Star. — London, England, 1830-03-12 00:00:00

A. ed ag for able bodied men ? His honourable friend (General Gascoyne, as we understood) had said "No". How then could this measure ap ply to the wages of labour ? But then they were told that a mo&- fication of the English Poor Laws was what the Irish were to have. He would ask what was meant by this modification ? It was an enemy with which they could not fairly grapple. Like the gods of old, it was wrapped in clouds, and could not be brought Into the open light of explanation. In an able work lately published by Sir John Waishe, on the subject of poor laws as applied to Ireland, the writer protested against the " indiscriminate something" which was always in the mouths of the advocates of such a system. Their language was that something must be done. Inc should like to - know whether that something was to be coupled with the em ployment of the poor or accompanied with an act of set tlement. Any modification accompanied with a law of settle ment was objected to, by the writer he had already quoted, as c a lculated to overbea r any good which might, by possibility, be long to the system itself. Another admirable author thought that without a law of settlement the system would be productive of much greater mischief than that which it was intended to ob viate. Mr. Pitt hid declared that parliament would do well to re consider the law of settlement, with a view to discover remedies of a different character. But he (Mr. Spring Rice) would ask those gentlemen who were acquainted with, t state of Ireland, especially in the remote counties, whether, even supposing the introduction of poor laws to be desi r able in itself, they had the means of carry ing; it into execution—whether they they could get up the ma chinery that would be necessary—whether they had the materials in many of the counties out of which they could select overseers, treasurers, and other officers. But absenteeism was to be corrected too, according to the honourable member for Newark. So then it appeared that parliament, in its wisdom, was, in the year 1830, to pass a law, making a compulsory provision for the poor, in order that abeentees might be incidentally compelled to return for the purpose of undertaking the offices of overseers, and other parish appointments. But who, he would ask, were the absentees ? They were the Duke of Devonshire, Earl Fitawilliam, the Marquis of Lansdowne, and other noblemen and gentlemen. He named them not in reprobation, bui in honour ; for, if the condition of their estates was compared with that of many of those who resided, the comparison would be favourable to them. The way to bring back absentees was to adopt such measures as would benefit the country, and not, by a side-wind legislation invite them to become churchwardens and overseers of those dstricts. There was one class of reasoners who said, " We do not care what the effect of the measure upon Ireland may be; as we hare It in this country, you must have it in that.":He would appeal to the understanding of the house whether this was fair argument. The Irish had a right to say—" Show us that it has been useful to you, and then you may talk of extending it to us." Another class of reasoner' said—" If a country like England has grown great under a system of poor laws, and if in Ireland without them the labouring classes are driven by a lower rate of food and re muneration to emigrate into this country, give Ireland poor laws, and you prevent emigration from taking place." He denied that there was any tendency in poor laws to produce such an effect. He had asked if it was intended to make any pro vision for able-bodied men, and was told that there was no such intention. If not, then how was it possible, in the name of com mon sense, that poor laws could diminish emigration front Ireland ? Were the persons who came over to save the harvest the old, the decrepit, and the feeble ? No—they were the young, the healthy, and the strong. If the poor laws were to be introduced into Ireland, there would exist much greater difficulty than at pre sent presented Itself to the removal of Irish paupers from this country, for now it au only necessary to land them upon any part of the Irish coast ; whereas, if the poor laws were in force in Ire land, it would then be requisite to prove the parish they belonged to. This could not be done without a lawsuit ; so that, in fact, it would be hopeless for the English public to expect any benefit from them. There was but one class which could benefit by their adop. tion—the lawyers. (A laugh.) These gentlemen had already contrived to get into their hands half a million of the English poor rates • and here they would have a new carcass thrown to them to fe ed upon. (Loud laughter.) He ought to apologize for hav ing detained the house so long upon this most painful part of the subject ; but he should now turn to the other view of the subject, and see what advantage might possibly be reaped from inquiry. 