Lords Sitting of 19 June 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Commons Inclosure Bill.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From the Presbytery of Strathbogie, for the Amendment of the Present System of Granting Spirit Licences in Scotland.—From Ipswich, and King's Lynn, for the Adoption of Measures for Suppression of Seduction and Prostitution From Rye, complaining of the State of the Turnpike Trusts in England and Wales.—From Westminster, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—From Stirling, and a great number of other Places, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill, and the Registering Births (Scotland) Bill.

THE RAILWAY GAUGE.
LORD REDESDALEasked whether it was the intention of the Railway Commissioners to oppose the introduction into any private Bill of any provisions for altering the gauge of any railway authorised to be constructed by any Act which had passed prior to the passing of the Gauge Act in 1846; whether they proposed to bring in a Bill in the present Session to alter and amend the Gauge Act; and whether any report had been prepared by them upon the subject, or whether they intended to recommend that the consideration of the same should be postponed to the next Session of Parliament?
EARL GRANVILLEreplied, that clauses for the alteration of the gauge had been introduced into two or three Bills in the House of Commons, which it was the intention of the Railway Commissioners to oppose; that it was not the intention of the Commissioners to introduce any Bill this Session for the alteration of the Gauge Act; but that the question of a mixed
796
gauge was under consideration, and that its decision would depend upon the result of an experiment which was about to be tried on one of the lines.

DRAINAGE WORKS IN IRELAND.
LORD FARNHAM, before putting the question of which he had given notice relative to the discontinuance of the drainage works in the county of Cavan, and the dismissal of the labourers employed thereon, wished to make a few prefatory remarks. Their Lordships were aware that during the last few years very extensive schemes of drainage had been set on foot in Ireland. One of these was connected with the drainage of the rivers tributary to the Erne, in the north of Ireland. This work extended nearly thirty miles in the county of Cavan, and had given employment to 3,500 persons. It was strictly of a reproductive character. It was a grand national object, intended to connect that part of the country with Belfast to the north, through the Ulster canal; and, through the Shannon, with Limerick to the south, and calculated to drain 30,000 acres of land, flooded, on the average, during eight months in the year. He regretted to state that on Saturday, the 10th inst., the Board of Works issued an order, through their officers, that the works upon seven of the tributary streams should be stopped, and the consequence was that upwards of 2,000 persons, without one moment's notice, had been dismissed from their employment. He was unwilling to trespass long on their Lordships' attention, but could not avoid making one or two remarks on this most appalling subject. In the first place, he must observe that the character of the works on which these poor men were engaged was highly reproductive. The Government, by laying out the money in the first instance, would have had the money repaid to them by instalments. This was, too, the best time of the year, as their Lordships were aware, for persons employed in such works. They had to remove obstructions in rivers, to cut canals in low lands, which at other seasons of the year were flooded. But the most important feature in the case, and that which induced him to bring the matter before their Lordships in the most forcible manner, was the circumstance of the peculiar time at which the dismissal of so large a number of men had taken place. This was the time of the year when even, under ordinary circumstances (and when they were not sub-

797
jected to the destitution and distress from which the people had suffered for two years, and by which they had been overwhelmed), it was most difficult to obtain employment—namely, between the sowing season and the harvest; the time between April and August. For labourers or small farmers it was most difficult in all years, but now impossible, to obtain livelihood in these months. There was, however, another circumstance which rendered the dismissal of these persons at the present moment a most cruel act. Their Lordships would scarcely credit him when he stated, that since the 12th of December last two rates, one of 5s., and the other of 3s. 4d., had been struck in the poor-law union of Cavan; making altogether a poor-law rating of 8s. 4d. within five months upon a most distressed and impoverished district. Now, if the persons to whom he had alluded were thrown wholly out of employment, where were they to look for a subsistence? Landed property is already completely overwhelmed with the operation of the present poor-law system; and he would ask how a third rate could by possibility be enforced, for the maintenance of the men thus suddenly and cruelly dismissed from the works, and for the support of their families? In all years, it is most difficult for the tenant to pay his rent during the spring half year; but at the present period the farmer has neither crops nor cattle to meet this demand, and his utter inability to bear the superadded weight of increased poor-rates must be apparent to all. The landed proprietor feels, too, most severely the unequal pressure of this burthen; which, if it continues unchecked, must produce the necessary result of his diminishing his staff of labour, and thus tend to add a still greater accumulation to the mass of misery to which there is now no means of giving adequate relief. These persons, forming so large a body, being thrown out of employ, they could not look to another rate being made in addition to the two rates already struck. But he much feared that, impoverished as the country was, from the highest to the lowest or humblest classes, it would be utterly impossible to raise even the rate which had been last made. How these men were to subsist he could not tell. They could not starve; and here, perhaps, he might be excused if he told their Lordships what was the character of these men. They had invariably conducted themselves as honest, industrious, and peaceful men—
