The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-02-13 00:00:00

O'CONNELL AND THE IRISH POOR LAW BILL.—The
Irish Poor Law Bill was again under discussion in the
House of Commons on Friday last, when, upon the mo-
tion for going into committee, an amendment was moved
by Mr. O'Connell, to the effect that the House should go
into committee on the Bill that day six months. Upon
a division there appeared
,for the motion, 277; for the
amendment, 25 ; majority 252.
The principle of the bill has thuS been solemnly affirm-
ed by an overwhelming,majority, and there can be little
doubt that this indispensable provision, will shortly, after
undergoing sundry modifications, pass into a law.
As might have been expected, O'Connell stood •or-
ward as the strenuous opponent of this desirable mea-
What a singular thing it is that this man should
continue to maintain any degree of ascendancy over the
minds of his fellow-countrymen ! There is scarcely a
single measure, calculated to confer a real benefit upon
the Irish peasantry, to which he has not offered every
resistance in his power. And yet he is lauded by the
Whig press as the friend of Ireland ! As to the radicals
they have long sii.ce found out and repudiated the man.
The only party with whom he has any popularity are the
Whigs—the weakest of all the three► great political' par-
ties of the,country.
Of course the real secret of O'Connell's opposition to
Poor Laws for Ireland is a base, selfish motive. He
lives and fattens upon the miseries of his countrymen.
Their poverty is the source of his riches. Their wretch-
edness enables him to revel in luxury. Make the poor
Irish happy and contented, and you take away the theme
of O'Connell's agitation, and, as a natural consequence,
unless he can invent fresh grievances, you deprive him
of his " rent." It is well known that the miserable pea-
santry of Ireland contribute their pence to support the
bloated mendicant under the impression that, he is en-
gaged in•procuring certain benefits for them—that he is
labouring to increase their personal comforts. Grant
them the boon for which they are so anxiously seeking,
and you immediately spoil O'Connell's trade. You
throw him once more upon his own resources for pro-
curing an honest livelihood. This is an alternative which
O'Connell dreads as he would the plague. At the bar he
could with difficulty make his £5OOO a year—as a pauper-
pensioner he pockets his £16,000 a year. Therefore we
find O'Connell opposing the introduction of Poor Laws
into Ireland.

As many of our readers may be curious to ascertain
e nature of O'Connell's objections to the Irish Poor
Law Bill, we shall state them as concisely as possible.
He opposed the bill for the-following reasons:-
1. Because he was opposed, on principle, to every
scheme of compulsory relief.
2. Because"a Poor Law system is not only false in
principle, but that it will be found utterly inadequate to
r.;.ari.c.....-.41.1t-tr dither Irerand.
3. Because 114 projected system of relief would check
the " voluntary'how of charity," and operate as a confis-
cation of property.
In addition to this, O'Connell asserted that the Irish
poor would net accept of workhouse relief—that they
would rather accept of the smallest pittance out of doors
in exchange for their labour, and that the immediate con-
sequence would be an increased immigration of Irish
labourers into England, and a depression of agricultural
wages in this country.
On these fanciful and contradictory objections the
Morning Herald has the following judicious remarks:—
" When we calmly look at these various arguments against
the principle of a poor law for Ireland, their childish and con-
tradictory nature becomes at once apparent.
When, for instance, it is gravely urged by Mr. O'Connell,
that a poor law for Ireland of any kind will check the flow of
voluntary relief', and at the same time operate as a sentence of
confiscation upon all property—is it possible to avoid perceiv-
ing, that the poor law in question cannot have both the effects
imputed to it? If the poor law is to check the " flow of volun-
tary relief"—the property now distributed under the system
of voluntary relief must, of necessity, be saved. And if, as
Mr. O'Connell tells us, the Irish poor will not accept of relief
under the proposed system, how can their rejection of relief
operate as a sentence of confiscation upon property ?
"As to the poor-rate being a tax—it may be sufficient to an
sorer, thal the present system of mendicancy is a tax; and a
tax, moreover, falling exclusively upon the classes of persons,
least qualified to bear it. It is the small farmer, the actual cul-
tivator of the soil who now supports almost entirely the unem-
ployed poor of Ireland. The landlords contribute scarcely any
thing; the greater number of landlords contribute not one
farthing, to the intolerable impost which now weighs upon the
farmer. The projected poor law will throw upon the class of
landlords the greater portion of the burden ; and whatever por-
tion the actual cultivator of the soil may contribute, will be re-
turned to him two-fold. For let it be observed, that now, the
unemployed poor are supported as vagrants. They give no
equivalents for their maintenance. But under au honest sys-
tem of poor laws, they will receive only wages for work. Their
labour will be directed to the cultivation of the soil; and thus,
for a small outlay, above what the existing system of vagrancy
costs the country, that increased amount of cultivation which

