Sitting of 7 May 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Van Diemen's Land Company; British American Land Company; House of Commons Costs Taxation; Metropolitan Buildings.
2° Poor Removal (England and Scotland); Savings' Banks Annuities.
Reported.—County Buildings; Naval Service of Boys; Passengers Act Amendment; Drainage of Lands.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. F. Baring and other hon. Members, from several places, for Alteration of the Law of Marriage.—By Sir J. Tyrell, from Stambourne, against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—By Mr. Kemble, from Peckham, and Mr. Pattison, from London, for Inquiry respecting the Rajah of Sattara.—By Mr. Marsland, from Stockport, respecting Remuneration to Tax Assessors and Collectors.—By Lord Courtenay, from Owners and Occupiers of Land in the Kingsbridge Union, in favour of the Agricultural Tenant-Right Bill.—By Mr. F. Baring, from Portsmouth, for Regulating the Qualification of Chemists and Druggists.—By Mr. Pattison, from Congleton, against the proposed Plan of Education.—By Captain Berkeley and other hon. Members, from several places, in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.—By Captain Berkeley and other hon. Members, from several places, in favour of the Medical Registration and Medical Law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. Somers, from Guardians of the Sligo Union, in favour of the Railways (Ireland) Bill.—By Sir De L. Evans, from Henry Needham Scrope Shrapnel, of Bradford, for Consideration of his Case.

HAYDOCK LODGE.
MR. W. O. STANLEYbegged to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in conformity with the recommendation of the Commissioners in Lunacy in their last report upon Haydock Lodge, the magistrates of the county of Lancaster, on the renewal of the license this year, had required the proprietor, Mr. Coode, to reside on the premises; and also to provide a competent medical assistant; also to reside in the asylum? The recommenda-
524
tion of the Commissioners was in these terms:—
"At the same, we are strongly of opinion, that in case the justices of Lancashire be disposed, on consulting with the local visitors, to grant the application, which must shortly come before them, for renewing the existing license, they might most properly insist that Mr. Coode, the individual who is most largely interested in the prosperity of the institution, and who, whatever he may be in form, is virtually the principal proprietor, should be associated in the license by name as co-proprietor with his sister, and that his residence upon the premises should be made an indispensable condition of the renewal; and we would, moreover suggest, that care should be taken upon the same occasion to enforce the immediate appointment of a competent medical assistant, to be also resident on the spot, and relieve the present medical officer from a portion of his duties."
SIR G. GREYsaid, a correspondence had taken place between the Commissioners of Lunacy and the visiting justices in Lancashire on this subject; and the license was granted for a short period, in order that it might be decided what course should ultimately be adopted. At the end of four months that license was renewed; but Mr. Coode's residence was not insisted on, the license being granted in the name of Mr. Jenkins, who resided in the establishment. With respect to the second part of the question, he could answer it in the affirmative. Mr. Green, a gentleman perfectly competent, had been appointed.

IMMIGRATION OF PAUPERS FROM IRELAND.
SIR B. HALLwished to ask a question of the Home Secretary on the subject of the vast influx of Irish paupers into Liverpool, which had been represented in a petition to that House from the select vestry of Liverpool, from which petition he would read the statement of facts:—
"That, by official returns, the number who have come into the port from Ireland since the 1st of January is 150,750; that of these only 48,188 have emigrated, leaving 102,564 who are either wandering about the town of Liverpool and the neighbouring villages, or spreading, as mendicants, throughout the whole kingdom. That, in addition to these numbers, officially returned, your petitioners believe that 27,218 have arrived since the 1st of December, to which must be added the multitudes who have come into Glasgow and the seaports of Wales. That 250 persons have recently been sent over to Liverpool by the mayor of Wexford, the cost of whose passage was defrayed by a public subscription raised by the inhabitants of Wexford, and 130 of whom immediately became chargeable, and demanded and received parochial relief; and that your petitioners are informed by authority, that such proceeding on the part of the mayor and inhabitants of Wexford was not contrary to any known law, and

525
that the only redress your petitioners have is one which they would be reluctant to have recourse to—the removal of these poor persons under the provisions of the Act 8 and 9 Victoria, c. 117, which Act, moreover, from its complicated and expensive process, is found ineffective, and the local magistrates have not deemed it expedient to attempt to put it in force. That the number of immigrants has increased, is increasing, and, so far from diminishing, will, as your petitioners confidently believe, and as they were warned would be the case, increase more rapidly as the weather improves, and the facilities of travelling become greater, more especially as it appears that the wealthy inhabitants of Ireland may subscribe to send destitute persons over to England for relief without committing a breach of any law. That this immigration is a great and heavy burden upon the ratepayers of the parish of Liverpool, but that the pecuniary burden is comparatively trifling, and the least of the evils of which they have to complain. That some of the immigrants come over in a state of actual infectious disease, and a largo number of them so predisposed to it that they fall sick shortly after their arrival, and so spread and propagate disease and death among an otherwise healthy population. That the consequences are most disastrous and alarming to the people—dysentery, diarrhœa, smallpox, and typhus abound. Three of the relieving officers have already died of typhus fever, and two now he dangerously ill; one of the medical officers is dead, and another is ill; one of the nurses of the Lying-in-Hospital is dead; and another ill. 654 paupers have been buried in the workhouse cemetery within the last month, the average number of interments during the last twelve years being only 1,367 annually, so that in one month the interments have nearly equalled half the number they usually amount to in one whole year. That your petitioners deplore the miseries of the Irish poor, and are ready and anxious, by every means in their power, to relieve those miseries, and are of opinion that the inhabitants of Liverpool have exhibited a noble and generous sympathy in behalf of their suffering fellow-subjects But while they are most anxious to extend justice and charity to Ireland, they conceive that they are entitled to demand justice and charity for the parishioners of Liverpool, whom they represent; and for themselves, and with every the most sincere wish that the distressed pauper Irish should be relieved, humbly and earnestly petition that they may be relieved at home, and prevented from spreading sickness and death, and the moral contagion of degrading mendicancy amongst the towns and villages of England."
He wished to ask whether it were the intention of the Government to take any steps to relieve the pressure on the rates at the various ports in England and Wales, and whether they intended to introduce a law of settlement for Ireland?
SIR G. GREYsaid, that statements precisely similar in substance to those contained in the petition of the hon. Baronet had referred to had been from time to time addressed to him by the municipal or parochial authorities at Liverpool, and by deputations who had represented the num-
526
ber of immigrants from Ireland, and the consequent progress of disease. The last deputation he saw two days ago, and they stated to him that, since the 15th of January, when an accurate account was first kept, the number of Irish paupers that had arrived in Liverpool was no less than 180,000; of those 40,000 or 50,000 had emigrated; a large number had passed to other parts of the country, but that still from 60,000 to 80,000 remained, in addition to the ordinary population of Liverpool. A statement was also made, that cases had occurred of steamboats having brought paupers over from Ireland in a state of fever, whom they landed at Liverpool. In consequence of these statements, instructions had been addressed to the custom-house authorities at Liverpool, directing that two ships lying in the Mersey, which were employed during quarantine (though fortunately they were very seldom required) as lazarettoes, be used as hospital-ships, so as to prevent the spread of infection. A custom-house officer would board every steamer or vessel with deck passengers, and if he found any of them suffering from disease, he would hoist the yellow flag. She would then be inspected by a medical officer, and those passengers having fever would be taken to the hospital-ship, and kept apart, instead of being lauded at Liverpool. Notice had also been given to the owners of those vessels which brought over fever passengers, that if the practice were persisted in, it would be necessary to place the vessel under quarantine for a limited period. He had received a letter from the Mayor of Liverpool, acknowledging the receipt of these directions, and stating that he anticipated the most beneficial results from them. The greatest satisfaction had been given also to the inhabitants of Liverpool by the adoption of these precautions, which he believed to be indispensably necessary. With regard to other places, the same representations had not been made to him as from Liverpool. In reply to the application for pecuniary relief, he was not able to hold out any hope that the Government would be able to bear any portion of the burden thus imposed upon the ratepayers of Liverpool. An offer had been made, however, of tents, if places could be found outside the town where they could be fixed, and in which the immigrants would have a better chance of escaping disease. A building at Cardiff had also been applied as an hospital for the sick. Three weeks

527
ago he had received a notice from Liverpool, that from 250 to 300 Irish passengers who were rescued from an emigrant ship and taken to Wexford were forwarded to Liverpool by a public subscription on the part of the inhabitants of Wexford, the Mayor of Wexford "recommending these parties to the justice and mercy of the inhabitants of Liverpool." An inquiry had been addressed to him (Sir G. Grey) to know whether the inhabitants of Liverpool had a legal remedy against the authorities of Wexford. He replied that the proceeding was not against any law that he knew of; and that the only remedy was the law to facilitate the removal of such destitute persons back to Ireland. It was not the intention of the Government to propose any alteration in the law of settlement in Ireland.
SIR H. W. BARRONwished to know whether the right hon. Baronet intended to propose any law providing that the 6,000,000 l. annually spent in this country by Irish noblemen, Members of Parliament, and other persons connected with Ireland, should be spent in that country?

CAPTAIN ROBB.
MR. H. BERKELEYwished to know whether the Government had received any complaints that Captain Robb, the senior officer in command of the English squadron at Oporto, had espoused with too much of partisanship the cause of the rebel junta there?
CAPTAIN BERKELEYsaid, that no complains against Captain Robb had been received from Sir W. Parker, the admiral on the station, whose attention would have been called to any matter deserving of reprehension. It was, therefore, to be presumed that no just ground of complaint existed against Captain Robb.

EXPORTATION OF CORN.
CAPTAIN HARRISwished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether it were his intention to propose any measure to put a stop to the exportation of wheat now going on, 134,000 quarters having been exported during the last month, and large exportations were still going on. The price of wheat was rising very rapidly, and he understood a further rise of several shillings had taken place on that day.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I beg to inform the hon. Member that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to pro-
528
pose any restrictions upon the exportation of wheat.

SOLDIERS' PENSIONS.
MAJOR LAYARDwished to inquire of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War whether it were the intention of the Government to increase the pension of the private soldier?
MR. F. MAULEsaid, it had been stated by his noble Friend in another place that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to revise the warrant regulating the amount of pensions, and to increase the minimum pension to the sum of 8d. a day. In addition to this the soldier would also carry with him as pension the good-conduct pay which he had earned during his 21 years' service.

THE MONETARY PRESSURE.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid: I am about to take a course irregular in point of form, but necessary, in order to enable me to take, on Monday next, a step which I think it most desirable should be taken in the present state of the monetary concerns of this country; and I hope the feverish anxiety that prevails, not only in the metropolis, but in the country generally, will justify me in occupying, for a short time, the attention of the House, to state as precisely as I can what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. I need hardly state to the House that this subject has occupied the anxious consideration of the Government. My noble Friend and myself more especially have received from day to day numerous deputations and representations from various parts; we have been in constant, I may say hourly communication, with those parties whom we believe most able to afford accurate information and the best advice on the state of the money market, and the steps it might be necessary to take in consequence. The complaints and representations which have been made to us may be classed in two great divisions. Parties coming up from the country have urged that various steps should be taken, either directly by the Government, or by the Bank of England, guaranteed by the Government, all of which, when sifted, amounted cither to a repeal or a suspension of the present law by which the currency of the country is regulated. Now, Sir, I do not wish at the present moment to raise any discussion on that point—there will be another occasion when that question may

529
fairly be raised, if hon. Gentlemen choose. All that I think it necessary for me to say on the present occasion is, that this is a course which Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to adopt. Now, Sir, having made this declaration, I think it is only right I should state, that consistently with the maintenance of that law, we consider it most desirable that every facility should be given which can be legitimately and legally given to the public, and with that view that no demand on the part of the Government should be made which should possibly interfere with the accommodation to be given on good private securities to the extent the Bank may think itself justified in giving. It is just a week since I stated that I believed at that time the necessity for the stringent measures adopted by the Bank had ceased. I certainly was misunderstood when I was represented to have stated that the danger was over, for most un-undoubtedly I never used any expression that could bear that interpretation. I said, not as a matter of opinion, but of fact, that the necessity for stringent measures had ceased. In point of fact, on the two previous days the Bank had relaxed the stringency of its course; and it has, from that time forward, been enabled from its improved condition to continue giving facilities to the country within reasonable and moderate bounds. The last return shows a very much improved condition. Since last Saturday the Bank has received 400,000 l. in gold and silver bullion, and the circulation of the country has been increased, nearly that amount of notes having been issued in exchange for gold and silver. Of course, I cannot interfere with the discretion which the Bank may think proper to exercise; but, so far as Government securities are concerned, it is desirable to place them in a proper condition, that they may be as available as they usually are for the purposes of those who hold them, and also to put the Exchequer in such a condition as to enable us to the utmost of our power to dispense with that extent of aid and assistance which, on all former occasions of quarter day, with a single exception, has been afforded to the Government by the Bank. Certainly, it does appear that the description of Government securities which at the present moment labour under the greatest depression are Exchequer-hills; and considerable anxiety exists as to the course Government will take as to that description of securities. I think it therefore desirable, al-
530
though the usual time for making any announcement on the subject has not arrived, with a view to calm the anxiety which prevails, I think it right to state to-night, that I shall, on the proper day, the 18th of May, give the usual notice for the exchange of Exchequer-bills, subject to the usual conditions. I think it, however, indispensable to raise the interest on Exchequer-bills, now far below the current rate given on other securities with which they compete; and, from the day in June on which the exchange takes place, the interest on all Exchequer-bills—whether exchangeable then or in March—will be at the rate of 3d. per diem. It is well known that it has been usual for the holders of Exchequer-bills to borrow money on depositing their bills; but considerable difficulty prevailed as to this mode of raising money during the late pressure. I am happy, however, to state that the Bank has, within the last few days, found itself in a condition to make advances of money on Exchequer-bills. It was made known to the brokers that the Bank was prepared to do so, and it has had no difficulty in complying with the whole demand made upon it to-day to the extent of 170,000 l. The Bank is prepared to make these advances, not for any lengthened period, for that probably might let loose the rein indiscreetly; but it has advanced money on Exchequer-bills for short periods, and that accommodation to the public the Bank is in a condition to continue. With regard to the Exchequer, it certainly is exceedingly desirable that it should not he under the necessity of calling on the Bank to make large advances, unless indispensably necessary, which I hope it will not be, for the next quarter. That must, however, depend on the moneys paid into the Exchequer. Although the payments into the Exchequer have, during the last fortnight, partaken of the general monetary depression, I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Board of Customs informs me that for the last few days the payments have resumed their usual course. From other sources I learn that money matters in the city of London are much easier, and that the extremity of the pressure has passed off. The mode in which I propose to put the Exchequer in funds is by offering an inducement to those who have contributed to the loan to pay up their instalments. I have reason to believe that, in all probability, many of those who are contributors to the loan will be

531
disposed, on the allowance of discount, to pay up the whole or a portion of the instalments between this and the 20th day of July. What I propose, therefore, to do is, on Monday next to move that the House do resolve into a Committee, when I shall submit a resolution to authorize, by Act of Parliament, an advance of interest, by way of discount for prompt payments on the loan. Any person who shall pay up previously to Friday, the 18th of June, any portion of the instalments due subsequently to the day of payment shall receive discount at a given rate, calculated from the day on which the payment is made, up to the day on which the instalment is due—that is to say, if anybody pays up early in May the June instalments, he will receive a months' interest; if he pays the July instalment on the same day, he will receive two months' interest; if the August instalment, three months' interest; and so on. I have reason to hope that a considerable sum of money will be paid up in this way. Of course, on the amount so paid will depend the condition of the Exchequer; but, from what I hear, I have great hopes that the balances in the Exchequer will enable us next quarter to dispense with the usual assistance from the Bank. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by giving formal notice of the course, as stated above, to be taken on Monday next.

