COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 24 March 1862)

§ MR. GREGORY
said, that before Mr. Speaker left the chair he wished to take that opportunity of bringing under the consideration of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland a matter of considerable importance as regarded the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland. As notice had been given that the Poor Relief Bill was to be discussed that evening, there was a large attendance of Irish Members, many of whom had been chairmen or members of boards of guardians in Ireland, and he might appeal to them whether the maintenance of the central authority—namely, the Commission—was not of the greatest importance to the carrying out of the Poor Law. That being so, it was their duty to do all in their power to prevent any collision between that authority and the guardians. But there was one stumbling-block of offence and cause of dissension which every body who was conversant with the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland must be aware of—namely, the mode in which Roman Catholic chaplains were dismissed from their appointments. He was not going to offer any opinion as to the course pursued by the Commission in dealing with the chaplains. No doubt, in a great number of instances the Commissioners were right and the chaplains were in error. On the other hand, it was a notable fact that in the last session of Parliament the House of Commons declared that in one instance a Roman Catholic chaplain was in the right and the Commissioners were decidedly in the wrong. His object was, if possible, to remove a cause of dissatisfaction, and the removal of which, he believed, would render the working of the Poor Law infinitely more satisfactory in Ireland. Fortunately, that cause of offence might be taken away without the slightest sacrifice of principle. He would propose that on all occasions when a Roman Catholic chaplain was to be remonstrated with or dismissed, a communication should be made in the first instance to the spiritual authority by whom he had been virtually appointed. Every body acquainted with the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church must know that no chaplain 1959 could hold office for one moment unless he had the sanction of his spiritual superior; and it was also well known that when a chaplain was dismissed by the Commissioners the bishop was subsequently applied to, to name the person whom he wished to have appointed. That was the principle, he believed, which was observed in the administration of the English Poor Law. He did not, however, propose to take away the ultima ratio of the Commissioners, for in case of their being dissatisfied with the decision of the bishop, he wished to leave them free to take whatever course they might please. If that recommendation were adopted, he believed they would remove one great source of dissatisfaction that now impeded the working of the Poor Law. Roman Catholic bishops felt themselves in a false position. According to the practice of their Church, they could not recognise the removal from a spiritual appointment by secular jurisdiction. They found themselves consequently obliged to maintain a chaplain, or rather to object to his dismissal; whereas, had the case come before them in first instance, they would not have hesitated as to his dismissal. His right hon. Friend knew very well from two cases that had lately occurred, when a Roman Catholic bishop had been appealed to in reference to the misbehaviour of one of his clergy, that in each such case the prelate at once took cognizance of the charge. and punished the offender. If such an arrangement as that he (Mr. Gregory) suggested were made, there could be no doubt that the working of the Poor Law in Ireland would go on much more smoothly than under the present system. He had no wish to introduce any clause into the Bill, but he hoped his right hon. Friend would make arrangements with the Poor Law Commissioners that in all cases where it was proposed to visit Roman Catholic chaplains with reprehension application should be first made to their spiritual superiors.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, that he was anxious, seeing the right hon. Gentleman the chairman of the Select Committee which sat last year on the administration of the Irish Poor Law (Mr. Cardwell) in his place, to ask him for some explanation of the circumstance, that while the Committee had given a very voluminous blue-book and a short report, it had wholly omitted any mention of or explanation of a most extraordinary phenomenon attending Poor Law legislation. That phenome- 1960 non was, that while the number of persons receiving parochial relief in England was one in 23 of the population, and in Scotland one in 24; in Ireland, on the other hand, (according to returns that had been published) the proportion was only one in 140. If those figures represented the true state of the case, he wished to know why so extraordinary a fact was not mentioned in the Report of the Committee?

