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

THE SUN

be for the House to 4 decide upon each of those lines
of railroad. He di d not mean to say that the
adoption of that tour st would not be inconvenient. He
did not see how that it convenience could be avoided.
Mr. WIG NEY trtu led that the House would be favoured
with the opinion of tF e Chair on the subject.
Lord G. SOMER SET trusted that the Hon. Member
for Lancashire would . withdraw his motion.

Mr. PRYME the iught the better course to adopt would
be for votes to be . taken upon each plan among all the
Members of the Corn tmittee ; and if in the result one plan
bad not a majority of the whole body, the votes should be
struck off until one p lan had a majority of the whole.
Mr. P. STE WAR :T seeing the feeling of the House,
was willing to withdra r& his motion, but he was afraid thrlt
by so doing the Comn tittee would be placed in a dilemma.
Mr. CRAWFORI ) thought the Committee would not
be placed in any diffict thy, and that the motion was entirely
uncalled for.
The motion was the n withdrawn.
On the motion of Si 0. MOSLEY, the Ashburn and
Leith Roads Bill was rel cd a third time, and passed.
OVER (CAMB] IIDGE) INCLOSURE.

Mr. BARROW movt .d the second reading of the Over
(Cambridge) Inclosure E
Mr. POTTER presented a petition against the Bill.
Col. THOMPSON Mad been requested to oppose the
second reading of the Bill, and he_ did so on behalf
of a number of poor proprietors who would be utterly
ruined if this Bill were allowed to pass. The Hon. and
Gallant Member cone!, uded by moving that the Bill be
read a second time t hisdaysix months.

Dr. BOWRING sec ondedthe amendment. The House
of Commons had twice expressed its opinion on this Bill,
and it ought to view sue; 2 Bills with peculiar jealousy. He
trusted the House of Commons would interfere on the pre-
sent occasion, and protect the poor from the injustice which
the rich thought to inflict'. upon them.
Mr. \VAKLEY said g►•eat injustice would be done to
all parties, unless the Bill was read a second time, and
allowed to go into Committee. He did not stand there
as the exclusive champion of the poor—no doubt all
parties in that House desimd to do good for the poor,
only they adopted different modes of doing so. The
Hon. Member who had just sat down had stated that
he had been informed, by a number of poor proprietors,
that they were hostile to the Bill. He believed the Hon.
Member had received his information from a paper which
had just been put into his hand. He believed that in almost
every case the rights of the poor had been overwhelmed by
the influential proprietors, and he hoped the Bill would be
submitted to a Committee for the purpose of undergoing a
proper investigation.
An HoN. MEMBER on the Opposition side, whose name
we could not learn, supported the Bill.
Mr. PEASE had voted against the Bill last year. He
now understood the matter better, and would vote for it
now, in order to make amends for that vote, which was er-
roneous.

Mr. C. BULLER could not vote for the Bill, because
the parties were poor, and .a Committee was a tribunal be-
fore which no poor man could possibly go.
Mr. GOULBURN thought that reason for opposing
the Bill before the House would be good against any pri-
vate Bill which came before the House. The parties might
combine, and so reduce the expense to a nominal sum.
Mr. HUME thought the• House had already done im-
mense injury to the country by proceeding with such In-
closure Bills. Why did not the proprietors proceed on
the General Inclosure Bill of last year? The Bill be-
fore the House would inclose 1,700 acres of open arable
fields, which were all to be taken from the poor. He would
certainly vote against the second reading of the Bill.
After some observations from Mr. Hodges, Sir Edward
Knatchbull, Mr. Potter, Mr. H. Hughes, and Mr. Ben-
nett, strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared--
For the second reading ... lB3
Against it 5l
Majority for the second reading -132
On our entering the gallery we found
Mr. HUME stating, that if poor people were compelled
to appear before the Committee to protect their rights,
they ought to be allowed to appear there without paying
the fees ; but in consequence of the loud cries of " Order,
order," and " Chair, chair," from the Opposition, the
Hon. Member was obliged to resume his seat.

The SPEAKER said the better way would be for the
Hon. Gentleman to give notice of a motion on the subject.
Mr. HU M-E said he was afraid he had too many notices
on the book already.