PUNISHMENT OF VAGRANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for Committee on Punishment of Vagrants, &c, (Ireland) Bill read. On the question that the Speaker do now leave the chair,
MR. P. SCROPEsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord whether he was prepared to assure the House that he would do all in his power to guarantee the passing of a measure which would insure relief to the poor of Ireland in the extremity of destitution? He believed, that if the Irish Poor Law Bill were to be cut down so as to be merely a temporary measure, to continue in operation for one, two, or three years, it would be perfectly worthless. He was convinced, that if the Bill was to be merely of a temporary character, neither the poor on the one hand, nor the rich on the other, would exert themselves as they would do if it were a permanent measure. In his opinion, the time had come when it was necessary that this principle should be adopted permanently—that the poor should be supported in the districts in which they
532
lived, and in which their labour had been employed; and he believed the people of England were determined that this principle should be applied to Ireland. The people of this country were obliged to maintain their own poor; and they considered that it was not justifiable that a state of things should he continued, which would enable the owners of property in Ireland to refuse to discharge their duties towards their own poor, and, directly or indirectly, by the force of starvation, or the refusal of relief, to send them in hordes to this country, either to obtain that relief which they so much needed, or to come into competition with our own industrious population. He believed the English people and the Government were alike determined that this principle should be enforced—that the property of Ireland should maintain the poor of Ireland. He wished, therefore, to ask the noble Lord, whether he meant to press this Bill to-night? And if that was the noble Lord's intention, whether he could assure the House that he would take every measure in the power of the Government to secure the application of some permanent system of relief to Ireland, which should require the property of that country to maintain the poor?
LORD J. RUSSELL: My hon. Friend requires some explanation of my opinion with regard to this Bill. In answer to his question, I beg to remind him, in the first place, that I have always declared that, as the former Poor Law Act only applied to a certain portion of the destitute, and there were numbers who were not relieved under that Act; it was not just to deprive those who were not relieved, of the privilege of begging, and of getting what assistance they could obtain. I am still of the same opinion; and therefore I certainly should not attempt to ask the House to consent to the passing of this Bill, unless I believed there was a general Bill about to have the force of law which would give to all the destitute—to all persons in danger of starving, the means of obtaining their support from rates to be levied by law. I will say further, that if the Poor Law which is to give such relief is to be limited in duration, I think this Bill, which is of a penal character, should he limited in the same way. But, while I say this, I do not think the limitation of the duration of the Poor Law Bill would be a good reason for declining to enter into the details of this measure. It is quite obvious, that if the two Houses of Parliament were to show so

533
much jealousy of each other, that the one were to say, "We will not pass the Vagrancy Bill unless a Poor Law Bill, satisfactory to us, has passed the other House," and the other branch of the Legislature were to say, "We will not consider the Poor Law Bill unless a Vagrancy Bill accompanies it," there would be great danger that, between the two, no progress in legislation would he made. I am therefore disposed to go into Committee on this Bill. Before it has finally passed this House, we shall probably be aware in what state the measure recently sent to the other House will be returned to us. At present, my hon. Friend does not seem to be aware whether the alterations made in that Bill, limiting its duration, apply to the whole Bill or only to certain clauses; and if so, to what clauses. I think, therefore, we cannot take into consideration what is passing in Committee in the other House of Parliament; and I hope that this House will go into Committee on this Bill, and consider its details, as if the measure which has been referred to, and which has passed through this House, were to be agreed to by the other House of Parliament. In the future stages of this measure we may think fit to limit its duration; or, if the measure to which I have alluded should not pass, we can refuse our consent to the passing of this Bill. I must say, with regard to the necessity of the Poor Law for Ireland, I am more and more convinced, both by the accounts I hear from day to day, and by the statements of persons for whose opinions I entertain great respect, that the Bill we have passed through this House is absolutely necessary for Ireland. I heard only this day (I will not mention names, for it may he one of those exaggerated representations we sometimes hear, though it seems to me to be a well-authenticated case) of a poor family, the head of which had been one of the 40 s. freeholders formerly used as the serfs and slaves of great political landlords in Ireland, but who had now become useless, having accepted a small sum to quit their wretched holding, and being then left to starve. The persons employed in the constabulary found the woman and children dead; and they ascertained that relief had been refused by those upon whose land they had lived for so many years, and to whom the political service of the father had been useful. ["Name!"] I certainly shall not name; but I really think no one can he blind to the circumstances which
534
are passing around us. I see a complaint in the newspapers, in reference to the statement made by my right hon. Friend, that in consequence of the relief works having been stopped in a certain district of Ireland, within a few days, a great number of persons have perished. Why, Sir, it does appear to me, that though persons possessing property in Ireland may be unable to sustain the destitute during a whole year, yet that during the interval between the cessation of the public works and the bringing into operation of an Act recently passed, the persons of property residing in the neighbourhoods in which there are numbers of destitute persons, and not the Government, are bound to maintain these poor people. I may say further, that two persons who formerly expressed very strong opinions against out-door relief in Ireland, and to whose opinions great value is attached—Mr. Nicholls, one of the present Poor Law Commissioners, and Mr. Gulson, an assistant poor-law commissioner—have expressed in writing their conviction that, in the present state of things in Ireland, out-door relief to the able-bodied is absolutely necessary. These statements confirm my own opinion with regard to the necessity of affording such relief.
MR. S. CRAWFORDconsidered that the House ought not to proceed with the Bill now before them until they knew what was to be the fate of the Bill to which the noble Lord had alluded in another place.
MR. F. FRENCHdid not think any alteration in the Irish Poor Relief Bill which merely had the effect of rendering the measure temporary could be a matter of any great consequence, when it was considered that the object of that Bill was to prevent the people from starving.
MR. SHAWsaid, it was not very regular to discuss in that House the different stages of a measure that was in progress in the other House of Parliament; he would therefore, only say on that point, that he had from the first maintained that the legislation to meet the present calamitous emergency in Ireland should be of a temporary rather than of a permanent character. As regarded the Vagrancy Act, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) might recollect that, when the vagrancy clauses were introduced originally in the Irish Poor Law Bill in 1838, he (Mr. Shaw) objected to their passing, because the Poor Law Bill conferred no right to relief; and, of course, he should he of the same opinion now, if the right to relief was not provided by the

535
other Bill; at the same time, he agreed with the noble Lord that it would be the more correct and dignified course for the House to proceed through Committee with that Bill, without reference to what was passing in another place. He had risen principally to express his regret that the noble Lord had thought it right to allude to the case he had mentioned of apparent neglect of duty on the part of an Irish landlord, without furnishing the name or any particulars, which might lead to an explanation. If the information the noble Lord had received was correct, he should deprecate such conduct as much as the noble Lord could; but experience had taught him to be very cautious in crediting such statements, until an opportunity of denial or explanation was afforded to the party accused; and his great objection to a charge of that kind being made without name or circumstance, and particularly under the high authority of the noble Lord, was, that it would be applied generally to a class which had already been indiscriminately and cruelly maligned—he meant the Irish landlords. He would repeat what he had over and over again said in that House, that, as a body, they were doing all that men could do to discharge their duty, under difficulties of overwhelming magnitude. They were, as compared to English landlords, few, and scattered, and poor—the very distress which increased the demands upon them rendering them the less able to meet the demands. Under the present Temporary Relief Act, they were in some electoral districts in Ireland, 40,000 persons claiming out-door relief, and in others a rate of 10 s. in the pound voted for three months only. Let him, then, ask those who heaped charge upon charge on the Irish landlords, what men, circumstanced as they were, could do effectually to meet such a case as that?
SIR H. W. BARRONthought the House would agree with him that it was most unwise, ungenerous, and unjust, to make accusations, without notice, against persons who were absent; and, above all, he thought it was most unjust to make an anonymous accusation of neglect of duty against a body in Ireland who, tinder the most adverse circumstances, were struggling to do all in their power to relieve the poverty and alleviate the distress of those by whom they were surrounded. This was done, too, at a time when many of the members of that body were not receiving one-tenth of the rents due to them by law. The
536
fact was, that many of the landlords of Ireland were borrowing money at this very moment to enable them to afford employment to the poor, and to aid subscriptions for relieving the destitute. He was acquainted with some gentlemen in his own district who, at great inconvenience and expense, had taken this course. With respect to the question put by the hon. Member for Stroud to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he believed that question to be very irregular; and he thought it was inconvenient to discuss in that House what was proceeding in the other, or to hold out anything like intimidation to any other body. He denied that the recent vote in the other House, which had been alluded to, was a complete upsetting of and a refusal of relief to the Irish poor. Had any hon. Member except the hon. Member for Stroud ever described the Irish Poor Relief Bill as anything but a great experiment, and a measure of uncertainty? It was, therefore, in accordance with common sense to make such a measure temporary, in order that they might hare an opportunity of seeing how it worked.
MR. ROSSwas afraid that the result of making the Irish Poor Relief Bill temporary would be, that a general combination would be entered into by those who disliked it, with the view of preventing the Bill from working well; and then the opponents of the measure would contend, in this case, that such a measure was not capable of producing good effects in Ireland. He, for one, deeply lamented what had passed elsewhere, converting into a temporary measure that which was originally intended to be permanent; for he feared that at a future period they would have all the work to do over again, and, in the mean time, Ireland would be placed in very unhappy and disastrous circumstances.
MR. ESCOTTsaid, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had that night made an important statement, to the effect that he would abide by his former speech, taking care that in the Bill introduced by the Government substantial means should be provided for the relief of the poor in Ireland, and for the purpose of preventing them being a charge on the people of this country. In addition to the Irish Vagrancy Bill, which they were now about to discuss, he was afraid that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would also have to introduce a Lunacy Bill, in order to repress the wild ardour of those who, in

