Chapter XV: Part THE THIRD: “Assuming that a system of Poor Laws ought to be (2)

“It has been argued that the workhouses will eventually fail in Ireland,
as they have failed in France, at Munich, and at Hamburgh; but there
is no analogy between the two cases. The workhouse principle was
never recognised in these establishments, which were all either
poorhouses for the maintenance of the aged and infirm, or
manufactories for setting to work vagrants, mendicants, and other
idle persons. All these institutions were established under the
notion that profitable labour could be always found, and that pauper
labour could be made profitable to the community, and their
management had reference to these objects. There were certain
variations in practice to suit local circumstances, but this was the
view under which the institutions were founded, by Count Rumford, at
Munich, by the imperial government in France, and by Baron de Voght,
at Hamburgh. I need scarcely say that this view is essentially
different from the workhouse system established in England, and as
it is proposed to establish it in Ireland. Experience has proved
that pauper labour can never be profitable. The workhouse is here
used merely as a medium of _relief_; and in order that the destitute
only may partake of it, the relief is administered in such a way,
and on such conditions, that none but the destitute will accept it.
This is the workhouse principle, as first established in the two
parishes of Bingham and Southwell eighteen or twenty years ago, and
as it has recently been established in the unions formed under the
Poor Law Amendment Act; and we have the experience of these
parishes, and the more varied, though less prolonged experience of
the English unions, in proof of the efficiency of the system, which
has worked hitherto without a single instance of failure. It is not
therefore upon mere hypothesis, that it is proposed to proceed with
regard to the Irish Poor Law, but upon the surer ground of
experience.

“It has been further argued, that there is always a tendency to
deterioration in such institutions, and that after a time they fall
away from the principle on which they were originally established—to
which it may be answered, that no such deterioration occurred in the
two parishes above named—on the contrary, the workhouse principle
continued to operate in these parishes in all its simplicity and
efficiency, up to the day when they were each constituted the centre
of a union. May it not therefore be inferred, that if established as
a test of destitution, the workhouse will continue to be effective,
and the principle free from deterioration, as in the two cases named
above? But the proposed measure does not depend on this inference
alone—a safeguard is provided by the Poor Law Amendment Act in the
appointment of commissioners, who under the control of the
executive, and the supervision of parliament, are to superintend the
working of the measure, and to apply from time to time such
correctives, whether local or general, as may be necessary for
securing its efficiency. Whatever doubts may have arisen on either
side of the Channel, as to the sufficiency of the workhouse for
relieving the destitute, as well as for protecting the ratepayers, I
therefore feel warranted in expressing my conviction, not only that
the workhouse system is applicable to Ireland, but that it is the
only mode in which relief can be safely administered to the
destitute classes in that country.

“The question of the workhouse being thus disposed of, I shall now
proceed to notice such objections as have been made to the bill
generally, or to any of its provisions; and in doing this, I will
endeavour to introduce such illustrations as seem to be called for,
and such further information as I have been able to collect during
my recent visitation, which extended from Waterford to Belfast and
Londonderry, and the counties of Donegal, Fermanagh, Cavan, and
Meath.

“The chief objections which have been made to the measure, as it was
introduced in the last session, are comprised under the heads
hereafter specified, to each of which a full explanation is appended
in the Report. From these several explanations, so much is here
given, as will, it is hoped, serve to lessen, if not altogether to
remove, the weight of the objections which were raised during the
discussion on the bill, or which may have appeared in pamphlets or
in any other shape.

_The measure is said not to be applicable to the North of Ireland._—“It
has frequently been asserted, both in and out of parliament, that
the condition of the people in the north of Ireland differs so
essentially from those in the south, that a poor-law which might be
applicable in one case, would be inapplicable in the other; and it
was urged as a ground of objection to the measure of last session,
that it had been framed exclusively with reference to the southern
and western districts. This objection seems to have been made mainly
on the ground, that no specific information had been obtained as to
the north of Ireland; whereas, in fact, a large mass of information
had been collected by the commissioners of Irish Poor Inquiry, with
respect to the north, as well as the other parts of the country; and
this information, coupled with what I had obtained from other
sources, and supported by my own observation in those of the
northern counties which I had visited, appeared to be sufficient,
without further examination of the northern districts. An
opportunity for such examination having however been afforded by the
postponement of the bill, I have now visited most of the northern
counties, and carefully examined the condition and habits of the
people, with special reference to the contemplated measure; and I
can with entire confidence state, in my opinion, it is as well
adapted to the circumstances existing in the north, as to those
which prevail in the south. The habits of the people are there in
some degree fitted for its reception. The necessity of relieving the
destitute is there admitted, and in most of the northern towns of
any note, there is now a kind of voluntary poor-law established. In
Monaghan, in Armagh, at Newry, Belfast, Coleraine, Londonderry, I
found provision made for relieving destitution, and the principle
virtually recognised, that it is the duty of a civilised community
to protect its members from perishing by want. Indeed, if any doubt
existed as to establishing a poor-law in Ireland, an inspection of
the northern counties would, I think, remove the doubt, and show the
expediency of such a measure. The extent of poverty is there less
than in the south and west; but the amount of destitution is
probably as great. There is this important difference however—in the
_south_ and _west_ the destitute depend for support upon the class
immediately above them, the small cottiers and cultivators; but in
the _north_, the sympathy existing between the different ranks of
society—between the opulent and the needy—has led to the making of
some provision for the relief of the latter class. If the charge of
this provision was fairly spread over the whole community—if the
relief afforded was sufficient, and permanent, and equally
distributed, it would be equivalent to a poor-law; but the charge is
unequal, the provision uncertain, and the relief partial and
inefficient. To apply the proposed measure to the north of Ireland,
will therefore be little more than carrying out, in an equal and
effective manner, that which has been long but unequally and
ineffectually attempted by the communities themselves.

