The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-20 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 19.

Mr. MACAULEY took the oaths and his seat for Caine!
Mr. Preston appeared at the Bar with a copy of certain
resolutions of the Court of the East India House.
Mr. Johnston appeared at the Bar with a return of the
amount of fees taken in the Admiralty Court.
BIRMINGHAM AND LONDON RAILWAY.
On the motion of Sir G. Sizirwrrit, the Birmingham
and London Railway Bill was read a third time.
The How. BARONET then moved the addition of several
clauses, by way of riders
The first clause was a reservation in favour of the
Grand Junction Canal Company, and provided, that, if
any accident, caused by the railway, should impede the
free navigation of the Grand Junction Canal, the Railway
Company, in certain cases, should render compensation to
the amount of 101., and in others 30/. per hoar during
such impediment. This clause went through its several
stages, and was ordered to be added to the Bill.
The second clause was to preserve the levels of the rail-
way, which was added to the Bill.
The third prohibited any engine: on the railway from

Mr. SADLER rose to bring forward his motion re-
specting making a provision for the poor of Ireland. Ile
expressed his intention to give every Member an oppor-
portunity of solemnly recording his opinion, whether or
not the poor of Ireland were entitled to relief, and
if that right be Conceded, whether it was expedient
any longer to withhold that relief. He was de-
termined not to let a single Session pass while he
had a seat in that House, without bringing this ques-
tion forward ; but he did not despair of the decision of this
night. He recollected that when he brought the subject for-
ward last Session upon resolutions, he was told he should
have proceeded by introducing a Bill, but upon considers
tion, he was persuaded that the course he then pursued
was the best one. All that this Parliament could do
was to affirm a resolution on the subject; and he had
taken the proper course to endeavour to effect that object.
In addressing himself to the subject, he would not
hesitate to place in the face and front of the argu-
ment, the right of the poor to relief founded on the
nature of things--a right which lies at the foundation
of all civilized institutions, which was affirmed and esta-
blished by the most sacred injunctions. Mr. Locke, in
that celebrated treatise which might justly be denomi-
nated the foundation of British liberty—his treatise
On Government, had asserted that no man had so
complete a right to his own property as to exclude
the claims of his poorer fellow-creatures ; and
the same opinion had been entertained by all great Le-
gislators. Religion, in all its forms assumed, recognized,
and sanctioned the justice and necessity of such an institu-
tion. Whenever society advanced, just in proportion as
the people removed from barbarism, was this right
asserted. and provided for, and in all the civilized
countries of Europe provision was established for the poorer
classes of the community. In the United States, where,
if any where, it might have been dispensed with, provisions
being cheap, and labour plentiful, as one of her ablest
in uTioteurrs
system, and
provision for the poor, which was
there established, extended to objects not comprised
and by which the poor of everyand complexion were relieved.—(Hear') h
would never cease out of the land, and thi thswas a
truth which, supported by the highest sanction, was nut,
countrye
poor
he thought, inconsistent with the true interests of every
civilizedprovi-
sion
ior ctohmeiirnurneiltieyf.
h\al,drithbeeoy
been
civi-
lized countries, and that unhappy exception was Ireland.
estoanbeliseixecdepitniona,ilprovi
The question therefore which naturally arose, was, whe-
ther there was there distress to be alleviated, affliction to
be removed, or poverty to be relieved, or whether the

Mr. STANLEY proceeded to observe, that the Legis-
lature might have decided that single question ; but it
had not decided whether it was equitable or politic to
make distinctions in taxation between those who were
resident and those who were not so. Would the Hon.
Gentleman say that the proprietors of land iu Ireland who
were absent were the only absentees? What would he say
to the absentees who received the interest on mortgagee of
land in Ireland? These were only a few of the nuinermir
difficulties with which, whoever undertook the subject, to
the consideration of which the resolutioo of the Hon.
Gentleman would pledge the House, mast grapple.
Mr. CHAPMAN in opposing this measure did not
mean
too
opposed
it
on himselfa account
oto u
uot oppose o
these a
time mod
ai fit e
which
systemh ie h
it : he
chiefly
wa-
brought forward, as he considered that, however consistent
it might be in the Hon. Member, who looked forward
with fear and apprehension to the Reformed Parliament, to
endeavour to bind the House, and hurry forward the mea-
sure now, it would be very unsuitable in those who anti-
cipated great and important benefits from the next Parlia-
ment to advocate so vague and, indefinite a proposition
which the Hon. Member himself acknowledges he does
not intend to follow up by any specific measure, and
which, therefore, cannot possibly lead to any practical re-
sults.

Mr. JAMES GRATTAN supported the motion. 01
this he was convinced, that the question as to the Repea;
of the Union would never be etttled until the laws re-
apecting the poor in the two countries were assimilated.
When matters so important were pressing forward—when
he saw on the Table two Bills—the one to prevent th.
poor of Ireland from emigrating to this country, the other
to regulate Tithes—he thought a subject of such magni-
tude as that which the lion. Member for Aldborough had
brought !forward ought not to be disregared. He was
perfectly convinced that Wile inealliro, such as that winch

Mr. CALLAGHANhad ever supported the principle
of the Hon. Member's motion, and would therefore cor-
dially support it now. He really knew not how the
Learned Member for Kerry could venture to make that
'sight's statement, opposed as it was in principle to the un-
Answerable doctrines on the subject of Dr. Doyle.
Mr. LAMBERT, in support of the motion, said that
Dr. Doyle had so fully exposed the cant and hypocrisy of
the objection to poor laws, founded on their all. ged ten-
dency to narrow the channel of voluntary charity, that ha
need only refer to that able divine's pages. 'Was it not a
notorious fact, that in Ireland, the absentees aim gieat pro-
irietors wholly neglected their duty to the poor, and
would continue to do so till compelled by a, ligislative
iftlactinent ? Then, in Ireland there was no provision for
illegitimate children; the wretched mother had to bear the
whole expense and ignominy. Was it wonderful, there-
tore, that infanticide should occur to her thoughts? And
vas not Dr. Doyle borne out in stating, that he should
'refer twenty illicit intercourses and their consequences
between the sex's, to the chance of a single mother, be-
i.g forced by shame, or the consciousness of being the only
,ufferer, into the crime of child minder ?—(flcir.)
llr. SLANEY said, that it was his clehbe,ate eonvie.
:on, that if the Enlist, system of the poor laws he intro-
' iced into Leland, the evils of that country woulii ,e
toualy aggravated. The experience of the working of that
,vsteln here, had shown that when the poor-rate w
re
!sigh, the wages were low, and vice versa; so that it fol-
lowed that they lowered the condition of the Laiourer, dui

cut cff the best incentives to industry. tie did not ob-
ject to a provision for those who were unable to work,—
neither would he object to relief being afforded, under cer-
tain circumstances, to those who were able to work, but
could not obtain employment, provided the relief should be
afforded by way of employment and not money payment.
The former mode would be a criterion of honest want,
while the latter opened the door to fraud and idleness.
Colonel CONOLLY was anxious to see a provision
made for the poor and infirm, but the extension of the
whole system of poor laws to Ireland would deteriorate the
condition of those whom it was intended to benefit.
Mr. RUT HVEN supported the motion. The Hon.

ember took occasion to condemn the cruel selfishness of
t`le Irish landlords, and stated that one of these persons who
had a rent-roll of 12,000/. a-year is the county of Mayo,
had refused to give a farthing for the relief of the people
on his estate during the famine which prevailed in Ireland
a few years ago, and they were only saved from starvation
by the subscriptions which were sent from England.
Mr. J. SMITH said, that it was proved by evidence
which was removed beyond the possibility of doubt, that
in 1522 a great number of individuals perished by hunger,
and that a much greater number from insufficient nourish-
ment were attacked by t),phas fever and other lingering
disorders, of which, in the end, they died. The lion.