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, the question brought before the House by the hon. Member for Galway was one of the most serious character and importance. It had been put to a Member of the Government who was responsible for the due administration of the law in Ireland, in such a manner that the public, if not the right hon. Baronet, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, might naturally assume that the authority of the House was in favour of the principle urged by the hon. Gentleman who made the suggestion, if the matter were passed over in silence and no objection were raised. Now, what the hon. Member for Galway asked the House to recognise was the authority by which the Roman Catholic bishops stated that they felt bound, inasmuch as they stated that they were bound by oath to the head of their Church to refuse their assent to the removal of any chaplain of any poorhouse who had not incurred the censure of his spiritual superior. He did not think that the House would be prepared to go to such a length as to admit that the legal appointments of chaplains to workhouses in Ireland made under the authority of the Crown should be subject to the authority imported into these dominions by a foreign power. Let it be mentioned, to the honour of several Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland, that they resisted that foreign authority until Legate Cullen arrived in Ireland, as the plenary representative of that authority, and arrogated to himself, after convening a Synod which was his mere instrument, the right of interfering with the constituted authorities of the Queen. These prelates paid due allegiance to the Sovereign of these realms. No formal and public attempt had previous to the Synod of Thurles been made directly from Rome to supersede the legal authority of this country. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply to the question put to him, would manifest every disposition to treat the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland with all courtesy and deference due to 1961 their spiritual functions, but at the same time that he would decline to commit himself, as the representative of the Crown, or by implication assume the consent of that House, to such a proposition as that any of Her Majesty's subjects could be held bound by an oath to resist the legal authority of Her Majesty in the removal of any officer appointed by Her authority, however much he might have misconducted himself in the performance of his functions.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, that in reply to the hon. Member for the King's County he had to state that the Committee had not, perhaps, been of opinion that it was a reproach to the Poor Law when it did not extend to a particular amount of population, or, on the other hand, they might have thought that it was a recommendation of the Poor Law when it did not extend to a large proportion of the population. But the Committee did not think it was necessary to enter into that part of the subject after it had been recently discussed in Parliament and in the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners. That part of the subject was only the preamble to a conclusion, and the point on which the Committee had to arrive at a conclusion was whether the Poor Law now in force in Ireland was in such a state that important changes ought to be made in it, and whether larger powers should be given for granting out-door relief. If the hon. Gentleman should be of opinion that the Committee had failed to give due attention to the subject, or if he supposed that the House was not fully possessed of the opinions of the Committee, the best answer was to refer him to their resolutions, the first of which stated that the present powers possessed by the guardians for granting in-door and out-door relief were sufficient, and that an alteration of the statute was neither necessary nor desirable. The second resolution was that the administration of the Poor Law guardians had been such as to justify Parliament in conferring the powers upon them which they possessed, and that it was not expedient to give to the Commissioners or to any other authority compulsory power to control them in the exercise of their discretion. The hon. Member was entitled to differ from the opinion expressed by the Committee on the subject of the Poor Law in Ireland, but he was not at liberty to assume that the Committee had not most plainly given to the House all the information which they obtained in reference 1962 to the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland.

§ MR. BRADY
observed, that he could not understand the conclusion to which the Committee had come, when the fact was apparent that in England only 16 per cent of the children of the poor received in-door relief, while in Ireland the proportion was 27 per cent. It was also notorious that mortality amongst the children in the workhouses in Ireland was something extraordinary, as compared with what it was in England. He was sorry that the system of poor relief in Ireland should be different to that followed in England. If out-door relief were permitted in Ireland, the cost of each pauper would be very considerably less than at present.