537
their opposition to the Irish Poor Relief Bill, seemed to be setting all common sense at defiance.
House in Committee.
On Clause 2, providing that a person shall be liable to imprisonment and hard labour
—"who shall desert or leave his wife, or any child whom he may be liable to maintain, so that such wife or child shall become destitute and be relieved in or out of the workhouse,"
MR. P. SCROPEmoved a proviso to limit this clause, by requiring that it should be first proved to the committing justice that such person had the power of earning a maintenance at home, or had been offered a maintenance in the union. If a man went to a distance in search of work, his family must go into the workhouse until he either returned or sent money to them, begging being now prohibited; but the man ought not to be punished for thus doing what he was really obliged to do.
MR. ESCOTTthought it would be advisable for the Government to make inquiry into the provisions of the laws already on the Statute-book, so that they might be repealed, and the law of vagrancy made uniform. He had been told that there were laws already in existence which imposed transportation for seven years for the offence of vagrancy; and he had been informed also, that that most offensive law had in certain instances been put in force.
MR. SHAWsaid, it was true that there was such an Act; but it was almost obsolete for any purpose, and had never been put in force or held applicable against a mere ordinary beggar.
MR. S. CRAWFORDsaid, it was true that the Act in question did not apply to beggars; but he had known it to be applied to prostitutes. He thought the Act ought to be repealed.
SIR G. GREYstated, that the object of the clause was to guard, amongst other things, against the wife entering into collusion with the husband, by which she and her children might become burdensome while the husband was in a position to support them.
MR. P. SCROPEwas willing to leave his suggestion to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 3, imposing imprisonment for begging,
MR. M. O'FERRALLthought that this
538
clause would be found exceedingly difficult, if not dangerous, in operation. In the case of those vagrants who feigned lame-ness and blindness, he thought the enactment would meet with general approval and support; but the reverse would be the case as regarded those persons who had known better times, and who were obliged to solicit alms from no fault of their own. He thought a discretionary power should be given to the Poor Law Commissioners to put the enactment in force in those districts where out-door relief was granted.
MR. GREGORYdid not think that the clause would be put in force in the case of those who from misfortune were obliged to solicit alms from those who sympathized with them. The enactment was levelled at sturdy beggars.
COLONEL RAWDONproposed the addition of words intending to protect those persons who were travelling in search of work, or to a seaport for the purpose of emigrating, and who might avail themselves of the hospitable feelings of their countrymen on the way.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that the clause was framed on the model of that incorporated in the English Act; and under that Act no instance had ever been known where persons travelling, for instance, to the hay harvest, had been put in prison on their arrival in England. He really thought the gallant Colonel entertained a harsher opinion of Irish magistrates than their conduct justified. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kildare, the effect of it would be to induce vagrants to flock into the districts which adjoined the one in which the enactment was in force.
MR. M. O'FERRALLthought the difficulty would be got over by making the clause operative within a certain distance of the districts where out-door relief was granted.
MR. SHAWthought, that if they were to pass the law at all, they must declare the act of begging to be an offence; but he did not share the apprehensions of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. O'Ferrall) that there would be any attempt to enforce its operation with extreme rigour. It could never be intended to make charity a crime, or to prevent any extent of kindness by the poor to their friends and neighbours. You could not legislate for each particular case. A discretion must be vested somewhere; and he did not fear that the magistrates in Ireland would exercise it otherwise than humanely.
LORD J. RUSSELLobserved, that he could not justly he accused of undervaluing the importance of this clause, for he considered it essential to the Bill. It was said that first the habits of the whole people must be changed. His object, he confessed, was to change the habits of the whole people. He wished to transform habits which were injurious to the country into others which would prove beneficial. Those habits were not peculiar to Ireland, but had grown up in every country where no Poor Law existed, and the destitute poor depended on charity. In all such countries there was an active disposition to offer alms and hospitality from day to day, and two classes of people had arisen; the first consisting of impostors, who by every kind of contrivance, by feigned distress, by feigned deformity, by feigned misfortune of some description or other, practised on the credulity of others, and were relieved under a system of indiscriminate charity. The other class consisted of sturdy beggars, who did not ask but who demanded assistance, and whom the habit of the country in some degree encouraged, but who formed a class closely connected with the criminals of the country in many instances. When he had asked whether crime had not been produced by destitution, he had been told that it was not the starving people, but the mendicants of this class, that were the guilty parties. He wished to change those habits, but thought it impossible to change them, if, on the one hand, any persons were punished for seeking alms without, on the other hand, providing relief. It was not for one class only that out-door relief was proposed. It was proposed to offer it in all cases; that was, if an able-bodied person was destitute, and the guardians were bound to relieve him, they could relieve him in the workhouse. If there was no room in the workhouse, they could order him to be relieved out of the workhouse. That applied to a person who required relief. [Mr. SHAW; And to all infirm persons.] If a man sent his children out to beg, they would be relieved under the Bill. Those who enacted that relief should be given in such a manner as to secure destitute persons from starving, had a right to say that impostors and sturdy beggars should be subject to punishment; they were endeavouring to put an end to the practice, and change the habits of the country in that respect. He thought those habits had been changed in this country, for no country was more disturbed by men-
540
dicants and sturdy beggars till an end was put to the system which encouraged them by a change in the law. Instead of bestowing indiscriminate charity, the disposition was to give alms only in certain deserving cases; but the people did not feel that, if they abstained from giving alms, a person really destitute would be left to starve. The change was of great importance, and if carried into effect would most materially affect the future destiny of Ireland. But it was a change which required a certain discretion to be exercised in applying the measure. Much would require to be done in the exercise of that discretion, according to the particular state of districts in which the law would have to be put in force; but he advocated the present clause upon the ground that it tended to improve the habits of the people.
MR. M. O'FERRALLwas no advocate for vagrancy; all he was anxious for was, that its abolition should be effected gradually, and with caution.
MR. GREGORYentirely concurred with the noble Lord. The effect of giving the discretion as to the punishment of these offences to the Poor Law Commissioners would be to drive the poor away from the districts where the Poor Law Commissioners had jurisdiction.
MR. BELLEWshared the apprehensions expressed by the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. M. O'Ferrall).
SIR W. JAMESthought, that however desirable it might be to change the habits of the people, there was much in what was said against the clause. In the first place, it was a Roman Catholic country with which the House was dealing, for almsgiving was regarded in a far different light by Roman Catholics than it was by Protestants. The object might be sufficiently gained if power were given to any two justices in petty sessions to commit offenders for one calendar month to the house of correction or gaol.
SIR G. GREYwas afraid that that provision would be attended with hardship to the persons convicted, by causing delay.
MR. P. SCROPEsaid, that, in illustration of the mendicancy in Ireland, he might mention that beggars not unfrequently, when refused meal on the ground that there was none left in the house, offered some for sale at a low rate, and that they not unfrequently left their daughters considerable sums of money. If a man had applied for and been refused relief, it would be very hard that he should then be punished

541
for begging. He had doubts as to the power of compelling relief under the Poor Law Act, and he was on that account more anxious for some such proviso.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that a man might apply for relief and be rejected because he was not destitute, and the hon. Member would then prevent him from being convicted under this clause if he were guilty of vagrancy.
MR. CALLAGHANowned he viewed this clause with considerable apprehension. He thought the state of the poor had not been laid before the Committee in its true light. There was one description of people whom he feared this clause would affect—persons who committed no crime, and who never contemplated the commission of crime. He lived in the neighbourhood of a large town, and he saw every day poor widows and other poor persons who went into the country to seek a few potatoes. He often inquired into the condition of these poor people, and he frequently found them to be mothers with two or three children—these children being educated by the monks, and by this means fitted for a better condition of life. These poor persons were unwilling to go themselves or to send their children to the workhouse. The noble Lord talked of "altering the habits of the people;" but it was impossible by their legislation to change the character of a people, or to extinguish the strong feeling of sympathy the Irish had for the unfortunate, and their charity towards each other. The farmers, so far from feeling almsgiving a burden, delighted in it as the performance of an agreeable duty, and would be anything but thankful for a Bill which made poverty a crime. He agreed that those who made a trade of begging, and exhibited disgusting sores for the purpose of working upon the benevolence of the rich, ought to be prevented from thus practising on the sympathies of their neighbours. But in a country where poverty was so general, and the anxiety to keep out of the workhouse so great, he could not help regarding a law which inflicted a severe penalty on vagrancy as a bill of pains and penalties against poverty. Reference had been made to the existence of the Roman Catholic religion where this law was about to be enforced. That religion furnished another reason why they should touch vagrancy with a lenient hand. It often happened to himself to have seen ladies stop beggars on the road, and having given them money, ask these poor crea-
542
tures to pray for their souls. [Lord J. RUSSELL: There is nothing in this clause to prevent persons from giving alms if they choose.] Yes; but he greatly feared that persons receiving alms under such circumstances, could be punished as vagrants under this Bill. Almsgiving in Ireland could never be put a stop to, unless they succeeded in punishing the giver as well as the receiver of charity; and he, for one, considered this clause wholly opposed to the general feeling of that country in favour of almsgiving.
VISCOUNT SANDONthought there was considerable weight in the observations of the hon. Member. He could not see that there was sufficient security against the punishment of classes of poor persons not intended to be affected by the Bill; and he should have preferred seeing the Poor Law in operation for a year, without any Vagrancy Bill.
MR. M. O'FERRALLsaid, it was quite true that Dr. Doyle had always urged that vagrancy was one of the greatest evils ever inflicted on the country; but he made a great distinction between classes of poverty. He denominated those persons vagrants who, from father to son, continued the practice of begging, and went about spreading vice and disease throughout the country. To put down this class of beggars, Dr. Doyle thought no severity could be too great; but he was quite certain that, under the present circumstances of Ireland, Dr. Doyle would have opposed a clause expressed in the general terms in which this was worded. If the clause were made to apply to sturdy beggars alone, it would be such as he was sure the great body of the people would be thankful for; but it would be doing the people a great injustice to confound poverty with vagrancy. What he wanted to see was, a discretionary power given to the Poor Law Commissioners to apply the Act to the circumstances of the different parts of the country.
MR. YOUNGwas by no means particularly enamoured of a Vagrancy Act for Ireland; and, certainly, looking to the clause then under discussion, there did seem some ground for saying that it was rather stringent in its provisions. At the same time, however, he did not think that there was much weight in the objection which had been urged, that the justices who were to carry out this Act would take no notice of the circumstances of the country, and would inflict the same severity in the mildest case of begging as in that of

543
a sturdy beggar. Such a case, he thought, was not very likely to occur, as the magistrates generally, he was sure, would exercise a wise discretion.
SIR G. GREY, in answer to a question from Sir D. Norreys, explained, that the term "resident in any union in Ireland" meant domiciled in any union; and that the object of committing persons who "shall go from such union to some other union in Ireland, for the purpose of obtaining relief in such last-mentioned union," was to prevent persons leaving a union where the workhouse was not full, and going to another where it was full, with the view of obtaining out-door relief.
MR. P. SCROPEmoved the following addition to the clause:—
"Provided always, that it shall be proved to the satisfaction of such justice, that such person might have obtained relief in the union in which he resided, or that he could maintain himself and family by a due exertion of industry."
SIR R. FERGUSONobjected to this Amendment.
MR. F. FRENCHthought this addition would nullify the clause altogether. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State what would arise in this case—suppose a woman or a man, accompanied by four or five children, were found begging, and brought before a magistrate, and committed to prison, would the children be committed to prison also—for the children were part of the vagrancy? If this were done, however, it would entail a very heavy expense on the country; and, besides, the gaols would not be large enough to hold the vagrants that would be committed under the Act. As the House was aware, the maintenance of prisoners was more expensive than paupers. He begged to suggest whether it might not be advisable to commit such sturdy beggars to a ward of the workhouse, where they would be under the supervision of the guardians instead of sending them to prison.
SIR G. GREYhad great objections to converting the workhouses into prisons. With respect to the question about children, he begged to say that they would be disposed of exactly as under the present law; they would not be sent to prison.
MR. P. SCROPEexplained that the object of his Amendment was to guard against the possibility of any one being refused relief who really required it, to calm the fears of the poor of Ireland of being placed between the alternative of
544
being punished with one month's imprisonment and hard labour, or of being obliged to go off to England to burden the people there with himself and family. He felt so strongly on the subject that he should press his Amendment to a division.
MR. ESCOTThoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment to a division, but would wait and see in what shape the Irish Poor Relief Bill came back from the other House.
MR. P. SCROPEsaid, that assuming the Poor Relief Bill came back in its present shape, his objection to the clause was equally strong.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Other clauses agreed to.
House resumed. Bill reported.

POOR RELIEF SUPERVISION (IRELAND).
Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Poor Relief Supervision (Ireland, No. 2) Bill, read.
SIR R. FERGUSONwished to ask what was the cause why this Bill was different from that proposed for England? There was a considerable difference between the two, and it did not tend to the improvement of the present Bill. One difference was, that the Commission in this Bill was made perpetual, whereas in England it was limited to five years.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that as to the perpetual duration of the Commission, the Bill had been drawn in conformity with the intention that was first entertained as to England; but as there had been an alteration made as to the latter Bill, the same alteration would be adopted in this, and its duration, therefore, would be limited to five years. Of course, it was impossible to make every provision exactly the same, as there were not the different Cabinet Ministers in Ireland to be appointed to the Commission that there were in England; but the principle of the two measures was the same. The President would be the President of the Board, to which there would be other persons attached, similar to the provisions adopted in the English Bill. There was certainly a great difference in this respect, that the President of the Irish Board would not sit in Parliament: he should have been very glad if they could have had an officer as President of the Board sitting in Parliament; but it was found impossible to effect that object.
House in Committee.
On Clause 1,
MR. P. SCROPEsaid, he hoped that one of the chief offices in the Commission would not he conferred upon Mr. Twisleton, a gentleman whose conduct in the administration of the former law had given rise to such opprobrious remarks.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it would be very inconvenient to discuss such a question on the present occasion; but he might say that he considered the public were indebted to Mr. Twisleton for the manner in which he had performed his public duties.
MR. YOUNGwas confident that whatever duties were intrusted to Mr. Twisleton they would be most zealously and ably performed.
MR. F. FRENCHsaid, that the hon. Member for Stroud had stated nothing that could be supposed to reflect on the character of Mr. Twisleton. He himself had never ceased, both in the time of the late as well as the present Government, to attack the manner in which the principal public appointments in Ireland were made. He had repeatedly stated that in twelve departments in Ireland the chief offices were filled by Scotchmen or Englishmen, although there were Irishmen as able and intelligent, and as perfectly cognizant with the circumstances and condition of that country as those who were appointed.
MR. SHAWsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. F. French) could not justly complain that the present Government had not appointed Irishmen to the high offices of the Irish Government. He was not personally acquainted with Mr. Twisleton, the resident Poor Law Commissioner in Ireland; but he had always heard the same high character of him that had been given that night by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere) and his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Young). With reference to the evidence of Mr. Twisleton, before the Poor Law Committee of the House of Lords, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. P. Scrope) did not fairly represent it—for Mr. Twisleton rested his objection to out-door relief not so much on the injury to property, as on the demoralising effect on the labouring population that it would produce; and if a principle of exclusion were to be attached to that opinion, then it would be but fair to begin with the noble Lord himself (Lord J. Russell), and he believed it would he found applicable to pretty nearly every Member of the noble Lord's Government.
MR. P. SCROPEsaid, he had no per-
546
sonal feeling whatever in the matter. He had merely wished to call the attention of the Government to what appeared to be the general opinion on the subject.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

POOR REMOVAL (ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the Question that the Poor Removal (England and Scotland) Bill be read a Second Time,
SIR D. NORREYSobjected to the measure, on the ground that it would prove arbitrary in its operation, and would affect most unfairly the Irish poor.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that the Bill would not make the slightest difference as to the class who were to be removed. It would subject no one to removal unless he became previously chargeable. It would not have the effect of removing any one because he happened to be an Irishman. Any one who became chargeable must before removal be summoned before a magistrate, and an order for his removal must be made, and thus, by a simple process, the removal of persons chargeable would be accomplished. At present the numbers burdening some English parishes far exceeded the means possessed by those districts; they very much exceeded any relief that could be given in the workhouse. In the present state of the law, when a pauper became chargeable, a summons was served upon him, and he immediately went away instead of submitting himself to the legal process of removal. The law, therefore, became inoperative. He conceived it would be an act of charity to the paupers themselves, as it would be an act of justice to the parishes, to remove paupers at once. He repeated, that no person not now liable to removal could be removed under the Bill now before the House. It would only facilitate the removal of those who, under the previous state of the law, might legally be removed.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, in giving his support to this Bill, the only observation he had to make was, that he greatly feared it would be found to fall far short of the necessity of the occasion. At his instance, Parliament had some years ago made a very grave alteration with respect to the removal of Scottish and Irish paupers from England. Until the year 1844, the burden of the removal was not a parochial charge, but a charge on the counties, and consequently there was much less hesita-

