Imágenes de páginas
[blocks in formation]

MR. KENDALL thought the Bill ought not to be pressed forward without further consideration.

COLONEL FRENCH observed, that if the Bill were now read a second time its principles would be sanctioned. Now, the Bill, although plausible, was most delusive. So far from being beneficial, it would be highly injurious. It would unsettle the relations between landlord and tenant, and create discontent where it did not now exist. It would also throw difficulties in the way of the Select Committee on the Grand Jury Laws of Ireland.

stairs. If then that be so, why should
there be any hesitation in permitting the
Bill to proceed. He hoped, therefore, that
this useless, and he thought ill-judged, op.
position would be withdrawn.
IRELAND (Mr. WARREN) considered that
nothing would be more mischievous than
to read this Bill a second time with a view
to immediate legislation. It appeared to
him that the Bill contained as much mis-
chief as any that had been introduced for
some time past. The tendency of the
measure was to tell the occupying tenants
that they were suffering under a grievance,
for which he believed there was no founda-
tion; the Grand Jury cess being a charge
upon the land apportioned justly among
all classes.

More than half the land in Ireland was held under tenancies from year to year; and as the Bill proposed the immediate application of the new law to all these tenancies, the result would be to create a vast amount of discontent between landlord and tenant, and to oblige landlords in self-defence to put an end to existing contracts with their tenants. He did not acquiesce in the principle that it was desirable thatthe Grand Jury cess should be apportioned between landlord and tenant, but he admitted that the sub

a Committee. It was against the practice of the House to affirm the principle of a Bill, when that very principle was to be one of the matters referred to a Select Committee.

MR. O'BEIRNE said, he wished to add his earnest appeal to the noble Earl (the Earl of Mayo) to withdraw his opposition to the second reading of this Bill; and he did so, encouraged by the fact that with the exception of his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Roscommon (Colonel French), every Member who had addressed the House, including the noble Earl himself, had expressed assent to the principles of the Bill. ["No, no!"] He (Mr. O'Beirne) repeated his statement; it was 80. The only objections taken were that the whole question was now under consideration by the Committee recently ap-ject was one deserving of inquiry before pointed, who had but just commenced their sittings, and that it would be a discourtesy to that Committee if the House expressed any opinion upon one branch of a subject, the entire of which had been so referred. Another objection offered was that the second reading of the Bill would be something like pre-judging the question which had been sent to the Committee to discuss; but not a syllable of dissent from the main object of his hon. and gallant Friend's Bill was uttered. Now he (Mr. O'Beirne) believed that there was some very palpable misapprehension on the part of hon. Members who took this view. The only effect that reading this Bill a second time could possibly have, would be to express the views of the House subject to the inquiry of the Committee; and the Committee would have the fullest power to do what they pleased with the Bill, to report in favour of, or to reject it, or to embrace the principle it advocated in a new Bill. In fact, all that could follow a second reading would be the expression of opinion by the House in favour of the principles enunciated, without in the least interfering with the power given to the tribunal up


SIR JOHN GRAY said, that the Bill would not interfere with existing arrange. ments between landlords and tenants; for all existing contracts were specially excepted from the operation of the Bill. could be no hope of preserving good-will between landlord and tenant-as the opponents of the measure professed to wish-if Bills founded like this on just principles were to be rejected. It was now declared that a simple act of justice would produce ill-will between landlord and tenant. What could be fairer than that the person who possessed the permanent interest in the soil should pay his portion of the burden, instead of the whole being thrown upon the shoulders of the tenant? The House was asked to read the Bill a second time; not for the purpose of immediate legislation, but that the Select Committee might have official cognizance of its provisions. There was nothing more common than to give instructions to Committees as

to the manner in which they should con- tenant might excite discontent among the duct their inquiries.

MR. SULLIVAN contended that the tenants had a serious grievance of long standing in the payment of the county cess. It was loudly and universally complained of, that the occupying tenant should pay the whole of a tax which went substantially to improve the property of the landlords. The Bill would not create discontent; for discontent in connection with this question, was of long standing. Why should it not be put on the same footing as the poor-rate? It was only reasonable and fair that the charge should be shared by the landlord. He entered his protest against the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland, and declared his belief that those who defended the present system did not understand the subject, or the feelings which existed among the tenant class of Ireland.

people of Ireland, but there was no possible measure connected with land in Ireland to which the same observation did not apply. The only desire of its promoters was to make a fair and equitable arrangement, and the noble Earl would do a graceful act if he allowed the second reading to pass with a view to the reference of the measure to the Select Committee.

