Chapter III

Recommendation in the king’s speech—Motions and other proceedings in the
House of Commons—Lord John Russell’s instructions to the author—The
author’s first Report—Lord John Russell’s speech on introducing a bill
founded on its recommendations—Progress of the bill interrupted by the
death of the king—Author’s second Report—Bill reintroduced and passed
the Commons—Author’s third Report—Bill passes the Lords, and becomes
law.

The impatience generally felt for the Report of the Irish Poor Inquiry Commissioners, was not a little increased by the uncertainty as to what would be its nature. It was known that there were great differences of opinion among the commissioners with regard to the remedy, although they were all agreed as to the existence of the evil, and the necessity for something being done towards its mitigation; but what that something should be, was a question on which it was understood they by no means coincided. It was feared therefore, that the present inquiry would end, as others had ended, without any practical result. An impression had long prevailed, and was daily becoming stronger, of the necessity for making some provision for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland. The perpetually-increasing intercourse between the two countries, brought under English notice the wretched state of a large proportion of the people in the sister island; and the vast numbers of them who crossed the Channel in search of the means of living, and became more or less domiciled in the large towns and throughout the western districts of England, made it a matter of policy, as it assuredly was of humanity, to endeavour to improve their condition; and nothing seemed so equitable or so readily effective for the purpose, as making property liable for the relief of destitution in Ireland, as was the case in England—in other words, establishing some description of poor-law.

[Sidenote: The king’s speech on opening parliament, February 4, 1836.]

On the assembling of parliament, the subject was thus referred to in the Royal speech—“a further Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the condition of the poorer classes in Ireland will speedily be laid before you. You will approach this subject with the caution due to its importance and difficulty; and the experience of the salutary effect produced by the Act for the amendment of the laws relating to the poor in England and Wales, may in many respects assist your deliberations.” A few days after (February 9th) Sir Richard Musgrave moved for leave to bring in a bill for the relief of the poor of Ireland in certain cases—“He himself,” he said, “lived in an atmosphere of misery, and being compelled to witness it daily, he was determined to pursue the subject, to see whether any and what relief could be procured from parliament.” On the 15th of February another motion was made by the member for Stroud for leave to introduce a bill for the ‘Relief and Employment of the Poor of Ireland;’ and on the 3rd of March following, a bill was submitted by Mr. Smith O'Brien, framed upon the principle that in a system of poor-laws for Ireland, there ought to be local administration, combined with central control—“local administration by bodies elected by, and representing the contributors to the poor-fund, and general central supervision and control on the part of a body named by the government, and responsible to parliament.”

[Sidenote: Lord John Russell’s observations on the commissioners’
Report, April 18, 1836.]

These bills were all introduced, it will be observed, irrespective of the final Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry, which indeed had not yet been presented. But on the 18th of April, in answer to a question respecting it, Lord John Russell, then Secretary of State for the Home Department, said “that the Report had been under the consideration of government, and they certainly had found in it a great variety of important matters; at the same time he must add, that the suggestions in it were not of that simple and single nature as to allow them to be adopted without the caution which was recommended by the commissioners themselves.” He could not, he said, conclude without adding, “that the Report was not only of extreme importance, but that the subject of it was of a nature to render it absolutely necessary that some measure should be brought forward and adopted. It would be anxiously considered by the government with a view to such measures, and there were none as affecting Ireland, either at present or perhaps within the next hundred years, which could possibly be of greater magnitude.” [Sidenote: Lord Morpeth’s observations in reference to the Poor-Law question.] On the 4th of May Mr. Poulett Scrope moved a series of resolutions expressive of the necessity for some provision for the relief of the Irish poor—in commenting on which, Lord Morpeth[72] admitted “that the hideous nature of the evils which prevailed amongst the poorer classes in Ireland, called earnestly for redress, and he thought no duty more urgent on the government and on parliament than to devise a remedy for them.” Government were now he said engaged in determining on the steps proper to be taken, and at the first moment they were in a condition to propose such a general measure as they could recommend for adoption on their own responsibility, they would do so. On the 9th of June following, on the motion for postponing the consideration of Sir Richard Musgrave’s bill, Lord Morpeth again assured the house “that the subject was under the immediate consideration of government; and that he was not without hope of their being enabled to introduce some preparatory measure in the present session; but at all events they would take the first opportunity in the next session, of introducing what he hoped would be a complete and satisfactory measure;” and here the matter rested for the present.

-----

[72]

The present Earl of Carlisle, then Secretary for Ireland, and now Lord
Lieutenant.

-----

[Sidenote: Parliament prorogued August 20, 1835.]

Parliament was prorogued on the 20th of August, without anything having been done, either with the bills introduced by individual members, or in regard to the Report of the commissioners of inquiry. The recommendations of the commissioners seem indeed to have increased rather than lessened the difficulties attending any measure for the relief of the Irish poor, owing probably to the recommendations “not being of that simple and single nature” to which the home secretary adverted in his address to the house on the 18th of April. Public attention nevertheless continued to be directed to the subject with undiminished earnestness, and government felt the necessity of coming to some early and definite conclusion as to the steps to be taken in regard to it.

[Sidenote: The author’s connexion with the subject.]

