“The foregoing appear to be the only points requiring especial

attention, in framing a poor-law for Ireland, although there are

several other matters of minor interest not to be overlooked. The

‘Poor Law Amendment Act’ should, I think, be taken as a guide in

framing the measure, and the language, order, and general provisions

of that Act should be adhered to, except where the contrary is

herein indicated, or where a variation is obviously necessary. There

will be much practical convenience in thus assimilating the two

statutes, which provide for poor-law administration in the two

countries. A measure framed on the principles developed in this

Report, is I think necessary for Ireland. Unless the people are

protected from the effects of destitution, no great or lasting

improvement in their social condition can be expected. The

establishment of a poor-law is, I conceive, the first step necessary

to this end; and followed as it will be by other ameliorations, to

the introduction of which it is a necessary preliminary, we may hope

that it will ultimately prove the means of securing for Ireland the

full amount of those benefits which ought to arise from her various

local advantages, and the natural fertility of her soil.

“The proposed measure may, I believe, be carried into effect, either by

means of a separate commission in Ireland, or by the existing

English Poor Law Commission. One of these modes, I presume, must be

adopted; and before deciding which, it will be necessary to consider

the advantages and disadvantages of each. In doing this, it is

important to bear in mind, that it is the English Poor Law system

which is now proposed to be established; and that the knowledge and

experience acquired in working that system, can be best made

available for Ireland, by employing individuals conversant with the

English practice. If there should be a separate commission for

Ireland, it would be necessary that the commissioners should be

acquainted with the English Poor Law, as now administered; and this,

I apprehend, would exclude most of those Irishmen who might

otherwise be deemed qualified for the office. Such exclusion,

however necessary, would have an ungracious appearance, and might

excite angry comment. But independent of this consideration, if

there were a separate commission, the law would be similar in both

countries, but the practice might become widely different, as was

the case in different parts of England under the old Poor Law

administration. With two commissions, there might possibly be no

unity of principle,—there would certainly be no unity of action,—and

probably no identity of result. Unless the existing English Poor Law

Commission should be unequal to the additional duty of introducing

the proposed law into Ireland, or unless it should appear that the

commissioners ought not to be intrusted with the performance of this

duty, the above reasons would seem to be conclusive against a

separate commission.

“It must be admitted that the official duties of the English Poor Law

Commissioners have been, and in fact still are, very heavy. As a

member of the commission, and one too not unaccustomed to work, I

may be permitted to say, that the labour has been throughout

unceasing and excessive, to an extent that nothing but the hope of

accomplishing a great public good would have rendered bearable. The

success of the measure, however, in lessening the pressure on the

ratepayers, and in improving the condition of the labouring classes,

coupled with the support which has been afforded by government, and

by nearly all the intelligent portions of the community, have given

the commissioners encouragement and confidence; and when the process

of forming unions shall be completed, their labours will become

lighter. Under these circumstances, there would seem to be no

insuperable difficulty in the way of the present Poor Law

Commissioners being made the instruments of establishing the new law

in Ireland; and whatever may be the difficulty at first, it will

lessen as the amount of English business decreases, and the

organisation of the Irish machinery is perfected. If, then, no other

grounds of objection exist, and if it shall be deemed desirable, I

see no reason to doubt that the English Poor Law Commissioners are

competent to the additional duty of introducing the proposed measure

into Ireland.”

Such was the substance of my first Report, which it has been here

endeavoured to condense as far as was consistent with a full exposition

of its import; and this it is necessary to give, in order to prepare the

reader for correctly appreciating the important measure which was

founded upon it. After undergoing much consideration, the Report was

finally adopted by government on the 13th of December 1836, and on the

following day I was directed to have a bill prepared embodying all its

recommendations. This was accordingly done, and after being scrutinised

clause by clause in a committee of the Cabinet specially appointed for

the purpose, and receiving various emendations, the bill was introduced

on the 13th February 1837.[75] The public and parliament bad been

prepared for the measure by the Royal speech at the commencement of the

session, in which his Majesty recommended for early consideration “the

difficult and pressing question of establishing some legal provision for

the poor in Ireland, guarded by prudent regulations, and by such

precautions against abuse as their experience and knowledge of the

subject enable them to suggest.”

-----

[75]

The author’s Report was presented to the house at the same time.

-----

[Sidenote: Lord John Russell’s speech, February 13, 1837.]

Lord John Russell[76] introduced the bill in a comprehensive and very

able speech—It appears, he said, from the testimony both of theory and

experience, that when a country is overrun by marauders and mendicants

having no proper means of subsistence, but preying on the industry and

relying on the charity of others, the introduction of a poor-law serves

several very important objects. In the first place it acts as a measure

of peace, enabling the country to prohibit vagrancy which is so often

connected with outrage, by offering a substitute to those who rely on

vagrancy and outrage as a means of subsistence. When an individual or a

family are unable to obtain subsistence, and are without the means of

living from day to day, it would be unjust to say they shall not go

about and endeavour to obtain from the charity of the affluent, that

which circumstances have denied to themselves. But when you can say to

such persons—here are the means of subsistence offered to you—when you

can say this on the one hand, you may on the other hand say, “you are

not entitled to beg, you shall no longer infest the country in a manner

injurious to its peace, and liable to imposition and outrage.” Another

way, he observed, in which a poor-law is beneficial is, that it is a

great promoter of social concord, by showing a disposition in the state

and in the community to attend to the welfare of all classes. It is of

use also by interesting the landowners and persons of property in the

welfare of their tenants and neighbours. A landowner who looks only to

receiving the rents of his estate, may be regardless of the numbers in

his neighbourhood who are in a state of destitution, or who follow

mendicancy and are ready to commit crime; but if he is compelled to

furnish means for the subsistence of persons so destitute, it then

becomes his interest to see that those around him have the means of

living, and are not in actual want. He considered that these objects,

and several others collateral to them, were obtained in England by the

Act of Elizabeth. Almost the greatest benefit that could be conferred on

a country was, he observed, a high standard of subsistence for the

labouring classes, and such a benefit was secured for England chiefly by

the great Act of Elizabeth. His lordship then alluded to the abuses

which subsequently arose, and to the correction of those abuses then in

progress under the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act; and said

that “we ought to endeavour to obtain for Ireland all the good effects

of the English system, and to guard against the evils which had arisen

under it.”

-----

[76]

Then secretary of state for the home department, and leader in the

house of commons.

-----

The Report of the Poor Inquiry Commissioners for Ireland was next

adverted to. They had, he said, recommended many measures of improvement

for Ireland, and suggested certain measures with regard to the indigent.

It was to the latter he wished to call the attention of the house, as

being the principal object of the present bill. The other suggestions

for the general improvement of Ireland he proposed to leave for future

consideration. With regard to the question of immediate relief for the

destitute, the commissioners, he said, propose in the first place, that

a large class of persons should be provided for at the public expense by

means of a national and local rate. They advise also that there should

be money afforded for emigration, and that depôts should be provided for

persons preparing to emigrate. In considering that Report, great doubts

occurred to his Majesty’s ministers whether it was a good principle to

provide only for certain classes, and whether those depôts for

emigration could be safely and advantageously adopted. It appears, he

observed, from every reflection on the subject, that the real principle

is to afford relief to the destitute, and to the destitute only; and it

would be quite as wrong to refuse relief to the able-bodied person in

that situation, as to afford relief to the cripple, the widow, or a deaf

and dumb person who had other means of support. It is not then the

peculiar circumstances which excite public or individual compassion that

we are to regard; but if we have a poor-law at all, it ought to be

grounded on destitution, as affording a plain guide to relief. Then with

regard to the emigration depôts, that part of the commissioners’

recommendations could not be adopted without a great deal more of

consideration than the plan proposed by them appears to have received.

And, he added, “deeply impressed as we have been with the responsibility

that attaches to a government which proposes a law upon this subject, it

occurred to us that the best method was to see whether the law which, as

amended, has been applied to England, could be introduced with advantage

in Ireland.” For this purpose Mr. Nicholls, one of the Poor Law

Commissioners, was requested to go to Ireland, and ascertain on the spot

whether anything resembling the machinery of the English Poor Law could

be there applied; and the result of Mr. Nicholls’s inquiry is, that

supposing it to be expedient to extend a poor-law to Ireland, there was

no insurmountable obstacle or objection to the establishment of a law in

many respects resembling the amended Poor Law in England. The reasons

for that opinion are stated in the Report which has been laid on the

table, and on which the bill is founded. His lordship then adverted to

the chief portions of the Report, and stated generally his own views on

the subject.

