Chapter XIV: Part THE THIRD: “Assuming that a system of Poor Laws ought to be (1)

established in Ireland; that the workhouse system may there be
relied upon, as a test of destitution; and that the means of forming
and governing unions exist there, as well as in England—It now
remains to describe the several points which require attention in
framing a measure comprising these objects; and also to offer such
further observations, as did not seem to come within the scope of
the preceding divisions.

“The governing principle to be observed in dealing with this portion of
the subject is, that the Poor Law of Ireland should assimilate in
all respects as nearly as possible to that established in
England,—varying only in those instances, in which the different
circumstances of the two countries require it. In conformity with
this principle, the first point for consideration would naturally be
the constitution of the central or chief authority, and the powers
to be confided to it; but I postpone this part of the
subject—assuming only that a central authority is to be established,
with powers similar in kind to those conferred upon the English Poor
Law Commissioners. The other points for consideration are the
following—

_1st._ _Of Relief._—“The only legal claim for relief in England, is
founded upon the destitution of the party claiming it. I propose to
extend the same principle to Ireland; and as a test of the actual
existence of such destitution, and to guard against the evils which
have invariably attended the distribution of out-door relief, (that
is, of relief administered either in money or in kind to parties out
of the workhouse) I further propose that, in Ireland, no relief
should be given except in the workhouse. I do not propose to impart
a _right_ to relief, even to the destitute poor. The claim to relief
in England, is founded on prescription, rather than enactment; for
although the _43rd of Elizabeth_ provides for the levying a rate for
the purpose of relieving the destitute poor, it invests them with no
right to claim relief, the administration of which is left to the
local authorities, who are of course responsible for its due
exercise. The promulgation of rules for the administration of relief
will therefore rest with the central authority, limited by the
proviso that relief is only to be administered in the workhouse. The
central authority will declare when the workhouse shall be so
applied in each union, and will also take care that no time be lost
in providing suitable workhouse accommodation, as well as to
establish such regulations as may be necessary for the guidance of
the local authorities in the interim; but it will be most safe to
prohibit all relief whatever, until the test of the workhouse can be
applied.

“The strict limitation of relief to the workhouse may possibly be
objected to, on the ground that extreme want is found occasionally
to assail large portions of the population, who ought then to be
relieved at the public charge, without being subjected to the
restraint of the workhouse. But this is an exceptional case, and it
would not, I think, be wise to adapt the regulations of poor-law
administration in Ireland to the possible occurrence of such a
contingency. In a period of famine, the whole population may be said
to become destitute; but it surely would not be expedient to hold
out an expectation, that if this should unhappily occur, support for
_all_ would be unconditionally provided at the public charge?—During
such a visitation, the workhouse might not be sufficient for the
numbers who were anxious to crowd into it; but to the extent of its
means of accommodation it would help to relieve the general
distress, and the union machinery would probably be found useful in
other respects. The occurrence of a famine, however, if general,
seems to be a contingency beyond the powers of a poor-law to provide
for. There is then an actual deficiency of supply; and as there is
less to consume, less must be consumed. It is however, I think,
impossible to contemplate the continuance of such a state of things
in Ireland, as that in which any considerable portion of its
population would be subjected to the occurrence of famine. As the
habits and intelligence of the people improve, these visitations
will be guarded against or averted; and I do not propose to make any
exception permissive of out-door relief in such cases, but recommend
that relief should be limited strictly to the workhouse. It is
moreover necessary that no individual of a family should be
admitted, unless all its members enter the house. Relief to the
father or husband is equivalent to relief to the child or the wife,
and _vice versâ_; and, while they continue one family, a part cannot
be considered as destitute, and the rest not so; a family must be
taken as a whole, and so admitted or excluded. The provisions of
_the 43rd of Elizabeth_, requiring parents to support children, and
children to support parents, should also be extended to Ireland; and
I think relief by way of loan, as provided for by the _58th section_
of the Poor Law Amendment Act, might in certain cases be useful, and
if exercised with discretion, can scarcely be productive of
mischief.

_2ndly._ _Of the Local Machinery._—“I propose that the local machinery
for the administration of relief to the destitute in Ireland, under
the direction of a central authority, should be the same as is
provided in England by the Poor Law Amendment Act; namely, the union
of a district for common management, under a board of guardians
elected by the ratepayers, with paid officers appointed or approved
by the central authority.

“In forming the unions, it will be necessary to observe the civil,
rather than the ecclesiastical boundaries of parishes; but cases
will arise, in which it may be requisite to disregard all such
boundaries—it being obviously more important that the district to be
united should be compact, convenient, and accessible, and be
naturally connected with its centre, than that the old and often
inconvenient boundaries should be observed. This applies no less to
county or baronial boundaries than to those of parishes or other
divisions. The principle which has governed the formation of the
English unions, whenever the commissioners have not been driven from
it by local circumstances, has been to fix upon some market-town
conveniently situated as a centre, and to attach to it the whole
surrounding district, of which it may be considered the capital, and
in which the general business of the district, both public and
private, for the most part centres. The roads of a district always
converge upon the market-town. The communications with it are
constant, and the people settled within the range of its influence
constitute almost a distinct community. To form such a district into
a union, seems an obvious course, and I recommend its being adopted
in Ireland. There may be parts of the country in which such a
convenient centre does not exist, but this will be of rare
occurrence, and the general powers of the central authority will be
competent to deal with it.

