Sitting of 5 February 1846

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS.—For Buckingham, v. Right Hon. Sir Thomas Francis Fremantle, Bart., Chiltern Hundreds—For Dorset, v. Lord Ashley, Chiltern Hundreds; Henry Charles Sturt, Esq., Chiltern Hundreds.
NEW MEMBER SWORN. For Sussex (Eastern Division), Charles Hay Frewen, Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1°. Citations (Scotland); Burghs (Scotland); Roman Catholic Relief.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Dorset and Maxweltown, for Remission of Sentence on Frost, Williams, and Jones.—From Newcastle-upon-Tyne, against Enrolment of the Militia.—From Blandford Forum, Winbarne Minster, and Dorchester, against Alteration, and from Hastings, Newport, and Sir Thomas Bucklie Lethbridge, Bart., for Repeal of the Corn Laws.—From Bagilt, for Reduction of Duty on Lead and Lead Ore.—From Members and Friends of the Roman Catholic Congregation of Lee House (Lanark), for the Adoption of Measures to prevent the interference of Roman Catholic Bishops or Pope's Vicars, in the Administration of the Temporalities of Roman Catholic Chapels.—From Cononley, in favour of the Factories Bill.—From Provost of Pollokshaws, in favour of proposed Alteration in Customs and Cora Importation Acts.

MANCHESTER AND SOUTHAMPTON RAILWAY—FALSIFYING A PETITION.
MR. GISBORNE, who had placed a Notice on the Taper for a Select Committee on the petition of Charles Evans Deacon and John Wheeler, with reference to a petition which had been presented relative to this railway, said, that in rising to call the attention of the House to the petition, he had the pleasure of being able

487
to say that he was now in a condition to state not only that every allegation in that petition was true, but also that he could now give the House an explanation as to how the irregularity occurred. It did not appear that there was in the present case any attempt to commit a fraud on any party, but there was a very great degree of irregularity, which the House could not fail to visit with severe reprehension. The statement was, that after the petition had been presented an alteration was made in it by interpolating a sheet containing various allegations which did not exist in the petition at the time it was presented to the House. That was now allowed to be the case, and the explanation which had been handed to him by one of the clerks at the Table was, that the petition had been placed by the parties in the hands of Mr. Vacher, the law stationer, in order that a copy might be made for presentation, and that the man who was directed to join the sheets had accidentally dropped one of them, so that the petition was delivered and presented without that sheet. It was further explained that Mr. Vacher, on finding that a sheet had been omitted, went to the office of the Clerk of the House, asked for the petition, and placed the dropped sheet in its proper place. It seemed to him a serious matter that any person should be allowed to alter a petition after presentation. There was no fraud attempted in the present case; but, at the same time, when matters of such great interest were concerned, it became the House to see that no alterations were made in a petition after presentation. The facts being now before them, he had no object in moving for a Committee on the subject. The Notice had had the good effect of inducing the parties to give an explanation. He had no wish to punish the parties, and thought that the House might safely leave the matter in the hands of the Speaker, confident that that right hon. Gentleman would take the steps necessary to prevent the recurrence of so gross an irregularity. He apprehended, however, that the dropped sheet could not be considered as having been presented. On that point he should be glad to hear the opinion of the Speaker.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that he had no hesitation in stating to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, that the petition would only be valid with reference to those parts of it which had actually been presented, and that those parts which had not been presented could not be properly refer-
488
red to the Committee. He had instituted inquiries into the case, and the report which he had received corresponded with the statement made by the Member for Nottingham. If the House would leave the matter in his hands he would attend to it.
MR. FRENCHhoped there would be no objection to his calling the attention of the Speaker to a case of not exactly a similar kind, with regard to which he had already presented petitions. The statement was, that three petitions had been presented by the hon. Member for Totness (Mr. B. Baldwin) which had been interpolated with different statements after one of the parties had signed them, and had been presented as if they had been regularly signed, while the fact was that one of the parties was not aware of the additions made.
MR. B. BALDWINsaid, that he did not know how the petitions had been got up; they had merely been transmitted to him for presentation.
Subject at an end.

MEDICAL RELIEF TO THE POOR.
MR. WODEHOUSEsaid, there were two questions he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, if he would indulge him with a moment's attention. One was, whether he would consent to take into consideration the expediency of placing the whole sum required under the head of medical relief to the poor upon the same footing? The Poor Law Commissioners had intimated, that in the agricultural districts the authorities were apt to give a less liberal salary than those in the manufacturing districts, and therefore it would be well, as such an unhappy collision between the two classes had arisen, that on nice questions and cases some persons eminent in the profession should be always at hand. The other question had more immediate reference to a person with whom the right hon. Baronet was personally acquainted—a very eminent person, known in the literary world as a great linguist, having edited French, German, and Spanish grammars, and also brought out a work on the use of the globes; his name was Rowbotham. That gentleman had drawn up a curious analysis of the relative taxation of land and houses; and the question he proposed to the right hon. Baronet was simply this — whether Mr. Rowbotham was not for some time employed by him as a teacher in the

489
minor branches of the mathematics, and more particularly arithmetic?
SIR R. PEEL, in answer to the first question, observed, that while proposing that a part of the salaries of medical officers should be borne by the Treasury by means of a Vote of Parliament, he was very anxious that there should be a local check against an improvident expenditure, by the ratepayers bearing a portion of the expense, as well as by the revision incidental to an annual Vote in Parliament. Provision for medical relief would, no doubt, be most willingly made by whatever body had the control of it; but there was a tendency to abuse in such cases, and therefore the double check was proposed. However, perhaps if the hon. Gentleman could have assured him of his cordial support of the other portions of the proposed measures, he might have endeavoured to yield upon this. As to the other point, he really could not say that he had any recollection of employing the individual whose name had been mentioned in the way supposed by the hon. Member.

SPANISH AND BRAZILIAN TRADE.
DR. BOWSINGrose to ask, whether Her Majesty's Government had received from the Spanish Government any statement of their intention to visit the commerce of England with hostile measures on account of the unfavourable position in which the sugars of the Spanish colonies were left under the existing Tariff; and also, whether the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had any knowledge of any instructions being given, or about to be given, in the Spanish colonies, the object of which would be to throw impediments in the way of the indirect communication of British vessels with those colonies—that is, vessels not trading directly between Great Britain and the Spanish colonics?
SIR R. PEELsaid, that Her Majesty's Government certainly had not received any communication from the Spanish Government which led him to believe that the Spanish Government had any intention hostile to the commerce of this country. By some Papers which would be laid upon the Table of the House, it would be seen that the Spanish Government had reserved to itself the power of acting upon principles unfavourable to the British Government; but no communication had been received from it, indicating any intention to make use of that power. So far from it, in a very recent discussion, the following was
490
the account of the relations of this country with Spain that was given by that eminent person the Minister for Foreign Affairs in that country, M. Martinez de la Rosa:—
"Our motto is—'Good will towards all, friendship with some, special intimacy with none.' As tar as England is concerned, it has rarely happened that our relations with that country have been more frank, more friendly, and more satisfactory, than they are at this day. The Spanish Government has received on various recent occasions proofs of the confidence which England places in our probity and good faith."
He (Sir R. Peel) thought that must be satisfactory to the hon. Member and to the House. Of course, a remonstrance would be made if any such course were to be adopted as the hon. Member pointed out.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that perhaps this would be the fittest time for the question of which he had given notice—whether Her Majesty's Government had had any further correspondence with the Spanish Government on the subject of the sugars of Cuba; and whether the right hon. Baronet was prepared to lay on the Table any such further correspondence?
SIR R. PEELanswered, that there had been a further correspondence; two letters had passed, one on each side. There might be some inconvenience in laying them on the Table at present; and perhaps the noble Lord would be satisfied with his (Sir R. Peel's) assurance, that the House should be in possession of them on a future day, in ample time before the discussion on the Sugar Duties.
MR. LABOLCHEREwished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he were able to make the same statement with regard to the Brazilian Government or Legislature; or whether they had intimated any intention of acting with hostility towards our Colonies, in consequence of our measures hostile to the consumption of Brazilian sugar?
SIR R. PEELsaid, the terms of this inquiry were rather vague, as it asked respecting any intimation given by the Brazilian Government or Legislature; he would rather be accurate in his reply, and would therefore give an answer next day; because, as to "intimation," he could hardly speak.

PURCHASE OF MAIZE.
MR. FORSTERwished to ask the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether there was any truth in a report

491
current out of doors, that Government had purchased, or suggested the purchase, of a quantity of maize or Indian corn for this country in the United States of America? Mr. Forster added, that he did not believe the report himself; but it was believed by many.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERanswered, that almost immediately after the receipt by the Government of that Report of Dr. Playfair and Mr. Lindley which had been laid upon the Table, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, and himself, consulted upon the course proper to be taken; and orders were given for purchasing in the United States a certain quantity of maize for the consumption of the people of Ireland.
MR. FORSTERconsidered the principle of this transaction most objectionable. Such a system would be calculated to paralyse private enterprise; the public ought to know how the matter stood.

