million. There would be 80,000 poor to begin with. Mr. Nicholls had got at this number in an extraordinary manner. He affirmed that one per cent. of the Irish poor were destitute; and this estimate was founded, in the main, upon the calculations of a Mr. Stanley, who had drawn up a report, at his request. Mr. Stanley had disco vered that the entire number of destitute persons in all Ireland was 82,506; not one more or less. After ridiculing and discrediting this gentleman's calculations, Mr. O'Connell appealed to the report of the Poor-Law Commissioners, who had found that there were 585,000 heads of families in a state of actual destitution, during the greater part of the year. This would include a population of about 3,000,000; of about 1,000,000 of whom partial destitution might be predicated. For these, upon the removal of the species of relief now afforded them, it would be necessary to provide by a poor-law. He said he would take another test. There were in Ireland 75,000 more agricultural labourers than in England. There being in Ireland 1,131,715; in Great Bri tain 1,055,982. But had Ireland a greater number of cultivated acres? Far from it. In Great Britain, there were 32,250,000 acres under cultivation; in Ireland only 14,600,000. In the former country the money value of the agricultural produce was 150,000,000l. a-year; whereas in the latter, it did not exceed 36,000,000%. Thus it appeared that, though the quantity of cultivated land in Ireland was within a fraction, equal to one half of that in Great Britain, the value of the produce was less than onefourth. The cause of this disparity

was want of capital. The remedy was a notable one. The cultivators of the land were too poor to improve its natural fertility; therefore, by way of assisting them, it was proposed to impose upon them an additional tax.

There was another point of view, continued Mr. O'Connell in which he would place the poverty of Ireland. By the finance returns up to January 5th, 1837, it appeared that for the year, the total gross revenue of Great Britain was 55,085,150l. 9s. 3d., while that of Ireland amounted to but 4,807,4027. 1s. 3d. So that, allowing 3,926,550l. 16s. 6d. for assessed taxes paid in Great Britain, that country, with a population of 16,000,000, produced on the same taxation more than eleven times the revenue produced by 8,000,000 in Ireland. Could anything more strongly demonstrate the inferiority and of Ireland, in point of property? and yet they were about to add another million to her amount of taxation.

It had been said that the English members in the house were interested in the establishment of poor-laws for Ireland. Now Mr. Nicholls had truly reported, that in no part of the world, were people less disposed to go into workhouses, than in Ireland. He need not indeed, have gone beyond Manchester, Liverpool, or Bristol, to have ascertained that. Then, it was clear that the Irish adult labourer would never go into workhouse in Ireland, as long as he could earn twopence a day in England. The Irish poor would flock over here in troops, and thereby diminish the wages of the English labouring population.

a

"Oh, Sir," said the hon. and learned gentleman in conclusion,

"This is no remedy for the ills of Ireland! My opinion is, that by this bill, you will be stopping to a considerable extent the natural flow of charity, which now enables the poor to live. Hereafter, if this bill shall pass, when a poor creature asks for alms, the cold reply will be, "go to the workhouse." The idea of the workhouse is so hateful to the people, that unless great care be taken they will adopt some violent course. But supposing the people to submit to the condition on which they are to be fed, is it not probable, that deprived of every family comfort, and of all that tends to mitigate the asperities of the human character, they will come out of your great prison houses infinitely more disposed to enter into predial warfare, than at any former period?"

Lord John Russell, who followed in the debate, directed his observations, in the first instance, to the objections thrown out by Mr. O'Connell, against compulsory relief in general. He considered that the countries in which there had been the greatest confusion and prodigality in administering compulsory relief, were, England, Holland, and Berne. In all these, similar and kindred abuses existed. But any person travelling through these states would be struck with the superiority of the condition of their poor, to that presented in countries, in which poor-laws were unknown. Speaking of England more particularly, he thought that the introduction of such laws, was the introduction of the means of order; and from their appearance in Elizabeth's reign was to be dated the period, in which the mendicancy and robbery, which theretofore prevailed, gave way to a system of laws, which compelled

every being to give an account of himself.