798
as the lower orders of the Irish always do, when they have got employment, and are not made the tools of designing agitators. He was himself constantly resident in this part of the country, and had watched the conduct of the men engaged in this employment. They had carried the statement of their grievances to him, thinking that he had the power—as he had the wish, certainly—to restore them to their work. Six hundred of these unfortunate but deserving men, being one-fourth of the whole number, had memorialised himself and also other landed proprietors. With the permission of the House, he would read the memorial to their Lordships:—
"They were supporting families to the amount of 2,500 persons; that they were now, in consequence of the drainage works being stopped, thrown idle, and their families left in a state of the most extreme destitution, there being no labour doing in the country, and they being denied relief from the poor-law guardians. The petitioners appealed to the engineer under whom they worked to show that they were ever willing to earn support for their families at any rate of wages he gave them, and that while employed they conducted themselves in the most peaceable manner, not minding the politics that were talked of, and living free from the disturbances that often occurred on such works. Under these circumstances, the memorialists begged him (Lord Farnham) and the other gentry of the place to use their influence, which they had always been ready to do in the cause of charity, to have the drainage works continued at least through the next three months, that the petitioners might be able to save their families from death by starvation, which was inevitable if some employment was not afforded."
To this memorial a statement was appended, signed by the Lord Bishop of Kilmore and the resident magistrates of the district, stating that "the sudden dismissal of so many persons is an act of great hardship, and will necessarily be attended with great distress." In conclusion, the noble Lord said, he had every confidence that the case which he had laid before their Lordships would meet with the favourable consideration of the noble Marquess opposite, and of his noble Friend at the head of the Irish Government, and he knew they would do all they could to raise money to continue in employment the full number of those unfortunate but deserving men. He might further state, that during the whole time these men had been employed on the public works, there had not been brought to the sessions a single case of any individual having stolen a farthing's worth of property of any description; no person had committed the slightest outrage, no mis-

799
chief had ever been done to the property of any gentlemen or farmers through whose lands these works ran. He could not answer for the consequence to these men and their families if they should not be restored to their employment. It was unreasonable to expect that men, wasted by disease themselves, and seeing their wives and children dying of starvation, fever, or dysentery, could submit to such misery without a murmur. He greatly feared, from this wholesale dismissal of the labourers, serious consequences to the peace of the country. Many of them had been earning from 2½d. to 6d. a day, having strength and inclination to work at any price. But if they should be overtaken by famine and fever, they would no longer be able to work, and must perish. He would call upon the Government, in the strongest possible terms, to advance the money required to continue these works, which, as he had before stated, could not fail to be highly reproductive. The money would be sooner or later indispensably required. If the Treasury could not command it, it would be better for them to raise it at once. It would be far better, on every account, to provide the necessary sum for carrying on immediately the whole of the works which had been suspended, and giving employment in reproductive labour to a large class of people, able and willing to work—having their strength unwasted and their energies unimpaired—than to be obliged hereafter to dole out a still larger sum in aid of oppressive and overwhelming poor-rates, which it would be useless to impose, because impossible to collect them from a wretched and distressed population, their bodies wasted by disease, and their minds filled with discontent, and embittered by the miseries they had suffered. Should Government accede to his request, he would venture to insure to them that reward which, next to the approbation of their own consciences, would prove most valuable to them—the thanks of a suffering, a relieved, and a grateful class of people. He would now put the questions of which he had given notice:—"1. Whether the Government have received any information respecting the discontinuance of the works under the Drainage Act in the county of Cavan, and the dismissal, by order of the Board of Works, of the labourers employed in them; and whether such discontinuance of the drainage works is permanent, or merely temporary? 2. Whether the Board of Works have furnished
800
the Government with their reasons for taking such a step? 3. Whether such order of the Board of Works was applicable to all parts of Ireland where similar works were in progress, or only enforced in particular localities; and, in the latter case, by what rules and principles the Board of Works were regulated, in making the selection?"