'rite only way in which the Introduction of the Poor Laws into Ireland could prevent the Dish labourers from coin ing to England would be by raising the price of labour in Ireland ; but, he would ask, how was that effect to be produced ? By the re. port of a committee of that house upon the subject, it appeared that the Poor Laws tended to the lowering of the price of wages, and raising the price of provisions, so that it was clear they could not prevent the emigration of Irish labourers into England. He was firmly persuaded that so many Irish labourers would not come over if England did not possess the power of sending them back. (Hear.) —At present they came over to harvest; and, after working during the busy time, they either transmitted their money home or concealed it, and then applied to' the parishes to be sent home. In many cases, too, the system operated with great cruelty. Many unfortunate Irishmen who had lived for years (in one instance that he knew of he could say 40 years) in this country, becoming low in the world, and obliged to apply for accidental re. lief, they have been torn from the soil in which they have been growing ; all their associations have been torn up, and they have teen sent to Ireland to be landed on a shore which was to them a. much a land of strangers as if they had never known it. He imi:ed those honourable members who were advocates for the in troduction of poor laws into Ireland to go into committee with him, and if they could make out a case, and prove that the poor laws were likely to be beneficial, he would become himself one of their warmest advocates. He would state to the house practical measures which might be adopted towards relieving the poor. The present grand jury system of presentments operated most in juriously to the poor. In order to illustrate how this local taxation rose in amount, he would instance the town he trituself represented. In the year 1800 it came in the county of Limerick to 6,7001. the next year to 18,4001. the next year to 11.000/. and so on progressively, until now it reached the ettor. moth sum of 40,0001. In Dublin, also, in 1771, the local taxes tree only to 2,4001. when that city was richest ; but now they had r sn: to the enoimous amount of 27,0001. These local taxes amounted al•ogether, to the sum of 800,0001. and he thought It worthy of con saleration, whether this should not be cast upon the landlord as well as the church-rate also, which would amount to about 80,000/. or 90.0001. at the rate of 2d per acre, which was about the aggregate. lie could assure the house that more disturbance and discontent arose from those local taxes than front any which the govern. meat had levied. By means of public works, also, much might be (hue for the improvement of the country. By the report of Mr. 'Telford, before the committee of 1819, it appeared that Scotland had been advanced at least a century in agriculture and MlA:rig by means of the public works carried on in that country. h _1:1 1 : n e ilroutionertable gentleman then referred to the evidence of Mr. m menus of public wor ks dfNi. in Ire lan d , Griffith,t relative to t contended hthe advant advantages t deri ved had :bus pointed out three several ways in which the country might the without having recourse to poor-rates. He also referred e extortions inflicted at fairs, in the shape of tolls, which some ti.l vi amounted to as much as five per cent. So that when a poor 41 , 3!: could not sell, lie not only los: his time, but had to pay this :lon - nous tax also. This was anot h er ev il w hi c h s h ou ld be reme. died ; it was an oppressive tax, and always led, almost every fair, to broken heads. ha these reasons he thought it was high time rut an experiment should be made to put an end to the nu merous obstructions to improvements in that country. Experi !.uc• is had alr ea dy b een ma d e on bogs and waste land, and they .1,,,1 proved successful. He should wish, however, not to confine toe Improvement to land alone. He thought much might be done by education, and by holding out motives for industry and manual labour. He might say a great deal more on the sub ,eet, but I.e had so long taken up the time of the house, that he ;iota,' nut trespass longer on their patience. In bringing forward tnc motion he had no selfish or political motives to answer—his ob.. na. the improvement of Ireland; and the improvement which le i..LILLLI forward to was not so much an improvement of the law as . provement in industry anti frugality. He trusted, therefore, that rear opposition would be made to the motion by the noble lord. Tl' .l ronourable gentleman concluded by moving for the appoint. ttit.it,n: in a select committee to i nqu i re O nto the state of the poorer .. Ls lreland, and the best means of improving their condition. Geier.,l GASCOYNE, in rising to second the motion, said he .:endured in almost every thing that had fallen awn his honour able (nod (Mr. S. Rice). Poor laws he thought beneficial to a t h utjur r, y, an d it was no argument against them to say that abuses pt into the system in England. Every one admitted the east, and all admitted that they required alteration. His hon. ti n `r . had asked him what sy s t em h e wou ld recommend for Ire. anti in answer to this he would say, after a considerable is. hint and the i subject, both as regarded those who possessed he& easciold property, that a change oug to and be adopted, that all abt , tattea oiled to pay for the maintenance of dle, !'' ) "r in the same way as in Scotland. In that country so molt Nan paid per acre by those who resided on their estates, and a kola ' , OlO was paid the absentees. In that he zrfect because he thought absentees ought to be punished. (Hein honourabikn tgret:rl9nan industry had stated that there were eleven houses of haw n ann. If that were all, he could • not help observing stri., frc•por t . L The ion they bore to similar establishments in E. three Ulna" th expense for the poor of England amounted, in fact, On r, venue wait amount of the whole revenue of Ireland. Tbil , noudins theexpenses for maintaining workhouses,amounted t z a iik abs .o :t eleven millions a-year. ;Ala noble friend seemed r some assistance from this country; and this, he M. '4rwhenY to say , was t generally the practice of Irish members. apoint i of aP ro o p a ny improvement In that country, they made 'itch wut, p yL.g for public assistance horn this' country. HI ialei:C.m of his hon. friend, if It was his object to establish a fund out of the taxes for the support of the poor of Ire land, he (Ow. Oascoyne) would give a decided negative to any such proposition. He was gratified to hear that so great an improvement had taken place in that country, and he hoped that in time it would relieve England frbm the expense of providing for the Irish labour ers who flocked to this country. One great objection to introduce some system of Poor lams in Ireland had arisen from the absentees. Those, he thought, ought to pay, and for that and other reasons be concurred in the motion. Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS began by stating, that though the honourable gentleman who had spoken last seconded the motion, it appeared to him that he differed from the hon. mover from beginning to end. Before making any observations, however, on the sub ject, he would state that the house was greatly indebted to the ho nourable gentleman who had brought forward the motion for the luminous statements which he had given, and the manner in which he had treated the subject. He willingly concurred in the motion,_ because he thought the appointment of a committee would be of great advantage, not only to Ireland, but also to Eng land. The two countries had long been actuated by different feel. ings—they were now united, and he trusted that all distinctions would soon cease, and that the great measure which had been carried last session would have the effect of completing the union. The present system acted most injuriously to England. In this coun try there was a compulsory law for the maintenance of the poor. No such law existed in Ireland, and the poor of that country, consequently, were attracted to England to participate in the provisions made for paupers. (Hear, hear, hear.) He was most decidedly adverse to the adoption of a system of poor laws in Ireland, similar to those of England, because he was convinced that, if the law was made compulsory, it would endanger the whole property of that country.—(hear.) He agreed with his hon. friend this it would be proper to institute an inquiry, and get rid of all those local dues, which only tended to encum ber property. This, no doubt, would be prejudicial to the interests of particular individuals, but, rather than they should continue, it would be better that some compensation should be made for them out of the property of the district. The statements of his honourable friend did not seem to him quite consistent when he alluded to the charitable establishments of Ireland. He said they would contribute in a great degree to relieve distress ; yet, at the time he reeommended the introduction of such establish. ments, he complained that they were unpopular, and were so managed as to be of little advantage. The subject, altogether, was one of great importance, and any system which the legislature might adopt ought, in his opinion, to be the result of great and de liberate inquiry. If he recommended any system in preference to another, it was that which had been long adopted in Scotland. In that country, a selection was made from those who paid the rates, and they were commissioned by the country to assess the landed property for the maintenance of the poor. They were much more likely to administer relief scrupulously, and according to the real wants of the applicants, than the churchwardens or overseers of a parish. Ithad been argued by some writers that ab sentees were not injurious to a country. Such a proposition he thought most untenable, because it was natural to suppose that when a landed proprietor resided on his estate he would spend a great deal of money in improvements, and in many other ways which would be beneficial not only to himself, but to his tenants, and to all those who were dependent on him. He hoped that the Com mittee would be appointed, but that those members who were to compose it would not allow their minds to be occupied with any previous impressions. Mr. DAWSON hoped that the hon. Mover of the question would circumscribe the subjects which he bad given notice were to be sub mitted to the Committee, otherwise it was impossible that there could be any practicable results. When the hon. gent. asked for a Committee to consider the state of the brand Jury laws, the edu cation of the poor, the improvement of morals, and a variety of other subjects, he must be convinced from his own experience that no good could arise. He (Mr. Dawson) wished him to confine the inquiry to one point--namely, the number of poor coining from Ireland, and the means of employment that they bad in this country, and how far they were a burden to the different parishes, and then he would have an opportunity of following it up by an inquiry into the number of unemployed poor in Ireland, and he might devise means fur their employment. He therefore advised the hon. member not to terrify the members of the committee by the introduction of endless and fruitless subjects, but to confine himself to one defined and practicable topic. It was a remarkable circum stance attending this debate, that while the hon. members for Liver pool and Limenck were understood to be decidedly opposed to the in troducLion of the poor laws tolreland,the former,by that happy fatality which attended an Irish questions, was found as the seconder of the motion introduced by his hon. friend. With every respect to the speech of his hon. friend, the member for Liverpool, he was cm pelted to say that it did not contain one argument which should in. duce any member to vote for the introduction of poor laws. He had seldom heard a speech so totally devoid of argument and reason.