POSTSCRIPT.
SATURDAY NIGHT.
The House of Lords devoted last evening to a discussion on out-door re- lief in Ireland. The debate was raised by Lord MountaoLE, on the follow- ing motion-
" That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and to report on the recom- mendations of the several Parliamentary Committees and Commissions on the state of the Irish poor, as relating to the expediency of introducing permanently the system of out-door relief for the able-bodied labourer; and on the effect of such a measure on the wellbeing of Ireland, the interests of the poor themselves, and the immigration of Irish paupers into Great Britain: and also, to consider and to re- port on the effects of enlarging the present electoral divisions for the purpose of raising and levying the assessments under the Poor-law." Lord Monteagle glanced at past reports, and past experience in Ireland, in order to make out his position, that out-door relief would be the death- warrant of the people, and would destroy all chance of improvement in Ireland. The present system of public works shows how out-door relief with a labour-test would operate. It would not even check emigration from Ireland to England, but would promote it: he thought this demon- strated by the fact that under the corrupt system of Poor-law in England, in the Southern counties, where out-door relief was moat lavishly given, wages were at their lowest point. Earl Guar opposed the motion, as an attempt to prejudge a particular clause in the Poor-Relief Bill, which would come before the House in due course. • Lord Monteagle argued against the measure as if it con- templated a wholesale system of opt-door relief without work; but Lord Grey showed the limited nature of the measurer and the proviaions of cau- tion which accompanied it. He glanced at an argument not need by Lord Monteagle, but eleewlsere, that the number of the destitute in Ireland is so great as _to make it impossible to find employment for them: taking Ireland as a whole, be did not think that such was the case. The want of work is caused by the, fact that the industry of the country has not been called forth as it ought to have been, and as he believed it would be bysthe,rnea- sures of Government, especially by the proposed Poor-law; which would help to establish security, peace, and order. Lord BROUGHAM regarded out-door relief for Ireland as the most sierra ing proposition that had been brought before Parliament within his expo rience. The altered Poor-law is not one of the temporary measures, and confessedly can have no effect on the present crisis; therefore it ought to be postpoued for deliberate consideration. The motion was further supported by Earl Fixassibersx, the Earl of Roue, and the Earl of Idoustrcesner.; opposed by the Earl of DEVON, the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, and the Earl of ST. Gasman. But the most remarkable speech was made by the Archbishop of DUBLIN; who predicted that out-door relief would not only entail ruin and con- fiscation on the, landlords, but greater destitution than ever on the labour- ing classes. He stated some of the results of his own experience as ad- ministering property in a parish near Dublin, containing a large destitute population— In that district every effort bad been made to prevent the people from los- ing their habits of self-dependence. They had shown great reluctance to enter the workhouse, and he had encouraged it by every means in his power because he feared that if it were once overcome, the workhouses would be swamped, and the call'would become general for out-door relief. Ile had made his labourers feel that they were doing a hard day's work, and fully earning their wages: but if they had believed they were entitled to out-door relief,' any attempt on his part, or on that of his steward, to make them work would have left their lives not worth a day's pmchase.. The English labourer, aeettstemed to comparative taxe- r/a; might feel reluctance to accept out-door relief; but to the Irish labourer, ac- customed to a bare sulisistenCe, it would be a perfect land of plenty, and would, in his opinion, totally supersede the necessity for work. The consequence of the Government measure, should it pass into a law, would be, that they would have not two millions but the whole population of Ireland throwing themselves on the poor-rate; in witness of which, he might at this moment point to the farms de- serted while the labourers were lazily performing half labour on the Government works.
Rates would be called for, and destitution woaki spread like fire. Half of the first rate would be collected, the other half would not. Another rate would be imposed, and a quarter of it would be levied. Then a third rate would be
he-
posed, and nothing would be collected. That would be the progress of the.Poor- law. When the rates could no longer be collected, an appeal would be made to Government, or to a neighbouring district. If any attempt should be made to levy a rate in aid in a neighbonring district, that would become insolvent; and, as in a time of commercial panic the bankruptcy of one house causes the ruin of many others, so would the insolvency of one district lead to the insolvency of many others. The mischief would spread like a conflagration through the whole of Ireland, until at length the United Empire would be called upon to pay a rate , in aid; and thus the very thing which the people of this country were so alarmed at would be brought about even by the measure which they had resorted to in order to avert it.
