said, he had to present a petition from the Carpenters and Joiners of Manchester. The petitioners complained, that they were willing to work, but had no work to do, and the consequence was, that they were in a starving situation. They ascribed their condition to the operation of the laws which prevented the importation of corn until it was at a certain price; and he had no hesitation in saying, that a Free Trade in corn was what they were entitled to, and was the only measure by which the prevailing distress in the country could be alleviated. He thought it was gross injustice to allow the existence of laws by which the people were reduced to a state of starvation. If an efficient alteration were not made in the Corn-laws, ministers would, he thought, have to answer for much of the mischief which was likely to happen in the country.

denied, that the existing distress was in any degree caused by the Corn-laws. It was to the newly-introduced system of Free Trade that it was mainly attributable. The people throughout the country complained of that system. If a committee were appointed to inquire into the facts, the evils that had flowed from it could be decidedly shown.

said, he could not hear such an observation as that which had been just made by the hon. member, without entering his strongest protest against it. When the hon. member stated that the sufferings of the people were not in any way to be attributed to the Corn-laws, he asserted that which was not founded in fact; because, so long as bread was an essential article for the sustenance of the people, so long must its price be a most important ingredient in their expenditure, and must visibly affect their comforts. If the hon. member argued, that the Corn-laws had no effect in raising the price of bread, then, he would ask, why did those laws exist? Those who opposed them stated that they directly tended to increase the price; and if those who supported them thought they had no such effect, why did they not concur with the enemies of those laws and repeal them? So far from thinking that the Corn-laws did not increase the distress, he looked on them as the primary cause of that distress. Nothing would be more beneficial to the community than the repeal of them.

also wished to enter his protest against the assertion, that the high price of corn was not connected with the sufferings of the people; because they did aggravate very considerably the existing distress. But, while he admitted that the Corn-laws were an evil, he could not agree with those who thought that the high price of corn was occasioned by them alone, because there had been a very considerable deficiency in the last harvest, and that circumstance must have produced an unfavourable effect. The hon. member for Maidstone had attributed all the present distress to the system of Free Trade. Now, he would ask the hon. member whether any innovation had been made with respect to the cotton-manufacture by the system of Free Trade? That manufacture was most extensively carried on at Manchester, and the hon. member had alluded to the distress experienced by the cotton-spinners there; but there must be some cause assigned for that distress other than the system of Free Trade, for there was no foreign competition with the cotton manufacture, and there could not be any; yet the severest distress prevailed even in that district which might be called the head-quarters of the cotton-trade [hear, hear].

was of opinion that a great portion of the present distress arose, not from the operation of the present law, but from, the operation, for a series of years, of as bad or perhaps of worse laws for regulating the importation of grain. This, together with the deficient harvest of last year, had raised the price of corn to its present level. They had, for many years, kept corn out of the market by prohibitory laws, which would not allow the foreigner to grow a steady supply for our use.

observed, that as the principle on which these Corn-laws were founded was that of averages, by which the price was regulated, it was most desirable that those averages should be correctly struck. Now, he was convinced that in a most important district—the district of Lancashire,—a very great quantity of corn was brought to market which was not returned. It would therefore be proper for his majesty's government to ascertain the facts; and in the present disturbed state of Lancashire it was important that the people should be informed that the nominal price of corn in that county was exceedingly exaggerated. In the week ending the 18th of April the return for that district was altogether five thousand six hundred and forty-seven quarters; then, deducting for Liverpool four thousand three hundred and fifty-seven quarters, it left for the rest of the county, including Manchester, Bolton, Preston, and Wigan, all populous towns, one thousand two hundred and ninety quarters. In the week ending the 18th of April, the return for Manchester was seven hundred and forty-six quarters; and in the week ending the 25th of April, four hundred and thirty-eight quarters, not being in reality the tenth part of the wheat sold; the population in that district amounting to one hundred and fifty thousand souls. This was calculated to deceive the public. If such proceedings were proved to exist, some corrective should be adopted by government to ensure the accuracy of those returns.

said, the statement should be examined into, and if it were ascertained to be well-founded, a remedy should be applied.

rose, to call the attention of the House to a most important subject—the Supply of Water to the Metropolis. A committee to inquire into that subject had last session been appointed by that House, and on which committee he had had the honour to sit. That committee made a report, which was all that they could do; but, as the evil originally complained of still continued, he thought that hon. members, particularly those who represented this great metropolis, should not allow the session to pass without bringing the subject under the notice of parliament. He knew not what measures to suggest; but he thought that the House ought, by attending to the subject, to show to those who had undertaken to supply a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome water to the metropolis that their neglect of their contract would not go unpunished. He would ask the hon. baronet the member for Westminster, whether he meant to bring the subject again before the House?

said, he had felt the importance of the subject, and had had frequent communications upon it with the right hon. Secretary opposite, who had evinced the utmost readiness to forward the views of the committee. It appeared to him (sir F. Burdett) that no further steps remained to be taken by parliament, and that the only best thing that could be now done would be (as recommended by the committee in their report), that his majesty's government should send competent persons to make a survey, and report from what points a better supply could be obtained. Indeed he understood it had been ascertained, that a better supply could be easily obtained, either higher up the river Thames, or from the Colne. He thought that something ought to be done to show to the water companies, who had at present the supply in their hands, that they would not be suffered to continue in the course they had hitherto followed. Although the supply had been insufficient and impure those companies had already levied upon the inhabitants of the metropolis no less a sum than 44,000l. beyond what they had been empowered to charge.

said, that he looked upon this as a question of considerable importance to the metropolis; and he trusted, although it was not perhaps quite regular, that he might be allowed to say a word or two upon it. And, first, he must observe, that if any blame was to be imputed on the ground of supineness or delay, the hon. baronet who represented Westminster was the last man to whom that blame could attach, for he had been indefatigable in his exertions respecting it. After the report made by the committee of the House last year, Mr. Telford, the engineer, was applied to as to the probable expense of a survey, with a view to ascertain the best plan for supplying the metropolis with pure water. That gentleman, than whom no more competent authority could be applied to, was of opinion, that the survey would take from 3,000l. to 5,000l., but he could not be positive that the latter sum would cover the expensed. Under these circumstances, ministers did not feel themselves justified inv entering upon the measure. Besides, he must observe, that such an interference on the part of government would form a most dangerous precedent. If they interfered in procuring a supply of water, why not in procuring a supply of gas, or in lighting, watching, and paving the streets? Nay, more, if such interference took place with respect to the metropolis, what was to prevent Liverpool, Manchester, Edinburgh, and the other great towns, from making a similar application? Repeated complaints had been, and continued to be, made of the conduct of the water companies—that the water supplied by them was, in some instances, deficient in quantity and impure in quality, and that the price charged had increased with those deficiencies. The consequence would be that, unless the evil was remedied by the existing companies, new companies would rise up, who, by the encouragement they would receive, would teach the present companies that they had forgotten their own interests when they neglected or violated the principle of their contract with the public. He still thought that the companies, who were in the enjoyment of this monopoly, were bound to remedy the evil complained of. He thought it would be wise in those companies to bear the expense of the survey. If they would, government would see that it was executed, and there was no doubt that either higher up in the Thames, or from the Colne, a plentiful supply of pure water could be obtained. He had great hopes that the evil would be very soon remedied, either in this or in some other way.

said, he rose to present a petition from certain inhabitants of Clara, in the King's county, praying that a similar measure to that which regulated parochial relief in England might be introduced into Ireland. The hon. member said that, instead of taking any part in the discussion upon this subject, which was to come on that evening he would call the attention of the House to this petition. It contained many very important passages which were well worthy of the attention of the House. The hon. member then proceeded to advert to several parts of the petition, but the noise which prevailed in the House was so great, that his observations were indistinctly heard in the gallery. We understood the hon. member to say, that the petition stated that the introduction of the Poor-laws into Ireland would give activity to every branch of industry; that the sum given to the poor was not to be considered as a loss; that the Poor-laws would bind the lower orders in a stronger union with the government; that the introduction of this national charity would establish a moral police; that it would promote friendly entercourse between Catholics and Protestants; and that it would give employment to labour which was now lost in indolence. [Here the noise became so great that the hon. member's voice was for some time inaudible.] He said, that hon. gentlemen would have better consulted their own convenience if they had heard the petitioners now, instead of listening to him in the discussion which was about to come on.

said, that as the petition came from the county which he represented, he wished to offer a word or two. He differed with the hon. member in thinking that the money given to the poor under the Poor-laws was not productive of loss to the country. As well might he argue, that the money expended during the war, and which now pressed so heavily, in the shape of national debt, was not a loss to the country.

Ordered to lie on the table.

said, be should occupy very little of the time of the House, as this question had already been so fully discussed. He must, however, remind the House, that the borough of East Retford had been unrepresented for three years, on account of misconduct on the part of some of the voters, and that it would not be until Monday next that the House would take the first step towards punishing that misconduct. The hon. member concluded with moving, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of two Burgesses to serve in this present parliament for the Borough of East Retford, in the room of the hon. sir Robert Lawrence Dundas and William Battie Wrightson, esq., whose election has been declared to be void."

seconded the motion, though he said he did not entirely agree in some of the views of the hon. member: but, after the House had confirmed its former division in favour of the proposition of the hon. member for Hertfordshire, it was quite clear that no public benefit could be obtained by depriving East Retford of the right of representation. Any election taking place now would probably be sufficiently free from corruption; but if the hon. member persevered, and the House determined to persevere, in attempting a remedy for the abuses that had prevailed there, he would venture to suggest, that instead of bringing in the hundreds, he might find some arrangement in East Retford itself, which, before another election, might possibly put an end to the state of things complained of—which was, the restoring to the burgesses the privileges granted them by Edward 1st, and opening the close and jobbing corporation which had been imposed on them by the charter of James 1st; from which, as he had been informed, all the more respectable inhabitants of the place had been, for more than a century, sedulously excluded.

declared, that no support he had ever given to any motion was more constrained than that which he should afford to this. It was, however, in his mind, the only way by which they could avoid the difficulties of the situation in which they were now placed. Reduced, as they were, to an unpleasant election between two difficulties, they were compelled to abandon for the moment those principles which ought otherwise to govern their conduct. The former votes he had given on this subject were given, not so much with a view to punish the delinquency of a body of persons, as to dispose of a privilege, originally conferred for the benefit of the community, in such a manner as would best conduce to the advancement of the interests of the whole people. He must say, that there was a great degree of inconsistency in admitting, as they had done for three sessions, the delinquency and corruption of a particular borough, and then acting with regard to that borough as if no such corrupt practices had taken place. Yet he was willing to be guilty of that incon- sistency, and to encounter that absurdity, rather than give to the already represented dukeries of Nottinghamshire an increase of the elective franchise. The present proposal he admitted to be bad enough; but it must be bad indeed, if it were not better than that of giving the election of two members to the hundred of Bassetlaw.

