In pursuing their investigations, the committee say “their sole object

has been to consider the principle upon which it will be expedient

hereafter to grant public money in aid of Irish education;” and they

prefer recording the conclusions at which they have arrived in the form

of abstract propositions, instead of reasoning upon and discussing the

merits of different modes of procedure in this respect. After the most

anxious deliberation, they have, they say, adopted a series of

resolutions on the subject, which are given at length, and in fact

constitute the substance of their Report; and it is now proposed to

select such portions of these resolutions as will enable the reader to

see clearly what the views of the committee were. To give the whole is

unnecessary, and would be inconvenient. The various Reports of

committees and commissioners on Irish education are so voluminous, as to

make it impossible to quote them at length, and the abstracts of the

more important portions herein given will be sufficient for our purpose.

A passage from the Report of the commissioners in 1812[54] is cited, to

the effect—“that no plan of education, however wisely and

unexceptionably contrived in other respects, can be carried into

effectual operation in Ireland, unless it be explicitly avowed, and

clearly understood as its leading principle, that no attempt shall be

made to influence or disturb the peculiar religious tenets of any sect

or denomination of Christians.” A passage from the Report of the

commissioners in 1824 is likewise cited, to the effect—“that in a

country where mutual divisions exist between different classes of the

people, schools should be established for the purpose of giving to

children of all religious persuasions, such useful instruction as they

may severally be capable and desirous of receiving, without having any

ground to apprehend any interference with their respective religious

principles.” Another passage of the same Report is also cited—“in favour

of the expediency of devising a system of mutual education, from which

suspicion should if possible be banished, and the causes of distrust and

jealousy be effectually removed; and under which the children may imbibe

similar ideas, and form congenial habits, tending to diminish, not to

increase, that distinctness of feeling now but too prevalent.”

-----

[54]

This Report was signed by three bishops, the provost, and several

other distinguished clerical and lay members of the established

church.

-----

The committee of 1828 adopt these several propositions, and

resolve—“that it is of the utmost importance to bring together children

of different religious persuasions in Ireland, for the purpose of

instructing them in the general subjects of moral and literary

knowledge, and providing facilities for their religious instruction

_separately_, when differences of creed render it impracticable for them

to receive religious instruction together.” And in accordance likewise

with the recommendations of the commissioners of 1812 and 1824, the

committee further resolve—“that considering the very large sums of

public money annually voted for the encouragement of education in

Ireland, as well as the extreme discretion required in adopting a new

system of united education, without permitting any interference in the

peculiar religious tenets of the scholars—it is indispensably necessary

to establish a fixed authority acting under the control of the

government and of the legislature, bound by strict and impartial rules,

and subject to full responsibility for the foundation control and

management of such public schools of general instruction, as are

supported on the whole or in part at the public expense.”

The committee likewise record their opinion, that the selection of

teachers in the schools should be made without regard to religious

distinction, and that their qualifications should be proved by

instruction or examination in a model school, the teacher first

producing a certificate of character from a clergyman of his own

communion. And they further resolve—“that for the purpose of carrying

into effect the combined literary, and the separate religious education

of the scholars, the course of study for four days of the week should be

exclusively moral and literary; and that of the two remaining days, the

one should be appropriated solely to the separate religious instruction

of the protestant children, the other for the separate religious

instruction of the Roman catholic children—the religious instruction in

each case being placed under the exclusive superintendence of the clergy

of the respective communions.” The committee moreover recommend that a

board of education should be appointed, “all persons being eligible

without reference to religious distinctions;” and they also recommend,

that as a rule the children be required to pay such small sums as may be

directed, “but that free scholars, being either orphans or the children

of parents unable to afford payment, be received on the recommendation

of the parochial clergy, and dissenting ministers, and persons

subscribing to the schools, or having granted land for the site.”

The conditions under which the committee consider that the parliamentary

grants in aid of the establishment and support of schools in Ireland,

should in future be made, are as follows—

“Not to exceed two-thirds of the sum required.

“The school-houses and site to be conveyed to the commissioners.

“The managers to undertake to conduct the school according to the

prescribed rules.

“Gratuities to teachers according to regulations prescribed by the

commissioners.

“Books for the _literary_ instruction of the children to be furnished at

half price, and for the _separate religious_ instruction at prime cost.

“A model school for the education of teachers to be provided.

“A system of inspection to be established.

“Public aid to depend on private contributions, and adherence to the

commissioners’ rules.”

In conclusion the committee observe, that it has been their object to

discover a mode in which the combined education of protestant and Roman

catholic children may be carried on, resting upon religious instruction,

but free from the suspicion of proselytism.—They have endeavoured, they

say, “to avoid any violation of the liberty of conscience, or any

demands or sacrifices inconsistent with the religious faith of any

denomination of Christians.” They propose to leave to the clergy of each

persuasion, the duty and the privilege of giving religious instruction

to those who are committed to their care. And finally, they express an

earnest hope that if adopted, their recommendations will satisfy

moderate and rational men of all opinions.

There can be no doubt that the committee were entitled to avow the

expectation here expressed. The perfect fairness and impartiality of

what they proposed with regard to religious teaching, and the simplicity

and moderation of their recommendations, fortified moreover as these

substantially are by the Reports of the commissions of 1812 and 1824,

seem to leave no room for cavil or objection on any side. Yet we do not

find that any steps were specifically taken for carrying the committee’s

recommendations into effect until October 1831, when Mr. Stanley,[55]

the then Secretary for Ireland, addressed a letter to the Duke of

Leinster, stating that it had been determined to constitute a board for

the superintendence of a system of national education in Ireland, and

that it was proposed, with the duke’s consent, to place him at its head.

The motives for constituting the new board, and the powers intended to

be conferred upon it, “and the objects which it is expected that it will

bear in view and carry into effect,” are all then very fully explained.

-----

[55]

Afterwards Lord Stanley, and now Earl of Derby.

-----

[Sidenote: 1831.

Mr. Stanley’s letter to the Duke of Leinster on the

formation of the Board of National Education.]

A preceding government, it is observed, imagined that they had found a

superintending body acting upon the impartial and non-proselytising

system recommended by the committee of 1812, and had intrusted the

distribution of the national grants to the care of the Kildare-street

Society.[56] But, the letter proceeds—

“His Majesty’s present government are of opinion that no private society

deriving a part, however small, of their annual income from private

sources, and only made the channel of the munificence of the

legislature, without being subject to any direct responsibility, could

adequately and satisfactorily accomplish the end proposed; and while

they do full justice to the liberal views with which that society was

originally instituted, they cannot but be sensible that one of its

leading principles was calculated to defeat its avowed objects, as

experience has subsequently proved that it has. The determination to

enforce in all their schools the reading of the Holy Scriptures without

note or comment, was undoubtedly taken with the purest motives; with the

wish at once to connect religious with moral and literary education, and

at the same time not to run the risk of wounding the peculiar feelings

of any sect, by catechetical instruction, or comments which might tend

to subjects of polemical controversy. But it seems to have been

overlooked, that the principles of the Roman catholic church (to which,

in any system intended for general diffusion throughout Ireland, the

bulk of the pupils must necessarily belong) were totally at variance

with this principle; and that the indiscriminate reading of the Holy

Scriptures without note or comment, by children, must be peculiarly

obnoxious to a church which denies, even to adults, the right of unaided

private interpretation of the sacred volume, with respect to articles of

religious belief.”

“Shortly after its institution, although the society prospered and

extended its operations under the fostering care of the legislature,

this vital defect began to be noticed; and the Roman catholic clergy

began to exert themselves with energy and success against a system to

which they were on principle opposed, and which they feared might lead

in its results to proselytism, even although no such object were

contemplated by its promoters. When this opposition arose, founded on

such grounds, it soon became manifest that the system could not become

one of national education.”

