HL Deb 30 May 1848 vol 99 cc72-80
The EARL of LUCAN

rose to move— That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Irish Poor Law Acts, relative to the rating of Immediate Lessors. He thought he had on a former occasion shown the state of the law in this respect to be so defective as to induce many of their Lordships to be of opinion that the Government would think it their duty to give immediate attention to the subject. Since then two or three months had elapsed, and Government apparently had bestowed no consideration whatever on the subject, and the evils of which he had complained still continued. Under these circumstances, he felt it to be his duty to bring the subject again under the notice of their Lordships, with a view of obtaining the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the subject. He believed that there was not a Member of their Lordships' House who had examined the working of the law in Ireland, who would be disposed to deny that an extended inquiry had become absolutely necessary; and it appeared to him that nothing would be more unwise than to refuse the reasonable demand of those who required that full investigation should take place. The Government, he conceived, ought to consider a subject of this nature calmly and deliberately, and not rashly refuse inquiry; and he entertained a strong opinion that the responsible advisers of the Crown had committed a great error when they refused to accede to the unequivocally expressed wish of a very large portion of the other House of Parliament, who claimed the inquiry for which he now moved. In making this Motion he wished it to be distinctly understood, that he had no desire to get rid of the rating of the immediate lessor; on the contrary, he approved of such a plan. The noble Earl then proceeded to complain of the manner in which rates had been struck in the county of Mayo, as well as in other parts of Ireland; and he complained also of the manner in which the law was carried out in that county, of the number of suits instituted for the recovery of the poor-rates, as well as of the manner in which the law relating to the poor was administered throughout Ireland generally. He declined to make any direct complaint of the extent to which legal proceedings had been taken against himself, although a vast amount of bills and declarations had been filed against him in the courts of Dublin; he did not, however, hesitate to say—though he would not occupy the time of their Lordships by lengthened details regarding himself—that there were strong reasons to complain of the existing state of the law; that its condition was a mockery and an absurdity; and that no intelligent or dispassionate person could deny the necessity for minute and searching inquiry. Of such an inquiry as he proposed, no one would say that it would excite any unreasonable expectation in the minds of any portion of the community; and for that among other reasons he did contend that the application which he made ought not to be refused. Amongst the other grounds of complaint he might mention this, as forming a strong argument in favour of inquiry, that the new Bill gave no appeal to the lessor, though the occupier possessed such a privilege. The whole county was swarmed with latitats, capias, and bills of privilege. There was a bill of privilege filed against him in the superior courts, which filled forty-five skins of parchment, or 1,000 office sheets of paper. There was no appeal for the occupier, although there was a good and sufficient one for the lessor. He had also to complain that clauses were enforced against the resident proprietor, by a gross abuse of authority, which were only intended to apply to the absentee. If the law was as defective as he had showed it to be, and if the abuses which existed were as weighty as he had proved them, he thought that he had made out a sufficient case for the inquiry for which he prayed. The noble Earl concluded by proposing his Motion as above.

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE

was under the necessity of opposing the Motion of the noble Earl. The appointment of a Committee of Inquiry would have the effect of interfering with and delaying the decision of questions already in a course of adjudication, and embarrass the operations of a law not yet sufficiently developed. [The noble Marquess addressed some observations in reply to Lord Lucan across the table, but they were quite inaudible.]