regretted, that the elective franchise was not to be transferred to Birmingham, and he should also regret if it was to go back to East Retford. He had read last night the evidence relating to this borough, and he must say, that of all the five boroughs that had within these few years been brought under the notice of the House, East Retford was the most corrupt. Its corruption was uniform and constant. In 1818 the corruption was so great, that out of one hundred and forty-eight resident voters, one hundred and twenty-eight were proved to have received bribes of forty guineas each. When the franchise of Shoreham was thrown into the hundred of Bramber, lord Chatham had observed, that the effect of the measure would be, to take the representation out of the hands of mere strangers, and to give it to persons connected with that part of the country. He should adopt that principle in the present case, and say, that although he should rather have given the elective franchise to the town of Birmingham than to the hand red of Bassetlaw, he should certainly prefer giving it to the inhabitants of Bassetlaw than to the corrupt voters of East Retford; as the election would then be likely to fall upon gentlemen connected with that part of the country.

said, that his object in voting for the disfranchisement of boroughs, proved guilty of corruption, had always been, not so much the punishment of the offending parties, as the affording to the manufacturing interest that influence in the legislature of which they were unjustly deprived. It was said, that the great manufacturing towns were represented by the members of the counties in which they were situated. This had been particularly remarked with respect to Birmingham; which, it was said, actually returned one of the members for the county. This, however, was not the fact. A few years ago the influence of Birmingham was put to the test, in a contest which then took place, on which occasion the landed interest prevailed. Under these circumstances, therefore, it was a fallacy to maintain that the great manufacturing towns were represented in that House. He could not avoid expressing the gratification he had felt at hearing the right hon. member for Liverpool declare, that he thought Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham, ought to have representatives in parliament. That was a great concession from the right hon. gentleman, who had never been a great friend to reform. The hon. baronet concluded with declaring his intention to vote for the motion.

wished to say a few words in explanation of the vote he intended to give. When this question was discussed a few nights ago, the question was, whether Birmingham, or the hundred of Bassetlaw should have the elective franchise which East Retford had justly forfeited? He had voted in favour of the first, because he conceived this a fit opportunity to give representatives to those large towns, and to extend, as far as was consistent with the prerogatives of the Crown, the privileges of the people. The question now was, whether the elective franchise should be given to Bassetlaw, or to East Retford? Between these two he had no hesitation in acting on the principle of preferring the respectable inhabitants of the hundred of Bassetlaw to the corrupt voters of the borough of East Retford. He thought that at least this gain would result from throwing the writ into the hundred of Bassetlaw, that gentlemen of character would be returned, upon whom dependence might be placed, and that corruption could not easily exist among two thousand voters. A charge—a most unfounded one no doubt—had been made, that government, with the view of conciliating a noble duke, whose interest lay in that neighbourhood, in tended to support the transfer to Bassetlaw. Now, the noble duke alluded to was, he thought, the last man whom the governments would be disposed to oblige, after his public conduct on a recent occasion. But, though that noble duke, as well as others, possessed influence in the vicinity, it was only the influence which property ought to possess. Under all the circumstances connected with this borough, he must give his vote against the present motion.

said, he quite con- curred with a noble lord, that the reform which was proposed, of transferring the franchise from the borough of East Retford to the hundred of Bassetlaw, would be petty, paltry, and insignificant. It was a kind of reform which would keep the representation, in the hands of the aristocracy. It would also be unjust, while complaints were made of the want of representation for such places as Birmingham, Leeds, and other large towns. But another point to be considered with respect to this motion was, in what way were they to deal hereafter with cases of bribery and corruption, if, after the declarations of that House, and its repeated resolutions in affirmation of the corruption of this particular borough, they were now to issue a writ, authorising it to send two members to parliament? Such a course would, he thought, be disgraceful to the House, for it would be an indirect sanction of the crimes of which it had already declared the borough guilty. He would admit with the hon. member who supported the transfer of the franchise to Bassetlaw, that a body of two thousand electors was much less likely to be corrupt than the members of a small borough. Still, though he would prefer having members, for the hundred rather than for the borough, he must oppose the motion, because he objected to the principle of the transfer in this case. He thought the House was called upon, incases like the present, to visit the corruption by a forfeiture of the franchise, and by at once transferring it to one of the large towns. It was his intention, when the hon. member for Hertfordshire brought forward his motion on Monday, for the extension of the franchise to Bassetlaw, to take the sense of the House upon the question; and, if he should be successful, he would afterwards move, that East Retford be disfranchised, and, if this should be carried, and a vacancy be thus created in the legislature, he would move, that, when vacancies should occur, the franchise should be given to such towns as Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds. It had been said, that he had made a selection of Penryn. He had not; for he believed that East Retford was much the more corrupt of the two.

said, that in all he had heard on this subject, it had not been denied that such a populous and wealthy town as Birmingham should be represented. The question then was, whether Birmingham should be without any representation, or whether Bassetlaw should be doubly represented. For his part, he could not satisfy, his conscience to leave such a place as Birmingham without representatives, and send back a writ to a borough which had already received the wages of corruption, and would probably be ready to receive them again. Feeling that he should be concluded by this motion from voting on the others which were to come, he must oppose it.

said, that he should feel it his duty to oppose the motion. After the opinions which several hon. gentlemen had, on a former occasion, been kind enough to express, that no undue delay was importable to him, he should not follow the hon. mover in that part, of his speech which related, to himself personally. By declining to do so, he meant no disrespect to him, but merely wished to save the time of the House. With regard to the complaint as to the long suspension of the writ, it was notorious that it had been the constant and uniform practice of the House to suspend writs in such cases, until it had abandoned or completed its proceedings against the accused borough; and, in the present instance, neither of those conclusions had been arrived at. Writs had been, upon this principle, suspended for various periods. He would instance the cases of Bishop's Castle, Maidstone, and Hindon. In one of those cases, the writ had been withheld during a portion of three sessions, and in another nearly two. If the hon. gentleman would investigate the subject, he would be quite satisfied on this head. When, he spoke of the nature of the evidence adduced as insufficient to justify suspension in the case of East Retford, it must be observed that the House had already adjudicated that point—for it had many times deliberately suspended this writ, and he did not perceive how it could now issue it without admitting that it had been guilty of injustice. If indeed it had—let the writ issue, for injustice ought not, upon any ground, to be persisted in; but although, if the House were proceeding against the electors as individuals, there might not be a specific crimination of them so as to disqualify personally more than a limited number, yet there was such a mass of testimony against the great majority—that the House was perfectly warranted in dealing with them as a body. No just complaint could therefore be made that the electors sustained injury by longer withholding the writ, for the majority being corrupt, the whole were bound by and fell with the majority. He had stated on Tuesday last, that he thought the House would compromise its duty and its character, if his (Mr. Tennyson's) motion being deferred, the writ should issue. His motion had, however, now been made; he had taken the sense of the House upon the course which appeared to him best suited to the wants, the wishes, and just expectations of the country, and he had failed. His motion had been negatived, and he should now, therefore, be at liberty to vote for the writ, if, on other grounds, he deemed it expedient. The member for Hertfordshire indeed threatened him with a bill to transfer the franchise to Bassetlaw. But that might possibly be rejected—if so, his noble friend (lord John Russell) proposed to move simply the disfranchisement of the boreugh—and the representation thus remaining vacant until another corrupt borough should be detected, the House might then deal with the two, as proposed in the last session. Again, if the bill should be brought in and go to a committee, he (Mr. Tennyson) should move to instruct it to give one, at least, of the members to Birmingham, and he still hoped he might prevail upon the right hon. Secretary to assent to that arrangement. When, in the last session, the House assumed that it had the disposal of two corrupted boroughs, the right hon. gentleman was inclined, by giving the franchise of one of them to the land, and the other to a large town, to divide the vacancies between the two great interests. He would now, therefore, when they had only one borough to deal with, suggest to him to let one of the two seats be given to a large town, and the other be added to some county—and when another borough should be disfranchised, another member might be added to that town, and the second given to some other county. By further suspending the writ, he should be able to submit this proposal. Besides, it was improbable that any bill on the subject could be passed this session. If not passed, then in the next he should undoubtedly again bring forward his proposal for an absolute, transfer to a large town. But if the House should now issue the writ, how could he hope to induce it hereafter entirely to disfranchise electors, whom it would so have admitted to be fit to exercise the franchise? His noble friend, the member for a the county of Durham (lord W. Powlett), had stated his renewed conviction, arising upon a recent perusal of the evidence, that an enormous majority had been proved corrupt and that the borough could not, therefore, have any pretence to retain its privilege. It was upon the evidence, that of the whole number of resident electors at the last election, there were only eleven against whom the charge was not proved: there were indeed forty-six young freemen, but of these only sixteen, were resident, and none of them ever had an opportunity of receiving the election money. Of the residents, these, six teen young freemen, and the eleven others, were the whole number against whom corruption was not established. How then was it possible for the House to issue the writ to a borough so circumstanced? Perhaps, however, it would be more proper for the House now to make some specific order for a further suspension, and therefore instead of meeting the motion by a direct negative he should move as an amendment, "That Mr. Speaker do not issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of two burgesses to serve in the present parliament for the Borough of East Retford, until this day three weeks.?

The amendment being put from the chair,

said, he thought the question was of such importance that there should be an opportunity given for bringing for ward all the motions with regard to it. He, therefore, wished that the hon. member for Lyme Regis would consent to so short a postponement of his resolution. At the same time if the question for them to decider upon was, whether they should transfer the franchise to the hundred of Bassetlaw, or leave it as it was, nothing could tempt him to consent to have it transferred to the hundred, as he thought it would be reviving a practice which was almost obsolete, and which was very objectionable. He confessed that, under such circumstances, he should feel extreme difficulty as to what course to pursue, and he put it to the hon. member, whether it would not be better to consent to a delay of his motion, in order that there might be an opportunity for taking all the motions of which notice had been given into consideration.

expressed his willingness to withdraw his motion for the present.

said, he could not see how those who had voted for the disfranchisement of Penryn, on the ground of corruption, could at all countenance a motion for continuing the writ to East Retford. Elective committees had reported specially on only three cases since the last election; one was on the riots at Coventry, and a bill had been introduced for extending to Coventry the jurisdiction of the magistrates of Warwickshire. It had passed this House after some opposition, but was lost in the Lords; and in the present session it had not been revived. The special report on the second case was also unattended with any good effect; and the present was the third, which he trusted would be more successful. After a committee had decided that East Retford was so corrupt, and after the writ had been so long suspended, it seemed to him that the House would stultify its proceedings if it passed over the offence without any punishment.

suggested, that it would be better to withdraw the motion for the present; or allow the previous question to be put, which would render the amendment unnecessary. In either case the subject could be renewed at any time that hon. members thought proper. He owned he could not support the motion for issuing the writ. After the evidence they had had, it would be inconsistent with the resolution to which they had already come; and it would be a bad precedent for other boroughs, if they passed such conduct by without taking some proceeding respecting it.

