The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-20 00:00:00

SIii.TURDAY :EVENING I MARCH 2,6, I

.._
around him. He gave to the Rev. Mr. Baldwin a subscrip-
tion of 10/. for the relief of the poor of Mallow. He was
proprietor of 160 acres in that townland, and most of the
houses were leased away from him. To show that he was not
a bad landlord, he might mention that many or these men bad
not paid any rent for periods of five, seven, and ten years,
He paid also to another parish, in which he had a small
farm, the sum of 3/., be•ng an equal quota with the other
landlords. He could himself say that he had known that gen-
tleman extensively employing his poorer neighbours. He knew
for a certainty that he had frequently paid for agricultural
tabour 251. or 30/. a week. He thought that it was essential
to the character of the House that nia'.hit-,g should be stated
within its walls but what was found to be correct, and he re-
gretted that the Hon. Baronet who had made the charge had
not erdeavoured in the first place to ascertain its correctness.
Sir B. HALL was obliged to the Hon. Gentleman for
having given notice of his intention to bring this subject before
the House. He could also assure the House that if he had
made those statements without having first tried to ascertain
whether they were well founded, he should, in his own opinion,
be deserving of the severest censure from the House.
He would certainly express his most sincere regret if in any
thing he had said he had caused any annoyance to tha feelings
of the gentleman whose name had been mentioned. It ap-
peared that there was a large meeting held at Fermoy, at
which resolutions were passed on the subject of the poor-law,
and a deputation of two clergymen were appointed to wait
upon the Noble Lord at the head of the Government. Those
gentlemen had waited upon him (Sir B. Hall), and made cer-
tain statements to him, which they requested should be stated
in that House, in order that they might go forth to the world
through the ordinary channels of information, It had been
his lot in life to be intimate with a number of persons profess-
ing the Roman Catholic religion, and he should consider it an
insult to that body if he hesitated to give the same confidence
to members of that body, as to members of the Established
Church. Accordingly, he gave the fullest credit to their
statements, and requested that in order to prevent any misap-
prehension of them, they should be put in a written form ;
and it was the statements thus made to him that he had given
to the House. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not
believe that he was negligent in his endeavours to authenticate
the statements which he had made to the House. He said
he had now set himself right with the House, by again referring
to the respectable authority on which he had made the state-
ments he had laid before the House the other evening. But if
any statement which he had made should be proved incorrect,
he would be the first to retract such statement as publicly as it
was made.
Mr. CALLAGHAN said the gentleman to whom he had
referred, namely, Mr. Courtenay, had kept for the last six
months not one dog.—( Great laughter.)
Mr. SHAW thought if the Right Hon. Baronet opposite
had followed the rule usually observed in that House, and
omitted introducing the gentlemen whose case he had noticed
he would have saved himself and the House both time and
trouble. If he had allowed him before making his explana-
tion to read the letters which he held in his hand, the Hon.
Baronet would not have missed some points which he ought to
have observed. Mr. Courtenay said instead of 70 dogs in
the neighbourhood of Mallow, he had never kept more than
12, and for the last six months not one. That gentleman said
he had never refused his contribution in aid of the poor. He
had given on one occasion Si., and another 10/., for the poor
in that neighbourhood, and he spent from 251. to 30/. a week
on labourers at his own estate. But because one gentleman
who called upon him fir a contribution to the funds of the
relief Committee had put him in the public papers in the most
scurrilous manner, Mr. Courtenay had refused to give his
contribution to that gentleman, but he had sent a contribu-
tion to the secretary of the fund.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL thought that the Right Hen.
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw) should have followed the
course of the Hon. Baronet on that side of the House (Sir B.
Hall), and avoided using scurrilous and unbecoming language,
especially towards Catholic clergymen, who were quite unde-
serving of the charges made against them.
Sir. SHAW did not make any charge against them. He
had only stated what Jr,a Courtenay told him.
