The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-02 00:00:00

THE ARMY IN INDIA.

Sir IL PEEL said that he had a notice which he would
give for to-morrow. Two or three days ago it was his grati-
fying duty to announce his intention of proposing a vote of
thanks to Sir H. Smith and the army in India, for the very
signal and glorious victory that had been achieved
under his direction on the banks of the Sutlej.
Since that time accounts had been received of
another victory, not perhaps more glorions, but more
important in its results. It would, therefore, be his duty,
and he was sure that it would meet with the universal
sanction of the House, to propose another`vote of thanks
for the second victory. The British army was now within a
few miles of Lahore. In order not to diminish the effect of
their tribute of respect to Sir Henry Smith, he should pro-
pose two votes of thanks for the two victories.—(Cheers.)
DROPPED NOTICES. - . .

Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN said, that u only ten Irish
Members had voted for the Coercion Bill, and thirty-four
against it on Monday, he hoped the Right Hon. Baronet
would not press the Bill at present, after such an un-
equivocal expression of opinion on the part of the Irish
Members.

Sir R. PEEL said he was very unwilling to revive the
discussion of Monday upon this subject. The Hon. Gentle.
man did not appear to recellecr what the discussion of Mon-
d 4y was upon. They had not_ yet come to a discussion on
the merits of this Bill. The HOB. Baronet who made the
motion on Monday distinctly stated that he meant only to
call fur a discussion as to whether the Irish Bill ought to have
precedence or not. The main question had not been dis-
cussed at all. The Hon. Gentleman seemed desirous of
having a decision on this. Why could they not take it on
Friday next?
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said that the Irish Members had un-
equivocally given their opinion that the Irish Bill ought not
to have precedence of the Corn Bill.
Sir R. PEEL said there were two Bills of the utmost im-
portance to Ireland ; one was the Corn Bill, and the other
the Bill for the Suppression of Assassination in Ireland. The
first and second readings of the Corn Bill had been taken, and
the Government felt it their duty to take the first reading of
the other Bill at once. Why could they not take the first
reading, and reserve their opposition for the future stages
of the Bill, ample and frequent as those opportunities would
be ? After the Corn Bill was disposed of, the Government
would go into the fullest discussion of the Irish Bill in aU
its stages.
Sir J. GRAHAM, in moving that the order of the day for
the first reading of the Irish Bill be postponed till to-morrow,
wished to explain an inaccuracy into which he had fallen in
making his statement on Monday. He referred to the case
of Mr. Wilson. He had stated that Mr. Wilson was com-
pelled to leave his home and the improvement of his estate in
consequence of threatening notices which he had received.
He (Sir J. Graham) had stated that an address on this sub-
ject was made from the altar of the parish chapel before the
first threatening letter was sent. He should have said
after. He had also stated that Mr. Wilson knew the
parties who had sent the threatening letters. This
was an error—he did not know, for if he had it would have
been his duty as a magistrate to cause them to be appre-
hended. In every other particular the statement which he
had made was correct.
Mr. H. GRATTAN objected to this Bill, because it would
not give protection to life. The Bill was a libel upon Ireland
generally. He could assure the Government that they had
been much misinformed upon the subject of this Bill. State-
ments had been made only to frighten old women and old
Ministers. All that was required was to make the gentry of
Ireland do their duty.
After a few words from Mr. D. BROWN E,
with respect
Sir R. PEEL said he felt the deepest anxiety
to the distress into which the people of Ireland had been
thrown. He had given ample
proof as a public man of the
sincerity of his feelings. He had done all in his power to al-
leviate the distress which must inevitably attend anything
like scarcity. Having given that proof, he thought he might
ask Hon. Members to read the Bill a filet time, and reserve
their opposition fur the future stages of the Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL would not like to be ungrateful to the
fßaimgihnte Hinoln. relßanadro.nent
efoarckthneowslteedpgs
edhe
mhoasdt
rteLtakgy,en t oan avert
irte
might add, most gratefully, the plan the Government had
adopted fur the relief of the people of Ireland. Ho was,
however, compelled—reluctantly, he would admit—to op-
pose this Bill in every stage, simply because he
believed that it would deprive his countrymen of the rights of
