Page images
PDF
EPUB

man did not deal at all with the Motion | the necessity they had been under of of the hon. and gallant Member for placing young girls within the walls of Cork (Colonel Colthurst), which was not the workhouse. These were horrible that outdoor relief was a good thing, or recollections, which still remained in the that it should be universally adopted, West of Ireland; and it was such remibut that it should be resorted to only niscences that gave the people that feelunder exceptional circumstances like the ing of loathing and abhorrence of the present, and that some such system ought workhouse which prevailed in their to be at the disposal of the Boards of minds. It was a feeling that ought to Guardians. A short time ago he had be encouraged, and not repressed; and met an hon. Friend, whose absence from he was sorry to see the Government the House at the present moment he doing their best to break down that much regretted-Mr. A. M. Sullivan, honest abhorrence of the system which the late Member for Meath - and he now existed by insisting that everybody must say that at that time he did not who needed relief should enter the workfeel so strongly upon this question as house. he did now, and he was not able to MR. BIGGAR said, the hon. and galanswer all the arguments in favour of lant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Coltan exclusive system of indoor relief hurst), in his opening speech, said that which the right hon. Gentleman the he did not look upon the Motion as a Chief Secretary had put forward. But panacea for all the evils of Ireland. His Mr. A. M. Sullivan brought several facts hon. and gallant Friend fairly argued home to him, and made him understand the case on its merits, without the the intense feeling which he-Mr. Sulli- slightest heat or exaggeration; and it van-entertained upon the subject. In seemed to him (Mr. Biggar) that the the book which Mr. Sullivan had written balance of argument was strongly in he had gone through the period of 1846, favour of the hon. and gallant Gentle1847, and 1848-a period which over- man. It was all very well for the right threw all the theories, even according to hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman himself. The argue the question entirely upon general present condition of Ireland was almost principles. In point of fact, the right as bad as that of 1847 and 1848. Mr. hon. Gentleman entirely begged the A. M. Sullivan told him that in the question at issue. He had discussed Union of Bantry a woman went into the the question of Poor Law relief entirely workhouse 25 or 26 times a-year. She upon general principles, and on the went in for a purpose he did not care to average of good and bad years, without mention to the House. The purpose of taking the slightest notice of the Amendthe woman was, however, brought be- ment moved by the hon. and gallant fore the Clerk of the Union, who was Member for Cork (Colonel Colthurst), asked to lay the facts with regard to which turned entirely upon cases of exher infamous character and trade before ceptional distress. In cases of excepthe Board of Guardians. The facts were tional distress the balance of argument laid before the Board of Guardians; and was entirely in favour of outdoor relief. the next time she went there on her The right hon. Gentleman had spoken mission for the purpose of bringing out of the number of outdoor paupers who some innocent girls from that establish- existed in 1849; but did not the right ment, in spite of the information sup- hon. Gentleman know that a great porplied to the Board by the Clerk of the tion of the people from whom outdoor Union, backed up by positive proof, the relief was taken immediately after 1849 woman was admitted, and the word died from the effects of fever and the admitted" stood after her name in the effects of the falling off of outdoor books of the Bantry Union to the pre-relief. A convenient way for English sent day. In all the districts of the economists to get rid of Irish paupers South of Ireland, where the distress was to starve them to death; and then raged most, in the Famine years there they were able to say that the roll of were families in which there had been a paupers was less than it was formerly. time of shame to remind them of even a That was the usual way in which the more terrible and more dangerous evil, English officials dealt with the sufferings in the blot which had fallen upon the of the Irish people. The right hon. honour of the family in consequence of Gentleman spoke of the number of men

[ocr errors]