There is no doubt, he said, that there have occurred in Ireland many

outrages consequent upon vagrancy and destitution, and the people’s

being left without remedy or relief; and also that a large portion of

the people, especially those not having land, do practise mendicancy for

a great portion of the year. He had made some inquiry with respect to

the amount of the relief thus afforded to mendicants, and the result is

that in most cases a shilling an acre is paid in course of the year by

farmers for the support of mendicants. In some cases it has been 6_d._

an acre, in others 9_d._, and in others 1_s._; but in one case it

amounted to 2_s._ an acre. This is a heavy tax, which cannot upon the

whole amount to less than between 700,000_l._ and 800,000_l._, perhaps a

million a year. But this practice of mendicancy, which raises so vast a

sum, is not like a well-constituted poor-law, which affords relief to

the really indigent—that which seems to afford relief to the distressed,

also promotes and keeps up imposture, and in Ireland where mendicancy is

so general, and relief so freely given, the number of impostors must be

enormous.

His lordship then proceeded to consider whether the workhouse system was

applicable to Ireland; and after noticing the objection made by the

commissioners of inquiry, and urged by others, that the workhouse would

not be safe—that there would be too much violence—that there would be

such a dislike of restraint that it could not be enforced—he came to the

conclusion “that there was no reason to apprehend anything of the sort.”

In some of the houses of industry, he remarked, they have carried the

system of restraint further than in the old English workhouses, and have

established the separation of sexes such as exists in the new English

workhouses; and no regulation was proposed which did not now exist, so

“there need be no fear that violence would be used, or that we could not

protect the workhouses in Ireland, as well and as securely as the

workhouses in England.”

It had been much urged, he said, as a means of preventing undue pressure

on the workhouse, that a residence in the district of three years or

some other definite period should be a condition to any person’s being

relieved therein; but he declared that he was opposed to establishing a

law of settlement in Ireland, being quite convinced that it is one of

the greatest evils of the poor-laws in England. It circumscribes the

market for industry. It has led to immense litigation, and any person,

he observed, “who has attended the quarter sessions, and there witnessed

the disputes that arise between parishes as to whether a person had been

hired for a year and a day, whether he had been ordered to go home on

the day before the expiration of the term so as to destroy the

settlement, or whether he had served a full year and a day, and various

other similar questions—any person who has attended to this litigation

and those disputes, will not have any wish that I should introduce the

question of settlement into this bill.”

When the whole of the workhouses are in operation, and we are enabled to

relieve all that are entitled to it, we may then, he observed, prohibit

vagrancy; but until we can do the one, it will not be just altogether to

prohibit the other. It is not therefore proposed to prevent persons

asking alms, if they can show they have applied for and failed in

obtaining relief. This is a necessary step in the transition from one

state to another. If it succeeds, we shall hereafter be able to prohibit

vagrancy.

His lordship then went over the ground more fully discussed in the

Report, with regard to the local machinery, the question of rating, the

extent of the unions, cost of the workhouses, emigration, and some other

minor points; and then stated that the safest way of introducing such a

law as had been described, would be to use the simple machinery which

had been found so advantageous in England. It was therefore proposed,

instead of forming a separate commission for Ireland, that the Poor Law

Commissioners for England should have the power of intrusting to one or

two of their body, the power of acting in Ireland for carrying the law

into operation. This would he thought be better than establishing a

separate commission. A lengthened discussion then took place in

reference to the proposed measure, in which Mr. Shaw, Mr. O'Connell,

Lord Howick, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, and other members took part.

[Sidenote: The bill read a first time.] Doubts were of course expressed,

and objections stated; but on the whole the measure was not received

unfavourably, and the bill was ordered to be read a first time.

[Sidenote: The bill read a second time and committed.]

On the 25th of April Lord John Russell moved the second reading of the

bill, and the debate thereon was continued by adjournment to the 1st of

May, when the second reading was carried without a division, although

not without long and somewhat hostile discussion. On the 9th of May the

house went into committee on the bill, and the first fourteen clauses

were passed with only a few verbal alterations. On the 11th the

committee got to the end of the 20th clause, after two unimportant

divisions. It had been announced that on the 12th of May the question of

settlement should be considered. Many members were still of opinion that

a settlement law was necessary; but after a long and temperate

discussion of the subject in all its bearings, the committee decided

against the introduction of settlement by 120 to 68. On the 26th of May

the bill was again in committee, when the clauses up to the 35th were

agreed to. [Sidenote: Vagrancy clauses postponed.] On the 2nd, 5th, 6th

and 7th of June, the committee proceeded in considering the clauses of

the bill up to the 60th, but the vagrancy clauses (53 to 58 inclusive)

were postponed. These clauses provided for the repression of mendicancy

in the unions, as the workhouses were successively completed and in

operation; but there appeared to be a strong feeling in the house that

nothing should be done to prevent begging, until the poor-law was

everywhere fully established. The clauses were therefore postponed for

further consideration.

[Sidenote: Death of William IV. June 20, 1837.]

At this time the king’s illness had so much increased that his recovery

became highly improbable, and the business of parliament was

consequently suspended. William the Fourth died on the 20th of June, and

was succeeded by his niece the Princess Victoria, our present gracious

sovereign. On the 17th of July parliament was prorogued by the youthful

queen, in a speech from the throne, which the manner of its delivery and

the occasion combined to render more than ordinarily interesting. The

Irish Poor Relief bill, and the other measures then in progress, were

therefore put an end to, and would have to be commenced anew on the

re-assembling of parliament.

The interval thus interposed, afforded opportunity for further

consideration and inquiry, and it was determined that this should be

taken advantage of, and that the author should again proceed to Ireland

for the purpose of visiting “those districts which a want of time

prevented his inspecting last year.” I was also directed to bear in mind

the discussions which had taken place during the progress of the bill in

the late session, and generally to report whether the circumstances of

the districts about to be visited, or any new matter that I might

discover, “shall have caused me in any way to alter or modify the

recommendations set forth in my last Report.”

Accordingly at the end of August I proceeded to Ireland, and continued

in the active prosecution of my inquiries until early in October. I

moreover took advantage of the opportunity afforded me in going and

returning, to inquire very carefully at Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester,

and Birmingham, into the habits of the large number of Irish congregated

in each of these towns, and into the mode of dealing with such of them

as become destitute, or stand in need of relief, on which points I

obtained much valuable information, for the most part confirmatory of my

previous views. On the 3rd of November I reported the result of my

further inquiries;[77] and I will now, as was done in the case of the

‘First Report,’ give an abstract of this ‘Second Report,’ although much

less fully, it not being now necessary to go so much at length into what

may be considered matters of detail, as was requisite in the first

instance—

-----

[77]

The Report was accompanied by appendices containing important evidence

on several of the points to which it referred; and in particular a

communication from Mr. Stanley, on the extent of destitution among the

poorer classes in Ireland, in which he shows that the estimate of the

inquiry commissioners was founded on erroneous data.

-----

_Second Report._—Nov. 3, 1837.

“The investigations which I have just concluded, have not afforded

ground for any material change of opinion. I may perhaps estimate

the difficulty of establishing a poor-law in Ireland somewhat higher

than I did before, but of the necessity for such a measure, I am if

possible more fully convinced; and now, after a more extended

inquiry, both in England and in Ireland, I am enabled substantially

to confirm the statements in my Report of last year, to which I can

add but little in the way of recommendation, although it may be

necessary to notice certain objections which have been made to

portions of the Report, and to some of the provisions of the bill of

last session. No material change in the bill however appears to be

called for, and I presume government will again proceed with it as

then proposed. The measure is essentially based upon the English

workhouse system; and as, notwithstanding the facts and reasonings

which were adduced in proof of its applicability to Ireland, doubts

were still expressed both in and out of parliament upon this vital

point, it seemed important to ascertain whether any grounds for such

doubts really existed.

