The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-29 00:00:00

he be willing to work. It is an idle dream to imagine that
you can produce productive labour through the agency
of a poor-rate. Neither can you produce a paradise in
the midst of a wilderness, by establishing colonies of the
the poor where there is an inch of fertility. The attempt has
failed in Holland as well as in Belgium. I have shown a case
of great misery and distress in Ireland. I have traced it to
political causes. I think, before you introduce your Poor-
law, it would be wise to see whether by other political mea-
sures you may not do something for the good and prosperity. of
Ireland. Come out upon me with an absentee law, and give
me 6s. Bd. in the pound on the rent-roll of all absentees.
This may be called a dream, yet after all I believe it would
give more permanent and more substantial relief to the poor
of Ireland than your proposed Poor-laws. I know full well
that some political economists have talked of absenteeism as
not being a mischief to Ireland ; but the doctrines of those
men are now derided by all. The nobleman, whose rent-
roll amounts to 50,0001. a year, in the•course of twenty years
draws 1,000,0001. from the resources of Ireland, no part of
which he ever returns. To procure this sum for him all the
corn, all the cattle reared upon the soil of which he is the
lord must be sent to foreign markets. In the regular
course of things the value of the corn and the cattle so
exported should be brought back again. But it is not
so in Ireland ; no part of the price of her produce ever
returns; and as well for these districts who had to support ab-
sentee landlords would it be if the ships which bore their pro-
duce from their shores sunk half-channel over.—f Hear, hear.)
This, after all, is the dreadful feature in the domestic economy
of Ireland—nine-tenths of the rent-roll of the country are
spent abroad. We have all the degradation and misery of a
province, without the benefit of provincial protection.—( Hear,
hear.) But I will trespass no further. I will close by saying
that I have a very strong conviction upon my mind that you
will find it as much in vain to attempt to creates Act of Parlia-
ment charityin Ireland, as it has been to create Act of Parlia-
ment piety. Ido not think you can generate virtues, and
make them spread by Act of Parliament. I have cer-
tainly a strong impression that a Poor-law has never done
good to any country where it has been adopted. I make
that avowal frankly. I look at the Poor-law in England : I
see it reducing wages to half the amount they were before ;
yet I know that it has been introduced under the most fa-
vourable circumstances, and in the most prosperous times.
I do not hesitate to declare then, that my own individual opi-
nion is not favourable to a Poor.law, but least of all is it fa-
vourable to such a law as this which you propose to give to
Ireland. I would only implore you, before the step is de-
cisively taken, to have it fully, maturely, and deliberately con-
sidered in all its bearings—to give nothing to the unholy cry
of those who hold themselves out as the especial patrons add
friends of the poor, because they are favourable to these laws.
I entreat you to yield to no clamour of that kind, but fully and
maturely to consider the Bill in every stage. Then, be the
result what it may, 1 shall feel that I have done my duty. I
have not, I owe it, moral courage enough to oppose a Poor-law
altogether.—( Hear.) I yield to the necessity of doing some-
thing; but I aia not deceitful enough to prophesy that you
will reap any lasting or solid advantage from the introduction
of Poor-laws into Ireland.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD agreed in many of the
sentiments of the Hon. and Learned Member who had just
sat down. He agreed with him in his objections to poor-
houses, but not to the principle of a Poor-law. He agreed
with him that England was the cause of the evils of Ireland;
but he thought the greatest error of all had been our permit-
ting the settlement of lands in Ireland to take place, without
the concurrent introduction of a Poor-law. One great objec-
tion to the Poor-law was, that it took from the industrious
man to give to the idle pauper. To such a Poor-law as that
he would never consent. He looked at a Poor-law as being
an act of justice to the poor man, in reparation for the injus-
tice done to him in the monopoly of the land by the rich.
The poor man had a natural right, which no acquired right of
property could put an end to; and every man who entered
upon the possession of a property, took it subject to that right
of the poor man. He did not see why this monopoly should
not be regulated as elsewhere. The law interfered to prevent
the lender of money from exacting exorbitant interest ; on the
same principle the poor man was entitled to protection against
his rich landlord. It had been alleged that the pauperism iii
Ireland resulted from the first subdivision of the land. But it
was a remarkable fact that in• those parts of Ireland, in the
county of Down, for instance, where the subdivisions most
prevailed, the, peasantry were in the most comfortable condi-
tion. This arose from the circumstance of the relation be-
tween landlord and tenant being on a better footing there than
elsewhere. The only effective mode of putting an end to
pauperism was to impose an adequate tax on the landlords.
To the plan itself he entertained many objections. He par-
ticularly objected to in-door relief being made a sine qua non
in all cases. The poor-house might do very well for some, but
for the whole mass it would be wholly inapplicable. He con-
sidered that a poor-house might be a good addition to a Poor-
law Bill, but it was not sufficient to constitute a code of Poor
laws, and the Bill before them did nothing but establish
poor laws. He thought, WO, that its tendency was to in.
crease vagrancy, and that the proper mode to adopt would be
to vest the power given to the guardians in the rate-payers.
At present there were in Ireland institutions on behalf and
for the benefit of the poor for supporting them where they re-
sided. It was the most beneficial and economical system, as
3/. and 4/. a-year was sufficient to maintain it. He thought
that the pour might be relieved by the plan heretofore adopted
much better than by the mode proposed by the present Bill.
