Sitting of 29 August 1831

MINUTES
Bills. Read a second time. Public Works, Great Britain; Money Payment of Wages. Read a third time; Turnpike Roads (Scotland.)
Petitions presented. By Lord STANLEY, from Maltsters and Brewers at Warrington, against the use of Molasses in Breweries and Distilleries.

CASE OF THE DEACLES.
Colonel Evans Colonel Evans moved the printing of the petition of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, which was laid before the House on Monday last. It was, he conceived, a very important petition, inasmuch as it affected a class of functionaries to whom, in a great measure, the administration of justice throughout the country was intrusted.
Lord Althorpsaid, that when, on a preceding night, the petition was brought forward, he did not object to its being laid on the Table. He did not now object to the printing of it on the ground that it contained any thing disrespectful to the House; but he felt himself called on to do so on this ground—that if this petition were printed, as it contained allegations against the conduct of certain gentlemen, those gentlemen, in their own justification, would most probably come forward with other petitions, and thus the journals of the House would be made the vehicle of a paper war between the parties.
Sir Thomas Baringsaid, that he would offer no observation with respect to printing the petition. With that point the House would deal just as it pleased. But there was one passage in the petition to which he wished to advert. A Magistrate
762
was there accused of having tampered with a man named Barnes, who, it was alleged, was told, that in the event of his giving evidence against Mr. Deacle, he should not himself be prosecuted. With respect to that statement, he had the positive authority of Mr. Long, the Magistrate alluded to, and who was present when the transaction was represented as having occurred, to contradict it in the most positive terms.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that Mr. Deacle had not asserted that Mr. Long had made any such declaration to Barnes, but only that Barnes, when examined at the trial as a witness, declared he had done so. This statement it now appeared was wholly false, and yet the man who made it was one of the witnesses against Mr. Deacle. As the petition had already received extensive circulation, by the same means that the charge was conveyed to the public, he agreed with the noble Lord, that there was no necessity for printing it, to encourage rejoinders which it was likely the other parties interested, would desire to make to the allegations contained in it.
Mr. George Robinsonconcurred in the sentiments of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Sir Thomas Baringhoped the House would give him credit so far, that (after being many years a Magistrate) he would not join in so absurd an act as to suggest or acquiesce in a proposal that a man should not be prosecuted if he would give evidence against another.
Colonel Evans withdrew his motion.

WRIT FOR LIVERPOOL.
Lord Stanleypresented a Petition from the Bankers, merchants, and other Inhabitants of Liverpool, praying, that the Speaker might be directed to issue his writ for the election of a Member to serve for that borough. At present they were half disfranchised, as there was only one sitting Member.
Mr. Ewartsupported the prayer of the petition, by the desire of his constituents, but, circumstanced as he was with respect to Liverpool, he felt, that it did not become him to enter further into the subject.
Mr. Benettsaid, that at the election which had been brought under the notice of the House, it was proved, that bribery had been practised in the most barefaced manner, and that corruption extended over a great number of electors; but there were criminals higher in station than these persons, he meant those who bribed them.

763
He wished very much to get at these persons, but as that was impossible the only way to prevent their practising the same obnoxious conduct, was, to deprive the electors who received bribes of their franchise. Independent of this consideration, however, he did not know how they could entertain a proposition of this nature, seeing that there was an understanding in the House that the writ should not go down until a motion, of which he had given notice, founded on the late election, had been disposed of.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that by thus staying the writ, they were not only punishing the electors of Liverpool, but the whole country, by lessening the number of Representatives, The borough of Liverpool, it should be observed, stood in a very different situation from that in which it would have been placed, if no dissolution of Parliament, and no subsequent election, had occurred. To the proceedings at the late election no objection whatever had been made, and to deprive the second commercial town in the empire of half its Representation, was straining the powers of the House to their uttermost extent. He should support the prayer of the petition most heartily.
Mr. Granville Vernonthought, that proceeding further in this question would tend to little good. They were throwing an augmentation of duty and responsibility on the sitting Member, which it was very difficult and onerous to bear. He hoped the House had not so far committed itself, as to be pledged to inquire into the alleged corruptions of Liverpool, previous to a writ being issued. Even if that were the case he thought, under all the circumstances, they should so far relax as to permit the writ to issue, which would be no impediment in the way of inquiry hereafter. He could by no means admit, that the House was pledged to keep Liverpool half represented, as it now was. The case of East Retford, which he had the honour to represent, should be a warning to Parliament how it entered into those investigations. After all the expense, delay, and public inconvenience incurred in the East Retford proceeding, no voter was disfranchised; but a number of freeholders belonging to the hundred of Bassetlaw obtained the elective franchise; and this infusion of new blood had the effect of rendering the Representation of that borough pure and free from corruption.
764
The same results might be expected in Liverpool after the passing of the Reform Bill. There were now 4,000 freemen, one-third of whom were non-residents. Under the Reform Bill, however, there would be 17,000 resident electors in Liverpool, and it was impossible that such a constituency could be open to bribery. Under these circumstances he saw no good reason for deferring any longer the issue of the writ.
An Hon. Member, in supporting the petition, observed, that they had heard the other evening, from the single member for Liverpool who now sat in that House, how exceedingly inconvenient it was for him to sustain on his own shoulders, unassisted, the whole of the parliamentary business connected with Liverpool.
Mr. Wasonsaid, that he would oppose any proposition to issue a new writ for Liverpool, after the House had already decided, that no writ should issue until the hon. member for Wiltshire had brought his motion forward. It had been proved, that the freemen of Liverpool were, in general, more corrupt than any other place where bribery had been exposed, and he therefore thought they should not go unpunished. The subsequent election to the one complained of, had taken place by the royal prerogative alone at the dissolution, and the House having been no party to it, that could be no bar to further proceedings.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonsaid, that the issuing of the writ for Liverpool had been suspended indefinitely, and it did appear to him, that it was irregular and unprecedented to take cognizance in the present Parliament of acts done by the late one. It was a most serious consideration, to keep so important a place as Liverpool, only half represented. It was punishing the innocent for the guilty. As the House had most important business to transact, and as the Reform Bill ought not to be delayed by discussions of this nature, he hoped the writ would be allowed to issue forthwith.
Sir George Clerksaid, that however important the Reform Question might be, it should, in his opinion, give way to the discussion of cases of particular bribery and corruption, such as this of Liverpool, which was a much more flagrant case than that of Dublin, where few persons comparatively were bribed, and was beyond comparison worse than that of East Retford; corruption was practised on a much larger

765
scale, the greater part of the voters were bribed, and in that less important, lessguilty case, the writ had been suspended until a great addition of electors had been provided. He was happy to hear from the hon. Member, that the remedy had been so successful. He therefore was of opinion, the same course should be followed in the present case, and the writ be stayed; Whether the Reform Bill passed or not, the House would probably think some remedy necessary, and, by the infusion of a new description of voters, to put some stop to the bribery and corruption of the present electors for Liverpool. Under these circumstances, he felt himself called on to pursue the same course he had before taken, and to move "That this debate be adjourned," if the hon. Member persisted in his intention to move for a new writ.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that very great responsibility would rest upon the hon. member for Wiltshire, if, by agitating this question, he should delay the measure of Reform. They had yet a great deal to do. There was the Irish Reform Bill and the Scotch Reform Bill, which, no doubt, would take precedence of the measure which related to Ireland. He was, however, happy to perceive so much anxiety manifested to correct corruption in Scotland. The Scotch Members had not, upon an average, more than 127 constituents each: that did not lead, in the least degree, to their individual advantage. They did not make their parliamentary interest subservient to their personal gain. They had no pensions, no places, no peerages. He had certainly heard of such things out of doors, but such rumours were not deserving attention. He hoped they would not introduce any unnecessary discussions to delay Members from returning to then families.
Mr. Ewartthought Liverpool would be purified by the Reform Bill, and that therefore, it was unnecessary to delay issuing the Writ.
Lord Stanleysaid, those Gentlemen who were so anxious to prevent corruption appeared to him to take a wrong course by desiring to have the writ suspended which allowed all sorts of opportunities for exercising undue influence during the period of delay, and which there was no law to prevent. He could bear witness that, at the last election, there had been none of those scandalous proceedings which
766
had disgraced Liverpool previously: no riots nor disorders had then taken place. If the House acceded to the prayer of the petition, and caused a new writ to be issued, the hon. member for Wiltshire could still bring forward his Motion, and punish those who had been proved to be guilty of bribery and corruption, as well if that place had two Members, as now when it had only one.
Petition to be printed.

SALE OF BEER ACT.
Sir Robert Inglispresented a Petition from certain Clergymen, Magistrates, and others, for the Amendment of the Sale of Beer Act. The hon. Baronet stated, that 25,000 additional licences had been obtained since the passing of the Bill, and that the evils which he had anticipated would flow from it, had, he regretted to say, been fully proved by experience. The petitioners prayed, as some remedy for these evils, that the tax on Licences might be increased, and stricter testimonials of character required; that the houses should be closed earlier, and no beer be consumed on the premises; and that they should be shut altogether on Sundays, during Divine service. He trusted, the prayer of the petition would be attended to. Mr.
Stricklandsaid, the Act which the petitioners required to be amended, had been so short a time in operation, that it was impossible for any persons properly to judge of its effects; and that part of the petition which affirmed the morals of the people had been deteriorated by its means, could not be borne out. He had always felt, as a Magistrate, that the power given to him to license public-houses was a most invidious and disagreeable charge; and he was happy to be in part relieved from it. With regard to the extraordinary number of new licences, which the hon. Baronet seemed to treat as a great evil, he could not so consider it; because many more houses had been opened than would be permanently required, and they would ultimately settle down to the supply required for the public accommodation. At all events, as they sold only beer, they were an improvement upon places where spirituous liquors were drunk to excess.
Mr. Humefully agreed with the hon. member for Yorkshire, that it was absurd to attribute to the Beer Bill effects which could not be properly laid to its charge, from the short period in which it had been

767
in operation. He never could be brought to believe, that the simple sale of beer in houses where spirits were forbidden to be sold, was so destructive to the morals of the poorer classes as had been represented. He knew, that many people had objections to the Beer Act; among others, several very respectable persons among his own constituents, but he had advised them to wait for some further trial, before they petitioned against it.
Petition to be printed.

PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE GAME LAWS.
Mr. O'Connellpresented Petitions from J. Harris and two other persons, who were convicted at Stafford of an offence under the Game-laws, and had been subjected to an imprisonment of eighteen months. The petitioner complained, that Mr. Kean, who was the agent employed to prosecute, was Under-sheriff of this county, which afforded him an opportunity of striking the Jury which was to decide on the case. This was a practice which he reprobated, and which should be corrected; and though he might not impugn the motives of the party, still, he considered it a matter of great importance, to prevent even a suspicion, that the administration of justice was tainted. He had stated these particulars, as a Member of that House was concerned in the case.
Mr. Littletonsaid, he knew very little of the petition or the practice alluded to. He, however, thought, it was not improbable, that the Under-sheriff, conscious of his high character, might have been regardless of the responsibility he had taken upon him in the case. He did not, however, mean to defend the practice. It was not true, that the parties had been imprisoned for eighteen mouths. These men had been met by some person in his employment, and, from what he could learn, it was fortunate for them they had fallen into the hands of so humane a person as Mr. Kean, as they might have been prosecuted under Lord Ellen borough's Act.
Petition to lie on the Table.
Mr. O'Connellpresented a Petition from Joseph Shaw, complaining of the conduct of certain Magistrates for the county of Stafford. It appeared, that the petitioner, who was accused of a breach of the Game-laws before these Magistrates, was, by their order, turned out of the room in which his case was to be heard, and denied the assistance of his Attorney. In this
768
case, the Magistrates were acting judicially, and the petitioner was clearly entitled to have his case heard in the presence of his Attorney. The Game-laws were bad enough in themselves, without the addition of being badly administered. One good effect of the Reform Bill would be, to correct the Magistrates. No poor man could expect justice, when he might be convicted by irresponsible Magistrates.
Petition to lie on the Table.
Mr. O'Connellpresented another Petition, from Mr. Jones, the Attorney who defended Shaw, complaining of the treatment he had experienced from the Magistrates, and for which he brought an action of damages, but the defendant struck a Special Jury, composed of gentlemen of the same rank in life with himself, and with whom he was in the habit of associating. The Jury gave a verdict in his (Jones's) favour, but awarded but 1s. damages. The Judge said, they ought to have given 200 1. at least, and signed a certificate to set aside the verdict. The petitioner prayed the House for a fair administration of justice.
Mr. Littletonsaid, it was a case long gone by. Among the many communications he was constantly in the habit of receiving from his constituents, he did not remember one which complained of the magistracy of the county of Stafford. He had not meant, however, to complain of any want of courtesy on the part of the hon. Member who had presented the petitions.

BUILDING OF CHURCHES(IRELAND).
Mr. O'Connellpresented a Petition from the Inhabitants of the Union of Radheen, in the Queen's County, complaining of the expenses to which they were subjected under the Vestry Act, for building and repairing the church of the parish, at the caprice of a few individuals. The petitioners were chiefly Catholics, and they stated, that the Rector of this parish was an absentee, though he derived an income of 1,500 1. per annum from the parish.
Sir John Newportcomplained of the system pursued in Ireland for rebuilding churches, which gave rise to a number of complete jobs. The laws relating to them should be made to conform to those of England. The churches were often so badly constructed, as not to last more than thirty or forty years. These abuses were resorted to, in order to favour certain indi-

769
viduals. When he considered the powers granted by the Act of George 1st, he thought it was the duty of the Bishops to see, that the churches were kept in repair. The Catholics ought not to be called upon to rebuild churches which had been suffered to decay, from the neglect or bad management of the clergy of the Established Church.
Mr. Humesaid, that a great portion of the disquiet of Ireland arose from the eternal warfare that was carried on upon this subject. Nothing but the point of the bayonet could compel the Irish to pay these arbitrary and oppressive church taxes. He wished to know of Government, how long the law was to remain in its present state?
Mr. Stanleyhad introduced a bill connected with these subjects in the last Session of Parliament. But the hon. and learned member for Kerry then said, that the Amendments proposed by that measure were so small as to be really worth nothing, and that some parts of it were positive insults to the Roman Catholics. He thought, on the contrary, that the Bill would effect considerable improvements in the law, and would prove highly beneficial to the Roman Catholics. But he met with so much opposition from hon. Gentlemen from whom he expected support, that he was unable to carry the measure before the dissolution; and since the meeting of the present Parliament, there had been no time to introduce it.
Mr. Lefroydeprecated the manner in which some Gentlemen were in the habit of referring to the affairs of Ireland. The mode in which the Established Church was spoken of was the real cause of all the existing asperity. The first breach which that House should consent to, of that article in the Act of Union by which the rights of the Established Church in Ireland were declared and guaranteed, would be a leading measure to the dissolution of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the argument of the hon. and learned member for the Irish University, that any alteration of the rights and powers of the Established Church, as settled by the Act of Union, was a dissolution of the Union, would prove, that the Union had been already dissolved. For, since the passing of that Act, three several Statutes had been enacted, altering indeed, but in-
770
creasing the powers of the Protestant Church. By one of those Statutes, Catholics were excluded from voting at vestries, and allowed only to attend them and remonstrate or protest against the decisions of the Protestants. Now, what was the result of this exclusive system? The Vestry of the parish of St. Andrew, in Dublin, voted a salary of 400 1. a year out of the parish funds to one of the curates. But a spirited individual refused to pay his portion of the assessment, and determined to try the question at his own cost. The case was tried first before the Recorder, and afterwards in the Court of King's Bench, where it was decided, that the vote of the Vestry was illegal. But that was not all. The gentleman who defeated the Vestry had to pay his own heavy costs out of his own pocket, and the Vestry threw upon the parish their costs (200 l.) that is, the costs incurred in defending the illegal conduct of the Vestry itself against the parishioners. Nor did they stop there. They had this year voted salaries amounting to 300 l. a year to two additional Curates, notwithstanding the decision obtained against them last year in the Court of King's Bench; and when the Catholic parishioners remonstrated, they told them to make another appeal if they liked. They knew that they were protected by the power, to throw the expenses of the appeal upon the appellants, and the costs of the defence upon the parish at large.
Mr. Cramptonregretted, that the hon. and learned Gentleman should be induced to make hasty or exaggerated statements against the Established Church of Ireland, especially as such statements had a very dangerous tendency in the present state of that country. On that occasion he (Mr. Crampton) was able to correct the statement respecting the Vestry of St. Andrew's. The case was this:—Two Curates had been appointed, and their services were necessary on account of the extent of the parish. But the salary which they received from the Rector was quite inadequate, and therefore, under an old Act of Parliament, the majority of the parishioners had a right to give them additional remuneration.
Mr. O'Connell: The majority of the Protestant parishioners only.
Mr. Crampton: The case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was never brought before the Court of King's Bench, and he (Mr. Crampton) did not hesitate to say,

771
that he thought the Recorder had exceeded his power in the decision which he made against the Vestry.
Mr. James Grattanwas a parishioner of St. Andrew's, and could undertake to correct the statement of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland. He could assure the House, that the statement of the hon. member for Kerry was perfectly accurate, and that there were found upon the parish books of St. Andrew's many votes of the Vestry that were decided to be wholly illegal. He (Mr. Grattan) had resisted an assessment, and having acted under the advice of eminent counsel, he obliged the clergy to abandon the advantages which the Vestry had illegally given them. The dissenters throughout Ireland complained as much as the Catholics of the operation of the Vestry Laws.
Mr. Spring Ricereminded the House, and especially the Irish Members, of the arrangement which had been agreed to, that he should that evening have an opportunity of voting some of the Irish estimates, which were very pressing.
Mr. O'Connell,in moving that the petition be printed, explained, that he just now perceived that the case which he had mentioned respecting the parish of St. Andrew had been (as the Irish Solicitor General stated) decided by the Recorder, and not by the Court of King's Bench. What had caused an erroneous impression upon his mind to that extent was, that the appellant was compelled to obtain a mandamus from the Court of King's Bench, to compel the Vestry to allow him to inspect the parish books. But how did that alter the case, or give it any colour favourable to the Vestry? Of the 200 1. costs with which, as he had said, the parish was saddled, 130 1. were incurred in supporting the illegal and unjust refusal of the Vestry to allow a parishioner to inspect the books.
Petition to be printed.

THE CORONATION.
The Speakersaid, he had received his Majesty's commands to inform the House, that his Majesty had been pleased to order that a gallery should be prepared in the Abbey of Westminster, for the accommodation of the Members of the House of Commons at the ceremony of the Coronation, appointed to take place on the 8th of September. It further appeared to his Majesty that it would be in-
772
convenient for the House to take any part in the proceedings upon that occasion.
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp moved, that a Select Committee be appointed to confer with his Majesty's Surveyor on the subject of the accommodation that it might seem necessary to provide for the Members of that House in going to and returning from the Abbey of Westminster.
Mr. Humehoped, that the Committee would not be led into unnecessary expense. From what had fallen from Members of that and of another House, there was manifestly a strong desire to drive his Majesty's Ministers into expenses for processions and exhibitions. He hoped, that an estimate would be laid on the Table of the House before any expense whatever should be incurred.
Lord Althorpsaid, that an estimate should be laid upon the Table to-morrow, and that the attendance of the Members in Westminster Abbey would not occasion any additional expense.
Committee appointed.

STEAM VESSELS BILL
Mr. Spring Rice Mr. Spring Rice moved the Order of the Day, for the House to resolve itself into a Committee, of Supply.
Mr. Alderman Woodhoped, that Government would have allowed him precedence this day for the second reading of the Steam Vessel Bill, which was a very important one, and which he proposed to refer to a Committee up-stairs. Would the Government allow him to move the second reading of it now?
Mr. Wilkssaid, that such a bill must not be allowed to be read a second time as a matter of course, but that a time ought to be appointed to discuss it.
Mr. Bernalagreed that the Bill was a very important one, but was afraid that he and the worthy Alderman should not agree as to the point wherein the importance of it lay. The worthy Alderman was very much mistaken if he supposed, that such a bill could be allowed to pass sub silentio on the second reading. The worthy Alderman must not deceive himself and others with the supposition that this bill was to go to a Committee up-stairs as a matter of course.
Mr. Irvingconcurred in what had fallen from the hon. member for Rochester, and said, he had reason to believe, that the great body of persons concerned in steamboats were opposed to the Bill.
Question again put, that, the Order of the Day for the Committee on Supply be read.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, he would take that opportunity of replying to the hon. member for Rochester.
Mr. Spring Rice Mr. Spring Rice rose to order. The Steam-vessels Bill was not at present before the House.
Mr. Hodgessaid, that if the worthy Alderman made a speech in favour of the Bill, he should feel it necessary to reply to him.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that he had a right, if he pleased, to move as an amendment on the question, that the Steam-vessels Bill be now read a second time. He did not, however, wish to do anything of the kind; but he should like the Ministers to tell him whether they meant to oppose the Bill or not.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that the worthy Alderman would know that when the discussion came on.

FRANCE AND PORTUGAL.
Mr. George Robinsonwas desirous of asking whether the Government was apprized, as he was, that the French government, not content with receiving compensation for the injuries and insults offered them by the Portuguese government, had availed, or were availing themselves of their position to Lisbon to obtain for France Commercial advantages which would be extremely prejudicial to the commerce of this country.
Lord Althorpreplied, that Government had not received any such information as that which the hon. Member had alluded to.

