HC Deb 01 May 1837 vol 38 cc421-54

The Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on this question having been read,

Mr. Barron

said, he was one of those who were in favour of a measure similar to that which had been already tried in England. Nor was a Poor taw altogether untried in Ireland, where the houses of industry had been found to work well, their only fault being, that their means were not sufficient to provide for a very large portion of the poor. From his own knowledge, he could assert that in Waterford, they had been of immense benefit in proportion to their funds, and the poor of Ireland would be glad to see the principle of them carried out to a greater extent. He entirely differed with the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, who in sense, if not in words, had said that a provision for 80,000 of the destitute poor was nothing. Was it not, he would ask, a most desirable thing that the evil should be diminished pro tanto? As a governor of the Waterford House of Industry, he could assert, that where their means enabled them to relieve five or six vagrants, applications for admittance were made by 200 or 250, although the house was conducted on the most economical scale. It had been said, that the people of Ireland would not willingly resort to the workhouse for relief; but he thought that the blind, the lame, and the really destitute would gladly avail themselves of such institutions. If he understood the Bill rightly, it was a mistake to say that relief was limited to 80,000 persons; by the Bill it was only limited by the poverty of the country. It had been urged as an objection to the Bill, that it would induce that class of poor who were next to paupers, not to provide for the support of their parents; but he was quite satisfied that the poor of Ireland would not regard that duty as less sacred, and by the 50th clause it was made compulsory upon them to support their families if they possessed the, means, and if they had not the means, it was surely not intended to leave their families destitute. There was one provision which he should have been glad to see attached to the Bill which was, that a certain portion of re-claimable land adjoining the bogs or wastes should be attached to each workhouse Nothing, he thought, was worse than to maintain the poor in idleness, without exacting from them some return for the relief afforded them. He thought it would also be found of great benefit if some person who understood farming and tillage were appointed to each workhouse, by which each would form a sort of model farm to the surrounding country; if this plan were to entail an additional expense on the rate-payers, he thought the improvement that would be introduced in the mode of tillage, would more than counterbalance that disadvantage. He, therefore, hoped, that the clause limiting the allotment of land to each workhouse to twelve acres should be left out. With respect to the Commissioners under this Act, he was at a loss to conceive why, when such ample powers were left in the hands of Commissioners in other cases, so little latitude was allowed to them in this; without such power it would be totally impossible for them to adapt the system to the country, as the question in Ireland was a new one, and the people of that country, unlike those of England, had not been trained to a system of Poor Laws. It was an excellent provision of the Bill that extensive powers were not left in the hands of the parish officers, but that great control was exercised by Government, for which it was responsible, and that it was a power he would not object to in the hands of any Government. The measure would not, he thought, be found complete, but in addition, it would be necessary to furnish employment on public works, and to encourage emigration. The present measure he considered, only as a first step to relieve the existing misery. There were some great inconveniences in the way in which property was chargeable under the Bill, which should be reconsidered, and he thought that Irishmen, or persons possessed of local information, should be appointed, as Commissioners, who might also be expected to have some knowledge of the feelings and wishes of the people; but the fact had hitherto been that the Irish people had not been allowed any share in the administration of the laws. When this Bill came into operation, he doubted not but that the effect would be, to convert the barracks into workhouses.

Sir Robert Bateson

fully agreed with the hon. Members who had gone before him, that this at least, was a question which ought to be discussed without reference to party politics or adverse creeds, and it was a subject upon which all parties could and ought to unite to procure a good Poor Law for Ireland. The hon. Member for Water-ford talked of the barracks in Ireland being hereafter converted into poor houses. His wish and prayer was, that it might be so, but the hon. Member must excuse him, (Sir R. Bateson), for saying, that he feared he was rather too sanguine in his expectations. He was rather afraid, though he hoped in God it might not take place, that the poor houses would hereafter be turned into barracks, unless the present system of government adopted in Ireland were abandoned. It was not recently that he had become a convert to the necessity of some system of Poor Laws for Ireland. He had always been an advocate for some provision for the poor before the subject became quite so fashionable in that House, as it had latterly done. He was always an advocate for providing relief for the impotent, the lame, the blind, and the really destitute poor of that country; but he was yet to learn whether it was a beneficial course to pursue, to provide support for the able-bodied man. The hon. Member for Waterford referred to the conclusion of the speech of his gallant Friend (Colonel Conolly) in which his hon. and gallant Friend congratulated the ministry on the production of this Bill. He (Sir R. Bateson) was one who could not join in these congratulations, inasmuch as he thought a great part of the Bill would not work well. A great portion of it appeared to be got up in a hasty, crude, and indigestible form. It was quite impossible that it could be otherwise, seeing that it was founded upon a report made by Mr. Nicholl after a six weeks inspection of a portion of Ireland. He therefore must repeat that he could not join in thanking ministers for bringing forward so important a measure, upon which so much of the happiness or misery of the country depended—on information obtained as Mr. Nicholls's must necessarily have been. Mr. Nicholls, in his six weeks tour did not deem it worth his while to visit Ulster at all. He proceeded only as far as Newry and there he stopped short. He knew not, therefore, from his own examination, whether or no Poor laws be necessary for that province at all. A very strong sensation was excited by the present Bill, in the north of Ireland. Meetings were held upon the subject in Belfast and other places. Persons of different creeds and politics who scarcely agreed upon any other question, agreed that this measure, as at present constituted, would operate most injuriously. One of the greatest injuries it would inflict must arise from want of a law settlement. The Bill proposed to establish eighty workhouses in Ireland. He (Sir R. Bateson) should rather say eight hundred would be nearer the number, if all the destitute were to be provided for; and yet, in a part of the country where no want existed—where industry and comparative happiness were to be found—these districts, contrary to all justice, were to be swamped with shoals of paupers from distant parts of the country. This would be, to make the industrious pay for the crimes of others. The Bill, as it at present stood, would operate as a premium upon absenteeism. He always considered absenteeism as one of the greatest evils under which Ireland laboured, and any Bill which acted as a premium upon residence, and gave encouragement to residence, while it punished the absentee in his pocket, would be truly rendering a benefit to Ireland; but by this Bill the absentee was encouraged to spend his fortune abroad, while it compelled the resident gentleman and merchant to pay for the support of the paupers on the estates of those men, who themselves contributed nothing towards the fund for the relief of the unfortunate persons who had been reduced to indigence by the neglect of those absentees. He wished the Poor Law should be as local as possible. He conceived it to be most unfair, unjust, to extend the same system to Munster, and Ulster, and vice versa. Mr. Cribbace had lately gone on a tour through Ireland, supposed to be by order of the Government, lecturing on the benefits of this plan of poor laws. But he would take upon himself to say, that the plan was not in accordance with the wants and wishes of the people of Ireland. What the people of Ireland wanted, was a measure to compel those who were not resident to join in making a provision for the poor. With respect to the workhouse system, it was, in his opinion, an error to exclude out-door-relief. In Belfast a workhouse was established, which had the effect of abolishing mendicancy. But out-door relief was afforded. They gave spinning wheels, bread, fuel and other necessaries, and the result was most advantageous. But the Bill on the table of the House proceeded upon quite a different plan. In the parish in which he (Sir R. Bateson) resided, and in the five or six adjoining parishes, mendicancy was at an end. They had local Poor Laws of their own, but not the workhouse system. The subscriptions which were voluntarily paid, as well as the amount of the collections at the various places of worship, were paid over into the hands of two respectable farmers in each townland, and by them disbursed, and the result was, as he had already stated, that mendicancy was abolished. They were deficient only in one requisite, namely, that they could not compel the absentees to contribute. If they were armed with such a power, no poor law would be necessary in the district in which he resided. He was, therefore, an advocate for a more local system than that contemplated by the Bill. The unions were far too extensive. He should prefer parishes or less than parishes if possible, as sure he was, that the smaller the unions were, the better the system would be found to work. He much feared that the workhouse system would not answer. It was not congenial to the feelings and prejudices of the people. Besides, there was no provision made in the Bill for the moral and religious education of the children who were to become inmates of the workhouses. He also rejected that part of the Bill respecting the rate-payers under 5l. value. He did not object to the landlord being made answerable for the payment of the rate, but he feared it would hold out an inducement to the landlord to turn them out. When they came out of the workhouse, where were they to go? In his opinion, if they went into the workhouse, there they must remain for the rest of their lives. If the workhouse were built in the neighbourhood of waste lands, or where land was cheap, some advantage might be reaped from the labour of the inmates; but in the north of Ireland, where land sold at thirty years' purchase, the thing was impossible. A great deal had been said of the benefits arising from emigration. A vast deal had latterly taken place from the north of Ireland, which in his opinion had done much more harm than good. Nineteen out of twenty of the emigrants from the north of Ireland were people of substance, and carried out with them two, three, or four hundred pounds each. Another class was composed of working artisans, carpenters, masons, and the like, men, in fact, whose loss was sensibly felt in the country; but the paupers did not go; these were the persons to get rid of, but they would not stir. Private subscriptions were often opened for the purpose of sending them out of the country, but they would not go. In his opinion, employment was the great thing the people wanted. What was the reason that the north of Ireland was so much more civilised than the south? Because there was more trade, employment, and industry in the one than the other. And why, it might be asked, could not there be employment all over Ireland? In the south the climate was more genial and the soil considerably better. It was the want of security for life and property which kept the south of Ireland in the state in which it was. Give English capital security for life and property in the south and they would very soon give employment to the starving population. If those persons who had been unfortunately excited for party purposes, by having instilled into their minds feelings of recklessness and insubordination, if they were allowed to live peaceably under the blessings of the law, enjoying the security they would receive from it, the beneficial results would soon be felt throughout the country. He was not one of those who considered that the Poor Law Bill would act as a panacea for all the ills of Ireland; nor did he consider that it would relieve England from the infliction of the flight of locusts who visited England from Ireland, greatly to the detriment of the English labourer. If the hon. Member for Stroud, (Mr. P. Scrope) had been in Ireland, and had known the conduct of the landlords and gentry of that country as well as he (Sir R. Bateson) did, he was confident he never would have penned a foul libel upon them. He declared most solemnly that the imputation conveyed by the hon. Member for Stroud was not true—he declared most solemnly that it was unfounded and unjust, and if the hon. Member for Stroud would do him (Sir R. Bateson) the favour to come to the part of Ireland in which he lived, he would prove to him that the resident landlords of Ireland did not require to be compelled to give aid to the destitute, but that, on the contrary, their purses were as ready on all occasions as those of the landed proprietors of any other country in the world. He would go further, and say, that deeper calls were made upon their charity than in any other country, and that they were invariably responded to. It was not his intention to give any opposition to the principle of the Bill, though to many of its details he was decidedly opposed. He hoped in Committee some plan might be adopted which would prevent an influx of paupers from one district with another, which would have the effect, as he said before, of taxing the resident landlords for the crimes of the absentees. As the Committee, was, however, the proper place for urging these objections, he should not further trespass upon the House at present.

