The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-28 00:00:00

TO THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND.

LONDON, Jun* 25, 1838,

" Hereditary bondsmen, know ye not,
Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow ?"
Fettow COUNTRYMEN—It is above all things necessary that you
should understand distinctly and precisely the present posture'of your
affairs—whether you be Catholics or Protestants--whatever may be
your religious or political opinions—whatever may be your convictions
touching the nature of the measures most useful to Ireland or most
agreeable to yourselves—it can do you nothing but good to understand
with accuracy the present posture of your affairs.
One preliminary observation, and only one. It is this—lf Irishmen
were united in sentiment and in purpose we should be too strong to
endure any misgovernment or oppression. In our divisions are to be
found our weakness, and the strength of those who, either from fantasy
or malignity are the opponents of the liberty and prosperity of Ireland.
Now to our present position. The Seasion of 1837.8 is drawing to a
close. One great measure touching Ireland has passed both Houses of
Parliament, and is now verging fast into law. Before this letter reaches
the remoter parts of cur country there will be a Poor-law upon the Irish
statute book—a law which may be altered or modified, mitigated or
aggravated in matters of detail, but which can NEVER, NEVER, be repealed.
We have passed the rubicon—for us there is no retreat. Unwise
men have called the measure an experiment. Oh ! excess of absurdity!
to call that an experiment which can never have a termination!
Be it for good, or be it for evil, we have a Poor.law. My own opinion
is unaltered upon this subject ; or, if there be any change, my convic.
Con is only stronger that it will work solely for evil, It purports to be
a law for the relief of the destitute poor. My opinion is, that it is a law
to make the destitute more miserable, and to increase the number of
the poor.
At present the destitute in Ireland experience the kindly feeling that
arises from and accompanies voluntary charity. Of course they are not
well supplied with food; but the instances are rare—exceedingly rare—
perhaps more rare than in any other country—of any human being an.
Wally perishing for want of food.
But, on the other hand, they enjoy the natural pleasures of the open
air, the sound of the rushing waters. the gleams of sunshine in spots
sheltered from the wind, the perfect freedom of motion, and the uncon-
trolled exercise and use of their faculties. They often want food; but
man does not live upon bread nor on potatoes alone ; and all the other
incidents ofhuman enjoyment are badly compensated for by the ladlefull
of porridge doled out by the cheerless hand of the time-callous officer of
a poor house.
totTalblyetriersstt eepf,tchteoefeaurPeoesore-lfawprwtvieltleneecheasrsiatyri.ly bTehetoeneinycurmelbieefr,feirf notthe
Wpdrei
°fist
mtiuyut
tessswaerxiitlthyeirbnneatl rehsetlpw ails of the poorhouse. Beyond the walls
of that prison, relief cannot possibly be given. The Irish Poor-law ex-
st
aierfa.ted ; W itthh
ei n
childrentl ose walls
musttheh e
husbandkept
apartanl(
from the mother, and the hopelessness of any change at this side of the
grave will impart a sentiment of despair to the wretched inmates of that
dwelling.
On the other hand, see how the condition of the occupiers of land in
Ireland ii to be altered. I laugh to scorn the man who tells me that
less than one million of pounds sterling Will be sufficient to pay the poor.
rate of Ireland. Mark, what a burthen—it rises up to twice the amount
of the ecclesiastical tithes. Suppose the tithes were abolished to-
morrow, the poor.rate will create a tax of double the amount of those
tithes. But if the tithes are also to remain, as indeed I fear much of
them will remain for some time longer, what, I ask, is to be the sad si
tuation of the occupiers and resident landowners in Ireland ?