MR. MAGUIRE said, the Gentlemen composing the Select Committee would form an excellent Committee, thoroughly representing all the interests of Ireland, and there was only one Gentleman among them who had not been on the Grand Jury. He (Mr. Maguire) thought it might be useful to read the Bill a second time, and refer it to them. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Warren) laboured under a great misconception if he believed there was no griev LORD CLAUD HAMILTON thought it ance involved in the existing condition of most proper that the whole subject should the law. Those who were acquainted be discussed and maturely considered by with the feelings of the people knew that the Committee upstairs; but it would be a grievance did exist, and that it was felt contrary to the practice of the House, and very strongly. He had himself seen a not very courteous to the Committee, to petition, signed by 6,000 occupiers in the sanction the principle of a Bill by reading South of Ireland, complaining of the it a second time, and thus endeavour to grievance; and if the noble Earl opposite dictate to them the mode in which the would refer to the occupiers of his own question should be settled. The Com- county, he would find there were not more mittee had full powers to inquire into the than ten in a thousand who would not be whole subject; and he trusted the House in favour of a division of the burden bewould not fetter them by the reference tween landlord and tenant. But no improposed by the hon. Member for Cork provement was ever attempted to be made (Mr. Murphy). Although he could not in that House for Ireland without the parrot admit the grievance alleged by the hon. cry being raised that dissensions and diviand learned Member for Mallow (Mr.sions would be created between the landSullivan), he did not deny that some lords and tenants. That was, however, changes in the present system might be all nonsense. Hon. Members came here desirable. Exemptions similar to those to improve the law. Good will, not ill made in the case of poor rates would, no feeling naturally arose from improvements. doubt, be beneficial; but he had repre- He hoped the second reading would be sented for thirty years a large agricultural agreed to. population in Ireland, of all classes and creeds, and had never heard of this long standing grievance which pressed for immediate legislation. He looked to the Committee for useful suggestions, and hoped that beneficial legislation would follow..

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN said, he was in favour of apportioning the county cess between landlord and tenant as was already done in the matter of poor rates. There had not been a single objection advanced against the principle of the Bill. It was true they had been told that an interference with the relations of landlord and

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

[ocr errors]

The House divided:-Ayes 57; Noes 70: Majority 13.

Words added.

[blocks in formation]

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL. (The O'Conor Don, Mr. Monsell, Mr. Leader.) [BILL 6.] COMMITTEE.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MR. PEEL DAWSON said, that last year he had opposed a similar Bill upon its second reading; but, that having received little encouragement in that opposition, he had not considered it his duty to pursue a similar course in this Session. His objections, however, remained the same, and he thought that the momentous consequences which such a measure involved were not sufficiently understood by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had not made out a case for it. If it passed in its present form, it would immediately effect a most disastrous blow upon the system of united education in Ireland. It would add very considerably to the burdens of local taxation; and almost all the grand juries of the northern counties of Ireland had protested against it. It had been urged that the grand juries would be left to take advantage of its provisions or not, as they chose; but there was no knowing how soon, if it were passed at all, application would be made to Parliament to make it compulsory. It was beyond the functions of grand juries to have the power of establishing schools out of the county rates, and he desired to record his protest against the measure, believing that it was wholly uncalled for; that it would add greatly to the burden of local taxation; that it would destroy the principle of self reliance among the lower order of the people; and that it would give perpetual opportunities for increasing religious rancour and acerbity.