547
tion on the part of the magistrates to carry that law into execution. Even now the burden of that charge, which had fallen on the parishes, was so extremely onerous, coupled with the other conditions required before the Irish pauper could be removed, that in the main that law was inoperative. Though this Bill removed one of the obstructions to the execution of the law, the necessity of the summons, yet still a very heavy charge would fall on the various localities, and the condition would remain that no Irish person could be removed to Ireland, except he were accompanied by an officer having charge of him. When the question was considered three years ago, there was at that time no provision for the relief of the Irish in their own country. Parliament was now deliberating on a law which would give to the Irish a permanent right to demand relief in their own country; and when they were so entitled, the time would come when it would be absolutely necessary to consider whether the Irish could not be removed to the country of their nativity in some more cheap and easy manner. At present it would be premature to enter into that subject. This Bill, though it removed some of the existing difficulties, by no means went so far as he thought it would be necessary to do with reference to the removal of the Irish. His right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department had at an early part of the evening answered a question with respect to the influx of the Irish into Liverpool, and mentioned to the House some very wise and salutary regulations which had been enforced with respect to steam vessels bringing over Irish paupers diseased, or infected with fever. If he were not much misinformed, the state of affairs at Liverpool was very anomalous. There was a stipendiary magistrate at that place, who entertained a conscientious scruple, arising from the present unhappy condition of Ireland, without reference to the difficulty of carrying the law of removal into execution, and he declined to grant a warrant of removal except upon mandamus from the Court of Queen's Bench. Thus the law was suspended by the stipendiary magistrate. Nor was this all. Measures were taken by the Liverpool ratepayers, suddenly distressed by the unexpected burden, to remove the charge in part from Liverpool and distribute it over the whole country; and thus they actually advanced money to pass the Irish paupers by cheap trains to the metropolis
548
and other towns. There was not only danger that this would spread fever and disease, but infallibly, if this went on, the English labourer would be brought of necessity to the level of the Irish labourer. Disease, poverty, and suffering would rapidly spread in this country; and in the state of affairs about to arise, when on the one hand you provided means of subsistence and support for the Irish in their own country, self-defence would absolutely exact from the Government the taking of effective measures to return the Irish to their own country, who could not support themselves without aid from the rates of this country. He was quite certain that this measure would be found to fall short of the necessity of the case. He thought it went as far as in present circumstances they were entitled to go, whilst the fate of the measure for the relief of the Irish poor at home was still doubtful; but if that Bill should pass, the question must then come under the view of Parliament, and measures infallibly more stringent than this Bill would then seem to the wisdom of Parliament expedient.
Mr. P. SCROPEquite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that this measure would have little more effect in meeting the difficulties of the subject than a fleabite on the hide of an elephant. He thought the emigration of paupers from Ireland, for no other purpose than that of throwing themselves on the rates in England, ought to be stopped. At present a trade was springing up in the conveyance of paupers, by which cargoes of persons were tossed from one country to the other and back again, on the plan of battledore and shuttlecock.
MR. FRENCHsaid, that the burden of the song of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Scrope) had ever been "legislate for Ireland for the benefit of England." He regretted that on this occasion the hon. Member was supported by the right hon. Baronet opposite. The English would allow the poor Irish to come in and cut the harvest, or assist in the manufactures of the country, when anything could be got by using the labour of Irishmen; but the moment their crops failed, or trade became dull, they would throw them back for subsistence to their own country.
MR. CARDWELLthought the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who last spoke an ill return for the assistance of England so liberally and cheerfully given to Ireland.

549
The hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) must have forgotten the question befere the House. There was one town in the kingdom which had had the addition to its population of 100,000 Irish paupers. The number which had arrived was 150,000, but as 50,000 had emigrated, a permanent burden was imposed on that town of maintaining 100,000 strangers—a number equal to one-third of its own natural population. That burden, moreover, was coupled with every circumstance which could render it insupportable—contasrious disease and utter destitution—yet it was borne with the most exemplary patience. Every sort of kindness had been shown the strangers, both by the public officers and by the most extended private charity. Having now given the Irish the right to relief in their own country, what was the question? Why, that the Legislature should pass a measure to remove a technical difficulty which rendered the law they had just passed inoperative, as far as the Irish paupers at Liverpool were concerned. They asked the House to remedy that technical defect, and to take care for the future that the people of Liverpool and of other towns should have the full benefit of the assistance the laws could give them. It did appear to him, then, that the remarks of the hon. Member for Roscommon were perfectly uncalled for and unjustifiable.
SIR H. W. BARRONdid not think that the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Card-well) had himself read the Bill to which he had recalled the House. The object of the hon. Gentleman who commenced the debate (Sir J. D. Norreys) was to draw the attention of the House to the summary jurisdiction given by the Bill. What did the Act say? Why, that if a relieving officer "believes" a person ought to be removed, he might take him without a warrant before a justice of the peace. Was that a form of law? Was that a thing to enact in that House? Supposing he were taken up in the streets of Liverpool, and dragged before a justice of the peace, how could he bring his action against the assailant for his "belief?" Was that British law or British justice? Was it common sense? Was it not rather the sense and justice they might expect to find at Constantinople? The hon. Member for Stroud wanted a stringent law passed to prevent Irishmen from coming to England. Did he forget that Ireland was part of the British empire? Why did they not pro-
550
pose a similar law for Scotland, for Yorkshire, or for Devonshire? The hon. Member suggested to the Government the necessity of a stringent law to prevent Irishmen from coming to England unless they could show good reason for it. Why, what sort of legislation was that? The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Sandon) suggested, and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. P. Scrope) supported him, that no Irish person should come to England unless under certain restrictions. A more dangerous, nonsensical, and impracticable measure never could be enacted. What! did they mean to say that they were to make a law to prevent Irish people from going to England? Were they to enact a law which in the worst days of the despotism of Napoleon he never would have dared to propose? Did they intend to enact a law which the autocrat of Russia would have blushed to propose? He believed the measure would have the effect of yet more estranging the Irish people from England, and he would feel it his duty to oppose it to the uttermost.
VISCOUNT SANDONfelt called upon to say a few words. He did not really think that any Gentleman in that House was favourable to a measure which would have the effect of preventing the people of Ireland from crossing the Channel and settling in England; and he regretted to see that the hon. Member for Walerford (Sir H. W. Barron) considered it necessary to indulge in such indignant exuberance of language in resenting what he supposed to be an insult to the Irish people. Great excuses were to be made for the language in which the people of Liverpool addressed that House, for really they had been very seriously aggrieved in a pecuniary manner by the great number of Irish paupers who had emigrated within the last few months to their town, and who had become chargeable upon it. He was sure the intention of the Government was merely to remove a technical objection, and not at all directed to prevent the Irish people from coming over to this country.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERregretted that the hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford should hare so much mistaken the construction of the law about to be enacted. The hon. Baronet had denounced the measure as arbitrary, cruel, unnatural, and unjust, and had stated that the autocrat of Russia, with all his despotism, would not have

551
dared to enact such a measure. Really the hon. Baronet could not have made himself conversant with the facts of the case, for it was not proposed to attempt the removal of any person until he had become chargeable to the parish, and had received relief, either himself, or his wife, or child. The present Bill provided that the person who so relieved the pauper (being a relieving officer) could take such a person before a magistrate, and so have him removed. The practical effect of the measure, which applied to all three countries alike, was to dispense with the necessity of summoning the person so relieved, and nothing more. It was repeatedly found impossible to serve a summons on such persons; and the object of this Act was merely to dispense with the necessity of serving that summons. It applied to all three countries. English poor in Ireland and Scottish poor in England would be treated in the same way.
MR. WAKLEYhad not expected so soon, after millions had been given to the poor of Ireland, to hear of an anti-Irish feeling existing in this country. Where did the hon. Member find evidence of the truth of his insinuation? The Irish people had themselves to blame; for, if Irish landlords and men of property had done their duty by their own poor, there would have been no necessity for the legislation that was now imperatively required. But they had not so done their duty. The poor of Ireland were, and had been for years, in a state of starvation. There was, perhaps, an appearance of harshness in this Bill, but it would not be felt practically; for he really believed that the Bill would be inoperative altogether, in consequence of the enormous expense at this moment of removals. With respect to actual removal, this Bill did not alter the existing law at all. Whence, then, the necessity for injurious language, and accusations that were so unjust? For twenty years he had been demanding a Poor Law for Ireland. He had always foreseen it must come, and now England was threatened with danger to which she ought not in justice to be exposed. He had no wish to alarm the public mind; but the fact ought to be stated, that typhus fever was rapidly spreading in some of our workhouses. He was not sure it was not in London; he knew it to be in some workhouses near London, and it had originated in the influx of Irish poor. Did Irish Gentlemen believe that the voyage to England was a pleasurable one for the Irish poor? Did
552
they know how the unfortunate people were driven about from parish to parish, and what misery they endured, having no place of rest? Could Irish Gentlemen feel contented with this wretched condition of their own poor? Talk about confiscation of property! Why, he would rather all the estates in Ireland, and England too, should change hands to-morrow than that such a state of things should continue as now existed. He thought the Government had been most unjustly assailed in respect of their Irish measures. They had had a most difficult game to play, and great credit was due to them for what they had done. He believed they would have done more if they could. Why, but a few hours ago a Motion had been carried in another place, which deprived Irish paupers of the benefit of permanent relief. It was high time that the English voice should be heard on behalf of the Irish poor, if the Irish Gentleman would not do their duty towards the paupers of their own country.
MR. FORBESconsidered the present Bill absolutely necessary, and thought the sooner it passed the better. He should not have risen on this occasion had he not been desirous that some Member should be found to stand up and defend the Irish landlords. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had been somewhat sweeping in his condemnation; but he had omitted to notice the exertions of the Irish landlords, some of whom, Mr. Blake and Lord Lurgan, had lost their lives in their attempts to mitigate the sufferings of the people. He would vote for the Bill, but he could not refrain from exonerating the Irish landlords from the odium cast upon them by the Member for Finsbury.
MR. GRANGERthought the power given to relieving officers was too great. It would be better to make a provision authorizing a relieving officer to apprehend a person immediately upon receipt of relief, than render a man who might be walking in the street and eating a crust of bread liable to be taken up, merely because he had an Irish accent.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the provision complained of was merely to remove a technical objection; the objections to it should be made in Committee.
SIR R. FERGUSONdid not object to the principle of the Bill, for he considered some measure was quite necessary; but he objected to the extensive power given to overseers. There was one effect of the

553
Bill which he wished to bring under notice. There was power to remove the paupers from the seaports of England to the ports of Ireland; but when there no power existed to compel their removal to the parishes to which they were chargeable. The Bill might, therefore, be described as a measure to benefit the seaports of England at the expense of the seaports of Ireland.
Bill read a second time.

POST-OFFICE ACCOMMODATION TO THE HEBRIDES.
MR. BAILLIE, on the Order of the Day being read for going into Committee of Supply, called the attention of the House to the state of Post-office accommodation afforded to the Hebrides. The islands of Skye and Lewis had been relieved of the expense of conveying the mails from the main land; but in the case of Long Island the old system existed. If the map was consulted it would be seen that Long Island was composed of three islands; but as at low water they could be communicated with by fords, they went under the common name of Long Island. The proprietors of that territory were Lord Macdonald and Colonel Gordon. Up to a late period the expense of the packet which conveyed the mails from the main land, and which was 300 l. a year, was defrayed by these two proprietors and their tenants; but about four years ago Colonel Gordon objected to the payment of his proportion, on the ground that it was the duty of the Government to deliver all letters at a uniform charge, and the whole expense devolved upon Lord Macdonald and his tenants. In consequence of the heavy expenses to which his Lordship had been subjected from the calamity which had overtaken the island, he had been under the necessity of intimating his intention of withdrawing his contribution. He (Mr. Baillie) wished to know what course the Government intended to pursue under such circumstances? It was surely not intended that a population of 15,000 persons should be deprived of Post-office accommodation.
MR. PARKERstated, that the subject to which the hon. Member referred, had been mentioned to him some time since, and he communicated with the authorities at the Post Office, from whom he understood that inquiries would be instituted in Scotland; but no official communication had yet been made to the Treasury as to their result. The question was still under
554
the consideration of the Postmaster General; and he hoped that arrangements would be eventually made which would meet the wishes of the hon. Gentleman and those whose views he represented.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply. Several votes were agreed to.
On the vote of 50,000 l. on account of the works of the Caledonian Canal,
MR. HUMEobserved, that 200,000 l. had already been spent upon this canal, and it never had been of use, it never would be of use, and it never could be of use.
MR. WILLIAMSsaid this was one of the greatest jobs which had ever been perpetrated. Although 1,035,000 l. had altogether been expended on this canal, the returns for this enormous expenditure were scarcely enough to defray half the ordinary annual cost of continuing the navigation. He objected to any further outlay upon this canal. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) had, some time before agreed to send down a commission to inquire into the progress of the works; and Sir Edward Parry, who was entrusted with this duty, made a report, which in his opinion was most unsatisfactory. The right hon. Member for Tamworth had stated that a contract had been made, under which all the works would be completed for 165,000 l.; and he gave a most distinct assurance to the House that not a shilling more would be required. Instead of 165,000 l. however, 205,000 l. had been expended on these works since the statement to which he referred was made, he wished to know whether the sum required for the purchase of steamers for the navigation of the canal was included in this estimate?
MR. PARKERsaid, the sum of 205,000 l. including the vote now proposed, had been expended on the works since the period to which the hon. Gentleman referred; and he was informed that the estimates of the whole expense required for working the canal efficiently was 226,000 l.
MR. DUNCANdenied that the canal was a useless work; and mentioned that a vessel, loaded with guano find drawing about seventeen feet of water, had passed up the canal and was now lying at Inverness.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the cause of the additional expense was an accident, which could not be foreseen, and owing to which