SUPPLY—IRISH ESTIMATES.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Spring Rice Mr. Spring Rice moved, that a sum not exceeding 5,500 1. be granted to the Royal Society of Dublin, for the year 1831.
Mr. Leadersaid, he was requested to call the attention of the House to the reduction of 1,500 1. which had been made in the grant to this very useful Society. Though a reduction of such magnitude must lead to a reduction of some portion of the establishment, and must lessen its utility, yet the members of it were not so much alarmed at the reduction of the present year as they were apprehensive that it was only the prelude to withholding the grant altogether. He had been for twenty-
774
nine years a member of the Society, and could bear testimony to the admirable manner in which it was conducted.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the Society had made the institution a party institution. The Committee on the Irish Miscellaneous Estimates had recommended that the Society should be opened without a ballot, but the Members had paid no regard to that suggestion. They should have had his money if they would have accepted it, but they blackballed him, and many others, and had, in fact, made the Society rather a party club, than a body whose object was the advancement of science. He was sure that if his hon. friend (Mr. Leader) near him had not entered it early in life, he would never have got into it. He thought it too much for this Society to come to Parliament for money, until it had tried fairly whether it could support itself in Ireland. He fully concurred in the propriety of the reduction which had been made.
Mr. Anthony Lefroythought, that the Society was deserving of every encouragement, and that the grant ought not to have been reduced.
Mr. Spring Ricebelieved, that this was about the first time that an Irish grant had been objected to on the ground that it was too small. He could assure the Committee, that they (the Ministers) would have been very sorry to diminish the grant to any society which fairly and liberally promoted the advancement of learning; but this Society did not. Perhaps the reduction of the vote might be a hint to the Society to adopt the recommendation of the Committee on the Irish Miscellaneous Estimates, and sacrifice party spirit to the promotion of knowledge. The experiment of charging for lectures in this institution was tried, and the following was the result:—The amount paid for tickets to the mineralogical course was only 71. 10 s., for the botanical course but 71. 5s., and for the course of experimental philosophy, which was the most attractive of the whole, the amount received for tickets, though the charge was extremely moderate, was only 2l. 10 s. The charge, in fact, for the attendance on all those courses was very small, and the fact of so little being collected in that way proved, either that the lectures were not very interesting, or that the demand for such things in Dublin was not very great; at all events, the circumstance was one which fully justified the

775
Government in making the reduction which it proposed to make in this grant. It should be recollected, that it was not proposed to withdraw altogether the public grant from this Society. It was proposed to give them 5,500 l., reducing the grant of last year to the extent of 1,500 l. The object was, to revert to the principle upon which the grant had been originally given—namely, that it should to a certain degree be commensurate with, and dependant upon, the amount of local contributions.
Mr. Robert Gordonentirely approved of this reduction, and only wished that it had been carried further. He had privately understood, that there were seven or eight items in those Estimates, the reduction of which had been recommended by the Finance Committee, and which was now intended to be made by his Majesty's Government. He should like to know from his hon. friend what these items were?
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that there were some reductions which had been intended in the Estimates of the present year by the late Government: there were some further reductions which were proposed to be made by the present Government, and all of which had been recommended by the Committee to which his hon. friend had alluded. He should just briefly state what those reductions were. It was proposed to reduce the grant for the charter schools in Ireland to 5,000 l. this year, to reduce it next year to 3,000 l., and in the year after they hoped to be able to abolish it altogether. The principle of the Foundling Hospital had been altogether abandoned. No more children were admitted there. The attention of Government was now directed to the diminution in every possible respect of the existing expenses of that establishment, and it was expected that the expenditure under that head would soon cease. The Richmond Lunatic Asylum was now made a local charge. There were, however, some public expenses still connected with it, but in the course of a year or two they would be done away. With regard to the Marine Society, it would in future be conducted upon the strictest principles of economy, and Government hoped to be able finally to reduce altogether the grant for that establishment. The grant for the Royal Dublin Society was reduced this year by 1,500 l., and it was determined, that the grant to that Society should, in a great
776
degree, depend upon the extent of local contributions. The vote for the police was so prepared, that its amount should be always strictly commensurate with the actual expense of that department. The only remaining public charge was that for the Commissioners of Judicial Inquiry in Ireland, which had ceased altogether, and there was only a half-year's expenditure required for the completion of the public records, and the small sum of 1,000 1. for the completion of some other work connected with that commission, which was in hand. His hon. friend was aware that the grant for the stationery department would cease, and when he came to the Irish office, he should be ready to state, that his right hon. friend (the Secretary for Ireland) had been enabled to carry into effect the most economical views with regard to that branch of the Irish Government in London.
Mr. Humewas sorry to hear from his hon. friend, the member for Kilkenny, any complaint against the reduction made in the grant to the Royal Society of Dublin; it was a mere club, and of the narrowest and most exclusive kind—it was a party club, got up and preserved as a pleasant lounge—he would not say for the heads of the Orange party, but for the great Protestant ascendancy people in Ireland. The facts brought before the Committee were so strong, that the then hon. member for Derry, now the right hon. member for Harwich, was obliged to admit, that there was great difficulty in obtaining admission into that club. There was also an important fact, which he hoped would not escape the attention of the House; namely, that the public paid nine pounds for every one that arose from the individual subscriptions of members. Let it not be supposed, from these remarks, that he should be adverse to the establishment, in Dublin, of a museum on the principle of that which existed in London; on the contrary, he should derive much pleasure from the creation of such an establishment; but he never could lend his sanction to any institution maintained for party purposes. Much had been said, at different times, of the service rendered to the manufactures of Ireland by the encouragement which the Dublin Society afforded. He had frequently seen a good deal about premiums given for straw-hat making and for straw plait, but he confessed he never could make himself acquainted with any

777
other encouragement afforded to Irish manufactures by that body.
Mr. Spring Ricedid not approve of any exclusiveness in any establishment supported at the public expense. In order to warrant an application to Parliament for funds, such institutions should always make it appear, that they preserved something of a national character, and that they could never have so long as they were marked by anything of exclusiveness; however, there was much which, though true of the Dublin Society in times past, could not now be asserted of that body; and though it might be the fact that it resembled a club in some respects, yet in others the Society was a really useful institution, and had done much to advance the interests of science in Ireland, and the diffusion of useful knowledge.
Sir John Bourkeprotested against the exclusiveness of the system upon which the Society was conducted; and he was quite sure, that if it were placed upon a more liberal footing, there would be abundance of subscribers. At present the Society paid 800 1. a-year rent for an immense palace, which was converted into a club conducted on ascendancy principles. An institution of a similar character to the British Museum, he was sure, would meet much encouragement in Dublin.
Mr. Leaderdenied, that the Society was of an exclusive character. He knew that upwards of 700 gentlemen had subscribed each 30 1. to this institution, on an understanding that Government should appropriate an annual sum for the attainment of the objects the Society had in view.
Sir John Newporthoped, that Government would not sanction any further grants to the Dublin Royal Society, until the exclusiveness of its system was abolished, and he trusted what had now passed would go far to attain that object.
Mr. Wysedeeply regretted, that the whole system of education in Ireland, and every institution there established for the diffusion of knowledge, was founded upon sectarian principles, and conducted under the influence of sectarian zeal. He hoped that, in future, national support would not be given to any establishment that was not founded upon broad and liberal principles.
Mr. Henry Grattan, in reply to what had fallen from the hon. member for Mid-
778
dlesex, relative to the encouragement given to Irish manufactures by the Dublin Society, observed, that straw-hat making was of more importance to Ireland, and better deserved encouragement, than perhaps many hon. Gentlemen unacquainted with that country might at first view suppose; it had been brought to considerable excellence, even almost to equal that of Leghorn. As to the Dublin Royal Society, he wished to see the abuses of it abolished, but not the whole establishment. Certainly the subscriptions to the Institution were not so great as in times past, for the obvious reason, that the persons who used to support it had become absentees.
Mr. Sheilobserved, that he should recommend, that the sum voted should be placed at the disposal of the Lord Lieutenant, with power to grant or withhold it according to the conduct of the Managers of the Institution. He was convinced, that if the Society was open to persons of all parties, it would be unnecessary to apply for any public grant.
The next grant of 300 1., to defray the expense of the Royal Irish Academy, was agreed to without observation.
The next item was 700 l. for the Board of Charitable Bequests in Ireland.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that this Board should be less exclusive, and that some Catholics should be allowed to be members of it.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that it was the wish of Government to make it as comprehensive as possible. By the exertions of the Commissioners, upwards of 230,000 1. of charitable bequests had been already recovered for Ireland.
Mr. Goulburnwas convinced the Board had conferred great benefit upon Ireland. The Commissioners had most studiously avoided the least appearance of party spirit, and had been appointed without any reference to their political opinions. He should, therefore, very much regret if any thing was done to impede their exertions.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that by a decision of Lord Manners, when Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Catholic bequests were equally as valid in law in Ireland as Protestant bequests, and it was, therefore, desirable that some Catholics should be members of this Board.
Mr. Humeasked, whether a new Act of Parliament would not be necessary, if new Commissioners were to be appointed?
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that the Board had been constituted by an Act of Parliament, and that it was the impression of the Committee before whom the matter had come a few years ago, that a new Act of Parliament would be necessary for the appointment of additional Commissioners.
Mr. O'Connellsuggested, that the thing might be done by the introduction of fifteen lines into the Administration of Justice bill.
Mr. Spring Ricehoped, that this point would be postponed for future consideration. At all events, he trusted that they would not resort to the Irish mode of legislating in the Irish Parliament, namely, the introduction of clauses into bills with which they had no earthly connexion whatever. On one occasion, in a Salt Act which was passed by the Irish Parliament, a clause was introduced into it to allow the Dean and Chapter of Limerick to dispose of the deanery house in that city.
Mr. Ruthvenbegged to call the attention of Government to the fact, that property in the hands of Corporations, which had been bequeathed for charitable purposes, was often appropriated to other uses than what the owners intended.
Grant agreed to.
The next question was, that 1,500 l. be granted for the Belfast Academical Institution.
Mr. Ruthvenbore testimony to the great merits of this Institution, and stated, that the subscriptions for the support of it had considerably increased in Belfast and its neighbourhood.
Mr. Humesaid, that this was one of the Estimates which had met with the unanimous approval of the Finance Committee, and he would give it his support.
Vote agreed to.
The next question was, that 12,900 l. be granted for the Board of Public Works in Ireland.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that the apparent reduction in this Estimate was 3,400 l.; but the real reduction was that sum minus 1,109 l., which was an old debt that had been recovered against this Board, and which they had been obliged to pay.
Mr. Humehoped that, even if they should not be able to get rid of the office of Lord Lieutenant by next year, that still his Majesty's Government would be enabled to reduce this vote much more by that time.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, by taking away the Lord Lieutenant from Ireland, would be canvassing in the very best way for the repeal of the Union.
Mr. Spring Ricetrusted, that next year, by the carrying into effect views which he hoped the House would adopt on the subject, the expense connected with the public works in Ireland would be greatly diminished.
Mr. Humesaid, that he was opposed to a repeal of the Union, and that was the reason why he was anxious to do away with the office of Lord Lieutenant, which was only popular in Dublin. There was no instance of delegated power being well exercised, and as he wished to give a good Government to Ireland, and to afford the Government here fair play, he was for abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. If he wished for a separation, or for a repeal of the Union, he should be for maintaining that office; but as he did not, and as he was desirous to take away from his hon. friend his only real argument for a repeal of the Union, he was for abolishing the Lord-lieutenancy in that country.
Question agreed to.
On the question "that 30,419 l. be granted to defray the Salaries of the Chief Secretary's and Under Secretary's offices, the attendance of messengers, superannuation allowances," &c.,
Colonel Sibthorprecommended a reduction of the Chief Secretary's salary, to the extent of 1,500 l.
Mr. Spring Ricereplied, that this salary amongst others had been already submitted to a Committee above stairs, the result of whose report was a retrenchment to the amount of 20,000 l., and that Committee had decided, that the salary of the Chief Secretary was no more than an adequate remuneration for the duties imposed by the office, considering the expenditure which was necessarily incurred by the functionary who filled it.
Mr. Goulburnjustified the amount of the salary alluded to, and expressed his apprehension that Ministers had already carried their plans of reduction further than in prudence they ought to have done.
Mr. Humethought, that Ministers deserved general approbation for the principles of sound economy on which they had acted hitherto, and he trusted that

781
they would persevere in the same system.
Mr. O'Connellstated, that the vote for superannuations had occasioned general satisfaction throughout Ireland.
Mr. Lefroywas satisfied, that one of the gentlemen superannuated, viz. Mr. Gregory, the late Irish Under-Secretary, was as efficient a public servant as ever existed. Sir Anthony Hart had also spoken of that gentleman's services in the most complimentary manner, and he was fully persuaded, that a large portion of the respectable inhabitants of Ireland entertained an equally high opinion of his character.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he was indebted to the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down for a knowledge of the influence which had guided that excellent man, the late Chancellor, in the appointment of Irish Magistrates. Those appointments had occasioned much dissatisfaction, but he was now assured that they would never have taken place, had not Sir Anthony Hart been egregiously misled by his prejudiced advisers. Mr. Gregory had always been a vehement political partizan, and as such was utterly unfit for the office which he had so unworthily occupied.
Mr. Goulburndid not deny, that Mr. Gregory might have strong political opinions, but he would never allow, that that gentleman had been, on any occasion, unduly influenced by those opinions in the performance of his official duties. His own testimony might possibly be viewed with some distrust, but he was able to adduce the opinion of the Marquis Wellesley in corroboration of his own, and that estimable nobleman had expressed the strongest sense of the merits of Mr. Gregory, whom he described as having invariably acted with propriety and rectitude.
Mr. O'Connellmaintained, that the Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman himself was a member, had never conducted the administration of Ireland with impartiality. They were impartial only in the sense of the Mayor of Limerick, who contended that it was impartiality which induced him to billet as many soldiers on the Papists and as few on the Protestants as he could in the exercise of his magisterial discretion. Who could deny, that that Government was partial in the most offensive sense of the word, when they had kept in regular
782
pay, with the public money, the most flagitious, truculent, and abominable party press that ever disgraced the literature of any civilized country on the globe? He owned frankly, that he, as well as Mr. Gregory, was a particular partizan; but the difference between their cases was this—he was not in an official station, whereas Mr. Gregory united the characters of placeman and partizan in his own person.
Mr. Spring Ricedeprecated the irrelevant personalities which had been introduced into the discussion.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he was entitled to be exculpated from the charge of bringing forward personalities, as he had only risen to vindicate a dear friend from the aspersions which had been directed against him from other quarters.
Lord Althorpobserved, that no one there was disposed to prevent him from doing so.
Sir Henry Hardingealso deposed to the excellent conduct of Mr. Gregory, so far as he had had an opportunity of judging, and believed that all his successors in office entertained the same sentiments of that gentleman, so far as their own personal experience would enable them to form an opinion.
Colonel Conollyspoke in similar terms, and added, that the Marquis Wellesley, when leaving office, had offered to recommend Mr. Gregory for a baronetcy or a seat in the Privy Council.
Sir John Newportwas convinced, that Mr. Gregory's conduct had been that of a political partizan. No partizan ought to fill the office that gentleman held, and he heartily rejoiced that Mr. Gregory had retired. His opinions on the subject were the opinions of a majority of the people of Ireland.
Sir George Murraywas convinced of the necessity of having impartial persons in the public departments of Government in Ireland. He had had opportunities of seeing and knowing Mr. Gregory's conduct, and believed him to be a most honourable and impartial man. He knew that Lord Anglesey entertained a similar opinion of Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Lambertknew, that Mr. Gregory was a partial man. He had known an instance of a recommendation sent to Mr. Gregory by certain Magistrates, to dismiss a policeman for committing a gross outrage, which was neglected. The Magis-

783
trates of Wexford then held a public meeting, and again recommended the dismissal; but the man, whose name was Lock, was still in the police. The man on whom the policeman committed the outrage was a Catholic, and the policeman was an Orangeman. Knowing this circumstance, he could not allow the panegyric on Mr. Gregory to pass uncontradicted.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, the time was come, when the House was pledged to go into the motion of the hon. member for Aldborough (Mr. Sadler).
Vote agreed to. The House resumed.

POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
Mr. Sadler Mr. Sadler rose and said, that having at length obtained, with the concurrence of his Majesty's Ministers, an opportunity for which he had long waited, of submitting to the determination of that House, a Resolution in favour of the introduction of a legal provision for the Poor of Ireland; he intreated the indulgent consideration of the House, while he attempted to discharge the important duty he had undertaken, a task at all times sufficiently arduous, but which he should then have to perform under circumstances of increased difficulty. An hon. Member of that House, of great knowledge and experience in Irish affairs, who had encouraged him greatly in his present attempt, had assisted him with his valuable information, in reference to it, and who, on that account, would have seconded his endeavours, expired yesterday, lost to this House and to his country, where his life was one unvaried act of benevolence—he meant the hon. member for Louth; a circumstance sufficiently discouraging, which, joined to others of a nature affecting himself, rendered it necessary to solicit the utmost indulgence of the House. But he could assure the House, that had he been more favourably circumstanced, no one within its walls could feel less conscious of his ability to do justice to so important a subject than himself; none who would have more sincerely rejoiced to have seen it in other and abler hands, especially in those of his Majesty's Ministers, to whom it seemed more properly and naturally to belong; but having but too clearly perceived, as well from the tenor of the observations they had let fall from time to time, when the subject of the distresses of Ireland had been brought under the con-
784
sideration of the House, as from the nature of the measures which they were bringing forward in relation to that country, that nothing was further from their contemplation than such a course, he could no longer hesitate. He would again undertake the task, which he had more than once attempted in preceding Parliaments, and he did so on that occasion with increased, he might say, confident hopes of success: a confidence not placed in the slightest degree upon himself, but resting on the nature of the cause he had ventured to advocate, and in the rapid advancement it had made, and continued to make, in that House, and in every part of the empire; witness (said the hon. Member) the numerous petitions which have been already presented, which spoke with an unanimity on that important subject, which had rarely been expressed on any other. He, therefore, proceeded to submit to the determination of the House this important question, without wasting its time with apologies of a personal nature. "It can be of little moment (said the hon. Member), who commences the contest in a cause which I am persuaded will call forth the most powerful champions; but even if these should fail to appear, it is the cause of justice and humanity, and it will triumph, however feebly it may be advocated, or powerfully, and for the moment, successfully, opposed. But, Sir, I will anticipate no defections, nor any failure. There presents itself at the very outset of this important question, one circumstance of a cheering nature, and which I would fain regard as the omen of a happy result. Different from those momentous topics which have lately engaged public attention, this, not less important than any of them, stands pre-eminently clear from all party or personal views and feelings whatsoever. In the discussion on this subject we advance to neutral, or, as I ought rather to say, friendly ground: and as on the one hand we are divided by no political considerations, so on the other we are united by one common motive, that of the general good of the community referred to. We enter, as it were, some temple of peace and concord, having deposited the weapons of our political hostility at its entrance, and there 'on charitable deeds intent,' we proceed to consider, how we may best relieve an afflicted and longsuffering people, whose miseries every just and generous feeling calls upon us to

785
mitigate and redress. Our aims, therefore, are identical, though we may somewhat vary as to the best means of their accomplishment, and I am anxious to express what I am sure is felt by me, regarding those who, I fear, may oppose on this occasion, what I firmly believe to be the only effectual means of affording permanent relief to the poor of Ireland, namely, that their motives are as pure, and their principles as humane, as my own. And if, in the course of my argument on a subject of so exciting a nature, the matter of which I have indeed anxiously considered—the manner of presenting it little, if at all—I should express myself somewhat too strongly, I trust that I shall not be suspected of meaning anything personal to the feelings of any one. But on entering upon this important argument, I confess that I feel much embarrassed as to the best mode of conducting it. The subject is in itself of so momentous a nature, involving as it does, principles of so high and sacred a character, and requiring as proofs and illustrations the production of facts and statements the most varied and important, that its proper discussion seems to demand 'ample room and verge enough.' But to pursue this course would occupy, I fear, at an inconvenient length the time of the House, and exhaust instead of engaging its attention. The opposite one would however, indicate an indifference to the cause I have undertaken, or an indolence in the support of it, which I am sure would still more offend against a sense of propriety. I will endeavour, at least, to avoid both extremes, and if I fall into either, I must still hope for a lenient construction of an unintentional offence. But, whatever I may curtail, or whatever I may omit in this argument, God forbid, that in arguing it I should ever cease to place in the order which it claims—namely, as the first and incomparably the most important branch of it—the right of the poor to this provision. I mean not their legal right, touching which, there is happily no dispute in this country—that being as indisputable, as Hale and Paley have remarked, as the right of the rich to their possessions; what I mean is, that right founded upon the laws of nature and of God. To substantiate this conclusive point, I shall not again quote the Jurists of this or other countries, of ancient or of modern times, nor enter into the distinction which some
786
of them have drawn between a perfect and imperfect obligation; the latter of which, in reference to this subject, being, as Burke argues, still more imperative than the former; much less shall I offer any abstract reasonings of my own upon the occasion. I shall content myself with presenting the general conclusion of the highest authorities, in the language of Locke, who, in asserting this right in its most enlarged and peremptory application, declares it to be 'a fundamental law of nature.' Even compared with the rights of property, upon which he is speaking, he declares it to be 'the pressing and preferable right,' and asserts the injustice of withstanding it in the most emphatic terms, exhibiting throughout his powerful and irresistible argument, that sacred union which is ever found to exist between the lights of unclouded reason, and the warmth of genuine benevolence. I will not weary the House by further pursuing an argumentum ad verecundiam on this subject: I shall content myself with challenging any who may be disposed to dispute with Locke, to show me one authority of equal note, either in ancient or modern times, that does not concur with him in this important point. And, Sir, this right of nature is also as strongly and unanimously held to be strengthened, instead of abrogated, and enforced by the institutions of civilization, to say nothing, on this occasion, of those of religion, which, I need not observe, are, if possible, still more explicit in relation to it. Here again I will not multiply authorities. Can any one have forgotten what Hale says on this subject, or Blackstone, who declares it to be 'dictated by the very principles of society?' Or, all authorities apart, is there any one, whose unassisted reason and common sense, to say nothing of humanity, would not instantly conduct to the same conclusion? Could the appropriation of property by the few, to the utter rejection of the natural claims of the many, and those laws which rigidly guard such an arrangement, be reconciled on any other principle—to the principles of justice or common sense—than the reservation of this right, small as may be its amount? What would such establish a system of laws, and call it that of civilization, under which a man would be doomed to severe punishment, by being compelled by their neglect to the necessity of breaking them, or

787
left to perish if he persevered in a dutiful obedience to them! Why, Sir, such reasoners would set the first law of civilization, that of property, and the first law of nature, that of self-preservation, in open and irreconcileable hostility. If then, this right of the poor to relief is equally founded on the laws of nature and of civilization, in what sort of attitude does wealth place itself, where it is denied and upheld? The appeal from right to might is as unsafe as it is insulting, and will at length utterly fail those who are selfish and weak enough to rely upon it. Lord Hale convicts such of folly as well as injustice. Where there are many unrelieved poor, he pronounces that the rich cannot long, nor safely, continue such. But, Sir, it is surely unnecessary to enter at large upon the reasons on which a provision for the poor is established, as equally dictated by the principles of justice, humanity, and sound policy. They have prevailed in every age of the world, and in every country of it, as far as the utmost boundaries of civilization, and even beyond them. I shall not, on this occasion, again trouble the House with either the particulars or proofs of this important branch of the argument, which brings the practical experience of mankind, in all ages and nations, in proof of their principles. I shall merely mention the fact as universal. Thus, in the free states of antiquity, especially in those of Greece—in Imperial Rome, as well as in the dominion of her unhappy rival, there was this provision for the poor. In the nations of modern Europe, and especially in those whom certain writers have pronounced as destitute of such a provision, such an institution, more or less perfect in its principle and operation, is invariably found. In the New World also, which has been pronounced with equal ignorance and still greater confidence, as free from such a burthen, a most ample and efficient provision for the poor of every kindred, country, and complexion, is established, and has been in operation from the first era of its colonization, and even before it; for we have it on the authority of ancient and authentic writers, that the civilized states (such they may be called) of America, such as Mexico and Peru, had made the most ample provision for their poor. But at the present moment, wherever Christianity prevails, this provision has constantly accompanied it; and beyond its pale, in the vast
788
and populous countries where Mahomedanism is established, there also exists a legal charitable fund, ample and unfailing in conformity with the laws of their prophet on this important subject. Even in countries, properly called Pagan, where the slightest degree of civilization exists, there also the care of the poor forms a part of their national institutions; especially in China, the most extensive and populous empire upon earth, where, on the authority of its code, translated by an hon. Member now in the House, an imperfect, indeed, but perhaps a more comprehensive system of national relief exists, than perhaps is to be found in any other country. Let us now, on the contrary, ask, which are those nations, and what that state of society to which the impugners of the principle of a legal relief for the poor, can alone appeal in behalf of their views upon the subject? Why to nations or tribes wholly uncivilized—to a condition of human nature thoroughly savage, only just raised above that of the brutes that perish, if not indeed below them in this respect. There, indeed, they make no provision for the indigent, but desert helpless infancy, or lingering disease, and immolate decrepit and impotent age. And it just strikes me, that a most powerful advocate for a provision for the Irish poor, Dr. Woodward, exemplifies the condition of the distressed part of them by this very illustration; and, speaking of the cruel neglect to which they are exposed, says, 'It would be a still higher degree of economy, and even mercy, to adopt the refined Indian policy, of putting an immediate end to them.' But to return: if we trace the progress of society from that condition which it is humiliating for civilized man to contemplate, to its highest state of prosperity and happiness, we shall see, that a growing care for the distressed and indigent, marks every step of this auspicious career, till a permanent provision for the poor becomes the most sacred and permanent part of the institutions of the greatest and most polished states. So true is the observation of one of the profoundest writers in this or any other country, Dr. Johnson, 'a decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization.' Reasoners, however, of an opposite character are to be found, who, disregarding equally the principles and example of mankind in every civilized country, and in all ages of the world, arguing on certain abstract and

789
theoretical principles, would reverse that deduction, and, as Burke exclaims—'subtilize us into savages.' Hitherto, Sir, I have spoken of a legal provision for the relief of the poor, as common to all civilized countries; there is, however, one solitary exception, and that exception, to the disgrace of reason, humanity, and religion, exists in, naturally, the richest part of the richest empire in the world; I mean, of course, unhappy Ireland, to the destitute condition of which, in this respect, I solemnly call the attention of this House. If the provision in question be the undoubted right of the poor (and let those who gainsay this, now advance their arguments to the contrary), why, I ask, is Ireland, in this most important respect, to be placed as it were without the pale of civilization? Why are its poor to be outlawed from the common rights and privileges of British subjects? Sir, no man who has the least knowledge of that part of the United Kingdom can, I think, refrain from acknowledging, that if any distinction in that respect ought to be tolerated in the same empire, Ireland is that division of it which should, on every possible consideration, possess such an institution, even, were the others unhappily destitute of it. Nor can I divine any reasons why Ireland should exhibit this melancholy exception to England, and the rest of the civilized world, which, when examined, do not rise into arguments of the most forcible kind to the very contrary. The only objections which occur to me, as being possible to advance against establishing such a provision in Ireland are, that it is unnecessary, that it is impracticable, that it would be impolitic, or, finally, that other means may be adopted with equal or better prospect of accomplishing the same end; I will, with leave of the House, briefly attend to these several objections, when I think it will be found, that each of them, when duly considered, will rise into an additional argument in favour of a contrary conclusion. I must, however, protest in the first place, against such a mode of determining respecting the right in question, by which an interested party, wealth, constitutes itself the sole judge concerning the just claims of poverty, which has hitherto appealed, but appealed in vain, against its unrighteous decision to the laws of nature and of God! But, waiving for the present any further allusion to the abstract right of the
790
poor of Ireland, to that provision which is established in all other countries, let us come at once to the necessity which exists for establishing a legal provision in their behalf. I mean the necessity, founded upon their deep, continued, and unrelieved distresses. And, on this most important branch of the argument, happily, or, the nature of the inquiry duly considered, I ought rather to say, unhappily, there is no necessity for me to fatigue the House with any lengthened proof. There is not a man within these walls—can there be one in the country?—ignorant upon this important subject, the distress of the poor of Ireland. I mean not distress of a slight and transient nature, but that which is at once severe and permanent; so continued as to be familiarised, indeed, to the experience, but too severe to be reconciled to the patient endurance of the people. A state which, amidst all the changes and fluctuations which have agitated the country, has remained the sole condition of the poor, which has thus exhibited a settled and melancholy uniformity; and which, while unmitigated by any national efforts, has been of too stubborn a character to yield to those temporary expedients which mistaken benevolence, or still oftener ill-disguised selfishness, has resorted to for its temporary mitigation, and which even the bounties of nature, fertile soil and fruitful seasons, have failed to remove. In other communities, fluctuating labour, varying products, and changing circumstances, may occasion temporary sufferings, which are partially felt, and alternately transferred to different industrious classes, so that each which suffers in its turn, leans upon the rest for assistance; or, in some season of general difficulty, the whole are partly supported by the accumulated wealth of the community, by means of its legal institutions, till, thus protected, industry revives, and the general prosperity is again restored; but in Ireland, which is the prosperous pursuit, that can yield its ready assistance to the rest—what the provision which is made for seasons of general depression? There, every spring of industry is at once depressed: the shuttle and the plough are alike unprofitable to the wretched artisan and impoverished labourer. The people are indeed anxious to labour, but they are condemned to involuntary idleness, or remunerated for their work so inadequately as still to consign them to wretchedness,