“Much of what appeared to be necessary with reference to the members of
the boards of guardians, both elected and _ex-officio_, is given in
the second part of this Report: but the important question—in whose
hands the right of appointing guardians shall be confided, and in
what way that right shall be exercised, still remains to be
considered. In this, as in other cases, the principle established in
England, should, I think, be applied to Ireland, and the election of
guardians be vested in the ratepayers and owners of property within
the union; but the circumstances of Ireland require some
modification of the English practice, in this respect. The owners of
property in England, are entitled to vote according to the scale
which was established by the Select Vestry Act, and which ascends by
gradations of 25_l._ each, from a rated value of 50_l._ per annum up
to 150_l._ per annum, giving one vote for the former, and six votes
for the latter. This scale seems open to some objection, on the
grounds of complexity and over-minuteness. It moreover differs from
the scale of voting fixed for the ratepayers by the Poor Law
Amendment Act, which provides that ratepayers, if rated under
200_l._ shall have one vote; if rated at 200_l._ and under 400_l._,
two votes; and if at 400_l._ and upwards, three votes. Such a scale
seems on the whole well adapted to the condition of ratepayers in
England, but the amounts specified are too high for Ireland; and the
scale is not sufficiently minute in its graduation, for the
subdivision of property which prevails there. Instead of adopting
these English scales, therefore, I propose to establish one scale in
Ireland, by which simplicity of detail, and a right result, will I
think be more effectually secured; and I recommend the following for
regulating the votes of owners of property, as well as occupiers,

above 5_l._ and under 5_l._ one vote.

50_l._ and under 100_l._ two votes.

100_l._ ” 150_l._ three votes.

150_l._ ” 200_l._ four votes.

200_l._ and five votes.
upwards

_3rdly._ _Of Rating._—“The power to assess the property and levy a rate
within a union for the purpose of relieving the destitute, must, I
think, be confided to the board of guardians, by whom such relief is
to be administered. The mode of assessing and collecting the rate,
as well as its application, will be prescribed by the central
authority. The Parochial Assessments Act passed last session,
establishes the principle that the rates are to be paid upon the net
annual value of property. This was always the law, although it had
not always been acted upon. As regards the principle by which the
assessment of property should be regulated, it will therefore be
only necessary to extend the provisions of that Act to Ireland,
substituting the union for the parish authorities. The valuation of
property for rating need not, I apprehend, be made in every instance
by surveyors or professional valuators. The fairly-estimated value
of the property is all that is necessary. In many instances a
valuation has already been made for the purpose of tithe
commutation, and wherever that, or any other fair valuation has been
made, it will be available for rating to the relief of the poor.
Hitherto there has been no such rate in Ireland. The destitute
classes have gone on increasing in numbers, but still there has been
no recognised or legal provision for their relief. Property has been
acquired, capital invested, and contracts made, under this state of
things, and it will be impossible now to impose a rate upon
property, without affecting existing arrangements: but I believe the
effect will be slight, and that in a few years it will cease
altogether. If it were far greater than I anticipate however, all
objections to the imposition of a rate on this ground must be
overborne by considerations of the public welfare.

“The question as to who shall pay the rate, and in what proportions, is
next to be considered. The parties immediately interested are the
owner or person possessing the beneficial interest of the property
assessed, and the tenant or occupier. Between these therefore, it
seems both equitable and expedient to apportion the rate. Where the
two are combined, the same person would be answerable for the entire
rate. The Irish Poor Inquiry Commissioners appeared to be of opinion
that the owner should pay two-thirds of the rate, and the occupier
one-third; and it seemed to me, at first, that this would be a
suitable division: but after further consideration and inquiry, I
thought that each should be called upon to pay half the rate.[74] I
was mainly influenced to adopt this view, by the consideration that
at present nearly the whole support of the destitute falls upon the
tenantry. It is to the occupiers that the mendicant resorts, and
from them he receives his daily rations. There is thus in reality, a
rate now levied, although not sanctioned by legal enactment; and no
occupier, however limited may be his means, turns away the mendicant
empty-handed from his door. The pressure of these continual calls
upon the occupiers, help to bear them down, and keep them at their
present low level; but if the destitute classes were relieved by
means of a general rate upon property, of which the occupiers were
called upon to pay half, they would be relieved from nearly one-half
their present burthen. A poor-law, if rightly administered, although
it ensures relief for the destitute, will not increase their number,
or eventually swell the fund appropriated to their support. On the
contrary, I believe it will help to lessen both. But admitting that
the number and the amount remain the same, still the occupiers will
then have to pay only one-half, the landlord the other; whereas now
the occupier contributes nearly the whole.