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEregretted that the answer he was about to give might not be altogether satisfactory to the noble Lord. This subject was undoubtedly one which must deeply interest their Lordships and the public, both from the nature of the works, which were of an eminently useful and reproductive character, and from the testimony which the noble Lord had so strongly borne to the character of the workmen employed upon them. It was with great regret that he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had heard that these works were abandoned; but he begged to explain that that was no act of the Government. Those works did not come within the description of works authorised by the Land Improvement Act; but the Board of Works were authorised to carry them on so far as loans could be obtained for the purpose. The works were carried on partly by means of loans provided by individuals who were interested in the property to be benefited, or by persons who advanced money on speculation; partly by loans which were furnished by the Board of Works from the public funds to a certain extent, but not to an indefinite amount. He deeply regretted the exhaustion of the funds at this particular time; but it was not in the power of the Board of Works to apply any additional sums to the continuance of those works.

IRISH POOR LAW.
LORD MONTEAGLErose to move the Resolutions of which he had given notice:—
"That the Circular Letters of the Irish Poor Law Commissioners, dated the 23rd May, 1848, direct a Change in Practice at variance with the direct Provisions of the 1st and 2nd Vict., cap. 56, sect. 53, 54, and the 10th Vict., cap. 31, sect. 8, 10.
"That such a Change in the Administration of the Law, if shown to be necessary and expedient, can only be carried into effect by the Authority of the Legislature.
"That any Orders issued, or Authority claimed or exercised, by an Administrative Department, to alter or set aside the Law of the Land, is of Dangerous Precedent, and demands the immediate' Attention of the House, more especially when such

801
Orders are issued during the Session, when the Sense of Parliament might have been taken upon the Question."
This was a subject which affected England as much as it did Ireland; and he would explain to their Lordships in a very few words the case he was about to submit to them. The question which he was desired to raise was, whether the Poor Law Commissioners had or had not exceeded their authority. In every poor-law the principle had been recognised that relief given to a wife was relief given to the husband; and that relief given to a child under fifteen years of age was relief given to the father. When the last Irish Poor Law Bill was in the other House, a clause was inserted which had the effect of prohibiting the extension of relief to any person in possession of more than a quarter of an acre of land. The Bill did not palpably differ from the law of England, with this exception, that the practice under the law in Ireland was more in favour of the pauper than it was in the former country. Taking, then, the two provisions of the Irish Poor Law to which he had referred together, it was evident that the giving relief to the wife or child of a person who held more than a quarter of an acre of land was prohibited. Now, the order issued by the Irish Poor Law Commissioners, in the circular dated the 23rd of May, entirely set aside this provision of the law, as completely as if it had been repealed by Act of Parliament; because it said that cases of very great privation had arisen, "in consequence of the head of the family refusing to give up the occupation of any part of the land he held" (the occupation being more than a quarter of an acre); and proceeded to direct that such members of the family of a person holding more than a quarter of an acre of land as might be destitute, might legally be relieved in the workhouse of the union; or if the workhouse were full, the guardians might relieve them out of the workhouse, if an order of the Poor Law Commissioners authorising the relief of such persons out of the workhouse, under the second section of the Act, when in operation in the union in which they resided. The effect of the circular would be to encourage persons not to give up the possession of their land; and the person refusing to do so would have a direct advantage over him who gave up possession, because he would receive relief for his family under the circular, which would be claimed by the other under the law. This assumption
802
of authority by the Poor Law Commissioners should be terminated. It was time that some understanding should be come to as to the principle to be observed; and if that laid down by the Commissioners were right let it be declared to be law by Parliament; for if the Commissioners were allowed to set aside the law, there would cease to be any co-operation on the part of the people of Ireland in maintaining it. In reference to the relief works, it would be recollected that complaints were made that parties in possession of land were permitted to take advantage of them, and it was said that they were got upon the relief works by the interest of persons wishing to be the better able thereby to obtain their rent from those parties. This was put a stop to, and direct authority was given to the Government officers to strike off from the public works the holders of land. How then could be reconciled with that course of proceedings the circular of the Irish Poor Law Commissioners, which