“In speaking of the north of Ireland, I ought to except the county of
_Donegal_, the inhabitants of which differ materially from those
of the other northern counties, and approximate to those of the
west and south. Small holdings, and minute subdivisions of land,
prevail in Donegal to a greater extent than I have found in any
other part of Ireland; and the consequent growth of population
there presses so hard upon the productive powers of the soil, as
to depress the condition of the people to nearly the lowest point
in the social scale—exposing them, under the not unfrequent
occurrence of an unfavourable season, or a failure of the
potato-crop, to the greatest privations. This has unhappily been
the case during the last four years, in each of which, and
especially in the last, there has been a failure of the crops in
Donegal. In May, June, and July last, nearly the whole of the
population along the northern and western coasts of the county,
were reduced to a state bordering on starvation; and had not
government sent a supply of meal and medical aid, numbers of the
people would have fallen victims to famine and disease. The
surface of Donegal is generally covered with bog, susceptible of
profitable cultivation wherever lime or sea-sand or sea-weed is
obtainable, and the people have in consequence congregated
wherever these elements of fertility abound—along the coasts, and
on the shores of the numerous bays and inlets opening upon the
Atlantic, along the banks of the rivers, and up the narrow valleys
and ravines with which the country is intersected—everywhere, in
short, where the soil is most easily reclaimed by individual
exertion. But wherever combined effort, or an outlay of capital is
necessary for draining, fencing, and reclaiming—there nothing has
been done, and the surface is permitted to lie waste and
unproductive. The process of reclamation in such circumstances is
above the limited means of the people, each one of whom just
manages to cultivate land enough to raise potatoes for his
family—a patch of oats to supply them, mostly I fear, with
whisky—and then, as to rent (for they all pay rent), they rely for
raising that upon a few cattle or sheep running wild upon the
mountains.

“Nothing can exceed the miserable appearance of the cottages in
_Donegal_, or the desolate aspect of a cluster of these hovels,
always teeming with a crowded population. Yet if you enter their
cabins, and converse with them frankly and kindly, you will find the
people intelligent and communicative, quick to comprehend, and ready
to impart what they know. They admitted that they were too numerous,
‘too thick upon the land,’ and that, as one of them declared, ‘they
were eating each other’s heads off,’—but what could they do? There
was no employment for the young, nor relief for the aged, nor means
nor opportunity for removing their surplus numbers to some more
eligible spot. They could only therefore live on, ‘hoping,’ as they
said, ‘that times might mend, and that their landlords would sooner
or later do something for them.’ To improve the condition of such a
people would increase the productive powers of the country, a point
well deserving the attention of the great landowners, with whom it
mainly rests. But no material or lasting improvement can be
effected, so long as the present subdivision of land continues. This
practice, wherever it prevails, forces the population down to the
lowest level of subsistence—to that point where subdivision is
arrested by the dread, or by the actual occurrence of want; and it
is alike the duty and the interest of the landowner, so to exercise
the right of property as to guard his tenantry from such depression.
In the case of Donegal, a two-fold remedy seems to be necessary,
that is, emigration, and an extension of cultivation. There is
abundant room for the latter, and if undertaken with spirit and
intelligence, it will not only ensure an ample return on the capital
expended, but also afford employment, and provide suitable locations
for a part of the surplus population. If a portion of this surplus
were removed by emigration, and another portion placed on new
grounds, effectually reclaimed, a consolidation of the present small
holdings might be effected. This would be a great point gained,
where the average rental of such holdings does not exceed 2_l._, and
numbers are under 1_l._ per annum. A poor-law would facilitate this
change, so necessary for the landowners, as well as for the great
mass of the people of Donegal. The principle of a poor-law is to
make the property of a district answerable for the relief of
destitution within it; and the application of this principle would
serve to connect the several orders of society, and teach them to
act together—it would show them that they have reciprocal interests,
reciprocal duties—that each is necessary to the other—and that the
cordial co-operation of _all_ is necessary to the well-being of the
whole. I therefore augur much good from the establishment of a
poor-law, under circumstances similar to those now existing in
Donegal; and believe that such a law, whilst it provides for the
relief of the destitute, will be a safeguard to property, and
facilitate the introduction of other ameliorations.