§ MR. BAGWELL
said, the Bill of the right hon. Baronet had been circulated throughout Ireland, and had been carefully considered. The first clause had received the general approval of the ratepayers in towns, who were suffering from a continual influx of poor from the rural districts. The clause as originally printed would have been an improvement on the present law, but now it appeared that the right hon. Baronet intended to propose an Amendment which would completely alter the character of that clause. Such a proceeding seemed almost a breach of faith, and if the Amendment were persisted in, he would prefer the withdrawal of the Bill.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
said, he thought that the details of the Bill might safely be left till the House went into Committee. There could be no doubt of the excellence of many of the clauses; but as the administration of the Poor Law depended upon the Poor Law Commission, it would be well before the Speaker left the chair to consider the constitution of that body. Of the three paid Commissioners two were importations from England, and both were of what was termed the "Reformed religion," while the third, the medical commissioner appointed in 1851, although an Irishman, also professed the Protestant faith. He did not complain of that, but in dealing with a country like Ireland he thought the House would agree with him that at least one member of the Commission ought to be acquainted with the feelings of that Roman Catholic population who formed nine-tenths of the recipients. In 1848, when the Board of Charitable Bequests was formed, one-half of the members were Roman Catholics, and that was a good example to follow in a country 1963 where the last census showed that 4,500,000 of the population were Roman Catholics, and 1,300,000 of different denominations. The head Commissioner of the Poor Law Board was an Englishman and a Protestant. For nine months Mr. Ball, an Irishman and a Catholic, was a. member of the Board, but on his resignation another Englishman, Mr. Senior, was imported. Having got rid of Protestant ascendancy in so many other forms, he thought it ought not to be revived in this instance. In England and in Scotland the Commissioners were Englishmen and Scotchmen respectively, and professed the national faith. In Ireland, however, not only were the members of the Board Protestants, but the head clerk was also a Protestant, and a large proportion of the clerks were also of that faith. Now, a Poor Law could not be successfully worked in a Roman Catholic country when the Commissioners were Protestants and Englishmen. If one Roman Catholic gentleman were placed on the Commission, he believed that they would escape a great deal of conflict with the authorities; and, however excellent in other respects the Bill might be, it would fail of its effect unless the administrators were men who knew the feelings and the prejudices of the people.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) had asked, in reference to the Roman Catholic chaplains in workhouses, that the Roman Catholic bishop should be communicated with before their removal in any cases of misconduct. Now, in his experience, he had not found that great dissatisfaction existed on that score. He should wish to pay every respect to the religion of the great majority of the Irish people, but he did not think it implied any disrespect that the Commissioners should act towards Roman Catholics exactly as they acted towards Protestant chaplains. Protestant chaplains were removed without reference to the Protestant bishop, and no complaint had been addressed to the Government on that account. He must, therefore, beg respectfully to decline to accede to the proposal of the hon. Member.
The hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) had stated that the insertion of an Amendment in the paper amounted to a breach of faith on his part. Now, he did not think that by proposing the omission of the word "continuous" he had been in any way guilty of a breach of faith. That Word had been introduced in error; it was 1964 not recommended by the Committee of last year, and it had no particular sense. He therefore thought that it would be very properly withdrawn; and it was his intention on going into Committee to propose a more explicit clause referring to that very subject, which he hoped would meet the approval of the Committee.
He was surprised to find that his hon. Friend (Mr. B. Osborne) entertained so unfavourable an opinion of the working of the Poor Law Commission; but he had not accurately stated the facts connected with the constitution of the Board. Mr. Ball was appointed under the Lieutenancy of the Earl of Carlisle, not because he was a Roman Catholic, but because he was then the most efficient inspector, who stood next for promotion. His successor was appointed by the Earl of Eglinton, who selected Mr. Senior, not because he was a Protestant, but because he was the most efficient inspector who stood next for promotion. It would be very injudicious to try to introduce sectarian feeling in the selection of the members of the Commission; and, whether they were Protestants or Catholics, he was sure they would discharge their duties with fairness and impartiality. As to the personnel of the office, there was, a few years ago, a large majority of Protestants, but now a majority of the clerks were Catholics. He did not put that forward by way of excuse. It was simply owing to the fact that the Roman Catholics had proved themselves the most efficient men that could he selected. The hon. Gentleman had asked, why not do what was done in England and Scotland? But the hon. Gentleman, when he asked that question, should have been sure of the facts of his case. Why, in Scotland, the President of the Poor Law Board was an Episcopalian, and so, too, was the Secretary to the Board. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: They are Scotchmen.] No doubt; but they were appointed not because they were Scotchmen, but for their especial fitness for the office. So, in Ireland, he had no doubt that if the next candidate for a vacancy was an efficient man, even though he were a Roman Catholic, he would receive the appointment, whatever Government held the reins of power. From his own experience of Mr. Senior and Mr. Power, he could say he had never known two officials who had shown a more lively desire to ferret out every case of distress that might require relief and assistance. He entirely dis- 1965 sented from the observations of the hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. MAGUIRE
said, he rejoiced that the question had been raised by a Protestant Member of that House, because if a Roman Catholic had done so, it might have been said that it was all owing to bigotry. The right hon. Baronet was quite wrong when he spoke of the question as not worth raising. If the right hon. Gentleman had known what had transpired before the Committee of last year, over which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Cardwell) had presided with so much fairness and ability, he would he of a very different opinion. The Roman Catholic bishops, priests, and laymen who had been examined before that Committee were unanimous that there was a strong feeling of dissatisfaction in Ireland upon the subject. In the first place, nothing could be more unsatisfactory than that a law which dealt with so large a proportion of the people should be administered by men who were necessarily ignorant of matters on which the people felt a deep interest, who had no sympathy with the people's feelings, and who charged them with bigotry when they were merely asserting principles which they might consider sacred. He confessed that, as a Roman Catholic, he looked upon the administration of the Poor Laws by those gentlemen as a badge of slavery. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh; but if they were Roman Catholics, they would understand his feelings. He considered the present system as, to some extent, a perpetuation of the odious Orange ascendancy, which had excited the hostility of the population of Ireland. Where three-fourths of the population were Roman Catholics he contended there ought to be at least one Roman Catholic on the Board; and if that were so, many of the difficulties which had arisen with the Board would have been smoothed away. The hon. Member for Galway had drawn attention to a matter of very considerable importance—the removal of chaplains without regard to the wishes of their bishops. But, beyond this, he would say the Commissioners endeavoured to override the spiritual power, by appointing chaplains to workhouses against the will of the Roman Catholic bishops; and there had been instances in which en deavours had been made to thrust disgraced clergymen into those places.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he rose to order. The hon. Member had asserted 1966 that the Poor Law Commissioners had endeavoured to thrust disgraced clergymen into the workhouse chaplaincies. He begged most explicitly to deny that such was the case.

§ MR. MAGUIRE
said, he would ask whether he had been out of order. The right hon. Gentleman, who held so high an office, ought to have been better acquainted with the rules of the House, or ought to have consulted the Speaker. He would repeat what he had stated that the Commissioners had attemped to force into positions in the workhouse clergymen upon whom lay the ban of their bishops—it might not have been for a very weighty cause, but who were pro tanto disgraced, and consequently not in a position to administer the rites of their religion. Every Roman Catholic gentleman to whom he had spoken felt that an insult was inflicted upon his co-religionists by not having a Roman Catholic on the Board.

§ MR. O'BRIEN
said, that as a Roman Catholic Member of the House, he wished to disclaim all feelings of sectarianism in connection with this question. He thought, however, that if there were a Roman Catholic on the Board, many of those matters which had excited much odium and bad feeling throughout the country would never have occurred, because a little explanation given in private would have removed much cause of misunderstanding.

§ SIR FREDERIC HEYGATE
said, that as he had known Mr. Senior for many years, he wished to defend him from the charges which had been made against him. Upon the formation of the Irish Poor Law Board, Mr. Senior, who had been already employed under the English Poor Law Board, was transferred to Ireland that he might give to that country the benefit of his great experience. During eleven or twelve years he travelled all over the country, and no man, of whatever politics or religion, who was brought into contact with Mr. Senior but must have acknowledged that he was a man of great fairness and ability. When a vacancy was caused by Mr. Ball's resignation, Mr. Senior, to the surprise of himself and his friends, was chosen to succeed, and it would be admitted that there was no more fair or honest officer. He could speak to the fact that the class of rate-payers who paid poor rates in Ireland were a very different class to those who paid such rates in England. There were many small farmers in Ireland in a struggling state, and who, by a slight ex- 1967 tension of the provisions of the law, would almost become eligible for the receipt of relief themselves.

