The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-27 00:00:00

(Mr. Pot) had tie eender a course of much less
pressing eie co eieti oi, o. tau,: 1, •
stances of Ireland, its the year 1795, there were no
measures of extremity which he did not adept: But it
was with reference to the ordinary state of Ireland that
he was speaking, and the inquiry which be wished to
institute. He begged, therefore, shortly to refer their
Lordships to the Parliamentary History of Ireland.
From the year 1800 to the year 1804, was a time of
great difficulty, when the usual Act,: in operation, as the
law of the land, was martial law, the suspension of the
Habeas Corpus Act, and such like. But in 1804, Sir
John Newport moved for a Committee of Inquiry into
the state of Ireland. The Committee was appointed,
and the result a hich they came to was, that the adoption
of a general system of relief for Ireland, by parish rating
or any such manner, would be injurious to the
county, and the people themselves, the subjects of it.
From the year 1804 up to 1815, the t,tiblw affairs
abroad occupied so much of the time of these statesmen,
that they could not attend much to domestic affairs ;
and it was not till 1817 that the question of poor re-
lief was fully brought before the consideration of Par-
liament. In 1807, however, the case of Ireland was
such, from the prevalence of fever and distress, that an
inquiry was deemed necessary. After some discussion,
in 1809 a Select Committee was appointed, which,
after a full inquiry, reported that it would be exceed
ingly difficult to introduce any pior-law into Ireland
that would not extend the evils and dangers of pau-
perism. In 1822 Ireland was again visited by a great
calamity in the failure of the crops. At that time a
relief committee, with which he was connected, raised
the magnificent sum of 300.0001. Here, again, a Select
Committee sat on the condition of Ireland, and reported
that any system of permanent relief that would lead the
peasantry of that country to depend on others instead of
their own exertions, would be fraught with
great danger, and ought not to be sanctioned by
Parliament. Thus all the Committees which had sat on
the question of Ireland, had reported against a system
of out-door relief, and only went to the extent of recom-
mending a system of in-door relief. Such were the sen-
timents that prevailed in Parliament respecting relief to
the Irish poor; and he would beg to observe that the
law of Elizabeth, of which they had heard so much, did
not in its original form prescribe out-door relief. He
maintained, though it had often been asserted to the
country, that the law in its original form did not sanc-
tion anything beyond the granting of relief within the
workhouse. It was not till 1795 that the law was
altered so as to empower the magistrates to order out-door
relief in cases where they thought it necessary. Well,
under the operations of the t.ut-door system, abuses had
become so numerous, and the population had become so
Pauperised, that a Committeee was appointed to inquire
into the matter. That Committee sat in 1824, Lord
John Russell in the chair, and it reported strongly
against the system of out-door relief then in operation.
still nothing was done till Earl Grey's Administration
came into power. That Ministry had been instru-
mental in carrying two great measures, the Reform Act
and the Poor-law Amendment Act ; but by far, were
they entitled, to the greatest praise for carrying the lat-
ter measure in the face of great prejudice and opposi-
tion. No one could read the evidence of the Commis-
sion appointed to inquire into the operation of the old
law, and on whose report the new law was founded,
without being fully convinced of the vast abuses and
demoralisation arising from the outdoor system of relief.
The Noble Lord here read several extracts from the
Commissioners' Report in support of this view respect-
ing outdoor relief, and against the imposition of a
labour test as to the destitution of the applicants for
relief. Nothing could be more fallacious than labour
tests, or more impolitic than labour rates. Experience,
not only in this country but in Ireland,
completely showed this. But it might be
said, why not apply the same law to Ire-
land as to England ? In doing so it was incumbent
to consider the circumstances of the two countries. But
on this head he would remark that, however much the
circumstances of the two countries might differ, the law
did not much if any, providing they took the English
lawin its proper meaning. The real meaning of the
English law was to give relief only in the workhouse,
and if they had departed from this, and now grai ted cut
door relief, he did not see how they should endeavour to
introduce the principle into operation in Ireland. He
had now brought them to the ) ear 1834, and whilst the
principle of in-door relief, of hospital relief, and of
relief for the destitute was recognised by the English
poor-law, the principle of out-door relief was repu-
diated. But they did not stop there, for in 1836 a com-
mission was instituted, of which a most Rev. Prelate,
then in the House, was a Member, and what did they do?
They did not render all the previous experience
abortive, but they adopted the same principle. He hue
moved the printing of that report, and would read at
extract from it, by which it appeared that the people
could alone be dependent upon the land and the rent for
food and employment, and if that ground of support
were cut from under them, they would ultimately cause
tot one portion of the country, but the whole of Ireland
to be dependent not on England only, but on the Impe-
-1%l Legislature for support. Was not that the case
'ew ? Was not the whole country dependent now upon
the Legislature ? And it should be observed that this
did not occur when the country was in a state of famine,
at all times ; and such infallibly would be the case.