Member who last addressed the House stated that a person

of large property in the county of Mayo, having no feeling
for the poor destitute peasantry in his neighbourhood, re-
fused to subscribe one farthing for their relief, but left

them to perish, as they would have done, if assistance had
not arrived from England. That fact he knew.—(Hear,
hear.) He would not mention the name of the indivi-
dual,—it would not be fit to do so ; but he knew the fact.
This was not a solitary case. He knew many others like
it. He was not one of those who undervalued the Irish
character. On the contrary, be very highly estimated it,
from the experience he had had of the good qualities of
the lower classes of the Irish. In the course of his life
he had had in his employment many poor Irishmen, whom
he had found in a state of dreadful destitution, and who
remained with him for seven, twelve, and some eighteen
months. These poor men bad but one fault,—to him in-
dividually it was a great one,—excess of gratitude. He
heard strong language used in this House on the subject of
slavery—stronger than he thought ought to be employed,
—but the most highly-coloured picture of the wretched.
ness of the slaves in the West Indies could not exceed the
reality of the misery of the Irish peasantry. If that House
shuuld suffer their Irish fellow-subjects to languish longer
in their horrible state of destitution, they would participate
in the crime of those of their own country who barbar-

ously refused to afford them any relief. There had been
a great deal of poverty in England, particularly of late
years, but there were no instances of assassination—of
shooting magistrates—of setting houses on fire for the
purpose of burning the inhabitants, or any of the other
dreadful atrocities which were constantly occurring in
Ireland. The reason for this difference in the conduct of
the people of the two countries was to be found in the
system of poor-laws, which in this country rescued the
poor from starvation; but in Ireland there was no such
resource. From the turn which the discussion bad taken,
it might be supposed that his Hon. Friend had submitted
a proposition for introducing the system of poor-laws at
present existing in this country, into Ireland. No man
could oppose such a proposition more strenuously than be
would, but the fact was, that his Hon. Friend only pro-
posed that the House should declare the expediency of pro-
•iding for the relief of the poor in Ireland by an imposi-
tion on the land in that country. He thought that it

