The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-04 00:00:00

poor save ? Their savings must be made either out
of their food or out of their clothing, or out of the
scanty means which they applied to the humble em-
bellishment of their cottages. But admitting it to be
possible that they could save, what would be the re-
sult of such a measure ? The poor were consumers as
well as producers; and if it were possible to impress
upon them an universal parsimony, the pastures of
England would be left desolate, its manufactures
would remain unconsumed, and its exchequer would
be well nigh empty. But, it was said that if you
left the poor without legislative relief poverty would
soon find its level. He scarcely knew what was
meant by that phrase, but the only level which it
appeared to him that unassisted poverty could find
was the level of the grave. It had been thought that
England was the only country in the world in which
a regular system of poor laws had been established;
but this was a mistaken notion. Poor laws had been
established among all the wisest nations of antiquity,
as he could prove beyond all dispute, if he had time
to place before the House the gleanings from ancient
authors which he had collected in the course of his
studies on this point. Relief for the poor was pro-
vided in the institutions of Moses ; and the philoso-
phical Mitford, in his History of Greece, had shown
that it was not unknown to the best regulated
commonwealths of that country. He must say, in
behalf of that religion to whose professors he was
politically opposed, that in every country where it
had prevailed, Catholicism had carried its charity to
the poor to an excess that was almost culpable,
inasmuch as it tended to create the very evil which
it aimed at removing. In Protestant Germany, in
Denmark, in Norway, in Sweden, and even in poor
Iceland, the most humane provisions existed for the
support of the poor. The same was the case in the
United States of America, as any gentleman might
see from perusing the acute and philosophical work
of Mr. Warden. lie had calculated, that in the
United States every poor man cost the public an-
nually forty-five dollars; and lie showed, that in New
York, 200,000, and in Philadelphia 100,000 dollars,
were annually expended on the relief of the poor.-
Indeed, he had yet to learn that there ever had
been, or that there now was, any civilized
country in the world which had not made
provision for the poor, with the solitary ex-
ception of Ireland—a country which of all others
most required that such provision should be made.
With the intention of rendering that position quite
impregnable, he would proceed to quote a very few
pages from a work of the celebrated Bishop of
Moyne, in favour of establishing poor laws in Ire-
land. The work was entitled "An Argument for
the Right of the Poor in Ireland to Legislative

Relief." The Hon. Member then read his extract
of "a very few pages," amidst a noise which ren-
dered it inaudible in the gallery. He then pro-
ceeded to contend that what was true of Ireland 60
years ago was also true now, owing to the want of
a proper distribution of charity. Indeed, he was of
opinion that if Ireland were not protected by a
stronger country like England, property would soon
be worth very little in that country, owing to its
total want of poor laws. He then proceeded to
read the opinions which Mr. Curwen, the late Mem-
ber for Cumberland, bad expressed upon this point;
and to state that the same conclusions must be
drawn from those melancholy volumes published by
physicians, who had treated on the prevalent
diseases of Ireland—volumes, which nobody could
read without a tear in his eye, unless he had a heart
of stone in his bosom. The argument against the
introduction of the poor laws into Ireland resolved
itself into an argument= ed erumenuni. It was
contended that it was objectionable on a pecuniary
account; but this argument, or objection, was al-
together fallacious. He was prepared to prove that
by the introduction of the great measure he recom-
mended a great saving would accrue. If we would
descend to the low estate of the people of Ireland,
and give them an interest in the lands of their
fathers, we should furnish them with a motive
to uphold and strengthen the Government. It
had been objected that there was no machinery
is Ireland to carry this system into effect.
Let the Legislature call back the absentees,
and it would find not enly a machinery for

le introduction of the poor laws, but the means

of restoring the social system. When any act of
cruelty or extortion was to be perpetrated in Ire-1
land, there was no complaint or want of machinery
then. Why, then, should the objection be heard
when a work of charity was proposed ? He con-
tended, on the point of expellee, that the poor l'tws
in this country had not been a source of heavy taxa-
tion, and that the poor had not increased through
their operation. The Hon. Member read a variety
of details and calculations, which it was impossible
to catch, owing to the noise in the House. He
referred to some returns which had been made of
the poor in the year 1744, which had formed the
basis of recent calculations, to prove the great ex-
pence entailed by the poor laws, and which, he ob-
served, were notoriously erroneous.—(The Hon.
Member then entered into a long inquiry into the
circumstances of the dissolution of the monasteries,
and to the state of the poor anterior to the intro-
duction of the poor laws into England, which was
too imperfectly heard to admit of its being correctly
reported.)—The introduction of the system into
behind, he contended, was as important to the in-

terests of England as to those of Ireland. The
claims of the rich were always attended to, and
surely the claims of the poor were worthy attention.
If the claims of the poor man to a scanty pittance,
when he was past labour, were to be rejected on a
principle of political economy, he hoped that those
who cried " Question" would explain the grounds
of the doctrine. He trusted that the House would
recommend itself to the (=Wry by recording its
vote this night in favour of the mea ure he pro-
posed. The Hon. Member concluded by moving a
resolution to the effect, " That it was the opinion
of the House that the establishment of a system of
poor laws in Ireland, on the principle of that of the
43d of Elizabeth, with such alterations and im-
provements as the course of time that had since
elapsed and the difference of circumstances between
England and Ireland might appear to require, was
expedient and necessary to the permanent welfare
and prosperity of both countries."
On the question being put,
Lord F. L. GOWER rose to oppose the motion,
which he did not mean to do, he said, with any
asperity of language or feeling, though he had
much reason to complain of the Hon. Member's
course of proceeding. He had no other means of
judging what motions were to be submitted to the
House, but the notices on the Order Book ; and
certainly when he saw a notice of a motion for leave
to bring in a Bill to improve the condition of the
poor of the British empire, he did not expect that it
would fall to his lot to be obliged to oppose a reso-
lution to extend the poor laws to Ireland. But after
the lion. Member had devoted much time to the
subject, instead of a practical detailed measure, he
had come forward with a mere resolution, for which
he could not expect to receive the support of the
House. If there were no other objection to that
resolution, he should find one in the fact, that a
Committee was already sitting to inquire into the
state of the poor in Ireland. Not being disposed to
controvert the Hon. Member's statements, and
thinking it only due to the Committee that the
House should come to no such resolution as that pro-
posed by the Hon. Member till that Committee had
wade its report, he should move the previous question.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw for
division, but before the gallery could be cleared,

Mr. TRANT thanked his Hon. Friend for hay'

brought the question before the House with such
great ability.—(Cries of Question.)
Mr. WILMOT lIORTON said, nothing but
inconvenience could be expected from adopting the
resolution till the report of the Committee was made,
and therefore lie should oppose the !notion.
Mr. S. RICE said, were the House to prejudge
the question by voting for that resolution, it would
not !let consistently towards the Committer it had
.Appointed to inquire into the subject, and, therefore,
he should oppose the resolution.
Mr. J. (*RATTAN thanked his Hon, Friend for