791
Tens of thousands, indeed, annually traverse the whole breadth of both islands, in search of a few weeks' employment, pouring upon these shores at the accustomed season, that multitude of wanderers, which, like a flight of migratory fowl, indicate the desolation which they leave behind. Tens of thousands leave their ancient homes for ever, and rend those ties for ever, which are perhaps more closely interwoven with the feelings and affections of the Irish, than in those of any other people upon earth. Still the overflowing misery is unabated, and under the present system would remain so, were the country half depopulated. The marks and badges of poverty remain just the same in Ireland as they were centuries ago, when Spencer, and after him Petty, Swift, and a whole host of political writers, described the miserable clothing, the wretched habitations, sties, as such writers have constantly denominated them, in which an Englishman would scruple to house for a single night his pampered brute—food, in quality and quantity inadequate to the preservation of health, being then as now, principally vegetable, and of an inferior kind than even to that consumed at present; a state, in short, always pushed to the utmost extremity of endurance, and to which the common misfortunes incident to humanity, such as the failure of a single crop, the loss of cattle, the illness of a family, the death of a parent, bring irretrievable ruin, when the wretched sufferers have to swell that general mass of mendicity, which is constantly inundating Ireland with misery and pollution. But if the evils to which poverty is subject every where, are thus fearfully increased in Ireland, there are others peculiar to that country, which still heighten the general misery. The constant and vast confiscations in that country, which has been too often parcelled out in immense portions, among the selfish instruments of power, have had the effect of transferring much of the property of Ireland to absentees, the number of whom has been also increased by a variety of other causes. These, as Coke argues, have broken the legal condition on which such property was bestowed; they have, at all events, violated the moral duties which its possession imposed. Evils of the most frightful nature, and of the greatest magnitude, especially bearing upon the poorer classes, have resulted from this
792
cause. It has given rise to that race of Irish oppressors (for such, with some honourable exceptions, they may be regarded)—the middlemen. It has, on the one hand, mainly occasioned the exaction of those exorbitant rents, to which the wretched peasantry of Ireland have been long subject, and, on the other, it has deprived them of that labour by which alone those rents could, in many instances, be perfectly discharged. It has been the means of constantly exhibiting the horrible spectacle of a people starving in a land of plenty, and a country exporting its produce in the very moment of famine. It muzzles the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn, which it goads on by privation and insult, to desperation. Above all, it sets the example, and is itself the principal instrument in those sudden and extensive clearances, which if perpetrated in this country, where the poverty so created would have to be sustained, would not be very popular; but in Ireland, where there is no such provision, amount to the height of cruelty. The want of a law in favour of the oppressed there, amounts to a direct encouragement to and premium upon such a course, instead of repressing it, and thus shares the crime of such proceedings. It is idle and false to assert, that these drivings are the necessary consequence of surplus numbers, as some ignorantly allege; on the contrary, the Irish—wretched, and to the full as superabundant—were proportionably full, as when the population did not exceed a fourth of its present amount. The growing numbers of the inhabitants brought successively into profitable cultivation the lands of Ireland, and having done so, were then, and always have been, cleared; so will those in turn be, who are at this moment permitted to settle awhile on the sides of mountains, or on the extremities of bogs; when they have reclaimed these, they will be again driven—when again a grain of surplus produce, as it is called, will be weighed against what is deemed a surplus human being, and, some heartless absentee holding the balance, it is easy to see which way the scale will preponderate. The hand will not tremble with any agitations of the heart, while the fate of thousands are thus determined. These proceedings, however, are one great means of increasing the amount, and aggravating the intensity of the sufferings of Ireland. They form a constant and principal source of that

793
mendicity which overspreads the country districts, and throngs the towns of that country, and which drives to the market of labour in this thousands of competitors, who lessen the demand, and consequently lower the value of labour here, so as in many instances to renew the distress from which they fled. This, then, is one of those peculiar causes of the extreme poverty of Ireland, to which the law itself is accessory, by withholding that relief, which would mitigate, and in many cases prevent, the evil. But, it will be remarked, that I have hitherto adverted solely to that state of distress and suffering which is common to the poor of Ireland; but, Sir, this gloomy picture must be yet darkened, in order to convey a true idea of their real condition. Placed always on the verge of extreme indigence, the slightest reverse plunges them at once into the gulph. Reduce their food in quality they cannot, nor can they diminish its quantity without the most appalling consequences. When, therefore, they encounter those fluctuations in seasons, and failure in produce, which it is the common fate of all countries to sustain, the effect is appalling. Then recur those dreadful visitations which at short intervals have constantly afflicted Ireland, when habitual privation at once increases to famine, and the incipient fever, which the want and despondency of the people constantly produce, rises into pestilence, completing the catalogue of their sufferings, and filling their cup of misery to the very brim. I will not particularize how frequently these dreadful calamities have, in late times, returned upon that unhappy people; nor calculate the devastations they have occasioned. On one of the many pestilences which visited the country during the last century, and which, like all the rest, succeeded to a scarcity, amounting in many districts to a famine, the mortality was enormous: it is stated by Rutty to have amounted to one-fifth of the whole population. What a scene of misery was then presented! One of the most dreadful of the plagues of Egypt repeated in unhappy Ireland. The Destroying Angel then smote an unhappy people, and left a corpse in every cottage! The last fever, that of 1817 (for the late mortality is not yet made known to us), was by no means the most severe, and yet Drs. Baker and Cheyne state, that at least 1,400,000 were afflicted by the pestilence, of whom between 60,000 and, 70,000
794
expired, exclusively of those who had already sunk under that state of want and dejection which then, as in every other instance, preceded that frightful calamity, and indeed produced it. Then was it that multitudes of the poor wretches found themselves destitute in their utmost need of all relief whatever, even mendicancy failed them—they carried infection with them, and were no longer received; many of them cleared and driven from their own native homes, were repulsed when they sought to take refuge in the towns, and had not where to lay their head; some of them, indeed, crept into fever huts, which were suddenly erected on the sides of roads, and in open spaces, where the diseased, the dying, and the dead were crowded together, exhibiting a spectacle of human misery rarely witnessed in any country of the world. Where was that national charity which should have succoured the people at that awful moment, which, in England, would have been a very present help in time of trouble; would have stood between the living and the dead, and the plague had been staid, which spread far and wide, and desolated the country! It was wanting. The distant sympathies of empire were indeed awoke, at least all but those of the absentees, but their relief came too late, the wretched victims had finally escaped from human suffering. Nor can the apologists for the continuance of such a state of things make the miserable excuse that these visitations are unexpected. The experience of centuries is full upon this awful subject. They know that they have constantly occurred, and they are as sure that they will return. Still they oppose themselves as vehemently against a provision which it would be the first business, under similar circumstances, of every civilized state in the world to establish. But I need not draw the attention of the House to a fact to which the deepest consideration, and the warmest sympathies of the country at large are, at this moment, principally directed, namely, the certainty and severity of these periodical seasons of distress, under one of which Ireland is at present groaning. It is not on these that I ground my argument in favour of a legislative provision for the poor of Ireland; these, it might be contended, could be otherwise alleviated. On the contrary, it is that constant wretchedness, which exists among them at all

795
times, and which occasions these scenes of peculiar suffering, which, I contend, demands that provision. These are but occasional heavings of that misery which has constantly afflicted Ireland. The swellings of that dark abyss of suffering, which never abates, over which a spirit of suffering and despair is perpetually brooding and rousing the troublous element to renewed storms and agitations. But, Sir, the House may think I am dealing with this important subject by figures of speech; I will therefore turn to another description of figures, namely, figures of arithmetic, and from them I will demonstrate, beyond the possibility of doubt or contradiction, the accuracy of the dark picture I have drawn of the miserable condition of the poor of Ireland permanently considered—facts, I think, which, through the understanding, will make a deeper impression upon the heart than the most pathetic appeal to the imagination, by whomsoever made, could possibly produce. I shall not, then, fatigue the attention of the House, by pursuing a course which I might well take, and with much effect, namely, verifying my general description by appealing to the unanimous declarations of the most eminent political writers of that country; or by quoting the most intelligent witnesses which have appeared before the various Committees of both Houses, appointed to examine and report on the distressed condition of Ireland; or by referring to those numerous and able medical reports, which have traced to that condition those peculiar and fatal diseases, from which it is never wholly free; but I shall proceed to show, by the incontrovertible evidence of statistical facts, the terrible consequences of the unrelieved distress of Ireland. For this purpose I shall take the census of Ireland, and compare the rate of mortality which it exhibits, compared with that of England and Wales. In the latter, I find, that in the total number of the inhabitants, whose ages were ascertained in the census of 1821, there were under the age of forty years, 8,060,004 persons; of the age of forty, and upwards, 2,469,667. In Ireland, the number under forty were 5,593,855—what then was the number which ought to have been found above that age, had the condition of the people corresponded with that of England? 1,714,014. But, Sir, there were only 1,199,375 remaining in existence; nearly one-half that amount,
796
therefore, have been swept away by the cause to which I have been referring—unrelieved distress; or, to use the emphatic phraseology of Irish political economists, cleared! Nor, Sir, does this comparison fully exhibit the existing difference. Much of the population of England is concentrated into towns, where, from other causes than distress, an undue proportion of mortality prevails. Let us, therefore, for the purpose of more accurate comparison, ascertain the same proportions in Wales, where the town-population is not relatively so numerous, and in Connaught; both mountainous districts, both principally engaged in the healthiest of all industrious pursuits, agriculture, but the latter the most thinly peopled part of Ireland, and therefore always the scene of the deepest distress. We shall then see more clearly the fatal consequences resulting from the existing state of things in the latter country. There were in the disseminated population of Wales, in 1821, 530,770 inhabitants under forty years of age, and 169,440 above that age. In Connaught there were, at the same period, 927,393 under forty; what number ought to have been found above that age, had the physical condition of the Irish been equal to that of the Welsh?—296,050. There were above sixty per cent short of that number, namely, only 181,644. As compared with Wales, then, for every surviving million in Connaught above forty, 629,836 have been swept off by untimely death; to say nothing of the havoc which disease consequent upon destitution has made in the earlier periods of life. Between six and seven, then, to every ten thus untimely perish! Merciful God, can this be so? It is. What is the havoc of pestilence and war, compared with these, the victims of unrelieved poverty. And before this constant and silent devastation has done its final work, what suffering and sorrow does not this state of things imply! Few and evil are the days of the human pilgrimage was the touching exclamation of an ancient patriarch; but beyond the lot of mortality, to these poor Irish those few days are thus diminished, and their evils thus embittered. But I am perhaps furnishing by these statements, appalling as they are, an argument which, though it will not be ostensibly put forth, will probably be secretly held by not a few, in favour of the present system, namely, that it is the means, no

797
matter how, of thinning the population; to the excess, or, to use their own favourite phrase, to the superabundance of which all the evils of society are attributable. On this subject I will only here shortly observe, that such deceive themselves. It is a fact long ago ascertained, that to diminish the strength, and to shorten the life of human beings to a considerable degree, is not to diminish human prolific-ness, but the reverse—a principle which the most accurate observers of nature have long admitted, and which Bacon extends to the principle of reproduction even in the vegetable kingdom: and hence it is held as a wise and irreversible law of nature, extending throughout all organized life, that the earlier in any general average existence is threatened with extinction, the more are the chances of perpetuating it multiplied. Such, beyond all controversy, has been the fact regarding Ireland, which, without the intervention of any miracle, has experienced in this respect the fate of another ancient and persecuted people, who, the more they were afflicted the more they multiplied and grew. I throw out this hint for the consideration of those who deem it desirable to thin the population by whatever means; such may connive at the perpetration of a perpetual Spartan cryptia on the poor Irish helots, but it may be as well for them to know that their amiable efforts will all be unavailing. Providence does not see fit to second their patriotic designs of exterminating what they call the redundant population; it confounds and blasts them. I do not throw out these ideas at random, nor am I fighting with shadows in combating this cruel view of the question. For instance, in conversing some time ago with an hon. Member of this House regarding the Ministerial measure of relief—the shipping off a part of our population to the Canadas, I referred him to the published statements of an officer, regarding the appalling mortality and sufferings to which the Irish emigrants were exposed in that country, to which I may possibly again advert, when he rejoined, 'Well, Sir, to be candid, I neither deny nor doubt the truth of what you say—but the fact is, we have a redundant population, and we get rid of them—so far our end is answered.' To such reasoning as this, as applied to the subject in hand, I reply, that you do not thus get rid of them.
798
The guilt of such attempts is perfectly gratuitous; and the history of that country, as well as the principles of science, prove that the cruelty is equalled by its folly. But to return more directly to the subject. The prevalent sickness and premature mortality to which I have adverted, as produced by the destitution to which so many of the inhabitants of that country are unhappily abandoned, are not the most melancholy of the consequences resulting from that dreadful cause. The dyspeptic complaints with which the lower orders of the Irish are almost universally afflicted at an early age, and which, as a celebrated medical authority has pronounced, are, generally speaking, less consistent with longevity than even organic affections, are not what I allude to; the low and watery diet of the Irish has, on the authority of one of the ablest physicians of that country, overspread it with that dreadful, not to say loathsome, disease, struma; and, above all, has multiplied to the most afflicting degree the most pitiable and degrading condition to which humanity is subject—idiocy and insanity in their worst and most incurable forms. I am aware that those who have inquired much how to benefit Ireland, with the least possible expense, have said much about the necessity of multiplying the asylums for these the most wretched of human beings, and for such as are wholly incurable. Happier, I think, would have been the attempt had they endeavoured to establish that provision which would have saved these wrecks of humanity from their dreadful fate, which would have assisted them while the lamp of reason yet shone unclouded, and would have revealed to their eager gratitude at once the precious boon and the benefactor—a paternal and munificent country. Nor can I refrain from adverting to the moral effect of this neglect of the suffering poor of Ireland. Commencing with the year 1805, the first year in which I find the committals throughout Ireland reported, it appears that since that period those committals have been multiplied seven or eight fold. Some part of this increase may be attributed to the diminished difficulty of tracing offences to their perpetrators; but still, on any just comparison, offences are awfully numerous, especially in a country where, generally speaking, the comparative absence of property diminishes the temptation to a possibility of committing one

799
of the commonest crimes—plundering. But upon this point I will lay no stress; I believe the Irish to be naturally a moral and a gratefully obedient people; but an authority who had as much knowledge and experience on this subject as any man that ever lived, Sir Matthew Hale, argues, in his admirable little work in favour of an ample provision for the poor, that unrelieved poverty is the purveyor for the gallows; and if the instances of criminal offences be numerous in Ireland, the Government of the country, in withholding the right for which I contend, more than shares the guilt. Lastly, Sir, the political consequences of thus habitually neglecting the distresses of the people, has been manifested in the history of the country for a succession of ages. I need not give a catalogue of the barbarous appellations by which Ireland has been successively disturbed and afflicted. They have all sprung immediately, as a late right hon. Secretary of that country asserted, from those local oppressions which have tormented and desolated Ireland, and to which Government itself has been accessory, by affording no relief to the distresses thus constantly occasioned. 'Distresses,' says Lord Bacon, 'are so many votes for troubles;' and, need I say, how vast are the number of the suffrages in that unhappy country, whatever be the ostensible occasion which solicits them? A still more experienced observer on such matters, Lord Hale, asserts, that 'poverty makes men tumultuous and unquiet—where,' says he, 'there are many very poor, the rich cannot long and safely continue such; necessity makes men either stupid or desperate. 'He, therefore, declares that a due care for the relief of the poor, among its other recommendations which he enumerates, is 'an act of great civil prudence and political wisdom.'—That act has, however, never been performed. Hence the sufferings of the people of Ireland have kept up that state of moral and political excitement and irritation, so fatal to the sanity of the body politic; which, when those sufferings have been increased, have risen into phrenzy, when it has taken the strength of the empire to bind down the wretched victim of neglect and oppression. But I will pursue these melancholy topics no further: nor need I recapitulate what I have already advanced. The distress of the poor of that country, heightened by circumstances peculiar to their state, con-
800
stantly great, and often excessive, demanding at all times legislative relief, and especially at the present moment, and yet wholly neglected, except by those occasional assistances, which, both in their nature and extent, mock the suffering which they can never alleviate;—I say this dreadful picture is impressed too fully upon this House and upon the people of England to demand any effort at description on my part, which, if made by infinitely more powerful advocates than myself, would still fall far short of the dreadful reality. Let us then shortly inquire what can be the causes of this afflicting state of things, in a country which forms a part of the richest empire upon earth, and where, therefore, those sufferings are heightened, and humanity itself insulted, by the unnatural contrasts perpetually exhibited. First, the inquiry presents itself, infinitely the most important in reference to the subject, whether there is any natural cause of this continued poverty to be found either in the country itself, or in the character of its inhabitants? And here, at all events, no difference of opinion can possibly arise, and in answering this question I will again avail myself of the language of Bacon, on this subject; who, in enumerating the natural advantages of Ireland, has not, I think, omitted any one source of national wealth with which a partial Providence can endow any country upon earth. 'This island,' says he, 'has so many dowries of nature, the fruitfulness of the soil, the excellency of the climates, the ports, the rivers, the quarries, the woods, the fisheries, and especially its race of valiant, hardy and active men, that it is not easy to find such a conflux of commodities, if the hand of man did but join with the hand of nature.' The natural prolificness of Ireland is, however, rarely disputed; but its miseries are not unfrequently attributed to another cause, and it is said that the distresses of Ireland are chargeable to its surplus population. This, therefore, dictates the second important inquiry—excessive numbers, whether this be the real cause of the general distress. It is notoriously otherwise. There is no one who has the slightest knowledge of the subject that is not perfectly aware of the utter fallacy, the extravagant folly of such a supposition. Let those who, on the subject of the extreme poverty and degradation of Ireland, repeat the cuckoo note of the economists

801
'surplus population,' and suppose they have solved the fearful political enigma which the condition of Ireland propounds, stand forth and say whether they do or do not know, that the misery of the Irish, arising either from the nature and insufficiency of their food, their clothing, and their habitations; from the dearths and famines, and the epidemics, which they periodically endure, more fatal often than the plague; from the constant want of labour, and its inadequate remuneration—were evils which did not exist, to a still greater degree, when the population was notoriously scanty, not a third nor a fourth of its present amount, and when the political economists of those days attributed these sufferings to a paucity of population, and busied themselves about the task of replenishing it; always busied, therefore, in attempts beyond their reach, and neglecting the obvious duties dictated alike by policy and humanity, and easy to perform. But to attend to the present assumption; so far from the increase of the population having occasioned these evils, it has clearly mitigated, and would, with efficient institutions, have removed them. The amelioration of the condition of Ireland in all these respects, is universally acknowledged; still much remains to be accomplished. But to attribute effects in full operation centuries ago, to alleged causes which have only recently had any existence, is a doctrine too paradoxical, one would have thought, even for the adoption of political economy. To place such absurd notions in a still clearer point of view, Ireland, a century ago, having only about 2,000,000 of inhabitants, imported grain in considerable quantities; still multitudes of her people were starving. This year, with at least quadruple that population, she will export, I should suppose, 18,000,000, or 20,000,000 of bushels of corn—multitudes of her people are still starving; meantime the exports of cattle have enormously augmented. So much for the question of surplus population, as compared with surplus produce. Again, Sir, the alleged minute division of the farms in Ireland as the cause of much of its distress, is an equally erroneous assumption. In proof of this I will not advert to the condition of the provinces of Flanders, where, with about thrice the population on the same space, and with naturally a far worse soil, the cultivators down to the la-
802
bourer are, or at least were, to a late period, comfortable and prosperous, furnishing abundance to their own country, and a surplus of at least one-third for the supply of others—a most instructive lesson, I think, to this country. I will simply allude to the state of Ireland in this respect, on which a most unaccountable delusion almost universally prevails. By adverting to the census, it will appear, that were the land of Ireland divided among the agricultural families, there would be at least, from thirty to forty acres to each. But it is not so divided: on the contrary, it is represented as one great cause of distress, that much of it is held in very small portions. Well, then, the remainder must be in the hands of very extensive cultivators, the bulk of the people, or labourers, having only a little plot of land round their cottages, a state the most desirable to be conceived, were it accompanied with corresponding regulations. Meantime, however, I will venture to assert, that in those parts of the country where the population is the most dense, or, in other words, where the property is the most divided, there is it the most valuable; and there is found the greatest degree of peace, comfort, and prosperity, the local condition of Ireland at this moment fully warrants my assertion, which is corroborated by the most intelligent witness which have appeared before the different parliamentary Committees appointed to examine the state of that country. But, Sir, the pretence that Ireland is too densely peopled, in reference to either its fertility or extent, is almost entirely abandoned, and another convenient reason is alleged for the distress and poverty of Ireland, namely, the supposed indolence and improvidence of the Irish character—a cause not one whit less erroneous than the preceding ones, and which adds insult to the injury inflicted upon that country. That they do not labour when it is impossible for them to obtain work, nor save, when extortion leaves them no means of accumulation, I do not mean to dispute, and that these are the reasons for these imputations upon them, I have the authority of Sir John Davis for asserting. But every writer upon that country, and all the evidences that have been called before your Committee, in reference to its condition, have been unanimous in describing them as most anxious to obtain work, and as grateful for it when afforded them.