Sir H. W. BARRON defended the conduct of the landlords
in that district generally, and thought that if the other Irish
landlords had followed their example a great deal of the dis-
tress might have been prevented.
POOR-RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL. SUBSCRIP-
TIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES.
On the motion for the House going into Committee on this
Bill,

Sir WILLIAM CLAY presented a petition from the
Tower Hamlets, praying that the poor law of Ireland, might
be assimilated to that of England.
Mr. D. CALLAGHAN presented a petition to the same
effect from the Mayor and Corporation of Cork.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL --Sir, I hope my Hon. Friend
(Mr. P. Scrope) who has given notice of a motion,
will not offer any oppo.ition to the motion, that
you now leave the chair in order that the House
may go into Committee on the MI In the next lace,
I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to state that I' have
observed with great pleasure and satisfaction the munificent
subscriptions which have been raised in the United States of
America for the relief of the destitute poor in this country and
in Ireland.—(Loud cheers.) I think it is not improper in
m I
this House for
e, a British subject, to state that am ex-
tremely gratified to find that the United States have not for-
gotten their common origin; and that, actuated by charitable
feelings, they are making great exertions to collect large sums
of money for the relief of the existing distress. —( Hear, hear. )
Mr. P. SCROPE said, as he found the object of his motion
was embodied in the Bill, he should not press it. He should
not, therefore, detain the House from going into Committee.
The House then went into Committee.
On the first clause being proposed,
31r. P. SCROPE objected to the word "permanent," as
being unparliamentary and unprecedented. He objected to the
words "permanently disabled" in the clause, as indicating the
description of persons toward whom relief should be extended.
These words would effectually prevent nearly two-thirds of the
poor from receiving relief. The proportion of people who
came under the title of permanently disabled, was very small,
as the greater part of those who required relief, were reduced
to that necessity, from sickness or accident. He wished to
know if the Right Hon. Gentleman would consent to the
omission of the words ?
Sir GEORGE GREY said that if the word, permanent,
were omitted, it would open the door to relief being indiscri-
minately administered to those suffering under the most casual
sickness or disability.
Mr. SHAW said that the sth clause which empowered the
giving of out-door relief to the sick would meet the objection of
the Hon. Member.
Mr. POULET SCROPE said that the clause referred only
to medical relief.
Sir H. WINSTON BARRON said that the great sympathy
of the Hon. Member extended to the fact that, if the poor of
Ireland were not so well relieved as the poor of this country,
they would frequent England in the hope of bettering their con-
dition. Ha hoped that the Irish people would not be deceived
by such sympathy.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN said that he had listened with great
sorrow to the statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman, for he
had hoped that this amendment would have been carried. Ile
thought that the words, permanently disabled; were by far too
limited to admit of much relief.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he thought it would be safer
that they should provide in a compulsory manner and by spe-
cification, for all classes entitled to relief out. of the work-
house, instead of giving such a general permission as the one
proposed. The Hon. Member for Stroud had objected to the
word " permanently." But it had been used before, and ex-
pressly used for the purpose of preventing an indiscriminate
administrati-n of relief. He would adopt the definition that
the clause in one or two cases stopped short of the necessity
of the case, for he thought that those classes entitled to relief
without coming under the definition of " permanently dis-
abled" should be distinctly specified in the Act ; but he
thought that the clause, as it then stood, was a good one, and,
with the addition which he had suggested, would be a most
efficient one.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that with respect to what
had been stated by the Member for Dorchester, the Act to
which he had referred was again under the consideration of the
House this year. With regard to the proposition of the Hon.
Member for Stroud, he objected to extending this poor-law in
the way proposed, namely, to relieve any family of persons
upon a merely temporary sickness or distress. He had always
objected to the principle of combining the relief of the desti-
tute with assisting labourers, &c., who might be in the receipt
of wages. He had spoken to a person, a member of a board
of guardians, who had toe waldhs told thatimthatre thelief had been
hadbee nemxtaednedeidt
to a labouring man on account of a sick child, and on his asking
weresifickthoenephuilrpdose. y
sick,li h
such a way of applying relief much in-
jury might be done to those who really required assistance.