§ MR. POLLARD-URQUHART
said, that he did not suppose that any one desired to impugn the manner in which Mr. Senior discharged his duties; but he would suggest that, as a matter of feeling and a mark of respect to the great majority of the Irish people, there should be a Roman Catholic on the Poor Law Commission. It was desirable that the Government should take an early opportunity of showing that, on that point, they were not insensible to the feelings of the Roman Catholic prelates and people of Ireland.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
said, that he had understood the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland to tell the House, that the removal of Protestant chaplains could take place without the concurrence of the Protestant bishops, and he believed their appointment could also take place without the concurrence of the Protestant bishops.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, that generally the chaplains must have the consent of the protestant bishop to their appointment. There must generally be a licence.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
said, he believed the licence was sometimes dispensed with. But when the right hon. Baronet had argued from that that the appointment or removal of a Catholic priest could take place without the consent of his bishop, he had fallen into error. He (Sir. G. Bowyer) would state, for the information of the House, that such a a thing could not be done in the Roman Catholic Church, as a priest could not officiate in a workhouse without "faculties" from his bishop.

§ COLONEL GREVILLE
said, that being acquainted with the feelings of the people of Ireland from a long residence there, he differed from the right hon. Baronet, who said that the matter was not worth much consideration. What would the people of England feel if the English Poor Law Board were composed of Irishmen and Catholics? He thought that the Irish people were entitled to have at least one Roman Catholic on the Poor Law Commission.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
said, he wished to ask whether it was desired that a Protestant Commissioner should be dismissed, in order to make room for a Roman Catholic, or that a Roman Catholic should be appointed as an additional Commissioner, or that, when a vacancy 1968 occurred, a Roman Catholic should be nominated to fill it, simply because he was a Roman Catholic. When the Poor Law system was introduced into Ireland, it was absolutely necessary, for its successful working, to get gentlemen who were competent in every sense of the word to regulate the intricate provisions required for the conduct of the business, and he asked whether, at that time, any Roman Catholic gentleman was qualified for the task? The real point at issue was, whether the law of the land was to be made subservient to the canon law of Rome, and whether the Commissioners were to be precluded from carrying out the intentions of the Legislature unless the previous assent of the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops in Ireland were obtained. It was not until recently, he might add, when those dignitaries began to issue their pastorals, and to meddle in the working of the Poor Law, that the complaints to which attention had that evening been called had arisen.

§ MR. WHALLEY
said, that the hon. and gallant Member for Longford (Colonel Greville) had asked whether there would be dissatisfaction in this country if the Poor Law Commission were exclusively composed of Irishmen and Roman Catholics. He (Mr. Whalley) would reply, that there would be no dissatisfaction. There would be no dissatisfaction with regard to the present question if the Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops had in view merely the religious education of the people, and there was not involved in it that system of canon law which left nothing at rest, either social or political, in any country. [Cries of Oh!] Living in a country where there was a larger proportion of persons dissenting from the Established Church than was the case in Ireland—he alluded to Wales—he could assert that the fact of the Poor Law being administered by members of the Church of England never gave rise to a single complaint. In such cases Protestants deemed it to be their duty to act in obedience to the law, while the Roman Catholics interfered, not with the view of satisfying any consientious scruple, or bringing about an improvement in religious education, but simply with the object of extending their power. Their desire was, as had been justly observed by the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, to extend the canon law of Rome, and the House knew what were the doctrines which that law laid down, [Cries of Quote, quote! 1969 Read, read!] He would not trouble the House on that occasion. There was only one allusion he wished to make. Some three or four years ago that House appointed a Commission to inquire into the action and operation of the Roman Catholic system in Ireland as administered in the College of Maynooth. [Laughter.] He was not going to say anything in particular about Maynooth at that moment; he merely wished to illustrate his argument by a reference to the fact that there were on the Commission two Roman Catholic gentlemen, and that one of them not merely set at defiance the Royal Commission, and treated with contempt the power and authority of that House, but by his connivance a copy of the report found its way to Rome, where it was rewritten and altered. If one Commissioner could do that [Name, name!]—hon. Members would find the matter recorded in Mansard, with all the circumstances, and he hoped he should not be obliged to name the hon. Member—he would ask if he were not justified in saying there was something more in the question than merely the putting at the Board persons of different denominations? If Roman Catholics were placed in these posts of trust, they would be under the influence of the canon law of Rome, which would set everything at unrest, and militate against the social and political interests of this country.