the constitution. He vituld ask why not postpone the Bill
to Friday and not till to-morrow, as to-morrow the notices
of motion must occupy the whole night. He would also ask
the Right Hon. Baronet whether he had any objection to
lay before the House the documents which be had used in
his speech on Monday evening.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said it would be impossible to
go into the Bill to-morrow it was true, but he
thought it would be as well to place the note es
on the book, in order that if the notices should be disposed
of in a reasonable time, they might go into the adjourned de-
bate on the Irish Bill. As the documents to which the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had referred were hemcial docu-
ments, he could have no objection to lay before the
Mouse.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the motion he contemplated
would not in the slightest degree affect the vote of thanks to
the Indian army.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Lord DUNCAN inquired for what period the Hon.
Ea
Eronasettienr ectrendeu,
ed to move the adjournment of the House for
the
circum-
stancesSirß OwßhaEtßevTer,PhEeEwLotilobdsenrvotemd
otvheatt,heunadd
jeorurnanmy
House before Thursday week; and the longest period h 3
pwrhe real; ee
Y-(1 o tuol dallowof
aboutwould l
eleven
tnhde
as shortest that was ever given.
e
hanipton Chronicle, against whornan
for the publication of
brought by certain private individual,
House the case of Mr. Wood, the prottoptrioientorroroflihtheelbWadoh/reeeen.
security the srahl
shouldieGct
voe
bfr themgLichfieldevnetnh a tod
pproer..
sachGooorse.rHnmeewnitshrecrothrtatusopmone
agto esa
fine of
broughte for °
Mr Wo d
agsonasinpsutblwisihioinnig athuethseicnattioicndoicivadmebnetes.n
whichtee d the
the
jpourh3l,i
foundshcr o f tahaem reports t
thimaedap nub dhe
been
subjectedpinsahidert, the
hd ial
em
the same
publication in his newspaper,
Mr. CA RD W
tisEw.hteLioerLoi
odpt sfaawthbi
hdolaiu
would
taTdhnt
rabiooeteauctsel the two
Treasury
pursuancet,
w,iteis
phasoi
nn
501. for costs, which the Government refused to liquidate.
casest
nh weyo entitled.feechoi
sv( lboeuar
Government,
quite
o ordinarytdest-
aittliiveononchc,taa;vwt
iitohnhe
ugi e;
npMbuaebdrsi.iei
prin-
ciple, that the Government should pay the damages found
against every person who was made answerable for the publi-
cation of Government reports, which often necessarily con-
tained some unintentional libels.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he felt it due both to
the situation in which he was placed and his duty to his
clients to act in the manner he had done.
Mr. CHRISTIE thought that the Noble Lord had acted
perfectly right in bringing the subject before the House.
He begged to differ from the opinions of the Learned
Attorney-General upon the subject, and considered that the
proprietor of a newspaper should not be held responsible for
publishing in his,papar copies of any official reports.
Lord UNDO thought it not surprising that the editor

o fLa
newspaper in the neighbourhood of a school where such
a state of management existed, and seeing that state, should
notice it in his paper. He felt very deeply for the
poor man, who, no doubt, thought that he was ting in a
perfectly proper manner in publishing a part of what Le
thought was an authentic document.
Mr. MUNTZ would be the last man to interfere with the
liberty of the public press. Mr. Wood had, in a manner most
unfoundedly and untruly, made comments upon the report.
Had he only published the report he thought he would have
had a strong case.
Sir R. H. INGLIS thought the question was simply
whether the proprietors of a newspaper could publish reports
of this House, whether contained in their blue books or other
documents. He hoped, in the present case that some in-
dulgence would be shown to a person who had only acted in a
manner generally acted upon by the press at large.
Mr. EWART thought the House should not involve itself
in any collision with the courts of law.
Sir J. GRAHAM did not think the present was a case of
publishing reports of the House, but rather one in which unfair
comments had been made upon the reports of the editor of
the paper. The case had been submitted to two juries and
two verdicts, and he thought it highly improper that the

House should interfere. -
Lord INGESTRE then withdrew his motion.
RAILWAY DEPOSITS BILL.
Mr. MOFFATT then moved the second reading of the
_ _

Railway D,posits Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would not

object to the second reading, as some amendments which he
would wish to introduce might be introduced in Committee.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL made some remarks which were
inaudible in the gallery.
➢ir. MOFFATT would object to amendments being made
in Committee.

