the maintenance of their families. Now, he did not hesitate to say, that men who placed themselves in such a position ought to be punished. There could be no greater state of misery than that which permitted the continuance of such a system, and the Legislature was bound to take care that those who possessed property, who held land, and neglected to provide for their families, should be punished, for surely the possession of land afforded primâ facie evidence that they were not altogether without the means of making provision for those who stood towards them in the nearest degree of relationship: so long as such people had anything to be readied, their immediate families ought not to become burdensome to the ratepayers. He quite agreed with his noble Friend that of all abuses connected with the administration of the poor-laws none could be greater than that the wives and children of men who held land should go to a public charity for relief; he therefore thought that no time should be lost in issuing an order that assistance should not in future be given to such persons, or those naturally dependent on them. No doubt there must be exceptions made in particular cases; and most certainly the grounds of such exceptions ought to be recorded and submitted to the Poor Law Commissioners. Those were the views which he entertained on the subject: he believed he might say that his Colleagues in office entertained similar opinions; and he trusted that what he had said would be sufficient to induce his noble Friend to suspend his Motion, at least for the present.

LORD BROUGHAM

said, that though he had expressed some surprise at the circulars now on the table of their Lordships' House, yet he was by no means prepared to say that he differed from the opinions expressed by the Attorney and Solicitor General for Ireland, and the inclination of his mind certainly was that the law fully bore them out; but of this no rational being could entertain a doubt that, whether by a new Act of Parliament, or by a new order, something must be done to put an end to a gross and flagrant abuse, which threatened the structure of society—at least of economical society. It was intolerable that a man, say with 500l. a year, should refuse to maintain his family, because, if a man with any means whatever, were able to refuse, then upon principle a man of the largest property must be entitled to do likewise. As to the construction of the law which had been brought under their notice, he must be permitted to say he did not think it expedient that their Lordships should pronounce any opinion whatever; and for that reason he thought that they would scarcely affirm the first resolution proposed by his noble Friend. Still he was glad that the attention of the House had been called to the subject; and it was most satisfactory to receive an assurance from his noble Friend the President of the Council that the Queen's Government felt the necessity of making a change—at least of making some attempt to abate such an evil. Nevertheless, he saw great difficulty in framing such an order as would fully meet the case; and he feared that Ministers must come to Parliament for a fresh enactment, in which he feared also that there must be a great many exceptions.

The DUKE of RICHMOND

thought it would be well if the Government were to obtain a more deliberate opinion than any that had yet been received from the law officers of the Crown on the construction of the Act of Parliament. If the Irish Attorney and Solicitor General were right in their view of the law, then he would advise the Government to bring in a Bill enacting, that should the wives or children of any holder of land accept relief, the title to the land should thereby be forfeited. If he were an Irish magistrate, he should punish the holders of such land with the utmost severity.

LORD REDESDALE

said, that they were bound to give relief to all starving persons; but he doubted that the mere possession of land rendered a man liable to be committed, supposing his wife and family to claim relief.

LORD CAMPBELL

said, it was quite true that a man's refusing to maintain his wife and family formed no reason why those poor people should be allowed to die; provision must be made for them. But he thought the circular incautiously worded, for it seemed to lead to the supposition that the wives and children of such persons were to be indiscriminately relieved. He always thought that the Quarter-Acre Clause was a salutary enactment; and he had generally disapproved of anything calculated to interfere with its operation. As to the Motion of his noble Friend, it had at least produced a satisfactory discussion; and, that end having been answered, he trusted that his proposition might, for the present, be advantageously suspended.

The EARL of ST. GERMANS

considered that if an order were framed to meet the case, such an arrangement would supersede any modification of the law. It was clear that a man who was in possession of land, and left his wife and family chargeable to the union, refusing to give up the land, ought to be made punishable.

LORD BEAUMONT

said, it appeared that without an Act of Parliament it was impossible to get out of the difficulty which existed under either the original or the present interpretation of the law. Supposing a person in possession of land to be so poor notwithstanding as to be unable to support his wife and family, the refusal of that man to give up the land appeared to him (Lord Beaumont) as equivalent to refusing to support his wife and family, and he should be punished in the same manner as a man in England who refused to work to support his wife. If this could not be done in Ireland, the law required immediate alteration; if the fault was in the law, the law should be amended. But great caution should be used, since, whatever course was pursued, the law would be liable to much abuse. He believed the noble Marquess was in possession of a paper which, when laid before their Lordships, would show that there were many persons in the receipt of workhouse relief who were known to have money in savings-banks, invested in various sums, and in other people's names; in some cases the sum amounted to 200l. Yet a person really in possession of so large a sum of money was treated as one of the destitute poor. The law, must, therefore, be made as stringent as possible.

