When we call to mind the interminable discussions which only a few years
ago were usual in every society, as to the necessity, or advantages, or
practicability, of a poor-law system in Ireland, and then transfer our
attention to the actual progress which has been made in carrying into
effect a certain, defined, and enacted arrangement, it is something like
escaping from a dark, close wood, in which there was neither path nor
direction, into an open country, with the bright canopy of heaven above,
and our desired destination, or the sure road conducting to it, plainly
in view.
To devise, and, much more, to bring into operation, a legalized system
of poor relief suited to the wants and circumstances of Ireland, will,
when duly considered, appear to have been a truly great and formidable
undertaking. Innumerable plans had been set forth from time to time for
this purpose, anterior to the act passed among the first of her present
Majesty’s reign; but it may well be questioned if there was any one of
them which would not on trial have proved to be a complete failure. Into
that speculation, however, we have no occasion to enter at present, as
there is now a law, having its machinery already so near to completion,
that it must be in full effect at no distant day throughout the whole
country, to the provisions and execution of which it will be at once more
interesting and more profitable to direct our attention.
We may confidently attribute whatever facilities have been found to
attend the practical introduction of the law into Ireland, to the fact
that its management was entrusted in the first instance to a Commission;
that the Commissioners were men already perfectly conversant with the
subject, and that they were invested with sufficient powers to accomplish
the object. No better machinery could have been devised, and we shall
soon be enabled to perceive that it has not disappointed the expectations
to which it might fairly have given rise.
The first great object which presented itself for consideration, in
connection with the act of Parliament, may be supposed to have been the
division of the country into suitable districts for the administration of
the system. It required a new series of boundaries for its own provisions
and purposes, as the proposed relief was to be afforded territorially,
according to none of the existing divisions, either parochial, baronial,
or by counties. The Commissioners were empowered to “unite such and so
many townlands as they might think fit to be _a Union_ for the relief of
the destitute poor;” and the subject was one that evidently demanded the
most serious examination.
The principle of forming the Unions was that which the Commissioners had
previously adopted in England, namely, that the Union should consist
of a market-town as a centre, and the district of country surrounding
and depending on it, and extending to about ten miles round it in all
directions. The size of Unions was indeed a subject which caused a good
deal of anxious consideration. People, generally speaking, were at first
desirous of having smaller Unions--not taking into account, that by
increasing the number of Unions, more expense would be incurred, as the
larger the Union, the smaller is the establishment charge in proportion.
However, the Commissioners, guided by local facilities, formed Unions of
townlands already combined by social affinities as well as geographical
position, and have thus exceeded the number at first estimated on a
theoretical scale. The number declared up to the 25th of March last is
104, and 26 more, it is supposed, will comprise the whole of Ireland, and
constitute the entire.
The most important subject which demanded attention was the construction
of a governing power for each Union, in conformity with the terms and
intention of the act of Parliament. It was to consist of a Board of
Guardians, one-third being resident magistrates, and the remainder freely
elected by the rate-payers. The Commissioners were authorised to fix the
number for each Union, and they were of opinion that a number of elected
Guardians, varying from 16 to 24, would be best calculated for carrying
out the provisions of the act. These, with the addition of one-third,
composed of the local magistrates, who are Guardians _ex officio_, would,
it was calculated, give to each Union a Board of from 21 to 32 members,
which would be sufficient for deliberation, and yet not so numerous as
to impede efficient action. With regard to the actual elections, now
numerous, which have taken place, the Commissioners in their last Report
express their regret that much excitement and discordant feeling should
have been exhibited in some instances; but at the same time they declare
their belief, that, as a general result, efficient Boards of Guardians
have been constituted.
The third important object which demanded attention, was the procuring
of suitable workhouses for the several Unions. The Commissioners were of
opinion that one central workhouse, of a size sufficient for the whole
of the Union, would be best; but for the sake of hastening the practical
benefits of the act, and to save expense as much as possible, they were
disposed to avail themselves of existing buildings nearly central,
capable of being converted into workhouses, if obtainable. Their
expectations on this head, however, were very far from being realized.
