HC Deb 19 May 1874 vol 219 cc531-41

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY,

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he wished the House to consider whether a system regarding divisional rating which had been found a failure in England, and which had been abolished in consequence, might not be replaced in Ireland by a system which in England had turned out to be a complete success. An enormous disparity existed between the taxation of the Irish towns and that of the rural districts in their vicinity, and he maintained that it was unfair that the towns should be called upon to bear heavy rates for the support of the crowds of agricultural poor living within their limits, as was the case at present. The City he represented (Limerick), was rated at 4s. 6d. in the pound, and the average poor-rate of the surrounding districts did not exceed 1s. 10½d The principle he contended for was that they should include in one rate an area perfectly identical in interest—namely, the town and the rural district immediately surrounding it. It was only just that the comparatively prosperous rural districts should contribute something towards the relief of the Irish towns, which had few or no manufactories and many agricultural labourers resident in them. It was said that the towns were enriched by the workhouse contracts; but the fact was that the farmers of the country districts surrounding the workhouses got more than half of those contracts. There could be no doubt, from the official evidence taken on that question, that the present system, which threw on each electoral division the duty of supporting its own poor, had a very injurious effect on the prospects of the agricultural labourer. It induced the landlord to abstain from building houses for the labourer, and also to demolish existing cottages, whereby the labourer was driven into the towns, and thus became a burden upon their rates. In the west district of Kells there were, in 1860, 1,876 dwellings inhabited by labourers; in 1870, only 1,389; and in Navan only 1,117 in place of 1,374. Moreover, the agricultural labourer was now often obliged to walk distances of two, three, four, and sometimes even five or six, miles to and from his daily work, whereby his efficiency for his employment was necessarily greatly reduced. The law tempted the landlord to say that the few people, comparatively speaking, who remained in Ireland for agricultural purposes should be driven from his estate into the towns, to be a burden upon the rates of those towns. He contended that under the present system the inequalities in the rating were very great, a farmer on one side of the road having to pay the town rate of 4s. in the pound, while the occupier on the other side only paid the rural rate of 1s. 6d. in the pound. The effect of divisional rating-was to enable the landlord to reduce his rate at the expense of the towns, by compelling his labourers to live in the outskirts of the town, a considerable distance from the place where they worked. It had been said that Ireland required a season of repose from sensational legislation. This was a measure which recommended itself in so far that it had no political bearing whatever, and did not seek to transfer political power from one party to another. It was a measure which affected a purely material question upon which depended the restoration of prosperity to the Irish towns, and the very existence of the Irish peasantry. Separate rating had failed in both countries; and union rating had been successfully adopted in England. That being so, there was no reason why the system should not be applied to Ireland. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was the irresponsible Governor of Ireland at the present moment, and the future of Ireland depended in a large measure upon what course he took in relation to measures for her material improvement. The right hon. Gentleman, on the first night of the Session, stated that if Irishmen would wait, they would see that he was willing to do all he could to forward the material prosperity of their country. Here was an opportunity for taking an important step in that direction, and he could assure the right hon. Baronet that if he would deal with this measure in a considerate manner, he would be met in a spirit of perfect fairness by Irish Members, who were anxious to make every concession that could conduce to a settlement of this question. There was a definite public opinion upon the question in Ireland, and it was in favour of union rating.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. O' Shaughnessy.)

