Commons Sitting of 31 March 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Prisons (Ireland); Troops during Elections.
Reported.—Poor Relief (Ireland); Fever (Ireland); Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses.
3° and passed:—Customs Duties.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord J. Russell, from Wexford, for Repeal of the Union with Ireland.—By Mr. C. Round, from East Thorpe, against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—By Mr. Greene, from Lancaster, and Captain Pechell, from Brighton, in Favour of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—By Colonel Sibthorp, from Lincoln, for Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—From William Edgworth Sanders, of Andover, against the Rating of Tenements (No. 2) Bill.—By Mr. Trotter, from Farnham (Surrey), in Favour of the Rating of Tenements (No. 2) Bill.—By Mr. Sheil, from Directors of the Hibernian Joint Stock Company, for Assimilating the English and Irish Laws respecting Bankers.—By Mr. Brotherton and other Hon. Members, from several places, against the Government Scheme of Education.—By Mr. Beckett, and other Hon. Members, from several places, in Favour of the Government Scheme of Education.—By Viscount Sandon, from Liverpool, for improving the Character of Education.—By Sir G. Grey, from Justices of the Peace of the County of Denbigh, for Alteration of the Law respecting Juvenile Offenders—From Guardians of the Poor of the Goole Union, for an Efficient Poor Law (Ireland).—By Major Layard, from Roman Catholic Bishop and Clergy of the United Dioceses of Kildare and Leighlin, and Mr. M'Carthy, from the Grand Jury of the City of Cork, for Alteration of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. B. Denison, from Guardians of the Poor of the Goole Union, for Repeal or Alteration of the Poor Removal Act. By Mr. Hume, from Dysart and Lossiemouth, in Favour of the Ports, Harbours, &c. Bill (1846).—By Mr. B. Denison, from Bradford, for the Suppression of Promiscuous Intercourse.

MASTER IN CHANCERY.
MR. HUMEwas desirous of obtaining information from the noble Lord respecting the vacancy which had recently occurred in the office of the Masters in Chancery. The noble Lord was, of course, aware that Mr. Lynch had felt himself obliged to resign the office of Master on account of ill health. He was anxious that the appointment should not be filled up until a copy of the evidence taken in 1842 by the then Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the Vice Chancellor of England, should be laid before the House. That evidence,

673
he understood, sanctioned several alterations and reforms in the Court of Chancery. He should hereafter move, that a message be sent to the Lords for a copy of the evidence, which he was informed was at present under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor; and he hoped that the vacancy in the office of the Master would not be filled up until the result of the evidence, and of the consideration it was now undergoing, should be known.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that when this vacancy took place, he received a communication from the Lord Chancellor, informing him of what had occurred, and stating that no immediate steps would be taken for filling up the vacancy, in order that an opportunity might be afforded to consider if any, and what, alterations might be made in respect to the Court of Chancery.

DISABILITIES OF JEWS.
MR. TRELAWNYasked Lord John Russell whether it was the intention of the Government to bring in any measure for the removal of the disabilities of the Jews during the present Session.
LORD J. RUSSELLreplied, that it was not the intention of the Government to bring in any Bill limited to the object of removing the disabilities of the Jews; but he wished to take further time to consider whether it would be possible during the present Session to introduce a Bill which might make some alterations which appeared to be rendered necessary by the Acts of last Session, and particularly in respect to the taking of oaths.

POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS.
CAPTAIN PECHELLsaid, as hon. Members were about to return to their constituents, it was desirable, before they met them, that they should know whether it were the intention of the Government to supersede the present Poor Law Commissioners?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, it was intended to bring in a Bill upon the subject; and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would, he believed, give notice respecting it after the recess.

BRIGHTON POLICE.
CAPTAIN PECHELLagain called the attention of Sir G. Grey to the case of Charles Cooper and three other persons who had been taken into custody and detained
674
two days on a charge that could not be proved against them, and that they were not allowed to instruct their counsel except in the presence of the police officer. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he intended to do on the subject?—whether he intended to amend the law, if such was the law?
SIR G. GREYsaid, that inquiry had been made into the matter, and he was informed that the police-constable was not in a position to hear any communications that might have been made by the parties to their professional adviser; and he (Sir G. Grey) had been assured by the magistrates that they were confident the Brighton police would not do anything to prevent any accused parties from making those communications that were usual in such cases.

PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
MR. LABOUCHEREwas anxious to take the opportunity of correcting an inaccuracy in the statement which was made by him the other day with regard to the operation of the rule reducing twenty per cent of the men employed on the public works in Ireland. He, on that occasion, stated correctly that the directions issued from the Government in England were that a reduction of twenty per cent should be made upon the aggregate number of persons employed on the public works; and then proceeded to state that a discretionary power was left with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Board of Works to apply that rule of reduction in such manner as to them should seem best; reducing in some cases more than twenty per cent, and in others less, according to their own discretion, provided they adhered to the principle that the reduction made on the aggregate should be twenty per cent. He found that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland did not conceive that any discretion was, or ought to have been, left to him; but he conceived that it was, and ought to be, left to the Board of Works, as acting under the Treasury, and not under the Lord Lieutenant. He made the statement which he was now desirous of correcting, because, although there was no express authority for doing so, yet the Board of Works was in the habit of communicating with the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant, however, was of opinion that, under the particular circumstances, he ought not to exercise any discretion, but that the order having been made by the Treasury, and