It seems certain that the opinion originally formed as to the excess of
barrack accommodation in Ireland was unfounded, there being in fact no
more than the exigencies of the public service require; and of barracks,
eventually, they obtained but one, situate in the town of Fermoy, which
is now in process of conversion into a workhouse for that Union. In
other Unions, old houses and other buildings were carefully surveyed;
but in no one instance, says Mr Wilkinson, the intelligent and skilful
architect of the Commissioners, have premises of this kind been found
eligible in point of economy or convenience of arrangement, the sums
asked in nearly every instance having been far beyond the value for the
purpose of conversion. As a general result, the only old buildings which
have been actually converted, or are now in process of conversion, into
workhouses, are, in Dublin, the House of Industry for the North Union,
and the Foundling Hospital for the South; in Fermoy the barrack already
mentioned; and the House of Industry in Clonmel.
The number of _new_ buildings contracted for, and in progress, was in
March last 64; the notices for contracts since published amount to 50; so
that building arrangements remain to be made for only 16 Unions.
In the appendix to the last Annual Report of the Commissioners there is
a tabular statement, showing at one view the number and names of the
Unions which have been declared up to April last--the area in statute
acres, and population of each--the number of Guardians respectively--with
other particulars, including indeed every thing necessary to afford
satisfactory information on the subject; and, but that it would occupy a
great deal of space, we would gladly transfer it to our columns.
Having thus briefly noticed the three leading points indispensably
preliminary to the working of the poor-law, namely, 1st, the _Unions_,
or districts within which each local administration is to be comprised;
2dly, the _Guardians_, or local administrators of the law; and, 3dly, the
_Workhouses_ or buildings designed for the reception of the destitute
poor, it only remains to add a few observations relative to certain
topics on which there has been a good deal of discussion, and concerning
which a clear opinion has not yet been arrived at by many.
In the first place, there has been much misconception as to the true
nature of the work which the act of Parliament devolved upon the
Commissioners of Poor-Laws. That such is the case, is evident from
the many applications which have been made to them from time to time
to afford relief in different districts under various circumstances
of distress, as though the Commissioners possessed any general powers
for this purpose. The applications were not indeed at all surprising.
“Hunger,” saith the proverb, “will break through stone walls;” and it
was not to be expected that those who witnessed and deeply sympathised
with numerous and touching instances of extreme destitution would be
very nice in scanning the phraseology or exact intendments of an act of
Parliament. However, in reality the Commissioners had no power to act in
any manner different from that which the legislative chart, if we may use
the phrase, had prescribed to them. Their mission was to fulfil the great
work of founding and bringing into operation an extensive system of poor
relief, not to distribute a bounty, or immediately to afford relief in
any specific case of distress, however urgent. Their task was formidable
and onerous; and if the accomplishment of it has appeared to some to have
been tedious in its course, it may well be asked, wherein has there been
a failure of any means necessary to the end, or by what better means
could the work have been made to advance more speedily and more securely
to completion, than by those which have been employed? The law, it may be
said, has as yet been brought to bear on the wants of the poor only in
the Unions of Cork and Dublin. True; but for this the law itself, or that
process which it made imperative in order to effect the essential and
solid purposes which it had in view, is alone answerable.
Unions, Guardians, Workhouses, and Assessment, must, by the terms of the
act, in every instance precede relief. By the 41st section it is enacted,
“That when the Commissioners shall have declared the workhouse of any
Union to be fit for the reception of destitute poor, _and not before_,
it shall be lawful for the Guardians, with the approbation of the
Commissioners, to take order for relieving and setting to work _therein_
destitute poor persons.” Thus it appears that until a workhouse be
provided, the practical benefits of the act cannot be obtained.
It may be premature at present to speak of the interior economy of the
workhouse, but we may shortly refer to the leading views put forth by
the Commissioners on the subject. They disapprove, then, we collect in
the first place, of more land being occupied in connection with the
house than may be sufficient for the purpose of a garden, or than can be
conveniently managed by the boys, or the aged and infirm men. Employment
for the able-bodied is to be provided within the workhouse, to which they
are to be strictly confined so long as they remain dependent on the Union
for support. This, in the opinion of the Commissioners, given in their
Fifth Annual Report, “Should be of such a nature as to be irksome, and
to awaken or increase a dislike to remain in the workhouse, for which
purpose corn-mills will probably be found, as in England, to be the most
effective. With the aged and infirm the case is somewhat different: they
should all be employed, but their employment need not partake so much of
the character of a test: and with the children the test is altogether
inapplicable; so long as they remain in the workhouse, they should be
taught and trained to become useful members of the community; and for
this purpose an acre or two of garden ground, in which the boys may work
and acquire habits of industry, as well as skill and strength for manual
labour, will be found extremely useful.”