he
t h
oluf
gahnt)hteoyd yw%evreer e:
ot ob
epar opppor
os ep
rtio.
td tar bfloert hues
ebfuurltphue
rnpeosf test iht
eh
rees ,eveni
is
re
man who would not shrink from such a monstrous proposition ? Yet,
the same thing, in other words, is done by a Poor.law.
The agricultural statistics of both countries show that the natural
fertility of Ireland exceeds by much that of England. Yet, the agri.
cultural produce of England, calculated by the acre, is nearly two to
one greater than that of Ireland.
WHY ? Because in England capital is laid out in the cultivation of
the soil, whilst the absence of capital in Ireland actually renders our
best soils, comparatively sterile, and prevents the bountiful disposition
of nature from producing its proper results ; thus blighting the blessings
of Providence, and converting that which ought to be a Paradise into a
hungry and stingy wilderness.
Now, what is to be one great effect of the Poor.law ? Is it not plainly
to diminish the amount of the agricultural capital, already too small ?
The wages which the farmer eould hitherto layout in labour must now
be reserved for the rate-collector; and instead of employing labourers
with his money, and obtaining the benefit arising from their labour,
he must, in future, devote that money to the support of idlers in a work-
houses, and augment the number of applicants for relief in that very
workhouse, by the amount of the labourers whom he will be thus corn-
P4lTiedte n to
discharge.ever was
There any thing so foolish as to suppose that a Poor.law
increases the property of any country—that it gives any thing to a
country which it had not before—or augmeets in any respect the wealth
of that country. A Poor-law, therefore, is not the production of new
means, nor the augmentation of the old—it is merely a new distribu-
tion of the means that already exist; a distribution which takes away
these means from the productive classes to place them at the disposal of
the unproductive.
Lord Melbourne is reported to have stated in the House of
Lords, that the objection to the Poor.law for Ireland arose because it
placed a new burthen upon the landlords of that country. I hope that
he has beet' misreported—for this reason; that if the report be accurate
it demonstrates his total ignorance cf the real working of the Poor-law.
If it only laid the burthen upon the landlords, no man living would
more readily assent to the laying on of such a burthen than I should.
But it is because the burthen is really placed, not upon the landlords,
tobutt
upon.l n everytlus occupiers—that
casecupie trsi;
occupierthat i thes,
is
toresidentspay one-halfh
in t Ireland
erate that
out I
of hisobjec
own pocket, and without any retribution. Of the other half, the oc.
copier pays in the ratio of his profits to the landlord's rent. Profits
are not taxable at all in England ; the profit of the occupier in Ireland
is to be taxed.
Alas, my Countrymen ! Protestants and Catholics as you are, is
it not most melancholy that we are governed by a Parliament where
these distinctions are either unknown or disregarded? and where a
contemptuous indifference to the local knowledge and arguments of the
friends of Ireland is the prevailing sentiment?
For my own part, "liberari animam meam." I have exerted every
faculty to prevent this calamity; it has come upon my country in spite
of me. I have sought the good of that country alone, without attention
to the creed that any part of its inhabitants may profess. I have de-
fended the property of the Protestant proprietor as well as the income of
the Catholic farmer, and I have treated with ineffable disregard the
popularity which would have ensued from a false affectation of humanity,
and a canting pretence of attention to the interests of the poor. One
thing alone has greatly shocked me. It is the discovery that many of
those who set themselves forward as the benevolent advocates of the poor,
have been busily looking out for. situations and (dices under the Poor.
law Bill. I hope lam not wrong m wishing that they may be disap.
pointed.

The first step in the Poor.law Act is the building of one hundred
workhouses. In fact, the machinery for effecting the new Poor-law,
will cost more than would maintain the destitute poor in Ireland, if Ire-
land were in a condition to maintain her poor in something like com-
fort ; and will a'sn cost much more than would be sufficient to promote
the productiveness of her soil for the benefit of all her inhabitants. So
much fir the Poor-law!
Protestants of Ireland, let me now address one word to you. Six
years ago I informed you in my published letters that you had but this
alternative—either to repeal the Union, or to submit to alt the horrors
and mischiefs of a Poor-law. You refused.to join me in the struggle to
restore our domestic Legislature, and behold my prophesy is realised!
Would that the experience of the past were to teach you the proper
line of duty for the future—to make you forget your foolish feuds and
unchristian bigotry. The people arc ready, not only to forgive, but to
forget the past.
Would to Heaven that I could now at length expect that you would
rally with me for the political salvation of our common country.
So much for the Poor.law. It was opposed at the third reading in
the House of Commons by an overwhelming majority of the representa_
tives of the Irish nation—it was carried amidst a combination of Whig
and Tory. Believe me that Ireland may upon many an occasion of mis.
chief expect such combination.

