COMMITTEE MOVED FOR. (Hansard, 22 February 1861)

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the administration of the relief of the poor in Ireland under the orders, rules, and regulations issued by the Poor Law Commissioners, puruant to the provisions of the Poor Law Acts, and into the laws relat- 862 ing to the relief of the poor in Ireland. Last year he moved for a Bill to make certain changes in the administration of poor relief in Ireland. Soon after he received a communication from a large body of the representatives for Ireland requesting that the Poor Law Commission should not be continued for five years, but for a shorter period, and that a Parliamentary inquiry into the operation of the Poor Law in Ireland should take place. The answer he gave was, that if the Government saw nothing objectionable in such an inquiry it would be granted. The Bill was subsequently passed continuing the Commission for only two years; and now, in compliance with the desire so strongly expressed he moved for the appointment of a Committee. He did not, however, believe that any important changes in the Irish Poor Law were likely to result from this inquiry. The Poor Law system of Ireland was, he believed, founded on principles of wisdom, and in the main it had been administered with great ability and wisdom by the Commissioners. The law had stood the test of very trying seasons and had been found adequate to every occasion; its operations had tended materially' to the relief and well-being of the poor of Ireland.

LORD NAAS
said, he thought it was unnecessary to appoint a Committee on the subject. There had been no failure of the law, there bad been no statement of extravagant expenditure on the one hand, or of insufficient relief to the poor on the other. Nor had any great change been demanded. He was not aware that any charge had been made against the Poor Law Commissioners for any maladministration on their part. On the contrary, he thought the general feeling of the people of Ireland was that those gentlemen had administered the law with great ability, and with as much satisfaction to the public as could be expected from gentlemen in their position. Ample information, in the shape of the voluminous details that were printed every year, was already before the House, and in possession of the country. The inquiry, therefore, was unnecessary, and might be mischievous in raising delusive hopes.

§ MR. POLLARD URQUHART
said, he tendered his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the appointment of this Committee, as he believed an inquiry might lead to a good result, and be the means of assimilating the law of England and Ireland.

§ MR. MAGUIRE
observed, that the people of Ireland were not so much en-amoured with the administration of the Poor Law Commissioners as the noble Lord (Lord Naas) seemed to think. Oil the contrary, they had given great dissatisfaction to the gentry by the supercilious and insolent way in which they conducted themselves, and to the people generally, by the manner in which they had administered the funds for the relief of the poor. The workhouses were no proof of the state of the labouring population, for the workhouse relief fell far short of the intention of Parliament and the public. But for the religious and charitable associations in Cork, which distributed about £3,000 a year in out-door relief, the squalor and wretchedness of that city would be greatly intensified. He believed that a judicious administration of out-door relief would be a great improvement on the present system. The whole subject required careful inquiry by a Select Committee.

§ Mr. VINCENT SCULLY
said, he considered that the inquiry would be useful, because it would give the Poor Law Commissioners an opportunity of vindicating themselves. In order that the inquiry might he less restricted, he would move the omission of the words, "under the orders, rules, and regulations issued by the Poor Law Commissioners."

§ MR. HENNESSY
seconded the Amendment, as he thought the inquiry ought to be as general as possible. He held that the Irish Poor Law was one of the worst Acts upon the statute book.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "under the Orders, Rules, and Regulations issued by the Poor Law Commissioners."

§ MR. VANCE
said, he could not agree that it was desirable to assimilate the Poor Law in Ireland to that of England. A vast mass of pauperism existed in that country, which would render the application of the principle of out-door relief most dangerous. He could not see that the inquiry was required from any misconduct on the part of the Poor Law Commissioners. There might have been some 864 error in the administration of the law, but there had been no case of misconduct alleged against the Commissioners. It had been the rule in England that deserted children should be brought up at the expense of the State, but the right hon. Gentleman introduced a Bill last year which would altogether alter that wholesome rule. He did not at all think that the Bill of last year was worthy of the commendation which had been passed upon it. He did not object to the appointment of the Committee, because he believed that if honest evidence was brought before it, the effect would be to keep things in Ireland, in respect to the Poor Law, precisely the same as they now were.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, he thought the Secretary for Ireland ought to accept the Amendment. He could not agree in the advantage to Ireland of assimilating the law of the two countries; for having sat as a member of a Committee up stairs to consider questions of immovability and settlement, he thought it most fortunate that Ireland had escaped the evils of a law of settlement.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, his object was to impose no limitation whatever upon the inquiry of the Committee.