Rebellion of 1798—The Union—Acts of the Imperial Parliament: respecting
dispensaries, hospitals, and infirmaries—Examination of bogs—Fever
hospitals—Officers of health—Lunatic asylums—Employment of the
poor—Deserted children—Report of 1804 respecting the poor—Dublin House
of Industry and Foundling Hospital—Reports of 1819 and 1823 on the
state of disease and condition of the labouring poor—Report of 1830 on
the state of the poorer classes—Report of the Committee on
Education—Mr. Secretary Stanley’s letter to the Duke of Leinster—Board
of National Education—First and second Reports of commissioners for
inquiring into the condition of the poorer classes—The author’s
‘Suggestions’—The commissioners’ third Report—Reasons for and against
a voluntary system of relief—Mr. Bicheno’s ‘Remarks on the
Evidence’—Mr. G. C. Lewis’s ‘Remarks on the Third Report.’
The commencement of the nineteenth century is memorable for the
legislative Union of Great Britain and Ireland. This measure, fraught
with such important benefits to both countries, was probably hastened by
what occurred in Ireland in 1798, when the partizans of democracy,
excited by the events of the French Revolution, and stimulated by French
emissaries and promises of support, broke out into open rebellion.
[Sidenote: 1798. Irish Rebellion.]The rebellion was however soon put
down, although not without the sacrifice of many of the ignorant
misguided people who had been led on to take a part in it; and the
speech from the throne at the opening of the session on the 20th of
November 1798, announced that “the French troops which had been landed
for its support were compelled to surrender, and that the armaments
destined for the same purpose were, by the vigilance and activity of our
squadrons, captured or dispersed.” On the 22nd of January following, a
royal message relative to a union with Ireland was delivered to
parliament, in which the king expressed his persuasion, that the
unremitting industry with which the enemy persevered in their avowed
design of effecting the separation of Ireland from this kingdom, cannot
fail to engage the particular attention of both houses, and he
recommended them to consider of the most effectual means of
counteracting and defeating such design.
[Sidenote: 1800.
Mr. Pitt’s speech on proposing the Union, January 22.]
In the debate which followed the delivery of the royal message, Mr. Pitt
observed—“Ireland is subject to great and deplorable evils, which have a
deep root, for they lie in the situation of the country itself—in the
present character manners and habits of its people—in their want of
intelligence—in the unavoidable separation between certain classes—in
the state of property—in its religious distinctions—in the rancour which
bigotry engenders and superstition rears and cherishes.” If such
circumstances combine to make a country wretched, the remedy ought, he
said, to be sought for in the institution of “an imperial legislature,
standing aloof from local party connexion, and sufficiently removed from
the influence of contending factions, to be the advocate or champion of
neither. A legislature which will neither give way to the haughty
pretensions of a few, nor open the door to popular inroads, to clamour,
or to invasion of all sacred forms and regularities, under the false and
imposing colours of philosophical improvement in the art of government.”
This, he said, “is the thing that is wanted in Ireland. Where is it to
be found?—in that country or in this?—certainly in England; and to
neglect to establish such a legislature when it is possible to do so,
would be (he declared) an improvidence which nothing could justify.”
Much of the evil which Ireland then laboured under arose, Mr. Pitt
considered, from the condition of the parliament of that country. “When
there are two independent parliaments in one empire,” he observed, “you
have no security for a continuance of their harmony and cordial
co-operation. We all have in our mouths a sentence that every good
Englishman and good Irishman feels—we must stand or fall together, we
should live and die together—but without such a measure as that which is
about to be proposed, there can be no security for the continuance of
that sentiment.” And he concluded a long and powerful address, by
saying, “I am bound to convey to this house every information which it
may be in my power to give; but however acceptable to the one or to the
other side of the house, however acceptable or otherwise to those whom I
respect on the other side the water, my sentiments upon this subject may
be, my duty compels me to speak them freely. I see the case so plainly,
and I feel it so strongly, that there is no circumstance of apparent or
probable difficulty, no apprehension of popularity, no fear of toil or
labour, that shall prevent me from using every exertion which remains in
my power to accomplish the work that is now before us, and on which I am
persuaded depend the internal tranquillity of Ireland, the interest of
the British empire at large, and I hope I may add, the happiness of a
great part of the habitable world.” The address in answer to the Royal
message was carried without a division.
[Sidenote: 1800.
Mr. Pitt’s speech on submitting resolutions for the Union.]
On the 31st of January following, Mr. Pitt submitted to the house of
commons certain resolutions declaratory of the principles on which it
was proposed to establish the union between the two countries, and
explained most fully the various circumstances connected with the
measure. It was not merely in a general view, he said, that the question
ought to be considered—“We ought to look to it with a view peculiarly to
the permanent interest and security of Ireland. When that country was
threatened with the double danger of hostile attacks by enemies without,
and of treason within, from what quarter did she derive the means of her
deliverance?—From the naval force of Great Britain—from the voluntary
exertions of her military of every description, not called for by
law—and from her pecuniary resources—added to the loyalty and energy of
the inhabitants of Ireland itself, of which it is impossible to speak
with too much praise, and which shows how well they deserve to be called
the brethren of Britons.” Great Britain has, he observed, always felt a
common interest in the safety of Ireland; “but the common interest was
never so obvious and urgent as when the common enemy made her attack
upon Great Britain through the medium of Ireland, and when their attack
upon Ireland went to deprive her of her connexion with Great Britain,
and to substitute in its stead the new government of the French
Republic. When that danger threatened Ireland, the purse of Great
Britain was as open for the wants of Ireland as for the necessities of
England.”
Among the great defects of Ireland, Mr. Pitt remarked, “one of the most
prominent is its want of industry and capital—How are those wants to be
supplied, but by blending more closely with Ireland the industry and the
capital of this country?”—The advantages which Ireland will derive from
the proposed arrangement are, he said, “the protection she will secure
to herself in the hour of danger, the most effectual means of increasing
her commerce and improving her agriculture, the command of English
capital, the infusion of English manners and English industry
necessarily tending to ameliorate her condition, to accelerate the
progress of internal civilization, and to terminate the feuds and
dissensions which now distract the country, and which she does not
possess within herself the power either to control or to extinguish.”
And he added, “while I state thus strongly the commercial advantages to
the sister kingdom, I have no alarm lest I should excite any sentiment
of jealousy here. I know that the inhabitants of Great Britain wish well
to the prosperity of Ireland; that if the kingdoms are really and
solidly united, they feel that to increase the commercial wealth of one
country, is not to diminish that of the other, but to increase the
strength and power of both.” He then cited the example of the union with
Scotland—“a union as much opposed, and by much the same arguments
prejudices and misconceptions, as are urged at this moment; creating too
the same alarms, and provoking the same outrages as have lately taken
place in Dublin.” Yet the population of Edinburgh is said to have nearly
doubled since the Union, a new city being added to the old; whilst the
population of Glasgow since the Union, has increased in the proportion
of between five and six to one. The division in favour of the measure
was 140 to 15.
On the 2nd of April 1800 Mr. Pitt presented a message from the king,
expressing his Majesty’s satisfaction at being enabled to communicate to
the house, the joint address of the lords and commons of Ireland,
containing the terms proposed by them for an entire union between the
two kingdoms; and he earnestly recommends the house to take all such
further steps as may best tend to the speedy and complete execution of a
work so happily begun, and so interesting to the security and happiness
of his subjects, and to the general strength and prosperity of the
British empire. The session terminated on the 29th of July, when the
king in his speech from the throne congratulated both houses on the
success of the steps taken for effecting the union of Great Britain and
Ireland, emphatically adding—“This great measure on which my wishes have
been long earnestly bent, I shall ever consider as the happiest event of
my reign, being persuaded that nothing could so effectually contribute
to extend to my Irish subjects, the full participation of the blessings
derived from the British constitution, and to establish on the most
solid foundation the strength prosperity and power of the whole
empire.”[28]
-----
[28]
See British Statute _39th and 40th Geo. 3rd, c. 67_, and Irish Statute
_40th Geo. 3rd, c. 38_.
