The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-10 00:00:00

IRISH POOlt. LAWS.

Lord J. RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day, for the
House resolving itself into a Committee on the Irish Poor-law
Bill.
Colonel CONOLLY wished to know if any measure for the
protection of emigration from Ireland was in pr goress.
- Lord JOHN RUSSELL said there was a clause in the
Bill relating to emigration, but no other measure was intended
to be proposed.
Sir R. PEEL asked the Noble Lord when the House
might expect the papers respecting the disputed boundaries of
the prvince of Maine to be laid on the table.
Lora J. RUSSELL could not tell why the documents had
not yet been laid on the table.
POST-OFFICE (SCOTLAND.)

Mr. HUME begged to repeat a question he had asked
a few nights ago, whether it was true that Mr. Primrose had
been appointed Cashier and Receiver-General of the Post-
office in Scotland, he having never been in the Post-office
before?
Lord J. RUSSELL had not previously heard the question,
and was not, therefore, prepared to answer it.
An Hoar. MEMBER could inform the Hon. Member for Kil-
kenny that the appointment of Mr. Primrose had taken place.
Mr. HUME then gave notice that on the first Supply Day
he should call the attention of the House to the circumstance,
the appointment being contrary to regulations.
SCOTTISH BILLS.

Mr. PRINGLE understood that Poor Law Bill

would occupy the attention of the House to a late hour, and
he would be glad to know whether the Learned Lord Advo-
cate intended to bring forward any of the Scottish Bills that
night.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not think it was probable
that the Scottish Bills could be discussed that evening.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL.

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSETbegged to ask whether
it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to fill up the
appointment of Governor of Greenwich Hospital, which was
then vacant ? _ .

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—It is the intention of her Ma-
jesty's Government to do so. 1
OFFENCES (IRELAND).
Serjeant JACKSON begged to ask the Noble Lord, the
Secretary for Ireland, why it was that Returns which had
been moved for by him on the 20th day of December last had
not yet been made. The one related to the rewards offered
by the Lord Lieutenant for various offences, and the other
was for an account which had been applied for and paid.
Lord MORPETH was not aware of the circumstances
which had occasioned the delay, but he would make the ne-
cessary enquiries.
POOR LAWS (IRELAND.)
The Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a
Committee of the whole House on the Poor Laws (Ireland
(Bill) having been read,
Mr. O'CONNELL rose to move as an amendment that
the Bill be committed that day six months. When the Bill
was before the House of Commons last year, on the 28th of
April, he had addressed the House at very considerable length
on the measure. If there were any value in the arguments ad-
duced by him they were then in opposition to the Bill, and to
resist its second reading ; and he had then avowed that he
had not the moral courage to take the course of direct
opposition to the Bill, although he was thoroughly convinced
it was not a useful Bill, and would be an injurious measure.
He had crown older since then, and somewhat firmer, and he
was now determined to take the sense of the House upon the
committal of the Bill • as he was thoroughly convinced that it
could produce no benefit, and he was as equally convinced that
it was calculated to do deep injury. He could not
enter upon the present subject without congratulating
himself and the House upon the manner in which the Bill was
discussed in the last Session. It was discussed in the total ab-
sence of all party feeling, and the effect of that discussion was
such, that any stranger reading the debates upon the subject,
such was the unanimity amongst all the Irish Members, would
not know what party any of the speakers belonged to.
He hoped that the same course would be adopted on the pre-
sent occasion. He frankly avowed that his own opinions were
adverse to the introduction of any Poor-laws for Ireland—at
least, he was opposed to it as far as it would affect able-bodied
persons, or those capable of working for themselves. He did
not think that a provision for the able bodied poor in general
could be introduced properly by law without the most de-
leterious effects being produced. The introduction of such a pro-
vision was calculated to diminish self-reliance—to diminish in-
dustry, and to extinguish thsamore kindly and generous feelings
of nature towards parents, children, relatives, and friends.
Those were the natural effects of a general Poor-law, and in
his opinion it was in vain to hope by legislative means to
extinguish the best feelings of human nature.—(Hoer,
hear.) He was therefore opposed to a general Poor-
law ; but supposing that he was wrong in that opinion,
then he would take up this particular Poor-law Bill,
and object to it. As in making that objection he must neces-
sarily go into a discussion of its general clauses, he might be
met by stating that those clauses might be amended in Com-
mittee, and that therefore he ought not to rely upon the
details of the measure in objecting to its principle. His
answer to that would be, that it was not his intention
to rely upon any of the clauses which might be
altered in Committee. He would not rely upon the emigra-
tion clause—he would not rely upon the clause making Ma-
gistrates Guardians—he would leave them eligible to be
elected, but he would not appoint them to these offices. He
would not rely upon the clause preventing clergymen from
filling the office of Guardians, because those clauses
might be altered in Committee. He would take it that
those clauses would be altered, but he certainly thought that
no alteration could render them of any service whatever.
It was " a Bill for the more effectual provision of the desti-
tute in Ireland." It seemed to be an odd kind of phrase—
" the more effectual relief of the destitute." It seemed to
assume as a fact, that there was an existing " effectual
relief, and that this was only an improvement, or perhaps it
was a legislative blunder upon the comparative or positive
degree. But relief of the destitute was all it purported to
give—relief of the destitute alone was the scope of the Bill.
