The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-20 00:00:00

FREEMEN AND ELECTORS' BILL.

The Order of the Day was then read for the third reading
of the Parliamentary Freemen and Electors' Bill.
On the question being put that the Bill be read a third
time—

Mr. BLAKE said that upon a former occasion he had re-
ceived an assurance from the Right Hon. Chancellor of the
Exchequer that that part of the Bill which related to England
would be extended to Ireland—that bad not yet been done,
and he wished some explanation of the matter before the
Bill went further.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that a separate measure
would be introduced in regard to Ireland.
Mr. BLAKE said that if he could obtain the assurance of
ber Majesty's Government that a Bill of that sort would meet
with their support, he should offer no opposition to the pre-
Beat Bill.

Mr. MACLEAN then rose to oppose the further progress
of the Bill, but in consequence of the loud conversational
buzzing in the House, it was with difficulty we could
hear a single sentence the Honourable Member uttered.
He objected to the Bill, because it was the commencement
of a series of changes which would induce the people to be-
lieve that the Noble Lord (J. Russell) was " infirm of pur-
pose," and that he was very much disposed to yield,
on a little more pressing, the question of the Ballot,
which he had at the beginning of the Session so strenuously
protested against.
Sir R. PEEL wished to leave on record his objection to
this Bill which was founded mainly on this ground—
that he considered it the first step towards the alteration
of the principle of what he had ever been induced to
regard as a final settlement of the political fran-
chise. It was quite consistent that those who had opposed the
Reform Bill should, when it had become law of the land, be pre-
pared to advocate its provisions. He was not more enamoured
of the Bill at the present time than he had been
when it was first brought forward. But he was as ready as
any of its most determined supporters to defend its provisions.
He saw greater evil in re-agitating the question than he should
like to have upon his head. There were three great prin-
ciples established by the Reform Bill with respect to the
pecuniary competency of the voter, which they had a right
to expect would remain in force ; and he was surprised to
find that a proposition to abolish one of these tests (with
respect to the payment of rates)l should have emanated
from the Noble Lord, the author cf the Reform Bill.—
( Opposition cheers.) The principle of paying rates and
taxes when due was a good one, which he should be sorry to
see abolished. Why could not a notice be issued in April,
that the rates were to be paid by the 20th of July, and
the voters could then ascertain where the amount was to
be received ? The Noble Lord now proposed to give
six months additional time to the voter, and he thought
nothing could be more impolitic. The House-tax had been
repealed in 1834, and that materially altered the position of
the voter. If the Window-tax was abolished (half of it
having been already repealed) there would be no assessed
taxes by which the eligibility of the voter could be ascertained.
The total amount of the Poor-rates in 1838 were little
more than half what they were a very few years ago—
and thus every day the pecuniary tests of the qualification of
voters were diminishing. On these grounds he objected to
the present measure—he thought it would effect a most im-
portant and injurious change in the position of Parliamentary
elections, and he should, therefore, gave his decided opposi-
tion to the Bill.—( Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL asked, had not the other side of the
House agreed to alterations in the Reform Bill ?—( Hear.)
One was as to the time of election, which was changed from
two days to one. Another alteration was in the number of
polling places.—( Hear, hear, hear.) But there was another
and more recent alteration. It was a part of that Bill
that a shilling should be paid.—( Cheers.) The question
was, whether the present alteration was one proper to be
adopted, which would not alter the principle of the measure?
He contended that a voter ought to have paid all the
rates and taxes. But did this Bill take away that
protection ? On the contrary, the principle was preserved ;
but the vexation and inconvenience were rendered as light as
possible.—( Hear, hear.) He did not believe, that even if
this Bill were carried, there would not be others in which cer-
tain provisions of the Reform Bill would be modified.
Was it to be supposed that the Act passed in 1832 was so
complete that no alteration or improvement could be made in
it? It was not to be expected, and such alterations ought to
be made as from time to time were considered necessary.
Mr. G OUL BURN was glad to hear from the Noble Lord
the admission that the test of solvency was the payment of the
Queen's taxes. lie was ready to admit that this was a tole-
rably fair test while they were paid up to the sth of April;
but if they threw it back to the previous 11th of October there
would be no obligation for the tenant to pay any taxes last ac-
cruing, and the test would be lost. The Poor-rates pre-
sented another test, which, under the Noble Lord's changes,
would be lost, or would only form another source of difficulty,
being seldom paid before Michaelmas. If the Noble Lord
persevered in his alterations and tamperings with the substan-
tial protections provided in the Reform Bill, he might still
indeed have what he called 101. voters, but he would loose the
means of testing and ascertaining them to be such by the pay-
ment of the Queen's taxes and Poor-rates. He foresaw that
the Bill would lead to the total abolition of taxation as a test
of the solvency of electors.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that