Mr. Denis O'Conor

had always been of opinion that some legal provision for the poor was necessary. That opinion had been much increased during the present debate, even by the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny. The calculations of Mr. Nicholls were in his judgment erroneous, although he gave him every other credit. He thought that the power proposed to be given to the commission was a most extraordinary one; its effect would be, not to give a Poor-law to Ireland, but to give the Commissioners the power of making a Poor-law for it—of, in fact, distributing the whole wealth of the country. He thought, at the same time, that it would not suspend or put an end to the exactions on their neighbours which the poor now made; they would exact the same relief.

Mr. Lynch

was of opinion that it was necessary to give employment to the people of Ireland; but, in using the term "employment," he meant permanent employment, such as would give an increased facility to the landlords of employing their tenantry. He thought that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny, if he knew Mr. Nicholls as well as he did, would agree that the zeal of that gentleman to serve Ireland was only to be equalled by his ability to do so. Destitution was not to be suppressed unless relief was given in a different mode to that suggested by the Bill. The calculations on which the Bill was based exceeded the whole amount of the population not occupying land in the year 1831, and would lead to the conclusion that every third adult person was in a state of starvation. These calculations did not take into account the labour of poor Irishmen in England and elsewhere, nor their avocations as fishermen or as other labourers, which they ought to have done. Mr. Griffiths himself had stated, that he had been compelled to stop his works in consequence of want of hands. He was of opinion that competition for land was one of the evils of Ireland. With respect to the remedy which emigration held out, he was not disposed to look upon it as likely to be extensively practicable. A family of fourteen persons had lately been sent out to colonize in New South Wales, and the expenses of their passage were 18l. a-piece. To give any sensible relief to the Irish by emigration a million of persons must be sent out, and see what the cost of that would be. He believed the evils of Ireland resulted from the misuse of the land in cultivation, and the non-use of education. The destitution and misery of the inhabitants was the cause of the non-introduction of capital, and till destitution was relieved, no capital would be introduced into Ireland.

Viscount Clements

concurred in the principles of the present Poor-law proposed by his Majesty's Government for Ireland. There was one point, however, in which he could not at all agree, and that was connected with the power which the board or boards in London were to have of dispensing with the election of guardians. He was of opinion that the task of ascertaining who were and who were not destitute was one which it would be impossible to perform, and therefore he thought it quite right to look principally for the check of mendicancy by this measure. He did not believe that any able-bodied Irishman would ever go into a workhouse. He thought, however, that this Bill must be the first step towards providing for the poor. He regretted that it did not empower the guardians to give out-door relief in cases of sickness, because he thought that when a man was confined to his bed, it was just as good a test of his wanting relief as his readiness to enter into the workhouse. He did not approve of a law of settlement, till there was proof that the measure could not work without it. In this respect he agreed with the Bill, but he objected to the proposed size of the unions. An area of 400 square miles, and a population of 80,000 or 100,000 inhabitants was much too large. In England there was no union with a larger population than 30,000 up to August 1836, and the average was between 17,000 and 18,000. To show how this would work he would cite the case of the county with which he was best acquainted, Leitrim. It was 578 square miles in extent, and had a population of 141,584 persons. This would probably make, according to the plan of the Commissioners, an union and a half. He thought this part of the scheme impracticable. In supporting this Bill he was sorry to say, that he did not speak the wishes of his constituents. They were afraid of a Poor-law. The idea of being locked up in a workhouse was so uncongenial to the disposition of the Irish, that not the destitute but the rate-payers and farmers were against it. He hoped this prejudice would wear away; but an Irish Member who supported this Bill could not be accused of aiming at popularity, as he was bound to say the measure was most unpopular.

