Chapter XVI: Part THE THIRD: “Assuming that a system of Poor Laws ought to be (3)

The feeling in the house of lords with regard to the bill, was decidedly more adverse than had been the case in the house of commons. Many of the Irish peers whose properties were deeply encumbered, were alarmed at the threatened position of a poor-rate, which they feared would swallow up a large portion of their incomes. These fears were appealed to, and the danger declaimed against and magnified, both by the economical opponents of any poor-law whatever, and by the opponents of the present measure. It was evident therefore from the first that the bill would encounter a strenuous opposition in the lords, and that its passing was far from certain. [Sidenote: Bill read a second time in the lords.] On the 21st of May the bill was read a second time, after a long and stormy debate, which lasted nine hours. Lord Melbourne moved the second reading in a judicious and temperate speech, touching skilfully on most of the leading points, and deprecating the intervention of party feeling. The bill was, he said, founded on the amended system of the English Poor Law. It was in fact an adaptation of the Act of 1834 to the circumstances of Ireland, with such alterations as were required by the peculiar condition of that country, and as the experience of its working suggested. He thought the establishment of the measure would be the beginning of a system of order, and that it would introduce order in a beneficial form. It would among other things form the foundation of a measure for the suppression of mendicancy; and one great advantage to which he looked as arising from it was, that the struggle for land, and the violent means the people took of enforcing what they conceived to be their right with regard to it, would be much lessened, if not extinguished. The writings of eminent political economists had, he said, led him at one time to doubt whether the evil effects attending a system of poor-laws, did not more than counterbalance any advantage to be derived from them; but a full and careful consideration of the subject had convinced him, that it was most beneficial for the landlords to be made to take an interest in the condition of the people on the land. The principle on which a poor-law should be established, was that of the general benefit of the country—we should relieve the destitute, but not do so in a way to paralyze the feeling of energy and enterprise which ought to be paramount in every man’s bosom; and for this purpose he thought the workhouse system was the one best adapted for testing the necessity and means of the applicant.

The Marquis of Londonderry spoke strongly against the bill, and moved that it be read that day six months. Many other peers joined in denouncing the measure, but none more violently than Lord Lyndhurst, who declared that it would lead to a dissolution of the Union. The Duke of Wellington supported the second reading, with a view to amending the bill in committee, and rendering it better fitted for its objects. The distress existing in Ireland was he said undoubted. There had been inquiry after inquiry on the subject, and on the outrages of every description to which it led. He expected from this bill that it would improve the social relations of the people of Ireland, and prevent the distress which now so often prevailed there. Another result he anticipated from the measure was, that it would induce the gentry of Ireland, whether resident or not, to look after their properties, and pay some attention to the state of the population on their estates. This, the duke observed, would improve the social relations between landlord and tenant—between the occupier and the labourer of the soil. If the Poor Laws had not been amended in England, he should have hesitated before consenting to the introduction of a poor-law into Ireland; but seeing the results the measure of 1834 had produced in this country—seeing the great advantage which had occurred from the working of that system—and seeing how it has improved the relations of landlord and tenant, he could not help desiring some such measure for Ireland, in order, if possible, to remedy in like manner the evils of that country. With regard to settlement, he was firmly convinced that its establishment in connexion with the bill, would be productive of unbounded litigation and expense, and lead to disputes of which no one could foresee the end. At the same time, he thought care should be taken that all parishes should be required to pay the expenses connected with the relief of their paupers, “that being one of the principles of the Poor Law in this country; and such an amendment should be introduced into the present bill.” The measure being thus supported by the duke, the second reading was carried by a majority of 149 to 20.

[Sidenote: The bill in committee.]

It was proposed that the bill should be committed on the 28th of May, but the debate was exceedingly violent and was continued by adjournment to the 31st. It is difficult to describe the scene which took place, on the motion for going into committee on the bill. The confusion then, and indeed during the whole night, surpassed anything one could have expected in such a deliberative assembly. The alarms of the Irish peers as to the effects of the measure exceeded all bounds, and they were joined by several English peers who are supporters of the English Poor Law. On the resumption of the debate on the 31st however, and after a further discussion for eight hours, the house resolved by 107 to 41 to support the principle of the bill, as embodied in the _41st clause_. This clause provided that relief to the destitute might be administered in the workhouses, at the discretion of the boards of guardians, subject to the condition—in the first place of a preference being given to the aged and infirm poor, and to destitute children; and in the second place to persons residing in the union before those not so resident, when there is not sufficient accommodation for all the destitute.

These latter provisions were introduced at the instance of the Duke of Wellington, in order to meet the objections and mitigate the hostility of the opponents of the bill, as was also the provision in the _44th clause_ charging the cost of relief to the several electoral divisions, instead of to the unions at large, as it before stood. These changes were arranged between the duke and myself, with the approval of government, previous to the second reading. [Sidenote: The bill read a third time.] The bill was considered in committee on the 7th, 21st, 22nd, and 26th of June, and was read a third time on the 6th of July. On the 11th I find it recorded in my journal—“The bill is now clear of the lords, altered and in some respects improved, although the localisation of the charge upon the electoral divisions approximates too nearly to settlement to be quite satisfactory. I wish this had been left as it at first stood; but so long as no right to relief, and no power of removal are given, we shall I trust be able to avoid the infliction of actual settlement.”[83]

-----

[83]

This quotation is from a journal which I had kept of the proceedings
with regard to the Irish Poor Law, from the commencement of my
connexion with the question in August 1836, and which has been very
useful in framing the present narrative. In this journal is recorded
from day to day, the progress of my inquiries in Ireland and
elsewhere, the deliberations and consultations with government on the
subject, the discussions with different public men in reference to it,
and also the various interviews with the Duke of Wellington after the
bill had passed the commons, in which it was my good fortune to be the
medium of communication for settling the points at issue be tween his
grace and the government. I say “my good fortune,” for without the
duke’s assistance the bill would not have passed the house of lords,
and without the part taken by myself in negotiating and bringing about
a right understanding on the subject, I doubt if that assistance would
have been accorded. If therefore the enactment of the Irish Poor Law
was, as I believe, a measure of great social importance, and as
subsequent events have moreover I think shown it to be, it cannot but
be regarded as a great privilege to have been permitted to assist in
any way towards the accomplishment of such an object. With this
privilege I was so fortunate as to be invested, and I feel happy in
the consciousness of having spared no pains to fulfil the obligations
it involved.

-----

Although so far “clear of the lords,” there nevertheless remained much to be done in reconciling differences between the two houses with regard to some of the amendments, and in particular with regard to the schedule of rating, which it was desired to make available for the purposes of the municipal franchise. Several conferences were held, and “reasons” _pro_ and _con_ were delivered in, and it was not until the 27th of July that the bill was ready for the royal assent—This was given on the 31st, and thus a law was at length established, making provision for the systematic and efficient relief of destitution in Ireland.