COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 17 April 1866)

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
, in moving certain Amendments to this Bill, said, that his object in so doing was simply to reduce the Bill to the form of the measure which had passed through the House, without opposition, in 1864, but which had failed to pass the House of Lords.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE
had no objection to the Amendments proposed.

§ MR. GEORGE
considered the Bill one I of a dangerous description, as it would induce fraudulent misrepresentations, and throw charges upon the poor's rates, which ought not properly to be paid out of them.

§ LORD JOHN BROWNE
agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Wexford, that the Bill would lead to a vast amount of jobbing. He found the strongest objec- 1578 tion on the part of his constituents to the great increase which had lately taken place in the local taxation of Ireland.

MR. PEEL DAWSON
concurred with those hon. Gentlemen who felt it necessary to limit the poor's rate charges, but he considered that the object of this Bill was a useful one, and it had received the approval of Boards of Guardians in the North of Ireland.

§ MR. MAGUIRE
also supported the Bill, but pointed out the difficulty there was at present in providing coffins for the poor.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
did not think the Bill should receive the sanction of the House. He should not wish, however, to do so harsh a thing as to move its rejection, but he thought it would be well to postpone its consideration. He had been for twenty years chairman of a union, and he had received no intimation that such a Bill was wanted.

§ MR. W. R. ORMSBY GORE
, while approving the object of the Bill, protested against the words "and other necessaries" after the word "coffin," as those "necessaries" might be taken to mean tobacco, whisky, and all sorts of things.

§ MR. WHALLEY
did not think separate legislation for Ireland desirable in these cases, as it might be a quiet mode of confiscation or of concession to some party or other.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE
said, that no new principle was involved in this Bill, which merely supplied an accidental omission in former legislation. This House, when it repealed the Vestry Cess Act, imagined that it was providing the power for burying poor people in Ireland He believed the Bill to be necessary on the score of humanity and decency.

§ MR. BAGGALLAY
thought that the Bill would not do much good, and that it would open the door to fraud; and, therefore, in order to save the pockets of the ratepayers, he would vote against it if there were a division.

§ SIR FREDERICK HEYGATE
, who could not concur in the expediency of rejecting good measures because their operation would involve expense, had known inconvenience arise from there being no public authority to bury poor people. Subscriptions had been entered into, and far too much had often been subscribed. This amounted to a heavier tax than was proposed by the Bill, while the money raised had not only buried the deceased, but regaled the living.

§ GENERAL DUNNE
complained of the whole conduct of the Irish Government, which ought to have dealt with this matter, instead of proposing Amendments to the Bill without explaining them. He thought they ought to have some test by which to know that a person was so destitute as to require this assistance.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
complained of this attack upon himself, and said, that he had considered the Bill carefully, and had not the least apprehension that it would lead to any direful consequences. Precisely the same measure in another form had been introduced by his predecessor, and had received the unanimous sanction of the House. He proposed the Amendments to simplify the Bill and make it more practicable. All that it did was to enable Poor Law guardians to provide coffins for persons who had been in receipt of outdoor relief.