The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-10 00:00:00

isting laws properly devolved. The fact was, however,
the Government had evaded this duty. With respect to
the working of the law, if he spoke of the part of the
country with which ho was personally connected, it
would, to a great extent, apply to the south and west o'
Ireland; and making every allowance for the calamity of
the last years, be was sttre he spoke the general feeling
of all who had watched its operation, when t e saw the
law had completely broken down, and prof/4d an utter
failure.—(Hear.) If he wanted a proof of the truth of
this opinion, he would find it evil) in the speech of the
Noble Marquis opposite, The Noble Marquis, as a
proof fleet the law had, upon the whole, not been oppres
sive, had stated that the average rate for last year wa.
2s. 9d. in the pound, but admitted that in many districts
the rates had ranged from 3s. to 20s. in the pound. But
these averages were deceptive. They ought to add to
the actual rate the amount levied, or rather extorted,
from those who had the means of paying, to make up for
the defaulters who could not pay.—(Hear, hear.) The
real amount they levied upon these parties amounted, in
many cases, to double, treble, and fourfold the nominal
rate. Take one union for instance, 11 -19ths of it were
entirely waste and desolate, and of course the whole rate
levied upon the union has to be paid by the 8 19ths.
which are still occupied. In the papers laid on their
Lordships' table by her Majesty's Government there
were ample materials for coming to a conclusion as
to the utter inapplicability of the law. Out of
130 unions, he found that 117 were in debt to
an extent beyond all their means of meeting their en-
gagements. They had a debt of 252,0001., exclusive of
all assistance of every kind and shape which they had
received either from her Majesty's Government or from
the British Association, which amounted to 242,0001.
more. But even that amount did not measure the whole
amount of their liabilities. He found they were in-
debted to the British Association for clothing and feed-
ing 200,000 children in the schools. He found, further,
that 28 unions had received amongst them 198,000/. from
the Government; that 200 of these unions were in a
state of absolute bankruptcy, or fast approaching to it;
the whole rated value in 18 of them being 432,000/,
while the debts were 222,0001., being more than
50 per cent. of the whole valuation in these
unions. But the best answer to all assertions that
the law was practicable, was to be found in
the fact, that the Government, by their own act and au-
thority, had practically abrogated the law, by supersed-
ing the boards of guardians in 36 out of 131 unions,
and placing in their stead a body who were alien alike
to the spirit of the Act and to the Constitution—a body
who had the power of levying rates, and who were at
the same time not responsible to the rate-payers. This
was contrary to the principle of the English poor-law,
and it was contrary to the principle of the poor-law as
it was intended to exist in Ireland. In 18 unions her
Majesty's Ministers had superseded the legitimate
guardians. But even the English law would have broken
down hied it been applied to the same materials as there
were in Ireland. The circumstances of the two coun-
tries were entirely different. In England the landlord
really held his property, and it was a fact that in the
greater number of instances property was in a larger
number of hands than it was in Ireland—he meant as to
the fee simple. The holders in fee had a common inte-
rest in seeing that pauperism was kept doe n, and the best
use made of their lands. The land was in the possession
of tenants who possessed capital, and thus in England
they had both landlords and tenants who were capable
of bearing burdens; in Ireland they had neither. Iu
England the landlords had the power of prescribing to
tenants the mode of cultivation they thought best for
their land, and of insisting upon the tenant employing
such an amount of labour as they considered requisite,
and however punctually a tenant might pay his rent, it
would excite no surprise in this country if a landlord,
finding his land going to rack and ruin, gave that tenant
notice, and put another in his place—the tenants them-
selves possessing considerable capital, and having to pay
the rates personally—(Hear)—had an equal interest
with the landlord in keeping down burdens; and thus
they had all the elements necessary for the successful
working of a poor-law, because both landlord and
tenant worked together.—(Hear, hear.) But in Ire-
land they had • a totally different state of things.