EARL FITZWILLIAM

supported the Motion of his noble Friend (the Earl of Lucan), and expressed his regret that, admitting apparently the abuses and oppressions of the law, the noble Marquess should have opposed the Motion, and upon the ground that inquiry would tend to protract the proceedings. But the proceedings in the courts of law might not be terminated as soon as the noble Marquess anticipated. He was fully aware how long such proceedings could be protracted, especially if one party were desirous that such a course should be adopted. They might end in six weeks—they might not end in six months. The Commissioners did not adopt the method by which they could have obtained the speediest justice: by no means. They went into the superior courts at Dublin. And why did they go there? There could be no doubt as to the reason. They went there in order to show the gentlemen of Ireland the power which the Poor Law Commissioners had over them. He approved of the appointment of the Committee, for he was of opinion that, amongst other advantages, it would have the effect of showing that Irish matters were not neglected in this country. The noble Earl proceeded to say, that the present state of pauperism in Ireland was most alarming; and he quoted returns of the number of persons in the workhouses, and receiving outdoor relief. The rates had increased enormously during the last quarter, and he had no doubt they would increase in a corresponding ratio in the next three months. He asked Parliament and the Government to say whether they thought that the state of things now existing in Ireland could possibly continue without some remedy? And what had the Government done? As regarded this mass of pauperism, they had applied to the whole of Ireland a law which was properly applicable only to a small portion of it. Did his noble Friends intend to go on in this way? Would they do nothing more for Ireland? It was true there was an Encumbered Estates Bill, and of the principle of that Bill he approved; but at the same time he doubted very much whether it would accomplish the object that was desired. And if it should so prove a failure, another Session would have passed away, and nothing be done for Ireland. They had a great work to perform, and had not yet so much as begun it. But they must perform that work unless they intended to leave Ireland in her present condition. If there was anything like sanguineness in their expectation of seeing Ireland in a different condition, they must deal with that great phenomenon of the rural population. They had not touched that question yet. They had given money and lent money, and they might continue to do so. As to the loan of last year, they would have to repeat it in 1849, and again in 1850, or they would do nothing. But even then, with loan after loan, they would do nothing; for all were now agreed that the great mass of the rural population in many parts of Ireland was the phenomenon with which they had to deal. And while this mass of pauperism existed in Ireland, let them look to the other parts of the British dominions, and what did they behold? In Canada, in New Brunswick, in Australia, they would find millions of acres, requiring only persons to cultivate them. Was there not an obvious source of relief for that state of things to be found in a proper system of emigration? Would not the adoption of such a system be better than keeping a population at home increasing until we did not know what to do with them. He knew that difficulties existed against emigration on a large scale, but those difficulties were not insuperable; and he would remark to their Lordships that the Legislature had recently placed restrictions upon emigration, instead of encouraging that means of relieving the pressure caused by a superabundant population. In reference to this restriction upon emigration, he would remark that the desire to emigrate was far less in Ireland this year than last year; and would, if the potato crop succeeded, be still less next year. He was in favour of the Committee, for he thought it would be advantageous.

EARL GREY

complained of the inconvenient course his noble Friend had adopted in raising a general discussion upon a Motion confined to ground so narrow as that of the noble Earl—a Motion simply for a Committee "to inquire into the operation of the Irish Poor Law Act relative to the rating of immediate lessors." The question raised by the noble Earl involved legal questions requiring consideration, and was confined to one point; and yet his noble Friend (Earl Fitzwilliam) had chosen that opportunity for making general remarks on the Irish poor-law, and for discussing the policy of emigration on a large scale, and the inefficiency of loans. The speech of his noble Friend involved, it was to be feared, that dangerous fallacy which seemed every day to prevail more and more in the minds of men, namely, that it was in the power of any Government or any Legislature by its fiat to give happiness and prosperity to a people. A Government could not mistake its functions more than if it were to suppose it had the power of imparting wealth and prosperity; they must be created by the people themselves; and those who taught the people of Ireland that they should look to Parliament and to the Government to relieve them from their present deplorable condition, did most lamentably deceive them. His noble Friend had accused the Government of doing nothing. What more could have been done? If the Government had succeeded by the measures they had passed in February in restoring peace to Ireland, they had done what was of inestimable value to the industry of Ireland, and it was now for the Irish people to work out their own prosperity. His noble Friend (Earl Fitzwilliam) had spoken of the millions of acres of waste land lying uncultivated in Ireland. But if the intelligent industry and capital which his noble Friend had assumed not to be wanting were ready in Ireland, there was no reason why the people should go to Canada and Australia, while without capital their removal to those distant countries would not improve their condition. In a few days he should lay on the table papers connected with this important subject of emigration, and he should take the opportunity that would then be afforded him of showing that more had been done in that direction than his noble Friend imagined. Measures of great importance on this subject were now in progress, and he hoped that the Government would be able to go on with yearly increasing efficiency in improving and extending emigration. He denied the justice of the representations against the Irish Poor Law, and he thought that the accounts of the working of that law were quite as satisfactory as could reasonably have been expected. It was already acting as a stimulus to industry and improvement in that country. With regard to the ac- tual Motion before the House, he thought the arguments already urged against the appointment of a Committee were quite sufficient. The matters into which it was proposed to inquire were about to be taken before the courts of law, and it was not, therefore, a proper moment for Parliament to interfere. When the courts of law had decided upon the question, the noble Lord could bring the matter before Parliament if he pleased

