Lords Sitting of 15 April 1853

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords. PUBLIC BILL.—1a Burghs (Scotland).

THE BURMESE WAR.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHwished to put a question to the noble Lord the President of the Council (Earl Granville) relative to the affairs of India. He wished to make some inquiries as to the truth of
1188
a report which had appeared in the newspapers—a report which had caused him very great pain. Their Lordships would recollect that after the capture of Rangoon it was deemed advisable to detach a force, consisting of sailors, marines, and Native infantry, against the robber chieftain MeeaToon, which expedition having unfortunately received a repulse near Donabew, was obliged to return without having accomplished its object. It was now, however, reported that since the occurrence of these events a reward of 100 l. had been offered for the head of that chieftain. Now, if that statement were true, he apprehended it ought not to pass unnoticed by their Lordships, or without a declaration on their part whether it was befitting to introduce into their conduct or modern warfare the habits of the most barbarous nations.
EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to give an assurance that he would institute the necessary inquiries.

POOR REMOVAL AND LOCAL ASSESSMENT BILL.
LORD BERNERSmoved the Second Reading of this Bill. After presenting several petitions in favour of it, he said, he could not help expressing his deep regret that the presentation of those from the Grantham and Blaby Unions devolved on him, in consequence of the absence of the noble Duke the Lord Lieutenant of Leicestershire, whose opinion on the cause he was now advocating must have had great weight with their Lordships. The noble Lord said he felt called upon to apologise that so humble an individual as himself should introduce a question of such great importance, and nothing but an imperative sense of duty impelled him to do so, feeling, as he did, that the vital interests of an important class of the community, the agricultural labourers, had been injuriously affected by the present law. He had also to explain that, in refusing to agree to the postponement of his Bill, he bad been actuated by no feeling of discourtesy towards the Government. It was said, not that a measure on the subject of the law of settlement was about to be brought forward in the other house of Parliament, but merely that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was about to make a statement of the views of the Government on this subject. But he had no assurance either that the Government were prepared to bring forward a measure, or, if they were, upon what principle it was founded. So that, in deference to the noble Lords who had attended to take

1189
part in the discussion of this important subject, and in deference to the wishes of the persons who had signed the 62 petitions which he had presented in favour of such a measure as the present, he felt called upon to propose at once the second reading of the Bill now before their Lordships. He lamented being obliged to do so that evening in the absence of the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland), whose labours with regard to the subject treated of by the Bill had been of the most arduous and praiseworthy character. If even the Government should bring in a Bill, it would not reach their Lordships' House until a late period of the Session, when there would be great difficulty in getting a Select Committee, and he should be sorry that a measure of this kind should either be passed in a hurried manner, or rejected without full discussion: and he was convinced that the more the subject was discussed, the more it would force itself upon the attention of both Houses of Parliament, as it had done out of doors. The principle on which the Bill was founded, was one the justice of which had already been admitted by Parliament: in fact it only embodied a further extension of that principle. The principle of the Bill was this: The charge of the poor was to be continued as at present, under local management, and the principle which had been recognised by the Legislature of making other descriptions of property pay a portion of the poor-rate was to be further extended. The points which he wished to inculcate were, that the laws of removal were unjust and oppressive; that they could not be carried out upon great emergencies; that the area of rating ought to be enlarged; that the incidence of local taxation was not to be justified by any principle whatever; and that the burden of the relief of the poor should be considered a national burden, to which all descriptions of property ought to contribute their due share. Taking the clauses as they stood—and he must here observe that he was not wedded to points of detail—his object was that the principle therein contained should be asserted, and he should be most ready to submit to any such modifications in detail as would meet the general approbation of their Lordships and the country at large. The first clause of the Bill provided that removals from parishes in England and Wales should be prohibited: for it was acknowledged on all hands that the removal of the poor was not only unjust and oppressive to them,
1190
but was the cause of great and expensive litigation. The extent of that litigation might be in some degree estimated when he referred to the report of the Poor Law Board in 1851, wherein it appeared that the total amount levied for poor-rates from 1834 to 1851 inclusive, was, in round numbers, 121,000,000 l., of which there was expended for the relief of the poor only 91,000,000 l., being little more than three-fourths of the whole. During the same time the law charges, including expenses before magistrates, which were kept separate since 1845, amounted to 2,267,000 l. In the first three years these law charges amounted to 633,563 l.; in the last three years to 405,000 l.; and in the last year they amounted to 129,000 l. The total number of cases appealed against amounted in three years to 1,000; and in the last two quarter-sessions—those of October and January last—for the county of Middlesex, there were no less than 72 appeals against orders of removal. This state of things was evidently most unsatisfactory, and called loudly for a remedy. The next clause of the Bill provided that the relief of the poor in unions should be a charge upon the common fund, and that unions should remain unions for the purpose of rating. That the laws of removal were unjust and oppressive, was an opinion widely entertained, and he might mention the powerful evidence of one of the Poor Law Inspectors on this point. That gentleman, in a report which he held in his hand, declared that he thought it was hardly to be supposed that people high in power and high in office could be acquainted with half the destitution, with half the misery, with half the immorality, which were caused by this law. He had stated to him (Lord Berners) that it was impossible for those who lived in populous and prosperous districts to be acquainted with those evils which were consequent upon the laws of removal in purely agricultural and poorer districts, where the poor were crowded together, and where young women, young men, with their married parents, taking in frequently (as he knew from his own knowledge) lodgers, ablebodied men, were crowded perhaps into a few apartments, in which it was utterly impossible to carry out those rules of life so essential for the proper observance of decency:—and all which he attributed mainly to the maintenance of the present laws of settlement and removal. The Select Committee appointed to inquire into the operation