In his Report, on which was founded this Bill, Mr. Nichol
made this strange distinction between England and Ireland—
in his Repot t he stated there was much more poverty in Ire-
land than it, England, and, unfortunately, he told the truth ;
—but then Mr. Nichol likewise said there was much
less comparative destitution in Ireland than there was
in England. It was an odd kind of phrase to legislate
upon, and yet a great deal of legislation was involved in
that proposition—or di-tinction rather—between poverty
and destitution. He was not now arguing there was
not direct poverty in Ireland—he knew there was : he
was not now arguing there was not great destitution in Ire-
land—alas, he knew too well there was and the question was,
how much of this destitution (as none of the poverty was)
was to be relieved by this Bill. The first thing the report
suggested was that the Bill should take away one expense
from the poor of Ireland—that it should relieve the poor not
by the direct but by the indirect operation of the Bill, because
it was suggested that at present the poor in Ireland were sup-
ported by the poor classes themselves. It had been stated
that the value of one million sterling was given away an-
ntially in Ireland, and principally, if not exclusively, by the
poorer classes, to those who were one degree poorer
than themselves; and there would be no doubt
that very considerable relief was afforded.—(Hear, hear.)
And first he had to remark on the total absence of all conco-
mitant measures on the part of the Government. The Noble
Lord contented himself in answering the Gallant Colonel op-
posite, with referring to the emigration clauses of that Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL—And to the measures already taken
with regard to emigration.
Mr. O'CONNELL was glad to be corrected. They would
then have the Bill stripped of those clauses. It was a Bill
purporting to afford relief to all classes of the poor and desti-
tute in Ireland. It relates to the halt, the blind, the idle—in
fact to all. It is a Bill which upon principle refuses to recog-
nise any legal right to relief—all relief given under the Bill,
was to be given under the direction of the Poor Law
Commissioners—it was to be at the disposal of the
Board of Guardians. It is a Bill which excludes all
settlement—even if it gave the right to relief, it contained no
settlement clause. It is a Bill which excludes any person re-
ceiving relief anywhere, except in the workhouse. That is
the form of the Bill. hitherto they had known Poor-laws
in Ireland only by name—that Bill was the first they
had heard of in Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) It was
founded upon the English Bill, but it went even fur.
ther than it, as it positively refused all relief, except in
the workhouse. The Poor-laws in England had been long in
existence, and when the Bill for their amendment was before
the House, it was stated that they had raised up a new species
of population—a pauper population—who preferred living in
idleness upon the parish funds.---( Hear, hear.) The
consequences of the system were great dissatisfaction—
great injury to property and person—the breaking of machi-
nery—the burning of farm-houses and farm-yards—all these
things prevailed to a great extent in the South of England,
where the system was in full operation ; thus affording an il-
lustration of how little a Poor-law tends to alleviate the con-
dition of the poor, or to effect any good. The Bill then
before the House professed to confine all relief to the destitute.
It was said that a Poor Law would relieve the people
of Ireland from the million per annum given away in
charity. He (Mr. O'Connell) had no data upon which
he could ascertain whether such an amount was given
away in that country in this manner. But this he
could state, that no persons in Ireland complained of the
relief thus given away. On the contrary, they connected it
' with religious obligations, and considered that it was pro-
ductive of kindly feelings in this world, and that it had a ten-
dency to merit another and a better world elsewhere. No-
body complained of this giving of alms, and it was a
mockery to say, that a Poor-law would take away the
necessity of this charity.—( Hear.) Upon this part of
the case, he wished he could bring before the House the evi-
dence which had been given as to the kindly disposition of the
Irish people, their anxiety to afford such other relief, the
care of parents over their children, the affection of children
for their parents, brothers refusing to go abroad when
tempted by high American wages, because the mother was
alive, or the sisters unmarried; the great sacrifices made
for the gratification of these, the purest and kindest emotions
of the human heart, which elevated the character of the Irish
people above the population of any country on the face of the
eartb.—( Hear, hear.) The truth was, that in no country in the
t world was there a deficiency of benevolence to administer to the
wants of the poor, if there were property enough in that coun-
try to enable that benevolence to effect its purposes. It was the
want of property that caused destitution in Ireland, and it
would be fruitless to attempt to remove that destitution by a
Bill which should take money out of the pockets of those who
, earned it to put into the pockets of those who did not earn it.
That was the scheme introduced for forced benevolence in
Ireland. It was another feature of this Bill that this taxa-
tion was inflicted upon the occupiers of land in Ireland. That
was another ingredient in the Bill which he was now oppos-
ing. The occupier of land in Ireland, who held it without any
profit, paid one half the taxation ; the occupier of land, paying
more than it was worth (as in the case of Mr. Nicholls on Done-
gal), by this Bill was taxed one-half the entire rate
because he was the occupier. The other half was
apportioned thus. Whenever the landlord received his rent
out of the land, the tenant's profit over the rent was calculated;
and where could there be a more fruitful source of litigation ?