The motion was then withdrawn.

, in, rising to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, respecting the policy of introducing the Poor-laws into Ireland, assured the House that he had not taken up the question from any dogmatic feeling on the subject, but from a conviction of the justice and sound policy—he would say the absolute necessity—of such a measure. It was a great advantage that the subject was one which could be discussed without reference to party. He brought the question forward from a conviction that it would be for the advantage of that part of the empire from which he had been sent as a representative. The interest of the two kingdoms was now the same, and one could not suffer without affecting the prosperity of the other. Why, he asked, should such a difference exist, as was now apparent between the two countries? Why should Ireland, with all the advantages of soil, never be able to carry on trade, or commerce, or manufactures, to any extent, or to accumulate capital like England? Was this difference in the two countries always as apparent as at present? He contended it was not. The hon. member then proceeded to shew that the condition, of the people of England about the time of Henry 8th was not much superior, if at all so, to that of the people of Ireland in the present day; and that the distress which followed soon after, in consequence of the transfer of the ecclesiastical property, and which reduced thousands to beggary, had rendered the introduction of some legislative provision for the poor necessary. That provision was made by the 43rd of Elizabeth. From that time, he observed, the condition of the people improved. Then, as penury, idleness, and improvidence disappeared, it was found that cleanliness, industry, and frugality occupied their places. In proportion as the wages of labour increased, it was found that the means of the labouring classes were enlarged. With enlarged means came in a taste for the comforts and the luxuries of life. This produced a market for home consumption, and an improved and improving state of agriculture: and from those two sources combined had risen that extent of capital which made England the most powerful state in the civilized world. What would have been the condition of England had Ireland proceeded pari passu with her in the march of civilization, he would not inquire. He would content himself with showing the reasons why Ireland had not proceeded pari passu with, England in her career of improvement.

He had already pointed but to the House the period intervening between the commencement of the Reformation and the enactment of the Poor-laws in England, as a period during which the people of the two countries were placed nearly on a level. He had proved that a change of condition had been consequent on a change of system in England; and he would now undertake to show, that if a change of system had taken place in Ireland at the same time, it would have been productive of similar effects. Let gentlemen not conceal from themselves the fact, that whatever superiority the peasantry of England appeared to enjoy—and, in point of fact, did enjoy—over the peasantry of Ireland, had grown up and matured under a compulsory provision for the poor, and that the wretchedness and misery of the sister country was the result of its poor being neglected and unprovided for by law, and being left to such relief as chance or private charity might throw in their way. The fact was, that the poor in Ireland must be supported either by private charity or by plunder and pillage. He asked, which of these two courses was the least objectionable? He asked like wise, whether a fixed provision for the poor was not preferable to that casual benevolence which was prone to relieve the importunate object of charity, and to leave the retiring, the blind, and the bed-ridden to pine away in unrelieved poverty and anguish.

He knew that it would be asserted, that there was no inherent right in the poor to demand maintenance at the hands of the rich. In answer to that assertion, he would say, that if it were matter of consequence to Ireland to maintain tranquillity and to secure property, it did appear to him, that without being guilty of a moral as well as a political solecism, the House could not fail to take into its consideration the claims of the poor in Ireland. He called upon no one to vote with him on the mere ground of charity. He stood in need of no such auxiliary, if he proved, as he knew he could prove, that the interest of the land was as much identified with the prosperity of the higher classes as the interest of the labourer was with the land itself; and if he failed to show that the measure which he now rose to recommend had a tendency to promote the interests of all classes of the community, he would admit that he had no claim to the support of the House.

He would now consider the principle of the Poor-laws as applicable to Ireland; and with that view he would advert to an argument which was often used; namely, that whatever had been effected for the poor of England by those laws would have been effected without them, inasmuch as the fear of want in old age, and the desire to better himself, which was inherent in every man, would in themselves have been sufficient incentives to the practice of industry and frugality. Now, the actual condition of Ireland afforded an excellent refutation of that argument: it furnished irrefragable proof that without some system of Poor-laws, the extremest carelessness would pervade the lower classes of the population, who required the interference of the legislature to direct them to the observation of their own interests, about which they were habitually indifferent. Such being the case, what became of the argument, that the Poor-laws tended to debase the feelings and the habits of the labouring classes? He denied that they had any such tendency in general. They might have such an effect, in some particular instances; but, generally, they tended to raise the condition and the character of the poor man, by rendering him independent of his employer. They gave him the opportunity of obtaining the comforts and luxuries of life, by raising the price of his labour; and they prevented him from falling into a state of abject poverty, in which all a man's feelings were absorbed in thinking of the means by which he should get a bare subsistence. To that state he was sorry to say the peasantry of Ireland were now reduced, and from that state he was anxious to raise them; being convinced in his own mind that there could be no national prosperity in any country in which the feeling of hunger was the sole inducement to laborious exertion.

But perhaps he might be asked, from what quarter, if Ireland was so impoverished, was the capital to come to support a population consisting almost entirely of paupers? He was inclined to answer that question by putting another, and by asking, what was the source of capital, whence was it derived, and why should England abound in that in which it was admitted on all hands that Ireland was so deficient? Ireland was scarcely ever mentioned without the observation, "Why is not English capital invested there?" It appeared to him more natural to inquire, why with all its advantages of soil and situation, capital was not generated there? The reason was obvious. The only source from which the capital of a country could increase was from its rental. Now, the rental of Ireland was regularly withdrawn from it; and therefore it was impossible, as the rental was withdrawn, that any capital could accumulate. If rent be returned to the tenant in the shape of a renewed demand for his labour, it returned to him as the vapours extracted from the earth returned to the earth, in refreshing and invigorating showers, enriching and fertilizing the soil on which they alighted. If, however, it were spent entirely in a foreign land by an absentee landlord, the whole market of demand was stationary; and therefore, unless a speedy and effectual remedy was applied to such a state of things, the evil must continue to spread, until Ireland became one vast mass of poverty and destitution. He thought that he was not going too far when he said, that in no country in the world save in Ireland, would it be tolerated that the landlords should arrogate to themselves all the advantages of the labour of their fellow-countrymen, without giving any thing to them in return; and yet, without a system of Poor-laws, what was there to bind an Irish landholder to rescue his fellow-country man from disease and poverty, or even from, absolute starvation? Hence it was, that he was so often indifferent to their distressed situation; if indeed he happened to hear of it in the distant country in which he was sojourning. Hence it was, that he now called in the aid of the Poor-laws to make the absentee landlord identify himself with the tenantry on his estate,—a consummation which, desirable as it was on many accounts, was not the less desirable as being conducive to the circulation among them of the money which he extracted from them. With such an auxiliary, the labourer was enabled to make a fair bargain with his employer: without it, the employer, finding it advantageous to get labour cheap, limited the allowance to the labourer to the cheap allowance of rags, water, and potatoes. Such was, in general, the fate of the Irish-labourer. The English labourer, on the contrary, knowing that the parish was bound to provide him with bread, lodging, and meat, threatened fearlessly to throw himself on the poor-rates, unless he received an equivalent for his labour.

The evil of the Irish system, namely, the potatoe-minimum, did not stop here; for the potatoe, though a very productive esculent, was liable to blight and frost in the winter, and always fell off in the spring season. You could not preserve it by any exertions for more than a year; and if there happened to be a failure in the new crop, where then were the stores for the subsistence of the poor? The granary might be full to overflowing; but, of what advantage was it to them? Their labour was paid for in the potatoe, and they were therefore unable to purchase-bread. Hence he would say, that if bread was the staff of life, the potatoe was nothing but its crutch. But perhaps he might be considered bound to adduce more favourable arguments for the introduction of a modified system of Poor-laws into Ireland, than those which were derivable from the frequent occurrence of disease and distress. Then, he would go back to the period of the Union with Ireland. Let not what he was going to say with respect to the act of Union be considered as a declaration drawn from him by any hostility to the principle of that measure. He had ever considered the Union as a wise, a salutary, and he would add, a necessary measure, and one which nothing would induce him to have repeated. For that reason, he was the more desirous to deprive it of its sting in reference to Ireland. It was impossible to conceal that the Union had driven its rising manufactures entirely from Ireland. The free-trade between the two countries, which sprung out of the Union, left them to compete, with each other as commercial rivals. The result of that competition was seen in the decreasing manufactures of Ireland, and in the consequently decreasing demand for labour. It was impossible that the result should be other-wise, when one country had a population of seven millions with no Poor-laws to protect it; and the other had a population of eleven millions, sharing seven millions sterling of poor rates among them. Let the House inquire how the different systems worked, which were adopted in the two countries. And first in Ireland. Bad times come; what, then, is the state of the Irish operatives? They hang about the factory, from which they have been discharged, as long as they entertain hopes of being again employed there. At last the exhaustion of their funds compels them to seek agricultural, instead of manufacturing employment. They either look for it in their own country, or they cross the water to look for it here. In the mean time a better season arrives, and then where are your good operatives? Gone, no one knows where! and the Irish manufacturer closes his market, from the consciousness of his inability to compete with the English manufacturer. Now, consider the different state of things in England. When bad times come, the English manufacturer places his men on half work; relief is got for them from the parish; they are thus left on the spot, and they go on waiting for better times. Who, then, in possession of capital, would fix upon Ireland as the place in which he would expend it?