Mr. W. COLLETT thought that the great inconvenience
and loss attending railway deposits should be preTanted by
some alteration in the law.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be

committed to-morrow.
DESTITUTE POOR (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. P. SCROPE would beg to impress upon the House the
importance of the present measure. On the 21st of July,
1834, on the order of the day being read, he moved a resolu-
tion to the effect that, in order to the security against agra-
rian outrages, the poorer classes should obtain a sufficiency
of the necessaries of life by honest industry. In 1835 he
ha ventured to divide the House on the same principle. He
had co-operated with many Members of the House in obtain-
ing a poor-law for Ireland, and when the Commission for in-
quiring into the state of Ireland had made their re-
port, he had endeavoured to carry their recommen-
dations into effective operation. By that report it ap-
. .

peered that the Commissioners were decidedly of opinion
that if the poor population could not obtain a subsistence by
their industry, they ought to have an allowance out of the
Consolidated Fund, and in tact, that they were entitled to be
secured from destitution. But the Government thought this

recommendation went too far, and they sent only another
Commissioner, Dr. Nicholls, who had made a report, on which
the Ministry acted, and confined the relief to that which was
given at the several workhouses. What had been the result
of that system was evident in the agrarian outrages which
originated in want, and had most certainly led to crime. The
workhouses were only finished last year, and they
hail proved totally in.ufficient for the purpose, lie
conceived that the objects for which a poor-law ought
to be Qstabli,hed were threefold. The first of these
was the relief of the prior destitute, as a matter
of charity, with a view to put down vagrancy, and all those
evils which flow from a condition of society which is at once
beyond the power of the law, and incapable of orderly or-
ganisation. lie second ground was a matter of police, with
a view to reduce the amount of the crime and privation,
that temptation to break the laws which the impulses of
nature would always occasion. The third ground was the
protection of the poor man from those positions which
were opposed to all the foundations of law. By the
present state of things, land, which was the common
gift of the munificent Creator of all mankind, was confined
for the profit of the few, and therefore it was that some mea-
sure should be devised for the relief of that class who suffered
most from that perver-ion of the natural state of things.
These were the three groands on which a poor-law ought to
be based, and the attempt to restrict relief therefore to the
workhouse rule must prove totally inoperative. The work-
houses in Ireland were incompetent to relieve one
per cent. of the pauperised population of that country.
In England it is well known that the pauper popu-
lation constituted ten per cent. of the whole com-
munity. Now here there are 534 workhouses, a
much greater number than there were in Ireland, and yet in
this country it was a matter notorious to all that in these
workhouses there was not more than one- sixth of the relief

gnu en of the whole that was granted. It appeared that in
Limerick, ac2ording to the report of Lord Devon's Commis-
sion, the p.ior were absolutely in aworFe condition than

they were when the law was first passed. The scheme, then,

had evidently failed, and he (Mi.. Scrope) was of opinion
that until the poor were saved from the destitution
which pushed them on to crime these agrarian out-
rages would not cease. The poor man was evidently entitled
to be saved from starvation by an allowance from the land
on which their forefathers were born. (The Honourable
Gentleman then read a series of extracts from Dr.
Doyle's pamphlet, and from the work of Mr. Evans,
secretary to the Poor .law Inquiry for two years.)
There were three means by which the country was governed.
There was the law of the land, with their judges to administer
it and backed by the military and civil authorities, but which
had proved quite inoperative for its purpose. Then there
was the convention between the parties who were the objects
of the law's direction and who had succeeded in evading all
the carefulness of the law. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J.
•

