PUNISHMENT OF VAGRANTS (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 7 May 1847)

§ MR. P. SCROPE
said, he wished to ask the noble Lord whether he was prepared to assure the House that he would do all in his power to guarantee the passing of a measure which would insure relief to the poor of Ireland in the extremity of destitution? He believed, that if the Irish Poor Law Bill were to be cut down so as to be merely a temporary measure, to continue in operation for one, two, or three years, it would be perfectly worthless. He was convinced, that if the Bill was to be merely of a temporary character, neither the poor on the one hand, nor the rich on the other, would exert themselves as they would do if it were a permanent measure. In his opinion, the time had come when it was necessary that this principle should be adopted permanently—that the poor should be supported in the districts in which they 532 lived, and in which their labour had been employed; and he believed the people of England were determined that this principle should be applied to Ireland. The people of this country were obliged to maintain their own poor; and they considered that it was not justifiable that a state of things should he continued, which would enable the owners of property in Ireland to refuse to discharge their duties towards their own poor, and, directly or indirectly, by the force of starvation, or the refusal of relief, to send them in hordes to this country, either to obtain that relief which they so much needed, or to come into competition with our own industrious population. He believed the English people and the Government were alike determined that this principle should be enforced—that the property of Ireland should maintain the poor of Ireland. He wished, therefore, to ask the noble Lord, whether he meant to press this Bill to-night? And if that was the noble Lord's intention, whether he could assure the House that he would take every measure in the power of the Government to secure the application of some permanent system of relief to Ireland, which should require the property of that country to maintain the poor?

LORD J. RUSSELL
My hon. Friend requires some explanation of my opinion with regard to this Bill. In answer to his question, I beg to remind him, in the first place, that I have always declared that, as the former Poor Law Act only applied to a certain portion of the destitute, and there were numbers who were not relieved under that Act; it was not just to deprive those who were not relieved, of the privilege of begging, and of getting what assistance they could obtain. I am still of the same opinion; and therefore I certainly should not attempt to ask the House to consent to the passing of this Bill, unless I believed there was a general Bill about to have the force of law which would give to all the destitute—to all persons in danger of starving, the means of obtaining their support from rates to be levied by law. I will say further, that if the Poor Law which is to give such relief is to be limited in duration, I think this Bill, which is of a penal character, should he limited in the same way. But, while I say this, I do not think the limitation of the duration of the Poor Law Bill would be a good reason for declining to enter into the details of this measure. It is quite obvious, that if the two Houses of Parliament were to show so 533 much jealousy of each other, that the one were to say, "We will not pass the Vagrancy Bill unless a Poor Law Bill, satisfactory to us, has passed the other House," and the other branch of the Legislature were to say, "We will not consider the Poor Law Bill unless a Vagrancy Bill accompanies it," there would be great danger that, between the two, no progress in legislation would he made. I am therefore disposed to go into Committee on this Bill. Before it has finally passed this House, we shall probably be aware in what state the measure recently sent to the other House will be returned to us. At present, my hon. Friend does not seem to be aware whether the alterations made in that Bill, limiting its duration, apply to the whole Bill or only to certain clauses; and if so, to what clauses. I think, therefore, we cannot take into consideration what is passing in Committee in the other House of Parliament; and I hope that this House will go into Committee on this Bill, and consider its details, as if the measure which has been referred to, and which has passed through this House, were to be agreed to by the other House of Parliament. In the future stages of this measure we may think fit to limit its duration; or, if the measure to which I have alluded should not pass, we can refuse our consent to the passing of this Bill. I must say, with regard to the necessity of the Poor Law for Ireland, I am more and more convinced, both by the accounts I hear from day to day, and by the statements of persons for whose opinions I entertain great respect, that the Bill we have passed through this House is absolutely necessary for Ireland. I heard only this day (I will not mention names, for it may he one of those exaggerated representations we sometimes hear, though it seems to me to be a well-authenticated case) of a poor family, the head of which had been one of the 40s. freeholders formerly used as the serfs and slaves of great political landlords in Ireland, but who had now become useless, having accepted a small sum to quit their wretched holding, and being then left to starve. The persons employed in the constabulary found the woman and children dead; and they ascertained that relief had been refused by those upon whose land they had lived for so many years, and to whom the political service of the father had been useful. ["Name!"] I certainly shall not name; but I really think no one can he blind to the circumstances which 534 are passing around us. I see a complaint in the newspapers, in reference to the statement made by my right hon. Friend, that in consequence of the relief works having been stopped in a certain district of Ireland, within a few days, a great number of persons have perished. Why, Sir, it does appear to me, that though persons possessing property in Ireland may be unable to sustain the destitute during a whole year, yet that during the interval between the cessation of the public works and the bringing into operation of an Act recently passed, the persons of property residing in the neighbourhoods in which there are numbers of destitute persons, and not the Government, are bound to maintain these poor people. I may say further, that two persons who formerly expressed very strong opinions against out-door relief in Ireland, and to whose opinions great value is attached—Mr. Nicholls, one of the present Poor Law Commissioners, and Mr. Gulson, an assistant poor-law commissioner—have expressed in writing their conviction that, in the present state of things in Ireland, out-door relief to the able-bodied is absolutely necessary. These statements confirm my own opinion with regard to the necessity of affording such relief.