_There ought to be a law of Settlement._—“There is no part of the
subject to which I have given more attention than to the question of
settlement. Of the evils arising from settlement in England, there
can be no doubt, and the grounds on which it was proposed to
establish a poor-law in Ireland without settlement, are explained in
my former Report. But it appears that many persons still consider
some law of settlement necessary for securing local co-operation
based upon local interests, for the protection of particular unions
from undue pressure, and for guarding the towns on the eastern coast
from being burdened with the destitute who may flock thither, or be
sent thither from England or Scotland, or with the families of the
large body of migrants who proceed to Great Britain in the harvest
season and return at its conclusion. If there were danger from all
or any of these sources, it might be right to make provision against
it in the bill; but I am satisfied that, in carrying out the measure
as now proposed, none of these inconveniences would arise, beyond
what the commissioners could meet by special regulations, without
recurring to a settlement law. There is this primary objection to
settlement, that it impedes the free distribution of labour, and
interferes with the fair and open competition which is alike
necessary for protecting the employer and the employed, and by which
an equalisation of supply and demand in the labour-market can alone
be maintained. Its direct tendency is to depress the social
condition and character of the people; for by narrowing the field of
labour, and binding individuals to a particular locality, not
perhaps favourable to the development or most profitable employment
of their faculties, improvement is checked, independence is
destroyed, and the working classes, without resource or elasticity
of spirit, are led to depend upon their place of settlement in every
contingency, instead of upon themselves. If therefore the bill as at
present proposed, by requiring the rate to be levied upon the union
for relief of the actually destitute within it is sufficient, as I
believe it to be, for securing attention to the business of the
union, there can be no necessity to establish a law of settlement
for such purpose; and nothing short of absolute necessity in that or
some other respect, could justify the introduction of a law, the
direct tendency of which would be in other respects so injurious.

_Out-door Relief should have been provided for._—“Much has been said as
to the necessity of providing out-door relief in Ireland; but most
of the arguments in favour of an extension of relief beyond the
workhouse appear to be founded, either upon a misapprehension of the
objects of a poor-law, or upon an exaggerated estimate of the number
of destitute persons for whom relief would be required. The object
of a poor-law is to relieve the destitute—that is, to relieve those
individuals who from sickness, accident, mental or bodily infirmity,
failure of employment, or other cause, may be unable to obtain the
necessaries of life by their own exertions. Under such
circumstances, the destitute individual, if not relieved, might be
driven to beg or to steal; and a poor-law, by providing for the
relief of destitution, prevents the necessity or the excuse for
resorting to either. This is the legitimate object of a poor-law,
and to this its operations are limited in the bill of last session.
But if, disregarding this limitation, it be attempted to provide
relief for all who are needy, but not destitute—for all who are
poor, and whose means of living are inferior to what it may be
desirable that they should possess—if property is to be taxed, not
for the relief of the destitute only, but for ensuring to every one
such a portion of the comforts and conveniences of life as are
assumed to be necessary—the consequence of any such attempt must be
in Ireland, as it notoriously was in England, not only to diminish
the value of property, but also to emasculate and demoralise the
whole labouring population.

“The evidence collected by the Commissioners of Poor Law Inquiry in
England, establishes the conclusion that out-door relief is
inevitably open to abuse, and that its administration entails
consequences prejudicial to the labouring classes, and to the whole
community—in short, that there is no security for the prevention of
abuse, nor any mode of ensuring a right administration of relief,
but by restricting it to the workhouse. The facts and reasonings
contained in the Reports on this subject, have been confirmed by the
experience of the present Poor Law Commission; and although out-door
relief has not yet been totally prohibited in any of the English
unions, there can be no doubt that the intention of the Poor Law
Amendment Act points eventually to the workhouse as the sole medium
of relief, and requires that it should be so restricted as early as
circumstances permitted. To establish out-door relief in Ireland,
would therefore be in direct contradiction to English experience,
and to the spirit of the English law. It would introduce a practice
in the one country, under the prejudicial effects of which the other
has long been suffering, and from which it has not yet entirely
recovered. Some persons have recommended that out-door relief in
Ireland, should be restricted to the aged, sick, and infirm; but
even with this limitation, how is abuse to be prevented, and how is
the precise limit to be defined of the age, sickness, or infirmity,
entitling an individual to be relieved out of the workhouse?—I
believe it to be impossible so to define the conditions as to
prevent the occurrence of gross abuses, which would not only be a
source of demoralisation, but would also serve to engender strifes
jealousies and ill feeling in every locality. After the best
consideration which I have been able to give the subject, in all its
bearings, I still retain the opinion that in Ireland relief should
be restricted to the workhouse, or in other words, that out-door
relief in any shape should be prohibited.

