CHAPTER III.

Recommendation in the king’s speech—Motions and other proceedings in the

House of Commons—Lord John Russell’s instructions to the author—The

author’s first Report—Lord John Russell’s speech on introducing a bill

founded on its recommendations—Progress of the bill interrupted by the

death of the king—Author’s second Report—Bill reintroduced and passed

the Commons—Author’s third Report—Bill passes the Lords, and becomes

law.

The impatience generally felt for the Report of the Irish Poor Inquiry

Commissioners, was not a little increased by the uncertainty as to what

would be its nature. It was known that there were great differences of

opinion among the commissioners with regard to the remedy, although they

were all agreed as to the existence of the evil, and the necessity for

something being done towards its mitigation; but what that something

should be, was a question on which it was understood they by no means

coincided. It was feared therefore, that the present inquiry would end,

as others had ended, without any practical result. An impression had

long prevailed, and was daily becoming stronger, of the necessity for

making some provision for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland.

The perpetually-increasing intercourse between the two countries,

brought under English notice the wretched state of a large proportion of

the people in the sister island; and the vast numbers of them who

crossed the Channel in search of the means of living, and became more or

less domiciled in the large towns and throughout the western districts

of England, made it a matter of policy, as it assuredly was of humanity,

to endeavour to improve their condition; and nothing seemed so equitable

or so readily effective for the purpose, as making property liable for

the relief of destitution in Ireland, as was the case in England—in

other words, establishing some description of poor-law.

[Sidenote: The king’s speech on opening parliament, February 4, 1836.]

On the assembling of parliament, the subject was thus referred to in the

Royal speech—“a further Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the

condition of the poorer classes in Ireland will speedily be laid before

you. You will approach this subject with the caution due to its

importance and difficulty; and the experience of the salutary effect

produced by the Act for the amendment of the laws relating to the poor

in England and Wales, may in many respects assist your deliberations.” A

few days after (February 9th) Sir Richard Musgrave moved for leave to

bring in a bill for the relief of the poor of Ireland in certain

cases—“He himself,” he said, “lived in an atmosphere of misery, and

being compelled to witness it daily, he was determined to pursue the

subject, to see whether any and what relief could be procured from

parliament.” On the 15th of February another motion was made by the

member for Stroud for leave to introduce a bill for the ‘Relief and

Employment of the Poor of Ireland;’ and on the 3rd of March following, a

bill was submitted by Mr. Smith O'Brien, framed upon the principle that

in a system of poor-laws for Ireland, there ought to be local

administration, combined with central control—“local administration by

bodies elected by, and representing the contributors to the poor-fund,

and general central supervision and control on the part of a body named

by the government, and responsible to parliament.”

[Sidenote: Lord John Russell’s observations on the commissioners’

Report, April 18, 1836.]

These bills were all introduced, it will be observed, irrespective of

the final Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry, which indeed had not

yet been presented. But on the 18th of April, in answer to a question

respecting it, Lord John Russell, then Secretary of State for the Home

Department, said “that the Report had been under the consideration of

government, and they certainly had found in it a great variety of

important matters; at the same time he must add, that the suggestions in

it were not of that simple and single nature as to allow them to be

adopted without the caution which was recommended by the commissioners

themselves.” He could not, he said, conclude without adding, “that the

Report was not only of extreme importance, but that the subject of it

was of a nature to render it absolutely necessary that some measure

should be brought forward and adopted. It would be anxiously considered

by the government with a view to such measures, and there were none as

affecting Ireland, either at present or perhaps within the next hundred

years, which could possibly be of greater magnitude.” [Sidenote: Lord

Morpeth’s observations in reference to the Poor-Law question.] On the

4th of May Mr. Poulett Scrope moved a series of resolutions expressive

of the necessity for some provision for the relief of the Irish poor—in

commenting on which, Lord Morpeth[72] admitted “that the hideous nature

of the evils which prevailed amongst the poorer classes in Ireland,

called earnestly for redress, and he thought no duty more urgent on the

government and on parliament than to devise a remedy for them.”

Government were now he said engaged in determining on the steps proper

to be taken, and at the first moment they were in a condition to propose

such a general measure as they could recommend for adoption on their own

responsibility, they would do so. On the 9th of June following, on the

motion for postponing the consideration of Sir Richard Musgrave’s bill,

Lord Morpeth again assured the house “that the subject was under the

immediate consideration of government; and that he was not without hope

of their being enabled to introduce some preparatory measure in the

present session; but at all events they would take the first opportunity

in the next session, of introducing what he hoped would be a complete

and satisfactory measure;” and here the matter rested for the present.

-----

[72]

The present Earl of Carlisle, then Secretary for Ireland, and now Lord

Lieutenant.

-----

[Sidenote: Parliament prorogued August 20, 1835.]

Parliament was prorogued on the 20th of August, without anything having

been done, either with the bills introduced by individual members, or in

regard to the Report of the commissioners of inquiry. The

recommendations of the commissioners seem indeed to have increased

rather than lessened the difficulties attending any measure for the

relief of the Irish poor, owing probably to the recommendations “not

being of that simple and single nature” to which the home secretary

adverted in his address to the house on the 18th of April. Public

attention nevertheless continued to be directed to the subject with

undiminished earnestness, and government felt the necessity of coming to

some early and definite conclusion as to the steps to be taken in regard

to it.

[Sidenote: The author’s connexion with the subject.]

We have now reached a portion of our narrative when the author will be

compelled to speak of himself, and the part taken by him, first in

devising a poor-law for Ireland, and next in superintending its

introduction into that country; and he is very anxious to bespeak an

indulgent consideration for the difficulty in which he is placed, by

having been thus personally engaged in the transactions which he will

have to describe. The great social importance of the Irish Poor Law,

imposes upon him the duty of giving a full and complete account of all

that took place with regard to it; and he feels that this duty cannot be

rendered less imperative, by the fact of his official connexion with the

measure. He will therefore proceed to detail the circumstances as they

severally occurred; and it will be more simple, and may save

circumlocution for him to speak in the first person, on the occasions in

which he was himself immediately concerned.

[Sidenote: Lord John Russell’s letter of instructions, August 22, 1836.]

On the 22nd of August I received directions to proceed to Ireland,

taking with me the Reports of the commissioners of inquiry, and there to

examine how far it might be judicious or practicable to offer relief to

whole classes of the poor, whether of the sick, the infirm, or orphan

children—whether such relief might not have the effect of promoting

imposture, without destroying mendicity—whether the condition of the

great bulk of the poorer classes would be improved by such a

measure—whether a rate limited in its amount rather than its

application, might be usefully directed to the erection and maintenance

of workhouses for all those who sought relief as paupers—whether any

kind of workhouse can be established which should not give its inmates a

superior degree of comfort to the common lot of the independent

labourer—whether the restraint of a workhouse would be an effectual

check to applicants for admission; and whether, if the system were once

established, the inmates would not resist, by force, the restraints

which would be necessary. Supposing the workhouse system not to be

advisable, I was directed to consider in what other mode a national or

local rate might be beneficially applied; and to examine the policy of

establishing depôts where candidates for emigration might resort. My

attention was also specially directed to the machinery by which rates

for the relief of the poor might be raised and expended; and to the

formation and constitution of a central board, of local boards, of

district unions, and of parochial vestries. I was also directed to

inquire whether the capital applied to the improvement of land, and the

reclaiming of bogs and wastes was perceptibly or notoriously increasing

or diminishing, and to remark generally upon any plans which might lead

to an increased demand for labour; and lastly, to “carefully read the

bills which had been brought into the house of commons on this subject

during that year, and the draft of a bill prepared by one of the

commissioners of inquiry in conformity with their Report.”

It will thus be seen that the proposed inquiry was sufficiently

extensive; and I hardly need say that I entered upon the duty assigned

me with a deep sense of the responsibility it involved. The working of

the English Poor Law, afforded means for obtaining some insight into the

character and habits of such of the Irish as had become resident in the

metropolis and the larger towns of England, and I immediately instituted

inquiries on the subject among the workhouse masters and other officers

of several of the London parishes where the Irish labourers principally

resided. They all assured me as the result of their experience, that the

discipline of a workhouse operated with the Irish precisely as it did

with the English poor. There was in fact no difference in this respect,

nor any greater difficulty with regard to the one, than there was in the

management of the other. This was so far satisfactory; but further

examination and inquiry were necessary for giving entire confidence on

this point, and these could best be pursued in Ireland whither I

accordingly proceeded early in September.