The noble Lord then proceeded to argue, that whatever could be done towards putting down outrage and disorder in Ireland, would tend materially to promote the welfare of the country by attracting that capital, the absence of which Mr. O'Connell had so much insisted upon as an objection to the bill. A poor-law, by giving the people the means of subsistence, tended more certainly, than any direct enactment could do, to introduce prosperity at once amongst the inhabitants of any country. One of the reasons which in his mind operated most strongly in favour of the proposed measure was among those which had supplied the learned gentleman with an argument of an opposite characterthe great number of individuals who depended upon private charity. It was quite impossible that so large a mass of persons, in such circumstances, should not disturb the peace of the country, and, in default of their accustomed supplies, resort to depredation.

He was very much surprised that Mr. O'Connell should contend that this tax was more favourable to the landlord than to the occupier, since, in future, the burthen of supporting the poor would be distributed between the two, whereas formerly it entirely. devolved upon the latter.

The noble Lord then proceeded to recapitulate many of the arguments in favour of the measure, which on different occasions had been already suggested. He thought that notwithstanding Mr. O'Connell's criticism, a real difference was perceptible between "poverty" and "destitution." There might be a whole country, almost

entirely filled with persons who were in a state of poverty, and yet not so near the condition of destitution that they would consent to any privation of personal liberty in order to procure food. This he be lieved to be the condition of the great proportion of the Irish poor. Mr. Shaw said, that he felt that there was justice in many of Mr. O'Connell's observations upon the impolicy of compulsory provision; but, notwithstanding these theoretical difficulties, he felt it to be their duty, as rational men, to consider whether some step might not be taken towards the improvement of the condition of the poor and destitute in Ireland. A state of abject destitution led to turbulence, breaches of the peace, and depredation. Although, however, he agreed with Lord John Russell in the principle of applying the workhouse as a test, he thought that it had been carried too far. He feared that the workhouses would be inadequate to the demands upon their resources, and that the restraints imposed upon the inmates would not operate as a check in the manner supposed. Under all the circumstances, it occurred to him, that the plan of giving relief to the aged, impotent, and infirm, aided by emigration, and public works, would be found, if not sufficient, the least objectionable plan. He was not afraid that a compulsory system would dry up the sources of private charity; all such apprehensions he thought chimerical.

Messrs. W. S. O'Brien, Lucas, and Redington, supported the bill, though they felt, respectively, certain objections to many of its details.

Mr. O. Gore supported Mr. O'Connell's amendment, in the hope of getting rid of the bill alto

gether. He objected to the workhouse system, as prejudicial to the best habits and feelings of the Irish. With respect to the rates, he considered that no rate could be levied in Ireland which would not eventually fall upon the owner.

Mr. Litton considered that the bill was at least worthy of the attention of the House, if it should be only found calculated to settle a few important points. Mr. Barron and Mr. John Young fully supported the bill. Mr. J. Gibson and Sir F. Trench opposed it, the former being of opinion that_no poor-law was applicable to Ireland, and the latter expressing strong objections to the workhouse system in general.

The House divided on the original motion. Ayes 277; Noes 25. Majority against the amendment 252.

On the 12th of February, the House being in Committee on the bill, Lord Clements, while he gave his thanks to Lord John Russell for the measure, the main features of which had his approbation, stated, that its success must, in his opinion, depend upon the mode in which the patronage created by it was disposed of. Many of his constituents objected to the powers of the poor-law commissioners. Great care ought, he said, to be used in their selection, and precautions taken to secure proper persons. He was afraid that no good could be done without a very extensive system of out-door relief. And he thought that facilities should be given to the clergy of both persuasions for enabling them to bring about voluntary assessments in their respective parishes. He was of opinion that the bill should be first introduced in the western districts, where, from the

way

in which land was managed, great poverty prevailed; unless it succeeded there, it would alto gether be a failure.

In Sir E. Sugden's opinion, the proposed expenditure of a million for workhouses, before it was known how the bill would work, was very improvident. He recommended that the experiment should, in the first instance, be made on a small scale. He then expressed a strong objection to one clause in the bill, by which all the hospitals and other charities for the relief of the poor now existing, would be placed under the absolute control of the commissioners, who were empowered to bring such funds in aid of the general relief bill. This, he said, was not consistent with justice, and was, in his opinion, against law. It was, besides, impolitic to interfere with these funds, which would, if left alone, act as auxiliaries to the new scheme. He then noticed certain clauses which inflicted penalties on persons for the non-maintenance of their families, though the bill gave them no right to relief when destitute. And he pointed out other objectionable features in this part of the bill.