675
issued to the Board of Works, both the discretion and the responsibility for exercising it should rest upon the board, and not upon him. He thought it due to the Lord Lieutenant to make this statement, because what he stated on a former occasion, when not fully aware of all the circumstances, was certainly calculated to leave a false impression on the mind of the House. He thought the Lord Lieutenant had exorcised a sound judgment in this matter, and that under the particular circumstances of the case it was for the Board of Works to exercise their discretion in carrying out the rule, and that the Lord Lieutenant judged rightly in leaving the matter altogether to the Board of Works, acting under the direction of the Treasury in London. In point of fact, the discretion was given to and exercised by the Board of Works in Ireland without reference to the Lord Lieutenant.
MR. STAFFORD O'BRIENconsidered the decision of the Lord Lieutenant a sound and wise one. He was happy to be able to state that the discretion exercised by the Board of Works in his own locality had given very general satisfaction.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
MR. NICHOLLasked whether the Government contemplated any alteration in the law respecting pauper lunatic asylums, whereby counties or boroughs having no asylum for the pauper lunatics thereof would be relieved from the duty of erecting or providing such an asylum, in conformity with the provisions of the 8th and 9th Victoria, c. 126, and the 9th and 10th Victoria, c. 84, or whether it was intended to enforce the performance of that duty?
SIR G. GREYreplied, that it was not the intention of the Government to propose any alteration in the law whereby counties or boroughs should be relieved from the duty of erecting or keeping up asylums for lunatic paupers. As to the latter part of the question, the hon. and learned Gentleman was aware, that by the provisions of the former of the two Acts to which he had referred, if within three years any county or borough did not take the requisite steps for complying with the Act, it would be in the power of the Secretary of State to interfere and compel them. That Act had received the Royal Assent on the 8th of August, 1845, audit would not be until three years from that time that the Secretary of State could take any steps to
676
oblige counties or boroughs to perform their duty in this respect.
MR. NICHOLLsaid, that both by that Act and by the Act of last year it was made imperative on the justices in quarter-sessions to give public notice of their intention to appoint a Committee to superintend the erecting or providing of these asylums; and he wished to know whether the Government meant to enforce the provision for the giving of such notices?
SIR G. GREYreplied, that every step necessary to carry out the Acts would be taken, so as to provide for the due execution of their provisions.

POOR REMOVAL.
MR. R. YORKEasked whether it were the intention of the Government to repeal the Poor Removal Act of last Session, if there should be no general revision of the poor-law system?
SIR G. GREYwas not able to state that the Government contemplated any such, measure, supposing that no alteration took place in the law of settlement. That subject was under the consideration of a Committee of the House; it was open to them to report upon the whole of it, the law of removal being much connected and bound up with it, and they would report whether any alteration should be made or not. Until that report was made, it would not be in his power to say what course the Government would feel it right to take.

LANDLORDS (IRELAND).
On the Motion for bringing up the Report on the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill,
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that seeing the hon. Baronet the if ember for Marylebone in his place, he was anxious to lay before the House a statement he had received from a gentleman, formerly a Member of the House, Mr. Longfield, in reference to an observation made by the hon. Baronet in one of his speeches, respecting Irish landlords some time ago. Mr. Longfield stated that he had seen in the newspapers a speech of the hon. Baronet, in which he had introduced his name as having given a very small subscription to a relief committee out of a very large income; the words which the hon. Baronet had used were these—"In the case of Kanturk, a Mr. Longfield, worth 6,000 l. a-year, had given 15 l." Now, Mr. Longfield stated—
"My property, in the parish of Clonfert, in which the town of Kanturk is situated, consists of tithe rent-charge amounting to 436 l. a-year,

677
from which are to be deducted poor rates, agency, sums not paid, &c. I have given to relief committees in this parish 30 l. during the last year, double the sum that is stated, my property in the parish being about one-thirteenth of what it is stated to be."
He added, he could not but feel it to be a grievous injury, the statement that from an income of 6,000 l. a-year, he should have given but 15 l. to relieve the present extraordinary distress. So far from that being the case, he had given to the utmost extent of his power, by subscriptions to local committees in various places, by purchasing food, by residing constantly at home, and by giving extensive employment where he resided; he had also made a road at his own expense, at a distance from his residence, where there was a great want of employment during the winter. The hon. Baronet's informants might have referred to the amount of subscriptions in Mallow; it was a want of confidence in the committee which had prevented Mr. Longfield and others from placing money at their disposal. Those, he said, who probably had never been in Ireland, could not be aware of the endless demands for relief on those who resided there; if they had been, they would not make statements such as that of which he complained, without inquiry, to ascertain how far facts supported a statement which would be circulated wherever newspapers were read. Had the hon. Baronet been in Ireland, he might have ascertained that all contributions to relieve distress were not given through relief committees. He was aware that Mr. Longfield had given more than 250 l. to relief committees, out of an income of not more than 3,000 l. a year—30 l. of it, instead of 15 l., being in a union, where, instead of 6,000 l. a year, as the hon. Baronet had alleged, Mr. Longfield had only 436 l. a year. He had no wish to provoke a discussion; but felt it due to Mr. Longfiold, as a matter of common justice, that this statement should be laid before the House.
SIR B. HALLheld in his hand two letters from reverend gentlemen connected with that part of the country, telling him that every word he had said in the House on this subject was perfectly correct. He thought it would be expedient that the return which he had moved for, and which had been ordered by the House on the 4th of February, showing the amount of the subscriptions that had been made for the relief of the poor in each union of Ireland, under different heads, should be laid on the Table forthwith.
678
The return was important, because it would show at once whether the landlords of Ireland had done their duty or not, and he hoped no further delay would take place.
MR. LEFROYhad received so many complaints of the attacks which had been made in that House on the landlords of Ireland, that he hoped he might take that opportunity of saying a few words. The hon. Baronet was, he knew, as incapable as any man in the House of making an incorrect statement intentionally; but he hoped this would be a lesson to the hon. Baronet and every one in the House against making statements affecting character with out due inquiry. The evil was very great of making such a statement in the House of Commons. It got abroad, and much pain was caused; and though the hon. Baronet, on the statement being contradicted, might get up in the handsomest manner and give up his authority, yet that did not wholly repair the mischief. The House had been told the case of this gentleman; then there came the case of another, who was said to keep hounds while the people were starving around him, which also turned out to be incorrect; but no one had mentioned the name of Lord Clonbrock, who had actually kept hounds, and had given them up and sold his horses since the famine came on. He held in his hand various letters from different proprietors in Ireland. One said, that he did not wish in any way to be placed before the public, but that he was relieving the distress all he could; that he had always endeavoured to do the same, and that he had no wish or care to be vindicated as an Irish landlord, except to reply when unjust charges were made upon the Irish landlords; that some parts of the country were in a miserable state from neglect of absentee land lords, and that it was not easy for those who had not received their rents to give; but that human life must be preserved at any cost. The hon. Member for Rochdale had made sweeping charges against the Irish landlords, but not in the manner that the hon. Baronet had done; for he gave no opportunity of meeting them, and he said that the Irish landlords most grossly neglected their duty. Now, this very individual had been already alluded to in that House; and he could state that this individual was supplying 9,000 persons per week with soup, besides a great expenditure in clothes and other modes of relief, and that he was doing everything he could