803
Read, for instance, Mr. Griffiths' recent report on the roads in the southern districts of Ireland, and you will find him pourtraying the Irish character in these respects in a very different manner. He not only describes the industry of the Irish labourers when employed, but their great care and frugality, the saving of their wages, and erecting, by these gains, comfortable cottages, purchasing implements of husbandry and cattle, and becoming all at once, as it were, prosperous and happy. But, Sir, had we no evidence or disproof of these constantly repeated accusations but that of our own senses, I think, few of us could fail to be convinced of their fallacy. Thus, either in this country, or in the new world, wherever labour is to be obtained, no matter how hard or revolting, there are the Irish. Look at them in this the most laborious season of the year. Thousands of them annually traverse the breadth of both islands, and cross the sea that separates them, in search of a few weeks' employment, which, when obtained, they work like slaves, and live like ascetics. When, resisting every temptation, some of which I fear would be too hard for many of their accusers, they carry home almost entire, their hard earnings in their tattered garments, I wish I could say, an offering to lay on the humble altar of domestic enjoyment, but on the contrary, wherewithal to pay those extortionate rents which are demanded for the wretched cabin, raised by themselves which affords them shelter, and the narrow plot which furnishes them with scanty food. Thus conducting themselves, they are, nevertheless, accused of indolence and improvidence, and while deprived of labour at home, and thus eagerly searching for it elsewhere, the economists exclaim, in the language, and with the feelings of an oppressor of ancient times "Ye are idle! ye are idle!" It is, therefore, neither to Providence, nor to the country itself, nor to the number of its inhabitants nor to their character and disposition, that the distress of Ireland is attributable. But it is to a want of provision for the poor, and to that evident and inveterate evil absenteeism, with those co-actions, clearings, and drivings, which it occasions that, want of labour and lowness of wages which also spring from the same cause which aggravate the evil to which they are thus exposed, and above all to the former a want which would prevent the perpetra-
804
tion of many of these wrongs and mitigate their consequences, when inflicted; it is to these causes, and especially to the last, that the evils long endured by that unhappy country, are clearly chargeable. And it is only by giving to it a system long ago established in England, and to which, notwithstanding all declamation to the contrary, the great superiority in its general condition of the lower classes, is mainly owing, that these deep and inveterate evils can alone be mitigated and removed. But the opposers of such a provision for the poor of Ireland assert, that its introduction into that country is impracticable, owing, on the one hand, to the general poverty and unsettled condition of its people, and on the other, to the impossibility of finding proper instruments, or, as they express it, machinery by which to carry it into execution if legally established. I totally deny both assumptions. With regard to the first, hard, indeed, is it upon that country, that the very poverty which had been created by this long continued and cruel neglect, should be held a valid reason for the continuation of this state of things; and that cruelty and injustice should plead prescription. Ireland, left in the situation in which England found itself after the infamous confiscation of her charitable foundations, the abbeys and monasteries, stands in precisely the same need of a poor-law, as did the latter, and is in at least as favourable a situation and condition for establishing it. Look at the indigence of England at that period, and the crime and suffering which it created. Did these constitute a sufficient reason in the estimation of the great and benevolent men of those days, for withholding from the poor of the people their just rights? On the contrary, such considerations quickened them in the performance of that great duty, and above forty Acts of Parliament were passed, after the dissolution of the monasteries, till the passing of the Act of the 43rd of Elizabeth, all having the same object—a legislative relief for the poor. How many general laws have been passed in Ireland during the same period for a similar purpose? Not any. And the consequence is, that their distress remains unrelieved and unabated. The condition of England at that period was just the counterpart of that of Ireland at present, and in no respect preferable. Hollingshed tells us, that just before his

805
time, there were not above two or three houses in an upland town that had chimneys, and often not so many; he describes the people (not the paupers), as sleeping upon straw with a log for their pillow, and their food and clothing correspondent. Clearances, precisely similar in their motives, and consequences with those of Ireland, were perpetrated in those days. "The husbandmen," says Sir Thomas More, "be thrust out! Poor silly wretched souls! Men, women, husbands, wives, fathers, children, widows, woeful mothers with their young babes—away they trudge out of their known and accustomed houses, finding no place to rest in. And when they have wandered till their all is spent, what can they do but to steal, and then, justly, pardie, be hanged, or else go about begging. And yet, then also they be cast into prison as vagabonds, because they go about and work not, whom no man will set at work, though they never so willingly proffer themselves thereto." Of these poor wretches we learn, that 72,000 great and petty thieves were put to death in the reign of Henry 8th. In Elizabeth's time rogues, we are told "were trussed up apace, and, that there was not a year commonly wherein three or four hundred of them were not devoured by the gallows in one place or another." Strype, speaking of one county alone, Somersetshire, says, "Forty persons have been there executed in a year for robberies, thefts, and other felonies; thirty-five burnt in the hand; thirty-seven whipped; 183 discharged; and that those that were discharged, were wicked and desperate persons. Notwithstanding this great number of indictments, the fifth part of the felonies committed in the county were not brought to trial. The rapines committed by the infinite number of the wicked, wandering, idle people, were intolerable to the poor countrymen, and obliged them to a perpetual watch of their sheep-folds, pastures, and corn-fields. The other counties of England were in no better a condition than Somersetshire, and many of them were even in a worse; there were at least three or four hundred able-bodied vagrants in every county, who lived by theft and rapine, and who sometimes met in troops, and committed spoil upon the inhabitants. If all the felons of this kind were reduced to subjection, they would form a strong army: the Magistrates were awed, by the association and threats of the
806
confederates, from executing justice on the offenders." Such was the condition of England at that time, when the sudden and strikingly beneficial effects of the introduction of the Poor-laws is recorded by a contemporary authority of the highest order—Dalton. Lithgow, at about the same time, mentions the extreme poverty of the Irish, and earnestly recommended a similar provision on their behalf; and happy would it have been for both countries, had such been the case. Ireland would then have advanced with at least equal steps in the great, career of national improvement, and have amply repaid the act of justice and beneficence. I might have extended the description of the state of England at the period referred to, to a variety of particulars, all conclusive as to the fact of its condition, in almost every respect, being not better than is that of Ireland at the present time, in many particulars, doubtless, greatly inferior. I will only advert to one particular in proof of this fact, so important to my present argument. Perhaps one of the most striking and obvious proofs and indications of the condition of society and of the existence of national wealth, is the number of that noble animal, so necessary to the use, convenience, and distinction of mankind, the horse, found in any civilized community as compared with that of the inhabitants. Now, in the period I have referred to, we are informed there were only 20,000 horses in all England; at the present time there are more than that number kept for pleasure alone in Ireland; far more than ten times as many in the whole. But to return. In adverting to the two great objects of the Poor-laws of England, and which must ever remain the prominent features in any similar institution, namely, the providing of labour for the unemployed, and the administration of relief to the impotent poor—what, is there, I would ask, in the present state of Ireland, which can induce any one to suppose that both are not attainable? Regarding the latter, relief for the impotent, there can, I hope, be no dispute; it is only in reference to the practicability of the former, the providing labour for the unemployed, that strong doubts are entertained. And still when we advert to the preceding descriptions of the condition of England, given on the highest authority, can a shadow of doubt remain upon any man's mind, as to the unemployed poor of

807
England, at the period adverted to, having been more numerous than are those now similarly circumstanced in Ireland? That the profitable employment of the latter is, at this moment, a far easier task than it was in the former instance, is a still more obvious fact. I allude not to that increased demand for the products of labour, which the great improvement in society has occasioned; nor yet to those great local and national improvements, which present themselves in that country in every direction; tasks which would profitably employ multitudes, and permanently repay the labour that they would demand, and which, if neglected in this, await future generations. No, Sir, it is unnecessary for me to advert to such means of employment. The law of Elizabeth prescribed that stocks should be procured, and that the unemployed should be set to work as manufacturers; the law, I hope of William 4th, will, I trust, direct that the idle shall be employed in what Montesquieu calls the manufacture universal—cultivation; a far more certain and efficacious course. I shall not encumber my argument, which I mean, on this occasion, to confine to general principles, by showing how easily and beneficially this might be accomplished; and the inevitable result would be, that the lands in cultivation would be infinitely better tilled, and the general improvement of the wastes greatly increased and extended. Sir, I would ask whether a stranger to the situation and circumstances of the British empire, would deem it credible, that within its confined limits, some of its most fertile districts were totally uncultivated; others, still more extensive, very imperfectly improved; that multitudes of the people were either wholly or partially unemployed, and still, that a demand to an enormous and increasing extent was made upon the products of other countries; products which, under such circumstances might be raised with greater certainty, plenty, and cheapness, in our own? What would be thus deemed incredible is nevertheless the fact, and to an extent which would hardly be believed possible, were not the documents at hand which fully prove it. Thus, Sir, leaving totally out of the calculation that vast increase in the crops of Ireland, which might be obtained, were more labour employed in tillage, there are almost five millions of acres wholly uncultivated nearly half of which is land of a highly
808
productive quality; here there is a field or labour, in the simplest and most certain form, almost inexhaustible. Would there be any demand, for the products of this labour if it were thus employed? There is the best market in the world in the very heart of the country, and close at hand. Those wastes would produce corn, cattle, cheese, butter, flax, hemp, rape, linseed, tares, madder, not to mention tobacco, the culture of which is forbidden, though as employing more hands than any other culture, is peculiarly fitted for the state of Ireland, where labour is so unhappily redundant. Well, Sir, England takes from foreign countries, from 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 of bushels of corn; about 150,000 cwt. of butter; 100,000 cwt. of cheese; 1,000,000 cwt. of tallow, about 1,200,000 cwt. of hemp and flax; 150,000 cwt. of clover seed; 2,000,000 bushels of linseed; 450,000 bushels of rape seed; 100,000 bushels of tares 100,000 cwt. of madder, to say nothing of many other articles of foreign growth, perfectly adapted to the soil and climate of Ireland. Why, Sir, the production of a part of these only would demand the exertion of every individual pronounced redundant in Ireland, and by increasing the demand, would raise the remuneration of labour, improving the food, the clothing, the habitations of the lower classes, and in one word, bestowing plenty, and conferring peace on the whole community. Nor, Sir, is this all. Half the advantages of such an increased production and intercourse is not yet told. The increased comforts of the Irish labourer and agriculturist would augment to an equal extent, that of the English operative and manufacturer, the products of whose industry would be increased in demand, and heightened in value, by so beneficial a policy. The market thus created by the improved condition of seven or eight millions of our fellow subjects, would infinitely outweigh in value, those casual and uncertain openings to our commerce, whether in the Old World or the New, which distant countries may occasionally and reluctantly afford. On the one hand, the necessaries of life cheapened in price, and less fluctuating in their supply, would no longer be controlled by the varying produce, or the uncertain policy of foreign states; on the other, the demand for our manufactures would in a great measure be relieved from the fluctu-

809
ations and reversals, almost equally distressing. The public revenue would at the same time enlarge with the increasing prosperity—the heavy load of taxation would be no longer oppressively felt—the triumphs of the plough would succeed those of the sword, and bury the national grievances for ever. Thus would the body politic be fed, invigorated by a constant and healthful circulation; the empire would stand erect among the nations, strong and self-dependant; and, leaning upon its own resources, would extend to the nations the right hand of fellowship, or the shield of defence, and form a reciprocal and beneficial intercourse with every country upon earth. This, Sir, I hold to be no visionary idea; it is one which is sanctioned and dictated by the experience of every country which has hitherto risen to power and prosperity, and, indeed, only extends the principle upon which the foundation of our own prosperity has been laid. The employment of the population leads to this sure and happy result; and, in addition to the realization of its fond and disinterested intention, a provision for the poor, is returned a hundred-fold into the bosom of the community that makes it, in increasing wealth and prosperity. But it will be objected to all this, that these great advantages cannot be secured, nor the Poor-laws introduced into Ireland, from a deficiency of what is called machinery to carry them into operation. I totally deny this. There are at least as good materials for creating that machinery in Ireland at this time, as there were in England at the period of their introduction, and yet our legislators made no such objection. But, if this were the case, it would be one of the most certain, and not least beneficial effects of the system, that it would create that machinery, and thereby establish a sort of moral police throughout the community of incalculable advantage to its character and interests. It would call into exercise, if not into existence, many of those qualities necessary for the purpose; it would stimulate wealth to the performance of its duties, if not by nobler exertions, at least by the certain and prevalent inducements of interest and necessity; and it would recall absenteeship to some consideration of the state of a people thus deserted and oppressed. But, Sir, it is the grossest insult upon the character of the country, to pronounce it at this moment, destitute of a
810
numerous class who would fully and faithfully discharge the duties the system would impose. What, Sir, when we see, that the work of exaction never fails of its completion for want of instruments—that the public revenue suffers not for want of an organised system of collection—that public justice can pursue to punishment its victims, with a celerity and certainty of late almost unparalleled—shall it be said, that when duties so gratifying to the best feelings of the human heart, and so congenial to the Irish character in particular, have to be discharged, that none could be found willing or adequate, cheerfully to undertake and faithfully to fulfil them? Such, I repeat, is the deadliest insult that was ever levelled at the Irish people; but it is happily wholly unfounded. No man who has considered the condition of the two countries at both periods, can for one moment doubt, that Ireland has an equal necessity and superior means, for establishing a provision for her poor, compared with England at the time of its introduction here: and I think few can dispute, that the effects would be equally great and beneficial. But, Sir, it is often said, that the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland will destroy that voluntary charity which now exists in Ireland. Voluntary charity! On whose part? The voluntary charity of the wealthy of that country? If the absence of a legal system of relief for the poor was the best means of encouraging the exercise of private and voluntary charity, no country on earth ought to have exhibited such heroic acts of munificence as those performed by the wealthy of that country. But, what said the right hon. Secretary on a late occasion, when calling the attention of Parliament to the distresses in the west of Ireland, which had then risen to so alarming a height as to arrest the attention of Government? Why, he said, that the great land-owners in that entire district, urgent and great as was the distress, had then contributed only the sum of 10 l. to its mitigation. In the calamitous year of 1817, we learn, on the authority of a right rev. Prelate, that in an extensive district, where the property owned by absentees amounted to 80,000 l. or 90,000 l. per annum, the sum of 83 l. only was subscribed, though they were personally applied to. Why, Sir, if the absence of Poor-laws is such a nurse of voluntary beneficence, the flame of divine charity would by this time have mounted to heaven, and shed its lustre and

811
spread its warmth over the whole community. But, alas, for the supposition, the contrary is the melancholy fact. It is only on the solid foundation of justice that mercy builds her purest trophies. But, Sir, if it be meant that the establishment of Poor-laws would interfere, in some sort, with the charity now dispensed to the mendicants of Ireland, who are relieved by those almost as destitute as themselves, I answer, that it is high time this method of relief were abolished. It is a shame and a disgrace to the wealth of a country, to leave the relief of poverty principally to the poor themselves; that they must spare out of their inadequate means that which renders them still more wretched, and very imperfectly relieving the miseries it seeks to succour, spreads the suffering and the contagion of beggary throughout the whole community. Sir, the time fails me, and I am sure I am exhausting the patience of the House, otherwise I had meant to have entered somewhat at length into other, and not unimportant objections, against Poor-laws, all of which, I am confident, resolve themselves, when duly considered, into arguments in their favour. I must, however, content myself with merely recapitulating them, hoping to be indulged in a somewhat lengthened reply, should they be urged against the proposition I am about to submit to the House. The first of these which I shall notice is, the supposition that Poor-laws have a direct tendency unduly to increase population; the very reverse of this I could readily prove—but this objection, paramount as it was long held, is now so generally abandoned, that I shall not further allude to it on this occasion. The next is, that the institution of a national system of relief has a direct tendency to suspend or destroy the exercise of private and voluntary charity, and to destroy the domestic virtues of the poor; and, generally speaking, to indispose the community to the exercise of voluntary charity. This I also deny. There is no country in the world, where, among the inferior orders, the domestic duties are more faithfully discharged than in England; and as to the latter part of the accusation, from whatever quarter it comes, I challenge those who make it, to produce a community upon earth where a nobler structure of voluntary charity is erected, though it rests upon the broad basis of a national provision for the poor, than in this country.
812
Let this be disputed, and I am ready with proofs of the fact. It is also affirmed, that a provision for the poor has a tendency to make the labouring classes idle and improvident. Who has ever made this accusation against the labouring classes of England? Patient of toil beyond any other class upon earth, slaves not excluded; in every market of labour they are preferred before competitors of any other country; nor is their conduct inferior with whomsoever compared. In fact, the bulk of the people of England, from their youth upwards, labour longer, and more intensely, than is consistent with the preservation of health, or the dictates of humanity. Lastly, Sir, the great objection to a Poor's-law is, that it would finally absorb the property of Ireland. To this objection, which I am aware is deemed the most powerful and conclusive of any that has been advanced, I shall content myself at present with giving a direct and positive contradiction, again appealing to the experience of this part of the empire during more than 200 years; during which time I will venture to assert, that the sums disbursed by means of the national provision for the poor, have, compared with any other item of national income or expenditure, exhibited a constant and regular diminution, while the number of those which have been assisted or sustained by this great legal charity, has also, in relation to the population, manifested as striking and uniform a decrease. I should be content, however, that the law which should establish the provision, should limit the extent of the contribution in all cases, reserving to those districts which should be the most heavily burthened, the privilege of obtaining assistance, to a certain extent, from others more favourably circumstanced, agreeably to the original provision of the law of Elizabeth, which wisely united, as far as was practicable, the advantages of local economy, with a partial equalization of the funds contributed by different divisions, for the same purpose. I am aware, however, that, after all, the system would, to a certain and limited extent, absorb a certain proportion of the property of Ireland, and especially of the absentees, and this, so far from being an objection, I hold to be one of the advantages of the proposition. What is it that the poor Irish want, but to absorb some part of that produce which they raise in such abundance,

813
and to retain a portion of that wealth which is now annually abstracted from the public stock of the country? To absorb some part of the wealth it thus produces, would indeed refresh and invigorate the country; the thirsty and parched soil in the drought of summer thus absorbs the genial showers, which drop grateful from above, investing it with renewed verdure and fertility. But, after all, Sir, these fears of Poor-laws, absorbing the whole wealth of a community, are so far from being just, that the very contrary is the result wherever they are established. Not only does their operation greatly increase the prosperity of all such countries; but, considered apart from all other considerations, the systematic method of relief they introduce is found, upon any just calculation, to be the most economical, as well as effectual mode of relief, for the most indigent part of the population, that could be adopted. Regarding Ireland, this interesting fact is demonstrably true, and has been asserted by the most intelligent witnesses of all parties, examined by the various Committees which have been appointed from time to time, to examine and report on the state of Ireland. When I last addressed the House on this important subject, I gave a calculation which I will not repeat, by which I think I proved most fully, that what with the Grand Jury presentments, which are so large in amount, much of the proceeds of which are devoted to arrant jobbing, the curse of Ireland, and disbursed, therefore, so as to disgrace the rich without relieving the poor; and what with the exactions of the innumerable mendicants who levy daily contributions on that warm-hearted and charitable people to so great an amount; to say nothing of those immense items in the national expenditure which are incurred for making an ineffectual attempt to keep a people quiet in their sufferings, whom a different treatment would restore to peace and overwhelm with gratitude;—a larger sum is expended than would be required by a legal provision for the poor, even were the English system, with all its imperfections, in full operation in that country. On the bare score of economy, therefore, I am persuaded that the measure I propose for Ireland would be one of the most beneficial that could be introduced. I have purposely avoided, on this occasion, advancing an argument, which I perhaps ought to have put prominently for-
814
ward—namely, the interests of the working classes of any description in this country, which are deeply implicated in a legislative provision for the poor of Ireland; as I cannot refrain from believing, notwithstanding all the arguments put forth to the contrary, that such a provision would raise and sustain the value of labour in that country, by increasing its demand; and that, consequently, the market of labour in this part of the empire, would, of necessity, be greatly benefitted. I never wished to throw the slightest obstacle in the way of the labouring classes of Ireland coming to this country in search of work; all I would ask is, that the same class, in both countries, should be placed upon the same footing. At present I cannot refrain from believing, that the want of a Poor's-law in Ireland is a grievous injury to the industrious classes of England, who find their labour interfered with, and its value lessened, by that influx of Irish workmen of every description, who are driven to these shores by mere want and destitution. But, Sir, it is not upon any local or interested views and considerations that I would rest my argument in behalf of a legislative provision for the poor of Ireland. The laws of God, of nature, and humanity, equally demand its establishment. The deep poverty and distress existing at all times in that country, deserted as it is by those who ought to be its protectors, and those occasional visitations of severe suffering, one of which is now afflicting the people, render that demand more urgent. The story of that country, for a long succession of generations, sufficiently shows that no other means of relief will be effectual. On any increase of the miseries of the inhabitants, and when distress rises to an insufferable height, some ostentatious, but inadequate attempts, may be made for its relief. But if you listen to selfish counsels, and institute no permanent provision for the poor, the history of past ages of suffering will be only repeated in succeeding ages Succeeding ages did I say? No! The continued neglect, and consequent injury, of a great and growing people, as sensible of resentment for inflicted wrongs as they are of more grateful impressions under a kinder treatment, will endanger the peace if not the integrity of the empire. At this moment the distresses the people suffer, the tolerated desertion of so large a portion of the wealthier classes, and the

815
absence of all legal provision for the poverty thus occasioned, are loosening the attachment which many of the inhabitants of that island had cherished for an intimate connection with this; and the Anti-unionists, it must be confessed, are hourly gaining strength, and their triumph would be the downfall of this great and ancient empire. A dark cloud of suffering has long hung over the west, where the angry elements are again heard from afar, and threatening that storm which may again shake the empire to its very foundations. The time is come when property must be taught that it has duties to perform as strictly and righteously due, as those it exacts from poverty. Politicians and economists may agree as they please, but their palliations and apologies will not much longer avail. Nor can the people of this country any longer bear that their fellow-subjects of Ireland should be deprived of their natural rights as human beings; that they should be habitually deserted in that condition of distress which is common to them, or in their severer calamities that they should be assisted by a begging-box called round the kingdom; that their miseries should be assuaged by the proceeds of a masked ball, and their dying agonies consoled by means of a bazaar or a ball. No; they demand a provision for them, a certain adequate and legislative provision; and in this, their demand, who shall say, that the voice of the people is not the voice of God? Sir, many other arguments in favour of the important proposition I am about to submit to the House press for utterance; but I have already, I fear, fatigued its attention. I shall, therefore, refrain from presenting to its consideration other facts and statements which I meant to have adduced. I am deeply sensible how imperfectly I have advocated the great cause which I have undertaken, and to which I had given my feeble, but sincere efforts, long before I had the honour of a seat in this House, and when the proposition had few advocates on either side of the water. Many of the strongest arguments in favour of Poor-laws, I have omitted to urge on this occasion, having, on more than one preceding opportunity, already presented them to the House: others, I am aware, I am entirely foregoing. But I feel confident that the cause will suffer nothing from this course, as others will follow me in this discussion, who, I am sure, will
816
more than supply those deficiencies of mine, which are the more apparent from the deep and permanent importance of the subject. I have purposely avoided submitting any plan to this House, being persuaded that the better course was, in the first instance, to gain, if possible, its sanction to the principle; that obtained, I should proceed to lay next under its consideration the outlines of a measure in the form of a Bill, founded on the principle of a compulsory provision, limited, at least for the present, in its extent, and discretionary relief, chiefly under the control of the principal contributors. But upon these points I shall not now enter. I shall now merely submit my Resolution, which I earnestly hope the House will affirm on this occasion. It must be obvious to all, that things in Ireland cannot long go on as they do at present; that, however argued against, and for a time successfully resisted, a provision for the poor of that country must be made. Let it then be made, while, in the sight of God and a grateful people, it shall have the merit of a voluntary act. Let it not be delayed till what ought to flow from the noblest attribute of humanity—disinterested benevolence, become the offspring of the basest and most grovelling feeling of the mind, fear. Lose not the grace of an act which, if promptly and willingly done, will kindle the gratitude of a nation; repay the wrongs of many generations, and join in closer and indissoluble bonds, the sister islands, which can only be prosperous and happy while united by affection as well as law. Disregard the suggestions of selfishness, and dare to be just and humane. Do justice, love mercy, and leave the event to Him who has constituted that sacred rule as the road to national, as well as individual happiness and prosperity. I beg leave, Sir, to move, in the form of a Resolution, that it is the opinion of this House, that it is expedient and necessary to constitute a legal provision for the Poor of Ireland."
Mr. John Weylandseconded the Motion.
Mr. Stricklandfelt himself sorry to be obliged to oppose the motion of the hon. Member. He was impressed with the sincerity of the hon. Member who had so eloquently addressed the House. It really was impossible not to agree to much of the reasoning of the hon. Member. It brought to his recollection the observations made by a noble Lord (Lord Holland)

817
two years ago. That noble Lord said, it was easy to state the distresses of the poor, but difficult indeed to find a remedy. He could not go to the extent which he understood the hon. Member had recommended. He would willingly provide, by rates, for the aged, infirm, and sick. Such persons had a common claim on humanity. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman was, to introduce the Poor-laws of England into Ireland. [Mr. Sadler did not go to that extent.] He was happy to hear such was not the plan, because it involved great inconvenience. He had listened with great attention to find out what the exact plan of the hon. Member was. The Irish Members had a right to say, "Before you introduce the Poor-laws to Ireland, amend these laws as they apply to your own poor." The hon. Member complained of the abuse of the Poor-laws, and adverted to the commencement of those laws in the reign of Elizabeth. The Statute in that reign did not give relief to all. The intention was, to provide work for all who had not employment—all who had not a daily occupation—the aged, the blind, the sick, and infirm: but he could not bring his mind to consider sturdy labourers as the objects to whom the property of the community was to be given. The Poor-laws worked well during 180 years, but, about forty years ago, Mr. Pitt gave a new turn to the claims of paupers. That Minister had great influence over the Magistrates, and, unfortunately, his views on the Poor-laws were not sound. Mr. Pitt held, that every person reduced to pauperism had a claim on the property of the country. Mr. Whitbread, at a subsequent period, contended that it was impossible to make the funds of the nation applicable to all classes. He was of the same opinion, and even thought that parishes and local districts ought to have a discretionary power in distinguishing objects, and making provision for those only who appeared justly entitled to parochial relief, under the spirit and meaning of the Act of Elizabeth. As the Poor-laws were now administered, every man out of work might demand relief, and he was sure, nay, he defied contradiction, when he asserted, that to introduce laws founded on that principle into Ireland, would be the ruin of that country. Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, for the appointment of Select Vestries or Committees to manage
818
the affairs of the poor, which was the only Act from which he thought some hints might be taken, had done much towards promoting a better administration of the Poor-laws. He considered it an excellent Act, as it gave the rate-payers a power over the application of the rates; but another Act, which Mr. Sturges Bourne introduced, namely, the Act for regulating votes in Vestry meetings, had cast considerable odium on the Select Vestries' Act. He certainly was of opinion that it would be impracticable, and most injurious if practicable, to introduce the English Poor-laws into Ireland. At the same time, a well regulated system of Poor-laws, adapted to Ireland, would be productive of most beneficial effects.
Colonel Torrensconcurred in the principles so ably stated by the hon. member for Yorkshire. He (Colonel Torrens) was decidedly favourable to the introduction of a modified system of Poor-laws into Ireland—a system by which the majority of rate-payers in each parish should voluntarily assess themselves for the relief of the impotent poor, permanently incapacitated from earning their own subsistence. But with respect to the other system, advocated by the hon. Member who introduced the Motion, he must venture to express his dissent. He had given his best attention to the plan of extending to able-bodied labourers, when wages were deficient, the right to compulsory relief; he had endeavoured to view this important question in all its bearings, and to trace it throughout all its consequences; and the result of his deliberation was, an increasing conviction of the danger of entering upon a path whose termination no man could see, and from whose windings and labyrinths there could be no retreat. He was surprised at the hasty and inconsiderate manner in which opinions upon important subjects were taken up and promulgated. The question of compulsory relief involved all the most important questions of political economy, of social government. The causes which determined the wages of labour, the profits of capital, the rent and value of land—all these were more or less involved in the wide and momentous question of establishing a Poor-rate in Ireland. Yet, strange as it might appear, the hon. Member advocated this measure without reference to the principles of that science of which it formed the most im-