Mr. VERNON smrru agreed with the observations of
the Hon. Member for Dorchester, anti disagreed with the
Noble Lord who had just sat down. A man might seek tem-
porary relief, and in the event of its being refused, might sell
all his goods, and go into the workhouse, when a little timely
relief might have materially bettered him, and kept him from
being a charge upon the country.
After a few words from Mr. ROSS, which did not reach the
gallery,
s h oSuilrdlnVo. tCbLe liAYttehdo
eungthi
rt
etlhaytto t ht
he
ep rpinercmi pal of d
permanently
e ntl
yo out-door
disabled,- oor relief
ief
for
it ldpreventmuchsoemxpeetnimsees teaenxdrrhd.
touch social misery, if a
timelylittle relief were
Lord COURTENA Y supported the amendment, and would,
if a vote were taken, support the Hon. Member who moved it.
Mr. SHARNIAN CRAWFORD thought the word ought
to be struck out, as the clause, in its preaent shape, would be the
cause of much hardship on the poor.
Mr. MUNTZ had seen so much evil arise in England from
obliging the able-bodied poor to go into the workhouse for
temporary relief, that he must support the amendment. If the
word " permanent was to be retained in the clause, it should
be properly defined.
Mr. HENLEY thought it a great hardship to oblige the
able bodied poor to go into a workhouse for a few days when
they wanted relief. They were thus obliged to break up their
homes, which a little out-door relief would have prevented.
Sir D. NORREYS would support the retention of the
words in the clause.
Sir IL W. BARRON took the same view of the subject.
The state of Ireland was different to that of England, and must
be dealt with in a different manner.
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought that in the existing state of
the Irish workhouses there was strong reason against crowding
the people in them, especially the healthy and able-bodied,
with the diseased, and aged, and infirm.
Colonel RAWDON thought it would be best to leave the
clause in its present form.
Mr. A. S. O'BRIEN considered as this was to be a per-
manent measure, it would be best to leave the words in the
clause,
Mr. V. STUART thought it most important that in all the
workhouses separate arrangements should be made for cases of
fever.

t Mr. RICE supported the clause as it stood.
Mr. SHAW begged them to observe in all their observa-
tions that the present measure was to be a permanent measure.
He thought it the words " permanently disabled" were struck
out it would lead to great abuse.
Sir ROBERT' PEEL said that the present Bill proposed a
material extension of the existing poor-law in Ireland, and the
clause proposed to give the right of relief to the permanently
disabled. Were the words struck out, the Bill would be alto-
gether altered in its character. He thought that any ambi-
guity in the words " permanently disabled" might be removed
by substituting " that destitute persons,
disabled by old age or
bodily infirmity, should be relieved in or out of the workhouse."
In legislating for Ireland, he cautioned them to proceed with
great care lest they demoralised the people, and led them to de-
pend on parochial support instead of trusting to their own industry;
He said that as there was little dependence to be placed upon
voluntary conttibutions for the relief of the poor some more
stringent measure should be introduced than the present poor-
law. He thought that for the purpose required the present
experiment was sufficiently extensive, but he thought the
omission of the word " permanent" would be ruinous to the
clause. It was obvious that the two clauses should be con-
sidered together, for by their joint operation power would be
given to the guardians to administer relief at discretion in
cases where the workhouses were already full. He did hope
that the House in its beneficent desire to improve the condition
of the poor of Ireland, and so to relieve the property of this
country from some of the burdens which pressed upon it, would
not try this great experiment without a due degree of caution
and consideration.
Lord J. RUSSELL said be was not prepared to give up
the word " permanent" in the clause, but as regarded tha
suggestion of the Hon. Member for Waterford he was reat'y
to consider it, for the insertion of certain words might meet
the views and wishes of the Hon. Member.