The evidence collected by the late commissioners of inquiry and appended

to their Report, established so conclusively the existence of a state of

poverty throughout Ireland, amounting in numerous cases to actual

destitution,[73] that I felt it to be unnecessary to adduce any

additional proofs on the subject. To this extent moreover, the evidence

was fully borne out by previous investigations of committees and

commissions on the state of Ireland. The fact of wide-spread destitution

was therefore notorious, and its existence was universally admitted; so

that in reporting to government at the end of my mission, I considered

it enough to state as the result of my own inquiries, “that the misery

now prevalent among the labouring classes in Ireland, appears to be of a

nature and intensity calculated to produce great demoralization and

danger;” and such being the case, it was doubtless the duty of

government and the legislature to endeavour to devise a remedy for the

one, and thus at the same time to guard against the other.

-----

[73]

Whether the number of persons in distress and requiring relief during

thirty weeks in every year, amounted to 2,385,000, as estimated by the

commissioners, may admit of question; but there can be no doubt that

much distress prevailed, and that occasionally it was exceedingly

severe.

-----

[Sidenote: The author’s first report, Nov. 15, 1836.]

My first Report was delivered on the 15th of November. It stated that

after examining the several institutions in Dublin, I had visited the

west of Ireland from Cork to Limerick Westport and Sligo, and back by

Armagh—“everywhere examining and inquiring as to the condition and

habits of the people, their character and wants; and endeavouring to

ascertain whether, and how far, the system of relief established in

England, was applicable to the present state of Ireland.” The above

route was deemed the most eligible, because the inhabitants of the

manufacturing and commercial districts of the north and east, more

nearly resembled the English than those of the southern and western

parts of Ireland; and if the English system should be found applicable

to them, there could be no doubt of its applicability to the others.

The Report is divided into three parts or principal divisions—

The first, gives the general result of inquiries into the condition

habits and feelings of the people, especially with regard to the

introduction of a law for the relief of the poor.

In the second part, the question whether the workhouse system can with

safety and advantage be established in Ireland is considered, and also

whether the means for creating an efficient union machinery exists

there.

Assuming these questions to be answered affirmatively, the chief points

requiring attention in framing a poor-law for Ireland, are in the last

part considered.

It is now proposed to insert, under the above divisions, so much of the

Report as will be sufficient for showing its general import, and the

nature of its recommendations; but omitting such portions as are not

necessary for this purpose—

_First Report._—Nov. 15, 1836.

PART THE FIRST.—“The investigations and inquiries in which I have been

engaged, have led to a conviction that Ireland has, on the whole,

during the last thirty or forty years, been progressively improving.

It is impossible to pass through the country without being struck

with the evidence of increasing wealth almost everywhere apparent,

although it is of course more visible in towns than in the open

country. Great as the improvement in England has been within the

same period, that in Ireland, I believe, has been equal. There are

towns and districts there, as there are towns and districts in

England, in which little improvement is seen, or which may even have

retrograded; but the general advance is certain, and the improvement

in the condition and increase in the capital of the country, are

still, I think, steadily progressive. If it be asked how this

accords with the misery and destitution apparent among a large

portion of the people, the answer is obvious—The capital of the

country has increased, but the increase of the population has been

still greater; and it therefore does not follow that there is an

increase of capital or comfort in the possession of each individual,

or even of the majority. The reverse is unhappily the fact—Towns,

exhibiting every sign of increased wealth, are encircled by suburbs

composed of miserable hovels, sheltering a wretched population of

mendicants. In the country, evidence of the extreme subdivision of

land everywhere appears, and as a consequence, the soil, fertile as

it naturally is, becomes exhausted by continual cropping; for the

cottier tenant, too often reduced to a level little above that of

the mendicant, is unable to provide manure for his land, and has no

other mode of restoring its vigour but by subjecting it to a long

and profitless fallow. Farmers of three hundred acres, or even of

two or one hundred, except in the grazing districts, have become

almost extinct in Ireland. A variety of circumstances seem to have

contributed to bring about this change. In some instances the

proprietor has himself subdivided his land into small holdings of

five, ten, or fifteen acres, with a view of increasing his

rent-roll, or adding to his political influence. In other cases the

land has been let on lease to a single tenant on lives, or for a

term of years, or both conjointly; and he has sublet to others, who

have again gone on dividing and subletting, until the original

proprietor is almost lost sight of, and the original holding is

parcelled out among a host of small occupiers.

“The occupation of a plot of land has now gotten to be considered, by a

great portion of the Irish people, as conferring an almost

interminable right of possession. This seems to have arisen in great

measure out of the circumstances in which they have been placed; for

there being no legal provision for the destitute, and the

subdivision of the land into small holdings having destroyed the

regular demand for labour, the only protection against actual want,

the only means by which a man could procure food for his family, was

by getting and retaining possession of a portion of land; for this

he has struggled—for this the peasantry have combined and burst

through the restraints of law and humanity. So long as this portion

of land was kept together, it was possibly sufficient to supply his

family with a tolerable degree of comfort; but after a time he would

have sons to provide for, and daughters to portion off, and this

must all be effected out of the land—until the holding of ten or

fifteen acres became divided into holdings of two, three, or five

acres. After a time, too, the same process of subdivision is again

resorted to, until the minimum of subsistence is reached; and this

is now the condition of a large portion of the Irish peasantry. Land

is to them the great necessary of life. There is no hiring of

servants. A man cannot obtain his living as a day-labourer. He must

get possession of a plot of land to raise potatoes, or starve. It

need scarcely be said that a man will not starve, so long as the

means of sustaining life can be obtained by force or fraud; and

hence the scenes of violence and murder which have so frequently

occurred in Ireland.

“One of the circumstances that first arrests attention on visiting

Ireland, is the prevalence of mendicancy. It is not perhaps the

actual amount of misery existing amongst the mendicant class, great

as that may be, which is most to be deprecated; but the falsehood

and fraud which form a part of their profession, and spread by their

example. Mendicancy appeals to our sympathies on behalf of vice, as

well as want; and encouragement is often afforded to the one, by the

relief intended for the other. To assume the semblance of misery is

the business of the mendicant, and his success depends upon the

skill with which he exercises deception. A mass of filth, nakedness,

and squalor, is thus kept moving about the country, entering every

house, addressing itself to every eye, and soliciting from every

hand; and much of the filth and indolence observable in the cabins,

clothing, and general conduct of the peasantry, may I think be

traced to this source, and I doubt even if those above the class of

labourers altogether escape the taint. Mendicancy and filth have

become too common to be disgraceful.

“The Irish peasantry have generally an appearance of apathy and

depression. This is seen in their mode of living, in their

habitations, in their dress, in the dress of their children, and in

their general economy and conduct. They seem to have no pride, no

emulation; to be heedless of the present, and careless of the

future. They do not strive to improve their appearance, or add to

their comforts. Their cabins are slovenly, smoky, dirty, almost

without furniture, or any article of convenience or common decency.

On entering a cottage, the woman and children are seen seated on the

floor surrounded by pigs and poultry, the man is lounging at the

door, which can only be approached through mud and filth. Yet he is

too indolent to make a dry approach to his dwelling, although there

are materials close at hand, and his wife is too slatternly to

cleanse the place in which they live, or sweep the dirt and offal

from the floor. If you point out these defects, and endeavour to

show how easily they might improve their condition and increase

their comforts, you are invariably met by excuses as to their

poverty. Are a woman, and her children, and her cabin filthy, whilst

a stream of water runs past the door—the answer invariably is,

‘Sure, how can we help it? we are so poor!’ With the man it is the

same; you find him idly basking in the sun, or seated by the fire,

whilst his cabin is scarcely approachable through the accumulation

of mud—and he too will exclaim, ‘Sure, how can we help it? we are so

poor!’ whilst at the very time he is smoking tobacco, and has

probably not denied himself the enjoyment of whisky. Now poverty is

_not_ the cause, or at least not the sole cause, of this condition

of the Irish peasantry. If they desired to live better, or to appear

better, they might do so; but they seem to have no such ambition,

and hence the depressed tone of which I have spoken. This may be

partly owing to the remains of old habits; for bad as the

circumstances of the peasantry now are, they were yet, I am

persuaded, worse fifty or thirty years ago. A part also may be

attributed to the want of education, and of a feeling of

self-respect; and a part likewise to their poverty—to which last

cause alone, everything that is wrong in Ireland is invariably

attributed.