-----
It would seem impossible, having regard to the circumstances of the
times, to doubt the necessity for such a union as was thus established,
and perhaps equally impossible to doubt or over-estimate the benefits it
was calculated to confer. But as in the case of Scotland a century
previous, the Union was now denounced as an act of injustice and
degradation to Ireland, although it is difficult to see how the
combining of the two countries under one united government and common
designation, thus adding to the security and general importance of both,
could be an injustice or degradation to either. The author is able to
remember the circumstances of that period, the alarms, the forebodings
of evil, the fervid declamations of popular patriots, who regardless of
the benefits that would ensue to their country, could only be induced to
acquiesce in the measure by some immediate benefit accruing to
themselves. The Union has indeed continued down even to the present day,
to be declaimed against as a grievance by certain parties in Ireland,
whenever for factious or sectarian objects it suited their purpose to do
so; and the blending and amalgamation of the two peoples which was hoped
for, and which was foretold and relied upon as a certain consequence of
the Union by its great promoter, has therefore been less entire than it
otherwise would have been. Notwithstanding this drawback however, the
material resources of Ireland have vastly increased, and its general
condition been in all respects greatly improved, since it has by the
Union become an integral portion of the British empire.
[Sidenote: 1801.
First parliament of “The United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland.”]
The first parliament of “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland,” assembled on the 22nd of January 1801, when the king, in his
opening speech, declared his confidence “that their deliberations will
be uniformly directed to the great object of improving the benefits of
that happy union, which by the blessing of Providence, has now been
effected, and of promoting to the utmost the prosperity of every part of
his dominions.”
There were certain Acts passed subsequent to the Union which it will be
requisite to notice, as they exhibit the views of the now united
parliament in regard to Ireland and the relief of the Irish poor, and
form also a necessary introduction to the more important measure which
followed in 1838.
[Sidenote: 1801.
41 Geo. III. cap. 73.]
The first of these Acts is _The 41st George 3rd, cap. 73_, which directs
the application of certain sums of money granted by parliament to the
Dublin Society and the farming societies in Ireland—namely any sum not
exceeding 4,500_l._ Irish currency to the Dublin Society, to be applied
towards completing their repository in Hawkins Street, and the botanic
garden at Glassnevin; and any sum not exceeding 2,000_l._ Irish
currency, to be applied in promoting the purposes of the farming
societies in Ireland for the current year. The Irish Society is an
institution founded for the purpose of promoting improvements generally,
and the farming societies are exceedingly valuable as promoting
agricultural improvements in particular. The imperial parliament could
hardly therefore have better shown its desire for the improvement of
Ireland, than by thus so immediately after it assembled giving its aid
and high sanction to these two societies.
[Sidenote: 1805.
45 Geo. III. cap. 111. Dispensaries.]
After referring to the Irish Acts which provide for the establishment of
infirmaries and hospitals, _The 45th Geo. 3rd, cap. 111_, recites—“and
whereas the distance of many parts of each county from the infirmary
therein established, does not allow the poor of those parts the
advantages of immediate medical aid and advice which such infirmary was
proposed to afford”—it is then enacted, that in all cases where the
governors of the county infirmary shall certify to the grand jury of the
county, that they have actually received from private subscription or
donation any sum since the preceding assize, for the purpose of
establishing in any place a dispensary for furnishing medicine, and
giving medical aid and relief to the poor therein—the grand jury are
empowered to raise from the county at large a sum equal in amount to the
sum or sums so received, to be applied by the said governors, together
with the moneys so received, in providing medicines and medical or
surgical aid and advice for the poor of such place and its
neighbourhood, in such manner as the said governors shall deem most
advisable. Every person subscribing not less than one guinea towards the
establishment or maintenance of any local dispensary, or towards the
county hospital or infirmary, is entitled to be a member of the body
corporate thereof, “so far as relates to the management of and direction
of such local dispensary.” The dispensaries are perhaps the most
extensively useful of all the medical institutions in Ireland, and this
Act providing for their establishment, cannot therefore fail of being
considered as of great importance, more especially as regards the rural
population residing at a distance from towns, and who are consequently
deprived of access to hospitals or infirmaries.
[Sidenote: 1806.
46 Geo. III. cap. 95. Hospitals and infirmaries.]
The _46th Geo. 3rd, cap. 95_, is entitled—‘An Act for the more
effectually regulating and providing for the Relief of the Poor and the
Management of Infirmaries and Hospitals.’ It refers to the _11th and
12th Geo. 3rd, cap. 30_, of the Irish parliament,[29] and directs—that
in case it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the judge at
the summer assize in any county, that the corporation instituted under
that Act is properly conducted, and that on comparison of the expense
incurred in the former year, it is expedient that a greater sum should
be presented and levied, or that it is expedient to provide for the
expense of building the house of industry—the grand jury in the county
of a city or town may present and levy a sum not less in the whole than
400_l._, nor more than 500_l._, and in any county at large a sum not
less than 500_l._, nor more than 700_l._, to be applied to the purposes
directed by the said Act. The limits of such presentments are thus we
see greatly enlarged from what was prescribed by the Act of 1772; but
the entire amount permitted to be raised by assessment is still small,
showing that voluntary contribution was still chiefly relied upon. All
infirmaries and hospitals are moreover now required to make out returns
annually, showing in detail the amount of their funds and their
expenditure, and the lord lieutenant may order an examination of their
state and condition. By an Act in the following year another sum of
100_l._ was allowed to be presented for a fever hospital, “whenever one
had been established.”
-----
[29]
Ante, p. 51.
-----
[Sidenote: 1809.
49 Geo. III. cap. 101.
Irish bogs.]
‘An Act to appoint Commissioners for two years, to examine into the
nature and extent of the several Bogs in Ireland &c.,’ was passed in
1809, commencing with this recital—“whereas there are large tracts of
undrained bog in Ireland, the draining whereof is necessary for their
being brought into a state of tillage; and whereas the adding their
contents to the lands already under cultivation, would not only increase
the agriculture of Ireland, but is highly expedient towards promoting a
secure supply of flax and hemp within the United Kingdom for the use of
the navy, and support of the linen manufacture”—it is therefore enacted
that the lord lieutenant may appoint not exceeding nine persons, to be
commissioners for ascertaining the extent of such bogs as exceed 500
acres, and for inquiring into the practicability and best modes of
draining the same, and the expense of so doing,—also as to the depth of
bog soil, the nature of the strata underneath, the nature and distance
of the manure best fitted for their improvement &c.—“together with the
opinion of the said commissioners as to such measures as they shall deem
necessary or expedient for carrying into speedy effect the drainage
cultivation and improvement of all such bogs, and the future increase of
timber in Ireland, by providing for the plantation and preservation of
trees in such parts thereof as shall be best fitted for the purpose;”
and it is further enacted that the commissioners shall act without a
salary.
This inquiry could hardly fail to prove useful, by directing attention
to a subject of very great importance, both in a general and a local
point of view: but in this, as in most other instances, the result fell
short of what was anticipated. The appointing of such a commission
however, evidenced a strong desire on the part of the imperial
legislature for the amelioration of Ireland. The term of the commission
was afterwards extended for another two years by the _51st George 3rd,
cap. 122_; and four elaborate Reports, the 1st in June 1810, and the
last in April 1814, accompanied by a large mass of evidence on all
matters connected with the subject, are proofs of the commissioners’
zeal and industry in discharging the duties assigned them. The subject
was moreover again reported upon by a special committee in 1819, and
valuable evidence was taken in reference to it, in connexion with the
employment of the poor.
[Sidenote: 1814-18.
54 Geo. III. cap. 112, and 58 Geo. III. cap. 47.
Fever hospitals.]
The _54th George 3rd, cap. 112_—provides—“that whenever any fever
hospital has been or shall be established in any county, or county of a
city or town, it shall be lawful for the grand jury at the spring or
summer assize to present such sum or sums of money, not exceeding
250_l._, as shall appear to be necessary for the support of such fever
hospital, to be raised off the county at large, or the county of a city
or town as the case may be;” and four years afterwards another Act on
the same subject was passed (_The 58th George 3rd, cap. 47_)
entitled—‘An Act to establish Fever Hospitals, and make other
regulations for relief of the suffering Poor, and for preventing the
increase of Fevers in Ireland,’ commencing with this preamble—“Whereas
fevers of an infectious nature have for some time past greatly prevailed
among the poor in several parts of Ireland, whereby the health of the
whole country has been endangered, and it is expedient that hospitals
should be established for the relief of the sufferers in such cases, and
that regulations should be made to prevent, as effectually as possible,
the increase of infection; and such good purposes are most likely to be
promoted by creating corporations in every county at large, and every
county of a city or town”—it is therefore enacted that such corporations
shall be created accordingly, to consist in counties of the bishop or
archbishop of the diocess, the representatives in parliament, and the
justices of peace for the county; and in the county of a city or town,
to consist of the chief magistrate, sheriffs, recorder, representatives
in parliament, and justices of peace, all for the time being, and also
donors of not less than 20_l._, or contributors of one guinea
annually—which corporation is to be called “The President and Assistants
of the Fever Hospital of ——,” and is to have perpetual succession &c.,
and to hold meetings and make by-laws &c., and purchase and hold lands
not exceeding 500_l._ yearly value, as they shall think fit.