_The mode of Rating is objected to._—“The question of rating is
obviously open to much contrariety of opinion. The mode of
valuation, of assessment, of collection, and the proportions in
which the rate shall be paid, are all questions on which different
opinions might possibly be formed by different persons; and
accordingly the views expressed upon these points have been various
and conflicting. Some have contended that the whole of the rate
should be charged upon the owner, on the ground that the tenant
derives little profit, often no profit whatever from the occupation,
and ought not therefore to be called on to pay any part of the rate.
Those taking this view, appear to overlook the fact that the
destitute classes in Ireland are now supported almost entirely by
the occupiers, who will be relieved from this charge when the
proposed measure shall have come into operation. To require the
occupiers to pay half the rate, is not therefore to impose on them a
new charge, but a portion only of an old charge, to which they had
long been accustomed. Moreover the occupiers have an interest in the
property rated—not permanent indeed like the owners, but more
immediate; and on this ground also they are fairly chargeable with a
portion of the rate. If the owners paid the whole, the occupiers
would of course not be entitled to take part in the distribution of
the funds, nor in the management of the business of the union—they
would have no interest in common with their landlords, and would to
a certain extent be arrayed against them; for their interest and
their sympathies would probably lead them to increase the amount of
the burthen, rather than lessen it. Even if there were a sufficient
number of resident owners, it would be inexpedient to place the
whole control of the unions in their hands, thus constituting them a
separate class, and at the same time lowering the position of the
occupiers; but in the present state of Ireland, such a proposition
seems especially open to objection. The exemption in favour of
occupiers of 5_l._ value and under, and the charging the owners of
such property with the entire rate, forms an exception to the above
reasoning, and will probably be disapproved by those whose interests
may appear to be affected by it. But every such charge is eventually
borne by the property, and in the long run it is perhaps not very
material whether the rate is paid by the owner or by the tenant, it
being in fact a portion of the rent. This arrangement is proposed,
partly as a matter of convenience, on account of the difficulty and
expense of collecting a rate from the vast number of small holdings
of 5_l._ value and under which exist in Ireland, and partly also
with the view of relieving this description of occupiers, who are
for the most part in a state of poverty bordering on destitution,
from a portion of the burthen; and it is gratifying to find that
this proposition has on the whole been favourably received.

_The Unions as proposed are too large._—“In almost every discussion
during the progress of the bill last session, the proposed number
and size of the unions were objected to. Yet the discretion of the
commissioners is unfettered in these respects. They are left at
liberty to form the unions, as may appear best adapted to the
circumstances in each case. The same discretion was confided to the
commissioners in England, and it must be equally necessary that they
should possess it in Ireland. The objections to the intended size of
the unions, do not therefore apply to the bill, but to my first
Report, in which it is stated that, ‘If the surface of Ireland be
divided into squares of twenty miles each, so that a workhouse
placed in the centre would be about ten miles from the extremities
in all directions, this would give about eighty workhouses for the
whole of Ireland.’ Instead of eighty workhouses however, I assumed
that a hundred might be required, and calculated the probable
expense accordingly. But this was mere assumption, for it is
obviously impossible to state what will be the precise number of
unions, until some progress has been made in the work of formation.
The commissioners are bound to form the unions in the best manner,
according to the best of their judgment. Their credit as public
functionaries would be compromised by any failure in this respect;
and it may be fairly presumed that they will use due vigilance and
impartiality, and avail themselves of all the experience which
England affords in this matter.

_The suppression of Mendicancy objected to._—“Objections have been made
to the vagrancy clauses, and it has been contended that if such
provisions were necessary, they should be established by a separate
Act. Whether the suppression of mendicancy be provided for in the
Poor Law Bill, or by a separate bill, does not seem very material;
but it is important that the provision should be made concurrently
with the Poor Law measure. To establish a poor-law, without at the
same time suppressing mendicancy, would be imperfect legislation,
especially with reference to the present condition of the Irish
people. It is true there are now vagrancy laws in Ireland, which
enact whipping, imprisonment, and transportation as the punishments
of mendicancy; but these laws are inoperative, partly from their
severity, and partly from other causes. Ireland wants a vagrancy law
that shall operate in unison with the Poor Law, for without such
concurrent action, both laws would be in a great measure
ineffective. The suppression of mendicancy is necessary for the
protection of the peasantry themselves. No Irish cottier, however
poor, closes his door whilst partaking of his humble meal. The
mendicant has free access, and is never refused a share. There is a
superstitious dread of bringing down the beggar’s curse, and thus
mendicancy is sustained in the midst of poverty, perpetuating itself
amongst its victims. Much of the feeling out of which this state of
things has arisen may, I think, be traced to the absence of any
provision for relieving the destitute. A mendicant solicits charity
on the plea of destitution. His plea must be admitted, for it cannot
be disproved; and to refuse relief, may occasion the death of a
fellow-creature, which would be a crime of great magnitude. Hence
the admission of the mendicant’s claim, which is regarded in the
light of an obligation by the Irish peasantry. To make provision for
relieving mendicants at the public charge, without at the same time
preventing the practice of begging, would leave the peasant exposed
to much of the pressure which he now sustains from this source; for
the mendicant class would generally prefer the vagrant life to which
they are accustomed, to the order and restraint of a workhouse. To
suppress mendicancy, is therefore necessary both as an adjunct of
the proposed Poor Law, and for the protection of the labouring
classes throughout Ireland.

_Objections to cumulative voting, &c._—“It might perhaps be sufficient
to say, in answer to the objections which were made to cumulative
voting, voting by proxy, and constituting magistrates _ex-officio_
guardians, that the Irish bill follows in these cases the example of
the English Poor Law Amendment Act. There are, however, weighty
reasons in favour of each of these provisions, some of which it may
be useful to notice.