679
for them. Then, as had already been stated, Sir R. Booth did a great deal; the fact was, he could afford to do, and really did, a great deal. He could mention another landlord, in Sligo, who had become alarmingly ill from his anxiety and attention to the poor in his neighbourhood, of whom, since last winter, he had in daily employment 350. This gentleman was now furnishing seed to his tenants, for whom he had also purchased a cargo of Indian corn. He was seeing that everything was properly done to insure the cultivation of the soil, and doing his utmost to relieve the distress of his neighbourhood. He had a soup-shop, besides giving a great deal at his own house; fifty-four women were employed by him weekly. He would mention one more case of a landlord who had been cruelly and grievously misrepresented as neglectful and careless about the poor in his neighbourhood; and, according to the statement which had been sent to him from Roscommon, this nobleman, who at any early period of the famine gave 500 l., had subscribed during the progress of the distress several sums of money to various relief and soup committees; and since the calamity set in supplied his labourers with cocoa in the morning and soup at mid-day, in addition to their usual daily wages, to the number of between 200 and 300; and supplied soup to their families three times a week; and had within the last month supplied upwards of 300 families with different articles of clothing and bed clothes; and had supplied wheat and rye gratuitously to the extent of several hundred pounds worth to his tenants holding ten acres and under. These statements showed, he thought, that the sweeping charges that had been brought against the landlords were unfounded in general, though he had always admitted that there were among them many distressed men who were unable to perform their duty. Another correspondent stated that his father had given seed oats, mangold, turnips, and carrots, and appointed a man to see that the sowing was done properly. A relation of his own in Tipperary had given his tenants seed, entirely at his own cost. He hoped that the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) would inquire before he again brought such statements under the notice of the House, whether on the authority of rev. gentlemen or not, and that he would do that justice to the Irish landlords which he would wish to be done to himself. On the whole, he was satisfied it
680
would be found that the landlords, in the circumstances of the country, were totally unable to do what they would do if they had the adequate means; and they could only hope that the measures of the Government would enable them to bear their share in relieving distress without exertions that would be overpowering.
MR. YOUNGbegged to call attention to the form of the return alluded to by the hon. Baronet, as it stook on the Order-book of the House. It was to stateᐠ1st, The balance (if any remaining) of the subscriptions of 1845 and 1856. 2nd. Private subscriptions advanced by owners, lessors, and occupiers of property in each union. 3rd. Subscriptions received from other sources. 4th. The amount from public grants. He had received many letters from Ireland complaining of the terms of the order, and he must say, a more grossly unfair return it was impossible to conceive. Every ostentatious rich person, who, perhaps, was doing very little, would appear on this return as it stood, while those proprietors who were residing on their own estates, and doing what they could for the poor personally, would not appear on it. Before the return was presented, he would take that opportunity of protesting against it. He must say, he thought it ought to be expunged from the Order-book of the House. He knew persons in Ireland who were not rich, but were spending one-half their income in the relief of the poor; he knew a clergyman who was devoting more than the whole of his tithes to the support of a soup shop in his parish. He knew a gentleman in Armagh who was supporting, and must for months support, more than 900 people, who were employed in labour that was unproductive to him; but none of these persons' names would appear upon the return as it stood.
LORD H. VANEfully concurred with the hon. Gentleman, and thought that it would be infinitely better that the House, even at that late period, should modify the form in which the return (which would probably be presented immediately after the recess) should be made. Great injustice might be avoided by taking that course, which would be the better course, both as being more just to individuals, and with a view to encouraging different modes of relief in Ireland. He felt that, if names were to be paraded in this way for the sake of ostentation, and it was to be stated before the public that such and such persons had given such and such subscriptions, the