LORD STUART DE DECIES

regretted that more attention was not paid in Parliament to the wishes of the Irish people as expressed through their representatives. Those wishes had been expressed upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne); and he had reason to believe that the rejection by the other House of Parliament of the Motion of that hon. Member had done more to advance repeal than the advocacy of its most strenuous supporters. His own experience of the working of the Irish poor-law was that it had failed to stimulate industry in that country. The views entertained by a large body of the Irish people were, that the system of relieving the able bodied poor in Ireland should be altogether different from the mode in which the aged and infirm poor were relieved. His vote upon the present Motion would very much depend upon the announcement by the Government whether it was their intention to sanction next Session an inquiry into the working of the new poor-law in Ireland,

LORD BEAUMONT

was both surprised and sorry that the Committee, for which so good a case had been made out, had been refused by the Government. What was the ground upon which inquiry was refused? Because a case was depending before the courts of law. But cases might be depending at all times; and it was never imagined that the inquiry they would go into would have anything to do with the particular question now before the courts of law. The inquiry would be directed to ascertain what were the hardships in the working of the new poor-law; and their Lordships would then see whether they were owing to defects in the law, or to the cruelty of its administration. The Government seemed to wish not to disturb the operation of the law, because it had been recently passed, and some time, therefore, was necessary to judge of its operation. So far as that went the argument was good; but when a distinct case was made out which demanded inquiry, he thought that that inquiry should he conceded.

The EARL of DEVON

said, that the inquiry asked for was not, as he understood, to be general, but was to be an inquiry into the operation of a particular part of the law. The fact was that the noble Earl called upon their Lordships to institute an inquiry into a case which was at that moment undergoing legal consideration, and the first question that would be put to the witnesses examined would be, "Are there not legal proceedings at this moment pending between the Poor Law Commissioners and the noble Earl?" His noble Friend near him seemed to think that on the whole the poor-law was working well in Ireland. He very much hoped that that was the case. But this he knew, that in many parts of Ireland it was not so; and it might be a very proper subject for inquiry what were the causes which enabled it to work well in some parts of the country, and not so in others. He had had a long-correspondence with the Commissioners upon the subject of the electoral divisions, which he considered to be too large; and he thought that some arrangement might be made, so as to enable the proprietors of land to furnish employment to the population, and thereby escape the enormous taxation of providing for them. The Commissioners certainly entered fully into the discussion of the subject, but they decided that it would not be wise so to arrange the electoral divisions. One argument was that it was unwise to make them consist of a very small number of proprietors; and yet there were electoral divisions that were made by the Commissioners themselves, consisting of the property of only one or two proprietors.