“The commissioners of education in 1824-5, sensible of the defects of

the system, and of the ground, as well as the strength of the objection

taken, recommended the appointment of two teachers in every school, one

protestant and the other Roman catholic, to superintend separately the

religious education of the children; and they hoped to have been able to

agree upon a selection from the Scriptures that might have been

generally acquiesced in by both persuasions. But it was soon found that

these schemes were impracticable; and, in 1828, a committee of the house

of commons,[57] to which were referred the various Reports of the

commissioners of education, recommended a system to be adopted, which

should afford, if possible, a combined literary, and a separate

religious education, and should be capable of being so far adapted to

the views of the religious persuasions which prevail in Ireland, as to

render it, in truth, a system of National education for the poorer

classes of the community.”

-----

[56]

This society, originally founded in 1811 under the designation of “The

Society for promoting the Education of the Poor in Ireland,” was

managed by gentlemen of various religious persuasions, on the

principle of promoting the establishment and assisting in the support

of schools, in which the appointment of governors and teachers, and

the admission of scholars should be uninfluenced by religious

distinctions, and in which the Bible and Testament, without note or

comment should be read, excluding catechisms and books of religious

controversy. In 1814-15 a grant of 6,980_l._ Irish currency, for the

above objects, was made to this society, which removed its

establishment to Kildare-street, and thence took the name of “The

Kildare-street Society;” and annual grants were continued

subsequently, varying from 10,000_l._ in 1821, to 25,000_l._ in 1830,

the number of pupils within that period increasing from 36,637 to

132,530.

[57]

Ante, p. 108.

-----

The letter next points out, that on the composition of the board will in

a great degree depend the obtaining of public confidence, and the

success of the measure; and it is then declared to be the intention of

government—

“That the board should exercise a complete control over the various

schools which may be erected under its auspices; or which having been

already established, may hereafter place themselves under its

management, and submit to its regulations. Subject to these,

applications for aid will be admissible from Christians of all

denominations; but as one of the main objects must be to unite in one

system, children of different creeds, and as much must depend upon the

co-operation of the resident clergy, the board will probably look with

peculiar favour upon applications proceeding either from—

“1st.—The protestant and Roman catholic clergy of the parish; or

“2nd.—One of the clergymen, and a certain number of the parishioners

professing the opposite creed; or

“3rd.—Parishioners of both denominations.

“Where the application proceeds exclusively from protestants, or

exclusively from Roman catholics, it will be proper for the board to

make inquiry as to the circumstances which lead to the absence of any

names of the persuasion which does not appear.

“The board will note all applications for aid, whether granted or

refused, with the ground of the decision; and annually submit to

parliament a Report of their proceedings.

“They will invariably require, as a condition not to be departed from,

that local funds shall be raised, upon which any aid from the public

will be dependent.”

The letter then goes into a statement of various kinds of local aid to

be required; the school-hours to be observed; and the time for religious

instruction. After which, it proceeds—

“The board will exercise the most entire control over all books to be

used in the schools, whether in the combined moral and literary, or

separate religious instruction; none to be employed in the first except

under the sanction of the board, nor in the latter, but with the

approbation of those members of the board who are of the same religious

persuasion with those for whose use they are intended. _Although it is

not designed to exclude from the list of books for the combined

instruction such portions of sacred history, or of religious or moral

teaching as may be approved of by the board, it is to be understood that

this is by no means intended to convey a perfect and sufficient

religious education, or to supersede the necessity of separate religious

instruction on the day set apart for the purpose._”

The part here printed in italics is not in the copy of the letter

published with the _1st Report_ of the Commissioners of National

Education, but it is in a copy annexed to the _8th Report_, and is

believed to be the true one. The remainder of the letter relates to

school arrangements and other proceedings of the board.

[Sidenote: 1832.

Discussion in parliament on the government plan of education.]

On the 6th of March 1832, a lengthened discussion on the government plan

of education took place in the house of commons, in the course of which

Mr. Stanley stated his views on the subject in answer to the objections

raised by several members; and ended by saying, that “He was far from

thinking the system now about to be carried into effect was perfect, but

he believed that it was the most likely to unite the people of all

religious persuasions in the education of their children, and produce

those results which, the Scriptures said, were the fruits of the

Christian religion—peace, meekness, gentleness and love.” On the 23rd of

July following, 37,500_l._ was voted “in aid of the funds to be

appropriated to the new system of education,” which thenceforward may be

regarded as permanently established; and in 1844 the board was duly

incorporated by royal charter.

We now approach a period when public attention was very generally and

very earnestly directed to the condition of the poor, and to the

operation of the laws providing for their relief. In 1832 commissioners

were appointed to inquire into these subjects in England, and the reader

is referred to the 2nd volume of the ‘_History of the English Poor

Laws_’ for information as to their Report on the occasion, and also for

an account of the important measure which was founded thereon.

[Sidenote: 1833.

Commission to inquire into the condition of the poorer

classes in Ireland.]

On the 25th September 1833, commissioners were appointed “to inquire

into the condition of the poorer classes in Ireland, and into the

various institutions at present established by law for their relief; and

also whether any and what further remedial measures appear to be

requisite to ameliorate the condition of the Irish poor or any portion

of them.”[58] An extensive field of inquiry was thus laid open to the

commissioners, who forthwith entered upon the duties confided to them;

and it must be admitted that there could hardly have been any more

important, or more highly responsible.

[Sidenote: 1835.

The commissioners’ first report.]

In July 1835 the commissioners made their first Report—“_as to the modes

in which the destitute classes in Ireland are supported, to the extent

and efficiency of those modes, and their effects upon those who give,

and upon those who receive relief_.” A large body of evidence is

appended to the Report, which evidence the commissioners say is now

complete, containing parochial examinations made in one parish in each

of seventeen counties, relative to the present modes of relieving—

“Deserted and orphan children.

“Illegitimate children and their mothers.

“Widows having families of young children.

“The impotent through age or other permanent infirmity.

“The sick poor, who in health are capable of earning their subsistence.

“The able-bodied out of work.

“Vagrancy as a mode of relief.”

-----

[58]

The commissioners were, the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Murray (the

Roman catholic Archbishop), Rev. Charles Vignoles, Richard More

O'Farrall Esq., Rev. James Carlisle, Fenton Hort Esq., John Corrie

Esq., James Naper Esq. and William Battie Wrightson Esq. The Right

Hon. A. R. Blake was subsequently added to the commission.

-----

An examination of every dispensary in nine counties is also given, and

of every infirmary, and some dispensaries and hospitals in eleven

counties. Likewise the examinations concerning institutions not medical,

for the relief of different classes of the poor, which are said to be

“principally mendicity institutions, houses of industry, almshouses, and

societies for visiting the destitute and distributing food, money, or

clothes,” in all the large towns.

After thus enumerating the several heads or divisions under which their

investigations were conducted, the commissioners proceed to state—

1st.—The difficulties they had to encounter from the extensive and

complicated nature of the subject, and the peculiar social

condition of the Irish people.

2ndly.—The course they pursued in collecting information, “showing how

far it is full and impartial, and therefore how far worthy of

confidence.” And

3rdly.—The reasons why they are not yet able to report—“Whether any

and what further remedial measures appear to be requisite to

ameliorate the condition of the Irish poor, or any of them.”

These points are all largely dwelt upon, especially the first. On every

side, the commissioners say, they were assailed by the theories of

persons who might be supposed to possess means of forming a sound

judgment—“one party attributed all the poverty and wretchedness of the

country to an asserted extreme use of ardent spirits, and proposed a

system for repressing illicit distillation, for preventing smuggling,

and for substituting beer and coffee. Another party found the cause in

the combination among workmen, and proposed rigorous laws against trades

unions. Others again were equally confident, that the reclamation of the

bogs and waste lands was the only practicable remedy. A fourth party

declared the nature of the existing connexion between landlord and

tenant to be the root of all the evil. Pawnbroking, redundant

population, absence of capital, peculiar religious tenets and religious

differences, political excitement, want of education, the

maladministration of justice, the state of prison discipline, want of

manufactures and of inland navigation, with a variety of other

circumstances, were each supported by their various advocates with

earnestness and ability, as being either alone, or jointly with some

other, the primary cause of all the evils of society; and loan funds,

emigration, the repression of political excitement, the introduction of

manufactures, and the extension of inland navigation, were accordingly

proposed each as the principal means by which the improvement of Ireland

could be promoted.” The commissioners abstain from expressing their

opinion upon any of these propositions, but they determine “that the

inquiry should embrace every subject to which importance seemed to be

attached by any large number of persons.”