681
landlords would be discouraged from engaging in other modes of relief which might be much more available. If the hon. Gentleman would give notice that he would move, immediately after the recess, that this return should not be made, he would second the hon. Member.
SIR G. GREYsaid, as to the view taken of this return, calculated to deter the Irish landlords from the discharge of their duties, he was quite aware that the discharge of their duties was not shown by the amount of subscriptions given, but by the employment of the poor on their estates, and by residing on those estates. His attention had not been turned to this subject, and he regretted that his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland was not present; this, however, was to be remembered, that the grants from the Treasury were made in proportion to the amount of subscriptions raised in each locality; and it was perfectly according to precedent for the House to call for a return of the subscriptions in respect of which grants of money were made. But if it was meant that the return should give the name of each subscriber against each sum subscribed, that would certainly be objectionable. He would inquire and endeavour to ascertain whether the return could not be made without that objectionable portion of it. The substance of the return was already given in the commissariat series of the correspondence with the Board of Works which was already before the House.
MR. YOUNGhad no objection, when the Government of the country had advanced sums of money proportioned to private subscriptions, to give the information to which the right hon. Baronet alluded; but he protested against the document being taken by the House or the country as representing the amount of private charity, and to its bearing the interpretation which the hon. Baronet and the Marylebone vestry were inclined to put upon it.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEstated, that the general amount of the subscriptions had already been published in the commissariat papers.
MR. POULETT SCROPEcertainly thought it was desirable to see whether the possessors of property in different districts had contributed in proportion to the amount of their property; and if the subject were to be renewed after the holidays, he should certainly like to review the correspondence he had received, showing that a vast quantity
682
of the Irish landlords had neglected their duties, and that great distress had been the consequence. The fact was so notorious that it could not be denied, and he did not think it necessary to read any papers; and the neglect was not confined to the present occasion only, for on the authority of a report from the Commissioner appointed in 1834 to consider the state of the poor in the very district of Skibbereen, after the cholera, he found that the neglect of the poor on the part of the landlords was as great and flagrant at that time as it had been since. A subscription had been opened during the cholera, and the contributions came almost solely from the towns, the landlords having given little or nothing. One landlord who was possessed of 4,000 l. a year had not given a farthing, though his tenants participated in the fund; the total subscription was 47 l. 5s., almost the whole of which came from individuals who were resident in the towns. In 1832, during the time of the cholera, the landlords were applied to; four only sent answers, and they contributed 11 l. 5s., the entire rental being 6,000 l. a-year. So that this was by no means a new charge against the landlords, and it would be impossible to deny it, or to give to it a wholesale answer; but if the attempt were made by reference to particular instances, he should be ready to meet the hon. Member; but in his opinion, the time of the House might be better occupied. Large sums had been contributed by this country, and he believed the opinion to be general, that there was a necessity for making the maintenance of the poor compulsory on the landlords, and under that impression he had refused to bring individual charges forward; and he thought it high time that the voluntary support of the poor should be put an end to altogether.
MR. STAFFORD O'BRIEN, in reply to the hon. Member for Stroud, reminded him that the hon. Member for Longford had not said that the landlords had done their duty; he only on the eve of recess defended those landlords whose characters were attacked. The hon. Member for Stroud threatened the House with a mass of correspondence; and, not content with that, went as far back as the time when the cholera raged in Skibbereen, to make charges against Irish landowners of delinquencies committed fifteen years since, by parties, some of whom he knew were dead. The hon. Member wound up by expressing a hope that crimination and recrimination would exist no longer; but if

683
the hon. Gentleman were to keep an ambuscade of correspondence to fire off upon every occasion, he (Mr. Stafford O'Brien) could see no hope of those unpleasant recriminations coming to a conclusion. When hon. Gentlemen made statements who had no connexion with Ireland, who had no local knowledge of that country, in which, he believed, the hon. Gentleman had never been, it became the duty of those who had connexions in that country, and who had some practical knowledge of it, not to submit to such attacks as those of the hon. Member for Stroud in silence. The House had affirmed the principle of extending relief to the poor, and were about to try a great experiment. No man who had considered the subject and the extent of the change could deny it was a great and formidable experiment. One way to make it fail was to exasperate the poor against the rich, and make those who were well disposed to do their best, give up in despair, by ungrounded and false statements; and the result would be to create a mass of misery which must speedily react on England. He thanked most heartily the noble Lord the Member for Durham for the manly, fair, and just views he had taken of these returns: they would have, he had no doubt, a beneficial effect. He hoped his hon. Friend would not interferes with the presentation of the return, as the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated that there would be no objection to produce a list of the grants of public money side by side with the local donations. The imperfect nature of the return ought to read a lesson to the Government not to grant returns so easily, when they could not accurately give the information required. They only gave rise to mistakes. The misrepresentations made in that return was only a part of the obloquy the landowners of Ireland had to bear as a punishment for their past errors. They must submit to it; and he hoped they would survive it. Now that they were about to separate, he thought it right to take that opportunity of thanking the Government for the kindness and patience with which they had listened to the suggestions which had been made, and for the way in which they had passed the measures through the House. Their desire for the amelioration of Ireland deserved the gratitude even of those who had opposed the measure; and, although he himself had proposed some amendments, he should, in his situation as a magistrate,
684
try to carry out the Bill in the same spirit in which it had been brought forward.
MR. VERNON SMITHthought the hon. Member for Northampton had been too hard on the hon. Member for Stroud, who had only spoken because he considered his remarks called for by what had passed before. He thought all were agreed that the return would be an unfair one; and if the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Young) wished that it should not go forth to the public, he would move, when the return was brought up for presentation, that it should not be printed. He thought the Poor Relief Bill ought to pass without obloquy being cast upon those who would be intrusted with the carrying out of the measure.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that as the opinion of the House went with the hon. Member for Cavan, it would be unnecessary to discuss the fallacy of the information which this return would give, if it were produced to the House; but he rose for the purpose of suggesting to the Government that as his hon. Friend could not, in the absence of the hon. Member for Marylebone, alter the resolution of the House, they should receive an assurance on the part of the Government that so much as related to the amount which individuals resident in each district had subscribed, should not be produced till his hon. Friend had an opportunity of moving for an alteration in its terms. The object of the return was answered, as the amount of public money granted was before the House; and the return would lead to an unjust inference, and to prejudicial consequences, as it would tend to make landlords abandon the most important duties on their estates, and to subscribe to institutions which were only brought into action to supply the neglect of those duties by the landlords. He believed, however, that the present Bill was not brought forward for the punishment of particular landlords, but because the belief was general that private charity was not sufficient, and ought not to be wholly relied on.
MR. LABOUCHEREregretted having been unavoidably absent during the earlier stages of this discussion. He had no difficulty in saying that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would not lay the return upon the Table until the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Young) had had an opportunity of making his proposal for altering the terms of it.

