The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-09 00:00:00

" While inspecting a stone- breaking depot a few day's
since, I observed one of the men take off his remnant of
a pair of shoes and start across the fields; I followed
him with my eye, and at a distance saw the blaze of a fire
in the bog. I sent a boy to inquire the cause of it, and
the man running from his work, and was told that the
house had been levelled the day before; that he had
erected a temporary hut on the lands; and while his wife
and children were gathering shell-fish on the strand, and
he stone-breaking, the bailiff or 'driver' fired it."
What Irish gentlemen ought to say is this—they ought
to say—" This is an individual act—don't judge a whole
class by the act of an individual." That would be a
better, a wiser, a more becoming course to take than to
say that individuals are not responsible.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. FRENCH—I did not say so.
Sir R. PEEL—You said that I ought to be the last
man to take notice of such things, knowing that our
legislation was responsible.—(Hear, hear.) There is
only one thing more to deepen the colour of this case.
He concludes with this emphatic sentence:—
" I need not enter upon the financial condition of the
union, which the estimates forwarded will sufficiently.
explain. I need only remark that I anticipate a respect-
able collection this week, and for some weeks to come,
but certainly not sufficient to meet more than half the
current expenses of the unioa for food alone."
If ycu want anything else to awaken feelings of sym-
pathy with those who are thus suffering, it ought to be
the assurance that they are submitting to it with a for-
bearance and patience which exceeds belief.—(Cheers.)
I did not think, Sir, I had deserved blame, or acted con-
trary to the spirit of justice to Irish proprietors, to say.
on the first day after those papers were laid on the table
of the House, that we should give a proof to Ireland
that such facts shall not be stated in public documents
and be buried in oblivion.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. F. FRENCH denied that he had. ever stated in-
dividuals were not reels. nsible for such acts as those.
His objection to the course pursued by the Right lion.
Baronet was, that he endeavoured to attach to all Irish
proprietors blame which was attachable solely to those
by whom the acts were committed, but for which the
Right Hon. Baronet's policy was really answerable.
The gallery was then cleared for a division in the
usual way. Immediately after the exclusion of strangers.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL, we understood, addressed the
House, after which the division took place:—
For the motion
••• ••• ••• 144
Against it ... ... 30
Majority
—ll4
On our return to the gallery we found the House in
Committee on the Bill, and the CHAIRMAN in the act of
putting the question that the preamble be postponed.
EXCLUSION OF STRANGERS.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL immediately rese and said:—
After the specimen of the fairness which I experienced
when I was going to express my opinions on the poor-
law, just before the last division, there is but one course=
left to me—either to insist on the House enforcing jus-
tice to its Members, in the matter of their privileges, or
that they do away with an absurd practice ; and, there
fire, Sir, I see strangers present.—(Loud cries of " Oh,
oh!" and groans toll aved from all parts of the House.)
Mr. BERNAL (Chairman of the Committee)—
Strangers must withdraw.
The galleries were accordingly cleared shortly after
eleven o'clock.

When the reporters had been excluded about half an-
hour, a division took place on the question, as we under•
stood, that the Chairman do report progress. The
numbers were—
Ayes
Noes

31
... 163
Majority
The gallery door having been opened as usual after
he announcement of the numbers, the reporters entered,
when—
Mr. J. O'CONNELL again noticed the presence of
strangers; and they were ordered to withdraw amidst
loud laughter.
We are indebted to an lion. Member for the following
report of what took place subsequently to the exclusion
of strangers, the House being at the time in Committee
on the Irish Poor-law Bill :
Clause 1. Mr. MONSELL thought it would be ad-
visable. to take a discussion on the maximum rate on the
first clause, and he thought the discussion would be long
and should not go on at so late an hour.
Mr. ADAIR agreed.
Colonel DUNNE thought no progress could be made
that evening.
Mr. STAFFORD had meant yesterday to raise this
question on the words, " it shall not be lawful."
Lord JOHN RUSSELL hoped the Hon. Gentleman
would go on with his objections to-night.
Mr. HERBERT thought otherwise.
Mr. V. SMITH make a remark.
Mr. CLEMENTS said many Members were opposed
to the maximum.
Mr. ROCHE did not see why, if they were to pro-
ceed, they should not proceed at once.; When every
one complained of the poor-law it was a waste of time
not to go on.
Sir A. BROOKE thought it would be better to recal
the gallery.--(Laughter.)
Mr. GRATTAN had long been a Member of that
Hothe, and had never known a case when a Member
whose speech for five minutes was not reported had g
up and deprived the public of a report of what took
place.—(Hear, hear.) He moved the adjournment, in
order to decide this question. When Mr. Windham
was not reported he did not act thus; he proceed« d with
his speeches. Why punish him who meant to make a
good speech on that question? He confessed he was a
young man and vain and wanted his speech reported
His lion. Friend might not care. Don't let us make
ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of the country.
Mr. O'CONNELL, in substance, said it was of ira-
portancs for the sake of others. If the House were
satisfi,d, he could not help it. He complained of un-
fairness. He had seen messengers in the gallery speak-
ing with the reporters.—(Loud laughter.) It might
be ridiculous, but he would stand up for the right of
Members to be treated fairly. He must deprive his
friend of the pleasure of_seeing his speech in print.
Mr. BERNAL put the question in a loud voice in
these word, " It shall not be lawtul."—(Laughter.)
Mr. GRATTAN begged pardon; he bad moved to
report prow., ss.

