Lords Sitting of 24 July 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a New Forest Deer Removal, &c.; Merchant Seamen's Fund; Mercantile Marine Act Amendment; Local Acts (Preliminary Inquiries); Grand Jury Cess (Ireland); Commons Inclosure (No. 2); Episcopal and Capitular Estates Management (No. 2).
2a Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Private Lunatic Asylums (Ireland); Stock in Trade; Tithe Rentcharge Assessment; Public Works (Ireland); Victoria Park; Civil Bills, &c. (Ireland); Chimney Sweepers Regulation Act Amendment.
Reported.—Chief Justices Salaries; Woods, Forests, &c.
ROYAL ASSENT.—Survey of Great Britain, &c.; School Sites Acts Amendment; Landlord and Tenant; Prisons (Scotland); British White Herring Fishery; Common Lodging Houses; Lodging Houses; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; Highway Rates; Loan Societies; Militia Ballots Suspension; Assessed Taxes Composition; Public Works, Fisheries, &c.; Apprentices to Sea Service (Ireland) (No. 2); Marriages (India); Turnpike Acts Continuance; Turnpike Trusts Arrangement; Inhabited House Duty; Burgesses and Freemen's Parliamentary Franchise; Ministers Widows and Orphans Fund of the Free Church of Scotland; London (City) Sewers.

CIVIL BILLS, &c. (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE, in moving the Second Reading, of this Bill, said that the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland, which were presided over by the Assistant Barristers, were among the most useful tribunals of the country, and among those which enjoyed the largest share of public confidence. Three fourths of the present measure consisted of a digest or codification of the existing law, so far as related to the civil jurisdiction of Assistant Barristers in Ireland. It gave them also a new power of hearing insolvent petitions, a regulation which must be much more convenient to creditors and to honest debtors. That power had lately been given to the County Courts in England, and, as he understood, it had operated very beneficially. The Bill further proposed to extend the jurisdiction of the Assistant Barristers from 20 l. to 40 l.; it enabled them to adjudicate on all cases of legacies up to 20 l., whatever might be the amount of assets on which those legacies were charged. And another important feature which it presented was, that it gave them an exclusive original jurisdiction, instead of a concurrent jurisdiction, as heretofore. There was

1383
another clause in the Bill which he thought would be universally admitted to be beneficial to all Irish classes that were connected with land; he alluded to that clause which gave the landlord power of ejectment against tenants at will, in the same way as if they held under a lease. It might be thought that such a provision conferred too great power upon landlords; but on the other hand it would provide a remedy for the practice of serving yearly tenants with constant notices to quit, which was a most painful proceeding, and prevented all feelings of security in the transactions between man and man. There were several other important points in the Bill, with which, however, he would not trouble their Lordships. Under such circumstances, the Assistant Barrister, who now received only 400 l. a year, would be entitled to some increase of salary; and it was proposed that these salaries should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The amount of their future salaries might be seen from the schedule of the Bill, and it was expected that the additional charge thus thrown on the Consolidated Fund, would be fully compensated by the operation of the rule that stamps should be used for the future in all proceedings in Civil Courts in Ireland. He would be happy to consider in Committee any objections that might be made to the Bill.
The EARL of LUCANdid not object to the Bill, which, on the whole, he considered a good measure; but he thought its jurisdiction should be more extensive. At a future stage of the Bill he would endeavour to increase its powers to the same amount as the County Courts in England, viz., to 50 l., instead of their present limit. There were several clauses to which he would move amendments in Committee; for however good the Bill might be, there was no harm in attempting to make it better if possible. He hoped the Civil Bills Courts would be able to pay their own expenses in the manner proposed. He would move, also, that the Assistant Barristers should have the appointment of their own officers.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSsaid, he would not oppose the second reading of that Bill; but he wished to call their Lordships' attention to the remarkable fact that that Bill of 160 clauses should be only laid, on their Lordships' table on the very day on which the Appropriation Bill was brought into the House of Commons, otherwise he should have moved that it be
1384
referred to a Select Committee. After referring to a few of the details of the Bill which he thought objectionable, the noble Earl concluded by observing that it was most unreasonable to expect that their Lordships could go minutely through every clause of the Bill during the present Session.
LORD MONTEAGLEthought the opposition which had been offered to the present Bill was unreasonable, as all parties had agreed that the Bill was a good measure, and were anxious that it should pass. If he did not think it might endanger the Bill, he would be disposed to move to refer it to a Committee upstairs, for he thought their Lordships would in one clay, with the assistance of the officers who had drawn up the Bill, make it a complete and perfect measure.
The EARL of GLENGALLsaid, he also entertained several objections to the Bill, and particularly with respect to its jurisdiction, which he thought ought to be increased to 50 l.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEhaving briefly replied,
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that on general grounds it was highly expedient to bring in a Bill of that importance at an earlier period of the Session. Although the principle of the measure was fully conceded, yet it being entirely a matter of detail, it was only in Committee they could properly deal with it.
Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly.