NEW WRIT.
Mr. W. DUNCOM BE moved that anew writ be issued
for the borough of Huddersfield, in the room of John Black-
burne, Esq., deceased.
On the motion of Mr. HODGES, the Sun Fire Office
Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second
time on the sth May.
On the motion of Lord W. BENTINCK, the Glasgow
Police Bill was read a third time, and passed.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG presented a petition from a person
named Stevens, a shareholder in the London and Brighton
difel,L;Nti4Matjumillat he hart examined the share-list, and
sons in humble circumstances'ollacrn.subrrib,d,by ner-

inquiry.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN suggested that the petition
should be at once referred to the London and Brighton
Railway Committee, instead of to a Select Committee.
Mr. YOUNG would move that the petition be referred
to the Deptford and Dover Committee.
Mr. HUME begged to second the motion of the Hon.
Member opposite (Mr. W. Patten); there would other-
wise be no end to petitions of that sort.
The petition was then referred to the Committee on the
Deptford and Dover Subscription List.
A message from the Lords brought up several Bills.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said as there was now a great
number of Members in the House, it might be convenient
for him to move the motion of which he had given notice,
namely, that from the 15th of June until the Ist of Jul),
Orders of the Day should take precedence of Notices
on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The reason that he made
the present motion was, that upon his moving the
Orders of the Day, in many instances it was objected
by some Hon. Members that they had placed notices on
the books, and that they, ought to be first disposed of. That
might be all very well ; but it could nut be denied that it was
desirable before a late period of the Session, that Bills under
consideration should be sent to the other House of Par-
liament. That was the only object of the motion. The
Noble Lord concluded by moving that from the 15th of
June to the Ist of July, Orders of the Day should have
precedence of notices on Tuesdays and Fridays.
Agreed to.
The Order of the Day having been read for bringing up
the Report on the Canada Resolutions,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the first Order of the
Day in the paper related to the Church-rate question, and
he wished to ask the Noble Lord whether he meant to pro-
ceed with that question after the discussion on the affairs of
Canada—and if not, when ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the consideration of
that question could not be proceeded with to-night.
He believed the statement his Noble Friend near him
(Lord Morpeth) would have to make upon the
subject of Irish tithes on Monday, would not give
rise to any discussion, and he therefore wished to bring
on the question relating to Irish Poor-laws after that state-
ment had been made on Monday. If possible, he would
proceed with the Church-rate question on the 22d of May.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM—Then, at all events, it will
not come on next week ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—No ; not before the 22d of
May.
Mr. TREVOR begged to know whether the Church-
rates question was definitively fixed for the 22d of May.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not state positively that
it would be then brought forward.

, LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 1837.

resolutions, was fearful that the object intended would not
be effected by them.
The amendment was then negatived without a division,
and the Resolutions were agreed I`O.
On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, it was ordered
that the Resolutions should be comm unicated to the Cords
at a Conference.
COURT OF SESSION (SCOn. AND) BILL.
On the motion of the LORD AVVOCATE, the
House went into Committee for the furtfa.'r consideration
of the Report in the Court of Session (Scotia ad) Bill.
Sir WILLIAM RAE and Sir GEORGI:E CLERK
complained that while the Government professe,i a desire
to reduce all unnecessary offices, and to carry ecomliny to the
utmost, an individual had recently been appointed to the office
of principal clerk of session, which expense might hinvo been
saved by having the duties performed by one of the cre. rks of
the Jury Court.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL supported the appointment.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM had no hesitation in saying that
the explanation of the Noble Lord was not satisfactory, and '
that the whole transaction had the appearance of being a
Scotch job..—(A laugh.)
The clauses were then severally put and agreed to. The
House resumed, and the report was ordered to be received on
Monday.

The 'Small Debts( Scotland) Bill went through a Committee

IRISH POOR-LAW BILL.

Upon the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the order
of the day for the second reading of the Irish Poor-law
Bill was read.