685
He knew that many landlords in Ireland thought that whatever means they could afford towards relieving distress would be better expended in providing work upon their estates, or in soup, than in any other mode. Nothing would be more unfair than to point out to public odium, or to those who might not be aware of all the circumstances, the names of particular individuals who had not given any or large subscriptions. At the same time he hoped nothing would go forth from that House as expressive of an opinion, that private subscriptions were not in any case very important, or that they had not been useful and beneficial in mitigating the existing distress.
MR. TRELAWNYthought this was one of those occasions which might be improved—to use a phrase sometimes employed under very different circumstances. The inequality of the sums given in charity by Irish landlords was precisely the ground he used for a poor law; yet he knew there were strong opinions against it in influential quarters out of that House, and those opinions had been supported by arguments which ought to be met as soon as advanced, lest they should sink into the public mind, and produce a reaction unfavourable to the ultimate success of the scheme. Now, what were these arguments? Some eminent political economists were averse to a poor law at all, as being, in its nature, a confiscation of property. He stoutly denied that it was so. He was prepared so show that it was not a confiscation, but a compromise. A real poor law, to be efficient, should be coupled with a mendicancy law, making it criminal to beg. For so long as able-bodied paupers were allowed to wander about the country imposing on the credulous good nature of simple folks, greater evils befell property than the small per centage which a poor law practically inflicted. For, in the first place, whilst nearly as much was given in charity, without a poor law, as a poor law would extort, it happened in practice that the deserving were mixed up with the indolent and criminal; and, at the same time, the law was levied, not upon the whole of society, but on those whose benevolence out stepped their common sense or judicious regard for the public interest. A poor law, then, became a compromise between the right to property and the right to beg. Without State provision for proved destitution, arising out of no fault, but misfortune, no Government, having a regard to its permanence, could
686
safely prohibit the right to solicit relief. A noble Lord in another place spoke of the clamour and excitement raised in England on the subject at that moment, and said they rendered it an unfitting time to pass such a law as that. No wonder there was clamour and excitement. Why, he could not understand how any one, having an interest in public affairs, could rest until a check was imposed on the profligate waste of the hard earnings of the English peasant and artisan under the Labour-rate Act. That an Irish landlord should have expected quietness and calmness of demeanour in the Saxon countenance at that precise moment of all others, did, he must say, surprise him exceedingly. The plea of England was short and simple: ought a country to feed itself, or ought it not? And if it ought, the next question was, how should it be made to do so? There was no way but by the increase of its produce. But was that possible? It was proved to be so by a thousand witnesses, and by known and authenticated examples. A noble Lord in another place had made a speech of inordinate length to prove the frightful evils which would arise from a state of things which was rarely likely to exist—he meant out-of-door relief to the able-bodied. He all along assumed that the unions would be always full. Had he, then, such experience of the Irish disposition to self-taxation? Did the annals of the Castlebar union beget such a conclusion? Was it not rather to be feared that Celtic ingenuity would evade the tax altogether? In times of famine, and then only, the houses would be full—and then they ought to be so. One great authority, whom every thinking man in this country would respect, had recommended emigration in lieu of a poor law. But he contended they were in principle the same thing. A tax on property, levied in any shape, either to support or export redundant population, was in its essence a poor law. Nor could it yet be shown that Ireland was so full that, with good management, its population might not be advantageously doubled. He hoped, therefore, this measure would be, carried as speedily as possible, injustice to both Ireland and England.
The Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill was then reported, and ordered to be read a third time.

