The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-20 00:00:00

IRELAND.

Lord FARNHAM, in putting a question of which he
had given notice, on the subject of the discontinuance of
the drainage of certain works in the county of Cavan,
and the dismissal by the Board of Works of the labourers
employed thereon, said that 4,500 persons had been dis-
missed at a moment's notice, and this at a time of the
year—between the sowing season and the hay harvest—
when employment was very difficult to obtain. Since
the 20th of December last no less than Bs. 4d. in the
pound, by two rates, one of ss. and the other of 3s. 4d.,
had been levied on the parish, which was in a most im-
poverished district. Another rate, therefore, for the re-
lief of those unhappy people could not be made, and he
did not see how it was possible that they could be sup-
ported. He had that day received a memorial from 600
of these poor men, accompanied by a certificate from the
Archbishop of the diocese and the magistrates of the lo-
cality, setting forth their lamentable condition. And ho
might himself state, as a constant resident in the district,
that during the whole of the time in which the men had
been employed on the public works, not one of them had
been charged with theft, and their conduct had been
most exemplary since their dismissal. He hoped, there-
fore, the Government would raise the money to continue
the works.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE (who was all but
inaudible in the gallery) was understood to say that the
Government had received information of the stoppage of
the drainage. The subject was most interesting to the
Government, and not the less so on account of the good
conduct of the men who had been dismissed. The
works in question were not, however, carried on by the
Government grants, but by the Board of Works on the
application of particular individuals--either public
bodies or private individuals; and there had been in this
case, unfortunately, a default of payment on the part of
those persons. Out of 52,0001., which the works were
to cost, only 4,500/. had been raised by private loans,
and, therefore, it had become necessary to stop the
works. It was much to be regretted that they should
have been stopped at this particular season; but the
board could not have proceeded with these particular
works without abstracting the funds from other works
in other parts of the country.—(Hear.)
Earl FITZ WILLIAM read the terms of the motion
of which he had given notice for Friday next, expres-
sing the thanks of the House to the Executive in Ireland
for past measures of relief, and calling on the Govern-
ment for further legislation for that country.
Lord BROUGHAM doubted the propriety of a vote
of panegyric before the Earl of Clarendon's adminis-
tration had terminated; but he did not wish to be con-
sidered adverse to any such vote when it could with pro-
priety be brought on.
IRISH POOR-LAW.

Lord MONTEAGLE moved resolutions to the fol-
lowing effect:—That the circular letters of the Irish
provisions of the Ist and 2d Vict., c. 56, sect. 53, 54, and
(Plioreeer
aa
w changeCmmi spi roancetriscedaattedvatrhiaen2e3ed
withof M
thaye, dliBr4eBci
the 10th Vict., c. 81, sect. 8, 10; that such a change in
the administration of the law, if shown to be necessary
and expedient, can only be carried into effect by the
authority of the Legislature; that any orders issued, or
authority claimed or exercised by any administrative
department, to alter or set aside the law of the land, is
of dangerous precedent, and demands the immediate at-
tention of the House, more especially when such orders
are issued during the session, when the sense of Parlia-
ment might have been taken on the question." The
quarter-acre clause introduced into the last poor-law
was not a peculiar hardship on Ireland, for it was
nothing more than what had been the practice in
England for a long time past. Even the owner of a
cottage in this country; was not entitled to relief.
The quarter-acre clause, combined with that
clause which prohibited relief to the families of per-
sons not entitled, completely prohibited relief to the
families of persons holding more than a quarter of an
acre of land. But the Commissioners, by their circular
of the 23d of May, had absolutely done away with this
restriction, thereby offering a bounty on the retention
of land, and placing those who persisted in holding it
in a better position than those who had given up their
holdings. It was a direct inducement to the poor to
neglect their natural duties and set the law at defiance.
If the quarter-acre clause was wrong, let it be repealed,
but not set aside by the authority of the Commissioners.
There was the case of a man who held twelve acres of
land, and who, nevertheless, sought parochial relief, and
had been declared entitled to it by the Commissioners.
While the relief works were going on, the strongest
ground of complaint was that occupiers of land were so
employed, and an order was made to strike such par-
ties off the lists. How was this principle to be re-
conciled
with the recent acts of the Poor-law Com-
missioners ? It seemed their first circular bad been
construed as a general order applicable to all cases ;
but in a second circular they explained that it referred
only to particular cases ; and this was equally an in-
fraction of the principle of the law. If the circular was
equally applicable to all unions it was in the character
of a general order, and ought only to have been issued
by the authority of the Irish Government, counter-
signed by the chief secretary. By assuming the power
of granting relief to persons holding any quantity of
land the Commissioners had struck the most fatal blow at

the administration of the poor-law in Ireland ; and the
communications he had received from that country con-
firmed the worst anticipations that had been entertained
as to the effect of this circular. In some unions the
applications for relief had doubled. Lord Carew, Lord-
Lieutenant of the county of Wexford—a county which
was least burdened by poor-rate—in a letter which be
had addressed to the Commissioners, expressed his be-
lief that all the abuses of the relief works would be
re-introduced, and the occupiers of land might eontinue
on their holdings, after sending their wives and familes

