Commons Sitting of 13 February 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. LISTER, from Bowling, for the Repeal of Bastardy Clauses of the Poor Law Act.—By Messrs. CHABLES BULLER, WILLIAM ORD, and Lord DALMENY, from Liskeard, Stirling, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for Repeal of Duty on Soap.—By Mr. BARRY and Mr. WHITE, from Longford and other places, for the Abolition of Tithes (Ireland).—By Mr. WHITE, from Longford and other places, for Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. SANDFORD and Mr. Fox MAULS, from Perth and Ilminster, for Repeal or Reduction of the Duty on Soap.—By Mr. Fox MAULE, from Perth, complaining of the Creation of Fictitious Votes (Scotland).

DR. MULHOLLAND.
Mr. Macleansaid, that pursuant to the notice he had given, he now rose to call the attention of the House to a Petition which he was about to present. It was the petition of a Roman Catholic clergyman, the Rev. Dr. Mulholland, who complained of a series of injuries which he had sustained at the hands of the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland, and prayed that means might be found for the protection of the second order of clergy in that country from the grievous and unjustifiable interference with their temporal concerns, to which they had long been subjected. As this petition was well worthy of the consideration of the House, he felt that he should best discharge his duty to the petitioner, if he read as shortly as possible the petitioner's statement in explanation of his case. The petitioner humbly prayed, that that honourable House would be pleased to cause inquiry to be made into the situation of the second order of Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland. The petitioner was anxious that an opportunity should be given him of proving the nature of the evils and inconveniences under which those clergy laboured, and which he stated to be of such extent that it was apprehended by many of his reverend brethren, and by himself, that a continuance of the present system must be attended with the extinction of religious feeling in Ireland. Such was the prayer of Dr. Mulholland's petition; and he did think, that praying as that petition did, not for the House to interfere between a clergyman and his diocesan (for in that case he would admit, the petition could not have been received),

437
but for inquiry into the condition of the second order of Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, with a view to their better protection and support against the oppression of their superiors, he did think a petition of this nature was well worthy the attention of the House, and he hoped, therefore, he should be allowed to enter more at length into the statements of—
The Speakersaid, that if the hon. Member meant to found a motion upon the contents of the petition, it was then competent for him to open it to the House; but that to argue on a petition when there was no intention of pursuing the matter further was contrary to the practice of that House.
Mr. Macleanhad not intended to move for any inquiry, to which he did not at all feel himself pledged.
The Speakersaid, the rule of the House was, that when an hon. Member intended to found any further proceedings upon a petition, then he ought to give notice of the course he meant to pursue, in order that the House might be in a condition to decide whether they would allow the matter to go farther or not.
Mr. Macleanbegged to state, with great submission, that this petition had been brought forward both in the House of Lords and in that House, on a former occasion, when its merits had been discussed at considerable length. He must say, therefore, he thought it hard that he should be denied the liberty of making a remark on the subject.
The Speaker: Of course, it is not for me, but for the House, to determine this point.
Mr. Macleanproceeded: It was necessary, in order to put the House fully in possession of this case, that he should detail the particulars of the petitioner's complaint. The petitioner stated, that, in 1826, he had been appointed to a parish in the county of Louth, the duties of which he continued to discharge until the year 1833, when he was deprived by a mandate of his diocesan, the right rev. Dr. Crolly, the ground for that proceeding being, that he had brought an action against a brother-clergyman, who had slandered him in public; that he had, however, previously to bringing this action, appealed, as was his duty, to the proper ecclesiastical tribunal; that he had received a promise from the Archbishop's Vicar-General, that measures should be
438
taken to enforce a withdrawal of the charge affecting his character; but that having waited six months without obtaining any withdrawal of the charge, he had at length instituted law proceedings, and recovered damages against his calumniator; but that, pending those proceedings, he had been suspended from the performance of his clerical functions, and thereby reduced to a state of utter destitution; that he had appealed to the see of Rome; that two mandates for his restitution from thence had been set aside by Dr. Crolly; that he had further received an appointment from Rome which had not been confirmed; and that he was in consequence deprived of all means of supporting himself in Ireland. Under these peculiar circumstances, the petitioner approached the House, in humble expectation that some remedy might be applied to the singular grievances under which he suffered.
Mr. Rigby Wasonrose to order. He thought the general understanding was, that hon. Gentlemen were not to enter into these long statements on the presentation of petitions. He would appeal to the Speaker as to whether it would not be proper, if one hon. Gentleman were allowed to follow this course, that others should have the same privilege extended to them?
Mr. Macleanbegged to remind the hon. Member that this was a case of a very peculiar nature. He hoped the House would not consent to a course which would in effect shut out the public from the exercise of the right of petitioning.
Mr. Rigby Wasonsaid, that the usage was, that any hon. Member who wished to bring the subject matter of a petition under the consideration of the House should place a notice to that effect on the books, without which he could not enter into the details of a petition.
The Speakersaid, that for many years during which he had had the honour of a seat in that House, it used to be the practice that hon. Members, on presenting petitions, should merely state the prayers of those petitions. That practice, however, had been latterly departed from, and morning sittings had been resorted to, with a view of relieving the pressure of petitions. A Committee had then been appointed on the subject, which had reported, but its reports had never been acted upon; and it had been thought

439
proper to discontinue the morning sittings. Under these circumstances, he had felt that it only remained for him to retrace the steps of the House, and endeavour to bring it back to what had been the ancient practice; that was, that hon. Members should content themselves with stating the prayer of the petitions which they had to present. If any hon. Member wished to open the subject matter of a petition more fully, that course was open to him, to which he (the Speaker) had already referred. This matter had been left too much, perhaps he might be permitted to say, in his discretion; and the rule had, perhaps, on some occasions, been somewhat too much relaxed. But if every petition were to give rise to a discussion or a debate, in which statements on one side would be met by counter-statements on the other, then he felt it his duty to represent to the House the necessity of considering whether, under the present pressure of business, the House, in that case, would be able properly to dispatch its public duties.
Mr. Macleanhad had no intention in the course he had pursued, of deviating from the deference with which he always received what fell from the chair. After stating the prayer, he was proceeding to state the substance of the petition, without meaning to argue the subject at all. He was simply stating the facts of the petition, not reading it.
The Speakeragain interposed, to intimate that the hon. Member could not read the petition.
Mr. Rigby Wasonsaid, the House had heard many of the allegations of the petition, and it was not disposed, he thought, to enter further into the subject.
Mr. Macleanrejoined: He did not know whether the hon. Member spoke for the whole House, or for himself. How came the hon. Member to be a censor literarum to determine whether petitions should be gone into or not?
Mr. Gillonremembered to have presented a petition last Session, from an individual who was actually incarcerated at the time, and yet even in so urgent a case, affecting the liberty of the subject, he had been prevented from opening the petition to the House. He hoped the House would follow that precedent on the present occasion.
Mr. Macleanmust be permitted to recapitulate the facts stated by the peti-
440
tioner. That gentleman had ample proofs that his moral character was unimpeached; and he complained of having been deprived of the means of subsistence, because he appealed to the laws of his country. He had applied to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. O'Connell), but he found that this application to Parliament was considered by the hon. and learned Member a disgraceful aggravation of his original offence.
Mr. Bellewtrusted that, in common justice to the character of a most respectable prelate, the Roman Catholic Bishop of his diocese, that the petition now brought forward was precisely the same in character to that which was brought forward, but rejected by the House, last Session. As to the statement of the petitioner, that he had received damages from a jury, he had received damages to the amount of one farthing—that was the amount at which his character was estimated.
Petition laid on the table.

PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE.
Lord John Russellrose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a matter bearing upon its privileges, though not with the intention of making any motion on the subject at present. His object was to draw the attention of the House to the important nature of the question, so that no long period might be suffered to elapse without some steps being taken to provide against the recurrence of a similar state of things. He referred to the proceedings which had recently taken place in the Court of King's Bench, in the case of Mr. Hansard, the printer to that House. Agreeably to certain doctrines laid down by the Lord Chief Justice, on that trial, the plea of the defendant, setting forth the privileges of that House, had been set aside by the jury, and the plea on which the defendant had succeeded went only to the merits of the case. Now the decision of this case did appear to him to be of essential importance with reference to the privileges of that House. He could not see much difference in point of principle between the new method of selling the votes and papers of the House, and the former plan of distributing the votes to hon. Members, since the votes were certainly sent by hon. Members to every part of the kingdom; at all events they were printed. He conceived, therefore,

441
that the decision of the Chief Justice if carried to its full extent, would have the effect of placing them in this very peculiar situation, that supposing any hon. Member should think proper to lay on the table articles of impeachment against some officer of the Crown, whom he might deem worthy of impeachment, then these papers might furnish matter for an action for libel to the parties against whom they were presented, and the jury, guided by the former decision, that the privileges of the House of Commons could not be pleaded in justification, might decide upon the merits of the case as to the guilt or innocence of the hon. Member with respect to the libel. He had only put this as an extreme case, but there was no saying to what extent this doctrine, if fully carried out, might reach; for papers were continually laid upon the table of that House containing statements which materially affected the characters of individuals. He was in doubt whether it would be more proper that this question be referred to the Committee of Privileges, or that a Committee of a limited number of Members should be appointed to investigate the facts relating to it; at present, however, he merely made these remarks by way of bringing the subject under the consideration of the House, for it was desirable that their decision, whatever it were, should be as nearly unanimous as possible.
The Speakerhoped he might be allowed to state shortly, not the opinions which he held on this very important question, but the peculiar nature of the situation in which he was placed, with a view of eliciting some directions from the House by which he might shape his future course with respect to this matter. He had felt it his duty to pay as much attention as was in his power to the progress of the trial in question, and from the short- hand writers' notes of its more important parts, which he had procured, it appeared to him that the doctrine there laid down extended to an interference with the privileges of the House, and in consequence he was placed in a difficulty which he would state to the House. He had been applied to that morning to decide what number of copies of the Report of the Church Commission for Scotland it would be proper to have printed. Now if he directed that the number of copies printed should be precisely the number of Members of that House, still ft was obvious that many copies would
442
find their way into general circulation; but the number could not be limited by the numbers of that House, for it was indispensable that copies be supplied to certain public offices, and in other quarters. Indeed, it had been usual, in most cases to print as many as from 2,000 to 2,500 copies. Now, if an order or resolution of the House were passed directing him to have a certain number of copies of their papers printed, that would not only not tend to relieve the difficulty he felt, but, on the contrary, would very materially increase it; because he found, from the charge of the Lord Chief Justice, that by the construction which that learned judge was disposed to put upon the privileges of that House, the copies printed must be limited exclusively to the use of the Members of that House. If to exceed the number required for the House were to be adjudged to be a publication of papers printed by order of the House, then it became a question whether, in signing an order which should have such an effect, he should be subject to an action for libel. This, then, being, as it appeared the state of the law, that he was called upon to hold himself responsible, not to that House alone, but to the courts of Westminster-hall, for what he did in pursuance of his duty, he must say he did feel extremely anxious to receive some instructions from the House, by which he might learn what was the proper course for him to pursue.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, it was impossible not to agree with the noble Lord that this was a most important question. It struck at the root of every privilege belonging to the House of Commons; it came to this point, whether was the House amenable or not amenable to the Court of King's Bench—whether the Acts of that House lay within the cognizance of any other tribunal than that House. He was extremely astonished that the question had been mooted at all—the practice of printing for circulation papers relating to that House not being, as the noble Lord seemed to suppose, a new practice, but, on the contrary, for a hundred and fifty years these publications had been continually made under the orders of the House. The orders of that House had been ordered to be printed, not for the use of Members merely, but of the public; and not only these papers but also information which had been given at the bar of the House, had been directed to be

443
printed. He might instance the case of Dangerfield, where the information was ordered to be printed, and the profits to be applied to the use of the informer. No notice was taken of this at the time, but about five or six years afterwards, when Charles 2nd determined to govern without Parliament, an information was filed against the Speaker for certain expressions contained in that publication, and alleged to constitute a libel on the Duke of York. The Speaker had pleaded that he acted under the orders of the House; the plea, however, was overruled, and judgment passed against him; but at the Revolution that decision had been expressly stated as forming one of the grievances of the House of Commons. The judgment itself had shortly afterwards been voted by the House to be illegal, and a violation of the privileges of the House; and the Lords, at a conference had subsequently agreed to that vote. A similar vote had been passed by the House with reference to a similar judgment in the case of Topham, who had pleaded the order of the House. He agreed entirely with the observation of the noble Lord, and with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, that if the sale by order of the House might be questioned the printing by the order of the House might equally be questioned. It did appear to him, therefore, that means should be adopted for prosecuting an inquiry into this matter.
Mr. O'Connellthought that this conversation should not be continued. He had not the slightest doubt of the course which the House ought to pursue, and he had not the slightest doubt that the Chief Justice was wrong in the opinion which he had pronounced, if indeed he had pronounced it. It was impossible for the publication of matter before that House to be libellous. They represented the people of all England, they were for practical purposes the people of all England, and any information given to them was in fact given to the people of England, and for the people of England, and the people of England had an indisputable right to receive it, and that House was under the imperative obligation of seeing that they did receive it. The right hon. Gentleman in the chair had mentioned that there was a report on the church of Scotland in print, and about to be issued. This report the Members for Scotland would com-
444
municate to their constituencies—nay more, they must communicate it to their constituencies. Now they could do this in two ways only—by writing or verbally; and if the privilege of that House could not protect a writer of evidence taken before it from an action for libel neither could it protect a speaker of the truth, diffusing knowledge of testimony given before Committees, from an action for slander. If the House could not shield its Members and its officers from the penalties which the noble judge had declared would attend the circulation of Parliamentary documents or Parliamentary information, then that House could not perform its functions and it became necessary that it should be invested forth with with the power which was wanting to it. He was sorry that the learned Lord had so mistaken the law, and had so mistaken the constitution, of which he should have been the tenderest guardian. If the servant of the House had suffered loss, he ought at once to be compensated. According to the odious principle that truth was a libel if an indictment had been preferred against Mr. Hansard, that servant of the House must have been convicted, and would necessarily be about to receive the sentence of the King's Bench for having done his duty by that House; for, be it recollected, no plea of justification was admitted, where an indictment was the form of remedy selected by the person aggrieved; and thus Mr. Hansard would have had no defence. He hoped that steps would immediately be taken to set matters right, and that the principle would be boldly asserted that any matter brought before the House might be communicated with perfect safety.
Mr. Harveydid not understand the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, to have stated that that House had not the privilege of publishing its proceedings in as many shapes or as many copies as it thought proper: but the question was whether that House, being an integral part of the Constitution, through which laws were made, had the power to reserve to itself the right of violating the laws it was a party to make? The very circumstance of this judicial opinion might lead to the consideration of the question of what was libel. Happy and valuable would be the determination upon such a question, for at present nothing could be more unsettled, nothing was less determined, nothing bearing less the stamp and

445
impress of sound sense than that which Constituted the law of libel. He was satisfied that the law of libel should be made definite and intelligible, and founded on some principle of common sense. The question then would be, whether the House should reserve to itself the right of violating that law which it should be the first to uphold and obey? If it were to do so, the character of every man in the country would be at the mercy of the House. It had been observed, by an hon. Gentleman, that in case of injury let there be compensation, but who was to determine the amount of it? Was there to be an inquisitorial tribunal appointed by the House for that purpose? This was a most important subject, and he could not bring himself to believe that those who were law makers should be allowed to be the first to set the law at defiance.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, in explanation, that the hon. Member for Southwark was quite mistaken on the subject. The question was, whether such a law as had been referred to by him was in existence. There was no statute regarding this part of the law of libel, it was the common law of the land.
The Speakersuggested that it would be more convenient, if the House did not at present proceed further with the discussion.
Mr. Charles Bullerwished the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, to state what course he intended to pursue with regard to this subject.
Lord John Russellreplied, that he would give notice to-morrow evening on the subject, and state what he intended to propose.