The profit varied from year to year, according to the extent of
the stock or the capital laid out. Here was a running litiga-
tion in Ireland—in a country in which hitherto at least, with
rare instances, there had been one law for the rich and another
for the poor. If it had been ameliorated, enough of it remained
particularly in the remote parishes to make it a constant source
of agitation and violence, a perpetual wrangle between the
tenant and his landlord ; and if the tenant refused to admit
having a larger income than he really had, how many instances
were there in which the landlord might make it exceedingly
dangerous to allege that he had not an income that would
mitigate: the landlord's tax ? It had been said that
Poor-laws did not increase the property of the country,
but merely altered its distribution. That had been
taken up, and it was said though it did not affect other
countries it would be beneficial to Ireland, because six-
sevenths of the income collected there was spent
elsewhere, and it contributed nothing to the poor—
give Poor-laws to Ireland, and you will reach this
ineorne. This Bill prevented that income beirm comp at. It
charged the tenant with a proportion of tbe second half equal o

c

his profit. If the tenant paid a fine,
and laid out that amount,
instead of diminishing his taxation ant increasing his profit, he
increased his taxation, and diminished Ile.a landlord's taxation.
A person residing in Ireland paid this tax in a: double
capacity.
He paid the entire as occupier, and he then pad for his profit
rent equally with the absentee. Now, the abseil!" paid no-
thing as an occupier, and only paid a proportion on :he.
other
half in the ratio of his profit to that of the occupier. is way
a direct bonus upon absenteeism, and the argument was total',
annihilated when they found the absentee had a bonus, and the
occupier was injured to the extent of the tax, by being an oc-
cupier. There was no ground, therefore, upon which the
principle of the Bill could be sustained ; and, if there existed
a necessity for it, let the House see what the extent of the
necessity was, and what was the nature of the relief which the
Bill proposed to afford. The purport of the Bill was
to erect, according to Mr. Nicholl's Report, one hundred
workhouses in Ireland ; and they were told that these workhouses
would cost 7,000/. each. They were to provide accommo-
dation for aOO individuals—for the Protestant and Roman
Catholic Chaplain, the Dissenting Clergyman, the surgeon,
and the officers of the institution, and in short a large staff,
exclusive of the regiment that was to occupy the building. It
was impossible to build such a house as that, and get twelve
acres of land around it, for 7,000/. They would cost
10,0001. each, and they would thus have a million of money
laid out as an incumbrance upon the land ; for although there
were some regulations as to instalments, be they ever so easy,
yet the million remained as a perpetual burden upon the land.
He (Mr. O'Connell) would say that the 80,000 it was pro-
posed to accommodate in these workhouses, would be no more
benefited than if they had been only 8,000. Mr. Nicholls had
made two journeys through Ireland ; they were of six weeks du-
ration each, and from the number of places he had visited he must
have passed with sufficient rapidity to see a little of every place
—lrish posting must have improved very much, or he would
not yet have returned from his journey. The Noble Lord
had, on the first report being presented, praised the judgment:
and accuracy of Mr. Nicholl, but the second appeared;
to be only his sailing orders, without the seal of Minis-i
terial approbation being affixed to it. That repor
had been preceded by three years of examination on the pail
of men who were best calculated to examine into the real state,
of Ireland. Persons had been delegated to visit every town;
parish, and village in Ireland. At the end of that period, and
after evidence had been taken in every part of the country,
they brought forth an elaborate report, containing a variety
of useful and important statistical information. What,
he would ask, became of that report, after all the ex-
pense that had been incurred by it ?—(Cries of " Hear.")
If the Hon. Member for Lincoln were present, it might form
a fitting subject for his inquiry—the reports were thrown
overboard—Mr. Nicholl scorned to look at them—he co n-
sidered them as so much waste paper, and they were no
more the basis of the present Bill, than of any Railway Bill
in England. The labour of all these gentlemen for three
years was considered as really nothing. Mr. Nieholl's six
weeks tour settles every thing, and he thought that the Irish
Members on both sides of the House, who had not differed in
discussing the details of the measure, who had laid aside their
political bias and prejudices upon the common ground of
charity, he thought that they had a right to complain, that instead
of turning to the opinions of the Lord Archbishop of Dublin,
the Roman Catholic Bishop of Dublin, Mr. Blake, and the
other gentlemen by whom the report was prepared, they had
had dismissed these authorities from their minds, and
upon the sole ipso dixit of Mr. Nicholl the Bill had been
modelled and shaped in its present form. In his first
report Mr. Nicholl got at eighty thousand poor in an
extraordinary way. He was pleased to say that he had
made a calculation, and that the result was, that one
per cent. was the amount of pauperism in Ireland. He had
then annexed, by way of postscript to the Report, what was
called a memorandum, in which he had stated that he bad
taken the average of four of the most pauperised districts in
England, and that he might conclude from that, one per
cent. was the amount of pauperism in Ireland.—( Hear.)