THE ARMY SERVICE BILL.
On the Order of the Day being read for

687
going into Committee on the Army Service Bill,
SIR DE LACY EVANSregretted that he did not see the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of War (Mr. Sidney Herbert) in his place, while he (Sir De Lacy Evans) made the few remarks he had to offer. That right hon. Gentleman had stated the fact that, with the exception of the non-commissioned officers in the Army, the great body of the soldiers were of fifteen years' standing in the service—that was, he said, the natural period of the service in the Army. He must say, that after that expression of opinion, and considering the well-merited respect which was due to the right hon. Gentleman for kindness to, and great care of, the Army, he confessed he was astonished at the deduction which he made in recommending that the period of service should be reduced only one year. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would alter his opinion of the question; and to induce him to do so he would recall to his recollection the warrants which he issued in 1845, giving the privilege for enlistment for twelve or fourteen years. The proposition for the reduction of one year would be perfectly nugatory as a benefit to the soldiers. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member, he would remark that what he had stated about the money of 800,000 dollars must have arisen from an error of the press. He (Sir De Lacy Evans) had looked over the despatches, and was convinced that such must have been the case. The despatch of the Duke of Wellington, which the hon. and gallant Officer had quoted in reference to the Peninsular soldiers, so far from going against the present measure, he was persuaded was rather in its favour, as it showed that, even in the midst of a most important war, a limited enlistment had not been found prejudicial. The greater proportion of the hon. and gallant Member's address, however, bore about as much relation to the measure before the House as Tenterden steeple bore to the Goodwin sands. While referring to the Duke of Wellington, he would take this opportunity of thanking him for his recent elevation of so many officers from the ranks. During the past year no less than forty-three non-commissioned officers had been raised to ensigns and cornets. This was but a tardy act of justice, and following out what had been done for many years in France, Russia, and other countries. There were no less than four individuals
688
who, in his humble opinion, were far better qualified to come to a right decision on this Motion than any general in the Army. These were the noble Lord now at the head of the Foreign Department (Lord Palmerston), who had been for nineteen years Secretary at War; and the Secretary for the Colonies, who had also for some time been Secretary at War. The others were two gentlemen who had been also Secretaries at War. The hon. and gallant Member opposite had thought it right, because the noble Lord at the head of the Government had declined giving the correspondence between the Ministry and the Commander-in-Chief, to assert that the noble Duke at the head of the forces was quite opposed to the principle which they had adopted; and a morning paper had thought proper to abuse him for having differed from the hon. and gallant Member opposite. But what was the case? Why, if the hon. Member would read the despatches of the noble Duke, who had not been lauded more than his illustrious services and illustrious character had deserved—if they would read these despatches a little more zealously—they would soon perceive that his opinion was very different to what it had been represented. In his communications with the Government, when in Spain, he had frequently told them that, although the troops sent over were at first in a high state of discipline, yet they soon lost that discipline and the efficiency with which they first arrived; and in all these communications the noble Duke had repeatedly pressed the necessity for improving the morale of the Army, and had urged the wisdom of enlisting a better set of men, and of increasing the pensions of the men who were entitled to their discharge. This opinion, then, came in well to support the decision of civilians; and he was therefore justified in asserting that civilians were fully competent to judge of such a measure as this. The noble Duke had stated that it was, of all things, most important to raise the character of the men in the Army; and in this opinion he was supported by a man eminent for his success in life—he meant Oliver Cromwell. Well, he believed that at the time the opinion he was about to state was delivered, that Cromwell was a civilian; for he believed that he was nearly 40 years of age before he entered the army. It was well known that in the first two campaigns of the civil war, that the Parliamentarian army was unsuccessful; and in

