The Express.
London, England, 1847-05-07 00:00:00

require great zeal, wetehfulnew and public spirit. He felt
great op erehensione as to the successful working of the
anachiaery of the measure. (Ilear, hear.) Where a
measure was of so greatly hazardous a nature, and
where such doubt existed as to the working of
its machinery, it behoved them to avoid all suspicion by
not pasting, as a permanent meaner*, what was but an ex-
periment.
Teo Earl of ROSSE was wet rstood to support the amend-
ment, and to say that the pour-'saw in Ireland would not
necessarily cc'. as a cheek on emigration, and the people of
Liverpool, who complained of the influx of Irish paupers,
knew it well ; while the people of Glasgow' who were rein
better able t.) judge of it, were opposed to soy provision
which would aided, the able-boeli.d, while they were in
f•• 0117 of a loan fur the relief of the disabled.
The Marquis of CLANItICAItDE o'.terved that it would
kayo. been impossible to frame any poor-law which should be
successful in meeting the calamity under which Ireland was
now suffering. Whether the bet worked for good or ill, of
this there reuld be no doeht, that whatever of evil there was
In it would.., indsit. ly a terieuted by depriving the measure
of its permanent charach r. Nothingwas so likely to disar-
range the machinery by which the law was to be carried out,
and to impede its sevens, as to induct the belief in the
minds of those who were to be entrusted with its admien-
tration that it was a mere temporary measure, not calculated
or brought forward with the view of being permanently be-
neficial to the country, hut as an expeeieet to meet the
existing distress. l'are this anseedment, and the guardians
would In k upon the permeative power to administer out-door
relief not LA a principle of the pour-law, but as a temporary
expedient, and might so art epos it as to render the success
of the expel...meat impossible. It was a somewhat remark-
able circumstance, toe, that almost all tease noble lords who
had spoken in favour o: this amendment were opposed to the
principle of the bill altogether. (Hear.) The object in
passing a poor law for Ireland was to legislate for the per-
manent hope seement of the swiel condition of that country,
end if this hill, which was brought forward with that view,
was ft Lad bin, and instead of b.iag calculated to effect that
object was, as had been elicited, fraught with the ruin of
bosh larellords and tenants, the course for their lon :ships to
take w.O to refuse their &meet to it altog thee. But if the
principle of the measure was good, let them not destroy its
effect by interposing • limit, &nil thus teed the people of
Ire! end to Isehieve Chet at the expiration of the time fixed' it
was the intention of Parliament to revert trick to the present
state of things, under which destitution was comparatively
without nascence from the law. (Hear.)
The Marquis of WESTMEATH supported the amend
mew.
The Earl of lIADDINOTON and a few words (as was
understood) in support of the amendment also, but in too
low a tone to be heard in the gallery.
Lord MONTEAGLF., presuming that the principle of
giving out-door relief would lie carried, spite of the opposi-
tion which would ha offered to it, his object in moving this
amendment wee to make Muse clauses which related to this
mode of relief temporary, confining their operation to three
Team. Anil were this bill for England instead of for Ire-
land, and the circumstances of England were in all respects
the same as those of Ireland, he was convinced so reasonable
a proposition would not be objected to for a moment. (Cries
of " Vivid.").
Earl GREY objected that the noble lord, totally disapprov-
ing of the principle of out-door relief, and believing that the
opinion of the house in this respect was ad .15t him, was
endeavouring by this amendment to induce them by a aide
wind and indirectly to accomplish that which they refused
to do directly; and fleeing that their lordships would not
refuse the adoption of the principle of out-door relief he
sought to damage it to its extent so as to render its an-
omie' application needle slily difficult, if not impossible. (No.)
The intention of the amendment was to place this experi-
ment of the extension of the re stem of poor ',lie in Ireland
um ter every possible dieadveneago. What would the noble
lore obtain by the proposed limitation which he had not
without ? Parliament, without it, might at any (Were time
deal with the act and amend it if necessary—but on the
other hand, if they agreed to this amendment they would
in point of feet they
messing a law &campus iag it with a
declaration that they had no confidence in it themseleee, and
expected it to fail. (Hear.) Look at the state of public
opinion in Ireland on the subject of a poor-law. No one
could deny that there was a great indisposition to grant that
relief to the destitute which ought to be given. The board
of guardian. it was notorious did not perform their duty in
administering the law there as they did in this country.
(Hear.) And with the knowledge of the existence of this
feeling, and of the indisposition to grant relief, it wee pro-
pose •I by the noble lord that in malang an alteration in the
law for obviating this difficulty, their lordship. should so
make it, as to declare it at the same time as the opinion of
(parliament that the alteration w ts dangerous and imprudent.
gear.) As to the argument that the English poor-law of
1834 was a temporary merware, it was only made temporary
se to a very unimportant part of the law, viz., the
commission. The noble and learned lord (Brougham)
must know that the commie:ion was the whole ques-
tion—sod th tee who rereembered the debates upon
that met sure would bear him out in the statement that the
reason for the limit in that ease was, that tee objects for
which the commission was to be established were in their
natter* temporary, and it was argued that when the law
should have come into full operation, and the machinery by
which it was to be earnest out set fairly to work, there would
be no longer any need of that central authority. Whether
these who took that view were ri tht or not, he would not
then stop to inquire. With regard to the danger of intro-
ducing this system of poor-less to Ireland, he would fay
that the ronre critical the experiment wen, the more it was
important that they should place its trial under no unneces-
sary disadvantage. The question for the house to consider
wee, whether the principle here proposed to be applied to
Ireland was calculated to promote the general good ; if so,
they should mark their own confidence in it, by making it
permanent; if net, they should refute to pass it. (Hear.)
That principle was, that property should be li,ble to the relief
of destitution in Ireland, in the same way as it was here,and
that those b) whose labour value was given to the land thould
receive from it in one shape or another that subsistence for
which they had a right to look. That was the west principle
which had been recognised for 300 years in England, and
which he for one was prepared to recognise, not for three
years merely, but permanently, for Ireland. (Cheers.) It
bad been raid that some measure of this kind was necessary
to prevent the great influx of Irish paupers into England.
He did not rest the defence of the bill on any such low
ground. It was, however, the opinion in Liverpool and
elsewl•tere that the Irish pauper had no right to out-door
relief until he landed in this country, and it was coeteuded
with justice that it was hard on the English rate-
payer that the law, by refusing hint relief in his own
country, threw him es a burden upon them. This, at least,
was eselent, that they could not long continue an:unre-
stricted intercourse betireen England and Ireland under the
same unequal circumstances as now existed, viz., that the
destitute poor of the latter country meutt eeme to this in
order to obtain relief. (Hear, hew.)
Earl FITZWII.LIASI held that as the experiment
was one of danger and difficulty, so much the more reason
was there for limiting its operation. He disputed tbe peel.
don of the noble earl (Grey) that it was the intention of the
43rd of Elizabeth to throw the burden of destitution in
England directly on the land. He should support the
amendment.
The Earl cf DEVON, who was quite inaudible in the gal
lery, was understood to support the bill on the ground that
it was a matter of justice and necessity.
The Earl of RIPON supported the amendment.
The Earl of SHREWSBURY wished to know whether
the bill gave a right to relief in every care of destitution ?
if so, and it continued fee two or three years for 33 weeks in
each year, it would gradually extend to half the population
in the country, and would increase the burden upon land
until it became unbearable, If it did not give such a right
of ttlicf, for what purpose wee it proposed, but to provoke
the people to greater dissatisfaction ? He fancied he saw all
the evils of the measure, and the government bad not pro
posed any other, but had withdrawn one of the measures
that was to accompany it. and their lordshipe had heard
nothing more of those that were to follow. Under these
circumstances of difficulty he should support the amendment.
The house then di vided—Cnntents 63
Non-contents 50-13
On the next clause beine read,
The Earl of ELLENBOROUOH proposed an amend-
ment to the effect that relief should be extended to women
• who lied illegitimate eti!dren, aid their offirpring, which the
bill did not provide for.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE made some observations
which were quite inaudible ia the gallery.
The Bishop of EXETER mid that, in hie opinion, the
amendment, if adopted, would have the effect of exonerating
reputed fathers (mom the necessity of maintaining their
children. . .

After a few words from the Earl of CLANCA RTT,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH withdrew his amendment,
saying that he would propose it oa the bringing up of the
report.
The clause was then agreed to.
On the second clause heir g proposed,
The Earl of WICKLOW, after a few words from Earl
Grey, to the effect that the bill brought into the House of
Commons relating to the administration of the poor.lasv,
would attain the object which he hod in view, withdrew his
amendment, that the words, " with the sanction of the
Lord Lieutenant" be inserted after the word " commission-
ers," in the twelfth line.
Lord DESART then proposed the insertion of certain
words, autherising the guardians to erect houses for the re-
lief of the poor, the workhouses being found insufficient for
the purpose, and to provide food from a store raised by
themselves. He would propose that the poor-law commis-
stoners should be authorised and empowered to direct the
buildieg of additional accommodation for the able-bodied
poor in case of necessity, and also that they should have
power to direct the building of stores to which the able.
bodied poor should come far food instead of receiving it at
their own houses, which he considered would be most unwise
and attended with the wont consequences.
Earl GREY said that the bill as it rood gave power to
the commissioners to erect buildings to the extent of 4001.
without the consent of the guardians. He did not think
that the commissioner' ought to peewee an indefinite-power
of taxation for the purpose of erecting buildings. With
regard to the second amendment he thought that the bill
sufficiently provided against the abuse that would arise from
sending food to the bosses of the able-bodied, because the
commissimen bad the power cf directing is what way
relief was to be given.
Lord STANLEY hoped that his noble friend would not
peers his first amendment as the bill gave power to the
eammirioners to require the erection of buildings to the
extant of 4001., and as the bill was now to be of a temporary
nature. it would be desirable to see how it would work so
far. With regard to the second amendment, be would oer-
Mealy support the proposition of his noble friend, because it
was most desirable that the c'ele-btilied poor should so far
give a prof of their destitution as to be obliged to walk to
die atoms, when the workhouse was full, for food.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought, with respect to