Graham) had stated the other night that outrages were no
prevalent throughout Ireland, and that the increase of
crime was canfiaed to five counties. But what was the
reason of this, why because the law of the land was inoperative
to protect the lives and properties of the peasantry, whereas
the agrarian law was effective for that purpose. He would
ask whether the law of the land did protect the life of the
peasantry ?—[ Sir J. Graham—"Yes."] Did it? He denied
it ; for it did not protect him from starvation, and he was
compelled to resort to agrarian disturbances, in order to
protect himself against the extremity of want. In reply to
a petition the other day, the Right Hon. Baronet had stated
that they could not expect a man to surer the last
evils of starvation, but that he was to a certain extent
justified in resorting to violence, or at least illegality, to save
himself and his family from starvation. When a man was
evicted from his holding without any compensation for the
improvements he had made upon it, was he to lie down and
die in a ditch? On the very principle which the Right
Hon. Baronet had propounded there was evidently a necessity
far an alteration in this mode of relieving the poor.
Throughout a great part of Ire:and there was a peculiar
tenant right by which the tenant was entitled to com-
pensation, but did their law protect that ? It was
notorious that it did not. In Ulster the tenant right was
recognised and allowed, but such was not the case
generally, and in some places the tenant was evicted
from his holding without any compensation whatever, after
having bestowed as much as would amount to a twenty or
thirty years' purchase. In the counties of Down and Armagh,
it was the fear of agrarian outrages which preserved this
right. In Ulster, therefore, it was upheld, because the legal
authorities gave way to the agrarian law. He might refer to
the evidence of Mr. Senior, and to the late frightful case of
eviction in Galway, for a confirmation of what he had stated.
He thought that he had proved that the statute law did not
protect. life in Ireland, end that was the reason why, in moving
the second reading, he had given the title to the Bill which
it now bore. There was not protection from destitution, and,
therefore, as wrong begets wrong, so long as that destitution
existed crime would exist. He would not palliate the enor-
mity of the crimes in the slightest degree, but he was de-
sirous of impressing the House with the belief that there was
a duty to perform in saving the poor from the destitution
which was the source of crime. As Lord Brougham had ex-
pounded the law, the landlord had at present the right of
sweeping off the whole of their tenantry from their
estates without the slightest recompense, and Blackstone
had stated that there was no man so indigent but that he
might demand relief in case of destitution. It was clear,
therefore, that the landlords of Ireland ought to concede to
the people the right to a maintenance from the land of their
birth. He thought it was now high time to alter the laws
relating to the destitute poor of Ireland The existing laws
bad a tendency to produce crime, by not effectually relieving
•the destitution of the people. The rights of the poor were
left to the discretion of the landlord, and the rights of the
landlords were enforced, and exposed to the mercy of the land-
lord. Thg poor of Ireland had a right to relief; and he proposed
that out-'door relief should be afforded to them under the
discretion of the guardians. There was a great quantity of
waste land in that country, amounting to 4,000,000 of acres,
which might be made to produce crops, and give employ-
ment to the able. bodied poor; and he contended provision
should be made by the law for the employment of such persons
in such manner. It might be done under the superinten-
dence of the Board of Works. He believed that great gain
would result from such a mode of employment, both to the
landlords and to the country at large, which would be
cleared of the vagrancy, immorality, and crime which at
present existed there.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was sorry that a subject of such
immense importance should be discussed in such a hurry.
But, after the speech which had fallen from the
Honourable Gentleman, he found it necessary to make
some observations on a few points touched up on in
that speech, and, in the first place, he wouldacquit
him of any intention to create any evil excitement by a dis-
cussion on the subject, but on the contrary, he would give
him every credit for being actuated by the purest intentions
promote the public good. HoWever, the Hon. Gentleman would
excuse him if, considering the present state of Ireland and the
excitement which prevailed there, his humble judgment led
him to the conclusion that a discussion on this subject was,
to say the least of it, ill-timed. The Government had received
much information upon the subject, which differed in many es-
sential points from that urged by the Hon. Gentleman, and
he therefore considered that the Legislature would act
wisely in receiving any advice with great caution.
Tnere had been reference made to the starvation which
• was accustomed to exist in Ireland. Now, he did
believe that there was not one single instance
of death arising from starvation in Ireland, and that so far
from robbery and depredation having been committed in
consequence of starvation, the Irish people were extremely
honest amid the greatest want and privation. That was
their character, and with reference to what he
had observed, namely, that the discussion was inopportune,
he would say that an imprudent expression would be now
calculated to produce effects which he trembled to contem-
- plate, effects which might be written in letters of blood in Ire-
land, and he therefore approached the discussion of the snbject
with a degree of awe and hesitation. In the first place, he
considered that the doctrine laid down by the Hon. Gentle-
man was the most dangerous that was ever pro-
pounded, for if the doctrine was worth anything it
amounted to this—that occupation for any length of time
should be converted into a perpetual right, subsequent to
the payment of a quit rent.—( Hear .) Why, it would be
the subversion of all rights of property.—( Hear.)
Mr. POEILETT SCROPE said he distinctly declared that
he had no such intention, and that he only sought by his
Bill to obtain compensation for improvement.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he appealed to the House what was
their recollection of the words of the Hon. Gentleman ?
( Hear.) But rejecting mere words, and attaching themselves
to the principleof the Bill, he did still allege that, in his opinion,
the Bill reached to the extent whch he had just stated.
The Hon. Gentleman had stated that there were 2,300,000
paupers in Ireland; now it must be apparent to the House
that land iu that country could not be adequately taxed
for the support of such a vast number. He admitted
distinctly that property with its rights existed for the be-
nefit of the community.—(Hear, he r ) But, whilst there
was such a charge as this effected,ait would break down
the rights of property. He
.respected. law prescrip-
tions and possessions, and must
and with these impressions he
Respectingwas
Joul issue on this • •
compelled to
the feelings
resist the second reading of this Bill.
and the motives of the Honourable Gentleman,
impressed with the belief that the speech of Zen/lobewas
Gen-
tleman was likely to lead to more dangerous consequencesn.
than the motion itself; yet, entertaining that belief
should resist the measure which was now submitted tZfc. thee
House.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN, as en Irish landlord, and deriving
his- subsistence from the land, was grateful to his Hon.
per_
for having brought forward this motion, and he
fectly agreed with, him that the cessation from outragewair