“With respect to cumulative votes, it may be observed, that the raising
and disbursing of a poor-rate involves nothing political, but is to
be regarded rather in the light of a mutual assurance, in which the
community joins for the purpose of being protected against the
effects of pauperism, each member contributing in proportion to his
means, and each having an interest according to the amount of his
contributions. If therefore the amount contributed be the measure of
each ratepayer’s interest, it ought in justice also, within certain
convenient limitations, to be the measure of his influence; and
these limitations the bill provides, by fixing a scale according to
which every ratepayer is entitled to vote. As regards the voting by
proxy, such a power is necessary for enabling the owner to protect
his property, his interest in which is permanent, although he may
not always be present to represent it by his personal vote; and the
bill therefore provides for his doing so by proxy. The occupier is
always present, and may vote in person; not so the owner, whose
interest would be unprotected without this power of voting by proxy.
That the owner’s interest ought to be represented will not be
denied. The rate is levied upon property, and thus in fact becomes a
portion of the rent, which would be increased by the amount of the
rate, if this were not levied for Poor Law purposes; so that in
reality it is the landlord, the permanent owner of the property, who
finally bears the burthen of the rate, and not the tenant or
temporary occupier. It seems consonant with justice therefore, that
every facility should be afforded to the owner for protecting his
interest by his vote.

“There are many reasons why magistrates should form a portion of every
board of guardians. The elected guardians will for the most part
consist of occupiers, or renters, not the owners of property; and
their interest will be temporary, whilst the interest of the owner
is permanent. Some union of these two interests seems necessary
towards the complete organization of a board of guardians; and as
the magistrates collectively may be regarded as the chief landed
proprietors of the country, the bill proposes to effect this union
by creating them _ex-officio_ members of the board. The elected
guardians are moreover subject to be changed every year, and their
proceedings might be changeable, and perhaps contradictory, and
confusion might arise through the opposite views of successive
boards. The _ex-officio_ guardians will serve as a corrective in
this respect. Their position as magistrates, their information and
general character, and their large stake as owners of property, will
necessarily give them much weight; whilst the proposed limitation of
their number to one-third of the elected guardians, will prevent
their having an undue preponderance. The elected and the _ex
officio_ members may be expected each to improve the other, and
important social benefits may arise from their frequent mingling,
and from the necessity for mutual concession and forbearance which
such mingling cannot fail to teach. Each individual member will feel
that his influence depends upon the opinion which his colleagues
entertain of him, or upon the respect or regard which they feel
towards him; and hence will arise an interchange of good offices,
and a cultivation of mutual good-will, beginning with the board of
guardians, and extending throughout the union, and eventually it may
be hoped throughout the country; and thus the union system may
become the means of healing dissensions, and reconciling jarring
interests in Ireland. On these grounds, I consider that the
establishment of _ex-officio_ guardians, voting by proxy, and
cumulative voting, as provided in the bill, should be adhered to.

“Many measures, local as well as general, have been suggested, either
for removing restrictions to the application of capital, or for
giving direct encouragement to its application in Ireland; and some
of these measures, I understand government intend taking into early
consideration. In the survey which I have been able to take of the
state of Ireland, and of the condition of the Irish people, it has
appeared to me that quiet, and the absence of excitement, is the
object chiefly to be desired. With repose would come security, and
the investment of capital, and thence would arise employment, and
the development of the productive powers of the country. The
proposed Poor Law will not of itself accomplish these objects, but
it will be found a valuable accessory; and with the progress of
education, and that orderly submission to lawful authority which is
at once the cause and the consequence of peace and prosperity, all
those other objects will, we may hope, be eventually secured for
Ireland.”[78]

My Report was considered by the Cabinet,[79] and the whole subject was again very fully discussed, and several minor alterations in the bill were decided upon. It was also determined to bring it forward as the first measure of the session. The subject continued to occupy a good deal of public attention, as well in England as in Ireland. It was discussed in the papers, and pamphlets were written upon it. In this instance however, as in most others, the opponents were the most active, and much ingenuity was displayed in animadverting on the asserted incongruities of the proposed Irish Poor Law. The inquiry commissioners also had their advocates, and in Ireland especially their recommendations were, as might be expected, more popular than the government bill. However, on the whole, the measure may be said to have held its ground, and to be regarded as a matter of first-rate importance.

-----

[78]

The following estimate was prepared during the progress of the bill,
and was printed by order of the house of lords.

Assuming that there will be a hundred unions, each having a workhouse
capable of accommodating 800 persons, the paid officers, with their
respective salaries in each union, may be stated as follows:—

Clerk of the union from £60 to 80 Master and mistress of the workhouse 60 ” 80 Chaplains 50 ” 80 Medical officers and medicines 100 ” 150 Auditor 20 ” 30 Returning officer 10 ” 20 Collector 50 ” 70 Schoolmaster and schoolmistress 50 ” 80 Porter and assistant-porter 20 ” 30 Other assistants in the workhouse and union, say 30 30 —— —— £450 to 650

For the hundred unions, this would give a total expenditure in
salaries of from 45,000_l._ to 65,000_l._ per annum; or say 55,000_l._
on an average.

In addition to the above, it may be further assumed, that on an
average throughout the year the workhouses will be three parts full,
and that the total cost of maintenance clothing bedding wear and tear
&c., will amount to 1_s._ 6_d._ per head per week, which is equal to
3_l._ 18_s._, or say 4_l._ per head per annum; this will give an
expenditure of 240,000_l._ per annum for maintenance &c., in the
hundred unions: which added to the 55,000_l._ for salaries, will make
a total charge of 295,000_l._ annually for the relief of the
destitute, under the provisions of the bill.

