The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-05 00:00:00

POST OFFICE.

Mr. ANSTEY rose to ask her Majesty's Ministers
whether the now vacant office of Chief Clerk of the
Money Order Departnient in the Post-office was to be filled
up by the appointment of the next senior clerk, or (if
otherwise) why the order of promotion hitherto used
is now to be departed from; and whether they
will lay on the table of this House, copies of the memo-
rials received from and correspondence with the clerk'.
of that office since the Ist day of January, 1849, on tht.
subject of their salaries and leave of abseece, and also
whether an offer had been made to the clerks to allow
the promotion to go in its proper course, if they would
afterwards deny the facts which they bad stated in those
memorials.

Mr. HAYTER said he hsd to state in reply to the
Hon. Gentleman that the person appointed to the
head clerkship in the Money-order Office had
been placed over another person. It was considered
by the Postmaster-General that in appointing a person
to the head of that department he was bound to look out
for some one who was competent to the disch'irge
of the duties of the office, and he had therefore
selected a person who had distinguished himself for
general efficiency and meritorious services. Lie was
totally unknown to the Postmaster-General, except
by his merit as an employe in the service,
Ho was quite ready to lay the memorials and communi-
cations alluded to by the lion. Member before the House,
hut unless the House wished to have appeals referred
to it, with • respect to appointments in all public
departments, he thought it would be a very inconvenient
practice to accede to any motion on the subject.
Mr. ANSTEY wished to know whether appointments
had not, up to the present time, been made according to
rotation and seniority.
Mr. HAYTER replied that it was not so in all cases,
as rromotion depended on efficiency and general capacity.
SECURITY FOR ADVANCES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. H. HERBERT wished to know whether the
Government intended to proceed with the Security for
Advances (Ireland) Bill this session?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said be was at pre-
sent in communication with parties, both in Ireland and
elsewhere, with respect to the insertion of additional
clauses for the purpose of extending the provisions of
the Bill further than when it was first introduced. lie
hoped to proceed with the Bill this session.
THE NEW HOUSE.

Mr. GREENS said he had received a letter from Mr.
Grissell, the contractor for building the new Homes of
Parliament, in which he said it was of the greatest
importance that they should come to an early decision
with respect to any alterations which it might be
thought necessary to make in the new House of
Commons, adding that if their decision was delayed it
might have the effect of preventing the new House being
ready by the session of 1851. He would therefore ask
the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) whether he would
have any objection to their sitting in the new House to-
morrow, at twelve o'clock?

Lord d. RUSSELL thought it would be better to sit
in the new House to-morrow.
It was then understood that the House should sit in
the new chamber to-morrow.

DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
Select Mr. GROGA.N then proceeded with his motion for a
Dublin hnspitaiese to inquire into the condition
ef:rinwrnihtit.ct; he,
the Government
camel:ere& he should
y that the grants hitherto beebleteofehtohe
grantedm e d e
to thethe Com-
mittee
.wl Gentiansem a
nshporunlnde
ehdee tinned. The Hon. and Lesaernlend-
conclusivel
tt
position, and
cone.
minute detail of the cir-
cumstances under whilgtitiv:sti
Committee had reasons on which he
tuce of the grant to
inquiredt into each of
n certain
their present It;
egarcohu.ncleldnhliss2c9laaimcofonirtat
which pecu-
niary another
them, and had laid down
Diary assistanse was to be regulated;
Commission had instituted a strict investigation
their management, and had in every inessttigation into'
mended the continuance of the former tuice reCOlll-
- that the Committee of 1847-8, wghriachets,He
recom-
mended the withdrawal of these grants, had
jumped
hastily to that conclusion,and were not justi
fied• by the facts of the case. At all events, there could
be no harm from granting the investigation which he
now sought by a Select Committee. If the recommen-
dations of the Committee of 1847-8 were based on
justice, they would be sustained. If, on the contrary,
as he believed would be the case, he was able to
show that those institutions would undergo the severest
test that could be applied to them, either as regarded
the economy of their management or the extensive be•
refits they conferred upon the poor of the city of Dub-
lin, as well as their value as medical and surgical schools
—he confideotly hoped that the Government would con-
tinue the suppott formerly given to ins:i:utions of each
great utility.
M
r• G. A, HAMILTON eoccndea the motion.
,
11e CHANCE of the EXCEreQUER said,
that if ever a case was full • • d by a Select
), inquire into
Committee it "was
Every I was that in la latieteto the Dublin hospitals.
information on the subject had been- laid before