For these reasons he was convinced, that the Irish labourer must either be raised to the level of the English, or the English labourer would sink to the level of the Irish. Nothing could be done for Ireland without enabling the Irish labourer to purchase the comforts and luxuries of life to the same extent as the English labourer. He was convinced, that this could only be obtained by extending to Ireland the system of Poor-laws which had existed in England from the year 1605 to the year 1795; and which had raised it to a state of industry and frugality superior to that of any other country in the world. Such a system would increase the price of labour in Ireland, and would thus tend to the general tranquillity and prosperity of that country. If the wages of the labourer, which he would take at 5d. a day now, were increased, as he expected they would be increased by such a measure, to 15d. or 16d. a day, it would not be unbecoming the House to consider the beneficial effect which such an improvement in his condition would have upon the revenue. It would likewise enable the Irish farmer to find a ready market for cattle: it would cause the different departments of commerce to flourish: and in producing a taxable revenue, it would furnish the best comment on a change from a pauper to a Poor-law system. It would also be no less advantageous to England, for it would stop the depreciation of wages under which the English labourer now suffered, owing to the numbers of Irish labourers who followed the shoals of their absentee countrymen to get that subsistence in a foreign country which they were unable to procure at home. He had no doubt, that if a good system of Poor-laws, free from the defects of the English system, were introduced into Ireland, property in that country would be increased tenfold in value, and that the landlords of Ireland would hail the day with triumph, which enabled them to exchange a Poor-law for pauper system. He was afraid that the system which he had just ventured to recommend would not meet with the approbation of his colleagues from Ireland; and he should therefore confine himself at present to moving a resolution on the subject, hoping that his majesty's ministers might be induced to take it into their consideration, and to bring forward, either in this session or the next, some specific measure for the relief of the poorer classes in Ireland. The hon. member concluded by moving the following resolution: "That this House is of opinion that it will be expedient to take into early consideration, in the next session of parliament, the condition, of the Poor of Ireland, with a view to consider the propriety of introducing a system of Poor-laws into Ireland, subject to such modifications as parliament may deem applicable to the peculiar circumstances of that country."

said, that in spite of the admiration which he felt for the talent which the hon. member for the county of Waterford had displayed, in the speech which he had just made, he was placed necessity of moving the previous question upon the resolution which that hon. member had proposed. He begged leave to inform the hon. member, that in so doing it was far from his wish to imply any condemnation, either of the hon. member's motion, or of the motives which had induced him to propose it. He conceived it to be the duty of government to be cautious in approaching the verge of legislation, on a subject of such importance as the present. He objected upon principle to any measure which pledged the House to a distinct line of conduct for a future Session. He was aware that there had been exceptions to that principle; but he contended, that those exceptions were justified by particular circumstances which did not exist in this case. By adhering strictly to this avoidance of hasty pledges, the House might escape from plunging itself into difficulties and dangers from which the boldest statesman would shrink with alarm. For the reasons, he wished to avoid pledging the government in any way upon its course respecting this question. Every member of parliament was aware of the mass and the value of the evidence, which the House had collected on the condition of Ireland. In the reports to which he was alluding, he found but a very small portion of evidence bearing directly, though he admitted that much of it bore by implica- tion, upon this subject. Strange to say, that evidence, little though it was, appeared to him to tell strongly against the motion of the hon. member. He alluded particularly to the evidence given by Mr. De la Poer, who was one of the warmest and most enthusiastic friends of Ireland. It was upon these grounds that he should take the liberty to move the previous question; not meaning thereby to express any hostility to the motion of the hon. member for Waterford, nor intending to pledge the government upon it, either on one side or on the other.

said, he could not but regret that his hon. friend, the member for the county of Waterford, had restricted his motion to the consideration of the propriety of introducing a system of Poor-laws into Ireland; and he was equally sorry that the noble Secretary had met that motion with the previous question, as it prevented the House from taking into its consideration the whole condition of the poor in Ireland. It was not the first time that he had witnessed a proposition on this subject got rid of by some generality in the shape of an objection. He remembered a speech of a former Irish Chief Secretary, which had been loudly cheered by the House, and which contained almost the same language as was now resorted to. He alluded to a speech delivered by an individual now in the other House of Parliament. A proposition was made to advance a sum of money to enable Irish paupers to emigrate. The then Chief Secretary (Mr. Lamb, now lord Melbourne) said that one part of the country could not be benefitted by what was a loss to the country at large, and that the only remedy for the evils complained of consisted in patience, industry, strict economy and labour. These the noble lord admitted were hard conditions; but he expressed his decided conviction, that they were the only ones upon which depended an improvement in the state of Ireland. In answer to arguments of that general nature, all that it was necessary to do was to refer to the condition of things, which was likely to be one of the inevitable consequences of a measure recently passed into a law—the Irish Forty-shilling Free-holders' Disfranchisement bill. An Irish newspaper, the "Northern Whig," described, the condition of persons turned adrift in consequence of that measure, without the means of obtaining subsistence in their native country, or seeking it elsewhere. It well became the House to consider what were likely to be the consequences of this. When persons were in vain petitioning and begging to be employed, to be told that they must exercise the virtues of economy, industry, patience, and perseverance, was rather unsatisfactory. What argument was this to use to individuals who were willing to labour, but could find nobody to employ them? His hon. friend appeared to be of opinion, that the true solution of the difficulty consisted in the introduction of the Poor-laws into Ireland—a system from which he augured the utmost advantages and the removal of a considerable part of the evils that at present afflicted that unhappy country. He concurred with his hon. friend in thinking, that it was impossible to contemplate as permanent, a difference in the condition of the labouring classes of the two countries. The question was, should we introduce the English Poor-laws into Ireland in a modified shape, or destroy the Poor-laws in England and place the two countries on a par in this respect? No one could say that, in this country, the Poor-laws ought to be put an end to. The only matter remaining for our consideration was, a choice of the time for introducing Poor-laws into Ireland. He did not contend that the system of Poor-laws in England was complete; we felt its evils daily, but we also felt, that it was necessary. His hon. friend said, that the introduction of the Poor-laws would have the effect of raising the rate of wages in Ireland; but let him consider what it was that regulated the rate of wages, and he must at once perceive, that the price of labour depended upon the demand existing for it, as compared with the amount of the supply. He (Mr. W. Horton) admitted that the introduction of capital would increase the demand for labour, and it was equally clear that the subtraction of a part of the supply of labour must raise the rate of wages. Those who thought that the evil could not thus cure itself, but that it required to be coped with, founded their conviction on the argument, that the mere introduction of capital, its transfer from one place to another (there could be no creation of capital), could not remedy the evil except accompanied by a reduction in the supply of labour. He would here observe, that he had a motion on the subject of pauperism in Ireland, which stood upon the paper for that evening, but he had no intention to bring it forward upon the present occasion. However, he could not avoid availing himself of the opportunity to press upon the House the paramount necessity of no longer delaying to look deeply and seriously into the subject. Emigration, it must be admitted, was calculated to clear away some of the difficulties of the case. But to suppose that any body favourable to emigration entertained so extravagant a notion as that its adoption would introduce such an improvement in human affairs as would remove the state of poverty in which a multitude of individuals must necessarily be placed, was altogether absurd. All he contended for was, that want and poverty might be alleviated, not removed, by adopting that in conjunction with other measures. Nothing was more deplorable than the circumstance of a large body of men, able and willing to labour, not being able to find employment; and this through no fault of their own, but by reason of the existing condition of things. That was an evil that ought to be removed if possible, and it was one which he thought capable of a positive cure. He might be asked, "Did he ever expect that there would not be distress in manufacturing districts?" He admitted it was impossible so to adjust the supply and demand as not to have occasional distress. He well knew, that as long as the masters effected an irregular supply, it would be impossible to prevent such things occasionally happening; but the great mischief did not so much arise from this, as from the circumstance of all the other classes of labourers being so numerous, that there was no possible mode in which the weaver could avail himself of his industry out of his immediate trade. He was afraid that the House had not paid sufficient attention to the reports that had been made by the Emigration Committee, but he could assure them, that a great deal of valuable information had been obtained. An attack upon that committee had been made by an hon. gentleman (Mr. Sadler) who had since become a member of that House; and through he was quite ready to admit, that the inquiries of that hon. gentleman had been of service to the country, yet he thought he had dealt very unfairly with the Emigration Committee. The hon. gentleman, in speaking of that committee, had described them as selfish, presumptuous, arrogant, cruel, heartless beings, who, indulging in the pride of a spurious philosophy, were disposed to sacrifice the lives of human beings to their own ill-digested theories. Surely he had at least a right to demand, that when the hon. gentleman made such assertions as these he should at least come forward to state the grounds upon which they were made. What he wanted of the hon. gentleman was, that he should produce the authorities on which he thought himself justified in covering men as honourable as himself with obloquy, for opinions which they honestly entertained, and for supposed results which had never taken place. He should not quarrel with the abuse which the hon. gentleman had launched against the committee, provided he would shew that he had evidence to support him in stating what he did. As far, however, as he could judge, there was strong evidence to disprove the assertions of the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman said, that the people had been bribed out of this country, and allured to a distant land, though many who had emigrated thither before them had perished; and that in a vast plurality of instances the recommendations of the committee had terminated their misery instead of alleviating it. In reply to this, he begged leave to inform the hon. gentleman, that the principle of the measure supported by the committee was not only not to force persons to emigrate, but to decline assisting them, unless they appeared to be equally desirous of seizing the opportunity. Amongst the witnesses examined was colonel Cockburn, who had been sent out to the colonies for the express purpose of inquiring into the state of the emigrants; and his report was most favourable. Captain Basil Hall, likewise, who had spent much time in travelling, both through the United States of America and Canada, had confirmed this account, and appeared to think that the emigrants were in a most thriving and promising condition.—With respect to the proposal of reclaiming the waste lands of Ireland, if any one could satisfy us that the bogs might be reclaimed, as the hon. member appeared to think they might, he would show us an immense treasure within our grasp, in the very heart of the country. So far was he from believing that immense reclamations might not be made in Ire- land, that he believed the contrary to be the fact, and thought that government could not do a wiser act than to make the experiment. There were millions of acres of waste lands, which, if they could be successfully cultivated, would add materially to the resources of this country. However, this was one of the experiments highly convenient for the government to make, rather than individuals, who could not sustain the expense of attempting it upon a large scale. The hon. gentleman seemed to suppose, that the Emigration Committee were foolish enough to imagine that Ireland could not produce sufficient food for the support of its population. The Emigration Committee said no such thing. It was one thing for a country to produce food enough for its population, and another for the population to have money to purchase it. Irish corn was naturally sold to the best bidder, and thus found its way into the English market. How could the poor among the population of Ireland obtain it, except it were provided for them by Poor-laws, or unless the rate of wages were raised? Yet, if we introduced the Poor-laws into Ireland in its present state, and under existing circumstances, they might prove an aggravation of the evil; those laws would prevent many landlords from obtaining, sixpence from their estates. He said, he thought the effect of them would be, to encroach considerably upon the rental of the Irish landlord. Other parties, who at present derived benefit from the landlords, would suffer in consequence of their curtailed means; and thus the measure would prove a transfer rather than an abolition of pauperism. But if it were possible to settle the rate of wages in a satisfactory manner, by colonization, or any other means, then would be the time to introduce a modified system of Poor-laws. In proposing remedies for the evils that afflicted the country, one gentleman said remit five million of taxation; another said alter the Corn-laws; a third proposed to do away with sinecurists (he hardly knew where they were to be found): all these remedies must necessarily be inoperative, so long as the population continued redundant. The right hon. gentleman here cited the opinions expressed by Mr. Malthas before the Emigration Committee, for the purpose of confirming this view of the subject, and showing that the removal of a portion of the labouring population would effect a beneficial change in the condition of the remainder. It was clear that we must either devise new modes of employing labour, or withdraw a part of that labour from the market. The first remedy, to say the least of it, was not speedily attainable. With respect to colonization, he considered it almost the only remedy that could be applied with a prospect of success: it should be employed, not to the suppression of other remedies, but conjointly with the most promising of them; he was convinced it ought to receive a fair trial. In every point of view it merited attention; and, for his own part, he believed it to be the sole remedy. He should be most happy to hear that government was willing to look into the subject with a view to its adoption.