-----

[74]

In Scotland the rate is divided equally between the landlord and
tenant.

-----

_4thly._ _Of Settlement._—“Parochial settlement, as established in
England, is almost universally admitted to have been productive of
great mischief. It has led to much litigation and expense; and by
fixing the peasantry to the narrow limits of their parish, beyond
which the world was to them almost a blank, it has done more to
injure their character, to destroy its elasticity, and to banish
self-reliance and resource, than any other portion of the old Poor
Law system. It will not, therefore, I presume, be considered right
to establish parochial settlement in Ireland. The habits of the
Irish are migratory, their movements depending upon their own
volition. To establish a law of settlement, would be to fix them to
one locality. No such law has yet been established there; and it is
therefore open to the legislature to prescribe the limits, if a
settlement shall be deemed advisable; or else to dispense with
settlement altogether.

“Without a law of settlement, it is true, vagrants from other districts
may congregate in particular unions, and may claim relief, or be
sent to the workhouse; but if the workhouses are all regulated upon
the same scale of diet and discipline, there would be no inducement
for the vagrant classes to prefer one union to another, and they
would probably remain scattered throughout the country, in much the
same proportion as at present. If such a preference was in any
instance shown by them, it might be taken as a proof of inefficient
management or lax discipline on the part of the favoured union, and
would be a signal for the central authority to interfere. Thus, if
there should be no law of settlement, the number of inmates in the
several workhouses would serve as a kind of index to the management
of each; and the local authorities would be compelled in
self-defence to keep their unions in good order, to prevent their
being overrun with paupers. Such a competition, if well regulated,
might go far to ensure the general efficiency of the unions.

_5thly._ _On Mendicancy_—“Whenever relief is provided for the destitute,
mendicancy may be suppressed. A law which says, ‘You shall not beg
or steal, but you shall starve,’ would be contrary to natural
justice, and would be disobeyed; but if the law first makes
provision for the destitute, and then says, ‘You shall not beg, but
you shall be relieved at the public charge,’ the alternative thus
offered will entitle the community to suppress a practice which is
held to be injurious. On these grounds, I think the law which
establishes a system of public relief for destitution, should at the
same time prohibit mendicancy. The present state of Ireland however,
and the habits and feelings of the Irish people, throw considerable
difficulty in the way of an immediate suppression of mendicancy. The
number of mendicants is very great, and they are therefore of some
importance as a class, and support and keep each other in
countenance whilst following, what they consider, no disreputable
vocation. They enter the cottages of the peasantry as supplicants,
it is true, but still with a certain sense of right; and the
cottager would be held to be a bold, if not a bad man, who resisted
their appeal. In fact, the appeal never is resisted,—if there is
only a handful of potatoes, they are divided with the beggar; and
there is thus perhaps levied from the produce of the soil in Ireland
for the support of mendicancy, as large a contribution as it is now
proposed to raise by an assessment of property for the relief of
destitution. The ‘sturdy beggars,’ noticed in the _14th of
Elizabeth_, must have been very similar to those now common in
Ireland. Indeed the state of society at the two periods seems to
have been nearly the same in both countries, the prevalence of
begging in each being accompanied by the same general disposition to
give, and this disposition of course increasing the number of
beggars.

“The evils of mendicancy in Ireland are certainly very great, and its
suppression should be provided for at the earliest practicable
period. The best mode of effecting this would probably be, to enact
a general prohibition, and to cast upon the central authority the
responsibility of bringing it into operation in the several unions,
as the workhouses became fitted for the reception of inmates. The
central authority might, I think, so regulate their proceedings, as
that the now itinerant mendicants who may be really unable to
provide for themselves, should be placed in the several workhouses
with the least degree of coercion and inconvenience; and that the
ablebodied vagrants and disorderly persons should be compelled to
provide for their own subsistence, by the application of strict
workhouse discipline. Time and forbearance will doubtless be
necessary in carrying such a measure into operation in Ireland, and
these the powers of the central authority will enable it to afford.
The present generation will probably pass away before the
disposition to encourage begging by indiscriminate almsgiving, which
now prevails so generally among all classes in Ireland, will be
corrected by the adoption of a more enlightened benevolence. It will
then we may hope be seen, that the real friends of the people are
those who lead them to independent exertion, to a reliance upon
themselves and their own efforts for support—not those who, by the
constant doling of miscalled charity, entice the people into a state
of dependence. It may minister to human pride, to be surrounded by a
crowd of such dependents; but it surely is inconsistent with genuine
benevolence to encourage, or even to permit this, if it can possibly
be prevented.