MR. KAVANAGH

admitted that the Select Committee reported to the late Parliament in favour of union rating, but he contended that, but for a casual change in its constitution, the decision would have been the other way. The allegation that rural paupers were driven into the towns was not established by one of the witnesses called to prove it, and though formerly there might have been instances of harshness, they were exceptional. The famine caused a migration into the towns, but such persons became chargeable to the district whence they came. The number of electoral divisions in Ireland was 3,438, and if this Bill passed, in 2,405 of those, taxation would be increased for the sake of relieving eight other divisions. But even before admitting the case of those eight divisions to have a reduction, they ought to look at the valuation, and all the evidence given before the Select Committee showed that property in towns was very much under-rated in comparison with property in rural districts. No case had been made out to warrant the House in passing this measure, to which the majority of the people of Ireland were opposed. ["No, no!"] Out of 163 unions in Ireland 115 were against it, and that looked as if the majority of the people of Ireland were not in favour of union rating. He looked upon the proposed change in the law with dread, and whilst he was willing to offer redress to any electoral district that was too highly rated he regarded the preservation of some inequality of rating as a most salutary thing, because it tended to preserve the individual responsibility and interest of the guardians in the discharge of their duties. It was to the subject of out-door relief that he looked with most dread if the proposed change were carried out, for he believed that a system of extravagance and jobbery would be initiated by it. With regard to the argument that the assimilation of the laws of the two countries would have the result of binding them more closely together, he believed it was based upon a false issue, for the circumstances of the two countries were utterly different. The Bill would sweep away that individual interest in the administration of rates which was the greatest safeguard against jobbery and extravagance. Under these circumstances he should give the measure his most sincere opposition, and therefore he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Kavanagh.)

MR. DUNBAR,

in supporting the measure, expressed his strong approval of the system of union rating, and hoped it would be extended to the whole of Ireland. He would not enter into the details of the question as it affected the whole of Ireland, but as the hon. Member for Carlow County (Mr. Kavanagh), who had moved the rejection of the Bill, was Chairman of the New Ross Board of Guardians, he thought it but fair that the opinion of the people of New Ross should be presented to the House. He believed that in no town in Ireland were the irregularity and injustice of the present system more felt than in New Ross. For many years the people had been agitating for the repeal of the existing law, and he trusted that their efforts were now at length about to be successful. He was not surprised that the hon. Member for Carlow County led the opposition to the Bill, for there was no gentleman in Ireland who had more reason to be thankful for the present state of the law, the rates on his property having been reduced from 4s. 2d. to 8d. For the three years ending 1849 the rates in the electoral division of New Ross averaged 4s. 2d. per annum. At that time there were 18 electoral divisions in the union, and three of them were higher rated than New Ross—namely, Grange 5s. 4d., Dysertmore 4s. 4d., and St. Mullins 5s. 6¾d. Before 1854 the union had been re-divided, and 38 electoral divisions created. For the five years ending 1854, the average rates in New Ross electoral division were 4s. 0½d., the average for the whole union being only 1s. 6¾d. There were five divisions the property of the hon. Member for Carlow County, the rates in which were—Ballymurphy 3s. 8d., Coonogue 4s. 2d.—actually higher than New Ross—Glynn 2s. 10d., Kyle 3s. 0½d., and Tinnahinch 2s. 9d. For the five years ending 1873, New Ross was 4s. 2½d. an actual increase, while the average of the whole union had fallen to 1s. 4¼d. In Ballymurphy the rate had fallen from 3s. 4d. to 8d., in Coonogue from 4s. 2d. to 1s., Glynn 2s. 10d, to 10½d., Kyle 3s. 0½d. to 11½d., and Tinnahinch from 2s. 9d. to 1s. 3½d. How was the difference to be accounted for? He maintained that the clearing of estates which was effected between the years 1854 and 1873, was not the result of the famine, but of the steady determination shown by the country gentlemen to take advantage of the unfair and unjust system under which the rates were levied. It was no wonder the hon. Member for Carlow County wished to retain the present system. The landlords and farmers had a direct interest in turning the labourers off their lands and driving them into the towns. That was, however, but a short-sighted policy on their part. A man living in the slums and filthy alleys of a town could not be in as good health or capable of doing as much work as one living in the pure air of the country. Moreover, when the labourers had to go long distances from their hovels in the towns to and from their employment they were too exhausted to perform a full day's work, and thus the farmer suffered. Under the present Bill, on the other hand, the landlord and the farmer would have no inducement to unroof the cottages in the rural districts and drive the labourers into the towns, and they would soon have a better class of men in their employment, while a great improvement would be visible over the whole face of the country. The labourer, if they gave him a proper habitation, would much prefer to live on the farm rather than in the wretched quarters of a small town; and in a few years both the landlord and the farmer would be brought to recognize that the supporters of the Bill had been their true friends.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