owing to the agrarian association. With the fact before him
that the Government had brought in a Bill for coercion, he
thought the Irish people had a right to protection from
the Ministry. He admitted that the Bill now before
the House was not a sufficient protection ; but BOA was
an advantage, and the more so as the Bill of the Govern
ment was accompanied with conditions which were likely to
make it unpopular in Ireland. For three years the Govern-
ment had been conducting an expensive inquiry, and
although the Noble Lord near him (Lord J. Russell) had
expressed his opinion against it, yet he still must persist in
the belief that some system of out-door relief should be
adopted. In Englaad the matter was different, for
there the labourer obtained 9s. or 10s. a week, but
in Ireland a man, with all his exertions, could not ob-
tain more than 45., or, at the most, ss. a week,
so that there was no possibility of making a provision for
the future. In his opinion, the -rule for separating the hus-
band and wife, and the parents and children, was altogether
bad; and he thought that where such an effect was likely to
occur, out-door relief ought to be granted. That relief
ought also to be given in the cases of sick poor, and
of orphans entitled to relief, and especially in the cases of
persons growing up, for bad habits were easily formed, and the
workhouse was the grave of economy. With respect to the
granting of relief out of . the Consolidated Fund, he was
against any direct application of the public funds ;
but the Government might take another course. There were
farms which required improvement, thousands of acres
which were at present waste lands, on which capital
might be very profitably embarked ; there were
public works on which labour might be very profitably
employed, while there were thousands of persons who were in
want of employment, and in this way their labour might be
advantageously employed. He did not mean to say that
every able-bodied person was to rush to the public funds
for assistance ; but taking the workhouse test they might
apply it to the out-door relief. He was no friend to the
compulsory emigration, which was not popular in Ireland;
but yet voluntary emigration might be encouraged in a very
serviceable way. Now, to all these points the Government
might direct their attention, and they ought to do so. They
might frame the machinery as they liked, but still the princi-
ple ought to be adopted and used. There were several clauses
in this Bill that ought to be withdrawn without injuring it,
but the principle itself was good, and, if carried out, would
tend to improve many estates in Ireland ; and believing
so, he gave the Bill his most cordial support.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM explained that he opposed the
Bill on the grounds that it gave relief to the able-bodied
poor, that interfered with the exercise of their duties by the
Poor-law Guardians, disposed of the great question of the
out-door relief, and proposed an impossibility in attempting
to do away with mendicancy in Ireland.
Lordl J. RUSSELL, though favourable to any improve-
ment in the condition of Ireland, could not give his assent to
this Bill, for though the Commissioners might be very
good judges of the state of Ireland, yet he
had very great doubt of their recommendation to
give relief to the poer at their own hands. He bad
consulted Mr. Senior and Mr. Cornwall Lewis on this point,
and they had both given great attention to this subject, and
their impressions were that the alteration would have
the effect of adding new evils to those which
already existed in the old poor-law of Elizabeth.
He would call upon those who impugned the reasons of those
persons if they could, and he was the more impressed with
their conclusions by the reasons which they
had assigned for them.—( Hear.) They stated, for
instance, with regard to emigration, that a
difficulty would arise in the event of those who professed to be
ready, declaring when the ship was about to sail that they were
unable to go with it. If they yielded to such a declaration
they lost all the benefit of the outlay, while if they persisted in
forcing the parties to emigrate who had obtained the assis-
tance of Government, they would lay themselves open to
the reproach of having absolutely transported these indi-
viduals, instead of having encouraged voluntary emi-
gration. It did not follow that because there were
2,300,000 poor people in Ireland, there were
so many paupers, but that there were 2,300,000 persons not
in the possession of the comforts of others of similar condi-
tion in this country. He would not enter into the great ques-
tions of tenure of land and tenant right, but he must
declare his belief that there must be a workhouse
or some other similar test, and he conceived that if the poor
were to be relieved, it must be through the agency of other
and indirect means. For these reasons he should oppose
the Bill, conceiving that it was not calculated to accomplish
the ends which the mover intended.

