Sitting of 1 July 1862

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.

  [BILL NO. 15.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1 (Existing Enactments as to Chargeability repealed—Chargeability according to Residence).
  MR. GEORGEsaid, the clause which, the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) proposed in lieu of the first clause, enacted that before a pauper could become chargeable to a particular electoral division he should have resided in the union for five years next before the application for relief and for two years within the electoral division. The clause as it originally stood, and as it had been rejected by the Select Committee to whom the Bill was referred, proposed that the pauper's residence in the union should be five years continuously, two of these years being spent within the electoral division to which he was made chargeable. The word "continuously" was objected to by the Committee, and the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland undertook to amend the clause; but he (Mr. George) contended, that although the wording had been altered, the meaning was the same, there being no practical difference between five years' continuous residence and five years' residence next before the obtaining of relief. He objected to the clause on the ground that it approximated to union rating, the principle of which he hoped would never be extended. Every inducement should be given to country gentlemen to employ the people, and he believed it was their desire to keep the people out of the workhouse. The effect of the electoral division system would be to make proprietors anxious to keep the people of their electoral division out of the workhouse.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he did not think that the clause, if passed, would be a step taken towards union rating. He believed, on the contrary, it would be a step in the right direction; and he trusted, therefore, the right hon. Baronet would persevere with the clause. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken as to the desire of the landlords of Ireland to keep the people out of the workhouse. The first thing thought of usually on an estate being acquired was to "improve" it by clearing off the people, who had then no resource but to obtain workhouse relief.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, that the issue raised might be termed town, against country. He denied that the landlords of Ireland desired to clear the people off their estates. Nothing could be so ruinous as to pursue such a course. Whenever real