Under the second division of their Report, the commissioners advert in

considerable detail to the obvious impossibility of collecting the

necessary information themselves, and the difficulty of finding Irishmen

at once competent and impartial to undertake the duty; and they

determine as the only mode of combining local knowledge with

impartiality, to unite in the inquiry “a native of Great Britain with a

resident native of Ireland.” And in order that the evidence might be

full and impartial, and be collected and registered in a satisfactory

manner, the assistant-commissioners who had been appointed were desired

to adopt in their investigations the following course of procedure:—

First—“To request the attendance of persons of each grade in society,

of each of the various religious persuasions, and of each party in

politics; to give to the testimony of each class an equal degree

of attention, and to make the examinations in presence of all. Not

to allow any person to join in conducting the examination, and to

state at the opening of the proceedings, that any statement made

by an individual, and not impugned by any person present, would be

considered to be acknowledged as at least probable by all.”

Second—“To note down at the time of examination, the replies given, or

the remarks which occurred to him; to register, as nearly as might

be possible in the words of each witness, the statements which

might be made; to register the names of all the persons who

attended the examination; and before proceeding to examine another

district, to send the minutes of the previous examination to the

office in Dublin, signed by both the assistant-commissioners.”

With regard to the third head, that is the reasons for not yet being

able to report “whether any and what further remedial measures appear to

be requisite to ameliorate the condition of the Irish poor, or any

portion of them”—The commissioners observe that the reasons are

sufficiently apparent in the fact that they have not yet completed their

inquiry into the causes of destitution. They would, they say, be little

worthy of the high trust reposed in them, were they content with

deciding upon the extent and nature of distress, or upon the means of

only present alleviation. “We consider it our duty (they remark) to

endeavour if possible, to investigate the causes of the destitution

which we discover, and to ascertain why classes of his Majesty’s

subjects are from time to time falling into a state of wretchedness; why

the labouring population do not provide against those events which seem

inevitable; why the able-bodied labourer does not provide against the

sickness of himself, or that of the various members of his family;

against the temporary absence of employment; against the certain

infirmity of age; against the destitution of his widow and his children

in the contingent event of his own premature decease; whether these

omissions arise from any peculiar improvidence in his habits, or from

the insufficiency of employment, or from the low rate of his wages.” It

would not even be sufficient to answer that the limited amount of

employment and the rate of his wages will not permit him. “It is our

duty (they say) to carry the investigation further, and at least to

endeavour to trace whether there be any circumstances which restrict the

amount of employment, or the rate of wages; or in any other way offer

impediments to the improvement of the people, which are such as can be

remedied by legislation.”

The commissioners accordingly in the first place directed their

attention to agriculture, that being, they observe, the principal

occupation of the Irish people. There was said to be much unreclaimed

land which might be brought into cultivation, and throughout Ireland the

land already in cultivation might be better worked, and thus the demand

for labour be increased. The commissioners wish to ascertain the extent

to which such statements are well founded, and whether the evil is

attributable to want of capital or to want of skill; and “whether there

are any circumstances which have deterred British capitalists from

coming to Ireland, or have prevented the investment in agriculture of

capital existing in Ireland, and to what extent those circumstances have

proved injurious; and in case the evil arises from a deficiency of skill

in the tenantry, to ascertain whether there are any means by which a

superior knowledge of agriculture can be diffused.” By endeavouring to

prevent the occurrence of destitution, they consider that they will more

effectually fulfil their mission, than if they merely devised the means

for its alleviation after it had arisen. They shall, they say, “feel

deep pain should they be compelled to leave to any portion of the

peasantry of Ireland, a continuation of distress on the one hand, or a

mere offer of charity on the other—far more grateful (it is added) would

be the office of recommending measures by which the industrious labourer

might have the prospect of a constant field for his exertions, with a

remuneration sufficient for his present demands, and admitting of a

provision against those contingencies which attach to himself and to his

family.” They declare it to be their anxious wish to do more than

diminish the wretchedness of portions of the working classes, and that

they are most solicitous to place the whole of those classes in the

greatest state of comfort consistently with the good of the rest of

society.

In answer to certain complaints which appear to have been made “within

and out of parliament” of the time and money consumed in the present

inquiry, the commissioners explain at some length the impossibility of

proceeding more rapidly. They however admit that the time will exceed

that occupied by several other inquiries, and particularly by that on

the English Poor-law, to which they specially refer—“because the highest

estimate has been formed of the manner in which it was conducted, both

as regards diligence and accuracy, and because they feel that in

measuring their labours, and the time they are likely to occupy by such

a standard, they shall have taken the surest mode of showing that they

have used the utmost diligence.”

The foregoing summary exhibits the general purport of the commissioners’

first Report, which it will be observed aims rather at explaining what

ought to be and what is further intended to be done, than pointing out

remedies or deducing practical conclusions from the “large body of

evidence” which had been taken. It is impossible not to concur in the

views and reasonings expressed by the commissioners with regard to the

spirit in which the inquiry should be conducted, and also as to the

objects sought to be attained: but nothing definite is proposed, nor any

practical suggestion offered; and as the commissioners admit that they

had been occupied a year and ten months in the inquiry, we can hardly

wonder that some impatience should be manifested “both in and out of

parliament” on the occasion. The evidence presented with the Report was

no doubt important, and calculated to afford much valuable information

on the several points to which it specifically referred;[59] but the

mere collecting and grouping of such evidence, unaccompanied by any

condensed summary of its import, or practical deduction from its

details, could not be expected to be very satisfactory or very useful,

either to the legislature or to the public generally.

-----

[59]

See the seven heads of inquiry set out, ante page 119.

-----

[Sidenote: 1836.

The commissioners’ second report.]

In the early part of the following year the commissioners made a second

Report “on that part of the inquiry which respects the various

institutions at present established by law for the relief of the poor.”

These are said to be—medical institutions, lunatic asylums, houses of

industry, and foundling hospitals; and although much of the information

given respecting them has been anticipated by the Report of the select

committee of 1830,[60] it will be convenient to insert in this place a

short abstract of the Report on these institutions, the most numerous of

which are the medical charities.

-----

[60]

Ante, pp. 95 to 108.

-----

[Sidenote: Infirmaries.]

To establish an infirmary, 500_l._ must be first raised by voluntary

contributions, to which a grant not exceeding 1,500_l._ may be made by

government, provided the distance be not less than ten miles from any

existing infirmary. The funds for its support are provided by grand-jury

presentments not exceeding 600_l._ in any one year, and a grant of

100_l._ by government towards the salary of the surgeon. The number of

county infirmaries is stated to be 31, in addition to which there are 5

city and town infirmaries. Each is governed by a corporation, consisting

of certain official persons, together with the donors of twenty guineas

and upwards, and annual subscribers of three guineas. The corporation of

governors appoint the medical officers, regulate the admission of

patients, enact by-laws, and have the entire control of the institution.

[Sidenote: Dispensaries.]

Dispensaries were established for affording medical relief to those poor

persons who are too distant to receive aid from an infirmary. They are

governed by the same corporation, with the addition of subscribers of

not less than one guinea annually, and are supported by such

subscriptions, together with grand-jury presentments not exceeding a

like amount. The number of separate dispensaries is 452, and there are

42 more united with fever hospitals.

[Sidenote: Fever hospitals.]

The great prevalence of fever in Ireland rendered hospitals for the

special treatment of fever cases, absolutely essential to the general

security; and for providing such hospitals, of which there are 28, grand

juries may present sums equal to double the amount of voluntary

subscriptions, and government may also make advances for the purpose, to

be subsequently repaid by instalments. By the _58th Geo. 3rd, cap.

47_,[61] provision is made for the appointment of a board of health,

with extensive powers, whenever fever occurs in a town or district; but

it appears that this provision has been rarely acted upon.

-----

[61]

Ante, p. 77.

-----

The total expense of supporting these infirmaries, dispensaries and

fever hospitals, in the year 1833 as stated in tables appended to the

Report, was 109,054_l._—of which amount grand-jury presentments

furnished 55,065_l._—subscriptions 37,562_l._—parliamentary grants

6,661_l._, and petty-sessions fees and miscellaneous funds 9,766_l._ The

entire number of cases relieved in the same year, was 30,634 intern, and

1,243,314 extern.