STAFFORD—NEW WRIT.
Captain Chetwyndmoved, that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Stafford, in the room of Sir Francis Holyoake Goodricke, now one of the Members for the southern division of that county.
Mr. Divettsaid, that before he moved the amendment of which he had given notice, namely, that the issuing of the new writ for Stafford, should be suspended until ten days after the meeting of Parliament, he should trouble the House with a short history of the transactions with reference to the borough of Stafford. It would
446
be recollected that some years ago, in consequence of the notoriously corrupt practices in this place, a Committee was appointed to make inquiry into the circumstances. The Chairman of that Committee was the hon. Baronet, the Member for Buckingham (Sir Thomas Fremantle); and after a patient investigation, they came to the resolution that the whole system was one of systematic corruption. The resolution was, that it appeared, from the evidence taken before them, that a system of open and undisguised bribery existed in the borough of Stafford, and that therefore, it should cease to return Members to Parliament; and the chairman was ordered to move for leave to bring in a bill to disfranchise the borough. A bill for that purpose was, therefore, brought in, but in consequence of the late period of the Session the Bill was not proceeded with, but in the following one it passed that House, and was sent up to the House of Lords, who, he supposed, could not find time to consider it. Next year, the Bill was carried a second time, almost without opposition, in that House, but it was again consigned to oblivion in that place, where so many other good measures met with the same fate. Before the next meeting of Parliament, a change in the Government took place, which was followed by a dissolution of Parliament. The hon. Member for Buckingham having accepted office under the new Administration, gave up the Bill, upon which he (Mr. Divett) took charge of it. He introduced it, and a third time it passed that House, and was sent up to the House of Lords, and then a discussion was had on it. In the following year, they called evidence on its merits, but the evidence their Lordships called, referred not to the election at which the corrupt practices were proved to have taken place, but they went into an inquiry respecting several previous elections for the borough. The Bill, however, was again rejected—with what motives he would not stop to inquire; but he would remark, that all the allegations stated in this House had been fully borne out. They admitted the necessity of a remedy, but they refused the means. One bill was rejected, because it disfranchised freemen, burgesses, and householders; and another, because it disfranchised the burgesses only. All remedy for the acknowledged corruption was positively refused. It appeared in evidence, that at one election

447
there were 945 voters of Stafford who accepted bribes, while there were only 104 to whom the slightest degree of purity could be imputed. One argument that might be used was, that, as the Reform Bill had infused a vast number of householders into the electoral body, that probably some more purity might now be expected; but the same return showed that, in the householders' list, eighty-five had accepted bribes, and only eighty-two refused them. While there was such an inclination to protect such corruption in another place, he thought it was the duty of that House to take the strongest measures for punishing it within their power; he thought that, in the event of a dissolution, that House would be justified in addressing the Crown to withhold the issuing of any writ to Stafford—at all events, it was their bounden duty to withhold the writ so long as this Parliament lasted, in order to show to the country that that House was determined to punish corruption as severely as possible. He was aware, that it might be objected to his proposition, that there was no precedent for the course he proposed to follow; but he would only say in reply, that, while there was such a manifest disinclination in another place to punish corrupt voters, that House was bound to show that it was determined, by the exercise of any authority it possessed, to endeavour to effect that object. He concluded with moving, as an amendment, that no writ be issued for the election of a Member for Stafford, until ten days after the commencement of the next Session.
Mr. Hodgson Hindedid not believe that any great advantage would result from longer withholding the issuing the writ for Stafford. More than half of the present constituency of Stafford had never been guilty of the charges laid to them, and he should, therefore, support the motion of the hon. Member for that borough for the issuing of the writ. It was true, the results of the investigation before the House of Lords was, that a very serious number of cases of bribery and corruption existed in Stafford; but, he believed the House would not go the length of disfranchising the borough on that ground. Look to the case of his Majesty's present Attorney-General in that borough; the sum of 2,000 l. in that instance was to be paid, provided his election was secured. Who was the greater criminal in this ease, the
448
learned Gentleman who stood high in the country and at the bar, or the poor electors of Stafford? When the conditions accompanying the advance of this sum were considered, there could be no doubt that it was not to be expended for the legitimate expenses of the election. He did not wish to say anything invidious of the hon. and learned Member for the course he had pursued—that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been promoted to the highest legal office which a commoner could enjoy; and more than that, although no peerage had consoled him, in the words that had once been applied to a countryman of his own, it might be said to him, "Thou shalt beget peers, though thou shalt not be peer thyself." [Cries of "Order."] If he was not speaking facts, he would submit to the decision of the Chair. In conclusion, he would only say, that if the hon. Member for Exeter would include in his Bill those who were the givers of bribes, and exempt the 300 voters who were not bribed on any former election, but had since been created, he should have his support. But if he would visit with vengeance the constituency of the borough who had not been bribed, he would meet out one measure of justice for the briber, and another for the poor persons who had accepted bribes.
Captain Chetwyndwas satisfied that the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, could not have read the evidence given at the bar of the other House. The question before the House was, whether a writ should be issued or not, and not as to the innocence or guilt of the borough. He was surprised at the arguments that had fallen from the hon. Member for Exeter. He had stated the number of Bills that had been introduced in that House, and sent up to the House of Lords. It was true, that that House had passed four Bills, and when the fourth was sent up to the other House, in the Session of 1836, it made a strong impression, and the other House thought there must be some ground for so many bills on the same subject. That House instituted a full inquiry into the subject. The evidence was taken upon oath, which was the most likely means to elicit the truth. The Bill was conducted, and the evidence in support of it was examined by one of the most rising and able advocates at the bar, it was conducted before the highest legal authorities, and after being continued far

449
six weeks, their Lordships came to the conclusion, that the allegations contained in the Bill had not been supported, and that the accusations against the borough could not be substantiated, and were not borne out by the evidence. Under such circumstances, he submitted to the House, and he did this with some degree of confidence, that the borough of Stafford stood fully acquitted of the charges brought against it. It stood in the same position as a person accused of crimes or misdemeanours, who was taken before a magistrate, committed, put upon his trial, had the case fully and fairly inquired into, and was acquitted by a jury of his countrymen. Under such circumstances, such a person would be entitled to have all the privileges and advantages of an innocent man. In such a situation stood the borough of Stafford. There was no accusation against the borough at present—there was no accuser even. There was no Bill of Pains or Penalties brought forward. What was the House called upon to do? The hon. Member for Exeter said, that not being satisfied with the evidence given elsewhere, he would still continue to punish the borough. Nothing could be more unjust, and he was astonished that the hon. Member for Exeter, professing, as he did, liberal principles, should still wish to persecute (for he could not use a milder term) the burgesses of the borough of Stafford. He trusted the House would, by its vote, prove distinctly that it never would be their practice to punish the innocent, but that they would show that that justice which ought to be dealt out with an equal hand to every body should be afforded to the borough of Stafford.
Mr. Hallstated, that he had listened to the facts brought forward by the hon. Member for Newcastle, and had upon those facts come to a directly contrary conclusion from the one adopted by that hon. Member. He thought that the House would abandon its duty if it issued a writ to such a notoriously corrupt place as that borough was proved to be. The question was not whether the Attorney-General or some Tory Member had been guilty of corruption, but whether the electors of Stafford should be enabled to receive bribes? If a Bill were again brought forward for the disfranchisement of the borough, he was certain it would meet with the support of the House, and
450
he seriously trusted that the borough would be ultimately disfranchised.
Sir Thomas Fremantlesaid, that as he had devoted some attention to the particulars of the Stafford case, perhaps he might be allowed to state shortly to the House the reasons which led him to give the vote which it was his intention to give on the present occasion. It was extremely grating to his feelings to be obliged to differ from other hon. Members, but he felt that he could not vote for the amendment. The evidence which had been delivered before the House of Lords did not in the slightest degree alter the opinion which he had formerly entertained with respect to the corruption of the electors of Stafford, and he was prepared to say that he very much regretted that a measure for the disfranchisement of the borough had not passed into a law. It was unfortunate that various circumstances should have interposed in the way of the success of such a measure. A Bill for the disfranchisement of Stafford was taken up to the House of Lords more than two years ago, along with two other Bills—a Bill for the disfranchisement of Warwick, and another for the disfranchisement of Hertford. These Bills were considered by some parties as of more political importance than the Bill for the disfranchisement of Stafford, and therefore they were taken up first; but if he had been permitted to deal with the Stafford Bill at once, he had no doubt that it would have passed into a law. At the same time, he must say that the case was now very much altered. A great change had taken place in the constituency of the borough. He was satisfied that a large proportion of the freemen had ceased to be on the register. New buildings had been erected, and a new constituency had grown up. But the question of time formed an element in the consideration of the subject, which was of very great importance. He particularly insisted on this point, because the other evening, when a letter of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny was being read, the hon. and learned Member said, "Oh! but that was in 1830." It was admitted, therefore, on the other side of the House that the question of time was one of consequence. The real subject matter for their deliberation was, whether if a Bill were brought forward for the disfranchisement of Stafford there was a reasonable

451
prospect of carrying the Bill. If his hon. Friend, the Member for Exeter, was prepared to say that he was ready to bring in a Bill for that purpose, and that there was a reasonable prospect of carrying it, then he would vote for suspending the writ until the end of this Parliament; but on the grounds on which his hon. Friend had placed the amendment, he could not in justice to his own feelings, and in accordance with his sense of duty, vote for it. His hon. Friend said, that the right course to pursue, would be to address the Crown, praying that it would not issue a writ for the borough of Stafford again. But his hon. Friend did not take that course, and the reason he assigned for not adopting it was, that it would be inconsistent with the principles of the constitution. Now, he would ask his hon. Friend whether the continued suspension of the writ would not, under the circumstances of the case, be equally inconsistent with the principles of the constitution? This matter was of far too much importance to be trifled with. It ought not to be dealt with in a spirit of party jealousy or petty personal feeling. The voters, had, unquestionably, been guilty of corruption, but as a considerable change had taken place among the constituency, and believing, as he did, that the time which had elapsed ought to be taken into consideration, he should vote for the original motion—that the writ do issue.
Mr. Robinsonobserved, that as an attempt would probably be made to fasten imputations on those who intended to vote as he did, for the issuing of the writ, it was desirable that he should be allowed to state the grounds on which he had made up his mind. In his opinion, no sufficient reason had been shown for the suspension of the writ. The only Parliamentary grounds for such a course, were, that judicial proceedings were actually pending. So long as the House of Lords had a concurrent jurisdiction with that House upon questions of this nature, their consent must be obtained; and if the House of Commons thought proper to suspend the issuing of a writ after an investigation by both Houses, they would virtually deny the authority of the House of Lords. What was the case with Penryn? The House of Commons declared that the electors of Penryn had been guilty of corruption, and a Bill for their disfranchisement passed through that House, but the Lords differed from them,
452
and a new writ was subsequently issued. It was, therefore, upon grounds purely constitutional, and not from any doubt whatever that he entertained as to the facts of bribery and corruption having taken place at elections for Stafford, that he should vote for the issuing of the writ.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, as he intended to vote for the issue of the writ, he hoped the House would allow him to explain the grounds on which he should feel it his duty to do so, as they would perhaps be somewhat different from those taken by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side. He was as much opposed to bribery and corruption as any man: and would visit it, wherever found, with punishment and shame; at the same time, it was the duty of the House not to be led by its abhorrence of one kind of injustice into the commission of another. If the motion had been for unseating the Member who had obtained his majority by bribery, and disqualifying him for ever from sitting in Parliament, such a motion should have his cordial assent. If it had been for disfranchising those voters only against whom bribery had been proved, and disqualifying them for ever from the exercise of the elective franchise, he would cordially support such a proposition. But the present was no such measure—it was one that confounded the innocent with the guilty, and that even punished the innocent for the guilty, a proceeding to which he would never give his assent. The whole argument for the suspension of the writ, was founded in a gross fallacy. It was said "Stafford has been guilty of bribery, therefore let Stafford be disfranchised." Now if Stafford were a man, who had perverted his electoral privilege to unworthy purposes, this would be a reasonable sentence, since the identity of the criminal being continued, it would be proper that he should be punished. But Stafford is a town, containing many hundreds of men, some innocent, some guilty—and these so changing every year, that the identity of Stafford, as it regards its inhabitants, is not continuous for even half that period. It is now some years since the bribery alleged took place. A large number of the electors of Stafford were exempt from the guilt of this transaction at the time. Very many of those who were guilty, are since dead; and every year there has been a new accession to the numbers of the persons coming of age, and occupying

453
houses, which would qualify them for voting:—so that while at first only a portion of the inhabitants were guilty, that portion has been lessened every year, and the number of the innocent coming to the state fit for exercising the franchise has been increasing. Now, if the House suspends the writ still further, it will in effect be saying, that because some few electors some years ago accepted bribes from candidates, therefore, we will punish, by the deprivation of their franchise, all those who were not guilty of bribery then, all those who have arrived at the possession of a good qualification since, and all those who may in every succeeding year, become possessed of an elector's qualification in the town of Stafford in all time to come—an injustice so palpable that no man of reflection could fail to perceive it. Let the House punish those who gave the bribes and those who received them—but let not the innocent suffer for the guilty. Let the franchise be extended, and the ballot introduced, and bribery will soon cease. But as an unjust vote is as bad as a bribe, he would condemn them both, and never be induced either to give the one or receive the other; nor would he consent to punish the innocent for the guilty, however much his motives might be called in question: because he who had not the courage to act as he thought right, without reference to party, was unworthy the honour of being a representative in a free assembly.
The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 152; Noes 151: Majority 1.
The writ ordered to be issued.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND).
Lord John Russell: I beg to move the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of the whole House on so much of the King's Speech as relates to the establishing of Poor-laws in Ireland.
The House in Committee. The following passages in the King's speech were read by the clerk:—
"My Lords and Gentlemen, his Majesty has More especially Commanded us to bring under your notice the state of Ireland, and the wisdom of adopting all such measures as may improve the condition of that part of the United Kingdom. His Majesty recommends to your early consideration the present constitution of the municipal corporations of that country, the collection of tithes, and the difficult but pressing question of establishing some legal provision for the poor, guarded by prudent regulations, and by such precautions against
454
abuse as your experience and knowledge of the subject enabled you to suggest. His Majesty commits these great interests into your hands in the confidence that you will be able to frame laws in accordance with the wishes of his Majesty and the expectation of his people. His Majesty is persuaded that, should this hope be fulfilled, you will not only contribute to the welfare of Ireland, but strengthen the law and constitution of these realms by securing their benefits to all classes of his Majesty's subjects."
Lord John Russellthen rose and spoke to the following effect: I feel, Sir, the extreme importance of the subject which I am about to bring under the consideration of the House; at the same time I feel it is one which, while it has received much discussion, while it has been the subject of a report made by Commissioners appointed by his Majesty, who collected a great deal of information in relation to it, is likewise a matter which I can rely confidently the House thus prepared will come to the consideration of, not only with the necessary information at its command, but with a desire to form a safe and dispassionate conclusion. I will preface what I have to say on the subject of Poor-laws for Ireland with some few observations, as to the advantages which may be derived from poor laws in general, the manner in which a poor-law should be applied, and the abuses to which it is subject. These are matters which are illustrated, I think, very fully and sufficiently in the history of this country. It appears from the testimony both of theory and of experience that when a country is in such a state that it is overrun by numbers both of marauders and of mendicants having no proper means of subsistence, a prey on the industry of the country, and relying on the indulgent charity of others, the introduction of Poor-laws serves several very important objects. In the first place a Poor-law Acts as a measure of peace, enabling the country to prohibit vagrancy and to prohibit those vagrant occupations which are so often connected with outrage. It acts in this way by the very simple process of offering a subterfuge to those who rely on outrage as a means of subsistence. It is an injustice to the common sense of mankind when a single person or family are unable to obtain the means of subsistence, when they are altogether without the means of livelihood from day to day to say they shall not go about the country to endeavour to obtain from the charity of

455
those who are affluent that which circumstances have denied to them. But when once you can say to such persons—here are the means of subsistence as far as subsistence is concerned—that is offered to you; when you can say this on one hand you can say On the other hand, you are not entitled to demand charity, you shall no longer infest the country in a manner injurious to its peace, and which is favourable to imposition and outrage. Another way in which a poor-law is beneficial is, that it is of itself a great promoter of social concord, showing a disposition in the state and in the community at large to attend to the welfare of all classes. It is of use, also, inasmuch as it interests more especially the landowner and persons of property in the country in the welfare of their tenants and their neighbours. A person possessed of considerable property, who looks only to receive the rents of his estate, may be careless as to the number of persons who may be found in a state of destitution, in a state of mendicancy, or ready to commit crime and act as marauders in the neighbourhood of his estates; but if he is compelled to furnish means for the subsistence of those who are destitute, it then becomes as well his interest as his natural occupation to see that all persons around him are well provided for, that they are not in want of employment, and that his immediate tenants can live in a state of comfort. I conceive that those objects, and several others which are collateral to those, were obtained by this country by the Acts passed in the reign of Elizabeth. When we look to the state of the country immediately preceding and during the greater portion of that reign we should be inclined to think, if we viewed it as a matter of not so remote a time, but nearer to our own time and to our own neighbourhood, that it must be very difficult to bring the country into that condition of peace, order, and civilisation which it now enjoys. We are told with respect to crime in the reign of Henry 8th, that no less than 70,000 persons were executed in this country for theft and various crimes. We are also told by a magistrate of the county of Somerset, who wrote in the reign of Elizabeth, that in that county alone forty persons were executed in the year for theft and other lawless practices; and the county was in such a state of insecurity that the cultivators of the soil found great difficulty in protect-
456
ing their herds and flocks and crops from robbery. Gangs, comprising no less than sixty persons, sometimes attacked them, such was the state—not of that county alone—but of most of the counties in England. The writer adds, that the forty persons who were executed in one year did not constitute more than a fifth of all those who were guilty of similar offences, but the remainder escaped prosecution altogether. A number of other instances might be furnished of the deplorable state of the country at that period. Even in London, such was the extent of crime, that a commission was issued empowering a certain high officer to execute martial law in the streets, and persons found committing depredations in the street were taken up under that commission, and hanged without trial. Now, that was a barbarous state of society, which it was most difficult to remodel; but the means taken were many combined together. Various changes were made, both with respect to the law and the police, into which I need not enter on the present occasion; but there was one in particular, which, I think, tended to the improvement of the country, to the establishment of peace, and to the creation of that which I consider almost the greatest benefit that can be conferred on any country, namely, a high standard of comfortable subsistence for the labouring classes—that one was the establishment of poor-laws. That much was effected by the Act of the 14th of Elizabeth, and by other Acts, cannot be denied, but the improvement was effected chiefly by the great Act of the 43rd of Elizabeth. The principle of that Act was, that the infirm, the cripples, the orphans, and impotent persons, should be relieved by the public, and that able-bodied persons, unable to procure employment, whereby they might obtain their living, should be set to work. The Act in question was founded on principles adapted to that time, and which, I have no doubt, were applied with great effect. That, then, I conceive to be the use of a poor-law. I may here mention that a short time after the passing of the 14th of Elizabeth, an Act was passed in Scotland enacting a system of relief for the poor, but leaving out that part of the law which provided that able-bodied persons should be set to work. The Scotch Act provided compulsory relief for those who were unable or incompetent to work. It

