The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-22 00:00:00

(PRICE 7g. )

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

this most important measure to crave permission to put off the
discussion of it.
The Marquis -of LONDONDERRY said he would be
the last person to interfere in the business of the
House. It was a little hard, however, to prevent him from
addressing their Lordships to explain some circumstances
which had been alluded to by the Noble Marquis opposite.
—(Lansdowne.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR begged the Noble Mar-
quis's pardon. He had not the slightest notion that the
Noble Marquis was going to explain, but understood that the
Noble Marquis was about to originate a motion.
The petition was then laid on the table.
Lord KENYON presented a petition from St. Pancras,
against the Poor Laws Amendment Bill.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
The Earl of LIMERICK rose to complain oI a gross mis-
representation that had been made in another place by a
learned person, of his character and acts. In doing so, he could
assure the Noble Lord on the Woolsack that he had no wish
to interfere with the important measure of which he was that
night to move the second reading.—( Hear, hear.) He
should be very short, but he felt it due to himself
that he' should bring the subject before their Lordships.
The system that had lately been adopted of denouncing—
(for he could call it by no other name)—individuals by name
in great public assemblies, was new in the annals of the coun-
try, and ought to be condemned.
Earl GREY rose to order. He thought it impossible the
House could entertain the complaint of the Noble Earl. If he
understood that complaint rightly, it related to something
that had been said in the House of Commons. If such were
the case, it was impossible for that House to entertain it.
If it had appeared in any publication, the Noble
Earl might then complain of it as a breach of privilege, but if
it was a statement made in the House of Commons, this House
had nothing to do with it.
The Earl of LIMERICK said that he had purposely
avoided speaking of the House of Commons, but he would
now say that in the House of Commons denunciations had
been made against individuals in the other House, which
might soon tend to the abolition of the House of Lords, and
the overturning the throne. He had read in a newspaper
that he had been denounced as having depopulated a consider-
able track of country, and driven 200 families from their farms.
Such imputations, which were utterly unfounded, he was sure
that none of their Lordships could submit to, without strong
feelings. The fact was, that only eleven persons had been
thus treated, and on very different grounds from any. stated on
the occasion. The truth was, that emissaries had been sent
abroad to preach that rent was no longer to be paid to those
landlords who happened to be absentees. He had been held
up to the people of Ireland as an absentee, and had been re-
peatedly denounced. The persons he alluded to would not
pay one shilling rent, and it was found absolutely necessary to
have recourse to ejectment. The property was held on what
was called joint tenancy, and therefore it was found necessary
to proceed generally against those persons.- He had done no
more than exercise the right of property, and yet he had been
denounced to the knife of the assassin. He was extremely un-
willing to bring forward complaints of breach of privilege, but
he felt bound, on that occasion, to vindicate himself from
charges which, if true, ought to deprive him of a seat in
their Lordships' House, and which would render him unwor-
thy to be received in society.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH had not been assailed
in the same language as his Noble Friend, but an attack had
been made upon him (Lord Westmeath) from the same quar-
ter. The attack made upon him was most unfair, and accom-
panied with a malicious sneer. It was stated that he had not
the same power of proceeding in the way pursued by his Noble
Friend (the Earl of Limerick) as his (the Marquis of West-
meath's) opportunity was liinited, as his means were the
smallest in the world. The property a man might be pos-
sessed of did not always depend on himself, unless,, indeed, he
was enabled to reap that which he did not sow, or to extort
money from the people by involving his country in distress.—
(Hear, hear.) With respect to the attack made on himself
he would only say that, when the papers relative to the re-
newal of the Coercion Bill were laid on the table, he
asked the Noble Earl then at the head of the Govern-
ment to place on the table papers relative to the distur-
bances in his (the Marquis of Westmeath's part of the coun-
try, but he had not pressed his motion in consequence of the
change that had taken place in the Government. He re-
gretted, however, that he had not done so when he heard of
the attack that had been made upon him, but he should con-
clude with moving for a return of such papers. He did not care
for the censure of the Learned person alluded to, and indeed
if he (the Marquis of Westmeath) should by any misfortune
happen to gain the good opinion of that person he should
tremble lest he had committed some great error..—( A laugh..)