819
portant portion. Nay, it was a fact—a fact which the next generation would scarcely credit—that hon. Members might be found denouncing and disclaiming the principles of political economy, in the same breath with which they proposed measures for improving the condition of the people. The labouring classes composed the great bulk of every community; and a country must be considered miserable or happy in proportion as these classes were well or ill supplied with the necessaries, comforts, and enjoyments, of life. The study of political economy teaches us the way in which labour may obtain an adequate reward; and, if it did not teach us this, it might, indeed, serve to gratify a merely speculative curiosity, but could scarcely conduce to any purposes of practical utility. It claims the peculiar attention of the benevolent and good, mainly because it explains the causes which depress and elevate wages, and thereby points out the means by which we may mitigate the distress and improve the condition of the great majority of mankind. Political economy is not, as has been erroneously stated, the appropriate or exclusive science of the Statesman and the legislator; it is emphatically the science of the people. The hon. Member had encumbered and overlaid this question with a multitude of details; and he would venture to suggest to the hon. Member, that as our knowledge of statistics was lamentably imperfect, no good could possibly be derived from conclusions drawn from imperfect and incorrect data. There was no very accurate or certain information as to the extent of the actual demand for labour, and as to the numbers of the employed, partly employed, and altogether unemployed, labourers in the several agricultural parishes of England. Now, if these facts, which are passing almost before our eyes, have not yet been sufficiently examined and ascertained, how uncertain, how vague, how utterly unworthy, of credence must be the multitudinous statistical details which the hon. Member has gathered from distant countries and remote ages? But, even if the hon. Member had established his alleged facts by sufficient evidence, still he would have performed only half his task. The faculty which accurately observes and records particular phenomena, is widely different from that which distinguishes between accidental
820
coincidence and necessary connection. Facts, however accurately ascertained, may be thrown together so as to present a chaos of heterogeneous and unconnected elements, confounding the imagination, rather than enlightening the understanding. Facts, accurately ascertained, form the only foundation upon which sound principles can be erected. But, in enabling us to judge of the future by the past, facts are of little value until they have been arranged and generalized, and subjected to that inductive process which extends individual experience throughout the infinitude of things, and imparts to human knowledge the character of science. For these considerations, he did not estimate very highly the hon. Member's multifarious statistical details, however laboriously acquired or eloquently displayed. Without entering a labyrinth, to which there appeared to be no clue, he would apply himself directly to the question before the House. The question of establishing Poor-laws in Ireland is an English, quite as much as it is an Irish, question. It must be obvious to the House, that in countries so contiguous and so intimately connected as England and Ireland, two different rates of wages, and two different states of the labouring population, could not permanently co-exist. One of the two events must necessarily occur. Either the Irish people must be raised to the level of the English, or the English degraded to the level of the Irish. There was no alternative. The condition of the working classes in England and in Scotland, could not be preserved from rapid deterioration while the stream of Irish labour inundated the British market, and while steam navigation opened a new and enlarging channel to swell its volume and accelerate its course. The time had now arrived, when it had become the imperative duty of every one whose station or whose knowledge gave him an influence in society, zealously to co-operate in ameliorating the condition of the people of Ireland, if not for the sake of Ireland, yet for the sake of England, and in order to prevent the manners and the religion of Britain from being swept away by the annual irruptions of the hordes of the west. With respect to the English part of this important question, he was prepared to shew, that the establishment of Poor-laws in Ireland could not prevent, or even

821
diminish, the influx of Irish, labourers into England. It might appear, upon a superficial view of the case, that, if the Irish poor had a legal provision in their own country, they would cease to seek for employment by migrating to this. It would, however, be found, on examination, that no such effect would be produced. So long as the wages of labour were higher in England than in Ireland, so long would Irish labourers come over to obtain such higher wages. But it was obviously impossible, that the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland should raise Irish wages to the English level. In Ireland, the wages of common labour were from 3s. to 8s. per week; in England they were from 8s. to 16 s., being on the average 5s. a-week higher in England than in Ireland. There were, upon the lowest calculation, 1,000,000 labourers in Ireland; and to raise their wages 5s. a-week, so as to bring them up to the English level, would require an annual assessment to the amount of 13,000,000 l. But the whole rental of Ireland did not amount to 13,000,000 l. So that the confiscation of the whole property of the country, and applying the entire rental to the increase of wages, would be insufficient, without any increase of the existing population of Ireland, to prevent the influx of Irish labourers. It was obvious, however, that, if the whole rental of the country were given in aid of wages, the population of Ireland would increase much more rapidly than at present; and, in a very short period, the wages of an Irish labourer, even when increased by his dividend of the rental, would be no more than from 3s. to 8s. a-week. But the number of labourers receiving these low wages, and anxious to participate in the higher wages of England, would be doubled. Thus the establishment of Poor-laws in Ireland, instead of preventing, would increase, to an enormous extent, the influx of Irish labourers into England. Those English Members who regarded the establishment of a compulsory provision for the able-bodied poor of Ireland, as a means of protecting the working classes in England from the competition of Irish labour, would find, by woful experience, that the remedy would aggravate the disease. Having disposed of the English part of the discussion, and endeavoured to show, that the English labourer could neither derive any advantage, nor escape from any evil,
822
by the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, he would proceed to consider this important subject, not in relationi to English interests, but purely as an Irish question. The state of Ireland was appalling. In endeavouring to apply an appropriate remedy for the misery of that country, it was essential to ascertain its causes and its character. Some enlightened friends of Ireland contended, that that country was in a state of decided advancement and improvement—that tillage was advancing, better cottages were erected, better agricultural implements were introduced, the exports and imports continued to increase, and all the symptoms of growing wealth were exhibited. But, during this process, the misery of the people increased. Famine stalked in the midst of plenty. Thousands and tens of thousands were perishing from the face of the earth; and what boots it to a famished people,
"That while they sink, without one arm to save, The country blooms a garden and a grave."
Some extensive and effectual measure of relief must be applied—and immediately applied. The only question which the House had to consider was, whether the measure proposed by the hon. Member for adoption, was calculated to remove or to mitigate the evils we deplore. He objected to instituting a legal and permanent provision for the destitute and suffering poor of Ireland, from the conviction that this species of provision, instead of relieving and removing, would aggravate and perpetuate the misery of that country. It was acknowledged, that the population of Ireland had rapidly increased, and that it was still rapidly increasing; and it could not be denied, that as long as the supply of subsistence for them was increased by compulsory assessments upon property, the progress of population in Ireland would be accelerated. At no distant period the whole rental of the country would be inadequate to the maintenance of those for whose labour there was no demand. Two shillings in the pound, or ten per cent upon rent and profit, to be levied by compulsory assessment, and distributed to those who could not obtain adequate wages, would undoubtedly afford immediate relief, but, unfortunately, it would be of short duration. As giving a tenth of the incomes derived from rent and profit in aid of the incomes derived from wages, could have no con-

823
ceivable tendency to diminish the number of births, or increase the number of deaths, the people would continue to breed up to the extreme limits of the most scanty subsistence; and want and misery would inevitably return. If, on witnessing this renewal of distress, the compulsory assessments were raised from ten to twenty per cent upon rents and profits, the same process would be repeated—temporary relief would be again afforded, and permanent distress would again return. If thirty, forty, fifty—nay, if 100 per cent were assessed upon the landed proprietors and capitalists, and the whole amount, both of rents and profits, given in aid of wages, the process and the result, with respect to the labouring class, would be precisely as before. But, although this system, which distributed amongst the mass of the people not only all the rent of land, but also all the profit of capital, could afford no permanent relief to the working classes, it would inflict the greatest injury and degradation upon the whole community. In the first place, when a country possessed, in the form of rent and profit, a considerable surplus revenue beyond what was necessary for the subsistence of the population, it might, when a deficient harvest occurred, export a portion of its superfluities and luxuries in exchange for food; and thus avert the miseries of famine. But when, by means of compulsory assessments, rent and profit, instead of existing as a net surplus revenue, were given in aid of wages; when the people (as must inevitably be the case, should the principle of population be uncontrolled), breed up to the point at which the whole revenue of the country is absorbed in mere subsistence, then there could not be, by any possibility, any surplus articles for exportation. The universal poverty of the country must render the purchase of foreign corn or other food impracticable; and every deficient crop must lead inevitably to hopeless and unmitigated famine. In the second place, this partition of rent and profit amongst the people would speedily destroy all leisure, would put a stop to every species of intellectual culture, and would confine each and all to the business of providing for merely animal wants. Not a single mind would be left to cultivate the field of thought; the progress of knowledge would be arrested; nay, so far from the human mind being, under
824
such circumstances, capable of further advances, the attainments already achieved would speedily be lost; arts, literature, and science, would be no more; and the darkest barbarism return. This state of hopeless misery and universal degradation would be the natural and the inevitable result of giving the unemployed poor a compulsory relief from the landed capital of the country, supposing such right were allowed to operate freely and unchecked. The advocates for Poor-laws, established on the principle of granting to the people a right to compulsory relief, contended that such rights would not be allowed to operate so as to increase the population, but, on the contrary, would be so controlled and modified as actually to check and control the principle of population. It is maintained, that the necessity of providing for the wants of the people would cause the landed proprietors to exert their power to prevent the increase of the people, and to keep the supply of labour within the limits of the demand. But what did this doctrine involve? It involved one of two things—either a feudal system, under which the proprietors of the soil should become irresponsible tyrants, and the people abject and passive slaves, or else an agrarian system, under which the people at large would be co-proprietors of the land, contesting with its nominal owners the distribution of the produce. Twenty years back, and this feudal system would be admitted to be impracticable; to pursue the agrarian would bring us to the law of the strongest—to a state of nature—to
"The good old rule, the simple plan, That he should take who had the power, And he should keep who can."
If the hon. Member would confine his proposition to introducing into Ireland such a system of Poor laws, as would leave it in the hands of the majority of the rate-payers to levy a poor-rate for the support of the blind, the impotent, and those permanently incapable of labour, he would give such a proposition his support; but when the hon. Member proposed to extend his principle to the whole of the population, he would take the liberty to tell him, that it would have the effect of abrogating the rights of property, and thereby destroy all the motives which stimulated to the production of wealth, and dry up the very sources whence charity was derived. If they thus threw all into common, who

825
would be found to cultivate the soil? Who would create the produce whence all was derived? The system thus engendered would be, in his opinion, destructive of the principles of civilization—productive industry would cease, and the land be thrown back into a desert state. He sincerely admired the benevolence and charity of the hon. Member who brought forward this Resolution; but he would venture to remind him, that benevolence and charity, when not under the guidance of economical science, might become the involuntary instruments of mischief, aggravating the evils they endeavoured to remove, and resembling in their effects those splendid but baleful meteors, which shed a deceitful lustre on the disorder they created.
Mr. Sadler: Well, then, it would clear the evils all off.
Mr. George Robinsonthough, tthat the two preceding speakers had totally failed to answer the arguments of the hon. Mover of the Resolution. He was inclined to agree with the proposition of that Gentleman, and he thought, that if the House would affirm it, they should find no insuperable difficulties to obstruct them in applying a remedy. From his own observations he could bear testimony to the frugality and industry of the Irish labourers. Witness their annual migrations, which were occasioned by nothing but the desire to obtain employment. Whatever other difficulties might be found in the application of remedies to the distresses of Ireland, none would originate from the habits or dispositions of the labourers themselves. Nothing but the existence of the Poor-laws, with all their evils, could have saved this country from being now in the state in which Ireland was placed. He thought the exertions of his hon. friend on this subject highly praiseworthy, and he earnestly exhorted him to persevere, fully believing that he would reap, at no distant period, the fruits of his benevolent labours.
Lord Althorpwished to address a few words to the House on this important subject, The question which had been started by the hon. Gentleman opposite was one of extreme difficulty, and deserving of the most serious consideration of his Majesty's Government and of the Legislature. The hon. Member had given a true account of the condition of Ireland. He had truly stated, not only that great distress prevailed at present in that country, but that extreme distress—(and, he
826
might almost say, pestilence occasioned by it)—prevailed there periodically. He was sorry, indeed, that he was not able, from his own knowledge, to advance the least contradiction of the hon. Gentleman's statement. But he must at the same time remind the House, that on this and other subjects, calculated to excite greatly the feelings of the people, there was a great liability to exaggeration; if not as to the extent or degree of the distress, at least as to its progress; and although it was quite true, that at the present moment Ireland was in a state of very great distress, yet that country was, on the whole, in the progress of improvement. He thought its condition would appear, upon calm investigation, to be now much better than it usually was. At the same time, that comparative prosperity supplied no reason why they should not look to the cause of the existing distress, with a strong wish to relieve it; or why they should not apply their whole minds to the discovery of the proper remedy. But to exaggerate the nature and extent of the distress could in no way contribute to its relief. More than one hon. Gentleman had truly stated, that one of the causes, indeed the main cause, of all the distress, was the want of profitable employment for labour. In that statement he fully concurred; and it seemed to him to be indubitable, that if by any means the House could create such employment, it would at once remove the distress. But he confessed that he had his doubts respecting the adequacy of the hon. Gentleman's own plans, who, although he acknowledged that the Poor-law system of England was unfit for Ireland, yet stated his object to be, the relieving of all those who could not find profitable employment for themselves. How did the hon. Gentleman suppose that their compulsory support without employment could afford the means of employing them profitably? To him it seemed extremely doubtful, that the measures intended to be proposed by the hon. Gentleman would tend much to relieve the present distress of Ireland. There was, in fact, in that country already a large provision for the destitute part of the population. There were in most parts of that country, hospitals and other institutions for the relief of the distressed. There were, in effect, instruments by which a most extensive, indeed an adequate, relief could be applied. He believed that the Legislature might avail itself of the means afforded by such insti-

827
tutions, without having recourse to any thing like the Poor-laws of England. It was true that the hon. Gentleman only called on the House to affirm a general proposition; but it was impossible to accede to that proposition without knowing the details of the plan which was afterwards to be submitted to the House. If the House acceded to the Resolution at present before it, without having first ascertained that it could command the means of removing the distress, it would give rise to an opinion in Ireland that systematic relief had been determined on: and if afterwards it should appear, that the plan yet to be proposed by the hon. Gentleman was not satisfactory, the Legislature would have excited hopes in that country which never could be realised. It had been said by the Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Robinson), that the hon. Mover was, by his perseverance upon that subject, gaining the confidence of the public; and he (Lord Althorp) was ready to admit, that the hon. Gentleman was shaking the opinions of many who before were decidedly hostile to the introduction of any system of Poor-laws into Ireland. Although that was certainly the case, and he had himself seen many instances of change of opinion, yet he had met with no defined plan amongst all the schemes that had been proposed, which could be expected to lead to the permanent benefit of the country. It was his opinion, that the institution of Poor-laws in Ireland would give an immediate relief; but that it would ultimately preserve that country from the recurrence of the present evils he very much doubted. He thought, therefore, that it would be very injudicious, to relieve Ireland (and England also, he would say) from difficulties (which equally oppress both) by a measure which would subject them to future evils of greater malignity. They had been referred to the prosperous condition in which England continued for so long a period under the operation of the Poor-laws; but he would ask, what was it that for so long a time preserved the country from many evils, which were now felt with extreme force? It was that feeling of honour and independence which prevailed amongst the labouring classes, checking them from applying for parish relief, and which the alterations of the currency and the increasing scarcity of the means of subsistence had, at length, alarmingly diminished or almost destroyed.
828
That high spirit of independence having been broken down, the Poor-laws became more detrimental in their operation than formerly. But he would put it to the hon. Gentleman, whether there was at present in Ireland that high feeling of independence amongst the labouring classes, which would lead those people to think, that application for relief under the Poor-laws was a degradation? But if that feeling did not exist in great strength at the time of the introduction of those laws into Ireland, it would be very difficult to prevent them from leading to very great evils. Besides, the hon. Gentleman seemed entirely to overlook the difficulty of finding in Ireland the machinery for carrying such laws into effect. Could there be found in the several parishes of Ireland, considering the present state of education in that country, persons capable of executing the important trust which must be committed to those who had to act Under those laws? Of all the numerous witnesses who were examined before the Committee of Inquiry into the state of the Poor in Ireland, although so many were favourable to the introduction of Poor-laws, only one could point out a means of finding machinery to put such laws in operation. Well, what was the opinion of that witness? Why, that there must be a Government office in every parish. Now, if the plan of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution could only be carried into effect by Government interference in every parish of Ireland, he should not give it his support, until the certainty of the advantages expected from that plan was fully established. He was not, however, disposed to give a direct negative to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, who had often kindly consented to put it off from day to day, for the purpose of accommodating him; and he, therefore, much regretted that the details of the plan were not explained to the House at the same time that the Resolution, in some respect binding them to it, was proposed. He should, therefore, adopt the middle course, by moving the previous question.
Mr. John Weylandwas of opinion, that if once adequate employment were provided for the Irish people, they would not relapse into pauperism. If the capital of that country were expended at home, it would be sufficient to furnish ample employment for the people; and it was his opinion that the Poor-laws would lead to

829
that result. If the Irish gentry would of themselves employ their capital in the improvement of the country, there would be no occasion for Poor-laws. As they would not do so of themselves, means ought to be used for compelling or inducing them to it. If the Poor-laws were accompanied by evils such as had been attributed to them, the gentlemen of Ireland had now before them the experience of England, from which they could learn how those evils were brought on; and the experience of Scotland, which might show them how the evils were to be avoided. If they would take advantage of these examples, there need be no fear for the result.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that, between the application of Poor-laws to large towns and to agricultural districts, there was a great distinction. In a city like Dublin, many of the evils of an agrarian rate would scarcely arise. There would be found, in the first place, a committee of unpaid, of diligent, and disinterested management—the operation apprehended upon wages and rents would not, in any large degree, be produced. The assessment might be compulsory, but relief might be discretionary; and that relief would, in all cases, be so small, as not to afford incentives to improvidence. The minimum of subsistence would be the maximum of aid. Besides, if the experiment failed, the Legislature might retrace its steps—the mischief would not be irremediable, for the Mendicity Association might be restored to its present amiable, but, he was sorry to be obliged to add, inefficient, relation to the public. In Dublin, then, let the tentative process begin. Dublin had petitioned for the power of relieving pauperism from want, and benevolence from the burthen of its exclusive sustainment. This demand had originated from the failure of the Association. Even if it had succeeded, he should desire to put an end to a system by which charity was mulcted, while parsimonious opulence escaped from contribution. The tax which pity levied on its slender resources enabled insensibility to hug itself in the ignominious consciousness of its privilege, and gave a base immunity to men without a heart. He would, he owned, disturb the sordid luxuries of men who, in the midst of the public scorn, turned their self-applauding contemplation to their chests of gold. But the Society to which he had referred had failed, and it would be vain to argue the
830
question upon an hypothesis of its success. If private benevolence could support its weight, it were well; but when it sunk beneath it, it was but reasonable (if he night borrow an illustration from a source so sacred) to give it an auxiliary, and enable it to bear the burthen which it had no longer strength sufficient to sustain. Should the Legislature refuse to extend to the Dublin vestries the right of making an assessment in aid of the Mendicity Association, it must close its gates on 4,000 paupers, and pour whole shoals of beggary, with all its worst accompaniments of loathsomeness, both moral and physical, into the public streets. The institution of a rate in the Irish metropolis would prevent this serious evil—it would equalize contribution—would be a resource to indigence and to benevolence—it would be guarded from abuse by the vigilance of good and kindly men, and would be a precedent for adoption by its success, or, if it should unhappily fail, would dispose, by the evidence of experiment, of the entire question, by furnishing an example which would not only deter from imitation, but put to these speculations for the improvement of Ireland, a salutary end. With respect to the general question, it was to be lamented, that the Committee on the state of the poor of Ireland did not report on what seemed to be the essence and marrow of the matter which was referred to their consideration. It must be confessed, however, that they had done important service, by publishing so large a body of valuable testimony. The two witnesses most conspicuous were Dr. Chalmers and Dr. Doyle, who, dissenting in opinion, coincided in humanity, vied with each other in lofty faculty and in pure emotion—differed in dogma, but agreed in benevolence, and exhibited such a union of truly Christian attributes, that they should reconcile the two religions, of which they are the ornaments, and induce Rome to forgive Geneva, and Geneva to pardon Rome. When men so distinguished took views so opposite, it was difficult to arrive at a conclusion free from doubt. He thought, however, that Dr. Doyle must be allowed to have, as a witness, this signal advantage—he spoke of what he had seen; the other of what he had heard. Dr. Chalmers talked of human nature; Dr. Doyle of its peculiar modification in his own country. Dr. Chalmers was afraid of congeal-

831
ing the pure sources of gratuitous benevolence. He did not know, that in the heights of society in Ireland, the moral temperature was already below the freezing-point, and that there was a crust of ice upon the fountain of sympathy, which charity could not melt, but which the law, perhaps, might break. He owned, that he thought it a paradox in others to maintain misery in order to keep kindliness in practice, and to cultivate the retired sensibility at the cost of so much woe. It was sufficient to look at Ireland, in order to find a painful answer to those reasonings, where the premises were so amiable, and the conclusion was so practically cruel. To a political economist he would paint an Irish hovel; he would open the door, and show him enough to make him shudder and confute him. There were two great features of dissimilarity between Ireland and almost every other country, which ought to be noted, before any inference was drawn from comparison. Arthur Young, fifty years ago, and Malthus, five years ago, observed, that 'the gentry in Ireland have no mercy for the poor.' The law that made slaves of one caste, and tyrants of the other, demoralized both: it sent the people to roll and wallow in the depths of poverty, while it petrified the feelings of the aristocracy, and gave to power an ossification of the heart. It might be said, "Time will cure all this." Ay; but when would the moral Aurora arise? A generation must be laid in the grave, and the field of Irish prosperity must be sought in the church-yards of Ireland. Independently of the general hard-heartedness produced by long and vitiating misrule, Ireland (it was to be recollected) was the island of absentees. Her life-blood was drained away; millions of her acres poured their produce into English harbours, and to the laborious peasant, the sweat of whose brow does not earn his bread, not one ear of all that golden harvest was ever destined to return. The great Lords of England had principalities in Ireland. They never saw the country; or, if they did, their "angel visits" were paid on those days, so auspicious to the prosperity of their tenants—the 29th of September, and the 25th of March. There was another class of proprietors, and they were still worse—the lesser and vagrant aristocracy of Ireland herself, who looked upon their country as a mere receptable of vulgar provinciality
832
—who preferred being insignificant in London, to being useful and respectable in Dublin; or who in France or Italy vilified their country in all the artifices of accent with which they vainly endeavoured to disguise the original raciness of a genuine Irish intonation. If a poor-law could reach the proud Saxon, who neglected, or the paltry Irishman who despised, the country that owed him a return of scorn, it would confer a benefit. It were well if Ireland could stop, in transitu, some portion at least of the treasure that was poured into patrician coffers; and as to the continental itinerists who would be compelled to return, to prevent their annihilation, a poor-law would have the merit of banishing them to their country, and sentencing them to home. These peculiar incidents to Ireland belong to her gentry; but it should not be forgotten, that the Legislature have, in the infliction of much misery, entered with them into a disastrous co-operation. The "clearing system was sent like a chariot with two scythes fastened to its wheels by the law itself (the Subletting Act, and the Disfranchisement Bill), to mow the people down. He should not discuss the abstract propriety of preventing farms from being broken into fragments, but he complained, and common feeling complained, that no measures of contemporaneous counteraction were provided—that no issue was afforded, even by emigration, for the ejected tenantry, but that thousands upon thousands were driven from the fields where they were born, and hoped to die, without supplying them with a place of refuge in the forests of Canada, or even in the blasted wilds of Australian sterility. But instead of providing this resource, a proceeding was adopted, which ought to make the perpetrators and the participators shudder. A scene of greater affliction was not to be found in the annals of human sorrow. Whole masses of the people were turned out, with the world before them, and with Providence for their guide. Old decrepit men, children scarcely able to crawl, women almost in a state of nudity, and men with brawny arms, and famished faces, went forth in droves of destitution. Some lay down in ditches to die; others raised hovels for the purposes of casual mendicity on the brow of some hill in the public way; some retreated to excavations in bogs, and hewed themselves out a habitation in a morass. But

