The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-19 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
........—.....„
ROUSE OF COMMONS, Mdreh 18.
POOR LAWS (IRELAND).
Mr /GRAHIM (in continuation from our Afternoon Edition
sf yesterday) said—The majority of Irish landlords invariably
found labour on their estates for those who needed it, and gave
shanty to those who were unable to work, so that, in fact, on
their property poverty did not exist. It was true that some
neglected those who lived on their estates, and who were
suffering all the ills of poverty, on whom, perhaps, a tax
ought to be levied in order to raise a sufficient fund to sup-
port those indigent persons. But the imposition of such a tax
would have a similar effect to that of the old poor-law in this
country, and, therefore, in policy and equity, he was against the
introduction of such a tax into Ireland, because a temporary
evil should not be met by remedies, the permanent effects of
which would be dangerous. Its imposition would be incon-
sistent with the welfare of that country, especially to the
owners of property, would be dangerous in the extreme to a
great body of the people, and a torrent of pauperism would
be caused, which both the owners and renters of land would
find it impossible to support.—(Hear.) He repeated that
the evil was of a temporary nature, and that it ought there-
fore to be met with temporary remedies.—(Hear.) When
the peculiar circumstances of Ireland were considered,
they would find that she contributed her quota
of taxation, and therefore when famine and distress prevailed
he thought they ought to be alleviated out of the general
taxation of the kingdom, not in the nature of a dole, but as
an amount of money given out of the taxation of the country,
to which Ireland contributed her fair share, in order to meet
the evils which her inhabitants were threatened by tke
failure of the potato crop. He hoped then that the people of
Ireland would perceive that the Government and the Legis-
lature were exceedingly anxious to aid them in the time of
need, and that they had shown sympathy for their sufferings,
by devising early measures for the alleviation of their sufferings.
As a question of policy, he was opposed to the introduction
of a land-tax to meet a pressing but temporary emergency,
because he thought it would be dangerous in the extreme
to impose new burdens on an impoverished country.-(Hear,
hear. He had ventured to trouble the House at greater
leisgt than he intended, because he thought it expedient
that the views which he entertained after much deliberation
should be fully explained.—(Hear.)
Mr. S. O'BRIEN asked what alterations the Hon. Baronet
proposed to introduce in the Bill when in Committee ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said he should propose the substitution
of the words " poor" for " destitute," and " epidemic" instead
of " fever."
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN said nothing could be more fair
than the spirit in which this subject had been discussed by
the Right Hon. Baronet.—(Hear.) He hoped to discuss it
with the same feeling; but in the remarks which he should
feel it his duty to address to the House, if anything should
fall from him contrary to that, he trusted they would not
consider that it was put forward with any intention of offend-
ing the Right Hon. Baronet. They were all agreed that it
was desirable to take measures to prevent the epidemic
which would result from the failure of the potato
crop, in order to meet future contingencies;
but, in his opinion, the Bill which the Government had in-
troduced with the intention of accomplishing this object
was inadequate to the emergency. He found, by reference
to the Irish Poor -law Act, that the guardians of every poor-
law union are empowered to provide relief for persons af-
fected with contagious or other diseases in the workhouses
under their control during their illness and convalescence,
to afford them such food as they might deem necessary,
with the consent of the Poor-law Commissioners, and that
the expense should be paid out of the rates paid by the
inhabitants of each union. Under this law there were 88
fever hospitals connected with unions, in all of which this rule
had been carried out, whenever necessity arose. lie thought
therefore that the Right lion. Baronet. should have brought
forward some Case in which the guardians of one or more of
these unions had neglected or refueed to carry out this pro-
vision; he had not, however, done so, but the Bill he had in-
troduced showed that he considered that the poor-law guardians
had neglected their duty. The Bill would introduce the prin-
ciple of imperative taxation, which was much complained of
in Ireland, and apparently without achieving any great object.
It also gave power to the Executive to appoint fresh medical
officers, certainly at the expense of the state, who were to
supersede the officers now employed in the different unions.
