§ COLONEL DUNNE, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Irish Poor Laws, said that it had been asserted heretofore that he and other hon. Gentlemen who thought with him wished to abolish the poor-laws entirely. That he altogether denied; but he wished to amend them, as without some amendment in them the country would continue in its present wretched condition. On a former occasion several Members of that House, as also of the other House, agreed to certain resolutions, which they laid before the First Lord of the Treasury; and it was on these resolutions that he intended to base his Bill for the amendment of the poor-laws. The first of these resolutions referred to the abolition of outdoor relief. Whilst he wished to abolish outdoor relief, he was aware that in the present state of destitution in Ireland it could not be abolished without a substitute; and, therefore, he was prepared to introduce a certain modification of that abolition, though it 152 might not be acceptable to Ministers, nor even to all Irish Members. He felt, therefore, that if the clauses which he was prepared to introduce were not worthy of consideration during the recess, he would have no locus standi next Session to bring them forward. The second ground of amendment was the appointment of paid guardians, in which he expected to have the co-operation of all Irish Members. Unlimited taxation—such as was exercised by these officials—was unconstitutional, and was also destructive of the interests of the union to which these paid guardians were appointed. He, therefore, proposed that the power of appointing them should be removed from the Commissioners; and that in case of a dereliction of duty on the part of the local board, a fitting tribunal be appointed to decide in all such cases. The third proposition of amendment related to the extravagant expenditure of the establishments. He might be told that within the last six months expenses of outdoor relief had decreased 40 per cent. He did not deny that; but he denied that the expenses of the establishments had been reduced. In 1848, he found by a report that the rates for poor-law purposes in Ireland amounted to nearly two millions, whilst in 1849 they exceeded that amount. He had also to object to the high valuation of the land for poor-law purposes in Ireland; and, taking all the burdens which land was subject to in Ireland into account—many of which the landholders were exempted from—he had no hesitation in saying that taxation in that country averaged 8s. 4d., in the pound, whilst in England it did not amount to half that sum. Therefore, in his opinion, some other element besides land should be introduced for taxation; and if he should be permitted to introduce his Bill, he thought he would be able to deal with the matter in a satisfactory manner. He had said enough to show that his object was not extravagant or subversive, and he would not then trouble the House further on the subject.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Leave be given to bring in a Bill to Amend the Irish Poor Law."
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONseconded the Motion.
§ MR. P. SCROPEsaid, he feared that the object of the hon. and gallant Member was to subvert the entire of the Irish poor-law as it at present existed. In the first place, he stated that his object was to 153 abolish outdoor relief, which was (he main principle of the law. Next, he wished to put an end to the compulsory system and the appointment of vice-guardians, which was the second great principle of the law. In short, it would seem as if his object was entirely to subvert the present system. It appeared by the Commissioners' report that a great diminution had latterly taken place in the amount of outdoor relief; but he believed that that was to some extent to be attributed to the niggardly manner in which it was administered, and not altogether to the diminution of distress. Any one who knew anything of the south or west of Ireland must admit that the people were still dying there in great numbers for; the want of outdoor relief. He contended that if outdoor relief were put an end to, it should he only on condition that indoor relief was made ample and sufficient. The Times correspondent had described the state of the Limerick workhouse, which had before been looked upon as the model workhouse of the south of Ireland. The great remedy for Irish distress was reproductive employment, for which there were the most enormous facilities all over the country. Where it had been tried in arterial and in thorough drainage the greatest benefit had accrued, and the land had so much increased in value as amply to return the outlay. But only a paltry sum, 200,000l. had been so expended. Had the 2,000,000l. which the working of the poor-law cost been expended in reproductive works, a very different state of things would be observable in Ireland. He could not refrain from thus expressing his strong opinion that reproductive employment was necessary to make the poor-law work well, and that it would be a much better way of providing for the people than shutting them up in workhouses, at the expense of the moral and industrial character and resources of the country.
§ MR. F. FRENCHsaid, that one main object with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portarlington was to secure reproductive employment for Ireland. There could be no real doubt that outdoor relief had been most injurious to the morality and to the interests of that country; but still the hon. and gallant Member did not propose to abolish it without providing an efficient substitute. It was most unjust to cast blame on the Irish proprietors, who had contributed largely to the relief of the existing distress. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud had for years made 154 himself the exponent of the condition of a country in which, till last year, he had: never set his foot, and of the state of which he really know nothing; making himself the receptacle for all sorts of stories, however improbable or impossible. It was monstrous to hear the hon. Member maintain the unconstitutional system of taxation by the nominees of the Crown, in the shape of poor-law guardians appointed by the Government. The hon. Member was very liberal of his advice to others, and prodigal of their money; but, if his own were required, would be as 10th to part with it as any person could be.