833
the greater part found their way into the obscure lanes and alleys of ruined districts in large cities—they swarmed in human clusters in garrets and in vaults; if you looked up, you saw famine glaring from a sashless window in the attics of some deserted house; and if you looked down, you beheld it in a cellar, seated upon its bed of short and pestilential straw. There was no exaggeration in this. The Committee report that the ejected tenantry suffered affliction which it was not in the power of language to describe. But this was called a state of transition. Call it pestilence, famine, death, and men would tremble; but call it transition—envelop it in the technical vocabulary of fiscal science, and a Directory of economists will speak of it with the tranquillity with which a French philosopher would have expatiated on the process of regeneration which his country was undergoing, through the sanguinary celerity of the guillotine. But it was only justice to add, that at last men's eyes and hearts were opened. It was admitted, that something must be done to alleviate those dreadful sufferings: science had relented—political economy had been touched—algebra was giving way to pity—and theorists and speculators were no longer heard, amidst the cries of a nation that stretches forth her hands for food.
Mr. Stanley,after complimenting the hon. and learned Gentleman upon the energy and eloquence with which he supported the views which he took of the very important subject which had that night been brought under the consideration of the House, said, that that hon. and learned Gentleman, following an example set him in various quarters, had indulged in the customary exaggeration with which the causes were generally described from which the evils so much complained of were said to have sprung. In his conscience he believed if there was one subject, more than another, upon which exaggeration was frequent, it was on that single subject—the distress in Ireland, arising from the operation of the Subletting Act. He had taken the pains to make some inquiries upon that matter, and the result of those inquiries did not lead him to think, that any thing like the mischiefs attributed to the Subletting Act arose from that cause; nay, he could not find a single case wherein the process of ejectment was proceeded on under
834
that Act. There were occurrences in Ireland, which led to difficulty and distress; but they neither proceeded from, nor were they assisted by, the Subletting Act. Setting aside, however, those considerations, he would come to the topics which he chiefly rose for the purpose of noticing. The first of these was the proposition for a compulsory rate upon the inhabitants of Dublin. A petition had been that morning put into his hands, signed by the gentleman who held the office of Lord Mayor of Dublin, which petition he had signed on behalf of a public meeting, at which he presided. That petition prayed for the enactment of Poor-laws for ireland, and, so far as it went, proved that the desire for that species of provision was every day gaining ground in Ireland. It had been said, with respect to Dublin, that there existed in that city, as there must in every city, to a greater or less degree, the machinery for carrying into effect a system of Poor-laws; but surely the case of the Mendicity Society affording nothing like an experiment which could warrant the introduction of a system of Poor-laws into that city; and for this reason, that the conductors of the Mendicity Society felt that their funds were circumscribed, and that they did not possess an unlimited command over the purses of their fellow-citizens, such as a compulsory rate would impart to the Overseers of the poor, or whoever might have the management of those affairs. The rate upon the city of Dublin, or Cork, Limerick, or Belfast, might be all very well if it carried with it any security that the system would go no further; for he felt with all the hon. Members who had spoken upon the subject, that nothing could be more equitable than that the land should be made to support the poor, provided that, in securing to them the means of subsistence, worse evils than the former distress were not introduced. The proposition of the hon. Mover was one entitled to the most serious consideration, but he thought it dangerous for the House to pledge itself to any opinion, unless it was prepared to adopt some specific plan, calculated to give relief to the people of Ireland, without carrying in the train of that relief a body of evils greater than those removed. Suppose there were a compulsory assessment in any or all of the principal towns in Ireland, would not the population of the country be instantly driven to

835
the garrets and the cellars of the city, so soon as the mere act of inhabitancy could procure them gratuitous relief? It was said by an hon. Gentleman near him, that 1½d. a day was sufficient for the maintenance of persons in Ireland, as the Mendicity Society could support a considerable portion of those under their care for that sum; but, as he said before, the proceedings of the Mendicity Society proved nothing, for they had not the unlimited power of assessing their fellow-citizens. He would request his hon. and learned friend to look at what might be the probable results of a compulsory assessment. Let them look to the evidence given with respect to the Houses of Industry in Cork and Dublin. The introduction of a compulsory assessment would be nothing less than the commencement of a system of which no man could see the termination. It was letting in the narrow end of the wedge, with every probability that it would speedily be driven home. On the abstract question of the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, he was not prepared to give any opinion, but, for God's sake, if the House were determined on the adoption of them, let it be done with their eyes open—let them not begin by exciting expectations which they could not gratify—let them not make an advance without the possibility of receding, and let them not begin a system which might lead God knew where. He especially objected to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman opposite, on the ground that it went to pledge the House to a declaration which meant any thing or nothing. It might be understood to signify the making a provision for the blind, the lame, or the impotent; but soon there might be found a plausible complaint, that the able-bodied pauper was not provided for. There were no two propositions more distinct, or more capable of being supported upon different grounds, than were those to which he had thus alluded. He, therefore, not only on account of the House, but on account of the people of Ireland, must refuse his assent to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman opposite. Nothing could be more dangerous than to commence a system of so much importance, unless they were able to follow it up. Nothing could be more inconsistent with the most obvious dictates of prudence, than to enter, without due consideration, upon a course from
836
which there was no escape. If the hon. Gentleman were prepared to introduce any Bill, he had no doubt it would receive the most attentive consideration of the House. He was anxious, that the hon. Member should bring forward some specific measure, for then an opportunity would be afforded of judging what the hon. Gentleman's views were, and what were the means by which he proposed to carry them into effect; but at present the House and the country were left utterly in the dark. He could not conclude without, however, expressing his persuasion, that an opinion in favour of Poor-laws was every day gaining ground in Ireland, and that to an extent which no Government could or ought to oppose.
Mr. Leader,in common with every friend to humanity and to the relief of the Irish poor, returned the hon. member for Aldborough his sincere thanks for his generous and unceasing exertions, both within and without, the House, to rouse the attention of the British public to the alarming state and condition of the poor of Ireland. His hon. friend commenced his speech by regretting his incompetency to do adequate justice to so important a question; but his hon. friend had, with the greatest prudence and discretion, avoided every political or party topic which could excite contrariety of opinion, and had given weight to his most important undertaking by the excellence of his remarks. His hon. friend had, by his writings and his speeches, given a powerful aid and impulse to the question of the relief of the people of Ireland; unfortunately, the people of Ireland were the poor of Ireland, and he did not entertain a particle of doubt, be the disposition to elude and postpone this great question what it might, that it would be impossible to prevent the condition of the Irish people from forcing itself on the consideration of the country, and becoming, after the Reform Bill, one of the questions of the greatest magnitude and importance which could occupy the attention of Parliament, and the people of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord who had just sat down (Lord Althorp) commenced his address to the House by stating, that he lamented as much as any person that "distress should exist in Ireland," but the noble Lord believed, that those who undertook to describe that distress, had greatly overstated and exaggerated the extent of it.

837
He had great respect for the manly character of the noble Lord, and great confidence in his political integrity, but he assured the noble Lord, although he might hope to delude himself into the belief, that the distress of Ireland was exaggerated and misrepresented, that he had never heard or read any description of the state of the Irish poor which exceeded what was fairly deducible from their intolerable sufferings. Could he, who, in the city of Limerick, an ancient and opulent city, lately saw the King's garrison drawn up against the King's people—who saw that garrison, with charged bayonets, assailed by women who had sold their apparel, and covered with what scarce deserved the name of raiment—who saw these women approach the very bayonets of the troops, and hold up their starving and almost naked infants—could he, who in the noonday saw that city sacked, and every store rifled and plundered of the provisions which had been collected for export—could he remain silent, and hear it stated, from the highest authority, that the distress of Ireland was exaggerated and over-stated? When the recollection of those heart-rending and afflicting scenes, and of many others of a similar description, crowded on his mind, knowing that such scenes were of frequent recurrence, he must be permitted to express to the noble Lord his fears that persons possessed his confidence, who underrated the distresses of the Irish people, and who endeavoured to excuse either their indifference or incompetence to tranquillize Ireland, by representing its distress to be over-coloured and exaggerated. Such men were not friends to Government. Since he had had a seat in the House, knowing that famine impended over a large district of the west of Ireland, and knowing that a frightful anarchy threatened the south of Ireland in October last, of which he had apprized the Government before these calamities occurred, he had continually warned the Government to take proper and precautionary measures to avert those misfortunes. He had no doubt but the King's Government thought, and were consoled by thinking, that the representations of the distress of the country and the danger to the public peace, were greatly exaggerated. The noble Lord might have sincerely believed so; but the famine came on, and it required the humanity of Englishmen to mitigate its horrors by pri-
838
vate subscriptions. The insurrection in Clare followed, and was not suppressed without a melancholy sacrifice of human life, and considerable expenditure. The noble Lord admitted, that misfortunes of this kind occurred in Ireland; but that, after all, they were not frequent nor of long duration; but famine and insurrection were too frequent in Ireland—at one time they appeared in Limerick, at another along the entire south and west of Ireland. Last year, the city he had the honour to represent, and the inland counties of Ireland, were so distressed, that manufacturers and their families, once carrying on a prosperous trade in the city of Kilkenny, were glad to obtain work on the roads as day-labourers; and even that boon, from deficiency of funds, was only possible to be procured three days in the week. The next topic to which the noble Lord referred, was his gratification at the improvement which had taken place in the general condition of Ireland. The gratification which the noble Lord felt at the improvement of Ireland, consoled him for any sorrow for the distress of the people of Ireland. He admitted, like every other country in Europe, that Ireland had advanced in civilization and wealth, but he denied, that Ireland was an improving country; on the contrary, it was rapidly declining, and there was not in the world a rural population with greater claim for legislative relief and protection, than the Irish peasantry. It was matter of history, that until 1778, the Catholics, the great body of the people of Ireland, could not occupy nor possess land, and the country was a desert—the clergy were paupers—and the gentry almost mendicants on their own estates—and the British Government was maintained in Ireland by remittances from the British Treasury. Such was the state of Ireland before 1778—now, what is the claim of the rural peasantry of Ireland? Why, with a patience of labour unparalleled in the history of the world, submitting to privations which appal humanity, with a resignation creditable to their holy religion, they produced ten millions annually of rental for landlords; for clergy of all persuasions, they produced nearly three millions annually; for taxes payable in Ireland, and payable on exciseable articles in England, before exported to Ireland, four millions annually; and for local taxation, one million annually; and a

839
variety of other smaller charges—all these were produced by the toil and industry of the Irish peasant, who was allowed to have little or nothing for himself. Was it to be endured that men who were the producers of everything were to be the consumers of nothing? Were landlords, clergy, hundreds of thousands supported by taxes, to be all fed and clothed, and the great body of the people to be destitute and nearly naked? He admitted, that Ireland had improved, but since 1815, improvement had been suspended, and Ireland was not in an improving state at present; on the contrary, she was in a rapidly declining state; and without wailing to follow his excellent friend, the gallant Member (Colonel Torrens), through his elaborate arguments on political economy, without discussing the effects of change of currency or transition—he was ready to prove, from the clearest evidence, that no people who had done so much for others, had done so little for themselves as the people of Ireland. It was triumphantly alleged, that a people could not do a great deal for others, without doing a great deal also for themselves; but the Irish, after being reduced to almost famine allowance, exported two millions of quarters of corn, meal, and flour. That was the labour of eight millions of people; and the result of the agricultural employment of the Irish nation. Knowing that the linen manufacture had migrated from the Irish cottage to the English factory, that the provision trade and the export of cattle gave little in the way of employment; and knowing, also, that corn, linen, cattle and provisions, were the chief resources of Ireland, he could assert, that there was very little employment for the people of Ireland. There was no alternative but reducing the charges on the people, which amounted to little less than twenty million pounds annually; and which pressed so heavily on agriculture; or, with the most prompt and intrepid resolution, the Government ought to open every new avenue to agricultural improvement, assist the people by opening new roads, forming new canals and harbours; it ought to remove every possible local tax and burthen, to lighten the duties on timber, and on articles which, in a naked country like Ireland, would assist in sheltering the houseless poor, and wanting which, were insuperable impediments to civilization and comfort. Ire-
840
land, from 1778 to 1815, did improve; but she was no longer an improving country, and the condition of the people was deteriorating rather than improving. There was a great difference between improving the condition of the landlords, by increasing the export of cattle and provisions, and improving the comfort and happiness of the people. Looking at the revenue since 1820, he found, that it had been in that interval stationary; and he had the official documents in his hand to prove it. The political economists will not admit the increase of imports and exports to be any criterion of the increased comforts and improvement of the condition of the people, and they call for other proof. He was prepared, too, with the proof of the rapidly declining condition of the Irish people. In the first place, the duties of the Excise and Customs were falling off, and in the city of Dublin with a rapidity which was quite alarming to every Irishman interested in the prosperity and stability of the metropolis of his country. The—

£

Customs of the port of Dublin in 1821, were

941,837

Customs of the port of Dublin in 1821, were in 1830

669,500

Excise duties of Dublin in 1821

650,580

Excise duties of Dublin in 1830

462,698

He was anxious to dispel those delusions of exaggerated distress, and of Ireland being an improving country; and whilst such notions filled the mind of our rulers, they threatened the prosperity and the peace of Ireland. It appeared from "A comparative view of the quantities of several articles of luxuries retained for home consumption in Ireland, in the years 1800,1830," which he held in his hand that the—

Population of Ireland in 1800 was

5,000,000

Population of Ireland in 1830 was

8,000,000

while the consumption was, of—

In 1800

In 1830.

Tobacco

6,737,275 lbs.

4,124,742 lbs.

Brandy and gin

204,494 gals.

12,449 gals.

Rum

1,036,467 gals.

25,514 gals.

Sugar

355,662 cwts.

328,266 cwts.

Wines

1,024,832 gals.

955,091 gals.

Tea

3,499,801 lbs.

3,887,955 lbs.

Coffee

120,985 lbs.

559,655 lbs.

Malt

3,311,463bush.

2,011,895 bush.

He had thus taken eight exciseable articles, what was the result? Why, that with a population in 1800, consisting of 5,000,000, increased in 1830 to above 8,000,000, the quantity of exciseable articles in Ireland was diminished, instead of being increased; so that, with an in-

841
creasing population, there was a decreasing consumption of exciseable articles. Was not that evidence as conclusive as any which could be produced, of the deteriorated condition of the people of Ireland? Could any Cabinet repose in confidence in the affections of the people, until this state of things was effectually reformed? Those who said, that the distress of Ireland was exaggerated, rested upon assertion—but he, who contended that those assertions were erroneous, produced his proofs in confirmation of his statement. Gentlemen might be displeased to hear these representations of the fallen condition and increasing distress of Ireland; but he owed it to his constituents to leave no effort untried, to make their condition known. He had endeavoured to make himself acquainted with the state and condition of Ireland—its trade, its agriculture, its finances, its manufactures, and its ability to increase its stock of national wealth—and he should ever feel it his duty to throw all his information on those subjects frankly and honestly before the House, not entertaining the least doubt but that other Gentlemen would follow his example, and bring irresistible and irrefragable proofs, that the distress of Ireland was great and overwhelming. But, said the noble Lord in reply to his excellent friend (the member for Aldborough), supposing your opinions of distress well founded—and supposing Ireland to be in a deteriorating state—you have no plan—you come forward with no project for improving the condition of the people; a resolution only holds out hopes which may not be realized, and consequently embitters distress by inflaming discontent. He was one of those practical men who build any superstructure they wish to erect on old foundations; and although he knew the two churches bore with deadly pressure on the industry of Ireland—although the taxes fell heavily on the reduced means of the country—yet, looking for present and immediate relief, he was disposed to entertain the proposition of the hon. member for Aldborough, and for inquiring as to the best mode of relieving the people of Ireland, If Poor-laws were inadmissible, would any one argue that other modes might not suggest themselves when that was the only subject for consideration and discussion? For himself he must admit, after the mode in which the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had
842
met the question, he was not sanguine in his hopes, that public opinion had yet operated sufficiently on the understanding of the Legislature. It was his practice, if he could not succeed to the fullest extent of his wishes, to be very grateful for any assistance which might relieve his countrymen, without allocating the estates of the first eighteen Irish sees that drop in, to be assumed by the State, and vested in Commissioners in trust, to manage the property to the best advantage, and thereby obtaining a revenue of 300,000 l. or 400,000 l. a-year, for the relief of the poor of Ireland. Much might be done to give immediate relief to the people, without proceeding to that extremity. He did not look to the British Treasury, nor to the Irish Church, for relief for the Irish poor, because that would be in vain; but although, in the present state and condition of Ireland, indiscriminate direct taxation upon the productive industry of the country in the shape of poor-rates might not be at once assented to, he relied with confidence on the Legislature adopting measures which, without pressure upon the public finances, might apply the existing funds to meet the occasions of scarcity and the peculiar periods of want of employment—which might place a loan-fund of adequate amount under the management of the Loan Commissioners, to be permanently applied under their direction to public works, so as to secure the repayment of the interest by regulated instalments, to the Consolidated Fund; and which might apply a direct and effectual remedy to absenteeism, the proximate and admitted cause of a great portion of those mischiefs which affect the moral and political condition of Ireland. In his opinion it would be expedient and just, that the Lord Lieutenant for the time being should be empowered, at periods of scarcity and want of employment, to order the execution of all the presentments granted at the Assizes next immediately preceding, in any county or province, or simultaneously in the whole of Ireland, by cash payments; and that the funds to be applied thereto, should be the current balance in the respective treasurers' hands, and the current balance of the public account with the Bank of Ireland, and that such advances issued from the current quarter should be covered and reimbursed by the respective treasurers remitting the levies, as collected, to the Bank of Ireland, to the respective

843
amounts of the issues thus made. In order to promote local employment, it would be proper that an assessment should be imposed of 6d. in the pound, on the rents payable to all landed proprietors residing in Ireland, and of 1s. in the pound, to be deducted from the rent of all landed proprietors who do not reside in any part of Ireland, for six months in each year; and the produce of such tax should be applied, first, in the Baronial proportion of charge for any necessary increase in the hospital, alms-houses, and dispensary establishments of the county; and next, to public works, and in reduction of the county cesses, subject to such regulations and control in the expenditure, as should assure the fair and honest application of the fund, in ready-money payments to the labouring peasantry. He had felt it his duty to suggest these three measures—cash payments on Grand Jury presentments, national loan fund for manual labour, and a small tax on absentee as well as resident proprietors, as capable of affording very considerable relief, and possibly, for the present, superseding the necessity of the so much dreaded Poor-laws. Whether there were other sums which might be obtained from the State or the Church, it was not for him to anticipate. He took things as he found them, looking to the due application of existing means, and to the proper husbanding of existing establishments. As for the Irish absentees, the strongest Government which was ever formed, could not throw such protection over them, as to exclude them from the necessity of becoming contributors to the relief of a people from whose industry they annually extracted the amount in value of half the surplus produce of the country. Let him assure the House, and the Government, that if the Motion of the hon. member for Aldborough should be rejected, this question would not be set at rest—and if it were set at rest, the question of the Repeal of the Union would be at once raised to a terrific importance. He implored the House not to deceive itself, Ireland could not be a tranquil country, when left in a state of hopeless and increasing misery. Would the House believe, that absenteeism existed in any part of Ireland to such an extent, that in one part of the island, a district of forty miles in a direct line through the heart of Munster, was without a resident landed proprietor, or person capable of affording
844
employment to the people? And yet, between his residence on the river Black-water, and the family mansion of the right hon. Gentleman, the member for the city of Limerick, on the river Shannon, that was the case. Was it to be wondered at, that the Representatives for Ireland, who had been nearly twelve months in attendance on their parliamentary duties, removed from their families, their business, and their power of serving their countrymen, should entertain strong and ardent feelings on this vital and important subject? For his part, he had been struck with horror and dismay at the scenes which had occurred in Ireland since he left it, and which he believed arose from the distressed state and condition of the country, and from heated and inconsiderate individuals insisting on payments, when it was almost physically impossible to procure money to discharge even what, in other times, would be considered the most trifling engagements. His opinions were supported by large influential resident landed proprietors, who contributed to the wants of their countrymen—Lord Cloncurry for example, said, "that a stipendiary Board would do little, and English money advanced by way of loan on Irish security, increased the bad effect of absenteeism to the amount of the interest exacted. Let England set us going by liberal grants (not loans), we should have a regular and moderate property-tax, including absentees, the produce to be vested in such Board, one half to be applied to the relief of the aged and helpless, and the other moiety in giving employment by means of works of improvement." Mr. Naper of Loughcrew, a gentleman of large landed property, had given him the following sketch of a projected poor and labour rate, which he would read to the House.
As an exemplification of such a scheme applied generally to Ireland, the following Notice as applicable to the county of Meath, is respectfully submitted to consideration:—
The poor may be classed under three heads:

1. Able-bodied labourers (with their families) unemployed at certain seasons.

2. The aged and infirm, being householders.

3. The destitute—(houseless and wandering).

For the relief of those classes respectively, the following means might be made available:—
1. For the labouring class.
Meath contains (independently of many thousand acres not yet rated on the county

845
books), 274,773 acres that pay cess. These, let at an average of 30 s. per acre, together with the value of glebe lands, produce a rental to head-landlords, middlemen, and clergy, of above 400,000 l. a-year. A charge of three per cent upon this rental, and upon the value of tithes, would amount, in round numbers, to 12,000 l. yearly. This sum, at 2l. per head, or 5s. a-week, would give employment to 6,000 men for two months. These men being heads of families consisting of five persons each, the employment thus afforded would give an additional degree of support and comfort to at least 30,000 persons—men, women, and children; that is, to 1,661 persons in each of the eighteen baronies of the county.
2. For the aged and infirm.
A levy of two per cent from all tenants, upon the rental they pay, or on a valuation of the lands they hold rent-free, or at a nominal rent, would produce 8.000 l. per annum. This sum would give to 2,666 aged and infirm householders, 3l. each per annum, or in each of the eighteen baronies, would allow 149 persons this portion.
Having thus provided, to a certain extent, for the agricultural poor, being householders, by means to be taken directly from landed proprietors, their tenants, and the clergy, it remains to be considered what provision can be made—
3. For the destitute (now houseless and wandering).
For these it is proposed to provide "houses of refuge" in each barony, or in joint baronies, on the plan of the Dublin Mendicity Society. It appears, from the Report of that institution, for the year 1829, that 3l. 17 s. 7½d. is the annual average cost of each mendicant (including all charges for rent, management, &c.). Thus at the rate of about 4l. a-head, 1,000 paupers may be supported for 4,000 l.; and for this purpose there should be in the county ten "houses of refuge," holding 100 persons each. The necessary funds might be raised by a direct tax on the property of absentees; by additional charges on the licenses of public houses; together with a drawback from Government, of percent on the revenue derived from spirits—and by fines at Assizes, the Quarter and Petty Sessions, &c. To these may be added, the alms collected at churches and chapels, and the bequests and voluntary donations of the charitable.
For the management and disposal of the funds thus raised, it is suggested, that parochial Committees should be appointed, to be composed of the Protestant and Roman Catholic Clergy, and such landlords and tenants as pay a certain proportion to the rates: the landlords to serve either by themselves or agents; and all the lay members to come on and go off by rotation.
It is not proposed to give to any individual pauper an absolute legal right to support; the members of the Committee to decide on all claims.
Mr. Napersent with the sketch the following letter:—
Sir,—In submitting to you the foregoing scheme, I do not propose it as perfect and conclusive; but as one, which, calculated at a moderate rate to effect all the needful objects of a legal provision for the poor, courts discussion and investigation from all who have turned their thoughts to the subject, or feel an interest in a matter so vitally important to the welfare of their country. The whole charge, on this county, would amount to about 25,000 l. per annum; a sum not more than equal to the transport and cost of a regiment of English Militia of 1,000 strong. The simple question, then, comes to this;—whether it be better to apply to the purse of the Irish landed proprietor, to improve the condition of the Irish peasantry, or to have recourse to that of the English landholders for the means of keeping them down.
I have the honour to be, &c.

Loughcrew,

J. L. W. NAPER.

August 20, 1831.

He quoted these documents to show the interest which the landed proprietors resident in Ireland took upon this subject. If Ireland were conciliated by just government, and by the impartial admission of all religions to civil and political advantages and emoluments, and by a just arrangement of Church property, great causes of jealousy and dissensions would be for ever removed. Those, however, were matters for consideration at some other period. He supported the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, without reference to any political or party topic whatever, entertaining no doubt, but that the House would decide the question, so as to promote the comfort of the Irish poor, and the peace, the prosperity, and the security of the United Kingdom.
Lord Morpethsaid, he felt it his duty to recommend some system of poor-laws for Ireland, which, though they might press severely on the landlord, were still required as a remedy for the evils which pressed so heavily on the population of that country. He thought it the duty of the resident Gentlemen of Ireland, to look to the comfort of those persons by whom they were surrounded; yet as the subject had already received the attention of Government, and had not been brought forward in a tangible shape by the hon. Member, and might embarrass their plans at some future period, he would vote for the amendment. He certainly came down to the House, intending to vote for the Motion of the hon. member for Aldborough, but after learn-

847
ing that the hon. Member was not prepared with a definite plan, he thought, that the wiser course was not to pledge the House to the subject.
Mr. Spring Ricewas prepared to maintain, that the introduction of the Poor-laws into Ireland would be productive of incalculable mischief, and would bring upon that country the greatest measure of evil ever produced in any civilized country. But, even if he were favourable to the proposition, he should hesitate to assent to it on the present occasion, as he could not approve of the manner in which his hon. friend had produced his plan. He objected to the principle as well as to the mode; but, at the same time, he was bound to express, in common with every Irishman, his gratitude for the talent, zeal, industry, and the disinterestedness of his hon. friend in behalf of Ireland. He felt bound to make one or two observations, though unwilling to detain the House. Previous, however, to going into the question, he would observe, that the hon. member for Kilkenny was mistaken in imputing to his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a denial of the existence of distress in Ireland. For, in the commencement of his speech, his noble friend admitted this, and added, that it was a source of grief to every one who had the interest of the empire at heart. He certainly denied the extreme case put by his hon. friend, who said, that the state of Ireland in the time of Spenser was not worse than at the present day. That was an exaggerated fiction, bearing no resemblance to the true state of that country. With respect to the question before the House, what was the proposition now under consideration? Was it one containing a practical remedy? No. Did his hon. friend mean to call upon the House to declare the right of the poor to obtain relief when they were in distress, and to affirm, that the State was bound to provide them with employment, without, at the same time, pointing out the mode by which that was to be effected? It was very easy to say, that a system of Poor-laws ought to be established in Ireland, but it was ridiculous for the House to affirm that, unless it was acquainted with the nature of the measure to be introduced. Ever since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, he had heard continued complaints of the misapplication of the English Poor-laws, and of the mischief that had arisen from that part of them
848
which compelled the Overseers of parishes to find employment for the able-bodied labourers. But this principle, which had long been rejected as most pernicious, by every writer of authority on the subject, the hon. Member now proposed to make the law of Ireland. If his hon. friend could point out any advantage likely to arise from this system, he would abandon his opposition to the introduction of Poor-laws; but even his hon. friend, with all his talents and acquirements, had not done so. He would appeal to experience on this subject, and would refer the hon. Member to the results that had followed from the introduction of this practice of giving employment to the able-bodied labourer, in the south of England. He was not aware, indeed, that there was an opponent to this opinion in the House, for as long as he could recollect, all the attempts that had been made for the improvement of the English Poor-laws had for their object the removal of this system. Surely, his hon. friend could not call upon the House to impose the English system of Poor-laws, with all its complicated machinery and abuses, upon the Irish people? If he did not call upon the House to do that, he had furnished no feasible plan to proceed upon, and yet his hon. friend called upon the House to pledge itself that some measure should be introduced. His hon. friend hinted, that he had a measure ready to submit to the House, that he had a bill prepared which he would introduce if it agreed to this motion. But why not introduce his bill at once? His noble friend stated, that if the hon. Member would do so, no opposition should be offered by the Government to its being laid on the Table, when it might be printed, and left to the consideration of every Member; but it was obviously impossible for the House to bind itself to a scheme, the details of which it was not at all acquainted with. He deplored as much as any one, the lamentable state of distress to which the peasantry of Ireland were reduced; but he did not see how the introduction of a plan for giving them compulsory relief, could improve their condition; on the contrary, he feared that the distress of the peasantry would be increased, and the condition of other classes materially deteriorated. He feared, that the result of the experiment of the hon. Gentleman, would be directly the contrary to that which he anticipated; and the

849
misfortune was, that when once the scheme had been put in operation, it would be impossible to abandon it. If there was a system for the relief of the aged, the impotent, and the sick in Ireland, what extent of relief would that afford? A great many complaints had been urged, and more especially by his hon. friend, of the evil done to the labouring classes of this country from the immigration of the Irish poor. But would a plan for the relief of the sick and aged poor of Ireland prevent the immigration of the able-bodied labourers into this country? So far from preventing the Irish peasantry from coming over, it would be an inducement for them to come in larger numbers, for they would be sure, that their sick friends and relations would be taken care of in their absence. It was obvious, that no system of Poor-laws could prevent the influx of labourers in search of work, and until means were devised of finding employment for the Irish labourers in their own country, they would continue to come here. His hon. friend said, this occasional and temporary immigration of the Irish labourers deteriorated the condition and diminished the rate of wages of the English peasantry. He was far from entertaining the same feelings on the subject as his hon. friend, for this occasional ingress of small bodies of poor Irish was attended with material benefit, and more especially in the time of harvest. At that period of the year, there was always a great demand for labour, and he had yet to learn how they could injure the English peasantry. He was satisfied, that they afforded material assistance to the English farmers; and, if their influx tended to increase the Poor-rates, no encouragement would be given to them. But it had been said, that the immigration of the poor Irish tended to lower the rate of wages: but he called upon any hon. Member to furnish him with a proof of that. Look to the southern and western counties in England, where wages were lower than at former periods. What had that resulted from? From the mal-administration of the Poor-laws, by the introduction of the system of paying the labourer a portion of his wages out of the poor-rates. Was that the case in the northern parts of the island? No complaints of a low rate of wages were made where this pernicious system did not exist. As many Irish labourers, however, sought work in the northern counties as in the
850
southern, so that the effect of low wages could not be traced to their influence. Indeed, if the circumstances were as stated by the hon. Member, would not the labourers of the south go to the north, to get a higher rate of wages? He could only impute the misery that existed in the south of England, among the agricultural peasantry, to the very system of affording relief—finding employment to the able-bodied labourer, which had never existed in the north—which was recommended as a cure for the diseases of Ireland. He was convinced, that the introduction into Ireland of Poor-laws would lower the rate of wages in that country, and complete the misery and distress of the people. He would refer his hon. friend to the report of the Committee on the distress in Ireland, which sat last year, and over which he had the honour to preside, and his hon. friend would find, that all the witnesses, whether English, Scotch, or Irish, however favourable some of them might be to the introduction of a system of Poor-laws into Ireland, assumed, that such a measure would not have the least tendency to check the ingress of the Irish peasantry into England. But a British House of Commons would never take such a view of the subject—and never could consent to a measure to prevent the labourer going from one part of the empire to another to seek employment. If the House endeavoured to carry such a plan into effect as to prevent the ingress of the Irish labourer into England, it would lead to the dismemberment of the empire, attended with the bitterest feelings. But what was the question at present before the House? Was it called on to decide upon any practicable plan, or to affirm, by a sweeping resolution, that a system of Poor-laws ought to be introduced into Ireland. The House was called upon to declare, that there was a plan fully matured for carrying into effect this object, without having the least idea of that plan. The hon. Member stated, that he only called upon the House to re-affirm a resolution that received the assent of the Irish Parliament in 1771, which affirmed, that a system of Poor-laws should be introduced into Ireland. But the resolution of 1771 did not produce any legislative enactment for that purpose—it produced no other practical result than the establishment of some free houses of industry. If, therefore, that resolution only produced a result which the hon,

851
Member admitted to be inadequate to the occasion, he saw no reason to infer that the mere resolution of this House, if not accompanied by a practicable plan, would produce other than an inadequate remedy also. It had been stated, that the Irish gentry opposed the establishment of compulsory relief to the poor from a selfish principle; but he declared to the hon. Gentleman, and to the House, that if he could believe that this proposition was opposed on other than public and patriotic grounds, he would instantly withdraw his opposition to the Motion. He was sure, however, that neither his hon. friend, nor any other hon. Member, would cast such an imputation on the Irish landlords, as to suppose that they were indifferent to the sufferings of their tenantry, or regardless of the well-being of those so intimately connected with them. He opposed the Motion of the hon. Gentleman on higher grounds—because sanctioning it would be productive of much mischief. He believed, also, that there were other means of affording adequate relief to that portion of the empire, without resorting to this extreme measure—for instance, the money that was to be proposed in the Committee of Supply to be advanced for public works in Ireland—an improved mode of local assessment by the Grand Juries—and other plans, which he trusted would shortly be submitted to the House by his noble friend. The Motion pledged the House to a great deal in principle, without explaining the details, and he should, therefore, give it his decided negative.
Mr. Lefroyconceived, that the representations given of the distress in Ireland was much exaggerated, and was convinced that the great mass of the population were in a state of progressive improvement. He would not consent to follow blind-folded the hon. Member, who had set forward the principle by which he was guided in so broad and vague a manner. He doubted if Poor-laws could be properly administered in Ireland. There were no large farmers there; and thus the individuals, who might be one day administering the laws, might the next be the object of their bounty. It was, he admitted, a just principle, that the richer class should provide for the maintenance of the poor, but not after a manner which would have the effect of reducing themselves to beggary.
Sir John Bourkethought the time was come—and he believed that this was the
852
opinion of the most intelligent and well-informed people of Ireland—that the time was come for introducing Poor-laws into Ireland. He should, therefore, be ready to vote for the Resolution of the hon. Member. A great deal was said about raising false hopes by assenting to the Resolution, but he begged leave to assure the House, that the rejection of it would cause a great deal of disappointment.
Mr. O'Ferrallhoped that every Irish Member would be allowed to state his opinion on this subject. The objection of the noble Lord (Althorp), that there was no plan, had no weight with him, for that objection was formerly always urged against Reform. He was of opinion, that all property in Ireland should be taxed for the poor, as in England. He did not comprehend why there should be one law for England and another for Ireland. The poor Irish, seeing a different law when they came here, lost all respect for the law in Ireland. The want of such a law had cast a stigma on that country. It was not possible, that the principles taught by the Church of Ireland could be respected in Ireland, when large revenues were extracted from the people for its support, without an adequate return. At the same time he had no more wish to make any encroachment on Church property, than on the property of the land-owners. He should, as a landed proprietor, prefer a diminished income with a contented peasantry, to being surrounded, as at present, with a famishing population, and finding his whole property insecure. He supported the Motion.
Mr. Benettwished to see a modified system of Poor-laws adopted for Ireland, and this was the prayer of a petition he had to present from Chippenham. The petitioners complained justly, that the cheaper-raised produce of Ireland met their produce in all the markets of this country, and they wished the two countries to be placed on an equal footing. He did not, however, expect or wish to see the Poor-laws, as they were now administered in England, introduced into Ireland. They might, however, adopt the principles of those laws. The hon. Member concluded by declaring, that he would support the Motion, and that the poor had a claim to relief out of the Church-lands.
Mr. Mullinsthought every Irish Member should have an opportunity to speak. He proposed that the debate be adjourned to Monday.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the subject had been fully opened upon this occasion, and therefore, he thought the debate might be adjourned to a more distant day. If the hon. Member persisted in his motion for adjournment, he would move that the words "this day month" be substituted for Monday.
An Hon. Member declared he would support the original Motion.
Mr. John Smithhad witnessed two Irish famines, and would support the original Motion. He had never heard the hon. member for Aldborough propose that the English Poor-laws should be introduced into Ireland; if he had, he would oppose him. He only wanted to pledge the Parliament to do something. The English nation had twice relieved the Irish when in a state of starvation, but he believed it would not do so again. The last time doing so was requisite, the people hung fire. The Corporation of the Bank of England, which was generally very liberal, had refused to contribute on the last occasion, and so had other bodies. If again a famine should occur, an insurrection would, be believed, take place; and if ever an insurrection were justified, it would be that. Reserving to himself the right of opposing any plan which might be brought forward, he should support the original Motion.
Colonel O'Gradywas surprised to hear, after all that had been said and written on the subject, that any doubt should now be entertained of the propriety of introducing Poor-laws into Ireland. Such a measure would make all property contribute to the support of the poor which the landlords had created. A meeting of the county of Limerick, with which he was connected, had taken place, and decided on the propriety of introducing Poor-laws into Ireland. He wished the hon. Member to withdraw the Motion, and at once to bring in a bill, to which he promised his best support.
Mr. James Grattanwould certainly vote for the Motion, because it went to establish the principle that Poor-laws ought to be established in Ireland. No measure, in his opinion, however, would give entire satisfaction which did not make the Church property available to the support of the poor. He had seen the peasantry who had resided in his neighbourhood, and who were in a tolerable situation, always remain at home, and this fact was
854
worth all the theories of the hon. member for Limerick.
Mr. Dominick Brownethought, that the hon. member for Aldborough had better withdraw his Resolution, and bring in a bill, to which he promised to give his most diligent consideration.
Mr. Ruthvenwas favourable to proceeding by Resolution, because by such a course no one was bound to any particular plan.
Mr. Sadlercould not accede to the suggestions which had been made to him to withdraw his Resolution, and to proceed by introducing a bill. He recollected, that many important motions had been carried, after the way had been cleared for them by means of Resolutions. He should have preferred a direct negative being given to his Resolutions, instead of having them met by the previous question, which meant nothing else but indefinite postponement.
Lord Althorpwas not prepared to negative the Resolutions, nor was he prepared to acquiesce in them at the present moment. He had, therefore, moved the previous question.
The House then divided on the previous question:—Ayes 64; Noes 52—Majority 12.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time; Canadian Revenue. Read a third time; Burning of Lands (Ireland.)
Petitions presented. By Lord HOLLAND, from Evans Jones, praying, that the effects of the Beer Act might be inquired into before any material alterations were made in it; and from William Ben bow, to the same effect. By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from William Washington, of Middlesex, to the same effect. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from
740
certain parochial Clergy of the diocese of Exeter, that the Beer Act might be so modified as to afford as little temptation as possible to vice and immorality.

FRENCH TROOPS IN BELGIUM.
The Marquis of Londonderry The Marquis of Londonderry rose to move, that there be laid on the Table an account of the expenses of erecting the fortresses on the frontiers of Belgium and Holland, and of the proportions in which the expense was borne by the Powers who contributed, In making this Motion, he wished to take the opportunity of putting some questions to the noble Earl opposite, on the subject of withdrawing the French troops from Belgium. The noble Earl had stated, the other night, that the French Commander in chief, Marshal Gerard, had received positive orders to withdraw the French troops from Belgium, as soon as the Dutch troops should be withdrawn within the limits of their own frontiers; and the noble Earl added, that he had no doubt, but that these orders would be executed, and that the French government would honourably perform its engagements. But he had since understood, that the noble Earl had added, in an under tone, which he did not distinctly hear himself, that some portion of the French troops might remain in the Belgian territory. In consequence of an intimation conveyed to him, that the noble Earl had added something to that effect, he had, after the adjournment of the House, applied to a noble Baron opposite, and inquired, in what sense he was to understand what the noble Earl had said, and what was the interpretation which the noble Baron put on the words of the noble Earl? By that noble Baron he was informed, that positive orders had been given to withdraw the French troops from Belgium; and he had been the more confirmed in the belief that such was the statement of the noble Earl, from a similar statement having been made by a noble Lord in the other House, viz. that the whole of the French troops were to be withdrawn from Belgium. With what amazement, then, did he afterwards learn, that Prince Leopold (for he could not be considered as king of Belgium, since he had not been as yet acknowledged by Russia, Prussia, and Austria) had requested, that a guard of ten or twelve thousand of the French troops should continue to occupy Belgium, after the Dutch troops had withdrawn. He understood, that Prince Leopold had requested, that a considerable proportion of the infantry of

741
the French army, besides two brigades of cavalry, and eight batteries of cannon, should still remain in possession of the country. The noble Earl had spoken, on a former occasion, of what this country had a right to expect; and he would now ask the noble Earl, whether this was what the country had a right to expect, after the engagements said to have been come under by the French government, and the assurances given by the noble Earl, that these engagements would be fairly and honourably performed? For what purpose, or with what object, could these troops be retained in Belgium? Prince Leopold had not as yet been acknowledged king of Belgium by Austria, Prussia, or Russia, and he had no right to demand these troops as a body guard. Could Prince Leopold not trust Les braves Belges? and if he could not, and we were to allow the French to remain on that pretence, it was quite clear, that the Ministers of this country had been bamboozled by the arrangement. It was perfect perfidy, if Prince Leopold had called on the troops of France alone to occupy Belgium in this manner. If any troops at all were required, the French government alone ought not to have been called upon to furnish them, but the matter ought to have been referred to the Conference, and our Ministers had not done their duty at the Conference, since they had not bound Prince Leopold down as to what he ought to do in an emergency of this kind, which, as it was likely to occur, ought to have been foreseen and provided for. It ought to have been referred to the Conference here, to consider whether, in such a case, the occupying troops should be Prussian, Russian, or Austrian, or some of our own troops; for, of all the Powers, France was the last that ought to have been allowed to furnish troops for this purpose. It was evidently a subterfuge, a pretence, on the part of the French, for the purpose of having the occupation of Belgium continued by their own troops. He repeated, that the matter ought to have been settled by the Conference here, and that some previous arrangement should have been made in case of the occurrence of this emergency. He had, on a late occasion, been complimented by the noble Baron opposite (Holland) for the great satisfaction which he had expressed at the assurance that the French troops were to be withdrawn; but then, when he expressed
742
that satisfaction, he understood, that all of them were to be withdrawn; whereas, as it now appeared, the result was totally different, since so large a body was still to be retained. He would refer the noble Baron to what had been the conduct of the Ministry of this country in 1793, during the progress of the then French Revolution, with which the noble Baron was particularly conversant—he alluded to the noble Baron, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or perhaps, he ought rather to say, the noble Deputy Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or Principal Secretary, for he understood, that it was the noble Baron who directed the proceedings of the noble Lord who ostensibly held that situation. If the noble Baron would please to refer back to a debate which took place in Paris at the period to which he had adverted (the debate as to the fate of Louis 16th), he would find, that a certain Monsieur Egalité, or some other person, had said, on that occasion: "Je vote pour la mort sans phrase." So, in this case, his language was: "Je vote pour la retraite sans phrase"—a real and substantial, and not a pretended retreat—"une retraite sans phrase et sans conditiont" and then it might be hoped, that it would be sans collision. The noble Baron had complimented him on the satisfaction which he had expressed, but then, that was under the impression, that the intended retreat was such as he had described, for that was the only species of retreat with which he would be satisfied. But one word as to the fortresses. In the Protocol on their Lordships' Table, it was provided, that the negociators for the four Powers—Russia, Austria, Prussia, and Great Britain—should meet and determine which of these fortresses were to be destroyed, and, it was to be presumed, without any interference on the part of the French government. Now, however, there was reason to fear, that the cloven foot of France had been thrust into the negotiations, or was to be thrust into them, He deprecated this kind of interference, as the worst, that could be exercised or suffered. The expense of erecting these fortresses had been borne by Holland and the Allied Powers, and France had nothing to do with it, and it was only on the supposition that there was to be no interference on the part of France with respect to the disposal of these fortresses, that he could hope or expect, that any good whatever

743
could result from the Conferences on this subject. He dwelt the more on this, as he understood, that France had required that six of the fortresses should be demolished, and that two of them should be the fortresses of Courtray and Phillipville; and there was reason to apprehend, that the French government was engaged with Prince Leopold and the Belgian government in some negociations isolés, having, for their object, the demolition of the whole of the fortresses. Complaints had sometimes been made of the inconvenience attending the line of conduct which he had lately pursued, in occasionally putting questions to Ministers on the subject of our Foreign Affairs. But, whatever might be said on that head, it was clear, that his labours, and the exertions of other noble Lords on that side of the House, had not been altogether useless, for he understood, that the noble Earl had thought proper to apply to the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) near him, for his opinion regarding these fortresses; and, if the noble Duke had given him his advice, and if that advice should be followed, that would satisfy him. But, in regard to the period of 1793, he would refer the noble Baron and the Ministers to a letter written by Lord Grenville, in answer to one sent him by the French Foreign Secretary, requesting some explanations. That letter was written in circumstances very similar to the present, and it would be well worth the while for Ministers to refer to it, as affording a good rule for the guidance of their own conduct at the present moment. It was an answer to a letter from M. Chauvelin, and was in these svords:—
"On soutient toujours la violation des traités et des droits de nos Alliés,quoiqu' on y propose une negotiation d'autant plus illusoire qu'elle est reculée. ainsi que 1'evacuation des Pays Bas par les armées Françoises, à l'epoque indeterminée, non seulement de la fin de la guerre, mais encore de la consolidation de ce que vous appellez la liberté des Belges.
"Je crois cependant devoir vous avertir en termes très positifs, en réponse à ce que vous meditez au sujet de nos preparatifs, que, dans les circonstances presentes, nous allons continuer à prendre toutes les mesures que nous jugerons à propos, à nous mettre en état de defendre la sureté, la tranquillité, et les droits de ce pays, à fin qu'à guarantir ceux de nos Alliás, et à mettre un frein aux vœux d'ambition et d'aggrandissement dangereux en tout tems Pour le reste de l'Europe, mais qui le sont
744
parce devenu bien d'avantage dans celui ce qu'elles sont soutenu par la propagation de principes destructeurs de tout ordre social."
Such was the letter of Lord Grenville, and he hoped the noble Earl would attend to it, and pursue a similar line of conduct. He hoped there would be no truckling in this case, as the favourite Journal of Ministers had expressed it—(he was sorry that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to whom he owed a few retorts, which he was desirous of paying, was not then in his place, though, from the manner in which the Woolsack was occupied by the noble Earl (Shaftesbury), it would gain nothing in dignity by the presence of the noble and learned Lord)—but he hoped there would be no truckling in this case—that there would be no yielding to aggressive movements, or French levelling and democratical principles: and that in the course of the Conferences respecting these fortresses, no directions would be taken from France, and no interference on the part of that Power permitted. The questions, then, which he wished to put to the noble Earl were—first, whether there had been any interference on the part of France in regard to the demolition of those fortresses?—and, secondly, whether, in consequence of a request from Prince Leopold, or for any other reason, a portion of the French troops was to continue to occupy the Belgian territory, in direct contradiction to the engagements of the French government, and to the assurances of the noble Earl, who pledged himself that these engagements would be fairly and honourably performed? The noble Marquis concluded, by moving for a "Return of the total sums contributed by Great Britain for the erection of fortifications in the Netherlands, or towards the defence and incorporation of the Belgian provinces with Holland, in fulfilment of the additional Articles of the Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands, dated 13th August, 1814; showing the total amount contributed by Great Britain, under each of the deputations contained in the first of those Articles."
Earl Grey, knowing how hopeless it was to dissuade the noble Earl (Londonderry*) from pursuing that inconvenient
*The noble Marquis sits in the House of Peers as Earl Vane, and, according to strict etiquette, Earl Grey generally gives him only his, parliamentary title.