With regard to diet, they observe in their Sixth Report, that, as a
general rule, it is unquestionably desirable that the workhouse diet
should be, on the whole, inferior to that of the labouring classes of
the surrounding district; yet that it is not on this circumstance alone,
or even in any very great degree, that the efficiency of the workhouse
depends. On the contrary, say they, “We are satisfied that the diet,
clothing, bedding, and other merely physical comforts, may in the
workhouse be better than in the neighbouring cottages, and yet that none
but the really destitute poor will seek for admission into the workhouse,
provided that order and discipline be strictly maintained therein. It
is in truth the regularity, order, strict enforcement of cleanliness,
constant occupation, the preservation of decency and decorum, and
exclusion of all the irregular habits and tempting excitements of life,
on which reliance must mainly be placed for deterring individuals, not
actually and unavoidably destitute, from seeking refuge within the
workhouse, and not upon the absence of mere physical comforts. This
is the view by which the legislature appears to have been governed in
adopting the general principles of the Irish poor relief act; and to this
view we consider it to be essential that the dietaries and the other
regulations of the workhouse should conform.”
With these general views no reflecting person will, we should think, be
disposed to quarrel.
A good deal of discussion has taken place as to the regulation which
prohibits strangers, and particularly reporters of the press, from
attending the meetings of Guardians. However, we in Ireland have nothing
specially to complain of in this respect, as the same rule exists in
England, and has not been attended there by any public inconvenience.
The question properly is, why the rule should be _different_ here? _The
Guardians_, it must be understood, are under no obligation of secrecy.
_They_ are quite at liberty to note, report, and publish at their own
discretion; the rule merely excludes strangers, and of course reporters
who are _not_ Guardians, from the Board. The Commissioners in their
Sixth Report very truly say that “the presence of strangers would be a
restraint upon the deliberations of the Guardians; while the knowledge
that their proceedings were to be published would certainly conduce to
debate and display, and obstruct the dispatch of business. A desire for
popularity would be awakened, and individual Guardians would too probably
be led to address themselves to the passions of their hearers, or to
party or sectarian feelings prevalent without doors, rather than to the
sober disposal of the business in hand. Prejudices would be excited,
passions inflamed, personalities would arise, and the most respectable
members of the Board, who, from their property, position, and habits of
business, would be best entitled and best fitted to take part in and
guide its proceedings, would be borne down by clamour, or wearied by
lengthened discussion, if not finally compelled to abandon their post.”
It was no easy matter to have brought this great work of a statutable
poor relief to its present advanced state, without exciting stronger
feelings of opposing party than any which fortunately have yet been
elicited; but it may well be doubted if things would go on in the same
quiet and businesslike manner if Guardian meetings were to be open
to the public; and if there be any evil connected with the exclusion
complained of, we may safely conjecture, at least, that it is the lesser
of two--less than that which would arise from the jarrings and discord
of party on a subject which, above any other, calls for unanimity, and
should awaken only the feelings of a common benevolence and patriotism.
We may now advert, in the last place, to the ameliorations in our social
condition which may be expected to arise when the new system shall have
been put fully in operation. In the first place, a reproach will be wiped
away from our country, which certainly existed against it so long as
it could be said that no law existed in it for the relief of the poor.
Destitution will then be provided for, and mendicancy will be without
excuse. It is true that there is no direct provision in the act for
the restraint of beggary, but a legalised provision for the destitute
is indirectly a law against it, and must operate most powerfully as
such. When people are taxed to maintain the poor, they naturally become
unwilling to open their purse-strings, unless with great reluctance, at
the solicitation of mendicants; the trade of mendicancy declines; and
those who would still cling to it are forced, if of the class of the
able-bodied, to apply themselves to some means of profitable industry,
or to resort to the workhouse for subsistence. The Poor-Relief Act is
thus, indirectly, a law against mendicancy, and in this point of view is
calculated to work most beneficially, and greatly to alter the face of
things in Ireland.
But it is also a law of positive economy to the country. The support
of the destitute not being abandoned to casual charity, but conducted
systematically by persons appointed to bestow their exclusive attention
to it, and all rateable parties being under a legal obligation to
contribute in due proportion to their circumstances, there cannot be a
doubt that a less expenditure will suffice under such management for the
maintenance of the really destitute than if the work were left to mere
voluntary benevolence, and no means existed of compelling all classes
fairly to share the burden among them.