_6thly. Of Bastardy._—“As far as I had opportunity of observing and
inquiring, the Irish females are generally correct in their conduct.
I am aware that opinions somewhat different have been expressed; but
my own impression of the moral conduct of the Irish females is
highly favourable. Their duties appear to be more laborious than
those of the same class in England. Their dress, too, is inferior,
and so likewise seems their social position; yet they universally
appear modest, industrious, and sober—I state this as the result of
my own observation; and if the Irish females have preserved their
moral character untainted hitherto, as I believe in the main to be
the case, it affords an argument for ‘letting well alone.’ If it had
been otherwise however, and if the extent of bastardy, and its
demoralising influence on public manners had been greater, I should
still have recommended that the Irish females should be left, as
now, the guardians of their own honour, and responsible in their own
persons for all deviations from virtue. The abuses under the old
English bastardy law, and our brief experience of the improved
practice established by the Amendment Act, warrant the
recommendation that no such law should be applied to Ireland; but
that bastards, and the mothers of bastards, in all matters connected
with relief, should be dealt with in the same manner as other
destitute persons solely on the ground of their destitution.

_7thly._ _Of Apprenticeship._—“The experience which England affords with
regard to apprenticeship, is of a somewhat conflicting character,
although the preponderance of testimony is opposed to it. It is open
to much abuse, and has operated mischievously in several parts of
the country, by increasing that dependence upon the parish which
under the old Poor Law had become so characteristic of the English
peasantry. It must however I think be admitted, that the
apprenticing of orphan and destitute children, as provided for by
_the 43rd of Elizabeth_, has in many cases been productive of good;
and if judiciously limited, so as not to be regarded as the ordinary
mode of providing for the children of the labouring classes, but
merely as a resource for the destitute and the orphan, it might
still I think be continued with advantage. I am aware that this
opinion differs somewhat from that of the members of the late
English Poor Law Inquiry Commission; but the evidence of abuse
submitted to the commissioners was taken in the time of the old Poor
Law, which converted everything it touched into an abuse; and it
does not follow, because apprenticeship added to the accumulation of
evils under such circumstances, that it is incapable of producing
good under others. It is on the different application of
apprenticeship, and on the different circumstances in which it would
be applied, that I now rely. None of the abuses exist in Ireland
which prevailed under the old parochial management in England; and
by the aid of the union machinery apprenticeship may, I think, be
safely applied to the placing out of destitute and orphan children,
the number of whom in Ireland is very considerable. The Poor Law
Amendment Act empowers the commissioners to frame regulations for
apprenticing the children of poor persons; and I propose to extend
this provision to Ireland, by which it may be hoped that all the
beneficial effects of the law may be secured, whilst the evils which
certainly have resulted from it in England will in great measure be
avoided.

_8thly._ _Of Pauper Idiots and Lunatics._—“For individuals of this
description, if not dangerous, the union workhouses will be
available. Dangerous lunatics, and insane persons, must of course be
sent to asylums, as at present; and it is important, I think, that
these institutions should be kept distinct from poor-law
administration. The deprivation of reason is a misfortune so
extreme, that special efforts are called for on behalf of
individuals subjected to such a visitation. The careful supervision
of such unhappy persons is necessary for the protection of the
community. But with respect to pauper idiots and lunatics not
dangerous, these might, I think, be advantageously provided for in
the several workhouses, where a lunatic ward should be prepared for
such of them as might be unfitted to mingle with the other paupers.
Idiots, labouring under a deficiency, rather than a deprivation of
reason, appear in general to feel contentment in proportion as they
are employed on something of a nature suitable for them. In a
workhouse, such employment might always be found, and they would
probably there partake as largely of comfort as their unhappy state
is susceptible of. I propose, therefore, that the provision of the
Poor Law Amendment Act, permissive of the retention in a workhouse
of idiot and lunatic paupers, not dangerous, be extended to Ireland,
and that their mode of treatment and employment be in all cases
subject to the direction of the central authority.

_9thly._ _Of Emigration._—“A country may be so circumstanced, as to
require that a portion of its population should migrate from one
part of it to another, either permanently or occasionally; and may
still, on the whole, have no actual excess of population. A country
may also, with reference to its means of employment, labour under an
excess of population; or both these circumstances may exist at the
same time, which appears, in fact, to be the state of Ireland at
present. The Irish population is excessive, compared with the means
of employment; and the effect of this excess would be more felt,
were it not for the opening which England presents for migration.
Where the population is in excess, it must be exceedingly difficult
to effect any material improvement in the condition of a people; for
as long as the labourers exceed the number required, so long will
their competition for employment serve to depress their condition,
and counteract whatever efforts may be made to improve it. The only
alternative in such case is, either to increase the amount of
employment, or to decrease the number of labourers depending upon
it. To bring about by direct interposition any material increase of
permanent employment, is in every view difficult, and under common
circumstances, perhaps impossible; but something may be done
indirectly in this respect, by the removal of impediments and the
establishing of increased facilities for the application of capital,
and something also perhaps by the intervention of government: but
all such aids must of necessity be limited in their application, as
well as remote in their effects—it is from spontaneous or natural
employment alone, that the labouring classes can look for permanent
occupation, and the means of support.