But he omitted to state that four per cent of the population
were relieved out of doors ; so that, instead of one, he should
have said five per cent., and instead of 80,000, 400,000. In
his last report he admitted that he had made this mistake, and
put it in idly. Yet this was the Solomon upon whose dela
they were about to legislate. He had picked up a gentleman
named Stanley in his last visit to Ireland, whose information
he recommended to the Government as coming from a man
of great local knowledge, and immense acquaintance with the
statistics of Ireland. To show what reliance was to be placedon the information had from this gentleman, he won,'
read a few of his facts. He stated it as a remarkable fact
that the poorer classes in Irelhnd were prrticularly averse t 0
early marriages.—( A laugh.) That while the unmarried male
adults of that country were the one-fourth of the whole, in
England they were the one-eighth, and in Scotland the one"
sixteenth.—( A laugh.) The learned calculator had found a
great mistake in Mr. Nicholl's numbers of the destitute ; and',
summing them up to an unit, announced that the real erne?
was exactly 82,806.—(Laughter.) The destitution in the ell
of Dublin he calculated at 5,616, or two per cent. ; and he acct.'
counted for this by the fact that more paupers crovrti_ie
into the metropolis than were to be found elsewhere. ~."„r
( Mr. O'Connell) happened to have in his possession soot'',
account, calculated by the same Mr. Stanley, but on a Ver-7,
different occasion, in which the pauperism of Dublin was es„.
timated at 57,672. These were the data and documents upon
which the Bill before the House was founded. They hadn
d°
evidence but that of Messrs. Nicholl and Stanley to guie
them, and be would ask them could they expect to frame an
efficient Bill upon such a basis? They should recollect that
the Poor-law Commissioners reported 585,009 heads of fami-
lies destitute in Ireland throughout the greater part of the year,
and, calculating them by the usual average of numbers in Irish
families, it would give 2,300,000 odd. Supposing them to be
even one million, how were such a mass to be provided for by
the Poor-laws ? The should deal with facts, and not to be
trifling with delusion. They should have other data. .111
England there was 150 millions per year, while Ireland pro-
duced only 56 millions, and this in a soil of greater ifer-
tility. When that greater comparative fertility—so much
greater than that of England—was taken into consideration:
what did they propose to do to remedy the prevailing di..
tress ? Why, their remedy was to impose a tax upon the agL
culturists, altogether forgetting that every shilling paid in the
shape of taxation was taken from the fund that would other-
wise be expended in wages, thus annihilating the hope of 141/2
future advantage to be derived from the cultivation of tu,
more fertile soil. The same disparity existed between Great
Britain and Ireland on the matter of taxation. By the 'lc,'
counts ending January, 1837, Great Britain had contributed`
55,850,1501. 9s. 4i-d. He was like Mr. Cobbett, ang
wished to be particular to a farthing.—( A laugh.) The WI
revenue in Ireland amounted only to 4,807,402/. 15. 3";
Why did he trespass on the House with these details h"t
to show the difference between the countries—between Great
Britain and Ireland ? Ireland, with its coast indented by
many excellent harbours, by estuaries and rivers, which ma',"
coal to them as cheap as it was in a colliery town in Englanoat
was yet unable to profit by it, and possessing one and f
half of the population, contributed only one-eleventh.
the revenue. English law had enacted that it was a erl
to teach in Ireland. The law had existed for a century, anei.,
transportation was the penalty of the offence, and des
';
the penalty for escaping from transportation. Thera
was another law prohibiting industry in Ireland, by for-
bidding the same encouragement to the Roman Catholic a
was afforded to the Protestant labourers. And what was
remedy proposed for this state of things but the introduction
of a Poor-law ? He did not wish to say anything of a pole-
cal or litigious character, but he thought that before attending'
a
to the Poor-laws there were other subjects which demand%
attention. The Irish Municipal Bill would do more than t"
Poor-laws, by placing the people, with respect to privilege:
on the same footing as the people of England. He would PL.f
this point to the English Members, which, if the Report
Mr. Nicholl was correct, would save his entering into the net
tails of the workhouse system. Was the Irish adult labours
ever known to beg? No ; but he came over to this countrici
The Irish adult labourers flocked over here in troops, an
England always supported them. The Hon. and Learn°,d
Member then read two extracts from the report of Mr. Ni.
