The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1845-10-14 00:00:00

MMOOM

Supplement to the Liverpool Standard.

TUESDAY? OCTOBER 14, 1845.

A BOLD PRESCRIPTION FOR THE REMOVAL
OF IRELAND'S POVERTY.
The calm and dispassionate reports of the Times
" Commissioner," with respect to the real evils which be
set unhappy Ireland, have drawn upon that gentleman
the animadversions of men of all shades of political opi-
nion. The Repealer cannot endure to be told that any
remedy is to be found for Ireland's present condition of
social disorganisation except a Parliament in College
Green ; whilst the native Irishman feels himself
insulted when reminded of his improvident habits
and his too-prevailing, though easily accounted for, in-
dolence and filthiness. The landlord class are indignant
when told of the exorbitant rents which they draw from
their distracted and impoverished tenantry •, and, when
he points to the large quantity of improvable wastes to
be brought under cultivation, they plead their mortgages
and their comparatively necessitous condition—the com-
pulsion under which they labour to keep up their state
and appearance, and their consequent total want of the
capital to effect those improvements in their estates and
Mode of their cultivation necessary to enable them to re-
pair the consequences of past improvidence.
To the latter class of objectors, in summing up the
conclusions suggested by his inquiries in the county
Mayo, the " Commissioner" propounds the following
somewhat bold suggestions, which, bold as they are, we
cannot say are unworthy of the serious consideration of
government :
"Another plan for the Government to pursue I submit with
greater diffidence, for I cannot quote precedent for it. It is this :
—The majority of Irish estates are burdened with mortgages and
settlements to such an extent that frequently the nominal owner is
in a state of the greatest narrowness of means, and he finds it im-
possible to afford anything towards improvements, or to be able to
do otherwise than exact the highest rent. His estate therefore de-
teriorates, his tenants are starving, and he himself is in a hopeless
state of poverty. He cannot sell any part of his estate to free him-
self from his difficulties, because the mortgages and settlements
are charges upon every part of it, and he cannot make a title for a
purchaser; all this time he is paying 5 or 6 per cent. on these in-
cumbrances. I would suggest that the Government should pass an
act of Parliament, enabling any landed proprietor to offer a por-
tion of his estate equal in value to the incumbrances upon it, at a
fair valuation, to be properly ascertained and agreed upon by both
Parties, and giving a clear title to the Government as the purchase
of such pqrtion ; the Government, with the purchase money to pay
off at once the mortgagees, or younger children having settlement
claims, or to offer them funded securities as they might prefer.
The Government then to offer in the market the portion of the
estate purchased, with a clear title founded on the act of Parlia-
ment. There would be no want of small capitalists to purchase;
and every such capitalist whe bought such an estate would set to
work to improve-it, and spend money upon it. The original owner
Would hold the remainder of his estate clear of incumbrances, and
if anxious to improve, would then be able to do so. Fresh capital
and energy would be let into the country. Vast and badly managed
estates would be broken up into smaller and more manageable
bulks, and a great amount of employment would be afforded to the
People, whilst the immediate prospect of gain and competition
would urge them on to improve, and into habits of steady industry.
If Irish members of Parliament would turn their attention to some
feasible object of this kind, and to secure a cheap jurisdiction by
the barristers of loml courts over leases below a certain amount of
sent—say £lO or £2O a-year, so as to insure that/ a lease shall be
binding on both sides, then landlords would no longer be embar-
rassed, except by their own fault; they would be induced to give
leases, tenants would be encouraged to improve, and! the people
Would have employment and live in consequent comfort and con-
tent. If, however, they must have repeal first, or Protestantise the
Whole country first, they will find that the chances of obtaining
either object are about equi-distant : they will have ample oppor-
tunities of judging how profitable is talk,' but they will not
remedy the evils of Ireland."
Such a course as is here suggested might certainly do
good, and is a practical course, although in its details it
Might be attended with some intricacy of management.
It is clear, however, that the particular evil, sought to be
remedied by it, is very unlikely to be removed by May-
booth grants or academical bills; and equally clear it is
that it is not one likely to cure itself, the habits of Irish
proprietors considered, in less than a few generations.

THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S AND THE TOX-
TETH PARK PROTESTANT OPERATIVE
ASSOCIATION.
The Toxteth Park Protestant Operative Association in
August last addressed to the Lord Bishop of St. David's
the following letter, animadverting on some reported ex-
pressions used by his lordship on the occasion of one of
the discussions on the Maynooth Endowment Bill in the

