classes of persons embraced in it, that you could not, if you undertook to provide for so many classes, exclude others. Including these, I certainly cannot see what objection there can be to provide for the destitute and able-bodied man. There are some persons in this list-such as the incurable lunatic, the helpless widow with young children, or the sick man- in circumstances which seem to us calculated to excite individual compassion, and not circumstances to which exclusive national regard ought to be had. If a person in the five-and-twentienth year of his age, in the full possession of his health and strength, be unable by his industry to obtain a livelihood, or, if he have not the means of support, were to stand at the doors of one of those public institutions starving, in want of support, and who was likely, if not relieved, to die in a few days, I cannot understand the principle that would distinguish a person in that case as one to whom you would not give relief, while you are giving relief to the young and the infirm. The real principle to be adopted on this subject is, to afford relief to the destitute-and to the destitute only; and it would, in my opinion, be quite as wrong to refuse relief to the able-bodied person in that situation, as to afford relief to the cripple, to the widow, to a blind, a deaf, or a dumb person, who was in a state of affluence, and had other means of support. It is not, then, the peculiar circumstances which excite individual compassion that we are to regard; but, if we have a Poor-law at all, it ought to be grounded on destitution, as affording a plain guide to relief. Then, with respect to the other proposition, that there ought to be a penitentiary, to which the paupers ought to be sent, and that there ought to be depôts for those intending to emigrate; if you are willing to adopt a plan to that extent, of having a penitentiary for vagrants, and depôts for emigrants, it is, I say, far better to adopt the workhouse system at once; because, if you have a depôt for

emigrants, it will afford, as it appears to me, great ground for abuses. Suppose you get 500 or 600 persons in a depôt for emigration, it will be difficult to apply to them that restriction, and enforce that discipline, which you could do if they were in a workhouse. It may be said, that they are merely passengers-that they are in a sort of public inn or hotel, until they take their passage, and they are not, therefore, to be treated as paupers entirely dependent for support upon the public. Thus, then, they cannot be restricted, nor placed under the same discipline as if they were in a workhouse; and besides, there is no security that they will avail themselves of emigration; for, supposing 300 out of 500, who have been for two or three months in one of those workhouses, are told that the ship is ready in which they were to have embarked, and they refuse to go, what means have you to compel them, unless you resort to that which would be so odious as to be impossible to be carried into effect, that is, forcing men to emigrate? Thus, then, after supporting them in the depôt, you must let them go at large, and they would only go to persevere in their usual habits of vagrancy. It appears, therefore, to us, that you could not adopt that part of the recommendation of the Commissioners, without a great deal more of consideration than the plan proposed by the Commissioners appears to us to have received. And deeply impressed, as we have been, with the responsibility that attaches to a Government which proposes a law upon this subject, it occurred to us, that the best method of forming a judgment on the subject was, to see whether that law which, as amended, has been applied to England, could be enforced in Ireland with advantage to that country. For this purpose I requested Mr. Nicholls, one of the Poor-law Commissioners, and who is well known for his worth, abilities, and intelligence, to go over to Ireland, and ascertain on the spot whether anything

resembling the machinery of the English Poor-law could be applied there. I should mention here, that Mr. Nicholls, who has had great experience upon this subject, had, in one district in this country, adopted an improved method in the working of those laws, even before the amended law was carried; but this also ought to be stated, that in the early part of last year, he drew my attention to the subject of a Poor-law for Ireland, and I have been in constant communication with him on this matter, since the commencement of the Session of 1836. As I was sure that he was qualified by abilities and experience, so was I also aware that he would carry into the examination of this subject equal caution and zeal. Mr. Nicholls, then, proceeded to Ireland, and the result of his inquiries is, that, supposing it was expedient to extend a Poor-law to Ireland, there was no effectual obstacle, no sufficient objection to the establishment of a Poor-law in many respects resembling the amended Poor-law in England. The reasons of that opinion are given at considerable length in the report which I have had the honour of laying this day upon the table; and I will now state generally what are the reasons given in that report, and why I think it is expedient to establish a Poor-law in Ireland, and to describe what is the nature of the Poor-law that I mean to propose. I think there can be no doubt of its expediency, if the House will bear in mind the description which I gave of this country in the reign of Queen Elizabeth-there can be no doubt that there have prevailed in Ireland many outrages consequent upon vagrancy and destitution, and the people being left without remedy or relief. It has happened in Ireland (I do not now inquire as to the causes, but the fact cannot be disputed), that while the people themselves have not improved in their condition, that the population has increased very much in numbers; that there has been this increase in population

while there has scarcely been an increase in the means of subsistence, and a lowering of the standard of subsistence. So that, after a long period, it is found that there prevails in Ireland, according to the Report of the Poor-law Commissioners of Ireland, such an overplus of labour, that four agricultural labourers in Ireland only produced as much as one agricultural labourer produces in England. That, it is to be observed, cannot fairly be attributed to a want of industry amongst the Irish people; on the contrary, we have it in the evidence of those examined by Mr. Lewis, and particularly from one gentleman of Birmingham, that he never found the Irish labourer refuse work, or fail to perform it to the utmost of his industry and capability. There is not, then, a want of industry amongst the people. It is the country that has been allowed to be in such a state that industry cannot succeed in it. It is admitted, that the only subsistence of the peasant is derived from the land which he has-it is the produce of his small holding-it is not from the gain of regular wages; and where there are regular wages received in particular districts, these wages are received only by a part, and not by the whole, of the labouring population. The peasant gets his subsistence out of his small holding; the labourers live upon the potatoes raised by themselves out of their small portion of land; and it is by means of their possession, and the use of their industry, often very ill-directed, and not by the application of wages for labour, that they are able to maintain existence. It is stated by the Poor-law Commissioners (though that is a statement of which I doubt the complete accuracy), that there are nearer to three than two millions of people, for a certain portion of the year, in an entire state of destitution. There is no doubt whatever of this, that a large portion of the people of Ireland, especially those not having land, do practise mendicancy for a great portion of the year. I have made

some inquiry with respect to the amount and extent of the relief thus afforded to that mendicancy, because it is to be considered, that when we say we will adopt a poorlaw (and that we should adopt one is my opinion), it is to be remembered, that a very considerable tax is now raised on the farmers of that country by mendicants, and which, I may say, is now raised as a compulsory rate. With this view, I asked of my noble Friend who sits near me, the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, to obtain as accurate an account as possible of the amount paid in this way, from two or three farmers, in ten or twelve districts-the amount that was paid for rent, the amount paid for tithes, the amount paid to the Roman Catholic priests, and the amount paid to mendicants. The result is, I should say, that in most cases a shilling an acre is paid in the course of the year by the farmers, for the support of mendicants. In some cases it has been sixpence an acre, in others ninepence an acre; but in one case, where a person had a farm, not very considerable in size, it was more than two shillings an acre. That person paid 10l. a-year, not in money certainly, but in food. There was more than two shillings an acre paid for mendicity. Now, this is in itself a very heavy tax, and which cannot be assumed, upon the whole, to amount to less than between 700,000l. and 800,000l., perhaps a million, in the year. And let it be observed, that this practice of mendicancy, which raises so vast a sum in the country, is not like a well-constituted poor-law, which affords relief to the really indigent. It is the practice, in Ireland, for the farmer to give relief to the mendicant who asks for it-the potatoes are there ready for him—there is no inquiry into the circumstances of the mendicant: generally it is not near home that he begs, and the farmer has no means of knowing him. But that which seems to afford relief to the distressed, also promotes and maintains impostors. We have a statement