The first clause of the bill, which brought the whole superintendence of the system within the dominion of the English poor-law commissioners at Somerset House was then discussed, when, Mr. O'Connell having proposed, by way of amendment, that "the poor-law commissioners for Ireland be the commissioners to carry this act into execution," a division took place, and the original arrangement was carried by 117 to 23.

On the 19th of February, the House being in committee, Mr. Shaw proposed an important

amendment to the 35th clause, with a view to limiting the relief afforded under the bill, to the lame, impotent, old and blind. Mr. Shaw said, he was aware the strongest argument against his proposition would resolve itself into this question. How can you refuse relief to a man who says I am able and willing to work if I can find it? He would answer that, by saying he did not refuse to give such a man relief, but he would give it in another way. He would have recourse to the auxiliary means of either emigration or public works. The bill, as it stood, held out the hope of relief to the mass of Irish poor. This it was absolutely impossible could be afforded,

Lord Morpeth admitted, that it might be desirable that the practice, under the bill, should be assimilated to what Mr. Shaw would make the preremptory rule. But he entreated the House to abstain from fettering the discretion of the guardians, by putting it altogether out of their power to administer relief in particular cases of destitution, which would be productive of the worst effects.

Colonel Conolly deprecated the extensive system involved in the provisions of the bill, and supported the amendment.

Mr. Wrightson declared, that the bill could never be carried into effect. Mr. Nicholls had stated, as a principle, that the property of a district should find means to support its poor. Now apply that principle to Mr. Martin's estate at Connemara, or to Sir R. O'Donnell's, in the Isles of Arran, and they would find that the destitution would absorb the entire property of those districts. Again, the population of Ireland was 8,000,000. The rental 6,000,000 1.

So that if the principle were to be followed out, the whole rental would not give more than a trifle to each individual.

Mr. O'Connell supported Mr. Shaw's amendment, in some observations which were based on very sound principles. He thought, however, it did not go far enough. But he was willing to make the experiment on the plan proposed by that gentleman.

Lord John Russell said, Mr. Shaw's proposition, while it subjected the people of Ireland to three fourths of the burthen, would not give them a participation of more than one fourth of the benefits, provided by the bill.

The amendment was rejected:ayes 75; noes 134; majority 59.

The bill came on for the third reading on the 30th of April, when Mr. O'Connell made his last effort to arrest its progress. It certainly was a remarkable thing to find this gentleman, who is in general more conspicuous for the loose and exuberant impetuosity of his tongue, than for the scientific accuracy of his reasonings, prompt, upon this occasion, to apply the rigid demonstrations of the economists, and to press to an extremity the principles of that austere school. And whatever latitude we may, in other instances, have allowed ourselves in the construction of the motives of his conduct, it is but fair to remark, that in the present case, his conduct seemed to be beyond imputation. His opposition to the bill was boldly based on the most unpopular of all grounds; and he was, moreover, supported in his views by a very large portion of such of his fellow-Irishmen as were competent to form an opinion upon the subject. It was, indeed, no VOL. LXXX.

unfrequent remark at the time, that on this question alone it had been found possible to secure the unanimous opinion of that divided nation. Men of every faction, and of either religion, were combined for once in hostility to the details of the ministerial measure. And, be the merits of that scheme what they may, it was surely a hazardous enterprise to advance its execution in defiance of the people upon whom it was imposed. This union of parties was exemplified in the House of Commons by the circumstance, that the tellers for the noes were Lord Castlereagh and Mr.M. J. O'Connell. It is an equally significant fact, as expressing the opinions of the people out of doors, that while petitions against the measure were flowing in from all quarters, only four were presented in its favour. Mr. O'Connell therefore might well ask, whether "English Gentlemen would force upon the country a measure which the people rejected?" Nevertheless, it passed the House of Commons by a large majority. Ayes 234; Noes 59. Majority 175!

Lord John Russell, on the 27th of March, opened the negotiations before adverted to, by asking Sir Robert Peel, in his place in Parliament, whether it was the intention of any member of the Opposition "to move an instruction to the Committee on the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill, authorising the total abolition of the municipal corporations of that country?"

Sir Robert Peel on the other hand, met this inquiry by another, and demanded to know "what course government meant to pursue with respect to the Irish Tithe Bill and the interests of the Irish church?" He then read from the [1]