Mr. Shaw

did not rise to enter into a discussion on the principle of the Bill, but to offer a suggestion for the consideration of the House. He was willing to give his Majesty's Ministers credit for having gone so far to conciliate both sides of the House on this question, but he did not think he could equally accord it to them for a knowledge of the right remedy. That Poor-laws Were inevitable for Ireland no man could now doubt. The question then was, what system was best calculated for that country? He was afraid that his Majesty's Government could not, in this matter, move much beyond where they stood, be. cause of their want of sufficient data to answer that question. They had brought the Irish people to believe that Poor-laws were absolutely necessary, but they had not as yet been able to make them unanimous on the best plan. In Ireland the opinions were various on the subject; and as yet there was no prospect of agreement. With respect to out-door relief, he thought it could never form part of any plan for the relief of the poor in Ireland, while wages were so low as they were at present. When the average of wages was only 2s. 6d. a-week the lowest out-door relief which could be given would absorb all the labour of the country. He thought it would be a matter of extreme difficulty to carry the Bill into effect this year. With respect to what had been stated of Mr. Nicholls's observations, he felt bound, in justice to that gentleman, to say, that he generally concurred in his views of the condition of the poor of Ireland. The general suggestion which he rose to offer was, that, though the public mind had decided on a Poor-law for Ireland, the public mind of Ireland was not yet prepared to decide which system or species of Poor-law was best.