§ MAJOR BLACKALLsaid, it should be recollected that outdoor relief was merely permissive, and was never put into requisition until the workhouses were completely full. He believed that in very few unions was outdoor relief given to ablebodied paupers, who were generally absorbed by the various public works going on in different parts of the country. If vice-guardians were obnoxious, they might be dispensed with if the elected guardians would only do their duty; but he could not consent to take away the power of making such appointments. He knew cases in his own district in which they had been of the greatest advantage. If the expense were objected to, the remedy was in the power of the guardians; but he believed that the poor-law officers, generally, were not over, but under, paid. He believed that any defects in the working of the poor-law would be remedied by the recent change which had been made in the electoral divisions, and that, therefore, no legislative alteration would be necessary. He would not, however, oppose the introduction of the Bill, although he feared its details would be found to be wholly impracticable.
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, as there did not appear to be any indisposition on the part of the House to permit the introduction of this measure, he, on the part of the Government, would not offer any opposition to it. He hoped, however, it would be clearly understood that no sanction whatever was given by the Government to the opinions entertained on this question by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who proposed to introduce this Bill. He (Sir G. Grey) was not so fortunate as to have heard the speech of that hon. and gallant Gentleman, but he understood that his main object was to take away altogether the power of giving outdoor relief in Ireland. Now he (Sir G, Grey) must admit that, as at present 155 administered, that power was greatly abused in some eases; still it would be difficult to carry into effect the hon. and gallant Gentleman's object, without sacrificing a large amount of human life—without at all events incurring the risk of such a sacrifice; and he thought that, generally speaking, it would be inexpedient to alter the law in the manner proposed. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had last addressed the House, that the regulations which had recently been made with regard to the alteration of the divisions of the unions might tend to remove some of the objections which had been made by the proprietors of land in Ireland as to the working of the poor-relief system in that country. He was in hopes that, after they should have had greater experience of that system, those objections would be in a great measure removed. He very much differed from his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud as to the expediency of Government sanctioning again any large measure of employment on public works, with the view of relieving the poor of Ireland. Whilst he was of opinion that the advances which had been made by Parliament for arterial drainage had been very beneficial in their results, he should nevertheless very much lament to see a large number of persons again relieved by such a system. He believed that the effect of such a system would be to increase and perpetuate the pauperism of Ireland. As there did not appear to be any disposition to enter into the details of this question, he would only say, with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Roscommon, that the House had no intention, as far as he (Sir G. Grey) could gather, to cast blame or censure upon the Irish proprietors for having neglected to relieve the poor of Ireland. His right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland had demonstrated by figures how largely the landed proprietors of Ireland had contributed to the relief of the poor of that country. It was impossible to deny that there were some cases in which blame did attach to these proprietors; but he thought it would be exceedingly unjust to make the whole class responsible for the shortcomings of a few individuals of which it was composed. He believed that the Irish poor-law had, on the whole, been attended with the most beneficial results. No doubt, in some particular instance, it had inflicted hardship and inconvenience, but he believed that it had preserved a large amount of 156 human life. He looked upon the Irish poor-law as a valuable and necessary measure, and he should be sorry to see any step taken by the House implying disapprobation of its principle.
§ MR. STAFFORDsaid, that one important provision in the Bill of his hon. and gallant Friend had been overlooked, and that was the clause for lightening the burthen of the poor-rate on real property. If it were for that provision alone he should be inclined to support the proposition of his hon. and gallant Friend. His plan was to lay upon other interests a share in the taxation, and seeing that the whole question of the income tax was to be discussed in the ensuing Session, he (Mr. Stafford) thought a more fitting time than the present could not have been chosen for introducing the Bill. He denied that on that (the Opposition) side of the House, there was any wish suddenly to put a stop to outdoor relief. With respect to the reproductive employment suggested by the hon. Member for Stroud, he wished that the hon. Member would lay a Bill on the table, and the House would be able to see whether or no there was anything tangible in it. As to the expense of working the poor-law, he denied that as a whole the poor-law officers were underpaid. The accounts received of the failure of the potatoes, were no longer of a doubtful character. That failure was assuming a serious aspect; and he hoped the attention of Her Majesty's Government would be immediately directed to it, in order to see what arrangements could be made if it should please Almighty God, in his inscrutable wisdom, to inflict again on Ireland the calamities of past years. Two systems of expenditure had to be decided on now, and the question was whether the House would take a high tone, extend outdoor relief, give relief indiscriminately, and let the resources of real property in Ireland utterly run out; or whether they would make the property of Ireland responsible for its poverty, and give the people there to understand that, whatever happened, nothing more in the shape of assistance was to be expected from England. Would they adopt the advice given by the hon. Member for Stroud, as it issued from his luxurious mansion in Belgravia? His (Mr. Stafford's) wish was that the property of Ireland should maintain its poverty, but that that should be done with great economy and the application of stringent tests; and, unless these plans were adopted, he firmly 157 believed that they would again witness the miserable spectacle of one part of the empire coming and seeking for eleemosynary support from another part. He regretted that the Session should have been so barren of legislation for Ireland, where it was wanted so greatly, and therefore he was of opinion that the Bill of his hon. and gallant Friend should be all the more welcome. He considered that the payment of the poor-law officers should be left to those who paid the taxes—more especially at this moment, when the tendency of prices on all things was decidedly downwards.