There was little doubt that the systematic attacks made on
the Irish landlords and magistrates, and all persons in autho-
rity in that country, were not merely directed to the people
of Ireland, but they were intended to opeiate through the
press on the people of this country. As a proof of this he
would refer to some observations which were made in the
Courier newspaper of Saturday, where an attack was made
on the Irish landlords in consequence of the remarks that had
been made on last Friday night. He would put it to their.
Lordships whether those who resided in Ireland were not
exposed to the knife and dagger of the assassin and the torch
of the incendiary by such attacks as had been alluded to by
his Noble Friend. The statement with respect to himself
was entirely false, and he could not suffer it to pass without
his solemn contradiction. It had been asserted that he had
ejected a number of persons without any just ground, whereas
the case was that the few persons alluded to were very bad
characters, and many of them were engaged -in predatory out-
rages, and they had not paid him any rent for twenty-two
years. To some of them he had even given sums equivalent
to two years' rent, to induce them to quit their residences.
The real truth however, was, that the charges that had
been brought against him originated with the Priests, who
had no interest in the peace of the country or security of pro-
perty. Those persons had said that it was through his (the
Marquis of 'Westmeath's) exertions the Coercion Bill had been
applied to his part of the country, whereas he was in this
country at the time, and it was done without his knowledge.
The Noble Marquis concluded with moving for certain papers
relative to the Coercion Act.

Viscount MELBOURNE hoped the Noble Marquis
would postpone his motion until to-morrow, so as to enable
him (Lord Melbourne) to consult his Right Hon. Friend the
Secretary for Ireland on the subject. He thought that it
would not be expedient to lay the whole of the papers on the
subject of the application of the Coercion Bill on the table,
as they went too much into minutiae respecting the state of
the•country.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH consented to postpone
his motion.

WARWICK BOROUGH BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that Wm. Crane,
one of the witnesses who had been summoned to attend on
this Bill, but who had neglected to do so, and for whose ap-
prehension a reward had been offered, had surrendered himself
to the Sergeant at Arms.
After a few words from Lord WYNFORD, the Duke of
WELLINGTON, and the Earl of RADNOR, William Crane was
ordered to be brought to the bar to-morrow.

• •
it
possible for any one who supported the name of states-
man, or who had taken on himself to counsel his Sovereign, to
listen to the dictates of clamour or to sacrifice his duty to po-
pular applause. He believed that they would best recommend
themselves in the end, as they assuredly would from the be-
I I ginning, to the rational part of their fellow-countrymen—that
z 4 they would in the end best recommend themselves even to
those who were not able, from want of the habit, to direct
their judgment to the calm discussion of the question—that they
would best recommend themselves, ultimately, to the unanimous
approbation—to the surely-expressed gratitude of the people,
who should manfully carry .through, with the aid of their
Lordships, a system of provisions, which, in his conscience,
he believed to be most efficacious--to be the least objection-
able in point of principle, to sin least against any known rule
of politics, or of the constitution, or of legislation, and at
the same time to afford the nearest and surest prospect of any
plan that had yet been devised for terminating the evil, the
extent of which, at present, no tongue could adequately de•
scribe—the terrible extent of which no party could adequately
pourtray—evils which bad laws, and which the lawgiver, hav-
ing been outstripped in his course by the bad administration
of mischievous laws, had made unequalled in this country—
evils which would leave, if allowed to continue, nothing in
the property of the country that could be held secure—no-
thing in the industry of the country that could be held safe of
its due reward—nothing in the character of the oountry that
could claim for it the respect which the character of the English
peasant always demanded—mils, which had led to the multi-
plication of misery, to the increase of many excesses of crime,
but which once arrested, the country would be restored to a
state of things, in which industry, stripped of its reward, idle-
ness, profligacy, and vice would usurp the just and lawful rights
of property no longer.—( Great cheering.) A continuance in
the existing system would occasion, he would not say, an agra-
rian division of property ; he was not sure it would not be
worse. Peace itself had returned to them without its natural
fruits. Disturbances had prevailed in districts where dis-
turbances never existed before. Such had been the result
of the old system ; and they were now called on to adopt a
remedial measure with all the evils full before them.—( Hear,
hear.) He derived consolation from the conviction that
this measure would not involve them in political fac-
tions, or—to use a milder term—party discussion.---( Cheers.)