BRAZILIAN CRIMINALS AND THE SLAVE TRADE.
MR. HUTTinquired, whether the Government were in a condition to lay on the Table an account of the grounds on which the Judges had decided that we had no jurisdiction in the case of the Brazilian prisoners who were tried for felony at the last Summer Assizes; and also, whether it were the intention of Government to repeal any part of the Brazilian Slave Trade Act passed last Session?
SIR J. GRAHAMobserved, that in cases of felony our law gave no appeal to any court of error. If the Judge who tried the prisoner entertained doubts with respect to the legality of the conviction, the course was for him to grant a respite of the sentence, until he could have an opportunity of consulting the other Judges. There was not always an argument heard in open court; very commonly it was a conference among the Judges themselves. If, after such conference, the Judge who tried the case should find his doubt of the validity of the conviction confirmed by his brethren, a communication was made to the Secretary of State, requesting him to recommend Her Majesty to grant a free pardon. In the case referred to, there was an argument, which was heard in the Court of Exchequer; in the ordinary course no judgment would be publicly given; but he (Sir J. Graham) was informed by the
492
Judge, that, upon consultation with his brethren, he was induced to advise a pardon. He had no cognizance of the grounds on which the Judges came to that conclusion; nor was he in a condition to lay a statement of them upon the Table. With regard to the other point, the Government had no intention of proposing any alteration of the Act with respect to the Brazilian Slave Trade, which received the sanction of the Legislature last Session.
SIR R. PEELwould take that occasion of noticing that the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Gibson) proposed to move for the production of correspondence, in continuation of that presented last year, relative to the conduct of Brazil with reference to the Convention of 1826 and the Slave Trade Act of last Session; it would be very desirable that that Motion should be postponed. The last despatch presented last Session from Lord Aberdeen to the British Minister concluded thus:—
"You are already aware that the measure by which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the Government of Brazil would best evince their determination to carry out the intention which they have so solemnly recorded, would be the negotiation of a Treaty similar either to that concluded between Great Britain and Spain in 1835, or to that between Great Britain and Portugal of 1842. Should the Brazilian Government show any willingness to entertain the question of such a Treaty, you will frankly declare that nothing would give Her Majesty's Government more sincere pleasure than to find themselves relieved, by the conclusion of it, from enforcing the operation of the Bill which they are now about to propose to Parliament; and you will assure the Brazilian Ministers, that it will be a source of real satisfaction to Her Majesty's Government to return to a good understanding, both on this and on other subjects, with a nation in whose welfare and independence they have, from the earliest times, taken a lively interest, and whose growing prosperity and power they have witnessed with the greatest gratification. I am, &c.
"ABERDEEN."
The conclusion of a Treaty would enable the Government even to propose a repeal of the Bill of last Session. Communications were pending upon the subject; and it would be prejudicial to the public interest to produce the correspondence at present.
MR. M. GIBSONwould postpone his Motion.

THE TARIFF.
MR. PATTISONinquired how soon the new duties would come into operation?
SIR R. PEELanswered, that so soon as the House should have affirmed any Resolution it might be pleased to come

493
to, and allowed that Resolution to be reported, the Government would propose, in conformity with the general usage, immediately to permit the reduction of the duties, taking the usual guarantee that in the event of the Resolution not receiving the final sanction of Parliament, the old duties should be paid. Generally speaking, therefore, the reduction would take effect from the day on which the Resolution was agreed to; but perhaps there would be an exception made in the case of seeds, on which the reduction might not take effect until June.
MR. PATTISONconsidered the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to be highly satisfactory.

SILK DUTIES.
MR. ELLICEsaid, he had occasion to make representations to the Board of Trade on behalf of his constituents in Coventry, who were very much interested in some of the proposed reductions of duty. He believed that notwithstanding the anxiety they had expressed upon the subject they would give a general concurrence to the plan in question. But, at the same time, they had sent a memorial to the Board of Trade, expressing their earnest desire that under the peculiar circumstances of the case the reduction of the silk duties might not immediately take place, but might be delayed until the beginning of July, when the season for the sale of silk goods would have arrived. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would be prepared to give to that subject some further consideration.
SIR R. PEELsaid, that the answer he had given to the hon. Member for London did not preclude him from listening to any representations that might be made with respect to any particular trade. He must do the people of Coventry the justice to say, that although their interests would be more interfered with by the proposed alterations of duty than the inhabitants of any other town, they had shown a readiness to bear their share of the reductions, which entitled them to the highest credit. But he felt a sincere conviction that they would not be benefited by any delay in carrying out the alterations in question.

THE DUTIES ON FOEEIGN CORN.
LORD J. RUSSELLwished to know whether the principle which the right hon. Gentleman had laid down in the answer he had given to his hon. Friend the Member
494
for the city of London would be applied to the duties upon foreign corn?
SIR R. PEELsaid, that, as soon as the Resolutions should have passed, if they were to be passed, and should have been reported to the House, he proposed that the reduction of the duties on corn should at once take effect.

NATURALISATION OF FOREIGNERS.
MR. HUTTsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to the naturalisation of foreigners. The House would recollect that an Act had been lately passed which altered in a material degree the laws previously in force upon that subject. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether that alteration had, in his opinion, worked satisfactorily?
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, he had no hesitation in stating to the hon. Gentleman that since that Act had come into operation many applications for naturalisation had been made under its provisions; and although he had entertained important doubts as to the expediency of passing-such a measure, he had reason to know that it had worked most satisfactorily.

IRISH SPIRIT DUTIES.
SIR H. W. BARRONwished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, of which he had given notice, respecting the duty on Irish, spirits. It was proposed that foreign spirits should be admitted at a reduced duty; and he wished to know whether any similar reduction was to be made on the duty upon Irish spirits, so that the Irish proprietors and the Irish distillers might not be placed in a worse position than that which they at present occupied in the English market?
SIR R. PEELsaid, that Irish spirits introduced into England or into Scotland, were permitted to be entered on paying the same amount of duty to which English spirits and Scotch spirits were subject. He was sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to ask that Irish spirits should be admitted into England on payment of the Irish duty. That duty was only 2s. 10 d; foreign spirits would be subject to a duty of 15 s., and they would, therefore, not come into competition under very favourable circumstances with Irish spirits. He did not intend that Irish spirits should be admitted to the English market on the

495
payment of a less duty than that to which they were subject at present—namely, the duty to which British spirits were subject.
SIR H. W. BARRONonly wished to know whether a reduction of the duty on Irish spirits would be made corresponding with the reduction of the duty on foreign spirits?
SIR R. PEELsaid, that the hon. Baronet put the question as if he were disposed to complain of a grievance. But there was in reality no grievance whatever in the case. Ireland was permitted to distil spirits on payment of a duty of 2s. 10 d., while the duty in England was 7s. 10 d. Ireland was, therefore, fairly dealt with in the matter.
SIR H. W. BARRONsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had diverted the attention of the House from the main point. He did not wish that Irish spirits should pay a less duty in the English market than that paid by English spirits. His object merely was that there should be a reduction of the duty on the home-grown article proportioned to the reduction of the duty on the foreign commodity.
SIR R. PEELsaid, that the Notice given by the hon. Baronet was as follows:—"To ask Sir R. Peel if any alteration is to be proposed by which the landed interest in Ireland may have the benefit of the British markets for Irish spirits." Surely the landed interest in Ireland would not be deprived of any advantage to which they were fairly entitled by the proposed alteration of the duty on foreign spirits.
SIR H. W. BARRONcertainly felt that the question, as it appeared in the Notice Paper, was not sufficiently explicit; and he had, therefore, thought it his duty to state the immediate point to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet.
Subject at an end.

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF.
Mr. WATSONrose to move, pursuant to Notice, for leave to bring in a—
"Bill for the farther repeal of Enactments imposing pains and penalties upon Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, on account of their religion."
The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that he did not mean to preface the Motion by any lengthened observations, and that he did not wish to invite discussion at that stage of the measure. A Bill containing similar provisions had last year met to a certain extent with the approba-
496
tion of the Government, and those provisions had received the sanction of the Criminal Law Commissioners, to whom the whole subject had been referred. The enactments which he sought to repeal were a deep stain on our Statute Book. They were enactments no longer suited to the ago, and he therefore expected no opposition to the measure from any quarter in that House. The Criminal Law Commissioners had said that these Statutes had now become obsolete, that they were opposed to the feelings of the people, and that they ought to be at once repealed. There was one part of the Bill to which he particularly called the attention of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, and that was the repeal of certain severe enactments affecting the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, which were continued in the Bill of 1829—he meant the regular clergy, who had come to this country and placed themselves under monastic vows since the passing of that Act. He believed few persons did more good in their sphere than these men, who had devoted themselves to religious purposes and acts of charity; and yet they were liable, on coming into this country and placing themselves under monastic vows, to severe punishment, even to transportation. He thought it, indeed, high time that such an enactment should be removed from the Statute-book. It was utterly absurd to suppose that this could be one of the safeguards which the Church obtained in 1829, or to imagine that the existence of a body who spent their lives in acts of charity and mercy, in following out their religion, should endanger the Church of this country. With these few observations he would simply move for leave to bring in the Bill.
SIR J. GRAHAMdid not intend to offer any opposition to the introduction of the Bill by the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he should think it expedient, under the circumstances he was about to state, to persevere in his Motion. In consequence of what took place at the close of the last Session of Parliament, the whole subject of the Penal Laws, not only affecting Roman Catholics, but all dissenters from the Established religion, was referred to the Criminal Law Commissioners, with the direction that any Statute or portion of a Statute which in their opinion was susceptible of a penal character should be embodied in one Bill. During the recess the Criminal Law Commissioners, acting on that instruction, had framed a Bill, which

497
had been laid before the other House of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor, with the full concurrence of the Government. Every effort would be made by Government to pass that measure; and he confidently expected in a short period to be able to introduce it to that House. It was a measure fully as comprehensive as that which he announced to the House at the end of the last Session.
SIR R. H. INGLIShad felt it his duty not to rise until his right hon. Friend had addressed the House. He rejoiced on one account, and on one poor account only, at the observations which had fallen from him; and that was, because they had clearly proved to his mind that in his predictions last Session he had not wasted the time of the House; the fears which he had entertained last year, having in the present year been realized by Her Majesty's Government. He wished that hon. Gentlemen opposite would permit him to urge upon them respectfully and seriously the expediency of leaving their separate projects, whatever they might be, in the hands of Her Majesty's present advisers. He believed that the advice just tendered by the right hon. Baronet to the hon. and learned Member for Kinsale might with equal sincerity be tendered to other Members of the House; and that the objects which other hon. Members had in view would be attained quite as readily as the objects of the hon. and learned Gentleman would be attained, by transferring their labours to Her Majesty's Government. He did not mean to divide the House on the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill then under their consideration; but he wished to remind the House what was the nature of the Bill which the hon. and learned Gentleman had brought forward last year, and what was the nature of the Bill, precisely similar in its provisions, which he now asked leave to introduce; and which the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had adopted as his own. It was a Bill to repeal the Act of Supremacy; it was a Bill to enable Roman Catholic bishops to assume the titles of the sees of prelates of the Established Church; it was a Bill to legalize processions (and processions, let them recollect, of one class of persons, while they had prohibited the processions of another class of persons on the ground of their exciting public opposition and hostility); it was a Bill to repeal the Act for expelling the Jesuits. Could any hon. Member deny that that was a fair summary of the Bill
498
brought in by the hon. and learned Gentleman about this time last year, and which had been rejected on the 9th of July, when it stood for going into Committee? But he should repeat to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to other hon. Members having similar projects for effecting a "blessed reformation in Church and State," that they might rely much more upon the assistance of Gentlemen on that side of the House, than they could rely on the assistance of his noble Friend the Member for the city of London. His noble Friend had said, on the 9th of July, he believed, when the Bill stood for a Committee, that although "he could not oppose the Motion for going into Committee, he was not prepared to say that he assented to all its provisions." Was not that a lesson to hon. Members who entertained what were called liberal views not to trouble the House with any amateur legislation on their parts, but to suggest their wishes to Her Majesty's present advisers, and to leave to them the accomplishment of those wishes, instead of consuming night after night in vain endeavours to direct the attention of the House to their measures? They might rest assured that those measures would be brought forward with all the advantages of the Government machinery and the Government advocacy, and would be passed on the nights devoted to Government business. He said it seriously—he believed it would be found that the most successful mode of proceeding for carrying those measures, would be for hon. Gentlemen opposite to suggest them first, and then to leave them in the hands of the present advisors of the Crown. Let any body deny that he had correctly stated the substance of the Bill which the hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced last year, and he would be ready to apologise to the House for any unintentional misrepresentation. He repeated, deliberately, that, as far as he recollected, that Bill had comprehended the four points to which he had already adverted, and which were in the present Session, they were told, to be brought forward in the House of Lords, with all the authority of a united Cabinet, by the Lord High Chancellor of England. From what he knew of that new Government measure, he believed it was substantially the same as that which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kinsale had just asked leave to introduce.
SIR J. GRAHAMwould not charge the