Mr. W. J. O'Brien was first called on by the Speaker, but
he gave way immediately to
Mr. O'CONNELL, who proceeded to say—l confess that
it has been my most anxious wish to address the House upon
this subject at the earliest possible period of the discussion.
The regulations of the French Chamber would be more suited
to my object than the rules and orders that prevail in this
House. There the speakers are divided into those who speak
for a measure, against a measure, and upon a measure.—
( Hear.) My intention was not to speak upon this measure.
lam not for it. Ido not think that it is likely to succeed.
My, own deliberate judgment is, that not only it will not suc-
ceed in mitigating the evils to be found in the present state
of the poor of Ireland, but that its tendency will be to ag-
gravate them much.--(Hear, hear, and cheers.) There-
fore I cannot advocate the measure. Ido not mean to vote
against it. I think it has now become inevitable that we
must have some measure of a. poor-law for Ireland ; I yield
to the necessity, while I regret it. There has been for some
time an opinion prevailing in England that a poor-law in
Ireland will prevent the evils arising from the emigration
of the Irish labourer, and mitigate the misery of the English
poor. Many men, too, in Ireland have taken up strong opi-
nions lately in favour of a poor-law whose opinions formerly
were in opposition to them. Several of the Catholic clergy,
too, are anxious for the measure. There are also many in-
fluential persons who heretofore imagined that political ame-
liorations would produce. improvements in the state of the pea-
santry generally who are now disposed to make the experiment.
confess that lam decidedly not opposed to it. It is, I know,
an untried experiment. lam deeply convinced that Ireland
never can obtain prosperity until she has a Legislature of
her own. That is my thorough, that is my decided convic-
tion.—( Hear.) The people are disposed to try whether that
is a mistaken conviction : so am I. I find it is impossible
to have the people of England consider that the experiment
has been fairly worked out as long as that portion of the
experiment which relates to Poor-laws is untried.—( Hear,
bear, hear.) For these reasons I yielded to this Bill. I
do not mean to vote against it at any stage. I will
not rote against it—if necessary I shall vote for it. I repeat
it, I yield to the necessity without being at all convinced.—
( Hear, hear.) In looking to a measure of relief for the poor
of Ireland the first course for the House to pursue is to under-
stand the nature and extent of the distress that prevails there.
The Noble Lord who introduced this subject to the House
omitted that topic altogether. He made a speech which
was an extremely perspicuous one in all its details, and
having the very best quality of a speech, it being impos-
sible for any -one who attended to it not to understand the
subject from one end to the other. But then he rather took
for granted the distress than described it. It was not diffi-

cult-for him to assume that great distress prevails in Ireland.
—( Hear.) He entered into none of t4e details. He stated
that there was overwhelming distress ; but he did not at all
trace out any of the causes that have produced the distress
in that country. And yet it is impossible to find out the pro-
per means for putting an end to the prevailing distress unless
the causes of that distress are first ascertained.—( Hear, hear.)
I know how wearisome it must be to the House to enter into
a subject of this description ; but we are now making a new
experiment in the administration of Irish affairs, and before

we do so we are bound deliberately to look to the causes—
to trace them to higher sources than any that are imme-
diately before our eyes. Ido distinctly say that this ought to
be done, because I am convinced that it is my duty to trace
the evil to its source. The poverty and distress that have pre-
vailed in Ireland for ages, in my opinion, are owing to political
causes. If any one remembers the nature of the Government
in Ireland, this must be admitted. I need not go far back.
It is unnecessary for me to go farther back that elle last cen-
tury and a half; and, looking at that, no one can be surprised

;o find Ireland in the state tlatshe is in.—(Hear, hear.) I

allude merely to two heads of those which are called the penal
laws. By two distinct branches of those laws ignorance was

enforced by Aet,of Parliament, and poverty was enacted.—
(Cheers.) Such were the effects of the penal laws.--(Hear,
hear.) I will mention the statutes. By the 7th Will. 111.,

chap. 4, sec. 9, and Bth Anne, chap. 3, -it was enacted that
no Roman Catholic should teach or have a school in Ireland.

inArnetion of youth was nrohibited No Roman Catholic
punishable by conunement, .
Catholic child, was a felony punishable by death. The Ca-
tholics were prohibited from being educated. For any child
receiving instruction there was a penalty of 101. a day, and
when the penalty was two or three times incurred, then the
parties were subjected to a prconunire—the forfeiture of
goods and chattels. To send a child out of Ireland to be edu-
cated was a similar offence, to send it subsistence from Ireland
was subjected to the same forfeiture ; and, what was still more
violent and unjust, even the child incurred a forfeiture. By
these laws there was encouragement given to ignorance, and a
prohibition imposed upon knowledge. lam not now to be told
that these laws were part of ancient history—they were in full
force when I was born.—(Hear.) Another part of this code of
laws prohibited the acquisition of property. No Roman Catho-
lic could acquire property. He might, indeed, acquire it but
if he did so, any Protestant had a right to come into a Cou.t
of Equity and say, " Such a man has, I know, purchased an
estate—such a man is a Roman Catholic ; give me his estate ;"