said, he should not again have troubled the House that evening had he not been personally alluded to throughout the speech of the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down. This, he hoped, would fully excuse him from occupying the attention of the House, contrary to his wish and intention, on the present occasion. If it were customary, or, indeed, tolerated, to make allusions to publications or discussion foreign to the House, he must be allowed to say that it was an injudicious course. He had, indeed, in a work to which the right hon. gentleman had done him the honour to allude, strongly objected to the principle of public and national emigration, as unnecessary, impolitic, and productive of much individual suffering; which he conceived he had a perfect right to do, as a man who felt that the proposition was, in practice, opposed to sound policy as well as to humanity, and as an Englishman, who would be called upon to contribute to so anti-national a project, were it carried into effect. But still he attributed no intentional errors, much less cruelty, to the committee in question; on the contrary, he plainly and unequivocally asserted otherwise. He attributed the views which that committee had unfortunately taken on the subject, to those unsound notions upon political policy now so much afloat, and to that view of the principle of population which they had unhappily adopted. Speaking on the latter subject he might follow the example that had been set him by the right hon. gentleman, and say that he had given it for some years past his most unremitting attention, the result of which would be speedily submitted to another tribunal. The right hon. gentleman had chosen to be sarcastic upon that principle, as he had already developed it in the work in question: it would be found, however, to be a principle perfectly consistent with the history of human beings in every age and country of the world, and clearly resolvable into the benevolence of the Deity, and conducive to the best feelings and the truest interests of his creatures. It was a fact, that the multiplication of the species had ever a direct reference to the provision which nature had prepared for them, and was under equal circumstances in the inverse ratio of the condensation of their numbers. But he should not have alluded to the subject had not the remarks of the right hon. gentleman drawn thus much from him. With regard to the Emigration Committee, he conceived he had done them more honour than one man in every hundred thousand had done throughout the whole kingdom, in having read and examined their voluminous reports; but, though these had swelled into the size of a family Bible, he did not conceive they were quite of so sacred a character as that book, and had therefore felt, that the facts and opinions which they contained were the subjects of fair and strict examination, and he had acted upon that feeling. The right hon. gentleman had strung together a number of terms which he had erroneously represented him as having applied to the members of the committee; whereas he had used them simply in reference to the principles they had held forth and the policy they had recommended. Epithets applied to principles had never before, he thought, been construed into personalities. If so, the House would have been engaged in perpetual conflicts. For instance, when very strong expressions had been formerly used by a party in that House in reference to his majesty's government, such "as weak and wicked," it had rarely been interpreted, he should imagine, into an attempt to designate the individuals composing it fools and rogues. He regarded the charge as too frivolous to demand further observation. If, however, he had, in pursuing the course which his feelings and his duty prompted, made use of any expressions unnecessarily strong and severe, he could only repeat an expression which he used when he wrote the work referred to—that he should deeply regret the circumstance. The fact was, that the book, in the composition of which he had to refer to some hundred authorities, was nevertheless, written in a very few weeks, in order to anticipate the then pending decision of parliament on the question of emigration, and was consequently composed with more haste than would have been advisable under other circumstances. Hence the apologetic expressions alluded to; which, however, had reference principally to a different description of individuals to the committee—the absentees of Ireland—whom he thought he might have treated with some degree of harshness; whereas, the right hon. gentleman seemed to think that the emigration report either was, or ought to be, the all-engrossing theme of every writing and debate, and hence had imagined him as referring to that when, often, it was the very furthest thing from his thoughts. As to any personal disrespect, he had not known a single name in that committee until he had read them in the pamphlet of the right hon. gentleman which he had that day seen; and he could only declare, that, individually, he entertained no feelings but those of respect for them; in which he was sure he only shared the sentiments of the public at large. He could say the same of their chairman, whose name, by every one who knew him, was constantly associated with ideas of humanity and benevolence; but these feelings, however sincerely he felt them, would not deter him from persevering in his opposition to the impolitic and anti-national projects of that committee.—On the subject of emigration he would not enter, convinced that if he did so, familiar as the subject was to him, he should trespass far too much upon the time and attention of the House. As, however, it had seemed to give great umbrage that he had made reference to the suffering that these large and public deportations of our countrymen occasioned, and as his statement was denied, and himself challenged to come forward in its defence, he would indulge the right hon. gentleman, and obey the call. In doing this, he should refer to one document only, for the double purpose of substantiating his statements, and that of fully exculpating himself from the charge of wishing unnecessarily to wound the feelings of the committee. This document should not be of a disputable cha- racter, but one printed and published by the committee itself, and referred to with the utmost complacency, as demonstrating, by the vaunted success of this particular instance, the prosperity and happiness which the plan would produce, were it carried into effect to its fullest extent. Mr. Peter Robinson, who was chosen to locate the emigration of 1825, and not, perhaps, in any branch of the emigration trade himself (which not a few of the evidences before that committee were), was frequently alluded to in terms of high, and he did not doubt, deserved Commendation. "Your committee," says the third report, "cannot conclude their observations on this point of inquiry without expressing their sense of the zeal, ability, and discretion with which Mr. Peter Robinson effected the location of the two bodies of emigrants in 1823 and 1825." This location was described, at large in the preceding pages, and "the happy and prosperous condition" of these emigrants was further dwelt upon in p. 347 of the same report. These emigrants, he said, it ought to be stated, were selected out of fifty thousand individuals, and within certain ages, and consequently were, in all respects, the most favourably circumstanced in reference to the public and expensive experiment which ensued, and which is said to have been crowned with such abundant success, to have been so happy and prosperous in its issue. Now, an appeal to the actual condition of that location exhibited the following results:—The number of families was four hundred and twenty-four; of individuals, one thousand eight hundred and forty-five. Now what was the mortality in these emigrants in a short period? From the year 1825, when they went out, down to the 24th of November, 1826, there were one hundred and thirty-one deaths, one hundred and thirty-nine were represented as having been sick. Of these it appeared that fifty-three families had suffered from ague all the summer; eight during most of it; thirty had been sick of other disorders all the summer; there were twelve cases in which the entire family was reported ill; some were reported as never well since they arrived; others, with their families, all dead. So that, instead of one death in sixty-nine, as in Wales, or one in fifty-seven, as in England, the deaths in that happy and prosperous location amounted to the unprecedented pro- portion of one to fourteen! He defied any individual to show him any considerable community where a similar mortality prevailed in any part of the world. Cairo or Constantinople, while labouring under the ravages of the plague, exhibited nothing equal to it. And what a state of suffering, mental and physical, both as to the sufferers and the survivors, did this imply? Nothing equal to it existed in any part of the British empire; fully justifying him had he uttered tenfold as much as he had done in reference to the impolicy and cruelty of the scheme. But this evidence he purposely suppressed. He had no wish to bring so strong a proof, as to the character of the proposition, before the British public. Since he had been personally alluded to, as actuated by somewhat different feelings he now gave it forth; and let those who were thus made aware of it do justice to his feelings in opposing such a scheme. If, as the committee "hypothetically" anticipated, nine hundred and eighty-five thousand one hundred and fifty individuals should be sent out of the country in eight years, it would, under all the favourable circumstances so much dwelt upon, imply the death of seventy thousand individuals in the first year of their expatriation; fifty-three thousand more than would have fallen in the ordinary course of nature, had they been suffered to remain at home, set to cultivate the wastes, and drain the bogs of Ireland, to the comfort of themselves, and the permanent advantage of the country at large. The right hon. member had descanted much that night on excess of population as the sole evil, and expatriation as the sole cure. But he would remind the right hon. gentleman, that the evil was one which, on a reference to the history of his own or any other country, he would find the most pressing the greater the paucity of the population. In the wilds of America the savage found that he could not exist except he expatiated in a square mile of fruitful land. Spain, depopulated as she was, was over-peopled. Thus was it, from the lowest stage of society until it rose to its high and palmy state of prosperity and happiness; man was ever found in the most happy and prosperous state, whether morally or intellectually as well as physically considered, when he was surrounded, assisted, and exerted by multitudes of his own species. He would repeat what he had more than once said in that House, and had dwelt upon elsewhere; namely, that employment for labour was still within our reach, the development of which would give plenty and prosperity to every branch of the community; and, without meaning to throw the slightest impediment in the way of emigration when individually undertaken, he might yet be permitted to object to the legislature of the country wasting its resources in so fruitless and anti-national, and practically so cruel, an attempt as that of lessening its population. There had been no mortality like that in any district, or under any circumstances with which he was acquainted. In the fever hospital, during the utmost violence of the disease in Dublin, he was enabled to state, upon the authority of an eminent medical friend resident in that city, that a mortality equal to that which he had been stating had not taken place. He would, then, put it to the House, whether or not he had used undue severity. Nay, he would go the length of saying, that the committee was indebted to him for the forbearance he had exercised; for he had omitted the mention of many facts to which be might have alluded. What, then, became of the high state of prosperity which the report described those locations as enjoying? Once more he entreated the right hon. gentleman to bear in mind, that he made no personal accusation whatever. No man believed more implicitly than he did in the benevolent intentions of that right hon. gentleman. Every man who knew him attributed to him the highest degree of benevolence. All he meant to say was, that he doubted the policy of that wholesale deportation of which the right hon. gentleman was the strenuous advocate. There were in this country thirty millions of acres uncultivated, of which fifteen millions were capable of cultivation, if suitable means were resorted to. Let us, then, hear no more of emigration until these lands shall have been brought into full cultivation. On a former night the hon. member for Abingdon had rather tauntingly called on him to come forward with some specific proposition for the relief of the labouring poor of Ireland. He did not know that he should otherwise have had the courage to come forward with any distinct proposition; but having been so called upon, he begged to give notice, that either dur- ing the present, or very early in the next session, he intended to submit to their consideration a plan for the relief of the pauper population—not a plan of wild theory, such as that recommended by the right hon. gentleman and his friends, but a plan of real practical benevolence, calculated to prove an effectual and a speedy remedy for the evils of their present condition. It was not his intention to have been the originator of such a proposal; but, after the promninent part he had taken in the discussion, he felt himself bound to state the result of his experience.