the Bill was really intended for the protection of those who
had not been able to pay up their taxes to the period (the sth
or April) indispensable on their first registration. As to the
stamp, it was a part of the Reform Bill that freemen should
have votes on obtaining a document which involved the pay-
ment of a stamp duty, but the whole system being altered, it
was necessary, for the sake of consistency, to alter this por-
tion too. When the Member for Galway applied to him last
Session for the repeal of the Stamp duty now paid by free-
men in Ireland, he had assented at the time, but he was now
informed by the Attorney-General for Ireland, that the amend-
ments and provisions for that purpose would run to such a great
length that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think
it advisable to introduce them in the present Bill. However,
somebody, on the part of Government, would be proposed at
a future time, to bring in a Bill for the repeal of that parti-
cular duty.
Colonel SIBTHORP looked on the Bill as one of incon-
sistency and injustice. The Noble Lord had said that he
(Colonel Sibthorp) forgot what had fallen from him on a pre-
vious occasion, but it would be surprising if be (Colonel Sib-
thorp) recollected half what had fallen from the Noble Lord,
for he had introduced so many Bills—inconsistent, contradic-
tory, and mysterious—that nobody knew what he would be at.
--( Laughter.) The present measure was one of those hor-
rible Ministerial tricks—( A laugh)—those underhand Whig
measures—(Laughter)—with which the Noble Lord had ren-
dered them familiar. He should oppose it to all eternity but
for the certain protection afforded to the country by the Upper
House. He begged to be understood that in voting against
the Bill he did not wish to oppose the repeal of the stamp duty
• now paid by freemen, but he made it a point to oppose every-
thing brought in by the present corrupt Government.—
( Cheers and laughter.)
Sir W. FOLLETT, for one, would vote against the Bill,
not because it repealed the freemen's stamp duty, but because
it introduced the subject of that repeal in such an underhand
manner as if it were a boon, or a bribe to permit the alteration
of the franchise established by the Reform Hear.)
The Reform Bill conferred no benefit on the freemen, for the

- ---....
franchise— was secured to him. He had already his vote, and
had already paid the stamp.---( Hear.) He subsequently had
all his old rights secured to him by the Municipal Corporation
Bill ; yet now they heard it asserted that they could not re-
lieve the freemen from the stamp duty without also altering
the 101. franchise—as if the two part;es stood in similar cir-
cumstances—creatures of the Reform Bill.
The House then divided, and there appeared—
Ayes
Noes

Majority for the third reading -17
The Banking Copartncry Bill was brought up, and after a
few alterations sent back to the Lords.
The House then (at seven o'clock) went into Committee on
POOR LAWS FOR IRELAND.