“With this view I visited Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, and

Birmingham, through which places nearly the whole of the Irish

migrants pass and repass, and in all of which there is a large

resident Irish population, and where therefore their habits are well

known. All the persons whom I consulted in these places, were

unanimous in declaring their belief, that nothing but absolute

inability to provide for himself would induce an Irishman to enter

the workhouse. But it may be objected, that although disinclination

to the workhouse is characteristic of the Irish when in England,

such would not be the case if the system were established in

Ireland. This objection does not admit of an answer founded on

direct experience; but judging from analogy, and making due

allowance for the circumstances of the two countries, there seems no

reason to doubt that the result would be the same in one as in the

other. The Irishman is by habit and temperament more roving and

migratory than the Englishman; but this is surely not calculated to

reconcile him sooner to the restraints of a workhouse. I made it my

business to inquire, and obtain information from all classes of

persons, and was everywhere assured that the Irish would not go into

the workhouse, if they could in any way obtain support out of it.

The result of my investigations in the several houses of industry

and mendicity establishments has been to the same purport, all

tending to show that if the workhouse is properly regulated, it will

be resorted to only by the actually destitute. It is not less

important to state however, that I found the same persons decidedly

opposed to anything in the shape of out-door relief. I have not met

with an individual conversant with the subject, either in England or

in Ireland, who did not declare against out door relief. ‘Confine

relief to the workhouse,’ was the general reply, ‘and you will be

safe; but if you once grant out-door relief, your control is gone,

and the whole Irish population will become a mass of paupers.’

“It has been argued that the workhouses will eventually fail in Ireland,

as they have failed in France, at Munich, and at Hamburgh; but there

is no analogy between the two cases. The workhouse principle was

never recognised in these establishments, which were all either

poorhouses for the maintenance of the aged and infirm, or

manufactories for setting to work vagrants, mendicants, and other

idle persons. All these institutions were established under the

notion that profitable labour could be always found, and that pauper

labour could be made profitable to the community, and their

management had reference to these objects. There were certain

variations in practice to suit local circumstances, but this was the

view under which the institutions were founded, by Count Rumford, at

Munich, by the imperial government in France, and by Baron de Voght,

at Hamburgh. I need scarcely say that this view is essentially

different from the workhouse system established in England, and as

it is proposed to establish it in Ireland. Experience has proved

that pauper labour can never be profitable. The workhouse is here

used merely as a medium of _relief_; and in order that the destitute

only may partake of it, the relief is administered in such a way,

and on such conditions, that none but the destitute will accept it.

This is the workhouse principle, as first established in the two

parishes of Bingham and Southwell eighteen or twenty years ago, and

as it has recently been established in the unions formed under the

Poor Law Amendment Act; and we have the experience of these

parishes, and the more varied, though less prolonged experience of

the English unions, in proof of the efficiency of the system, which

has worked hitherto without a single instance of failure. It is not

therefore upon mere hypothesis, that it is proposed to proceed with

regard to the Irish Poor Law, but upon the surer ground of

experience.

“It has been further argued, that there is always a tendency to

deterioration in such institutions, and that after a time they fall

away from the principle on which they were originally established—to

which it may be answered, that no such deterioration occurred in the

two parishes above named—on the contrary, the workhouse principle

continued to operate in these parishes in all its simplicity and

efficiency, up to the day when they were each constituted the centre

of a union. May it not therefore be inferred, that if established as

a test of destitution, the workhouse will continue to be effective,

and the principle free from deterioration, as in the two cases named

above? But the proposed measure does not depend on this inference

alone—a safeguard is provided by the Poor Law Amendment Act in the

appointment of commissioners, who under the control of the

executive, and the supervision of parliament, are to superintend the

working of the measure, and to apply from time to time such

correctives, whether local or general, as may be necessary for

securing its efficiency. Whatever doubts may have arisen on either

side of the Channel, as to the sufficiency of the workhouse for

relieving the destitute, as well as for protecting the ratepayers, I

therefore feel warranted in expressing my conviction, not only that

the workhouse system is applicable to Ireland, but that it is the

only mode in which relief can be safely administered to the

destitute classes in that country.

“The question of the workhouse being thus disposed of, I shall now

proceed to notice such objections as have been made to the bill

generally, or to any of its provisions; and in doing this, I will

endeavour to introduce such illustrations as seem to be called for,

and such further information as I have been able to collect during

my recent visitation, which extended from Waterford to Belfast and

Londonderry, and the counties of Donegal, Fermanagh, Cavan, and

Meath.

“The chief objections which have been made to the measure, as it was

introduced in the last session, are comprised under the heads

hereafter specified, to each of which a full explanation is appended

in the Report. From these several explanations, so much is here

given, as will, it is hoped, serve to lessen, if not altogether to

remove, the weight of the objections which were raised during the

discussion on the bill, or which may have appeared in pamphlets or

in any other shape.

_The measure is said not to be applicable to the North of Ireland._—“It

has frequently been asserted, both in and out of parliament, that

the condition of the people in the north of Ireland differs so

essentially from those in the south, that a poor-law which might be

applicable in one case, would be inapplicable in the other; and it

was urged as a ground of objection to the measure of last session,

that it had been framed exclusively with reference to the southern

and western districts. This objection seems to have been made mainly

on the ground, that no specific information had been obtained as to

the north of Ireland; whereas, in fact, a large mass of information

had been collected by the commissioners of Irish Poor Inquiry, with

respect to the north, as well as the other parts of the country; and

this information, coupled with what I had obtained from other

sources, and supported by my own observation in those of the

northern counties which I had visited, appeared to be sufficient,

without further examination of the northern districts. An

opportunity for such examination having however been afforded by the

postponement of the bill, I have now visited most of the northern

counties, and carefully examined the condition and habits of the

people, with special reference to the contemplated measure; and I

can with entire confidence state, in my opinion, it is as well

adapted to the circumstances existing in the north, as to those

which prevail in the south. The habits of the people are there in

some degree fitted for its reception. The necessity of relieving the

destitute is there admitted, and in most of the northern towns of

any note, there is now a kind of voluntary poor-law established. In

Monaghan, in Armagh, at Newry, Belfast, Coleraine, Londonderry, I

found provision made for relieving destitution, and the principle

virtually recognised, that it is the duty of a civilised community

to protect its members from perishing by want. Indeed, if any doubt

existed as to establishing a poor-law in Ireland, an inspection of

the northern counties would, I think, remove the doubt, and show the

expediency of such a measure. The extent of poverty is there less

than in the south and west; but the amount of destitution is

probably as great. There is this important difference however—in the

_south_ and _west_ the destitute depend for support upon the class

immediately above them, the small cottiers and cultivators; but in

the _north_, the sympathy existing between the different ranks of

society—between the opulent and the needy—has led to the making of

some provision for the relief of the latter class. If the charge of

this provision was fairly spread over the whole community—if the

relief afforded was sufficient, and permanent, and equally

distributed, it would be equivalent to a poor-law; but the charge is

unequal, the provision uncertain, and the relief partial and

inefficient. To apply the proposed measure to the north of Ireland,

will therefore be little more than carrying out, in an equal and

effective manner, that which has been long but unequally and

ineffectually attempted by the communities themselves.

“In speaking of the north of Ireland, I ought to except the county of

_Donegal_, the inhabitants of which differ materially from those

of the other northern counties, and approximate to those of the

west and south. Small holdings, and minute subdivisions of land,

prevail in Donegal to a greater extent than I have found in any

other part of Ireland; and the consequent growth of population

there presses so hard upon the productive powers of the soil, as

to depress the condition of the people to nearly the lowest point

in the social scale—exposing them, under the not unfrequent

occurrence of an unfavourable season, or a failure of the

potato-crop, to the greatest privations. This has unhappily been

the case during the last four years, in each of which, and

especially in the last, there has been a failure of the crops in

Donegal. In May, June, and July last, nearly the whole of the

population along the northern and western coasts of the county,

were reduced to a state bordering on starvation; and had not

government sent a supply of meal and medical aid, numbers of the

people would have fallen victims to famine and disease. The

surface of Donegal is generally covered with bog, susceptible of

profitable cultivation wherever lime or sea-sand or sea-weed is

obtainable, and the people have in consequence congregated

wherever these elements of fertility abound—along the coasts, and

on the shores of the numerous bays and inlets opening upon the

Atlantic, along the banks of the rivers, and up the narrow valleys

and ravines with which the country is intersected—everywhere, in

short, where the soil is most easily reclaimed by individual

exertion. But wherever combined effort, or an outlay of capital is

necessary for draining, fencing, and reclaiming—there nothing has

been done, and the surface is permitted to lie waste and

unproductive. The process of reclamation in such circumstances is

above the limited means of the people, each one of whom just

manages to cultivate land enough to raise potatoes for his

family—a patch of oats to supply them, mostly I fear, with

whisky—and then, as to rent (for they all pay rent), they rely for

raising that upon a few cattle or sheep running wild upon the

mountains.