  1293
  improvements were effected, the first thing looked to was the condition of the people. The clause, as it stood, would render it almost impossible to fix the chargeability of a pauper. He could not conceive that any more objectionable principle could be introduced into the Poor Law system than that of union rating; and believing that the clause was an advance in that direction, he should feel bound to oppose it.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he also must express his disapproval of the clause. It would naturally lead to the establishment of a system of union rating, and ultimately of national rating; and one of the strongest motives which at present induced landowners to look after the improvement of the people on their estates would thus be destroyed.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, that out of one electoral division in the county of Louth 400 persons had been driven, and they made their way to Drogheda, where most of them had to take refuge in the workhouse. Surely it was not just that the ratepayers of that town should be chargeable with the support of those paupers. He hoped the House would adopt this clause, and that the system of union rating would be carried out.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he would ask the Committee to accept the clause as a compromise between town and country. It was within his own. knowledge that 250 families had been removed from one estate in the county of Tipperary, and were obliged to seek refuge in a neighbouring borough, the effect of which was to raise the rates in that borough to something like 25s. in the pound.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONconsidered that the clause was in effect an adoption of the principle of union rating, which would lead to extravagance.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, his object had been to adhere strictly to the recommendation of the Committee, and he certainly did not intend to introduce anything that would tend to establish the principle of union rating, to which he was strongly opposed. He believed the clause as it stood did carry out the recommendations of the Committee; but, after the objections made to it by so many hon. Members for whose opinion he had great respect, that it had a tendency to establish a union rating, he had some misgiving as to the advisability of maintaining the clause. He would therefore undertake on bringing up the report to propose a clause in exact
  1294
  accordance with the recommendation of the Committee, retaining the clause in the Act of 1849, and altering the period for residence within the union as suggested by the Committee. The question of chargeability was one of great difficulty and delicacy, and his only object was to do that which was fair and equitable between, town and country.
  LORD NAASsuggested that the clause should be withdrawn and a new clause brought up on the Report.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that that was the course he proposed to adopt.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he approved of the step taken by the right hon. Baronet, which would carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he would recommend the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to hand over the Bill to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Naas), whose suggestions with reference to Government Bills relating to Ireland seemed invariably to be adopted.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTobserved, that the course pursued by the Chief Secretary had his entire approval.
  Question put,
  "That the Clause (Existing Enactments as to Chargeability repealed—Chargeability according to Residence), being the new Clause in lieu of Clause 1, as amended, be added, to the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 121: Majority 106.
  SIR ROBERT PEELmoved the insertion of a clause, after Clause 19, to the effect that guardians, when elected by the ratepayers of two or more electoral divisions, should notify to the returning officer for which of the divisions he would act as guardian.
  Clause agreed to.
  LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, he wished to move the addition of a clause, providing that it should be lawful for boards of guardians to recover from, putative fathers the cost of the maintenance of illegitimate children during the time they were inmates of a poorhouse and while under the age of fourteen years, such cost of maintenance and costs of suit to be recoverable by process at quarter sessions.
  Another Clause (Boards of Guardians to recover Costs of Maintenance of Illegitimate Children in Poorhouses under Fourteen), brought up, and read 1° 2°.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he had no objection to the adoption of the clause.
  MR. MORE O'FERRALLsaid, that if the clause was adopted by the House, it would be the first introduction in Ireland of the principle of the bastardy laws, and he should therefore oppose it.
  Question put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 11: Majority 100.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he would move the addition of a clause, to the effect that as it was desirable that provision, should be made for the burial of persons dying in very distressed circumstances, it should be lawful for the relieving officer of each union to provide for the burial of such persons, and to charge the expense upon the poor rates of the union.
  SIR ROBERT PEELobjected to the clause.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to propose the adoption of a clause to enable guardians to apprentice children, with the consent of their parents, up to the ago of fifteen, and to pay a fee for them not to exceed £10.
  LORD NAASsaid, he should oppose the clause, which would place pauper children in a better position than the children of poor parents.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he should support the clause as one that would be beneficial to the children, to the guardians, and to society.
  SIR, ROBERT PEELsaid, he had a decided objection to the clause. The fee would operate as a premium to persons to take children as apprentices and afterwards neglect them. Besides, the effect of the clause would be to give a premium to parents or guardians to send children to the workhouse.
  Another Clause (Enabling Guardians to apprentice Children), brought up, and read 1°.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 10; Noes 95: Majority 85.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would then move that after the passing of the Act the ex officio guardians of unions should not exceed one-third of the entire board.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he saw no reason to alter the law as it stood, the boards being composed equally of ex officio and of elected guardians.
  Motion negatived.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would propose the addition of a clause enacting that it should be compulsory on all boards to provide separate places of worship in the workhouses, to be exclusively used for such purpose by the congregations, for whom chaplains might be appointed.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that under the existing regulations in most workhouses a part of the dining-room was partitioned off for the celebration of service, and was used alternatively by Protestants and Roman Catholics, and the provision was generally found sufficient.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he would move the addition of a clause, enacting that when the Poor Law Commissioners should have divided any electoral division into wards, every ratepayer in respect of property in the ward should have a vote or votes in the election of guardians in such ward, according to the scale of votes provided by the Act 1 & 2 Vict., c. 56.
  Another Clause (After Division of Electoral Divisions into Wards, Ratepayers under the last Rate may vote for Guardians), brought up, and read 1°.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 69: Majority 22.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday, and to be printed [Bill 180].

DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL NO. 145.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 14 (Regulations as to Drainage Boards).
  MR. MORE O'FERRALLobjected to the measure altogether as mischievous and dangerous.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, the Bill had been introduced after much consideration, each of its clauses having been fully inquired into by a Select Committee. The great object of the measure was to enable

  1297
  Irish proprietors to drain their estates at their own expense, and without that amount of control imposed on them by former Bills.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he should oppose the Bill. It was a compulsory measure, which would enable commissioners of drainage to take the lands of a proprietor, and run drains through it, against his will and at his expense.
  COLONEL FRENCHdenied that the Bill was compulsory. On the contrary, it was permissive. Nothing could be done under it in any district until a large majority of the proprietors had called on the Board of Works to form a drainage district.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 15 agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The House re-assembled at Six o'clock.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present: House counted; and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Game Law Amendment; Bishops in Heathen Countries.
2a Naval and Victualling Stores; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland); Lunacy (Scotland); Consolidated Fund (£10,000,000).
3a Bleaching and Dyeing Works Act Amendment.