It appeared to him, however, that the people of Ireland did
not want fever hospitals, but food at the present moment.
He could not help saying that the commercial policy of the
Government, if carried, would improve the trade of Ireland,
because the exports would most likely be increased from
12,000,000/. to 15,000,0001, by which, of course, great num-
bers would obtain that employment which was now denied
them. One hundred and seventy returns from twenty-seven
counties showed that the poor had been living for some
time on diseased potatoes, and that in a very short time the
whole of their supply of provisions would be exhausted.
He believed that the protectionists of Ireland would have
had no objection to the opening of the ports in November last
for the admission of corn ; at least such was the feeling pre-
valent amongst all classes in Ireland. It was the duty of
Government, when such a crisis was depending, to have
assembled Parliament, and then such measures would have
been adopted as would have rendered unnecessary any appeal
to the public purse. As regarded railway expenses, it was
manifest that it would be impossible that any funds from
that source would come into circulation in connexion with
any railway Bills to be considered this session. Had
the Government taken these projects into cereideration in
November last—( Hear, hear)—their benefit might have been
felt at the period when it would most be wanted. The Right
Hon. Gentleman had said that Bills for public works had
been forwarded in order that Ireland might feel the benefit
of the employment they would occasion. There was the
Drainage Bill, the Bill for County Works, for which
100,000/. was to be advanced ; the Public Works Bill, fur
which 50,0004 was to be advanced; and the Fisheries Piers
• Bill, for which 50,000/. was to be advanced. They would
certainly be better than grants, and had he (Mr. S. O'Brien)
been speaking to an Irish Parliament he would have re-
commended similar measures to them, for he considered
that the principle of indiscriminate charity was one
of the most demoralising and uebasing kind.—(llear.)
If they would do what, is his opinion, they ought to do, they
would not find it necessary to make these demands on the
public Exchequer. A'oeut four or five millions per annum
were received from Ireland by absentees living in England
or on the Continent, and if these people resided in their own
country, it Was his belief that there would not only be no
prospect of starvation, but that the people would get better
food, Let the Government levy a tax on the absentees, and
they might keep their grants in their pockets. A tax of
10 per cent. on four millions would give 400,0001, which
could be applied to the relief and benefit of Ireland.
It was not customary for him (Mr. S. O'Brien) to suggest
measures of improvement to her Majesty's Ministers, yet he
had no hesitation in saying that the principle of losses, if
carried out, would be productive of great advantage.—(lleac,
hear.) An Hon. Member had spoken of the employment
Of irded by railway projects ; . bet he (Mr. O'Brien)
could say that, from the stagnation in the money
market and other causes, there was a general indis-
position at the present moment to pay up the shares,
and consequently the projects were rather in a
state of suspension than otherwise New he wished to ask,
was there any reason why Government should not interpose
and carry on the works, they being secured in the advances
necessary for their completion ?—( Itar, hear.) As regarded
the loans advanced to Ireland, he should say they were so
many evidences of the British Exchequer having profited
largely—(Hear, hear)—for England first borrowed the money
at threeper cent., and then lent it to Ireland at five per cent.
New with respect to levying local taxes, the Honourable
Member for Stroud was for levying rates for the support of
the poor. Ho (Mr. S. O'Brien) did not object to a rate, but
he thought that small farmers ought to be exempted, while
those holding annuities from land should be rendered liable.
He was ebony of forcing his advice on the Government,
bet he now felt no hesitation in doing so. lie had done so
even on the Coercion Bill, and it was under discussion for
several mouths.—(Laughter.) lie now wished them to give
time for the consideration of this measure, until the opinions
of the Irish Members and those interested in that country
timid be obtained upon it.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that the Bill would extend itself
not only to Ireland, but to every part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. WAKLEY said, he felt grateful to the Member for
Stroud for having introduced the measure in its extended
system, and he considered it a very disgraceful thing that
there should be very different systems of poor-laws prevail-
ing in differene parts of the kingdom. He could see no reason
why the poor of Ireland were not entitled to as good a poor-
law as the people of England enjoy. In Ireland the desti-
tute man, who was starving, was not entitled to relief,
while if he came to England he received relief.