§ MR. S. CRAWFORD
considered that the House ought not to proceed with the Bill now before them until they knew what was to be the fate of the Bill to which the noble Lord had alluded in another place.

§ MR. F. FRENCH
did not think any alteration in the Irish Poor Relief Bill which merely had the effect of rendering the measure temporary could be a matter of any great consequence, when it was considered that the object of that Bill was to prevent the people from starving.

§ MR. SHAW
said, it was not very regular to discuss in that House the different stages of a measure that was in progress in the other House of Parliament; he would therefore, only say on that point, that he had from the first maintained that the legislation to meet the present calamitous emergency in Ireland should be of a temporary rather than of a permanent character. As regarded the Vagrancy Act, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) might recollect that, when the vagrancy clauses were introduced originally in the Irish Poor Law Bill in 1838, he (Mr. Shaw) objected to their passing, because the Poor Law Bill conferred no right to relief; and, of course, he should he of the same opinion now, if the right to relief was not provided by the 535 other Bill; at the same time, he agreed with the noble Lord that it would be the more correct and dignified course for the House to proceed through Committee with that Bill, without reference to what was passing in another place. He had risen principally to express his regret that the noble Lord had thought it right to allude to the case he had mentioned of apparent neglect of duty on the part of an Irish landlord, without furnishing the name or any particulars, which might lead to an explanation. If the information the noble Lord had received was correct, he should deprecate such conduct as much as the noble Lord could; but experience had taught him to be very cautious in crediting such statements, until an opportunity of denial or explanation was afforded to the party accused; and his great objection to a charge of that kind being made without name or circumstance, and particularly under the high authority of the noble Lord, was, that it would be applied generally to a class which had already been indiscriminately and cruelly maligned—he meant the Irish landlords. He would repeat what he had over and over again said in that House, that, as a body, they were doing all that men could do to discharge their duty, under difficulties of overwhelming magnitude. They were, as compared to English landlords, few, and scattered, and poor—the very distress which increased the demands upon them rendering them the less able to meet the demands. Under the present Temporary Relief Act, they were in some electoral districts in Ireland, 40,000 persons claiming out-door relief, and in others a rate of 10s. in the pound voted for three months only. Let him, then, ask those who heaped charge upon charge on the Irish landlords, what men, circumstanced as they were, could do effectually to meet such a case as that?

§ SIR H. W. BARRON
thought the House would agree with him that it was most unwise, ungenerous, and unjust, to make accusations, without notice, against persons who were absent; and, above all, he thought it was most unjust to make an anonymous accusation of neglect of duty against a body in Ireland who, tinder the most adverse circumstances, were struggling to do all in their power to relieve the poverty and alleviate the distress of those by whom they were surrounded. This was done, too, at a time when many of the members of that body were not receiving one-tenth of the rents due to them by law. The 536 fact was, that many of the landlords of Ireland were borrowing money at this very moment to enable them to afford employment to the poor, and to aid subscriptions for relieving the destitute. He was acquainted with some gentlemen in his own district who, at great inconvenience and expense, had taken this course. With respect to the question put by the hon. Member for Stroud to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he believed that question to be very irregular; and he thought it was inconvenient to discuss in that House what was proceeding in the other, or to hold out anything like intimidation to any other body. He denied that the recent vote in the other House, which had been alluded to, was a complete upsetting of and a refusal of relief to the Irish poor. Had any hon. Member except the hon. Member for Stroud ever described the Irish Poor Relief Bill as anything but a great experiment, and a measure of uncertainty? It was, therefore, in accordance with common sense to make such a measure temporary, in order that they might hare an opportunity of seeing how it worked.