Mr. Wyse

said, that he could not agree with the right hon. the Recorder of Dublin in thinking that the discussion of this question should be delayed. On the contrary, it appeared to him to have reached the precise stage in which it was incumbent upon this House to take it up. Committee on Committee, commission on commission, report on report had amply discussed it. It had been for months past the subject of debate in every possible form—in public meetings and in the public press. It was now time that the constituencies of the country, reasoning on these various data, should, through their representatives in Parliament, express their opinions, and by mutual communication and comparison arrive, if possible, at some general conclusion. He. (Mr. Wyse), for one, had waited for such occasion; he had always considered a Poor-law not as a panacea for the ills of Ireland, but as one remedy only, and he might say the last, which should be applied to her cure. He considered it as a means of extinguishing or mitigating whatever surplus of misery might be left (and such must be found in the best regulated communities) after other measures had been tried to restore her to sound health. To apply it before such measures were in operation, or, at least, likely to be in operation, appeared to him absurd. It was attempting to drain off the waters without looking to their fountain-head—attempting to suppress destitution, and still working actively to keep up the supply. Every man, it was said, who thought or spoke of Ireland was sure to bring his own patent and particular nostrum; and he did believe that few patients ever stood out against a greater number of physicians and consultations than Ireland. At the same time there was much excuse for this in the particular nature of her complaint. Her malady was not simple, but multiform, and arising from multitudinous and. distinct causes. He looked therefore to distinct remedies; he knew of no universal one—no Morrison's pill (whatever political name it might assume) which could efficiently meet her case. He looked to see the Church placed on an equitable basis—tithe extinguished—education improved and extended—local government upon a liberal scale—civil and religious rights common to all—before he could hope that any good could come from a law which professed to succour the distress and abate the universal disorganization which the want of these very measures produced. As long as these ameliorations were refused he had always refused his assent, in common consistency, to so miserable a palliative as a Poor-law in such cases would be; and if now he was disposed, with certain qualifications, to give his support to that which his Majesty's Government had introduced, it was from the deep conviction he felt that they were both willing and able to carry out such preliminary accompanying measures of improvement to the fullest effect of which they were susceptible. He had said, that the causes of the disorganization of Ireland were various; they might, however, be reduced to a few great heads. Religious and political differences, ignorance, and physical destitution, were amongst the principal. These again proceeded from other causes on which he would not touch. Many hon. Members had in the course of the debate deprecated all reference to our religious and political dissensions. He felt as much gratified as any hon. Gentleman at seeing the present discussion carried on without anything of their acerbity; but he could not help thinking that all omission of such reference, for fear of rousing such feelings, would be passing by what be considered, in common, with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, the very essence and pith of the subject. A gallant Colonel (Conolly) in an early part of the debate laughed at the idea that the penal laws under which Ireland formerly groaned could have at present any influence on the condition of her people. He must have read history to little profit if such was really his opinion. Effects were not always to be got rid of simultaneously with their causes. The religious wars of Belgium and Holland—of the Protestant and Catholic states of Germany—of the Catholics and Huguenots in France—left behind them, in the social relations of all these countries for years after, the most painful traces. How stood the case with us? Were not still stronger evidences of the old oppression visible in Ireland? Was it not notorious that a country in which there was a constant war going on between rich and poor, in which there was no intermediate or middle class to separate them—in which the rich feared and the poor hated—was one of the most disorganized, the most perilous, and naturally the most destitute which could well be conceived? Was it possible that this should not be the case, when two races and two religions—distinct, if not opposed—were placed front to front—where the rich were of one race and faith, and the poor of another—where every means were taken to keep up this opposition and hostility—was it possible, he should say, that in such a state such a war should be in constant and most injurious action? And was not this precisely the object and precisely the result of the penal code? It confiscated and excluded; gave the land to the English, man and the Protestant, and prevented the Irishman and Catholic from purchasing or leasing it. It interfered with the fair accumulations of commerce, by surrendering the manufactures of the country (as in the case of the woollen trade) for the privilege of larger oppression—by driving the Catholic merchant and tradesman to foreign countries—by depriving him of every end in which accumulation is valuable—of every object of honourable ambition. It has struck at both classes—made the lower classes nearly serfs and expelled or reduced the middle to the lower. These laws had doubtless been abrogated. It was no longer penal to take leases beyond thirty-one years; but the spirit which dictated them was not abrogated. They saw it, in will at least, in the continuance of tithes—in the refusal of municipal rights—in the separation kept up between the Protestant proprietor and the Catholic population—in the long exclusion of Catholics from office—in the pretensions still maintained, in one shape or other, of national or religious superiority. The statute book had indeed repealed them, but in the heart of the country neither the law nor its consequences were gone by. An. other cause, concurring with the former, was the ignorance of the population. Let not hon. Members be startled at this assertion, accustomed as they were to eulogies on the progress of Irish education. In some acquirements the Irish were at least equal to their English neighbours—in native intelligence perhaps beyond them; but this might all be, and the Irish, for all purposes of social life, be yet ignorant. Did be blame them for this? Very much the contrary. The blame lay not with them, but with their rulers—not with Ireland, but with this country. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had said, very truly, that the penal code had decreed ignorance; by means of education, in attempting to proselytise, they had actually barbarised the country. Such was the result of all their compulsions and prohibitions. The schools of Henry 8th and Elizabeth were intended to make the Irish English. They failed, in despite of the efforts of William. William attempted to make the Catholics Protestants, by rendering Catholic education a misdemeanour and felony, and he failed, despite of the still more stringent laws of Anne, and the atrocious charter schools—to be compared only to the modern anti-Polish expedients of Nicholas—of the George's. Then came a host of societies, all affecting to instruct, but really intending to convert, from the all Protestant society for the suppression of vice down to the mitigated Protestant society of Kildare-place. A board of national education has superseded these clubs of individuals, but education, really such, is as yet scarcely begun. Schoolhouses are to be had, but where were the schoolmasters? Was the course of instruction yet really appropriate to the Irish agriculturist? Where were the habits of order, punctuality, forethought, frugality—the skill in managing to the best account his domestic concerns—of putting out to the greatest advantage to himself and to his country his physical, intellectual, and moral resources? Reading and writing there might be, but reading and writing without this will not go far, or, at least, not farther than to render evil quite as probable as good. Unless these habits were planted in the child, they could not expect to find them in the man; and unless they found them in the man, how would it be possible, under the most favourable circumstances, he should like to know, to prevent disorder and destitution. It was the very want of these qualities—and this very want was produced from no education, or miseducation—which up to this hour, under the form of improvident marriages, negligent cultivation, wasteful expenditure, and utter disregard to patient savings—had so largely contributed to swell the mass of Irish pauperism and mendicancy. A third cause of Irish disorganization was this very pauperism itself, produced by the causes already stated to the House, but by many others also, in combination with them. It had usually been attributed to excessive rents, over population, and absenteeism. Much qualification, however, must be made to such assertions. Travellers through Ireland, noticing solely the condition of the cultivator, and judging hastily from the position of society in this country of what it was in Ireland, referred the distress they witness, as they would be justified in doing here, solely and exclusively to the proprietor. But how stood the case in reality? With us there were two classes of landlords—the proprietor and the middleman. The middleman system, originally planted by the adventurers of Cromwell, had encreased in proportion to the distress and insecurity of the country. A proprietor, wishing to get rid of the annoyance of residence and collection, and moreover to secure regular and large payments, consented to give up, for a certain percentage of profit, to a capitalist, or presumed capitalist, the dominion over his estate. If it stopped there, the evil would not be great; but the sub-landlord soon imitated the proprietor, and thus a succession of intermediate masters was produced between the proprietor and the occupier, most of them non-residents, and receiving each their profits—each defrauding, on one side the proprietor, and on the other the occupier of the soil. Thus it was, that on opposite sides of a road in Ireland, on the same land, under the same landowner, they often met two distinct and opposite conditions of the population—a comfortable farmer here—a miserable race of paupers there—not the creation of the landowner, but of the intermediates—one paying per- haps 30s. per acre, and the other 10l. a year. Nor could it well be otherwise, for the land was given for labour. The land rated at the very highest, and the labour at the very lowest possible cost. The landlord himself did not fare much better: the very object for which the system was first introduced was not attained. The middleman has long ceased to be a good mark; it was often now more difficult to obtain from him, or rather his attorney-agent, payment of rent than from the smallest tenant on the estate. The operation of the change of times was gradually clearing away this class from the land, The non-subletting act and the painful experience of landlords will probably prevent the recurrence of the evil; but, in the interval, both show such system still endures, and where property was passing from it to another, great inconveniences and often great misery was created. When a lease drops a landlord often finds his ground covered with hovels and wretchedness; he cannot allow the race to eat up, locust-like, the soil; neither can he, or ought he in mass to expel them. It was then that emigration became essential, provided it were used with judgment and good feeling. Where the landlord was not thus situated there was no difference between him and the landlords of England. Generally speaking, he did not receive more rent. Taking into consideration the difference of average, the difference of local and national imports, the difference of wages, the difference of soil, he should rather say the Irish landlord received less. Why should that be? The produce was exported—there was the same market (less the transit) for both countries. The only accountable cause was, that the produce was different in quality or quantity. There were few complaints of its quality. With regard to quantity the soil did not produce as much. That was the fault of the cultivator, who had not sufficient capital or skill. The capital of Ireland had however, been greatly underrated. More than 18,000,000l. had been transferred to the English cloths. The Irish peasant accumulated but he hid his accumulations; they lay buried in old stockings under his bed, when, under other circumstances, perhaps they would have been seen displayed in his house or on his land. But this again was the result of habit—the sure offspring of bad government. When on the expiration of a lease it was customary to put the ground up to auction, and the very improvements made, were only likely to increase the price, it could not be expected he would thus contribute by his outlay to the loss of his farm. This was only to be remedied by other conduct on the part of the landlords—better division of