An Hog. Mintamt—lie is entitled to beg.
Mr. WAKLEY—What a splendid privilege is conferred
upon him! But whynot make it a crime, as it is made in Eng-
land, to beg, and why not give relief to those who are destitute?
Under this state of things he wished to know if the English
labourer was treated as he ought to be ? The present state of
the law was a robbery on the English landlord, and a robbery
on the English labourer. Many thousands of Irish labourers
(and he diii not blame them) came into this country at the
commencement of the harvest and obtained work. They re-
mained about two months, and then returned to Ireland with
the proceeds of their industry in their pockets. Was
that fair on the English labourer, who at the time
he expected that his wages would be raised by an
increased demand for labour, found that these men came into
competition with him and undersold him? They should have
in Ireland such a poor-law as would compel the guardians to
find labour for these men, just on the same principle as it
was in this country under the Act of Elizabeth. The Hon.
Member for Stroud had asked for nothing more than the
English law was doing at that moment. He would call the
attention of the Hon. Gentleman to the following return :
In the year 1837, since the poor-law had been in operation,
there were relieved in England, in the workhouses, 30,351,
and out of the workhouses, 258,367. The Hon. Gentleman
then went into an elaborate calculation to show that the
number of persons relieved without the workhouses between
the years 1837 and 1844 vastly exceeded the number relieved
within doers,. and increased in each year. Now, did the
Right Hon. Gentleman disapprove of the practice or other-
wise ?—(Hear, hear.) T
the out-door relief he effect, as every person knew, of
system was most beneficial to the
working classes. It wasas a most merciful system for the
working classes,w
and working for their god, and conse-
quently for the good of the
Government community. Now if the system
was bad why should the
not alter it ?—(Hear.)
Reference had been made to an absentee-tax, but what
tax, he asked, could be so good as a
distributed over the country ?
English were called
NowPtrerax, to be equally
on to perform a duty which really belonged solely to the
ohowed that
Irish proprietors. Returns before the House showed
were
the only food for millions of the people in that es
Were rs
Irish
they
potatoes, upon which they were compelled to live. country
gentlemen satisfied with this state of things?
satisfied that their countrymen should exist upon what Dr.
Corrigan well stated was the least nutritious article of food..
Were the protectionists of Ireland satisfied with this state of
things? He (Mr. Wakley) knew they were not. But they
should endeavour to improve this state of things. If the
law be not altered now, when will it be altered ? He hoped
he would hear the views of the Noble Lord. What were
his views of the poor-law in Ireland? He considered the
state of that law as most repugnant to the feelings of humanity.
There were thousands and even millions in Ireland who were
In destitution. He knew that the workhouses were not full,
but it was as well to starve out of the house as within it.—
(No, no.) He would say it Wes. for what was the dietary?—
why, including clothes it was only 2s. a week. In many of
the workhouses for necessaries, provisions, and, clothing he
found that Is. sd. was the highest allowance, and then there
wasa penny a week left for clothing. If a man broke the law in i
this country he got bread and butter and coffee, to the ex-
tent of 61 Under the criminal law a person in this station
was previded to the extent of 31. 60. amid es. rel. a week.
Indeed, in some of the criminal asylums, each individual
was an expense of Ik. tiii. a week, while hi Ireland the whole

expense of a person in the workhouse was Is. 9d., and
in some cases only s. 11d., There never was a
time when the landlords in Ireland were so called
upon to accede to a more liberal poor-law than that which
now prevailed. He would cite the authority of Dr. Corrigan,
a man of the highest authority in his professi in, and who
bad never written en party politics. He was the physician
of the Warwick Fever Hospital and of several other of the
leading medical institutions of the country. That gen-
tleman had given his knowledge of what had occurred
within a hundred years, but he would in this instance
allude to the testimony afforded by the time since
the year 1817. At that time it had been sugawted that