Mr. O'Connell declares cannot be secured for want of capital,
may be ensured to every corner of Ireland. Throughout his
course of ttrguttent, indeed Mr. O'Connell seems to assume,
that in the absence of a principle of compulsory relief, the poor
of Iteland cost nothing. The cost a great deal—and they give,
as vagrants, nothing in exchange for their maintenance. Their
_ _

maintenance, besides, falls, exclusively, ou the classes least able
to endure the burden. A poor law, framed in a free spirit, will
remove all these blemishes from the rural economy of Iraland;
and secure to that unhappy country, at no remote period, a
larger measure of prosperity, than would the transference to
•

her shores of twenty millions of capital, if unaccompanied by
the establishment of a system tending to secure at once the

wants of the poor, and the property of the rich."

THE WHIG MINISTRY AND THE ARMY.—We find

the following mysterious patagraph in the Times of
Saturday last. We sincerely hope that the despicable
intrigue alluded to will never succeed :

" We shalt watch with more than curiosity—with indeed, no
small anxiety—the public and undisguised developement of
Lord flowicles wholesale scheme fer the jobbery and corruption
of the British army. If Lord Melbourne's known objections
have been over-powered by the peevish and mulish pertinacity
of the Secretary-at-War, then we shall nut hesitate to charge
the Prime Minister with suffering himself to be ignobly over-
ruled, and from the paltry motive of indulging his native indo-
lence, on the principle of "anything for a quiet life." Ilow the
noble Premier will set about mystifying her Majesty out of the
command of the royal army of England, by which her prede-
cessors of the House of Brunswick have ever held fast, or
through what mixture of sophistry and cool effrontery he wil
oppose the crotchets of his petulant Whig colleague to the
calm and conclusive reasonings of such men as the Duke of
Wellington against the subjection of the army to to the House
of Commons, which reasonings are to be found, not merely in
the evidence of that illustrious warrior, but in other documents
with which Lord Melbourne needs nut be told that her Majesty
haS fur some time been familiar, we decline conjecturing. It is
mighty fine to solicit the highest military advice when we have
purposes of our own to serve by it; but it is finer still to reject
the "lessons of profound and practical wisdom " from the same
quilt ter, when we meditate no purpose but those of mean and
profligate corruption."

That the Whig Ministers are prepared to sacrifice the
army for the purpose of securing the further adherance
and support of the radicals we can easily imagine; but
that a British House of Commons will agree to such an
unprincipled compromise, we can by no means believe.

that it is only by active and energetic exertions that the
plotteis can be successfully disappointed.
But, though the radicals observe the strictest secresy
as to their plans, they make no secret whatever as to
their ultimate objects. They boast that the rejection of
Sturges Bourne's Act will (brow all the parochial patron-
age into their own hands. We well know how that pa-
tronage would be exercised. One of the first steps which
the faction would have recourse to would be the conver-
sion of the select vestry into an exclusive body. At
present the constitution of that-body precludes the pos-
sibility of any thing like partiality. Though the con-
servatives, under the present system of voting, mi-ght, if
they chose, elect none but main of their own party as
members of the select vestry, it is well known that they
have made it a rule to select an equal number of con-
servatives and liberals. The accession of the radicals to
the complete control of our parochial affairs would be
followed by a select vestry of their own party exclusively.
But this would not be all. The ulterior consequence
would be that the radicals would have the power to inter-
fere with the lists of voters for the borough.
We know that the conservatives can prevent all the
contingent evils which might thus arise. We trust that
they have also the will to crush any attempt which their
opponents may make.