Many of the Irish landlords were habitually non-
resident, and there was no effective combination
among those who did reside there in the promotion of
their interest. Between the landlords and the occupier
of the soil in Ireland there was not to be found that class,
which in England so essentially represented the sub-
stantial, labour-employing tenantry. The subdivision of
the land, too, in. Ireland, was so minute as to render its
due cultivation matter of impossibility. The occupiers
were wholly unable to employ labour, and their interests
were apart from those of the landlord. While in Eng-
land the occupier is chargeable with the rate, in Ireland
it is imposed in the main on the landlord. Whatever
might be the law in Ireland on the abuse of property,
with which landlords were chargeable, the Irish land-
lords in the southern and western provinces were little
more than chief renters of the property which they
hold. It was not possible for them to exercise the
rights of property, no matter how much their land
might be deteriorated, or to turn out the most waste-
ful and prodigal tenant, for the purpose of giving
his tenement even to a neighbour, who might be a
most industrious man. He stated this as a general prin-
ciple, existing, at all events, in the south of Ireland;
and he was convinced that its accuracy could be attested
by many Noble Lords around him, as well as by the
landlords of Munster themselves. Under those circum-
stances, what hope was there that the law which worked
effectively and beneficially in England could be harmo-
niously carried on in Ireland? When a certain alteration
of the measure was proposed some time ago, certain ad-
vocates of that modification of the measure, contended
that if the laws were so amended, the occupiers would
employ an additional amount of ittbour. He contended
that a diminution of the amount then actually employed
would be the result, and his anticipation proved well
founded. Could it be expected under the circumstances
he had detailed, that the occupiers would employ more
labour than they immediately required, or that the land-
lord having had possession of the land, unable to conso-
lidate his powers, or to undertake their improve-
ment, would increase the amount of labour he had
hitherto employed ?—(Hear, hear.) The circum-
stances of England and of Ireland were so far widely
different, that there could not be the same harmony and
unity of action between the proprietors and the
tenants, as there was in this country. If the Govern-
ment meant to work the poor-law successfully in Ire-
land, they should introduce the principle of individual -
ising responsibility and benefit.—(Hear, hear.) Unless
they could by an alteration of the electoral divisions in-
dividualise responsibility, and thereby stimulate industry,
no tinkfeing whatever of the law would prove satis-
factory. • In some districts the unions were inconve-
niently large, but he considered that the matter of the
extent of unions was of comparatively no consequence or
importance, as it did not affect the principle of indivi-
dualising responsibility. They had been told that Major
Torrens' report, with regard to a diminution of the area
of taxation, would be submitted. Now, Major Torrens
no doubt would ably. and scrupulously discharge any
duty confided to his care, but the question was, on what
principle was it intended that the re-modelling of' those
electoral districts should take place ? H wanted
to know, was it on the principle of individual responsi-
bility? If it was not, they could expect to do nothing,
and the report would be useless. Be was told there ex-
isted a complaint of the inequality of property and popu-
lation of one district as compared with another. If it
was meant by this that the economic and rich tenant
should be joined with the extravagant and pauper tenant
in contributing to the support of the poor of a particular
district, then he contended that nothing could be more
unfair, or more manifestly unjust. Let the faults ot the
Irish landlords be what they might, and they were
dearly paid—for faults, which they were not perhaps
justly responsible with, many of this class were strug-
gling with difficulties which would overwhelm men, un-
less they were earnestly devoted to the interest of their
country, and influenced by stern duty. The Govern-
ment could not carry on the system of the poor-law ex-
cept by the assistance of men like these, and he cau-
tioned Ministers, lest the new system they ,intended
adopting might not punish such men for the ekertions
of the past, and take away all stimulus to future
exertions, and all chance of withdrawing themselves
from ruin. The Government not having thought fit to
state whether they-considered the law capable of amend-
ment, or what amendments they deemed prudent, but