1191
of these laws, in their seventh or eighth reports, agreed to the following Resolutions:—
"That the law of settlement and removal is generally productive of hardship to the poor, and injurious to the working classes, by impeding the free circulation of labour.
"That it is injurious to the employers of labour, and impedes the improvement of agriculture.
"That it is injurious to the ratepayers by occasioning expense in litigation and removal of paupers."
This last statement was entirely corroborated by the facts he had already laid before their Lordships. The Committee went on to state, in their next Resolution—
"That the power of removing destitute poor persons from one parish to another in England and Wales be abolished: That, as the total abolition of the power of removing paupers within England and Wales would have the effect of greatly increasing the burdens of particular parishes, it is advisable that some change should at the same time be made in the distribution of the burden of relieving the poor."
He might also further allude to the opinion of Mr. G. Pigott, which was published at the end of the report from which he had quoted. That gentleman proved in the clearest manner not only that the law of settlement was unjust and oppressive, but that it was altogether indefensible except upon the ground that it was necessary to the safety of the community. He went on to say, further, that almost every practicable experiment as to settlement had been tried in this country during a period of nearly 300 years—that these experiments had failed—and that nothing would get rid of the evils complained of but the total and entire abolition of the law of settlement. Mr. Pigott also concurred in the opinion that the relief of the poor should be a charge upon the common fund, and that unions should become unions for the purposes of rating. The question now arose as to how the common fund should be formed. Since the first reading of the Bill he had received communications from a vast number of clergy, of magistrates, of chairmen of quarter-sessions, and boards of guardians, who all agreed in supporting the principle of the Bill, although they differed upon some points of detail. At their suggestion he was ready to strike out the last four lines of the third clause, and in lieu of providing that the payments to the common fund from the ratepayers in each parish in each union in England and Wales, should be in proportion to their last "triennial" average payments for the relief of the poor, he would substitute for
1192
triennial the words "three or seven years." For it appeared by the operation of the Non-removal Act that many parishes formerly or at present bearing the just charge of their own settled poor and their relative proportions of the establishment charges of the Union would on successive revaluations become exempt from both. He was aware the provision of the Bill to which he would call their Lordships' attention was one which would excite some opposition; but he felt he could not act upon the just principle that every description of property ought to contribute its quota without including in this Bill the liability of extra-parochial places. Formerly when those places were excluded from parochial charges, they were forests or parks, which required no labour for their cultivation, created no pauperism, and were but of little annual value. At the present time, however, the circumstances of the case were altered; forests had been grubbed, and now required as much labour as the land in the adjoining parishes. They had been rendered valuable by the labour of the poor—that poor, the exercise of whose healthy energies people were ready to take advantage of, but who, as soon as sickness and want assailed them, were then thrown upon their parishes. With regard to the evils of close parishes, they could never be removed, if the average payments of parishes were altered according to the residence of paupers during the antecedent period. The Norwich board of guardians had come to the following resolution:—
"That the Poor Removal Act, passed in 1846, has aggravated the evils it was intended to remedy; has had the effect of creating unfriendly feelings between neighbouring unions and parishes, multiplied to a great extent the litigation consequent on the removal of paupers, and has increased to an alarming amount the local taxation of Norwich and other populous towns."
He would not trouble the House with extracts from various Poor Law reports, which were all accessible to their Lordships, pointing out the individual hardships which were constantly arising from the operation of the close parishes. In order to discourage the system, it was enacted by the fourth clause of the Bill that no abatement should be made in the quota of any parish solely on the ground of the decrease of population and pauperism in that parish; but it was intended by the Bill, that, at the termination of a period to be named by the Committee, if any question of unfairness in the assessment arose in consequence of any material

1193
and permanent change in the exigencies, together with the value of the property of any parish within a union, it should be lawful for any parish aggrieved by the change in its quota to appeal to the quarter-sessions or Poor Law Board. The meeting of the ratepayers of London, who in March last had met and petitioned the House, declared that—
"This unequal distribution of a common charge is a burden of which they have just cause to complain, because it is not only injurious to the property they hold, but it is a total departure from the original intention of the Poor Laws, which, by the Act of Elizabeth, direct that every parish shall be rated in accordance with its capabilities, while by the present law the expense is levied on parishes in accordance with their disability, or, in other words, the poor-rate is converted into a tax upon poverty instead of a rate upon property."
He now proposed to substitute a clause for a gradual approximation to an equal pound rate in each union, to be attained in seven or ten years. The Bill, therefore, provided to carry out the principle, and to make the relief of the poor a national and not a local burden. By the 8th Clause, the principle of repayment by the State was extended from medical relief and salaries of schoolmasters and mistresses to those establishment charges over which the guardians had no control, such as vaccination, registration fees to clergy, surveys, valuations, county rates, and jury lists, as well as charges for pauper lunatics, discharged soldiers, sailors, &c. A permanent officer might be employed to watch the charges of this kind in each parish; and provisions could be inserted to ensure local vigilance and economy, by making regulations for the transfer of the burden from the local to the national resources. No one could doubt the importance of the question. It affected the whole agricultural and manufacturing community. It appeared that 3,334,207 persons were directly engaged in agriculture, while 14,125,686 were dependent on it, so that this portion of our population amounted to 17,469,893 persons, while there were only 9,356,196 engaged in and dependent on manufactures. By the fourth annual report of the Poor Law Board for 1851, it appeared that the total amount levied for poor and county rates in England and Wales in 1833 was 8,606,501 l., of which the land and dwelling-houses contributed 8,070,147 l.; and in one, though a manufacturing county, out of 139,303 l. levied in
1194
that year for the poor, not more than 783 l. was contributed by mills and factories. He did not wish to raise any unpleasant feelings by reference to recent legislation, but he grounded his demands on the claims of justice alone. In moving the second reading of this Bill, he put himself into the hands of his noble Friends; and if they thought, from the statement that the Government had the intention to explain their views on the subject, that it would not be advantageous to press it, or if they had any assurance that the Government was prepared to bring forward any measure in accordance with its principle, he would be most happy to yield and withdraw Ids Motion; but, if not, he must move that the Bill be read a second time. He believed, though he was not able to lay the matter before their Lordships as clearly as could have been wished, that the discussion would lead to a good result.
Moved—That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he hoped the noble Lord would not then press the Bill to a second reading, as Her Majesty's Government would in the ensuing week state to the Legislature what were their views and intentions with respect to alterations in the law of settlement, and in the poor-laws generally. He ventured to press this upon the noble Lord with the more confidence, as he was afraid that this Bill was one which it was hopeless to attempt to pass through that House until after it had been discussed in the House of Commons. Every clause in it either imposed a fresh tax on some part of the community which had not hitherto contributed, or imposed upon the Consolidated Fund burdens which had hitherto been borne by the local rates. The clause rendering extra-parochial districts liable to rating came under the first of these heads, and it was certainly one which he thought the House of Commons would consider a breach of their privileges, if it emanated from the House of Lords. Passing over others, he came to the clause transferring the charges for vaccination, registration, &c., to the Consolidated Fund; and he must say he did not think that the House of Commons would be likely to assent to this provision originating in the Upper House. He did not intend to enter at all into the discussion of the provisions of this Bill, which embraced the whole law of settlement, because he felt that their Lordships' time would be wasted if they discussed it before