§ SIR H. W. BARRONsaid, that if hon. Gentlemen could see the condition of the county of Waterford they would not be surprised that Irish Members could not remain silent in that House, and that they could not forbear from proclaiming to the British Parliament and the nations of the world the misery and wretchedness of devoted Ireland. He believed the poor-law, in its present shape and administration, was one of the greatest grievances of which the Irish people complained. It was drawing into the vortex of universal pauperism more than one-half the ratepayers of the country, and sending them into the poorhouses. The farmers had been universally reduced to beggary by the operation of the poor-law, and the effects of free trade. Let the House not be surprised, then, if he reminded them of their misgovernment of the country. Ireland had been their difficulty, and she would be their difficulty again, unless they governed her by a majority of Irish Members. At present the Irish Members were outvoted by the English and Scotch. The representation of the country was, therefore, a mockery. Englishmen would not bear such a representation; why, then, should Irishmen bear it? It was such a species of legislation which had lost them America, and might yet lose them Ireland. So far as he understood the Bill, and he had not yet seen it, ho entirely agreed with it. He believed that outdoor relief in Ireland had been a total failure. The English people complained of a paltry 7d. in the pound income tax, and then they appeared astonished that the Irish people should complain of 2s., 8s., and even 10s. in the pound poor-law taxation. The English complained of the poor-law as oppressive. He denied they had any right to complain of the poor-law. The Irish people were the only people who had a right to complain of the poor-law. The Englishman's 158 property had been acquired and purchased with the burden of the poor-law tax on it. The Irishman had acquired his property without any such tax, and it was, therefore, monstrous to impose it on Irishmen. The poor-law was a new tax on house and; landed property in Ireland. Why should those species of property be only subjected I to the poor-law tax, and all other descriptions of property exempted? It was a monster grievance this poor-law, and the Government should have no peace until they redressed this, and all other of the monster grievances of Ireland. He regretted that there should be, as there were, popularity-hunting men on the Irish boards of guardians, and that there were others on those boards who desired to dip their hands into the pockets of their neighbours. He objected to the principle of sending a couple of naval officers, who knew as much about Ireland as they did of the North Pole, or of Kamtschatka, to tax the people of that country. He, therefore, admired, the wholesome plan propounded in the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington, of introducing the English law into Ireland. He hoped the House would next Session take up the subject in a proper spirit. He promised that Her Majesty's Government should have no peace, and no means of governing Ireland in quietness or satisfaction, until they looked the evil straight in the face, and remedied it. While there was health in his body he should, with the blessing of God, continue to press on the Government the necessity of remedying it; and until they did so, life and property would be insecure, and Ireland would be a constant source of weakness to England. At this late period of the Session, he felt he should have neglected his duty had he not told the House and the country that Government bad, this Session, done nothing for Ireland.