The corporations are required to build or hire houses for hospitals for
relief of the poor who are ill of fever, in the several counties or
counties of cities or towns, “as soon as they shall be possessed of
funds sufficient for this purpose, as plain, as durable, and at as
moderate expense as may be.” The hospitals are to be divided into two
parts, one for poor helpless men, the other for poor helpless women, and
the corporations are to appoint masters, physicians, surgeons,
apothecaries, nurses, and other fit persons and servants to govern and
take care of such hospitals and the patients therein. Grand juries are
empowered to present sums, not exceeding double the amount of private
donations and subscriptions to fever hospitals, whether the same be
attached to any dispensary or not, and they may also present in like
proportion for local dispensaries; and whenever such presentments are
certified by the clerk of the crown, the lord lieutenant may order an
advance of money from the consolidated fund; and on the appearance of
fever in any town or district, he may also appoint a board of health,
with powers “to direct that all streets, lanes and courts, and all
houses and all rooms therein, and all yards gardens or places belonging
to such houses, shall be cleansed and purified, and that all nuisances
prejudicial to health shall be removed therefrom.”
[Sidenote: 1819.
59 Geo. III. cap. 41.
Officers of health to be appointed.]
The powers of this Act were extended in the following year by _The 59th
George 3rd, cap. 41_, which declares that—“it has become highly
expedient to provide for and secure constant attention to the health and
comforts of the inhabitants of Ireland,” and authorizes the appointment
of officers of health to carry the sanitary measures specified above
into effect. The increase of fever indicated by the passing of these
Acts, would seem to have been very marked about this time, and may
possibly have been in part owing to the rapid increase of the
population, and the consequent overcrowding in the dwellings of the
poorer classes. The practice of subdividing their land among all the
members of a family, may also have had some share in causing fevers, by
reducing the means and lowering the general standard of living, as well
in their dwellings as in their food clothing and ordinary mode of
subsistence.
[Sidenote: 1817.
57 Geo. III. cap. 106.
Lunatic asylums.]
_The 57th George 3rd, cap. 106_, commences by declaring it to be
“expedient, that the distressed state of the lunatic poor in Ireland
should be provided for;” and it empowers the lord lieutenant to direct,
that any number of asylums for the lunatic poor shall be established in
such districts as he shall deem expedient; “and that every such district
shall consist of the whole of two or more counties, or of one or more
county or counties, and one or more county or counties of cities or
towns, but shall not include part only of any county, or county of a
city or town;” and that all lunatic poor within any such district
respectively, shall be maintained and taken care of in the asylum
belonging thereto; and that every such asylum shall be sufficient to
contain such number of lunatic poor, not being less than 100, nor more
than 150 in any one asylum, as shall seem expedient to the lord
lieutenant. The grand juries respectively are to present such sum or
sums of money as shall be requisite for defraying the expenses of
erecting and establishing such asylums, and for maintaining the same, to
such amount and in such proportion as shall be directed by the lord
lieutenant; who is further empowered to appoint such persons as he shall
think fit, to be governors and directors of every such asylum, and also
to nominate any persons not exceeding eight to be commissioners for
superintending directing and regulating such asylums—“provided that all
such governors directors and commissioners shall act without salary fee
reward or emolument whatsoever.”
The necessity for attending to the state of the poor generally,
including the lunatic and insane poor, seems now to have been strongly
felt, and this feeling naturally led to the passing of the present Act.
Lunacy is said to be more prevalent in Ireland, than it is either in
England or Scotland, whilst the poverty of the people caused it to be
there, if possible, a greater affliction than elsewhere, and rendered
greater care necessary for the protection of its hapless victims.
[Sidenote: 1822.
3 George IV. caps. 3 and 84.
Distress and extension of relief.]
The year 1822 was a period of much distress in Ireland, and on the 24th
of May _The 3rd George 4th, cap. 3_, entitled ‘An Act for the employment
of the Poor’ was passed, empowering the lord lieutenant in certain cases
to order advances to be made from the public treasury, in anticipation
of but not exceeding the amount of grand-jury presentments actually
made. This does not however appear to have been sufficient to meet the
emergency, and on the 26th of July _The 3rd George 4th, cap. 84_, was
passed, the preamble declaring that—“Whereas by reason of the distress
that exists in many parts of Ireland, it is in many counties thereof
impossible without great severity and great mischief to the country to
levy and raise the sums heretofore presented by the grand juries of such
counties, and which ought by law to be levied and raised on or within
the said counties respectively; and whereas the roads and works and
other objects and purposes for which many of the said sums have been
presented, cannot be delayed without great injury to the persons
interested therein, and the commencement of such works, by employing the
poor, must tend to alleviate the existing distress”—it is therefore
enacted that certain advances which had been provisionally made by the
lord lieutenant should be confirmed, and that he may further order
advances for public works to be applied according to such directions as
he shall give in connexion therewith; and the respective grand juries on
being certified of the sums so advanced, are to present the same, to be
raised by not less than four nor more than twelve half-yearly
instalments, according to the state of the country. Such advances are
therefore loans at longer or shorter periods, for road-making or other
public works, as a means of relieving the distress of the people, there
being then no other source whence relief could be derived.
[Sidenote: 1825.
6 George IV. cap. 102.
Deserted children.]
In 1825 an Act was passed ‘to amend the Laws respecting Deserted
Children in Ireland.’ After referring to previous Acts, which provide
that the sum of 5_l._ sterling shall be leviable on any parish for the
support of each deserted child found therein, it proceeds—“and whereas
the sum of 5_l._ is now required to be paid previous to the reception of
any such deserted child into the General Foundling Hospital of Dublin,
transmitted from any such parish; and whereas no fund at present exists
either to pay the expense of maintaining such deserted children in the
parishes wherein found, or of transmitting them to the city of
Dublin”—It is therefore enacted that it shall henceforward be lawful
“for the several parishes in Ireland to raise and levy such additional
sum as may be necessary for maintaining such deserted children as shall
be found therein, until such children shall be admitted into the
foundling hospital aforesaid, and for transmitting such children
thither.” But it is further provided that no greater sum than fifty
shillings shall be raised in any one year for the support of any such
deserted child, or for its transmission to the foundling hospital in
Dublin. The city and liberties of Cork are exempted from the provisions
of the Act, which is limited to two years. It will not fail to be
observed that this Act gives a legislative sanction to the rating of a
parish for the relief of a destitute class “found therein,” and so far
may be said to amount to a species of poor-law.
The foregoing are the only Acts requiring to be noticed, between the
period of the Union and the passing of the Irish Poor Relief Act in
1838. They show the feeling of the legislature with regard to the state
of Ireland, and seem to point to further measures as being necessary for
amending its social defects. But in the interval there were moreover
several commissions appointed by the crown, and several committees of
parliament, whose reports contain much valuable information as to the
state of the country and the condition of the people at the respective
periods; and some of the more prominent of these we will now proceed to
notice.
[Sidenote: 1804.
Report of committee of house of commons
respecting the poor in Ireland.]
