The Express.
London, England, 1847-03-30 00:00:00

be given to the pauper by the amendments of the hon. 'nem-
bee would interfere with independent labour, by creating a
dabs to go Into tho workhouse.
Sir H. W. BARRON could not understand why a pauper
wee more likely to remain in the workhouse by being obliged
to give labour for his maintenance instead of doing no work
at an.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the aim should be to make poor
relief se efficient as possible, and not aim at other objects.
His Ma. friend wished to make model farms in connexion
with the workhouse, and thus improve the agriculture of
Ireland; he thought, however, that be would fail in his
object: there would be a number of paupers uriskilfully em.
played under inefficient instructors. While aiming at such
a purpose they would lam the object of relieving, in the
beet possible manner, people who were starving, by which
be meant, applying an efficient test when they gave relief.
Confinement in a workhouse was found to be irksome to the
labourer, and he never resorted to it unless be was
wd to do so; whereas, if he was allowed
rk the greater part of the day out of doors,
be would not find it go unpleasant a life, and would
rued to the workhouse when he was not obliged to do so by
mestasity., and thus realise the fears of the Archbishop of
Dublin, in which he did not participate. He thought it was
better to confine the bill to the relief of the poor, and stake
the question of the improvement of agriculture in Ireland
the subject of a separate measure.
Cal. ROLLESTON opposed the motion.
Sir W. JAMES suggested that the quantity of land might
be enlarged from twelve to twenty-five acres with advantage;
it would afford the means of giving agricultural instruction
to paupers
Alter a few words from Mr. Leweitas,
Sir H. W. BARRON considered it desirable that the
quantity of land proposed by the bill should be increased to
twenty.four or twenty-five acres, nor making it imperative,
but leaving it to the option of the guardians.
Mr. CURTEIS opposed the motion.
Sir G. GREY said, if it was found desirable, on inquiry,
to increase the quantity of land attached to workhouses in
large unions, he should have no objection to propose a clause
for that purpose on the third reading. (Hear, hear.)
In answer to a question from Lord J. MANNERS,
Sir G. GREY said it was intended to take land, not
exceeding three acme, in connexion with the unions, for the
purposes of fever wards and interment.
Me. SHAW inquired if the as. 'mentioned in the bill,
Were intended to be English or Dia sexes ?
Sir 0. GREY replied that they Wile to be English acres.
Mr. P SCILOFE withdrew Mt someadinents.
Mr. ORBOOBY thee remsed ke knowing Mime ;
Art be It mgaluill than atilentstssask So the saidislaw of
the ecard of mgreffirmse slog gmsa IligiLessegise et lied within
nob rim ems to edema Mee 4111Weeirer ~ shall te
Vain le Ors wpgrielmera et es eat Whether held under
lama or se eel at elk sea to edges ream with all persoas
met Ma Medi ogre ari Malemee ;
=imersoiell Me lee
sr
ii We Mee siete-, sr seepieret
imp sleet kr kit= es 111=erignon to leallnk.
leassesedgents his ease
le wilka, epee theakeekelt sweiseerier art las
eat e eenehe ef Ohs lawlemele te lift lo arse were
for tent whish hempen me the sail essele sales=
vide two-deka Nee larmaeeetem wade! le
ler the eedgarthw St Mk sell Ms issiki esa mite
meth owe, It she beam dowel id grienel a allikmino
mem pareeet dee be sese. sperm vase es elle
ef the deka asa Is pg siarlo we elm. se boar
worm as doll be dloodellimVuripininielal Is ald of
asederadand see cm sea arterealegee bet of
thifnmesseledeed twee emillestemw saidessld,
asteleieseleg thet Ng ler OM se deed sad Me m
mere mats saw sr yrr sr ~ls Ow esmeee le vetoedM
deed ile. sed saleaseteker fat seek essepW el his
Swap wag hatt le, Tar liagebeis. lemma of die weetheres of such
wear
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN eel that a elms steal ea the
moe in his name, on the some sediest as that to which
ha hon. friend's clause referred, the object of whick was
to remove the existing restrictions whisk tended to prevent
boards of guardians from assisting emigration. As by his
clause the matter was left in the hands of the boards of
guardians, he preferred it to that of Idrhon. friend's ; but if
the sense of the committee was diffeent he would acquiesce.
Sir G. GREY said he had no Aker to the clause of the
hon. member !or Dublin, whisk the preferred to that of the
hon. member for Limerick. The dare of the hon. member
for Dublin, would remove the restrictions which it was
the object of the hon. member for Limerick to remove.
Mr. P. HOWARD thought it was • new principle to
allow the public rates to go to promote emigration to foreign
countries. He thought that the words " British colonies "
should be inserted.
Mr. BELLEW said that the emigration from his part of
Ireland was principally to the United States. He would,
therefore, oppose the insertion of the words proposed.
Mr. VESIiY said that persons could go to the United
States by Quebec as cheaply as if they went direct to New
York.
Lord J. RUSSELL had no objection to the clause with-
out the words.
Mr. TRELAWNEY thought it better that persons should
be allowed to go where they liked.
The clause was then agreed to with some verbal amend-
ments.