—(Hear and laughing.) With respect to the question of poor laws, he thought that It was divisible into two distinct heads. He objected to the English system being introduced into Ireland (hear), as be was convinced that it would have the effect of pauperising .nearly the whole of that country.— (Hear.) He was of opinion that the lame and the blind, and the aged and helpless, should be relieved at the public expense ; and he wished to see some legislative enactment by which that good ablest could be thoroughly accomplished. (Hear, hear.) He thou& that the poor, in those extremities, should be entitled to relief terms the parishes where they were b arn or where they were settled. (Hear, hear.) In saying so he only expressed the feelings of the people of that part of Ireland with which he was connected, who were anxious to see a legislative provision made foe those persons who were the objects of the Act of Elizabeth. At present the cold-hearted had the power of throwing the wretched on the hands of the good-hearted and charitable; and it was finks that the law should compel them to contribute equally for time sup port of those who were deprived by circumstances of the power of supporting themselves. (Hear) One of the most striking things which could affect a stranger travelling in Ireland were the number of wandering beggars, and the kindness of the people in giving them relief. That relief was at best inadequate to the pur pose ; and it was most unpleasantly bestowed ' • at least in the oyes of those who were accustomed to observe the unosten tatious charity of England. It was not uncommon to sec a dozen cripples, in small wooden boxes, carried from house to house for relief; and there was seldom an instance where the poor creatures were not relieved, or where the peasantry refused to carry them from place to plate, until they had accomplished their circuit. (hear, hear.) He had seen in the coune of his life hundreds of poor beings carried in this manner, and he must say the sights were most offensive to strangers, and it was at least proper that the parish where they were born should provide for them. (hear, bear.) He would go no further—he would stop there—and he would never consent to the introduction of the English system of poor laws, which gave the able-bodied labourer a right to live at the expense of others —(hear.) If the English poor laws were introduced, nine-tenths of the people would become a burden to the country. In short, it would pauperise the whole population— (bear,) and the cost would neither fall on the landlords nor the ab. mew, but upon the occupiers of land.—(hear.) He was of opt. use that Ireland was daily and hourly improving, and that it would soon become an arm of strength to hngland, and he did not desire to see that amendment checked by a measure width must tend to the degradation of the people.—(hair.) Mr. BROWNLUW said, to go into a committee:was only to embarrass the house with evidence which it had already before it in abundance; but, as the hon. member propood thereby to relieve the existing distress, he for one would not oppose it. The heaviest poet of the duty of the house and of the hon. gentleman would be the consideration that distress was to be dealt with. He had bean amused of drawing pictured of imagination more than of fact with respect to the sufferings of the people of Ireland ; and he would be gladly convicted of those statements, for he did not think that language could exaggerate the amount of suffering, endured with patience the most wonderful by the labouring classes of IrelaniL He believed that they were below the standard of the peasantry et every country of Europe ; and he knew no country pointed out by any traveller in any part of the world where there was so much suf. fering combined with so much patience—(Hear.) He admitted that there were symptoms of improvement in Ireland; but be con. Weird that it was confined to the landed interests. It was to be found in the consolidation of farms, and in getting rid of hovels; but it all tended to the detachment of the people from thesis/A. lords.—(Hear.) The people were daily severed from their agricultural employments, while he believed the • had gone on increasing for 125 years, at a ratio greater am that of any other country. Indeed one argument for the ' tion of poor laws was founded on the possibility of their that redundant population; but he was of opinion, - thrit if the dition of the people was improved, and mew et entplernmit found for them, they would be more cautious of estrardng kn. provident marriages. The honourable member for Liverpool conk plained loudly of the vast number of pauper competitors with the English labourers that came from Ireland every year, and he spoke of the necessity of using coercive measures to prevent that evil; bee honourable members should recollect that the raw mated* which Ireland had the greatest facility of producing was labour. (Laughing.) be ughing.) And he should also recollect that if Ireland ask hour to emploed in this country England sent the if labour to her in th e shape of marofactura goods, wlisb ram* displaced a greater quantity of labour than she thyme& of base.. — (Hear, hear.) Thelon. member need not, therefor, be so willing to dispay his spleen at this pauper invasion, ea he called it. Hi (Mr. B t hoped that while the