MR. VANCE moved that the House should go into Committee on the Bill on this day six months. There was a certain amount of plausible argument in favour of this Bill, inasmuch as its principle was one already in operation in England. The object of the measure was to extend the operation of the Industrial Schools Act to Ireland, but the circumstances of the two countries were wholly different. There was much more vagrancy in Ireland than in England. The consequences of the measure would be that vagrant children might be seized and placed in

would be incurred pressing heavily on the sectarian schools, and that an expense ratepayers in Ireland. He entirely disapproved of giving such children a better education and better nurture than those

of hard-working, industrious, and wellconducted occupiers. The poor law schools were quite adequate at present for the purpose of eleemosynary education. It is true the Bill is only permissive; but it would no doubt be put in force, in all places in which there are town councils and would shortly be made compulsory. Where parents are living and have not parish relief, they should educate their own children. It would increase the pressure of rates to an enormous extent, as well as add to the religious rancour by which Ireland was vexed.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the

end of the Question, in order to add the words, solve itself into the said Committee,” — (Mr. "this House will, upon this day six months, reVance,)

instead thereof.

MR. REARDEN said, he should vote for the Motion for going into Committee; but he intended to move an Amendment to a certain clause of it in Committee. He thought it would be inexcusable not to make the schools self-supporting.

THE O'CONOR DON expressed his surprise at the opposition from certain hon. Members opposite, to a Bill which was simply intended to extend the provisions of the Act which had operated so effectively in England. He had received a vast number of letters from magistrates, heads of reformatories, and other gentlemen in Ireland, all expressing their highest approval of the measure, and the necessity of such an act for the sister country. At present many children were sent into reformatories who ought to be sent to industrial schools. The judicial statistics of Ireland proved that the proportion of children of this class was far greater in Ireland than in England. In respect to the petition presented by the hon. Member opposite from Armagh, he (The O'Conor Don) had received a letter from Mr. Hancock, a member of the grand jury of Armagh, in which he stated that, after the grand jury had finished their criminal business, and whilst they were assembled together with closed doors, a gentleman proposed that they should sign the petition he produced against the Bill. Mr. Hancock objected to being

a party to such a proceeding, and stated that, though other members of the grand jury had signed the petition, he believed that none of them except himself and the gentleman who had made the proposal had read the Bill. If the intention was to get up the Reformatories Bill as a rival to this measure, the charge under that measure would be higher, and it would be equally defrayed out of the county cess. The children who would be sent to the industrial schools were not of a criminal class. In the absence, however, of such institutions, those children must be sent to reformatories, where they would be treated as criminals. He (The O'Conor Don) objected to the principle of branding those innocent children as criminals, and of contaminating them by associating them with criminals. The measure was one of a mere permissive character, and it lay with the grand juries to say whether it should be put in operation in any particular district. As the Reformatory Act had worked so well without being compulsory, there was no good reason for believing that this Bill would not work equally well as a voluntary measure. The head of the Glencree Reformatory approved the measure. He (The O'Conor Don) did not believe that its enactment was at all likely to be followed by a compulsory measure, as the hon. Member for Armagh appeared to apprehend. But, even if such a consequence were likely to happen, the proper time to object to it was when the actual proposition was made.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON said, the cause of much of the opposition which had been offered to the Bill was the utter silence observed by the hon. Member for Roscommon as to the necessity of the measure and his reasons for introducing it. As a representative of a large county, he (Lord Claud Hamilton) had always felt it his duty to oppose any scheme involving taxation, the provisions of which had not been made thoroughly known to the country, and in respect to which an opportunity had not been afforded of opposing it, if disapproved, by any portion of the people. After the statement he had heard, and the explanation given in respect of its provisions, he should not feel it his duty to offer it the same opposition as before. The hon. Gentleman had omitted to state that this Bill was different from the Bill of last year. Only two individuals signed a petition against the measure. Since that time it had become a little more known, and had become the subject of eleven petitions,

with 231 signatures, but all of the petitions were against the Bill. It might be an excellent Bill, but he thought it should not be passed until there had been given to the cess-payers of Ireland a more ample opportunity of expressing their opinions with regard to the measure, either for or against it. The hon. Member had not stated the number of children likely to come under the operation of his measure. What with the facts of higher wages being given than heretofore, and the continuous emigration going on, he (Lord Claud Hamilton) believed that the number of vagrants under the age prescribed by the Bill was rapidly decreasing. He confessed he still shared the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Armagh that the measure was unnecessary; and, judging from experience, he did not think that those schools to be created under it were the best that could be established for teaching young people trades, or to become good agricultural servants.