said, the mortality in the case referred to was owing to want of management. The emigrants had been landed at an unhealthy season, in consequence of which a great number of them were lost.

reiterated his statement, and observed, that notwithstanding the mortality, the location was described as being in a happy and prosperous condition.

said, he would resist the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, because they were vicious in system, indefensible in practice, had failed in this country, must inflict deep injury on the landholders, and were calculated to aggravate all the evils of pauperism instead of diminishing them. It had been said, that the prosperity of this country had increased since the time of Elizabeth: he was glad to hear it; but if so, it had risen to prosperity in spite of the Poor-laws, not in consequence of them. It was erroneous to say that the poor were unprovided for in Ireland. There were assessments for the promotion of education, and for the maintenance of foundlings; houses of industry were supported by local rates; every county in Ireland had one or more county infirmaries. Thus provision was made for the young, the sick, the old, the impotent, and also for the lunatic poor. It had been said, that the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland would have the effect of raising the wages of labour. In answer to this it was only necessary to look at Sussex. There poor-rates were at the highest, and wages at the lowest. In other counties, where the rates were moderate, wages were proportionately better. This was an answer to the hon. member's speculation on that point. If the motion were only for an inquiry, how far the Poor-laws might be applicable to Ireland, he would not object to it; but he thought that, at the present period of the session, to hold put any expectation that parliament would be disposed to introduce them, would be a measure fraught with evil. Inquiry into the condition of Ireland would, under any circumstances, be desirable; for unquestionably the condition of the poor of that country, demanded the interposition of the House. What appeared to be principally, necessary was, to take from the shoulders of the occupiers of the land a large portion of the burthens under which they at present laboured, and to impose them upon the landlord. Emigration might also be successfully resorted to, for the purpose of mitigating the evils arising from a redundant population. The employment of the labouring part of the people in public works was also a measure that might be productive of much benefit. He trusted that what he had said would show that his opposition to the motion did not proceed from any callous indifference to the grievances to which the poorer classes in Ireland were exposed, nor from any selfish feeling towards, the class to which he himself belonged.

said, that as this was the first time that this subject had been agitated during the present session, he felt it his duty to trespass for a short time upon the attention of the House. In the first place, he must return his sincere thanks to his hon. friend the member for Waterford, for having brought forward the present motion for the consideration of the House. He was exceedingly glad that he had done so, as it would be the means of calling the public attention to a most important subject as regarded both countries. At the game time, however, he should now be one among the number of those who were determined to vote for the rejection of a system of Poor-laws in Ireland, similar to those which existed in this country. He, in fact, entirely coincided with the argument of his hon. friend who had just sat down. The hon. member who had submitted the present motion to the attention of the House had taken an opportunity, in doing so, of describing the happiness and comfort which existed in this country from the effect of the Poor-laws. It was true that the labourer in this country was provided for in such a manner as to protect him from actual starvation, but at the same time he was firmly of opinion, that the same law, if extended to Ireland, would be productive of nothing but confusion, misery, and poverty: he thought, in fact, it would be the greatest evil which could befall the country. But however good the hon. member might conceive the measure to be, he thought he had brought it forward at rather an unfortunate time; for, since the Catholic Relief bill had been passed, a new field had been opened for the employment of the poor in Ireland. English capitalists would now be induced, from the cheapness of labour and from the natural facilities which the country afforded, to invest their property there, and thus, by giving employment to the poor inhabitants, would be the means of introducing peace and harmony among them. If, therefore, there had ever been a necessity for Poor-laws in that country it would now become less so; and he certainly thought that his hon. friend would have done better if he had allowed some little time to have elapsed before he had brought forward this question. He was afraid, if it were entertained for a moment by the House, that it would serve only as a fresh subject of contention and excitation; while, if it were actually carried into effect, he thought it would be detrimental, not so much to the landlord as to the poorer classes themselves; for it should be remembered that the burthen would fall not upon the landlord, but upon the occupying tenant. Before he concluded, he begged leave to advert for a moment to the work on Ireland which had lately been produced from the pen of the hon. member for Newark. That work was, in his opinion, not only the best, but the most intelligent and interesting which had ever been published upon the subject, and, although he could not agree with the hon. member in every respect, he had felt much surprise to find an English gentleman so well acquainted with the affairs of Ireland, and one who, possessing that knowledge, had treated subject with so much fairness and liberality:—There was another circumtance to which he wished to allude. An erroneous statement had been circulated, and was in many places believed, that since the Disfranchisement bill had been passed two noble marquisses, who possessed large estates in Ireland, had given orders to their agents to dispossess the forty-shilling free-holders, in order to make way for the ten-pound freeholders. That statement was absolutely false: not only had no such order been issued by either of the noble lords alluded to, but it was utterly impossible for them to carry such an order into effect; for the greater number of the forty-shilling freeholders held their property upon leases dependent upon more than one life; consequently they were of such a nature as to prevent the landlord from dispossessing them at his pleasure. He had thought it right to give this direct and unqualified refutation to the statement, as it had been bandied about the country as the first fruits of the Disfranchisement measure, and was consequently calculated to excite great distrust and suspicion. He did not mean, at that moment, to bind himself down by any declaration upon the policy or impolicy of introducing the Poor-laws into Ireland. His opinion at present was, that the introduction of such a measure could not be attended with any beneficial result; on the contrary, he thought it would be productive of incalculable injury, and would serve only to blast those fair prospects which were now beginning to appear.

observed, that such appeared to him to be the great importance of this subject that he was almost afraid to attempt to enter upon it. But since it had once had been agitated, he felt that he could not sit in that House without making a few observations upon it. Those observations, however, would be very short; for, as the subject might be said to be in its infancy, ample opportunities would hereafter be afforded for discussing it. In the course of this debate much had been said about colonization, or emigration as it was more commonly called. Colonization, however, appeared to him to be the more proper term; as it was not proposed to send out settlers to form new colonies, but to establish themselves at those fine colonies which already existed. In his opinion, the system of colonization was one which must in every respect be productive of great benefit to the country, and perhaps the only means of relieving it from the very great evil of such a poor-rate as that which at present existed in England. He thought, therefore, that the hon. member for Newark was wrong when he had indulged in the volume of vituperation, with which he had attacked those who were supporters of the system of colonization. Instead of being absurd, it was, in his opinion, true charity and generosity; and, like charity and generosity in general, it united with it wisdom, justice, and policy. There could be no doubt that the measure of emigration was the only means of giving relief for what he must call, notwithstanding it was so much deprecated by some hon. gentlemen, the superabundant and redundant population of the united kingdom. That subject would, however, hereafter come under consideration; but he thought it proper now to bear his testimony to the zeal and ability with which it had been pursued by the right hon. gentleman. The question before the House he considered to be second in importance to none. The Catholic question, the question of Free Trade, or the question of Education—none of the questions which, for a series of years, had occupied all the intellect of the country, were, in his opinion, of greater importance than the question of relieving the country from the intolerable evil of an excess of population, which we could not find any means to employ. With respect to the cultivation of waste lands at the public expense, recommended by the hon. member for Newark, he could not conceive anything more certain to cause a waste of public money. Why were such lands not cultivated? Because, he would answer, it was impossible to cultivate them. In all questions of this kind, the Irish gentlemen seemed to have in view to draw money for their immediate relief from this country. The public money might certainly be laid out in such a manner; but it would not lead to any permanent benefit. The question, then, before the House was not a civil question—it was a question, whether the rates for the support of the Irish poor should be paid by the English or the Irish landowners. For such a question he was not a disinterested advocate, but he would contend that it would be just and beneficial that the Irish landowners should maintain their own poor. If they had taken the same pains in managing their estates that the gentlemen of this country had taken, instead of stimulating population for political purposes, that population would not have been, he believed, redundant. There was one law of the country which, though many wise men had objected to it, and the press was continually labouring to get repealed—he meant the law of Primogeniture—he thought was the great cause of the wealth of England [hear!]. That law kept property together in masses, and was the only means by which it could be preserved.

In Ireland we had that system reduced to practice which had been described in beautiful poetry, but very incorrect philosophy—

"A time there was ere England's griefs began,

When every rood of ground maintain'd its man."

This was now the case in Ireland; and a more miserable state of society could not be imagined. But for the condition of the people of Ireland, who had overwhelmed the poor of this country, he believed that the growing prosperity of England would, ere this, have put an end to the poor-rates in England, and that not a working man would be found subsisting on parish support. But it was impossible to do away with pauperism here, unless the working people of Ireland had their condition improved. The people of both parts of the kingdom would naturally come to the same level: as long as the Irish were degraded, it would be impossible for the English labourer to obtain adequate wages. The right hon. gentleman had quoted a passage of Swift, which he did not recollect; but he did recollect, that Foote said he never knew what the beggars of England did with their cast-off clothes, till he went to Ireland. The wretchedness of the people was noticed long ago, and ascribed by sir William Temple to the facility with which the people could obtain the means of subsistence. He argued, that as Holland had risen to great wealth by overcoming great obstacles, so it would only be necessary that the people of Ireland should be exposed to similar difficulties, to make them equally as industrious and equally as wealthy as the Hollanders. It was because the people of Ireland could obtain a week's subsistence by two days' labour, that he accounted for their inherent indolence. At present they were not indolent. No people were more willing to work, or employed more ability, energy, or ingenuity in their labour than the Irish, whenever they had an opportunity. He would say, under these circumstances, that his hon. friend had brought forward his motion on strong public grounds, for it was not in support of his own interest; and he had brought it forward in a manner that did as much credit to his understanding, as the motives for undertaking it did to his heart. The topic was one of great public importance, and he hoped and trusted, that parliament would not separate without taking it into its serious consideration. He should vote for the proposition of his hon. friend.

