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

THE SEJA, _LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 20, 1847.

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 of these men had
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 31., being 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
labour 251. or 301. a week. He thought that it was essential
to the character of the House that nolling 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 etdeavoured 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 ths 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 ptit 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 be had
referred, namely, Mr. Courtenay, had kept for the last six
months not oue 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 for 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.
Mr. SHAW did not make any, charge against them. He
had only stated what Mr. 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
Bili,
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 opposition to the motion, that
you now leave the chair in order that the House
may go into Committee on the Biil. In the next place,
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
this House for me, a British subject, to state that I 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,
Mr. 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. He hoped that the Irish people would not he 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. He
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
administration 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 ienlvd:etwhaeouAldetbe; bought
etandadt
itthieenelwauhsiee,h asheit
hthedensustgogodesl
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 told him that relief had been extended
to a labouring man on account of a sick child, and on his asking
if the child were sick, he was told that the man had made it
sick on purpose. By such a way of applying relief much in-
jury might be done to those who really required assistance.
Mr. VERNON SMITH agreed with the observations of
the Hon. Member for Dorchester, and 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
OSS, which did not reach the
gallery
Sir W. CLAY thought that the principle of out-door relief
lAlefrtyea,rcharge
a few
wu
op
rodns th
frome c o u
mn
rt . r y
R.
should not be limited entirely to the permanently disabled, for
sometimes
sand
extended.
muchsocial misery, if a
Lord COURTENAY supported the amendment, and would,
liitttle would
timely prevent
reli relief were much
if a vote were taken, support the Hon. Member who moved it.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD thought the word ought
to be struck out, as the clause, in its preaent shape, would be the
eause 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 be must support the amendment. If the
be properly defined.
word " permanent" was to be retained in the clause, it should
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 H. 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.

Mr. RICE supported the clause as it stood.
Mr. SHAW begued 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. Ho 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 parochialsupport instead of trusting to theirown industry;
Ile 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 he was; not prepared to give up
the word " permanent" in the clause, but as regarcied tha
suggestion of the Hon. Member for Waterford he was rem),
to consider it, for the insertion of certain words might meet
the views and wishes of the Hon. Member.