haring thrown the whole of the great question before a
Committee, be felt it to be his duty, without, however,
assuming any portion of the responsibility that attached
to Government, as a Peer and as an Irish proprietor,
deeply interested in the well-being of this country, of
which Ireland formed an important part, to point out
how the law could be modified, and the principle on
which they should act. That principle was to give the
improving proprietor of the soil direct interest on the
improvement of his land, and a diminution of his rates,
and not to suffer him to be subjected to the support of
the pauperised tenantry of an adjoining property,
but .to secure to him the benefit of whatever im-
provement he had effected in the condition of
his own tenantry. Then the question was asked,
what would they do with the paupers, and how
were they to be soduripntpghoe w
er thetpeuda This was a question of
awp character.rhogoprioaesvioetfiolnr
eollreland,
ns
dpa rs
taxationp
oseodecidedlyomeetingo Irelandp opposed o
the se du
upon
t oo
n thethegeneral
f
expenditure of that country; for the .effect of such an
arrangement would be, to paralyze local exertion and ac-
celerate the progress, ot that ruin which was fast coming
on thetl
or Irish hh
ilsa nod
wl onr dtse;n
abnuttr
yi le ea
nwde rteh he el d
protectionliable f ofrrtohmge
supper
entheeenorhae
rate his
o estate,
n i n
distress of all pseurbsmonits
troesaidliinmgiteodn
swh.oilulilndgg,lafodrlythe general purposes of aid. He would not
object to that sum, beyond the susteetation of his own
pre-
cisely provided it were limited, and that he knew
msely what he had to pay.
.H.e. would also lay. down- as
shall
5-, or. 7s. in the pound, the a rule, that until the rate within any given time
exceed an amount of
exceeded that sum, when elec-
toral districts now existing should not be altered; but
that when the rate
inability of those elected
arose from the neglect or
conse-
quently a state of maneest and increased pauperism
guardians, their duties shall cease and be transferred
the Poor-law
to paid guardians acting under
-law Commis-
he intrusted to the control of the Poor f
Commissioners. If a rate in aid were made, it should
sioners, and advances made to the paid guardians or
maintaining the affairs of the union, when the rate ex-
ceeded ss. or 7s. The anions of Kartuck and Killarney
showed that proper management had the effect of re-
clueing the amount of expenditure. The Noble Lord
then proceeded to advocate emigration and colonization,
as means towards effecting the relief of pauperized dis-
tricts. The cost of emigration to our North American
colonies would not be more than 31. or 4/. per head, or
about the annual cost of supporting each individual in
the workhouse, and under the distressed circumstances
of the country, he thought, for the purposes of promot-
ing emigration, they ought to authorise the mortgage of
the rates. Then, again, there were large districts of
land lying waste and uncultivated, but land which had

never been brought into cultivation, but which bad been
left waste, the tenants going away, leaving behind
them arrears of rent and rates. How then were they
to meet this state of things ? That matter was one
of great and growing difficulty, because those amounts
of rates were' year after year increasing, and con-
sequently year after year becoming an additionol burden
on the property. Now, how was the evil to be met? He
was opposed in principle to the Government on its own
responsibility appropriating large districts of waste land,
and employing the unemployed of the population upon
hem. It was a dangerous principle in itself, and, there-
fore, he could not accede to it. He thought it, however,
wssible that some arrangement might be made tor ren-
Isring those waste lands available for the support of the
oopulation. In several unions, such, for instance, as the
[inrush Union, where there was so large a number of
the population out of employment, arrangements might
be made for carrying out such a system. In unions so
circumstanced, he would suggest that the proprietors
should let on lease to the paid guardians of the poor, for
a certain number of years, those waste lands which were
so burdened with arrears of rates that no one would rent
them, and that those guardians of the poor should either
let them on lease, free of such arrears of rate, to respon-
sible tenants who had skill and capital to cultivate them,
or keep them in their own hands, and employ upon them
she paupers of the district, and thereby render them
available for the support and sustenance of such pauper
population. The rates due by such landlord could be
kept out of the rent paid to him by the guardians, as well
is any demands upon him in any other part of the union.
