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

with the most e
,tfective workhouse accommodation. I Well,
t hen, the calcul; Alen I hold in my hand demonstrates clearly that
instead of one per cent. on the entire population, as calculated
by Mr. Nich ells, the proportion relieved in-doors and out of
doors, is five; per cent., and, therefore, proceeding on Mr. Ni-
cholls's o'-e
-n data, it follows, that not one hundred, but
five huneired, workhouses would be required ; that 400,000
persons% and not 80,000 perions, must be accommodated; and
that tie ;Amount of the annual charge must 1,560,000/., instead
of 312,000/. Will the Paouse be content to proceed upon cal-
c ulatioras which I prove to be so grossly fallacious ? But why
does Mr. Nicholls male the workhouses the test of destitu-
tion ? What the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) stated was,
that the able-bodie d poor were to be relieveed in Ireland, and
that the Bill shoield not be limited, as the Irish Poor-law Com-
missioners had s.uggested, to the relief of the sick and maimed
alone ; and tb.en the Noble Lord, applying Mr. Nicholls's test
said, "It a:11.1 be a proof of destitution—of such destitution as
demands relief, if they go into the workhouses we propose
to estah',j,-% ?" Do you then want proof of destitution in
Irelan,lo Is the wretchedness of the people a matter of
douba ? Do you require proofs, such proofs as these, that
they are starving ? Such language sounds strangely indeed
thane ears of those who know anything of Ireland. But
England it was said that the poor-law system was so de-
fective that until the new law was adopted nobody would
'dream of introducing it into Ireland. What did the poor-
]aw system produce in England? It produced laziness,
dissipation, want of care; it took away habits of thriftiness
and industry, it engendered profligacy, and made Men desti-
tute from their own incaution ; it produced all these con-
see,uences in England. They became at length intolerable,
Arid you said, " We will redress them, and in order that we
Inay find out who are really destitute we will adopt a tea which
noose but the destitute will abide ; we will separate the idle
and vicious from the honest and industrious ; we will relieve
tthose only who stand the test we apply to•them." Accord-
ingly, a sort of prison discipline was invented for the govern-
ment of all the English workhouses, a discipline, no doubt, to
which none but the really destitute would be willing to submit.
But do the Irish require any stimulant of that kind to keep
them from idleness or to induce them to work? Does ever
Mr. Nicholls say that the Irish people are idle and will net
work ? What works are there requiring great physical strength
and unrelaxed exertion where Isishmen are not the chief la-
bourers ? Must you imprison them, then, to make them work ?
No, no 1 the people of England would never have required
such a stimulant for their industry, if you had not first demo-
ralized them by your Poor-laws ; and till you have demo-
ralized the people of Ireland, by the operation of a like
system, you need not threaten them with imprisonment to
snake them work. The system of poor-houses, as proposed iii
this Bill, may hold out to the Irish landlords the delusive no-
tion that there is an extent beyond which the rate for the relief
of the poor will not go. Such a notion may for a time be en-
tertained by the landlords, but it will be fallacious. It is, in-
deed, a delusion you are practising upon, yourselves, if you
think you can with such a paltry sum do anything for the sub-
stantial relief of the people of Ireland. I would implore you
before you plunge into this Bill to consider this—by adopting
such a measure do you deprive the people of Ireland of no-
thing? Do you take from the poor of Ireland nothing?
Your Report shows that the Irish poor receive at present in
alms an annual amount varying from 1,000,000/. to 1,500,0001.
They do not receive it in coin, but in kind, and this is easy to
the farmer who affords the relief. Has any farmer in Ireland
told you that he would rather pay money than the produce of
his land? No. Your humanity to the farmers is delusive—
your inhumanity to the poor is obvious. You take away from
them the 1,500,000/. of charity they have at present, but do
you take away from them nothing else? Do you take away
from them no kindly feeling ? Do you know the evidences
which have been given of strong filial and parental affection
in the Irish ? Have: you read nothing of their habituol
kindness and considveration for all of kin to them ? I have
a multitude of passages in my hand, extracted from the Re-
port of the Commissioners—passages which do the greatest
credit to the affecti.ons of the unfortunate Irish poor. They
are in misery and distress; but their kindly feelings never
freeze under the chill hand of poverty and destitution.
There they are, the son supporting the mother, the daughter
supporting her aged parents—nay, with the latter it is often
a' speculation to marry young that they may have a partner to
assist them in the office of maintaining those who can en
longer support themselves. There is not a higher testimony
to the moral qualities of the Irish poor than the evidence
that has been placed before us relative to their condition.
Do you wish to take all these away ? You know it is a
very natural thing for a son to say, " Why should I dimini
my own means to support my infirm father when there is
the union workhouse to receive him? Why should I exhaust
myself with labour to maintain my mother when there is the
same refuge for her ? Why should I assist my blind cousin,
or lend a helping hand to my ;erne uncle, is there not the
union workhouse to receive them ?" This is only a natural
train of argument. You will deprive the Irish poor, therefore
of the charity they at present have.—you will extinguish in
their bosoms these kiadly feelings and generous emotions which
are beyond all price, and you will reduce them to the same
miserable and degraded condition cut of which you are• now
seeking to raise a considerable proportion of your own agricul-
tural poor.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Again, then, I im-
plore you to hesitate before you plunge into this measure.