In 1804 a Report was made to the house of commons by a committee which
had been specially appointed to make inquiry “respecting the Poor in
Ireland.” The committee, after considering the several statutes, and
examining such evidence as was laid before them, came to the
resolution—“that the adoption of a general system of provision for the
poor of Ireland, by way of parish rate, as in England, or in any similar
manner, would be highly injurious to the country, and would not produce
any real or permanent advantage, even to the lower class of people who
must be the objects of such support.” The committee further resolved,
“that the Acts directing the establishment of a house of industry in
every county and county of a city or town, have not been complied with,
nor any presentment made by grand juries to assist in the support of
such establishments for relief of the aged and infirm poor, and the
punishment of vagrants and sturdy beggars, except in the counties of
Cork, Waterford, Limerick, and Clare, and in the cities of Cork,
Waterford, and Limerick.” But the committee remark, that the house of
industry in Dublin is open to the admission of the poor from all parts
of Ireland, which may have induced the other counties and cities to
consider it sufficient, “and precluded the necessity of their making
further provision for the poor.” The futility of this excuse must be
sufficiently apparent, and coupled with the resolution against any
systematic provision for the relief of the poor “by way of parish rate,”
shows the kind of feeling which prevailed at the time in parliament on
the subject. It appeared to the committee however, that the Acts
directing the establishment of infirmaries or county hospitals, and
granting a certain allowance from the Treasury for the salary to the
surgeon or physician attending thereon, “have been carried into effect
in almost all the counties;” whilst the provisions of the _57th George
3rd_[30] “empowering grand juries to present the sums necessary for
support of a ward for idiots and insane persons have not been complied
with; and the committee consider that there is a great want of
accommodation for idiotic and lunatic persons, and recommend the
establishment of an asylum in each of the four provinces, to be erected
and maintained either by grand-jury presentment or otherwise as may
thereafter be determined.” The very important objects which had been
referred to the committee require however, they say, more deliberation
than the advanced period of the session permitted, and they therefore
recommend that the investigation should be resumed in the ensuing
session; but it does not appear that this was done, although the Acts
passed in the two following years with regard to dispensaries
infirmaries and hospitals, may very possibly have had their origin in
the inquiries instituted by this committee.
-----
[30]
Ante, p. 79.
-----
[Sidenote: Dublin house of industry.]
The notice taken of the Dublin house of industry in the above Report, as
well as the real importance of the institution, renders some account of
it here necessary. The house of industry was established in 1772, by the
_11th and 12th George 3rd, cap. 11_,[31] under the provisions of which
Act it was separated from the foundling hospital, of which it had before
formed a part; and was thenceforward applied to the maintenance of such
helpless men and helpless women as from age and infirmity were deemed
fitting objects for admission, for the confinement of men who were
committed as vagabonds or sturdy beggars, and for the punishment of such
idle strolling and disorderly women as the magistrates might commit
thither. Considerable additions were made to the building, and after a
time some changes and modifications took place in the management, which
ultimately led to the house of industry being used for the reception of
poor aged and infirm men and women, idiots and incurable lunatics
removed from the Richmond Lunatic Asylum, the sick poor and persons
labouring under acute chronic and surgical complaints, for whom
appropriate hospitals had been provided, and lastly strolling beggars
thither committed by the magistrates of police. From the year 1773 to
1776 inclusive, the house of industry was supported by subscriptions,
donations, and charity sermons, and afterwards by annual parliamentary
grants, voluntary contributions, the profits (so called) arising from
the labour of the poor, and a small sum of interest accruing on certain
legacies. The voluntary contributions became less after aid was obtained
from parliament, and as might be expected, soon ceased altogether. In
1776 the parliamentary grant to the institution was 3,000_l._—In 1786 it
was 8,600_l._—In 1796 it was 14,500_l._—In 1806 it was 22,177_l._—In
1814 it was 49,113_l._—In 1820 it was 26,474_l._, and in 1827 it was
23,000_l._[32] At first the house of industry was managed and governed
by the corporation for the relief of the poor in the county of the city
of Dublin, under the provisions of the Act of 1772—afterwards by seven
persons balloted for and appointed “acting governors of the house of
industry,” in conformity with the _39th George 3rd, cap. 38_. In 1800
the number of governors was reduced to five, and in 1820 the management
was vested in a single governor, with a salary of 500_l._ a year. The
number of admissions in 1803 was 4,468, and the average number in the
house was 1,313. In 1807 the admissions were 5,900, and the average
number in the house was 1862. In this latter year 271 of the admissions
were by committal.
-----
[31]
Ante, p. 45.
[32]
The grants were made annually, and these years are selected as
indicating the average amount. The whole is abstracted from a return
made to parliament in 1828, and from Warburton Whitlaw and Walsh’s
History of Dublin, published in 1818.
-----
[Sidenote: Dublin Foundling Hospital.]
The foundling hospital originally formed part of the house of industry,
the joint establishments being founded in 1704 under _the 2nd Anne, cap.
19_.[33] They remained so united until 1772, when the objects of the two
institutions being deemed incompatible, they were as before stated
placed under separate and distinct government by _the 11th and 12th
George 3rd, cap. 11_.[33] The object of the institution is thenceforward
said to be “the preservation of the lives of deserted or exposed
infants, by their indiscriminate admission from all parts of
Ireland;[34] putting them out to nurse in the country until they are of
a proper age to be drafted into the hospital, and educating them there
in such manner as to qualify them for being apprenticed to trades, or as
servants, and thus rendering them useful members of society.”[35] Down
to 1823 the institution was supported partly by a house-tax levied on
the citizens of Dublin and its liberties and suburbs, amounting to
between 7,000_l._ and 8,000_l._ annually, and partly by parliamentary
grants, and the rent of a small property of 115_l._ per annum: but the
citizens of Dublin were then relieved from the house-tax, and the sum of
5_l._ was required to be paid with every child on its admission to the
hospital, by the overseers or the minister and churchwardens of the
parish whence the infant was sent, no child being admissible whose age
exceeded twelve months. The aggregate of these latter payments amounted
to about 2,000_l._ annually, and the annual grants by parliament varied
from 21,554_l._ in 1800, to 34,000_l._ in 1828. The number of admissions
was 2,041 in 1800, 2,168 in 1806, and 2,359 in 1811, at which time the
number of children remaining on the books of the institution was 6,498.
-----
[33]
Ante, pp. 35 and 45.
[34]
“Every child presented at the gate, or placed in the cradle, was
immediately received, and taken to the infant nursery by a person
appointed for that purpose.” See Warburton Whitlaw and Walsh’s History
of Dublin.
[35]
See Parliamentary Return No. 2, ordered to be printed 21st March 1828.
-----
[Sidenote: 1819.
Report on the state of disease, and the condition of the
labouring poor in Ireland.]
In 1819 a select committee of the commons of which Sir John Newport was
the chairman, was appointed to inquire into the state of disease, and
also into the condition of the labouring poor in Ireland; and a Report
on each of these subjects was presented to the house in course of the
session, of which Reports the following is an abstract.
[Sidenote: On the prevalence of fever.]
With regard to the first point, although it is said not to be “the most
essential or most difficult object of their investigation,” the
committee consider the prevalence of contagious fever in Ireland a
calamitous indication of general distress; and in order “to prevent the
migration through the country of numerous bodies of mendicant poor, who
pressed by want and seeking for relief, have fatally contributed to the
general diffusion of disease,” they recommend that magistrates,
churchwardens, or other appointed officers “be empowered to remove out
of their respective parishes any persons found begging or wandering as
vagabonds therein, or to confine such persons to hard labour for
twenty-four hours in any bridewell or other public place of confinement,
or to adopt both measures as the case may require; and also to cause the
persons and clothes of such vagabond beggars to be washed and cleansed
during the period of such confinement.” The committee consider that the
Act of last session (_58th George 3rd, cap. 47_)[36] “enacted under
circumstances of severe and calamitous visitation,” has on the whole
been productive of good, and they think it of infinite moment that there
should be a systematic local control established in all cities and great
towns for the removal of nuisances which generate and increase disease;
for which purpose they recommend that officers of health should be
annually elected by the householders in places containing above 1,000
inhabitants, with power to direct the cleansing of streets &c., the
removal of nuisances, the ventilation of houses, and the doing of all
things necessary for the health and preservation of the inhabitants; and
also that such country parishes as think proper may do the same, and
that the expenses incurred in performance of these duties should be
levied as a parish rate, and the expenditure accounted for as in the
case of other parochial assessments.
-----
[36]
Ante, p. 76.
-----
The committee then express their intention of proceeding, “in further
execution of their duty,” to inquire into the practicability of
ameliorating the condition of the labouring poor, “by facilitating the
application of the funds of private individuals and associations for
their employment in useful and productive labour,” by which alone the
entire and permanent removal of the malady can be expected, although it
is, they say, much mitigated in its severity, and more circumscribed in
its extent than heretofore. The disease still however, it is observed,
continues to press heavily on the community, and by “the united
testimonies of every competent inquirer is attributed to the want of
employment of the labouring classes, as a primary and powerfully
efficient cause.”
