The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-24 00:00:00

ducing corresponding beneficial results. When the
House met in February Ireland was in a state of de-
spair; was it one of hope now that they were bring-
ing their legislatorial labours to a close ? When
they met the condition of Ireland was one of in
increasing difficulty, seffering under the aggravated trials
of a fourth year's famine. Sixty per cent. of the popula
tion was receiving relief, and according to the evidence
of Mr. Thisleton, Mr. O'Sullivan, Colonel Clarke, and
others, the people were in the lowest state of social de-
gradation, and committing crimes of a character hitherto
unknown—death, desolation, and despair everywhere
abounded. It was not famine, but careless and criminal
legislation that was the cause of this state of things, and
th poor-law, which Committees and Commissions had
condemned, was the principle in magnifying the lament-
able destitution that pervaded the land. There was one
among other exaggerations which he wished to correct
—namely, that they had given so much to the starving
Irish, and that notwithstanding they were ungrateful.--
(Hear, hear.) He denied that the outcry in this case
was founded on fact, Four millions, as we understood
the Hon. Member to say, had been advanced in 1846 to
meet the pressure which famine had created, arid for
which Ireland paid interest; and yet, while such an out-
cry was raised on that subject, they had given authority
fur 260 millions to be raised for the making of railways.
—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Then came their legisla-
tion of 1847. le was owing to the impatience and irri-
tability created in the public mind of this country,
through the shameful waste of the relief fund, that in
1847, the people being weary of the subject of Ireland,
that House was induced to retract the decision it bad
come to, with reference to a poor-law. The Act--
the Relief Act—making Ireland responsible fur the
maintenance of its poor, under the awful circumstances
in which she was placed, was then passed—an Act which
was brought in to satisfy the clamours of the press—to
gratify English prejudices and English selfishness.--
(Hear, hear.) Throughout the injustice which had
marked the conduct of England towards Ireland, there
was nothing in the history of the two countries so inju-
rious to Ireland as the Act of 1847—(Hear, hear)--
making, as it did, a poor-law, in the first instance, the
means of supporting famine.—(Hear, hear.) Nothing
could be more unjust and more calculated to increase the
misery of the country—and yet they proceeded, in the
face of all experience, to make a poor-law applicable to
famine 1 Mr. Nicholls, their own oracle, said he had
always felt it impolitic to attempt, by means of a poor-
law, to meet a famine. That was common sense. There
was no reason, in such a case, why a proprietor on the
spot should be taxed any more than a proprietor at •
distance.—(Hear, hear.) A national rate would certainly
be the fairest. To tell a proprietor at such a moment to
support pauperism, was to reduce him to the condition of
a pauper himself. Their law of '47 was their first injus-
tice. Their next was, making a provision of out-door
relief at such a time, when they had discarded the prin-
ciple in England. The Honourable Member here quoted
the opinion of Lord Althorp, in 1834, condemnatory
of the operation of the poor-laws then in
England, observing that the system of out-door relief
condemned by Lord Althorp, under the old poor-law in
England, differed in no way from the system of out-door
relief afforded in Ireland. He next quoted the opinion
of the Lord Chancellor (Lord Brougham), equally con'
demnatory with Lord Althorp, of the operation of the
poor-laws in England. Now let the House hear what
Mr. Senior said. He said that if they extended the SP'
tern of out-door relief in Ireland, it would work as much
mischief in Ireland in ten years as it had worked in Eng-
land in 300 years, and he added that it would ultimately
lead to the confiscation of the land. Mr. Gulson ex-
pressed himself to a similar effect. The rental of Ire-
land, previous to the famine, was about six millions;
and when they found that the poor•rate collected
amounted to about a fourth of the rental collected
in better times, they might see how nearly it had inflicted
th 3 evil which the witnesses he had alluded to had pre-
dicted. He thought he had shown that the famine was
not the cause of the evils which Ireland was suffering
from, although it had been the pretext for unfair legis"
lation. They proceeded to apply to Ireland measures
which bad been altogether discarded in England, 00
the principle of sending damaged wares to an inferior
market.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member then referred
to the union of Ballina, and read returns and evidence to
show the ruined condition of that union. It was obvione
that these evils could not be got rid of without the
troduction of fresh proprietors and of capital, and and
statements they heard given of improvements having been
effected without new proprietors, and the infusion of ca:
pital, were only delusive and fallacious. Ballina was
sample of the other unions in Ireland. It had beers.
stated that the security of person and property could ti°l'
co-exist with general destitution, and general destitution
was the condition of Ireland. Imperfect agriculture, and
reliance upon the potato had been one of the main
"
,
causes of Ireland's misery—the peasant was taught ut);
to look to wages, but to the land for his support; as
'a
while the British statesman turned away in despair from
the contemplation of a state of things which he found
himself unable to cope with, a famine occurred, which
o
might possibly lead to changes, and point to remelt
for the sad evils Ireland had so long suffered under. -0
was admitted by Mr. Nicholls that the population
many parts of Ireland was excessive, and that no pai,
law would remedy that state of things. The port;
tion must be reduced either by death or emigre'
Lion, or it must ruin the country. The
process was at present going on in Ireland.