explained that the reason why Mr. M'Mahon's Bill on that subject had not been got through Committee was because its author's whole time was engrossed by his duties as counsel in the prosecution of Arthur Orton. He viewed the question before the House as a much larger one than where a townland had to pay a penny or two more than an electoral division in the rural districts. He could prove that the labouring population had been driven from the rural divisions into the towns to find labour for two or three years, and then become chargeable to the electoral divisions in which the towns were situated. Mr. Coltsman, Chairman of the Killarney union had shown that labourers had to travel four miles to their work. In the Select Committee there was a majority of nine to eight in favour of union as against electoral division rating. It had been said that union chargeability in England had increased the expenditure; but, so far from that being the case the Reports of the Poor Law Inspectors clearly showed that union rating had actually reduced the expenditure in England. They showed not only that it had led to economy, but that there was less favouritism than under the former system, that the relief was more uniform, and that the attendance of the Guardians was better. The present system in Ireland was full of glaring anomalies—rates of 5s. on one side of an imaginary line, and less than 1s. on the other, and places of large population and high valuation maintaining very few paupers, compared with places of less population and lower valuation. English people could not be sent from Ireland to England; but Irish paupers, after an absence of 30 years, were sent back from England to Ireland. Relief was now often wrongfully denied in Ireland solely to keep down the rates—an abuse which union rating would correct. Under union rating more houses would be built. The case of New Ross was not nearly the most startling that could be adduced. That of Skibbereen was much worse. He had shown how the inequalities of the rates had driven the people into the towns. In the Skibbereen union, of 99 charged to the E Division of Skibbereen, 22 were from other divisions, and for years varying from four to 10. Gould any hon. Member defend so glaring an injustice? The system of union rating had worked most beneficially in England, why should it not be equally beneficial in Ireland? It had been said the Irish people were hostile to union rating. He would test that allegation by the number of Irish Members who voted for and against it. He hoped the right hon. Baronet who now represented the Government in Ireland would take this subject up, and that he would have the honour and credit of settling in on a satisfactory basis.