to the workhouse.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he was not at
nr i snefdh that aNt
et
bh
es
Friend,sub subject' sahnodu dr
shavelandlordsattract egde
nt he Et_
artahati ltleel synNu.trinopb leAgreeingLord,
eans
dh
ine didt n
ei ni
wmpuncrht that had n f
the fallen
su
subject,
hehopedtobeabletoindu it wcethneurd beob forleL hotrdatt House
owith
draw his motion. To adopt
to pronounce an opinion that the Commissioners, who
were acting under the direction of the law officers of the
Crown, had acted illegally. The only explanation he
had to give of the circular, which had been hastily is•
sued, and applied generally instead of being made to
apply to particular cases, was, that it was done on an
emergency, and with the humane view of preventing a
great amount of suffering, and perhaps loss of life. He
admitted, as fully as his Noble Friend, that no order
of the Commissioners ought to contravene or set aside
a principle of law; also that every occupier of land ought
to bo made responsible for the support of his family.
It was the intention of the Commissioners to issue an-
other order, guarding against the possibility of the cir-
cular referred to being drawn into any kind of abuse', by
limiting its application to the very extremecases. Where
a person holding land refused to give it up, and allowed
his family to starve, he ought to be punished, and it was
the duty of the Commissioners to see that he was pu-
nished; but all they were enabled to do by law was to
take possession of any property he might have, either on
the land or in his house. No time whatever would be
lost in issuing a general order stating that relief was not
to be given except in particular cases, the circumstances
of which were to be speedily considered; and this being
so, he hoped his Noble Friend would suspend his motion
for the present.
Lord BROUGHAM had not fullyorieen ndseet
af
heoaoar
r.family
hear.)
thecould
nialmost
os
tEtb consideredmntyvoosoe
throwing
ot
nst
mht
supportecei
breakr
ft eyhff e
he
ggpe t
leathwada, but was inclined to think that the Irish law-
re,
officers
whetherut,cstshteereabswere borne out in the view they had taken. But
otnneeewvt
ever
rl awe breakxiwsteetrdh:r through
the very framework of society—that of a man holding
12, or, it might be, 1,200 acres of land, releasing himself
differedfromt he
m uthpwen
with
htobligationthe
e rairs
parish.—(Hear,
hol.
a—swucpoapffieo
car
ert
the first resolution of his Noble Friend ; for any reso-
lution of that House, professing to declare what was the
law, was absolutely worthless ; for the other House
might pass a resolution directly contrary. He was glad
the attention of the House had been called to the matter
on account of the explanation it had elicited from the
Noble Marquis.
The Duke of RICHMOND thought it would be bet-
ter to introduce a short declaratory Act, making the
receipt of parochial relief by any member of the family
of a person holding land tantamount to the forfeiture of
his occupation. Such persons could not be too severely
punished.

Lord REDESDALE said if the principle was once ad-
mitted of giving relief to occupiers of land, it was im-
possible to say to what it might lead.
Lord CAMPBELL said that a person neglecting to
maintain his family was clearly punishable, whether in
England or Ireland; and the refusal to give up land was
prima facie evidence that a man was not destitute. The
circular of the Commissioners certainly led to the infer-
ence that relief might be generally given in such cases,
and, in so far, went to set aside the quarter-acre clause.

But that clause was not a positive prohibition of relief
to the wife or family; it was never the intention of the
Legislature that any persons should perish of hunger.
Had the circular been a little more explicit the objection
to it would not have arisen. In Ireland the clause bad
been construed as a positive prohibition. Cases of
great hardship had arisen in consequence, and hence
the issuing of the circular. He hoped the motion
would bo withdrawn, as its effect would, doubtless, be
attained.

The Earl of ST. GERMANS was glad to hear that an
amended order was about to be issued, authorising relief
in extreme cases without compelling a man to give up
his land.

Lord BEAUMONT considered that the assistance of
Parliament was necessary to relieve those who had the
administration of the law from the difficulty in which the
law placed them, and carry out the original intention of
the Legislature to assimilate the law in Ireland to that of
England.

Lord STANLEY observed that the Noble Lord
(Monteagle) had assumed throughout his statement that
the Poor-law Commissioners, first by their notice, and
subsequently by their order, had taken upon themselves
to set aside the law, and act in direct defiance of the Act
of Parliament, whereas it appeared that they had acted
according to the best interpretation the legal advisers of
the Crown had given of that Act. The Noble Lord's
resolution, therefore, would not be in accordance with
the fact. With regard to the interpretation of the law
officers of the Crown he was not competent to give an
opinion, but with regard to the intention of the Legis-
lature, he did not see how it was possible that it could
be more clearly expressed than it was in the Act itself.
But he looked with great alarm at the opinion given by
Mr. Henn, and sanctioned by the Attorney-General,
that the possession of land should not exclude the plea
of destitution, but that the possessor might, notwith-
standing, actually go before the board of guardians and
claim relief. It was for the express purpose of exclud-
ing such persons that the enactment was passed, and if
Mr. Ilenn's and the Attorney-General's interpretation
of the law be sound, that enactment was entirely set aside
and superseded. If they did not adhere to the " test"
against the dictum of the Poor-law Commissioners, they
would destroy the whole Bill, and :et in a flood of
pauperism, by enabling persons to hold land which it
was impossible they could cultivate, and thus involve
landlord and tenant, and the paupers themselves, in one
common ruin, and subject the country to one common
state of destitution, misery, and death, from which even
the resources of this great empire would not suffice to
rescue Ireland.

Lord MONTEAGLE made a few remarks in reply,
and concluded by withdrawing the motion.
Their Lordships (at Eight o'clock) adjourned to
Thursday next.