LORD NAAS
said, he wished to say a few words on the subject which had—but he thought not very wisely—been broached by the hon. and gallant Member for Liskeard; although he would admit that the subject of the constitution of the Poor Law Commission had been a good deal discussed in Ireland during the last few months. When Mr. Senior was appointed, the selection was made for departmental, not sectarian, reasons. The question considered was simply who was the most experienced and efficient person that could be found to administer the Poor Law. Prior to the appointment numerous applications were made from political friends to the then Government in favour of the claims of many gentlemen. The Earl of Eglinton, then Lord Lieutenant, disregarded all such applications, and appointed Mr. Senior, on the sole ground of official fitness, and on those grounds alone. He (Lord Naas) contended that it would be most injurious to the public service, as well as most unfair to Mr. Senior himself, to pass over his claims on the ground that he was a Pro- 1970 testant. He would also observe, that before the Committee which had sat last year not a single instance had been adduced by the bitterest opponents of the Poor Law as administered in Ireland of the display of sectarian bias on the part of the Commissioners in the discharge of their duties. It was further shown before the Committee that no change in the policy of the Commission was consequent upon the resignation of Mr. Ball, but that the policy continued to be precisely the same as when he held office. It would, of course, have been a question deserving the consideration of the Government whether, if a gentleman equally well qualified as Mr. Senior to take Mr. Ball's place had presented himself, the fact of his being a Roman Catholic might not have been an additional recommendation in favour of his appointment; but, as the matter stood, the man who possessed the highest qualifications had not—as he thought was perfectly right—been excluded from advancement on the score of his religion. He repeated that the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland could not fee justly charged with the exhibition of any sectarian bias, and he was sure that it was the desire of each successive Government to avoid such an evil. He felt persuaded that it would be found that every decision of the Board had been made irrespective of any particular religious prepossession; and be might add, that if it had been otherwise, the Commission would not have commanded the confidence which was extended to it from every portion of the country.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
thought that the noble Lord had completely vindicated the Government of which he was a Member, supposing that any charge had been brought against them for appointing Mr. Senior; but he (Sir George Grey) did not understand his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) as at all objecting to the appointment of Mr. Senior. The noble Lord had laid down the rule which ought to govern those official appointments—namely, that of official fitness. When the Poor Law was about to be introduced into Ireland, gentlemen who were perfectly familiar with the law in this country were sent over there with a view to bring it into operation in that country. Mr. Power was one of those gentlemen; and he (Sir George Grey) could testify that it had been Mr. Power's desire to discharge his duties with the most perfect impartiality in all respects, and in 1971 a manner quite irrespective of any national or religious feeling. He was sure that the same testimony would be borne by all those who had watched the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland. The rule to be laid down in all these cases was to appoint the most efficient person that could be found; but he readily admitted that it was desirable, so far as it could be done without violating that principle, to pay every deference to the wishes of the people among whom that law was administered. He did not think it likely, however, that any Government would select a man, simply with regard to his religion, and without reference to his official fitness, and he hoped Parliament would never expect any Government to act upon that principle. He had himself been guided by the principle of official fitness in an appointment which he made under the Fisheries Act, adopted last session. He had transferred a gentleman—an Irishman—from Ireland to England with an increase of salary, simply on account of the experience he had gained in the administration of the fishery law in that country.

THE O'CONNOR DON
said, the hon. Member for Galway did not wish that the Roman Catholic bishops should have the power of dismissing or continuing in their offices Roman Catholic chaplains who might be complained of by the Commissioners. He merely desired that, before proceeding to extreme measures, the Commissioners should communicate with the ecclesiastical superiors of the offending chaplains, in order that disagreeable circumstances might be prevented from arising. If the bishop should refuse to accede to their wishes, then, of course, the Commissioners would be at liberty to follow their own course, as at present.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, that he had several Amendments to propose in the clause, and although they did not alter its spirit or terms, yet for clearness' sake he had drawn up a new one, which would, he thought, better express his intentions. He would, therefore, propose that the first clause should be postponed till the other clauses of the Bill had been gone through.

LORD NAAS
said, he hoped they would have an opportunity of considering the new clause in Committee.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
Certainly.

§ MR. LONGFIELD
and other Members were of opinion, that as the first clause was one of the most important in the Bill, it would be better to discuss it then, as they were prepared to do.

The CHAIRMAN
said, that it being a new clause, it must be brought up after the other clauses had been considered.

MR. CORRY
said, he wished to propose the insertion of words, the effect of which would be to preserve those useful institutions, county infirmaries, in their present status as infirmaries of the entire county. The Amendment proposed would effect this object in an indirect manner; but practically that would be its result. If the clause passed in its present shape, there would not be a county infirmary in Ireland two years hence. The workhouse hospitals would be no adequate substitute for the county infirmaries, the latter being, as a rule, much superior in point of healthiness, medical treatment, and efficiency, to any possible state to which the former could be brought. Moreover, the industrious poor in Ireland had an insuperable repugnance to seeking relief of any kind within the workhouse. If his present Amendment were rejected, it would be better that the clause should be entirely omitted from the Bill, because it would be inflicting a grievous injury upon the poor of Ireland to deprive them of the county infirmaries, and merely offer them in their stead workhouse hospitals, which the vast majority of them refused to enter. His Amendment would amount to little more than the confinnation of an existing Act of Parliament, because the 64 Geo. III., c. 62, provided that no second public infirmary should be established within ten miles of one previously in operation. He would, therefore, move to insert in line 39, after "workhouse," the words "of all unions except those in which a county infirmary is at present established."

§ MR. GREGORY
said, he should oppose the Amendment, as he feared its operation would be to make the entire county pay for institutions which only a few of the population of the county comparatively could avail themselves of.