[Sidenote: 1819.
On the condition of the labouring poor.]
On the second head of inquiry, the condition, or in other words, the
employment of the labouring poor, the committee “find themselves in a
great measure controlled by the unquestionable principle that
legislative interference in the operations of human industry is as much
as possible to be avoided.” There are however, they say, certain
exceptions to such a rule, either when injurious impediments are to be
removed, or where any branch of industry cannot at its commencement be
carried on by individual exertion, on which occasions, it is considered,
parliament may with advantage interpose its aid. The existence of
general distress and the deficiency of employment were so notorious,
that the committee deemed it unnecessary to encumber their Report with
evidence on the subject. Their inquiries were particularly directed to
agriculture and the fisheries, as being the two most important
departments of labour, and as “those likewise to which the greatest
extension may be given without hazarding reaction.” They refer to the
Report of the Commissioners on the Bogs of Ireland, which they consider
“prove the immense amount of land easily reclaimable, and convertible to
the production of grain almost without limit for exportation”—whilst,
“the small extent to which the commissioners’ recommendations have been
acted upon, demonstrates lamentably that want of capital which in
Ireland unnerves all effort for improvement.” The institution of
commissioners of sewers, as in England, is then recommended, as is also
the draining of the great bogs and marshes, and the making a legal
provision for repayment of the necessary outlay. The formation of roads
in the mountainous districts is likewise recommended, those districts
not having, it is said, “their due share of the benefits of the
grand-jury system.”
The want of capital the committee consider is attributable to a variety
of causes. Capital, they justly remark, “can accumulate only out of the
savings of individuals; and in Ireland there are few persons who conduct
their operations on such a scale, as to admit of much surplus for
accumulation.” The manufacture which flourishes most is the linen-trade,
and this is said to be “spread abroad amongst a population which at the
same time cultivates the soil for their sustenance,” a state of things
incompatible with large savings. Whilst in agriculture, the tendency to
the subdivision of farms, and the practice of throwing the expense of
buildings and repairs on the tenants, prevent the accumulation of profit
in the hands of the farmers, and its application to agricultural
improvements. There are, it is said, two millions of acres of bog in
Ireland, capable when reclaimed of growing corn; and the mountain
districts comprise a million and half of acres at present nearly
unproductive, but about one-half of which is suitable for agriculture,
and the remainder for pasturage and planting. The reclamation and
improvement of these bogs and mountain districts would, the committee
observe, afford profitable employment to the people, and greatly
increase the productive powers of the country; but for this capital is
necessary, and in Ireland the capital is not to be found.
With regard to the fisheries, it is declared that “in whatever view they
can be considered, whether as a source of national wealth, as a means of
employing an overflowing population, or as a nursery of the best
seamen,” they are of the utmost importance; and the revision and
simplification of the fishery laws, and the direct application of
encouragement to the fishermen of the coast, whose actual condition is
said to be miserable, the committee consider essential to any successful
fishery in Ireland. The northern, western, and southern coasts, are said
to afford every advantage for a bay or coast fishery, and to be
admirably suited for a deep-sea cod-fishery of great importance; and
after noticing what had been done in Scotland, where an improved system
of fishery laws, and parliamentary encouragement wisely applied, had
been eminently successful, the committee earnestly recommend “on every
ground of policy as well as justice,” that the precedent of Scotland
should be applied to Ireland. The circumstances of the two countries are
declared to be remarkably similar, “both being mountainous and
uncultivated, and abounding with an unemployed population.”
On this last point, the committee remark—“It is almost impossible in
theory to estimate the mischiefs attendant on a redundant, a growing and
unemployed population, converting that which ought to be the strength
into the peril of the state.” It is obvious, they say, that the tendency
of such a population to general misery, and the boundless multiplication
of human beings satisfied with the lowest condition of existence, must
be rapid in proportion to the facility of procuring human sustenance;
and it is declared—“that such a population, excessive in proportion to
the market for labour, exists and is growing in Ireland, a fact that
demands the most serious attention of the legislature, and makes it not
merely a matter of humanity, but of state policy, to give every
reasonable encouragement to industry in that quarter of the empire.” The
non-residence of a great portion of the proprietors, and their spending
their incomes in England, is then adverted to, as being a circumstance
which “enhances the claim of Ireland on the generous consideration of
parliament.”
No one better knew the state of Ireland than the chairman of this
committee, the substance of whose Report is here given. We may therefore
rely upon the correctness of the statement, that there was then, twenty
years after the Union, a redundant, an increasing, and unemployed
population in Ireland, subsisting on food obtained with peculiar
facility, (the potato) and consequently “leading to the boundless
multiplication of human beings satisfied with the lowest condition of
existence.” Yet the land was fertile, the sea-coasts abounded in fish,
and the bogs and mountain districts solicited improvement. It will
probably be said that there must be something wrong in the character,
habits, or social position of a people, where such circumstances
existed. The Report points to want of capital, and the non-residence of
proprietors, as being the cause or causes of what was wrong; and no
doubt both circumstances may have been influential in the matter. But
capital we are told is the accumulation of savings, which are the fruits
of industry, which again is nourished and supported by its own progeny;
so that a want of industry may have lain at the root of the evil as
regards the mass of the population, whilst the proprietors through
absence, or want of sympathy with the other classes, probably failed in
their duty of originating and urging forward improvement. With the
proprietor class indeed, as with the others, the capital arising from
savings and applicable to objects of improvement, was of slender amount;
and the committee appear to rely more upon “the generous consideration
of parliament,” than upon native energy or resource, for supplying the
deficiencies and remedying the evils of which they complain.
[Sidenote: 1823.
Report on the condition of the labouring poor.]
In 1823 another select committee[37] was appointed “to inquire into the
condition of the labouring poor in Ireland, with a view to facilitate
the application of the funds of private individuals and associations for
their employment in useful and productive labour.” The committee made
their Report on the 16th of July, and after adverting to the course
pursued in the former inquiry of 1819, they state that during the last
year “a pressure of distress wholly unexampled was felt in Ireland,
which directed the attention of government, of parliament, and of the
British public, to the condition of the Irish peasantry, and led to the
appropriation of large sums voted by the legislature, and subscriptions
by individuals for the purpose of mitigating if not of averting, that
famine and disease which had extended to so alarming a degree in many
districts in Ireland.”[38]
-----
[37]
Mr. Spring Rice, now Lord Monteagle, was the chairman of this
committee.
[38]
Ante, p. 80.
-----
It appears that early in May of the preceding year, a public meeting was
held in the city of London to raise subscriptions for the relief of the
distress in Ireland, and a committee of gentlemen was appointed to
superintend the distribution of the money subscribed. Considerable
grants of public money were also made by parliament for the same
purpose. The committee state that the distressed districts comprised
one-half of the surface of Ireland, and there were grounds for believing
that considerably more than one-half of the entire population of these
districts depended upon charitable assistance for support. The sums
distributed through the city of London committee amounted to nearly
300,000_l._, which with the amount advanced by government furnished
means for continuing the relief until the month of August, when the
necessity for its further continuance seems to have ceased; and it is
satisfactory, the committee observe, to find that the most lively
feelings of gratitude have been excited by this benevolent
interposition, “which it is to be hoped will tend to unite the two parts
of the empire in the strong ties of sympathy and obligation.”
In the districts where the distress chiefly prevailed, the potato
constituted the principal food of the peasantry, and the potato crop had
failed; but there was no deficiency in the other crops, and the prices
of corn and oatmeal were moderate. Indeed the exports of grain from
ports within the distressed districts, was considerable during the
entire period of the distress: so that those districts, the committee
observe, “presented the remarkable example of possessing a surplus of
food, whilst the inhabitants were suffering from actual want.” The
calamity of 1822 may therefore be said to have proceeded less from want
of food in the country, than from the people’s want of the means to
purchase it, “or in other words, from their want of profitable
employment.” In some districts where the potato failed, but where the
population were engaged in the linen-trade, no individual so employed is
said to have had occasion for relief; and the committee come to the
conclusion that the late distress had chiefly arisen from the
circumstance that the peasantry depended for subsistence upon the food
raised by themselves. When the potato fails, they have not the means to
purchase other food, and the potato is not only uncertain as a crop but
it soon decays, so that the surplus of one year cannot be preserved to
supply the deficiency in another.