and it should be given to him. To take a lease beyond thirty-
one years was prohibited ; and even if within thirty-one years,
and the tenant by his industry made the land one-third in value
above the rent he paid for it, it could be transferred to a Pro-
testant. These were laws that were in force for a full century.
—( Hear.) For a full century we had laws requiring the people
to be ignorant, and punishing them for being industrious—
laws that declared the acquisition of property criminal, and
subjected it to forfeiture. For one century, ignorance and
poverty were enacted by law as only fit for the Irish people.
The consequences of a system of that kind arc still felt. No-
body can say that this is exaggeration. It has been said, you
have to address yourself to the poverty and ignorance of Ire-
land ; and we know that no ingredient can be so fatal in the
history of a country—no greater impediment can be discovered
to its improvement. When 'you see that, you are at once shown
the source from which such misery has flown. There are suf-
ficient political,causes for the present state of Ireland. I now
wish to bring the attention of the House to the effect of some
statistical facts with respect to Ireland. They may not at first
appear to bear directly upon the question ; but they afford the
materials for thinking, and are likely to lead you to a just con-
clusion. These documents show you accurately the political
economy of that country. First, then, as to the contrast be-
tween England and Ireland. In England there were 24,250,000
cultivated acres. In Ireland the quantity of acres under
cultivation is 14,600,000. The proportion is not more than
two to one of cultivated acres. The agricultural labourers
in Ireland are 1,131,715 : the number of agricultural la.
bourers in England is 1,055,982. This gives an excess to
Ireland of 75,733 agricultural labourers. The value of the
agricultural produce of England is 150,000,000/. ; the value
of the agricultural produce of Ireland is 36,000,0001. The
quantity of hands in Irelands is two to one as compared to
England ; the quantity of produce by England is four to ene
as compared with Ireland. England produces four times as
much as Ireland, although she ought only, considering the
fertility of the soil of Ireland, to produce twice as much. Ag-
ricultural produce is the source of wages to the labourer. In
England, the wages paid to the labourer is from Bs. to 10s. ;
in Ireland, the wages paid is from 2s. to 2s. 6d. This shows
that agricultural produce is the source of wages. Let it be
recollected that this is the state of Ireland—this is the state
of her agricultural produce, when she ought naturally to pro-
duce comparatively more than England, because the soil of
Ireland is more fertile comparatively than that of England. If
there was an equality of cultivation, Ireland would produce
much more, according to its extent, than it now produces less.
Tho diminution of its produce, that by which it is so much
less than it ought to be, is to be attributed to the want of ca-
pital to be expended in cultivation—it is to be attributed to the
poverty of the proprietors of the soil ; it shows that there is
a diminution where there ought to be an increase in the quan-
tity. You are not to be surprised that there is not that capi-
tal. You perceive that there is not a sufficiency of capital to
have that produce what it ought to be. It was not to be
wondered at that such a country as this should be in
such a state of destitution. In Ireland it appears that there
arc 585,000 heads of families in a state of destitution—per-
sons who, for more than seven months in the year, are without
employment.—( Hear, hear.) This is the number of the heads
of families, and comprising, on au average to each family
not less than 2,300,000 individuals. It has been said that des-
titution has been created by the undue bidding for land. The
competition for land has been declared to be one of the great
causes of the present destitution, and it has been said that if
you could diminish that competition you would diminish the
destitution. Accordingly, the Secretary to the Poor-law
Commissioners has been publishing pamphlets and declaring
that he has found ont the secret of Irish destitution. All, he
says, that is to be done is to take away the demand for land,
and that the moment you do so you will give relief—that by
putting an end to the exorbitant rents now demanded, you will
afford relief to the destitute. See how little foundation there
is for such an assertion. Because there are 585,000 heads
of families in a state of destitution, he would thus relieve
them. Now, there are not less than 567,441 of these per-
sons who have not an inch of land. They, then, were not
poor by reason of the competition for land; and be would
give relief only to seventeen thousand heads of families that
have land. ( See Appendix H, Second Report of the Poor-
law Commissioners.) Without then referring to a Poor-