would not be very difficult to frame a plan for as-
sessing the land, in Ireland, for the relief, not of
able-bodied peasantry, but of wretched, helpless indi-
viduals, children, aged, sick, and perishing mortals,
of whom England occasionally heard such disastrous
accounts. In 1822 an enormous sum was subscribed
by the people of this country for the relief of the
Irish poor, and he would take the liberty of asserting, in
contradiction to some statements which bad reached hi,
ear, and which were entirely destitute of truth, that the
wholt of the money so subscribed was honestly and fairly
distributed. Since that period another famine had taken
place in Ireland, which though not so afflicting as the for-
ioer, was, nevertheless, the cause cf great sufferings. On
that occasion be exerted himself in order to raise a sub-
scriptio.l ; but, with few exceptions, he found the hearts
of the pecyle of England closed against the distresses of
their Irish fel:ow-subjects, and the sum obtained was tri-
fling in amount compared with that to which he had be-
fore adverted. If the calamity of famine should a third
time visit Ireland, it would be in vain to appeal to the
people of England. Nothing would be obtained
from them. Often was he told by those to whom
he applied for subscriptions. "We have poor enough of
our own." The Bank of England contributed liberally to
the first subscription for Ireland, but refused to give any-
thing to the second. Other wealthy companies, who were
liberal on all occasions, acted in the same manner. He
repeated, therefore, that if Irish distress should again oc-
cur, it would not be again alleviated by English benevo-
lence. If Hon. Members knew one-fiftieth part of
the scenes of horror which occurred in Ireland at the pe-
riods to which he bad alluded, they would, in spite of
every consideration, fly at once to some measure of relief.
Children perished by the road side, multitudes subsisted
on the weeds which they picked up on the sea shore, and
others sold the clothes off their backs to purchase a morsel
of food. He did not wish to say anything disrespectful to
Irish Gentlemen, but he must declare that he thought
he observed amongst them less sympathy for the poor
than was evinced by persons of the same rank in
England.—(Hear, hear.) Perhaps this might arise
from the Irish gentlemen not seeing much of their poor
countrymen in consequence of nut living amongst them.
--(Hear, bear.) If some regulations for the relief of the
pc 1r should be enforced in Ireland, they might perhaps
have :he effect of inducing the z entletnen of Ireland to re-
side at bony.. He also desired to see a system of relief for
the Irish poor established, in order that they might not be
driven to the necessity of coming over to this country to beg,
for that he would maintain they did. The presence of a
band of poor Irish iu this country often led to serious dis-
turbances, for they were viewed with a jealous eye by the
English labourers. These men pretended to seek for em-
ployment, and perhaps they would work if they could get
anything to do, but begging was their trade, and they
were exceedingly expert at it. In conclusion, he thought
that the establishment of a system of relief for the poor
would tend to tranquillize Ireland, and to benefit the
whole empire.
Mr. SINCLAIR—Sir, I wish to record, in a very few
V 70111;:.• my sentiments on the present question. It is not
my inte,:tion to enter upon the general subject of a com-
pulsory pri:vision for the relief of the poor, a system
against which, I am well aware, that many plausible ob-
jections and powerful arguments may be urged. lam
willing to admit that, as administered in England, it is
productive of very serious evils ; but the state of Ireland
is so appalling in point of distress, and so anomalous in
most of its bearings, that many plans, which it would
e'sewhere be superfluous or even hurtful to introduce, may
in a country so circumstanced be expedient, or even in-
dispensable, and the system will, I trust, be so modified as
to obviate all the mischief which arises in England from its
abuse. One consideration, which has great weight with me,
is the injury which is annually inflicted upon the industrious
classesi n Scot'and by the inordinate influx of Irish la-
bourers, whose ruinous competition tends to diminish the
amount of wages, and lower the standard of comfort,
both in rural and manufacturing districts. This hurthen
is becoming every year more grievous and more alarming,
and if the present system be permitted to continue, our
Scotch and English labourers will (to use a phrase of mo-
dern notoriety) soon be altogether swamped by the shoals
of Irish, who come over to our coasts at a small expense,
absorbing the resources and deteriorating the habits of out
people. Sir, I think that the introduction of a well-
regulated poor-rate will affect the pecuniary interests of
those absentee landlords who grind the faces of the poor,
and dissipate the income extorted from a famishing
tenantry in foreign luxuries or at English watering-places.
Any measure must be conducive to the welfare of Ireland,
which causes the gentry to reside on their estates, to make
themselves acquainted with the circumstances of the indi-
gent, to provide employment for the industrious, and thus
render it unnecessary for them to seek their subsistence
in other countries. For these, Sir, and other reasons, into
which I shall not eater at so late an hour, it is my inten-
tion cordially to support the motion of my Hon. Friend.
Mr. G. KNIGHT also supported the motion.
Mr. CURTIES also said a few words, which were
inaudible.
Lord OXMANTOWN opposed the motion.
Mr. BLACKNEY would have supported the lion.
Member who moved the resolution, had he brought for-
ward a Bill upon the subject. In his opinion many of
the evils of Ireland were to be attributed to absenteeism.
Ile would instance the case of a Nobleman possessing a ge-
neral income of 60,000!. a year, who bad a large property
in his neighbourhood. This Nobleman visited his Irish
tenants for one month in the year, not with the view of
improving their condition, but of receiving his rents—and
he managed his visits with such economy as to spend only
100/. among them on each occasion.—(Hear.)
Mr. SADLER replied.
After which the House divided, when there appeared—
For the Resolution
Against it. 77
Majority
MILITARY FL9GGING.
)Ir, HUME presented a pettion from the mensbers of

,he Political Union of Shoreditch, relative to the

flogging of Somerville, a private soldier in the 2d Dragoon.
Guards. The Hoc. Member then presented the following
petition on the same subject from the editor of the London

Techly Dispatch :
TO THE RIGHT HON. THE COMMONS OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND
IRELAND.
" THE PETITION OF SAMUEL SMITH, OF
139, FLEET-STREET, IN THE CITY OF
LONDON, EDITOR OF THE WEEKLY
DISPATCH NEWSPAPER,— _