the charges which belong to each party—the landlords taking care of the permanent such as houses, walls, &c the tenant of temporary, such as improvement, manuring, planting, &c, of his farm. There was another class, however—the labouring—not affected by this. They had been mixed up too much with farmers; and it had been greatly to their disadvantage they had not been kept apart; but whether apart or not, their profits must come from labour—and the great point to be considered in their regard was employment. It was a matter of surprise and censure that landlords did not permit this employment. But there were many without knowledge or means either to furnish or direct it. During the war lands rose—landlords calculating on this new state as a permanent one, regulated all expenditure and charges in proportion. The peace came, rents fell, but the charges remained. The Peel-currency Bill increased the difficulty. There were no means, in consequence of the state of the country, to borrow, as in England, at less interest. The mortgagee kept the mortgager strictly to his engagement; and thus, in many cases, all surplus being swallowed up, the landlord stood in the position of an agent only, between the creditor on one side, and the tenant on the other. Nor was the effect of excess of population or absenteeism less exaggerated. The population was excessive in some localities, compared to actual amount of produce, but not to the productive powers of the soil. This was to be remedied by raising these powers, and giving them full scope and play, by improving land actually in cultivation, or in cultivating more. The first must result from skill, the second is proposed to be provided for by home cultivation. The efficacy of this measure, more immediate in the mind of some than the former, depended greatly on circumstances: cases may exist where it may be highly advisable. It was true that land already in cultivation in Ireland would yield a larger profit, by being cultivated better, than lands now waste, by being reclaimed. But it might so happen that these waste lands may be at a great distance from lands susceptible of high cultivation, and in that case the objection could scarcely hold. Again, there was their management: the choice of site, of tenure, of occupiers, of labourers, of administrators, are all matters so important as absolutely to determine whether such expedient be good or bad. In a late visit to Belgium, opportunities were given him (Mr. Wyse) of examining into this very question. The home colonies of Belgium had completely failed, and those of Holland, much as they have been praised by former visitors, were failing. The causes, however, are very obvious: devoid of a soil, sandy, and irreclaimable, except at enormous expense; occupiers not fitted for agricultural pursuits—tailors, shoemakers, &c, &c, from towns, bad distribution and appropriation of houses, lands, &c. The result was, that they were obliged to surrender their lots to the managers, and to borrow money, repaying it by labour, but not allowed to quit till the whole they had should be repaid. The consequence was, that out of some hundred free families originally introduced, they had become, in a manner, serfs, with the exception of five. It was not asserted, that this would be the case everywhere—on the contrary, the Mount Melleray establishment, in the county of Waterford, exhibited at this moment a complete contrast. It was only Urged that, in employing such an expedient, every caution was to be used. The same attention was equally requisite in conducting emigration. The solution must, if possible, be made on the principle of Mr. Price, Lord Lansdowne's agent in the Queen's county; provision must be had for safe, quick, and cheap passage, and, above all, provision for locating the emigrants on their arrival in the colonies. A society had been established within these five weeks past with such views, but Government should co-operate as well as individuals. Unless some such precautions be taken, the emigrants will return, as they had often done, to Waterford, with ruined health, character, and means—wore turbulent and destitute than when they set out. The execution of public works was urged as an accompaniment to this. It required, as an instrument for keeping up supply to the level of the population, no small care. In a country in a high state of improvement too great an impulse to public works might be unnecessary or injurious. But Ireland was in arrear. When a communication once opened, as at Kanturk, brought rude districts into communion with more civilised ones, thus producing new events, new tactics, new comforts; when all these, demanding greater consumption of exciseable articles, had naturally presented greater interests to the revenue, even the Exchequer itself, with all its proverbial parsimony, could scarcely object to it. But these, and other remedies, it was apprehended, would be useless without residence. Too much stress appeared to be laid upon this point—it entirely depended upon the nature of the residence. In a fiscal point of view, absenteeism had been exaggerated. Yorkshire, before the new improvements in communication, was, as to all results, more distant than Dublin or Waterford at present. How would Englishmen have stared at a tax being imposed upon any of these Yorkshire proprietors who ventured to pass a year in London? The amount, too, was much less than was usually estimated. In the county of Waterford, at least, there was not a single family mansion vacant—at the same time, the moral evils of absenteeism could not be too highly rated. These, at all times great, were enormous when the deputy of the landlord was one of those land corsairs, law and land agent at the same time, in the shape of a money-lending attorney, who imprisons the tenantry in his chambers in Dublin—sowing animosities, that he may reap litigation, ejecting tenants to justify costs, and taking every due care that the complaints of the occupier shall not reach the landlord, nor the benevolence of the landlord redress the occupier. The usual course of such deputy ship and such absenteeism was much immediate embarrassment to landlord and tenant, and the final transfer, when the season came, of the estate from the hands of the careless employer to that of the faithful servant. Such a state was one of great social injury; but it was only by the remedy of these evils bringing about more knowledge and exertion amongst proprietors, and not by tax or by penalty, that it could be finally removed. There were clear remedies for these and other evils, and these remedies applied, or at least prepared, we could then think of Poor-laws. But the first thing in making any arrangement of the kind, ought to have been to see whether we had any materials already, and how they might be disposed of to the best advantage. Now, Poor-laws they had in Ireland, answering every characteristic which a Poor-law might be supposed to possess, such as county infirmaries, fever hospitals, district lunatic asylums, dispensaries for the sick, and for the destitute, houses of industry and mendicities. These, however, ware not as efficient as they ought to be—they were under a great variety of managements—supported by a variety of means—regulated by a variety of laws—they were ill arranged—ill located—ill administered. The old code should be repealed, and a new one, consolidating the best part of the old, instituted in its place. One uniform system should be established—where they were too numerous or close, they should be divided, where too few, others should be added to the old. There were, besides, numerous other charities on individual and corporate foundation. These, at present, were under the inefficient control of the Board of Charitable Bequests. They should be examined and applied by better arrangements to the greater benefit of the greater number, and placed under the same control with those already mentioned, that is, under a central body in Dublin, co-operating with local bodies on the spot. For the surplus of destitution which these might still leave, the workhouse system might be employed, but, under the form presented in the Bill, it would be exceedingly difficult work. It was a mistake to suppose there would be any repugnance in town to fill those asylums. Admission even to the houses of industry (to which they would not be inferior) was, at that moment, in all large towns, an object of competition. There had often been forty applicants, in his recollection, for two vacancies. Then, again, were the rate-payers to have no protection from these increasing claims? Was it just that the kind and judicious resident landlord should be taxed for the delinquencies of his absentee neighbour? Was it fair that the well-ordered city should be subject to the inroads of the mendicancy of the adjoining counties? Waterford was bounded by not less than three or four, and was, moreover, a seaport. Was it proposed that all applicants appearing in its streets should be thrown for their support on the already heavily-rated and industrious inhabitants? This would be reducing the payers very soon to the condition of those for whom they paid. It would make both classes one—it would melt both into beggars. The law of settlement was, no doubt, beset with inconveniences, but this was more than an inconvenience—a downright wrong. No mode appeared calculated to avert the difficulty, but giving ample powers to the guardians to refuse as well as to admit taxing the country generally, and allowing the guardians for each place to decide as they might require; but what became of local assessment, and consequently any great interest in local control? There was another point to which he should admit provision was proposed to be made, for the education of the children—but where? In the workhouse itself! So objectionable and injurious does this appear—so certain to generate vice—so complete a guarantee for a race of oppressors, from father to son, that also he considered it absolutely necessary some alteration should be made, and he (Mr. Wyse) if no one else would, would see it attended to by amendment in Committee. There were many other defects and objections which he reserved for the same opportunity, but he could not avoid noticing this new instance of an error, in his mind unpardonable, but still predominant through the whole of our legislation—he meant the exceedingly defective machinery for all such purposes which we actually possessed. In this particular, both as to proper local bodies, and a proper valuation, without which he could not contemplate anything like fair assessment or fair expenditure, he blushed to think that a constitutional nation like ours was so far behind that of most of the nations, absolute as well as constitutional, of Europe. In Ireland there was no parochial, no municipal, no county representation. In the parish there was nothing analogous to the voting in England; the Municipal Corporations were still close, and the counties, had in the grand juries a mongrel institution, composed of the narrowness and oligarchy of the nomination principle, and the hastiness and ignorance of the populace in mass. This could be easily comprehended by knowing the object and opinions of the originator (Lord Stanley), who, in his horror of representation, ran into the vices of both extremes. How different was this from Prussia, Wurttemberg, and Bavaria, which had local representative bodies to assess and expend at every step. The worst of all this was, that not being able to do without some bodies, we got up a special extempore machinery for each particular measure, clashing with and confounding each other, instead of having our bodies already organised, and deferring to them new duties or functions in proportion as they might arise. Nor was our valuation system better. Each country had a different one, and almost all were bad. When the evil had become enormous, Acts of Parliament had been applied for. But why leave this to the individual or to the county? Why should there not be an act for all? It was ludicrous to see the various scales which were alternately set up—sometimes the county cess—sometimes the composition acts—all notoriously incorrect for any new scheme of taxation; when a redress of the evil was hinted, these were put off with the ordnance survey, which might terminate in ten years, but when it did terminate, would have to begin again, for the survey of the first part would in the interval have been subjected to various changes, and bear no adequate proportion to the last. No other nation had acted, though absolute children in legislation, in so absurd a manner. They required, before they ever thought of assessment, a just scale of proprietary and occupying interests, and, moreover, that required to be revised and corrected on the most accurate scientific principles every ten years. But he had already troubled the House too long—he should now conclude. It was because he hoped and trusted that his Majesty's Ministers would heal religious and political dissensions by a free and fearless communication, to all classes and persuasions, of civil and religious rights, that they would unshackle the means of the landlord, encourage the industry of the tenant, raise production by stimulating industry, and open new sources of employment and enterprise, by emigration, colonization, and public works, that he now consented to support their Bill. Under other circumstances, he should have opposed it. Without these measures it could not have cured, and he much doubted whether it could have even palliated the evils of Ireland.