Union between tbe countries existed, every facility to communication between both woad be kept up. He freely owned that he would edemas this hooka don into Ireland of a system of poor laws, ter, he tooethl Esther call it, labour-rate, in connection with the Act et Matad When the difference between the papal mien in Ingbedand kind was considered, and the missy of the darts was emitemplated, it could not be seen without causing one to believe that the measure, of charity for England, and the absence of them in Ireland, must have had a very considerable effect. When all other countries were looked to where no such system as that of England prevailed, it ,they woad be found that all the boasted advantages of leaving the pimple to themselves were not realised; but, on the contrary, dieat mendicancy, thieving, shameless abandonment, and hor st& hnprsostions prevailed. But, on the other hand, when looked to England, Holland, and Sweden, where a better system how great was the difference—how gratifying the picture r e i:d aile eePso great, that there was strong temptation to be lieve that the difference of the population arose from the fact that in the one Poor Laws prevailed, while in the others they were altogether neglected. The hon. member proceeded to ridicule the idea of edu cation and native talent proving a check to population in Ireland, and said, were no other means adopted, Ireland must become a great waste to supply the parishes of England with paupers. (Hear.). — This would not be the case were the admirable system of the Act of Elisabeth to be adopted ; and when they had an industrious i population on the one side, and on the other so many mil lions of acres unemployed, nothing could be hotter than to adopt the 1 sense of the resolution proposed by his hon. friend—namely, to em ploy the poor in the cultivation of the waste lands. He disagreed altogether as to the difficulty of executing these laws, and he thought that plenty of machinery for the purpose existed. The Irish pro prietor, too, would be a machine always going, and always in order ; and he would now, from necessity, repress that system of increase which hitherto he had a political reason to encourage. On any ground, therefore, he was anxious to see a proper system introduced. Lord F. L. GOWER said that he meant no opposition to the motion of his honourable friend, but would offer his best assistance in effecting the course proposed. As to absenteeism, he was ex tremely glad that a political economist of the experience and the rank of his honourable friend was, like himself, at i&sue with one of the great luminaries of the sect upon that subject. Any great and sudden change in the law of Ireland he would deprecate, as it would have a tendency to increase rather than to lessen absenteeism ; and he also thought there could be no greater fallacy than to suppose that the change contemplated would all at once remove that influx of Irish labourers` which was so much complained of in this noun. try, and any attempt to check it by the measure recommended by the hon. and gallant Member for Liverpool would rather increase than diminish the evil. It should also not be overlooked that great advantage was derived from them when a press of labour required their assistance, and their uniform good conduct was remarkable. The only portion of his hon. friend's speech to which he could object was its conclusion, which recommended a wider sphere to the operations of the committee than was advocated; for, were the grand jury system, tolls and customs, and the various other topics alluded to, to be examined, there could be no hope of the main subject—that of the amelioration of the poor—being considered this session. The Knight of KERRY thought that errors had arisen in the debate. His hon. friend had justly stated that, before entering into discussion, it would be well to define what poor laws meant. Three definitions had been given : the first by the hon. and gal lant member for Liverpool, and that was, that on any Irishman coming to England a second time, some punishment should be in flicted, such as confinement, and being sent back. The hon. mem ber for Armagh also gave his definition of the poor laws, which was, that we should in Ireland simply adopt the Act of Queen Elizabeth. No one was more gratified than himself at the ge nerous and exuberant effusions of patriotism emitted by his hon. friend ; but he believed that, if once the principle of compulsory relief were admitted in Ireland, all the evils attendant upon the present perverted and abused system in England would be utterly insignificant, in comparison with those which such a provision would entail on Ireland. Poor Laws were totally inapplicable there ; and he recommended all who wished for information, to enable them to conic to aright decision, to read the work of Sir John Walshe. One effect of the system would be the emigration of a greater number of able-bodied men who are now kept at home by their affection towards their families, but who, if provision by law were once secured to them, could not by possibility resist the temptation of the higher rate of wages in this country. The system of the poor laws in England was inapplicable to any useful purpose. They ought to give rise to sources of independent employ ment, and afford the means of taxing the land to make up for the expenditure. The hon. member for Liverpool had said that the members for Ireland neva said anything about Ireland without asking for a grant of public money. Was he justified in that re mark ? Did his lion. friend now ask for anything for Ireland which