“The desultory habits of the peasantry are likewise remarkable. However

urgent the demands for exertion—if, as in the present season, their

crops are rotting in the fields from excessive wet, and every moment

of sunshine should be taken advantage of—still, if there be a market

to attend, a fair, or a funeral, a horse-race, a fight, or a

wedding, all else is neglected or forgotten; they hurry off in

search of the excitements which abound on such occasions, and with a

recklessness hardly to be credited, at the moment that they are

complaining of poverty, they take the most certain steps to increase

it. Their fondness for ardent spirits is probably one cause of this,

and another will be found in their position as occupiers of land.

The work required upon their small holdings is easily performed, and

may, as they say, ‘be done any day.’ Working for wages is rare and

uncertain; and hence arises a disregard of the value of time, a

desultory sauntering habit, without industry or steadiness of

application. Such is too generally the character, and such the

habits, of the Irish peasantry; and it may not be uninstructive to

mark the resemblance which these bear to the character and habits of

the English peasantry in the pauperised districts, under the abuses

of the old Poor Law. Mendicancy and indiscriminate almsgiving have

produced in Ireland, results similar to what indiscriminate relief

produced in England—the like reckless disregard of the future, the

like idle and disorderly conduct, and the same proneness to outrage

having then characterised the English pauper labourer, which are now

too generally the characteristics of the Irish peasant. An abuse of

a good law caused the evil in the one case, and a removal of that

abuse is now rapidly effecting a remedy. In the other case, the evil

appears to have arisen rather from the want, than the abuse of a

law; but the corrective for both will, I believe, be found to be

essentially the same.

“The objections usually urged against the introduction of Poor Laws into

Ireland, are founded on an anticipated demoralization of the

peasantry—and on the probable amount of the charge. The first

objection derives its force from the example of England under the

old Poor Law; but the weight of this objection is destroyed by the

improved administration under the new law, which is rapidly

eradicating the effects of previous abuse; and will, there is good

reason to believe, effectually prevent their recurrence. This belief

is founded on the experience of the effects of the system in every

instance in which it has been brought into operation, and

particularly in two important parishes in Nottinghamshire, where the

workhouse principle was first established in its simplicity and

efficiency fifteen or sixteen years ago, and where it has continued

to be equally effective up to the present time. Similar results have

invariably attended its application in the unions formed under the

new law, which are conducted essentially upon the same principle,

but with a superior combination of machinery, and administrative

arrangement.

“With respect to the second objection, founded on the probable amount of

expenditure, it may be remarked that the Irish population, like

every other, must be supported in some way out of the resources of

the country; and it does not follow that the establishment of such a

system of relief will greatly increase the charge, if it increase it

at all. During the progress of my inquiries, I was often told that

the recognition of any legal claim for relief would lead to

universal pauperism, and would amount to a total confiscation of

property. Many Irish landowners appeared to participate in this

apprehension—under the influence of which it seems to have been

overlooked, that the only legal claim for relief in England is

founded on the actual destitution of the claimant, and that as the

existence of destitution is the ground of the claim, so is its

removal the measure of relief to be afforded. This, if the

destitution be rightly tested, will be a sufficient protection to

property. At present there is no test of destitution in Ireland. The

mendicant, whether his distress be real or fictitious, claims and

receives his share of the produce of the soil in the shape of

charity, before the landlord can receive his portion in the shape of

rent, and before the tenant has ascertained whether he is a gainer

or a loser by his labours and his risks. The mendicant’s claim has

now precedence over every other. If the whole property of Ireland

was rated to the relief of the poor, it would be no more; but in

such case the charge would be equally borne, whereas at present it

is unequal, and tends to evil in its application.

“The voluntary contributions of Scotland have been recommended as an

example to be followed, rather than the compulsory assessments of

England; and the Dublin Mendicity Association has been referred to,

and its working described as at once effective for the suppression

of mendicancy, and for the relief of the indigent within the sphere

of its operations, without injury to the sensibilities of individual

benevolence. But the feelings of charity and gratitude, which it is

delightful to contemplate as the motive and the fruit of benevolent

actions, can only exist between individuals. It matters not whether

the fund to be distributed has been raised by voluntary

contribution, or by legal assessment, or whether it has been devised

for purposes of general charity. The application of the fund

becomes, in each case, _a trust_; it is distributed as a trust, and

it is received as a right, not as a gift. It may moreover be

remarked, that the Dublin Mendicity Association has with difficulty

been kept in existence by great exertions on the part of the

committee, and by threats of parading the mendicants through the

streets. If difficulty is thus found in supporting such an

institution in Dublin, how impracticable must it be to provide

permanent support for similar institutions in other parts of the

country. Some persons contend that relief for the indigent classes

in Ireland should be provided in ‘houses of industry,’ similar to

those now existing in Dublin and a few other places. These

institutions are in general not badly managed, and some

classification is enforced in them, and the sexes are invariably

separated. But they are certainly not entitled to the designation of

‘houses of industry.’ They are in fact places for the maintenance of

a number of poor persons, mostly aged or infirm, and idiots, and

lunatics; but as a general means of supplying necessary relief, and

of testing the necessity, they are totally inefficient.

“Notwithstanding these objections, I found everywhere, after quitting

Dublin, a strong feeling in favour of property being assessed for

the relief of the indigent. At present, the burthen falls almost

exclusively upon the lower classes, whilst the higher classes

generally escape. A system of poor-laws, similar in principle to the

English system, would go far to remedy this inequality—the people

are aware of this—and, as the general result of my inquiries, I have

been led to the conclusion, that poor-laws may be now established in

Ireland, guarded by the correctives derived from experience in

England, with safety and success. I think also, that such a measure

would serve to connect the interest of landlords and tenants, and so

become a means of benefiting both, and promoting the general peace

and prosperity of the country. The desire now so generally expressed

for a full participation in English laws and English institutions,

will dispose the Irish people to receive with alacrity any measure

tending to put them on the same footing as their fellow-subjects of

England—a circumstance particularly favourable to the establishment

of a poor-law at this moment. At another season, or under other

circumstances, it might be difficult to surround a legal provision

for the relief of the Irish poor, with sufficient guards against

abuse; but at present, I think the legislature may venture to

entertain the subject, having the experience of England before them,

with a reasonable confidence of being able to bring the measure to a

successful issue; and if the landed proprietors and gentry of

Ireland will there perform the same part, which the proprietors and

gentry of England are now performing in the administration of the

new Poor Law, the result will be neither distant nor doubtful.

“If a poor-law were established in Ireland, it must not however be

expected to work miracles. It would not give employment or capital,

but it would, I think, help the country through what may be called

its transition period; and in time, and with the aid of other

circumstances, would effect a material improvement in the condition

of the people. The English Poor Laws, in their earlier operation,

contributed to the accomplishment of this object in England; and

there seems nothing to prevent a similar result in Ireland.

Facilities now exist in Ireland for helping forward the transition,

and for shortening its duration as well as securing its benefits,

which England did not possess in the time of Elizabeth, or for a

century and a half afterwards. By ‘transition period,’ I mean that

season of change from the system of small holdings, con-acre, and

the subdivisions of land, which now prevails in Ireland, to the

better practice of day-labour for wages, and to that dependence on

daily labour for support, which is the present condition of the

English peasantry. This transition is, I believe, generally beset

with difficulty and suffering. It was so in England; it is, and for

a time will probably continue to be so in Ireland; and every aid

should be afforded to shorten its duration, and lessen its pressure.

It has been considered that the existence of the con-acre system is

favourable to such a transition. I am disposed to concur in this

view, and think that the annual hiring of the con-acre, may help to

wean the Irish peasantry from their present desire of occupying

land, and lead them to become labourers for wages. The eager

clinging to land, and its subdivision into small holdings, is at

once a cause and a consequence of the rapid increase of the people,

and of the extreme poverty and want which prevail among them. It is

not because the potato constitutes their food, that a kind of famine

occurs annually in Ireland between the going out of the old, and the

in-coming of the new crop; but it is because the peasantry are the

sole providers for their own necessities, each out of his own small

holding; and being all alike hard pressed, and apt to

under-calculate the extent of their wants, they thus often find

themselves without food before the new crop is ripe. In this

emergency there is no store provided to which they can have

recourse, and misery and disease ensue. A poor-law would lighten the

pressure under such a visitation, and the poor-law machinery might

be useful in cases of extreme need, as well as for preventing a

recurrence of the calamity.