Suck a plan might be objectionable, but it appeared
to him the only mode which was in the present
circumstances of the country available. There was one
question to which he wished shortly to refer, and that
was in regard to what was said about taxing mort-
gagees for the support of the poor. That he objected
to, as whatever tax was put on the mortgagee, he would
of course raise the rate of interest ou the party of whom
he held the mortgage. He would, however, have some
distinction made between those who were burdened with
claims in consequence of family settlements, and those
who got their properties mortgaged in consequence of
their own acts. He did not, however, offer any objection
to the appointment of a Committee, although, as he had
before stated, he felt sorry that the Noble Marquis had
adopted such a course. He did not think it right to
throw so important a question, the lamentable effects of
which question they had fully before them, upon the
wide sea of inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee, with-
out holding out the least prospect of a settlement of the
question. It was necessary that the question should be
speedily settled, that the landlords of Ireland should
know what course was to be pursued towards them in
respect to this important question. Let them compel
those landlords to do their duty, but at the same time
they ought to enable them to do their duty. Give them,
at least, some cause for hope that their exertions in be-
half of those of whom they were the natural guardians
might be aided and countenanced by the operation of
the law. If, on the contrary, they did not do that, but
made those landlords who did their duty support those
who did not, the result would be the same as would
follow from a dead body being attached to a living one,
no advantage could accrue to the one, while the other
would slowly but certainly die away, from the close con-
tact and corruption of the other.—(Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY would not detain
C'e House after what had been said by the Noble Lord
who had just sat down. Ha complained of the appoint-
ment of a Committee without Government proposing any
positive measure on the subject. They threw upon their
Lordships the appointment of a Committee, which would
go through the whole session before their investigations
were closed, and no measure would result from their
labours in the course of the session. It would be almost
impossible for that Committee to come to a definite con-
clusion on the subject, as the opinions submitted to it
would be so various and so contradictory. He, therefore,
protested against the delay which would thus be incurred,
and called upon Government to propose a measure them-
selves, which would enable those landlords in Ireland who
were willing and anxious to do their duty, to do so
effectually.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE considered the
course adopted by the Government the best which could
have been pursued. A Committee of investigation was
absolutely necessary, from the difference of opinion
which prevriled on the subject ; and he could tell the
Noble Lord (Stanley) that although he had suggested
certain modes by which the present law could be
amended, yet, upon any one of those modes there was
the greatest difference of opinion, and it would not be
safe to adopt any one of them without the fullest and
the most satisfactory investigation. He did not agree
with the Noble Lord as to its being the constitutional
duty of the Government to have introduced a measure
on the subject at once, without the aid of a Parliamentary
Committee. In certain matters of public policy the
Government might be constitutionally called upon to do
so ; but in a question such as the present, where the
amendment or abrogation of an existing law was the
matter in view, he conceived that they would not be
authorised or warranted in making such amendment
without the strictest investigation as to what amendment
was necessary. The Government, from the information
they possessed, would guide that Committee to the
consideration of the topics it was most necessary to in-
vestigate, and would be prepared immediately on the
Committee reporting to introduce a measure on the
subject. In regard to what the Noble Lord had said, as
to the report of Major Larkham, respecting the curtail-
ment of the area of taxation, he could assure the Noble
Lord that there was no suggestion in that report as to
the equalization of taxation on property, and that he
deprecated such a system as much as the Noble Lord
could do. It was, however, a subject of much diffi-
culty, and would be submitted to the Committee for in-
vestigation. He thought the Noble Lord was wrong
when he said that the present poor-law had totally
failed in its operation. _ _

Lord STANLEY-,-What I said was that in the
south and west of Ireland, and extending over LeinstEr
and Connaught, the poor-law had been a failure.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE was happy to
hear the explatiation, but even in those parts there
was not a word about the failure of the poor-law
until the occurrence of the famine in Ireland. In 1845
the poor-law in the west and south of Ireland worked
well, and until the pressure came there was no pressure
in those districts.

Lord STANLEY—That was not the present law.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE —No ; but the
present law was enacted in consequence of the altered
state of matters. He was glad to hear the Noble Lord
repudiate the idea of a general taxation; and he had no
d,ubt that, after the investigation of the Committee,
Government would be able to introduce a measure
which would be the means of improving the present
system.