§ MR. ROSS
was afraid that the result of making the Irish Poor Relief Bill temporary would be, that a general combination would be entered into by those who disliked it, with the view of preventing the Bill from working well; and then the opponents of the measure would contend, in this case, that such a measure was not capable of producing good effects in Ireland. He, for one, deeply lamented what had passed elsewhere, converting into a temporary measure that which was originally intended to be permanent; for he feared that at a future period they would have all the work to do over again, and, in the mean time, Ireland would be placed in very unhappy and disastrous circumstances.

§ MR. ESCOTT
said, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had that night made an important statement, to the effect that he would abide by his former speech, taking care that in the Bill introduced by the Government substantial means should be provided for the relief of the poor in Ireland, and for the purpose of preventing them being a charge on the people of this country. In addition to the Irish Vagrancy Bill, which they were now about to discuss, he was afraid that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would also have to introduce a Lunacy Bill, in order to repress the wild ardour of those who, in 537 their opposition to the Irish Poor Relief Bill, seemed to be setting all common sense at defiance.

§ MR. P. SCROPE
moved a proviso to limit this clause, by requiring that it should be first proved to the committing justice that such person had the power of earning a maintenance at home, or had been offered a maintenance in the union. If a man went to a distance in search of work, his family must go into the workhouse until he either returned or sent money to them, begging being now prohibited; but the man ought not to be punished for thus doing what he was really obliged to do.

§ MR. ESCOTT
thought it would be advisable for the Government to make inquiry into the provisions of the laws already on the Statute-book, so that they might be repealed, and the law of vagrancy made uniform. He had been told that there were laws already in existence which imposed transportation for seven years for the offence of vagrancy; and he had been informed also, that that most offensive law had in certain instances been put in force.

§ MR. SHAW
said, it was true that there was such an Act; but it was almost obsolete for any purpose, and had never been put in force or held applicable against a mere ordinary beggar.

§ MR. S. CRAWFORD
said, it was true that the Act in question did not apply to beggars; but he had known it to be applied to prostitutes. He thought the Act ought to be repealed.

§ SIR G. GREY
stated, that the object of the clause was to guard, amongst other things, against the wife entering into collusion with the husband, by which she and her children might become burdensome while the husband was in a position to support them.

§ MR. P. SCROPE
was willing to leave his suggestion to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

§ MR. M. O'FERRALL
thought that this 538 clause would be found exceedingly difficult, if not dangerous, in operation. In the case of those vagrants who feigned lame-ness and blindness, he thought the enactment would meet with general approval and support; but the reverse would be the case as regarded those persons who had known better times, and who were obliged to solicit alms from no fault of their own. He thought a discretionary power should be given to the Poor Law Commissioners to put the enactment in force in those districts where out-door relief was granted.

§ MR. GREGORY
did not think that the clause would be put in force in the case of those who from misfortune were obliged to solicit alms from those who sympathized with them. The enactment was levelled at sturdy beggars.

§ COLONEL RAWDON
proposed the addition of words intending to protect those persons who were travelling in search of work, or to a seaport for the purpose of emigrating, and who might avail themselves of the hospitable feelings of their countrymen on the way.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, that the clause was framed on the model of that incorporated in the English Act; and under that Act no instance had ever been known where persons travelling, for instance, to the hay harvest, had been put in prison on their arrival in England. He really thought the gallant Colonel entertained a harsher opinion of Irish magistrates than their conduct justified. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kildare, the effect of it would be to induce vagrants to flock into the districts which adjoined the one in which the enactment was in force.

§ MR. M. O'FERRALL
thought the difficulty would be got over by making the clause operative within a certain distance of the districts where out-door relief was granted.

§ MR. SHAW
thought, that if they were to pass the law at all, they must declare the act of begging to be an offence; but he did not share the apprehensions of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. O'Ferrall) that there would be any attempt to enforce its operation with extreme rigour. It could never be intended to make charity a crime, or to prevent any extent of kindness by the poor to their friends and neighbours. You could not legislate for each particular case. A discretion must be vested somewhere; and he did not fear that the magistrates in Ireland would exercise it otherwise than humanely.

