HL Deb 23 June 1840 vol 55 cc1-5
The Marquess of Normanby

said, with reference to a notice of motion, given by a noble Marquess (Westmeath) for a select committee, to inquire into matters relating to the Poor-law Act in Ireland, which stood for Thursday next, that it would be impossible for Mr. Nicholls and other Gentlemen connected with the introduction of that measure into Ireland, whose conduct might perhaps be impugned, to appear at so short a notice. He would put it to the noble Marquess himself, whether he would feel justified in moving for a select committee, on so short a notice, of which he was not himself aware until he saw it on the paper. He hoped the noble Marquess would not persevere in his intention at that late period of the Session.

The Marquess of Westmeath

, upon looking to the order book, saw no other open day but that which he had selected until Friday week. In the present state of the Session he hoped the noble Marquess would not ask him to put off his motion till the arrival of Mr. Nicholls. The question was one of pressing importance, and if he consented so to postpone his motion it would be thrown over for the present Session. He hoped that the Irish Poor Law would not be allowed to remain in its present state during the ensuing recess. That law had been basely and wickedly perverted to party purposes in Ireland, and the proceedings which had taken place under it ought to be investigated. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Marquess would allow him to proceed with his motion on Thursday. He had received many communications on the subject, urging him strongly not to postpone his motion.

The Marquess of Normanby

said, the more convenient course would be for the noble Marquess to take an open day for stating any general objections which he might entertain against this measure. It ought to be recollected, when they were called on to consider this subject, that Mr. Nicholls had a very difficult and delicate task to perform, and that his efforts were likely to be checked and discouraged by such a proceeding as the noble Marquess contemplated. All, however, that he required, on the part of Mr. Nicholls was, that fair time should be given for the production of full information on all matters connected with his proceedings.

Lord Ellenborough

was not aware, whether the noble Marquess near him meant to impugn the conduct of Mr. Nicholls as wrong, or whether his object was to shew that the Poor-law itself was bad? If the latter, there was nothing to prevent him from bringing in a bill to amend the law; and, on the second reading, he might go into the whole subject. There was a very great difference between bringing charges against individuals, and introducing a bill to amend or to repeal another measure.

The Marquess of Westmeath

, if he was sure of carrying a bill through that House, and more particularly through the House of Commons, for altering the Irish Poor-law, would most certainly propose it at once. But he did not flatter himself with any such assurance. His idea at present, therefore, was, that a committee should be appointed to consider the question, and, if the noble Marquess wished it, he would postpone his motion till Friday week.

The Earl of Wicklow

said, they were now past the middle of June, and he would ask his noble Friend did he think it at all likely that a committee appointed at so late a period could make such a report, as that any bill could possibly result from their labours this Session? This, too, was the most critical moment at which the law could be attacked, when it had been so recently brought into operation. The greatest possible inconvenience would result from pursuing such a course, and he thought the most judicious mode would be for his noble Friend not to persevere in his motion for a committee.

The Marquess of Westmeath

said, the bill was working as ill as it possibly could, and, if it were allowed to go on in the same way during another recess, the worst consequences might be apprehended. Why might not an inquiry take place, so that the law might be amended on particular points? As the law now stood, in many instances the Roman Catholic priests ran away with the elections of guardians. Why should not this defect in the measure be corrected? He conceived it to be his duty to bring the subject fully before the House. The system now acted on could not, and ought not, to be allowed to go on even for three months longer.

Lord Brougham

was opposed to the appointment of a committee to consider of this law. It should be recollected, that the law was now only early in the course of operation, and the formation of a committee must necessarily have the effect of preventing it from having any fair play whatever. The effect of appointing a committee would be neither more nor less than putting the bill on its trial before it had been a sufficient time in operation to judge of it fairly.

Lord Ellenborough

was sorry that parties, actuated by religious feelings or prejudices, should interfere in those elections. But how could they expect to ameliorate the situation of Ireland, in that respect; or in any other matter connected with the law, by going into committee at this period of the Session? They must hear both parties. And when the noble Marquess talked of the influence of priests, his opponents would speak of influence on the other side. Thus, the statements made before the committee, upon which it would be impossible to frame any measure this Session, would, during six months of the recess, be the subject of angry discussion in Ireland. Would that, he begged leave to ask, be conducive to the tranquillity of Ireland, or to the successful working of the bill? His conviction was, whatever was the ground on which the noble Marquess wished to call for a committee, that such a proceeding would only lead to aggravation of public feeling in Ireland—the very thing that was most to be avoided.

The Marquess of Westmeath

was prepared to shew that the power of rating under the Poor Law, as connected with the Reform Bill, was greatly abused. He could prove that many evils arose out of the system. These points might be considered, and the committee might declare what should be done, or whether nothing should be done. He should not be doing justice to numerous parties who had applied to him on the subject if he did not bring it forward this Session.

Lord Ellenborough

said, that, with respect to rating, there was a power of appeal under the act. If those who now complained had not appealed, they had no right to come before Parliament. If they bad appealed, and could shew that the law was. defective, then certainly they might apply to the Legislature. He had read the clause with attention, great pains had been taken with it, and if the parties could not shew that it was ineffectual for their protection, they had no right to come to that House.

Subject dropped.

Back to