set forth that parties receiving relief might continue in possession of their land? In the case drawn up by the Commissioners for the opinion of the Attorney General, the circumstance of a woman who perished from want was mentioned. The law, however, was not responsible for that. It was stated in the case, that—" inquiry has been made by the inspector of the union in which the woman died, in order to ascertain the truth of this statement; and he has confirmed it, and stated at the same time that the woman's husband and her children are not likely long to survive her, as the man will not give up the land he holds." The defect was not in the law, for relief was open to these parties, but it was the unnatural husband and parent that was to blame, as he refused to do that which the law required him to do in order to get relief. With regard to the second circular of the Poor Law Commissioners, dated June 8, he observed that that claimed afresh the same unlimited power of setting aside the law; and if this enlarged system of relief were acquiesced in, the fund for the relief of the really destitute would be exhausted in a period comparatively short. He could not believe that these circulars had been issued with the knowledge of the official members of the Irish Poor Law Commission. His right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland could hardly have been cognisant of the first circular, or of the awkward and inefficient way in which it was attempted to be explained by the

803
second circular. The circular of the 23rd of May, if permitted to be acted on, would give rise to the direst consequences, inasmuch as it would hold out to those who disregarded the law not only impunity from punishment, but an actual premium for persevering in that disobedience. The noble Lord concluded by moving the resolutions.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas not at all surprised that this subject had attracted the attention of the noble Lord. Agreeing as he did in most that had fallen from the noble Lord, and in the importance of preventing any mischief arising from misapprehension on this subject, he hoped he should be able to satify the noble Lord that it would be perfectly consistent with his duty and with the interests of Ireland to withdraw or suspend any Motion on the subject. Undoubtedly he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) could not concur in the proposed Motion, if upon no other ground, still upon this, namely, because it took on itself to pronounce the law, not in the form of an Act of Parliament, but by the resolutions of one House, and thus lead them into the very error into which the Commissioners had fallen. The only explanation he could offer of the circular in question was, that it was hastily drawn up to meet a particular object, and that it emanated in a moment of haste from a desire to prevent the destruction of life from starvation, which had, indeed, taken place in one particular instance. If the principle of the circular were adopted as a general rule, it would, no doubt, subvert the principle of the law, and of the policy on which it was founded. The intention of the Legislature was that the law of Ireland should not exceed the law of England in its provisions for maintaining the poor. He was sure the House would agree with him when he said that those who held possession of land ought to be compelled to provide for the maintenance of their families. That was the law of England, and he did not hesitate to say that it ought to be the law of Ireland also. So fully was he convinced of the necessity and justice of acting upon that principle, that it afforded him great satisfaction to be able to inform the House that the Poor Law Commissioners of Ireland intended as soon as possible to make an order to the effect that no assistance should be given by the head of a family whenever he is in possession of land. It was the duty of the Commissioners to see that relief was duly administered; and he
804
doubted not their Lordships would approve of the regulations by which it was proposed that that object should be carried into effect. Owing to the eagerness with which land was sought for in Ireland—the almost ungovernable desire which influenced the peasantry of that country to obtain upon any terms the possession of land, it frequently happened that small patches got into the hands of parties who were in the utmost extremity of distress, and those wretchedly poor individuals held it without being able to make the least contribution towards the maintenance of their families. Now, he did not hesitate to say, that men who placed themselves in such a position ought to be punished. There could be no greater state of misery than that which permitted the continuance of such a system, and the Legislature was bound to take care that those who possessed property, who held land, and neglected to provide for their families, should be punished, for surely the possession of land afforded primâ facie evidence that they were not altogether without the means of making provision for those who stood towards them in the nearest degree of relationship: so long as such people had anything to be readied, their immediate families ought not to become burdensome to the ratepayers. He quite agreed with his noble Friend that of all abuses connected with the administration of the poor-laws none could be greater than that the wives and children of men who held land should go to a public charity for relief; he therefore thought that no time should be lost in issuing an order that assistance should not in future be given to such persons, or those naturally dependent on them. No doubt there must be exceptions made in particular cases; and most certainly the grounds of such exceptions ought to be recorded and submitted to the Poor Law Commissioners. Those were the views which he entertained on the subject: he believed he might say that his Colleagues in office entertained similar opinions; and he trusted that what he had said would be sufficient to induce his noble Friend to suspend his Motion, at least for the present.