“It is impossible to mix with the Irish people without noticing the

great influence of the clergy, and it seemed important therefore to

ascertain their views in regard to a poor-law. I discussed the

subject with many of them, as well Roman catholic as protestant, in

all parts of the country; and I found them, with few exceptions,

decidedly favourably to such a law. In the cases where they were not

so, it appeared to be owing to an apprehension that their influence

might be lessened, by taking from them the distribution of the alms

which now pass through their hands; but this feeling was of rare

occurrence, and I am warranted in saying, that the clergy of every

denomination are almost unanimously favourable to a system of Poor

Laws for Ireland. This was perhaps to be expected, the duties of the

clergy leading them to mix more with the people, and to see more of

their actual wants, than any other class of persons. The shopkeepers

too, and manufacturers and dealers generally, I found favourable to

a poor-law. They declared that they should be gainers at the end of

the year, whatever might be the amount legally assessed upon them;

for that they could neither close their doors, nor turn their backs

upon the wretched objects who were constantly applying to them;

whilst the gentry, if resident, were in a great measure protected

from such applications, and if non-resident, escaped them

altogether.

“A legal provision for the destitute, is moreover an indispensable

preliminary to the suppression of mendicancy. If the state offers an

alternative, it may prohibit begging—it would be in vain to do so

otherwise, for the law would be opposed to our natural sympathies,

and would remain inoperative. This was the course adopted in

England, where it was long endeavoured to repress vagrancy by severe

enactments, but apparently with little advantage. At last the offer

of relief was coupled with the prohibition of mendicancy, and until

our Poor Law administration became corrupt, with perfect success. To

establish a poor-law, then, is I believe a necessary preliminary to

the suppression of mendicancy. That it will be, on the whole,

economical to do this in Ireland, it is I think scarcely possible to

doubt; but whether it be so or not, the advantage both morally and

socially of removing such an evil, is beyond question important.

“It may be regarded as a circumstance favourable to the introduction of

a poor-law, that so much land is lying waste and uncultivated in

Ireland. Much of this land is susceptible of cultivation, and the

order and security which a poor-law would tend to establish, will

encourage the application of capital to such objects. If capital

were to be so applied, considerable tracts would be brought under

culture, and thus afford occupation to the now unemployed labourers.

Most of the reclaimed bog which I saw in the western counties, was

effected by the small occupiers, who partially drained and enclosed

an acre or two at a time; but such operations were without system or

combination, and for the most part indifferently performed. In this

way, however, the reclamation of these wastes will of necessity

proceed—constantly adding to the number of small cottier tenants,

and swelling the amount of poverty and wretchedness in the

country—unless proprietors and capitalists shall be induced to take

the matter in hand, and by enclosing and effectually draining whole

tracts, secure the means of applying economical management on a

large scale. The enclosing and draining, and the whole process of

reclamation, would afford employment to labourers who are now, for a

great portion of the year, idling about without occupation; and when

the land so reclaimed becomes subjected to a regular process of

cultivation, it will continue to afford them regular employment at

daily wages, instead of the often miserably insufficient produce of

their own small holdings, to which they now are compelled to cling

as their sole means of support.

“It appears then, I think, that a poor-law is necessary for relieving

the destitution to which a large portion of the population in

Ireland is now exposed. It appears too, that circumstances are at

present favourable for the introduction of such a measure. A

poor-law seems also to be necessary, as a first step towards

bringing about improvement in the habits and social condition of

the people. Without such improvement, peace, good order, and

security cannot exist in Ireland; and without these, it is in vain

to look for that accumulation of wealth, and influx of capital,

which are necessary for developing its resources, agricultural and

commercial, and for providing profitable employment for the

population. Ireland is now suffering under a circle of evils,

producing and reproducing one another. Want of capital produces

want of employment—want of employment, turbulence and

misery—turbulence and misery, insecurity—insecurity prevents the

introduction or accumulation of capital—and so on. Until this

circle is broken, the evils must continue, and probably increase.

The first thing to be done is to give security—that will produce

or invite capital—and capital will give employment. But security

of person and property cannot co-exist with extensive destitution.

So that, in truth, the reclamation of bogs and wastes—the

establishment of fisheries and manufactures—improvements in

agriculture, and in the general condition of the country—and

lastly, the elevation of the great mass of the Irish people in the

social scale, appear to be _all_ more or less contingent upon

establishing a law providing for the relief of the destitute.—How

such a law may be best formed, so as to secure the largest amount

of good, with the least risk of evil, it is proposed next to

consider.

PART THE SECOND.—“There are two points for consideration under this

division of the subject which are of primary import, the question of

a Poor Law for Ireland mainly depending upon them. First—Whether the

workhouse system can be safely and effectively established in

Ireland; and secondly—Whether a machinery can be there established

for their government, such as exists in the English unions.

“In my inquiries with regard to these points, I endeavoured to exercise

a care and vigilance proportioned to their importance. The inquiry

was entered upon under an apprehension that the workhouse would be

less efficient in Ireland, than experience had shown it to be in

England; and that it would probably be applicable to the able-bodied

in a limited degree only, if applicable to them at all. I was

doubtful also, whether it would be practicable to control any

considerable number of the able-bodied in a workhouse—whether the

proneness of the Irish peasantry to outrage and insubordination

would not, as had often been represented, lead them to break through

all restraint, and perhaps demolish the building, and commit other

acts of violence. The probability of such outrage is strongly

insisted upon by the Commissioners of Inquiry, and the same argument

was urged upon me by some persons with whom I communicated in

Dublin. In the progress of my inquiries however, I soon found reason

for concluding that there was no ground for apprehension, either as

to the applicability of the workhouse for the purposes of relief, or

as to any danger of resistance to such a system of classification

and discipline within it, as would make it a test of destitution. In

the several ‘houses of industry’ established in Ireland, a strict

separation of the sexes is enforced, and a discipline more or less

approximating to our workhouse discipline is established. No spirits

are admitted, and on the whole, there is enough in these

institutions to render them distasteful as places of partial

restraint. Yet from no governor of a house of industry could I learn

that resistance had ever been made to their regulations, and

surprise was even expressed at my thinking it necessary to make the

inquiry. I received the same opinion from the governors of gaols. In

short, every man whom I conversed with, who had any experience of

the habits of the people, declared that the peasantry are perfectly

tractable, and never think of opposing authority, unless stimulated

by drink, or urged on by that species of combination for securing

the occupancy of land, which has become so common in certain

districts. Neither of these influences will interfere with the

establishment of a workhouse, or the regulation of its inmates, all

of whom will have sought refuge in it voluntarily, and may quit it

at any moment. As regards the security of the workhouse, therefore,

and the establishment of a system of discipline as strict as that

maintained in the English workhouses, I believe that there will be

neither danger nor difficulty.

“How far the workhouse, if established, may be relied upon as a test of

destitution and a measure of the relief to be afforded; how far it

will be effectual for the prevention of pauperism, and for

stimulating the people to exertion for their own support;—how far,

in short, the workhouse system, which has been safely and

effectually applied to dispauperise England, may be applied with

safety and efficiency to prevent pauperism in Ireland, now remains

for inquiry. The governing principle of the workhouse system is

this:—that the support which is afforded at the public charge in the

workhouse, shall on the whole be less desirable than the support

obtained by independent exertion. To carry out this principle, it

might seem to be necessary that the inmates of a workhouse should be

in all respects worse situated—worse clothed, worse lodged, and

worse fed, than the independent labourers of the district. In fact,

however, the inmates of our English workhouses are as well clothed,

and generally better lodged and better fed than the agricultural

labourer and his family: yet the irksomeness of the discipline and

confinement, and the privation of certain enjoyments, produce such

disinclination to enter the workhouse, that experience warrants the

fullest assurance that nothing short of destitution, and that

necessity which the law contemplates as the ground for affording

relief, will induce the able-bodied labourer to seek refuge therein;

and that if driven thither by necessity, he will quit it again as

speedily as possible, and strive (generally with increased energy

and consequent success) to obtain subsistence by his own efforts.