Mr. Lucas

I entirely concur with the hon. Member who has just sat down, in deprecating any delay with regard to the present measure. We are now in a favourable conjuncture, both as regards the great demand for land throughout Great Britain, and as regards the temper in which the promulgation of this Bill has been received throughout Ireland. If we let slip this favourable opportunity, who can say when it will occur again? The hon. Member for Waterford city has congratulated the House on the manner in which this subject has been discussed here. I think we have still greater cause of congratulation in the manner in which it has been received by all classes in Ireland. No intemperate meetings have taken place, no party sentiments have been expressed—all seem to await with calmness and content the further maturing of this measure. This is the more creditable to one class at least, because the landlords of Ireland cannot fail to be aware, that whether this measure be good or bad, the burthen of it will mainly fall upon themselves. It will fall upon them in two ways—as rate-payers contributing to the tax, and as landlords to whom will still be left the relief of their poorer tenantry. For by the provisions of the Bill, no relief is to be given to those who hold land; and many struggling tenants will always call for indulgence from a landlord, long before they are in a condition to be aided by public relief. The temper manifested, therefore, in Ireland, with regard to this measure, affords a reasonable hope, that there is every disposition to receive it with favour, and to carry it into effect with willingness and impartiality. It is almost too late to take notice of the objections that may be made to a Poor-law for Ireland; with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, no one has spoken against it; and in this general concurrence, and at this late hour, I shall not further advert to them, but proceed to the details of the Bill. The first is the management by the Commissioners for England, with an addition to their number. I think it is more desirable to trust to those who have carried the amended English law into effect, and who are remote from local influence and prejudices in Ireland, and, what is almost equally important, remote from the suspicion of them, than to appoint an Irish board, who, with more knowledge of the country, will be attended with opposite inconveniences. Ignorant in some respects, the English board will, no doubt, be for a time; but that will be a temporary evil; and their management will secure a uniformity of principle and practice throughout the empire. I do not object to the power given them of appointing guardians; since it can only be exercised in case of the rate-payer declining to appoint, or the guardians declining to do their duty. In regard to the manner and proportion of rating, I think there is much that is objectionable. In a new and important measure, it is surely of the greatest consequence to enlist into your service all means of success. If there be party feeling, or if there be classes who are likely to be adverse to the working of your Bill, it is desirable to enlist those party feelings and those classes into your service, by giving to every one, if it be possible, a direct interest in your success. Now, if you take one class and make them pay—rif you take another class and say they shall not pay—and again, if the class who pay to the fund are not likely ever to receive from it, and if the class who are not to pay are those whose friends and connexions are likely to receive from it, it appears to me that you are doing that which is most likely to defeat your ends. I conceive that your principle of rating does this: you rate those who hold land of 5l. value, you exempt those whose lands are under 5l. value. If it is your desire to exempt the poor and tax the rich, that is a humane object: but even that will not, in my opinion, be attained. A reference to the Commissioners' reports will shew that between the two classes you are separating, there is no natural or real distinction. The Commissioners say, in Munster the great majority of farms are from one to fifty acres; in Ulster eight to twelve; in Leinster one to five—and in Connaught subdivision is still to a greater extent. Let us see whether this statement holds good in the county of Monaghan, which I represent, and which may form a fair average of the province of Ulster. There are in this county 323,660 acres, and 195,000 souls, This, at five and a-half souls to a family, gives 35,500 families nearly to the county. As some of these do not hold land, we may reckon 32,000 as the number of landholders in the county; and that will give in round numbers ten acres to a farm. Taking, then, the value of land at Mr. Griffith's statement, of 14s. 2d. per English acre, the average value of farms in this county will be 7l. 1s. 8d. How are you justly to divide into ratepayers and non-rate-payers, a set of farmers averaging 7l. in rent and ten acres of territory? But is this calculation a just one or not? I have here a statement of two estates chosen at random, from which it will appear that the actual fact is little different from the calculation I have made. On one of these estates the farms average thirteen and a-half acres; on the other twelve and one-tenth acres. According to the average of one of these, a government union of 400 miles would contain 10,000 voters of 5l.; and 2,660 farmers not voting, as holding under 5l.; on the other, there would be 10,140 5l. voters, and 10,760 not voting, as under 5l. Can it be said that there is any real distinction between these classes in wealth, in station, or in education? And if not, why will you draw a line of opposition which will set the two in conflict with each other? The 5l. holder has a vote, and pays a rate; the holder of 4l. 19s. pays no rate, and has no vote. Instead of encouraging industry as you desire, this clause is a premium to sloth; for if the 5l. former neglects his house or land, next year it will be rated under 5l., and he escapes the rate. Will it not be wiser to tax all in the same proportion, and to encourage improvement, by encouraging the 4l. 19s. holder to improve his land and become a voter, rather than promote an opposite system? Neither will it be humane to the tenant; for the landlord, whenever he has the opportunity, will increase the rent of the 4l. 19s. holder, to remunerate himself for the poor-rate he will have to pay; or, what is worse, he will gradually get rid of them, and have persons on his land who will pay a share of the rates. The extent of unions is a point of very great importance. I consider the Government scale quite unmanageable. On 400 miles, or 256,000 acres, you will have, according to the statements I have read to you, 29,085 families, and about 10,000 voters. How can any guardians look after such an extent, and how can such a number of voters come to any intelligible rote, either as to guardians or any other question? I conceive that these must be greatly reduced in size, so as to enable farmers to know their district, and guardians to manage it. It does not follow that workhouses are to be increased in the same proportion. The proportion of payment between landlord and tenant has been the subject of great diversity of opinion. The Commissioners say, the landlord two-thirds, the tenant one-third; the Bill says one-half each, with a graduated scale; the hon. Member for Kilkenny says, the landlord all, the tenant none; the law in England says directly the reverse; the law in Scotland says half-and-half. I conceive the last is the fairest proportion; giving both an equal interest in watching and economising it. The most important point is the law of settlement. If by this should be meant the old English law, confining the movements of the poor, and rendering them liable to be shut out of districts where they were gaining a livelihood, I should submit to any burthen rather than enact such injustice. But I think means may be devised of rightly apportioning pecuniary charge, without in any degree controlling the free right of migration; and the subject is one deserving the most serious consideration. For what can be more unjust than that the inhabitants of a northern district shall maintain, out of their pockets, 1,000 workmen from the south or west, who hare come on a speculation of work, which perhaps may have failed them, or been completed? And, although that work may have been of use to the country at large, yet the poor of the district will have been excluded from the benefit of it, shut out by the low prices of the strangers, whom they are called upon to support. The mode of valuation is not distinctly described. Either valuation must be made exactly, or it must be made speedily. If a fair average were struck in each parish by competent surveyors., which would not be a long operation, the individual farms could be rated upon that basis, according to the relative value ascertained by the tithe valuation. Unless some such mode be adopted, great delay will ensue; and in that case nothing can be so exact as the ordnance survey. There are other details which I could wish to enter into, were not the evening so far advanced, and other opportunities, perhaps, about to occur. I shall give my humble assistance, in every stage, to forward the wise and charitable object contemplated by the Bill; I believe this to be the universal feeling of the House, from which it is not unreasonable to expect success. Difficulties surround every part of the question, but I hope and believe they are such as cap be over come. For my part I shall give every assistance in ray power; and if it shall be my fortune to forward a matured measure that can, on the whole, be considered as wise and humane, I shall consider my vote in its favour as the greatest advantage I can ever derive from the honour of a seat in this House, and the moment of its passing, the happiest I shall ever enjoy within these walls.

Mr. Pryme

would oppose the Bill in every stage, It was brought forward in opposition to the Reports of the Committee. The English Poor-law Bill worked badly, and, in his opinion, the introduction of this Bill into Ireland would be pernicious in its tendency. His chief objection to the Bill was, that all money raised was diverted from one channel to another. If you raise 100l., you take it from the employment of productive labour, and you place it to the relief of the unemployed poor. The people of Ireland merely suffered from want of employment; supply that, and labour would not be superabundant in the market.