1195
it had undergone the ordeal of the other House. He hoped that, under these circumstances, the noble Lord would feel it consistent with his duty not to press the second reading that evening.
LORD BERNERSsaid, he was in the hands of his noble Friends on that side of the House; and if they thought the Bill should be withdrawn, he would acquiesce.
The EARL of DERBYobserved, he could have no hesitation in saying, in answer to the appeal of his noble Friend, that as he had asked his advice on the subject, he would, in his opinion, best consult the interests of those concerned in this question if he would leave it in the hands of Government, for he was satisfied no other than Government was competent to deal with so important and difficult a subject. It bad been under the consideration of the late Government, of which he was a Member, and they found the difficulty of dealing with it very great, for, though he could not but say it was easy to discover the inconvenience and manifold objections to the present system, lie must admit it was not easy to find out the means of obviating those evils. He was sure his noble Friend would act wisely and prudently if, as Government had undertaken to grapple with this subject, lie consented to leave it in their hands; and he sincerely hoped they would be able so to deal with the subject as to obviate present inconveniences without introducing others.
LORD BERNERSexpressed his willingness to postpone the second reading till he had heard the statement of Government.
LORD BEAUMONTobjected to such a course, and said it would be inconvenient to have the Bill down for a second reading on the paper. He thought it should be withdrawn. His noble Friend had shown him the Bill, but he must say the task was too great to be performed by any private Member, and it was almost impossible not to arrive at the conclusion that the words of the various clauses did not convey the intention of the noble Lord.
The DUKE of RICHMONDalso recommended his noble Friend to withdraw the Bill, because doing so would not expose him to the least disadvantage. There was much good in the Bill, and if his noble Friend was not satisfied with the statement of Government, he had nothing to do but bring in an amended Bill.
Bill, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATED ANNUITIES (IRELAND) ACT.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE presented a petition from the guardians of the Poor Law Union of Galway, praying that the Report of the Committee of this House of last Session on the Consolidated Annuities (Ireland) Act may be adopted. The noble Marquess said, that he was not going to discuss the general question respecting these annuities, but he would shortly state the position in which the matter stood, and the grounds on which the decision of the Government ought to be taken. He was one of rather a numerous body of Members of both Houses of Parliament who waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer last February, with the view of impressing on him the necessity of directing the attention of the Government to the expediency of dealing in a fair, equitable, and liberal manner with the subject of these annuities. The Select Committee of their Lordships had devoted much of their time to an examination of the claims of the Government against the land of Ireland, and he ventured to say a more fair, dispassionate, and elaborate investigation into any subject had never taken place. The deputation had pressed on the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of considering not only the report of the Committee, but the evidence on which it was founded; There were particular points to which the deputation felt they were entitled to expect an answer. Those points were explained by his noble Friend near him (Lord Monteagle) with great lucidity and distinctness. One, and in his mind the most important, of those points, was, that the question should be considered by the Government, irrespectively of any other financial arrangement, or of the condition of the Exchequer, or of the resources of Ireland. He had upon that point the most distinct recollection; and when he heard, on a late occasion, the noble Earl at the head of the Government speak on the subject of the financial arrangements, he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) entered his protest against a part of the noble Earl's statement, on the ground that the question respecting these annuities did not appear to have been considered entirely upon its merits. He had since spoken to many of the deputation, and their recollection was unanimous, after having heard the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that that Gentleman assured the deputation that the subject should be

1197
considered solely upon its merits, and that the question with the Government would be whether it was, or was not, a fair, an equitable, a sound, and a wise course towards Ireland to remit part of these annuities. The state of the resources of Ireland was a matter utterly beside the question; for it was perfectly clear that whether these annuities ought to be obtained from Ireland or not, was a question which could have nothing to do with the financial arrangements of the Government. Those arrangements could not in any way affect the liability of Ireland to make those repayments. He did not wish to press the case upon the present Government too strongly, but it certainly had excited great attention, and he regretted that the matter had not been allowed to rest entirely upon the basis upon which he understood the Government had undertaken to consider it. Their Lordships were aware that a Motion had been made recently in the House of Commons with a view to pledge the House to consider forthwith these Irish Consolidated Annuities, in order to alter the arrangements respecting them, and to make those arrangements more favourable to the Irish landlords. He did not at all wonder that that Motion should be refused, as it was very natural to expect that the decision of the Government upon the question, whatever it might be, would be promulgated upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's making his financial statement. But, although he thought that no Budget could at all affect grounds upon which the Irish Consolidated Annuities were to be levied or remitted, yet it was perfectly clear those Consolidated Annuities might very seriously affect the Budget. It however appeared that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had since denied that any pledge or promise bad been given or made to the deputation, and had stated that the question of the Consolidated Annuities was to be mixed up with other financial questions. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had now stated what was his distinct recollection of the interview. No doubt he would be entirely wrong to suppose that the Government had departed from the pledge he understood had been given. And he was certain no man who had considered the subject could deny that it was a question of honour, of equity, and of wise expediency, and one which was not connected with any other question whatever.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, that
1198
when the noble Marquess commenced his address to their Lordships, he did not know what it was to which the noble Marquess more especially alluded, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) having no knowledge of the meeting to which the noble Marquess had referred, or of the statement which the noble Marquess said had been made by his (the Earl of Aberdeen's) right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could not, therefore, say anything of the pledge supposed to have been given by his right hon. Friend. All he could say was this, that he felt perfectly satisfied whatever pledge his right hon. Friend might have given, or whatever promise he might have made, would be fully and strictly adhered to.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he was present at the meeting held by the deputation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and could bear his testimony that the statement made by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was perfectly correct. A communication had been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by himself at the interview, in which he stated that the parties interested in this matter were not disposed to call upon the Government for any premature pledge or promise, but rather wished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take time to consider the whole question, and to form an independent opinion upon it for himself. He also pressed upon him the absolute necessity of keeping this question wholly distinct from the financial arrangements of the annual arrangement of the Budget. The application made to the Government was not upon lower ground than that justice. The question, therefore, did not rest on a possible surplus or deficiency of revenue, or the repeal or the imposition of taxes. Nor was the recommendation of the Committee of their Lordships' House, on which the deputation acted, exaggerated or unreasonable. It was a conclusion to which a Committee consisting of a majority of Peers of England had unanimously come. These Consolidated Annuities consisted of five separate heads, all of which had been united into one charge. The deputation perfectly agreed with the Committee that there was no adequate case upon which they could ask the Government for a remission of any part of the debt, which had been incurred by the Irish landlords themselves, with their eyes open—which had been administered by

1199
them, and over which they had the entire control and disposition. It would be most unjust, after that expenditure had been incurred, that they should ask Parliament to make a remission of the money advanced to meet that expenditure. Therefore in respect to all but the charge for public works, they felt that the debt ought to be paid in full. But the Committee did feel with respect to the fifth head of the debt, that, as it had been forced upon them by the unfortunate state of the law and by the circumstance of the calamity which befell Ireland, which exceeded all that was apprehended at the time when the Act was passed under which the debt was created—the amount of that calamity was such as to defeat the good intentions of the Government that introduced the Bill, and neutralise the efficiency of the mechanism employed in its administration, the Committee did, under those circumstances, feel that they had irresistible ground, with respect to that part of the debt, for claiming a remission. The answer given to the deputation was most distinct. The principle advanced by the deputation was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with whom they communicated, and they obtained the most distinct assurance that their application should not be mixed up with other considerations.
Petition ordered to lie on the table.

COLLEGE OF MAYNOOTH.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, that at the request of the noble Lord (Lord Beaumont) on the cross-benches, he now gave notice of the exact terms of the Amendment which he intended to propose on the Motion which now stood in the name of the noble Earl (the Earl of Winchilsea) for Monday next, respecting the College of Maynooth. The Amendment would be in these words—"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to issue a commission to inquire into the management and government of the College of Maynooth, and into the discipline and course of studies pursued therein; and also into the effect produced by the increased grant conferred on the said College of Maynooth by Parliament in the year 1845."
House adjourned to Monday next.