LORD CAMPBELL

said, they were not considering whether the policy pursued with regard to Ireland had been wise or unwise—they were not considering whether the Union ought to be preserved or not—whether the poor-law of Ireland was politic or impolitic, or whether an inquiry into the operation of the poor-law might or might not be advisable. There were many arguments which might be urged to show that such an inquiry would be highly expedient; and he did not know whether the Motion said to have been made elsewhere had been properly or improperly rejected: but the sole question their Lordships had to decide was, whether they ought to grant a Committee to inquire into a single question as to the law of rating immediate lessors? Had any case been made out to justify such an inquiry? It might be, as he had just said, highly expedient to have an inquiry into the general operation of the law in Ireland; but the question was, whether the noble Earl had laid before their Lordships a sufficient case to induce them to grant his Motion. He (Lord Campbell) would merely say that, if they did agree to the Motion, they would be establishing a most dangerous precedent, and would be departing from those principles which had uniformly guided them hitherto, for the simple reason that it happened that one of their Lordships was a party to some pending litigation. With respect to the question itself, it was a very difficult one, and one upon which opinions might very fairly be divided; and it seemed to him that the guardians who had raised the action against the noble Earl, so far from acting vexatiously in the course they had pursued, had acted with great propriety in seeking to have a question of so much importance fairly tried by the regular tribunals of the country.

LORD MONTEAGLE

contended, that to wait for the decision of the courts of law upon the point in question would be attended with very great delay, while, in the meantime, Ireland would be left without a remedy for the evil complained of. But it was said that to grant an inquiry while the case was pending in the courts of law, would be a precedent the more fatal as coming from the House of Lords. Why, what did their Lordships do in the case of the qui tam actions? Did they wait for the decision of the courts of law there? No, they settled the question at once by legislation. To refuse inquiry in the present instance would be the more unjust, considering that the Motion for a general inquiry into the working of the poor-law, which was supported by seven out of every eight of the Irish representatives in the other House of Parliament, had been rejected by a majority of the British Members, contrary to the almost unanimous opinion of the Irish people. As a friend to the Union—as a friend to British protection, he dared not refuse the inquiry now asked for; and he called upon the English Members of their Lordships' House, who might he apt to undervalue the importance of the question, not to do anything which would operate as a bar to inquiry or to legislation upon it.

LORD CAMPBELL

explained. He considered it a question which ought not to be decided by a Committee of their Lordships' House, but by the regular tribunals of the country.

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE

remarked upon the extreme difference between the Motion and the arguments which had been used in the debate. Almost all the speakers in support of the Motion went, not into the operation of the law as it existed, but entirely into the administration of the law. The noble Earl (the Earl of Lucan) complained that the law operated oppressively upon him; and yet, almost in the same breath, he contended that, under the law, he was not liable to the rates charged against him. It appeared, then, that it was the difficulty of appealing from the administration of the law of which he really complained; but this could easily be remedied by a short Bill. He entirely agreed as to the desirableness of acceding as far as possible to the wishes of the Irish people and the landed proprietors; but he denied that there was anything like a strong or unanimous opinion in Ireland upon the particular point raised by the present Motion, though he admitted there did exist a powerful and deep feeling with regard to the general subject, which it would be well if their Lordships would attend to; and he ventured to say on the part of the Government, that if the country were in a calmer state—if it were in its ordinary condition, when the whole question could be fairly inquired into, there was no indisposition whatever on their part to grant a Committee of Inquiry. But to grant a partial inquiry into a point upon which a Member of their Lordships' House considered himself aggrieved, so far from this being calculated to conciliate the people in favour of the principle of the poor-law, it would only go to shake their confidence both in the law and in the spirit in which their Lordships were diposed to deal with it.

House divided:—Contents 33; Not-Contents 27: Majority 6.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.
DUKE. Devon
Leinster Fingall
Fortescue
MARQUESSES.
Clanricarde Grey
Lansdowne Granville
Northampton Huntingdon
Minto
EARLS. Scarborough
Auckland Sefton
Besborough Stafford
BISHOPS. Camoys
Hereford Campbell
Manchester Cottenham
Peterborough Hastings
Saye and Sele
LORDS. Stuart de Decies
Arundel Sudeley

Resolved in the Affirmative.

Back to