POOR RELIEF SUPERVISION (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 13 July 1847)

§ The EARL of ST. GERMANS
objected, and moved that it be committed that day three months. Numerous exceptions might be taken to the measure, which was liable, amongst others, to this objection, that, by the arrangements which it contemplated, the Secretary for Ireland would be placed in the same inconvenient and perplexing position that the Secretary of State for the Home Department now occupied with reference to the English Poor Law, that of being obliged, whenever complaints were made as to the working of the system, to defer explanation until he had consulted with Supervisors, Commissioners, and other officials. The noble Earl was understood to urge the importance of connecting the administration of the affairs of Ireland with those of England, and to deprecate the establishment of a separate Poor Law Commission for Ireland.

§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE
was of opinion that the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland would be much better managed on the plan now proposed—that of making the Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary for Ireland co-ordinate authorities with the Commissioners for its admin- 232 istration—than under the system of consolidation advocated by the noble Earl. This advantage would attend the proposal of the Government, that the parties having the administration of the measure being resident in Ireland, would of course have a direct and personal knowledge of the local circumstances of the country; whereas the proposal of the noble Earl would involve the necessity of a complicated machinery very difficult to work, and with which it would not be possible to realize any such advantage as that which he had described. No doubt there should be assimilation as much as possible; but when the situation of the people was so entirely dissimilar, the persons most conversant with the state of the poor here were not thereby the most qualified to administer the Poor Law in Ireland. At the same time, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was not at all disposed to close this subject for ever. He felt that this was an experiment, and that Parliament was bound not to tie up its own hands either on the principle of the experiment, or the mode in which it was to be carried into effect; and the appointment under this Bill must not stand in the way of any future combination of authority for the administration of the Poor Law which experience might show to be advisable. Although it was intended to give an independent authority under this Bill to the Chief Commissioner, yet the Government were of opinion that it would he much better just at present that he should act concurrently with the Lord Lieutenant and the Secretary for Ireland, and they had accordingly provided that it should be so. But, at the present period of the Session, it would seem to be unwise to refuse to assent to this measure, and he should certainly oppose the Motion of the noble Earl.

§ LORD MONTEAGLE
would support the Motion of the noble Earl (Earl St. Germans), for he greatly preferred the system which would connect the administration of the Poor Laws in both countries. Besides, the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was not likely to be permanent; and the present was not a proper period, therefore, for conferring additional powers on that functionary. Mr. George Nicholls, in his Report in 1837, declared himself averse to separate systems of administration. He said— The law would be similar in both countries; but the practice might, and probably would, be-become widely different in each, as was the case 233 in different parts of England under the old Poor Law Administration. With two Commissions there might possibly be no unity of principle—there would certainly be no unity of action, and consequently no unity of result. Unless the existing English Poor Law Commissioners should be unequal to the additional duty, the above reasons would seem to be conclusive against a separate Commission. Lord John Russell, on the introduction of the Irish Poor Law, in the same year, spoke as follows:— We propose, instead of forming a separate Commission for Ireland, that the Poor Law Commissioners for England should have the power of carrying the law into effect there. I think this is a better mode of proceeding than by establishing a new Board of Commissioners. It is far safer that we should have persons already intimately acquainted with the operation of the law. It is far better that they should form a part of, and have the power of communicating from time to time with the Board in England; because, if we establish a separate Board of Commissioners in Ireland, a totally separate Board, we shall probably, in the course of a few years, find the Commissioners of England and Ireland acting upon totally different principles. When the Poor Law was originally introduced into Ireland, it was founded on the union of the administrative body for Ireland with that for England. If that safeguard was necessary then, it was doubly so now; for by the present law the important power, in the existing state of Ireland, of giving or withholding out-door relief, would be at the arbitrium of a single individual. He would ask, whether there was the slightest possibility that the Secretary for Ireland, overloaded as he was at present by most responsible duties, would be able to execute the functions imposed by this Bill? When the Secretary for Ireland should happen to be in his place in Parliament, then the whole burden of these functions would fall on the Under Secretary, whose business was already sufficiently irksome, for it was known that the late Mr. Drummond had fallen a victim to the cares of his office. Thus the provisions of the present Bill would throw a fresh in cumbrance on the Irish Secretary, interpose a new difficulty in the way of administering the Poor Law in Ireland, and thereby expose it to the greatest possible danger. He should, however, be sorry to be a party to stopping the progress of the Bills (the Poor Relief Supervision (Ireland) Bill, and the Poor Laws Administration Bill, though he would be willing to lend his assistance to amend them, or so to amend the latter Bill as to make it applicable for the administration of the Irish Poor Law.