Lord "Cr. BENTINCK thought that the man who was eon.
fined by illness presented as great a case of hardship as the
man incapacitated for work from the effect of accident, and he
trusted, therefore, that the clause would be amended by the
omission of the word " permanent."
Mr. B. ESCOTP coincided in the opinion expressed by the
Noble Lord the Member for Lynn, that the omission of the
word " permanent" would be an hrpreve.ment.
After a fee words from• Mr. Al UN Tz.
Mr. YOUNG wished to know from the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government, whether in the concession he made
to the Hon. Member for Waterford, cases of fever were to be
included ? One of the greatest sources of destitution was the
inability of the peasant to labour when he had just recovered
from fever. The hospitals did, indeed, give them medicine,
but when medicine could do no more, then food and nourish-
ment were required to complete his restoration to health and
strength. He wished to know, therefore, if this was to be
considered 'n the clause?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—Yes.
Mr. P. SCROPE said thetas the Noble Lord included cases
of sickness, as welt as of accident, he should not press the
amendment of which he had given notice.
Sir H. W. BARRON said that the Hon. Member aeemed
to forget that they had hospitals, and medical dispensaries for
the purpose of affording relief to such as might require it.
Mr. WAKLEY said that Irish proprietors ought to blush,
when they contrasted the operation of the poor-law in this
country with their own. They had hospitals and medical esta-
blishments in Ireland, he had no doubt where salts or jalap
could be dispensed to such as wished for them, but he (Mr.
Wakley) was sick of the public hospitals of Ireland. The poor
required attendance at their own homes.—(Hear, hear.) They
wanted something more than physic; they wanted nourishment,
and he ( Mr. Wakley) wished to give them that at their own
homes. What was the practice in England with respect to the
treatment of the Irish poor ? If the Irish poor man applied to
the relieving-officer, if his limbs were entire and perfect—if
he were destitute only, would he be refused relief ?
No. The relief would be at once given to him, it
would be freely and generously given. but if that man were
to go back to his native country, would he be entitled to relief
there? No. The law there commanded that he should
starve.—(Hear, hear.) Now, he (Mr. Wakley) thought
that this word "permanent," had got in by accident. It was
one of the most irrational things he had ever met with to insert
it there; but if it hart got there by design, he thought it must
have originated in the mind of a very old gentleman, whom
they were all anxious to repudiate,—(Laughter.) Why, if a
man were disabled as well as destitute, the Noble Lord would
not, it appeared, give him a right to relief. There was a dis-
cretionary power to be allowed to guardians for the relief of
persons out of the workhouse, and if the Noble Lord meant to
give that relief, where did the necessity arise for retaining t his
obnoxious word. The poor-law of Ireland was a discredit to
the country, and he wished to know why it was not assi-
milated with the laws of Scotland and of England ?
The Noble Lord had got some curious information with respect
to Scotland. In Scotland the poor man consented to live
upon meal, and in Ireland he consented to live upon potatoes,
and if he consented to live upon turf he did not think his
betters would think a moment about it. What the honest
Englishman wished to know was, why there should be three
different poor-laws for the three countries ? If they retained
this word permanent they would deprive the poor Irishman of
all relief from whatever causes his destitution might arise, and
he trusted, therefore, that the Noble Lord wculd reconsider
this question, tor if the Hon. Member for Stroud consented
to the withdrawal of his amendment, he should vote against his
doing so.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL conceived that if this amendment were
adopted, they would in effect be retaining all the abuses of the
old poor law.
Sir WALTER JAMES could not help thinking that
the Honourable Member for Finsbury had not shown
his usual acuteness in the consideration yof this clause, for it
did in fact give the very relief which he seemed to desire.
There was one thing which he earnestly desired the Noble
Lent would consider, and which he would put before him before
he sat down, and that was the necessity of extending outdoor
relief, and on that he would give his opinions very plainly be-
fore the conclusion of the consideration of the Bill.