499
hon. Baronet with intentionally misrepresenting him, but certainly he had both misrepresented him and misled the House, however unintentionally on his part. He said the Government had adopted the measure of the hon. Gentleman opposite. He (Sir J. Graham) gave a direct but respectful denial to that assertion. So far from adopting the measure of the hon. Gentleman, if it was the same which he introduced last year, on the occasion to which the hon. Member for Oxford had referred, he must state that there were certain clauses in that Bill to which, on the part of Government, he was opposed. He knew not what the Bill was, but if it was the same with that of last year, he should have the same objections to certain clauses which he had stated on the former occasion. With respect to the measure brought forward by the Government in the other House of Parliament, he should be prepared to defend it in all its parts; and if the hon. Baronet chose to attend when the time came, he trusted he should be able satisfactorily to prove that the Bill did not repeal the Act of Supremacy.
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, he hoped he was as incapable of misrepresenting the right hon. Baronet, as of endeavouring to mislead the House. But he believed that the recollection of the House would go with him when he re-asserted, that the right hon. Baronet, although he had not said that he adopted the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman—and perhaps he (Sir R. Inglis) ought to apologise for having put those words in the right hon. Baronet's mouth—he believed that the recollection of the House would go with him when he re-asserted, that the right hon. Baronet had stated, that if the Bill were the same in substance as that of last year, a similar Bill, (he believed that the words were, "a Bill as comprehensive,") had been brought forward by Her Majesty's Government in the other House of Parliament. If he had misunderstood the right hon. Baronet, he would be ready to apologise to him. But the right hon. Baronet had stated, that the Bill of last year would not repeal the Act of Supremacy. He, however, pledged himself, that this was a prominent point in the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman; and it was as prominent a point, if he were not mistaken, in the Bill introduced into the other House by the Lord Chancellor.
LORD J. MANNERSsaid, that it would
500
perhaps be more convenient that the right hon. Baronet should state whether the penalties affecting the regular Roman Catholic clergy were retained in the Bill introduced into the House of Lords. [Sir J. GRAHAM: When the Bill comes in, I will explain it.] When the proper time should have arrived, he would be perfectly ready, although exceedingly sorry, to meet his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford upon the provisions in question. He could not conceive that the Church of England could derive any benefit from penal Statutes against the regular Roman Catholic clergy. He agreed with his hon. Friend, that there were many safeguards which the Church of England had a right to demand. He thought she had a right to demand to have perfect freedom to increase her resources with the increase of our population; he thought she had a right to demand that her ancient landmarks should not be swept away, or the number of her livings decreased. But he did not think that the Church of England could be benefited by retaining penalties which were not only alien to the spirit of Christian charity, but which the Governments which had imposed them had never had the cruelty to enforce. It was perfectly notorious that there had been enacted against religious bodies in this country, penalties which no one would wish to see carried into effect. He was sure that no one would wish to interfere with the Christian Brothers, for instance, or with the Cistercian Monks—men who devoted their lives to the improvement of their fellow-creatures.
MR. O'CONNELLhoped, that this Bill would not be withdrawn, or left in the hands of Government; but that it would be permitted to be read a first time, and in due course they would find whether the Bill referred to by the right hon. Baronet was essentially the same. Singular, indeed, it was, that at this time of day, that House should be called on to decide whether the exercise of the priestly office was to be made penal by Act of Parliament—whether a devoted attachment to religious exorcises, the abandonment of worldly cares, and the salvation of the souls of such individuals, as well as the souls of others—were things that the people of England wished to have punished by legal enactment. They had come to a curious period of the world's history. Who had not heard of persecutions of a most atrocious kind—of cruelties of the most hor-

501
rible nature—inflicted on the helpless nuns of Minsk? The monster tyrant who could thus basely and foully commit such outrages on those estimable ladies, was an object of loathing; and it was not creditable to the Christians of Europe, that some public demonstration had not been made to express the horror and detestation of all civilized Christendom against the monster and his satellites who had perpetrated such enormities. What was the principle of the law in this country as it stood? It was the same principle as that upon which the tyrant of Russia, had acted. There was no punishment by our law for the Atheist—none for the Deist: it was all reserved for the sincerely pious and the benevolently humane. To visit virtue and charity with penalties and punishment, was a most anti-Christian proceeding. He felt bound to thank the right hon. Home Secretary and the Government for the excellence of their intentions; and he hoped that their Bill would be found so good as to supersede that of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinsale.
LORD J. RUSSELL, allusion having been made to him, wished to say a few words as to his former declaration, that he was not ready at once to repeal these laws without consideration. Last Session he had voted for the Committee, but he had reserved to himself the right of weighing the details. It appeared to him that there was one part of the question that had not been sufficiently attended to: the measure of Government, as far as it was stated last year, did not effect that relief to the Roman Catholics from a law by which they were punished, both for assuming episcopal titles in Ireland, and for belonging to certain religious orders. That part of the subject required interference by the Legislature. As to preventing persons assuming particular titles, nothing could be more absurd and puerile than to keep up such a distinction. He had also the strongest objection to the law which made Jesuits in certain cases liable to transportation: the enactment was as intolerant as it was inefficacious, and it was fit that the law should be put on an intelligible and rational footing. Whether it would be expedient to repeal that part of the law which restricted monastic orders, or whether some security ought not to be required from them similar to that given by Protestant Dissenters, viz., that they should be registered and subjected to the inspection, if you will, of Roman Catholic visitors, was a great question he was
502
not yet prepared to answer. What had happened in various countries in respect to these religious orders was well known. They were not attacked because they professed particular tenets, but because they actually interfered with the politics of the State in which they were established. He was prepared to say that severe penalties ought not to be threatened which no person and no Government would venture to execute.
Bill brought in and read a first time.

THE RECENT RESIGNATIONS AND THE GOVERNMENT.
MR. BANKESrose to move for—
"Returns of all applications for the Stewardship or Stewardships of the Chiltern Hundreds received from any Member or Members of Parliament by the Government during the present Session, with the date of such application, and date of the appointment, where such applications have been complied with.
"Of all applications made to Government by Members of Parliament for appointments to offices of the like nature with the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, being appointments applied for with the view of vacating the Seats of the Applicants, and the dates of such appointments, where the applications have been complied with.
"Of the particular Forms of Grants of the Stewardship or Stewardships of the Chiltern Hundreds and of other Grants of the like nature, and of the Time necessarily occupied in completing the same, when such Grants are made."
The hon. Member spoke as follows:—I rise to address the House on a subject of some importance as it respects the operation of the representative system. It appears that there is a power in the Government (which I am sure I do not pretend to say has been on the present occasion abused)—but as to the exercise of which I think inquiry is demanded—it appears that there is a power in the Government of delaying or accelerating the issue of writs when Members have accepted offices which occasion the vacating of their seats. I was informed last week by general rumour (having had no other means of information), that two seats for the county which I have the honour to represent were vacant; and I have since had reason to believe it is true; but up to this period the writs have not been moved for. My hon. Friend Mr. Miles the other night asked some explanation on the subject; and it then appeared, that though the office which could occasion vacancies had been applied for, the Government writs had not been made out so as to justify the moving for the writs. Now, at this particular period, when a very important question is coming on, it is a matter

503
of some consequence to the county, that two seats should be vacant. The result must be, so far as I can anticipate, that two of the votes of that county cannot be given on the first division that is likely to take place. I have no right in any degree to anticipate how those votes would be given when the Members were returned; but I have a right to say it is a hardship on the county to be deprived of those two votes, whichever way they would be given. Had these writs been moved for on Monday (I am not assuming it was possible they should have been), by this day se'nnight—the day on which it is most probable a division will take place—those two Members would have been here. But, the writ being moved for to-night or to-morrow, it is impossible such a result should take place. According to every ordinary calculation, giving fair allowance for long speeches and several nights' debates, it is hardly now possible that the two Members for Dorsetshire should attend the House on the first division in the approaching debate. I have, therefore, felt it my duty to bring this subject before the House. In doing so, I by no means intend to impute blame to any one. As to my two hon. Friends, the late Members for the county, I have a right to say, that had I arrived at the same opinion as I understand they have arrived at, I should have felt bound to pursue the same course as they have taken; because, though I came into the House with no pledges, so that I need not consider myself the delegate of any man, yet, under the circumstances of the late election—taken as it was, and known to be taken, with reference to this particular question, I certainly should have felt, as it appears my hon. Friends have felt, that the declarations then made, did raise expectations—which expectations if I could not conscientiously satisfy by my votes—would have compelled me to resign into my constituents' hands the trust which they had committed into my charge, and to desire them to place it in the hands of some one whose opinions were more in accordance with their own. I cannot, therefore, feel at all surprised at the course pursued by my two hon. Friends, my late colleagues in the representation of the county. And I am convinced it must be their wish that the county should not be deprived of their two votes on the important occasion I allude to. Whether the constituency may re-elect my two late hon. colleagues, I cannot pretend to say.
504
But this I claim for the county, the right of having its two votes at the earliest possible period. I wish especially to know—as the information would be peculiarly valuable under existing circumstances—what is the earliest period at which, in regular course of procedure, the writ can be moved for after the occurrence of such vacancies. And I can venture to say, there could be no better rule adopted for the future than this: that the Member of the Government who grants the offices referred to, should be responsible for moving that the writs be issued. For at present it appears that no party is responsible, even supposing the grant is made. How can the public at large know of any such grant having been applied for? The consequence is, that (without imputing blame to any one) the writ may be delayed, and the constituencies deprived of that representation to which they are by law entitled. It is under those circumstances I am induced to submit my Motion to the House for the production of Papers which may perhaps explain a matter of no small importance.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that so far from being opposed to the Motion of his hon. Friend, he had brought down to the House a Paper containing all the information required by his Motion, and that Paper he was ready to lay on the Table of the House, in order that there might be no delay. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had always acted while in office according to what he believed to be the uniform custom—namely, to consent to every application for the office of steward for the Chiltern Hundreds, when he had ascertained that such application came from the Member himself. Under such circumstances, the office was always granted without hesitation, and he had acted upon what had been the invariable custom; but in consequence of what had fallen from his hon. Friend, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would add, that he never felt that the duty devolved upon the Government of obtaining a new writ when such an office was granted. If the Government were responsible, and if that power of obtaining a new writ was confined solely to it, he was of opinion that the possession of such a power would be likely to lead to great abuses—to abuses which he had no doubt his hon. Friend (Mr. G. Bankes) would be one of the first to object to. The manner of granting the office of steward of the Chiltern Hundreds was, by the com-

