The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-26 00:00:00

11( re read extracts from the evhlerce. given Wore the
Committee., for the purp thewif g tir.r &metes the
p eva;led in the unien of Skinbereep, and in the western
unions gen. rally. It would, perhaps, be too sanguine,
he thought. to expect very much good from any one
measure.—(lleac, heir.) That was only to be expected
from a well regulated combinatk)n of measures—(Elear,
hear)—but he might observe that the present proposition
had been will received by public opinion in Ireland as a
contribution of some amount of good. The Hon. M. tet-
her then referred to the opinion which had been ex-
preso.d by the Hon. Member for RadnorAire (Sir J.
Walsh), namely, that the mode of levying the rates had
increased the distress in Ireland, an opinion, he said,
from which he altogether dissented. Whatever force it
had been found necessary to use in collecting the rates,
he would maintain that whatever had been done, had
been done with the laudable desire of husbanding the
resources.—(Hear. hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN thought they should discuss the
Government measure as a whole. The Hon. Gentle.
man admitted that there was no precedent for what he
proposed. The object of the measure was to assist the
agricultural interest in Ireland, but he (Mr. Hoteman)
did Lot see any connexion between the means and the
end proposed. He had gone through the evidence, and
he found that the witnesses were against the maximum
of a ss. rate. Of nine Government inspectors seven
were against the union rate. Mr. Twissehon, in several
parts of his evidence, said that he disapproved greatly of
a union rate. Of other witnesses 14 out of 18 were
against the Government measure. Taking the measure
as a whole, it was condemned by the great body of the
witnesses. It misconceived entirely the principle of a
poor law, which was not to feed pauperism, but to reduce
at; but the present measure made no provision for re-
ducing pauperism. It also violated the priuciple of a
poor-law. If they reduced the rate while they reduced
pauperism it would be a different thing; but they did
not do so, and they might rely upon it that capitalists
were aware of that. He knew from many witnesses
examined before the Committee of the House of Com-
mons that the maximum rate could not be carried be-
cause of the difference of population and area as con-
trasted with England. lie considered that what did not
succeed in England could not be supposed to succeed in
Ireland, particularly when Ireland was labouring under
the potato disease. He felt assured that this
Bill would not be the means of advancing the interests
of Ireland. Ile thought that the able-bodied people of
Ireland should get the opportunity of employment, and
that those who are incapable -should be supported by the
workhouse. He was strongly opposed to any poor-law
without a test, and considered that Parliament had legis-
lated badly with respect to Ireland, and fAt convinced
that Government had carried measures against justice
and sympathy.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the different Honourable
Gentlemen who had speken on this subject bad confined
themselves to to the maximum rate, but the Honourable
Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Horsrnan) was of a dif-
ferent opinion. Discouragement and alarm at the increase
of the poor-rate would be found, he thought, to have been
created, for the most part, in the distressed districts. If,
therefore, they proposed a limit to the rate, they would
be giving confidence to those who owned and cultivated
the land. He was persuaded. too, that an unlimited
amount of poor rate did not afford an unlimited amount
of relief to the poo-. It was a fallacy to suppose t
that i
could. He was averse to enter into any consideration of
the principle of the poor-law in general, but ho would
remind the House that the state of Ireland, when this
measure was introduced into that country, was very dif
ferent to that of England in the time of ElizelPth. The
recklessness and ne,Jigence which had had been attri-
buted to this law, and upon which it had been attempted
to account for a large increase of poverty, was not, in
fact, the real cause of it, but imprudent marriages, and
absolute improvidence and disregard of the future
were sufficient to explain it. His belief was, that the
declaration of a maximum would be productive of useful
results, which it would be to the advantage of Ireland to
promote. He had constantly deprecated the evils of
over potato cultivation, but he could not concur in the
opinion, that the restoration of the potato crops in Ire-
land would be a disgrace to British legislation.
After a few words in explanation from Mr. C.