555
tbe banks were broken and a considerable quantity of land laid under water.
COLONEL SIBTHORPthought the hon. Member for Coventry had been long enough in Parliament to place very little reliance on the promises of public men. He thought all these items ought to be investigated by a Committee up stairs.
MR. FORBESsaid, that, the hon. Member for Montrose was willing to spend the public money, part of which was paid by the inhabitants of Scotland, on the British Museum and public picture galleries in England; and he did not see why the hon. Member should object to a portion of the public money being expended in providing the inhabitants of the Highlands of Scotland with the power of fertilizing and cultivating their land, by giving them the means of carrying there cargoes of manure.
MR. HUME: If by some means one cargo of manure has passed through the canal, are we to pay 50,000 l. for the chance of seeing another cargo of guano pass through?
Vote agreed to.
Several other votes were agreed to.
House resumed and adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Correction of Clerks.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Guardians of the Drogheda Union, against any Clause being inserted in the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill which would throw the Reponsibility of Supporting the Poor on the Occupying Tenant.—From Guardians of the Hertford Union, for the Repeal of the Law of Settlement.—From the Congregation of Cowbridge Chapel, against the proposed Government Plan of Education.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
House again in Committee.
The EARL of CLANCARTYsaid, he wished to ask a question. He wished to ask whether, under the fourth section, the Poor Law Commissioners could appoint relieving officers where they would have no duties to perform? and whether out-door relief was to be given as matter of right?
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, that such officers only as were necessary would be appointed. Out-door relief was only to be given under certain circumstances, and it would not be necessary to appoint relieving officers in all unions.
On the 5th Clause,
The EARL of CLANCARTYsaid, that he had given notice of his intention to move the omission of this clause. The object of this clause was to enable the Poor Law Commissioners to direct the guardians of the different unions to appoint a medical officer or medical officers for the purpose of affording medical relief out of the workhouse. He begged that in moving the omission of this clause, it would not be understood that he was desirous of curtail-
492
ing the means of relief to the destitute poor in Ireland. His object in making this Motion was to benefit another class, the industrious poor of that country. He wished to see the medical charities placed on a better footing. If a greater number of these institutions were established, there would be in every electoral division the means of affording medical relief to all classes. The Fever Bill, which now afforded some relief, would expire in November next, and he hoped that the Government would introduce some further enactment on this subject, to come into operation when that Act expired. He moved the omission of the clause.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that this clause would not at all interfere with the existing medical charities in Ireland; it was, on the contrary, a clear addition to their other means of relief in sickness. He thought that it would not be for the benefit of the sick poor if the Commissioners had not this power to appoint medical officers to give medical relief out of the workhouse, that it should be understood that this arrangement would not stand in the way of any more beneficial measure which might be introduced.
Motion negatived.
The EARL of CLANCARTYsuggested, that as all the relieving clauses were to be of a temporary nature, the words which had been introduced into the first clause should be introduced here, so as to make this clause temporary also.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid he understood, after the vote of last night, that the whole Bill was to be temporary.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he thought that some words should be inserted if the clause was intended to be of a temporary nature.
EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, he thought it would be better to give the Bill a temporary character altogether.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that the intention with which he moved his Amendment last night was, that those clauses only should be of a temporary nature which were connected with the new principle of giving out-door relief.
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, that from what had fallen from his noble Friend, it was quite clear that their Lordships, when they divided last night, were in complete error as to the intentions of his noble Friend. The Notice given by his noble Friend was, "The Lord Monteagle of Brandon, to move to limit the operation of the Bill to the 1st of August, 1847, and to

493
the end of the then next Session of Parliament." The "Bill" must mean the whole Bill or nothing. The matter was now in such a state of confusion, that no two men could agree as to the nature of the vote which the House came to last night.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he last night stated what the object of his Motion was; and he must deny that the confusion mentioned by the noble Earl had any existence, unless in the noble Lord's own mind.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that not all the ingenuity of his noble Friend could get rid of the confusion to which the House must be subject after the Amendment which was carried last night; for it was now impossible to tell what parts of the Bill his noble Friend intended should be permanent and what temporary. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) must disclaim on his own part and on the part of Her Majesty's Government making any answer to the question of the noble Earl (the Earl of Clancarty). It was for the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) to give an answer. It was not for him (the Marquess of Lansdowne) who had not been admitted into the secret councils of those noble Lords, to go from clause to clause and say, "In this I see the fitness of permanency, and the fitness of that is temporary;" and he must beg, on his own part and on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to disclaim the means of giving any answer to any question of that sort. He must beg leave to refer the noble Earl to the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) and those who voted with him; and if the noble Earl asked him the question, whether he thought the words ought to be applied in this clause, he could only say they might he applied or they might not be, as this clause might exist independently of out-door relief, or it might be made to fall with out-door relief.
EARL GREY: Is this clause limited or not?
LORD MONTEAGLE: Certainly not.
EARL GREYsaid, this was a most important point. Undoubtedly the Amendment of which the noble Lord gave notice was one thing, and the Amendment which he actually moved was a very different thing. He apprehended that no one could doubt what the noble Lord really meant. His clause provided additional means of medical relief to the poor of Ireland. The noble Lord said that it was to be permanent. He (Earl Grey) agreed with him that it ought to be permanent. But by the vote of last night, the clause author-
494
izing out-door relief had been made temporary, and the House had decided that, for the next two or three years, if the workhouses were full, an able-bodied man was not to be allowed to die of starvation, but to be relieved from the property of the country. But he wished to know why, after the two or three years, that man was to be allowed to die of starvation, but was still to be allowed medical relief. What was right to-day was right to-morrow and hereafter. The real truth was, that the noble Lord wished to give a damaging blow to the Bill at an early stage of the discussion. He did not wish to wait, for the legitimate and proper time of discussing the question of making the whole Bill permanent or temporary; but he availed himself of a technicality to introduce those few words limiting the operation of the Bill, though he (Earl Grey) believed that a majority of the noble Lords who voted for that Amendment did not perceive its full drift and scope, for be thought that its effect at this stage would be to impair and damage the Bill that the House was about to discuss; but noble Lords must be well acquainted with the long-practised ingenuity of his noble Friend in Parliamentary tactics to fully comprehend this dexterous and successful manœuvre. He (Earl Grey) could not help expressing his great satisfaction at this incidental discussion, for it had shown to their Lordships and to the public the spirit in which it was endeavoured to amend this Bill. He trusted that the public opinion was too firmly in favour of this measure to lender any risk of its being ultimately seriously damaged by any manœuvre, however well matured, or however dexterously applied.
EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, that the Bill contained a great variety of enactments, and of course it was probable, nay, it was almost certain, that it must contain some which ought to be temporary, and some which ought to be permanent. The noble Earl said, that the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) had availed himself of a technicality to defeat this Bill. He asked, why was the noble Earl to avail himself of a technicality to induce the House, by means of those parts of the Bill which were acceptable to all of them, to give their sanction to a principle of which many of them disapproved? It would be better to consider the Amendment carried last night as affecting the whole Bill.
LORD MONTEAGLEcould not help observing that his noble Friend (Earl Grey)

495
had more than once made use of the expression that this Amendment of his (Lord Monteagle's) was some manœuvre—his noble Friend did not exactly say deceit, but he spoke of it as a piece of Parliamentary tactic and ingenuity, and certainly conveying the impression that it was his (Lord Monteagle's) wish to deceive their Lordships. Now, he would appeal to the Treasury bench, and to every noble Lord who heard the debate last night, whether he did not distinctly, when moving his Amendment, state, in the clearest manner, that his intention was to move that the clauses relating to out-door relief were to be made temporary, while the rest were to be made permanent? Was that object concealed from anybody? He thought it was rather hard, after such a distinct statement of his object, that he should be charged with having deceived their Lordships into acceding to the Amendment he proposed. But, as the same accusation which had been made against him of having practised this supposed deception on their Lordships, must reflect upon the majority of the House, he was perfectly ready to share the obloquy which was to be borne by that majority.
The EARL of ST. GERMANS, in answer to the appeal of the noble Lord, felt bound in honour to say, that although he (the Earl of St. Germans) was opposed to the noble Lord on his Motion, yet he distinctly understood the noble Lord to say, that by his Amendment he intended to provide that one part of the Bill should be temporary, and the other permanent; though, certainly, there did appear to him (the Earl of St. Germans) a distinction between the explanation of the noble Lord to-day and the Amendment as it appeared on the paper. There was some degree of uncertainty prevailing throughout the discussion of last night as to which of the clauses the noble Lord intended should be permanent, and which temporary; and that was one reason why he (the Earl of St. Germans) voted against the Amendment, because he thought their Lordships were prejudging the question. He certainly was of opinion that great inconvenience had arisen from the division of last night.
LORD CAMPBELLvery much regretted the confusion which had been occasioned by the Amendment of his noble Friend. Though a lawyer of some experience, he certainly was at a loss to know what was the legal interpretation of the words which had been introduced into the Bill by the
496
Amendment of his noble Friend, who told them that his intention was to divide the Bill into two separate parts; the one to be temporary, the other permanent. But, then, every word of the Amendment applied to every part of the Bill. It certainly would be a very novel mode of legislation to have one section of an Act of Parliament temporary and another permanent, unless it was distinctly pointed out in each clause. In the New Poor Law, for example, there was a temporary clause, which declared that the Commissioners should be appointed for five years only; but that appeared upon the face of the clause itself. There was no ambiguity there. He earnestly hoped that his noble Friend would not persist in this mode of dealing with the measure; he would not say by attempting to damage the Bill, because no doubt his noble Friend's object was to render it as little objectionable as possible; but he would earnestly appeal to his noble Friend to allow the words of his Amendment of last night to be erased, and that he would come back to his first thoughts, which, according to the notice he gave, were to move the rejection of outdoor relief altogether, and to allow all the other portions of the Bill to be permanent.
LORD MONTEAGLEfelt the difficulty of contending with his noble and learned Friend; but, nevertheless, he would take upon himself to say, as a lay Member of their Lordships' House, that there was no difficulty at all in this measure. Was his noble and learned Friend prepared to say, that there were no permanent Bills containing temporary clauses, and that there were no temporary Bills containing permanent clauses? [Laughter.] Yes; temporary Bills in their general enactments. He admitted that there might be some complexity arising from the Amendment of last night, if it were not proposed to insert at the end of the Bill a clause pointing out those clauses which should be temporary, and those which should be permanent. That was his answer to his noble and learned Friend.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEconsidered that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord last night was totally different from that of which he had given notice. The noble Lord's original proposition was, not to make the out-door clause temporary, but to omit it from the Bill altogether. The fact was, that their Lordships had got the Bill into a state of inextricable confusion by the Amendment of

497
last evening. He hoped his noble Friend would reconsider the subject.
The EARL of SHREWSBURYsaid, that as he was one of those who voted with the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) last night, he must honestly avow that he did so in error. He voted with the noble Lord, not as being opposed to the principle of the Bill, or to any part of its principle, but he did so because he thought it was impossible to be carried into effect; and he, therefore, believed it would be highly advantageous that the measure should return to their Lordships as speedily as possible for reconsideration. In fact, he thought it was a Poor Relief Bill which could not relieve the poor.
The EARL of CLANCARTYwould withdraw his Motion for omitting the clause, and reserve himself to make another proposition on the bringing up of the report.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHcomplained of the construction which the noble Secretary of the Colonies (Earl Grey) had put upon the motives of those who voted in support of the Amendment of last night. The noble Earl had also come down at the heel of the discussion and stated that they were to have public opinion to bear upon this question. Now he (the Marquess of Westmeath) did not know exactly what the noble Earl meant; but their Lordships knew that they had had some very coarse comments made elsewhere upon their proceedings; and he certainly must lament hearing a Minister of the Crown getting up and threatening their Lordships with the awe of public opinion, as if their Lordships were not an independent branch of the Legislature.
Clause 5 was then put and agreed to.
On Clause 6 being read,
LORD STANLEYmoved to propose the substitution of a clause for the one which was now before the Committee. Their Lordships had decided that there should be relieving officers to carry out this measure, and that the appointment of those relieving officers should be left to the boards of guardians; and the present clause proceeded to define the duties of those relieving officers. He would just remind their Lordships of the nature and extent of those duties, and in doing so, would compare them with the extent of the duties to be discharged by the relieving officers in England. The average population of a union in England was 24,845; the average population of a union in Ireland was 65,384; there were upwards of 620
498
unions in England, no less than 541 of which were of an area below 100,000 acres; while in Ireland the number of unions was only 130, and there were only twenty-six of those unions whose area did not exceed 100,000 acres. The average area of 570 of the unions in England was about 53,297 acres, while the average area of the whole 130 unions in Ireland was no less than 146,000 acres. This additional difficulty, therefore, applied to the case of the relieving officers in Ireland, beyond those difficulties which arose from the social state of Ireland; in England there was one board of guardians to an area of 53,297 acres, with a population of 24,845; while in Ireland there was one board of guardians to an area of 146,000 acres, with a population of 65,384. The parties to afford relief under this Bill were the relieving officers, and with them would lodge the discretion of granting or of withholding outdoor relief throughout these extensive areas. They would have no means of referring for advice or assistance to the boards of guardians, who might, in the case of each union, be sitting at a distance of twenty, twenty-five, or even thirty miles from the places in which the duties of the relieving officers were to be performed. The consequence of this inability to make immediate application to the board of guardians, might be to place the relieving officers either in a state of the most imminent danger, or else, from fear of violence, they would not dare properly to discharge their duties, but would prefer running the distant risk of having their conduct disapproved of by the board of guardians, than refrain from a system of very lavish and improvident expenditure of the public funds. He had placed an Amendment upon the Paper which he believed would have the effect of interposing a controlling power between the board of guardians and the relieving officer. He did not mean to state that his plan was free from objection, or that it did not admit of amendment. He should not conic to a division upon it, but he thought he should not have been doing his duty if he had not pointed out the danger which would besot a great number of the relieving officers for want of a sufficient degree of power on the part of the board of guardians, and if he did not also suggest what he believed would be a remedy for that evil. The remedy he proposed was, that independently of the board of guardians, there should be in each electoral district a subordinate board to discharge the duties