505
pletion of an instrument, conferring that office on an individual; and although it might sometimes happen that delay took place in completing that instrument, yet it would be seen by the Paper which he hold in his hand, that no such delay took place with respect to the cases to which his hon. Friend had alluded. With reference to a question which had been put on a former night, relative to Lord Ashley, he would state that the office of steward of the Chiltern Hundreds could not be given twice on the same day; and when it had been given to an individual, and that another applied on the same day, it was necessary to call in the aid of another stewardship. He hoped that his hon. Friend saw the inexpediency of forcing such a responsibility on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With reference to the case of Lord Ashley, he had not been able to give an answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Mr. W. Miles), at the moment the question was put, because as the Chiltern Hundreds could only be conferred once on the same day, it was necessary, when applications were so frequent, to call in aid other stewardships; so that he had been unable to state the precise office which had been granted to Lord Ashley. He, however, trusted the House would not impute to him any blame in these transactions, which, he repeated, had been conducted according to established practice.
SIR W. MOLESWORTHcould not avoid expressing as his opinion that it would be better to get rid of all these forms of applying for and obtaining the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, and to leave Members at liberty at once, when they so thought fit, to resign their seats.
MR. WILLIAMSwas of opinion, that the inquiry which the hon. Member opposite was desirous of instituting, might be carried still farther, for it was most desirable that the particulars of some recent resignations should be laid before the country; and it was also most essential for them to know if it were true that, in contravention of the orders of that House, any Peer or Peers had interfered, or used influence, in returning Representatives to sit there. He could name a Gentleman who held one of the highest offices of the Government, and whose constituents for the last fifteen years had been perfectly satisfied with his conduct in Parliament. That Gentleman had been recently appointed to the high office to which he had alluded; but he was not again returned by the constituency
506
which he had represented for fifteen years. What prevented that Gentleman's return by his former constituency? Every individual in the country knew—every newspaper in the country stated—that he was not again returned in consequence of the interference of a Member of the other House of Parliament; and that his return was so prevented in consequence of his support of the liberal and enlightened measures which had been proposed by the Government. He would say that an inquiry ought to be instituted into these circumstances. The House of Commons ought, in justice to its own character, to inquire into the influences which were used to send Members to that assembly, and to ascertain if it was true that Members of the other House sent Representatives to the House of Commons, not for the purpose of attending to the interests of the country, but for the purpose of attending to the private interests of those Peers themselves. They ought to ascertain if any such influence had been used in order to prevent the return of a Gentleman, because he was favourable to the enlightened measure which had been recently brought forward by the Government for the good of the country. If the House of Commons truly represented the people, they would not sit quiet for one day until an inquiry had been established into those flagrant abuses and violations of the Orders of that House. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come down with the Returns in his hand, for he should have been desirous for additional returns; and, indeed, he thought that their information could not be considered complete without a Committee of Inquiry, which might enable them to sift the selfish views that opposed hon. Gentlemen who preferred supporting liberal and enlightened policy to any private interests.
Motion agreed to; the Returns were forthwith brought up, and ordered to lie on the Table and to be printed.

BONE-CRUSHING IN WORKHOUSES.
MR. CHRISTIEmoved for copies of any Papers or Reports by Mr. Chadwick, Secretary to the Poor Law Commissioners, by Mr. Parker, late Assistant-Commissioner, or by any other Assistant-Commissioner, on the subject of bone-crushing in Union workhouses; and in doing so, he referred to passages in Mr. Parker's letter addressed to Sir J. Graham, for the purpose of showing that such representations had been made both by Mr. Chadwick and

507
Mr. Parker. Of course, he (Mr. Christie) could not state precisely the proper names which the Papers or Reports bore in which these representations appeared; but he trusted the Government would not, on that account, refuse to lay them on the Table.
Sir J. GRAHAMsaid, he was not aware when he spoke yesterday, that there were any such documents of the nature of those which the hon. Member had described; but in consequence of what the hon. Member had then stated, he had, in the course of that morning, made inquiries of the Poor Law Commissioners, and it did appear that there was a paper by Mr. Chadwick, in the nature of a memorandum, unsigned, but it was quite of a confidential nature, and intended entirely for the consideration of the Commissioners. He (Sir J. Graham) therefore hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press for the production of the documents referred to; for it was impossible that public business could be conducted without differences occasionally occurring between superior authorities and the officers in their employment, and all public confidence would be destroyed if such documents were not to be considered of a confidential nature. He begged to say, therefore, that he could not consent to lay on the Table the Papers moved for.
MR. CHRISTIE: The right hon. Baronet has said nothing about the paper by Mr. Parker.
SIR J. GRAHAMreplied, that the paper by Mr. Parker consisted of a mere memorandum on the back of certain other papers, which expressed an opinion that bone-crushing was not a good employment for the poor of the workhouses. Mr. Chad wick's paper was a more recent production; but both were alike of a confidential character.
MR. CHRISTIEremarked, that though the documents were refused, he was glad to find from the statement of the right hon. Baronet, that it was made clear that both Mr. Chadwick and Mr. Parker had remonstrated against the practice of bone-crushing in workhouses.
SIR J. GRAHAM: I did not say that they remonstrated against the practice; but merely that they had expressed an opinion.
Motion withdrawn.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. Game Laws; Public Works (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Owners and Occupiers of Land, and others, of Tannington, and several other places, in favour of the Corn Laws.—From Chairman and Board of Guardians of the Nenagh Union, and several other places, for Protection to the Agricultural Interest.

RELIEF OF THE POOR IN IRELAND.
The EARL of CLANCARTYsaid: My Lords, in rising to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the working of the laws relating to the relief of the destitute and of the sick
462
poor of Ireland, with a view to their being amended and rendered efficient for their purposes, I feel that the conduct of such an inquiry, embracing, as it must, the consideration of important principles, and of details scarcely less important, in reference to measures of very deep interest to the well-being of the Irish people, might better have devolved upon some one having the authority of official connexion with the Government of the country. When I, last Session, intimated the intention, which I am this evening to fulfil, of bringing forward this Motion, I at the same time expressed a hope that the duty—for such it is—would have been taken off my hands by some noble Lord more competent to perform it; and considering that my noble Friend (Lord Clanricarde), who, in 1843, moved for a Committee of Inquiry into the working of the Poor Law, as it then stood, and subsequently in the discussion upon the Amendment Act, which is now in operation, intimated an intention of renewing his Motion for inquiry—considering that he was, upon these accounts, as well as from the abilities he could bring to the task, the fittest person to carry such an inquiry to a satisfactory result, I requested him to undertake it. My noble Friend, however, having declined, it only remains for me to request your Lordships' indulgent attention, while I set forth as briefly as the subject will admit of the circumstances that warrant me in calling upon your Lordships to grant me the Committee, and the objects which it appears to me may be obtained from it. Looking, my Lords, at the actual condition of Ireland—the almost daily accounts of agrarian outrages and murders which are perpetrated, for the most part, in connection with a systematic resistance to the rights of property, and considering that this state of things, though referable, no doubt, to many other causes, is aggravated by an amount of suffering and destitution among the lower orders of the Irish people, that might almost alone account for it, but which is certainly an obstruction to the progress of civilisation and national improvement, it appears to me that an inquiry into the operation of any laws affecting the condition of the poor, and designed for their benefit, but which, from any concurrence of testimony, appear to be productive of discontent, and to have failed of fulfiling the purposes of the Legislature, would be at the present time of great value, as well as upon other accounts most desirable.