Sir Robert Peel

said, he begged to differ from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, as to the reason he had given for objecting to the principle of this measure. It appeared to him, that if the objection the hon. Gentleman had urged were valid with regard to an Irish Poor-law, it would be equally so against any Poor-law whatever, because it was utterly impossible to raise money for such a purpose, without, in some degree, diminishing the fund to be expended in the employment of productive labour. The same objection was, applicable to every case in which money was raised by way of a rate. It was urged that a Poor-law in Ireland would put an end to all private charity—to all voluntary acts of relief—because it took away from the fund which would otherwise be devoted to the employment of labour; but he apprehended that the just object of a Poor-law was not the employment of productive labour, but the establishment of a provision for the poor in cases of extraordinary destitution. It could not, however, reasonably be expected, that, even were employment so general that the most active stimulus to industry existed, there would not always be some cases where destitution, want, and misery would have a strong claim upon the benevolence of charitably-disposed individuals. If, then, such was the case, it was not fair to say, that one class of persons should, from their charitable motives, be driven to the necessity of maintaining the destitute. The real object of a Poor-law was to provide for the destitute, and the moment they carried the principle of a Poor-law beyond that, then it would be that they would be rendering it open to the objection of the hon. Member for Cambridge. Let them go back to earlier times than the date of the 43rd of Queen Elizabeth; let them go to the reigns of Henry 8th, and of Edward 6th, and they would find that the necessity of compulsory relief of the poor and destitute was even then felt. Parties, in the first instance, were asked before the clergy for voluntary contributions, afterwards sent before the bishop, and then: before the justices of the peace, by whom, if they still refused to give them, they were liable to be committed. So that even, at that early period, they did, in fact, avoid the imposition of an unjust and unequal burthen—of a burthen that bore, heavily on any one particular class. They did, at that early period, show by their ultimate application of a compulsory prin- ciple what were the effects of a mere reliance upon voluntary contributions. At last they were obliged to have recourse to the 43rd of Elizabeth, to the principle, in fact, of this Irish Poor-law Bill, for the purpose, first, of insuring some regular and systematic mode of relief in cases of destitution and want; and, secondly, of equalizing the distribution of the burthen with reference to those who were to bear it. It was his intention to vote for the second reading of the Bill, and he did not agree with the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin in urging the expediency of delay. But though he intended to apply himself to the consideration of the details of the measure in Committee, yet it would be un can did on his part if he did not state, that he had considerable doubts as to its results being by any means so favourable as was anticipated. So universally, however, was the feeling that a Poor-law should be tried in Ireland—so general was the demand for some measure upon the subject—that it would be inconsistent with justice not to listen to the appeal; and, as it had become absolutely necessary that the experiment should be made, the sooner that experiment was made the better. He did not think that any doubt as to the consequences of the Bill, afforded a sufficient reason for delay, and those doubts would not be removed by their remaining longer than was necessary on the three should, as it were, of the measure. It was better first to make the experiment, and then to found upon experience of its consequences the basis of any alterations that might seem to be required. The best way, he believed, was to make the experiment at once, and, though he was ready to admit that he had doubts as to the result, yet he would not let them operate with him so far as to lead him to think- them a cause for delaying the trial of the measure. They had had Committees and Commissions who had reported upon the subject, and if they were not now ready to decide upon the principle to be adopted, he feared that the intervening agitation might excite the public mind in a manner which would be highly prejudicial to the fair trial of the experiment; and he much doubted whether delay would tend to throw any greater light upon the question. Under these circumstances, he repeated he would vote for the second reading of the Bill, and he hoped it would be allowed to take precedence of many other measures, and that, under the auspices of the noble Lord, it would be allowed to proceed as quickly as possible, and be discussed in a calm and dispassionate temper, and with the absence of all party spirit. Some hon. Gentlemen said, and with some reason, that the favourable results of the English Bill were presumptive evidence of the satisfactory issue of the present. Now, they had tried the workhouse system in England, and some of the results of the English measure were already under the consideration of the House. He had voted in favour of that Bill, and he always would support it, whether such a course were a popular one or not; but he was bound to say, that the experiment of the English Bill was made under circumstances far more favourable than those attending the introduction of a similar system into Ireland. Up to this year employment had, in England, been general, and the demand for active industry great. But, in connexion with the application of a similar measure to Ireland, there were important considerations to be attended to. He saw all the evils and all the disadvantages of applying a settlement to Ireland in such a manner as to confine the ideas of a people fond of emigration within certain limits. Labour, in fact, was nothing without capital, and to discourage the removal of it to wherever there was the greatest demand for it, would be an effectual obstacle to active industry. On the other hand, it was impossible to tell what the effect of this workhouse system might be, provided out-door relief were had recourse to. There might be certain parts of Ireland where they might give the people a right of settlement with advantage; and if, in the large towns and seaports, where the idle and vagrants were chiefly to be found, a natural connexion with the soil were given to them, the whole burthen of their support might then fall upon the places to which they preferred to belong. But the Bill refused relief except within the workhouse; and the poor of Ireland were about to be deprived of the same relief as that to which the poor of England were entitled; and this was attempted to be justified by the argument, that the English poor were entitled to relief by prescription; that was, however, a nice distinction, inasmuch as it was clear, according to the construction of all law, that the English poor were entitled to relief by law as well as by prescription. But what was to be done when the workhouse was full, if no relief were to be afforded beyond it? That alone was sufficient to show, that they could not act rigidly upon that principle. He was afraid they would find their unions too large. He doubted whether, the principle of relief within the workhouse being once admitted, the system of excluding parties, living at a distance of perhaps fourteen miles from the workhouse, would not prove that the unions would be too cumbrous. There was another principle of the measure to which he wished to advert. It was very discouraging that no one member of a family who was destitute should be admitted within the workhouse without the whole of his family going with him; so that where one member of a family of even ten children chanced to be disabled, that one could not obtain relief without that relief amounting to a provision of board and lodging for the other nine. The necessary consequence of this would be, the workhouse would soon be full, and three-fifths of the inmates would be active and able-bodied persons. Mr. Nicholls had drawn up his report with great ability and intelligence. He was a man of great personal integrity, and the whole tenor of his life disproved the assertion that he had any interest in party politics. He must say, that, to have heard such a man accused of party feeling when repairing to Ireland on so difficult a subject, was to him a matter of surprise and astonishment. Mr. Nicholls said, in his report, that, as they would, according to the system he recommended, be able to compel all to attend to their natural duties, they would then be enabled to take sufficient measures for the suppression of mendicancy. He thought that the principle on which they went was not sufficiently wide to establish these two propositions. It would be difficult to perceive the consequences which this would produce at first, for some few years, in the position of the poor. By establishing a system of poor-laws they would do away with those charitable contributions by which the poor at present existed; and he must say, that the social system in Ireland should be much purified before that was done. If they were once to create an impression that, because a man paid Poor-rates, he was no longer bound to exercise the principles of charity, much evil might ensue; and he also could not help feeling that such a course would be calculated to call into greater activity than it now was, the process of summary ejectment on the part of landlords against their tenants. This measure went to state that the whole of the destitute poor would be provided with board and lodging in the workhouse, and would not that operate to increase, on the part of hard-hearted and oppressive landlords, the disposition to get rid of such of their tenants as might be in poverty, and unable to pay their rents? This was a point well deserving of attention. It would be improper in him to give his assent to the present Bill, without stating what he thought its practical operation would be, but if they asked him what other measure he would propose to remedy the evils and check the abuses complained of, he should find it exceedingly difficult to answer such a question. He was well aware that it was more easy to relax than to bind, and, therefore, he was willing to admit, that if any attempt were to be made, the experiment should be, in the first instance, as rigid as possible. If it were wise to apply a system of Poor-laws to Ireland, where poverty was so widely spread, and so large a portion of the inhabitants were in a state of destitution, he fully concurred that such a step should be taken with extreme caution, and this consideration it was, that would induce him to support the present measure. He was of opinion that the proposed means would be too large; but still, as it would be easier to decrease than to extend them, he was disposed to agree, that the more rigidly they proceeded at first the better. He entertained some difficulty with respect to giving out-door relief; but, balancing his doubts on this head, he would yield to the present proposition, because he was aware that no system could be suggested which would be entirely free from objection. Thinking, that if the experiment of giving Poor-laws to Ireland were to be made at all, it should be tried at once, he should forego his doubts, and support the motion for the second reading of this Bill; and all he would add, in conclusion, was, that he should gladly co-operate in remedying whatever defects might exist in the measure, and rendering it as perfect and as capable of working well as, under the circumstances they could possibly hope to render it.

