The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-22 00:00:00

LONDON :
TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 22, 1838.

The second reading of the Irish Poor Law Bill was
carried in the House of Lords last night by a majority of
a hundred and twenty-nine—only twenty votes being given
against it. Few events, in the present Parliamentary Ses-
sion, have given us such sincere pleasure. That the Bill
will undergo a severe, and as we apprehend, an injurious re-
vision in Committee, we are prepared to expect from the
speeches of the Duke of WELLINGTON and Lord LYND-
HURST ; but nevertheless we shall be well pleased if only
the principle be recognized in a measure which from its very
novelty must at first be necessarily imperfect. Let the Bill
►be once passed in any shape, and its simple repeal becomes
absolutely impossible. This truth, so alarming to the op-
ponents of the principle of the Bill, reconciles us to the
temporary endurance of all its imperfections. It may
subsequently be amended—it cannot be repealed. The
debate upon it was more than usually animated. The
speech of Lord MELBOURNE was one of the most philoso-
phical ever delivered by the Noble Premier. Without re-
ference to statistical details—that dullest of Parliamentary
business juggleries—the Noble Viscount contrived to take
both a Statesman-like and a Christian-like view of the prin-
ciple of the Bill before their Lordships. We direct parti-
cular attention to one passage, that our readers may con-
trast it with a sort of commentary thereon by Earl FITZ-
WILLIAM :

" Poverty was the general condition of man ; it belonged to all na.
}ions, it belonged to all climes, it belonged to all the circumstances and
situations in which human nature could be placed ; toil, labour, and
poverty was the original denunciation against man ; and the whole his-
tory of the world had only proved its truth, and asserted its divine
origin. There was no clime which was not subject to it—there was no
state of society which did not generate it. If the soil were hard, rough,
and barren, of course it generated it; if the soil were rich, fertile,
teeming with life, requiring little or no culture, the result was even
=ore certain; because the natural fertility of the soil tended only
to deaden all that exertion and energy which was the only solid
foundation of real prosperity. If a country were already bowed
down with poverty it was almost impossible for it to emerge from that
state; but if it increased, and grew, and swelled in wealth and
prosperity, then more certainly must poverty ensue, because with in-
creasing wealth flowed in inordinate desires—indolence, luxury, imps-
tience of labour, the unwillingness to remain in the station for which
one was fitted, desires of sudden and immense wealth, and then came
wild speculations which inevitably involved not only those actually con-
cerned in them, but all who came in contact with them in utter and
irrevocable ruin. If, then, this poverty was so universal—if it were a
thing so difficult, nay, so impossible to escape, the question for law-
givers and Governments was how they were to deal with that which
they could not avoid. It had been said by some bold and speculative
men, looking only to reasoning—apt to forget individual suffering and
feeling—" Let us have no Poor-law; do nothing for them at all." They
did not positively say that poverty was a crime, but at least, in effect
they said that it was very little better ; they said that generally it was
the result of idleness, vice, luxury, intemperance ; and that if they de-
sired to have society established on a proper footing they must
leave poverty to its own punishment, and make no provision what.
ever for any one suffering under its effects. Now, it might be all
very well to say that ; but they could not do it. The nerves of men
could not stand it ; they were not sufficiently strong to bear up against
be system of that sort."
The Noble Viscount might have gone farther than this.
He might have contended, with justice, that whatever mi-
sery is the lot of man, its alleviation is a virtue on the part
of his fellow-creatures. God's righteous judgments are as-
suredly executed, but the wicked are ever the instruments
chosen by heaven for the visitation of the divine displeasure.
But what says the Earl of FITZWILLIAM in his speech
against the principle of a law for the compulsory relief of
human misery :
" It appeared to him that laws for the benefit of the poor, seemed to rob
the supreme governor of the world of some of his attributes, and to over-
turn a law which he had promulgatcd—namely, " That man must earn
his bread by the sweat of his brow." "
Did it never occur to the Noble Earl that the Divine
law, which he is so ready to cite on this occasion, contains
no clause excluding Peers and their families from its uni-
versal operation ? Did it never strike his Lordship that
there would be some difficulty in showing what right the
law of GOD conferred on Princes and Peers to parcel out
the earth among themselves—to exclude man from the pos-
session of his rightful heritage, in order that certain dynas-
ties and families might be enabled to violate the very law
which he has thus dared to evoke ? GOD is no respecter
of persons, and in dooming man to earn his bread by the
sweat of his brow, ho made no exception in favour of an heri-
ditary aristocracy. We therefore warn the Noble Earl to be-
ware of alluding to the Divine law on the subject of labour,
when he has next occasion to address himself to the question
of a Poor-law. He may otherwise, without intending it,
awaken a spirit of popular inquiry, which is not likely to
terminate in an increased respect for the immunities from toil
—we had almost said from usefulness—claimed by the aris-
tocracy of England. But iude?endently of these considera-
tions, the Noble Earl's objection to a Poor-law is quite
as ridiculous as to abolish physic, because it tends to retard
the fulfilment of the Divine decree of death passed upon
every member of the human family.
The speeches of the Duke of WELLINGTON, the Earl of
DEVON, and the Marquis of LANSDOWNE were strongly in
favour of the principle of the Bill. The Noble Duke ex-
pressed a hope that the Bill would pass this Session, as he
regarded its passing as essential to any improvement in the
social condition of the sister country. He was confident
it would stimulate the activity of landlords, and create a
better feeling between themselves and their tenantry.
The Earl of DEVON was convinced that it would greatly
extend the labour market, and lay the foundation for
other measures neg ary to raise Ireland in the scale
of nations. Lord LyN HURST'S speech was still more
remarkable. He olii4ed to the Bill, but he did
o principally on the ground that the feelings of Ireland
were not sufficiently consulted and respected. His Lord-