499
of a relief committee, and with whom there should be associated a certain number (he would limit that number to two) of the highest ratepayers of the district; the relief committee being formed of the guardians of the union, resident on, or having rateable property within, the district; that this board should have the power to entertain applications for relief, which could not properly be relieved by the board of guardians. This he proposed to be done in the following way: every relief committee would be directed to meet weekly, and the relieving officer would on those occasions report to them every case of sudden or urgent necessity that was brought under his notice, and should have power under an order signed by the chairman, to give provisional relief in all such cases, by affording food, lodging, or medical attendance; but that the relieving officer should report the case, and the nature and cost of relief, to the next meeting of the board of guardians, and thereafter should give no further relief except under the direction of the board. There might, no doubt, be objections to this proposal; and one of these might be, that there would be difficulty in obtaining meetings of those parties whose decision was necessary to meet cases requiring immediate relief—a difficulty which might not be experienced as the Bill now stood, by which uncontrolled power was given to the relieving officer. But he thought this objection would have little force in practice, while great benefit would flow from his proposal, both as regarded the relief and the administration of the funds. In the first place, the funds would be intrusted to the administration of a party in whom they could repose greater confidence than in the relieving officer; and, in the second place, the relieving officer, who would incur great responsibility by the present system, would be protected by the board under whom it was proposed he should act. He threw out this question for the consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers, in the hope that they might see it their duty to adopt its principle; but it was not his intention to give their Lordships the trouble of dividing upon it, unless he found that it met with their very general concurrence. The noble Lord concluded by proposing a clause in the room of No. 6, and embodying the above proposal.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he could not give his concurrence to the suggestion of the noble Lord; at the same
500
time, that he admitted that there were some of the circumstances to which the noble Lord alluded that were deserving of some consideration from their Lordships, he could see many objections to the introduction of such a system as that proposed. Under the existing law there were many difficulties often found to arise in getting the boards to work; and those difficulties would be materially increased if a second board were in existence on which a part of the responsibilities would be thrown. Besides, the electoral divisions were exceedingly ill calculated, in most cases, for being formed into a sort of separate unions, as they were originally arranged, not with a view to the granting of relief so much as to the area of taxation. They were formed with reference to taxation, and not with reference to the extent and wants of the population. He believed the difficulties would be insuperable in getting an attendance of guardians at the meetings of the two boards. But, while saying this, he admitted, at the same time, that there was a great deal of justice in the noble Lord's observations with regard to the inconvenient size of some of the unions. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider that his objections in this respect would be sufficiently met by the adoption of the clause in the English Poor Law Act, under which the Poor Law Commissioners were given power to authorize boards of guardians in large unions to appoint committees of their boards to meet at convenient places for the purpose of giving relief.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he would be quite satisfied with the proposition of the noble Marquess, as he considered it nearly identical with that which he suggested. It was not very material whether a subordinate board, such as he suggested, were appointed for each electoral division, or whether the board of guardians appointed committees of their own body to meet in each division.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, there was by no means that identity between the two plans which the noble Lord supposed. The noble Lord made it imperative to have a relief committee sitting in each electoral division, whereas the clause in the English Act only empowered the Poor Law Commissioners to authorize the guardians to appoint committees of their own body in some distant districts of the union. As he before said, the electoral divisions were exceedingly ill qualified for the administration of relief.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he considered the plan which he proposed necessary, both for the protection of the public purse, and for the protection of the relieving officers themselves. In effecting those objects, it was a question whether they ought not to associate with the guardians two of the highest ratepayers in each electoral division, who though, perhaps, not of sufficient station to be appointed guardians, would consider it an honour to be elected to serve with the guardians, and would be able to afford valuable aid, from their local knowledge and habits of business. It would be a great protection to the relieving officer to be deprived of the power of granting aid on his own responsibility alone, and it would also be a saving to the public purse.
LORD WARNCLIFFEconcurred in the objection made by his noble Friend to the enormous extent of some of the unions, such, for instance, as the Westport union, and others in the west of Ireland. He did not know how Her Majesty's Government intended that applications for relief were to be made from districts thirty or forty miles from the union workhouse, unless some additional machinery were introduced.
The EARL of CLANCARTYthought that some words ought to be introduced restricting the power of the relieving officer in giving out-door relief more definitely than was done in the clause.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEthought the words used, and the restriction at the end of the clause providing that the temporary relief should be given only "at such times and in such manner as the Poor Law Commissioners shall determine and direct," were sufficient to prevent any improper use of the power vested in the relieving officer. As to what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Wharncliffe), he should remind the House that in those very large unions a great part of them consisted of waste lands from which no rates could be levied.
The EARL of HARDWICKEsaid, that, considering the extraordinary power which they proposed to vest in the relieving officer, he could not help thinking that he ought to be a man such as had been described the night before. Her Majesty's Government ought to remember that they were very generally advised on the preceding evening that the person to be entrusted with this power should be a person in whom the utmost confidence could be
502
placed; and he hoped steps would still be taken to prevent the appointment of such an officer resting with the guardians.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 7 being moved,
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he wished to suggest that the clause be so worded as to prohibit any relief being granted out of the rates in aid of wages or towards payment of rent.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he certainly should not object to such a clause; but he thought the nature of the relief to be given was so specifically fixed, that no danger of the abuse which the noble Lord wished to guard against was to be apprehended.
LORD BROUGHAMexpressed his entire concurrence in the opinion of his noble friend opposite (Lord Monteagle), that the payment of any portion of rent or the payment of any portion of wages out of the rates would be the greatest of all possible abuses. But the difficulty was how to prevent such an abuse, and how to draw up a clause prohibiting the application of the rates to such purposes. If they once gave out-door relief, they admitted the possibility, nay the probability, of paying wages or paying for rent. Suppose a man was poor, but still enabled in the natural way to earn 4d. or 5d. a day, and that, not finding this sufficient, he applied to the parish for more, and supposing that the workhouse was full, then, coming under the description of persons entitled to relief, he obtained the additional assistance, and so managed to make both ends meet. He would get 5d. from his employer and 3d. from the rate, and with this conjoined he lived very well, and would occupy a position sufficiently easy to make him perhaps envied by a landowner. He (Lord Brougham), though approving of the suggestion of his noble Friend, could not therefore see how it could be worked out; and this, in point of fact, amounted to one of the greatest of the objections which he entertained to the measure.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEobserved, that the pictures of difficulties which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) had painted as likely to be attendant on this unfortunate Bill, were only those difficulties and dangers incidental to the operation of every poor law, and which might have been prophesied quite as justly in reference to the law passed for this country, or in reference to any poor law

503
which had ever been proposed. The Government, in framing this Bill, had proceeded on the assumption of certain circumstances, and had prepared for the occurrence of exceptions to what they believed to be the rule; and when noble Lords came to state particulars and enumerate peculiar dangers, the only reply he could give was that they might multiply these cases ad infinitum, and under no poor law would they find a solution for the difficulty but by lodging a discretion somewhere. That discretion was intended to be placed in the hands of the Poor Law Commissioners, and every care was to be taken that they would exercise the power wisely, justly, and charitably. He could not argue with the noble Lord on every one of the exceptional cases which his ingenuity might point out; he did not deny that some of these difficulties might arise, but he was of opinion that they would not be of such frequency as to interfere with the general efficiency of the measure. The question had been put to Sir J. Burgoyne, whether under this measure relief could be given in aid of wages; and the reply had been in the negative. As such relief could not be given, the noble and learned Lord need be under no apprehension of such an abuse as that which he had contemplated.
The EARL of WICKLOWcould assure the noble Marquess, that, short as the time had been during which the Temporary Relief Bill had been in operation, the people of Ireland had already found out that they were enabled to receive relief without being really in a position to require it; and they had in numerous cases given up all kinds of labour, discontinued all self-exertion, and thrown themselves destitute on the public funds. In this measure now before the House there was a clause the effect of which would be to prohibit the holder of three or four acres, however poor, from receiving relief; and this would act as an inducement to many of the small farmers to throw up the few acres they held, and depend for subsistence on the board of guardians.
The EARL of CLANCARTYobserved, that this clause was a copy in every respect but one of a clause in the existing Poor Relief Act—that part of the original enactment being omitted which made children liable to maintain their parents. He wished to know whether the omission was accidental or intentional?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that he would make inquiry upon the sub-
504
ject, and the provision could be inserted upon bringing up the Report if deemed necessary.
Clause agreed to.
The 8th Clause (relief not to be given out of the union to which it is charged) was also agreed to with verbal amendments.
On question that Clause 9 (occupiers of a quarter of an acre not deemed to be destitute) stand part of the Bill,
EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, it appeared to him and others that this clause was loosely worded, and might be misunderstood. He had therefore drawn up a clause which he purposed substituting for that in the Bill. The noble Earl read his clause as follows:—
"And be it enacted, That no person who shall be in the occupation of any land of greater extent than the quarter of a statute acre shall be deemed and taken to be a destitute poor person under the provisions of the first recited Act, or of the Acts amending the same, or of this Act; and if any person so occupying more than the quarter of a statute acre shall apply for relief, or if any person on his behalf shall apply for relief, it shall not be lawful for any board of guardians to grant such relief within or out of the workhouse, unless such applicant for relief shall bring satisfactory proof that he has (at least ten days previous to such application) surrendered to his reputed immediate landlord, which surrender such landlord shall be bound to accept, whatsoever right or title he may have had to the occupation of any such land over and above the extent of one quarter of a statute acre."
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEthought the words suggested by his noble Friend would make the law more strict and be more satisfactory than those originally inserted in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
On the question that the Clause so amended stand part of the Bill,
The EARL of ST. GERMANSmoved that the clause be omitted altogether. The question for their consideration was, what amount and species of relief should be afforded to the destitute poor of Ireland. The change from the present system must be gradual and a work of time; and he thought the necessity of administering relief or not should be left to the discretion of the boards of guardians. There was a prevailing opinion that these boards could not be trusted—that on all occasions they would be guilty of extravagance and jobbing in the administration of relief. If this were true, it would be an argument against allowing them any power at all; it would be better to supersede the system altogether, and give the necessary

505
relief through paid Government officers. But, as far as his own experience went, he did not believe that hoards of guardians were inclined to administer relief with a lavish hand; and he had no fear that they could not be trusted with the same power as boards of guardians in England. The clause denied relief to a man holding more than a quarter of an acre of ground; but a person holding more than that small portion might be reduced to actual destitution, and require relief; the administering it ought to be left to the discretion of the board of guardians.
The EARL of RODENopposed the omission of the clause. It was generally admitted that it was one of the most beneficial in the Bill. Boards of guardians frequently exceeded their powers, and went beyond the provisions of the present Act. The board of which he was chairman had given relief in food out of the workhouse to any one who brought a ticket from a guardian, though it was directly contrary to the law, and he had protested against it.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, though it might be true there were exceptional cases in which boards of guardians might be trusted, yet facts and evidence proved restrictions to be necessary. The case stated by the noble Earl was clearly a direct violation of the Act of Parliament; and he believed no restrictions they could devise would entirely prevent abuses.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEwas not inclined to fetter boards of guardians too closely, yet it appeared to him advisable and expedient to adopt such a clause as the present. From the change going on in Ireland, those who had hitherto lived by holding small pieces of ground would no longer be able to do so. The destruction of the potato, and the change from that root to grain for food, would make it impossible for holders of very small portions of land to live wholly by them. The clause tended to make less difficult a change which must take place, and the sooner the better. He could not support the Amendment of the noble Earl.
Motion negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to.
On the 11th Clause,
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, by this clause they were not only making a total alteration in the Poor Law of Ireland, but in the principle of the Poor Law as established in this country. The nature of the
506
clause was, that in every electoral division, whenever the rate on a half-year exceeded 1s. 3d. in the pound, the overplus should be thrown on the union at large. That, he contended, would have the effect of discouraging landlords from improving their property. The Amendment he proposed was to substitute words, the effect of which would be, that the rate in aid should extend only to out-door relief, leaving relief in the workhouse precisely as at present.
LORD BEAUMONT, on a balance of arguments, was inclined to agree with the noble Earl.
The EARL of DEVONwas understood to say, he could not support either the clause or the Amendment of the noble Earl. He was quite sure that those who framed this clause, were not acquainted with the peculiar circumstances of Ireland.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, the immediate pressure of defraying the rates was the economical check on which they had to rely for the prevention of abuses. It was in the out-door portion of the relief to be given that the excess was most likely to take place; and yet this clause departed from the econemical check where it was most required—namely, with respect to out-door relief; and adopted it where it was least required—namely, with respect to in-door relief. The principle of the clause was one which noble Lords who were conversant with the administration of the Poor Law in England would readily understand, by its being a permanent enactment of a general rate in aid, whenever certain circumstances should arise; and by it they would tax highest the electoral divisions in which most capital had been expended, and where most labour was employed in improvements. Just in proportion as they extended the districts in which the rating was to be made, would they discourage the improvement of the soil, and diminish the employment of honest labour and the investment of capital. He prayed noble Lords to hesitate before they consented to impose such restrictions on the development of the resources of Ireland. However, he saw no reason to adopt the Amendment; he rather thought that Amendment would make the Bill worse than it was; and he should concur in maintaining the law as it was at present, and abiding by what was called the Duke of Wellington's Clause, thus giving the landlords the strongest inducement that could be given them to