[Sidenote: Lunatic asylums.]

The lord-lieutenant is empowered to direct as many lunatic asylums to be

provided as he may think fit, and grand juries are required to present

such sums as may be necessary for defraying the expense of erecting and

supporting them. Eleven were completed, or in progress towards

completion; and the total amount of expenditure on them in 1833 was

26,247_l._

With regard to these institutions the commissioners remark—“The medical

relief at present afforded throughout Ireland is very unequally

distributed. In the county of Dublin, containing exclusive of the city

about 176,000 inhabitants, and about 375 square miles, there are 24

dispensaries, or one to every 7,333 inhabitants. In the county of Meath,

containing about 176,800 inhabitants, and about 886 square miles, there

are 19 dispensaries, or one for every 9,306 inhabitants. In the county

of Mayo, containing 366,328 inhabitants, and about 2,100 square miles,

there is only one dispensary supported at the public expense.” Such

inequalities, it is observed, are the necessary consequence of a law

which renders the establishment of a dispensary contingent upon

voluntary contributions. In districts abounding in rich resident

proprietors, a medical charity is least wanted, but subscriptions are

there most easily obtained; whilst in districts where there are few or

possibly no resident proprietors, the aid is most wanted, but there are

no subscribers, and consequently there is no medical charity.

[Sidenote: Houses of industry.]

Houses of industry (or workhouses) are established and regulated under

the provisions of the _11th and 12th Geo. 3rd, cap. 30_,[62] the _46th

Geo. 3rd, cap. 95_,[62] and the _58th Geo. 3rd, cap. 47_.[62] There are

nine of these institutions in Ireland, and of some of them a brief

account is given; but it is said to be difficult to judge of the economy

with which they are conducted. The total income of the houses of

industry in the year 1833 derived from grand-jury presentments,

subscriptions, and miscellaneous sources, and including a parliamentary

grant of 20,000_l._ to the Dublin institution, was 32,967_l._, and the

number of inmates on the books was 2,732.

-----

[62]

Ante, pp. 51, 74, and 77.

-----

[Sidenote: Foundling hospitals.]

There were two large foundling hospitals, one in Dublin, the other in

Cork, and a small one in Galway. With the exception of one child under

peculiar circumstances, there have been no admissions for some time into

the Dublin house, and the establishment is only used for the occasional

accommodation of such children as are still on the books; and as these

are disposed of, will cease altogether. The Cork hospital is supported

principally by a tax on coals: it is still open, and has 1,329 on the

books. At Galway the number of children is only eight. These

institutions, the commissioners remark, are now acknowledged to be in

their nature utterly indefensible. The expense of the Cork and Galway

establishments in 1833, derived from miscellaneous sources, was

6,628_l._ The parliamentary grant to the Dublin foundling hospital in

1828 was 34,000_l._ Supposing it to have been 30,000_l._ in 1833, it

would make the entire charge of these institutions, in the latter year,

amount to 36,628_l._

The total charge of the foregoing institutions as stated in the tables

appended to the Report, is as follows:—

Infirmaries }

Dispensaries } £109,054

Fever hospitals }

Lunatic asylums 26,247

Houses of industry 32,967

Foundling hospitals 36,628

—-—-—

£204,896

Of this sum upwards of 50,000_l._ appears to have been furnished by

parliamentary grants, the remainder being derived from grand-jury

presentments, voluntary contributions, and other local sources.

The commissioners think that some provision ought to be made for poor

persons discharged from hospitals in a state of convalescence, and also

for persons suffering from chronic and incurable disease, neither being

proper objects of ordinary hospital treatment. They are likewise of

opinion that a public provision should be made for the deaf dumb and

blind poor, such persons being, they consider, peculiarly deserving of

assistance.

The impatience of the public was not likely to be satisfied by the

appearance of this second Report, which contained no recommendations,

and added nothing to what was previously known of the condition of the

Irish poor. For a series of years inquiry after inquiry had been

instituted by commissions and committees into that condition, with a

view to devise means for its amelioration; but without leading to any

satisfactory result. And now, after two years and a half had been spent

in prosecuting like inquiries, and this moreover by men specially

selected for the task, and standing deservedly high in public estimation

for talent and acquirements, people began to fear that the result would

be again the same, and that time labour and money would have been

expended in vain. It was known, or at least generally surmised, that

differences of opinion existed among the commissioners, as to the nature

of the recommendations which should be made by them conjointly; some

being in favour of the imposition of a general rate for the relief of

the poor, and others advocating a system of voluntary contributions for

that purpose. The latter pointed to Scotland as an example to be

followed, and the former to England. Under these circumstances it is not

surprising that the question should occupy a good deal of public

attention, and that those who possessed, or were supposed to possess

information on the subject, should be induced or invited to express

their opinions with regard to it. Pamphlets were written, and speeches

made, contrasting the advantages and disadvantages inherent in the

compulsory and the voluntary systems of relief, as well generally, as

with reference to the case of Ireland; and the entire subject became a

matter of very general discussion, of which the proceedings under the

amended Poor Law in England naturally formed a part, and thus gave

additional interest to the question.

[Sidenote: ‘Suggestions’ by the author, January 21, 1836.]

The author being at that time a member of the English Poor Law

Commission, the subject was necessarily much pressed upon his notice;

and having reason to believe that a statement of his views in reference

to it would be acceptable, he prepared for the consideration of

government, a series of suggestions founded upon a general view of

social requirements, and upon his experience of the working of the

English Poor Law. He did not pretend to any personal knowledge of the

state of Ireland, but considered that the information furnished by the

evidence appended to the commissioners’ first Report, showed that

destitution and wretchedness prevailed to such an extent among the

poorer classes in that country, that legislative interference could no

longer be delayed without compromising the general security; and

contrasting the state of the English poor with what existed in Ireland,

he attempted to point out a remedy, or at least a palliative for the

evils which prevailed there. This he was induced to do without waiting

for the final report of the inquiry commissioners, as the mode of

comparison pursued by him was different from the course which they would

adopt, and likewise because the commissioners indicated their intention

of taking the general circumstances of the country into consideration,

whilst he proposed to limit his suggestions to one object, with a view

to a single and specific remedy.

These ‘Suggestions’ were framed in considerable detail, and recommended

the application of the amended system of English Poor Law to Ireland,

with certain modifications, calculated to guard against the evils which

had sprung from the old law in England, and at the same time be

sufficient for the relief of a large portion of the destitute classes

who stood most in need of it. The ‘Suggestions’ were presented to Lord

John Russell in January, about the same time as the commissioners’

second Report; and on perusing them now, after so long an interval, and

with all the experience since acquired, the author finds little to alter

in what he then ventured to suggest.

[Sidenote: 1836.

The commissioners’ third report.]

The long-expected final Report was at length received, embodying all the

recommendations for ameliorating the condition of the Irish poor, which

after nearly three years of inquiry and deliberation, the commissioners

felt themselves warranted in submitting to government. It commenced by

stating, that the evidence annexed to the former Reports proves the

existence of deep distress in all parts of Ireland. There is not, it is

said, the division of labour which exists in Great Britain. The

labouring class look to agriculture alone for support, whence the supply

of agricultural labour greatly exceeds the demand for it; and small

earnings, and widespread misery, are the consequence. Tables are given

of the population of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, of the

classes and occupations in each, the quantity of cultivated and

uncultivated land, the proportions of agricultural produce, and the

wages of agricultural labourers—from which, the commissioners say it

appears—“that in Great Britain the agricultural families constitute

little more than a fourth, while in Ireland they constitute about

two-thirds of the whole population; that there were in Great Britain in

1831,—1,055,982 agricultural labourers, in Ireland 1,131,715,—although

the cultivated land of Great Britain amounts to about 34,250,000 acres,

and that of Ireland only to about 14,600,000.” So that there are in

Ireland about five agricultural labourers for every two that there are

for the same quantity of land in Great Britain. It further appears that

the agricultural produce of Great Britain is more than four times that

of Ireland; that agricultural wages vary from 6_d._ to 1_s._ a day; that

the average of the country is about 8½_d._; and that the earnings of the

labourers come on an average of the whole class, to from 2_s._ to 2_s._

6_d._ a week, or thereabouts, for the year round.

