The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-08 00:00:00

I Irishman. The Houso was no doubt aware that many corn-
! plaints had recently come fi om Liverpool, with respect to the
immigration of destitute Irish persons into that town—in fact,
to such an extent had this taken place, that the workhouse
accommodation was quite inadequate for their reception. If a
summons was applied for against any of them, it was wholly
inoperative, as the person to whom it was directed, could not
frequently be found. This would be remedied by the Bill
before the House ; as its object was to render it necessary that
parties coming over from Ireland, or from a place from another
part of this country, should at once be examined, and an order
made at once, if the case was a fit one for removal ; but no
one at present, not liable to be removed, would be removed
under this Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he should be glad to give his sup-
port to the Bill, bat at the same time he could not help ex-
pressing his conviction that it would ultimately he found to fall
far short of the necessity of the occasion which had led to its
introduction.—( Hear.) During the last few years great alte-
rations had been made with respect to the removal of the poor
both in England and Scotland. Till 1544 the burden of re-
moving the poor was placed upon the counties, and, conse-
quently, when it was a county charge and not a parochial one,
there was much less hesitation in carrying it into exe-
cution. He believed the task was so extremely one-
rous before the Irish pauper could be removed ; there
were so many obstructions and so many heavy charges
on the parishes that it was resorted to with reluctance ;
and, in addition, the pauper must be accompanied by an officer,
hut he hoped that the time would come when the destitute
Irish poor would be relieved in their own country ; but until
that time did arrive, it would be better to consider whether
the destitute Irish poor could not be removed in a more sum-
mary and cheaper manner than at present. Yet though this
Bill would remove some of the difficulties, it would not remove
some of the objections which now existed to the removal of the
Irish. 'With respect to Liverpool, the Right Hon. Baronet
( Sir G. Grey) had stated that he had adopted what he ( Sir
James Graham) considered proper measures of quarantine with
respect to the proprietors of steamers in the habit of bringing
over large numbers of destitute paupers ; but if he was
rightly informed, the state of things in Liverpool was ex-
tremely anomalous. For instance, there was a stipendiary ma-
gistrate in Liverpool, who, because he entertained some scru-
ples with respect to the state of things in Ireland, would not
grant warrants for the removal of destitute persons to Ireland,
unless a mandamus was moved for in the Court of Queen's
Bench; therefore the law relating to the removal of the poor
was suspended by a stipendiary magistrate. But this was not
all ; the Liverpool ratepayers wished to get the destitute
Irish distributed over the whole country, and money had actu-
ally been advanced to pass them, by the aid of cheap trains, to
the metropolis. What would this lead to? It would infallibly
lead to disease, and the English labourer would be
brought, of necessity, to the condition of the Irish labourer.—
(Cheers.) Disease, poverty, and misery would, therefore, be
spread throughout the metropolis—( Hear, hear)—and the Go-
, vernment would ultimately be compelled to resort to mea-
sures to send the destitute poor to their own country. This
measure, so far from being sufficient for the emergency, would
be found vastly insufficient, and must come again before Par-
liament, when measures equivalent to the necessity which
required them, would be found indispensable.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. P. SCROPE thought a change absolutely necessary,
and that the present shuttlecock system ought to be done away
with. They ought, at all events, not to rest till the soil of
Ireland was made to sustain the Irish poor.
Mr. FRENCH objected to the Hon. Member for Stroud
always referring to the conduct of the people of Ireland in those
matters relating to England.
Mr. CARDWELL called the attention of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Roscommon to the condition of Liverpool during the
last few months. Liverpool, which with a population of
300,000, had had added to it 100,000 destitute Irish persons,
who had been treated by the inhabitants of that town in the
most exemplary manner. Now the object of the present Bill
was to afford a relief to this state of things.
Sir W. BARRON agreed with the Hon. Member for Mayo
in his objection to the portion of the Bill relating to the
removal of the Irish poor from England. The Bill empowered
magistrates in the most summary manner to take up any per-
, son on the suspicion of pauperism, and send them out of the
country. Now if Ireland was a portion of the United King-
dom, he could not see how such an arbitrary law should exist.