457
was a long time before any considerable mischief was found to arise from the English poor-law. No doubt many abuses arose in particular parts of the country. There were abuses stated by a writer at the beginning of the last century, but it was not till towards the end of the century that some very fatal abuses prevailed. I conceive it was the object of the poor-law of Elizabeth to provide, in the first place, for the relief of those persons who were infirm and unable to work; and in the next place, by compulsory measures, to set able-bodied persons to work—to set them to hard labour, which was distasteful to them, and, in fact, to place them in a situation inferior to that of the able-bodied independent labourer. But there arose, about the end of the last century, from circumstances which occasioned a great scarcity of provisions, the cause of which I need not go into now—there arose a notion that the principle of the poor-law was, that all persons, whether industrious or idle, whether deserving or undeserving, were entitled to be maintained by the parish funds. The evil of this system soon began to be felt. It was impossible that such an opinion of the law could be carried into effect without occasioning the greatest evils. For a long time the idle and profligate found it more to their interest to live on the parish funds, than to obtain their livelihood by the regular course of employment; they found that they possessed greater advantages, living in that way, than if they had sought regular employment, and had relied for the means of subsistence on their character and industry. I am alluding now to facts that are so notorious, that I need not go into them. I will only refer to one case, which is mentioned in the report of the Commissioners. It is the case of Soulbury, where the poor increased to such an extent, that the landlords gave up their land, the farmers gave up the occupation of their farms, the clergyman gave up his tithes, and the whole parish was left in the undisputed possession of the paupers. It was, after many inquiries into these abuses, that the Poor-law Amendment Act was introduced into Parliament, and became law. The principle of that Bill, as I conceive, is to act fully and fairly on the principle of the 43d of Elizabeth; is to place the pauper labourer, the pauper who cannot find work, and the infirm who apply for support, in a situation more
458
irksome than that of the independent, industrious, and successful labourer. Now the means by which this is accomplished are, by offering all such persons a residence in the workhouse; by giving them, as the Poor-law Commissioners state—and I will not enter into the dispute whether that is the case or not—a sufficiency of food, warm clothing, and a comfortable warm residence; but, at the same time, placing them under a certain degree of confinement; so that, while they have the necessary clothing, the means of subsistence, and often a warmer residence in the winter, than the independent labourer possesses, yet the restraint is so irksome to them, that they are not willing to subject themselves to it, except when really in a state of destitution. This has been proved clearly by the Assistant Commissioners to be the manner in which the new Poor-law works. I have consulted two of the Commissioners, with whom I happen to be acquainted, on the subject, and they both say the food is wholesome, and the workhouse accommodation is better than that possessed by the independent poor, but the confinement renders it irksome, and, in that way, the workhouse becomes a place that the poor would gladly avoid the necessity of having recourse to. It is to these principles, and to this experience, that we must look very much as a guide, in forming any Poor-law which we wish to introduce for Ireland. We ought to be unwilling, on the one hand, to introduce a system which will generate the abuses which have resulted from the English Poor-law; we ought to be very willing, on the other hand, if we can, to introduce some of those good effects which have resulted to England from her system, while we avoid the injurious consequences I have adverted to. The Poor-law Commissioners for Ireland, in the course of last Session, made a report which was laid before this House, in which they recommended many measures of improvement for Ireland, and in which they suggested certain measures with regard to the indigent. It is this measure with regard to the relief of the indigent, to which I would call the attention of the House, as the principal object of the Bill I am now about to introduce. The other suggestions for the general improvement of Ireland, though I may touch on them this evening, I propose to leave for future consideration. The Poor-law Commissioners, with regard to

459
this question of immediate relief of the destitute, propose, in the first place, that a large class of persons should be provided for, at the public expense, by means of a national and local rate. They advise also that there should be money afforded for emigration, and that dépôts should be provided for persons preparing to emigrate. In considering that report, great doubts occurred to his Majesty's Ministers, whether it were a good principle to provide only for certain classes, and whether those depots for emigration could be safely and advantageously adopted. It appears from every reflection on the subject, that there can be no reason for saying why there are to be only certain classes to which relief is to be extended, that is, provided we are prepared to administer relief. The different classes to whom it is proposed to give relief are here enumerated:—The noble Lord here read an extract from the last report of the Commissioners for inquiring into the state of Ireland, and suiting that, in their opinion, relief ought to be given to lunatics, to persons who were deaf, blind, and all the labouring poor that were infirm; that they should be supported with in the walls of public institutions; that for the sick who remained at home, there ought also to be institutions to supply them with medicines; that helpless widows, with children, ought to be supplied, as well as other persons similarly situated; and also suggesting the support of persons intending to emigrate. The noble Lord then continued by saying, Now ill is enumeration contains so many persons, there are so many classes of persons embraced in it, that you could not, if you undertook to provide for so many classes, exclude others. Including those, I certainly cannot see what objection there can be to provide for the destitute and able-bodied man. There are some persons in this list, such as the incurable lunatic, the helpless widow with young; children, or the sick man—now these are persons in such circumstances as it is recommended that relief should be afforded to; and which circumstances seem to us calculated to excite individual compassion, and not circumstances to which exclusive national regard ought to be had. If a person in the five-and-twentieth year of his age, in the full possession of his health and strength, be unable by his industry to obtain a livelihood, or if he have not the means of support, were to stand at the
460
doors of one of those public institutions starving, in want of support, and who was likely, if not relieved, to die in a few days, I cannot understand the principle that would distinguish a person in that case, as one to whom you would not give relief, when you give relief to the young and the infirm. The real principle to be adopted on this subject is, to afford relief to the destitute—and to the destitute only; and it would, in my opinion, be quite as wrong to refuse relief to the able-bodied person in that situation, as to afford relief to the cripple, to the widow, to a deaf or a dumb person, who was in a state of affluence, and had other means of support. It is not, then, the peculiar circumstances which excite public or individual compassion that we are to regard; but, if we have a Poor law at all, it ought to be grounded on destitution, as affording a plain guide to relief. Then, with respect to the other proposition, that there ought to be a penitentiary, to which the paupers ought to he sent, and that there ought to be dépôts for those intending to emigrate; if you are willing to adopt a plan to that extent, of having; a penitentiary for vagrants, and deépôs for emigrants, it is, I say, far better for you to adopt the workhouse system at once; because, if you have a dépôt for emigrants, it will afford, as it appears to me, great ground for abuses. Suppose you get 500 or 600 persons in a dépôt for emigration, it will be difficult to apply to them that restriction, and enforce that discipline, which you could do if they were in a workhouse. It may be said, that they are merely passengers—that they are in a sort of public inn or hotel, until they take their passage, and they are not, therefore, to be treated as paupers entirely dependent for support upon the public. Thus, then, they cannot be restricted, nor placed under the same discipline as if they were in a workhouse; and besides, there is no security that they will avail themselves of emigration; for, supposing 300 out of 500, who have been for two or three months in one of those workhouses, are told that the ship is ready in which they were to have embarked, and they refuse to go, what means have you to compel them, unless you resort to that which would be so odious as to be impossible to be carried into effect, that is, oblige men to emigrate? Thus, then, after supporting them in the dépôt, you must let them go at large, and they would

461
Only go to persevere in their usual habits of vagrancy. It appears, therefore, to us, that you could not adopt that part of the recommendation of the Commissioners, without a great deal more of consideration than the plan proposed by the Commissioners appears to us to have received. And deeply impressed as we have been, with the responsibility that attaches to a Government which proposes a law upon this subject, it occurred to us, that the best method of forming a judgment on the subject was, to see whether that law which, as amended, has been applied to England, could be enforced in Ireland with advantage to that country. For this purpose, Mr. Nicholls, one of the Poor-law Commissioners, and who is so well known for his worth, abilities, and intelligence, I requested to go over to Ireland, and ascertain on the spot, whether anything resembling the machinery of the English Poor-law could be applied there. I should mention here, that Mr. Nicholls, who has had great experience upon this subject, had, in one district in this country, adopted an improved method in the working of those laws, even before the amended law was carried; but this also ought to be stated, that in the early part of last year, he drew my attention to the subject of a Poor-law for Ireland, and I have been in constant communication with him on this matter, since the commencement of the Session of 1836. As I was sure that he was qualified by abilities and experience, so was I also aware that he would carry into the examination of this subject equal caution and zeal. Mr. Nicholls, then, proceeded to Ireland, and the result of his inquiries is, that, supposing it was expedient to extend a Poor-law to Ireland, there was no effectual obstacle, no sufficient objection to the establishment of a Poor-law, in many respects resembling the amended Poor-law in England. The reasons of that opinion are given at considerable length in the Report which I have had the honour of laying this day upon the table; and I will now state generally what are the reasons given in that Report, and why I think it is expedient to establish a Poor-law in Ireland, and to describe what is the nature of the Poor-law that I mean to propose. I think there can be no doubt of its expediency, if the House will bear in mind the description which I gave of this country in the reign of Queen Elizabeth—there can be no doubt that there
462
has prevailed in Ireland many outrages consequent upon vagrancy and destitution, and the people being left without a remedy or relief. It has happened in Ireland (I do not now inquire as to the causes, but the fact cannot be disputed), that while the people themselves—unlike the population here—have not improved in their condition, that the population has increased very much in numbers; that there has been this increase in population, while there has scarcely been an increase in the means of subsistence, and a lowering of the standard of subsistence. So that, after a long period, it is found that there prevails in Ireland, according to the Report of the Poor-law Commissioners of Ireland, such an over plus of labour, that four agricultural labourers in Ireland only produced as much as one agricultural labourer produces in England. That, it is to be observed, cannot fairly be attributed to a want of industry amongst the Irish people; on the contrary, we have it in the evidence of those examined by Mr. Lewis, and particularly from one gentleman of Birmingham, that he never found the Irish labourer to refuse work, or fail to perform it to the utmost of his industry and capability. There is not, then, a want of industry amongst the people. It is the country that has been allowed to be in such a state, that industry cannot succeed in it. It is admitted, that the only subsistence of the peasant is derived from the land which he has—it is taken from his small holding —it is not from the gain of regular wages; and where there are regular wages received in particular districts, these wages are received only by a part, and not by the whole, of the labouring population. The peasant gets his subsistence out of his small holding; the labourers live upon the potatoes raised by themselves out of that small portion of land they get; and it is by means of his possession, and the use of their industry, often very ill-directed, and not by the application of wages for labour, that they are able to maintain existence. The result of this is stated by the Poor-law Commissioners (though that is a statement of which I doubt the accuracy), that there are nearer to three than two millions of people, for a certain portion of the year, in an entire state of destitution. There is no doubt whatever of this, that a large portion of the people of Ireland, especially those not having land, do practise mendicancy for a great

463
portion of the year. I have made some inquiry, with respect to the amount and extent of the relief thus afforded to that mendicancy, because His to be considered, that when we say we will adopt a Poor-law (and that we should adopt one is my opinion), it is to be remembered, that a very considerable tax is now raised on the farmers of that country by mendicants, and which, I may say, is now raised as a compulsory rate. With this view, I asked of my noble Friend who sits near me, the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, to obtain as accurate an account as possible of the amount paid in this way, from two or three farmers, in ten or twelve districts —the amount that was paid for rent, the amount paid for tithes, the amount paid to the Roman Catholic priests, and the amount paid to mendicants. The result is, I should say, that in most cases, a shilling an acre is paid in the course of the year by the farmers, for the support of mendicants. In some cases it has been sixpence an acre, in others ninepence an acre; but in one case, where a person had a farm, not very considerable in size, it was more than two shillings an acre. That person paid 10 l. a-year, not in money certainly, but in food. There was more than two-shillings an acre paid for mendicity. Now, this is in itself a very heavy tax, and which cannot be assumed, upon the whole, to amount to less than between 700,000 l. and 800,000 l., perhaps a million, in the year. And let it be observed, that this practice of mendicancy, which raises so vast a sum in the country, is not like a well-constituted poor-law, which affords relief to the really indigent. It is the practice, in Ireland, for the farmer to give relief to the mendicant who asks for it— the potatoes are there ready for him— there is no inquiry into the circumstances of the mendicant: generally it is not near home that he begs, and the farmer has no means of knowing him. But that which seems to afford relief to the distressed, also promotes and keeps up impostors. We have a statement with respect to England which shows the advantage that mendicancy obtains from imposture. A medical gentleman has stated with respect to Suffolk, that he has, during the continuance of the old Poor-law, discovered every species of the simulation of disease. Those who pretended to be affected with catalepsy, those who shammed cripples, and the shamming of some of the most ago-
464
nizing and excruciating diseases, and all this for the purpose of receiving relief from the parish. It cannot, then, be supposed that in Ireland, where mendicancy is so general, and where relief is so freely given, but that the number of impostors must be enormous. But there is another evil to which a Poor-law would peculiarly apply, and which is, in truth, one of the greatest evils to which the country is subject—it is, that the usual mode of obtaining a livelihood with the labouring classes, is from a small holding of land. If you deprive the poor labourer of his small holding of land, he is immediately driven into a state of destitution, and he becomes ready for the commission of any outrage, in order that he may supply, by outrage, what mendicancy may be unable to procure for him. I put the case without referring to the question whether the landlord or the tenant has acted badly or not; but in either case, where the labourer is turned out of his holding, it leads to the commission of outrage. If you suppose a number of persons driven suddenly from their small holdings by their landlord, you can then suppose the combinations that are formed, that they return in numbers,—that they come in arms, and endeavour to deprive the tenant succeeding them, and thus repossess themselves by force of the land. But put the case the other way. A tenant is in possession of a holding for three or four years, and this without paying any rent, and the landlord is compelled to get rid of him. That bad tenant, such is the state of the labouring classes, collects the sympathy of that class, and they arm themselves against the landlord. A band is formed for the commission of crime, and the crime finds an excuse, and, I will say, a justification in the sympathy of the peasantry of the country. Let me advert to one case, for there are many cases of outrages, all arising from this source in Ireland. The case occurred about two years since, and I noticed it in the police report; it shows the sympathy of the peasantry for a person in the condition I have described. A tenant was dispossessed from his holding; a person had taken possession, and he came upon the land, with a farm servant, to cultivate it; the farmer, who had been in possession, came near to them with a gun in his hand; he immediately aimed at the new tenant—it missed; he cocked the gun again, fired at

465
the servant, and shot him dead on the spot. There could not be a more unprovoked homicide than that. It was evident that the farm-servant, who had nothing to do with the holding, and who went there to earn his wages as a labourer, was thus basely murdered; and yet the police, who were in an hour afterwards at the place, could not find persons to give them information as to who committed the murder. Information was refused, because the sympathy was for the person who was driven from his holding. This state of society has been produced by the absence of any legal provision for the poor. It has produced on the one hand the most extensive mendicancy, and on the other the most extensive crime. It has produced, too, a third consequence, namely, the indifference or neglect, the want of care on the part of landlords as to the manner in which their property is cultivated and their tenants live. In a great part of Ireland, the same indifference prevails as to the comfort of the tenants on the part of the landlords. In this country, the state of the labourers is looked to, and even in what repair the farmhouses may be. A great amelioration, I believe, in this respect, is taking place in Ireland; but, generally, the landlords in Ireland regard the connexion as a mere bargain between them and the tenant, by which they are to obtain a certain rent from him. They no more care for the welfare of the tenantry, than if they had to do with an indifferent or third person, and with the payment the transactions are at an end. The competition for land in Ireland, likewise gives rise to very high rents, to very high nominal rents, and which no unfortunate tenants can pay. The extreme competition for land, too, leads to most injurious consequences, and of course it leads, too, to the extremely bad cultivation of the land. There are parts of Ireland in which tenants would be glad to improve the land, but will not do so because there is an extreme competition for land, and also from extensive vagrancy they find it impossible to do so. I will take the liberty of reading a sentence from the report of Mr. Nicholls, in which he deals with the evils that arise from this source. They are thus disposed of in a very few words:—
"Ireland is now suffering under a circle of evils, producing and reproducing one another. Want of capital produces want of employment —want of employment, turbulence and misery
466
—turbulence and misery, insecurity — insecurity prevents the introduction or accumulation of capital—and so on. Until this circle is broken, the evil must continue, and probably augment. The first thing to be done, is to give security—that will produce or invite capital— and capital will give employment. But security of person and property cannot co-exist with general destitution. So that, in truth, the drainage, reclamation, and profitable cultivation of bogs and wastes—the establishment of fisheries and manufactures—improvements in agriculture, and in the general condition of the country—and, lastly, the elevation of the great mass of the Irish people in the social scale, appear to be all more or less contingent upon establishing a law providing for the relief of the destitute."
Now, with respect to that part of the case, we have come to the opinion, that it is expedient and right to introduce a law for the relief of the destitute. The next question is, in what manner is that relief to be given, and to whom is it to be given? I have already stated, that I do not think that we ought to limit relief to certain classes. You must give relief on the ground of destitution, and to every class and person in a state of destitution. The next question arises, whether you are to afford relief in any other manner, than it is now given in some of the improved districts in England—that is, by in-door relief to the paupers? The Poor-law Commissioners have expressed a very strong opinion upon this subject, and they give reasons which I think conclusive on the subject. They are of opinion, and I think with them, that the administration of outdoor relief would lead to a most pernicious system, mixing up mendicancy and charity with labour—a system of persons, partly obtaining support by labour and partly relief from the public purse; and, if we were at once to adopt this system, I certainly do think, that not only would those evils take place in Ireland that existed in England, but I believe that those evils would be very much greater, and that out-door relief in Ireland would absorb a much greater part of the profits of the land. I am confirmed in this opinion, by a report which I lately received containing resolutions bearing very much on this subject. It is a report from the Mendicity Institution of Dublin. They "declare that they do not think it wise to administer out-door relief to any person not labouring in the Institution itself." I will next come to the question whether, if we adopt the present system of workhouse,