Mr. B. ESCOTT was quite agreed with the Hon. Member
for Finsbury, for as the clause now stood it was evident that
the whole of the discretion was as to whether a man was entitled
to permanent relief or not, and therefore if a man was under
the necessity of obtaining relief for a month he was just placed
in the same position as if he reqaired relief for his whole life.
He should therefore vote for the extinction of the word per-
manent.
Mr. GROGAN felt sore upon the remarks that had
been continually made by the English Members upon
the difference between the poor-laws for the two coun-
tries, and which had been reiterated by the Hon. Member for
Finsbury to night. This was a grievance which several Irish
Members as well as himself complained of.
Lord JOHN MANNERS understood that the relief was to
be granted to the heads of families, and if so, there could be
no objection.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL should certainly vo e for the amend-
ment of the Hon. Member for Stroud
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
that after the declaration of the Noble Lord the Hon. Mem-
ber for Stroud, would not press his motion to a division. His
Noble Friend had stated that some further addition was to be
made to the Bill, and he thought therefore that the House
had better wait until they heard what that addition was.
Major LAYARD thought that as the Bill was evidently
incomplete, the amendment was clearly unnecessary, he
should vote though with great regret against it.
111 r. POULETT SCROPE said that, after the declaration
of the Noble Lord, he was not inclined to press his motion to
a division, but he would draw this fact to his notice. It ap-
peared from the returns that the number of able-bodied poor,
the heads of families, who had been relieved in 1845, amounted
to more than 160,000, while the number of these who were
absolutely disabled was only 193. There had been a direction
given by the Poor-law Commissioners to withhold relief re-
quired in a great number of eases, and that he thought ought
to be altered.
Mr. SIIARMAN CRAWFORD trusted that the Noble
Lord would not overlook the cases of destitute widows.
Mr. WAKLEY explained. The Noble Lord had stated
that he was desirous of introducing all the abuses of the old
poor-law into Ireland. Now, no man had done more than he
had to do away with those abuses ; and he only wanted
to recur to the principle of the old poor-law. without,
at the same time, retaining its abuses. Nevertheless, under
the circumstances, he did not wish to press the House to a
division.

The amendment was withdrawn.
Lord COUR TENAY then moved his amendment for allow-
:ng relief to widows and their children, and for destitute chil-
dren, and to make that relief compulsory on the guardians ; but
after a brief conversation, in which a great number of Members
took part, he intimated his intention of withdrawing it, as he
relied upon the Government taking the necessary steps for
carrying out his design.
After a few words, from Mr. SCROPE and Sir G. GREY.
Mr. SHAW complained, that while the clause gave the
right of permanent and absolute relief to aged and disabled
persons, whether in or out of the workhouse, it did not define
the discretion to be vested in the authorities, as to how the re-
lief should be administered. Relief was to he given either in
or out of the workhouse, but he thought some limits ought to
be placed upon this discretion.
After a few words from Mr. WAKLIT and Sir G. GREY,
the clause was agreed to.
On clause two being proposed,
Mr. SHAW rose to object to the unlimited power the clause
gave for administering relief to the able-bodied pour. He de-
clared his intention of taking the sense of the Committee upon
it when the clause was put to the vote.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN moved an amendment, in
effect placing the power of administering out-door relief
solely and absolutely in the hands of the boards of guardians.
Sir GEORGE GREY resisted the amendment. In Eng •
land they had experienced the danger of such a power, and he
could not, therefore, consent to the alteration proposed by the
Hon. Gentleman opposite. It would place the guardians
beyond the control of the Poor-law Commisssioners, and might
lead to considerable mischief.
Mr. GROGAN supported the amendment.
Mr. LABOUCHERE admitted that the success of this law
would depend in a great degree upon the exertions of the
Board of Guardians; but, still, after the experience they had
had in this country of the existence of this discretionary power,
he could not consent to the amendment which was sought to
be introd..:ced into the clause.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT did not think the amendment
ought to be acceded to.
Mr. HAMILTON considered the principle of giving out-
door relief to the able-bodied poor was highly objectionable;
but, if it were to be established, he thought it should be ac-
companied with the proviso contained in the amendment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER entertained
a very different opinion. If there was no room to relieve the
able-bodied poor in the work-house, they ought to be relieved
out of it ; but before out-door relief was given the guardians
should be required to prove two facts—first, that the work-
house was full, and, secondly, that the person seeking for relief
was really destitute and in want.
After a few words from Mr. Bellew, Mr. Dillon Browne,
Mr. Vesey, a d Sir G. Grey,
Mr. NE WDEGATE objected to the introduction of the
proposed words.
Captain LAYARD thought the proposed clause gave too
much power to the board of guardians, the result of which
would be, to give great dissatisfaction to the people.
After a few words from Sir B. HALL and Mr. D. BROWNE,
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN said that he was perfectly
satisfied that English Members did not fully understand the
nature of Irish business. It must appear plain to every or.e,
from the tone of the remarks made to-night, and of those made
last evening, that the most opposite views were entertained
even on the subject of the value of Irish land. He
thought that the amendments he had proposed would be of con-
siderable service in giving effect to the measure before the
Committee, and tending also to promote its efficiency, he
was sorry that the Government had opposed his amendments,
and under such circumstances lie felt himself bound to with-
draw his amendments.
The amendments were accordingly withdrawn.
On clause 2 ( A. ) being read,
Mr P. SCROPE moved some amendments, having the
effect of giving power to the Commissioners to afford out-door
relief to able-bodied paupers. He thought that the poor-law
for Ireland ought to be of the sane nature as that which existed
in this country. The Hon. Member went on to refer to a meet-
ing held a short time since in Ireland, on the subject of the
poor-laws, and drew the attention of the House to the nature of
the resolutions passed at that meeting, to the effect, that the
rights of property were only secondary to the rights of exist
ante, and that the property of the country ought to support its
poverty.
Mr. LABOUCHERE believed the workhouse test would
be the most stringent one, and he thought that labour shouLl
net be too much relied upon as a test for relief, for many
cases had come under the notice of the Government, where
the labourers preferred to receive relief in the Government
works, at a lower rate tha❑ they would have received from
private employment. He thought it much better, therefore,
to frame the law so as to stimulate the employment of the
labourers by the proprietary of the country ; and unless this
was kept in view more harm than good would result. He was,
therefore, of opinion that the workhouse test should not be
abandoned for the labour test, which would be found to be
wholly inapplicable to the circumstances of the country.
After a few words from Mr. O'BereN and Mr. Drr.LoN
BROWNE,

Sir GEORGE GREY said that the proposition of the
Hon. Member would have the effect of making permanent the
present system of public works in Ireland.—( Cheers. )
Mr. FERR AND said that disease prevailed to so great an
extent in workhouses, that 225 persons had died in one week
in the Cork workhouse.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that provision was made for that
in the Bill then before the House, and every board of guardians
in Ireland would have the power to make provision for such a
state of things.
Mr. SHAW then rose to propose the omission of clause 2
(A.), authorising out-door relief to the able-bodied poor. He
considered, that if this principle were introduced, that supply
and demand would be completely deranged, and that it would
open a door to fraud. He con,idered that ont-door relief
should only be given to the sick and disabled. What he ob-
jected to was, that they should hold it out at the present mo-
ment above all others, when a gigantic system of out-door
relief was in operation, by telling the people, in vast
numbers employed on the public works, that when they were
suspended, and they stood in need of relief, as no doubt they
would, that they should have out-door relief. At the present
moment 700,000 heads of families, representing no doubt
3,000,000 parson,, were aubsiatiog upon public charity in Ire-