The agents of government, and of the London contributors, as well as the
local associations which had been formed, made a point on all occasions
as far as possible, of affording the necessary assistance in return for
labour; and the committee express their entire approbation of this
principle. “Relief purely gratuitous (they observe) can seldom in any
case be given without considerable risk and inconvenience; but in
Ireland, where it is more peculiarly important to discourage habits of
pauperism and indolence, and where it is the obvious policy to excite an
independent spirit of industry, and to induce the peasantry to rely upon
themselves and their own exertions for support, gratuitous relief can
never be given without leading to most mischievous consequences.” Any
system of relief, it is remarked, which leads the peasantry to depend
upon the interposition of others, rather than upon their own labour,
however benevolently it may be intended, cannot fail to repress the
spirit of independent exertion which is essentially necessary to the
improvement of the condition of the labouring classes.
The condition of the people in the districts to which the evidence
obtained by the committee chiefly applied, appears “to be wretched and
calamitous to the greatest degree.” A large portion of the peasantry in
those districts, are described as living in a state of the utmost
misery. Their cabins scarcely contain an article that can be called
furniture. In some families there are no such things as bedclothes, the
place of which is supplied by a little fern, and a quantity of straw
thrown over it, upon which they sleep in their working clothes. The
witnesses agreed in this description with regard to a large portion of
the peasantry, and they agreed also in attributing the existence of this
state of things to the want of employment. Yet the people are
represented as being willing to labour, and we are told that they quit
their homes at particular seasons in search of employment elsewhere,
whilst the inhabitants of the coasts bordering on the Atlantic, carry on
their backs the sand and seaweed many miles inland for the purpose of
manure.
The committee are of opinion that the rapid increase of the
population[39] is one immediate cause of the want of employment. The
demand for labour, they say, has not kept pace with the continually
increasing number of persons seeking employment. Another cause of the
want of employment, they consider, arises from the effect produced on
the gentry of the country by the fall of prices. The fixed payments to
which many of the landlords are subjected, whether in the shape of
head-rents or interest on incumbrances, bear a greater proportion to the
whole income than they did during the war, and consequently the balance
remaining in the hands of the resident gentry is diminished, a reduced
employment follows, labourers are discharged, and the distress of the
higher class is thus visited upon the lower.
-----
[39]
See table, ante pp. 11 and 12.
-----
The want of capital was however in most instances assigned as the
principal cause of the want of employment. This want was manifested in
the wretched description of implements commonly in use. The ploughs,
carts, harrows, were of the very rudest kind, and there appeared to be a
deficiency even of these. The same want of capital has, it is said, led
to the payment of wages, not in money, but by allowances in account, or
as a set-off against the landlord’s claims for rent, or presentments, or
some other object, which is not only a hardship to the labourer, but
tends to an increase of local burdens; and as it was “generally admitted
that if the wages of labour were paid in money, the labour would be more
cheaply purchased and more cheerfully and efficiently given,” the
committee express a hope “that a system of ready money payment may be
introduced, so far at least as the public works of the country are
concerned.”
The encouragement of the fisheries, the erection of piers, the formation
of harbours, and the opening of mountain roads, are all recommended, as
is also the instruction of the peasantry in agriculture, by combining
instruction in this branch, with the other instruction imparted in the
various educational establishments throughout the country. In
conclusion, the committee admit that danger attends all interferences
with industrial pursuits, which prosper best when left to their own
natural development; but they consider that the state of Ireland
constitutes it an exception to the general rule, and that the aid of
government in support of local effort is there absolutely necessary.
[Sidenote: 1830.
Report of select committee on the state of the poorer
classes in Ireland.]
At the end of seven years, another select committee of the commons was
appointed “to take into consideration the state of the poorer classes in
Ireland, and the best means of improving their condition,”[40] and their
very elaborate and comprehensive Report, (which was ordered to be
printed on the 16th of July,) will require to be especially considered.
-----
[40]
Mr. Spring Rice (now Lord Monteagle) was also the chairman of this
committee.
-----
The committee commence their Report by declaring that they entertain a
deep sense of the difficulty and importance of the question referred to
them, and that they have felt it their duty to make most minute
inquiries into the actual state and condition of the Irish poor,
considered in all points of view, moral, political, physical and
economical, in order to enable the house to form a correct opinion on
the entire subject. The Report is arranged under three principal
heads—1st, the state and condition of the poorer classes—2ndly, the laws
which affect the poor, and the charitable institutions—3rdly, the
remedial measures suggested; and each of these is again subdivided into
several minor headings. It is not intended to adhere to these divisions
in the following summary, but to select such portions only as
immediately bear upon our subject, and as are calculated to show what
was then the general state of the country and the condition of the
people.
[Sidenote: State of the country, and condition of the people.]
Regret is expressed by the committee at their being compelled to state
“that a very considerable portion of the population is considered to be
out of employment.” The number is, they say, estimated differently—by
some at one-fifth, by others at one-fourth; and this want of demand for
labour necessarily causes distress among the labouring classes, which
combined with the consequences of an altered system of managing land, is
said to produce “misery and suffering which no language can possibly
describe, and which it is necessary to witness in order fully to
estimate.” Yet the price of labour is not considered to have materially
fallen. By returns from the county treasurers, the rate of wages appears
to average 10_d._ per day on presentment works throughout Ireland, and
an extensive contractor thinks that there is a tendency in wages to
increase rather than otherwise, notwithstanding that the labourers can
now, he says, purchase for 6_s._, what would formerly have cost them
12_s._ These are seemingly contradictions, and there is much more of the
same kind of conflicting testimony given in the Report, which can only
be accounted for by the fact, that the several parts of Ireland differ
widely from each other, and that what is true in one case is not true in
another. This indeed appears to be the view taken by the committee, for
they say however consolatory the favourable testimony may be, it would
lead to a false inference were it to induce a disbelief in the existence
of very great distress and misery in Ireland. “The population and the
wealth of a country may (they observe) both increase, and increase
rapidly; but if the former proceeds in a greater ratio than the latter,
an increase of distress among the poor may be concurrent with an
augmentation of national wealth.” The state of the labouring classes
must, it is considered, mainly depend on the proportion existing between
the number of the people and the capital which can be profitably
employed in labour. Of the truth of these propositions, there can be no
reasonable doubt; neither can it well be doubted, that much of the
distress and misery which were seen in Ireland, was owing to a
disturbance of this proportion, the population having become greatly in
excess of the capital necessary for and applicable to profitable
employment.
The committee consider that it would be impossible to form a correct
estimate of the condition of the poorer classes in Ireland, without
first ascertaining the nature of the relations which existed between
landlord and tenant,—“the connexion between the inheritor and the
occupier of the soil being one which must influence if not control the
whole system of society.” Great attention is accordingly bestowed on
this part of the subject, and much evidence was taken in reference to
it.
Under the excitement of war prices, it is observed, agriculture advanced
with extreme rapidity. The demand for labour increased, and the
population augmented in proportion. Land rose in value from year to
year, and lessees realised large profit rents by subletting, one or more
persons being frequently interposed between the owner and the occupier
who was ultimately liable for the rent, both to the head landlord and
the intermediate tenants. It became the practice in most cases, we are
told, for the occupying tenant either to sublet, or to divide the land
among the members of his family—in the former case a class of middlemen
was created, which operated as a bar to improvement, and led to the
paying or to the promise of paying higher rents—in the latter case the
practice of subdividing led to consequences perhaps still more
mischievous. When the farmer of 40 acres subdivided the land among his
children, those children were led to do the same among theirs, until the
farm of 40 acres was cut up into holdings of one two or three acres,
each holding occupied by its particular owner, and yielding no more than
was barely sufficient for his subsistence. “Now if the tenant of 40
acres had been prevented from subdividing his land, he would,” as is
observed by one of the witnesses,[41] “have provided for his children by
sending them one into the army, another into the navy, and then left his
holding to a third, and thus the farm would have been continued in its
first state.” The cultivation of the land so subdivided and cut up is
moreover always of the very worst description. The crops are uncertain,
the liabilities to scarcity greater, the cabins are most miserable, and
the visitations of fever are more frequent. The soil itself becomes
deteriorated by bad tillage, and not a bush nor a tree is left standing;
whilst the ease with which a cabin is reared, and the meal of potatoes
provided, induces early marriages, and the land teems with an excessive
population.