“To aim directly at effecting an increase of employment in Ireland, is
beyond the powers if it be not foreign to the province of a
poor-law, the immediate object of which is to provide for the relief
of the destitute. Now destitution may be caused by an excess of
labourers, or by a deficiency of employment, which are in truth
convertible terms. If an able-bodied labourer becomes destitute
through want of employment, he must be relieved at the common
charge, like any individual reduced to a state of destitution by age
or infirmity. If the want of employment and destitution be owing to
an excess of population, to relieve that excess by emigration must
be a good. Yet it may be doubted whether the parent stock is not
enfeebled by the remedy, for in general the most active and
enterprising emigrate, leaving the more feeble and less robust at
home; and thus a continual drain of its best elements will lower the
tone and reduce the general vigour of a people, at the same time
that it imparts an additional stimulus to their increase.

“Emigration however, not only may, but I believe must be had
recourse to as a present means of relief, whenever the population
becomes excessive. The excess will be indicated by the pressure of
able-bodied labourers on the workhouse. If any considerable number
of these enter the workhouse, and remain there subject to its
discipline, it may be taken as a proof of their inability to provide
for themselves, and of the consequent excess of labourers beyond the
means of employment. Under such circumstances, emigration must be
looked to as the only present remedy; and provision should be made
for defraying the expense which this would occasion, as well as for
the regulations under which it should be carried into effect. With
regard to the expense, I propose that the charge should in every
case be equally borne by the government, and the union from which
the emigrants proceed. This division of the charge appears
equitable, for although the union only is immediately benefited, yet
eventually the whole empire is relieved, excess in one portion of it
tending to occasion an excess in the whole. But the emigration
should, I think, be limited to a British colony, and should be
conducted under the control of the central authority, and be
subjected to such regulations as the government may deem it right to
establish.

_10thly._ _Of Houses of Industry, and Charitable Institutions._—“There
is now a kind of poor-law established in Ireland, under which the
‘houses of industry’ are managed, but it is partial and ineffective;
and the several statutes providing for these houses of industry, and
the other institutions intended for the relief of the poor, should
be repealed, and the management of such establishments placed under
the central authority. Institutions strictly charitable, and
supported by voluntary contribution or otherwise, would of course
remain as at present; but it would, I think, be extremely desirable
to invest the central authority with such a power of revising their
rules and superintending their practice, as would ensure their
acting in unison with, or at least prevent their acting in
contravention of, the principles which the Act establishes for
poor-law administration in Ireland. The ‘houses of industry’ would
generally become available as union workhouses, for which they are
for the most part well adapted; and the other establishments, where
they are public property, or supported by government, or by local
grants from the county-rates, may be appropriated in like manner,
under direction of the central authority.

“The foregoing appear to be the only points requiring especial
attention, in framing a poor-law for Ireland, although there are
several other matters of minor interest not to be overlooked. The
‘Poor Law Amendment Act’ should, I think, be taken as a guide in
framing the measure, and the language, order, and general provisions
of that Act should be adhered to, except where the contrary is
herein indicated, or where a variation is obviously necessary. There
will be much practical convenience in thus assimilating the two
statutes, which provide for poor-law administration in the two
countries. A measure framed on the principles developed in this
Report, is I think necessary for Ireland. Unless the people are
protected from the effects of destitution, no great or lasting
improvement in their social condition can be expected. The
establishment of a poor-law is, I conceive, the first step necessary
to this end; and followed as it will be by other ameliorations, to
the introduction of which it is a necessary preliminary, we may hope
that it will ultimately prove the means of securing for Ireland the
full amount of those benefits which ought to arise from her various
local advantages, and the natural fertility of her soil.

“The proposed measure may, I believe, be carried into effect, either by
means of a separate commission in Ireland, or by the existing
English Poor Law Commission. One of these modes, I presume, must be
adopted; and before deciding which, it will be necessary to consider
the advantages and disadvantages of each. In doing this, it is
important to bear in mind, that it is the English Poor Law system
which is now proposed to be established; and that the knowledge and
experience acquired in working that system, can be best made
available for Ireland, by employing individuals conversant with the
English practice. If there should be a separate commission for
Ireland, it would be necessary that the commissioners should be
acquainted with the English Poor Law, as now administered; and this,
I apprehend, would exclude most of those Irishmen who might
otherwise be deemed qualified for the office. Such exclusion,
however necessary, would have an ungracious appearance, and might
excite angry comment. But independent of this consideration, if
there were a separate commission, the law would be similar in both
countries, but the practice might become widely different, as was
the case in different parts of England under the old Poor Law
administration. With two commissions, there might possibly be no
unity of principle,—there would certainly be no unity of action,—and
probably no identity of result. Unless the existing English Poor Law
Commission should be unequal to the additional duty of introducing
the proposed law into Ireland, or unless it should appear that the
commissioners ought not to be intrusted with the performance of this
duty, the above reasons would seem to be conclusive against a
separate commission.