689
one instance a portion of their troops was driven into Brentford; and it was recorded in the statement of a conversation that had taken place between Cromwell and Hampden, that Cromwell, to whose ingenuity and care the elevation of the character of the men was chiefly owing, had expressed great doubts of the ultimate success of the conflict. To remedy this defect, he said that he would go down into Lincolnshire, where he was well known, and enlist the sons of the yeomen there, whose hearts as well as their hands would be in the cause. He had done so; and it was, in his belief, owing to that movement of Cromwell that he succeeded.
MR. GOULBURNremarked, that no sufficient argument had been offered by the right hon. the Secretary at War against the proposition to extend the period of enlistment to fourteen years. He thought it extremely improbable that commanding officers would be more backward to re-enlist men who had served fourteen years, as they had thus had four years more experience than those who served ten years. The question before them was one of very great importance. He quite subscribed to what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had said with respect to the benefit which might accrue to the soldier by a term of limited engagement; but the point was to what extent that engagement ought to go, whether seven, ten, or fourteen years? This was a most important consideration, and might materially influence the future character of the Army, and upon that account no conclusion should be arrived at without the fullest and most attentive deliberation. If the object of limited service was to get a better class of men into the Army, he submitted that that was desirable, and would be equally well accomplished by extending the period of enlistment from ten to fourteen years. He agreed that it would be highly improper in the House to regulate the amount of pensions to be given upon retirement; but he trusted the pension warrant would be contemporaneous with any alteration that might be made in the service. He was of opinion that after twenty-one years' service such a pension ought to be awarded to the soldier as would be sufficient to maintain him, and thus put an end to the system which now prevailed, and under which the soldier was compelled to apply for parochial relief. A great injustice would be done to the soldier unless they made an arrangement of that
690
kind. The Bill provided that at the end of ten years' service the soldier might be at liberty to enrol himself, and serve for twelve days a year in the pension battalion, and that if he so served for twenty years, he would be entitled to sixpence per day; but it likewise provided that the man who re-enlisted should, provided he served for twelve years, receive, at the expiration of that time, a similar pension of sixpence per day. What a great difference was there not between the cases of the respective men! The man that remained at home with his family followed, perchance, a profitable employment, and enjoyed a healthy climate; and yet for 240 days' service at home, which was only amusement to a soldier, they gave the same amount of pension as to the hard-working soldier, who in all varieties of climate, and at all hazards, had served for 4,000 days. Surely the positions of the men were not placed upon any terms of parity. In his opinion fourteen years would be a more desirable term of enlistment, not only upon the ground of expense, but for many other considerations; and he would give his support to the proposition to that effect.
It was proposed to fill up the blank with the word "ten."
On Clause 1,
SIR HOWARD DOUGLASmoved, as an Amendment, that the word "ten" be omitted, and the word "fourteen" substituted as the limited period of enlistment.
MR. HUMEobjected to the Amendment of the gallant Officer, inasmuch as he was of opinion that the limited period ought to be seven years, and not ten. If they adopted the period of seven years for enlistment, they would obtain a superior class of men to those who now entered, and they would not be driven to fill up the ranks of the Army with the sweepings of the gaols. It was by such a course, and by making the situation of the soldier as comfortable as possible, that they could obtain a good class of men for the Army. He was strongly in favour of a seven years period of enlistment, but he was contented to take ten years as the present proposal, being satisfied that it would lead to the shorter period.
COLONEL LINDSAYsupported the Amendment, as by the adoption of the longer period, fourteen years, they would retain in the Army a greater number of old well-conducted soldiers.
MR. F. MAULEsaid, that he had stated last night his objections to the adoption of any period longer than that which he proposed, and he could not agree to the Amendment.
SIR H. DOUGLASsaid, that the longer term would be productive of many advantages, and referred to the artillery as a proof of the insufficiency of a ten years' enlistment. It took four years to make an artilleryman fit for his duties, and the sergeants in the artillery were generally men of twelve years' service. He was so strongly impressed with the importance of the Amendment, that he thought it right to take the sense of the House upon it,
The Committee divided on the question that the blank be filled up with ten:—Ayes 62; Noes 27: Majority 35.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 2,
COLONEL WOODmoved a verbal Amendment with a view to enabling the soldier to re-enlist during the last year of his first period of service, instead of at the end of it, as proposed by the clause. His object in moving the Amendment was to give the soldier a full year to make up his mind as to whether he should remain in his regiment or not, instead of calling upon him suddenly at the end of his first period of service to say if he was willing to re-engage himself for a period of eleven years.
MR. FOX MAULEdid not think the Amendment would have the effect which the hon. and gallant Colonel was desirous to produce, whilst it would have the disadvantage of preventing the man from going home to his native place at the end of his service, and remaining perhaps for four or five months there. If a man re-engaged during his last year of service, such a re-engagement would deprive him of that opportunity of going to see his friends; whereas, by permitting amongst his friends after a short period of service, such as that proposed by the Bill, there was a probability that on his return to re-enlist, he would bring other men with him to enter the Army, and it was to be supposed that those men would be of good character—thus the arrangement would prove a means of obtaining a good class of men; he could not, therefore, agree to the Amendment.
MR. GOULBURNdid not think Colonel Wood's proposition an unreasonable one.
COLONEL REIDwished to know whether it was to be left to the will or the caprice
692
of the soldier to say for how long a term he should re-enlist? The Act provided that a man might re-enlist for "any term not exceeding eleven years." Was it intended that he should re-enlist for one year only if he thought proper, because that was the meaning of the clause?
MR. F. MAULEadmitted that there was some ambiguity in the clause, and he proposed to substitute "for the further term of eleven years," which would fix that period for his re-engagement.
COLONEL REIDwished to call the attention of the Government to the circumstance, that while men who might be enlisted under the provisions of this Bill would be entitled to their discharge at the end of ten or twelve years, the men who were now serving in the Army, and who had been enlisted for an unlimited period, would be dependent for their discharge on the will of the commanding officers. This state of things would create great discontent in the Army; and he hoped the Secretary at War would give the subject his serious consideration.
Amendment negatived without a division.
On the question being again put,
COLONEL T. WOODobserved, that it could not be expected that a soldier who had served for ten years in the Army would volunteer for an additional service of eleven years without an increase of pay. He thought that a man who volunteered to renew his service had a claim to an increase of pay, and he hoped the right hon. Secretary at War would consider this subject.
MR. F. MAULEsaid, that the object of the Government was to place the soldier in as favourable a position as possible; but it would be more convenient not to discuss such matters as that to which the hon. and gallant Member had referred now, but to leave their consideration to those to whom the management of such affairs was immediately committed.
COLONEL REIDwished to remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Maule) that under the existing regulations a soldier now serving in the Army could only obtain his discharge by the payment of 10 l. or 15 l. and he must say that he thought old soldiers ought to be entitled to their discharge at the expiration of a certain period of service without such payments.
MR. F. MAULEdid not feel at liberty to deprive a man who entered the Army of the power of purchasing his discharge, if circumstances arose which rendered it necessary