463
The subjects to which I am to call your Lordships' attention are strictly of this description—I mean the Irish Poor Law and medical charities—institutions which have lamentably failed of accomplishing the good designed by them. The Poor Law, efficient for its purposes, should be a relief, not to the destitute alone, but to those above destitution, and should exercise a beneficial influence over the whole social condition of the community. The medical charities, duly supported, impartially distributed, and under proper regulation, might save from ruin and suffering numbers who, now the victims of neglect, are compelled by physical debility to seek in the poor house a refuge among the destitute. The state of the law with respect to the medical relief of the poor, and the practice under it, would alone have induced me to come before your Lordships, even if it were not connected, as it is, with the more important question to which I shall presently call your attention. I need but refer your Lordships to the reports that are upon the Table, to show the necessity there exists for legislation on the subject of medical relief. Your Lordships have also before you the Report of a Committee of the House of Commons, which was laboriously engaged in 1843, for several weeks, with the consideration of this important subject. My noble Friend (Lord St. Germans), at that time a Member of the other House, and who served upon that Committee, will set me right if I should be in error in saying that that Committee were perfectly unanimous as to the necessity of legislation; but, unfortunately, they could neither agree upon the particular measure that had been referred to them, nor in the recommendation of any other. They separated, as it too often happens with an Irish jury empannelled to try an indictment for murder; they could not agree, and were, in consequence, discharged without having returned any verdict. The case is, therefore, again for trial, and I trust that, should a Committee of your Lordships be appointed to deal with it, your labours may be attended with a more satisfactory result. As the law now stands, it is the occasion of much suffering and injustice to the poor of Ireland, and a serious aggravation of the difficulties of the Poor Law, by the quantity of destitution it creates, and of sickness, disease, and infection it causes to be sent into the workhouses. A reference to Poor Law statistics will show that, from having been de-
464
signed as mere receptacles for the destitute, the workhouses have practically become hospitals for the treatment of chronic and other disorders, and boarding-schools for the children of those who are afflicted with them. It is necessary promptly to deal with this question; and the object of the Committee in reference to it should be, as I conceive, not to make any new exposure of abuses, which none deny, and for which none can be made responsible; but, from the evidence and opinions of those who are possessed of the best practical information, to determine and report upon the alterations and amendments of the law the most likely to prove permanent and satisfactory. As most of your Lordships must necessarily be uninformed upon the subject, I will, with your permission, give you a short sketch of the provisions at present by law made for the sick poor of Ireland. There are at present three kinds of institutions for giving medical relief—viz., infirmaries, fever hospitals, and dispensaries. The infirmaries, supported by county assessment, with the aid of private donations, qualifying the donors to act as governors, and of annual Parliamentary grants, of 100 l. late Irish currency to each, under an Act of the Irish Parliament, are in general useful institutions, beneficial to a distance of ten or twelve miles within the counties to which they respectively belong, but beyond that circle of no use whatever: so that above two-thirds of the population taxed for their support can derive no benefit whatever from them. The fever hospitals, sometimes supported wholly by county presentments, but most commonly by private subscriptions, to which double the amount is added by the county, are not, as the returns show, available to the public beyond a radius of about five miles, and are so few, and capriciously located, that to most of the taxpayers they can only be known as an item of expense. Nevertheless, such is the importance of making provision for fever patients, that where private subscriptions cannot be obtained to originate such establishments, boards of guardians have availed themselves of a clause introduced into the Irish Poor Law Amendment Act, to build district fever hospitals, chargeable exclusively upon the poor rates of the Union—a charge, however, which does not exempt the ratepayers from likewise having to pay for the county fever hospitals, which are of no use to them whatever. With respect to dispensaries supported by the voluntary contributions of subscribers, with an equal sum

465
raised off the counties, their usefulness, like that of the fever hospitals, rarely extends beyond an area or circle of five miles all around. Many of them are admirably conducted institutions, in the highest degree beneficial to the poor, and creditable to those by whom they are conducted. Others, on the contrary, for want of efficient inspection and control, are so ill administered as to render the charity of little use to any, and to leave the poor around it no better off than the major part of the population, who, though equally taxed, are wholly unprovided with medical relief of any kind. Such, my Lords, is the present unsatisfactory state of the medical charities of Ireland, for which a legislative remedy is required. Without wishing your Lordships to prejudge the question, I trust I may be permitted to show that its solution is not one of great difficulty. In fact, prejudices that once obstructed its settlement, I believe, do not now exist, or at least have no need to be called into conflict. If a more efficient system would cost rather more, it is to be observed that a better economy would make the same sum go farther; and that any additional expense would, probably, be more than made up by the contributions of those who, in the contemplation of the law, ought to contribute to it, but do not—by making all, in fact, pay in due proportion, according to the value at which their properties are respectively rated to the relief of the poor. The poor rate is, therefore, the resource from whence to draw the funds for the future support of the medical charities; it is the most equitable in the distribution of the burden, and the most analogous to the design of the existing laws. This point being settled, the next matter to be provided for is a proper distribution of medical relief; and for this purpose the Poor Law Union and the electoral divisions, in which already something of local self-government has grown up, present peculiar facilities. Regard being had, as much as possible, to maintaining existing dispensaries, particularly where they are well conducted, it appears to me that, for dispensary and fever hospital relief—the efficient application of which is rarely, if ever, operative beyond the same extent of area—the Poor Law Unions might be divided into districts, consisting of one or more electoral divisions, according to population and extent, which should be made chargeable with the entire expense of the medical relief there provided. The addition of a small hospital to every dispensary,
466
instead of the present county fever hospitals, would be a measure of great utility. At present, when a fever breaks out, for the want of such institutions the patients are treated in their cabins, where infection spreads, recovery is slow, and the doctor can give but imperfect attendance. By having a fever hospital within reach, to which the patient can be at once removed, recovery is hastened, the spread of infection is checked, and the valuable time of a professional man is saved. Such hospitals would thus certainly be numerous, but not more than are necessary; they would supersede the necessity of maintaining the county fever hospitals. No extra expense would be occasioned by them, beyond the renting of the most ordinary dwelling, while a most invaluable saving would arise from the diminution of disease. Provision being thus made for fever and ordinary dispensary cases, within a reasonable distance of every poor man, it remains to be considered how infirmary relief should be distributed; and here, again, the Poor Law affords a solution of the question. The evidence of medical men, confirmed by statistical returns, show that these institutions are very beneficial within a radius of ten or twelve miles, but not at all so beyond it. Now, ten miles is about the average distance of the centre of any Poor Law Union, from its boundary; the most central towns, therefore, in Poor Law Unions would be the proper places for the establishment of infirmaries, the accommodation of such hospitals being always in proportion to the population. Now, with respect to providing the requisite buildings: there are, at present, thirty-five Poor Law Unions supplied with infirmaries, built at the general expense of the counties for which they were respectively established. I would propose that they should be handed over to the exclusive use of the Unions in which they are severally situated, and be supported, as to the establishment expenses, henceforth solely out of the poor rates of these districts; and as the annual Parliamentary grants (amounting in all to 3,172 l.), which are at present given in aid of the surgeons' salaries, could not in fairness be continued in those Unions, while the others had no such assistance, I would suggest that, in lieu of that annual sum, a single grant should be made of 90,000 l. or 100,000 l., as a fund in aid of building infirmaries in the Unions at present unprovided with them. I think what I have suggested would place the Poor Law dis-

467
tricts in general substantially upon an equality as to infirmary accommodation, and render complete and satisfactory the distribution of medical institutions. For the local government of dispensaries, I would constitute the twenty highest ratepayers of the district—associated with as many other persons as by a donation of 20 l., or an annual subscription of 2l., desired to assist in the administration of the charity—a board with the same duties to perform as now attach to dispensary boards. To these I would confide the duty of electing the medical officer of inspection, of checking and superintending the fiscal business, and of recommending fit objects for medical relief. The highest ratepayers are, for the most part, the landlords—those who now are, in virtue of their voluntary contributions, governors of dispensaries; and there appears to be no reason for making any alteration of the law in this respect, because their contributions, now voluntary, will henceforth be made compulsory. None could have a greater interest in the welfare of the poor than their landlord—to none is it more important that cases of ill health among a tenantry should be known than to their landlord—and none could have a more obvious interest in the economical management of the charity than the highest ratepayers. For the government of the Union infirmaries, the establishment and expenses of which should be upon the Union at large, the board of guardians, as representing the property of the Union, would be the proper body; their duty might be to inspect, to check the accounts, and to elect the medical officers; but as no case which could be dealt with at a dispensary should be sent to an infirmary, patients should only be admitted on the recommendation of a dispensary doctor, and always with a full written statement of the nature of the case. The interim treatment of difficult medical or surgical cases at an institution where the medical men of the Union could meet and consult, would be at once advantageous to the patients, and tend to the promotion of medical science. The support of patients should be borne either by themselves, if in circumstances to afford it, or by the divisions of the Union to which they respectively belong, where the case might be duly certified to be that of a very poor man. For the general superintendence of all medical charities, for the confirming, or, for cause stated, negativing the appointment of medical officers of the several institutions—for
468
laying down regulations with respect to their particular duties—for inspection—for audit of medical accounts—for communicating and advising with the local boards, and for reporting annually, and as occasion may require, to the Government, I cannot conceive any more fitting body than the General Board of Health of Ireland. I know nothing of the constitution of the existing Board; but very certain I am, that, in so densely populated a country as Ireland, periodically visited with epidemic diseases, and whose sanatory condition should, at all times, be a subject of interest to the Government, such a board, to be of any real service, should have the superintendence of every public institution for affording medical relief. I do not see any necessity for, and I do see some objection against, casting this duty upon the Poor Law Commissioners. A certain scale of salaries once laid down for the medical officers, the economy of a medical institution could by none be so well understood as by medical men—their audit, therefore, of the accounts after they had been previously passed by the local boards, should be sufficient to justify their being included among the charges payable out of the poor rates. I have now, my Lords, without entering into any minute details, stated the outline of what would afford a complete remedy for the present defective state of the medical charities. The plan I have suggested is analogous to that which the law at present contemplates; for the charge is borne equally by the owner and occupier of the soil; and the local boards for governing the institutions would probably include all who at present interest themselves—as well as all who, in the contemplation of the existing laws, ought to assist in these charities. That which is further provided for, is distribution, inspection, central control, the advancement of medical science, and the union of the whole system with the Government of the country. Doubtless when the opinions of others have been heard, who, like myself, take a strong view of the evils and abuses to be corrected, and of the good that may be effected, other plans will be proposed—if not more eligible, certainly, from the quarters from whence they may come, better deserving of consideration. That the inquiry will be perfectly impartial, I can have no doubt; and seeing how important it may be in its results, both with reference to the domestic happiness and physical condition of the industrious poor, and with