said, he had listened, on many occasions, with great pleasure to the hon, baronet; but he was surprised to hear him that night defend the law of primogeniture. With such an unnatural law Poor-laws were right and necessary. With respect to the system of emigration which the right hon. gentleman had recommended as a means of removing the evils of the country, he had tried it for eight or nine years and had now been obliged to give it up. The right hon. gentleman had obtained grants of public money in 1821 and 1823, to make an experiment, and that experiment had completely failed. The right hon. gentleman had had three committees, and if he had brought the report of the last committee before the House, he would probably have been induced to give up the scheme himself. He wanted the House to grant a million of money, and he would then send ninety thousand persons out of the country; but if the House would give that sum to the gentlemen of Ireland, he would undertake to say, that the distress of that country would be relieved. With 4000l., a Mr. Griffith had improved a space of three miles, and had introduced peace and quietness; where before there was riot and disorder. There was now in that spot where there had been a redundancy of population, a want of labourers; and it was by acting upon this system that he thought the country would be best relieved. The hon. member for Limerick had spoken of schools and infirmaries, and other means of relieving and assisting the poor; and he had referred to the 11th and 12th of George I., which was confirmed by the Irish parliament in 1771, by which grand juries were directed to provide houses of industry for the poor, to place badges on the paupers, and which, he said, did introduce Poor-laws into Ireland. The corporations and the clergy were to be the leaders in carrying this measure into execution; but it had been so much neglected, that only two Houses of industry had been erected in Ireland; one at Dublin, and the other at Waterford. Both were well conducted; and the hon. member for Limerick seemed to suppose, that if one of these were erected in each county, it would supply sufficient means of relieving and providing for the poor of Ireland, He must indeed be a madman, who would introduce the Poor-laws, as they existed in England, into Ireland; but there was a great difference between establishing a system to relieve the aged and the distressed, and a regular system to provide employment for the poor, and to feed those who were not employed, though they were lazy and idle, and able-bodied men. A great part of the evils arose from gentlemen not residing on their property; and there ought to be some measure for providing an equality of taxation, for those who did not reside, as well as for those who did. In the county in which he resided, some distress had been experienced; but the gentry had united to diminish it, and the great mass of the poor they now had, came from other parts. It was hard that they should suffer from the absence or negligence of others, and some step ought to be taken to make all contribute alike. He did not believe, if a compulsory payment existed, under a regular system, that it would amount to a greater sum than was now paid in charity. In 1816 and 1817 the typhus fever prevailed in Dublin, and then the rich raised 12,000l. to relieve the poor, who amounted to five thousand. By their exertions the number was reduced to a few hundreds, and a much smaller sum was now sufficient to relieve their wants. He had paid great attention to the subject, and had felt himself obliged in 1825, both as a member of parliament and a Christian, to attempt to relieve the distress. For this purpose, he had brought in a bill, and he thought that parliament would ultimately be forced to adopt some such a measure. He would recommend the noble Secretary for Ireland in case another typhus should break out in Ireland when the parliament was not sitting, to obtain the power to advance a large sum of money, compelling the landlords to repay it. Such a measure would make the landed gentlemen attend to the condition of their tenantry. He hoped such a state of things would not recur; but if it did, he would recommend these hints to the consideration of the noble lord.

professed himself a zealous advocate of the principle of the measure, but he should not vote for it with feelings of unmixed satisfaction. He did not agree with the right hon. member for Londonderry as to the effects of the Disfranchisement Act, the tendency of which he was afraid, would be, to sever many men from the soil; and he was afraid that many landlords would be induced, by the agitating of this question, to hasten the execution of such a project, and that it would add to the number of man who would be severed from the soil, in order that their landlords might not be obliged to support them. There existed a want of sympathy between the landlord and the poor, such as existed in the country between the landlord and his tenants; and there would be no provision made for the poor, unless the landlords were taxed. He differed entirely from the hon. member for Limerick, in thinking that there was a sufficient provision made by local acts for the aged and destitute. Those acts had not provided for such as were impotent and in need. It was impossible to go into the streets and roads without encountering objects of the greatest pity. Many a Lazarus was laid down at the rich man's gate, and received no pity. There was nothing in Europe—nothing in the wide world—which could surpass the misery and absolute wretchedness of the Irish poor. The 28th of Henry 8th, and the other acts mentioned, could not be properly described as imposing a compulsory rate, or a sufficient means of relief. If such a rate were not imposed, what could be expected, when it was known that from the district of Tralee, during the season of distress, from 160,000l. to 180,000l. was drawn, and nothing returned; and from another district 88,000l. was drawn by absentees, and after repeated applications, 80l. was returned as a relief to the suffering people? From such people nothing could be expected; and by them nothing would be done, unless they were compelled by a compulsory assessment. He considered the proposed measure necessary to the peace and prosperity of Ireland, and he implored his majesty's ministers to take it into their consideration and introduce a measure calculated to remedy the evil so loudly and so generally complained of in that country. But he would not stop here: he looked upon the measure under consideration as only a right, and Christian, and charitable provision for the distressed and impotent Irish. He would go further, and tell the hon. member for Wicklow, that he (Mr. Brownlow) was one of those "foolish, mad, and wrong-headed persons," who were anxious to extend the principle of the English Poor-laws to Ireland. He believed that the true meaning of the act introduced in the reign of queen Elizabeth was that of providing employment for children and industrious persons who were without labour; and, viewing it in that light, he was one of those wrong-headed men who would willingly extend it to Ireland. He would earnestly advocate the enactment of such a Poor-law as would touch the employment of the poor; otherwise he would not thank ministers for it. They had been told that, if such a bill were enacted, the rent also of the landholders would be completely eaten up. It was true that they would be diminished, but even if that should turn out to be the case, he would say that it would be better than that a whole nation should be left in a state of starvation. That was a conclusive answer to those who made such an objection. If, on the one hand, the landlords would be thus deprived of their rents, on the other hand, they had evidence that, under the existing system, life was destroyed in Ireland every day, from the effects of suffering and want. The necessity of the case, then, left them no alternative, even if the rentals of the landlords would be eaten up by the Poor-laws, if introduced into Ireland. But he did not think that the introduction of the Poor-laws there would cause such a fearful rush upon the rental of the country. If they enabled the poor-rates there to touch the labour of the country, by making labour the sole channel for relief—though they would, by that means, keep the rate of wages down in the market—yet, if the labourer receiving support from the poor-rates, were employed to a less degree than the other labourers in the parish, and received less wages than those given in the ordinary market, he did not think that, under such circumstances, there would be such a fearful rush upon the rental of the country. It was to the rental of the country, he was ready to avow, that he would attach the poor-rates in Ireland. Notwithstanding the speeches of his hon. friends, the members for Wicklow and Limerick, he would say, that rent was excessively and cruelly high in Ireland. He only asserted a fact, which every writer upon the statistics of Ireland, from the time of Spenser to Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Curwen, the late member for Cumberland, acknowledged, when he said, that the rents in Ireland were excessively high, and that the last farthing was screwed out of the unfortunate people of Ireland, [An hon. member called out, "name, name?"] His hon. friend behind him had called upon him to perform a most invidious task, that of naming landlords who let their land at extravagantly high rents. This, however, he would decline doing, for reasons which must be obvious to every hon. member; but he could assure the House, that such was the fact. The Irish tenant had the last farthing wrung from him in the shape of rent. It was his firm impression that it was so, from the evidence which he possessed; and he stated it now, in order to show, that if the rental of Ireland was wrung out of the wretchedness and misery of her unfortunate population, it was but just that it should be taxed in return for their support. Why, then, he asked, should there be such squeamishness exhibited by hon. members with regard to the interests of the Irish landlord? Why did they start at a proposition for the support of the poor, because it would make a draw upon the rental, when the people of the country were actually starving? He knew well, that as long as the landlords could get their rents they would not burthen themselves with the support of the poor. He called upon the House to lay their hands upon the Irish proprietors; to put their hands into the pockets of these men; for they might depend upon it that the Irish proprietors would never do so themselves for the relief of their poorer neighbours [hear, hear!]. Let the proposed measure be introduced—let the proprietor pay for the support of the unemployed poor—and it would be found that there would not be that rush on the rental of the landholder which was anticipated. On the contrary, it would have the effect of bringing back the absentees to Ireland, by making their property subject to assessment for the support of the poor there. They would be induced to return, if a system of Poor-laws were introduced, for the purpose of looking after the affairs of their parishes, attending at the vestries, seeing how the rates were assessed and collected, and taking a part in the management of the parochial affairs. But it was said, that the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland would tend to lower the rate of wages there. Its tendency, he conceived, would be otherwise. The landlord, when he found himself obliged to support the unemployed labourer, would rather set him to work on his estate, than have him employed at the expense of the parish. The bogs and waste kinds would supply abundant means for employing the unemployed labourers, and thus the introduction of the poor-rates would tend rather to raise than to lower wages in Ireland. He could not, therefore, agree with the right hon. gentleman (Mr. W. Horton), that there would be no tendency in this measure to raise the rate of wages. By making the rental of the country contribute to the support of the poor, the landlord, as he had just said, would rather employ the labourers who might be out of employment on his own estate, and have them employed at the expense of the parish. The demand for labour would therefore increase, and wages would rise in proportion to that demand.—He would give his zealous support to the application of such a system as he had described to the condition of Ireland. He was sure that the measure would meet with the almost1 unanimous support of the English members, when they reflected upon the inequality of the rate of wages in the two countries—a labourer receiving 5d. a day in Ireland, who was paid at the rate of 1s. 6d. in England; and when they knew that this inequality must sooner or later end in reducing the rate of wages in both countries to one common level, ruinously prejudicial to the English labourer and peasant. Englishmen were proverbial for their generosity to Ireland. In the year of the great distress there, upwards of 300,000l. were transmitted from this country to support her starving population; and, in the same year, provisions to the amount of four millions sterling were exported from Ireland to England: so that the suffering there was clearly not from want of produce, but from the want of labour by which to procure sustenance. But Englishmen were as just as they were generous, and must perceive how the English labourer and the English artisan were injured by allowing Irish landlords to screw 30s. or 40s. per acre out of their tenants, while they threw the great burthen of the support of the poor upon this country [hear, hear!]. He was convinced that the English members, as a body, must feel deeply interested in this question, and would act accordingly. He was satisfied also, that the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, felt deeply upon the subject; and he hoped he would, during the long period of the approaching recess, turn his mind to it, with a view to the introduction of some measure or relief early in the next session. This was a long period to wait, as many were at present perishing from want of employment; but he felt that nothing effective could be done sooner. He trusted, too, that the measure to be introduced would have for its object not merely the relief of the impotent poor, but would extend itself to the employment of those able-bodied persons who should be found unable to procure work. There were many thousands of that description at present in Ireland; and he need not tell the right hon. Secretary, that that was not a safe or sound state, in which to allow the country to remain. For not only were persons so employed not doing any good, but they were actually by idleness tempted to do evil. He did hope and trust that ministers would consider these evils, with a view to their removal in the course of the next session.