“It must be admitted that the official duties of the English Poor Law
Commissioners have been, and in fact still are, very heavy. As a
member of the commission, and one too not unaccustomed to work, I
may be permitted to say, that the labour has been throughout
unceasing and excessive, to an extent that nothing but the hope of
accomplishing a great public good would have rendered bearable. The
success of the measure, however, in lessening the pressure on the
ratepayers, and in improving the condition of the labouring classes,
coupled with the support which has been afforded by government, and
by nearly all the intelligent portions of the community, have given
the commissioners encouragement and confidence; and when the process
of forming unions shall be completed, their labours will become
lighter. Under these circumstances, there would seem to be no
insuperable difficulty in the way of the present Poor Law
Commissioners being made the instruments of establishing the new law
in Ireland; and whatever may be the difficulty at first, it will
lessen as the amount of English business decreases, and the
organisation of the Irish machinery is perfected. If, then, no other
grounds of objection exist, and if it shall be deemed desirable, I
see no reason to doubt that the English Poor Law Commissioners are
competent to the additional duty of introducing the proposed measure
into Ireland.”

Such was the substance of my first Report, which it has been here endeavoured to condense as far as was consistent with a full exposition of its import; and this it is necessary to give, in order to prepare the reader for correctly appreciating the important measure which was founded upon it. After undergoing much consideration, the Report was finally adopted by government on the 13th of December 1836, and on the following day I was directed to have a bill prepared embodying all its recommendations. This was accordingly done, and after being scrutinised clause by clause in a committee of the Cabinet specially appointed for the purpose, and receiving various emendations, the bill was introduced on the 13th February 1837.[75] The public and parliament bad been prepared for the measure by the Royal speech at the commencement of the session, in which his Majesty recommended for early consideration “the difficult and pressing question of establishing some legal provision for the poor in Ireland, guarded by prudent regulations, and by such precautions against abuse as their experience and knowledge of the subject enable them to suggest.”

-----

[75]

The author’s Report was presented to the house at the same time.

-----

[Sidenote: Lord John Russell’s speech, February 13, 1837.]

Lord John Russell[76] introduced the bill in a comprehensive and very able speech—It appears, he said, from the testimony both of theory and experience, that when a country is overrun by marauders and mendicants having no proper means of subsistence, but preying on the industry and relying on the charity of others, the introduction of a poor-law serves several very important objects. In the first place it acts as a measure of peace, enabling the country to prohibit vagrancy which is so often connected with outrage, by offering a substitute to those who rely on vagrancy and outrage as a means of subsistence. When an individual or a family are unable to obtain subsistence, and are without the means of living from day to day, it would be unjust to say they shall not go about and endeavour to obtain from the charity of the affluent, that which circumstances have denied to themselves. But when you can say to such persons—here are the means of subsistence offered to you—when you can say this on the one hand, you may on the other hand say, “you are not entitled to beg, you shall no longer infest the country in a manner injurious to its peace, and liable to imposition and outrage.” Another way, he observed, in which a poor-law is beneficial is, that it is a great promoter of social concord, by showing a disposition in the state and in the community to attend to the welfare of all classes. It is of use also by interesting the landowners and persons of property in the welfare of their tenants and neighbours. A landowner who looks only to receiving the rents of his estate, may be regardless of the numbers in his neighbourhood who are in a state of destitution, or who follow mendicancy and are ready to commit crime; but if he is compelled to furnish means for the subsistence of persons so destitute, it then becomes his interest to see that those around him have the means of living, and are not in actual want. He considered that these objects, and several others collateral to them, were obtained in England by the Act of Elizabeth. Almost the greatest benefit that could be conferred on a country was, he observed, a high standard of subsistence for the labouring classes, and such a benefit was secured for England chiefly by the great Act of Elizabeth. His lordship then alluded to the abuses which subsequently arose, and to the correction of those abuses then in progress under the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act; and said that “we ought to endeavour to obtain for Ireland all the good effects of the English system, and to guard against the evils which had arisen under it.”

-----

[76]

Then secretary of state for the home department, and leader in the
house of commons.

-----

The Report of the Poor Inquiry Commissioners for Ireland was next adverted to. They had, he said, recommended many measures of improvement for Ireland, and suggested certain measures with regard to the indigent. It was to the latter he wished to call the attention of the house, as being the principal object of the present bill. The other suggestions for the general improvement of Ireland he proposed to leave for future consideration. With regard to the question of immediate relief for the destitute, the commissioners, he said, propose in the first place, that a large class of persons should be provided for at the public expense by means of a national and local rate. They advise also that there should be money afforded for emigration, and that depôts should be provided for persons preparing to emigrate. In considering that Report, great doubts occurred to his Majesty’s ministers whether it was a good principle to provide only for certain classes, and whether those depôts for emigration could be safely and advantageously adopted. It appears, he observed, from every reflection on the subject, that the real principle is to afford relief to the destitute, and to the destitute only; and it would be quite as wrong to refuse relief to the able-bodied person in that situation, as to afford relief to the cripple, the widow, or a deaf and dumb person who had other means of support. It is not then the peculiar circumstances which excite public or 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 regard to the emigration depôts, that part of the commissioners’ recommendations could not be adopted without a great deal more of consideration than the plan proposed by them appears to have received. And, he added, “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 was to see whether the law which, as amended, has been applied to England, could be introduced with advantage in Ireland.” For this purpose Mr. Nicholls, one of the Poor Law Commissioners, was requested to go to Ireland, and ascertain on the spot whether anything resembling the machinery of the English Poor Law could be there applied; and the result of Mr. Nicholls’s inquiry is, that supposing it to be expedient to extend a poor-law to Ireland, there was no insurmountable obstacle or objection to the establishment of a law in many respects resembling the amended Poor Law in England. The reasons for that opinion are stated in the Report which has been laid on the table, and on which the bill is founded. His lordship then adverted to the chief portions of the Report, and stated generally his own views on the subject.