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that though he had expressed some surprise at the circulars now on the table of their Lordships' House, yet he was by no means prepared to say that he differed from the opinions expressed by the Attorney and Solicitor General for Ireland, and the inclination of his mind certainly was that the law

805
fully bore them out; but of this no rational being could entertain a doubt that, whether by a new Act of Parliament, or by a new order, something must be done to put an end to a gross and flagrant abuse, which threatened the structure of society—at least of economical society. It was intolerable that a man, say with 500 l. a year, should refuse to maintain his family, because, if a man with any means whatever, were able to refuse, then upon principle a man of the largest property must be entitled to do likewise. As to the construction of the law which had been brought under their notice, he must be permitted to say he did not think it expedient that their Lordships should pronounce any opinion whatever; and for that reason he thought that they would scarcely affirm the first resolution proposed by his noble Friend. Still he was glad that the attention of the House had been called to the subject; and it was most satisfactory to receive an assurance from his noble Friend the President of the Council that the Queen's Government felt the necessity of making a change—at least of making some attempt to abate such an evil. Nevertheless, he saw great difficulty in framing such an order as would fully meet the case; and he feared that Ministers must come to Parliament for a fresh enactment, in which he feared also that there must be a great many exceptions.
The DUKE of RICHMONDthought it would be well if the Government were to obtain a more deliberate opinion than any that had yet been received from the law officers of the Crown on the construction of the Act of Parliament. If the Irish Attorney and Solicitor General were right in their view of the law, then he would advise the Government to bring in a Bill enacting, that should the wives or children of any holder of land accept relief, the title to the land should thereby be forfeited. If he were an Irish magistrate, he should punish the holders of such land with the utmost severity.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that they were bound to give relief to all starving persons; but he doubted that the mere possession of land rendered a man liable to be committed, supposing his wife and family to claim relief.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, it was quite true that a man's refusing to maintain his wife and family formed no reason why those poor people should be allowed to die; provision must be made for them.
806
But he thought the circular incautiously worded, for it seemed to lead to the supposition that the wives and children of such persons were to be indiscriminately relieved. He always thought that the Quarter-Acre Clause was a salutary enactment; and he had generally disapproved of anything calculated to interfere with its operation. As to the Motion of his noble Friend, it had at least produced a satisfactory discussion; and, that end having been answered, he trusted that his proposition might, for the present, be advantageously suspended.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSconsidered that if an order were framed to meet the case, such an arrangement would supersede any modification of the law. It was clear that a man who was in possession of land, and left his wife and family chargeable to the union, refusing to give up the land, ought to be made punishable.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, it appeared that without an Act of Parliament it was impossible to get out of the difficulty which existed under either the original or the present interpretation of the law. Supposing a person in possession of land to be so poor notwithstanding as to be unable to support his wife and family, the refusal of that man to give up the land appeared to him (Lord Beaumont) as equivalent to refusing to support his wife and family, and he should be punished in the same manner as a man in England who refused to work to support his wife. If this could not be done in Ireland, the law required immediate alteration; if the fault was in the law, the law should be amended. But great caution should be used, since, whatever course was pursued, the law would be liable to much abuse. He believed the noble Marquess was in possession of a paper which, when laid before their Lordships, would show that there were many persons in the receipt of workhouse relief who were known to have money in savings-banks, invested in various sums, and in other people's names; in some cases the sum amounted to 200 l. Yet a person really in possession of so large a sum of money was treated as one of the destitute poor. The law, must, therefore, be made as stringent as possible.