MR. PIM supported the Bill, on the ground that it would compel some parents, who would not otherwise do it, to pay a portion of the sum necessary for the maintenance of their children. He thought that the Bill was as much required in Ireland as in England.

MR. VERNER said, that in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Roscommon relative to the grand jury of Armagh, he begged to state that a copy of the Bill had been sent by request to the grand jury, and every member of it had full opportunity of reading its provisions.

THE EARL OF MAYO wished to say one or two words in regard to the Bill. He did not propose, on the part of the Government, to take any action in respect of the Bill; but he wished to express his own individual opinions on the merits of the measure. He confessed he did not think that the hon. Member for Roscommon had made out a very strong case for extending the principles of the English Act to Ireland. He (the Earl of Mayo) had endeavoured during the last Recess to inform himself as to the feeling of the people of Ireland upon the subject; and, from all the inquiries he had made, it ap peared to him that if this Bill were passed it was not likely it would have any extensive operation; but there was a very great difficulty in refusing to consider the provisions of a Bill which was almost precisely similar to the statute now in force

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

in England. He thought that the House send them to prison for a long time, would do well to assent to the Committee although the prison was called an industrial on this Bill with a view of adapting, as far school. He thought that there ought to as possible, its provisions to the circum- be some safeguard to prevent the children stances of Ireland. When in Committee of the poor being taken up and sent to it was his intention to move an Amend-industrial schools when they had committed ment which would have the effect of ex- no crime. cluding all persons from the operation of the Bill who would naturally come under the amended provisions of the Irish Reformatory Act.

MR. VANCE said, he should divide the House.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided :-Ayes 82; Noes 46 Majority 36.


Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 to 10, inclusive, agreed to. Clause 11 (As to Children under Fourteen Years of Age found begging, &c. 29 & 30 Vict. c. 118, s. 14).

THE EARL OF MAYO moved the rejection of the first paragraph of the clause-namely, that which related to vagrant children on the ground that a distinction between reformatories and industrial schools should be maintained. The industrial schools should be for those only who had committed no legal offence; and children guilty of acts of vagrancy should be sent to reformatories instead of industrial schools. By his Bill all children who were guilty of an offence punishable by law were to come under the provisions of the Reformatory Act, the effect of which would be that vagrant children in Ireland would be treated in the same way as in England, and after suffering a short period of imprisonment would be sent to reformatories. Persons in Ireland who took an interest in the subject wished to have the distinction between reformatories and industrial schools maintained.

THE O'CONOR DON could not agree to the Amendment; because he did not think it right that such children, who might perhaps be sent out to beg by their parents, should be deprived of the advantages of these schools, and subjected to the contaminating influence of a prison.

MR. CANDLISH pointed out that the Amendment of the noble Lord really broke down the distinction which existed between criminal and other children, because though, no doubt, some vagrant children in Ireland were criminal, it was not so in it was preferable to send these children into the majority of instances. He considered industrial schools, rather than reformatories with the probationary process to going through a gaol. He thought the clause ought to be maintained in its integrity.

MR. O'REILLY believed that the Amendment of the noble Lord would bring these children into the criminal class, a class whose future life was a source of so much difficulty to the country. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Earl would withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF MAYO said, that his intentions had been misunderstood by the hon. Gentleman. His object was simply to extend the operation of the Reformatories Act in a direction in which the friends of those institutions thought it ought to be extended. As reformatories were working well, he thought the class to which he had referred ought to be sent to them. To secure the best possible results from the industrial schools it was desirable to separate those children who were properly the objects of charity from those who might more fairly be regarded as belonging to the criminal class. He had no objection to the House considering and deciding upon the question whether this particular class of children should be sent direct to a reformatory, or through the medium of a gaol.

MR. CANDLISH, believing that the proposition of the noble Earl would overthrow the reformatory system, trusted that the Committee would retain the clause as it now stood.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, the question was, how to draw a line between the two classes, who ought to be sent, irrespectively, to industrial and reformatory schools. He did not see how it could be done; and he thought the clause in the Bill of his hon. Friend was MR. BAGWELL thought it a consider- best suited to meet the circumstances able infringement of personal liberty to under which children in Ireland were take up children merely for vagrancy, and placed. It would be dangerous to depart

« AnteriorContinuar »