Lord John Russell

said, at that stage of the Bill, and the late hour of the night, he would not go into the details of the Bill, but would make a few observations in reply to some of the objections urged. He did not regret that these objections had been urged, because he thought it very useful that objections should be stated, and that such a course was likely to be conducive to the adjustment of the different parts of the measure. The more convenient time, however, for expressing his opinions on these points in detail would be, when the Bill went into Committee. He thought the right hon. Baronet had stated with perfect truth, what he was sorry to say had often been lost sight of in discussions on the English Poor-laws, and Poor-laws for Ireland, viz., that a Poor-law was not a general law for providing employment. That had been the practice for some time in England, and it had latterly been fostered to such an extent that recourse was had to the Poor-law to make up the deficiency in wages, and provision made for a deserving man with a large family by means of a compulsory rate, instead of encouraging him to provide for himself and family by his own individual exertions. He thought this was a great mistake as to the intentions of a Poor-law. It had led to great abuses in England, and he should therefore be sorry to see a Poor-law established one of the objects of which was to find employment for labour. He thought the great advantages of a Poor-law were, first to relieve the extremely destitute, which in another state of society might be left to starve; and another was, that it gave a right to the constituted authorities to prevent vagrancy and imposture. It had also a beneficial tendency in another respect, by bringing the landowners and the labourers into more frequent and closer contact, and by connecting them together, thus giving greater social strength to the whole. With that view of a Poor-law, and at the same time taking no exaggerated view of destitution in Ireland, he thought it would be of very great advantage to that country. With regard to what had been stated of Mr. Nicholls, by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny he wished to say a few words. He was hound to say, that the report, of that gentleman was extremely deserving of attention. Mr. Nicholls did not take upon himself to supersede the report of the Commissioners or propose a new plan. It was well known that the question was one of great difficulty. A report was made by the Commissioners last spring, and on considering that report his Majesty's Ministers had serious doubts of the practicability of many of the parts. These doubts only increased when they were referred to Mr. Senior, who was competent, from his experience and ability, to judge of the proposition made in that Report. It therefore did occur that so far as respected the Poor-law, they should not attempt to apply the principle of the English Bill to Ireland. The principle which they therefore proposed to adopt was, not owe which might be suitable in England, but one which was consonant with general reasoning, and which might be applied in any country where a Poor-law was to be established. That being the case, the Government thought it would be better to employ a gentleman well acquainted with the subject. He was accordingly requested by the Government to employ himself on the subject, with a view to inquiry; and on that request Mr. Nicholls undertook the journey to Ireland, and entered on the task with a degree of ability, zeal, and a tention alike beneficial to the public service and to the people of Ireland. With respect to out-door relief, he must say he was opposed to it. He did not wish to begin by sanctioning out-door relief, because he saw it would be dangerous in any country, and more particularly so in a country like Ireland. From a report made by the Mendacity Society, it appeared that the society had great objections to such a plan, on the ground that it Would establish a system similar to that which lately existed in England, when one-half of the wages was paid by the parish, and the other half by the land-holder or tenant. He thought the authority of these two societies, who had experience on the point, ought to have great weight with regard to the size of the unions, which was a subject for consideration in Committee. He might say, however, that the size had been fixed from the experience which the Commissioners had had in England, and from the fact that when the Union was large there was less chance of private jobbing. The right hon. Baronet seemed to apprehend some fear that landowners might be induced to eject their smaller tenants on account of the operation of a Poor-law. Now, so far from thinking that ejectments would be more frequent than at the present time, be thought the contrary would be the effect. At present when tenants are ejected they resort to towns and trust to public charity, but their numbers are eventually greatly diminished by fevers brought on by want and suffering, and they are not much heard of by those who ejected them because they are not burthened with their maintenance. But the case would be very different under a Poor-law such as that proposed. If the landlord ejected a number of persons from his estate they would go to the workhouse, and he would find from the increase of the rates that he gained no advantage by such an expedient; and besides, the fact would become so notorious that he would be obliged to desist from the force of public opinion. He thought too much blame had been cast on Irish landlords. They had great difficulties to contend with—difficulties imposed on them by former generations; but it was his opinion that by a measure such as that before the House not only much of the distress which prevailed in Ireland would be relieved and destitution prevented, but that the landlords in the long run would be greatly benefited. Respecting the question of settlement, he would say, that he did not see how they could adopt it without depriving the labourer of a fair market for his labour. If the law of settlement was agreed to, many persons would be driven from a particular district and forced to subsist by mendicancy, instead of gaining a livelihood in districts where they thought the demand for labour was the greatest. He was much gratified with the general tone of this debate. There had been an absence of party feeling on the subject; and there seemed to be a disposition to consider the details of the Bill with a view to render it as satisfactory as possible. He was encouraged by that feeling to hope that the Bill would be allowed to go into Committee; and he was rather sanguine in expecting that when the experiment was tried it Would be attended with success. He must say that he did not calculate on those extraordinary effects from this measure which some had anticipated; but he trusted that it would have considerable power in accomplishing that which was so very desirable, namely, an improvement in the condition of Ireland.

Mr. Callaghan

was an ex-officio member of the board of the Mendicity Institution at Cork. Nothing worse could be devised than that institution, and if the noble Lord's measure were founded on the same principles, all he could say was, that this experiment would be productive of no good.

He had always been the advocate of Poor-laws for Ireland, but he could not concur in the justice of taxing a landlord whose own tenantry were happy and comfortable, for the support of the tenantry of a neighbour who were in a different state. He did believe that much exagger- ation existed with respect to the real condition of the Irish people. He would not deny that poverty and destitution prevailed in Ireland to a considerable extent but he did believe that it was by no means so great as it had been represented. He thought the poor entitled to relief; but he must say, that the owners of houses in towns should be taxed for the purpose as well as the proprietors of land. He wished to see Poor-laws established in Ireland, but then he was anxious that they should be introduced only on just and good principles.

Bill read a second time.