POOR-LAWS (IRELAND) LORDS AMENDMENT. (Hansard, 24 July 1838)

§ The Speaker
said, that before the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) took up the consideration of the amendments to the present bill he owed it to himself to make a few observations to the House on the subject. The House was no doubt aware that when amendments were made in any bill sent up to the House of Lords which were considered at all likely to be an in- 576 fringement of the privileges of this House, it was customary to communicate with the Speaker on the subject. It so happened, therefore, that he had been applied to by a very distinguished person in reference to this bill. In reply to questions which were put to him, he then said, that if his opinion were called for on the subject of these amendments he felt bound to say, that he considered them as an infringement of the privileges of the Commons' House. But, at the same time, as the bill was one of a very peculiar character, affecting not only the proprietors of the land but the great mass of the people of Ireland, and as the principle of rating was necessarily incidental to such a measure, he considered that if the privileges of this House were strictly pressed in such a case, they would almost tend to prevent the House of Peers from taking such a measure into its consideration in a way that might be on all grounds advisable. On referring to precedents he found two instances, namely, those of the English Poor-law Bill, and the English Municipal Corporations Bill, in which amendments were made by the House of Lords which were not strictly in conformity with the privileges of the House of Commons. Referring to those precedents, it was for the House to consider whether, in reference to the present bill, they should throw out the bill as amended by the Lords, and then introduce another bill in which those amendments might be incorporated; or whether they should waive the infringement of their privilege, and proceed to the consideration of the Lords' amendments. As the authorised guardian of the privileges of the House, he had thought it right to explain his conduct on the present occasion, which he trusted would meet with the approval of the House; at the same time he must add, that he thought the privileges of this House would be best secured by being not too far pressed.