choll, confirmatory of his views, in the latter of which it was
stated that, however poverty-stricken the tenant might be, the
landlord was always paid in full. He then wanted to knoll;
if such were the case, what remedy would it be to tl3;
poverty of the country to box the people up in workhouses
The report of the Commissioners presented a pleasing bu,s
melancholy contrast between the condition of the English and
13
Irish peasantry. But putting them into poor boxes, :""a
making them occupy prisons, was not the remedy to be appbe
to the Irish people. It could not be done ; and he would ask;
any Hon. Member, whether such a people as the Irish were
likely to submit to such a punishment, having committed na,
crime? If it were attempted, the same scenes would occur a.:
had occurred in England—the same system of agrarian our_
would be repeated—and they would be sowing the sea
pents' teeth which would most assuredly spring up as arm'
men.—( Hear. )
On the motion being put from the Chair,
Lord J. RUSSELL thanked the Hon. and Learned (;en"
tleman for the temperate tone in which he had discussed the
question then before the House. But, while he said this, "ti
must also say he widely differed from the Right Hon. at,',o
Learned Gentleman. The reasons why he differed from wo
Hon. and Learned Gentleman he had last year entered irtio•
He did not think it now necessary that he should enter gni_
them so fully in detail ; but the grounds of the general pot,
tion he held, it would perhaps be as well that he should rePaaat
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had very fairly stated ;bas
his opposition was to compulsory relief, and although that "la
too large a question for him to enter into at present, he wc7,o
remind the House of the condition of this country Tl'°
the system of compulsory relief was introduced. In Drlll
land, in Holland, and in the Canton of Berne that system "se
been adopted, and no one who had travelled through th°oz
countries but would say that greater prosperity existed aro° v't;
them, where but for that system no such prosperity could linen
been. In England the abuses of the Poor.. laws had brut
carried to a greater extent than in any of those countries, Po,
he would ask the farmers who paid the rates, or the. Peat
themselves, whether the systemof compulsory relief elid„,nbo
lead to a prevention of general mendicancy and robbery? land
system proposed gave encouragement to honest industry, heir
stimulated individuals to make exertions for advancing t
our
i interests. Another reason, and a very principal one, n fa/ tg
of the establishment of a Poor-lass, 4
was the improveme.
that would necessarily ensue. Let them compare the 5
ferences between those. who were employed by the occuPieord
of land and those who lived on charity. The H°lL4on
Learned Gentleman had said that there were one milli
of of persons in Ireland who subsisted on charity, and yet heir
laughed at the idea of 800,0001. being applied to th e
relief.—( Hear, hear.) According to his view of the ertly
ration of the law, it would be a tax upon property', Pa_ds
on the tenants who wore occupiers and partly on the 18'.
lands. This would of necessity affect all future engao
ments, but by which the proprietor residing and the P

victor who was an absentee must both benefit. He felt
surprised that, after the speeches of the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman, and some twenty written letters, that he
could not bring come better argument in opposition to the
law,Pore'l The distinction drawn between real destitution
it vagrancy, was just and necessary, and even now, if
11'2.:re to be done away with, the farmer would find himself
in circumstances in which lie would be almost compelled to
gine relief. There was another consideration which should
be looked to, which was that the landlords, having the bur-
then of Poor-rates upon them, would take a greater interest
in local concerns. The improvement of their own estates
would meet with more attention, and even those who were
most negligent would became more attentive to their interests,
so that the labourer would be improved in his condition while
improvement was going on in the land. The Honourable and
Learned Gentleman had denied that there was any dis-
tinction between poverty and destitution.—( Hear, hear.)
Now he thought that the majority of the poorer population
in Ireland were in a condition which might be said to be poor
without being destitute—persons who were able to work, and
surrounded by those who, if not in wealth, were able to assist
there. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman then com-
plained that relief was to be coupled with the irksome condi-
tion of an abode in the workhouse, and that the plea of po-
verty was not of itself to be accepted; and inquired what re-
medy could be afforded in such cases. He, in reply, said, as
he had said before with respect to the English Poor-law, that
by means of the Poor-law, there would be a greater demand
for labour, and the labourer, instead of receiving low wages
would receive high. That was the principle of the law, which
tlse Hon. and Learned Gentleman wished to sink, and he
thought the House would do right to take care, when the Bill
went into Committee, to hold in their own hands the power
of enlarging it, but not to extend it at present. From the
statement of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman it would be
supposed that the measure had altogether emanated from the
recommendations of Mr. Nicholl or Mr. Stanley. Now, on
the question of recommendation, one of the first passages of
the report of the Poor-law Commissioners was to the effect
that, upon the best consideration, the Commissioners recom-
mended legal provision to be made not only to those suffering
from permanent bodily infirmity, but to those subject to casual
destitution.—[The Noble Lord here read the extract
cthe report.] The question had been whether they
so-,lel beneficially afford relief or otherwise, and the re-
_ V of the inquiry had been that it should be afforded only
wnunder certain circumstances similar to those which regulated
t relief under the English Bill, and for the same reasons it
as proposed in both cases. The Government undoubtedly
thought it necessary in a *case of such importance to take
every opinion worth having, and consult every authority of any
weight, both in England and in Ireland—to seek, in short, for
every information possible, before they proceeded to found any •
system or plan on the subject. If, with the facts furnished to
them, a decision adverse to compulsory
0.
e,s
iarteileinef,aea.deraencinojmueryttoe,
then he should deem it an errorin le the country they desired to benefit.