467
that system of workhouse can be rendered effectual to any purpose? There is one objection to them stated on this ground, and it is urged very strongly by the Commissioners. I know it was felt very strongly by some individuals in that commission, that the workhouses would not be safe—that there would be too much violence—that there would be such an indisposition to the restraints that those restraints could not be enforced. Mr. Nicholls, for the purpose of establishing this fact, made a full inquiry into all the various houses of industry, the mendicity institution, and the other institutions that exist in Ireland, and he says that the conduct of those persons in these institutions gave no reason to apprehend anything of the sort. He observed, that in some of these houses of industry, they have carried the system of restraint farther than in some of the old English workhouses; they have established the separation of the sexes, and of the members of families, such as were established in the new union workhouses in England; and he did not find any regulation proposed to be made which did not now exist; on the contrary, every regulation is submitted to by the inmates of those houses of industry. I should think, therefore, as far as the question of settlement is concerned, there need not be any fear that there will be any violence used, or that we cannot protect the workhouses in Ireland, as well and as securely as in England, for the object of obtaining the result we desire, of maintaining good order and industry in them. The next difficulty, or rather another objection, has been stated, which lies at the bottom of the whole question. It is, whether this species of relief will not be so much sought after, that the workhouses will be altogether crowded with applicants, and that there will be no means of affording relief to those who will come in such numbers to ask to be supported in the workhouses. But, Sir, while I am ready to admit that that portion of the population which consists of persons decrepid and infirm will seek refuge in workhouses, it is, in my opinion, very doubtful that any person who can obtain any sort of subsistence by his individual labour will crowd into the workhouses, where they will be subject to confinement and labour. The evidence goes to show that the objection which has been taken to workhouses in England cannot be taken as a test in Ireland;
468
and nothing is more unlikely than that labourers who can obtain any sort of employment, or who have any other means of livelihood than by confinement in workhouses, will crowd into the workhouse, either because the quality of the food or the habitation is very much superior. It remains to be considered how far a law so constituted can be carried into effect. And, on this part of the subject, Mr. Nicholls has made various suggestions, to which I shall shortly advert, as containing the plan which he proposes to adopt. In the first place, with respect to the mode of administering relief, and the question of vagrancy. To every destitute and decrepid person, the authorities having the superintendence of the administration of the law shall order relief to be given; that is to say, we do not propose to give them an absolute right, which, in fact, I do not think exists in England; we do not propose to give an absolute right to destitute and decrepid persons to secure relief in the workhouses. The reasons for this are, that not only would it be found difficult to create workhouses, and very unsafe to establish at once, in the whole of Ireland, that every person should be at once relieved, but there is also the difficulty of introducing a sound general principle of relief at once into the country. We do not, therefore, propose to establish at first more than four or five, or ten or fifteen, workhouses in Ireland. If we say, that all persons in Ireland shall be allowed to have relief in these workhouses, then these workhouses will certainly be overflowed in the beginning, and the experiment may be said to have failed, when in fact, it had only failed because it was not established throughout the whole of the country, but only in a portion. It is impossible to have evidence of the true working of the system until the whole is established; and, in order to give effect to it, it must afford relief to all that require it. But, then, it may be said, and it has been very much insisted upon, that the way of preventing such numbers from flocking into the workhouses is to establish the law of settlement, and to say that a residence of three years in the district, or some other qualification, should be established, by which certain persons only should be entitled to relief. But, Sir, on reflecting on the course of legislation that has been pursued in England, I have not made up my mind to propose any

469
regular law of settlement in Ireland. I am quite convinced that the law of settlement is one of the greatest evils of the Poor-laws of England. It circumscribes the market for industry, it confines it, owing to divisions in parishes, in many cases to a small extent of country; it confines the market for industry to a very great and injurious extent. It likewise led to immense litigation; and any person who had attended the quarter sessions and seen the disputes that arise there between one parish and another as to whether a person had been hired for a year and a day, whether he had been ordered to go home on the day before the expiration of that term, so as to destroy the settlement, or whether he had served a full year and a day, and various other similar questions —any person who had attended to this litigation and those disputes will not have any wish that I should in this bill introduce the question of settlement. If I were to introduce the question of settlement I think it would have these two consequences—one because we cannot immediately say that we will give relief, or indirectly a claim to relief at all to the destitute poor of Ireland; neither can we say in the second place, what is certainly greatly to be desired, that we will at once prohibit altogether and put an end to vagrancy. When the whole of the workhouses are in operation, and when we are enabled to relieve at them all such as are fairly entitled to have relief in the workhouses, then you may say we will not permit vagrancy. First, then, to all destitute persons who seek nothing but subsistence that subsistence we give, and tell them that we will not allow them to disturb the peace and order of society by seeking subsistence by other means. But until you can do this it is not just altogether to prohibit vagrancy, and I therefore do not propose to prohibit persons seeking alms, if they can show that they have been to the workhouse or have applied to the guardians of the union and have been refused relief. This, I think, is a necessary step in the transition from one state to another. If the scheme succeeds we shall be able hereafter finally to prohibit vagrancy. The next question that arises is that with respect to the local machinery. I propose, with regard to this point, that there shall be a board of guardians, to be elected once a year, as in England. I propose that the county cess payers shall
470
have the first election, and afterwards, the rate being imposed, any person properly described as a rate-payer shall have the power of voting in the election of the board of guardians. Mr. Nicholls has entered very minutely into the question whether or not we ought to have ex-officio guardians in the same manner as in England. The opinion I have come to is, that it is not advisable to introduce a similar provision. In the first place, by the proportion which the ex-officio guardians bear to the number elected, the character of the be d of guardians is altogether destroyed. I therefore propose that there shall be a smaller number of ex-officio guardians, and that they shall not exceed one-third of the number of elected guardians. Mr. Nichols has likewise examined another question, viz., whether clergymen should be admitted as members of the board of guardians? He states, and, as I think, truly, that you cannot have the ministers of one profession without the ministers of the other; and, in the present state of Ireland, the presence of different ministers of religion on the board of guardians might raise many questions of dispute; and I think, therefore it would be better if the board of guardians were confined altogether to laymen. It must indeed be remarked that from clergymen of all denominations, from Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Presbyterians, Mr. Nichols received assurances of their willingness and anxiety to co-operate with the board, while some of them stated that they would rather be in the position of mediators between the board of guardians and the destitute poor, between the administrators of the law and those whom it would affect, where their exertions would be more efficacious in reconciling the poor to the law, and to those who would be exposed to their angry denunciations, than to the members of the Board. I think then that for these reasons it would be better that they should not be members of the board, but rather remain in that position in which they would be better enabled to use all fair exertion in favour of the law than if they aided in its administration. Now, Sir, with respect to the question of rating, it is proposed that the board of guardians being once constituted, and under the direction of the Commissioners whom I shall afterwards describe, shall impose rates according to the net annual value of the hereditament. The question then arises, and it will be

471
found fully treated by the Poor-law Commissioners, how much of this rate shall be imposed on the owner, and how much on the occupier? It is proposed by the Bill which I hope to be allowed to introduce, that of the rate levied on full net annual value, one half shall be paid by the tenant and the other half by the owner of the land, that this provision shall be carried through in all gradations, and that when there are many tenants holding, some under others, such tenant who is the lowest occupier shall deduct one-half, and the person to whom he pays it shall have the power of deducting a certain proportion of the half as rate, and shall pay the rate on what he receives from the occupier. So that, in point of fact, all owners liable to be rated, and paying a sufficient amount, shall be entitled to vote for the board of guardians. But with respect to others who hold property under 5l., it is proposed that they shall not be liable to the rate, and shall not have the power of voting for the board of guardians. It is proposed likewise, according to the report, that owners and occupiers shall have a plurality of votes in cases where the property exceeds a certain amount. With respect to the other questions which are treated of in the English Poor-laws, it is not necessary in any Poor-law for Ireland to introduce provisions on these subjects. For instance, regulations as to bastardy need not be introduced, and apprenticeship is not proposed to form part of the law as in England. With respect to the cases of the Mendicity Institution and other charitable institutions it is proposed that they shall be under the direction of the Commissioners, who are to have the conduct and management of the whole administration of the law. With respect to the Commissioners, I think that the safest manner of introducing such a law as I have described is the simple machinery which has been found so advantageous in England, and through the aid of persons fully acquainted with the principles of the law of England, and who have been employed in carrying it into operation. We therefore propose that, instead of forming a separate Commission for Ireland, the Poor-law Commissioners for England shall have the power of intrusting to one or two of the Commissioners, and if there is only one, to any of the assistant-commissioners, the power of sitting in Ireland as a board of Commissioners, in order to carry the law into operation there. It is proposed
472
that in case it should be necessary to add to the strength of the present Board of Commissioners, if the present number shall not be found equal to the task, then the board shall have an addition of one Commissioner, thus making four. When there are four Commissioners there will be found very probably one or two in Ireland and the others in England. I think this a better mode of proceeding than by establishing a new Board of Commissioners. It is far safer that we should have persons already intimately acquainted with the operation of the law. It is far better that they should form a part of, and have the power of communicating from time to time with, the Board in England, because if we establish a separate Board of Commissioners in Ireland, a totally separate Board, we shall probably, in the course of a few years, find the Commissioners of England and Ireland acting upon totally different principles. According to the testimony of the gentleman at the head of the Commission in England, he believes that three Commissioners only will be able to conduct all the operations required both here and in Ireland. These Commissioners will be intrusted with the power of putting the law into operation from time to time, according as they may see opportunity, in the different districts which they may think most favourable, and then they will proceed to other districts. They will form unions, either of parishes or of districts, or, without attending to the present divisions, they may form unions, and having formed an union, they will proceed to adapt any building that may be standing for the purpose of a workhouse, or they may build a new workhouse if necessary. There is a considerable difference of opinion between some of the persons who have considered this subject with respect to the size of the workhouses and the unions. A gentleman who has published a pamphlet on the subject, written with very great talent, proposed that there should be 500 unions, and that the number of inmates in the workhouses should be limited to 200 in each workhouse. Mr. Nichols proposes that the unions should be more extensive, that there should not be above 100 unions, and that each should be capable of containing 800 inmates. This calculation is made according to the circuits of Kent, Sussex, Oxford, and Bath. The amount of pauperism in Suffolk is one per cent. of the population. I can mention an instance in

473
East Kent of a place where the able-bodied! persons are 16,000, but there are not more than twenty-four in the workhouse. But suppose in Ireland the workhouses are to be fully occupied, Mr. Nicholls calculates that the whole expense for each person, including lodging, fuel, clothing, and diet, is 1s. 6d. per week. We have calculations made by various persons, and several calculations made by order of the Poor-law Commissioners, and the calculation of the expense of the workhouses in England by Dr. Way, and they all come to very much the same conclusion on the subject, viz., that 1s. 6d. per week is quite sufficient. If, then, you take 100 unions, the whole expense will be £312,000. Of course, as an original outlay, we must calculate the expense of workhouses at £700,000. This would be the amount of the whole expense according to this plan. But, Sir, while I consider that this plan is one of great importance, while I consider that it will in many respects improve the condition of the people of Ireland, while I consider that it will have many collateral advantages, as, for instance, accustoming the people to see examples of cleanliness and regularity, order and peace in the workhouses, and likewise, if the board of guardians are well formed, of seeing the different classes of the people acting together with cordiality and confidence, from the magistrate to the lowest of the rate-payers. While I calculate that this plan will have these advantages, I must say that to suppose that merely by machinery of this sort the people are to be saved at once from the state of destitution in which they now are, is quite unreasonable. In order to effect this, we must look forward to having the means of employment in Ireland, and having some vent in emigration, in order to relieve the country during the state of transition. Let it not be supposed that I believe, when I speak of emigration, that the present eight millions of inhabitants living in Ireland may not be very well sustained, and sustained with good and sufficient means, by the soil of Ireland, but I belive that hitherto, with the means of so doing, a practice has prevailed, and still prevails, which will render it unlikely that this operation should have a successful result without some collateral sources for easing the country of her superabundant population. As to the nature of the public works to be engaged upon, that, is a point which
474
I will not discuss now. It appears to me that there are various means open for the application of the labour of the poorer classes which might lead to the happiest result; but at the same time they should be adopted with great judgment and sound discretion. I think that with care and attention we may find materials for public works of such a nature, which, whilst they serve the temporary purpose of employing the time of the indigent, may be the means of opening new sources of industry, and for the profitable investment of capital in Ireland. The opening of improved communications between different districts, for instance, and the improving of bogs and ditches, are questions well worthy of the application of labour and the investment of capital. This, however, as I said before, is a branch of the subject upon which I will not enter at present. It may be remarked that there is no great quantity of capital in Ireland available for such purposes as I have mentioned, but it should be recollected that if we provide means by which a feeling of security, which does not exist at present, may be promoted amongst the owners of property, capital will immediately begin to flow in for investment. I have now to say a few words in reference to emigration, in connexion with the subject before the House. I know there are some who entertain notions upon this subject far beyond those which I am inclined to adopt, in favour of an enlarged system of emigration. It is a scheme entertained by some, that one or two millions of our poor population might be exported to our colonies, and immediately find means of support in the new field of employment there opened to them. Now, putting aside all other difficulties which may be in the way of this desired result, and viewing the attempt merely in respect to the effect of such a proceeding upon the colonists, I think that the ferment created amongst them would be so great as to throw hopeless impediments in the way. It would at once be supposed by them that we were sending in amongst them a vast quantity of our useless population, paupers who conferred no benefit upon the country they were exported from, and, therefore, as they would argue, likely to prove an evil instead of a source of benefit and productiveness to the new soil in which they were to be placed. I know that there is a very great feeling of this kind already prevent in our colonies, and in some even it

475
has been thought desirable to exercise a sort of control as to the class of emigrants which should be admitted. Such a plan has recently been recommended to the Colonial-office, and I hope it will be persevered in, particularly not to give large tracts of land indiscriminately to parties proposing to emigrate, at the eminent risk of their not being properly cultivated, and the parties themselves not benefitted by their possession; but to sell the land at what might be considered a fair and good price to persons who, by showing themselves ready to advance a little money upon it, gave the best possible earnest of their intention and ability to improve and render it productive. In one colony alone, that of New South Wales, the sale of lands in this way, during the past year, has amounted to 100,000 l. and this sum might be employed with success in the conveyance of emigrants. I am aware also that a notion used to be prevalent that persons sent out in this way from amongst the poorer classes of Irish were not of a description to be very desirable or useful to employers; but I am convinced that this feeling of prejudice or jealousy will not long interfere in the way of there employment when it is found that their are many emigrants from Ireland willing and able to cultivate the lands of those who may hire them. With regard to this subject I may state, therefore, that it will be proposed that there shall be an emigration station at the different sea-ports of Ireland, and that the persons proposing to emigrate, having raised a sufficient sum for that purpose, should inform the agent, who would send them to the sea-port, where a ship, to be provided by the agent, should be ready to convey them. The Government will pay the expenses of the agent, and also provide some proper officer for the command of the emigrants. By means of these precautions the colonists will be certified that the persons brought amongst them are proper persons for the purpose, and not merely paupers driven away to prevent them from starving in their native land. This is a plan which, if adopted, does of course not contemplate any vast number of persons being sent away together; but it will at the same time afford a vent by which a redundant population—and particularly those who cannot find adequate employment at home may seek it with facility elsewhere. In establishing a system of Poor-laws for Ireland it appears to me that we
476
must look upon these two subjects—public works and emigration—as means for cooperating with, and perfecting any, such an enactment. We should look also to the general improvement which, we are informed on all hands, is going on in Ireland and we shall find much to hope for in the accomplishment of these objects. If, on the other hand, the whole state and condition of the country were going backward — if the whole revenues of the country were diminishing —there would then, indeed, be some difficulty in such a plan as that I now suggest; but considering, as I do, the whole country to be in the way of improvement, I think there is much to hope for from the plan, and every reason for its adoption. It is proper, however, that the House should understand, that what I have stated in regard to public works and emigration, bears no direct reference to the measure which I now hope to introduce. These subjects form no part of my present object, which is strictly to carry a Poor-law Act for Ireland. They are subjects, therefore, which I merely touch upon now as worthy of consideration as future resources, in co-operation with the measure I now propose. I would observe also, that I do not consider that these are branches of the subject in which the Poor-law guardians could properly be employed. I do not think it would be safe to intrust them with the management of public works and emigration, in addition to the labour and duties of their immediate department, although, at the same time, I think they may be made very useful in diffusing information on the subject. There is one other question collateral to this matter, which, before I sit down, I wish very briefly to touch upon. The Poor-law Commissioners for England, in the end of their Report, make use of the following observations:—
"It will be observed that the measures which we have suggested are intended to produce rather negative than positive effects; rather to remove the debasing influences to which a large portion of the labouring population is now subject, than to afford new means of prosperity and virtue. We are perfectly aware that for the general diffusion of right principles and habits, we are to look, not so much to any economic arrangement and regulations, as to the influence of a moral and religious education; and important evidence on the subject will be found throughout our appendix. But one great advantage of any measure which shall remove or diminish the evils of the present