The money for building the workhouses is to be advanced by government,
free of interest for ten years; and is to be repaid by annual
instalments of five per cent. The cost of the workhouses has been
stated at 700,000_l._, but assuming it to amount to 1,000,000_l._,
this would impose an additional charge of 50,000_l._ annually for the
first twenty years (exclusive of the interest after the first ten
years on the then residue of the principal), which, added to the
above, makes an aggregate charge of 345,000_l._ per annum.—G. N.

[79]

It was laid on the table of both houses on the assembling of
parliament.

-----

[Sidenote: The bill reintroduced, December 1, 1837.]

Parliament assembled on the 10th of November, and on 1st of December Lord John Russell reintroduced the bill, in an argumentative speech of considerable length. After going through and commenting on the several recommendations of the inquiry commissioners,[80] and noticing the objections to which they were all more or less open, he explained by way of contrast the principle on which the present bill was founded, much in the same manner that he had done on the first introduction of the measure. The statement was generally well received, although there were some marked exceptions in this respect, and the bill was read a first time without a division. It was in like manner read a second time on the 5th of February 1838. But on the motion for going into committee on the 9th, Mr. O'Connell strongly opposed the bill, and moved that it be committed that day six months. The amendment was however negatived by 277 to 25, a majority which made the passing of the measure in some form pretty certain. On the 23rd of February the question of settlement was again very fully discussed, and its introduction decided against by 103 to 31, the latter number comprising all who could be brought to vote for a settlement law of any kind. The vagrancy clauses were now also withdrawn from the bill, on the understanding that there would hereafter be a separate measure for the suppression of [Sidenote: The bill passed the commons and read a first time in the lords.] mendicancy. The bill continued to be considered in successive committees until the 23rd of March, when all the clauses having been gone through and settled, it was ordered to be reported, which was done on the 9th of April. On the 30th of April the bill was read a third time and passed by the commons, and on the day following was introduced and read a first time in the lords.

-----

[80]

Ante, pp. 137 to 146.

-----

It had been thought desirable that during the Easter vacation I should visit Holland and Belgium, with the view of ascertaining whether there was anything in the institutions of those countries, or in the management of their poor, that could be made available in the present measure of Irish Poor Law; and it was arranged that Dr. Kay, one of our assistant-commissioners should accompany me. The time at our disposal was short, and our investigations were necessarily hurried; but the letters with which we were furnished procured for us ready access everywhere, and enabled us to obtain information which would not otherwise have been accessible. On our return, I reported to government the result of our inquiries.[81] The first portion of the Report was chiefly furnished by my companion, and had reference to the subject of education, in which Dr. Kay[82] felt a deep interest, and in the promotion of which he afterwards took a distinguished part. The latter portions of the Report applied more immediately to our present subject, and from these portions I will now abstract so much as seemed calculated to be useful with regard to the question of Irish Poor Law, or to bear in any way upon the state of Ireland—

-----

[81]

The Report was printed, and laid before parliament.

[82]

Now Sir James Kay Shuttleworth, Bart.

-----

_Third Report._—May 5, 1838.

“The institutions for the relief of indigence are numerous in Holland,
and consist of hospices for the aged and infirm, orphan-houses,
workhouses of towns, depôts de mendicité, or district workhouses,
the poor colonies, and private charitable institutions. The funds
for the support of these establishments are to a great extent
derived from endowments and voluntary contributions, the direct tax
not being more than about 1,800,000 guilders, or 150,000_l._ per
annum. Among the classes having ability to labour, a state of even
temporary dependence is considered disgraceful, and great exertions
are made by the labouring population to avoid it. But no sense of
degradation attaches to the orphan establishments, which are
calculated to invite rather than to discourage dependence. The
depôts de mendicité, or provincial workhouses bear so close a
resemblance to the old English workhouses and those established
under Gilbert’s and the various local Acts, as to warrant a belief
that the English workhouses must have been formed upon a Dutch
model; but however this may be, the result has certainly been the
same in both countries, the evil of pauperism having been increased
rather than diminished by these institutions, in which the
profitable application of pauper labour has been sought for, rather
than the repression of pauperism.

“The workhouse of _Amsterdam_ is a vast building, capable of containing
upwards of 1,500 inmates. The imposing character of its exterior,
the elegance of its entrance-hall, and the decorations of the rooms
appropriated to public business, were in marked contrast with the
aspect of the several wards. The inmates chiefly consisted of the
lowest and least moral part of the population of the great cities,
who had sought refuge in the workhouse because they had forfeited
their claim to regular employment, and the vigilance of the police
did not permit them to subsist by mendicancy. The sexes were
strictly separated at all times, but the children were in the same
apartment with the adults of each sex. The males and females each
occupied separate day-rooms, in which the dirt and disorder were
very offensive. In these rooms the inmates ate their meals, without
any attention to regularity or propriety. Here also they worked in
the looms, or at other occupations. The first group of men to whom
we advanced, were seated at a table playing at cards; we found
another party playing at draughts, and a third at hazard. Others
were idly sauntering up and down the room. The women’s day-room
presented a scene of similar disorder. Both men and boys were
clothed in a coarse kind of sacking. The chief article of their diet
is rye-bread, almost black, and not over-abundant, with an
indefinite quantity of boiled buttermilk; but they are permitted to
work at certain rates of wages, and to spend a portion of their
earnings at a canteen in the house, where coffee tobacco gin &c. may
be obtained. On application for admission, the paupers undergo a
strict examination as to their ability to maintain themselves; and
while inmates they are not permitted to go abroad, ‘unless they give
positive hopes that on re-entering society, they will render
themselves worthy of their liberty, by diligently endeavouring to
gain their own livelihood by honest means.’