That would be the result
of the Hon. and Learned Member's amendment. _(Hear. )
Mr. SHAW agreed with the Nole Lord that the time
come when some kind of compulsory relief
was absolutely
s
necessary for the poor of Ireland : and therefore he
sh
gise his Tote against the amendment of the Hon. and Lea
nt"rnMember for Dublin. The Hon. and Learned Member inheids
opinion should have borne in mind his notice on the papers of
the House, in the last year, on the subject, when he
his amendment that night. In the course of the last pyreoapr otsheed
Hon, and Learned Gentleman had said that the time had
come when it was imperative on the Legislature to grant a
Poor-law to Ireland ; and he had placed a notice
on the
papers of the House to that effect. And when the Govern-
ment measure had superseded the necessity of brit g'nb
forward one of his own, he had said that, though he
wasas
not sanguine as to its success, he should give it his sup-
port. He (Mr. Shaw) could not conceive why thecause
which then actuated the Honourable and Learned Member
should be less potent now, because the condition of Ireland
had in nowise changed since then. It was not his opinion that
a Poor-law would be a panacea for all the ills of Ireland. The
great cause of the poverty of that country was the want of
proper employment ; and the measure before the House did
not remedy the evil. He agreed with the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman, that every impost on property for the supply of the
indigent in Ireland was more or less a tax upon incomes de.
rived from labour ; but, withal, he felt it his duty, as a rational
man, to consider whether, under any circumstances, some step
should not at once be taken towards the relief of the poor of
Ireland. He fully agreed with the Noble Lord, that poverty
was as much the cause as the consequence of turbulence in
that country. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Shaw)
felt that while, on the one hand, gentlemen should
'draw to
themselves no overstrained picture of the probable success of a
measure for the relief of poverty in that country, on the. other,
none should be deterred by any'
doubtas of its feasibility to
that effect from making, at least, it. He fully agreed with the
Nobletli Porsrtd, s
tt
temp t t
iotw ar
wasd s
of the greatest importance that that step should be made
in the right direction, and that care shouldbe bdeisatpakppenaint
expectations were not raised which would
erbrween the
hereafter. There was an essential differ casts of England and Ireland as regardedenPcoe
The
people of Ireland were now where the people of inawls,
had
begun more than two centuries ago. If the Noble toartT
right in his premises, that relief could not be afforded towaalsl
the destitute, then he was certainly right to establish the test
of workhouses; but the accuracy of these premises he_( Mr.
Shaw) disputed. His (Mr. Shaw's) objection to the Bill of
the Noble Lord was, not that it was bad in principle, for that
he believed to be right, but that it proposed an impossibility—
!hat was, it proposed to give relief to all the destitute in Ire-
land, In looking at the conflicting statements made by the
Poor.law Commissioners on the one side, and by Mr. Nicholl
and Mr. Stanley on the other, as to the amount of poverty in
Ireland—the one stating that there were two millions of pau-
pers, the others only one--he (Mr. Shaw) could come to no
satisfactory conclusion. He was apprehensive that the work-
house test proposed by the Bill would be found insufficient for
the purpose for which it was intended. It was true that the
Irish character was attached to liberty, and impatient of re-
straint ; but destitution and physical distress were able to
break down any character ; and once the difficulty of subsist-
ing in workhouses was overcome, the peculiarities of the Irish
character also were such as would cause them to endure ever
after with patience, and without murmur, any state of degra-
dation or restraint to which they had been accustomed. It
should, however, be always born in mind that the great dif-
ficulty in England was to make able bodied paupers work ;
while in Ireland it was to find work for them to do. —( Hear. )
It might be objected to him (Mr. Shaw) that he wished to
provide only for one class; but he would reply, that he had
no desire to draw the limits too nicely. He would leave
the discrimination of cases to the good feelings of the guar-
dians; and if one approached near to the other, though it
might not absolutely be comprehended within it, he should have
nn objection to its inclusion in the benefits of relief. Under
all these circumstances, and on the wlianle of the case, it oc-
curred to him that to give relief to the aged, the impotent,
and infirm, within the workhouses, aided by a well-considered
system of emigration for the able•bodied—and a comprehen-
si/e plan of employment in the country on public works of
advantage and utility—would be the best measure that could
could be adopted. The question now, however, was, whether
Ireland was to have a poor law or not.—(Hear, hear.) He
believed that there was no one in that House who objected to
the principle.—( Hear, hear.) He had, no doubt, objections
to some of the details himself—for instance, to the law of
settlement—to the power of suppressing mendicancy—to the
appointment of the Commissioners—and to some others ; but
as they more properly belonged to the Committee he should
reserve any observations on them until then.
Mr- W. S. O'BRIEN said that the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin's objection to the Bill before the house
was to the principle as well as to the details. The lion. and
Learned Member would have been better employed, and with
far more advantage to his country, if, instead of opposing the
measure altogether, he had applied the great powers of his
mind to amend its details. Year after year were the bitterest
complaints made by the farmers of his (Mr. O'Brien's) part of
the country against the swarms of Kerry beggars who infested
the county.—( Laughter.) He (Mr O'Brien) admitted that
private benevolence would be destroyed to a certain extent by
a Poor-law, but he denied that it would ever destroy the kindly
feelings of the people of Ireland. When the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin raid that a Poor-law would be a tax alto-
gether favourable to absentees he Mr. O'Brien could not com-
prehend the mystification. In his opinion it was the only mea-
sure which had ever attempted to reach them. But why did
not the Hon. and Learned Member bring in a Bill to tax ab-
sentees ? He believed that pauperism in Ireland had been
greatly exaggerated, for it was his decided opinion that it was
not near so much as had been stated. The Hon. and Learned
Member had attempted to diminish the revenue of Ireland.