There is no doubt, he said, that there have occurred in Ireland many outrages consequent upon vagrancy and destitution, and the people’s being left without remedy or relief; and also that a large portion of the people, especially those not having land, do practise mendicancy for a great portion of the year. He had made some inquiry with respect to the amount of the relief thus afforded to mendicants, and the result is that in most cases a shilling an acre is paid in course of the year by farmers for the support of mendicants. In some cases it has been 6_d._ an acre, in others 9_d._, and in others 1_s._; but in one case it amounted to 2_s._ an acre. This is a heavy tax, which cannot upon the whole amount to less than between 700,000_l._ and 800,000_l._, perhaps a million a year. But this practice of mendicancy, which raises so vast a sum, is not like a well-constituted poor-law, which affords relief to the really indigent—that which seems to afford relief to the distressed, also promotes and keeps up imposture, and in Ireland where mendicancy is so general, and relief so freely given, the number of impostors must be enormous.

His lordship then proceeded to consider whether the workhouse system was applicable to Ireland; and after noticing the objection made by the commissioners of inquiry, and urged by others, that the workhouse would not be safe—that there would be too much violence—that there would be such a dislike of restraint that it could not be enforced—he came to the conclusion “that there was no reason to apprehend anything of the sort.” In some of the houses of industry, he remarked, they have carried the system of restraint further than in the old English workhouses, and have established the separation of sexes such as exists in the new English workhouses; and no regulation was proposed which did not now exist, so “there need be no fear that violence would be used, or that we could not protect the workhouses in Ireland, as well and as securely as the workhouses in England.”

It had been much urged, he said, as a means of preventing undue pressure on the workhouse, that a residence in the district of three years or some other definite period should be a condition to any person’s being relieved therein; but he declared that he was opposed to establishing a law of settlement in Ireland, being quite convinced that it is one of the greatest evils of the poor-laws in England. It circumscribes the market for industry. It has led to immense litigation, and any person, he observed, “who has attended the quarter sessions, and there witnessed the disputes that arise between parishes as to whether a person had been hired for a year and a day, whether he had been ordered to go home on the day before the expiration of the term so as to destroy the settlement, or whether he had served a full year and a day, and various other similar questions—any person who has attended to this litigation and those disputes, will not have any wish that I should introduce the question of settlement into this bill.”

When the whole of the workhouses are in operation, and we are enabled to relieve all that are entitled to it, we may then, he observed, prohibit vagrancy; but until we can do the one, it will not be just altogether to prohibit the other. It is not therefore proposed to prevent persons asking alms, if they can show they have applied for and failed in obtaining relief. This is a necessary step in the transition from one state to another. If it succeeds, we shall hereafter be able to prohibit vagrancy.

His lordship then went over the ground more fully discussed in the Report, with regard to the local machinery, the question of rating, the extent of the unions, cost of the workhouses, emigration, and some other minor points; and then stated that the safest way of introducing such a law as had been described, would be to use the simple machinery which had been found so advantageous in England. It was therefore proposed, instead of forming a separate commission for Ireland, that the Poor Law Commissioners for England should have the power of intrusting to one or two of their body, the power of acting in Ireland for carrying the law into operation. This would he thought be better than establishing a separate commission. A lengthened discussion then took place in reference to the proposed measure, in which Mr. Shaw, Mr. O'Connell, Lord Howick, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, and other members took part. [Sidenote: The bill read a first time.] Doubts were of course expressed, and objections stated; but on the whole the measure was not received unfavourably, and the bill was ordered to be read a first time.

[Sidenote: The bill read a second time and committed.]

On the 25th of April Lord John Russell moved the second reading of the bill, and the debate thereon was continued by adjournment to the 1st of May, when the second reading was carried without a division, although not without long and somewhat hostile discussion. On the 9th of May the house went into committee on the bill, and the first fourteen clauses were passed with only a few verbal alterations. On the 11th the committee got to the end of the 20th clause, after two unimportant divisions. It had been announced that on the 12th of May the question of settlement should be considered. Many members were still of opinion that a settlement law was necessary; but after a long and temperate discussion of the subject in all its bearings, the committee decided against the introduction of settlement by 120 to 68. On the 26th of May the bill was again in committee, when the clauses up to the 35th were agreed to. [Sidenote: Vagrancy clauses postponed.] On the 2nd, 5th, 6th and 7th of June, the committee proceeded in considering the clauses of the bill up to the 60th, but the vagrancy clauses (53 to 58 inclusive) were postponed. These clauses provided for the repression of mendicancy in the unions, as the workhouses were successively completed and in operation; but there appeared to be a strong feeling in the house that nothing should be done to prevent begging, until the poor-law was everywhere fully established. The clauses were therefore postponed for further consideration.