The amount of destitution was more than the land would support; so that even if no rent were asked, no man would farm it subject to the rate. It would be better if the Government were to confiscate the land at once, and taking it into their own hands give to the owners such pensions as they thought suffi- cient for Irish landlords.
The people were improvident and inclined to dependence to an extent he had never seen equalled in any country called civilized. As an instance of this he mentioned, that in a sea-coast village in Cork, there lived a, number of fisher- men, who were in the habit of getting abundance of fish at a bank about twenty miles from shore. Since the distress they had remained idle, although the fiah were swarming almost in sight, folly satisfied with the miserable soup they re- ceived from charity. He had proposed to fit out these fishermen with food and tackling for the voyage; but had been told by persons on the spot that it would be no use, for that if provisioned and sent to sea, the men would land at night, consume their sea-store, and return to the soup-kitchens. They were, in fact, not fit to be trusted with a loaf of bread.
It might be said, that something must be done; and if not onteloor relief, what ' else? He should recommend inquiry. If they did not inquire—if they took this leap in the dark—they would create nothing but Confusion and discontent, and would have to retrace their steps at an enormously increased expense. The House having divided, the motion was negatived by 39 to 22; and the Rouse adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock this morning. • Earlier in the evening, Lord CoLvnam complained that at the recent election of a Representative Peer for Scotland, in the room of the late Lord Rollo, when the roll was called over, an individual answered to the roll and voted as Lord Colville of Ochiltree—a title extinct since 1670. The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that the fact of voting confers no right. Ac- cording to the present law of Scotland, when a man claims to be the lineal heir or the brother of a former Peer, he votes as a matter of right,. Lord Cottenham suggested, that for the future no one should be allowed to vote until he had obtained the certificate of the Chancellor that he was en- titled to exercise that privilege. A return on the subject was ordered.
In the House of Commons, the first business of importance was the or- der for the Committee on the Customs-duties Bill (which alters the Ruin- duties); and on it there was a long discussion. In &aline. however, Sir CHARLES WOOD stated, that although he retained his original opinion that a differential duty of 6d. would be a sufficient counterpoise to the burdens on the British distiller, he had resolved, in deference to the general reline sentations of the trade, to make the differential duty 9d. Lord GEORGE Bzwrideox interposed an amendment, that the bill should be referred to a Committee upstairs, in order to a thorough investigation of the subject. He entered into voluminous and minute statements on the distilling and excise operations, to prove the burdens of the distillers would not be fairly compensated without differential duties of more than isid. in Ireland and 15id. in Scotland. The amendment was supported by Mr. CALLAGHAN, Mr. GROGAN, Mr. Straw, Mr. M. J. O'Cosisima., Irish Members; Mr. BOUYERIE, Mr. FORBES, Scotch Members; Mr. DISRAELI, Lord JOHN MANNERS, Protectionist Members.
It was combated by Sir CHARLES Wool), with counter-statements and figures. He showed that Lord George Beutinck had overstated his case, actually demanding larger protection than the distillers declared to he necessary ! One circumstance was not displeasing to him as Chancellor of the Exchequer: he should obtain a larger revenue from 9d than from 6d.
The amendment was also opposed by Mr. Gouraume and Mr. CARD- WELL; by Mr. MOFFAT ; by Mr. BERNAL and Mr. HENRY BARELY, who objected to Sir Charles Wood's concession of a larger duty.
On a division, Lord George's amendment was negatived, by 185 to 68 ; majority 117. The House went into Committee, and the bill passed through that stage.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means; and a grant of 18,500,0001. Exchequer Bills for the service of the year was agreed to without discussion.
The House resumed; and although it was now midnight, resolved itself into a Committee of Supply. Among other sums voted,' wete 500,0001. for Ireland, on account of the expenses of Board of Works, donations, and the purchase of seed. Some other motions were disposed of, and the House adjourned till Monday.
Previous page