LONDON,

that Select Committee, and that information was now on
the table of the House. The real object of the Hon. •
Gentleman was to put a stop to the reductions contem-
plated by the Government in this matter. Now, the
Committee in question recommended that these grants of
money to those institutions should be gradually reduced,
and toe Government were acting on that recommenda-
tion. He must therefore oppose the motion.
The motion was then neaatived without a division.
IRISH POOR-LAW.

Mr. F. FRENCH rose to move the following resolu-
ions:—

" That it is the opinion of this House that no perma-
nent system fur the relief of the poor in Ireland can be
carried out safely or beneticia'ly, to receivers or rate-
payers, without a return to the principle of the original
poor-law of 1838, by the strict application of in-door re-
lief to all classes of paupers.
"'That the system of appointment of vice-guardians
with unconstitutional and unlimited powers of taxation,
has proved most objectionable, and should be forthwith
abolished.

" Tnat the present system of administration of the
poor-law in Ireland is unnecessarily extravagant, un-
suited to the diminished resources of that country, and
tends considerably to the demoralisation of the people.
" That it is unjust to throw on one species of pro-
perty, and that the rifest suffering, the entire support of
the poor in Ireland."
The Hon. Gentleman said that his object was not to
overthrow the poor-law system in Ireland, but to ame-
liorate its banefal influences, owing to the manner in
which it was carried out. In addition to the grant of
8,000,000/. by Parliament, there hal been contributions
to the extent of 1,500,000/. given to assist Ireland in her
difficulties. This money, if it had been properly ap-
plied, would have done much good, but such was not the
case. He thanked the Government for the sympathy
which it had displayed towards Ireland, and the muni-
ficence of Parliament to sustain his country in her day
of trial, merited his warmest acknowledgments. The
Honourable Gentleman then referred to his first reso-
lution, and read extracts from the evidence of several
poor-law commissioners, to show the necessity of en-
forcing in-door relief, as outdoor relief had led to
great demorali-ation. The Marquis of Lansdowne
also expressed his opposition to out-door relief. Lord
John RUssell expressed a similar opinion. The Hon.
Gentleman next referred to the second resolution,
and contended that the system of appointment of vice-
guardians had proved most objectionable and ought
therefore to be abolished. Their object would never be
attained by means of a system which went to destroy
the landed interest altogether. The principle of their
egialation in selling the Le of the land, according to
the doctrine of political economy, amounted to nothing
short of a payment of current expenses out of capital.
If the preeet state of the law were continued, nothing
!mild tend more to encourage pauperism, trample on
the rights of property, tied violate the principle of
.jus-
tice. The Hen. Member concluded by moving his re-
solutions.

Lord NAAS, in seconding the resolutions, said he
believed that the evils incidental to the poor-la,v system
It present in force in Irelard, great as they were, were
much enhance-1 by the indiLcriminate granting
;f out-door relief, and the ilangerous power of unli-
mited taxation. It was a fallacious principle in all
poor-law legislation to provide only for the present
['heir duty, he appr,hended, was to provide in an cqur.l
degree for the future condition of the people, as it
Nould be affected by their enac:raents, and, above all.
to take care that the influence of the law should

diminish whatever spirit of Ee'f-lepen don ce might be
manifested in the objects of their legislation. Nothing
could be more dana:orona to society at large, or more
calculated to surround them with difficulcies in future
years, than the enactment of laws in the framing of
which no regard had been paid to these considerations.
'Pine effects et the Irish poor-law in this respect silowed
,ery clearly that they would have legislated more sue-
euslutly had they endeavour' dto procure a more eco-
nomical and useful application of the rates than could
pyisibly be expected to proceed from the alminiEtration
of irresponsible men, and it they had aimed in good
tlarnest at stimulating industry by ercouraging the idlux
of capital into the country. From these and other causes
it was not surprising that the greatest dissatisfaction
distress, and demoralization should exist in the poorer
districts, and he could see no chance of its being altered
ontil the commissioners were made to act upon a more
rational system. This resolution was not proposed in
opposition to the poor-law, for the people of Ireland
preferred the present pcor-law, such as it was, to none
at all.