CAPTAIN DAWSON
expressed his intention to support the Amendment. Great care should be taken in bringing within 1973 the walls of a workhouse that class of patients which new received medical relief in a manner much more agreeable and satisfactory in the medical establishments of the county.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he could not consent to the Amendment, which would render the clause quite impracticable. The object of the clause was to afford to the poor residing in distant parts of counties the means of obtaining medical and surgical assistance. It had been founded upon a recommendation of the Committee of last year, and it was one of the most important provisions in the Bill. If the Amendment was carried, there would be, in addition to an hospital in every union, an infirmary, for which the whole county would have to pay, while its benefits would be mainly restricted to the population resident in the immediate neighbourhood, it being found that 80 per cent of the patients treated in the infirmaries were resident within a radius of ten miles. According to the present law, £1,400 a year might be voted for each infirmary. The total sum paid by presentments was £24,255. The country at large paid over £24,000 a year for institutions which only provided in the whole 1,689 beds. The distribution also was unequal, for Galway, with a population of 315,000, had only 50 beds in the county infirmaries; while Carlow, with 68,000 inhabitants, had 40 beds, These facts proved that some alteration in the law was requisite, and he thought that the clause as now proposed would be found a beneficial provision for the destitute poor.

§ MR. POLLARD-URQUHART
said, he feared that workhouse hospitals and county infirmaries could not exist together, and it was for the Committee to choose between them.

§ MR. LONGFIELD
said, he did not doubt that the effect of the clause would be to diminish subscriptions to the county infirmaries, and that ultimately those institutions would disappear, but he thought that the destitute poor would be gainers, because more convenient and better institutions would be provided. He would suggest the adoption of an Amendment which would recognise the existing infirmaries, and also provide that as they died out the act should come into effect.

§ MR. MACDONOGH
said, he would have preferred the total rejection of the clause. He thought the right hon. Baronet was in error in stating that the clause was based upon the recommendation of the Commit- 1974 tee. The seventh resolution of the Committee was to the effect that it was expedient in cases of sickness and accident to extend the powers possessed by the guardians in regard to fever cases, under the 15th and 16th sections of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 92. Under the 15th section of that Act the guardians had power to remove destitude poor from workhouses to hospitals or infirmaries, and the 16th section gave them power to grant out-door relief to destitute persons suffering from fever. The proposed legislation was not for the relief of the destitute, but would include the non-destitute poor, such as members of the constabulary, artisans, and others. It was proposed that there should be a general hospital annexed to the poor-house, and into that every person who wished it was to be admitted, paying the average cost of maintenance. Now, such legislation struck at the root of the Poor Law system, which was founded for the relief of the destitute poor alone; and it was at variance with the law of England; whereas the great object should be to assimilate the law of the two countries. It appeared to him that the great object in view by the promoters of the Bill was to discourage and destroy the utility of the established county infirmaries. In the Report of the Commissioners of 1854 that object was indicated when they proposed that so soon as a union was declared to be provided with an efficient general hospital, it should be exempted from contributing to the support of the county infirmaries. Ever since that period the idea had been kept alive, and was now sought to be realized in the present measure. It was difficult to understand the reason for that course, because the county infirmaries, so far from being a failure, had surpassed the expectations of even their most sanguine founders. There was abundant evidence to prove that amongst the poor Irish artisans there was a strong repugnance to enter the workhouse. Nevertheless, the measure was framed for the purpose of compelling such persons to enter those establishments. He therefore called upon the Committee to strike out the clause, which was totally at variance with the very principle and object of the Poor Law. It was said that the power of giving relief in county infirmaries was limited to a radius of ten miles. That, however, was not a fact. To prove how untrue that statement was, he might refer to a return of the Tyrone Infirmary, from which it appeared that the relief 1975 given within a definite period numbered 6,184 persons within the ten miles radius, and 6,990 beyond the ten miles radius. He should support the Amendment, believing that the proposed legislation was unnecessary and uncalled for.

§ MR. MAGUIRE
said, if the county infirmaries were animated beings, and could be brought in bodily presence to that House, they would be ashamed of the character given of them by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Now, he (Mr. Maguire) would give a description of one of those magnificent establishments in the county of Cork. The population of that county in 1841 was 830,000, but by the last Census it was only 550,000. For the last five or six years there was a wretched but on the roadside of Mallow which was dignified by the title of an infirmary. That grand establishment had fifteen beds to accommodate the whole population around, them. He believed in its best days it had never more than twenty beds. He thought that the hon. Member for Cork had rendered a great service by proposing to do away with that miserable humbug of a county infirmary in Mallow, and in obtaining the assent of the grand jury for the erection of an hospital in Cork, with at least 150 beds. He thought that the clause under consideration was one of the best provisions of the Bill, and was dictated, not only by expediency, but by the best feelings of humanity. By the existing law, if a poor man fell sick, and his disease was not infectious, he could not obtain admittance into the hospital unless every member of his family consented to enter the workhouse. Could anything more inhuman be perpetrated under the cover of giving relief? He repeated the clause was the most valuable clause in the Bill, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be firm in resisting its exclusion.

§ MR. BLAKE
observed, that he concurred in thinking the clause one of the most important in the Bill.