“The establishment at La Cambré, near _Brussels_, was superior in its
internal arrangements to the workhouse at Amsterdam, particularly in
the separate classification of the aged, the children, and the
adults, and also in the good arrangement and cleanliness of the
sleeping-rooms. The sexes are strictly separated, as is invariably
the case in all the other Dutch and Belgian institutions. By the
penal code, a mendicant once condemned to a depôt de mendicité for
begging, may be kept there during the remainder of his life; but in
practice, he is allowed to leave the establishment whenever the
commission of superintendence are satisfied that he is disposed to
labour for his subsistence, without resorting to mendicancy.

“There are three great workhouses for the whole of _Holland_, which are
situated, one at Amsterdam, another at Middleburgh, and a third in
the commonalty Nieuve Pekel A, in the province of Groningen.
_Belgium_ has five great workhouses, situated respectively at La
Cambré, near Brussels, for the province of Brabant; at Bruges, for
the two Flanders; at Hoogstraeten, for the province of Antwerp; at
Mons, for Hainault, Namur, and Luxembourg; and at Reickheim, for
Liege and Limburgh. Under their present regulations, these
provincial workhouses, or depôts de mendicité, both in Holland and
Belgium, are I think, judging from what we could learn and what we
saw, very defective institutions; and hence seems to have arisen the
necessity for resorting to some stricter measures, which ended in
the establishment of the poor colonies. In England, the defects of
the old workhouses were remedied by the introduction of regulations
calculated to render them efficient tests, by the aid of which we
have succeeded in establishing the distinction between poverty and
destitution: for the latter we have provided relief, but we have
left the former to its own natural resources. In Holland and Belgium
no such distinction has been made, or test established. Their
workhouses remain as they were originally formed—nurseries for
indolence, and stimulants to pauperism. But in order to correct this
evil, the Dutch have had recourse to the establishment of penal
colonies, to which all persons found begging (or committing
vagabondage as it is termed) are sent, if able to work, and
compelled to labour for their subsistence, under strict discipline
and low diet. Had the workhouses been made efficient, there would
have been no occasion for these establishments; but the workhouses
not being efficient, recourse has been had to the penal colonies,
where the test of strict discipline, hard labour, and scanty diet,
is so applied as to be held in the greatest dread by the vagrant
classes. All beggars are apprehended by the police; if able to work,
they are sent to the penal colonies; if aged or infirm, or unable to
perform out-door work, they are sent to the workhouses; and although
the discipline of the workhouses is defective, and the management in
many respects faulty, yet with the aid of the penal colonies they
secure the repression of mendicancy.

“In the workhouses of the penal colonies to which the able-bodied
mendicants are sent, one ward is used in common as a dormitory,
refectory, and workshop. The inmates sleep in hammocks, and are very
coarsely clad. They labour in the fields, or in making bricks, or at
manufactures in the house, under the superintendence of an
inspector. Each colonist is furnished with a book, in which is
entered the work executed daily, the amount of food and clothes
furnished, his share of the general expenses of the establishment,
and whatever he has received in the paper-money of the colony.
Guards on horseback to patrol the boundary of the colony, rewards
given for bringing back any colonist who has attempted to escape,
and an uniform dress, are the means adopted to prevent desertion
from the colony. Mendicants when arrested, may choose whether they
will be brought before the tribunals as vagabonds, or be sent to the
coercive colony, where they must remain at least one year. These
rigorous measures for the suppression of mendicancy, have been
adopted in the absence of any acknowledgment of a right to relief,
and notwithstanding that a large portion of the relief actually
administered arises from endowments and voluntary contributions.
This forms an important feature in the Dutch and Belgian system; and
if, as I believe, the rigour of this part of their institutions has
been caused by the imperfect organization of the others, the true
remedy would have been, not in the establishment of penal colonies,
but in such an improvement of those other institutions as would have
rendered them efficient for the repression of mendicancy, as well as
for the administration of relief. On comparing the modes of relief
existing in Holland and Belgium, with the system of relief it is
proposed to establish in Ireland, the latter will I think be found
to be much more simple and complete, and consequently to promise
greater efficiency. No right to relief exists in Holland or Belgium,
yet mendicancy is suppressed in both those countries. It is proposed
not to give a right to relief in Ireland, and it is intended to
suppress mendicancy,—in this respect therefore the circumstances are
similar. But in Ireland, it is proposed to divide the whole country
into districts of convenient extent, with a workhouse to each, so
that every destitute and infirm person will be within easy reach of
adequate relief; and this arrangement is obviously preferable to the
various, and in some respects conflicting modes of relief which
exist in Holland and Belgium, and will be more effective in its
operation. The example of Holland and Belgium may therefore be
cited, in addition to that of England, in support of the proposed
Irish Poor Law.