Clause 31 was read, and, after some observations from Mr.
Shaw, and Lords Clements, Morpeth, and John Russell, the
clause, after a few verbal amendments, was agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 were agreed to.
Clause 34 was also agreed to.
On clause 35 being rut, which related to the building of
workhouses by the Commissioners,
Sir R. FERGUSON proposed an amendment, of which
he had given notice, viz., to omit the words " from time to
time," and to insert the folloning:—" At any time previous
to the first election of any board of Guardians in any Union."
It was his intention also to propose a clause similar to that in
the English Poor Law Amendment Act, requiring the sanc-
tion of one-half of the Board of Guardians to any addition to
the workhouse.
Lord MO RPETH consented to the first part of the Hon. '
Baronet's proposition, but expressed his intention of opposing
the second.
After a short discussion, the amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. SHAW said that the present was, perhaps, the most
Convenient moment for him to move the insertion of a provi-
sion---" Limiting the relief to be provided to the necessary
relief of the lame, impotent, old, blind, and such others as
Were destitute and unable to work." The admission of such
tt principle, would have a material effect on the general work-
ing of the measure. According to the statements of the
Poor.law Inquiry Commissioners in Ireland, there were not
fewer than two millions of persons destitute in that country,
during certain seasons of the year; and a measure which only
Provided for the relief of 80,000 in workhouses, was quite in-
adequate to the relief of the destitute population. Under
Ibis part of the Bill it was impossible to give relief to the able-
bodied destitute, and it was worse than useless to delude those
classes with any prospect that they would be relieved.
What be proposed was that a provision should be made for
the sick, the aged, and the infirm; but while he limited the
illeasure to this object he did not mean to say that he would
not provide for the able-bodied, or those capable of labour.
On the contrary, he meant that the able-bodied should be
Provided for, but in a way that would have no reference to
Poor-laws. He might be asked how he would get rid of the
difficulty of discriminating between the two classes, and he
would answer the question by saying that he would obviate
it by adopting their own test of in-door relief, and investing
the guardians with a discretionary power in certain cases
On no account would he permit out-door relief. He would
render it imperative on all persons seeking the benefit of the
Poor-laws to place themselves in the asylum provided for the
Poor, for be would not call it a workhouse ; and if those who
were at all capable of labour were obliged to work in some
ha cor another, he thought that by these means they would
'aye a test of destitution which would enable the Guardians
to discriminate without difficulty between those who were de-
serving of relief and those who were not. What he wanted
Was, not to hold out a delusion to the people which could

never be realised. If they did not confine their mea-
sure within proper limits they would soon find, when
anything like pressure occurred, from either the ab-
sence of employment or the failing of crops, that their work.
houses would be filled ; and, in such a case, he should like to
know what would be said to an able-bodied labourer, who, on
applying for admission, told the Guardians that he was able
to work but could get no employment ? There were other
important qtiestions connected with this measure which must
have a strong bearing upon the point to which he adverted.
The law of settlement, for instance, was one. Limiting relit f
to a certain class of the description which he had mentioned
would, he was satisfied, relieve the measure of much difficulty,
and therefore he hoped the Committee would agree to his
amendment.