Thus circumstanced, the commissioners observe, “it is impossible for the

able-bodied, in general, to provide against sickness or the temporary

absence of employment, or against old age, or the destitution of their

widows and children in the contingent event of their own premature

decease.” A great portion of them are, it is said, insufficiently

provided with the commonest necessaries of life. “Their habitations are

wretched hovels, several of a family sleep together upon straw, or upon

the bare ground, sometimes with a blanket, sometimes even without so

much to cover them; their food commonly consists of dry potatoes, and

with these they are at times so scantily supplied, as to be obliged to

stint themselves to one spare meal in the day. There are even instances

of persons being driven by hunger to seek sustenance in wild herbs. They

sometimes get a herring or a little milk, but they never get meat except

at Christmas, Easter, and Shrovetide.[63] Some go in search of

employment to Great Britain during the harvest, others wander through

Ireland with the same view. The wives and children of many are

occasionally obliged to beg, but they do so reluctantly and with shame,

and in general go to a distance from home that they may not be known.

Mendicity too is the sole resource of the aged and impotent of the

poorer classes in general, when children or relatives are unable to

support them. To it therefore crowds are driven for the means of

existence, and the knowledge that such is the fact leads to an

indiscriminate giving of alms, which encourages idleness, imposture and

general crime.”

-----

[63]

To partake of meat at these seasons is enjoined upon all the members

of the Roman catholic church.

-----

Such is described as being the condition of the great body of the

labouring classes in Ireland, and “with these facts before us (the

commissioners say) we cannot hesitate to state, that we consider

remedial measures requisite to ameliorate the condition of the Irish

poor—What those measures should be is a question complicated, and

involving considerations of the deepest importance to the whole body of

the people, both in Ireland and Great Britain. Society is so

constructed, its various parts are so connected, the interests of all

who compose it are so interwoven, the rich are so dependent on the

labour of the poor, and the poor upon the wealth of the rich, that any

attempt to legislate partially, or with a view to the good of a portion

only, without a due regard to the whole of the community, must prove in

the end fallacious, fatal to its object, and injurious in general to a

ruinous degree.”

None will deny the truth of these propositions, which doubtless ought to

be kept in view in legislating for the relief of the poor, or for any

other matter of general interest or importance. Their enunciation does

not however materially assist in discovering a remedy for the fearful

amount of destitution and suffering shown to prevail in Ireland, the

descriptions of which as given in the Report, are here brought together

in one point of view, in order that the reader may have the extent of

the evil laid open before him.

It has, the commissioners say, “been suggested to us to recommend a Poor

Law for Ireland similar to that of England, but we are of opinion that

the provision to be made for the poor in Ireland must vary essentially

from that made in England.” The English law, it is said, requires that

work and support should be found for all able-bodied persons who may be

out of employment, and such work and support will now be provided for

them only in a workhouse; so that if workhouses were to be established

in Ireland as a means of relief, they must be sufficiently capacious for

setting vast numbers of unemployed persons to work within them. The

commissioners state that they “cannot estimate the number of persons in

Ireland out of work and in distress during thirty weeks of the year, at

less than 585,000, nor the number of persons dependent upon them at less

than 1,800,000, making in the whole 2,385,000—This therefore (it is

added) is about the number for which it would be necessary to provide

accommodation in workhouses, if all who require relief were there to be

relieved;” and they consider it impossible to provide for such a

multitude, or even to attempt it with safety. The expense of erecting

and fitting up the necessary buildings would, they say, “come to about

4,000,000_l._, and allowing for the maintenance of each person 2½_d._

only a day (that being the expense at the mendicity establishment of

Dublin) the cost of supporting the whole 2,385,000 for thirty weeks

would be something more than 5,000,000_l._ a year; whereas the gross

rental of Ireland (exclusive of towns) is estimated at less than

10,000,000_l._ a year, the net income of the landlords at less than

6,000,000_l._, and the public revenue is only about 4,000,000_l._”

The commissioners do not however think that such an expense would

actually be incurred. On the contrary they are convinced that the

able-bodied and their families would endure any misery rather than make

a workhouse their domicile; and they add—“now if we thought that

employment could be had provided due efforts were made to procure it,

the general repugnance to a workhouse would be a reason for recommending

that mode of relief, for assistance could be afforded through it to the

few that might from time to time fall into distress, and yet no

temptation be afforded to idleness and improvidence; but we see that the

labouring class are eager for work, that work there is not for them, and

that they are therefore, and not from any fault of their own, in

permanent want.” This, it is said, is just the state to which, on the

authority of a passage quoted from the English Poor Law

Commissioners,[64] the workhouse system is held not to be applicable;

and if it were established in Ireland, would, the commissioners are

persuaded, “be regarded by the bulk of the population as a stratagem for

debarring them of that right to employment and support with which the

law professed to invest them.” It is unnecessary, the commissioners add,

to point out the feelings which must thus be created, or the

consequences to which they might lead; and they conclude this section of

their Report by saying—“We cannot therefore recommend the present

workhouse system of England as at all suited to Ireland.”

-----

[64]

The entire of the paragraph quoted would not bear out the

interpretation here put upon it.

-----

Having thus rejected the workhouse, the commissioners next consider how

far the objections applicable to a provision for enforcing in-door work,

would be applicable to one for enforcing out-door employment; and they

come to the conclusion, that having regard to the number of persons for

whom work must be found, and the experience of the consequences to which

out-door compulsory employment led in England, any attempt to introduce

it into Ireland would be attended with most pernicious results. “If (it

is said) the farmers were compelled to take more men than they chose or

thought they wanted, they would of course reduce the wages of all to a

minimum. If, on the other hand, magistrates or other local authorities

were empowered to frame a scale of wages or allowances, so as to secure

to each labourer a certain sum by the week, we do not think they could,

with safety to their persons and property, fix a less sum than would be

equal to the highest rate of wages pre-existing in the district for

which they were required to act; nor would anything less enable the

labourer to support himself and his family upon such food, with such

clothing, and in such a dwelling, as any person undertaking to provide

permanently for human beings in a civilized country could say they ought

to be satisfied with. It would therefore (the commissioners think) be

necessary to fix different scales of wages or allowances, which would

average for the whole of Ireland about 4_s._ 6_d._ a week. This would be

to double the present earnings of the body of labourers, and these

appear to amount to about 6,800,000_l._ a year. The additional charge

would therefore come to about that sum.”

The tenantry, the commissioners say, cannot be expected to bear this

burden. They have not capital for it, and the charge must therefore fall

upon the landlords. Rents would diminish, commerce would decay, and the

demand for agricultural produce and all commodities save potatoes and

coarse clothing would contract, while the number of persons out of

employment and in need of support would increase, and general ruin

ensue. The well-known case of “Cholesbury” is then cited, and held up as

an example of what would follow in Ireland, “at the end of a year from

the commencement of any system for charging the land indefinitely with

the support of the whole labouring part of the community.”

“With such feelings,” the commissioners observe, “and considering the

redundancy of labour which now exists in Ireland, how earnings are kept

down by it, what misery is thus produced, and what insecurity of liberty

property and life ensues, we are satisfied that enactments calculated to

promote the improvement of the country, and so to extend the demand for

free and profitable labour, should make essential parts of any law for

ameliorating the condition of the poor. And for the same reasons, while

we feel that relief should be provided for the impotent, we consider it

due to the whole community, and to the labouring class in particular,

that such of the able-bodied as may still be unable to find free and

profitable employment in Ireland, should be secured support only through

emigration, or as preliminary to it—those who desire to emigrate should

be furnished with the means of doing so in safety, and with intermediate

support when they stand in need of it at emigrant depôts. It is thus,

and thus only, that the market of labour in Ireland can be relieved from

the weight that is now upon it, or the labourer be raised from his

present prostrate state.” Long quotations are then given from the

several Reports of the assistant-commissioners, showing that, “the

feelings of the suffering labourers in Ireland are also decidedly in

favour of emigration.” They do not desire workhouses, it is said, but

they do desire a free passage to a colony where they may have the means

of living by their own industry.