Sir W. SOMERVILLE Said it could not be denied

the subject was one of importance, and one to Which the
House was not indifferent, for all the points embraced in
the resolution had been the eubjset of inquiry in the
Committee appointed upon the subject of the Irish poor-
iaws, and had been afterwards fully discussed in the
House. It could not be, and was not, denied, that newsy
lrish Members were opposed to any poor-law at all for
that country. The lion. Member who proposed this re-
Solution condemned tLe system of out-door relief, but
he omitted to explain how they could have avoided
giving out-door relief in the late c ilamitous state of Ire-
land. He was no friend to out-door relief in ordinary
circumstances, and it was resorted to only under over-
whelming circumstances, and at the present moment
:here was no out-door relief at all granted to the able-
bodied, nor to any able-bodied person in any union in Ire-
land. A great diminution in the number of persons so re-
lieved was very evident, for in the week ending the 12th of
\lay, 1849, the number of persons relieved was 513,908,
and in the week ending the 12th of May, 1850, it was
125,250, and at the same period the number of able-
bodied relieved was 168,049, and at the corresponding
period of this year the number was 102,000. He could
give his Hon. Friend the entire cost of the poor in Ire-
lend. The six months ending March, 1850, showed
a diminution in the expense, as compared with the cor-
responding period of the previous year, of 319,4461.
['here had been also a great diminution in the mortality
in the workhouses. He thought the Home would act
wisely in not agreeing to the first resolution; and with
regard to that, respecting the appointment of vice-guar-
ittns, it was only due to the gentlemen who filled those
appointments, to say that the administration of the poor
under their management was everywhere less expensive
than they had been previous to their management, and
when there was an apparent expense it arose from pro-
viding additional poor-law accommodation, yet this was
the only point upon which the two gentlemen who pre-
ceded him relied, and at the present moment there was
not a single vice-guardian in Ireland, nor did he consi-
tler their appointment advisable. Then, with respect to
the third resolution, as to the demoralizing effect of the
workhouses, he thought the parties who furnished the
information to the mover and seconder of this resolution
had greatly exaggerated any evils that might exist. He
hoped the House would not consider it necessary to
affirm those resolutions. He thought they ought to al-
low the experiments they were making to take root
before they drew any results from them. They should
allow the present law to solidate itself before they made
any alteration in it. They had every reason to hope
the crisis had passed, and that there was a prospect of
returning prosperity. He hoped, under these circum-
stances, they would not affirm those resolutions.
Colonel DUNNE said that the Hon. Member for Ros-
common had said truly, that the Irish poor-law was in-
tended to effect three objects; first, the amelioration
of the poor of Ireland; secondly, that the expenses
of effecting this object should be paid for out of
the resources of Ireland; and thirdly, that no call
should be made upon, the resources of this country.
Now in every one of these objects it had failed. The
people had suffered under it as well as the proprietors.
Tile proof of this was to be seen in every direction. The
debts of the unions-had increased in spite of the best
management. The condition of the people had not im-
proved since the introduction of these poor-haws. This
entire failure justified his Hon. Friend the Member for
Roscommon in bringing forward the resolutions he had.
The proper means of feeding the people was by employ-
ment.—(Hear, hear.) He thought be could lay down a
plan, by which they could employ the people, without
any danger. The rates were totally inadequate for the
out-door relief of the poor in Ireland. If they wished to
support the poor on Irish resources, they must allow
Ireland to use her own resources: but in no one instance
was that done. He should vote for all the resolutions of
his Hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon. The first
was necessary for the salvation of Ireland. The resolu-
tions of the Hon. Member were not founded upon any
peculiar notions which he might entertain respecting this
poor-law. He hoped the Irish Members would support
these resolutions.—(Hear, hear.) Irish poverty should
be supported by Irish resources. They must expend the
produce of Irish industry upon the amelioration of the
condition of the people.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said that the first
resolution called upon them to return to the law of
1833. Any law that prohibited out-door relief was ab-
surd and impracticable. They could not, therefore, re-
turn to the original poor law. He agreed that out-door
relief should be strictly regulated. They should give
the people security for the rewards of labour. They
should regulate the law of landlord and tenant. The
people then would have an interest in obtaining employ-
ment, and, engaged in industrial occupations, they would
find happiness. It was impossible he could support