-----
[41]
Dr. Doyle, the Roman catholic Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, whose
evidence is entitled to the utmost consideration on this and every
other question connected with the state of Ireland.
-----
The above is not an overdrawn description of the consequences of
subdividing land, but a change in management is said to have taken place
soon after the peace, when the decline in the price of agricultural
produce disabled many of the middlemen as well as the occupying tenants
from paying their rents, and created much anxiety and alarm in the minds
of the landlords. An apprehension was moreover, we are told, generally
felt that a pauper population would go on increasing, and the value of
the land at the same time go on diminishing, until the entire produce
would become insufficient to maintain the people. The proprietors sought
to devise a remedy for this state of things, so as to prevent the
occurrence of such an evil; and Dr. Doyle stated in his evidence, that
they did apply remedies, the principle of which he fully approved; but
he added “that he thought, and still thinks, that those remedies ought
to have been accompanied by some provision for the poor.”
The remedy or change in management here adverted to was the
consolidating of farms, which it is said would lead to better husbandry,
to a greater certainty of crop, to the providing farm-buildings and more
comfortable habitations, and to an increase in the quantity and
improvement in the quality of the produce. These are all important
considerations, and if the landlords and the tenants who continued in
possession were alone to be regarded, the change would appear an unmixed
good. But there is another class, the ejected tenants, whose condition,
it is said, necessarily becomes most deplorable. “It would be impossible
for language to convey an idea of the state of distress to which the
ejected tenantry have been reduced, or of the disease, misery, and even
vice, which they have propagated in the towns wherein they have settled;
so that not only they who have been ejected have been rendered
miserable, but they have carried with them and propagated that misery.”
Such is the testimony of Dr. Doyle on this point, and although the
committee express a hope that it may be regarded as descriptive of an
extreme case, they yet have no doubt “that in making the change, in
itself important and salutary, a most fearful extent of suffering must
have been produced.” The change was however, they say, unavoidable, and
delay would have increased and aggravated the evil which followed in its
train. Various suggestions were made with a view to carry the country
through the period of change, and the severe trials by which it must be
attended—“Emigration, the improvement of bogs and waste lands; the
embankment and drainage of marsh lands; the prosecution of public works
on a large scale; the education of the people not only in elementary
knowledge, but in habits of industry; the encouragement of manufactures;
the extension of the fisheries; and lastly, the introduction of a system
of poor-laws, either on the English or Scotch principles, or so modified
as to be adapted to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland,” were all
recommended, and on each of these questions, the committee say, valuable
evidence had been taken and would be submitted to the house.
[Sidenote: Vagrancy.]
On the subject of vagrancy, after referring to the old laws against it
which had fallen into desuetude, and which are recommended to be
repealed, the committee quote _the 6th Anne, cap. 11_,[42] under which
(as amended by the _9th George 2nd, cap. 6_) idle vagrants, or pretended
Irish gentlemen, who will not work &c., may on the presentment of a
grand jury be apprehended and transported for seven years. They likewise
quote _The 11th and 12th George 3rd, cap. 30_,[43] for establishing
houses of industry, and these statutes are said to be in full force. A
table is also given, showing that on an average of eight years the
number of commitments under the first-named statutes was 160 annually;
and the committee observe, that “although it is necessary to continue
penalties against vagrancy,” they “cannot but think that a more
constitutional and efficient system may be adopted, than one which
allows the penalty of transportation to be inflicted upon the mere
presentment of a grand jury, and this, not for an offence defined with
precision, but under contingencies extremely vague and uncertain.” In
the opinion thus expressed by the committee, every one must concur.
-----
[42]
Ante, p. 38.
-----
[43]
Ante, p. 51.
-----
With regard to the county infirmaries, of which [Sidenote: County
infirmaries.]there were thirty-one,[44] the committee, after referring
to the several Acts under which they were established,[45] state that
during the last year relief had been given to 7,729 intern patients,
besides other medical assistance; and that the entire incomes amounted
to 54,693_l._, the whole derived from local subscriptions and grand-jury
presentments, excepting 3,000_l._ (Irish currency) furnished by
government. The committee recommend that the several statutes should be
consolidated, and that the grand juries should be enabled to provide
more than one infirmary in the larger counties, and that their
presenting powers should be extended in order to guard against
insufficiency in any case. An efficient audit of the accounts, and a
duly authenticated Report half-yearly of all particulars connected with
the hospitals, together with a regular inspection by the grand juries,
are likewise recommended; and with these alterations, the committee are
of opinion that “the county infirmaries of Ireland may be considered as
adequate to the purposes for which they were intended.” There does not
however, it is added, appear to be any reason for continuing the
government grant of 3,000_l._ Aid from the public purse should, it is
said, be reserved exclusively for loans and advances, “and for cases in
which local funds are inadequate to the immediate discharge of a
necessary duty.”
-----
[44]
There was an infirmary in every county excepting Waterford, where the
peculiar provisions of a local Act had prevented one being erected.
[45]
Namely 5th George 3rd, cap. 20; 45th George 3rd, cap. 111; and 47th
George 3rd, cap. 50.
-----
[Sidenote: Fever hospitals and dispensaries.]
The subject of fever and fever hospitals is next adverted to by the
committee. “From the occasional failure of the potato crop, and the
misery which then invariably ensues, the poor of Ireland are (it is
said) peculiarly liable to fever, which has at various times spread with
such violence, and to such an extent, as to require extraordinary aid,
not only from private charity and local assessment, but from the public
purse.” Dublin had suffered most severely from this calamity, upwards of
60,000 persons having in one year passed through the fever hospitals of
that city. In 1817 fever extensively prevailed in Ireland, and a board
of health was constituted whose Report to government showed “that on a
moderate calculation a million and a half of persons suffered from
fever, of which number at least 65,000 had died.” By _the 58th George
3rd, cap. 47_,[46] additional facilities were given for establishing
fever hospitals, and provision was made for the appointment of local
boards of health. By _the 59th George 3rd, cap. 41_, effect was given to
the recommendations of the select committee of 1819,[47] and under these
statutes fever hospitals have been established in most parts of Ireland.
No county is said to be without one in Munster, and the county of Cork
has four, and Tipperary eight; but many counties in the provinces of
Ulster and Connaught have omitted to provide fever hospitals, and the
committee consider that if the grand juries persist in such omission,
the providing of them should be made compulsory. With respect to
dispensaries for the medical relief of the sick poor, these were
sanctioned by _the 45th George 3rd, cap. 111_,[48] under which Act
nearly 400 are said to have been established, “affording relief annually
to upwards of half a million of persons.” But some doubts appear to have
arisen as to whether the presentments for their support were optional or
otherwise, and the committee recommend that such doubts should be
removed by making the presentment imperative, as was apparently the
intention of the framers of the statute; and for security against abuse,
it is also recommended that a Report of all matters connected with the
dispensary, should in each case be annually submitted to the grand jury
making the presentment.
-----
[46]
Ante, p. 77.
[47]
Ante, pp. 78 and 86.
[48]
Ante, p. 73. The chapter is by mistake stated in the Report to be 91.
-----
[Sidenote: Lunatic asylums.]
The provision for the lunatic poor is said to have been for a long time
very defective in Ireland. A hospital attached to the house of industry
in Dublin, a large asylum at Cork, and cells connected with some of the
county infirmaries, were all that existed for the safe custody and
proper treatment of the insane poor. In 1810 a grant was made for the
establishment of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum, with accommodation for 200
patients. In 1817 the subject was inquired into by a select
committee,[49] in accordance with whose recommendation _the 57th George
3rd, cap. 106_,[50] was passed, empowering the lord lieutenant to fix
certain districts within which lunatic asylums should be erected, the
cost in the first instance to be advanced by government, but to be
ultimately repaid by local presentments, from which also the maintenance
of the asylums is to be derived. “When these institutions are completed,
which is easily practicable within three years, every county in Ireland
will be provided with receptacles for their lunatic poor; and if these
shall not be found sufficient for incurable as well as curable cases, a
ward or two may be attached to each at a moderate expense, and the
exigency may be thus completely provided for.” This quotation is given
from the inspector’s Report to the Irish government on the subject in
1830, and the committee express their satisfaction, that as regards “one
of the most painful afflictions to which humanity is exposed, there has
been provided within a few years, a system of relief for the Irish poor
as extensive as can be wished, and as perfect and effectual as is to be
found in any other country.” Still however the cases of idiots and
incurable lunatics are not separately provided for; and the committee
consider it important that curable and incurable cases should be kept
distinct, and that space should not be appropriated to the safe custody
of incurables, which would be more usefully employed in the treatment of
cases where there was a probability of recovery. Every lunatic
establishment in Ireland, whether public or private, is subject to the
visitation of the inspectors of prisons, who report regularly upon the
condition and management of these institutions.