MR. DALWAY

believed that if there was any system that worked well in Ireland it was that of the Poor Law, and he denied that any alteration in it was at all wanted. If this Bill were carried it would be a step to a national rate. It was part of a policy to make the North of Ireland pay for the South.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he hoped that the House would not approach this question under the idea that union rating in Ireland meant the same thing as union rating in England. When the question was discussed with reference to this country a good deal was said about close parishes, and attacks were made on the landlords who, it was said, were in the habit of transferring their labourers to open parishes, in order to relieve themselves from the burden of their support He regretted the attack of this same character which the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Dunbar) had made upon his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh). From all he had heard, however, he believed there was no single landlord in Ireland who less deserved such an attack. His hon. Friend had been for years a resident landlord, doing good to the best of his ability to all around him, and, in particular, by building cottages he had done his utmost to encourage the residence of labourers in his own electoral division. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not believe that, with regard to close parishes, the circumstances of England and Ireland were alike. In England there were parishes far smaller than any Irish electoral division; but the electoral divisions in Ireland were of such a size that it would rarely be possible for landlords, by destroying the cottages, to drive their labourers to other electoral districts. After listening attentively to this debate, he found himself unable to agree entirely with those who had spoken on either side of the question. It had been admitted, he believed, by all the Members of the Select Committee, that the towns had a fair claim to some relief in this matter. When the Poor Law was introduced in Ireland, the electoral divisions were adopted as the area of rating; but in the course of time the disproportion between the charges in the town and in the country divisions was found to be so great that various changes were made, in the direction of union rating. Indeed, a very considerable proportion of the total charge on account of the poor rates was now placed upon the union in Ireland, and not upon the electoral division. This having been the course of past legislation, and the towns having still a claim to relief, the question arose how could that relief be best afforded? It was suggested, in the first place, that much good might be effected by a revision of the present boundaries of the electoral divisions. There had no doubt been such an alteration in the circumstances of the population as to render a revision of the boundaries necessary, and he agreed in thinking that much good might be done by it. But that would hardly be sufficient. It had further been suggested that a rate-in-aid might be granted from the union in favour of those electoral divisions that were most heavily burdened, and this proposal also seemed to him to have a great deal of force. The electoral divisions which suffered under the present system were comparatively few in number, which was a strong argument in favour of this solution of the question; but he thought there would be serious difficulties in fixing the limit of the rate-in-aid. It would not be easy to fix a limit that should be satisfactory or applicable to the whole country, or to settle in what way a real inducement to economy could be afforded to the electoral divisions. He thought there were objections of very considerable moment to the proposal of a rate-in-aid. Another proposal was that the expenditure of maintaining the blind, deaf, and dumb in asylums should be made a union charge, instead of an electoral division charge. This would be a step in the right direction, and he believed every Member of the Select Committee had approved it. Then there was the suggestion that the system of union rating should be adopted pure and simple. He saw great objections to this proposal. In the first place, it would by no means settle the question; for there would be under a system of union rating the very same differences of taxation that existed at present, with merely a change in the area. It would give relief to certain electoral divisions, but one union would still be heavily burdened as compared with another. In fact, a uniform charge over the whole country could only be obtained by means of a national rate, and the objections to such a rate on the score of economy and proper management were so serious that he thought such an idea could hardly be entertained. The main objection to union rating was not the lack of the attendance of guardians that might occur, for the system in England had not produced a lack of attendance. The objection to union rating was that it gave rise to a tendency in the direction of extravagance. This tendency would be found in connection rather with out-door than with in-door relief. There was a suggestion which, so far as he knew, had not been made before the Select Committee, and which seemed to him, as at present advised, to offer the prospect of a safe and permanent solution of the question. If, after careful inquiry, it was found possible to place the general in-door charges for the poor upon union rating, and to leave the out-door charges upon the electoral division rating, it seemed to him that much of the argument against union rating on the ground of probable extravagance would be got rid of. The system of outdoor relief was at the present moment by no means satisfactory in Ireland. It was regulated not by rules laid down by the Local Government Board, as in England, but by the stringent clauses of an Act of Parliament; and yet it was in the power of one Board of Guardians to adopt out-door relief to a very large extent, while another might decline altogether to enter into it. Not only was there a great difference in this respect between different parts of Ireland similarly situated, but there had been of late years a considerable increase in the amount of out-door relief given, and so rapid had been the increase that it went far to contradict the argument so often used in that House as to the superiority of the Irish Poor Law over the English system. In 1856 the total amount expended in out-door relief was only £2,245; in 1867 there was a maximum number of 18,666 persons receiving out-door relief at a cost of £40,075; and in 1873 the maximum number amounted to 33,720 persons, at a cost of £91,643, and yet this increase had occurred in the face of a diminished population, and an increase in national wealth and prosperity. It appeared to him, therefore, that the system of out-door relief in Ireland required very careful consideration, and that it was intimately connected with the question which the junior Member for Limerick had so ably brought before the House. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) had referred to another matter well deserving consideration—the difference which existed between the English and the Irish law with respect to the removal of paupers. As far as that was concerned, he thought that Ireland had fair cause of complaint, and he had been surprised that Irish Members had not brought it under the notice of the House at an earlier period of the Session. Looking at the fact that some relief might fairly be claimed for the heavily rated electoral divisions, and that it might be desirable at the same time to deal with the questions of outdoor relief and removal of paupers, he would ask the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) not to press the Bill to a division, but to consent to leave the matter in the hands of the Government. It was only fair to himself to say that he had had but a very short time to consider the subject, which was by no means free from difficulty. Any matter connected with the administration of the Poor Law was a matter which, he thought, would ordinarily be better dealt with by the Government of the day. He would pro-raise to give his best attention to the question during the autumn, and see if he could not propose to the House next Session a solution which would attain the object the hon. Gentleman had in view without at the same time leading to the extravagance to which the hon. Gentleman, in common with himself, would very probably strongly object.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, that after the statement which had just fallen from the right hon. Baronet, he would very willingly withdraw the Bill.

MR. BRUEN

commented upon the undeserved attack made by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Dunbar) upon the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh).

MR. DUNBAR

assured the House that he had no intention of making an attack upon the hon. Member.

MR. BRUEN

said, the suggestion of the Chief Secretary for the adoption of union rating with regard to indoor poor would not be a satisfactory solution of the question. It would amount simply to union rating in a great number of unions, and would not remedy the inequalities which were complained of.

MR. KAVANAGH

said, he must decline to withdraw the Amendment.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.