LEWIS.
Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND said, that the poor of
Ireland had always been in a different situation to those
of England, so far as the sources were concerned from
which they derived their relief. The suppression of the
religions houses, which deprived the latter of their
chief Deems of support, did not to the same extent effect
those of Ireland. If they wanted to try experiments,
we were the people whom they ought to have experi-
mented upon; but they ought not to rely upon the un-
founded theories that emanated from Somerset House,
backed by the leaders of the Manchester school, who
were utterly ignorant of the exigencies of the country.
--(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. P. SCROPE said he very much objected to the
enactment of a maximum rate, which could never come
into practical operation.
Sir H. W. BARRON said that nothing could be more
fallacious than arguments based upon the average of
rates struck in different districts, because in many of the
electoral divisions in Ireland it amounted to a perfect
confiscation of the property. In some of these a sum
equivalent to a rate of 40s. in the pound had been ex-
pended. He scarcely knew how to vote on this occasion;
but, upon the whole, he was inclined to give his support
to the clause, because he thought it safer to support the
principle of the maximum.
Mr. R. M. FOX said he felt there was a point in Ire-
land where individual liability should cease, and the
public responsibity come in. But in Ireland they made
the man who did his duty pay fur the man who neglected
leis duty. He had several times made the calculation as
to where;the public responsibility should come in, and he
upon the whole felt inclined to support the rating of ss.
in the pound as a maximum.
Mr. MONSELL said it' seemed to him impossible to
overrate the question before the House. He thought that
the proposition of the Noble Lord would have a directly
contrary effect from that intended. It was admitted that
in many pieces the maximum must be exceeded.
Amongst the whole of the witnesses examined by the
Po3r-law Committee, not one of them supported the
proposition of the Noble Lord. He thought that this
proposition would render industry and self denial almost
hopeless, and therefore he begged of the Honee summa-
rily to reject the motion.
Mr. ROCHE said that great as the distress was in
Ireland, it would be much greater were it not for the
poor-law, but it was a mistake to suppose that a poor-
law could make a poor country prosperous. Now, the
question was, did the present proposition improve or de-
teriorate the existing law He thought that it would
improve it, and that, therefore it ought to be passed. In-
dividual responsibility looked well upon paper, but it
was a proposition that could not be maintained or car-
ried out. They could not individualise responsibility in
Ireland.
Colonel DUNNE. said that this clause provided that
no man should be taxed more than ss. for the support of
the poor, and he thought such a maximum rate would be
extremely beneficial. He should give his cordial support
to the Bill. He held in his hand returns of twenty
unions in Ulster, and of those unions thirteen were in
favour of the maximum rate, and to that rate he should
give his cordial support.
Mr. SPOONER rose amid loud cries of " time," and
expressed his disapproval of the clause, on the ground
that the English people would have to pay the deficiency.
Sir ARTHUR BROOKE considered this a question
great importance to Ireland. They might depend
upon it that much of the money must come out of the
Consolidated Fund, and it was for that reason that he
should give his warmest support to the Bill.—(Mucle
laughter.) He, however, did not think that the maximum
rate was high enough. The maximum rate of ss. he con-
sidered, far too low.
The Committee then divided on the question that the
first clause stand part of the Bill—
For the clause .s. •••
' Against it ~.
M jority ••• •••-127
The clause having been agreed to. the House resumed
On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL,
The CHAIRNIAN reported progress, and asked leave
to sit ae,ain, and it was arranged that the question should
be resumed this d iy.
Mr. FORBES M-KENZIE, on the Marriage (Scot-
land) Bill having been brought on, objected to the Bill
being taken at that late hour. It was a Bill of great
importance, and to which the people of Scotland were
opposed almost to a man.
A discussion ensued, in which
Mr. DUNCAN said there was not a single petition in
favour of this Bill, and he trusted that the English and
Irish Members would not sit and look on quietly while
it was attempted to pass this most obnoxious Bill.
On the suggestion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, it
was arranged that the Bill should be brought up on
Wednesday next for further consideration and for dis-
cussion.
The Australian Colonies Bill was. after a short dis-
cussion, withdrawn by Mr. HAWES, in order that he
might introduce another measure of a more perfect kind
on thn subject.
THE JUVENILE OFFENDERS AND PETTY
LARCENIES BILL.
On the motion that this Bill be read a second time,
Mr. CHARLES PEARSON rose and objected to the
Bill being brought forward at that late hour of the
night. It was a most important Bill, invoendlving the sum-
mary conviction and flogging of juvenile offer The
system of flogging had been tried, and they bad it on
the authority of the Chairman of the Middlesex Sessions
that notwithstanding the frequency and severity of i
application, the juvenile offenders increased in the last
year from 898 to 1.240. He found they had increased
in Englend and Wales in the last year in the same pro•
portion, and more than the ratio increase of crime.
They had on record instances of children who had
beenimprisoned, flogged, discharged, taken, and again
and again flogged, twice, three times,—ay, four, five,
and six times during the year; and yet the Govern-
ment were clinging to and persevering in this
system. If it could be found tthhaotsethfleogsgy,
sdt,erntheroal
fleggieg bail been reformatory of
might be some ground for a perseverance in in it; but
when that was not the fact, when they had it on the
authority of magistrates that offenders so punished were
on the increase, he considered that the measure now be-
fore the House was not a wise one. The children
wanted care and control to reform them from those
habits of idleness which were attributable to the neglect
of their parents; and he considered that it was most un-
just to enact laws to punish children for faults which
were attributable to the neglect of their parents and of
pariles.—(liear, hear.) There was a mode of dealing
with the parents. Take away from them the induce-
ment to set them a bad example. As the law now stood
if the parent adds to destitution the evil of bad education
he can shuffle off his responsibility on the country, or
the parish, the duty of supporting the child he has thus
driven into crime. Ile would make the parent feel the
; consequences of his misconduct. Ile would like to know
whether it was intended to make the Consolidated Fund
bear the cost of supporting the criminals convicted under

... 178