The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-02 00:00:00

away there would be no occasion for coercion bills, nor for
soldiers to enforce them. Now it appeared from the noble
earl's statement that the disturbances had materially decreased,
except where the bill was in force, and yet the tithes bad not
during the whole time been collected, or demanded in Ire-
land. This proved that tithes were not the cause of the dis-
turbances.
The bill was then read a first time, and the second reading
fixed for Friday next ; after which their lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 1.
The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past four.
Two ballots were fixed to-day for Dungarvan and Monag-
han. Only the first was taken, and the last postponed. The
members of the Dungarvan Committee were afterwards sworn
at the table.
DEATH BY BOXING.
Mr. O'CONNELL asked the noble Secretary for the
Home Department whether it was intended to bring in any bill
to prevent more effectually the loss of life in boxing matches?
Lord HOWICK answered in the negative.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that he would submit a motion
upon the subject on an early day.
DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
Mr. SHE IL begged to know whether it was the intention
of Ministers to take any measures for the relief of the distress
which at present prevailed in some of the districts of Ireland ?
He should not now have repeated the question which he put
so recently, had he not received a communication from Thurles
(Tipperary), stating that several thousands in that neighbour-
howl were in a state of utter destitution.
Mr. LITTLETON replied that the Government of this
country as well as of Ireland had taken the subject into their
most anxious consideration. He had received communications
from the district referred to, and he admitted that there the
distress was of a very lamentable nature • but he begged
clearly to be understood as stating that distress was by no
means general in Ireland. He would not at this moment say
whether it would be necessary for Ministers to apply to Par-
liament for a grant of money, but if such a course should be
deemed expedient, he trusted that those who had property in
the vicinity of the distressed districts would think it their duty
to subscribe liberally towards the support of their suffering
fellow-creatures.
Mr. COBBETT hoped that hon. members who had come
down to vote upon the Poor Laws Amendment Bill would
bear in mind the state to which Ireland had been reduced, as
that measure was calculated to place England in a similar con-
dition.
Mr. O'CONNE LL suggested the propriety of the Irish
Government opening a communication with the gentry in the
neighbourhood of.distressed places, to inform them that if they
were prepared to do their duty, Ministers were ready to make
good any deficiency of funds. He was glad to confirm what
had been said by the right hon. gentleman, that distress in
Ireland was by no means general.
Mr. O'C ALL AG HAN was confident that the gentry of
the county he represented would be ready to come forward
now, as they had done formerly, for the assistance of the poor.
Mr. SHE IL would bring forward the subject again to-
morrow.
Mr. LITTLETON asked in what manner he would bring
it forward ?
Mr. SHE IL should move an address to his Majesty, pray-
ing him to take into consideration the distressed_ condition of
certain parts of Ireland.
CHOLERA ACT.
Mr. O'DWYER asked if it were the intention of Ministers
to renew the cholera act, which was on the point of expiring ?
Mr. LITTLETON was understood to answer in the ne-
gative.
A petition was presented flona a person of the name of
Daniel O'Keefe, complaining of ill usage, because he had
voted in favour of the unsuccessful candidate at the last elec-
tion for Marlow.
Mr. VIG ORS presented a petition from St. Pancras,
against the Poor Laws Amendment Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL presented several petitions from
Devonshire, in favour of Church Reform.
Dr. LUSH IN GT ON presented a petition from Whitechapel,
against the Poor Laws Amendment Bill.
Sir S. WHALLE Y presented petitions from Mile-end,
and St. Dunstan's, Stepney, with the same prayer.
POOR LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
Lord ALTHORP moved the order of the day for the third
reading of the Poor Laws Amendment Bill.
Mr. LAW HODGE S felt it to be his duty to oppose the
bill, and to move that it be read a third time on this day six
months. It had been said repeatedly that the measure was
favourable to the agricultural interest ; few men suffered more
from the present state of the poor laws than he did, but after
the most mature consideration he could not discover that the
agricultural interest would be benefited in any way, or to the
slightest degree. Four main propositions were contained in
the bill, and they remained as objectionable as ever. 1. The
alteration of the law of settlement. 2. The alteration of the
law of bastardy. 3. The establishment of unions in the
country, and the consequent erection of workhouses. 4. That
the new law was to come into operation on the Ist of June,
1835. He especially disapproved of the changes as to settle-
ment and bastardy, and he believed that the public did not
sympathise with the house in its desire to pass the bill, by
which a new and heavy burden would be thrown upon the
parishes. If unions were effected of course new workhouses
must be built ; but he contended that the experiment of unions
in Suffolk had failed, and. he apprehended that the change of
diet for the poor contemplated would prove very detrimental
to their health. After the Ist of June, 1835, it was intended
that not one able-bodied man in the country should have
relief from the poor-rates. He dreaded what the effect of
the attempt might be upon the labourers of the country, since
they would either be driven into open resistance, or, if they
had not courage for that, they would be converted into thieves.