§ Lord John Russell
said, that the House he was sure, would feel itself much indebted to the Speaker for the anxiety with which he had attended to the protection of their privileges. He agreed entirely with the right hon. Gentleman, that in cases of bills of this description, in which taxation was not the sole but rather an incidental object, any latitude consistent with the due observance of the privileges of this House should be allowed to the 577 House of Lords in their legislative functions. On looking back at the English Poor-law Bill it would be found that there were amendments proposed in that bill by the House of Lords as fully connected with the subject of rating as any in the present bill. He hoped, therefore, that the House would enter upon the consideration of these amendments, which were, doubtless, framed with the view rather of forwarding the objects of the bill than otherwise. Perhaps there never was a bill of such vast public moment which was agreed to by the House of Commons in the absence of all party feeling, and by so large a majority, the third reading of it having been carried by a majority of 234 against 59. The bill had since received the mature consideration of the House of Lords, and, with the insertion of some amendments, had been agreed to. On the whole, considering the importance of the subject, and the vast number of provisions which were required for the purpose of carrying it into effect, and the diversity of interests and opinions which must necessarily be involved by it, even after the principle of the measure was sanctioned, he must say, that the amendments which the House of Lords had made in this measure were less in number and importance than might have been expected. Two or three of these amendments, however, were of considerable importance. One of the most important was that whereby an approach to the law of settlement was attempted. It was proposed by this amendment to divide the country into electoral districts, in order that, whenever a person was received into the workhouse of the union, the expense of his maintenance should be charged to the particular district to which he belonged. Whilst this was proposed, however, the question of residence was not to be raised, and there would be no exclusion of parties on account of their settlements, to whatever part of the kingdom they might properly belong. He considered, therefore, that this amendment was not liable to the great inconvenience which the law of settlement generally led to, namely, the prevention of the circulation of labour from one part of the country to another; and, therefore, although he felt much doubt as to the practical effect of this provision, which he was inclined to think would remain in a great measure inoperative, and though he certainly should not have proposed it 578 himself, he should propose that the House should now agree to it. The principle of the amendment was clearly to create a feeling of responsibility and of interest in all parties to attend to the general concerns of their respective districts, which night have a wholesome tendency. He should recommend, therefore, that the House should agree to this amendment with some verbal alterations which he had to propose in it. There was another clause inserted for the punishment of desertion of the wife and child by the husband and father. There was, however, a very material amendment with respect to which it was very probable, that the Speaker might have to consider whether or not it came within the privileges of that House. It was, in the first place, an omission of a clause inserted in that House with regard to 5l. tenements; and, in the second place, a substitution of another clause with respect to the charge which might be taken by the owners on the payment by rates of such tenements. According to the bill as it went up from that House, the occupiers of tenements under the value of 5l. were not in the first instance to pay the rate, but that they should have the power of charging the whole rate on the landlords. They were, therefore, in limine, exempt altogether from the rate. Now, the House of Lords had determined that these persons should, in the generality of instances, pay the rate; at the same time they did not alter the total amount of rate, whatever it might be, which was settled by the board of guardians on application to the commissioners, and they proposed another clause by which an arrangement took place between the landlords and tenants with regard to the small holdings. What the House of Lords proposed was in substance, that the owner and the tenant should make an arrangement between themselves by which the owner might agree to a certain deduction not exceeding ten per cent. for the sum to which the small tenements were liable, and with the approbation of the guardians, and the sanction of the commissioners, that such payment by the owners should exempt the occupiers of tenements. He thought it would be a very vexatious and inexpedient proceeding if they were to insist on their privilege as a ground of objection to this alteration. He thought it one of those alterations which did not touch the general question of taxation. It was not with 579 the view of exempting those persons as being a class which ought to be free from such a demand, that the clause was originally introduced. It was introduced with the view of the general working of the Poor-law: it was introduced with the view in the first place to the collection of the rates, and, in the next place, to the general formation of a body by which the charges should be collected, and not at all with reference to the class by whom the rates ought generally to be paid. In the same view, that was, looking to the general object of the bill, the relief the poor in Ireland, the House of Lords framed a different clause, and proposed that no holders of property should be exempt from the payment of rates. Now, it was a question of very considerable doubt in that Housef—indeed there was no point on which there existed, both on the one side and the other, so much diffidence as to the adoption of either alternative—whether the class which the Lords had included should be exempt from rating or not. His noble Friend the Member for Leitrim (Lord Clements), who took a great interest in this subject, and who had shown as well by his writings as what he delivered in that House, that he made himself fully master of the whole question, as it might affect the future condition of Ireland, was strongly and decidedly of opinion that there should not be a positive and absolute exemption of the occupiers, even of the smallest description of holdings from the payment of rates. The noble contended—and although he came to a different conclusion, he felt there was great weight in the argument—that it would be difficult to form a large body of rate-payers without admitting such small holdings, and that the payment of rate would make those subject to it take an interest in the well-working of the measure, and the good and frugal administration of the rates, which in poor districts could not be expected without such a distribution of the burden. The House of Lords had taken a view similar to that of his noble Friend, and considering that at the time the measure was discussed here, there were great doubts on this provision, he did not think it one upon which a difference of opinion should be raised between the two Houses, and he should agree accordingly to the amendments proposed by the House of Lords. There were some alteration made in the scale of 580 rating to which he should call attention when he came to that part of the bill. An alteration, too, of considerable importance was made in the schedule of the bill, as that which had passed that House, was changed for one much more complicated, in which there were no less than thirteen or fourteen classes of rates, taxes, and public charges. On looking over the schedule, although he agreed that it might be desirable to have one containing more particulars and more headings than those of the original bill, yet he did not think it necessary to have so many as those proposed by the House of Lords, and he was of opinion that such a number would be attended with difficulty in the working of the measure. Therefore, not omitting any essential particulars of the schedule passed by the House of Lords, he should propose one more simple. Having now stated the general alterations made in the bill, he did not think that any of these alterations went to impugn the principles established by that House, nor that there was any thing in the act generally which should induce them to refuse to consider and accept the greater portion of the amendments. The Lords had not introduced either out-door relief, nor, on the other hand, confined the relief merely to persons who were lame, disabled, and old. In short, they adopted the principle laid down by that House in confining relief to the destitute generally, and limiting that relief altogether to that of in-door. They had likewise adopted the whole plan for the working of the measure under the came control of commissioners. They had made one alteration with respect to the office in Dublin, which, practically, he thought, would have no effect, inasmuch as they did not exclude a provision in the original bill for obliging a commissioner or assistant commissioner to be resident in Dublin. The noble Lord concluded by moving, that the amendment he had referred to, be greed to.

§ Lord J. Russell
observed, that he had rather an important alteration to propose with regard to this clause. A very proper insertion had been made by the House of Lords, for the purpose of giving any one commissioner the power of acting for the board and making general rules; for there might be cases, as there had already been cases in this country, in which it would be very useful if the commissioners 581 had the power of delegating their powers. It sometimes happened that one of the commissioners was obliged to go to a distance, and great delay was caused by the necessity of forwarding him papers, and obtaining his assent to some step which required to be promptly taken. The House of Lords had limited this power of acting for the body, to the commissioner resident in Ireland, but he should propose to leave it to any one of the commissioners, without reference to his residence; and in order that there should not be too great a relaxation of their authority in acting separately, he intended that they should not be allowed to do so without the approbation of one of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.