Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

6377. If it were thought expedient that the law should be abol ished, as far as the English were regarded, you, in your spirit of fairness, would not think it should be retained as far as the Irish were regarded?-Certainly not."

Dr. Alison has been alluded to, more than once, by Mr. Gordon and Mr. Pashley; by the latter as the correspondent who was the cause of his conversion to the larger and fairer view of the question. At the time that Dr. Alison read a paper on "the Law of Settlement and Removal of Paupers in Scotland," at a meeting of the British Association in Belfast, which was in September 1852, Mr. Pashley still held the opinion that the law, though repealed in favour of the Englishman, might be retained against the Irishman; and Dr. Alison, referring to this opinion of Mr. Pashley, thus concludes a very able and interesting paper :

"I have quoted from Mr. Pashley, as the text on which both be and I have been commenting, the sentiment of Adam Smithwhich I rejoice to find that he says expresses the views of the great majority of those who are now brought into daily contact with the administration of relief to the poor in England,'-that to remove a man, or the family or dependents of a man, who has commited no misdemeanour, from the parish where he chooses to reside, is a violation of natural liberty and justice;' and that of Sir Robert Peel, that, by removing a poor labourer who has been invited to a manufacturing town, and exercised his industry there, when he becomes a pauper, back to the rural district whence he came, 'to his great annoyance and suffering, is not only to inflict a great injustice on the rural districts, but is to give a shock to the feelings of every just and humane man.' But surely, if this be true, and nationally important, as to any Welshman who has been invited in the course of the natural circulation of labour into England, it must be equally true and more nationally important, (because it is a more common case) of every Scotchman who has been so invited into England, and of every Irishman who has been so invited into Scotland.

And if it be true, as Mr. Pashley confidently and I hope justly predicts, that the law of settlement and removal in England, 'denounced nearly a century ago by Adam Smith, condemned by Sir Robert Peel, and exposed by the Committee of the House of Commons in 1847, and by official reports to the Poor Law Board in 1848-9, is finally doomed, that its days are numbered and it must soon be abolished for ever;' I venture to add that, in the present relations of the different parts of her Majesty's dominions to one another, particularly as to the usual circulation of labour, any statute that may be introduced for that purpose, will be both unjust and inexpedient, and therefore fail of effect, which shall not protect the native of Ireland or the native of Scotland from such violation of liberty and justice,' equally with the native of England or Wales.”

As yet, the Select Committee have not brought their labours

to a conclusion, and, therefore, have made no report to the House of Commons. They have merely adjourned their sittings to the period when Parliament again assembles, having got permission to publish the evidence already taken; but we have reason to think they will call only a few other witnesses, after examining whom they must immediately report to the House in the usual way. It would be equally idle as improper for us to speculate upon the nature of the suggestions which the Committee will feel it their duty to make to Parliament, and, therefore, we shall not attempt it. But this we have the utmost confidence in saying-that if it were the opinion of the Cabinet that the case of the Irish poor, as set forth by the Irish Representatives, in their Memorial of March last, was "irresistibly established"-irresistibly established without inquiry-it is not the less so now, that inquiry has been instituted. Is there an unprejudiced man who has read these pages who will not admit that we have successfully proved our case, and in the fairest as well as most conclusive manner-even out of the mouths of those whose selfish interests render them the most eager in their opposition to a repeal of the law of removal? "This evil," says the Memorial of the Irish members, "scarcely tolerable while there existed a law of settlement and of removal in England from one parish or union to another, would become intolerable if the law of the two countries should be so nearly assimilated, and the forcible removal of an English pauper from one union to another in England no longer permitted." Will the facts disclosed in the evidence of Mr. Lumley, and well nigh extorted from many English and other officials, and the deliberate opinion of such impartial and enlightened men as Mr. Pashley, render the evil less intolerable, if unwisely maintained? Were there no pledge given to Ireland, by the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, the repeal of the law on the one hand, and its maintenance on the other, would be discreditable to them as statesmen, or even as politicians; but if, after such a pledge, and with the information which the Committee have already placed at their disposal, they do not manfully and honestly redeem their solemn promise, they will render themselves unworthy of the slightest trust, confidence, or respect. We cannot for a moment bring ourselves to believe that there is a possibility of such being the case; for, though our opinions of politicians and party-leaders are not, perhaps, of the most exalted description, still we cannot

suppose that the pledge of a Cabinet, unhesitatingly and unreservedly given, will not be held sacred and binding on the honor and consciences of British Ministers.