Lord MONTEAGLE was favourable to the appoint-
ment of a Committee, as it would be the means of giv-
ing information to the people of England as to the real
state of the operation of the Irish poor-law. The
people of England were very apt to say to the people of
Ireland, we pay our rates and support our poor, why
don't you do so also? But the state of Ireland was
different from that of England, and the Irish poor-law
was also different from the English poor-law. Hence the
necessity for information on the subject. He said that
there was one point to which the Noble Lord (Lord
Stanley) did not advert, namely, the want of unanimity
between the landlord and tenant, such as prevails in
England; for in Ireland, in conseqaence of the tenant re-
fusing to pay his due quota of his rate, through inability,
or some other cause, the whole debt was thrown on the
landlord, and from such a state of things it could not
but be_ deemed impossible that the law could be adminis-
tered with any system of economy. He had every hope
hat this Committee would remedy those•evils so justly
and forcibly adverted to by the Noble Lord (Lord Stan-
ley), and that their deliberations would not be of a long
continuance, as expedition was essentially requisite on
this momentous question; and he also perfectly concurred
with the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) that the present
system of poor-laws was a total failure. It might be said
that the failure was principally owing to its improper ap-
plication, but he (Lord Monteagle) should say that no
poor-law could ever meet the case in that or any
other country; nor should it be stt the same time un-
derstood that he was for a repeal of all poor-
laws for Ireland, because the present law was a failure
in consequence of giving to the guardians an unlimited
power over property. He should add that this failure
was not at all owing to a want of local exertion on the
part of the Irish landlord. He highly approved of the
principle of individualising property, so that each landed
proprietor should support the poor on his own estate,
and thought that nothing could be .more unjust and irk-
some than that landlords who used every exertion to the
happiness and tranquillity of their tenantry, should be
obliged by the union system to pay a portion—a very
large portion, too—to the poor-law guardians for others
who had neglected, through dishonesty or inability, to
fulfil their obligations. The Noble Lord then alluded to
the report of Colonel Clarke, one of the officers of the
poor-law, who stated that the prevalent doctrine among
the people is that they need not work, but must be sup-
ported by the country. He felt fully assured that the
principle of individualising property could be
carried into effect, and that much good would
arise from such a system. He hoped that
that Mezentian principle, so aptly and judiciously
alluded to by the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley), of binding
the living and dead together, by the union of solvent and
insolvent electoral divisions, would be duly and carefully
borne in mind by the Committee, and that the worthy
and humane would be relieved from the contact and
contamination of those whose recklessness was so obvi-
ous to all thinking persons. He should say, in allusion
to the Noble Marquis (the Marquis of Clanricarde),
that the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) did not by any
means intend that the surplus rate of one shilling in the
pound over the valuation rates was to go into a national
fund, but that the Noble Lord intended that it should be
applied for a specific purpose, namely, for the relief of
such unions as Ballina and others, were distress pre-
vailed so much ;that these unions could not relieve
their own pauperism.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
then alluded to the qu'antity of moaey taken by emi-
ciopiltlhe d a
poogrants to the United States, and said that he had
called into ay
natn' s
ando in that small
ffieeinDublin
room,connec ted
notwith
larger than the table of the House, there had been an
account of the number of emigrants, and of the money
they took with them, amounting,, besides bullion, to
' 25,000/. in bills on persons in Boston and New York ;
and, therefore, to the poor-law principally could he as-
cribe this and'other injuries that were now daily the lot
of Ireland. Again, he would ask, what benefit arose
from the Bill of the Lord Chancellor? Was it not ren-
dered useless and inoperative bl,r the clauses which were
added to it? That law of encumbered estates had never
worked any beneficial result from the time of its passing
to the present moment; in fa ct it had been a totaltailure.
He was fully assured that the expectations raised by
this law would be fruswined unless a judicious change
were made in it, for it b.ad been the cause not only of
dividing the landlord and tenant, who should co-operate
in the reduction of the r 4te, but had been, in connexion