_
these resolutions.
Mr. POULETT SCROPE said the question was,
how could the poor be most effectually relieved—
whether only in the workhouse, or by a combination of
in-door and oat-door relief? Now,' how did .the law
which prohibited out-door relief work? Why, the
people died by hundreds and thousands from famine.
Under circumstances of pressure it was impossible to
withhold out-door relief altogether.—(Hear, hear.)
Well, then, the question came—could they withhold
out-door relief under ordinary circumstances? He could
name several unions in which the poor had been starved.
In ono union they had been fed ou turnips for weeks.
Dr. Ronayne, in a report, to the guardians of the union
of Castlebar, dated the 13th May, 1850, stated that in
the workhouse, which was calculated to contain
840 persons, no less than 1,428 persons were
resident, many of whom were dying of dysen-
tery. In one of the wards no less than 138
persons were placed, allowing not more than two
square feet to each person. And what was the result
of Dr. Ronayno's report to the board of guardians?
They passed a resolution not to Place his report on the
minutes, and another in which they reduced his salary
from 1001. to 70/. for doing his duty.—(Hear, hear.) He
mentioned that as an instance of the manner in which
the board of guardians carried out the law; and he con-
tended that the Right Hon. Gentleman failed in his
duty, as a member of the Poor-law Commission, in not
suspending, such guardians. That being the condition
of the workhouses, he would now inquire whether the re-
lief afforded was ft:a:tient. The law provided that the
doe relief should be .(Forded to all classes of the poor.
and especially the infirm poor. But such relief was not
given: It would ha far bettor to confine the relief given
,to the in-door poor inclusively, than to afford such out-
cloofrclief as was given in many instances. Out-door
relief had been given chiefly to the infirm poor. And in
' what shape? It had been confined to food alone. .and

