アイコンをクリックすると画像にリンクします。閲覧にはDjVuプラグインが必要です。 印刷機能は DjVu プラグインのものをご使用ください。 Click the following icons to link the pictures. DjVu plugin is required.

Pictures

1847 POULETT SCROPE ON THE POOR LAWS IN IRELAND PROVISION FOR THE POOR IN IRELAND 148. SCROPE, George Julius Duncombe Poulett. Remarks on the Irish poor relief bill. London : James Ridgway, 1847. 32p. Rebound. GOLDSMITHS 35387. KRESS C.7203. George Julius Duncombe Poulett Scrope, (1797-1876) political economist, described by Poynter as “a bitter crinic of the allowance system, and to some extent an admirer of Malthus and Chalmers, he nevertheless rejected abolitionism as wicked and classbiassed, and sought instead assisted emigration and a Poor Law based on employment instead of money relief, for both England and Ireland. He was later to be by far the most interesting critic of the 1834 reform.” In this pamphlet Scrope earnestly defends legal provision for the poor and argues for its extension to Ireland. The present pamphlet concludes “what is certain is this, that the Voluntary System, that relies on moral or imperfect legal obligations, hitherto preferred to a compulsory Poor Law, has broken down, and has permitted thousands, - hundreds of thousands it will be before the end, - to perish of want, unrelieved, uncared for, in the midst of a wealthy, a civilized, a Christian land! ” 1847 ARGUMENTS FOR LEGAL PROVISION FOR THE POOR IN IRELAND 149. SCROPE, George Julius Duncombe Poulett. Reply to the speech of the Archbishop of Dublin delivered in the House of Lords, on Friday, March 26th, 1847, and the protest signed R. Dublin, Monteagle, Radnor, Mountcashel, against the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill. London : James Ridgway, 1847. 41p. Rebound. GOLDSMITHS 35388. A strenuous reply to the Bishop of Dublin’s arguments against the Bill for the Better Relief of the Irish Poor as it was then passing before parliament. He concludes with a strongly worded attack on the harm done by Malthus, Chalmers, Senior, Lord Monteagle and The Bishop himself in opposing the legal provision of the poor in Ireland.”.. I cannot forget that the bigoted and prolonged opposition of these benevolent men – arguing in the pride of their intellect, and with the assumption of distorted science, against the plain dictates of experience, humanity, and good sense – have by the influence of their high station and authority, protracted, for a quarter of a century at least, the denial to the poor of Ireland of, what all who are not obstinately committed to a false theory now recognize to be, their just birthright in the social institutions of their country.”