“It would perhaps be in vain, even if it were desirable, to seek to make

the lodging, the clothing, and the diet, of the inmates of an Irish

workhouse, inferior to those of the Irish peasantry. The standard of

their mode of living is so low, that the establishment of one still

lower is difficult, and would under any circumstances be

inexpedient. In Ireland therefore, there would not perhaps be found

the same security in this respect for the efficiency of the

workhouse test, which may in some degree be operative in England.

There are countervailing circumstances in Ireland however, which

more than balance this drawback, even if it were greater than it

really is. The Irish are naturally, or by habit, a migratory people,

fond of change, hopeful, sanguine, eager for experiment. They have

never been practically limited to one spot by a law of settlement,

as has been the case with the English peasantry. They have never

been enervated by a misapplied system of parish relief. Rather than

bear the restrictions of a workhouse, the Irishman, if in possession

of health and strength, would wander the world over to obtain a

living. All the opinions I have collected from persons most

conversant with the Irish character, agree in this. Confinement of

any kind is even more irksome to an Irishman than to an Englishman.

Hence, although he might be lodged, fed, and clothed, in a

workhouse, better than he could lodge, feed, and clothe himself—he

will yet, like the Englishman, never enter the workhouse, unless

driven thither by actual necessity; and he will not then remain

there longer than that necessity exists. The test of the workhouse

is then, I think, likely to be as efficient in Ireland, as it is

proved to be in England; and if relief be there restricted to the

workhouse, it will be at once a test of destitution, and a measure

of relief, and will serve to protect the administration of a legal

provision for the destitute poor, from those evils and abuses which

followed the establishment, and led to the perversion, of the old

Poor Laws in England. I speak of the workhouse as a test of

destitution generally, without limiting its operation to age,

infirmity, or other circumstances; for independent of the difficulty

of discriminating between those who may fairly be considered as aged

and infirm, and those who are not—as well as certain other

difficulties, practical and theoretical, in the way of making any

such distinction—I have found in the state of Ireland, no sufficient

reason for departing from the principle of the English Poor Law

which recognises _destitution alone_ as the ground of relief, nor

for establishing a distinction in the one country, which does not

exist in the other.

“The expense of providing workhouses, will not, I apprehend, be so

considerable as has by some been anticipated. If the surface of

Ireland be divided into squares of twenty miles each, so that a

workhouse placed in the centre would be distant about ten miles from

the extremities in all directions, this would give about eighty

workhouses for the whole of Ireland. A diameter of twenty miles was

the limit prescribed for the size of unions by Gilbert’s Act, but it

was often exceeded in practice—it may however, be assumed as a

convenient size on the present occasion. In some cases, owing to the

position of towns, or other local causes, the unions will probably

be smaller; in others, especially in the thinly-peopled districts of

the west, they may be larger: but still, there is, I think, every

probability that the number of workhouses required will not greatly

exceed eighty. In aid of this number, the houses of industry, and

mendicity and other establishments, which will be unnecessary as

soon as a legal provision is made for the relief of the destitute,

will become available at probably a small expense. In some

instances, moreover, barracks, factories, or other buildings

suitable for conversion into workhouses, may perhaps be obtained on

easy terms:—but excluding all such considerations, and assuming that

instead of eighty workhouses, a hundred will be required, and that

the cost of erecting each will be about the same as for the largest

class of English workhouses, namely, about 7,000_l._—this would give

a gross outlay of 700,000_l._ for the whole of Ireland—a sum not

disproportionally large, when the nature of the object is taken into

account. If government were to advance the sum necessary for

providing the workhouses by way of loan, as has been done to the

unions in England, requiring an instalment of five per cent. of the

principal to be paid off annually out of the rates, it would make

the whole charge so easy, that it would scarcely be felt. The

payment of 35,000_l._ per annum for twenty years, with the interest

on the constantly-decreasing principal, could not be considered a

hardship on Ireland; and this is in fact the whole of the new or

additional outlay proposed: for as regards the relief of the

destitute, that would not be a new charge, the destitute classes

being now supported, although in a manner calculated to injure and

depress the general character of the people.

“As respects the means for local management in Ireland, if it were

attempted to establish a parochial machinery similar to that which

exists in England, I believe the attempt would fail. The description

of persons requisite for constituting such a machinery, will not be

found in the majority of Irish parishes. In some parts however, and

especially in the north and the east, competent individuals would be

found in many, if not in most of the parishes. If an Irish Poor Law

were established, the uniting of parishes for the purpose of

securing the benefits of combined management, is therefore more

necessary even than it was in England; and by making the unions

sufficiently large, there can be no doubt that in almost every

instance, such a board of elected guardians may be obtained as would

secure the orderly working of the union, under a due system of

supervision and control.

“In the first instance, and until a rate for the relief of the

destitute is established, the contributors to the county-cess might

be empowered to elect the guardians. But in some cases an efficient

board may not be obtainable by election, and this is most likely to

occur at the commencement, when individuals will be ill instructed

as to their duties, and when the public will perhaps have formed

erroneous notions of what is intended to be done. To meet such a

contingency, it seems essential that large general powers should be

vested in some central authority, to control and direct the

proceedings of the boards of guardians, and even to supersede their

functions altogether, whenever such supersession shall be necessary.

Power should also be given to declare unions, and to appoint paid

officers to conduct the business, under the direction of the central

authority, without the intervention of a board of guardians; and in

order to guard against mistakes to be expected on the first

introduction of an entirely new order of things, and to prevent the

mischief that might ensue from failure or misconduct at the outset,

the central authority should also, I think, be empowered to dispense

with the election of the first board of guardians, and to appoint

such persons as may appear most fit and competent to act as

guardians of the union, until the Lady-day next ensuing, or the

Lady-day twelvemonths. The number and selection of such

specially-appointed guardians to be at the discretion of the central

authority. These powers are greater than were given to the English

commissioners by the Poor Law Amendment Act: but they are, in my

opinion, necessary in the present state of Ireland. With such powers

confided to the central authority, no difficulty can arise for which

it will not be prepared; and it will, I think, be enabled to

establish the unions, and to constitute an adequate machinery for

their government throughout the whole of Ireland, with certainty and

efficiency.

“In England, the county magistrates residing and acting within a union,

are _ex-officio_ members of the board of guardians. The number and

position of the magistracy in Ireland seem to require some

modification in this respect. The principle of administration

established in England by the Poor Law Amendment Act, is based

essentially upon popular representation. The guardians are elected

by the occupiers and owners of the property rated, and in the hands

of the guardians the administrative power is vested. The county

magistrates, it is true, in virtue of their office, sit and act as

members of the board; but this does not destroy its elective

character, as the number of elected so far exceeds that of the

_ex-officio_ guardians, that the popular character of the board is

maintained; whilst the presence of the magistrates, who in virtue of

their office are permanent members, and therefore connecting links

between the successive boards of elected guardians, secures a

stability and continuity of action, which, if based entirely upon

election, the board might not possess. This is the constitution of

the boards of guardians in England, and nothing can work better: but

in Ireland, the number of magistrates who would be entitled under a

similar provision to act as _ex-officio_ guardians, would in general

greatly exceed the number so qualified in England, and in some cases

might outnumber the elected guardians. If this should occur, the

elective character of the board would of course be destroyed; but

even if this should not be the case, yet any undue preponderance of

the permanent _ex-officio_ guardians would detract from the popular

character of the governing body, and lower it in the confidence of

the people. With a view therefore of keeping as nearly as possible

to the practical constitution of the English boards of guardians, I

propose in the Irish unions,—1st. That the number of _ex-officio_

guardians shall never exceed one-third the number of elected

guardians: 2dly. That immediately on the declaration of a union, the

county magistrates residing and acting within its limits, shall

nominate from among themselves a number nearest to, but not

exceeding, one-third of the elected guardians,—which magistrates so

nominated by their compeers, shall be entitled to act as

_ex-officio_ guardians of the union, until the Michaelmas

twelvemonth after such nomination: and 3dly. That at each succeeding

Michaelmas, the magistrates entitled as aforesaid, shall proceed to

a new election. These regulations will, I think, not only preserve a

due proportion in the constitution of the boards of guardians, but

also ensure the co-operation of the most efficient portion of the

magistracy in the government of the unions; as the magistrates will

doubtless nominate those members of their body who are most active

and able.