of what dd that consist? At the utmost, in many cases,
of one pound of meal per day, without any allowance
for shelter, clothing. fuel, or cooking. And what had
been the consequence? Why, that many who had been
in the receipt of such relief for a year or two had,
through the inclemency of the weather, and the want
of attention, died of starvation.—(Hear, hear.) And
for these he contended the Poor-law Commissioners
were responsible.—(Hear, hear.) The poor-law was
intended to provide sufficient relief, and also to
he applied in such a manner as to improve the re-
resources of the country. But he contended that it had
been so applied as to injure and detract from the re-
sources of the country—for instance, of adopting the
self-supporting system, and of introducing employment
among the able-bodied; they had acted upon the elee-
mosynary system of feeding the people, without enabling
them to support themselves. If a correct system had
been acted upon, more than half those who were now re-
ceiving relief would have been able to support themselves,
and the infirm poor would have been a much less burden
upon the country. In the year 1830 he stated—" The
curse of Ireland ia a general want of employment for
its inhabitants, and any poor-law that provides relief
without finding productive work will be not only useless,
but ruinously injurious to the country." And this asser-
tion had been fully proved by the facts. Deaths were
now occurring in great numbers in some of the unions,
from the insufficiency of the relief afforded. In proof of
this assertion he referred to a letter written by a
Catholic priest in the Ennistimon Union, in
the county of Clare, in which union inquests had bean
held, and verdicts returned of " Death by starvation."
The writer of the letter stated that in consequence of
being refused relief thousands of persons had been com-
pelled to subsist on weeds, a specimen of which he begged
to head to the Right Hon. Gentleman—(the Hon. Mem-
ber having handed the specimen to the Secretary for Ire-
land)—said that that was the miserable wee!, he believed
it was called wild mustard, which had formed the miser-
able food of these people. He had received similar state-
ments from other quarter?. Although he thought that
the poor-law had been unwisely administered, and
though relief had been refused in so many cases, and
had been insufficient in others, yet he could not agree to
the resolutions of his Hon. Friend, for that would be to
go back to the time when there was no poor-law.—(No,
no.) At all events, it would be to go back to the time
when the poor-law was altogether insufficient for the re-
lief of the poor. Unless out•of-door relief was to be
given when the in-door accommodation was insufficient,
they would have only the shadow of a poor-law.
Sir L. O'3RIEN said that the Hon. Member had I
given them a very fair specimen of the stories that were
every day told of the working of the pow-law in Ire-
land, bait which were altogether misrepresent ttions.
The Hon. Member bad talked of 136 persons being
crowded into a space of only two feet spare for each
person. Supposing that the Lion. Member meant cubic
feet, ho would ask the House if it .tai possible for any
one to believe such an assertion?—(Hear.) The Hon.
Member had also referred to the statement of the medi-
cal officer of one of the unions. Ho thought that
kne ?cleat. that such thinge were going on,
oug•ht to have gone to the board of guardians, or, as ho
ha.d the power, attended to the grievances himself. It
was mierepresentatioes such as these that defeated the
beneficial working out of the poor-law, and inflicted
hardship on the poor themselves.—(Hear.) At present
the system was entailing ruin on all chose,. He hal
seen well-dressed persons come for relief, and he
believed that • others had actually hired rags
wherewith to clothe thetneelves, that they might be
thought fit subjects for relief.—(Hear, hear.) There
awmerocuunnoliamsoin
2llrs.el6adn.di,ninthe
which the rates and taxes
pound. In the union of
K struck a farm of the value of 24.. an acre was taxed
255. an acre.—(Hear, hear.) how was it possible for
snail a state of things to go on? If the Hon. Member
fir Stroud would turn his thoughts to the ecteat value
working of the poor-law he might produce some benefit,
but no adrantege could result from his attempt;, day by
day, to set one class of the people of Ireland against
another.
Mr. O'FLA.HERTY agreed to a certain extent in the
resolutions, but he thought that there were cases where
cu'-door relief should be granted, and he could not con-
sent to its abolition
The House thee. divided, when there appeared—
Fur the resolutions ••• • • •••
Against ... ••• ••• "
Majority ngainst ••• ... —25
PREROGATIVE COURT OF IRELAND BILL.
The name of Mr. Goulburn was added to this Com-
mittee, which was to consist of 17 Members.
Mr. HAMILTON gave notice that he should move
that the name of Mr. P. Wood be added.
RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT BILL.