Then there aas further the caution contained in the re-
rosthat the administration of out-door relict
IrQuid occasion the evil that the people would
not rely upon themselves, and what was the
result. There was one man with whom
he had been acquainted ; he had raised himself
above his native condition, by the exercise of diligence
and a forecasting prudence. This man had set himself
to oppose the principle of this relief even upon the public
works ; and what was the consequence ? Why he
(Lord Monteagle) had heard to-day only that this man,
who had been the benefactor of 1111 around him, had
been shot. The only advantage oh. 1::; by his example
was, that he existed no longer. L., Lordship then
cited the opinion of Mr. Nichols, who h. ; been sent out
by the Commission of which his Right Rev. Friend was
a member. This gentleman had gone throughout the
whole of the country, but especially to the nor'h, among
the industrious population, and the result of his obser-
vations was a strong recommendation to stay all out-
door relief. But Mr. Nicholls was not content with
Merely British experience, for he went also to Holland
and to Belgium, and here again the result of his obser-
vations was still the same, and the whole of that gentle-
man's predictions had been verified to the letter.—
(Hear, hear.) Then they came to the year 1837. In
that year Lord Melbourne's Government, who were
too cautious to do anything rashly, had come down with
a recommendation from the Crown to inquire into this
system of out door relief, and Lord John Russell in the
speech with which he recommended the measure to the
attention of the House, had opposed the granting of any
out-doer relief, for he believed that the whole of the
burden would fall ultimately on the land. At a subse-
quent discussion of this same question, when the subject
of emigration was incidentally introduced, the proposi-
tion was met by a specific resolution, made by a gentle-
man who represented the county with which he was
connected, Mr. S. O'Brien, the effect of which was, that
the relief should be granted to the able-bodied poor.
But to the proposition, a Member of the Government,
and not a counnon Member, but one who was charged
with the interests of Ireland, one whose name could
never be mentioned in any society of British gentlemen
without an emotion of respect—that was Lard Mor-
peth that Noble Lord had stated that the
granting of out-door relief would destroy the whole
character of the Irish people. The evil of the English
poor-law had been only felt at the latter end of the last
century, and the whole of these evils would be increased
tenfold if the system were to be applied to Ireland.
Lord Fitzgerald, who knew Ireland well, and his Noble
Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) who knew everything
laugh)—had expressed the same opinion during
the same year ; and all the opinions which they had
then expressed hail been fully confirmed by subsequent
experience. Again, in 1839, they had the rcpert of the
Poor-law Commis loners, and they einehateady stated
their belief that the greeting of out-do- r reli f would
be utterly destructive of every principle of grafting re-
lief to those by whom it was unsolutely
needed.--(Hear, hear.) (His Lordship then proced: d
to read extracts from the report of the Commissioners.)
The guardians upon the receipt of tne determination 01
the commissioners made another appeal to them, and to
this they received also an unlevourable reply, and the
commissioners stated in their report that the result of
their refusal to interfere had produced great benefits
upon the condition of the people at large. He regi etted
to be under the necessity of troubling the House at so
great a length. but he felt himself bound to make out
his case now that the Government had refused to grant
him his request. A Committee of their Lordships was
appointed last session to inquire into the subject of the
operation of out-dour relief in Ireland. The witnesses
examined bsfore that Committee were Mr. Lewis, Mr.
senior, Twistleton, Mr. Gulston, and Mr. Chad-
wicke, all of whom were unanimous of opinion that the
introduction of any general system of out-door relief
Would be destructive to the interests of the people of that
country, but more especially so to that class which
it was the duty cif the Government to protect.
I's-a asked their Lordships, therefore to peruse before
they adopted the principle of the Bill. He did not ask
any of their Lordships to pledge themselves either to
Support or oppose the measure, all he wanted was their
Lordships to afford sufficient time for having evidence
cc the subject laid before them. Ireland was not, how-
ever, the only country which would afford evidence of
the injurious nature of a system of out-door relief. The
situation of Scotland, according to the evidence of Sir
G. Sinclair, fully bore out his assertion, as to the in-
Jurious tendency of out door relief. Mr. Dempster,
also, deprecated the system, and believed that the con-
sequence of such a measure would be to impoverish the
rich, and not afford, at the same time, adequate relief
to the poor. The Noble Lord then went en to allude
to the prayer of the numerous petitions which had been
laid upon their Lordships' table, praying that an
efficient Poor-law should be introduced into Ireland, and
Prevent thereby the enormous influx of Irish paupers into
this country. Now, he contended that by a system of
out-door relief in Ireland the number of Irish emigrants
l:s.ould be considerably increased. He felt supported in
'l!'s °pinion by the fact, that in the several counties of
4,
seuthe:n parts of England, where a system of out-
door relief was most liberally and recklessly carried out,
91e wages were the lowest. tic did not mean to say that
it was a fair logical dedee that because a system of
out-door relief existed it ar.v place where wages were
4(V7 that ther,for, the ra:, o! wages was reduced 13y the
$3 stem of ouadoor relief. Still he must look to the facts
a_s they stood. N the reason why Irish labourers
England was, because wages were higher
in this cen y
titan in Ireland. He had no doubt but
that wages would be reduced 'Ai Ireland if the principle
Zsre carried out, and the result would be a
-
~!rger influx of paupers into this country.
j4faS really the meat. ili ioicel, the most absurd, and the
loses fallacious thing which had ever been imposed on
the creduhty
MEL:k:II,I to suppose that a system of
out-door relief to the Irish paupers would tend perina-