“A different practice from that established in England, seems also to be

necessary with respect to the Clergy. Under the provisions of the

Poor Law Amendment Act, ministers of religion of every denomination

are eligible for the office of guardian, elected or _ex-officio_. In

the present condition of Ireland, I fear this would be attended with

inconvenience, and might destroy the efficiency of the boards of

guardians. I therefore propose that no clergyman, or minister of any

religious denomination, shall be eligible to act either as elected

or _ex-officio_ guardian. This exclusion is not proposed from any

notion of the general unfitness of the clergy to fill the office of

guardian; but with reference solely to the present state of

religious opinion in Ireland, and to the importance of keeping the

functions of the boards of guardians free from the suspicion of

sectarian bias. If the ministers of one persuasion were to be

admitted, the ministers of every persuasion must be so; and then the

deliberations would too probably he disturbed by religious

differences. On no point have I taken more pains to arrive at a

sound conclusion than on this, being fully sensible of the

objections, on principle, to the exclusion of any class of men from

office: but the great majority of the clergy themselves with whom I

have conversed, Roman catholic and protestant, have agreed in

thinking that it will be, on the whole, inexpedient to admit any of

the ministers of religion to act as guardians; and after the fullest

consideration and inquiry, I therefore recommend that they should

all be declared ineligible.

“In England, under the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act, every

parish or township rated for the maintenance of its poor, and

included in a union, is entitled to return a guardian. In Ireland it

will, I think, be essential that the central authority should be

empowered to fix the limits of a union, without being restricted to

parish boundaries. It should be enabled to divide parishes, either

for the purpose of electing guardians, or for joining a portion of a

parish to one union, and another portion to another union. It should

also be empowered to consolidate parishes for the purpose of

electing one or more guardians, and likewise to form election

districts for this purpose, without reference to parochial

boundaries. And lastly, the central authority should be empowered to

add to, take from, and remodel unions, whenever such change might be

found necessary. These powers would have enabled the English Poor

Law Commissioners to make their unions more compact and convenient

than they at present are, local prejudices and local interests

having frequently compelled them to abandon the arrangement which

would have been best for the general interest. In Ireland, full

powers in these respects are, I think, indispensable for enabling

the central authority to deal with the various circumstances under

which the unions will there have to be formed. But with adequate

powers, and with such modifications as are before described, the

principle of union which has been established in England by the Poor

Law Amendment Act, may I think be advantageously extended to

Ireland; and as it has been shown that no insurmountable difficulty

exists to prevent the introduction of the workhouse as a test of

destitution—so neither will there be any insurmountable difficulty

in establishing an adequate machinery for the government of the

unions when formed.

PART THE THIRD.—“Assuming that a system of Poor Laws ought to be

established in Ireland; that the workhouse system may there be

relied upon, as a test of destitution; and that the means of forming

and governing unions exist there, as well as in England—It now

remains to describe the several points which require attention in

framing a measure comprising these objects; and also to offer such

further observations, as did not seem to come within the scope of

the preceding divisions.

“The governing principle to be observed in dealing with this portion of

the subject is, that the Poor Law of Ireland should assimilate in

all respects as nearly as possible to that established in

England,—varying only in those instances, in which the different

circumstances of the two countries require it. In conformity with

this principle, the first point for consideration would naturally be

the constitution of the central or chief authority, and the powers

to be confided to it; but I postpone this part of the

subject—assuming only that a central authority is to be established,

with powers similar in kind to those conferred upon the English Poor

Law Commissioners. The other points for consideration are the

following—

_1st._ _Of Relief._—“The only legal claim for relief in England, is

founded upon the destitution of the party claiming it. I propose to

extend the same principle to Ireland; and as a test of the actual

existence of such destitution, and to guard against the evils which

have invariably attended the distribution of out-door relief, (that

is, of relief administered either in money or in kind to parties out

of the workhouse) I further propose that, in Ireland, no relief

should be given except in the workhouse. I do not propose to impart

a _right_ to relief, even to the destitute poor. The claim to relief

in England, is founded on prescription, rather than enactment; for

although the _43rd of Elizabeth_ provides for the levying a rate for

the purpose of relieving the destitute poor, it invests them with no

right to claim relief, the administration of which is left to the

local authorities, who are of course responsible for its due

exercise. The promulgation of rules for the administration of relief

will therefore rest with the central authority, limited by the

proviso that relief is only to be administered in the workhouse. The

central authority will declare when the workhouse shall be so

applied in each union, and will also take care that no time be lost

in providing suitable workhouse accommodation, as well as to

establish such regulations as may be necessary for the guidance of

the local authorities in the interim; but it will be most safe to

prohibit all relief whatever, until the test of the workhouse can be

applied.

“The strict limitation of relief to the workhouse may possibly be

objected to, on the ground that extreme want is found occasionally

to assail large portions of the population, who ought then to be

relieved at the public charge, without being subjected to the

restraint of the workhouse. But this is an exceptional case, and it

would not, I think, be wise to adapt the regulations of poor-law

administration in Ireland to the possible occurrence of such a

contingency. In a period of famine, the whole population may be said

to become destitute; but it surely would not be expedient to hold

out an expectation, that if this should unhappily occur, support for

_all_ would be unconditionally provided at the public charge?—During

such a visitation, the workhouse might not be sufficient for the

numbers who were anxious to crowd into it; but to the extent of its

means of accommodation it would help to relieve the general

distress, and the union machinery would probably be found useful in

other respects. The occurrence of a famine, however, if general,

seems to be a contingency beyond the powers of a poor-law to provide

for. There is then an actual deficiency of supply; and as there is

less to consume, less must be consumed. It is however, I think,

impossible to contemplate the continuance of such a state of things

in Ireland, as that in which any considerable portion of its

population would be subjected to the occurrence of famine. As the

habits and intelligence of the people improve, these visitations

will be guarded against or averted; and I do not propose to make any

exception permissive of out-door relief in such cases, but recommend

that relief should be limited strictly to the workhouse. It is

moreover necessary that no individual of a family should be

admitted, unless all its members enter the house. Relief to the

father or husband is equivalent to relief to the child or the wife,

and _vice versâ_; and, while they continue one family, a part cannot

be considered as destitute, and the rest not so; a family must be

taken as a whole, and so admitted or excluded. The provisions of

_the 43rd of Elizabeth_, requiring parents to support children, and

children to support parents, should also be extended to Ireland; and

I think relief by way of loan, as provided for by the _58th section_

of the Poor Law Amendment Act, might in certain cases be useful, and

if exercised with discretion, can scarcely be productive of

mischief.

_2ndly._ _Of the Local Machinery._—“I propose that the local machinery

for the administration of relief to the destitute in Ireland, under

the direction of a central authority, should be the same as is

provided in England by the Poor Law Amendment Act; namely, the union

of a district for common management, under a board of guardians

elected by the ratepayers, with paid officers appointed or approved

by the central authority.

“In forming the unions, it will be necessary to observe the civil,

rather than the ecclesiastical boundaries of parishes; but cases

will arise, in which it may be requisite to disregard all such

boundaries—it being obviously more important that the district to be

united should be compact, convenient, and accessible, and be

naturally connected with its centre, than that the old and often

inconvenient boundaries should be observed. This applies no less to

county or baronial boundaries than to those of parishes or other

divisions. The principle which has governed the formation of the

English unions, whenever the commissioners have not been driven from

it by local circumstances, has been to fix upon some market-town

conveniently situated as a centre, and to attach to it the whole

surrounding district, of which it may be considered the capital, and

in which the general business of the district, both public and

private, for the most part centres. The roads of a district always

converge upon the market-town. The communications with it are

constant, and the people settled within the range of its influence

constitute almost a distinct community. To form such a district into

a union, seems an obvious course, and I recommend its being adopted

in Ireland. There may be parts of the country in which such a

convenient centre does not exist, but this will be of rare

occurrence, and the general powers of the central authority will be

competent to deal with it.