UNITED STATES—THE CIVIL WAR.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was sorry to find that he had been somewhat misunderstood in what he had stated the previous evening with regard to the unhappy civil war that was raging in America—a civil war that had already lasted longer than

1285
any civil war that history had recorded. Some warm and ardent friends of the United States had charged him with generalizing too much in attributing to the people at large what was in truth only the behaviour of individuals. Certainly nothing could have been further from his intention than a desire to impute particular acts to general conduct. It had been represented to him that although things were very bad in America, they were not quite so bad as he had stated. Whatever might be the facts, there could be no doubt as to their frightful character, and he trusted that this bloody and fratricidal war would soon be brought to a termination.

SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  [BILL NO. 112.] SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, the subject was well worthy of legislation, and the measure was founded upon the unanimous Report of a Select Committee of their Lordships, including several of the largest proprietors of salmon fisheries in Scotland. The fourth clause constituted every river in Scotland flowing into the sea a district for the purposes of this Act, which was to be placed under the control of three Commissioners. The annual close-time was to continue for 180 days in every year, but the commencement and close of this period was to be fixed by the Commissioners in reference to each district: the weekly close-time was to extend from six p.m. on Saturday to six a.m. on Monday. No fishing was legalized which was not already legal, and the possession of salmon roe was forbidden. A penalty was also inflicted for allowing poisonous substances to flow into rivers. The Bill also provided for the election of district Boards, and for district assessments to defray the expenses to be incurred under the Act. The law as to fixed engines would not be altered They were clearly illegal in rivers and ii estuaries, and the Bill would enable the boundaries of all the estuaries in Scotland to be ascertained, so that the question as to where the estuary ended would be settled The Tweed and Tay, being governed by special Acts, were to a certain extent excepted, and provisions were inserted making the regulations now applicable to the south of the Solway, under the
  1286
  English Salmon Fisheries Act, applicable also to those shores of the Firth situated in Scotland. The principle of the Bill ad been frequently affirmed. It was en-rely in conformity with the opinions of be Select Committee, and did not differ materially from the Bill of last year.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time hat day six months, said, he could not agree with the noble Baron that it was entirely in conformity with the recommendations of the Select Committee of their Lordships' House. Numerous Salmon fisheries Bills had been before Parliament luring the last few years, but, for some cause or other, none of them had passed; and with the exception of the Tweed and he Tay, the Act of 1828 was the general aw of Scotland with regard to fisheries. Last year the Lord Advocate introduced a Bill which proceeded at once to sweep away all fixed engines of every kind, and to regulate generally the manner in which people should fish in Scotland; but notwithstanding that it was referred to a Select Committee and greatly amended; here, it was found impossible to pass it, a consequence of the great variety of interests at stake. The Lord Advocate had given his attention to the subject during the recess, and the result was this Bill. His first objection to it was, that it gave most extraordinary powers to three Commissioners, who were entirely irresponsible, to make regulations [which ought to be fixed by Act of Parliament, and which noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen in another place ought to have an opportunity of discussing before they were made final. The Commissioners might be most respectable gentlemen—he had no doubt they would be—but they might hold the wildest possible theories on the subject: yet they wore empowered to make regulations which would affect the property of every man in Scotland who had a salmon river; and there was not a single clause in the Bill which would enable the proprietors to have anything whatever to say to any of the by-laws until they came before the Secretary of State. There was scarcely any subject on which there was more of theory and less of practical knowledge than the breeding of salmon; and as the pay of the Commissioners was not to exceed £3 for every day they were called upon to net, considering the large sums which engineers and others in similar employment received