“Nothing can exceed the miserable appearance of the cottages in

_Donegal_, or the desolate aspect of a cluster of these hovels,

always teeming with a crowded population. Yet if you enter their

cabins, and converse with them frankly and kindly, you will find the

people intelligent and communicative, quick to comprehend, and ready

to impart what they know. They admitted that they were too numerous,

‘too thick upon the land,’ and that, as one of them declared, ‘they

were eating each other’s heads off,’—but what could they do? There

was no employment for the young, nor relief for the aged, nor means

nor opportunity for removing their surplus numbers to some more

eligible spot. They could only therefore live on, ‘hoping,’ as they

said, ‘that times might mend, and that their landlords would sooner

or later do something for them.’ To improve the condition of such a

people would increase the productive powers of the country, a point

well deserving the attention of the great landowners, with whom it

mainly rests. But no material or lasting improvement can be

effected, so long as the present subdivision of land continues. This

practice, wherever it prevails, forces the population down to the

lowest level of subsistence—to that point where subdivision is

arrested by the dread, or by the actual occurrence of want; and it

is alike the duty and the interest of the landowner, so to exercise

the right of property as to guard his tenantry from such depression.

In the case of Donegal, a two-fold remedy seems to be necessary,

that is, emigration, and an extension of cultivation. There is

abundant room for the latter, and if undertaken with spirit and

intelligence, it will not only ensure an ample return on the capital

expended, but also afford employment, and provide suitable locations

for a part of the surplus population. If a portion of this surplus

were removed by emigration, and another portion placed on new

grounds, effectually reclaimed, a consolidation of the present small

holdings might be effected. This would be a great point gained,

where the average rental of such holdings does not exceed 2_l._, and

numbers are under 1_l._ per annum. A poor-law would facilitate this

change, so necessary for the landowners, as well as for the great

mass of the people of Donegal. The principle of a poor-law is to

make the property of a district answerable for the relief of

destitution within it; and the application of this principle would

serve to connect the several orders of society, and teach them to

act together—it would show them that they have reciprocal interests,

reciprocal duties—that each is necessary to the other—and that the

cordial co-operation of _all_ is necessary to the well-being of the

whole. I therefore augur much good from the establishment of a

poor-law, under circumstances similar to those now existing in

Donegal; and believe that such a law, whilst it provides for the

relief of the destitute, will be a safeguard to property, and

facilitate the introduction of other ameliorations.

_There ought to be a law of Settlement._—“There is no part of the

subject to which I have given more attention than to the question of

settlement. Of the evils arising from settlement in England, there

can be no doubt, and the grounds on which it was proposed to

establish a poor-law in Ireland without settlement, are explained in

my former Report. But it appears that many persons still consider

some law of settlement necessary for securing local co-operation

based upon local interests, for the protection of particular unions

from undue pressure, and for guarding the towns on the eastern coast

from being burdened with the destitute who may flock thither, or be

sent thither from England or Scotland, or with the families of the

large body of migrants who proceed to Great Britain in the harvest

season and return at its conclusion. If there were danger from all

or any of these sources, it might be right to make provision against

it in the bill; but I am satisfied that, in carrying out the measure

as now proposed, none of these inconveniences would arise, beyond

what the commissioners could meet by special regulations, without

recurring to a settlement law. There is this primary objection to

settlement, that it impedes the free distribution of labour, and

interferes with the fair and open competition which is alike

necessary for protecting the employer and the employed, and by which

an equalisation of supply and demand in the labour-market can alone

be maintained. Its direct tendency is to depress the social

condition and character of the people; for by narrowing the field of

labour, and binding individuals to a particular locality, not

perhaps favourable to the development or most profitable employment

of their faculties, improvement is checked, independence is

destroyed, and the working classes, without resource or elasticity

of spirit, are led to depend upon their place of settlement in every

contingency, instead of upon themselves. If therefore the bill as at

present proposed, by requiring the rate to be levied upon the union

for relief of the actually destitute within it is sufficient, as I

believe it to be, for securing attention to the business of the

union, there can be no necessity to establish a law of settlement

for such purpose; and nothing short of absolute necessity in that or

some other respect, could justify the introduction of a law, the

direct tendency of which would be in other respects so injurious.

_Out-door Relief should have been provided for._—“Much has been said as

to the necessity of providing out-door relief in Ireland; but most

of the arguments in favour of an extension of relief beyond the

workhouse appear to be founded, either upon a misapprehension of the

objects of a poor-law, or upon an exaggerated estimate of the number

of destitute persons for whom relief would be required. The object

of a poor-law is to relieve the destitute—that is, to relieve those

individuals who from sickness, accident, mental or bodily infirmity,

failure of employment, or other cause, may be unable to obtain the

necessaries of life by their own exertions. Under such

circumstances, the destitute individual, if not relieved, might be

driven to beg or to steal; and a poor-law, by providing for the

relief of destitution, prevents the necessity or the excuse for

resorting to either. This is the legitimate object of a poor-law,

and to this its operations are limited in the bill of last session.

But if, disregarding this limitation, it be attempted to provide

relief for all who are needy, but not destitute—for all who are

poor, and whose means of living are inferior to what it may be

desirable that they should possess—if property is to be taxed, not

for the relief of the destitute only, but for ensuring to every one

such a portion of the comforts and conveniences of life as are

assumed to be necessary—the consequence of any such attempt must be

in Ireland, as it notoriously was in England, not only to diminish

the value of property, but also to emasculate and demoralise the

whole labouring population.

“The evidence collected by the Commissioners of Poor Law Inquiry in

England, establishes the conclusion that out-door relief is

inevitably open to abuse, and that its administration entails

consequences prejudicial to the labouring classes, and to the whole

community—in short, that there is no security for the prevention of

abuse, nor any mode of ensuring a right administration of relief,

but by restricting it to the workhouse. The facts and reasonings

contained in the Reports on this subject, have been confirmed by the

experience of the present Poor Law Commission; and although out-door

relief has not yet been totally prohibited in any of the English

unions, there can be no doubt that the intention of the Poor Law

Amendment Act points eventually to the workhouse as the sole medium

of relief, and requires that it should be so restricted as early as

circumstances permitted. To establish out-door relief in Ireland,

would therefore be in direct contradiction to English experience,

and to the spirit of the English law. It would introduce a practice

in the one country, under the prejudicial effects of which the other

has long been suffering, and from which it has not yet entirely

recovered. Some persons have recommended that out-door relief in

Ireland, should be restricted to the aged, sick, and infirm; but

even with this limitation, how is abuse to be prevented, and how is

the precise limit to be defined of the age, sickness, or infirmity,

entitling an individual to be relieved out of the workhouse?—I

believe it to be impossible so to define the conditions as to

prevent the occurrence of gross abuses, which would not only be a

source of demoralisation, but would also serve to engender strifes

jealousies and ill feeling in every locality. After the best

consideration which I have been able to give the subject, in all its

bearings, I still retain the opinion that in Ireland relief should

be restricted to the workhouse, or in other words, that out-door

relief in any shape should be prohibited.

_The mode of Rating is objected to._—“The question of rating is

obviously open to much contrariety of opinion. The mode of

valuation, of assessment, of collection, and the proportions in

which the rate shall be paid, are all questions on which different

opinions might possibly be formed by different persons; and

accordingly the views expressed upon these points have been various

and conflicting. Some have contended that the whole of the rate

should be charged upon the owner, on the ground that the tenant

derives little profit, often no profit whatever from the occupation,

and ought not therefore to be called on to pay any part of the rate.