LORD STANLEYsaid, their Lordships were indebted to the noble Lord for bringing forward this important subject; but there was one consideration which induced him to suggest to the noble Lord not to persevere in pressing his resolution.

807
Throughout his statement and his resolutions the noble Lord had assumed that the Poor Law Commissioners, by the circular they had issued, had taken upon themselves to "set aside" and violate the law; whereas the defence of the Poor Law Commissioners was—and he thought it was a valid defence—that they had acted according to the best interpretation which the legal advisers of the Crown could put upon the law as it stood. The assumption in the resolution that the Poor Law Commissioners had "set aside" the law, was not, therefore, warranted by the fact. With respect to the question itself, he did not feel himself competent to form a judgment as to the legality of the proceeding of the Commissioners; but he must say that he never saw an opinion in so direct contradiction not only to what was considered to be the law, but to the avowed intention of both Houses of Parliament, or that of the Attorney General for Ireland. He did not see how the judgment and the intention of Parliament could have been more clearly and more explicitly expressed than they had been in reference to this subject. When the Act of the 10th Victoria was under discussion in this House, it had been suggested (and he had said it would be so) that men possessing nine or ten acres of land would seek pauper relief. This was not credited by many of their Lordships, whereas it had turned out that in defiance of the intentions of the law, which was intended to check that spirit of lavish expenditure apparently inherent in Irish functionaries, and that desperate clinging to land, whether the occupation were beneficial or not, which was so inherent in the Irish peasantry, they found that hoards of guardians had in many cases been relieving the families of men who held several acres of land. In fact, provisions which were almost deemed supererogatory had been not only neglected, but absolutely violated and set aside. He did not mean to say that it was imperative upon poor-law guardians not to afford relief to the wives and children of persons in possession of land. In England relief might be granted to the families of those not absolutely destitute, but with this proviso, that in such cases the person receiving relief for his family, and yet not destitute, would be liable to penal consequences if he did not reimburse the outlay thus incurred. On the other hand, however, he viewed with the greatest apprehension and alarm the opinion given by Mr. Henn, and
808
sanctioned by the Irish Attorney General—an opinion which went the length of alleging that the mere possession of twelve acres of land did not place a person in the position of being penally liable if his family were relieved from the rate. He (Lord Stanley) would have concluded that the person relieved was liable from the mere fact of his possession of the land. The opinion went on to state, that "if the father, notwithstanding his possession of the land, is really unable to maintain the children, I do not think he could be properly convicted under the 10th and 11th of Victoria, cap. 84, section 2." If that opinion were correct, the possession of land was no test as to the propriety of giving relief at all. Yet Parliament intended it to be a final and conclusive test. The intention of the Legislature was, that the possession of land should exclude the plea of destitution. The opinion of Mr. Henn, backed by that of Mr. Monahan, was, that the possession of land did not exclude the plea of destitution. Those Gentlemen, however, recommended that every case should be decided on its own merits before boards of guardians. Why, this was opening the door as wide as if they had never passed an Act to shut it at all. The opinion to which he had alluded set aside what were the clearly expressed intentions of Parliament; and he concurred with the noble Lord who had spoken last in saying, that if the state of the law really were as Mr. Henn and Mr. Monahan had explained it to be, that it was a most unsatisfactory state, opposed to the avowed intentions of Parliament, and that it was imperative upon the Government to introduce some specific measure to put an end to a state of things so inconsistent with what was the purpose of the Legislature. The present was a law which would let in upon Ireland a flood of landholding paupers—of paupers holding, but not beneficially occupying land; it would, in fact, tend to the pauperisation of the whole country. It would render the poor-law incapable of being carried out; it would involve landlords, tenants, and paupers in one common ruin—would plunge the country into one common gulf of destitution, misery, and death, from which even the resources of this mighty empire would be unable to rescue it.
LORD MONTEAGLEreplied: He considered that there was no excuse for the circular letter which had been issued; it was, to say the least, imprudent and inju-

809
dicious. He trusted that he was not without some justification for the course which he had adopted, and that he had made out a case to the House. He would feel it his duty, after the statements which had been made, to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned.