OUTDOOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 30 July 1897)

VISCOUNT CLIFDEN
said he did not know the proper moment for doing it, 1584 but he intended to raise objection to Clause 4 of the Bill.

§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSS
said some little information upon this Bill should be forthcoming. It was an Irish Bill for empowering the Local Government Board to give extraordinary outdoor relief for two months, and its duration was to be for one month from the present time—rather odd kind of legislation! He would like to know whose Bill it was—did it emanate from Mr. Healy or some other Irish patriot, or was it a Government Bill? His impression, front what he heard, was that it was a Bill introduced by the Irish Government, but he did not know that that inspired much confidence. It was desirable to know more about it, and more especially why this power was to be given to the Local Government Board—of course, a Board more or less open to gentle influencing—to grant this relief for two months. By the fourth clause it appeared that the acceptance of this relief was not to carry with it electoral disability. He well recollected Lord Palmerston remarking, when the suffrage was lowered, that instead of playing to the dress circle and stalls, the Government would play to the pit and gallery; but we seemed in these modern times to have gone a long way beyond that, for here was playing to the workhouses and casual wards, or rather to casuals out of the wards. We had had legislation for them in the form of the Verminous Persons Bill. He was justified in asking why this. strange clause was included in this Bill?

§ THE EARL OF DENBIGH
said, in answer to the noble Earl's question, he had to say that the Bill in question was a Government Bill, and that it was introduced in the House of Commons by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The clause to which the noble Earl took particular exception—namely, that which provided that the Bill, if it became law, would cease to operate on September 1st, was for the purpose of enabling the Irish Government to deal with any case of exceptional distress which. might come to their notice between now and September. The date was fixed because, about that time, the people in the west of Ireland would then have got some of their harvest in, and labourers who came over for the English harvest would be returning 1585 with their earnings, and it was anticipated that there would not be a continuance of the acute distress there had recently been. As he explained yesterday to the noble Earl, the Bill was mainly for the purpose of indemnifying Boards of Guardians who had been giving outdoor relief under the authority of the Local Government Board in Ireland, and this first clause was merely put in as it was thought desirable that the Irish Local Government Board should have the power to give outdoor relief up to that date. It was necessary to fix some date, because it was eminently undesirable to make this a permanent alteration in the law relating to outdoor relief. As regarded the fourth clause, that was drawn word for word from the Bill passed during the time Mr. Morley was Chief Secretary towards the end of 1895, just before the late Government went out of office. Some opposition was raised, he believed, to that clause in its dealing with the electoral franchise, but it was pointed out that on two occasions previous Conservative Governments had passed a similar clause.

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
asked was a General Election anticipated in August?

§ THE EARL OF DENBIGH
said he was not sufficiently in the confidence of the noble Marquess to answer that question.
Considered in Committee.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said the noble Earl had described the Bill as similar to one passed by his right hon. Friend Mr. Morley when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, but were the circumstances similar? That Bill was passed because exceptional distress existed in parts of Ireland. He had no means of knowing if such was the case now. Did an exceptional state of things exist requiring this exceptional legislation? Of course, a state of exceptional distress would be a great argument in favour of such a Bill. He could not help feeling a little doubt when he heard the noble Earl say that the chief object of the Bill was to legalise some relief given by the Boards of Guardians without authority, whether I his clause was not, as it were, thrown in. That should not be, but if there was a state of exceptional distress then that should be stated, and then he offered no opposition to the Local Government Board having such power.

§ THE EARL OF DENBIGH
said the noble Earl was not quite correct in saying that Boards of Guardians acted without authority. They were told by the Local Government Board to act as they had acted upon the understanding that this Bill would he brought in to deal with the matter.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
Without legal authority?

§ THE EARL OF DENBIGH
said yes, that was so. The Irish Government did consider that exceptional distress existed in out-of-the-way parts of Ireland. As the noble Earl knew, the mere possession of land in the west of Ireland was no sort of indication that the possessor was not a pauper needing outdoor relief, and the provision in the third clause dealt with the existing law, which declared that no person was to have outdoor relief who was in possession of more than a. quarter of au acre of land. He could safely say that the Bill was brought in for the express purpose of dealing with an 1587 exceptional state of distress in certain parts of Ireland, principally in the West.

VISCOUNT CLIFDEN
asked if there was more distress than usual in the west of Ireland? Irishmen knew that there were people living there who ought not to live there, who could not get a living from the land. Was this to be a perennial Bill?

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE)
said the Local Government Board of Ireland appeared to have given instructions to Boards of Guardians to extend their administrative powers, and it was necessary to legalise the action taken. He inferred, therefore, that in the opinion of the Local Government Board the distress existing was of a somewhat exceptional nature.

VISCOUNT CLIFDEN
thought it should be optional to a man whether he would be a pauper or enjoy the franchise—the two things ought not to go together. Why not enfranchise every man in the workhouses, or even go a step further and confer the franchise on the inmates of Hanwell. No doubt they would use their votes as sanely as many did outside. It was an insult to the industrious that a man receiving Poor Law relief should exercise the franchise. If he could get anyone to go into the Lobby with him he would vote against the clause.