§ The EARL of ST. GERMANS
explain- 234 ed that he proposed, in the event of the House agreeing to the rejection of the present Bill, to move some alteration in the English Bill so as to render the administrative body therein constituted capable of superintending the administration of the Irish Poor Law.

§ LORD MONTEAGLE
expressed his concurrence in that principle.

The EARL of WICKLOW
was understood to contend against the separation of the administration of the Irish Poor Law from that of the English, and to object to the additional burden proposed to be thrown on the Irish Secretary, who would be constantly harassed with questions of detail in the House of Commons. The Poor Law Commissioner should have a moral control over the administration of the law in Ireland; and the people should be assured that whatever took place in regard to its execution, had his sanction; and the best cheek over the Commission in Ireland would be the knowledge that the Chief Commissioner in England, who was to have a seat in Parliament, and who would be bound by the duties of his office to be in possession of every thing relating to the administration of the law, was responsible for its administration in Ireland. He felt that the Government had committed a great error in this Bill, and he agreed with the Amendments that had been proposed.

The EARL of ROSSE
observed, that the duties that would fall upon the Irish Commissioners were as arduous as any that could possibly be imposed upon any functionaries; and they should be men intimate with the whole social condition of Ireland. He had the greatest respect for the gentlemen who composed the Commission for the administration of temporary relief: the gallant General at the head of it was a man of consummate judgment. But, able and zealous as the other Members of that Commission were, he thought they were scarcely in possession of all that information which would enable the gallant General to anticipate and meet all the difficulties of the cast. If that Commission had been differently constituted, he could not help thinking that better rules and regulations would have been drawn up, and different restrictions imposed. He trusted that the Government did not underrate the enormous difficulties that the Commissioners would have to encounter in working out in Ireland a system that had been found un- 235 satisfactory in the best agricultural unions in England. The report of the Relief Commissioners contained ample evidence of what those difficulties would be. It had been supposed, indeed, that the Irish landlords would afford the Commissioners great assistance in those difficulties; and he was quite convinced that they as a body—he did not speak of the small proprietors of some forty or fifty acres, who were called landlords in Ireland, but would not be so considered anywhere else—would do their utmost to support the Government in fairly and fully carrying out the law. But the power of the landlords had been much overrated; and it would he a great mistake to suppose that they would be capable of affording the same amount of assistance as English landlords could give under the same circumstances. And hero, in justice to the Irish landlords, he wished to mention one fact, which he trusted would be borne in mind whenever general statements were indulged in against that body. Those who had paid attention to Irish affairs must remember that for the last fourteen or fifteen years a certain portion of the press had been in the habit of attacking the Irish landlords. To carry on this system, it was necessary these papers should have correspondents in all directions over Ireland, for some facts must be collected on which to base the comments which appeared in leading articles. The consequence was, that these correspondents were scattered all about the country, watching the conduct of the landlords; and their Lordships would remember, that at the beginning of the Session—not in that House, but elsewhere—when general charges were made, the answer made was, "If these charges are well founded and generally applicable, there can be no difficulty in bringing forward individual cases, and giving names, dates, and places." What was done? Some cases were brought forward, indeed, including one gentleman in Cork, and a noble Lord; but in every instance the charges were disproved. He would only add, that he considered the Irish Commissioners ought to be connected with the English Commission, in order to secure the former from being influenced by the pressure of public opinion, and to enable them to protect the boards of guardians in the performance of their duties.

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE
was understood to express his regret at differing from his noble Friends on this 236 subject; but he did not think they had taken into consideration the present state of the law in Ireland. The question in both the English and Irish Bills was the connecting the administration in both countries with the Executive Government; and it would be a departure from the principle which had been adopted, if in the case of Ireland the administration was not connected with the Lord Lieutenant. It would, in fact, be absurd to have Commissioners in England connected with the Executive Government, and Commissioners in Ireland entirely disconnected with the Executive Government.