Mr. T. P. O'Connor

[ocr errors]

door relief. It was well known that the relief given in any case by the Local Government Board in Ireland was of a very slender nature; but the Irish people were exceedingly frugal; they could live in the meanest and poorest way; and it was desirable, if possible, that they should be able to support themselves. In regard to the question of Union rating, he was himself strongly in favour of it; and, to a great degree, Union rating existed in Ireland at the present moment, because all the charges for the officials were imposed on the Union; and it was notorious that a very large proportion of the expenses of the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland was not the expense of feeding the paupers, but the cost of keeping up the offices and the officials who were employed to look after the paupers. In some of the Unions, where the number of the paupers was merely nominal, there was a large staff of officials who received the rates, and who were not at all illiberally paid. In regard to the question of relief by the Union at large, instead of by the Guardians of a particular electoral division, he was of opinion that it was preferable that it should be given by the Union at large, because in that case it was more likely that the distribution of the funds would be more impartial than if it depended upon the electoral divisions. He knew, in the early history of the Poor Law, that a conflict often took place between the Guardians of each electoral division, as to whether or not a pauper should be charged upon the Union at large or upon the electoral division. It seemed to him there was considerable advantage in charging the cost of all the paupers upon the Union. In many cases the policy of the landlords in the rural districts was to drive the paupers into the villages and small towns; and then in a time of distress the whole brunt of the charge fell upon the ratepayers of such towns and villages, the other part of the district bearing no portion of it. He would remind the House of what took place at the time of the Cotton Famine in Lancashire. The right hon. Gentleman alleged that if Irish paupers got relief in a time of distress they would always continue to be

who might have been put to work as navvies at Ballymena waterworks; but it was quite a burlesque to suppose that these poor persons could have been converted into suitable navvies for such work. These unfortunate people were half-starved; they had never, probably, used a spade of the sort used by the navvy in their lives; and what would have been said if they had attempted to work at Ballymena waterworks? They would very soon have been sent about their business, probably before they had been half-a-day at work, and they would have had to march back again, getting food and a night's lodging as they went along. Nevertheless, that formed part of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) had conclusively proved that, at a time of exceptional distress, it was desirable to give assistance, in the shape of outdoor relief, to households, instead of bringing those households into the workhouse by starving the people. With a few months' assistance the people forming such households would be able to tide over such distress; whereas, if the households were themselves broken up, there would be permanent pauperism for generations to come, and a race of paupers would be established which they would never get rid of. He would not refer again to the cases which had been pointed out by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). A similar story had been told to him by Bishop Nulty, the Bishop of Meath, immediately after the Famine; but these things were notorious in Ireland, and he thought the balance of argument was entirely in favour of the principle of the Amendment now before the House. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the sudden increase in the number of people getting relief from the year 1880 to 1883. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that there was a fair harvest in Ireland in 1879, and that the people in 1880 were able to live on the small surplus they had put by from the preceding year. They did not feel the distress until that time had passed over; then they became altogether impoverished; and it was most desirable, if they were to live out-paupers. The right hon. Gentleman side the workhouse, that they should get some assistance in the shape of outVOL. CCLXXX. THIRD SERIES.]

evidently forgot what occurred in Lancashire at the time of the Cotton Famine.

2 Y

The manufacturing operatives there got relief in a time of exceptional distress; but as soon as the distress disappeared they returned to their usual employment, and altogether ceased to be a burden upon the rates. His opinion was that the same thing would apply to the very small farmers and labourers of Ireland, if they got relief for a month or two during an exceptionally bad time, or during a severe winter, before the crops became fit for use. Then, as soon as the period of exceptional distress had passed away, they would find themselves able to support themselves; and, instead of being regular paupers, permanently chargeable upon the rates, they would become quite independent.

MR. TREVELYAN said, he hoped the House would allow him to make a personal statement. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), like all eloquent speakers, had asked a good many questions, one of which he (Mr. Trevelyan) thought he was bound to answer. He was well aware that Father M'Fadden had made laudable exertions during the past winter, and that he had, undoubtedly, got money from many quarters which he had distributed to the great relief of his flock.

Question put.

The House divided:-Ayes 82; Noes 24: Majority 58.-(Div. List, No. 149.)

Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.” PARLIAMENT-ORDER OF BUSINESSPAYMENT OF WAGES IN PUBLICHOUSES PROHIBITION BILL.

OBSERVATIONS.