  1287
  for a single day's work, there was no security that they would be men of the highest practical experience. The Commissioners, among other things, were to fix the meshes of the nets, and they were generally directed to carry out the Act as much as might be in accordance with the English law; but the English Act fixed the meshes of the net at two inches. The effect of such a regulation as regarded the river Spey, the fisheries in which he owned, would be, that whereas there was an average annual take of 10,000 trout, by the operation of this Bill he should be deprived of 9,000 of them. Now, if it would improve the breed of salmon to leave trout in the river, it might be some reason for the clause; but it was well-known that no fish was more destructive to salmon spawn than trout. With regard to the appeal to the Home Secretary, which might be made by any person who felt aggrieved by the by-laws, no such appeal could be a satisfactory one; for the Secretary of State could only refer the matter back to the Commissioners, who would naturally say that there was no ground of complaint. He objected to the enormous powers which it was proposed to give to the Commissioners; and, with regard to the district Boards, he thought it would have been wise to follow the example of the Tweed Act of 1857, and make votes bear some proportion to property. In respect of the weekly close-time proposed, it would press hardly upon persons who had tidal fishings and upon the lower proprietors; and if the Bill should reach the stage of Committee, he should move as an Amendment that the hours be from 9 o'clock on Saturday night to 3 o'clock on Monday morning. He felt that the Bill was an unjust measure, and that it did not carry out what it proposed to do. It in reality diminished the provisions against bag-fishing and poaching, which were the two great causes why the breed of salmon had decreased. He thought that it would be far better if the noble Lord would bring in a Bill to put down those practices, and also to prevent objectionable substances from being thrown into the rivers. There was already a clause intended to effect that object, but he was satisfied that it would prove inoperative. For example, nothing would more prevent fish from entering the tributaries of a river to spawn than sawdust, yet that could not be held by any ingenuity to be a poisonous or deleterious substance. He should not detain their Lordships further, but would simply move that the Bill
  1288
  be read a second time that clay three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this day six months."
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he had long admired the unanimity with which Scotch questions were dealt with, but he also knew that whenever a Salmon Bill was mentioned that unanimity ceased. The arguments of the noble Duke appeared to him to he directed more against the details than against the principle of the Bill. There was another party to be considered besides the proprietors — the public—and their interests clearly demanded that some legislation should take place upon this subject. For many years there had been a war raging between the upper and lower proprietors in regard to the salmon of their rivers. While the one party had been striving to prevent the fish from going up the stream, and the other seizing it when out of season, the stock of salmon had been gradually diminishing, and the public became, consequently, the sufferers. He thought it was high time that some independent body should be armed with power to interfere in this matter. The object of the Bill was to give such power to a Board of Commissioners. So far he thought the principle of the Bill was good, because these gentlemen were likely to exercise an independent judgment; and if they did not, there would be no lack of persons ready to bring their complaints before the House. There was one extraordinary clause in the Bill (the 31st), to which he entertained great objections. By that clause the River Tay— the greatest salmon river in Scotland— was exempted from the operation of the Bill. The Bill, as originally introduced, did not contain that exemption, and he had been surprised to hear it said that the proprietors were unanimous in asking for that exemption. He did not believe there was any such unanimity; and, indeed, doubted whether more than five or six of the whole number of proprietors were favourable to the exemption. A Salmon Fishing Bill which omitted the River Tay from its operations seemed to him very like the play of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet omitted. The Bill might be improved in Committee, and he hoped their Lordships would consent now to read it a second time.
  LORD RAVENSWORTHsaid, he was convinced that the real cause why the