469
reference also to the respectability of the medical profession, and the advancement of medical science, I trust that such noble Lords as may be appointed to serve upon the Committee, will not grudge giving the time and attention so necessary to elucidate facts and opinions so as to lay in their report the foundation of a permanent good. I have omitted all notice of lunatic asylums, as they are under a different law, and the interests of the lunatic poor are under much more able advocacy—that of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Monteagle). I do not concur in all that the noble Lord would recommend upon the subject; but I cordially join in that tribute of gratitude and respect which is due to the noble Lord for the reforms he has effected in the treatment of that unfortunate class; for having, in fact, rendered our asylums for the lunatic poor institutions of which, though yet capable of improvement, we have nationally no cause to be ashamed. In calling your Lordships' attention now to the Poor Law, I have much satisfaction in stating that, unpopular as it in general is, and strongly as disapprobation has been expressed against it in Ireland, there does not exist, that I can discover, any factious or reckless disposition to get rid of it. I have sought for and received from all parts of Ireland communications both public and private, containing suggestions, made with a view to its amendment, and many of them of great value, but none for its repeal. And, further, in confirmation of this important fact, I hold in my hand a statement, drawn up by the gentleman who acted as secretary at a large and influential meeting of landed proprietors and others, in the city of Lublin, under the presidency of the Duke of Leinster, in 1843, from which it appears that in seeking for a Parliamentary inquiry into the working of the Poor Law, they were willing and desirous, without calling its principle in question, to lend their aid in devising the means of rendering it efficient for its purposes. It will, therefore, not be necessary in that inquiry which I now, as I then did, think, should precede legislative amendment, to question the principle of the Act, to which, in fact, the country is now fully committed. One word, however, I would wish to take the present opportunity of saying, in reference to some adverse opinions that are not unfrequently expressed upon Poor Law legislation, which, wherever they harbour, must preclude the idea of anything being effected that could be satisfactory. The enactment of the
470
Poor Law is said to have dried up the sources of charity and benevolence, and that such must of necessity be the effect of any compulsory rate for the relief of the poor. This was referred to as a fact in the debate in 1843, by no less an authority than the Archbishop of Dublin; and he stated in corroboration of it, that the collections for the poor at churches have been materially impaired by it. I think the most rev. Prelate was wrong in the inference he drew from the circumstance. Wherever those church collections have been continued as formerly, by way of relief for the destitute, they have, no doubt, diminished in amount, in consequence of there being a better provision now made by law for such objects; but, in vindication of my Protestant fellow countrymen, I can say, from my own knowledge, that where these collections have been since directed to charitable purposes not otherwise provided for, they have rather increased than fallen off since the passing of the Poor Relief Act. Such an objection, however, I need hardly tell your Lordships, must strike at the very foundation of any legal provision for the relief of the poor; and I regret to say, that it has created in some quarters a strong prejudice, not against the Poor Law only, but also against that modification of the laws for the support of medical charities, which, in the present circumstances of Ireland, I believe can alone secure to the poorer classes the medical aid to which the Legislature has recognised their claim; I mean their being charged, as recommended in the Report of the Land Commissioners upon the Poor Rates. But, with respect to the relief of the destitute poor, I do not think that the most prejudiced person against compulsory assessments, if he dispassionately considers the cases of the orphan, the widow, the aged, and the helpless—the peculiar wants of each, and the impracticability of their being, in all cases, adequately supplied by private charity, would seriously advocate their being, on account of their destitution, made outcasts from society—mere subjects for the casual display of an almsgiving benevolence; objects, no doubt, to excite feelings of compassion, and the more painfully so, because exposed to the risk and cruel consequences of neglect. The field, my Lords, for the exercise of charity, in its ordinary acceptation, is quite wide enough without the walls of the workhouse; and so long as Christianity exists, its peculiar attribute of unostentatious liberality will always

471
find in Ireland, as well as here, abundant calls for its beneficial exercise, without the exhibition of a mendicant population, or debarring the State from making provision for the destitute. In a thinly populated country, indeed, where the inhabitants of any district would all be personally known to one another, and mutually dependent, as the members of one household or family, no Poor Law might be necessary; but in a country densely populated as Ireland now is, or where employment is deficient, in comparison to the numbers who have nothing but their manual labour to depend upon, or even in a country where manufactures abound, but where there is often no other direct tie between the workman and his employer than the contract to pay a stipulated sum for work done or for day's labour, in such a state of society there will be, from illnesses and other misfortunes that cause suspension of work, much of suffering and destitution not necessarily known to those who might have the means and disposition to relieve it, and probably more than could be adequately relieved from private resources. Again, it is objected that the idle should not be supported at the expense of the industrious, and that the able-bodied should be required to earn their own livelihood, and this would be perfectly true if employment could always be found for them; but, to my mind, the able-bodied man who seeks for, and can nowhere obtain, employment, and who may have a family, as well as himself, dependent upon his daily labour, is, to say the least of it, quite as much an object of compassion as any whose self-evident infirmities and helplessness are calculated to awaken sympathy and to command relief; for what alternative is there for the man to whom you deny both bread and the means of earning it? Let the objector to a Poor Law determine whether such a man is to starve, or to take by force or fraud what he connot otherwise obtain. The policy, therefore, as well as the humanity of making a State provision for the destitute, which has now been recognised in Ireland as well as in this country, is sufficiently manifest; and the only question for consideration properly was and is, in what manner can that provision be made with the best advantage for those who are the objects of it, and most consistently with the general well-being of the community? Of the evils of a system of outdoor relief, in food or money, the case of England—only now extricating herself from it—is a sufficient warning, and
472
happily Ireland is spared from the infliction of a system of outdoor relief, at once so ruinous to property, and so injurious to the poor themselves. A system of emigration may, indeed, partially relieve the country; but it can afford no relief to the helpless and infirm—and without it were a compulsory one, which it ought not to be, the attachment of the poor to their native land, whatever their privations, is such as would render it nearly inoperative even as regards the able-bodied. Public works cannot be relied upon as a permanent resource: they are useful in emergencies, and as such I am glad to see they are viewed by Her Majesty's Government; but they can only afford employment in the particular districts where they are required, and while they are actually carried on. It only then remains to consider what has been the success of the alternative that was adopted, of the workhouse system of relief—whether it has yet had a fair trial—whether it has been properly administered, and of what improvement it is susceptible? Experience has happily shown how groundless were the principal objections at first urged against it by the opponents of the Poor Law, some affirming that the destitute would rather starve than resort to a workhouse—others, that no extent of workhouse accommodation would be sufficient for the applicants for admission. Experience has also shown that the workhouse test is as applicable to Ireland as to England, and that workhouse regulations can be framed, securing the interests alike of the pauper and of the ratepayer—and I speak from my own observation when I say, that the workhouse affords a comfortable asylum to age and infirmity—that the education and training of pauper children are such as to fit them for an after-life of usefulness and independence—and that able-bodied men have found in time of their utmost need a refuge, from whence, as opportunity of employment offered, they could issue forth with renewed health and improved habits. To lay down the details of workhouse government, and to preserve uniformity of administration, the constitution of a central authority in the Poor Law Commission was necessary; and it is much to be regretted that having prepared a system so calculated to work great good, they have, in the exercise of the great powers confided to them, so failed of acquiring the confidence of the public, that their unpopularity is, in fact, such as materially to impair their usefulness. Whether the extraordinary powers

473
with which they are invested, and which are so much complained of, are strictly necessary, is a question which may now be determined with some degree of certainty; very competent witnesses can now be examined upon the point; and I do not conceive that either the Government or Parliament would be disposed to continue, nor the Commissioners themselves be desirous to retain, in their hands any powers beyond what are really necessary for the effectual fulfilment of their duties. With respect, however, to any improper exercise of those powers, if charges of this kind should be preferred before the Committee, as they often have been by petition and otherwise before the House, I think, their investigation would be of great service, by leading either to the correction of abuse, or the removal of an unjust impression. I am not here to impugn the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners, nor am I prepared to undertake their defence. I believe they have sometimes laid themselves justly open to censure; I at the same time think that much allowance should be made for the difficulties that, for the most part strangers to the country, they have sometimes had to encounter, and for the impossibility of giving satisfaction to parties holding upon particular points the most opposite opinions; and with respect to Mr. Nicholls in particular, upon whom devolved the duty of introducing a system of Poor Laws into Ireland, without the full concurrence and even in opposition to the feelings of the majority of those upon whose co-operation he had to depend, many of whom might be more friendly to the Commissioners of Enquiry of 1836, his task was necessarily one of peculiar difficulty. His administration was certainly not faultless, and I have felt it my duty upon a former occasion to animadvert upon his proceedings; but I am bound to say that I think his withdrawal from Ireland was unfortunate—that he was, although an Englishman, upon every other ground the fittest person to superintend the carrying into effect of an experiment, upon the principle and details of which he alone had been consulted. But whatever difficulties he, or those who succeeded him, may have had to contend with, it is most important for the interest and satisfaction of the public, that Parliament should exercise a jealous scrutiny over their proceedings, and that no power, not really necessary for the object of their appointment, should be left in their hands, I would now draw your Lordships'
474
attention to the difficulty that has attended the collection of the poor rate. Returns are upon the Table showing the number of cases in which the collection of the rate has been resisted, and force, sometimes even military force, required to protect the collectors in the execution of their duty. It appears, also, that in two or three Unions, although the houses are built, they have never been opened for the relief of the poor, in consequence of the poor rate not having been paid. The causes of this resistance to a legal charge upon the land for an object that would seem so much to appeal to the better feelings of Irishmen, will form a subject for inquiry that will probably show where amendment in the law is most needed. The dislike of a new impost is not alone sufficient to account for the unpopularity of the poor rate: dislike is inseparable from an impost that produces no corresponding benefit. The ratepayer may know that an asylum has been provided, of which the orphan, the widow, and the cripple thankfully avail themselves; but I have a right to expect too, for it is a main object of the Act, that the streets and highways should be freed from the disgraceful exhibition of mendicancy, with its attendant train of sores, diseases, and deformities, purposely exposed, and often feigned, for the purpose of imposing upon the charitable and humane. I have a right to expect, too, for it was also promised, that the industrious poor shall be relieved of the burden of housing and feeding the mendicant population, and from the demoralizing influence of such associates—and I was taught to look forward to an era of peace, harmony, and great national improvement, under the operation of a law constituting the wealthier classes the guardians of the poor. Need I tell your Lordships how far the law has come short of fulfilling what was intended—need I tell you that Ireland presents as disgraceful a picture of turbulence, disunion, suffering, and mendicancy as ever—that discontent is almost universal—and can it, in such a case, be wondered at that the poor rate is an unpopular tax, and that the Poor Relief Act should be represented as a failure? I do not, my Lords, think that the Act has had a fair trial. It might have been foreseen that, in Ireland, as well as in every other country, the suppression of vagrancy would require the aid of police regulations; for want of it the Poor Law has failed of accomplishing this important object. Nor has it been otherwise supported as it should