They had met together on this question, having no party to
divide—having no interest to bear them against each other.--
( Cheers.) No personal feeling would interfere from the be-
ginning to the end of this discussion, which would, indeed, take
place on the principle of the measure, and which would be fol-
lowed hereafter by an investigation of the details. Most of
their Lordships had had ample experience of the existing
Poor Laws,—most of them were familiar with the exposition
of the statutes of Elizabeth ; others had, no doubt, refreshed
themselves by looking into the able report of the Poor Law Com-
missioners. He presumed, therefore, that they were all well
qualified to enter into an examination of the present Bill. He
begged to call their Lordships' attention to the origin of the
existing system, of its evils, and of the progress they made in
the early, part of this century. By some, the origin of the Poor
Laws was attributed to the abolition of the monastic orders,
and to the seizure of church property in the reign of Henry
the VIIIth. It was not correct, however, to ascribe the origin
wholly to that. But more incorrect still would it be to
deny that altogether as a cause. Those who had done so
rested the denial on the fact that the 43d Elizabeth followed
the seizure of the monastic lands by about twenty years.
Unquestionably it was a fact that this was the first poor law
which made a compulsory provision for the poor. Out of this
' arose an argument against the church estates, and they had
the question of tithes constantly, and not very fairly, pressed
into the service of the question of the poor laws. It was said
that the original division was one-fourth for the Bishops, one-
fourth for the parsons, one-fourth for the repairs of the church,
and one-fourth for the poor. But this hael been discovered to
be a mistake. The proper division was a tripartite division,
viz., one-third for the church, one-third for the parson, and
one-third for the maintenance of the poor. That principle of
division existed long after the 15th of Richard 11., when an act
was passed in which the Legislature still recognized the right of
the poor. In the reign of Elizabeth it was also evident from a
quaint sentence attributed to the judges, that the principle was
recognized by the courts of law. It was thought that if the poor
recovered their right to maintenance from the church, that
this would put an end to the whole difficulty; but he could
not conceive anything more mischievous--he could not ima-
gine anything that would be more likely to militate against the
interest of the poor, rather than in their favour—than to de-
clare that there was any regular fund on which they could
throw themselves fot support. The consequence of the 43d
of Elizabeth had been, if not positive advantage, no particular
evil. So long as the principle was to relieve only the impo-
tent--the disabled in body or mind, to the exclusion of the
able-bodied, the provisions proved no detriment. But those
unfortunate words in the Act, giving the overseers the power
of taking an order for setting the poor to work, interpreted as
it at first was, to find work for the pauper, and if it could not
be' found, to feed the pauper, followed too by the 36th Geo.
111., occasioned as much mischief as ever had resulted from
the construction of any statute. He blamed not those who
put that construction on it—it might have been a sound con-
struction. All he did was to call attention to the consequences.
He knew that blame had also been imputed to the magis-
trates of the country for the manner of their administration
of the Poor Laws.—( Hear.) He was not one of those
who would entertain that charge. The Magistrates were a
class to whom this country was much indebted, and on this
subject all that could be said of them was, that they were not
before the age in which they lived. It was charging them
with the want of more than human sagacity, to charge them
with not having seen the effects of this system. They had
the countenance of the first men in the country, of legislators
who had over and over again laid down the principle ; of
courts of law that had given it their solemn sanction. He did
not know one instance in which a liberal construction had not
been given to the enactments of the law, and in consequence
the magistrates were encouraged in the system laid down.
They had the most eminent authorities in their favour. He
would not allude more particularly to Gilbert's Acts. But
there was Mr. Pitt's plan in the year 1795. The plan of an
individual of most masculine understanding, first as to details,
and next as to practical policy, as well as scientific principle.
That plan said that the pauper had a right to be comfortable
in his own dwelling. This plan was not carried into effect :it
it had been, it would have legalized the allowance system. It
laid down the notable principle that every poor man was entitled
to comfortable support for himself and family in his own house,
and that for their better sustenance they should be provided
with a cow, a pig, and othcr"vholesome and reasonable food.