said, that the question was not whether the actually existing system of Poor-laws should be introduced into Ireland, but whether they might not adopt a system of Poor-laws for Ireland free from the abuses which had crept into their administration in this country. He would support the introduction of a system into Ireland, which, avoiding the unsound portions of the Poor-laws of this country, adopted the sound principle of maintaining the aged, the infirm, and the impotent, and which supplied employment to unemployed able-bodied labourers. The three great branches of the Poor-laws in this country were;—first, the rating; secondly, the settlement; and thirdly, the relief. The system of rating, with some modifications, might be properly introduced into Ireland; but he thought it should be, not upon personal but upon real property. As to the plan of settlement, he would be rather inclined to adopt for Ireland the plan pursued in Scotland. He would pass over these two heads for the purpose of coming to the third; which was that of affording relief by the employment of able-bodied persons out of work, and the relief of the impotent. If the Poor-laws were to be extended to Ireland, the latter branch should be continued; and therefore he would consent to extend to that country the provision of labour for persons out of work, with this understanding, that they should not have the power of demanding it, but that it should be provided for them at the discretion of the constituted authorities. If this were not to be the case, the abuses which at present existed in the Poor-laws in this country would soon extend themselves to Ireland. It was not his intention to take up the time of the House any further than to correct a mistake into which some honourable members had fallen, with respect to a bill which he had introduced into the House on this subject. It was supposed that he meant to take away all relief from able-bodied persons out of work: he meant no such thing; his only object was, that relief should be extended to them in the shape of work instead of money.

proposed, that the further debate upon the question should be adjourned to Tuesday.

rose amidst cries of "adjourn." He said, that the question of adjournment must depend entirely upon the number of members who felt inclined to speak upon the question. The motion of the previous question, moved by his noble friend, proved nothing; and for himself, he had no objection to the general principle of the measure. He was far from undervaluing it: on the contrary, he felt that if negatived at present, it must undergo a full discussion in the course of the next session. If, however, many hon. members did not feel inclined to address the House upon it, he saw no reason why it might not be disposed of that night.

said, that if the measure must proceed he was desirous of offering a few words upon it. It appeared to him that the question had been argued as it was intended to introduce the whole system of English Poor-laws into Ireland, as they at present existed. But such, he apprehended, was not for a moment contemplated by the hon. member who introduced the motion. He agreed fully with those who thought that the question ought to originate with ministers, as it would come with more effect from them than from any other quarter; but it would be of advantage to let it be known, that they had the sanction and concurrence of the House in doing so. The hon. member for Limerick appeared to consider the measure unnecessary, as there were several subscriptions and charities which would remedy the evils complained of. This he very much doubted. But what surprised him most was the speech of the hon. member for Wicklow, who wished to oppose the bill, on the ground that it would introduce the abuses of the English Poor-laws into Ireland. Now, no such measure was intended. God forbid it should. There existed in those laws abuses, which, if not actually in practice, would not now be introduced by any hon. member! The hon. member for Armagh, had advocated the question with that eloquence, manliness, and candour which distinguished him upon all occasions; he had told the House what he wished upon the subject, but not one word did he say about the introduction of the whole system of English Poor-laws into Ireland, He agreed fully with what had fallen from the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, (sir F. Burdett) upon the subject, with the exception of one or two minor points. Indeed, he knew of no serious opposition to the measure, except on the part of those Irish proprietors who did not reside in that country. He was determined to support the motion, in the event of its going to a division.

said, that in voting for the previous question he wished not to be understood as expressing any decided irrevocable opinion as to the principle or the merits of the proposition which had been advocated by the hon. member for Waterford. He should vote for the previous question, as he much doubted the policy of the House of Commons pledging itself in one session of parliament to pursue any specific course in the next. It would always be open to parliament to adopt the course proposed by the hon. member, without giving any distinct pledge on the subject. There might be circumstances under which it would be right to give such a pledge, in order to allay a ferment, or to subdue the excitement of the moment: but there should exist good and sufficient ground for it before it was done. Here, however, the case was different. Whenever the House pledged itself to consider the propriety of extending the Poor-laws to Ireland, it should at once enter upon that inquiry; in order to allay the ferment and agitation which would naturally take place upon the occasion. He denied that he had, during the last session, expressed an opinion favourable to the introduction of the Poor-laws into Ireland: on the contrary, he had then said that he saw great difficulty in the way of introducing them. It was impossible that he could express himself favourable to the introduction of the system, as it existed here, when he did not know what machinery there existed in Ireland for carrying the English Poor-laws into operation there. He was certain that if they introduced the system as it at present existed in England into Ireland, if they established there overseers, parochial vestries, and select vestries, that all this machinery would be converted into a system of local jobbing. The incursions of Irish paupers into England was undoubtedly a great inconvenience and hardship upon the people of this country, and its direct tendency was to reduce the labourers of this country wherever such incursions took place, as in the west of England, to a level with the paupers from Ireland. While the Irish pauper could come over here for 1s. or 1s. 6d., those incursions would continue; and there was more expense incurred, he believed, in sending one of these Irish labourers back to his own country, than would be incurred if he were allowed to remain in a parish a sufficient time to establish a settlement. But, how could they refuse relief to those Irish labourers in England, when they would not refuse relief to foreigners? The Irish pauper here was entitled to casual support as long as he remained; and therefore, to avoid that expense, the parochial authorities transferred him to Ireland, and incurred a still greater expense in doing so. How could they refuse relief to the Irish pauper, when they gave it to foreigners who might be casually cast on our shores? Very recently a case had occurred, where a number of persons from the north of Germany, who were emigrating to South America, thought it convenient to cast themselves upon our shores, and they were a great burthen to the parishes in the district where they were cast. He would not pledge himself to introduce the principle of the English system of Poor-laws into Ireland, without having first given the subject the most deliberate consideration, as to its effect on the state of pauperism in this country, and as to its probable result, in giving poor but able-bodied men in that country the right to demand assistance. He assured the House, that so far from having expressed any decided opinion on the question last session he had done all he could to show the enormous difficulties in the way of carrying it into effect. He still entertained that opinion, and did not know what machinery would be necessary for such a purpose. By rejecting the motion, the House would express no opinion on the merits of that most difficult question. All he could say was, that he should be willing to act on the suggestion of the hon. member for Armagh, and to give to the condition of the poor of Ireland his full and deliberate consideration; but he could not pledge himself to introduce any measure on the subject.

said, he should vote in support of the proposition for the previous question, because he agreed with his right hon. friend, that it would be most inexpedient for the government to pledge itself to any course on this subject; because, as the hon. member for Armagh had in fact admitted, it might create unfounded expectations, both in the minds of the landlords and of the poor. Until the details of a plan had been prepared, on a full consideration of all the difficulties, he thought it would be premature for the government to make any pledge whatever. Even when those difficulties had been fully considered, he should say of this as of the Catholic question, that it could not be better left than in the hands of the government. The evils of the present state of Ireland, as they affected England, were greater than they had been represented to be; for not only did the influx of Irish labourers diminish the price of labour in this country, but the children of Irish parents, by their birth in this country, acquired a settlement, and thus added to the burden of the poor-rates. Not only the west and north-west, but every other part of the country, was affected more or less, by these evils, and the true remedy for them would not be merely in the introduction of Poor-laws there, but in the introduction of that feeling of security which would invite and retain the employment of English capital in that country. It was that feeling of security which had occasioned the greatness and wealth of this country, and which alone could produce similar effects in Ireland. Parliament should well digest some plan, and prepare all the details, before they pledged themselves to any principle whatever. If they neglected this too long, all the hopes which had been entertained as to the benefits to be expected from the termination of the Catholic question would be disappointed.

thought, that greater benefits would arise to Ireland from a well regulated system of Poor-laws, than from the concessions to the Catholics which had lately been granted. He denied the truth of what had been stated concerning the Irish landlords' treatment of their tenants.

said, he doubted very much the policy of introducing any system of Poor-laws into Ireland at all analogous to that in England, and trusted that if any should be introduced it would be free from the manifold abuses of the boasted English system. It was absurd to argue that the principle of those laws was humane; that charity was their basis. Individuals might give voluntary charity, might be singly humane; but a nation was not to be made either charitable or humane by act of parliament. On the contrary, charity, ceased to be charity, and humanity to be humanity, when made compulsory by the legislature. The influx of the Irish poor into this country was the result not so much of the want of Poor-laws in Ireland, as of the greater wealth of this country; which therefore attracted the labourer by offering a better price for his labour. He did not think that the Irish landlords generally could have been guilty of the conduct imputed to them.

said, he also doubted very much, whether the adoption of the hon. member for Waterford's proposition would not aggravate the evil it was intended to remedy. In the first place, Poor-laws under any system were a tax on industry, on production—thence a waste of capital—in favour of the idle and improvident: in the next place, they tended, contrary to the statement of the hon. member for Newark, to diminish the wages of labour, by the stimulus they gave to population. It was absurd to argue, that the commercial greatness and general comfort of the working classes of this country were owing to the Poor-laws; or to suppose that the influx of Irish operatives into Great Britain was occasioned by the absence of Poor-laws in their own country. In fact, none but able-bodied labourers emigrate into England, where they ever would resort, while capital was so deficient as it unfortunately was in Ireland. The question involved so many difficulties, that he thought it ought to undergo the discussion of another session before any thing was done in it. The introduction of English capital would be a greater benefit to Ireland than that of these Poor-laws, which, if hastily put in operation, might make of that country one vast poor-house.

defended the Irish landlords from the imputations which had been cast on them.

observed, that as he understood the subject would be taken into serious consideration by his majesty's government, he would not press his motion.

said, he hoped it would be understood that he had given no pledge whatever as to the intention of government to introduce any measure upon this subject. He admitted that the condition of the poor of Ireland required serious consideration, but he had not pledged government to the recognition of any particular system for their relief.

observed, that he understood the tenour of the right hon. gentleman's remarks to be precisely as he had now stated them.

The motion was then withdrawn.

moved the third reading of this bill. He hoped, that the urgency of the occasion would be received as a justification for making this measure at so late an hour. To his certain knowledge, several masters of the first respectability meant to suspend their orders, until the bill had passed that House.

hoped a bill which affected the interests of three millions of persons would not be pressed forwards so hastily; but he would submit to the feeling of the House.

having already expressed his hostility to the bill, and feeling that further opposition would be useless, would not oppose the third reading.

would oppose the motion, because many gentlemen, who intended to deliver their sentiments on the bill were absent.

also opposed the third reading of the bill.

said, he had new facts and arguments to adduce against the measure, and should move that the House do now adjourn.

thought it was not right to postpone the third reading of the bill. The hon. alderman had repeatedly delivered his opinion upon it, and the other hon. member who was going to adduce new facts and arguments, might have done so long ago, if he had pleased.

said, that the interests of the manufacturers, the interests of the workmen themselves, and the public tranquillity, called for the immediate passing of this bill The outrages which had lately taken place, were, he knew, perpetrated for the purpose of intimidating the legislature against agreeing to this measure; and he was convinced that every day it was delayed, would add to the number of those outrages.

observed, that after a minister of the Crown had declared that the passing of this bill was necessary for the public tranquillity, if that tranquillity should be disturbed, those persons must be considered accountable for it who had prevented the bill from going through its last stage on this occasion.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.