Lord MORPETH hoped that the Committee would not
adopt the amendment of the Right Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman, but that they would adhere to the Bill as it stood.
If the distinction which the Right Hon. and Learned Gentle.
man wished to introduce were made it would lead to continual
warfare, and the difficulty of deciding who were aged or im-
potent, or sick would be endless. It could not be doubted
that a man who, though 70 years of age, was in robust
health, might be less entitled to relief than a broken down
labourer of 40 or 50. Suppose a man or woman to be capable
of work, but from inability to obtain employment was unable
to procure a morsel of food to stay the cravings of hunger,
would it be contended that such a party was not a fit object
for relief? He thought it could not, and in the case of
children the claim would be tenfold stronger. In confirma-
tion of this the Noble Lord read a passage from a speech made
by a Clergyman at a public meeting in Waterford, describ-
ing the sufferings of a destitute mother and child who had pe-
rished from cold and hunger in an empty house in which the
poor woman had sought shelter for herself and infant from the
inclemency of the weather. Now, surely no one would say
that such cases as this would not properly come within the pro-
visions of poor-laws, and yet if they were to adopt the defini-
tion of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman it might turn
out that an individual placed ,in the extremity of this poor
woman would not be entitled to relief, because she was a per-
son not incapable of work. One of the benefits which he ex-
pected would result from this Bill was that able-bodied la-
bourers would no longer consider themselves as outcasts, or
persons for whose destitution no one cared. If restrictions
and changes should hereafter become necessary or advisable,
the safer way would be to make the alterations as the necessity
for them occurred. But at present the workhouse check
seemed to him to be sufficient for all that was required with-
out encumbering it wills other restricticne
Colonel CONOLLY was prepared to go the length to
which the amendment of Isis Right Hon. and Learned Friend
intended. He was, however, by no means opposed to the
principle of the Bill, but he should rather see a provision
made for the able-bodied labourers of Ireland by affording
them the means of emigration or employment in useful public
works than by any system of poor-laws that could be adopted.
Lord CLEMENTS was obliged to thc Government for the
facilities for emigration which they had introduced, although
he by no means agreed that they would have been justified in
proposing emigration on a large scale.
Mr. BARRON said that the objection of the Right Hon.
Gentlemen opposite seemed to be grounded upon the alarm
likely to be excited amongst the Irish landlords by the too
great number of persons that were to be relieved. Oae of
the objections urged was that the workhouses would overflow
with the number of those seeking for relief. Now, he be-
lieved that, on the contrary, there would be no necessity to
create any restriction on that score, as his countrymen were
particularly averse to confinement, and that aversion would,
to a great extent, prevent any applications for relief unless in
cases of extreme destitution. He would prefer giving to
the Board of Guardians the flo latitude to exercise humanity
in the proper sense, and he thought that, in this respect, they
ought not to be restricted.
Mr. WRIGHTSON said that there were important consi
derations connected with the present measure. At the least,
they would have to support not less than 100,000, and at the
lowest calculation, they could not support these at less than
51. per head per annum ; this would make 500,0001. per
annum. Then they had the expense they would incur
in erecting workhouses, in the salaries of officers, and,
including the interest on the necessary outlay in erect-
ing workhouses, they would have a permanent charge of
70,0001. per annum. It appeared that the landed income
of Ireland did nut exceed six millions, and thus by this mea
sure they would create a tax upon the property of Ireland of
at least 10 per cent. He thought that this was a reason to
create alarm amongst the landlords, unless they saw something
like a certainty before they embarked in such a measure as
this. There was also another consideration, that this plan of
giving relief to the able bodied would have the effect of re-
ducing the wages of labour. In England the effect of refus-
ing relief< to the able-bodied was to raise the wages of labour.
It was a mistake to suppose that by this Bill they were about
to create funds. The whole effect of the measure was to dis-
tribute and not to create funds. The Hon. Member hero
went into a calculation to show the effect the proposed plan
would have in diminishing the wages of labour. He thought
that with respect to the proposed plan they were proceeding
altogether upon a mistaken view of the powers of legislation.
In Mr. Nicholl's report it was stated as a principle that the
property of a district should find means for the relief of the
poverty or destitution of that district. Now he did not see
how that principle could be followed out. Let them, for in-
stance, apply that principle to the estate of Mr. Martin in
('onnemara, or to the property of Sir R. O'Donnell in the
Isles of Arran, and they would test it fallacy, for the destitu-
tion (as we understood the 1-lon. Member) would totally al.)
sorb the property of these districts. Let them test the prin-
ciple even by the whole country. The population of Ireland
was eight millions—the rental was six millions. Now if this
principle was to be followed out the whole rental would riot
give more than a very insignificant trifle to each individual.—
( Hear, hear.) He highly approved of the amendment pro-
posed by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, and would give
it his hearty support.—( Cheers. )
Mr. LUCAS could not support the amendment of his Right
Hon. Friend unless he was prepared to go against the
principle on which the present Bill rested. The Bill con-
tained two principles—that of affording relief to the destitute,
and of providing against relief from any other sources to those
who were relieved under this Act. The proposed Bill wen t
to declare that it would not suffer mendicancy, therefore