Those taking this view, appear to overlook the fact that the

destitute classes in Ireland are now supported almost entirely by

the occupiers, who will be relieved from this charge when the

proposed measure shall have come into operation. To require the

occupiers to pay half the rate, is not therefore to impose on them a

new charge, but a portion only of an old charge, to which they had

long been accustomed. Moreover the occupiers have an interest in the

property rated—not permanent indeed like the owners, but more

immediate; and on this ground also they are fairly chargeable with a

portion of the rate. If the owners paid the whole, the occupiers

would of course not be entitled to take part in the distribution of

the funds, nor in the management of the business of the union—they

would have no interest in common with their landlords, and would to

a certain extent be arrayed against them; for their interest and

their sympathies would probably lead them to increase the amount of

the burthen, rather than lessen it. Even if there were a sufficient

number of resident owners, it would be inexpedient to place the

whole control of the unions in their hands, thus constituting them a

separate class, and at the same time lowering the position of the

occupiers; but in the present state of Ireland, such a proposition

seems especially open to objection. The exemption in favour of

occupiers of 5_l._ value and under, and the charging the owners of

such property with the entire rate, forms an exception to the above

reasoning, and will probably be disapproved by those whose interests

may appear to be affected by it. But every such charge is eventually

borne by the property, and in the long run it is perhaps not very

material whether the rate is paid by the owner or by the tenant, it

being in fact a portion of the rent. This arrangement is proposed,

partly as a matter of convenience, on account of the difficulty and

expense of collecting a rate from the vast number of small holdings

of 5_l._ value and under which exist in Ireland, and partly also

with the view of relieving this description of occupiers, who are

for the most part in a state of poverty bordering on destitution,

from a portion of the burthen; and it is gratifying to find that

this proposition has on the whole been favourably received.

_The Unions as proposed are too large._—“In almost every discussion

during the progress of the bill last session, the proposed number

and size of the unions were objected to. Yet the discretion of the

commissioners is unfettered in these respects. They are left at

liberty to form the unions, as may appear best adapted to the

circumstances in each case. The same discretion was confided to the

commissioners in England, and it must be equally necessary that they

should possess it in Ireland. The objections to the intended size of

the unions, do not therefore apply to the bill, but to my first

Report, in which it is stated that, ‘If the surface of Ireland be

divided into squares of twenty miles each, so that a workhouse

placed in the centre would be about ten miles from the extremities

in all directions, this would give about eighty workhouses for the

whole of Ireland.’ Instead of eighty workhouses however, I assumed

that a hundred might be required, and calculated the probable

expense accordingly. But this was mere assumption, for it is

obviously impossible to state what will be the precise number of

unions, until some progress has been made in the work of formation.

The commissioners are bound to form the unions in the best manner,

according to the best of their judgment. Their credit as public

functionaries would be compromised by any failure in this respect;

and it may be fairly presumed that they will use due vigilance and

impartiality, and avail themselves of all the experience which

England affords in this matter.

_The suppression of Mendicancy objected to._—“Objections have been made

to the vagrancy clauses, and it has been contended that if such

provisions were necessary, they should be established by a separate

Act. Whether the suppression of mendicancy be provided for in the

Poor Law Bill, or by a separate bill, does not seem very material;

but it is important that the provision should be made concurrently

with the Poor Law measure. To establish a poor-law, without at the

same time suppressing mendicancy, would be imperfect legislation,

especially with reference to the present condition of the Irish

people. It is true there are now vagrancy laws in Ireland, which

enact whipping, imprisonment, and transportation as the punishments

of mendicancy; but these laws are inoperative, partly from their

severity, and partly from other causes. Ireland wants a vagrancy law

that shall operate in unison with the Poor Law, for without such

concurrent action, both laws would be in a great measure

ineffective. The suppression of mendicancy is necessary for the

protection of the peasantry themselves. No Irish cottier, however

poor, closes his door whilst partaking of his humble meal. The

mendicant has free access, and is never refused a share. There is a

superstitious dread of bringing down the beggar’s curse, and thus

mendicancy is sustained in the midst of poverty, perpetuating itself

amongst its victims. Much of the feeling out of which this state of

things has arisen may, I think, be traced to the absence of any

provision for relieving the destitute. A mendicant solicits charity

on the plea of destitution. His plea must be admitted, for it cannot

be disproved; and to refuse relief, may occasion the death of a

fellow-creature, which would be a crime of great magnitude. Hence

the admission of the mendicant’s claim, which is regarded in the

light of an obligation by the Irish peasantry. To make provision for

relieving mendicants at the public charge, without at the same time

preventing the practice of begging, would leave the peasant exposed

to much of the pressure which he now sustains from this source; for

the mendicant class would generally prefer the vagrant life to which

they are accustomed, to the order and restraint of a workhouse. To

suppress mendicancy, is therefore necessary both as an adjunct of

the proposed Poor Law, and for the protection of the labouring

classes throughout Ireland.

_Objections to cumulative voting, &c._—“It might perhaps be sufficient

to say, in answer to the objections which were made to cumulative

voting, voting by proxy, and constituting magistrates _ex-officio_

guardians, that the Irish bill follows in these cases the example of

the English Poor Law Amendment Act. There are, however, weighty

reasons in favour of each of these provisions, some of which it may

be useful to notice.

“With respect to cumulative votes, it may be observed, that the raising

and disbursing of a poor-rate involves nothing political, but is to

be regarded rather in the light of a mutual assurance, in which the

community joins for the purpose of being protected against the

effects of pauperism, each member contributing in proportion to his

means, and each having an interest according to the amount of his

contributions. If therefore the amount contributed be the measure of

each ratepayer’s interest, it ought in justice also, within certain

convenient limitations, to be the measure of his influence; and

these limitations the bill provides, by fixing a scale according to

which every ratepayer is entitled to vote. As regards the voting by

proxy, such a power is necessary for enabling the owner to protect

his property, his interest in which is permanent, although he may

not always be present to represent it by his personal vote; and the

bill therefore provides for his doing so by proxy. The occupier is

always present, and may vote in person; not so the owner, whose

interest would be unprotected without this power of voting by proxy.

That the owner’s interest ought to be represented will not be

denied. The rate is levied upon property, and thus in fact becomes a

portion of the rent, which would be increased by the amount of the

rate, if this were not levied for Poor Law purposes; so that in

reality it is the landlord, the permanent owner of the property, who

finally bears the burthen of the rate, and not the tenant or

temporary occupier. It seems consonant with justice therefore, that

every facility should be afforded to the owner for protecting his

interest by his vote.

“There are many reasons why magistrates should form a portion of every

board of guardians. The elected guardians will for the most part

consist of occupiers, or renters, not the owners of property; and

their interest will be temporary, whilst the interest of the owner

is permanent. Some union of these two interests seems necessary

towards the complete organization of a board of guardians; and as

the magistrates collectively may be regarded as the chief landed

proprietors of the country, the bill proposes to effect this union

by creating them _ex-officio_ members of the board. The elected

guardians are moreover subject to be changed every year, and their

proceedings might be changeable, and perhaps contradictory, and

confusion might arise through the opposite views of successive

boards. The _ex-officio_ guardians will serve as a corrective in

this respect. Their position as magistrates, their information and

general character, and their large stake as owners of property, will

necessarily give them much weight; whilst the proposed limitation of

their number to one-third of the elected guardians, will prevent

their having an undue preponderance. The elected and the _ex

officio_ members may be expected each to improve the other, and

important social benefits may arise from their frequent mingling,

and from the necessity for mutual concession and forbearance which

such mingling cannot fail to teach. Each individual member will feel

that his influence depends upon the opinion which his colleagues

entertain of him, or upon the respect or regard which they feel

towards him; and hence will arise an interchange of good offices,

and a cultivation of mutual good-will, beginning with the board of

guardians, and extending throughout the union, and eventually it may

be hoped throughout the country; and thus the union system may

become the means of healing dissensions, and reconciling jarring

interests in Ireland. On these grounds, I consider that the

establishment of _ex-officio_ guardians, voting by proxy, and

cumulative voting, as provided in the bill, should be adhered to.