It had been alleged by the Hon. and Learned Member for Kil-
kenny that they were to argue upon the Irish as they did teem
the English system. Tire question was, whether they should
have an Irish Poor-law or not ? The I-lon. and Learned
Member had shown the distresses of his countrymen, and ex-
posed the evil of the present system. Had he shown a remedy ?
His only remedy was the expatriation of the poor man from ids
native lend not the sort I. xe.mesi, bit 1 c'el-y"Lis tro
lamented that the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny
should depict so painfully the miseries of his countrymen, and
yet object to a ineosure for their relief. He said that the
' landlords in Ireland were poor. That was very true, but if
the landlords were involved in debt, he hid not consider that
a reason why the poor should not be protected. Means should
be taken to allow landlords to raise more money than they
now could by the present law of settlement. lie would not
detain the House by catering into details, but content himself
by stating that he objected to the power given to the Com-
missioners being the same as under the English Bill—not that
he distrusted the guardians, but that, without an adequate local
knowledge of Ireland. it was impossible they should efficiently
perform the duties of their orrice. In Committee it was his
intention to propose various amendments, and if effectual in
rendering tire Bill more applicable to the state of Ireland, he
should then vote for the third reading, but otherwise he should
oppose it. As an advocate, however, for the Poor Laws, he
could not conntenance the evils he thought would be produced
by the present system.
Mt. RICHARD 6 thanked the Noble Lord (J. Russell)
for the wanner in winch he had brought fore ard the question.
The speech of the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny
could have left no doubt en the mind of the Houte that he
was in reality an enemy to Poor. laws. He had stated the
dreadful and uire distress of his countrymen, and he had talked
of the relief of the poor, but he • left the poor to relieve the.
poor. The Hon. and Learned Member objected to Poor-
laws, but he forgot that there was one now in existence which
had begotten vagrancy, mendicity, and insecurity. The evils
now existing in Ireland were chiefly want of employment and
want of capital ; yet the honourable and Learned Member
proposed to leave the country in that condition.—( Hear.) He
thought that the Mendicity Society of the city of Dublin
ought to be the model for the Poor-laws. It supplied the able-
bodied labourer with work, and was open to all for employ-
ment, but did not afford them lodging. The workhouse was
open all day for the destitute, able-bodied, arid infirm poor,
and it did not interfere with the price of the labour market.
A man might require work for a day, a week, or a fortnight,
but on such a plan he need not become an habitual pauper.
In Dublin, Cork, Newry, and Belfast, they were well ac-
quainted with the plan of the Mendicity Society, and lie
thought it was the plan that should be adopted. The ap-
pointment of three :or four Commissioners to administer the
law, invested with sovereign and despotic power, he con-
sidered as an insult to the people of Ireland. It was per-
fectly monstrous, and should be entrusted to the Irish Rate-
payers.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN had not expected a discussion on the
principle of poor-laws. He thought the details of the Bill
before the House were all that would be dealt with, inas-
much as the principle had been long since recognised.
Three years had been spent in the research into the. dis-
tresses of Ireland, and 60,0001. were paid by this country to
the Commissioners—( Hear, hear, hear)—were their sug-
gestions attended to. On the contrary, the Noble Lord,
instead of attending to their suggestion, selected the secre-
tary of the Poor Law Commission sitting in Somerset
House as Iris lawgiver ; and embodied a report made by
him on the state of that country after an absence of six weeks
there to _obtain information. The Irish Poor-law Commis•
sinners came to the conclusion that the mass of pauperism
could be relieved through the medium of workhouses alone ;
Mr. Nicholls, on the other hand, said that nothing but work-
houses could serve the purpose. How many were necessary ?
Mr. Nicholls said as many as would relieve 80,000. That
was Iris assumption—an assumption grounded on the state of
pauperism in England, and the exaggerated statements of the
Irish Commissioners that 2,500,000 persons were in distress
for a certain period of the year. But the assumption did
not hold good ; for the state of the Irish poor was very dif-
ferent indeed from those of England. In fact so different
was it that there was no parity between them. The Irish
labourer took a bit of land on which he grew sufficient per-
haps for his sustenance—at all events something to aid it. If
he could procure employment for the part of the year his
crop-was growing, he and his family would be comparatively
comfortable ; if not, they would be reduced to the greatest
distress. But employment was very difficult to be found.
That was the great cause of their destitution. But though
Mr. Nicholls assumed' 80,000 to be the maximum to require
relief in the year, the Bill by no means accorded with his cal-
culations. The object of the Bill was to give four Commis-
sioners, sitting in Somerset House, power to erect not alone
10, but 10,000 workhouses, if they chose, and to tax the pro-
perty of Ireland to any extent--aye, even to twenty shillings
in the pound, if they deemed it necessary. In point of fact,
they had the power of converting Ireland into one great union—
to dismiss the guardians of the poor, and even to imprison those
who disobeyed their injunctions. He (Mr. O'Brien) did not by
any means approve of such extensive powers being vested in
any individual. In England it would be bad enough, notwith-
standing that the influence of public opinion would neu-
tralise the evil of its operation ; but in Ireland, where
no public opinion existed, or, rather, where no public opinion
bore directly upon legislation, the consequences might be
incalculably mischievous. From this and similar objections
lie hoped the Bill would be freed in Committee. Tho Noble