The commissioners conclude this section of their Report by saying, that

they do not look to emigration as an object to be permanently pursued

upon an extensive scale, nor as the chief means of relief for the evils

of Ireland, but “as an auxiliary essential to a commencing course of

amelioration.” They then “proceed to submit a series of provisions for

the improvement of Ireland, and the relief of the poor therein,

including in the latter means of emigration.”

The recommendations extend from section 5 to 15 inclusive, and are all

more or less connected with agriculture, which is said to be the only

pursuit for which the body of the people of Ireland are qualified by

habit, and that it is chiefly through it that any general improvement in

their condition can be effected. It is recommended—

1st. That a board constituted on the principle of the Bedford Level

Corporation should be established, for carrying into effect a

system of national improvement in Ireland, having a president and

vice-president with suitable salaries, and who together with two

of the judges to be appointed for the purpose, are to form a court

of review and record, with power to hear and determine all matters

connected with such improvements.

2nd. The “Board of Improvement” is to be authorized to appoint

commissioners, who are to be armed with the usual powers given to

commissioners under Enclosure Acts, and are from time to time to

make surveys and valuations, and partitions of waste lands, the

Board of Works making such main drains and roads as may be

required, and taking, in consideration thereof, an allotment of a

certain part of each waste in trust for the public, in proportion

to the expense incurred in making the survey, partition, drainage,

and roads.

3rd. With regard to land under cultivation, it is recommended that

both draining and fencing should be enforced by law, and that the

“Board of Improvement” should be empowered to appoint local

commissioners for the purpose, for any district they may think

proper. If the outlay to be incurred should exceed what the

landlords or occupiers may be able to pay, 5 per cent. on the

amount may be annually assessed and made payable to the Board of

Works, which in consideration thereof is to advance the requisite

sum—the funds placed at its disposal being proportionally

increased.

4th. The “Board of Improvement” to be enabled to cause cabins which

may be nuisances to be taken down, and to require the landlords to

contribute towards the expense of removing the occupants and

providing for them.

5th. The “Board of Improvement” to establish an agricultural model

school, with four or five acres of land attached, in so many

parishes or districts as may be thought necessary, the master to

undergo due examination, and to give instruction in letters and in

agriculture.

6th. Tenants for life, with the approval of the “Board of

Improvement,” to be empowered to grant leases for thirty-one

years, and to charge the property with the amount expended in

effecting permanent improvements.

7th. A fiscal board to be established in every county, with the powers

to make presentments for public works now vested in grand juries,

and to be required to present such sums as may be appointed by the

Improvement Board.

8th. The Board of Works to be authorized to undertake any public works

“such as roads, bridges, deepening rivers, or removing

obstructions in them, and so forth,” that within certain

limitations may be approved by the “Board of Improvement.”

A dissertation is then introduced on the effect of Irish immigrants on

the labour-market of England, and ending with this quotation from

Burke—“England and Ireland may flourish together. The world is large

enough for us both. Let it be our care not to make ourselves too little

for it.” The commissioners say it was their intention “to inquire

relative to trade and manufactures, to the fisheries, and to mining; but

that it has been found impossible to go into those matters through want

of time.”

The foregoing summary of the commissioners’ recommendations can hardly

be said to come within the province of poor-law legislation, but it has

been thought right to insert them here, in order that the reader may see

what were the commissioners’ views with regard to the state of Ireland,

and especially with regard to its wants, which apparently consist in a

want of capital, and a want of skill. The first is proposed to be

furnished by government through the Board of Works, the last it is

proposed to supply by constituting a “Board of Improvement.”

The 16th section of the Report commences with the declaration “_We now

come to measures of direct relief for the poor_.” After adverting to the

Poor Laws of England and Scotland, the one carried into universal effect

by local assessments, and the other “in general supported by voluntary

contributions administered by officers known to the law and responsible

to it”—the commissioners say “they have shown by their second Report

that the institutions existing in Ireland for the relief of the poor are

houses of industry, infirmaries, fever hospitals, lunatic asylums, and

dispensaries; that the establishment of these, except as to lunatic

asylums, is not compulsory, but dependent upon private subscriptions, or

the will of grand juries; that there are but nine houses of industry in

the whole country; that while the provision made for the sick poor in

some places is extensive, it is in other places utterly inadequate; and

that there is no general provision made for the aged, the impotent, or

the destitute.” Much, it is added, is certainly given in Ireland in

private charity, “but it is not given upon any organised system of

relief, and the abundant alms which are bestowed, in particular by the

poorer classes, unfortunately tend to encourage mendicancy with its

attendant evils.”

The commissioners then declare that upon the best consideration they

have been able to give to the whole subject, they think that a legal

provision should be made, and rates levied, “for the relief and support

of incurable as well as curable lunatics, of idiots, epileptic persons,

cripples, deaf and dumb and blind poor, and all who labour under

permanent bodily infirmities—such relief and support to be afforded

within the walls of public institutions; also for the relief of the sick

poor in hospitals, infirmaries, and convalescent establishments, or by

extern attendance and a supply of food as well as medicine where the

persons to be relieved are not in a state to be removed from home; also

for the purpose of emigration, for the support of penitentiaries to

which vagrants may be sent, and for the maintenance of deserted

children; also towards the relief of aged and infirm persons, of

orphans, of helpless widows with young children, of the families of sick

persons, and of casual destitution.”

For effecting these several purposes, it is recommended that powers

should be vested in Poor Law Commissioners as in England, “for carrying

into execution all such provisions as shall be made by law for the

relief of the poor in Ireland, and that they shall be authorized to

appoint assistant-commissioners to act under their directions.” It is

proposed that the commissioners should divide the country into relief

districts, and cause the lands of each to be surveyed and valued, with

the names of all proprietors of houses or lands and of all lessees and

occupiers thereof, and the annual value of such houses and lands

respectively, the same to be lodged at such place within the district as

the commissioners shall appoint, and public notice thereof to be given.

It is also recommended that a board of guardians should be elected for

each district by the ratepayers, consisting of proprietors, lessees,

and occupiers, a certain number of the board to go out each year and

others to be elected in their stead. The board of guardians to have

the direction of all the institutions for the relief of the poor

within the district which are supported by local rates, and to cause

them to be duly upheld and maintained. If any district refuse or

neglect to appoint guardians, or when appointed if the guardians

refuse or neglect to act, the Poor Law Commissioners to be empowered

to appoint assistant-commissioners for such district with suitable

salaries, who are to exercise all the powers of the board of

guardians. The salaries to be paid by a rate on the district.

It is likewise proposed that there should be so many asylums in Ireland

for the relief and support of lunatics and idiots, and for the support

and instruction of the deaf and dumb and blind poor, so many depôts for

receiving persons willing to emigrate, and so many penitentiaries for

vagrants, as the Poor Law Commissioners shall appoint—that these several

establishments should be national, and that for maintaining them &c. the

commissioners should be empowered to rate the whole of Ireland, and to

require the boards of guardians to raise a proportional share thereof in

each district, according to the annual value of its property. It is

moreover recommended that there should be in each district an

institution for the support and relief of cripples, and persons

afflicted with epilepsy or other permanent disease; also an infirmary,

hospital and convalescent establishment, and such number of dispensaries

as may be necessary, the whole to be provided for by local assessment. A

loan fund administered according to regulations approved by the

commissioners, is likewise recommended to be established in every

district.