507
improve their property and furnish employment to the people.
LORD HATHERTONwished to call attention to the question, what would be the effect of the clause on those landlords whose estates were encumbered. The proposed clause would be a distinct notice to the English capitalist not to invest his money in Irish land. He sincerely hoped that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) would succeed in the rejection of this clause.
The MARQUESS of CONYNGHAMobjected to anything like a national rate; and he objected, therefore, to the Amendment.
LORD STANLEYasked whether his noble Friend intended to press his Amendment to a division; as, until this question was decided, he could not bring forward his Amendment.
The EARL of WICKLOWhad such objections to the clause as it stood, that if the Government persisted in it, he intended to vote for the suggested Amendment of the noble Lord.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that he was opposed to the Amendment, as it would increase the expenditure for out-door relief.
Amendment withdrawn.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that he now rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, to reject the clause altogether. The discussion which had already taken place on this subject precluded the necessity of his addressing their Lordships at any length, because, in point of fact, the merits of the clause, and the objections raised, and whatever could be said in its defence had been fully stated to the House. It was, however, a matter of satisfaction to himself and to those with whom he acted, to find that, with the exception of the noble Marquess the President of the Council, there had been an almost entire unanimity of opinion in condemning the principle, and deprecating the evil consequences which must follow from the adoption of this clause. Whereas, at the present moment, under a general law of settlement, every electoral district was liable for its own poor, this clause proposed to alter that law, and to substitute the provision that whenever from improvidence or carelessness, or any other cause, the rate of any particular district should exceed 2s. 6d. in the pound for the year, then all the other districts should be taxed for the excess. That, on the very face of it, appeared to be an impolitic course
508
of proceeding. Suppose an improvident and rack-rent proprietor should be surrounded by persons who attended to their estates, who were at great expense to improve them, and had devoted to them their time, and labour, and patience, was it right that the rack-renting landlord should have a premium and reward by being entitled, in virtue of the heavy charge which his improvidence had brought upon his estate, to charge that excess upon all his more provident and thrifty neighbours? He could understand that something might be said in favour of this clause, if it referred to the great towns, and to the great towns only; but with regard to the country districts, it must, he conceived, be apparent without further argument, that in the circumstances of any country, but more especially in the circumstances of Ireland, where every inducement should be held out and every premium should be offered to those who were provident, and who were willing to sacrifice the temporary interests of property to secure its future welfare, this was a most impolitic as well as a most unjust measure. Though he did not wish to refer to any special instances, he was desirous to speak of a case that came within his own observation. He should state the precise position in which he was himself placed; the greater part of his property in Ireland was in an electoral division of which he owned about one-half; the electoral division consisted of 8,000 acres, and was rated at about 8,000 l. or 9,000 l.; as the proprietor of one-half of that electoral division he was subjected to the payment of the rates of about one-half, and he did not complain of that, but while he was charged with one-half of the expense for his half of that electoral district, the pauperism of his one-half was just one-fifteenth of the pauperism of the whole. If cases of this kind were to arise, and if so heavy a burden as this were to be thrown on unencumbered estates, it would be impossible to exaggerate the mischiefs which would result from so unjust and inequitable a system. How distressing would be the condition of the proprietor who, after having done his utmost for twenty-five years to keep down pauperism in his own district, and to make all around him comfortable, found himself suddenly made responsible for the relief of the destitute population in an additional area, covering some two or three hundred thousand acres! All combinations for prudent arrangements—all economy, all movements on the part of the landlords having

509
for object the comfort and respectability of their tenantry, would be at an end; and on the part of all classes there would be a general scramble to get as much as possible, and to do as little as possible in return for it, as every one would feel that their property was charged under a system of compulsory taxation, not to benefit their own poor, but those of others. He had little to say in favour of the Amendment, for, in truth, he had not heard a word denying the unfairness of the present clause, nor had he heard a word against the fairness and propriety of still further diminishing even the area of electoral divisions—of diminishing the area from which taxation was to be taken, and of thus increasing the inducements to private and personal exertion, and to private and personal responsibility. The average of the area of the unions in England, as contrasted with that of the unions in Ireland, were, as he had on several occasions stated, as 53 to 146—that was to say, the average area of the union in Ireland was threefold that of the English unions. This was the relative position of both countries; and he asked their Lordships whether they thought it possible that the Poor Law could be administered properly, and with a due regard to the interests of all parties concerned in England, if every destitute person within a range of three unions were to be made chargeable on their Lordships' well-managed estates in the several counties? But they were told that unless this was a measure intended for the relief of the towns, and that unless it were adopted, a general and sweeping system of ejectment would be resorted to on the part of the landed proprietors, and the towns would be overwhelmed with the burden of the rates; and the noble Marquess stated that it was intended to prevent what would be something like a confiscation of the property in towns. And what was it that this clause was to do? Practically it was proposed to enact by this clause that when the rates in a town exceeded 2s. 6d. in the pound, they were to make a rate in aid over the adjoining rural parishes. Their Lordships could not by the forms of the House alter the terms of this clause; but a half-crown rate was not an immoderate rate to be imposed upon the principal towns in Ireland; and if the Bill should pass, and it should be determined to call for a rate in aid, whenever the charge should exceed 2s. 6d., then he should never expect to see a rate in any town throughout the country
510
so low as 2s. 6d. The effect of the clause would therefore be to substitute, in almost every union in Ireland, a general union rate for an electoral district rate, and that whereas the electoral districts were already too large, they were going to multiply the area of those districts twentyfold, and thereby increase the objection to the present extent of their areas twentyfold; and what was the reason assigned for this? It was said to be to protect the towns from being overrun with paupers ejected from their holdings in the rural districts, who would become chargeable upon the towns. He thought that those who made this objection were very imperfectly informed as to the real state of the present law. It was not true that if he were to eject a person from his estate, and if that person were to go into the town of Tipperary, within three or four miles of his own parish, that that person would become chargeable on the poor-rate of Tipperary. The law stood thus—for, in point of fact, there was, practically, a law of settlement in Ireland at this moment—and this was how it stood—any person who should for a period of twelve months out of the last eighteen months have been resident within an electoral division, should have a claim to be relieved out of the funds of that electoral division. Consequently, if he (Lord Stanley), by reason of clearing an estate, were to send a number of persons into an adjoining town, they would have no claim whatever upon the funds of the electoral division in which that town was situated, until they had resided there for a period of twelve months at least; and if, previous to their removal, they had become chargeable upon his (Lord Stanley's) electoral district, then, although they had removed into the town, they would still remain chargeable to that electoral district; and even if they did become chargeable upon the electoral district in which the town of Tipperary was situated, there would still be no necessity for this clause; because, in that case a provision was made that all such persons were, by the law, chargeable upon the rates of the union at large. He thought that this statement of the law would go far to remove the objection which their Lordships entertained respecting the possible hardship to the towns; but this belief was, that this clause arose from the fears entertained by some six or seven great towns in Ireland; and yet, what was the fact with regard to those very towns? Why, they were, at this very moment, diminishing and not increas-

511
ing in population. He had already adverted to the injustice and impolicy of this clause. It would greatly discourage the investment of English capital in the cultivation of the land, and would seriously injure a large portion of the landlords of Ireland. As far as he was himself concerned, although he had property in that country and had for twenty-five years done what he could to improve the condition of his tenants and the people on his estates, yet he was not so immediately connected with Ireland as to make such a measure as this of any very serious importance to him. He thanked God that his interest was not so bound up in it but he could withdraw from that property and from the responsibility connected with it, and he could fall back upon the means which he possessed in England. But there were others who were bound by every tie to the soil of that country, whose whole interests and attachments were most deeply centred in the land of their birth—persons whose exertions there were of the most valuable description, and whose presence was most necessary; and the withdrawal of whom from that country would be most seriously injurious to it. Then, were their Lordships, by the passing of this clause, willing to declare to those persons that all the reward which they had to propose to them for all the exertions, all the great labours and the immense sacrifices which they had made for the advancement of Ireland, and for the improvement of the social condition of her people, was nothing more than that they should be additionally taxed in order to relieve the improvident, and to aid and encourage the recklessness of those who had neglected their duty?
EARL GREYhad listened with attention to the argument of his noble Friend against the adoption of this clause, and, however strong might be his inclination, on the first hearing of the argument, to agree with his noble Friend, yet on considering the real effect of the clause and the real bearings of it, he certainly thought they afforded ground for retaining it. His noble Friend had said that he believed that this clause was only demanded by five or six great towns in Ireland, the inhabitants of which apprehended some possible inconvenience from the enactment of this Bill without some such protection; but in which as yet no practical inconvenience had been experienced. In point of fact, however, his noble Friend had been misinformed. He believed that the other portions of this Bill,
512
without this clause, were likely to be much less disadvantageous to the great towns of Ireland, such as Cork and Dublin, and others of the first class, than to the smaller class of country towns—that sort of towns which in Ireland were very frequently the chief places in the union. It was upon those smaller towns, which formed the centre of the unions, that their Lordships would, by withdrawing this clause, inflict the greatest injustice. He was prepared with a statement of what had occurred even under the existing law, which he considered would be an answer to much of his noble Friend's argument; and he was about to refer to that statement the more readily, because he thought it would throw a most valuable light upon the practical working of the present law. He held in his hand a petition agreed upon at a public meeting held in Killarney on the 3rd of December, 1846. It was a meeting of the clergy, gentry, and ratepayers, and was presided over by a clergyman. It stated, that up to that period, namely, December, 1846, there had been only three rates imposed on the union. The first was on the 17th of August, 1844, and was a rate of 8d. in the pound on the town and the whole union. The second rate was levied on the 14th of February, 1846, and was a rate of 1s. 6d. in the pound on the town of Killarney electoral division; while a rate of only 6d. in the pound had been levied on the eleven rural electoral divisions of the union. But observe how unjust and inequitable was the pressure. The total expenditure on account of the relief of paupers for the year 1846 amounted to 655 l. Of this sum no less than 423 l. 18 s. was charged to the Killarney electoral division, which was inhabited by a population of 11,383 persons, who were principally engaged in industrial pursuits, and maintained by their own personal exertions. That population contributed for the relief of the poor no less a sum than 423 1. 18 s., which was about twice the amount contributed by 41,242 persons who were the inhabitants of the remaining eleven rural districts, and whose rateable property amounted to 7,600 1. It was to prevent the recurrence of evils like this, and to preserve the equilibrium of pressure in the towns and rural districts, that the eleventh clause had been introduced. But the grievance of the petitioners did not stop at the point he had already described, for they went on to make a statement to which he begged leave to call the especial attention of the noble Lord

513
opposite (Lord Stanley). He found it stated in the petition that a great number of the paupers that were charged upon the town electoral division were not natives of Killarney, but were strangers living beyond that division of the union, and who had taken their residences in that electoral division within twelve months. A material point in this case was—and he begged to call his noble Friend's attention to it—that a large proportion of these paupers were small cottier tenants, who had come from those very rural districts which were thus lightly charged—men who were broken down by misfortune, or who had suffered from having all their property extorted from them for rent, and who, quitting their former residences, came into the town as a common centre of refuge. Surely in a country where such a state of things could exist, it was idle to contend that the law of settlement to which the noble Lord had already alluded as being in practical operation in Ireland, afforded sufficient protection to country towns situated as Killarney was. This was not a speculative case, but one which showed that practically, under the operation of the law as it now stood, the centre towns of the union were exposed to a very grievous hardship. But, finding this evil to exist at the present moment, would it not greatly increase the hardship if their Lordships were to pass a law which should grant, under certain circumstances, temporary relief, at the same time giving to the landlord the power of denying that relief unless the holdings of land possessed by the poor tenants were surrendered, and thus conferring a power on the landlord that would facilitate the removal of paupers from his estate, and enable him to send them into the towns, there to live upon private charity, until they afterwards became a permanent burden on the inhabitants? Would that be a just law? His noble Friend behind him who, as chairman of a board of guardians in the county of Sussex, was aware of the practical working of the existing law, had pointed out most truly, that even in England the working of the system by which complete power was given to one or two proprietors over a whole parish, was frequently attended with very great injustice. In Ireland, under the system they were about to propose, and with the facilities they were about to create by the clause for the removing of the small holders from their land—under that system, his firm persuasion was, that they would inflict most grievous injustice
514
if their Lordships rejected this clause. But, his noble Friend thought that if this clause were right to be adopted, still the amount of the rate at which it was fixed that the clause should come into operation was much too low. His noble Friend said that a half-crown rate was a much' lower rate than he expected to see levied in any electoral town division. He confessed, that if that were his (Earl Grey's) anticipation, his views as to the future prosperity of Ireland would be much more gloomy than they now were; but he could not understand the grounds for that anticipation. Their Lordships knew, that up to the time of the great failure of the potato crop—and he must say, that that was a fatality which ought not to be looked upon as of continual recurrence; but, even if it did occur again, it ought never to be attended with the same fatal consequences as it had now been, because he trusted that the inhabitants of Ireland would never trust to the potato crop again for their means of subsistence—but until that calamity befell the country, the average amount of rating was somewhere about 7d. in the pound; and there was this further fact to be observed, that there was no one union workhouse in Ireland which up to that time was full—on the contrary, they were nearly all empty. It appeared to him that there was one fundamental fallacy running through the whole argument on the other side. It was assumed, throughout, that Ireland, of all countries in the world, was one in which the labourer, in point of fact, was to be maintained by charity—that labour was to be employed, not for the sake of the returns which were to be obtained, but as a sort of duty on the part of the employer, and to be received as an act of charity by the employed. Now, no country could be in a healthy state where such was the case; and he held that the maintenance of the great body of the population of Ireland could not be permanently derived from employment so offered. If, however, employment was given by those who expected a profitable return for the labour thus afforded, they might depend upon it that, under the operation of various laws, if they did their duty to Ireland, and interfered not with the natural circulation of labour—that country, possessing such great natural facilities for the profitable application of industry and capital, would find the means to employ, by degrees, its entire population in profitable labour. He should like to know to what length the