We have now reached a portion of our narrative when the author will be compelled to speak of himself, and the part taken by him, first in devising a poor-law for Ireland, and next in superintending its introduction into that country; and he is very anxious to bespeak an indulgent consideration for the difficulty in which he is placed, by having been thus personally engaged in the transactions which he will have to describe. The great social importance of the Irish Poor Law, imposes upon him the duty of giving a full and complete account of all that took place with regard to it; and he feels that this duty cannot be rendered less imperative, by the fact of his official connexion with the measure. He will therefore proceed to detail the circumstances as they severally occurred; and it will be more simple, and may save circumlocution for him to speak in the first person, on the occasions in which he was himself immediately concerned.

[Sidenote: Lord John Russell’s letter of instructions, August 22, 1836.]

On the 22nd of August I received directions to proceed to Ireland, taking with me the Reports of the commissioners of inquiry, and there to examine how far it might be judicious or practicable to offer relief to whole classes of the poor, whether of the sick, the infirm, or orphan children—whether such relief might not have the effect of promoting imposture, without destroying mendicity—whether the condition of the great bulk of the poorer classes would be improved by such a measure—whether a rate limited in its amount rather than its application, might be usefully directed to the erection and maintenance of workhouses for all those who sought relief as paupers—whether any kind of workhouse can be established which should not give its inmates a superior degree of comfort to the common lot of the independent labourer—whether the restraint of a workhouse would be an effectual check to applicants for admission; and whether, if the system were once established, the inmates would not resist, by force, the restraints which would be necessary. Supposing the workhouse system not to be advisable, I was directed to consider in what other mode a national or local rate might be beneficially applied; and to examine the policy of establishing depôts where candidates for emigration might resort. My attention was also specially directed to the machinery by which rates for the relief of the poor might be raised and expended; and to the formation and constitution of a central board, of local boards, of district unions, and of parochial vestries. I was also directed to inquire whether the capital applied to the improvement of land, and the reclaiming of bogs and wastes was perceptibly or notoriously increasing or diminishing, and to remark generally upon any plans which might lead to an increased demand for labour; and lastly, to “carefully read the bills which had been brought into the house of commons on this subject during that year, and the draft of a bill prepared by one of the commissioners of inquiry in conformity with their Report.”

It will thus be seen that the proposed inquiry was sufficiently extensive; and I hardly need say that I entered upon the duty assigned me with a deep sense of the responsibility it involved. The working of the English Poor Law, afforded means for obtaining some insight into the character and habits of such of the Irish as had become resident in the metropolis and the larger towns of England, and I immediately instituted inquiries on the subject among the workhouse masters and other officers of several of the London parishes where the Irish labourers principally resided. They all assured me as the result of their experience, that the discipline of a workhouse operated with the Irish precisely as it did with the English poor. There was in fact no difference in this respect, nor any greater difficulty with regard to the one, than there was in the management of the other. This was so far satisfactory; but further examination and inquiry were necessary for giving entire confidence on this point, and these could best be pursued in Ireland whither I accordingly proceeded early in September.

The evidence collected by the late commissioners of inquiry and appended to their Report, established so conclusively the existence of a state of poverty throughout Ireland, amounting in numerous cases to actual destitution,[73] that I felt it to be unnecessary to adduce any additional proofs on the subject. To this extent moreover, the evidence was fully borne out by previous investigations of committees and commissions on the state of Ireland. The fact of wide-spread destitution was therefore notorious, and its existence was universally admitted; so that in reporting to government at the end of my mission, I considered it enough to state as the result of my own inquiries, “that the misery now prevalent among the labouring classes in Ireland, appears to be of a nature and intensity calculated to produce great demoralization and danger;” and such being the case, it was doubtless the duty of government and the legislature to endeavour to devise a remedy for the one, and thus at the same time to guard against the other.

-----

[73]

Whether the number of persons in distress and requiring relief during
thirty weeks in every year, amounted to 2,385,000, as estimated by the
commissioners, may admit of question; but there can be no doubt that
much distress prevailed, and that occasionally it was exceedingly
severe.

-----

[Sidenote: The author’s first report, Nov. 15, 1836.]

My first Report was delivered on the 15th of November. It stated that after examining the several institutions in Dublin, I had visited the west of Ireland from Cork to Limerick Westport and Sligo, and back by Armagh—“everywhere examining and inquiring as to the condition and habits of the people, their character and wants; and endeavouring to ascertain whether, and how far, the system of relief established in England, was applicable to the present state of Ireland.” The above route was deemed the most eligible, because the inhabitants of the manufacturing and commercial districts of the north and east, more nearly resembled the English than those of the southern and western parts of Ireland; and if the English system should be found applicable to them, there could be no doubt of its applicability to the others.

The Report is divided into three parts or principal divisions—

The first, gives the general result of inquiries into the condition habits and feelings of the people, especially with regard to the introduction of a law for the relief of the poor.

In the second part, the question whether the workhouse system can with safety and advantage be established in Ireland is considered, and also whether the means for creating an efficient union machinery exists there.

Assuming these questions to be answered affirmatively, the chief points requiring attention in framing a poor-law for Ireland, are in the last part considered.

It is now proposed to insert, under the above divisions, so much of the Report as will be sufficient for showing its general import, and the nature of its recommendations; but omitting such portions as are not necessary for this purpose—

_First Report._—Nov. 15, 1836.