Ireland was not to pay ? He (Mr. F.) was anxious for a ter ritorial tax in Ireland ; not to be exercised as parochial assess ments were in England, but for the improvement of the territory ; to be levied, however, upon the land, and to be derived from the proprietors of the land. As to the mode of assessment, the House of Commons was the last body to whom such a subject could be acceptable. The peculiarity of Ireland consisted in this —that a vast portion of its revenue was totally drawn from it ; and, therefore, domestic industry did not derive that advantage which, in all improved and cultivated societies, was derived from the expenditure of the income of proprietors. ( Hear.) It bad been stated, that the landed proprietors displayed much liberality of conduct. Giving them thanks for the liberality with which they treated their tenants, and for the great improvements which they had effected in their estates ; yet when be considered the vast number of absentees, consisting both of persons of large for tune and others of moderate income, who left - Ireland after the ex ample of their betters, this did constitute a peculiarity of case re quiring the deepest consideration His honourable friend had re ferred to the mode of assessment under the (hand Jury Laws. It was now 35 years since, in the parliament of Ireland, he (Mr. F.) proposed -the specific correction which was now offered as to the mode of taxation. The person who let land free from Grand Jury assessment received sgreater compensation than be who let land incumbered with it. lie congratulated the house that it had at last been able to approach a subject relating to Ireland without any unpleasant feeling. It was what had never been the case before.— He hailed it as the strongest evidence of the disposition of the Go vernment to do all in their power to improve that country that they had at once acceded to the proposition of his hon. friend. He be lieved that distress of a great nature did prevail in Ireland, that that distress had been occasioned by non-employment, but he believed that there also existed in Ireland the principles and seeds of great and growing prosperity. It was from that prosperity alone that the means could be derived of. relieving England from the influx of pauperism. Mr. PEEL--I am decidedly in favour of the appointment of this committee, because I think that nothing could be more imprac ticable than to attempt to legislate upon the subject of a provision for the Irish poor without a preliminary inquiry, and that nothing would be so unwise as to reject altogether the proposal to legislate upon such inquiry. A great part of the value of this committee will depend upon the mode in which the inquiries are conducted. If there are to be inquiries into the generalcondition of the Irish poor, I will not say that valuable information may not be collected, but cer tainly no practical good will result.He would advise his hon.friend,who would, no doubt, act in the capacity of Chairman, to make a report in the four following parts : Ist, to submit to the house and to theßritish public a clear statement of existing enactments as to the provision for the poor; 2dly, a statement of extent to which land or pro.. piety in general is subject to a pecuniary levy for the mitigation of di seise or the extension of subsistence ; 3dly, to consider whether it is desirable, on principle, coextend those enactments; and whether, if it be desirable to extend them, by what machinery they ate to be extended • and, lastly, to consider the bearing of the in troduction of the poor laws into Ireland upon the population of England. (Hear, hear.) He had heard much, in the course of this night, of the introduction of the poor laws into Ire. land. Belied thought much upon the subject, and there appeared troth eo plausible as the assimilation and extension of the system to Ireland. The system existed in two great bland* of the United Kingdom : and it was impossible to deny that groat injustice arose practically from its existence in those pares, and its absence from Ireland. Some gentlemen said they would take all that was good in the system, and exclude what was bad. Could that be done ? Was there not an insuperable ten dency in any system of legitimate claim for relief, to grow up into abuse? If the poor man was to have a claim for relief, what were the limations by which his claim was to be controlled ? To mythat every man who could not maintain himself by his la bour Wilda have a claim, would be subjecting the whole land of Ireland to an Agrarian law, and the present possessor of land must be content to part with his n without materially diminishing the &Wes& To say, on other band, that you will not admit the *bad a healthy man who cannot find work, while you admit the *in al every man who is subject to ill health, would not narrow the VisfaMbs, because, if a man were unable to procure einploymenc and i 1 day were in want, the step towards indisposition was a very duet sus. The boo. member for Armagh said he would not have a pot rate, but a lalmot.aute—that be would raise nothing from the land except that whisk should be applied to providing employment hi the Ulu *idly adhered to that principle lie provided no 101111111* dlstrese. MI labour-rate occluded those most in need of soopert. Was it to be a rate raised within the parish, and applied oflaborer within the limits of tho parish ? If it was, leel of all, it would diminish, pro team, the means of pre.. .pants farmers to employ the poor; and it would be appljcd to • forced description of labour, which otherwise would not arias, for which was no neeimaity, and which would ma terially interfere with the actual demand. (Hear, hear, hear.) The tmesueer of the nave was an advocate for the introduction of the Scotch rather than 011ie Essetsh system. The Scotch system, as meted on in ibe MOM* was totally distinct from that acted oa the lows ads ea weessalietariag distsiets. The law was the 'ems, but tbolrausies eras tilibro,t. Met be doubted whetbar, ell volisig to the decision or the, canto, thee was ai ins cm titer of the poor for pecuniary rerf l . throe to fed= sines a poopositiOn was mode to prevent labserers a settlement ; that a three-yeses' rest. deice should defeat a legal claim, iu case of their ability to find subsistence. 