475
have been, for I regret to say that the Government, by seeming to halt between two opinions, whether to carry out the principle of the Act or to leave it to its fate—and sometimes disowning the responsibility of the Act, as one that was passed by their predecessors—have shaken public confidence in its soundness and stability, and stript it of that moral influence it might otherwise have acquired. Their acquiescence, however, in the appointment of this Committee will be an assurance that this question will now be settled; and I trust your Lordships will be enabled to derive from the Committee's labours full information as to the amendments of the law by which its success may best be secured. Let me recall to your Lordships the fact that it was mainly in consequence of the current of public opinion in favour of the introduction of Poor Laws into Ireland, and of the Irish petitions that were presented to Parliament, that those Commissions of Inquiry were appointed which resulted in the present Poor Law, and that the Bill for its enactment was discussed and agreed to in the House of Commons in two successive Parliaments, and eventually passed by a large majority in this House. With so great a concurrence of public opinion originally in its favour, I think it is but reasonable to attribute its present unpopularity mainly to its having disappointed expectation. There are, however, circumstances in the details and working of the measure which have undoubtedly added to the difficulties of its application to Ireland, and which require and can receive the amendments that experience suggests. The occupiers, especially the small holders of land, are weighed down with the multiplicity of exactions, legal and illegal. If undertenants, they have to pay the half-yearly gales of the head landlord's rent, and the profit rents of the immediate lesser or middleman: that makes four payments of rent within the year. Of the county cess there are at present two collections; then superadded to these, come, perhaps, two more collections of poor rates within the year. Now, as these have all to be paid in cash—for, if paid in kind, it must be at immense loss—it is very difficult for a poor man, whose earning depends upon the state of the markets, and who cannot afford to have money lying idle, to be ready for so many separate payments. It is not so much the aggregate amount of what he has to pay that he complains of, which necessarily must be proportioned in some de-
476
gree to the value of the property he holds. The fact that many have to pay, in addition to the charges I have mentioned, the Repeal rent, the O'Connell tribute, and other demands alike unauthorized by law, but all of which, under present circumstances, are just as compulsory as the legal charges upon the land, and that they yet have the means as well as the will to give welcome and food to those who ask it in the name of charity, shows that, in general, the humble occupiers of the soil have an interest in their holdings, which might be rendered valuable if duly secured to them. It is not, therefore, so much the total amount of what they are required to pay, as the frequency of the demand, that is harassing; and with respect to the poor rates, the uncertainty of their amount, and of the periods when they will be called for, are circumstances that render the tax additionally obnoxious. As a remedy for this, it appears to me, that if but one rate were to be made in the year, and to be collected at one fixed period in like manner, as it is recommended in the Report of the Land Commissioners that the grand jury cess should be collected, and perhaps along with it, such an arrangement would tend very much to the general satisfaction upon this point. The subject is one, however, upon which the Committee would, be able to obtain the opinions of the most practical men. Again, the rate is now payable in the first instance by the occupier, who stops from his immediate lessor half the poundage rate out of every pound sterling he pays for rent. No plan, certainly, could be more equitable in theory, or more likely to work well; but it is admitted by the Commissioners themselves that, in practice, it has unfortunately interfered with the proper working of the Act. It was intended to establish a common interest between landlord and tenant, and that the burden of the poor rate should be equally divided between them. It has had the very opposite effect, causing, through the interest which tenant farmers generally possess upon boards of guardians, the valuations to be made so much under the real value of property, that the rate is unduly shifted from the tenant to the landlord; and thus that equality of interest in its economical management which it was so desirable to establish, is frustrated. This operates, however, with peculiar hardship upon the owners of tithe property; for, as the value of such property is, for the purposes of Poor Law taxation, determined by its actual gross amount, without any deductions or

477
allowances whatever, while all other rateable property is valued with large and capricious allowances by the ratepayers themselves, or their representatives, it follows, that in proportion as this valuation is lowered, the tax becomes heavier upon the tithe rent-charge. This is an injustice in the operation of the law which is calculated to create disgust, and which, certainly, ought to be redressed, although the sufferers being, for the most part, the clergy of the Established Church—who, are, perhaps, somewhat inured to injustice—the, outcry upon this point has not extended beyond the presentation of humble remonstrances, in the shape of petitions, to Parliament, which, although I have endeavoured to bring the prayer of them under your Lordships' notice, have met with no other attention than being ordered to lie upon the Table. The inconvenience, however, of undervaluing rateable property is not alone felt in the derangement it causes of the distribution of the burden; it necessarily has the effect of raising the nominal amount, and, consequently, the odium of the tax, making a rate of perhaps two shillings in the pound necessary upon the Poor Law valuation, when one shilling in the pound upon a true valuation would have been sufficient. It prevents the real interest and position of a ratepayer from being satisfactorily determined; and it goes directly to falsify the oaths of those who, to obtain the elective franchise, have sworn to the possession of a valuable interest in their holdings above the rent they have to pay, when by the Poor Law validation it would appear that they pay much beyond what the land is worth, and can, consequently, have no interest whatever. It would, I think, be for the better working of the Act, and do away with much of the temptation to undervalue rateable property, if in all cases of tenancy at will the rate were to be evenly divided between landlord and tenant, whatever amount of rent the tenant might agree to pay for his holding. If, however, it be an object with the Legislature, which I am far from saying it should not be, to discountenance the abuse of a landlord's power in letting his land at too high a rent, it should be no less an object to discountenance in tenants their taking land upon extravagant terms. Both these objects, I think, could be readily effected by requiring that, in every instance, where property is valued by the mutual agreement of landlord and tenant higher than by the Poor Law valuation, it should
478
be rated accordingly to the relief of the poor, and the rate equally divided between them. This is a subject upon which the opinions of practical men might be examined into with advantage; it appears to me, however, that the modification I have suggested in the system of valuation and rating would, besides lessening the inducements to undervalue rateable property, against which there is at present no countervailing check, exercise a beneficial influence upon the relations between landlord and tenant, and unite them in an equality of interest in preventing the spread of pauperism in the land. Much complaint has been made with respect to the elections of Poor Law guardians, and the unpopularity of the Poor Relief Act has been greatly increased among most respectable persons by the results which those elections have frequently exhibited, owing to the undue influence exercised by the Roman Catholic priests. I cannot, however, consider that it is a complaint that calls for, even if it could be remedied by, legislative interference. A priest has as good a right to exercise any influence he may possess as has any other person; and although it is to be lamented, if the holding of particular sectarian or party opinions arts made (and I am sorry to say that I have heard of frequent instances in which they have been so) a condition of being elected to fulfil the duties of a Poor Law guardian, or of holding office connected with the administration of relief to the poor, I would say that no amendment of the law, short of a disfranchisement of the lower orders, could prevent it. If is only by the progress of education among the poor, and by training the population, by degrees, to a just knowledge of their civil privileges, a right appreciation of free institutions—the gentry in the meantime assisting by their example to carry out the principles of representation in its true spirit—that this grievance—if grievance it can be called—though evil it undoubtedly is—can properly be removed. If some boards of guardians have in consequence been elected of a somewhat exclusive character, opposed in interest or feeling to the higher clauses of ratepayers, they are, it is to be remembered, always associated with a body of magistrates, guardians ex officio, whose influence and example, steadily directed, may, and will, no doubt, lead the boards with which they are connected to lend themselves to the true business of their appointment, and to an impartial and faithful discharge of their duties. And I will

479
add, that looking at the manifest importance of drawing into harmony the several classes of society, and of breaking down that barrier which the systematic agitation of the country has raised up between landlord, and tenant, between persons of different religious denominations, the consequences of which are now so painfully apparent in the scenes of bloodshed that desolate the land, it is incumbent upon the magistracy and gentry generally, whatever difficulties and discouragements they may meet with—and they are often very great—to interest and exert themselves in promoting the success, not of the Poor Law only, but of all that may tend to ameliorate the condition of the population. I must now draw your Lordships' attention to a very serious evil, however, and one for which a remedy is indispensable: it is the impression that exists upon the minds of Protestants in many of the Irish Unions, that a pauper professing the Protestant religion cannot be sent into the workhouse without danger of his faith being tampered with. This impression, I fear, is not altogether groundless, and has, no doubt, been strengthened by the preference given to Roman Catholic over Protestant clergymen in the appointments made of workhouse chaplains—an abuse of power on the part of the Poor Law Commissioners which I some years ago brought under your Lordships' notice. But strongly as I objected to the course then taken, and since pursued, and although I yet retain all the objections I then urged, I do not think that in any well-administered workhouse, to which a chaplain of the established religion has been appointed, there should be anything to apprehend on behalf of a Protestant pauper as to his free profession of Protestantism. To some workhouses, however, no Protestant chaplains have been appointed; and from others I have received accounts of children having been, without any parental sanction, arbitrarily handed over to the Church of Rome, after having been entered as Protestants. Not to mention any case not duly authenticated, I will only notice what I find in the Appendix to the Eighth Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, where there is a correspondence showing that the practice had been very common in the South Dublin Union workhouse. The following extract from the uncontradicted statement of the Protestant chaplain to the Commissioners exhibits a toleration of abuse that calls for inquiry, and merits, if true, the greatest censure;—
480
"The responsibility which devolves upon me, as Protestant chaplain to the South Dublin Union Poorhouse, will, I trust, justify me in soliciting your attention to the following resolution, adopted by the board of guardians on Thursday last:—'Resolved—That Edward, John, and Arthur Murray be allowed to carry their desire into effect, and be tranferred from the care of the Protestant to the Roman Catholic chaplain, and that the registry be altered accordingly.' This resolution appears to me most arbitrary. I am not aware that the Poor Law Act empowers the board of guardians to transfer Protestant children to the Roman Catholic chaplain, nor is this resolution the first of the kind. There are now several children who were so transferred in attendance upon Roman Catholic instruction, notwithstanding remonstrances which have been made by me."
I have heard of cases of the same kind occurring in other Unions; but that facts might be duly authenticated in reference to a subject where there is so much danger of exaggeration, I made application for an official return, which might have afforded information to be relied upon. Her Majesty's Government, however, upon, as I think, a mistaken view of the subject, did not comply with my request, leaving it for the Committee, if they should think proper, to call for the information. Had the return been granted, it might, perhaps, have appeared that the abuse has not been all on one side; but I am sure your Lordships will agree with me, that such conversions of children, of very tender years, incapable of forming a judgment upon a religious question, whatever be the change of religion, are far from being creditable to those by whom they are brought about, or by whom they are sanctioned, and that they are a gross abuse that ought not to be tolerated. It is, moreover, utterly at variance with the enactments of the Poor Law, and most inconsistent with the spirit in which it ought to be administered. The evil effects of the proceedings I have alluded to are painfully apparent in the South Dublin Union workhouse, in all other respects a most admirably conducted establishment; the classification that has there taken place of the Roman Catholics apart from the Protestants, is a circumstance that must be viewed as in the highest degree detrimental to the feelings of the paupers. One great object in the law should be to cultivate harmony and kindly feelings among the poor, as well as among the rich, of every religious denomination, and to secure liberty of religion to all; and it is difficult to conceive how any greater security could have been provided for the religious liberty of the paupers of every communion, than the responsibility in the first