MR. WARTON said, he was sorry to have to take up the time of the House on this occasion; but he wished to do so for the reason that he had endeavoured, for the last two or three months, to find an opportunity to draw the attention of the House to a certain matter without being successful. The matter to which he alluded was one of considerable importance. It was a matter involving the right of procedure; and, seeing that the Prime Minister was in his place, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give him his attention whilst he dealt with such an important subject. The point he wished to raise was as to Bills brought down from the other House, and

Mr. T. P. O'Connor

it had reference to something which had occurred on the 20th of March this year, which happened to be the last day before the Easter Vacation. On that day a Clerk came down from the House of Lords-a Clerk in a peculiar wig-and brought with him a packet of Bills from the Upper Chamber. He (Mr. Warton) was very much interested in one of the measures which was in the packet-a Bill upon which he felt very stronglynamely, the Payment of Wages in Publichouses Bill. Whether that was a good or a bad Bill was not of the slightest importance in regard to the matter to which he was drawing attention; but being anxious to learn something about it, and to oppose it, and to prevent its too rapid progress through the House, he had gone to the Clerk at the Tablealways a most courteous gentleman-with a Notice of opposition in his hand. He had made inquiries of this gentleman, being anxious to ascertain the procedure in regard to Bills brought up from the House of Lords, and to learn it from the right source; and he had been told that, although the Bill had been brought in, no one had moved it. The Clerk was good enough to tell him that his suspicions were correct-for he had suspected that no one had moved the measure. He had naturally concluded from this that the Bill was not being advanced a stage at all. He was aware first reading to a Bill brought up from that it was always customary to give a the House of Lords without opposition; but he had not quite understood-nor did he yet quite understand-how the proceeding was done. He did not know whether the laying of it on the Table constituted a first reading, or whether the Question was openly put from the Chair? If the Question were put openly from the Chair they would know where they were, and would be able to give such opposition to a measure as they wished. However, on the occasion to which he referred, although he had a Notice of opposition ready in his hand, he could do nothing, as nothing seemed to be done with the Bill. When they met again on the 29th March, after the Easter Holidays, what did he find? Why, he found this Notice on the Paper Payment of Wages in Public-houses Bill-Second Reading." On this he had appealed to Mr. Speaker; but Mr. Speaker would not assist him. He

[ocr errors]

At any

asked whether it was right that a Bill, of which they had not seen the first reading, should be put down for the second reading on the day following the first reading-for as they could not do anything during the Vacation it was really the day following—and he had been answered in the affirmative. He had asked Mr. Speaker whether, in the spirit of the Half-past Twelve Rule, there ought not to be the same breathing space between the first and second readings, and Mr. Speaker had told him the proceedings were perfectly regular. No doubt that was so; but it was because they were regular, and because they were dangerous, that he wished now to bring the matter before the House. Subsequently, he was told that the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) had done something or said something-what it was he did not know. The hon. Member might have gone up to the Table, and said he wanted the Bill to be read a first time; but whether he had done so or not he (Mr. Warton) could not say. rate, the Question was never put from the Chair. He preserved most carefully the catalogue of Bills as they appeared in the useful list published every night. Well, the list contained, under the head of Bills which had come down from the House of Lords, the name of the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, which had come down in the same packet as the Payment of Wages in Public-houses Prohibition Bill, tied with the very same piece of red tape. It was dated as having came from the Lords on March 20. These two Bills were brought in on the same night, laid on the Table in the same way, and the same thing was done with them, yet one was put down for second reading, whilst a record was simply placed against the other"Brought from the Lords." He was not able to move a Resolution; but he mentioned this matter in order to induce Mr. Speaker, or the House, or Her Majesty's Ministers, to say something about the Rule adopted, or which ought to be adopted, in this matter. The first reading of these Bills should be put from the Chair, or moved by someone, so that they might know where they were. He drew attention to this matter as much in the interest of the Liberal Party as of Her Majesty's Ministers, because the Liberal Party was now in a

majority; but the day might come when they would be in a minority, and when Bills of which they disapproved might be brought up from the House of Lords.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

House adjourned at a quarter before
One o'clock till Monday next.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Monday, 25th June, 1883.