LORD J. RUSSELL
observed, that he could not justly he accused of undervaluing the importance of this clause, for he considered it essential to the Bill. It was said that first the habits of the whole people must be changed. His object, he confessed, was to change the habits of the whole people. He wished to transform habits which were injurious to the country into others which would prove beneficial. Those habits were not peculiar to Ireland, but had grown up in every country where no Poor Law existed, and the destitute poor depended on charity. In all such countries there was an active disposition to offer alms and hospitality from day to day, and two classes of people had arisen; the first consisting of impostors, who by every kind of contrivance, by feigned distress, by feigned deformity, by feigned misfortune of some description or other, practised on the credulity of others, and were relieved under a system of indiscriminate charity. The other class consisted of sturdy beggars, who did not ask but who demanded assistance, and whom the habit of the country in some degree encouraged, but who formed a class closely connected with the criminals of the country in many instances. When he had asked whether crime had not been produced by destitution, he had been told that it was not the starving people, but the mendicants of this class, that were the guilty parties. He wished to change those habits, but thought it impossible to change them, if, on the one hand, any persons were punished for seeking alms without, on the other hand, providing relief. It was not for one class only that out-door relief was proposed. It was proposed to offer it in all cases; that was, if an able-bodied person was destitute, and the guardians were bound to relieve him, they could relieve him in the workhouse. If there was no room in the workhouse, they could order him to be relieved out of the workhouse. That applied to a person who required relief. [Mr. SHAW; And to all infirm persons.] If a man sent his children out to beg, they would be relieved under the Bill. Those who enacted that relief should be given in such a manner as to secure destitute persons from starving, had a right to say that impostors and sturdy beggars should be subject to punishment; they were endeavouring to put an end to the practice, and change the habits of the country in that respect. He thought those habits had been changed in this country, for no country was more disturbed by men- 540 dicants and sturdy beggars till an end was put to the system which encouraged them by a change in the law. Instead of bestowing indiscriminate charity, the disposition was to give alms only in certain deserving cases; but the people did not feel that, if they abstained from giving alms, a person really destitute would be left to starve. The change was of great importance, and if carried into effect would most materially affect the future destiny of Ireland. But it was a change which required a certain discretion to be exercised in applying the measure. Much would require to be done in the exercise of that discretion, according to the particular state of districts in which the law would have to be put in force; but he advocated the present clause upon the ground that it tended to improve the habits of the people.

§ MR. M. O'FERRALL
was no advocate for vagrancy; all he was anxious for was, that its abolition should be effected gradually, and with caution.

§ MR. GREGORY
entirely concurred with the noble Lord. The effect of giving the discretion as to the punishment of these offences to the Poor Law Commissioners would be to drive the poor away from the districts where the Poor Law Commissioners had jurisdiction.

§ MR. BELLEW
shared the apprehensions expressed by the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. M. O'Ferrall).

SIR W. JAMES
thought, that however desirable it might be to change the habits of the people, there was much in what was said against the clause. In the first place, it was a Roman Catholic country with which the House was dealing, for almsgiving was regarded in a far different light by Roman Catholics than it was by Protestants. The object might be sufficiently gained if power were given to any two justices in petty sessions to commit offenders for one calendar month to the house of correction or gaol.

§ SIR G. GREY
was afraid that that provision would be attended with hardship to the persons convicted, by causing delay.

§ MR. P. SCROPE
said, that, in illustration of the mendicancy in Ireland, he might mention that beggars not unfrequently, when refused meal on the ground that there was none left in the house, offered some for sale at a low rate, and that they not unfrequently left their daughters considerable sums of money. If a man had applied for and been refused relief, it would be very hard that he should then be punished 541 for begging. He had doubts as to the power of compelling relief under the Poor Law Act, and he was on that account more anxious for some such proviso.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, that a man might apply for relief and be rejected because he was not destitute, and the hon. Member would then prevent him from being convicted under this clause if he were guilty of vagrancy.

§ MR. CALLAGHAN
owned he viewed this clause with considerable apprehension. He thought the state of the poor had not been laid before the Committee in its true light. There was one description of people whom he feared this clause would affect—persons who committed no crime, and who never contemplated the commission of crime. He lived in the neighbourhood of a large town, and he saw every day poor widows and other poor persons who went into the country to seek a few potatoes. He often inquired into the condition of these poor people, and he frequently found them to be mothers with two or three children—these children being educated by the monks, and by this means fitted for a better condition of life. These poor persons were unwilling to go themselves or to send their children to the workhouse. The noble Lord talked of "altering the habits of the people;" but it was impossible by their legislation to change the character of a people, or to extinguish the strong feeling of sympathy the Irish had for the unfortunate, and their charity towards each other. The farmers, so far from feeling almsgiving a burden, delighted in it as the performance of an agreeable duty, and would be anything but thankful for a Bill which made poverty a crime. He agreed that those who made a trade of begging, and exhibited disgusting sores for the purpose of working upon the benevolence of the rich, ought to be prevented from thus practising on the sympathies of their neighbours. But in a country where poverty was so general, and the anxiety to keep out of the workhouse so great, he could not help regarding a law which inflicted a severe penalty on vagrancy as a bill of pains and penalties against poverty. Reference had been made to the existence of the Roman Catholic religion where this law was about to be enforced. That religion furnished another reason why they should touch vagrancy with a lenient hand. It often happened to himself to have seen ladies stop beggars on the road, and having given them money, ask these poor crea- 542 tures to pray for their souls. [Lord J. RUSSELL: There is nothing in this clause to prevent persons from giving alms if they choose.] Yes; but he greatly feared that persons receiving alms under such circumstances, could be punished as vagrants under this Bill. Almsgiving in Ireland could never be put a stop to, unless they succeeded in punishing the giver as well as the receiver of charity; and he, for one, considered this clause wholly opposed to the general feeling of that country in favour of almsgiving.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
thought there was considerable weight in the observations of the hon. Member. He could not see that there was sufficient security against the punishment of classes of poor persons not intended to be affected by the Bill; and he should have preferred seeing the Poor Law in operation for a year, without any Vagrancy Bill.