Upper House :
" To the Lord Bishop of St. David's.
"My Lord ,—Our attention has lately been called to a
Speech of your lordship's in favour of the Maynooth Bill,
which appeared in the Times newspaper of the date of the
sth of June last. In your speech as there reported, your
lordship is represented as baying used some expressions
which we humbly conceive to be altogether inconsistent
not only with your lordship's high standing as a Prelate
of the Established Church, but even with the feelings
which should influence every true Protestant of whatever
rank he may be.
One of the expressions to which we refer, is as follows:
The rule of never doing evil that good may come of it,
however true in itself, is not applicable to the present
case ; in this world it is applicable to a very few number
of cases. There are very few instances of that unmixed
good and unmixed evil on which such a rule can be brought
to bear. If you strictly enforce this rule you will do no
good, unless you can effect good of a nature perfectly
pure and unmixed.' Now, my lord, this is the first time
that we have ever heard it stated by a Protestant, that
the Apostolical rule that we should not do evil that
good may come of it,' admitted of any relaxation what-
ever. It is true, indeed, as your lordship justly argues,
that we cannot in the present state of things attain un-
Mixed good, but if your lordship means to assert (and in
no other supposition can we see the drift of your argu-
ment,) that because we are placed in a dispensation of
Mingled good and evil, we may therefore ourselves be the
Promoters of the evil ; we confess we are unable to see
the consistency of your lordship's views either with the
word of God, or even with the dictates of sound common
sense.
In another part of your lordship's speech, you are re-
presented to have used some expressions which it is need-
less for us to quote ; but the avowed purport of which
was to attempt to lower the high Protestant tone of the
Coronation Oath, and to induce the Protestants of Eng-
land to believe that the terms Idolatrous and Super-
stitious' therein used, if applicable to Popery at all, are
only so in a restricted and modified sense. Now, my
lord, as simple-minded and (we trust) honest-hearted
Protestants, we have hitherto been accustomed to call
things by their right names, and we certainly never could
have imagined that the day would come when a Protest-
ant Prelate would be found to assert in his place in the
House of Lords, that the terms referred to when applied
to Popery were one whit too strong. Were your lord-
ship's view of Popery correct, and were the terms Idola-
trous and Superstitious not applicable to that system of
iniquity, we could in that case, hardly understand on
what principles the reformation could be justified, at least
to the extent to which it was carried, nor on what grounds
the Cranmers, and the Ridleys, and all the host of mar-
tyrs whose blood stained the annals of Queen Mary's
reign, surrendered their lives in testimony against a re-
ligion which after all (if according to your lordship's
opini. n it could neither be called Idolatrous' nor Su-
perstitious') differed but little from their own.
My lord, we are shocked at the very idea of the tone of
the Coronation Oath being lowered. We believe that
our respected Queen in making that oath entered into a
solemn compact with her people, and a compact that she
Is bound to maintain, no matter what may be the opinion
of her Constitutional advisers.' And we trust, my lord,
that there is still sufficient Protestant spirit among the
People of England to insist upon the maintenance of that
compact in all its integrity, and that should the day ar-
rive, when any traitors to the Constitution would propose
(what your lordship seems to think might, under certain
circumstances, be desirable), viz., the withdrawal of the
above-mentioned terms from the Coronation Oath, the
People of England will come nobly forward, and for the
sake of the British Constitution. for the sake of their na-
tional independence, and on behalf of that deposit of
truth which has been so nobly won for them by the blood
of their ancestors, insist upon the removal from her Ma-
jesty's Councils of men who are seeking insidiously to
subvert from the constitution the very principles of truth
to which her Majesty owes her position as Sovereign of
these realms.
My lord, our station in life is but humble, and our
language may seem strong; but when we find that we are
deserted in high places, when we see even some of our
Prelates ready to betray the bulwarks of the Constitution
we are forced to speak out, and to express our steady de-
termination to enter our earnest protest against such
sentiments as those expressed by your lordship, and:though
'unfortunately held by one of the Prelates of the Estab-
lished Church, we are glad to be able to assure your
lordship are disowned by the majority of thinking Pro-
testants in Great Britain.
We have the honour to be,
My Lord,
Your Lordships most obedient Servants,
The Protestant Operatives of Toxteth-
Park, Liverpool.

Toxteth-Hall, Toxteth-Park,
August 18, 1845."
To this his Lordship replied as follows :
" Abergwele, Carmarthen, Aug. 22, 1845.
" SIR,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter addressed to me in the name of the Protestant
Operative Association : and I think I cannot better skew
my respect for the persons who have adopted a denomi-
nation which has so many claims on my sympathy than
by endeavouring to remove a misconception into which
they appear to have been led by an imperfect report of my
speech on the Maynooth question. I therefore send a
"Pl' of a more correct report of it, for which alone I de-
sire to be answerable ; you will see from this that I did
not propose any relaxation whatever of the rule 'we
!should not do evil that good may come of it,' but con-
tended that it was utterly inapplicable to the question of
the Maynooth endowment. The real question as I appre-
oended, was not whether it was lawful to do evil that good
blight come, but whether that which the opponents of the
rueasure called, was really so, or on the contraryNts and
Others thought, so right and just that no calculations of
aP,Parent expediency should be permitted to prevent its
nooPtion.
On the other topics adverted to in your letter, I must
let the language of my speech vindicate itself, as I believe
It will do sufficiently in the judgement of all unprejudiced
readers, and I em the less inclined to enter into a dis-
c_ussion ot them, as I perceive that you have inadvertently
v'nfounded together two perfectly distinct documents,
thef Royal Declaration required by the Act of Settlement
a will
and the Coronation Oatb, and your remarks are equally
PaPplionlycable to what I said with regard to each of them.
remark in conclusion, that I find no reason