515
principle of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), as to the subdivision of districts, might not be carried. Would his noble Friend carry it from the townlands down to individual property? Was it meant to make every man responsible for the employment of the people on his own estate? If they carried the principle to its utmost, then the labour was to be given, not because it was valuable to the employer, but as an act of duty—it was as an act of charity, that an individual proprietor was to be required to employ the labourers on his estate. [Cheers from the Opposition.] Noble Lords on the opposite side cheered that, as if it was a principle to which they assented; but what would be the consequence of such a principle being carried out? Why, they would bring back that state of things that existed in the southern division of this kingdom in 1833, and which it was the object of the Act of 1834 to put an end to. Noble Lords must remember that the great evil then was, that every small district felt itself responsible for the poor of its own individual neighbourhood alone, and that the circulation of labour was thereby interfered with. This and other evils flowed from that state of things; and they would all arise again if they were to adopt the views put forth by his noble Friend. He was aware that on the other side there was a danger not less great. On the one hand, there was the principle of a labour rate with all the evils formerly experienced as springing from such a system; and, on the other, there was the great evil of a national rate. There was an extreme on both sides, and against that extreme it was that they called upon their Lordships to beware. He believed that the law, as it now stood, was a fair compromise between conflicting difficulties and interests, and that it furnished that motive to individuals to exert themselves to improve the condition of their own district that it was so desirable should not be wanting. But, by preventing, in extreme cases, this from being carried further—by providing that when the rate rose to a very heavy amount, the whole burden should be thrown on one particular electoral division—it seemed to him that they obviated the danger of falling into the opposite extreme. They could not adopt either principle exclusively; they must take a mean somewhere between those on both sides; and he was persuaded that if they looked at it in that light, and if they considered what was due to the towns, and in particular small country
516
towns, in Ireland, they would come to the conclusion that they could not have a fairer or more just compromise than this Bill afforded. In conclusion, he hoped their Lordships would give their assent to this clause; but he would certainly prefer its total rejection to the adoption of the proposal made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Wicklow) behind him.
LORD BROUGHAM, instead of coming to the arguments applicable to the clause now before the House, felt it necessary to lay himself under great self-command, in order that he might refer in a sentence or two to certain general observations which, had fallen from the noble Earl. Before he proceeded to the arguments applicable to the 11th Clause—if, indeed, more argument was needed, after that employed by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley)—argument as clear in its texture and reasoning as it was impressive in its diction and delivery—he could assure their Lordships that to refrain from doing so required, on his part, a great exercise of self-command. But he felt compelled to take notice of one or two observations which had just been addressed to their Lordships. It appeared that they had all along been under the wrong impression that the Irish labourer was supported by his own industrious exertions, when he was a man supported alone by charity. It was not those who were hostile to the Bill who made this assumption—it was no assumption they had or ever could make—it was no reasoning of theirs; but it was an assumption set forth in the Bill which now lay on their Lordships' Table—a Bill which, by the blessing of God, and with much patience and perseverance, had now arrived at one-third of its progress through the House—viz., at its 11th Clause. This measure assumed that charity was to be the rule of their proceedings—by no means that charity which "is not strained," which "droppeth as the gentle dew from heaven," which "is twice blessed, blessing those who give, and those who take" it—but a strained charity; a compulsory charity; a charity that cursed those who received it, and oppressed those who gave it, degrading these, impoverishing those. It was a charity which taught the labourer not to rely upon himself, but on a forced rate to make up the shortcomings of his labour, and to depend upon doles extorted compulsorily from others on whom he had no claim. They had been told, too, that a great evil was inflicted on the people of

517
the towns for the advantage of the people in the country—not on the great towns, but on the small; and this reminded him of what was the original principle of the old Poor Law, of the 43rd of Elizabeth; a law no sooner enacted than it sank into oblivion, and remained a dead letter for ages. It had been said, that the original principle of the old Poor Law of Elizabeth was, that the land should maintain the poor, and that all other property should he exempted—that the landowners should maintain the paupers, whether they grew those paupers themselves, or whether they were grown by the manufacturers. The paupers, no doubt, as the law had been abused and perverted, were sent from the crowded and wealthy city with as much certainty as were bales of manufactured goods; and they were all to be supported by the land; in short, the land had to provide for all the paupers whom the wealthy manufacturers set forth as locusts on the soil. So it was now; but that was not the Poor Law of Elizabeth, which laid down the principle that all property should contribute equally towards the support of the poor. With all its imperfections and evil tendencies, and mischievous consequences, it was at least exempt from any such charge of flagrant injustice as the proposed clause in this Bill, brought forward in the middle of the nineteenth century, would inflict. There was less injustice in the Act passed in a comparatively rude time, at the end of the sixteenth century, for that Act did no injustice towards the land to favour the towns. It was an income-tax, it was a property-tax, it called upon all property to be rateable for the support of the poor; but, because there was no machinery, and because there was, in fact, very little property but land in those days, therefore it was that it ceased to be universally levied, and that it was levied, substantially, on the landowners. He was told, that whatever injustice there might be here, existed in the present Poor Law; but that did not make the injustice the less. If, formerly, they exposed the Irish landowners to great injustice by the Act of 1838, it would be a great deal worse now, because, if there was a burden of 2s. d. in the pound then, it was likely to be 20 s. or 25 s. now. The argument of the noble Earl (Earl Grey) was, that this clause was not unjust and oppressive, because there was a clause as bad in the Act of 1838. What! Was it nothing that you were now to apply the bad principle on a tenfold
518
larger scale? A knave borrows my cloak in summer, and in winter he comes and takes my coat also. I complain, and he says, "Why, you let me take your cloak in fine weather, so I must also be suffered to strip you bare in the frost and snow." Besides, they had different circumstances to deal with in Ireland; they had a different population, and in the guardians they had very different persons to whom to entrust the administration of a Poor Law. And then, above all, they had different men for landlords. With all their good feeling and their simplicity of character, if he were to say of these landlords that they were peculiarly provident individuals—that they were, of all God's creatures, distinguished by prudence, circumspection, and forethought; well able, in all respects, to administer their own affairs, manage their own fortunes, and superintend the cultivation of their own estates—he feared, great as would be his delight could he conscientiously so depict them, that he would be laying himself open to the suspicion of attempting either irony or extravagant panegyric. He would, therefore, confine himself to the strict fact; he would not say that providence and care, and caution and good management, were the prominent characteristics of Irish landlords; he would admit that, very many of them were improvident, incautious, and bad managers; and, granting this, it was apparent that it would be easy for them to impose a disproportionate burden on the electoral district where there was good management, in order to make up for their own bad management, or rather no management at all. It was said, did not taxation fall unequally in England? and he answered, Yes, and everywhere else, when you speak of general taxation. But do you, therefore, mean to extend the poor-law districts, and comprehend large tracts of country, with the towns in each? If so, you had better at once make the support of the poor a general or imperial concern, and thus remove every kind of restraint upon local improvidence and mismanagement. This is the direct tendency of the present clause. It says to all the landlords and their tenants, "Be as careless, and supine, and thriftless as you please, as you can and you will be helped by the parts of the district which are thrifty and careful." This was the plain argument: it was contained in that one sentence. He would now leave the question to their Lordships, confident that their decision would be con-

519
demnatory of the injustice which was proposed to be done.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEwould not attempt to follow his noble and learned Friend, but would confine himself solely to a consideration of the clause under discussion. It was the argument of noble Lords opposite, and of those who opposed an extension of the area of taxation, that the land should support the labourers located upon it and no more; he denied that that was sound political economy; he deemed it to be the most erroneous reasoning, founded upon the narrowest view of the true duty of a community. It had been remarked by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) that the opponents of the Bill had proceeded upon a mistaken assumption throughout; they seemed to consider the employment of labour by the owner of the land as a charity, as a step taken to preserve the labourer from starvation, and not as a duty undertaken for mutual benefit, and with the hope of conferring reciprocal advantage. So long as noble Lords set out from premises so obviously false, it could not be a matter of surprise that their conclusions were mischievously wrong, and liable to lead to extreme abuse. As regarded the question of labour, it was easy to say, see what hardship you are inflicting on large electoral districts, if in any case you force them to pay for the pauperism of the towns; but was this assertion practically true? They talked of effecting an improvement in those districts, and they would surely not deny that one of the greatest improvements under the circumstances of the country would be a diminution of the number of persons resident there? There was little doubt that when the population of a district became destitute, they would flock into and become dependent on the towns. If the workhouse test was good for anything, it would induce persons driven from their land to keep as long as they could from the parish. If so, they would be able to maintain themselves in and about towns for a time of sufficient duration to qualify themselves, under the provisions of this Bill, to receive relief; and thus the towns would have to support men in their destitution, from whose labour, previously, no benefit had been obtained. But, was it true that the electoral districts derived no benefit from the existence of the towns? Was it or was it not, he would ask noble Lords acquainted with Ireland, a notorious fact that there were districts which would be totally ruined were the poor
520
rates to increase to any great extent, and if the poor were entirely thrown upon them? The towns furnished a market to the district. The towns increased the value of the property of the district; and he would say it would be a gross injustice if the district were not called upon to pay a share of the taxation, if, under a peculiar pressure, and in a time of great need, the rates of the towns should rise to an amount which, as compared with the average rates heretofore in Ireland, would undoubtedly be exceedingly oppressive.
The EARL of DESARTconsidered that the cities enjoyed many advantages as the depositories of the wealth of the country, and that therefore they should be compelled to endure the burdens of their own pauperism. It was a strong fact that the citizens were in the habit of encouraging the settlement of paupers in towns for the sake of the rack-rents obtained from their lodgings.
EARL FITZWILLIAMthought, that whatever they did with other parts of the Bill, this at least was a clause which ought to be postponed. He was quite convinced that the question of the community into which Ireland ought to be divided for the purpose of carrying this Bill into effect, had not yet been sufficiently considered. It seemed to him to be a grievous mistake to take this clause as having reference merely to town and country. It was not a question between town and country, but a question between high-rated, pauperized districts, and districts which were low-rated and not pauperized. The towns and the districts were intimately connected, and they could not advance the interests of one without promoting the interests of the other. The subject was as yet, however, imperfectly understood, and he should therefore vote against the clause.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHsaid, it had been decided last evening that this Bill should pass only as a temporary measure. He believed that division had not been come to for a factious purpose, and he found it necessary to declare that he had given his vote with the greatest sincerity. He had stated then, and he now repeated, he thought it due to the generosity of the House of Commons and liberality of the people of England, that the measure should be fairly tried in Ireland if it passed through Parliament; and he was willing to declare, if Her Majesty's Ministers would assure him they would not attempt to disturb the vote already come to,

521
that he, for one, would not offer any opposition whatever to any part of the Bill. He was willing to let all the responsibility rest on them, on the understanding that it was a temporary Bill. They, the landlords of Ireland, had a right to demand that it should be temporary only, and they would offer no further opposition to Her Majesty's Ministers if Her Majesty's Ministers would refrain from disturbing the vote of last night. If they refused to give him that assurance, and did attempt to disturb that vote, he should feel himself at liberty to give them all the opposition in his power.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas willing to relieve the noble Marquess from all the responsibility he felt. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) could make no such promise as that asked for. He reserved to himself, as their Lordships reserved to themselves, the power to take whatever course he might think proper at any subsequent stage of the Bill.
heir Lordships divided:—Content, 54; Not Content, 73: Majority for the Amendment, 19.
Clauses 13 and 14 were then discussed; and, after some conversation, agreed to.
On Clause 15, which regulates the rating of tithes, being proposed,
The EARL of WICKLOWmoved that both this and Clause 16 be omitted from the Bill; he believed they were inserted with the intention of benefiting the clergy; but he understood they would not oppose the omission.
The ARCHBISHOP of DUBLINhad come to the determination not to oppose the Amendment of the noble Earl. The clauses were introduced with a view of benefiting the clergy, and relieving them from a very great grievance; but, in doing so, the effect of the clauses would be to subject them to another. The grievance they at present laboured under was this—they were rated on their gross, instead of their net income. It was to relieve them from this that the clauses (making the tithe composition in future separately rateable, instead of being rated with the hereditaments on which such composition was charged) had been proposed; but, on the whole, the clergy preferred remaining as they were, thinking the evil they at present suffered less than that to which they would be subjected by the operation of the clauses inserted in the Bill. They thought it better—
"To bear the ills they had.
Than fly to others that they know not of."
522
They were afraid, under the pressure of the times, and the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, they would not have received their incomes when a heavy rate would be demanded of them—that they would have to pay a rate on an income they had not received, and which, in some cases, they would never receive at all. It was the opinion of a majority of the clergy that the evil they now laboured under was less than that which would be created if the clauses were retained in the Bill. He therefore gave his support to the proposal of the noble Earl.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEconsented to the Amendment.
Clauses omitted.
On Clause 17 being proposed,
A short discussion took place on the power of recovering rates made and left uncollected.
LORD STANLEYsaid, when a rate was unpaid, it was not uncommon to make a new one before the arrears were collected. The consequence of this was, that the few who paid were rated twice or three times over, while the greater number escaped. If this were permitted with impunity, it would almost oblige others to take the same course in self-defence. If there was not a power given of recovering the rate from defaulters, the difficulty of collection would he so greatly increased as to cause an universal demoralisation; the honest and solvent would be discouraged, and an example would be set of opposition to a rate to the poor which would render the administration of the law in Ireland absolutely impracticable. This subject deserved the serious attention of the Government.
EARL GREYthought the matter would be better considered separately from the present Bill; he believed the existing law was not so defective in this point as generally supposed.
Clause agreed to, as was Clause 18, which regulates the valuation.
On the question that Clause 19, by which it was proposed to be enacted that the number of ex-officio guardians in any union should not exceed the number of elective guardians, should stand part of the Bill,
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEproposed some alteration in the clause, but in a tone which rendered it impossible to collect its purport.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSexpressed his approval of the proposed Amend-

523
ment. The idea which prevailed that ex-officio guardians would outnumber the elective guardians was illusory. There were not ten unions in Ireland in which the number of ex-officio guardians would equal that of the elective guardians.
The EARL of WICKLOWwas of opinion that the ex-officio guardians would, in the majority of instances, favour what was called the democratic party rather than the landed interest.
The EARL of CLANCARTYwas understood to express a wish that no ex-officio guardians should be appointed. If the magistrates were deserving of the confidence of the ratepayers, they would be elected by them.
Amendments agreed to; and the clause as amended was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
House resumed.
House adjourned.