He could not see how they should apply a different law to Ire-
land, to that they would impose on Scotland or Yorkshire. A
, more dangerous, unwise, and impracticable measure was never
, devised by any man having common sense. It was a law more
adapted for Ru.sia, than a country professing to be free.
, Lord SANDON was surprised at the indignation expressed
by the Hon. Member. Were it really intended to deprive the
people, coming from Ireland to this country, then there might
be some reason for it. But this was not the object of the Bill.
, Its object was to do away with a technical objection which pre-
vented the proper working of the measure, the intention of
which was to provide for the removal of those who could not
give any explanation that they were not paupers, and likely to
become dependent on English relief.
• The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped the
statement of the Noble Lord would satisfy those who had ex-
pressed themselves against the Bill. He must say he had
been much surprised at the speech of the Hon. Member for
Roscommon, which proceeded on an entire misunderstanding
of the Bill. It was a measure applicable to all parts of the
empire alike—whether Scotland or the Isle of Man, as well as
Ireland. It was provided that wherever a person became
chargeable to a parish in England, if he was a native of any
of those places, he could be removed there. A simi-
lar provision existed in the Scotch poor-law, as ap •
plied to the natives of England, the Isle of
Alan, or Ireland.—( Hear.) At present a summons
was necessary in order to effect a removal; but the circum-
stances of Liverpool, from the immense number of paupers
there, were such, that the present alteration was proposed,
which was, that the overseer, or relieving officer, who was
applied to for relief should have the power to take the party so
applying before a magistrate, who had the power, on examina-
tion, to order a removal. The whole object of the Bill was to
dispense with the.: service of the summons, and he must
say, that he could not see in the Bill any peculiar hardship to
Ireland.
Sir H. W. BARRON did not object to the poor being
removed from England to Ireland, but he really did object
to the monstrous provisions of thif Bill.
Mr. I'. SCROPE explained.
Mr. WAKLEY much regretted having heard the speech of
the Hon. Baronet who had just sat down, calculated, as it was,
to produce ill feeling in Ireland. After the millions this coun-
try had voted to Ireland for her relief, he was surprised to hear
the language used by the Hon. Baronet, particularly when he
I remembered that had the landed interest of Ireland done their
duty towards the poor of their own country, much of the pre-
sent misery would have been averted. Notwithstanding that,
the Hon. Baronet considered the present proposed relaxation
of the law was unjust, he very much feared the law would still
remain inoperative, owing to the great expense which the
removal of the poor involved. Why, in his own
parish, or rather a parish in this metropolis with which he was
recently connected, of all the removals that took place every
eleven out of twelve were Irish paupers. Why, then, did the
Honourable Baronet use such language as he had done to that
House. Had the Hon. Baronet read the return which had re-
cently been made upon the present state of the poor in Ireland?
If he had he must have seen that in Cork hundreds, nay,
thousands were dying of fever without a hand to help them to
a cup of water to quench their burning thirst. What were
the Irish gentry about ?—( Hear, hear.) It was time
this country spoke out. Already the ill effects of this neglect
on the part of the Irish gentry had made their appearance,
within a few miles of this metropolis. He grieved to say it,
but it was too true, that the typhus fever had broken out in
many of the metropolitan workhouses, and it was high time the
voice of this country was heard. He understood that in an
other place a successful attempt had been made to restrict the
operation of a poor-law for Ireland, but he warned the Irish
landed interest that the time was coming when this country
would be compelled, in self-defence, to force such a law upon
them.
Mr. FORBES said he was unfortunate enough to have taken
an unpopular view of the Irish question, but still he did not
object to the passing of this Bill, though he must protest
against the abuse which some Hon. Gentlemen in that House
were continually heaping upon Irish landlords. As a body
the landed interest of Ireland had strove hard to do their
duty, and it was too bad that they should be subjected to abuse
because they could not mitigate all the evils that surrounded
them without having recourse to some adventitious aid.