On the report being brought up,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL proposed to add two
clauses to this Bill, which would have the effect of ex-
tending the windingup provisions to Scotland. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman said he proposed to have
the Bill printed with the amendments.
Mr. LOCKE said he hoped the:Bill would not be pressed
forward at ,that hour, as the Bill contained several im-
portant clauses to which he should feel it to be his duty
to raise objections.
Mr. SCULLY hoped the debate would not be suffered
to go on.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he did not intend
to take the discussion then. He would have the Bill
and amendments printed to;ether, for the purpose of the
whole measure being placed in lion. Members' hands,
when they would be considered at the third reading.
Mr. LOCKE said, so long as no prejudice was sus-
tained by Hon. Members who had amendments to move,
ho had no objection to this coarse.
The report was then received end agree I to.
Mr. SCULLY wished to know whether at a future
stage he might be permitted to add a clause giving the
power of voting to a elats of persons concerned in pro-
jected railways likely to be wound up, which were stint
out by the present Bill? The class of psrsons he re-
ferred to were those who had not paid the last call,
and who would ho put in a worse situation by the pro-
posed measure than that in which they were now placed.
They ought to have a power, in case of need, to refer
the capes of those persons to the consideration of the
Railway Commissioners.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the subject bad
already been carecully considered, and he could hold out
no hopes of extending that privilege to the class of per-
sons referred to, which the Hon. and Learned Member
wished to have embodied in the measure.
Af.er same discussion, the third reading of the Bill
teas understood to he fixed for Friday next.
ENGLISH AND IRISH UNIVERSI TIES BILL.
The adjourned debate on the above Bill was post-
poned.
TENEMENTS RECOVERY (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. FREWEN moved the second reading cf this
Bill. It only consisted of one clause, the object of
which was to extend an English Act of Parliament to
Ireland, which in this country operated extremely well.
Mr. P. SCROPE considered that the Bill would have
the effect, and was, in fact, intended to facilitate and ren-
der more easy the process of evictions in Ireland. He
thought these were going on fast enough, without any
additional facilities being required for carrying them
out. He would therefore move that the Bill be read a
second time that day six months. They had heard the
other night of 600 ejectments obtained it ono (planer
sessions against tenants on one single estate, and cer-
tainly that was going fast enough.
Mr. O'FLAIIERTY said the obtainment cf those
evictions was not the act of en Irish proprietor, but of an
insurance company in Landon.—(tlear, hear.) He did
not, however, think that the present was a time for pass-
ing such a measure, and he would support the
amendment.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND also
supported the amendment. There was already a court
in Ireland--the Assistant-Barristers' Court—whereby
evictions from small tenements could be obtained at very
little expense. That he conceived was a far better tri-
bunal than would be established under this Bill, and at
the present time it would be very improper to give the
power to the magistrate at petty sessions to grant those
evictions as proposed by this Bill. He would, therefore,
suggest that the Hon. Member should not press the se-
cond reading of this Bill.
Mr. G. HAMILTON said there was a great difficulty
in ejecting tenants from the description of property the
Bill referred to. Before proceeding in the Assistant-Bar-
risters' Court it was'necessary to give twelve months'
notice, and certainly that was not
giving much facility
to evicting that description of tenant,
holding from year
to year.
Mr. MONSELL said that might be the case with very
small tenants, but it was not so in respect of the tenantry
in general. This Bill would, however, deal with a large
proportion of the tenantry of Ireland, and therefore he
did not think the powers it conferred on the magistrates
were such as ought to be conceded to them.
Col. DUNNE supported the Bill. He would not bind
himself to all the details of it, but something of the kind
was necessary, and therefore ho would support the,se-
cond reading.
Lord NAAS thought the amount of runt (20L) which
was to be placed under the jurisdiction of the magistrates,
in order to grant ejectment from such holdings, was too
high, and he would suggest that the Bill at all events
should not be 'proceeded with that evening.
Mr. ROCHE said as the majority of Irish Members
had spoken against the Bill be hoped that it would not
be pressed. But, at all events, if it was so, he should
give it all the opposition in his power.
Mr. GROGAN supported the Bill, and
Mr. SADLIER opposed it, as there was nothing in
it which would have the effect of improving the law of
landlord and tenant in Ireland, which was a disgrace
to the Legislature of this country.
Mr. Wr. GEORGE considered that the fact of one
year's rent heitig duo by a tenant should be held sufficient
cause for eviction; and were that held to be the case it
would save a great deal of expense.
Mr. NAPIER hoped the Bill would not be pressed,
as if so he must vote against it.
The Bill was then withdrawe•
THE PROCESS AND PRACTICE (IRELAND)
ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The
elaustehewai:den
This Bill went into Committee.
SADLIER considered that the Solicitor-Gene-
ral should look to the case of persons subjected to
severe losses by this Bill, and should therefore oppose it.
The Committee then divided upon clause 2, when
there appeared—
-15
- Against it ... ..• ... 39
Majority tee
Mr. NAPIER obected to the third slat e, on the
ground that much injury would be inflicted on the
ethneimi certrie.d...
For
people of Ireland, and that it was quite aetagoeis:ic to
the e-ofes •M .
e- sion to %ee he belonged, and a,:o to tho
coustaution, that such A clause should be allowed to
pass in an English House of Parliament, and therefore
should say th4t is was the duty of the Government to re-
move the injustice ander which the people of Ireland
laboured.
After some further discussion clause 3 was agreed to.