M. BLACKALL proposed to go on without further
waste of time. Ou matters of such vast importance
they ought to go on without the reporters. Whether it
would be advisable to support a maximum at all was a
most important question.

Lord JOHN -RUSSELL said, the principal reason
for the maximum was, it would induce persons to oc-
cupy and cultivate land, giving greater reason for sup-
port of the poor. Nor was this theoretical. One gen-
tleman gave evidence that he had tried this. He had
promised his tenants that when the rate came to ss. he
would pay it.
Mr. HORSMAN said, the same gentlemm said that
this would not do without a diminished area of taxation.
Lord JOHN hoped the House would go on.
Lord C. HAMILTON was as anxious as any one to
go on. He thought the Noble Lord should state when
the subj,,ct should be renewed, as it was impossible to
finish it at that late hour.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, he should take the Par-
liamentary Oaths Bill first on Monday, and this Bill
second; it not, for Thursday.
Mr. GRAT FAN said, as to dividing, he would do
what the House liked.
Ayes
••• 31
Noes ...
••• ••• 163
Mr. BERNAL.—" It shall not be lawful."—(Loud
laughtes, and cries of " Gallery, gallery.")
A long pause followed.
Mr. STAFFORD thought it unfortunate that this
Committee on Iriah Poor-laws should hogin at midnight,
when it could not come on again till Monday week, owing
to the arrangement of the Government.
At this moment strang,rs returned, and, Mr. O'CoN-
NELL having called attention to the fact, the reporters
withdrew.

Mr. STAFFORD resumed.—The Noble Lord said
himself that the evening had not been by any means
lost, as they had had a gtod debate. He (lir. Stafford)
had proposed to take the objection to the maximum on
the words "it sill' be lawful." If
,
heaten, then they
meant to fight on the words " five shillings" in the four-
teenth line, and divide on a subsequent passage. It
must. be a sui,j,ct of great importance t.t Englishmen to
know whence' money was to come from, when the
maximum was attained. The Noble Lord said Mr.
Menu had tried this on his estate, promiAug to my his
tenants when Oh', maximum was reached. The Premier
was here Mr. Martin, and the Consolidated Fund was his
estate. So that when the maximum was attained, the
Consolidated Fund must be attacked. What stimulus
was given to employtet nt tenth r tht, plan? The assump-
tion would be that the maximum rats- would always
he reached. So that., as the occupier was the only ft,.r•
son who could give tanploytnent, no stimulus wouhi be
afforded, The farmer would deal with his landlord on

should be the first parties to disclaim any connexion
with those by whom the acts referred to were com-
mitted.—(Cheers.) I a-surne that the paper from which
I quoted is corn ct; I assume that Captain Kennedy,
the author of that paper, would not make erroneous
statements; and I presume that her Majesty's Govern-
ment would not lay papers upon the table of this House,
for the guidance and conduct of our legislation, with-
out being convinced that they were not gross exag-
gerations.—(Hear, hear.) Did I make any attack
upon Irish landlords in general ? Did I throw
upon individuals the charges which may be justly
thrown upon legislation? What I said was, that there
were particular instances stated by Captain Kennedy
which were such as the; one day ought not to elapse
without Our attention being called to them.—(llear.) It
is very easy to say that the House of Commons is re-
sponsible; but I ask whether the House of Commons,
or any other public body, is responsible for the particn.
lar transactions to which I referred? Is the House of
Commons responsible for this?—
" In a cowshed adjoining this wretched cabin I found
Ellen Lynch, lying in an almost hopeless stage of dysen-
tery. She hail been carried thither by her son when
thrown out' of her miserable lodging, and was this at-
ened with momentary expulsion from even this refuge by
the philanthropic owner of it; her only safety rested in
the tuars of all but her son to approach her."
Is it the fault of our 1, gislatton or ot the House of
Commons that a woman is ejected 'rem her home, anti,
being attackkd with dysentery, takes refuge in a tempo-
rary hut in the neiJbourhood, and that the party who
ejected her is about to evict her a second time from tin
wretched hovel, and is only prevented from doing so by
the fear of a contagious disease, and that the oily hu-
man being who approaches her is her own son, whose
filial affection overcomes his fear of contagion? Is the
House of Commons responsible for ihat?—(Cheers.)
This House is responsible for bad legislation and its re-
sults; but do not make it responsible for acts of
inhumanity.—(Hear, hear.). Is the House of
Commons responsible for this?—