He looked upon the present measure as a sequel to the Cur-
rency Bill of 1819 ; and had those who voted for the bill of
1819 contemplated this addition to it, he thought they would
not have had courage to support it, without some precautionary
steps. Concomitant with this bill ought to have been some
plan for the relief of the poor of Ireland, in order to prevent
their index into this country. The total repeal of the malt
tax ought also to have preceded a bill like that before the
house. If at any time the people came in collision with an
armed force, it would never be forgotten. The affair of Man-
chester was well remembered ; and a similar affray at Bristol,
many years earlier, had comparatively recently been visited on
the regiment engaged in it.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY seconded the amendment, ex-
plainine: that he, like the hon. member for Westminster, had
voted forr the second reading in the hope that the bill would
be materially improved in the Committee : but it had expe-
rienced no such improvement. His leading objection to the
bill arose from the opinions he entertained respecting the
workhouse principle. He anticipated the worst consequences
from the workhouse clause. It would operate most injuriously
on the morals of the poor. The discipline and regulations of
the workhouse are intended to be or the most stringent kind,
the fare is to be of the most homely description, and the inmates
are to be altogether treated in such a way as to hold out the least
possible inducement to enter these houses. The object of this
severe discipline and homely fare was undoubtedly to encourage
emigration. He thought himself warranted in inferring that
that was intended, as the house had entertained the emigration
clause. He was satisfied, however, that little benefit could
be derived from emigration by the labourers of this country, so
long as no measures were taken by the house to put a stop to
the immigration of Irish labourers into England. The right
hon. gentleman (Mr. Spring Rice, as we understood) had
pronounced, the other evening, a very high and well-merited
eulogium on the views of Mr. Horton on the subject of emi-
gration. He ( Sir Henry Willoughby) had read all the works
of that gentleman on the subject, and in every instance they
concluded by saying, that so long as the Irish labourers were
permitted to immigrate, as at present, into England, there was
no chance of any sensible relief being felt by the lower classes
of this country from any extent to which emigration to other
countries was likely to be carried. And not only did England
suffer from the immense number of Irish labourers that were
constantly coming over to this side of the channel ; Scotland
also was beginning to feel the evil effects of the circumstance.
They were content to live in the most wretched hovels, to live
on the coarsest fare, and to wear rags. Their wives either worked
or begged, as the case might be ; and they therefore accepted
any wages, however low, that were offered to them. The evil,
he was sorry to say, was one of growing magnitude ; and it was
necessary that some effort should be made by the legislature to
provide a remedy. With regard to the clause of the bill which
related to the powers to be conferred on magistrates and the
overseers of the poor, he thought the power was too great. It
had been objected, by the friends of the measure, to the pre-
sent system of poor-laws, that they allowed too ample powers
to magistrates and overseers of parishes, and yet this bill
actually increased, instead of diminishing, those powers. He
thought that a discretionary power ought to be vested in magis-
trates and the guardians of the poor to .a certain extent, but
certainly not to•the extent which this bill conferred. He was
afraid that in many instances the power of withholding relief,
which they possessed, would be converted into an instrument
of oppression to the poor ; if, indeed, it did not in some cases
lead to starvation. The hardships to which the aged paupers
would be subjected by this bill would not only be great but
gratuitous ; for they could be supported as cheaply where they
were as they would be when in the workhouse.
On the question being put from the chair, Mr. Benett and
Mr. W. Whitmore rose together, but the former having given
way,
Mr. WHITMORE said that the hon. gentleman who had
just sat down, seemed to think that the greatest evils would
result from this bill in every part of the country. He (Mr.
Whitmore) was convinced that the hon. gentleman would find
himself mistaken when the measure came into operation. He
was equally convinced that he was in error as to what he had
alleged with respect to the extent to which certain evils con-
nected with this question already existed. The hon. gentle-
man had alluded to the surplus labouring population of this
country. His (Mr. Whitmore's) opinion was, that that sur-
plus population was, in a great measure, created by the exist-
ing system of poor laws. It was necessary, therefore, that that
system should be altered. To trifle with it any longer would
be ruinous to the country. The present system was produc-
tive of very great injury to the labouring population, in accus-
toming them to depend upon their support, when they chose
to apply for it, out of the poor rates ; that was a very great
injury to them, both morally and physically. He should give
the proposed measure his firm and decided support. With
refererXe to the allowance system, the hon. gentleman quoted
from a pamphig written in 1795, by Burke, on the subject of
a general scarcity, in which that high authority gave it as his
opinion that the magistrates had greatly erred in introducing
that system. ( Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENETT said, that if the hori, member had looked
over the large blue books which contained the cif4eial reports
on this subject, he would there find details which refuted all
his arguments. His inferences on the subject of the expense
of wages were wholly nullified by the facts stated there, that