  1289
  salmon had decreased in all the rivers of this country was the cupidity of the lower proprietors, who would not let any fish that they could catch go up the stream to spawn. In fact, were it not for the great floods, no individual fish could ever escape them. While such a system existed, it was hopeless to expect any improvement; for the upper proprietors would never take any trouble in the matter, incur any expense, or run the risk of drawing down on themselves the ill-will of their neighbours, unless they felt they had some interest in the preservation of the fish. The Bill was no doubt susceptible of improvement, and might be made a valuable measure. He should move in Committee that the weekly close-time should be extended from twelve on Saturday noon until six on Monday morning, an alteration which he believed would be eminently useful.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that as an angler he should advocate the rights of anglers as distinct from those of the proprietors on the upper and lower waters: and, indeed, he thought the interests of anglers had been fully considered in preparing this Bill. He thought, however, that their Lordships as legislators should look deeper than this; and in this spirit he complained that the Bill was unconstitutional, inasmuch as the same power was given to Commissioners in reference to one part of the kingdom which was exercised only by Parliament in reference to the other part. In the English Bill the enactments were clearly defined, but here a very large discretion was left to the Commissioners. With all its faults, he should advise the noble Duke, if he thought the majority of his countrymen were in favour of the Bill, to allow of the second reading, and endeavour to amend it in Committee; but still, if he thought fit to divide, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) must vote with him, because he was strongly opposed to conferring such despotic power upon the Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he did not sec why the Solway should be included within the operation of the Act. The noble Lord who moved the second reading said it was because the English law prevailed on the south side. By parity of reasoning, they might as well say that the Scotch law should prevail in Northumberland or Durham. He thought, however, that some legislation was required on this subject, though he objected to many of the details of this measure.
  LORD POLWARTHobjected to the arbitrary power given to the Commissioners under the Bill, though he thought the general principle embodied in it was a good one. He suggested that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the great majority of the objections which had been taken were objections of detail. He was entirely disinterested in this question, as he was neither an upper nor a lower proprietor; any small fisheries that he possessed were in small streams which were entirely his own property. He could therefore approach the question without any bias. At the same time, he thought the noble Duke who had moved the rejection of the Bill (the Duke of Richmond) was entitled to speak as possessing the largest salmon property in the kingdom. It seemed to him that the only objection that had really been brought against the Bill, was against the arbitrary powers given to the Commissioners. Every year for the last twenty-five years there had been an attempt made to amend the law relating to salmon fisheries. When he first took his seat in their Lordships' House, be had been induced himself to take charge of one of these measures; whereon the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) told him that he must be very young to suppose that he could alter and amend the salmon laws of Scotland. All of these measures had, accordingly, been unsuccessful; and they failed because they adopted a principle which was avoided in this Bill, and that was the fixing one annual close-time for the whole of Scotland. The truth was, that the annual season for the different rivers was entirely different, and they never could get the different proprietors in the different counties in Scotland to agree on any one fixed period for the whole of Scotland. In order to effect this, therefore, it was necessary to have recourse to Commissioners, who should have the power of fixing the period according to the requirement of each several district. He did not think that the powers given to the Commissioners were too extensive. There was a distinct clause in the Bill that nothing contained in the Bill should effect in one way or other the existing law of Scotland with regard to the mode of fishing. If stake nets were legal, this Bill did not make them illegal, and the Commissioners could do nothing which would make that illegal which was lawful under the existing statutes.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that after the discussion which had taken place, inasmuch as all the objections taken were objections to details, he should advise his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) to withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELDconcurred in the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would adopt the advice of his noble Friends, and withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Then the Original Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

BISHOPS IN HEATHEN AND MAHOMEDAN COUNTRIES BILL— [BILL No. 124.]
  ORDER FOR, SECOND READING DISCHARGED.

    BILL WITHDRAWN.
    THE BISHOP OF OXFORDstated that he had been in communication with his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies (the Duke of Newcastle) on the subject of the Bishops in Heathen and Mahomedan Countries Bill, of which the Order for the Second Reading stood for this day; and his noble Friend had been hind enough to point out some provisions in it which he thought objectionable. He had thought it advisable, upon consideration, to reframe the Bill, and he would now ask their Lordships to allow him to withdraw the former Bill, and to read the amended Bill a first time.
    The Order for the Second Reading was then read, and discharged; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
    Then a Bill for facilitating the Appointment of Bishops for Heathen Countries was presented by the Bishop of OXFORD, and read 1a [Bill No. 140].
    House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, Eleven o'clock.