Mr. GRAINGER said in his opinion Irish Members had a
perfect right to object to the passing of this Bill. Its powers
might be necessary, but there was no protection against their
being abused.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it appeared to him,
from what had fallen from the Hon. Gentleman who had just
sat down, that Irish Members did not object to the principle of
the Bill, but only to the mariner in which it was proposed to be
carried out. He had therefore thought that this discussion
would have produced more beneficial and effective results, had
it been deferred till they got into Committee on the Bill.
Sir ROBERT FERGUSON did not deny that the distress
mentioned by the Hon. Member for Finsbury was terribly
severe, but still it did not follow that the guardians and
relievers of the poor had not done their duty. If the lion.
Member would move for a return of what they had done, he
would find that they had been most energetic in their efforts to
mitigate the distress and suffering, while several of the resident
gentry had fallen victims to their praiseworthy exertions to aid
in assuaging the prevailing ,misery of the people. No doubt
there were instances where the guardians had neglected their
duties, but in far the greater number of instances (and the
absence of many Hon. Members from that House proved the
assertion) they had nobly remained to adminster to the sick in
their neighbourhood.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.
On the question that the House resolve itself into Committee
of Supply,
POST-OFFICE ARRANGEMENTS IN THE
HEBRIDES.
Mr. H. BAILLIE rose to call the attention of the House
to the defective postal arrangements in the Hebrides. The Hon.
Member said that hitherto the only means of postal
e packet
communi-
cation with Long Island, one of the Hebrides, was by a pcol.
maintained at the joint expense of Lord Macdonaldand
Gordon, the two principal proprietors. A few }ears
Gordon withdrew his contribution to the support,as
upon him,
and in consequence of the many and repeated calls
Macdona
Yoefalt.hseagpoacCkeotl,,
caused by the distress at present existing, Lord
The
had threatened to withdraw his proportion
amunication. He had
people would
thus he deprived of all post-office cotillion
of
the Government
thought it necessary to call the
to the subject, in the hope that they
:would adopt some means
of affording this very necessary ftcooeh no official report had
Mr. PARKER said tha lie had no doubt the attention of
been made to the Treasury,i
the Postmaster would be given to the subject.
SUPPLY'
The House then went into Cm mfoirttedee.fraying
the charges of
A vote of 453,786/. was
take
the Commissariat department.
was taken for the half-pay and pension
A vote of 40,646/.
allowances.
On the proposition that
_a vote_ of 50,000/. be taken for the
works on the Caledonian Canal,
Mr. HUME and Mr. WILLIAMS objected on the grounds
that the canal was worthless as a national work.
After a desultory conversation, the vote was agreed to.
The vote of 20,476/. for the Commissioners of Public
Works in Ireland was agreed to.
8.20 •
01 for Kingston Harbour was agreed to.
The vote of 25,000/. for the salaries and expenses attending
the Houses of Parliament was agreed to.
The following votes were agreed to:-
56,9001., :for salaries and expenses in the department of
the Treasury.
16,400/, for salaries and expenses in the Home Depart-
ment.
71,0001., for salaries, &c. in the Secretary's office for Fo-
reign Affairs.
18,000!., for salaries, &c. in the Secretary's office for the
Colonies.
37,7001., for salaries in tho offices of the Privy Council.
2,0004, for salaries in the office of the Lord Privy
Seal.
26,722/, for salaries in the office of the Paymaster-Ge-
neral.
The next vote proposed was 15,823/. for the salary and
expenses of the office of the Comptroller-General of the Ex-
chequer.
Colonel SIBTHORP opposed the vote on the ground that
the office was an useless one, and ought to be " knocked off."
It was, however, agreed to.
'1 he next vote was 2,650/, to pay the salaries of the officers
and the expenses of the State Paper-office, which was also
agreed to.