THE LAW OF SETTLEMENT—FREE TRADE.
LORD BERNERSpresented petitions from Guardians of the Poor in Unions in Norfolk, Leicestershire, and other places, praying for alteration in the Law of Settlement, and that the whole of the property in the United Kingdom may be assessed in just and equal proportions. The petitioners state—
"That your petitioners beg to assure your Lordships that the distress of which they complained in 1849 caused by the alteration of duties on foreign produce is unabated; since that period, even in this rich grazing district, numerous farms have been thrown up by the occupiers, and they all feel the difficulty of meeting the heavy burdens upon the land, which, from the increasing want of employment among the manufacturing operatives, they have reason to fear must be greatly increased, and which, with the diminished return from their produce, it will be impossible to meet."
He had in his hand a vast number of let-

1385
ters from the chairmen and vice-chairmen of different Boards of Guardians, all confirming the allegations of the petition. The statements which came under his notice declared there was an entire cessation of labour on the part of the working population in some of the manufacturing districts. In a Leicester paper it was stated that one-tenth of the population, including 6,000 operatives, were thrown upon the poor-rates. He did not take this report on the authority of the newspapers only; he had made inquiries of the relieving officer of the district, and from that officer he learned that the report was substantially correct; that there were 9,990 odd upon the books receiving relief—as near as possible one-tenth of the population, and that there had been 700 applicants that week. This certainly was not a state of prosperity, and these facts completely belied the assertions of the friends of free trade. He should find further evidence of the increasing distress in the number that received relief last year. No dependence, however, could be placed on the Poor Law Report. The statements in that report, if investigated, would be found to be fallacious. The report varied in its statement of the number of unions from which it drew its conclusions. In one place the number was stated at 590, in another 593, in another 595; whereas it appeared there were 637 unions. Other parts of the same report would be found to be equally incorrect, and that no reliance could be placed upon it as a guide to the condition of the country. It was stated in one part of the report that from the numbers of returns made on a particular day in January and July, compared with the previous year, a reduction of 60,000 persons receiving relief was exhibited; but the report did not state the causes of that reduction, nor did it state that which the former report stated. It was brought forward to prove the increasing prosperity of the country, and to show that this alleged prosperity depended on what was called free-trade measures. But a few figures would form an answer to that assertion. He found from the report of the Poor Law Commissioners, in 1838, the sum expended for the relief of the poor in the seven years when the price of wheat was lowest, was 34,466,816 l.; in seven years when the price of wheat was highest, 34,259,454 l., showing there was more expended in the seven years when wheat was lowest by 207,362 l. The rate per head of such expenditure on estimated
1386
population when wheat was lowest, 6s. 3d.; in the seven highest years, 6s. 1¼d., showing 1¾d. more per head when wheat was lowest. This clearly proved that a decrease in the number of persons receiving relief did not depend on the price of provisions. Another noble Lord had brought before their Lordships a comparative statement of crime to prove the advantages of free trade. Now he was able to demonstrate by figures that crime had increased more than population. He found the number of prisoners tried during the winter half-year was—

Sessions—

No. of prisoners tried, 1849–50

6,714

No. of prisoners tried, 1850–51

6,951

Increase

237

Assizes—

No. of prisoners tried, 1850

1,798

No. of prisoners tried, 1851

2,127

Increase

329

Showing a total increase of 566, or nearly 7 per cent. He also found that cases of larceny had increased nearly 4¼ per cent. Look, again, at the savings banks returns. Their Lordships would find there was an immense decrease both in depositors and deposits during the last few years. There were 20,671 fewer depositors, and 3,206,000 l. less deposits, since free trade commenced. The comparative statement showed the decrease had commenced with free trade, and was as follows:—

No. of Depositors.

Amt. of Deposits.

1846

1,108,025

£31,743,250

1849

1,087,354

28,537,010

Decrease

20,671

£3,206,240

From 1843 to 1846—Gradual Increase.

1843

935,350

£27,177,315

1845

1,062,930

30,748,868

1846

1,108,025

31,743,250

Decrease.