481
place of the clergymen appointed as chaplains—then that of the board of guardians—then that of the Poor Law Commissioners—and, lastly, that of Parliament. Experience, however, has shown that this is not enough. It should be imperative upon the Commissioners to appoint a Protestant, as they have a Roman Catholic, chaplain to every workhouse. From the workhouses to which no Protestant chaplains have been appointed, the Protestant poor must feel themselves excluded; though few in number, they are entitled to equal privileges with the Roman Catholics, and, I regret to add, have need of greater protection. The duty of guardians also should be more clearly set forth, as regards the religious instruction of orphan or deserted children. It should be obligatory upon them not only to take care that while in the workhouse such children be properly instructed, but that they he retained in the profession of that form of doctrine for which their godfathers have undertaken, until they have reached an age at which the responsibility of a godfather may be held to cease, and they are capable of showing that they fully understand the nature and ground of their faith. It will, however, be desirable for the Committee to inquire into the practice I have alluded to of proselytism, and to recommend such steps as may be necessary to prevent any improper interference with the faith of pauper children, of whatever religious denomination, or their abandonment, without the consent of parents or godfathers, of the faith into which they have been baptized, before that period of life in which they might be deemed fit for the rite, common to the churches of Rome and of England, of confirmation. The next matter that calls for consideration in amending the Poor Law, is the necessity of providing for the better nursing of foundlings and deserted children. The law cannot be made too strong against the mother who deserts her infant child; hut, on the other hand, to preserve the life of the infant, the workhouse is not a good resource. I am under the impression—having lately read a report of Mr. Assistant-Commissioner Hall, and an able statistical work of Dr. Willis upon the subject—that there has been some exaggeration of the extent and of the causes of the mortality among that unfortunate class; but I am still of opinion that many an infant has been lost owing to the want of a mother's care, or of that care which it might be the interest of a poor person to bestow upon it if it were put out
482
to nurse. The pauper inmates of a workhouse, when appointed to take charge of infants not their own, and commonly very delicate, owing to the hardships they may have undergone from exposure, cannot be made to bestow, without reward, the requisite care; and it is, therefore, always easy in the infant ward of a workhouse to distinguish the children who are nursed by their mothers from the rest. Under the grand jury laws, it is the practice to give foundling children out to nurse for twelve years, at 4l. a year, which is about, or rather under, what they would cost if reared in a poorhouse. To leave them so long as twelve years, as out-pensioners, would be to debar the unfortunate objects of the advantages of education which the workhouses afford; but I conceive that if they were nursed out for only two or three years, an existing evil of outdoor relief by county presentments might be abated; the lives of many would be saved, the cause of humanity served, and a just ground of complaint against the Poor Law removed. The subject is one upon which I have received many representations, and which I conceive to be well deserving of an attentive inquiry. I pass over some minor points, to hasten to the consideration of the last and most important question in reference to the Poor Law; one, which I was sorry last Session to be informed that the Government Mere not prepared to take up—I mean the carrying out of the objects of the Poor Relief Act, by giving it efficacy as a measure for the suppression of mendicancy. As far back as the year 1841, this defect in the law had been strongly noticed by public bodies, and representations upon the subject were made by no less than forty boards of guardians. The Commissioners, too, have repeatedly insisted upon its importance to the success of the measure, and the Government of the day even brought in a Bill upon the subject, the passing of which, I believe, was only prevented by the political changes that then took place. In one of Mr. Nicholls's three Reports, which were, in fact, the foundation of the Poor Law, he observes with great truth, that—
"Unless the great mass of the Irish population be protected from the effects of destitution, no great or lasting improvement in their social condition can be expected:"
and any one at all acquainted with Ireland must be sensible what an obstacle to national improvement—what a clog upon the industry of the lower classes, is the

483
outdoor support of the numerous professional beggars that infest the country. The Poor Law, my Lords, is now in general operation, and the workhouses are all completed, the want of which, as I gathered from the noble Duke's speech, in answer to my noble Friend's Motion for a Committee of Inquiry in the year 1843, alone prevented Her Majesty's Government at that time from dealing with the question of the suppression of mendicancy. That measure can now be considered free from the objection that the mendicant has no other resource but begging. The same alternative as in this country is now presented to the mendicant in every quarter of Ireland. The workhouses are everywhere available; and it is but fair that those who have paid for them, and are taxed for upholding them, should derive the benefit they were designed to confer. It should be recollected that when the Poor Law was passed without the clauses against vagrancy, an expectation was held out that the mere existence of receptacles for the poor, and the expense of maintaining them, would have had the effect of discouraging, perhaps altogether putting a stop to the practice of alms giving and street begging. The operation of the law has been the very reverse. Mendicity institutions, previously established expressly for the purpose of suppressing mendicancy, were closed to make way for the more comprehensive experiment of the Poor Law undertaken by the Government; and the consequence was, that as the moral influence of a great publie combination was removed, street begging, with all its demoralizing effects, returned in full vigour. It is now eight years since the enactment of the Poor Law; and all that the citizen-sees in return for very heavy assessment to which he has been subjected from the beginning, is the unavailing machinery of a vast and comprehensive undertaking, the failure of a great scheme of legislative wisdom, which, as such, is viewed by a large portion of the Irish people as evidence of the incompetency of a British Parliament to legislate for Ireland, and by Irishmen in general with the same growing feelings of impatience and dissatisfaction, which so many circumstances connected with the government of Ireland have, more particularly of late, awakened. The step of framing an Act for the suppression of mendicancy—now that the machinery is provided—does not appear a matter of any great difficulty; it may be done in the most gradual man-
484
ner. Were clauses for the purpose, analogous to those in the original Poor Law Bill enacted, with a proviso, however, that they should only be of force in Poor Law districts, where the boards of guardians applied for them, and after due notification; I am strongly of opinion that the beneficial operation of the law would be so sensibly felt, wherever it was called for, that it would speedily be proclaimed in every Union in Ireland. In order, however, thus to carry out the objects of the Poor Laws, a new classification of the pauper inmates of the workhouses would be necessary; that among the adults of both sects separation should be made of those whose destitution might be the consequence of vice, from paupers of irreproachable character. Such a step would be at once a protection to morals, and a material improvement of workhouse discipline. Among the destitute are to be found persons of the most abandoned characters, whose association with the better conducted members of the lower classes, is one of the evils under which Ireland, for want of an effective Poor Law, has so long laboured. By many boards of guardians, it is felt that it would be an injustice, and a practical denial of relief to the unfortunate but deserving poor, to say to them that they shall only be admitted to the workhouse on the terms of being associated with every depraved character whom hunger, want, or disease, may bring to the workhouse door. It is, however, no less practically a denial of the claims of destitution, that a due consideration for the well-conducted forbids, except in extreme cases, the admission of men or women of bad character; thereby throwing them back as dependents upon public compassion, or upon the wages of profligacy or crime. An additional class on each side of every workhouse would, I conceive, remove this inconvenience, and be attended with the greatest moral benefit to the paupers in general, securing the good from the contamination of evil associates, and creating among the latter a salutary desire, as well as an opening for acquiring a new character, and being reinstated in a way of earning an honest livelihood. The present extent of workhouse accommodation would probably be sufficient for the purpose. The houses, during the past year, having been in general more than two-third parts empty, notwithstanding the want of a proper system of outdoor medical relief, I see no reason to apprehend that the workhouse test of destitution being applied to those

485
who infest the highways in the mendicant character, the numbers to be relieved would, upon the whole, exceed what Mr. Nicholls in his reports suggested, and what the Legislature contemplated in passing the Poor Relief Act—viz., one per cent. upon the population of Ireland, or somewhat less than what the workhouses are capable of accommodating. Without thus carrying out the experiment of the Poor Laws, no certain knowledge can ever be arrived at of the real extent of destitution in Ireland, of the number of the helpless who must necessarily be a burden to the country, and of the number of the able-bodied of both sexes, who, having no resources at home, might be, with advantage to themselves, and to the interests of the Empire, located elsewhere. The Poor Law, with the aid of a strong enactment against vagrancy, would add to present inducements to rate payers to give employment, but their means of doing so are very limited; it would behove the State, therefore, if the resources of industry which can be provided at home, in agriculture or manufactures, be found insufficient, with the concurrent operation of the Poor Law to provide subsistence for all, promptly; and before the evil be further increased, to take into consideration the difficulty that sooner or later must be dealt with of an over-abundant population. I am sensible, my Lords, that I have detained you a very long time—that I have unduly trespassed upon your attention—but, if I owe you an apology for having done so, I, on the other hand, should have been, perhaps, more inexcusable in bringing forward a Motion of this kind without showing upon what grounds I did so. I have only now to move—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Operation of the 1st and 2nd Vict., Cap. 56, and the other Laws relating to the Relief of the destitute Poor in Ireland; and also to inquire into the Operation of the Medical Charities in Ireland which are supported wholly or partially by Grants from the County Cess."
LORD BROUGHAMfelt, that there was no ground for the charge of want of attention on the part of the House, which had been made by the noble Earl. He, for one, had been listening for more than an hour and three-quarters to the speech of the noble Earl, and that made on an unopposed Motion. This latter circumstance sufficiently accounted for the thin attendance of noble Lords, for on such occasions it was not customary to preface the Motion with a long speech; but the noble Earl had stated everything that could possibly be brought
486
forward in Committee, and in doing so he virtually almost defeated his own object; for if he brought all out there, what was the use of a Committee? Before he sat down, he was anxious to express his earnest hope to his noble Friends connected with the Government, that they would not delay the measures they intended to bring forward with respect to Ireland, and which had been adverted to in the Speech from the Throne. He trusted that they would at once be brought forward in that House, where at present they had nothing else to do, and where they would meet with immediate attention, and the unanimous support of the House, if they were founded, and of which he had little doubt, in a spirit of wisdom and mercy towards the people of Ireland.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONsaid, Her Majesty's Government would take care that the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord should be attended to; and added, that there was not the smallest objection to the Motion of the noble Earl.
Motion agreed to; Committee appointed.
House adjourned.