That was not the course he had adopted on the discussion of
the Repeal of the Union. He said then that they were one
sixth of the entire revenues of the country. He said now that
they were only the one-eleventh part He (Mr. O'Brien)
believed that the effect of a well-administered Poor-law would
tehto equalise the burthens borne by certain classes in Ireland.
.e principal defect in the Bill before the House he con-
ci,,,eloivL ed to be its foundation on the workhouse test. The
attachedle Lord and the commissioners at Somerset House wer
sQnt to that test ; but he ( Mr. O'Brien) could never con-
e
notto treat poverty as he would crime. They must
QM 2,500,000/. on poorhouse erections, and yet would
,olieoreo able doors feed the poor, who would far prefer a
orssll
yore ut of . Then, in the event of a famine, e-
theroseason, masses would go to the workhouse, and remain
ebaodoctheir independent means of livelihood having been
Pelatioe"
.0, and thus we should have a permanent pauper po-
ale, to" to feed. Even mending the roads would be prefer-
Ereesr_!?eless unprofitable employment within the workhouse..
sstie;,le,Lion especially should be tried and encouraged ere this
teat of building was resorted to. He objected to the ex-
Qoctro_.atlie Unions, and the harassing plan of requiring the
rat,u: HS to ride fifteen or twenty miles to meetings—ar-
iet rents which would eventually throw the management
that b hands of paid officers. The Board of Guardians
drisin"ef Proposed would give effect to the valuable results
tsego. ro.'n the law of settlement without its disadvantages.
flat w thirds of the rate. were to be levied on the landlord the
'toted °l.ld work far more equitably and satisfactorily. He
NU, bgolvei_ his unconditional support to the principle of the
tlltot hoped to be able to introduce some valuable amend-
ssommittee.
4r• LU ‘, C
S could not agree with the Hon. and Learned
triZr Who moved the amendment, that because Ireland
lief
Th countr it should have no Poor-law forthe i re-
i'llght ° Principle of relief was good in itself, and ts
Bill
b°etae 14e go into Committee where he hoped to introduce
1,;e1,14_,
irrtlettinot Melt ueltaanitdera4osnssoin the 'd.etails.. It did not follow that
peculiarly circumstenced almsgiving.
t'is be a Lurten, as the Hon. an Ld Gen-
ees da
re 110,0 stated—thath therefore the evils ofearne mendicancy
be removed.

Mr. O'CONNE LL—I spoke from the report of the Com-
missioners of the Poor Law.
Mr. LUCAS distinctly understood him to argue that alms
were regarded in Ireland, not as a burthen on the givers, from
which they would wish to be relieved, but as a contribution
volunt.arily appropriated to the purpose, under the peculiar re-
ligious feelings which pervaded Ireland; and therefore not a
thing which it was desirable to interfere with.--(" Hear,
hear," from Mr. O'Connell.) Still, however, he thought
the majority would be glad that this burthen might be re-
moved, without any detriment to their religious opinions. He
recollected an anecdote illustrative of the matter. A landlord
who proposed to whitewash the houses of his tenantry found
one very unwilling to receive the favour, and having expressed
his surprise that so obvious an improvement should not be ap-
preciated the owner excused himself, declaring that if his house
were whitewashed it would be the ruin of him. It was now
passed at a little distance by the beggars in the high road as one
from which they scarcely expected anything, but, if marked out
to their attention by the signs of improvement, he would be be-
sieged by all who travelled within sight of it, and never be
able to pay his rent.—( Laughter.) The Hon. Member
took a tone that night that he ought always to take, and
which he would be glad to find him adopting at home—
( Hear, hear)—for all that he said was deeply influential on his
countrymen. He had written two letters on this subject in a
very different spirit, in which he had inserted some topics that
he had omitted that night.__( Hear, hear.) He had therein
stated that the poor-rates would diminish wages by lessening
the meals of the occupier. Now he (Mr. Lucas) was,
from experience, a convert to the very contrary opinion.
The subscriptions collected from the wealthy classes both in
England and Ireland to relieve the famine in 1817 were but
as a drop in the sea compared with the amount contributed in
provisions by the Irish farmers and peasantry, high and low,
for the same purpose.—(Hear.). The poor were then in fact
saved from starvation by the inexhaustible bounty of the poor
farmers. It made no noise in the newspapers. Those only
on the spot were aware of it, but it made such an impression
on him that he could never forget it; and whatever distur-
bances broke forth in that unfortunate country—however un-
popular he might be there—he should never cease to feel
and speak with the most unbounded admiration of the une-
qualled kindness of the poor to the poor in Ireland. Though
desirous of removing this burthen from the poor, by establish-
ing a compulsory assessment, he had some objections to the
details, and thought the machinery defective. He objected to
the great size of the unions, which were so large that the check
of the superintendents would be totally lost, and the number
of ratepayers would be unmanageably great. He should show
that one-half the occupiers of land in Ireland paid no rent that
would subject them to poor-rates. This was clearly proved by
the Report of Mr. Nicholl.—[Here the Hon. Member read
an extract from the Report, to the effect he had stated.] He
believed the details of the Bill would prevent its working. He
should therefore propose some amendments in Committee.