MINUTES.]- PUBLIC BILLS-First ReadingLocal Government Provisional Orders (No. 6)* (122); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8)* (123); Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)* (124); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9)' (125).

Second Reading-Tramways Provisional Orders (110); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3)* (111); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 4) (104); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) * (89); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3) (99); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5)* (100); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7)* (102); Local Government Provisional Order (Highways) (103); New Forest Highways* (101); Forest of Dean (Highways)* (98). Committee-Sea Fisheries (83-127); Criminal Law Amendment (69-128).

Report Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister (56-129).

Third Reading-Lord Alcester's Grant (95); Lord Wolseley's Grant (96), and passed.

[ocr errors]

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL. (The Earl of Rosebery.) (No. 69.) COMMITTEE. House in Committee (according to Order).

Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
Clause 2 (Extent of Act).

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN, in moving the omission of the clause, which excluded Scotland from the operation of the Bill, said, that he did not admit that the high illegitimacy Returns furnished by that country were any proof of the exceptional immorality which was said toexist there; and, most certainly, they were not proof of the

kind of immorality dealt with in the Bill. He thought, upon the whole, the Scottish people were very much like other people, and that the immorality of Scotland was about on a par with that of other parts of the United Kingdom. On that ground, he asked that Scotland should be included in the Bill. He was one of those who thought it very desirable that legislation of this kind should be made applicable, as far as possible, to the whole of the United Kingdom. If a Criminal Act of this kind were made applicable only on one side of the Border, all that those who wished to evade the law, and carry on the hideous traffic in young girls, would have to do, would be to go across to the other side, and carry on that business from that country with impunity. He would move the omission of the clause. Amendment moved, "To leave out Clause 2."-(The Marquess of Lothian.)

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE said, the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lothian) had raised very interesting questions. He (the Earl of Dalhousie) did not feel it necessary to follow him in his speculations, but would confine himself to saying that the Government would accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to. Clause left out accordingly. Clause 3 (Procuring woman under age to be a common prostitute).

On the Motion of The Earl CAIRNS, the following Amendment made:-In page 1, line 10, after ("prostitute") insert

("Or procures or endeavours to procure any woman to leave the United Kingdom, or to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, for the purpose of entering a brothel abroad, whether he shall or shall not inform the woman of such purpose.")

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN said, he would propose the insertion of an Amendment, which would have the effect of bringing under the penalties of the Act any person who endeavoured to induce any woman to lead an immoral life, although there might be no fraud.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH said, before it was accepted, he would point out that such a Proviso would be the cause of unlimited and unbounded extortion in every direction.

The Marquess of Lothian

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE said, that he would, if it were now withdrawn, consider the subject before the Report; but he could not pledge himself to accept the Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Procuring by fraud defilement of girl under age).

On the Motion of The Earl of MILLTOWN, Amendment made, in page 1, lines 16 and 17, by striking out the words ("under the age of twenty-one years").

Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 5 (Abusing woman twelve years of age).

under

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN moved an

Amendment, applying the penalties of the Bill to attempts to commit the offence specified, as well as to the actual commission of the offence, on the ground of the great difficulty in proving the completed offence.

Amendment moved, in page 1, line 23, after ("abuses") to insert ("or shall attempt to carnally know and abuse.") (The Earl of Milltown.)

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE opposed the Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, he thought the Amendment unnecessary. Attempts to commit the offence were already dealt with by law, and were punishable by two years' imprisonment, with hard labour.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTER, in moving an Amendment to empower the infliction of corporal punishment upon an offender, said, that their Lordships. would be of one mind as to the undesirableness of unnecessarily augmenting corporal punishments, on account of its demoralizing effect; but, in this case, it was useless to consider that objection, for he thought all their Lordships would agree that it would be utterly impossible to further demoralize those who were sufficiently demoralized to be capable of committing a crime of this kind. They had simply to consider what punishment was most likely to deter those who might be disposed to commit

« EelmineJätka »