1847

1,095,554

£30,207,180

1848

1,056,881

28,114,136

1849

1,087,354

28,537,010

Again, if their Lordships referred to the Poor Law Board report of the amount of expenditure of the poor-rate, it would be seen there were various items in the return which did not properly come under the head of poor relief, but which were comprised in the gross charge for the relief of the poor. The total levied was 7,270,493 l.; the sum spent for relief of the poor, 5,395,022 l.; showing an amount for extraneous charges of 1,875,471 l. In other years these extraneous charges varied from 2,000,000 l. to 2,677,000 l. Now of this amount such items as these, law charges, 775.582 l.; ditto before magistrates,

1387
65,120 l.; other purposes, 366,739 l.; vaccination, 23,634 l.; registration fees, 58,637 l.; surveys, &c, 14,196 l.; jury lists, 28,733 l.; census, 57,111 l.—ought, in common justice, to be thrown on the general fund of the nation, as they did not apply to land any more than they did to other property. There was another point to which, especially, he begged their Lordships' attention. He referred to the amount of the establishment charges, which absorbed 1–17th of the whole sum raised for poor-rates; all the officers of the Poor Law establishment being under the control of the Poor Law Board, without whose sanction they could not be varied, nor could officers otherwise be appointed or removed; the petitioners not unreasonably thought these charges, which did not belong, exclusively to land more than to other property, ought to be thrown on property generally. He would just remind their Lordships of what had fallen from the Vice-President of the Board of Trade (Earl Granville), when speaking of the landed interest, and their claims to consideration. The noble Earl said, in treating with Government, they must not expect generosity, but look to what was just and right. That was the very plea of the petitioners. They did not appeal to the generosity of Government, they appealed to what was founded on right and justice. He regretted this important subject had not fallen into abler hands, but he hoped the subject would meet with justice at the hands of their Lordships notwithstanding the inability of its advocate. The petitioners prayed that the rates, which were not applied to an exclusive class, should he levied on all classes generally. The petitioners next referred to the law of settlement as it now existed, imposing a grievous hardship upon them. He begged, in confirmation of their opinion, to refer their Lordships to the evidence before the Committee of both Houses of Parliament, proving that the law of settlement was the chief grievance under which the labouring classes suffered—that it was a source of great hardship in cases of removal—and that it was the prolific source of nearly all parochial litigation. The expenses of that litigation varied from 200,000 l. to 220,000 l. yearly. If their Lordships referred to the able Report of the Select Committee, it would there be found stated that every local settlement was injurious to the public weal. For more than 30 years he had been engaged in trying to
1388
ameliorate the condition of the poor—to elevate their character, and to improve their morals; but wherever he fancied he had achieved some good, he found the law of settlement came in and neutralised his efforts. He regretted Government had not brought forward a measure before to settle this question. He was perfectly satisfied the proposition of union settlement would not effect the desired object: the expenses of litigation would not cease; there would be the union in the place of the parish purse to fight with. This would create a greater amount of evil and injustice than existed under the present system. The petitioners were anxious to have the law of settlement repealed, and they wished unions and boards of guardians to continue to have the management of the poor. He desired particularly to call their Lordships' attention to that part of the petition. The petitioners having stated the grievances of which they complained, concluded by submitting—
"That the laws of settlement and removal of the poor be repealed. That, for the purpose of relief, every poor person shall be deemed settled wherever he becomes destitute. That, with a view, to civil rights, parochial charities; statistical returns, &c, every person shall be hold from this time to belong to the parish in which he may be born, or in which he may have resided for a given number of months. That the unions and boards of guardians, as at present constituted, shall continue, and snail have the same local management and superintendence of the poor. That the payments from the ratepayers of each parish in each union throughout the kingdom shall be in proportion to their last triennial average payments for the relief of the poor; after each lapse of (three) years new averages to be taken of the amount of relief legally administered within the union during that time, which new average shall regulate the payments to each union during the (three) years ensuing. That a paid collector be appointed in given districts where found advisable. That with a view of preserving a stimulus to local vigilance, and ensuring an economical administration of the funds, each union shall pay a certain proportion of the expenditure for relief (as may be agreed upon; say one-third, one-fourth, one-fifth, or one-sixth; as may be deemed sufficient for that purpose), and that at the end of every quarter the auditor shall report to the Secretary of State, in the same way as the clerks of assize or of quarter-sessions report at present the amount of criminal prosecutions, and as the clerks- of unions in the cases of expenses of medical relief, schoolmasters and mistresses, and that such proportion as agreed should be repaid out of the Treasury. That (as was lately proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer) the costs of all pauper lunatics confined in the county asylums shall be paid out of the Treasury. That thus a portion of the national burden of the relief of the poor shall be borne by the nation at large, every description of property being-called upon to contribute, as in the property tax;

1389
your petitioners beg to refer to the Report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House last Session, which induces them to hope this just principle may without delay be carried out. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your Lordships may take this petition into your serious consideration, in order to adopt such measures as in your wisdom you may think best for the relief of your petitioners, and doing justice to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects."
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the table.
House adjourned till To-morrow.