" Humbly Showeth,—That your petitioner, on the 24th
of May last, received from Robert Bell, the printer and
publisher of the Weekly Despatch newspaper, of which
your petitioner is editor, a letter which had been addressed
to him by a private of the 2,1 Dragoon Guard+, commonly
called the Scotch Greys, now stationed at Birmingham,
And franked by Major Wyndham, the officer in command
of the regiment.
" That from this letter your petitioner published in the
Weekly Despatch of the 27th of May the extracts which
follow As a private of that regiment I have certainly
the means of knowing fully the opinions which pervade
the rank in which I serve. It was surely true that a
few sent their names to the roll of the Political Union;
but let no man think that those who refrained from
doing so cared less for the interests of their country.—
I, for one, made no such public avowal of my opi-
nions—for I knew it to be an infringement of military
law ; but I was one who watched with trembling antici-
pation the movements of the people of Birmingham. We
knew well the position in which we might be placed should
events require the physical action of the community ; for
while we ventured to hope that any collision between the
civil and military forces would be prevented by the moral
energies of the former, we could not help betraying a fear
that the unprincipled and lawless, who are ever either more
or less to be found, might take the opportunity of the
turning of affairs to commit outrages on property, in which
instance we would certainly have considered ourselves, as
soldiers, bound to put down such disorderly conduct.
This, I say, we should certainly have felt to have been our
duty ; but against the liberties of our country we would
have never—never—never—raised an arm ! The Scotch
Greys have honourably secured a high character in defence
of their country, and they would be the last to degrade
themselves below the dignity of British soldiers in acting
as the tools of a tyrant.' • * * The Duke of
Wellington may, if ha sees or hears of this, assure him-
self that military government shall never again set up in
this country.' That on the arrival of the Weekly Dis-
patch, containing these extracts, in Birmingham, a report
got abroad that the author of the letter from which they
were taken was a private in the Scotch Greys, of the name
of A. Somerville; and, as will he presently seen, this re-
port had immediately reached the ears of the commanding
officer of the regiment, Major Wyndham.
" That in a day or two after, this man Somerville was
picked out from the ranks and directed to perform with
an unbroken horse an exercise which, even with the best
trained horses, is one of difficulty; and that, having failed
to perform it, he was ordered to try again, which, consi-
del ing the thing to be impracticable, he declined ; for
which act of disobedience he was immediately placed in
confinement.

" That shortly afterwards he was sent for by Major
Wyndham, and privately subjected to a series of interroga-
tories with respect to the letter which he was reported to
have written to the said Robert Bell ; that Major Wynd-

barn demanded of him whether he was not the author of

4 the libel on the Scotch Greys, which appeared in the
TVeckly Dispatch,' to which Somerville at once frankly
answered that he was the author of the letter alluded to,
but that he did not consider it any libel.
" That on this Major Wyndham broke out into a strain

of great abuse of the letter, declaring the sentiments it con-
tained to be abominable and inflammatory—calculated to
encourage the Political Unions, which he said were illegal,
and the mob to break the peace, which it was the duty of
the military to preserve ; that Somerville had, in writing
it, been guilty of treason to the King, by whom be was
paid ; that soldiers had no right to form opinions on any
political subject whatever, and that their only duty was
obedience.
" That Somerville replied, that he could not see how
there was any treason in saying that the Scotch Greys
would never fight against the liberties of their country;
that he considered soldiers were not paid by the King. but
by the people, and sworn only to be faithful to the King,
in his capacity of head of the people; that he thought it
had been admitted by his Nlajesty's Ministers that there
was nothing illegal in the Political Unions, constituted as
they had hitherto been ; and that, so far from wishing to
encourage the mob to violence, he had said, in the letter
complained of, that he and his comrades would, under any
circumstances, consider it to he their duty to put down all
outrages on property.
" That Major Wyndham still persisted in pronouncing
Somerville to have been guilty of most unjustifiable con-
duct, and dismissed him with these emphatic words :
But, my lad, you are now where you will repent of it.'
" That five minutes after this preliminary interroga-
tion, Somerville was arraigned before a Court Martial for
the disobedience of orders before mentioned, and being
found guilty, was sentenced to receive 200 lashes on his
bare back.