LORD NAAS
said, he objected to the principle of the clause, which for the first time applied a tax levied for the relief of the destitute to another purpose. It was true that in many counties the county infirmaries did not effect as much good as they ought to do; but the reason was, because of late years an opinion had prevailed that the Government were about to discontinue the aid given to them, and through the medium of the Poor Law 1976 machinery to create rival institutions. If, however, it should be made known that it was not the intention of the Government to press these clauses, not only would the present infirmaries be well supported, but new ones would arise, and a great amount of relief would be given to poor persons, not being destitute, through the medium of private charity.

§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
said, he should have voted in favour of the clause but for the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Peel); but having heard those observations, which he considered a death warrant to county infirmaries he could no longer retain the favourable impression the clause at first had made upon him. The county infirmaries Were the most valuable class of institutions in existence, and the clause was evidently intended to compass, in course of time, their entire abolition. He should therefore oppose the clause; but he was also opposed to the Amendment, because it did not in his opinion sufficiently relieve the clause from the objections which he felt existed to its adoption.

MR. CARD WELL
said, that the object of the clause was to extend the utility of the workhouse hospitals to a most urgent class of cases, and to give relief in those instances in which the present system of out-door relief was not sufficient, as administered under the Medical Charities Act. The clause ought not to be rejected. It was proposed in no spirit adverse to the county infirmaries; and the aid it extended was of a kind not liable to the same abuses as other descriptions of relief from the poor rates. He thought that the Amendment which had been proposed would not assist the county infirmaries.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, he should support the Amendment. The consequence of the Bill would be that the Government would next year introduce a short measure to levy fresh sums of money from the counties to defray the expense of that novel plan. Did the new plan, he would ask, apply to England, and were poor persons in this country called destitute persons? According to the definition given, poor persons were translated into destitute persons. The real meaning of the clause was—first, to translate the word "destitute" into "poor;" next, to increase the expense of the Poor Law administration; and, finally, to destroy the county infirmaries.

§ MR. O'BRIEN
said, he must deny that 1977 those who were in favour of the clause had any wish to injure the county infirmaries. The only thing they had to consider was the condition of the destitute poor. It was a very desirable object to bring medical and surgical aid within reach of those who required it, instead of their being compelled to go a distance of twenty or thirty miles to the county infirmary.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
said, that the destitute poor were already amply provided for, and the question at issue really was, whether the whole system of poor relief in Ireland was to be changed; and whether the same medical relief was to be extended to poor persons as to those who were destitute. The Government apparently meant by their proposal to make the hospitals the means or relieving all classes of suffering humanity, and he regarded the clause as a departure from the original purpose of the Poor Law. The experiment was perilous, and would lead to the destruction of the county infirmaries, introduce a system of centralization, and eventually involve the county in a large additional expenditure, It would also discourage that spirit of independence which induced the people to do anything rather than accept public aid, What would be the consequence of passing this clause? Why the Government would have to build new hospitals for this class of patients. No one had petitioned for such a change, nor did anything of this kind exist in England. Such a system would not be tolerated in a country where the people managed their own affairs. The poorhouses of Ireland were rapidly becoming little more than lying-in institutions. Let the House pass this Bill, and the only check upon the unlimited increase of such cases would be removed.

§ MR. M'CANN
said, he did not believe that the Bill would have the effect of abolishing the county hospitals of Ireland. He looked upon the extension of medical relief to the poor, as the greatest boon that could be conferred on the people of Ireland.

§ CAPTAIN STACPOOLE
observed, that he entirely agreed with the hon. Member who had last addressed the Committee.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he would express a hope that there was no intention to do away with the infirmaries in Ireland. They had been of immense benefit to the country, and had been a means of raising the charac- 1978 ter of their medical practitioners to a very high degree. He thought that no cases of chronic or permanent disease should be sent to the poorhouse hospitals. The Committee ought to lay down a rule defining what class of cases should go to the poorhouse, and what to the county infirmary. His own opinion was that only sudden and urgent cases should be sent into the workhouse infirmary; and that the clause should contain some such limit as "Provided always that there shall be room in the hospital over and above what is required for the poor."

§ MR. BRADY
said, he would admit that the county infirmaries had done great good in Ireland; but there were many cases in which those institutions did not meet the wants of the people. It was therefore the duty of the Committee to sustain and encourage the medical officers of the various unions.

MR. COREY
said, he thought it would be more convenient to take the division upon the clause itself.

§ MR. POLLARD-URQUHART
said, he wished to move the insertion of the following words after the word "Ireland," in the 21st line:— Provided also, that if such poor person deny his or her ability to pay the cost of his or her maintenance while in the hospital, or such portion of his or her maintenance as the guardians may demand, it shall be incumbent on the guardians, in seeking to recover the same, to bring satisfactory proof of suck poor person's ability to do so.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he could not agree to the Amendment. It would be an extremely difficult thing for the guardians to bring satisfactory proof of a poor person's ability to pay the costs. He hoped the hon. Member would not persevere with his Amendment.

§ MR. BRADY
said, he should support the Amendment. He could not understand the objection to it, as he thought the guardians could easily ascertain the circumstances of life of these poor persons.

§ MR. O'BRIEN
remarked, that he thought that the Amendment was unnecessary.