-----
[49]
Of this committee Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald was chairman.
[50]
Ante, p. 79.
-----
After referring to the _11th and 12th Geo. 3rd, cap. 30_, the _46th Geo.
3rd, cap. 95_, and the _58th Geo. 3rd, cap. 47_,[51] [Sidenote: Houses
of industry.] the Acts under which houses of industry are established
and regulated, the committee state that the number of these institutions
in Ireland does not exceed twelve “including the great establishment
bearing that name in Dublin, which is supported exclusively by votes of
parliament.” There are eight in Munster, and three in Leinster, but none
either in Ulster or Connaught. A proposition is said to have been made
for extending houses of industry generally throughout the country, and
for rendering their erection and support compulsory. But the committee
are of opinion that “establishments of this description combining the
two distinct purposes of punishment and relief, are not likely to be
useful either as prisons or hospitals.” They think that coercion is more
likely to be effective when applied in houses of correction, than when
applied in asylums intended for old age infirmity and destitution. They
also think that the criminal ought to be separated from the distressed
poor, and that these asylums should be reserved for particular
descriptions of the latter class only—or in the words of Dr. Chalmers,
for “cases of hopeless and irrecoverable disease, and all cases of
misery the relief of which has no tendency to increase the number of
cases requiring relief.” To the poor who suffer from loss of sight or
limbs, and the deaf and dumb, the house of industry judiciously managed,
would they say “afford a suitable place of refuge.” Such are the views
of the committee with regard to houses of industry, and they do not
materially differ from what prevailed in England a century previous with
regard to the almshouses or old parish poorhouses then so common.
-----
[51]
Ante, pp. 51, 74, and 77.
-----
[Sidenote: Voluntary charities.]
The number of voluntary charities in Ireland maintained by private
benevolence, independently of any contribution from general or local
taxation, said to be very great, and they are stated to be most
liberally supported. “Among them will be found schools, hospitals,
Magdalen asylums, houses of refuge, orphan establishments, lying-in
hospitals, societies for relief of the sick and indigent, mendicity
associations, and charitable loans.” Yet notwithstanding the existence
of these multifarious institutions, and the active exercise of private
benevolence, and the frequent collections by the clergy of all
persuasions,[52] “the committee have not the satisfaction to hope that
more is accomplished than the mitigation of distress.” Societies for the
suppression of mendicity have it is said been formed in many parts of
Ireland, on a plan similar to those established in London, Bath, and
other places in England. In Dublin the income of the Mendicity Society
amounts to 7,000_l._, and the committee are informed “that although the
voluntary contributions are scarcely sufficient to maintain the
establishment, still on the whole, supporting the poor as they do, they
have enough.” When the funds are very low, a threat is held out either
of applying to parliament for a power of compulsory assessment, or else
that the poor people supported by the society will be discharged into
the streets, “and by these means additional subscriptions are called
in.” Institutions of this kind, supported by private contributions, are
said to be complained of as casting an unfair and unequal burden upon
the benevolent, and it has been suggested that they should be supported
or at least aided by local assessment: but this suggestion, the
committee observe, involves the entire principle of a poor-law, a
question on which at that advanced period of the session they are not
prepared to enter. They however recommend it as a subject for future
consideration and inquiry.
-----
[52]
Dr. Doyle in his evidence before the committee, stated that the poor
were almost exclusively supported by the middle classes; and that
“although these form a class not over numerous, and subject to great
pressure, still of the million and a half or two millions now expended
to support the Irish poor, nearly the entire falls upon the farmers
and the other industrious classes.”
-----
[Sidenote: Emigration.]
With regard to emigration, although in some districts “there exists a
population exceeding that for whose labour there is a profitable
demand,” the committee nevertheless consider emigration to the full as
much an imperial as a provincial question. The cause of the great influx
of Irish labourers into Great Britain is, they say, the higher rate of
wages which prevails there, and emigration from Ireland would “diminish
that inducement, and lessen the number of Irish labourers in the British
market.” It might seem therefore that the expense of such emigration
should be defrayed out of the general funds of the empire. But the
committee say they are not prepared to recommend any compulsory system
of taxation for the purpose, “nor yet to discuss the probability of the
repayment of advances made to colonial settlers.” They have however no
doubt that colonization might be carried on to a great extent, “if
facilities were afforded by government to those Irish peasants who were
disposed voluntarily to seek a settlement in the colonies, and who could
by themselves or their landlords provide all the expense required for
their passage and location.” In districts where the population is in
excess, it must be alike the interest of all, of the landlords, the
tenants, and the labourers, that such excess should be removed; and the
committee consider the most legitimate mode of effecting this to
be—“that upon the actual deposit of a sum sufficient to cover the entire
expense, the government should undertake the appropriation of that sum
in the way most effectual for the purpose”—that is, for the conveyance
of the emigrants to, and helping them to obtain a suitable location in,
some British colony.
Amongst the various remedial measures suggested, the committee urge at
great length the importance of an extension of public works, roadmaking,
drainage, embankments &c., founded chiefly on the example of Scotland,
and the benefits which there ensued from opening out the Highlands by
the formation of roads and the construction of the Caledonian canal. The
evidence given by Mr. Telford the eminent engineer in 1817, is cited and
much relied upon in this particular, and certainly no higher authority
on the subject could have been adduced. An emendation of the grand-jury
and vestry laws is also recommended, together with several other matters
of minor import.
In the present very comprehensive Report, as in all preceding Reports on
the state of Ireland, [Sidenote: Education.] whether by committees of
parliament or Royal commissions, the necessity for education is adverted
to as a matter of paramount importance. It is now moreover said, that
“the entire body of the Roman catholic hierarchy have by petitions to
both houses of parliament, entreated that the recommendations of the
select committee of 1827,[53] should be adopted”—on which account, as
well as on account of its intrinsic importance with regard to the
question of education generally, that Report now requires to be noticed.
-----
[53]
The committee consisted of twenty-one members, and Sir John Newport
was the chairman.
-----
[Sidenote: 1828.
Report of the Select Committee on Education in Ireland.]
The Report of the select committee appointed in 1827 here referred to,
was printed by order of the House of Commons on the 19th May 1828.[53]
The committee declare that they “have proceeded to consider the Reports
on the state of education in Ireland, with a full sense of the
importance of the subject, and of the peculiar difficulties with which
it is encompassed.” During several centuries, they observe, the
necessity for providing the means of education in Ireland has been
recognised. As early as the reign of Henry the Eighth the prevalence of
crime was attributed to the ignorance of the people, “and education was
relied upon as producing moral improvement, and supporting the
institutions of civil policy.” Various statutes were passed and charters
granted, and endowments made, with a view to this object; and inquiries
had likewise been at different times instituted with the same intent. Of
the commissions appointed, the two latest are the most important, namely
that issued in 1806, and which terminated in 1812, after making
“fourteen Reports upon the schools of royal and private foundation, the
charter schools, foundling hospital, and the parochial and diocesan
schools;” and that issued in 1824, which terminated in 1827, after
making “nine Reports on the various establishments for education.” But
the interference of the State was not solely confined to regulation and
inquiry. “Parliamentary grants have been at various times most liberally
made for the purposes of education,” and of these a list is given,
amounting in the whole to 2,914,140_l._ The number of scholars receiving
instruction in the existing schools in 1826, is stated to be 560,549,
“leaving in all probability upwards of 150,000 without the means of
education.” Of the number of scholars returned, it is said that 394,732
are brought up in the common pay schools, 46,119 in schools supported
exclusively by the Roman catholic priesthood and laity, 84,295 in
various establishments of private charity, and 55,246 in schools
maintained in whole or in part at the public expense.