The Express.
London, England, 1848-03-10 00:00:00

rHE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 10, Is4B.

_
lug It possible that the guardians might trAll put to.
harsh a construed.= on die clause, they again wrote to
thous, Math= that the men refuel of the landlord to
accept the land was in no toes to disqualify the spplicant,
provided in other respects he was entitled to relief.
The forcible ejectment& abided to by his boa, friend were
not dependent upon the poor law, and it was not by any
altention is that taw, or by repealing the outer-acre
' clause, that they could hope to put a stop to those eject-
ment,. (lieu, bear.) For these reasons, and believing
that the bill of his hon. friend would unsettle the whole law
in Ireland and give rise to hopes which would not be realised,
' be moat beg of the house not to consent to its introduction.
lir. FA AN said that if there were abundant agricul-
tural employment in Ireland there might be some justifica-
tion for this quarter-acre clause ; but with 2,300,000 people
in • stets of diatitutien for six weeks in every year, and
96,000 families endeavouring to subsist on farms under one
sue, it was certain to work both cruelty and injustice.
Mr. P. SCROPE complained of the want of auffieient au-
thentic information as to the operation of the poor law in
Ireland ; but, as far as he had been able to ascertain, his
wont suspicions as to the effect of this clause, which he
originafy
made, as he'rliandetrewacrle, thebi insnifnmeelbrodf clbey iota beingu
upon
a small scale.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR complained generally of the want of
sympathy in England for the Irish pour, while the warmest
sympathy wag evinced towards the English in France. If
the government persisted in their unjust and cruel treat-
ment of Ireland, that country would not remain much longer
subject to the dominion of England.
Mr. CLEMENTS addressed himself to the question of
the poor law unions, observing that he did not think the
commission promised by the government for re-modelling
thou unions would be attended with advantage. They
were all anxious to have the poor law fairly tried in Ireland,
but it could never he done unless the area of taxation were
greatly reduced. The unions in Ireland were three times
the sin of those in England ; and as the right hoc. gentle-
man, the Secretary far Ireland, had not given any pledge
for the diminution of the area of taxation, he hoped the eon-
templated commiesi,a would be abandoned. Th. y had suffered
in Ireland already too much by the habit of trusting
to the government of the country more than to
themselves, and to their own efforts. (lieu, hear.)
It it was, determined that the poor laws should be ad-
ministered in that country by per f guardians, their admi-
nistration would inevitably be much more oppressive than
even it was at present. lie trusted, therefore, that the right
hon. baronet would tee the necessity of reconsidering the
matter, and that the government would show some regard
for the opinions of so many . gentlemen connected with Ire-
land upon the subject of having the poor lain administered
by paid guardians. There was another matter worthy the
consideration of the house—he alluded to medical relief.
Persons seeking relief in Ireland constantly applied on the
ground of sickness. The boards of guardians had no pos-
sibe means of scertaining whether the applicants wcre fi
objects for reliefa, or what sort of relief should be granted.t
It would, therefore, be necessary to employ a larger num-
ber of medical officers.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE, with reference to an observation
made by one of the hon. gentlemen who had previously
spoken, denied that he had attributed personal motives to