I have mentioned many reasons that should induce yr.o
to do co. Are there no others? In Ireland you hate
around the Imorest and most destitute class a broad margin,
t.:o‘.npo',ed of men who are not actually paupers, but who arc
ecarealy able by dint of the strongest and most incessant exer-
io.:s to eke out a livelihood. All these are for the future m-
elee the operation of this Bill to become rate-payers—every
man rented at 51. a-year is to become a rate-payer. This
swill include every man who at present just saves himself from
• begeing. There are multitudes of this class. I would have
You reC‘JTet- then th:,t when rim urnfntincr ntrni! fromtl o
til%nerto save prevented them from becoming beggars also.
is there not another consideration ? What ;s it that sup-
ports the Irish labourer at present? What fund is there .;.1
Ireland for the pa) meet of wages ? There is not carat.. 1/
enough, to pay for labour in Ireland. Da you want to telys
awe% part of the funds- that row exist ? Is not eve:-7
sh;liing levied for Poor-rates a shilling taken from the means
ct paying the wages of labour ? By imposing a rate, there.
fore, you be destroying the inadequate means that eves
snow exist fur the payment of wages. But it is said (and thi
no doubt, would be a great boon if it could be accomplished)--
it is said, " a measure for the relief of the poor will tran-
quillize Ireland—there will be no more insurrectionary move-
ments in the country when the people find that their wants
are supplied," To accomplish that end you must carry your
calculationsi much further than vou propose to do by this
Bni—you must go the full length of the 1,500,000/. of elm-
teny, which you will be putting aside if you hope to give per-
maneet tranquillity to Ireland. I confess that the measure,
as it now stamls, does not appear to me to he calculated to
give tranquillity to that country. How does it proceed ?
There is to be no parochial r,lief. All relief is to be given
in the workhouses. Perhaps Mr. Nicholls, in his sagacity and
wisdom, will be making rules for the government of those
houses. What will he the consequence? You will give to
every man ashom you refuse to relieee a cause for prmdisl
agitation. I conjure you to consider whether, to make
your relief substantial end beneficial, you must not make it
retie. in amount to one-hall; or, at any rate, one-third of
the rent-roll of Ireland. If you enter upon this course of
policy at ell, you must not do it piecemeal—you must not dole
out
_Tour charity in small driblets. Let it be as extensive
as the evil, cr do not attempt it at all. This, too, must he
reeollected :in the introduction of poor-laws into Ireland
you do not propose to establish any law of settlement. Noe,
poor-laws have been recommended for Ireland as tending
to ineke landlords careful of the tenants on their estates,
because, not taking care of them upon their estates, they
would have to support them out of the poor-rates. But if
you establish no law of settlement you will not affect the land-
lord in that way. It is the union, and not the landlord, who
will have to pay for the support of the poor wherever they are
found ; and whatever the burden upon the landlord, it wi:l
only be shared by him in common with his neighbours. Thus
the inducement to the landlord to take care of his tenantry
will be wholly lost, unless the Bill be accompanied by a law
of settlement. Yet lam not asking for a law of settlement.
I know the difficulties that would attend the introduction of
such a measure. Mr. Nicholls, to be sure, thinks it would be
easy enough, because, says he, there would he no
,difficulty
in procuring a certificate of births from the clergyman. That
applied only to the Protestants ; but how were the Roman
Catholics, whose priests succeed each other with great rapidity
in almost every parish—especially those that were sickly—
how were they to obtain certificates of their birth ? I mention
this only to show of what materials, Mr. Nicholls's mind is
composed, when he says it would be the easiest thing in the
world to do this or that. I approve of the want of a law of
settlement in Ireland, because, though there may be a prima
facie case in favour of the introduction of such a law, the
report of our own Poor-law Commissioners, as well as the
experience of all foreign countries where a law of settle-
ment obtains, prove that the effect of it is to enslave the paupers
by tying them to the soil where they were born, and hunting
them like rats, if they venture to remove from it, lest they
should obtain a settlement elsewhere. Instances of this have
been abundant enough in London, where women actually in
labour have been trundled about from parish to parish by the
overseers, each anxious to prevent the child from being dropped
within the precincts over which he presided. A law of settle-
ment cannot be introduced into Ireland ; yet by not introducing
it, you prevent your Poor-laws from affording to the poor that
security against the severity of the landlord which you say you
are anxious to establish. There is another point for considera-
tion. Any attempt to make labour productive by raising a poor-
rate will be abortive, and end in disappointment. A labour-rate
has failed wherever it has been tried. I wish this to be fully
understood before we proceed with the present measure. I have
felt it to be my duty to spend a considerable portion of my time
in reading everything I could get on Poor-laws, foreign and
domestic. Perhaps my inquiries have led me into error. If
so, I must certainly say that I have adopted my errors upon
the most deliberate consideration that my mind is capable of
bestowisig upon the subject. To me it seems that no—propo-
sition has been so fully demonstrated both by theory and
practice as this : that you cannot make labour productive by
means of' any fund you may raise for the purpose, where that
labour has not been rendered productive by the enterprise of
private and individual speculation. In America the price of
labour is ss. or 6s. a-day. The poor-bosses are full. Why
do they not Mend their paupers out to labour? Because it is
found that slave labour nobody will buy. A man labouring-
upon compulsion takes a pick-axe and employs himself with it
for half an hour, making a hole large enough perhaps to put
in his finger. The Americans have now gone back from the
old system of Poor-laws, and remedy the evils of poverty and
distress, not by levying a poor-rate on the industrious, but by
turning out the idle from their workhouses, and leaving them,
f they like, to perish, which no man in America need do if