The history of the carrying of the Poor.law in the Houseof Lords
ought to be put on perpetual record. Its fate was decided not in Parlia-
liruaetol
ac simplynh 6.0 qualification,
and the rating
n truth, under ment, but at Apsley Honse, the residence of the Duke of Wellington.
i
fit might enhance the amount of the
Ile decided in its favour, not because
has seof
been
ynmeaetded
ritintthhteenmgehastuhreeLeitstedlsf,,
b
and thereby diminish the number of voters in
Ireland.
not by reason of anything connected with the destitute poor of Ireland,
but simply and singly as an instrument to annihilate the popular interest
of To
ohdeo
ofabctte
drespectingy,the Apsley Housedecision I have, from a source
in the return of Members to the House of Commons.
ec
deceived, and who would not deceive. He differs from me much in po.
lities, but were I at liberty to name him, his name would carry convic-
tion upon such a subject throughout Ireland.
,But it requires no authority to give it credibility. The conduct of
Sir Robert Peel and of his party in the House of Commons is a practi-
cal proof which cannot err or deceive. Sir Robert, who has been always
the busy and malignant enemy of Ireland (except when he was forced
from his natural position against his conviction) has had the presump.
tion—for I must call it by its right name—to assert that the rated value
and the real value ol a tenement are one and the same. No man would
venture to make such an assertion out of Parliament. Peel naturally
hates us for the double triumph we have had over him—the triumph of
1629 and the triumph of 1835. Aud no greater misfortune could pos-
sibly happen to Ireland than his restoration to power. It was quite, of
course, that he shooldbe the first to avail himsslf of the Poor-law Bin to
poison the franchise at its source ; and by means of that Bill to exclude
from Parliament the genuine Representative of Ireland.
is lt perhaps one of the most melancholy reflections that can be made,
to think that this " Bill for the relief of the poor" should be in reality
converted into a "a Bill for the suppression of the suffi-age," and that
its object, which purported to be charitable and humane, should give
place at once to purposes of political degradation and injustice. Yet so
it is, and those who were anxious from humane motives (for there
were many such (to obtain a legislative provision for the poor, will now
see that they have only contributed to forge another chain to encumber
the freedom of the Irish people.

Having thus placed before you, my Countrymen, the Poor law Act in
all its beatings, I proceed to detail with equal candour the other two
measures which are before Parliament, purporting to be—and certainly
intended by the Queen's Ministers to be—for the benefit of Ireland.
With respect to the Municipal Reform Bill, it is perfectly clear that
the Ministry intended it should be beneficial to Leland; because
although it adopted the poor.rate as a criterion of value, yet the rating
did not exceed 51. per annum ; a scale at which many houses of the real
value of 101. per annum would be included. It was wrong to make
the Irish Municipal Reform Bill different from that of England, and
also different from that of Scotland. it was wrong to rna)..e our muni-
cipal franchise higher than that of either Scotland or England; but the
exaggeration of the franchise was not, according to the Ministerial plan,
sa much greater than the English or Scotch as to prevent us getting a
substantial Corporate Reform, if the Ministerial plan had been carried
into full effect in the shape in which it passed the House of Commons.
out it, fate was sealed the moment it reached the House of Lords. For
three years that admirable specimen of hereditary wisdom had refused
to give us reformed Corporations. It proclaimed in the language of
undisguised contempt and unmitigated hatred, that the people of Ireland
were unworthy of, or unfit for, Municipal Institutions. Sacred Heavens!
when I think who and what THEY are who have dared thus to calumniate
us—when I think who and what they are who are thus calumniated—
my:y bi %cis
t tboils,tt
.ml ys
il,toetlalrdt
at Illtor oobtst !ooannsdi
di
of
rthreevsepoigr
revenge
t ot
of
bp eoaac ed
odti
yd, naootdv isi
re-
taliationt
a moral obligation,
Yet their ro
voop,evneda nodonatNe, hostilityotnwpetdmish t
bo easilym ig htb
obten easilyo.
oeintdcuorneddo—c
conduct
r
direct was
en obviously contrary to common sense, and common justice, that the
m
aathly of the wise and good all over the world, but especially in
aced us. Yes—their open hostility was to
Eng-
land, d
a curse; but it was mitigated by various circumstances, and rendered
en-
durable by cur just estimate of the proMoters of, and panderers to, that
hostility. us an afiliction and
a a)n sympathy
o

..__. .
A new era has commenced, a new mete of acting has been adopted. We
are no longer to be contemptuously refused Corporate Reform—we are
simply to be steinUed out of it. The direct refusal was too plain and
palpable an injustice.
Toryism in its nature lives and prospers by de-
lusion; it is too odious to continue to avow itself plainly and openly,
even against Ireland and the Irish.
A new era has commenced: we arc to be swindled out of our rights.
Lord Lyndhurst has undertaken the duty of mocking
us with a pretended
Reform.

The condi,t of Sir Roberepael was, f trE nge to sa),
mr .:Lkil more silviitlc plaubibie ti ad tli,d of
Lord Lyndhurst; it had the merit, also, of the boldest effrontery.
There is no instance, I believe, in modern times, of any states.
man exhibiting so reekic.6s a disregard for mere matter of fact. Ms

exxt.