Mr. GREGORY vrososed the following clause :
And be it farther aselel last no pines who shill be In the men-
=anwhether make es seseent, or as tenant at will, or
' km
par to yarrow la qslew Emir whatsoever, of any land of
for Metter • mew eta delft, ewe, shell be deemed and
Ulm is b' • astlliate peepers= seer the previsions of this act, or
of am 4 taw sit dynamst; aft dril isle head foe any board of
ss *grog smy vita oboes, In or seed the "redeem se
saysethesteer es we, se deem ert if ray rem heves
tea ark es as sans old. Ma ashlose Mead rawases
easelisf so a areltelemmipoisse, lerma re beimmee seer ear.
drestogree sew leet key dell be Mlle Mt mot per-
son Imeeendle sad seer= alostesely parted with and
serwerred say sr Me wtdrh be may lave had to the campa-
ignOwyseere andiebere such ram se afor,rid, of =cum.-ter
ot a mar one.
His object in prepedeg this clause was to prevent persons
from pursuing this doable, but, in Ireland, by no means in-
compatible otos of pauper and farmer. In a country
like Ireland &mild, if possible, be left undeterminate,
and it we', of the greatest importance to soy where destitu-
tion might be supposed to cease. At first he intended to
propose to fix the limit at half an acre, but he had been
assured by persons well acquainted with Ireland that a limit
of half an acre would be too extensive. He therefore pro-
posed, that any person who held more than a quarter of a
statute acre should not be considered • fit object of relief.
He believed the government had no objection to the clause.
Mr. CURTEIS was sorry to heer that the government
bed atemtled to this clause, because the effect of it would be
to withheld relief from the most destitute classes in Ireland.
It weed render the bill unpopular in the eyes of the Eng-
Ede people, who would not feel satisfied if everything was
not done to relieve the Irish poor at the expense of Irish
landlords.
Sir G. GREY said this subject had been very much con-
sidered by the government, and they considered that it
weld be beneficial if the land of those who bad very small
i passed into the hands of those who were better able
tio=ate it; for it was found that such persons had ne-
glected their farms, and preferred earning wages on the public
works. This clause would not prevent persons holding
a quarter of an acre from receiving relief, but it would
prevent persons who held a larger quantity of land from
throwing themselves on the poor-rates for relief. But there
should be some limitation of time, as many such persons had
gone into the workhouses who ought not to be affected by
the clause. He would therefore propose to ins( rt the words
" from and after the Ist of November next." (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the present poor-law wss an
imitation of the English one. By the English poor-law,
persons were only allowed to retain their tools. He therefore
considered the present clause • merciful one.
Mr. BELLEW considered that such a douse was abso-
lutely essential to the well-working of the poor-law in Ire-
land.
Mr. P. SCROPE thought the clause would effect a com-
plete clearance of the small holders in Ireland—(hear,
hear)—and create a social revolution of a portentous
character. If an emergency like the present were to occur
again, they. would have the 400,000 persons who held under
five acres in Ireland thrown loose on society.Sl Would the
landed proprietors find employment for them? Was it
consistent with kind treatment of the poor, that if they held
two or three acres, and were visited by sickness fora short
time, they could not get relief without giving up their land.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD did not deny that some limitation
was necessary with respect to the quantity of land in the
possession of those who applied for relief, but he could by no
means agree to this clause. It was too authoritative. He
thought that a discretionary power should be vested in the
boards of guardians. If a poor man built a good house on
a few acres of land, and from sickness, or some other came,
required temporary relief, was it to be denied him, unless
he sacrificed his house ? (Hear, hear.) He had such an ob-
jection to the clause, that, if he stood alone, he would divide
the committee against it.
Mr. BELLEW said that there were hospitals, to which
persons labouring under sickness might go.
Mr. YOUNG supported the clause. If they admitted the
principle of giving relief to persons who had land, where
were they to stop ? It was remarkable that the limit
fixed upon by. the hon. member for Dublin was that adopted
by the commissioners for inquiring into the Irish poor-low
system in 1834 ; and the holding of one quarter of an acre
by the persons contemplated in the clause was spoken of as
one great cause ofthe demoralisation of Ireland.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that in England persons had a
positive right to relief. The ease would be different in Ire-
land ; and he was at a loss to know what was to become of
a person who should be deprived of his cottage and his
quarter of an acre of garden ground when forced to apply
for relief through the operation of some extraordinary cause.
In England such a person was not turned out of possession
unless his character were notoriously bad.
Mr. C. F.VILLIERS would answer the question put hythe
hon. member for Coventry. In the case supposed the man
would receive relief on citing up possession of the land;
that was to be the condition of his receiving relief and if he
complied with it his having relief was what would " become
of him." (Lsughter.) He knew of no part of this country
in which • man holding land would not be compelled to give
it up before his claim to relief would be allowed. (Hem,
hear.) The clause would, he hoped, lead numbers who had
depended on the cultivation of land to become independent
labourers.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN thought that as the poor-
rate would fall chiefly on land it was impossible that the
burden could be met without such a provision as that under
discussion. Without some limit there could be no hope for
the agriculture of Ireland, and no chance of introducing a
system of aMr. 8. ClrAVlPOwagi said there was one Brat distinction
between England mad Ireland as regarded this question. In
the farmer country the landowner generally provided the
cottage ; in the latter, the occupier usually paid for the
building of 'the cottage, without receiving any security.
Under this clause, the cottage might be taken from the poor
man without Ms being able to obtain any redress.
Mr, GREGORY said it was impossible that there could
be any legialafion by which the interests of some would not
be hijurionsly affected. Some bon. members, however,