set i
Nicholls had poieted out the necessity either
of increasing the demand for labour by e
introduction of more capital, or by reducing the numbers
of the population by emigration. It was found, hof,
ever, that the facilities given during last sa..ion. Jr„
enabling the landlords and landed proprietors to obtlie'
loans of capital were inoperative, as until those liable
lities were limited no intelligent landlord would Lk:
out capital upon improvements. Every Consn3itte"
since 1832—and there had been almost every year
Committee on the state of Ireland—had recommended
emigration. That question was not, however, excise:
sively an Irish question ; it came to their own dohrts_,
from the uncommon influx of Irish labourers, whleu,
according to Mr. Nicholls, tended to lower the rate 0!
wages, and reduce the level of the English to that of.
the Irish labourer. In Ireland they had a redundant
population, and in their colonies they had a vast field ,e
profitable employment for all the labourers that could
possibly be sent there. With all these motives, on tn..▪ e.
grounds of policy, economy, and humanity, England still
persevered in her blind and short-sighted policy, and
in spite of her vast wealth and resources, in spite of
the vast sums of money she had squandered upon Ire•
land, she was compelled to see that country ruined in
all its classes and a sacrifice of life unexampled, except
in the case of famine. Was there ever such folly, waste,
and crime? It was in evidence that the proprietors in
Ireland were ready to imitate and assist in a syste-
matic emigration from their estates—they were MEW▪ /
to lay out their capital in such a scheme ; but here
again they demanded a limited liability. And the/
would only get a limit by a healthy state of soviet/!
and a reduction of pauperism. What was . wanted
in Ireland was the English poor-law as it was n„..
amended. England had double the population of Iv!:
land, yet the pauperism of Ireland was greater than
in England, while the rateable property of the latter
was eight times that of Ireland, and she had no trade
' e,
manufactures. A small area had been adopted as the
basis of the poor-law in England ;on it depended the
great security of a good administration of the law. Whie
then refuse the same system to Ireland, where it weal%
much more wanted? It was said that reducing the areas
in Ireland would tend to increase evictions—that w"
the only plausible argument put forth against the re-
duction of the areas, but the evidence on the table °f
the House proved that evictions augmented according °
the size of the union. And it naturally was so, because
the responsibility of the proprietor was less in a large
than it would be in a small area. As the potatoe
been the ruin of Ireland, so he believed they would fin,'
regeneration only in limiting
ministration of the poor-la w. The ordinary state or
the districts for the sap
things in Ireland was most lamentable and distressing,*
From the time of the Union she had been in a state Of
at unrdb uthleenmeeu—rdaesrsearsssi
were screened were committed
the
mmittpeedoipnleo.peinndsuary!
rection Acts and Arm A
s cts were passed continually down
to 1829. Then emancipation was granted, but not a year
passed without a Coercion Bill and Arms Act, until the/
arrived at the suspension of the constitution of last year'
What might they economise by a wise administration of
the law in Ireland? He asked whether the condition of
Ireland was not a scandal and a reproach to this
country, and a disgrace to the age ? There was, a
great responsibility upon the Irish Members; it was 'et
them to relieve a starving nation from suffering under an
accumulation of misery. Her sufferings have even
lightened her sins—her peasant no longer puts in force
the wild justice of revenge, and her aristocracy was beg-
gared. The one thing that Ireland needed was states"
men; she wanted eyes to see the remedy for her wants
and wisdom to apply it. It was by the Irish Members,
laying aside parry differences, to protest against the
system of inaction followed by the Government, and to
ask the Minister of the Crown whether all his policy for
the relief of Irish distress was exhausted. He appeal('
to the financial reformers in that House if this was not II
case which required their support, and whether the cre-
ation of property in Ireland would not be much more
beneficial than any surveys they could effect. He er
pealed to the commercial party in that House for stir
port. Would not the loss even of Lancashire and York'
shire be a smaller evil than this prostration of a country
and an entire people, and the consequent expatriation
of labour and capital to foreign fields. He appealed to
the representatives of the agricultural interests for sup'
port, and he asked them from whence the cry of distress
came in a more agonising manner than from Ireland. Ile
appealed to the Irish representatives in a peculiar and
especial degree. A heavy responsibility rested upon
them. He admitted that they had great difficulties to
contend with, and that there had been something like an
iudisposition to discuss Irish questions in the Hotisa,;
but still they were there as the representatives and ad'
vocates of a nation whose distress and destitution was
unparalleled in history, whose soil was waste, wbese
productive energies were paralysed, and which Pre"
sented one howling and hopeless waste of paupers di'
Ireland called upon them to relieve her from this con 1:
tion—to develope her resources, and give play to ir
energies. He had, in opening this question, carefu
avoided touching upon questions on which the Irish
Members were divided.—(llear, hear.) He had con-
fined himself to the social evils of Ireland alone."
(Hear.) He knew there were other causes of evil in
that ceuntry—(Hear, hear)—but ho wished upon y
occasion that the Irish Members should aet unite
Above all, he appealed to higher motives than any part/ f
or partisan syrepatby—to the honour and hurnailitfo
the empire.—(Hear, hear.) The condition of Ireland
was re
wee a disgrace to the Government and the Legislatu_eid
which permitted it to exit. He knew it would be
that his motion was intended to cast censure upol l the
Government, but he did not so intend it. It bud
refer-
ence to the policy of the previous as well as the presentapply
Government, and therefore could not be taken to I;l3Kir
to them exclusively. He said the measures passed this,l,„t
t
session were not adequate for the wants of Irelann