477
system is, that it will in the same degree re-move the obstacles which now impede the progress of instruction and intercept its results, and will afford a great scope to the operation of every instrument which may be employed for elevating the intellectual and moral condition of the poorer classes. We believe that if the funds now destined to the purposes of education, many of which are applied in a manner unsuited to the present wants of society, were wisely and economically employed, they would be sufficient to give all the assistance which can be prudently afforded by the State. As the subject is not within our commission we will not dwell on it further, and we have ventured on these few remarks only for the purpose of recording our conviction, that as soon as a good administration of the Poor-laws shall have rendered further improvement possible, the most important duty of the Legislature is to take measures to promote the religious and moral education of the labouring classes."
These are the words with which the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Chester, and Mr. Sturges Bourne, conclude their valuable observations on the Poor-laws of England and Wales; and if the remark is true in regard to England, it is doubly so, in my opinion, in respect to Ireland. I do not wish to enter now upon disputed points connected with this subject, but I have always heard it admitted, even by those who disapprove in general of the present system of national education pursued in Ireland, that it is proper and expedient that the Roman Catholics of Ireland should be educated; and whatever means are to be adopted for so doing, I think it should be such a system of education that the great mass of the people may look to it for improvement and instruction. In administering Poor-laws to Ireland, Parliament should keep this in view, that whatever is good for the moral condition of that country they should endeavour to promote, to extend, and to mature. Not only should we employ ourselves in relieving the indigent, in repressing outrage, and in establishing a feeling of general confidence in rich and poor by so doing, but we should endeavour also to sow the future seeds of virtuous habits, and heighten the character of the poorer classes of Ireland. We should endeavour to give them that wholesome education which will enable them to do their duty to their God and to man; which shall furnish them with motives and incitements to do sec; which shall eradicate and destroy the false notions and views of morality which they had formerly entertained, as respects their state as subjects
478
to the state, and as responsible and immortal creatures. Provided we are all agreed upon the advantages of such an education, and that all should have the benefit of it, let us endeavour to afford it by such means as shall not interfere with their religious opinions. I shall conclude, therefore, by observing, that whilst I look upon the law which I now propose to introduce as one likely to effect very great benefits for Ireland, I look still more strongly hereafter to the fruits of such a system of legislation as that I have briefly hinted at; and I am confident that legislators who shall accomplish such good for Ireland, will receive the reward of their own good opinion, and of the good opinion of the whole of the inhabitants of that country.
Mr. Smith O'Briensaid, that as he had for many years paid some attention to the measure then before the House, he thought the House would permit him to make a few remarks. He would begin by congratulating the country on a time being at length arrived when the subject was formally considered. He concurred in much of the voluminous statement of the noble Lord, but there were some particulars on which he found himself obliged to differ from him. He thought, a preferable system might be adopted. The first point on which he differed from the noble Lord was, the mode of giving assistance in classes. It appeared to him, that two classes had been designated who were to receive relief; those were the impotent, and those who might be called able-bodied men, and that a different system was to be applied to each case. He thought it would be a great mistake to consider the aged widow, the helpless orphan, or the father of a family, who was reduced by circumstances over which he hád no control, as guilty of a crime, and treated accordingly. The system proposed by the noble Lord did not seem to admit any of the kindlier feelings of human nature. There was not the least doubt that a small assistance at their homes would be more agreeable to the poor than a larger aid in a public establishment. In towns, he thought, asylums, or mendicity associations, would prove effectual; but, in the country, domiciliary relief would be most effectual and grateful. He considered I the number of persons stated by the noble Lord as requiring relief far too small. He thought, that to name 160,000 persons

479
would not be fixing the number too high, which was double the computation of the noble Lord. The number of workhouses also was too small. He considered that 320 was the least which could suffice to afford relief to the impotent poor of Ireland. As to the surplus labourers, he thought that the number had been much overrated by the Poor-law Commissioners. He thought, that where a population of surplus labourers was found burdensome, the best mode of affording relief would be by facilitating the means of emigration. The hon. Member for St. Alban's had published an able pamphlet on the subject by the principle of which, if well followed out, plenty of funds would be found from the sale of waste lands to supply all that was wanting to enable emigration to be carried out to a great extent. By that means able-bodied men could be disposed of. As to public works, there were waste lands enough in Ireland which required cultivation. On these, at all events, the poor could be employed. He doubted if that part of the measure would prove acceptable which made the whole of the administration to emanate from the Board of Commissioners in England, and not from a body fixed in Dublin. The Board in England could scarcely know the details on which they were to act, and they would be so fully occupied with their other functions, that they could not spare time to make minute inquiries. As to the rates, he did not think the noble Lord had fixed on the best plan. In the Bill which he had had the honour of proposing to the House last Session, he had fixed, that one-third was to be paid by the landlords, and that, he thought, would be nearer the mark than the noble Lord's plan. As to the plurality of votes. He would reserve his judgment until he was fully acquainted with the details of the noble Lord's proposed scheme. There was one point which he recommended earnestly to the consideration of the noble Lord. He meant the subject of medical charities. It was quite a matter of chance, at present, if medical relief was afforded to the poor in Ireland. They might or might not be established in different parts of Ireland. He hoped the noble Lord would make them an integral part of the Bill. He was sorry to detain the House, but the hints he had thrown out might not be found altogether useless.
Mr. Shawhad listened with much
480
attention to the statement of the noble Lord. He would reserve for a future and more fitting occasion any lengthened observations he might think it necessary to make on the details of the measure; but he entirely agreed with the noble Lord, that the subject was one both important and difficult, and, at the same time, in the language of the Commissioner's speech, "pressing." Indeed, it was plain, that it could be no longer shrunk from; and all he could say was, and, he believed, in saying so, be represented the sentiments of the great body of the gentry and landed proprietors in Ireland, whom he had the honour to rank amongst his constituents, that he desired to approach this all-important and difficult question with a view to the maturest and most deliberate consideration of it, and without the least mixture of party animosity or political or personal prejudice. He thought that the noble Lord had scarcely appreciated the difficulties, either in principle or practice, of the application of the measure he proposed to the existing condition of Ireland. There was, undoubtedly, a danger in attempting to substitute charity by law for what might be called the law of charity, and superseding by legal enactment the kindlier feelings of benevolence —a risk of weakening the sources of human compassion, at the same time that we increased, rather than diminished, the claims of destitution and distress; but while he felt that there was much of abstract truth in these considerations, the extent and the intensity of existing misery in Ireland, and the peculiar relation between that country and this were such, that he considered the extension of some system of Poor-laws to Ireland could be no longer avoided; and that the principle question now was, how best to guard against abuse, and practically to administer the system in its most improved form in Ireland. In following the noble Lord through his opening speech, he felt disposed to concur with the noble Lord in thinking, that under the difficulties of the case, he had chosen the safest criterion of the objects of relief, when he decided that it should be extended to all the destitute, and to none but the destitute—so as to the workhouse system, that it could alone be attempted on the principle of in-door relief, for that the out-door system would inevitably absorb the whole source of independent labour. He was of opinion,

481
too, with the noble Lord, that, if possible, the law of settlement, with all its incidental intricacies and endless litigation, should be altogether avoided; and with respect to the department under which the management of the whole should be placed, he (Mr. Shaw) thought the English Poor-law Commissioners the best, not only because the distinguished gentleman at the head of that Board was well acquainted with the circumstances of Ireland, and Mr. Nichols, another of the Commissioners, had recently visited that country, in connexion with the particular measure—but on more general grounds; the practical experience of the present Board—the unity of action throughout the entire system more likely to prevail—and the greater probability of freedom from local partialities and local influences, justly, he thought, recommended that arrangement to the Government. On other points, he found it not so easy to go with the noble Lord; he feared that the noble Lord underrated the demand which would immediately arise upon the funds on the score of pauperism; also, that of finding guardians to be elected by the rate-payers, and well qualified for the important duties which would devolve upon them, and that it would be impossible to diminish, as compared with the English system, the proportion of ex-officio guardians. With regard to the Unions, he anticipated much inconvenience, and some objection upon principle, to removing the old ecclesiastical and parish boundaries; these, however, were matters of detail, which would be more properly referred to in a future stage of the Bill; but there was one more which he could not pass by, where he apprehended the noble Lord would find his greatest difficulty, he meant that which related to the rating. The noble Lord, as he collected from his remarks, intended that one-half of the rate was to be paid by the occupier, and the other half by all that were in the character of landlords, from the occupier up to what in the Tithe Bill was called, the first estate of inheritance—according to their respective interests; but, from what little experience he had had on that subject, he could assure the noble Lord, that the scale was one with a great number of, and very unequal gradations—and that it was no easy matter to arrive at the top of it. He perfectly concurred in the principle asserted by the noble Lord, that
482
a sound, moral, and religious education would be the best aid to any system of Poor-laws in Ireland. He feared that he and the noble Lord differed very largely as to the best means of promoting that; but he was persuaded, that a sound religious education could alone afford the necessary moral checks to a redundant population, and lead to a real and lasting improvement in the prudential habits and general character of the people. He rejoiced, however, that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had acceded to the proposition of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) of getting a Committee to inquire into "the working of the system of the National Education Board in Ireland;" and he trusted much good would result from that inquiry. Finally, he agreed with the noble Lord, that every project for the improvement of Ireland must fail, unless first you could obtain security for person and property in that country; and if the noble Lord and his Majesty's Ministers would direct their attention to well-considered measures for the improvement of Ireland, instead of diverting the public mind from the real causes of its evils and its miseries by abstract questions of non-existing surpluses, and supposed identity of principles of Government, without regard to the actual circumstances of that country, they would find the Irish Members at his side of the House as well inclined to lend them their best assistance as he had no doubt they would prove on the present occasion. He would not then allude to the ancillary measures touched upon by the noble Lord, such as the drainage of bogs, the reclamation of waste lands, and other works of public and national interest, including the very important object of a well-regulated emigration—he trusted these would all go hand in hand with the present measure; but, and without trespassing further on the House, he would conclude as he had commenced, by expressing his conviction that the landed proprietary of Ireland would be found willing to bear their just share both of the expense and the labour, as regarded its local machinery, of giving a full and a fair trial to that great experiment, which in all sincerity, he trusted would issue in the improved peace, good order, and civilization, of that portion of the united kingdom.
Mr. Denis O'Connorexpressed his concurrence in the observations of the right

483
hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He also acquiesced in the suggestion that on the first announcement of the Bill for the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, the House should abstain from prematurely discussing the details of the Bill, satisfied with the recognition of the principle which it involved. For the recognition of that principle he had ever voted since first he had the honour of a seat in that House. But while he trusted that no unnecessary delays should interpose between the introduction of the Bill and its passing into a law, he also hoped that it would not be precipitated through the House; hut that on a question of such vast importance, ample time might be allowed to Members and to the people of Ireland to weigh the provisions of the Bill, and their applicability to that country. He knew that, with respect to the expediency of introducing any system of Poor-laws into it, there existed among the most influential, the most intelligent, and, he would add, the best intentioned, a, singular diversity of opinion; and he felt bound to state, that few years had elapsed since the grand jury of that county which he had the honour to represent, deprecated in the strongest terms the infliction upon Ireland of any system of Poor-laws, and stated their conviction that it would absorb the whole rental of that kingdom. He felt, however, that they argued from the abuse of Poor-laws in England against the use of them in Ireland, and that they were deterred by their apprehension of jobbing—which was but too common in Ireland—from legislating at all. Having stated this, he thought it right to say, that in his opinion the hostility to Poor-laws was considerably mitigated, and that many who were most opposed to them until lately, were becoming converts to their necessity. If any doubt upon the subject existed in his mind, the reports of the commissioners would impress upon him the melancholy conviction that some legal assessment for the poor could no longer be withheld. The report stated, that there were 2,300,000 human beings reduced many months in the year to a state approaching starvation. He admitted that, in his opinion, that statement was exaggerated; but let them make what deduction they might, there would still remain an appalling residue of human misery to deal with. It appeared that there were districts in Ireland visited with periodical inflictions of famine; that
484
thousands supported themselves upon the smallest quantity of the worst description of food; and that if there was the least deficiency of it, there was no step between them and starvation; that hundreds wandered over the country in idleness and mendicancy, supported by that poor law, (for there was then a poor-law for Ireland) the poor-law of sympathy, which makes the poor Irish peasant share to the last potato with those scarcely poorer than himself, not knowing what moment he might be thrown himself upon the world. He was glad to hear that the Government were desirous of transferring the Poor-law from the poor to the rich, and to make the wealthy landed proprietors contribute to the maintenance of the distressed. He was convinced they would do so willingly, for they would find it their interest to do so. Their own properties would be enhanced in value by peace in the country. Now, the disturbance in Ireland but too frequently arose from the frightful competition for land in a country; where the poor man felt that there was no support for himself and his family but from some little spot of land, for that he offered what it was impossible for him to pay. He clung to it with the desperate tenacity of a drowning man holding a plank to save himself from death—the moment he lets go his hold other competitors are ready to seize it at any hazard. It appeared that of agrarian disturbances a vast number of them were connected with this competition for land. The Government made no laws such as humanity could dictate for the benefit of the people. The people made agrarian laws for themselves—I hey wrote them in characters of blood, but it always appeared that their cruelties were directed, not against individuals, but against their imputed crimes. It appeared that their actions were connived at, and there must be something most defective in that state of society, where it is known that people conspire to commit murder upon principle, and not from feelings of revenge. That a system of Poor-laws might correct some of the evils of that vicious state of society he believed, but it should be accompanied by other measures of benefit to the country. Ireland has been the victim of tardy legislation—concessions were denied until they could no longer be withheld, and the state of the poor was neglected until the country could neither bear the evil nor the remedy. The accompanying measures of benefit to Ire-

485
land, public works, emigration, &c, had been alluded to, but discussion on them deprecated. He would not now comment on them, but he felt their absolute necessity. He also sincerely concurred in the necessity of elevating the moral character of the people by education. He thanked the Government for turning their attention to these subjects, and trusted that the result would be the amelioration of the condition of the Irish people.
Mr. O'Connellwished to know from the noble Lord what were the regulations which he proposed with regard to workhouses, and the maintenance of their inmates. If he understood the noble Lord rightly, there was to be a certain number, four or five, poorhouses at the commencement, but he did not understand precisely how the funds were to be raised for erecting and maintaining them, and who were to have claims for admission.
Lord John Russellsaid, it was proposed that at the commencement there should be from ten to fifteen poor-houses, and that all persons applying for relief in the district should be admitted, but the commissioners and a board of guardians were to direct how far the relief was to be extended. There was to be no exclusion of any persons, and the poor were to be supported in the workhouses from rates levied on the occupiers and landlords in the district.
Mr. O'Connellwas to understand, then, that certain persons in a district were to be exclusively taxed or rated, and that poor persons coming from any part of Ireland were to have the right of claiming relief from the exclusively taxed. Next, what was the fund from which the 700,000 l. was to be raised?
Lord John Russellsaid, the sum was to be raised by loan on the general taxes, and paid by instalments.
Mr. O'Connellnext inquired if, after 100 workhouses had been erected, there were to be any law of settlement; and if that were to be a parochial or district settlement?
Lord John Russellsaid, that was a point to be discussed at a future stage of the measure.
Mr. O'Connellasked, if he were to understand that a certain district was to be taken, and all persons coming into that district were to have the power of claiming relief?
Lord John Russell: Yes.
Mr. O'Connellunderstood that the ex-
486
periment would be commenced in certain districts, leaving to all that might come to them the power of claiming relief. He confessed he could not yield to the hopes which the noble Lord had thrown out as to the good results that might arise from that principle; but he, at the same time, felt it to be the duty of every Member in the House to assist in carrying the noble Lord's plan into effect. The Government having once announced their plan, he conceived it would be impossible, and he was sure it would be improper, to impede the course of experiment which they proposed to make. He, therefore, cheerfully acceded to the proposed plan, and would assist in any way he could in working out its details, so as to make them, if possible, practically useful. He was very much afraid, however, that such attempt would be attended with great difficulty. The noble Lord knew this, that if Ireland were to be divided into 100 districts, to have a similar number of poor-houses established, and that in each of these poor-houses the maximum number of inmates was to be 800, that for the entire country that would only give relief to 80,000 destitute persons. Upon what foundation was it, he would ask, that the noble Lord had calculated they would be so few in number? The noble Lord had gone on to state, that he expected he would have but one-half, or probably one-third, that number. For his own part, he looked upon it as utterly impossible that there would be so few a number of claimants for relief. As to the 300,000 l. a-year, if it were but to afford the smallest prospect of making a provision for the poor of Ireland, he would not hesitate one moment in voting that it should be levied; but the sum was so comparatively small with reference to the amount of pauperism, that he considered it totally inadequate to meet the evil. It had been calculated that 565,000 heads of families were in a state of destitution in Ireland. That was not exactly a calculation, it was a summing-up from each locality. In each locality they had evidence of the quantity of destitution that existed in it. And now let any man look over that evidence, and see whether it were probable that the Commissioners had made exaggerated statements in their report. He had seen it, and found that it contained the evidence of clergymen of both persuasions, of farmers, of country gentlemen, and of the paupers themselves, all of whom furnished the