§ MR. M. O'FERRALL
said, it was quite true that Dr. Doyle had always urged that vagrancy was one of the greatest evils ever inflicted on the country; but he made a great distinction between classes of poverty. He denominated those persons vagrants who, from father to son, continued the practice of begging, and went about spreading vice and disease throughout the country. To put down this class of beggars, Dr. Doyle thought no severity could be too great; but he was quite certain that, under the present circumstances of Ireland, Dr. Doyle would have opposed a clause expressed in the general terms in which this was worded. If the clause were made to apply to sturdy beggars alone, it would be such as he was sure the great body of the people would be thankful for; but it would be doing the people a great injustice to confound poverty with vagrancy. What he wanted to see was, a discretionary power given to the Poor Law Commissioners to apply the Act to the circumstances of the different parts of the country.

§ MR. YOUNG
was by no means particularly enamoured of a Vagrancy Act for Ireland; and, certainly, looking to the clause then under discussion, there did seem some ground for saying that it was rather stringent in its provisions. At the same time, however, he did not think that there was much weight in the objection which had been urged, that the justices who were to carry out this Act would take no notice of the circumstances of the country, and would inflict the same severity in the mildest case of begging as in that of 543 a sturdy beggar. Such a case, he thought, was not very likely to occur, as the magistrates generally, he was sure, would exercise a wise discretion.

§ SIR G. GREY
, in answer to a question from Sir D. Norreys, explained, that the term "resident in any union in Ireland" meant domiciled in any union; and that the object of committing persons who "shall go from such union to some other union in Ireland, for the purpose of obtaining relief in such last-mentioned union," was to prevent persons leaving a union where the workhouse was not full, and going to another where it was full, with the view of obtaining out-door relief.

§ MR. P. SCROPE
moved the following addition to the clause:— Provided always, that it shall be proved to the satisfaction of such justice, that such person might have obtained relief in the union in which he resided, or that he could maintain himself and family by a due exertion of industry.

SIR R. FERGUSON
objected to this Amendment.

§ MR. F. FRENCH
thought this addition would nullify the clause altogether. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State what would arise in this case—suppose a woman or a man, accompanied by four or five children, were found begging, and brought before a magistrate, and committed to prison, would the children be committed to prison also—for the children were part of the vagrancy? If this were done, however, it would entail a very heavy expense on the country; and, besides, the gaols would not be large enough to hold the vagrants that would be committed under the Act. As the House was aware, the maintenance of prisoners was more expensive than paupers. He begged to suggest whether it might not be advisable to commit such sturdy beggars to a ward of the workhouse, where they would be under the supervision of the guardians instead of sending them to prison.

§ SIR G. GREY
had great objections to converting the workhouses into prisons. With respect to the question about children, he begged to say that they would be disposed of exactly as under the present law; they would not be sent to prison.

§ MR. P. SCROPE
explained that the object of his Amendment was to guard against the possibility of any one being refused relief who really required it, to calm the fears of the poor of Ireland of being placed between the alternative of 544 being punished with one month's imprisonment and hard labour, or of being obliged to go off to England to burden the people there with himself and family. He felt so strongly on the subject that he should press his Amendment to a division.

§ MR. ESCOTT
hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment to a division, but would wait and see in what shape the Irish Poor Relief Bill came back from the other House.

§ MR. P. SCROPE
said, that assuming the Poor Relief Bill came back in its present shape, his objection to the clause was equally strong.