693
for him to quit the service by such means; and he could not pledge himself, by any statement in that House, as to what arrangement might or might not be made with reference to granting free discharges to old soldiers.
COLONEL T. WOODasked whether, supposing at the expiration of his period of service, a soldier was undergoing the sentence of a court-martial, his punishment would cease on the expiration of that service?
MR. F. MAULEwould make inquiry on that point; but he presumed that a soldier under sentence of court-martial would undergo the whole of his punishment before he was entitled to his discharge.
The clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses of the Bill.
MAJOR LAYARDthen said, that as they had adopted all the clauses in the Bill, he would propose the following clause:—
"And be it enacted, that at the expiration of three years from the passing of this Act, any person now enlisted to serve Her Majesty who shall have completed the term of ten years in the infantry, or twelve years in the cavalry, artillery, or other ordnance corps, to be reckoned as aforesaid, and who shall give three calendar months' notice to his commanding officer that he is desirous of being discharged, shall be entitled to the benefit of this Act, and to the provisions thereof, in as full and ample a, manner as if enlisted after the passing of this Act."
He was most anxious that this Bill should not pass without such a provision being made for the soldiers in the existing Army. When he had first taken up this subject, he had taken pains to ascertain the injury of the short period of enlistment; and he was quite assured not only that the Bill would be beneficial, but that it would be so beneficial, that unless its influence was extended in the manner he proposed, great injustice would be done to the men already in the Army. Great apprehensions had been entertained, not only in that, but the other House of Parliament, that the setting of the soldiers at liberty as proposed by this Bill would seriously endanger the country; but he could not see any grounds for such apprehensions. Indeed, the hundreds of parties with whom he had conversed on the subject, and who were the most competent to give an opinion as to the effects of the Bill, stated decidedly that they expected the greatest advantages to result from it to the Army and the country at large. They stated that it would henceforth be of the utmost importance to the safety of the
694
country, that there should be men not only in the Army, but out of it, who were well acquainted with the use of arms; and the effect of this Bill would undoubtedly be to produce a great number of such men. The possession of our sea-girt isle had, by the introduction of steam, become very much altered, and it would be necessary to have our people skilled in the use of arms. The House was aware that the soldier was debarred from the privilege of petitioning the House; but he was convinced that, if they had been at liberty to do so, they would have forwarded a host of petitions, praying the House to extend the privileges of the Bill to the existing Army. But he trusted that the generosity and good feeling of the House towards the Army would induce them to accede to the soldiers' wishes, notwithstanding the compulsory absence of their petitions. He implored the hon. Members of that House, on whatever side they might happen to sit, not to refuse to the gallant men who defended their country that ray of hope which all men required to light them along the rugged path of a chequered existence. He implored the House to grant to those men a hope that they should, in a short time, be enabled to return to the bosoms of their families after their arduous toils on behalf of their country. By so doing the House would only be acting towards them in that generous spirit to which they were entitled.
Clause brought up and read a first time. On the Motion that it be read a second time,
SIR DE L. EVANSconceived that it was but just to the existing Army, that some such provision should be inserted. As he had said on a previous occasion, so he would now repeat, that he could not conceive that any practical inconvenience whatever would accrue from extending the privileges of this Bill to the members of the existing Army. The Government ought to express their intention on that point.
MR. F. MAULEwas rather sorry to say, that be differed in some degree from the opinion held by his hon. and gallant Friend, who was no doubt a very high authority upon such subjects as these. He thought that what had fallen from the gallant Member would tend rather to increase than sooth the dissatisfaction of the existing Army. He was glad to know that his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Layard) approved of the experiment of a limited service in the Army; but he was afraid that

695
a great responsibility would attach to the Government if they consented to his proposition of extending immediately the benefits of this Bill to the existing Army. By the existing Army, he meant, of course, all those who had served for a period of ten years in the infantry, and twelve in the cavalry or artillery. He thought that the adoption of the proposed clause would cause very great inconvenience. He was also of opinion that it would not be convenient for the Government to make any declaration of the course which they might hereafter think it right to adopt with reference to the extension of the privileges of the Bill to the men now in the Army, before they had some knowledge of the working of this measure as regarded the Army and the public mind. His hon. Friend had stated that they could hear nothing from the existing Army in the shape of petitions respecting this Bill, that the soldier was deprived of the privilege of petitioning the House. It was very true that the soldier was not allowed to petition the House; but he believed that one of the laws under which the soldier was governed, provided that inquiry should be made by proper parties into the minutest grievances complained of by a soldier. It was true that in several instances the soldier was afraid of asking for an inquiry; but in a case like this, which involved no dispute between him and his superior officers, he believed that if they had felt very much aggrieved they would have made their complaints to the commanding officers against the Bill. Without meaning to cast any reflection upon his hon. Friend, who was entitled to great praise for his great exertions in the cause of the Army, and to whose measure of last Session he (Mr. Maule) was greatly indebted for the present, he must say that if his present proposal were adopted, it would not be in accordance with the opinion of the highest authority in the Army. The gratitude of the House was undoubtedly due to his gallant Friend for the bold and honest manner in which he had invariably given expression to his opinions on the state of the Army, and the necessity for its improvement. He thanked him for the support which he had afforded to him in carrying out this Bill as originally proposed; and he hoped that, if it should receive the sanction of the Legislature, it would give complete satisfaction to the public. He believed that the Bill would be of the greatest service, not only to the
696
Army, but to the country generally. The Government would consider the proposition of his hon. and gallant Friend; and if it should be deemed prudent to adopt its principle, they would willingly do so after they had an opportunity of witnessing the operation of the Bill in its present shape.
SIR DE L. EVANSbegged to suggest to his hon. and gallant Friend, that, after the satisfactory statement that had been made, he should consent to withdraw his proposition.
COLONEL LINDSAYconcurred with his two hon. Friends, as to the justice of extending the benefits of the Bill to the existing Army. He had, however, the fullest confidence in the Government, and would willingly leave the matter in their hands.
MAJOR LAYARDcould not say he felt the entire satisfaction avowed by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster; but knowing, from experience, that when the Government held out the slightest hope that the statement of a hardship should be attended to, they would really and seriously consider what could be done to remedy it, he should not press the Motion.
Clause withdrawn. House resumed. Bill to be reported.
House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock to Monday April 12th.