't it: he doubted whether the proposal to adopt the Scotch system, or the proposal of his hon. frit.nd and relative (the member for Decry), to enable the majority of a pa rish - to tax the whole to support the poor, would he efrectual cheats against the ultimate Introduction of the tvil system of the poor laws. These - were practical considerationa, into which he hoped the Committee would rather at once enter than into the ques tion of grand juty assesameots or absenteeism. It any mats thought a tax on absentees plausible, let him read the letter of Mr. Burke to Sir C. Bingham, at a time when there were much more plausible reasons for taxation than at present. In 1774, when In. land had a legislature of her own, it was proposed to put a uts, on absenteeism ; but now, many were called away by their park:. mentary duties here, and if they had property in both parts of the kingdom, and might reside in either, how could It be consistent with justice to impose a tax ? The most matetial object for the com mittee would be, to satisfy the people of Stigiand. They. had s right to be satisfied. There was a gratt practical injustice i^ the working of the poor law system, and there were great abuses in the passing of Irish labourers. The hon. member for Liverpool had proposed that they should be imprisoned. General GASCOVNE—lmprisoned, and kept to hard labour- - (A laugh ) Mr. PEEL—That would not be the cheapest way of getting rid of Irish labourers, for it would be necessary to build prisons. lie thought that all restrictions upon the obtaining a market for the commodity which was the only possession of a poor man, all re. strictions which prevented a poor man from seeking employment where there was the best market, were most injudicious. As to the formation of large establishments to receive the poor, be despaired of an effectual remedy by that means, though it might be a matter of consideration whether. in case of actual disease, facilities should not be afforded. Upon the first consideratiou of this subject he thought that the effect of the introduction of the poor laws in Ireland would be to redress the injustice done to En g. land by the claims for relief preferred by Irish labourers ; but In now doubted whether it would bare that tffect. Englar.l did not suffer from the invasion ut Irish distreas, but (win the invasion ut Irish labour—from the inroads of the strong and healthy man why was able to undertake the journey and work laud. He doubted whether we did rot overrate the evil which the country sustained from the introduction of Irish labour. The Itishman came over at a period when there was the greatest demar.tl for labour ; and we must not overlook the benefit afforded to the agriculturist by the introduction of cheap labour. The behaviota of the labourer was in general good. He wu afraid that the introduction of the poor laws would have no beneficial effect. Tic whole subject required much deliberate inquiry. Mr. SLANEY said he was sorry to sec that, on a question to which the house and the proposed committee should come with utt. prejudiced minds, the hon. mover himself, as wells* other lion. gen. demen should already have their minds made up. He maintained that this was a question that concerned, not only Ireland, but Eng. land also; for unless effectual means could - be devised to prevent the evils arising from the continual influx of Irish laboureis into this country, the English peasantry will soon be reduced to tit. state of the Irish peasantry. As the question was at present neatly exhausted, he would reserve what he had to offer upon it ftu another =salon. lie would merely advert to the great num ber of Irish labourers who come over here annually by the means m the facility of conveyance afforded by the steam-boats, which, from being only fourteen employed about this country in 1814, had now increased to three hundred. By those steam-vessels 28,000 deck passengers came to Liverpool last summer, and if all could be counted it would be found that no fewer than 50,000 deck passengers came last year from Ireland, to compete with English labourers. lie was opposed to the introduction of the English system of poor laws into Ireland, but he thought some part of them may be applied to Ireland. He herd, however, that honourable members would reserve their opinions fee the committee. It was from the introduction of capital he ex pected the igteatest, benefit in Ireland. And what prevented capi tal going from this country to Ireland, when it was sent beyond the Andes and to the remotest parts of the world? Division, party. and misrule foe centuries, caused so much distrust that none would venture to carry capital to Ireland. Mr. ALEX. DAWSON rose to correct a mistake into which the hon. member for Shrewsbury had fallen, in saying that the :4,000 deck passengers who came to this country were paupers.