(A laugh.) Thus they had mistaken the only good principle,
that men should be fed according to the work they did, and
that men should be employed according to the demand for
their work.--(Hear, hear, hear.) The industrious man ought
surely not to live worse than the idler, nor ought the idler to
be allowed to run away with the portion properly belonging to
him who worked. All this was as evident as that two and two
made four. It was useless and superfluous to say so. The
very proposition was as manifest in policy, as that two and two
made four was true in arithm tic. Yet, against this principle,
the Poor Law, and the whore administration of the Poor Law,
seemed constantly, deliberately, every instant, by night and
day, during winter and in good weather—in famine and in
plenty—in peace and in war—outrageously, perpetually, with-
out change, or the shadow of change.—( Cheers.) But it
would be said that though every man ought, as a general
rule, to be made to depend upon his own resources, and
that no man should be permitted to sit idle and eat the
bread of another man's industry, yet that there were
occasions when this rule must bend to necessity—such
as in cases of sickness, or where the party, if not sup-
ported
by the community, must die. Undoubtedly such
cases do occur. His own opinion was that the sounder
principle would be, that this should be left to private charity,
which he held to be much the greater blessing, both to bins
who received and him who gave ; this, however, was not the
question raised on the present occasion ; nor did he mean to
say that under existing circumstances, he objected to the
compulsory principle. Of all doctrines, the least safe was
that which provided a fund, payable by the State or a parish,
known to all the community, and so administered that all.
sorts and classes of men, the deserving and the undeserving,
the idle by necessity and the idle by choice, considered them-
selves as entitled by natural and indefeasable right to apply to
it at any time they chose to do so. The existence of such a
fund lead to two evils—the first, that from the very nature
of its existence it could not be otherwise than abused in
its distribution ; for the feelings of magistrates and over-
seers could no more be trusted to in the distribution of
this public charity than those of individuals in the
bestowal of private charity. The other evil consequence
of the system, and by far the greatest evil of the two,
was this, that in the knowledge of the existence of such a fund,
young people entered into improvident marriages in the full
confidence that however great the number of their children
might be, those children, as well as themselves, would be
supported from that fund; and this feeling induced
them not only to marry improvidently, but to act improvi-
dently. He trusted the House would not think he was occu-
pying over much of their time by too didactic arguments, but
he felt himself bound to state his opinion on this most im-
portant subject. As he had said before, he objected to this
system as most unsafe and impolitic : the safest, and indeed,
the almost only safe charity, was a hospital for accidents, for
the existence, however generally known, of such a hospital,
would in no degree tend to augment the number of the per-
sons who derived a benefit from it. The next safest charity
was that of a dispensary, though he did not entertain so un-
mixed '
an opinion in favour of this species of institution,
because, as a man was more liable to sickness than
to accident, he was for that reason bound to anticipate its
occurrence, and to do his best to provide accordingly, by
putting by a portion of his earnings. To dispensaries, how-
ever, he would not go the rigorous length of objecting
but when he came to the third species of charity, that of
an institution for the reception of the aged and infirm, he
felt a much stronger feeling of objectoinoln,
whichfot old
everya man
age and
a
its consequent infirmities were a g
must necessarily look forward to, and which every man,
therefore, was bound to do his utmostwhich
to provide for in some
way or other. .But the institution most sinned against
every sound principle was that which provided for the support
of children. Of all our public institutions, that which had
been the greatest outrage against sound principle was the
Foundling tal—an -institution, however, which—to show
the great
reatadFiovaspncie we had made in the science of political
economy and good government __from being considered the
great ornament of the metropolis, and richly endowed, now no
withtaan iyneydte
haits a
nr originaleuebel received
af eaantyu r
foundlings;es
Foundlingor
iosp appropriation, for it had
considered a foundling hospital a public
then( ilongert
oa
rs
case many
itannauld.isathnelcne
.which
she
ought to be suinmarily abated. The great evil of the poor
laws of this country was, that it sinned against the leading
doctrine, that reward should be connected with labour,
and that the idle should not eat the bread earned by the