487
facts and their data, of which the result proved to be this number of heads of families. And yet the plan of the noble Lord went only to the maximum of 80,000 individuals. He did not think they should rely upon the testimony of Mr. Nicholls, while they had such evidence as this before them. He would, however, vote for the Bill in all its stages, but should feel it his duty to suggest some alterations and additions when in Committee. The principle of the plan was, that it should be brought gradually into operation, and to that he objected. It seemed to him that they would thereby create a state of transition, during which neither relief nor. charity, neither relief from poor-houses, nor alms from private hands, would be afforded to the suffering population of the country: thus, while it professed to be a measure calculated to prevent disturbance, by giving district relief, it would prove to be the direct and immediate cause of disturbance in the neighbourhood. If destitution were relieved in one district, it would put in motion all the neighbouring destitution, and they would thus create an immediate excitement, by the fact of those persons who should not be relieved complaining of the injustice of relieving others and not them. They would also, by this partial application of relief, take away the disposition, at present existing amongst the poorer classes, of supporting utter destitution. That man knew very little of Ireland who would tell him that such a plan could tranquillise Ireland. On the contrary, refusals to just claims for relief would inevitably lead to disturbance. It had been shown to demonstration that there was no population on the face of the earth amongst whom the kindly sentiments of affection between parents and children, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, and between the poor labouring creatures of the country in giving support to their near relations, were cherished with greater pride than amongst the population of Ireland. In passing any Poor-law, therefore, for that country, he would caution them against removing any incitement of this kind. Indeed, he would go so far as to say that they should' not introduce any measure which would tend to mitigate the feelings he had described. It had been shown, over and over again, that there was no reproach from which a young man would shrink with greater shame than that which he would feel upon
488
being told, "Oh, you're the fellow who has let his mother out of doors—you are the man who has ill-treated his father." That feeling existed in the country at present; and he would advise them not to establish the state of transition to which he alluded, unless they were determined to put down that feeling altogether. If they were desirous of preventing disturbance, they should carry the plan into effect immediately and entirely. He wanted to have it carried into effect at once. Divide the country as they would, into ten or fifteen districts, or into counties, or half-counties; but let there not be an intervening period between the application of relief in different parts of the country. He was glad to find that the noble Lord had entirely thrown overboard the notion that any person was to be employed out of these poor-houses. The favoured phantasy of poor-rate mongers was, that the rate was to be one out of which men were to be employed; but the noble Lord had distinctly shown, by the result of all evidence, that the idea of employing men out of a poor-rate should be banished altogether. It was, therefore, impossible that the notion could be entertained that this measure was to accomplish that purpose. It had been often admitted that Ireland was a country capable of two or three times its present cultivation; but there was no part of Ireland, in fact, which was not capable of being cultivated to a degree ten times more productive than it now was. There was at least one-fourth of it waste land, which had never been broken up, and which was quite capable of cultivation. And that was a country so circumstanced, that although labour ought to be productive, and individual interests constantly in action to make it so, yet there was something so diseased in its condition that they had not the power to render it productive, and what they now suggested was, that a country unable to give employment to its labourers should be made to feed them in idleness within the walls of a poor-house. A poor-rate was not an increase of wealth; it was only another division of wealth, taken away from employers or labourers, to be used in feeding persons confined in idleness. The work-house system appeared to work exceedingly! well in England, but they had seen upon evidence that the work imposed under the poor-law upon the idle population was only a kind of save labour, in order to

489
drive them to seek for employment. But see how that principle would act in Ireland. The laborious classes there were anxious to procure employment They never refused it; they, in fact, worked for 2d. and 3d. a-day rather than be idle. He was sure he need not appeal to English Gentlemen to prove that Irishmen were always ready for labour, when they found them coming from the remotest parts of Ireland, from Mayo and Sligo, in some hundreds of thousands, and making their way through Dublin and Liverpool on to Kent in order to procure the earnings of five or six weeks' labour. There was no necessity, therefore, for poor-houses in Ireland in order to stimulate its labouring population to look for work; but there would be that necessity when once they became the only disposers of Irish charity and turned the sources of Irish benevolence into the public channel. That would be an additional way of getting rid of the plough, while they could not leave at large those persons hitherto supported by private contributions. It was utterly impossible, however, to prevent the experiment being made, and they should see what were the best terms upon which to make it. The noble Lord had talked of a rate to be levied on persons having houses or land above the value of 5l. a-year. It was to go down to that—5l. a-year was to be exempt; but he should like to know what exemption that would be to the tenant. If he possessed a lease he might have, but if he did not, he certainly would not have, any great security that he would not have to pay the rate. He would submit to the noble Lord that it would be infinitely better to simplify the rate and make it upon the rent. However the proposition might be received there, it certainly: was not likely to be received in what was called "another place"; but he would nevertheless propose that those who held property without residence in the country should pay a double rate. There was no resident gentleman in Ireland who did not employ a number of the people on wages. Their personal occupation of the land rendered that employment, in many instances, necessary. But the non-resident did not give employment to any except those engaged to make up the landlord's rent. It was the working classes that were destitute, and he did say, upon the principle of justice and fairness, that the man who
490
held estates in Ireland and thought fit to have his place of residence elsewhere, and thus took away his moral influence from over the minds of the people, and the advantage to be derived from his presence, ought to pay a higher rate than those who by residing on their estates necessarily gave employment to a portion of the labouring population. They should not forget either, that by that very employment, they paid an additional rate, inasmuch as in nine cases out of ten it was not productive of an equivalent amount of benefit. That was another reason why the absentee should be made to pay a higher rate. He would instance the case of Mr. Smith, a gentleman residing near Youghal, who differed from him in politics, but to whose good qualities he readily bore testimony: that gentleman gave continual employment to 700 or 800 persons on his estate, although it could not be said he required the labour of anything like so many. He was thus virtually paying a heavy poor-rate at present. Indeed, he could safely say, there was not a resident gentleman in Ireland who did not expend a very substantial portion of his income on labour; so that if a poor-rate were to be levied, they would be paying both ways. Lord Clare, when speaking of Ireland, had said, that it had been three times forfeited, and he did not know of an estate which had not been originally derived in that way. The successful conquerors of the country had, in three distinct conquests, dispossessed the occupiers of the soil, and having done so, repaired to their estates in England, upon which they resided, but had continued owners of nine-tenths of the soil of Ireland ever since. The destitution which existed there was mainly owing to that circumstance. The income of the country had never accumulated, and could not, under the present order of things. When the question of rate should be brought forward, he should, therefore, divide the House, if necessary, upon his proposition for laying a higher rate on absentees. Many were of opinion that a poor-rate in Ireland would relieve the English labourer, by keeping the Irish labourer at home. There never was a greater mistake. The first thing they would do in Ireland would be to send as many unmarried men to England as they could; and if a man had a family, would it not be much

491
better for him to go there also, when his family could be easily supported at home by the poor-rate? He would thus underwork the English labourer; so that instead of keeping the Irish labourer at home, a poor law, he contended, would have the opposite effect. The noble Lord had said, that it was pauperism that created the competition for land. That he denied: it was created by a class of persons much beyond them. The only manufacture in Ireland (for so he called it) was that of the land, being the most productive of industry; the consequence of which was, that whatever local capital there existed was at once placed in the acquisition of land; and if they were to take away the 2,300,000 paupers out of the market, he would warrant it there would not be the slightest diminution in the competition for land. The hon. Member for Roscommon had recommended that they should not proceed quickly with this measure. Now his opinion was, that the sooner they carried it into effect the better. They had now opened the question — if it could be realised, they should realise it as soon and as extensively as possible, for by only holding out a hope they would deprive those whom they sought to benefit of that support which they at present depended on and received from the sympathy, the affection, and the kindness of their friends and relatives. He did implore of them to put their hands to work at once and completely. Let them work from day to day, and have some scheme carried into effect without delay; let them not talk to him of ten or fifteen workhouses, but let them build one hundred at once. He would also implore of them to think again upon the subject of emigration. The colonies, it was said, liked it. To be sure they did, because there was no man amongst them who had not jobbed to advantage upon the labour of the emigrants; and why could not they, themselves, succeed? In the sale of lands this year in New South Wales they had realised 100,000 l. It was the capital of labour upon which the jobbing he alluded to had been carried on. Now, they could produce a labouring population who by their own industry would soon have a capital to purchase land. It was only in this way he would recommend the principle of emigration. He thought the report of last year on the subject ought to be most deliberately considered by the
492
House. If the principle he spoke of were put into execution at once, it would afford great relief, and there would be no difficulty in it if an Act of Parliament were passed resting those lands—he did not speak of the Canadas, but other colonies— in a board of management. There would not be the least difficulty in raising money. The Government should certainly give security, but then they could very safely do so. If they could in this way create emigration to the extent of 50,000 or 100,000 persons now in a state of destitution, and at the same lime build work-houses as proposed, they would give a stimulus to the people to relieve the inert mass of pauperism at present existing in Ireland, and they would also afford a prospect of entering upon a Poor-law with a better hope of its being efficient, but efficient or not, a Poor-law they must have, and he would, in all its stages, support the Bill.
Viscount Howickwas exceedingly happy to find, upon a subject of this kind, so complete an avoidance of all irritation of party politics. He cordially concurred in this great attempt to mitigate the evils with which Ireland was at present afflicted, and he rejoiced, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, like those who preceded him, had expressed his intention of contributing as far as lay in his power to the success of this measure; at the same time he was anxious to remove from the mind of that hon. and learned Member, and if he could from the minds of other hon. Members, the apprehension which they entertained, that the proposed attempt was one of greater difficulty, and one which held out less prospects of success than his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) had anticipated. He was aware, that at the first sight of the evils they had to contend with, they seemed of so very rash a kind, that the remedies they proposed to meet them might not unnaturally appear disproportioned to them. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, that supposing the amount of destitution which now prevailed in Ireland were to continue, the workhouses proposed would be utterly inefficient for the purposes professed. But what were the causes of the destitution and distress now unhappily prevailing in Ireland? The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, and said truly, that the Irish are an industrious

493
people. It was well known to all the House, that when labour, which failed in its supply in Ireland, was offered them in this country, they came over in shoals, manifesting the strongest desire to maintain themselves by honest industry. It had been proved before the Emigration Committee, which sat in 1827, that the Mendicity Society in this town had given up allowing 6d. a-day for Irish labour, inasmuch as even this low amount of wages was found to bring over to this country persons desirous of employment. This was a striking proof of the industrious habits of the Irish population. That, therefore, being indisputably established, what was the next point for the consideration of the Legislature? Was Ireland wanting in natural resources? Far from it. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told the House, that there was no one part of Ireland which could not be improved by skill, labour, and the application of capital, and be made ten times as productive as it was at present; and further, that one-fourth of the whole surface of the country remained unimproved. Thus, then, were established two important points—first, that there was in Ireland an abundance of labour; and, secondly, an ample field for its beneficial employment. It was true, that in Ireland there was a deficiency of capital. On that subject he could not help observing, that in this country there existed no such deficiency; but, on the contrary, where any scheme presenting even a plausible chance of success was started, millions of English capital were ready to be invested; indeed, no doubt could be entertained, that millions of English capital had lavishly been applied to speculations, both at home and abroad, presenting very remote chances of benefit or success. Why, then, was it that Ireland, possessing natural resources, a wide field for improvement, and an abundance of labour, should still be without the means of improvement and employment? It was as his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) had stated, from the very able report of Mr. Nichols, to be attributed to a vicious system having been established in that country, a disposition in the people to turbulence and violence from existing causes, which it was the duty of the Legislature to endeavour to remove. Any man who had inquired into the subject must know, that the great mass of the
494
disturbances in Ireland arose from what properly might be called the instinct of self-preservation. There existed in Ireland a permanent conspiracy on the part of the people of Ireland to enforce certain regulations for their self-preservation— they refused to permit the landlords to dispossess their tenants, the masters to dismiss their servants, — and they enforced these prohibitions in a manner which led to dread fill and not unfrequently sanguinary results. Now, those hon. Members who had read a very able work, published last year, by Mr. George Lewis, on the subject of Irish disturbances, will have seen a most able analysis of the causes of this stale of things; they will have found, that it was the dread of absolute starvation, of perishing from hunger, was the main cause from which prevailing disturbances in Ireland arose. If that were so, he would ask the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, whether it did not follow, that what the Government and the Legislature ought to do was, not perhaps permanently to provide for the poor, but at least to step in and arrest the chances of the causes of disturbance, which, in continued succession, have perpetuated each other. They had, then, to take away from the people of Ireland the prevailing feeling of insecurity in the means of subsistence, and by removing these: feelings they would put an end to the disposition to turbulence and outrage. That done, no man could doubt but that the result would be that English capital would flow with abundance into Ireland to take advantage of the cheap labour and other means of improvement, and the employment of capital which that country so amply afforded. This being the case, he contended, that they might calculate upon good effects even by the erection of a comparatively small number of workhouses, because it was not the actual relief given that would keep the people in a state of tranquillity, but it would be the certainty they would feel, that if a necessity should unfortunately arise, relief was there to be obtained. Some proof, that such would be the case was afforded by the state of things now existing in some of the most pauperised districts of the southern counties of England, that under the new system the number of in-door paupers was less than one per cent on the whole population of those parishes. The hon. and learned Mem-

495
ber for Kilkenny had said, that workhouses in this country were of use, because, by means of them, the idle and indolent were stimulated to habits of industry. But, it seemed to him, that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had overlooked one other result, arising from the system of workhouse relief as now established— namely, the security it afforded to those who really wanted and stood in need of relief. The advantages of the system were twofold—first, the certainty of relief to those who had real claims; and, on the other hand, there was the moral certainty, that unless relief were really wanted, it would not be claimed. He thought, then, that in creating workhouses in Ireland, that the House need not look to the reception of any considerable number of inmates; in his opinion, it would ultimately be found, that the number received into them would be considerably smaller than the numbers in the workhouses of this country; because the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had truly said the affections of parent to child, and child to parent, were remarkably strong amongst the poor classes of the Irish population. Unlike the southern districts of England, where a vicious system of relief formerly prevailed, the misery and destitution to which the Irish peasantry had long been exposed had not interfered with or destroyed their natural affections, and he felt confident, that in Ireland, where those feelings and affections remained in all their original force and vigour, a great disposition would prevail amongst its labouring population to prevent their relations and connexions from taking refuge, unless in some time of great distress and destitution, in the proposed asylums; indeed he felt satisfied the Irish people would make considerable personal sacrifices to exempt their needy and distressed connexions from so painful a necessity, and he was sanguine in the belief, that eventually a much smaller proportion of poor would be found in the workhouses of Ireland than were to be found in those of some of the southern counties of England. His own firm conviction further was, that on the passing the proposed Bill it would be necessary to assist its originally coming into operation in the manner which had been mentioned and pointed out by his noble Friend near him (Lord J. Russell). On the subject of! emigration he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, that
496
every facility for affecting and assisting it should be afforded, but he was equally convinced, that the Government and the Legislature would do well to keep that subject perfectly distinct and separate from the Bill now proposed. He was satisfied, that if the course suggested by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. S. O'Brien) were adopted, and that emigration was made a part of the present measure, expectations would be raised in the minds of the people of Ireland, that Government was prepared to take that charge upon themselves; and such a course, so far from doing any good, would be productive of very serious injury. Emigration was now going on to a very considerable extent, as would be seen from the returns which he had obtained of the emigration from Ireland, during the last year. From those returns he found there had emigrated from the ports of Ireland during the last year, no less than 23,867 persons. He found also, that, exclusive of minor ports in England, there had sailed from the port of Liverpool, 29,100 emigrants; from the port of Bristol, 1,034. Of these, from all the accounts which had reached him from Glasgow and other minor ports of Great Britain, he might safely assume, that nearly one half were Irish emigrants, and therefore it might be supposed, that last year not less than 39,000 Irish left the land of their birth and emigrated to America.
Mr. O'Connellwas understood to remark, that these great numbers might be attributed to the demand for labour, which was created by the destructive fire at New York.
Viscount Howick, such might have been the case, but then it could not be lost sight of, that in the previous year the existence of the cholera at Quebec and Montreal in 1832 created a panic which had tended much to diminish the extent of emigration, and therefore the state of things which existed prior to 1832 was only returned to in 1836. Now, if under this Bill the public should take upon themselves the task and charge of removing emigrants to the colonies, he believed that all those who now emigrated voluntarily and at their own expense, would immediately throw themselves on the public. It would, in short, be a species of out-door relief, which would give occasion to all sorts of abuses. He was sure that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny

497
had frequently heard of the fact, that on the return of Irish labourers visiting this country during the harvest, one of the party would carry back all the earnings of the rest, who then required to be and were passed home as paupers at the expense of this country. In like manner would they claim the means of emigration, if the proposition suggested was adopted. He had only one further observation to make, and that referred to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny with reference to the gradual introduction of the proposed measure. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to have understood the observations which had been made on the point by his noble Friend who had this night brought forward the subject. He begged to say that the Bill was a complete and entire measure, and its introduction into Ireland would be gradual in the same manner as the recent change in the Poor-law system had been brought into operation in this country—namely, that they would begin by the creation of a certain number of unions and the erection of a certain number of workhouses, and then proceed in the remaining districts of the country. By these means he certainly thought a fair trial of the measure would be obtained, and a favourable test of the soundness of the principles of the measure would be thus afforded. With regard to the law of settlements, it would be impossible now to establish it; still he had no doubt but that practically the boards of guardians would, in the exercise of the discretion with which they under this Bill would be invested, give relief to all those claimants who were really and bonâ fide inhabitants of their districts, without reference to the nice legal definitions of what constituted a strict settlement. If his anticipations of the effects of this measure were correct, he was entitled confidently to look forward to find at no very distant period, that in any part of Ireland a really destitute and distressed person would be entitled to relief. In conclusion he would say, that by removing the causes of turbulence, Ireland would be brought to a state of peace, happiness, and prosperity, from one of want, distress, and destitution.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, it was exceedingly agreeable to discuss a question connected with the best interests of Ireland in which there was no party feeling present. He thought the House and the country were
498
under great obligations to his Majesty's Government for making a definite proposal. So much time, indeed, had been expended in inquiry into the subject, that a proposal for any new inquiry would be tantamount to the admission that that inquiry was of no avail, and that the prosecution of a scheme of Poor-laws for Ireland was hopeless. He believed that the extent of public feeling with respect to the justice and expediency of introducing a system of poor-laws into Ireland, without entailing upon them the evils which had pervaded our own system, but introducing a modified code, was so strong, that it was impossible for the Legislature to refuse to consider the question. He thought, therefore, that they were bound to labour for this purpose. At the same time, if they did feel an interest, as he believed all did, in the welfare of Ireland, they were equally bound to take every precaution that, in acting on a principle of benevolence, they should not visit Ireland with the grievances which they had originally suffered from the former system of Poor-laws in this country. The noble Lord had referred to those measures which he considered auxiliary to the introduction of a system of Poor-laws in Ireland, and from which he anticipated considerable aid; such, for instance, as the affording facilities to emigration, and the undertaking of public works by means advanced from the public funds, for the purpose of creating employment for the able-bodied poor. He was bound to say, that he thought they ought not to be too sanguine in their expectations of relief to be obtained from these sources. He entirely concurred with the noble Lord in the opinion that every facility ought to be given to voluntary emigration; but, at the same time, he thought it of the utmost importance, that the disposal of lands in the colonies should be put on a totally new footing; and that the Government ought not so much to seek a revenue from the disposal of those lands, as to enable parties disposed to purchase, to do so on very reasonable terms. In the next place, he thought that, considering that the lands to be disposed of were situated within some particular colony, the first and chief object the Government should have in view, should be the benefit of that colony. When that was secured, they might adopt any measure that seemed most expedient or most practicable to produce improvement at home. But he very much doubted whether any

499
benefit derived from the best conducted system of emigration would materially aid in the great object of finding employment for the poor of Ireland, or of diminishing, in any sensible degree, the excess of the supply over the demand for labour. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, had asked in the course of his speech, why the Government, in the case of Ireland, did not follow the example of the United States? "See," said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "how widely extensive and wonderfully beneficial is the system of emigration acted upon in the United States of America." No doubt many and great benefits resulted from the system in that country; but it must never be forgotten, that the question of emigration was here vastly different to what it was in America. There the emigration consisted only of a removal from one part of a great continent to another; here no emigration could take place except by a long passage over sea, attended with many expenses, much inconvenience, and the depressing notion of a complete separation and alienatio from the land of one's fathers. Observe, too, in our colonies the difference of language, manners, climate, and quality of the soil. All these afforded, in England and Ireland, obstructions to extensive emigration — obstructions not known in the United States. At the same time, he thought that every encouragement should be given to voluntary emigration; he did not believe that any forced emigration would be found of service. Forced emigration, to be advantageous, could only be applied on this principle—that no man should obtain relief or assistance unless he consented to leave his country and to settle in one of the colonies. He did not. think that a fit principle to be adopted. At the same time, he entirely concurred with those who were for giving every facility to voluntary emigration. He came next to the subject of public works. It was customary for them all in that House to hail with the utmost satisfaction any proposal for the undertaking of public works in Ireland; and yet the hon. Gentleman who spoke so much in favour of public works was one of those who, in the course of the same speech, would protest against providing in any way for the relief of the poor by the introduction of a system of poor-laws. In both cases, what was the main principle involved? The principle of an interference with the natural demand for labour—the principle of taking
500
money out of a man's pocket for the purpose of employing it in a manner, and for objects in which he felt no interest, instead of leaving it in his pocket to be employed in such a manner as to him should seem to be most advantageous, and for objects in which he felt a direct interest. He, therefore, was not much disposed to vote millions of the public money for the mere purpose of giving employment in public works; because in a tranquil country, and in a well-organised state of society, he believed all the employment that could be usefully applied, would be given by means of private enterprise and exertion. At the same time, if it could be shown, that by the employment of public money in public works, the foundation of great public improvements would be laid, which could never be obtained without it, then he admitted that a case would be made out for the interference of the Government, and for taxing the people to give employment to the poor. But he was of opinion that public works, undertaken only for the purpose of affording temporary relief to a people suffering from general want of employment, tended only to aggravate the evil they were intended to obviate. It was, besides, unfair to the people employed, because it held out to them a hope that the employment would be permanent, while it was only intended that it should be temporary. Upon the question of public works, there were always two important points to be considered—first, that the work proposed to be undertaken could not be accomplished by individual enterprise—second, that great public benefit would be derived from it. Any aid that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) expected to derive from the undertaking of public works ought to rest upon those considerations. With respect to the measure at large, as proposed to be introduced by the noble Lord, he should be sorry to say a word that could imply an objection to it, because, upon the first stage of a measure as important as any ever submitted to Parliament, as regarded its ultimate results on the interest and happiness of Ireland, nothing, he conceived, could be so unwise, perhaps so unpardonable, as for any man to pledge himself precipitately as to the course he would pursue. If, therefore, he said a word upon the subject on that occasion, he trusted the noble Lord and the Government would believe that it was not with the slightest hostility against them, or remotest dispo-

501
sition to oppose the measure but merely a a friend having every wish to facilitate the carrying of a measure of the kind, and to make it in every respect as perfect as possible. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had stated, that the Legislature had now no option upon the subject—that having once been introduced, the measure must of necessity be carried. He certainly thought that the Legislature was bound to consider the question of Poor-laws for Ireland; but if he were told because the matter had been broached, that therefore it must at once be proceeded with, and that the exercise of no discretion was to be left to the House, he begged to reply, that he totally dissented from that doctrine. He did not believe that by the mere proposal of the measure any such expectation of undoubted relief would been cited in the minds of the people of Ireland as to take from the Legislation all discretion upon the subject. A part of the noble Lord's proposal was the building of workhouses. If a hundred workhouses were built, he begged to ask what would be the average area of square miles over which each district in which such workhouse was situated would extend? [Viscount Howick Each district will be twenty miles square.] There is a vast difference between twenty square miles and twenty miles square; let me understand distinctly what is intended? [Lord J. Russell: Twenty miles square.] That would comprise a space of four hundred square miles. Then, again, did the noble Lord propose that one portion of a family seeking relief should be admitted into the workhouse, and that other portions should be permitted to work, or beg, or do as they pleased; or, as a condition to relief, must the whole of the family be admitted at once?
Lord J. Russell: It is proposed that no relief shall be afforded to one member of a family unless the whole be at the same time admitted to the workhouse.
Sir Robert Peelthought the noble Lord would find that that system would not adapt itself to the other provisions of the Bill. This proposition, of course, was founded on the success which was sup. posed to have attended the workhouse system in England. He felt that in the present condition of Ireland there was no time for delay; but he thought it much to be regretted, that greater experience of the practical working of the system in England bad not been obtained. As re-
502
garded the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, too, it must be remembered that the situation of that country, as compared with England, was widely different. England had been under a system of Poor-laws for 300 years, in the course of which time many grievous abuses had crept in, and much difficulty had existed in removing them. Ireland was a country in which, as yet, no system of Poor-laws had ever existed. It was inferred from the partial experience of the last two years that the new workhouse system had worked well in England; but he did not think the last two years a fair test by which to judge of the operation of the system. During the whole of that time there had been a great demand for labour in consequence of the great works undertaken in this country by the enterprise of private individuals. The system, therefore, had come into operation under very great advantages. The noble Lord stated that he would make no distinction in Ireland between claims that arose from impotency and those which arose from destitution, and he added that he thought no valid distinction could be drawn between the two. He was willing to give the point every consideration; but, speaking from the present impression of his mind, he must say that he thought there was a most material distinction to be drawn between claims arising from lameness, blindness, disease, and extreme old age, where it was evident there were few opportunities of fraud, and claims arising from destitution, which in many cases might be real, but in others might be feigned, or the result of indolence or improvidence. If the system of an extensive dispensary were established, at which the blind, the lame, and the extremely old should be the only claimants for relief, there would be no risk of false claims; and any system adopted in Ireland ought, undoubtedly, to afford instant and substantial relief to all that class of persons. But the moment the claims of the able-bodied man were admitted on account of destitution, from inability to find work, from that instant all test was abandoned by which to ascertain whether the claims were valid or not. The noble Lord was very confident that the workhouse system would afford an effectual check to false claims; and upon that point he had quoted the testimony and opinion of Mr. Nichols. He was as

503
fully disposed as the noble Lord to attach great weight to the opinion of that gentleman; but at the same time he thought his experience of the working of the English Bill must be too brief to enable him to speak with any certainty as to what the probable operation of a similar system would be in Ireland. But consider what these workhouses would be in the centre of an area of 400 square miles. The advantage of the workhouse system in England was, that it afforded an immediate test of the validity of the claimants. How, embracing so vast a district, could it afford a similar test in Ireland? He feared, too, if the workhouses should become popular in Ireland, that those who lived in the immediate neighbourhood would have the prior claim, so as to prevent those who lived at the greater distance of ten or twenty miles, from any chance of admission at all. Therefore if a rigid law were laid down that no relief should be given except an admission to the workhouse, he was afraid the remedy proposed would be found in practice to be a very partial one. The noble Lord had stated that all those who could not obtain relief within the workhouses would be at liberty to wander about and beg. Had the Government determined that it was impossible to unite with the workhouse system some system of domiciliary relief? The great disadvantage of the workhouse system was its inflexibility. Might not that disadvantage be obviated in some degree by the establishment of a system of domiciliary relief combined with it? As he had stated before, he wished to give this measure his cordial support, which he should undoubtedly do, if, in the course of the further discussion, he should feel convinced that the workhouse system was inseparable from the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland. All that he was afraid of was, that by the rigid rule of excluding every claim to relief unless administered within the walls of the workhouse, and of allowing vagrancy to be sanctioned by the law, very little practical good would be effected. The noble Lord stated, that the workhouses would not be filled, because the natural affection of the Irish people would induce them to support their poor and more destitute relatives. In that case, he (Sir Robert Peel) thought they would not relieve the class of persons who stood most in need of it. If that feeling obtained generally in Ireland, and if this system
504
were adopted, he feared that the pressure of charity would fall most heavily on those who were least capable of bearing it. But at that time, and in that early stage of the proceedings, he would not extend his observations. He gave every credit to the Government for bringing the matter forward. As far as he was personally concerned, he was disposed in every way to labour towards, he would not say the literal adoption of the measure as it was then proposed to them, but towards the introduction of a sound system of Poor-laws into Ireland, by which the suffering poor of that country might be relieved, without entailing upon them and upon the richer classes such heavy evils as had arisen in England from an indiscriminate application of relief. With that feeling he should address himself to this measure with exactly the same zeal as if it had been introduced by his own Friends.
Mr. James Grattanwas understood to say that the Act of the 11th and 12th of George 3rd, was nothing but a workhouse Act, and that a workhouse system was not so new or so objectionable as the right hon. Baronet seemed to think. He thanked the noble Lord most sincerely for having brought forward his present proposition. For twelve or fourteen years he had been most anxious for the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, and he conceived that the proposed measure would work well; at all events, he was convinced that some system of Poor-laws for Ireland was called for, and that the longer the question was delayed, the worse it would be for that country. Every man who had read the reports of the misery that existed in his unhappy country, which indeed was so extreme as scarcely to be equalled in any other country on the face of the globe, must agree with him in that opinion; and it was equally true that the operation of Poor-laws in Ireland would be exceedingly beneficial to England, inasmuch as it would prevent the Irish labourers from coming hither to obtain that employment which they could not get in their own country. With respect to what the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had said with regard to absentees being compelled to pay a double rate for the relief of the poor in Ireland, he was not prepared to go so far, but he certainly thought that every absentee ought to pay as much as the resident landlord.
Lord Stanleymost cordially agreed in-

505
the last observation which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down—namely, that it was most important on this occasion, and on all other occasions, when questions relating to Ireland were discussed, to insist that it was just to compel the absentees of Irish estates to take on themselves their fair portion of the public burdens. He did not say that they should supply (for indeed it was impossible that they could do so) only by their pecuniary subscriptions the remedy for the evils which their absence from their property created, but that they should, as far as possible, be compelled to bear their fair proportion of those legitimate claims which devolved upon all landlords. Whether resident or not, they could not escape the responsibility to their own consciences for any neglect of which they were guilty. He came forward as a landlord and a proprietor of land in Ireland, one who was necessarily absent from that country at times, and therefore one to whom the name of absentee had been, and might be, applied. But it had been his humble desire to endeavour, as far as absentee could, to discharge the duties which devolved on him in that capacity. He had never on any occasion, he hoped he need not say from a feeling of short-sighted interest, shrunk from, or endeavoured to avoid those fair burdens which as an Irish landlord he ought to bear. His noble Friend who had introduced the measure had stated two principal objects which he had in view—first, to give to landlords in general an interest in the management of their estates; and secondly, which was a most important object, the prevention of vagrancy and mendicancy. With regard to the second point, it was impossible for any man who had had personal experience in Ireland to exaggerate or overrate the importance of that most mischievous and most fatal pest of all the pests of society there. He was not stating it too strongly, because the general and promiscuous system of relief to all cases of distress, real or fictitious, deserved or undeserved, whether caused by idleness or misfortune, the vagrant habits it engendered, the mischievous poison it instilled into families, the utter improvidence it encouraged, the check it gave to all improvement, its positive discouragement of all industry, foresight, and prudence, the baneful influ-
506
ence which it exercised on the population of Ireland, and the social and moral condition of the people—that evil compared to the amount of taxation to the extent of 500,000 l., or 1,000,000 l. or even 2,000,000 l., made the latter a matter of perfect insignificance. On all occasions when an abstract resolution was mooted in that House, such as that it was expedient to introduce poor-laws into Ireland, he had felt it to be his duty, whether as a Member of the Government or not, to object to that sort of vague motion, believing that it could do nothing but create expectations of hope, which they would not be able to realize. Suppose persons of different political opinions united in voting for such a motion, yet it was found that they could not agree when they came to the details of the question after having so voted, and the consequence was that they had raised expectations which they could not fulfil, and exhibited evils which they could not cure; therefore they had produced mischief only, while they had been actuated by the most charitable feelings, of an earnest desire to do good. But the case was different when there was a specific plan brought forward by Government, on its responsibility (and it was only the Government which could succeed) and grounded on a mature consideration of the subject. He, as a landlord, felt grateful to the Government for having taken upon themselves the trouble and responsibility of introducing this important subject. His noble Friend and his colleagues must be fully sensible of the difficulties they had brought upon themselves by taking up the matter; and he trusted that the subject would be followed out to a satisfactory termination. For his own part it would be his duty, as well as pleasure, to give all his exertions to carry out this measure, without pledging himself to all its details, to a successful result. He had alluded to the state of vagrancy in Ireland, and was anxious to offer some observations on the subject to the House. It had been argued by Gentlemen who spoke against allowing compulsory relief, that by doing so you would check the flow of private benevolence in Ireland. He would speak as an Englishman who had lived in Ireland, and had seen much of the people and country. He could say without hesitation, that he had seen instances of self-devotion on the part of the peasantry of that country

507
which he was sure could not be met with elsewhere; he had repeatedly met with sacrifices, for the purposes of benevolence and charity, of all the little comforts they possessed, without hesitation, which reflected the highest credit on the humblest classes in Ireland. They considered that unfortunate vagrants were entitled to command relief at their hands, and without hesitation they brought them to their own houses to share the same humble shelter and food as the owner was enabled to afford to his family. He could tell hon. Members that this was not a rare occurrence in Ireland—it was not a casual event, but it was a matter of daily and constant occurrence—and be it recollected that the persons who afforded this aid were themselves steeped to the lips in poverty. Let the House suppose the case of a poor widow left destitute, with a large family, and surrounded with those who hardly knew how to get their bread from day to day, yet in such a district there could not be found a house in which the widow would not find a refuge —nay, more, he would venture to say that there was not a poor family who would refuse to charge themselves with a permanent share of expense towards the support of this family, and this even to an extent beyond their means. Would he check this system of benevolence? He honoured too highly the benevolence thus manifested—he felt too much as a Christian the nature of the feelings from whence it emanated—to endeavour to check its sacred flow. But looking at the matter as a statesman, regarding also the state of the country, and looking to the habits of the people, and recollecting also the necessity of engendering habits of foresight, he felt satisfied that the Legislature must not force on the poor peasantry of the country such a share of the charge of supporting those who were absolutely destitute. High and exalted virtues undoubtedly they were; and the more high and exalted because unseen and unknown. But, while admitting this, it was the duty of the House to recollect that the practice of those virtues produced in the minds of the population a sense that it was not necessary to look to the future, or to make provision beyond the present moment. No doubt this state of things resulted from feelings of a high origin, but if it were not checked by law, it produced abuses in the law, and led to the existence of the
508
greatest evils in the country. It led to the most pernicious system of imprudence in the habits of the peasantry, and it induced them to give away their last halfpenny, or potato, without knowing where they could supply their own wants and those of their families. This overstrained and exaggerated character of benevolence arose from the peculiar circumstances of the country; for they could not tell that they might not themselves fall into this state of destitution. He saw in this the strongest reason not to strain those feelings, lest the exercise of them might prove injurious to the social system. Therefore, he was prepared to say, let us adopt some system of relief for the utterly destitute. In such a state of things as at present existed in Ireland the state should interfere, and say to the struggling cottagers of Ireland, "You shall not share beyond your means; your richer neighbours shall also contribute their share towards the relief of the most destitute." He agreed also with his Majesty's Government, that the utterly destitute should alone be relieved. He was aware that the most exaggerated anticipations, as well as the most extravagant feelings of alarm, were held by different parties, as to what would be the result of the adoption of poor-laws in Ireland. One party looked upon it as imposing a burden which would swallow up all the property in Ireland, and such might possibly be the effect if they did not look carefully to the operation of the system. On the other hand, they were told that a system of poor-laws would at once lead to the investment of capital in Ireland, to the general employment of the poor, and to a higher rate of wages; it was the duty of that House to do all that could be done by legislation to promote these ends. He could not, however, help observing, that these exaggerated feelings held on one hand and the other, had been attended with the most injurious effects. He had no such anticipation of its vast benefits; he participated in no such feelings of alarm as had been described. He thought that much good might be effected by the adoption of a judicious and sound system. He was persuaded that the destitution to command relief must be absolute, entire, and hopeless—such destitution must alone be the limit of the law. They must on no account hold out expectations of relieving the man who with a few acres of land was distressed, because he had agreed