745
and irregular, and, as it might be, dangerous course, which he had, of late, adopted, would not appeal to the noble Earl's discretion. But, after all the irregular and inconvenient proceedings of the noble Earl, and all the variety of irregular questions which the noble Earl had put on the subject of the negotiations relative to the affairs of Belgium and Holland, he would submit to the House, whether the noble Earl had been, on any one of these occasions, more irregular than he was at present? In the first place, the noble Earl had made this Motion without any of that courtesy which it was usual to evince on these occasions, and without the slightest notice that he intended to bring forward this Motion, or to put any questions on the subject of the demolition of the fortresses, or the withdrawing of the French troops. [The Marquis of Londonderry: I gave notice of the motion on Friday]. The noble Earl says, that he gave notice of the Motion on Friday; but, if the noble Earl did, he was certainly not aware of it, and there was no intimation of it whatever in the paper of Notices and Orders of the Day. He was totally unapprised of the intention of the noble Earl to bring the Motion forward on the present occasion. To the Motion itself, however, he had no objection. But he put it to the House, whether it was proper, upon the slightest of all grounds, to be putting questions respecting negotiations and proceedings of such vast consequence, that peace or war might depend on their determination—whether it was proper, merely on the ground of loose public rumours and statements in the newspapers, or of the vain imaginations of suspicious minds, to be thus continually putting questions on matters of such importance, and on which so much depended? It was not his intention to follow the noble Earl through the variety of topics on which he had touched, for he should be guilty of a breach of his duty as a Minister of the Crown if he did so. But, as to the questions put by the noble Earl, he had only to refer him to the answers which he had given to the same questions, in substance, when the noble Earl had put them on former occasions. The noble Earl had asked, when the French troops would retire from the Belgic territory? to which he had answered, that it was not for him to say when they
746
would retire, but had said, at the same time, that this country had a right to expect, that they would retire when the object for which they had entered Belgium should be attained—that object being the repulse of the Dutch troops from the Belgian territory. To this he added, that he relied on the honour of the French government for the due performance of their undertakings. More than this he could not say. He had stated the fact, that intelligence had reached his Majesty's Ministers, that the Marshal commanding the French troops had received orders to withdraw the troops from the Belgic territory. As to what had been doing or what had occurred since, he must decline at present saying anything whatever on that head. He did say, as the noble Earl had intimated, that it had been proposed that a part of the French troops should remain for a time. But whether the French were justified by then engagements in leaving any portion of their troops in the country after the Dutch had retired, or whether the Ministry of this country had done their duty by requiring proper engagements from the French on this head—or in insisting on the performance of those engagements when entered into, would be subjects hereafter to be considered, when their Lordships should have the whole circumstances of the case before them. He had already stated what it was which this country had a right to expect, and he had added, that he believed that the French government was disposed fairly, and honourably, and faithfully, to perform its engagements, and further he could not say. As to the negotiations on the subject of the fortresses, he must decline saying a single word on that subject at present. But he might advert to one little circumstance in reference to what the noble Earl had said respecting the fortresses: when the noble Earl spoke so confidently of the fortresses that were to be demolished, he declined mentioning the names of the whole of them; but he had pronounced the fortresses of Courtray and Phillipville to be two of them. Now it happened that at Courtray there was no fortress.
The Duke of Wellington The Duke of Wellington rose to confirm one part of the statement of the noble Earl; there was no fortress at Courtray. As to himself, he had been the officer employed, by his late Majesty to superintend

747
the erecting and maintaining of these fortresses on the part of this country, and he had continued in the discharge of that duty up to the present moment. It was, therefore, the duty of the noble Earl, as the head Minister of his present Majesty's Government, to apply to him, as the officer intrusted with the superintendance of these fortresses, and to call upon him for such information as he could give on the subject; and it was his (the Duke of Wellington's) duty to wait on the noble Earl and give all the information in his power. He had, accordingly, attended on the noble Earl, and had given all the information that he could. But it was not altogether for the sake of giving this explanation that he obtruded himself on the attention of the House at this time, He was anxious to say a few words on some other topics that had been touched upon—particularly that of the occupation of the Belgic territory by the French army. He was bound to believe, that the king of France intended to do his duty; he was bound to believe so, as he was not only upon terms of friendship, but, he might say, in alliance with our own Sovereign. But it had been said, that king Leopold had requested the king of France to leave a part of the French army in Belgium—he called him king Leopold because he was king of Belgium, and ought to be called so in that House, for he had been recognised as such by this country. But, if king Leopold had called upon the king of France to leave a part of the French army in Belgium, amounting to 10,000 or 12,000 men, that was no good ground for leaving them there, nor would the king of France be justified in complying with the request, He could not look on so large a portion of the French troops being left in possession of Belgium, in any other light than as the advanced guard of the French army; and he could not consider the withdrawing of the main body of the French troops from the Belgic territory, when so large a portion was left behind, as a fair performance of his engagements on the part of the king of France. He did not know, however, what was intended to be done on this head; but if a body of French troops should be left in Belgium, hewould say, that it was not consistent with the engagement of the king of France, nor with any principles of the Law of Nations, and he could consider it in no other light, than as an
748
attempt to place the Belgian sovereign under subjection to the crown of France. He could not say, whether the noble Earl and his colleagues had any thing to do with the choice made of Leopold to be sovereign of Belgium, but he believed, that he might say with confidence, that it had never been intended that he should, as sovereign of Belgium, be dependant on France. King Leopold was an elected sovereign—elected by the people of Belgium, and why should he require French troops, or any foreign troops, to remain within the limits of the Belgic territory? It could not be for the exclusion of the Dutch, for the Dutch troops had retired, and Belgium was secure against their return, by the intervention of the five Powers. What, then, could he want foreign troops for, except to protect him against any re-action on the part of his own subjects, or against a revolt of his own troops? There did not appear, at present, to be any ground for calling for the aid of foreign troops to protect him against either of these contingencies. But suppose king Leopold were in danger from either of the causes which he had mentioned, still the principle of non-interference opposed the employment of any foreign troops, and was it not interference to call in the aid of foreign troops, against his own revolted subjects or troops? He had stated, on a former occasion, that considering the disposition of the people of Belgium, it would be improper to compel them to place themselves again under the sway of the king of the Netherlands, or to force any member of the House of Orange back upon them, in opposition to their own inclinations. But one tiling was clear, that if force of arms were to be employed at all to impose a sovereign on the Belgians, that force ought to be exerted, not in favour of Leopold, but in favour of the king of the Netherlands, or some other branch of the House of Orange; but the system of interference was altogether wrong, although particular circumstances might justify occasional exceptions. For instance, there might be cases in which the occupation of a country by foreign troops might be justified, as in the case of France, in which an army of occupation had remained for some time after the last war. But there the occupation was by the armies of eight Powers, and not by the army of any one Power; and care was taken, that the Powers more im-

749
mediately bordering on France, should have no troops in that country. There were no Spanish troops, no Sardinian troops, and no Netherland troops in the army of occupation left in France. Then came the occupation of Naples by the Austrian troops, and afterwards of Spain by the French troops, against both of which this country had protested. He could not speak particularly as to the remonstrances made by this country against the occupation of Naples by the Austrians; but he might refer to the correspondence on the subject of the occupation of Spain by the French troops, and there it would be found, that this country had strongly remonstrated against it, and had intimated to the king of Spain, that if the occupation of the country by the French should be continued much longer, the British Ambassador would be withdrawn from Madrid. Then came the occupation of Portugal by our own troops in 1827, and it was well known, that that occupation ceased immediately when the necessity for it had ceased. He mentioned these things, in order to call to the recollection of the parties concerned, what had been the principles acted upon by this country and other Powers on recent occasions similar to the present. It might have been justifiable in the king of France to send French troops to Belgium, at the request of the Belgian sovereign, in order to repulse the Dutch from the country. But the moment the Dutch troops had retired, the French troops ought to remain in the country no longer.
Motion agreed to.

DUCHESS OF KENT'S ANNUITY.
Earl Grey Earl Grey moved the second reading of the Duchess of Kent's Annuity Bill. He was not aware that it was incumbent on him to say any thing on the subject of this Bill, except merely to state its provisions. It was an additional grant of an annuity of 10,000 l. to the Duchess of Kent, who, considering her situation, had, he must say, been but scantily provided for. Of this sum, 4,OOO l. a-year was for the Duchess herself, and 6,000 1. was to be allowed her for the maintenance and education of the Princess Victoria; and, as the annuity was made to depend on the lives of the parties, it was provided, that in case of the death of the Duchess while the Princess was alive, 4,000 l. of the annuity was to cease; and, in case the Princess should
750
die, leaving the Duchess alive, then 6,000 l. of the annuity was to cease. Comparing this with what had been done on former occasions, it could not be considered as any thing approaching to an extravagant allowance.—Read a second time.

SALE OF BEER. ACT.
The Bishop of Londonstated, that he had petitions to present on the subject of the Sale of Beer Act, and thought it imperative on him to take the opportunity of saying something in answer to certain calumnies which had been published against him and certain of the clergy and Magistrates of this country. They had been stigmatized as being always bent on exerting all their power and influence to abridge and restrict the innocent amusements of the people. With respect to himself, perhaps, it was not worth his while to make any answer to such a calumny. But as for the Magistrates and the clergy, no class of men was better acquainted with the habits of the poor, or more competent to judge what was good for them; and it was preposterous to say, that those wished to curtail the comforts of the poor, who had been the most active in promoting the institution of Saving Banks, and every thing by which the comforts of the poor could be really augmented. But they did wish to diminish the temptations which were thrown in the way of the poor to induce them to spend in drinking and gambling their scanty earnings, which it would be much more for their comfort to expend in the support of their families. The Magistrates and clergy did not wish to abridge the innocent amusements of the people; but they did wish to save them from temptations to vice and immorality. It had been said, that he himself was adverse to the system which enabled the poor to supply themselves with good and cheap beer. This was a calumny, for he had only proposed that the people should not be supplied at the beer-houses with gambling materials, and that the shops should be shut on the evenings of Sunday, and certain other days—all which was perfectly compatible with the system of supplying the poor with good and cheap beer. When the baker was compelled to shut his shop at one o'clock on Sunday, and the butcher at ten in the morning, he saw no reason why the keepers of these beer-houses should not be compelled to shut at seven in the evening,

751
As to the clergy, particularly, they were placed in rather a difficult situation in these cases. If they remained silent, they were represented as careless and remiss in the execution of their duty; and if they spoke out against practices which they honestly believed to have a tendency to produce vice and immorality, then they were represented as meddlers and hypocrites. He really did not know what the clergy had done to give any one a right to say, that they had said one thing when they meant another. It had been said of himself, that he was always ready to set himself against the vices of the poor, but suffered the vices of the rich to pass unheeded. That accusation was groundless as far as he was concerned; for he had exposed himself to ridicule and censure for his opposition to the vices of the great. But, from whatever quarter this abuse and calumny came, he would not be deterred either by ridicule or censure from speaking and acting, when he considered it a part of his professional duty to speak and act. The right rev. Prelate concluded by presenting a petition from the clergy of Salisbury, praying that the Beer Act might be so modified, as not to furnish temptations to vice and immorality. His Lordship also presented a petition from the London Association, for preventing the profanation of the Lord's Day, praying that the beer-shops might be shut at an early hour on Sunday.

BEER ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Viscount Melbourne, in moving the Order of the Day for the consideration of the report of the Committee, in this Bill, said, that he had been desirous of introducing a clause in the Bill which would have the effect of obliging the beer-houses in country places to shut at an earlier hour than those in towns. But he found it impossible to frame the measure so as to apply to all circumstances; and the effect of such a clause as he alluded to would be, to create innumerable difficulties and controversies as to what places were in the country, and what places were in towns. The inconveniences produced by this in places which were in themselves neither cities, towns, nor boroughs—such as Lambeth, Camberwell, and other places adjoining the metropolis—would be very great; and he was therefore induced to abandon his intended Amendment, and to leave the Bill in that respect as it stood,
752
The Marquis of Salisbury begged to call the noble Viscount's (Melbourne) attention to certain clauses of the Bill, one of which went to repeal 1st William 4th, cap. 64, Sec. 4, relating to bonds to be entered into by licensed victuallers. That enactment, in his opinion, ought not to be repealed altogether. A great jealousy, no doubt, existed, as to the Magistrates being allowed to decide respecting the adequacy of the security tendered, but this formed no sufficient cause for the repeal to which he had alluded.
Viscount Melbournesaid, it would be too great an interference with the principle of the Bill, to allow Magistrates the power of deciding on the security tendered, because it would undoubtedly be said, that if the Magistrate had any objections to the person applying for the licence, all he would have to do to prevent his obtaining it, would be, to object to the sufficiency of his sureties. If the noble Marquis could state any other means by which the object he appeared to have in view could be accomplished, he should be very happy to pay every attention to his suggestions.
The Marquis of Salisbury, in reply, stated, that he proposed, on the third reading of the Bill, to submit a clause, to the effect, that the security tendered should be approved by the bench of Magistrates, and he should take the same opportunity to propose another amendment, imposing a penalty of 40 s. for keeping these houses open at improper hours.
The Lord Chancellorwished to make a few observations—and they should be very few—upon the most important and most difficult parts of the measure. He was deeply impressed with the importance of this subject, and when the measure was originally brought forward by the noble Duke, as well as when a right rev. Prelate opposite (the Bishop of London) recently made some observations upon it, he felt the necessity of imposing some additional restrictions to those which it was the object of that measure to enforce, for the purpose of checking the licentiousness which, from the evidence which they had before them, appeared to have arisen from the multiplication of the beer-houses. But he agreed with his noble friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that although the testimony which the House had before it was of a very respectable character, yet it was liable to mis-

753
takes, from the coincidence in the time at which the Beer Act was passed, and the reduction of the price of beer, they having both occurred together, one from the change in the licence system, and the other from the abolition of the duty on beer. When the Legislature granted an unlimited licence for opening houses for the sale of beer, and at the same time reduced the price of beer, they exposed themselves to this error, that these measures being alike in their date and operation, it became extremely difficult, if not wholly impossible, to say how much of the increased licentiousness arose from the addition to the number of houses under the new licence, and how much from the reduction of the price of beer. He felt it due, therefore, to the noble Duke lately at the head of his Majesty's Government, and to those who co-operated with him, to say, that their measure was not justly chargeable with having solely increased the desire to drink, or the quantity of liquor drunk. He thought, for his own part, that principal encouragement was held out by lowering the price of the article consumed. He would mention one point of view in which it was obvious that intemperance was more likely to be promoted by lowering the price of beer than by the multiplication of the beer-shops—namely, that people preferred going to a house where they might have cither spirits or beer, as suited their inclinations, or both, and where they might, as he had reason to believe they not unfrequently did, prepare themselves for one glass of gin, by drinking a considerable number of glasses of beer. He spoke practically on this subject, having had opportunities of ascertaining what he stated. He believed it to be very much the practice amongst certain portions of the lower orders of the people, to begin their indulgence with the comparatively innocent and heavier liquor, beer, and to finish with the stronger, and more ardent and more mischievously-exciting spirit Therefore, he said, if the price of beer had remained the same as it was before the passing of the measure, it would not have tended to increase the number of consumers of beer, or the quantity consumed; for he could see no reason, if there were five houses in a town under the old regulations, and that there was sufficient accommodation in them, and five new houses were established under the late bill—he did not see why, if the price
754
remained the same, the ten houses should double the number of drinkers, or make them drink double the quantity. It was, however, to be remarked—that under the new law the Magistrates had not, as under the old law, a discretionary power to fix, not only the number of the houses, but also the places where they should be opened, and they made it a rule to confine them to the towns and villages, and not to suffer them to be opened under the hedge-rows and by the road-side. Great evils certainly might arise from these beer-houses being opened and kept in solitary places, because in those places designs against the property of others were more easily concocted and matured, than in places open to general inspection and observation. But if, as he had said before, the multiplication of beer-houses did not tend to double the consumption of liquor, still less could it have that effect if the new houses were places where men could not obtain stimulating spirits as well as beer, if they were generally disposed to unite these indulgences. As to the abuses which were spoken of as being practised under this system, he could hardly conceive a more important subject than that they should be regulated, if it were possible, so as to guard against any thing of the kind; but the more he looked at the subject, the more he was convinced of the difficulties surrounding it. He would now come to the consideration relative to shutting up these houses on certain days—as Sunday, Good Friday, and Christmas-day, and at certain hours every day—as at nine in summer and seven o'clock in winter. This, at first sight, seemed to be an easy as well as a prudent regulation; and he at first felt strongly disposed to adopt such a regulation. But, on further consideration, he found the difficulties attending it so great in number, and so important in weight, as to alter his determination. If they made the new houses so perfectly different from the old—they were already essentially different, inasmuch as the new houses sold beer alone, while the old ones were at liberty to sell beer and gin—but if, in addition to this difference, they drew the still more important distinction, as to hours, what would be the necessary and inevitable consequence? The old houses would be open for the sale of gin, and wine and beer, and they would be open not only until seven o'clock in winter and nine o'clock in summer, as the new beer-houses,

755
but until twelve and one o'clock at night. They would be open for the sale of all liquors at all hours of the day and night. All men might resort thither to drink—the beer drinker, and the gin drinker—the man who was minded to go quietly home to his family after a moderate proportion of wholesome and necessary refreshment, and no less the mere tippler, the profligate, the licentious person, who thought nothing of his fireside, whose habits were alienated from his home, and for whom his wife and children had no attraction. The old houses, where gin was to be had, would be open, and the only houses not open would be the comparatively innocent beer-house. Already the public-houses were gifted for distributing gin as well as comparatively innocent beer; but the Legislature was now saying to the labourer—"You shan't drink beer at the beer-shop after a certain hour; but if you like to drink ale plus gin at the gin-shop plus the ale-house—'Patet atra janua Ditis—noctes atque dies'—you may go there at one o'clock in the morning; you may go on any day—on Sunday—on Christmas-day—Good Friday—on Saint Monday, or on Saintless Saturday." This was the state of the new law. His great object was, to observe the distinction between the gin-shop and the beer-shop. His desire was, to encourage the one, and to discourage the other. He would put down the consumption of ardent spirits by any means, and by all means. So deep was his impression, from his experience, and from the information conveyed in the evidence taken before the Police Committee in the other House of Parliament, as to the causes of crime in the metropolis; so deep was his impression that the use of gin and other ardent spirits was the great source of the cruel evils—the boundless and never-ending mischiefs, which prevailed in the haunts of the common people in this town and elsewhere—although he hoped not to so great an extent—that he professed his entire disposition, if he could see his way towards a total prohibition of the consumption of spirits in those houses—even if the interests of free trade, and of the unfettered industry of mankind, were to be flung overboard in order to lighten the vessel and guide her safely into the port where he wished to see her harboured—he professed his entire disposition, at the sacrifice of those interests of free trade
756
and unfettered industry, to put down the consumption of spirits, if he could do so effectually, by legislative enactments. But he knew it to be impossible. He knew that, by endeavouring to put down one crime, they would only create another, and he had, therefore, in despair given up the speculation—for he could call it no more—of preventing the use of gin. Without making invidious, and, in a free country, impracticable distinctions, he did not see how it could be put down. Well, then, what were they to do next? To discourage it as much as possible. He lamented the lowering of the duty on spirits, seeing that almost as much revenue was collected, although the duty was lowered about one-half. Making all proper allowance for the conversion of the contraband trade to a duty-paying trade, the result of his inquiry, and of his personal observation, was, that the increased consumption of ardent spirits must have been frightful since the diminution of the duty. Their Lordships ought, therefore, to take every possible means to discourage the use of spirits. And this brought him to the distinction between the gin-shops and the beer-shops. According to this principle, instead of raising distinctions between the old houses, which sold spirits and beer, and the new ones, which sold beer only, they ought rather to level all distinctions; and, instead of holding out a temptation to go to the old houses, they ought to tempt men to cleave to the new ones and abandon the old. By shutting up the beer-houses a man must drink gin, because he could not get beer after seven o'clock in winter and nine in summer. But it would not be only at those hours that the distinction would operate mischievously, for it was notorious that when a man got into the habit of frequenting a particular house—the Red Lion, for instance—he became familiar with it, and adhered to it—he would not go from the public-house to the beer-shop. He had one other objection to mention, which related to gambling. With respect to this matter, he was quite ready to share with the right rev. Prelate opposite, the charge of cant, which he treated with proper contempt, because, since ever he had come into public life, he had observed, that men who had no principle themselves cried out against the canting folks, as they termed those who were actuated by a desire to promote the

757
good of their fellow-creatures. These persons had, at least, the merit of candour. They did not pretend to principle themselves—they did not render the homage of hypocrisy, which Vice was said to pay to Virtue. The liberation of the Africans, the various questions relating to civil and religious liberty, had brought the charge of cant against those who advocated them. He, therefore, agreed with the right rev. Prelate in despising such attacks. He had always held in great abhorrence the vice of gambling. The mischiefs which it produced could hardly be over-rated by any law-maker; and he thought it as great a vice in those who were eminent in their rank and station as in the humblest peasant who practised it either in a licensed or unlicensed ale-house. He thought the right reverend Prelate opposite, the least of all liable to the imputation of having spared the vices of the rich, and denounced with severity those of the poor; for it so happened, that the right reverend Prelate had exposed himself to the resentment of persons in the upper ranks, by his inflexible condemnation of immorality, by preaching in season and out of season against it, and by censuring without distinction the vices of the rich and of the poor. Nevertheless he felt upon this lesser part of the case almost as much difficulty as upon the larger and more important part, for although the beer-houses were under their control, and though their Lordships had before them a Bill in which they might introduce a clause to prevent the playing at skittles in those houses, the consequence would be, that the people would go to play in the gin-shops or, as some called them, inns or ale-houses. His principle was, to put the new houses upon the same footing as the old ones, except with regard to the mode of licensing. He would put them equally under the control of the Magistrates and the police. But he would put it to their Lordships, so long as they had three or four gambling-houses in St. James's-street, as the right reverend Prelate had already said more than once elsewhere, and as he (the Lord Chancellor) now repeated in a less sacred place; as the right reverend Prelate had said from the Pulpit and in hid valuable writings, so long as there were gambling-houses in St. James's-street constantly open, he would not say to their Lordships, for he hoped that none of them were capable of passing the threshold of such a place, but to persons in the same
758
class and walk of life; while these places were open day and night, where men might ruin their wives and families, and fit themselves for nothing else but going to Botany Bay, or parting with life by violent means, so long their Lordships should be very careful how they prevented a poor man from having a game at skittles in a beerhouse. But he wanted to put down gambling, and with that view he would place all houses under the same regulations. Gambling was against the law, and he had seen prosecutions carried on, and bills litigated, and payment of them refused, because they were contracted in places where gambling was practised. He should be favourable to any measure which would prevent that vice in the higher as well as in the lower classes of society. As to the regulation of shutting the beer-houses on Christmas-day and other days, he would observe, that Christmas-day was not kept as a day of religion after the usual service was performed. There was that difference between those of the Established Church and the Dissenters. It was an established course at Lambeth Palace, in the time of a late most reverend Prelate, to finish the evening with a game at whist. He had it from the late Dr. Parr, that the Archbishop of Canterbury before the last, knew the regulations of the Church well, and never suffered a Christmas-day to pass without playing a game at whist, although he was not much attached to it. Another difficulty to which he would point the attention of their Lordships was this. How were they to shut up the beer-shops without shutting up the old public-houses at the same hours? And let it be recollected, that considerable inconvenience must arise from shutting up all such houses at seven o'clock in winter, and nine in summer, because all the houses to which their Lordships themselves went to change horses or to sleep, would necessarily be shut against them, after those hours, on their journeys of pleasure or business, as much as against the peasant or day-labourer. There was not an inn from London to York which must not be closed as inexorably as the commonest beer-shop. Yet so much they must do by their Bill, or they must encourage gin and discourage beer. It was not until he had drawn clause after clause, and proviso after proviso, and come to close quarters with the various considerations attached to the subject, that the difficulties struck him. He found himself

759
unable to get over them, and thought it his duty to state them to their Lordships. If they could overcome them he should be very glad.
Lord Wynfordsaid, the noble and learned Lord had fallen into some mistakes, in which he was sure the noble and learned Lord would be obliged to him for setting him right. In the first place, he concurred with the noble Secretary, (Viscount Melbourne), as to the expediency of not attempting the clause which he had himself originally recommended, and which would have appointed different hours for the closing of beer-shops in towns and in the country. In reply to the noble and learned Lord, he had to lament, that to put the new beer-shops and the old houses upon the same level would require a great number of additional clauses to the Bill before their Lordships. In the old public-houses, all the evils of which the noble and and learned Lord complained, were guarded against—first, by the discretionary power of the Magistrates, who were sure to select proper persons, and next by various provisions of the Statute-law. When the noble and learned Lord stated, that any man might enter a public-house after nine o'clock, or after twelve o'clock, he was mistaken, because, by the 9th George 4th, cap. 60, it was provided, that the Magistrates of each district should have the power of determining the hour at which all public-houses in that district should be closed.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that by saying twelve o'clock, he meant any hour later than that at which it was ordered the beer-shops should be closed.
Lord Wynford, in continuation. The Magistrates were to fix the time when the public-houses should close, and if persons were admitted after that time, such houses were considered as transgressing against the law under which they were licensed. So also gambling was guarded against, for the keeper of a public-house was liable to be proceeded against criminally if he permitted it, the penalty provided by a very old law having been re-enacted by a modern Statute; in that respect these beer-houses had the advantage, for there was no provision of the kind against them. He agreed with his noble friend as to the propriety of poor persons having opportunities of amusement. God forbid that he should wish to debar them of entertainment, knowing as he did, that such
760
restrictions would only drive them to employ their time in mischief. He saw no difference betwixt a man in a low condition of life playing at skittles, and a gentleman amusing himself with cricket. It would be tyranny and oppression to prevent it. But what he understood the right reverend Prelate to condemn was, playing for money, by which means men took the bread from their wives and families, in the indulgence of that disposition which was common to high and low, and which tempted persons to incur much loss for the sake of the chance of gain. He quite agreed with the right reverend Prelate in his wish to apply such penalties as would be the means of preventing gambling both in high and low life. As to the inconveniences in travelling which had been alluded to, his noble friend would find in every Statute an exception in favour of inns for travellers. There was nothing in the law to prevent inn-keepers of any description from receiving travellers. He thought it right to make these observations, considering, that if it went forth that innkeepers were not at liberty to receive travellers, or that there were no means for the prevention of gambling, it might have a prejudicial effect. His noble and learned friend could not have looked with his usual accuracy into the Acts of Parliament, and would not, he hoped, take it ill that he thus set him right. All the evils to which he alluded were guarded against in the regular public-houses. The most effectual security which the public could have, was, that the persons who kept the public-houses were persons of a superior condition, and those who could not obtain licenses for such houses resorted to keeping beer-shops. Would to God, as his noble friend said, that the people could be confined to drinking beer, and all the evils attendant upon the use of ardent spirits put an end to! But he feared that that was not possible. He was informed that there was a great deal of gin drank in beer-houses. Though they were not licensed to sell gin, still they contrived means to provide it.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the whole tendency of his arguments was against any distinction being made between the old and the new beer-houses.
The Marquis of Salisburysaid, that if the new beer-houses were placed on the same footing as public-houses, there would be nothing to complain, of.
The Earl of Harrowbysuggested the expediency of postponing the reception of the Report till another day, in order that the subject might be further considered.
Viscount Melbournewould not object to the postponement if any sufficient grounds could be shown for it. He must, however, observe, that the terms of the license in the case of the new beer-houses and of the public-houses, were similar in all essential particulars.
The Marquis of Salisburysaid, if there was a difference in the time of shutting up the beer-shop and the public-house, the natural consequence would be, that the inmates of the former would adjourn to the latter; therefore he maintained, both ought to be closed at the same hour.
The reception of the Report postponed.