Many persons have felt a terror at the idea of the taxation they
supposed they should have to suffer under a poor-law; but the great
probability, nay, almost the certainty of the matter, is, that it will be
a considerable saving to them. The present rate in Dublin is 1s. in the
pound for the year, on a very moderate valuation, and much more than half
the rate is borne by landlords.[1] This, however, appears to be beyond
the intention of the law as to town property, for which inordinate rents
are not usually obtained; but the result is within the control of the
Guardians, who may revise the valuation whenever they propose to levy a
new rate.
The expense of the relief, even under higher rates, would be less, far
less, on those who have hitherto supported the poor, than the outlay
which they have annually made for that object; and now they will have the
satisfaction of knowing that what they give is given to the destitute
poor; that all is well applied, none misspent, and every part so
economized in distribution, that the sum contributed relieves a greater
number of poor than the larger sum formerly given in alms.
It must also be considered, that the poorer classes subsisting by labour
will be relieved by the workhouses from the continual encroachments
of beggars on their scanty meals, and the still more scanty means of
lodging possessed by them. Let the opponent of such a provision for the
poor--if any reflecting person in the country can on public grounds be
opposed to it--let him, we say, contemplate the hard lot of the labouring
classes, compelled by the importunities of beggars not only to give up
a considerable share of the food actually insufficient for themselves,
but also to divide their beds or their children’s beds with persons of
the lowest habits, and thus see their families deprived of food, of
rest, health, and morality; while a large number of the wealthy classes
remained listless and inaccessible within their closed doors, or were
exercising their better feelings in a distant land.
We do not accuse the wealthy members of society, as a class, with
indifference to the wants of the poor: we but refer to a contrast between
_their_ security against the intrusion of mendicants, and the defenceless
state of the labouring classes--a contrast which doubtless must have been
ever present to the mind of the poor working man: and we do this to show
how much the wealthy will gain by a law which provides safe means for its
application in relieving poverty.
The expense, then, which we are now incurring, is not a new charge, but
a wise and equitable distribution of one heretofore borne by portions
of the community in very disproportionate shares, without having any
tendency to obviate the mendicancy by which it was created, but, on the
contrary, having a direct tendency to foster and increase that most
demoralizing of all the conditions in life.
Be the expense what it may, it cannot tend to induce a more extensive
reliance on the public provision than mendicancy has encouraged: nay,
we maintain, that when the law shall have been for a short time in full
and general operation, the number of unemployed and dependent poor
will gradually decline. But expectation must have a little patience:
the machinery for sustaining in orderly and decent comfort upwards of
one hundred thousand human beings, cannot be created otherwise than by
a very gradual process. This is not a clime in which men and families
can be encamped: when they are to be lodged, durable structures must be
provided, and for this work much time is necessary. We are sure that no
time has been lost; nay, we regard the progress made as among the most
accelerated public labours of this or any other country.
In the mean time, the law is not without working out much good for the
labouring classes. Workmen of every grade have been busily employed in
the construction of workhouses since the spring of 1839, for which object
government has advanced upwards of a million of money, free of interest,
for ten years after the commencement of relief in each Union.
We are, however, reasoning without having an argument opposed to us; for
any thing like argument against the law we have not heard. In Dublin it
is merely complained, that although houses are open and rates levied, the
mendicants still throng the streets. But it is not shown that any thing
like the same number of apparently deserving objects of relief are to
be seen; they on the contrary are in the workhouses, maintained by the
rates; and were it not for the poor children whom the mendicants drag
along with them, the imposture would soon be stopped by its own want of
success.
The policy of the law contemplates the repression of beggary and
vagrancy, and all those disorders and crimes which accompany or have
their origin in those habits--the encouragement of a more productive
industry--the more universal recognition of the identity of interest
amongst all classes affected by the law--and with the cordial
co-operation of all the intelligent classes of society which it has
hitherto received, and will probably receive yet further hereafter--there
cannot be a doubt but that the law, when in full operation, will realize
all this, and more.
To those who wish for an exemplification of the favourable working of the
law, we recommend the perusal of a little work lately published under the
title of “Benevola,” in which the English and Irish systems of relief are
well contrasted, and the tendency of the Irish provision is ingeniously
exemplified. To those who will not be satisfied without a practical
exemplification, we can only recommend patience; but we will say--Do not
in the mean time forget the cost and other deplorable evils of Irish
mendicancy.