“Many measures, local as well as general, have been suggested, either

for removing restrictions to the application of capital, or for

giving direct encouragement to its application in Ireland; and some

of these measures, I understand government intend taking into early

consideration. In the survey which I have been able to take of the

state of Ireland, and of the condition of the Irish people, it has

appeared to me that quiet, and the absence of excitement, is the

object chiefly to be desired. With repose would come security, and

the investment of capital, and thence would arise employment, and

the development of the productive powers of the country. The

proposed Poor Law will not of itself accomplish these objects, but

it will be found a valuable accessory; and with the progress of

education, and that orderly submission to lawful authority which is

at once the cause and the consequence of peace and prosperity, all

those other objects will, we may hope, be eventually secured for

Ireland.”[78]

My Report was considered by the Cabinet,[79] and the whole subject was

again very fully discussed, and several minor alterations in the bill

were decided upon. It was also determined to bring it forward as the

first measure of the session. The subject continued to occupy a good

deal of public attention, as well in England as in Ireland. It was

discussed in the papers, and pamphlets were written upon it. In this

instance however, as in most others, the opponents were the most active,

and much ingenuity was displayed in animadverting on the asserted

incongruities of the proposed Irish Poor Law. The inquiry commissioners

also had their advocates, and in Ireland especially their

recommendations were, as might be expected, more popular than the

government bill. However, on the whole, the measure may be said to have

held its ground, and to be regarded as a matter of first-rate

importance.

-----

[78]

The following estimate was prepared during the progress of the bill,

and was printed by order of the house of lords.

Assuming that there will be a hundred unions, each having a workhouse

capable of accommodating 800 persons, the paid officers, with their

respective salaries in each union, may be stated as follows:—

Clerk of the union from £60 to 80

Master and mistress of the workhouse 60 ” 80

Chaplains 50 ” 80

Medical officers and medicines 100 ” 150

Auditor 20 ” 30

Returning officer 10 ” 20

Collector 50 ” 70

Schoolmaster and schoolmistress 50 ” 80

Porter and assistant-porter 20 ” 30

Other assistants in the workhouse and union, say 30 30

—— ——

£450 to 650

For the hundred unions, this would give a total expenditure in

salaries of from 45,000_l._ to 65,000_l._ per annum; or say 55,000_l._

on an average.

In addition to the above, it may be further assumed, that on an

average throughout the year the workhouses will be three parts full,

and that the total cost of maintenance clothing bedding wear and tear

&c., will amount to 1_s._ 6_d._ per head per week, which is equal to

3_l._ 18_s._, or say 4_l._ per head per annum; this will give an

expenditure of 240,000_l._ per annum for maintenance &c., in the

hundred unions: which added to the 55,000_l._ for salaries, will make

a total charge of 295,000_l._ annually for the relief of the

destitute, under the provisions of the bill.

The money for building the workhouses is to be advanced by government,

free of interest for ten years; and is to be repaid by annual

instalments of five per cent. The cost of the workhouses has been

stated at 700,000_l._, but assuming it to amount to 1,000,000_l._,

this would impose an additional charge of 50,000_l._ annually for the

first twenty years (exclusive of the interest after the first ten

years on the then residue of the principal), which, added to the

above, makes an aggregate charge of 345,000_l._ per annum.—G. N.

[79]

It was laid on the table of both houses on the assembling of

parliament.

-----

[Sidenote: The bill reintroduced, December 1, 1837.]

Parliament assembled on the 10th of November, and on 1st of December

Lord John Russell reintroduced the bill, in an argumentative speech of

considerable length. After going through and commenting on the several

recommendations of the inquiry commissioners,[80] and noticing the

objections to which they were all more or less open, he explained by way

of contrast the principle on which the present bill was founded, much in

the same manner that he had done on the first introduction of the

measure. The statement was generally well received, although there were

some marked exceptions in this respect, and the bill was read a first

time without a division. It was in like manner read a second time on the

5th of February 1838. But on the motion for going into committee on the

9th, Mr. O'Connell strongly opposed the bill, and moved that it be

committed that day six months. The amendment was however negatived by

277 to 25, a majority which made the passing of the measure in some form

pretty certain. On the 23rd of February the question of settlement was

again very fully discussed, and its introduction decided against by 103

to 31, the latter number comprising all who could be brought to vote for

a settlement law of any kind. The vagrancy clauses were now also

withdrawn from the bill, on the understanding that there would hereafter

be a separate measure for the suppression of [Sidenote: The bill passed

the commons and read a first time in the lords.] mendicancy. The bill

continued to be considered in successive committees until the 23rd of

March, when all the clauses having been gone through and settled, it was

ordered to be reported, which was done on the 9th of April. On the 30th

of April the bill was read a third time and passed by the commons, and

on the day following was introduced and read a first time in the lords.

-----

[80]

Ante, pp. 137 to 146.

-----

It had been thought desirable that during the Easter vacation I should

visit Holland and Belgium, with the view of ascertaining whether there

was anything in the institutions of those countries, or in the

management of their poor, that could be made available in the present

measure of Irish Poor Law; and it was arranged that Dr. Kay, one of our

assistant-commissioners should accompany me. The time at our disposal

was short, and our investigations were necessarily hurried; but the

letters with which we were furnished procured for us ready access

everywhere, and enabled us to obtain information which would not

otherwise have been accessible. On our return, I reported to government

the result of our inquiries.[81] The first portion of the Report was

chiefly furnished by my companion, and had reference to the subject of

education, in which Dr. Kay[82] felt a deep interest, and in the

promotion of which he afterwards took a distinguished part. The latter

portions of the Report applied more immediately to our present subject,

and from these portions I will now abstract so much as seemed calculated

to be useful with regard to the question of Irish Poor Law, or to bear

in any way upon the state of Ireland—

-----

[81]

The Report was printed, and laid before parliament.

[82]

Now Sir James Kay Shuttleworth, Bart.

-----

_Third Report._—May 5, 1838.

“The institutions for the relief of indigence are numerous in Holland,

and consist of hospices for the aged and infirm, orphan-houses,

workhouses of towns, depôts de mendicité, or district workhouses,

the poor colonies, and private charitable institutions. The funds

for the support of these establishments are to a great extent

derived from endowments and voluntary contributions, the direct tax

not being more than about 1,800,000 guilders, or 150,000_l._ per

annum. Among the classes having ability to labour, a state of even

temporary dependence is considered disgraceful, and great exertions

are made by the labouring population to avoid it. But no sense of

degradation attaches to the orphan establishments, which are

calculated to invite rather than to discourage dependence. The

depôts de mendicité, or provincial workhouses bear so close a

resemblance to the old English workhouses and those established

under Gilbert’s and the various local Acts, as to warrant a belief

that the English workhouses must have been formed upon a Dutch

model; but however this may be, the result has certainly been the

same in both countries, the evil of pauperism having been increased

rather than diminished by these institutions, in which the

profitable application of pauper labour has been sought for, rather

than the repression of pauperism.

“The workhouse of _Amsterdam_ is a vast building, capable of containing

upwards of 1,500 inmates. The imposing character of its exterior,

the elegance of its entrance-hall, and the decorations of the rooms

appropriated to public business, were in marked contrast with the

aspect of the several wards. The inmates chiefly consisted of the

lowest and least moral part of the population of the great cities,

who had sought refuge in the workhouse because they had forfeited

their claim to regular employment, and the vigilance of the police

did not permit them to subsist by mendicancy. The sexes were

strictly separated at all times, but the children were in the same

apartment with the adults of each sex. The males and females each

occupied separate day-rooms, in which the dirt and disorder were

very offensive. In these rooms the inmates ate their meals, without

any attention to regularity or propriety. Here also they worked in

the looms, or at other occupations. The first group of men to whom

we advanced, were seated at a table playing at cards; we found

another party playing at draughts, and a third at hazard. Others

were idly sauntering up and down the room. The women’s day-room

presented a scene of similar disorder. Both men and boys were

clothed in a coarse kind of sacking. The chief article of their diet

is rye-bread, almost black, and not over-abundant, with an

indefinite quantity of boiled buttermilk; but they are permitted to

work at certain rates of wages, and to spend a portion of their

earnings at a canteen in the house, where coffee tobacco gin &c. may

be obtained. On application for admission, the paupers undergo a

strict examination as to their ability to maintain themselves; and

while inmates they are not permitted to go abroad, ‘unless they give

positive hopes that on re-entering society, they will render

themselves worthy of their liberty, by diligently endeavouring to

gain their own livelihood by honest means.’

“The establishment at La Cambré, near _Brussels_, was superior in its

internal arrangements to the workhouse at Amsterdam, particularly in

the separate classification of the aged, the children, and the

adults, and also in the good arrangement and cleanliness of the

sleeping-rooms. The sexes are strictly separated, as is invariably

the case in all the other Dutch and Belgian institutions. By the

penal code, a mendicant once condemned to a depôt de mendicité for

begging, may be kept there during the remainder of his life; but in

practice, he is allowed to leave the establishment whenever the

commission of superintendence are satisfied that he is disposed to

labour for his subsistence, without resorting to mendicancy.