509
to pay an amount for rent which he was not able to pay. The adoption of a plan by which relief would be afforded to this class would indeed be a confiscation of all the landed property in Ireland. Such a system would be no real relief to the individual himself; it would not lead to a greater degree of providence for the future, but it would hold out a similar and even a stronger inducement than at present to this class to make the most improvident and absurd bargains; at the same time it would ruin the landlords, and make the conduct of the peasantry still more thoughtless than at present. Now with respect to the dangers which they had to look to — the danger which resulted from the late poor-laws in England was, that there was a systematic laxity in their administration, beyond all example, which produced scenes of evil, of which all men were witnesses, and which necessarily led to the adoption of a check in their administration, which, by a gradual and careful mode of proceeding, would no doubt lead to a great improvement. In Ireland, however, they had a reverse series of changes. In this country, it had been found necessary to contract, as much as possible, the system of relief; so in Ireland it was necessary to set out from the other end of the series, and they must make rules and regulations which they would be able to enlarge. He said this, not from any wish to take from the peasantry or pauper population of Ireland, any advantage enjoyed by the pauper population of England. The House must see how far it was necessary to make restrictions in the one country in the system already in force, and how far they were enabled to relax in the other country. In adopting, therefore, poor-laws for Ireland, care must be taken that they did not go on the opposite line to that which he had just alluded to. Thus they should have a narrow system of relief, in the first instance, which could be enlarged afterwards. His noble Friend proposed to limit relief to the workhouse system. In principle he was induced to agree with his noble Friend; but he thought it necessary to see what this system should be. He did not think that any great inconvenience would result from having these large workhouses in large towns; but he did not think that this would be altogether the case in agricultural districts. In the first instance, many persons might be induced to subject
510
themselves to the confinement and restraint which necessarily existed in a workhouse, with a view of obtaining a sufficiency of food and clothing; but the feelings of restraint and confinement were so adverse to anything like Irish feelings and habits, that if the workhouse was found to be a great check in England, in inducing the poorer classes to depend on their own exertions, instead of resorting to the parish, it would be found to be a still more powerful check in Ireland. Those great inducements, in the shape of good living, clothing, and lodging, would not have near the same effect in Ireland as in England. In speaking of a workhouse system, it is necessary to examine how the workhouses are to be distributed. He did not wish to trouble the House at such length; but when a great measure was introduced, in which no party feelings were involved on one side or the other, he thought that it would be advisable to throw out at once such suggestions as occurred to him as to any difficulties that might appear in the working of it, He confessed that he had doubts and hesitations as to some parts of the proposed plan, and therefore, what he then stated were observations which he trusted would net be considered as binding upon him. His noble Friend had told the House, that one of the chief objects of the Bill was, the making provision for the relief of destitute vagrants. Unless they meant completely and decidedly to put a stop to, and prevent vagrancy, they could not be successful in effecting their object. To attain this end, it would be absolutely necessary that there should be workhouses within such a distance of each other, that the infirm and aged could readily reach the workhouse, without having to pass a great distance through the country. If you do not get rid of this system of vagrancy, you do not get rid of the great evil which now exists in Ireland; and to effect this object, it was absolutely necessary that the workhouses should not be at too great distances apart. If he understood his noble Friend correctly, the workhouses were to be twenty miles apart; that was, that each workhouse should be in the centre of a square, the radius of which, if he might use the expression, was ten miles. He did not speak mathematically, but he believed that he was correct. His noble Friend appeared to have two objects in view, in the erection of these large workhouses. By having them on a large scale,

511
his noble Friend believed that, by a system of contract, the paupers would be supported at a less expense, and, also, that the cost of superintendence would be diminished. But his noble Friend had, at the same time, kept out of view what, in his (Lord Stanley's) opinion, could not but prove to be a great evil—he meant the difficulty of getting, in Ireland, proper persons to act on the Board of Guardians. His noble Friend might reply, that even by reducing the distance between the workhouses to five miles, they would still have to contend with the same difficulties in finding fit persons to act. But the difficulty was not diminished by increasing the size of the district; for it did not follow, that because you could not get ten persons in half the distance, that you could get twenty persons in the proposed distance. His noble Friend must be aware, that the very extent of some of the unions in England, was productive of a great deal of mischief. Some persons, the most proper to act as guardians of the poor, would not go out day after day, and week after week, to a considerable distance, to attend the meetings of the Board. This would more especially be the case, in a country in a distracted state; and he was satisfied, that in many parts of Ireland, on this ground, many gentlemen would decline going to a distance from their homes, to attend Board meetings. There were also different motives operating, to induce gentlemen to take upon themselves these offices in the two countries. The object in England was, to reduce a great burden; but in Ireland, by carrying out the proposed system, they would entail a great burden on themselves. He was satisfied that they would not get the persons of the same class in Ireland to attend, day after day, and week after week, as was the case in England. He repeated, if the difficulty to procure the services of proper persons on the Boards of Guardians here was found to be great, it would be still more so in Ireland. He was also satisfied, that the more they extended the size of each workhouse district, the greater the difficulties that would be felt. He would ask his noble Friend then, whether the proposed workhouse districts were too large for the practical working of the system? It should also be recollected, that there was a great want of a proper parochial machinery in Ireland, and therefore he thought that they would have to give greater power
512
to the Commissioners in Ireland than was given to them in England. There was another part of the plan with respect to which he wished to say a few words, and which was suggested to him by what had fallen from the noble Lord. It was proposed, that utter and entire destitution should be the only ground of relief. Did not this suppose, as a corollary, that entire destitution gave an absolute right to relief? How could they tell a man that he should not go a begging, and at the same time say, that the case was not one of destitution, and relief, therefore, should not be given? Upon whom would they throw the responsibility, to say who had and who had not a right to relief? His noble Friend, he believed, went further, and said that destitution was the sole condition of relief. He said that he would give no absolute right, and the reason was, that he could not do so without having a law of settlement. He would not pledge himself upon the subject, but would wait to hear whether the Government could show the possibility or practicability of introducing any measure—whether it gave to the pauper an absolute right, or not an absolute right, to relief—which should not carry with it the necessity of some law of settlement. Let them not shrink from the difficulty of the case. He knew it was a difficulty. His noble friend had said, "Look at the law of settlement in England, and see what trouble, what litigation, what expense it occasions; therefore, said his noble Friend, simply, let us have no law of settlement at all." Suppose his noble Friend were to be met with this sort of argument—"See what abuses have prevailed under the old poor-law system in this country; see what ruin, in every direction it has occasioned; therefore let us have no poor-law at all;" would it not be precisely the doctrine which his noble Friend now advanced against the law of settlement? If the House recognised the principle that destitution should be the test of relief, and that that relief should be limited to the workhouse, and if they meant, as a general measure, that it should prevent vagrancy — vagrancy being the greatest evil in Ireland—then they must give to destitution an absolute right and claim upon some fund; and if they gave to destitution an absolute right and claim upon some fund, then they must, by some law of settlement, say upon what fund that claim should be. From this chain of rea-

513
soning he could not see how they could escape. How was it that his noble Friend proposed to begin this system in Ireland? Why, by establishing at first, fifteen workhouses in that country. Now it was admitted that there would be a great rush of paupers upon those fifteen workhouses, and that it would be impossible to resist their claims. But that was an argument in favour of a law of settlement, when they were about to give to paupers a claim throughout Ireland, the same as in England, upon every one of those workhouses. But if in Ireland the authorities should not choose to admit the paupers claiming, then, according to the proposition of his noble Friend, those paupers should have a right of begging. See how, adopting, as it was proposed to do, the same law, and the same administration in Ireland as in England, such a plan would operate. At present, there was no poor-law in Ireland; consequently, from the coasts of Cumberland, Westmoreland, or the western coast of England, they could ship off any number of Irish paupers they thought proper, and turn them loose on Irish ground, and tell them to beg their way home. Was it intended by the noble Lord that these should be thrown upon Belfast, Dublin, or Water-ford, an absolute and compulsory, though not a legal, burden of this description; or to say to them, "Though there is a poor-law throughout Ireland, and an universal system of relief, yet these persons must be maintained by you in Dublin, Waterford, or Belfast, or else they must be allowed to beg their way through the country? Was that the way they did in England? If, then, they wished to introduce the same system of relief into Ireland as prevailed in England, they must carry the same system throughout,—they must make the county of Dublin bear the same relation to the county of Lancaster, as the county of Cornwall or the county of York bore to it at the present moment. But this they could not do without establishing a law of settlement. Without a law of settlement, therefore, and without giving paupers an absolute title to relief, he could not see how it was practicable that the present measure could succeed. He would not, at the present moment, enter into a consideration of the several very important questions of detail involved in this measure. He entirely agreed with his noble Friend in the propriety and expediency of the
514
provision for excluding clergymen of all denominations from the administration of these funds. Their interference might lead to heart-burnings, and to suspicions of partiality, if not to partiality itself; while it would to a great extent be mixing them up with a vast number of circumstances from which they had much better be excluded. They would then be better able to perform their proper functions, as a sort of mediator between the guardians and the paupers. It was perfectly consistent with their sacred office to advocate the claims of charity, but not to administer parochial or district relief. The question of rating was one of great importance, and to which, he was aware, the Government had given very serious attention. He could not, however, say that he altogether agreed with them in the conclusion at which they had arrived. He should have been most desirous of seeing a system introduced by which the poor rates levy might have acted as an absolute and positive check upon that which he held to be one of the greatest evils of Ireland, as between landlord and tenant, namely, the exorbitant rents fixed upon, which one party never expected to receive, and which the other party knew he could never pay. He should have been glad to see the amount of rate taken and estimated upon the covenanted rent as between landlord and tenant. That would have acted, in his opinion, as a very important check to the evil that so greatly prevailed in Ireland. For now, the landlord imposed a rent of 50 s., an acre, knowing, at the same time, that he should never get 40 s., but, trusting to what he could screw out of the tenant, willing to take everything if he could get it; while the poor tenant, from the great competition for land, undertook to give 50 s. knowing also, at the same time, that he could not pay any such sum. Now, if they could introduce a system by which the amount fixed as the rent were made the basis of the amount of taxation —to which there could be no objection, that being the valuation imposed by the parties themselves— there would be at once a check upon the exorbitant avarice of the landlord, and also upon the improvident want of foresight on the part of the tenant in promising an amount of rent which he was not able to pay. He hoped it would not be impossible to introduce some such provision in the Bill. If was also a question to be considered, when

515
they came to the details of the Bill, as to the amount to be charged upon the landlord, and the manner in which it was to be distributed among the landlord and tenants; and also as to the means by which they were to pay it— whether they should deduct it from the whole of the landlord's rent, or whether the amount charged upon the landlord should be first paid by the tenant and allowed as a part consideration of the rent—which he should think the most desirable course. But these were questions to be considered by them in Committee, and discussed by them as Members of the House of Commons, who, whatever their opinions might be upon theoretical questions, he hoped when they came to deal with a great question of this kind, concerning which there was but one sole and only interest on both sides of the House, would equally endeavour to carry it through perfectly by friendly argument, and by discussing it warmly, if necessary, but at the same time candidly; and by bowing to the opinion of the majority, and to expediency, when their mutual object was ascertained to be the same. He would say, that was the course the House of Commons ought to pursue on a question of this kind. That was the course which he meant to pursue and in the name of every Member on either side of the House, without distinction of party, he might say that that was the course which all would pursue. With regard to extending the right of relief not only to the impotent but to the able-bodied pauper, he confessed he himself saw no means by which they could draw a line of distinction between the two; limiting, as it was proposed to do, that relief altogether; at all events in the first instance, to that which should be given in workhouses, and workhouses alone. With no exaggerated expectations that this measure would produce unlimited prosperity in Ireland—with no exaggerated expectations that it would entirely relieve even partial, local, much less general distress—while, on the other hand, with no exaggerated apprehensions that it would endanger the rights of the landlord, he, as an Irish landowner, thanked his Majesty's Government for having introduced the measure, and, as an Irish landlord, he would give his aid to bring the measure to as perfect a conclusion as possible. He bad omitted to mention one question, which was with respect to the number of vagrants. He hoped, in considering the
516
question of destitution, his noble Friend would make it understood that no person renting and occupying land should be considered in such a state of destitution as to give him a right to relief. It had been said, that there would be a great influx of paupers at particular times of the year in the workhouses. Undoubtedly this would be the case if they admitted this class of persons; because the small landholders at certain periods of the year, suffer great distress, generally in the months of May, June and July, between the consumption of one crop and the gathering of the other, Now, if men, though holding four or five acres of land, were at those periods to be considered in such a state of destitution (as was no doubt often actually the fact) as to entitle them to come into the workhouse, the workhouses would be inundated and overwhelmed, and the I effect would be, that every farthing so paid and expended would be paid into the pockets of the landlord. He did not wish to raise the rent of the Irish landlord, though he believed it was capable of being raised. First, it might be raised by superior cultivation, by a greater extension of the farms, by increased application of capital to those farms, and by a conversion into active labourers of that class of the population who now depended partly upon letting four or five acres as landlords, and partly upon holding three or four acres themselves. He believed that if these changes could be introduced, the rent of Ireland, under a good system of poor-laws, would be susceptible of being materially and honestly raised to the benefit of the landlord, but no less also to the benefit of the tenant. What he wanted to prevent was, a dishonest and fraudulent raising of rents; a system of nominally raising them to an amount which was never intended by the landlords to be levied, but which was intended to screw down the tenantry, and to force from them the last penny their impoverished condition could spare. He thought that to a certain extent the measure introduced by his noble Friend tonight might have the effect of mitigating this great prevailing evil; and whatever might have that effect would be an unmixed good. Feeling confident that the House would sack sedulously to guard the measure by such salutary provisions as should not allow it to impose an undue charge upon the property of Ireland, and believing also that it would not be attended

517
with those dangers which some persons had anticipated from it, he should give it his cordial support, and in every stage of its progress lend the Government his humble assistance, not, however, concealing any objections which he might conceive from time to time applicable to it.
Mr. Richardssaid, it gave him great pleasure to perceive the unanimity of the House on that great and important subject. The question really was, whether relief should be afforded the poor of Ireland, or whether servile insurrections should be daily witnessed? The measure of the noble Lord was well calculated to do away with the feeling of insecurity which prevailed on the subject of property in that country, and it would consequently have the certain effect of encouraging the influx of capital into it. Various objections had been urged by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny; but, when he spoke on the subject of capital, he seemed to do so as one who had no well-formed notions on it or its results. There could be no doubt that the sum suggested by the noble Lord for carrying his project into effect would be sufficient; for the Mendicity Society of Dublin alone, on a voluntary income of 10,000 l. a-year, relieved annually 240,000 individuals, by supplying them with work. It was quite plain that the noble Lord understood the subject he had taken in hand in all its bearings; and he was therefore entitled to the confidence of the House and the gratitude of the country for introducing the measure. Before he sat down he wished to state to the House that Dr. Doyle, who might be considered a high authority upon the question of Irish Poor-laws, had not, as had been by some persons erroneously imagined, changed, shortly before his death, the opinions which, during his whole previous life, he had professed upon that subject. By the report of the Irish Poor-law Commissioners, it was evident that the Irish poor were by no means so provident as the English and the Scotch, and that if it was intended to raise them to a better condition in point of comfort, they must also raise them in the scale of society. He would not, however, at so late an hour trespass upon the patience of the House, but would conclude by stating, in concurrence with the opinions of an eminent writer on the state of Ireland— wh'o said that it was wrong to attribute the disorders of the people of that country
518
to their religious differences — that the first thing to be done towards their amendment was to relieve their wretched condition: that they ought to be raised higher in the social scale; to have justice done to them, and all their well-founded complaints removed. He could only say that the Bill should have his best attention and most cordial support.
Lord John Russellrose merely to say, that he felt deeply indebted to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the many valuable suggestions which had been made in the course of the evening. The House might rely upon all these suggestions receiving the best and most mature consideration of his Majesty's Government. He would not now enter into any of the details which had been mentioned, as these would be much better discussed at a future stage. He had every confidence that the Bill would be satisfactory to all parties.
Resolution agreed to, and ordered to be reported.