“Another matter of much interest, is the different condition of the
smaller class of cultivators in the two countries. Small farms of
from five to ten acres abound in many parts of Belgium, closely
resembling the small holdings in Ireland; but the Irish cultivator
is without the comforts and conveniences of civilised life, whilst
the Belgian peasant-farmer enjoys a large portion of both. The
houses of the small cultivators in Belgium are generally
substantial, with a sleeping-room in the attic, and closets for beds
connected with the lower apartment, a dairy, a store for the grain,
an oven, a cattle-stall, piggery, and poultry-loft. There is
generally decent furniture and sufficient bedding, and although the
scrupulous cleanliness of the Dutch may not be everywhere
observable, an air of comfort and propriety pervades the whole
establishment. In the cowhouse the dung and urine are preserved in
the tank; the ditches are scoured, the dry leaves potato-tops and
offal of every kind are collected for manure, and heaps of compost
are in course of preparation. The premises are kept in compact
order, and a careful attention to economy is everywhere apparent.
The family are decently clad, none are ragged or slovenly, although
their dress may be of the coarsest material. The men universally
wear the bleuse, and wooden shoes are in common use by both sexes.
Their diet consists chiefly of rye-bread milk and potatoes. The
contrast of what is here described, with the state of the same class
of persons in Ireland, is very marked. Yet the productive powers of
the soil in Belgium are certainly inferior to the general soil of
Ireland, and the climate does not appear to be superior. To the soil
and the climate therefore, the Belgian does not owe his superiority
in comfort and position over the Irish cultivator. The difference is
rather owing to the greater industry economy and forethought of the
people.

“A small occupier, whose farm we examined near Ghent, paid 225 francs
per annum for about two bonniers, or six acres of land, with a
comfortable house, stabling, and other offices attached, all very
good of their kind; this makes the rent (reckoning the franc at
10_d._) equal to 9_l._ 7_s._ 6_d._ sterling per annum; and, if we
allow 3_l._ 7_s._ 6_d._ for the rent of the house, stabling, and
other offices, there will be 6_l._, or 1_l._ per acre for the land,
which accords with the information we obtained at other places. This
farmer had a wife and five children, and appeared to live in much
comfort. He owed little or nothing, he said, but he had no capital
beyond that employed on his farm. We questioned him respecting his
resources in case of sickness. He replied that if he were ill, and
his illness was severe and of long duration, it would press heavily
upon him, because it would interrupt the whole farm-work; and in
order to provide for his family and pay the doctor he feared he
should be obliged to sell part of his stock. If his wife and family
were long ill, and he retained his strength, the doctor would give
him credit, and he should be able to pay him by degrees in a year or
two. We suggested that the Bureau de Bienfaisance, or charitable
individuals, might afford him aid in such a difficulty, but he
replied cheerfully that he must take care of himself If a sick club,
or benefit society, were established among these people, to enable
them by mutual assurance to provide for the casualty of sickness,
the chief source of suffering to their families would be obviated,
and there would be little left to wish for or amend in their social
condition. The Belgian peasant farmer here described, is not very
different from the small Irish occupier as respects his position in
society, but how much better is his condition as regards the
comforts and conveniences of life. The cause of this difference I
believe to be, the more skilful system of culture pursued by the
six-acre farmers of Belgium, the rigid economy which characterises
them as a class, and the persevering industry and forethought with
which they adjust their limited resources to their wants; and one of
the first steps to the improvement of this important class in
Ireland should be, to endeavour to assimilate their farming
operations and domestic management, to that of the same class in
Belgium.

“It is not necessary to discuss the comparative advantages of small and
large farms, it being notorious that the former abound in all parts
of Ireland, in some districts almost to the exclusion of the other;
and that any attempt at a rapid consolidation of these small
holdings would occasion great misery and suffering. Changes of this
nature cannot be successful, without special regard to local
circumstances; and the obstructions which arise from fixed habits
and old social arrangements, generally render any great organic
change impracticable, excepting in the lapse of years. An improved
management of the small farms in Ireland, would however afford the
means of increasing the comfort, and ameliorating the condition of
the cottier tenantry, and at the same time facilitate the progress
of other changes conducive to their general well-being. It would, in
fact, be beginning at the lowest point of the scale—improved
management would bring increase of capital and improved habits, and
thence would arise an enlargement of occupancies, which the vast
extent of now waste but reclaimable land in Ireland would greatly
facilitate. The establishment of a poor-law, by removing the burthen
of supporting mendicancy which now presses almost exclusively on the
class of small cultivators, will afford them relief and
encouragement, and facilitate the improvement of their condition:
but the Poor Law alone will not effect the necessary ameliorations,
which can only be accomplished by a combination of efforts, of which
the establishment of a poor-law is one, possibly it is the chief;
for a poor-law will unite the interests of the other classes with
the well-being of the poorest, and thus secure for the least
intelligent, and therefore the most dependent portion of the
community, the sympathies and the assistance of the most competent
and intelligent of the middle and higher classes. The Poor Law will
in this way, I believe, become the means of combining the now
discordant elements of society in Ireland, for the promotion of the
common interest; but the first impulse in the career of amelioration
must be given by the landed proprietors, who should unite in
promoting improvements among their tenantry, as well as in carrying
out the provisions of the law.”

[Sidenote: Bill read a first time in the lords, May 1, 1838.]