" That two hours after, 100 of the number of lashes
awarded were inflicted upon him, in the presence of the
assembled regiment, and that he now remains in confine-
ment, awaiting the infliction of the remainder of this most
cruel and ignominious punishment.
" That Somerville had never before been tried or pu-
nished for any offence whatever, having always before con-
ducted himself with unimpeached correctness and steadiness.
" That your petitioner conceives it to be clear, from
the facts before stated,—some of which he knows to be
true, and all of which he believes can be fully substan-
tiated,—that the man has been thus punished, degraded,
and disgraced, less on account of the act of insubordination
of which he was found guilty, than of the political offence
he has given to his officers by writing the letter before-
mentioned to the said Robert Bell.
" That it appears to your petitioner, the man was pur-
posely entrapped into the offence which he committed
against military law, in order that he might be punished
for what was no offence against any law, either military or
civil, and that the conduct of his commanding officer, in
extracting from the man while in custody, and on the
point of being tried for a disobedience of orders, a con-
fession that he bad been guilty of something else, which,
in the judgment of that officer, amounted to treason, was
infallibly calculated to produce on the mind of Major
Wyndham, and, through him, on the minds of the other
members of the Court Martial, an impression against the
prisoner which must have bad a great, though most unfair,
influence in determining the measure of punishment he
should receive.
" That your petitioner begs to submit that there was no-
thing in the published and before-recited extracts from So-
tnerville's letter which ought to have thus marked him out
for vengeance, or which it was not perfectly becoming in a
British soldier to have written ; that it has been long settled
law that the character of citizen merges no further in that of
soldier than is absolutely necessary for the purpose of good
discipline, and that there was nothing subversive of good
discipline in Soniervillt's expressing an earnest wish that a
measure which the King, the King's Ministers, the House of
Commons, and a vast majority of the people bad pro-
nounced to be necessary to the welfare of the country,
should be carried by peaceable means, and still less in his
announcing it to be the determination of himself and his
comrades not to lend themselves to any attempt that
might he made by any faction to put down by force of
arms the sense of the King, the King's Nliniisters, the
House of Commons, and the people on the subject; that
were it to be held that a man, by enlisting into the army,
gives up all right to think for himself, and all care for the
welfare of his country, the citizen soldiers of Great Britain
would be degraded to the condition of a set of wretched
mercenaries, whose existence might be useful to a tyran-
nical government, but would only be attended with dan-
ger to the rights and liberties of their fellow-countrymen ;
and finally, that the conduct pursued by the aforesaid
Major Wyndham towards the said A. Somerville is such a
gross perversion of authority—such an invasion of the
right of freedom of opinion possessed by British soldiers in
common with all th• rest of their fellow-subjects—and is
of a tendency so injurious to the character and efficacy of
the British army, as to deserve the most serious considera-
tion of your Honourable House.
" May it therefore please your Honourable House to
cause inquiry to be made into the case of the said A. So-
merville, and to do otherwise therein as, in your wisdom,
you shall deem fit.
" And your petitioner shall ever pray, &c.
" SAMUEL SMITH."

Mr. HUNT rose to bring forward his motion relative to
the suspension of the punishment of flogging in the army
for one year. For many years be had heard with disgust
and abhorrence the treatment which priiate soldiers expe-
rienced in the British army. He remembered full well
that in the 15th Light Dragoons, then commanded by
his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, two private
soldiers had, to avoid the punishment of flogging, put
themselves to death, the one by drowning, and the other
by cutting his throat.—(Hear.) To exemplify the evil
consequences which resulted from this species of punish-
ment, he referred to a letter addressed to Sir F. Burdett
by a soldier who had served upwards of forty years in the
British army, who, though he bad subsequently risers to