“There are three great workhouses for the whole of _Holland_, which are

situated, one at Amsterdam, another at Middleburgh, and a third in

the commonalty Nieuve Pekel A, in the province of Groningen.

_Belgium_ has five great workhouses, situated respectively at La

Cambré, near Brussels, for the province of Brabant; at Bruges, for

the two Flanders; at Hoogstraeten, for the province of Antwerp; at

Mons, for Hainault, Namur, and Luxembourg; and at Reickheim, for

Liege and Limburgh. Under their present regulations, these

provincial workhouses, or depôts de mendicité, both in Holland and

Belgium, are I think, judging from what we could learn and what we

saw, very defective institutions; and hence seems to have arisen the

necessity for resorting to some stricter measures, which ended in

the establishment of the poor colonies. In England, the defects of

the old workhouses were remedied by the introduction of regulations

calculated to render them efficient tests, by the aid of which we

have succeeded in establishing the distinction between poverty and

destitution: for the latter we have provided relief, but we have

left the former to its own natural resources. In Holland and Belgium

no such distinction has been made, or test established. Their

workhouses remain as they were originally formed—nurseries for

indolence, and stimulants to pauperism. But in order to correct this

evil, the Dutch have had recourse to the establishment of penal

colonies, to which all persons found begging (or committing

vagabondage as it is termed) are sent, if able to work, and

compelled to labour for their subsistence, under strict discipline

and low diet. Had the workhouses been made efficient, there would

have been no occasion for these establishments; but the workhouses

not being efficient, recourse has been had to the penal colonies,

where the test of strict discipline, hard labour, and scanty diet,

is so applied as to be held in the greatest dread by the vagrant

classes. All beggars are apprehended by the police; if able to work,

they are sent to the penal colonies; if aged or infirm, or unable to

perform out-door work, they are sent to the workhouses; and although

the discipline of the workhouses is defective, and the management in

many respects faulty, yet with the aid of the penal colonies they

secure the repression of mendicancy.

“In the workhouses of the penal colonies to which the able-bodied

mendicants are sent, one ward is used in common as a dormitory,

refectory, and workshop. The inmates sleep in hammocks, and are very

coarsely clad. They labour in the fields, or in making bricks, or at

manufactures in the house, under the superintendence of an

inspector. Each colonist is furnished with a book, in which is

entered the work executed daily, the amount of food and clothes

furnished, his share of the general expenses of the establishment,

and whatever he has received in the paper-money of the colony.

Guards on horseback to patrol the boundary of the colony, rewards

given for bringing back any colonist who has attempted to escape,

and an uniform dress, are the means adopted to prevent desertion

from the colony. Mendicants when arrested, may choose whether they

will be brought before the tribunals as vagabonds, or be sent to the

coercive colony, where they must remain at least one year. These

rigorous measures for the suppression of mendicancy, have been

adopted in the absence of any acknowledgment of a right to relief,

and notwithstanding that a large portion of the relief actually

administered arises from endowments and voluntary contributions.

This forms an important feature in the Dutch and Belgian system; and

if, as I believe, the rigour of this part of their institutions has

been caused by the imperfect organization of the others, the true

remedy would have been, not in the establishment of penal colonies,

but in such an improvement of those other institutions as would have

rendered them efficient for the repression of mendicancy, as well as

for the administration of relief. On comparing the modes of relief

existing in Holland and Belgium, with the system of relief it is

proposed to establish in Ireland, the latter will I think be found

to be much more simple and complete, and consequently to promise

greater efficiency. No right to relief exists in Holland or Belgium,

yet mendicancy is suppressed in both those countries. It is proposed

not to give a right to relief in Ireland, and it is intended to

suppress mendicancy,—in this respect therefore the circumstances are

similar. But in Ireland, it is proposed to divide the whole country

into districts of convenient extent, with a workhouse to each, so

that every destitute and infirm person will be within easy reach of

adequate relief; and this arrangement is obviously preferable to the

various, and in some respects conflicting modes of relief which

exist in Holland and Belgium, and will be more effective in its

operation. The example of Holland and Belgium may therefore be

cited, in addition to that of England, in support of the proposed

Irish Poor Law.

“Another matter of much interest, is the different condition of the

smaller class of cultivators in the two countries. Small farms of

from five to ten acres abound in many parts of Belgium, closely

resembling the small holdings in Ireland; but the Irish cultivator

is without the comforts and conveniences of civilised life, whilst

the Belgian peasant-farmer enjoys a large portion of both. The

houses of the small cultivators in Belgium are generally

substantial, with a sleeping-room in the attic, and closets for beds

connected with the lower apartment, a dairy, a store for the grain,

an oven, a cattle-stall, piggery, and poultry-loft. There is

generally decent furniture and sufficient bedding, and although the

scrupulous cleanliness of the Dutch may not be everywhere

observable, an air of comfort and propriety pervades the whole

establishment. In the cowhouse the dung and urine are preserved in

the tank; the ditches are scoured, the dry leaves potato-tops and

offal of every kind are collected for manure, and heaps of compost

are in course of preparation. The premises are kept in compact

order, and a careful attention to economy is everywhere apparent.

The family are decently clad, none are ragged or slovenly, although

their dress may be of the coarsest material. The men universally

wear the bleuse, and wooden shoes are in common use by both sexes.

Their diet consists chiefly of rye-bread milk and potatoes. The

contrast of what is here described, with the state of the same class

of persons in Ireland, is very marked. Yet the productive powers of

the soil in Belgium are certainly inferior to the general soil of

Ireland, and the climate does not appear to be superior. To the soil

and the climate therefore, the Belgian does not owe his superiority

in comfort and position over the Irish cultivator. The difference is

rather owing to the greater industry economy and forethought of the

people.

“A small occupier, whose farm we examined near Ghent, paid 225 francs

per annum for about two bonniers, or six acres of land, with a

comfortable house, stabling, and other offices attached, all very

good of their kind; this makes the rent (reckoning the franc at

10_d._) equal to 9_l._ 7_s._ 6_d._ sterling per annum; and, if we

allow 3_l._ 7_s._ 6_d._ for the rent of the house, stabling, and

other offices, there will be 6_l._, or 1_l._ per acre for the land,

which accords with the information we obtained at other places. This

farmer had a wife and five children, and appeared to live in much

comfort. He owed little or nothing, he said, but he had no capital

beyond that employed on his farm. We questioned him respecting his

resources in case of sickness. He replied that if he were ill, and

his illness was severe and of long duration, it would press heavily

upon him, because it would interrupt the whole farm-work; and in

order to provide for his family and pay the doctor he feared he

should be obliged to sell part of his stock. If his wife and family

were long ill, and he retained his strength, the doctor would give

him credit, and he should be able to pay him by degrees in a year or

two. We suggested that the Bureau de Bienfaisance, or charitable

individuals, might afford him aid in such a difficulty, but he

replied cheerfully that he must take care of himself If a sick club,

or benefit society, were established among these people, to enable

them by mutual assurance to provide for the casualty of sickness,

the chief source of suffering to their families would be obviated,

and there would be little left to wish for or amend in their social

condition. The Belgian peasant farmer here described, is not very

different from the small Irish occupier as respects his position in

society, but how much better is his condition as regards the

comforts and conveniences of life. The cause of this difference I

believe to be, the more skilful system of culture pursued by the

six-acre farmers of Belgium, the rigid economy which characterises

them as a class, and the persevering industry and forethought with

which they adjust their limited resources to their wants; and one of

the first steps to the improvement of this important class in

Ireland should be, to endeavour to assimilate their farming

operations and domestic management, to that of the same class in

Belgium.