With regard to emigration, as the whole United Kingdom will, it is said,

“be benefited in a very great degree, and particularly in point of

revenue, by the improvement which extensive emigration coming in aid of

a general course of amelioration cannot fail to produce in Ireland,

one-half of the expense should, the commissioners submit, be borne by

the general funds of the empire.” And considering the particular benefit

which Ireland will derive from it, and especially those landlords whose

estates may thus be relieved from a starving population, it is proposed

that in rural districts the other half should be defrayed partly by the

national rate, and partly by the owners of the lands from which the

emigrants remove, or from which they may have been ejected within the

preceding twelve months. It is further proposed that all the necessary

arrangements for carrying on emigration, should be made between the Poor

Law Commissioners and the Colonial Office; “and that all poor persons

whose circumstances require it, shall be furnished with a free passage

and with the means of settling themselves in an approved British

colony;” and likewise—“that the means of emigration shall be provided

for the destitute of every class and description who are fit subjects

for emigration; that depôts shall be established, where all who desire

to emigrate may be received; that those who are fit for emigration be

there selected for the purpose, and that those who are not shall be

provided for under the directions of the Poor Law Commissioners;” who

will moreover be authorized to borrow moneys from the Exchequer Bill

Loan Commissioners for the purposes of emigration, or for defraying the

cost of any buildings they may think necessary, and also “to secure the

repayment thereof by a charge upon the national rate.”

The commissioners likewise propose that the laws with respect to

vagrancy should be altered. “At present,” they say, “persons convicted

of vagrancy may be transported for seven years—our recommendation is

that penitentiaries shall be established to which vagrants when taken up

shall be sent; that they be charged with the vagrancy before the next

quarter sessions, and if convicted shall be removed as free labourers to

such colony, not penal, as shall be appointed for them by the Colonial

Department.” But the wages earned in the colony are to be attached until

the expense of their passage be defrayed; and it is added by way of

summary, that by such provisions as are now suggested, “all poor persons

who cannot find means of support at home, and who are willing to live by

their labour abroad, will be furnished with the means of doing so, and

with intermediate support, if fit to emigrate; and if not, will be

otherwise provided for, while the idle who would rather beg than labour,

will be taken up, and the evil of vagrancy suppressed.”

The _58th George 3rd, cap. 47_, and an Act of the following year (_cap.

41_)[65] amending the same, are then referred to, and the commissioners

recommend that the powers given by these Acts to vestries should be

transferred to the boards of guardians of each district, and that

officers of health should be elected by them for every parish within

their jurisdiction—such officers of health to grant tickets of admission

to the next emigration depôt to any poor inhabitants of their parish who

may, on behalf of themselves or their families, demand the same; and

also, where necessary, to procure means for passing such persons to the

depôt. The officers of health are moreover to pass all persons taken up

under the provisions of the above Acts to a penitentiary, and also to

cause all foundlings to be sent to nurse, “and when of a suitable age to

cause them to be removed to an emigration depôt, from whence they may be

sent to an institution in some British colony, which shall be appointed

for receiving such children, and training and apprenticing them to

useful trades or occupations.” The officers of health are also to

provide in like manner for all orphan children,[66] and the funds for

the several purposes are to be raised by local assessment in the

district. Provision is likewise to be made at each depôt for receiving

the persons sent thither by the officers of health, such persons to be

there supported and set to work until the period for emigration arrives;

and any persons who after entering an emigration depôt shall leave it,

“without discharging such expenses as may have been incurred with

respect to them, or who shall refuse to emigrate, shall be subjected to

the provisions recommended with respect to vagrants.”

-----

[65]

Ante, pp. 77 and 78.

[66]

The duties here proposed to be performed by the officers of health,

are similar to what are required from the relieving officer under the

amended Poor Law in England.

-----

With respect to the relief of the aged and infirm, of orphans, helpless

widows with young children, and destitute persons in general, it is

stated that there is a difference of opinion—some of the commissioners

“think the necessary funds should be provided in part by the public

through a national rate, and in part by private associations, which,

aided by the public, should be authorized to establish mendicity-houses

and almshouses, and to administer relief to the indigent at their own

dwellings, subject however to the superintendence and control of the

Poor Law Commissioners; while others think the whole of the funds should

be provided by the public, one portion by a national rate and another by

a local rate, and should be administered as in England by the board of

guardians of each district.” The majority are however of opinion, “that

the plan of voluntary associations, aided by the public, should be tried

in the first instance.” Recommendations are then made as to the mode of

raising and apportioning the rate. The commissioners have, they say,

“anxiously considered the practicability of making the rate payable out

of property of every description; but the difficulty of reaching

personal property in general by direct taxation, except through very

inquisitorial proceedings, has obliged them to determine on recommending

that the land should be the fund charged in the first instance with it.”

There being, the commissioners say, reason to believe that the landed

property of Ireland is so deeply encumbered, that a rate might absorb

the whole income of some of the nominal proprietors, the Masters of the

Court of Chancery were consulted on the subject, and from the facts they

stated, “it appears that the average rent of land is under 1_l._ 12_s._

6_d._ the Irish acre, equal to about 14_s._ 2_d._ the English; that the

gross landed rental of Ireland amounts to less than 10,000,000_l._; that

the expenses and losses cannot be taken at less than ten per cent., nor

the annuities and the interest of charges payable out of the land at

less than 3,000,000_l._ a year; so that the total net income is less

than 6,000,000_l._” The commissioners think therefore, that the

encumbrancers should bear a share of the burden, and recommend “That

persons paying any annual charge in respect of any beneficial interest

in land, shall be authorised to deduct the same sum in the pound

thereout, that he pays to the poor-rate.” They also recommend “that the

original rate shall never be raised by more than one-fifth, unless for

the purpose of emigration.”

As regards voluntary associations, it is proposed that the Poor Law

Commissioners shall frame rules for their government, and that each

association shall transmit to the commissioners an estimate of its

probable expenditure and its funds for the year ensuing, and that they

shall award such grant to it as they think proper. The commissioners to

be also authorised “to advance to any voluntary association, out of the

national rate, the whole sum which may be necessary for the building and

outfit of a mendicity or alms house for any parish;” and if such

mendicity or alms house be not afterwards duly maintained, the sum so

advanced is to be repaid by the parish to the credit of the national

rate.

Certain recommendations are then made with the view of promoting

sobriety, and lessening “the inordinate use of ardent spirits”—also with

reference to the Board of Charitable Bequests, whose functions may, it

is suggested, be advantageously transferred to the Poor Law

Commissioners—likewise the details of a plan for purchasing the tithe

composition, and vesting it in the Poor Law Commissioners as a fund for

the relief of the poor, by doing which, it is said, “there would be a

surplus of 313,000_l._ a year applicable to the purposes of the national

rate.” In conclusion, the commissioners express their belief, that upon

the whole there is a rising spirit of improvement in Ireland, which

however requires to be stimulated by sound legislation, “or it cannot

speedily relieve the country from the lingering effects of the evil

system of former times.” At present, it is observed, with a population

nearly equal to half that of Great Britain, Ireland yields only about a

twelfth of the revenue to the state that Great Britain does, nor can it

yield more until it has more to yield. Increased means must precede

increased contribution, and to supply Ireland with these is, the

commissioners say, the great object of their recommendations.

Such was the commissioners’ final Report on the condition of the Irish

poor and the means for its amelioration, the substance and general

import of which I have endeavoured to give with the fulness and

completeness the importance of the subject demanded. The Report was not

however signed by all the commissioners. Three of their body withheld

their signature, and recorded their “reasons for dissenting from the

principle of raising funds for the relief of the poor by the voluntary

system, as recommended in the Report.”[67] The ‘Reasons’ are set forth

in thirteen propositions, the most material of which are the following.

-----

[67]

These were Dr. Vignoles, J. W. S. Naper Esq., and Lord Killeen.

-----

“Because—in the lamentably distressed state of the Irish poor, any

system of relief to be effectual must be comprehensive, uniform, and

prompt; whilst the very constitution of voluntary associations proclaims

that their operations must be tardy; and circumstanced as Ireland is in

the distribution of her population, must be partial and precarious.

“Because—it is notorious that many contributions, in name voluntary, are

frequently obligations of the severest character. The pressure of such a

tax must be unequal. The class least removed from want, would furnish as

it now does, the largest number of contributors, and to the greatest

amount; whilst the wealthier classes, resident as well as absentee,

would in a great measure be exempted from the liability of contributing

in proportion to their wealth, or even from contributing at all.

“Because—viewing the peculiar state of society in Ireland, the extent to

which religious zeal prevails, as well as the influence it must

exercise, we consider the difficulties attendant on the raising of a

voluntary fund in the first instance, and of an impartial distribution

of relief in the next, all but insurmountable.