The O'CONORI DON thought that the feeling in Ire-
land was decidedly against any increase of the poor-rates,
and that, therefore, if there was difficulty now, it would be
increased if this measure were passed, and he should, there-
fore, oppose it.
Mr. P. BUTLER said that there was evidently not any
necessity for the change. The Charitable Society and the
Benevolent Society, the two great charitable institutions of
Ireland, relieved every week 168 individuals. His belief
is that the guardians in Ireland ought to be compelled to
provide relief for the destitute poor.
Mr. WAKLEY—(" Question, question")—had heard only
a part of the discussion, and he regretted to have heard that.
The Right Honourable Baronet, the influential member of
the Government that is, and the Noble Lord who exoected
shortly to be at the head of the Government that is
to be, bad both positively declared themselves decidedly
opposed to the principle of the Bill, but he had yet to
learn why there should be a difference between the manage-
ment of the poor in Ireland and in this country. What was
the fact ? Why that the Irish poor prefered to be sent to
a gaol to returning to their own country. This was a fact which
ought to secure the most serious attention of the Irish Members.
He believed that this subject would grow in strength from year
to year, until the same system of legislation was adopted
with regard to Ireland as was adopted with respect to this
country. His conviction was, that outrages would increase
until they gave a right to relief in eases of destitution, and
as soon as that was granted, a great moral change
would be wrought in the condition of the poor of that
country. He should give the Bill his cordial support in all
its stages, and he hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would
allow it to go into Committee and there be modified if he
desired it, for he thought this was a duty which he owed to
the poor of Ireland, and if he did not do so, his (Mr. Wakley's)
impression was that his refusal would be a source of very
painful reflection.
Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON opposed the Bill.
Mr. SCROPE said he would not trouble the House by
dividing, and the second reading of the Bill was negatived
without a division.