After a few words from Mr. O'CONNEL L in explanation,
Mr. RE DING TON looked upon this measure as calcu-
lated to lead to a better state of things, and connect the pro-
prietor of the soil with his tenants. He should vote against
the amendment of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin,
who, he hoped, would lend his great talents to perfect the
measure in Committee. There were many changes necessary
in the Bill, particularly as to the appointment of Commis-
sioners and the rate-paying clauses. He, as a landlord, hoped
that the proprietors would take the burden of the rates on their
own shoulders.
Colonel CONOLLY looked upon this measure as a tax
upon the neglect of Irish proprietors. He believed the Irish
landlords would willingly submit to it, to relieve the distress of
the poor of their country.
Mr. 0. GORE supported the amendment, and stated that
he objected to this Bill for two reasons. The first was the
system of workhouses, and the other that of emigration, which
its provisions embraced.—( Hear, hear.) He considered that
the workhouse principle would be prejudicial to the habits,
and utterly subversive of the best feelings of the Irish people.
With respect to the rates, in his opinion no rate could be levied
in Ireland that would not eventually fall upon the owners of
property. He (Mr. 0. Gore) had always had a strong feel-
ing against emigration, because he considered that by it a
country always got rid of what might be justly termed its best
seed.—(Hear, hear.) In Ireland there were eleven millions
of acres out of cultivation, and! immense numbers of the po-
pulation of that country were most ready and willing to work,
if they were afforded the opportunity. Another objection he
had to the Bill, was the principle of centralization. Taking
all these things into consideration, he must support the amend-
ment of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in the hope of
getting rid of the Bill altogether.
Mr. LITTON considered that it was impossible to frame a
Bill that was not liable to objections of some sort, and he con-
sidered this measure ought to be allowed to go into Commit-
tee, if onry on the principle that they were bound to try some
remedy for destitution.—( Hear, hear.)
A,lr. BARRON approved entirely of the principle of the
Bill, and agreed with most of its details. He considered it so
good a measure as it at present stood that he did not see how
it could be materially amended in Committee. With respect
to a law of settlement, it would be an absurdity to introduce a
measure of giving a settlement without at the same time giving
the poor a right to relief. The motion of the Honourable and
Learned Member for Dublin should have his most determined
and strenuous opposition ; and, with regard to the observa-
tions of the Hon. Member for Shropshire, relative to the work-
house system, he could assure the Hon. Gentleman that that
system had been already tried in Waterford, and there had
been no complaint whatever as to the confinement—on the con-
trary, there was a constant increase of applicants for relief un-
der that system—( Hear, hear)—and the only complaint which
he bad heard of was that of want of funds to work out the
principle more fully.
Mr. J. YOUNG regretted that the extensive influence and
great abilities of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin
had been thrown into the scale against the present Bill.—
(Hear, bear.) He (Mr. Young) was not aware that any suffi-
cient substitute for a poor law could be provided; and after
all that had been said and written within the last few years
upon the principle on which a poor law ought to be based, lie
believed the principle of the English Poor Law Bill and of
the present was almost universally considered as the most per-
feet that could be established. The Hon. Gentleman read
an extract from the report of the Poor Law Commissioner!,
descriptive of the workhouse system in England, and said that
similar establishments, conducted on the same principles,
wouldr. beG ofn3 tines o greatestdisapproved
fb etnbeefi t
exclusioninlreland. f
n
the law of
rsientutlselmy.entheand nerltiaeintlhyoduigdhnt
ntthaatppitrowv-oeuldnf olpheeramteeamsnorset
;inbjun-t
if it should go into Committee he should feel it his duty to
render the details as little burthensome ss possible.—( Cries of
" Divide, divide.")
Sir F. TRENCH said that, notwithstanding the panegyric
of the Hon. Member for Waterford, he hoped never t
immuredtt hh
ee i.idayo n .w inhGetenbnnt
those
1 Gentleman
a,
prisons
seetOhn
se ofA calledi ehism b
le%fellow-countrymenr
Shropshire, pa sgl iereed, with
this measure ought not to be passed, at all events in its pre-
sent shape ; but as her Majesty's
the case of the Canada Bill that they
enable hoped thatinm t something
givein thiitn gb
swould p 0
rbten rf(i kaLrdll
a(Laughter,
ttsthe. ofr, which he i hbs would\-onulbel, would
were squeezable he still
and cries of "'Divide, divide.")
The House then divided. The numbers were--
For the original motion 277
For Mr. O'Connell's Amendment 25
Majority
—252
The House then went into Committee, and the Bill passed
through pro forma.
Mr. JERVIS was understood to request the Noble Lord
the Secretary of State for the Home Department to postpone
theTarliamentary;Elections and Freemen's Bill until Monday.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not comply with the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman's request, as he hoped to be able to pro-
ceed with the Bill that night.
Mr. JERVIS thought be had a right to say that the
Noble Lord had behaved unfairly towards him. lie did not
think it became the Noble Lord, not in his situation of leader
of that House, but as a gentleman, to decide so positively
against his request for postponement.
Mr. SHAW gave notice that in Committee on the Poor
Relief (Ireland) Bill it was his intention to move a provisio,
that the relief to be granted should be confiued to the aged
and the destitute.