“Because—the mendicity institutions of Dublin, Limerick, Newry, Birr,

Sligo, Waterford and Londonderry, as well as the voluntary poor’s fund

established in some of the rural districts, afford strong proofs of the

inefficiency of the support afforded to these institutions; for although

they have not totally failed, yet their subscriptions are falling off,

and they are by no means adequate to the relief of the objects they

contemplate.

“Because—although we admit that there are districts in Ireland in which

voluntary societies might be established, and which would afford means

of constructing a local administration for the management of the poor’s

fund—still we feel satisfied that in the present state of society, and

under the existing distribution of the population, such a system cannot

be either comprehensive or uniform. We are therefore of opinion that the

fund should be obtained by an assessment, wholly and not partially

compulsory; and that it will be most efficiently managed by elective

boards of guardians as in England, directed by responsible public

officers whose proceedings shall be subjected to the strictest public

scrutiny.”

These are no doubt weighty reasons in favour of certain means being

provided to meet a certainly recurring contingency. But reasons were

also adduced on the opposite side of the question, the other eight

commissioners having in a series of sixteen propositions likewise

recorded their “reasons for recommending voluntary associations for the

relief of the poor;”[68] of which ‘Reasons’ the following are the

chief:—

“Because—there are and must necessarily be continually arising, many

cases of real destitution which cannot be relieved by a compulsory

assessment, without bringing claims upon it to an unlimited extent. The

attempt was made in England to meet all cases of distress by a

compulsory rate, and the consequence was, that in one year the rate

amounted to the enormous sum of more than 7,800,000_l._ sterling; and

besides the oppressive amount of the assessments, it did much evil in

pauperising a large portion of the labouring population.

“Because—although such cases of distress might, and probably would be,

relieved by spontaneous charity, yet the leaving of such cases of

distress to be relieved by the operation of undirected benevolence,

inevitably leads to an extensive vagrancy. This is now the state of

Ireland. On the most moderate computation the amount of spontaneous alms

given, chiefly by the smaller farmers and cottars, is from one to two

millions sterling annually; but being given without system or without

inquiry to the good and to the bad, the really destitute and the

pretenders to destitution receive alike their maintenance out of the

earnings of the industrious, to their great impoverishment, and to the

great injury of the morals and good order of the kingdom.

“Because—the most direct and effectual, if not the only means of

avoiding these two great evils, namely, an extensive and ruinous

pauperism created by an attempt to make compulsory provision for all

cases of destitution, and an extensive and equally ruinous vagrancy

created by the want of public provision, is to endeavour to bring

voluntary almsgiving under regulations and system, so as to direct it to

the relief of real distress exclusively.

“Because—the best means of systematising and regulating voluntary

almsgiving, is to hold out the offer of a measure of public aid for all

voluntary associations, based on certain principles, and governed by

fixed regulations approved by a central board.

“Because—while a fund thus founded upon voluntary contributions would

provide effectual relief for those who are really destitute, the very

nature of it would debar the poor from establishing legal claims upon

it; since the contribution to a voluntary fund being wholly spontaneous,

the contributors could at any time withhold them, if an attempt were

made to compel an appropriation of the joint fund contrary to their

instructions.

“Because—the example of an organised system of relief for the poor by

voluntary contribution is afforded in Scotland, where it has been

eminently successful.

“Because—although the system of providing for the poor by means of

voluntary associations, aided by the public purse, and constructed upon

well-digested principles, may not succeed at once in every part of the

country—yet that, so far as it does succeed, it will tend to bring the

population into a sound state with respect to the poor, and will we

trust gradually work its way over the face of the island, and probably

supersede in many places, as the Scottish system does so extensively,

the necessity of a compulsory rate. Whereas we are convinced, that

although a compulsory rate might be rendered general more rapidly, and

be administered by artificial means, it would every day become more

difficult to manage, and tend to bring the country into a worse state

than our inquiry has found it.”

-----

[68]

The commissioners who signed this schedule of reasons are, the

Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Murray the Roman catholic archbishop, Rev.

Mr. Carlisle, Mr. F. Hort, Mr. John Corrie, Mr. W. B. Wrightson, the

Right Hon. A. R. Blake, and Mr. J. J. Bicheno. The two latter had been

subsequently added to the original commission.

-----

The arguments for and against establishing a system of relief in Ireland

founded upon voluntary contributions, are here deliberately stated by

the advocates of such a procedure on one side, and by its opponents on

the other. The question is vitally important with regard to the relief

of the Irish poor, and deserves the most careful consideration. If the

voluntary system be susceptible of the organisation and the certainty

its advocates assume, it might doubtless be made to a considerable

extent available, although still open to the objection that it would

operate unequally upon the absentee and the resident proprietor, upon

the liberal man and the niggard. The majority of the commissioners, we

see, attach much weight to the example of Scotland, where they believe

the voluntary system to have “been eminently successful.” How little

ground there was for such belief, is shown in the recent working of that

system;[69] and as regards the combining public aid with voluntary

contributions which is recommended, it may be remarked, that such a

combination has always led to the whole charge being eventually borne by

the public.

-----

[69]

See ‘History of the Scotch Poor Law.’ The number of parishes assessed

to the relief of the poor in Scotland in 1855, was 700, and the number

unassessed, in which the relief is raised by voluntary contributions,

was 183. The latter are continually diminishing, and will probably ere

long cease altogether.

-----

[Sidenote: Mr Bicheno’s remarks on the evidence.]

In addition to the two schedules of ‘Reasons’ already noticed, another

document was appended to the Report, entitled ‘Remarks on the Evidence

&c., by one of the Commissioners.’ This was prepared by Mr. Bicheno, as

an exposition of his own peculiar views, and fills upwards of forty

closely printed folio pages. It contains a good deal of information upon

the state of the country, and the condition and habits of the people,

selected from the evidence furnished by the assistant-commissioners; but

is too long for insertion. The concluding paragraph however indicates

the spirit in which the ‘Remarks’ were written, and may therefore have a

place; it is as follows—“After all the assistance that can be extended

to Ireland by good laws, and every encouragement afforded to the poor by

temporary employment of a public nature, and every assistance that

emigration and other modes of relief can yield, her _real_ improvement

must spring from herself, her own inhabitants, and her own indigenous

institutions, irrespective of legislation, and English interference. It

must be of a moral nature; the improvement of the high and the low, the

rich and the poor. Without this, her tenantry will be still wretched,

and her landlords will command no respect; with it, a new face will be

given to the whole people.”

[Sidenote: Mr. G. C. Lewis’ remarks on the third report.]

Another paper, entitled ‘Remarks on the Third Report of the Irish Poor

Inquiry Commissioners,’ was submitted to government shortly after the

delivery of that Report. It was dated in July 1836, and was drawn up by

George Cornewall Lewis Esq.,[70] who had been one of the

assistant-commissioners for prosecuting the inquiry in Ireland. The

objections to the system, or rather the several systems of relief

recommended by the commissioners, are stated by Mr. Lewis with great

force and clearness, and he comes to conclusions on the whole question

very similar to those contained in the ‘Suggestions’ which had been

submitted by the author in the month of January preceding.[71] He

proposes to apply the principle of the amended English Poor Law to

Ireland, including the workhouse, with regard to the rejection of which

by the commissioners, he remarks—“as the danger of introducing a

poor-law into Ireland is confessedly great, I can conceive no reason for

not taking every possible security against its abuse. Now if anything

has been proved more decisively than another by the operation of the

Poor Law Amendment Act in England, it is that the workhouse is an

all-sufficient test of _destitution_, and that it is the only test; that

it succeeds as a mode of relief, and that all other modes fail. Why

therefore, this tried guarantee against poor-law abuses is not to be

employed, when abuses are, under the best system, almost inevitable, it

seems difficult to understand. If such a safeguard were to be dispensed

with anywhere, it would be far less dangerous to dispense with it in

England than in Ireland.”

-----

[70]

Now Sir George Cornewall Lewis Bart., and Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[71]

Ante p. 129.

-----

An account of the further steps taken with reference to the

commissioners’ Report, and as regards the whole of the very important

question to which it applies, will be given in the next chapter.