[Sidenote: Death of William IV. June 20, 1837.]

At this time the king’s illness had so much increased that his recovery became highly improbable, and the business of parliament was consequently suspended. William the Fourth died on the 20th of June, and was succeeded by his niece the Princess Victoria, our present gracious sovereign. On the 17th of July parliament was prorogued by the youthful queen, in a speech from the throne, which the manner of its delivery and the occasion combined to render more than ordinarily interesting. The Irish Poor Relief bill, and the other measures then in progress, were therefore put an end to, and would have to be commenced anew on the re-assembling of parliament.

The interval thus interposed, afforded opportunity for further consideration and inquiry, and it was determined that this should be taken advantage of, and that the author should again proceed to Ireland for the purpose of visiting “those districts which a want of time prevented his inspecting last year.” I was also directed to bear in mind the discussions which had taken place during the progress of the bill in the late session, and generally to report whether the circumstances of the districts about to be visited, or any new matter that I might discover, “shall have caused me in any way to alter or modify the recommendations set forth in my last Report.”

Accordingly at the end of August I proceeded to Ireland, and continued in the active prosecution of my inquiries until early in October. I moreover took advantage of the opportunity afforded me in going and returning, to inquire very carefully at Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, into the habits of the large number of Irish congregated in each of these towns, and into the mode of dealing with such of them as become destitute, or stand in need of relief, on which points I obtained much valuable information, for the most part confirmatory of my previous views. On the 3rd of November I reported the result of my further inquiries;[77] and I will now, as was done in the case of the ‘First Report,’ give an abstract of this ‘Second Report,’ although much less fully, it not being now necessary to go so much at length into what may be considered matters of detail, as was requisite in the first instance—

-----

[77]

The Report was accompanied by appendices containing important evidence
on several of the points to which it referred; and in particular a
communication from Mr. Stanley, on the extent of destitution among the
poorer classes in Ireland, in which he shows that the estimate of the
inquiry commissioners was founded on erroneous data.

-----

_Second Report._—Nov. 3, 1837.

“The investigations which I have just concluded, have not afforded
ground for any material change of opinion. I may perhaps estimate
the difficulty of establishing a poor-law in Ireland somewhat higher
than I did before, but of the necessity for such a measure, I am if
possible more fully convinced; and now, after a more extended
inquiry, both in England and in Ireland, I am enabled substantially
to confirm the statements in my Report of last year, to which I can
add but little in the way of recommendation, although it may be
necessary to notice certain objections which have been made to
portions of the Report, and to some of the provisions of the bill of
last session. No material change in the bill however appears to be
called for, and I presume government will again proceed with it as
then proposed. The measure is essentially based upon the English
workhouse system; and as, notwithstanding the facts and reasonings
which were adduced in proof of its applicability to Ireland, doubts
were still expressed both in and out of parliament upon this vital
point, it seemed important to ascertain whether any grounds for such
doubts really existed.

“With this view I visited Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, and
Birmingham, through which places nearly the whole of the Irish
migrants pass and repass, and in all of which there is a large
resident Irish population, and where therefore their habits are well
known. All the persons whom I consulted in these places, were
unanimous in declaring their belief, that nothing but absolute
inability to provide for himself would induce an Irishman to enter
the workhouse. But it may be objected, that although disinclination
to the workhouse is characteristic of the Irish when in England,
such would not be the case if the system were established in
Ireland. This objection does not admit of an answer founded on
direct experience; but judging from analogy, and making due
allowance for the circumstances of the two countries, there seems no
reason to doubt that the result would be the same in one as in the
other. The Irishman is by habit and temperament more roving and
migratory than the Englishman; but this is surely not calculated to
reconcile him sooner to the restraints of a workhouse. I made it my
business to inquire, and obtain information from all classes of
persons, and was everywhere assured that the Irish would not go into
the workhouse, if they could in any way obtain support out of it.
The result of my investigations in the several houses of industry
and mendicity establishments has been to the same purport, all
tending to show that if the workhouse is properly regulated, it will
be resorted to only by the actually destitute. It is not less
important to state however, that I found the same persons decidedly
opposed to anything in the shape of out-door relief. I have not met
with an individual conversant with the subject, either in England or
in Ireland, who did not declare against out door relief. ‘Confine
relief to the workhouse,’ was the general reply, ‘and you will be
safe; but if you once grant out-door relief, your control is gone,
and the whole Irish population will become a mass of paupers.’