§ MR. S. CRAWFORDhad not understood the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington to say, that the object of his Bill was to abolish outdoor relief, or he (Mr. Crawford) would have felt it his duty to oppose the introduction of the measure. He admitted that outdoor relief ought to be restrained within certain limits, and placed under such regulations with regard to distribution as would obviate as far as possible the evils which now existed. The hon. Member for Waterford city had said, that when the Irish landlords purchased their estates they were not subject to this tax. He (Mr. Crawford) could only say, then, 159 that it was a grievous wrong to the people of Ireland, that the landlords were not responsible for the condition of the people. It was that non-responsibility which had reduced the mass of the inhabitants of Ireland to be a potato-fed people, and had in many places rendered necessary an enormous taxation for their support. That taxation, it was true, had fallen in some measure upon those by whom it ought justly to be borne—the landed proprietors of Ireland; but a great portion of it was paid by the commercial interests in the towns. Much of the evil under which Ireland laboured was referable to the land. The towns were overburdened by the poor population being driven from the country into the towns. This ought not to have been permitted, and would not have occurred under a more judicious system. With respect to poor-law relief, he was of opinion that everybody who had relief, ought, as far as possible, to work for that relief. He considered that in certain eases it was necessary vice-guardians should be appointed, for, although it was a constitutional principle that the elected guardians should manage taxation, yet cases had occurred in Ireland where it was absolutely necessary that paid guardians should be appointed. He was, however, anxious that the practice of appointing paid guardians should not be continued if it was possible to avoid it. The hon. Member for Waterford city had complained of the effects of free trade; but how, he (Mr. Crawford) would ask, could the people of Ireland, or even of England, have been sustained during the last few years, but for the course taken by the lamented statesman recently deceased, in removing the taxes upon food, and so preventing thousands from being starved? He admitted that it was necessary the poor-law should be revised, for in some cases it was wholly inefficient. Understanding, however, that the Bill would not absolutely forbid outdoor relief, he should support the Motion for its introduction.
§ COLONEL DUNNE, in reply, said he had before stated that he did not think it possible to relinquish outdoor relief altogether; but he wished that it should be given in a different manner from that now adopted. With regard to the question of free trade, so far as Ireland was concerned, it was entirely a one-sided free trade, for the Irish people were not allowed to cultivate tobacco or sugar, although they were told they enjoyed the advantage of free 160 trade, because there was a free trade in corn.
§ COLONEL CHATTERTONsaid, it was not his intention to enter into any general or detailed statement of the acting of the poor-law in Ireland, or of all the evils and manifest injuries it had brought upon Ireland, for they had been so fully shown and ably commented upon by his gallant and hon. Friend the Member for Portarlington that it would be needless for him to detain the House by their repetition; therefore he should merely confine himself to a few facts respecting the working of that law in his immediate locality; and he was convinced that he could assert without fear of contradiction, that there was no part of Ireland where it was more admirably carried out than in the city of Cork, and he attributed this chiefly to the fixed determination of that excellent, zealous and enlightened body the poor-law guardians, not to allow outdoor relief to be forced on them. In vain, however, had that most destructive body the Irish Poor Law Commissioners endeavoured to compel its adoption in Cork: it had always been effectually opposed and resisted; and when the workhouse became filled, the guardians immediately provided and fitted up other premises for the poor, and there never had been a solitary instance of a person requiring relief or assistance having been refused admission. To prove the advantage of this system of not entertaining outdoor relief, he would merely mention one instance, and draw a comparison between Cork and a comparatively small town about twenty or twenty-five miles distance from it, Kanturk. By the census taken in 1841, the population of Cork city amounted to 156,657 persons; in June, 1849, there were 6,979 paupers receiving indoor relief; outdoor relief, none; making a total of 6,979. Now, at Kanturk the population was, at the same period, 85,561; in June, paupers receiving indoor relief, 2,257; outdoor relief, 25,619; total, 27,900 paupers, very nearly one-third of the population. Thus, with a population less by 71,096, the poor of Kanturk exceeded those of Cork city by 10,981 persons. Now, did not this sufficiently demonstrate the ruin and impolicy of giving outdoor relief? If persisted in, it must in the end pauperise all the ratepayers in Ireland, opening as it did the door to the greatest fraud and imposition, encouraging the idle and indolent, and actually holding out a premium to them to leave their em- 161 ployment to be supported in a life of laziness and inactivity. The numbers in and applying for admission to the Cork union for some time varied from six to seven thousand, which was a much larger number than the union was calculated to hold, but other accommodation had always been procured; and when the Commissioners failed in forcing outdoor relief, they then proposed the division of the union into north and south. He could not be aware if any new arrangement was contemplated for this most oppressive and unjust law; but, considering as he did the system of outdoor relief to be a ruinous and destructive measure for Ireland, and that by exertion it can be done without—witness the practice in the city of Cork, and in eight of the eleven unions in that county—he should oppose it by every exertion in his power; and having endeavoured to lay before the House some particulars respecting his immediate locality, he should no longer trespass upon its indulgence.
§ SIR W. SOMERVILLECan the hon. and gallant Officer prove what he has said about the Commission endeavouring to force outdoor relief upon the guardians in Cork?
§ COLONEL CHATTERTONI was so assured by many poor-law guardians when I was in Cork.
§ Leave given.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Dunne, Mr. French, and Sir Henry Winston Barron.