The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAYER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.
PRIVATE BILLS.
The Eastern Union and Eastern Counties Rai!way
Companies (Amendment of Acts, and Power to Lease,
Sell,or Amalgamate to or witn the Eastern Counties Rail-
way Company) Bill, and the Norfolk E'tuary (Amend-
ment of Acts and Powers of Contribution by the Eau
Brink C,,mmissiuners of Drainage, and by the Corpora-
tion of King's Lynn) Bill, were read a third time and
passed.

The reports on the London Corporation Bill and the
Louth Markets and Improvements Bid were considered
and agreed to.

Lee's Estate Bill and Hudson's Divorce Bill were read
a second time, and ordertd to be committed.

THE CHARTER. -
Mr. JOHN ELLIS presented a petition from Lei-
cester praying for the adoption of the People's Charter.
Nr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition
from Rochdale in favour of universal suffrage.
MARRIAGE BILL.
Mr. TANCRED presented a petition from Banbury,
in favour of the Bill for legalising marriage with a de-
ceased wife's sister.
DUBLIN IMPROVEMENT BILL.

Mr. GROGAN presented a petition from Dublin,
agii_utt th 3 Dublin Imnmvernr_t Bill.
THE CHARTER,

Mr. WILSON PATTER presfnted a petition from
Pa 4;ton in frvour of the People'e; Charter.
CONVICTS IN IRELAND.

Sir H. W. BARRON said he understood that the
Lord-Lieutenant in his discretion had commuted the
sentences of several prisoners in that country from
transportation to imprisonment. Under those circum-
stances, he (Sir H. W. Barron) wished to ask if the ex-
pense of the convicts thus kept at home was to be thrown
on the counties; for if that were so, it would be estab•
fishing a precedent which might hereafter be severely
felt by the rate-payers of counties?
Sir GEORGE GREY said he was not aware of the
cases to which the lion. Baronet referred. However, if
sentences were commuted by the Lord-Lieutenant from
.• • •

transportation to imprisonment, the ezpenso of main-
trlining the prisoners in the country would unquestion-
ably tall on the rates.

Sir H. W. BARRON asked whether it might not be
managed, as in other instances; t ) have the prisoners
sent to the hulks and other depots which were provided
in With countries, thus preventing the expense falling so
directly on the rate-payers?
Sir G. GREY said the law would not permit of such
an arrangement being made.
POOR-LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
On the order of the day being read for the
,House
going into Committee again on this Bill,
Sir H. W. BARRON moved the: insert'on of the fol-
lowine• clause And whereas it is fund that out-
door relief demoralises the paupers, leads to grew. frauds,
pauperises the rate-payers, and destroys all motives for
exertion on the part of both landed proprietors and
capitalists, be it therefore enacted that, from the Ist of
January, 1850, it shall not be lawful for any board of
guardians in Ireland to grant relief to the able-bodied
poor out of the workhouse." The Hon. Baronet pro-
ceeded to state he was induced to submit the clause from
a conviction that this country couldno longer defray the
enormous expense of out-door relief. Did the House
know the extent of the increase of out. door
paupers. A recent Parliamentary return showed
that f kin the Ballina Union there were 34,000
paupers; in Ballinrobe Union 46,000; in the Castlebar
Union, 21,000; in the Castlereagh Union, 16,000; in the
Newcastle Union, 17,000; and in the West Port Union,
27,000. Could any one believe that the property of
Ireland could support such a mass of pauperism. A
great number of the unions in the south and west of
Ireland were bankrupt, and in others it was of late found
impossible to collect the rates. In the union of New
Ross, in one of the best counties in Ireland, Captain
Newport, a vice-guardian, reported that in one day he
had 300 applicants for out-door relief, and that rates in
the union were no longer collectable. Ho asked whether
the Government was prepared to perpetuate a line of
policy which had been condemned by the Committee of
the House of Lords, and also by the Committee of their
own House? He warned the House that if they per-
sisted in this system they would have to return, as the
Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tam'
worth had told them, to the legislation of former
years, and refuse to give out-door relief.
He cited a case in which about 150 young men walked
out of the workhouse one day when the stone-breaking
test was applied to them. This was an important
fact. Also a case that occurred under his own ob-
servation in the Waterford union, whereof one hun-
dred and two paupers applied for admission, think°
ing that out-door relief would be afforded thew,
since they believed the workhouse was full;
room, however, was found for them; but the nest
morning they decamped ; such was the success of the
in-door test. Again, many instances had occurrred of
women bringing up hildren that were borrowed for the
occasion, in order to obtain relief, and of the same chil-
dren being brought up again by different women for the
same purpose. It had been said that the rich parish of
Manchester had become alarmed because in a period of
great distress 1,200 or 1,300 people were receiving out-
door relief. t Surely if Manchester was alarmed at this,
with all its great resources, how much more reason had
they, in Ireland, to be alarmed where they had no rc..
sources to meet the increased demand made upon the
impoverished farmers; for instead of having but 1,200
or 1,300 outdoor poor to provide for, they had 10,000,
20,000, and even 40,000 to provide for. He dis-
claimed having brought his amendment forward
as a party question and to embarrass the Go'
vernment, seeing that the landowner was being
eaten up by this out-door relief, which should
be materially reduced in amount—that land viee
going out of cultivation, and that their best farmers
were selling off, and flying from their country to
America, where there was no out-door relief. Sucb
was the state of the country that it was like so
erratic bog, end if it had been submerged in the
Atlantic, or 300,000 Cossacks had invaded it. 116
wished the House to express its opinion upon the matter.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the clause. 14
was hardly proper, after having discussed the
broad question and decided upon it, that such
a clause should be brought forward. If their
were to refuse out-door relief to the able-bodied, in the
end, he feared, it would not be found economical, since
they would subsequently come to them as sick and die"
abled poor. 700,000 were at present receiving relief, but
they were not of the able-bodied class, therefore the oh'
sereation of the Hon. Baronet could not extend to them-
Mr. DICKSON characterised the opposition of the
Government as evincing a disposition to throw over the
Irish Members, which characterised also, he might 80,
that House. Hon. Members unacquainted with Ireland di
a
not know the class of men they toad to deal with in Ire:
land. They were just those who so long as they conic'
get a pull out 01 the poor-rates would not labour'
Out-dour relief was demoralising and impoverishing the
country.

(LEFT SITTING.)