The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS, August 14.
The LORD CIiANCELLOA having taken his seat on the
Woolsack,
The Earl of LUCAN presented petitions from several
parts of Ireland complaining of the operation of the
Poor-laws.

IRISH POOR-LAWS.
The Earl of LUCAN then, pursuant to notice, inwired
what measures it was the intention of her Majesty's
Government to take in reference to the report of the
Select Committee of that House on the Irish Poor-law
Acts (rating of lessors).
The Marquis of LANSI)OWNE admitted that there
were evils connected with the administration of the poor-
law in Ireland which required supervision; but he was
not prepared to say that, at so late a period of the ses-
sion, it would be practicable to pass any Bill for that
purpose. Early next session not only the important
matter mentioned by the Noble Earl, but the whole sub-
ject of the poor-law in Ireland ought to be considered by
Parliament.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few observations from Lord MONTEAGLE,
Lord WHARNCLIFFE, as chairman of the Select
Committee, bore testimony to the fact that there were
vexations in the administration of the poor-law in Ire-
land which ought to be remedied.
The Earl of LUCAN said the defects of the law had
been clearly established before a Committee of their
Lordships' House, and why should they not pass a short
declaratory Act to remedy the evils which had been
proved to exist?
UNLAWFUL OATHS ACT (IRELAND) CON

TINUANCE AND AMENDMENT 81-LL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR having moved the
committal of this Bill,
The Earl of SHREWSBURY rose, pursuant to
notice, to ask what were the intentions of the Govern-
ment with respect to their future policy in Ireland, more
especially in regard to remedial measures? He wished
to pay a just tribute to the conduct of the Lord Lieute-
nant ; but he thought' it was time to begin in earnest to
apply a remedy to the evils which existed in Ireland. It
was clear, from the state of that country, that there was
great dissatisfaction and excitement among the people.
There had ever been in Ireland a Government of force
instead of opinion. We had the same state of things now
as in February, 1844, when a Coercion Bill was proposed
for Ireland. The number of Coercion Bills had since
been increased, the standing army had been greatly
augmented, and the last remnant of the liberties of Ire-
land had been struck down. And what, he might ask,
had been done for her relief ? Her enormous ex-
tent of waste and uncultivated land, within reach
of the starving people, remained uncultivated still.
Every grievance, moral, social, and political, remained
almost precisely the same ; and the feelings, desires,
interests, and opinions of the people had produced
no effect. The only material change which had taken
place had been in the passing of a new poor-law--a
law which had in too many instances inflicted cruel
injustice on the landlord, and had been equally unjust
to the poor. In many cases the poor rates had absorbed
the whole of the rent. Could it be just thus to confis-
cate any man's property ? Ought note such a tax to
general ? rho poor, too,
fall upon the community in
were insufficiently fed, and were not placed on an equal
footing with the poor of this country in many other re-
spects. The system of evictions still existed under
the sanction of the law, and were often made at the
point of the bayonet, while no provision had been
made for the wretched outcasts. Justice had not
been done to Ireland. The remedial measures recom-
mended by some 20 Parliamentary Committees and Royal
Commissioners, by every statistical and political writer
for the last twenty years, and many of them solicited
by almost every grand jury in the country—the mea-
sures so earnestly insisted on by Lord John Russell in
Jebruary, 1644, in June, 1846, and at other periods--
all these remedial measures still existed only in idea—
none'of them had been carried into,practical effect. There
was one grievance in Ireland which was greater but
far more difficult to deal with than the rest. The
House would remember that when a Noble Friend of
his-9, Roman Catholic member of that House, and who
now held office in the royal household—had ventured to
express as his opinion that the peace and security of the
empire could only be secured by a reduction of the pro-
perty of the Established Church of Ireland, a Noble and
Learned Lord (Lord Brougham) not now present fell
upon the Noble Lord, and, with great vehemence,
taunted him with the oath he had taken at their Lord-
ship's table. He (the Earl of Shrewsbury) quite
) was
ready to admit that those who had imposed the oath had
a right to interpret it, but he contended that he was en-
titled to the largest interpretation which had been re-
cognised in the Lower House of Parliament, and that
he had therefore a right fully and freely to discuss that
most important and vital of all questions, viz., the Irish
Church. No man's religious opinions ought to operate
as a disqualification to him to express his senti-
ments.—(Hear.)—Nothing could be more preposterous
than the oath now required to be taken—a form of oath
to which he believed many Protestants even objected.
A celebrated political writer had declared that religion
aid 'liberty were sisters, leaning upon each other for
support; but these religious distinctions were the bane
and curse of the empire—they were the primary cause
of all the miseries and the misgovernment of Ireland.
They had made the law in Ireland a nullity, and they
had defeated the whole course of administrative justice.
It was the feeling thus generated that had compelled the
Government to exclude from the jury panel at the recent
trial of Mitchel, in Dublin, every Roman Catholic; and
though, by such a system, this country might continue
to occupy, still it could not govern Ireland. He repeated
that there was nothing which had provoked so much
rancour, or militated more against social improvement
in Ireland, than the continued refusal to reduce the Irish
church to its fair and legitimate proportions. He had
no hostility to that establishment, but he was sure its
reconstruction would be productive of advantage to both,
and of benefit to the nation at large. Without a settle-
ment of that question the Emancipation Act of 1839
was merely a measure of toleration. He did not accuse
the Governmeut of a breach of faith, but of a want of
confidence in their own views, and of courage to carry
them out. If their TIQWB were sound in 1444 they had