alrson
ir G. GREY said that the motion bet= the house bad
been altogether lost eight of, but the hon. .gentleman (Mr.
Clements) who had given notice of a motion, which stood
fourth on the paper, was determined the house should not
lose the benefit of his speech ; and the result wee, not one
word had been uttered by the hon. gentleman with reference
to the question under consideration. Itwas a dangerous ex-
ample, and he (Sir 0. Grey) hoped other hon. gentlemen
would abstain from following it. As to the poor-law boun-
daries and their proportions, the government would be happy
to receive suggestions, and hon. geutlemen would tee there
should be more sanguine grounds for satisfaction than seemed
to be anticipated. The question before the house was dis-
cussed at very considerable length about seven months ago.
The clause was not in the original bill, but it was introduced
in committee by Mr. Gregory, the then member for the city
of Dublin, and there were only found nine gentle-
men to oppose it. Six of these niue were English
members and three were Irish. (Hear, hear.) The
clause was adopted in consequence of the state in
which Ireland was situated, and the manner in which the
soil was suffered to remain uncultivated. lie regretted so
Pay there was still a great deal of pauperism in Ireland.
There were many persons there who held quantities of load
—in some instances so much as 20 or 30 acres, who were
living at the public expense, and neither cultivated the soil
themselves nor would surrender it to the proprietors, who
would !limit cultivated by others. The land was thus suf-
fered to remain uncultivated, and it was quite clear a ma-
terial injury would be inflicted upon the country if something
was not done to prevent the continuance of that state of
things. He would ask the house, under these circumstances,
whether it was wise, because there may have been some in-
dividual caeca of hardship arising from the operation of the
clause in question, that the restrictions it imposes should:be
removed and the door again opened to a repetition of such
evils? The hardships enumerated by the hon. mem.
ben for Nottingham and other hon. members could not have
arisen from the operation of the quarter.aere clause. The
bon. member (Mr. O'Connor) said that when persons who
had been compelled to receive relief from the poor laws re-
turned to their dwellings they found them levelled. Now,
the clause did not require the occupiers of land to give up
posses+ion of it; but as they haul abeented themselves from
their dwellinee, and bring, in the majority of instances, only
tenants-at-will, the landlords no doubt exercised their privi-
leges, and put an end to the tenancy. In whatevi r way the
house might think fit to deal with the clause, he felt bound toss;
that the government now relied exclusively upon the opera-
tion of the poor laws, as the only source of maintaining the
poor of Ireland. Ile was very sorry to have to repeat that
pauperism and suffering existed still to a very great extent
there, notwithstauding the large charitable expenditure
which was being made in aid of the ordinary rates. By the
returns it apparel that from 94,000 to 100,000 children
were fed fer many months past, and continue to be fed by
daily rations distributed through the instrumentality of
agents connected with the British Association for the Relief
of Distrem in Ireland and Scotland. By another return it
appeared that 150,000 children were fed from the samesource
where distress was severe, and that 20,0001. a month were dia.
tributed in relief in 26 or 30 unions where poverty and desti-
tution were excessive. He had not, in enumerating those
sources of relief, referred to the land improvement loom, or
the other moneys available for the improvement of Woad.
(Hear, hear.) He wished then to take that opportunity
to refer to a question put to him a fete evenings ago by
the hon. memher for Galway (Mr. O'Flahcrty), whom he
maw then in his place. The hon. gentlemen's question re-
lated to an application made to the Lora-Lieutenant of Ire-
land for temporary relief for the prison of Galway, which
was represented to be greatly overcrowded. It was said
the Lord-Lieutenant had rehired the application on the
ground of expense, and he (Sir G. Grey) thought he had !
explained the matter. However, he found, by the report in
the Ti nice, that the ar.swer he had given the bon. member'
had been completely misapprehended. lie had looked
over
all the other morning papers, and he found his answer had
been correctly reported. He wished now to repeat what he
wished then to convey distinctly. He had not denied the
fact of the gaol of Galway tieing overcrowded to an
inconveniee, even to an alarming deree. But, it
had been stated that the application hid been made
to the Lord Lieutenant for temporary relief, and that it had
been refused upon the ground of expense. What he had
stated was, that he was convinced the Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland was moat anxious to remedy the evil complained of,
and to provide such accommodation as could be legally
given ; but if the persons wha were imprisoned were not
under sentence of transportation, they could not legally be
removed to a hulk.
Col. CONOLLY vindicated the landlords of Ireland, and
opposed the motion.
Mr. E. B. ROCHE supported the motion. He admitted
that the Irish landlords wore very badly treated in that
house. Whenever a difficult question relating to Ireland
was to be dealt with by the government, they deliberately
turned round and made the Irish landlord the Rade. Even
the Secretary, for Ireland took a fling at there that night.
(Laughter.) That right hon. gentlem in held up his band,
and seemed horrified with the " exterminator." But he
(Mr. Ruche) would show him a greater exterminator—
s greater criminal—than the Trish landlord, and
that was the present government and that house.
(" Hear," and laughter.) Ile therefore told them plainly,
that the British House of Commons and the British govern-
ment were the real exterminators, and were mach more
guilty than the guiltiest and most oppressive of any of the
Irish landlords.
Mr. AGLIONBY, after expressing his determination to
adhere to the question itself, said he admitted that few
members bad an accurate knowledge of the condition
of Ireland, and few English members, himself included,
could form any just idea of the relations of the rich and poor
in that country. They were mainly led by the representa- '
tions of the Irish member,, which were themselves suffi-
ciently various. Probably he should have supported the
" quarter-acre " clause, and have voted with the 117 against
the 7, had he been in the house ; but now he thought the
clause a monstrous one. Under its operation a poor family
might die in a ditch, without any pos.ibiiity of the clause
being relaxed in their favour. (Hear, hear.) It was in
effect a sentence of death, und.r certain circumstancee ; even
the Lord Lieutenant himself could not give relief in such
cases. (Hear, hear.)
After a few worrie from Major MACNAMARA,
Mr. R. M. FOX advocated the continuance of the
quarter-acre clause, as absolutely necessary fur the efficient
administration of the law.
Mr. REYNOLDS, believing that the proposal before the
house would remedy cr e of the most ohnoxious yrovieions of
the new poor Inw, should give it his support, He deeply re-
gretted it should be opposed by the right hon. secretary for
Ireland. The question was simply whether pauperism was
to Le increased or diminished. (Hear.) It was said the
poor-law commissioners in Ireland had placed a humane
interpretation on the quarter.acr.• clause, by allowing desti-
tute tenant+ to divest themselves of their holdings. If this
were done it would be a fruitful source of increa-ed pauper-
ism. A man, suddenly impoverished, who held 10 acres,
might claim relief by giving up 91 acres; he would thus be
deprived of his means of suppert, be reduced to a quarter of
an acre and a mud cabin, and must remaiu a pauper al-
ways. (Hear.) There were doutel, as some liberal and
kind-hearted landlords, hut they were a smal minority; the
great bulk of them were of far different character, and were
largely responsible for the destitution of their countrymen.
(Hear.) Anxious as he was to maintain the principle of
the Irish poor laws in its integrity, as the foundation stone
of the prosperity of Ireland, he ebould support the motion
of the hon. member for Rochdale. (Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. MONSELL conceived that the repeal of the quarter-
acre clause would afford means for landlords to throw their
tenants on the poor rate. The complaint now was that the
rates were over-burdened; while the proposal now made
would vastly aggravate that burden. In the Rathkele
union, at the present moment, about 25 per cent. of the