“It is not necessary to discuss the comparative advantages of small and

large farms, it being notorious that the former abound in all parts

of Ireland, in some districts almost to the exclusion of the other;

and that any attempt at a rapid consolidation of these small

holdings would occasion great misery and suffering. Changes of this

nature cannot be successful, without special regard to local

circumstances; and the obstructions which arise from fixed habits

and old social arrangements, generally render any great organic

change impracticable, excepting in the lapse of years. An improved

management of the small farms in Ireland, would however afford the

means of increasing the comfort, and ameliorating the condition of

the cottier tenantry, and at the same time facilitate the progress

of other changes conducive to their general well-being. It would, in

fact, be beginning at the lowest point of the scale—improved

management would bring increase of capital and improved habits, and

thence would arise an enlargement of occupancies, which the vast

extent of now waste but reclaimable land in Ireland would greatly

facilitate. The establishment of a poor-law, by removing the burthen

of supporting mendicancy which now presses almost exclusively on the

class of small cultivators, will afford them relief and

encouragement, and facilitate the improvement of their condition:

but the Poor Law alone will not effect the necessary ameliorations,

which can only be accomplished by a combination of efforts, of which

the establishment of a poor-law is one, possibly it is the chief;

for a poor-law will unite the interests of the other classes with

the well-being of the poorest, and thus secure for the least

intelligent, and therefore the most dependent portion of the

community, the sympathies and the assistance of the most competent

and intelligent of the middle and higher classes. The Poor Law will

in this way, I believe, become the means of combining the now

discordant elements of society in Ireland, for the promotion of the

common interest; but the first impulse in the career of amelioration

must be given by the landed proprietors, who should unite in

promoting improvements among their tenantry, as well as in carrying

out the provisions of the law.”

[Sidenote: Bill read a first time in the lords, May 1, 1838.]

The feeling in the house of lords with regard to the bill, was decidedly

more adverse than had been the case in the house of commons. Many of the

Irish peers whose properties were deeply encumbered, were alarmed at the

threatened position of a poor-rate, which they feared would swallow up a

large portion of their incomes. These fears were appealed to, and the

danger declaimed against and magnified, both by the economical opponents

of any poor-law whatever, and by the opponents of the present measure.

It was evident therefore from the first that the bill would encounter a

strenuous opposition in the lords, and that its passing was far from

certain. [Sidenote: Bill read a second time in the lords.] On the 21st

of May the bill was read a second time, after a long and stormy debate,

which lasted nine hours. Lord Melbourne moved the second reading in a

judicious and temperate speech, touching skilfully on most of the

leading points, and deprecating the intervention of party feeling. The

bill was, he said, founded on the amended system of the English Poor

Law. It was in fact an adaptation of the Act of 1834 to the

circumstances of Ireland, with such alterations as were required by the

peculiar condition of that country, and as the experience of its working

suggested. He thought the establishment of the measure would be the

beginning of a system of order, and that it would introduce order in a

beneficial form. It would among other things form the foundation of a

measure for the suppression of mendicancy; and one great advantage to

which he looked as arising from it was, that the struggle for land, and

the violent means the people took of enforcing what they conceived to be

their right with regard to it, would be much lessened, if not

extinguished. The writings of eminent political economists had, he said,

led him at one time to doubt whether the evil effects attending a system

of poor-laws, did not more than counterbalance any advantage to be

derived from them; but a full and careful consideration of the subject

had convinced him, that it was most beneficial for the landlords to be

made to take an interest in the condition of the people on the land. The

principle on which a poor-law should be established, was that of the

general benefit of the country—we should relieve the destitute, but not

do so in a way to paralyze the feeling of energy and enterprise which

ought to be paramount in every man’s bosom; and for this purpose he

thought the workhouse system was the one best adapted for testing the

necessity and means of the applicant.

The Marquis of Londonderry spoke strongly against the bill, and moved

that it be read that day six months. Many other peers joined in

denouncing the measure, but none more violently than Lord Lyndhurst, who

declared that it would lead to a dissolution of the Union. The Duke of

Wellington supported the second reading, with a view to amending the

bill in committee, and rendering it better fitted for its objects. The

distress existing in Ireland was he said undoubted. There had been

inquiry after inquiry on the subject, and on the outrages of every

description to which it led. He expected from this bill that it would

improve the social relations of the people of Ireland, and prevent the

distress which now so often prevailed there. Another result he

anticipated from the measure was, that it would induce the gentry of

Ireland, whether resident or not, to look after their properties, and

pay some attention to the state of the population on their estates.

This, the duke observed, would improve the social relations between

landlord and tenant—between the occupier and the labourer of the soil.

If the Poor Laws had not been amended in England, he should have

hesitated before consenting to the introduction of a poor-law into

Ireland; but seeing the results the measure of 1834 had produced in this

country—seeing the great advantage which had occurred from the working

of that system—and seeing how it has improved the relations of landlord

and tenant, he could not help desiring some such measure for Ireland, in

order, if possible, to remedy in like manner the evils of that country.

With regard to settlement, he was firmly convinced that its

establishment in connexion with the bill, would be productive of

unbounded litigation and expense, and lead to disputes of which no one

could foresee the end. At the same time, he thought care should be taken

that all parishes should be required to pay the expenses connected with

the relief of their paupers, “that being one of the principles of the

Poor Law in this country; and such an amendment should be introduced

into the present bill.” The measure being thus supported by the duke,

the second reading was carried by a majority of 149 to 20.

[Sidenote: The bill in committee.]

It was proposed that the bill should be committed on the 28th of May,

but the debate was exceedingly violent and was continued by adjournment

to the 31st. It is difficult to describe the scene which took place, on

the motion for going into committee on the bill. The confusion then, and

indeed during the whole night, surpassed anything one could have

expected in such a deliberative assembly. The alarms of the Irish peers

as to the effects of the measure exceeded all bounds, and they were

joined by several English peers who are supporters of the English Poor

Law. On the resumption of the debate on the 31st however, and after a

further discussion for eight hours, the house resolved by 107 to 41 to

support the principle of the bill, as embodied in the _41st clause_.

This clause provided that relief to the destitute might be administered

in the workhouses, at the discretion of the boards of guardians, subject

to the condition—in the first place of a preference being given to the

aged and infirm poor, and to destitute children; and in the second place

to persons residing in the union before those not so resident, when

there is not sufficient accommodation for all the destitute.

These latter provisions were introduced at the instance of the Duke of

Wellington, in order to meet the objections and mitigate the hostility

of the opponents of the bill, as was also the provision in the _44th

clause_ charging the cost of relief to the several electoral divisions,

instead of to the unions at large, as it before stood. These changes

were arranged between the duke and myself, with the approval of

government, previous to the second reading. [Sidenote: The bill read a

third time.] The bill was considered in committee on the 7th, 21st,

22nd, and 26th of June, and was read a third time on the 6th of July. On

the 11th I find it recorded in my journal—“The bill is now clear of the

lords, altered and in some respects improved, although the localisation

of the charge upon the electoral divisions approximates too nearly to

settlement to be quite satisfactory. I wish this had been left as it at

first stood; but so long as no right to relief, and no power of removal

are given, we shall I trust be able to avoid the infliction of actual

settlement.”[83]

-----

[83]

This quotation is from a journal which I had kept of the proceedings

with regard to the Irish Poor Law, from the commencement of my

connexion with the question in August 1836, and which has been very

useful in framing the present narrative. In this journal is recorded

from day to day, the progress of my inquiries in Ireland and

elsewhere, the deliberations and consultations with government on the

subject, the discussions with different public men in reference to it,

and also the various interviews with the Duke of Wellington after the

bill had passed the commons, in which it was my good fortune to be the

medium of communication for settling the points at issue be tween his

grace and the government. I say “my good fortune,” for without the

duke’s assistance the bill would not have passed the house of lords,

and without the part taken by myself in negotiating and bringing about

a right understanding on the subject, I doubt if that assistance would

have been accorded. If therefore the enactment of the Irish Poor Law

was, as I believe, a measure of great social importance, and as

subsequent events have moreover I think shown it to be, it cannot but

be regarded as a great privilege to have been permitted to assist in

any way towards the accomplishment of such an object. With this

privilege I was so fortunate as to be invested, and I feel happy in

the consciousness of having spared no pains to fulfil the obligations

it involved.

-----

Although so far “clear of the lords,” there nevertheless remained much

to be done in reconciling differences between the two houses with regard

to some of the amendments, and in particular with regard to the schedule

of rating, which it was desired to make available for the purposes of

the municipal franchise. Several conferences were held, and “reasons”

_pro_ and _con_ were delivered in, and it was not until the 27th of July

that the bill was ready for the royal assent—This was given on the 31st,

and thus a law was at length established, making provision for the

systematic and efficient relief of destitution in Ireland.