“Much of what appeared to be necessary with reference to the members of

the boards of guardians, both elected and _ex-officio_, is given in

the second part of this Report: but the important question—in whose

hands the right of appointing guardians shall be confided, and in

what way that right shall be exercised, still remains to be

considered. In this, as in other cases, the principle established in

England, should, I think, be applied to Ireland, and the election of

guardians be vested in the ratepayers and owners of property within

the union; but the circumstances of Ireland require some

modification of the English practice, in this respect. The owners of

property in England, are entitled to vote according to the scale

which was established by the Select Vestry Act, and which ascends by

gradations of 25_l._ each, from a rated value of 50_l._ per annum up

to 150_l._ per annum, giving one vote for the former, and six votes

for the latter. This scale seems open to some objection, on the

grounds of complexity and over-minuteness. It moreover differs from

the scale of voting fixed for the ratepayers by the Poor Law

Amendment Act, which provides that ratepayers, if rated under

200_l._ shall have one vote; if rated at 200_l._ and under 400_l._,

two votes; and if at 400_l._ and upwards, three votes. Such a scale

seems on the whole well adapted to the condition of ratepayers in

England, but the amounts specified are too high for Ireland; and the

scale is not sufficiently minute in its graduation, for the

subdivision of property which prevails there. Instead of adopting

these English scales, therefore, I propose to establish one scale in

Ireland, by which simplicity of detail, and a right result, will I

think be more effectually secured; and I recommend the following for

regulating the votes of owners of property, as well as occupiers,

above 5_l._ and under 5_l._ one vote.

50_l._ and under 100_l._ two votes.

100_l._ ” 150_l._ three votes.

150_l._ ” 200_l._ four votes.

200_l._ and five votes.

upwards

_3rdly._ _Of Rating._—“The power to assess the property and levy a rate

within a union for the purpose of relieving the destitute, must, I

think, be confided to the board of guardians, by whom such relief is

to be administered. The mode of assessing and collecting the rate,

as well as its application, will be prescribed by the central

authority. The Parochial Assessments Act passed last session,

establishes the principle that the rates are to be paid upon the net

annual value of property. This was always the law, although it had

not always been acted upon. As regards the principle by which the

assessment of property should be regulated, it will therefore be

only necessary to extend the provisions of that Act to Ireland,

substituting the union for the parish authorities. The valuation of

property for rating need not, I apprehend, be made in every instance

by surveyors or professional valuators. The fairly-estimated value

of the property is all that is necessary. In many instances a

valuation has already been made for the purpose of tithe

commutation, and wherever that, or any other fair valuation has been

made, it will be available for rating to the relief of the poor.

Hitherto there has been no such rate in Ireland. The destitute

classes have gone on increasing in numbers, but still there has been

no recognised or legal provision for their relief. Property has been

acquired, capital invested, and contracts made, under this state of

things, and it will be impossible now to impose a rate upon

property, without affecting existing arrangements: but I believe the

effect will be slight, and that in a few years it will cease

altogether. If it were far greater than I anticipate however, all

objections to the imposition of a rate on this ground must be

overborne by considerations of the public welfare.

“The question as to who shall pay the rate, and in what proportions, is

next to be considered. The parties immediately interested are the

owner or person possessing the beneficial interest of the property

assessed, and the tenant or occupier. Between these therefore, it

seems both equitable and expedient to apportion the rate. Where the

two are combined, the same person would be answerable for the entire

rate. The Irish Poor Inquiry Commissioners appeared to be of opinion

that the owner should pay two-thirds of the rate, and the occupier

one-third; and it seemed to me, at first, that this would be a

suitable division: but after further consideration and inquiry, I

thought that each should be called upon to pay half the rate.[74] I

was mainly influenced to adopt this view, by the consideration that

at present nearly the whole support of the destitute falls upon the

tenantry. It is to the occupiers that the mendicant resorts, and

from them he receives his daily rations. There is thus in reality, a

rate now levied, although not sanctioned by legal enactment; and no

occupier, however limited may be his means, turns away the mendicant

empty-handed from his door. The pressure of these continual calls

upon the occupiers, help to bear them down, and keep them at their

present low level; but if the destitute classes were relieved by

means of a general rate upon property, of which the occupiers were

called upon to pay half, they would be relieved from nearly one-half

their present burthen. A poor-law, if rightly administered, although

it ensures relief for the destitute, will not increase their number,

or eventually swell the fund appropriated to their support. On the

contrary, I believe it will help to lessen both. But admitting that

the number and the amount remain the same, still the occupiers will

then have to pay only one-half, the landlord the other; whereas now

the occupier contributes nearly the whole.

-----

[74]

In Scotland the rate is divided equally between the landlord and

tenant.

-----

_4thly._ _Of Settlement._—“Parochial settlement, as established in

England, is almost universally admitted to have been productive of

great mischief. It has led to much litigation and expense; and by

fixing the peasantry to the narrow limits of their parish, beyond

which the world was to them almost a blank, it has done more to

injure their character, to destroy its elasticity, and to banish

self-reliance and resource, than any other portion of the old Poor

Law system. It will not, therefore, I presume, be considered right

to establish parochial settlement in Ireland. The habits of the

Irish are migratory, their movements depending upon their own

volition. To establish a law of settlement, would be to fix them to

one locality. No such law has yet been established there; and it is

therefore open to the legislature to prescribe the limits, if a

settlement shall be deemed advisable; or else to dispense with

settlement altogether.

“Without a law of settlement, it is true, vagrants from other districts

may congregate in particular unions, and may claim relief, or be

sent to the workhouse; but if the workhouses are all regulated upon

the same scale of diet and discipline, there would be no inducement

for the vagrant classes to prefer one union to another, and they

would probably remain scattered throughout the country, in much the

same proportion as at present. If such a preference was in any

instance shown by them, it might be taken as a proof of inefficient

management or lax discipline on the part of the favoured union, and

would be a signal for the central authority to interfere. Thus, if

there should be no law of settlement, the number of inmates in the

several workhouses would serve as a kind of index to the management

of each; and the local authorities would be compelled in

self-defence to keep their unions in good order, to prevent their

being overrun with paupers. Such a competition, if well regulated,

might go far to ensure the general efficiency of the unions.

_5thly._ _On Mendicancy_—“Whenever relief is provided for the destitute,

mendicancy may be suppressed. A law which says, ‘You shall not beg

or steal, but you shall starve,’ would be contrary to natural

justice, and would be disobeyed; but if the law first makes

provision for the destitute, and then says, ‘You shall not beg, but

you shall be relieved at the public charge,’ the alternative thus

offered will entitle the community to suppress a practice which is

held to be injurious. On these grounds, I think the law which

establishes a system of public relief for destitution, should at the

same time prohibit mendicancy. The present state of Ireland however,

and the habits and feelings of the Irish people, throw considerable

difficulty in the way of an immediate suppression of mendicancy. The

number of mendicants is very great, and they are therefore of some

importance as a class, and support and keep each other in

countenance whilst following, what they consider, no disreputable

vocation. They enter the cottages of the peasantry as supplicants,

it is true, but still with a certain sense of right; and the

cottager would be held to be a bold, if not a bad man, who resisted

their appeal. In fact, the appeal never is resisted,—if there is

only a handful of potatoes, they are divided with the beggar; and

there is thus perhaps levied from the produce of the soil in Ireland

for the support of mendicancy, as large a contribution as it is now

proposed to raise by an assessment of property for the relief of

destitution. The ‘sturdy beggars,’ noticed in the _14th of

Elizabeth_, must have been very similar to those now common in

Ireland. Indeed the state of society at the two periods seems to

have been nearly the same in both countries, the prevalence of

begging in each being accompanied by the same general disposition to

give, and this disposition of course increasing the number of

beggars.

“The evils of mendicancy in Ireland are certainly very great, and its

suppression should be provided for at the earliest practicable

period. The best mode of effecting this would probably be, to enact

a general prohibition, and to cast upon the central authority the

responsibility of bringing it into operation in the several unions,

as the workhouses became fitted for the reception of inmates. The

central authority might, I think, so regulate their proceedings, as

that the now itinerant mendicants who may be really unable to

provide for themselves, should be placed in the several workhouses

with the least degree of coercion and inconvenience; and that the

ablebodied vagrants and disorderly persons should be compelled to

provide for their own subsistence, by the application of strict

workhouse discipline. Time and forbearance will doubtless be

necessary in carrying such a measure into operation in Ireland, and

these the powers of the central authority will enable it to afford.