under this Act the poor would be precluded from all as-
sistance whatever but that which was to be given them un-
der its provisions, or that which they could procure from
their labour. He understood the first principle of this Bill to
be the just, and noble, and humane principle, that in no case
whatever was destitution to be permitted to end in death. But
they applied no distinction to enable the able-bodied who could
not obtain assistance by other means to obtain relief under
this Act. He thought that there was a distinction to be
made between relief to be able-bodied generally and re-
lief in cases of destitution. He thought the Hon. Gen-
tleman was on the horns of a dilemma—he must either ap-
prove of giving relief to the able-bodied labourer, or give a
discretionary power to the guardians. He, therefore, could
not concur in the amendment of his Right Hon. Friend. He
agreed with him as to the efficacy of emigration, and public
works in connection with the contemplated Poor-law; but
they could be considered as subsidiary measures.—( Hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL could no t .ntita 1y concur in the atnene.
merit of the Right Hon. Gentleman, simply because he
thought it went rather too far. With this restric'ion he var.
tainly should have his (Mr. O'Connell's) humble support.
The Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland had made a most
eloquent speech, containing a great deal of oratory, but very
little political economy. He had given the House a horrible
detail of the destitution and death of a widow and her or-
phans, forgetting that this case did not at all bear on the
question before the House. The question was not the re-
lief of the widow and orphan, but that of the able-bodied
labourer. The Noble Lord the Member for Leitrim had
truly told them that the line between Irish poverty and desti-
tution was very faint indeed, and they would only increase
that poverty by laying on this additional burthen. The
Noble Lord had also remarked the low scale of Irish agricul-
ture. It appeared that there were fourteen millions of arable
acres in Ireland and thirty-two millions in England, and that
the proportion of produce was as 44 in England to 23. in Ire-
land. Would a Poor-law better this ? \Vas there not at this
moment sufficient inducement in the interest of the occupier to
make his land as productive as possible ?—( Hear, hear.) The
reason of the deficient production of Irish land was the defi-
ciency of capital--( Hear, hear, hear) —and the remedy they
proposed for this was, to take away capital to the amount of
half a million a year. It was admitted on all hands that
this was only an experiment ; if so, it ought to be made as
gradually as possible.—( Hear.) His principle was that re-
cognized in the 43d of Elizabeth; if they acted upon that
principle it would at least do little mischief. A measure
without out-door relief would be merely a mockery, and if
they attempted that kind of relief on a large scale, could any
man deny that it would amount to a confiscation of the entire
property of the country?—.(Hear.)
Mr. P. SCROPE said, in his opinion, a Poor-law was a
measure of police, and the absence of a Poor-law froze up the
various sources of industry in Ireland. He maintained that
the relief of the able-bodied labourer was by far the most im-
portant part of this Bill. If in any district in Ireland where
mendicancy
now prevailed a provision for the relief of
the destitute was introduced, English capital would soon
find its way there, and not only English but Irish, as it was
%sell known that at present upwards of a million annually of
Irish capital was invested in the English funds, in consequence
of the risk of investing it in trade or agriculture in Ireland
If they refused relief to the able-bodied labourer lie must
starve, and in twenty-four hours he would be sick as well as
destitute, and relief would then be imperative. He (Mr.
Scrope) would, however, admit that auxiliaries, such as emi-
gration and public works, would be absolutely necessary to the
efficient working of this Bill.—( Hear.)
Sir EDWARD SUG DEN quite agreed with the Hon.
and Learned 3/Amber for Dublin, that the principle want of
Ireland was capital. She wanted repose and capital, but re-
pose must be the first procured, and be supported this Bill
because lie thnught it was likely to produce the repose which
would inevitably lead to the introduction of capital.—( Hear,
hear.) It appeared to him that by a Poor-law they merely
transferred the burthen of relief from individual charity to the
public. He could not but think that a Poor-law would have
a great effect in reducing crime in Ireland. It was said that
this measure would relieve but a small portion of the destitute,
but he believed that if 80,000 were relieved at a time a great
number would be relieved in the course of the year.
Captain JONES supported the amendment.
After a few words from Mr. Ellice, Mr. Wyse, and Mr.
Miles,
Lord J. RUSSELL opposed the amendment.
Mr. SHAW replied, and the Cumatittee divided, when
there appeared—
Ayes ...........................
Noes
Majority against the amendment 59

After a few words from Mr. O'Connell, Lord J. Russell,
Mr. Lucas, and Mr. Redington,
Mr. BARRON thought that it would be injudicious to
limit the Commissioners to take pieces of land fur the purposes
of work houses " not exceeding twelve acres," while they bed
such extensive power intrusted to them in England. The
whole Bill was experimental, and the hands of the Com-
missioners ought not to be tied in such an important point, to
be ascertained by the Commissioners. He therefore moved
the abolition of these %Nerds.
After a few words from Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN and Mr.
POI:LETT 1711014150 N,
The Amendment was put and negatived without a division.
The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit
again.
The Common Fields Improvement Bill next went through
Committee.
The House Adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock.

Mr. Poulett Thomson will move this evening that the fol-
lowing Member 3 be nominated for the Combination Commit-
tee :—The Lord Advocate, Lord Granville Somerset, Mr.
O'Connell, Lord Viscount Lowther, Mr. Alderman Cope-
land, Mr. Hume, Sir Henry Parnell, Mr. Crawfurd, Mr.
Milnes, Mr. Dennistoun, Mr. G. F. Young, Mr. Wakley,
Mr. Wood, Mr. Young (of Cavan), Mr. Poulett Thomson.