LORD STANLEY

said, their Lordships were indebted to the noble Lord for bringing forward this important subject; but there was one consideration which induced him to suggest to the noble Lord not to persevere in pressing his resolution. Throughout his statement and his resolutions the noble Lord had assumed that the Poor Law Commissioners, by the circular they had issued, had taken upon themselves to "set aside" and violate the law; whereas the defence of the Poor Law Commissioners was—and he thought it was a valid defence—that they had acted according to the best interpretation which the legal advisers of the Crown could put upon the law as it stood. The assumption in the resolution that the Poor Law Commissioners had "set aside" the law, was not, therefore, warranted by the fact. With respect to the question itself, he did not feel himself competent to form a judgment as to the legality of the proceeding of the Commissioners; but he must say that he never saw an opinion in so direct contradiction not only to what was considered to be the law, but to the avowed intention of both Houses of Parliament, or that of the Attorney General for Ireland. He did not see how the judgment and the intention of Parliament could have been more clearly and more explicitly expressed than they had been in reference to this subject. When the Act of the 10th Victoria was under discussion in this House, it had been suggested (and he had said it would be so) that men possessing nine or ten acres of land would seek pauper relief. This was not credited by many of their Lordships, whereas it had turned out that in defiance of the intentions of the law, which was intended to check that spirit of lavish expenditure apparently inherent in Irish functionaries, and that desperate clinging to land, whether the occupation were beneficial or not, which was so inherent in the Irish peasantry, they found that hoards of guardians had in many cases been relieving the families of men who held several acres of land. In fact, provisions which were almost deemed supererogatory had been not only neglected, but absolutely violated and set aside. He did not mean to say that it was imperative upon poor-law guardians not to afford relief to the wives and children of persons in possession of land. In England relief might be granted to the families of those not absolutely destitute, but with this proviso, that in such cases the person receiving relief for his family, and yet not destitute, would be liable to penal consequences if he did not reimburse the outlay thus incurred. On the other hand, however, he viewed with the greatest apprehension and alarm the opinion given by Mr. Henn, and sanctioned by the Irish Attorney General—an opinion which went the length of alleging that the mere possession of twelve acres of land did not place a person in the position of being penally liable if his family were relieved from the rate. He (Lord Stanley) would have concluded that the person relieved was liable from the mere fact of his possession of the land. The opinion went on to state, that "if the father, notwithstanding his possession of the land, is really unable to maintain the children, I do not think he could be properly convicted under the 10th and 11th of Victoria, cap. 84, section 2." If that opinion were correct, the possession of land was no test as to the propriety of giving relief at all. Yet Parliament intended it to be a final and conclusive test. The intention of the Legislature was, that the possession of land should exclude the plea of destitution. The opinion of Mr. Henn, backed by that of Mr. Monahan, was, that the possession of land did not exclude the plea of destitution. Those Gentlemen, however, recommended that every case should be decided on its own merits before boards of guardians. Why, this was opening the door as wide as if they had never passed an Act to shut it at all. The opinion to which he had alluded set aside what were the clearly expressed intentions of Parliament; and he concurred with the noble Lord who had spoken last in saying, that if the state of the law really were as Mr. Henn and Mr. Monahan had explained it to be, that it was a most unsatisfactory state, opposed to the avowed intentions of Parliament, and that it was imperative upon the Government to introduce some specific measure to put an end to a state of things so inconsistent with what was the purpose of the Legislature. The present was a law which would let in upon Ireland a flood of landholding paupers—of paupers holding, but not beneficially occupying land; it would, in fact, tend to the pauperisation of the whole country. It would render the poor-law incapable of being carried out; it would involve landlords, tenants, and paupers in one common ruin—would plunge the country into one common gulf of destitution, misery, and death, from which even the resources of this mighty empire would be unable to rescue it.

LORD MONTEAGLE

replied: He considered that there was no excuse for the circular letter which had been issued; it was, to say the least, imprudent and inju- dicious. He trusted that he was not without some justification for the course which he had adopted, and that he had made out a case to the House. He would feel it his duty, after the statements which had been made, to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned.