EVICTED DESTITUTE POOR (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 22 June 1848)

§ LORD MONTEAGLE
had no objection to a Bill for making a fair and just provision for the relief of evicted destitute persons; but that object could be better carried out than in the manner here contemplated. He should propose that the notice required by the Bill in case of an ejectment should, instead of being a vague notice giving the names of the lands, specify the name of every tenant to be evicted; and that, instead of being sent by post to the guardians of the union, it should be given direct to the relieving officer, who would be close by, and in possession of funds to relieve with at once. In nine cases out often in Ireland, ejectments were brought, not to obtain possession of the premises, but to compel payment of rent; and the rent being paid, no dispossession took place. To require notice to be given in all cases, and to be given to the board of guardians, would tend to excite animosities needlessly. The 1st Clause of this Bill provided that all writs of ejectment executed during the winter should be served a certain time before sunset; and he intended to propose that these writs should be served in the same manner as all other law processes, between sunrise and sunset. He also entertained objections to the 5th Clause. Under the existing law, it was necesssary that notices should be served on all individuals residing upon land before such individuals could be served with writs of ejectment; and if one occupier was omitted, he might at once, by his affidavit, put an end 997 to the whole proceedings. But by the 5th Clause of this Bill, it was proposed that notices should he required to be served upon persons entering on the occupation of property after writs of ejectment had been served on the previous occupiers; and in case of failure or neglect, penalties were imposed. He considered this a most objectionable provision; for these changes of possession might be made for the mere purposes of fraud. He therefore begged to move that the House be put again into Committee on the Bill, in order that he might have an opportunity of proposing Amendments to meet these objections.

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE
said, as the Amendments suggested by his noble Friend would affect the character of the Bill, he had no objection to its recommittal, in order that those Amendments might be considered, and that, if necessary, the sense of the House might be taken upon them.
Agreed to. House in Committee.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY
, Chairman of Committees, being absent, Lord BEAUMONT was moved to be Chairman.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, that as their Lordships had gone into Committee before the Motion was made, they were in this difficulty, that there was no one who had power to put the question.

LORD CAMPBELL
apprehended that the House had an inherent right to elect a Chairman in the absence of the noble Lord who was Chairman of Committees; and if they possessed that power before going into Committee, he conceived that they could equally exercise it in Committee.

LORD STANLEY
observed, that the difficulty appeared to be, who was to put the Motion which had been made, that Lord Beaumont take the chair?

§ EARL GREY
was understood to say that, if it was not competent for any noble Lord to put that question, he did not see how their Lordships were to resume.

§ LORD BEAUMONT
then took the chair.
On the 1st Clause being read,

§ LORD MONTEAGLE
proposed an Amendment, providing that notices of ejectment might be served at any time between sunrise and sunset.

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE
opposed the Amendment. He asked their Lordships to consider the consequences which had followed from the ejectment of tenants immediately before sunset; and, although he was ready to acknowledge that some inconvenience might be occasioned 998 by this clause, he recommended their Lordships to adhere to it. This measure was rendered necessary because scenes had occurred in Ireland which were disgraceful to that country; and it would be a disgrace to the Legislature if they allowed the possibility of any repetition of those scenes. The noble Marquess here referred, for the purpose of showing the necessity of some legislation on the subject, to several cases of evictions, which exhibited circumstances of great suffering on the part of many of the people evicted; and contended that it was absolutely necessary that previous notice of eviction should be given to the guardians of the unions, in order that provision might be made for the destitute, in cases of necessity, to prevent them perishing by the roadside. It was not his wish to throw any general blame on the body of landlords, because he did not know how far they might be able to prevent the distressing scenes which sometimes accompanied evictions; but he had adverted to these matters for the purpose of showing that their Lordships were hound to provide, as far as possible, against the unnecessary loss of life. It was not too much, he thought, to require that the previous notice of evictions specified in the Bill should be given to the guardians of unions; and he therefore pressed their Lordships to accept the Bill as it stood.

§ The EARL of ST. GERMANS
thought it would be better not to discuss all the clauses at once, but rather to take them seriatim, and let noble Lords have an opportunity of delivering their opinions upon each clause separately.

§ EARL GREY
observed that the Committee, in considering the measure now before them, were called upon to reduce the provision for the evicted parties to its minimum, and to reduce also the inconvenience which the proprietors of land sustained, in order that property should be as much as possible improved and protected. No one could be more anxious to uphold the rights of property in Ireland than he was; but he could not conceal from himself the fact that, under the name of tenant-right attempts had been made in Ireland to resist the fair rights of property. These attempts, in his opinion, were assuming an alarming aspect. This Bill, he believed, would tend to check the advance of such a disposition as that to which he had alluded. But while protection was given to the landlord, they should take care that relief was pro- 999 vided for those poor people who were suddenly dispossessed of their homes. Let their Lordships remember the frightful cases which had occurred, in which large numbers of persons were ejected from their houses in the depth of winter, and they would not think that it was too much to give them notice to make arrangements for their further abode. He believed that the clause as it stood was a proper one, and he trusted their Lordships would sanction it. It was salutary, because it was intended to provide relief for the evicted persons, without placing a discretionary power of too large a character in the hands of the relieving officer. Both in England and Ireland the law expressly provided that the relieving officer was not to act on his own discretion, unless when the board of guardians could not be applied to. That was a sanitary provision. If the House were of opinion that this clause should stand, then it was proposed that due notice should be given to the board of guardians of the ejectment to take place, in order that some step should be taken for the relief of those who would be driven to apply for it. If such notice were not given to the board, it could know nothing of the ejectment, and therefore could not afford any adequate accommodation for the people ejected. Neither the relieving officer, nor the board, could in such a case know of the occurrence, and it might so happen that 300 or 400 persons might be turned out of their land at a late hour on a stormy night, exposed to all the severity of the weather, without shelter from its inclemency. The landlord and tenant question was one in which the public mind was in no ordinary degree interested, and he thought their Lordships should not refuse their sanction to a Bill which had passed with the general assent of the other House of Parliament, and which was, as he believed, in some degree calculated to meet the evils which arose out of the present position of that question.

§ LORD MONTEAGLE
protested against its being held out by the noble Earl (Earl Grey), as it were in terrorem, that his object was to reduce the provision for the poor to the minimum, and to keep protection to the landlords at the maximum. On the part of those who took the view of the question which he (Lord Monteagle) did, he rejected that construction. He should persist in taking the course which he thought right, and he was satisfied that, 1000 sooner or later, its prudence would be recognised.

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE
reminded their Lordships that they were about to divide upon the question whether the word "before" be left out of the clause or not. The question was, whether notice was to be given "before."
The Earl of ROSSE and the Duke of LEINSTER made some observations in opposition to the Bill.

The EARL of GLENGALL
did not object to the principle of the Bill, but he did to many of its provisions. The Bill was founded upon a false notion of the evictions that had taken place upon Mr. Blake's estate; it was, in fact, called Mr. Blake's Bill. Great misapprehension existed as to that case. The reports in the blue book were made from the inquiries of persons without legal authority. The Poor Law Inspectors had, by law, no right to go into inquiries as between landlord and tenant; and in these inquiries only one side was usually heard—the evicted paupers, who resorted to any story to make out a case of hardship. He felt, therefore, great doubt as to the accuracy of reports that were founded upon one-sided inquiries. He objected to the Bill, that it would tend to encourage evictions by throwing the ejected paupers on the poor-rate. He objected to seven days' notice before eviction, since such a notice would afford an opportunity to get up a conspiracy to shoot the party who gave the notice.

§ The EARL of ST. GERMANS
objected to the formal and public notice proposed. He had no objection to a notice to the relieving officer, that he might have time to prepare for giving shelter to the ejected paupers; twenty-four or forty-eight hours would be quite sufficient for the purpose, and would, he thought, meet the case. It would be an Irish mode of giving notice after the mischief was done.
The House divided on question that the word "before" stand part of the clause:—Content 23; Not-content 23.
By the rules of the House, the question was hereby resolved in the Affirmative.
Other Amendments moved and agreed to. Amendments to be reported.