— He denied that they were paupers ; .they were able-bodied men, who had a property in their health, and in the activity and energy of their nerves. They came to this country with an offer of their labour, which Englishmen found it to their advantage to employ, and they did net fail to give sufficient recompense for the wages they obtained. They were not vagrants nor vagabonds. There should be &distinction observed between paupers and labourers. He would assure the gallant member for Liverpool that it would be impossible to legislate so as to prevent labour finding Its level,and going from one country to another. , The beet way to prevent k in this are would be to give thelrish labour. ere employment at home, and for that there was ample room. Of the 12 millions dames of land in Ireland two millions were bogs, upon the draining and improvement of which the people could be profitably employed. As long as these bogs remained unreclaimtd they were a reproach to the government. At an expense of 101. per acre the bogs could be made into good land, that would let for :Ms. and the outlay would pay 200 per cent. Instead of gabbling about keeping the Irish labourers at home, the axe should be laid to the root of the evil. and employment given them at home. Mr. SLANEY begged to explain. He did not apply to the Irish labourers those hank names of "vagrants" and "vagabonds" which the hon. member imputed to him. Mr. MONCK was understood to say that the coming of the Irish labourers to this country , was not so great an evil es some supposed. The English labourer had his security against the competition of the Irish in the poor.laws. Thousands of the latter passed through Berkshire in the season, and the farmers did not employ them to the exclusion of the English labourers, who, If he did, would be sure to claim his lewd right next day of the parish officers, and so have his revenge on the farmer. Mr. O'CONNELL said he did not take offence at the expressions of the hon. member for Shrewsbury, as he was sure no Ocoee was meant ; but he begged leave to contradict him. He saw nothing in the people of England, the example of which could raise the morals of the Irish labourer. He referred to the lista of crimes at the assizes and the sessions through the country in the course of last year, when the commissions for the city of Dublin and for other parts of Ireland wete almost free from trials for such offences. That was an answer against raising the moral character of the Irish by the example of land. He admitted it—and he was sorry that numbers of able. ed men were in distress in Ireland, with a most fertile soil and ample room for their employment, but that something prevented their employment. lie would reserve for another opportunity what he had to say on the main question. Sir C. COLE said that as a magistrate, he had such experience of the English system of poor laws that he would not recommend the introduction of them into Ireland. Mr. SLANEY begged to explain once more. He never applied the terms " moral condition" in the sense in which the bon. and learned gent. took it. The motion was then agreed to, and the Committee was named. Mr. 'f RANT moved that it be an instruction to the Committee to inquire how far the 42d of Elizabeth could be made applicable to the poor of Ireland. The SPEAKER told him that to move such an instruction was useless, as the Committee had the power to consider the subject. Mr. HUME then suggested that Mr. Train might be added to the committee. Lord L. GOWER said there was no pen.onal objection, but, a. the committee was to be limited, it would be inconvenient to add to it every member that made a suggesslon. July SYsTEN IN SCOTLAND. The LORD ADVOCATE, on the suggestion of Sir O. WAR SLENDER and other members, on account of the lateness of the hour, put off his motion on this subject, and said he would take his chance of getting it on this day. his. R. (JORDON asked if the proposed reforms in Scotland would lead to an increase of the salaries of the Judges ? Mr. HERMES said as the learned lord postponed his motion upon the suggestion of Bon. members, it was Hot reasonable now to ask him to state a part of it. PRICE OF COALS. AI L Md. WOOD said he would not, at so late an hour, detain the house. The corporation of London was anxious to have en. quiry by a committee cf the house, with a view to reduce the price of coals, and to ascertain the expediency of selling them by. weight rather than by measure. Ile referred to the relief gine by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he took off 3s. per c ludd ron of the duty !lento/ore, and be hoped he would now take off the remaining 6s. He moved for the appointment of a select corn. 131ittte to inquire into the state of the coal trade, and to consider the acts of Parliament relating to the delivery of c oals in the port of London, in Surrey, Kent &e. and into their price in those places, and in the places of shipping them, and to inquire what re strictions were on the supply of thew. Sir M. W. RIDLEY seconded the 'notion. 31r. ItU3IBOLD moved that other ports be added to the port of London. After • short conversation, in which Mr. F. Lewin, Alderman Thompson, Mr. T , Mr. Harries, sad Mr. Stewart Wortley took a part, Mr. it othhotew his asseadassat, aid the ori ginal motion was ?ski and earded. Mr. MUMS hadag reliedet that, la the list of the Committee, there west t) the coal intense aad as ver yu city at foe the public at large was y diapeopertleaata, peopesatillia MUMS" OA, T. Ackland, which WU WWI 10 * .. • The rewards. orders of tom,. day where then quickly disposed of, use the hews adjeareed at ass o'caeca. • t 1 • .