At any rate, whatever may be the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the removal or continuance of this monstrous evil, this pregnant source of wrong, outrage, insult, and dishonor, by which thousands of our poor annually suffer the most grievous injuries,-whatever may be the intentions of her Majesty's Ministers, at least the policy of the Representatives of Ireland ought to be decided-namely, to compel the redemption of the promise which has been made them. It will be their duty to see that no advantage may be taken of the seeming "exceptional nature" of the Irish case; and that no attempt to pass an English bill first, and an Irish bill after, shall succeed. We hold the opinion, which we know to be entertained by many Irish representatives, that an Irish bill by itself has little or no chance of success; and that in order to secure justice to the Irish-born poor, they must be included in any bill brought in for England. In all essential points, their case is identical, and in its incidents it is infinitely worse; so that the reasons for dealing at one and the same moment with the case of the Irish and the English poor are stronger and more pressing upon the part of the Irish.

Any separation of the two nations at such a moment as the present, would indeed be bad policy upon the part of a Minister of England. While we write these lines, our brave countrymen, the very relatives of the "removed Irish"-are crimsoning land and sea with their generous blood. Though the benevolence of the parish officer knows how to discriminate between the Englishman and the Scotchman, and the "mere Irish," the bullet and the blade of the Russian do not; and where the rage of battle was hottest on the heights of Alma, there conquered or there fell the flower of our gallant race. In the open field, in the battery, on the deck, England feels the value of her Irish right arm. Of their blood none so lavish, of their lives none so reckless; none more terrible in conflict, none so cheerful under privation. Whose rush is more resistless, whose battle-cry more appalling!-and when the moment comes for the assault or the escalade, who so eager to volunteer for the death-struggle? Is there a grave-mound at Alma that does not cover an Irish breast ?-is there a sick ward in Scutari in which the mangled form of an Irish soldier

does not lie? In the fury of battle, in the agony of the hospital, in the silence of the grave, there is no distinction of race or country; they fight side by side, they moan and writhe side by side, they moulder side by side,-who, then, shall say that there shall be one law for the kindred of these brave men, and another for a favoured race? The Englishman who says so is an ingrate to the services of this country, and a traitor to the honour of his own.

To Englishmen, we would say-you admit that the labour of the Irish is priceless, that it is necessary to your social progress and your national greatness-you say it is of that indispensable nature that you cannot do without it. The same you must admit of their valour-you cannot do without it;-it enables you to hold your position amongst the foremost nations of the earth, in the very van of Western Europe-just as their labour enables your manufacturers to beat the industry of the world in fair competition. And will you, in spite of such services and such sacrifices, blacken your national honour by so dark and foul a stain as the refusal of equal justice to the poor of their country and your own? Read what every man of enlightenment and humanity testifies as to the effects of this law of removal on your own poor-its hardship, its cruelty, its injustice-the frauds to which it instigates your officials and your parishes, the selfishness which it gratifies and provokes, the hard and unchristian feeling which it engenders; think of these things, and say, when you have freed your own poor from this unnatural law, when you have given freedom to their industry, and flung open your broad land to the exercise of their unfettered energies, can you have the heart to continue the imposition of a worse law upon your Irish fellow-subjects?

We look confidently to Parliament, not for the display of any extraordinary generosity, but simply for the redemption of a solemn promise, and the performance of an act of common justice. And with less than justice, full and complete justice, Ireland ought not and will not be content.




1. Lord Brougham's Speeches Upon National Education, House of Lords, 24th July and 4th August, 1854. London Ridgeway. 1854.


2. Report from the Select Committee of The House of Lords, Appointed to Inquire into The Practical Working of the System of National Education in Ireland; and to Report thereon to The House; together with the Minutes of Evidence, Appendix and Index, Session 1854. Brought from the Lords, 11th August, 1854. Ordered, By The House of Commons, to be Printed, 12th August. 1854.

3. The Twentieth Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, (For the year 1853.) With

Appendices. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. Dublin: Thom. 1854. 4. Education in Great Britain, Being The Official Report of Horace Mann of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-atlaw, To George Graham, Esq., Registrar-General; with Selected Tables. London: Routledge and Co. 1854.

5. Religious Worship in England and Wales, Abridged from The Official Report Made by Horace Mann, Esq., to George Graham, Esq., Registrar-General. London: Routledge and Co. 1854.

6. Education Reform; or, The Necessity of a National System of Education. By Thomas Wyse, Esq., M. P. London: Longman and Co. 1836.

7. National Education; Its Present State and Prospects. By Frederic Hill. London: Charles Knight. 1836. 8. The Social Condition and Education of the People in England and Europe; Shewing the Results of the Primary Schools, and of the Division of Landed Property, in Foreign Countries. By Joseph Kay, Esq., M.A. of Trinity College, Cambridge; Barrister-at-Law; and late Travelling Bachelor of the University of Cambridge. London: Longman and Co. 1850.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »