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

Lord G. BENTINCK thought that the man who was con-
fined by illness presented as great a case of hardship as the
men inenpleitated for work from ti'e effect of socid"n•, and he
trusted, thc.:refute, tua• tile clause ,souid be ametaied bj the
omission of the word " permanent."
Mr. B. ESCOTT coincided in the opinion expressed by the
Noble Lord the Member for Lynn, that the omission of the
word " permanent" would be an improvement.
After a few words from Mr. MUNTZ,
Mr. YOUNG wished to know from the Noble Lord at the
bead 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 in the clause ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—Yes.
Mr. P. SCROPE said that as the Noble Lord included cases
of sickness, as well as of accident, he should not press the
amendment of which he had given notice.
Sir H. W. BARRON said that the Hon. Member seemed
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 had 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 this
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 would reconsider
this question, for 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 nut shown
his usual acuteness in the consideration of 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
Lord 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 lion. Member
for Finsbury, for as the clause now stood it was evident that
the whole of the discretion was ai 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 required 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 vne 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.
Mr. 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 those 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 cases, and that he thought ought
to be altered.
Mr. SHARMAN 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-
ing 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 platted- von this discretion.
After a few words from Mr. WA/CUM 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 poor. 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 net, therefore, consent to the alteration proposed by the
Hon. Gentleman opposite. It would place the guardian's
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 introduced 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. Yesey, and 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. 13RowNE,
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 ore,
from the tone of the remarks made to-night, and of thoso 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 be 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 same 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 should
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 than 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
abandonedl 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'BRIEN and Mr. DILLON
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 considered that out-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
the public works, that when
numbers employed on they were
su.pended, and they stood in need of relief, as no doubt they
would, that they shouldhave out-door relief. At the present
moment 700,000 heads of families, representing no doubt
3x0,000 persons, were subsisting upon public charity in Ire-