§ MR. M'CANN
said, he was of opinion that the matter might well be left to the guardians in each case.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
proposed the introduction of the word "domestic" into the clause, so as to make it include domestic servants.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he would propose to add, after "daily maintenance," the words, "and establishment charges." The constabulary ought to pay the entire cost connected with their medical treatment, and not merely a part of it.

§ SIR HUGH. CAIRNS
said, he thought the object of the Amendment would be attained by the clause as it stood, as the word maintenance included establishment charges.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, that it would be impossible to apportion the amount of the establishment charges; and therefore he could not agree to the Amendment.

LORD NAAS
said, he believed there would be no difficulty in fixing a proportion of establishment charges payable on account of the class of patients referred to.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
observed, that inasmuch as there were no additional officers, no additional expense for warming and lighting, &c., he was at a loss to see on what ground an additional charge was to be made on the establishment.

§ LORD JOHN BROWNE
said, he would not dispute the legal interpretation of the word "maintenance" with the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, but it was not understood in Ireland by those who had the carrying out of the law to include establishment charges.

MR. DAWSON
said, he should support the Amendment.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
said, he would suggest that, to remove all doubt upon the point, it should be distinctly provided that the latter words—which recurred in several other clauses—should be taken to embrace "establishment charges" as well as any others.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he would adopt that suggestion, if the right hon. Baronet, the Chief Secretary, would assent to it.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
thought the best plan would be to adopt the words "medi- 1980 cal and surgical treatment," included in another clause. There would be considerable difficulty in ascertaining the amount of establishment charges.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he entertained doubts as to the equity of the proposal. It would be perfectly reasonable to pay for the maintenance of constabulary patients, but establishment charges were a fixed quantum, which those patients did not in any way affect.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
said, the Bill as it then stood, included the cases not only of constabulary patients, but of poor persons not destitute. According to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, those persons, however numerous, or however much they might swell the establishment charges of hospitals built out of the county-rates for the maintenance of the destitute poor, ought to defray none of the extra expenditure incurred on their account.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
observed, that his argument was not refuted by an extreme case. If the numbers were doubled by the admission of the police, so that the building had to be enlarged or the staff augmented, then the objection would apply; but as the charges under these heads remained fixed, it would be unreasonable to require repayment on account of them.

COLONEL DUNNE
remarked, that it was the first time he had heard the Irish constabulary were under the protection of the Secretary at War. He would remind the Committee that the district which had the greatest number of paupers in it had to bear the greatest proportion of the establishment charges.

§ MR. H. HERBERT
said, he thought the hon. and gallant Member was in error; the payment was made in proportion to the property valuation of each union.

§ MR. MAGUIRE
said, that taking into account the very moderate pay of the policemen, he was willing to make the cost of their relief during illness as light as possible.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
said, he must press hon. Members to bear in mind that irresistible claims for increase of salary by all the existing officers of these establishments would inevitably attend the increase of business thrown upon the institutions.

§ MR. CONOLLY
said, there was a distinction to be drawn between those who paid for relief and those who received it.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he wished to know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman intended his Amendment to refer to the whole establishment charges, or solely to the hospital charges?

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he meant the whole charges of the establishment.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
suggested, that it should be left to the guardians to assess the average cost of relief.

§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
said, he hoped that the Committee would state their own intentions, and not impose the duty of interpreting them on the guardians.

§ MR. BAGWELL
said, he would then propose the addition of the following proviso to the clause:— Provided always that the medical officer of such union be paid for medical and surgical attendance by the constabulary authorities as if such attendance had been given out of the workhouse.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he thought it impossible to adopt the Amendment, especially after the decision at which the Committee had just arrived.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
said, he would move as an Amendment the insertion of words providing that the register containing the names of those who had received relief without payment should be open to the inspection of such persons as desired to examine, or take extracts from it free of charge, and that a copy of the entries, under the seal of the guardians, should be legal evidence of the facts stated in it.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
would assent to the Amendment; but he would suggest that the hours for inspection should be specified.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
had no objection to the addition of the words "between the hours of ten and four o'clock."

LORD NAAS
asked, whether the provision was meant to apply to paupers only, or to other persons as well?

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
replied, that it would apply to all classes of inmates.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
said, that it would be dangerous to extend the provision to persons not paupers, because the previous clauses had given power to recover the cost 1982 of their maintenance in the workhouse only and not in other hospitals to which they might be sent. He would therefore move the insertion of words to restrict the operation of the clause to cases where special treatment was required, or where the union had not special hospital accommodation.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
assented to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The term "inmate" included the poor as well as the destitute.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
said, that the word "inmate" in the clause was rather indefinite. If the guardian sent a constable, for instance, from the workhouse to another hospital, there should be some means of recovering the coat to which the union would be thereby put.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, the amendment of the hon. Member would meet the difficulties of the case.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
observed, that the clause authorized the guardians to give up the child to any relative. He thought that such relative should not be allowed to have the child unless he took upon himself the maintenance.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, if a relative took a child out of a workhouse, he thereby became liable for its maintenance.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he thought words should be inserted to render such intention clear.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, he would propose these words to meet the difficulty— Any relative who in the opinion of the guardians is a fit person to be intrusted with the custody of the child and of sufficient ability to maintain it.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he would print the Amendments which he proposed to introduce in the future clauses before the Committee on the Bill was resumed.