The present generation will probably pass away before the

disposition to encourage begging by indiscriminate almsgiving, which

now prevails so generally among all classes in Ireland, will be

corrected by the adoption of a more enlightened benevolence. It will

then we may hope be seen, that the real friends of the people are

those who lead them to independent exertion, to a reliance upon

themselves and their own efforts for support—not those who, by the

constant doling of miscalled charity, entice the people into a state

of dependence. It may minister to human pride, to be surrounded by a

crowd of such dependents; but it surely is inconsistent with genuine

benevolence to encourage, or even to permit this, if it can possibly

be prevented.

_6thly. Of Bastardy._—“As far as I had opportunity of observing and

inquiring, the Irish females are generally correct in their conduct.

I am aware that opinions somewhat different have been expressed; but

my own impression of the moral conduct of the Irish females is

highly favourable. Their duties appear to be more laborious than

those of the same class in England. Their dress, too, is inferior,

and so likewise seems their social position; yet they universally

appear modest, industrious, and sober—I state this as the result of

my own observation; and if the Irish females have preserved their

moral character untainted hitherto, as I believe in the main to be

the case, it affords an argument for ‘letting well alone.’ If it had

been otherwise however, and if the extent of bastardy, and its

demoralising influence on public manners had been greater, I should

still have recommended that the Irish females should be left, as

now, the guardians of their own honour, and responsible in their own

persons for all deviations from virtue. The abuses under the old

English bastardy law, and our brief experience of the improved

practice established by the Amendment Act, warrant the

recommendation that no such law should be applied to Ireland; but

that bastards, and the mothers of bastards, in all matters connected

with relief, should be dealt with in the same manner as other

destitute persons solely on the ground of their destitution.

_7thly._ _Of Apprenticeship._—“The experience which England affords with

regard to apprenticeship, is of a somewhat conflicting character,

although the preponderance of testimony is opposed to it. It is open

to much abuse, and has operated mischievously in several parts of

the country, by increasing that dependence upon the parish which

under the old Poor Law had become so characteristic of the English

peasantry. It must however I think be admitted, that the

apprenticing of orphan and destitute children, as provided for by

_the 43rd of Elizabeth_, has in many cases been productive of good;

and if judiciously limited, so as not to be regarded as the ordinary

mode of providing for the children of the labouring classes, but

merely as a resource for the destitute and the orphan, it might

still I think be continued with advantage. I am aware that this

opinion differs somewhat from that of the members of the late

English Poor Law Inquiry Commission; but the evidence of abuse

submitted to the commissioners was taken in the time of the old Poor

Law, which converted everything it touched into an abuse; and it

does not follow, because apprenticeship added to the accumulation of

evils under such circumstances, that it is incapable of producing

good under others. It is on the different application of

apprenticeship, and on the different circumstances in which it would

be applied, that I now rely. None of the abuses exist in Ireland

which prevailed under the old parochial management in England; and

by the aid of the union machinery apprenticeship may, I think, be

safely applied to the placing out of destitute and orphan children,

the number of whom in Ireland is very considerable. The Poor Law

Amendment Act empowers the commissioners to frame regulations for

apprenticing the children of poor persons; and I propose to extend

this provision to Ireland, by which it may be hoped that all the

beneficial effects of the law may be secured, whilst the evils which

certainly have resulted from it in England will in great measure be

avoided.

_8thly._ _Of Pauper Idiots and Lunatics._—“For individuals of this

description, if not dangerous, the union workhouses will be

available. Dangerous lunatics, and insane persons, must of course be

sent to asylums, as at present; and it is important, I think, that

these institutions should be kept distinct from poor-law

administration. The deprivation of reason is a misfortune so

extreme, that special efforts are called for on behalf of

individuals subjected to such a visitation. The careful supervision

of such unhappy persons is necessary for the protection of the

community. But with respect to pauper idiots and lunatics not

dangerous, these might, I think, be advantageously provided for in

the several workhouses, where a lunatic ward should be prepared for

such of them as might be unfitted to mingle with the other paupers.

Idiots, labouring under a deficiency, rather than a deprivation of

reason, appear in general to feel contentment in proportion as they

are employed on something of a nature suitable for them. In a

workhouse, such employment might always be found, and they would

probably there partake as largely of comfort as their unhappy state

is susceptible of. I propose, therefore, that the provision of the

Poor Law Amendment Act, permissive of the retention in a workhouse

of idiot and lunatic paupers, not dangerous, be extended to Ireland,

and that their mode of treatment and employment be in all cases

subject to the direction of the central authority.

_9thly._ _Of Emigration._—“A country may be so circumstanced, as to

require that a portion of its population should migrate from one

part of it to another, either permanently or occasionally; and may

still, on the whole, have no actual excess of population. A country

may also, with reference to its means of employment, labour under an

excess of population; or both these circumstances may exist at the

same time, which appears, in fact, to be the state of Ireland at

present. The Irish population is excessive, compared with the means

of employment; and the effect of this excess would be more felt,

were it not for the opening which England presents for migration.

Where the population is in excess, it must be exceedingly difficult

to effect any material improvement in the condition of a people; for

as long as the labourers exceed the number required, so long will

their competition for employment serve to depress their condition,

and counteract whatever efforts may be made to improve it. The only

alternative in such case is, either to increase the amount of

employment, or to decrease the number of labourers depending upon

it. To bring about by direct interposition any material increase of

permanent employment, is in every view difficult, and under common

circumstances, perhaps impossible; but something may be done

indirectly in this respect, by the removal of impediments and the

establishing of increased facilities for the application of capital,

and something also perhaps by the intervention of government: but

all such aids must of necessity be limited in their application, as

well as remote in their effects—it is from spontaneous or natural

employment alone, that the labouring classes can look for permanent

occupation, and the means of support.

“To aim directly at effecting an increase of employment in Ireland, is

beyond the powers if it be not foreign to the province of a

poor-law, the immediate object of which is to provide for the relief

of the destitute. Now destitution may be caused by an excess of

labourers, or by a deficiency of employment, which are in truth

convertible terms. If an able-bodied labourer becomes destitute

through want of employment, he must be relieved at the common

charge, like any individual reduced to a state of destitution by age

or infirmity. If the want of employment and destitution be owing to

an excess of population, to relieve that excess by emigration must

be a good. Yet it may be doubted whether the parent stock is not

enfeebled by the remedy, for in general the most active and

enterprising emigrate, leaving the more feeble and less robust at

home; and thus a continual drain of its best elements will lower the

tone and reduce the general vigour of a people, at the same time

that it imparts an additional stimulus to their increase.

“Emigration however, not only may, but I believe must be had

recourse to as a present means of relief, whenever the population

becomes excessive. The excess will be indicated by the pressure of

able-bodied labourers on the workhouse. If any considerable number

of these enter the workhouse, and remain there subject to its

discipline, it may be taken as a proof of their inability to provide

for themselves, and of the consequent excess of labourers beyond the

means of employment. Under such circumstances, emigration must be

looked to as the only present remedy; and provision should be made

for defraying the expense which this would occasion, as well as for

the regulations under which it should be carried into effect. With

regard to the expense, I propose that the charge should in every

case be equally borne by the government, and the union from which

the emigrants proceed. This division of the charge appears

equitable, for although the union only is immediately benefited, yet

eventually the whole empire is relieved, excess in one portion of it

tending to occasion an excess in the whole. But the emigration

should, I think, be limited to a British colony, and should be

conducted under the control of the central authority, and be

subjected to such regulations as the government may deem it right to

establish.

_10thly._ _Of Houses of Industry, and Charitable Institutions._—“There

is now a kind of poor-law established in Ireland, under which the

‘houses of industry’ are managed, but it is partial and ineffective;

and the several statutes providing for these houses of industry, and

the other institutions intended for the relief of the poor, should

be repealed, and the management of such establishments placed under

the central authority. Institutions strictly charitable, and

supported by voluntary contribution or otherwise, would of course

remain as at present; but it would, I think, be extremely desirable

to invest the central authority with such a power of revising their

rules and superintending their practice, as would ensure their

acting in unison with, or at least prevent their acting in

contravention of, the principles which the Act establishes for

poor-law administration in Ireland. The ‘houses of industry’ would

generally become available as union workhouses, for which they are

for the most part well adapted; and the other establishments, where

they are public property, or supported by government, or by local

grants from the county-rates, may be appropriated in like manner,

under direction of the central authority.